The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis V U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR J. D. Hodgson, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. 20402 Subscription price per year — $9 domestic; $11.25 foreign. Single copy 75 cents. Correspondence regarding subscriptions should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C. 20212 Phone: (202) 961-2327. Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October 31, 1967) BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald 1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II — New York: Herbert Blenstock 1515 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 971-5405 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. Mueller 406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Phone: (215) 597-7796 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia W est Virgin ia Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: (404) 526-5416 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V — Chicago: William E. Rice 8th Floor, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, III. 60606 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI — Dallas: Jack Strickland 1100 Commerce Street, Room 6B7, Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 749-3516 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas June cover: The baker shop, another in the series of 16th century prints by Jost Amman, courtesy Library of Congress https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 V II Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska V III Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-3178 IX Arizona California Hawaii Nevada X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Editor-in-chief, Herbert C. Morton Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern Sar A. Levitan, Robert Taggart 3 The Emergency Employment Act: An interim assessment Case studies indicate strengths and limitations of new manpower program THE ADEQUACY OF RETIREMENT INCOME Peter Hen le 12 Trends in retirement benefits related to earnings Combined public and private benefits will approximate preretirement living levels for some, but not for most, because of early retirement and lack of private pensions Janet L. Norwood 21 Cost-of-living escalation of pensions Increasing use of escalation clauses in public and private pension plans suggests need for research on consumer price index for retired persons OTHER ARTICLES C. E. Huffstutler, M. F. Riche 25 Productivity in the bakery products industry Per capita demand falls, but greater mechanization leads to modest growth in output per man-hour Constance Sorrentino 29 Unemployment in nine industrialized countries Unemployment rates in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain are highest in decade; West Germany has lowest rate John F. Stinson, Jr. 34 Employment in manufacturing during the '6 9 - 7 1 downturn Employment and hours movements are compared with patterns in two preceding recessions Toshiko Nakayama Elizabeth Ruiz https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 41 First quarter price changes and stabilization 46 Urban family budgets updated to autumn 1971 DEPARTMENTS 2 41 46 52 55 59 60 65 78 Labor month in review Anatomy of price change Research summaries Foreign labor briefs Significant decisions in labor cases Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews and notes Current labor statistics JUNE 1972 VOLUME 95, NUMBER 6 Labor Month in Review How w i l l public employment be affected by the extension of Federal bans against job discrimina tion to State and local government employment? Can applicants still be tested? What guidelines do (and will) Federal courts and agencies use in enforcing the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972? These and similar issues underlay an institute on State and local government jobs under the 1972 EEO amendments, sponsored by the National Civil Service League in Washington, D.C., in May and attended by over 200 representatives of governments. (The league is a private, nonprofit organization with mem bers among government agencies and employees.) What the law requires. One theme was the change in the concept of what discrimination is. In the early days of State fair employment practices laws, complaining workers had to establish that a public or private employer treated them differently because of racial, sexual, or other prejudice. Thus the charge could be deflected by a showing that the employer treated all applicants the same. Proving motivation was a higher standard of proof than that normally required in civil suits or administrative decisions, according to a paper distributed at the conference. Fair employment practices statutes generally failed to change employment practices that tended to ex clude women and minorities. The advent of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act spurred a critical shift in focus which climaxed in the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Com plainants do not have to prove illegal intent; they have only to demonstrate that a uniformly applied practice, standard, or policy has a tendency to ex clude disparate numbers of women or minorities. The employer must then show that the practice is an operational necessity or it is unlawful. Shall we test? Flowing from this, a second theme was that employment tests must be changed to ex amine people for specific jobs, not their overall intelligence or ability. Dr. Philip Ash, a psycholo 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis gist, traced for the conference the history of tests back to the Chinese some 4,000 years ago and showed how tests got away from their original pur pose of measuring people for jobs. The difficult, comprehensive tests given by the Chinese, of which modern job tests are direct descendants, measured candidates for jobs as political and social leaders— Mandarins— while many modem, “difficult” tests measure people for quite different jobs. One work shop leader pointed to actual tests in which poten tial city truckdrivers were questioned about the Aeneid and janitorial candidates were asked to solve algebraic problems presented in story form. Some conferees emphasized the venerable use of written tests in pruning candidate lists. Others noted tests proliferated after Title VII passed. Women and jobs. Since women generally score as well as men on “whole-person” type tests, the con ferees pointed to other devices used to screen them from “men’s jobs.” These vary from simply passing over eligibles with a woman’s name to setting up different titles and pay for essentially the same job. Other devices, sometimes protective in original in tent, are weight-lifting prohibitions, minimum height requirements, hours and shifts limitations, and dis tinguishing between “women’s ills” and men’s ill nesses. Conferees were urged to voluntarily change such policies to parallel changes already underway in private employment. Taking the initiative. Changing employment poli cies and practices voluntarily was one of the most pervasive themes at the conference. To those who understandably wanted hard, fast rules, the confer ence supplied only general guideposts in references to Griggs and other court decisions and to EEOC interpretations of the law. Those who did not know where to start were asked to begin with the results of practices— few women and minorities in certain jobs and agencies— and work back to the practices and policies. □ Case studies indicate strengths and limitations of new manpower program SAR A. LEVITAN AND ROBERT TAGGART T h e Public Employment Program initiated by the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 represents a major departure in manpower policy. The program is the first large-scale public employment effort since the New Deal. Providing $1 billion in its first year to State and local governments for the hiring of un employed workers to help meet growing needs for public services, it will account for 15 percent of all manpower expenditures in its first year, equaling the combined outlays for all other work experience and public employment training efforts, including the Neighborhood Youth Corps, Operation Mainstream, Work Incentive, and Public Service Careers pro grams. The program is important in the short run because of its impact on the unemployed as well as on State and local governments, and in the long run because of its implications for public policy. This evaluation relies heavily on case studies of State and local experience, combined with an analy sis of legislative and administrative developments at the national level. The areas studied and the investi gators-—all experienced manpower researchers—in cluded Champaign, Decatur, Springfield, and the State of Illinois (Roger Bezdek); Chicago (Myron Roomkin); District of Columbia (Robert Taggart); Houston, Laredo, and the State of Texas (Vernon Briggs); Los Angeles (Walter Fogel); Milwaukee (Peter Kobrak); Missouri (David Stevens); New York City (Marilyn Gittell); and Utah (Garth Mangum). Additional studies are now in progress. Objectives Persistent high unemployment and claims of un met public sector needs provided the major impetus for the passage of the Emergency Employment Act. A public employment program is the most direct way to alleviate unemployment. At the same time, it can provide personnel for the delivery of vital https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Emergency Employment Act: An interim assessment The recession in 1970 and 1971 caused a sharp increase in joblessness. The national unemployment rate rose from 3.6 percent in 1968 to 4.9 percent in 1970, and to 5.9 percent in 1971 (table 1). More over, the number of part-time jobholders who would rather work full time increased 1.3 million, so that the total labor force time lost through unemployment or part-time work for economic reasons rose from 4.0 in 1968 to 6.4 percent in 1971. The impact of rising unemployment was unevenly distributed geographically, but every region was af fected. Some cities and States encountered serious problems with falling defense expenditures. The al ready severe problems of urban ghetto and rural depressed areas were intensified. Given the grave dimensions of the unemployment problem, a public employment program of $1 billion could be expected to have a limited impact, creating only 140,000 jobs. If everyone hired under the pro gram had been out of work and would have other wise remained idle, the number of unemployed would have been reduced by less than 3 percent from the 1971 level, or the aggregate unemployment rate would have fallen by only 0.2 percentage points. There was a possibility, however, that the pro gram could significantly reduce unemployment of particular groups in the labor force, or in particular areas of high employment. For instance, there are roughly 325,000 unemployed Vietnam-era veterans, 75.000 unemployed scientists and engineers, 250,000 unemployed black teenagers, and a total of 500,000 unemployed persons in the poverty areas of the 100 Sar A. Levitan is director, Center for Manpower Studies, The George Washington University. Robert Taggart is executive director, National Manpower Policy Task Force. This article is based on a more extensive report prepared under a grant from the Ford Foundation to the National Manpower Policy Task Force. The report, together with nine case studies, is being published concurrently by the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty. 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 4 largest cities. The 140,000 jobs would have had very significant impact if concentrated on any single group. Provisions of the law The Emergency Employment Act designates a number of target groups. To be eligible, a person must be unemployed at least a week, working part time but seeking full-time work, or earning insuffi cient wages to lift his or her family out of poverty. Vietnam veterans are to be given preference, and priority is also to be given to former participants in manpower programs, young persons entering the labor force, older workers, migrant farmworkers, persons whose native tongue is not English, welfare recipients, aerospace and other displaced workers. The act states that participants must be chosen on an “equitable basis” from among the unemployed, but it does not specify any priorities among the tar get groups. This scattershot approach, a result of legislative compromise, diffuses the act’s impact. The act is also designed to serve areas with sub stantial unemployment. Funds are authorized separ ately under two titles: Section 5 provides $750 million for all areas based on the extent and severity of unemployment; Section 6 adds $250 million to areas with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or more for 3 consecutive months, and having sufficient size and scope to sustain a public employment pro gram. Section 5 funds are “triggered” by the national unemployment rate and are available only so long as it equals or exceeds 4.5 percent; Section 6 or “special employment assistance” monies are avail able to high unemployment areas, even if overall economic conditions improve and the national un employment rate falls below 4.5 percent. Table 1. Unemployment, selected groups, 1968 and 1971 [Percent distribution] Group Total............... Average annual unemployment rate 1968 1971 3 6 5.9 Whites.......... Blacks... 3.2 6 7 5 4 9.9 Men......... Women.. ? 9 4 8 5 3 r‘ 9 i? « 18 1 Teenagers... Vietnam-era veterans « 8.8 Scientists and engineers 1.6 2.9 1 For 1969, the rate was 4.5 percent. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The act is also intended to alleviate the reported growing manpower shortages afflicting State and local governments. However, claims of shortages must be interpreted with caution: aggregate employ ment figures do not suggest any serious setback in the growth of the public sector. Despite evidence that some cities and counties are being forced to lay off workers, the aggregate statistics belie any massive cutbacks. All factors considered, the number of readily available, worthwhile jobs in the public sector is probably in the hundreds of thousands rather than in the millions. It is, therefore, a reasonable expecta tion that the Emergency Employment Act will have an impact upon public employment in the short run. Trade-offs The Emergency Employment Act is the product of compromise. In the effort to achieve consensus, a “little something” was offered for everyone. Poten tially troublesome issues were sidestepped through open-ended guidelines, and the law is ambiguous and often contradictory in its goals and substance. On the broadest scale, the act promises to meet vital public service needs while helping the unem ployed. The two goals can be, but are not necessarily, compatible. Quite obviously, lower skilled and less educated workers are over-represented among the unemployed while public sector needs are concen trated in the more skilled categories. If elected officials are given free rein to fill the jobs they con sider most vital, they will surely cream— hire the most qualified from the unemployed. Limiting Fed eral contributions to annual salaries to $12,000 and allowing professionals to constitute no more than one-third of hires presumably constitute safeguards to assure a “balanced” occupational distribution. However, wide loopholes are open because local funds can be used to supplement the law’s salary maximum and because teachers are not included among the professionals, making it possible to hire one-third professionals, two-thirds teachers, and no disadvantaged. The real safeguard is that elected officials shun extremes in hiring even when there is a temptation to fill critical public service needs. The program is supposed to vest States and local governments with considerable authority, but it al lows them paltry funds for administration. Public employee unions are to be allowed to comment on any plans (but States and localities can ignore the comments), and no jobs can displace present public 5 EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT employees. Finally, the Public Employment Program is supposed to open up new careers, yet there is no allowance for advancement within the program, little money for training and education, and no leverage for changing occupational ladders in the public agencies which might not endorse Emergency Em ployment Act hires in the first place. The act also proscribes the use of its funds for supplies and equip ment, effectively limiting the scope of jobs. Implementing the program Choosing program agents. Because the Emergency Employment Act is exceptionally vague in deter mining who will administer the funds and how much they will get, the Department of Labor had to choose program agents and devise a formula for allocation of funds. On August 12, 1971, it apportioned $600 million of Section 5 funds to 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories, Indian tribes, and all cities or counties with a population over 75,000. A total of $425 million was “passed through” to cities or counties or allocated by the States to them to fill State and local jobs. The States allocated “balance-of-State” funds to cities and counties with populations below 75,000 and acted as program agent for them. The States could select smaller towns, cities, counties, and other units of government as subagents. The guidelines left the State governors relatively free to decide what proportion of funds was to be used for State jobs and what proportion was to be passed down to city and county subagents. The implementation of the act conformed with the pending manpower reform proposals, providing greater decentralization of decisionmaking. Federal funds were distributed to State and local govern ments, who were to decide within broad guidelines how to spend the money. Whether or not this can be called “revenue sharing,” it follows many of the same procedures. Dividing the pie. Once program agents were selected, the Department of Labor adopted a two-part formula for allocation of funds, giving equal consideration to the total number of unemployed persons in a State and the number of unemployed in excess of 4.5 percent relative to the national totals. This for mula favored areas with “excess” unemployment. The decision was made to operate Section 6 (the grant for areas with severe unemployment) as much as possible within the framework of Section 5 (the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis general grant), utilizing the same program agents. Areas with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or more were given responsibility for dividing up funds and selecting jobs within their territory, although the funds were to be concentrated in high unemploy ment neighborhoods. Funds designated for areas with severe unemployment located within the juris diction of Section 5 program agents having less than 6-percent unemployment were administered by the program agent. All persons hired for Section 6 posi tions were to be drawn from the target areas; as far as possible, the jobs were to be located there. The proportion of Section 6 funds allocated to cities and counties with a population in excess of 75,000 was more than double their share of the total population. Again, a two-part formula was adopted for the distribution of funds. But these “special employment assistance” allocations were not as “clean” as those under Section 5, since the areas included parts of labor markets without clearly defined boundaries or explicit population cut-offs. The exact selection of target areas and the calculation of their grants de pended on the availability of unemployment data. Another $150 million was reserved to be spent at the Secretary of Labor’s discretion, including pro gram administration. The Secretary allocated $65 million for demonstration projects to test the impact of a more intensive program and $50 million to assess the feasibility of using public sector jobs to hire welfare recipients. A sense of urgency Declaring that “America needs jobs and it needs them now,” the President launched the Emergency Employment Act in a spirit of urgency. The Fed eral bureaucracy, under pressure from Congress and the President, moved with uncommon speed to draw up guidelines, distribute funds, and approve local plans. Interest groups, representing either public employees or potential employees claiming special rights to the new jobs, presented few obstacles. By March 10, 1972, more than 140,000 persons had been hired under the program. Speed was necessary if the Public Employment Program was to be an effective countercyclical tool. But speed meant sacrifice of civil service reform, training, and other manpower efforts, and allowed little time for coordination with other manpower programs. The opportunity for labor unions, com munity groups, and governmental units to contribute to the decisionmaking was all but eliminated; few 6 outside the administrative staffs of the program agents could follow the course of events. Decentralization The thrust of the Emergency Employment Act guidelines was to encourage States and localities to design and implement programs best suited to their needs, conditions, and capabilities. Program agents, in turn, were to provide maximum flexibility and choice to political subdivisions. Decentralization was, however, far from complete. Federal officials retained many strings because the law still holds them ac countable for the expended funds and Federal offi cials are required to monitor activities of program agents to assure that Federal objectives are met. The Department of Labor dealt with program agents through its 10 Regional Manpower Admin istrators. These offices varied significantly in their involvement with program agents and in their inter pretation of guidelines. Although there was considerable intervention by local Federal manpower officials in Texas, Utah, and Arizona, generally the Regional Manpower Admin istrators played only a passive role, allowing States and localities maximum flexibility as long as deci sions did not violate Federal law. In New York City, many questions might have been raised about paper hires and the requirement of a college degree for more than a third of Section 5 jobs. Yet there was apparently no questioning of decisions. Priority at the regional office was placed on getting people on the jobs as quickly as possible, even if trade-offs had to be made with the other goals. In this case, Fed eral officials exercised minimal oversight and control. On balance, there was probably less oversight than prodding. After the President’s letter to program agents in mid-November threatening to transfer funds from slow to faster spenders, the Regional Administrators applied pressure to lagging areas. The relationships between program agents and subagents are more difficult to assess. At the State level, there appeared to be very little oversight or control except where subagents were guilty of fla grant violations. For example, North Carolina re jected a proposal from a planning district which would have paid a higher rate to white policemen than to blacks. In the larger cities and counties, the school dis tricts, housing authorities, park districts, or Model Cities agencies were selected subagents and usually https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 given more latitude than city agencies. In Chicago, for instance, the schools chose their own jobs and were responsible for selecting applicants. In such cases, there was usually little pressure to accomplish the secondary goals of the act. The surprising finding is how little—not how much — confusion actually existed. Dealing with entirely new intergovernmental relations, dividing up a great deal of money, and accomplishing this at a rapid pace could be expected to generate many more prob lems than have come to light thus far. In most cases balance was struck between decentralization of deci sionmaking and oversight and control by the Federal Government and program agents. The job choice The selection of jobs was perhaps the most im portant decision made by program agents. The choice determined not only which public service needs were filled, but also the general characteristics of those hired, the likelihood of their learning useful skills while on the job, and the probability of their moving on to permanent payrolls. A combination of critical needs, expediency, and concern with Emergency Employment Act goals usually governed the choice of jobs, but States and localities varied markedly in the weight given to each of these factors. The larger cities tended to mix their jobs as follows: first, concentrating resources in areas of critical budget needs (especially where there had been lay-offs); second, distributing large shares of the remaining funds among as many agencies as possible for “regular” jobs; third, including a few jobs to serve specific target populations; fourth, creating a number of social service aides or public works slots for the unskilled; and finally, initiating a few innovative and restructured jobs if funds were left. Washington, D.C. stressed structured jobs for the disadvantaged. Los Angeles and New York were concerned primarily with filling the most critical needs and then spreading the wealth. In Houston, the emphasis was primarily on jobs for the unskilled along with filling the most critical positions. But all cases seem to have had a number of jobs in each category, and the differences are difficult to quantify. Smaller cities and counties had a lesser choice of jobs. There were rarely any “new-career-type” posi tions for the disadvantaged, nor enough slots to spread the wealth. The typical pattern was either to hire workers for regular jobs or to create public 7 EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT * works slots for unskilled labor. At the State level, the jobs were either spread among State agencies according to present employ ment, as in North Carolina and Missouri, or con centrated in specific fields. California emphasized correctional institutions, while Utah concentrated on law enforcement and public works. Illinois also em phasized public works to create jobs for unskilled welfare recipients. All the above alternatives satisfy the broad aims of the act, but some conclusions about program effectiveness and the choice of jobs can be drawn from the case studies. First, a mix of jobs sufficient to satisfy the multiple goals in the legislation is appropriate only for large urban areas. Small towns and cities and many States do not deliver extensive social services; to them, hiring the disadvantaged means putting them to work with their hands. Second, few areas have designed jobs with much thought of moving participants to permanent payrolls. Third, program agents created a number of entry level, low-wage jobs which provide little skill train ing— in fact, nothing more than temporary employ ment. Jobs leading to “new careers” account for only a small proportion of the total. There is a heavy emphasis on public works projects to help the hardest core, but the bulk of the jobs parallel those on the regular payrolls and were intended for the type of workers who would have been hired anyway. Fourth, there are some indications that program agents had to be given enough money to fill critical needs, to spread a little wealth, and to satisfy vested interests before they would consider more creative uses of their funds. Even if resources are increased, as under demonstration projects, the temptation to carry on business as usual persists. Increased and especially earmarked funds are apparently necessary for more creative use of limited resources. Participants The “typical” person hired under the Emergency Employment Act is a white male high school gradu ate between 22 and 44 years old, who was unem ployed for a month or more (table 2). Special efforts were made to enroll veterans and members of racial minority groups. The Labor Department guidelines state that onethird of all participants should be Vietnam-era or special (having served in Southeast Asia) veterans. Within this broad guideline, individual program agents established their own hiring priorities at the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Characteristics of public employment program employees, as of March 21, 1972 Characteristic Percent distribution 1 100 Age 1 18 or less... 19-21.......... 22-44.......... 45-54......... 55-64_____ 65 and over 11 71 11 5 0 100 Sex M a le .......... Female____ 72 28 Group 100 W h ite ................... Black_____ ____ American Indian_ Oriental _................ Spanish American. O th e r.................... 68 20 2 1 7 2 M ilitary service status. 100 Special veteran 2...... ......... .. Other Vietnam-era veteran.. Other veteran........ ................. N onveteran..____ ________ 13 16 17 54 Education...... ............. 100 8 8 years or less....................... 9th—11th________ ____ ____ 1 2 th ..................................... .. 13th—15th_____________ _ 16th and more....................... 15 45 18 15 Weeks unem ployed.. 100 4 or less................................. 5 - 1 4 . . . ____ ____________ 15 or more______________ 32 27 40 Occupational g ro u p .. 100 Professional___________ _ T e a c h e r............................... Other....................................... 89 6 4 Labor force status 100 U n e m p lo y e d .................. Underemployed________ 90 10 OTHER CHARACTERISTICS Disadvantaged................. ......... Public assistance recipient___ Previously employed by agent. 36 11 11 1 Totals may not add to 100 because of rounding. 2 Vietnam -era veterans who served in Southeast Asia. outset, whether or not they were articulated. Mil waukee decided to consider individuals on a firstcome-first-served basis within three predetermined priorities: first, Vietnam veterans; second, laid-off city employees; and third, graduates of manpower programs. New York City also emphasized the hiring of Vietnam veterans, with a 50-percent hiring goal. The State of Utah and its program agents and the District of Columbia planned to concentrate on the disadvantaged, with the goal of giving them at least half of all jobs. The State of Illinois assigned priority in the following order: Work Incentive program veterans, veterans on welfare, unemployed veterans, 8 and welfare recipients. And Boston had the most explicit priorities of all: Vietnam-era veterans got 15 points; the handicapped, 13; Spanish-Americans, Orientals, and Indians, 12; members of poor fami lies, 12; blacks, 5; the aged, 3; youths, 2; and former trainees, 2. All those with more than 12 points were eligible for the program. Overall, 29 percent of hires on March 21, 1972, were Vietnamera veterans, slightly below the target, although na tionally, less than 7 percent of the unemployed in 1971 were from this group. To the extent that preference was given to male veterans of prime working age, younger and older unemployed persons, women, and the disadvantaged had to be deemphasized. A good argument might be made by any of these groups that they were short changed. Only 12 percent of all Public Employment Program hires were under age 22 or over 65, al though they represented 45 percent of the unem ployed in 1971. Only 28 percent were women, but they constituted two-fifths of the unemployed. Racial minorities, however, seem to be fairly well represented among program participants. Blacks, who accounted for 18 percent of the unemployed in 1971, constituted 19 percent of the Section 5 and 16 percent of the Section 6 hires. Indians and SpanishAmericans also appear to share proportionally. Most evidence suggests, however, that the program is not reaching the hardest core of the unemployed. The most significant fact about the hiring practices of program agents is that they generally chose the most qualified from the available unemployed. The Labor.Department’s presumed target was that onehalf of all hires be disadvantaged, that is, unem ployed or underemployed, living in poverty, and either a veteran, under age 22, or over 45, a member of a minority group, or a woman. However, only a third of participants were disadvantaged. Similarly, one-tenth were previously on welfare. There was also high educational level among participants; only one-fifth had not completed high school, although dropouts were 45 percent of the unemployed in 1971. The aggregate data yield little evidence of “paper hires,” that is, where workers were laid off the State or local payroll in order to be rehired under the Emergency Employment Act. The Regional Man power Administrators made it clear they would police against paper hires. Only 12 percent of all Section 5 participants had been previously employed by the program agent, and probably half of these were teachers. The data also suggest that only a minority of those hired have left a previous job to find a better https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 one under the act: only a tenth were underem ployed previously, and among those who were un employed, two-thirds had been idle 5 weeks or more. In summary, the program is apparently drawing on a broad range of unemployed. The typical par ticipant is neither extremely disadvantaged nor ex tremely well qualified. Rather, he is an average worker idle in a 6-percent unemployment economy. To a large extent, this focus was dictated by the priority given to veterans. Clearly, teenagers, the elderly, the disadvantaged, public assistance recip ients, and, most of all, women would have benefited more if alternative priorities had been chosen. The other major dimension of impact is the filling of State and local manpower needs. The act author ized jobs in almost all areas of public service, and the jobs which have been created are addressed to all these needs (table 3). There is no way to judge from these aggregate data whether the jobs fill the most “vital” service needs, or even whether they fill productive functions. The whole question of “needs” is ambiguous, and estimates are at best based on guesses about short ages rather than effective demand or actual priorities determinations made by State, city, and county deci sionmakers. But overall, there is a larger concentra tion of slots in public works and transportation than needs surveys or current distribution of jobs in State and local government would indicate. The ability to phase out a project once Federal funds are with drawn was apparently more important in choosing jobs under the program than filling needs. It is fairly clear, however, that Public Employment Program jobs are a step up for most participants. Thirty-three percent of hires earned less than $2 an hour in their last job; 12 percent earned less than that under the Public Employment Program (table 4). Only 10 percent of the slots are for professionals, well within the one-third limit set by Congress, inTable 3. Distribution of Emergency Employment Act jobs, as of January 7, 1972 [Percent distribution] Section 5 (all areas) Section 6 (areas with severe unemployment) Total...................... 100 100 Law enforcement.......... Education... Public works and transportation Health and hospitals... Environmental quality__ Fire protection_____ Parks and re c re a tio n ... Social services. Other.......... ......... 13 20 22 7 5 3 8 10 26 27 6 5 4 17 13 Job category 5 i 8 9 EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT eluding 4 percent for classroom teachers. Most of the Public Employment Program jobs, then, are above the minimal entry level, but not far up the job scale. For most of those who were selected, they provided gains in wages and fringe benefits. The Public Employment Program: tale of three cities To assess the effect of the Emergency Employment Act on communities of differing sizes and characteristics, the National Manpower Policy Task Force commissioned ex perienced researchers to report on the administration of the law in nine selected States and localities. Here are summaries of the reports for three of the cities. M ilw a u k e e , W is. Community organizations, unions, and political interest groups could have created many prob lems under the Emergency Employment Act, but difficul ties were usually sidestepped, as Peter Kobrak, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, found in Milwaukee. When the city received its $4.3 million grant, there was some fear that political officials would use the jobs as patronage to strengthen their positions. These fears were allayed when the mayor turned the program over to the Civil Service Commission, an agency known for its independence. The Commission handled the choice of jobs and selection of applicants. Unions were an important consideration in these de cisions. Their objections led to elimination of some posi tions and a focus on project-related jobs outside the civil service and clearly temporary. Community organizations had uneven impact. A group of inner city veterans, mostly black and many disad vantaged, marched on city hall demanding jobs. The city made a special effort to get their applications processed. Another group representing an older white and SpanishAmerican neighborhood who protested against “artificial job requirements was unsuccessful in its efforts to secure jobs for its members. Milwaukee was able to get a broad mix of workers. Over two-thirds of those hired were Vietnam-era vet erans. Only 13 percent were disadvantaged, but 44 per cent were black. Moreover, the mix of jobs met an im pressive variety of urban needs. L a re d o , T ex a s. Laredo is apparently typical of many small communities that used most of their limited funds to create low-level jobs in public works. Webb County, whose population is concentrated in Laredo, had an un employment rate of 13.1 percent last December. Com peting with 253 other countries and 1,000 cities for a share of State funds, it received $405,000 under the gen eral grant and $358,000 under the grant for areas with severe unemployment. There were complaints that it had been shortchanged, Vernon Briggs, University of Texas at Austin, found. For one thing, the State of Texas received only $12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis million under the allocation formula for the general grant. It would have received $22 million had the for mula been based only on the number of unemployed, rather than also on the severity of Statewide unemploy ment. Moreover, Laredo, like many other rural com munities, had massive underemployment problems. Since Laredo was not large enough to be a program agent, it had to work through a council of governments. Administrative difficulties developed between its council and the Regional Manpower Administration. Strict in terpretation of the limit on administrative costs meant that the overhead costs of the program were not covered by program funds. An especially ticklish problem was sparked by a directive ruling that jobs could only be created in occupations where the prevailing wage was above the Federal minimum of $1.60 an hour. All pro gram participants were being paid at least $1.60 an hour, but 27 percent were paid more than regular em ployees in comparable jobs. The outcome was a re classification of program participants in new job cate gories and some reduction in hours. Ninety-one percent of those hired were Spanish-Americans, and 87 percent worked for less than $2 an hour. III. Decatur, population 90,000, like many medium-sized cities, has a diversified economy with manufacturing as the mainstay. Roger Bezdek, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, reported that unem ployment in Decatur had risen as a result of the recession from 3.9 percent in 1969 to 5.8 percent in fall of 1971. In the inner city, where most blacks— 8 percent of the population— live, the unemployment rate was 11.7 percent. Decatur received $113,000 from the general grant and $32,000 for the inner city from the grant for areas with severe unemployment problems. The city was also one of the 12 areas earmarked for special grants for more intensive programs. It received $1.95 million for 252 jobs. Funds were used to create a diversified mix of jobs which promise opportunities for permanent em ployment. Several opened new opportuntities for the dis advantaged. Decatur filled jobs quickly, tapping a broad spectrum of the unemployed. Blacks represent 21 percent of enrollees, special and Vietnam-era veterans 28 percent, and the disadvantaged 30 percent. Decatur’s success in achieving a diversified mix of jobs and participants demonstrates its awareness of the multi ple goals of the program. Its performance with demon stration funds indicates that areas doing a good job initially can probably use increased funds effectively. D e ca tu r, 10 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Sizing up the program A review of the employment program 8 months after the passage of the Emergency Employment Act indicates accomplishments and shortcomings. The program was intended as an “emergency” meas ure to combat rising unemployment, and, to some degree, it fulfilled this purpose. One hundred forty thousand persons were employed under the employ ment act within 7 months after Congress appropri ated funds, and most of these persons would other wise have been idle. There is little evidence that State and local governments resorted to paper lay offs or of workers quitting other jobs en masse to get on the Emergency Employment Act payroll. The clientele was apparently creamed, but most areas made an effort to spread jobs among claimant groups. For the most part, jobs filled with Emergency Employment Act funds were vacant because of budget stringencies, and in most areas there was a mixture of professional slots, openings for the un skilled, a few new careers opportunities, and a majority of average middle-level jobs. Although the Labor Department and the President had to prod slow-spenders into action, overall, the States and localities which administered local efforts moved quickly, effectively, and sometimes innovatively to meet the prime Federal guidelines. The Public Employment Program has been less effective in achieving its secondary goals. The de signers of the law envisioned that, in addition to providing “transitional employment,” the public serv ice program would be combined with “related train ing and manpower services” to become a useful component of the nation’s manpower policy. First, graduates from manpower programs could be placed in Public Employment Program jobs, supplementing their earlier counseling and training with on-the-job experience and preparation for permanent employ ment. Second, linkages could be established with existing manpower programs so that participants could benefit from the whole range of services availTable 4. Wages of participants as of March 21, 1972 [Percent distribution] H o urly wage Total____ Under $1.60 $1.60 to $1.99____ $2 to $2.99_____ $3 to $ 3 .9 9 .... $4 to $4.99.......... $5 and o v e r ... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Last previous jo b Public Em ployment Program jo b 100 100 18 15 33 19 8 7 12 46 27 8 5 able in the community. Third, training and other services would be provided from Emergency Em ployment Act funds, although expenditures for such purposes were limited by Congressional appropria tions to 6.8 percent of apportionments under the general grant for all areas. And fourth, worthwhile on-the-job training could be provided from the 10percent cash or in-kind share of the program agents. But coordination with manpower programs has been limited, either because program agents looked on the Public Employment Program as an employment and not a training program, or because manpower funds were already committed. Finally, little civil service reform has been associated with the program. Undoubtedly, it is hard to achieve such diverse goals as civil service reform, job restructuring, and coordination with manpower projects when imple mentation proceeds at a breakneck pace and when there are few sticks or carrots used to achieve these ends. It is perhaps unrealistic to think that all these things could have been achieved at once, and pro gram agents concentrated on the primary goals. A retrospective assessment of the Public Employment Program will have to determine whether continued progress was made towards these secondary goals, and whether the binding decisions made so far to get the program off the ground quickly were worth the price of constraining progress in other directions. Implications for revenue sharing More than any other recent manpower program, the Emergency Employment Act and its administra tive guidelines decentralized decisionmaking author ity to the State, county, and city level. The adminis trative arrangements which were adopted, with direct fund allocations to State and local governments, were adapted from manpower reform legislation intended to decentralize control. The State and local program agents were delegated major responsibility for de ciding their own needs, choosing jobs, selecting workers, and determining priorities for the other goals of the program. The Federal Government, operating through its 10 Regional Manpower Ad ministration offices, checked applications to make sure that they adhered in a general way to legislative and administrative intents. The guidelines and the act itself, with their sometimes vague wording and multiple goals, left much leeway to State and local officials. And, finally, the emphasis on speedy imple mentation placed constraints on the controls that could be exercised by Federal officials, increasing the flexibility of program agents. From the perform- EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT ance of State, county, and city governments, there fore, one might expect some indication of the strengths and weaknesses of decentralized manpower efforts. Care must be exercised in interpreting the ex perience of the Public Employment Program and in drawing implications about revenue sharing. For one thing, the program was implemented rapidly, and program agents had hardly enough time to fill out their applications, much less to carry out any thoughtful planning. At best, then, the Public Em ployment Program suggests what would happen if revenue sharing were implemented at a breakneck pace with no planning or learning period. Obviously, this is not the way revenue sharing should be imple mented. Another problem in trying to draw lessons about revenue sharing from the Public Employment Pro gram is that the program, despite its multiple goals, has a single major thrust— public employment. This is only one component of a comprehensive man power strategy. The experience with public employ ment is therefore an inadequate basis for judging whether the same States, counties, and cities can implement all the different manpower components and integrate them into a comprehensive strategy which best serves the needs of their work force. To complicate matters, administrative flexibility exercised under the Emergency Employment Act varied markedly from area to area. Still, some broad lessons from the Public Employment Program ex perience are relevant to manpower reform. An im portant conclusion which emerges from case studies of local experience is that many State, county, and city governments have developed during the past decade the capability to plan and administer man power programs. The diffusion of competence is notable, and this process will accelerate if money is more flexibly distributed. Another general lesson— which is not likely to surprise anyone— is that de centralized decisionmaking increases adaptability to local conditions, but this is sometimes achieved at cost of national priorities. In future legislation, funds for public employment will most likely be lumped in with other shared man power revenues. Based on the experience so far under the Emergency Employment Act, this strategy seems to have many shortcomings. Funds have al ready been committed without comprehensive man power planning and they would add little to flexi bility. If increased resources are provided for com prehensive manpower programs, the Public Employ ment Program is likely to absorb most of them even https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11 if unemployment eases. Including the Emergency Employment Act among potential strategies would force State and local decisionmakers into a choice between helping the disadvantaged or filling their most vital needs, when the goals of manpower reve nue sharing should be to provide the best mix of services to help those who need them most. It makes sense, therefore, to keep the Emergency Employment Act outside the sphere of shared manpower revenues. Other types of public employment serving particular groups of the manpower clientele and offering inten sive manpower services might be included, but the Emergency Employment Act should probably be operated as a separate countercyclical program. As a rough estimate, it is reasonable to assume that the Public Employment Program could be ex panded to two or three times its present size with out a significant loss in effectiveness or speed of implementation. But whether or not larger scale public employment programs of other types can be effectively implemented remains to be seen. The experience under the Emergency Employment Act does not prove that work relief programs for the structurally unemployed, depressed area employment efforts, or the new careers approach will (or will not) work. Some welfare recipients have been helped, as have a substantial number of disadvantaged. A few high unemployment areas will receive concen trated assistance and a few restructured career job opportunities have been opened. But these accom plishments have been achieved as part of an overall approach that mostly emphasized quick hiring to fill jobs left vacant because of inadequate funding. Whether States and localities could have done as well with a program geared chiefly to another pur pose, which would not offer the incentive of meeting critical needs and which would require much more than merely traditional hiring, remains to be seen. What has been learned, however, is that unless program agents are operating under strictly enforced guidelines, they are likely to go about business as usual— hiring the most qualified workers for the most vital jobs. If a large-scale program is to be implemented, more attention will have to be paid to these guidelines. The legislation should specify more exactly who is to be served; and it should pro vide incentives for job redesign, civil service reform, extensive training, and use of funds for the purchase of supplies, if these are desired. Congress must specify the type of public employment program it has in mind, rather than passing open-ended legisla tion which has something for everyone. □ Recent trends in retirement benefits related to earnings P u b l ic a n d p r iv a t e retirement systems in the United States have matured to the point that taken together they can provide a married couple a level of living close to what they had before retirement. However, most retirees do not find themselves in a position to take advantage of this possibility, either because they are not covered by a private industry pension plan or are forced to apply for public (social security) benefits before they are 65, thus reducing their annuity under the Old Age, Survivers, Disabil ity and Health Insurance system. These conclusions grow out of an examination of replacement rates for public and private systems over the past 20 years covering retirees under a variety of circumstances. Analysis of replacement rates, which are the percent relationships between retirement benefits and preretirement earnings, can provide insight into the extent to which the retire ment program examined is performing the function it was designed to serve. Replacement rates also pro vide a means for comparing the retirement systems of different countries, different retirement systems in the same country, or the same system at different times. Despite their analytical advantages, replacement ratios are seldom cited in the continuing public dis cussions concerning the basic objectives of the social security (OASDHI) system or the numerous amend ments considered by Congress.1 While the calculation of a replacement rate seems simple enough, differ ences of view exist regarding the appropriate defini tion of “benefits” and “preretirement earnings.” Moreover, determination of replacement rates is not Peter Henle, a Federal Executive Fellow at the Brookings Institution, formerly served as Chief Economist, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The author acknowledges the assistance of staff members of the Social Security Administration in pro viding actuarial calculations and helpful comments. 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Combined public and private benefits will approximate preretirement living levels for some, but not for most, because of early retirement and absence of private pensions PETER HENLE required as part of any administrative action under the OASDHI program. The individual’s retirement benefit, while related to earnings, is not related to earnings immediately prior to retirement, but rather to earnings over a longer period. As a consequence, the calculation of the individual benefit may involve as many as five separate operations in which a dif ferent percentage is applied to a portion of the re tiree’s base earnings. Thus the calculation of replace ment rates related to long-term earnings is far removed from the more simple replacement rate which links a person’s retirement benefit to his earn ings just before retirement. Replacement rates are recognized as a key instru ment for international comparisons of retirement programs, and a recent pioneering methodological study points the way to greater use of such rates in comparing U.S. public and private retirement pro grams.2 This paper builds on this study to develop more complete estimates of replacement ratios over the past 20 years, both for the social security system and for representative private pension plans. The paper is confined to the retirement aspects of these programs for rank and file workers who have com pleted a career of full-time work (40-45 years) in the private economy. Excluded is any discussion of public retirement programs or retirement plans for highly paid professional or managerial employees. The concept refined When “replacement rate” is defined as the relation between a person’s benefit upon retirement and his preretirement earnings, certain ambiguities remain on both sides of the ratio. With regard to the benefit, what type of work experience should be assumed for the retiring individual? With respect to retire ment under a private plan, two situations are utilized: (1) an individual with 20 years of participation under a specific plan prior to retirement, and (2) the same individual with 30 years of participation. RETIREMENT BENEFITS f [ I I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I p | I I I | I I I I I I I I I I At what age should retirement take place? Tradi tionally the retirement age in the United States has been 65. In recent years, an increasing proportion of retirees under social security have been applying for benefits before that age. Even with this trend, 65 remains the most commonly accepted retirement age, and this was utilized in constructing a time series of replacement rates. Should the replacement rate utilize the benefit for a single male, a single female, or a married couple? Benefits under the three situations will differ, but since they are directly related to each other, only one, the replacement rate for the single male, was utilized in calculating the time series. The more detailed examination of replacement rates for 1972, however, includes rates for both sexes, different retirement ages, and different marital situations. Moving to the other side of the ratio, a retiree’s preretirement earnings could be his career average earnings, his base earnings as defined in the law under which his benefit is calculated, his earnings during a selected number of years (for example, 3 or 5) prior to retirement on which private benefits are frequently based, or earnings more immediately prior to retirement, presumably during the preceding year. In determining a replacement rate which contrasts living standards immediately before and after retirement, the year immediately preceding retirement would seem to be the most logical, although in some cases an individual’s earnings during that year may be somewhat below his peak. One further clarification is necessary: should a retirement system be described by a single replacement rate or a set of such rates? When reference is to the public system, it is convenient to recall its two generally accepted goals: (1) to provide a minimum level of income support for the aged, and (2) to provide a retirement benefit that will prevent a serious decline in income for the nonpoor aged.3 Each goal will influence replacement rates in different ways. The first objective of providing a minimum support level would involve a relatively high replacement rate at the lower levels of income. The second would involve a lower rate at higher levels of income where individuals can be expected to meet more of their retirement needs through their own resources, either private group plans or individual savings. In the social security program, a complicated benefit formula provides a relatively high rate of benefit for the lowest segment of an individual’s wage base with successively lower benefit rates for suc https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13 ceeding segments. The existence of a ceiling on earn ings for tax and benefit purposes also dictates a gradually declining replacement rate as earnings rise above the ceiling. For private pension plans, replacement rates are a product of the specific benefit formula concerned. In some plans the benefit formula is based solely on career or final earnings; for these plans a single replacement rate would apply. Relatively few plans provide a uniform benefit regardless of earnings, and for these the replacement rate would decline as earn ings increased. More frequently, the benefit formula is based on service, or service combined with earn ings, often with a minimum benefit, in which case the replacement rate varies with length of service as well as earnings. Many private plans are specifically designed to be integrated with the social security system and provide a higher rate of benefit (and thus replacement rate) for earnings above the social security taxable earnings ceiling. In view of the many diverse possibilities, it is im portant to view replacement rates as a set or con tinuum of rates which vary with several factors, most critically earnings.4 In this analysis, it was necessary to construct earnings histories for hypothetical retiring workers against which to compare benefit levels at different periods of time. Statistical series of annual earnings for various categories of workers were utilized as indicating a time series of earnings for a single indi vidual. In order to obtain data covering a broad range of earnings levels, four industries were selected: retail trade, services, manufacturing, and construc tion. The four series were developed from data on average weekly earnings. Because data for the serv ices industry were not available before 1964, the comparable national income series of annual earn ings for full-time equivalent employees was utilized. In addition, the national income series for all em ployees in private industry was included. One additional series was specifically developed in light of the general interest in relating earnings of minimum wage workers to retirement benefits. An annual earnings series was developed embodying a 4-percent annual increase culminating with annual earnings in 1971 of $3,744 ($1.80 an hour for 2,080 hours). This series approximates changes in the postwar statutory Federal minimum wage while avoiding the more erratic changes that would result from an earnings history tied directly to actual in creases in the statutory minimum. In all, six historical series of annual earnings were MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 14 constructed. From them, the primary insurance amount was calculated for a 65-year-old individual newly applying for retirement benefits on January 1 of each year, 1952 to 1972 (table 1). These benefit amounts were related to the previous year’s earnings to form a series of replacement rates (table 2 ).5 As expected, replacement rates vary inversely with level of earnings. For an individual retiring on January 1, 1972, replacement rates range from 45 percent for the low earnings model and 42 percent for retail trade down to 24 percent for construction. The 1972 rates are 5 to 12 percentage points higher than those for 1952. In general, the rates show major increases in 1953 and 1955, followed by small fluc tuations until the middle 1960’s when they fell below earlier rates. Since then, they have climbed steadily to their 1971-72 levels, the highest point for the low earnings model, for retail trade, and for manufac turing. For the higher earnings histories, however, the current rate is at or slightly below that reached in 1955.6 Year-to-year fluctuations in replacement rates gen erally reflect the composite effect of two forces: (1) changes in the benefit formula, including raising the taxable wage ceiling, most noticeable in the increases in replacement rates for 1953, 1955, 1969, 1970, and 1971 (and to a lesser degree in 1959 and 1965), and (2) the steady rise in actual earnings levels which, unless offset by changes in the benefit for mula, produces a roughly comparable erosion in replacement rates. This latter effect is most notice able in the 1959-64 and 1965-68 periods. Basic replacement rates have been developed for each year beginning with 1952 for a male retiring at 65. Yet, judging by a survey of retirees in a recent period, less than half of all male retirees claim ing benefits were 65 or older. Thus, replacement rates for 1972 were also calculated for a male retiring Table 1. Annual earnings and monthly social security be benefits (OASDHI primary insurancy amounts)1 under 6 earnings histories, 1937-72 Low earnings m o d e l2 R etail tra d e 3 M a n u fa c tu rin g 3 Services 4 A ll p riv a te in d u s try 4 C onstruction 3 Year A n nual earnings M o nthly benefits Annual earnings M onthly benefits Annual earnings M onthly benefits Annual earnings M onthly benefits Annual earnings M o nthly benefits Annual earnings M onthly benefits 1937 1938__ ______ 1939 . 1940_____________ $986.72 1,026.19 1,067.24 1,109.93 $1,077.44 1,082.64 1,092.52 1,109.68 $938.00 942.00 952.00 953.00 $1,238.64 1,147.64 1,229.28 1,297.92 $1,240.00 1,207.00 1,250.00 1,291.00 $1,484.08 1,375.40 1,472.64 1,554.80 1941...... .................... 1942 .................... .. 1943_____________ 1944_______ ___ 1945. 1,154.33 1,200.50 1,248.52 1,298.47 1,350.41 1,152.84 1,215.24 1,289.08 1,392.04 1,486.68 1,020.00 1,132.00 L347.00 1,538.00 1,688.00 1,532.96 1,907.36 2'239.64 2,376.40 2,298.40 1,454.00 1,731.00 2,018.00 2,192.00 2,255.00 1,935.60 2,282.80 2,679.56 2,844.40 2,750.80 1946_____________ 1947_____________ 1948_____________ 1949_____________ 1950_____________ 1,404.43 1,460.61 1,519.03 1,579.79 1,642.98 1,711.84 1,756.04 1,883.44 1,997.84 2,064.92 1,863.00 1,996.00 2,082.00 2,138.00 2,183.00 2,252.64 2,556.84 2,762.24 2,801.76 3,032.64 2,360.00 2,591.00 2,791.00 2,841.00 2,988.00 2,696.72 3,061.24 3,394.04 3,513.12 3,623.36 1951_____________ 1952_____________ 1953_____________ 1954_____________ 1955_____________ 1,708.70 1,777.05 1,848.14 1,922.07 1,998.95 $53.50 61.80 62.50 69.90 2,226.64 2,255.76 2,358.72 2,446.08 2,535.00 $55.50 67.90 68.80 78.50 2,321.00 2,489.00 2,623.00 2,736.00 2,831.00 $55.90 70.00 72.00 83.10 '3 ,293.68 3,492.32 3,664.44 3,665.48 3,936.40 $61.50 82.30 84.30 98.50 3,239.00 3,430.00 3,624.00 3,704.00 3,882.00 $61.20 81.60 83.80 98.50 4,001.92 4,308.72 4,493.32 4,623.32 4,726.80 $64.30 85.00 85.00 98.50 1956_____________ 1957_____________ 1958_____________ 1959_____________ 1960_____________ 2,078.91 2,162.07 2,248.55 2,338.49 2,432.03 71.10 72.30 73.70 80.00 80.00 2,609.36 2,714.40 2,813.20 2,919.80 3,003.52 79.90 81.30 82.70 90.00 90.00 2,963.00 3,110.00 3,220.00 3,364.00 3,513.00 84.70 86.70 89.10 96.00 97.00 4,096.56 4,242.68 4,300.92 4,589.52 4,665.44 101.30 105.30 107.50 115.00 117.00 4,089.00 4,269.00 4,385.00 4,615.00 4,759.00 100.70 104.90 107.50 115.00 117.00 5,011.76 5,214.04 5,396.56 5,637.32 5,878.08 103.50 108.50 108.50 116.00 119.00 1961_____________ 1962_____________ 1Î63_____________ 1964_____________ 1965_____________ 2,529.31 2,630.48 2,735.70 2,845.13 2,958.93 81.00 82.00 83.00 84.00 91.00 3,050.32 3,169.92 3,258.32 3,367.00 3,463.72 91.00 92.00 93.00 94.00 100.60 3,642.00 3,783.00 3,924.00 4,129.00 4,292.00 99.00 100.00 101.00 102.00 111.30 4,801.68 5,021.12 5,180.76 5,354.44 5,591.56 119.00 120.00 121.00 122.00 130.60 4,889.00 5,081.00 5,252.00 5,504.00 5,706.00 119.00 120.00 121.00 122.00 131.70 6,140.16 6,368.44 6,613.88 6,867.12 7,195.76 120.00 121.00 122.00 123.00 131.70 1966_____________ 1967_____________ 1968_____________ 1969_____________ 1970_____________ 3,077.29 3,200.38 3,328.40 3,461.54 3,600.00 91.00 93.10 93.10 106.50 125.30 3,565.64 3,689.40 3,897.40 4,090.32 4,288.44 101.70 102.80 103.80 118.60 137.80 4,514.00 4,770.00 5,088.00 5,505.00 5,946.00 112.40 114.50 115.60 133.00 155.90 5,841.68 5,974.80 6,370.52 6,734.52 6,953.96 131.70 133.80 135.90 156.00 182.00 5,974.00 6,231.00 6,641.00 7,071.00 7,462.00 131.70 133.80 135.90 157.10 184.60 7,605.52 8,057.40 8,576.36 9,420.32 10,151.96 132.70 135.90 138.00 160.50 189.80 1971_____________ 1972_____________ 3,744.00 139.40 141.10 4,494.88 153.20 156.20 6,300.00 176.00 179.10 7,345.52 203.10 207.40 7,850.00 206.10 210.40 11,029.72 213.10 216.10 1 Primary insurance amounts calculated by Office of the Actuary, Social Security Administration. It is assumed worker retires January 1. 2 Low earnings model constructed by assuming 1971 annual earnings of $3,744 ($1.80 an hour for 2,080 hours) and a 4-percent annual increase, 1947-71. 3 Retail trade, manufacturing, and construction histories based on average weekly earnings, taken from Handbook of Labor S ta tis tic s , 1971 (BLS Bulletin 1705, 1971), p. 206, and 1971 figures from BLS, multiplied by 52 weeks. Retail trade figures for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1937 and 1938 estimated by assuming same percent change from 1939 as wholesale trade. Construction data for 1937-46 estimated by assuming same relationship to 1947 figure as manufacturing. 4 Services and all private industry data taken from average annual earnings per fu ll time employee reported in N a tional Income and Product Accounts (U.S. Depart ment of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration), table 6.5, 1971 figures estimated. 15 RETIREMENT BENEFITS Table 2. Social security benefits (primary insurance amounts) as a percent of earnings in year prior to retire ment, 6 earnings histories, single man 65 years old, 1952-72 R etirem ent date (January 1) Low earnings model Retail trade Services M anufac tu rin g A ll p riv a te in d u s try Con s tru c tio n 1952_______ 1953............. 1954_______ 1955_______ 38 42 41 44 30 36 35 39 29 34 33 36 22 28 28 32 23 29 28 32 19 24 23 26 1956_______ 1957............... 1958_______ 1959_______ 1960_______ 43 42 41 43 41 38 37 37 38 37 36 35 34 36 35 31 31 30 32 31 31 31 30 31 30 26 26 25 26 25 1961_______ 1962_______ 1963_______ 1964_______ 1965.......... . 40 39 38 37 38 36 36 35 35 36 34 33 32 31 32 31 30 29 28 29 30 29 29 28 29 24 24 23 22 23 1966_______ 1967_______ 1968_______ 1969_______ 1970_______ 37 36 35 38 43 35 35 34 37 40 31 30 29 31 34 28 27 27 29 32 28 27 26 28 31 22 21 21 22 24 1971_______ 1972_______ 46 45 43 42 36 34 35 34 33 32 25 24 the benefit to which her earnings entitle her; if this falls short of the amount that she, as a wife, would add to her husband’s benefit, the shortfall is added to his benefit amount. Some comparisons SOURCE: Office of the Actuary, Social Security Administration. at 62, for women retiring at 65 and 62, and, since over three-quarters of men claiming benefits are married, for three situation of married couples: husband and wife, both 65 years old; husband and wife, both 62; and husband, 65, and wife, 62 (table 3). Replacement rates for women run about 1 per centage point higher than for men, reflecting the shorter period of years on which base earnings are computed. Information for both men and women who retire at 62 years old confirm the strong effect of the actuarial reduction for early retirement, with benefits more than 20 percent below those applicable to retirements at 65. For a retired couple, both 65 years or over, the 50-percent premium for a spouse boosts the replace ment rate considerably. However, the premium is reduced actuarially if the wife is under 65. If both husband and wife are 62 years old, the reduction in the replacement rate is such that it is only 3 to 6 percentage points higher than that for a single man retiring at 65. Replacement rates for married couples assume that only the husband is eligible for retirement bene fits. Rates were not calculated for couples in which both partners meet the earnings qualifications for a retirement benefit. When both husband and wife have earnings at retirement, the resulting replacement rates generally are lower than if only the husband has earnings. In such situations, the wife receives https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Since the public system is designed to provide an income “floor” in retirement, a useful question is, how do public system replacement rates compare with those that would be necessary to achieve certain minimum levels of retirement living? There is little guidance regarding what constitutes either a “neces sary” or “adequate” level of retirement living. There is little agreement concerning the proportion of in come for such living that appropriately should be the responsibility of the individual, an employmentrelated private program, or a public program. How ever, at lower income levels where resources for individual savings are limited and private pension plans rare, two statistical efforts at determining re tirement needs have been made: the low-income (formerly “poverty” ) threshold based on food costs and originally developed by the Social Security Ad ministration, and the Retired Couple’s Budget of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.7 Table 3. Social security (OASDHI) benefits as a percent (replacement rate) of 6 earnings histories, retirees in varied circumstances, January 1, 1972 Retirem ent circum stances Low e a rn ings model Retail trade Serv ices M anu- A ll p r i Con facvate s tru c tu rtio n indus try ing Single man, retiring 1/1/72, age 65: Monthly benefit___________ $141.10 $156.20 $179.10 $207.40 $210.40 $216.10 Replacement rate_________ 34 45 42 34 32 24 Single woman retiring 1/1/72, age 65: Monthly benefit____ ______ $143.90 $160.90 $186.80 $213.10 $217.40 $224.70 Replacement rate__________ 46 43 36 35 24 33 Single man retiring 1/1/72, age 62: Monthly benefit___________ $109.10 $121.30 $138.60 $160.20 $162.50 $167.10 Replacement rate__________ 35 32 26 26 25 18 Single woman retiring 1/1/72, age 62: Monthly benefit............... ....... $112.90 $125.00 $143.30 $166.00 $168.40 $172.90 19 27 27 26 Replacement rate........... ....... 36 33 Married man, retiring 1/1/72, age 65 with spouse age 65: Monthly benefit___________ $211.65 $234.30 $268.65 $311.10 $315.60 $324.15 48 35 Replacement rate__________ 68 63 51 51 Married man, retiring 1/1/72, age 65, with spouse age 62: Monthly benefit___________ $194.10 $214.80 $246.30 $285.20 $289.30 $297.20 57 47 44 32 62 47 Replacement r a te ............. .. Married man, retiring 1/1/72, age 62, with spouse age 62: Monthly benefit___________ $160.30 $178.20 $203.60 $235.30 $238.70 $245.40 27 38 36 51 48 39 Replacement rate__________ SOURCE: Office of the Actuary, Social Security Administration. 16 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 The 1971 Advisory Council on Social Security recommended that “benefits to low-paid regular workers . . . be high enough so that aged benefi ciaries will not be below the poverty level.” 8 As the Council pointed out, this objective has been achieved with respect to a retired couple if the breadwinner retires at 65 years old with a wife of the same age. It does not apply, however, to a single person, nor to a couple if the breadwinner retires before reaching 65 or if his wife is below this age. Moreover, the OASDHI benefits for a retired couple equal about 71 percent of the lower level Retired Couple’s Budget. These comparisons are shown in table 4. Another question raised by replacement rates is how those for the U.S. social security system com pare with other countries. A recent study compared public retirement systems in 13 industrialized coun tries. Relating benefits for both single persons and married couples to earnings in the year prior to re tirement, the study showed that the U.S. replacement rate was below those of Austria, France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany but above those of Canada, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. The U.S. standing is somewhat higher if the comparison is confined to married couples; a few of the countries do not provide as much as the U.S. 50-percent in crease in benefits for a married couple over a single person.9 If the comparison had been extended to include the effect of private pension plans, the United States undoubtedly would rank higher since a num ber of the countries ranked above it rely almost completely on their public system for retirement income. Private pension plans Replacement rates for private plans exhibit certain characteristics which distinguish them from those of Table 4. Social security (OASDHI) benefits for low earners compared with low-income threshold and Retired Cou ple's Budget, 1971 Item 1970 annual earnings, low earnings model. 1971 OASDHI retirement benefit, man, age 65, retiring January 1,1971, low earnings model Replacement rate (percent) . Living standards: Low-income threshold, nonfarm, age 65 or older, 1971 Replacement rate (percent) required to meet lowincome th re sh o ld .... Retired Couple’s Budget, lower level, spring 1970 (up dated to 1971 by change in Consumer Price Index) Replacement rate (percent) required to meet Retired Couple’s Budget Single person Married couple $3,600.00 $3,600.00 1,672.80 46.5 2,508.20 69.7 $1,920.00 $2,460.00 53.3 SOURCE: Social Security Administration and Bureau of Labor Statistics https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 68.3 $3,250.00 90.3 Table 5. Distribution of replacement rates for 28 private pension plans, 1953 and 1969 1 Low-earnings worker Average-earnings worker High-earnings worker Item 1953 1969 1953 1969 Previous year’s earnings... $2,400 $4,200 $3,600 $6,600 Number of plans with re placement rates (per cent) : Under 15 percent........ 15-24 percent_______ 25-34 percent.............. 35 percent or m o re ... 9 8 7 4 10 10 8 13 12 2 1 3 19 5 1 18 7 3 14 8 4 2 Median replacement rates. 19 28 15 21 10 15 1953 1969 $6,600 $12,000 1 Worker retiring January 1,1953, and January 1, 1969. NOTE: The following are the key steps in constructing the table (discussed more fu lly in the source report): (1) Earnings of the average worker for the year prior to retirement reflect the average earnings of fu ll-tim e workers in private industry. (2) The low-earnings worker is assumed to have earnings equal to tw o-thirds of the national average; high earnings are set at 80 percent above the national average. (3) Each worker is assumed to have retired after 20 years of increasing earnings, rising at an annual rate of 4 percent for the first 14 years followed by an annual rise of 2 percent for the 5 years immediately prior to retirement. SOURCE: Walter W. Kolodrubetz and Alfred M. Skolnik, Pension B e n e fit Levels: A M ethodological A n alysis (Washington, Social Security Administration, HEW Publication No. 72-11851, 1972), p. 39, table F, medians by inspection, table 14. the public system. Based upon a representative sam ple of 28 private plans, replacement rates for these plans have increased markedly during 1953-69 (ta ble 5). Plans which had replacement rates below 15 percent in 1953 are well above this figure by 1969, particularly for the worker with low or aver age earnings. These increases result from several factors, including higher benefit formulas and elimi nation of provisions which offset OASDHI benefits against private benefits. On the other hand, for a number of plans, especially those with a uniform benefit (for example, the United Mine Workers plan and the two apparel union plans), the replacement rate actually declined over this 16-year period. As of 1969, the median replacement rate for a worker with average earnings and 20 years of service was 21 percent. Four of the 30 plans investigated replace less than 15 percent of income. Three of these plans (American Telephone and Telegraph, Western Union, and the International Ladies’ Gar ment Workers Union) apply to work forces with high proportions of women workers. To determine whether the 1969 data were repre sentative of current conditions, more recent replace ment rates were calculated for nine plans, all but one of which were included in the 1953-69 study. Benefits under these plans, for each year since 1969, were related to an earnings history tailored insofar as possible to the specific industry concerned (table 6). 17 RETIREMENT BENEFITS The 1969 replacement rates have fluctuated some what in the 3 years since then. The rates in five plans are noticeably higher, those in two relatively unchanged, and those in two declined. For the re tiree with 20 years service, replacement rates for both 1969 and 1972 ranged between 13 and 25 percent, with a median of 17 percent in 1969 and 21 percent in 1972. For the retiree with 30 years of service, rates were higher but followed the same pattern, with a median of 24 percent in 1969 and 28 percent in 1972. For four plans, the replacement rate was over 30 percent. Of course, nine plans do not constitute a scientific sample. Omitted, for example, are newer plans whose replacement rates are likely to be relatively low. Moreover, the tabulation cannot reflect many factors that affect the determination of retirement benefits. In many situations, decisions regarding the level of retirement benefits reflect a tradeoff involving other cost elements of a retirement plan such as vesting, disability benefits, and survivors’ payments. However, it is worth noting that the low-benefit ILGWU plan in the relatively low-wage apparel industry, though ranking low among the nine, yields a replacement rate of 17 percent, comparable to the Armour plan. One caution must be emphasized in connection with any comparison of replacement rates in the public and private systems. Congress has raised OASDHI benefits periodically to at least keep pace with living costs; in fact, this policy may be made explicit in forthcoming (1972) amendments. Thus the purchasing power of the individual’s original OASDHI benefit and the maintenance of his replace ment rate in real terms has been assured during re tirement. On the other hand, with the exception of a large group of collectively bargained plans, most private plans, in revising their benefit formulas periodically, do not extend improvements in benefits to already retired employees. These improvements are directed more to future than to current retirees. Thus, for such plans, the real replacement rate for a private plan will steadily decline during an individ ual’s retirement as consumer prices rise. For example, if over a 10-year period, prices rise (as they did in 1961-71) by 35 percent, the purchasing power of Table 6. Benefits in selected private pension plans for workers retiring January 1, 1969-72, as a percent of annual earnings in year prior to retirement Year Replacement M onthly rate (percent) A n n u a l1 pension benefit earnings, previous 20-year 30-year 20-year 30-year year service service service service Year A n n u a l1 earnings, previous year M onthly pension ben efit Replacement ra te (percent) 20-year 30-year 20-year 30-year service service service service, Armour & Co.: 1969________________________ 1970________________________ 1971________________________ 1 9 7 2 -_____ _________________ $7,642 8,114 8,753 9,140 $100 100 120 130 $150 150 180 195 16 15 17 17 24 22 25 26 New York City Carpenters: $101 $9,600 1969. ___________ ___________ 203 9,975 1970. .... ......... 248 10,725___________ 1971 ___________ ___________ 293 12,600 1972 ................................................ Detroit Edison: 1969________________________ 1970________________________ 1971________________________ 1972________________________ 8,026 8,607 9,173 9,845 121 154 163 173 172 218 234 253 18 21 21 21 26 30 31 31 Southern Bell Telephone: 146 115 6,255 1960______________ 152 125 6,769 1970 ___________ ___________ 159 125 6,843 1971 ................................................................................................ 162 125 7,004 1972 ......... . Ford Motor Co.: 1969________________________ 1970_____________ __________ 1971________________________ 1972________________________ 8,984 9,063 9,065 9,220 123 123 123 160 183 183 183 238 16 16 16 21 24 24 24 31 U.S. Steel Corp.: 8,016 1969_______ 8,634 1970. ................................................ 8,653 1971. ........................ 9,224 1972. ........................ International Ladies Garment workers' Union Plan: 1969________________________ 1970............ ........... ............... ......... 1971________________________ 1972________________________ 4,149 4,312 4,387 4,609 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 19 18 18 17 19 18 18 17 International Paper Co.: 1969........ ........... ............... ............. 1970______________ _________ 1971....................................... ......... 1972__________ _____________ 6,804 7,245 7,496 7,987 98 99 122 125 116 122 156 163 17 16 20 19 21 20 25 25 1 Data for average weekly earnings for the following industries were multiplied by 52 to yield annual earnings: Armour & Co.— Meat products Detroit Edison— Electric companies and systems Ford Motor Co— Motor vehicles and equipment International Paper— Paper and allied products Ladies Garment Union— Apparel and other textile products Southern Bell Telephone— Telephone communications https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 130 130 130 165 $113 243 288 333 195 195 195 255 Western Conference of Teamsters: 188 150 7,434 1969.................................. ......... 188 150 7,871 1970..................... ..................... 188 150 8,288___________ 1971 ___________ ___________ ___________ 180 144 9,355 1972 _____ ________ U.S. Steel— Blast furnace and basic steel products Western Conference of Teamsters—Trucking and warehousing The assumption of 52 weeks of work is clearly an overstatement of employment for the average employee in the industry concerned. However, the data pertain to an employee with 20 or 30 years of service who would normally be less subject to layoff. For New York City Carpenters, the applicable union hourly rate was multiplied by 1,500 hours as the assumed annual hours to produce the annual earnings. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 18 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Table 7. Calculation of retirement income equivalent to preretirement income for married couples at various in come levels, 1972 Item Preretirement total in com e ... Levels of income $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $15,000 Federal income tax >___ 170 501 848 1,209 2,128 Federal OASDHI tax 2 208 312 416 468 468 $3,622 $5,187 $6,736 $8,323 $12,404 Preretirement income after Federal personal taxes____ State income tax (12 percent of Federal)3. ........ 20 60 102 145 255 Preretirement income after Federal and State personal taxes.. . $3,602 $5,127 $6,634 $8,178 $12,149 Savings resulting from retirem ent4___ . $490 $697 $902 $1,112 $1,652 $3,112 $4,430 $5,732 $7,066 $10,497 78 74 72 71 70 Retirement income needed to equal preretirement disposable income: A m oun t... Percent of preretirement total income. . 1 Calculated in accord with current tax code. 2 5.2 percent of earnings up to $9,000 (current law). 3 In 1970, State (and local) income tax receipts were 10.9 percent of Federal income tax receipts and the percent has been increasing at roughly 0.5 percent a year. Thus, the average percent is estimated at 12 percent for 1972. 4 Savings from retirement are based on Revised Equivalence Scale for Estimating Income or Budget Costs by Family Type (BLS Bulletin 1570-2, 1963). These scales allow calculation of equivalent levels of consumption for families of different compo sition and were derived from expenditure data in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. Using the scales, the consumption requirements of a 2-person (husbandwife) family after retirement is 86.4 percent of requirements prior to retirement (age 55-64). Consequently, savings from retirement were estimated at 13.6 percent of pre retirement income available for consumption. In separate calculations (not shown in the table), an attempt was made to estimate savings for individual expense items. These results, which embodied a greater ele ment of judgment, were quite sim ilar to those resulting from applying the 13.6-percent figure. a 20-percent replacement rate would have fallen to 13.5 percent by the end of the period. Looking at both systems When both public and the private retirement sys tems are considered together, there is wide diversity in the extent to which an individual’s retirement benefits replace previous earnings. If he is married, able to work until 65 years old, and in addition has had extended employment under a private plan, he is likely to find that his combined benefits will replace at least 60 percent (and perhaps as much as 75 percent) of his previous earnings. If on the other hand, he is single, applies for OASDHI benefits at 62, and is not entitled to any private benefits, his replacement rate may be as low as 20-25 percent. How can replacement rates such as 25 or 75 per cent be evaluated? Is there an “optimum” rate against which to measure actual performance? It seems unlikely that any scientific method for de termining an “optimum” replacement rate can be developed. Any such “optimum” would have to re flect subjective judgments regarding the value of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis retirement, and would change as the Nation’s stand ard of living, accepted age for retirement, and other factors changed. A related question that is more susceptible to measurement is: what replacement rate would be necessary to yield to an individual approximately the same income he had before retirement for the pur chase of goods and services? Some calculations of this type for a married couple at varying levels of income have been pre pared (table 7). At the lower income levels, the calculations indicate that a replacement rate of about 80 percent would be necessary if the retiree were to maintain his preretirement command of goods and services. At higher income levels, this rate drops slightly to 70 percent. These calculations take into account only those reductions in taxes and expenditures becoming effec tive upon retirement. They do not take into account special circumstances requiring additional income during retirement, particularly for lower-income families with limited savings. On the other hand, the calculations do not consider other possible reductions in living expenses which may occur more gradually as a family ages, such as savings resulting from com pleting the purchase of a home, or from the com pletion of educational expenses for children. Such savings, of course, can be very real, but in most instances they take place over a longer period of years before retirement and they are not necessarily available to all families. (Some families at retirement rent rather than own a home, for example.) These calculations also assume the absence of per sonal income taxes during retirement. For a couple this would be true if retirement income was solely from nontaxable OASDHI benefits or if taxable in come were less than $4,300 ($1,500 exemption in 1972 for an individual over 65, plus minimum stand ard deduction of $1,300). At higher levels of income, provision for income taxes would be necessary. The 70- to 80-percent replacement rate for achieving a roughly comparable level of living pro vides a useful backdrop for examining the benefit structure of the public and private systems in com bination. Since half the working population is cur rently covered by private pension plans, this country already has a combined public-private retirement system. Evaluation of the system as a whole, in cluding the performance of each component, would be more realistic if its joint character were recognized. For example, an individual whose earnings history has followed the path of the average production RETIREMENT BENEFITS worker in manufacturing would have 1971 annual earnings of about $7,350. Assuming that he has been employed by the International Paper Co., (its pension plan provides benefits close to the median of the private plans included in this discussion), this individual upon retiring January 1, 1972, at 65 years old would find the replacement rate from his OASDHI benefit to be 34 percent if single and 51 percent if married with his wife at the same age. His benefit from International Paper would replace an additional 19 percent of his preretirement earnings assuming 20 years of service, and 25 percent assum ing 30 years of service. Thus, the public-private re placement rate for the single retiree would be 53-59 percent and for the married retiree 70-76 percent. The combined rate should enable a married couple to approximate their preretirement level of living. Other examples could be developed for other sit uations. At lower levels of income, the arithmetic would differ because pension plans common to lowerwage industries generally yield a somewhat lower replacement rate. On the other hand, the replace ment rate from the OASDHI benefit would be con siderably higher. A married retiree with an earnings history approximating the low-earnings model would find his OASDHI benefit equal to 68 percent of his previous year’s earnings; the individual whose earn ings followed the average for retail trade would have about 63 percent of income replaced. Conversely, at higher levels of income, the OASDHI replacement rate drops off sharply, but the replacement rate for private pension benefits in higher-paying industries is likely to be much higher. Some of the private plans, for example, Detroit Edison and the New York City Carpenters, provide replacement rates over 30 percent for the individual with 30 years of service. A rough estimate would be that a typical married retiree with $10,000 earnings in his last year would find his combined public and private benefits replacing 55-65 percent of previous earnings (37-40 percent for OASDHI). For a single person, replacement rates are 10-20 percentage points below those for married persons with similar working experience. Whether or not such a drop is in line with the reduced retirement needs of single persons is difficult to judge. One close study of this issue concluded that a higher replacement rate for couples was justified, “but the present formula is incorrectly computed in principle and provides a benefit for couples that is much too large.” 10 Aside from a person’s marital status, two circum stances act to reduce severely an individual’s chances https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 that his retirement benefits can come close to provid ing his preretirement level of living. These are (1) the absence of any private pension benefit, and (2) a decision to apply for OASDHI benefits before 65, particularly if application is made at the earliest eligible age, 62. At present a mature private pension plan generally will yield a replacement rate of at least 15-20 per cent for the individual with 20 years service and 20-25 percent for 30 years service. But the stubborn fact remains that private pension plans cover only half the nonfarm working population, and an even smaller portion will actually meet the length of service requirements to be eligible for a private re tirement benefit. A recent study discloses that only 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women awarded retirement benefits under OASDHI between July 1968 and December 1969 were receiving or ex pected to receive a private pension benefit from the job they held longest in private employment.11 Be cause pension coverage is more prevalent among the larger size, higher wage, unionized firms, it is typic ally the lower-wage employee in a small-size firm who lacks income support from a private pension benefit. In a similar fashion, current practices regarding age at retirement operates to cut back an individ ual’s replacement rate. According to a recent study, about half the men and over two-thirds of the wom en awarded OASDHI retirement benefits were subject to actuarial reduction because they applied before 65. Benefits at 62 are more than 20 percent below those applicable to an individual with the same earn ings history who retires at 65, equivalent to 6-10 percentage points in the replacement rate. Why do retirees decide to take the early retire ment option? A recent study examined the economic situation in which early retirees find themselves. Only 40 percent are employed and four-fifths con sider themselves retired or partly retired. The study concludes: “the reduction in benefit rate because of early retirement . . . appears to be a secondary con sideration in the worker’s decision to draw benefits. His first consideration is probably the satisfaction of his immediate economic wants.” 12 To the retiree, of course, the value of immediate benefits at 62 to help meet what might be pressing economic needs outweighs the long-term interest in a higher level of benefits beginning 3 years later. This decision to spread total retirement benefits over a longer time period results, however, in some sacri fice in levels of living starting with the 65th birthday 20 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 and continuing throughout retirement.13 The limited coverage of private pension plans to gether with the practice of applying for reduced OASDHI benefits make it clear that only 20-25 percent of all retirees receive the maximum benefits of the combined public-private system. For the fu ture, increasing public attention should perhaps be devoted to examining alternative methods for raising this percentage. Can a feasible method be developed of providing supplementary retirement income to those not entitled to benefits from a private plan? What can be done to enable a greater proportion of the work force to remain employed until normal retirement age? These are critical questions deserv ing equal priority with the current interest in higher benefit levels. □ FOOTNOTES 1 However, a panel of the 1971 Advisory Council on Social Security specifically called attention to replacement rates in the following: “While past and proposed legislative actions have approximately achieved the goal of maintenance of purchasing power, the replacement rates have shifted over time and between different levels of average wages. There has been insufficient analyses or public discussion of the role of replacement rate in prescribing the benefit for mulas.” Panel of Actuaries and Economists to the Sub committee on Cost Estimates and Financial Policy of the 1971 Advisory Council on Social Security, House Document 92-80, April 5, 1971, p. 95-96. 2 Walter W. Kolodrubetz and Alfred M. Skolnik, P en sio n B en efit L ev els: A M e th o d o lo g ic a l A n a ly s is (Social Security Administration, 1972), Publication No. 72-11851. 3 Joseph A. Pechman, Henry J. Aaron, and Michael K. Taussig, S o c ia l S e c u rity: P e r sp e c tiv e s f o r R e fo r m (Washing ton, Brookings Institution, 1968), p. 55 if. 4 Ideally, it would be best to have data on previous earn ings and benefit levels for all retirees so that replacement rates could be constructed for retirees with varying personal characteristics and worklife earnings. Changes in law or practice and differences among retirement systems could be analyzed in terms of replacement rates for retirees in a wide variety of situations. Although such data may be real ized with additional “mining” of the 1 percent sample of social security participants, it is not currently available. BThese tables do not necessarily reflect the earnings his tory of any single individual. It would be the rare instance where an individual’s lifetime earnings followed the average for an industry sector so closely that he would receive the benefit specified in the table. The industry earnings data include part-time along with full-time employees. Generally an individual starts by earning less than his industry’s aver age and ends earning more than the average. In addition, any individual’s replacement rate would be affected by the amount of overtime worked, extent of unemployment, em ployment outside the social security system or on a second job, and so on. Yet utilizing average earnings to represent hypothetical individuals is probably as useful as the alterna tive of relying on more mechanical formulas, under which earnings are assumed to rise by a fixed percentage annually. Finally, although each earnings history is derived from data for an industrial sector (in one case, all private industry), the resulting earnings record in each case can be viewed as applying to any worker at that earnings level. Thus the earnings record for manufacturing can also be considered https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the record of a relatively high-wage worker in the services industry or a relatively low-wage worker in the construction industry. 6 Kolodrubetz and Skolnik, op. cit., constructed earnings histories to represent low, average, and high earnings work ers. Their calculations yield replacement rates (Pension/ Earnings ratios) for 1953 and 1969 showing little change between the 2 years. Table 2 figures confirm this for the histories closest to their low (retail trade) and average (manufacturing) models. Their high earnings model is well above the highest earnings history (construction) in table 2. 7 The BLS standard budget program is built to the extent possible on consensus standards of food, housing, and med ical care as determined requirements for health, but also incorporates BLS staff judgments based on analyses of spending regarding needs in other expenditure categories. Separate budgets are developed at what are called lower, intermediate, and higher levels of living, but only the lower budget would be relevant to this discussion. 8 Report of the 1971 Advisory Council on Social Security, op. cit., p. 13. 9 Max Horlick, “Earnings Replacement Rate of Old-Age Benefits: An International Comparison,” S o c ia l S ecu rity B u lletin , March 1970, p. 3. 10 Pechman, Aaron, and Taussig, op. cit., pp. 84-85. 11 Walter Kolodrubetz, C h a ra cte ristic s o f W o r k e r s w ith P en sio n C o v e r a g e on L o n g e st Jobs: S u rv e y o f N e w B en e ficiaries, Report No. 6 (Washington, Social Security Ad ministration, October 1971), tables 3, 4, and 7. 12 Patience Lauriat and William Rabin, M e n W h o C la im B en efits B e fo re A g e 65: F in d in g s F ro m th e S u rv e y o f N e w B en eficiaries, 1968, Report No. 1 (Washington, Social Secu rity Administration, November 1970), p. 22, table p. 4. 13 In some collectively bargained plans, a “special” early retirement benefit is designed to provide additional income for the retiree until he can apply for normal, unreduced social security benefits. Both the steel and auto industry plans provide this. For example, in the General Motors plan, a worker 55 years or over with 10 years of service or more who retires “at the employer’s request or under mutually satisfactory conditions” is eligible for a benefit ranging up to $500 monthly until age 62 and $450 monthly from age 62 to 65, with the actual amount dependent on age and years of service. The normal retirement benefit at age 65 is $7.25-$7.75 per year of service, depending on the individual’s job and pay classification. Increasing use of escalation clauses in public and private pension plans suggests need for research on differences between the CPI and a consumer price index for retired persons JANET L. NORWOOD who begin retirement today start off with a larger proportion of their wages or salaries than those who began retirement 10 years ago. More people are eligible for retirement pensions than ever before. Benefits under our social security system, as well as under private and other public pension sys tems, have been markedly increased. In spite of these improvements, however, effective methods have not been developed for coping with the adjustments in living styles and consumption patterns brought about by the decline in income upon retirement. More important, even after the initial adjustment to retirement income has been made, the problem remains of maintaining purchasing power in an inflationary economy. We have not yet found or adopted effective techniques for maintaining real income after retirement. One of the possible techniques, whose prevalence is increasing in both public and private retirement plans, is the use of escalator clauses. Most of these clauses rely on the Consumer Price Index as the measure of purchasing power and provide for costof-living adjustments based on formulas related to changes in the index. The index is a statistical meas ure of changes in the prices of a fixed market basket of goods and services purchased by urban wage earners and clerical workers for daily living and is frequently used for implementing collective bargain ing or other contractual arrangements guaranteeing the maintenance of purchasing power. T h o se Existing practice The Civil Service Retirement Act as amended1 provides for annuities to be increased whenever the Janet L. Norwood is chief of the Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. This article is based on remarks to the annual meeting of the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems at Boston, Mass., April 1972. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Cost-of-living escalation of pensions Consumer Price Index (CPI) has risen 3 percent above the level of the base month and has remained at least 3 percent above the base level for 3 consecu tive months. The procedure established in 1965 pro vides for a pension increase within 2 months after the end of the 3-month period. Thus, the benefit increase2 in response to inflationary pressures can take place within a period of 5 months from the base period. The February CPI may trigger the next pension es calation. The February and March indexes were more than 3 percent above the base period; if the index remains at least at its current level during April, the next increase in annuities for Federal Civil Service retirees will become effective in July. Similar procedures are employed in other public retirement plans, so that nearly 2 million retired and disabled Federal civilian and military personnel cov ered by pension plans receive increases in their benefits as a result of increases in the Consumer Price Index. A number of private pension plans use variants of the CPI escalation clause. In addition, amendments to the Social Security legislation cur rently before the Congress provide for the first time for automatic cost-of-living escalation of Social Se curity pensions. About 27 million persons today are receiving benefits under the Social Security program. The Consumer Price Index Since the CPI is used as the basis for almost all of this cost-of-living escalation, it is important to understand exactly what the index measures. The Consumer Price Index is a measure of the change in the prices of a fixed market basket of goods and services purchased by urban wage earner and cleri cal worker families, including single persons living alone. The change in the index each month is based upon analysis of some 150,000 individual price ob servations covering about 400 different items. Most of the prices are collected directly by agents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 56 urban areas. 21 22 The items in the market basket and the relative importance of each item are revised at about 10-year intervals from data obtained in a comprehensive spending survey called the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). The current index is based on CES data collected in 1960-61. A new expenditure sur vey covering the years 1972-73 is now underway in some 200 different areas of the United States to form the basis for a new revision of the Consumer Price Index, currently scheduled for completion to ward the end of 1976. Although the Consumer Price Index is sometimes called a cost-of-living index, the index is in fact not intended to measure changes in the total cost of living. It measures only price changes and does not take account of some important elements of living costs, such as personal income taxes. Moreover, it does not take into account changes in the quantities or qualities of items purchased in response to rela tive price change. However, since price change is one of the principal determinants of living costs, the Consumer Price Index is frequently used to approxi mate cost-of-living changes. In any case, it is the only existing indicator to use for this purpose. In evaluating the applicability of the index to pen sion escalation, however, a number of other factors must also be considered. Do the items included in the index and the weights attached to them reflect the experience of retired annuitants? Are prices collected in the retail establishments frequented by retirees, and are these outlets located in the areas of the country in which the retired population is clustered? MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 ities tend not to be age-related, although, of course, the interest rate and mortgage payment experience of retirees is in general quite different from that for younger, employed persons. Expenditures for med ical care tend to increase as age advances, but the exact effect of public and private insurance programs is difficult to quantify. In general, the decline in income that occurs with retirement is so sharp that it is bound to have a strong effect on expenditures which are elastically responsive to income changes. For purposes of this discussion, however, it is not the dollar value of expenditures that is of interest, but rather the rela tive importance of the expenditure for each item in the total consumer unit budget. Table 1 shows that in 1960-61 expenditures for apparel, home furnishings, transportation, personal care, and recreation accounted for a smaller pro portion of total expenditures for retired than for wage and clerical worker consumer units. As would be expected, restaurant meal expenditures were less important and food at home somewhat more impor tant for retired than for the CPI family units. The higher relative importance for retired persons of expenditures on medical care must be interpreted with caution, however, since the Medicare program has considerably reduced medical expenses of those over 65. It is not clear how much effect these dif ferences in expenditure patterns— and, therefore, in weights—would have on the overall movement of the Consumer Price Index.4 Data are not available to test these effects. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done some work reweighting the data already collected for the Con- Index weights and expenditure patterns The question of whether the relative importance of different types of expenditures made by retired persons differs markedly from that of employed per sons is important. It is these proportions that form the basis for derivation of the expenditure weights in the computation of the Consumer Price Index. As explained above, any discussion of expenditure patterns must be based upon 1960-61 data, the latest available, as the current survey covering 197273 will take several years to complete. Studies with 1960-61 data have shown3 that old age, compared with earlier age groups, is generally associated with large decreases in spending for trans portation, home furnishings, and apparel and some what smaller expenditures for some food and per sonal care items. Expenditures for housing and util https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Relative importance of expenditures for selected groups of goods and services, by retirees and workers, 1960-61 [Percent d is trib u tio n ] Item Food: At home...................... Away from home___ Housing: Shelter........................ Fuel, light, water, etc Household operations House fu rn is h in g s ... Apparel_______ i_______ Transportation.._______ Medical care___ r ______ Reading and recreation: Reading..................... Recreation.................. Education.. ^ _______ Other goods and services. Retirees (1) Wage and clerical workers (2) Difference (percentage points) (1-2) 22.6 3.8 20.1 5.1 2.5 - 1 .3 16.8 6.6 6.6 3.9 6.8 11.0 10.2 13.2 6.0 3.8 5.3 10.7 14.7 6.2 3.6 0.6 2.8 - 1 .4 - 3 .9 - 3 .7 4 ,0 1.1 2.5 .3 5.1 .8 4.0 .8 5.8 0.3 - 1 .5 -0 .5 -0 .7 SOURCE: Data re la te to consumer un its and are derived fro m Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61 (BLS Report 23 7 -3 8 , 1964). 23 ESCALATION OF PENSIONS sumer Price Index at major group levels, to take into account the spending patterns of families with heads 65 years or older.5 The differences between the estimated measure and the Consumer Price Index were not significant, especially when adjustments were made for the medical care weight to take into account the effect of Medicare on these expenditures. As the Bureau has indicated, research of this type has several major deficiencies. The calculations were, of necessity, performed at an aggregated level and could have masked important differences in major components of the index. For example, the CPI housing index contains several components (such as mortgage interest costs) that are likely to be con siderably less important in the budget for older per sons than in the budget for CPI consumer units. Even more important, however, is the fact that Con sumer Price Index samples— items, specifications, outlets, collection areas— are related to the wage earner and clerical worker population to which the CPI family definition relates. A consumer price index for the retired An index for retired persons should be related entirely to the experience of its own index popula tion. The entire program, not just the index weights, should be constructed so as to reflect the experience of consumer units headed by retired persons. Prices should be collected for the items retirees purchase, in the stores and service establishments in which retired persons shop, and collection should be car ried out in the areas of the country in which retired persons tend to live. At the present time, no data are available in the Bureau of Labor Statistics or elsewhere to evaluate the extent of the differences between the Consumer Price Index and an index specifically constructed to represent the experience of retirees. Work has been done on differences in consumption patterns and, to some extent, on differences in index weighting struc ture. In addition, the 1960-61 Consumer Expendi ture Survey has been used to derive data on the kinds of items retired persons buy. But we do not know what kinds of stores are used by retirees for their purchases, nor do we have much information on the distances from their homes which annuitants travel to make their purchases. The selection of the areas for price collection and of the population weights for combining the areas into a national sample would be much easier than the selection of the individual stores. Although the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis complete results of the 1970 decennial census have not yet been released, the Census Bureau has pub lished information on the age profile of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and smaller urban areas. If these data on the proportion of the popula tion aged 65 and over in each area are considered as a proxy for the proportion of retired persons, the geographical areas that should be considered for inclusion in an index for retired persons (and the population weights for combining all the areas priced into a national index number) can readily be seen. As table 2 shows, large concentrations of older people exist in particular parts of the country. In general, these are either areas to which retired per sons move because of favorable climatic or other living conditions, or areas from which young people emigrate in search of increased economic opportu nity. Thus, more than one-sixth of the total popula tion of the State of Florida is 65 or older, and 4 out of the top 10 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas on the list are in Florida. On the other hand, such areas as New Bedford, Mass., and Scranton and Wilkes-Barre—Hazleton, Pa., which in recent years Table 2. Areas with largest proportions of population 65 years and over, 1970 census Percent of population age 65 and over State or area STATE Florida Arkansas Nebraska Iowa Smith Dakota Missouri Kansas Oklahoma Maine Massachusetts - _ __-- - ____ - __ _ -_ ---_ _ _ .................. - -- -- — — _______________________ — ------ — --_ _ __ _ _ - - - ---------______ __ 14.6 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.1 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.2 STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA Tampa St Petersburg Fla Fort Lauderdale Hollywood Fla West Palm Reach Fla Atlantic City NJ St Joseph Mo __ _ _ __ ____ ______ ___________ - -- - ___ _ ----- - ___ _ _ _ 20.3 17.9 17.3 16.2 14.8 Miami F|a Terre Haute Ind New Bedford Mass Scranton Pa Sherman Deojsnn Tex ___ _ _____ __ _ -- -__ __ ____ ___________ _ ____ _____ - — - _ _ _ _ _ — - 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.2 _ URBAN AREAS ____ _ _ ____ _ -___ _____ -- -----------___ ___ -------— --- 48.7 30.6 28.7 20.1 19.6 West Palm Be^oh Fla __ _ _ _ _ ____ Fort Lauderdale F|a ___ _ _____ - — Irvington NJ _____ __ Santa Barbara Calif __ _____ _ - --------- - Pasadena, Calif------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- 18.8 18.5 18.0 18.0 17.1 Miami Beach Fla St Petersburg Fla Clearwater F|a Town of Brookline Mass Hollywood F|a SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary (Washington, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1971), PC(1)BI. 24 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 have been experiencing reduced economic opportu nities, also appear on these lists. These data point out the need for careful atten tion in the selection of the areas for price collection for a consumer price index for the retired. In addi tion, the areas with the largest retired populations should carry the highest weights in the national ag gregate measure. It is certain that the area sample for price collection as well as the population weights for combining to the national average for an index for retirees would differ markedly from the present Consumer Price Index structure. The present index program is based upon price collection in 56 statistical areas of the country; this CPI area sample contains very few areas with a high proportion of elderly persons. Since time series price data are not available for new CPI pricing areas, it is not possible to evaluate the effect of differences in area sample between the CPI and an index for the retired. A t present, the Consumer Price Index is used as the statistical measure for many types of cost-ofliving escalation, including the Federal retirement program. Although the CPI is the best available measure to use for this purpose, it is not necessarily the best measure that could be constructed for pen sion escalation. A Consumer Price Index for Retired Persons should, in concept and practice, relate to the expenditure experience of retirees and should utilize a collection program based upon samples of items, stores, and areas which relate to the experi ence of retired persons. Data are not now available to determine whether a Consumer Price Index for the retired would differ from present CPI, and, if so, whether the differences would be large enough to affect annuity escalation. -F O O T N O T E S - 1 Before 1962, all adjustments to restore purchasing power were made from time to time through legislation, since no systematic escalation mechanism existed. The 1962 amend ments incorporated a provision for an automatic annual escalation in annuities based on changes in the CPI. Amendments passed in 1965 provided for escalation on a more timely basis. Amendments in 1969 provided for a supplement to the adjustment to assure maintenance of purchasing power during a period of rapidly increasing prices. 2 Amendments to the Civil Service Retirement Program passed in 1969 provided for an additional annuity increase to take account of the lag caused by the 5-month adjust ment process. Once the index has risen 3 percent above the base period for 3 months, the amount of the increase in pensions is the increase in the CPI rounded to the nearest tenth plus 1 percent. 3 For example, see E x p e n d itu re s o f T w o -P e rso n U n its a n d In d iv id u a ls A f t e r A g e 55 (Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971), Social Security Administration, Office of Research and Statistics, Staff Paper No. 9. 4 To have much of an effect on the All Items index, a change in weighting pattern must be substantial, the price trends for the items with differing weights must be markedly different, and the price movements must be generally in the same direction. 5 Cf. Daniel N. Price and Robert O. Brunner, “Auto matic Adjustment of OASDHI Cash Benefits,” S o c ia l S e c u rity B u lletin , May 1970, and Saul Waldman, “OASDI Benefits, Prices, and Wages, 1966 Experience,” S o c ia l S ecu rity B u lletin June 1967. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes commu nications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be con sidered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. Per capita demand falls, but greater mechanization leads to modest growth in output per man-hour CLYDE E. HUFFSTUTLER AND MARTHA FARNSWORTH RICHE in the bakery products industry grew more slowly during the postwar period than produc tivity in manufacturing as a whole. Nevertheless, output per man-hour in bakery products increased 57 percent from 1947 to 1971, primarily reflecting reductions in man-hours. Moreover, productivity accelerated in the last decade. P r o d u c t iv it y Productivity trends Output per man-hour grew 2.3 percent a year for the 25-year period ending in 1971.1 (See chart 1 and table 1.) This was below the average annual rate of 2.9 percent for manufacturing. Most of the slower growth occurred between 1947 and 1960, when out put per man-hour rose only 1.5 percent a year. In the 1960’s, productivity grew at an average rate of 3.0 percent, with most of the increase occurring in the earlier half of the decade. Output and employment Output grew slowly between 1947 and 1971 but did not keep pace with population growth. Per capita consumption of bakery products declined from its record 1947 level as Americans reduced the carbo hydrate content of their diets.2 Competition from new products such as prepared mixes and frozen baked goods also affected demand. On the other hand, demand for the industry’s products grew as the pro portion of young people in the population increased3 and as more and more women worked outside the home. Employment fell from 303,800 in 1960 to 252,100 in 1971, a decline of 1.7 percent a year. Man-hours Clyde E. Huffstutler and Martha Farnsworth Riche are economists in the Division of Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Productivity in the bakery products industry also dropped, with the greatest decline occurring between 1960 and 1965, the years of high produc tivity growth. Structure and technology The bakery products industry is composed of two subindustries: (1) establishments that manufacture bread, cakes, and other “perishable” bakery products that are sold through home delivery or through one or more nonbaking retail outlets; (2) establishments that manufacture cookies, crackers, and similar “dry bakery products.” It excludes retail bakeries, as well as frozen baked goods, which are classified in retail trade and with frozen fruits and vegetables, respec tively. Growth in the average size of bakeries was one source of the industry’s increased efficiency, as in tense competition forced many small, inefficient firms out of business.4 The average number of employees per establishment grew from 39 in 1947 to 60 in 1967, while the number of establishments decreased by 40 percent from 7,122 to 4,390. Many of the larger establishments attempted to meet increased labor, materials, and distribution costs through greater mechanization, which was reflected in the rapid increase in the industry’s capital investment during the period. The industry’s expenditures for new plant and equipment almost doubled between 1955 (the earliest year for which data are available) and 1969, although part of this increase must be attributed to inflation. Net stocks of plant and equipment in the bakery products industry rose by nearly 180 percent between 1947 and 1966, with the greater share of the increase going to equipment.5 Introduction of mechanized equipment, probably the most important factor in the industry’s ability to increase output while reducing employment and man25 26 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 hours, affected both materials handling and product preparation. The industry has adopted several improvements in materials handling.6 Bulk pneumatic handling sys tems permit transfer of flour, sugar, and other dry ingredients in bulk from trucks and railroad cars directly to storage bins, which eliminates the need for handling by crews of laborers. In the same way, ingredients in fluid form such as sugar, reconsti tuted milk, yeast, and shortening can be pumped into storage tanks directly from trucks and railroad cars. Adoption of conveyor systems makes possible transport of panned dough through baking, cooling, slicing, wrapping, and labeling operations in a con tinuous process. Formerly, workers transported the bread in process manually from one stage to another. Growing use of mixes eliminates the weighing and Chart 1. mixing of ingredients and reduces fermentation time, which allows savings in floor space, labor, equipment, and ingredients. Unlike retail bakeries, however, the bakery products industry uses mixes that are pre pared by its own employees, so man-hour savings are not complete. The development of equipment that allows con tinuous mixing has resulted in a single machine that can perform all steps of dough preparation in a con tinuous operation. But equipment for continuous mixing, like that for pneumatic bulk handling sys tems, is restricted to large bakeries because its high cost renders it uneconomical for small ones. Never theless, the trend toward larger bakeries has hastened diffusion. Continuous mixing was introduced on an increasing scale beginning in the late fifties and is now used in about half of all bread production.7 Output, man-hours, and output per man-hour, bakery products, 1947-71 [Index 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ] Index 1967 = 100 (Ratio scale) 1950 1955 NOTE: Where series are not continuous, data are not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1960 1965 1971 27 BAKERY PRODUCTS Table 1. Indexes of output per man-hour,1 output, employment, *and man-hours, bakery products industry, 1947-71 [1967 = 100] Related data O utput per— O utput per— Year Employee M an-hour Production w o rker Production w o rker m an-hour O utput Employees M an-hours Production w orkers Production w o rker m an-hours 1947.. . ................ .. 1948_____________________________ 1949 ____ 1950_____________________________ 71.2 (2) 69.6 69.8 66.3 (2) 65.8 66.4 64.0 (2) 64.5 64.9 59.6 (2) 61.3 62.0 75.5 (2) 77.1 77.8 106.1 (2) 110.8 111.5 113.9 (2) 117.1 117.2 118.0 (2) 119.5 119.8 126.6 (2) 125.8 125.4 1951........................................ ................ .. 1952.. . ............................ . 1953 . ____ 1954.. .............. ......... 1955_____________________________ 68.8 70.4 73.8 72.0 72.6 65.8 67.6 71.3 70.5 71.1 65.2 67.6 69.7 70.7 71.7 62.7 65.4 67.9 70.0 71.0 79.9 83.9 80.1 79.7 81.5 116.1 119.1 108.6 110.7 112.3 121.4 124.1 112.4 113.1 114.6 122.5 124.1 114.9 112.8 113.7 127.5 128.3 117.9 113.9 114.8 1956 ______ 1957 . _______ 1958 ________ 1959 .. 1960_____________________________ 73.3 75.4 78.9 78.8 79.8 72.5 74.7 77.3 77.2 77.7 72.8 76.6 79.9 80.4 82.3 73.1 77.3 79.0 79.5 79.8 84.7 87.0 90.3 90.9 91.8 115.5 115.4 114.4 115.3 115.0 116.8 116.4 116.8 117.7 118.1 116.4 113.6 113.0 113.1 111.6 115.9 112.5 114.3 114.4 115.0 1961 . _____ 1962 . . 1963.. _____ 1964.. ____ 1965._____ _______________________ 80.6 82.7 88.4 93.1 94.3 79.0 81.1 87.3 90.1 93.5 83.4 86.9 91.1 96.6 96.4 81.0 84.1 89.3 91.8 95.1 91.0 92.9 93.7 97.4 99.1 112.9 112.3 106.0 104.6 105.1 115.2 114.5 107.3 108.1 106.0 109.1 106.9 102.8 100.8 102.8 112.3 110.5 104.9 106.1 104.2 1966.. 1967 ___________ __________ 1968 . ________ 1969 . ____ 1970.______ _______ ______________ 96.0 100.0 103.6 104.1 104.0 94.6 100.0 102.2 104.0 104.3 98.1 100.0 103.0 102.8 101.5 95.6 100.0 101.5 103.1 102.2 99.7 100.0 101.0 104.3 100.5 103.9 100.0 97.5 100.2 96.6 105.4 100.0 98.8 100.3 96.4 101.6 100.0 98.1 101.5 99.0 104.3 100.0 99.5 101.2 98.3 19713.................................. ....................... 103.9 104.1 101.7 102.5 99.1 95.4 95.2 97.4 96.7 - 0 .9 0.0 - 1 .9 - 1 .0 - 0 .6 - 1 .0 - 1 .2 - 1 .1 “ 1.4 Average annual rates of change 1947-71____ __________ ___________ 1947-60 ____ ________________ 1960-71___ ______ _______ ________ 2.1 1.1 2.8 2.3 1.5 3.0 2.4 2.2 2.1 1 All output measures used in this table represent the total production of all em ployees rather than the specific output of any single group of employees. A development that took place outside the industry may also have had an effect on productivity. Im provements in the interstate highway system per mitted wider ranging delivery runs and consequently facilitated the expansion of production facilities for many wholesale bakers. These technological changes promised to increase productivity growth, but two other factors—product differentiation and the organization of distribution and sales—limited their full potential. Productivity growth has been inhibited by breadmakers’ efforts to differentiate a product that is basically identical.8 Bakers have increased the variety of shapes, sizes, and slice thicknesses of white pan bread, which accounts for half of the industry’s out put. In addition, they have adopted more elaborate packaging which usually requires more time and care in handling. Rigidities in distribution and sales have also hampered efficiency. Réintroduction of the postwar practice of consignment selling in which the whole sale baker buys back unsold stale goods has helped https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.6 2.6 2.5 1.4 1.5 1.1 - 0 .7 0.4 - 1 .7 2 Data are not available. 5 Preliminary. cause declining sales per delivery route. In addition, the growing emphasis on nonprice competition has forced salesmen into a time-consuming struggle over prime space on supermarket shelves.9 The sales and delivery system was devised by wholesale bakers when small grocery stores were the rule and has not been adjusted in line with the shift to large retail chains. This problem is not equally severe for both parts of the bakery products industry. Unlike bread and bread-related products, cookies and crackers have a much longer shelf-life and do not require such frequent distribution. Nevertheless, these rigidities are especially sig nificant because distribution and sales workers make up a large portion of bakery products employees. Nonproduction workers in the industry, the bulk of which are distribution and sales workers, account for 39 percent of all employees, compared with an average of 28 percent for all manufacturing em ployees. Furthermore, the number of nonproduction workers in the industry increased by 15 percent from 28 1947 to 1969 as overall industry employment fell. But there are some indications that the delivery and sales system has become more efficient in the past decade: employment of nonproduction workers declined 2.6 percent a year between 1960 and 1971. This development may partly reflect the decline in home service bakeries, in which sales and distribution are extremely fragmented. Home service bakeries, which accounted for 10 percent of bread business in 1947, made up less than 2 percent in 1967. Outlook Overall consumption of bakery products is not expected to increase very much. Any major changes in demand will reflect shifts in demand for individual products, such as the shift that has taken place from 1A technical note describing the methods used to develop the indexes is available on request. The average annual rates of change are based on the linear least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Extensions of the indexes will appear hereafter in the annual BLS bulletin, In d ex e s o f O u tp u t P e r M a n -H o u r, S e le c te d In d u stries. 2 E c o n o m ic R e p o r t o f th e B a k in g In d u stry (Report of the Federal Trade Commission), November 1967, p. 38. 3 B a k in g In d u stry, January 1971, p. 22. * U .S. In d u stria l O u tlo o k , 1 9 6 9 (U.S. Department of Com merce, Business and Defense Services Administration, 1968), https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 white pan bread to white hearth bread, including French- and Italian-style breads, and to sandwich and brown-and-serve rolls. Because the new tech nology is now being extended to most bakery prod ucts, product shift may not impede productivity growth that might result from wider dissemination of technological innovations. Introduction of computerized bookkeeping, order filling, and inventory control may also boost pro ductivity in overhead activities. Other developments such as freezing could increase efficiency in distri bution by reducing the proportion of stale products— a perennial problem in the industry. Output per man-hour growth will also occur as new capacity is more fully utilized. Thus, increased demand for bakery products may require little in the way of additional man-hours. □ p. 68. ° In v e stm e n t, S to c k , a n d V in ta g e T a b u la tio n s, (Office of Emergency Preparedness 1969), R-75, Vol. 1, p. 63. 6 T ec h n o lo g ic a l T re n d s in M a jo r A m e r ic a n In d u strie s (BLS Bulletin 1474, 1966). 7 American Bakers Association. 8 Hugh P. Bell, C o n su m e rs’ P re fere n c e s A m o n g B a k e rs’ W h ite B re a d o f D iffe r e n t F o rm u la s— A S u rv e y in R o c k fo r d , Illin o is (Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report No. 118, May 1956). 9 E c o n o m ic R e p o r t, op. cit., p. 28. Unemployment rates in Canada, the United States and Great Britain are highest in decade; West Germany has lowest rate CONSTANCE SORRENTINO U n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e s rose in 1970 and 1971 in most major industrial countries. Of nine countries studied, the highest levels of unemployment occurred in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. In both Canada and the United States, the jobless rate in 1971 was the highest since 1961. British unem ployment was greater than in any year since 1940. Although low in comparison with the above na tions, unemployment in France and Sweden in 1971 was relatively high for them. France’s rate was equaled in the 1960’s only in 1968, the year of the nationwide strikes. The Swedish jobless rate was the highest postwar level reached in that country. In Japan and West Germany, extremely tight labor markets eased somewhat in 1971. Unemploy ment rates in both countries, although rising some what, remained lower than in the other countries studied. In Japan, the so-called “dollar shock” re sulted in rising unemployment in the late months of the year. Moreover, companies were withdrawing earlier promises to hire senior and junior high school students in 1972.1 The ratio between job offers and active applications for work (excluding new school graduates) began to drop in November 1970, after an all-time high of 1.7 in October. By mid-1971, vacancies and registered jobseekers were almost in balance in Japan. In West Germany, job vacancies began a rapid decline in the second quarter of 1970, but unemployment did not begin to increase until 1971. Italy was the only country studied where unem ployment did not increase in 1971 over the 1970 level. The rates in the first 2 years of the 1970’s were the lowest since 1964. However, the number of underemployed (persons on shorter hours for Constance Sorrentino is an economist in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics and Trade, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Unemployment in nine industrialized countries economic reasons) rose to over 300,000 in 1971, from 250,000 in 1970, and the number of persons employed, which had increased by 130,000 in 1970, dropped by 60,000 in 1971. Australian unemploy ment remained remarkably stable in the 1960’s and continued so into the 1970’s. Unemployment rates were higher in the second half of 1971 than in the first half in all countries except the United States, as considerable increases in joblessness occurred in Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, Sweden, and France, and more mod erate increases in Italy, Japan, and Australia. In Sweden and Great Britain, unemployment continued rising sharply in early 1972. In contrast, the labor market situation improved in Canada, West Ger many, France, and Italy, and unemployment was moving downward in the first few months of this year. This article—the fifth2 in a series of reports on unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. definitions— presents comparative data on labor force and unem ployment for the United States and eight foreign countries for the 1959-71 period. Data for Austra lia are presented here for the first time. Some revi sions have been made in the previously published data for France, Great Britain, and Sweden. The nature of these changes is discussed later in an appendix. Developments in selected countries The following discussion highlights 1970-71 de velopments in four countries that showed significant changes in their employment situation. In Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden unemployment became an important political and social issue. In West Ger many, changes occurred in labor migration. Table 1 shows 1959-71 unemployment and labor force data for all nine countries, and chart 1 plots comparative unemployment rates for 1968 through 1971. 29 30 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Table 1. Labor force and unemployment in 9 countries, 1959-71 [Numbers in thousands; unemployment rates in percent) Item and year U nited States A u s tra lia Canada France West Germany Great B rita in Ita ly Japan Sweden Adjusted to U.S. concepts Civilian labor force: 1959______ _____ ______________ _______ 1960________________________________ 68,369 69,628 (■ ) 0 6,242 6,411 19,230 19,250 25,850 25,970 23,110 23,410 20,530 20,340 43,330 44,120 0 (l) 1961______ _________ __________ ____ 1962_________________________________ 1963______ _____ ___________________ 1964_______________________________ 1965_.............. ........... ....................... .................. 70,459 70,614 71,833 73,091 74,455 0 4,559 4,689 6,521 6,615 6,748 6,933 7,141 19,220 19,240 19,360 19,740 19,770 26,180 26,310 26,490 26,560 26,730 23,670 24,060 24,240 24,270 24,430 20,270 20,100 19,760 19,850 19,650 44,610 45,040 45,420 46,040 46,770 3,581 3,663 3,731 3,687 3,711 1966___________ ____ _______________ 1967__________________________ ______ 1968__________________________________ 1969__________________________ 1970____________________________ 75,770 77,347 78,737 80,733 82,715 4,832 4,959 5,079 5,232 5,404 7,420 7,694 7,919 8,162 8,374 20,080 2 20,230 220,300 220,580 2 20,910 26,660 26,190 26,080 26,430 26,630 24,570 24,530 24,370 24,360 24,240 19,410 19,560 19,500 19,290 19,360 47,850 48,810 49,690 50,150 50,740 3,760 3,742 3,804 3,832 3,888 5,512 8,631 2 20,980 226,930 224,130 19,300 251,040 3,936 C) 0 1971.......... ..................... ..................... ............... 84,113 Unemployed: 1959_________________________ ________ 1960_______________________________ 3,740 3,852 0 0 372 446 460 430 440 200 710 540 1,170 880 980 750 1961______ _______________ ___________ 1962_.......... ......... ............................. ................. 1963__________ _____ __________________ 1964______________________________ 1965__________________________________ 4,714 3,911 4,070 3,786 3,366 (l) 63 61 466 390 374 324 280 370 360 370 310 360 120 100 120 90 80 500 720 910 630 550 750 640 530 590 780 660 590 590 540 570 53 54 63 57 44 1966_______________________ 1967_________________________ 1968__________________________________ 1969___________________________ 1970______ _____ _______________ 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,831 4,088 72 79 78 80 75 267 315 382 382 495 360 2 460 2 550 2 430 2 450 70 260 300 220 2 140 600 930 910 890 960 830 740 750 720 660 650 630 590 570 590 59 79 85 73 59 1971 _........................ ......... ............... .................. 4,993 88 552 »560 2 180 1,290 660 640 101 0 0 0 0 Unemployment ra te :5 1959_______ .. 1960__________________________________ 5.5 5.5 0 (l ) 6.0 7.0 2.4 2.2 1.7 0.8 3.1 2.3 5.7 4.3 2.3 1.7 1961...................................... ............................... 1962______________________ . 1963__________________________________ 1964____________________________ 1965 ___ . ___ 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.5 0 1.4 1.3 7.1 5.9 5.5 4.7 3.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.1 3.0 3.8 2.6 2.3 3.7 3.2 2.7 3.0 4.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 1966_____________________________ 1967_______ ______ ______ . . 1968__________________ 1969__________________ 1970_______________________________ 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.9 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 3.6 4.1 4.8 4.7 5.9 1.8 2 2.3 2 2.7 2 2.1 2 2.2 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.8 2 0.5 2.4 3.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 1 9 7 1 ......................... ................... 5.9 1.6 6.4 2 2.7 2 0.7 2 5.3 3.4 1.3 2.6 0 « 0 0 As p u b lis h e d 4 Unemployment rate:4 1959______________________________ 1960_____________________________ (s) ( s) 0 0 ( 5) (5) 1.3 1.3 2.6 1.3 2.2 1.6 5.2 4.0 2.2 1.7 ( s) (5) ( s) ( 5) 0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.4 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.7 3.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.1 1.7 1.7 0.7 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.7 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 »2.1 0.9 3.5 3.1 1.2 2.5 1961.............. ............................ . 1962__________________ 1963________________ ____________ 1964_________________ 1965_____________________ (! ) (5) ( 5) ( 5) (s) ( 5) ( 5) ( 5) 1966________________ 1967 ____ _____ ___ _ . 1968__________________ 1969________________ _ 1970_____________________ (5) (s) (5) ( 5) (5) (5) ( 5) (5) ( s) 0 ( s) (5) (5) ( 5) ( 5) 1971__________________ (5) 0 (s) 0 (5) 1 Not available. 2 Preliminary estimates based on incomplete data. 3 Unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. 4 For France, annual estimates of unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force; for Italy, Japan, and Sweden unemployment as recorded by labor force sample surveys as a percent of the civilian labor force plus career m ilitary personnel; for Great Britain and Germany, registered unemployed as a percent of employed wage and salary workers plus the unemployed. With the exception of France, which does not publish an unemployment rate, these are the usually published unemployment rates for each country. 5 Published and adjusted figures are the same since the usually published figures were not adjusted. NOTE: Data for the United States relate to the population 16 years of age and over. Published data for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden relate to the popula https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 0 0 tion 14 years of age and over; for Sweden, to the population aged 16 to 74; and for Australia, Great Britain, and Japan, to the population 15 years of age and over. The adjusted statistics, insofar as possible, have been adapted to the age at which compul sory schooling ends in each country. Therefore, adjusted statistics for France and Sweden relate to the population 16 years of age and over; and for Germany, to the population 15 years of age and over. The age lim its of adjusted statistics for Great Britain, Italy, and Japan coincide with the age lim its of the published statistics. Statis tics for Sweden remain at the lower age lim it of 16, but have been adjusted to include persons 75 years of age and over. Although schooling is usually required until age 15 or 16 in Canada, the Canadian data remain at the 14-year-old age lim it because suffi cient data are not available for adjustment purposes. SOURCE: National sources and statistical publications of the International Labor Office, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Statis tical Office of the European Communities. Some data are based partly on estimates. 31 UNEMPLOYMENT IN 9 COUNTRIES Canada. In Canada, unemployment climbed sharply in the early 1970’s. The 1971 rate of 6.4 percent was considerably above the previous decade’s low of 3.6 percent, achieved in 1966. In the second half of 1971, the situation worsened, and unemployment peaked at a seasonally adjusted level of 7.1 percent in September. This jump was related to the effects on Canadian industry of the U.S. 10-percent sur charge on certain dutiable imports. As a stopgap measure, the Canadian Government undertook to pay two-thirds of the surcharge cost to affected firms so that they would not be forced to lay off workers. Tax cuts retroactive to July 1 and job-creating public works projects were also instituted, as the Govern ment came under increasing obligation to combat the high unemployment rate. In the last quarter of 1971, unemployment moved downward and by De cember was at 6.3 percent. Regional differentials in unemployment stemming from structural problems narrowed somewhat. The Atlantic provinces and Quebec continued to be the hardest hit, with unemployment rates averaging 8.6 and 8.2 percent, respectively, in 1971. In Ontario, the most industrialized province, the rate was con siderably lower, at 5.2 percent. The Prairie prov inces continued to have the lowest regional rate, 4.5 percent. In 1969, when the overall Canadian unem ployment rate was 4.7 percent, unemployment rates in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec were more than twice as high as in Ontario and the Prairies. In the early 1970’s, the growth of the Canadian labor force continued to outpace that of all other countries studied, as was the case in the preceding decade.3 This rapid growth contributes to Canada’s relatively high unemployment rate, as expansion of employment opportunities often does not fully ab sorb the marked increases in the work force. Great Britain. After the British Government’s wage and price freeze in July 1966 and accompanying deflationary measures, unemployment rose to 3.74.0 percent in 1967—70. In 1971, the jobless rate jumped to 5.3 percent as British firms engaged in the biggest work force cutbacks since the depres sion.4 The drastic “shake-out” of labor was in re sponse to sharply rising labor costs and slackening demand. Some of the cutbacks were viewed as a delayed reaction to the slow growth in output in the late 1960’s.5 Unemployment rose throughout 1971 and into early 1972. In February, millions of additional workers were laid off as the coal strike caused the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Chart 1. 1968-71 Adjusted unemployment rates in 9 countries, Percent o warn 1968 1969 1970 1971 Government to decree emergency power cuts for factories. After rising slowly in the 1960’s through 1966, the British labor force began to decline. By 1971, it was 440,000 below the 1966 high. However, the drop in employment between 1966 and 1971 was much more severe— over 1 million persons. The sharpest drop occurred in 1971, when employment fell by 450,000. British projections for the period, assuming the demand for labor to remain at the 1964-66 level, had indicated continued slow in creases in the labor force. Therefore, the decline apparently reflects withdrawals from or nonappear ance in the labor market of persons discouraged by the bleak job situation. A sharp drop in job vacancies confirmed the sever ity of the job situation in Britain. Vacancies began a steady decline in the second quarter of 1969 and continued falling through 1971. Toward the end of 1971, there were five or six persons registered as 32 unemployed for every unfilled job vacancy, compared with two or three in 1966-70. In response to the depressed labor market conditions, unemployment benefit rates were raised by 20 percent in late 1971. Sweden. The Swedish economy experienced a cycli cal downturn in 1971. Unemployment rose to the highest level (2.6 percent) recorded since the Swed ish labor force survey was begun in 1961, and probably to the highest level reached since World War II. Swedish unemployment has surpassed 2 percent only three times since 1961. Job vacancies in Sweden peaked in early 1970, then fell throughout the remainder of the year and continued to decline in 1971. In 1969 and 1970, the number of unfilled vacancies had surpassed the number of persons registered as unemployed; throughout 1971, vacancies were well below the registered unemployed total. The number of persons in retraining courses for the registered unemployed rose from an average of 12,000 in 1970 to about 17,000 in 1971, the high est annual average ever recorded. In late 1971, the Swedish Labor Market Board, under strong instiga tion from the Trade Union Confederation, asked the Government for additional funds in order to start extra emergency public works projects in the autumn and winter. An average of about 19,000 persons were employed in public works projects each month in 1971, and in November and Decem ber over 25,000 persons were in such projects. If persons in retraining and public works projects were included in Sweden’s unemployed count, the unem ployment rate in 1971 would have been 3.5 rather than 2.6 percent. West Germany. The sharp economic upswing which began after the 1967 recession in West Germany lost much of its momentum by 1971. Job vacancies began falling in the second quarter of 1970 and industrial production declined in the second half. Unemployment did not begin to rise until 1971, when the rate went up to 0.7 percent, from 0.5 per cent in 1970. The labor market eased somewhat, but two vacancies were still available for every per son registered as unemployed in November 1971. A year earlier there had been almost five vacancies for each person registered as unemployed. The number of foreign workers employed in West Germany reached a new peak of 2.2 million in September 1971— 8.2 percent of the civilian https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 labor force, up from 6.8 percent in 1970. This in crease was accompanied by a marked change in nationality structure of the foreign labor force. Yugo slavs are now the single largest foreign nationality group working in West Germany, having overtaken the Italians in 1970. By the end of 1971, the influx of foreign workers had slowed considerably. Growing unemployment in Great Britain has made the West German labor market attractive for British jobseekers. An agreement was reached in 1971 be tween British and German authorities to distribute information on vacancies in West Germany to those areas of Britain which have been particularly hard hit by unemployment. There are now about 15,000 British workers in West Germany. Appendix: Adjustment to U.S. concepts The basic labor force statistics of the foreign countries studied, with the exceptions of Canada and Australia, reflect varying differences in concept and method and, therefore, require some adjustment to bring them into closer comparability with U.S. data. The methods used by BLS have been described briefly in the previous studies. Full descriptions of these methods will appear soon in a BLS bulletin. The Bureau has revised some previously published estimates on the basis of new information. Such revisions are necessary if the comparisons are to be kept current, because there is frequently a long time lag between the collection and publication of data. In early 1971, for example, French authorities pub lished for the first time the results of labor force surveys conducted in March 1963, 1965, and 1967, and October 1966. In prior comparisons, only sur veys published in October 1960, 1962, and 1964 were available. With the information from the re cently published surveys, estimates of French unem ployment have been revised, based on adjustment factors prorated by month between October and March of alternate years to obtain annual average factors. For most years, the new estimates of French unemployment rates are somewhat lower than the previously published figures. Data for 1967-71 are still labeled as preliminary, however, since adjust ments for these years utilize the prorated 1966 average. It is not yet possible to calculate a final 1967 adjustment, since data are available only through March 1967. Figures for 1967 and subse quent years will possibly require revision when the detailed results of later surveys are released. British figures for 1959-65 have been revised UNEMPLOYMENT IN 9 COUNTRIES upward slightly, based on information that the 1961 British population census undercounted the number of married women who were unemployed. BLS has made estimates to compensate for this underenu meration in the adjustment factors applied to British registered unemployed statistics. Figures for 1966 and later years are not affected, since the 1966 “sample census” of Great Britain involved no under count of unemployment. Sweden began conducting a monthly labor force survey in January 1970. Prior to that, the Swedish survey was conducted on a quarterly basis. The quarterly surveys covered the population age 14 and over, while the monthly surveys cover the popula tion age 16 to 74. Data for the earlier years were revised by Swedish statistical authorities to cover the population within the new age limits. Conversion 33 from a quarterly to a monthly survey introduces a discontinuity into the Swedish data. However, the effect is very small, and an unemployment rate for 1970 computed using only quarterly data is identical to the rate based on the monthly data. □ ----------F O O T N O T E S --------1 Japan L a b o r B u lletin , October 1971, p. 2. 2 See M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1962, pp. 857-864; March 1965, pp. 256-259; April 1967, pp. 18-20; and September 1970, pp. 12-23. 3 See M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1970, chart 2 on p. 15. 4 See “Heath Tightening Unemployment,” W ash in gton P o st, Dec. 6, 1971, p. D 12; and “Britain’s Jobless: A Rapid Rise,” U .S. N e w s a n d W o rld R e p o rt, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85. 5 E c o n o m ic T ren ds, May 1971, p. iii. Expansion of social services in Germany Since 1968 the Federal German Government has produced regularly a “Social Budget,” which with a “Social Report” contains a detailed analy sis of the scope and the costs of publicly provided social services. . . . From all these sources the German Government calculated that the costs of the social services in 1969 amounted to nearly 109,000 million DM, and estimated that the social services in that year, absorbed 18.3 percent—nearly one-fifth— of GNP. . . . [Figures on longer-term postwar trends] reveal unmistakably that the costs of the social services computed on the same basis were already 16,000 million DM in 1960, at the beginning of the Adenauer era, that is, 16 percent of GNP. Although they more than trebled during the fol lowing decade, the relative share of the Social Budget dropped to 15.5 percent as GNP rose at an even faster rate. In the middle 1960’s, how ever, the Social Budget increased at a quicker rate than the still strongly expanding economy, surpassing 100,000 million DM in 1968 with 19 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis percent of GNP. The Social Budget calculates future trends and assumes that social service costs will increase by 1973 by nearly 50 percent in absolute terms. It is, however, expected to stabil ize the “Social Quota” around the current propor tion of GNP. The various official documents concerned with the social services also contain useful information permitting a closer analysis of the effects of this welfare expenditure on the economy. Thus the following economic classification is given: 70 per cent of total expenditures represent transfer pay ments (in cash) and 25 percent are expenditures on goods and services. The remaining 5 percent are administrative costs. The administrative staffs of the very decentralized social insurance orga nization alone comprise more than 150,000 peo ple. — T. E. C h ester “West Germany— A Social Market Economy,” T h e T h ree B a n k s R e v ie w , Edinburgh, December 1971. Employment in manufacturing during the '69-'71 downturn a n u f a c t u r in g in d u s t r ie s were hit especially hard by the 1969-70 recession. From the all-time peak of 20.3 million in July 1969, the level of manu facturing employment fell 1.8 million by the end of August 1971, a decline that virtually offset the 2.1 million gain in service-producing industries during the same period. The pattern of decline in employ ment was similar to those of the 1957-58 and 1960-61 recessions, with one major exception: Al most one-fifth of the decrease occurred in nonpro duction (white-collar) activities, which had been largely unaffected in the earlier recessions. Although they employ only about one-fourth of the total nonagricultural work force, the manufactur ing industries play a major role in the U.S. economy, generating about half of the gross national product and accounting for almost 30 percent of total na tional income. Moreover, the manufacturing sector has occupied a critical position during periods of eco nomic recession. Employment in manufacturing ex hibits pronounced cyclical movements, fluctuating sharply in response to changing economic conditions because the sale of manufactures is directly affected by the shifts in consumer purchasing habits and cap ital goods investments, which, in turn, are extremely sensitive cyclically. In the 1969-70 recession, other forces also were at work in bringing down employ ment levels in manufacturing, among them the cut backs in defense and aerospace programs. While the effects of these cutbacks cannot be disentangled from more general cyclical influences, their impact was certainly substantial.1 This article attempts to analyze manpower de velopments in the manufacturing industries over the past 3 years and to contrast them with movements of employment and hours of work in these industries during the 1957-58 and 1960-61 recessions.2 M John F. Stinson, Jr., is an economist in the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis f t Employment and hours movements are compared with patterns in two preceding recessions JOHN F. STINSON, JR. Employment movements Except for the brief economic slowdown in 1967, manufacturing employment moved almost steadily upward from the end of the 1960-61 recession until mid-1969. Fueled largely by a capital goods boom and the buildup for the war in Vietnam, total manu facturing employment increased by 4.2 million per sons, or 26 percent, between February 1961 (the low point of manufacturing employment during the 1960-61 recession) and July 1969, when its growth ended abruptly. Factory jobs then fell nearly con tinuously to 18.5 million in August 1971 before level ing off in the remainder of that year. (See table 1.) This drop in manufacturing employment passed through several phases. In the early months of 1969, employment had started to level off as pro duction declined in the defense-related industries. In late 1969 and early 1970, the decline in employ ment began to spread throughout the manufacturing sector. The General Motors strike in September 1970 caused additional cutbacks— about 700,000, Table 1. Changes in manufacturing employment in three recessions [Seasonally adjusted— numbers in thousands] Recession Total Durable goods Nondurable goods 17,411 15,655 - 1 ,7 6 5 10.1 10,032 8,600 - 1 ,4 3 2 14.3 7,379 7,055 -3 2 4 4.4 17,152 16,076 -1 ,0 7 6 6.3 9,775 8,871 -9 0 4 9.2 7,377 7,205 -1 7 2 2.3 20,255 18,457 - 1 ,7 9 8 8.9 11,962 10,485 - 1 ,4 7 7 12.3 8,293 7,972 -3 2 1 3.9 1957-58 Level at peak......................................... Level at trough__________________ Change___________ _______ _____ Percent change...................................... 1960-61 Level at p e a k ..................................... Level at tro u g h .................................... Change____7..................................... . Percent change................................. .. 1969-71 Level at p e a k ...................................... Level at trough...................... ............... Change................................................... Percent change............................. ....... NOTE: The peaks and troughs refer to the actual highs and lows of total manu facturing employment during the recessions. In the 1957-58 recession, the high and low points were March 1957 and May 1958, respectively; in 1960—61, the high and low points were February 1960 and February 1961; in 1969-71, the high point was July 1969 but the last point was not reached until August 1971. 35 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN MANUFACTURING including some 325,000 strikers— during October and November. In December, employment rose by less than 300,000, far from enough to bring it back to prestrike level. From this point, the overall trend continued downward until August 1971, when manu facturing employment reached its lowest level in nearly 6 years. It increased slightly during the re mainder of 1971, and by yearend was 100,000 above the August low. (See chart 1.) The performance of manufacturing employment since the recessionary trough of late 1970 has been relatively weak. There are several apparent reasons for this lack of sustained recovery, each closely re lated to the factors initially responsible for the large declines in manufacturing employment during the downturn. One reason relates to the ending of the large demand for capital goods or, as it has been termed, “the capital goods boom” of the 1960’s. During 1971, as in 1970, business spending for domestically produced machinery and equipment was rather weak. Closely tied to this reluctance of businesses to invest in capital equipment was the decline in consumer confidence. Uncertain economic conditions made consumers hesitant to purchase durable equipment such as automobiles and appliances, and this further hampered recovery in manufacturing employment. Another reason stems from Government measures taken to wind down the Vietnam war, especially the reduction in aerospace and defense expenditures. As the result of these measures, the aerospace and defense sectors do not play as important a role in the economy as they did during the latter part of the Chart 1. Total manufacturing employment and average hours of manufacturing production workers. January 1969-March 1972 [Seasonally adjusted] Employment (in millions) Trough (November, 1970) (November, 1969 ) Average weekly hours Total manufacturing employment Average weekly hours o f manufacturing production workers Peaks and troughs refer to business cycle peaks and troughs as tentatively determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. 1969 NOTE: Data fo r February and March 1972 are prelim inary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1970 1971 1972 36 1960’s. Since the large number of job cuts caused by reduced Government spending in these industries are expected to be of a relatively permanent nature, there is little chance that the persons who lost their jobs will be reemployed in this sector even when overall demand regains momentum. The final reason for the slackness in manufacturing employment is the increased competition of foreign producers with domestic manufacturers. Largely be cause of lower labor costs, foreign manufacturers have been able to produce goods economically, thus developing substantial cost advantages over American manufacturers. In recent years these lower-priced foreign goods have made serious inroads into Amer ican markets, making a strong recovery in manu facturing employment in this country even more difficult. Durable goods employment The cyclical movements observed in total factory employment are even more evident in the durable goods industries, as the demand for the products of this sector has consistently exhibited a high degree of volatility. In each of the three recessionary periods under analysis, the drops in employment in the dur able goods industries accounted for more than 80 percent of the total decline in manufacturing em ployment. More precisely, the bulk of the changes occurred in the five major metals and metal-using industries within the durable goods group— primary metals, fabricated metals, machinery, electrical equip ment, and transportation equipment. Due to the extreme fluctuation in demand for the products of these industries and because of the large number of persons they employ, changes in the level of employ ment in these industries tend to dominate movements in total manufacturing as well as in durable goods employment. These five accounted for nearly 70 percent of the decline in manufacturing employment during all three periods of economic slowdown. Thus, the pattern of employment decline in dur able goods followed closely the movements of total manufacturing employment in all phases. Employ ment dropped by about 1.5 million (12 percent) between July 1969 and August 1971, a decrease equal to more than 80 percent of the total decline in manufacturing employment. Almost 1.2 million of this drop in the durable goods occurred in the five metals industries. (See table 2.) Of the five individual metals industries, the trans https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 portation equipment industry registered the largest drop in employment during the period. Employment in this industry began turning down in June 1969, 1 month before total manufacturing employment started to fall, and declined by 330,000 (or 16 percent) through August 1971. This industry has usually been one of the hardest hit of the manufac turing industries in times of economic slowdown; employment dropped 20 percent in the 1958 reces sion and 14 percent in 1960-61. The bulk of job reduction came in the aircraft and parts component. Weakened considerably by a slackness of demand for commercial aircraft and by the cutbacks in de fense expenditures, aircraft employment began to fall in mid-1968, with the declines continuing through the end of 1971. Between July 1968 and July 1971, aircraft jobs dropped by slightly more than 300,000, or more than a third. Motor vehicles and equipment, which is another major component of the industry, suffered a 70,000 decline in employment between December 1969 and December 1970. The drop during 1970 stemmed from a weakness in automobile sales, which in turn, caused gradual employment cutbacks prior to the General Motors strike in the late fall of 1970. Dur ing 1971, however, some of the lost jobs v/ere re gained as a result of increased demand for auto mobiles. Electrical equipment and supplies, an industry that had exhibited steady employment growth during the early 1960’s, showed one of the largest employ ment declines among the manufacturing industries over the 1969-71 period. Its employment dropped by 280,000 between July 1969 and August 1971, a significantly larger decline than in 1957-58 or 196061. The greater magnitude of its drop this time reflected the dependence of this industry— especially of the communications equipment and electronic components groups— on the defense as well as re search and development activities, which were re duced during the 1969-71 period. Employment in the primary metals group, which is dominated by the steel industry, fell by 210,000, or 15 percent, in the 1969-71 downturn, a decline of about the same size as in the 1957-58 and 196061 recessions. The decline in this group began in late 1969 and continued steadily through most of 1970. Employment gained in late 1970 and early 1971, as other industries built up their steel inven tories in anticipation of a midsummer strike in the steel industry. Employment weakened in the second 37 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN MANUFACTURING half of 1971, however, when the anticipated strike failed to materialize and the demand for steel slack ened as users began to reduce their accumulated inventories. In the fabricated metals group, employment de clined through August 1971 by 110,000 from the 1.4-million peak of September 1969. This 8-percent drop was 2 percentage points below the cutbacks in 1957-58 and 1960-61. The pattern of the decline in fabricated metals has been similar to the path traced by primary metals during late 1969 and all of 1970. Employment cutbacks were small but con tinuous from the end of 1969 until late 1970, when employment leveled off and remained reasonably stable throughout 1971. In the machinery industry, a decline in total em ployment of 260,000, or 13 percent, from July 1969 to August 1971 was similar in magnitude, though not in numbers, to its 17-percent drop in the reces sion of 1957-58. The decrease began in early 1970 and continued until it steadied the last 6 months of 1971. The weakness in this industry stemmed largely from depressed capital investment in the economy. Among the other durable goods industries, ord nance and accessories, which had actually increased its total employment in the other two downturns, exhibited the largest percentage decline in employ ment of any major manufacturing industry. Between July 1969 and August 1971, its employment dropped by 130,000, or 40 percent, a sharp contrast with the performance between 1965 and 1968, when em ployment increased by more than half. While show ing some sensitivity to the overall economic climate, ordnance is clearly most responsive to national de fense requirements. The large growth experience in the 1965-68 period was directly related to the Viet nam buildup during these years. When defense ex penditures were cut because of reduction of the war effort in 1969, employment in ordnance halted its growth and began an almost uninterrupted decline that wiped out most of the job gains of the mid1960’s. In the second half of 1971, however, the decline slowed down substantially, and it appeared that employment might stabilize at a level of about 180,000 to 190,000 workers. In the remainder of the durable goods industries —that is, in lumber and wood products, furniture and fixtures, stone, clay, and glass products, and miscellaneous manufacturing— employment declines in 1969-71 were relatively mild and not significantly https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Employment changes in the manufacturing in dustries, 1969-71 [Seasonally adjusted— numbers in thousands] Industry July 1969 August 1971 Change Manufacturing_________________ ____ ____ P ercent change 20,255 18,457 - 1 ,7 9 8 8.9 Durable goods_________________ _____ Ordnance and accessories__________ Lumber and wood products________ Furniture and fixtures_____________ Stone, clay, and glass products_____ Primary metal industries__________ Fabricated metal products____ ____ Machinery, except electrical________ Electrical equipment and supplies— Transportation equipment_________ Instruments and related products___ Miscellaneous manufacturing indus trie s_____ ____________________ 11,962 320 606 486 656 1,362 1,445 2,036 2,049 2,081 478 10,485 191 583 456 627 1,156 1,331 1,775 1,772 1,754 430 -1 ,4 7 7 -1 2 9 -2 3 -3 0 -2 9 -2 0 6 -1 1 4 -2 6 1 -2 7 7 -3 2 7 -4 8 12.3 40.3 3.8 6.2 4.4 15.1 7.9 12.8 18.5 15.7 10.0 443 410 -3 3 7.4 Nondurable goods____________________ Food and kindred products................ Tobacco manufactures____________ Textile m ill products______________ Apparel and other textile products. Paper and allied products................... Printing and publishing___________ Chemicals and allied products______ Petroleum and coal products_______ Rubber and plastic products_______ Leather and leather products_______ 8,293 1,790 82 1,005 1,414 712 1,094 1,065 189 599 343 7,972 1,748 70 959 1,351 681 1,080 1,004 188 582 309 -3 2 1 -4 2 -1 2 —46 -6 3 -3 1 -1 4 -6 1 -1 -1 7 -3 4 3.9 2.3 14.6 4.6 4.5 4.4 1.3 5.7 0.5 2.8 9.9 different from those that occurred in the 1957-58 and 1960-61 recessions. Nondurable goods Employment in the nondurable goods industries has tended to be less sensitive to cyclical influences than in durable goods and continued to reflect this trend in the 1969-71 economic slowdown. Total employment in that sector fell by 320,000 from 8.3 million in July 1969 to 8 million in August 1971. This decline affected all the industries in the group, but the curtailments have been relatively small and total nondurable employment decreased during the downturn by only 3.9 percent. The drop was about the same as in the 1957-58 recession, but somewhat larger than in 1960-61. Among the individual industries, the three largest decreases were registered in textile mill products, apparel and other textile products, and chemical and allied products, which together were responsible for more than half of the total nondurable goods em ployment decline. The textile and apparel industries are among those in the group most responsive to fluctuations in the economy. They had registered some of the biggest job declines in the nondurable goods sector in both of the earlier economic down turns under study. Relatively moderate drops in employment were registered among the rest of the nondurable goods 38 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 industries, with only the leather, food, and paper industries showing declines in excess of 20,000. Nonproduction workers One of the most notable differences between the recent economic slowdown and the previous down turns stems from the relative job declines of produc tion and nonproduction workers. In the past, jobs in the nonproduction area, which are typically pro fessional, administrative, or clerical in nature, nor mally showed little response to disturbances in the economy. During the recent downturn, however, nonproduction jobs decreased by 330,000 (6.1 per cent), constituting nearly 20 percent of the overall drop in manufacturing employment— a significantly larger decline than in either the 1957-58 or 196061 recessions. It had been a well-established relationship that in times of economic contraction, when employers were forced to institute job cutbacks because of slackening demand for their products, the resulting layoffs would fall almost entirely on the shoulders of the production worker. In the 1957-58 recession, for example, layoffs in the production ranks con stituted over 98 percent of the 1.8-million decline in manufacturing employment. During 1960-61, the number of nonproduction workers actually increased by almost 50,000, as employment of production workers dropped 1.1 million. The much larger than normal proportion of non production workers in the total employment drop in Table 3. Changes in the seasonally adjusted workweek of manufacturing production workers in the three most recent recessions Recession Total Durable goods 40.6 38.6 - 2 .0 4.9 41.3 38.8 - 2 .5 6.1 39.4 38.3 -1 .1 2.8 40.5 38.3 - 2 .2 5.4 41.1 38.8 - 2 .3 5.6 39.6 37.9 - 1 .7 4.3 40.8 39.5 - 1 .3 3.2 41.5 40.0 - 1 .5 4.1 39.9 39.0 - 0 .9 2.3 Nondurable goods 1957-58 Level at peak_______ Level at trough___________ Change______ Percent change_____ . 1960-61 Level at peak____ . . Level at trough______ Change____ Percent change___ 1969-70 Level at peak___________ . Level at trough___________ Change________ Percent change___ NOTE: Hours of work at peaks and troughs refer to actual highs and lows recorded during the recession period. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the 1969-71 period derived from the nature of the downturn and its large impact on industries with high concentrations of white-collar employment, such as ordnance and electronics. Cutbacks in defense and research and development expenditures had a substantial impact on white-collar employment, with the largest individual reductions occurring in ord nance and accessories, electrical equipment and supplies, and transportation equipment, industries closely related to the defense effort. Their whitecollar force was trimmed by more than 10 percent. Combined, these three industries were responsible for more than 60 percent of the total drop in non production employment, although only about 30 per cent of the manufacturing nonproduction workers are employed in them. The pattern of employment declines among pro duction workers was similar to those in the 1957 and 1961 recessions. As in those downturns, about 80 percent of the decline for production workers came in the durable goods industries. As previously, the five major metals industries, which have the highest proportions of production workers among the manu facturing industries, were responsible for about 70 percent of the drop in production jobs. Hours of work The average hours worked by production workers on manufacturing payrolls also has a pronounced cyclical pattern. Average weekly hours are sensitive to changes in the economic climate and are a lead ing indicator of cyclical developments in the economy in general and the manufacturing sector in particu lar.3 Employers typically find it easier and more economical in the short run to meet changing de mands for their products by varying the number of hours worked than to resort to personnel actions such as hires or layoffs. As changes in product de mand become more permanent, however, employers begin to alter their employment levels in order to better adjust to the changes. As a result, variations in the factory workweek normally precede significant alterations in the level of manufacturing employ ment, turning down prior to major employment cut backs in the contraction phase of the cycle and moving upward in advance of any substantial addi tions to the payrolls. This relationship between aver age hours and employment existed in both the contractionary and expansionary phases of the 195758 and 1960-61 recessions; in the current economic 39 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN MANUFACTURING Chart 2. Decline in factory man-hours in three recessions [Seasonally adjusted] 1 The "com bined e ffe c t” is the residual of the to ta l man-hours changeand the sum of the individual em ployment and hours e ffect. Therefore, it represents a sm all com bination of em ploym ent and hours effects thatca nnot be isolated. NOTE: The declines in fa c to ry man-hours are calculated from the highto the low points of the seasonally adjusted m anufacturing workweek durin g the d iffe re n t recession periods. slowdown, average weekly hours began to turn down in April 1969, 5 months prior to the actual down turn in manufacturing employment. This was about the same timing as in 1957-58 and 1960-61. The total drop in the average hours of work of manufacturing production workers from the April 1969 high to the low point in December 1970 was 1.3 hours, or 3.2 percent.4 This was the smallest decline in the workweek registered in any of the three economic interruptions under study; it was 2.0 hours in 1957-58 and 2.2 hours in 1960-61 (table 3). Among the individual industries, the largest de clines in hours were registered in the five metals and metal-using industries, although the reductions were, again, less than those in the two previous downturns. The largest decrease showed up in the machinery industry, where average hours dropped by 2.7 hoi|rs, about equal to the decline registered in the 1957-58 recession. In primary metals the decrease was 2.3 hours, somewhat less than in previous declines. Among the nondurable goods industries, the largest cutbacks in hours came in the rubber, tobacco, and paper industries. Factory overtime hours, which reached a low point of 2.7 hours in December 1970, fell by onethird from their pre-slowdown peak level, about the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis same as in the 1957 and 1960 recession periods. Because of the smaller decline in the factory work week, however, the drop in overtime hours was equal to about 75 percent of the total decline in manufac turing hours, whereas it had amounted to only 50 percent of the declines previously. An explanation for the small decrease in the aver age workweek over the current downturn seems to be that employers placed greater emphasis upon cutbacks in employment as a means of curtailing production. Employers in the aerospace and defenserelated industries, in particular, correctly recognized that the cutbacks in their programs by the Govern ment were likely to be of a more permanent nature than they would be if caused by regular cyclical fluc tuations in the economy. In order to adjust to these new lower levels of production, job cutbacks had to be instituted before reductions in the workweeks were made— which, as stated above, is the more usual shortrun means of meeting decreased product demand. This observation is supported by the changes in aggregate man-hours during the 1969-71 slowdown. Of the total decline of just under 70 million man hours,5 slightly more than 70 percent resulted from employment declines, the largest proportion attrib- 40 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 utable to the drop in employment in any of the economic declines under study.6 (See chart 2.) In the 1957-58 downturn, employment cutbacks were responsible for 64 percent of the drop in man-hours, while during the 1960-61 recession, hours decreases played an even larger role as only 55 percent of the total reduction was caused by employment declines. The large proportion of the total man-hours drop ac counted for by employment in 1969-70 was counter to the post-World War II trend where hours reduc tions have played an increasingly larger role in total man-hours declines. It provides additional support to the assertion that employers were more apt to eliminate jobs rather than shorten the workweek in adjusting their production to the shifts in demand for their products during the 1969-71 downturn. □ FOO TN OTES 1 For an in-depth analysis of the effects of defense ex penditures on manufacturing employment, see Richard P. Oliver’s articles published in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w during the past several years: “Employment effects of re duced defense spending,” December 1971, pp. 3-11; “In crease in defense-related employment during Vietnam build up,” February 1970, pp. 3-10; and “The employment effects of defense expenditures,” September 1967, pp. 9-16. 2 For the purpose of this analysis, the high and low points of seasonally adjusted employment are the actual highs and lows that occurred during the economic downturns. In the 1957-58 and 1960-61 recessions, these differed only slightly from the turning points established by the National Bureau of Economic Research (N B ER ). In the 1969-71 business downturn, the period of analysis begins in July 1969, when the peak manufacturing employment level was reached, and ends with August 1971, the low point. This differs some what from the official NBER designation, which set N o vember 1969 as the peak and November 1970 tentatively as the trough. 3 See Hazel M. Willacy, “Changes in factory workweek as an economic indicator,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1970, pp. 25-32. 4 All declines in hours of work refer to the drop between the high and low points of the individual hours series in the different economic downturns. In the 1969-71 downturn, December 1970 was designated as the low point of all the hours series, due to the fact that average hours were un usually low in the September-November period as a result of two special circumstances— the inclusion of the Labor Day holiday in the September survey week and the effects of the auto strike in October and November of that year. 5 The decline in man-hours is calculated from the actual peaks to troughs of average hours in manufacturing during the respective recessions. In the 1969—71 downturn, however, December 1970 was used as the trough for the same reasons described in footnote 4. 6 The employment and hours effects are computed by holding one component constant at the trough and multi plying it by the change in the other component. The result ing figure is taken as a percent of the total change in man hours in order to measure each component’s effect upon the total change. The Anatomy of Price Change THE FIRST QUARTER, 1972, AND THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION PROGRAM TOSHIKO NAKAYAMA o n s u m e r p r i c e s advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.7 percent from November to March, the first 4 months of the post-freeze period. This compares with a 1.9 rate of advance during the August-November period when most prices were frozen, and a 4.0-percent rate in the 6 months from February to August. The food index accelerated sharply to a rate considerably faster than before the freeze, while rates of increase in indexes for com modities other than food and services during the November-March period were substantially slower than during the prefreeze period. In the 7 months since the Economic Stabilization Program began, the Consumer Price Index advanced at an annual rate of 2.9 percent. (See table 1.) Wholesale prices rose more rapidly from Novem ber to March than in the 6 months before the freeze, in large part because of a steep rise in prices of farm products and processed foods and sharp in creases in the prices of some industrial commodities. Comparing the rates of advances in the two periods— the 6 months preceding the freeze and the 4 months following— prices of finished goods other than food (both consumer and capital goods) as well as prices of some crude nonfood materials, particularly hides and skins, raw cotton, and scrap metals, advanced more rapidly since the freeze than before, while price increases for intermediate products—particu larly lumber, steel mill products, fuels, and paper— were large but not as large as in the earlier period. Prices of some industrial materials such as nonmetallic minerals, chemicals, and rubber declined during the August-March period. From August to C Toshiko Nakayama is an economist in the Division of Con sumer Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis November, wholesale prices of finished goods and many industrial materials declined as a result of the freeze as well as strong competitive pressures. The rise in wholesale prices and the further expan sion in business activity were reflected in the im plicit deflator for private Gross National Product which rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent in the first quarter of 1972. Since the implicit price deflator is an average for each calendar quarter, it is not possible to analyze its behavior during the prefreeze, freeze, and post-freeze periods as precisely as can be done for the Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes. The freeze began about midway through the third quarter of 1971 and ended about midway through the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, it is clear that the first quarter 1972 increase of 5.1 percent in the implicit price deflator was the largest since the fourth quarter of 1970. Deflators for residential and nonresidential construction, producers’ durable equip ment, and government goods and services (exclud ing services of government employees) rose at their fastest rate in about a year. The increase in the deflator for personal consumption expenditures, how ever, was about the same as before the freeze and less than in the fourth quarter of 1970. This behavior was similar to the behavior of the Consumer Price Index on a quarterly basis. (See table 2.) The 5.1-percent rate of advance in the implicit price deflator for private GNP reflected a 6.2 rate of advance in a unit labor costs and a 3.1 rate of ad vance in unit nonlabor costs. The increase in unit labor costs was substantially larger than in any quar ter of 1971 and about the same as in the fourth quar ter of 1970. Compensation per man-hour advanced at a rate of 8.6 percent, considerably more than in the preceding three quarters. The large first-quarter increase reflected the expected bulge following the freeze, as well as retroactive wage payments and the increase in employer contributions to social security. The rise in output per man-hour, however, was less than in the fourth quarter of 1971. Growth in total private output continued but at a slightly slower rate 41 42 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Table 1. Changes in Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1971-72 [Seasonally adjusted, annual rate, compounded (except Services)] Percent change Index and item C O N SU M ER PR IC E Consumer goods and services February 1971 to August 1971 August 1971 to November 1971 November 1971 to March 1972 4.0 5.4 3.5 4.5 1.9 1.7 0 3.1 3.7 7.4 2.3 3.7 4.0 -0 .2 6.0 3.0 5.4 1.1 -0 .5 12.0 4.2 IN DEX All Items_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Food _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Commodities less food____ Services_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W H O LESALE PR IC E IN D EX All Commodities_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Farm products and proces sed foods and feeds____ Industrial commodities____ The share of private GNP accounted for by indirect business taxes and interest fell, capital consumption allowances held steady, and profits rose. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) in creased at a somewhat faster pace in the first quarter than in the fourth quarter. However, the implicit deflator for PCE also increased at a faster pace. As a result, the increase in terms of constant (1958) dollars was about the same in both quarters. The volume of spending improved slightly for services and durable goods, particularly furniture and appliances. The rise in spending for nondurable goods was mostly due to higher prices, especially food. Food. For the 4 months from November to March, the Consumer Price Index for food, which includes both grocery store food and restaurant meals, rose Table 2. The anatomy of price change [Seasonally adjusted, annual rate, compounded] Selected State of Processing indexes: Crude materials except food_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intermediate materials except food_______ Producers’ finished goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Consumer goods except food_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Consumer foods_ _ _ _ _ _ Percent change from previous quarter 3.3 2.3 12.8 7.8 -0 .7 3.3 3.5 -2 .0 5.5 1.6 4.6 -0 .4 0.3 3.3 7.5 than in the fourth quarter, as farm production de clined and total man-hours in the private economy increased more than in the fourth quarter. The increase in man-hours was due to a sizable increase in employment; the average workweek did not change. The labor force also grew considerably. As a result, the unemployment rate remained at about the fourth quarter level. For the first time in 2 years, the increase in unit labor costs exceeded the rise in the deflator. Con sequently, the employee share of private GNP moved up, after declining steadily from the first quarter of 1970 through the fourth quarter of 1971. The increase in the first quarter raised the employee share to a level slightly higher than in the first quarter of 1971 but below the first quarter of 1970. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Item Deflator: Private GNP____ Personal consumption expenditures_ _ _ _ _ _ Private construction___ Residential_ . Nonresidential______ Producers' durable equipment_______ Government purchases of goods and services 1970 1971 1972 IV 1 II III IV 1 6.2 4.4 4.3 2.5 1.2 5.1 5.7 6.3 2.5 10.2 4.0 7.5 6.2 11.1 4.0 10.4 7.3 15.6 3.0 8.4 3.8 17.2 1.2 4.5 6.0 3.2 3.7 10.5 8.1 13.9 6.8 3.6 1.3 0.6 - 0 . 6 4.9 7.3 - 0 . 4 4.1 - 1 . 2 2.1 7.5 6.2 6.0 4.4 2.1 4.3 4.1 2.5 2.2 1.2 1.0 5.1 6.2 6.1 0.2 6.6 8.5 6.2 8.7 6.2 1.9 4.6 6.2 4.0 3.3 4.2 3.2 1.4 8.6 2.3 3.1 U N IT CO STS Total private, all persons Deflator; Private GNP____ Unit labor costs_ _ _ _ Compensation per manhour__ _ Output per manhour— . Unit nonlabor costs____ 1 Excludes services of government employees. ANATOMY OF PRICE CHANGES at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 7.4 percent, in sharp contrast to the 1.7-percent rate of increase during the August-November period and the 5.4 percent rate during the 6 months before the freeze. About 60 percent of the November-March advance was due to a steep rise in the meats, poultry, and fish component of the food index. (See table 3.) The index for meats, poultry, and fish rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 19 percent from Novem ber to March after increasing at a 7.4-percent rate from August to November. Meat prices advanced sharply from November to February. In February alone, meat prices climbed 5.2 percent— the largest monthly increase since June 1965— reflecting large gains in wholesale meat and livestock prices from October to February. In March, wholesale prices for livestock and meats declined. Retail beef and veal prices continued to increase but less than earlier in the year, and pork prices declined for the first time since October 1971. Fresh fruit and vegetable prices, which are highly volatile and are exempt from regulation under the Economic Stabilization Program, also advanced sharply from November to February because of adverse weather conditions, smaller winter crops, and reduced imports. In March, fresh vegetable prices dropped sharply and increases in fresh fruit prices were smaller than usual as supplies from late winter and early spring crops reached the market. Egg prices, which are also highly volatile and exempt from controls, showed an opposite trend. After de clining from November to February, egg prices rose in March, mostly because of increased demand dur ing the Lenten season. Prices of cereal and bakery products, which moved down from August to November, increased from November to March at about the same moder ate pace as before the start of the program. However, prices of dairy products increased sharply from November to March, particularly in February and March. The acceleration was partly due to the strong demand for cheese, which pushed up wholesale prices of milk used by manufacturers. Price rises for restaurant meals and snacks away from home slowed markedly from August to Novem ber. The rate of advance picked up during the next 4 months, with the March increase about the same as increases before the freeze. Commodities less food. The Consumer Price Index for nonfood commodities, which held steady from https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43 August to November, increased at a moderate 2.3percent rate from November to March. In the 6 months before the Economic Stabilization Program began in August, the rate had been 3.5 percent. The Wholesale Price Index for nonfood commodities rose at a 3.3-percent rate from November to March, compared with a modest 1.6-percent rate in the 6 months before the freeze. From August to Novem ber, the wholesale index for nonfood commodities declined. The rise from November to March was slower in the Consumer Price Index than in the Wholesale Price Index, partly because of sharp declines in used car prices, not included in the wholesale index. In addition, gasoline prices declined at retail and rose at wholesale. Footwear prices also rose at a sharper pace at wholesale; these increases were not reflected in retail footwear prices until March. Footwear prices have been under pressure because of large advances in hides and leather prices, which result from a combination of factors— a quota on exports of hides from Argentina, recent light kills in this country due partly to the high cost of meat, and increased worldwide demand. With controls re stricting price increases in the domestic market, sell ers have turned to foreign buyers who are willing to pay higher prices for limited supplies. New car prices advanced sharply from November to March. At retail, higher prices for new cars accounted for about a fourth of the increase in the index for nonfood commodities. In the AugustNovember period, new car prices declined sharply, reflecting repeal of the Federal Excise Tax (which is not included in the wholesale index). Manufacturerto-dealer prices on new cars were raised from late November through early January. Winter clearance sales moderated the rise in retail prices of other nonfood commodities such as furni ture, apparel, and textile house furnishings. Prices of tobacco products, however, rose sharply, mostly be cause of increases in State and local cigarette taxes. Services. The index for consumer services rose at an annual rate of 3.7 percent in the 4 months from November to March, compared with 4.5 percent in the 6 months before the start of the Economic Stabili zation Program. From August to November, the index rose 3.1 percent, was due in large part to in creases in items exempt from controls—property taxes and mortgage interest rates. Indexes for medi- MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 44 Table 3. Changes in wholesale and retail prices for consumer goods and services [Seasonally adjusted compound annual rates] Relative Importance December 1971 Item Percent change Index CPI WPI Consumer Price Index........... Consumer goods............................ Food........ ......... . .................. Commodities less food______ Nondurables less food........ Apparel, less footwear........ Footwear.......................... Gasoline........................... Durables................................ New c a rs ..................... . Furniture_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Appliances, including radio and TV ____ ___ Services' ..................................... Rent ’ . . . ........ ....... ....... ....... Household less re n t.......... ...... Transportation....................... . Medical care_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other services_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100.0 February August November 1971 1971 1971 1971 to to to August November March December January 1972 1971 1971 February March April 4.0 1.9 3.7 2.6 3.2 4 .8 3.6 3.1 CPI WPI 4.0 3.2 1.4 -1 .1 3.8 5.1 2.0 5.8 2.4 5.0 3.8 7.6 3.8 3.2 3.4 1.8 39.2 CPI WPI 5.4 4 .6 1.7 0.3 7.4 7.5 5.1 14.4 5.1 7.0 9.7 14.5 7.2 3 .8 7.2 0 .7 60.8 CPI WPI 3.5 1.6 0 -0 .4 2.3 3.3 0.7 1.1 1.4 2.9 2.4 3.3 2.4 2 .9 2.4 2.9 37.2 CPI WPI 3.5 1.6 1.4 0.4 2.5 1.9 1.4 0 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.1 2.4 2.5 2.4 2 .9 CPI WPI 2.4 2.7 1.7 -0 .7 2.8 1.1 2.0 1.1 1.0 10.7 0 2.7 1.1 3.0 0 .7 3.3 2.9 CPI WPI 2.3 3.1 3.7 -3 .0 1.7 8.5 2.3 0.4 1.3 1.4 1.0 2.1 4.2 2.0 10.7 3.6 17.8 5.3 CPI WPI 2.2 -5 .1 -0 .7 3.7 -3 .6 2.2 -2 .9 -1 .5 -4 .3 10.7 -3 .3 0.5 -5 .8 5.0 -5 .8 -1 0 .4 23.6 CPI WPI 3.0 2.6 -0 .3 -3 .9 2.3 6.4 0 2.5 1.4 7.4 2.1 7.4 2.8 2.9 2.1 3.2 12.7 CPI WPI -4 .5 3.6 - 1 3 .3 -8 .9 10.1 12.4 -1 .5 5.8 12.8 13.2 12.4 14.8 9.1 4 .3 1.8 3.9 2.7 CPI WPI 3 .6 3.4 0.7 0.3 1.8 2.6 1.3 0 0.7 0.7 -0 .7 2.8 1.3 2.8 2.0 3.1 3.5 CPI WPI 1.1 0 .6 -0 .8 -1 .2 0.6 -0 .9 -0 .8 -1 .9 0 -2 .3 0.8 -0 .8 0.4 -0 .8 - 0 .8 -0 .4 CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI 4.5 4.8 2.8 6.4 7.0 3.0 3.1 2.8 5.5 0.6 1.5 3.6 3.7 2.8 5.9 0.2 2.9 1.9 3.1 2.8 6.4 0.3 1.5 2.0 4 .7 2.4 8.3 1.2 3.3 2.0 4.4 3.1 8.9 0.3 3 .6 2.3 3.7 2.8 5.1 0 2.7 1.9 2 8 3 5 1 5 -0 6 2 7 2.6 64.5 37.8 1.9 2.5 4.7 26.8 3.4 2.2 2.7 1 Total services and rent not seasonally adjusted. NOTE: Relative importances are for consumer goods portions of CPI and WPI. For all items in the CPI, consumer goods represent 62.6 percent and services represent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1972 100.0 35.5 100.0 13.5 41.1 14.9 14.8 15.7 Percent change for 3-months ending 37.4 percent. CPI durables also include home purchases and used cars which are not included in WPI. For WPI, consumer goods represent 33.3 percent of all commodities. 45 ANATOMY OF PRICE CHANGES cal care services and transportation services were al most level from August to November. In the first 4 months of the post-freeze period, charges for household services rose at a 5.9-percent rate, faster than the 2.8-percent rate in the 6 months before the freeze (which includes the period when mortgage interest rates declined sharply). In Novem ber, mortgage interest rates started to decline again and continued to move down through March, but not as rapidly as in early 1971. Property taxes, how ever, continued to advance sharply from November to March. In addition, charges for gas, electricity, and telephone all increased substantially until the Price Commission instituted a new freeze on utility rates from February 10 through March 25. Except for gas, which increased in November, charges for utilities did not change, on balance, during the August-November period. The index for transportation services was virtually unchanged from August 1971 to March 1972, after rising at an annual rate of 6.4 percent in the months preceding the freeze. During the AugustNovember period, charges for auto-related services and public transportation rates held steady. After November, charges for auto repairs and parking fees increased; however, auto insurance charges de clined due to introduction of dividends in various States as a result of an overall reduction in the amount of claims paid in 1971. Introduction of no-fault insurance contributed to lower rates in some States. Local transit fares were raised in some cities, but a sharp drop occurred in March in Atlanta, where the basic cash fare was reduced from 40 to 15 cents. The reduction is to be subsidized through an increase in sales tax. The rise in the index for medical care services1 from November to March was 2.9 percent at an annual rate, compared with 7.0 percent in the 6 months prior to the start of the Economic Stabiliza tion Program. □ ---------- F O O T N O T E ---------1 See “Technical Note: Revision of the Medical Care Services Component of the CPI,” February 1972 report on the Consumer Price Index. Income distribution The term income distribution is really a mis leading one. It suggests that first a total income is created which is then distributed among people by some official body or other. That is, in fact, the procedure in a family, although in that case as well the distributing authority is not so easy to point to. Indeed, much the same thing can happen in small units of production, for instance a kibbutz. But distribution works differently in a country as a whole. There income is created in production; the four factors of production— labor, capital, land, and entrepreneurs— collabo rate in a firm to bring about a product. In the course of that process, a large number of things happen simultaneously; one of them is that in comes are paid out. In other words, income is https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis created and distributed at one go. Income distribu tion is from the very start the outcome of an intricate economic complex. It is worth while establishing this simple truth. For this stresses that there is no central office that regulates distribution; after all, production takes place in thousands and thousands of firms, and in nonprofit organizations too, such as government services (a school is also a productive u n it). From that decentralized process there emerges a certain pattern of distribution for which no single person, or group, or official body is responsible. — Ja n P e n , In c o m e D istrib u tio n (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1971). URBAN FAMILY BUDGETS Table 1. Annual budgets for a 4-person family at 3 levels of living, urban United States, autumn 1971 UPDATED TO AUTUMN 1971 Item ELIZABETH RUIZ U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ’s urban family budgets were about 3 percent higher in autumn 1971, at each of three levels, than those issued 18 months earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The latest estimates for the U.S. average budget for the specified urban family of four ranged from $7,214 a year at a lower level to $10,971 at an inter mediate level and $15,905 at a higher level. (See table 1.) Income tax reductions offset about half the effect of the rise in consumer prices in the items in cluded in the family budgets. The family budgets are for a precisely defined urban family of four: a 38-year-old husband em ployed full time, his nonworking wife, a boy of 13, and a girl of 8. After about 15 years of married life, the family is well established and the husband is an experienced worker. The family has, for each budget level, average inventories of clothing, house furnish ings, major durables, and other equipment. The lower level budget is not intended to represent the cost of a minimum or subsistence level of living. Each of the three budgets illustrates a different level of living and provides for different, specified types and amounts of goods and services. The bud gets pertain only to an urban family with the speci fied characteristics; none is available for rural fam ilies. T he Consumption budgets Budgets covering consumption items only— includ ing food, housing, clothing, transportation, medical care, and so forth— came to 81 percent of the total Elizabeth Ruiz is an economist in the Division of Living Conditions Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Lower budget Intermediate budget Higher budget Total budget....................................... $7,214 $10,971 $15,905 Total fam ily consumption.......................... Food________________________ Housing_________ ______________ Transportation.......................... ............. Clothing and personal c a re ................. Medical care________________ ___ Other fam ily consumption__________ 5,841 1,964 1,516 536 848 609 368 8,626 2,532 2,638 964 1,196 612 684 11,935 3,198 3,980 1,250 1,740 638 1,129 Other ite m s ................................. ................. 357 560 937 Taxes.................... ....................................... Social security and disability pay ments_______________ _________ Personal income taxes_____________ 1,016 1,785 3,033 387 629 419 1,366 419 2,614 budget at the lower level ($5,841), 79 percent at the intermediate level ($8,626), and 75 percent at the higher level ($11,935). Family consumption budgets providing an equivalent level of living for urban fam ilies of different size and composition are shown in table 2. The remainder of the total budgets (19, 21, and 25 percent,, respectively) covered gifts and con tributions, occupational expenses, life insurance, and social security and personal income taxes. Allocations of the type described here reflect asTable 2. Annual consumption budgets for selected fam ily types, urban United States, autumn 1971 1 Family size, type, and age Lower budget Intermediate budget Higher budget Single person under 35 years_____ _____ $2,040 $3,020 $4,180 Husband and wife under 35 years: No children_______ _____ child under 6 . . ................ children, older under 6....................... 2,860 3,620 4,210 6,210 4,230 5,350 5,850 7,400 8,590 Husband and wife, 35-54 years: 1 child, 6-15 years________________ 2 children, older 6-15 years* ............... 3 children, oldest 6-15 years.. . . 4,790 5,841 6,750 10,010 7,070 8,626 9,790 11,935 13,840 Husband and wife, 65 years and o v e rs___ 3,176 4,484 6,592 Single person, 65 years and over4. .......... .. 1,747 2,466 3,626 1 2 1 For details on estimating procedures, see Revised Equivalence Scale (BLS Bulletin 1570-2). 1 Estimates for the BLS 4-person Family Budgets. * Estimates for the BLS Retired Couple's Budgets. 4 Estimated by applying a ratio of 55 percent to the BLS Retired Couple’s Budgets. 47 RESEARCH SUMMARIES sumptions made about the manner of living at each of the three levels. They do not represent how fam ilies of the budget type actually spend their money.1 For the four-person urban family, the proportion of the consumption budget allocated for food (at home and away from home) was 34 percent at the lower level, 29 percent at the intermediate level, and 27 percent at the higher level. Medical care took 10, 7, and 5 percent, respectively, of the three budgets. In contrast to these two items, housing (which in cludes not only shelter, but also house furnishings and household operations) accounted for a rising proportion as the budget level rose: 26, 31, and 33 percent, respectively. For some items, there was little difference among the budget levels as to the proportion allocated: at all three levels, about 15 percent was marked for clothing and personal care, and there were only small differences between the levels in the proportion de voted to transportation. Table 3. Comparative indexes based on a lower budget for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971 [U.S. urban average=100] Family consumption Area Total budget Total Urban United States................................................................ Metropolitan areas5.................................. ............. ........... Nonmetropolitan areas6__________ _______ ______ _ Northeast: Boston, Mass................. ........... ......................... ......... Buffalo, N.Y........................................................ ......... Hartford, Conn................ ................... ........... ............. Lancaster, P a ................................. ...................... . New York-Northeastern N.J .................................. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.................................................. Pittsburgh, P a .. .......................................... ........... .. Portland” Maine . . ........................ ....... Nonmetropolitan areas 6_. .................... . North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa. ______________ . Champaign-Urbana, III.......................... .................... Chicago,Tll.-Northwestern, Ind ......... ....................... Cincinnati, O hio-Ky.-Ind .......... ................. Cleveland, Ohio.............................. ............. ............... Dayton, Ohio...................... ................... ................... .. Detroit, Mich............................................................... Green Bay, Wis..................................... ....................... Indianapolis, Ind.................................. ............... . . . Kansas City, Mo.-Kans............................................. Milwaukee, Wis ........................ . Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn . ................ St. Louis, M o . - I I L . . . ___________________ ____ Wichita, Kans........................................................... Nonmetropolitan areas6.............................................. South: Atlanta, Ga__................................................ ............... Austin, Tex. _ .. .................... . _ Baltimore, Md_______________________________ Baton Rouge, La...... .................................................... Dallas, T e x ___ __________ __________________ Durham, N.C...... ........................................................ Houston, Tex_____________________ ____ _____ Nashville, Tenn____ _____ ___________________ Orlando, Fla. ________ _______________ Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va....... ................... ............... Nonmetropolitan areas6 .................................. .. . . West: Bakersfield, Calif_________________________ _ Denver, Colo.. ... ...................... . ............ Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif__________ ______ San Diego, Calif.” . . . . . . _____________ ____ San Francisco-Oakland, C a lif............. ................ Seattle-Everett, Wash.J........... . . .................... . Honolulu, Hawaii.................................... ................. .. Nonmetropolitan areas6...................................... ....... Anchorage, Alaska ............................ ....... 1 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Housing2 100 101 100 102 94 100 102 93 93 92 108 107 105 104 107 103 117 97 124 94 100 102 101 110 98 105 103 98 103 98 101 111 97 104 96 104 98 112 107 101 103 101 97 104 104 95 97 105 105 95 93 98 104 99 96 98 97 97 98 96 100 100 101 100 100 101 100 100 101 100 95 96 95 97 93 88 104 91 94 97 93 91 94 104 87 98 95 106 103 111 106 125 100 153 99 99 100 94 90 102 93 96 97 94 93 96 103 88 98 96 106 103 110 107 122 99 149 The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old-boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefurnishings. A ll families with the lower budget are assumed to be renters. Average budgets for automobile owners and nonowners are weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both automobile owners and nonowners: all other metropolitan areas, 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetropolitan areas, percent for automobile owners. 3 Food 100 98 102 94 99 101 94 97 104 96 94 92 90 95 96 93 91 94 90 100 91 92 112 94 100 121 105 89 98 95 92 98 103 96 105 102 96 97 102 94 84 111 88 92 103 88 Transpor tation 3 100 96 120 100 102 102 102 102 107 93 86 93 97 95 126 86 91 105 98 104 93 95 87 99 93 108 105 104 99 104 98 102 98 96 101 96 96 91 87 99 92 92 101 95 93 89 100 117 88 86 112 98 97 103 111 142 101 202 103 97 114 123 169 106 123 101 100 100 85 118 110 98 96 98 98 106 124 95 124 103 108 98 103 92 95 93 106 113 84 102 93 108 99 106 105 103 101 88 99 88 92 90 Clothing and personal care 101 100 92 93 97 94 90 95 102 102 107 103 112 112 106 105 119 Medical care4 Other family consump tion Personal income taxes 100 100 100 103 85 104 81 103 85 98 90 97 89 106 114 94 85 95 90 106 99 113 83 110 101 90 100 105 85 100 90 101 88 101 97 94 94 92 94 83 94 93 109 90 116 108 106 88 102 102 81 113 96 122 116 113 109 105 91 155 112 111 102 100 107 104 105 106 102 96 109 102 102 103 99 96 82 129 103 104 112 111 133 115 96 95 106 108 107 93 97 91 96 114 97 104 124 114 103 87 92 107 78 104 125 73 77 100 102 104 102 102 68 100 103 103 106 81 75 73 77 117 70 94 96 98 97 103 104 108 79 95 84 85 99 92 108 99 167 108 227 4 In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying fu ll cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontribu tory insurance plans (paid by employer). As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geo graphical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard M etropo litan S ta tis tic a l Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. 5 6 48 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Differences among urban areas Area indexes of costs for an equivalent level of living reflect not only differences among the areas in price levels, but also regional variations in consump tion patterns and differences in climate, types of transportation facilities, taxes, and so forth. Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the indexes of comparative costs in Table 4. 44 areas for a lower, intermediate, and higher budget for the four-person budget family in autumn 1971. The cost of equivalent budgets varied widely among cities and regions, with the lowest in small cities and in the South, and the highest generally in the largest metropolitan areas. The difference in con sumption costs between metropolitan and nonmetro politan areas ranged from 8 percent in the lower Comparative indexes based on an intermediate budget for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971 U.S. urban average=100] Fam ily consum ption Area Total budget T otal Urban United States................................................................ Metropolitan areas5. . ..................................................... Nonm'etropolitan areas5_______ ___________________ Northeast: Boston, Mass........... ........................... ................. Buffalo, N.Y_____________________________________ Hartford, Conn.......... ........................................................... Lancaster, Pa________________________________ _ New York-Northeastern New Jersey........... .................... Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J__________________ . ______ Pittsburgh, Pa___________________________________ Portland, Maine_________________________________ Nonmetropolitan areas5.............................. ..................... North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa______ __________________ _____ Champaign-Urbana, III___________________________ Chicago, III.—Northwestern Indiana___________ _____ Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.—In d _________________________ Cleveland, Ohio.............................................. ..................... Dayton, Ohio.................... ..................................................... Detroit, Mich_____________ Green Bay, Wis.................................................................... Indianapolis, I n d . . ............ ................................................ Kansas City, M o .-K a n s..................... ......... ......... ........... Mliwaukee, Wis____ _____________________________ Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn................................................ St. Louis, M o .-lll________ Wichita, Kans.................. ......... ........................................... Nonmetropolitan areas5...................... ................................ South: Atlanta, Ga............................................................................. Austin, Tex...................... ................. .................................. Baltimore, Md........... ....... ....... Baton Rouge, La.............................................................. . Dallas, T e x .. . Durham, N .C ........................... Houston, Tex........................... .......................................... Nashville, Tenn........................ ............................. Orlando, Fla______ Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va______ _____ ____________ Nonmetropolitan areas6. . . . ___ . . . . . _. West: Bakersfield, C a lif............................................................... Denver, Colo.......... ............................................................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif......................................... San Diego, Calif_________________________ _______ San Francisco-Oakland, C a lif . . . _____ ______ ______ Seattle-Everett, Wash____________________________ Honolulu, Hawaii________________________________ Nonmetropolitan areas5__________________________ Anchorage, A laska................ ........... .................................. . 1 2 100 102 89 117 106 110 98 115 104 98 102 98 101 102 105 96 103 93 98 100 101 100 107 102 100 93 92 100 102 90 115 106 112 98 113 102 97 103 98 99 103 105 96 105 94 98 97 102 100 103 98 100 94 92 89 91 90 92 96 90 91 98 92 94 95 92 93 91 86 100 88 103 84 93 97 100 97 106 101 119 92 136 88 101 85 94 98 101 98 107 104 116 91 132 The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefurnishings. Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for renter costs, 75 percent for homeowner costs. Average budgets for automobile owners and nonowners are weighted by the following proportions: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pitts burgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, with 1.4 million of population or more in 1960, 95 percent for owners and 5 percent for nonowners; ail other areas 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Food 100 102 92 108 106 110 105 116 109 103 107 102 91 96 101 97 98 96 101 92 97 99 93 96 Transpo r ta tio n 3 C lothing and personal care 100 86 100 101 100 102 134 109 117 92 124 98 89 106 108 118 H o using2 103 101 101 104 109 109 94 113 88 93 100 93 91 104 96 117 98 96 93 93 93 90 98 98 93 92 95 90 89 79 75 90 80 85 91 81 89 85 102 101 89 94 93 96 94 101 75 85 95 100 104 96 113 103 91 118 87 158 100 121 120 98 100 95 96 98 106 101 102 93 102 103 109 99 101 100 101 99 92 101 108 105 104 99 104 98 103 107 99 106 104 103 109 94 99 98 96 103 106 102 103 98 95 96 110 108 98 98 97 101 101 100 95 101 100 95 104 96 102 100 101 101 105 99 120 95 126 Medical c a re 4 O ther fa m ily consum p tio n 100 100 103 85 98 91 97 89 109 101 85 95 90 91 100 105 85 100 90 101 88 101 104 84 111 106 113 98 111 101 106 109 89 101 100 104 101 105 104 100 96 107 97 94 94 92 94 83 101 102 103 93 94 97 95 94 93 109 90 116 108 106 91 97 89 82 101 96 95 102 101 98 111 104 100 110 109 103 104 119 88 102 102 113 97 122 116 113 108 105 91 155 103 98 97 84 101 104 101 102 101 100 102 102 Personal income taxes 100 104 82 141 114 98 102 131 119 103 94 96 111 101 105 90 97 83 98 117 97 101 131 127 100 85 88 77 66 119 77 74 100 105 83 72 73 70 115 70 95 96 97 97 80 93 91 87 102 103 107 82 95 101 87 155 94 174 100percent for automobile owners. 4In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying fu ll cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory in surance plans (paid by employer). As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geo graphical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard M e tropo litan S ta tis tic a l Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. • Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. 5 49 RESEARCH SUMMARIES budget to 14 percent in the intermediate and 18 per cent in the higher. When Honolulu and Anchorage were excluded, the interarea differences in cost tended to be smallest in the case of the lower budget and to widen as the level rose. All indexes relate to budgets for established fam ilies in the area. They do not measure cost differ ences associated with moving from one area to another or living costs of families newly arrived in a given community. Table 5. Changes in living costs, 1970-71 The three family budgets were last published in spring 1970. Over the 18-month period between spring 1970 and autumn 1971, when the Consumer Price Index rose by 5.3 percent, the consumption budget at each level rose by 5 percent and the total budget at each level by about 3 percent. The smaller increase in the overall budgets than in the consump tion components resulted from a reduction of per- Comparative indexes based on a higher budget for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971 [U.S. urban average=100] Family consumption Area Urban United States________________________ . . . _____ Metropolitan areas5. . . .......................................... .......... Nonmetropolitan areas6__________________________ Northeast: Boston, Mass............................................................... Buffalo, N Y ________________________________ Hartford, Conn______ ______ _________________ Lancaster, Pa_______________________________ New York-Northeastern New Jersey____________ Philadelphia, P a .- N .J ..._____________________ Pittsburgh, Pa______________________________ Portland, Maine______ __________ ____________ Nonmetropolitan areas6_______________ ______ North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa___________________ ______ Champaign-Urbana, III.......... ....... ................... ......... Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Indiana....... ........... ....... Cincinnati, O hio-K y.-lnd_ .____ _______ _______ Cleveland, Ohio.......................................... ................. Dayton, Ohio................................................................. Detroit, M ich................................................................ Green Bay, Wis______________________________ Indianapolis, Ind____________________________ Kansas City, Mo.-Kans________________ ______ Milwaukee, Wis________ ______ ______________ Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_____ _____ ________ St. Louis, Mo.—I l l ___________________ ______ Wichita, Kans__............................. ............... ........... .. Nonmetropolitan areas6________ _____________ South: Atlanta, Ga.......................... ........... ................... ......... Austin, Tex.............. ....................... ............... ............. Baltimore, Md_______ ____ __________________ Baton Rouge, La............................................... .......... Dallas, Tex...................................................... ............. Durham, N.C................................................................ Houston, T e x . . . ........................ ................. ............... Nashville, T e n n ........................................... .............. Orlando, Fla........................................ .......... ............. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va_________ ______ ____ Nonmetropolitan areas6_____ _________ ____ _ West: Bakersfield, C a lif.......... ............. ..................... ......... Denver, Colo.......... ................... ....................... .......... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif.................................. San Diego, Calif________________ ______ _____ San Francisco-Oakland Calif.................. ................... Seattle-Everett, Wash.____ ___ ______ ________ Honolulu, Hawaii.......................... ............................... Nonmetropolitan areas6_______________ ______ Anchorage, A la s k a ..................................... ....... ............. .. 1 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Clothing and personal care 100 103 86 100 102 100 101 92 93 120 105 106 96 136 105 114 90 127 99 92 95 94 115 99 108 94 103 104 109 121 104 97 98 94 101 102 104 92 104 96 98 114 94 98 94 92 91 101 93 98 101 99 101 106 102 99 92 89 87 86 101 92 92 94 89 90 88 103 80 91 97 102 98 106 99 124 89 130 Total Food Housing2 100 100 102 100 103 87 117 103 109 97 117 103 97 100 94 99 103 105 94 103 95 99 97 101 101 102 98 99 94 90 90 89 98 94 95 93 93 94 91 101 82 92 97 103 99 107 103 117 88 126 The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. Housing includes shelter, household operations, housefurnishings and lodging out of home city. Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 15 percent for renter costs, 85 percent for homeowner costs. A ll families are assumed to be automobile owners. In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the 3 4 Transpor tation 3 Total budget 89 107 104 106 104 117 108 102 105 98 92 97 102 104 82 110 101 104 89 108 93 96 102 104 98 97 99 97 92 98 95 98 105 93 89 101 110 96 92 92 90 94 92 101 99 94 92 96 89 88 101 86 94 96 78 78 89 87 91 87 83 91 88 98 73 100 84 94 104 95 103 104 123 87 115 123 85 146 101 110 102 110 105 95 98 96 101 104 91 94 108 92 91 95 94 98 98 97 93 98 99 94 105 92 98 94 103 93 104 92 123 88 115 100 100 102 100 103 93 107 105 104 98 103 98 102 106 99 106 104 102 100 98 98 Medical care4 Other family consump tion 100 100 100 103 85 104 83 105 77 98 91 97 89 110 107 112 102 111 142 115 93 93 147 110 101 85 94 90 90 100 104 85 100 90 102 88 101 96 94 95 92 94 84 97 96 104 93 95 98 96 103 92 99 90 94 94 109 90 116 107 106 87 96 108 113 96 97 107 105 117 114 108 105 91 153 102 100 101 115 Personal income taxes 101 102 82 122 108 104 106 87 101 101 104 99 104 103 102 97 104 101 101 102 98 96 82 100 103 104 102 103 100 101 101 101 104 81 96 99 99 99 103 104 109 84 97 112 96 87 88 109 99 101 82 91 80 97 121 92 103 131 125 99 84 83 71 65 118 79 73 98 70 70 67 115 65 79 95 96 89 104 83 162 88 154 following proportions: 30 percent for families paying fu ll cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geo graphical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. * Places with populations of 2,500 to 50,000. 5 50 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Table 6. Percent composition of 4-person family budg ets, spring 1970 and autumn 1971 Budget level Total budget Con sumption Other items 1 T ax e s 2 Lower: 1970________________________ 1971__________ ____ ________ 100 100 80 81 5 5 15 14 Intermediate: 1970________________________ 1971________________________ 100 100 77 79 5 5 18 16 Higher: 1970__________________ _____ 1971________________________ 100 100 73 75 6 6 21 19 1 Includes gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational expenses. 2 Social security and disability payments, plus Federal, State, and local personal income taxes. The 1970 taxes were computed at 1969 rates; the 1971 taxes at 1971 rates. sonal income taxes at all levels of government: 13, 11, and 9 percent, respectively, in the lower, inter mediate, and higher level budgets. However, the progressive effect of the income tax adjustments was partly offset by an increase in social security rates in 1971. As a result, the distribution of income be tween consumption and taxes changed somewhat for the illustrative four-person budget family. (See table 6.) Method of calculation The 1971 consumption budgets were derived by applying price changes between spring 1970 and autumn 1971, reported in the Consumer Price Index for individual areas, to the appropriate spring 1970 final budget for each main class of goods and serv ices.2 Other items were also updated to autumn 1971, and personal income taxes and social security were computed from the tax rates in effect for 1971. Sources of data, method of calculation, and quan tities of goods and services for each budget level, with spring 1967 costs, are described in detail in Three Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons (BLS Bulletin 1570-5), available for $1 from any of the regional offices listed on the in side front cover or from the Superintendent of Doc uments, Washington, D.C. 20402. A supplement giving budgets for spring 1969-70 is also available free of charge. |—j --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1 New information on actual spending patterns will be available upon completion of the 1972-73 Survey of Con sumer Expenditures, now in process. 2This method of updating is approximate, because the Consumer Price Index reflects spending patterns and prices https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis paid for commodities and services purchased by wage earn ers and clerical workers generally, without regard to their family type and level of living. WORK INJURIES IN ATOMIC ENERGY ESTABLISHMENTS r e l e a s i n g the fifth in a series of annual reports prepared for the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that the injury fre quency rate for 1970 in privately owned and op erated establishments in the atomic energy field— at 6.2 per million employee-hours worked—was well below the national average of 15.2 for manufactur ing establishments. However, the 6.2 rate was the highest recorded since studies of such establishments were begun (in 1965) and considerably higher than the 1969 rate of 4.0. Since the rate for matched establishments (those included in both the 1969 and 1970 surveys) showed virtually no change— 4.9 in 1969 and 5.0 in 1970— the increase may be at tributed largely to changes in the establishments in cluded in the survey. Although one-half of the establishments had in jury-frequency rates below 2.2, a considerable num ber had markedly high rates; one-tenth had rates of 22.8 or higher. The highest (28.2) was reported among establishments engaged in the production of special materials for use in reactors, an experience documented in past surveys. None of the establish ments reported injuries resulting from exposure to ionizing radiations, considered a work injury if clin ically evident biological damage results. The incidence of injury for atomic energy em ployees was unchanged from the 1969 rate of 5.2. However, the rate for all employees in the establish ments rose considerably, so that—for the first time since these surveys were begun— the injury rate for all employees was markedly higher than the rate for atomic energy employees. Full details of the survey will be published in a BLS Bulletin later this year. This is the last survey in this series. Under the Williams—Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), the Bureau has instituted a new mandatory recordkeeping system which requires virtually every employer in the private sector of the economy to maintain records of workrelated injuries and illnesses and to submit this in formation upon request. Data will no longer be col lected on the basis of the Standard Method of Re- In RESEARCH SUM MARIES cording and Measuring Work Injury Experience (Z16.1). The new OSHA system involves major conceptual changes from the Z16.1 standard. Instead of restrict ing recordable cases of occupational injury to dis abling injuries only, the OSHA definition includes all work-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries, other than those requiring only first-aid treatment. Spe cifically included as recordable cases are those in volving medical treatment, loss of consciousness, re striction of work or motion, or transfer to another job or termination of employment. The former con cept that no time was lost, and hence no recordable injury sustained, as long as the employee could carry out an established job which was open and available to him has been eliminated. The OSHA system con siders as recordable any change in occupation caused by a work-related injury or illness. The more inclusive definition of recordable in juries and illnesses under the OSHA system and the extended coverage in the new national survey has necessitated a réévaluation of the importance of a separate atomic energy survey. As a result, the Atomic Energy Commission has decided to discon tinue temporarily the BLS-AEC survey. A complete description of the new recording and reporting system, Recordkeeping Requirements un der the Williams—Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Wash ington, D.C. 20212, or from any of the regional of fices listed on the inside front cover. □ MEDICAL CARE PRICES SINCE MEDICARE I n t h e 5-year period following the inception of Medicare in 1967, prices of medical care increased at twice the rate reported in the earlier part of the 1960’s— 6.6 percent annually in 1967 to 1971, com pared to 3.2 percent a year in 1960-67. However, the gap between the rate of increase in prices for all consumer items and for medical care actually https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 51 decreased, as inflationary pressures pushed prices for all items to an annual average increase of 4.8 percent in 1967-71, triple the 1.6 percent yearly average of 1960-67. These findings are reported by Loucele A. Horowitz in a recent issue of the Social Security Bulletin. Hospital daily service charges—the amount charged an adult inpatient for routine nursing care, semiprivate room, board, and minor medical and surgical care— almost doubled from June 1966 to June 1971. Operating room charges increased by 77 percent. Contributing to this rise in hospital prices were increased demand, rising costs of labor and supplies, and technological changes which required more expensive equipment and more highly skilled workers. Overall, physicians’ fees increased by almost twofifths in the 5-year period ending in June 1971. The increases ranged from 31 percent for adult herniorrhaphy, psychiatrist office visits, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy to 40 to 43 percent for general physician office and house visits, obstetrical care, and pediatric office visits. Medicare and Medicaid played a significant role in this price escalation, ac cording to the author, since both programs expanded effective demand without increasing the already short supply of physicians. In general, prices for other medical care goods and services, except prescriptions, followed the up ward trend reported for hospital and physicians’ serv ices. Dentists’ fees increased by one-third; charges for examination, prescription, and dispensing eye glasses, more than one-fourth; routine laboratory tests, one-fifth. Prices of over-the-counter drugs increased by nearly 12 percent, but decreases in prescription charges were reported for 4 of the 5 years between June 1966 and June 1971. Whether the index for drugs reflects all actual retail prescrip tion purchases is questionable. “Medical Care Price Changes in Medicare’s First Five Years” appears in the Social Security Bulletin, March 1972, which is available for 35 cents from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. □ Foreign Labor Briefs TURKISH LABOR AND THE EEC has reached the middle range of its threestage path to full membership in the European Eco nomic Community. About a year ago the Turkish Parliament approved the Government’s decision to enter the present phase of the gradual transition with out additional preparation, and now the ultimate ad mission of Turkey to the Common Market depends on individual actions of the organization’s members. In the meantime the country is stirred by a contro versy over the merits of such membership, particu larly as regards the employment opportunities it of fers to Turkish labor in the industrialized countries of the West. T urkey The Ankara Treaty of September 12, 1963, mak ing Turkey an associate member of the European Economic Community marked the beginning of a large-scale migration of Turkish workers to indus trialized countries of Western Europe. Some emigra tion to West Germany, the main market for Turkish labor, had started after a bilateral agreement was signed in October 1961. An important step in Tur key’s economic and political life, the treaty, often called the Association Agreement, provided for three consecutive phases: a 5-year preparatory stage, ef fective 1964, in which the EEC countries accorded unilateral commercial and financial concessions to Turkey but did not require reciprocal obligations on Turkey’s part; a transitional stage of mutual and “balance obligations,” 1 designed to benefit both parties without impairing Turkey’s economic devel opment and to bring about a customs union for in dustrial products; and the final stage, which should result in Turkeys complete participation in the com munity. The integration policy for agricultural prod ucts is to be determined after 22 years from the con clusion of the treaty. All three stages must be com“Turkish labor and the EEC” was prepared by Joan Clarke, Chief of the Near East South Asia Branch, Division of For eign Latbor Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org 52 Bank of St. Louis Federal Reserve pleted before Turkey can become a full member of the organization. The preparatory stage has been completed, but the passage into the transitional stage is not auto matic. The treaty contains an option for extending the preparatory stage another 5 years; whether Tur key should take this option has long been a topic of controversy in the country. The Government has opted to enter the transitional stage; the Annex Pro tocol it signed for this purpose in November 1970 was ratified by the Turkish Parliament in July 1971 but still awaits ratification by the member states of the organization. The Annex Protocol initiates a free flow of labor and capital between Turkey and the Common Mar ket, establishes a customs union, and outlines import and export tariff policies for a 22-year period. The free movement of labor is to be achieved gradually between the end of the 12th and 22d years of the Association Agreement— that is, between 1976 and 1986. At the present time, EEC-member states may deny work permits to Turkish workers, but by the time the transitional stage is completed the workers will be guaranteed work permits. Turkish workers in the community countries then will be employed under the same working conditions and remunera tion as the workers of the member countries. Both the EEC and Turkey are pledged to improve their policies toward work opportunities and free settle ment of workers within the community countries. Various views have been expressed in the private and public sectors of Turkey on the benefits that will accrue to the Turkish economy from the transitional stage. Management in the private sector, as repre sented by the Ko? Holding Co., Inc., Turkey’s larg est single business enterprise, considers that Turkish industry’s high production costs, increased by labor costs, will negatively affect its competitiveness within the European Economic Community. It recommends, therefore, that during the period of a collective bar gaining contract, a system should be adopted to en sure wage increases geared to the cost of living. The FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS company further recommends that wage levels be determined according to individual industrial cate gories by tripartite bodies of labor, management, and government representatives meeting every 2 or 3 years. In the public sector, the Industrial Development Bank 2 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs argue for a free flow of labor and capital as stipulated in the Annex Protocol. They emphasize the reduction of unemployment in Turkey and increased workers’ re mittances from abroad; the latter will add to foreign exchange earnings and will contribute to increased domestic investments. Also, they cite the benefits to the economy from the training Turkish workers re ceive abroad, and the application of these skills upon subsequent employment in Turkey. The Ministry sees a socioeconomic gain for Turkey from the free cir culation of workers, most of whom return home after a few years of work abroad. Most are unskilled when they leave. The skills they acquire abroad are urg ently needed in the Turkish economy. This presup poses that existing skills in the Turkish labor force are not lost by the exit of Turkish workers. Job open ings abroad are mostly for unskilled and semiskilled workers. On the other hand, the Economic Development Foundation,3 a private organization, points to the danger of losing skilled workers as a result of migra tion and calls for measures to prevent this trend. The foundation says that the EEC should be asked to train Turkish workers in Turkey before employing them abroad and proposes establishment of training centers. In this way, the foundation points out, un skilled workers could be trained and skilled ones would not be removed from the Turkish industries where they are needed. A lack of adequate information on skill levels of Turkish workers before, during, and after their work abroad appears to account largely for the above dif fering opinions. While a rather large literature exists on various aspects of the movement of Turkish work ers abroad, no complete picture emerges. Statistical data are thin and are contradictory and piecemeal. Even on the basic question of how many workers are in West Germany, for example, Turkish and West German statistics differ widely. □ REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF JAPAN Japan’s rapid economic expansion, combined with the limited habitable area, constitutes a problem of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 53 major proportions that urgently calls for solution.4 It seems to demand nothing less than industrial and demographic restructuring of the country. The Jap anese have approached the problem in terms of balanced regional development, and the New Com prehensive Development Plan currently being im plemented is intended to achieve this balance by about 1985. The heart of Japan’s trouble and the cause of its economic imbalance is the exceptionally high degree of industrial development and overcongestion in the so-called Pacific Coast Belt in relation to the rest of the country, particularly the rural areas. In the next 15 years, the development plan is designed to stimulate economic growth of other regions through the development of nationwide transport and com munication networks. The scheme is to connect Tokyo with major industrial centers— Sapporo, Sen dai, Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka—into a centrally controlled complex of economic activity, which in turn would be connected with key cities in the various regions. This network is expected to extend the potential for economic growth from the center to the rest of the country. The question is, however, how to reach that goal of balanced growth without reproducing the old or giving rise to new forms of social and economic blight? In reporting on its on-the-spot study of the Japanese regional development policy, a working party of the Industry Committee of the Organiza tion for Economic Co-operation and Development has sized up the results of Japan’s present economic imbalance as follows: . . . Japan’s regional problem has tw o main facets: first, the disutilities o f concentration, nam ely air and water pollution, housing shortages, constantly rising land prices, water supply difficulties, transport prob lem s, etc., aggravated by insufficient investm ent in social capital; . . . secondly, the attraction o f the already overpopulated area for the younger and more dynam ic section o f the rural population. The latter results in econom ic stagnation in the countryside, where it is econom ically difficult to maintain com m unity equipm ent and public services at an adequate standard for the population w hich stays behind.5 Thus, environmental questions and quality of life seem to be the predominant considerations of the Japanese regional planning. In reflecting the OECD group’s opinion, the OECD Observer said: “Indus trialization and rising standards of living are likely to lead to a demand for better housing conditions, more attractive cities, the conservation of natural sites and a better environment, and all this will 54 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 necessitate greater attention to physical and regional planning; thus the basic problem for Japan in the coming 15 years is to reconcile economic growth with the needs of regional and environmental plan ning.” Considering the speed as well as the scope of Japan’s economic growth, which exceeds that of any other advanced country, the OECD working party concluded that “further intensification of the efforts already underway would be required over many years, if a sound regional balance of the economy was to be achieved and if economic growth was not to be accompanied by worsening of the environ ment.” In this respect, the party sounded an en couraging note that “these plans do not remain mere pieces of paper, but are implemented with energy and efficiency.” The report, entitled “Salient Features of Regional Development Policies in Japan,” is obtainable on request from the OECD Industry Committee Secre tariat or from the OECD Publications Center, Suite 1207, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washing ton, D.C. 20006. □ LABOR UNION MEMBERSHIP IN CANADA, 1971 occurred in the struc ture of labor organizations in Canada during the period 1970-71, according to Labor Organizations in Canada, 1971, issued by the Canada Department of Labor.6 At the beginning of 1971, labor unions reported a total of 2,210,554 members, an increase of 1.7 percent over the 1970 figure. Canadian Labor Congress affiliates accounted for 74.8 percent of R e l a t iv e l y l it t l e the total union membership, most of it affiliated with the AFL-CIO: Canadian Labor Congress a ffilia tes.................... With AFL-CIO affiliation............................. Without AFL-CIO affiliation ...................... 1,654,117 1,147,441 506,706 Another 9.6 percent belonged to federations affili ated with the Quebec-based Confederation of Na tional Trade Unions, and 15.6 percent were in various unaffiliated international and national unions and independent local organizations. Nine unions reported 50,000 members or more: United Steelworkers of America (A F L -C IO / CLC) ......................................................................... Canadian Union of Public Employees (CLC) . . Public Service Alliance of Canada ( C L C ) ........... International Union, United Automobile, Aero space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CLC) ..................................................... United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A FL-C IO /C LC ) ......................... International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf feurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America (Ind.) ......................................................................... International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A FL-CIO /C LC) ................................................. Fédération Nationale de Services, Inc. (C SN) . . International Association of Machinists and Aero space Workers (A FL-CIO /C LC) .................... 156,000 138,088 121,571 111,219 74,645 58,918 55,000 52,307 51,136 change Two international unions ceased operations in Canada, the International Alliance of Bill Posters, Billers and Distributors of the United States and Canada (AFL-CIO ) and the Coopers’ International Union of North America (A FL-C IO /C L C ), which had reported 11 and 200 members, respectively, in Canada at the time of the 1970 survey. □ -F O O T N O T E S - 1 The term “balanced obligations” is not clearly defined, but it requires that the “mutual concessions be in accordance with the economic potentials of the parties concerned.” (As stated by Emine Olgun in his paper, “Public and Private Sector Views on Turkey’s Entry into the Transitional Stage of its Association with the European Economic Community,” USAID, Ankara, Economic Planning Division, March 1971.) by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry and Chamber of Com merce in 1965, to conduct research related to Turkey and the EEC. Seventeen other chambers have since joined the foundation. 4 Currently, Japan’s population density reaches 1,400 persons per square kilometer, and its rate of economic expansion was 10.9 in 1970, compared with 11.9 percent in 1969. 2 Established in 1950 by the Turkish Government, the World Bank group, and Turkish private industries, with financial assistance coming from the founders and from the European Investment Bank, USAID, and other bodies. 5 O E C D O b serve r, February 1972, p. 34. 8 Available from Information Canada, Ottawa. For a summary of the report, see “Labor organizations in Canada, 1971, ” L a b o r G a z e tte , Canada Department of Labor, March 1972, pp. 140-141. 3 The Economic Development Foundation was established https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Significant Decisions in Labor Cases The ultimate principal abor l it ig a t io n occasionally brings a reminder that the ultimate principal in the employer-employee relationship established through collective bargaining is the employee, not his union. Unions may come and go, but the final authority on the labor side remains with the worker; a union exercises that authority on his behalf as long as it represents him. In recent months, this simple truth of union democ racy posed a barrier to a union’s attempt to decide the fate of an employee pension fund, even though the employees had rejected the union at the polls as their exclusive representative. The attempt was frustrated by the ruling of a Federal district court. (Stegmaier Brewing Co.1) As bargaining representative of employees of several breweries, a local of the Brewery Workers negotiated a contract providing for a jointly admin istered pension plan that could be terminated only upon mutual consent of “the companies and the union” (court’s language), and only if its continua tion were impossible. When the next representation election in the unit brought victory to another labor organization, a local of the Teamsters, the latter agreed with the employers to continue the old con tract until its expiration date and to retain, until that time, the Brewery Workers’ representatives on the joint committee administering the fund. After the conclusion of a new contract, which retained the pension plan with minor modifications, the displaced local of the Brewery Workers demanded that the union representation on the joint committee of the fund consist exclusively of its own men. It also pro posed that the fund be discontinued and assets dis tributed among the employees, and ordered the bank to stop payments to retirees. When its demands were rejected, the displaced union asked that the question of fund termination be submitted to arbitration under L “Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Eugene Skotzko, Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the provisions of the plan. The companies and the successor Teamster union refused, denying the Brew ery Workers a standing to demand arbitration. The old union then brought the dispute before the district court under the provisions of sections 301 and 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act.2 The district judge ruled: It is my opinion that this pension agreement is not autom atically term inated by virtue o f one union being displaced by another. . . . T he pension plan and trust agreement contain no provision for term ination or continuation in the event o f a change in the certified bargaining agent, nor did they provide for term ination w ithout the consent o f the employers. U nder these circum stances the successor union is entitled to be substituted for the displaced union as a party to the pension plan. The displaced union has n o right to interfere with the decision o f the suc cessor union or the representatives o f the latter, nor with the administration o f the pension plan after the decertification. T h e n e c e s s a r y e f fe c t o f d e c e r tif ic a tio n is to te r m in a te th e r ig h t o f th e d i s p l a c e d u n io n t o a d m in is te r th e c o n t r a c t a n d th e p e n s io n p la n o n b e h a lf o f th e e m p l o y e e s in th e b a r g a in in g u n it. The new collective bargaining agent should succeed to the position o f the prior union with respect to these matters. [Emphasis added.] The court’s affirmative relief included a declara tion that the new union was “the successor to the [displaced] Union under the plan and trust agree ment and [was] entitled to all of the rights and subject to all the obligations under the plan and trust;” and the release of the fund’s assets to the newly appointed trustees. Replaced striker as a voter Judicial opinion has made it clear that a perma nently replaced economic striker retains his employee status while waiting to be rehired or until he obtains “substantially equivalent” employment elsewhere. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled so in Fleetwood Trailer Co.3 in 1967, and the NLRB repeated and elaborated upon this ruling in Laidlaw4 a year later. But in another area of his statutory rights, the re55 56 placed ex-striker does not fare equally well: his right to vote in a representation election of his unit does not reach beyond 1 year from the beginning of the strike. On this point, the Board ruled recently in Wahl Clipper Corp.,5 the law is specific and its language means exactly what it says: “Employees engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are consistent with the purposes and provisions of the act in any election conducted within 12 months after the com mencement of the strike.” (Provision of section 9 (c )(3 ) of the LMRA.) The Board’s decision did not resolve the inconsistency that appears to exist between the replaced striker’s legal status as an employee and that as a voter. More than a year after the settlement of a strike, an NLRB regional director ordered a representation election in the unit, with participation of the per manently replaced strikers still on preferential hiring list. The regional director’s reasoning seemed clearcut and logical: The replaced strikers had a “reasonable expecta tion” of reinstatement since, under the Laidlaw doc trine, they remained employees until the time of suitable employment elsewhere. As such they were eligible to vote, for even the NLRB had ruled—in Pioneer Flour Mills6—that replaced economic strikers must be allowed to participate in an election held for the purpose of choosing a bargaining rep resentative of employees. The statutory 12-month limitation on voting rights of replaced strikers ap plies— as the law specifically says—to those “who are not entitled to reinstatement.” In this case, the employees were entitled to and were waiting for reinstatement. Also, as in Pioneer Flour Mills, the strike in this case did not last 12 months. The Board did not accept this reasoning. “Eli gibility of replaced economic strikers to vote in a Board-conducted election is governed by section 9 (c )(3 ), as amended in 1959,” it said. The legisla tive history of the amendment, “while not definitive,” does support the view that the 12-month limitation was the intent of Congress. Not only does the law set the limit on voting eligibility of replaced economic strikers, it also empowers the Board to limit the right further, through regulations consistent with the purposes of the act. As for the contention that the limitation applies only to those who are “not entitled to reinstatement” whereas the ex-strikers in this case were so entitled, the Board said that, as the legislative history reveals, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 the term was merely descriptive, intended to dis tinguish the economic from unfair-labor-practice strikers. At the time of the 1959 amendment, the Board said, Congress was under the impression that a striker, once legally replaced, had no entitlement to reinstatement. Hence, at that time the term “not entitled to reinstatement” did not have the meaning it acquired later, through the rulings of the Supreme Court and the NLRB (in Fleetwood and Laidlaw, respectively), that replaced strikers continue in the employee status until they obtain suitable employ ment elsewhere. Apart from the legislative history, there is “the factual and practical question of the extent of the genuine interest of replaced economic strikers in the issues which will be determined in the election,” the Board observed. It cited an inquiry on the floor of the Senate during the preenactment discussion: “. . . [W]hat [would] the situation . . . be when the economic strikers had been away from their work, let us say, for a year and had been replaced by new workers? How could the question ever be resolved with regard to who should be the bargaining agent for the workers? . . . and how long would the eco nomic striker be vested with the right to vote on an equal basis with the worker?”7 And the Board added, “It was . . . a recognition of the speculative nature of such interests which led the Congress in the first instance to adopt the 12-month statutory limitation.” The Board concluded: “. . . [I]t seems to us the most reasonable course, as well as the most reason able interpretation of the statutory language, is to hold that replaced strikers are not eligible to vote in an election held more than 12 months after the commencement of an economic strike.” Member Fanning dissented. He argued that per manently replaced economic strikers are not dif ferent with respect to voting rights from laid-off workers—both are “employees” under the law, and both are subject to recall “within the foreseeable future.” “To dismiss the Fleetwood and Laidlaw rights of economic strikers [as employees] under the guise of reasonableness is, in my opinion, tanta mount to the Board’s acting in an irresponsible manner,” he said. The Board’s majority rejected this comparison as “not entirely apt.” It pointed out that the replaced worker’s chance for reinstatement depends “not merely [on] an improvement in the business of the employer but also [on] the termination of employ ment of his replacement— an event the timing of which is highly speculative. .. .” 57 SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES Reward for nonstrikers When a strike ended, the employer granted $ 100bonus awards to the employees who had not joined the strike and had continued to work. The con templated bonus had not been announced during the strike; after it was granted, the employer refused to furnish the union with any information pertain ing to it. The union considered the bonus an inter ference with the employees’ statutory right to strike, and the denial of information a refusal to bargain, violations of section 8 (a )(1 ) and (5). The employer replied that the bonus was intended merely to compensate the nonstrikers for the risks they took in crossing the picket lines to work; and that it did not interfere with the employees’ rights to strike since it was not even announced during the strike and was granted after the settlement. Nor could it have any effect on the employees’ rights to strike in the future, the company said. The NLRB disagreed. (Aero-Motive Manufacturing Co.8) . . [T]he issue posed here,” said the Board, “is whether the payment of special cash bonus to em ployees who chose to refrain from protected, con certed activity . . . tends to interfere with free exer cise of statutory right of the employees . . . to engage in strike action.” And it went on to answer: “It is by now axiomatic that employers violate our act if they grant special benefits to employees who refrain from engaging in concerted activity. . . .” The bonus awards, among other things, “clearly demonstrated for the future the special rewards which lie in store for employees who choose to refrain from protected strike activity.” And no matter what the employer’s motive was, the bonus’ “impact on employees is plain for all to see— that nonstrikers did, and pre sumably will in the future, receive special benefits which strikers will not receive. Employer actions which have this impact are violative of section 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ”— that is, constitute coercion. The company was ordered to pay the $100 bonus also to the employees who had been on strike, with interest from the date of the grant to the nonstrikers. Previous decisions in two similar cases—Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., and Columbia Pictures Corp.9—were overruled to the extent they implied that bonus awards not announced during a strike were legal. Overtime and protected activity A team of six employees in a plastics plant were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis expected to do some overtime work. They were not represented by a union. Their work was very heavy, and the conditions in the plant— such as shortage of personnel and bad ventilation—were poor. Under these conditions, the employees in question con sidered the steadily growing overtime assignments to be burdensome. One day a member of the team did not report for work, and the others decided not to stay overtime that night because they were all tired. The employer suspended the five from work for the next 2 days. He maintained that their joint refusal was not a legally protected concerted activity. (Polytech, Inc.19) Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Wash ington Aluminum Co.,11 the NLRB ruled that the five workers’ decision not to work beyond the regular hours was, indeed, a protected concerted activity. As in Washington Aluminum, the employees were unrepresented, the plant conditions were bad, and there was no established procedure to air the employees’ grievances. There was, however, one important consideration with which the Board was particularly concerned— whether the employees had not habitually resorted to the stratagem of “concerted activity” as a means short of a strike to obtain from the employer a desired concession. The Board referred to its own decision in John S. Swift Co.,12 where a similar con certed refusal to work overtime was found not to have been protected by law: the employees there had repeatedly engaged in work stoppages for only a portion of the working day as a means of pressure upon the employer during bargaining. Such workers, the Board now repeated, “are plainly unwilling to assume the status of strikers— a status contemplating a risk of replacement and a loss of pay.” The Board went on, “The principle of [such] cases is that employees cannot properly seek to maintain the benefits of remaining in a paid employee status while refusing, nonetheless, to perform all of the work they were hired to do.” In the present case, the Board noted, the sus pended employees had no history of such short-ofstrike stoppages. Theirs was a bona fide one-time concerted decision not to do overtime work because of bad working conditions. Polling eligible voters An employer asked the NLRB to set aside a representation election won by a union that had polled the prospective voters on how they were going MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 58 to vote. The company relied on a previous Board decision (in Offner Electronics, Inc.13) that no secret polling is allowed after the election order. The Board said the polling in the present case did not warrant invalidation of the election. The union’s poll was noncoercive, it said, and the Offner ruling “was not intended to be applicable to noncoercive polling by a union.” Offner was overruled to the extent of its contrary implication. In concurring, Chairman Miller expressed the view that a poll of prospective voters should not invalidate an election unless it involved “a violation of em ployee rights as, for example, [if it was] used as an instrument of illegal employer interference such as unlawful interrogation, or of union restraint or coercion.” (Springfield Discount.14) □ -F O O T N O T E S 1 B re w e ry W o rk ers a n d its L o c a l 163 v. S te g m a ie r B re w ing C o ., No. 70-556, Feb. 29, 1972. 2 Title III of the LMRA provides for suits by and against labor organizations (section 301), and imposes restrictions on payments to employee representatives (section 302). 3 389 U.S. 375 (1967). 4 171 NLRB No. 175 (1968)— see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1968, pp. 59-60; enf. 414 F.2d 99 (C.A. 7, 1969); cert, denied 397 U.S. 920 (1970). In L a id la w , the Board established a rule (the “L a id la w doctrine”) by hold ing unanimously that “. . . economic strikers who uncondi tionally apply for reinstatement at the time when their positions are filled by permanent replacements: (1) remain employees; (2) are entitled to full reinstatement upon the departure of replacements unless they have in the meantime acquired regular and substantially equivalent employment, or the employer can sustain his burden of proof that the failure to offer full reinstatement was for legitimate and substantial business reasons. . . .” On reinstatement of strikers, see also the discussion of U n ite d A ir c r a ft C o rp . (192 NLRB No. 62, 1971) in M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1971, pp. 62-64. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 W ah l C lip p e r C o rp . and E m p lo y e e s o f W a h l C lip p e r C o rp . a n d M a c h in ists L o c a l 198 8 , 195 NLRB No. 104, Feb. 29, 1972. 6 174 NLRB 1202 (1969). 7 Senator Frank J. Lausche, 105 C o n g ressio n a l R e c o r d , Apr. 21, 1959, p. 5731. 8 A e r o -M o tiv e M a n u fa c tu rin g C o . and D is tr ic t L o d g e 117, M ach in ists, 195 NLRB No. 133, Mar. 9, 1972. 9 A sso cia tio n : 79 NLRB NLRB 568 (1949). 466 (1948); C o lu m b ia : 82 10 P o ly te c h , In c. and R o n a ld L a w re n c e, 195 NLRB No. 126, Mar. 2, 1972. 11 370 U.S. 9 (1 962)— see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1962, pp. 794-795. 12124 NLRB 394 (1959); enf. 277 F.2d 641 (C.A. 7, 1960). 13127 NLRB 991 (1960). 14 S p rin g field D isc o u n t, In c. and R e ta il C le rk s L o c a l 169 6 , 195 NLRB No. 157, Mar. 16, 1972. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in July is based on contracts on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries except government. Number ot workers Union 1 Industry Company and location Association of Private Hospitals, Inc. (New York, N.Y.) —.......... . ................. - .................. Hospitals___ Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Nashville Chapter (Nashville, Tenn.). Construction. Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, and two other associations (St. Louis, Mo.). ____do_____ Service Employees ________ ______ Carpenters _____________ . ____ Iron Workers . ____ ____ Bedding Industry Agreement (Los Angeles, Calif.)2. .................................. ...................... Furniture.............. ............... Beech Aircraft Corp. (Kansas and Colorado).................................. ....................... ............. Transportation equipment. Bell Aerospace Corp., Bell Helicopter Co. Division (Tarrant and Dallas Counties, Tex.). ____do................................... Bethlehem Steel Corp., Shipbuilding Department (Interstate)................ ....................... .. ____do................................... Brown Shoe Co., two agreements (Interstate)................................................................... .. Leather................................. ........ do.................................. Upholsterers____ . _______________ Machinists ____ ____ ______ Auto Workers ( I n d . ) ..... ......... ............... Marine and Shipbuilding Workers____ Boot and Shoe Workers _ ______ United Shoe Workers . . ___ 6,000 1,500 1,650 1,000 1,200 6,450 5,800 6,450 4,650 Carborundum Co., Electro Minerals Division (New York)....................................... ........... Stone, clay and glass products. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers____ 2,700 Eastern Airlines, Inc., Stewardesses (Interstate)2........................................ ..................... Electrical Contractors Association of Greater Boston, Inc., Boston Chapter (Boston, Mass.).................................................................................................................................... Air transportation......... ............. Transport Workers___ . . . _. ............. 3,700 Construction................................ Electrical Workers (IBEW) . ... 2,350 Fisher Controls Co. (Marshalltown, Iowa)............................ ............. .................... ............. Fabricated metal products____ Auto Workers ( I n d . ) . . _____ _ ______ 1,500 Food Fair Stores, Inc. (Tampa, Fla.)...................................................................................... Retail trade.................................. Retail Clerks................ .. .......... ............. Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Detroit, Mich.)...................................... ......... Gulf States Utilities Company (Interstate)................... ............. .............. ...................... . Printing and publishing. U tilities............................ Bookbinders Electrical Workers (IBEW) Hamilton-Cosco Co., Household Products Division (Columbus, In d .)................................. Hammermill Paper Co., Thilmany Pulp and Paper Division (Kaukauna, Wis.)........ ....... Furniture. Paper___ Carpenters; and Teamsters (In d .)......... Papermakers and Paperworkers; and Pulp, Sulphite Workers. Laborers__________________________ Operating E ngineers.......................... . Auto Workers (In d .)............... .......... _ Construction........................ Heavy Constructors Association of The Greater Kansas City Area, two agreements (Kansas and Missouri)........................ ..................... ........... ....................................... ....... ____ do_______ ______ _ Transportation equipment. Hoover Ball and Bearing Co., Stubnitz Spring Division (Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania). .. ____ .................... . . . . _ 1,000 1,200 2,200 1,000 1,350 1,500 1,200 2,000 2,000 International Harvester Co., Solar Division (San Diego, Calif.).......................................... Transportation equipment. M achinists... Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and Huntington Creek Corp. (Interstate)................ Food products...................... Distillery W o rk e rs .................................. 3,000 Mirro Aluminum Co. (Manitowac and Two Rivers, Wis.)..................................................... Monsanto Co. (Springfield, Mass.)........................ ................................................................ Fabricated metal products. Chemicals............................ Steelworkers... ______ ____ _____ Electrical Workers (IU E)._. . 1,900 1,300 Niagara Frontier Transit System, Inc. (Buffalo, N.Y.)................................................. ....... T ra n s it... Amalgamated Transit U n io n ............... 1,000 2,000 Olin Corp. (New Haven, Conn.)..................................................... . ....................................... Ordnance. M achinists................ ............. ................. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Seattle Catalog Order Plant, (Seattle, Wash.)......... ................. St. Regis Paper Co., Forest Products Group, Manufactured Products Division (Montana). Retail trade. Lumber___ Teamsters (In d .)...................................... Carpenters ______________ _____ _ Television Videotape Agreement, Syndication (Interstate)2...... ......................................... Trans World Airlines, Inc., Stewardesses (Interstate)3--------------------- ----------- ------------True Temper Corp. (Ohio, New York, and West Virginia).................................................. Amusements........................ Air transportation............... Fabricated metal products. Musicians ................ ...... Transport Workers................................... Steelworkers______ . . . . . ____ . . 4,800 1,550 Westvaco, H & D Container Division (Interstate)................................................................. Paper.................................... Papermakers and Paperworkers______ 1,100 1Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.). 2Industry area (group of companies signing same contract). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1,500 1,200 8,000 3 Information is from newspaper. 59 Developments in Industrial Relations Phase 2 pay penalty set The Government’s first suit charging violation of Phase 2 wage regulations was upheld April 19 by Federal Judge C. Stanley Blair. The suit, filed on February 24, had charged the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. and Local 117 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen with violating Phase 2 guidelines by implementing a 16-month con tract providing for wage increases of 15 to 22 per cent. The contract, signed in November 1971, cov ered 77 meat cutters in Baltimore (Monthly Labor Review, May 1972, p. 64). Judge Blair said he would sign an injunction preventing A&P from pay ing, or the union from receiving, the wage increase. He fined both parties $2,500. The company and union announced they had not yet decided whether to appeal the decision. The local was already await ing the outcome of its appeal of a Pay Board order to roll back the increase to 7 percent. Meanwhile, Pay Board Chairman George Boldt, testifying before Congress’ Joint Economic Commit tee, said 89 percent of the cases approved by the Board since its inception provided for wage or salary raises of 5.5 percent or less; 2 percent provided for increases of over 10 percent; and 5 percent provided for increases between 7.1 and 9.9 percent. An addi tional 4 percent fell in the 5.6- to 7-percent bracket, but Judge Boldt said, “The profile of pending cases suggests that proportionally more exceptions up to 7 percent may be granted in the near future.” He also said the average annual increase approved by the Board was 4.3 percent, based on 1,328 cases cover ing 6 million workers. An additional 1,300 cases were awaiting action. in the union’s February settlement could not be placed in escrow. After the Board had cut the settle ment (Monthly Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 6364), the union asked the Pacific Maritime Associa tion to place the disputed portion in escrow for pay ment when the full amount is approved or economic controls are terminated. The Association refused, after the Board had ruled that this would be con trary to the purposes of the stabilization program. Published provisions of the union’s pension settle ment with the Pacific Maritime Association show that the pension maximum is not a simple $500 per month, as reported in the Monthly Labor Review for April 1972 (p. 56). The pension settlement pro vides that normal retirement benefits for a man at age 62 (instead of age 63 as before) with 25 years of service shall be $350 per month, supplemented by an additional $150 per month until he reaches age 65. Any man with 25 years service retiring between the ages 62 and 65 receives this $150 “bridge” bene fit. It is discontinued at age 65. Men who wait to retire until mandatory retirement at age 65 (form erly 68) will not receive the bridge. Boyle convicted Mine Workers President W. A. (Tony) Boyle was convicted of conspiracy and of making illegal polit ical contributions from union funds. Mr. Boyle was found guilty on all 13 counts and faced a maximum of 32 years in prison and fines up to $120,000. The verdict was handed down by a Federal district court jury in Washington, D.C. This was the latest chapter in the 67-year-old labor leader’s legal difficulties.1 The Government charged him with violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, the Landrum-Griffin Act, and the Taft-Hartley Act. Under Taft-Hartley, unions Longshoremen sue Pay Board The International Longshoremens and Warehouse men’s Union filed suit against the Pay Board on April 15, seeking to reverse a ruling that the disal lowed portion of the first-year wage and benefit gains 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statis tics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 61 DEVELOPMENTS are permitted to aid candidates but the money must come from voluntary contributions from the mem bership. The Government asserted that Mr. Boyle had violated this provision by diverting money from the treasury to Labor’s Nonpartisan League, the union’s legislative arm, which, in turn, distributed the money to candidates. Secretary-treasurer John Owens and chief lobbyist James Kmetz were ac quitted. An appeal by Mr. Boyle was pending. New York teachers plan to merge Ending their intense rivalry, New York’s two Statewide teachers’ organizations announced plans to merge. The agreement was subject to ratification by the 90,000 members of the United Teachers of New York, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (A FT), and the 105,000 members of the New York State Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA ). Albert Shanker and Thomas Y. Hobart, Jr., presidents of the two State organizations, said, “The AFT and NEA will initiate discussions leading to a single na tionwide organization capable of speaking for all of America’s 2.5 million teachers.” Earlier in April, a merger agreement was reached between AFT and NEA units representing the instructional staff of the City University of New York. Rural Manpower Service scored A Department of Labor study indicates the De partment’s Rural Manpower Service failed to reduce abuses against farm workers. It found that the Serv ice was, in many instances, helping to institutionalize racial discrimination against farm workers and sub standard housing, health, and sanitary facilities, as well as neglecting enforcement of minimum-wage and child-labor laws. Further, the study, begun last year, indicated the service often represented grower, rather than worker, interests. The Rural Manpower Service, formerly called the Farm Labor Service, is part of the federally sup ported but State-administered U.S. Employment Service. It was established to match jobs and work ers on farms and had, in recent years, been given wider authority to deal with migrant labor and other rural problems. Commenting on the study, Secretary of Labor J. D. Hodgson said the Rural Manpower Service would continue to function but that steps would be taken to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis make it more effective, including consolidation with the Department’s Employment Service, immediate action “to correct any civil-rights violations found during the review,” and enforcement of child labor and minimum wage laws. Philadelphia Plan exceeds goals Assistant Secretary of Labor Richard J. Grüne wald announced that contractors on federally as sisted construction projects in the Philadelphia area exceeded their 1971 minority-hiring goals under the Philadelphia Plan. Minorities worked 13.4 percent of the total man-hours, exceeding the minimum average goal of 9.8 percent.2 Mr. Grünewald added, “The Philadelphia Plan’s success proves that con tractors, unions, the minority community, and local and Federal officials working together can attain realistic goals which have been set for widening minority employment.” Job bias rules tightened The Equal Employment Opportunities Commis sion (EEOC) tightened its rules barring job discrim ination against women. The new guidelines, not Hourly Earnings Index The Hourly Earnings Index rose 0.9 in April to 136.4. The Index measures earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm econ omy. It is adjusted to exclude (1 ) the effects of inter industry employment shifts, (2) overtime premium pay in manufacturing, and (3) seasonal variations. Data for periods prior to April are also shown in the accompanying tabulation (1967 = 100). January ......... . . February . . . . March ........... . . A p r il................ .. May ............... . . June ............... .. July ............... .. August ........... September . . . . . October ......... . . November . . . . . December . . . . . 1 Preliminary. 1969 1970 1971 1972 110.0 110.8 111.4 112.0 112.7 113.3 113.9 114.4 115.1 115.8 116.5 117.0 117.4 118.0 118.8 119.3 120.0 120.6 121.4 122.5 123.2 123.4 124.1 125.0 126.0 126.7 127.3 128.1 129.1 129.3 130.0 130.9 131.3 131.4 131.6 133.5 134.5 134.7 1 135.5 1 136.4 62 legally binding, are designed to assist the courts, em ployers, and unions on how the EEOC interprets Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars sex discrimination. The guidelines specify that women may not be denied jobs because of preg nancy. Further, health and insurance benefits must be extended to female employees absent because of pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, or childbirth. Also covered were “medical, hospital, accident, life insurance and retirement benefits, profit-sharing and bonus plans, leave,” and other conditions of employment by making it “an unlawful practice to discriminate between men and women.” Attention was focused on “head of household” or “principal wage earner” distinctions which provided greater benefits for men, and pension or retirement plans that have sex differentials. In a related development, the Communications Workers charged the American Telephone and Tele graph Co. with violation of the EEOC’s new guide lines. The 360,000-member union claimed that AT&T and its affiliates discriminated against women in maternity-leave policies. The EEOC itself had a suit pending against AT&T and the Bell System alleg ing discrimination against women, blacks, and Spanish-surnamed Americans (Monthly Labor Review, February 1972, pp. 77-78). Meanwhile, Southern Bell Telephone and Tele graph Co., an AT&T affiliate, announced an out-ofcourt settlement with seven women who had filed a suit charging the company with sex discrimination in pay and promotions. An attorney for the women esti mated that the settlement could cost the company $40,000 in back wages, about $60,000 in pay raises between the settlement date and the workers’ retire ment, and a possible $20,000 in retroactive pension gains. A spokesman for Southern Bell called the set tlement part of a “continuing affirmative action pro gram” and denied that the company practiced sex discrimination. In March, seven women employees of a General Electric Plant in Salem, Va., had filed a suit charg ing the company with sex discrimination because of its pay policies on absences due to pregnancies and childbirths (Monthly Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 67-68). No balls, one strike The first general strike in the history of modern baseball curtailed spring training and delayed the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 start of the regular season. The walkout began April 1, 4 days before the scheduled start of the season, and ended April 13, although play did not begin until April 15. A compromise broke the deadlock on the main issue, the owners’ contribution to the play ers’ pension fund. The players had demanded that the owners increase their contributions by $1.1 mil lion, enough to permit raising pensions by 17 per cent, to match the rise in the cost of living since the last pension agreement was signed in 1969. The owners, who were contributing $5.45 million an nually, refused but offered to pay $490,000 for med ical benefits provided by the plan. The players agreed to the medical financing, but demanded that the owners use $600,000 a year of the fund surplus (resulting from increased investment income) for pension increases. The owners said this would jeopardize the fund but later offered to use $400,000, leading to a compromise of $500,000 a year. Under the prior agreement, retired players and coaches with 4 years of major league experience were eligible for a yearly pension of $2,092 at age 45 and $7,416 at 65, and those with 20 years of ex perience were eligible for $6,988 at 45 and $23,340 at 65. After the agreement on the pension issue, a final settlement was delayed over the question of whether players would be paid for games canceled by the strike. The decision was that the missed games would not be made up, and the players would lose a pro portionate part of their season’s salary. New York employees strike A weekend strike by members of the Civil Service Employees Association against New York State ended on April 2 following agreement on a 1-year contract. The contract provided for an immediate 4percent wage increase and lump sum “productivity bonuses” on April 1, 1973, equal to IV 2 percent of each employee’s annual salary. A $200-a-year differ ential was also established for workers in high-costof-living areas. Although the contract covered 140,000 of the State’s 180,000 employees, the impact of the strike was minimized because only 7,000 of the 14,000 workers scheduled to work on the weekend participated. Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller an nounced that the State would enforce the Taylor Act, which requires penalties for employees who strike. He said the $60-million cost of the pay increase DEVELOPMENTS would be met by borrowing or by obtaining addi tional Federal aid and the $22-million cost of the bonus would be met by savings from increased pro ductivity. Call for increased productivity Delegates to the Washington, D.C., convention of the International Union of Operating Engineers were told there had been insufficient gains in productivity to match the large pay increases in the construction industry in recent years. Hunter P. Wharton, union president, warned that, as a result, the unionized sector of the building trades industry was losing work to nonunion contractors. He added that “had pro ductivity increased as wages began to rise, we wouldn’t be faced with [some of] our present-day problems.” In addition to the growth of nonunionized construction, he asserted, “owners, bankers, govern ment agencies, and employer associations [have] all formed alliances to counteract the activities of the construction trades.” The leader of the 400,000member union said that, in addition to improving productivity, “Labor must rededicate itself to pride of workmanship— a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.” New contract, same pay Iron Workers in a 13-county area of Florida ap proved a 1-year contract that does not provide for an increase in their current $7.55-an-hour pay rate. A spokesman for Local 397 said the union agreed to the terms to maintain the competitive position of member firms of the Florida East Coast Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America. About 600 workers were covered by the settlement. In Wichita, Kans., construction workers voted to delay for 12 months a $l-an-hour wage increase scheduled under 3-year contracts negotiated in 1970. Union representatives explained, “Our members would rather be employed at a lower rate of pay than unemployed at a higher rate.” One of the representa tives said the action was taken to encourage new in dustry to locate in the area. Affected were 1,0001,500 brick masons, carpenters, cement masons, iron workers, laborers, and teamsters. Hard-coal miners settle The United Mine Workers and the Anthracite Coal Mine Operators of Northeastern Pennsylvania https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 63 reached a 3-year agreement on April 16 that would raise the average daily wage of 4,800 hard-coal min ers to $29 a day in 1974. A union spokesman said the agreement, subject to Pay Board approval, pro vides for a $5-a-day increase retroactive to April 1, 1972, and $1.50 increases effective April 1, 1973, and April 1, 1974. Vacation pay for 2 weeks was in creased to $250, from $215. The employers’ royalty payment to the Anthracite Health and Welfare Fund was raised from 70 cents to 80 cents a ton effective September 1, 1972, and to 90 cents on April 1, 1973. The agreement ended a 2-week strike by 2,500 of the miners, who were protesting the union’s handling of the negotiations. Prison walkout averted A tentative 2-year settlement between New York State and Council 82 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees averted a strike by 7,000 guards and other State prison em ployees. The contract, reached oh April 7, and sub ject to ratification and Pay Board approval, provided for a 4-percent wage increase and $4 a week com pensation for “line up” time prior to going on shift. In addition, the Department of Civil Service agreed to upgrade correction officers’ classifications, result ing in annual increases of $508 to $580. Guards were given the option of cash payments for holiday time lost during the Attica prison uprising, instead of compensatory time off. The agreement also pro vided for reopening in 1973 on salaries and retire ment, health insurance, and other benefits. Maritime contracts renewed The National Maritime Union reached 3-year agreements with the Maritime Service Committee, Inc., and the Tanker Service Committee, Inc. The settlement, subject to membership ratification and Pay Board approval, provided for 5-percent in creases in base pay for unlicensed seamen effective June 16 of 1972, 1973, and 1974. Seamen on auto mated vessels would receive an additional 10 percent in base pay (5 percent on June 16 of 1972 and 1973). Twenty thousand union members on the At lantic and Gulf Coast were affected by the early renewal of contracts, scheduled to expire June 15, 1972. Other terms included increased supplementary vacation pay and the adoption of a minimum-age requirement for pension eligibility. Previously, an able-bodied seaman could retire after 20 years of MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 64 service at any age with a $250-a-month pension. Now he must be age 55 with 20 years of service, but he receives a pension of $300 a month. Northern textile settlements Six agreements 3 covering 8,000 workers in the northern cotton-synthetic division of the textile in dustry were negotiated in mid-April by the Textile Workers Union of America. The 3-year contracts reportedly called for a total of 50 cents in wages and benefits and were expected to set a pattern for 75 other companies in New England and the Mid-At lantic States. The agreements were subject to Pay Board approval. Trade adjustment assistance The Department of Labor announced that 23,000 workers in 56 cases had received assistance under the Trade Expansion Act since its passage in 1962. Twenty-eight thousand workers were denied certifi cation in 80 cases, and 32 cases involving 30,000 workers were being processed. The act was passed to provide relief for workers who lose their jobs because of increased imports resulting from trade conces sions. Provisions include cash readjustment allow ances, retraining, relocation, and other benefits. The cash allowances are equal to 65 percent of the work er’s earnings, with a ceiling of 65 percent of the average pay in the manufacturing sector. The current maximum payment is $93 a week for 52 weeks, pay able for an additional 26 weeks if needed to com plete a training course. The workers declared eligible were in nine industries— steel, electronics, nonrubber footwear, rubber-soled footwear, pianos, glass, auto motive products, household flatware, and cotton textiles. □ ----------F O O T N O T E S ---------1 In a pending suit, the Department of Labor was seeking to set aside his 1969 reelection as president of the union; in 1971, a Federal district court ordered him to step down as a trustee of the union’s Welfare and Retirement Fund, and the union and the fund were held jointly liable for money damages to retired coal miners and miners’ widows. 2 Five of the six crafts covered by the Plan exceeded the minimum goals. They were Ironworkers, Electricians, Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers, and Elevator Constructors. The Steamfitters had minority employment of 9.8 percent and a goal of 11 percent. 3 The firms were American Thread Co. in Willimantic, Conn.; Bates Manufacturing Co. in Lewiston and Augusta, Me.; West Point Pepperell, Inc., and Biddeford Textiles in Biddeford, Me.; Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., in New Bedford, Mass.; and the weaving and dyeing plants of the Waumbec Co. in Manchester, N. H. Elements of meaningful work Few—very few—jobs these days are whole. Nor do many allow for a sense of craftsmanship, a “good job, well done.” . . . Yet craftsmanship is the nearest most of us will ever come to true creativity. And it need not be particularly esoteric or contrived. The stock clerk who once took charge of an entire portion of a firm’s stock, kept all records pertaining thereto, did the ordering, the shipping, and receiving, and all related tasks must have felt a considerable measure of pride in his work—in the orderliness of his shelves, the neatness and completeness of his records, and so on. He had crafted his job well. It is likely the same person today would only be part of a proc ess, and it is very hard to feel any real sense of pride in a well-punched computer card or in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis asking for information that data processing, not you, needs in order to complete a task efficiently. It is far too easy to get hung-up on the catchideas of the day: that work is made more mean ingful by unfettering the individual from admin istrative or bureaucratic restrictions and or by improved “communications.” It doesn’t matter, of course, if the individual is freed if it is only to perform meaningless tasks, or if there is first-rate communication between management and em ployees when all there is to communicate is frus tration and a feeling of futility on both sides. — “As You Were Saying,” Personnel Journal, March 1972. Toward an existential economics Alienation and Economics. By Walter A. Weisskopf. New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1971. 202 pp., bibliography. $7.95. This is a timely, important, and provocative book. It should interest all those within academic walls as well as those beyond. Professor Weisskopf (also the author of The Psychology of Economics) is one of the few economists concerned with the process of economic theorizing and the relation of its main for mulations with their respective wider intellectual context, that is, the broad general patterns of philo sophical, moral, psychological, and political thought. The value of his latest work lies in the develop ment of a well-thought-out analytical model that unites modern economics with what economics ne glects: the implicit assumption of economic thought about basic motivations, goals, aspirations, and ulti mate values and meanings of existence. The model is an existential one with a dialetical process. In other words, economics and noneconomics are interdepen dent polarities, that is, one cannot exist without the other. Repression of noneconomics or the normative dimensions of social existence leads to alienation from the normative aspects of human existence. The central thesis advanced by Weisskopf is this: The current problems generated by the main institu tions of Western society— science, technology, and the economy— are not ones of externalities but rather are ones caused by an entire way of life and thought. They cannot be cured without a profound change in thought and in values. In support of this thesis, he traces from Adam Smith to Marx through to Galbraith changes in economic reasoning as simul taneously determined by and determinant of the prevelant social values and norms of the period. The author shows how the classical school com bined, for the purpose of capital formation, a free market model and laissez-faire philosophy with an ethos of impulse control and rational discipline ori ented toward hard work in production and thrift. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Viewed in this perspective, the labor theory of value becomes a translation of the puritan ethic into classi cal economic thought. More important for the au thor’s thesis, this body of economic thought con tained some central belief and a substantial norma tive value system. In contrast, the neoclassical system and its as sumption of maximization reflects a noneconomic content of hedonistic utilitarianism: that is, full un controlled gratification of subjective desires and im pulses. According to the existential model, neoclassi cal economics has eliminated normative concepts and therefore become value-empty. There logically fol lows a fetish for economic growth and consumerism —the unrestricted pursuit of “pleasure” through the acquisition and the use of an ever-increasing volume and variety of goods and services. Current discussions about managerial responsibil ity externalities and goals of economic growth are Books reviewed in this issue Walter A. Weisskopf, A lie n a tio n a n d E c o n o m ic s. Re viewed by Vernon J. Dixon. Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, T h e Job C risis f o r B la ck Y o u th . Reviewed by Flournoy A. Coles. Edward H. Jones, B la ck s in B usiness. Reviewed by Alan R. Andreasen. Steven B. Withey, A D e g re e a n d W h at E lse? C o rr e la te s a n d C o n seq u en ces o f a C o lle g e E d u cation . Reviewed by Franklyn N. Arnhoff. George de Menil. B argain in g: M o n o p o ly P o w e r versu s U n ion P o w er. Reviewed by M. Bronfenbrenner. Raymond Vernon, S o v e re ig n ty a t B ay: T h e M u lti n a tio n a l S p rea d o f U .S. E n terp rises. Reviewed by Thomas V. Greer. The editors of Ramparts, with Frank Browning, In th e M a r k etp la ce : C o n su m erism in A m e r ic a . Re viewed by Rom J. Markin. Theodore Berland, T he F igh t fo r Q u iet. Reviewed by Sheldon W. Samuels. Harry Caudill, M y L a n d is D y in g . Reviewed by Gil bert L. Rutman. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 66 therefore attempts to reintroduce repressed noneco nomic context, namely, moral values, into economic thinking. Thus, the Weisskopf model offers a logical explanation for the emergence of and direction in the current thinking of the Galbraiths, Bouldings, Berles, and others concerned with introducing the “quality of life” into formal economic reasoning. The decision rule of this new body of economic thought suggested by the model is that equalization at the margin re quires not one-dimensional growth but multidimen sional balance. In this way, economic scarcity and allocation, which are concerned with material needs and wants satisfied by organized production, are united with existential allocation and scarcity, which are concerned with nonmaterial, noneconomic needs and wants. Accordingly, the continuing acquisition of money and goods cannot take place at the expense of all the other goals of human life. This reader concurs fully with John Kenneth Gal braith’s appraisal of the book as “fascinating and indispensable for anyone who wants to see econom ics in relation to the discontents of our time.” It indicates scholarship of the highest level, and its ex istential model allows one logically to make consist ent and rich interpretations of economic and non economic thought and reality that previously had been considered as unrelated. It may well become the seminal book for the direction in which economics of the 21st Century must go. — V e r n o n J. D ix o n Assistant Professor of Economics Haverford College Strategies for black employment The Job Crisis for Black Youth. Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Em ployment Problems of Black Youth, with a Background Paper by Sar A. Levitan and Robert Taggart III. New York, Praeger Pub lishers, Inc., 1971. 135 pp. $3.95. The Task Force has admirably fulfilled its objec tives of examining the conditions which have caused the employment problem of black youth in the United States and of developing proposals for its solution. The reader familiar with the problem—including incidences, causes, and consequences—will not be surprised at the disheartening statistics contained in the report. For the uninformed, these statistics https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis should be valuable in proving or disproving prior conceptions, hunches, theories, and conclusions relat ing to the many facets of this increasingly compli cated and explosive-prone socioeconomic problem. For both types of readers, a very significant contribu tion has been made by bringing together, in a single, short, and extremely readable report, information which hitherto has been scattered (and sometimes obscured) in a miscellany of publications. For this, even if there were no other reasons, we should all be grateful to the Task Force for its efforts in preparing the report, and to the Twentieth Century Fund for publishing it. For the serious student of the problem— and, we can hope, for the policymakers—that which un doubtedly will be of most interest is the discussion of “alternative strategies” for solving the problem, to be found at the very end of the report. The strategies discussed fall under two headings— that is, ( 1 ) mac roeconomic approaches (including monetary and fiscal policies to increase aggregate demand and thus overall employment, so that more jobs will be availa ble for black youth; modifications in minimum wage legislation designed to increase employment oppor tunities for black youth; and revisions in child labor laws to permit the hiring by employers of out-of school and out-of-work black youth less than eight een years old), and (2) microeconomic approaches (including the cessation of racial discrimination in employment and advancement; subsidies to the pri vate sector for hiring and training black youth; im proved preparation of black youth for the world of work; remedial training; and increased public em ployment of black youth). A five-element strategy to improve the situation is proposed. This strategy includes monetary and fiscal policies to achieve a 3.5 percent unemployment rate nationally, strengthened and more vigorously imple mented measures to combat racial discrimination, special efforts “to alleviate the plight of young black women,” programs designed to increase the demand of young workers (including “a dual minimum wage and revision of child labor laws”), and expanded public employment programs. The Task Force realizes that this strategy—even if implemented— would leave unsolved many of the major problems of employment confronting black youth. Assuming the will to allocate necessary re sources, a more effective and comprehensive strategy is proposed, designed to improve the quality of BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES ghetto life in general. It would include the expansion of central-city education, relocation subsidies to per mit blacks to move to the suburbs (closer to availa ble, more rewarding employment), improved hous ing, increased crime control and improved handling of youthful offenders, and income subsidies for all but with “strong incentives to reward those who work”— all commendable goals. As admitted by the Task Force, the most impor tant solution to the problem is creating employment to achieve a more acceptable level of unemployment — a rate of 3.5 percent being its objective. There is cause to question the achievability of this rate of un employment since the rate has remained at 5 percent or more since 1965, since more and more economists are despairing of reducing the rate even to the “full employment” level of 4 percent, and since recent “Phillips curve” relationships tend to equate a 3.5percent unemployment rate with an approximate 5 percent price rise, which is significantly in excess of what has been considered to be a tolerable rate of inflation. — F l o u r n o y A. C o l e s , J r . Professor of Management Graduate School of Management Vanderbilt University A spark for future growth Blacks in Business. By Edward H. Jones. New York, Grosset & Dunlap, 1971. 214 pp. $5.95. The urgency that propelled many corporations, public agencies, black development groups, and indi vidual businessmen into crash programs of black business development has now abated. This is partly because the trauma of the last decade’s urban riots has receded in time, partly because many ambitious early ventures into “black capitalism” have not proved to be dramatic successes, partly because some militant black groups and New Left activists have questioned vigorously the entire concept of “black capitalism,” and, as a result, partly because the issue has lost a good share of its political clout. Edward Jones’ carefully written, conventionally organized overview is, therefore, a timely basis for a reassessment of the performance and prospects of blacks in business. The book is highly useful for this purpose for three reasons. First, the book is very well balanced. The author presents a hardheaded and in the end optimistic por trayal of blacks in business. His cataloging of the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 67 external and internal problems of black business is unsparing of both blacks and whites. His solutions for various key groups—government, white business, black businessmen, and the public— are in the main pragmatic and viable. He is, I think, realistic in his restrained optimism about the motivating power of “social responsibility” for white businessmen. He is particularly courageous in proposing integrated busi ness ownership as a highly useful vehicle for the development of black businesses and businessmen, a proposition that runs decidedly contrary to the cur rent stance of the more militant blacks and many white liberals. The second positive feature of the book is the author’s emphasis on tracing the historical roots of black business and its now generally well-known problems. This both broadens and deepens insights. It broadens because he provides multiple explanatory links to present phenomena, as when he shows how black reluctance to maintain sound business records is often a reaction to (a) whitey’s past use of the black man’s records to harass him; (b) the present use of the information to support a tax system which the black man feels has historically taken more from him than it has given; and finally (c) past experi ences with exploitative outside bookkeepers. It deep ens our insight because Jones shows that (a) black business development is not a new phenomenon; some blacks were highly successful entrepreneurs in 1780, and there was a considerable black business boom from 1913 to 1929, and (b) the most basic causes of slow black business development (lack of skills and motivation by black entrepreneurs on the one hand, and, on the other, conscious discrimina tion by whites in allowing access to critical money, training, advice, and markets) have roots that run very deep and thus cannot be overcome overnight. The third positive feature of the book is that it is written from the perspective of an insider. Now Ex ecutive Director of the New York Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, the author previously worked for the Internal Revenue Service, a major New York bank, and a regional office of the Small Business Administration. This experience not only makes his insights into the problems keener, but, perhaps more important, permits him to suggest a broad range of often highly creative solutions. His experience as a commercial loan officer for the SBA has provided a particularly rich set of personal anec dotes to flesh out what might otherwise be a reasona- MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 68 bly dry cataloging of generally acknowledged diffi culties. We are treated to examples of how ambitious young blacks make it despite important handicaps, to examples of how creative loan officers can untangle or even avoid the clutching web of Federal red tape, to a knowledgeable critique of many key government programs, and finally, to amusing and illustrative in side jokes such as how some SBA staffers defined the acronym in Project OWN. The book is not without its flaws. The author has a penchant for presenting detailed lists that contrib ute marginally to his purposes. For instance, in an otherwise excellent historical chapter, about one-half of the space is taken up with lists such as of the 24 black-owned and operated building and loan associa tions in 1943, or of the 44 members of the National Insurance Association in 1970, which could well have been placed in appendices. On the other hand, almost no use is made of the growing and highly informative statistical data on blacks in business available in various cities and regions. But these are not major faults. The book, on bal ance, is one that ought to be read by those concerned with increasing the numbers of blacks in business, as well as those merely interested in a perceptive review and analysis of the problems by a black business generalist. The author concludes that one should be optimistic about the current prospects for blacks in business; that a “new breed” of young black entre preneurs with sound backgrounds and very ambitious goals is now entering the ranks. Their arrival is both a signal of how far black business has come and a spark for future growth. With perhaps a degree less optimism, it is a view this writer shares. — A lan R. A n d reasen Associate Professor of Marketing and Environmental Analysis State University of New York at Buffalo The bridge to higher status A Degree and What Else? Correlates and Conse quences of a College Education. By Steven B. Withey. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1971. 147 pp., bibliography. $5.95. Undertaken at the request of the Carnegie Com mission on Higher Education, this book reviews the research literature on the measurable changes and benefits that result from going to college. Chapter organization and discussions were dictated primarily https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis by the benefit variables that have been used to assess impact and change: changes in values and attitudes, particularly with respect to liberalization of political attitudes; political involvement and interest; psycho logical adjustment and well-being; use of mass media, and so forth. One chapter is devoted to a review of the studies of higher education and eco nomic behavior. Although the various chapters were written by dif ferent authors, stylistic differences have been mini mized so that overall it is a well-written, comprehen sive presentation of the existing literature. The first chapter, although superficial in depth, is comprehen sive in scope and depicts the methodological, concep tual, and interpretive difficulties involved in attempt ing to assess educational impact over a period of time spanning from about 1870 to the present. The reader is cautioned against “leaping from simple sta tistical associations to judgments of significant eco nomic, social, or political developments.” If this ca veat appears simple (or simple-minded) to some, one need only to read on to realize that some of the underlying methodological problems are often subtle enough to be overlooked; for example, comparability of data (reporting) from well-educated and less well-educated respondents just might not mean the same thing. For readers not too familiar with survey research and/or the psychological and sociological variables often used in such studies, this chapter will prove helpful. Throughout each chapter, care has been taken to detail the extreme and often formida ble methodological issues involved as they relate to the specific variables under discussion. Naturally, this results in a generally quite cautious interpretative stance which may prove irritating to the casual or nontechnical reader. The authors are correct, how ever, in this detailed inclusion since the vast and massive shifts in our society during the period of the studies prevent facile conclusions divorced from this conceptual base. Some of the basic demographic facts presented are interesting in and of themselves; for the past 50 years or so the proportion of high school graduates who go to college has been fairly constant at about 50 percent, with some indications that this may now be starting to increase; the total number of college graduates in the United States in 1940 was less than the approximately 7.5 million students now enrolled. The meaning of college has also changed during this time period, as has the number and variety of col- 69 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES leges (colleges and universities have tripled in num ber in the last three decades), with education in creasingly appearing as the bridge to better status. While task and job skill requirements often have not changed, the educational requirements usually have, resulting in a general upward shift of the entire edu cational scale (that is, college degree now required for jobs previously requiring only high school, and so on). The chapter analyzing education and economics illustrates the difficulties involved in attempting to relate cause and effect. The authors report how their initial attempts to deal with the economic conse quences of college education as a cause-effect rela tionship was replaced (fortunately) with the more modest and realistic chapter entitled “Higher Educa tion and Economic Behavior.” Education in America is a means to purchase social advancement, a way of life “that is all but synonymous with modem, urban, upper-middle class living.” The often-quoted figure of $100,000 as the value of a college education seems demolished by the available studies, but since economists cannot agree upon the discount to be applied, the net value depends upon which study one likes. On balance, the data does not support exagger ated notions about the profitability in dollar terms of a college education as an investment. Other human, social, and psychological values do appear relevant. Some cautious conclusions seem warranted, with the caveat that the meaning of “benefit” is associated with specific points in time and with specific groups of individuals. A college education’s associated bene fits are: greater job satisfaction, jobs that are more highly paid and less subject to unemployment, more liberal attitudes, more deliberation in consumer ex penditures, greater use of mass media, and so forth. Surprisingly, the data indicate that while colleges dif fer greatly, the general impact of college matters more than the specific type of college. On the debit side (and a few emerge), the gulf between those who attend and those who do not appears ever greater. This is a worthwhile and careful survey of existing research on a major social and economic issue, with clear discussions of both the need for continued study of education impact and the methodological and conceptual improvements to be incorporated. — F ranklyn N. A rnho ff John Edward Fowler Professor of Psychology and Professor of Psychiatry University of Virginia School of Medicine https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A fixed pie Bargaining: Monopoly Power versus Union Power. By George de Menil. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1971. 123 pp. $8.95. This short, but tightly written and frankly techni cal, monograph is a reworking and updating of Pro fessor de Mend’s 1967 doctoral dissertation at M.I.T. It makes few concessions to “general readers” or “interested laymen.” To savor it properly, the student needs background in game theory and in the economics of bilateral monopoly, along with both the institutional and the formal theories of collective bar gaining. (Your reviewer, no game theorist, is to that extent underequipped for his role.) Of the several game-theoretic models of intergroup bargaining, de Menil is attracted particularly by that of John Nash, for reasons which may be primarily esthetic and are not made completely clear. As de Menil applies the Nash model, collective bargaining appears as a zero-sum game. That is to say, the employer has a predetermined (maximized) amount of monopoly or oligopoly profit; of this, the union is out to gain for the work force as much as it can. Collective bargaining, in this view, is much like a corporate income or profit tax in its incidence, and indeed de Menil makes the comparison explicitly in his chapter 4. (De Menil also speaks favorably of the Fellner model of oligopoly, in which the maximand is the total profits of all oligopolists taken together, a sum then divided somehow among the oligopolists.) In consequence of de Menil’s highly specialized as sumptions, the union’s maximand, called B, is the cardinal utility of (WE - WaE), where W is a wage rate, E an employment level, and the superscript a refers to hypothetical nonunion conditions. When W exceeds Wa, there is no room in de Menil’s clay-clay (or all-or-none-bargaining?) model for capital to be substituted for labor, or for any Ea to exceed E. From this concept of monopoly profit as a fixed pie shared by capital and labor comes, without any need for involved mathematics or econometrics, the important policy implication that collective bargain ing (unlike firm oligopoly) cannot be an inflationary force. Also, apart from short-term inconvenience during strikes, the consumer has no direct interest in the outcome of a labor dispute. Furthermore, de Menil’s model has no place for collusive bargaining, where the quid pro quo for wage gouging may be assistance in policing the industry, keeping chiselers 70 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 under control, and raising prices. De Menil carries his analysis, in the current fash ion, well beyond the derivation and formulation of mathematical models. He forces it into the empirical form of wage equations, using such devices as “let (ax -f by)/cz = k” when (x,y,z) have economic meanings but k has none. These turn out to be the alternatives to, or at least modifications of, microeconomic Phillips curves for particular industries, in this case eight American oligopolistic industries (by quarters, for a 10-year period beginning in 1956-11). De Menil uses layoff rates rather than the unemployment rates of the Phillips curves, and he uses a variable called “gross output per man-hour at full capacity” to fill a gap in the standard Phillips analysis. Horrendous problems are overcome, for ex ample as to the computation of this hypothetical-av erage-product variable, the elimination of overtime work, and the specification of Wa, the hypothetical nonunion wage, which is in practice “the average going wage in the low-wage predominantly nonunionized sectors of the private economy.” The fits are reported as good (with some plausible massaging of lag structures) in some abstract sense (high values of R 2). They are not, however, compared to the results of other models, such as those used by H. M. Levinson at Michigan or H. G. Lewis at Chicago. This reviewer’s first impression is that de Menil has not made their work obsolete; one might even sus pect that Levinson, Lewis, or one of their better disciples might, if a review assignment caught them in a bad mood, reduce the present volume to “pre tentious nonsense upon stilts.” We close upon a gentler note. A uniquely useful service of de Menil’s monograph to empirical labor economists is the provision of a “data appendix” which includes both methods and data themselves, carrying the latter to 1969-11. —M. B r o n fen bren n er Visiting Professor of Economics Duke University Creeping capitalism Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises. By Raymond Vernon. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1971. 326 pp. $8.50. Sovereignty at Bay is a result of the Multinational Enterprise Project launched at Harvard in 1965 and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis will be followed soon by four more books. The au thor of this work is also general coordinator of the project. Financial support came mainly from the Ford Foundation. This volume deals with U.S.-controlled multina tional firms, chiefly in manufacturing and extraction. It develops the theme that sovereignty of nations and national economic strength are severely threatened by changes in the world, changes brought about to a great extent by the growth of the role of the multina tional company. Governments are concerned with formulating policies that will bring out the good from this institution but avoid the bad. There is very little doubt that this type of institution creates and mar kets goods and services effectively. The questionable aspect is its “linking the assets and activities of dif ferent national jurisdictions with an intimacy that seems to threaten the concept of the nation as an integral unit.” Countless observers ask if these insti tutions are not to a great extent an instrument of the United States and its government to control the econ omies of other countries. Does the multinational company deprive Ameri can labor of jobs? The pattern is “to locate produc tion of relatively young sophisticated products in the United States and to move the production abroad as the U.S. oligopoly position is impaired.” According to Vernon, this pattern is optimal for U.S. labor “because the consequences have to be compared with locking such labor into occupations and into indus tries in which innovation was declining and competi tion mounting.” Vernon contends that perhaps the heart of U.S. labor leaders’ concern is management’s flexibility, that is, the number of options manage ment holds in the multinational firm. The author states that a basic “asymmetry” be tween multinational enterprise and national govern ments can be tolerated only up to a point. When that undefined point is reached, a set of responses will ensue that will surely include some aspects of the world corporation concept. It will include accounta bility to some international body charged with meas uring activities against social yardsticks that are mul tinational in scope. This work is a lucidly written and comprehensive account, with notes that will be helpful to the moti vated reader. Moreover, the work is cautious and avoids overgeneralizing. One of its strengths lies in not trying to explain tension in economic terms alone. Rather it includes, without apology, the ri- BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES 71 valry among national elites, the clash of cultures, and the clash of ideologies and handles them briefly but well. One finds in this book— rather than the glib an swers offered by so many writers— a provocative and comprehensive analysis of several fundamental issues and a clear warning where data are lacking, incom plete, or possibly biased. Sovereignty at Bay is excel lent reading for the executive, labor leader, govern ment official, academician, and advanced student. — T hom as V. G reer Associate Professor College of Business and Public Administration University of Maryland Caveat emptor In the Marketplace: Consumerism in America. By the editors of Ramparts, with Frank Browning. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1972, 245 pp. $2.95, Canfield Press, San Fran cisco. The identified and, one would presume, the major editor of this collection of readings, Frank Browning, states that, “This book is designed to explore the structure of the economic system which breeds con sumer rot.” Within such a perspective and point of view, fifteen articles from a rather diverse number of sources are presented. The articles are organized into three major parts. Part I, which deals with products and merchandising deficiencies, is intended to “de scribe the consumer’s daily experience in a lethal marketplace.” Part II, which treats service and regu lation, argues that “American government is a salea ble commodity, owned by those who control the marketplace and operated for their benefit.” Part III is intended to treat the role of the mass media, the function of which, according to the editor of this collection, “. . . is to meet the insatiable demands of a malignant corporate state whose fife-in-death is made possible only by continuous growth and contin uous production of new material. . . .” This is a shrill, caustic, and acetous book. The point of view of the editor is that American Society is sick and growing sicker and that our marketing institutions in particular, as well as other institutions of government, are contributing to the malady by way of rapacious greed, malevolent and insidious deception and deceit. The editor’s contempt for American marketing is near hysterical. For example, he states, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . . . we have come to expect shoddiness and the pos sibility of serious injury from everything that we, as consumers, are urged by all kinds of advertising tech niques to buy. In a decade of magnificent atrocities, this daily consumer barrage has seemed minor com pared to Vietnam . . . but as we have gradually learned that events like My Lai are the result of currents of power beyond individual control, we have become even more aware of the daily assault by bad goods and dishonest services. While some few of the articles are rather well reasoned and balanced in tone and argument, the vast majority have been chosen not for their dispas sionate logic but in terms of how well they bolster and reinforce the editor’s magnificent obsession with selective perception. He sees the marketing and eco nomic system as insidious and corrupt. Serious schol ars of the marketing and economic system of Amer ica would, in wholesale fashion, reject the blatant distortion and emotionality of the editor’s preface as well as most of the supporting articles included in his book. — R om J. M a r k in Professor, Business Administration Chairman, Marketing Area College of Economics and Business Washington State University Sh-h-h-h-h. . . The Fight for Quiet. By Theodore Berland. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. 305 pp. $2.95, paper. Mr. Berland has demonstrated again his knack for producing very readable, fairly accurate populariza tions of scientific and medical problems that have broad social impact. In The Fight for Quiet, he has chosen to climb aboard the increasingly crowded bandwagon, “Envi ronment.” And he should, since never can enough information and attention be given a problem whose elusive solutions challenge our ability to provide a viable workplace and community. Like much bandwagon literature, however, this book is distinguished by its ability to raise anxieties without really coming to grips with meaningful reme dies. This may be due in large part to the limitations of library research and the often lower market value of books with a sense of historicity and in-depth perspective. We are never told that environmental issues were 72 focused on the conservation of game, flora, and open spaces until the conditions of the workplace and the plant community overflowed into the suburbs and countryside. We do read and hear said—though thankfully not in Berland’s volume— that environ mental hazards are somehow made more acceptable by hazard pay and compensation awards, as if these partial returns on the workers’ involuntary subsidies of the cost of production are more than partial re payments for destroyed or disabled lives. But we do read in Berland and in others about all kinds of quick and easy solutions, some of which are laudable. Some are not. The prospect of tucking ear protectors in our back pockets each morning, along with a fresh handker chief, as implied by Berland, is not only abhorrent but it will not happen. A sounder choice, which the author also discusses, is to make those changes in design and process that would reduce noise. In fact, it is the only choice. Mr. Berland apparently is unaware that wearing ear protectors—plugs or muffs—often creates other hazards and, when worn for long periods of time, discomfort. For safe operation, machinery and work practices often require the ability to hear subtle changes in the sound of the machinery and warnings on the shop floor. It is well documented that lack of this ability to hear may lead to death and injury. Finally, in addition to the discomfort of wearing muffs for long periods of time, many workplaces are hot enough so that there may be adverse interference with the enclosed area’s ability to “breathe.” Because of this apparent unawareness, we can un derstand why Berland leaves out of his hearing con servation program for industry the requirement that employers take engineering and administrative mea sures to reduce noise before protective equipment is mandated. In fact, this is a requirement of the cur rent noise standard promulgated under the Occupa tional Safety and Health Act of 1970. The standard was carried over from the Walsh-Healey Act, with little more to commend it than good industrial hy giene practice. The new act, however, specifically makes the pro vision of a safe workplace the duty of the employer. Protective equipment, in the context of the act, can not be required until after all other feasible measures have been taken by the employer to reduce noise to the lowest possible level. The author leaves out of his suggested hearing https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 conservation program another key element: use of hearing test data. It isn’t enough just to measure; the measurements must be used. Each worker must have access to the results of any testing in order to seek the assistance of his own physician. This will be required of any new standard set under the act. Fi nally, there is a question as to whether the employer should have access to this or any other part of the medical record of an employee. Perhaps the most important criticism of The Fight for Quiet is its failure to carry to a logical conclusion the discussion of design—most notably architectural design—in noise control. Existing urban design— especially the design of industrial structures— is plagued by age. Many struc tures built in the last 30 years lack sufficient mass or other noise-reducing components. Thousands of older buildings, despite their mass, are no more nor less than echo chambers. Even new buildings often reflect the architect’s general avoidance of the prob lem. Some are using the 90 dbA noise level as an acceptable design criterion, oblivious to the fact that this may result in new buildings made obsolete by the inevitable tightening of this inadequate standard. Mr. Berland must be given credit for a sincere approach to fighting “the growing menace of noise pollution.” But the result is nothing to shout about. — Sh e l d o n W. Sa m u e l s D irector Occupational Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO Who owns the land? My Land is Dying. By Harry Caudill. New York, E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1971. 144 pp. $6.50. Harry Caudill’s study has focused attention upon the negative aspects of strip mining in the United States. The author vividly records the deterioration of our land resource by this form of mining: The impact of rain on strip-mined land is imme diate and catastrophic. Without leaves or branches to impede its fall, each drop strikes like a whiplash. Enormous gullies are cut into the slopes, and sheets of soil are carried away from nearly level surfaces. Streams that had run clear for thousands of years are now mud, ‘too thin to plow and too thick to drink.’ Caudill deserves an expression of our gratitude for pointing out dramatically the large costs imposed 73 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES upon society by the continual search of private inter ests for supplies of cheap fuel. The underlying question he raises may be even more important. Mr. Caudill claims that land deteri oration results from a disproportionate emphasis upon technological competency combined with an unchecked profit motive. He states, “But the same forces that are bringing ruin to Appalachia are now a threat wherever technological competence is yoked with human avarice and folly. Wherever the profit motive is still exalted as a virtue, the urge to acquire and to consume becomes a frenzy,” and “In such burbling phrases the litany goes on, exalting almost to the condition of deity what is in fact a national disease: the use of technology as a thing somehow unquestionably good, regardless of the consequences. How else are we to account for a disruption so callous that even the dead are no longer permitted to be in peace?” If I interpret the author correctly, the problem lies in the changing market structure of the fuel industry, coupled with an inadequate definition of property rights. Price rivalry among the coal producers has become more intense because of the monopsonistic position of large buyers, such as TVA, and increased competition from other types of fuel. Survival is de pendent upon finding cheaper methods of extracting coal. In chapter IV the author offers a fine illustra tion of the impact of the large coal purchasers on coal suppliers and recognizes this impact when he strongly condemns TVA for its role in this land deterioration process. Under such conditions, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the coal owners try to share the costs of their operations with society. What is surprising is that we have permitted the resulting divergence between private and social costs to persist. On pages 140 and 141, the author suggests three measures which would eliminate these divergences. The culprit, then— rather than technol ogical advance and the profit motive— is the failure of our property structure to protect society or to insure that the coal industry bears the full costs. The serious limitation of the work is its one-sided ness. While there is no doubt that the financial power of the coal industry has increased its ability to pre vent government regulation of mine-stripping, the coal industry is no Cosa Nostra or foreign power exploiting the United States. The health of the indus try is vital to all of us, and most especially to the people of Appalachia. Methods must be found to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis insure adequate supplies of coal without ruining our land. Harry Caudill’s contribution remains his pro vocative treatment of this problem, calling for socie tal solutions. — G il b e r t L. R u tm a n Associate Professor of Economics and Regional and Urban Development Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Other recent publications Economic growth and development Brenner, Y. S., A g ric u ltu re a n d th e E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t o f L o w In co m e C o u n tries. The Hague, Mouton, 1971, 254 pp. $5, paper, Humanities Press, Inc., New York. Brubaker, Sterling, T o L iv e on E arth : M a n a n d H is E n v iro n m e n t in P e rsp e ctiv e . Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 202 pp. Published for Resources for the Future, Inc. $6.95. Caldwell, Lynton K., “Environmental Quality as an Admin istrative Problem,” A n n a ls of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1972, pp. 103-115. Clawson, Marion, A m e r ic a ’s L a n d a n d Its U ses. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 166 pp. Published for Resources for the Future, Inc. $8.50, cloth; $2.45, paper. Estall, Robert, A M o d e rn G eo g ra p h y o f th e U n ite d S tates: A s p e c ts o f L ife a n d E c o n o m y . Chicago, Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1972, 401 pp. $10. Farvar, M. Taghi and John P. Milton, T h e C a reless T ech n o lo g y: E c o lo g y a n d In te rn a tio n a l D e v e lo p m e n t. New York, Natural History Press, 1972, 1030 pp. $25. Harbison, Frederick H., H u m a n R e so u r c e s as th e W ealth o f N a tio n s. Princeton, N.J., Inter-University Study of Labor Problems in Economic Development, 1971, 6 pp. (Reprinted for private circulation from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, December 1971.) International Labor Office, T ec h n o lo g y f o r F reed o m : M a n in H is E n v iro n m e n t— T h e 1L O C o n trib u tio n . (Inter national Labor Conference, Fifty-seventh Session, Geneva 1972, Report of the Director-General, Part I.) Geneva, International Labor Office, 1972, 58 pp. Kain, John F. and John R. Meyer, editors, E ssa ys in R e g io n a l E c o n o m ic s. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Uni versity Press, 1971, 412 pp. $15. Urban, G. R., editor, in collaboration with Michael Glenny, C an W e S u rv iv e O u r F u tu re? [Edited versions of inter views originally broadcast in 1970-71 over Radio 74 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Free Europe.] New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1971, 400 pp. $10. Gilroy, Thomas P., editor, D isp u te S e ttle m e n t in th e P u blic S e c to r. Iowa City, University of Iowa, Center for Labor and Management, 1972, 59 pp. $3. Economic statistics Quigley, John Michael, “An Economic Model of Swedish Emigration,” Q u a rterly Jou rn al o f E c o n o m ic s, Feb ruary 1972, pp. 111-126. Telser, Lester G., C o m p e titio n , C o llu sio n , a n d G a m e T h e o ry . Chicago, Aldine Atherton, Inc., 1972, 380 pp. Helsby, Robert, “Impact of the Taylor Law on Public Schools, 1968-1970,” Jou rn al o f C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P u b lic S ecto r, February 1972, pp. 3-20. J o u rn al o f C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P u b lic S ecto r. Farmingdale, N.Y., Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Vol. I, No. I, February 1972. (Published quarterly.) Vol. I, $25, $2 additional foreign. Education Davis, Walter G., “The Elusive Goal of Quality Education,” A m e r ic a n F ed era tio n ist, March 1972, pp. 1-8. Furth, Dorothea, “Innovation in Higher Education: ShortCycle Courses,” O E C D O b serve r, February 1972, pp. 27-30. Shanker, Albert, “The Meaning of Accountability,” Jou rn al o f C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P u b lic S ecto r, Febru ary 1972, pp. 21-40. Striner, Herbert E., C o n tin u in g E d u c a tio n a s a N a tio n a l C a p ita l In ve stm en t. Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1972, 118 pp. $1.25. Viser, Festus Justin, editor, T h e U n iv e rsity in T ran sition . Memphis, Tenn., Memphis State University Press, 1971, 68 pp. $3.50. Loewenberg, J. Joseph and Michael H. Moskow, C o lle c tiv e B a rgain in g in G o v e r n m e n t: R e a d in g s a n d C ases. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 362 pp. $6.95, paper. Menard, Arthur P., “The National Labor Relations Board — N o Longer a Threat to the Arbitral Process?” L a b o r L a w Journal, March 1972, pp. 140-152. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, R e c e n t T re n d s in C o lle c tiv e B argain in g, International Management Seminar, Castelfusano, September 21-24, 1971, Supplement to the Final Report. Paris, OECD, 1972, 167 pp. (International Seminars 1971-1.) Oswald, Rudy and Phillip Ray, “Collective Bargaining: New Outlook in 1972,” A m e r ic a n F e d era tio n ist, March 1972, pp. 12-19. Industrial health and safety Rowan, Richard L., R e a d in g s in L a b o r E c o n o m ic s an d L a b o r R e la tio n s. Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1972, 625 pp. (Rev. ed.) $10.60. Conaway, Orrin B., Jr., “Coal Mining: New Efforts in an Old Field,” A n n a ls of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1972, pp. 95-102. Rubenstein, Benjamin, “The Bugaboo of Compulsory Arbitration,” L a b o r L a w Jou rn al, March 1972, pp. 167-186. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Plow ing under agricultural hazards,” S a fe ty S tan dards, March-April 1972, pp. 7-11. Yaney, Joseph P., “Validating the Arbitration Process,” P erso n n el Journal, March 1972, pp. 179-182. Labor and economic history and thought Industrial relations Edwards, Richard C., Michael Reich, Thomas E. Weisskopf, Blum, Albert A., “Strikes, Salaries, and the Search for Solutions: An Interpretative Analysis of the Irish Industrial Relations System,” B ritish Jou rn al o f In d u s tria l R e la tio n s, March 1972, pp. 62-83. Brown, R. K. et al., “The Contours of Solidarity: Social Stratification and Industrial Relations in Shipbuilding,” B ritish J o u rn a l o f In d u stria l R e la tio n s, March 1972, pp. 12—41. Donoian, Harry A., “Recent Changes in Federal Service Labor-Management Relations,” L a b o r L a w Journal, March 1972, pp. 131-139. Gershenfeld, Walter J., “Compulsory Arbitration is Ready When You Are,” L a b o r L a w Jou rn al, March 1972, pp. 153-166. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T h e C a p ita list S y ste m : A R a d ic a l A n a ly s is o f A m e ric a n S o c ie ty . Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 543 pp. Green, Archie, O n ly a M in er: S tu d ie s in R e c o r d e d C o a l M in in g Son gs. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1972, 504 pp. $12.50. Hartwell, R. M., T h e In d u stria l R e v o lu tio n a n d E c o n o m ic G r o w th . London, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1971, 423 pp., Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York. Hession, Charles H., Joh n K e n n e th G a lb ra ith & H is C ritics. New York, New American Library, 1972, 239 pp. $6.95. Landauer, Carl, “Toward a Unified Social Science,” P o litic a l S cien ce Q u a rterly , December 1971, pp. 563-585. 75 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Rothschild, K. W., editor, P o w e r in E c o n o m ic s: S e lec ted R e a d in g s. Baltimore, Md., Penguin Books, Inc., 1971, 366 pp. $2.95, paper. Levitan, Sar A., Garth L. Mangum, Ray Marshall, H u m a n R e so u rc e s a n d L a b o r M a r k e ts: L a b o r a n d M a n p o w e r in th e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m y . New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972, 619 pp. $19.95. Sherman, Howard, R a d ic a l P o litic a l E c o n o m y : C a p ita lism New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1972, 431 pp. $12.50. Mouly, Jean, “Some Remarks on the Concepts of Employ ment, Underemployment, and Unemployment,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1972, pp. 155-160. Spengler, Joseph J., “Social Science and the Collectivization of Hubris,” P o litic a l S cien ce Q u a rte r ly , March 1972, pp. 1-21. Nagi, Saad Z., William H. McBroom, John Collette, “Work, Employment, and the Disabled,” A m e r ic a n Jou rn al o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S o c ie ty , January 1972, pp. 21-34. Labor force Nelkin, Dorothy, “Invisible Migrant Workers,” S o c ie ty , April 1972, pp. 36—41. a n d S o c ia lism F ro m a M a r x is t-H u m a n is t P er sp e c tiv e . Aun, Emil Michael, “PEPing Up Local Employment and Services,” M a n p o w e r , April 1972, pp. 3-8. Bachman, Jerald G., “AntiDropout Campaign and Other Misanthropies,” S o c ie ty , March 1972, pp. 4 -6, 60. Blumrosen, Alfred W., B la ck E m p lo y m e n t a n d th e L a w . New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press, 1971, 416 pp. $15. Brimmer, Andrew F., “Economic Situation of Blacks in the United States,” Statement before the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, February 23, 1972, F e d e ra l R e s e r v e B u lletin , March 1972, pp. 257-269. Burns, Leland S., T h e L o c a tio n o f R e a l E sta te a n d R e la te d S e rv ice s. [Determinants influencing the role of selected occupations associated with real estate markets in urban areas of the United States.] Los Angeles, Uni versity of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Management, 1971, 24 pp. (Special Report No. 4.) $2. Feldman, Harold and Margaret Feldman, A S tu d y o f th e E ffe cts o n th e F a m ily D u e to E m p lo y m e n t o f th e W e lfa re M o th e r . (Prepared for the Manpower Adminis tration, U.S. Department of Labor, by College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N .Y .) Vol. I, Findings and Implications, 291 pp. Vol. II, Appendix, 435 pp. Vol. Ill, (1 ) Janet M. Fitchen, The People of Road Junction: The Participant Ob server’s Study of a Rural Poverty Area in Northern Appalachia, with Particular Reference to the Problems of Employment of Low Income Women; (2 ) Barbara Francis and Janice Daugherty, Intensive Case Studies of Four Work Types of Low Income Women and Their Families, 488 pp. Multilithed. Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151. Howard, Bill, “Blacks and Professional Schools,” C h an ge, February 1972, pp. 13-16. Killiam, Ray A., T h e W o rk in g W o m a n : A M a le M a n a g er's V ie w . New York, American Management Association, 1971,214 pp. $14.50. Lessard, Suzannah, “What D o People D o All Day,” W a sh in g to n M o n th ly , March 1972, pp. 41-50. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Norquest, Carrol, R io G r a n d e W e tb a ck s: M e x ica n M ig ra n t W o rk ers. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1972, 159 pp. $4.95. Perry, George L., “Labor Force Structure, Potential Output, and Productivity,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c tiv itie s, 3, 1971, pp. 533-578. Poole, William, “Alternative Paths to a Stable Full Employ ment Economy,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c tiv itie s, 3, 1971, pp. 579-614. Raymond, Richmond, “Determinants of Non-White Migra tion During the 1950’s: Their Regional Significance and Long-Run Implications,” A m e r ic a n J o u rn a l o f E c o n o m ics a n d S o c ie ty , January 1972, pp. 9-20. Reinhardt, U., “A Production Function for Physician Serv ices,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tistic s, February 1972, pp. 55-66. Uhler, Russell S. and Roslyn Kunin, “A Theory of Labor Force Participation,” In d u stria l R e la tio n s, February 1972, pp. 107-114. U.S. Bureau o f Labor Statistics, B la ck A m e r ic a n s : A D e c a d e o f O c c u p a tio n a l C h a n g e. Washington, 1972, 22 pp. (BLS Bulletin 1731.) 40 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, G e o g ra p h ic P ro file o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t, 1 9 7 1 . Washington, 1972, 24 pp. (BLS Report 402.) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, O c c u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k H a n d b o o k , 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 E d itio n . Washington, 1972, 879 pp. (Bulletin 1700) $6.25, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, T o m o r r o w ’s M a n p o w e r N e e d s: V o lu m e IV , R e v is e d 1 9 7 1 — T h e N a tio n a l In d u s try -O c c u p a tio n a l M a tr ix a n d O th e r M a n p o w e r D a ta . Washington, 1972, 198 pp. (Bulletin 1737.) Superintendent of Documents, Washington. $1.50, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, W o rk A ttitu d e s o f D is a d v a n ta g e d B la c k M e n . Washington, 1972, 28 pp. U.S. Manpower Administration, “Labor Market Experi- 76 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 ences of Young pp. 20-24. Men,” M a n p o w e r , March 1972, U.S. Manpower Administration, N e g r o E m p lo y m e n t in th e S o u th — V o l. 2: T h e M e m p h is L a b o r M a r k e t. Washing ton, 1971, 57 pp. (Manpower Research Monograph 23.) 65 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Verway, David I., “Advance to the Rear for Women,” M S U B u sin ess T o p ic s, Michigan State University, Winter 1972, pp. 53-62. Labor organizations Herling, John, R ig h t to C h a llen g e: P e o p le a n d P o w e r in th e S te e lw o rk e rs U n ion . New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972, 415 pp. $12.50. Kearney, Robert N., T ra d e U n io n s a n d P o litic s in C e ylo n . Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971, 195 pp. $ 10. Levenstein, Harvey A., L a b o r O rg a n iza tio n s in th e U n ited S ta te s a n d M e x ico : A H is to r y o f T h eir R e la tio n s. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Publishing Co., 1971, 258 pp. $ 10. Rossillion, Claude, “Racial Discrimination and the ILO,” P a n o ra m a , International Labor Organization, Third Quarter, 1971, pp. 6-13. Manpower training and development Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Major Re organization Plan for Industrial Training,” D e p a r t m e n t o f E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , February 1972, pp. 131-134. Bakke, E. Wight, M a n p o w e r P o lic y fo r S c ien tists an d E n g in eers. Washington, National Manpower Policy Task Force, 1972, 22 pp. (Printed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.) Marshall, Ray, “Manpower Policies and Rural America,” M a n p o w e r , April 1972, pp. 14-19. Munger, Paul F. et al., E m p lo y a b ility T ea m In te ra c tio n A n a ly sis: A n E x p lo ra to ry S tu d y , S tage 111. Blooming ton, Indiana University Foundation, 1971. Final Report, 525 pp.; Appendix, 435 pp., bibliography. (Prepared for the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.) Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151. Rothbau, Melvin and Walter Franke, D e v e lo p m e n t o f a M o d e l U n iv e rsity H u m a n R e so u r c e s P ro g ra m . UrbanaChampaign, University of Illinois, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1971, 183 pp. (Prepared for the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.) $3, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151. P resid en t: In clu d in g A R e p o r t on M a n p o w e r R eq u ire m en ts, R eso u rce s, U tiliza tio n , a n d T ra in in g by the U .S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r. (Transmitted to the Con gress March 1972.) Washington, 1972, 284 pp. $2.25, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Monetary and fiscal policy Federal Reserve System, “Ways to Moderate Fluctuations in the Construction of Housing,” F e d era l R e se rv e B u lletin , March 1972, pp. 215-225. Lintner, John, F in an ce a n d C a p ita l M a r k e ts. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972, 66 pp. (Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect— Fiftieth Anniversary Colloquium of the National Bureau of Economic Research, II.) Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. $5, cloth; $1.50, paper. Productivity and technological change Lessing, Lawrence, “Why the U.S. Lags in Technology,” F o rtu n e, April 1972, pp. 68-73, 146-150. Mansfield, Edwin et al., R e se a rc h a n d In n o v a tio n in the M o d e rn C o rp o ra tio n . New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 1971, 239 pp. $10. U.S. National Commission on Productivity, F irst A n n u a l R e p o rt, Ju ly 1 9 7 0 T h rou gh F eb ru a ry 1 9 7 2 . Washing ton, 1972, 60 pp. Multilithed. Urban affairs Fisher, Jack C., “International Programs for Urban Plan ing,” L o o k in g A h e a d , National Planning Association, January 1972, pp. 3-7. Goggin, Terrence P. and John M. Seidl, P o litic s A m e ric a n S ty le : R a c e, E n v iro n m e n t, a n d C e n tra l C itie s. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 404 pp. $4.95, paper. Wages and compensation Bolton, J. Harvey, F lex ib le W o rk in g H o u rs. Wembley, England, Anbar Publications Ltd., 1971, 55 pp. £.2. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “New Earn ings Survey, 1971: Part 4— Overtime earnings and hours,” D e p a r tm e n t o f E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , February 1972, pp. 135-145. Hancock, Keith and Kathryn Moore, “The Occupational Wage Structure in Australia Since 1914,” B ritish Jou rn al o f In d u stria l R e la tio n s, March 1972, pp. 107-122. Parlett, Joseph M., Jr., “Teachers’ Salaries on the Escalator,” Jou rn a l o f C o lle c tiv e B a rgain in g in th e P u b lic S ecto r, U.S. Manpower Administration, M a n p o w e r R e p o r t o f th e https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1972, pp. 59-65. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Thurow, Lester C. and Robert E. B. Lucas, T h e A m e r ic a n D istrib u tio n o f In co m e: A S tru ctu ra l P ro b le m . A Study prepared for the Use of the Joint Economic Com mittee, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 1972, 50 pp. 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A r e a W age S u rv ey : T he C h ica g o , Illin o is, M e tr o p o lita n A re a , June 197 1 . Wash ington, 1972, 70 pp. (Bulletin 1685-90.) 70 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. 77 Cook, Fred J., “The Case of the Disappearing Pension,” N e w Y o r k T im e s M a g a zin e, March 19, 1972, pp. 30-31 et seq. Field, Minna, T h e A g e d , th e F a m ily , a n d th e C o m m u n ity . New York, Columbia University Press, 1972, 257 pp. $10. Gilder, George F., “Thinking Aloud: The Case Against Universal Day Care,” N e w L ea d e r, April 3, 1972, pp. 9-13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A re a W age S u rv ey : The M ia m i, F lo rid a , M e tr o p o lita n A re a , N o v e m b e r 197 1 . Washington, 1972, 20 pp. (Bulletin 1725-28.) 30 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series include the metro politan areas of Louisville, Ky.-Ind.; Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; and Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. (Bulletins 1725-29 to 31.) Various pagings and prices. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, In d u stry W age S u rvey: S c h e d u le d A irlin e s, A u g u st 19 7 0 . Washington, 1972, 34 pp. (Bulletin 1734.) 45 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, W age C h ro n o lo g y : In te r n a tio n a l S h o e C o ., 1 9 4 5 -7 4 . Washington, 1972, 16 pp. (Bulletin 1718.) 30 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. Larson, Arthur, “Conflicts Between Seamen’s Remedies and Workmen’s Compensation Acts,” F o rd h a m L a w R e v ie w , March 1972, pp. 473-528. Manion, U. Vincent, “Why Employees Retire Early,” P erso n n el Jou rn al, March 1972, pp. 183-187, 207. Reno, Virginia P., “Compulsory Retirement Among Newly Entitled Workers: Survey of New Beneficiaries,” S o cial S ecu rity B u lletin , March 1972, pp. 3-15. Somers, Anne R., “Regulation of Hospitals,” A n n a ls of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1972, pp. 69-81. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, A n a ly s is o f W o r k m e n ’s C o m p en sa tio n L a w s. Washington, Chamber of Com merce of the United States, 1972, 48 pp. $1.50. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Service and Compensation of Railroad Employees in 1970,” R R B Q u a rterly R e v ie w , October-December 1971, pp. 24-31. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Benefits Payable Under RRA and SSA to Families of Retired Railroad Workers,” R R B Q u a rterly R e v ie w , October-December 1971, pp. 6-12. Welfare programs and social insurance Andriamaromanana Ranivo, Roger, “Study of Some Prob lems Relating to Persons Entitled to Family Allow ances,” In te rn a tio n a l S o c ia l S e c u rity R e v ie w , No. 4, 1971, pp. 538-556. Barde, Renaud, “Study of Some Problems Relating to the Payment of Family Allowances: Payments Periods and Control— Suspension and Withholding of Pay ments,” In tern a tio n a l S o c ia l S e c u rity R e v ie w , No. 4, 1971, pp. 500-537. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Twenty Years of Wives’ Annuities Under the RRA,” R R B Q u a rterly R e v ie w , October-December 1971, pp. 19-23. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Unemployment Bene ficiaries Under the RUIA,” R R B Q u a rterly R e v ie w , October-December 1971, pp. 13-18. Vergeiner, V., “The Relationship Between the Risks of ‘Old-Age’ and ‘Invalidity’,” In te rn a tio n a l S o c ia l S ecu rity R e v ie w , No. 4, 1971, pp. 463-500. Current Labor Statistics Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series........................................................................ 79 Employment and unemployment—household data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to d a te ............................................... Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterlyaverages......................... Full-time and part-time status of civilian labor force, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted................ Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted....................................... Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonallyadjusted, quarterly averages . Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted...................................... Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted...................................................... Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted..................................................................... Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted .................................................................. 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 Unemployment insurance 10. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations................................................. 10 Nonagricultural employment—payroll data 11. 12. 13. 14. Employment Employment Employment Employment by industry, 1947 to d a te ............................................................................... by S ta te ..................................................................................................... by industry division and major manufacturing g ro u p .............................................. by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted................... 85 85 86 87 Labor turnover and job vacancies 15. 16. 17. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1961 to d a te ..................................... Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group .................................................... Job vacancies in manufacturing...................................................................................... 88 89 89 Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to d a t e ......................................................... Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g ro u p ............................................ Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted................... Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing g ro u p ......................................... Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ...................................... Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1967 dollars.......................................................... 90 91 92 93 94 Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to d a t e .......................................................... Consumer Price Index, U.S. average, general summary and selected ite m s................................... Consumer Price Index, selected a re a s ................................................................................ Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities .............................................. Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings......................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product..................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by stage of p rocessing.................................................................... Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries ................................................... 96 25 102 103 104 105 106 107 95 Prices 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Labor-management disputes 32. Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes .................................................... 109 Productivity 33. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor c o s t s ................................. 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 110 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS HOUSEHOLD DATA 79 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series, June 1972 Title Employment S itu a tio n ................................................................ Wholesale Price In d e x ................................................................ Consumer Price In d e x ................................................................ Productivity and C o s ts ............................................................. Work Stoppages ......................................................................... Major Collective Bargaining S ettlem ents................................ 1. Period covered Date of release M L R table num ber June June June 2d quarter June 2d quarter July 7 July 7 July 21 July 27 July 28 July 28 1-14 27-31 25-26 33 32 Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947-71 [In thousands] C iv ilia n labor force T o ta l labor force Year T o ta l non in s titu tio n a l pop ulation Unemployed Employed Number Percent of population Not in labor force T otal Total A g ric u ltu re N o nagric u ltu ra l in du s trie s Number Percent of labor force 1947____ _____ _______________ 1948___ ______________________ _____ . 1949_____ ________ 1950......................... ........... ............... 103,418 104,527 105,611 106,645 60,941 62,080 62,903 63,858 58.9 59.4 59.6 59.9 59,350 60,621 61,286 62,208 57,039 58,344 57,649 58,920 7,891 7,629 7,656 7,160 49,148 50,713 49,990 51,760 2,311 2,276 3,637 3,288 3.9 3.8 5.9 5.3 42,477 42,447 42,708 42,787 1951'................. ............................. .. 1952__________________________ 1953__________________________ 1954__________________________ 1955................... .......................... .. 107,721 108,823 110,601 111,671 112,732 65,117 65,730 66,560 66,993 68,072 60.4 60.4 60.2 60.0 60.4 62,017 62,138 63,015 63,643 65,023 59,962 60,254 61,181 60,110 62,171 6,726 6,501 6,261 6,206 6,449 53,239 53,753 54,922 53,903 55,724 2,055 1,883 1,834 3,532 2,852 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.5 4.4 42,604 43,093 44,041 44,678 44,660 1956_____ _____________ ____ _ 1957..................................................... 1958__________________________ 1959__________________________ 1960__________________________ 113,811 115,065 116,363 117,881 119,759 69,409 69,729 70,275 70,921 72,142 61.0 60.6 60.4 60.2 60.2 66,552 66,929 67,639 68,369 69,628 63,802 64,071 63,036 64,630 65,778 6,283 5,947 5,586 5,565 5,458 57,517 58,123 57,450 59,065 60,318 2,750 2,859 4,602 3,740 3,852 4.1 4.3 6.8 5.5 5.5 44,402 45,336 46,088 46,960 47,617 1961__________________________ 1962_____ ____ _______________ 1963........... ................... ................. . 1964__________________________ 1965____ _____________________ 121,343 122,981 125,154 127,224 129,236 73,031 73,442 74,571 75,830 77,178 60.2 59.7 59.6 59.6 59.7 70,459 70,614 71,833 73,091 74,455 65,746 66,702 67,762 69,305 71,088 5,200 4,944 4,687 4,523 4,361 60,546 61,759 63,076 64,782 66,726 4,714 3,911 4,070 3,786 3,366 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.5 48,312 49,539 50,583 51,394 52,058 1966____ _____________________ 1967................... ........................... . 1968__________________________ 1969__________________________ 1970__________________________ 131,180 133,319 135,562 137,841 140,182 78,893 80,793 82,272 84,239 85,903 60.1 60.6 60.7 61.1 61.3 75,770 77,347 78,737 80,733 82,715 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 78,627 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 3,462 68,915 70,527 72,103 74,296 75,165 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,831 4,088 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.9 52,288 52,527 53,291 53,602 54,280 1971________ ________ _____ _ 142,596 86,929 61.0 84,113 79,120 3,387 75,732 4,993 5.9 55,666 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 80 2. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 HOUSEHOLD DATA Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages [In th o u s a n d s ] Annual average 1969 1972 1971 1970 Characteristic 1970 1971 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st Civilian labor force________ Men, 20 years and over_._ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs... 73,518 42,464 24,616 6,440 74,790 43,088 25,030 6,672 71,204 41,681 23,528 5,995 71,508 41,646 23,737 6,125 72,019 41,863 23,970 6,186 72,417 41,936 24,121 6,360 73,174 42,267 24,450 6,457 73,324 42,473 24,459 6,392 73,604 42,514 24,687 6,403 74,210 42,712 24,916 6,582 74,317 42,709 24,930 6,678 74,422 43,050 24,777 6,595 74,843 43,250 24,980 6,613 75,673 43,362 25,434 6,877 76,417 43,618 25,584 7,215 Employed_________________ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs ... 70,182 41,093 23,521 5,569 70,716 41,347 23,707 5,662 69,061 40,940 22,757 5,364 69,307 40,884 22,945 5,478 69,667 41,023 23,144 5,500 70,052 41,078 23,289 5,685 70,389 41,180 23,524 5,685 70,134 41,158 23,425 5,551 70,070 41,013 23,536 5,521 70,220 41,035 23,622 5,563 70,237 40,983 23,617 5,637 70,328 41,268 23,458 5,602 70,762 41,484 23,662 5,616 71,572 41,665 24,081 5,826 72,402 41,959 24,370 6,073 Unemployed___ _ . . . ___ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs... 3,337 1,371 1,095 871 4,074 1,741 1,324 1,010 2,143 741 771 631 2,201 762 792 647 2,352 840 826 686 2,365 858 832 675 2,785 1,087 926 772 3,190 1,315 1,034 841 3,534 1,501 1,151 882 3,990 1,677 1,294 1,019 4,080 1,726 1,313 1,041 4,094 1,782 1,319 993 4,081 1,766 1,318 997 4,101 1,697 1,353 1,051 4,014 1,659 1,214 1,141 Unemployment r a t e . ______ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs... 4.5 3.2 4.4 13.5 5.4 4.0 5.3 15.1 3.0 1.8 3.3 10.5 3.1 1.8 3.3 10.6 3.3 2.0 3.4 11.1 3.3 2.0 3.4 10.6 3.8 2.6 3.8 12.0 4.4 3.1 4.2 13.2 4.8 3.5 4.7 13.8 5.4 3.9 5.2 15.5 5.5 4.0 5.3 15.6 5.5 4.1 5.3 15.1 5.5 4.1 5.3 15.1 5.4 3.9 5.3 15.3 5.3 3 8 4.7 15.8 Civilian labor force________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs ... 9,197 4,461 4,726 808 9,322 4,773 3,769 781 8,890 4,552 3,535 803 8,870 4,550 3,539 781 8,978 4,583 3,597 798 9,073 4,631 3,620 822 9,188 4,697 3,656 835 9,225 4,703 3,695 827 9,208 4,765 3,656 787 9,188 4,755 3,649 784 9,270 4,748 3,741 781 9,272 4,752 3,748 772 9,388 4,792 3,797 799 9,372 4,805 3,791 776 9,506 4,767 3,897 842 Employed_________________ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs... 8,445 4,461 3,412 573 8,403 4,428 3,442 533 8,340 4,391 3,334 615 8,286 4,385 3,320 518 8,395 4,409 3,375 611 8,510 4,454 3,428 628 8,552 4,490 3,439 623 8,466 4,436 3,434 596 8,429 4,478 3,399 552 8,342 4,437 3,375 530 8,386 4,426 3,428 532 8,351 4,424 3,405 522 8,442 4,431 3,461 550 8,427 4,427 3,473 527 8,503 4,435 3,545 523 Unemployed__ __ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs... 752 265 252 235 550 161 201 188 584 165 219 200 583 174 222 187 563 177 192 194 636 207 217 212 759 267 261 231 779 287 257 235 846 318 274 254 884 322 313 249 921 328 343 250 946 361 336 249 945 378 318 249 1,003 332 352 319 Unemployment ra te ________ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs... 8.2 5.9 5.3 29.1 6.2 3.5 5.7 23.4 6.6 3.6 6.2 25.6 6.5 3.8 6.2 23.4 6.2 3.8 5.3 23.6 6.9 4.4 5.9 25.4 8.2 5.7 7.1 27.9 8.5 6.0 7.0 29.9 9.2 6.7 7.5 32.4 9.5 6.8 8.4 31.9 9.9 6.9 9.2 32.4 10.1 7.5 8.8 31.2 10.1 7.9 8.4 32.1 10.6 7.0 9.0 37.9 WHITE NEGRO AND OTHER 919 345 326. 248 9.9 7.2 8.7 31.7 1 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustm ent procedures and the 3. h is to ric a l seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 Issue of Employment and Earnings. Full-time and part-time status 1 of the civilian labor force, seasonally adjusted 2 [N u m b e rs in th o u s a n d s ] 1971 1972 Employment status Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.3 Feb. Mar. Apr. 71,803 67,868 3,935 5.5 72,162 68,051 4,111 5.7 71,427 67,616 3,811 5.3 71,995 68,128 3,867 5.4 72,218 68,209 4,009 5.6 72,341 68,284 4,057 5.6 72,550 68,643 3,907 5.4 73,021 68,890 4,131 5.7 73,169 69,022 4,147 5.7 73,261 69,279 3,982 5.4 72,997 69,123 3,874 5.3 73,714 69,734 3,980 5.4 73,691 69,725 3,966 5.4 Total, 16 years and over: Civilian labor force_______________________ 11,881 E m ployed____________________ _ __ 10,794 Unemployed_______________ ____ ____ 1,087 Unemployment rate _______________ _ 9.1 11,819 10,743 1,076 9.1 12,064 11,100 964 8.0 11,954 10,918 1,036 8.7 12,211 11,086 1,125 9.2 12,293 11,280 1,013 8.2 12,190 11,158 1,032 8.5 12,125 11,094 1,031 8.5 12,083 11,072 1,011 8.4 12,595 11,476 1,119 8.9 12,540 11,482 1,058 8.4 12,596 11,497 1,099 8.7 12,466 11,369 1,097 8.8 FULL TIME Total, 16 years and over: Civilian labor force_______________________ Employed__________ _____ _________ Unemployed___ _____________________ Unemployment rate__________________ PART TIME 1 Persons on p art-tim e schedules fo r economic reasons are included in the fu ll-tim e employed category; unemployed persons are allocated by whether seeking fu ll-tim e or part-tim e work. 2 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through De cember 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustm ent procedures and the h is to ric a l seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue o f Em ployment and Earnings. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Figures fo r periods p rio r to January 1972 in the tables are not s tric tly comparable w ith curre nt data because of the in troductio n of 1970 Census data into the estim ation procedures. For example, the c iv ilia n labor force and em ploym ent to ta ls fo r January 1972 were raised by more than 300,000 in the census adjustm ent. An explanation of the changes and an in dicatio n of the differences appears in “ Revisions in the C urrent Population Survey” in the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 4. HOUSEHOLD DATA 81 Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 [In th o u sa n d s] Annual average 1972 1971 Employment status 1970 1971 Apr. 85,903 86,929 86,670 86,836 86,217 86,727 87,088 87,240 87,467 Civilian labor force. ___ _ 82,715 Employed_________ ___ 78,627 Agriculture_________ 3,462 Nonagriculture. ____ 75,165 Unemployed. . . ____ __ 4,088 84,113 79,120 3,378 75,732 4,993 83,788 78,732 3,540 75,192 5,056 83,986 78,830 3,412 75,418 5,156 83,401 78,600 3,301 75,299 4,801 83,930 79,014 3,374 75,640 4,916 84,313 79,199 3,407 75,792 5,114 84,491 79,451 3,363 76,088 5,040 84,750 79,832 3,416 76,416 4,918 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Dec. Jan.2 Feb. Mar. 87,812 87,883 88,301 88,075 88,817 88,747 85,116 80,020 3,419 76,601 5,096 85,225 80,098 3,400 76,698 5,127 85,707 80,636 3,393 77,243 5,071 85,535 80,623 3,357 77,266 4,912 86,313 81,241 3,482 77,759 5,072 86,284 81,205 3,324 77,781 5,079 Nov. Apr. TOTAL Total labor force__________ MEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER Total labor fo r c e ... ______ 49,948 50,308 50,234 50,368 50,256 50,369 50,458 50,492 50,530 50,527 50,463 50,498 50,373 50,714 50,711 Civilian labor force___ ____ Employed______________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture.-. . . . Unemployed___________ 47,189 45,553 2,527 43,026 1,636 47,861 45,775 2,446 43,329 2,086 47,707 45,618 2,469 43,149 2,089 47,869 45,725 2,448 43,277 2,144 47,820 45,762 2,423 43,339 2,058 47,949 45,879 2,449 43,430 2,070 48,057 45,893 2,462 43,431 2,164 48,113 45,969 2,435 43,534 2,144 48,179 46,124 2,494 43,630 2,055 48,200 46,066 2,503 43,563 2,134 48,169 46,080 2,439 43,641 2,089 48,259 46,247 2,442 43,805 2,012 48,181 46,255 2,394 43,861 1,926 48,582 46,569 2,400 44,169 2,013 48,614 46,541 2,370 44,171 2,073 28,279 26,932 549 26,384 1,347 28,799 27,149 537 26,612 1,650 28,555 26,871 585 26,286 1,684 28,545 26,851 533 26,318 1,694 28,531 26,928 513 26,415 1,603 28,594 26,964 529 26,435 1,630 28,826 27,144 543 26,601 1,682 28,960 27,319 548 26,771 1,641 29,082 27,471 530 26,941 1,611 29,254 27,571 528 27,043 1,683 29,284 27,592 547 27,045 1,692 29,424 27,794 564 27,230 1,630 29,358 27,878 575 27,303 1,480 29,574 27,972 620 27,352 1,602 29,508 27,913 563 27,350 1,595 7,246 6,141 386 5,755 1,105 7,453 6,195 404 5,791 1,257 7,526 6,243 486 5,757 1,283 7,572 6,254 431 5,823 1,318 7,050 5,910 365 5,545 1,140 7,387 6,171 396 5,775 1,216 7,430 6,162 402 5,760 1,268 7,418 6,163 380 5,783 1,255 7,489 6,237 392 5,845 1,252 7,662 6,383 388 5,995 1,279 7,772 6,426 414 6,012 1,346 8,024 6,595 387 6,208 1,429 7,996 6,490 388 6,102 1,506 8,157 6,700 462 6,238 1,457 8,162 6,751 391 6,360 M il WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER Civilian labor force___ ____ Employed______________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture. . . . U nem ployed___ _______ BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS Civilian labor force_______ Employed.. ___________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture______ Unemployed____ _ _ . . . 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. 5. 2 See footnote 3, table 3, regarding the introduction of 1970 census population controls. Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages Annual average 1969 1970 Characteristic 1970 EMPLOYMENT (in thousands). 1971 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st 2d 1971 3d 4th 1st 2d 1972 3d 4th 1st 78,627 79,120 77,344 77,575 78,126 78,577 78,875 78,610 78,531 78,550 78,546 78,723 79,221 79,984 80,833 W h ite -co lla r w o rke rs_______ 37,997 Professional and technical. 11,140 Managers and adminis trators, except farm ____ 8,289 Sales w orkers................... .. 4,854 Clerical w orkers..........: . . . 13,714 38,252 11,070 36,266 10,659 36,699 10,750 36,961 10,742 37,445 10,918 37,940 11,055 38,004 11,139 37,970 11,226 38,074 11,143 37,938 10,872 38,004 11,081 38,456 11,139 38,612 11,192 38,710 11,232 8,765 5,066 13,440 7,844 4,609 13,154 7,998 4,660 13,291 7,983 4,714 13,522 8,122 4,777 13,628 8,220 4,787 13,878 8,295 4,813 13,757 8,259 4,877 13,608 8,381 4,934 13,616 8,646 5,074 13,346 8,642 5,018 13,263 8,799 5,037 13,481 8,612 5,133 13,675 7,988 5,300 14,190 B lu e -c o lla r w o rke rs________ Craftsmen and kindred w o rke rs.......................... Operatives........................... Nonfarm laborers................ 27,791 27,184 28,181 28,006 28,428 28,332 28,203 27,768 27,653 27,566 27,071 27,051 27,090 27,524 28,295 10,158 13,909 3,724 10,178 12,983 4,022 10,283 14,288 3,610 10,054 14,260 3,692 10,200 14,570 3,658 10,235 14,369 3,728 10,235 14,196 3,772 10,135 13,957 3,676 10,124 13,793 3,736 10,149 13,696 3,721 10,106 12,912 4,053 10,119 12,958 3,974 10,111 12,946 4,033 10,373 131116 4,035 10,910 13,346 4,039 Service w o rke rs........................ 9,712 10,676 9,509 9,494 9,509 9,594 9,610 9,620 9,814 9,804 10,627 10,607 10,715 10,751 10,852 Farm w o rk e rs .......................... 3,126 3,008 3,431 3,393 3,229 3,121 3,141 3,206 3,108 3,033 2,988 3,033 2,992 3,023 3,030 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE____ 4.9 5.9 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.2 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.8 W h ite -co lla r w o rke rs............ . Professional and technical. Managers and adminis trators, except farm ____ Sales workers............ ......... Clerical workers.................. 2.8 2.0 3.5 2.9 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.5 2.4 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.9 2.0 3.4 2.4 3.6 3.2 3.5 2.9 3.5 2.9 3 5 3.0 3.5 2.7 1.3 3.9 4.0 1.6 4.3 4.8 1.0 .9 2.9 2.8 .9 3.0 3.2 1.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.1 1.1 3.3 3.4 1.3 3.9 3.9 1.4 3.9 4.1 1.6 4.6 4.8 1.6 4.2 4.9 1.6 4.5 4.8 1.5 4.4 4.9 1 8 3 9 4.8 1.8 B lu e -c o lla r w o rke rs................ Craftsmen and kindred w o rkers........................... Operatives............................ Nonfarm laborers............... 4.2 4.8 6.2 7.4 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.3 5.0 6.0 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.0 3.8 7.1 9.5 4.7 8.3 10.8 2.2 4.1 6.5 2.1 4.3 6.4 2.1 4.4 7.0 2.3 4.9 7.1 2.7 5.8 7.9 3.9 6.6 9.2 4.5 7.5 10.3 4.6 8.6 10.8 4.7 8.5 10.6 4.3 8.5 10.9 5.3 8 2 10.3 4 7 8 1 11.4 4.2 7.7 11.7 Service workers 5.3 6.3 4.0 4 .4 4.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.2 Farm w orkers... 2.6 2.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.4 1 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through procedures and the 1972 issue of Em 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustm ent Digitized Decembe for FRASER h is to ric a l seasonally adjusted series, see the February https://fraser.stlouisfed.org ployment and Earnings. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Comparisons w ith data p rio r to 1971 are affected by the re c la s s ifi cation of census occupations, Introduced in January 1971. For an explanation of the changes, see “ Revisions in O ccupational C lassifications fo r 1971” in the February 1971 issue of Employment and Earnings. 82 6. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 HOUSEHOLD DATA Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1 [.Numbers in thousands] 1972 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 2,300 602 1,459 666 2,321 611 1,513 705 2,342 501 1,371 558 2,280 510 1,534 570 2,460 572 1,509 651 2,369 583 1,536 603 2,206 541 1,486 663 2,360 629 1,493 651 2,365 666 1,432 736 2,169 564 1,652 742 2,077 603 1,503 713 2,118 674 1,542 737 2,040 611 1,557 917 100.0 45.8 12.0 29.0 13.2 100.0 45.1 11.9 29.4 13.7 100.0 49.1 10.5 28.7 11.7 100.0 46.6 10.4 31.3 11.6 100.0 47.4 11.0 29.1 12.5 100.0 46.5 11.5 30.2 11.8 100.0 45.1 11.0 30.4 13.5 100.0 46.0 12.3 29.1 12.7 100.0 45.5 12.8 27.5 14.2 100.0 42.3 11.0 32.2 14.5 100.0 42.4 12.3 30.7 14.6 100.0 41.8 13.3 30.4 14.5 100.0 39,8 11.9 30.4 17,9 2.7 .7 1.7 .8 2.8 .7 1.8 .8 2.8 .6 1.6 .7 2.7 .6 1.8 .7 2.9 .7 1.8 .8 2.8 .7 1.8 .7 2.6 .6 1.8 .8 2.8 .7 1.8 .8 2.8 .8 1.7 2.5 .7 1.9 .9 .9 2.4 .7 1.8 .8 2.5 .8 1.8 .9 2.4 .7 1.8 1.1 NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED Lost last iob________________________________ Left last job____ ___ ___ . . . _ . __________ Reentered labor force_________________________ Never worked before___ _____ _ . . . _ ______ PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Total unemployed____ _______________________ Lost last jo b ____ _____________________ Left last jo b ________ ____________________ Reentered labor force_____________________ Never worked before..- _ ______ ______ . UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Lost last jo b______ ________________________ Left last jo b_________________________________ Reentered labor force________________________ Never worked before______ . . . ___________ . 1 Seasonally adjusted data for unemployed persons who never worked before have been changed as a result of a revision in the seasonal adjustment procedures affecting this series. 7. NOTE: For additional detail or for data unadjusted for seasonal factors (formerly carried in this space), see Employment and Earnings, Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 1972 1971 Annual average Age and sex 1970 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. tal, 16 years and over____ 16 to 19 years__________ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years. ___ 4.9 15.3 17.1 13.8 5.9 16.9 18.7 15.5 6.0 17.0 18.2 15.7 6.1 17.4 19.0 17.1 5.8 16.2 18.7 14.3 5.9 16.5 18.3 15.0 6.1 17.1 19.5 15.0 6.0 16.9 18.4 15.8 5.8 16.7 19.9 14.5 6.0 16.7 18.3 15.4 6.0 17.3 18.8 16.3 5.9 17.8 19.1 16.8 5.7 18.8 22.0 16.7 5.9 17.9 20.7 15.8 5.9 17.3 19,1 15.5 20 to 24 years__________ 25 years and over_______ 25 to 54 years______ 55 years and over___ 8.2 3.3 3.4 2.8 10.0 4.0 4.2 3.4 10.2 4.0 4.2 3.5 10.8 4.0 4.1 3.5 10.1 3.9 4.1 3.3 9.8 4.0 4.2 3.2 10.0 4.1 4.2 3.5 9.6 4.0 4.3 3.2 9.2 4.0 4.3 3.0 10.4 4.0 4.2 3.4 10.1 4.1 4.3 3.4 10.1 3.7 3.9 3.1 8.8 3.6 3.7 3.1 9.9 3.7 3.9 3.3 10.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 le, 16 years and o v e r ... _ 16 to 19 years... ___ _ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years_____ 4.4 15.0 16.9 13.4 5.3 16.6 18.6 15.0 5.4 16.5 18.7 14.8 5.5 17.6 17.8 18.3 5.2 16.1 18.4 14.3 5.2 15.8 18.4 13.7 5.5 17.2 19.4 15.0 5.4 16.3 18.6 14.6 5.3 16.5 20.3 13.7 5.4 16.2 18.1 14.7 5.4 17.3 19.0 16.0 5.3 17.3 18.7 16.1 5.3 19.6 21.8 17.6 5.3 17.8 21.4 15.1 5.3 16,7 19.3 14.8 20 to 24 years__________ 25 years and over_____ _ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over___ 8.4 2.8 2.6 2.9 10.3 3.5 3.5 3.4 10.3 3.5 3.4 3.6 10.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 10.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 10.2 3.4 3.5 3.1 10.5 3.6 3.6 3.3 10.2 3.5 3.7 3.0 9.7 3.5 3.7 2.9 10.7 3.5 3.7 3.2 10.5 3.5 3.6 3.0 10.4 3.2 3.3 3.0 9.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 10.4 3.2 3.1 3.4 10.7 3.3 3.2 3.5 male, 16 years and o v e r... 16 to 19 years... _____ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years____ 5.9 15.6 17.4 14.4 6.9 17.2 18.7 16.2 7.1 17.7 17.7 16.7 7.1 17.1 20.5 15.7 6.7 16.3 19.3 14.4 6.9 17.2 18.3 16.4 7.0 16.9 19.5 15.1 6.9 17.6 18.0 17.3 6.7 17.0 19.2 15.6 6.9 17.3 18.7 16.2 7.0 17.3 18.5 16.7 6.9 18.4 19.6 17.7 6.4 17.9 22.3 15.6 6.8 17.9 19.8 16.8 6.8 18.0 19.0 16.4 20 to 24 years__________ 25 years and over_______ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over___ 7.9 4.1 4.5 2.8 9.6 4.9 5.3 3.4 10.1 5.0 5.5 3.3 10.8 4.8 5.2 3.4 10.1 4.7 5.2 3.5 9.4 4.9 5.4 3.3 9.4 5.0 5.4 3.8 8.9 4.9 5.3 3.4 8.6 4.9 5.3 3.0 10.0 4.8 5.2 3.7 9.6 5.0 5.4 3.9 9.6 4.6 4.9 3.3 8.4 4.3 4.7 2.9 9.2 4.7 5.1 3.1 9.0 4.6 4.9 3.6 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 8. HOUSEHOLD DATA 83 Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1 [In percent] Annual average 1971 1972 Selected categories 1970 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. T o ta l (all civilian workers)................................. Men, 20 years and o v e r,................. ............. Women, 20 years and over_____________ Both sexes 16-19 y e a rs.,............................. 4.9 3.5 4.8 15.3 5.9 4.4 5.7 16.9 6.0 4.4 5.9 17.0 6.1 4.5 5.9 17.4 5.8 4.3 5.6 16.2 5.9 4.3 5.7 16.5 6.1 4.5 5.8 17.1 6.0 4.5 5.7 16.9 5.8 4.3 5.5 16.7 6.0 4.4 5.8 16.7 6.0 4.3 5.8 17.3 5.9 4.2 5.5 17.8 5.7 4.0 5.0 18.8 5.9 4.1 5.4 17.9 5.9 4.3 5.4 17.3 W h ite .............................................................. Negro and o th e r............................................ 4.5 8.2 5.4 9.9 5.6 9.8 5.6 10.5 5.3 9.4 5.4 10.0 5.6 9.9 5.4 10.4 5.3 10.4 5.6 9.4 5.4 10.4 5.3 10.6 5.1 10.5 5.3 10.5 5.4 9.6 Mar. Apr. Married men.................................................... 2.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 Vietnam Era veterans,2 men: 20 to 29 years...... ............... ................... 20 to 24 years.................................. 25 to 29 ye a rs................................ 6.9 9.3 4.3 8.8 12.2 5.7 9.1 13.2 5.4 9.3 13.2 5.8 8.9 13.5 4.7 8.6 11.2 6.3 9.3 13.4 5.7 9.8 12.3 7.6 8.0 9.7 6.5 8.5 12.0 5.6 8.4 12.6 5.1 8.5 12.3 5.6 7.4 9.7 5.4 8.6 12.3 5.6 8.6 12.7 5.4 Nonveterans, men: 20 to 29 years........ ................................. 20 to 24 years________________ 25 to 29 years.................................. 6.0 8.0 3.8 7.3 9.5 4.7 7.0 9.2 4.4 7.4 9.9 4.4 6.9 9.3 4.1 7.2 9.2 4.7 8.0 10.5 4.9 6.7 8.6 4.4 7.3 9.3 4.9 8.1 10.3 5.5 7.7 9.6 5.2 7.5 9.8 4.5 7.0 9.0 4.4 7.5 10.1 4.1 7.6 10.0 4.6 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 .8 3.6 5.4 1.4 4.4 6.4 1.3 4.0 6.5 1.4 4.2 6.6 1.4 4.2 5.6 1.5 4.0 6.3 1.5 4.2 6.5 1.5 4.3 6.3 1.5 4.4 6.5 1.5 4.1 6.4 1.5 4.1 6.4 1.4 3.4 6.4 1.5 3.5 1.4 3.5 6.3 1.3 3.6 6.3 W h ite -co lla r w o rk e rs ..................................... .. Professional and managerial......................... Sales workers.................................................. Clerical workers................ ................. ........... 2.8 1.7 3.9 4.0 3.5 2.9 4.3 4.8 3.7 2.5 4.4 5.0 3.6 2.5 5.1 4.8 3.2 2.0 4.1 4.7 3.5 2.3 4.6 4.9 3.5 2.3 4.4 4.9 3.4 2.2 4.1 4.8 3.4 2.4 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.5 3.9 4.6 3.6 2.5 4.0 4.9 3.6 2.6 4.4 4.7 3.5 2.3 4.1 4.9 3.4 2.1 3.7 4.9 B lu e -c o lla r w o rke rs_______ _____ _________ Craftsmen and kindred workers................... Operatives...... ............... ........................ ........ Nonfarm laborers................... ...................... . 6.2 3.8 7.1 9.5 7.4 4.7 8.3 10.8 7.5 4.6 8.7 10.4 7.5 4.3 8.7 11.4 7.1 4.1 8.2 11.1 7.2 5.1 8.1 9.2 7.5 5.3 8.3 10.6 7.7 5.3 8.3 11.2 7.1 4.7 7.8 10.6 7.5 4.6 8.2 11.8 7.5 4.8 8.2 11.9 7.1 4.3 7.9 11.6 11.8 6.9 4.0 7.7 11.7 6.8 4.4 7.4 10.7 Service w o rk e rs ................................................... 5.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.6 6.3 Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers 6______________________ _____ _ Construction._____ ____________________ M a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................ .. Durable goods_________ ______ ____ Nondurable goods____ ____ _____ _ 5.2 9.7 5.6 5.7 5.4 6.2 10.4 6.8 7.0 6.5 6.3 10.0 7.0 7.5 6.4 6.4 11.0 6.9 7.3 6.4 6.1 10.3 6.7 7.0 6.2 6.1 9.8 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.2 9.9 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.2 9.7 6.9 7.0 6.8 5.9 10.2 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.2 9.7 6.6 6.7 6.3 6.3 11.2 6.9 6.7 7.1 6 1 9 8 6 4 6 7 6.0 5.9 10.3 6.1 9.8 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.9 10.6 5.8 5.8 5.9 Transportation and public u tilitie s .............. Wholesale and retail trade______________ Finance and service industries___________ 3.2 5.3 4.2 3.8 6.4 5.1 3.8 6.5 5.2 4.3 6.8 5.1 3.4 6.5 4.8 3.1 6.4 5.2 3.3 6.3 5.3 3.6 6.3 5.1 4.3 6.1 4.9 4.4 6.6 5.1 4.1 6.5 4.9 4 1 6 3 5.3 4.9 4.0 6.7 5.3 3.7 6.2 5.1 Government wage and salary workers................. 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 Agricultural wage and salary workers.................. 7.5 7.9 6.4 7.7 6.3 7.8 8.8 8.5 7.0 9.6 7.5 8.6 8.3 6.0 6.0 Full-tim e workers............. ............................. Unemployed: 15 weeks and o v e r3........... ................... State insured4...................... .................. Labor force tim e lo s t5........................... 6.1 OCCUPATION 3.3 2.2 4.0 4.7 7.0 4.4 7.5 INDUSTRY 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. 2 Vietnam Era veterans are those who served after August 4, 1964; they are all classi fied as war veterans. Over 80 percent of Vietnam Era veterans of a ll ages are 20 to 29 years old. Not included in these figures are post-Korean peacetime veterans in ages 20 to 29. 3 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force. 9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 6.0 6.1 6.0 3.9 6.2 4 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered employment. 5 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part tim e for economic reasons (that is, those persons who worked less than 35 hours during the survey week because of slack work, job changing during the week, material shortages, inability to find full-tim e work, and so on) as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours 6 Includes mining, not shown separately. 1 [In thousands] Annual average 1971 Period 1972 1970 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Less than 5 weeks_______ _ . . _ 5 to 14 w e e k s ___ 15 weeks and over______ _ 15 to 26 weeks. 27 weeks and over______ 2,137 1,289 662 427 235 2,234 1,578 1,181 665 517 2,176 1,587 1,088 640 448 2,245 1,552 1,183 667 516 2,118 1,572 1,175 630 545 2,150 1,532 1,255 704 551 2,320 1,553 1,291 735 556 2,317 1,567 1,250 683 567 2,140 1,529 1,253 628 625 2,290 1,650 1,311 741 570 2,410 1,509 1,273 724 549 2,358 1,502 1,198 636 562 2,142 1,454 1,294 634 660 2,311 1,412 1,224 591 633 15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor fo rc e ... Average (mean duration, in weeks)________ . . .8 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 8.8 11.4 11.0 11.4 12.6 11.5 11.6 12.0 12.5 11.8 11.4 11.8 12.5 12.4 12,4 Digitized'T he forseFRASER data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.4 adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. Apr. 2,169 1,521 1,137 482 655 84 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 10. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 [A ll ite m s e x c e p t a v e ra g e b e n e fits a m o u n ts a re in th o u s a n d s ] 1972 1971 Item Mar. Employment service:2 New applications for work Nonfarm placements .............................. State unemployment insurance program: Initial cla im s34 ............... Insured unemployment3 (average weekly volume)4______________ ________ ______ Rate of insured unemployment7...... ................. A p r. May June Aug. July Oct. Sept. Nov. Feb. Jan. Dec. Mar. 833 295 761 309 777 308 1 ,0 0 5 365 815 315 779 366 767 353 663 288 763 317 1 ,2 6 5 1 ,1 1 1 964 1 ,1 5 2 1 ,4 6 8 1 ,2 7 7 1 ,0 4 3 1 ,0 4 8 1 ,3 3 6 1 ,6 2 3 1 ,6 4 3 1 ,2 3 1 1 ,7 3 9 3 .3 1 ,7 1 6 3 .2 1 ,8 7 9 3 .5 2 ,2 2 1 4 .2 2 ,5 2 4 4 .8 2 ,4 9 2 4 .7 2 ,5 7 7 4 .8 2 ,2 8 3 4 .3 2 ,0 0 1 3 .8 1 ,8 9 3 3 .6 1 ,9 9 3 3 .8 1 ,9 1 2 3 .6 679 266 2 ,2 7 9 4 .3 '6 ,1 7 7 8 ,9 7 2 p8 ,7 8 0 6 ,7 4 0 6 ,5 0 3 '5 ,5 6 1 '7 ,5 4 6 9 ,2 2 4 p 7 ,5 4 2 5 ,9 2 3 Weeks of unemployment compensated . '1 0 ,8 0 8 p 7 ,4 3 1 Average weekly benefit amount for total un$ 5 6 .0 8 '$ 5 3 .4 6 '$ 5 3 .9 6 ' $ 5 4 .5 8 $ 5 5 .3 5 p $ 5 4 . 3 8 r$ 5 2 09 $ 5 5 .2 3 $ 5 6 .2 5 ' $ 5 3 . 0 0 r$ 5 2 . 7 1 r$ 5 2 32 employment Total benefits paid___________ ____________ $ 6 3 1 ,0 3 2 $ 5 4 1 ,9 3 3 p $ 4 3 4 ,4 6 3 $ 4 4 6 ,6 9 1 r$ 4 2 5 ,4 4 0 *$43 3 ,6 3 6 r$ 3 7 7 ,7 9 5 r$ 3 6 7 ,1 6 9 *•$406,905 r$ 4 8 9 ,5 6 6 $ 5 5 0 ,9 0 2 p $5 6 2 ,1 4 6 Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen Initial claim s3 4 . .................. ......... Insured unemployment4 (average weekly volume) _________ ___________________ Weeks of unemployment compensated Total benefits paid _ .... _ 57 51 45 54 53 54 48 43 51 59 68 p 57 128 121 113 114 120 120 106 97 105 118 133 140 533 $ 3 0 ,7 5 7 462 $ 2 7 ,0 1 0 136 p 549 '4 9 4 '5 2 5 p478 r4 0 9 '4 2 6 '4 9 8 530 506 $ 3 0 ,1 1 7 ' $ 3 0 , 0 4 7 ' $ 3 1 , 5 5 2 p $ 2 8 ,9 4 4 * $ 2 5 ,0 1 2 ' $ 2 6 , 0 8 9 ' $ 2 9 , 1 8 0 ' $ 2 9 , 9 9 8 p $ 3 2 ,4 3 8 ___ '5 8 7 $ 3 3 ,2 5 4 Unemployment compensation for Federal civiliam employees:410 Initial cla im s3 .................................................... Insured unemployment5 (average weekly volume)............... ......................... ..................... 12 12 10 20 15 12 12 13 14 13 16 35 31 29 31 36 35 33 35 35 35 37 36 Weeks of unemployment compensated Total benefits paid ............................... 167 $ 1 0 ,4 3 5 139 $ 8 ,9 1 2 119 $ 7 ,4 5 9 126 $ 7 ,8 4 3 137 '$ 8 ,3 9 2 p 157 '1 3 5 '$ 8 ,2 2 4 r 144 * $ 8 ,9 6 0 *156 * $ 9 ,8 1 1 147 $ 8 ,7 5 5 p 1 46 * $ 9 ,2 6 1 148 $ 8 ,8 7 8 48 19 69 8 4 27 48 124 106 $ 6 1 . 9 5 p $ 1 0 0 .3 2 $ 7 ,6 1 6 $ 9 ,9 3 0 33 857 $ 1 0 1 .3 2 $ 8 ,8 9 1 36 87 $ 9 7 .7 9 $ 8 ,0 0 7 27 63 $ 9 9 .1 1 $ 6 ,2 1 2 26 64 $ 9 8 .7 9 $ 5 ,9 8 3 2 ,6 6 6 3 ,0 9 7 * 3 ,1 2 3 p2 ,9 2 3 Railroad unemployment Insurance: Applications u _ __________________________ Insured unemployment (average weekly volume).................................................. ........... Number of payments12___________________ Average amount of benefit paym ent13. . .......... Total benefits paid14_________ _____ ______ 30 85 36 45 89 98 100 19 67 $ 7 0 .0 1 $ 4 ,5 6 6 20 119 $ 3 8 .3 4 $ 4 ,3 6 4 18 63 $ 5 5 .5 3 $ 3 ,5 2 2 13 68 $ 5 8 .9 7 $ 4 ,1 5 9 15 99 $ 4 6 .0 7 $ 3 ,8 0 0 32 105 $ 8 3 .2 8 $ 8 ,6 9 8 33 163 $ 6 9 .3 5 $ 1 1 ,1 3 4 All programs:14 Insured unemployment4__________________ 3 ,0 9 1 2 ,7 5 6 2 ,4 4 3 2 ,3 3 2 2 ,4 3 1 2 ,3 4 9 2 ,1 7 4 1 Includes data for Puerto Rico. 2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. 2 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs. 4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. 5 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment. I Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average covered employment in a 12-month period. * Excludes data on claims and payments made jo intly with other programs. 4 Includes the Virgin Islands. 10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jo intly with State programs. II An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 ,1 2 9 2 ,3 1 1 p 12 34 p$ 8 ,6 6 0 periods in the same year. 12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods. 13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. 14 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments. 15 Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State, Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Financial and Management Information Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. p=prelim inary. r = revised. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 11. PAYROLL DATA 85 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date 1 [In th o u s a n d s ] Year TO TAL M ining Contract construc tio n M anufac tu rin g T rans portation and public u tilitie s W holesale and r e ta il trade T otal Wholesale trad e R etail trad e Finance, in s u r ance, and real estate Services Government T otal Federal State and local 1947........................... _ 1948______________ 1949______________ 1950______________ 43,881 44,891 43,778 45,222 955 994 930 901 1,982 2,169 2,165 2,333 15,545 15,582 14,441 15,241 4,166 4,189 4,001 4,034 8,955 9,272 9,264 9,386 2,361 2,489 2,487 2,518 6,595 6,783 6,778 6,868 1,754 1,829 1,857 1,919 5,050 5,206 5,264 5,382 5,474 5,650 5,856 6,026 1,892 1,863 1,908 1,928 3,582 3,787 3,948 4,098 1951______ _______ 1952______________ 1953......... ......... ......... 1954______________ 1955______ _______ 47,849 48,825 50,232 49,022 50,675 929 898 866 791 792 2,603 2,634 2,623 2,612 2,802 16,393 16,632 17,549 16,314 16,882 4,226 4,248 4,290 4,084 4,141 9,742 10,004 10,247 10,235 10,535 2,606 2,687 2,727 2,739 2,796 7,136 7,317 7,520 7,496 7,740 1,991 2,069 2,146 2,234 2,335 5,576 5,730 5,867 6,002 6,274 6,389 6,609 6,645 6,751 6,914 2,302 2,420 2,305 2,188 2,187 4,087 4,188 4,340 4,563 4,727 1956____ _________ 1957______ _______ 1958______________ 1959 2_____________ 1960______________ 52,408 52,894 51,363 53,313 54,234 822 828 751 732 712 2,999 2,923 2,778 2,960 2,885 17,243 17,174 15,945 16,675 16,796 4,244 4,241 3,976 4,011 4,004 10,858 10,886 10,750 11,127 11,391 2,884 2,893 2,848 2,946 3,004 7,974 7,992 7,902 8,182 8,388 2,429 2,477 2,519 2,594 2,669 6,536 6,749 6,806 7,130 7,423 7,277 7,616 7,839 8,083 8,353 2,209 2,217 2,191 2,233 2,270 5,069 5,399 5,648 5,850 6,083 1961........... ............. 1962______________ 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 54,042 55,596 56,702 58,331 60,815 672 650 635 634 632 2,816 2,902 2,963 3,050 3,186 16,326 16,853 16,995 17,274 18,062 3,903 3,906 3,903 3,951 4,036 11,337 11,566 11,778 12,160 12,716 2,993 3,056 3,104 3,189 3,312 8,344 8,511 8,675 8,971 9,404 2,731 2,800 2,877 2,957 3,023 7,664 8,028 8,325 8,709 9,087 8,594 8,890 9,225 9,596 10,074 2,279 2,340 2,358 2,348 2,378 6,315 6,550 6,868 7,248 7,696 1966______________ 1967______________ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 63,955 65,857 67,915 70,284 70,616 627 613 606 619 622 3,275 3,208 3,285 3,435 3,345 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,167 19,369 4,151 4,261 4,310 4,429 4,504 13,245 13,606 14,084 14,639 14,922 3,437 3,525 3,611 3,733 3,824 9,808 10,081 10,473 10,906 11,098 3,100 3,225 3,382 3,564 3,690 9,551 10,099 10,623 11,229 11,630 10,792 11,398 11,845 12,202 12,535 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,758 2,705 8,227 8,679 9,109 9,444 9,830 1971______________ 70,699 601 3,259 18,610 4,481 15,174 3,855 11,319 3,800 11,917 12,858 2,664 10,194 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full-tim e and part-tim e employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or receive pay for any part of the pay period which in cludes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons 12. who worked in more than one establishm ent durin g the re p o rtin g period are counted more than once. Proprietors, self-em ployed persons, unpaid fa m ily w orkers, and dom estic servants are excluded. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench mark month. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State [In th o u s a n d s ] Mar. 1971 Feb. 1972 Montana _______ __________________ Nebraska_____________________________ Nevada _ _______________ ________ New Hampshire _ ____ ___________ New Jersey... __________________ ____ 196.7 478.0 202.6 249.5 2,563.1 199.4 486.9 205.7 252.9 2,563.0 200.5 492.1 207.6 255.2 2,568.1 790.2 1,162.0 214.7 679.2 2,310.4 New Mexico . _ .. ............ ... ... New York . . ___________ ______ North Carolina_________________________ North Dakota______ _ ............ Ohio...... .................. .............. ........... 295.6 6,976.7 1.767.1 158.7 3,793.6 308.1 6,833.2 1,805.1 162.3 3,776.2 309.9 6,895.1 1,814.7 163.0 3,802.8 1,589.4 299.9 213.8 4,215.0 1,818.0 1,595.5 300.7 215.0 4,239.8 1,828.7 Oklahoma.. __________________________ Oregon _______________________ Pennsylvania . . . ___ _____________ Rhode Island__________________________ South Carolina ________________________ 765.4 698.4 4,247.9 332.1 844.7 791.1 727.3 4,229.7 333.5 876.1 794.8 736.7 4,263.7 334.2 882.0 870.5 661.9 908.4 1,031.4 322.4 884.9 669.1 923.2 1,067.2 325.7 894.4 675.3 929.7 1,069.2 325.9 South Dakota_________________________ Tennessee1. . . ...... ......... ............................... Texas ............................ .............. ................. Utah____________________________ ____ _ V e rm o n t....................... ............ ................ 175.1 1.321.3 3,626.4 361.2 145.3 175.2 1,380.8 3,709.0 373.7 148.0 176.8 1,384.3 3,723.2 379.2 147.6 1,291.6 2,233.2 2,947.1 1,258.9 577.3 1,623.5 1,311.1 2,222.6 2,968.5 1,291.4 '596.1 1,611.8 1,322.2 2,234.0 2,982.7 1,296.1 600.1 1,623.6 V irg in ia ... . . . ........ ..................... .......... . Waihington..................................... ................ West Virginia .............................................. Wisconsin.................................... .......... ......... Wyoming______________________ ____ _ 1,460.2 1,045.1 513.6 1,480.9 103.6 1,518.7 1,037.2 520.2 1,508.2 107.9 1,524.6 1,051.8 521.7 1,515.1 108.3 Mar. 1971 Feb. 1972 Mar. 1972 p 1,004.1 87.4 566.0 532.4 6,806.5 1,013.8 89.9 610.2 539.3 6,899.4 1,023.0 90.6 613.8 544.8 6,978.1 756.4 1,155.1 211.6 677.1 2,228.1 789.3 1,154.7 208.7 676.0 2,299.6 1,565.7 297.8 206.0 4,204.0 1,807.2 _______ Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi ___ M issouri......................................... ................... - State Alabama Alaska . Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida 1 Georgia Hawaii _ Idaho Illinois Indiana _____ ........................ . Iowa Kansas Kentucky 1 Louisiana Maine 1 Revised series; not strictly comparable with previously published data. NOTE; Current State employment data by major industry division are published in Em ployment and Earnings, table B-7. For historical data in available industry detail, see the annual compendium, Em ploym ent and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-70 (BLS Bulletin 1370-8). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State Mar. 1972 p SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies. For addresses see inside back cover of Em ploym ent and Earnings. p=prelim inary. 86 PAYROLL DATA 13. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 [In th o u s a n d s ] Annual average 1971 1972 Industry division and group 1970 1971 TOTAL__________ _____ _____________ ____ 70,616 70,699 70,309 M IN IN G ____ ___________________ _________ 622 601 617 622 634 613 625 623 522 524 605 602 596 597 597 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION_____________ 3,345 3,259 3,164 3,265 3,414 3,480 3,509 3,471 3,478 3,410 3,177 2,965 2,880 2,965 3,119 M ANUFACTURING_______________________ Production w orkers2_______________ 19,369 14,033 18,610 13,487 18,482 13,357 18,554 13,441 18,746 13,611 18,448 18,651 13,315 13,524 18,840 13,738 18,709 13,616 18,693 18,595 13,605 13,514 18,440 13,373 18,537 13,465 18,656 13,577 18,697 13,615 Durable goods.. __________ . _____ Production workers2_______________ 11,198 8,043 10,590 7,612 10,562 7,578 10,607 7,634 10,694 7,713 10,487 7,512 10,485 7,514 10,657 7,695 10,605 7,650 10,612 7,660 10,575 7,629 10,522 7,581 10,590 7,648 10,673 10,704 7,727 7,758 Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures______________ Stone, clay, and glass products_______ 242.1 572.5 459.9 638.5 193.0 579.8 459.1 628.5 192.8 556.4 448.1 622.8 194.2 566.9 451.3 630.1 192.7 593.3 459.3 641.7 189.9 596.4 452.1 638.6 189.9 602.3 459.1 643.8 190.2 601.5 468.3 644.0 188.3 601.8 472.8 637.7 187.3 598.1 475.8 636.3 185.5 591.8 478.3 627.3 184.2 584.5 477.8 620.5 183.0 587.3 479.3 621.7 183.2 591.5 481.1 631.0 183.9 582.0 478.8 644.5 Primary metal industries____________ Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ._______ Machinery, except electrical____ __ Electrical e q u ip m e n t_____ . . . . . . . . . Transportation equ ip m e n t... . ._ Instruments and related products____ Miscellaneous manufacturing________ 1,314.8 1,379.9 1,976.9 1,922.9 1,806.8 458.6 425.7 1,224.6 1,273.3 1,331.9 1,323.3 1,791.0 1,796.7 1,787.8 1,772.8 1,751.4 1,748.7 432. C 425.4 410.6 401.7 1,278.8 1,328.5 1,784.3 1,775.5 1,764.0 427.6 406.2 1,283.1 1,343.6 1,784.6 1,780.6 1,770.7 430. S 413.3 1,238.9 1,319.4 1,772.4 1,758.7 1,688.7 430.2 402.1 1,164.1 1,332.4 1,767.6 1,777.2 1,694.6 432.4 421.4 1,176.0 1,354.1 1,788.4 1,803.2 1,768.7 434.8 428.1 1,165.4 1,349.2 1,774.4 1,800.2 1,749.4 436.2 429.6 1,165.2 1,350.7 1,778.9 1,806.7 1,750.6 436.7 425.8 1,168.6 1,343.4 1,786.2 1,805.8 1,743.3 435.3 409.8 1,180.5 1,333.1 1,782.3 1,793.6 1,730.1 435.1 400.2 1,186.7 1,338.7 1,806.6 1,800.8 1,741.5 436.8 407.3 1,212.5 1,350.5 1,808.6 1,807.8 1,756.4 437.9 412.5 1,221.9 1,354.0 1,815.3 1,813.5 1,756.3 439.0 414.7 Nondurable goods____ _ _____________ Production w orkers2_______________ 8,171 5,990 7,947 5,807 8,052 5,898 7,961 5,803 8,166 6,010 8,183 6,043 8,104 5,966 8,081 5,945 8,020 5,885 7,918 5,792 7,947 5,817 7,983 5,850 7,993 5,857 8,020 5,875 Apr. 7,920 5,779 May June 70,738 71,355 July Aug. 70,452 70,542 71,184 Sept. Oct. 71,379 Nov. Dec. 71,638 72,034 Jan. Feb. 70,643 70,776 Mar.» Apr.p 71,339 71,834 Food and kindred products__________ 1,781.7 1,753.5 1,674.3 1,693.2 1,749.3 1,797.0 1,882.8 1,879.3 1,803.8 1,770.8 1,734.0 1,688.2 1,668.9 1,679.2 1,681.6 Tobacco manufactures______________ 81.7 73.6 69.2 67.9 68.4 77.7 61.9 80.0 76.5 84.2 73.4 70.2 68.4 67.2 65.2 Textile m ill products_______________ 977.6 961.7 954.9 958.5 968.2 948.6 964.7 973.7 965.5 964.5 976.6 986.8 976.3 972.3 984.9 Apparel and other textile products____ 1,372.2 1,361.5 1,362.5 1,369.8 1,372.3 1,304.1 1,366.1 1,374.2 1,379.0 1,380.6 1,355.6 1,335.7 1,365.9 1,372.4 1,363.6 Paper and allied products___________ 706.5 687.5 683.4 690.2 675.3 677.7 688.1 691.9 693.5 696.7 683.9 693.5 684.3 687.4 689.5 Printing and p u b lis h in g . .. _________ 1,106.8 1,087.7 1,087.0 1,085.1 1,088.6 1,082.2 1,080.6 1,081.4 1,087.4 1,087.9 1,091.4 1,085.5 1,087.6 1,090.5 1,093.9 Chemicals and allied pToducts_____ 1,051.3 1,014.8 1,021.6 1,020.4 1,222.9 1,018.2 1,015.4 1,009.4 1,004.7 1,003.6 1,001.0 995.3 996.6 998.4 1,002.0 Petroleum and coal products... . . . __ 190.4 189.8 188.0 189.8 193.7 192.6 193.2 189.1 191.9 190.4 186.7 188.6 183.2 186.8 187.0 Rubber and plastics products, nec____ 580.4 582.0 572.9 577.7 585.0 577.4 584.5 597.0 595.9 597.4 614.9 597.8 597.5 603.0 608.6 Leather and leather products......... ....... 322.2 307.9 306.5 308.8 314.9 300.0 313.2 308.6 305.5 304.1 308.0 308,4 306.1 309.5 307.8 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL ITIES___________________________ ____ 4,504 4,481 4,469 4,500 4,549 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE________ Wholesale trade__________ . . . _____ Retail trade___________ _____________ 14,922 3,824 11,098 15,174 3,855 11,319 14,974 3,808 11,166 15,071 3,823 11,248 15,192 3,860 11,332 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 3,690 3,800 3,758 3,780 3,837 4,486 4,509 4,455 4,447 4,469 4,430 4,407 15,132 15,151 3,877 3,886 11,255 11,265 4,534 15,242 3,880 11,362 15,327 3,896 11,431 15,537 3,905 11,632 16,089 3,915 12,174 15,266 3,871 11,395 15,147 3,866 11,281 3,829 3,826 3,836 3,841 3,833 3,844 3,867 3,865 4,486 4,500 15,269 15,419 3,889 3,898 11,380 11,521 3,866 3,890 SERVICES___________________ 11,630 11,917 11,867 11,953 12,050 12,040 11,994 11,986 12,020 12,032 12,029 11,926 12,031 12,120 Hotels and other lodging places__________ 761.9 774.2 747.7 764.1 810.7 882.9 878.1 812.1 736.0 759.0 746.8 750.3 760.6 769.5 Personal se rvice s___ _ 992.3 946.1 949.0 958 6 958 4 939 6 932 2 933 3 939 9 946 4 <n*> 3 922 1 919 6 Medical and other health services________ 3,052.4 3,239.6 3,188.7 3,206.0 3,254.0 3,270.4 3,273.3 3,279.8 3,294 2 3,305.7 3,312 ! 8 3,326.3 3,345^2 3 .3 6 L 0 Educational services______ ___________ 1,136.2 1,158.6 1,218 9 1,213 7 1 109 4 998J5 973 5 1 109 .9 1 ?1Q 3 1 ?30 2 1 220 5 12,235 GOVERNMENT__________________________ Federal________ ________ _ State and local_______________________ 12,535 2,705 9,830 12,858 2,664 10,194 12,978 2,662 10,316 12,993 2,659 10,334 12,933 2,674 10,259 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assem bling, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12,338 2,688 9,650 12,261 2,690 9,571 12,684 2,666 10,018 13,042 13,159 2,659 2,655 10,383 10,504 13,229 2,684 10,545 13,181 2,654 10,527 13,334 265.6 10,678 13,380 13,377 265.6 266.4 10,724 10,713 inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production for plant's own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the above production operations. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table B-2. p=prelim inary- PAYROLL DATA CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 14. 87 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1 [In th o u sa n d s] 1972 1971 Industry division and group Apr.p Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p TO TAL.......................................................................... 70,599 70,769 70,657 70,531 70,529 70,853 70,848 71,042 71,185 71,584 71,729 71,990 M IN IN G ____ _______ _________ _____________ 623 622 619 597 609 616 521 525 607 616 612 611 603 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION_______________ 3,282 3,275 3,255 3,228 3,219 3,250 3,290 3,320 3,245 3,320 3,236 3,262 3,235 M ANUFACTURING _________________________ Production w orkers2__________________ 18,639 13,502 18,702 13,569 18,608 13,496 18,533 13,440 18,457 13,371 18,616 13,515 18,560 13,462 18,603 13,505 18,566 13,474 18,609 13,527 18,690 13,597 18,777 13,683 18,855 13,758 Durable goods________________________ Production w o rkers2_________________ 10,598 7,612 10,651 7,667 10,598 7,627 10,552 7,594 10,485 7,534 10,597 7,630 10,561 7,600 10,572 7,614 10,548 7,594 10,574 7,629 10,637 7,685 10,695 7,744 10,743 7,791 Ordnance and accessories_____________ Lumber and wood products____________ Furniture and fixtures____ __________ Stone, clay, and glass products_________ 194 567 452 628 196 570 457 633 193 574 458 629 191 579 461 625 191 583 456 627 190 591 465 633 189 597 467 631 186 601 470 634 184 600 474 632 183 604 478 640 182 603 481 641 183 604 484 645 185 593 483 65U Primary metal industries............... ............. Fabricated metal products_____________ Machinery, except electrical________. . . Electrical equipment __ __ __________ Transportation equipment_____________ Instruments and related products_______ Miscellaneous manufacturing__________ 1,270 1,333 1,784 1,789 1,745 426 410 1,272 1,339 1,783 1,793 1,768 429 411 1,259 1,333 1,769 1,783 1,759 430 411 1,226 1,335 1,770 1,773 1,751 431 410 1,156 1,331 1,775 1,772 1,754 430 410 1,182 1,346 1,794 1,791 1,758 435 412 1,187 1,341 1,791 1,793 1,720 437 408 1,178 1,339 1,797 1,791 1,732 436 408 1,176 1,331 1,793 1,793 1,719 434 412 1,186 1,336 1,784 1,792 1,716 436 419 1,187 1,345 1,798 1,803 1,736 438 423 1,211 1,357 1,792 1,813 1,744 438 424 1,218 1,364 1,803 1,830 1,753 440 424 8,041 5,890 8,051 5,902 8.010 5,869 7,981 5,846 7,972 5,837 8,019 5,885 7,999 5,862 8,031 5,891 8,018 5,880 8,035 5,880 8,053 5,912 8,082 5,939 8,112 5,967 Food and kindred products____________ Tobacco manufactures__________ ___ Textile m ill products ________________ Apparel and other textile products______ 1,753 79 958 1,374 1,758 78 963 1,373 1,751 77 956 1,357 1,762 69 959 1,349 1,748 70 959 1,351 1,755 72 960 1,361 1,728 69 963 1,365 1,750 71 970 1,370 1,748 69 974 1,357 1,757 71 979 1,353 1,749 71 981 1,365 1,760 73 988 1,366 1,761 74 990 1,375 Paper and allied products_____________ Printing and publishing_____________ Chemicals and allied products__________ Petroleum and coal products___________ Rubber and plastics, products, nec______ Leather and leather products___________ 690 1,088 1,021 190 577 311 681 1,091 1,024 190 582 311 682 1,088 1,016 189 583 311 676 1,083 1,008 188 584 303 681 1,080 1,004 188 582 309 694 1,082 1,008 190 591 306 693 1,085 1,008 189 594 305 691 1,084 1,008 189 592 306 690 1,084 1,005 191 594 306 688 1,090 1,003 188 600 306 689 1,090 1,003 192 604 309 692 1,091 1,000 191 612 309 696 1,095 1,001 189 619 312 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U TILITIES. 4,505 4,518 4,500 4,476 4,428 4,460 4,442 4,434 4,465 4,502 4,479 4,540 4,536 15,223 3,844 11,379 15,273 3,865 11,408 15,270 3,873 11,397 15,278 3,874 11,404 15,315 3,884 11,431 15,447 3,902 11,545 15,495 3,913 11,582 15,513 3,936 11,577 15,606 3,945 11,661 Nondurable goods______________________ Production w o rkers2_________________ WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE__________ Wholesale trade . . . . __ _ ____ Retail trade_____________________________ 15,107 3,854 11,253 15,148 3,886 11,282 15,135 3,837 11,298 15,158 3,835 11,323 72,172 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.. 3,769 3,788 3,807 3,806 3,804 3,821 3,834 3,851 3,860 3,872 3,879 3,889 3,902 SERVICES__________________________________ Hotels and other lodging places 11,843 768 960 3,198 i ; 168 11,858 768 954 3,222 1,167 11,895 775 943 3,231 1,155 11,921 755 933 3,241 1,142 11,946 760 935 3,260 1,139 11,962 796 938 3,283 1,160 11,996 784 937 3,297 1,165 12,044 785 941 3,306 1,168 12,089 801 932 3,323 1,165 12,120 813 293 3,336 1,160 12,177 813 933 3,252 1,171 12,205 812 926 3,368 1,183 12,211 12,831 2,667 10,164 12,858 2,667 10,191 12,838 2,640 10,198 12,812 2,643 10,169 12,843 2,650 10,193 12,855 2,674 10,181 12,935 2,675 10,260 12,987 2,669 10,318 13,038 2,669 10,369 13,098 2,675 10,423 13,161 2,672 10,489 13,193 2,669 10,524 13,224 2,669 10,555 Medical and other health services Educational services GOVERNMENT_____________________________ Federal______________________________ State and local______________________ . . . 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production for plant's own use (e g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the above production operations. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Employment and Earn ings. p=prelim inary. 88 LABOR TURNOVER 15. Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1962 to date 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 [P e r 1 0 0 e m p lo y e e s ] Year Annual average Jan. Feb. M ar. Apr, May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. T otal accessions 1962______________ 1963__________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.1 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.6 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.9 4.8 4.8 5.5 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 1966______________ 1967__ ___________ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1 9 7 0 ................ ......... 5.0 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.2 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.6 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.9 4.3 4.5 3.7 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.2 6.7 5.9 5.9 6.6 5.4 5.1 4.7 5.0 5.1 4.4 6.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.1 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.9 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1 4.9 3.8 3 9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.0 2 9 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.4 1971_____ ________ 1972______________ 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.0 p 4.1 5.3 4.8 3.8 3.3 2.5 New hires 1962______________ 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.1 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.6 4.3 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.5 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.9 1 2 1.4 1 6 2.2 1966____________ 1967______________ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.7 2.8 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.6 4.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 2.8 5.6 4.6 4.7 5.4 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.0 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.7 4.1 4.6 4.8 3.4 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.4 1971______________ 1972______________ 2.5 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.2 P2.8 2.3 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.4 «3.3 2.7 2.2 1.6 Total separations 1962______________ 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______ ..... 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.3 5.1 4.8 4.3 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.6 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.9 3 8 3.7 3.7 4.1 1966______________ 1967______________ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.8 3.6 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.4 5.3 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.8 5.3 6.0 6.2 5.6 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.6 6.0 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.3 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.1 1971______________ 1 9 7 2 ................. ....... 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.8 4.8 5.5 5.3 4.3 3.7 3.8 P3.9 Q uits 1962______________ 1 9 6 3 . . . _____ . . 1964______________ 1965______________ 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1966______________ 1967______ _____ 1968______________ 1969_____ ________ 1970______________ 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.1 1971______________ 1972....... ........... ......... 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.2 1 1 1 1 1.2 1.7 8 8 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.1 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.4 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.1 2.1 1 9 2.1 2.1 1.4 1 7 1 5 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.9 1.9 1.5 1 2 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.3 2 1 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.7 1 1 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.2 1 3 1.3 1 2 1.3 2.1 1 7 1 6 1 4 1 8 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.0 pI .9 Layoffs 1962______________ 1963_________ ____ 1964______________ 1965______________ 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1966______________ 1967______________ 1968____ _________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.1 .9 1.1 1971______________ 1 9 7 2 ...____ ______ 1.6 1.9 1.4 1 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.0 .9 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 pI 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.1 .9 .1 The i ndustry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, U nited States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur Digitized for ing FRASER industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau's employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meashttps://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .9 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.0 ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. p = preliminary. °=corrected. LABOR TURNOVER CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 16. 89 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1 [Per 100 employees] Separation rates Accession rates Mar. 1971 Feb. 1972 Mar. 1972p M ANUFACTURING _______________________ Seasonally adjusted 2_____ _________ 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.5 4.1 4.6 D urable goods________________________ 3.4 3.5 3.9 1.8 1.9 4.9 5.3 3.8 6.2 Lumber and wood products................ Furniture and fixtures_____ ____ ____ Stone, clay, and glass products............... 5.3 4.9 4.4 Primary metal industries____________ 3.3 3 7 2.4 2.7 3 3 2.3 5.5 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.7 5.8 3.6 5.9 Machinery, except electrical_________ Instruments and related products____ Miscellaneous manufacturing________ 3.7 3.8 5.7 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.2 4 .6 1.7 4.6 4.9 4.1 4.9 1.9 5.9 5.3 Paper and allied products____ ____ _ Printing and publishing_____________ Chemicals and allied products________ Petroleum and coal products_________ Rubber and plastics products, n e c ___ Leather and leather products________ 2.5 2.7 2.0 1.8 4.2 5.5 1.8 4.9 5.6 2.4 2.8 1.9 1.4 4.0 5.9 2.7 2.9 2.1 1.5 4.7 6.3 M ar. 1972p Mar. 1971 Feb. 1972 M ar. 1972p M ar. 1971 Feb. 1972 M ar. 1972p 3.7 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.9 4.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 l.l 3.2 2.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.0 4.7 4.9 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.7 3.6 4.6 5.0 3.6 5.8 5.6 3.7 .7 2.4 2.5 1.5 2.7 3.1 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.2 .8 1.3 .7 .9 2.6 2.5 .9 1.4 .9 1.0 .7 1.5 .9 M ar. 1972p 2.2 2.5 2.4 3.0 1.9 2.2 .8 2.8 1.0 3.9 4.5 2.6 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.4 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.9 4.5 2.7 3.0 4.0 3.9 4.4 2.6 2.8 1.2 5.1 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 3.0 4.6 4.7 5.7 3.0 5.6 2.8 2.1 2.4 2.5 1.9 6.0 3.4 5.5 1.8 2.0 2.6 2.8 1.2 1.0 3.5 3.4 2.6 3.8 1.9 1.9 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.9 3.1 3.3 3.8 2.5 4.4 3.8 3.7 4.7 3.9 1.6 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.7 3.5 1 3.6 2.5 2.9 3.0 •4.6 3.2 5.0 6.1 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.7 4.1 6.7 1.8 1.7 3.7 1.3 3.7 4.7 2.7 2.2 2.7 1.6 3.0 4.1 1.1 .9 .9 1.9 .6 1.6 .8 1.2 1.0 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.6 3.6 3.6 1.9 1.3 .8 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 .9 1.4 .5 1.5 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.2 2.3 2.9 1.2 .8 .6 1.8 2.6 1.3 1.0 3.1 4.0 3.2 1.4 .7 1.6 .9 .6 2.8 1.1 .6 1.9 3.2 1.3 .8 .8 1.2 2.0 1.1 3.0 2.4 1.5 1.2 .9 .7 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.7 2.8 1.0 .5 2.1 .6 .7 .7 .5 .5 .7 .9 .8 .6 .2 .9 2.2 2.3 3.6 .7 1.2 .6 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.0 .7 1.2 .5 .8 1.9 changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Em ployment and Earnings. The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data, w ill be published in Em ployment and Earnings, United States, 1909—71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau’ s employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures 17. Feb. 1972 Feb. 1972 1.6 Food and kindred products_____ ____ Tobacco manufactures. _____ _____ Textile m ill products________________ Apparel and other textile products____ Nondurable g o o d s ..____ ______________ Mar. 1971 Mar. 1971 3.8 3.7 2.5 Layoffs Q uits T otal New hires T o ta l M a jo r in d u stry group 2 NOTE: For additional detail, see Em ployment and Earnings, table D-2. p = preliminary. Job vacancies in manufacturing 1 1972 1971 Annual average In d u stry 1970 Jnh vacancies in manufacturing inumber in thousands)________ 132 1971 88 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec Jan. Feb. Mar.p 83 93 94 90 90 106 98 90 79 78 90 97 109 0.4 .4 .5 0.5 .4 0.5 .4 0.5 .4 0.5 .4 0.6 .5 .6 0.5 .5 0.5 .4 .5 0.4 .4 .5 0.4 .4 .5 0.5 .5 .5 0.5 .5 0.6 .5 .6 .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .4 .3 .4 .5 .4 .7 .4 .5 .4 .9 .2 .4 .6 .6 .8 .5 .5 .5 .9 1.3 .3 .5 .9 1.3 .3 .4 JOB VACANCY RATES 2 Manufacturing __ _______________________________ Durable goods in dustries. . _____ ___________________ Nondurable goods industries __ ______ ________ Selected durable goods industries: Primary metal industries __ ________ - _________ Machinery except electrical _______________________ Electrical equipment and supplies--------------------------------------Transportation equipment _ ___ ______ __________ Instruments and related products.. ____________________ Selected nondurable goods industries: Textile m ill products_____ ________________________ Apparel and other textile products_______________________ Printing and publishing __________________________ Chemicals and allied products...................................................... 1 0.7 .6 .7 .5 .7 .7 .5 0.5 .4 .6 .2 1.0 .4 .5 .4 .7 .9 1.4 .8 1.2 .6 .7 .4 .4 .6 .8 1.3 .4 .5 Data have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). For months prior to July 1971, data are not comparable to those published in the February 1972 and earlier issues of the M onthly Labor Review. Computed by dividing the total number of job vacancies by the sum of employ- 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .6 .8 .8 1.3 .4 .4 .6 .6 .2 .6 .2 .4 .5 .5 .8 .8 1.0 1.3 .3 .4 1.4 .4 .4 .6 .2 .8 .2 .4 .6 .4 .7 ,i .4 .5 .4 .6 .1 .4 .5 .3 .6 .2 .5 .6 .4 .7 .6 .2 .5 .7 .5 .7 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 .9 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 .3 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .4 .3 .4 .2 .6 .6 .6 .9 1.1 1.4 .3 .5 ment plus the total number of job vacancies and m ultiplying the quotient of 100. NOTE: For additional detail on this series, see Em ploym ent and Earnings, tables E—1, E—2, and E-3. p=prelim inary. 90 HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 18. Gross average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date Average Average Average Average Year Weekly earnings Weekly hours Hourly earnings Weekly earnings T o ta l p riv a te Weekly hours Hourly earnings M ining 145.58 49.00 50.24 53.13 40.3 40.0 39.4 39.8 $1,131 1.225 1.275 1.335 $59.94 65.56 62.33 67.16 40.8 39.4 36.3 37.9 1951...................... ......... ................. 1952________________________ 1953________________________ 1954- _ ___________________ 1955____ ____ _______________ 57.86 60.65 63.76 64.52 67.72 39.9 39.9 39.6 39.1 39.6 1.45 1.52 1.61 1.65 1.71 74.11 77.59 83.03 82.60 89.54 38.4 38.6 38.8 38.6 40.7 1956.____ ______ ____ _______ 1957____ _____ ______________ 1958________________________ 1959 2..................................... ......... 1960_______________________ 70.74 73.33 75.08 78.78 80.67 39.3 38.8 38.5 39.0 38.6 1.80 1.89 1.95 2.09 95.06 98.65 96.08 103.68 105.44 40.8 40.1 38.9 40.5 40.4 1961______ ______ ___________ 1962________________________ 1963________________________ 1964________________________ 1965________________________ 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.06 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.8 2.28 2.36 2.45 106.92 110.43 114.40 117.74 123.52 1966_____________ ______ ____ 1967___________________ 1968________________________ 1969_____________________ 1970________________________ 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.46 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.1 2.85 3.04 3.22 1971______________________ 126.91 37.0 3.43 2.14 2.22 2.56 2.68 T ransp o rta tio n and pub lic u tilitie s H o urly earnings $58.87 65.27 67.56 69.68 38.2 38.1 37.7 37.4 $1,541 1.713 1.792 1.863 1.93 2.20 76.96 82.86 86.41 88.91 90.90 38.1 38.9 37.9 37.2 37.1 2.33 2.46 2.47 2.56 2.61 96.38 100.27 103.78 108.41 113.04 40.5 40.9 41.6 41.9 42.3 2.64 2.70 2.75 2.81 2.92 130.24 135.89 142.71 155.23 163.97 42.7 42.6 42.6 43.0 42.7 171.72 42.4 $38.07 40.80 42.93 44 55 1951.................................................. 1952________________________ 1953_____ ___________________ 1954________________________ 1955___________________ . 47.79 49.20 51.35 53 33 55.16 40 5 40 0 39.5 39 5 39.4 1956__________ ____ _________ 1957.................................................. 1958_____________ _________ 1959 2_______ ____ ____ ______ I9 6 0 ..____ __________________ 57.48 59.60 61.76 64.41 1961...................................... 1962____ ____________________ 1963_______________________ 1964________________________ 1965________________________ $118.37 125.14 41.1 41.3 1966______ ____________ _____ 1967.......................... ................... 1968________________ 1969______________ 1970________________ 128.13 131.22 138.85 148.15 155.93 1971________________________ 169.24 5 4 5 5 Weekly hours Hourly earnings $49.17 53.12 53.88 58.32 40.4 40.0 39.1 40.5 $1,217 1.328 1.378 1.440 2.13 2.28 2.39 2.45 63.34 67.16 70.47 70.49 75.70 40.6 40.7 40.5 39.6 40.7 1.56 1.65 1.74 1.78 37.5 37.0 36.8 37.0 36.7 2.57 2.71 2.82 2.93 3.08 78.78 81.59 82.71 88.26 89.72 40.4 39.8 39.2 40.3 39.7 1.95 2.05 118.08 122.47 127.19 132.06 138.38 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.2 37.4 3.20 3.31 3.41 3.55 3.70 92.34 96.56 99.63 102.97 107.53 39,8 40.4 40.5 40.7 41.2 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.53 2.61 3.05 3.19 3.35 3.61 3.84 146.26 154.95 164.93 181.54 196.35 37.6 37.7 37.4 37.9 37.4 3.89 4.11 4.41 4.79 5.25 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 41.3 40.6 40.7 40.6 39.8 2.72 2.83 3.01 3.19 3.36 4.05 213 36 37.3 5.72 142.44 39.9 3.57 2.01 2.14 2.14 Wholesale and re ta il trade 40 40 40 40 Weekly earnings M a nufactu ring $1,469 1.664 1.717 1.772 1947____ ____________________ 1948________________________ 1949____________ 1950________________________ $0 940 010 060 100 2.02 Finance, insurance, and re a l estate 1.86 2.11 2.19 2.26 Services $1 140 i ?nn 260 1 340 $43 45 47 50 21 48 63 52 37 37 37 37 9 9 8 7 23 30 35 40 54 57 59 62 63 67 08 57 04 92 37 37 37 37 37 7 8 7 6 6 66.01 39 1 38.7 38 6 38 8 38.6 1 47 1.54 60 66 1 71 1 1 65 67 70 72 75 68 53 12 74 14 36 9 36 7 37 1 37 3 37 2 1 78 84 1 89 1 95 ? 0? 38 3 38 2 38.1 37.9 37.7 1 76 1 83 1 89 1.96 2.03 77 12 80 94 84 38 85.79 88.91 36 9 37 3 37 5 37.3 37.2 2 17 $2.88 3.03 67.41 69 91 72.01 74.28 76.53 ? 25 2.30 2.39 $69.84 73.60 36.0 35.9 $1.94 2.05 41.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.5 3.11 3.24 3.42 3.64 3.85 79.02 81.76 86.40 91.14 95.66 37.1 36.5 36.0 35.6 35.3 2.13 2.24 2.40 2.56 2.71 92.13 95.46 101.75 108.70 113.34 37.3 37.0 37.0 37.1 36.8 2.47 2.58 2.75 2.93 3.08 77.04 80.38 84.32 90.57 96.66 35.5 35.1 34.7 34.7 34.4 2.17 2,29 2.43 2.61 2.81 40.2 4.21 100.74 35.1 2.87 121.36 37.0 3.28 102.26 34.2 2.99 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data will be published in Employment and Earnings, U nited States 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to constructio n workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Weekly hours C ontract construction 1947________________________ 1948________________________ 1949________________________ 1950_________ _____ _________ 2.02 Weekly earnings 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45 51 58 65 70 1 ? 09 public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-l. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS HOURS AND EARNINGS 91 19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 Annual average In d u stry d ivisio n and group May June July Aug. 36.7 36.8 37.3 37.3 42.3 42.4 42.6 42.6 37.0 37.0 38.0 1970 1971 A p r. TO TAL PRIVATE________ ________________ 37.1 37.0 M IN IN G _______ _____ ____________ _______ 42.7 42.4 37.3 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION_____________ 37.4 Feb. Mar.p 36.7 36.8 36.9 37.0 42.5 42.0 42.3 42.4 36.5 35.8 36.0 36.8 36.8 40.2 3.1 40.7 3.2 39.8 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40,5 3.2 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 37.4 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 42.3 42.1 42.8 42.3 42.8 38.1 38.3 36.9 38.2 37.9 40.2 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.8 3.0 39.8 3.1 40.0 3.1 Apr.p M ANUFACTURING ___________ ___________ Overtime hours......................................... 39.8 3.0 39.9 2.9 39.5 2.7 40.0 2.9 Durable goods________________________ Overtime hours........................................ 40.3 2.9 40.4 2.9 40.0 40.5 40.8 3.0 40.1 2.7 40.0 2.8 40.0 3.0 40.5 3.0 40.7 3.0 41.4 3.2 40.4 40.7 3.0 41.0 3.2 41.2 3.3 Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures______________ Stone, clay, and glass products_______ 40.6 39.7 39.2 41.2 41.7 40.3 39.8 41.6 41.3 40.1 38.9 41.1 41.5 40.2 39.5 41.6 41.8 40.9 40.1 42.3 41.3 40.4 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.5 40.4 42.3 41.9 40.4 40.0 41.9 41.8 41.0 40.4 42.1 42.0 40.6 40.4 41.9 42.4 40.8 40.9 41.6 41.7 40.0 39.7 40.9 42.2 40.4 39.8 41.2 42.1 40.9 40.2 41.8 42.1 41.4 40.1 41.7 Primary metal industries____________ Fabricated metal products___________ Machinery, except electrical________ Electrical equipment________ ______ Transportation equipm ent.- _______ Instruments and "related products____ 40.5 40.7 41.1 39.9 40.3 40.1 40.4 40.3 40.6 39.9 40.7 39.8 41.1 39.8 40.0 39.4 39.8 39.5 41.1 40.7 40.5 39.8 41.2 39.8 41.3 40.9 40.7 40.1 41.5 39.8 40.7 40.3 40.3 39.6 39.4 39.5 38.8 40.3 40.3 40.0 39.3 39.6 39.5 39.9 40.6 40.0 39.1 40.0 39.7 40.3 40.8 40.1 41.0 40.1 39.9 40.6 41.1 40.4 41.1 40.5 41.0 41.3 41.9 40.9 42.5 40.8 40.7 40.1 41.0 40.0 40.6 40.1 41.0 40.4 41.4 40.2 41.2 40.4 41.2 40.7 41.7 40.3 41.6 40.3 41.1 41.1 42.0 40.5 41.8 39.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 Miscellaneous m anufacturing________ 38.7 38.9 38.5 38.8 38.8 38.6 39.2 38.9 39.3 39.5 39.5 38.7 39.2 39.3 39.5 N ondurable g o o d s ... ___________ . . . Overtime hours......... ............... ............... 39.1 3.0 39.3 3.0 38.9 2.7 39.2 2.9 39.4 3.1 39.4 3.0 39.5 3.2 39.5 3.4 39.4 3.2 39.6 3.1 39.8 3.1 39.1 2.9 39.2 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.5 3.1 Food and kindred products__________ Tobacco m anufactures.. _ _ _______ Textile m ill products______ ________ Apparel and other textile products........ 40.5 37.8 39.9 35.3 40.3 37.0 40.6 35.5 39.8 36.7 40.0 35.0 40.3 37.9 40.6 35.5 40.5 36.8 41.0 35.5 40.6 39.3 40.1 35.8 40.7 37.4 40.8 36.0 40.9 37.8 40.6 35.5 40.1 36.0 41.0 35.9 40.1 35.7 41.4 36.3 40.6 36.0 41.5 35.9 39.8 34.1 40.8 35.3 39.6 33.1 41.0 35.9 39.8 33.4 41.3 36.0 39.9 33.4 41.4 36.0 Paper and allied products___________ Printing and publishing_____________ Chemicals and allied products...... ......... Petroleum and coal products_________ Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products________ 41.9 37.7 41.6 42.7 40.3 37.2 42.1 37.6 41.6 42.4 40.3 37.7 41.9 37.3 41.9 42.3 39.9 37.2 42.0 37.6 41.5 42.5 40.3 37.8 42.3 37.7 41.7 42.6 40.7 38.1 42.4 37.6 41.3 43.0 40.1 38.2 42.5 37.7 41.3 42.6 40.3 37.6 42.2 37.7 42.1 42.8 40.5 36.9 42.3 37.6 41.5 42.6 40.6 37.7 42.4 37.6 41.6 42.1 40.8 38.4 42.8 38.0 41.9 42.3 41.2 38.7 41.9 37.1 41.6 41.7 40.6 38.2 42.2 37.2 41.6 41.4 40.7 38.5 42.4 37.7 41.7 41.6 40.8 37.9 42.7 37.8 41.9 42.8 41.0 37.8 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T ILITIE S _____________________________ 40.5 40.2 40.2 39.8 40.8 38.4 40.7 40.8 40.5 40.6 40.6 39.8 40.2 40.3 40.2 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TR ADE________ 35.3 35.1 34.8 34.8 35.4 36.1 36.0 35.2 35.0 34.9 35.5 34.7 34.6 34.8 34.8 Wholesale trade_______________________ Retail trade___________________________ 40.0 33.8 39.8 33.7 39.4 33.3 39.6 33.3 40.0 34.0 39.9 34.8 39.9 34.7 39.7 33.7 39.8 33.5 39.8 33.4 40.3 34.1 39.6 33.2 39.7 33.0 39.8 33.2 39.9 33.2 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE. 36.8 37.0 36.9 36.9 37.0 37.1 37.3 36.9 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 SERVICES.______ ________________________ 34.4 34.2 34.0 33.9 34.2 34.8 34.7 34.1 34.1 34.0 34.2 33.9 34.0 33.9 34.0 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, U nited States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisoiy workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p ub lic u tilitie s ; w holesale and re ta il trade; finance, insurance, and real es tate; and services. These groups account fo r approxim ately fo u r-fifth s of the to ta l em ploym ent on private n o n agricultural payrolls. NOTE; For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. p = preliminary. 92 HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 20. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by indus try division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1971 1972 Industry division and group Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Apr.p TOTAL PRIVATE........................................................ 37.0 36.9 37.1 36.9 36.9 36.7 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.0 37.2 37.1 37.3 M IN IN G ............................................... 42.2 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.0 41.9 42.5 42.3 42.6 43.0 42.5 43.0 42.3 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION________________ 37.1 36.8 37.2 37.1 37.1 35.7 37.6 39.0 36.8 37.4 37.3 37.5 36.9 MANUFACTURING................................................... Overtime hours____ _______ __________ 39.8 2.9 40.0 3.0 40.0 2.9 40.0 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.5 39.8 3.0 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40.0 2.9 40.5 3.2 40.4 3.3 40.8 3.4 40.3 40.5 2.9 40.6 2.9 40.4 40.0 39.7 2.7 40.3 40.6 2.9 40.9 3.0 40.6 2.9 41.1 3.2 41.0 3.3 41.5 3.6 Ordnance and accessories_____________ Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ............... Furniture and fixtures____________ Stone, clay, and glass products_________ 41.5 40.1 39.5 41.1 41.5 39.8 39.9 41.4 41.6 40.4 39.9 42.0 41.9 40.5 40.1 41.8 41.9 40.2 39.9 41.8 41.7 40.1 39.4 41.4 41.8 40.7 39.7 41.8 41.9 40.8 40.0 41.9 42.0 40.8 39.9 41.6 41.2 40.9 40.3 41.8 42.4 40.9 40.7 42.0 42.2 40.9 40.5 42.2 42.3 41.4 40.7 41.7 Primary metal industries______ _______ Fabricated metal products_____________ Machinery, except electrical________ . Electrical equipment Transportation equipment____ ________ Instruments and related products_______ Miscellaneous m anufacturing__________ 41.0 40.1 40.0 39.8 40.6 39.7 38.6 41.0 40.7 40.5 39.9 41.1 40.0 38.9 41.0 40.6 40.7 39.9 41.4 39.7 38.7 40.6 40.7 40.7 40.1 39.5 39.8 39.2 38.8 40.2 40.8 40.0 39.9 39.8 39.2 39.5 39.3 40.5 39.6 38.5 39.7 38.7 40.1 40.1 40.8 39.9 40.5 39.9 38.9 40.1 40.4 41.1 40.1 40.5 40.2 39.1 41.0 40.9 41.3 40.3 41.7 40.4 39.2 40.6 40.4 41.0 40.1 40.7 40.3 39.0 41.1 41.0 41.4 40.7 41.9 40.8 39.6 41.2 40.9 41.4 40.3 42.0 40.3 39.3 41.0 41.4 42.0 40.9 42.7 40.1 39.6 Nondurable goods_______________________ Overtime hours_____________________ 39.2 2.9 39.4 3.0 39.3 3.1 39.3 3.0 39.3 3.1 39.1 3.1 39.3 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.6 3.2 39.6 3.3 39.9 3.3 Food and kindred products......................... Tobacco manufactures________________ Textile m ill products_____ ____________ Apparel and other textile products........... 40.5 37.5 40.4 35.1 40.5 38.3 40.8 35.5 40.4 36.2 40.8 35.4 40.5 39.6 40.3 35.8 40.5 37.1 40.7 35.7 40.5 36.6 40.4 35.4 40.0 34.7 40.8 36.0 40.0 35.6 41.1 36.2 40.3 35.6 41.0 35.9 40.1 34.8 41.3 35.7 40.0 33.6 41.2 36.2 40.0 34.5 41.4 35.8 40.2 34.1 41.8 36.1 Paper and allied products___ Printing and publishing_______________ Chemicals and allied products__________ Petroleum and coal products__________ Rubber and plastics products, nec......... .. Leather and leather products___________ 42.3 37.5 41.7 41.7 40.3 38.3 42.1 37.7 41.5 41.7 40.4 37.8 42.3 37.7 41.7 42.3 40.7 37.5 42.4 37.6 41.4 42.6 40.3 37.7 42.4 37.5 41.5 43.4 40.1 37.6 41.9 37.4 42.1 42.9 40.0 37.3 42.0 37.5 41.5 42.4 40.3 37.9 42.3 37,6 41.4 41.8 40.6 38.3 42.3 37.5 41.7 42.7 40.9 37.9 42.1 37.5 41.8 42.2 40.8 38.0 42.6 37.5 41.8 42.0 41.0 38.5 42.7 37.7 41.7 41.7 41.2 38.2 43.1 38.0 41.7 42.2 41.4 38.9 Durable goods_______________ _________ Overtime hours_____________________ 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S .. 40.6 40.0 40.7 38.0 40.5 40.6 40.3 40.4 40.5 40.0 40.4 40.7 40.6 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE..................... 35.2 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.2 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.2 39.6 33.7 39.8 33.7 39.9 33.7 39.6 33.8 39.7 33.6 39.7 33.6 39.8 33.8 39.9 33.7 40.0 33.9 39.7 33.7 40.0 33.5 39.9 33.6 40.1 33.6 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE... 36.9 37.0 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.0 36.9 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 SERVICES____ _____________ _____ 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.4 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.1 34.2 34.1 34.2 33.9 34.1 Wholesale trade_________________________ Retail trade_________________ 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Employment and Earn ings. p=prelim inary. HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 93 21. Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 Annual average Industry division and group 1970 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Apr.p TOTAL PRIVATE........... . ................................... . $3.22 $3.43 $3.38 $3.41 $3.42 $3.43 $3.45 $3.49 $3.49 $3.48 $3.51 $3.54 $3.55 $3.57 $3.59 M IN IN G ........................... . ................... ................... 3.84 4.05 40.4 4.04 4.04 4.05 4.10 4.15 3.92 3.92 4.27 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.34 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION............................ 5.25 5.72 5.55 5.65 5.63 5.68 5.75 5.86 5.90 5.90 5.93 5.99 5.98 5.97 5.99 M ANUFACTURING __________________ ____ 3.36 3.57 3.54 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.69 3.71 3.72 3.75 3.77 Durable goods________ _______ _______ 3.56 3.80 3.76 3.78 3.80 3.79 3.79 3.83 3.82 3.83 3.93 3.95 3.96 3.99 4.01 Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products____ _____ Furniture and fixtures______________ Stone, clay, and glass products............. 3.61 2.96 2.77 3.40 3.85 3.14 2.90 3.66 3.80 3.07 3.81 3.12 3.59 3.63 3.85 3.17 2.90 3.67 3.89 3.19 2.91 3.70 3.88 3.19 2.94 3.73 3.90 3.21 2.95 3.75 3.91 3.21 2.93 3.73 3.88 3.20 2.93 3.71 3.98 3.19 2.98 3.74 3.98 3.21 2.98 3.76 4.04 3.21 2.99 3.78 4.01 3.23 3.01 3.82 4.03 3.23 3.02 3.85 Primary metal industries........................ Fabricated metal products___________ Machinery, except electrical................... Electrical equipment............................. .. Transportation equipment_____ ____ Instruments and related products......... Miscellaneous manufacturing____ ____ 3.93 3.53 3.77 3.28 4.06 3.35 2.82 4.23 3.74 3.99 3.50 4.44 3.53 2.96 4.17 3.70 3.95 3.47 4.40 3.49 2.94 4.15 3.74 3.97 3.49 4.43 3.52 2.94 4.21 3.75 3.99 3.49 4.43 3.52 2.95 4.19 3.74 4.00 3.51 4.39 3.55 2.94 4.29 3.75 4.02 3.50 4.37 3.55 2.95 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.52 4.42 3.57 2.96 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.51 4.44 3.55 2.96 4.36 3.78 4.04 3.52 4.44 3.56 2.97 4.50 3.87 4.16 3.60 4.62 3.62 3.05 4.54 3.88 4.16 3.60 4.60 3.67 3.07 4.55 3.89 4.19 3.62 4.65 3.69 3.06 4.58 3.92 4.21 3.63 4.68 3.70 3.06 4.61 3.95 4.23 3.65 4.71 3.71 3.07 2.86 2.88 Nondurable goods________________ ___ 3.08 3.26 3.23 3.24 3.26 3.29 3.27 3.31 3.29 3.29 3.36 3.38 3.40 3.41 3.42 Food and kindred products__________ Tobacco manufactures_____ ________ Textile m ill products________________ Apparel and other textile products____ 3.16 2.92 2.45 2.39 3.38 3.15 2.57 2.49 3.37 3.24 2.55 2.47 3.38 3.30 2.56 2.47 3.38 3.30 2.56 2.47 3.39 3.33 2.56 2.47 3.34 3.19 2.57 2.50 3.38 3.03 2.58 2.53 3.38 3.02 2.59 2.52 3.40 3.08 2.59 2.52 3.51 3.29 2.62 2.55 3.52 3.32 2.69 2.56 3.53 3.37 2.71 2.58 3.57 3.40 2.71 2.57 3.58 3.42 2.72 2.58 Paper and allied products____ ____ . . Printing and publishing........................... Chemicals and allied products_______ Petroleum and coal products........... .. Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products............... . 3.44 3.92 3.69 4.28 3.20 2.49 3.68 4.20 3.94 4.58 3.41 2.59 3.61 4.14 3.88 4.58 3.36 2.58 3.62 4.18 3.90 4.58 3.38 2.58 3.67 4.20 3.94 4.58 3.38 2.58 3.71 4.21 3.99 4.60 3.44 2.58 3.73 4.23 3.99 4.59 3.45 2.59 3.77 4.28 4.03 4.66 3.48 2.62 3.73 4.27 4.00 4.65 3.46 2.63 3.73 4.27 4.00 4.65 3.46 2.61 3.80 4.36 4.06 4.65 3.53 2.65 3.81 4.35 4.10 4.84 3.54 2.67 3.83 4.36 4.12 4.88 3.54 2.70 3.85 4.40 4.11 4.88 3.54 2.70 3.86 4.44 4.13 4.90 3.51 2.69 4.53 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL I T IE S ...................................................................... 3.85 4.21 4.10 4.13 4.15 4.23 4.25 4.33 4.31 4.33 4.41 4.46 4.48 4.51 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE............. .. 2.71 2.87 2.85 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.97 2.98 2.99 2.99 Wholesale trade...................... ......................... Retail t r a d e . . . ____ _ _ ______________ 3.44 2.44 3.67 2.57 3.62 2.56 3.67 2.57 3.66 2.58 3.67 2.58 3.70 2.57 3.72 2.60 3.72 2.60 3.74 2.60 3.79 2.61 3.82 3.82 3.82 2.67 3.83 2.68 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE. 3.08 3.28 3.26 3.30 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.30 3.31 3.30 3.34 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.41 SERVICES......... ................. ..................................... 2.81 2.99 2.96 2.98 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.04 3.03 3.04 3.06 3.09 3.11 3.11 3.12 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction,' and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.66 2.66 public u tilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. p = preliminary. 94 HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 22. Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers i on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group A n nual average 1971 Industry division and group 1970 TOTAL PRIVATE............ . 1971 Apr. May June Ju ly Aug. 1972 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Apr.p $119.46 $126.91 $124.05 $125.49 $127.57 127.94 $129.03 $129.13 $129.13 $128.76 $130.92 $129.92 MINING................................... 163.97 171.72 170.89 171.30 172.10 172.53 173.43 174.72 167.78 165.82 182.76 183.60 181.02 182.31 184.02 CONTRACT CONSTRUC TIO N ................................... 196.35 213.36 205.35 209.05 213.94 216.41 220.23 216.23 225.38 223.61 216.45 214.44 215.28 219.70 220.43 MANUFACTURING................ 133.73 142.44 139.83 142.00 143.51 142.09 141.69 143.28 144.00 144.72 150.18 147.66 149.17 151.13 152.69 Durable goods................. 143.47 153.52 150.40 153.09 155.04 151.98 151.60 153.20 154.71 155.88 162.70 159.58 161.17 163.59 165.21 Ordnance and accessories. Lumber and wood_ products......................... Furniture and fixtures___ Stone, clay, and glass products......................... 146.57 160.55 156.94 158.12 160.93 160.66 161.80 163.41 163.44 162.96 168.75 165.97 170.49 168.82 169.66 117.51 108.58 126.54 115.42 123.11 111.25 125.42 113.76 129.65 116.29 128.88 115.53 129.20 118.78 129.68 118.00 131.61 118.37 129.92 118.37 130.15 121.88 128.40 118.31 129.68 119.00 132.11 133.72 121.00 121.10 140.08 152.26 147.55 151.01 155.24 155.40 157.78 157.13 157.03 155.45 155.58 153.78 155.74 159.68 160.55 Primary metal industries.. 159.17 Fabricated metal products. 143.67 170.89 150.72 171.39 147.26 170.57 152.22 173.87 153.38 170.53 150.72 166.45 151.13 171.83 150.42 172.70 151.93 173.96 153.47 184.50 159.83 184.78 155.59 186.55 157.16 188.70 159.54 189.47 162.35 Machinery, except electrical........ ............... Electrical equipment_____ 154.95 130.87 161.99 139.65 158.00 136.72 160.79 138.90 162.39 139.95 161.20 139.00 162.01 140.00 164.02 140.80 164.83 140.75 166.04 142.21 174.30 147.24 170.56 144.00 173.47 145.52 175.56 146.29 177.66 147.83 Transportation equipment...................... Instruments and related products......................... 163.62 180.71 175.12 182.52 183.85 172.97 171.74 172.82 182.04 182.48 196.35 186.76 191.58 194.69 196.88 134.34 140.49 137.86 140.10 140.23 140.58 142.80 142.36 144.18 147.70 147.17 149.08 149.11 148.03 Miscellaneous manufac turing............................ 109.13 115.14 113.19 114.07 114.46 113.48 115.64 115.14 116.33 117.32 120.48 118.81 119.95 120.26 121.27 Nondurable goods........... 120.43 128.12 125.65 127.01 128.44 129.63 129.17 130.75 129.63 130.28 133.73 132.16 133.28 134.35 135.09 Food and kindred products......................... Tobacco manufactures___ 127.98 110.38 136.21 116.55 134.13 118.91 136.21 125.07 136.89 121.44 137.63 130.87 135.94 119.31 138.24 114.53 135.54 108.72 136.34 109.96 142.51 118.44 140.10 113.21 139.79 111.55 142.09 113.56 142.84 114.23 Textile mill products____ Apparel and other textile products......................... 97.76 104.34 102.00 103.94 104.96 102.66 104.86 104.75 106.19 107.23 108.73 109.75 111.11 111.92 112.61 84.37 88.40 86.45 87.69 87.69 88.43 90.00 89.82 90.47 91.48 91.55 90.37 92.62 92.52 92.88 Paper and allied products........ ............... Printing and publishing... 144.14 147.78 154.93 157.92 151.26 154.42 152.04 157.17 155.48 158.34 157.30 158.30 158.53 159.47 159.08 161.36 157.78 160.55 158.15 160.55 162.64 165.68 159.64 161.39 161.63 162.19 163.24 165.88 164.82 167.83 140.10 $130.64 $131.73 $132.83 Chemicals and allied products......................... Petroleum and coal products......................... 153.50 163.90 162.57 161.85 164.30 164.79 164.79 169.66 166.00 166.40 170.11 170.56 171.39 171.39 173.05 182.76 194.19 193.73 194.65 195.11 197.80 195.53 199.45 198.09 195.77 196.70 201.83 202.03 203.01 209.72 Rubber and plastics products, nec________ Leather and leather products......................... 128.96 137.42 134.06 136.21 137.57 137.94 139.04 140.94 140.48 141.17 145.44 143.72 144.08 144.43 143.91 92.63 97.64 95.98 97.52 98.30 98.56 97.38 96.68 99.15 100.22 102.56 101.99 103.95 102.33 101.68 155.93 169.24 164.82 164.37 169.32 162.43 172.98 176.66 174.56 175.80 179.05 177.51 180.10 181.75 182.11 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES............ WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE................................. 95.66 100.74 99.18 99.88 101.60 103.61 103.68 102.08 101.85 101.56 103.31 103.06 103.11 104.05 104.05 Wholesale trade................. Retail trade........................ 137.60 82.47 146.07 86.61 142.63 85.25 145.33 85.58 146.40 87.72 146.43 89.78 147.63 89.18 147.68 87.62 148.06 87.10 148.85 86.84 152.74 89.00 151.27 88.31 151.65 87.78 152.04 88.64 152.82 88.98 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE........... 113.34 121.36 120.29 121.77 121.36 122.06 123.09 121.77 122.47 122.10 123.58 126.82 126.14 126.14 126.51 SERVICES................................ 96.66 102.26 100.64 101.02 101.57 103.70 103.75 103.66 103.32 103.36 104.65 104.75 105.74 105.43 106.08 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data w ill be published in Em ployment and Earnings, U nited States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. P i= p re lim in a ry . 95 HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 23. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers * on private nonagricultural payrolls, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date M a n u fa c tu rin g w orkers P riva te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l w orkers Spendable average w e ekly earnings Spendable average weekly earnings Gross average weekly earnings Gross average w eekly earnings Year and m onth C u rrent dollars 1967 dollars C urrent dollars 1967 dollars W orker w ith no dependents W orker w ith 3 dependents W orker w ith no dependents 1967 dollars C urrent dollars C u rrent dollars 1967 dollars C urrent dollars 1967 dollars W orker w ith 3 dependents C u rrent dollars 1967 dollars 1960________________________ $80.67 $90.95 $65.59 $73.95 $72,96 $82.25 $89.72 $101.15 $72.57 $81.82 $80.11 $90.32 1961 1962_____ ___________________ 1963 1964 1965________________________ 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.06 92.19 94.82 96.47 98.31 100.59 67.08 69.56 71.05 75.04 78.99 74.87 76.78 77.48 80.78 83.59 74.48 76.99 78.56 82.57 86.30 83.13 84.98 85.67 91.32 92.34 96.56 99.63 102.97 107.53 103.06 106.58 108.65 110.84 113.79 74.60 77.86 79.82 84.40 89.08 83.26 85.94 87.04 90.85 94.26 82.18 85.53 87.58 92.18 96,78 91.72 94.40 95.51 99.22 102.41 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970.................................. ............... 98.82 101 84 107.73 114.61 119.46 101.67 101.84 103.39 104.38 102.72 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 95.94 83.63 83.38 83.21 82.84 82.49 88.66 90.86 95.28 99.99 104.61 91.21 90.86 91.44 91.07 89.95 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 115.58 114.90 117.57 117.95 114.99 91.57 93.28 97.70 101.90 106.62 94.21 93.28 93.76 92.81 91.68 99.45 101.26 106.75 111.44 115.90 102.31 101.26 102.4b 101.49 99.66 1971.................................... ............. 126.91 104.62 103.51 85.33 112.12 92.43 142.44 117.43 114.97 94.78 124.24 102.42 A p ril___________________ May June. ___ _ _____ _______ 124.05 125.49 127.57 103.20 103.88 105.00 101.40 102.46 104.00 84.36 84.82 85.60 109.86 111.00 91.40 91.89 92.71 139.83 142.00 143.51 116.33 117.55 118.12 113.04 114.65 115.76 94.04 94.91 95.28 122.21 112.64 101.67 102.57 102.94 July _____ August. . ________ . September___ ___________ 127.94 129.03 129.13 105.04 105.68 105.67 104.27 105.07 105.15 85.61 86.05 86.05 112.93 113.79 113.86 92.72 93.19 93.18 142.09 141.69 143.28 116.66 116.04 117.25 114.71 114.42 115.59 94.18 93.71 94.59 123.97 123.65 124.89 101.78 101.27 October 129.13 128.76 130.92 105.50 105.02 106.35 105.15 104.87 106.47 85.91 85.54 86.49 113.86 113.57 115.28 93.02 92.63 93.65 144.00 144.72 150.18 122.00 117.65 118.04 116.12 116.65 120.64 94.87 95.15 98.00 125.45 126.01 130.25 102.49 102.78 105.81 105.45 105.53 106.23 107.04 107.57 108.38 86.88 86.89 87.40 116.18 116.74 117.60 94.30 94.30 94.84 147.66 149.17 151.13 119.85 120.49 March v _________________ 129.92 130.64 131.73 121.88 120.13 121.25 122.69 97.51 97.94 98.94 130.09 131.26 132.79 105.59 106.03 107.09 A p ril p________________ 132.83 106.86 109.19 87.84 118.47 95.31 152.69 122.84 123.85 99.64 134.00 107.80 88.88 1971: . . .. December________________ 1972: 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). To reflect the retroactive tax exemption provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1971, the spendable earnings series has been revised back to January 1971. Moreover, the Consumer Price Index has been revised back to August 1971, to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Because of these revisions, monthly data published in this table beginning with the January 1972 issue of the M o nthly Labor Review are not comparable with such data in earlier issues. Com parable back data w ill be published in Em ployment and Earnings, U nited States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to con struction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approxi mately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural pay rolls. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 123.90 125.07 102.20 Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as published in table 22 less the estimated amount of the work er’s Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) a worker with no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents. The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index. These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Techni cal Note on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Re port on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5. p=preliminary. 96 PRICES 24. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 [Indexes: 1967 = 100] Consumer prices Year A ll item s Index Comm odities Percent change 1949. 1950. 71.4 72.1 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 1955. 77.8 79.5 80.1 80.5 80.2 1956. 1957. 1958. 1959. 1960. 81.4 84.3 87.3 88.7 .8 1.6 1961. 1962. 1963. 1964. 1965. 89.6 90.6 91.7 92.9 94.5 1.0 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 1971. 25. - 86.6 Index Services Percent change Index Percent change Farm products, processed foods and feeds Index Index 78.3 78.8 -2 .6 56.9 58.7 4.8 3.2 7.9 85.9 87.0 86.7 85.9 85.1 9.0 1.3 -.3 -.9 -.9 61.8 64.5 67.3 69.5 70.9 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.3 2.0 87.4 87.6 87.8 85.9 .9 3.1 2.3 72.7 75.6 78.5 80.8 83.5 2.5 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.3 85.2 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.2 .8 .5 - .4 1.5 3.6 2.7 88.6 90.6 90.7 91.5 .6 .1 .9 1.3 1.7 104.2 109.8 116.3 2.9 2.9 4.2 5.4 5.9 103.7 108.4 113.5 3.7 4.5 4.7 121.6 121.3 4.3 117.4 3.4 128.4 97.2 A ll com m odities 1.0 1.0 92.0 92.8 93.6 94.6 95.7 100.0 1Historical Wholesale prices 1.1 1.2 98.2 100.0 .5 .9 .9 1.1 1.2 2.6 1.8 86.8 88.5 90.2 92.2 95.8 3.9 4.4 5.2 6.9 100.0 105.2 112.5 Percent change In d u s tria l com m odities Percent change Index 78.7 81.8 -5 .0 3.9 89.6 93.9 -1 1 .7 4.8 91.9 11.4 -2 .7 -1 .4 106.9 102.7 96.0 - 9 5 .7 91.2 13.8 - 3 .9 - 6 .5 - .3 - 4 .7 90.7 93.3 94.6 94.8 94.9 3.3 2.9 1.4 90.6 93.7 98.1 93.5 93.7 - .7 3.4 4.7 -4 .7 94.5 94.8 94.5 94.7 96.6 - .4 .3 -.3 .2 2.0 93.7 94.7 93.8 93.2 97.1 88.6 .2 .2 .2 .1 99.8 3.3 103.5 8.1 102.5 106.5 110.4 2.5 3.9 3.7 102.4 '1 0 8 .0 5.6 113.9 3.2 113.8 100.0 .2 100.0 111.6 - 75.3 78.0 86.1 84.1 84.8 85.0 86.9 90.8 93.3 93.6 95.3 95.3 .2 .0 1.1 1.0 -.6 94.8 94.8 94.7 95.2 96.4 4.2 6.6 98.5 100.0 - 3 .4 2.4 ' 5.5 r 3.3 2.0 Percent change - 2 .1 3.6 10.4 - 2 .3 .8 .2 2.2 4.5 2.8 .3 1.8 .0 -.5 .0 -.1 .5 1.3 2.2 102.5 106.0 110.0 1.5 2.5 3.4 3.8 114.0 3.6 price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau’s Handbook of Labor S tatistics, 1971 (BLS Bulletin 1705). Consumer Price Index—U.S. average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] General sum mary Group Annual average 1971 1971 A p r. May 120.2 120.8 June July 1972 Aug. Sept. Oct. 141.7 '122.1 '142.0 '122.2 '142.1 '122.4 '142.4 122.6 121.8 Dec. Jan. Feb. M ar. A p r. 142.6 123.1 143.1 123.2 143.3 123.8 143.9 124.0 144.3 124.3 144.6 122.4 Nov. A ll item s_____________ A ll item s (1957-59=100)____ ______________ 121.3 141.0 139.8 140.5 121.5 141.3 Food________ __________ Food at hom e... Food away from home______ 118.4 116.4 126.1 117.8 116.1 124.8 118.2 116.3 125.3 119.2 117.4 125.9 119.8 118.1 126.5 118.1 127.1 119.1 116.9 127.6 118.9 116.6 128.0 «119.0 116.7 128.2 120.3 118.2 128.3 120.3 118.2 128.6 120.5 128.9 129.4 120.6 122.4 120.4 130.0 Housing________________ Rent . . __ . _____ Homeownership__________ 124.3 115.2 133.7 122.5 114.4 130.9 123.2 114.7 131.6 124.0 115.2 133.0 124.5 115.4 133.5 125.1 115.8 134.4 125.5 116.1 135.1 125.9 116.4 135.7 126.4 116.6 136.7 126.8 116.9 137.0 127.3 117.1 137.8 127.6 117.5 138.0 127.9 117 7 138.2 128.2 118 1 138.5 Apparel and upke ep.._____ ____________ Transportation_________________ Health and recreation______ . Medical care___ _ 119.8 119.1 120.2 120.1 119.3 118.6 118.1 118.8 119.6 119.5 122.2 121.2 121.6 122.1 122.6 128.4 127.5 128.1 128.6 129.3 119.0 '119.3 123.1 130.0 '118.6 123.6 130.4 '119.3 123.5 129.6 121.9 118 8 123.7 129.7 118.6 123.9 130.1 119.0 124.3 130.5 120.7 118.3 124.7 131.0 121.3 118.4 125.0 131.4 118.6 125.5 131.7 Special A ll A ll A ll 119.3 118.6 120.9 119.8 119.2 119.8 120.0 120.9 120.4 122.4 121.4 '120.2 '122.7 '121.6 '120.2 '123.1 '121.7 '120.3 '123.5 '122.1 120 4 123 7 122.3 120.9 123.9 122.7 120.9 124.0 122.8 212.5 124.2 123.4 124.5 123.6 124.9 123.9 . Commodities__________ Nondurables______________ Durables________________ . . Services____ _______ _____ 117.4 117.7 116.5 128.4 116.6 116.9 115.7 126.8 117.2 117.4 116.6 127.5 117.9 118.1 117.4 128.2 118.1 118.3 117.5 128.8 '118.2 118.6 '116.9 '129.4 '118.1 118.7 '116.4 '129.8 '118.4 118.8 '117.1 '130.0 118 5 118.9 117 4 130.4 118.9 119.5 117.2 130.8 118.7 119.2 117.3 131.5 119.4 120.3 117.1 131.8 119.7 117.3 132.0 119.9 120.7 117.7 132.4 Commodities less fo o d ... Nondurables less food.. Apparel commodities.......................... Apparel commodities less footwear. Nondurables less food and apparel Household durables_________________________ Housefurnishings________ 116.8 117.0 116.6 116.6 120.5 120.3 114.3 112.7 114.1 117.1 116.9 120.4 117.0 116.7 119.5 119.3 115.1 113.2 114.7 '117.1 117.2 119.1 118.6 116.2 113.4 114.8 '117.4 118.2 120.9 120.7 116.6 113.5 114.9 '118.0 118.7 121.9 116.8 113.6 115.1 118.1 118.7 122.4 122.3 116.5 113.6 115.1 118.1 118.8 119.9 115.2 112.9 114.3 115.8 116.0 119.3 119.0 114 0 112.4 114.0 116.8 113.7 115.3 117.7 118.1 120.3 119 9 116.8 113.7 114.9 117.8 118.4 120 9 6 117.0 113.6 115.0 120 118 ? 118 9 6 121 3 117 3 114.1 115.6 118 5 119 1 1 8 117 4 114 4 115.9 Services less rent........................ Household services less rent . Transportation services______ ______ _ Medical care services___ Other services____ ____________ 130.9 132.6 133.1 133.3 122.5 129.1 129.7 133.0 132.2 121.5 129.8 130.7 133.1 132.9 131.2 132.5 134.3 134.4 '131.9 133.6 '134.1 135.1 '132.3 134.2 '133.8 135.6 123.7 '132.5 134.7 '133.9 134.6 123.8 132.9 135.4 134.0 134.8 124.0 133.3 136.1 134.2 135.3 124.1 134.1 137.0 135.6 135.8 124.3 134 4 137.4 135.7 136.4 124.5 134.7 137.7 135.5 136.9 124.7 135 0 138.1 135.6 137.3 125.1 groups items less shelter______ items less food____ items less medical care_____________________ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 122.1 120.1 121.6 122.2 121.1 122.0 120.1 114.9 113.1 114.7 130.6 131.6 134.1 133.5 122.5 120.0 122.6 122.8 120.6 121.6 122.0 121.8 120.2 122.2 122.1 122.2 121.8 121.8 122.1 120.6 121 122 121 CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 97 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Groups, subgroups, and selected items Item and group 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. FOOD____________________________________ ____ - 118.4 117.8 118.2 119.2 119.8 120.0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 122.2 122.4 122.4 Food away from h o m e _________ ____________ Restaurant meals _ _ ________________ Snacks__________________________________ 126.1 125.8 127.5 124.8 124.5 126.2 125.3 125.0 126.7 125.9 125.7 127.2 126.5 126.2 128.0 127.1 126.9 128.2 127.6 127.3 128.6 128.0 127.7 129.5 128.2 127.9 129.4 128.3 128.0 129.6 128.6 128.3 130.0 128.9 128.6 130.0 129.4 129.3 130.2 130.0 129.9 130.6 Food at home - __ -- Cereals and bakery products_____________ Flour __ _______ Cracker meal - - - ___________ ____ _ _______ Corn flakes Rice _ _ ______ Bread white . . _______ Bread, whole wheat__________ ____ ____ ______ Cookies -_ ____ Layer cake .. _ Cinnamon rolls_____________ ___________ 116.4 113.9 101.0 116.1 113.9 101 3 129.4 116.3 114.1 117.4 114.2 118.1 114.5 116.9 114.6 101.5 131.5 104.2 116.6 114.3 116.7 114.1 118.2 113.7 131.6 103.6 109.9 131.7 103.5 109.8 118.2 113.8 100.5 131.9 103.0 120.1 116.6 109.7 119.6 117.3 117.0 109.8 119.5 118.0 117.2 108.4 118.3 118.1 114.8 101.3 130.8 109.0 109.6 113.9 118.4 109.9 120.3 118.8 119.1 113.4 119.1 109.9 121.5 118.6 119.2 109.9 120.7 119.6 119.3 108.7 120.5 119.2 Meats, poultry, and fish__ _ . . ... Meats _____ Beef and veaL __ ___________ Steak, ro u n d .. ________ . . . Steak, sirloin. _______________ Steak, porterhouse. . ________ Rump roast ____________ - - Rib roast . _________ Chuck roast. _______________ H a m b u rg e r.___ _____________ Beef live r___________ _______ Veal cutlets________ _______ 116.9 116.7 124.9 123.5 124.1 122.4 126.2 124.4 126.2 113.7 141.7 115.7 115.7 124.2 124.3 120.9 121.7 122.7 122.5 125.6 125.7 114.0 138.7 115.8 115.6 124.6 123.8 122.5 123.1 123.1 125.4 125.1 125.9 113.5 139.6 117.4 117.0 126.1 125.1 125.1 125.7 124.1 128.2 125.5 127.4 113.3 140.8 118.0 117.6 126.6 124.4 126.7 128.1 122.4 129.3 125.1 127.5 114.5 144.6 118.7 118.4 126.8 125.3 125.0 128.1 124.1 129.9 126.0 127.1 114.3 145.5 119.1 118.8 127.7 126.1 127.8 129.5 124.0 130.8 125.9 128.3 114.0 146.0 118.4 118.3 127.1 U 5 .5 125.3 127.3 125.2 129.3 125.6 127.6 114.8 146.7 118.1 118.2 126.6 125.2 123.5 125.7 124.0 128.8 125.9 127.6 114.7 147.2 118.9 119.1 128.0 126.3 125.5 127.5 124.4 131.8 128.9 129.1 114.6 148.0 P o rk .. __________________ _____ _ Chops____________ ____ _______ _ Loin roast___________________ Pork sausage.. . . . _________ Ham, whole___ ____ . . ______ Picnics______________________ Bacon_______________________ 105.0 107.4 106.6 111.4 103.9 108.0 96.6 103.6 105.9 103.6 111.7 99.4 109.2 95.6 103.6 105.3 104.9 110.4 103.6 105.5 96.1 104.7 108.0 106.6 110.9 103.0 105.6 96.7 106.9 113.1 106.4 109.9 105.8 109.8 108.7 106.3 110.5 109.2 107.2 109.2 111.4 111.1 111.4 102.9 107.4 96.6 113.0 103.8 106.7 97.7 107.9 96.6 108.7 97.4 109.7 111.4 105.9 111.3 97.3 Other meats______________ ______ Lamb chops_________ _______ Frankfurters_________________ Ham, canned________ ________ Bologna sausage.. . . . _____ Salami sausage_______________ Liverwurst— ~................................. 115.6 121.5 115.1 107.2 118.8 116.3 114.3 114.3 118.6 115.2 104.6 117.9 115.4 114.0 114.9 119.4 114.4 107.1 118.4 115.5 114.4 115.9 116.1 123.5 114.7 105.9 119.4 117.4 115.5 116.4 124.2 115.7 106.6 119.8 117.6 114,2 117.0 124.7 116.0 108.0 120.4 117.7 114.8 116.5 123.4 116.0 107.8 116.5 124.5 115.9 108.3 119.9 116.4 113.8 116.6 124.4 115.2 107.8 117.4 114.1 116.9 114.2 Poultry___ ___________________ Frying chicken.. _____________ Chicken breasts______________ Turkey............................................. 109.0 108.5 109.5 107.8 107.3 108.3 109.6 111.6 112.1 112.1 112.2 110.0 112.1 112.3 111.7 111.9 109.0 109.9 111.1 113.5 112.7 111.3 111.1 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.7 108.1 106.8 109.7 112.9 107.5 106.2 109.8 111.4 108.4 107.5 110.4 111.1 107.3 107.5 108.7 105.5 Fish____________________________ Shrimp, frozen_____ _________ Fish, fresh or frozen__________ Tuna fish, canned. _ . _____ Sardines, canned_________ . . . 130.2 117.6 140.2 128.4 134.7 128.6 115.3 138.5 129.0 131.5 129.4 116.2 140.0 128.8 132.8 130.3 116.8 141.3 129.5 133.7 131.0 118.8 141.9 129.1 134.3 131.9 119.9 142.4 129.1 136.3 132.5 119.7 142.5 129.2 138.5 132.8 132.9 143.0 128.9 139.1 142.7 128.2 139.7 133.2 120.4 142.7 128.7 140.9 Dairy products_______________ . _______ Milk, fresh, grocery_________________ Milk, fresh, delivered ___________ . . . Milk, fresh, skim ____ _______ _______ Milk, evaporated_____________________ 115.3 114.6 117.6 119.7 118.6 114.6 114.2 117.2 119.4 115.8 115.1 114.8 117.6 116.0 115.1 118.1 120.5 120.4 116.0 115.2 118.1 120.3 116.1 115.4 118.1 120.8 121.2 121.2 116.0 115.3 118.1 120.3 121.4 115.9 115.2 118.1 117.0 115.7 115.2 117.9 120.7 119.0 Icecream ____________ ______________ Cheese, American process_________ .. Butter______________________________ 106.2 121.0 105.0 120.3 105.9 105.4 120.7 105.6 105.2 121.7 105.8 107.2 106.5 106.9 106.1 105.8 105.6 105.7 105.8 105.8 Fruits and vegetables______ . . . . . . . . Fresh fruits and vegetables______ ___ Apples____________ _ _______ Bananas____ __ _________________ Oranges______ __________ __________ Orange juice, fresh________________ 119.1 120.0 121.4 125.6 116.2 94.1 120.9 125.1 131.2 123.9 92.6 125.0 124.0 126.0 132.2 136.1 97.4 128.7 126.8 123.6 127.4 139.0 99.5 135.3 128.2 116.6 115.3 125.3 98.5 138.3 129.4 115.6 113.6 168.2 171.4 175.9 169.7 171.6 120.3 Grapefruit_________________ _____ Grapes 1 Watermelon 1 Potatoes_________________________ Onions__________________________ Asparagus 1 Cabbage_______ _____ __________ Carrots..................................................... See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 129.8 107.3 109 4 112.3 117.5 108.7 118.2 122.8 121.0 114.2 95.5 125.5 124.3 135.7 143.8 114 1 141.7 117.3 104.4 131.0 122.2 129.9 101.6 101.7 130.6 130.1 110.1 110.2 110.1 109.4 109.1 108.9 112.1 112.2 112.6 123.6 113.4 95.8 115.9 119.2 102.2 102.5 102.5 109.3 102.4 106.8 95.3 120.2 121.6 120.0 121.1 115.8 107.5 118.9 116.9 114.8 118.9 124.3 149.3 128.6 109 4 104.2 170.9 113.4 97.3 123.2 126.8 115.7 103.4 123.3 129.8 133.7 135.9 107.0 121.2 121.2 139.5 153.0 101.2 131.1 105.6 109.9 112.9 118.7 110.0 121.2 110.1 111.1 110.0 101.1 101.1 112.1 112.0 112.8 112.0 102.0 102.4 120.1 116.8 114.5 110.0 111.4 118.5 109.3 120.8 118.5 111.2 100.8 132.2 102.5 110.3 111.2 118.9 109.2 119.6 119.0 120.7 121.1 130.8 130.8 128.5 131.1 128.1 135.2 131.0 130.8 114.8 150.1 112.9 120.6 114.8 100.8 134.9 102.2 102.0 110.0 110.3 120.5 114.3 100.9 133.9 112.7 119.3 109.7 119.2 119.2 113.2 119.2 110.7 120.4 120.0 120.4 115.0 100.4 135.4 101.4 110.0 113.3 120.5 111.2 120.1 120.8 126.3 127.5 136.1 137.2 132.1 134.4 134.6 139.2 139.5 135.9 118.3 156.2 126.8 127.9 137.1 137.5 132.3 134.8 135.4 140.1 141.2 137.3 121.3 157.4 125.9 126.9 135.9 134.0 130.9 133.2 132.7 138.2 137.6 136.6 128.5 159.1 119.4 124.2 121.4 120.3 118.2 119.0 119.5 123.5 114.3 123.8 116.7 115.9 l ib . 8 124.6 112.7 122.8 112.3 127.1 121.3 111.4 124.5 119.8 117.4 127.3 123.3 112.7 126.3 122.5 117.5 110.0 112.6 122.7 101.0 114.0 112.6 120.3 121.6 116.8 113.3 124.8 115.4 109.0 120.1 120.0 110.7 111.6 122.0 126.7 123.1 112.6 127.8 123.8 118.3 111.1 110.1 112.0 112.2 112.5 113.7 109.4 108.3 111.6 . 112.9 134.7 123.1 144.7 128.6 142.2 137.0 128.3 145.0 130.4 144.1 138.3 131.9 144.9 132.0 144.1 139.8 133.9 146.2 133.3 145.4 116.1 115.2 118.5 116.4 115.7118.8 120.5 120.9 116.9 116.4 119.4 121.3 120.9 117.3 116.9 120.0 121.8 120.8 117.4 116.9 120.0 121.9 120.8 106.4 122.3 105.7 107.2 122.1 106.7 122.3 105.8 106.1 123.4 105.8 107.1 123.4 105.8 106.8 124.2 105.7 124.4 128.2 120.9 121.4 122.3 92.2 128.4 130.5 106.8 92.6 123.7 130.8 123.9 126.8 109.9 100.4 137.1 129.1 117.8 117.3 98.5 94.1 133.1 129.9 122.1 123.2 114.1 109.4 117.3 131.3 153.5 119.6 126.8 138.2 120.1 120.6 122.1 122.0 121.8 122.1 101.8 101.8 120.1 120.1 120.2 120.6 105.4 102.1 122.1 111.0 112.2 130.6 122.0 98.3 121.3 130.7 120.6 121.2 121.1 124.6 122.4 119.2 135.1 119.0 134.0 111.1 127.7 115.2 115.0 111.3 127.3 127.4 163.6 109.4 162.7 103.4 125.5 111.2 110.2 109.8 106.2 112.4 105.5 112.7 105.7 114.7 106.8 106.4 117.3 113.3 158.3 134.2 145.3 145.7 144.1 142.4 120.6 115.4 105.1 163.5 133.4 143.8 113.6 107.3 120.9 125.7 128.6 98 CONSUMER PRICES 25. Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Groups, subgroups, and selected items Item and group Annual average 1971 1971 1972 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Fresh f ru its and vegetables— Continued C e le ry..__________ ______________ Cucumbers______ ______ _________ Lettuce................................... ........... Peppers, green....................... ............... Spinach................................. ................ Tomatoes................................................ 118.5 120.1 124.1 142.9 129.2 131.8 107.3 173.2 109.7 215.6 129.5 147.0 107.6 151.5 125.3 212.2 129.2 152.2 121.4 129.4 117.3 207.3 127.4 127.9 122.3 109.5 125.4 131.6 129.8 154.3 125.6 90.0 124.0 105.2 129.0 122.0 111.2 84.8 111.4 90.8 128.1 95.4 111.5 96.6 123.2 97.5 130.8 106.0 129.1 104.9 146.6 118.5 131.0 121.7 161.3 125.2 173.0 148.3 140.0 159.1 174.6 120.9 133.6 114.0 139.1 143.8 172.0 148.2 152.1 134.3 143.2 140.8 164.3 145.5 106.4 147.8 135.8 112.9 125.2 162.4 115.2 150.4 135.5 130.7 Processed fruits and vegetables................. Fruit cocktail, canned_____________ Pears, canned______________ _____ Pineapple-grapefruit d r in k ................. Orange juice concentrate, frozen____ Lemonade concentrate, frozen............. 116.2 117.9 116.7 113.6 127.2 113.9 114.7 116.8 116.7 113.5 120.4 113.0 115.1 117.2 116.6 113.3 121.0 113.2 115.9 117.7 117.1 113.2 126.1 113.5 116.9 119.0 116.9 113.5 130.3 113.8 117.9 119.1 117.4 114.1 133.6 114.8 118.6 120.2 117.7 114.0 136.3 115.5 118.4 120.0 117.5 114.5 136.0 115.9 118.5 119.9 116.9 115.1 135.3 115.3 118.8 120.2 116.5 114.4 135.6 116.9 119.2 121.4 116.9 114.7 135.8 117.4 119.5 120.9 117.3 114.4 135.9 117.5 119.9 121.4 117.2 115.2 136.6 117.8 120.3 122.2 117.3 115.6 136.6 118.0 Beets, canned____ ____ _____ ____ Peas, green, canned_______________ Tomatoes, canned_________________ Dried beans________ _____ _______ Broccoli, frozen___________________ 115.1 106.6 115.6 122.8 117.7 114.0 106.5 115.6 116.0 117.8 114.4 106.3 115.3 119.1 117.9 114.8 105.8 116.0 122.4 117.5 115.7 107.2 115.9 124.7 118.2 116.6 107.6 116.2 128.1 118.7 117.5 108.0 116.6 129.5 118.4 117.4 107.0 115.7 130.6 117.9 116.8 108.0 115.7 131.9 117.8 117.0 108.6 115.1 133.2 117.9 118.3 108.6 114.9 133.9 117.8 119.0 108.5 115.3 135.4 118.5 119.8 107.9 115.5 136.5 119.0 120.2 108.7 115.4 137.1 119.2 Other food at home.................... ................. Eggs-------- ------------- ------------------------Fats and oils: Margarine____________________ Salad dressing, Italian...... ........... Salad or cooking o il___________ 115.9 108.4 115.8 109.7 115.5 106.1 114.7 99.1 115.7 105.2 116.7 109.7 115.5 102.4 116.2 106.7 115.6 103.2 116.6 110.5 116.2 108.0 115.6 101.4 116.7 107.5 116.2 102.9 116.0 109.3 120.1 115.3 109.0 119.0 116.1 109.7 119.1 115.6 109.6 119.0 115.6 110.2 119.7 116.4 110.0 121.6 117.6 110.2 123.3 118.1 109.9 123.4 117.8 110.6 123.5 117.7 110.9 123.5 117.3 110.2 123.9 118.1 110.4 124.0 118.6 110.8 123.7 118.4 111.4 123.0 Sugar and sweets.................................. Sugar_______________________ Grape je lly .................................... . Chocolate bar________________ Syrup, chocolate flavored______ Nonalcoholic beverages____ ____ _ Coffee, can and bag___________ Coffee, instant................................ Tea______ _____ ____________ Cola d rin k__________ ________ Carbonated fru it d rin k_________ 119.3 112.5 119.3 130.9 113.2 121.6 121.8 124.7 107.6 125.9 126.4 118.7 112.1 117.3 130.7 113.7 122.0 123.1 124.1 108.5 125.2 125.6 119.0 112.2 118.5 130.7 113.6 121.8 122.6 124.3 107.7 125.7 125.9 119.4 112.2 119.4 131.2 113.5 122.2 122.4 125.0 108.4 126.3 126.8 119.7 112.6 120.4 131.3 113.3 122.0 121.8 124.9 108.5 126.4 127.2 120.3 113.2 121.7 131.7 113.4 122.0 121.8 125.2 108.0 126.7 127.5 120.2 113.5 121.6 131.4 113.2 121.0 119.1 125.4 108.0 127.0 127.6 120.1 113.4 121.2 131.5 113.0 121.2 119.3 125.3 107.8 127.3 127.8 120.0 113.5 121.4 131.3 112.5 120.9 119.0 125.1 107.8 127.1 127.7 120.1 113.5 121 6 131 3 112.7 120 5 118 5 125 1 106 0 127 1 127.9 120.1 113.6 121.5 130.8 113.3 120.4 118.2 124.7 106.1 127.7 127.9 120.5 114.3 122.7 130.7 113.4 120.7 118.3 125.5 107.1 127.8 127.6 121.2 114.9 124.5 130.6 113.5 120.9 118.3 125.1 108.1 128.1 128.2 121.4 115.3 125.1 130.8 113.4 120.9 118.2 125.0 108.2 128.2 128.2 Prepared and partially prepared foods Bean soup, canned................ ........ Chicken soup, canned................... Spaghetti, canned.................... . 112.7 114.1 106.4 117.3 112.3 113.7 106.6 117.2 112.5 113.6 106.5 117.0 112.8 114.0 106.5 117.1 113.1 113.7 106.4 117.1 113.5 114.8 106.3 117.6 113.4 114.7 106.6 117.7 113.4 114.7 106.5 117.7 113.2 114.7 106.0 117.7 113.3 114 7 105.7 117.5 113.5 114.5 106.4 118.1 114.1 115.7 106.9 117.8 114.4 116.2 106.4 116.8 114.5 116.3 106.6 117.4 Mashed potatoes, instant_______ Potatoes, French fried, frozen___ Baby food, canned____________ Sweet pickle relish____________ Pretzels.......................................... 110.8 110.1 110.9 117.4 113.1 110.2 110.4 110.7 115.2 112.8 110.8 110.1 110.6 116.5 113.4 111.6 110.1 112.4 110.8 111.1 110.4 110.3 111.8 119.5 114.5 110.4 109.9 111.6 120.0 114.4 110.7 108.5 111.3 120.6 114.0 109.3 111 1 121.2 114.5 111.5 108.5 116.7 113.9 111.9 110.9 111.8 118.9 114.1 112.2 110.0 111.2 122.5 114.5 112.3 110.4 111.4 124.4 115.2 111.3 111.0 111.4 125.2 115.0 111.0 117.4 114.5 111.0 111.1 122.0 114.1 HOUSING............................................................................... 124.3 122.5 123.2 124.0 124.5 125.1 125.5 125.9 126.4 126.8 127.3 127.6 127.9 128.2 S h e lte r ______ _____ ____ _________ _____ ___ Rent______________________________ 1____ Homeownership____ ______________________ 128.8 115.2 133.7 126.5 114.4 130.9 127.2 114.7 131.6 128.3 115.2 133.0 128.8 115.4 133.5 129.5 115.8 134.4 130.1 116.1 135.1 130.6 116.4 135.7 131.3 116.6 136.7 131.6 116.9 137.0 132.3 117.1 137.8 132.5 117.5 138.0 132.7 117.7 138.2 133.0 118.1 138.5 Mortgage interest rates_____ _____ ____ Property taxes_______________________ Property insurance rates__________ ____ Maintenance and repairs.......................... . 120.4 131.1 119.9 133.7 118.5 127.8 118.8 131.1 117.3 129.6 119.3 131.9 117.0 129.9 120.2 134.0 117.4 130.5 121.5 134.7 118.1 132.2 121.5 135.8 118.7 133.1 121.5 136.8 119.1 134.6 122.4 137.0 118.9 136.3 122.4 137.1 118.6 137.6 122 4 137.4 118.4 141.1 122.4 137.8 118.2 141.8 122.4 138.0 117.7 143.6 122.4 138.6 117.1 144.7 122.6 139.2 Commodities______ ______________ Exterior house paint___________ Interior house paint___________ 119.0 115.9 114.5 117.4 115.5 113.9 118.1 116.0 113.4 119.8 116.0 114.1 119.9 115.7 114.2 120.6 115.3 115.2 120.9 116.5 115.5 120.9 116.5 115.6 120.8 116.5 115.3 120.8 116.8 115.4 121.3 117.7 115.8 121.3 117.9 115.6 122.0 118.2 116.3 122.4 118.5 116.4 Services.__________ _____________ Repainting living and dining room s.................. .......... ........... Reshingling roofs________ ____ Residing houses......... ............... . Replacing s in k s ..____ ________ Repairing furnaces......................... 140.0 137.1 137.9 140.1 141.2 142.4 143.7 144.0 144.1 144.6 144.9 145.2 145.9 146.5 148.3 144.8 130.6 140.6 144.3 144.6 140.4 128.8 137.9 141.1 146.2 141.9 129.0 138.9 141.6 148.5 145.8 130.5 141.1 143.0 149.6 147.2 131.1 142.2 144.5 151.3 148.8 132.1 143.0 145.9 153.0 150.1 132.8 143.4 148.9 153.1 150.7 133.1 143.4 149.2 153.6 150.6 133.2 143.6 149.1 154.0 151.6 133.3 143.7 150.2 154.4 152.0 133.4 143.9 150.9 155.1 152.3 133.7 144.2 151.2 155.6 153.0 133.9 145.1 152.2 156.5 154.3 134.5 145.5 152.4 Fuel and u t il it ie s . . ____ ______________ ____ Fuel oil and coal_________________________ Fuel oil, #2__________________________ Gas and electricity________________________ Gas............................ ...................................... Electricity.................................................. .. 115.1 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.3 113.2 114.1 117.3 116.0 113.9 115.8 112.1 114.4 117.2 115.9 114.4 116.6 112,4 114.6 117.4 116.1 114.6 116.4 113.0 115.5 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.1 113.5 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.8 118.1 116.4 116.2 118.1 114.5 117.9 118.1 116.4 118.2 120.5 116.0 118.7 118.7 116.5 119.0 121.7 116.6 119.3 118.7 116.5 119.4 121.9 117.0 119.6 118.7 116.5 119.7 122.2 117.2 119.9 118.6 116.5 120.2 122.3 118.2 Other utilities: Residential telephone............ ......... ......... .. Residential water and sewerage_________ 108.0 133.4 106.2 132 .6 106.2 132.6 106.4 132.6 108.9 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 136.4 110.7 136.4 111.8 136.4 113.5 136.4 113.5 137.7 113.7 137.7 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 99 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Groups, subgroups, and selected Items Item and group HOUSING-Continued Household furnishings and operations__________ House fu rn is h in g s ..._________________________ Textiles.. ______________ __________ . . . Sheets, percale, or m u s lin ... _____ . . Curtains, tailored, polyester m arquisette.. Bedspreads, chiefly cotton_______ ____ Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/acetate... Slipcovers, throws, ready made, chiefly cotton____________________________ 1971 Annual average 1971 1972 Apr. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 118.1 114.3 111.6 113.9 110.0 107.8 118.4 117.0 114.0 111.7 115.5 109.3 108.1 117.1 118.1 114.1 110.8 111.7 108.2 107.6 117.7 118.7 114.7 112.2 114.7 110.0 107.7 118.6 118.9 114.7 111.3 112.0 110.7 106.7 119.3 119.1 114.8 111.1 110.2 111.5 107.0 118.9 119.4 114.9 111.9 114.0 111.3 107.4 118.8 119.5 115.1 112.2 113.4 111.5 107.8 119.5 119.5 115.1 112.9 llb . b 110.9 108.4 119.0 119.6 115.3 113.1 116.5 110.6 108.8 119.1 119.5 114.9 110.8 110.1 110.3 105.1 118.9 119.6 115.0 112.1 114.1 111.2 106.9 119.6 120.1 115.6 113.2 114.4 110.9 109.8 121.2 120.5 115.9 113.7 116.0 111.3 111.0 121.1 111.8 111.2 111.2 112.7 112.2 112.4 111.6 112.5 112.8 113.2 113.1 113.0 114.6 113.7 Furniture and bedding__________ ________ Bedroom furniture, chest and dresser2 3._ Living room suites, good or inexpensive qua lity4 . .. . . ________ Lounge chair, upholstered 4 __________ Dining room chairs3 5________ ______ Sofas, upholstered____________________ Sofas, dual purpose___________ _______ Bedding, mattress, and box springs6 7 . . . Cribs____ ______ ____________________ Cocktail table 8__ ____________ ___ Recliner, upholstered 8___ _________ 119.1 103.6 118.8 102.8 119.1 103.3 119.6 104.1 119.6 104.5 119.6 104.5 119.7 104.6 119.9 104.7 119.9 104.8 120.1 104.7 119.8 104.6 119.5 104.1 120.7 104.6 121.0 104.9 115.7 123.6 103.0 117.5 116.4 103.4 117.9 115 n 12? 3 103.5 117.9 115.9 103.3 117.1 115.3 123.6 102.8 116.6 116.7 103.3 117.5 115.8 124.7 103.4 117.1 116.4 103.8 118.3 115 7 124 3 103.2 116.8 116.4 103.9 118.9 116.2 125.1 102.9 117.5 116.5 104.0 118.0 116.4 125.6 103.4 117.5 116.3 103.7 118.4 116.5 125.0 103.3 119.4 116.4 104.1 118.0 116.6 125.0 103.4 119.1 116.4 103.9 119.2 116 9 125.0 103.5 119.5 116.9 104.4 118.8 100.0 100.0 103.4 119.3 116.7 103.7 118.0 100.1 99.2 103.3 119.0 115.9 104.4 118.1 99.7 98.2 104.2 119.7 116.9 104.4 119.0 99.5 98.6 104.9 120.2 116.8 104.5 117.6 100.6 98.7 Floor coverings___________________________ Broadloom carpeting, manmade fibers___ Vinyl sheet goods___ ___________ Vinyl asbestos tile ____________________ 106.3 102.3 114.7 116.6 106.2 102.2 114.5 116.1 106.0 101.9 114.4 116.3 106.4 102.4 114.5 116.7 106.3 102.1 114.9 116.9 106.8 102.7 115.9 116.4 106.5 102.2 116.1 116.7 106.5 102.3 116.0 116.7 106.3 101.8 116.3 117.0 106.6 102.1 116.5 117.4 106.3 101.9 115.6 117.6 106.1 101.4 116.3 117.6 106.3 101.5 116.7 117.8 106.5 101.6 117.7 117.9 Appliances______________________________ Washing machines, automatic__________ Vacuum cleaners, canister type_________ 105.5 109.4 103.8 105.2 108.9 103.4 105.3 109.3 103.6 105.6 109.4 104.3 105.7 109.7 104.3 105.7 109.9 104.3 105.8 110.1 104.3 105.8 110.0 104.1 105.7 110.0 103.9 105.8 110.0 103.6 105.8 110.2 104.0 105.7 110.4 103.8 105.8 110.6 103.7 105.7 110.4 103.7 Refrigerator-freezers__________________ Ranges, free standing, gas or electric___ 108.1 111.0 107.9 110.6 107.9 111.3 108.3 111.3 108.3 111.7 108.2 111.4 108.3 111.2 108.3 112.0 108.2 111.0 108.3 111.3 108.2 111.2 108.3 110.4 108.3 110.5 108.0 110.4 Clothes dryers, electric________________ Air conditioners * . . . . . . . . _______ Room heaters, electric, portable1........... . Garbage disposal un its.’. .............................. 112.4 110.2 108.1 110.1 112.1 108 9 112.2 110.0 112.8 111.0 113.1 111 4 113.2 111.0 113.4 113.1 113.0 113.0 113.3 113.5 109.5 109.6 109.6 110.1 110.2 110.3 108.5 110.3 108.9 110,4 108 6 110.9 m!o 113.6 110 4 108 5 11L 0 113.6 110.4 108.0 110.2 Other house furnishings: Dinnerware, earthenware________ ____ Flatware, stainless steel____ ________ _ Table lamps, with shade.............................. 117.8 120.4 121.0 117.0 119.4 120.3 117.9 119.3 121.0 118.3 119.6 121.4 118.4 120.4 121.9 118.9 121.5 122.3 119.2 121.7 122.2 119.3 122.1 122.0 119.2 122.0 122.2 119.4 121.8 121.8 120.1 122.0 122.0 121.0 122.2 122.2 122.2 121.4 121.7 121.6 122.8 122.2 Housekeeping supplies: Laundry soaps and detergents__________ Paper napkins_______________________ Toilet tissue_________________________ 109.8 126.7 123.6 109.8 126.6 123.6 110.5 127.5 124.5 110.4 126.1 124.8 110.6 127.6 124.0 111.1 128.1 122.6 111.1 128.3 123.7 110.9 128.8 123.9 110.6 128.9 123.6 110.8 128.6 123.8 111.0 128.6 124.5 111.0 128.4 124.8 111.2 128.9 125.1 111.1 129.5 125.6 Housekeeping services: Domestic service, general housework____ Baby sitter service____________________ Postal charges________ . . . _________ Laundry, flatw ork. _______ _ . . . Licensed day care service, preschool child. Washing machine repair....... ........... ........... 133.8 130.0 138.1 133.3 118.2 135.3 132.3 128.3 121.0 132.1 117.4 132.9 133.0 128.4 146.6 132.8 117.5 134.9 133.7 130.3 146.6 133.6 117.9 136.8 134.5 130.5 146.6 133.9 118.0 137.3 134.9 130.7 146.6 134.6 119.0 137.3 135.1 132.1 146.6 135.0 119.1 137.4 135.3 132.3 146.6 135.4 119.4 137.6 136.0 132.4 146.6 135.6 119.1 138.2 136.1 132.8 146.6 136.3 119.4 138.2 136.4 133.4 146.6 136.4 119.4 138.1 136.4 133.8 146.6 136.6 120.0 138.4 136.9 134.8 146.6 137.0 120.3 138.9 138.4 135.0 146.6 137.6 120.8 138.9 APPAREL AND UPKEEP________________________ 119.8 119.1 120.2 120.1 119.3 119.0 120.6 121.6 121.9 121.8 120.2 120.7 121.3 121.8 Men’s and boys'____________________________ 120.3 120.3 121.2 121.4 119.9 119.6 120.8 121.8 121.8 121.6 119.9 119.7 120.3 121.9 Men’s: Topcoats, wool or all weather coats, polyester blend . __________ . . . Suits, year round w e ig h t... . _ . . . ___ Suits, tropical w e ig h t1___________ . . _ Jackets, lightweight___________________ Slacks, wool or blend____ _____________ Slacks, cotton or blend________________ Trousers, work, cotton.................................. 122.3 129.0 129.2 112.5 116.8 132.3 113.0 129.1 130 1 111.9 116.8 132.5 112.7 129.7 131.6 112.6 117.3 133.0 112.8 130.0 131.4 112.9 117.9 133.3 113.2 127.1 125.1 112.2 117.3 131.0 113.5 127.7 121.9 130.5 123 4 132.4 124.4 133.0 124.2 131.5 121.2 126.5 119 5 125.6 112.1 115.4 130.9 113.7 112.2 118.2 132.5 113.7 112.9 118.2 133.9 114.0 114.2 117.6 134.7 114.0 114.3 116.8 134.7 114.0 113.0 115.7 134.0 114.1 112.7 116.3 137.1 114.4 119.3 127.6 130.9 115.0 115.7 137.4 114.4 131.1 136.3 115.1 117.2 137.0 114.6 Shirt, work, cotton____________... . . . Shirt, business, cotton_________ .... . . T-shirts, chiefly cotton____ ___________ Socks, cotton or manmade fibers_______ Handkerchiefs, cotton.................................... 113.3 112.7 119.0 115.5 114.9 112.8 112.4 118.8 114.8 113.0 113.4 113.7 119.2 116.2 115.3 113.4 113.8 119.4 116.4 115.4 113.9 113.1 119.4 114.9 115.2 114.0 112.4 119.0 114.9 115.2 114.2 113.0 118.8 115.2 115.4 114.6 113.0 118.9 115.7 115.7 114.8 114.4 118.4 115.7 115.7 114.5 114.4 118.2 115.8 116.1 114.5 112.6 118.3 114.3 116.3 114.2 112.7 118.0 114.9 116.0 114.5 112.4 117.8 116.2 116.2 114.9 113.1 117.4 116.6 115.4 Boys’ : Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton blend1 Sport coats, wool or blend 1 Dungarees, cotton or blend_______ ___ Undershorts, cotton....................................... 118.3 122 0 122.5 119.5 122.6 119.4 122.6 119.1 122.7 119.9 123.5 123.2 119.6 120.3 118.3 125.2 119.6 118.3 121.3 125.8 119.6 115.8 118.1 126.4 119.9 122.3 122.0 120.0 119.2 128 1 123.2 119.6 114.8 121.2 119.9 126.1 120.6 126.5 120.5 127.1 120.5 120.1 118.7 120.4 119.9 119.3 118.2 121.3 122.7 123.4 123.2 120.2 121.7 122.5 122.5 121.7 131.1 127 2 135.7 127.7 142.1 126.0 142.1 116.2 135.0 125.3 120.0 122.1 129.4 127.5 1 140.3 1 144.3 122.2 131.1 143.8 121.6 130.1 142.7 117.6 129.6 138.4 122.2 130.4 115.5 123.7 130.1 Women's and girls’ ..................... ........... .............. .. Women’ s: Coats, heavyweight wool or wool blend 1 Skirts, wool or wool blend 1 Skirts! cotton or polyester cotton or manmade fibers Blouses, cotton_______________________ Dresses, street, chiefly manmade fiber___ Dresses, street, wool or wool blend1.......... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal ReserveSee Bank of St. footnotes at Louis end of table. 122 9 131.7 114 0 121.9 127.6 140.4 115 0 123.6 126.7 119 4 123.5 126.6 118 7 123.6 126.4 114 7 121.8 124.5 102 9 119.1 126.8 122.9 131.3 111.0 100 25. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Groups, subgroups, and selected items Item and group Annual average 1971 APPAREL AND UPKEEP— Continued Slips, nylon___________ Panties, acetate or nylon_______ _____ Girdles, manmade blend______________ Brassieres, nylon lace_______________ 110.7 115.2 116.2 120.9 1971 Apr. May June 110 114 114 120 no 115 114 120 109 115 116 120 9 7 9 6 5 0 7 6 July 8 2 1 0 1972 Aug. Sept. in 115 116 171 I ll 715 117 17? 1 7 8 ? 1 8 1 ? Oct. I ll 115 117 123 1 4 7 0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 110 1Iß 117 123 HI iifi 118 178 I ll u fi iifi 17? ili n n s .a 117 ? 121 3 un u fi 117 171 110 X16 118 171 4 ? 9 4 ? ? 1 4 2 7 1 8 5 5 4 fi 9 fi 2 q Hose, or panty hose, nylon, seamless____ Anklets or knee-length socks, various fibers _____________ Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton__________ Handbags, rayon faille or plastic................. 98.9 98.9 99.4 98.0 99.2 98.6 97.9 98.1 98.2 98.3 97.4 97.7 97.5 96.1 115.8 109.6 132.4 116 5 109 4 130.2 116 7 109 8 132.3 115 8 110 0 131.9 114 8 109 9 135 6 114 6 109 5 134.8 115 6 109 7 136.8 iifi 4 109 8 138.2 115 q 110 5 132 J 114 8 109 7 134.2 un ? 138.9 115 8 109 8 140.2 U fi 1 110 3 141.5 U fi 9 110 7 142.5 Girl’s: Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton *_ Skirts, wool or wool blend 1 Dresses, cotton,manmade fibers or blends. Slacks, cotton 1___ Slips, cotton blend____________ H a n d b a g s ..._____ 116.5 106.8 107.4 131.3 110.4 129.0 107.9 111.1 109.6 105.2 107.4 115.6 105 2 109.3 110.5 130.3 110.4 129.7 109.8 126.9 111.0 128.3 119.3 108 6 109.3 131.7 111.9 129.3 117.1 117.3 100.2 107.2 108.9 131.1 111.7 c 112.1 124.1 127.5 121.4 110.2 131.2 119.5 107.1 109.4 131.5 111.3 130.0 119.2 110.5 129.5 118.5 109 0 110.3 131 8 110.9 129.3 112.1 128.8 111.1 130.6 121.5 121.1 121.7 121.7 120.9 121.5 122.2 122.7 132.2 123.1 122.7 122.7 123.5 124.1 Men’ s: Shoes, street (oxford or buckle s tra p ). . . Shoes, work, high_________ 119.6 118.7 119.1 117.9 119.7 118.1 120.2 118.5 119.4 118.9 119.2 119.5 120.9 120.0 119.8 120.1 121.1 120.4 121.0 120.6 119.7 121.1 119.9 121.4 121.6 121.3 121.4 121.3 Women’ s: Shoes, street, pump______________ Shoes, evening, p u m p ... Shoes, casual, pump. Houseslippers, scuff_________________ 123.4 120.2 124.1 121.9 123.4 119.9 123.4 120.4 123.9 120.5 125.2 121.0 123.7 119.3 126.2 121.0 122.0 118.8 122.9 122.5 122.9 119.6 123.5 123.5 123.2 120.3 124.3 123.4 124.5 121.0 125.7 123.5 125.2 121.0 126.0 123.6 125.1 121.1 125.8 123.4 124.3 120.7 125.1 124.0 123.8 120.5 124.7 124.0 124.6 121.4 125.5 124.2 125.8 122.0 126.5 124.5 Children’s: Shoes, oxford____ Sneakers, boys’ , oxford type Dress shoes, girls', strap or pump_______ 122.3 118.8 125.8 122.5 118.4 125.5 122.4 118.8 125.6 122.9 118.9 126.2 122.1 119.4 124.4 122.4 119.4 126.4 122.8 119.5 127.3 123.8 119.7 128.4 124.4 119.9 128.6 124.1 120.3 128.4 122.4 121.0 128.6 123.6 121.5 128.7 124.6 122.3 128.7 125.9 122.6 129.5 Miscellaneous apparel: Diapers, cotton gauze or disposable____ Yard goods, polyester blend.. . ______ 112.0 122.1 110.9 122.0 111.8 122.5 111.8 123.0 112.3 122,4 112.5 121.9 112.7 122.1 112.8 122.1 113.3 122.3 113.3 121.9 113.0 120.6 113.0 120.5 113.2 118.9 113.5 118.1 Apparel services: Drycleaning, men’s suits and women's dresses Automatic laundry service Laundry, men's shirts. . . Tailoring charges, hem adjustment__________ Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift . 116.6 113.8 119.1 128.5 112.0 116.3 115.1 118.8 127.2 109.9 117.1 112.6 119.0 127.6 112.3 117.1 112.8 119.3 127.7 113.0 116.8 112.9 119.1 128.3 112.3 116.8 113.2 119.2 129.0 112.4 117.1 113.3 119.1 129.6 113.5 117.2 113.3 119.2 130.0 114.0 117.0 113.8 119.2 131.2 114.0 117.1 113.9 120.4 131.6 113.8 117.2 113.7 120.5 131.7 113.8 117.4 114.3 120.7 131.8 113.8 117.4 114.2 120.9 132.1 114.0 117 4 114.9 120 6 132.1 114.6 Footwear______ TRANSPORTATION 116.8 118.6 118.1 118.8 119.6 119.5 '119.3 '118.6 '119.3 118.8 118.6 119.0 118.3 118.4 118.6 P riv a te _________ Automobiles, new Automobiles, used.. Gasoline, regular and premium___ Motor oil, premium _ 116.6 112.0 110.2 106.3 120.0 116.2 113.8 109.8 103.7 119.0 117.0 113.9 112.8 104.0 119.3 117.6 113.9 114.1 104.9 119.9 117.4 113 8 113.5 104.1 120.5 '117.3 '109.3 112.5 107.9 121.0 '116.4 '105.6 111.6 108.7 121.5 '117.2 '109.1 111.7 108.8 121.7 116.6 109.6 110.2 106.9 121.8 116.3 110.4 107.2 107.3 121.9 116.4 112.2 105.3 106.7 122.3 115.7 111.9 103.0 105.7 122.5 115.9 111.7 103.9 106.1 122.7 116.1 111 7 106 4 105 0 122.9 Tires, new, tubeless Auto repairs and maintenance. Auto insurance ra te s.. Auto registration__________ 116.3 129.2 141.4 123.2 114.6 127.9 141.9 123.8 114.8 128.4 142.1 123.8 114.8 129.4 142.5 123.8 116.2 130.3 142.7 123.8 117.3 131.0 142.9 123.7 117.5 131.2 142.9 123.7 117.6 131.3 141.8 123.7 118.8 131.6 141.8 123.7 118.3 131.9 141.8 123.7 117.9 133.1 141.0 127.1 117.4 133.6 140.8 127.1 116.6 134.0 140.9 127.1 116 0 134 3 140 7 127.5 137.7 143.4 126.5 126.8 126.9 132.7 136.4 143.7 119.1 126.2 124.1 130.6 136.4 143.7 119.1 126.2 124.1 130.6 139.0 143.8 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.0 143.8 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.1 144.0 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.6 129.6 135.9 139.7 144.4 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 143.4 150.2 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 143.5 150.3 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 142.3 148.4 132.9 126.4 129.6 137.6 142.7 149 1 132 9 127 0 129 6 137.6 P u b lic .____ Local transit fares____ Taxicab fares_____ Railroad fares, coach.. Airplane fares, chiefly coach_________ Bus fares, intercity___ __ ._ .. _ HEALTH AND R E CR EATIO N.. . Medical care. . Drugs and prescriptions... _ . . . Over-the-counter items___ . . . Multiple vitamin concentrates. . Aspirin compounds______ . . Liquid tonics_________ Adhesive bandages, package Cold tablets or capsules . Cough syrup_______________ Prescriptions________ _ Anti-infectives__ ____ Sedatives and hypnotics________ Ataractics_________ Anti-spasmodics__________ . . _____ _____ ___ Cough preparations___________________ Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives___ Analgesics, internal____ ______________ Anti-obesity______ Hormones_________ ______ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 122.2 121.2 121.6 122.1 122.6 123.1 123.6 123.5 123.7 123.9 124.3 124.7 125.0 125.5 128.4 105.4 110.2 96.6 114.1 127.5 105.1 110.4 98.1 113.7 128.1 105.5 110.7 97.6 114.0 128.6 105.7 97.2 114.5 129.3 105.5 110.0 95.4 114.3 130.0 105.6 110.2 95.3 114.2 130.4 105.7 110.3 95.1 115.1 129.6 105.6 110.4 95.4 115.8 129.7 105.7 110.5 95.4 115.4 130.1 105.6 110.2 95.1 114.0 130.5 105.5 110.3 95.1 114.1 131.0 105.5 110.6 95.0 114.5 131.4 105.5 110.8 95.1 115.0 131 7 105 5 110 9 95 2 115.4 101.3 122.6 111.3 112.4 101.7 122.6 110.4 112.9 101.4 123.1 111.6 113.4 101.5 124.1 111.8 113.8 101.2 123.2 111,8 111.2 101.3 123.8 112.2 111.3 100.7 124.1 112.0 111.4 100.9 123.6 112.0 111.4 100.8 123.6 113.2 111.2 100.8 124.1 112.9 111.3 100.8 123.8 112.8 111.7 101.2 123.7 113.1 112.7 101.2 123.9 113.5 112.9 101 2 124.1 113 2 112.8 101.3 80.2 122.9 101.7 107.1 100.7 80.0 121.9 101.2 106.0 101.1 80.2 122.4 100.8 107.4 101,2 80.2 122.4 100.7 107.7 101.6 80.4 123.9 101.2 108.1 101.7 80.0 123.8 102,3 108.1 101.8 79.9 124.2 102.6 108.1 101.6 79.6 123.8 102.5 107.9 101.6 79.4 124.6 102.6 107.8 101.7 79.1 124.8 102.6 108.0 101.5 78.9 124.7 102.6 107.9 101.2 77.4 124.9 102.7 107.7 101.1 76 7 125.1 102.8 107.8 100 4 76 n 125 2 102 8 107.8 126.0 124.8 110.2 107.6 112.9 95.0 125.8 111.2 107.8 114.8 94.9 125.8 111.6 107.9 115.3 94.6 126.8 111.7 108.2 115.9 94.6 127.3 112.0 108.2 116.6 94.8 127.9 112.0 108.3 117.1 94.9 127.4 112.0 107.7 117.0 94.7 127.2 112.0 107.9 117.0 94.6 127.2 112.1 108.3 117.3 94.8 127.1 112.0 108.2 117.7 94.0 127.8 111.8 109.1 117.7 94.0 128.5 111.8 109.2 117.5 93.8 128 9 111 8 109 4 116.7 94.0 111.1 107.8 114.9 94.9 111.0 CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 101 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Groups, subgroups, and selected items Item and group HEALTH AND RECREATION— C ontinued Professional services: Physicians’ fee________________ ____ General physician, office visits.................... General physician, house visits................... Obstetrical cases............ ............................... Pediatric care, office visits........................... Psychiatrist, office v is its .............................. Herniorrhaphy, adult............................... .. Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy______ Dentists' fees................................................ Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface. Extractions, adult................................. . Dentures, fu ll uppers..................................... 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr 129.8 131.4 131.0 129.0 132.0 124.8 123.4 125.2 128.5 130.6 129.2 126.9 130.3 123.6 121.8 122.9 129.2 130.9 130.0 128.8 132.2 124.1 122.7 124.1 129.9 131.7 131.4 128.9 132.4 124.7 123.3 124.3 130.3 132.2 131.6 129.0 132.6 125.1 123.6 125.0 131.2 132.7 132.0 130.9 133.4 125.7 124.3 128.0 131.5 133.0 133.6 131.3 133.5 125.7 124.4 128.0 131.7 133.0 133.9 131.5 133.6 125.9 125.2 128.2 132.0 133.1 134.1 131.5 134.7 127.2 126.2 128.7 132.2 133.3 134.6 131.6 135.3 127.3 126.4 128.7 132.3 133.3 134.8 132.0 135.3 127.9 126.8 128.7 132.6 133.5 135.1 132.3 135.6 128.3 127.0 129.2 132.9 134.0 135.5 132.8 135.5 128.5 127.4 129.2 133.2 134.2 135.6 133.9 135.6 128.5 127.8 129.6 127.0 128.0 126.9 124.9 125.6 126.4 126.1 123.4 126.0 126.8 126.4 123.8 126.4 127.3 126.5 124.4 127.5 128.7 127.3 125.1 127.9 129.3 127.4 125.6 128.2 129.5 127.7 126.0 129.6 131.0 128.9 127.7 129.8 131.0 129.4 127.7 130.0 131.3 129.6 127.7 130.5 131.8 130.4 128.2 130.6 131.8 130.6 128.3 131.0 132.3 131.0 128.3 131.6 133.0 131.5 128.8 Other professional services: Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses............................................... Routine laboratory tests................................ Hospital service charges: Daily service charges * ........................................... Semiprivate rooms........................ ............... Private room s*......... ..................................... Operating room charges........................................ X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G .l..................... 120.3 116.1 118.6 114.9 119.6 115.2 120.0 115.3 120.5 115.7 121.9 117.2 122.1 117.6 122.6 117.8 122.9 117.8 122.9 118.6 123.1 118.7 123.8 118.9 124.0 119.4 124.5 119.7 160.8 163.1 157.5 156.2 124.9 158.8 161.0 155.6 154.5 124.4 159.6 161.7 156.4 155.2 124,8 160.5 162.6 157.3 155.3 125.4 162.5 164.8 159.0 157.8 125.9 163.5 165.8 160.0 156.7 126.4 164.4 166.8 160.9 158.0 126.5 164 6 167.0 161 1 159.1 126.5 164 6 167.0 161 1 159.0 126.6 16*) 167 9 16? 0 162.6 126.9 167.1 169.6 163.5 163.5 127.7 168.2 171.1 172.2 172.7 165.0 127.9 166.0 128.6 166.6 129.0 Personal ca re ___________________________________ Toilet goo ds................................................................... Toothpaste, standard dentifrice........................... Toilet soap, hard m illed........................................ Hand lotions, liq u id ............................................... 116.8 113.8 107.7 114.1 119.5 116.3 113.5 107.5 111.8 120.3 116.5 113.5 107.3 112.2 118.1 116.8 113.8 107.6 112.4 118.9 117.1 114.2 107.2 115.4 117.5 117.5 114.5 107.7 116.8 119.0 117.6 114.6 108.6 115.2 119.7 117.9 114.9 108.8 118.4 120.5 117.9 114.8 108.3 118.8 120.0 117.9 114.8 109.3 119.7 120.4 118.1 115.1 109.9 119.7 121.2 118.4 115.4 109.6 120.3 124.0 118.7 115.8 119.5 121.1 123.8 119.1 116.3 108.8 121.0 125.1 Shaving cream, aerosol......................................... Face powder, pressed___________ _________ Deodorants, aerosol_______________________ Cleansing tissues.................................................... Home permanent wave sets------------------------ 106.6 123.5 105.6 123.3 110.9 106.6 123.9 104.9 123.2 110.4 107.1 123.9 105.1 124.4 110.7 107.1 124.1 105.5 124.7 111.2 107.3 123.8 105.7 124.8 111.7 106.9 124.0 106.0 124.2 111.5 107.2 124.1 106.4 124.1 111.7 107.1 123.9 106.3 122.6 111.8 107.8 122.4 105.9 123.6 111.7 107.3 122.0 105.9 121.8 111.6 107.1 122.0 104.9 124.4 111.3 106.4 123.1 105.0 123.1 111.3 107.2 125.1 105.6 123.4 110.5 107.5 126.2 105.6 125.4 110.9 Personal care services................................................... Men's haircuts........................................................ Beauty shop services............................................. 120.0 122.6 118.2 119.3 121.7 117.6 119.6 121.8 118.0 119.9 122.2 118.4 120.2 122.5 118.5 120.6 123.2 118.8 120.8 123.4 118.9 121.0 123.7 119.1 121.2 123.7 119.4 121.2 123.9 119.2 121.3 123.9 119.4 121.5 124.1 119.7 121.7 124.2 119.9 122.0 124.4 120.4 Reading and re c re a tio n ..................................................... Recreational goods------------------- ---------------------------TV sets, portable and console------------------------TV replacement tubes........................................... Radios, portable and table model........................ 119.3 106.6 100.1 122.5 98.5 118.4 106.2 100.1 121.6 98.3 118.9 106.4 100.0 121.9 98.4 119.3 106.7 100.1 122.2 98.5 119.6 106.8 99.9 122.2 98.4 119.7 106.9 99.9 122.1 98.4 120.5 107.1 100.0 123.4 98.5 120.5 107.2 100 2 124.1 98.1 120.8 107.2 100.3 124.5 98.4 121.1 107.3 100.3 124.7 98.4 121.4 107.4 99.9 126.4 98.4 121.5 107.3 99.7 126.9 98.4 121.7 107.6 100.0 128.8 98.5 122.3 107.7 99.8 129.8 98.8 Tape recorders, portable........... .......................... Phonograph records, stereophonic..................... Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom lens................... Film, 35mm, color.................................................. Bicycle, boys’ .......................................................... Tricycles.................................................................. 94.2 103.5 89.4 108.3 112.6 111.2 95.1 100.5 88.8 108.1 111.9 111.1 94.7 102.3 89.3 108.1 112.5 111.3 94.3 103.1 89.2 108.5 113.4 111.2 94.1 104.9 89.3 108.6 113.9 111.6 93.6 105.8 89.3 108.4 114.0 111.9 93.0 106.5 89.1 108.4 113.7 112.0 92.7 106.5 89.2 108.3 114.0 111.9 92.5 106.5 88.9 108.5 113.6 111.7 93.1 107.1 88.9 108.7 113.3 112.2 93.4 107.2 88.3 108.6 113.8 112.6 93.3 107.0 88.7 108.3 114.2 113.0 93.3 106.6 88.8 108.3 114.9 113.4 93.8 106.4 88.8 108.3 114.8 112.7 Recreational services............... ............. ................... .. Indoor movie admissions...... ............. ................. 125.2 137.6 124.0 136.6 125.0 138.3 126.0 138.4 126.1 138.8 126.1 138.2 126.3 138.9 126.2 138.3 126.6 138.7 126.4 137.9 126.9 139.0 127.0 138.6 127.3 139.2 127.8 140.7 Drive-in movie admissions, adult........................ Bowling fees, evening........................................... Golf greens fees 1.............................. ................... TV repairs, picture tube replacement-------------Film developing, color........................................... 140.1 116.3 127.5 98.0 116.7 138.0 116.4 124.0 97.8 114.7 139.3 116.0 125.8 98.1 116.2 141.5 116.5 128.5 98.3 117.0 141.9 116.3 128.6 98.2 117.4 142.5 116.1 128.8 98.1 117.7 142.5 116.1 128.4 98.5 118.3 142.3 116.7 128.3 98.4 118.1 142.3 117.7 142.5 117.6 143.1 117.9 143.5 118.4 143.7 119.1 98.5 118.3 98.6 118.2 98.6 118.2 98.5 118.3 98.3 118.2 143.8 119.3 129.6 98.1 118.1 Reading and education: Newspapers, street sale and delivery................ Piano lessons, beginner..................................— 129.6 121.0 129.3 120.8 129.8 120.8 130.0 120.6 130.4 120.7 130.5 120.7 130.6 121.4 130.5 121.5 130.6 121.5 130.7 121.5 130.7 121.6 130.9 122.0 130.8 122.1 131.6 122.1 OTHER GOODS AND’ SERVICES-................................... Tobacco products_______ _____ ___ v------------------Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size--------------Cigarettes, filter, king.......................................... Cigars, domestic, regular................................ — 120.9 126.4 127.9 128.1 107.1 119.7 124.3 125.9 125.7 105.9 119.9 124.7 126.3 126.1 105.9 120.3 125.3 126.9 126.9 106.0 121.2 126.9 128.5 128.6 106.3 121.8 127.9 129.6 129.6 107.3 122.4 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.5 122.6 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.7 122.8 129.0 130.3 130.8 109.3 123.0 129.2 130.6 131.1 109.5 123.5 130.2 131.6 132.2 109.7 124.3 132.0 133.2 134.3 110.3 124.6 132.5 133.7 134.8 110.6 125.1 132.7 133.9 135.0 110.7 Alcoholic beverages................................................... .. Beer........... ................................... . Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon.. Wine, dessert and table------------------------------ Beer, away from home___________ ________ 116.9 112.9 106.4 122.3 126.4 116.2 112.8 105.9 120.6 125.1 116.4 112.7 106.0 121.2 125.6 116.7 113.2 106.2 121.8 125.7 117.0 113.3 106.3 123.0 126.2 117.4 113.3 107.0 123.9 126.8 117.6 113.4 107.0 124.5 127.1 117.9 113.6 106.8 124.7 127.7 118.3 113.7 106.9 124.9 128.8 118.4 113.8 107.0 125.1 128.8 118.5 113.5 107.4 125.3 129.3 118.7 113.6 108.5 125.6 129.0 118.9 113.9 108.5 125.9 129.1 119.3 114.1 108.6 126.4 130.1 Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses: Funeral services, a d u lt................... ....... .............. Bank service charges, checking accounts........... Legal services, w ill................................................. 117.2 110.6 135.5 116.2 111.4 133.3 116.3 111.5 133.3 116.8 110.7 133.3 117.7 110.8 133.6 118.3 110.9 133.9 118.4 110.9 137.4 118.8 109.3 139.9 119.1 109.3 140.2 119.2 109.5 141.4 119.5 109.7 141.7 120.2 108.5 141.8 120.6 108.2 141.9 120.6 107.4 149.3 1 Priced only in season. 2 This item is a replacement for bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality, which was discontinued after March 1970. » March 1970=100. 4 Item discontinued. item is a replacement for dining room suites, which was discontinued after Digitized for5 This FRASER March 1970. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org • This item is a replacement for box springs, which was discontinued after A pril 1970. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 December 1971 = 100. 8 Not available. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Con sumer Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971), chapter 10. r =revised. These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. Indexes for services reflect revision of auto finance charges which are imputed to changes in new car prices. °=corrected._____________________________________________________________ 102 26. CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 U.S. city average, and selected areas £1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 Area2 Annual average 1971 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. 1972 Sept. Oct. Dec. Jan. Feb. 1 2 2 .6 12 3 .1 1 2 3 .2 1 2 3 .8 1 2 4 .0 (4) (4) (4) 1 2 3 .5 125.1 (4) (4) 1 3 2 .8 1 2 4 .9 (4) (4) 1 2 4 .9 (4) (4) (4) 1 2 2 .3 1 2 1 .9 1 2 2 .1 1 2 4 .9 1 2 3 .0 (4) (4) 1 2 5 .9 1 2 3 .7 1 2 4 .9 Nov. Mar. Apr. All items U.S. city average3......................... . 1 2 1 .3 1 2 0 .2 Atlanta, Ga......................................... Baltimore, Md___ ________ ____ _ Boston, Mass........................... Buffalo, N .Y ................................ _i: Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind___ Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky_______ 1 2 1 .7 1 2 3 .4 1 2 2 .8 1 2 1 .8 1 2 0 .8 1 2 0 .7 (4) (4) M 1 2 1 .7 « Cleveland, Ohio................................ . Dallas, Tex________ ____________ Detroit, Mich__________________ Honolulu, Hawaii....................... ....... Houston, Tex...................................... Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas............ .. 1 2 2 .8 1 2 1 .3 1 2 1 .7 1 1 8 .9 1 2 0 .9 1 2 0 .5 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif___ Milwaukee, Wis_____ Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn______ New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J.. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J____ Pittsburgh, Pa___________ ____ Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5__________ 1 1 8 .5 120 .1 1 2 1 .7 1 2 5 .9 1 2 3 .5 1 2 1 .5 116 .1 1 2 0 .3 1 2 4 .6 1 2 2 .6 1 2 0 .9 1 1 4 .7 St. Louis, Mo.-lll................................ San Diego, Calif..................... San Francisco-Oakland, Calif___ Scranton, Pa.5_____________ Seattle, W ash.......................... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va............. 1 1 9 .6 1 1 9 .9 1 2 0 .2 1 2 1 .4 1 1 6 .4 1 2 2 .7 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .8 « 1 2 1 .4 1 2 0 .6 (4) « (4) (4) 1 2 2 .0 1 2 0 .4 1 2 0 .9 1 2 0 .1 (4) 1 1 9 .5 (4) 1 1 6 .7 (4) « (-) (4) 1 1 8 .1 1 1 9 .1 1 2 1 .5 1 2 1 .8 ' 122.1 ' 1 2 2 .2 ' 1 2 2 .4 1 2 2 .3 1 2 3 .5 (4) (4) 1 2 2 .9 1 2 0 .9 1 2 0 .7 1 2 0 .9 ' 1 2 2 .8 ' 1 2 1 .5 (4) ' 1 2 2 .0 ' 1 2 4 .4 (4) (4) ' 1 2 1 .7 ' 1 2 1 .4 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) ' 1 2 4 .5 (4) ' 1 2 1 .7 (4) ' 1 2 3 .2 ' 1 2 2 .7 ' 1 2 2 .8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) ' 1 2 2 .8 ' 1 2 1 .2 (4) ' 1 2 1 .5 (4) (4) ' 1 2 2 .8 (4) ' 1 2 2 .4 (4) 1 2 4 .4 1 2 2 .4 1 2 3 .4 ' 1 1 9 .5 ' 1 2 1 .4 (4) ' 1 2 6 .9 ' 1 2 3 .6 (4) (4) ' 1 2 0 .0 (4) (4) ' 1 2 7 .3 ' 1 2 4 .6 (4) (4) ' 1 2 0 .3 (4) ' 1 2 3 .4 ' 1 2 7 .5 ' 1 2 5 .0 ' 1 2 2 .9 ' 1 1 7 .4 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .9 1 2 1 .9 1 2 6 .8 1 2 3 .7 1 2 1 .8 1 1 6 .2 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) ' 1 2 0 .7 (4) ' 1 2 3 .2 ' 1 1 7 .6 ' 1 2 3 .5 ' 1 2 0 .5 (4) ' 1 2 0 .9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) « (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 1 .9 1 1 8 .5 1 2 1 .8 1 2 1 .3 (4) 1 1 8 .7 119 .1 (4) (4) 1 2 5 .2 1 2 3 .4 126.1 124.1 « («) (4) (4) 1 1 9 .9 » (4) (4) 1 2 0 .6 M 1 1 9 .5 (4) (4) (4) « 1 1 9 .9 1 2 0 .8 1 1 5 .5 1 2 2 .2 (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 3 .1 1 2 1 .8 (4) (4) (4) (4) ( 4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 3 .7 121 .1 1 2 4 .2 (4) 1 2 3 .2 1 2 1 .4 (4) 1 2 0 .1 (4) (4) (4) 1 2 7 .6 1 2 4 .7 1 2 8 .0 1 2 5 .0 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 0 .9 1 2 0 .9 (4) (4) 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .6 1 1 7 .6 1 2 4 .2 (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 0 .2 (4) 1 2 3 .8 1 2 8 .4 1 2 4 .7 1 2 3 .2 1 1 8 .1 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 0 .4 1 2 2 .2 1 2 4 .3 (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 6 .2 1 2 3 .2 1 2 3 .0 1 2 3 .3 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 5 .0 1 2 2 .4 1 2 5 .0 (4) 1 2 4 .8 1 2 2 .4 1 2 1 .2 (4) (4) (4) 1 2 9 .5 1 2 5 .2 1 3 0 .0 1 2 5 .8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .3 (4) (4) 1 2 2 .9 1 2 3 .6 1 1 9 .0 1 2 4 .7 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1 2 1 .3 (4) 1 2 4 .2 1 3 0 .3 1 2 6 .0 1 2 4 .7 1 1 8 .4 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Food U.S. city average...... .......... . 118.4 117.8 118.2 119.2 119.8 120.0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 122.2 122.4 122.4 Atlanta, G a................................. Baltimore, Md__________ ____ Boston, Mass_____ Buffalo, N.Y...................... . I I I I I Chicago, lll.-Northwestern In d ... Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.......... 118.1 121.0 118. b 119.7 118.5 118.4 118.3 120.1 118.7 119.9 118.0 117.8 118.1 120.2 117.8 120.1 117.7 118.5 118.8 121.5 118.6 121.0 119.8 119.3 119.1 122.0 119.0 121.4 120.5 119.2 119.3 122.6 119.2 122.0 120.7 119.7 119.0 122.2 118.5 119.6 119.4 118.7 118.4 121.8 118.4 119.8 118.9 118.9 118.7 121.7 118.8 119.8 119.2 118.9 119.6 123.2 119. 9 120.9 119.6 120.7 120.6 121.9 119.5 121.1 119.8 120.5 122.1 123.2 121.2 122.9 122.8 123.6 122.6 123.9 122.3 122.8 122.7 123.6 123.7 122.7 122.5 122.5 122.3 123.2 Cleveland, Ohio........................... Dallas, Tex............ ............. ....... Detroit, Mich_______________ Honolulu, Hawaii____________ Houston, Tex__________ _____ Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas______ 118.9 117.8 117.3 118.1 118.8 118.6 119.5 116.9 116.2 116.8 117.8 117.5 119.3 117.3 117.5 116.7 118.3 117.5 119.4 117.9 118.6 116.6 118.7 118.8 120.3 118.8 118.9 116.5 120.1 119.6 119.0 119.5 119.4 119.6 120.5 120.3 118.2 118.6 118.4 121.4 120.1 120.0 118.1 118.7 117.8 121.8 120.2 119.5 118.4 118.5 117.8 120.4 120.0 119.8 119.2 120.6 119.2 120.9 121.5 120.8 118.9 120.8 119.7 120.7 121.9 120.9 121.7 122.5 122.1 123.7 123.2 122.8 122.1 122.1 122.0 123.2 124.0 122.8 121.7 121.4 121.3 122.8 123.6 122.5 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif... Milwaukee, Wis_________ Minneapolis-St. Paul, M in n ...Ill New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J........ Pittsburgh, Pa_______________ Portland, Oreg.-Wash 5__........... 114.9 115.7 119.2 123.1 120.1 118.9 113.4 114.3 114.9 119.0 122.4 119.3 118.4 113.6 114.6 115.7 119.3 122.8 119.6 119.0 115.2 116.7 120.2 123.9 120.8 119.9 115.8 117.6 121.8 124.8 121.4 120.3 114.6 115.8 117.6 122.1 124.9 121.8 120.1 115.1 116.8 119.5 124.2 121.4 119.4 115.3 116.3 119.1 124.3 121.0 119.0 112.5 115.8 116.3 119.2 124.3 120.6 119.4 116.6 117.2 120.6 125.2 122.0 120.9 117.5 117.0 120.5 125.2 122.2 120.9 114.9 118.9 119.4 122.0 126.9 123.8 122.6 118.8 119.4 122.8 127.4 124.3 123.1 119.2 119.1 122.9 127.4 124.2 122.4 116.4 St. Louis, Mo.-lll........................ San Diego,Calif_____________ San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.. Scranton, Pa.5......... ................... Seattle, Wash............................. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va______ 118.0 117.3 116.1 120.1 115.9 120.2 117.8 116.2 115.7 117.9 117.3 115.9 120.6 116.0 120.0 118.3 117.9 116.7 119.6 118.3 117.2 118.8 117.8 115.5 118.3 117.7 116.3 119.7 120.0 119.1 121.0 122.0 119.7 116.8 121.3 116.3 121.4 r l 18.2 122.0 118.4 120.9 120.9 121.8 120.2 123.6 119.6 123.7 120.8 121.8 119.8 116.7 121.4 118.5 118.6 116.9 119.6 116.5 121.2 119.4 119.5 118.9 116.5 121.4 120.0 118.2 116.6 122.8 117.0 122.2 119.0 124.0 119.1 123.8 114.7 119.5 1 See table 25. Indexes measure tim e-to-tim e changes in prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in another. 2 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population; except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago. 3 Average of 56 "citie s" (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places beginning January 1966). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a rotating cycle for other areas. 5 Old series (old market basket components). 6 In the March and A p ril 1971 M onthly Labor Review, these indexes were on a 1 9 5 7 -5 9 = 1 0 0 base. Indexes are now on a 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 base. '=re v is e d . These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 27. 103 Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 Code Commodity group All commodities____________ ___________ All commodities (1957-59=100)___________ Farm products and processed foods and feeds________________ _ . . . _______ Industrial com m odities.-.................................. 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 113.9 120.9 113.3 120.2 113.8 120.7 114.3 121.3 114.6 121.6 114.9 121.9 114.5 121.5 114.4 121.4 114.5 121.5 115.4 122.4 116.3 123.4 117.3 124.5 117.4 124.6 117.5 124.7 113.8 114.0 113.3 113.3 114.3 113.7 115.4 113.9 115.0 114.5 114.6 115.1 113.0 115.0 113.0 115.0 113.6 114.9 115.9 115.3 117.4 115.9 119.6 116.5 119.1 116.9 118.3 117.3 FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 Farm products________ __________________ Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables____ Grains_______________________________ Livestock____________________________ Live poultry_____ ____________________ Plant and animal fibers________________ Fluid m ilk___________________________ Eggs________________________________ Hay, hayseeds, and o ilse e d s ... ________ Other farm products...................................... 112.9 120.1 100.9 118.3 100.3 92.8 118.8 100.8 109.2 115.4 113.0 120.8 106.8 116.9 99.5 89.4 119.7 104.4 104.8 114.4 114.0 127.5 107.2 119.0 101.3 90.3 118.7 92.4 106.8 113.6 116.0 136.1 109.4 118.9 108.1 92.3 119.1 98.0 109.9 113.7 113.4 109.3 102.5 121.3 121.1 92.6 119.5 89.4 114.4 113.3 113.2 115.9 92.8 121.3 100.8 93.4 119.3 110.1 114.3 113.9 110.5 103.6 89.0 119.1 102.8 95.2 119.2 107.8 108.9 115.6 f ll. 3 115.8 88.3 120.9 93.5 96.3 119.2 92.4 107.9 115.4 112.2 127.1 87.8 121.0 92.3 97.3 118.8 88.5 109.0 111.8 115.8 126.3 95.3 124.7 87.2 102.5 119.0 114.4 109.2 117.3 117.8 124.9 94.1 132.2 94.3 109.5 120.5 92.6 108.7 118.0 120.7 127.5 93.0 139.6 105.4 113.2 120.5 91.9 110.2 116.8 119.7 112.8 93.8 136.7 107.6 114.3 121.8 107.7 114.4 117.5 119.1 117.6 96.0 133.8 94.1 122.1 122.1 87.2 118.5 118.0 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-71 02-72 02-73 02-74 02-8 02-9 Processed foods and feeds_________ ___ Cereal and bakery products____________ Meats, poultry, and fish__ _____ ___ Dairy products________________________ Processed fruits and vegetables.. ______ Sugar and confectionerv__________ ____ Beverages and beverage materials_______ Animal fats and oils____________ . . . . Crude vegetable oils___________________ Refined vegetable oils____ _ ._ ______ Vegetable oil end products____ ________ Miscellaneous processed foods_____ . . . Manufactured animal feeds_____________ 114.3 111.4 116.0 115.4 114.3 119.2 115.8 130.9 128.8 134.8 121.1 113.2 104.4 113.5 111.5 113.3 115.5 113.0 118.6 115.6 135.9 120.4 125.2 119.4 114.3 104.4 114.5 111.5 116.4 116.2 114.0 119.2 115.7 131.5 120.6 128.3 118.5 113.9 104.6 114.9 111.5 116.7 116.1 115.4 119.0 115.7 123.9 127.2 131.6 118.5 113.9 107.4 116.0 111.5 119.6 116.2 115.9 119.4 115.9 135.7 136.7 135.5 122.8 113.8 106.9 115.4 111 4 117.7 115.4 116.2 120.5 116.1 144.0 147.5 140.7 124.6 113.8 104.7 114.6 111.3 117.5 115.4 115.7 119.8 116.0 136.5 135.6 133.6 123.3 113.0 101.3 114.1 111.3 116.9 116.4 115.3 118.7 116.4 132.1 128.9 127.9 122.8 112.7 98.7 114.4 111.5 117.1 116.3 115.4 119.1 116.6 130.1 128.6 130.4 122.8 113.0 100.3 115.9 111.6 120.4 117.4 115.8 120.2 116.4 122.3 118.2 122.7 122.0 113.1 104.5 117.2 112.2 125.4 117.3 116.0 120.1 116.4 121.4 114.2 121.0 121.7 113.6 103.8 118.8 112.4 130.5 117.5 116.1 121.1 116.8 133.5 116.8 120.1 121.1 113.8 103.7 118.6 112.6 127.3 118.0 116.7 121.9 116.7 130.4 115.6 120.6 120.8 113.7 108.5 117.7 112.8 123.6 117.5 118.3 121.1 117.2 127.8 118.9 120.9 120.7 113.8 108.5 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-5 03-6 03-7 Textile products and apparel_____________ Cotton products_______________________ Wool products________________________ Manmade fiber textile products_________ Apparel_____________________________ Textile housefurnishings____________ __ Miscellaneous textile products_____ ... 108.6 110.6 93.5 100.8 112.9 104.2 117.2 107.5 108.9 94.4 98.6 112.2 103.5 118.7 107.8 109.6 93.5 99.7 112.2 104.3 113.6 108.5 110.9 93.4 101.4 112.3 104.5 118.7 109.2 111.9 92.6 101.9 113.3 104.8 119.9 109.7 112.5 92.7 103.1 113.6 104.8 117.2 109.7 112.2 92.5 103.1 113.8 104.1 119.8 109.6 112.2 92.4 102.5 113.8 104.1 120.8 109.8 112.5 92.3 103.2 113.8 104.1 121.2 110.6 113.6 91.5 104.3 113.8 106.1 136.2 111.3 116.7 92.0 105.4 113.8 106.2 137.4 112.0 118.0 92.2 105.9 114.0 108.5 141.6 112.1 119.6 92.0 106.1 114.1 108.7 130.9 112.6 120.5 93.0 107.2 114.1 108.7 131.1 04 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products. Hides and skins___________ _________ Leather___ ______ _ _________ _____ Footwear_____ - - - - ______ ____ Other leather and related products______ 114.0 115.1 112.5 116.8 108.3 114.0 121.1 116.6 107.7 114.4 121.4 113.0 116.7 107.9 114.2 114.0 114.4 116.8 108.2 114.2 114.0 114.4 116.8 108.2 114.4 114.6 114.4 117.1 108.2 114.7 117.7 113.4 117.1 109.0 114.7 117.2 113.4 117.1 109.0 115.1 123.1 113.5 117.1 109.1 116.2 128.6 117.0 117.1 109.8 117.8 136.0 120.0 118.1 110.6 119.1 148.9 120.6 118.5 111.2 123.0 173.8 128.4 120.1 111.9 127.2 188.6 138.1 122.4 113.7 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power_____ Coal______________________ . . . . . Coke_______ ______ ________ ____ Gas fuels____________________________ Electric power______ _______ ________ Crude petroleum .. . . ________________ Petroleum products, refined____________ 114.2 181.8 148.7 108.0 113.6 113.2 106.8 113.0 184.0 145.9 105.9 112.3 113.2 105.3 114.2 182.8 147.6 106.9 112.6 113.2 107.4 114.4 182.5 150.5 107.5 113.0 113.2 107.4 114.4 182.9 150.5 107.7 113.5 113.2 107.2 114.8 182.9 150.5 107.2 115.3 113.2 107.3 115.3 182.9 150.5 108.4 116.4 113.2 107.3 114.8 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.3 113.2 106.3 114.7 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.2 113.2 106.2 115.0 190.2 150.5 107.9 116.3 113.2 106.1 116.0 192.7 150.5 110.0 118.9 113.2 106.1 116.1 192.6 155.0 110.2 120.0 113.2 105.5 116.5 192.6 155.0 110.9 120.0 113.2 106.3 116.8 191.2 155.3 112.5 120.5 113.2 106.6 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 104.2 102.0 115.6 101.5 102.4 133.5 104.5 101.9 115.9 103.5 102.0 143.0 104.3 101.5 115.9 103.5 101.9 138.8 104.4 102.2 115.9 99.4 102.3 132.0 104.4 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.6 130.8 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.7 134.2 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.7 102.6 132.9 104.2 102.4 115.9 99.7 102.6 129.0 103.8 101.7 115.9 99.7 102.4 125.3 103.4 101.1 115.9 101.9 102.5 115.9 103.4 101.4 116.2 102.7 102.3 111.3 103.5 101.4 117.3 102.7 102.2 110.7 103.4 101.0 117.9 102.7 102.5 103.5 104.1 101.5 118.3 103.0 102.4 112.2 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied products.. _________ Industrial chemicals___________________ Prepared paint_______________________ Paint materials___________ _________ Drugs and pharmaceuticals_____________ Fats and oils, inedible_____ ______ __ Agricultural chemicals and chemical products___________________________ Plastic resins and materials____________ Other chemicals and allied products......... . 92.2 88.9 112.1 94.1 88.2 111.8 93.8 88.2 112.1 94.1 88.1 112.5 93.4 88.6 112.5 91.0 89.0 112.4 91.0 89.5 112.4 90.4 89.9 112.5 90.3 89.2 112.5 90.3 89.0 112.4 90.3 88.6 112.4 90.2 89.3 112.5 90.6 88.9 112.7 92.2 88.3 113.5 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-21 07-22 07-23 Rubber and plastic products______________ Rubber and rubber products____ ______ Crude rubber_________________________ Tires and tubes. _ ______________ ____ Miscellaneous rubber products________ . Plastic construction products3__________ Unsupported plastic film and sheeting 4. . . Laminated plastic sheets, high pressure 4. . 109.2 112.2 99.3 109.2 118.0 94.7 101.1 99.2 109.0 110.8 99.8 107.5 116.3 95.5 102.6 101.0 108.7 110.9 100.6 107.5 116.3 94.6 102.2 99.1 108.7 111. 1 99.4 107.5 117.0 93.6 101.9 99.2 109.7 113.2 98.8 111.2 118.7 94.0 100.6 99.7 109.8 113.7 99.6 111.4 119.3 94.1 100.1 98.6 109.7 113.7 99.3 110.8 119.8 94.7 100.0 98.6 109.5 113.3 99.0 110.8 119.2 94.6 100.0 98.2 109.5 113.3 98.5 110.8 119.2 94.1 100.1 98.0 109.4 113.3 98.5 110.8 119.2 93.8 100.0 97.9 109.5 113.4 99.2 110.3 119.7 93.7 100.0 98.2 109.2 113.0 98.8 108.4 120.4 93.8 99.9 98.6 108.9 112.9 98.5 108.4 120.4 93.6 98.9 98.1 108.7 112.9 98.2 108.4 120.4 93.6 98.4 98.4 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products.. ____________ Lumber_____________________________ M illw ork____ ________________________ Plywood________________________ ____ Other wood products...................................... 127.0 135.5 120.7 114.7 118.8 124.6 131.5 118.6 115.6 119.3 124.9 132.8 120.3 126.1 134.4 122.2 11Q.2 119.1 130.6 142.5 122.8 111.7 119.0 134.6 146.7 123.8 120.5 118.9 134.3 146.8 123.7 119.1 118.9 131.8 142.7 123.7 116.2 118.8 131.3 141.9 123.7 115.9 119.5 132.7 143.8 124.3 117.8 119.1 134.9 146.9 124.9 120.2 119.6 137.7 150.4 125.5 125.1 119.9 139.5 152.4 125.8 128.9 120.1 141.1 155.1 126.6 128.9 121.1 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.0 111.0 119.2 104 27. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 WHOLESALE PRICES Continued—Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 Code Commodity group Annual average 1971 1972 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued 09 09-1 109.6 109,9 110.2 110.5 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.7 110.8 111.6 112.3 112.8 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied products___ ____ __ ” 110.1 Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board___ _____ _ 110.4 Woodpulp”. ______________ _ . ___ _ 112.0 Wastepaper________________________ _ 111.9 Paper_______________________________ 114.1 Paperboard_____________________ ____ 102.4 Converted paper and paperboard products. 109.7 Building paper and board___________ _ 103.0 109.9 112.2 107.7 114.3 103.0 108.8 101.7 110.2 112.4 107.6 114.2 102.6 109.4 102.7 110.5 112.4 112.3 114.3 102.8 109.8 103.2 110.8 112.4 111.8 114.6 102.8 110.1 103.6 110.8 112.4 112.8 114.7 102.8 110.1 104.3 110.8 111.5 114.5 114.7 102.8 110.2 104.5 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.6 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.7 111.0 111.5 124.6 114.7 102.7 110.1 104.6 111.1 111.5 124.9 114.9 102.7 110.3 104.7 111.9 111.5 126.6 115.3 103.5 111.4 104.7 112.5 111.5 129.3 115.7 103.6 112.2 105.6 113.1 111.5 131.0 115.9 105.6 112.7 106.1 10 10-1 10-13 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products_______________ Iron and steel______________ __ _____ Steel m ill products____________________ Nonferrous metals____________________ Metal containers____ __________ . . . . Hardware________________ ____ ____ Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_____ Heating equipment . . . . . . _____ Fabricated structural metal p ro d u c ts .___ Miscellaneous metal products__________ 119.0 121.8 123.0 116.0 121.7 116.5 116.4 115.5 118.2 119.0 117.8 118.4 118.5 117.2 123.1 115.6 114.9 114.7 116.8 118.0 118.5 120.1 120.7 117.2 123.1 115.6 115.8 115.1 117.3 118.2 118.5 120.3 121.1 116.4 123.0 115.8 116.8 115.2 117.9 118.7 119.4 121.9 123.4 116.9 123.0 116.7 117.9 115.9 118.2 119.3 121.1 125.3 128.1 117.1 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.8 119.6 119.8 121.1 125.6 128.2 116.5 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.7 120.3 119.9 121.0 125.5 128.1 116.3 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.3 120.3 119.7 120.9 125.3 128.2 116.0 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.5 120.3 119.7 120.8 125.3 128.2 114.9 124.2 117.7 118.4 116.3 120.4 120.9 121.4 126.8 129.6 114.4 124.2 118.4 118.2 115.9 121.6 121.3 122.6 128.2 131.0 115.0 127.1 119.0 118.6 116.2 122.0 123.2 123.4 128.3 130.9 117.2 127.1 119.2 118.9 117.0 122.1 124.1 123.6 128.3 130.9 117.6 127.3 119.6 119.0 117.9 122.1 124.3 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 Machinery and equipment_________ _____ Agricultural machinery and equipment___ Construction machinery and equipment__ Metalworking machinery and equipment. General purpose machinery and equipment. Special industry machinery and equipment. Electrical machinery and equipment_____ Miscellaneous machinery ______ ______ 115.5 117.2 121.4 117.3 119.1 120.9 109.5 117.2 115.0 116.7 120.9 116.6 118.3 119.7 109.5 117.0 115.3 116.6 121.1 117.4 118.7 120.4 109.4 117.2 115.5 116.9 121.2 117.9 119.3 120.9 109.4 117.2 115.7 117.4 121.6 117.7 119.8 121.6 109.5 117.3 116.1 117.5 121.9 118.1 120.3 121.6 109.9 118.0 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.0 120.2 121.7 109.7 117.8 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.1 120.2 122.0 109.6 117.8 115.9 117.5 122.0 118.2 120.2 122.0 109.3 117.8 116.2 118.6 123.2 118.4 120.5 122.1 109.3 117.9 116.5 119.9 124.3 118.5 120.8 122.6 109.5 118.3 117.1 121.5 124.7 118.9 121.2 123.1 110.0 118.8 117.3 122.0 125.0 119.4 121.5 123.0 110.1 119.0 117.6 122.1 125.7 119.7 121.9 123.4 110.2 119.6 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household durables________ Household furn iture___________ . . . . . Commercial fu rn itu re ... . . . ______ _ _ Floor coverings ___________ _____ _ . Household appliances__________________ Home electronic e qu ipm ent... Other household durable goods_____ _ . . 109.9 114.8 118.1 98.8 107.2 93.8 120.9 109.7 114.1 118.1 99.8 107.1 93.7 120.1 109.9 115.0 118.1 99.8 107.1 93.7 120.1 109.8 115.2 118.1 98.4 107.1 93.6 120.1 110.0 115.3 118.1 98.2 107.0 93.9 121,6 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.6 107.4 94.0 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.8 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.5 93.8 121.9 110.2 115.4 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.4 122.0 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.9 107.4 93.4 122.1 110.2 116.0 118.3 98.1 106.9 93.3 122.3 110.8 116.7 118.3 98.2 107.5 92.9 124.1 110.9 116.8 118.7 98.2 107.4 93.0 124.5 111.0 116.9 119.2 98.2 107.5 92.8 124.5 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 122.4 123.9 121.9 120.6 121.6 126.2 121.0 119.4 121.8 124.4 121.2 119.6 122.2 122.5 121.5 120.1 123.3 122.5 123.3 121.5 124.2 124.3 124.0 122.8 124.2 124.3 124.1 122.6 124.1 124.3 124.1 122.6 124.0 123.1 124.3 122.6 124.2 123.6 124.2 122.9 124.3 123.6 124.4 123.4 124.6 123.6 124.6 123.8 124.8 122.4 124.6 124.5 125.6 121.1 126.4 125.1 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products____________ Flat g la s s ____________ ______ ____ Concrete ingredients_________ _____ . . . Concrete products. ______ _______ Structural clay products excluding refrac tories_________ _____ ___ _______ Refractories___ _____________ . . . _ Asphalt roofing_____________ ____ ... Gypsum products_____________________ Glass containers______________ _______ Other nonmetallic m inerals.. _________ 114.2 126.9 125.5 106.8 131.6 124.1 114.5 126.7 123.6 101.0 131.5 122.0 114.5 126.7 123.6 101.2 131.5 124.8 114.5 126.9 130.7 104.0 131.5 124.8 114.5 126.9 131.2 112.7 131.5 125.6 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.3 131.5 125.7 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.5 131.5 125.7 114.9 127.1 131.2 113.6 131.5 125.7 114,9 127.1 131.2 112.1 131.5 125.6 114.9 127.1 131.2 114.1 131.5 125.6 114.8 127.1 131.2 113.4 131.5 125.7 116.1 127.1 131.2 112.8 131.5 125.9 116.2 127.1 131.2 115.3 131.5 126.4 117.2 127.1 131.2 114.9 136.2 126.4 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipm ent5____________ . ... Motor vehicles and equipment_____ Railroad equipment_____ _____________ 110.3 114.7 121.1 109.7 114.1 119.9 109.8 114.2 120.4 110.0 114.4 120.8 110.3 114.7 121.5 110.5 114.9 122.5 109.6 113.8 122.5 110.7 115.2 122.5 110.8 115.3 122.5 112.9 117.5 122.6 113.4 117.9 123.7 113.6 113.8 118.1 ” 118.1 123.9 127.3 113.8 118.1 128.4 15 15-1 Miscellaneous products_________ _______ Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni tio n _______________________________ Tobacco products_____ _______ ____ Notions_____________________________ Photographic equipment and supplies____ Other miscellaneous p ro d u c ts __________ 112.8 112.7 112.5 112.6 112.8 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 113.2 113.7 114.0 ” 114.2 114.1 112.6 116.7 111.6 106.1 112.3 112.5 116.5 111.7 105.8 112.2 112.4 116.5 111.7 105.9 111.6 112.6 116.5 111.7 106.0 111.9 112.6 116.6 111.7 106.2 112.4 112.6 116.8 111,7 106.3 112.9 112.6 112.6 116.8 116.8 111.7 111.7 106.3 | 106.3 112.9 112.9 112.8 116.8 113.1 116.7 111.7 106.5 113.0 113.5 117.4 111.7 106.4 113.9 114.0 117.4 111.7 106.7 114.4 114.5 117.4 111.7 106.9 114.5 114.0 117.4 111.7 106.2 115.0 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-9 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 1 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.7 106.5 112.9 3 December 1969 = 100. 4 December 1970 = 100. 5 December 1968 = 100. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Whole sale Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971), Chapter 11. »= corrected. WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 28. 105 Wholesale Price Index for special commodity groupings 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 2 Commodity group 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. All commodities— less farm products_____________ All foods_______________________________________ Processed foods___________ ______ ___________ 114.0 115.5 115.6 113.3 114.7 114.5 113.8 116.0 115.8 114.0 117.0 116.0 114.7 115.8 117.3 115.1 116.6 116.9 114.9 115.1 116.4 114.8 115.3 116.1 114.8 116.3 116.2 115.4 118.1 117.5 116.1 118.9 119.2 116.9 120.8 121.2 117.1 119.3 120.3 117.3 118.0 119.1 Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products. Hosiery_________________________________________ Underwear and nightwear___________________ _____ 103.7 95.6 108.1 102.2 95.6 107.9 102.9 95.5 107.9 104.1 95.5 108.1 104.6 95.5 108.3 105.2 95.5 108.6 105.0 95.5 108.4 104.7 95.5 108.4 105.1 95.5 108.4 106.1 96.0 108.4 107.6 96.0 108.7 108.7 96.0 109.6 109.1 96.0 109.6 110.0 96.0 109.6 Refined petroleum products________________________ East Coast___________________________________ Mid-Continent_______________________________ Gulf Coast___________________________________ . ____________ Pacific Coast________________ Midwest_________ _____________ ___________ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and manmade fibers and yarns3 ............. ......... 106.8 120.0 103.3 100.0 112.7 112.5 105.3 122.2 97.3 98.4 113.8 110.1 107.4 122.2 106.0 100.7 113.8 111.6 107.4 121.8 103.1 100.7 113.8 113.1 107.2 121.8 103.1 100,7 112.4 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.0 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.3 113.1 106.3 120.4 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.2 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 112.7 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.3 113.1 105.5 119.9 100.2 96.9 114.1 113.1 106.3 119.9 100.2 99.2 113.3 112.8 106.6 119.9 103.1 99.2 113.3 112.8 103.2 103.3 103.2 103.4 103.5 103.3 103.3 103.3 103.0 102.9 103.0 103.2 103.2 103.7 102.2 101.8 101.7 102.1 102.4 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.3 102.4 102.2 102.1 102.5 102.4 130.1 117.6 116.6 115.3 118.9 117.3 118.6 127.4 116.6 119.4 114.8 118.2 116.8 117.6 127.2 117.1 119.4 115.0 118.6 116.7 118.4 128.2 117.2 117.7 115.2 118.9 117.0 119.1 134.7 117.9 118.4 115.5 119.3 117.6 119.2 140.0 119.0 117.8 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.4 139.7 118.7 117.0 115.3 119.6 117.7 119.2 135.9 119.0 116.7 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.3 135.3 119.0 116.0 115.8 119.7 117.7 119.5 137.2 119.7 114.0 116.7 120.1 118.9 119.8 120.7 116.3 122.4 122.1 119.5 120.4 114.3 122.2 123.6 118.0 120.4 116.6 122.2 123.6 118.5 120.8 117.7 122.2 123.7 119.0 120.8 118.1 122.6 123.7 120.9 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 122.9 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 123.0 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 122.2 120.8 119.1 122.6 123.5 122.0 122.5 119.1 123.0 123.5 122.4 140.1 120.3 115.0 117.2 120.6 120.4 119.9 100 0 124.1 119.1 123.8 123.5 123.2 143.9 121.1 116.3 117.6 121.1 122.1 120.3 100.5 124.6 120.2 123.1 123.8 124.2 146.4 121.6 120.1 117.8 121.4 122.6 120.8 100.6 125.0 120.2 123.1 126.5 124.9 148.4 121.7 119.9 118.0 121.8 122.7 121.2 101.5 125.4 120.2 124.2 126.8 125.7 Pharmaceutical preparations_________________ ___ Lumber and wood products, excluding m illwork and other wood products 4____ ________ ____ ________ Special metals and metal products 5_________________ Copper and copper products6 __________ ________ Machinery and motive products____________________ Machinery and equipment, except electrical__________ Agricultural machinery, including tractors____________ Metalworking machinery_______ _ _______________ Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 =1 0 0 ). __________ Total tractors_______________________ Industrial valves___ . . . . . . . ... . _ Industrial fittings_______________________________ Abrasive grinding wheels__________________________ Construction materials___________________________ 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data previously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 29. = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. 3 Introduced in February 1971. 4 Formerly titled ‘ ‘ Lumber and wood products, excluding m illwork.” 5 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and equipment. 6 Formerly titled ‘ ‘Copper and copper base metals.” Wholesale Price Index,1 by durability of product [1967 = lOOp Commodity group Annual average 1971 1972 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. A ll commodities__________________________ _____ Total durable goods__________________________ Total nondurable goods_______________________ 113.9 117.0 111.7 113.3 116.1 111.2 113.8 116.5 111.8 114.3 116.7 112.5 114.6 117.5 112.4 114.9 118.4 112.4 114.5 118.2 111.7 114.4 118.2 111.6 114.5 118.1 111.8 115.4 118.6 113.0 116.3 119.2 114.1 117.3 120.0 115.3 117.4 120.4 115.2 117.5 120.7 115.1 Total manufactures___________ _____ _____________ D u ra b le _____________________________ Nondurable__________________________________ 113.8 117.0 110.5 113.0 116.1 109.9 113.5 116.5 110.5 113.8 116.7 110.8 114.5 117.5 111.4 114.9 118.5 111.2 114.7 118.3 111.0 114.5 118.3 110.6 114.5 118.3 110.7 115.1 118.8 111.3 115.7 119.3 112.0 116.5 120.1 112.8 116.7 120.4 112.9 116.9 120.8 112.9 Total raw or slightly processed goods________________ Durable. _____________________ ___ _______ Nondurable____________ . . _______________ 114.4 112.2 114.6 114.4 115.9 114.4 114.9 113.7 115.1 116.3 111.5 116.6 114.7 111.4 115.0 114.8 110.4 115.1 113.8 110.4 114.0 114.3 108.9 114.6 116.8 107.4 117.3 118.9 110.3 119.3 120.9 113.1 121.3 120.7 116.2 121.0 120.4 115.0 120.7 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure and may differ from data previously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 113.2 111.1 113.4 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 — 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, 1957 (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958). 106 30. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 WHOLESALE PRICES Wholesale Price Index,1 by stage of processing [1967 = 100] 2 Annual average 1971 Commodity group 1972 1971 A p r. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. A p r. _____ 113.9 113.3 113.8 114.3 114.6 114.9 114.5 114.4 114.5 115.4 116.3 «117.3 117.4 117.5 Crude m ate rials fo r fu rth e r processing....................... 115.0 115.2 115.8 116.9 116.6 115.2 113.9 114.3 114.3 117.0 120.2 123.1 123.1 123.0 A ll com m odities ___________ ____ __ _______ RAW MATERIALS 114.2 114.4 115.4 117.1 116.6 114.5 112.1 112.6 112.7 115.8 119.3 122.9 122.0 121.0 Nonfood m ate rials except fu e l____ _____ . . . M a n u fa ctu rin g .____ __ __________________ Construction . . _______________________ 110.5 109.7 119.1 110.6 109.9 118.2 110.3 109.6 118.7 110.1 109 3 119.3 110.4 109.5 119.6 110.2 109.3 120.1 111.1 110.3 120.3 111. 1 110.3 120.3 111.1 110.2 120.5 112.8 112.2 120.4 115.4 115.1 120.7 117.3 117.1 120.9 119.5 119.5 121.0 121.3 121.5 121.2 Crude fu e l______ ____ ___ ______ . . . . . . Manufacturing industries_________________ Nonmanufacturing in d u s trie s ............................. 138.5 129.6 150.4 138.5 129.1 151.0 139.0 129.8 151.0 139.4 130.4 151.3 139.7 130.7 151.5 139.3 130.2 151.2 140.3 131.4 152.0 140.6 131.8 152.2 140.6 131.8 152.2 142.7 132.8 155.7 145.4 135.5 158.4 145.6 135.7 158.6 146.2 136.5 159.0 146.9 137.6 159.1 113.6 114.0 114.8 115.6 115.4 115.0 115.0 115.4 115.9 116.7 117.2 117.7 112.6 116.2 105.5 118.0 114.1 112.8 116.3 105.9 118.1 114.5 113.6 117.5 106.1 119.6 114.9 114.6 118.3 106.3 121.7 115.5 114.4 117.1 106.2 121.6 115.6 114.2 116.6 105.9 121.4 115.4 114.2 116.8 105.9 121.2 115.6 114.4 117.3 106.3 121.0 115.8 114.9 117.9 107.0 121.5 116.0 115.7 119.4 107.4 122.7 116.5 115.9 118.6 107.5 123.3 116.6 116.4 117.8 108.7 123.7 117.0 119.2 120.8 122.5 122.5 121.9 121.8 122.3 123.1 124.2 124.9 125.5 113.4 115.1 110.9 114.6 116.6 111.5 115.3 117.5 111.9 114.6 117.2 110.6 114.4 117.0 110.4 114.3 117 0 110.1 116.0 119 2 111.0 116.8 120 4 111.1 116.9 120.4 111.5 117.3 120.8 111.9 119.5 120.0 121.2 111.4 113.9 110.3 103.3 113.8 112.8 114.2 112.3 108.3 114.1 113.0 114.5 112.4 108.1 114.3 Foodstuffs and fe e d stu ffs _______ _ __ . _____ INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS Interm ediate m a te ria ls: Supplies and com ponents. 114.0 113.1 M a te ria ls and components fo r m a n u fa c tu rin g . Materials for food manufacturing____ ____ Materials for nondurable m anu flc tu rin g ... . Materials for durable m anufacturing... _____ Components for manufacturing______ ______ 113.0 116.2 105.6 118.8 114.7 112.1 115.2 105.4 117.2 113.8 M ate rials and com ponents fo r c o n s tru c tio n ___ 119.5 118.0 118.5 ... Processed fu e ls and lu b ric a n ts ___ . . . . . Manufacturing industries ___ _____ ... Nonmanufacturing industries_______________ 113.4 115.2 110.6 112.0 113.9 109.1 113.0 114.3 111.1 113.2 114 7 110.9 C o n ta in e rs ... ________ _________ _______ 116.6 116.2 116.6 116.9 117.2 117.5 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.8 110.9 113.1 109.9 104.3 112.6 110.7 113.0 109.7 104.3 112.2 110.9 113.4 109.7 104.6 112.1 111.9 113.5 111.2 107.8 112.7 111.9 113.2 111.3 107.2 113.2 111.3 113.2 110.4 104.6 113.2 110.3 113.2 109.0 100.8 113.0 109.6 113.2 107.9 97.9 113.0 110.1 113.2 108.6 99.8 113.0 111.1 111.0 113.2 110.2 104.4 113.0 113.2 110.1 103.6 113.2 F inished goods (in c lu d in g raw foods and fu e ls )___ 113.5 112.9 113.5 113.8 113.8 114.1 113.6 113.8 114.0 115.0 115.5 116.3 «116.1 115.8 Consumer g o o d s . ____ _____ . . . Foods_______________________________ Crude_______________________________ Processed... . _____ ______________ Other nondurable goods___________ Durable goods. _________________ . . . 112.7 115.2 115.8 115.0 111.3 110.9 112.0 114.5 116.9 114.0 110.5 110.5 112.7 115.6 117.1 115.3 113.3 116.1 115.8 116.1 111.8 110.7 113.1 116.4 121.8 115.4 111.2 110.7 113.0 115.6 109.0 116.7 111.6 111.0 111.1 112.7 114.9 109.6 115.8 111.9 110.4 112.9 115.0 112.2 115.5 111.7 111.3 113.1 115.7 116.1 115.6 111.7 111.3 114.2 117.7 121.5 117.0 111.8 112.6 114.7 118.7 117.4 118.8 112.0 112.9 115.6 120.6 117.9 121.0 112.1 113.2 115.3 119.4 115.7 120.0 112.4 113.2 114.8 118.0 113.4 118.7 112.7 113.3 Producer fin ish e d goods____ _ . . . . . . ___ Manufacturing industries__________________ Nonmanufacturing industries_______________ 116.6 117.3 116.0 116.1 116.7 115.6 116.3 117.0 115.6 116.5 117.2 115.8 116.8 117.7 116.1 117.1 117.9 116.4 116.9 117.8 116.0 117.1 117.9 116.3 117.0 117.8 116.3 117.8 118.2 117.4 118.4 118.7 118.1 188.8 119.1 118.4 119.0 119.2 118.8 119.3 119.5 119.0 129.1 129.3 __ S u p p lie s ... ________ ___________________ . . . Manufacturing industries. ______ _________ Nonmanufacturing industries_______________ Manufactured animal feeds____________ Other supplies_______________________ FINISHED GOODS 111.0 4 SPECIAL GROUPINGS Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers oilseeds, and leaf tobacco_________________ ______ ntermediate materials, supplies and components exeluding intermediate materials for food manufacturing and manufactured animal feeds_______________ 114.3 113.3 113.8 114.1 114.9 115.9 115.9 115.7 115.6 115.8 116.4 117.2 117.6 118.2 Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer fo o d s ... 111.2 110.5 110.9 111.0 111.4 111.5 111.3 111.6 111.6 112.1 112.3 112.5 112.7 112.9 122,7 124,1 123.5 122.8 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data previously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 122.7 122.3 123.0 122.9 122.6 123.4 125.6 127.0 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the series by stage of processing see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final). °=corrected. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 31. INDUSTRY PRICES 107 Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise indicated]2 1963 SIC code Industry 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. m i 1211 1311 1421 MINING Anthracite_______________________________ Bituminous coal__________________________ Crude petroleum and natural gas____________ Crushed and broken stone................ ............. .. 144.9 185.0 113.0 117.7 146.3 187.1 112.7 117.1 144.2 186.1 113.0 117.1 140.5 186.1 113.2 118.3 144.7 186.1 113.3 118.5 144.7 186.1 113.1 118.5 145.6 186.1 113.5 118.5 144.7 ■=186.2 113.6 118.5 144.7 «186.2 113.6 118.8 144.7 194.1 113.3 118.8 146.4 196.6 113.9 119.1 146.4 196.6 114.0 119.4 146.4 196.6 114.2 119.4 146.4 195.0 114.6 119.7 1442 1475 1476 1477 Construction sand and gravel............................... Phosphate rock___________________________ Rock salt_________ ______ _____ __________ Sulfur....................... ......... ......... ................. ......... 120.6 79.8 118.3 59.8 119.5 79.8 112.2 59.8 120.5 79.8 112.2 59.8 120.5 79.8 112.2 59.8 120.8 79.8 124.4 59.8 121.9 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.2 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.7 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.8 79.8 124.4 59.8 2011 2013 2015 2021 2033 Meat slaughtering p la n ts ................ ....... ........... Meat processing plants____________________ Poultry dressing plants__________________ _ Creamery butter__________________________ Canned fruits and vegetables. ____________ 115.6 110.7 111.0 113.1 111.7 113.2 109.7 109.5 113.6 110.8 116.9 111.0 110.7 113.5 111.4 115.2 111.0 117.1 113.3 113.0 117.7 111.6 127.1 113.3 113.3 117.5 111.4 112.0 113.4 113.7 117.5 110.2 113.0 113.5 113.0 117.1 112.0 106.0 113.6 112.5 117.1 112.4 104.9 113.6 112.6 120.8 114.9 100.8 114.2 113.0 125.4 117.4 106.8 113.9 113.3 130.6 124.5 114.1 114.0 112.9 126.0 124.0 115.3 113.8 113.6 123.0 122.1 104.9 113.7 114.6 2036 2041 141.2 132.5 134.9 142.5 141.0 148.4 145.3 145.3 150.0 158.1 165.3 167.9 166.0 173.2 2042 2044 2052 Fresh or frozen packaged fish_______________ Flour and other grain m ill products (12/71 = 100) _____ Prepared animal feeds (12/71 = 100) Rice m illing_________ _________ 1_________ Biscuits, crackers and cookies______________ 98.9 119.3 98.2 120.3 97.7 120.3 99.3 120.3 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 100.5 119.6 98.4 100.5 100.5 119.6 97.8 100.2 100.5 120.6 99.5 101.7 100.5 122.2 98.7 101.9 100.5 123.0 2061 2062 2063 2073 2082 Raw cane sugar__________ _______________ Cane sugar refining___________________ _ Beet sugar_______________________________ Chewing gum ___________________________ Malt liq u o rs .________ ________ ___________ 116.9 118.3 116.8 123.6 110.2 113.4 117.3 116.5 126.1 110.2 116.0 117.6 116.8 126.1 110.2 117.7 117.8 116.7 126.1 110.2 117.7 119.5 117.1 126.2 110.2 119.5 119.8 117.3 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 118.1 119.6 117.0 126.2 110.9 121.3 120.0 117.3 126.2 110.6 126.7 120.9 118.0 125.9 110.7 123.5 123.0 119.7 125.9 110.9 126.1 123.6 120.2 125.9 110.4 123.6 125.4 121.2 125.9 110.7 2083 2084 2091 2092 2094 M alt___________ ____ ____________ _______ Wines and brandy_________________________ Cottonseed oil m ills________________ ______ Soybean oil m ills .._ ________ ________ ___ Animal and marine fats and oils____________ 98.5 117.0 111.4 111.4 125.7 98.9 114.8 111.0 103.1 133.9 98.9 115.4 108.8 107.5 128.7 98.9 115.4 110.4 112.9 124.3 98.9 120.4 113.1 120.8 122.8 98.9 120.4 120.0 120.8 124.4 98.9 120.4 118.1 109.2 125.4 98.9 120.5 105.2 110.3 122.6 98.9 102.5 104.9 110.9 120.3 94.2 119.4 108.5 111.3 114.0 94.2 119.7 106.7 109.6 113.1 94.2 125.0 106.4 112.7 115.7 94.2 125.1 106.4 120.0 117.0 94.2 125.2 104.9 123.1 125.6 2096 2098 2111 2121 2131 Shortening and cooking oils________________ Macaroni and noodle p ro d u c ts ......................... Cigarettes____________ _________ ________ Cigars___________________ _____________ Chewing and smoking tobacco....... ............... .. 121.0 106.3 117.4 108.1 125.0 119.5 106.5 117.3 107.0 125.1 118.5 106.5 117.3 107.0 125.1 118.4 106.4 117.3 107.0 125.1 122.9 106.5 117.3 107.6 125.1 125.0 106.4 117.3 109.6 125.1 123.3 106.5 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.4 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.2 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 121.1 105.8 117.3 109.1 125.1 120.6 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 120.2 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 105.9 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 106.0 118.2 109.1 125.1 2254 2272 2281 2311 2321 Knit underwear m ills ____________ ________ Tufted carpets and rugs_____________ ______ Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 = 100) Men’s and boys’ suits and coats___ _________ Men’s dress shirts and nightwear....................... 107.8 96.0 107.5 97.6 107.5 97.7 107.7 95.5 107.8 95.2 108.3 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.5 128.0 111.9 126.1 111.7 126.0 111.9 126.5 112.0 127.7 112.2 129.1 112.3 131.0 112.4 131.2 112.4 131.3 111.4 131.3 111.1 108.7 94.8 101.0 131.5 111.5 109.8 95.1 102.5 131.3 111.7 109.8 94.7 103.1 131.2 111.9 109.8 94.9 104.2 131.0 112.0 2322 2327 2328 2337 Men’s and boys' underwear________________ 1 110.3 110.6 Men’s and boys' separate trousers___________ Work clothing____________________________ 113.7 Women’s suits, coats and skirts (12/71 = 100) 110.1 110.2 113.0 110.2 110.2 113.0 110.2 110.2 113.4 110.2 110.7 113.4 110.6 110.9 114.7 110.6 111.0 114.6 110.6 111.0 114.6 110.5 111.0 114.6 110.5 111.0 114.9 U l.O 110.7 115.0 100.0 111.7 111.0 115.1 100.0 111.8 111.0 115.1 100.0 111.8 108.3 116.3 100.0 2381 2421 2426 2431 2432 Fabric dress and work gloves_________ _____ Sawmills and planing m ills (12/71 = 100). . . Hardwood dimension and flooring___________ M illwork plants (12/71 = 100) Veneer arid plywood plants (12/71 = 100) 111.8 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.8 111.8 111.5 111.5 115.5 113.7 113.9 114.2 116.2 118.8 118.5 118.2 118.2 119.4 113.2 102.2 120.6 100.5 102.3 113.6 104.8 120.8 100.6 106.8 115.0 106.4 121.9 101.3 110.5 118.7 108.2 124.9 102.2 110.7 2442 2511 2512 2515 2521 Wirebound boxes and crates (12/67=100)____ Wood furniture, not upholstered (12/71 = 100).. Wood furniture upholstered (12/71 = 100).......... Mattresses and bedsprings...______________ Wood office furniture__________ ____ ______ 117.6 117.3 117.3 117.5 117.9 117.9 117.9 117.9 118.3 118.5 108.8 117.1 108.8 117.1 108.9 117.1 109.1 117.1 108.9 117.1 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.5 109.0 117.5 119.8 100.7 100.3 108.9 117.5 120.1 101.4 100.6 109.6 117.5 120.5 101.7 100.2 109.6 117.9 121.6 101.7 100.6 109.6 118.5 2647 2654 2819 2822 2823 Sanitary paper products_________ ____ _____ Sanitary food containers___________________ Inorganic chemicals, nec. (12/71 — 100) Synthetic rubber________________ ____ ____ Cellulosic man-made fibers______ _____ ____ 119.1 106.0 119.2 106.0 119.2 106.0 119.5 106.1 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 99.9 102.5 100.0 102.5 99.9 102.5 99.9 102.5 99.9 102.5 99.9 99.9 102.8 c 102.8 99.9 102.9 «99.7 102.7 «99.7 103.7 119.5 106.2 100.1 99.7 104.3 119.6 106.3 100.2 99.7 104.8 119.6 106.4 100.2 99.7 105.6 120.1 107.2 101.5 99.7 105.9 2824 2834 2841 2844 2871 Organic fibers, noncellulosic....... ......... .............. Pharmaceutical preparations (12/71—100) Soap and other detergents (12/71 — 100) Toilet preparations (12/71 —100) Fertilizers............. ........................... ....................... 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 91.8 94.0 94.1 94.1 93.7 89.7 89.7 89.8 89.8 89.7 98.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 89.7 98.1 99.8 100.0 100.1 89.5 98.1 100.1 100.0 99.8 90.2 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.6 M ANUFACTURING See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 108 31. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 INDUSTRY PRICES Continued—Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise indicated]2 1963 SIC code Industry Annual average 1971 1971 1972 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 102.5 112.8 105.7 103.3 112.9 104.4 103.5 112.9 106.4 103.5 112.9 106.3 102.8 112.9 106.2 102.3 112.8 106.2 102.4 112.8 106.3 102.5 112.8 105.3 102.4 112.8 105.2 102.3 112.7 105.0 113.0 111.5 113.5 114.7 114.7 114.7 113.9 114.0 114.0 117.5 102.3 112.7 105.1 102.9 120.4 101.5 112.7 104.5 106.7 121.1 102.9 112.9 105.2 106.7 129.0 103.3 113.1 105.6 106.8 139.0 125.3 125.5 126.0 125.6 125.6 126.3 126.3 126.6 101.1 100.0 131.4 128.1 125.8 102.6 99.5 131.4 128.1 126.9 104 7 99 0 136.1 131.5 MANUFACTURING— Continued 2872 2892 2911 3021 3111 Fertilizers, mixing only_______ _____________ Explosives_______________________________ Petroleum refining________________________ Rubber footwear (12/71 = 100) . ___ ____ Leather tanning and finishing_______________ 3121 3141 3211 3221 3241 Industrial leather belting___________________ Shoes, except rubber (12/71 —100) Flat glass (12/71 = 100) . . . Glass containers__________________________ Cement, hydraulic.____ _________ _________ 125.5 124.8 126.0 131.5 124.6 131.4 123.6 131.4 123.6 131.4 123.6 131.4 126.7 131.4 127.6 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 125.6 100.7 100.0 131.4 127.8 3251 3255 3259 3261 3262 Brick and structural clay tile _______________ Clay refractories__________________________ Structural clay products nec________________ Vitreous plumbing fixtures_________________ Vitreous china food utensils____________ ___ 119.1 128.7 109.2 112.1 132.4 119.1 128.5 110.0 109.3 133.4 119.1 128.5 110.0 110.7 133.4 119.1 128.7 109.9 113.2 133.4 119.1 128.7 109.9 114.0 133.4 120.0 128.7 109.9 114.3 133.4 120.0 128.7 110.0 114.6 133.4 120.0 128.9 110.0 114.8 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.4 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.7 133.4 119.9 128.9 109.9 113.9 133.4 122.5 128.9 109.9 114.4 135.8 122.7 128.9 109.9 114.9 137.9 123.2 128.9 109.9 115.3 137.9 3263 3271 3273 3275 3291 Fine earthenware food utensils______________ Concrete block and brick___________________ Ready mixed concrete_____________________ Gypsum products______ _______ ___________ Abrasive products (12/71—100) 125.5 118.4 122.5 107.0 120.3 118.2 120.8 101.3 120.3 118.3 121.0 101.6 120.3 118.3 121.8 104.2 129.7 118.4 123.3 112.7 131.1 118.9 124.8 114.4 131.1 119.1 124.6 114.5 131.1 119.1 124.6 113.7 131.1 119.1 124.6 112.3 131.1 119.1 124.9 114.1 134.6 120.0 125.3 113.4 100.0 134.8 120.5 125.8 113.0 100.3 140.3 120.8 126.7 115.3 101.3 140.3 122.0 127.3 114.9 101 9 3312 3315 3316 3317 3321 Blast furnace and steel m ills_____________ _ Steel wire drawing, etc____________________ Cold finishing of steel shapes . ____ ____ Steel pipe and tube___________ ______ ____ Gray iron foundries (12/68=100)____________ 123.4 120.2 124.1 121.9 115.1 118.9 115.5 118.9 116.8 114.4 121.0 117.9 121.2 119.9 115.2 121.6 119.1 122.4 120.3 115.8 124.0 119.2 126.2 120.7 116.0 128.2 124.3 128.5 128.4 116.1 128.3 125.3 128.9 128.4 116.2 128.3 125.2 128.9 128.2 116.3 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 129.6 127.1 127.9 128.6 116.1 130.9 127.6 132.4 128.5 116.7 130.9 127.7 132.4 128.7 116.9 130.9 127.9 132.1 129.2 116.8 3333 3334 3339 3341 3351 Primary zinc_____________________________ Primary aluminum ________________________ Primary nonferrous metals, nec_____________ Secondary nonferrous metals (12/71 = 100) Copper rolling and drawing________________ 113.3 115.9 112.8 109.1 115.9 119.1 110.3 115.9 115.9 112.0 115.9 114.1 112.8 115.9 111.2 118.8 115.9 111.8 118.8 115.9 106.5 118.8 115.9 104.9 118.8 115.9 105.1 118.8 115.9 107.2 119.0 120.2 123.1 120.4 120.5 120.5 120.0 120.0 119.7 118.3 119.0 101.5 110.4 96.3 120.3 119.1 99.2 112.2 96.0 122.2 119.2 95.9 114.2 99.7 125.6 122.3 95.9 115.4 100 5 125.4 3352 3356 108.2 108.0 108.0 108.2 108.3 108.4 108.4 108.4 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.2 108.3 108.6 3411 3423 3431 Aluminum rolling and drawing (1 2 /6 8 = 1 0 0 ).. Nonferrous rolling and drawing, nec. (12/71 -1 0 0 ) Metal cans_______________ _____ _________ Hand and edge tools (12/67= 100)...................... Metal plumbing fixtures____________________ 121.9 120.8 114.0 100.1 124.0 124.4 116.9 101.1 127.5 125.0 116.9 101.3 127.6 125.0 117.5 101 8 127.6 125.9 117.9 3493 3494 3496 3498 3519 Steel springs_____________________________ Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 —100) Collapsible tubes___ ~ _____________________ Fabricated pipe and fittings________________ Internal combustion engines________________ 118.7 100.6 120.5 136.7 120.9 118.9 100.6 120.7 136.7 121.1 119.0 100 9 120.8 136.7 121.1 3533 3534 3535 Oil field machinery________________________ Elevators and moving stairways_____________ Conveyorsland conveying equipment (12/71 = 100) . ... Industrial trucks and tractors_______________ Machine tools, metal cutting types (12/71 = 100) 3537 3541 3542 3552 3562 3572 3576 Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100) Textile machinery (12/69=100 )_____________ Ball and roller bearings____________________ Typewriters______________________________ Scales and balances__________ ______ _____ 3611 3612 3613 3624 3634 Electric measuring instruments (12/71 — 100) Transformers. _________________ . ______ Switchgear and switchboards_______________ Carbon and graphite products (12/67=100)___ Electric housewares and fans (12/71 — 100) 3635 3641 3642 3652 3671 Household vacuum cleaners________________ Electric lamps____________________________ Lighting fixtures (12/71 = 100) . _ . Phonograph records_______________________ Electron tubes, receiving type_______________ 3672 3673 3674 3692 3693 3861 3941 124.1 118.9 110.1 124.1 118.9 111.5 111.9 110.8 118.4 133.0 117.4 117.1 128.2 116.7 123.3 121.0 120.4 123.9 119.6 114.2 124.0 121.3 116.2 124.0 123.1 117.7 124.0 123.1 117.7 124.0 123.0 117.6 124.0 123.2 117.8 124.0 123.2 117.8 110.7 111.7 110.2 111.5 113.3 113.1 114.3 115.9 117.6 129.7 116.7 119.8 135.6 116.6 119.9 135.6 116.8 120.0 135.6 118.4 120.0 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 119.3 116.6 100.3 119.9 136.7 120.2 123.4 120.5 123.5 120.6 123.8 120.6 123.8 102.6 124.0 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 125.3 122.3 125.6 122.3 125.6 122.3 126.5 122.3 118.5 118.5 118.6 121.6 123.5 121.7 121.7 121.7 124.2 100 2 124.2 101.1 123.3 101.1 123.4 101 2 123.5 100.2 100.7 100 9 101.4 100 3 115.0 103.5 116.5 100.7 111.3 115.7 104.0 116.5 101 4 111.3 116.2 104.4 117.6 101 4 111! 4 116.8 104.5 117.8 100 5 94.4 112.0 113.4 99 7 100.7 94.1 112.1 113.4 99 9 101.2 94.3 112.4 113.4 100 1 1013 . 95.5 111.7 113.4 99 8 100.4 114.5 101.1 113.2 139.8 101.8 116.3 101.1 113.2 139.9 101.8 117.4 101.5 113.2 139.9 108.9 114.2 103.4 114.3 107.5 113.9 103.4 114.6 108.0 113.9 103.4 113.9 109.4 113.9 103.4 113.9 109.7 114.0 103.4 114.1 109.8 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.1 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 i 16.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 97.3 113.3 113.1 100.7 114.0 113.3 99.1 114.1 113.3 96.9 113.5 113.3 96.7 113.1 113.3 95.6 113.1 113.3 95.5 112.7 113.3 94.8 113.0 113.3 92.4 112.5 113.3 93.0 112.3 113.3 100.4 113.6 100.2 113.7 100.2 113.3 100.2 113.5 100.5 113.3 100.5 113.8 100.5 113.8 100.5 114.3 100.5 114.0 100.4 114.2 106.8 132.0 110.2 132.2 105.4 132.1 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 100.4 114.2 100.3 113.2 132.1 Cathode ray picture tubes__________________ Electron tubes, transm itting________________ Semiconductors___________________________ Primary batteries, dry and wet______________ X-ray apparatus and tubes (12/67=100 )_____ 86.4 111.4 93.9 118.9 128.5 87.7 111.9 93.7 116.6 129.6 87.7 111.9 93.5 119.2 129.7 87.7 111.7 93.5 120.5 129.6 87.7 111.7 93.3 121.8 129.5 87.7 111.7 93.7 123.0 129.5 83.3 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.4 93.0 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.4 93.0 123.0 132.1 82.9 111.2 93.1 123.0 132.1 83.1 112.1 92.5 123.0 132.1 82.8 112.4 92.3 123.1 132.1 Photographic equipment (12/71 = 100)_______ Games and toys’. . . ---------- ----------------------------- 112.9 113.3 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 100.0 113.3 100.3 114.3 100.5 115.5 99.9 115.7 1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods (BLS Bulletin 1711,1971), Chapter 12. See also “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” in the M onthly Labor Review. August 1965, pp. 974-982. 1 As of January 1971, the indexes were converted from the former base 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967=100. Other bases are shown in parenthesis following FRASER the title. Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.0 NOTE: Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the 1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were form erly based on the 1958 Industrial Censuses. « =corrected. LABOR MANAGEMENT DISPUTES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 32. 109 Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1 Workers involved in stoppages Number of stoppages Man-days idle during month or year Month and year Beginning in month or year In effect during month Beginning in month or year (thousands) In effect during month (thousands) Number (thousands) Percent of estimated working time 1945................................ 194 6... . 1947. . 1948____ 1949.. 4,750 4|985 3,693 3^419 3| 606 3,470 4,600 2,170 1,960 3,030 38,000 116,000 34,600 34,100 50,500 0.31 1.04 .30 .28 .44 1 9 5 0 .... 1951.. . 1952................... 1953............. 1954 . 4,843 4,737 5 , li 7 5,091 3,468 2,410 2,220 3'540 2,400 1,530 38,800 22,900 59,100 28,300 22,600 .33 .18 .48 .22 .18 1955................. 1956. 195 7... 1958. . . 1959. 4,320 3,825 3,673 3 ’ 694 3,708 2,650 1,900 1,390 2 ,060 1,880 28,200 33,100 16,500 23,900 69,000 .22 .24 .12 .18 .50 1960_______ . . 1961____ 1 9 6 2 ................... 1963______ 1964____ 3,333 3'367 3'614 3,362 3i 655 1,320 1,450 j 230 941 1,640 19,100 16,300 18,600 16,100 22,900 .14 .11 .13 .11 .15 [965______ 1966... 1967______ 1 9 6 8 .... 1 9 6 9 .... . 1970______ 3,963 4,405 4; 595 5’ 045 5,700 5 ; 716 1,550 1,960 2,870 2,649 2 ,481 3,305 23,300 25,400 42,100 49,018 42,869 66,414 .15 .15 .25 .28 .24 .37 1970: 1971: 1972: . January___________ February__________ March_______ 279 330 427 458 529 630 71.1 116.3 316.2 269.9 329.6 402.5 3,710.8 2,110.6 2,471.2 .25 .15 .16 A p r il. . . .................. May______________ June______________ 640 699 657 884 1,050 1,060 451.1 331.1 288.1 523.1 675.4 538.0 5,431.1 6,650.7 5,845.6 .34 .46 .36 J u ly . . ____ _______ August____________ September________ 585 527 560 989 950 971 242.2 127.3 591.1 467.1 340.7 785.0 5,112.1 3,851.8 8,669.5 .32 .26 .57 October. _________ November_________ December_____________ 448 340 224 881 695 529 231.1 83.6 455.5 753.9 552.0 919.9 11,573.6 7,798.0 3,188.7 .73 .54 .20 January p . . . .............. .. February p ____________ March p"........... .. ................ 280 330 410 440 490 590 222 114 116 286 169 200 2,709 1,771 2,292 .19 .13 .14 A pril p . . . .......................... May p_____________ Junep ______ _______ 540 580 610 750 790 850 174 702 272 254 774 384 2,184 3,437 3,923 .14 .24 .25 July P -.......................... August p ______ _____ September p _______ 410 390 280 670 660 540 820 166 88 967 472 286 7,906 4,505 2,841 .52 .28 .19 October p __________ November p ___________ December p ________ 300 260 150 540 490 360 210 249 27 300 455 243 4,507 4,229 4,444 .29 .28 .29 January p__________ Februaryp........ ......... March p ___________ 300 290 360 460 455 540 79 58 122 154 137 161 2,284 1,597 1,517 .15 .11 .09 1 The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and asting a fu ll day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establish- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages. p = preliminary. 110 PRODUCTIVITY 33. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1972 Output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally adjusted [In d e x e s 1 96 7 = 100] Output Output per man-hour Man-hours Compensation per m an-hour1 Real compensa tion per m an-hour2 Unit nonlabor payments3 Unit labor costs Implicit price deflator Year and quarter Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private 1969: 1st__________ d ____ ____ 3d_________ 4th _________ Annual average.......... 107.1 107.5 108.0 107.6 107.5 107.2 107.9 108.3 107.8 107.8 103.4 104.2 104.5 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.9 105.4 105.2 104.9 103.6 103.1 103.4 103.4 103.4 102.7 102.4 102.7 1970: 1st_________ d __________ 3d__________ 4th_________ Annual average.......... 106.7 106.9 107.3 106.1 106.8 107.1 107.2 107.7 106.2 107.1 103.7 103.1 102.0 103.1 100.8 102.0 104.9 104.0 102.4 103.5 103.0 103.7 105.3 105.3 104.3 103.1 104.6 104.1 103.5 1971: 1st_______ d__________ 3d__________ 4 th ________ Annual average_____ 1972: 1st_________ p 108.3 109.3 108.5 101.3 102.5 106.9 107.4 108.5 109.3 108.1 109.9 105.8 106.5 107.1 108.3 107.0 109.3 2 2 2 101.7 109.5 102.8 110.0 110.0 101.4 102.6 111.7 102.2 103.3 111.9 109.8 110.0 101.7 102.8 113.2 p 113.8 p 103.0 P104.1 p Private Private nonfarm 111.9 113.7 115.5 117.5 114.7 104.9 104.8 105.4 105.9 105.3 104.3 104.2 104.4 104.7 104.5 115.0 111.9 122.5 125.3 127.2 124.0 119.7 121.5 124.1 125.7 122.7 106.3 105.9 107.1 107.2 106.6 105.0 105.0 106.0 106.0 105.5 117.7 118.1 119.0 120.7 118.9 129.8 131.7 133.7 135.1 132.6 137.9 128.4 130.4 132.2 133.8 131.2 136.8 108.6 109.0 109.6 107.4 108.0 108.3 109.0 108.1 1 1 0 .5 123.3 123.6 122.7 125.5 112.6 103.1 102.8 114.4 116.6 118.9 115.6 102.1 p Private nonfarm Private 121.1 p p 110.1 109.3 p ill. 5 p Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private 108.6 102.5 102.4 106.3 108.7 110.9 106.3 107.4 108.8 110.6 102.6 102.2 107.7 112.5 102.9 102.8 109.0 114.7 102.6 102.2 110.2 111.6 106.2 102.3 108.3 117.2 102.1 101.3 111.6 117.8 104.4 104.0 112.8 112.8 121.4 122.6 p Private nonfarm p 118.7 120.7 118.6 106.4 108.1 105.3 121.3 122.4 123.4 123.5 122.7 125.1 110.4 111.7 p 113.0 111.9 114.0 p 111.2 112.6 106.6 108.8 105.2 114.1 115.9 113.6 114.1 116.2 113.5 110.9 117.1 118.4 119.1 119.5 118.5 117.4 118.6 119.4 119.4 118.7 112.2 112.8 112.6 112.1 112.6 110.0 108.1 113.2 p 1 2 1 .0 p 1 2 0 .6 4.6 5.4 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.4 5.3 4.4 5.4 4.2 4.9 6.2 4.5 5.1 5.5 7.6 4.4 4.3 2.5 2.8 Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate 4 1969: 1st__________ d __________ 3d__________ 4th_________ 3.0 1.4 2 1.8 - 1 .5 - 1 .7 - 2 .7 1.5 -4 .4 1971: 1st__________ d __________ 3d__________ 4 t h _________ 8.5 3.6 2.7 6.3 0.8 2 1972: 1st_________ 1.6 - 3 .0 1970: 1st__________ d __________ 3d................... 4th_________ 2 2.5 2.4 p 5. 6 0.6 2.0 - 5 .6 8.8 3.7 1.8 7.2 p 7.0 3.4 3.3 0.9 - 1 .6 4.2 3.6 1.9 - 0 .7 -0 .4 -1 .8 0.9 - 1 .4 - 2 .2 - 4 .3 - 4 .5 - 1 .2 - 3 .6 - 3 .5 -4 .0 -1 .6 3.1 2.1 1.7 — 1.2 3.0 p 3.4 2.1 1.0 — 0.5 2.6 p 3.2 0.1 6.1 0.2 6.2 - 1 .7 - 1 .1 - 0 .3 - p 2.1 p 3.7 1.4 -0 .4 7.9 4.7 9.4 7.5 6.3 8.7 5.5 1.5 - 1 .7 4.6 0.7 8.5 8.6 6.6 6.1 6.6 2.7 2.3 4.5 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.1 8.0 1.0 - 1 .5 4.3 5.6 -1 .6 1.9 4.0 3.2 6.4 6.5 7.9 6.2 6.2 p 2.0 2.2 0.8 6.8 -0 .5 0.9 1.3 8.4 7.0 7.8 1.1 9.7 1.6 6.0 2.1 4.1 2.2 - 0 .2 4.0 3.1 0.1 5.1 1.7 5.2 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 - 1 .1 -0 .9 2.4 -2 .3 9.1 1.9 2.9 7.2 -1 .9 9.0 -3 .4 8.7 4.6 3.3 1.4 4.6 2.4 -0 .9 p 2.1 p 5.3 p 4.2 7.7 7.6 7.1 8.2 8.2 6.6 11.2 10.4 8.2 8.1 1.9 1.3 2.7 1.0 1.9 3.8 3.0 0.5 p 5.0 p 5.7 p 6.3 p 5.4 p 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.6 2.3 3.5 3.9 4.0 2.3 7.0 5.8 4.5 9.5 7.8 5.8 3.5 4.9 5.0 4.4 3.1 5.5 5.3 4.6 2.7 3.4 p 3.1 p 3.2 p 2.0 p 3.3 p 2.7 4.4 5.4 5.0 2.1 8 .6 p 9.3 2.1 1.2 4.1 4.1 - 0.1 Percent change over previous year 5 1.5 1971: 1 s t . . ............. d __________ 3d__________ 4 t h _________ 2 1972: 1st_________ 2.2 2.5 5.2 p 4.5 5.3 -2 .3 - 1 .3 — 0.5 1.4 - 2 .3 - 1 .2 — 0.4 1.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 r 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.5 r 4.0 p 4.9 p 1.7 p 1.5 p 2.8 p 1.3 2.1 2.0 3.3 7.1 7.5 6.7 r 6.2 p 6.3 1 Wages and salaries of employees plus employers contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple mentary payments for the self-employed. Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index. Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and indirect taxes. Percent change computed from original data. 2 3 4 2.1 7.3 7.3 6.5 r 6.4 3.0 2.4 2.7 6 .6 p 2.6 p 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.8 p 2.9 p 8.1 NOTE: Data for 1968, 1969, 1970, and the first two quarters of 1971 have been ad justed to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those previously published in the Monthly Labor Review. SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. p = P re lim in a r y . r = R e v is e d . Professional positions at BLS The Bureau of Labor Statistics invites inquiries about job openings (1 ) from experienced professional economists, statisticians, systems analysts, and techni cal editors, and (2 ) from outstanding college grad uates planning careers in these fields. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Current openings range from GS-5 ($7,319—$9,515) to GS-15 ($25,583-$33,260). Inquiries should be addressed to William T. McGuigan, Personnel Officer, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 2415, GAO Building, Washington, D.C. 20212. PUBLICATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Periodical subscriptions and individual publications may be ordered through the Bureau’s regional offices or directly from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Make check or money order payable to the Super intendent of Documents. Use order blank on next page. D IR E C T O R Y OF N A T IO N A L AND IN T E R N A T IO N A L LABO R U N IO N S IN T H E U N IT E D STATES. Biennial. Latest edition ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Bulle tin 1665, $1.25. N am es o f officers and professional em ployees, number o f mem bers, and number o f locals o f each union, along with sections on union mem bership, structure, and function. Periodicals H A N D B O O K OF M E TH O D S. Latest edition (1 9 7 1 ), Bulletin 1711, $2. Brief account o f each major statistical program o f the Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics, sources o f original data, definition o f terms and concepts, m ethodology and techniques, uses and lim itations o f data. M O N T H L Y L A B O R R EV IEW . $9 a year; $11.25, foreign; single copy, 75 cents. A rticles on em ploy ment, labor force, wages, prices, productivity, unit labor costs, collective bargaining, workers satis faction, social indicators, and labor developm ents abroad. Regular features include a review o f developm ents in industrial relations, significant court decisions in labor cases, book reviews, and current labor statistics. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S . M onthly. $10 a year; $12.50, foreign; single copy, $1. Current data for the U nited States as a w hole, for in dividual States, and for more than 2 0 0 local areas on em ploym ent, hours, earnings, and labor turnover. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U T LO O K Q U A R T E R L Y . $1.50 for four issues during the school year; $2, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. Current inform ation on em ploym ent trends and outlook, supplementing and bringing up to date inform ation in the Occupational Outlobk Handbook. C U R R E N T W A G E D E V E L O PM E N T S. M onthly. $4.50 a year; $5.75, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. W age and benefit changes resulting from collective bargaining settlem ents and m anagem ent decisions; statistical summaries; and special reports on wage trends. A sampling of other publications BLA C K A M E R IC A N S: A D E C A D E O F O C C U P A T IO N A L C H A N G E . Bulletin 1931, 40 cents. Com panion report to Bulletin 1699. Visual pres entation o f data on 1 9 6 0 -7 0 progress o f blacks in m oving up the occcupational ladder toward higher paid jobs. BLA C K A M E R IC A N S , A C H A R T B O O K . Bulletin 1699, $1.25. V isual presentation o f data on prog ress and problem s o f blacks in recent years. W A G E C A L E N D A R 1972. Bulletin 1724, 50 cents. Resume o f collective bargaining activity antici pated in 1972, with detailed tables on agreements scheduled to expire, contract reopenings, and de ferred wage increases due. LABOR LAW A N D P R A C T IC E IN V E N E Z U E L A . Report 386, 70 cents. One o f a series o f studies providing background information on the labor scene in foreign countries. Describes the country and its workers, the structure o f government, labor, and managem ent, and conditions o f em ploym ent. Handbooks A B R IE F H IST O R Y O F T H E A M E R IC A N LABO R M O V E M E N T . 1970 edition, Bulletin 1000, $1. H A N D B O O K O F L A B O R STATISTICS. Annual. 1971 edition, Bulletin 1705, $3.25. H istorical tables o f major series published by BLS. Related series from other governm ent agencies and foreign countries. PRICES, E SC A L A T IO N , A N D E C O N O M IC STABIL ITY . Interpretive pamphlet, 1971, 30 cents. T H E M E A N IN G A N D M E A S U R E M E N T O F PR O D U C T IV IT Y . Bulletin 1714, 30 cents. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U TLO O K H A N D B O O K . Bien nial. 1 9 7 2 -7 3 edition, Bulletin 1700, $6.25. E m ploym ent outlook, nature o f w ork, training, requirements for entry, line o f advancement, loca tion o f jobs, earnings, and working conditions for 700 occupations in 30 major industries, including farming. A R E A W A G E SU R V EY : SA LT L A K E C ITY, U T A H , M ETR O PO LITA N A R E A , N O V E M B E R 1971. Bulletin 1 7 2 5 -2 4 , 30 cents. One o f a series sum marizing results o f wage surveys in 90 metropolitan areas, with data on occupational earnings, establish ment practices, and supplementary wage benefits. Various pagings and prices. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S , STATES A N D A R E A S. Annual. Latest edition (1 9 3 9 - 7 0 ) , Bulle tin 1 3 7 0 -8 , $4.50. H istorical State and area em ploym ent and earnings statistics in the nonfarm sector o f the econom y. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IN D E X E S O F O U T P U T PER M A N -H O U R , SE L E C T E D IN D U ST R IE S. Annual. Latest edition (1 9 3 9 and 1 9 4 7 -7 0 ), Bulletin 1692, $1.25. A nnual indexes o f output per man-hour, output per em ployee, and unit labor requirements. A lso, indexes for related man-hours. data on output, em ploym ent, and D IG E ST O F SE LE C TE D P E N S IO N P L A N S. 1970 edi tion, $5. (Subscribers receive basic volum e and pe riodic revision sheets.) Principal features o f selected pension plans for (1 ) em ployees under collective bargaining and ( 2 ) salaried em ployees. IN D U S T R Y W A G E SU R V EY : W O M E N ’S A N D M ISSES’ C O A TS A N D SU ITS, A U G U S T 1970. Bulletin 1728, 35 cents. One o f a series sum m ariz ing results o f surveys o f wages and related benefits in a specific industry. Various pagings and prices. To order any of the publications listed, please complete the order form below and mail it to the Superintendent of Documents or to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, at any of the regional addresses shown on the inside front cover. Make check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Order Enclosed find $______________________ for the publications listed below: Form Name.:__________________________________________________________________________________ St reet_______________ ,___________________________________________________________________ City_______________________________ State____________________________ Zip____________ _____ Q uantity Item (title and publication num ber, if any) Price For prom pt, accurate shipm ent please fill in the following label—please print or typew rite U.S. GOVERNMENT PR INTING OFFICE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 U.S. GOVERNM ENT PR IN TIN G OFFICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis N am e .............. Street Address Citv. State. Zip Code ☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 4 8 4 - 7 5 5 /4 0 Like father, like son... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A generation ago, their fathers raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Today, this equally brave younger generation is returning from Vietnam. They are proud of their country’s past. They’re anticipating the future. Even those with permanent wounds. Their future depends on a good job. Put your confidence in the heroes of this generation also. Hire a disabled veteran today. The President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped - 1972 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FIRST CLASS MAIL P U B L IC D O C U M E N T S D E P A R T M E N T W A S H IN G T O N , D.C. 20402 O FFIC IA L B U S IN E S S PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE S300 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE
@FedFRASER