The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ray Marshall, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year —
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to
Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical Is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region )l — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margul/s
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881 -4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: William E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
June cover:
“ Working Men”
In pencil and water color
by Edgar Nye
Courtesy of Adams Davidson Galleries, Inc.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
JUNE 1980
VOLUME 103, NUMBER 6
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
Howard Davis
3
Employment gains of women by industry, 1968-78
Women made the most rapid advances in the service sector but were beginning
to move into traditionally male-dominated jobs in the mining and construction industries
Max L. Carey
10
Evaluating the 1975 occupational employment projections
BLS’ industry-occupation projections proved better than those of alternative methods;
new Federal-State statistics on employment should improve projection accuracy
Donald R. Bell
22
Dental and vision care benefits in health insurance plans
As medical care costs increase, dental and vision care insurance become more important;
most of the plans studied, with restrictions on these services, were financed by employers
Phyllis Flohr Otto
27
Productivity growth below average in fabricated structural metals
The industry that shapes metal parts for builders, bridges, and overpasses recorded
productivity setbacks in 1973-78 and a 20-year average half that of all manufacturing
IR R A P A P E R S
Olivia S. Mitchell
M. J. Morand, D. S. McPherson
Charles Maxey
Deborah M. Kolb
32
34
36
38
Labor force activity of wives in response to changing jobless rates
Unionism’s effect on faculty pay: handicapping the available data
Hospital managers’ perceptions of the impact of unionization
Two approaches to the mediator’s role
REPO RTS
James W. Driscoll
Dorothy G. Sparrow
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
45
Labor-management panels: three case studies
Employment training in France: firm and worker experience
DEPARTM ENTS
2
32
41
45
51
54
55
59
65
Labor month in review
Conference papers
Communications
Foreign labor developments
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT
'JUL 1 1980
KALAM AZOO PUBLIC LIBRARY
Labor M onth
In Review
INDEXATION. The Consumer
Price Index is widely used today for
indexation; that is, to adjust
payments to price changes. When
indexation formulas devised by
users bring unexpected results, the
users sometimes blame the CPI.
Commissioner of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood discussed this
problem at a May 9 meeting of the
Eastern Economic Association in
Montreal, Canada. Excerpts:
CPI uses. The use of the CPI in
escalation has become so popular in
recent years, that a very large part
of the population now has at least
some of its income affected by the
index. CPI escalation ranges from
child support payments to welfare
eligibility, from collective bargain
ing contracts to rental agreements,
from pensions to social security
payments, and from food stamps to
school lunch programs. The CPI is
also used to adjust presidential cam
paign funding and in several States
for indexation of income tax
brackets. Indeed, the tendency to
add a CPI escalator to legislation
has become so widespread that it is
almost impossible for the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to keep an up-todate list of the uses of the CPI in in
dexation.
In general, the purpose of most
escalator clauses has been to help
those receiving payments maintain a
base-period living standard by
assuring that they recover the pur
chasing power which might be lost
through price increases. The intent,
therefore, is to permit people to pur
chase at today’s prices the bundle of
goods and services they purchased
in the base period, thereby leaving
them as well off as they were
then.
BLS compiles and publishes two
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CPI’s. The CPI-W represents the
experience of urban wage earner
and clerical families and covers ap
proximately 40 percent of the total
population. The CPI-U, a broader
index which covers about 80 percent
of the population, includes, in addi
tion to the wage earners and clerical
workers, such groups as salaried
workers, the unemployed, the
retired and the self-employed. Each
index is published each month with
a total—or All Items—Index and a
large number of individual com
ponents as well as a series of special
groupings. Both the CPI-U and the
CPI-W are used in indexation.
Unexpected results. Use of the CPI
to index payments sometimes pro
duces results that were not an
ticipated at the time the escalation
arrangements were made. As a
result, situations arise from the use
of the CPI as an escalator that result
frequently in criticisms of the index
itself. Those who, because of index
ation, are required to make addi
tional payments are often un
prepared to do so, and they com
plain that the index is too high.
Those who receive income that is in
dexed look at their own price ex
perience, find that it is different
from the average represented in the
index, and insist that the index is too
low. Finally, members of the Con
gress, suddenly faced with the need
for increased outlays of government
funds because they have provided
for CPI escalation in many laws,
begin to worry about the additional
appropriations required for escala
tion and frequently transfer that
concern into a criticism of the
statistical series itself.
Causes for concern. In many of
these cases, criticism of the CPI
arises not because there are different
views on the way inflation should be
measured, but rather because those
who have adopted an indexation
policy based upon the use of the
CPI do not like the results that it
brings. Still others worry that, in a
period of rising inflation, CPI
escalation can, in fact, fuel the very
inflation for which the indexing ar
rangements were designed to com
pensate, and that the CPI itself can
become an engine of inflation. Dif
ficulties faced by these groups are
valid causes for concern; they also
explain, I believe, some of the
reasons for the recent public discus
sion and criticism of the CPI. While
constructive criticism of price
measurement techniques is both
useful and sensible in a democratic
society, we must be careful to
separate complaints which quite
properly deal with the techniques
and concepts of price measurement
from those which are based primari
ly upon the unexpected or un
planned results that arise from the
use of the CPI in particular escala
tion formulas.
Information needed. Users of the
index must become better informed
a b o u t the b e n e fits—and the
dangers—of indexation so that they
can make intelligent policy decisions
before adopting it. They also need
to have a better understanding of
what the CPI is and how it measures
price change. Measurement con
cepts and techniques appropriate
for one purpose may not in fact be
the best available for some other
use. Interaction of producer, user,
and policymaker is essential to the
effective and timely development of
statistical series that are relevant to
the demands that are placed upon
them.
□
Employment gains of women
by industry, 1968-78
In a decade, employment of women increased
most rapidly in the service-producing sector
where they already were concentrated; however, women
are beginning to move into traditionally male-dominated
jobs in the mining and construction industries
H ow ard D
a v is
Women filled more than half of the 18.5 million
nonagricultural jobs created between 1968 and 1978.
Although most of these jobs were in the rapidly
expanding service sector, which traditionally employs a
large share of women, female workers also made signifi
cant gains in several nontraditional industries—coal
mining, construction, local and interurban transporta
tion, and engineering and architectural services.
The proportion of women working or actively seeking
work increased from 41.6 percent in 1968 to 50.1 per
cent in 1978. In contrast, the participation rate for men
declined from 81.2 percent to 78.4 percent, in large
part, because of reduced labor force participation
among older men (age 45 and over). In fact, the civilian
male labor force rose only 9 million during 1968-78,
while total employment in nonagricultural industries in
creased by 18.5 million. Payroll data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey provide details
of the flow of women into various industries. Establish
ment data do not yield information on earnings by sex
and by industry;1however, the data do shed some light
on the reason that earnings of women continue to lag
behind those of men. As will be shown, those industries
which have absorbed a large influx of women have been
those with traditionally low hourly earnings.
Growth patterns, by sector
Although the proportion of women on nonagri
cultural payrolls increased from 35.9 percent in 1968 to
40.8 percent in 1978, almost all of the change occurred
Howard Davis is an economist in the Office of Employment Structure
and Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in the service-producing sector. (See table 1.) The pro
portion of women in the goods-producing sector edged
off slightly. The 4.9-percentage points difference can be
decomposed into a 5.6-point increase in female employ
ment in the service-producing sector and a 0.7-point
drop in the goods-producing sector.
One approach to use when tracing employment pat
terns of women is to separate the total change into that
attributable to general employment growth or decline in
the industry (constant-share) and that attributable to a
change in the share of employment. The constant-share
is calculated by multiplying the 1968 share of employ
ment in each industry (or industry division) by the 1978
employment in that industry. In this manner, the num
ber of women that would have been employed in an in
dustry in 1978 can be determined, assuming their share
of industry employment has not changed. The difference
between the constant-share and the actual 1978 employ
ment indicates how much female employment in 1978
has increased or decreased its share in an industry since
1968.
Allowing for the change in the distribution of em
ployment between the goods- and service-producing sec
tors, but holding the proportion of female employment
constant at 1968 levels, 32.3 million women, rather
than 35.5 million, would have been employed in
nonagricultural jobs in 1978. The increase then would
have been 7.9 million women, rather than 10.9 million.
(See table 2.)
About 73 percent of the 10.9-million increase in fe
male workers can be ascribed to a constant-share in
crease and 27 percent to an increase in their em
ployment share. Increased employment share accounted
for 77.3 percent of the total female employment growth
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Employment Gains o f Women by Industry
in the goods-producing sector and 21.9 percent in the
service-producing sector. An industry can have a signifi
cant increase in its proportion of female employment
yet, if the constant-share growth is comparatively high,
the increased proportion may not represent a large part
of the total employment change. For example, the em
ployment increase of women in the goods-producing
sector attributable to an increase in share was 77.3 per
cent (compared with 21.9 percent in the service sector),
but accounted for only 26.8 percent of the increase in
all nonagricultural industries. Conversely, if the con
Table 1.
stant-share growth is negligible or negative, the in
creased proportion of employment may comprise a large
part of the total difference in female employment.2
Constant-share growth differed markedly in the
goods-producing and the service-producing sectors. Em
ployment in the goods-producing sector expanded at a
modest 0.8-percent annual rate; the service-producing
sector had a 3.2-percent annual growth rate. The con
stant-share employment of women increased by 41 per
cent in the service-producing sector, compared to less
than 4 percent in the goods-producing sector. Thus,
Total and female employees on nonagricultural payrolls, 1968-78
[Numbers in thousands]
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
T o ta l...................................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
67,897
24,395
35.9
70,384
25,595
36.3
70,880
26,132
36.9
71,214
26,466
37.3
73,675
27,541
39.6
76,790
28,988
37.8
78,265
30,124
38.5
76,945
30,178
39.2
97,382
31,570
39.8
82,423
33,239
40.3
86,446
35,253
40.8
Total goods-producing ......................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
23,737
5,690
23.9
24,361
5,878
24.1
23,578
5,671
24.1
22,935
5,465
23.8
23,668
5,729
24.2
24,893
6,149
24.7
24,794
6,160
24.8
22,600
5,568
24.6
23,352
5,948
25.5
24,347
6,249
25.7
25,598
6,642
25.9
Total service-producing ....................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
Private ...............................
W om en......................
P ercent......................
Government ......................
W om en......................
P ercent......................
44,160
18,705
42.3
32,321
13,726
42.5
11,868
4,979
42.0
46,023
19,719
42.8
33,828
14,564
43.1
12,195
5,155
42.3
47,302
20,504
43.3
34,748
15,096
43.4
12,554
5,408
43.1
48,278
21,103
43.7
35,396
15,499
43.8
12,880
5,604
43.5
50,007
21,955
43.9
36,673
16,054
43.8
13,334
5,901
44.3
51,897
22,876
44.1
38,165
16,829
44.1
13,732
6,047
44.0
53,471
23,964
44.8
39,301
17,694
45.0
14,170
6,270
44.2
54,345
24,610
45.3
39,659
18,156
45.8
14,686
6,454
43.9
56,030
25,622
45.7
41,159
19,236
46.7
14,872
6,386
42.9
58,080
26,991
46.5
43,001
20,097
46.7
15,079
6,894
45.7
60,382
28,417
47.1
44,904
21,264
47.4
15,476
7,153
46.2
Mining.................................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
606
36
5.9
619
37
6.0
623
37
5.9
609
37
6.1
628
40
6.4
642
43
6.7
697
49
7.0
752
55
7.3
779
60
7.7
813
65
7.9
851
76
8.9
Construction ......................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
3,350
164
4.9
3,575
174
4.9
3,588
186
5.2
3,704
199
5.4
3,889
219
5.6
4,097
241
5.9
4,020
262
6.5
3,525
252
7.3
3,576
281
7.9
3,851
304
7.9
4,271
335
7.8
Durable goods....................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
11,626
2,338
20.1
11,895
2,446
20.6
11,208
2,284
20.4
10,636
2,128
20.0
11,049
2,285
20.7
11,891
2,573
21.6
11,925
2,624
22.0
10,688
2,276
21.3
11,077
2,449
22.1
11,597
2,651
22.9
12,246
2,894
23.6
Nondurable g o o d s .............................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
8,155
3,152
38.7
8,272
3,221
38.9
8,158
3,165
38.8
7,987
3,101
38.8
8,102
3,185
39.3
8,262
3,292
39.8
8,152
3,225
39.5
7,635
2,981
39.0
7,920
3,158
39.9
8,086
3,229
39.9
8,230
3,337
40.5
Transportation and public utilities . . . .
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
4,318
860
19.9
4,442
911
20.5
4,515
957
21.2
4,476
955
21.3
4,541
953
21.3
4,656
987
21.0
4,725
1,018
21.2
4,542
996
21.5
4,582
1,010
21.9
4,713
1,051
22.3
4,927
1,132
23.0
Wholesale trade ...............................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
3,779
852
22.5
3,907
898
23.0
3,993
918
23.0
4,001
911
22.8
4,113
933
22.7
4,277
989
23.0
4,433
1,043
23.5
4,415
1,046
23.7
4,546
1,092
24.0
4,708
1,145
24.3
4,957
1,232
24.9
Retail tra d e ........................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
10,320
4,674
45.3
10,798
4,942
45.8
11,047
5,089
46.1
11,351
5,217
46.0
11,836
5,417
45.8
12,329
5,692
46.2
12,554
5,935
47.3
12,645
6,005
47.5
13,209
6,308
47.8
13,808
6,619
47.9
14,542
7,027
48.3
Finance, insurance, and real estate ..
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
3,337
1,709
51.2
3,512
1,819
51.8
3,645
1,907
52.3
3,772
1,979
52.5
3,908
2,032
52.0
4,046
2,138
52.8
4,148
2,245
54.1
4,165
2,287
54.9
4,271
2,371
55.5
4,467
2,511
56.2
4,727
2,711
57.4
S e rvices............................................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
10,567
5,632
53.3
11,169
5,994
53.7
11,548
6,224
53.9
11,797
6,438
54.6
12,276
6,718
54.7
12,857
7,023
54.6
13,441
7,454
55.5
13,892
7,822
56.3
14,551
8,256
56.7
15,303
8,771
57.3
16,220
9,356
57.7
Federal government...........................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
2,737
710
25.9
2,758
723
26.2
2,731
723
26.5
2,696
715
26.5
2,684
747
27.8
2,663
780
29.3
2,724
798
29.3
2,748
805
29.3
2,733
808
29.6
2,727
856
31.4
2,753
869
31.6
State government .............................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
2,442
1,013
41.5
2,553
1,087
42.6
2,664
1,126
43.9
2,747
1,118
44.4
2,859
1,162
45.6
2,923
1,216
42.9
3,039
1,287
42.3
3,179
1,373
43.2
3,273
1,448
44.3
3,363
1,510
44.9
3,414
1,516
44.4
Local government .............................
Women ......................................
Percent ......................................
6,660
3,256
48.9
6,904
3,343
48.4
7,158
3,517
49.1
7,437
3,669
49.3
7,790
3,849
49.4
8,146
4,014
49.3
8,407
4,185
49.8
8,758
4,276
48.8
8,865
4,330
48.8
8,989
4,528
50.4
9,309
4,767
51.2
Component
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
women experienced significant employment gains in the
service-producing sector from both constant-share
growth and proportional increases. Over the decade, the
relative gains in female employment (the total change in
female employment divided by the number of women
employed in 1968 in a given industry) were positively
associated with the rate of growth in all industries, ex
cept in mining and construction where female employ
ment is still trivial.
About two-thirds of the increased employment share
in the service-producing sector was concentrated in
three divisions—in services, in finance, insurance, and
real estate, and in retail trade. In 1968, these three divi
sions employed 67 percent of all women in the serviceproducing sector and each had female employment ra
tios ranging from 48 to nearly 58 percent. Also, these
divisions recorded the three strongest annual rates of
growth. Consequently, relative gains in female employ
ment were substantial in each division; the three divi
sions combined accounted for 71 percent of the
increased female employment in the service-producing
sector. Thus, women made the largest numerical gains,
as well as proportionate gains in industry divisions in
which they already constituted a significant share of em
ployment.
The increase in the proportions of female employment
in the service-producing sector has had an important
consequence on the overall earnings of women. Average
weekly earnings in the service-producing sector are
about two-thirds of those in the goods-producing sector
primarily because of the comparatively low-paying divi
sions in the service sector— trade, finance, insurance
and real estate, and services. Therefore, the faster
Table 2.
growth of female employment in these divisions tends
to depress the average weekly earnings of all women in
nonagricultural jobs.
The data indicate that increases in the share of em
ployment are closely associated with the levels of week
ly earnings. For example, construction, with the second
highest level of weekly earnings, experienced the highest
increase in employment shares, while retail trade, with
the lowest weekly earnings, scored the next to the low
est gain.
. . . And by industry division
Women have made significant gains in their share of
employment in mining and construction industries, al
though female employment in each division is under 10
percent.3 Increased employment shares accounted for 65
percent of the total female employment gains in mining
and 74 percent in construction. Women made small nu
merical gains, but significant proportionate gains, in
professional and technical occupations in mining.4 Also,
increased employment shares represented a large por
tion of total female employment gains in both durable
and nondurable goods manufacturing, (where strong
employment gains were made in professional, technical,
and sales occupations). Women had strong gains in the
Federal Government and in transportation and public
utilities, where the gains were concentrated among pro
fessional, technical, managerial, sales, and operational
occupations. They also made considerable strides into
finance, insurance, and real estate, where more of them
now are in management and sales positions. Retail
trade, services, and State and local government record
ed the lowest gains in employment shares (20 percent or
Analysis of change in female workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry sector and division, 1968-78
[Numbers in thousands]
Percent of total
employment
Total
Percent of total
employment in
each component
Change in employment
Component
Female workers ...............................................
Total goods-producing..........................................
Total service-producing ........................................
Private service-producing .............................
Government...................................................
M ining..........................................................
Construction .................................................
Durable g o o d s ...............................................
Nondurable goods ........................................
Transportation and public utilities..................
Wholesale tra d e ............................................
Retail trade ...................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate .............
Services .......................................................
Federal government......................................
State government........................ .........
Local government........................................
1968
1978
1968
1978
1968
1978
Actual
Holding 1968
female share
of employ
ment constant
24,395
5,690
18,705
13,727
4,979
36
164
2,338
3,152
860
852
4,674
1,709
5,632
710
1,013
3,256
35,253
6,642
28,417
21,264
7,153
76
335
2,894
3,337
1,132
1,232
7,027
2,711
9,356
869
1,516
4,767
100.0
35.0
65.0
47.6
17.4
.9
4.9
17.1
12.0
6.4
5.6
15.2
4.9
15.6
4.0
3.6
9.8
100.0
29.6
70.4
52.4
18.4
1.0
4.9
14.2
9.4
5.7
5.7
16.8
5.5
18.8
3.2
3.9
10.9
35.9
24.0
42.4
42.5
42.1
5.9
4.9
20.1
38.7
19.9
22.6
45.3
51.2
53.3
25.9
41.5
48.9
40.8
25.9
47.1
47.4
46.2
8.9
7.8
23.6
40.5
23.0
24.9
48.3
57.4
57.7
31.6
44.4
51.2
10,856
952
9,904
7,731
2,173
40
171
55
185
272
380
2,353
1,002
3,724
159
503
1,511
7,949
216
7,733
6,029
1,704
14
45
124
33
121
269
1,914
712
3,013
4
404
1,296
1Difference divided by actual change in employment of women.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Difference
Proportion of
difference
attributable to
increase in em
ployment shares1
2,907
736
2,171
1,702
69
26
126
432
152
151
111
439
290
711
155
99
215
.2678
.7731
.2192
.2201
.2164
.6500
.7368
.7770
.8216
.5551
.2921
.1866
.2894
.1909
.9748
.1968
.1423
Annual
rate of
growth
2.4
.8
3.2
3.3
2.7
3.6
2.5
.5
0
1.3
2.8
3.5
3.5
4.3
.1
3.4
3.4
NOTE: Due to rounding, data may differ from those shown elsewhere in this article.
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Employment Gains of Women by Industry
less). Nearly all (97 percent) of the change in female
employment in the Federal government was from in
creased employment shares, compared with 20 and 14
percent in State and local governments. However, em
ployment growth of women was below average in the
Federal government, but was slightly above average in
the State and local government divisions.
From 1968 to 1978, women made significant strides
in both durable and nondurable manufacturing, with in
creased employment shares representing 78 percent and
82 percent, respectively, of the total increase in female
employment. Employment in durable goods grew at an
annual rate of slightly under 0.5 percent, while female
employment expanded 2.2 percent a year. Total employ
ment in nondurable goods was essentially unchanged
over the decade; thus, virtually all the growth was in fe
male employment.
Women attained significant employment share gains
in the manufacturing of furniture and fixtures and of in
struments and related products, with the latter posting
a particularly strong gain in total employment. The ma
jor durable goods employer of women, electric and elec
tronic equipment, turned in an exceedingly sluggish
performance over the 1968-78 period and, while wom
en did increase their share, the increase was among the
lowest of the durable manufactures. Non-electrical ma
chinery had an above-average employment growth as
well as an above-average female proportionate gains.
Five nondurables industries have posted employment
declines since 1968. Three of them (textiles, apparel,
and food products) were major employers of women,
accounting for 61 percent of all the women employed in
nondurables. However, women increased their share of
employment in each of these industries, and in food
products, the number of women actually increased.
Printing and publishing displayed above-average em
ployment performance; women increased their share at
a rate nearly 4 times above that for all nondurable man
ufacturing. Women also achieved important gains in
both the chemicals and the rubber and plastic products
industries.
Women have more than doubled their employment
over the decade in two transportation industries— local
and interurban passenger transit and transportation serv
ices. Furthermore, they constituted a significant pro
portion of total employment in transportation services
(45 percent in 1978). Increasingly, they have been ac
cepted as bus drivers, especially in local transporta
tion systems.
Employment in transportation service increased by 70
percent over the decade, with the share of women grow
ing from 34 percent in 1968 to nearly 45 percent in
1978, as this industry responded to expanding travel
needs. Women may be especially attracted to transpor
tation service jobs because of the availability of employ
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ee discount fares and part-time employment oppor
tunities.
Employment of both men and women have expanded
in the communication industry, yet the proportion of
women dropped from 50 percent in 1968 to slightly un
der 46 percent in 1978. This decline reflects increased
use of automatic telephone exchange equipment, which
reduced the need for operators. Three retail sales indus
tries, eating and drinking places, food stores, and furni
ture and home furnishings stores, experienced substan
tially above-average expansion in total employment. In
food stores, female employment outpaced total employ
ment, and the increase in their proportions was double
that for all retail sales industries. Although total em
ployment for automotive dealers and services posted a
smaller than average gain, women made above-average
proportionate gains in that component— their numbers
grew at a rate nearly 3 times that of all retail sales em
ployment.
About 34 percent of all women in retail trade are
employed in eating and drinking places. This compo
nent grew at an annual rate of 6.3 percent, compared to
the 3.5-percent rate for all retail trade. Women shared
equally in this growth; thus, their employment share
was little changed. The rapid growth of eating and
drinking places undoubtedly reflects the proliferation of
fast-food eating places related to increased family in
come and shifting life styles.
In the finance, insurance, and real estate division,
women attained a greater than industrywide employment
share into banking, credit agencies, insurance agencies,
brokerages, and service industry. In each of these compo
nents, women represented more than 60 percent of total
employment. Employment in real estate grew about the
same as that in the industry as a whole; but women’s
share of total employment, at 36 percent, remained virtu
ally unchanged over the 1968-78 period. Although total
employment declined in the security, commodity bro
kerages, and services industry over the decade, female
employment increased slightly.
Within the service division, women increased their
share of employment above the industry’s average in
hotel, motel, and tourist places; business services; mis
cellaneous repair services; and in engineering and archi
tectural services. Total employment gains were above
average in business services and in engineering and ar
chitectural services. Nearly 42 percent of all women in
the service sector are employed in the health services
component. This component posted slightly better than
a 6-percent annual rate of increase over the decade and,
in 1978, 81 percent of its employees were women. The
number of female employees rose dramatically, although
the employment share was virtually unchanged. The
proportion of women in legal services (71 percent) hard
ly changed between 1968 and 1978 although employ-
Chart 1. Number and proportion of women employed in nonagricultural industries, 1968-78 annual averages
Employment
(in thousands)
Total nonagriculture
Participation
(percent)
Employment
(in thousands)
Durable manufacturing
Participation
(percent)
60
50
40
30
20
Nondurable manufacturing
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Employment Gains of Women by Industry
ment in this component grew at an annual rate of 7.5
percent.
Employment in State education displayed a slightly
stronger gain than that in total State government.
Women made some gains into State education, but,
merely held their share at 62 percent in local education.
In the meantime, total employment in local education
has barely kept pace (with an easing of growth occur
ring since 1975) with increased employment in local
government. Much of the increase in the proportion of
women in local government occurred in the “other”
component of the industry, which rose more than over
all employment at the local government level.
Reaction to economic downturns
Because of the large influx of women into employ
ment in the past decade, women have relatively less
seniority than men and, thus, less protection from lay
offs. This vulnerability may show up as disproportion
ate reductions in the share of female employment to
total employment. However, such declines may result
from a lag in the growth of female employment, as well
as from layoffs.
Data on women employees on nonagricultural pay
rolls during the 1969-70 and 1973-75 recessions.reveal
that the representation of women was not adversely af
fected in the nonmanufacturing divisions by the eco
nomic slowdown. Only durable and nondurable goods
experienced reductions in total employment of women
as well as in their representation. (See chart 1.)
Trade employment growth was retarded from 1970
through 1971 as a consequence of the 1969-70 reces
sion. In wholesale trade, total employment did not fall;
however, the share of female workers declined very
slightly and when total employment growth resumed in
1972, female representation did not increase at quite the
same pace as that for men. Thus, the proportion of
women dipped slightly, from 23 percent in 1970 to 22.7
percent in 1972.
A similar situation prevailed in retail trade. The rate
of growth slowed during the 1969-70 recession. As the
recession ran its course and overall employment quick
ened, female employment gains trailed. As a result, the
proportion of women in retail trade nudged down from
46.1 percent to 45.8 percent. But, by 1973, the propor
tion of women in both retail and wholesale trade was
above the former peaks and increased each year, even
during the 1973-75 recession. Female employment in
the wholesale trades inched up in 1975, even though the
industry’s total employment declined.
The proportion of female employment does not ap
pear cyclically vulnerable in the construction, the
finance, insurance, and real estate, and the service in
dustries. In mining, female employment has increased
continuously and began to increase significantly in
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1974 (although the number of women in mining is still
negligible).
As previously mentioned, only in manufacturing was
the share of women employees adversely affected during
both recessions. Their share dipped simultaneously as
employment declined in both durable and nondurable
manufacturing. Generally, during periods of declining
activity, women in manufacturing industries are affected
by cutbacks more severely than are men.
Was the proportion of women in manufacturing in
dustries more or less cyclically sensitive between the
business contractions? The proportion of women in du
rable manufacturing dropped 0.56 percentage points be
tween its peak and trough during the first contraction
and dropped even further during the second, 0.72 per
centage points. During the second contraction, employ
ment declines were more severe, although they re
bounded more quickly— the high was recovered in 2
years, compared with 3 years in the 1969-70 contrac
tion.
In nondurables, a drop of 0.80 percentage point was
sustained during the second contraction, in contrast to
a 0.10-percentage point decline during the first reces
sion. The prerecession high was not regained until 3
years after the second contraction, but was nearly re
gained within 2 years after the 1969-70 recession.
Thus, in manufacturing, the evidence is mixed.
The evidence suggests that the cyclical sensitivity of
the proportion of women in durable goods has not in
creased. The tendency for women to increase their share
of employment in manufacturing will moderate subse
quent overall employment drops in the industry and re
duce the period necessary to regain the prior peak.
In nondurable manufacturing, female employment
remained fairly stable from 1969 through 1977, as did
their share of employment, which hovered around 40
percent. Except for tobacco, each nondurable industry
showed an upward movement in the share of women.
However, the impact of a compositional change result
ing especially from a long-term employment drop in
textiles, apparel, and leather (each of which has a high
proportion of women) restrained an overall increase in
the share of female employment.
Five of 10 nondurable industries manifested cyclical
sensitivity during the two business contractions. Oppos
ing employment trends again masked the general ten
dency for the proportion of women to increase. How
ever, the sensitivity of their share in nondurable
manufacturing appears to have been perceptibly greater
in the 1973-75 recession than in the prior one.
Overall, women working in manufacturing incurred a
disproportionate drop of employment during both the
1969 and 1973 contractions. These drops were mani
fested in reduced employment shares. The declines of
the high to the low levels of the 1969-70 and 1973-75
recessions were 0.05 percentage point and 0.4 percent
age point. The decline in manufacturing was more se
vere in the latter recession, as was the share of female
workers.
During the 1973-75 recession, employment in dura
ble goods responded in a significantly different manner
from that in nondurable goods. Neither total employ
ment nor the proportion of female workers peaked until
1974 (despite declining output). In contrast, in non
durable manufacturing, the employment and share of fe
male workers peaks coincided with the cyclical peak of
1973.
The apparent tendency for disproportionate declines
of female employment to be related to seriousness of
employment cutbacks may be specious. This relation
ship prevailed during both contractions in the electric
and electronic equipment industry, which employs the
largest number of women of all durable goods indus
tries. In contrast, fabricated metal products had large
employment cutbacks during both recession periods, yet
the proportion of female workers was not so acutely af
fected in the second contraction as in the first.
Nevertheless, caution should be used in ascribing too
much significance to changes in female employment em
anating from cylical changes. Changes at the aggregate
level may reflect alteration in the proportion of women
and the composition of the component industries. For
example, a significant part of the large drop in the share
of female workers in electric and electronic equipment
during 1974-75 was due to an appreciable decline of
employment (resulting from the introduction of inte
grated circuit technology) in electronic components and
accessories, which accounts for about 21 percent of to
tal employment in the industry. The nearly 4-percentage
point drop in the share of women workers in the pro
duction of electronic components and accessories was
not the result of a disproportionate decline of female
employees, but rather of production workers, a group
comprised almost entirely of women.
The extent of the impact of unequal reductions in the
proportion of female employment can be shown, taking
into account “disproportionate layoffs.” In 1971, the
year in which the share of female employment troughed
in durable and nondurable manufacturing, 68,000 fewer
women were out of work than if their share had
equalled the overall share. (See table 3.) Their unem
ployment rate, adjusted for this, would have been about
6.7 percent, rather than the recorded 6.9 percent. In
1975, 98,000 fewer women would have been unem
ployed and the adjusted unemployment rate would have
been 9.0 percent, rather than the 9.3-percent posted for
that year. The obverse of a lessening in female unem
ployment would have been a corresponding increase in
male unemployment with a consequent slight increase
in the male unemployment rate.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Employment of women in manufacturing
industries during the 1969-71 and 1973-75 recessions
[Numbers in thousands]
Characteristic
. Durable
Nondurable
All industries
1969-71
Female share of employment:
1969 .....................................................
1971 .....................................................
20.5
20.0
38.9
38.8
Female employment In 1971:
Actual.....................................................
Holding 1969 share constant ...............
2,128
2,187
3,101
3,110
Female unemployment in 1971:
Actual number........................................
Adjusted number1 .................................
Actual rate ............................................
Adjusted rate ........................................
2,217
2,149
6.9
6.7
1973-75
Female share of employment:
1973 .....................................................
1975 .....................................................
21.6
21.2
39.8
39.0
Female employment:
Actual number........................................
Holding 1973 share constant ...............
2,276
3,313
2,981
3,042
Female unemployment in 1975:
Actual number........................................
Adjusted number1 .................................
Actual rate ............................................
Adjusted rate ........................................
3,445
3,347
9.3
9.0
1Actual number of unemployed minus the amount attributable to "disproportionate lay
offs” (the difference between actual and constant-share employment).
If one considers the effect of the proportions of fe
male employment among the many components of a
major industry group and the rates of employment
growth among these various components, the total
number of women affected may not even be as large as
the above estimate. Thus, based on evidence from pay
roll employment data derived from a survey of estab
lishments, the share of female employees is not signifi
cantly disproportionately affected when business activity
declines.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------Detailed information on earnings of women by industry and occu
pation can be obtained from the Current Population Survey — a
monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
; Depending on base employment levels, equal changes in the pro
portion of female workers may produce differing indications regarding
the changing importance of women in various industries.
' Data on occupations are from the Current Population Survey, a
monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4The Associated General Contractors of America informed the De
partment of Labor that it would be unable to meet the 1979 Federal
affirmative action goal for hiring women on construction jobs. The
construction industry was required to fill 3.1 percent of its jobs with
women by May 1979 and 6.5 percent by May 1981. An estimated
1.2-percent of the 4 million workers in the construction trade are
women. See T h e W a sh in g to n S ta r , Feb. 27, 1979, p. A-4, and M o n th ly
L a b o r R ev ie w , May 1979, pp. 57-58.
9
Evaluating the 1975 projections
of occupational employment
B L S ’ industry-occupation matrix projections
proved better than those of alternative methods,
even though staffing patterns were error prone;
new Federal-State employment data
should improve projection accuracy
M
ax
L. Ca r e y
Accurate occupational projections are highly prized by
educational policymakers and bythose planning careers:
a clear vision of the future is the best tool for making
such important decisions. But the pitfalls of attempting
to chart unknown events are legendary. An early 20th
century forecaster of occupational growth, for example,
concluded that nearly all U.S. women would eventually
be employed by the telephone company, based on its
growth rate and the occupational structure of its work
force. Few occupational projections have been as inac
curate. Even fewer have been completely correct. The
vast majority lie somewhere in between, and their value
must depend on some measure of the degree of error.
This article examines differences between BLS’ pro
jected 1975 occupational employment and actual em
ployment.1It does not address the standard to be used
in judging whether a projection is “good.” The degree
of error that produces a decision different from that
made with a perfectly accurate projection might sepa
rate “good” from “poor” projections. But because of
the uncertainty of other variables in the decisionmaking
process, estimates of such a turning point would be
conjecture. Nevertheless, decisionmakers can benefit by
an assessment of the accuracy of the projected numbers,
including an analysis of the projection method to identi
fy sources of error.
In 1967, the Division of Occupational Outlook comMax L. Carey is a labor economist in the Division of Occupational
Outlook, Office of Economic Growth and Employment Projections.
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pleted a matrix that described the relationship of em
ployment in 162 occupations and 124 industries during
1960 and projected these relationships to 1975.2The pri
mary data sources for occupational employment were
the 1950 and 1960 censuses and, for industry employ
ment, annual estimates from the BLS establishment sur
veys beginning from 1947. A revision of the 1975
matrix was completed in 1969, based mostly on addi
tional industry data. Although the revision was not
published, it was used as a resource for the occupation
al outlook program, and provides an opportunity for
evaluating projections with more historical data. Due to
a major change in the occupational employment classifi
cation system beginning with the 1970 census, only 76
of the 162 detailed occupations were sufficiently compa
rable for evaluation.
Evaluation of projection methodology disclosed
weakness in the estimation of industry-occupation em
ployment ratios. The adequacy of decennial census data
as a basis for projecting changes in industry-occupation
patterns has always been regarded with some suspicion
by BLS analysts, and concern about these data was a
major factor in the decision to launch a cooperative
Federal-State program in 1970 for surveying occupa
tional employment. The current analysis has found that
the census-based ratio estimates were a far greater
source of error in the occupational projections than the
estimates of industry employment levels. In fact, a sim
ulated matrix based on actual 1975 industry employ
ment levels and the estimated ratios produced
occupational totals that were no more accurate, on aver
age, than the projections, suggesting that the ratios were
so poor that they would have even negated the effect of
perfect industry projections.
The unforeseen economic downturn of the mid-1970’s
reduced the accuracy of the occupational projections, al
though the damage was not as great as initially sup
posed. The projections presumed an unemployment rate
of 3 percent in 1975. But the target year turned out to
be the trough of the recession, and the actual unemploy
ment rate was 8.5 percent. Consequently, employment in
occupations that are sensitive to economic cycles, such
as craft and operative occupations, generally was
overprojected. Employment in these two groups had
been growing, and almost reached projected levels by
1974, but turned down as economic conditions worsened
in 1975. Underprojections did occur in 3 of the 9 major
occupational groups despite the recession, and these er
rors might have been somewhat higher if economic con
ditions in 1975 had been as favorable as assumed.
The difference between projected and actual em
ployment for the major occupational groups ranged
from a 6.7-percent underestimate of clerical workers to
a 9.1-percent overestimate of operatives. The average of
the absolute percentage differences was 6.1 percent. The
projections for detailed occupations had a much larger
error, averaging 20.8 percent off 1975 employment lev
els. Differences between projected and actual employ
ment tended to increase as the size of the occupation
diminished. The availability of more reliable historical
data for larger occupations could be expected to im
prove projection accuracy. The greater accuracy of pro
jections for the occupational groups, however, also re
flects the compensating effect of aggregation, because
most group totals were obtained by summing projec
tions for detailed occupations. In addition to being
weak for small occupations, the projections were rela
tively inaccurate for occupations that declined in em
ployment or grew very rapidly.
Several projection methods that would have been
simpler and less costly than the matrix were explored.
Among these, the most successful was linear extrapola
tion of employment trends in each occupation. These ex
trapolations averaged an absolute 26.2 percent off actual
1975 employment in the 76 detailed occupations com
pared to the 20.8 percent error for the matrix projections.
Projection methods and assumptions
The basic approach used to estimate future occupa
tional employment requirements was to project total
employment by industry, project occupational staffing
patterns (ratios) by industry, and then multiply the in
dustry totals by the ratios to obtain occupational esti
mates. The results were then summed across industries
to obtain occupational totals.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Projections of the occupational structure of each in
dustry were based on examination of historical statistics
and the analysis of the factors that influence occupa
tional structure changes, such as new technology and
changes in the product mix of industry. Employment
requirements for many occupations, however, were pro
jected independent of their relationships to industry em
ployment. The projection of school teachers, for
example, was based on an analysis of trends in pupilteacher ratios and the projected school-age population.
This technique was preferred in cases where such reli
able predictive relationships could be established.
The 1975 projections were premised on certain as
sumptions about the size of the labor force, Armed
Forces strength, the rate of unemployment, and other
selected assumptions. Full employment was assumed in
the target year, and defined as a civilian labor force
with a 3-percent unemployment rate. This figure was se
lected based on the almost steady decline in the unem
ployment rate through the 1960’s and the emphasis
placed on federally assisted programs to further reduce
unemployment. A total labor force of 92.6 million was
projected for 1975, and it was assumed that 2.7 million
persons would be in the Armed Forces, yielding a civil
ian labor force of 89.9 million.4 With the assumed un
employment rate, the result was projections of 87.2
million employed and 2.7 million unemployed workers
in 1975. The 87.2 million employment number was used
as a control total for the occupational projections.
The economic recession of the mid-1970’s negated the
assumption of a full-employment economy in the target
year. The unemployment rate in 1975 was almost triple
the assumed 3-percent rate. Reflecting the impact of the
recession, the projection of total civilian employment
was 2.9 percent higher than the actual level of 84.8 mil
lion in 1975, as shown in the following tabulation:
Labor force groups
Employment (thousands)
Percent
Actual
difference
Projected
T o t a l .........................................
9 2 ,6 0 0
9 4 ,7 9 3
- 2 .3
A r m ed F o r c e s ...................
C ivilian la b or force . . .
E m p l o y m e n t .............
U n e m p lo y m e n t . . .
2 ,7 0 0
8 9 ,9 0 0
8 7 ,2 0 0
2 ,7 0 0
2 ,1 8 0
9 2 ,6 1 3
8 4 ,7 8 3
7 ,8 3 0
2 3 .9
- 2 .9
2 .9
- 6 5 .6
The overstatement of 1975 employment would have
been even greater if the civilian labor force had been
more accurately projected. Primarily because the num
ber of women entering the labor force was greater than
anticipated, the total labor force exceeded the projected
level by about 2 million.5 In addition Armed Forces
strength was about 1 million lower than assumed. The
net result was a civilian labor force of 92.6 million in
stead of the projected 89.9 million. If the total labor
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Evaluating 1975 Occupational Projections
force had been projected correctly, the unemployment
assumption would have resulted in a 5.9-percent over
statement of target year civilian employment, rather
than the 2.9-percent error that actually occurred.
The economic downturn of the mid-1970’s caused
distortions in occupational employment that were of
greater magnitude than the relatively small difference
between projected and actual total employment. Be
cause individual unemployment rates for each occupa
tion were not specified in the assumptions, the effect
of the recession on the accuracy of a projection for any
given occupation is difficult to measure. Unemployment
data for major occupational groups, however, indicate
that the economic downturn generally had a greater ef
fect on blue-collar occupations than other categories.
Base and target years
Ambiguity regarding the base and target years or the
projection span complicated the evaluation. Although
1960 was the published starting point, some data for
more recent years were available before the projections
were completed. And, although targeted for 1975, the
projections were intended to be indicators of long-term
trends rather than precise estimates for 1975.
The matrix was developed with a 1960 base and a 1975
target year; it did not have estimates for any intervening
year. The only comprehensive source of data on industryoccupation employment patterns available at the time the
matrix was being developed was the 1960 census, and
this continued to be the most comprehensive source until
results from the 1970 census became available. Published
estimates of total wage and salary employment by indus
try from the establishment survey and total employment
by occupational group from the Current Population Sur
vey (CPS), however, were available annually through
1965 at the time the matrix was being prepared. In addi
tion, unpublished CPS estimates of employment in de
tailed occupations were available.6 Clearly, the post-1960
industry employment trends were used in projecting in
dustry employment levels. The trends for occupational
groups also were considered at least as guidelines, even
though the projections for most groups were the sums
of detailed occupational projections rather than being
independently developed. The use of unpublished CPS
data on detailed occupations was not well documented
in the description of projection methodology, but the
CPS trends for many detailed occupations reportedly
were disregarded because of their uncertain reliability.
The fact that some post-1960 data were used tends to
bias measures of projection accuracy that relate to the
entire 1960-75 span because greater accuracy might be
expected as the projection period was shortened. To
avoid this problem, an evaluation must focus on dif
ferences between projected and actual employment lev
els, rather than differences between actual and projected
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment changes. The difference in levels is the
same regardless of the base year.
The lack of a satisfactory basis for fairly judging the
projected changes in occupational employment is unfor
tunate. Comparisons of levels alone generally have a
conservative bias: projections for occupations which
have relatively little employment change tend to get
better marks than those which have the most change, as
demonstrated in the following example. If employment
in occupation A was projected to rise from 100,000 to
200,000 over a decade, but actually rose to 150,000,
then 50 percent of the change was projected, and the
error in level is —25 percent. If employment in occupa
tion B was projected to rise from 100,000 to 120,000 in
the same period, but actually reached only 105,000,
then 25 percent of the change was projected, but the er
ror in the level is only —12.5 percent. In terms of the
proportion of actual change that was projected, A is
better, but in terms of the difference between levels, B is
better. Both kinds of accuracy are important. The accu
racy of level is particularly important in estimating fu
ture occupational requirements, however, because pro
jected levels are used in calculating replacement needs
due to retirements and deaths.
Another problem concerns the target year. The projec
tions were intended to be indicators of secular or longrange trends rather than estimates of employment at a
future point, because it is understood that such estimates
easily can be upset by unforeseen cyclical activity. Thus,
it might have been wiser to describe the projections as
levels that might occur in the mid-1970’s or in the 197476 period. The projections would have been more accu
rate statements, with little inconvenience to users.
As previously indicated, the recession of the
mid-1970’s was at its worst in 1975, and the effect on
occupational employment levels was not uniform. Ideal
ly, an evaluation would judge the projections by occu
pational employment levels that would have existed had
the recession not occurred, but this was not a practical
approach. As an alternative, the 1975 projections for
the major occupational groups also were compared with
actual employment in both 1974 and 1976, when eco
nomic conditions were somewhat better.
Occupational groups
The direction of employment change between 1960
and 1975 was correctly anticipated for all of the nine
major occupational groups, although employment in
five was overprojected. Projection errors ranged from
an approximate 1.2-million overstatement of employ
ment in the operative group to a 600,000 understate
ment of clerical employment. The average absolute error
for all groups was 535,000. Relative differences ranged
from a 10.2-percent overprojection of farmworkers in
1975 to a 7.4-percent underestimate of nonfarm labor-
ers. The average of the absolute percentage errors for all
groups was 6.1 percent.
The difference between projected and actual 1960-75
employment change in each occupational group varied
considerably. The anticipated increase in the number of
professional workers was only 5 percent greater than
the actual growth. In contrast, the projected gain in la
borer employment was 85 percent lower than the actual
increase. On average, about two-thirds of the employ
ment change that occurred in each occupational group
between 1960 and 1975 was projected.7
Estimates for white-collar groups generally were clos
er to the mark than those for blue-collar groups—re
flecting the distortions in occupational patterns
resulting from the 1973-75 recession. Because such dis
tortions probably were greater in 1975, when the reces
sion was at its worst, projections also were compared
with actual employment in adjoining years. (See table
1.) Estimates of the error for the nine occupational
groups averaged an absolute 4.8 percent off 1974 levels
and 6.0 percent off 1976 levels, compared to the
6.1-percent average absolute error for the target year.
Professional, technical, and kindred workers. As project
ed, this major occupational group led in comparative
rates of growth. Employment reached 12.7 million in
1975, an increase of 77 percent from the 1960 level,
compared with an anticipated 73-percent increase. Thus,
the projected number of professional and technical
workers was only 2.2 percent lower than the actual
number in 1975, the smallest error among the occupa
tional groups. The actual number, however, probably
would have been slightly higher if economic conditions
in 1975 had been favorable, as assumed.
and actual employment for this group probably would
have been greater had the recession not occurred.
Craftworkers. The number of skilled blue-collar workers
was overestimated by 6.4 percent. Employment was al
most 11 million in 1975, about 25 percent higher than
the 1960 level, instead of the anticipated 33-percent
gain. The error was significantly affected by the reces
sion. A large proportion of craft workers are employed
in construction and manufacturing industries, which are
more sensitive to economic fluctuations than most other
industries. Craft employment, however, had risen to
about 11.5 million in 1974, almost reaching the
11.7-million projected level before decreasing as the
economy worsened in 1975.
Operatives. Employment in the largest blue-collar group
was overestimated by 9.1 percent, the second highest er
ror among the occupational groups. Instead of rising
from 11.4 million in 1960 to 14 million in 1975 as pro
jected, employment peaked at 13.9 million in 1974, then
dropped to 12.9 million in 1975—again reflecting the
impact of the recession. Operative employment was con
centrated in manufacturing industries, where unemploy
ment rates averaged more than 11 percent in 1975.
Laborers. The 3.8-million employment projection for
this group was 7.4 percent too low; and because labor
ers are employed primarily in manufacturing and con
struction, the underestimate would have been even
larger if economic conditions had been more favorable.
The number of laborers increased more rapidly than an
ticipated, peaking at 4.4 million in 1974, before drop
ping to about 4.1 million in 1975.
Managerial workers. Employment grew more slowly than
anticipated in this group, increasing 21 percent between
1960 and 1975, compared with projected 28-percent
growth. The number of managerial workers was expected
to be 5.3 percent higher than the reported 8.9 million in
1975. The projected 9.4 million, however, was almost
attained in 1976 when employment reached 9.3 million.
Service workers. The projection for this fast growing
occupational group was too high. Employment was
expected to increase from 8.3 million to 12.5 million be
tween 1960 and 1975, a gain of 50 percent. The actual
gain was 40 percent. Service industry employment, which
finally reached the 1975 projected level in 1978, would
have been projected more accurately but for the recession.
Salesworkers. Employment in this group was overesti
mated by 2.6 percent, a smaller than average error. The
number of salesworkers increased from 4.2 million in
1960 to nearly 5.5 million in 1975, almost reaching the
projected 5.6 million.
Farmworkers. The employment of farmworkers was
overstated by 10.2 percent, the highest error among the
occupational groups. Although a decline in farmworkers
was projected, the extent of decline was underestimated.
A 38-percent decrease in the 5.2-million 1960 employ
ment level was projected, but a 44-percent decrease oc
curred. The recession probably was not a significant
factor in the projection error for farmworkers.
Clerical workers. The projected number of clerical work
ers, the largest of the occupational groups, was 4 per
cent lower than the actual number in 1975. Em
ployment reached 15.1 million in 1975, a gain of 58
percent over the 1960 level, compared with a projected
52-percent increase. The difference between projected
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Specific occupations
The evaluation of employment projections for de
tailed occupations was limited by data constraints. The
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Evaluating 1975 Occupational Projections
Table 1.
Comparison of 1975 occupational group employment projections and actual employment in 1974, 1975, and 1976
[Thousands of workers]
Employment
Occupational group
Percent difference between
projected and actual
Actual
1960
Projected
1975
Actual
1974
Actual
1975
Actual
1976
T o ta l....................................................................
65,777
87,200
85,935
84,783
87,485
Professional and technical workers ...............................
Managers and administrators..........................................
Salesworkers...................................................................
Clerical w o rkers..............................................................
Craft and kindred w orkers...............................................
Operatives.......................................................................
Nonfarm la borers............................................................
Service w o rkers..............................................................
Farmworkers ...................................................................
7,208
7,337
4,209
9,557
8,751
11,381
3,778
8,346
5,211
12,462
9,361
5,600
14,520
11,674
14,025
3,830
12,493
3,235
12,338
8,941
5,417
15,043
11,477
13,919
4,380
11,373
3,048
12,748
8,891
5,460
15,128
10,972
12,856
4,134
11,657
2,936
13,329
9,315
5,497
15,558
11,278
13,356
4,325
12,005
2,822
NOTE:
1975
1976
1.5
2.9
-0.3
32.6
28.9
1.0
4.7
3.4
-3.5
1.7
.8
-12.6
9.8
6.1
-2.2
5.3
2.6
-4 .0
6.4
9.1
-7.4
7.2
10.2
-6.5
.5
1.9
-6.7
3.5
5.0
-11.4
4.1
14.6
72.9
27.6
33.0
51.9
33.4
23.2
1.4
49.7
-37.9
76.9
21.2
29.7
58.3
25.4
13.0
9.4
39.7
-43.7
Projected
Actual
Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent differences are based on unrounded numbers.
primary source of occupational employment data for
the occupational matrix was the 1960 census, but the
Census Bureau revised its system for classifying employ
ment data by occupation for the 1970 census. Beginning
in late 1971, the revised system was adopted for the
Current Population Survey (CPS), the primary source of
occupational employment data between decennial
censuses. Primarily as a result of this classification
change, projections for only 76 of the 162 occupations
in the matrix were comparable with 1975 employment
data estimated from the CPS. Comparability also was
affected by survey differences. The CPS data have a
larger sampling error than the 1960 census data that
were used in developing the base year matrix. Sampling
errors for small occupations represented sizeable pro
portions of the estimated actual employment. For exam
ple, the standard error for the smallest occupation with
a CPS data source, asbestos and insulation workers,
was about one-fifth of the 1975 estimated employment
level of 29,500. The projection of 29,300 workers in this
occupation could have been anywhere between about
23,400 and 35,200 without exceeding the sampling error
(1 standard error of the estimate) for the estimate of ac
tual employment. Although this example is extreme, it
demonstrates the need for caution in comparing esti
mates of actual employment with projections. (For a
more detailed explanation of this technical factor, see
the appendix.)
Differences between projected and actual employment
in the 76 detailed occupations ranged from —43 percent
for personnel and labor relations workers to + 136
percent for plasterers. (See table 2.) The absolute per
centage errors for all 76 occupations averaged 20.8 per
cent. Two-thirds of the occupations, however, had
errors lower than the average.
One way to judge projections is to compare them
with the results obtained from simple alternative meth
ods. The occupational projections were better descrip
tions of the future than extrapolations of trends in total
employment for each occupation. Extensions of 196014
1974
Percent change
1960 - 75
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67 annual employment data by simple linear regression
over time, which would have been an inexpensive and
easy method of projecting, averaged an absolute 26.2
percent off 1975 actual levels compared with the
20.8-percent average absolute error for the projections.
For about one-half of the occupations, however, the
simple extrapolations of employment trends were more
accurate than the projections.8Attempts to fit curves to
the employment trends produced less accurate results
than the linear extrapolations. Estimates also were de
veloped with the projected civilian labor force used as
the independent variable, but the results were relatively
poor, being more accurate than the projections for less
than two-fifths of the occupations.
Projection accuracy was related to the size of employ
ment in an occupation. When weighted by employment
in each occupation, the average absolute error drops
from 20.8 percent to 14 percent, indicating that the
largest occupations generally had the more accurate
projections. Relatively accurate projections for the fol
lowing four categories, each with more than 1 million
workers in 1975, contributed substantially to the im
proved results: elementary school teachers; attendants,
hospital and other institutions; waiters and waitresses;
and stenographers, typists, and secretaries. The follow
ing tabulation shows how projection accuracy improved
fo r o c c u p a tio n s w ith m o re w o rk e rs :
Number of workers in
occupation
T o t a l ...................
L ess th an 50,000 . . .
50,000 to 99,999 . . . .
100,000 to 299,999 . .
300,000 to 599,999 . .
600,000 a n d m o re . . .
Number of
occupations
Average
absolute
percent error
in projection
76
20.8
19
14
17
14
12
32.4
20.3
15.5
19.8
11.2
S a m p lin g e r r o rs fo r c e n su s e s tim a te s d im in is h relativ e ly as e m p lo y m e n t size in c re a se s, so th e h is to ric a l
data for large occupations would be expected to provide
Table 2.
Comparison of projected and actual 1975 employment in selected detailed occupations
[Thousands of workers]
Difference between
projected and actual
Employment
Percent change
Occupation
Compositors and typesetters..................................................................................
Asbestos and Insulation workers ...........................................................................
Crane, derrick, and hoist operators .......................................................................
Nurses, professional................................................................................................
Waiters and waitresses...........................................................................................
Pharmacists.............................................................................................................
Bartenders...............................................................................................................
C le rg y......................................................................................................................
Dietitians and nutritionists .......................................................................................
Optometrists ...........................................................................................................
Elementary school teachers ..................................................................................
Meat cutters and butchers, except meat packing...................................................
Attendants, hospital and other institutions..............................................................
Airplane pilots and navigators ................................................................................
Veterinarians ..........................................................................................................
Cabinetmakers........................................................................................................
Cement and concrete finishers ..............................................................................
Carpenters...............................................................................................................
Furnace tenders, smelters, and pou rers................................................................
Machinists and related occupations .......................................................................
Police and detectives .............................................................................................
Molders, m e ta l........................................................................................................
Plumbers and pipefitters .........................................................................................
Electrical engmee-s ...............................................................................................
Stenographers, typists, and secretaries ................................................................
Millwrights ...............................................................................................................
Postmasters and assistants....................................................................................
Welders and flame cutters ....................................................................................
Mail carriers, post office .........................................................................................
Jewelers and watchmakers....................................................................................
Railroad conductors ...............................................................................................
Firefighters...............................................................................................................
Radio and television repairers ................................................................................
Delivery and route drivers, taxicab drivers, and chauffeurs...................................
Food counter and fountain workers .......................................................................
Cooks, except private household...........................................................................
Roofers and slaters ...............................................................................................
Shipping and receiving clerks ................................................................................
Airplane mechanics.................................................................................................
Electricians .............................................................................................................
Guards ...................................................................................................................
Sailors and deckhands ...........................................................................................
Railroad brake and switch operators .....................................................................
D entists...................................................................................................................
Accountants and auditors .......................................................................................
Cashiers .................................................................................................................
Blue-collar workers, supervisors ...........................................................................
Lawyers and ¡uoges ...............................................................................................
Chemical engineers ...............................................................................................
Physicians, medical and osteopathic............. . T .....................................................
D rafters...................................................................................................................
Editors and reporters .............................................................................................
Postal clerks ..........................................................................................................
Bank tellers .............................................................................................................
Boilermakers ..........................................................................................................
Heat treaters, and annealers..................................................................................
Mechanical engineers.............................................................................................
Locomotive engineers.............................................................................................
Surveyors ...............................................................................................................
Weavers, textile ......................................................................................................
Telephone operators...............................................................................................
Photographers ........................................................................................................
Printing press operators .........................................................................................
Social and welfare w o rkers....................................................................................
Aeronautical engineers ...........................................................................................
Inspectors, log and lumber ....................................................................................
Psychologists..........................................................................................................
Power station operators .........................................................................................
Locomotive engineers’ helpers................................................................................
Personnel and labor relations workers ..................................................................
Photoengravers and lithographers .........................................................................
Civil engineers ........................................................................................................
Credit managers......................................................................................................
Patternmakers, metal and wood ...........................................................................
Knitters, loopers, and toppers ................................................................................
Plasterers ...............................................................................................................
NOTE:
Actual
1960
Projected
1975
Actual
1975
Level
Percent
Projected
Actual
182.5
19.6
124.0
495.6
808.9
113.8
163.7
200.0
27.1
17.0
977.9
189.9
450.0
28.5
18.6
66.0
46.0
832.0
52.1
495.3
287.0
54.2
303.0
174.7
2,383.0
69.0
39.2
355.0
205.5
37.0
43.3
148.9
103.3
597.5
150.4
530.0
50.0
325.0
111.6
359.0
330.0
32.3
103.2
86.7
429.3
478.3
1,137.0
225.0
39.6
234.0
233.0
100.0
242.7
127.0
24.1
20.4
153.5
46.5
44.0
61.0
355.2
51.0
75.4
105.0
45.8
19.5
17.0
20.9
41.6
100.0
24.2
146.0
50.1
40.4
44.0
50.0
155.0
29.3
172.0
860.0
1,225.0
126.0
233.0
240.0
36.6
20.0
1,233.0
222.7
1,083.0
55.0
26.0
75.0
75.0
900.0
56.4
504.0
518.0
56.0
425.0
319.8
3,900.0
87.8
34.2
575.0
290.0
39.0
44.4
250.0
140.4
845.0
320.0
860.0
68.5
365.0
138.7
450.0
415.0
27.1
110.7
124.7
660.0
973.0
1,650.0
320.0
61.7
390.1
375.0
128.0
340.0
263.0
27.4
21.5
254.6
50.0
82.0
40.5
452.0
57.0
99.7
218.0
68.0
24.7
40.0
24.2
6.6
191.0
55.0
248.2
89.1
49.0
43.5
61.0
154.0
29.5
169.0
835.0
1,183.0
120.1
247.0
255.3
39.2
18.7
1,332.0
207.0
1,001.0
60.0
24.0
81.9
82.0
988.0
62.0
461.0
473.0
51.0
386.0
290.0
4,370.0
79.0
30.5
654.0
258.5
44.7
39.3
221.0
124.0
744.0
372.0
1,001.0
80.0
428.0
120.0
534.0
492.0
32.5
94.8
106.7
797.8
1,180.0
1,393.0
392.0
52.0
328.1
311.9
160.8
281.5
350.0
36.9
17.0
200.0
38.9
63.0
31.0
344.0
83.3
146.0
320.6
51.6
18.5
61.0
17.7
10.5
333.1
37.5
160.0
57.0
30.0
25.0
25.8
1.0
-.2
3.0
25.0
42.0
5.9
-14.0
-15.3
-2 .6
1.3
-99.0
15.7
82.0
-5 .0
2.0
-6.9
-7 .0
-88.0
-5 .6
43.0
45.0
5.0
39.0
29.8
-470.0
8.8
3.7
-79.0
31.5
-5 .7
5.1
29.0
16.4
101.0
52.0
-141.0
-11.5
-63.0
18.7
-84.0
77.0
5.4
15.9
18.0
-137.8
-207.0
257.0
-72.0
9.7
62.0
63.1
-32.8
58.5
-87.0
-9.5
4.5
54.6
11.1
19.0
9.5
108.0
-26.3
-46.3
-102.6
17.0
6.2
-21.0
6.5
-3.9
-142.1
17.5
88.2
32.1
19.0
18.5
35.2
0.6
-.7
1.8
3.0
3.6
4.9
-5.7
-6 .0
-6 .6
7.0
-7 .4
7.6
8.2
-8.3
8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.9
-9 .0
9.3
9.5
9.8
10.1
10.3
-10.8
11.1
12.1
-12.1
12.2
-12.8
13.0
13.1
13.2
13.6
-14.0
-14.1
-14.4
-14.7
15.6
-15.7
15.7
16.6
16.8
16.9
-17.3
-17.5
18.4
-18.4
18.7
18.9
20.2
-20.4
20.8
-24.9
-25.7
26.5
27.3
28.5
30.2
30.6
31.4
-31.6
-31.7
-32.0
32.9
33.5
-34.4
36.7
-37.1
-42.7
46.7
55.1
56.3
63.3
74.0
136.4
-15.1
49.5
38.7
73.5
51.4
10.7
42.3
20.0
35.1
17.6
26.1
17.3
140.7
93.0
39.8
13.6
63.0
8.2
8.3
1.8
80.5
3.3
40.3
83.1
63.7
27.2
-12.8
62.0
41.1
5.4
2.5
67.9
35.9
41.4
112.8
62.3
37.0
12.3
24.3
25.3
25.8
-16.1
7.3
43.8
53.7
103.4
45.1
42.2
55.8
66.7
60.9
28.0
40.0
107.1
13.7
5.4
65.9
7.5
86.4
-33.6
27.3
11.8
32.2
107.6
49.8
26.7
135.3
15.8
—84.1
91.0
127.3
70.0
77.8
21.3
-1.1
22.0
-15.6
50.5
36.3
68.5
46.2
5.5
50.9
27.7
44.6
10.0
36.2
9.0
122.4
110.5
29.0
24.1
78.3
18.8
19.0
-6.9
64.8
-5.9
27.4
66.0
83.4
14.5
-22.2
84.2
25.8
20.8
-9.2
48.4
20.0
24.5
147.3
88.9
60.0
31.7
7.5
48.7
49.1
.6
-8.1
23.1
85.8
146.7
22.5
74.2
31.3
40.2
33.9
60.8
16.0
175.6
53.1
-16.7
30.3
-16.3
43.2
-49.2
-3 .2
63.3
93.6
205.3
12.7
-5.1
258.8
-15.3
-74.8
233.1
55.0
9.6
13.8
-25.7
-43.2
-48.4
Employment levels are expressed In rounded numbers, but percentage differences are based on unrounded numbers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Evaluating 1975 Occupational Projections
more reliable trends. The greater accuracy of projec
tions for occupational groups, however, also reflects the
compensating effect of aggregation, as most group totals
were obtained by summing projections for detailed oc
cupations. Within a group, overestimates for some de
tailed occupations tended to be offset by underestimates
for others.
The direction of employment change between 1960
and 1975 was correctly anticipated for 64 of the 76 de
tailed occupations. Again, results were best in the larger
fields of employment. The occupations for which the di
rection of change was identified had average employ
ment of about 245,000 in 1960; those with projections
in the wrong direction had an average of less than
107,000 employees. Moreover, only 4 of the 51 occupa
tions with more than 50,000 workers in 1960 had pro
jections that were in the wrong direction, while 8 of the
25 smaller fields had that mistake. Some of the differ
ences, however, between projected increases and actual
declines, or vice versa, were relatively small.
The poor performance in estimating future employ
ment requirements for small occupations raises ques
tions about whether BLS should be attempting to
develop projections for occupations that lack reliable
employment data because of sampling error or other
problems. In an effort to provide users with estimates
for a larger number of fields, possibly more harm than
good is being done.
Employment grew in 60 of the detailed occupations
between 1960 and 1975, and declined in the remaining
16. Increases were estimated more accurately than de
creases. Projections for growing occupations averaged
an absolute 17 percent off actual employment, while
those for occupations with losses averaged 35 percent
off. Projections of growth were closely divided between
underestimates and overestimates of reported employ
ment gains. Almost all employment declines were
underestimated.
The direction of employment change was correctly
anticipated for all but one of the growing occupations.
The number of sailors and deckhands increased by
about 1 percent instead of declining by 16 percent as
projected. The standard error for the estimate of 1975
employment in this occupation was much greater than 1
percent, however, so a decrease actually may have oc
curred. In fact, a decrease seems likely because total
employment in the water transportation industry de
creased in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
Occupations at either end of the employment growth
spectrum generally had less accurate projections than
those in the middle. As the following tabulation shows,
occupations with the most rapid growth had the largest
projection errors, and the slowest growth occupations
had somewhat larger errors than those with moderate
growth.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number of
occupations
Average
absolute
percent error
in projection
A v e ra g e o f all g ro w th
rates, 58.1 p ercen t
60
17.0
L ess th an 2 0 ...................
2 0 to 39 .............................
4 0 to 59 .............................
60 to 89 .............................
9 0 or m o re ......................
12
16
11
12
9
20.5
13.1
16.6
14.2
2 3 .7
Percent growth in
employment, 1960- 75
Target year employment usually was underestimated
in the fastest growing occupations and overestimated in
those with the slowest growth. Projections were lower
than actual levels in 14 of the 15 fastest growing occu
pations, and higher than actual in 12 of the 15 with the
slowest increases.
Decreases were not anticipated in 11 of the 16 occu
pations that declined in employment. Projections for
four of these occupations were within the range of sam
pling error (1.6 standard errors of the estimate) for esti
mates of actual 1975 employment, but this limit was
exceeded for plasterers, patternmakers, telephone opera
tors, power station operators, machinists, and railroad
engineers and brake and switch operators. The projec
tions correctly identified postmaster, weaver, knitter,
and locomotive engineer’s helper as occupations which
would decline in employment, although the rate of de
crease was underestimated for three of these four.
Revised projections
A revision of the 1960-75 matrix improved the accu
racy of the occupational projections somewhat. The
revision was based on 2 years of additional information
which had become available after the initial matrix was
completed. The basic economic assumptions, such as
the size of the labor force and the unemployment rate,
remained the same, but projections of industry employ
ment levels were revised in line with more recent data.9
The industry-occupation ratios, however, continued to
be based primarily on the 1950 and 1960 censuses. For
about two-thirds of the industries, the revised employ
ment projections were either as accurate or more accu
rate than the initial projections.10 The effect of the
revision on the accuracy of ratios could not be deter
mined because industry-occupation employment pat
terns for 1975 have never been developed.
The average absolute 6.1-percent error for the nine
occupational groups in the initial projection was re
duced to 3.7 percent with the revision. The most signifi
cant improvement was a reduction in the over
statement of farmworkers from 10.2 percent to less than
1 percent. Errors in estimates for professional, manage
rial, and laborer groups also were reduced. The revised
projections, however, were less accurate for the sales,
craft, and operative groups.
The revision improved the accuracy of projections for
half of the 76 detailed occupations included in the eval
uation, and reduced the accuracy for the remaining half.
The degree of error was lowered. The 76 occupational
projections in the original matrix averaged an absolute
20.8 percent off actual 1975 employment levels; the revi
sion reduced this to 19.4 percent, and several of the
worst estimates were improved. The largest error, a
136-percent overestimate of the number of plasterers
employed in 1975, was reduced to 53 percent. Large
projection errors for civil engineers and for photoen
gravers and lithographers also were reduced substantial
ly. Occupations with significantly less accurate
projections as a result of the revision included weavers,
machinists, airplane pilots and navigators, and airplane
mechanics. Most of the changes reflected adjustments
both in industry employment levels and staffing pat
terns. Changes in the airplane pilot and mechanic pro
jections, however, were primarily a result of a revision
in the air transportation industry projection, while the
change in the plasterer estimate was almost entirely a
result of an adjustment to the construction industry’s
occupational profile.
Considerable differences appeared when the original
and revised projections were ranked according to accu
racy. Only two occupations were among the 10 with the
most accurate projection in each version. Even among
each top 20, there were only 10 occupations in com
mon. However, 14 occupations were common to the
bottom 20 for each version. Because errors for the best
projections fell within a much more narrow range than
those for the worst projections, the order at the top of
the scale was more sensitive to the revision.
Although several major changes were made and rank
ings were upset, the new estimates for most occupations
were fairly close to the original projections. The revised
figures averaged an absolute 11.4-percent change from
the initial estimates, and the differences for almost
three-fourths of the detailed occupations were smaller
than the average. In addition, similar patterns were ob
served in both sets of projections. The largest occupa
tions usually had the most accurate projections, and
employment increases were estimated much more accu
rately than declines. In both the original and revised es
timates, errors for occupations that declined in em
ployment averaged about twice as high as those for
occupations with employment growth. Both declines
and rapid increases in employment generally were
underestimated.
The relatively small difference between the initial and
revised projections suggest that it may not be worth
while to revise matrices unless additional years of data
on both industry employment and industry-occupation
ratios are available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Matrix errors
A major objective of this evaluation was to isolate
the effects of errors in the matrix elements that deter
mine occupational employment in the target year—
projected employment by industry, and projected oc
cupational staffing patterns for each industry (industryoccupation ratios). Ideally, the error caused by each of
these factors would be determined by developing simu
lated matrices that combine actual data for one factor
with projected data for another. Unfortunately, because
actual ratios for 1975 were not available, the effect of
projected industry employment totals could not be iso
lated, and therefore an analysis of both factors and
their interaction was not possible. However, a simulated
matrix based on actual industry employment totals and
projected ratios was developed, and the resultant set of
occupational projections was compared to actual occu
pational totals to determine the effect of the projected
ratios alone.
The revised matrix was used for the simulation be
cause the computer system that processed the initial
version was incompatible with later systems. Resources
did not permit development of 1975 industry totals for
this exercise. As an alternative, data for the simulation
were obtained from a set of 1974 industry employment
totals which had previously been developed as a base
for the 1985 matrix projections. However, the use of ac
tual data from 1974, rather than from 1975, should give
a more valid measure of ratio errors because recessioninduced distortions in industry occupational relation
ships were probably less pronounced in 1974.
Contrary to what might be expected, the simulated
projections turned out to be less accurate than the pro
jections. Revised 1975 projections for the detailed occu
pations averaged an absolute 16.2 percent off actual
1974 employment levels. When actual industry employ
ment levels were substituted for projected levels in the
matrix, and the ratios remained as projected, the aver
age absolute error for the occupational projections in
creased slightly to 16.3 percent. This comparison
indicates that the ratios, rather than industry levels,
were the primary source of error in the projected occu
pational totals. That is, because perfect industry em
ployment projections would not have improved the
accuracy of the occupational projections, the fault must
have been mostly with the ratios.
The problem with projected ratios was more perva
sive than the small difference in the two average errors
might suggest. The simulations were worse than the
projections for 49 of the 76 occupations in the study,
but resulted in substantial improvements for many of
the remaining 27, thus bringing the average error for
the simulations more in line with that of the projec
tions. (See table 3.) Among the estimates benefiting
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Evaluating 1975 Occupational Projections
Table 3. Comparison of projections and simulations of 1975 employment and 1974 actual employment in selected detailed
occupations
[Thousands of workers]
Employment
Difference between
projected and actual
Difference between
simulated and actual
Occupation
Food counter and fountain workers .......................................................................
Police and detectives .............................................................................................
Asbestos and insulation workers ...........................................................................
Elementary school teachers ..................................................................................
Electrical engineers ...............................................................................................
Molders. m e ta l........................................................................................................
Railroad conductors ...............................................................................................
Dietitians and nutritionists .......................................................................................
Compositors and typesetters1 ..............................................................................
Optometrists ...........................................................................................................
Firefighters...............................................................................................................
Meat cutters and butchers, except meat packing...................................................
Waiters and waitresses...........................................................................................
Nurses, professional...............................................................................................
Welders and flame cutters ....................................................................................
Locomotive engineers.............................................................................................
Plumbers and pipefitters1 .......................................................................................
Electricians .............................................................................................................
Heat treaters, annealers' .......................................................................................
Radio and television repairers ................................................................................
Millwrights ...............................................................................................................
Stenographers, typists, and secretaries ........................................ , ......................
Sailors and deckhands ...........................................................................................
Physicians, medical and osteopathic.......................................................................
Railroad brake and switch operators1 ..................................................................
Carpenters...............................................................................................................
Mail carriers, post office1 .......................................................................................
Delivery and route drivers, taxicab drivers, and chauffeurs....................................
Cement and concrete finishers ..............................................................................
Clergy ......................................................................................................................
Blue-collar workers, supervisors1 .........................................................................
Photographers ........................................................................................................
Cabinetmakers1 ....................................................................................................
Chemical engineers1 .............................................................................................
Dentists....................................................................................................................
Crane, derrick, and hoist operators .......................................................................
Lawyers and judges1 .............................................................................................
Cooks, except private household...........................................................................
Shipping and receiving clerks ................................................................................
Cashiers1 ...............................................................................................................
Airplane pilots and navigators1 ..............................................................................
Surveyors ...............................................................................................................
Pharmacists1 ........................................................................................................
Guards ...................................................................................................................
Inspectors, log and lumber ....................................................................................
Photoengravers and lithographers1 .......................................................................
Postmasters and assistants....................................................................................
Telephone operators1 ...........................................................................................
Psychologists...........................................................................................................
Postal clerks1 ........................................................................................................
Bank tellers .............................................................................................................
Furnace tenders, smelters, and pou rers ................................................................
Roofers and slaters ...............................................................................................
Veterinarians ..........................................................................................................
Accountants and auditors1 ....................................................................................
Attendants, hospital and other institutions..............................................................
Bartenders1 ...........................................................................................................
Editors and reporters .............................................................................................
Credit managers......................................................................................................
Patternmakers, metal and wood1 .........................................................................
Jewelers and watchmakers1 ................................................................................
Drafters1 ...............................................................................................................
Civil engineers1 ......................................................................................................
Airplane mechanics1 .............................................................................................
Social and welfare w o rkers....................................................................................
Weavers, textile ......................................................................................................
Mechanical engineers1 ...........................................................................................
Personnel and labor relation w o rkers.....................................................................
Power station operators .........................................................................................
Boilermakers ..........................................................................................................
Printing press operators .........................................................................................
Knitters, loopers, and toppers ................................................................................
Machinists and related occupations1 .....................................................................
Locomotive engineers’ helpers................................................................................
Aeronautical engineers1 .........................................................................................
Plasterers ...............................................................................................................
Projected
1975'
Simulated
1975
Actual
1974
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
349.1
508.7
30.4
1,317.4
281.8
60.0
40.9
33.8
170.7
18.9
226.8
194.6
1,137.4
825.7
612.9
44.3
424.5
524.0
23.7
143.3
88.2
4,015.8
30.5
340.3
89.2
991.8
290.6
696.4
80.9
218.2
1,615.8
71.3
73.4
55.6
111.2
163.8
316.3
834.8
406.3
970.0
78.0
63.3
137.5
402.2
21.6
41.7
35.9
454.1
44.0
346.7
270.4
62.6
71.3
29.0
630.8
1,125.7
179.2
118.9
82.0
50.6
34.1
386.2
217.5
169.4
210.5
55.4
247.2
211.7
24.1
25.6
89.9
47.2
636.2
15.9
74.2
39.5
363.2
452.1
29.5
1,211.3
262.9
60.2
41.7
34.7
160.7
21.5
199.3
205.8
1,269.5
872.5
598.9
45.3
415.2
510.9
22.8
155.6
85.5
3,940.1
28.7
378.3
91.1
969.6
250.8
659.8
79.1
190.9
1,576.6
63.9
75.1
53.4
125.7
161.4
320.2
892.5
400.4
1,023.5
71.9
59.7
134.7
375.9
22.4
38.9
31.0
449.0
42.4
299.3
335.9
61.6
70.2
30.4
674.8
1,184.1
203.7
112.4
86.1
47.1
36.5
362.5
206.6
146.4
194.2
58.3
231.1
205.4
24.5
24.8
84.2
49.8
607.1
16.2
57.1
38.7
351.0
514.0
30.0
1,299.8
287.0
58.9
40.0
33.0
166.0
18.3
219.0
202.0
1,181.9
790.0
646.0
42.0
402.3
558.3
22.3
134.0
95.0
4,330.0
33.0
315.0
97.0
1,084.2
267.0
766.9
90.0
245.0
1,457.1
80.0
82.5
50.0
100.0
184.7
359.9
954.9
465.0
1,110.9
69.0
73.0
120.0
473.0
18.7
36.0
31.0
390.0
53.0
293.0
335.9
78.8
90.0
24.0
810.0
915.6
233.0
156.0
66.0
40.7
45.3
298.0
167.0
130.0
305.3
41.6
183.0
325.0
17.8
40.0
142.0
33.5
450.4
11.0
51.2
26.6
-1 .9
-5 .3
.4
17.6
-5 .2
1.1
.9
.8
4.7
.6
7.8
-7 .4
-44.5
35.7
-33.1
2.3
22.2
-34.3
1.4
9.3
-6.8
-314.2
-2 .5
25.3
-7 .8
-92.4
23.6
-70.5
-9.1
-26.8
158.7
-8 .7
-9.1
5.6
11.2
-20.9
-43.6
-120.1
-58.7
-140.9
9.0
-9 .7
17.5
-70.8
2.9
5.7
4.9
64.1
-9 .0
53.7
-65.5
-16.2
-18.7
5.0
-179.2
210.1
-53.8
-37.1
16.0
9.9
-11.2
88.2
50.5
39.4
-94.8
13.8
64.2
-113.3
6.3
-14.4
-52.1
13.7
185.8
4.9
23.0
12.9
-0 .5
-1 .0
1.3
1.4
-1 .8
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.8
3.3
3.6
-3 .7
-3 .8
4.5
-5.1
5.5
5.5
-6.1
6.3
6.9
-7 .2
-7 .3
-7 .6
8.0
-8 .0
-8 .5
8.8
-9 .2
-10.1
-10.9
10.9
-10.9
-11.0
11.2
11.2
-11.3
-12.1
-12.6
-12.6
-12.7
13.0
-13.3
14.6
-15.0
15.5
15.8
15.8
16.4
-17.0
18.3
-19.5
-20.6
-20.8
20.8
-22.1
22.9
-23.1
-23.8
24.2
24.3
-24.7
29.6
30.2
30.3
-31.1
33.2
35.1
-34.9
35.4
-36.0
-36.7
40.9
41.3
44.5
44.9
48.5
12.2
-61.9
-.5
-88.5
-24.1
1.3
1.7
1.7
-5.3
3.2
-19.7
3.8
87.6
82.5
-47.1
3.3
12.9
-47.4
.5
21.6
-9 .5
-389.9
-4 .3
63.3
-5 .9
-114.6
-16.2
-107.1
-10.9
-54.1
119.5
-16.1
-7 .4
3.4
25.7
-23.3
-39.7
-62.4
-64.6
-87.4
2.9
-13.3
14.7
-97.1
3.7
2.9
.0
59.0
-10.6
6.3
-42.4
-17.2
-19.8
6.4
-135.2
268.5
-29.3
-43.6
20.1
6.4
-8 .8
64.5
39.6
16.4
-111.1
16.7
48.1
-119.6
6.7
-15.2
-57.8
16.3
156.7
5.2
5.9
12.1
3.5
-12.0
-1.7
-6.8
-8.4
2.2
4.3
5.2
-3 .2
17.5
-9 .0
1.9
7.4
10.4
-7.3
7.9
3.2
-8 .5
2.2
16.1
-10.0
-9 .0
-13.0
20.1
-6.1
-10.6
-6.1
-14.0
-12.1
-22.1
8.2
-20.1
-9 .0
6.8
25.7
-12.6
-11.0
-6 .5
-13.9
-7 .9
4.2
-18.2
12.3
-20.5
19.8
8.1
.0
15.1
-20.0
2.2
-12.6
-21.8
-22.0
26.7
-16.7
29.3
-12.6
-27.9
30.5
15.7
-19.4
21.6
23.7
12.6
-36.4
40.1
26.3
-36.8
37.6
-38.0
-40.7
48.7
34.8
47.3
11.5
45.5
1
The accuracy of the occupational projection was reduced as a result of reinforcing errors in
ployment levels are expressed in rounded numbers, but percentage differences are based on
the projections of industry-occupation ratios and industry employment levels.
unrounded numbers.
NOTE:
18
Projections of 1975 employment used here are based on the 1969 revision. Em-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
most from the actual industry employment data were
those for airplane pilots and navigators, aerospace engi
neers, and postal clerks, reflecting the fact that the in
dustries where these fields are concentrated— air
transportation, aircraft manufacturing, and post office
— had some of the least accurate projections of industry
employment levels.
When weighted by employment, the average absolute
error for the simulated projections dropped from 16.3
percent to 12.6 percent, an indication that the ratio esti
mates were better for the larger fields of employment.
The error for occupations with fewer than 50,000 em
ployees in 1974 was almost twice that of those with a
half million or more workers. Weak ratio estimates for
small fields of employment may be related to problems
with historical data on industry-occupation patterns.
Survey errors were relatively large for census estimates
of total employment in small occupations, and the
problem may be compounded when these totals are
disaggregated among the industries. A large number of
occupations are so widely dispersed that only a fraction
of 1 percent is found in many industries.
The failure to anticipate the impact of technological
change and other factors that affect occupational needs
also contributed to ratio errors. In estimating ratios for
knitters, for example, it was assumed that increases in
the demand for knit goods would more than offset the
employment effect of laborsaving technology. Although
total employment in the knitting industry grew even
more than projected, employment in this occupation de
clined as a result of larger capacity, higher speed ma
chinery and other technological developments. Misassessments of the effect of technological developments
also contributed to overprojected demand for plasterers,
weavers, telephone operators, and several railroad occu
pations. In most cases, the laborsaving technology had
been identified, but its future impact was difficult to
project because data were either insufficient or
nonexistent.
Compensating errors in the estimates of industry em
ployment levels and ratios improved the accuracy of
projections for 49 of the 76 occupations.11 For example,
total employment in the health services industry (ex
cluding hospitals), where almost all optometrists were
expected to be employed, was underprojected by about
12 percent, yet employment in this occupation was
overprojected by about 4 percent. From this evidence, it
can be concluded that an overstated ratio for optome
trists almost offset the effect of an industry projection
that was too low. The most accurate projections gener
ally were products of this kind of counterbalancing.
Compensating errors however, were not entirely the re
sult of chance. In some cases, occupational projections
that were developed independently conflicted with in
dustry employment projections and, in adjusting these
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
projections for consistency, ratios sometimes were dis
torted.
Errors caused by the two factors were reinforced for
about one-third of the occupations, many of which had
the least accurate projections. Occupations with rein
forcing errors are identified by footnote in table 3; those
not noted have compensating errors, with the exception
of postmasters, which had no error at all because the
ratio projection for this occupation was perfect.
New projections
Although the occupational projections were off the
mark for many reasons, including the economic down
turn in 1975, the evaluation has established that the ra
tio estimates were the largest source of error. These
estimates were based on scanty data for trends in the
occupational structure of industries. Although the pro
jections were made in the late 1960’s, the only compre
hensive sources of historical data on ratios were the
1950 and 1960 decennial censuses. A long recognized
need for current, detailed data on industry staffing pat
terns prompted the initiation of the cooperative FederalState program, Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES), in 1970. Data on employment by industry is
now collected in 3-year cycles for more than 2,000 oc
cupations through the OES survey. Through March
1979, 46 States and the District of Columbia were co
operating in the program, and BLS plans to complete
the development of an OES-based 1980-90 national
matrix in 1981.12
The recession in 1975 adversely affected the projec
tions for many of the blue-collar occupations concen
trated in construction and manufacturing industries.
Alternative projections could address the problem of
cyclical fluctuations. Rather than preparing projections
based on one set of assumptions about the economy in
the target year, alternative projections could be devel
oped with different assumptions about the unemploy
ment rate, the GNP, and other variables. BLS took a
step in that direction in 1976 by developing 1985 indus
try-occupation matrices based on different sets of as
sumptions or scenarios about the economic policies that
the Federal government might follow to sustain a recov
ery from the 1973-75 recession.13 To assess the extent
that occupational employment might be affected, indus
try employment projections based on each scenario
were translated into occupational projections by apply
ing them to fixed matrix ratios. Occupational projec
tions based on two versions of what the economy might
look like in 1990 are in preparation. As a refinement to
the method used for 1985 estimates, matrix ratio pat
terns will be projected for each version of the 1990
economy rather than using the same pattern for both.
One of the limitations of the scenario approach, howev19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Evaluating 1975 Occupational Projections
er, is that the effect of each assumption cannot be iso
lated. Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis can isolate the
effects of specific alternative assumptions.
Continuing analysis of the accuracy of projections is
an important activity in improving their reliability.
Evaluation of previous employment projections will be
come a regular part of the occupational outlook pro
gram. Actual employment data soon will be available
for comparison with the 1980 occupational projec
tions.
□
FOOTNOTES
1Evaluations of earlier occupational projections are described in Sol
Swerdloff, “How good were manpower projections for the 1960’s,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1969, pp. 17-22.
2The Bureau’s occupational projections for 1975 were first
published in O c c u p a tio n a l E m p lo y m e n t P a tte r n s f o r 1 9 6 0 a n d 1975,
Bulletin 1599, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1968. The projec
tions also were presented in a corollary report, T o m o rr o w 's M a n p o w e r
N e ed s, Volume IV, Bulletin 1606, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Febru
ary 1969. The projections evaluated in this article were obtained from
the latter publication. There are minor differences in estimates pres
ented in the two publications.
3For a detailed discussion of the methodology used in developing
industry employment projections, see T o m o rr o w 's M a n p o w e r N eed s.
pp. 5 -8 . The industry employment projections represented the collab
orative efforts of several research staffs in the Bureau, including those
working on technological change and productivity, economic growth,
and occupational outlook. The general structure of employment by in
dustry, however, was developed through an economic growth model
which used an input-output approach.
4 See Sophia (Cooper) Travis and Denis F. Johnston, “Labor force
projections for 1970-80,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1965, pp.
129-40.
5Evaluations of labor force projections for 1975 are described in
Paul M. Ryscavage, “BLS labor force projections: a review of meth
ods and results,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1979, pp. 15-22.
6 In more recent times, the CPS data and industry employment esti
mates were used to construct base matrices for years between
decennial censuses. For example, the Bureau developed a 1974 base
year matrix for its 1985 occupational projections, then a 1976 base for
a revision of these projections. The detailed occupational totals in
these matrices are a refinement of the CPS estimates.
7If 1965 is regarded as the starting point for the projections, the
performance is not as good. The percentage of employment projected
for the occupational groups averages about 52 percent if the change is
measured from 1965 to 1975, compared to about 68 percent if change
is measured from 1960 to 1975. The better performance when the
span is greater is in part due to the projections being credited for
some of the employment changes that already had occurred. As point
ed out in the explanation of the problem with identifying the base
year, data on occupational group employment were already available
through 1965 at the time the projections were being prepared, and
measures of accuracy that center on the amount cf change projected
will reflect this bias. The recession also was a factor, however, in that
some of the employment gains that took place after 1965 were erased
by the economic downturn in the mid-1970’s. Employment in the op
erative group in fact was lower in 1975 than in 1965, although it had
grown through the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. If this occupation is
excluded from the average, the difference for the two time spans is re
duced substantially. Excluding operatives, the projections accounted
for an average of about 73 percent of the employment change in occu
pational groups during the 1960-75 period, and an average of about
71 percent of the change during the 1965-75 period.
8Extrapolations were based on 1960 Census data and 1962-67 CPS
data (1961 data were not available). Comparable CPS employment se
ries were not available for 4 of the 76 occupations in the study. Thus,
extrapolations were developed for only 72 occupations. Extrapolation
for 2 occupations resulted in negative employment in 1975; these neg
ative numbers were arbitrarily adjusted to positive employment levels
of 100 workers. Although the matrix projections used data only
through 1965, data were available through 1967 by the time the ma
trix was submitted for publication. Because of the amount of time re
quired to prepared the matrix, it was difficult to incorporate changes
that reflected the latest data. Simple extrapolations, on the other
hand, can be prepared in a very short time, making it easier to take
advantage of the latest data.
9 BLS later developed three alternative sets of industry employment
projections for 1975 as a part of a contract with the U.S. Arms Con
trol and Disarmament Agency to study the economic impact of a
withdrawal from Vietnam. For a description of these projections, see
P r o je c tio n s o f th e P o s t-V ie tn a m E c o n o m y , Bulletin 1733, Bureau of La
bor Statistics, 1972. For an evaluation of the basic alternative set of
industry employment projections, see Paul T. Christy and Karen J.
Horowitz, “An Evaluation of BLS Projections of 1975 Production
and Employment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1979, pp. 8-10.
10The measure of improvement in the accuracy of industry employ
ment projections was based on estimates of total employment
obtained from a 1974 base year matrix because a 1975 base year ma
trix was not available.
11The presence of compensating errors for an occupation was diffi
cult to determine with certainty because the lack of data on actual
ratios for the target year prevented isolating the effect of errors in in
dustry projections alone. As a rule, however, errors in the industry
and ratio projections are compensating for an occupation if (1) the
sign of the projection error (table 5, fourth column) is different than
the sign of the result of subtracting the simulation error (table 5, sev
enth column) from the projection error, or (2) the signs of the projec
tion and simulation errors in these two columns are the same, but the
projection error has a lower absolute level.
12 For a description of the OES program, see O c c u p a tio n a l E m p lo y
m e n t S ta tis tic s H a n d b o o k , Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 1979.
13 See Max L. Carey, “Revised occupational projections to 1985,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1976, pp. 10-21.
APPENDIX: Technical factors
Resource constraints precluded construction of a
1975 matrix for the purpose of evaluating the occupa
tional employment projections. Consequently, 1975 em
ployment levels had to be estimated from (1) base year
matrices for 1974 and 1976, which had already been de
veloped by the Bureau in preparing and revising 1985
projections, and (2) from Current Population Survey
(CPS) data, the primary source of occupational data for
matrices between decennial censuses. The evaluation
also was handicapped by a loss in the continuity of
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
comparable employment data as a consequence of a re
vision in the occupational classification system used by
the Census Bureau. In addition, relatively large sam
pling errors for CPS estimates of actual 1975 employ
ment were a problem for some occupations.
Much of the occupational data from the 1960 Census,
which was the principal data base for the projected
1975 matrix, is not comparable with CPS data collected
after 1971. The 1960 Census system for classifying em
ployment by occupation and industry was revised for
the 1970 Census, and beginning in late 1971, the revised
system was adopted for the CPS. Interrelationships be
tween the two systems were quantified in the Census
publication, Technical Paper 26, 1970 Occupation and
Industry Classification Systems in Terms of Their 1960
Occupation and Industry Elements. According to the in
formation in this report, all nine occupational groups
had 96 percent or better comparability between the two
classification systems. Specifically, if the 1960 labor
force data were retabulated, 95 percent or more of the
labor force reported in a particular occupational group
under the 1960 classification system would remain in
the same group under the 1970 system, and these work
ers would represent 95 percent or more of the total for
that group. At a more detailed occupational level, the
comparability gap was wider. Of the 297 occupations in
the 1960 classification system, 171 had 90 percent or
better comparability in the 1970 system. About one-half
of these occupations, however, were not included in the
matrix. In addition, the accuracy of some of the projec
tions that were based on historical data from sources
other than the census could not be verified. After elimi
nating occupations which were less than 90 percent
comparable and those which had verification problems,
the evaluation of projections was limited to 76 of the
162 detailed occupations covered in the matrix.
Estimates from the CPS were subject to greater sam
pling variability than those from the decennial census.
For an occupational estimate of 50,000, for example,,
the standard error would be about 900 if the data were
from the 1960 Census, and about 6,700 if the data were
from the CPS. Projections for several occupations were
within the range of sampling error for CPS estimates of
actual employment in 1975. Projections for the follow
ing occupations were within one standard error of the
estimate:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Compositors and typesetters
Asbestos and insulation workers
Crane, derrick, and hoist operators
Pharmacists
Dietitians and nutritionists
Airplane pilots and navigators
Cabinetmakers
Cement and concrete finishers
Furnace tenders, smelters, and pourers
Metal molders
Millwrights
Jewelers and watchmakers
Railroad conductors
Sailors and deckhands
If the measure is set at 1.6 standard errors of the esti
mate, projections for the following additional occupa
tions are within the range of CPS sampling error:
Waiters and waitresses
Bartenders
Clergy
Meat cutters and butchers, except meat packing
Roofers and slaters
Heat treaters and annealers
Log and lumber inspectors
Locomotive engineers’ helpers
Comparability of occupational employment estimates
also is affected by other differences between the census
and the CPS. Among these are the more extensive train
ing and experience of the CPS enumerators than the
census enumerators, differences in format of schedules,
and differences in methods used to process the original
data. In addition, occupational estimates from the CPS
were annual averages of 12 monthly estimates, whereas
the Census data were collected only for April.
21
Dental and vision care benefits
in health insurance plans
As medical care costs increase, dental and
vision care insurance become more important;
most of the plans studied were financed by employers,
and there were restrictions and limitations
on use of services, especially for dental care
D
o nald
R. Bell
Dental care and vision care have been among the
fastest-growing areas of employee health insurance in
recent years. Between 1974 and 1977, the latest date for
which data are available, the proportion of employees
covered by dental care insurance doubled or tripled,
depending on the measure used; the proportion covered
by vision care insurance increased by about one-half.1
Both employees and employers are interested in
extending insurance coverage to areas that are impor
tant in terms of consumer cost. According to the Bu
reau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index, dental
care costs increased at annual rates of 8.8 percent be
tween 1974 and 1977, and 7.7 percent between 1977
and 1979. Vision care costs increased 7.1 and 5.3 per
cent per year during the same periods. These increases
were less than the increase in the cost of medical care,
which rose at a rate of 9.8 percent a year from 1974 to
1979. However, for most employees, the bulk of the
cost of medical care (physicians, hospitals, and prescrip
tion drugs) was covered by insurance, but for many,
dental and vision care was uninsured.
Dental and vision care plans vary considerably in
terms of services covered, types of payment made, coin
surance provisions, deductibles, maximum benefits, and
other characteristics. This article outlines the principal
features of dental and vision care plans included in the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Digest of Selected Health
and Insurance Plans, 1977-79.2 The 148 health insur
ance plans in the Digest are not necessarily model plans,
nor are they a representative sample of all health insur
ance plans. However, they cover large numbers of
workers in major industries, set or reflect trends, or are
examples of different approaches to health insurance
planning and, therefore, illustrate the characteristics and
features of a variety of health insurance plans in private
industry.
Typically, dental and vision care benefits are found in
plans that also have protection against catastrophic ill
ness, usually through major medical benefits. Health
plans are considered as including dental and vision care
if the benefits are separately provided as part of basic
health benefits or if they are provided by major medical
benefits, unless coverage was limited to dental surgery
or accident care.
Nearly three-fifths (88) of the 148 health plans in the
Digest provided out-of-hospital dental care; two-fifths
(56) of the plans included benefits for out-of-hospital vi
sion care. However, 3 dental and 10 vision care plans
were part of multiple choice health insurance programs
and are not discussed in this article.3 Hence, this analy
sis includes 85 out-of-hospital dental care plans in effect
as of July 1979, and 46 such vision care plans.
Dental coverage
Donald R. Bell is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cynthia Thompson, of that of
fice, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Digitized for 22
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
All of the 85 plans provided diagnostic, preventive,
restorative, and prosthodontic services, and 56 of them
also covered orthodontic services, which are frequently
more costly than other dental services.
Diagnostic and preventive services include examina
tions of the mouth, X-rays, cleaning, fluoride treat
ments, space maintainers, and consultations. Restorative
services and treatments cover routine fillings (such as
amalgam, silicate, acrylic, or synthetic porcelain), as
well as inlays, onlays, gold fillings, and crowns. In addi
tion, out-of-hospital oral surgery such as root resections
and removal of impacted teeth, root canal therapy, and
treatment of gums are included in this type of benefit.
Prosthodontic services typically include initial instal
lation, repair, and replacement of removable and perma
nent dentures and bridgework. Orthodontic services
cover treatment to correct or prevent irregularities in
the position of the teeth and include X-rays, surgery,
and the application of braces or similar devices.
The proportion of health plans with dental coverage
varied among employee groups, ranging from 51 per
cent of the plans for nonoffice employees to 64 percent
for the office and for the nonoffice and office (all em
ployees) plans.4 All dental plans provided coverage for
preventive, restorative, and prosthodontic care, but a
greater percentage of dental plans covering only office
employees provided orthodontic services. (See table 1.)
Employers paid the full cost of dental insurance for
employees and their dependents in 74 (or 84 percent) of
the 85 plans. Eighty-seven percent of the plans that
covered retirees age 65 or over were fully financed by
the employer, as were 78 percent of those that provided
coverage to retirees under age 65. The following tabula
Table 1. Dental services provided in health insurance
plans by employee group and reimbursement arrangement,
July 1979
Employee group
or reimbursement
arrangement
Diagnostic
and preven
tive services
Restorative
services and
treatments
Prostho
dontic
services
Ortho
dontic
services
All p la n s ..................
85
85
85
56
Employee group:
Nonoffice o n ly .............
Office only ..................
Nonoffice and office1 ..
36
21
28
36
21
28
36
21
28
23
15
18
23
23
2
0
65
3 35
4
19
7
0
0
63
12
7
33
7
0
4
63
3
4
11
3
4
38
48
2
0
3
2
2
39
17
19
2 20
8
Reimbursement arrangement:
Full service..................
Nonscheduled cash
allowance:...............
100 percent.........
90-100 percent..
80-90 percent ..
70 - 80 percent . .
60 - 70 percent . .
50 - 60 percent ..
Scheduled cash
allow ance...............
' Employees covered by dental plans having the same benefits for nonoffice and office
employees.
2 Includes one plan (Doll Manufacturers plan, New York, N.Y.) providing full service bene
fits at the union’s dental center for diagnostic and restorative services, but paying for den
tures by scheduled allowances.
3 Includes plan that pays 100 percent of charges for preventive services and 95 percent
for diagnostic services.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion shows the number of plans that are financed by
employers or by employers and employees:
E m p lo y e r
A c tiv e e m p lo y ee s . . .
R etired em p lo y ees:
U n d e r ag e 65 . .
A g e 65 or over .
E m p lo y e r a n d e m p lo y e e
74
11
35
26
10
4
With few exceptions, dental care benefits for retirees
were the same as those for active employees. Retirees un
der age 65 had their dental benefits continued under 45 of
the 85 plans with dental coverage. Older retirees
were less likely to have dental benefits continued— only
30 of the plans had benefits for retirees age 65 or older.
Reimbursement provisions of dental plans
Restrictions on dental care were nearly equal among
plans regardless of employee groups covered, although
maximums for orthodontia and deductibles for specified
services were more frequently found in plans covering
only office employees. Like most other types of health
insurance, dental plans have reimbursement arrange
ments to prevent abuse by the insured and, thus, keep
down the insurer’s costs.
There are three basic reimbursement arrangements: a
nonscheduled cash allowance, which pays a proportion
of the reasonable and customary charge for a proce
dure; a scheduled cash allowance, which pays up to a
specified amount for a procedure; and a full service pay
ment, which pays the full reasonable and customary
charge for a procedure.
The most common reimbursement arrangement in the
dental plans studied was the nonscheduled cash allow
ance. This procedure applied to all services except orth
odontic in 65 of the 85 plans; 17 plans used a scheduled
cash allowance, and 3 provided full payment. Non
scheduled cash allowances were common for orthodon
tic services— they were used by 48 (or 86 percent) of
the 56 plans providing orthodontia. Orthodontic serv
ices were covered in three-fourths of the plans which
paid nonscheduled cash allowances for other services,
compared with fewer than one-half of those which paid
scheduled cash allowances.
Plans with nonscheduled cash allowances were ana
lyzed according to the proportion they paid of the rea
sonable and customary charges for each of the major
dental services. Diagnostic and preventive care was the
only service for which the majority of the plans paid
the full reasonable and customary charge. Slightly more
than one-half of the plans paid 80 or 85 percent of the
full charge for restorative services and treatments; about
three-fifths paid approximately 50 percent of the charge
for prosthodontic services; and nearly four-fifths paid
only 50 percent of the reasonable and customary charge
for orthodontia. (See table 1.)
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Dental and Vision Care Benefits
The proportion of the charge paid for dental services
appeared to be related to the cost of the procedure. For
example, diagnostic and preventive care services, which
include low-cost dental procedures, were fully paid by
34 of the 65 plans with nonscheduled cash allowances.
The more expensive restorative services were typically
paid at 80 to 85 percent of reasonable and customary
charges, prosthodontic and orthodontic services, which
are even more costly, were paid at 50 to 60 percent.
Two-thirds of the plans with scheduled cash allow
ances allowed $100 to $200 for the most expensive re
storative service procedure and nearly three-fourths
allowed from $100 to $300 for the most expensive
prosthodontic procedure. Allowances were higher for a
complete course of orthodontic treatment. For example,
Dow Chemical Co. employees are allowed $50 for pre
liminary X-rays and diagnostic costs, $225 for the first
month of active treatment, and $30 for each succeeding
month. The time required for such treatment is usually
1 or 2 years. Thus, the amount payable under the Dow
plan for a 2-year course of orthodontic treatment could
be as much as $965, compared with the $205 allowance
for the most expensive prosthodontic procedure.
There were exceptions to the typical 80 to 85 percent
payment for restorative services. About 1 of 3 plans
providing this service paid 100 percent for certain pro
cedures, such as root resections and oral surgery. About
1 of 2 provided only 50 to 60 percent reimbursement
for crowns, inlays, and gold fillings.
The lower percentage payment provided for crowns
may be explained by the usually higher dollar cost of
such procedures. The higher percentage payment for
oral surgery and related benefits may be related to the
fact that these services either are or had been covered by
basic surgical benefits. For example, in the Uniroyal and
Goodyear plans negotiated with the United Rubber
Workers, procedures such as oral surgery, root resec
tions, and gingivectomy, which were formerly covered
under surgical benefits at 100 percent, are covered under
dental benefits at that rate either in or out of hospital.
Plans negotiated by the Steelworkers, such as the one
with the American Can Co., provide 100 percent cover
age under both surgical and dental benefits. However,
in-hospital services are paid under surgical benefits and
out-of-hospital services are paid under dental benefits.
A few of the plans encouraged the employee or de
pendent to visit a dentist annually by gradually elimi
nating, for those who did so, the copayment re
quirement for diagnostic and restorative services, or for
diagnostic, restorative, and prosthodontic services as a
group, over a 3-year period. In the metalworking indus
try plan negotiated by the Machinists’ union and in the
Prudential Insurance Company’s plan for insurance
workers, benefits in the first year are provided at 70
percent and increase by 10 percentage points each year,
Digitized for24
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
if the insured receives annual dental checkups, until it
reach 100 percent in the fourth year. Such plans are ap
parently designed to encourage preventive care and
thereby lower overall costs in the long run (although
short-term costs may be higher), while providing higher
levels of coverage.5
Another method of cost control is to limit the fre
quency with which a service is provided. Many plans,
such as the Central States Trucking Industry-Teamsters
plan, restrict routine oral examinations, cleaning, and
bite-wing X-rays to once during a 6-month period;
however, a few plans, such as the American Telephone
and Telegraph Co.-Communications Workers plan,
while covering such expenses twice during a 12-month
period, do not specify when such expenses must be in
curred. In 35 percent of the plans, more complete exam
inations, including full mouth X-rays were limited to
once in 36 months. The replacement of dentures fre
quently requires proof that the existing bridgework can
not be made serviceable or that 3, 4, or 5 years have
elapsed since the installation of the original dentures.
The latter limitation is found in 49 percent of plans of
fering prosthodontic benefits.
Setting a maximum benefit amount to be paid during
a specified period is another way to control costs. (See
table 2.) Yearly maximum amounts for diagnostic, re
storative, and prosthodontic services as a group, were
specified in 58 of the 85 plans, and lifetime maximum
amounts were specified in 7 other plans (including plans
Table 2. Maximum benefits and deductibles of dental
care plans, July 1979
Employee group
Reimbursement restriction
All p la n s ....................
Plans that provided maximums
for:
All dental services,
including orthodontia
Yearly....................
Lifetim e..................
Diagnostic, restorative,
and posthodontic
services2
Y early....................
Lifetim e..................
Orthodontia
Yearly....................
Lifetime..................
Plans that provided deductibles for:3
All services....................
Specified services.........
Total
plans
Nonoffice
only
Office
only
Nonoffice
and
office1
85
36
21
28
5
3
0
1
2
1
3
1
58
7
24
3
14
3
20
1
1
49
0
21
0
14
1
14
4
28
3
9
1
12
0
7
1Employees covered by dental plans having the same benefits for nonoffice and office
employees.
2 Some plans have separate maximum benefit amounts for certain services or courses of
treatment.
3 Some plans have separate deductible amounts for certain services, and 6 plans have
combined dental and major medical deductibles.
providing dental benefits as part of major medical bene
fits). Yearly maximums ranged from $500 to $2,000 for
dental services other than orthodontia; however, nearly
half of the maximums were $750. Lifetime maximums
(except in plans with dental benefits included under ma
jor medical) for services other than orthodontia ranged
from $5,000 to $25,000, with most plans specifying
$5,000. In contrast, of the 56 plans with orthodontia,
49 had a lifetime maximum for such services. Maxi
mums ranged from $408 to $3,000, but most plans
allowed between $500 and $750 for lifetime benefits. A
few plans had overall maximums which applied to all
benefits, and some plans had both yearly and lifetime
maximums applicable to benefits other than orthodon
tia. For example, the Dow Chemical-Steelworkers’ plan
had a yearly maximum of $750 and a lifetime maximum
of $5,000 for such services.
Another control mechanism is the requirement that
the insured pay the first part of any expense incurred—
the “deductible.” Thirty-two of the 85 plans required
the employee to pay an annual or lifetime deductible. A
deductible for a group of dental services was specified in
28 of the plans; 11 required the deductible only for di
agnostic and preventive, and prosthodontic services as a
group; the remaining 17 required a deductible for all
services, except diagnostic and preventive services. Den
Table 3. Reimbursement arrangement of vision care
plans, July 1979
Employee group
Reimbursement arrangement
Total
plans
Nonoffice
only
Office
only
Nonoffice
and
office1
All p la n s ...........................
46
27
6
13
Plans that provided:
Full service
Eye examination .............
Eye glasses or contact
lenses...........................
4
3
0
1
3
3
0
0
14
8
1
5
9
7
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
Nonscheduled cash
allowances
100 percent
Eye examination .............
Eyeglasses or contact
lenses...........................
80 to 85 percent
Eye examination .............
Eyeglasses or contact
lenses ...........................
Scheduled cash
allowances
Eye examination..................
Eyeglasses2
Frames.............................
Single lenses ..................
Bifocal le n s e s ..................
Trifocal lenses..................
Contact lenses3 ..................
25
14
4
7
26
26
14
9
12
15
15
8
6
7
4
4
2
1
2
7
7
4
2
3
' Employees covered by dental plans having the same benefits for nonoffice and office
employees.
2 Includes some plans with combined allowance for eye examination and 1 pair of glasses
(frame and single lenses). Plans that did not specify the specific type of lens were treated as
covering all types.
3 Includes plans with allowance for contact lenses not required for 20/70 vision acuity, fre
quently offered in lieu of all other benefits.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tal plans may not require a deductible for diagnostic
and preventive services because of the relatively low
cost of these services and because such care may help
avoid future high-cost procedures.
A relatively new method of cost control is “pretreat
ment” review, where the insurer reviews the proposed
treatment and cost before agreeing to cover the cost.
The pretreatment review requirement is usually for serv
ices estimated to exceed a specified amount. For exam
ple, in the Ford Motor Co.-United Auto Workers plan,
when a course of treatment other than for emergency or
preventive care is estimated to cost $125 or more, a
“predetermination of benefits” form must be filed with
the insurance carrier by the employee’s dentist. The
dentist describes the procedures required and estimates
the charge. The insurance carrier notifies the employee
and the dentist of the amounts payable, based on alter
nate and possibly less costly courses of treatment that
may be appropriate in view of the benefits specified in
the plan.
Vision care plans
Vision care benefits typically cover a narrow range of
services— eye examinations, corrective lenses, and
frames— but most plans cover all of these services. Of
the 46 plans included in this analysis, 45 provided at
least partial coverage for eyeglasses. (See table 3.)
Three-fifths of the plans paid benefits according to a
schedule of allowances which includes specific amounts
for one examination and either one pair of glasses or
contact lenses. Allowances for glasses are usually com
prised of separate amounts for the frame and lenses,
and allowances for lenses differ by type of lens— single
vision, bifocal, trifocal, or contact lenses. For example,
the Armour and Co.-Meat Cutters’ plan for hourly em
ployees allows $15 for one eye examination, $7 for the
frame, $16 for single vision lenses, $20 for bifocal
lenses, $24 for trifocal lenses, or $80 for contact lenses.
The remaining two-fifths of the vision care plans paid
the full cost of at least an eye examination, either by
paying the entire reasonable and customary charge for
vision care services or by providing such services
through a full-service plan.
Some plans provide higher allowances for eye exami
nations by ophthalmologists than by optometrists, and
some cover contact lenses only if such lenses are re
quired for 20/70 vision acuity. Other plans provide al
lowances for contact lenses not required for 20/70
vision acuity, in place of all other benefits, and some
provide a lesser amount for contact lenses not necessary
for 20/70 vision acuity. For example, the Associated
General Contractors-Carpenters Union plan pays the
full cost of contact lenses prescribed as necessary for
20/70 vision acuity, but pays only $55 if the lenses are
prescribed for cosmetic or other reasons.
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Dental and Vision Care Benefits
Cost controls, other than those provided by sched
uled cash allowances and coinsurance features of nonscheduled allowances, consisted of: (1) limits on the
frequency with which a benefit could be provided, (2)
maximum benefits, and (3) deductibles. Nearly 9 of 10
plans stipulated that only one eye examination or one
pair of glasses or contact lenses could be provided dur
ing a 1- or 2-year period; 1 of 5 plans specified maxi
mum benefits that would be paid during a 1- or 2-year
period; and only 2 plans required payment of deduct
ibles.
The proportion of health plans with vision care cov
erage varied by employee group. More than one-third of
the plans covering only nonoffice workers offered vision
care, whereas fewer than one-fifth of those covering
only office workers and one-fourth of those covering all
employees had such benefits.
Vision care benefits were most often provided accord
ing to scheduled cash allowances, regardless of employ
ee group covered. However, plans that had a more lib
eral payment structure that either provided full service
or paid reasonable and customary charges were more
common for nonoffice than for office employees.
The following tabulation shows the number of plans
that are financed by employers or by employers and
employees:
Employer Employer and employee
A c tiv e e m p lo y ee s . . .
R etired em p lo y ees:
U n d e r ag e 65 . . . .
A g e 65 or over . . .
45
1
13
11
0
0
All but one of the 46 vision care plans were fully fi
nanced by the employer. Thirteen plans, all employer fi
nanced, continued vision care for retired employees
under age 65, and 11 plans continued such benefits to
retirees over 65. With few exceptions, the plans provid
ed retired employees the same benefits as active employ
ees.
□
FOOTNOTES
' The Bureau’s periodic survey of health plans from 1974 to 1977
shows a 100-percent increase in employees covered by group health
plans with dental coverage and a 50-percent increase in vision care.
The Bureau’s data for workers in metropolitan area establishments in
dicate an increase of 154 percent for plantworkers and an increase of
nearly 200 percent for officeworkers covered by health plans with den
tal coverage. See Dorothy R. Kittner, “Changes in health plans reflect
broader benefit coverage,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , September 1978, p.
57 and A re a W age S u rv e ys, M e tr o p o lita n A reas, U n ite d S ta tes, a n d R e
g io n a l S u m m a r ie s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, various issues from
1974 to 1977).
2See D ig e st o f S e le c te d H e a lth a n d I n su ra n c e P lan s, 1 9 7 7 - 79 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1978) as amended by Supplement I, January
1979 and Supplement II, July 1979. Of the 148 health plans summa
rized in the digest, 71 plans covered nonoffice employees, 33 plans of
fice employees, and 44 plans all employees (office and nonoffice).
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1Employees in 3 health plans with dental benefits and in 10 health
plans with vision care benefits had a choice of having benefits provid
ed by a commercial insurance company, a nonprofit organization such
as a dental or vision care service corporation, or health maintenance
organization (HMO). In some cases the choice was between a plan
with such benefits, usually an HMO, and one with no dental or vision
benefits.
“The “nonoffice and office (all employees)” group include employ
ees covered by dental plans having the same benefits for nonoffice and
office employees.
5
See Richard Ostuw, “Dental Plan Design,” E m p lo y e e B e n e fits
Fall, Z977. Ostuw argues that liberal coverage of preventive
care allows a greater portion of the covered group to qualify for bene
fits “thereby improving the degree of satisfaction with the plan by
participants,” and reducing the long-term cost of treatment.
J o u rn a l,
Productivity growth below average
in fabricated structural metals
The industry that shapes metal parts for buildings,
bridges, and overpasses showed productivity setbacks
in 1973-78, contributing to a 20-year average less
than half that of the entire manufacturing sector
P h y l l is F
lohr
Otto
Despite advances in technology, productivity growth in
the fabricated structural metal industry has been only
half that of all manufacturing industries, and in recent
years output per employee hour has declined.
Fabricated structural metal plants convert mill shapes
(primarily steel), by cutting, bending, welding, drilling,
and other methods. Products include columns, joists,
and trusses, which are used to build frameworks for
buildings and bridges. Lesser quantities of products go
to industries such as shipbuilding.
Output per employee hour in the industry rose at an
average annual rate of 1.2 percent from 1958 to 1978.1
(See chart 1 and table 1.) This is the result of an aver
age annual increase of 2.2 percent in output and 1.0
percent in employee hours. Productivity growth for the
entire manufacturing sector of the economy was 2.6 per
cent for the same period.
Productivity and output dropped during 1973-78.
Productivity fell an average annual rate of 2.9 percent a
year, and output by 3.9 percent. These losses were only
partly offset by a 1.0-percent average annual drop in
Phyllis Flohr Otto is an economist in the Division of Industry Pro
ductivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employee hours. The industry was particularly hard hit
by the 1974-75 recession, and demand for bridge-build
ing products was hurt by imports. Productivity in these
years recorded the two largest declines in the industry,
5.8 percent in 1974 and 9.4 percent in 1975. A slight in
crease of 1.0 percent occurred in 1976, when employee
hours fell more than output. However, the industry
continued to record productivity declines after the re
cession, .3 percent in 1977 and an additional .2 percent
in 1978.
Causes of declines
Productivity growth has been retarded by increased
requirements for quality control and the made-to-order
nature of goods produced in the industry, and by the
lag in adjusting employment to changing output levels
in this industry. Because of the high skill level of the
work force, some employers attempt to retain employ
ees during business downturns. When demand drops
they tend to make lower bids for work, or bid on
smaller jobs than they normally handle. This enables
them to continue operating and retain their employees,
and to cover some overhead costs in paying for capital
equipment. However, this results in productivity de27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Productivity in Structural Metals
dines during cyclical downturns.
As in many other industries, short-term productivity
changes in fabricated structural metal are closely associ
ated with changes in output. Demand is directly affect
ed by construction activity, which in turn is tied to cy
clical fluctuations in the overall economy. The largest
single market for the industry is industrial construction,
which purchases about 24 percent of output. Commer
cial construction accounts for 20 percent; highway and
street construction, 14 percent; public utilities construc
tion, 13 percent; and educational building construction,
8 percent.2This means that at least 79 percent of the in
dustry’s goods are purchased by construction busi
nesses. Because cyclical changes in the economy are
heavily reflected in construction, output changes in the
fabricated structural metal industry generally coincide
with or lag slightly behind them.
The influence of cyclical fluctuations on productivity
and output can be observed by comparing the 1958-73
period (a time of overall economic growth when pro
ductivity grew at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent
a year) to the 1973-78 period (which included a major
recession, when nonresidential construction was down
significantly, and productivity declined at an average
annual rate of 2.9 percent a year).
rate of 6.1 percent a year during 1958-73. It was also
during this time that most of the interstate highway
system was constructed, increasing the demand for met
al to erect bridges and overpasses.
Adding to the strong demand during the 1958-73
period was the industry’s ability to compete with alter
native construction materials by introducing new prod
ucts. For example, the introduction of high strength
steel in the early 1960’s enabled the industry to combat
the competition from concrete manufacturers in the
high-rise buildings market. High strength steel is strong
er and lighter than conventional steel, resulting in lower
overall building costs in some cases. Another new prod
uct was weathering steel, which develops a protective
patina when exposed to the atmosphere, resulting in
lower maintenance costs.
Slow employment growth
The industry employed 98,500 persons in 1977, in
cluding 72,000 production workers. Employment rose
at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent from 1958 to
1978, slightly faster than the 1.0 percent rate in work
hours. There has been a small reduction in average an
nual hours worked per employee.
Employment in the industry peaked at 107,500 in
1967 and has been generally declining since, reflecting
Advances during 1958-73
The 2.3-percent rate of growth in productivity during
1958-73 occurred while output in the industry was ris
ing by 4.0 percent a year and employee hours by 1.6
percent. Increases in productivity during this period
ranged from 1.2 percent in 1964 to 5.3 percent in 1971.
Productivity declined only three times during the
15-year period. In 1959, it fell 2.1 percent in response
to an 11.2-percent decline in output and a 9.3-percent
decline in employee hours. New construction of indus
trial buildings dropped 10.6 percent, and public utilities,
5.8 percent.3 In contrast, the two other declines in pro
ductivity during the 1958-73 period, 2.2 percent in
1966 and 0.4 percent in 1969, occurred when employee
hours rose more than output. A contributing factor was
the shortage of skilled employees, particularly drafters
and welders.4
The construction and fabricated structural metal in
dustries prospered during the economic expansion
which characterized most of the 1958-73 period. The
few declines in output were between 1 and 2 percent ex
cept in 1959. Schools, colleges, and hospitals were being
built at a rapid rate. Overall, construction of nonresi
dential buildings increased at a rate of 3.7 percent a
year. Continuous data are not available for all of the
subcategories, but construction of industrial buildings
rose at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent from 1958
to 1964. Construction by public utilities expanded at a
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Productivity and related indexes for fabricated
structural metals, 1958-78
[1967 = 100]
Employee hours
Output per employee hour
Year
All em
ployees
Produc
tion
workers
Nonpro
duction
workers
Output
All em
ployees
Produc
tion
workers
Nonpro
duction
workers
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
..
..
..
..
..
83.0
81.3
83.9
88.1
91.5
83.6
84.0
85.4
88.9
91.4
81.3
73.4
79.3
85.7
91.8
69.4
61.6
69.6
68.7
67.9
83.6
75.8
83.0
78.0
74.2
83.0
73.3
81.5
77.3
74.3
85.4
83.9
87.8
80.2
74.0
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
..
..
..
..
..
95.0
96.1
100.5
98.2
100.0
95.4
96.4
100.1
97.4
100.0
93.6
95.4
101.5
100.9
100.0
74.6
79.5
86.6
88.4
100.0
78.5
82.7
86.2
90.0
100.0
78.2
82.5
86.5
90.8
100.0
79.7
83.3
85.3
87.6
100.0
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
..
..
..
..
..
103.7
103.3
105.7
111.3
114.7
103.8
104.4
107.7
112.7
115.9
103.4
99.8
99.6
106.9
110.7
100.2
100.6
98.8
98.8
107.9
96.6
97.4
93.5
88.8
94.1
96.5
96.4
91.7
87.7
93.1
96.9
100.8
99.2
92.4
97.5
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
..
..
..
..
..
116.5
109.7
99.4
100.3
100.0
118.4
110.9
101.0
102.6
102.9
110.8
106.0
94.5
93.7
92.1
110.8
103.8
92.8
87.9
89.8
95.1
94.6
93.4
87.6
89.8
93.6
93.6
91.9
85.7
87.3
100.0
97.9
98.2
93.8
97.5
1978 ..
99.8
101.5
94.8
92.4
92.6
91.0
97.5
Average annual rates of change (percent)
1958-78
1958-73
1973-78
1.2
2.3
-2.9
1.3
2.3
-2 .8
1.0
2.4
-3.7
2.2
4.0
-3.9
1.0
1.6
-1 .0
0.9
1.6
-1 .2
1.1
1.6
- .5
employed between 20 and 49 persons. The industry in
cludes plants owned by major steel companies or their
subsidiaries, which fabricate metal for their own use.
Few projects are bid on the national market for fabri
cated structural metal. A few large fabricators sell with
in a region, but most establishments service smaller
local markets within about 200 miles of their plants.
Transporting the finished product is costly, so most fab
ricators are in densely populated areas, near major con
struction sites.
Technology and capital expenditures
the declining output of recent years. In the autumn of
1977, most plants were operating at no more than 60
percent of capacity. During that year, many firms went
out of business.5
Production workers have consistently accounted for
74 to 75 percent of the employees in the industry.
Therefore, the trend in output per production worker
hour, 1.3 percent, is similar to that for all employee
hours. A 1974 survey showed 75 percent of production
workers in the industry scheduled to work 40 hours a
week, with the remainder scheduled for additional time.
None was scheduled to work fewer than 40 hours.
However, crews often work either more or less than the
scheduled number of hours.6
Most production workers are in skilled occupations,
many doing highly judgmental work requiring special
ized knowledge such as welding, layout, and inspection.
Workers earn high wages reflecting these skills. During
1958-78, average hourly earnings were about 7 percent
higher than for all manufacturing industries. Many of
these employees, in occupations such as crane operator,
welder, and layout worker, have skills which can be
transferred to other heavy industries; if they are laid off"
their return may depend on the proximity of other
heavy industry in the area.7
The industry also requires many structural drafters
and engineers to design shop drawings; architectural
drawings are not completely detailed. Many details
must be filled in before construction begins. These em
ployees make up about 10 percent of the work force.8
The fabricated structural metal industry consists
mainly of many small establishments serving primarily
local markets. In 1972, 50 percent of the shops in the
industry had fewer than 20 employees, and 30 percent
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
From 1958 to 1977, growth in capital expenditures
per employee in the fabricated structural metal industry
averaged 7.8 percent a year as compared to 8.0 percent
for all manufacturing industries. Most of the capital ex
penditure has been in the largest firms. Bidding on ma
jor projects and maintaining a sizable work force, they
are the buyers of heavy or sophisticated equipment.
The most important new technological development
in the industry is the automatic beam line which has
been an important aid to productivity gains. Beam han
dling can be a time-consuming and costly process in the
shop. Some studies show that using the old technology,
a beam is lifted by a crane at least 16 times while being
moved between work stations.9Each lift requires the use
of at least two employees. The introduction of automat
ic beam lines eliminated much of this burden. The auto
matic lines move beams to various work stations along
roller conveyors, where automatic drilling, punching,
and cutting operations occur. The conveyors can be
used with an automatic gauge. This is a block which
moves along underneath the conveyor and stops at a
point designated by the operator. The block moves be
tween the rollers to stop the beam. This provides an ac
curate gauge for the metal and automatically positions
the beam at the point where it is to be worked on.
Beams can be moved automatically from one line to an
other by a set of bars which move between the rollers
and flip the metal onto the next conveyor.
This process has facilitated the use of automatic
equipment for cutting, punching, drilling, and welding.
Usually, the layout of the plant is altered to accommo
date beam handling equipment, minimizing the number
of times, and the distances the metal must be moved.
The welding process has become increasingly auto
mated, allowing increased use of shop welding without
a proportionate increase in the number of welders. In
1964, 24.8 percent of the production workers in the in
dustry were hand welders, and 3.4 percent machine
welders.10 By 1974, the proportion of hand welders had
fallen to 19.6 percent and that of machine welders had
grown to 7.0 percent.11 New methods, allowing for
faster deposition of the weld metal, have speeded the
process.
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Productivity in Structural Metals
Computers and automation
The increasing use of computers has resulted in addi
tional automation. Computers are used to handle inven
tories, payroll, and clerical functions. One of the most
important applications has been in work scheduling.
Fabricated structural steel must be delivered to the con
struction site on a workflow basis. The fabricator must
match the needs of the contractor by arranging a sched
ule which makes optimum use of available resources.
The computer is also used in drafting and designing
work.
There are numerous applications for numerically con
trolled machinery in the manufacture of fabricated
structural metal. Some machines are able to do the jobs
of skilled layout workers. The machinery can punch
holes in proper relationship to the sides and end pieces
of sections, automatically compensating for metal which
is not perfectly squared. It has also been used for dril
ling, cutting, and welding tasks in the workplace.
Another technological advance in the industry is the
cold cut saw for cutting structural shapes. This circular
saw is continuously bathed in oil as it rotates, and in
creases productivity in two ways: cold cutting is faster
than the friction sawing it replaces, and leaves fewer
burrs to be removed. Cold cut saws are also quieter
than friction saws.
Quality control has always been important work in
the fabricated structural metal industry. However, more
employee-hours are spent on quality control now than
in the past; contractors and designers are demanding
closer tolerances, and because labor costs have in
creased faster at the construction site than in the plant,
it is cheaper to have this work done in the plant.
There have been some technological improvements in
quality control. The job has become far more sophisti
cated, particularly in weld inspection. Electronic testing
of welds has become much easier; portable weld testers
are now available.
The growth in modular construction has led to fur
ther investment in new capital equipment. The allow
able variance of dimensional tolerance for modular
construction is tighter than in other types of buildings.
Mechanization is one way of tightening tolerances for
this kind of construction.
More stringent safety standards resulted in some cap
ital expenditures being made for safety equipment and
noise protection. This has provided employees with a
safer work environment and may have reduced expendi
tures on other capital equipment.
Slow growth probable
Productivity growth in the fabricated structural metal
industry probably will not resume until output picks
up. Industrial construction, the major market for the in
dustry, did not increase until mid-1978. Much of the ac30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tivity until now has involved rehabilitation of existing
structures. This is relatively inexpensive but does not
benefit the industry. Neither does the move by corpora
tions toward rural and suburban areas. Because land in
these areas is cheaper, many of the office buildings are
low structures which use little or no structural metal.
Regardless of the anticipated recovery in nonresidential construction, there are good signs for the future of
the fabricated structural metal industry. Oil companies
are placing orders for metal to construct offshore dril
ling platforms. These orders call for delivery in the ear
ly 1980’s. Estimates have been made that more than
100,000 bridges in this country are in need of replace
ment.12 Although replacement is not being funded now,
it could be a good long-range market for the industry.
Productivity growth will probably remain lower than
the all-manufacturing averagf. The industry is tied to
individualized, custom work. This prevents long runs of
similar products, and the economies which accompany
them. Work must continue on a flow basis, benefiting
and accommodating the contractor rather than the
manufacturer. Further, stringent quality control and
testing will continue to be necessary.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Average annual rates of change are based on the linear least
squares trends of the logarithms of the index numbers. The fabricated
structural metal industry is designated industry 3441 in the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 Edition, issued by the Office of
Management and Budget. The industry comprises establishments pri
marily engaged in manufacturing fabricated iron and steel or other
metal for structural purposes, such as bridges, buildings, and sections
for ships, boats, and barges. A technical note describing the indexes is
available upon request. The indexes for this industry will be updated
and included in the annual Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin, P ro
d u c tiv ity I n d e x e s f o r S e le c te d In d u stries.
2 U .S. I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k 1 9 7 5 — W ith P r o je c tio n s to 1 9 8 0 , Domestic
and International Business Administration; U.S. Department of Com
merce (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.); 1975;
p. 26.
3All figures on construction put in place are based on data from
C o n s tru c tio n R e v ie w (Bureau of Domestic Commerce, U.S. Depart
ment of Commerce), various issues.
4 U .S. I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k 1 9 7 0 , Business and Defense Services Ad
ministration, U.S. Department of Commerce, (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,) 1970, p. 464.
5 U .S. I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k 1 9 7 8 , Bureau of Domestic Commerce, U.S.
Department of Commerce (U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash
ington, D.C.) 1978, p. 17.
6 I n d u s tr y W a g e S u rv e y : F a b r ic a te d S tr u c tu r a l S te e l N o v e m b e r 1974,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 1935, 1977, p. 4 (U.S. Govern
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.)
7Based on discussions with a number of industry sources.
8Debron Corporation, notice of annual meeting and proxy state
ment, May 5, 1978.
9 “Handling Taken Out of Beam Fabrication,” by John L. Obrzut,
Iro n A g e, February 24, 1972, p. 60.
10“Earnings in Fabricated Structural Steel, 1964,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , October 1965, p. 1220.
11 I n d u s tr y W a g e S u rv e y : F a b r ic a te d S tr u c tu r a l S te e l N o v e m b e r 1974,
p. 8.
12 U .S. I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k 1 9 7 8 , p. 17.
APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations
The productivity indexes in this study measure the
change over time in industry output per unit of labor
input. They do not measure the specific contribution of
labor, but reflect the influence of many factors such as
technology, capital investment, and managerial skills, as
well as the skill and effort of the work force.
The output index is based on value of shipments data
adjusted for inventory change, published by the Bureau
of the Census. Detailed data from the Census of Manu
factures for 1958, 1963, 1967, and 1972 were used to
derive benchmark indexes, to which the annual indexes
for intervening years, based on the Annual Survey of
Manufactures, were adjusted. The value of shipments of
the various product classes were adjusted for price
changes by appropriate Producer Price Indexes to de
rive a real output measure. These, in turn, were com
bined with employee hour weights to derive the overall
output measure. Employment and employee hour index
es were derived from census data. Employees and em
ployee hours are considered homogeneous and additive,
and thus do not reflect changes in the qualitative as
pects of labor, such as skill and experience of persons
constituting the aggregate.
Data on the quantities of goods produced by the fab
ricated structural metal industry are not complete. Real
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
output, therefore, was estimated on the basis of a deflat
ed value technique. That is, changes in the price levels of
the current dollar value of production were removed by
means of appropriate price indexes. Because an adjust
ment for changing price levels usually lowers the dollar
value, such a series is referred to as a deflated value mea
sure. In an industry such as the fabricated structural
metal industry, where the raw material may differ from
one product to the next, this technique may result in
some bias in the measure. However, this bias is minimal.
To combine segments of the output measure, employ
ee hour weights relating to the individual segments were
used. This technique was used at various levels of
subaggregation for the variety of products manufac
tured by this industry. These procedures result in a final
output index that is conceptually close to the preferred
output measure.
Indexes of output per employee hour relate total out
put to one input labor time. The indexes do not mea
sure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or any
other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint effects
of such factors as changes in technology, capital invest
ment, capacity utilization, shop design and layout, skill
and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and la
bor-management relations.
31
Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present
ed at the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Indus
trial Relations Research Association, December 28-30,
1979 in Atlanta, Ga.
Papers prepared for the meetings of the IRRA are
excerpted by special permission and may not be
reproduced without the express permission of the
IRRA, which holds the copyright.
The full text of all papers will appear in the IRRA
publication, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual
Meeting, available from IRRA, Social Science Building,
Madison, Wis. 53706.
Labor force activity of married women
as a response to changing jobless rates
O l iv ia
S.
M
it c h e l l
For married women, the bulk of cross-sectional litera
ture appears to indicate that the net effect of local un
employment rates on participation is a negative one.1
Early time-series studies also showed a small pro
cyclical labor force response of married women,2but re
cent papers seem to reveal a counter-cyclical pattern.3
Resolution of this empirical paradox is of interest, be
cause a prevalent “discouraged worker” effect suggests
that economic prosperity will simply draw more females
into the labor force without decreasing observed unem
ployment rates substantially. On the other hand, if
women enter the labor force in response to high local
unemployment, and then withdraw in more prosperous
periods, policies to stimulate economic growth will re-
Olivia S. Mitchell is assistant professor of labor economics at Cornell
University. Her full IRRA paper is entitled “The Cyclical Respon
siveness of Married Females’ Labor Supply: Added and Discouraged
Worker Effects.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
duce the overall unemployment rate more rapidly than
expected. Jacob Mincer’s discussion of the issue sug
gests that “the findings in the cross-section analysis
constitute evidence largely in favor of a hypothesis that
prolonged depressed employment conditions in an area
tend to shrink the area’s labor force rates.”4 The impli
cation is that cross-sectional behavior reflects primarily
a long-run response to permanent unemployment faced
in each labor market, while time-series data are more
likely to reveal participation response to cyclical chang
es. However, no previous attempts to resolve this ques
tion have been able to distinguish effectively between
the behavioral responses to short and long-run labor
market conditions.
These long-term differences between labor markets
are probably the result of various characteristics of la
bor markets which are difficult to measure with accura
cy. However, if these factors are correlated with
included explanatory variables in labor force participa
tion models, coefficient estimates for other variables will
be biased. For example, wages and employment rates
are probably correlated with seasonal and industrial
employment patterns specific to each labor market, edu
cational systems vary with location, job and pay struc
tures depend on the power of unions and discriminatory
customs, and the manner in which social / welfare pro
grams are administered determine the environment in
which labor supply decisions are made. These factors
cannot be satisfactorily quantified, but controls are re
quired in order to obtain unbiased estimates of the ex
planatory variables of interest.
I have examined both cross-section and time-series
results for a panel of data on major U.S. cities over the
period 1968-75. The labor force participation equation
is similar to those estimated by other researchers, but in
accordance with the underlying hypothesis in this pa
per, results for separate cities and separate years are es
timated. As Mincer predicted, time-series behavior dif
fers from that in the cross section. The novelty of the
approach is that an overall response in pooled data can
also be examined. Here the results are found to depend
on the way city-specific structural effects are modeled.
Data and estimation
Data from the March Current Population Survey
(CPS) are available for the years 1968 through 1975. By
grouping observations on married women (spouse pres
ent) living in the 19 locations identified by the CPS in
each year, I obtained a panel of cross-section time-series
data for the largest urban labor markets in the nation.
Aggregation of micro data in this way reduces errors in
measurement and variations in tastes, and permits the
appending of area-specific unemployment measures
obtained from Employment and Earnings and the Eco
nomic Report of the President.5All nominal variables are
deflated by a consumer price index which takes into ac
count price variations across Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas over the 8-year period.6
One problem with the CPS, as with most data sets, is
that wages are not observed for many sample respon
dents. Here, two approaches are taken. First, an educa
tional attainment term is used as one proxy for wages.
Second, a wage rate applicable to full-time female work
ers is imputed to all women based on location of resi
dence.
When a full-time worker wage rate is used to control
for offered wages in each labor market, cross-sectional
patterns within most years show a negative relationship
between unemployment and participation rates which
suggest a net discouraged worker effect. However, re
gressions for each urban area over 8 years indicate that
rising local unemployment rates induce female partici
pation. This is consistent with a net added worker re
sponse; and, in many cases, the correlation is sta
tistically significant. Analysis of pooled data without
city terms indicates an insignificant participation re
sponse; however, when the pooled model is expanded to
include city-specific intercepts, the female participation
response to local joblessness is positive and highly sig
nificant. Thus, a predominant added worker effect is ob
served when structural between-city differences are in
corporated.
As a final check on the differential impact of cyclical
and long-term area unemployment, I examined female
participation responses to the difference between aver
age and current local unemployment over time. Results
from pooled data indicate unambiguously that when lo
cal unemployment exceeds the 8-year city average, fe
male participation rises; conversely, participation rates
decline when local joblessness falls below the long-term
average.7 This net added worker effect is statistically
significant whether or not city-specific intercepts are in
cluded, which supports the notion that deviations from
long-term conditions are better predictors of cyclical be
havior than are the current unemployment rates. It
should be noted that even in this case a majority of city
terms differs significantly from zero, suggesting that
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
these factors pick up persistent patterns of behavior in
addition to the long-term unemployment conditions.8
T h e a p p a r e n t p a r a d o x , between cross-section and
time-series female participation responses to unemploy
ment reported in the literature is thus resolved when
city-specific characteristics first alluded to by Mincer
are explicitly controlled. Though further research is re
quired to identify the information summarized in these
city-specific intercepts, theoretical arguments indicate
that they should be incorporated. When they are not,
static year-by-year relationships between cities show
that a low female participation rate is associated with
depressed business conditions. However, the relation
ship over time within a city or within a group of cities
is positive on net, if long-term structural differences are
controlled. This added worker response may be more
relevant for policymakers concerned with predicting la
bor force cyclical sensitivity, rather than estimating a
mixture of long and short-run responses to unemploy
ment in each labor market.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1See, for instance, William Bowen and T. Aldrich Finegan, “Labor
Force Participation and Unemployment,” E m p lo y m e n t P o lic y a n d th e
L a b o r M a r k e t, A. M. Ross, ed. (Berkeley, University of California
Press, 1965); Judith Fields, “A Comparison of Intercity Differences in
the Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women in 1970 with
1940, 1950 and 1960,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R eso u rces, Fall 1976, pp.
568-77.
2A discussion of early approaches is found in Edward Alban and
Mark Jackson, “The Job Vacancy-Unemployment Rates and Labor
Force Participation,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R ev ie w , April
1976, pp. 412-19.
’ A recent study finding this result is Michael Wachter, “A Labor
Supply Model for Secondary Workers,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta
tistics, May 1972, pp. 141-51. John L. Goodman, Jr., also discusses
the issues in “Spectral Analysis of the Dependence of Labor Force
Participation on Unemployment and Wages,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s
a n d S ta tistic s, August 1974, pp. 390-92.
“Jacob Mincer, “Labor Force Participation and Unemployment: A
Review of Recent Evidence,” P r o s p e r ity a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t, R. A.
Gordon and M. S. Gordon, eds. (New York, John Wiley and Sons,
1966), p. 81.
'Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 1370-12, 1974, and Of
fice of Management and Budget, E c o n o m ic R e p o r t o f th e P re sid e n t,
1975, Washington.
6This was derived from intra-SMSA cost of living indexes
published annually in the M o n th ly L a b o r R eview .
7The variable is defined as the difference between unemployment in
each city averaged over the 8 years and the current unemployment
rate in that city. Without city intercepts the coefficient on this term is
—.006 (with a t statistic of 2.57); with city intercepts the coefficient is
—.007 (with a t statistic of 4.23).
8Further evidence supporting the dominance of an added worker
effect appears in analysis of the underlying micro cross-section data
from the CPS. A probit regression of wives’ participation on econom
ic and demographic variables similar to those used above also pro
duces a positive unemployment coefficient when city-specific intercepts
are used, but a negative coefficient when city-specific terms are exclud
ed. See Olivia Mitchell, “The Labor Supply of Nonmarried Women,”
paper presented at the Econometric Society meetings in Atlanta, GA,
Dec. 28-30, 1979.
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Conference Papers
Unionism’s effect on faculty pay:
handicapping the available data
M
a r t in
J.
M
o rand
a n d
D
o nald
S. M
cP h er so n
One of the unanticipated outcomes of collective bar
gaining in higher education has been the creation of a
new industry— academic studies of academic unionism.
The implications of faculty bargaining for such tradi
tional concerns as academic freedom, collegiality, gover
nance, and similar abstruse subjects have attracted
speculation and study. Articles published in these areas
represent no more than individual theorizing or rely on
data which are no more than a collection of individual
opinions. In contrast, those scholars who focus on the
compensation question—how unionism relates to wages
and fringes— would seem to have the advantage of a
wealth of objective data.
All interested academicians are familiar with the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
“Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profes
sion.” It is convenient, predates collective bargaining,
covers unionized and unorganized institutions, and
serves as the basic statistical resource for most research.
AAUP edits, interprets, and publishes data that, since
1976, have been gathered exclusively by the Nation
al Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through
the Higher Education General Information Surveys
(HEGIS). Yet, these compensation studies have reached
sharply contradictory conclusions which lead to lengthy
and learned argument over the relative advantages of
matched pairs versus multiple regression. The fault lies
less in the statistical methodology than in the assump
tion that the statistics are complete, relevant, and accu
rate enough to reach meaningful conclusions on the
relationship between unionism and wages, hours, and
working conditions in academe.
We acknowledge our own bias. We are active mem
bers of the Association of Pennsylvania State College
and University Faculties (APSCUF, affiliated with
AAUP and American Federation of Teachers, AFLCIO), the union of the Pennsylvania State College and
University (PSCU) system where we work. As bene
ficiaries of faculty unionism, we approach studies which
report a negative or null effect of collective bargaining
on faculty compensation with skepticism. If the impact
be so slight, why does management protest so much?
Or, as Brown and Stone wonder, because faculty unions
Martin J. Morand is Director, Center for the Study of Labor Rela
tions, and Donald S. McPherson is Chairperson, Department of La
bor Relations, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Their full IRRA
paper is entitled “Back to Basics: A Call for Accuracy in Research on
Collective Bargaining’s Effect on Faculty Compensation.”
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
have not been associated with general economic gains
and union dues are substantial, what explains the rapid
growth of faculty unionism?2 Further, because it is easi
er to decertify than to organize (because administrators
seldom fight to keep unions) why have faculties which
come to unionism with such misgivings not repudiated
their unions?
Our interest and suspicions grew out of the contra
dictions between our own experience and published re
ports on our system. For example, the 1975 AAUP
report showed an increase of over $3,000 per faculty
member in our system. It caused consternation in Penn
sylvania political circles, showing that the PSCU had
shot ahead of faculty compensation at the prestigious
University of Pittsburgh. But we knew that our acrossthe-board increase for that year was 4 percent, or about
$1,000. Investigation revealed that almost two-thirds of
the reported raise, about $2,000, was actually the result
of a reduction in the employer’s cost for pensions.
This is one of several conundrums which led us to
suspect first the statistics and then the statisticians. The
explanation of the contradiction between what AAUP
reported and what we observed is simple and revealing.
In order to improve benefit packages generally and pen
sion mobility particularly, AAUP counts only those em
ployer contributions that become vested (in the faculty
member) within 5 years. The State contributions to the
retirement system never before “counted” because in
Pennsylvania pensions became vested only after 10
years.
But in 1975 the faculty union negotiated an optional
retirement system with immediate vesting. Although few
faculty chose the option, once immediate vesting be
came available, the institution was credited under
AAUP rules as if all were covered. Our university saves
thousands of dollars each year on faculty who opt out
of the State system because it is now charging double to
catch up on prior years of underfunding. In the very
year the union’s negotiated cost saving was imple
mented, the university appeared to be paying a large in
crease for faculty retirement benefits.
These apparent discrepancies led us first to suspect
that the fault lay with AAUP. However, after extensive
dialogue with AAUP’s director of research, Maryse
Eymonerie, we became convinced that the numbers
themselves are not the villains. She shared with us, as
she told us she had with previous researchers, her per
ceptions of the pitfalls inherent in unsophisticated appli
cation of published figures. Our own findings on data
deficiencies are organized under four headings.
Missing data
Some data are missing; some just missed. HEGIS
tapes contain information not summarized on AAUP
charts. The tapes include all employer payments for
pensions including those, primarily in the public sector,
which do not vest within 5 years. HEGIS tapes also in
clude all employer costs for housing subsidies and tu
ition benefits. AAUP does not include these benefits
unless a cash option is available. Jerome Staller’s study
of community colleges uses these raw data. We do not
know whether counting these benefits influenced his
finding that “unionization has raised fringe benefits
nearly 80 percent over those prevailing in nonunion col
leges.”3 But Staller was the first scholar in the field to
insist that salaries and fringes and hours— or their ana
logue, workload— because they could either be im
proved in tandem or traded against each other, must be
examined separately and severally in any study of total
compensation. Despite his warning and despite the fact
that the literature makes it clear that workload is a ma
jor issue at the bargaining table,4 only one other com
pensation study that we know of deals with it.5
The complexity of defining and measuring workload,
the difficulty of measuring salaries outside the base year
and the danger of relying on AAUP tables as the only
information source are all illustrated in a single exam
ple. Pennsylvania State University (not to be confused,
as it was by one researcher, with PSCU) has transferred
hundreds of faculty from 48-week to 36-week contracts
since 1974. They maintained their full salary and were
expected to maintain “the same workload (particularly
teaching) and quality standards.” Does this represent a
25 percent increase in salary? It is reported as such to
AAUP. Is this a reduction in workload? If one views
workload as time work, yes, as piecework, no. The fac
ulty member who volunteers to accept this offer must
agree to forgo across-the-board raises for 2 years. Why
do they accept? In many cases because they can now
earn extra income during the newly freed 12 weeks— in
come sometimes paid from the same grants they work
under during the 36-week payroll period.
Other significant omissions from available salary data
important to studies of collective bargaining include:
retroactive salary payments, improved summer con
tracts, compensation for co-curricular duties, stipends
for chairpersons, released time for consulting and grant
income which supplements salaries. The contract at the
City University of New York system provides over $3.5
million annually for research and fellowship awards.
Our own union negotiated a $500,000 trust which funds
educational expenses, research, and travel.
' Eymonerie listed benefits which are omitted from the
various surveys, some of which have a significant collec
tive bargaining related impact. Her examples include:
“office space, secretarial assistance, library privileges,
laboratory and computer facilities, travel and member
ship fees to professional organizations, parking, meals,
and sabbatical leave.”6 Our records add: professional li
ability insurance; paid leaves for illness, parenting and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
education; reduced interest loans; and wholesale costs
for purchases of insurance, autos, appliances. One con
tract even guarantees the right to collect a cord of
wood on campus.
It is clear that data currently missing on changes in
workload, on extra salaries, and on missing benefits
must be collected and considered in any effort to evalu
ate accurately the impact of faculty unionism.
Misleading data
Academicians’ faith in the salutary effects of grading
on a curve to encourage improved performance leads
AAUP to continue to report legislated benefits such as
social security. It hopes to encourage all States to make
coverage mandatory. Because salaries subject to social
security taxes have a ceiling, this item is reflected in the
reports as a greater “fringe benefit as a percent of sala
ry”7 at campuses with lower salaries. Thus, institutions
which pay less get higher “marks” in the fringe column.
Unemployment compensation replicates the social se
curity problem and adds a peculiar, collective bargain
ing related, distortion of its own. Institutions are often
on a pay-as-you-go basis with unemployment compen
sation— the more layoffs, the more payout, the more
chargebacks. Many unions have succeeded in blocking
mass retrenchments and reducing individual dismissals.
This faculty benefit, when reflected in lower unemploy
ment compensation costs, appears as a lower fringe and
thus less total compensation rating on the charts.
An accurate evaluation of legislated fringe benefits as
an obviously important part of compensation must, in
any case, deal openly with these problems of misleading
data.
Misinterpreted data
Definitions and instructions used in surveys are ig
nored by respondents and researchers alike. “Instruc
tional faculty” is the group purportedly being counted,
and faculty researchers mistakenly assume we all know
what that means. But collective bargaining and its
concommitant, unit determination, have changed the
perception, if not the definition, of the term. Studies
which compare the pre-bargaining 1960’s with the post
bargaining 1970’s are often comparing oranges and lem
ons.
For example, our union represents two bargaining
units—teaching faculty and administrative faculty. But
the teaching unit includes, among others* librarians,
coaches, counselors, student-teacher supervisors, athletic
directors, equal-opportunity-in-sports coordinators and
department chairpersons. All or part of their salaries
ought to be excluded from the reports. Some campuses,
particularly where the person responding has been
filling out HEGIS questionnaires since the pre
bargaining days, do exclude them. Others, understand35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Conference Papers
ably, find the numbers to fill in on the form by punch
ing a button on the computer which is programmed by
bargaining unit—including all these persons and their
total instructional and administrative salaries. We came
across this problem when we observed campuses report
ing salaries higher than the maximum contained in the
contractual salary schedule because they were including
these administrative payments. Although textual
exegisis is not our preferred procedure for understand
ing the dynamics of collective bargaining, a look at the
contract while looking at the report might alert re
searchers to problems they now miss.
Mistakes in data
Most of the data error we identify is in the Pennsyl
vania reports, presumably because we are more familiar
with the facts and alert to the problems. But we have
no reason to believe the situation is different elsewhere.
Indeed, Professor James Begin of Rutgers finds prob
lems with HEGIS data in his studies of collective
bargaining in New Jersey community colleges, particu
larly because of failure to capture retroactive pay in
creases.8 While these occur frequently in collective
negotiations they are seldom granted to the unorga
nized.
Scanning the charts and checking the contracts in the
PSCU reveals that for 1973-74 Cheyney State College
reports a 21-percent increase for associate professors,
and Edinboro State College shows 23 percent for in
structors. With a 5-percent across-the-board increase in
September ’73 and an additional 5 percent in January
’74, no arithmetic combination of additional increases
such as merit, promotion or increment could have led
to the average increases reported. They were far in ex
cess of amounts published for other ranks at these col
leges and for any ranks at other PSCU colleges. We
believe reporting error is inherent in the data collection
system and not unique to the PSCU.
B a c k TO BASICS in measuring the impact of unionism
on faculty compensation means more than cleaning up
the economic data. The HEGIS data are better than
those available for most industries. The best of data will
only be understood if examined in the context of insti
tutional research, which itself takes into account the in
sights of the behavioral sciences. Campus unionism
presents a unique opportunity for collective bargaining
researchers to examine theory in practice.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' For example, see James P. Begin, “Bargaining and Faculty Re
ward Systems: Current Research Findings,” revised version of a paper
presented at the University of Minnesota, Feb. 24, 1978; Robert
Birnbaum, “Compensation and Academic Bargaining: New Findings
and New Directions,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Ed
ucation, New York, April 1977, “Unionization and Faculty Compen
sation: Part I,” E d u c a tio n a l R e c o r d , Winter 1974, and “Unionization
and Faculty Compensation: Part II,” E d u c a tio n a l R ec o r d , Spring
1976; William Brown and Courtenay Stone, “Academic Unions in
Higher Education: Impacts on Faculty Salary, Compensation, and
Promotions,” E c o n o m ic In q u ir y , July 1977, “Collective Bargaining
and Faculty Compensation Revisited,” S o c io lo g y o f E d u c a tio n , Octo
ber 1977, and “Faculty Compensation Under Unionization: Current
Research Methods and Findings,” working paper No. 77501, School
of Business Administration and Economics, California State Universi
ty, Northridge, March 1977; Larry Leslie and Teh-Wei Hu, F in a n c ia l
I m p lic a tio n s o f C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g in H ig h e r E d u c a tio n , Center for
the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University, Report
No. 29, September 1977; Joan Marshall, “Effects of Collective
Bargaining on Faculty Salaries in Higher Education,” J o u r n a l o f
H ig h e r E d u c a tio n , 1979; David Morgan and Richard Kearney, “Col
lective Bargaining and Faculty Compensation,” S o c io lo g y o f E d u c a
tion , January 1977, and “Collective Bargaining and Faculty Com
pensation Revisited: A Response and a Reaffirmation,” S o c io lo g y o f
E d u c a tio n , October 1977.
2Brown and Stone, “Student-Faculty Ratios and Unions” E d u c a
tio n a l R e c o r d , Spring 1979, p. 169.
3Jerome Staller, “Collective Bargaining: Its Effect on Faculty at
Two-Year Public Colleges,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in
Higher Education, New York, April 1975, p. 81.
4John Creswell, Gerald Kramer, and Thomas Newton, F a c u lty
W o r k lo a d P ro v isio n s in C o n tr a c t A g r e e m e n ts N e g o tia te d a t F o u r Y e a r
C olleges, Academic Collective Bargaining Information Service, Re
search Summary No. 6, December 1978; Kenneth Mortimer and
Gregory Lozier, “Faculty Workload and Collective Bargaining,” N e w
D ir e c tio n s f o r I n s titu tio n a l R ese a rc h , J. I. Doi, ed. (San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, 1974).
5Brown and Stone, “Student-Faculty Ratios and Unions.”
6 Based on correspondence between Maryse Eymonerie and the au
thors, Nov. 8, 1979.
7American Association of University Professors, “Annual Report
on the Economic Status of the Profession,” each year, 1969-79.
8 Based on correspondence between James Begin and the authors,
Aug. 7, 1979.
Hospital managers’ perception
of the impact of unionization
Charles M
axey
During the past decade there has been substantial
growth in the number of formal union-management re
lationships in the U.S. hospital industry.1 As in other
sectors where vital human services are an important em
ployer “product,” the growth of hospital employee
unionism has been a controversial development. Indus
try spokespersons and other observers have expressed
concern over the impact of collective bargaining on the
financial vitality of the industry, and on the ability of
Charles Maxey is assistant professor of organization behavior at the
University of Southern California. His full IRRA paper is entitled
“Organizational Consequences of Collective Bargaining: A Study of
Some Noneconomic Dimensions of Union Impact.”
the hospitals to maintain quality health care services.
The general research issue which arises, then, concerns
the impact of unionization and collective bargaining on
the employer as an organization, and on organizational
performance.
Trade unions may affect employers in numerous ways
that have implications for how the organization per
forms. Strikes and other job actions provide obvious
short-run examples. But the research literature suggests
that longer term changes in organizational structure and
process are also important. Examples of such organiza
tional impact are: effects on the content and execution
of human resource management policy, impact on the
structure of decisionmaking within management, and
impact on the attitudes and behavior of both managers
and nonsupervisory employees.2 This paper presents
some general and preliminary findings from a study in
tended to assess such organizational changes in union
ized hospitals.3 A number of areas of union impact will
be reported on in brief, summary form, but particular
attention will be given to effects on the ability of the
employer to provide quality patient care, and on other
organizational dimensions that might reasonably be
expected to influence overall performance— the role of
hospital management, and the attitudes and behavior of
unionized, nonprofessional employees.
The findings reported here are based on hospital
managers’ assessment of the magnitude and direction
(positive or negative) of union impact on their own or
ganizations. Perceptual data of this kind are of consid
erable value because they reflect the understandings of
those intimately involved in the labor-management rela
tions, where differences of values and goals between the
Table 1.
parties can generally be assumed, and varying assess
ments of the nature of union impact on the employer
can be expected.
A second purpose of this study was to present some
preliminary results on the development of an explanato
ry or interpretive framework for the managerial percep
tions reported. The model, presented in the full version
of this paper, hypothesizes systematic relationships
among managers’ perceptions of a number of dimen
sions of union impact.
The data
Data for the study were collected through administra
tion of written survey questionnaires to managers
employed in 36 unionized hospitals located in 6 major
U.S. cities. Cities were selected to represent a variety of
bargaining structures and climates. Within cities, hospi
tals were chosen to provide variety in terms of organiza
tional size, ownership, pattern of employee representa
tions, and managerial philosophy. Individual managers
were selected on the basis of position (senior adminis
trator, personnel/industrial relations officer, supervisory
physician, nursing administrator, support service de
partment head), and knowledge of the union-manage
ment relationship. In all, 292 managers participated in
the survey.’
The survey instrument used Likert-type response
scales to obtain managers’ views of the nature of the
union-management relationship, and the impact of
unionization and collective bargaining on the hospital;
79 impact questions were included. Respondents made
assessments of both the magnitude of union impact, and
its direction (positive or negative as seen from the per-
Hospital managers’ perceptions of the strength and direction of union impact in selected areas
Impact areas
Percent negative
Mean response1
Percent positive
No impact
Strong
Weak
4.04
3.53
3.52
2.86
2.80
2.65
7.7
24.7
8.2
10.9
19.9
39.8
3.5
8.9
11.3
22.3
23.5
16.6
3.70
2.97
2.93
5.8
15.8
22.8
3.62
3.30
3.28
3.12
2.79
2.75
2.40
5.4
7.7
8.2
11.5
17.6
15.6
30.3
Weak
Strong
11.6
2.6
25.7
42.0
26.3
6.2
32.0
16.6
30.0
19.7
17.5
13.3
45.2
47.2
24.9
5.0
12.7
24.1
5.8
25.8
33.6
27.4
19.2
9.3
35.1
23.8
26.6
25.9
15.4
17.8
9.3
15.1
14.0
23.0
26.1
25.9
27.3
28.3
34.7
31.1
20.3
25.3
33.8
21.1
32.2
25.1
34.6
33.0
21.8
17.1
12.7
24.8
17.4
12.1
12.3
9.2
7.6
7.6
General
Centralized policy m a kin g .......................................................
Wage levels (union employees)...................................................
Ability to retain employees .......................................................
Overall quality of c a re .....................................................................
Productivity of em ployees............................................................
Financial standing of hospital............................................................
Hospital management
Overall quality of management ............................................................
Ability to run hospital effectively........................................
Authority of supervisors.....................................................................
Employee attitudes and behavior
Interest in long-term employment............................................
Turnover ..........................................................
Interest in promotion.....................................................
M orale.......................................................................................
Absenteeism ...........................................................................
Commitment to goals of hospital ...................................................
Willingness to perform extra work ............................................................
11tems are scaled: 1 = Strong Negative Impact; 2 = Weak Negative Impact; 3 = No Impact; 4 = Weak Positive Impact; 5 = Strong Positive Impact. Total number of responses was 292.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Conference Papers
spective of the hospital). Magnitude was measured on a
5 point scale, and direction on a 3 point scale ( + ,
0 , - ).4
Table 1 displays some of the survey results. On the
basis of the aggregated results (some of which are not
reported in the table for space reasons), the following
generalizations are warranted:
Economic impact (wage and benefit levels) was seen
as substantial. Managers reported positive effects in
terms of increased stability of employment and an im
proved competitive position in local labor markets. On
the other hand, the overall financial standing of the hos
pitals was seen to have been adversely affected.
Within management, decision and policy making had
become more centralized, with senior administrators
and personnel /industrial relations specialists assuming
an expanded role. Employee relations policies were seen
to have become more formal, more similar across orga
nization subunits, and applied with greater consistency.
Departmental managers and supervisors were seen to
be spending more time in direct supervision and in at
tending to matters of discipline. The quality of supervi
sion and management were felt to have improved, but
the difficulty of the supervisor’s job had increased. Simi
larly, the overall ability of management to run the hos
pital effectively was seen to have been diminished.
Managers perceived the attitudinal and behavioral re
sponses of nonsupervisory employees to have fallen
along two interrelated dimensions. Managers believed
that the desirability of the hospital as a place of em
ployment had increased as reflected in both employee
attitudes (morale, interest in long-term employment, in
terest in promotion) and behaviors (reduced turnover).
However, performance-related changes were viewed neg
atively; respondents reported decreased commitment (to
the mission of the hospital and to patient care as a
goal) and poorer work performance (increased absentee
ism, decreased willingness to perform, decreased pro
ductivity.) The overall pattern in the aggregated data
suggests managerial perception of an increased “instru
mentalism” on the part of unionized employees.5
Finally, the quality of patient care, a significant di
mension of overall organizational performance, was seen
to have been negatively affected, although the size of
the effect is not great on average, and there is consider
able disparity among respondents as to both the
strength and direction of the effect.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ----------
Data collected by the American Hospital Association indicate that
between 1967 and 1977 the number of U.S. hospitals with at least one
formal union-management agreement increased from 6.7 percent to
about 25 percent.
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2For example, see S. H. Slichter, J. D. Healy, and E. R. Livernash,
(Washington,
D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1960).
3The study was supported by grant number 5 R18HS 01557-02
from the National Center for Health Services Research.
4 For a discussion of a previous use of a similar measure, see Milton
Derber and others, L a b o r - M a n a g e m e n t R e la tio n s in I L I N I C I T Y
(Champaign, 111., Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, Univer
sity of Illinois, 1954), pp. 40-41.
5Similar results were reported by Tove Helland Hammer, “Rela
tionships between Local Union Characteristics and Worker Behavior
and Attitudes,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t J o u rn a l, December 1978,
pp. 560-77.
T h e I m p a c t o f C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g on M a n a g e m e n t
Two approaches
to the mediator’s role
D
eborah
M. K
olb
The differing roles mediators play, “deal maker” or “orchestrator,” reflect respective common sense theories
about how disputes between the parties get resolved.1
Mediators from a State agency, who generally want to
make a deal, believe that such a deal, if achieved, re
sults from their knowledge of the components of a rea
sonable settlement (and, by implication, the parties’ ig
norance of such components), combined with their
ability to persuade the parties to accept such a “reason
able” settlement. Federal mediators, however, prefer a
settlement to be achieved by the parties themselves. By
orchestrating a full exploration of their differences with
some assistance and “injections of reality,” Federal me
diators believe that parties generally will be able to re
solve their own differences.2
These theories held by mediators about how disputes
get resolved emerge from the roles the mediators attri
bute to the other parties in the process. The State medi
ators believe that they need to put together a deal be
cause the other actors in the process— the union and
management committees—lack the expertise to do it
themselves. The inexperience of the bargaining commit
tees is readily apparent to the mediator. Committees,
particularly those on the union side, come to mediation
with long lists of demands— demands which are often
unrealistic in the estimation of the mediator. Inexperi
enced committees get “wedded” to their positions and
are therefore exceedingly reluctant to lower their sights
Deborah M. Kolb is assistant professor of organization behavior and
industrial relations at Simmons College. Her full IRRA paper is enti
tled “Roles and Strategies of Labor Mediators.”
or to delegate the authority to the negotiators they hire
(who have the expertise to negotiate more effectively).
Committees on the management side, often made up of
politically elected representatives, are likewise described
as inexperienced. They adopt exceedingly conservative
positions and adhere to these positions tenaciously.3
Federal mediators, interestingly, describe the union
negotiating committees they encounter in the private
sector in much the same way as do the State mediators.
These committees are inexperienced: they come unpre
pared to mediation with too many demands, many of
which are unrealistic and, because of their inexperience,
only make changes reluctantly. The management com
mittees the Federal mediators work with are often as
inexperienced as the union committees, but the in
experience is manifested differently. Management com
mittees tend to overprepare, and to adopt bottom line
positions early in the negotiations that leaves little room
for exploring options. However, as opposed to the
union committees which have a democratic structure
and require a majority (if not a consensus) to make a
move, the management committees have a hierarchical
decisionmaking structure. The process of generating
movement, therefore, differs between the two types of
committees.
In most of the cases studied, negotiating committees
on both sides had chief spokesmen, most of whom were
professional negotiators. These professionals, because of
their experience and frequent encounters with media
tors, are called “pros.” For the most part, pros are ei
ther labor relations attorneys or business agents from
the union. Both State and Federal mediators had pros
on their cases with approximately the same frequency,
but the expectations about how these pros would act in
their relationships with their committees, with the medi
ator, and with each other differed.
The State mediators looked to the pros to help them
make a deal, a deal the committees, because of their in
experience, presumably would be unable to reach them
selves. When working with two pros, the State media
tors expected that most of the mediation would be con
ducted in off-the-record meetings. As a team, the pros
and the mediator, both knowledgeable in the
prerequisites of a reasonable settlement, could come
gradually to an agreement. During the case, the media
tor would then, in concert with the pros, “sell” the
agreed upon package to the respective committees. With
just one pro on the scene, the mediator had assistance
on one side in the form of insights into the committee’s
behavior and the pro’s assessment of “what it would
take” to get a settlement— the bottom line. But the
pros did not always function in this way. The problem
from the State mediator’s viewpoint is that the commit
tees, because they are inexperienced, control their
spokesmen in such a way that their ability to make an
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
off-the-record deal may be severely circumscribed.
When this occurs, the pro isn’t acting like a pro. Ac
cording to one State mediator,
T h ere are p ros, b u t it ’s n o t ju s t h is ex p erien ce. O n ly if th ey
h ave th e a u th o rity to b argain , are th ey true p ros. A n d for a
true pro, if h e d o e s n ’t h a v e th e a u th o rity , h e ’ll grab it, h e ’ll
d e m a n d it as a c o n d itio n o f h is c o n tin u e d e m p lo y m en t.
State mediators often found that their expectations
about what the pros would do went unfulfilled. Many
pros, according to the State mediators, acted unprolike
during a case. And the mediators’ explanation for this
behavior rested with the inexperienced committees.
They were so inexperienced that they controlled the pro
too tightly, and thus the effect of having a pro at all
was negated. This inexperience of the committees (mani
fested in their tight control and the presence of pros
who often did not act like pros) reaffirmed the media
tor’s sense of his role. He needed to “educate” the
parties about the realities of mediation, which he did by
demonstrating the elements of a reasonable settlement
(his deal).
To the Federal mediator, the pro is an experienced,
knowledgeable, and effective negotiator who is as well
acquainted with the elements of a reasonable package
and often better informed about the local character of
the issues in dispute than the mediator. Though the
pros and the mediator would be capable of reaching a
reasonable settlement, the acceptance of such a settle
ment rests with the committees. Thus it is the pros,
each working with his respective committee, who,
through the ever narrowing exchange of proposals,
move a committee toward a settlement. With the hierar
chical management committee, the pro’s advice was
more likely to be heeded. But with the inexperienced
union committee, the process was likely to be long and
arduous, often requiring more assistance from the medi
ator.
For the Federal mediator, the mark of the true pro is
not that he grabs authority but that he acts like a “clos
er.” A closer is a pro who, based on his experience and
knowledge, uses that expertise to move his committee
by suggesting alternative options for a settlement when
negotiations have reached a stalemate. The Federal me
diators see their role as lending credibility and assis
tance to the pros as they work with their respective
committees to “close” the deal. The dose of reality the
Federal mediators say they inject in a caucus is often
no more than reiterating what the pro has been saying
all along. The only difference is that when the mediator
says it, it’s from a “neutral mouth.” By adopting the
role of orchestrator, the mediator provides the forum
for the committees, guided by their pros, to directly ne
gotiate their agreement.
□
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Conference Papers
FOOTNOTES
' On the properties of common-sense theorizing, see Harold Garfinkel, S tu d ie s in E th n o m e th o d o lo g y (New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1967),
and Aaron Cicourel, C o g n itiv e S o c io lo g y (New York, The Free Press,
1974).
2As a participant observer, intermittently over a 3-year period, I
attended 16 mediation cases with nine different mediators from both a
State office of conciliation and arbitration and a field office of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
The process of selecting cases to attend was different for each serv
ice. State mediators allowed me virtually open access to any case.
They would open their appointment books, tell me what was coming
up, and I would pick a convenient date and case of interest. Federal
mediators did roughly the same thing, but made it clear that certain
cases would be off limits. These were the well publicized, “big” cases
and those where the relationship between the parties was such that an
outsider might exacerbate what was already a volatile situation. The
State cases I observed thus represent a fair sampling of a typical
caseload. Observed Federal cases also represent a typical caseload, ex
cept for the 1 percent described as “problematic” or “headline get
ters.”
’ Inexperienced and diffuse committees, particularly those on the
management side, have been identified as a distinguishing characteris
tic of public sector bargaining. See Thomas Kochan, “A Theory of
Multilateral Bargaining in City Governments,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r
R e la tio n s R ev ie w , July 1975, p. 526; and Kenneth McLennan and Mi
chael Moskow, “Multilateral Bargaining in the Public Sector,” P r o
c e e d in g s o f th e 2 1 s t A n n u a l M ee tin g , Industrial Relations Research As
sociation (Madison, Wise., IRRA, 1968), pp. 34-41.
A note on communications
T h e Monthly Labor Review w e lc o m e s c o m m u n ic a tio n s
th a t su p p le m en t, ch a lle n g e , or ex p a n d o n research p u b
lish e d in its p a g es. T o b e c o n sid e r ed for p u b lica tio n , c o m
m u n ic a tio n s sh o u ld b e fa ctu al a n d a n a ly tica l, n o t p o lem -
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ical in to n e. C o m m u n ica tio n s sh o u ld b e a d d ressed to th e
E d ito r-in -C h ief, Monthly Labor Review, B u reau o f L ab o r
S ta tistic s, U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or, W a sh in g to n , D .C .
20212.
Labor-management panels:
three case studies
Ja m e s W . D
r is c o l l
Cooperative departures from traditional collective bar
gaining behavior have begun to interest scholars and
practitioners.1 Former Secretary of Labor John Dunlop
has chaired the meetings of an informal Labor-Manage
ment Group at the national level to make recommenda
tions on macroeconomic policy. Numerous local com
munities now support area-wide labor-management
committees. And numerous cooperative programs have
appeared in local plants, including quality-of-worklife
programs at General Motors and in-plant committees in
the steel industry, under the auspices of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service, and in the Scanlon
Plan.
Despite the recent chill in U.S. union-management re
lations, cooperative programs have arisen because the
two adversaries increasingly face common problems.2
Challenges to both parties are presented by demograph
ic and attitudinal shifts in the work force, new govern
mental regulation, technological change, and foreign
competition.
All new programs in collective bargaining aiming to
answer these challenges share a common behavioral de
nominator: they encourage joint problem-solving rather
than traditional bargaining. Richard Walton and Rob
ert B. McKersie popularized the distinction between
these two techniques of conflict resolution.3 Bargaining
conceals information in order to extract concessions
from an opponent; problem-solving relies on sharing in
formation in open discussions. Rather than the ex
change of proposals, problem-solving includes careful
identification of joint concerns, generation of a range of
possible alternatives, and the selection of an alternative
to maximize joint benefits.
Research on these recent problem-solving efforts has
James W. Driscoll is an assistant professor at the Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
largely consisted of broad overviews and testimonials by
their proponents. Our own recent study takes a look at
three cooperative innovations, running the gamut from
success to failure. Our purpose was to learn whether co
operative problem-solving between adversaries in collec
tive bargaining works, and what factors facilitate its
success.
Study of cooperative efforts
Case I describes an attempt to improve the negotia
tion of contracts through an industry committee. Case
II focuses on efforts to improve the administration of
the grievance procedure in one plant of a large compa
ny. Case III deals with issues outside the scope of tradi
tional collective bargaining in a quality-of-worklife
project at a hospital.
In each case, we primarily gathered data by inter
viewing as many of the regular participants, past and
present, as possible. We interviewed 83 participants
(about half of those involved), including some third-par
ty participants and about equal numbers of union and
management representatives.4 Joint meetings were also
observed in our study.
The retail food committee
Collective bargaining in the retail food industry is ex
tremely decentralized, with contracts signed in individu
al cities. Unions have been able to play one local
employer against another in highly unionized areas of
this competitive product market. Along with a skilled
work force, this has led to higher wage levels than those
of workers in other retail trades.
The industry also has a high profile. Labor and man
agement felt that unless they agreed to address common
problems in collective bargaining, the industry would be
subject to continued wage-price controls (in early 1974).
To reduce this possibility, the three major unions in the
industry— the Retail Clerks, the Meatcutters, and the
Teamsters—met with the major supermarket chains
and employer association representatives in April 1974
to form the Joint Labor-Management Committee of the
Retail Food Industry.
Wayne Horvitz, former chairman of the industry’s
Tripartite Wage Stabilization Committee during the pe
riod of controls, was chosen as permanent chairman of
the Joint Committee.
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Communications
Committee members included the presidents of the
international unions and the chief executives of the ma
jor supermarket chains. A steering committee was also
established, consisting of the labor-relations vice presi
dents of the companies and staff officials from the
unions. The steering committee met monthly, while the
original top-level executives convened quarterly to set
policy.
An early start tackling issues. The committee examined
collective bargaining and general industry problems. It
published some general principles to guide contract ne
gotiations in the industry.
However, the national recommendations have not be
come standard practice in local negotiations,' although
the committee has targeted key negotiations for national
attention. It has convened local conferences to help
identify problems before contract negotiations begin,
thereby reducing the possibility of work stoppages.
In addition to institutionalizing pre-negotiation con
ferences, the (neutral) chairman and other committee
members worked closely with the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service in mediating a number of
deadlocked negotiations, avoiding several unnecessary
work stoppages and shortening others.
The steering committee has also initiated action on
other problems. In 1976 it undertook a union-manage
ment study of personal protective equipment for
meatcutters, because both parties were dissatisfied with
a regulation proposed by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). As a result, the com
mittee came up with a more workable clarification of
the standard providing greater protection to workers
and acceptable to OSHA.
More recently, the committee has sponsored studies
of potential industry health hazards growing out of con
cerns about “meatcutters asthma” and the use of poly
vinyl chloride wrapping paper, and of the cost of health
benefits under collectively bargained benefit plans. The
health proposals could help reduce benefit costs, while
maintaining or increasing benefit levels for workers.
The committee’s specific accomplishments stem in
large part from the effort of its permanent third parties
and especially the original chairman. He held it together
in its early days and mediated some key contract dis
putes. Later, when the steering committee became
bogged down (in part from antagonisms generated dur
ing contract negotiations) the chairman reactivated the
executive committee to provide policy direction from a
group that was not engaged in continuous negotiations.
Mixed reviews. In summary, the steering committee has
taken action on a number of fundamental industry
problems. For this reason, most of the labor members
praised the committee. Company representatives were
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
dissatisfied, however, because they wanted the commit
tee to help reduce the upward pressure on wages from
collective bargaining. However, the companies also
applauded the committee’s work, when specific accom
plishments were considered.
The disappointment of company members does high
light a major shortcoming. Although it is involved in
settling local disputes, the committee has not enabled
the parties to achieve a structural breakthrough in mar
ket-area bargaining. Negotiating contracts for larger
geographical areas facing similar market conditions
might allow greater stability and lower pressure on
wages than current fragmented bargaining patterns. As
a consequence, the frequency of local disputes might de
cline. Despite progress in some local areas and the
merger of two participating unions— the Clerks and the
Meatcutters, the structural problems of collective
bargaining in the industry remain.
A small plant’s alternative
Pressure from external events forced union and man
agement representatives in a local plant of a large mul
tinational manufacturer to consider an alternative to
traditional collective bargaining. Shortly after the
founding of this small plant in 1969, demand for its
product slackened. As a local policy, workers were not
laid off, but were used as janitors. Union-management
antagonisms developed, which finally led the corporate
industrial relations staff to recommend that no new
work be assigned to the plant.
By 1972, the plant’s employment had dropped to 35
in the bargaining unit. A consultant from the corporate
organizational development staff, which is separate from
the industrial relations staff, began to work with the
plant management to improve its effectiveness. The con
sultant quickly became aware of the labor-management
hostility and offered his help, which was accepted by
the plant manager.
From early-1973 to mid-1974, the consultant initiat
ed, designed, and implemented a series of multiple-day
meetings at which union and management representa
tives discussed their differences in a carefully orchestrat
ed format. All local union officers and members of the
bargaining committee met first with the plant manager
and his staff and later with the production supervisors
in the plant.
In the initial meetings, each group openly vented its
dissatisfaction with the other side. Most members par
ticipated in the discussion, and both sides acknowl
edged some of their own problems. They subsequently
agreed on areas where joint action was needed by top
leadership.
Relations improve. These meetings dramatically im
proved the collective bargaining climate, as both sides
unanimously reported. Relations among the participants
of the meetings improved immediately, and most said
that they could now trust opposing members to tell the
truth more often.
More importantly, the plant personnel manager and
the local union president agreed on two supplements to
the contract: one to revise the assignment of overtime,
the other to specify job ladders within the plant. Both
issues had previously caused many grievance problems;
now grievances decreased immediately.
The two men also began to meet regularly for openended discussions of plant problems. Indeed, when a
department that housed new products developed serious
labor problems, the two held a 3-day meeting with de
partment representatives.
Finally, the monthly union-management meeting was
expanded from a management briefing to include both
safety issues and specific concerns raised by the union.
In this improved atmosphere, the plant manager was
able to support the introduction of new products.
It is always difficult to untangle the effects of such
development programs from simultaneous external in
fluences. In this case, new products were brought on
line after the first meeting, so employment had returned
to 200 following the last meeting. A new personnel
manager also came to the plant just before the first
meeting; he was the first to hold that position on a full
time basis. Finally, a new union president was elected
after the second meeting. He had participated in and
had been impressed by the meetings and continued to
work closely with management, dominating the local
union for several years. Each of these factors undoubt
edly helped resolve some of the problems.
Health care union approached
The quality-of-worklife project at the hospital did not
arise from external pressures, as in the cases previously
discussed. Rather, in 1975, a small independent agency
that had been founded to stimulate joint quality-ofworklife projects approached a major union in the
health care field. The union suggested the 1,200-bed pri
vate, teaching hospital in a major northeastern city as a
site for the project. Relevant parties involved with the
hospital agreed to support a proposal by the quality-ofworklife agency for Federal funding. The purpose of the
externally funded project was to improve patient care
and the quality of worklife in the hospital.
During the initial discussion of the project, the union
was represented by a vice president; the residents’ com
mittee (which then had a collective bargaining agree
ment with the hospital) sent its leader for the
metropolitan area; and the State nurses association was
represented by its statewide director of collective
bargaining. The hospital was represented by its director,
the director of nursing, and the vice president for labor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
relations. It was the first and only time that top leaders
from the various parties met during the project.
A steering committee consisting of representatives of
these top leaders was formed to identify a demonstra
tion unit within the hospital, and to establish a control
group so the effect of the project could be determined.
The steering committee then hired a consulting team, as
called for by the proposal, to initiate the project.
Change in consulting team. Following a slow start, the
first consulting team was dismissed and a second team
was hired, 16 months after the first, top leadership
meeting. The latter consultants initially worked with
rank-and-file workers on the target ward to identify
problem areas for improvement. Later, the consultants
extended their efforts to include higher-level supervisors
and a major department that provides diagnostic serv
ices for the entire hospital.
At the time of the interviews for this report (Fall
1977), the consultant had been working in the hospital
for 15 months and had undertaken a number of pro
grams. Workers on the target ward, aided by the con
sultants, prepared an orientation program for new
residents to ensure continuity in day-to-day work prac
tices, a major problem in teaching hospitals. The con
sultants conducted training sessions on interpersonal
skills for workers on the ward, and they began a survey
of attitudes and perceptions of performance for the di
agnostic department.
It is difficult to assess the impact of these programs
on patient care and worklife because the interviews for
this report focused only on members of the steering
committee. A major evaluation effort is underway to
measure both the delivery of service and the attitude of
workers. Nonetheless, labor and management represen
tatives felt that the stated goals had not been achieved,
and that there had been little impact on the larger col
lective bargaining system, where most had also hoped
to see some improvement.
Two dynamics are worthy of note in understanding
the quality-of-worklife project. First, the director of the
hospital who endorsed the project was replaced shortly
afterward by a successor whose mandate was to cut
costs. Second, the consulting team worked primarily
with employees in the target ward, members of the di
agnostic department that was being surveyed, and with
a few steering committee members. The consultants did
not develop the steering committee to be a problem
solving group.
Guidelines offered
Cooperative projects emerged from these cases not as
panaceas, nor as surefire successes. Rather, practitioners
must exercise caution in the face of optimistic claims for
joint programs and care in their execution. Based on
43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Communications
the three cases studied, it is possible to offer the follow
ing guidelines for cooperation:
• Do not expect certain success.
• Examine the initial situation to predict the success
of the program; specifically, the felt need for change,
the mutual legitimacy of the parties, and support from
top-level management.
• Expect more interpersonal changes and indirect ef
fects than specific accomplishments.
• Attempt problem-solving at any hierarchical level.
• Engage a third party with labor-relations experience
and behavioral-science skills.
• Despite the increased risk of failure, identify com
mon objectives early.
• Involve “line” officials of both union and manage
ment.
• Develop a cohesive group of labor and management
representatives.
• Avoid challenges to union or management authori
ty.
• Attempt change in an entire, largely self-contained
social system.
The three cases not only identify a probable pattern
of factors facilitating cooperative problem-solving, but
also suggest a tentative strategy to implement such a
change. These guidelines stress the need for participants
in a joint effort to monitor the process of the change ef
fort as well as specific substantive issues.
□
FOOTNOTES
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : Marvin Israelow and Paul McKinnon assisted in
all phases of the project.
The research reported here was supported by the U.S. Department
of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Evaluation, and
Research (Contract J-9-D-7-0047). The contents of the report are our
responsibility and not that of the Department of Labor. Additional
funding was provided by the Industrial Relations Section of the Sloan
School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of David A. Nadler of
Columbia University, who is assessing the impact of. the quality-ofworklife project at the hospital beyond our current focus on the col
lective bargaining system. The project activities at the hospital were
conducted under contract HRA 230-75-0179 with the National Cen
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ter for Health Services Research, U.S. Department of Health, Educa
tion, and Welfare.
Helpful comments were provided by Richard Shore and Edgar
Weinberg of the Department of Labor.
' William Batt and Edgar Weinberg, “Labor-Management Coopera
tion Today,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R ev ie w , January-February, 1978.
2J. W. Driscoll, “A Behavorial-Science View of the Future of Col
lective Bargaining in the United States,” L a b o r L a w J o u rn a l, July
1979, pp. 433-38.
1Richard Walton and Robert B. McKersie, A B e h a v o r ia l T h eo ry o f
L a b o r N e g o tia tio n s, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965, pp. 4 -5 .
4The interviews lasted from 20 minutes to 8 hours, with a median
length of 1 hour.
Foreign Labor
Developments
Employment training in France:
firm and worker experience
D
orothy
G.
Spa r r o w
Have French workers benefited from the 1971 law
which required firms to provide education and training
programs for workers? A series of interviews with a
group of 50 workers and managers in 10 firms revealed
that worker participation in training programs had in
creased by 69 percent since the law was enacted. Also,
workers reported improved job satisfaction which they
attributed to the availability of the programs and said
that chances of promotion for lower level employees
were improved.
To aid in meeting the dual challenge of rapidly
changing occupational requirements and the growing
demand for broader economic and social opportunities,
the French National Assembly in July 1971 passed the
law for Continuous Training (Formation Professionnelle
Continue). The three key provisions are:1
1. E m p lo y e rs w ith 10 e m p lo y ee s or m o re are o b lig a ted
to p a y a p a y ro ll tax, cu rren tly 1 p ercen t, in to a N a tio n a l
T ra in in g F u n d . W ith e sta b lish m e n t o f train in g for their
w o rk ers, e m p lo y er s are reim b u rsed .
2. E v ery w o rk er h as a righ t to a p aid train in g leave.
3. G o v er n m e n ta l a g en cies c o o rd in a te p o licie s an d p a rtici
p a te at all lev e ls to fa cilita te a n d en su re a p p lica tio n .
This report examines the experience of firms and
workers since the passing of the law, focusing on the
following questions:
1. H a s th e tra in in g fa cilita ted la b o r force a d a p ta tio n to
e c o n o m ic a n d te c h n o lo g ic a l ch an ge?
2. D o w o rk ers o b ta in sign ifican t b en efits in term s o f im
p ro v ed a c ce ss to tra in in g, im p ro v ed p ro m o tio n a l o p p o rtu n i
ties a n d salaries? D o th e le a st-sk ille d w ork ers sh are in th ese
benefits?
3. H a s im p o sitio n o f a p a y ro ll tax on all em p lo y er s in
crea sed tra in in g o p p o rtu n ities?
The study is based on a series of interviews with a
group of 50 workers and managers in 10 firms in bank
ing, electronics, food distribution, metallurgy, pharmaDorothy G. Sparrow is a lecturer in the Department of Administra
tive Sciences, School of Management, Boston College.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ceuticals, textiles, transportation, and a public utility.
Continuous Training was the capstone of a decade of
developing employment training policies. Industrializa
tion of a predominantly agricultural society and rapid
growth following the close of World War II increased
the demand for skilled workers and created new occu
pational requirements. A significant aspect of the origin
of Formation Continue is that its enactment represented
legislative ratification of prior agreements negotiated by
industry and labor representatives. The accord set forth
joint responsibilities for developing and participating in
vocational training programs:2
• to p erm it each w ork er to in crease h is k n o w le d g e an d
sk ills in relation to h is o w n a sp ira tio n s a n d p ersp ectiv es o n
e m p lo y m en t;
• to g ive firm s th e in c en tiv e to d e v e lo p train in g p o licie s
c o m p a tib le w ith their n eed s an d p o ten tia ls; an d
• to g ive la b or o r g a n iza tio n s th e p o s sib ility o f c o n tr ib u t
in g to th e d e v e lo p m en t a n d fu n ctio n in g o f train in g in stitu
tio n s w h ich fill in d iv id u a l a n d c o lle c tiv e n eed s.
One of the primary purposes of Formation Continue
was to make the highly structured, traditional educa
tional system more flexible and more responsive to cur
rent demands. The consensus which supported For
mation Continue was based on the perception that the
traditional educational and training system was inade
quate and that benefits of a better trained labor force
for employers may also increase promotional opportuni
ties.
In France, employment status in terms of skill level
and compensation is directly related to the level of edu
cational certification. A Certificate of Vocational Educa
tion, obtained after 1 year of study, permits access to
unskilled jobs. Entry in skilled trades is secured
through completion of a 3-year program which leads to
the Certificat d\Aptitude Professionnelle (CAP) for each
skilled occupation. A Brevet Professionnel (BP) is
obtained with an additional 2 years of technical train
ing.
Employers view much technical training as inade
quate, irrelevant, and often producing graduates lacking
even basic skills. The system of “conventions” — permit
ting employers to contract with public and private insti
tutions— was to stimulate competition with the existing
system. For many workers, the educational establish
ment was viewed as an entrenched elitist bureaucracy
45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Foreign Labor Developments
which had succeeded in limiting educational opportuni
ties to the privileged few.
The role of employers
Employers, both in firms and in employer associa
tions, play a leading role. Employers may fulfill their
obligation in one or more of the following ways: they
may organize training in the firm; finance training by
contracting with an outside institution; contribute to a
joint employer-union training fund; make payment to
an approved training institution; or make payment to
the Treasury.3
Within the firm, training policy is formulated by toplevel management. Administrative responsibility in large
firms rests with the training director, and in smaller
firms with the personnel director. The training director
is responsible for assuring training facilities and person
nel either in the firms or in public or private institu
tions. He or she acts as mediator between top
management and workers’ representatives in develop
ment of training plans in plants with active Works
Councils. Management draws up a training plan and
budget which are submitted to Training Committees at
the central office level and to Works Councils (Comités
(l'Entreprise) in plants and branch offices for comments
from worker representatives. The training plan incorpo
rates not only firm projection of manpower require
ments over a 3- to 5-year period, but also individual
requests for training.
Employer associations in leading industries have
established new training centers. Efforts are made to
obtain the participation of representatives of educational
institutions, the employment service, vocational training
centers, and unions. The role of the employer associa
tions varies from region to region. In the North, they
act as a clearinghouse of information on educational
and training programs and promote the exchange of
ideas and experiences. In an agricultural region under
going rapid industrialization, the association established
a training center offering more than 200 courses in
many occupations at all levels.4 Courses are also offered
to the unemployed, particularly the young and women
entering the labor market.
Role of the unions
Although generally supportive of Formation Continue,
leading labor organizations expressed concern with the
application of the law. One union argued for recogni
tion of courses by diploma, in view of the significance
of certification for skilled employment status. Other
unions were greatly concerned that firms might provide
merely narrow, specialized training, of benefit only to
the firm, and pressed for general educational opportuni
ties. Labor also remained on guard against misuse of
the law leading to reduction in the time and scope of
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
preemployment education, so recently enlarged.5
Among the firms in the study, the role of union rep
resentatives varied. In all firms, worker representatives
obtained health and safety courses for the employee,
urged extended opportunities for the least-skilled work
ers, women, immigrants, and those workers over age 45.
In general, union representatives seek more promotional
training as opposed to narrow, technical courses which
tend to be firm-specific. However, in the accords on em
ployment security and vocational training it was the
Works Council and not the Union Section which was
given a consultative role.6
Although all firms above a given size have been re
quired to establish a Works Council since 1945, not all
firms have complied. In some instances the role of the
Works Council is limited, often confined to considering
employee social benefits. The purpose of a July 1976
amendment to Formation Continue was to strengthen
the consultative role of Works Councils. Protesting the
lack of a right of appeal in case of disagreement with
the Works Council, two unions would not sign the
agreement preceding the 1976 amendment. One of the
unions was a strong proponent for broadening individu
al rights to a training leave,7 increasing worker partici
pation in policymaking, and seeking greater re
sponsiveness of public education authorities to locally
expressed needs.8 The active role of union representa
tives on Works Councils has supported increased op
portunities for less advantaged workers.
Types of training offered
Formation Continue serves firms undergoing both
expansion and contraction in employment. In firms with
employment growth, increases in training facilitated ad
aptation of new employees and in firms with stable or
declining employment, retraining for current employees.
Retraining provided replacements for retiring supervi
sors, updated the skills of older employees, and devel
oped new skills for new job positions.
Differing sharply in employment trends and in
occupational composition, the transport and textile
firms covered in this study demonstrate the significance
of Formation Continue for labor force adjustments. In
the transport firm, one-fifth are professional workers
and more than one-half are skilled workers. In the tex
tile firm, three-fourths of the work force are unskilled.
Training of professionals in transport may require 700
hours per course, compared with 144-hour courses for
skilled textile workers.
Data for the transport firm show shifts in training
emphasis from long promotional courses to short tech
nical training and increased employee participation from
1975 to 1976. (See table 1.) However, in 1976, hours
per person for technicians, assistants, workers, and em
ployees decreased, while hours for engineers, managers,
Mansfield has defined as:11
Table 1. Employee participation in training in a transport
firm, by type of training, 1975-76
Type of training
All training . . . .
General education . . .
Relations in the firm ..
Technical training . . . .
Promotional training . .
Trainees
Hours of
training
Distribution
of hours
Hours per
trainee
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
251
529
16,088
18,875
100
100
64
36
112
22
98
19
93
100
324
12
2,638
593
3,329
9,528
1,923
6,670
8,862
1,420
17
4
20
59
10
35
47
8
23
26
33
501
21
67
27
118
and supervisors increased. (See table 2.)
Prior to Formation Continue, training in the textile
firm was limited to on-the-job training. Job rotation oc
casionally led to promotion to plant director. In the
textile firm, Formation Continue improves and maintains
worker skill competence, facilitates adaptation to tech
nological and technical changes in production, and pro
vides promotional opportunities to younger workers. In
all firms, personnel directors made clear there is no di
rect connection between training and promotions. How
ever, in the textile firm, the director noted that the
distinction is arbitrary because technical training not in
frequently is followed by promotion.9
Training in the supermarket firm includes short, spe
cialized courses for employees and somewhat longer
technical training for supervisors and store managers.
Short courses train personnel in every department:
cheese-cutting, fresh produce, meats, and seafood. Sub
jects include “notions of quality in fresh fruits and veg
etables,” “display,” and “specialty preparation,” reflect
ing recognition of traditional values in modern methods
of food distribution. Although training tends to be lim
ited to the specialized courses, participating employees
have benefited from the firm’s internal promotion poli
cies. Promotions occur from entry level to managerial
positions. In 1975, 16 percent of management personnel
were internally promoted.10
Within the firms, the extent of promotional training
varies, not only with the proportion of professional and
skilled personnel, but also with the training policy of
the firm. The long 2- and 3-year courses leading to the
CAP and BP degrees are most frequently observed in
banking and in the public utility. Operating in the
nationalized sector with a tradition of employment secu
rity, these firms have elaborate employee career devel
opment policies. In both industries, promotional train
ing has been important in areas of technological and
technical advance.
Technology changes occupational requirements. A major
purpose in training was to adapt the work force to the
impacts of both technological and technical change on
occupational requirements. Technological change oc
curred, not only in the application of advanced knowl
edge to production processes, but also in what Edwin
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
. . . n ew m e th o d s o f p ro d u cin g e x istin g p r o d u cts, n ew
d e sig n s w h ich en a b le th e p r o d u ctio n o f p r o d u cts w ith im
p o rta n t n ew ch a ra cteristics a n d n ew te ch n iq u e s o f o rg a n iza
tion a n d m a n a g em en t.
In a country until only recently dominated by its
agricultural sector and single proprietor shops, the
growth of modern forms of mass distribution and fi
nancial services falls within the broader definition of
technological change. Between 1963 and 1972, employ
ment in agriculture declined from 19.5 to 12.9 percent
of total employment, industrial employment remained
stable at 40.3 percent, transport increased 5.8 to 6.1
percent, and the service sector increased dramatically
from 30.3 to 40.7 percent.12 The service sector created
new occupations at all levels, from office and sales em
ployees to professional administrators, managers, and
technical experts. In industry, technical changes in
equipment and materials, as well as technological
change, affected skill requirements.
The role of mass distribution has increased signifi
cantly,13 accompanied by “a profound change in the
economic structure of the commercial apparatus, the
objectives, the forms of organization and techniques uti
lized by the firms.” 14 In a society accustomed to shop
ping daily for fresh produce, the introduction of frozen
foods is a major technological change. Personnel must
be trained in new methods of food preservation to
guard against losses. Creation of numerous managerial
positions in supermarkets required training for a full
range of administrative responsibilities. General educa
tion, recommended for employees and supervisors as
well, is viewed as a desirable and necessary complement
to the specialized programs.
Technological and technical change affected occupa
tional requirements in the metallurgical plant and the
textile firm. Many phases of production are elec
tronically controlled and monitored by computers, cre
ating positions for computer programmers. Installation
of automated equipment required retraining for electri
cians and related occupations in industrial design and
electronics. Changes in materials brought technical
Table 2. Employee participation in training in a transport
firm, by occupational level, 1975-76
Occupational level
All occupations
Engineers and
m anagers...............
Supervisors ...............
Technicians and
assistants...............
All other employees . .
Trainees
Hours of
training
Distribution
of hours
Hours per
trainee
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
251
529
16,088
18,875
100
100
64
36
29
31
29
67
800
805
935
3,458
5
5
5
18
27
25
32
52
78
113
145
288
4,183
10,300
5,506
8,976
26
64
29
48
53
91
38
31
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Foreign Labor Developments
change: stainless steel in metallurgy and synthetic mate
rials in textiles.
Reorganization and increased firm size have increased
administrative responsibility, requiring technical train
ing for managers, particularly in personnel. In the met
allurgical plant, automation and technical change have
increased productivity substantially. In metallurgy,
most training has served to update the skills of older
workers. A few workers have been retrained to fill new
positions, such as computer programmer. In the textile
firm the purpose of technical training is to develop ver
satile workers with all-around skills.
Worker experience
Characteristics o f worker group. The worker group
interviewed in 1976 and again in 1977, was diverse with
respect to age, sex, industrial sector, and occupational
level. About one-half were production workers, the re
maining were employees in service sector industries.
Thirty-three were under 35 years of age, and the same
number were male. Those interviewed tended to have
attained educational levels higher than that of their par
ents. Whereas 11 had parents who had received no di
ploma, only 4 workers had not obtained any diploma.
Ten workers had received the Baccalaureat, the French
prerequisite for university admission, compared with
only 4 of the parents. Production workers were
interviewed in metallurgical, textile, and pharmaceutical
plants; service sector workers were in banking and su
permarket firms.
Worker responses. Workers responded to a questionnaire
to give their reasons for taking courses and to evaluate
the results. One-third responded that their goal was im
proved professional qualifications. Although some had a
particular position in mind, most viewed the course
taken as a step toward future improved occupational
opportunities. Ten percent sought to improve current
skills; another 10 percent wanted to improve their gen
eral background. Seven specified “a better job;” four
expressed interest in new jobs in the firm. Less than
half stated that they took the course at the suggestion
of supervisors. However, only eight indicated they had
requested the course on their own initiative. Individual
requests were most common in banking where the CAP
is required for all new employees, and additional re
quests are made to complete the program in the second
year.
Other workers referred to “improved ability to under
stand the effects of technological changes in process or
equipment on their work,” and “improved sense of rela
tionship, both in terms of human relations and firm op
erations as a whole.”
A few workers were less than enthusiastic. Two older
textile workers claimed technical training added little to
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
their background. A supervisor expressed preference for
the greater thoroughness of apprenticeship training.
Workers interested in training unrelated to their jobs or
the firm resented informational courses. In general,
however, workers expressed improved job satisfaction.
A newly promoted bank employee said, “I feel more at
ease in my new position.” Greatest satisfaction occurred
where promotion followed. Worker interest in general
education had two objectives, personal and cultural en
vironment and improved vocational background. Wom
en were more likely than men to express these interests.
However, scheduling of most general education after
work, often in locations remote from worker residences,
restricts participation.
Improvements in occupational status. Despite the fact
that management emphasized that there is no automatic
connection between training and promotion, most
workers undertook Formation Continue in the hopes of
improved job opportunities. Consequently, younger
workers and skilled and professional workers tended to
have greater rates of participation.
For 32 percent of the group (16 workers), Formation
Continue was followed by promotion. Promotion in
volved jobs with more responsibility, increases in salary,
and in the case of four production workers, improved
professional rank. Of the 17 women, 4 were promoted,
compared with 12 of the 33 men. Among production
workers, promotions occurred in stable and declining
industries to replace retiring personnel. Promotions may
well be related to educational attainment: 7 of the 16
workers had primary diplomas, the remaining, the CAP
or the Baccalaureat. The predominance of promotion
among more educated employees is not surprising. Em
ployers are traditionally more interested in educating
employees with prior training, because of higher payoff
probabilities in increased productivity. Educated work
ers tend to have more of a “taste for education” and are
more likely to seek it out. It is important to note, how
ever, that promotions were not confined to the more ed
ucated workers. Formation Continue has created
possibilities formerly limited to upper level employees in
a few firms.
Between 1972 and 1977, national trends in worker
participation in firms’ training show a 69-percent in
crease, from 1,050,000 to 1,774,000 workers.15 Average
length of program diminished from 74 to 57 hours per
trainee.16 In 1977, the number of courses exceeded the
number of trainees by 293,000, supporting the evidence
noted in all firms that many participants have taken
more than one course.
By occupational level, there has been a slight decrease
in participation in training opportunities by profession
als and managers, the supervisory group, and to a lesser
extent, by unskilled workers during the 1972-77 period.
In 1977, participation by occupational level was as fol
lows: unskilled, 15.8 percent; skilled, 45.7; supervisors,
23.6; and engineers and managers, 14.9 percent.17Skilled
workers and employees with a high school diploma or
equivalent increased their participation almost 10 per
cent since 1972. The preponderance of skilled worker
and employee participants is directly related to the high
proportion of technical training programs.
Extent of training opportunities. Changes in the extent of
training opportunities with the inception of Formation
Continue may be measured in terms of firm participa
tion, the role of employer associations, and worker par
ticipation. From 1972 to 1974-75, the numbers of
participating firms and trainees increased. Since 1974,
there has been a slight decline. (See table 3.)
Small and medium-size employers, many for the first
time, are training employees in public or employerestablished training centers. Since 1972, smaller firms
have increased participation in terms of percent of pay
roll expended, but have not yet reached the 1 percent
level, due in part to the greater difficulty of scheduling
training leaves and to fewer promotional opportunities.
Examining changes in training categories assists in
evaluating training opportunities. National data show
slight shifts in emphasis. Technical training remains
most significant, increasing from 72 to 75 percent of the
total from 1972 to 1977. The role of long, promotional
programs show little change, varying only from 12 to
11 percent. Retraining to prevent unemployment in
creased from 1 to 3 percent.18
Another measure of training opportunities is the ex
tent of individual training leave requests. Although in
some firms directors had noted a slight increase, as
borne out by worker interviews, national data indicate
requests diminished to 3 percent of the total number of
trainees in 1977.19The decline is attributed to the strin
gency of legal requirements, such as the maximum num
ber of employees permitted simultaneous leave in an
enterprise. Because worker motivation is, in part, due to
perceptions of promotion opportunities, the decline in
employment, particularly in some industries, may be a
factor.
The effect of the payroll tax
An important aspect of Formation Continue is the
universality of the payroll tax. All employers share
some burden and incentive in the creation of training
facilities. Underinvestment in training by firms occurs
where the training decision rests solely with the individ
ual firm. Employers are aware that the workers they
train may well seek opportunities elsewhere. As one
personnel director commented:20
“ Y e s, it is true w e d o o c c a s io n a lly lo se w ork ers w e h ave
train ed . H o w e v er , w e d o n o t v iew th at as a lo ss. F irst, the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Number of participating firms and trainees,
selected years, 1972-77
[Number in thousands]
Year
1972
1974
1975
1977
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
Trainees
Number
of
firms
Number
employed
113
121
123
121
9,760
10,470
10,440
10,079
Number
As a percent
of total employed
1,050
1,790
1,840
1,774
10.7
17.1
17.6
17.6
SOURCE: Projet de Loi de Finances pour 1979, Formation Professionnelle et Promotion
Sociale, p. 40.
very n ext d a y it is q u ite p ro b a b le th at a sim ilarly train ed
w ork er from an o th er firm m a y w alk in th e d o o r. A n d , se
c o n d ly , w e b eliev e th a t th e gen eral in crea se in p ro d u ctiv ity
resu ltin g from Formation Continue b en efits all firm s, an d
th erefore so c ie ty as a w h o le .”
Employer support of Formation Continue derives, not
only from increased ability to shape training to suit firm
requirements, but to profit from the general increase in
skills of a larger trained labor force.
Robert Gordon has pointed out that wages tend to
rise particularly rapidly, as well as prices, in sectors ex
periencing labor shortages, and tend to spill over into
sectors, in which unemployment exceeds vacancies.21 By
maintaining training facilities throughout cyclical
changes, a payroll training tax system, together with
other manpower policies, may assist in reducing infla
tionary pressures.
Formation Continue helps compensate for employee
underinvestment in training.22 Workers taking courses
during work receive their normal salary. The long pro
motional courses are taken, in part, during work time.
a p p l i c a t i o n o f Formation Continue in connection
with firm redesign of jobs, and with the application of
technological changes in production, suggests a fruitful
area for future research. There is a complex interaction
between work reorganization, technological change, job
content and training. The role of unions in assuring
worker benefits with the application of training in work
reorganization will be important to observe. Study of
the operation of Formation Continue indicates that ac
tive worker representation in development of training
plans is essential to guarantee benefits to the least ad
vantaged workers under a system in which employers
play the leading role.
□
The
--------- F O O T N O T E S ........ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author thanks Solomon Barkin, Eli
Ginzberg and Jean-Daniel Reynaud for helpful comments on earlier
drafts. Numerous individuals and organizations, including employer
associations, firms, governmental offices, and unions, provided gener
ous and thoughtful cooperation. Chantal Sloan assisted materially
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Foreign Labor Developments
with translations. The author accepts full responsibility for the con
clusions.
1Liaisons Sociales, F o rm a tio n P ro fe ssio n n e lle C o n tin u e , December
1972.
2Ib id .
3I b id .
4 Institut de Formation Continue d’lndre-et-Loire, R e p o r ts o f a n n u a l
m e e tin g s o f G e n e r a l A s s e m b ly 1 9 7 5 - 78.
5Commission Confédérale, Confédération Générale du Travail,
“Emploi, Formation et Perfectionnement Professionnels,” Un
T r e m p lin P o u r N o s L u tte s (“Employment, Vocational Education and
Training,” A P la tfo r m f o r o u r S tr u g g le ), August 1972, pp. 86-88. See
also Confédération Démocratique du Travail (CFDT), “Les positions
en matière de formation professionnelle et de l’éducation permanente”
(“The positions of the CFDT concerning vocational training and con
tinuing education”), Numéro spécial, Septembre-Octobre, 1972, p. 3.
6Jean-Daniel Reynaud, “France: Elitist Society Inhibits Articulated
Bargaining,” in Solomon Barkin ed., W o rk e r M ilita n c y a n d its C o n se
q u en ces, 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 7 5 (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1975), p. 307.
Joseph Jacob and Raymond Lebescond, “Pourquoi la CFDT n’a
pas signé l’avenant du 9 juillet 1976 à l’accord interprofessionnel du 9
juillet 1970” (“Why the CFDT did not sign the amendment to the
July 1970 joint agreement”), D r o it S o cia l, Février 1977, pp. 53-55.
Cost-of-living indexes
for Americans living abroad
The U.S. Department of State has prepared new indexes
of living costs abroad for Americans in Buenos Aires
and London. The new index for Buenos Aires is 7 per
cent higher than the previous index and for London 6
percent higher. (See table 1.) The periods between sur
vey dates are 3 months for Buenos Aires and 6 months
for London.
For Americans in Buenos Aires, average prices of
goods and services were up 20 percent more than in
Washington, D.C., between survey dates, but the peso
depreciated 11 percent against the dollar and offset
most of the relative price rise. The new index for Lon
don reflects primarily the British rise in living costs, in
cluding the July 1979 value-added tax increase; the Brit
ish pound appreciated slightly relative to the U.S. dollar
over the 6 months.
Because exchange rates are subject to sudden shifts, it
is advisable to check the prevailing rates whenever using
the indexes of living costs abroad. The indexes for these
and all other reporting cities are published in quarterly
reports entitled U.S. Department of State Indexes of Liv
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8P r o je t d e L o i d e F in a n c e s P o u r 1 9 7 9 , pp. 8 -9 .
4 Interviews with personnel director of textile firm, 1976 and 1977.
° Company report, 1976.
11 Edwin Mansfield, T h e E c o n o m ic s o f
York, Norton and Co. 1968), pp. 10-11.
12 La documentation française, P r o fil
Paris 1975, p. 38.
T e c h n o lo g ic a l C h a n g e
E c o n o m iq u e
de
la
(New
F rance,
s tr u c tu r e s e t te n d a n c e s,
13 P r o fil E c o n o m iq u e , p. 180.
14l’Union Interprofessionnelle Patronale d’Indre-et-Loire, T r o u v e r
un E m p lo i en T o u ra in e, 1975.
15 P r o je t d e L o i d e F in a n c e s p o u r 1 9 7 9 , p. 40.
16 I b id ., p o u r 1976, p. 38. I b id ., p o u r 1979, pp. 42-43.
17 I b id ., p o u r 1 9 7 6 p. 14 and p o u r 1 9 7 9 , p. 44.
18I b id ., p o u r 1 9 7 9 , p. 43.
19I b id ., p. 8.
“ interview with personnel director in metallurgical plant, 1976.
21 Robert A. Gordon, “Some Macroeconomic Aspects of Manpower
Policy” in Lloyd Ulman ed., M a n p o w e r P r o g r a m s in th e P o lic y M ix
(Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), p. 22.
22 Lester Thurow, I n v e s tm e n t in H u m a n C a p ita l, (Belmont, Calif.,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 77-79.
Table 1. Indexes of living costs abroad, excluding
housing and education, February 1980
[Washington, D.C. = 100]
Country and city
Survey
date
Monetary
unit
Rate of
exchange
per
US $1
Local
index
Argentina: Buenos A ire s ...........
Australia: Canberra ..................
Belgium: Brussels......................
Brazil: Sao P a u lo ......................
Canada: O ttaw a........................
Oct.
Apr.
Mar.
Apr.
Dec.
1979
1979
1979
1979
1978
Peso
Dollar
Franc
Cruzeiro
Dollar
1483
0.8751
30.0
23.0
1.17
142
121
158
115
99
France: P a ris .............................
Germany: Frankfurt ..................
Hong Kong: Hong Kong ...........
India: New D e lhi........................
Italy: Rome ...............................
Mar.
Mar.
May
July
Oct.
1979
1979
1979
1979
1978
Franc
Mark
Dollar
Rupee
Lira
4.32
1.87
5.08
8.11
840
166
164
112
93
114
Japan: T okyo.............................
Mexico: Mexico, D.F....................
Netherlands: The Hague...........
Philippines: Manila ....................
South Africa: Johannesburg . ..
Mar.
Feb.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1979
1977
1979
1979
1977
Yen
Peso
Guilder
Peso
Rand
212
22.0
2.06
7.38
0.8697
183
78
154
89
91
Spain: Madrid ..........................
Sweden: Stockholm ..................
Switzerland: Geneva..................
United Kingdom: London...........
Venezuela: C aracas..................
Dec. 1978
June 1979
May 1979
July 1979
Aug. 1978
Peseta
Krona
Franc
Pound
Bolivar
69.0
4.24
1.65
0.4757
4.28
120
173
184
130
140
SOURCE: U.S. Department of State, Allowances Staff.
ing Costs Abroad and Quarters Allowances, available on
request from the Office of Publications, Bureau of La
bor Statistics.
Significant Decisions
In Labor Cases
Substance of seniority
In its 1977 Teamsters decision,1 the Supreme Court
approved a two-track seniority system for overland and
city truck drivers. A move from one classification to the
other left the worker at the bottom of the unit’s seniori
ty ladder. The Court ruled that such a plan was im
mune from the antidiscrimination provisions of Title
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even though it may
lock in the effects of pre-act discrimination. Thus,
Teamsters identified the congressional intent not to dis
turb existing “bona fide” seniority systems, while it in
stantly created a slew of questions about the legitimate
content of such plans.
Acknowledging the need for some judicial guidance,
the Supreme Court took the opportunity recently pres
ented by California Brewers Assn.2 to set broad guide
lines defining the characteristics of seniority systems,
based on their nature and purpose. As a result, the
Court ruled that entry to a preferred-benefit track can
be limited to those who have held their jobs for at least
45 weeks in a calendar year. Such a rule operates on the
commonly accepted basis of seniority— employment
longevity— the Court reasoned, even if it may not al
ways operate consistently with an employee’s cumula
tive length of service.
Building on Webster's definition of “seniority,”
Justice Potter Stewart’s majority opinion concluded that
the seniority systems Congress meant to exempt from
the normal operation of Title VII also could include
rules not based on the time spent in employment:
. . . In ord er for a n y sen io rity sy stem to op era te at all, it
h a s to co n ta in a n cillary ru les th a t a c co m p lish certain n e c es
sary fu n ctio n s, b u t w h ich m a y n o t th e m se lv es b e d irectly
rela ted to len g th o f e m p lo y m en t. F o r in sta n ce , every sen io r
ity sy stem m u st in c lu d e ru les th at d elin ea te h o w an d w h en
th e sen io rity tim e c lo c k b eg in s tick in g , as w ell as rules th at
sp ecify h o w a n d w h en a p articu lar p e r so n ’s sen io rity m ay
b e .forfeited . . . ru les th a t d efine w h ich p a ssa g es o f tim e w ill
“ c o u n t” to w a r d s th e accru al o f sen io rity . . . [and] rules
th a t p articu la rize th e ty p e s o f e m p lo y m en t c o n d itio n s . . .
g o v ern ed b y sen io rity . . .
The multi-employer collective bargaining agreement
“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Gregory J.
Mounts of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w staff.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
covering workers in most California breweries estab
lishes several classes of employees, each with specific
rights as to hiring and layoff's. “Temporary” employees
are those who have worked at least 60 days in the pre
ceding calendar year. “Permanent” employees, those
who have completed 45 weeks of employment in one
classification during a calendar year, are laid off last (in
reverse order of group seniority) and maintain priority
status in rehiring for up to 2 years.
Black workers alleged that the 45-week rule for
achieving permanent status was actually a classification
device resulting in a discriminatory impact on black
workers, in violation of Title VII. The fact that a black
worker had never achieved permanent-employee status
was submitted as evidence of the disparate impact. Be
cause it found the 45-week rule to be an arbitrary clas
sification device, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that such rules could not be part of a seniority
system exempted from Title VII.
In overruling the appeals court, the Supreme Court
not only outlined the scope of possible provisions in se
niority systems, but it stressed the freedom of parties to
collective bargaining agreements to shape such provi
sions. However, Stewart also issued a mild warning that
only rules comforming to “commonly accepted notions
concerning the acceptable contours of a seniority sys
tem” would be permitted. As some general guidelines,
he indicated that an educational standard, an aptitude
or physical test, “or a standard that gives effect to sub
jectivity” would be impermissible seniority system rules
under Title VII.
It is interesting that Stewart referred to last year’s
Weber ruling3 (permitting voluntary union/employer
affirmative action programs) to endorse the Court’s em
phasis on the freedoms available under collective
bargaining. Although such a position has been a feature
of court decisions under the National Labor Relations
Act, Weber’s extension of it to Title VII may continue
to provide additional influences other than on affirma
tive action programs.
Even though the Court has sanctioned a broad array
of negotiated seniority system rules, aggrieved workers
will still remain free to show that such rules were not
established in good faith (and, therefore, not entitled to
the exemption for “bona fide” plans under Title VII) or
that the operation of such rules has produced differences
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
in employment conditions resulting from an intention to
discriminate. Thus, California’s black brewery workers
will have an opportunity to show any discriminatory as
pects of the 45-week rule or other seniority system rules
on remand in district court.
Deflating damage awards
The Supreme Court recently entered into the in
flation-fighting business by seeking to limit high damage
awards by juries under the Federal Employer’s Liability
Act. The Court sided with a vanguard of lower courts
by ruling that employers could calculate and present to
the jury the after-tax future earnings of a victim. Until
now, standard practice was to assume that the predic
tion of a deceased or injured wage earner’s tax burden
was too speculative and complex for jury deliberations.
Writing for the Court, however, Justice John Paul Ste
vens reasoned that all the other variables involved in
calculating lost future income—continuity of employ
ment and health and the estimation of future expendi
tures, interest rates, and inflation—are equally complex.
He also noted that juries are “increasingly familiar with
the complexities of modern life.” In addition, the 7-to-2
majority found that it was wrong for a judge to refuse
to instruct a jury that any award of damages under the
law would not be subject to income tax. Despite the
clarity of the law on this point, the Court reasoned that
the jurors may inadvertently provide a larger sum by
considering the imaginary tax consequences. (Norfolk
and Western Railway Co.4)
In the present wrongful-death case, the jury awarded
the survivors of a railroad fireman killed in a collision
caused by the employer’s negligence $775,000. The sur
vivors had only claimed a loss of future gross income of
$302,000, while the employer claimed that, on an after
tax basis, the deceased’s future earning amounted to
$138,327 when discounted to the present. The counsel
for the survivors attributed the higher jury award to the
pecuniary value of the “guidance, instruction, and train
ing that the decedent would have provided to his chil
dren.” The employer claimed that the difference resulted
from the jurors’ mistaken impression that the award
was taxable and their use of gross income as the mea
sure of loss instead of after-tax income— the “actual”
loss to the dependents of the deceased.
Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Thurgood
Marshall, wrote a vigorous dissent to the majority’s
concern over the “inadvertent” escalation of such dam
age awards. He argued that the effect of an income tax
is only relevant to the recipient of income. To permit
the employer to reduce its payment burden to an after
tax basis creates an important benefit for the defendant
in such cases, Blackmun charged. Instead of intending
to permit such a windfall for the guilty party, Congress
probably intended to provide an additional benefit to
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the victim of a tort or simply sought to avoid the ad
ministrative burden associated with collecting taxes on
such awards, he wrote.
Blackmun also dissented from the Court’s finding
that the jury must be instructed, at the defendant’s re
quest, that the damage award is not taxable. Terming it
“an admonition to the jury not to misbehave,” he rea
soned that such instruction could easily lead to a bar
rage of unnecessary and confusing comments on what
and what not to consider.
Paid enforcement
Even though the penalties assessed by the Depart
ment of Labor for violations of child labor laws can be
used to help defray the cost of enforcing the law, such a
practice does not violate constitutional due process re
quirements, the Supreme Court recently ruled. The
Court has ruled in earlier cases that the Constitution
prohibits the adjudication of either criminal or civil
cases by a decisionmaker who stands to gain based on
the outcome of the decision.5 However, in Marshall v.
Jerrico, Inc.6 the Court found that persons charged with
enforcing the child labor laws by assessing penalties for
violations act more clearly in a prosecutorial manner
rather than as final decisionmakers. As a result, the
Court reasoned that the relationship between the assess
ment of fines and their eventual allocation as part of the
operating budget is so “remote and insubstantial” that
those who assess penalties stand no realistic chance of
gaining from the arrangement.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Thurgood
Marshall illustrated that an employer assessed a penalty
by the Secretary of Labor for a violation of the child la
bor laws may file for a de novo review of such a deter
mination by an administrative law judge within 15 days
of receiving notice. The administrative law judge may
affirm, in whole or in part, the Secretary’s determination
or may find that no violation occurred.
In such a review process, those who have assessed a
penalty must bear the burden of proof on contested is
sues; thus, they clearly become the prosecutors, with an
impartial third party7adjudicating the issue.
Marshall also recognized that, as public officials, pros
ecutors can be motivated by some of the same improper
factors that threaten due process when they af
fect judicial and quasi-judicial decisionmakers. The
Court made clear that it will not apply the same stan
dard for judges as for prosecutors; but Marshall left to
another day any determination as to what limits there
may be on a financial or personal interest of one who
performs a prosecutorial function. He refused to consider
such issues in this case because the alleged source of bias
is “exceptionally remote.” Government workers involved
have fixed salaries and could not gain financially; total
penalties collected have been a tiny portion of the overall
budget; distribution is determined by the national office,
not the prosecutors in the field; and such monies are
proportioned based on expenses incurred in prosecuting,
not on penalties assessed. All of these facts persuaded
the Court that such a scheme does not violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Consti
tution.
Legitimacy through living together
Illegitimate children have generally gained access to
Federal benefits available to other children if they can
demonstrate some relationship with their parents. The
Supreme Court has facilitated such benefit equality by
striking down dependency restrictions only for illegiti
mates as unconstitutional—in violation of equal protec
tion guarantees. In a recent case, the Court removed an
arbitrary barrier to the distribution of benefits to the il
legitimate survivors of Federal Civil Service employees.
However, the Court’s decision involved a careful inter
pretation of the underlying statute, without reaching the
constitutional issue as had the lower court. A 7-to-2
majority ruled that the requirement that “recognized
natural” children “lived with” their parents to be eligi
ble for a survivor’s annuity means only that they must
have once lived in a normal parent-child relationship—
not necessarily at the time of the worker’s death. ( Unit
ed States v. Clark.8)
Because a solution involving statutory construction is
viewed by the Court as preferable to one reaching con
stitutional dimensions, the majority reviewed the legisla
tive history of the Civil Service Retirement Act to test
whether a more liberal interpretation of the “lived
with” requirement might interfere with congressional in
tent.
Writing for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall
found that earlier versions of the law contained a provi
sion requiring proof of dependency in addition to speci
fying living arrangements. In 1966, Congress deleted the
dependency requirement in order to ensure recovery for
the children of female civil servants, who typically
earned less than their husbands and accordingly con
tributed less than the amount (50 percent) required for
proof of dependency. Based on the legislative record,
Marshall concluded that Congress did not intend to let
the “lived with” provision which remained in the law
carry the function of the deleted dependency criterion.
To view it as such, he wrote, would raise constitutional
questions because legitimate and adopted children are
not required to show any dependency. Thus, Marshall
was able to conclude that the “lived with” provision is
satisfied when the recognized natural child has lived
with the deceased employee in a regular parent-child re
lationship, regardless of whether such an arrangement
existed at the time of the employee’s death. Although
not an explicit dependency requirement (which would
raise constitutional issues), the “lived with” provision
establishes some basis for the economic support intend
ed to flow to the dependent survivors of a Federal
worker.
□
FOOTNOTES
1 T e a m s te rs v. U n ite d S ta tes , 431 U.S. 324 (1977), see M o n th ly L a b o r
R e v ie w , August 1977, pp. 4 8 -49, and January 1978, pp. 12-17.
2 C a lifo r n ia
20, 1980).
B ry a n t,
48 U.S.L.W. 4156 (U.S., Feb.
1 S te e lw o r k e r s v. W eber, 47 U.S.L.W.
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1979,
4851 (U.S., June 27, 1979), see
pp. 56-57, and January 1980,
B re w e r s A ssn.
v.
pp. 14-21.
4 N o r f o lk a n d W estern
(U.S., Feb. 19, 1980).
R a ilw a y Co.
v. L ie p e lt,
48 U.S.L.W. 4132
5See T u m e y v. O hio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), where the Court reversed
convictions rendered by a mayor of a town when the mayor’s
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
salary was paid in part by fees and costs levied by him acting in a judi
cial capacity; and W a r d v. V illa g e o f M o n ro e v ille , 409 U.S. 57 (1972),
invalidating a procedure by which sums produced from a mayor’s
court accounted for a substantial portion of municipal revenues, even
though the mayor’s salary was not augmented by such sums.
6 M a r s h a ll v. J errico , In c., 48 U.S.L.W. 4485 (U.S., Apr. 28, 1980).
7The Office of Administrative Law Judges at the Department of
Labor is not entitled to any reimbursement under the provisions chal
lenged in this case, the Court noted, because any “supervision” of the
procedures of the operating divisions (such as child labor law enforce
ment) is expressly forbidden by the Administrative Procedures Act.
8 U n ite d S ta te s v. C la rk , 48 U.S.L.W. 4195 (U.S., Feb. 26, 1980).
53
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in July is based on contracts on file in the Bu
reau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers
or more.
U nion1
Industry
Employer and location
A C F Industries, Inc., Carter C arburetor Division (St. Louis, M o .) ..............
American Metal Climax, Inc., Climax Molybdenum Co. Division
(Climax, Colo.)
Arizona Steel Field Erectors Association (Phoenix, A rix .)..............................
Armco Steel Corp., 2 Agreements (Pennsylvania & O h io ) ..............................
Number of
workers
Machinery ...................................
Auto Workers ( I n d .) ................................
1,500
M in in g ...........................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Primary metals ...........................
2,100
1,300
8,500
Associated General C ontractors of St. Louis & 2 others (Missouri) ...........
Associated G uard and Patrol Agencies (Chicago, 111.)
Association of M aster Painters and D ecorators of New York City, Inc.
(New York, N.Y.)
Association of Motion Pictures and Television Producers, Inc. (Interstate):
Technicians Basic A g re e m en t.........................................................................
Television Film Agreement ...........................................................................
Theatrical Motion Picture A g re e m e n t.........................................................
Theatrical M otion Picture A g re e m e n t.........................................................
Automotive Repair Industry (California)2 .........................................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Services ........................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers . .
Iron W orkers ...........................................
Butler Armco Independent Union; and
Armco Employees Independent
Federation, Inc. (Ind.)
Iron W orkers ...........................................
Service Employees ...................................
Painters ......................................................
A m u sem e n ts................................
A m u sem e n ts................................
A m u sem e n ts................................
A m u sem e n ts................................
Services .........................................
Theatrical Stage E m p lo y e e s...................
M u sic ia n s ...................................................
Actors .........................................................
M u sic ia n s ...................................................
Machinists .................................................
21,000
2,000
8,500
1,500
1,000
Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. (Calhoun, T e n n . ) ...........................................
P a p e r ..............................................
1,000
Briggs & Stratton Corp. (Milwaukee, Wis.) ......................................................
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (New York, N .Y .) ......................................................
Machinery ...................................
Utilities ........................................
Paperworkers; and Electrical Workers
(IBEW)
Allied Industrial Workers ......................
Transport W o rk e rs ...................................
8,000
2,300
Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co. (Ohio) ..............................................
Utilities ........................................
Electrical W orkers (IBEW) ...................
1,350
E. J. Brach & Sons, Inc. (Chicago, 111.) ..............................................................
Food Products
Teamsters (Ind.)
......................................
3,000
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Firestone Steel Products Co. Division
(W yandotte, Mich.)
Floor Covering Association of Southern California, Inc. and 3 others
(California)
FM C Corp., N orthern Ordnance Division (Fridley, M in n .)...........................
Transportation equipment . . . .
A uto Workers ( I n d .) ................................
1,050
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Painters
......................................................
1,600
Fabricated metal products
A uto Workers ( I n d .) ................................
2,500
Hercules Inc. (Coverington, V a .) ...........................................................................
C hem icals......................................
Paperworkers
...........................................
1,050
Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Memphis, T e n n . ) ...........................................................
P a p e r ..............................................
Paperworkers
...........................................
1,100
Leeds & N orthrup Co. (N orth Wales, P a . ) .........................................................
Instrum ents
A uto W orkers (I n d .) ................................
2,200
M irro Aluminum Co. (Manitowoc and Two Rivers, Wis.)
Fabricated metal products
. . .
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,800
...........................
...........................
. . .
................................
1,600
5,000
5,000
Non-Registered Drug & General Merchandise Agreement (Portland,
O reg.)2
Retail trade
................................
Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........
2,200
Pan American, G round Service (Interstate)3 ......................................................
Air tra n s p o rta tio n ......................
Transport W o rk e rs ...................................
5,850
R estaurant and Tavern Employers (Tacoma, W ash.)2 ...................................
Restaurants
................................
Hotel and R estaurant Employees . . . .
2,000
Safeway Stores, Inc. (Interstate) ...........................................................................
Sealed Power Corp. (Muskegon, M ic h .) ..............................................................
Southern Florida Hotel and Motel Association (Miami Beach, F l a . ) ...........
Retail trade ................................
Machinery ...................................
H o t e l s ...........................................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................
Auto W o r k e r s ...........................................
Hotel and R estaurant Employees . . . .
2,300
1,000
3,000
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (O re g o n )..............................................................
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., Los Angeles Division (C a lifo rn ia)................
Primary metals ...........................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Steelworkers ..............................................
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers . . .
1,200
2,500
Weyerhaeuser Co. (Plymouth, N.C.) ...................................................................
White Pine Copper Co. (White Pine, M ic h .) ......................................................
Winery Employers Association (California) ......................................................
Paper ..............................................
M in in g ...........................................
Food products ...........................
Paperworkers; and Operating Engineers
Steelworkers ..............................................
Distillery Workers ...................................
1,600
1,000
5,000
Affiliated with A F L -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3Information is from newspaper reports.
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Steel contracts feature pension increases
Operating under the bargaining procedures and dead
lines of the Experimental Negotiating Agreement, nine
Coordinating Committee Steel Companies and the Unit
ed Steelworkers union negotiated a new contract. An
impasse continuing beyond the April 15 deadline for a
settlement would have meant that the unresolved issues
would have been submitted to binding arbitration, as
required by the negotiating agreement. Discussions were
continuing on whether to extend the Experimental Ne
gotiation Agreement to govern the 1983 talks.
The union had stressed that its major concern was
winning pension increases for present retirees to help
them counter the erosion of their income that had re
sulted from inflation. In fact, the union waived the May
wage escalator adjustment for employees to help the
companies meet the cost of the benefit improvements
for present retirees. The 33-cent increase would have
been the last scheduled quarterly escalator adjustment
under the 1977 contract.
The new pension formula for current retirees provides
for a two-stage increase, ranging from 70 percent for
employees who retired prior to July 31, 1966, to 10 per
cent for those who retired during July 31, 1977-July 30,
1980. The increases are subject to a $25-a-month mini
mum and a $250-a-month maximum and, according to
the union, will average $182 a month for retirees in the
earliest category and $52 for those in the later category.
Spouses of deceased retirees also received benefit in
creases.
There also were several improvements in pensions for
employees retiring after July 31, 1980. One was a new
minimum formula which provides for a three-step in
crease in the monthly pension rates. (Employees are eli
gible for a pension under an alternate percentage
formula if it amounts to more than that under the mini
mum benefit formula.) The August 1, 1982, final-step
rates are $17.50 for each of the first 15 years of service,
plus $19 for each of the next 15 years, and an addition
al $20.50 for each year in excess of 30. Under the 1977
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
contract, the corresponding rates were $13.50, $15, and
$16.50.
The settlement provided for a May 1, 1980, wage in
crease of 25 cents an hour plus a 1-cent increase in the
increment between the 33 job grades. The resulting
overall range was 25 cents for employees in the lowest
grade to 57 cents for those in the highest. The accord
also provides for a 20-cent increase on August 1, 1981,
15 cents on August 1, 1982, plus 1-cent increment in
creases on both dates, bringing the ranges to 20 to 52
cents and 15 to 47 cents. The three increases will be
larger for the 85 percent of the employees who are cov
ered by incentive plans, because the increases will be
added to their incentive calculation rates, rather than
being paid as a flat add-on for each hour worked. In
conjunction with this provision, the “earnings opportu
nity” for iron ore miners was increased to 123 percent
of incentive calculation rates, from 115 percent. Shift
differentials were increased to 30 cents an hour (former
ly 20) for the second shift and to 45 cents (formerly 30)
for the third.
In addition to a guaranteed 3-percent wage increase
each year, the Experimental Negotiating Agreement
guaranteed continuation of the cost-of-living wage esca
lator clause. As before, employees will receive quarterly
adjustments (beginning August 1, 1980) of 1 cent an
hour for each 0.3-point movement in the BLS
Consumer Price Index (1967=100) for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers. Under the prior contract,
adjustments from August 1977 through February 1980
had totaled $1.73. The Experimental Negotiating
Agreement also guaranteed a $150 bonus for all em
ployees on the payroll on August 1, 1980, in return for
the assurance that there would be no 1980 strike over
economic issues.
Improvements in insurance benefits included a $4,500
increase in life coverage, bringing the range to $14,500
to $17,000, and a $500 increase for employees retiring
after July 1, 1982, bringing their benefit to $3,500. Sick
ness and accident benefits, which had ranged from $153
to $211 a week, were increased, in steps, to a $211 —
$276 range on August 1, 1982. There were a number of
changes in health insurance, including a provision for
up to 365 days of full coverage in a skilled nursing
home (the previous coverage was usually only 80 per
cent of the cost); a new home health care benefit;
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
$1,000 maximum annual coverage per person under the
dental plan (formerly $750); and increases in the sched
ule of vision care benefits.
In an effort to minimize the duration and cost of hos
pital confinements, the parties agreed to a utilization re
view procedure to be used in conjunction with those
hospitals that have such programs.
Other economic provisions included:
• A new $40 safety shoe allowance, payable twice
during the contract term.
• A $55-a-week increase in maximum Supplemental
Unemployment Benefits for weeks when a laid-off
worker is receiving State unemployment compensa
tion and a $65-increase for other weeks, bringing
the maximums to $180 and $235.
• An additional week of extended vacation for those
employees in the top half of the seniority roster
who have 25 years of service and for all employees
in the bottom half of the roster (extended vacations
are taken every 5 years). Previously, all employees
in the top half received 13 weeks (including their
regular annual vacation for that year) and those in
the lower half received 3 weeks plus their regular
vacation for that year.
Recent shutdowns of some operations led to a con
tract provision requiring the companies to give at least
90 days’ notice of planned closings. During the notice
period, the parties will discuss the shutdown, after
which the company will formally announce its decision
to the union.
The employers’ demand for the separation of steel
fabricating, steel warehousing and other “List 3” opera
tions from steel producing units for bargaining purposes
will be analyzed in joint discussions to be concluded by
August 1, 1981. The companies had generally contend
ed that competitive reasons required that “List 3” em
ployees be placed on lower pay scales than other em
ployees.
The Council on Wage and Price Stability approved
the pay package, saying that it will raise worker com
pensation by 24.7 percent over 3 years, or 7.65 percent
a year, compounded. The council noted that this was
“near the bottom end” of the 7.5-9.5 percent guideline
for the second year of the anti-inflation program. A
council official said the package cost calculations were
made by excluding the cost of the pension improve
ments for the present retirees and assuming that the an
nual inflation rate will be 7.5 percent.
The nine companies that settled on economic provi
sions for their 290,000 workers represented by the
Steelworkers are United States Steel Corp.; Bethlehem
Steel Corp.; Republic Steel Corp.; National Steel Corp.;
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.; Armco, Inc.; Inland Steel
Co.; Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.; and Allegheny
Digitized for 56
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ludlum Industries, Inc. Bargaining was continuing on
local issues and there was the possibility of strikes at
some locations. The Experimental Negotiating Agree
ment permits strikes over local issues, if they are autho
rized by the Steelworkers’ president.
Bargaining on economic terms was continuing for
160,000 employees of smaller steel companies that gen
erally follow the pattern of the accords negotiated by
the nine companies. Based on past developments, the
steel contracts are expected to influence coming settle
ments in the container, aluminum, and copper indus
tries.
Initial contract for steelworkers at Newport News
The Steelworkers’ 2-1/2 years organizing campaign at
the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp.
culminated in an initial 43-month contract that provides
for general wage increases and improved supplementary
benefits.
According to the Steelworkers, the settlement closes
one of the “stormiest organizing campaigns in the histo
ry of the South.” The union said that its new local 8888
at the yard is its second largest in the country and larg
est in the South. Newport News Shipbuilding is the Na
tion’s largest private shipbuilder.
The first major development in the campaign
occurred in January 1978, when the Steelworkers ap
parently defeated the incumbent Peninsula Shipbuilders
Association in a National Labor Relations Board repre
sentation election. However, the company filed charges
of election “irregularities” with the NLRB and refused
to bargain with the union. The Board ruled against
Newport News Shipbuilding, but there was a series of
appeals within the Federal district courts. In an attempt
to force the shipyard to begin bargaining, the Steel
workers struck, beginning in January 1979, but sus
pended the strike in April of that year. After the
Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
NLRB’s certification of the election results, the compa
ny recognized the union as bargaining agent for the
15,500 production, maintenance, technical, and clerical
workers and the parties started bargaining.
For production and maintenance workers, the accord
provided for a wage increase ranging from 80 cents an
hour for helpers and handymen to $1 for specialists and
mechanics. Prior to this increase, rates ranged from
$3.64 to $8.20 an hour, with most workers earning
$4.55 to $7.61. The 235 technical employees received
the same initial increase, while the 750 clerical employ
ees received a 10.5-percent increase. Future increases for
all employees are 55 cents an hour on August 1, 1981,
50 cents on October 1, 1982, and 10 cents “cost-of-liv
ing” increases—not contingent on the movement of a
Consumer Price Index— on March 1, 1982, and April
1, 1983. According to the union, more than 90 percent
of the employees received or will receive additional pay
increases as a result of job upgradings and the adoption
of automatic wage progression schedules.
The monthly pension amount for each year of service
from July 1, 1969, to December 31, 1977, was increased
to $12 for employees retiring on or after April 1, 1980,
and to $14 for those retiring on or after October 1,
1982. The previous monthly pension rates were 0.1 per
cent of average annual earnings for each year of service
from July 1, 1969, to December 31, 1974, plus $11 for
each year from January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1977.
There was no change in the $14 rate for service after
December 31, 1977. A new disability pension provision
for 15-year employees provides for lifetime benefits, un
like the previous benefit which terminated when the re
tiree became eligible for social security benefits.
Changes in medical insurance included 180 days cov
erage of each hospital confinement (formerly 120
days); full coverage of miscellaneous medical services
(previously, the hospitalized person was required to pay
20 percent of that portion of the charges in excess of
$750); and a $100 a year deductible under major medi
cal coverage (formerly $100 for each family member).
Other benefits included $15,000 of company-financed
life insurance for employees (formerly $10,000), and
company-financed sickness and accident benefits of $110
to $145 a week, for up to 26 weeks. (Previously, em
ployees contributed toward the cost of the benefits,
which ranged from $60 to $95 a week, for up to 13
weeks.)
Despite the settlements, there was a continuing dis
pute, and the union filed a complaint with the NLRB
charging the shipyard with refusing to bargain in good
faith with a designers local organized more than 3 years
earlier. The company had broken off talks for the unit
in the fall of 1979, after a dissident group within Local
8417 petitioned the NLRB for a vote on decertifying
the union as bargaining agent for designers.
New York transit employees end strike
An 11-day strike ended in 2-year agreements between
33,000 New York City subway and surface transit em
ployees and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. John
E. Lowe, head of the Transport Workers local union,
ordered the 31,<300 subway workers back to work pend
ing the outcome of their vote on the contract. (Ordi
narily, the local’s 44-member executive board makes the
final decision on a settlement but the board’s vote
ended in a tie). The matching agreement for the 2,000
surface transit workers represented by the Amalgamat
ed Transit Union was approved by the executive board
of the ATU local union.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The agreements provided for an immediate wage in
crease of 9 percent and an additional 8 percent on April
1, 1981. There also was provision for an October 1,
1981, automatic wage escalator adjustment of 1 cent an
hour for each 0.4-percentage point rise in the Consumer
Price Index for New York City-Northeastern New Jer
sey during the 12 months ending in August 1981. The
adjustment will be limited to the amount resulting from
a 6-percent rise in the index. In addition, 3,400 workers
who had been hired since the 1978 settlement and had
not received a cost-of-living adjustment provided to
other workers, will get an immediate 95-cent “catch-up”
adjustment. The Transit Authority also agreed to con
tribute about $20 million to the unions’ health and wel
fare funds to offset higher costs.
The unions agreed to several of the productivity
demands, or “give-backs”, that the Transit Authority
had sought to minimize labor costs, including a 20-minute-a-day reduction in paid work breaks; the elimination
of 2 hours paid time off on election day; combination of
certain job classifications; and adoption of a system to
eliminate abuse of sick leave. In another cost savings
feature, automatic progression from starting to top pay
rates was extended for employees on schedules shorter
than 2Vz years.
New York City Mayor Edward Koch, who did not
become involved in the talks, called the settlement an
“outrage,” saying it would cost the deficit-ridden transit
system $271.4 million more over the 2-year period. The
Transit Authority, which is under the jurisdiction of the
State rather than the city, denied that the cost would be
that high, but did not provide a specific figure. Koch
insisted that the accord not be viewed as a pattern-set
ter for the city’s upcoming negotiations with various
unions to replace agreements scheduled to expire June
30 for 238,000 workers.
Despite the end of the walkout, there were some
unresolved matters. The unions were appealing a
$1-million fine imposed for violating the State’s Taylor
Law, which prohibits strikes by public employees. Also,
some members of the Transport Workers union were
continuing their legal efforts to prevent the vote by the
rank-and-file and have a revote by the executive board.
The city estimated that it lost $2 million a day in tax
revenues because of the strike and a State official said
that 60,000 workers were laid off because of the stop
page.
In another development, the Transit Authority, set
tled with unions representing 4,000 employees of the
Long Island Railroad, the Nation’s busiest commuter
line. The 3-year pact, retroactive to January 1, 1979,
provided for a 24-percent increase in wages over the
term for seven unions. A total of 17 unions had been
involved in protracted bargaining; 10 unions had settled
earlier for a smaller wage increase. However, their con57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
tract had a “me too” clause guaranteeing them the
same terms as those subsequently negotiated by the
other unions. The railroad had been struck briefly by a
Teamsters local, but the workers returned to heavy
overtime scheduling during the New York City transit
tieup.
Ford limits management pay increases
Ford Motor Co. has agreed to limit compensation in
creases of 5,000 nonunion management employees for 1
year to offset the amount by which the Council on
Wage and Price Stability claimed the cost of the compa
ny’s 1979 settlement with the Auto Workers exceeded
the then prevailing 7-percent pay guideline. According
to a council official, the average increase for the man
agement employees will be held to “less than” the 7.5percent low end of the current 7.5-9.5 percent guide
line.
Ordinarily, a company is not permitted to make such
an adjustment. However, Ford argued for an exception
to the rule, saying that it could not offset the above
guidelines portion of the production workers agreement
by holding down price increases because of “significant
losses” on U.S. operations in 1979. General Motors
Corp., which had settled with the UAW on the same
terms as Ford, had earlier retained its right to bid on
Government purchase contracts by agreeing to limit
price boosts. (See Monthly Labor Review, February
1980, p. 13.)
Minneapolis food store employees settle
Settlements for 14,000 food store employees in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area provided for immediate wage
increases of 15 to 17 percent and 11 percent in March
1981 and 1982. The three locals of the United Food
and Commercial Workers first settled with Red Owl
Stores to end a 3-day strike against that chain; National
Tea Co. and various independent stores later accepted
the same terms. About 325 stores were covered by the
3-year contracts.
The 15-percent initial pay increase for full-time meat
cutters brought their maximum pay rate to $10.47 an
hour. Maximum rates for full-time grocery clerks went
to $9.71 as a result of a 17-percent increase. Full-time
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employees attain the top rate for their classification af
ter 5 years of service. Part-time workers, who reach
their top rate after 5,200 hours of work, received in
creases of 15, 11, and 11 percent on the respective
dates, except for some “senior” part-timers who re
ceived $1 an hour increases in each year. The senior em
ployees previously earned $6.33 and the other part-tim
ers, $3.90 to $6.00. A rate schedule also was adopted
for delicatessen employees similar to the rates for parttime workers in other departments.
The accords drew opposition from some members,
who complained because the union had not won a pri
mary goal, a cost-of-living wage escalator clause. Eu
gene Utecht, secretary-treasurer of Locals 653 and
653A and the chief union negotiator said that pay rates
in the area were nevertheless among the highest in the
Nation.
The employers won several changes that were ex
pected to partly offset labor costs resulting from the
contracts. Employers are now permitted to use scanning
equipment for recording the price of an item indicated
by the Universal Product Code markings. Previously,
individual employers were required to negotiate with
the union on introduction of scanners and some of the
St. Paul stores had won limited use of such equipment.
Another gain permits employers to purchase precut
boxed beef. Previously, they were required to purchase
whole carcasses, which were then cut up in the meat de
partments.
Another change permits the stores to increase the ra
tio of part-time to full-time employees from 2 to 3.
However, this can only be done through attrition; all
current jobs are protected from conversion.
The normal monthly pension rate for each year of
credited service was increased by $2 in each contract
year. The resulting rates, which will reach $14 in the fi
nal year, will apply to future retirees and to current re
tirees who ceased work on or after July 1, 1971, because
the 1977 settlement had included a commitment to pro
vide matching pension rates for these current retirees.
Other contract changes included $12,000 life insur
ance for employees and $3,000 for the spouse, instead
of the previous $9,000 and $1,000 coverage; a 100-per
cent increase in the optical benefit; addition of prescrip
tion drug coverage; and a $210-a-week sickness and ac
cident benefit, instead of $125.
□
Book Reviews
The evolution of collective bargaining
Collective Bargaining: Contemporary American Experi
ence. Edited by Gerald G. Somers. Madison, Wis.,
Industrial Relations Research Association, 1980.
588 pp.
As the introduction to this important work implies, it
may appropriately be assessed by comparison with its
counterpart of 40 years ago, the Twentieth Century
Fund study, How Collective Bargaining Works. Method
ologically, the two works are very similar. Each is com
prised of a series of independent chapters by various au
thors describing and analyzing the evolution and
prevailing nature of collective bargaining on an industry
basis. This volume, published by the Industrial Rela
tions Research Association, covers 10 industries; its pre
decessor covered 14. In both cases, the authors had ex
tensive research or practical experience or both in their
respective industries and provided highly informative
and realistic analyses of their subjects. Both works give
the reader brief but enlightening descriptions of the eco
nomics of each industry, the historical development of
the principal employer and union institution, the struc
ture and processes of collective bargaining, and current
policies, practices, and problems. Both also contain a
general essay of a summary and overview nature— the
Industrial Relations Research Association’s essay by
Jack Barbash coming at the end and the Twentieth
Century Fund’s essay by Philip Taft at the beginning.
Each author, it may be noted, is a distinguished institu
tional economist and Industrial Relations Research As
sociation president.
Even the limitations are similar. Both volumes (with
a few notable exceptions) treat collective bargaining al
most entirely in terms of contract negotiations. Con
tract administration and grievance handling are given
scanty treatment. The informal day-to-day life of the
workplace is, for the most part, ignored. Customary
practice, fractional bargaining, and joint cooperation
committees are largely passed over. These omissions are
particularly unfortunate in the contemporary volume
bedause of the extensive treatment of these and related
subjects in the post-World War II literature. The ab
sence of an index in the present work is also regrettable
because of the wealth of detailed information it con
tains.
In comparing these studies, one can learn a great deal
about the evolution of collective bargaining in the Unit
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ed States. The choice of industries for study is, in itself,
revealing. Only four industries— bituminous coal min
ing, construction, steel, and electrical products— are
treated in both volumes. The omission of the automo
bile industry from the Industrial Relations Research
Association’s volume is particularly surprising, although
it may be attributable to the extensive literature that is
available on this industry. (A statement explaining the
basis of industry selection would have been helpful).
The other essays are largely reflective of major historical
changes. Trucking and airlines replace the railroads in
transportation. Agriculture, hospitals, the postal service,
and public education represent the areas of significant
growth in collective bargaining during the post-World
War II period. Chapters on other expanding sectors,
like State and local government and retail food trade,
would have been equally desirable, but space consider
ations may have been a reason for their omission.
However, the Twentieth Century Fund’s chapters on
anthracite coal, daily newspapers, book and job print
ing, men’s clothing, hosiery, automobiles, rubber prod
ucts, glass, and the Chicago service trades have not
been replicated. Anthracite has become a nonindustry;
the crafts of printing and publishing have been trans
formed by new technology; and the “model” unionism
and collective bargaining in clothing have been victim
ized by foreign competition and relocation from the
northeastern and midwestern metropolitan centers to
the South. A case could have been made for their repli
cation as a guide to understanding the shifting currents
of collective bargaining. But the inclusion of both the
expanding and declining bargaining sectors would have
required a second volume.
The substantive content of the two studies also makes
an interesting contrast. In 1940, collective bargaining
reflected the dramatic rise of industrial unionism in the
mass production industries and the resurgence of the
old unionism in coal, clothing, construction, printing,
and railroads. The tone everywhere was upbeat. Collec
tive bargaining stood for dynamic change. By the end
of the 1970’s, collective bargaining was seen as institu
tionalized, bureaucratized, technically sophisticated, and
under pressure even in the areas of expansion. Unioniza
tion was lagging behind growth in the labor force.
Antiunion forces were growing in strength—as the fail
ure of the Labor Law Reform Bill campaign revealed.
Even such traditional centers of union strength, like
construction, were experiencing a loss in job territories
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Book Reviews
and industrial power centers like steel and autos were
shrinking in size.
Jack Barbash concludes his summary essay with sev
en major issues which he describes as the “essences of
the problems that have been raised throughout this
work.” In brief, these issues relate to (1) the ability of
collective bargaining to adapt to adverse market condi
tions after a generation of expansion; (2) the limits of
state intervention in collective bargaining; (3) the role of
the state in minimizing the inflationary effects of collec
tive bargaining; (4) the competing forces of centraliza
tion and decentralization; (5) public sector strikes; (6)
occupational health and safety, and (7) racketeering and
corruption in some unions. All are part of the problem
of the exercise of power in a free society. These are per
ceptive and challenging issues. Others might be added
such as the adjustment of individual or minority rights
to collective interests and duties, and the capability of
national institutions to cope with powerful international
forces of competition and collaboration. All point to a
future for collective bargaining that is, if anything, more
challenging than the past 40 years.
A final note of tribute must be paid to Gerald G.
Somers, who was the chief architect of the project, but
who died before its completion. The quality of this
work is a fitting testimony to his creative imagination
and enterprise, known to all academic industrial rela
tions specialists. We are indebted to Jack Barbash,
Somers’ colleague, and to Barbara Dennis, Industrial
Relations Research Association editor, for the profes
sional completion of the undertaking.
— M
il t o n
D
erber
In s titu te o f L ab or an d In d u stria l R e la tio n s
U n iv e r sity o f Illin o is a t U r b a n a -C h a m p a ig n
million, or 3 to 4 times the officially unemployed ones.
Public and private employment cannot be expected to
absorb more than a few million of this reserve force.
While this may be so, a more detailed analysis of why it
is so is in order. As for good jobs, less than one-third
of such jobs were added since 1950 to the private sec
tor. In contrast, two-thirds of government jobs are
good ones.
From a theoretical perspective, the most important
point by Ginzberg is that the economy is really a plu
ralistic one, with no less than one-third of all jobs in
the not-for-profit sector, many of them in the service
sector. This has facilitated a rapid growth of female em
ployment, but also made it more difficult to secure
gains in productivity.
For the 1980’s, Ginzberg sees increasing competition
among white males, women, and minorities for manage
rial and professional positions. Since the late 1960’s, the
labor market for highly educated persons has deteriorat
ed and many have been forced to accept positions be
low their expectations. The resulting underemployment
will lead to increasing disenchantment. This has been a
recurrent theme in many of the writings on the labor
market for educated people, but so far there is little evi
dence of it.
There are no prescriptions for a solution. This is
somewhat of a disappointment, although the author
does trace the development of labor policy. He also rec
ognizes the increasing pressure on the Federal Govern
ment to provide jobs for more and more people.
All in all, this is a fine survey of the major labor
market developments in the post-World War II period.
Unlike Margaret S. Gordon, ed., Higher Education and
the Labor Market (1974) and Richard B. Freeman, The
Overeducated American (1976), Ginzberg has related the
current labor market problems to broader economic de
velopments. This is one of the greater strengths of his
book. A bibliography of the relevant literature would
have made the work even more useful.
N ot all jobs are created equal
— Jo h
Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs. By Eli Ginzberg. Cam
bridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1979. 219
pp. $15.
This book is a collection of revised essays published
between 1976 and 1979. The work is clearly intended
for a general audience and is well written and free of
technical jargon. The author, a professor of economics
at Columbia University, is chairman of the National
Commission for Employment Policy.
Eli Ginzberg’s topic is a significant one. He has pro
vided a broad overview of the American labor market.
The central theme is that there is today a shortage of
both jobs and good jobs. Ginzberg has estimated the
number of potentially employable people to be 18 to 24
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
n
D
r e ij m a n is
A s s is ta n t P ro fesso r
H is to r y an d P o litica l S cien ce D e p a r tm en t
U n iv e r sity o f L o w e ll
The workplace as battleground
Workers'1 Control in America: Studies in the History of
Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles. By David
Montgomery. New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1979. 189 pp. $14.95.
Robert Hoxie, in Trade Unionism in the United
States, pointed out that “the essence of unionism is a
social philosophy.” David Montgomery’s essays trace
the impact of various social philosophies as their propo
nents vie for control of the workplace and of the rules
which will govern employment, work pace, and method
of payment. Although Montgomery favors the Socialist
view, his quotations and analyses reveal some of the im
pacts of Hoxie’s five functional types of unionism. As
the author states in the introduction:
N o o n e k n ew b etter th an th e w ork ers th e m se lv es th a t th ey
n eed ed a m u ch b etter sta n d a rd o f liv in g th an th e y e n jo y ed ,
th a t o n ly hard w o rk an d so u n d p r o d u ctiv e orga n iza tio n
c o u ld p r o d u ce su ch im p ro v em en t, an d th a t in efficien cy an d
w a ste w ere b u ilt in to th e very fiber o f th e e c o n o m ic sy stem .
T h eir id ea s o f h o w to rem ed y th e situ a tio n , h o w ev er, w ere
very d ifferent from th o s e o f th eir em p lo y ers.
The first five chapters trace workers’ efforts to retain
or regain control over work rules from the late 1800’s
to the 1920’s. Throughout the period, worker control of
the workplace is eroded by industrialization, mass pro
duction techniques, immigration of workers with differ
ent control ideas, scientific management, paternalistic
welfare schemes, as well as their own inability to select
and support a social philosophy which will provide a
significant counterforce to these massive social, econom
ic, and managerial changes.
Chapter 6, coauthored by Ronald Schatz, and chap
ter 7 depart from the short period historical perspective
and examine two topics over a longer timespan. The
first deals with workers’ attempts to restrict the use of
layoff as a response to reduced demands for worker
hours. The second is a dreary interpretation of the
death of the labor movement and its replacement by
‘‘an immobile and isolated aggregation of legally certi
fied bargaining agents.” The attribution of this result to
joint action by government and industry seeking a pas
sive participant in the “moribund Capitalist system” is
an indication of the polemic tone of these two chapters.
A closing bibliographical essay lists useful books and
other sources for persons interested in delving further
into worker control.
The book is a collection of essays with worker con
trol as a unifying theme. Because the essays were meant
to stand alone (only chapters 3 and 7 have not been
previously published), this reviewer finds a disturbing
amount of repetition of the setting, of management and
worker views, and of the principal issues across the sev
eral essays.
Montgomery looks forward to the day when workers
will “regain mastery over collective and socialized pro
duction”. Although he does not show that they ever
had such mastery, he does provide a revealing and sym
pathetic look at the struggle for control of their
worklives in the face of dramatically changing condi
tions. He highlights the tension within unions as to
whether their workplace power should be used for their
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
own ends (Hoxie’s business unionism) or to support the
progress of the entire working class (Hoxie’s uplift
unionism). The essays underline the fundamental prob
lem of achieving a consistent coalition among people
whose self-interests and common interests only occa
sionally coincide. While the author blames the Capital
ist and credit systems for keeping workers from gaining
control of the workplace, the essays seem to illustrate
that the question of which workers have control is often
as important as whether workers have control.
The organizational view presented here is a strong
contrast to the personal view presented by Robert
Schrank in Ten Thousand Working Days; yet both are
valuable perspectives on some of the same issues of
worker control.
— R
obert
E. B o y n t o n
A ss o c ia te P ro fesso r o f M a n a g e m en t
N a v a l P o stg r a d u a te S c h o o l
M o n terey , C alif.
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
B ell, C. L. G . a n d P. B. R . H a ze ll, “ M ea su rin g th e In d irect
E ffects o f an A g ricu ltu ra l In v estm en t P ro je ct o n Its
S u rrou n d in g R e g io n ,” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 7 5 - 8 6 .
L o p ez, R a m o n E ., “ T h e S tru ctu re o f P ro d u c tio n a n d th e D e
rived D e m a n d for In p u ts in C an ad ian A g r ic u ltu r e ,”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, F eb ru ary
1980, pp. 3 8 - 4 5 .
M o rzu ch , B. J., R . D . W eaver, P. G . H elm b erg er, “ W h ea t
A c re a g e S u p p ly R e sp o n se U n d e r C h a n g in g F arm P ro
g r a m s,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 2 9 - 3 7 .
M u rray, T h o m a s J„ “ C a lifo rn ia ’s B itter W ater F ig h t,”
Review, A p ril 1980, pp. 8 0 - 8 2 .
Dun's
R o se, A d a m , “ G eo th er m a l E n ergy in C aliforn ia: P o lic ie s to
Im p ro v e th e E c o n o m ic Im p a ct o f E n ergy R e so u rc e D e
v e lo p m e n t,” Growth and Change, Jan u ary 1980, pp. 4 1 47.
S ch ellin g , T h o m a s C ., Thinking Through the Energy Problem.
W a sh in g to n , C o m m ittee for E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t,
1979, 63 pp. $5.
S im a n to v , A lb e r t, “ A g r icu ltu re in th e E ig h tie s ,”
Observer, Jan u ary 1980, pp. 1 1 - 1 8 .
The OECD
What's to Eat? The United
States Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1979. W a sh
U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f A g ricu ltu re,
in g to n , U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f A g ricu ltu re, 1979, 142 pp.
S to ck N o . 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 4 0 4 1 - 3 . $ 4 .5 0 , S u p erin ten d en t o f
D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
Economic and social statistics
B row n , G eo r g e H ., “T h e B ig C ou n t: U n d e rc o u n t or O ver-
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Book Reviews
c o u n t? ”
Across the Board, A p ril 1980, pp. 4 0 - 4 4 .
C iscel, D a v id H . a n d T h o m a s M . C arroll, “T h e D e ter m in a n ts
o f E x e cu tiv e Salaries: A n E c o n o m e tric S u rv ey ,” The Re
view of Economics and Statistics, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 7 13.
19.
Statistical Reporter, F eb ru ary 1980,
pp. 8 1 - 1 1 5 .
N a tio n a l C o m m issio n on E m p lo y m e n t an d U n e m p lo y m e n t
S ta tistic s, Data Collection, Processing and Presentation:
National and Local— Counting the Labor Force Appendix,
Vol. II. W a sh in g to n , 1980, 6 0 2 pp. S to ck N o . 0 5 2 - 0 0 3 0 0 6 9 9 - 5 . $ 8 .5 0 , S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g
to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
Economic growth and development
H eilb ro n er, R o b ert L ., “ M o d ern E c o n o m ic s as a C h a p ter in
th e H isto ry o f E c o n o m ic T h o u g h t,” Challenge, Janu aryF eb ru a ry 1980, pp. 2 0 - 2 4 .
L a d d , E v erett C arll, Jr. an d S eym o u r M artin L ip set, “ A n a to
m y o f a D e c a d e ,” Public Opinion, D ecem b er-J a n u a ry ,
1980, pp . 2 - 9 .
M a rtin , R a n d o lp h C. an d R o b ert E. G rah am , Jr., “T h e Im
p a ct o f E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t A d m in istra tio n P ro
gram s: S o m e E m p irical E v id e n c e ,”
The Review of
Economics and Statistics, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 5 2 - 6 2 .
M cC a llu m , B en n ett T ., “T h e S ig n ifican ce o f R a tio n a l E x p e c ta
tio n s T h e o r y ,” Challenge, Jan u ary-F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 37
-4 3 .
The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the
Possibilities for Economic Change. N e w Y o r k , B asic
T h u ro w , L ester C .,
B o o k s, In c., P u b lish ers, 1980, 2 3 0 pp. $ 1 2 .9 5 .
Historical and Projected In
put-Output Tables of the Economic Growth Project: Vol
ume II, Total Requirements Tables. W a sh in g to n , 1980,
U .S . B ureau o f L a b or S ta tistic s,
4 8 7 pp. (B u lletin 2 0 5 6 .) S to ck N o . 0 2 9 - 0 0 1 - 0 2 4 3 6 - 3 .
$9, S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
W a tten b erg , B en, “ R etu rn to R eality: T h e L e sso n o f th e 7 0 ’s:
A C o n v er sa tio n w ith H erb ert S tein , Jean e K irk p atrick
a n d M ich a el N o v a k ,” Public Opinion, D ecem b er-J a n u a ry
1980, b eg in n in g on p. 12.
Y a n k e lo v ic h , D a n ie l a n d B ern ard L e fk o w itz , “ N a tio n a l
G ro w th : T h e Q u estio n o f th e 8 0 ’s ,” Public Opinion, D e
cem b er-Jan u ary 1980, b eg in n in g on p. 44.
Education
The Education of Black Philadelphia:
The Social and Educational History of a Minority Com
munity, 1900-1950. P h ila d elp h ia , U n iv e r sity o f P e n n sy l
F ra n k lin , V in cen t P .,
v a n ia P ress, 1979, 298 p p ., b ib lio g ra p h y . $ 1 9 .9 5 .
L a u ro esch , W illia m , “ Q uebec: E arly W arn in g S y stem for
A m erica n H ig h er E d u c a tio n ,” Journal of Collective Nego
tiations in the Public Sector, V o l. 8, N o . 4, 1979, pp. 333 —
38.
“ W o m en a n d E d u ca tio n : A S p ecial I s s u e — P art I I ,” Harvard
Educational Review, F eb ru ary 1980, 50th A n n iv ersa ry Is
su e, pp. 1 - 7 0 .
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“ H ea lth P ro m o tio n P ro g ra m s in O c c u p a tio n a l S e ttin g s — A
S p ecial S e c tio n ,” Public Health Reports, M a rch -A p ril
1980, pp. 9 9 - 1 6 3 .
U .S .
E v a n s, M ich a el K ., “T h e B an k ru p tcy o f K ey n esia n E c o n o m e t
ric M o d e ls ,” Challenge, Janu ary-F eb ru ary 1980, pp . 1 3 “ F ed eral S ta tistic s 1 9 7 9 ,”
Health and safety
D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or, Protecting People at Work: A
Reader in Occupational Safety and Health. W a sh in g to n ,
U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or, 1980, 361 pp. S to ck N o . 0 2 9 0 1 5 - 0 0 0 5 5 - 4 . $ 6 .5 0 , p ap er. S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u
m e n ts, W a sh in g to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
Z ack , Ju d ith A . an d R a y m o n d R . S u sk in d , “ T h e M o rta lity
E x p erien ce o f W ork ers E x p o sed to T e tra c h lo ro d ib e n z o d io x in in a T r ic h lo r o p h e n o l P ro cess A c c id e n t.” R ep rin ted
from th e Journal of Occupational Medicine, Jan u ary 1980,
pp. 1 1 - 1 4 .
Industrial relations
B arb ash , Jack, “ C o lle c tiv e B argain in g an d th e T h eo ry o f C o n
flic t,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, M arch 1980,
pp . 8 2 - 9 0 .
B o rn stein , T im , “ L eg a cies o f L o ca l G o v er n m e n t C o llec tiv e
B a rgain in g in th e 1 9 7 0 s,” Labor Law Journal, M a rch
1980, pp. 1 6 5 - 7 3 .
C a ss, M ich a el C ., “ T o D isc o u r a g e an d S tifle C o lle c tiv e
B argain in g: T h e G e n esis o f th e T a ft-H a rtley A c t ,” Labor
Center Review, F a ll-W in ter 1980, pp . 2 4 - 3 3 .
o f C o m m erce o f th e U n ite d S ta tes, Analysis of
Workers' Compensation Laws, 1980 Edition. W a sh in g to n ,
C h am b er
1980, 45 pp. $6.
H u n ter, L au ren ce C ., “ T h e E n d o f F u ll E m p lo y m e n t? ” British
Journal of Industrial Relations, M arch 1980, pp. 4 4 - 5 6 .
Irvin g, Joh n S., Jr., “ A rb itra tio n a n d th e N a tio n a l L ab o r R e
la tio n s B o a r d ,” The Arbitration Journal, M arch 1980, pp.
5 -9 .
“ B argain in g ’80: Still P la y in g C a tc h u p ,” The
AF L-C IO American Federationist, M arch 1980, pp. 1 8 -
Jaq u ay, Joe,
24.
K esse lr in g , R a n d a ll G . an d P au l B rinker, “ C o n tra ct D iffi
c u ltie s U n d e r S ectio n 8 (a) (2 ),” Labor Law Journal,
M arch 1980, pp. 1 3 9 - 5 2 .
K ir k la n d , L an e, “ L a b o r ’s O u tlo o k — B u ild in g o n S tr e n g th ,”
The AF L-C IO American Federationist, M arch 1980, pp.
1 -4 .
K o v a c h , K en n e th A ., B en F . S an d s, Jr., W illia m W . B r o o k s,”
“ Is C o d ete rm in a tio n a W o rk a b le Id ea for U .S . L a b o r
M a n a g e m en t R e la tio n s? ” MSU Business Topics, W in ter
1980, pp. 4 9 - 5 5 .
L ab or C a n ad a, Legislation Relating to Working Women, 4 th
ed. O tta w a , L ab or C a n ad a, W o m e n ’s B ureau, 1 979, 43
pp. A v a ila b le from P u b lic R e la tio n s B ran ch , L ab or C a n a
da, O tta w a , O n tario.
L areau , M argaret A ., “ T h e Issu e o f C o lle c tiv e B argain in g for
S c h o o l S u p ervisors a n d A d m in is tr a to r s,” Labor Law
Journal, M arch 1980, pp. 1 5 3 - 6 4 .
L ehr, R ich a rd I., “ E m p lo y er D u tie s to A c c o m m o d a te H a n d i
c a p p e d E m p lo y e e s ,” Labor Law Journal, M arch 1980, pp.
1 7 4 -8 1 .
Industry and government organization
C a v es, R ich a rd E ., “ In d u stria l O rg a n iza tio n , C o rp o ra te Strat-
eg y a n d S tru ctu re,” Journal
M arch 1980, pp. 6 4 - 9 2 .
of Economic Literature,
M arris, R o b in a n d D e n n is C. M u eller, “T h e C orp o ra tio n ,
C o m p etitio n , a n d th e In v isib le H a n d ,” Journal of Eco
nomic Literature, M arch 1980, pp. 3 2 - 6 3 .
R e illy , A n n M ., “ A s sa u lt on C o rp o ra te A m e r ic a ,”
view, A p ril 1980, b eg in n in g on p. 104.
Dun's Re
Labor and economic history
A ld rich , M ark , “ S tate R e p o r ts on W o m e n an d C h ild W a g e
E arners, 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 0 6 ,” Labor History, W in ter 1980, pp.
8 6 -9 0 .
C on n er, V alerie J., ‘“ T h e M o th e rs o f th e R a c e ’ in W o rld W ar
I: T h e N a tio n a l W ar L ab or B oard an d W o m en in In d u s
tr y ,” Labor History, W in ter 1980, pp. 3 1 - 5 4 .
History of the Labor Movement in the United
States: Volume V, The AFL in the Progressive Era, 19101915. N e w Y o rk , In tern a tio n a l P u b lish ers, 1980, 3 0 0 pp.
F o n er, P h ilip S.,
International economics
• A r tu s, J a cq u es R . a n d Joh n H . Y o u n g , “ F ix e d an d F le x ib le
E x c h a n g e R ates: A R en ew a l o f th e D e b a te ,” Internation
al Monetary Fund Staff Papers, D e ce m b e r 1979, pp. 6 5 4 98.
C larke, R ich a rd N . a n d L a w ren ce H . S u m m ers, “ T h e L ab ou r
S ca rcity C o n tro v e rsy R e c o n sid e r e d ,” The Economic Jour
nal, M a rch 1980, pp. 1 2 9 - 3 9 .
C o n g re ssio n a l Q u arterly, China: U.S. Policy Since 1945. W a sh
in g to n , C o n g re ssio n a l Q u arterly, In c., 1980, 387 pp .,
b ib lio g ra p h y , $ 1 0 .9 5 .
E llio tt, C lifford an d Jang H . Y o o , “ In n o v a tio n s in th e Jap a
n ese D istr ib u tiv e S ystem : A r e th e B arriers to E n try B ein g
L ifted ?” Akron Business and Economics Review, Sp rin g
1980, pp. 2 8 - 3 3 .
$15, clo th ; $ 4 .9 5 , paper.
G a b in , N a n c y , “ W o m en W ork ers an d th e U A W in th e P o stW orld W ar II P eriod : 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 5 4 ,” Labor History, W in
ter 1980, pp. 5 - 3 0 .
G raeb n er, W illiam , “ ‘U n c le Sam Ju st L o v e s th e L a d ie s’: Sex
D isc r im in a tio n in th e F ed eral G o v er n m e n t, 1 9 1 7 ,” Labor
History, W in ter 1980, pp. 7 5 - 8 5 .
Labor force
B rid ges, W illiam P „ “ In d u stry M a rg in a lity an d F em a le E m
p lo y m en t: A N e w A p p r a is a l,” American Sociological Re
view, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 5 8 - 7 5 .
F reem an , R ich a rd B. an d D a v id A . W ise, NBER Summary
Report: Youth Unemployment. C a m b rid ge, M a ss., N a tio n
al B ureau o f E c o n o m ic R esea rch , In c., 1980, 2 4 pp.
The New Inter
national Division of Labour Structural Unemployment in
Industrialised Countries and Industrialisation in Develop
ing Countries. N e w Y o rk , C am b rid g e U n iv e r sity P ress,
G in sb u rg , H elen , Full Employment as a Policy Issue. R e p r in t
ed from Policy Studies Journal, W in ter 1979, pp. 3 5 9 - 6 8 .
1980, 4 4 0 pp. $ 5 4 .5 0 .
H ak im , C ath erin e,
F rö b el, F o lk er, Jürgen H ein rich s, O tto K rey e,
F ü h rer, H elm u t, “ T h e In d u stria liza tio n o f th e T h ird W o r ld ,”
The OECD Observer, Janu ary 1980, pp. 2 4 - 2 8 .
G o ld sb r o u g h , D a v id J., “T h e R o le o f F o reig n D ir ec t In v est
m en t in th e E xtern al A d ju stm e n t P r o c e s s,” International
Monetary Fund Staff Papers, D e ce m b e r 1979, pp. 7 2 5 54.
The Cruel Dilemmas of Development:
Twentieth-Century Brazil. N e w Y o rk , B asic B o o k s, P u b
H ew le tt, S y lv ia A n n ,
lish ers, 1980, 2 4 3 pp . $15.
“ H ig h lig h ts from O E C D E c o n o m ic O u tlo o k ,”
server, Janu ary 1980, pp. 2 9 - 3 4 .
The OECD Ob
K h a n , M o h sin S., “ In flation a n d In tern a tio n a l R eserves: A
T im e-S eries A n a ly s is ,” International Monetary Fund Staff
Papers, D e ce m b e r 1979, pp. 6 9 9 - 7 2 4 .
K ra u se, L a w ren ce B. a n d S u eo S ek igu ch i, e d s., Economic In
teraction in the Pacific Basin. W a sh in g to n , T h e B ro o k in g s
In stitu tio n , 1980, 2 6 9 pp. $ 1 4 .9 5 .
Occupational Segregation: A Comparative
Study of the Degree and Pattern of the Differentiation Be
tween Men and Women's Work in Britain, the United
States and Other Countries. L o n d o n , E n g la n d , D e p a r t
m en t o f E m p lo y m e n t, 1979, 65 pp. (R esea rch P aper 9.)
C an ad a, W o m e n ’s B ureau, Women in the Labour
Force: Facts and Figures, 1977 Edition— Part II, Earnings
of Women and Men. O tta w a , O n ta rio , L a b ou r C an ad a,
L ab ou r
W o m e n ’s B ureau, 1979, 68 pp.
L ittle, R o g e r D . a n d E. E. L ieb h a fsk y , “ A n a ly s is o f C h a n g in g
E m p lo y m e n t O p p o rtu n ity b y O c c u p a tio n a l G r o u p ,”
Growth and Change, Jan u ary 1980, pp. 2 - 1 0 .
“ L o n g itu d in a l R esea rch an d L ab or F o rc e B e h a v io r,” Journal
of Economics and Business, S p ecial Issu e, W in ter 1980,
pp. 8 9 - 1 8 1 . $5.
L o n g , Jam es E. an d E th el B. J o n es, “ L ab or F o rc e E n try an d
E xit b y M arried W om en : A L o n g itu d in a l A n a ly s is ,” The
Review of Economics and Statistics, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 1 -
6.
L ayard , P. R . G . a n d S. J. N ic k e ll, “ T h e C ase for S u b sid isin g
E xtra J o b s ,” The Economic Journal, M arch 1980, pp. 5 1 73.
P apier, W illiam , E m p lo y m e n t an d U n e m p lo y m e n t A m o n g
O h io ’s W o m e n ,” Bulletin of Business Research, T h e O h io
S tate U n iv e r sity , S ep tem b er 1979, pp. 1 - 4 .
Triffin, R o b ert, “ T he A m erica n R e sp o n se to th e E u rop ean
M o n e ta ry S y s te m ,” Challenge, M a rch -A p ril 1980, pp. 1 7 25.
S h aevitz, M arjorie H a n sen an d M o rto n H . S h aevitz, Making
It Together as a Two-Career Couple. B o sto n , H o u g h to n
M ifflin C o ., 1980, 2 8 2 pp. $8.95.
van L en n ep , E m ile, “ T h e S even ties: A R e v ie w — T h e E igh ties:
A P re v ie w ,” The OECD Observer, Janu ary 1980, pp. 3 - 9 .
S m ith , Jam es P ., ed ., Female Labor Supply: Theory and Esti
mation. N e w Y o rk , T h e R a n d C orp ., 1980, 3 8 4 p p ., b ib
lio g ra p h y . $ 20, P rin ceto n U n iv e r sity P ress, P rin ceto n ,
N .J.
U .S . B ureau o f In tern a tio n a l L ab or A ffairs, Country Labor Pro
file: Algeria. B y C h arles C lifford F in ch . W a sh in g to n , U .S .
D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or, B ureau o f In tern a tio n a l L ab o r A f
fairs, 1980, 8 pp. 6 0 cen ts, S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u m e n ts ,
W a sh in g to n , 2 0 4 0 2 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Management and organization theory
A lle n , R o b ert F ., “T h e Ik in th e O ffice,”
Organizational Dy63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Book Renews
G reen sp a n ,
namics, W in ter 1980, pp. 2 6 - 4 1 .
A r n stein , W illia m E. an d F ran k G ila b ert, Direct Costing. N e w
Y o r k , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g em en t
A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 2 8 0 p p ., b ib lio g ra p h y . $ 2 6 .5 0 .
What Every Supervisor Should Know: The
Basics of Supervisory Management. 4 th ed. N e w Y o rk ,
B ittel, L ester R .,
M c G r a w -H ill B o o k C o ., 1980, 6 6 0 pp. $ 1 8 .9 5 .
D e w a r , R o b ert D ., D a v id A . W h etten , D a v id B oje, “ A n E x
a m in a tio n o f th e R e lia b ility an d V a lid ity o f th e A ik en
a n d H a g e S ca les o f C en tra liza tio n , F o rm a liza tio n , an d
T a sk R o u tin e n e s s,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
M a rch 1980, pp. 1 2 0 - 2 8 .
F ro h m a n , A la n L. an d S teven P. O ber, “ E sta b lish in g L ead er
sh ip : H o w to A n a ly z e an d D e a l W ith th e B asic I s su e s,”
Management Review, A p ril 1980, pp. 4 6 - 5 0 .
G liss o n , C h a rles A . a n d P atricia Y a n ce y M artin , “ P ro d u c tiv i
ty a n d E fficien cy in H u m a n Service O rg a n iz a tio n s as R e
la ted
to
S tru ctu re, Size an d
A g e ,” Academy of
Management Journal, M arch 1980, pp. 2 1 - 3 7 .
H art, L o is B o rla n d , Moving Up! Women and Leadership. N e w
Y o r k , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g em en t
A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 2 2 9 pp. $ 1 2 .9 5 .
Developing Overseas Managers— and Manag
ers Overseas. N e w Y o r k , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n o f
Illm a n , P aul E .,
A m erica n M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 298 pp.
M . a n d R u th A . Jo n es, Two Careers— One
Marriage. N e w Y o r k , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n o f A m e ri
J o n es, W illia m
can M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 2 2 9 pp. $ 1 0 .9 5 .
L y les, M arjo rie A . a n d Ian I. M itroff, “ O rg a n iza tio n a l P ro b
lem F o rm u la tio n : A n E m p irical S tu d y ,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, M arch 1980, pp. 1 0 2 - 1 9 .
M itc h e ll, D o n G ., Top Man: Reflections of a Chief Executive.
N e w Y o r k , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g e
m en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 192 pp. $ 1 0 .9 5 .
Fair Information Practices for Managers
and Employees. N e w Y o rk , A M A C O M , A d iv isio n of
O sb o rn , Jack L ester,
A m erica n M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 23 pp. $ 7 .5 0 ,
A M A m em b ers; $10, n o n m em b ers.
B rech lin g , F ran k , “T h e T a x B ase o f th e U .S . U n e m p lo y m e n t
In su ra n ce T ax: A n E m p irical A n a ly s is ,” The Review of
Economics and Statistics, F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 3 2 - 4 1 .
B rim m er, A n d r ew F „ “T h e P o litica l E c o n o m y o f L im ita tio n s
o n F ed eral S p en d in g ,” Challenge, M a rch -A p ril 1980, pp.
6 - 11.
D e fe n s e ,”
H ersh m a n , A rlen e, “ B rin g B ack th e G o ld Stan d ard ?”
Review, A p ril 1980, pp . 5 8 - 6 6 .
L aid ler, D a v id a n d N ic h o la s R o w e , “ G eo r g S im m e l’s
P h ilo s o p h y o f M o n ey : A R e v iew A r ticle for E c o n o m is ts ,”
Journal of Economic Literature, M arch 1980, pp. 9 7 - 1 0 5 .
“T h e G reat C r a sh — P ast an d P resent: C an T h ere B e A n o th e r
C rash?” b y W a lter H eller; “ T h e G reat M a lise ,” B y A lla n
64
“ In flation : F o c u sin g th e C u re o n th e C a u se ,” The AFL-CIO
American Federationist, M arch 1980, pp. 1 3 - 1 7 .
L aB arbera, P riscilla, “ G en eric G ro ceries a n d G en eric D ru gs:
In d u stry a n d C o n su m er R e a c tio n s ,” Akron Business and
Economic Review, Sp rin g 1980, pp. 1 3 - 1 8 .
L o sm a n , D o n a ld L ., “ W h a t’s R e a lly W ro n g w ith In fla tio n ? ”
The Journal IThe In stitu te for S o c io e c o n o m ic S tu d ies,
W in ter 1979, pp . 1 2 - 1 9 .
N o r w o o d , Janet L ., “T h e C P I C o n tr o v e r sy ,”
nal, M arch 1980, pp . 1 3 1 - 3 8 .
»
Labor Law Jour
O k u n , A rth u r M ., “T h e In v isib le H a n d sh a k e an d th e In
fla tion ary P r o c e s s,” Challenge, Jan u ary-F eb ru ary 1980,
pp. 5 - 1 2 .
Productivity and technological change
F ried en , K arl, Workplace Democracy and Productivity. W a sh
in g to n , N a tio n a l C en ter for E c o n o m ic A lte rn a tiv e s, 1980,
98 pp.
G ., Technological Changes and the De
mand for Skilled Manpower in Canada. R ev . ed. C a lg a ry ,
P eitch in is, S tep h en
A lb erta , C a n ad a, T h e U n iv e r sity o f C algary, D e p a r tm en t
o f E c o n o m ic s , 1980, 55 pp. (S tu d ies on th e E m p lo y m e n t
E ffects o f T e c h n o lo g y .)
P ratten , C lifford F ., “T h e M an u fa ctu re o f P in s,”
Economic Literature, M arch 1980, pp. 9 3 - 9 6 .
Journal of
Urban affairs
J a n czyk , J o sep h T . a n d W illia m C. C o n sta n c e , “ Im p a cts o f
B u ild in g M o ra to ria o n H o u sin g M ark ets w ith in a R e
g io n ,” Growth and Change, Janu ary 1980, pp. 1 1 - 1 9 .
“T h e H o u sin g M ess: I, A n E n d to R e n ta l H o u sin g ? ” b y R o g
er Starr; “ II, T h e P o st-S h elte r S o c ie ty ,” b y G eo r g e
S tern lieb a n d Jam es W . H u g h es, The Public Interest, F a ll
1979, pp. 2 5 - 4 7 .
Wages and compensation
Annual Report of the
State Advisory Council on Employment and Unemploy
ment Insurance. N e w Y o r k , D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or, S ta te
N e w Y o rk S tate, D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or,
A d v is o r y C o u n c il on E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t
In su ra n ce, 1979, 72 pp.
N o lle n , S ta n ley D ., “ W h a t is H a p p en in g to F lex itim e,
F le x ito u r , G lid in g T im e, th e V ariab le D a y ? A n d P erm a
n en t P a rt-T im e E m p lo y m e n t? an d th e F o u r -D a y -W ee k ? ”
Across the Board, A p ril 1980, pp . 6 - 2 1 .
Dun's
J a v its, J a co b K „ “ N e w D ir e c tio n s for S a v in g s an d In v est
m e n ts in 1 9 8 0 ,” The Journal I T h e In stitu te for S o c io e c o
n o m ic S tu d ies, W in ter 1979, pp . 1 - 1 1 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Prices and living conditions
E llig , B ru ce R ., “ F ed eral P ay P o licy : Im p a ct o n th e P rivate
S e c to r,” Management Review, A p ril 1980, pp. 8 - 1 3 .
Monetary and fiscal policy
B ro n fen b ren n er, M a rtin , “ T h e C u rren cy -C h o ice
Challenge, Jan u ary-F eb ru ary 1980, pp. 3 1 - 3 6 .
Challenge, M a rch -A p ril 1980, pp. 3 1 - 4 0 .
Welfare programs and social insurance
A a r o n , H en ry , “ A d v is o r y R ep o rt on S o cial S e c u r ity ,”
lenge, M a rch -A p ril 1980, pp. 1 2 - 1 6 .
Chal
G arfin k el, Irw in , “ W elfare R eform : A N e w an d O ld V ie w ,”
The Journal/ T h e In stitu te for S o c io e c o n o m ic S tu d ies,
W in ter 1979, pp . 5 8 - 7 2 .
L ee, L. D o u g la s , “ S o cial S ecu rity is N o t an Is la n d ,” The JournallThe. In stitu te for S o c io e c o n o m ic S tu d ies, W in ter
1979, pp. 2 0 - 2 8 .
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
.....................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
67
67
68
69
70
71
71
71
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-79
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted .....................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted ...................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted .............................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted . .
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted .............................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u s tr y , 1 9 5 0 - 7 9
E m p lo y m e n t b y S ta te
.........................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu r in g g r o u p ............................................................................
11.
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu r in g g r o u p , s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d
12.
L a b o r tu r n o v e r r a te s in m a n u fa c tu r in g , 1 9 7 7 to d a te
13.
L a b o r tu r n o v e r r a tes in m a n u fa c tu r in g , b y m a jo r in d u s tr y g r o u p
14.
H o u r s a n d e a r n in g s , b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n , 1 9 4 8 - 7 9
..............................................
..................................................................................
...............................................................................
............................................................................................................
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ...............................................................................
16.
W e e k ly h o u rs , b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu r in g g r o u p , s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d
17.
H o u r ly e a rn in g s , b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu r in g g r o u p
...........................................
......................................................................................
18.
H o u r ly E a r n in g s I n d e x , b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n
19.
W e e k ly e a r n in g s , b y in d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu r in g g r o u p
...................................................................................................................
20.
G r o s s a n d s p e n d a b le w e e k ly e a r n in g s in cu r re n t a n d 1 9 6 7 d o lla r s , 1 9 6 0 to d a t e
......................................................................................
........................................................
72
73
73
74
75
76
76
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
Price data. Definitions and notes .......................................................
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Consumer Price Indexes, 1967-79 ........................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ...................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity grouping ................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries .....................................
Productivity data. Definitions and notes .............................
31.
32.
33.
34.
Indexes of productivity and related data, 1950-79 ...........................
Annual percent change in productivity and related data, 1969-79 .
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs
Percent change in productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes .............................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units ................................................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units .............................................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ..........................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84
85
85
91
92
93
94
96
96
96
99
99
100
100
101
102
102
102
103
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years. For a technical discussion of the method used to
make seasonal adjustments, see “Appendix A. The BLS Seasonal Fac
tor M ethod,” B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bul
letin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976), pp. 2 7 2 -7 8 , and X - l l
V a ria n t o f th e C en su s M e th o d I I S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t P r o g r a m , Tech
nical Paper N o. 15 (Bureau of the Census, 1967). Seasonally adjusted
labor force data in tables 2 - 7 were last revised in the February 1980
issue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s experience. Begin
ning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications in
the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the
data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X - l l /
A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of
the standard X - l l method. A detailed description of the procedure
appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d by Estela
Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, September
1979).
The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated
for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire
year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December peri
od. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of
each calendar year. Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll
data in tables 11, 13, 16, and 18 was last introduced in the November
1979 issue of the R ev ie w . N ew seasonal factors for productivity data in
tables 33 and 34 are usually introduced in the September issue. Sea
sonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month
and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer
and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally
adjusted percent changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($ 3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis
tic s 1 9 7 8 , Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for m ost of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually— E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and
E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A rea s. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I
D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P r ic e s a n d P r ic e In d e x es .
Symbols
p — preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
MLR table
number
Employment situation..................................................................
Producer Price Indexes................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Work stoppages..........................................................................
Labor turnover In manufacturing ..................................................
Major collective bargaining settlements (quarterly) ........................
Productivity and costs (quarterly):
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ..................................
June 6
June 6
June 24
June 24
June 30
June 30
May
May
May
May
May
May
July 3
July 8
July 23
July 23
July 29
July 30
July 25
June
June
June
June
June
June
1st half
1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
37
12-13
35-36
July 28
2nd quarter
31 -34
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m ploym ent
data
in th is se c tio n
are o b ta in e d from
th e
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
C u rren t P o p u la tio n S u rvey, a p rogram o f p erso n a l in terv iew s
c o n d u c te d m o n th ly b y th e B u reau o f th e C en su s for th e B ureau
of L abor
S ta tistics.
The
sa m p le c o n sists o f a b o u t
6 5 ,0 0 0
h o u se h o ld s b e g in n in g in Jan u ary 1980, selected to rep resen t th e
U .S . p o p u la tio n
16 y ears o f ag e a n d old er. H o u se h o ld s are
in terv iew ed o n a ro ta tin g b asis, so th a t th ree-fo u rth s o f th e
sa m p le is th e sa m e for an y 2 c o n se c u tiv e m o n th s.
Definitions
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are
Full-time workers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s.
Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1979.
1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-79
[Numbers in thousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Total
Unemployed
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
Industries
Number
Percent of
labor
force
Not in
labor force
1950
1955
1960
■1964
1965
..........................................
............................................................
................................................
......................................................
..................................................
106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................................
............................................
....................................................
..........................................
............................................................
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
............................................................
................................................
....................................................
..................................
..........................................................
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................................
................................................
......................................................
............................................................
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1980
1979
Annual average
Employment status
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
165,101
106,310
163,020
104,229
97,804
3,270
94,534
6,425
6.2
58,791
165,298
106,346
163,211
104,260
97,953
3,326
94,626
6,307
6.0
58,951
165,506
106,184
163,416
104,094
97,656
3,358
94,298
6,438
6.2
59,322
165,693
106,511
163,601
104,419
97,154
3,242
93,912
7,265
7.0
59,182
68,940
54,781
52,478
2,427
50,051
2,303
4.2
14,159
69,047
54,855
52,279
2,387
49,892
2,577
4.7
14,192
69,140
55,038
52,531
2,435
50,096
2,507
4.6
14,102
69,238
54,996
52,300
2,394
49,906
2,696
4.9
14,242
69,329
55,114
51,868
2,320
49,548
3,246
5.9
14,215
77,426
39,445
37,248
612
36,636
2,197
5.6
37,981
77,542
39,659
37,402
582
36,820
2,257
5.7
37,883
77,656
39,878
37,574
540
37,034
2,304
5.8
37,778
77,766
39,857
37,604
567
37,037
2,254
5.7
37,909
77,876
39,751
37,496
582
36,914
2,255
5.7
38,125
77,981
40,137
37,602
552
37,051
2,534
6.3
37,844
16,370
9,473
7,919
351
7,568
1,554
16.4
6,897
16,360
9,498
7,986
335
7,651
1,512
15.9
6,862
16,326
9,559
8,032
350
7,682
1,527
16.0
6,767
16,317
9,497
7,952
344
7,608
1,545
16.3
6,820
16,305
9,365
7,818
325
7,493
1,547
16.5
6,940
16,302
9,346
7,859
381
7,478
1,487
15.9
6,956
16,291
9,168
7,683
370
7,313
1,485
16.2
7,123
141,981
91,082
86,425
4,657
5.1
50,900
142,296
91,147
86,454
4,693
5.1
51,149
142,461
91,242
86,571
4,671
5.1
51,219
142,645
91,579
86,894
4,685
5.1
51,066
142,806 142,951
91,852 91,977
86,895 87,081
4,957
4,896
5.4
5.3
50,954 50,975
143,115
91,821
86,822
4,999
5.4
51,294
143,254
92,083
86,385
5,698
6.2
51,171
20,032
12,404
11,063
1,341
10.8
7,264
20,079
12,512
11,076
1,436
11.5
7,567
20,128
12,391
11,044
1,347
10.9
7,737
20,163
12,432
11,024
1,408
11.3
7,731
20,301
12,266
10,823
1,443
11.8
8,035
20,346
12,319
10,771
1,549
12.6
8,027
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
161,058
102,537
158,941
100,420
94,373
3,342
91,031
6,047
6.0
58,521
163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623
163,008
104,280
160,926
102,198
96,254
3,215
93,039
5,944
5.8
58,728
163,260
104,476
161,182
102,398
96,495
3,246
93,249
5,903
5.8
58,784
163,469
104,552
161,393
102,476
96,652
3,243
93,409
5,824
5.7
58,917
163,685
105,475
161,604
103,093
97,184
3,267
93,917
5,909
5.7
58,511
163,891
105,218
161,801
103,128
97,004
3,315
93,689
6,124
5.9
58,673
164,106
105,586
162,013
103,494
97,504
3,364
94,140
5,990
5.8
58,519
164,468
105,688
162,375
103,595
97,474
3,294
94,180
6,121
5.9
58,780
164,682
105,744
162,589
103,652
97,608
3,385
94,223
6,044
5.8
58,937
164,898
106,088
162,809
103,999
97,912
3,359
94,553
6,087
5.9
58,810
67,006
53,464
51,212
2,361
48,852
2,252
4.2
13,541
68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807
67,997
54,239
52,049
2,295
49,754
2,190
4.0
13,758
68,123
54,288
52,158
2,301
49,857
2,130
3.9
13,835
68,227
54,370
52,201
2,305
49,896
2,169
4.0
13,857
68,319
54,579
52,325
2,327
49,998
2,254
4.1
13,740
68,417
54,597
52,311
2,375
49,936
2,286
4.2
13,820
68,522
54,735
52,453
2,377
50,076
2,282
4.2
13,787
68,697
54,760
52,443
2,371
50,072
2,317
4.2
13,937
68,804
54,709
52,374
2,438
49,936
2,335
4.3
14,095
75,489
37,416
35,180
586
34,593
2,236
6.0
38,073
76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949
76,532
38,415
36,216
572
35,644
2,199
5.7
38,117
76,670
38,619
36,411
577
35,834
2,208
5.7
38,051
76,784
38,653
36,457
583
35,874
2,196
5.7
38,131
76,897
39,033
36,873
585
36,288
2,160
5.5
37,864
77,006
39,304
37,000
600
36,400
2,304
5.9
37,702
77,124
39,239
37,075
628
36,447
2,164
5.5
37,885
77,308
39,362
37,112
572
36,540
2,250
5.7
37,946
16,447
9,540
7,981
395
7,586
1,559
16.3
6,907
16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867
16,397
9,544
7,989
348
7,641
1,555
16.3
6,853
16,389
9,491
7,926
368
7,558
1,565
16.5
6,898
16,381
9,453
7,994
355
7,639
1,459
15.4
6,928
16,387
9,481
7,986
355
7,631
1,495
15.8
6,906
16,377
9,227
7,693
340
7,353
1,534
16.6
7,150
16,367
9,520
7,976
359
7,617
1,544
16.2
6,847
139,580
88,456
83,836
4,620
5.2
51,124
141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011
141,123
89,996
85,497
4,499
5.0
51,200
141,331
90,120
85,632
4,488
5.0
51,313
141,492
90,215
85,775
4,440
4.9
51,213
141,661
90,659
86,120
4,539
5.0
51,107
141,822
90,759
85,976
4,783
5.3
51,161
19,361
11,964
10,537
1,427
11.9
7,397
19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612
19,802
12,191
10,767
1,424
11.7
7,627
19,850
12,219
10,816
1,403
11.5
7,674
19,901
12,260
10,887
1,373
11.2
7,629
19,943
12,386
11,023
1,363
11.0
7,579
19,979
12,343
10,982
1,361
11.0
7,639
Jan.
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population' ..........................
Total labor force ......................................
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ................................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture ..............................
Nonagricultural industries ........
Unemployed ..................................
' Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ..................................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Both sexes, 16-19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployec ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Black and other
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
'As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20,214
12,453
10,979
1,474
11.8
7,761
20,261
12,362
10,937
1,424
11.5
7,899
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
Annual average
1979
Selected categories
1980
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
94,373
55,491
38,882
38,688
21,881
96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724
96,254
56,294
39,960
38,910
22,376
96,495
56,372
40,123
39,045
22,547
96,652
56,477
40,175
39,079
22,664
97,184
56,570
40,614
39,176
22,908
97,004
56,408
40,596
39,180
22,869
97,504
56,714
40,790
39,198
22,937
97,474
56,629
40,845
39,124
22,919
97,608
56,580
41,028
38,845
22,940
97,912
56,734
41,178
38,924
23,027
97,804
56,486
41,318
38,749
23,111
97,953
56,732
41,221
38,955
23,178
97,656
56,601
41,051
38,745
23,202
97,154
55,998
41,156
38,342
23,080
47,205
14,245
49,342
15,050
49,061
15,091
49,136
15,100
49,192
15,010
49,536
15,057
49,663
15,068
49,816
15,141
49,738
15,057
49,912
15,131
49,911
15,272
50,313
15,337
50,448
15,444
50,302
15,397
50,405
15,542
10,105
5,951
16,904
31,531
12,386
10,875
3,541
4,729
12,839
2,798
10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703
10,398
6,084
17,488
31,705
12,703
10,770
3,564
4,668
12,907
2,659
10,427
6,101
17,508
31,904
12,820
10,755
3,644
4,685
12,772
2,628
10,534
6,103
17,545
31,992
12,944
10,804
3,605
4,639
12,805
2,679
10,612
6,163
17,704
32,051
12,876
10,884
3,627
4,664
12,766
2,678
10,698
6,145
17,752
31,849
12,761
10,909
3,604
4,575
12,621
2,707
10,659
6,181
17,835
32,209
12,993
10,964
3,617
4,635
12,859
2,722
10,639
6,261
17,781
32,205
13,001
10,967
3,593
4,644
12,937
2,695
10,617
6,362
17,802
32,110
12,925
10,963
3,628
4,594
12,899
2,718
10,535
6,346
17,758
32,302
13,041
11,042
3,635
4,584
12,970
2,694
10,608
6,452
17,915
31,882
12,814
10,678
3,616
4,774
12,979
2,660
10,971
6,185
17,848
31,754
12,728
10,661
3,571
4,795
13,080
2,764
10,755
6,113
18,037
31,670
12,767
10,579
3,558
4,767
12,981
2,733
10,745
5,988
18,129
31,127
12,773
10,408
3,483
4,463
13,034
2,658
1,419
1,607
316
1,413
1,580
304
1,379
1,553
291
1,424
1,519
283
1,423
1,539
291
1,419
1,558
291
1,384
1,614
310
1,399
1,642
325
1,381
1,602
313
1,475
1,622
310
1,451
1,596
310
1,428
1,554
293
1,417
1,648
283
1,449
1,600
300
1,370
1,591
281
84,253
15,289
68,966
1,363
67,603
6,305
472
86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455
86,105
15,359
70,746
1,172
69,574
6,463
465
86,232
15,616
70,616
1,195
69,421
6,608
460
86,309
15,318
70,991
1,235
69,756
6,629
474
86,454
15,393
71,061
1,219
69,842
6,752
519
86,421 . 86,912
15,279
15,407
71,142
71,505
1,211
1,313
69,931
70,192
6,689
6,731
450
449
86,982
15,423
71,559
1,261
70,298
6,812
430
87,020
15,358
71,662
1,211
70,451
6,781
417
87,384
15,397
71,987
1,228
70,759
6,737
409
87,578
15,414
72,163
1,132
71,031
6,752
379
87,419
15,540
71,879
1,178
70,702
6,899
397
87,221
15,622
71,599
1,115
70,484
6,825
376
86,741
15,668
71,072
1,123
69,949
6,813
363
85,693
70,543
3,216
1,249
1,967
11,934
88,133
72,647
3,281
1,325
1,956
12,205
86,608
71,659
3,279
1,287
1,992
11,670
87,785
72,496
3,283
1,273
2,010
12,006
87,749
72,243
3,284
1,322
1,962
12,222
88,769
72,915
3,274
1,334
1,940
12,580
88,855
73,053
3,298
1,401
1,897
12,504
88,638
73,204
3,315
1,354
1,961
12,119
88,617
72,997
3,392
1,413
1,979
12,228
89,180
73,137
3,519
1,491
2,028
12,524
89,454
73,223
3,513
1,549
1,964
12,718
88,985
73,110
3,406
1,380
2,026
12,469
88,585
72,749
3,418
1,463
1,955
12,418
87,660
71,807
3,816
1,709
2,107
12,037
1978
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over , , ^ ..............
Men ......................................
Women..........................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers..................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ............................................
Salesworkers..........................
Clerical workers..........................
Blue-collar workers..............................
Craft and kindred workers ....................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers ..............................
Farmworkers ........................................
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..............................
PERSONS AT WORK1
Nonagricultural industries ............................
Full-time schedules ..............................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................
'Excludes persons with a job but not at work during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
88,723
73,159
3,167
1,273
1,894
12,397
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
1980
1979
Annual average
Selected categories
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ............................
6.0
4.2
6.0
16.3
5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1
5.8
4.0
5.7
16.3
5.8
3.9
5.7
16.5
5.7
4.0
5.7
15.4
5.7
4.1
5.5
15.8
5.9
4.2
5.9
16.6
5.8
4.2
5.5
16.2
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.4
5.8
4.3
5.6
15.9
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.0
6.2
4.7
5.8
16.3
6.0
4.6
5.7
16.5
6.2
4.9
5.7
15.9
7.0
5.9
6.3
16.2
White, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
5.2
3.7
5.2
13.9
5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9
5.0
3.5
5.0
13.9
5.0
3.4
5.0
14.2
4.9
3.5
4.9
13.2
5.0
3.6
4.8
13.8
5.3
3.7
5.2
14.8
5.1
3.7
4.8
14.3
5.1
3.7
5.0
14.1
5.1
3.7
4.9
13.9
5.1
3.7
5.0
13.9
5.4
4.1
5.1
14.0
5.3
4.0
5.2
13.8
5.4
4.4
4.9
13.8
6.2
5.3
5.5
14.6
Black and other, total....................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
11.9
8.6
10.6
36.3
11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5
11.7
8.6
10.5
34.3
11.5
8.4
10.0
36.1
11.2
8.1
10.4
33.5
11.0
8.4
10.0
31.5
11.0
8.1
10.3
32.6
10.8
8.0
9.8
32.3
11.5
8.6
10.2
35.1
10.9
8.4
9.5
32.8
11.3
8.6
10.0
34.3
11.8
9.6
10.0
34.6
11.5
9.2
9.0
37.9
11.8
9.3
10.5
33.0
12.6
10.9
11.4
29.8
2.8
5.5
8.5
5.5
9.0
1.4
6.5-
2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.3
2.7
5.2
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.4
2.5
5.2
8.6
5.2
9.3
1.2
6.3
2.7
5.1
9.0
5.2
8.6
1.1
6.3
2.8
4.9
8.1
5.3
8.3
1.0
6.4
2.9
5.3
7.9
5.4
8.8
1.1
6.4
2.9
4.8
7.7
5.3
8.4
1.1
6.2
2.9
5.2
8.4
5.4
8.9
1.2
6.4
2.9
4.8
8.4
5.4
8.3
1.1
6.4
2.8
5.0
8.4
5.4
8.5
1.2
6.4
3.4
5.2
9.2
5.7
8.7
1.3
6.7
3.1
5.4
8.5
5.6
8.9
1.2
6.6
3.4
5.3
8.7
5.8
8.3
1.3
6.8
4.1
b./
9.3
6.6
8.9
1.6
/.Ò
3.5
2.6
3.3
2.4
3.3
2.3
3.2
2.1
3.4
2.5
3.3
2.5
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.4
3.4
2.7
3.2
2.4
3.3
2.3
3.4
2.2
3.4
2.3
3.3
2.3
3.7
2.4
2.1
4.1
4.9
6.9
4.6
8.1
5.2
10.7
7.4
3.8
2.1
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
10.8
7.1
3.8
2.3
4.0
4.5
6.9
4.4
8.5
5.9
10.6
7.3
3.4
2.2
4.0
4.5
6.8
4.2
8.2
5.4
11.1
7.2
3.6
2.1
4.4
4.6
6.6
4.3
7.7
5.7
10.6
7.2
3.2
2.0
3.5
4.5
6.8
4.4
8.3
5.1
11.0
7.1
4.2
2.3
4.0
4.9
7.3
4.7
8.9
6.2
11.3
7.1
3.9
2.2
3.8
4.5
7.1
4.3
9.0
6.1
11.0
6.7
4.1
2.2
3.8
4.7
7.2
4.6
9.1
5.6
10.7
6.8
4.3
1.9
3.7
4.4
7.5
4.9
9.0
5.2
12.2
6.6
4.5
2.0
3.8
4.6
7.2
4.4
9.0
5.0
12.2
6.6
4.3
1.9
4.4
4.8
8.0
4.9
9.9
6.9
12.3
6.9
4.4
2.2
4.5
4.7
7.7
4.8
9.2
6.7
12.0
6.9
3.9
2.4
4.0
4.5
8.0
5.4
9.3
6.6
13.0
7.1
4.0
2.6
4.7
5.1
9.7
6.7
11.6
8.9
14.1
8.0
5.0
5.9
10.6
5.5
4.9
6.3
3.7
6.9
5.1
3.9
8.8
5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1
5.7
10.5
5.3
4.7
6.3
3.0
6.6
4.8
3.7
8.7
5.7
10.0
5.4
4,4
6.9
3.6
6.4
4.9
3.6
9.3
5.6
10.0
5.4
4.9
6.3
3.1
6.7
4.7
3.6
7.8
5.7
10.0
5.7
5.4
6.2
3.8
6.3
4.9
3.6
9.7
6.0
10.1
5.9
5.4
6.8
3.7
6.5
5.2
3.7
9.9
5.8
9.6
6.0
5.3
7.1
4.0
6.4
4.7
3.3
10.0
5.9
9.9
6.0
5.5
6.8
3.8
6.4
4.9
4.0
9.9
5.8
10.2
5.9
5.6
6.3
4.2
6.5
4.6
3.6
10.1
5.8
10.3
5.9
5.5
6.4
4.1
6.4
4.7
3.6
9.4
6.2
10.8
6.7
6.7
6.8
4.4
6.6
4.6
3.8
10.3
6.0
10.5
6.4
6.3
6.7
4.4
6.4
4.6
4.0
9.2
6.2
13.0
6.5
6.4
6.7
3.8
6.3
4.9
4.2
10.2
7.1
15.1
7.9
8.3
7.4
4.6
7.0
5.1
4.4
11.9
CHARACTERISTIC
Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost' ..................................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers 2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trad e............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................
1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
2 Includes mining, not shown separately.
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1979.
5.
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Sex and age
Annual average
1979
1980
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Total, 16 years and over..........
16 to 19 years ................
16 to 17 ye a rs..........
18 to 19 y e a rs ..........
20 to 24 years ................
25 years and over ............
25 to 54 y e a rs..........
55 years and over . . .
6.0
16.3
19.3
14.2
9.5
4.0
4.2
3.2
5.8
16.1
18.1
14.6
9.0
3.9
4.1
3.0
5.8
16.3
18.7
14.3
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1
5.8
16.5
18.9
15.0
8.9
3.9
4.0
3.1
5.7
15.4
17.5
14.4
8.9
3.9
4.1
2.9
5.7
15.8
17.3
14.5
9.1
3.9
4.0
3.2
5.9
16.6
18.5
15.4
9.3
4.0
4.2
3.1
5.8
16.2
16.9
15.6
9.2
3.9
4.1
2.9
5.9
16.4
18.4
15.0
9.6
4.0
4.2
3.0
5.8
15.9
17.3
14.7
8.8
4.0
4.3
2.7
5.9
16.0
18.0
14.5
9.8
3.8
4.1
2.7
6.2
16.3
19.0
14.0
10.1
4.2
4,4
3.5
6.0
16.5
18.7
15.1
9.5
4.1
4.5
2.8
6.2
15.9
17.4
14.7
9.7
4.4
4.7
2.8
7.0
16.2
18.7
14.4
11.4
5.0
5.4
3.4
Men, 16 years and over . . .
16 to 19 y e a rs..........
16 to 17 years . . .
18 to 19 years . ..
20 to 24 y e a rs..........
25 years and over . . .
25 to 54 years . . .
55 years and over
5.2
15.7
19.2
13.2
9.1
3.3
3.4
3.1
5.1
15.8
17.9
14.2
8.6
3.3
3.4
2.9
5.1
16.0
17.9
14.1
8.0
3.3
3.3
3.0
5.0
16.1
18.9
14.0
8.2
3.1
3.2
2.8
4.9
14.5
16.8
14,0
8.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
5.1
15.4
16.1
14.8
8.8
3.3
3.4
3.3
5.2
16.3
18.0
15.1
8.8
3.4
3.5
3.1
5.2
16.1
16.7
15.3
8.8
3.3
3.6
2.8
5.2
15.7
17.1
14,4
9.5
3.4
3.5
2.8
5.2
15.8
17.8
14.0
8.4
3.5
3.8
2.6
5.2
15.6
17.9
13.6
9.4
3.2
3.4
2.6
5.7
16.2
19.0
13.9
10.4
3.7
3.8
3.5
5.5
15.6
18.0
14.1
9.9
3.6
3.8
2.6
5.7
14.8
15.9
14.0
10.4
3.9
4.2
2.7
6.7
16.1
18.3
14.2
12.3
4.7
5.0
3.4
Women, 16 years and over
16 to 19 ye a rs..........
16 to 17 years . . .
18 to 19 years .. .
20 to 24 ye a rs..........
25 years and over . . .
25 to 54 years . . .
55 years and over
7.2
17.0
19.5
15.3
10.1
5.1
5.4
3.3
6.8
16.4
18.3
15.0
9.6
4.8
5.2
3.2
6.9
16.6
196
14.5
9.4
4.9
5.3
3.2
6.9
16.9
18.8
16.0
9.7
4.9
5.2
3.6
6.8
16.5
18.3
14.9
9.7
4.8
5.2
2.8
6.6
16.2
18.6
14.2
9.4
4.7
5.0
3.1
7.0
17.0
19.0
15.7
9.8
4.9
5.3
3.2
6.6
16.4
17.2
15.9
9.6
4.6
5.0
2.9
6.9
17.2
19.8
15.6
9.7
4,9
5.2
3.4
6.6
16.1
16.7
15.5
9.3
4.7
5.0
2.9
6.8
16.4
18.0
15.5
10.2
4.7
5.1
2.9
6.8
16.3
19.1
14.2
9.8
4.9
5.2
3.4
6.8
17.6
19.5
16.2
9.1
4.9
5.4
3.0
6.8
17.3
19.2
15.6
9.0
5.0
5.5
2.9
7.3
16.3
19.1
14.6
10.2
5.5
6.0
3.4
6.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1979
Reason for unemployment
1980
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
2,520
839
1,681
847
1,778
800
2,356
725
1,631
940
1,767
824
2,449
816
1,633
857
1,753
781
2,526
797
1,729
846
1,762
726
2,680
915
1,765
875
1,788
745
2,632
855
1,777
825
1,760
801
2,731
929
1,802
835
1,762
804
2,729
987
1,742
845
1,698
736
2,728
944
1,784
800
1,771
858
2,988
1,019
1,969
779
1,797
811
2,907
1,031
1,876
813
1,784
827
3,047
1,129
1,918
788
1,803
805
3,611
1,424
2,188
926
1,967
743
100.0
42.4
14.1
283
14.2
29.9
13.5
100.0
40.0
12.3
27.7
16.0
30.0
14.0
100.0
41.9
14.0
28.0
14.7
30.0
13.4
100.0
43.1
13.6
29.5
14.4
30.1
12.4
100.0
440
15.0
29.0
144
29.4
12.2
100.0
43.7
14.2
29.5
13.7
29.2
13.3
100.0
44.5
15.2
29.4
13.6
28.7
13.1
100.0
45.4
16.4
29.0
14.1
28.3
12.3
100.0
44.3
15.3
29.0
13.0
28.8
13.9
100.0
46.9
16.0
30.9
12.2
28.2
12.7
100.0
45.9
16.3
29.6
12.8
28.2
13.1
100.0
47.3
17.5
29.8
12.2
28.0
12.5
100.0
49.8
19.6
30.2
12.8
27.1
10.3
2.5
.8
1.7
.8
2.3
.9
1.7
.8
2.4
.8
1.7
.8
2.5
8
1.7
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.7
2.5
.8
‘ 1.7
.8
2.6
.8
1.7
.8
2.6
.8
1.6
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
.7
1.7
.8
2.8
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
,8
1.7
.8
3.5
9
1.9
.7
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last job ................................................
On ayoff ..........................................
Other job losers ..........................................
Left last jo b ................ ......................
Reentered labor force ..............................
Seeking first jo b ..........................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed ......................
Job losers....................................................
On layoff ........................
Other job losers ........................
Job leavers..............................
Reentrants ........................
New entrants........................................
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers............................................
Job leavers ....................................
Reentrants ......................................
New entrants............................................
7.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment
Annual average
1978
Less than 5 weeks..............................
5 to 14 weeks ................................................
15 weeks and over ................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ......................................
Average (mean) duration, in w eeks......................
2,793
1,875
1,379
746
633
11.9
1979
2,869
1,892
1,202
684
518
10.8
1979
1980
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
2,876
1,884
1,223
687
536
11.0
2,823
1,919
1,212
705
507
10.9
2,880
1,808
1,152
656
496
10.5
2,820
1,934
1,067
615
452
10.1
3,168
1,738
1,185
658
527
107
2,778
2,035
1,152
644
508
10.7
2,955
1,963
1,195
678
517
10.5
2,919
1,869
1,191
660
531
10.6
2,916
1,966
1,230
711
519
10.5
3,184
1,907
1,334
795
539
10,5
2,995
2,081
1,286
790
496
10.7
2,995
2,169
1,363
776
587
11.0
3,309
2,391
1,629
953
676
11.3
NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
Em ploym ent,
h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in th is se c tio n are
c o m p ile d from p a y ro ll record s rep orted m o n th ly on a v o lu n
tary b a sis to th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s a n d its c o o p e r a t
in g S ta te a g en cies b y 1 6 2 ,0 0 0 e sta b lish m e n ts rep resen tin g all
in d u stries ex cep t ag ricu ltu re. In m o st in d u stries, th e sa m p lin g
p ro b a b ilities are b a sed o n th e size o f th e e sta b lish m en t; m o st
la rg e e sta b lish m e n ts are th erefore in th e sam p le. (A n e sta b
lish m e n t is n o t n ecessa rily a firm; it m a y b e a b ran ch p lan t,
for ex a m p le, o r w a reh o u se.) S e lf-em p lo y e d p erso n s an d o th ers
n o t o n a regu lar civ ilia n p a y ro ll are o u ts id e th e sc o p e o f th e
su rv ey b e c a u se th e y are e x clu d ed from e sta b lish m e n t record s.
T h is la rg ely a c c o u n ts for th e difference in e m p lo y m en t figures
b etw een th e h o u se h o ld an d e sta b lish m e n t su rveys.
Labor
t u r n o v e r d a t a in th is se c tio n are c o m p ile d from p er
so n n e l reco rd s rep o rted m o n th ly on a v o lu n ta r y b a sis to th e
B ureau o f L a b o r S ta tistic s a n d its co o p e ra tin g S tate a gen cies.
A sa m p le o f 4 0 ,0 0 0 e sta b lish m e n ts rep resen ts all in d u str ies in
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
.dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
Labor turnover is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
th e m a n u fa ctu rin g a n d m in in g se c to r s o f th e e c o n o m y .
Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in service industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of September 1979 data, published in the November 1979 issue of
the R ev ie w . Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that
issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete compa
rable historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published
in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from
April 1977 through June 1979 and seasonally adjusted data from Jan
uary 1974 through June 1979) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n it
e d S ta tes , 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the R ev ie w . For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also
B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
Employment by industry, 1950 79
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Year
Total
Mining
Construetion
Manufacturing
Transportation
and
public
utilities
Wholesale
and
retail
trade
Government
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
Services
Total
State
Federal
1950 ..........................................................
45,197
901
2,364
15,241
4,034
9,386
2,635
6,751
1,888
5,357
6,026
1,928
4,098
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641
929
898
866
791
792
2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839
16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16,882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235 .
10,535
2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926
7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610
1,956
2,035
2,111
2,200
2,298
5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956 ..........................................................
1957 ..........................................................
1958 ..........................................................
19591 ........................................................
1960 ....................................................
52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189
822
828
751
732
712
3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391
3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143
7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248
2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629
6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378
7,278
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
.......................................... ................
..........................................................
53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765
672
650
635
634
632
2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466
8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250
2,688
2,754
2,830
- 2,911
2,977
7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036
8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731
8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................................
..................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
79,382
82,423
86,446
89,482
779
813
851
957
3,576
3,851
4,271
4,644
18,997
19,682
20,476
20,972
4,582
4,713
4,927
5,154
17,755
18,516
19,499
20,137
4,546
4,708
4,957
5,170
13,209
13,808
14,542
14,966
4,271
4,467
4,727
4,963
14,551
15,303
16,220
17,043
14,871
15,079
15,476
15,612
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
12,138
12,352
12,723
12,839
.
'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
9.
Employment by State
[ N o n a g r i c u l t u r a l p a y r o l l d a t a , in t h o u s a n d s ]
State
T o ta -
.........................................................................................................
A la b a m a
......................................................................
A l a s k a ......................................................................................- , , , ,
A r iz o n a
............................................................................
A r k a n s a s ...............................................................
,
C a l i f o r n i a ...............................................................................................
C o o ra d o
.
C o n n e c t ic u t
.....................................................................................................
............................................ ......................................
D e l a w a r e ..................................................................................................
D is t r ic t o f C o l u m b i a ......................................................... ...............................
F l o r i d a - ............................................................................ .........................
G e o r g ia
......................................................................' ..........................................
H a w a i i ...................................................
I d a h o ............................................................................................................
Illin o is
..................................................................................
I n d i a n a .........................................................................................
Io w a
............................................................................
K ansas
.........................................................................................
K e n t u c k y ..................................................................................
L o u i s i a n a .........................................................................................
M a in e
...............................................................................
M a r y la n d
......................................................................
M a s s a c h u s e t t s ......................................................................................
M ic h ig a n
......................................................................
M in n e s o t a
....................................................
M is s is s ip p i
............................................................................................
M i s s o u r i .........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.
'
Mar. 1979
Feb. 1980
Mar. 1980 p
88,981.4
89,979.4
81,897.0
1,348.4
158.4
970.0
742.9
9,521.9
1,364.1
161.4
1,002.5
746.8
9,728.2
1,362 4
163.6
1,005.9
754.3
9,787,4
1,192.8
1,378.0
250.2
602.8
3,380.5
1,237.7
1,397.7
254.6
611,6
3 527 8
1,246.4
1,404,7
255.7
613.6
3 547 8
2,101.4
395.4
329.8
4,745.7
2,236.2
2,132.1
407.4
328.5
4,700.0
2,195.9
2,141.3
411.7
328.3
4,718.6
2,207.3
1,115.3
938.0
1,222.2
1,489.4
399.5
1,118.8
944.5
1,214.3
1,511.8
407.7
1,124,6
953.1
1,226.5
1,518.6
406.9
1,596.7
2,553.9
3,642.8
1,715.7
827.3
1,982.6
1,599.3
2,616.0
3,495.5
1,765.0
835.3
1,960.0
1,614.7
2,631.6
.
State
M o n t a n a .........................................................................................................
N e b r a s k a .........................................................................................
N evada
..................................................................
N e w H a m p s h ir e
N e w J e rs e y
N e w M e x i c o ...................................................................
N e w Y o r k ............................................................
N o r th C a r o lin a
N o r th D a k o t a
O k la h o m a
O re g o n
.........................................................................................
............................................................................
..................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
P e n n s y lv a n ia
............................................................................................
R h o d e Is la n d
......................................................................
S o u t h C a r o lin a
.........................................................................................
S o u t h D a k o t a ............................................................................................
Tennessee
Texas
U ta h
..................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
V e r m o n t ............................................................................
V i r g i n i a ..................................................................................
W a s h in g to n
W e s t V ir g in ia
1,776.1
836.9
1,983.2
......................................................................................
.- ...................................................................................
.............
............................................................................
............................................................................................
W is c o n s i n ............................................................................... ......................
W y o m in g
......................................................• ...........................................
Mar. 1979
Feb. 1980
271.1
616.2
374.4
368.1
2,978.9
276.8
617.9
391.1
376.6
2,996.0
3,016.8
452.0
7,064.8
2,349.7
233.8
466.7
7,104.3
2,395.4
240,7
470.5
7,140.3
2,412.1
243.0
1,068.3
1,027.4
4,749.6
394.5
1,162.0
1,106.9
1,048.3
4,754.2
390.5
1,186.1
1,119.9
1,053.2
4,768.2
392.5
1.193.6
233.7
1,757,9
5,509.7
538.9
194.1
233.8
1,773.4
5,723.3
563.5
201.0
234.6
1.786.6
5,741.7
568.3
200.9
2,060.9
1,540.8
633.6
1,905.9
190.6
2,087.5
1,594.6
629.3
1,959.6
207.5
2,094.9
1,605.3
629.0
1,965.8
210.7
Mar. 1980 p
2793
624.0
394.9
73
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL
MINING
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
86,446
89,482
88,820
89,671
90,541
89,618
89,673
90,211
90,678
90,902
91,009
89,285
89,417
89,942
90,111
851
957
932
944
968
976
986
980
982
984
984
982
986
995
1,007
CONSTRUCTION ..............................................
4,271
4,644
4,413
4,662
4,881
4,993
5,048
4,984
4,976
4,879
4,711
4,350
4,261
4,303
4,412
MANUFACTURING
Production workers ......................................
20,476
14,714
20,972
15Ì010
20,907
15,002
20,988
15,061
21,234
15,240
20,965
14,946
20,996
14,960
21,192
15,172
21,094
15,082
20,966
14,954
20,902
14,891
20,699
14,674
20,648
14,615
20,711
14,668
20,462
14,431
Durable goods
Production workers................................
12,246
8,786
12,690
9,053
12,697
9,105
12,739
9,129
12,877
9,223
12,712
9,031
12,598
8,907
12,805
9,116
12,737
9,058
12,661
8,983
12,649
8,971
12,525
8,825
12,523
8,813
12,575
8,860
12,342
8,632
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
752.4
491.1
698.0
1,212.7
1,673.4
2,319.2
1,999.5
1,991.7
653.5
454.0
758.4
487.3
710.8
1,243.9
1,727.2
2,462.5
2,108.7
2,048.3
690.4
452.4
748.8
487.8
706.6
1,259.0
1,723.7
2,468.0
2,086.1
2,082.2
686.5
448.0
763.8
483.9
718.6
1,258.6
1,727.8
2,463.6
2,095.2
2,091.8
686.5
448.9
783.2
484.2
733.1
1,274.3
1,749.0
2,491.2
2,128.2
2,077.9
698.8
457.4
776.8
475.5
727.1
1,260.7
1,715.7
2,485.1
2,111.7
2,027.7
692.9
438.6
7800
483.5
728.2
1,244.5
1,716.1
2,467.1
2,089.5
1,933.2
695.3
460.6
776.3
485.3
723.6
1,244.3
1,735.3
2,496.4
2,136.1
2,051.0
692.7
463.8
771.3
487.6
721.0
1,225.1
1,738.3
2,447.2
2,143.7
2,040.9
695.4
466.9
748.9
488.7
712.9
1,216.7
1,738.2
2,440.9
2,146.3
2,009.7
695.9
462.8
729.2
486.9
699.6
1,204.4
1,730.4
2,455.8
2,153.1
2,043.4
699.8
446.4
709.2
484.4
680.8
1,201.6
1,703.8
2,522.5
2,144.5
1,943.6
698.9
435.9
710.6
480.7
677.5
1,199.4
1,706.5
2,520.8
2,138.3
1,950.4
701.2
437.2
706.7
480.2
683.1
1,198.2
1,710.4
2,526.5
2,149.2
1,974.2
705.0
441.4
673.7
474.4
680.4
1,193.5
1,681.2
2,515.7
2,136.4
1,843.4
702.4
440.5
Nondurable goods
Production workers................................
8,230
5,928
8,283
5,957
8,210
5,897
8,249
5,932
8,357
6,017
8,253
5,915
8,398
6,053
8,387
6,056
8,357
6,024
8,305
5,971
8,253
5,920
8,174
5,849
8,125
5,802
8,136
5,808
8,120
5,799
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ............................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products........................
1,721.2
69.6
900.2
1,332.5
700.9
1,193.1
1,096.3
208.7
751.9
255.6
1,716.3
66.2
891.9
1,313.1
714.1
1,242.9
1,112.7
213.8
767.5
2438
1,657.3
62.5
890.4
1,323.7
710.8
1,231.0
1,106.7
210.8
772.0
245.1
1,669.6
61.9
892.5
1,327.5
712.7
1,234.7
1,110.9
212.9
777.0
249.2
1,716.6
62.1
900.4
1,333.1
7246
1,243.4
1,126.6
216.8
779.4
253.7
1,737.8
62.1
875.5
1,278.7
719.6
1,245.8
1,123.0
218.0
767.4
224.7
1,810.0
69.0
890.4
1,308.9
723.3
1,245.4
1,121.2
218.3
765.8
245.8
1,814.1
72.2
888.9
1,309.1
718.5
1,246.1
1,114.9
218.1
762.0
243.1
1,766.8
71.9
889.8
1,317.0
717.7
1,254.5
1,115.0
218.1
762.6
243.1
1,725.0
64.8
893.9
1,306.2
715.9
1,265.6
1,115.2
217.2
757.6
243.2
1,695.9
66.7
8935
1,292.0
714.0
1,272.0
1,115.6
214.9
747.5
240.7
J,650.5
65.1
887.4
1,284.4
711.8
1,269.5
1,113.9
213.1
742.2
236.1
1,634.9
63.4
887.9
1,305.9
710.0
1,274.0
1,113.0
159.1
738.3
238.3
1,630.2
60.9
890.8
1,315.0
711.0
1,276.0
1,118.0
156.6
738.7
239.1
1,617.1
58.7
891.8
1,307.0
708.3
1,274.7
1,120.5
179.2
723.0
239.2
4,927
5,154
4,989
5,125
5,231
5,200
5,210
5,242
5,244
5,255
5,254
5,149
5,142
5,155
5,150
19,499
20,137
19,957
20,119
20,222
20,118
20,137
20,260
20,314
20,580
20,932
20,224
20,041
20,111
20,235
4,957
5,170
5,112
5,146
5,211
5,208
5,211
5,206
5,235
5,251
5,234
5,211
5,221
5,243
5,224
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
14,542
14,966
14,845
14,973
15,011
14,910
14,926
15,054
15,079
15,329
15,698
15,013
14,820
14,868
15,011
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . .
4,727
4,963
4,900
4,936
5,003
5,032
5,053
5,002
5,013
5,029
5,041
5,040
5,051
5,072
5,093
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES .
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
SERVICES
16,220
17,043
16,897
17,039
17,239
17,314
17,312
17,225
17,292
17,281
17,270
17,111
17,294
17,452
17,564
GOVERNMENT
15,476
2 753
12,723
15,612
2,773
12,839
15,825
2,750
13675
15,858
2,773
13,085
15,763
2,824
12,939
15,020
2,838
12,182
14,931
2,844
12,087
15,326
2,751
12,575
15,763
2,756
13,007
15,928
2,760
13,168
15,915
2,770
13,145
15,730
2,763
12,967
15,994
2,803
13,191
16,143
2,867
13,276
16,188
2,944
13,244
State and local ............................................
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1979
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL ..........................................................................................
MINING ..........................................................
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
89,036
89,398
89,626
89,713
89,762
89,803
89,982
90,100
90,241
90,652
90,845
90,799
90,320
1,010
1,016
940
944
949
956
968
973
979
983
991
1,000
1,009
CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................
4,559
4,648
4,662
4,688
4,674
4,671
4,694
4,714
4,783
4,893
4,831
4,698
4,558
MANUFACTURING
Production workers ........................................................................
21,066
15,134
21,059
15,112
21,063
15,096
21,079
15,090
20,957
14,956
20,949
14,957
20,899
14,894
20,836
14,829
20,881
14,865
20,890
14,848
20,892
14,826
20,889
14,822
20,615
14,556
Durable goods
Production workers..................................................................
12,752
9,146
12,739
9,119
12,760
9,123
12,786
9,124
12,714
9,044
12,737
9,066
12,650
8,972
12,587
8,908
12,615
8,931
12,601
8,894
12,655
8,926
12,658
8,934
12,395
8,672
Lumber and wood products ............................................................
Furniture and fixtures....................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................................................
Primary metal industries..................................................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................................................
Machinery, except electrical............................................................
Electric and electronic equipment ....................................................
Transportation equipment................................................................
Instruments and related products ....................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................................................
761
490
714
1,260
1,732
2,466
2,101
2,084
689
455
762
487
715
1,254
1,730
2,471
2,106
2,077
688
449
757
753
485
488
715 • 711
1,257
1,256
1,737
1,730
2,484
2,500
2,124
2,131
2,057
2,073
693
694
451
450
752
484
710
1,245
1,714
2,492
2,092
2,079
695
451
758
480
708
1,236
1,716
2,496
2,117
2,086
692
448
760
482
709
1,226
1,723
2,455
2,125
2,025
696
449
751
483
704
1,223
1,726
2,438
2,125
1,994
694
449
740
483
706
1,208
1,725
2,444
2,140
2,019
698
452
737
484
708
1,208
1,712
2,512
2,149
1,938
700
453
740
481
709
1,210
1,724
2,511
2,147
1,980
703
450
729
481
704
1,205
1,722
2,516
2,160
1,984
707
450
685
477
687
1,195
1,690
2,513
2,151
1,845
705
447
Nondurable goods
Production workers..................................................................
8,314
5,988
8,320
5,993
8,303
5,973
8,293
5,966
8,243
5,912
8,212
5,891
8,249
5,922
8,249
5,921
8,266;
5,934
8,289
5,954
8,237
5,900
8,231
5,888
8,220
5,884
Food and kindred products..............................................................
Tobacco' manufactures ..................................................................
Textile mill products........................................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................................................
Paper and allied products ..............................................................
Printing and publishing............................................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................................................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ....................................
Leather and leather products ..........................................................
1,728
69
892
1,325
717
1,234
1,111
213
781
244
1,725
70
893
1,324
714
1,236
1,114
213
784
247
1,720
69
892
1,312
715
1,242
1,119
212
775
247
1,707
68
892
1,324
718
1,250
1,116
212
777
229
1,696
64
886
1,302
717
1,247
1,111
213
764
243
1,691
65
884
1,294
714
1,245
1,110
215
751
243
1,707
65
887
1,299
715
1,252
1,113
217
751
243
1,710
60
889
1,292
714
1,262
1,114
217
749
242
1,715
62
893
1,297
713
1,263
1,119
217
745
242
1,707
64
891
1,309
718
1,273
1,123
219
745
240
1,705
65
891
1,312
717
1,278
1,121
163
744
241
1,698
65
893
1,312
718
1,279
1,122
160
744
240
1,686
65
894
1,308
714
1,277
1,125
181
732
238
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ......................................
5,024
5,130
5,190
5,169
5,194
5,180
5,218
5,229
5,223
5,212
5,210
5,212
5,186
20,088
20,129
20,116
20,122
20,126
20,169
20,243
20,308
20,254
20,428
20,521
20,498
20,367
5,138
5,156
5,180
5,182
5,185
5,190
5,209
5,235
5,218
5,248
5,274
5,280
5,250
14,950
14,973
14,936
14,940
14,941
14,979
15,034
15,073
15,036
15,180
15,247
15,218
15,117
4,915
4,936
4,958
4,972
5,003
4,997
5,018
5,039
5,056
5,081
5,092
5,103
5,108
SERVICES
16,880
16,954
17,051
17,092
17,141
17,191
17,257
17,298
17,357
17,442
17,522
17,540
17,546
GOVERNMENT
Federal..........................................................................................
State and local ........................................................................
15,564
2,758
12,806
15,598
2,770
12,828
15,637
2,788
12,849
15,635
2,785
12,850
15,699
2,813
12,886
15,673
2,762
12,911
15,674
2,770
12,904
15,693
2,771
12,922
15,696
2,771
12,925
15,706
2,791
12,915
15,768
2,823
12,945
15,849
2,884
12,965
15,924
2,952
12,972
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ......................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
average
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.8
p3.4
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.6
4.7
4.7
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4.3
4.4
4.3
5.3
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.1
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.5
.9
.8
.9
1.0
.9
.9
,8
.7
.8
.6
6
.7
.6
.5
.5
.6
.5
.5
4.3
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.3
5.7
4.9
4.8
4.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.5
1.9
2.1
2.0
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.0
.8
1.3
1.1
.8
1.1
1.1
.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
New hires
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.8
»2.3
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.6
Recalls
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
.9
.7
.7
1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
.7
.7
.9
1.1
.8
.7
P.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
.8
.8
.8
.7
.7
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.8
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
P1.5
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.1
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.1
.9
1.1
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.4
.9
.8
.12
1.0
.9
.8
P1.3
.9
.8
.9
.8
.7
.7
Total separations
3.5
3.8
3.9
Quits
1.9
2.2
2.1
Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
13.
.8
.7
.8
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Total
Major industry group
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980P
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980 p
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980 p
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980 p
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980 p
Mar.
1979
Feb.
1980
Mar.
1980 p
3.8
4.0
3.3
4.0
3.4
3.5
2.8
3.1
2.2
2.9
2.3
2.5
0.7
0.9
0.9
3.6
3.9
3.5
4.2
3.7
4.1
1.9
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.7
0.8
.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products..........
Furniture and fixtures ..................
Stone, clay, and glass products . . .
Primary metal industries ..............
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except electrical..........
Electric and electronic equipment . .
Transportation equipment ............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing........
3.6
5.8
4.9
4.9
2.6
3.7
2.8
3.5
3.4
2.7
5.2
3.0
4.6
3.8
3.4
2.3
3.4
2.3
2.8
3,0
2.8
4.5
3.2
4.3
3.9
3.8
2.7
3.5
2.5
2.9
2.7
4.4
4.3
2.9
1.8
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
3.8
1.9
2.9
3.0
1.8
1.0
2.3
1.8
1.9
1.4
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.8
3.1
2.0
1.1
2.2
1.8
2.1
.6
1.3
.5
1.8
.5
6
.2
.5
.7
.2
1.2
.8
1.6
.7
1.4
1.1
,9
.3
.4
1.0
.3
1.6
.9
1.3
.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
.4
.4
3.3
6.1
5.5
3.7
2.2
3.8
2.6
3.1
2.7
2.5
5.1
3.2
5.5
4.0
3.9
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.8
3.5
2.4
4.5
3.6
6.5
4.4
3.7
2.7
4.0
2.7
2.9
1.7
3.4
3.4
1.8
.9
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.1
1.5
2.5
1.2
2.2
2.2
1.3
.6
1.5
1.0
1.2
.8
1.3
1.8
1.3
2.2
2.4
1.3
.6
1.5
1.1
1.3
.7
1.6
.9
1.0
.4
.9
.3
.5
.8
.4
1.5
1.2
2.5
.8
1.8
1.1
1.4
.6
.7
1.8
.3
1.8
1.5
3.3
.9
1.7
1.3
1.7
.9
.7
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ..........
Tobacco manufacturers................
Textile mill products ....................
Apparel and other products..........
Paper and allied products ............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal products........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................
Leather and leather products........
4.1
5.3
2.2
4.5
5.2
2.7
3.3
1.8
2.3
3.7
4.4
2.0
3.9
5.7
2.1
3.1
1.6
1.8
3.9
5.0
2.5
2.7
.8
3.0
3.7
1.4
2.5
1.2
1.2
2.7
3.0
1.0
1.5
.8
.6
1.7
.5
.4
.2
.4
3.8
5.1
5.1
4.0
5.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.0
2.3
2.7
.9
1.8
.6
.7
2.5
2.9
1.0
1.7
.7
.6
1.1
1.9
3.1
.6
1.7
.7
.5
.3
.5
1.2
2.2
3.2
.7
1.5
.9
6
.3
.3
1.1
2.0
4.1
5.0
2.8
2.9
1.5
1.8
2.3
2.7
.8
3.1
3.2
1.3
2.0
.7
.7
1.9
2.1
.6
1.3
.8
.4
.3
.5
4.2
5.5
4.8
4,8
5.7
2.6
3.1
1.5
1.8
3.8
4.9
3.4
3.8
1.5
2.6
1.3
1.4
.9
1.6
.8
.6
1.4
.7
.5
.3
.5
.9
1.7
4.3
5.3
2.5
3.1
1.7
2.0
2.9
3.5
1.0
3.5
3.6
1.8
2.7
1.4
1.7
4.5
6.3
4.0
6.0
3.9
6.6
3.7
4.2
2.7
4.1
2.7
4.6
.5
1.7
1.1
1.6
.9
1.6
4.8
6.7
4.6
6.0
4.6
6.3
2.8
4.1
1.9
3.1
2.0
3.3
8
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.6
2.0
MANUFACTURING ..................................
Seasonally adjusted..............
76
Layoffs
Quits
Total
Recalls
New hires
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.0
4.7
2.6
2.8
.2
1.6
2.7
4.9
1.4
1.9
.5
2.0
.5
1.3
1.1
,6
.3
.6
14.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Total private
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Mining
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Construction
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
$50.24
53.13
39.4
39.8
$1.275
1.335
$62.33
67.16
36.3
37.9
$1.717
1.772
$67.56
69.68
37.7
37.4
$1.792
1.863
$53.88
58.32
39.1
40.5
$1.378
1.440
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959' ................
1960 ..................
70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
95.06
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118.08
122.47
127.19
132.06
138.38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3.55
3.70
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
273.90
301.20
332.11
364.64
42.4
43.4
43.3
43.0
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.48
283.73
295.65
318.32
341.69
36.8
36.5
36.8
36.9
7.71
8.10
8.65
9.26
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Transportation and public
utilities
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
Wholesale and retail trade
Services
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
$42.93
44.55
40.5
40.5
$1.060
1.100
$47.63
50.52
37 8
37 7
$1.260
1 340
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
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54 67
57.08
59.57
62.04
63.92
37 7
37 8
37 7
37 6
37.6
1.45
1 51
1 58
1 65
1.70
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
19591 ................
1960 ..................
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36 7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1 84
1.89
1 95
2 02
1961..................
1962 ..................
1963 ..................
1964 ..................
1965 ..................
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.97
2.04
77.12
80.94
84.38
85.79
88.91
36 9
37 3
37.5
37.3
37.2
2 09
2 17
2 25
2.30
2.39
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
76.91
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85
79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4
2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88
101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9
2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
256.71
278.90
302.80
326.38
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.18
133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
155.43
165.26
178.36
191.66
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.3
4.27
4.54
4.90
5.28
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
4.31
4,65
4.99
5.36
' Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning In 1959.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
77
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual Average
1979
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE..........................................
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
35.8
35.7
35.1
35.5
35.9
36.0
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.6
35.9
35.1
35.2
35.2
35.1
MINING..............................................................
43.3
43.0
42.6
42.8
43.3
41.7
43.1
43.5
43.7
43.7
43.9
43.4
43.2
43.4
43.0
CONSTRUCTION................................................
36.8
36.9
35.5
37.2
37.9
37.7
38.0
37.9
37.6
36.5
37.1
35.1
35.5
36.1
36.6
MANUFACTURING ............................................
Overtime hours......................................
40.4
3.6
40.2
3.3
38.9
2.5
40.1
3.3
40.4
3.4
39.9
3.2
40.0
3.3
40.3
3.6
40.3
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.9
3.4
39.8
3.0
39.8
2.9
39.8
3.0
39.4
2.7
Durable goods ..............................................
Overtime hours......................................
41.1
3.8
40.8
3.5
39.3
2.6
40.8
3.6
41.0
3.6
40.4
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.8
3.6
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.5
41.6
3.5
40.3
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.4
3.1
39.9
2.7
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
39.8
39.3
41.6
41.8
41.0
39.5
38.6
41.5
41.4
40.8
39.1
37.5
41.1
41.7
38.8
39.6
38.2
41.9
41.4
40.7
40.2
38.8
42.1
41.6
41.0
39.4
38.0
41.5
41.3
40.3
39.9
38.6
41.7
40.8
40.5
40.1
39.0
41.7
41.3
40.8
39.8
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.0
38.8
39.2
41.7
40.7
41.0
39.2
39.9
41.8
40.9
41.9
38.1
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.6
38.5
38.9
40.1
40.7
40.4
38.3
38.4
40.6
40.6
40.6
37.3
38.1
40.3
40.2
40.1
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
42.0
40.3
42.2
40.9
38.8
41.8
40.3
41.2
40.8
38.9
40.3
38.8
37.9
40.0
37.6
41.7
40.2
41.6
40.8
38.5
42.0
40.5
41.3
40.7
39.0
41.2
39.6
40.9
40.3
38.7
41.3
39.7
40.5
40.3
38.9
41.9
40.5
40.7
40.7
39.3
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.8
39.3
41.9
40.9
40.8
41.4
39.6
42.8
41.3
42.6
41.6
39.7
41.5
40.2
40.1
41.0
39.1
41.5
40.2
40.4
40.7
38.8
41.6
40.0
40.5
40.6
38.8
41.1
39.5
40.3
40.4
38.3
Nondurable goods ........................................
Overtime hours......................................
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.1
38.2
2.5
39.1
2.9
39.4
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.5
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.3
39.9
3.2
39.0
2.9
38.9
2.8
39.0
2.9
38.7
2.7
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.7
38.1
40.4
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.0
40.3
35.2
42.6
39.0
37.6
38.6
33.9
41.6
39.6
38.9
40.1
35.1
42.4
39.8
39.0
40.6
35.6
42.8
40.1
36.1
39.9
35.4
42.5
40.3
37.6
40.3
35.6
42.6
40.6
39.1
40.8
35.4
42.7
40.0
38.8
40.8
35.5
42.6
40.2
39.0
41.3
35.6
42.9
40.3
39.5
41.5
35.9
43.5
39.5
37.4
40.9
35.2
42.6
39.0
36.9
40.8
35.5
42.4
39.1
37.7
40.9
35.4
42.3
38.9
37.4
39.5
35.3
42.4
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
37.6
41.9
43.6
40.9
37.1
37.5
41.8
43.8
40.5
36.5
36.8
41.9
43.9
39.4
35.3
37.3
41.8
43.7
40.5
36.4
37.4
41.8
43.4
40.7
37.1
37.4
41.7
44.1
40.2
36.9
37.9
41.8
43.6
40.0
36.6
37.9
41.8
44.7
40.5
36.8
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.5
36.5
37.9
42.1
44.8
40.3
36.8
38.1
42.2
43.4
40.7
37.3
37.2
41.7
36.1
40.3
36.7
37.0
41.6
39.6
39.9
36.8
37.2
41.8
40.1
39.9
36.4
36.7
41.6
41.8
39.5
36.1
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . . .
40.0
39.9
39.0
39.6
40.0
40.0
40.3
39.9
39.9
40.2
40.0
39.5
39.7
39.7
39.6
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................
32.9
32.6
32.5
32.4
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.5
32.4
32.9
31.9
31.9
32.0
31.9
WHOLESALE TRADE..........................................
38.8
38.8
38.6
38.9
39.0
39.0
38.9
38.8
38.9
38.9
39.1
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.4
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
31.0
30.7
30.6
30.4
31.0
31.5
31.4
30.7
30.4
30.4
31.0
29.8
29.8
29.9
29.8
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..........................................................
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.1
36.2
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.4
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.5
36.3
SERVICES..........................................................
32.8
32.7
32.5
32.5
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.6
32.6
32.8
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
1980
1979
Industry division and group
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
TOTAL PRIVATE ..............................................
35.3
35.7
35.6
35.6
35.6
35.7
35.6
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.5
35.4
35.3
MINING ..................................................................
42.9
42.8
43.0
41.6
43.2
43.1
43.1
43.2
43.9
44.4
43.7
43.5
43.3
CONSTRUCTION ....................................................
35.5
37.1
37.2
36.8
37.2
37.5
36.6
36.8
37.1
37.6
36.7
36.2
36.6
MANUFACTURING ..................................................
Overtime hours............................................
39.1
2.7
40.2
3.5
40.1
3.4
40.2
3.3
40.1
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.1
3.3
40.2
3.2
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.1
39.8
3.1
39.6
2.8
Durable goods ....................................................
Overtime hours............................................
39.5
2.7
40.9
3.8
40.7
3.6
40.7
3.5
40.7
3.3
40.7
3.3
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.4
40.7
c3.2
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.1
40.4
3.2
40.1
2.8
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
39.1
38.1
41.2
41.8
39.1
39.4
38.5
41.7
41.4
40.7
39.4
38.5
41.6
41.2
40.7
39.3
38.4
41.4
41.3
40.8
39.5
38.3
41.3
41.0
40.6
39.7
38.6
41.5
41.0
40.7
39.4
38.8
41.3
41.1
40.9
38.9
38.9
41.5
40.7
40.7
39.0
39.0
41.6
40.6
41.0
39.5
39.0
41.3
40.8
40.9
39.1
39.0
41.0
40.8
40.8
38.6
38.5
40.8
40.7
40.6
37.3
38.7
40.4
40.3
40.4
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
40.5
39.0
37.9
40.3
37.6
42.0
40.4
41.5
40.8
38.6
42.0
40.3
40.8
40.6
38.9
41.9
40.2
40.9
40.7
39.3
41.6
39.8
41.7
40.5
39.1
41.9
40.3
40.6
40.6
39.1
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.7
39.1
41.6
40.6
40.6
41.0
39.1
41.6
40.5
41.0
40.8
39.2
41.7
40.4
41.0
41.5
39.5
41.5
40.4
40.9
40.9
39.2
41.4
40.0
40.5
40.5
38.6
41.3
39.7
40.3
40.7
38.3
Nondurable goods..............................................
Overtime hours............................................
38.6
2.7
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.3
3.1
39.3
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.4
3.1
39.5
3.1
39.4
3.0
39.1
3.1
38.9
2.9
Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................
39.6
37.6
38.8
34.2
41.8
39.8
38.9
40.0
35.2
42.6
39.8
37.6
40.1
35.2
42.5
39.8
38.5
40.1
35.5
42.5
39.7
38.0
40.1
35.3
42.6
40.0
38.6
40.6
35.3
42.4
39.9
38.3
40.8
35.3
42.6
40.0
37.8
41.1
35.3
42.7
39.9
38.8
41.0
35.6
42.9
40.0
38.5
41.7
35.9
42.8
39.6
37.7
41.1
36.0
42.9
39.5
37.6
40.8
35.4
42.5
39.5
37.4
39.7
35.6
42.6
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................
37.1
41.7
43.9
39.7
35.6
37.4
41.9
43.7
40.9
36.1
37.4
41.7
43.3
40.7
36.4
37.5
41.9
43.6
40.6
36.6
37.7
42.0
43.7
40.2
36.5
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.3
37.0
37.4
41.7
43.7
40.3
36.5
37.6
41.9
44.4
40.0
36.7
37.4
41.7
43.5
39.9
36.9
37.8
42.0
36.6
40.6
37.2
37.4
41.9
40.4
39.9
37.3
37.2
41.8
40.3
39.8
36.8
37.0
41.4
41.8
39.8
36.4
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
39.2
39.8
39.8
39.7
39.9
39.9
39.9
40.2
39.8
39.9
39.8
39.9
39.8
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE..........................
32.8
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.3
32.3
32.1
WHOLESALE TRADE ..............................................
38.7
39.0
38.8
38.8
38.7
38.7
38.8
38.9
38.9
388
38.7
38.5
38.5
RETAIL TRADE........................................................
30.9
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.5
30.7
30.6
30.7
30.6
30.5
30.3
30.3
30.1
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..............................................................
36.5
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.5
36.4
36.2
36.4
36.6
36.4
SERVICES
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.7
32.9
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.7
c=corrected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
Annual average
1979
1980
Industry division and group
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.»
Apr.p
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................................
$5.69
$6.16
$6.03
$6.09
$6.12
$6.16
$6.19
$6.31
$6.32
$6.35
$6.39
$6.42
$6.46
$6.51
$6.51
MINING......................................................................
7.67
8.48
8.54
8.45
8.49
8.52
8.48
8.57
8.57
8.70
8.73
8.85
8.88
8.94
9.00
CONSTRUCTION........................................................
8.65
9.26
9.02
9.14
9.13
9.24
9.32
9.51
9.49
9.50
9.57
9.47
9.60
9.64
9.60
MANUFACTURING ....................................................
6.17
6.69
6.54
6.63
6.66
6.71
6.69
6.80
6.82
6.86
6.97
6.96
6.99
7.06
7.07
Durable goods....................................................
Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................
6.58
5.60
4.68
6.32
8.20
6.34
7.12
6.08
5.06
6.84
8.97
6.82
6.95
5.90
4.94
6.73
8.92
6.62
7.07
5.97
4.97
6.78
8.83
6.77
7.11
6.16
5.05
6.85
8.91
6.81
7.15
6.23
5.04
6.89
9.04
6.80
7.12
6.23
5.10
6.90
9.10
6.83
7.24
6.32
5.18
6.98
9.16
6.93
7.25
6.24
5.20
7.00
9.10
6.96
7.29
6.23
5.23
7.07
9.26
6.99
7.41
6.25
5.27
7.10
9.28
7.12
7.39
6.22
5.27
7.05
9.30
7.06
7.45
6.34
5.34
7.13
9.44
7.12
7.53
6.35
5.39
7.25
9.44
7.21
7.54
6.28
5.40
7.32
9.54
7.21
Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
- Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
6.77
5.82
7.91
5.71
4.69
7.33
6.31
8.53
6.17
5.04
7.10
6.11
8.26
6.03
4.96
7.25
6.21
8.56
6.11
5.00
7.34
6.25
8.53
6.11
4.99
7.35
6.27
8.55
6.16
5.03
7.35
6.36
8.44
6.14
5.04
7.48
6.46
8.59
6.21
5.07
7.45
6.48
8.67
6.32
5.12
7.51
6.51
8.68
6.39
5.15
7.65
6.64
8.90
6.49
5.22
7.67
6.67
8.78
6.57
5.31
7.71
6.71
8.84
6.58
5.33.
7.77
6.78
9.02
6.61
5.38
7.80
6.81
898
6.65
5.41
Nondurable goods..............................................
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and othertextile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
5.53
5.80
6.13
4.30
3.94
6.52
6.00
6.27
6.69
4.66
4.24
7.12
5.90
6.19
6.80
4.48
4.19
6.92
5.91
6.22
6.83
4.52
4.20
6.96
5.94
6.22
6.82
4.54
4.21
7.05
6.03
6.28
6.83
4.65
4.23
7.17
6.04
6.28
6.59
4.77
4.21
7.22
6.11
6.33
6.54
4.82
4.28
7.32
6.14
6.36
6.43
4.83
4.32
7.34
6.21
6.51
7.01
4.86
4.32
7.42
6.26
6.56
7.04
4.87
4.39
7.48
6.28
6.62
7.13
4.90
4.45
7.48
6.27
6.64
7.41
4.90
4.46
7.51
6.30
6.68
7.62
4.92
4.49
7.53
6.36
6.73
7.77
4.94
4.47
7.60
Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products ..........................
6.50
7.01
8.63
5.52
3.89
6.91
7.59
9.37
5.96
4.23
6.72
7.50
9.44
5.82
4.18
6.83
7.47
9.39
5.90
4.18
6.88
7.53
9.32
5.91
4.19
6.90
7.60
9.39
5.95
4.19
6.94
7.65
9.35
5.94
4.22
7.04
7.73
9.51
6.03
4.29
7.06
7.82
9.49
6.12
4.31
7.09
7.87
9.57
6.14
4.34
7.17
7.91
9.49
6.21
4.36
7.20
7.96
9.48
6.25
4.46
7.25
7.99
9.40
6.25
4.48
7.29
8.00
9.25
6.28
4.51
7.31
8.09
9.81
6.28
4.55
8.45
8.45
8.52
8.55
8.56
8.59
8.63
8.69
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..............
7.57
8.18
7.88
7.94
8.03
8.23
8.32 .
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ............................
4.67
5.06
5.00
5.00
5.02
5.05
5.06
5.13
5.15
5.18
5.18
5.34
5.36
5.39
5.37
WHOLESALE TRADE..................................................
5.88
6.39
6.30
6.29
6.34
6.39
6.41
6.51
6.51
6.57
6.68
6.72
6.76
6.82
6.83
RETAIL TRADE..........................................................
4.20
4.53
4.49
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.52
4.58
4.59
4.62
4.61
4.78
4.78
4.79
4.77
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..................................................................
4.90
5.28
5.23
5.22
5.22
5.29
5.29
5.38
5.37
5.42
5.49
5.55
5.62
5.69
5.68
SERVICES..................................................................
4.99
5.36
5.29
5.27
5.27
5.29
5.30
5.45
5.48
5.54
5.60
5.65
5.70
5.73
5.73
18.
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967 = 100]
1979
1980
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr. p
Mar. 1980
to
Apr. 1980
240.5
242.6
245.1
245.6
0.2
8.3
274.0
225.1
245.3
261.2
234.7
218.6
. 238.0
275.5
229.8
248.1
262.7
235.5
221.2
239.9
278.8
231.2
250.3
265.7
237.6
226.1
242.8
281.3
231.2
252.2
266.7
237.0
225.0
242.7
.9
.0
.8
.4
-.2
-.5
.0
6.5
6.0
9.2
10.3
7.3
8.5
7.9
102.8
102.3
101.9
(’ )
( ')
(’ )
Industry
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
Mining........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services ......................................
TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)
1Not available.
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Apr.
May
226.8
264 1
218.1
231.0
241.7
220.9
207.5
225.0
107.0
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
227.5
229.0
230.9
232.2
234.3
262.7
220.4
232.3
243.7
221.0
207.0
224.3
264.9
220.4
233.9
246.4
222.6
208.0
225.7
266.9
222.1
235.4
251.3
223.8
210.8
227.0
265.6
223.1
236.9
252.6
225.4
211.5
228.4
266.1
224.4
238.7
255.6
227.0
214.4
231.5
106.3
105.8
105.6
105.1
104.9
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
234.9
237.3
239.5
268.0
224.0
240.0
255.8
227.4
213.1
232.3
271.6
225.8
242.1
258.9
229.5
216.2
234.7
273.2
227.6
244.3
260.7
231.3
218.5
237.7
104.1
104.1
103.8
Apr. 1979
to
Apr. 1980
19.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1979
1980
Industry division and group
1978
TOTAL PRIVATE......................................
1979
Apr.
May
June
$219.71
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P
Apr.p
$203.70
$219.91
$211.65
$216.20
MINING ..............................................................
332.11
364.64
363.80
361.66
367.62
355.28
365.49
372.80
374.51
380.19
383.25
384.09
383.62
387.10
387.00
CONSTRUCTION ................................................
318.32
341.69
320.21
340.01
346.03
348.35
354.16
360.43
356.82
346.75
355.05
332.40
340.80
348.00
351.36
$221.76
$222.84
$225.90
$225.62
$226.06
$229.40
$225.34 $227.39 $229.15 $228.50
MANUFACTURING..............................................
249.27
268.94
254.41
265.86
269.06
267.73
267.60
274.04
274.85
277.14
285.07
277.01
278.20
280.99
278.56
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
270.44
222.88
183.92
262.91
342.76
259.94
290.50
240.16
195.32
283.86
371.36
278.26
273.14
230.69
185.25
276.60
371.96
256.86
288.46
236.41
.189.85
284.08
365.56
275.54
291.51
247.63
195.94
288.39
370.66
279.21
288.86
245.46
191.52
285.94
373.35
274.04
287.65
248.58
196.86
287.73
371.28
276.62
295.39
253.43
202.02
291.07
378.31
282.74
295.80
248.35
204.36
291.90
372.19
285.36
297.43
241.72
205.02
294.82
376.88
286.59
308.26
245.00
210.27
296.78
379.55
298.33
297.82
236.98
202.37
282.71
378.51
286.64
300.24
244.09
204.52
285.91
384.21
287.65
304.21
243.21
206.98
294.35
383.26
292.73
300.85
234.24
205.74
295.00
383.51
289.12
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
284.34
234.55
333.80
233.54
181.97
306.39
254.29
351.44
251.74
196.06
286.13
237.07
313.05
241.20
186.50
302.33
249.64
356.10
249.29
192.50
308.28
253.13
352.29
248.68
194.61
302.82
248.29
349.70
248.25
194.66
303.56
252.49
341.82
247.44
196.06
313.41
261.63
349.61
252.75
199.25
309.92
261.14
358.07
257.86
201.22
314.67
266.26
354.14
264.55
203.94
327.42
274.23
379.14
269.98
207.23
318.31
268.13
352.08
269.37
207.62
319.97
269.74
357.14
267.81
206.80
323.23
271.20
365.31
268.37
208.74
320.58
269.00
361.89
268.66
207.20
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
217.88
230.26
233.55
173.72
140.26
279.71
235.80
250.17
254.22
187.80
149.25
303.31
225.38
241.41
255.68
172.93
142.04
287.87
231.08
246.31
265.69
181.25
147.42
295.10
234.04
247.56
265.98
184.32
149 88
302.74
236.38
251.83
246.56
185.54
149.74
304.73
237.98
253.08
247.78
192.23
149.88
307.57
241.96
257.00
255.71
196.66
151.51
312.56
241.92
254.40
249.48
197.06
153.36
312.68
245.92
261.70
273.39
200.72
153.79
318.32
249.77
264.37
278.08
202.11
157.60
325.38
244.92
261.49
266.66
■200.41
156.64
318.65
243.90
258.96
273.43
199.92
153.33
318.42
245.70
261.19
287.27
201.23
158.95
318.52
246.13
261.80
290.60
195.13
157.79
322.24
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products........................................
Leather and leather products ........................
244.40
293.72
376.27
259.13
317.26
410.41
247.30
314.25
414.42
254.76
312.25
410.34
257.31
314.75
404.49
258.06
316.92
414.10
263.03
319.77
407.66
266.82
323.11
425.10
264.75
326.09
418.51
268.71
331.33
428.74
273.18
333.80
4.11.87
267.84
331.93
342.23
268.25
332.38
372.24
271.19
334.40
370.93
268.28
336.54
410.06
225.77
144.32
241.38
154.40
229.31
147.55
238.95
152.15
240.54
155.45
239.19
154.61
237.60
154.45
244.22
157.87
247.86
157.32
247.44
159.71
252.75
162.63
251.88
163.68
249.38
164.86
250.57
164.16
248.06
164.26
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
.
302.80
326.38
307.32
314.42
321.20
329.20
335.30
337.16
337.16
342.50
342.00
338.12
341.02
342.61
344.12
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE......................
153.64
164.96
162.50
162.00
165.16
168.17
167.99
167.75
167.38
167.83
170.42
170.35
170.98
172.48
171.30
WHOLESALE TRADE ..........................................
228.14
247.93
243.18
244.68
247.26
249.21
249.35
252.59
253.24
255.57
261.19
258.72
259.58
261.89
262.27
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
130.20
139.07
137.39
136.50
139.50
142.07
141.93
140.61
139.54
140.45
142.91
142.44
142.44
143.22
142.15
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
178.36
191.66
190.37
188.44
188.96
192.56
191.50
195.29
194.93
197.29
199.84
201.47
204.57
207.69
206.18
SERVICES ..........................................................
163.67
175.27
171.93
171.28
173.38
176.16
175.96
178.22
178.65
180.60
183.68
183.63
185.25
186.23
186.23
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
[ A v e r a g e s f o r p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
1960 ..........................................
Gross average
weekly earnings
Manufacturing workers
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$80.67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
101.01
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32
74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
88.88
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
121.68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
102.90
104.13
104.30
101.02
143.30
155.19
165.39
178.00
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.76
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.82
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.49
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
1979: April ................................
May ................................
June ................................
211.65
216.20
219.71
99.93
100.89
101.30
171.98
175.29
177.85
81.20
81.80
82.00
188.39
191.93
194.67
88.95
89.56
89.75
254.41
265.86
269.06
120.12
124.06
124.05
202.32
210.04
212.51
95.52
98.14
97.98
221.05
229.74
232.17
104.37
107.20
107.04
July..................................
August ............................
September ......................
221.76
222.84
225.90
101.08
100.60
100.98
179.35
180.13
182.36
81.75
81.32
81.52
196.26
197.11
199.42
89.45
88.99
89.15
267.73
267.60
274.04
122.03
120.81
122.50
211.61
211.52
215.89
96.45
95.49
96.51
231.16
231.06
235.94
105.36
104.32
105.47
October............................
November........................
December........................
225.62
226.06
229.40
100.01
99.32
99.74
182.16
182.48
184.84
80.74
80.18
80.37
199.21
199.54
202.08
88.30
87.67
87.86
27485
277.14
285.07
121.83
121.77
123.94
216.44
217.99
223.38
95.94
95.78
97.12
236.56
238.30
244.31
104.86
104.70
106.22
1980: January............................
February..........................
March..............................
225.34
227.39
229.15
96.59
96.15
95.52
181.96
183.44
184.67
77.99
77.56 .
76.98
199.00
200.55
201 89
85.30
84.80
84.16
277.01
278.20
280.99
118.74
117.63
117.13
217.91
218.71
220.61
93.40
92.48
91.96
238.20
239.10
241.22
102.10
101.10
100.55
Aprilp ..............................
228.50
( 1)
184.21
(’ )
201.39
(’ )
278.56
(’ )
218.96
( 1)
239.37
(’ )
'Not available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Calculation, Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp.
6-13. See also Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1978-80, Employment and Earnings, March 1980,
pp. 10-11.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA
U n e m pl o y m e n t
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
in s u r a n c e d a t a are c o m p ile d m o n th ly by
th e E m p lo y m e n t a n d T rain in g A d m in istra tio n o f th e U .S . D e
p artm en t o f L a b o r from record s o f S ta te an d F ed eral u n em
p lo y m e n t in su ra n ce c la im s filed an d b en efits paid. R ailroad
u n em p lo y m e n t in su ra n ce d ata are prepared by th e U .S . R a il
ro a d R etirem en t B oard .
Definitions
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under the State, Ex-Servicemen, and UCFE programs,
and the Railroad Insurance Act.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
Unem ployment Insurance and em ploym ent service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are In thousands]
1980
1979
Item
All programs:
Insured unemployment......................
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Rate of insured unemployment . . . . . .
Weeks of unemployment
compensated................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Initial claims’ ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:"
Initial claims......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment......................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Mar.
Apr.
2,921
June
May
2,610
2,230
July
2,119
2,429
Sept.
Aug.
2,377
2,164
Oct.
2,236
Nov.
2,559
Dec.
3,047
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
3,740
3,730
1,396
1,589
1,309
1,400
1,978
1,545
1,219
1,641
1,827
2,263
2,837
1,818
2,750
3.6
2,440
3.1
2,078
2.6
1,991
2.5
2,300
2.8
2,245
2.7
2,024
2.4
2,057
2.4
2,384
2.8
2,864
3.4
3,537
4.1
3,518
4.1
13,792
12,804
11,105
8,956
8,442
7,197
7,889
8,830
6,993
7,638
8,107
9,171
$90.28
$975,641
$89.25
$777,699
$88.37
$725,229
$87.25
$610,269
$86.40
$665,687
$88.56
$767,025
$89.07
$606,095
$90.59
$673,965
$92.39
$728,370
$94.54
$843,869
21
20
20
24
28
28
23
26
24
24
25
21
52
48
45
45
51
52
52
52
54
56
60
58
241
$22,794
207
$19,617
214
$20,440
193
$18,623
216
$20,965
234
$23,861
211
$19,634
236
$23,325
232
$23,093
233
$23,093
299
$29,635
255
$25,414
12
12
12
13
16
13
13
18
15
15
19
11
3,652
3,356
3.9
$98.14
$96.40
$1,283,946 $1,229,084
63
33
27
24
23
2.5
25
25
28
29
31
34
32
143
$13,168
112
$10,345
106
$9,330
91
$8,341
96
$8,802
107
$9,829
91
$8,453
109
$10,093
118
$11,063
118
$11,047
150
$14,118
129
$12,387
30
5
3
3
9
15
8
13
11
10
11
22
7
5
23
23
18
40
10
29
8
19
11
20
12
26
21
32
18
51
20
36
19
41
40
80
39
71
30
68
$204.72
$10,538
$195.55
$7,276
$177.39
$5,681
$183.13
$3,314
$190.10
$3,699
$195.61
$3,767
$189.08
$5,747
$189.61
$8,003
$183.38
$6,462
$197.22
$8,085
$199.01
$14,967
$208.73
$14,573
$210.79
$13,884
8,059
1,991
9,180
2,291
10,452
2,616
11,907
3,051
13,186
3,482
14,479
3,935
15,525
4,349
1,855
458
Employment service:5
Nonfarm placements ........................
’ Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,378
1,044
8,553
1,816
"Includes the Virgin Islands. Excludes data on claims and.payments made jointly with State programs.
5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.
8
PRICE DATA
P rice
d a t a are g a th ered b y th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics
from retail a n d p rim ary m a rk ets in th e U n ite d S tates. P rice
in d ex es are giv en in relation to a b a se p eriod (1 9 6 7 — 100,
u n less o th e r w ise n o te d ).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S t a n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the R e v ie w , regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see F a c ts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x , a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also T h e
C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Y ears. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S ta tistic s , 1 9 7 7 , Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P ric e
I n d e x es, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s
f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April
1978, pp. 7 -1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79
[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages
All items
Year
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Medical care
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100:0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
6.1
6.9
6.3
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1979
1980
1980
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
All items......................................................................................
209.1
225.4
227.5
229.9
233.2
236.4
239.8
209.3
225.6
227.6
230.0
233.3
236.5
239.9
Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................
224.4
217.6
164.3
198.1
233.9
184.8
192.8
232.1
237.7
171.0
222.7
245.9
192.0
202.3
233.1
240.8
171.7
224.9
248.0
192.8
202.9
235.5
243.6
172.2
227.7
250.7
193.4
204.0
237.5
247.3
171.0
233.5
253.9
195.3
206.3
238.6
250.5
171.9
239.6
257.9
197.8
208.1
241.0
254.5
176.0
243.7
260.2
200.6
208.9
225.1
217.5
164.2
198.7
233.7
184.0
192.6
232.3
237.7
170.8
223.4
247.2
191.4
201.4
233.1
240.7
171.3
225.7
249.1
192.0
202.0
235.7
243.6
171.4
228.3
251.7
192.3
203.0
237.8
247.3
169.8
234.1
254.9
193.9
206.0
239.0
250.5
171.5
240.2
258.7
196.2
207.7
241.2
254.4
175.1
244.3
260.9
199.5
208.3
Commodities ................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables............................................................................
200.5
187.0
187.8
184.9
215.6
204.9
214.9
196.0
217.4
206.9
216.6
198.4
219.4
208.8
219.0
199.8
222.4
212.0
224.6
201.3
225.2
215.5
231.8
202.1
228.0
218.4
237.5
203.0
200.9
187.0
188,4
184.5
215.8
205.0
216.6
194.8
217.4
206.9
218.1
196.9
219.4
208.7
220.5
198.2
222.3
212.0
226.3
199.6
225.3
215.7
234.1
200.3
228.1
218.7
239.8
201.2
Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................
225.1
171.3
253.7
206.7
251.8
195.0
2436
181.4
280.7
218.5
265.3
205.7
246.2
182.1
284.6
221.5
267.6
206.5
249.3
182.9
289.2
224.2
270.7
207.1
253.1
184.1
295.1
226.8
274.4
209.0
256.8
185.6
300.2
229.6
279.0
211.1
261.3
186.6
307.3
233.4
281.5
212.9
225.1
171.2
254.3
207.4
251.3
195.0
244.0
181.2
282.3
218.6
266.8
206.4
246.7
181.9
286.3
221.5
268.8
207.3
249.6
182.7
291.1
224.0
271.8
207.4
253.6
183.9
297.2
226.6
275.6
209.3
257.3
185.5
302.4
229.3
279.8
211.4
261.7
186.4
309.6
232.7
282.2
213.5
All items less fo o d ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical ca re ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
203.8
204.1
185.9
185.7
200.0
206.9
235.0
220.8
220.7
253.4
241.2
206.9
200.4
180.3
239.5
223.7
221.8
218.3
203.4
211.3
234.8
224.5
255.1
239.6
224.1
257.3
307.5
219.2
213.6
189.6
329.0
241.3
224.1
219.8
205.4
212.9
236.8
225.8
258.2
242.3
224.5
256.5
307.8
221.4
216.1
191.4
332.5
244.6
226.4
221.7
207.2
215.2
240.1
228.2
261.6
245.3
227.5
263.2
313.7
223.6
218.1
192.6
340.0
247.6
229.9
224.3
210.4
220.5
248.6
232.0
266.1
249.2
229.2
265.7
327.9
225.9
220.6
193.7
361.5
251.6
233.5
227.1
213.8
227.3
258.2
236.3
270.2
252.7
229.1
267.2
344.6
228.0
222.8
194.9
385.0
255.2
237.1
229.8
216.7
232.6
264.1
240.3
275.4
257.4
231.2
270.2
355.0
230.8
225.7
196.5
398.5
259.6
203.7
204.5
185.9
186.3
200.5
207.6
235.0
220.8
221.0
255.6
241.7
207.1
200.2
180 0
240.0
223.7
222.0
218.7
203.5
212.9
236.3
225.3
255.7
239.9
224.0
259.1
310.2
218.8
213.0
188.7
330.2
241.7
224.2
220.1
205.4
214.4
238.2
226.5
258.8
242.6
224.4
259.2
310.7
221.0
215.4
190.4
333.8
245.1
226.4
222.0
207.1
216.7
241.5
229.0
262.1
245.5
227.5
265.2
317.0
223.0
217.3
191.4
341.5
248.0
230.0
224.7
210.3
222.1
250.2
232.9
266.7
249.5
229.0
268.1
331.5
225.3
219.6
192.4
362.8
252.2
233.7
227.6
214.0
229.4
260.1
237.4
270.8
253.1
229.2
270.3
348.7
227.3
221.8
193.5
386.4
255.7
237.3
230.2
216.9
234.8
266.3
241.4
275.9
257.7
231.0
272.3
359.6
230.0
224.6
195.1
400.3
260.0
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................
$0,478
$0,444
$0,440
$0,435
$0,429
$0,423
$0,417
$0,478
$0,443
$0,439
$0,435
$0,429
$0,423
$0,417
Special indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES ......................................................
224.4
232.1
233.1
235.5
237.5
238.6
241.0
225.1
232.3
233.1
235.7
237.8
239.0
241.2
Food ........................................................................................
230.4
238.2
239.1
241.7
243.8
244.9
247.3
231.1
238.3
239.1
241.8
244.0
245.2
247.5
Food at home ............................................................
Cereals and bakery products..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
White bread......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100) ............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100)..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ........................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ..
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........
229.9
213.5
113.7
114.9
114.1
112.2
112.7
187.0
112.6
113.1
110.5
113.5
112.1
110.7
235.4
227.0
120.8
124.0
119.2
120.4
119.9
202.5
120.5
119.4
117.6
116.6
115.0
118.9
236.0
228.7
121.1
122.8
119.7
121.6
121.0
204.5
121.3
121.2
119.4
117.1
114.5
119.9
238.7
231.6
122.9
123.8
122.8
122.2
122.4
207.4
123.3
123.1
120.3
117.8
116.2
121.5
240.6
234.2
125.0
125.7
123.7
126.4
123.5
208.6
123.8
124.8
121.7
119.7
117.5
122.2
241.3
236.8
125.8
125.7
124.9
127.4
125.1
210.7
124.6
126.2
122.8
122.8
119.9
123.8
243.6
238.6
126.6
126.6
126.0
127.6
126.1
212.0
125.6
127.0
124.4
124.4
120.2
125.0
230.0
214.1
113.9
115.2
114.4
112.1
113.1
187.6
114.2
112.4
110.6
114.6
112.5
112.4
234.8
227.9
121.4
125.0
119.3
120.8
120.3
202.3
123.8
118.7
118.1
118.3
115.0
120.7
235.4
229.7
122.1
124.6
119.9
122.7
121.3
203.9
124.2
120.8
119.1
118.4
116.1
121.9
238.3
232.3
123.8
125.1
122.9
123.9
122.7
206.6
126.0
122.3
120.1
119.6
116.3
123.4
240.1
234.7
126.1
126.9
124.2
127.9
123.6
207.4
126.9
123.1
120.8
121.5
118.4
124.1
241.1
237.4
127.2
127.3
125.5
129.2
125.1
209.7
127.5
124.3
122.2
124.0
121.0
125.4
243.1
239.3
127.7
127.5
126.6
129.4
126.2
212.1
129.3
124.9
123.2
125.6
121.8
126.2
113.8
122.5
123.7
124.8
125.7
127.2
127.9
112.3
118.8
120.8
121.4
122.5
123.8
124.0
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal................................................................
Ground beef other than canned ....................
Chuck roast ..............................................................
Round roast ..............................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak ..............................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ............................
Pork............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Pork chops ................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Other meats..................................................................
Frankfurters ..............................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100)................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100)........................
Poultry ............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken ..................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Rsh and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)........
Eggs..........................................................................
237.0
241.7
244.2
252.1
264.6
270.8
228.0
236.5
2334
141.7
233.4
227.9
223.6
108.0
285.4
236.7
132.2
233.9
234.5
129.0
120.7
125.4
189.9
191.5
121.6
123.0
294.0
108.3
114.2
181.3
230.3
235.9
238.6
256.2
263.4
263.3
230.3
242.2
250.4
147.1
204.3
190.5
195.1
94.8
257.6
218.2
115.2
240.7
236.8
134.2
120.3
137.7
170.3
159.7
110.1
120.3
311.5
115.2
120.7
161.3
230.2
235.2
237.4
255.5
264.2
263.1
229.1
241.9
247.0
146.3
201.0
186.3
188.8
95.9
254.5
214.8
112.9
242.0
238.9
133.4
121.6
138.3
171.6
166.7
110.8
115.9
312.2
116.8
120.1
170.1
235.5
239.8
242.3
262.2
271.2
268.1
238.1
247.5
250.8
150.2
205.0
193.6
187.8
102.5
256.5
218.9
112.6
243.0
239.3
134.4
121.5
140.0
176.2
175.2
112.3
116.9
312.6
117.1
120.2
185.9
238.0
243.0
244.1
264.6
271.4
274.7
241.9
249.8
250.9
151.8
206.4
194.5
192.1
99.1
256.6
220.8
116.2
243.2
239.0
134.1
121.2
141.6
187.8
191.1
120.7
119.3
316.7
118.5
121.9
178.2
236.2
242.6
244.1
266.2
273.3
277.7
244.5
252.3
251.1
152.2
202.8
190.1
189.7
95.7
255.1
219.5
114.3
244.7
242.7
135.6
120.7
142.4
182.6
183.6
116.8
118.8
320.4
120.3
123.0
157.2
237.8
243.8
245.7
269.1
275.3
286.2
244.2
254.2
254.3
153.8
202.6
187.6
190.7
95.8
257.6
219.3
113.6
245.8
244.6
135.5
121.8
142.3
180.7
179.5
116.8
118.2
322.6
120.4
124.3
164.5
236.9
241.5
243.9
254.2
264.4
279.3
230.1
234.4
233.0
143.1
232.2
229.2
224.1
106.8
280.5
235.8
130.8
231.3
232.7
127.8
118.0
126.7
188.1
187.7
121.6
122.2
292.6
107.9
113.7
182.0
229.7
235.3
238.1
257.5
265.8
268.3
233.0
239.4
249.6
147.0
204.7
194.4
194.9
94.0
258.1
215.8
115.1
238.0
237.7
130.7
118.8
138.8
168.3
157.7
108.4
119.8
306.5
114.5
118.1
160.3
230.0
235.0
237.3
257.7
266.0
273.1
232.7
239.7
247.4
146.6
201.5
188.7
188.1
95.4
255.8
214.6
112.7
238.5
237.2
130.4
119.5
139.8
170.1
163.3
110.7
116.0
307.5
116.0
117.8
169.6
235.1
239.2
241.8
263.7
273.0
274.2
240.5
246.2
253.5
149.9
205.6
195.8
189.1
100.9
258.3
219.1
112.7
239.5
238.7
130.8
119.4
141.7
173.9
169.8
111.8
117.4
309.1
116.5
118.5
186.6
237.5
242.5
243.7
266.7
272.7
283.6
245.1
249.4
253.5
151.9
206.8
195.3
194.8
96.5
260.3
219.3
116.2
239.3
239.5
130.5
118.7
142.5
184.3
183.8
118.7
120.1
315.4
118.4
121.2
177.0
236.4
242.8
244.3
268.9
276.2
288.7
245.8
250.5
253.0
152.8
204.1
193.8
191.0
95.2
257.0
218.9
114.6
240.9
242.1
132.3
118.6
143.4
118.1
178.9
117.0
119.4
317.9
119.7
122.0
156.7
237.1
243.0
245.0
270.8
278.7
293.4
244.5
251.1
256.0
153.7
203.0
189.4
190.5
94.7
259.8
217.4
113.7
241.5
242.8
132.2
118.8
144.3
177.4
172.5
116.3
117.7
320.2
119.5
123.5
164.3
Dairy products ........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh whole milk........................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ....................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter....................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
201.5
113.8
186.5
113.6
114.0
194.5
114.6
113.4
111.0
213.3
120.3
197.6
119.2
120.9
213.3
121.0
120.4
116.4
216.0
121.9
200.4
120.6
122.3
214.4
122.7
121.4
117.8
216.9
122.7
201.2
122.0
122.5
214.0
122.6
122.6
117.9
218.4
123.2
202.3
122.1
123.8
216.9
123.5
124.0
119.8
219.5
123.7
203.2
122.7
124.5
218.3
124.2
124.6
120.9
220.3
124.1
204.0
122.7
125.1
218.3
124.9
125.1
121.6
202.3
114.2
187.4
113.3
114.5
196.2
114.6
114.8
111.6
214.0
120.4
197.4
119.8
121.7
216.6
121.1
121.9
116.9
216.3
121.8
199.7
121.1
123.0
217.1
122.5
123.4
118.2
217.4
122.6
200.9
122.2
123.3
216.6
122.7
124.3
118.3
218.9
123.2
201.8
122.8
124.5
219.8
123.6
125.6
120.4
219.8
123.6
202.7
123.0
125.1
220.9
124.4
125.6
121.3
221.1
124.2
203.8
123.1
126.2
220.9
125.5
127.2
121.9
Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables................................................
Fresh fruits....................................................................
Apples ......................................................................
Bananas ................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh vegetables ..........................................................
Potatoes ......................................................................
Lettuce......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................
225.9
230.5
226.2
219.1
194,7
261.4
115.5
234.6
200.1
281.3
182.7
136.6
232.0
235.5
260.4
212.7
206.6
306.7
143.9
212.2
191.1
262.9
194.4
114.0
229.5
230.1
242.7
207.2
209.0
293.9
127.5
218.4
195.7
244.2
225.3
119.1
230.2
230.1
234.9
221.8
225.2
256.7
121.1
225.7
207.0
227.5
227.9
128.0
229.8
227.2
233.6
230.4
221.9
236.2
122.5
221.2
203.8
197.6
216.7
132.0
228.3
223.1
235.8
239.6
238.5
. 231.1
121.4
211.2
203.3
198.7
184.9
125.1
232.4
229.9
245.4
250.2
243.9
238.1
127.4
215.5
203.3
208.3
201.4
125.4
225.4
230.9
223.2
213.7
192.3
252.0
115.8
237.9
201.0
293.2
187.7
137.1
230.2
233.6
260.6
212.9
199.7
290.3
149.7
209.4
183.8
264.2
194.1
112.5
226.7
226.7
238.3
207.7
206.5
283.3
125.7
216.4
191.7
239.0
225.4
118.9
228.3
228.5
233.3
220.2
222.0
249.5
121.6
224.2
199.6
231.3
224.8
128.1
227.2
224.9
232.7
230.1
219.5
231.3
122.7
217.9
200.9
193.2
213.2
130.5
225.9
220.6
234.7
237.6
234.6
228.4
121.3
207.9
199.8
191.7
184.3
123.9
230.1
227.4
245.4
249.0
240.8
240.9
126.9
211.3
200.3
203.8
197.2
123.0
Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100)..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
222.7
115.9
114.1
113.3
120.3
107.9
107.1
230.1
120.4
116.3
119.8
124.6
110.9
110.2
231.0
121.2
116.6
122.1
124.2
110.9
110.2
232.3
121.8
116.8
123.6
124.2
111.7
110.6
234.7
122.9
117.2
125.1
125.3
113.0
111.9
236.2
123.4
117.6
126.0
125.5
114.0
113.0
237.2
123.9
117.7
127.2
125.5
114.6
112.6
221.3
115.9
114.4
113.4
119.8
107.0
106.5
228.3
120.3
115.2
120.7
124.0
109.8
110.2
228.6
121.1
115.7
122,4
124.0
109.4
109.6
230.0
121.3
115.9
123.4
123.5
110.5
110.8
231.8
122.4
116.5
124.5
124.8
111.2
111.4
233.9
123.6
117.8
126.3
125.3
112.2
111.7
235.0
123.9
116.5
127.4
125.9
113.0
111.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Feb.
Mar.
23.
Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
1980
1979
1980
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Fruits and vegetables — Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77-100)............
Other foods at hom e......................................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77-100) ....................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)......................
Other sweets (12/77-100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77=100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 =100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)............
Roasted coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77-100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77-100)..................................
Snacks (12/77-100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77-100)............
Other condiments (12/77-100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77=100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
111.6
106.4
262,4
272.1
115.0
114.5
109.5
219.5
235.5
110.0
113.0
347.1
233.8
113.8
348.3
332.7
112.5
202.9
109.2
113.9
112.0
114.8
110.7
112.2
112.7
113.6
109.9
278.0
283.1
119.9
119.0
115.9
231.9
244.4
115.1
121.1
372.1
246.4
118.5
432.4
366.5
114.8
213.4
113.4
123.1
119.6
118.8
115.8
117.2
116.7
113.4
110,0
279.6
283.2
120.1
116.2
116.4
232.3
246.2
115.1
121.0
374.3
247.5
118.4
438.1
370.2
115.7
215.3
114.3
124.5
120.4
118.9
116.8
119.0
117.7
114.4
110.9
281.1
284.6
120.1
1172
117.5
233.0
247.7
115.7
121.1
375.4
247.2
118.7
440.7
374.3
116.3
217.4
115.9
125.6
121.3
120.1
119.5
118.9
118.6
114.5
112.9
283.5
289.8
121.3
122.2
118.7
233.9
248.3
115.3
121.9
378.5
249.5
119.9
443.2
378.2
116.8
218.8
116.5
126.0
121.8
121.4
120.8
119.6
119.4
115.2
113.9
288.0
297.5
122.4
131.5
119.5
235.9
247.9
116,4
123.6
384.5
255.9
122.3
439.6
382.2
118.3
221.8
118.1
126.6
123.4
123.6
123.7
120.7
121.2
116.0
114.8
292.0
313.5
123.8
153.0
120.4
236.8
248.8
117.9
123.7
387.1
259.3
123.5
437.6
381.7
118.6
224.1
118.0
128.2
124.1
124.9
126.0
122.2
122.2
111.0
105.2
262.2
272.4
115.3
114.8
108.7
219.8
234.6
110.3
113.4
346.9
232.9
111.6
349.8
332.1
111.3
203.0
109.1
113.9
112.4
113.5
111.1
112.4
112.7
111.9
108.5
276.5
282.2
119.6
116.9
114.8
231.9
244.9
114.6
121.0
368.2
242.0
116.1
424.4
365.3
113.5
213.4
113.3
122.0
120.6
117.6
117.0
116.7
116.9
111.8
108.1
278.3
281.9
119,8
116.2
114.6
232.8
246.7
115.0
121.3
370.7
243.6
115.6
430.8
369.3
114.8
215.7
114.8
122.9
121.7
118.2
118.5
118.6
118.0
113.0
109.1
279.9
284.1
119.9
117.6
116.6
233.7
247.8
115.8
121.5
372.3
243.4
116.4
435.3
372.9
115.5
217.2
116.3
123.9
122.2
119.0
120.2
118.7
118.6
112.7
110.4
282.6
289.6
121.2
122.7
117.5
234.9
248.8
116.1
122.3
375.6
246.5
116.4
440.1
376.8
116.2
219.1
116.8
125.1
122.8
121.1
121.4
119.7
119.5
113.4
111.9
287.3
297.1
122.2
131.6
118.5
236.5
247.9
117.2
123.8
383,0
253.6
120.2
436.8
380.4
117.5
221.7
117.9
125.5
124.7
123.1
124.6
120.5
120.3
115.4
112.3
290.9
314.1
123.9
153.8
119.3
236.8
248.3
118.5
123.4
384.4
255.4
121.1
432.3
380.3
118.1
224.0
117.6
127.1
125.3
124.0
126.6
122.2
122.0
Food away from hom e..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77-100) ............................................
236.0
115.2
114.2
113.7
249.6
121.3
121.6
119.5
251.3
122.3
122.4
120.2
253.4
123.3
123.4
121.4
256.1
124.6
124.8
122.5
258.3
125.9
125.8
123.2
2609
127.0
127.0
124.9
237.9
116.4
114.6
114.9
251.3
122.2
122.4
120.5
252.7
123 2
123.0
120.9
255.1
124.0
124.2
122.5
258.0
125.7
125.6
123.7
260.1
126.7
126.8
124.4
262.7
127.6
128.1
126.2
Alcoholic beverages
169.2
176.0
177.4
178.0
179.3
180.4
181.7
169.6
176.9
178.0
178.7
179.7
181.1
182.8
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77-100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
W ire..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77-100)................................
109.9
166.1
124.8
190.8
104.4
112.4
114.6
175.1
129.4
198.0
105.9
115.9
115.6
176.9
130.7
198.1
107.0
116.4
116.0
177.8
130.8
199.1
106.9
116.8
116.8
179.0
131.6
201.6
107.1
118.0
117.4
179.9
132.6
202.5
107.3
119.2
118.2
182.0
132.8
204.1
107.4
120.0
110.8
166.6
126.1
194.2
103.8
110.0
115.7
175.2
131.0
202.5
105.9
114.2
116.5
176.9
131.9
201.5
106.2
114.9
117.0
177.6
132.0
204.0
106.4
115.2
117.6
178.8
132.9
203.8
106.4
115.9
118.3
179.9
133.8
206.1
106.7
117.6
119.3
181.7
134.4
208.4
107.2
119.1
HOUSING
217.6
237.7
240.8
243.6
247.3
250.5
254.5
217.5
237.7
240.7
2436
247.3
250.5
254.4
Shelter................................................................................................
228.0
251.5
255.9
259.4
264.0
267.2
271.6
228.5
• 252.4
256.9
260.4
265.1
268.3
272.7
Rert. residential....................................................................................
171.3
181.4
182.1
182.9
184.1
185.6
186.6
171.2
181.2
181.9
182.7
183.9
185.5
186,4
Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77-100) ....................................................
226.3
237.4
106.4
241.6
254.2
114.1
243.1
256.2
114.6
244.9
2584
115.1
251.1
267.0
116.2
255.7
272.8
117.8
258.6
276.8
118.6
226.3
236.7
106.6
241.3
253.0
114.7
242.6
254.6
115.0
244.4
256.9
115.5
251.1
266.1
116.8
255.6
271.6
118.5
258.6
275.7
119.3
Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................................
Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77-100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77-100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........
2482
212.7
287.7
299.8
181.1
344.2
159.2
247.5
267.8
200.1
276.7
233.4
330.5
3199
185.1
408.1
172.0
264.7
287.0
212.5
282.4
237.3
340.1
320.8
185.1
423.1
175.4
266.4
288.8
214.0
286.9
239.9
348.3
323.1
186.0
435.3
178.3
268.3
290.4
216.6
292.5
242.1
359.8
327.7
186.7
452.8
183.7
270.6
293.2
217.6
296.3
243.0
367.7
333.7
188.2
464.0
187.5
273.7
297.1
218.9
302.0
244.0
379.9
335.7
188.2
483.0
194.4
278.8
303.2
221.4
249.2
212.7
289.5
300.0
182.5
344.5
159.2
248.4
269.3
201.5
278.3
233.6
333.5
321.9
186.5
408.8
172.0
265.3
289.4
211.9
284.1
237.7
343.5
322.6
186.6
424.2
175.6
266.5
290.3
213.6
288.7
240.2
351.6
324.5
187.4
436.1
178.4
268.9
292.8
215.8
294.6
242.3
363.4
3288
188.2
453.7
183.8
271.9
295.9
218.4
298.4
243.0
371.6
335.2
189.9
465.0
187.8
274.4
299.3
219.5
304.0
243.8
384.1
337.4
189.9
484.1
194.8
278.2
303.5
222.3
109.7
109.7
117.4
116.0
118.8
115.5
121.6
115.4
122.5
115.9
123.5
115.8
125.0
117.6
111.1
110.6
116.6
116.2
118.1
117.2
120.3
118.1
122.2
118.6
122.3
119.3
123.6
119.9
105.7
108.2
112.8
113.3
113.4
113.8
114.7
114.3
114,7
115.4
115.3
116.4
116.4
117.0
106.7
106.9
113.8
111.9
114.0
112.2
114.5
112.3
117.0
113.2
117.9
114.5
119.3
118.2
Fuel and other utilities
225.9
252.9
252.0
255.1
258.6
263.8
268.0
226.0
253.4
252.4
255.7
259.2
264.4
268,7
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 - 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................
264.0
339.5
346.4
99.3
244.0
208.7
286.2
310.3
470.8
491.2
118.5
272.5
228.7
329.1
3070
477.4
497.2
121.7
267.3
221.5
328.9
311.8
488.0
507.3
126 0
270.8
224.7
332.6
318.0
514.0
534.4
132.7
273.0
226.6
335.1
327.1
539.1
561.9
136.6
278.8
233.8
336.8
333.9
553.4
5779
138.3
284.0
237.9
343.9
263.7
340.0
346.9
99.2
243.6
208.9
284.3
310.1
471.7
491.9
118.8
272.2
228.8
327.4
306.9
478.2
497.7
122.2
267.1
221.5
327.8
311.8
489.0
508,1
126.6
270.7
224.9
331.1
318.1
515.1
534.9
133.7
273.0
226.8
333.8
327.0
540.3
562.5
137.9
278.5
233.9
335.4
333.9
554.1
577.9
139.5
283.9
238.1
342.6
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Food
Continued
Continued
Food at home — Continued
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
87
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
158.8
132.1
100.4
98.3
100.7
240.7
158.8
131.2
98.7
98.4
101.7
245.6
161.0
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.5
247.1
161.9
134.3
103.2
98.4
101.5
247.2
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.8
250.0
161.3
132.8
102.7
97.4
98.8
252.3
161.9
133.2
103.3
97.4
98.7
253.9
158.9
132.1
100.5
98.3
100.6
241.2
158.9
131.3
98.8
98.4
101.5
245.8
160.9
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.3
247.2
161.8
134.2
103.2
98.4
101.3
247.3
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.6
250.5
161.4
132.8
102.7
97.5
98.7
253.0
161.9
133.1
103.2
97.5
98.6
254.7
Household furnishings and operations ................................................
187.4
193.3
195.1
195.8
196.9
199.0
201.3
186.3
191.7
193.2
193.9
194.9
196.8
199.2
Housefurnishings ..................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezer......................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
161.2
172.3
105.8
109.1
174.1
110.1
105.1
103.3
112.4
134.8
103.8
103.0
105.6
154.0
151.7
108.2
108.8
165.2
177.8
107.7
114.2
180.0
116.4
107.3
106.2
115.0
136.9
104.9
103.4
107.4
156.9
155.3
112.1
109.8
166.6
178.9
108.8
114.4
182.2
117.7
107.9
107.7
116.8
137.5
105.0
103.6
107.4
158.2
156.0
113.1
110.8
166.9
178.6
108.3
114.6
182.8
118.3
108.2
108.1
117.1
137.5
105.3
103.6
107.8
157.9
156.7
113.6
109.9
167.6
176.7
105.4
115.1
184.0
119.1
108.2
108.9
118.1
137.8
105.3
103.7
107.8
158.5
156.7
114.1
110.5
169.3
182.9
110.1
118.2
185.2
120.5
108.5
110.0
118.3
138.3
105.4
103.7
108.1
159.4
156.5
115.0
• 111.3
171.5
187.2
113.9
119.7
189.2
122.5
110.9
110.8
122.6
138.8
105.7
104.0
108.3
160.2
157.9
116.8
111.2
160.8
174.3
105.5
112.4
173.7
109.7
104.8
104.7
111.2
134.5
103.3
102 0
105.5
153.8
155.2
108.0
107.4
164.4
177.2
107.4
114.1
180.3
114.8
109.6
107.5
114.7
135.7
104.1
102.0
106.9
155.6
157.9
111.3
107.2
165.5
178.4
108.3
114.5
182.1
115.9
111.7
108.6
115.3
136.2
104.4
102.4
107.1
156.2
158.1
112.2
107.6
165.9
177.3
107.2
114.4
182.7
116.0
111.6
109.2
115.9
136.9
104.8
102.2
108.0
157.1
159.0
112.8
108.2
166.5
175.3
106.0
113.2
183.6
116.8
110.6
109.4
117.8
137.2
104.9
102.2
108.2
157.7
159.4
113.8
108.6
167.9
181.2
109.8
116.6
184.3
117.5
110.3
111.2
117.5
137.8
104.9
102.3
108.2
158.8
159.7
114.7
109.5
170.4
185.3
113.2
118.2
187.9
119.2
112.7
111.9
121.3
139.0
105.5
102.9
108.7
160.7
161.4
116.6
110.7
109.3
109.0
109.7
108.6
110.0
110.8
110.9
108.4
106.9
107.1
108.1
109.2
110.5
111.1
108.2
108.6
110.7
111.2
112.1
112.4
111.4
113.0
111.1
114.6
112.0
115.9
111.6
117.3
106.2
107.7
107.6
110.8
108.2
111.6
108.3
111.8
107.8
113.3
108.4
114.4
110.2
116.0
108.6
105.3
109.8
108.6
111.1
110.0
111.7
110.1
113.1
111.6
114.5
112.7
116.4
114.9
103.5
105.8
105.5
107.1
107.7
108.2
107.4
107.3
108.9
109.4
109.4
109.8
110.8
112.3
112.3
105.9
115.4
108.5
116.8
109.0
117.2
110.3
119.9
110.6
121.4
111.7
122.6
112.2
110.7
107.6
114.7
111.0
115.2
111.1
115.2
112.5
117.3
113.0
118.9
114.2
120.8
115.0
Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
218.4
210.3
109.0
115.1
106.8
110.3
108.5
224.8
217.9
113.7
117.2
109.5
114.3
110.0
228.3
220.6
114.1
119.2
111.3
115.6
113.8
229.2
221.2
114.7
120.5
111.9
116.9
112.5
231.1
224.1
116.1
120.6
111.6
117.7
114.4
235.0
228.9
117.2
121.2
112.7
119.4
119.4
238.0
232.1
117.0
123.9
113.8
120.9
121.4
218.1
209.0
109.1
115.2
106.1
109.0
110.0
223.9
216.3
113.5
117.9
108.6
112.7
108.8
226.7
218.2
113.7
119.6
109.2
114.1
113.2
227.2
219.7
114.5
120.9
109.3
114.7
109.9
228.8
222.2
115.6
121.8
109.0
115.0
111.3
232.8
226.5
117.1
123.4
112.3
116.6
113.3
235.5
230.0
116.9
125.8
113.6
118.3
114.0
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................
242.9
257.3
254.6
257.3
256.6
257.3
258.1
257.3
260.0
257.3
261.6
257.3
263.6
257.3
241.6
257.2
253.9
257.2
255.9
257.2
257.5
257.2
259.2
257.2
261.1
257.2
262.7
257.2
111.5
107.6
118.8
112.3
120.4
112.9
121.2
113.4
122.9
114.0
124.2
114.7
125.4
115.8
111.7
106.7
119.7
112.1
121.2
112.9
122.3
113.4
123.3
114.4
124.6
115.5
126.1
116.0
171.9
176.0
164.2
170.8
171.3
171.4
169.8
171.5
175.1
HOUSING
Continued
Fuel and other utilities
Continued
APPAREL AND UPKEEP........................................................................
164.3
171.0
171.7
172.2
171.0
Apparel commodities......................................................................
159.2
165.2
165.9
166.1
164.3
165.1
169.2
159.3
165.3
165.7
165.7
163.6
165.2
168.7
157.1
158.7
100.3
97.6
94.4
105.2
104.0
99.5
101.4
96.8
105.7
103.4
151.8
101.5
169.3
164.3
100.0
104.2
92.2
98.3
99.3
94.4
162.3
164.2
103.5
101.6
97.8
109.9
108.5
99.5
106.3
103.9
110.8
106.5
155.5
103.4
173.9
167.2
99.6
106.6
97.1
103.6
102.8
102.5
162.9
165.4
104.3
101.2
98.1
112.4
109.7
100.5
106.6
103.2
111.5
107.4
155.1
103.0
173.3
164.3
99.2
108.1
95.2
103.9
102.2
103.6
163.0
165.4
104.3
100.9
98.0
112.3
110.5
100.4
106.6
102.4
111.9
107.8
154.6
102.8
170.0
165.3
98.6
108.2
95.8
102.8
100.3
102.6
161.1
162.8
102.6
98.8
95.5
112.2
108.6
98.2
105.6
99.3
111.5
108.2
151.5
100.8
166.4
161.3
96.1
108.6
91.0
100.5
97.5
99.9
161.8
162.7
102.3
98.2
93.6
112.7
109.3
97.7
106.3
99.9
110.9
109.5
151.1
100.8
163.1
160.6
97.1
110.2
88.2
98.9
95.7
98.2
166.2
165.6
104.3
99.9
96.9
115.0
111.9
98.7
107.5
102.5
112.0
109.8
155.5
103.8
167.6
169.3
99.8
111.0
91.6
101.8
98.9
100.8
157.3
159.4
101.2
963
99.0
104.2
104.4
101.7
100.4
95.0
105.5
102.6
151.2
101.8
175.5
158.7
98.6
104.8
97.5
95.3
95.2
91.4
162.4
164.4
103.8
99.1
99.5
109.1
108.3
102.8
105.3
103.8
110.1
104.7
154.8
103.3
174.1
159.1
100.4
107.9
99.9
101.5
97.9
103.5
162.7
165.3
104.5
98.7
99.7
110.0
109.4
104.0
105.6
103.4
109.7
105.8
154.5
103.0
172.4
156.8
100.7
108.9
97.5
101.7
97.5
104.3
162.6
165.0
104.2
96.8
99.1
109.9
111.5
103.4
105.8
103.1
110.2
106.2
153.5
102.3
167.9
155.7
99.5
109.3
98.1
101.4
97.7
102.9
160.2
162.4
102.3
94.9
95.6
109.3
108.3
102.2
104.7
99.8
109.7
106.6
149.9
100.1
165.0
150.0
97.1
109.1
94.0
97.9
91.9
998
161.9
162.9
102.4
94.4
92.2
111.1
109.4
102.2
105.9
101.9
109.5
107.7
151.3
101.4
162.4
151.2
99.2
110.6
96.8
97.3
92.6
98.1
165.7
166.0
104.4
96.4
96.9
113.2
112.0
102.7
107.5
105.0
110.7
108.2
154.9
103.7
167.0
157.5
101.0
111.5
100.2
100.1
95.7
99.8
103.8
106.7
107.2
107.3
106.7
105.6
108.4
102.5
103.9
104.2
104.4
104.4
103.5
107.8
Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men’s and boys' ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100)..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 - 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100)............................ ......................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women’s and girls’ ..........................................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ......................................................
Dresses..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
[1 9 6 7
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
=
1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
1980
1979
1980
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar. -
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apparel commodities less footwear—Continued
Infants' and toddlers'......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ........................................
216.1
166.6
102.5
109.9
224.8
175.5
102.2
118.3
226.3
177.8
100.8
121.0
227.1
180.9
102.4
123.1
224.9
184.4
103.2
126.1
226.6
191.4
106.3
131.2
231.4
199.9
107.1
138.6
217.7
168.9
101.4
112.8
228.7
178.7
100.8
122.3
228.7
179.8
99.7
123.8
230.5
182.9
100.8
126.2
229.1
185.5
101.2
128.4
232.7
191.8
105.7
132.3
237,3
197.8
107.2
137.3
Footwear..............................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ....................................................................
Boys' and girls’ (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Womens’ (12/77 = 100)................................................................
171.6
109.2
107.3
106.4
182.6
116.7
113.0
113.5
183.8
117.7
114.0
113.9
184.3
117.3
115.8
113.8
183.7
117.8
117.3
111.6
184,6
118.3
117.9
112.1
187.0
119.0
119.5
114.2
107.4
109.2
106.4
105.0
181.9
118.0
113.0
111.1
183.2
119.1
114.5
111.2
183.8
119.4
114.7
111.8
183.3
119.3
116.9
109.4
183.9
119,4
118.0
109.5
186.3
120.9
119.5
110.9
Apparel services
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
200.0
116.4
109.8
212.5
125.2
114.0
214.2
126.3
114.7
216.6
127.1
117.0
220.7
129.3
119.6
222.9
130.6
120.7
225.9
132.5
122.1
199.0
115.8
109.6
210.8
124.7
112.9
212.0
125.7
113.3'
213.4
126.6
113.7
216.9
129.0
115.1
219.8
130.6
116.9
223.5
132.3
119.6
TRANSPORTATION
198.1
222.7
224.9
227.7
233.5
239.6
243.7
198.7
223.4
225.7
228.3
234.1
240.2
244.3
Private................................................................................................
198,1
223.1
225.0
227.5
233.5
239.8
244.0
198.5
223.7
225.7
228.2
234.1
240.4
244.6
New cars ............................................................................................
Used cars ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 = 100).................................. ............................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 — 100) ..................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 - 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 - 100)...........................
T ires................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile Insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration,.and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ........................................................
Drivers’ license (12/77 - 100) ..........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................
162.7
195.4
220.6
236.3
113.1
167.5
199.9
303.8
249.1
120.6
170.6
198.4
306.9
250.8
121.6
171.7
198.2
313.9
252.6
123.3
173.9
197.2
334.6
255.1
125.0
175.3
195.3
357.6
258.2
126.5
175.0
195.2
370.9
260.9
127.3
162.4
1945.4
221.2
236.8
114.0
167.4
199.9
305.2
249.4
120.4
170.9
198.4
308.3
251.1
121.7
171.7
198.3
315.6
253.4
123.1
174.1
197.2
335.9
256.2
124.3
175.4
195.3
359.0
259.2
126.1
175.4
195.2
372.7
261.7
127.2
113.0
112.3
111.5
193.4
169.0
107.8
109.4
150.7
110.2
201.8
223.4
112.6
105.3
143.9
104.5
112.0
110.1
119.4
117.5
117.8
203.7
182.0
115.9
117.9
160.7
121.8
211.4
233.8
120.4
107.9
144.0
104.5
114.6
116.4
120.1
118.4
118.5
205.5
183.4
117.4
118.7
161.5
123.0
213.4
233.9
124.6
108.3
144.1
104.5
115.6
117.1
120.6
119.2
119.2
207.5
185.6
118.1
120.3
163.8
124.4
215.3
235.3
127.2
108.5
144.1
104.5
117.5
117.6
121.8
120.2
120.4
209.8
188.4
120.9
121.9
165.8
126.6
217.6
237.1
129.9
109.1
144.2
104.7
117.5
118.8
123.2
121.3
122.5
212.6
191.2
123.9
123.5
168.5
127.3
220.4
240.2
132.1
109.8
145.2
104.8
119.0
119,6
124.1
123.1
123.5
216.5
192.7
126.4
124.3
170.1
127.2
225.0
244.0
137.4
110.8
145.3
104.7
119.7
122.0
113.9
111.8
111.8
193.9
170.0
107.4
110.3
151.3
112.2
202.2
223.5
112.0
105.6
143.7
104.3
112.8
112.7
120.2
117.3
118.0
204.0
181.6
115.9
117.6
161.1
120.0
211.9
233.7
119.4
108.6
143.9
104.2
115.5
120.8
120.8
118.2
118.6
206.3
183.9
118.1
119.0
163.0
121.5
214.3
233.9
124.1
108.9
144.0
104.2
116.5
121.3
121.8
119.3
119.6
208.4
186.4
119.3
120.6
165.7
122.4
216.3
235.2
126.5
109.2
144.0
104.2
118.3
122.2
123.6
120.4
120.9
210.6
188.0
122.4
121.4
166.3
124.0
218.7
236.8
129.4
109.8
144.1
104.5
118.3
123.8
124.8
121.3
123.1
213.6
191.7
124.0
123.9
170.6
125.0
221.5
239.7
131.3
110.9
145.3
104,5
119.7
125.4
126.1
122.8
124.0
217.1
193.2
■126.1
124.7
172.5
124.4
225.7
243.8
135.2
111.6
145.5
104.4
120.2
127.0
APPAREL AND UPKEEP
Apparel commodities
Continued
Continued
Public..................................................................................................
191.5
209.1
216.5
223.0
226.8
229.5
232.1
192.1
207.3
214.0
219,1
221.9
223.9
226.1
Airline fare............................................................................................
Intercity bus ‘are ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fare..................................................................................
191.8
248.0
186.8
211.1
201.4
220.6
276.0
191.3
233.6
221.1
232.1
279.8
195.6
237.0
231.0
245.5
282.2
196.4
238.5
236.3
251.1
284.7
198.5
243.1
237.2
255.4
288.5
199.7
244.0
237.2
259.9
290.7
200.8
245.6
237.2
191.4
247.3
186.6
215.6
201.9
220.7
275.5
191.0
238.7
221.4
232.4
279.9
195.1
242.4
232.1
245.8
282.3
195.7
243.9
236.6
251.0
284.8
196.7
248.9
237.1
255.2
288.2
197.6
249.3
237.0
259.3
290.2
198.6
251.2
237.1
260.9
MEDICAL CARE
233.9
245.9
248.0
250.7
253.9
257.9
260.2
233.7
247.2
249.1
251.7
254.9
258.7
Medical care commodities
150.7
156.6
157.8
159.2
160.5
162.1
163.5
151.7
157.4
158.5
159.9
161.0
162.7
164.4
Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Ant -infective drugs (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Tranquillizers and sedatives (12/77 - 100)......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)................................................
139.2
109.7
112.6
106.8
144.5
113.5
115.8
109.7
145.5
113.9
117.1
111.0
146.4
114.6
118.4
111.4
147.9
115.8
119.9
112.4
149.8
117.2
121.3
113.4
150.9
117.9
122.2
113.3
139.9
110.5
112.8
108.2
145.2
114.8
115.6
110.6
146.2
115.5
116.9
111.6
147.4
116.8
118.3
112.3
148,8
118.2
119.7
113.0
150.7
119.8
121.0
114.2
152.0
120.1
122.2
114.7
116.1
110.6
122.5
115.6
123.2
116.8
123.8
117.8
126.0
118.8
128.7
119.7
130.0
120.5
115.5
111.1
122.2
116.3
122.6
117.5
123.1
118.2
124.8
119.0
127.8
120.1
129.6
121.3
107.9
111.3
111.9
112.1
112.6
113.7
115.5
109.1
112.6
112.8
113.7
114.2
115.2
116.5
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 - 100)........
108.1
105.5
166.8
107.4
112.5
110.2
173.7
111.0
113.4
110.9
175.4
111.8
114.6
110.9
177.9
113.1
115.3
111.5
179.1
113.8
116.3
112.9
180.4
114,6
117.3
114.1
182.2
115.1
109.0
106.1
168.5
108.1
113.2
110.0
175.2
111.8
114.0
110.4
176.6
112.7
115.1
110.5
178.5
114.2
115.6
111.4
179.0
115.0
116,6
112.6
180.8
115.6
118.0
114.5
183.0
116.1
Medical care services
251.8
265.3
267.6
270.7
274.4
279.0
281.5
251.3
266.8
268.8
271.8
275.6
279.8
282.2
242.9
260.2
231.5
118.1
245.3
262.3
234.1
119.5
222.7
238.2
212.2
108.8
234.9
254.4
221.2
112.1
235.9
255.5
222.7
112.2
238.3
256.5
226.1
114.8
241.7
260.3
229.5
115.9
245.5
264.1
233.4
117.4
247.8
266.2
235.7
119:3
322.7
127.8
403.4
126.5
325.3
128.8
405.8
127.8
286.1
113.7
358.5
112.7
305.9
120,5
379.4
119.5
309.3
121.8
383.6
120.8
313.0
123.2
388.7
122.1
317.3
124.9
393.9
123.8
322.1
126.8
398.8
125.9
324.4
127.7
401.2
126.9
......................................................................
Professional services .............................................................. ..........
Physicians' services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 100)......................................
221.7
237.5
210.3
108.9
231.6
249.7
218.5
112.7
233.0
250.8
220.7
112.8
235.9
252.5
224.5
115.1
238.9
256.0
227.4
116.6
Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services ..................................
• 288.2
■ 114.7
361.3
113.9
306.2
121.3
380.2
120.8
309,5
122.6
385.1
122.0
312.8
123.8
389.4
122.9
317.4
125.6
395.3
124.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[ 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o th e rw is e s p e c ifie d ]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Mar.
Oct.
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
1980
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
ENTERTAINMENT............................................................................
184.8
192.0
192.8
193.4
195.3
197.8
200.6
184.0
191.4
192.0
' 192.3
193.9
196.2
199.5
Entertainment commodities..............................................................
185.7
193.1
194,0
195.2
197.6
200.4
203.4
184.4
190.7
191.3
192.4
194.2
196.9
200.3
Reading materials (12/77 = 100)..........................................................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)............................
108.6
209.7
110.9
113.8
217.7
117.2
114.5
222.4
116.0
115.1
223.5
116.8
116.7
226.8
118.1
117.4
227.7
119.2
119.4
232.4
120.8
108.3
209.3
110.9
113.3
217.4
117.2
114.2
222.2
115.8
114.8
223.3
116.6
116.2
226.4
117.8
117.0
227.3
118.9
119.1
232.0
120.7
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Bicycles ........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
106.6
107.0
105.1
157.3
104.9
111.2
111.5
107.5
167.1
110.0
111.7
112.2
112.9
107.5
167.1
111.0
113.8
117.2
118.7
109.5
177.2
112.9
104.4
104.2
103.1
156.5
103.8
106.7
104.6
106.0
166.9
109.8
106.1
167.4
110.2
107.7
105.8
106.3
167.0
111.3
108.6
107.6
170.5
111.8
115.9
117.4
108.3
174.5
112.4
106.9
107.8
167.1
110.3
106.4
170.5
111.9
110.8
109.1
107.8
174.9
112.6
112.4
110.8
109.3
177.8
113.4
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ........................................
107.1
108.1
106.3
106.0
110.8
110.7
109.4
112.1
111.2
110.5
109.9
113.5
112.1
111.2
109.7
115.5
113.2
112.1
110.8
116.8
115.1
114.1
114.1
117.6
116.9
115.7
118.2
118.2
107.3
107.7
105.8
107.3
111.0
110.1
109.3
113.9
111.2
109.8
109.6
114.6
111.8
109.9
110.1
116.1
112.6
110.9
111.2
116.7
114.3
112.3
114.2
117.9
116.4
114.9
116.9
119.0
Entertainment services ............................................................
183.9
190.8
191.5
191.1
192.5
194.5
197.0
184.3
193.5
194.3
' 193.0
194.4
196.0
199.1
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)....................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)..........................................
108.4
112.3
106.8
113.2
115.7
110.0
113.8
116.1
110.0
113.8
116.6
108.6
114.6
117.9
109.1
116.0
118.3
111.4
117.5
119.1
113.2
108.3
111.7
107.3
114.9
116.8
111.4
115.2
117.3
112.0
'115.0
117.8
109.0
115.6
119.4
109.3
116.3
119.7
111.8
118.8
120.2
113.9
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES......................................................
192.8
202.3
202.9
204.0
206.3
208.1
208.9
192.6
201.4
202.0
203.0
206.0
207.7
208.3
Tobacco products ............................................................................
185.8
191.3
191.5
192.1
196.7
198.1
198.4
185.8
191.2
191.4
192.1
197.1
198.3
198.6
Cigarettes............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............
188.4
108.9
193.8
113.0
194.0
112.8
194.7
113.2
199.7
113.9
200.9
115.6
201.2
116.3
188.6
108.1
193.9
112.3
194.1
112.4
194.8
112.7
200.3
113.4
201.3
114.8
201.6
115.7
Personal care ................................................................................
192.1
199.8
200.9
203.0
204.2
206.5
208.1
191.5
199.4
200.5
202.3
204.4
206.6
207.7
Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 = 100)..................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
186.1
105.9
110.6
192.5
111.9
114.1
193.1
112.2
115.6
195.8
113.0
117.3
196.4
114.2
117.8
198.6
116.1
118.6
200.2
116.6
119.2
185.9
105.3
109.3
191.6
111.1
112.7
192.4
111.4
113.9
194.5
112.4
114.7
196.2
114.0
115.3
198.3
114.9
116.8
199.6
114.9
118,4
108.6
107.7
110.7
110.9
111.4
109.9
113.0
112.1
112.9
112.1
114.2
112.9
115.1
114.7
107.9
110.1
110.1
111.7
110.2
112.3
112.1
113.1
112.9
114.0
114.0
115.6
114.8
116.6
Personal care services..........................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women....................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
197.9
199.6
110.3
207.0
208.3
115.9
208.5
210.3
116.1
210.0
212.1
116.8
211.6
213.3
118.1
214.2
216.1
119.3
215.7
217.9
119.7
197.3
199.6
109.3
207.3
209.1
115.4
208.6
210.2
116.3
210.2
212.0
117.1
212.7
214.2
118.8
215.0
216.6
120.0
215.8
217.8
120.1
Personal and educational expenses ..................................
208.1
224.0
224.2
224.6
226.3
228.0
228.3
208.6
224.2
224.4
224.8
226.2
227.8
228.2
School books and supplies..................................................................
Personal and educational services..........................................................
Tuition and other school fees ....................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)........................................
191.6
212.5
108.6
108.8
107.5
110.6
202.3
229.4
118.1
117.3
120.9
115.8
202.3
229.6
118.1
117.3
120.9
116.3
202.5
229.9
118.1
117.3
120.9
117.3
206.0
231.4
118.3
117.6
120.9
120.1
206.5
233.3
118.5
117.8
120.9
124.4
206.9
233.6
118.6
117.9
120.9
125.0
194.1
212.5
108.5
108.8
107.4
110.6
205.8
229.0
118.2
117.3
120.7
114.9
205.9
229.3
118.2
117.3
120.7
115.5
2060
229.7
118.2
117.3
120.7
116.3
209.8
230.6
118.4
117.6
120.7
117.7
210.4
232.5
118.6
117.8
120.7
121.4
210.7
232.9
118.7
117.9
120.7
122.1
218.7
257.1
205.1
262.5
299.8
288.9
220.7
278.7
302.9
296.0
220.5
280.6
309.7
302.1
223.5
282.2
329.9
310.5
225.0
284.7
352.5
316.7
227.9
287.6
365.5
326.3
230.9
292.0
219.2
257.1
205.3
262.7
301.2
228.5
220.7
279.9
304.3
2958
220.3
281.3
311.4
301.6
223.0
283.4
331.3
310.0
224.4
286.0
353.8
316.2
227.2
288.7
367.2
325.6
230.2
292.0
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products......................................
Insurance and finance ....................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Size class B
(385,000 1.250 million)
Size class C
(75,000 385,000)
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Category and group
1979
Oct.
1980
Dec.
Feb.
1979
Oct.
1980
Dec.
1979
Feb.
Oct.
1980
1979
1980
Dec.
Feb.
Oct.
Dec.
Feb.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ..............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation....................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
117.3
119.2
117.9
107.7
121.1
115.4
111.4
111.7
119.0
120.6
119.8
108.9
123.7
117.3
111.5
112.7
122.1
122.1
122.9
109.5
129.9
120.6
114.4
114.4
120.2
119.6
121.3
109.2
125.0
118.5
113.6
114.1
122.2
121.9
123.7
109.0
127.6
120.0
113.5
114.3
125.6
124.3
126.7
107.1
135.0
121.6
115.7
116.5
123.0
121.9
127.7
107.8
124.9
117.0
110.0
115.6
125.7
123.2
132.1
108.5
127.0
118.9
109.8
116.3
129.1
126.0
135.5
107.3
133.1
121.3
112.2
119.2
119.2
119.4
119.9
108.3
124.5
116.3
114.1
112.5
121.8
121.2
123.2
109,8
127.3
119.0
115.1
113.1
124.2
123,4
124.8
106.8
133.5
121.4
118.9
114.8
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ......................................................
Services ................................................................................
118.6
118.3
115.6
120.5
120.4
117.2
124.1
125.3
119.5
121.8
122.8
117.8
123.7
124.6
119.9
127.5
129.1
122.5
122.8
123.2
123.3
125.1
126.0
126.6
128.5
129.7
129.9
120.0
120.4
117.9
122.5
123.2
120.7
125.6
126.6
122.2
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................
Food and beverages ..................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation............................................................................................
Medical care........................................................................................
Entertainment ..................................................................................
Other goods and services ..........................................................................
123.2
121.2
128.7
105.3
125.0
115.9
112.6
112.5
126.3
123.2
133.1
105.6
127.9
119.6
113.9
113.6
129.6
124.9
136.7
105.2
133.5
123.2
116.9
115.4
122.3
119.2
125.7
109.9
125.2
118.6
110.7
117.8
124.6
120.2
129.3
110.9
127.5
119.3
111.0
117.7
127.2
122.6
131.5
107.1
133.4
122.2
111.5
119.4
121.9
121.6
124.5
107.4
126.0
117.5
112.7
112.3
123.7
123.4
125.9
109.0
129.1
119.7
114.4
114.0
126.4
124.8
127.6
109.0
1358
124.5
116.2
115.5
122.0
122.8
124.0
110.0
124.3
119.1
112.7
115.7
123.0
124.8
123.6
111.9
127.3
121.8
113.8
116.1
125.8
126.9
125.9
110.4
132.6
126.8
115.9
119.1
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities............................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ......................................................................................
122.5
123.0
124.3
125.4
126.4
127.7
128.1
129.6
131.8
120.8
121.5
124.7
122.5
123.5
128.0
124.5
125.2
131.6
121.7
121.7
122.2
123.5
123.6
124.1
125.9
126.4
127.1
121.1
120.4
123.3
122.5
121.6
123.8
124.3
123.1
128.2
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ..............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................
Medical care..................................................................................
Entertainment ........................................................................................
Other goods and services ..........................................................................
120.7
122.2
122.0
111.2
124.2
116.0
109.4
114,4
123.1
123.5
125.0
112.3
127.6
117.7
109.5
115.8
127.1
125.0
129.1
112.5
135.7
119.7
114.5
118.5
122.4
121.3
125.8
110.8
124.5
116.9
113.2
114.0
124.6
122.9
128.4
110.3
127.8
118.3
113.9
115.1
128.0
124.4
131.9
109.6
134.7
121.6
115.4
117.7
122.1
122.1
125.9
106.4
123.2
117.6
113.6
114.2
124.3
123.9
128.4
105.7
126.4
120.7
113.8
115.5
127.9
126.0
131.8
105.5
133.7
124.8
115.9
117.5
120.6
121.0
121.6
103.9
124.4
122.5
117.1
117.3
122.5
122.5
123.9
104.8
126.3
124.9
119,4
118.3
125.9
124.0
127.7
100.9
133.1
129.0
121.6
121.5
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages' ....................................................
Services ................................................................................
120.5
119.8
121.0
122.6
122.2
123.8
126.7
127.5
127.7
121.2
121.2
124.3
123.1
123.2
126.8
125.9
126.6
131.1
120.7
120.1
124.2
122.7
122.2
126.7
126.4
126.5
130.2
120.2
119.9
121.1
121.9
121.6
123.5
124.7
125.0
127.7
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All Items ......................................................
Food and beverages ........................................................
Housing ..........................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................
Transportation........................................................................
Medical care............................................................................
Entertainment .........................................................., . . ..
Other goods and services ......................................................................
120 8
121.2
121.2
107.9
127.2
119.8
109.3
115.2
124.8
123.4
127.0
110.0
129.9
121.9
111.1
115.5
129.6
124.2
132.9
113.6
137.4
125.6
113.5
119.2
123.6
123.1
126.2
111.0
126.7
117.8
115.6
115.3
126.6
125.8
130.2
111.5
128.8
121.3
115.9
116.5
130.6
126.9
134.6
112.4
135.8
124.8
118.6
120.3
122.2
121.1
124.8
104.4
126.3
118.4
113.8
113.0
124.5
122.9
127.8
104.4
129.0
119.9
114.9
113.6
128.1
123.8
131.0
104.2
137.1
124.6
117.8
116.3
122.8
121.5
124.8
114.0
124.6
120,7
117.8
116.0
124.3
123.7
125.4
114.9
128.2
122.7
119.2
116.4
127.1
125.7
127.1
114.7
134.8
126.2
123.6
119.7
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities..........................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage ............................................................
Services ..........................................................................................................
120.5
120.2
121.3
123.1
123.0
126.9
127.0
128.1
133.2
123.1
123.1
124.4
125.3
125.1
128.4
128.8
129.6
133.0
121.7
121.9
122.8
123.6
123.8
125.9
126.7
127.8
130.0
120.7
120.4
125.9
123.0
122.7
126.3
126.7
127.2
127.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area1
U.S. city average2 ..............................................................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga..........................................................................
Baltimore, Mo.......................................................................
Boston, Mass.......................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y.........................................................................
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky -Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, Ohio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo...........................................................
1979
1980
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
209.1
225.4
227.5
229.9
233.2
236.4
239.8
209.3
225.6
227.6
230.0
233.3
236.5
239.9
213.7
201.0
220.8
209.1
205.1
221.8
111.2
207.6
206.4
203.5
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash...........................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif...................................................................
215.4
208.4
221.4
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va......................................................
207.0
212.6
203.8
204.8
228.4
227.2
210.5
244.2
229.9
221.8
231.3
224.2
119.4
229.8
231.2
219.9
220.1
226.0
221.3
220.0
222.4
234.0
222.9
223.7
229.2
237.2
232.6
226.1
224.4
'The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard
Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
240.4
220.9
255.9
238.7
237.6
227.2
237.9
228.0
231.1
235.5
244.6
232.7
254.0
230.2
227.6
225.4
235.5
247.8
206.2
216.7
255.2
225.0
242.9
211.6
241.3
204.4
127.7
242.7
112.4
209.5
231.2
229.0
206.3
206.6
221.7
234.6
206.8
215.8
207.0
218.6
243.8
238.8
205.8
213.4
230.8
225.8
221.3
226.1
220.7
221.1
223.8
232.2
215.5
246.0
232.4
229.9
234.8
222.4
224.6
229.7
235.2
249.7
244.1
240.9
236.4
235.0
259.4
239.9
221.3
251.9
236.6
240.0
124.9
240.8
236.7
226.3
244.8
225.5
225.8
228.0
242.4
243.9
128.8
247.8
239.6
227.7
231.6
235.9
230.8
231.3
235.1
251.7
238.5
255.6
243.5
233.5
251.0
229.0
225.5
226.7
232.5
250.9
120.5
232.5
233.0
219.3
243.9
234.2
227.9
229.9
241.0
233.2
233.3
220.8
2Average of 85 cities.
227.8
248.6
226.9
211.1
241.8
227.9
224.0
220.2
233.5
234.5
226.9
220.7
225.6
235.6
225.5
228.0
253.6
238.1
258.3 '
215.9
227.0
227.9
222.5
218.6
240.7
236.0
231.9
211.8
223.5
243.5
241.7
123.3
236.4
236.6
225.7
247.8
221.5
232.7
247.3
233.2
214.8
248.7
233.7
228.0
200.5
210.4
204.3
227.9
230.3
239.5
232.5
234.1
245.9
223.5
245.0
234.2
230.3
234.4
227.3
221.2
225.9
233.4
224.7
228.2
223.0
Miami, Fla. (11/77-100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J..........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................
218.2
223.3
227.2
222.7
218.7
206.6
215.7
211.6
92
1979
Mar.
Detroit, Mich........................................................................
Horoiulu. Hawaii ................................................................
Houstor. Tex.......................................................................
Kansas City, Mo -Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif...............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
240.0
233.8
233.0
241.3
239.2
26.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Commodity grouping
Annual
average
1978
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1980
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
FINISHED GOODS
Finished goods..............................................
194.6
211.4
212.7
213.7
216.2
217.3
220.7
224.2
226.3
228.1
232.1
235.4
238.2
240.0
Finished consumer goods............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ..................................................................
P'ocessed ............................................................
Other nondurable goods............................................
Durable goods..........................................................
192.6
206.7
215.5
204.1
195.4
165.8
210.2
227.8
241.8
224.6
213.1
178.4
211.6
226.6
226.7
224.4
217.1
179.5
212.7
223.6
227.1
221.3
221.7
180.4
215.6
224.9
224.9
222.8
227.1
181.6
217.5
223.5
231.7
220.7
233.4
181.6
221.7
228.1
214.0
227.0
r239.0
182.9
224.7
226.7
215.5
225.5
243.3
189.0
227.1
230.5
228.1
228.6
245.5
190.0
229.1
232.1
227.9
230.3
247.9
191.8
233.2
231.4
225.9
229.7
254.4
198.2
237.3
231.6
220.0
230.4
263.0
200.7
240.6
233.0
230.8
231.0
270.8
199.7
241.6
228.7
222.2
227.1
276.5
200.3
Capital equipment ........................................................
199.1
214.0
215.1
215.8
217.2
216.5
217.8
222.8
223.9
225.3
229.1
230.3
231.8
235.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
215.5
235.8
238.2
240.3
244.6
247.5
251.0
255.0
256.3
258.7
265.6
271.1
273.2
274.5
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................
208.3
202.3
195.8
237.2
189.1
229.0
222.2
213.7
266.0
203.1
230.9
222.5
216.7
267.2
204.5
232.1
222.3
218.1
268.9
205.3
236.0
226.7
222.5
273.3
207.7
2380
225.1
225.3
275.2
209.3
240.7
228.9
227.6
278.8
211.3
244.3
225.5
231.4
284.7
213.2
245.5
227.8
233.4
284.6
214.8
247.8
230.4
235.3
287.8
216.3
255.2
225.8
240.6
303.5
218.9
259.2
245.1
243.3
305.9
222.7
259.0
2398
246.6
301.1
225.2
259.7
238.7
251.8
296.2
227.4
Materials and components for construction ....................
224.4
244.5
245.2
245.6
247.4
249.2
252.5
254.7
254.0
253.7
257.5
261.6
265.1
265.3
Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing Industries......................................
296.4
270.4
320.0
323.9
280.7
365.9
336.8
287.4
385.5
349.5
293.8
404.9
364.8
304.0
425.5
384.6
311.2
458.8
r399.4
317.2
483.0
410.6
322.5
500.6
416.5
325.2
510.0
424.6
332.2
519.1
443.9
340.6
549.8
464.3
352.2
579.7
481.1
357.4
608.9
486.7
358.4
619.5
Containers ..................................................................
212.5
231.8
234.5
234.9
235.4
237.6
237.9
242.6
243.8
247.1
250.9
250.8
253.3
262.5
Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
Manufactured animal feeds ....................................
Other supplies ......................................................
196.9
183.6
204.0
200.2
201.9
212.8
199.4
219.9
219.5
216.8
213.7
201.5
220.3
214.6
218.3
216.1
202.7
223.2
226.2
219.2
219.6
204.2
227.8
241.3
221.5
219.6
208.6
225.4
220.8
223.1
221.2
209.4
227.5
224.0
224.9
224.9
212.2
231.7
228.9
228.9
226.4
213.7
233.3
226.9
231.2
229.2
216.3
236.1
230.4
233.9
232.2
220.9
238.2
224.2
237.8
238.3
222.0
247.0
223.3
248.6
239.9
223.3
248.7
219.1
251.6
240.7
226.8
248.1
207.1
253.5
Crude materials for further processing..................................
240.1
279.9
282.3
283.0
287.1
281.7
288.3
289.5
290.8
296.2
296.9
308.3
303.3
296.9
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................
215.3
251.5
251.9
248.2
254.1
243.7
248.7
247.5
246.4
249.7
243.0
252.6
245.9
235.5
Nonfood materials........................................................
286.7
333.3
339.6
348.7
349.3
353.6
363.1
368.9
374.9
384.2
399.0
413.9
412.2
413.5
Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................
235.4
240.8
185.7
276.5
284.8
203.6
276.6
284.7
204.5
286.6
295.9
205.4
285.2
294.0
207.2
286.1
294.9
208.6
293.3
302.8
209.9
298.1
307.8
212.6
304.6
314.9
214.8
311.6
322.5
216.6
329.9
342.0
225.7
341.5
354.7
228.3
339.4
352.1
229.7
336.9
349.0
232.4
Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................
463.7
481.9
459.6
529.2
560.0
515.8
556.8
593.8
538.8
563.1
601.3
544.3
570.7
610.4
550.7
5862
629.2
563.6
604.0
651.8
577.8
612.9
662.5
585.5
617.4
667.8
589.3
634.5
688.3
603.9
637.2
691.7
606.2
663.5
724.4
627.7
663.3
723.5
627.9
677.4
740.8
639.8
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
CRUDE MATERIALS
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding
Foods ......................................................................
188.9
204.2
206.3
208.5
211.4
213.2
216.2
221.3
222.8
224.6
230.1
234.3
237.4
241.2
183.7
199.3
202.1
205.2
208.4
212.3
216.3
220.6
223.1
225.3
231.8
237.8
242.0
245.5
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components, excluding intermediate
materials for food manufacturing
and manufactured animal feeds ....................................
216.4
236.7
238.8
241.3
245.4
249.0
252.5
256.8
258.1
260.1
268.1
273.2
275.7
277.4
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
201.0
220.7
219.3
223.0
231.0
223.1
226.6
226.0
226.9
229.8
224.7
237.1
232.3
227.5
Crude materials for further processing
excluding crude foodstuffs and
feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers,
oilseeds, and leaf tobacco ............................................
316.6
372.4
379.2
389.5
391.7
396.9
408.6
417.0
424.1
435.0
453.0
468.8
468.4
469.4
1Data for December 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1978
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
All commodities
All commodities (1957 - 59 - 100) ............................................
209.3
222.1
230.0
243.7
232.0
245.7
233.5
247.7
236.9
251.4
238.3
252.8
242.0
256.7
245.6
260.6
247.2
262.3
249.7
2673
254.7
r270.2
259.8
275.6
261.5
277.5
262.3
278.3
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities ..............................................................
206.6
209.4
244.0
229.0
230.8
231.6
229.0
234.0
232.2
237.5
227.5
240.6
231.8
244.2
230.6
249.0
232.3
250.6
234.6
253.1
231.9
260.3
236.9
265.4
234.9
268.2
229.2
270.7
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01 -4
01-5
01 -6
01-7
01-8
01-9
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
212.5
216.5
182.5
220.1
199.8
193.4
219.7
158.6
215.8
274.9
223.3
234.7
198.3
284.0
209.4
197.8
242.4
185.5
248.3
255.1
245.4
228.2
210.3
280.7
216.3
207.6
242.0
163.8
240.7
264.1
242.8
226.4
218.7
264.0
182.9
219.5
243.8
170.7
258.4
281.0
246.8
226.7
247.4
256.0
183.8
207.6
247.6
167.6
260.1
311.9
238.5
241.7
229.1
240.2
171.9
207.9
250.0
166.8
251.9
310.8
241.0
208.3
224.4
256.4
173.5
211.3
258.5
175.4
240.9
315.9
239.6
218.0
229.0
251.7
162.0
212.9
260.8
155.9
235.6
313.6
240.2
216.5
226.6
248.3
195.5
215.4
262.5
178.7
229.8
318.3
242.5
210.7
227.9
252.5
194.7
222.0
264.0
198.4
230.3
319.4
236.4
218.9
214.6
247.8
195.2
239.0
262.3
165.6
218.1
301.1
242.3
220.5
223.3
257.2
184.6
269.5
263.8
150.4
224.7
304.7
239.3
218.3
217.9
251.8
180.1
254.9
263.1
184.2
215.9
311.5
228.9
223.0
210.8
230.5
171.9
266.9
265.4
153.3
205.1
304.8
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................
202.6
190.3
217.1
188.4
202.6
197.8
200.0
225.3
199.0
197.4
222.3
203.0
253.0
207.1
220.5
208.7
201.5
246.2
219.3
215.6
222.0
204.9
250.4
207.9
221.4
207.6
205.3
241.8
220.2
210.8
220.6
206.3
241.4
2084
221.5
211.1
208.5
243.6
211.1
220.5
223.3
212.4
237.7
209.0
223.6
215.7
214.1
253.2
212.7
234.9
220.5
216.0
225.5
215.2
224.6
218.3
216.5
251.7
217.6
216.2
225.8
218.7
239.9
218.3
225.1
217.2
217.9
253.3
219.0
219.2
224.8
219.8
234.2
218.1
223.4
218.9
218.9
246.0
220.8
224.0
227.1
222.5
239.3
219.3
222.4
222.9
221.2
241.9
222.2
222.4
229.3
223.6
242.8
219.9
222.6
234.4
221.6
235.6
223.1
224.9
228.5
225.4
239.5
221.4
222.8
234.8
224.1
224.9
225.4
219.5
233.1
229.7
239.5
221.2
223.1
287.1
224.7
225.9
223.5
219.8
231.5
231.3
239.2
223.3
223.6
263.6
226.0
222.4
224.7
216.8
228.5
231.5
226.0
227.8
224.5
274.8
227.9
214.7
225.1
205.4
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
1980
1979
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 — 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 - 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................
159.8
109.6
102.4
118.6
103.8
152.4
178.6
166.4
115.1
106.8
124.5
105.9
159.8
188.0
167.2
117.4
107.8
124.7
107.0
159.8
188.0
168.4
118.5
108.6
125.4
107.6
160.2
189.3
169.3
119.5
109.5
128.3
108.2
160.3
189.9
170.5
120.6
110.6
128.7
109.0
161.4
190.5
171.3
123.6
111.7
128.7
109.1
161.6
193.9
172.0
124.7
112.1
129.7
108.9
162.2
196.3
172.8
124.2
112.5
130.7
109.7
163.1
196.5
173.1
124.7
112.7
132.3
109.9
162.6
197.1
174.9
126.9
114.4
132.2
109.8
165.3
199.2
176.5
127.1
117.3
131.7
110.8
167.3
200.0
178.9
129.4
118.9
133.7
113,1
168.3
201.2
180.6
130.7
122.1
136.1
114.5
169.1
201.6
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Hides and skins........................................................................
Leatner....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products.............................................
200.0
360.5
238.6
183.0
177.0
258.9
642.2
393.6
212.0
200.4
269.6
666.9
429.4
216.3
209.1
268.0
611.0
414.6
221.1
212.3
261.9
566.5
385.2
221.8
212.1
257.9
511.9
365.9
225.4
210.9
251.1
465.3
330.0
226.9
210.1
253.9
478.8
343.6
227.5
209.7
248.9
447.6
319.8
227.9
208.4
249.2
443.9
324.8
227.9
208.0
255.3
468.8
347.6
228.5
213.2
251.0
404.8
340.3
228.1
214.9
246.8
348.7
311.0
231.8
217.9
243.6
328.6
297.6
231.9
216.3
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
Coal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels1 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum2 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined3 ....................................................
322.5
4300
411.8
428.7
250.6
300.1
321.0
361.5
447.1
430.1
477.4
260.6
326.2
378.6
377.6
450.8
430.6
507.2
265.9
335.7
400.0
393.7
452.0
430.6
522.3
269.9
356.4
423.6
411.8
452.5
430.6
548.4
274.8
370.6
449.8
432.8
454.2
430.6
572.4
278.8
385.7
482.8
454.8
452.5
430.6
603.4
280.5
422.1
513.7
468.5
454.6
431.2
619.9
283.5
436.7
533.7
476.9
455.1
431.2
637.0
281.9
450.4
545.4
487.9
458.6
431.2
662.4
287.0
470.8
555.2
507.8
458.1
430.6
679.6
290.7
513.6
582.4
533.0
458.7
430.6
719.8
299.5
515.1
620.3
553.5
460.7
430.6
720.3
305.7
522.8
657.9
566.3
463.3
430.6
730.2
310.4
533.9
677.3
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals4 ................................................................
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 ..........................................
198.8
225.6
192.3
212.7
148.1
315.8
198.4
199.8
181.8
215.1
248.2
203.3
231.6
157.5
448.7
209.8
220.6
186.9
218.0
255.6
201.3
236.1
157.7
418.3
210.0
228.5
188.9
219.2
259.3
201.3
239.5
159.0
374.1
209.2
230.1
190.5
225.0
270.4
205.3
246.7
159.2
381.6
211.2
244.5
191.8
228.5
277.1
205.3
247.9
159.6
376.4
215.3
250.1
194.4
230.8
280.0
206.0
252.0
161.0
379.9
219.4
252.0
195.8
234.2
285.7
206.7
253.6
162.8
366.9
224.3
260.0
197.0
236.0
288.4
209.4
256.6
163.0
344.3
229.5
261.4
198.8
238.2
292.3
210.7
256.8
164.4
327.1
232.9
262.5
201.4
245.5
302.6
223.1
258.9
166.5
325.6
238.1
270.0
209.6
247.6
306.7
223.3
262.7
167.7
302.2
242.8
271.1
211.0
251.6
310.7
223.3
266.2
168.9
299.9
256.0
273.9
214.5
258.1
316.8
231.5
271.1
172.8
298.2
258.3
285.6
223.3
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................
174.8
185.3
187.2
179.2
189.6
188.8
201.2
211.6
196.1
201.3
108.0
190.8
202.6
214.2
197.3
202.6
109.5
193.1'
204.8
222.0
198.9
203.5
111.0
195.5
209.5
226.1
206.2
205.4
111.2
198.8
214.6
233.0
211.6
209.4
112.2
200.7
217.1
232.2
215.0
211.9
113.0
203.0
220.3
236.5
218.3
214.7
114.0
204.9
223.7
237.2
223.1
217.1
114.3
205.9
224.3
240.2
223.1
217.7
115.2
208.2
227.1
251.9
224.7
219.1
116.2
210.9
232.2
263.1
231.2
220.4
116.5
212.7
232.3
254.9
231.2
223.4
118.6
214.6
234.6
263.8
231.3
225.9
119.5
08
08-1
08-2
08-‘3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood .................................... ..............................................
Other wood products................................................................
276.0
322.4
235.4
235.6
211.8
304.9
355.4
266.0
2524
235.5
302.8
354.8
261.6
249.3
238.4
299.8
354.8
258.9
238.6
238.5
300.1
355.0
252.5
249.7
237.6
304.7
365.3
249.6
254.3
237.4
309.7
373.9
250.9
257.9
238.0
308.8
370.3
255.6
254.0
237.7
298.9
355.6
252.3
242.2
239.9
290.1
339.5
250.3
237.9
240.5
290.0
336.3
254.1
238.2
242.2
294.8
341.5
258.0
243.7
243.4
295.7
340.6
264.7
240.0
243.1
275.2
310.1
256.6
219.2
241.7
See footnotes at end of table.
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Code
Commodity groups and subgroups
Annual
average
1978
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.5
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
1979
1980
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES - Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products.............. ......................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpjlo........................................................................
Wastepaper ........................................................................
Paper ........................................................................
Paperboard..........................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board......................................................
195.6
195.6
266.5
191.2
206.1
179.6
185.6
187.4
215.0
216.0
303.8
206.5
226.3
197.9
205.8
183.4
216.2
217.2
306.9
206.2
227.2
199.2
207.0
183.3
216.6
217.8
308.3
207.2
227.5
199.8
207.6
180.8
218.3
219.6
320.3
207.9
228.2
201.7
209.0
178.0
2222
223.6
320.6
206.6
229.5
206.4
214,4
179.1
223.0
224.3
320.6
206.7
230.3
209.6
214.6
182.6
227.5
229.0
337.5
206.7
238.7
211.3
217.3
183.5
229.5
231.1
338.0
220.0
241.8
212.8
219.0
183.6
231.7
233.4
338.0
221.2
242.7
215.4
221.9
184.6
237.4
239.1
358.8
222.7
245.5
221.8
227.5
186.0
238.9
240.5
358.5
223.2
247.5
223.4
228.7
191.1
241.6
243.1
359.0
224.9
250.5
225.9
231.3
198.7
246.5
248.0
386.8
242.5
253.6
230.2
234.6
201.3
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products..................................................
Nonferrous metals........................................................
Metal containers ....................................................
Hardware ........................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment..........................................................
Fabricated structural metal products......................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................
227.1
253.6
254.5
207.8
243.4
200.4
199.1
174.4
226.4
212.0
256.0
280.2
' 275.0
259.6
270.1
215.8
212.0
183.8
243.8
227.0
256.2
279.5
276.7
258.2
268.5
216.9
213.8
185.7
247.0
228.5
258.2
283.2
277.3
259.7
267.3
217.1
217.0
185.2
248.2
230.1
260.8
286.8
284.6
262.3
267.2
218.5
219.6
186.0
250.5
231.8
261.8
286.1
284.7
263.1
268.4
220.1
222.4
188.1
252.2
235.6
263.7
285.5
284.8
269.3
268.7
221.5
2230
191.3
253.7
236.7
269.6
289.2
288.3
283.1
279.9
224.0
223.5
192.2
256.3
238.5
271.1
292.0
288.8
284.1
280.9
225.5
225.4
193.1
256.7
238.6
273.6
292.8
289.3
291.9
280.9
226.2
226.5
195.6
257.7
239.1
284.5
297.3
293.7
326.1
283.3
228.4
229.7
197.3
258.8
241.5
288.6
300.2
294.2
336.5
283.3
229.4
236.6
199.9
259.5
242.5
286.3
301.6
295.6
320.9
287.8
230.5
242.4
202.0
262.9
245.1
284.6
307.0
304.1
298.9
301.1
236.9
243.7
204.2
268.2
247.1
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..........................................................
196.1
213.1
232.9
217.0
216.6
223.0
164.9
194.7
209.8
226.4
251.7
235.3
232.6
243.4
175.0
205.4
211.4
228.3
253.7
237.6
234.0
245.1
176.5
207.1
212.4
229.4
254.0
239.1
235.1
246.1
177.6
207.4
214.8
231.2
257.0
241.4
237.1
249.8
179.9
209.7
216.0
233.3
258.5
243.5
238.3
251.0
181.2
209.7
217.7
237.4
258.9
246.4
240.2
251.2
182.5
212.0
220.0
240.0
263.9
249.6
242.8
253.8
184.3
213.6
221.3
243.4
265.4
252.2
244.2
254.9
184.9
214.9
223.4
244.2
268.8
254.6
247.6
256.1
186.6
216.3
227.1
247.6
275.4
258.7
249.6
260.7
190.5
220.0
229.7
249.1
277.5
261.3
252.0
262.9
194.2
220.8
231.9
250.4
278.4
264.1
255.7
265.6
195.9
222.7
235.8
252.8
282.9
269.9
260.0
271.9
198.7
226.8
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture..........................................................
Floor coverings ....................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................
160.4
173.5
201.5
141.6
153.0
90.2
203.1
168.7
182.7
221.7
144.4
158.7
92.3
218.6
169.6
184.8
221.9
146.0
159.3
92.4
219.5
170.2
185.3
221.8
146.5
160.0
92.8
220.6
170.7
185.8
222.7
149.1
161.1
90.2
223.7
171.5
186.2
222.7
150.0
162.2
90.2
226.6
172.7
188.5
222.7
150.4
162.7
90.3
231.0
175.1
190.1
223.3
152.1
163.2
90.3
245.6
176.4
193.0
223.3
152.8
164.5
90.3
248.2
177.9
194.8
225.1
152.9
165.3
90.5
254.4
182.1
195.4
227.1
159.8
166.6
88.5
283.1
183.4
196.5
230.1
159.4
168.7
88.7
284.2
184.6
196.9
232.8
160.7
169.7
88.8
287.6
183.1
198.9
233.5
161.7
170.2
88.9
266.8
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ....................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ..............................................................
Asphalt roofing ..............................................................
Gypsum products ..................................................
Glass containers ............................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals..........................................
222.8
172.8
217.7
214.0
197.2
216.5
292.0
229.1
244.4
275.6
243.4
183.1
242.0
240.5
214.8
228.4
316.4
252.2
250.7
300.0
245.6
183.1
242.5
241.6
215.7
228.5
317.9
248.8
265.2
303.0
246.9
184.0
243.3
243.7
216.5
232.6
323.0
251.3
265.2
302.0
249.5
184.1
245.1
245.2
220.3
240.8
328.4
251.8
265.2
310.5
249.9
184.1
245.9
246.3
222.3
241.7
325.9
252.3
265.2
309.9
254.6
184.5
246.7
248.7
223.7
242.4
333.0
254.9
265.2
336.0
256.2
184.7
248.3
250.1
221.1
244.6
337.5
255.3
265.2
341.2
257.4
185.4
249.6
250.6
221.8
247.4
347.4
256.2
265.2
342.2
259.6
186.4
251.0
253.2
226.7
248.0
346.5
255.0
274.2
342.2
268.0
190.9
263.5
264.9
229.6
249.3
356.5
255.4
274.5
351.6
272.6
190.9
265.2
266.2
231.1
251.9
372.3
262.2
274.6
374.3
276.1
191.4
266.0
268.6
231.5
254.8
387.6
267.6
274.6
386.9
282.8
191.4
270.5
273.0
234.4
262.6
404.7
264.0
294.6
399.5
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)..................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..............................................................
173.5
176.0
252.8
186.8
189.4
271.7
187.2
189.8
271.6
187.5
190.1
274.7
188.4
190.8
280.6
185.9
187.8
280.9
186.6
188.6
281.6
194.2
197.1
286.3
194.8
197.4
288.2
195.6
198.2
289.0
198.3
200.3
295.0
198.1
199.9
299.3
198.8
200.8
301.3
202.6
204.9
303.9
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9
Miscellaneous products.................................... ............
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ..............................................
Notions............................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)..................................
Other miscellaneous products ......................
184.3
163.2
198.5
182.0
145.7
126.4
210.6
201.4
173.2
214.4
190.2
150.1
135.2
246.1
203.3
174.3
214.4
190.6
150.6
137.2
250.6
205.2
174.7
214.4
190.6
151.6
137.9
255.8
207.0
176.9
214.8
192.0
152.0
138.2
261.4
208.9
177.6
221.3
191.9
152.2
139.5
261.4
213.1
179.8
221.9
191.9
154.3
140.7
272.5
2189
181.1
222.1
195.7
157.4
142.9
288.3
221.4
181.2
222.2
195.8
161.2
144.0
293.3
227.4
183.0
226.6
196.8
164.3
144.1
308.8
242.2
190.4
236.3
203.1
166.0
144.2
349.7
261.8
193.2
236.9
203.2
218.7
146.0
375.3
256.2
194.2
237.1
207.2
219.4
146.6
352.3
252.2
195.3
237.6
216.8
212.6
148.9
339.2
1Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
2 Includes only domestic production.
3 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
5 Data for December 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
[1 9 6 7
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
=
1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Annual
average
1978
Apr.
All commodities — less farm products ......................
All foods....................................
Processed foods ..............................................................
Industrial commodities less fuels ..........................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 - 100) ..................
Hosiery ..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear........................................ ........
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ........................................
Pharmaceutical preparations................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products ........................................................
Special metals and metal products ......................................
Fabricated metal products....................................................
Copper and copper products................................................
Machinery and motive products............................................
208.4
206.4
206.7
197.2
108.8
106.3
158.9
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ..........................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors ..............................
Metalworking machinery ......................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . .
Total tractors ......................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts....................
Farm and garden tractors less parts ....................................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts................
Industrial valves ..................................................................
Industrial fittings ..................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels......................................................
Construction materials ........................................................
Commodity grouping
1980
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
228.0
227.7
227.8
214.7
112.3
112.5
167.3
230.1
226.4
227.5
216.0
112.8
112.5
167.7
232.0
223.8
224.7
217.0
113.5
112.7
168.3
235.4
225.4
226.4
219.0
114.0
114.1
168.5
237.5
224.7
224.8
220.3
115.1
113.0
170.8
241.4
228.5
230.8
222.0
115.8
112.7
170.8
245.3
226.9
228.9
225.9
116.4
113.3
171.2
247.0
230.0
231.8
226.9
117.0
114.6
171.6
249.5
232.2
234.2
228.5
117.2
115.3
172.9
255.4
231.1
233.3
234.3
118.8
119.5
175.7
260.5
235.7
238.5
237.5
119.4
119.6
177.8
262.6
234.7
236.8
238.4
121.1
119.9
181.8
264.3
231.7
234.0
239.9
122.1
120.7
182.0
190.5
140.6
204.1
150.0
207.6
150.1
209.5
151.7
215.0
151.7
218.6
152.0
220.9
153.6
224.3
155.6
226.3
155.4
228.7
156.9
235.8
159.2
238.2
160.4
242.1
161.7
248.4
165.9
298.3
209.6
216.2
155.6
190.4
326.4
232.7
232.9
212.1
204.1
325.1
232.4
234.6
199.0
205.3
321.7
233.7
235.7
193.0
206.0
325.3
235.5
237.4
191.9
207.7
333.9
234.9
239.8
197.1
207.2
341.0
236.4
241.1
200.5
208.5
337.3
243.4
244.0
212.2
213.4
323.3
244.5
244.6
213.8
214.3
310.8
246.3
245.3
217.1
215.9
308.6
253.5
247.3
227.2
219.3
314.0
255.7
248.3
258.2
220.6
312.2
254.8
251.3
240.9
222.2
284.5
255.6
256.0
224.7
226.1
214.3
216.3
228.8
179.1
228.7
212.7
216.1
216.7
232.3
232.7
208.1
228.3
230.0
230.8
251.2
192.7
245.4
226.7
228.5
233.0
252.4
255.5
220.3
250.0
231.8
232.1
254.3
195.7
247.7
228.1
230.5
233.6
255.0
259.3
221.6
250.3
232.6
233.8
256.8
195.8
248.2
229.5
231.8
235.7
255.8
260.4
222.8
250.3
235.1
235.8
260.1
202.2
251.2
231.4
233.9
237.6
2570
260.8
222.8
252.3
236.2
238.4
261.7
204.2
253.8
233.7
237.6
239.2
258.2
262.3
224.6
254.3
238.2
243.6
265.6
206.5
256.0
238.4
244.1
243.5
260.1
264.3
224.6
256.6
240.8
246.3
269.5
208.5
261.2
241.0
247.6
245.4
261.8
272.6
239.0
258.5
242.5
250.8
272.7
208.8
262.5
244.9
250.5
251.3
263.1
276.8
239.0
256.7
244.8
251.5
276.0
211.2
266.2
245.8
251.1
252.0
266.1
276.8
239.0
255.4
248.4
255.2
282.1
213.2
271.6
249.3
255.3
255.4
270.1
276.8
239.0
259.1
250.4
256.0
284.8
215.6
273.5
250.4
256.7
255.6
272.2
280.4
244.0
262.2
252.9
257.7
288.1
216.8
274.3
252.1
258.8
257.0
276.1
282.8
244.0
264.6
257.5
259.7
294.3
223.9
278.4
254.2
261.0
259.0
283.5
289.9
258.4
262.1
1 Data for December 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
[1 9 6 7
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
=
100]
1980
Annual
average
1978
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Total durable goods ..........................................................
Total nondurable goods......................................................
204.9
211.9
223.9
234.1
224.7
236.9
225.8
238.8
227.6
243.7
228.0
245.8
230.1
251.1
234.6
253.7
235.3
256.2
237.0
259.3
243.4
263.0
246.4
270.0
246.6
273.1
247.2
274.0
Total manufactures.............................................. ..........
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
204.2
204.7
203.0
223.1
222.7
222.8
225.0
223.8
225.6
226.5
224.6
227.8
229.8
226.6
232.5
231.7
227.2
235.9
235.2
229.4
241.0
239.0
234.0
244.0
240.6
234.6
246.6
242.6
236.2
249.0
248.2
242.2
253.8
252.7
245.0
260.7
254.8
245.2
264.7
256.5
246.2
267.3
Total raw or slightly processed goods ................................
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
234.6
209.6
235.6
266.1
272.5
264.7
268.2
262.9
267.6
269.7
272.8
268.5
274.3
265.4
274.0
272.1
259.8
272.0
276.9
255.7
277.5
278.7
259.2
279.2
281.0
265.8
281.2
285.9
267.8
286.3
287.5
282.7
286.9
295.9
305.2
294.2
295.6
302.5
294.0
290.4
286.0
289.7
Commodity grouping
1979
1Data for December 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
[1 9 6 7
1972
SIC
code
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
=
1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Industry Description
1980
Annual
average
1978
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
121.9
126.6
430.2
358.2
194.6
111.8
131.9
202.1
447.5
407.6
214.1
125.4
131.9
237.5
451.3
427.2
216.0
125.4
136.0
277.0
452.5
444.1
217.0
125.5
136.0
270.8
453.1
457.5
219.3
125.5
138.8
245.8
454.8
476.0
220.1
125.5
138.1
252.1
452.9
508.4
221.0
125.5
140.2
275.0
455.1
522.1
224.0
126.7
140.2
252.1
455.5
533.9
224.7
124.2
142.0
300.0
458.9
551.3
225.6
129.3
142.0
308.3
458.0
583.2
238.0
128.5
147.3
335.4
458.7
597.4
242.1
128.5
147.3
330.0
460.7
600.6
243.6
123.4
152.6
337.5
462.9
612.3
248.4
136.6
216.7
215.2
192.5
205.2
265.0
224.4
199.7
224.7
259.2 '
227.7
203.5
225.3
249.1
217.1
177.8
225.3
243.8
214.7
178.4
227.5
229.3
203.4
169.6
237.9
247.2
211.7
171.2
240.6
238.9
211.9
163.1
240.1
241.5
213.4
188.3
241.7
243.9
220.0
188.5
243.1
240.7
211.5
186.1
241.9
240.1
207.4
178.2
242.8
238.9
209.1
173.5
243.4
225.6
197.7
164.5
252.8
1979
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 - 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 - 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural g as....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 - 100) ..................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meat packing plants ......................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnotes at end of table.
96
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
Industry description
Annual
1979
1978
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING - Continued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72= 100)
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100)
Canned fruits and vegetables........................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100) . . . .
Flour mills (12/71 = 100) ............................
Rice milling..................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............
Raw cane sugar ..........................................
Beet sugar ..................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................
169.6
154.8
193.2
131.3
147.0
207.6
107.3
190.7
188.5
218.0
186.8
167.3
206.2
181.7
158.1
206.8
117.5
197.5
199.3
242.6
185.2
171.0
207.2
182.1
166.7
2068
115.2
195.6
199.7
242.2
185.6
171.5
207.5
181.0
174.6
206.8
118.9
207.0
199.7
242.2
186.3
171.5
209.9
182.0
190 9
206.8
128.1
209.0
202.0
242.9
195.4
175.0
210.5
180.7
176.9
218.7
119.4
216.8
199.4
242.9
200,8
176.1
212.0
170.0
183.5
223.5
120.9
216.7
200.0
242.9
196.8
177.5
212.9
158.2
184.2
227.3
123.6
224.3
204.7
242.9
193.6
179.9
212.2
156.2
184.4
231.8
124.3
223.3
210.6
262.3
193.9
180.1
212.2
157.3
184.1
218.1
125.0
248.4
223.2
262.3
197.1
180.9
213.5
157.6
181.7
217.5
122.3
260.5
223.5
262.3
194.6
181.5
213.5
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.9
374.9
290.6
262.3
197.4
185.0
214.8
156.4
182.6
258.0
121.8
276.0
303.1
281.9
203.6
191.4
216.3
157.5
175.9
260.4
116.8
320.2
295.4
281.9
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills....................................
Soybean oil m ills........................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ..................
Malt ..........................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100)
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) .
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ............
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100)....................
Macaroni and spaghetti ..............................
Cigarettes..................................................
183.1
225.6
287.9
181.5
106.7
136.4
303.8
262.3
176.9
204.6
198.5
244.7
393.1
190.8
109.4
139.2
375.8
220.5
184.7
221.4
192.5
237.7
363.8
190.8
113.6
140.9
382.4
231.7
186.6
221.4
210.4
251.1
335.3
201.4
113.6
142.1
397.6
244.2
188.6
221.4
224.5
262.8
352.0
201.4
113.6
148.5
403.7
271.0
203.5
221.5
214.1
250.0
321.4
201.4
115.7
148.2
391.5
279.2
210.4
228.9
217.9
248.6
333.8
214.9
117.1
154.0
389.2
279.2
210.4
229.1 •
214.9
244.7
333.7
214.9
117.1
154.3
400.1
280.0
210.4
229.2
204.7
242.4
315.2
228.2
118.1
155.6
391.4
287.5
221.5
229.2
205.6
241.9
3007
228.2
118.1
159.8
388.4
287.5
227.7
234.3
182.2
230.2
296.0
244.1
118.6
160.9
390.7
281.3
227.7
245.8
184.3
226.2
292.6
244.1
118.7
164.0
386.6
273.9
227.7
245.9
170.4
219.3
297.3
244.1
118.7
165.7
392.6
274.0
227.7
245.9
154.8
212.6
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
371.5
273.9
230.5
246.1
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
2271
Cigars ........................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ............
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ..........
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)
Knit underwear mills ......................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)..............
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ..............
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100)
Woven carpets and rugs (12/75 = 100)..........
141.4
222.0
181.1
109.0
91.5
164.1
98.5
111.0
101.4
114.7 .
145.4
245.9
191.8
113.3
97.3
172.8
93.2
119.0
105.9
116.0
145.4
245.9
192.7
113.6
97.3
173.1
94.1
120.8
106.3
116.7
145.3
245.9
194.3
114.1
97.6
173.3
95.8
120.9
107.0
117.1
149.8
246.4
196.1
116.2
99.6
172.9
96.1
122.5
107.5
( ')
150.1
246.4
196.5
116.3
98.1
174.0
96.4
123.2
108.2
<1)
150.1
255.8
198.7
116.2
97.5
174.0
96.2
124.0
108.3
(’ )
149.8
260.4
201.1
116.8
98.2
174.3
96.9
126.1
109.3
(’ )
150.4
260.8
201.6
117.3
100.3
174.6
98.4
126.3
109.7
150.4
260.8
201.9
117.2
100.2
178.3
98.6
126.6
109.8
147.9
260.9
203.1
117.6
103.6
182.9
98.£
124.9
109.8
151.6
265.1
206.5
117.!
103.6
184.5
100.0
129.5
109.3
151.8
267.3
209.1
119.6
103.7
186.2
103.1
131.7
110.3
152.7
274.3
210.9
122.4
104.4
186.4
103.6
131.9
111.3
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and rugs..........................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100)
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 =100) .
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)......................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)..........
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats..............
Men’s and boys' shirts and nightwear
Men’s and boys’ underwear....................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100)
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers..........
125.3
167.4
99.2
114.6
99.3
194.3
180.8
180.6
102.3
152.7
127.0
173.1
104.4
120.4
101.7
203.9
191.8
188.7
103.4
162.3
127.7
174.5
106.3
120.4
102.8
204.2
192.4
188.7
103.4
162.3
128.1
175.7
107.5
120.4
105.4
204.5
193.5
188.7
103.4
162.5
127.6
177.5
108.5
120.5
105.4
205.8
194.7
188.7
103.4
162.5
128,6
177.4
109.7
128.1
113.5
206.5
195.9
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.0
179.4
111.2
128.1
115.1
206.5
196.0
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.8
181.2
110.4
128.4
114.9
206.6
196.1
190.0
110.9
162.9
130.1
183.0
109.6
128.4
114.9
206.8
196.6
190.0
110.9
163.4
130.1
183.7
109.2
128.6
114.9
206.7
196.3
194.0
110.9
163.5
135.6
188.3
109.3
128.7
115.0
207.5
198!
200.0
112.4
164.2
135.2
197.4
108.!
129.2
117.2
209.6
196.6
202.2
112.4
174.3
137.5
199.3
111.3
129.3
118.5
209.7
197.3
204.0
112.4
174.4
135.9
203.8
114.8
133.9
123.6
205.7
202.9
204.2
106.3
174.8
Men’s and boys’ work clothing ....................................
195.2
206.5
100.3
105.9
143.3
116.2
106.7
243.9
105.9
107.1
251.6
209.0
100.5.
105.9
143.3
117.5
102.1
243.9
106.9
114.3
250.9
208.9
102.6
106.4
144.2
117.5
102.4
245.4
108.4
114.3
251.3
210.7
102.7
108.3
145.3
117.8
102.4
245.4
111.0
114.3
259.1
210.9
102.8
108.3
145.3
117.8
103.7
245.4
111.4
114.3
265.6
213.4
103.0
108.7
146.7
117.8
105.7
245.4
112.3
114.3
262.2
219.1
105.9
108.8
147.4
117.8
105.7
246.9
112.1
114.3
250.2
219.6
106.8
108.8
147.7
118.8
105.6
246.9
114.3
237.9
225.3
107.0
112.9
149.4
119.7
106.1
257.7
122.1
114.3
234.8
234.1
107.2
113.9
150.1
123.0
105.3
261.7
122.8
114.3
239.6
235.4
107.2
113.!
152.4
124.9
106.0
264.8
123.4
122.3
239.1
240.9
107.6
113.9
152.4
125.4
106.0
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.7
Feb.
Apr.
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Women’s and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 100)..............
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100)
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)
Fabric dress and work gloves......................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100)....................
100.7
132.1
111.7
( 1)
214.4
99.6
106.3
228.9
206.5
99.1
106.6
142.6
116.1
106.7
241.5
105.9
107.1
252.5
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood ( 1 2 / 7 5 = 1 0 0 ) . .
Structural wood members, n.e.c. ( 1 2 / 7 5 = 1 0 0 )
Wood pallets and skids ( 1 2 / 7 5 = 1 0 0 ) ...................
Mobile homes ( 1 2 / 7 4 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
Particleboard ( 1 2 / 7 5 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
Wood household furniture ( 1 2 / 7 1 = 1 0 0 ) .............
Upholstered household furniture ( 1 2 / 7 1 = 1 0 0 ) .
Mattresses and bedsprings..............................
Wood office furniture ......................................
Pulp mills ( 1 2 / 7 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................
150.1
136.2
149.4
126.5
159.7
152.4
143.1
156.3
194.4
178.5
157.3
150.1
166.8
135.3
143.8
162.7
147.4
163.1
214.2
192.5
151.1
150.1
166.7.
137.3
141.6
164.6
149.2
163.2
214.3
195.2
140.7
150.0
167.0
138.0
137,4
164.0
149.4
164.1
214.2
196.6
148.1
150.0
166.9
138.2
134.3
164.5
150.0
164.5
216.8
205.4
153.4
149.9
166.8
139.6
134.7
164.6
150.2
165.8
216.8
205.7
156.0
150.8
167.9
140.7
138.5
168.0
151.6
165.8
216.8
205.8
153.1
158.2
167.9
143.0
139.5
169.3
151.8
168.9
217.6
213.5
142.9
158.2
171.0
144.0
136.8
172.3
153 8
172.3
217.6
213.9
138.9
158.2
170.5
144.1
134.5
174.5
155.7
172.3
221.9
213.9
138.5
158.2
169.8
144.2
136.5
175.7
155.9
169.7
226.2
227.2
143.9
158.2
167.0
146.1
149.0
177.4
156.6
169.7
233.7
227.0
139.8
158.3
166.3
146.7
158.9
177.6
156.6
169.7
233.8
227.4
121.4
158.2
164.6
149.0
161.9
179.7
158.7
171.5
233.9
244.9
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..............................
Sanitary paper products............................................
Sanitary food containers ..........................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100)
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..........................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)................
Synthetic rubber ......................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic....................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100 )........................
115.7
106.4
251.4
170.8
123.0
198.8
103.8
180.5
107.6
96.6
128.5
117.1
270.8
184.1
130.9
203.7
113.8
196.5
113.1
101.5
129.3
118.1
271.7
189.1
132.2
204.9
117.7
200.9
115.9
101.9
129.5
118.5
271.9
189.1
134.0
206.3
118.6
206.6
117.4
101.4
130.2
119.7
276.4
189.6
136.6
209.5
124.9
214.2
118.6
102.8
131.0
121.9
285,9
189.6
136.6
212.2
127.8
223.4
119.8
104.1
131.4
123.4
285.4
191.8
136.6
213.1
128.9
223.8
123.5
106.1
135.1
125.4
286.3
195.8
138.5
214.1
132.9
225.7
123.6
108.0
136.5
126.3
288.4
198.2
138.5
216.7
133.8
228.0
123.2
111.7
136.8
127.6
290.9
199.9
142.3
217.3
134.1
230.4
113.5
139.2
131.4
294.0
202.6
143.2
220.3
138.2
240.0
124.3
114.5
140.0
132.3
303.8
202.6
143.2
224.9
139.3
243.2
124.8
119.4
142.7
134.1
311.6
207.3
143.3
227.1
140.6
243.8
127.1
122.2
145.1
137.0
312.2
212.9
145.7
234.0
145.4
255.7
128.8
123.9
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ..............................
Fertilizers, mixing only ........ ................
Explosives ............................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ............
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100)
Tires and Inner tubes (12/73 = 100) . . . .
166.0
181.9
217.3
119.6
117.1
128.2
154.0
185.2
197.3
227.9
138.8
128.5
138.6
168.0
185.1
197.8
239.0
146.6
130.1
139.3
169.2
184.2
197.8
239.3
155.1
131.2
141.6
170.6
188.9
198.1
240.1
165.5
134.4
143.6
176.8
199.4
205.6
240.7
176.6
134.9
142.7
181.2
204.3
211.1
250.3
188.9
141.6
145.8
184.2
213.2
218.3
250.8
196.4
145.6
147.6
186.9
221.6
227.0
251.7
201.0
145.6
152.2
191.2
223.4
227.1
252.5
204.8
145.7
151.9
191.4
230.0
233.8
253.9
213.6
150.0
156.1
192.7
233.9
240.8
255.5
228.7
157.3
162.4
198.2
235.7
243.1
260.5
242.2
167.8
169.5
198.3
237.3
247.9
271.3
250.4
172.6
176.5 .
198.8
W omen’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
120.1
122.6
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
[ 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
_________________________________ __________ ________________________
Annual
iverage
1978
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 =100) ....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 100) ....................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 = 100)....................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 = 100) ....................................
House slippers (12/75 = 100) ........................................................
Men’s footwear, except athletic (12/75 = 100) ................................
Women’s footwear, except athletic ..................................................
Women's handbags and purses (12/75 = 100) ................................
Rat glass (12/71 = 100) ................................................................
Glass containers ............................................................................
158.7
154.3
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
1980
1979
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.2
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
119.1
122.5
127.1
164.1
111.4
142.7
244.3
169.0
164.5
107.5
182.9
136.3
147.6
190.3
123.0
150.8
250.7
169.5
167.6
109.0
201.3
138.5
152.8
192.2
131.7
150.8
265.2
169.6
169.1
110.7
195.8
142.0
155.4
195.4
131.8
151.8
265.2
171.0
169.2
111.4
181.8
135.0
155.4
198.7
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
169.2
112.3
172.9
135.0
158.2
201.5
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
177.7
113.1
155.2
135.0
160.1
201.6
131.8
152.3
265.2
173.5
178.8
114.3
161.9
135.8
160.4
202.3
131.8
152.6
265.2
173.5
179.2
114.6
150.8
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.3
265.2
173.5
179.5
115.6
153.5
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.9
274.2
173.7
177.6
116.6
164.3
144.8
159.3
205.7
131.9
157.4
274.5
173.8
177.9
116.8
160.8
146.7
157.9
206.4
131.9
157.4
274.5
173.8
182.7
118.7
146.7
146.7
158.4
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.5
173.8
183.7
120.1
140.8
146.8
158.4
213.8
132.1
157.9
294.5
Cement, hydraulic ..........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100)........................................
Clay refractories ............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c............................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures................................................................
Vitreous china food utensils..............................................................
Rne earthenware food utensils ........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............................................
Concrete block and brick ................................................................
251.2
230.8
107.7
221.4
176.3
189.7
268.8
228.1
122.2
202.0
283.1
256.7
113.0
234.4
186.8
201.6
290.6
237.1
129.2
230.8
283.2
258.3
113.0
234.6
186.8
204.6
290.6
237.1
129.2
232.6
283.7
259.7
113.0
236.9
187.8
206.4
290.6
236.4
129.0
232.7
285.4
261.0
120.2
246.5
188.2
210.1
297.5
238.8
131.0
232.7
285.4
263.3
120.2
246.7
192.1
212.4
297.5
238.8
131.0
235.7
285.4
265.9
120.2
247.1
192.1
213.1
298.0
246.0
133.3
237.8
285.4
261.3
120.2
251.0
192.8
214.5
298.0
246.0
133.3
240.0
285.5
261.3
120.2
252.9
192.3
215.7
305.4
248.4
135.5
240.0
286.2
262.7
130.3
254.0
196.5
217.3
308.2
294.3
150.1
240.2
302.8
268.3
130.4
256.5
196.7
219.2
307.9
290.3
148.8
249.5
303.2
270.4
130.4
260.9
198.6
224.6
307.9
290.3
148.8
250.6
303.2
271.9
130.4
265.3
196.7
226.7
308.2
294.0
150.0
252.3
309.8
276.4
130.4
275.4
200.6
227.6
313.4
294.8
151.3
259.3
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete ....................................................................
Lime (12/75 = 100)........................................................................
Gypsum products............................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100) ................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ..........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes ..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes......................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100) ..................................................
217.6
129.5
229.5
172.3
133.6
262.3
94.8
241.0
255.2
233.5
244.5
139.9
252.7
184.0
140.5
283.5
106.8
259.1
265.0
253.9
245.2
139.8
249.4
185.1
140.5
285.3
111.7
259.8
264.5
253.3
247.5
140.1
251.9
185.8
143.9
285.8
112.3
261.3
264.5
254.5
249.6
141.8
252.3
187.7
148.1
292.8
116.5
270.6
271.9
253.9
250.5
142.9
252.8
188.6
149.1
293.0
116.5
270.8
271.3
253.8
252.4
144.2
255.4
190.4
149.7
293.2
116.0
270.9
271.3
254.8
254.0
144.6
255.9
195.1
150.1
296.4
116.2
271.7
272.7
267.1
254.6
144.3
256.8
195.3
152.3
297.1
117.5
273.4
273.1
269.6
257.0
144.6
255.6
196.5
152.3
297.7
117.6
273.9
273.2
269.7
270.1
149.6
255.9
199.2
152.6
302.3
117.8
274.2
280.9
272.3
271.9
153.7
262.8
202.2
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.2
281.2
275.4
274.9
155.5
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.6
275.7
278.9
156.7
264.6
210.1
157.4
311.9
118.7
285.9
286.9
278.4
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary zinc....................................................................................
Primary aluminum ..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing..............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)................................
Metal cans ....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100)......................................
Metal sanitary ware ........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ..............................................
223.2
217.4
170.2
137.6
134.3
119.7
238.5
147.9
209.1
118.8
274.2
235.8
220.1
148.0
146.1
129.6
264.4
159.6
220.8
126.2
274.5
237.4
215.6
148.7
147.5
131.5
263.8
161.9
222.2
127.0
275.2
238.5
211.7
148.8
147.6
131.6
262.2
162.5
224.1
127.1
281.4
244.9
211.2
149.6
150.3
132.7
262.2
162.8
226.4
127.8
265.5
247.4
213.6
149.8
151.9
133.1
262.9
166.3
228.9
130.9
264.2
248.2
216.7
150.0
151.9
133.5
263.5
166.4
229.2
131.6
265.2
256.0
226.3
150.7
155.2
136.9
273.8
167.1
230.1
132.4
257.8
263.2
222.6
151.3
157.4
139.9
274.6
169.5
231.7
132.4
265.7
266.6
225.0
151.7
158.0
140.5
274.7
169.8
232.9
132.4
266.1
267.0
231.1
153.4
158.8
140.5
276.6
173.0
237.3
132.8
272.4
267.0
253.2
153.5
158.9
140.8
276.6
173.6
242.1
132.8
279.6
267.8
238.7
155.5
160.8
141.2
279.5
175.4
243.1
133.0
274.2
276.0
230.1
158.0
167.6
143.8
295.1
177.8
245.5
133.8
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100)............................................
Steel springs, except w ire................................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 100) ............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings..............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c......................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 = 100)............................................
Mining machinery (12/72 = 100) ....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment ....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways ......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100)............................
119.5
204.6
185.5
265.5
220.1
114.0
209.5
246.2
204.2
213.6
128.3
218.1
201.4
284.9
237.1
123.0
228.0
283.5
213.8
237.9
130.4
218.7
203.6
288.2
239.0
123.9
228.4
288.4
213.6
238.8
131.4
220.5
204.2
290.7
239.2
124.0
226.4
290.0
214.2
240.6
134.0
221.6
205.3
294.8
242.3
125.6
231.2
292.0
215.4
244.6
134.0
222.1
206.2
294.8
245.7
126.3
231.5
293.3
214.6
245.1
134.0
222.8
207.5
294.9
251.8
126.5
232.7
296.8
219.1
247.9
133.2
223.7
210.4
297.3
254.2
128.9
233.1
300.5
219.4
249.8
133.6
224.1
212.5
297.4
254.9
129.4
235.4
302.8
220.6
253.7
143.2
225.6
214.3
297.4
254.9
130.9
236.4
309.1
220.9
256.7
147.9
226.0
216.5
301.7
259.2
134.2
243.1
314.0
223.9
266.0
147.9
226.5
218.8
301.8
260.5
135.3
244.2
315.9
225.4
259.2
147.3
228.4
221.3
303.5
264.2
135.8
244.8
319.0
228.8
271.2
146.3
228.9
227.3
306.8
269.2
138.0
254.1
329.5
232.6
276.1
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
111.1
179.9
168.1
179.7
128.2
158.3
178.1
114.8
109.6
141.0
117.7
191.6
181.0
191.3
137.6
168.5
187.3
120.3
111.8
146.9
117.8
191.7
183.2
192.8
138.6
168.0
191.5
120.7
111.9
147.0
118.7
192.6
184.5
193.7
138.7
168.5
191.9
120.9
112.6
147.2
119.2
195.0
185.9
194.8
139.2
167.9
193.5
122.0
113.6
148.8
120.2
197.5
187.7
195.4
139.6
167.6
194.1
123.4
114.3
149.9
120.4
198.2
190.0
195.4
140.7
168.4
195.1
124.3
115.1
150.6
122.0
199.3
192.6
195.7
142.8
171.2
196.9
124.4
115.1
150.9
122.8
200.6
192.7
199.5
145.1
170.4
198.6
125.9
115.7
152.3
124.4
200.6
192.9
201.0
145.3
171.6
200.3
126.3
116.3
153.5
126.2
202.7
201.7
200.9
147.3
173.0
200.6
128.6
116.6
155.2
126.5
205.2
202.0
201.9
147.6
176.1
202.6
129.1
118.0
156.5
127.3
207.0
205.5
204.1
148.5
177.4
205.3
129.3
118.2
158.2
128.6
212.5
212.7
205.1
152.5
180.0
207.3
129.6
119.0
159.0
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
135.5
111.2
214.7
185,8
112.7
114.6
200.9
85.3
111.5
118.3
140.4
121.1
229.8
200.4
124.3
123.5
211.2
84.7
119.8
123.2
141.2
121.1
229.8
202.6
126.8
124.0
211.3
84.7
120.1
123.2
141.5
121.1
229.7
203.0
127.4
124.6
226.4
84.7
122.1
123.2
141.6
121.8
240.8
203.3
127.9
127.6
226.5
84.2
126.7
124.0
141.7
122.2
244.3
207.7
127.9
128.2
226.6
84.3
129.3
124.6
141.9
122.2
242.7
209.1
130.5
128.5
227.2
84.7
134.1
125.2
144.5
122.6
244.8
210.5
13.1.4
129.6
227.2
85.1
133.9
126.6
144.7
122.6
238.7
211.9
131.6
129.8
227.4
85.6
135.8
126.7
145.8
122.6
240.8
215.0
131.9
130.5
227.7
86.4
138.0
127.3
146.2
122.0
248.3
215.2
133.9
133.0
229.1
86.6
147.7
127.4
149.6
128.6
252.2
217.5
134.8
133.2
229.4
88.0
149.1
128.8
149.9
128.6
251.8
217.5
136.6
134.5
229.5
88.9
149.0
131.8
150.2
128.6
252.4
219.7
138.4
138.6
253.9
897
155.6
131.9
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
118.9
162.0
115.9
103.2
172.3
105.1
113.0
116.3
125.8
167.9
124.5
109.3
179.6
119.6
121.0
120.7
126.6
172.1
124.6
109.3
182.3
120.2
121.7
123.7
126.9
172.7
124.8
109.3
183.1
116.7
121.7
124.5
133.4
172.8
125.1
111.8
183.5
117.1
123.3
128.3
134.1
172.8
122.1
112.6
184.4
118.3
123.8
128.3
137.6
172.8
122.5
112.6
185.1
118.7
124 8
128.3
138.9
173.1
130.2
112.9
186.2
123.1
123.1
131.0
140.7
173.1
130.1
112.9
186.3
125.2
124 8
134.1
142.1
174.1
130.4
113.0
186.6
125.2
124.8
134.1
143.6
174.2
132.5
121.2
195.5
126.5
128.3
138.6
144.9
176.5
131.4
123.7
202.0
128.1
128.3
138.7
145.1
176.6
131.6
123.9
202.0
128.3
128.3
138.7
147.3
176.8
135.0
126.0
202.6
131.5
128.1
143.2
Dolls (12/75 - 100)
........................................................
1 N0t gvQjijibio
2Data for December 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
P roductivity
data are c o m p ile d b y th e B ureau o f L ab or
S ta tistic s from e sta b lish m e n t d ata an d from e stim a te s o f c o m
p en sa tio n a n d o u tp u t su p p lied b y th e U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f
C o m m erce a n d th e F ed eral R eserv e B oard.
Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series — private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , October 1976, pages 40-42.
Indexes of productivity and related data, selected years, 1950-79
[1967 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . .
Unit labor co st........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . .
Unit labor co st........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . ,
Unit labor c o s t........................
Unit npnlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour .. .
Unit labor c o st........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
1950
1955
1960
r 61.2
r 42.6
r 59.2
69.6
r 73.1
70.8
r70.6
r 56.1
r69.9
79.4
r80.4
79.8
'67.2
r 45.6
r63.3
r 68.0
r 71.4
69.1
1965
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
'79.0
r 72.2
r 81.4
r 91.4
r 85.4
89.3
r 95.1
r 104.4
88.7 . r 123.3
r 93.9
r 106.0
93.3
118.2
95.9
105,8
94.2
113.9
'111.5
'139.8
'111.6
125.4
'118.9
123.2
113.6
'151.3
113.6
'133.2
124.9
130.3
'110.2
'165.2
'111.8
149.8
'130.3
143.1
'112.6
' 181.7
'112.7
161.3
'150.3
157.5
'116.6
'197,6
'115.9
'169.5
'157.9
165.5
'118.7
'213.3
'117.5
'179.7
'165.5
174.8
'119.3
'231.5
'118.5
194.0
174.3
187.2
'118.3
'253.2
'116.4
214.0
'184 4
203.8
74.6
r59.0
r73.6
79.1
80.1
79.4
r81.2
r 74.5
r 84.1
91.7
'84.4
89.2
r96.0
89.4
94.6
93.2
95.8
94,1
'103.2
'121.9
'104.8
118.1
106.0
114.0
110.1
138.4
'110.5
125.7
'117.4
122.9
112.0
149.2
112.1
133.2
117.8
127.9
'108.6
'163.0
' 110.4
'150.1
124.7
141.4
'110.7
'179.3
'111.2
'161.9
' 145.9
156.4
'114.6
' 194.2
'113.9
'169.5
156.0
164.8
'116.4
'209.6
'115.5
180.1
'163.8
174.5
'117.0
'227.6
'116.5
194.6
169.9
186.1
'115.7
'248.0
'114.1
'214.4
'178.6
'202.1
n
n
( 1)
<’ )
O
O
(’ )
n
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
<’ )
'80.6
[76.0
165./
94.3
90.8
93.1
r 96.9
r 90.1
95.3
93.0
100.1
95.5
'103.7
'121.8
'104.7
117.4
103.5
112.5
'110.6
136.7
109.1
123.7
114.8
120.5
' 112.9
'147.6
'110.9
130.7
116.8
125.8
'108.7
'161.7
'109.5
148.8
124.8
140.2
'112.2
'177.9
'110.4
158.6
148.1
154.9
'115.8
'192.7
'113.0
166.4
156.8
163.0
'117.0
'208.0
' 114.6
177.7
164.4
173.0
'118.1
'225.2
'115.3
190.6
170.6
183.5
'117.7
'245.2
'112.8'208.4
'179.5
'198.1
r 65.8
' 45.6
’ 63.3
69.4
r 82.3
73.3
r75.0
r 61.2
r 76.3
81.6
88.6
83.8
'79.8
r 78.0
r 88.0
97.7
'92.3
96.1
r 98.4
r 91.1
r 96.4
92.6
103.3
95.9
'105.0
'122.3
'105.1
116.5
96.2
110.3
115.7
136.6
109.0
118.1
107.4
114.8
'118.9
'146.5
' 110.1
123.2
106.4
118.0
'113.0
'161.7
'109.5
143.1
105.6
131.6
'118.8
'181.1
'112.3
152.4
128.4
145.1
'124.0
'196.1
115.0
158.2
139.6
152.5
'127.7
'212.7
'117.2
166.6
147.4
160.7
'128.3
'223.0
'117.8
179.4
152.4
171.1
'130.3
'251.3
' 115.6
'192.9
C)
(’ )
' Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
99
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.
Annual percent change in productivity and related data, 1969-79
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1950-79
1960-79
0.2
r6.9
1.4
6.6
1.0
4.7
0.7
'7.2
'1.2
6.4
1.2
4.7
3.3
6.7
'2.3
3.3
6.8
4.4
'3.4
6.2
'2.8
2.8
'5.3
3.6
1.9
8.2
1.9
6.2
5.0
5.8
-3.0
'9.2
-1.6
12.5
4.4
9.8
2.1
'10.0
'.8
7.7
15.3
10.1
3.5
8.8
2.8
5.0
5.1
5.0
'1.8
8.0
'1.4
6.0
4.8
5.6
0.5
8.5
0.8
8.0
5.3
7.1
-0.9
9.3
-1.7
10.3
5.8
8.9
p2.5
»5.9
p2.5
p3.3
p3.0
»3.2
p2.1
p6.9
»2.0
»4.7
»4.2
p4.5
' -.2
'6.4
'1.0
6.7
.4
4.5
'.2
'6.8'.8
6.5
1.6
4.9
6.7
2.3
3.5
6.7
4.5
'3.6
'6.4
'3.0
'2.7
3.8
3.1
1.7
7.8
1.5
6.0
.3
4.1
-3.1
'9.2
' —1.6
12.7
5.9
10.5
'2.0
'10.0
'.8
7.9
'17.0
10.6
3.5
8.3
2.4
4.7
6.9
5.4
'1.5
7.9
1.4
6.3
5.0
5.9
.5
8.6
.9
8.0
3.7
6.6
-1.1
'9.0
-2.1
10.2
'5.1
8.6
p2.1
p5.6
p2.2
p3.4
p2.9
p3.3
p1.9
»6.7
»1.7
p4.7
p4.0
»4.5
.4
6.8
1.3
6.3
0
4.1
'- . 0
'6.8
'.8
6.8
.5
4.6
'3.3
6.2
1.8
2.7
7.3
4.2
3.3
'5.7
2.4
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.1
7.9
1.6
5.7
1.8
4.4
'- 3 .7
'9.6
-1.3
13.8
6.8
11.5
3.2
10.0
.8
6.6
18.7
10.5
3.2
8.3
2.4
4.9
5.8
5.2
1.1
7.9
1.4
6.8
4.9
6.1
1.0
8.3
.6
7.3
3.8
6.1
-.4
8.9
-2.1
9.3
'5.2
'7.9
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
n
n
p1.9
»6.5
»1.6
»4.5
p3.6
»4.2
'1.3
'6.6
'1.2
5.2
-4.4
2.3
'- .1
'7.1
'1.1
7.2
-3.2
4.2
'5.2
'6.2
'1.9
.9
9.2
3.1
'4.8
'5.2
'1.8
.4
2.3
1.0
'2.8
7.2
.9
4.3
-1.0
2.8
-5.0
'10.4
-.5
16.1
-.7
11.5
'5.1
'12.0
'2.6
6.6
21.6
10.2
4.4
8.3
2.4
3.8
8.8
5.1
'3.0
'8.5
'1.9
5.3
5.5
5.4
'.5
'8.2
'.5
7.7
3.4
6.5
'1.5
9.2
-1.9
'7.6
(’ )
(’ )
2.6
p5.5
p2.1
p2.9
»1.9
p2.6
»2.5
»6.5
1.6
p3.8
»2.4
»3.4
IV
o
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour. . . .
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour. . . .
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour —
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
1969
CO
Annual rate
of change
'
1Not available.
33.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
5 [1967=100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hou r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour for all persons............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available.
100
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Ann ual
aver age
1980
1979
1978
1977
I
1978
1979
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
'119.3
'231.5
'118.5
194.0
174.3
187.2
'118.3
'253.2
' 116.4
214.0
'184.4
203.8
'119.6
'215.6
'117.8
180.2
167.9
176.0
'119.0
'218.8
117.9
'183.9
'168.5
178.6
'118.5
'224.5
'118.8
'189.4
164.8
180.9
'119.1
'228.8
'118.3
'192.1
173.9
185.8
'119.8
'233.9
'118.3
'195.2
177.0
188.9
'119.9
' 238.7
'118.1
'199.0
'181.2
192.9
'119.0
'245.1
118.0
'205.9
180.8
197.2
'118.4
'250.6
'117.1
'211.7
'183.6
202.0
'118.0
'256.0
'115.9
'217.0
'185.5
206.1
'117.9
'260.6
'114.3
'221.1
'188.2
'209.7
118.0»
267.3»
112.8»
226.5»
192.5»
214.7»
'117.0
'227.6
'116.5
' 194.6
169.9
186.1
'115.7
'248.0
'114.1
'214.4
'178.6
'202.1
'116.9
'211.5
115.6
'181.0
167.1
176.2
'116.4
'215.1
115.9
'184.8
'165.9
178.3
'116.1
'220.9
'116.9
190.2
161.1
180.2
'116.7
'225.0
'116.3
'192.8
169.1
184.7
'117.5
'229.8
116.2
195.6
173.0
187.8
'117.7
'234.7
'116.1
'199.4
'176.0
191.4
'116.8
240.5
115.8
206.0
174.3
195.1
'115.5
'245.1
'114.6
'212.2
177.6
200.3
'115.1
'250.2
'113.3
217.3
'180.4
204.7
'115.4
255.9
'112.3
221.8
'182.5
'208.4
115.3»
261.9»
110.5»
227.2»
188.4»
213.9»
'118.1
'225.2
'115.3
193.3
190.6
201.8
127.2
183.5
'117.7
'245.2
'112.8
210.3
208.4
216.6
128.4
'198.1
'117.7
'209.9
'114.7
182.4
178.4
194.8
130.9
174.7
'116.9
'213.2
'114.9
186.3
182.3
198.7
122.2
176.8
'116.9
'218.9
'115.8
190.8
187.3
201.5
107.1
178.3
'118.1
'222.8
'115.2
191.6
188.7
200.8
129.2
182.3
'118.7
'227.3
115.0
194.0
191.5
201.6
132.7
184.9
'119.0
231.7
'114.6
196.8
194.8
203.1
138.7
188.2
'118.4
'237.9
'114.6
202.3
201.0
206.5
130.3
191.6
'117.5
'242.5
'113.3
208.0
206.4
213.2
129.2
196.3
'117.4
'247.6
'112.1
213.2
210.8
220.5
127.5
200.4
117.3»
252.6»
110.8»
218.0»
215.3»
226.1 »
124.0»
204.0»
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(O
n
(’ )
( 1)
'128.3
'230.2
'117.8
179.4
'130.3
'251.3
'115.6
192.4
'128.9
'214.8
'117.4
166.7
'128.3
'218.3
'117.6
170.2
'126.2
'223.8
'118.4
'177.4
'127.7
'227.3
'117.5
'178.0
'129.6
'232.0
'117.4
179.1
'130.1
'237.2
'117.3
'182.4
'129.2
'243.2
'117.1
'188.2
130.0
'248.9
'116.3
'191.4
'131.0
'253.7
'114.9
'193.7
130.6
'259.0
'113.6
'198.3
130.0»
265.1 »
111.8»
204.0»
34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor co st............................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............
Implicit price deflator ..........................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..............
Compensation per hour ............
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor co st..................
Unit nonlabor payments ................
Implicit price deflator ................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees . . . .
Compensation per hour ............
Real compensation per hour................
Total unit costs ......................
Unit labor costs ........................
Unit nonlabor costs....................
Unit profits......................
Implicit price deflator ......................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ..................
Compensation per hour ................
Real compensation per hour..................
Unit labor co st..............
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
III 1978
to
IV 1978
IV 1978
to
11979
11979
to
I11979
I11979
to
III 1979
III 1979
to
IV 1979
IV 1979
to
11980»
IV 1977
to
IV 1978
11978
to
I 1979
I11978
to
II 1979
III 1978
to
III 1979
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
11979
to
11980»
0.3
8.5
' -.9
8.1
9.9
8.7
-3.0
11.1
'- .1
14.6
-1.0
9.3
-2.2
9.3
r -3.1
11.8
r6.6
10.1
r —1.4
8.8
' -4.0
10.3
r4.2
8.3
' -0.3
7.4
-5.4
7.8
'5.9
'7.2
0.6»
10.7»
-5.3»
10.0»
9.4»
9.8»
0.8
9.1
.1
8.3
7.5
8.0
0.4
9.2
-.6
8.7
9.7
9.0
-0.6
9.5
-1.0
10.2
5.6
8.7
-1.6
9.4
-2.0
11.2
4.8
9.1
' —1.7
'9.2
-3.2
11.1
'3.9
'8.7
-0.8»
9.1»
-4.5»
10.0»
6.5»
8.9»
.8
8.8
'- . 6
8.0
7.3
7.8
-3.2
10.4
r -.7
14.0
' -3.9
8.1
-4.1
7.9
' -4.4
12.5
7.8
11.0
-1.4
8.5
'- 4 .3
10.1
6.6
9.0
'.7
9.4
' -3.6
8.6
'4.6
'7.4
-0.2»
9.7»
-6.2»
9.9»
13.6»
11.0»
1.1
9.1
.1
7.9
6.1
7.3
.5
8.9
'- . 9
8.3
8.2
8.3
-1.0
9.0
-1.5
10.1
5.0
8.5
-2.0
8.9
-2.5
11.1
4.3
9.0
-2.0
9.0
-3.3
11.3
'3.7
'8.9
-1.2»
8.9»
-4.6»
10.3»
8.1»
9.6»
1.1
8.1
-1.3
5.9
6.9
2.9
19.5
7.3
-2.1
11.0
-.1
11.7
13.4
6.8
-22.1
7.6
' -2.9
8.0
-4.3
11.8
11.2
13.5
-3.4
10.2
-0.2
8.6
-4.3
10.2
8.8
14.6
-5.3
8.6
-0.5 p
8.3 p
-4.6 p
9.3»
8.9 p
10.6 p
10.4»
7.3 p
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
V)
( 1)
(’ )
( ')
1.8
8.7
-.2
5.6
6.8
2.2
13.6
6.4
1.3
8.7
-1.1
6.1
7.3
2.5
21.7
7.5
-.5
8.9
-1.6
8.6
9.4
6.2
0
7.7
-1.0
8.9
-2.5
9.9
10.1
9.4
-3.9
8.4
-1.4»
9.0»
3.3»
10.8»
10.6»
11.3»
-10.6»
8.4»
( 1)
(’ )
n
<1)
<1)
(M
n
n
r 1.7
9.3
' -.2
r7.5
' -2.7
'10.4
' -.7
r 13.4
r2.5
9.8
' -2.7
r7.1
'3.2
'8.0
'- 4 .8
'4.7
-1.3
'8.6
-4.4
'10.0
-1.9»
9.8»
-6.1 »
11.9»
'1.4
8.7
-.3
'7.2
'2.4
8.6
-1.1
'6.1
'1.8
9.5
' —1.1
'7.5
'1.1
'9.3
-2.1
'8.1
'0.4
9.2
'- 3 .2
'8.8
0.6»
9.0»
-4.5»
8.4»
(')
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA
M ajo r
collective
c o n tr a cts o n
b a r g a in in g
data
are o b ta in e d
from
file at th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics, d irect
c o n ta c t w ith th e parties, an d from seco n d a ry sou rces. A d d i
tio n a l deta il is p u b lish ed in
Current Wage Developments, a
m o n th ly p erio d ica l o f th e B ureau. D a ta on w ork sto p p a g e s
are b a sed o n co n fid en tia l r esp o n ses to q u estio n n a ires m a iled
b y th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s to p arties in v o lv ed in w ork
sto p p a g e s. S to p p a g e s in itia lly c o m e to th e a tten tio n o f th e
B ureau from rep o rts o f F ed eral an d S tate m ed ia tio n a gen cies,
n ew sp a p ers, a n d u n io n an d in d u stry p u b lica tio n s.
Definitions
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
Work stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Quarterly average
Annual average
1975
1978
1977
1976
1980 p
1979
1978
Sector and measure
1979
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................
11.4
8.1
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
7.2
5.9
6.1
5.2
2.8
5.3
10.5
7.8
9.0
6.1
8.5
6.0
8.6
6.4
Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
10.2
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
7.5
6.4
7.4
5.9
5.7
6.6
8.9
7.2
6.8
5.1
6.3
5.3
7.8
6.3
Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
9.8
8.0
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
8.4
7.2
9.5
7.4
8.7
7.7
9.7
8.1
6.3
4.7
5.6
4.2
7.0
5.6
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
11.9
8.0
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
7.4
5.9
6.4
5.1
3.2
5.6
8.5
5.8
9.4
6.5
7.8
7.4
9.1
7.1
Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.0
7.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
7.0
7.2
8.4
7.1
9.7
8.2
8.7
8.3
9.7
8.5
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.3
36. Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
_________
Average quarterly changes
Average annual changes
1979
Sector and measure
Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries
Change resulting from —
Current settlement ..............................
Prior settlement ..................................
Escalator provision ..............................
Manufacturing .. .
Nonmanufacturing
2.8
3.7
2.2
8.5
8.9
3.2
3.2
1.6
8.5
7.7
3.0
3.2
1.7
8.4
7.6
NOTE: because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual Items may not equal totals.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.0
3.7
2.4
8.6
7.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
9.6
8.8
.5
1.2
1.0
2.9
2.5
1.0
.5
.5
.4
.7
.3
.5
2.3
2.4
2.8
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.1
.6
37.
W o r k s to p p a g e s , 1 9 4 7 t o d a te
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Days idle
(thousands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
............................
......................
............................
......................................
3.693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2,170
1.960
3,030
2,410
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
......................
....................................
..............................
................................
............................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
........................
....................................
..................................
....................................
......................
3,825
3,673
3.694
3,708
3 333
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
......................
........................
..................................
............................
........................
3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..............................
....................................
..............................
................................
................................
4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716
1.960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..............................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746
5,648
5,506
4,230
2,420
2,040
1,623
37,859
35,822
.19
.17
.17
April....................
M ay..................................
June ..........................
512
556
536
426
132
137
5,126
3,682
2,989
.27
.19
.16
J u ly ......................................
August..............................
September............................
471
463
464
168
119
135
3,001
3,152
2,319
.16
.15
13
October....................................
November ........................
December ................
443
257
134
230
91
42
2,968
2,720
1,976
.15
.15
.11
January n ....................
February p ....................................
352
354
396
425
3,142
3,025
2,705
2,786
.16
17
.14
.14
1976 ............................
1977 ..............................
1978 ............................
1979:
1980:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
441
590
631
663
207
114
123
116
50,500
59,100
.30
.28
.44
.33
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
.24
.12
.18
.50
.14
18,600
292
332
310
231
.11
.13
.11
.15
.15
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
i
How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
A b o u t 1 4 0 b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s p u b lis h e d e a ch y e a r a r e f o r s a le b y re g io n a l
O r d e r f r o m (a n d m a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to ) S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n , D .C .
2 0 4 0 2 . F o r fo r e ig n su b scrip tio n s, a d d 2 5 p e rc e n t.
o ffices o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s (see in s id e f r o n t c o ver) a n d b y th e S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to
th e S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . A m o n g th e b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s c u r r e n tly
in p r in t a r e th ese:
Monthly Labor Review. T h e o ld e st a n d m o st
a u th o rita tiv e g o v e rn m en t research jo u r n a l in
e c o n o m ic s a n d th e so c ia l scien ces. C u rren t
sta tistic s, a n a ly sis, d e v e lo p m e n ts in in d u strial
rela tio n s, c o u rt d e c isio n s, b o o k review s. $18
a year, sin g le c o p y , $ 2 .5 0 .
Employment and Earnings. A co m p reh en siv e
m o n th ly rep ort o n e m p lo y m en t, h o u rs, earn
in g s, a n d la b o r tu rn over b y in d u stry , area,
o c cu p a tio n , et cetera $ 2 2 a year, sin g le c o p y
$ 2 .7 5 .
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A p o p u lar
p erio d ica l d e sig n e d to h elp h ig h s c h o o l stu
d e n ts a n d g u id a n ce c o u n selo r s a ssess career
o p p o rtu n ities. $6 for fou r issu es, sin g le c o p y
$ 1 .7 5 .
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1978-79 Edition. B u lletin 1955. A
u sefu l resou rce su p p ly in g v a lu a b le a ssista n c e to all p e r so n s seek in g sa tis
fy in g a n d p r o d u ctiv e e m p lo y m en t. $8, pap erback; $11 h ard cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics 1978. B u lletin 2 0 0 0 . A 6 0 4 -p a g e v o l
u m e o f h isto rica l d a ta o n th e m a jo r B L S sta tistic a l series. $9 .5 0 .
Handbook of Methods. B u lletin 1910. B rief te ch n ica l a c c o u n t o f ea ch
m a jo r sta tistic a l p rogram o f th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics. $ 3 .5 0 .
BLS Measures of Compensation. B u lletin 1941. An in tr o d u c tio n to th e
va rio u s m ea su res o f e m p lo y ee c o m p e n sa tio n ; d escrib es ea ch series, th e
m a n n er in w h ich it is d e v e lo p ed , its u ses a n d lim ita tio n s. $ 2 .7 5 .
Occupational Projections and Training Data. B u lletin 2020. P resen ts
b o th gen eral a n d d e ta ile d in fo r m a tio n o n th e rela tio n sh ip b etw een o c c u
p a tio n a l req u irem en ts a n d train in g n eed s. (U p d a te s B u lletin 1918
p u b lish e d in 1976.)
$3.25.
Technological Change and its Labor Impact in Five Energy Industries.
B u lletin 20 0 5 . A 6 4 -p a g e stu d y a p p raisin g m a jo r te c h n o lo g ic a l ch a n g e
a n d d isc u ssin g th e im p a c t o f th e se c h a n g e s o n p ro d u ctiv ity a n d o c c u p a
tio n s ov er th e n e x t 5 to 10 years. $2 .4 0 .
Current Wage Developments. A m o n th ly re
p o rt a b o u t c o lle c tiv e b arg a in in g se ttlem e n ts
a n d u n ila tera l m a n a g e m en t d e c isio n s a b o u t
w a g e s a n d benefits; sta tistic a l su m m aries.
$ 1 2 a year, sin g le c o p y $1 .3 5 .
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A c o m
p reh en siv e m o n th ly rep ort o n p rice m o v e
m e n ts o f b o th farm a n d in d u stria l c o m m o d i
ties, b y in d u str y a n d sta g e o f p ro cessin g . $17
a year, sin g le c o p y $2 .2 5 .
CPI Detailed Report. A m o n th ly p eriod ical
fea tu rin g d eta iled d a ta a n d ch a rts o n th e
C o n su m er P rice In d ex . $15 a year, sin g le
c o p y $ 2 .2 5 .
PRESS RELEASES
T h e B u rea u ’s sta tistic a l series are m a d e a v a il
a b le to n e w s m ed ia th ro u g h press releases is
su ed in W a sh in g to n . M a n y o f th e releases
a lso are a v a ila b le to th e p u b lic u p o n req u est.
W rite: B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, W a sh in g
to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
B L S Publications, 1972-77. B u lletin 1990. A n u m erical listin g a n d su b
je c t in d ex o f b u lle tin s a n d rep orts issu ed b y th e B ureau from 1972
th r o u g h 1977, su p p le m en tin g B u lletin 1749, co v er in g 1 8 8 6 - 1 9 7 1 . $1 .8 0 .
International Comparisons of Unemployment. B u lletin 1979. B rin g s t o
geth er all o f th e B u reau ’s w ork o n in tern a tio n a l u n em p lo y m e n t c o m p a r i
so n s. D e sc rib es th e m e th o d s o f a d ju stin g fo reign u n e m p lo y m e n t rates in
8 c o u n tr ies to U .S . c o n c e p ts. $3 .5 0 .
Productivity Indexes for Selected Industries, 1979 Edition. B u lletin
205 4 . A 190-p a g e rep ort o f in d ex e s o f o u tp u t, e m p lo y m en t, a n d e m p lo y
ee h o u rs in se lec ted in d u str ies from 1954 to 1978. T h is e d itio n co n ta in s
m ea su res for th ree in d u str ies p r e v io u sly n o t c o v ered , as w ell a s c o m p o
n e n ts o f p r e v io u sly p u b lish e d m ea su res in 10 in d u stries. $ 5 .5 0 .
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. B u lletin 2037. A g ra p h ic il
lu str a tio n o f so m e o f th e fa c to r s th a t affect w o r k e rs’ earn in gs. T h is threepart p r esen ta tio n lo o k s at w a g e va ria tio n s a m o n g a n d w ith in o c cu p a tio n s
a n d p o rtrays ch a ra cteristics o f h ig h - a n d lo w -p a y in g urb an areas a n d
m an u fa ctu rin g in d u stries. $3.50.
REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS
S in g le co p ies a v a ila b le f r e e f r o m th e B L S r e g io n a l o ffices o r f r o m th e B u r e a u o f
L a b o r S ta tistic s, U .S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r , W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
How the Government Measures Unemployment. R e p o r t 505. A c o n c is e
rep ort p ro v id in g a b a c k g r o u n d for ap p ra isin g d e v e lo p m en ts in th e area
o f u n em p lo y m e n t.
Regional. E a ch o f th e B u reau ’s e ig h t region al
Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations 1960-78. R e p o r t 550.
offices p u b lish e s rep orts an d press releases
d ea lin g w ith reg io n a l d ata. S in g le c o p ies
a v a ila b le free fro m th e issu in g region al office.
A lis tin g o f stu d ies p rep ared b y th e D iv isio n o f In d u strial R e la tio n s as
part o f th e B u reau ’s regu lar p rogram o f d a ta c o lle c tio n a n d a n a ly sis in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
th e field o f in d u stria l relation s.
☆ U .S . G O VERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 O—
311-406/37
Handbook
of Labor
Statistics
1978
Tables include:
The 1978 edition of the Handbook of Labor Statistics
makes available in one 620-page volume the major
series produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Each table is complete historically, beginning with the
earliest reliable and consistent data and running
through calendar year 1977. The volume includes
index and technical notes.
Labor force
Employment
Unemployment
Hours
Productivity and unit labor costs
Compensation
Prices and living conditions
Unions and industrial relations
Foreign labor statistics
General economic data
Mail Order Form to:
BLS Regional Office
nearest you (listing
elsewhere) or
Superintendent of
Documents, U.S.
Government
Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks
payable to
Superintendent of
Documents
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Please se n d ____
copies of BLS Bulletin 2000 Handbook of Labor Statistics
1978 Stock No. 029-001-02194-1 at $9.50 a copy
N a m e _________ _
Organization__________
Address ____________ _
City, State, and Zip Code
U.S. Department ot Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441
Official Business
SECOND CLASS MAIL
P enalty fo r private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER