The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ip*»**®Hr
4
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 1982
In this issue:
Articles on Black workers in the 1970’s,
Occupational winners and losers, Changing the
treatment of housing in the CPI.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
iS h i
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year —
$23 domestic; $28.75 foreign.
Single copy $3.50
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 Laurel, Md.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: 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 /. Margulis
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV
Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881-4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V Chicago: William E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
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
“ Scrap Iron," a 1935-40 lithograph
by Elizabeth Olds,
courtesy National Collection of Fine Arts,
Washington, D.C.
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) 556-4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
m ir
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
JUNE 1982
VOLUME 105, NUMBER 6
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
l i b r a r y
JUN 3 0 1982
Jerome A. Mark
3
Measuring productivity in service industries
The growth of the service economy presents special challenges for productivity analysts;
output is often difficult to quantify, and measurement of labor input requires great care
R. Gillingham, W. Lane
9
Changing the treatment of homeownership in the CPI
In 1983, the treatment of housing in the CPI will begin changing to reflect only the cost
of shelter services of owner-occupied housing, rather than investment aspects
Carol M. Utter
15
Labor turnover in manufacturing: the survey in retrospect
The discontinued Federal-State series shows that the level of hires, quits,
and other job changes has remained relatively stable except for cyclical variations
Carol Boyd Leon
18
Occupation winners and losers: who they were during 1972-80
Job gains occurred in most occupational groupings in which Americans were employed
during the 1970’s; almost half of the increase occurred in just 20 of 235 occupations
Diane Nilsen Westcott
29
Blacks in the 1970’s: did they scale the job ladder ?
More blacks obtained white-collar jobs, but fewer penetrated higher-salaried positions;
mobility in the higher-paid blue-collar jobs proved to be somewhat more impressive
Henry P. Guzda
39
Labor Department’s first program to assist black workers
The philosophy of equal opportunity began with the Division of Negro Economics,
created during World War I, but the project was ahead of its time and did not survive
IRRA PAPERS
R. U. Miller, M. A. Zaidi
Curtis L. Gilroy
W. J. Moore, J. Raisian
S. Koziara, P. J. Insley
45
47
51
53
Human capital and multinationals: evidence from Brazil and Mexico
The effects of the minimum wage on farm employment: a new model
Public-sector union wage effects: a time series analysis
Organizations of working women can pave the way for unions
REPORTS
Paul M. Ryscavage
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
Employment problems and poverty: examining the linkages
DEPARTMENTS
2
45
55
60
62
66
71
Labor month in review
Conference papers
Research summaries
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
UP AND DOWN. Two recent reports of
the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate
that the proportion of women par
ticipating in the labor force continues to
rise while at the same time the participa
tion of students appears to be slacken
ing. Some excerpts:
twice as likely as those living alone to be
unemployed. More than 1 of every 10
were jobless compared with less than 1
of 20 of their counterparts living alone.
About one-fifth of all jobless women
not living in families had been
unemployed for 15 weeks or more.
Women up. Even with the slowdown in
economic activity, 1.1 million more
women were in the labor force in the
fourth quarter of 1981 than a year
earlier, and their participation rate ad
vanced to 52.2 percent. Over the 1-year
period, the number of women with jobs
grew by 700,000 with most of this gain
occurring in the early part of the year.
As the year progressed and economic
conditions deteriorated, the number of
unemployed women rose by more than
400,000, causing their jobless rate to
climb from 7.7 to 8.5 percent. However
the rate for men rose even faster, as they
were more concentrated fn manufactur
ing jobs where layoffs have been es
pecially severe. By December, the un
employment rate for men (9.1 percent)
exceeded that for women (8.6 percent).
Although most women in the United
States live in families, about 14.9
million, or 17 percent of all women 16
years old and over, were not living in a
family during the third quarter of 1981.
They were either living alone (12.5
million), or sharing living quarters with
persons not related to them (2.4
million). More than half of those living
alone wére 60 years of age and over, with
widows dominating. About 46 percent
of women living alone were in the labor
force. By contrast, women living with
nonrelatives were much younger; nearly
two-thirds were 20 to 34 years old. They
were also much more likely to be work
ing. About 76 percent were in the labor
force during the third quarter.
The women who live with persons
other than relatives were more than
Students down. Labor force activity
among students 16 to 24 years old edged
down over the year ended in October
1981. This was the third year in a row in
which labor force participation, which
had risen substantially through the
1960’s and most of the 1970’s, fell.
The unemployment rate for students
edged up from 13.7 to 14.4 percent be
tween October 1980 and October 1981.
Moreover, recent data on students 16 to
21 indicate further increases in
unemployment and a continued slacken
ing in labor force activity since the
special survey of October 1981.
From October 1980 to October 1981,
labor force participation rates among
youth enrolled in school declined from
47.8 to 46.7 percent for men and from
47.0 to 45.7 percent for women. For
youth no longer enrolled in school, labor
force participation over the year showed
little change. Since 1960, the participa
tion rate for men 16 to 24 and no longer
in school has drifted down from 95.0 to
91.7 percent. At the same time, the rate
for women in this group has risen
dramatically, from 50.2 to 73.0 percent,
largely reflecting changes in marital and
childbearing patterns, increases in de
mand for white-collar and service
workers, and new legislation concerning
work opportunities.
For both students and nonstudents,
labor force participation patterns by
race and Hispanic origin were similar in
October 1981 to those that have prevail
ed for many years. Among students,
whites had the highest rate (49.4
percent), followed by Hispanics (38.1
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
percent) and blacks (28.2 percent).
Among youth not in school, the rates
were considerably higher, but the order
was the same.
A record 1.6 million youth who
graduated from high school in 1981 were
attending college in October 1981. Some
54 percent of all recent graduates were
enrolled, compared with 49 percent a
year earlier. The labor force participa
tion rate of the new college students was
43.7 percent, substantially higher than in
the early 1970’s.
A large proportion of recent high
school graduates who did not go on to
college were in the labor force in Oc
tober. At 84 percent, their labor force
participation rate was higher than in the
early 1970’s, mostly because of the in
crease in the rate for women, which ad
vanced from 69 percent in 1970 to 81
percent in 1981. In both years, almost 1
in 4 of the female graduates in the labor
force were unemployed.
The number of recent high school
dropouts declined over the year, reflec
ting the general decrease in the number
of young teenagers in the population.
Youth who dropped out of high school
between October 1980 and October 1981
were much less likely to be in the labor
force than their classmates who had
graduated but had not enrolled in col
lege. The unemployment rate for
dropouts (36.4 percent)—a relatively
small youth group—has always been
volatile; over the year, it climbed sharp
ly for women while remaining about the
same for men.
Additional information may be found
in Employment and Perspective: Work
ing Women, Fourth Quarter 1981 ( b l s
Report 657), and in the Department of
Labor release u s d l 82-175. An article on
participation of students in the work
force will appear in an upcoming issue of
the Review.
□
Measuring productivity
in service industries
The growth of the service economy
presents special challenges
for productivity analysts; output
is often difficult to quantify, and measurement
of labor input requires great care
Je r o m e A . M a r k
The increased importance of service industries over the
last two decades and current concern over productivity
growth have stimulated interest in productivity mea
sures for this expanding sector of the economy.
The service sector, as defined here, encompasses the
major industry groupings of trade, finance, insurance,
communications, public utilities, transportation, and
government, as well as business and personal services.
It accounts for almost three-fourths of the Nation’s em
ployment and provides the greatest potential, as well as
some of the greatest difficulties, for developing produc
tivity measures.
Over the last decade, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
has been expanding the number of service industries for
which it publishes productivity measures, and at present
provides measures for 16 industries, representing almost
a third of the employment in the sector. The Bureau is
continuing to develop additional measures, and hopes
eventually to extend coverage to most of the service sec
tor.
This article describes that effort, discusses some of
the problems of measuring productivity, particularly la
bor productivity in service industries, and explains how
the Bureau is working to resolve some of the problems.
Jerome A. Mark is Assistant Commissioner for Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Linking output to input
Productivity measures relate real physical output to
real input. They range from single factor measures, such
as output per unit of labor input or output per unit of
capital input, to measures of output per unit of multi
factor input. Such measures also reflect changes in tech
nology, scale of production, educational levels of
workers, managerial techniques, and many other factors
in addition to the contributions of the particular inputs.
Although BLS is currently developing multifactor pro
ductivity measures, at present, the published productivi
ty measures relate output to labor input. This is the
most extensively developed and widely used productivi
ty measure because of its relevence to economic analy
ses and because, as a practical matter, labor is the most
easily measured input.
Problems of measuring output
In many ways, the problems of measuring output in
the service industries are similar to those of measuring
output in the goods-producing industries. That is, the
output indicator must be quantifiable and independent
of the input measures. If an output measure for an ac
tivity is based on an input measure, as is the case in
some instances in the national accounts, obviously no
change in productivity can be ascertained. In the case of
general government, for example, output in the national
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Measuring Service Industry Productivity
income and product accounts is measured in terms of
compensation of government employees. The deflated or
constant-dollar measure is derived from changes in em
ployment. Hence, changes in the output measure are
closely related to changes in the input measure.
It is also important to distinguish between intermedi
ate and final services. In productivity measurement, we
attempt to ensure that the indicators represent output
flowing from the industry being measured rather than
intermediate steps in the service flow. In this sense, pro
ductivity measurement differs from work measurement,
which generally refers to the analysis of the operation of
an activity and the labor requirements at each interme
diate stage. Productivity measurement refers only to the
final service and its relationship to input.
For example, in the trucking industry, a count of the
ton-miles of freight moved would be the appropriate in
dicator of the final output— that is, the result of all the
activities of the industry. The intermediate steps, such
as pickup and delivery, platform work, billing, and col
lecting, are considered to be subsumed in the final out
put.
In the case of an organization or an industry
providing one type of service, output is merely a count
of the units of this service, however defined. In the
more usual case of an industry producing a number of
heterogeneous services, the various units must be
expressed in some common basis for aggregation. For
example, the output of franchised new-car dealerships
should be a combination of the number of cars sold and
the repair activities of the dealers, with appropriate
weighting.
To obtain a productivity measure that is an average
of the changes of individual components, the appropri
ate weights for combining the various elements in the
output measure are in terms of their factor input re
quirements. In a labor productivity measure, the
weights are unit labor requirements.
Homogeneity among services, after considerations of
quality and specifications, is indicated by similarity in
unit labor requirements. In this way, the output mea
sure for the development of labor productivity statistics
differs from more traditional production measures based
on total price or value-added price weighting.
When there are quality changes within the service,
adjustments must be made in the output measure to ac
count for the fact that the output is no longer the same
homogeneous unit. However, the indicator of quality
change for labor productivity measurement dif
fers from the usual concept of quality change associated
with consumer price measurements in that it reflects dif
ferences in producers’ labor requirements or labor costs
rather than consumer utility differences.
Ideally, then, the output measure should incorporate
data on the number of services provided, differentiated
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by unit labor requirements, and in sufficient detail to
adjust for quality changes. In practice, however, such
data are not generally available for service industries
(and, in many cases, for goods-producing industries as
well). As a result, approximations based on alternative
approaches must be used.
The principal alternative is to remove the change in
price from the change in total value of the volume of
services. This approach is tantamount to price
weighting quantities of services provided. Insofar as
price relationships among the various component serv
ices of a service industry are similar to the unit labor
requirements or unit labor costs, this is a close approxi
mation of the desired measure. And because it is easier
to measure price change for a specified group of services
than it is to measure the number of services provided
directly, this is the approach most generally followed.
However, the adjustment requires data in sufficient
detail to adequately represent the price trends of the
components included in the price change. Otherwise,
price movements of the covered areas will be implicitly
imputed to the uncovered areas. But because the rela
tionship among the price movements of similar services
is much stronger than the relationship among quantity
changes, this alternative still has greater viability than
imputing quantity changes for uncovered services.
In practice, BLS uses the two approaches to develop
output measures for service industries. In some in
stances, quantity data are available, particularly for util
ities and transportation industries. In others, price de
flation is employed, and for some, deflation at lower
levels of aggregation is combined with labor input
weighting at higher levels. For example, in developing
the measure for gasoline service stations, gasoline sales,
repair, and other services are deflated separately and
summed, but in the case of retail food stores, sales by
major department are deflated and combined with em
ployee labor cost weights.
Measuring labor input
With regard to labor input measures, the principal
problems are data gaps. Information is needed on hours
worked by all persons— nonsupervisory workers, super
visory workers, and self-employed and unpaid family
workers—in an individual industry. But although data
on hours worked are collected by various government
agencies as part of such ongoing programs as the Bu
reau’s occupational safety and health surveys, they tend
to be limited in scope, or otherwise inconsistent with
the output data developed.
The principal source of data on employment and
hours is the BLS Current Employment Survey of estab
lishments. This payroll series provides good measures of
the employment and hours of nonsupervisory workers.
However, it is collected on an hours paid basis, rather
than on an hours worked basis. To the extent that
hours paid for but not worked are changing, this mea
sure has limitations. To overcome this problem, the Bu
reau is measuring hours at work as a proportion of
hours paid for a sample of establishments in the survey
and will use these data to adjust the industry hours
paid series.
In general, data on the hours of supervisory workers
are poor. Although employment data on supervisory
workers are available from the payroll survey, hours
data are not. Other sources, such as the censuses of
population, are used to estimate this component of the
labor input measure.
Data on the number of self-employed, an important
component of the input series measure for retail indus
tries, come from the Internal Revenue Service ( i r s ). The
IRS data lag current estimates by 3 years, but may be
projected forward with special tabulations from the
Current Population Survey ( c p s ).
These CPS tabulations break out the numbers and
hours of self-employed and unpaid family workers at
the 3-digit Standard Industrial Classification level. Al
though the sample size at this level is small and the sta
tistical error is high, the data are the only continuous
series of the number and hours for unpaid family work
ers and for the hours of the self-employed.
The measures derived from these data are unweighted
hours; that is, the hours of various types of employees
are treated as being equally productive. This would not
be a problem if the proportions of workers at different
levels of productivity were constant over time. Howev
er, to the extent that there are changes in the composi
tion of the work force, such as age, sex, and
occupational mix, it may be desirable to adjust the la
bor input measure for these changes which otherwise
would be reflected in the productivity measure.
Data gaps hamper the making of these adjustments.
Industry data on employment and hours by age and oc
cupation are limited, although various sources, such as
the CPS and BLS occupational employment surveys, pro
vide some pieces. And while worker groups may be dif
ferentiated into productivity levels according to their
wages or compensation, pay is a factor which may re
flect other than productivity differences.1
Measures for service industries
At present, BLS publishes indexes of output per unit
of labor input for industries in each major service activ
ity— trade, communications, transportation, utilities,
and business and personal services, a total of 16 sepa
rate measures. Data for these industries, presented in ta
ble 1, indicate a wide range of productivity growth
since 1973, the year in which a productivity slowdown
for the general business economy appeared to begin. In
many cases, the growth rates exceeded those for indus
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Average annual rates of change in output per
hour of all employees in selected service industries,
1965-73 and 1973-80
[In percent]
SIC Code
Industry
1965-73
1973-80
4111;4131;414 (parts) .
4213 (parts)..................
4511 .............................
4612,13........................
Transportation:
Railroad transportation, revenue
traffic ......................
Bus carriers ....................
Intercity trucking1 ........................
Air transportation1 ......................
Petroleum pipelines ....................
4.2
-1.5
2.7
5.3
7.9
2.2
-0.4
0.5
4.3
0.0
4811 .............................
Communications:
Telephone communications.........
4.7
7.0
491:492:493 .............
491;493 (part) .............
492:493 (part) .............
Public utilities:
Gas and electric utilities.............
Electric utilities.............................
Gas utilities...............................
4.9
5.4
3.9
0.7
1.3
-0 .4
401 .............................
Trade:
5 4 ...............................
5511 .............................
5541 ...........................
5 8 ...............................
5 9 1 2 .............................
Franchised new car dealers . . .
Gasoline service stations ...........
Eating and drinking places .........
Drug and proprietary stores . . . .
2.6
4.9
1.1
6.2
0.5
3.1
-1 .0
1.9
7011 .............................
721 ...............................
Services:
Hotels, motels, and tourist courts
Laundry and cleaning services ..
1.8
1.7
1.3
-1.1
10utput per employee.
tries in the goods-producing sector.
In addition, a measure for commercial banking is be
ing developed, and work has begun on measures for the
insurance and hospital industries. In a related area, pro
ductivity measures for Federal agencies which provide
functions such as recordkeeping, insurance, libraries,
building and grounds maintenance, and medical services
have been published.
It is not possible within the confines of this article to
discuss all of the productivity measures prepared by the
Bureau, but reference to some of the more important
and interesting ones in each of the major areas can il
lustrate the difficulties encountered in constructing such
statistics.
Trade. The Bureau has published measures for retail
trade industries since 1975 (with the data beginning in
1958). At present, statistics are published for five im
portant industries—retail food stores, new car dealer
ships, gasoline service stations, eating and drinking
places, and drugstores. Work is underway on a measure
for apparel stores, including shoe stores, to be published
separately. The effort to develop productivity measures
in the wholesale area has not yet succeeded.
For most retail trade industries, data on gross sales
in current dollars, deflated by the appropriate price in
dexes, are used to estimate real output. This method, as
mentioned earlier, can yield good estimates of real out
put. However, such measures can reflect shifts among
services with different values, but having the same labor
requirements. Therefore, the overall industry productivi5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Measuring Service Industry Productivity
ty index can show movements without any change in
component elements.
In retail industries, a large portion of the value of
sales has been provided by the manufacturer and the
wholesaler of the product sold. A net output measure
would be desirable, because it would most closely corre
spond to the value added by the retailer. However, a
gross or total sales measure will yield the same results
as a net or value-added measure if the value added as a
percent of sales (gross margin) does not change over
time. Available data indicate that, among retail
industries for which productivity data are published,
gross margins have not changed significantly over time.
To incorporate labor input weights, the indexes for
most of the retail trade industries are developed in two
stages. First, deflated output measures based on sales
volume are developed for detailed merchandise lines.
These are aggregated to higher levels and then com
bined with labor costs weights. For example, in retail
food stores, sales for 13 key merchandise lines are de
flated using specially prepared price indexes based on
CPI components. The merchandise lines are aggregated to
five department lines—meat, produce, frozen food, dry
groceries, and dairy and all others. These are then ag
gregated with labor cost weights from Department of
Agriculture data to develop the overall output measure
for groceries. The labor input data for retail trade pro
ductivity statistics are generally derived from the Bu
reau’s establishment survey, supplemented by IRS and
CPS data.
Transportation. BLS publishes productivity measures for
five transportation industries— railroads, intercity truck
ing, intercity buses, air transportation, and petroleum
pipelines. These measures cover 57 percent of transpor
tation employment.
Conceptually, productivity measures for the transpor
tation industries are easier to develop than those for
other non-goods producing industries. This is because
transportation industry output—the movement of goods
or passengers or both from one point to another—
is more easily quantified. Output units in transportation
have two dimensions, amount and distance; they reflect
not only how much has been transported, but also how
far. As such, ton-miles, passenger-miles, barrel-miles,
and so forth are the primary output indicators for these
industries.
Although the basic information for developing good
transportation productivity measures is available and is,
of course, being used, there are some data gaps that
place certain limitations on the BLS measures. For ex
ample, it is sometimes impossible to adjust the produc
tivity measures adequately for changes in the average
length of haul. The unit labor requirements associated
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
with the movement of goods and passengers are usually
greater for short hauls than for long hauls. Therefore, a
shift from a long haul to a short haul trip or vice versa
could be reflected as a change in productivity although
only the mix of trips had changed.
For the two major freight-carrying industries, rail
roads and trucking, undifferentiated ton-mile informa
tion is reported for total freight operations. In trucking,
the ton-mile data are also reported separately for three
types of carriers— general, contract, and others. But
output measures should reflect the kinds of commodities
handled and the average distance they are moved. The
preferred way to develop these measures would be to
combine the tonnage and the average haul of each com
modity by its respective labor requirements and aggre
gate the results for all commodities transported. Un
fortunately, this cannot be done with available data.
However, supplementary information on tonnage for
railroads is available from the ICC for about 200 com
modity lines, ranging from agricultural and mining
products to motor vehicles and scientific instruments.
Until recently, similar information was also available
for the trucking industry. BLS uses these data to adjust
the overall measure of freight ton-miles for changes in
the composition of goods carried.
Although this commodity adjustment is a significant
improvement, refinements to the undifferentiated tonmiles cannot be developed to the extent desired. For ex
ample, separate labor requirements data are not avail
able for weighting the individual commodity groups.
The commodity index adjustments are therefore made
in terms of unit revenue weights, the underlying as
sumption being that differences between labor require
ments among commodities are similar to differences in
terms of unit revenues. This does not seem unreasonable
because labor costs constitute more than half of each
industry’s total operating costs, although the proportion
could conceivably differ by commodity. For railroads,
the adjusted freight ton-mile measure is combined with
a measure of revenue passenger-miles to obtain the total
industry output index.
For air transportation and trucking, employment is
the only available measure of labor input. Thus, the
productivity measures for these two industries should
be interpreted with caution, for if changes occur in the
average workweek, the trends in productivity would not
show the true relationship between output and labor
time expended on the output.
The transportation industries for which BLS publishes
productivity measures all are regulated to some degree
by the Federal Government. Recent efforts to reduce
the paperwork burden, coupled with the effects of de
regulation, have acted to eliminate some of the operat
ing statistics previously published. As a result, some
productivity measures have had to be extended on the
basis of more limited information. The outlook for
expanding the data base, at least in the near future, is
not favorable. However, BLS is cooperating with other
government agencies to ensure that adequate statistics
for transportation industries remain available.
Communications. The BLS productivity measure for tele
phone communications covers about four-fifths of the
employment in the communications sector. The output
index is derived from revenues of all telephone compa
nies reporting to the Federal Communications Commis
sion. The revenues are stratified by major source—
local, toll, or miscellaneous—and deflated by specially
prepared price indexes for these different services. The
labor hours data are based on the Bureau’s estab
lishment payroll survey.
At one time, BLS published a productivity measure,
the numerator of which was derived from the number
of local and long-distance telephone calls, aggregated
on the basis of revenue weights. This measure was dis
continued in the mid-1950’s because of concern that the
labor input measure was not consistent with the output
measure. For example, private line services, such as
leased telephone lines, radio and TV transmission, tele
type, and so forth, were reflected in employee hours but
not in the output measure as defined. The same was
true for calls between stations transmitted through pri
vate switchboards and directory services.
A different type of productivity index for the industry
was initiated in 1973, with data back to 1951. The nu
merator of this measure was derived from annual reve
nue data stratified by major services and deflated, until
last year, by price indexes furnished by American Tele
phone and Telegraph Co. Beginning in 1982, the b l s
producer price index for telephone communications will
be used to deflate the revenue data, and productivity in
dexes published for the industry since 1972 will be re
vised in accordance with the new procedure.
The BLS deflated revenue measure of the output of the
telephone communications industry is fairly comprehen
sive. It includes revenues from private line services,
which have grown in importance over the years, as well
as those arising from the maintenance of private switch
boards by telephone carriers. It also accounts for TV,
radio, and computer data transmission by telephone in
dustry facilities, and for directory services. However,
certain measurement problems remain unresolved, in
cluding the unsatisfactory treatment of differences in in
tensity of the use of telephone equipment by customers.
Intensity of use differences occur when revenue does not
vary in proportion to the number of calls made because
of flat charges, as in the case of local telephone service
or WATS lines. Implicitly, the BLS output measure as
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sumes that the maximum permissible usage takes place
under any flat charge system used in the industry.
Business and personal services. In the area of business
and personal services, which includes not only business,
personal, and repair services, but also education, social
services, and political organizations, BLS currently
publishes only two measures of productivity, one for
hotels and motels, and the other for laundry and dry
cleaning services. These measures cover 13 percent of
the total employment in the sector.
Because physical quantity information is not available
for these two industries, output measures are developed
using price-deflated value techniques. The techniques
are similar to those described earlier, in that both reve
nues and employee-hour weights are used to aggregate
the output indicators into a total industry output index.
On the input side, the hours of all persons are used
as the measure of labor time. As in the trade sector,
partners, proprietors, and unpaid family workers make
up a significant portion of the work force. Currently,
this group accounts for about 15 percent of all persons
employed in laundries and 20 percent of the workers in
hotels and motels.
BLS efforts to expand coverage in the business and
personal service area have been hampered by two major
problems. First, because many business service catego
ries are quite broad, it is impossible to account ade
quately for changes in the mix of their component
services. For example, we cannot publish a productivity
index for automotive repair shops because there are al
most no data available on the types of repairs that are
made. The second problem is that not enough services
are covered by the Consumer Price Index and, conse
quently, the deflated value of the output of many un
covered areas would have to be imputed.
Finance. In the finance area, BLS is developing a bank
ing measure in terms of the three major services com
mercial banks render their customers— deposits, loans,
and trust services. While banks also provide non-fund
using services, such as safe deposit and customer pay
roll accounting, lack of adequate data preclude deriving
a measure for them. However, because the proportion
of employees engaged in such services is very small, the
overall output measure is little affected by the omission.
There has been much controversy over the years as to
the appropriate measure of the output of banking. Some
analysts have advocated a “liquidity” approach, others,
a “transactions” approach. In the former, the banks are
viewed as holders of money, and their output is
equivalent to the net interest they receive on the volume
of deposits held. This interest is the income depositors
are willing to forgo to maintain deposits rather than in-
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Measuring Service Industry Productivity
vesting directly in assets less readily converted to cash,
that is, the value to customers of the liquidity they en
joy from bank services. This approach can be extended
to all types of savings accounts, on the principle that
the forgone net interest is the value of the bank’s ser
vices.
The other approach views banking output as a series
of transactions; the volume of the bank’s output is pro
portional to the volumes of the transactions handled.
BLS has adopted this second approach for its produc
tivity measure.
Accordingly, the final output of banks is defined as
an array of depository, lending, and fiduciary services.
Estimates of the number of transactions for each of the
three service functions must be derived. Because no di
rect count of the number of transactions is available in
many instances, estimates are made from data on the
total value of transactions and surveys of average trans
action amounts.
Deposit activity is measured in terms of the number
of checks transacted and the number of time and sav
ings deposits and withdrawals. (An electronic funds
transfer is treated as a transaction on par with one in
volving payment by check.) The data for demand de
posit activities are from Federal Reserve counts and of
ficial benchmark surveys. For time and savings deposit
activity, the output measure is based on data published
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and on
the Functional Cost Analysis conducted annually by
the Federal Reserve.
Lending services provided by banks are also mea
sured in terms of units. As in the case of deposit and
trust activity, BLS does not use banks’ financial data to
arrive at the component output measures. Use of such
data would be highly misleading even if appropriate de
flators could be found. For example, an increase in the
aggregate deflated value of loans might simply reflect
the making of a few large loans; similarly, a decrease
might indicate the repayment of a few large loans, even
as the number of small loans increased.
Twelve types of loan output are measured, for the
most part using data generated by the Federal Reserve
and the Department of Housing and Urban Develop
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
8
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment. Included in the loan output measure are commer
cial and residential mortgage loans; consumer loans;
single-payment loans; credit card loans; and commercial
and “other” loans. The number of loans can usually be
derived by dividing the dollar value of total loans in a
given category by the average face value of a loan. For
the category of commercial loans, the actual number of
loans extended has been available since the mid-1970’s.
An experimental output measure for the trust depart
ment services of commercial banks is derived from the
trend in the number of accounts. Trust accounts are
stratified into five major categories, including benefit
trusts, personal trusts, and estates.
After output estimates are developed for depository,
loan, and fiduciary segments, they are aggregated to the
industry level using employment weights.
S o m e o f t h e m a j o r p r o b l e m s in developing labor
productivity measures in the service activities and how
BLS has tried to meet some of these problems have been
highlighted above. Considerable work in this very im
portant area has been conducted and the outlook for
improvements in certain subareas is optimistic. For ex
ample, as price measures are improved and hours
worked data become available, and as work in the area
of government productivity measurement progresses,
BLS will be able to provide a better picture of what is
happening to productivity in more activities within the
sector. Additional measures in communications, finance,
insurance, and real estate, and business and personal
services can and will be developed, and indexes for
wholesale trade are very possible. However, there are
severe conceptual as well as data problems in measuring
productivity in such industries as education and social
services and in the important field of medical services,
and progress in these areas is expected to be much
slower.
□
-------- FOOTNOTE--------' In connection with work on multifactor productivity measure
ment, BLS is exploring the possibility of making adjustments for
changes in work force composition.
Changing the treatment of shelter
costs for homeowners in the CPI
In 1983, the treatment of housing in the official
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
will change to reflect only the cost
of shelter services of owner-occupied housing
R obert G
il l in g h a m a n d
W alter La ne
In late 1981, Commissioner of Labor Statistics Janet L.
Norwood announced plans to change the procedures
used to compile the homeownership component of the
Consumer Price Index (CPl). Although the particular
procedures used in compiling the CPI might seem dry
and technical and of little general interest, such is not
the case with respect to the homeownership component.
The treatment of owner-occupied housing in the CPI has
been one of the most widely discussed issues in econom
ic statistics in recent years. The interest in this compo
nent stems from its substantial weight in the CPI and
the sensitivity of the overall index— our most widely
publicized measure of inflation— to the particular pro
cedures used.
Currently, the homeownership component is based on
house prices, mortgage interest rates, property taxes and
insurance, and maintenance costs. This treatment cap
tures elements of both the service flow and asset invest
ment aspects of housing expenditures. The Bureau first
raised questions about this component 10 years ago
and, since then, has encouraged public review of alter
native approaches. For some time, the Bureau staff has
supported a change in favor of a treatment which would
Robert Gillingham is chief of the Division of Price and Index Num
ber Research and Walter Lane is chief of the Housing Section of that
division, Office of Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics. An earlier version of this paper appeared in the December
1981 issue of the Office of Management and Budget’s S ta tis tic a l R e
p o r te r .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
focus solely on the cost of the shelter services of owneroccupied housing, thus abstracting from investment as
pects. The Commissioner believes that the increased
general understanding of the issues surrounding this
component, along with the growing problems inherent
in continuing the current procedure, make a change im
perative. This paper summarizes the proposed modifica
tions and the reasons why an immediate decision to
make them was necessary,1 describes the current treat
ment of homeownership to provide an understanding of
the flaws in the current approach,2 explains why the
proposed rental equivalence approach is the best alter
native for improving the index, and outlines the techni
cal procedures which the Bureau is currently imple
menting to ensure an adequate rental equivalence index.
Why the CPI must be changed
As noted, the current approach to homeownership is
based on, inter alia, house prices and mortgage interest
rates. In announcing the changes for the CPI homeownership component, the Commissioner cited several
serious difficulties in obtaining reliable data on these
components to continue the current approach. First, im
portant changes have occurred in financial markets
which are not reflected in the CPI. Funds available for
long-term mortgage commitments have declined sharp
ly. New types of mortgage instruments involving vari
able rates, shorter financing terms, and other special
arrangements have developed so that the standard,
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Homeownership in the
long-term, fixed rate mortgage used in the CPI is becom
ing increasingly unrepresentative of the mortgage mar
ket. In fact, some of the new instruments have
characteristics, such as variable rates and principal
amounts, which make it impossible to use them in com
puting the CPI which assumes a long-term mortgage at
fixed interest rates. Furthermore, because of high inter
est rates and difficulties faced by home buyers in
securing bank mortgages, many owners who wish to sell
their homes are facilitating sales by providing financing
to buyers at below bank rates. These financing arrange
ments are not reflected in the CPI. The house prices
used in the CPI are obtained from the Federal Housing
Administration (fha ) and pertain to sales financed with
FHA-insured mortgages. This data base represents a
small and specialized segment of the housing market
and presents BLS with increasingly serious estimation
problems.
In addition to problems of data adequacy, impetus to
change the homeownership component stems from an
important new use of the index. The Economic Recov
ery Tax Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-34) requires use of
the CPI for All Urban Consumers (cpi-u ) for escalation
of income tax brackets and the personal exemption
amount. The law requires announcement of the new tax
brackets in December 1984 based on CPI-U data for the
prior 2 years. This is a major new use of the index
which will have a broad effect on total Federal Govern
ment revenues, and this new use underscores the impor
tance of action to ensure that the CPI reflects the
consumption cost experience of consumers to the fullest
extent possible.
Another reason to immediately initiate the proposed
change is the increasing public awareness of the issues
surrounding the measurement of homeownership costs
in the CPI. A growing number of concerned parties feel
that this component is seriously flawed and that chang
es must be made in order to maintain public confidence
in the index. The specific changes to be made are de
tailed in exhibit 1. The essence of the decision is to
change the homeownership component of the CPI from
its current form, which includes both investment and
consumption aspects, to a flow of services approach,
which focuses only on the consumption of shelter serv
ices, on the principle that the index should focus only
on current consumption.
Current treatment
In its current form in the index, homeownership has
five parts, or elements. Each has its own weight and
procedure to estimate monthly price change. The appro
priateness of these methods can only be judged in terms
of underlying conceptual framework for CPI homeowner
costs. Unfortunately, the current treatment of homeownership has no clear conceptual rationale, so the par
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CPI
Exhibit 1. Dates of change in the Consumer Price
Index
Action
Date
January 1982
1982
February 1983
July 1983
Publication of CPI for December 1981
• increased prominence for experimen
tal
rental
equivalence
measure
(cpi-u -x i ) in the text of CPI press re
lease
Work on enhancement of C P i-u -x i
Publication of CPI for January 1983
• first publication of CPI-U with rental
equivalence homeownership
• last publication of CPI experimental
measures
Publication of CPI for June 1983
• last publication of overlap CPI-U with
current homeownership methods
1984
Publication of rental equivalence
homeownership with expanded rent
sample and improved computation
methods
February 1985
Publication of CPI for January 1985
• first publication of CPI for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(cpi-w) with rental equivalence homeownership
Publication of CPI for June 1985
• last publication of overlap cpi-w with
current homeownership method
July 1985
ticular procedures used are largely definitional and
cannot be justified by resorting to any broader concep
tual framework. It is not surprising, then, that much of
the debate over homeownership has focused on them.
Weights. The weights reflect consumption patterns re
ported in the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey,
which forms the basis for the overall weighting scheme
of the CPI. (The relative importance of the items as of
December 1980 is given in table 1.) The weight for
home purchase is the purchase price for homes bought
in the survey year, less the sales price for homes sold,
plus transactions costs for these purchases and sales.
Thus, consideration is limited to those consumers who
purchased or sold homes during the survey period. To
reduce the sampling error, data from a longer period
(1968-73), annualized and adjusted for the price in
crease which took place over the period, were used to
compute this weight. Use of these procedures resulted
in a home purchase weight which is quite large.
Like home purchase, the mortgage interest concept is
limited to mortgages obtained in the survey period. The
mortgages must be for the purchase of homes, and only
mortgages initiated at the time of house purchase are
included in the weight. The weight for “contracted
mortgage interest cost” is the amount of interest that
survey period borrowers promise to pay during the first
half of the term of their mortgage loans. It is called
contracted mortgage interest cost because it includes fu
ture payments. With long mortgages, homeowners will
not, in general, hold their mortgages for the full term.
The choice of half the term for the specification of this
weight was based on procedures established during the
1964 CPI revision.
The weight derivations for the other homeownership
elements follow more conventional CPI methods. They
depend only on expenditures actually made in the sur
vey year, and refer to expenses incurred by all survey
year homeowners—not just home buyers.
Measuring house price changes. The estimate of the
monthly change in house prices is one of the most diffi
cult tasks entailed in the CPI. This estimate moves the
weight for home purchase and, with a mortgage interest
rate index, is also used in estimating the mortgage inter
est cost index. It is not feasible to follow, over time, the
prices of a fixed sample of houses—a practice which
would be analogous to that used to track price change
on most consumer goods and services— because indi
vidual houses change hands only infrequently. So, a
new selection of recently sold homes must be used each
month. To obtain an estimate for the change in house
prices from last month to this month, the average price
of this month’s set of homes must be compared—after
adjustment for quality difference— to the average price
for last month’s set.
The primary difficulty in pursuing this approach is
finding a source of data on recent house sales, with
both price and quality information, that are (1) avail
able promptly and (2) inclusive of the various types of
houses and housing areas. In the current CPI, the data
are for house sales on which financing is insured by the
Federal Housing Administration. These data fall far
short of the ideal. Processing delays often mean that
several months elapse between the time a house sale oc
curs and the time it is used in the CPI. For some geo
graphic areas, especially those in the Northeast, the
number of FHA transactions is very small. In addition,
the FHA mortgage ceiling virtually eliminates higher
priced homes from consideration. The impact of the
ceiling—and especially changes in the ceiling—may be
quite substantial, possibly resulting in a downward bias
in the house price indexes used in the CPI.3
The other important difficulty in estimating house
price change is the development of good quality adjust
ment procedures, required before a valid comparison
between two different samples can be made. Quality ad
justment is currently accomplished by sorting the obser
vations on FHA sales into 600 mutually exclusive cells.
The cells were generated from the cross classification of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the 4 0 CPI geographic areas, 5 age ranges, and 3 size
groups. The estimate of change in house prices is com
puted from the cells. First, the average of the prices per
square foot is obtained for each cell. Second, the change
is computed for each cell from the average price per
square foot of the previous month. Finally, the average
of the change is taken over the cells with weights that
reflect the base period importance of each cell.4
Mortgage interest and other cost changes. Changes in
mortgage interest costs are determined from the combi
nation of (1) an estimate of changes in mortgage inter
est rates and (2) the estimate of the changes in house
prices. Thus, the mortgage interest cost element of the
CPI shows the effect of changing interest rates, with oth
er loan features held constant, and changing house val
ues, with house quality held constant. Put another way,
this element shows the change in the amount required
to finance a given house in the face of changes in both
the interest rate and the price of the house.
The rate change is estimated using quality control
cells similar to those used for house prices. For conven
tional loans, the cells result from the cross classification
of the 4 0 CPI geographic areas, 3 downpayment classes,
and 2 classes to distinguish between mortgages on new
and existing houses. The source data for conventional
loans are provided by the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board. They consist of all mortgages closed during the
first 5 business days each month by a sample of savings
and loans and other lenders. There is currently a
1-month lag before the data are used in the CPI. In ad
dition, there are cells for FHA and VA ceiling rates; these
have 13.5 percent of the mortgage weight.
Price changes for the other homeownership elements
are estimated with the standard CPI technique of follow
ing the prices of a fixed set of selected items over time.
The property taxes on a sample of homes are tracked
from year to year, after removing the effect of capital
changes and exemption changes which are not the result
of new tax rules. Price change for property insurance is
Table 1. Relative importance of index components of the
official (CPI-U) and experimental (CPI-U-X1) measures,
December 1980
Relative importance
Component
All Item s...........................................................................
Food and beverages ...................................................
Housing .......................................................................
Shelter .....................................................................
Rent, residential.......................................................
Other rental costs ...................................................
Homeownership.......................................................
Fuel and other utilities .................................................
Household furnishings and operation..........................
Apparel and upkeep ...................................................
Transportation..............................................................
Medical c a re ................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................
Other goods and services ..........................................
CPI-U
CPI-U-X1
100.000
18.309
45.519
31.650
5.120
.714
25.816
6.550
7.319
4.854
18.955
4.717
3.647
3.999
100.00
21.264
36.720
20.613
5.946
.830
13.837
7.604
8.503
5.639
22.020
5.476
4.237
4.643
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Homeownership in the
estimated by following the price of a specified amount
of homeowners or fire and extended coverage insurance,
with annual inflation adjustments to any dollar values
used in the specifications. For maintenance and repair
expenses, a specified set of commodities and services are
priced in retail outlets by CPI field representatives.
The rental equivalence approach
The current treatment of homeownership in the CPI
has some very ad hoc aspects: there is no recognition of
the distinction between investment and consumption,
nor is there any clearly identified underlying conceptual
structure. This is not the case for the rental equivalence
approach. The following summarizes the conceptual ar
guments for this approach and outlines the operational
steps which will be taken to ensure that the approach is
effectively implemented.5
Conceptual framework. The overall conceptual frame
work for the Consumer Price Index was presented by
Robert Gillingham in 1974. To summarize, we assume
that the consumer’s welfare is determined by the flow of
consumption services received, where the services can be
(1) directly provided, (2) obtained coincidentally with
the consumption of a nondurable good (in which case
the distinction between a good and a service is unneces
sary), or (3) obtained from the use of a durable good
owned by the consumer. In each case, satisfaction is de
rived from the act of consumption; ownership of a
source of consumption services— a durable good— pro
duces no additional satisfaction. In other words, the
purchase of a durable good is an “investment,”
designed to provide consumption services over a future
time span.
Within this framework, we want the CPI to measure
the cost over time of the market basket of services
consumed in the base period. For the services provided
by directly-purchased services and nondurable goods,
this implies observing market prices and transaction lev
els in the base period, as well as the subsequent time
path of market prices. However, for the services provid
ed by durable goods owned by consumers, the implicit
price of the services must be estimated, because market
transactions do not take place each time the service is
consumed.
Within this framework, the problem is basically one
of estimation. This problem is not serious for many du
rable goods because aggregate service flows and aggre
gate purchase flows are closely related, and asset price
movements are closely related to service price move
ments. Thus, standard techniques can be used. For
housing, however, this pattern does not typically hold,
and alternative procedures must be developed. To ana
lyze this problem for housing, we will start by defining
the user cost of housing in the simplest case—in a
Digitized for
12 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CPI
world of certainty without taxes, and with perfectly
competitive markets— and proceed to outline the com
plications which arise when these assumptions are
dropped.
In a world with perfect rental and resale markets and
no uncertainty, the user cost of a house in a given peri
od can be shown to be the following:
(1)
c, =
r,P, - A, + Z,
where r is the (single) rate of interest in period t, P is
the average price of the house in period t, A is equal to
the change in the average price over the period, and Z
represents all other cost components. In other words,
the user cost is defined as the opportunity cost of hold
ing the house, r*P + Z, less the increase in the house’s
value. In equilibrium, the rental price of the house, R,
will be equal to the user cost and, because we have as
sumed frictions away, the rent received by a landlord
will equal the rent paid by a tenant. Thus, in a perfect
world the following obtains
(2)
R^ = Ct = R[
where the superscripts L and T denote landlord and
tenant.
Under the conditions we have assumed, measurement
of the value of the flow of shelter services from a house
becomes a trivial matter. It can be measured with infor
mation from either rental or resale and money markets
and it does not matter whether the information refers to
buyers’ or sellers’ prices. Problems arise, however, when
we attempt to measure the cost of shelter for
homeowners in a more complicated setting, in which
the exact form of the user cost function is more difficult
to define and the equalities above need not hold.
To lay out this problem more clearly, we will drop
the assumption of perfect certainty, thereby allowing for
a structure of differing asset yields. We will also relax
the assumption of perfect markets to allow for the pos
sibility that the rent received by a homeowner may be
less than the rent paid by a tenant, the difference repre
senting, for instance, the value of a management func
tion. Although we no longer assume perfect rental mar
kets, we do assume that there is some price at which
each homeowner can rent shelter services equivalent to
those provided by his own home, and some strictly pos
itive price at which another consumer would be willing
to rent his house. Under these conditions, the user cost
measure can be redefined as
(3)
Ct - retE, + rmtMt - A, + Zt
where M and E are mortgage and equity amounts
which sum to the average price of housing (P), rmis the
mortgage interest rate, and re is the opportunity cost of
equity capital.6
The relationship between user cost, defined in this
manner, and the alternative rent measures defined above
is now ambiguous, and depends critically on the man
ner in which the opportunity cost of equity capital is
defined. Certainly, the rent paid by a tenant must be
greater than or equal to that received by a landlord, but
depending on the manner in which one chooses to de
fine and estimate the opportunity cost of equity capital,
the relationship between each of the rent measures and
user cost is uncertain.
The variables included in the redefined user cost func
tion are all conceptually and operationally straightfor
ward with one crucial exception— the opportunity cost
of equity capital. Unfortunately, estimates of user cost
are also sensitive to alternative definitions of this vari
able. In 1980, Gillingham presented several somewhat
“natural” alternatives for defining the opportunity cost
of equity capital.7 In 1972, he had suggested that re be
estimated as an internal rate of return defined by the
identity
(4)
fining re other than as the internal rate of return has the
effect of incorrectly including in C some element of the
investment return on housing investments. This result
implies that rental equivalence measures are a necessary
input into the development of acceptable user cost mea
sures.
Empirical implementation. The foregoing discussion em
phasizes the importance of explicit or implicit rental
market information in developing conceptually sound
user cost measures. It has been demonstrated that esti
mated user cost functions are subject to extreme volatil
ity and that direct use of rental market information is a
far more promising approach.9 The basic question then
becomes the appropriate design of a rental equivalence
estimation procedure.10 Over the past several years, the
Bureau has produced an experimental rental equivalence
index (cP l-U -X l) which simply uses the rent index to
move a rental equivalence weight derived from the 1972
-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey. Relative impor
tances for this index are shown in table 1 and the rela-
R,L+ A , = raEl + r m,Mt + Z|
where R^ is an estimate of the market rental which an
owner could receive for his house.8 Alternatively, one
might argue that the appropriate internal rate of return
be defined by substituting RT in equation (4). In either
case, the resulting estimate of user cost, which we will
call C,, reduces to an implicit rent, and the following
relationship holds:
(5)
R\ < Crt < R[
The suggestion to use an internal rate of return on
housing to estimate user cost is based on the assump
tion that this rate best describes the alternative rate of
return an owner/investor could receive on another in
vestment with similar liquidity and risk characteristics.
That is, the household’s user cost of owner-occupied
housing or cost of consuming the flow of services from
its housing unit must be at least as great as the income
which the household could receive by renting the unit
to someone else. This cost is independent of the capital
gains achievable from holding housing assets, except in
sofar as such gains are reflected in rent levels. Each
household determines its housing stock based on deci
sions regarding the expected rates of return on housing
equity and other assets with varying characteristics.
This determination is separate, however, from the deci
sion as to the rate of consumption of housing services.
Such factors as the rate of change in house prices deter
mine the rate of return on equity, but ex post capital
gains do not affect the user cost. In the same way, de
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Homeownership in the
tive movements of this index and the official index are
displayed in chart 1. Although CPI-U-X1 gives a rough
idea of how a rental equivalence index would move, the
Bureau believes several procedural improvements are re
quired before an official rental equivalence index is in
troduced. Following are the steps currently underway
to improve the method of calculating the rental equiva
lence measure now used in the CPI-U-X1. This work will
be completed in the latter part of 1982 and will be
ready for introduction into the CPI-U with data for Jan
uary 1983. (See exhibit 1.)
Specifically, three limitations of the current rental
equivalence measure will be addressed. First, the sample
of rental units now used will be reweighted so that it
will represent owner-occupied housing units instead of
renter-occupied units. The current sample of rental
units was selected, with a probability-based technique,
from the renter-occupied units in selected neighbor
hoods in each CPI pricing area. The rent survey neigh
borhoods were selected using, among other stratification
variables, the percent of the neighborhood that was
owner-occupied. By taking advantage of this element of
the design of the rent survey, new weights can be
assigned to the housing units in the sample so that they
will represent the owner-occupied housing units in their
neighborhoods, CPI areas, and, ultimately, all urban
places in the United States. The reweighted rent sample
can then be viewed as representing—under the rental
equivalence concept— homeowner costs for all urban
consumers in the United States.
Second, the expenditure weight for rental equivalence,
which for the experimental index was calculated by
means of a short-cut method, will be recalculated using
the complex statistical estimating procedure used for
weights in the official CPI. This enhancement will im
prove the quality of the national CPI’s rental equiva
CPI
lence weight, and will provide weights for computation
of local area CPI using the rental equivalence approach.
Finally, the data processing system which produces
the CPI each month will be expanded to accommodate
the calculation of a CPI-U, with complete item and geo
graphic detail, which employs the rental equivalence ap
proach.
Subject to resource availability, longer range plans
for improving the rental equivalence measure include an
augmentation of the sample of rental units. This new
sampling will be concentrated in areas where the hous
ing is predominantly owner-occupied in order to in
crease the proportion of rental units that have
characteristics similar to owner-occupied units. In addi
tion, improvements in the statistical estimating tech
niques for rental equivalence will also be developed.
decision to change to a flow-of-services ap
proach in measuring shelter costs for homeowners
implies a major conceptual change for this component
of the CPI. We believe the current approach is severely
lacking in conceptual rationale, and that the proposed
changes will be a great improvement. Much of the con
troversy over the change, however, has centered around
the empirical question of which index will increase more
rapidly over the next several years. As shown in chart
1, the rental equivalence index increased less rapidly
over the past decade. However, this period has been
marked by substantial activity in housing markets and
widely fluctuating mortgage interest rates. It would be
extremely difficult to predict relative future movements
and, thus, the decision to change the index should be
based on conceptual and operational adequacy, a sub
ject on which we do have information, rather than on
predictions of future movements in the indexes, a sub
ject on which our information is extremely uncertain. □
T he
FOOTNOTES
1This section paraphrases Commissioner Norwood’s statement of
Oct. 27, 1981, announcing that the c p i would be changed.
2This section is based on Walter Lane’s, “The Costs of
Homeownership,” S e lle r /S e r v ic e r , September-October 1979.
3For a detailed discussion of these effects, see John Greenlees,
“Sample Truncation in f h a Data: Implications for Home Purchase In
dexes,” Working Paper No. 113 and “Alternative Indexes of Home
Purchase Prices, 1973-1978,” Working Paper No. 114 (Bureau of La
bor Statistics, 1981).
4 Additional procedures exist for dealing with cells with inadequate
sample sizes.
5For a detailed discussion, see Robert Gillingham, “Estimating the
user cost of owner-occupied housing,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , Febru
ary 1980, pp. 31-35.
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 Robert Gillingham, “A Conceptual Framework for the Revised
Consumer Price Index,” P ro ceed in g s, Business and Economics Statis
tics Section, American Statistical Association, 1974, pp. 246-52.
7Gillingham, “Estimating the user cost.”
8 Robert Gillingham, “Measurement in the Consumer Price Index
of the Cost of Shelter for Homeowners,” Bureau of Labor Statistics.
June 1972.
9 Robert Gillingham, “Measuring the Cost of Shelter for
Homeowners: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations,” Working
Paper No. 122 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981).
10I b id . Gillingham produces experimental rental equivalence indexes
using a very different set of procedures unsuited for use in the c p i .
The results, however, give no evidence that a reasonable rental equiv
alence measure would be excessively difficult to produce.
Labor turnover in manufacturing:
the survey in retrospect
Discontinued Federal-State series shows
level of hires, quits, and other job changes
has remained relatively stable except for
cyclical variations; analytical limitations
include coverage o f industries that have
become less representative of the economy
Carol
M.
U tter
With the compilation of data for December 1981, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics has ended its survey of labor
turnover, predominantly in manufacturing. The monthly
survey, a key economic indicator, was discontinued be
cause of severe budgetary cutbacks.
The labor turnover survey was initiated in 1926 by
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. to provide person
nel managers with a national benchmark of turnover
rates in manufacturing plants. In 1929, the company
turned the project over to BLS for further development,
and BLS had been collecting data monthly since 1930.
In the first 10 years, the Bureau expanded the original
sample of 175 large establishments, which employed 25
percent of all manufacturing workers. In the meantime,
a number of State employment security agencies affil
iated with the U.S. Employment Service of the Depart
ment of Labor were collecting labor turnover informa
tion for use in local job market analysis and as a guide
for the operations of the State employment services. Co
operative arrangements between these agencies and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the joint collection of la
bor turnover data began with an agreement with Con
necticut in 1954.
By 1964, the cooperative program had been extended
to cover all 50 States and the District of Columbia, and
the total sample comprised 40,000 reporting establish-
Carol M. Utter is a statistician in the Office of Employment Struc
tures and Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ments in manufacturing and mining. By the late 1960’s,
these agencies published about 8,000 labor turnover se
ries of States and Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, while national rates were published for 221 in
dustries. For many industries, separate rates were
published for men and women between 1958 and 1968.
In 1969, the survey was expanded to include the col
lection of information on job openings. During the next
4 years, information on labor turnover and job open
ings was collected for all manufacturing and mining in
dustries as well as for nonmanufacturing industries in
about 20 selected standard metropolitan areas. The job
openings portion of the survey was discontinued at the
end of 1973 and with it the collection of turnover data
for most nonmanufacturing industries.1 Monthly turn
over information continued to be collected for all min
ing and manufacturing industries, entailing 260 national
series and nearly 11,000 State and area series.
Uses of the data
These statistics have been used primarily for econom
ic and labor market analysis and for research. In the
private sector, employers have used the data on quits as
a yardstick against which to measure the performance
of their plants, with low quit rates considered an indica
tion of efficient operations and good labor management
relations. In the public sector, labor turnover rates were
also widely used by State employment services to plan
and appraise their operations. For example, the State
employment security agencies compared the number of
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Manufacturing Labor Turnover Survey
employees placed through their services with the total
number of new hires reported by employers within the
labor market served by a particular local employment
service office. Thus, the number of job placements by
each local office could be measured relative to the po
tential for placement in the local job market.
Over the years, the major use of the labor turnover
rates was as an economic indicator. The layoff rate sig
naled changes in the economy several months before
business turning points, particularly the starts of down
turns. The Bureau of Economic Analysis included the
layoff rate as one of the 12 components of its composite
Index of Economic Leading Indicators. (See table 1.)
Analysts have also found the quit rate to be a partic
ularly useful representation of the decision of individual
employees regarding their perceptions of the availability
of other job opportunities.
From 1950 through 1979, accessions (new hires, re
calls, and transfers) ranged decennially between 4.5
percent and 4.1 percent, while separations (mainly quits
and layoffs) ran about 4.3 percent. The average rate of
new hires for each decade stood at 2.9 percent per
month, while the average rate of quits was about 2 per
cent. For 1980 and 1981, turnover slowed as business
conditions worsened. (See table 2.)
In general, one notes little evidence of increased job
hopping or any particular change in employers’ use of
layoffs to adjust their work force to slackening business
conditions. Of course, the manufacturing sector has not
grown in employment during the postwar period and its
share of the Nation’s nonfarm jobs dropped from 34
percent in 1950 to 22 percent in 1981. Therefore, acces
sions have not exceeded separations as would have been
the situation if labor turnover data for the total econo
my or the fast growing service sectors were included.
The foregoing is intended merely as a brief descrip
Table 1. Layoff rate in relation to the business cycle,
November 1948 to July 1981
__________________
Cyclical phase
Layoff low
Months leading
Layoff rate2
Dec. 1947
Nov. 1952
Nov. 1955
May 1959
Apr. 1969
Oct. 1973
Mar. 1979
July 1981
11
8
21
11
8
1
10
0
1.0
.8
1.3
1.7
1.1
.8
.9
1.0
Contraction1
Nov. 1948 ...........
July 1953 .............
Aug. 1957 ...........
Apr. 1960 .............
Dec. 1969 ...........
Nov. 1973 ...........
Jan. 1980 ...........
July 1981.............
Expansion1
Layoff peak
Months leading
Layoff rate2
Oct. 1949 ...........
May 1954 ...........
Apr. 1958 .............
Feb. 1961 ...........
Nov. 1970 ...........
Mar. 1975 ...........
July 1980 .............
May 1949
Jan. 1954
Mar. 1958
Feb. 1961
Oct. 1970
Feb. 1975
May 1980
5
4
1
0
1
1
2
3.4
2.9
3.5
3.0
2.2
3.0
32
1Beginning date as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
2 Seasonally adjusted.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Average monthly labor turnover rates in
manufacturing, 1930-81
Total
accessions
Period
1930-39
1940-49
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-81
....
....
....
....
....
....
4.8
6.9
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.4
New
hires
_
—
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.1
Total
separations
Quits
Layoffs
4.7
6.6
4.4
4.3
4.3
3.8
1.2
4.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.4
3.4
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.6
tion of the behavior of the series. Many detailed
analyses of the series have been published, including the
Monthly Labor Review article, “Quits in manufacturing:
a study of their causes.’’2
Limitations of the series
One of the major shortcomings of the terminated
program has been its limited scope. The industry cover
age—limited to manufacturing, mining, and telephone
communications—has become less representative of
overall economic behavior. In the last 30 years, while
the number of full- and part-time workers on nonagricultural payrolls has doubled from 45 million to
more than 90 million, only 1 out of every 9 jobs added
went to manufacturing industries. Thus, the usefulness
of the statistics in measuring the job mobility of the en
tire work force has diminished. The lack of data by oc
cupation has also been considered a problem by many
users and limited the usefulness of the series to aid in
guiding development of occupational training programs.
There has also been an increasing concern over the
low level of labor turnover recorded in the series.
In the mid-1970’s, the Employment and Training Ad
ministration ( e t a ) began to investigate alternate sources
of labor turnover information relating to all industries.
Funded by ETA, several State employment security agen
cies derived labor turnover from administrative records
maintained for the unemployment insurance system.3
The significantly higher new-hire rates derived from
this source than those produced by the BLS survey for
manufacturing industries pointed to problems in the de
sign of the labor turnover sample. It was essentially a
“size cutoff” sample directed at establishments with 50
or more employees. The new-hire rates of the few small
establishments in the BLS sample were 2 or 3 times
higher than corresponding rates of larger establish
ments. In addition, many of the larger establishments in
the sample had cooperated in the program for a long
time, were well established, and appeared to have less
turnover than large establishments not in the sample.
There was also a regional bias in the sample, with some
of the fast growing States, particularly California, being
underrepresented. The Bureau had been aware of these
problems for some time, but funds had not been avail
able to make the necessary improvements in the sample
design and in the estimating methodology.
However, several studies have shown that the degree
of bias in the survey results was considerably smaller
for total separations. On this basis, the quit and layoff
data retained validity as an economic indicator.
Alternate sources
Although the labor turnover survey was the only
source for current statistics by detailed industry catego
ries for the manufacturing sector, there are a number of
other sources that-provide information which users may
substitute for the BLS survey. The labor turnover rates
derived through the operations of State unemployment
insurance systems have the potential of providing quar
terly rates of total separations, total accessions, and
new hires by industry for previous quarters. These turn
over rates are computed by comparing the social securi
ty numbers of employees working for a given employer
in a given quarter, as reported on the employer’s quar
terly unemployment insurance tax report, with the so
cial security numbers reported by the same employer in
prior quarters. Unfortunately, this methodology cannot
distinguish between the types of separations, such as
quits and layoffs.
At present, 12 States do not have unemployment in
surance systems which require regular reporting of
quarterly wages for each employee identified by social
security numbers, a requisite for using this methodolo
gy. Only 21 States are currently producing labor turn
over rates with this methodology, and seven more are in
the developmental stage of producing the rates.
As a one-time project, the methodology was applied
to a special tabulation of a 1-percent sample of quarter
ly social security records made available by the Social
Security Administration. This study provided, for the
first time, information about the volume of accessions,
new hires, and separations in all industries and all
States for the second quarter of 1974.4 Because of
changes in the filing requirements for employer reports
for social security taxes, this source is not available for
years after 1976.
The best alternate source for current information on
layoffs is the ETA’s Unemployment Insurance Weekly
Claims Report. Initial claims derived from that source
will be used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in
place of the layoff rate in manufacturing as one of the
12 components in calculating the Index of Leading Eco
nomic Indicators. The Current Population Survey is an
other source of statistics on labor turnover. Information
on unemployed persons on layoff is collected each
month, and data are published in Employment and
Earnings by various characteristics, such as age, sex,
race, and duration of unemployment. Unpublished data
are available by other characteristics, including industry
of last job, although the industry detail is limited. From
time to time, the survey is also used to collect data on
job tenure and mobility.
The Office of Personnel Management calculates labor
turnover rates for Federal employees from its Central
Personnel Data file. These data are published monthly
for all Federal agencies. Separate rates are available for
total accessions, total separations, new hires, transfers,
quits, and all other separations.
There are several private organizations that collect
and disseminate labor turnover information. The most
important of these sources is the Bureau of National Af
fairs. Since 1974, this organization has been collecting
labor turnover information from about 600 large com
panies in all industries. The data are collected quarterly
and are published in a bulletin shortly thereafter.5 The
definitions and estimating methodology used by tnis or
ganization are comparable to those that have been used
by BLS. The limited sample size does not allow the pro
duction of any industry detail. The Administrative
Management Society has been collecting annual data on
separations of office employees approximately every oth
er year since 1969. The results of this survey, derived
from about 2,000 reporting companies in a wide spec
trum of industries, are published in the Society’s Man
agement World journal.6 The separations data are
restricted to office employees only and do not include
temporary layoffs and certain leaves of absence.
Historical data on the BLS national labor turnover se
ries will be maintained in the BLS data base and will be
provided to users who request all or part of the file.
The data can be provided as listings or on tape. The
Bureau does not maintain a data base for any of the
State and area series, but some of the State agencies
which had cooperated in the survey may be able to pro
vide these data to interested users.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S
' Paul A. Armknecht, “Job vacancies in manufacturing, 1969-73,”
August 1974, pp. 27-33.
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,
Paul A. Armknecht and John F. Early, “Quits in manufacturing:
a study of their causes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1972, pp.
31-37. For a partial listing of the major studies using the series, see
James L. Price, T h e S tu d y o f T u rn o ve r (The Iowa State University
Press, 1977), 160 pp.
Philip Hardiman and Marge Sugarman, “Employment Service Po
tential: The Dimensions of Labor Turnover”, report prepared by the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment Development Department, State of California, Sept. 1,
1979.
Malcolm Cohen and Arthur Schwartz, “U.S. labor turnover: anal
ysis of a new measure,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1980, pp.
9-13.
Mary Green Miner, “Job absence and turnover: a new source of
data,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1977, pp. 24—31.
Edward G. Thomas, “ 1978 AMS Office Turnover Survey,” M a n
a g e m e n t W o rld , September 1979, pp. 19-21.
17
Occupational winners and losers:
who they were during 1972-80
Job gains occurred in most occupational groupings
in which Americans were employed during the 1970’s,
but close to half of the overall employment increase
took place in just 20 o f the 235 occupations;
and, several job groups lost thousands of workers
Carol Boyd Leon
Most occupations gained workers in the 1970’s. An em
ployment increase of 15.6 million persons during 1972
to 1980 was dispersed among three-fourths of the 235
or so occupational categories in which most persons
were employed. However, almost half of this job
growth can be attributed to just 20 occupations—in
cluding secretaries, cashiers, registered nurses, and
cooks. Among occupations declining in size were deliv
ery workers, cleaners and servants in private house
holds, and farmers. (See exhibit 1.)
This article looks at employment changes among the
biggest occupational winners and losers of the 1970’s.
Two sets of criteria were used to choose the winners.
An occupation must be one of the top 20 in terms of
the number of workers added to the annual average em
ployment level between 1972 and 1980— these increases
ranged from more than 200,000 to nearly 1 million; al
ternately, the job group must have been one of the 20
which grew by 75 percent or more. The majority of oc
cupations which met these tests were in either profes
sional or clerical fields. Four job groups—computer
specialists, computer operators, health technologists and
technicians, and bank tellers—met both criteria. For all
winners, job expansion by industry and by sex is exam
ined.
Carol Boyd Leon is an economist in the Division of Employment and
Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The 10 biggest losers of 1972-80—that is, occupa
tions which declined by 60,000 workers or more—were
generally other than white-collar jobs. (Percentage de
crease in employment was not used as a criterion for
job losers because only occupations with extremely
small numbers of workers in them declined by a large
proportion and their absolute loss of workers was
small.) Various technological and sociological changes
help account for many of the employment decreases, as
will be pointed out later.
The Current Population Survey, which is the article’s
major data source, provides employment information
for about 435 detailed occupations. However, this dis
cussion is limited to those which posted a 1980 annual
average employment level of 50,000 workers or more.
To determine growth during the 1970’s, annual averages
for 1972 and 1980 are used; the year 1972 was chosen
as the base year because earlier data are not available
for all occupations on a comparable definitional basis.1
Where has the growth occurred?
About half of the 15.6 million increase in employ
ment between 1972 and 1980 took place among two
white-collar groups— professional and technical work
ers rose by 4.2 million and clerical workers registered a
gain of 3.9 million. Next highest were managers and ad
ministrators with an increase of 2.9 million, service
workers (excluding private household workers) with 2.4
million, and craft and kindred workers with 1.7 million.
Exhibit 1. Occupations ranked by the size of their
absolute employment changes, 1972-80
Largest increases
Largest decreases
Secretaries
Cashiers
Registered nurses
Cooks
Truckdrivers
Accountants
Engineers
Computer and peripheral
machine operators
Bookkeepers
Computer specialists
Delivery and route workers
Cleaners and servants
Farm owners and tenant
farmers
Unpaid family farmworkers
Garage workers and gas
station attendants
Sewers and stitchers
Child-care workers
Textile operatives
Telephone operators
Stenographers
Only small increases were posted among salesworkers,
operatives, and nonfarm laborers, while there were de
clines of about 400,000 each among private household
and farmworkers.
Growth rates follow a similar pattern. These measure
the increase in employment relative to the initial (1972)
employment level of the occupation. As shown below,
white-collar groups—in particular, professionals, man
agers and administrators, and clerical workers—experi
enced the fastest growth between 1972 and 1980,
followed by service workers (excluding private household):
Occupation
Employment change,
in percent
T o ta l.................................................
White-collar workers ...................................
Professional and technical workers . . . .
Managers and administrators, ex
cept f a rm ...............................................
Salesworkers ............................................
Clerical and kindred w o rk e rs.................
Blue-collar workers .....................................
Craft and kindred w orkers......................
Operatives, except tra n sp o rt....................
Transport equipment operatives ............
Nonfarm lab o rers.....................................
Service workers ............................................
Private household w o rk ers......................
Other service workers ..............................
Farm w orkers.................................................
19.1
30.0
36.3
35.9
15.3
27.1
7.8
15.9
0.1
8.1
6.9
18.2
—27.6
25.1
—11.9
The only blue-collar occupational group which even
came near the average growth rate was craft and kin
dred jobs. Generally speaking, as the service-producing
sector expanded, so did office and service jobs, while
slow growth in manufacturing and other goods-producing industries limited the increase in the employment of
production workers.
Women accounted for about 65 percent of the em
ployment rise over the period, an amount dispropor
tionate to their 38-percent share of total employment in
1972. Many of the specific occupational winners—in
cluding the top five mentioned earlier— were “femaledominated.” Women also made up a relatively large
share of the job gains in all major occupational groups
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
which experienced growth. More specifically, women
accounted for at least half of the increases in employ
ment in each of the major groups except craft and kin
dred jobs, where 1 of 5 additional workers was female.
And even among craftworkers, women composed much
of the employment advance compared with their por
tion of all craft jobs, as they accounted for fewer than 1
of 25 craftworkers in 1972. In two occupational groups,
women made up 100 percent of the (limited) job gains,
as the number of men employed as nonfarm laborers re
mained about the same and the number working as op
eratives except transport declined. Women made up a
small part of the drop in farmworkers but virtually all
of the decrease among private household workers.
Surge among white-collar groups
The proportion of workers employed in white-collar
occupations reached 50 percent for the first time in
1976 and exceeded 52 percent by 1980. The continual
climb in the proportion of these jobs can be attributed
to three of its four major occupational groups— profes
sional and technical workers, managers and administra
tors, and clerical workers.
Professional workers. The most growth took place
among professional workers; seven specific occupations
with increases of 200,000 or more fall under this head
ing. (See table 1.) The biggest employment gain was
among registered nurses, whose job count was boosted
by the growing demand for health services throughout
the 1970’s. (However, demand for services does not nec
essarily imply a simple one-to-one relationship to job
growth in the health or any other industry. Other fac
tors, such as relative wages received by persons in the
occupation, the supply of workers with appropriate
skills, changes in productivity and technology, and the
degree to which other types of workers can satisfy the
additional demand may all contribute to determining
the magnitude of the employment change.) The health
industry boom— caused by the greater availability of
medical insurance, a larger and older population, and
more public awareness of quality health care, among
other factors—led to the job gains for nurses, as well
as for dieticians, therapists, health technicians, adminis
trators, and health aides.2 The number of physicians in
creased too, but their rate of growth was slower than
that of other health workers. The employment advance
among registered nurses, which totaled 500,000 during
1972-80, occurred mainly among those in hospitals
(350,000) and in medical offices (125,000). Although the
number of male nurses more than doubled— they to
taled 45,000 by 1980— 95 percent of the job gains oc
curred among women.
The category of health technologists and technicians
was among the biggest gainers— both in the size of the
19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Occupational Winners and Losers, 1972-80
job gain and the growth rate of the employed—al
though they posted an employment increase of only half
that of registered nurses. (See tables 1 and 2.) As the
demand for skilled persons to operate highly sophisti
cated diagnostic and therapeutic equipment grew, the
employment level of health technologists and techni
cians advanced by approximately 255,000. More than
half of this gain was among hospital workers, particu
larly those employed as clinical laboratory and radiologic technicians. As one might suspect, substantial
increases also occurred among health technicians work
ing in medical offices and other such facilities. A much
smaller, but still noteworthy, gain took place in local
government, which employed very few health technolo
gists and technicians in the early 1970’s compared with
13,000 by 1980. Women accounted for about two-thirds
of the total increase among health technologists and
technicians, in line with their representation in that oc
cupation.
In another health-related occupation, therapists
posted an 85-percent increase (almost 100,000), as the
health industry as a whole grew rapidly. The exception
Table 1. Occupations with the largest absolute increases
in employment between 1972 and 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
Employed
Occupation
Employment
increases
Rank by
size of
Number Percent increase
1972
1980
Total employed .............................
81,702
97,270
15,568
19.1
Professional and technical workers:
Accountants..........................................
Computer specialists.............................
Engineering and science technicians . . .
Engineers...............................................
Health technologists and technicians ..
Law yers.................................................
Registered nurses.................................
714
273
828
1,102
315
303
801
1,047
584
1,095
1,433
571
522
1,302
333
311
267
331
256
219
501
46.6
113.9
32.2
30.0
81.3
72.3
62.5
6
10
12
7
14
18
3
349
582
233
66.8
17
696
915
219
31.5
18
Salesworkers:
Real estate agents and b rokers...........
Sales representatives, wholesale
trade .................................................
-
Clerical workers:
Bank tellers ..........................................
Bookkeepers ........................................
Cashiers ...............................................
Computer and peripheral machine
operators ..........................................
Secretaries............................................
288
1,584
988
531
1,904
1,554
243
320
556
84.4
20.2
55.7
16
9
2
196
2,949
522
3,876
326
927
166.3
31.4
8
1
Craftworkers:
Heavy equipment m echanics...............
714
963
249
34.9
15
Transportation equipment operatives:
Truckdrivers..........................................
1,441
1,844
403
28.0
5
Nonfarm laborers:
Stockhandlers........................................
723
941
218
30.2
20
Service workers:
Building interior cleaners excluding
janitors and sextons...........................
Cooks ...................................................
Waiters .................................................
668
866
1,124
932
1,331
1,416
264
465
292
39.5
53.7
26.0
13
4
11
N ote :
Data are annual averages.
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ally fast growth rate among therapists can be partly
traced to stronger interest in, and funding for, rehabili
tation programs. The representation of women among
therapists advanced from about 60 to 75 percent from
1972 to 1980, as the vast majority of new therapists
were women.
While still a relatively small health occupation, the
number of dieticians grew swiftly, as their employment
total rose from less than 35,000 to 60,000. As about 9
of 10 dieticians are women, virtually all of the job gains
were registered among women. Like the other health
workers, both therapists and dieticians found most job
opportunities in hospitals, nursing homes, and other
medical facilities.
The professional group which posted the next largest
increase after nurses—about 335,000— was account
ants. As business and individuals became more aware of
the need for financial management, demand for account
ants and accounting firms expanded; in fact, the rate of
growth of accountants— a group which includes income
tax advisers and others with accounting skills— was
about twice that of total employment. About 30 percent
of the job gains took place among those in professional
services industries, especially the accounting, auditing,
and bookkeeping services industry (although accoun
tants working for hospitals and educational services
made up part of the increase). An additional 20 percent
of the advance occurred among manufacturing indus
tries, with most of that rise being registered in firms
which produce durable goods. The remaining 50 percent
of the increase was spread among numerous industries,
including public administration at all three levels of
government, banking and finance, wholesale trade, and
insurance and real estate. Although most accountants
are men, the female share of the industry rose by 15
percentage points, to about 36 percent, as two-thirds of
the additional accountants were women.
Engineers had a substantial employment rise, as their
job count moved ahead by 330,000. Close to half of the
job growth for engineers was in manufacturing. Next
came professional services, and noticeable growth also
occurred in business services, public utilities, and public
administration (State and local). Industrial, and electri
cal and electronic engineers experienced the largest job
gains, followed by mechanical engineers. These were
also the fields in which employment of female engineers
expanded the most. Although women made up only 15
percent of the total employment advance of engineers,
their 50,000 increase was exceptional, considering there
were fewer than 10,000 female engineers in 1972.
Related to the job gains among engineers was a rise
of 265,000 among engineering and science technicians.
These gains were spread throughout the economy but,
like that of engineers, much of their employment in
crease was in manufacturing. Especially rapid growth in
the production and use of electrical and electronic
equipment and computer equipment accounted for a
sustantial number of new engineering jobs in those
manufacturing industries and in the field of telecommu
nications. Although engineering and science technician
jobs traditionally have been filled by men, women
accounted for 45 percent of the 1972-80 growth, there
by doubling their representation in the occupational
group from 9 to 18 percent.
Well known for its growth is the computer field, as
advances in computer technology and usage have gener
ated literally hundreds of thousands of jobs during both
the 1960’s and 1970’s. Among just the professional job
categories, computer specialists—mainly programmers
and analysts—increased from about 12,000 in I9603 to
275,000 in 1972 and to nearly 585,000 by 1980. The
number of persons employed as computer programmers
came close to doubling during the 1972-80 period,
while computer systems analysts were not far from tri
pling their 1972 level. Both of these occupations were
among the 20 fastest-growing, and systems analysts
were at the top in terms of percentage growth. Interest
ingly, it is difficult to pinpoint those industry groups in
which most of the employment increase among comput
er specialists took place, because computers influenced
nearly every major industry. As technological advances
have made better computer equipment available at more
reasonable prices, industries with firms which could not
previously afford computers— such as some business
services— and industries which grew only slightly dur
ing the 1970’s— such as several durable goods manufac
turing industries—incorporated computers into their
operations.4 Other large increases in the employment of
computer specialists occurred in transportation and
public utilities, especially telecommunications; finance,
insurance, and real estate; nondurable goods manufac
turing; public administration; and professional services,
particularly educational services. (Employment advances
in another computer-related occupation, computer oper
ator, will be discussed later in this article.)
The female share of computer specialist jobs rose
from 17 percent in 1972 to 26 percent in 1980, as 1 of 3
additional jobholders was a woman. Women continued
to be more likely to be programmers than systems ana
lysts—although female representation among both
groups of workers increased substantially.
While lawyers make up one of the top 20 occupations
only in terms of the size of their employment increase,
both the absolute size of their gain — 220,000—and
their rate of growth—more than 70 percent— were no
table. The demand for lawyers grew rapidly as
businesses and individuals called upon them to untangle
and interpret laws which are increasing in number and
in complexity. About two-thirds of the rise in the em
ployment of lawyers, which includes law clerks and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Occupations with the largest percentage
increase in employment between 1972 and 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
Employed
Occupation
Total employed . . . .
Employment increases
Rank by
size of
increase
1972
1980
Number
81,702
97,270
15,568
19.1
30
36
70
64
40
28
133.3
77.8
4
19
186
341
155
83.3
14
Percent
Professional and technical
workers:
Authors........................
Biological scientists . . .
Computer
programmers...........
Computer systems
analysts....................
Designers ....................
Dieticians ....................
Economists..................
Health technologists
and technicians . . . .
Psychologists .............
Research workers . . . .
Therapists....................
74
110
33
68
201
193
59
138
127
83
26
70
171.6
75.5
78.8
102.9
1
20
17
7
315
50
86
115
571
106
175
213
256
56
89
98
81.3
112.0
103.5
85.2
15
5
6
10
Managers and
administrators, except
farm:
Health administrators ..
118
210
92
78.0
18
288
531
243
84.4
12
196
522
326
166.3
2
206
383
177
85.9
9
Clerical workers:
Bank tellers..................
Computer and
peripheral equipment
operators..................
Teachers’ aids except
school monitors . . . .
Craftworkers:
Data processing
machine repairers
..
45
83
38
84.4
12
Operatives, except
transport:
Insulation workers . . . .
30
59
29
96.7
8
Nonfarm laborers:
Warehouse laborers,
not elsewhere
classified..................
150
272
122
81.3
15
Service workers:
Health aides, except
nursing ....................
Welfare service aides ..
157
34
290
87
133
53
84.7
155.9
11
3
N ote :
Data are annual averages.
many paralegal workers, took place among the group to
which the majority belong— that is, those in private
practice, either with law firms or alone. Proportionately
speaking, a larger increase was registered among gov
ernment lawyers, whose number more than doubled be
tween 1972 and 1980 (from 40,000 to 90,000). Nearly a
quarter of the job gains for lawyers were in public ad
ministration, with increases occurring at Federal, State,
and, especially, local levels. Most of the remaining rise
in employment—about one-tenth of the total increase
of lawyers— was among those employed as house coun
sel by private firms, and a small increase was noted
among law teachers.
Although the practice of law traditionally has been a
“man’s job” — women accounted for only 4 percent of
all lawyers in 1972-—1 of 4 lawyers added to the job
count during 1972-80 was a woman. By 1980, the fe21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Occupational Winners and Losers, 1972-80
male proportion of employed lawyers was 13 percent,
and this share is expected to continue rising.
Two of the three professional occupations which
more than doubled in size fall under the social sciences
heading— psychologists and economists. Psychologists
are heavily concentrated in just a few industries; ac
cordingly, their 55,000 increase was accounted for al
most exclusively by job gains in professional services.
Hospitals and medical offices provided opportunities for
slightly more than half of the additional psychologists,
while other services industries, including educational
ones, absorbed most of the remainder. More than half
of the increases took place among women, bringing
their share of the employment total for psychologists to
just over 50 percent.
The industrial distribution of economists is much
more diverse, and so their 70,000 rise was spread
among many types of businesses. About 30 percent of
the advance took place in manufacturing firms, while
banks and particularly business services— such as secu
rities and investment companies, economic research
firms, and management consulting firms—made up an
other 30 percent. About 2 of 5 economists added
between 1972 and 1980 were women, making their pro
portion 25 percent.
The third group of professionals which more than
doubled in size was composed of authors, including
magazine free-lancers, speech writers, and television
writers. About three-fourths of all authors in 1980 were
self-employed and, accordingly, most of the increase of
40,000 was among self-employed workers. Men and
women shared equally in the group’s employment gain,
and the proportion of women in this occupation was
about 43 percent in both 1972 and 1980.
Other fast-growing professional occupations include
biological scientists, designers, and research workers.
The occupational group referred to as life and physical
scientists as a whole grew at about twice the national
rate for all workers, but biological scientists, who make
up about one-fifth of the overall scientist group, in
creased at the even faster rate of close to 80 percent.
Nevertheless, biological scientists increased by fewer
than 30,000, with most of the gain occurring among
those working in hospitals and medical offices, govern
ment (particularly at the State level), and education.
Women made up half of the employment increase, as
their representation in this occupation rose about 13
percentage points, to 38 percent.
The majority of designers in 1972 worked for manu
facturing firms, particularly in the development of dura
ble goods. However, an increase of 80,000 in the
number of designers was most strongly felt in profes
sional and business services. Both sexes shared in the
75-percent increase in the employment of designers.
Men continued to predominate in this occupation, al
Digitized for
22 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
though women increased their proportion 10 percentage
points, to 30 percent.
Employment of research workers who are not includ
ed in one of the other professional occupations rose
substantially in every major industry group in which re
searchers can be found. A doubling in the number of
research workers, to 175,000, was especially evident in
professional service industries, such as educational insti
tutions and law offices. Women accounted for almost
half of the overall advance and, by 1980, made up
about a third of all researchers.
Managers and adminstrators. In contrast to the 1960’s,
which had slow growth in managerial and administra
tive jobs, the 1970’s saw rapid advances in the employ
ment of these workers. Jobs for managers and
administrators increased nearly as quickly as those for
professional workers, the fastest-growing occupational
group. However, the 2.9-million increase in the number
of managers was substantially less than that posted for
professionals or clerical workers. Moreover, no single
managerial occupation qualified in the top 20 in terms
of the size of the increase, although bank officials and
financial managers—with an increase of about 215,000
— was in 21st place. The duties performed by different
persons working in managerial and administrative posi
tions can be quite varied, and actually fewer than half
of these workers are classified according to a specific oc
cupation under the managerial heading. That is, most
managers are grouped together under the indefinite title,
“managers and administrators, not elsewhere classified.”
The number of such workers increased by more than a
third, or 1.7 million.
One adminstrative group with a relatively fast rate of
growth was health administrators; their number in
creased by close to 80 percent, as more than 90,000
such employees—about half men and half women —
were added to the job count. In line with the faster
growth of health industry workers in medical facilities
other than hospitals, only one-third of the increase
among health administrators was attributable to hospi
tal hirings. In both 1972 and 1980, almost half of all
health adminstrators were women.
Salesworkers. The growth among salesworkers was
slower than the national average, as their number rose
by only about 800,000, or 15 percent, during 1972-80.
The recessions of 1974-75 and 1980 had a dampening
effect on this group, but, as will be seen in the discus
sion of cashiers in the clerical occupations, much of the
actual increase in retail trade employment is reflected at
the cash register rather than on the sales floor. Also,
there has been a substantial rise in the number of per
sons who are salesworkers in their secondary job. The
number of these multiple jobholders grew by about
250,000, or 75 percent, from 1972 to 1980.
Real estate agents and brokers— with an increase of
almost 235,000— were 1 of only 2 salesworker catego
ries listed among the Nation’s top gainers. The growth
among real estate workers can be partly traced to the
tremendous rise in the investment potential of
homeownership during most of the 1970’s and to a
growing economy’s need for additional residential and
commercial buildings. Moreover, saleswork can provide
an opportunity for part-time employment, as about onefifth of all real estate agents work less than 35 hours
per week.5By 1980, half were women, as they accounted
for 7 of 10 additional agents; hence, this occupation is
becoming more female-dominated.
A large absolute increase also was posted among
sales representatives in wholesale trade. However, their
rate of growth was only about 12 percentage points
higher than the national average, and their 220,000 in
crease occurred primarily as a result of sizable advances
within a few industries—most notably the wholesale
machinery equipment and supplies industry in which
the employment of salesworkers grew by 70,000. The fe
male proportion of this occupation, while still low at
only about 10 percent, doubled during the period.
Clerical workers. Clericals—the largest occupational
group of the 12 major job groups— took second place
after professionals in terms of the 1972-80 employment
advance. Like professional workers, clerical occupations
included 4 of the 10 top gainers; among these were the
two largest (absolute) gainers, secretaries and cashiers.
Clerical workers, in particular, were affected by devel
opments in computers and office machines, as employ
ment decreased among stenographers and keypunch op
erators, for example, while increasing among computer
operators.
Secretaries, who make up one-fifth of all clerical
workers, registered an increase of more than 925,000,
making them the leading gainer among all occupational
groups. As secretaries are needed in every industry,
their employment grew in all sectors of the economy,
especially among fast-growing industries such as busi
ness services, welfare and religious organizations, and
local government, where their employment advanced by
more than 50 percent. Legal secretaries experienced ex
ceptional growth, increasing by about 70 percent.
Only 1 of 100 secretaries is a man, and virtually all of
the field’s increase was among women. The traditionally
female composition of the secretarial work force—as
well as that of cashiers— showed no indication of
changes in the 1970’s.
Cashiers, whose numbers grew by more than 550,000,
are strongly concentrated in the retail trade industry.
Although the employment of salesworkers in retail
trade was virtually unchanged, the shift to self-service
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
drugstores, clothing stores, discount operations, and
catalog stores increased the demand for cashiers. The
proliferation of fast-food eating places, which often re
quire several cashiers, led to more than a doubling of
the number of cashiers working in restaurants, as well
as increases in part-time job opportunities. In 1976, 4 of
10 cashiers were working part time.6 Women made up
87 percent of all cashiers in both the early 1970’s and
the beginning of the 1980’s.
Computer and peripheral machine operators increased
by 325,000 and bookkeepers by 320,000. However,
whereas the latter grew at about the same rate as that
for the Nation as a whole, computer operators were the
second fastest-growing occupation, following only com
puter systems analysts. As technological improvements
have decreased the need for keypunch operators, com
puter operators became the largest computer occupa
tion, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all computer
personnel.7 As was the case for programmers and sys
tems analysts, the demand for computer operators in
creased in every major industry.
The need for bookkeeping services has grown in line
with the overall expansion of the economy, as all indus
tries include firms which require the services of one
bookkeeper or more. Although 1 of 3 works in whole
sale or retail trade, their employment grew more rapidly
in other industries. Professional services, most notably
medical offices, experienced a particularly fast rate of
growth for bookkeepers. More than 90 percent of all
bookkeepers in 1980 were women; this proportion had
been slightly lower in 1972.
Another clerical occupation with a sizable increase
in jobholders was that of bank tellers— 85 percent or
245,000. As the suburbs expanded and branch banking
proliferated, the demand for tellers increased. Appar
ently, the appearance of automatic teller machines
served to lengthen banking hours without eliminating
job opportunities for bank tellers. As has been seen,
the proportion of women in several traditionally fe
male occupations has grown, as more women have
joined the labor force; this occupation is no exception.
The proportion of female bookkeepers rose by 5 per
centage points, to nearly 93 percent, by the start of
the 1980’s.
Teachers’ aides (excluding school monitors) were a
very small group in 1960 but grew extremely fast dur
ing both the 1960’s and 1970’s; their number increased
by about 85 percent, or 175,000, from 1972 to 1980.
These workers— who serve as teachers’ assistants and
thereby assume some functions formerly performed by
teachers, for example, grading papers and exams, super
vising study halls, and helping out in kindergartens—
are almost always women. The female proportion in
this rapidly growing field was approximately 94 percent
in 1980, up a few points from the early 1970’s.
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Occupational Winners and Losers, 1972-80
Service workers stride ahead
While service worker jobs can be found in all major
industry groups, most—nearly 90 percent— are in the
service-producing sector of the economy. And as em
ployment in this sector bounded forward, so did the
number of service workers (excluding private house
hold). The fastest-growing nonwhite-collar occupational
category, it included five job groups which registered
relatively large employment increases, either numerically
or percentage-wise.
The occupation which ranks fourth among those with
the largest numerical increase in employment was that
of cooks, whose job count rose by 465,000, or close to
55 percent. Related to this increase was an almost
300,000, or 25 percent, advance among waiters (includ
ing waitresses). As more women joined the labor force,
turning single-earner families into multi-earner ones, the
number of restaurants and fast-food places expanded
and were frequented more often. The extremely large
rise in the employment of cooks, including grill cooks,
pizza makers, and fast-order cooks, can also be partially
accounted for by the use of several cooks simultaneous
ly in one eating establishment. In addition, part of the
increase in their employment—about 55,000— was be
cause of more job opportunities in hospitals and other
medical facilities and in schools.
About one-third of all cooks work part time—about
the same proportion as for all service workers— while
closer to 45 percent of waiters are part-timers.8 Most
waiters and cooks are women, but men made up an in
creasing proportion of the latter during the 1970’s. The
representation of women among cooks dropped about 9
percentage points, to 53 percent, while the female pro
portion of waiters remained around 90 percent.
Another group of service workers which posted a
large increase was building interior cleaners (excluding
janitors and sextons). Rising about 265,000 from 1972
to 1980, they experienced a growth rate about twice the
national average. The number of such workers rose sub
stantially in many industries, such as professional and
business services—including building cleaning services
—and in manufacturing and retail trade. The propor
tion of women in this occupation barely changed over
the 9-year period, staying near 55 percent.
One of the fastest-growing occupations— which nev
ertheless totaled fewer than 90,000 in 1980— was that
of welfare service aides. Their more than 150 percent in
crease made this the third largest gainer in the 1970’s in
terms of rate of growth. In 1960, prior to the wide
spread establishment of programs in social welfare,
there were fewer than 1,000 welfare service aides. Com
munity service workers, family service aides, and other
welfare service aides work mainly in welfare and reli
gious organizations but can also be found in medical fa
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cilities, such as nursing homes for the aged, and in
schools. Current Population Survey data for 1980 show
that 9 of 10 of these workers were women.
A larger service occupation, and one which also grew
rapidly during the 1970’s, was that of health aides (ex
cluding nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants). Em
ployment in this category— which includes medical
assistants, pharmacists’ helpers, and numerous others —
was part of the overall growth of health-related occupa
tions. Half of the nearly 135,000 rise in health aides was
among those working in medical facilities other than
hospitals, while a third was because of increased hospi
tal employment. The number of women in this occupa
tion doubled between 1972 and 1980, bringing their
representation among health aides up 5 percentage
points, to almost 85 percent.
Slow blue-collar growth
Blue-collar jobs, while still a major portion of the la
bor market with nearly a one-third share of total em
ployment, accounted for only one-seventh of the overall
increase in jobholders since 1972. The sluggish growth
of blue-collar employment during the 1960’s slowed
even further in the 1970’s as technological advances re
duced the need for some types of blue-collar workers,
while the job growth which took place in industries
within the service-producing sector had little impact on
the opportunities for workers in many blue-collar occu
pations. Even the rapid expansion of certain durable
goods manufacturing industries—such as machinery
and electric equipment—had only a slight overall effect
on blue-collar employment.
Craft and kindred workers— those in skilled trades—
grew at a slower pace than the overall economy but
nevertheless made up more than three-fourths of the
blue-collar advance, as laborers increased even more
slowly and operatives employment was virtually
unchanged. However, there were six specific blue-collar
occupations which grew enough to qualify as big gain
ers, either in terms of absolute or percentage increases.
Craft and kindred workers. Much of the news concern
ing craftworkers in the 1970’s focused on the entrance
of women into the skilled trades; and, they did make
important gains in this area. The number of female
craftworkers doubled between 1972 and 1980, rising by
about 365,000.9This resulted in women’s representation
among total craftworkers rising to only 6 percent, com
pared with 3.6 percent in 1972. So while 1 of 5 addi
tional craftworkers over the period were women, and
men’s employment in the skilled trades rose less than
10 percent, by 1980 this occupation was still predomi
nately male.
Heavy equipment mechanics were the only craft oc
cupation which posted a large employment gain. Much
of it took place in manufacturing, although especially
rapid growth was characteristic of mechanics in repair
services, wholesale trade, and mining. The rate of
growth for heavy equipment mechanics as a whole was
35 percent, about 15 points above the national average.
Despite the increases already noted for women in this
field, the occupation was 98 percent male in 1980.
Data processing machine repairers— also called com
puter service technicians—experienced essentially the
same sharp growth trend as other workers in the com
puter field, with a percentage gain that placed it as the
10th fastest-growing occupation during the period.
While still not a large occupational group, data process
ing machine repairers increased by nearly 85 percent, as
the need for installation, service, and repair of computer
equipment expanded as a result of more widespread
computer use. These workers were employed mainly in
durable goods manufacturing, wholesale trade, and
business and repair services, and the growth rate for
computer technicians was virtually the same in each of
these industries. Like most other craft occupations, this
one is more than 90 percent men, but women did hold
more jobs as computer repairers in 1980 than they had
in 1972.
Transport equipment operatives. Although this group as
a whole experienced slow growth—about 8 percent, or
260,000, since the early 1970’s— the jobs under this
heading tell a mixed story: three occupations grew at
rates equal to or exceeding the national average, two
were unchanged, and the remaining one decreased. The
fastest growing of the three gainers was busdrivers,
whose employment rose about 40 percent, or 100,000.
However, in terms of the actual size of the increase,
truckdrivers grew most. Their advance of 400,000
placed them fifth in the ranking of all occupations by
size of their employment growth. About 40 percent of
all truckdrivers work for transportation companies (in
cluding their own), and 20 percent work in wholesale
and retail trade. These industries accounted for threefourths of the job gains, with employment growing
more among truckdrivers in the trade industries. De
spite a number of articles and even movies about female
truckdrivers, 98 percent were men in 1980. However,
there were five times as many women holding these jobs
in 1980 as in 1972, and their employment level rose to
more than 40,000.
Operatives except transport. Nontransport operatives
made up a no-growth occupational group during the
1970’s and only one specific occupation under this
heading—insulation workers— experienced a fast rate
of growth. Moreover, only a few other nontransport op
erative occupations grew at a rate even somewhat above
the national average; these included mine operatives,
welders and flame cutters, and laundry and dry cleaning
operatives. The overall standstill among operatives, fol
lowing only slow growth during the 1960’s, was the re
sult of several technological and societal changes.
Among these were the shift of consumer demand away
from the output of goods-producing industries, in which
most operatives work, and towards service-producing
industries; technological advances which made produc
tion more efficient and thereby reduced the need for as
many operatives to produce the same amount of goods;
changes in consumer demand for some types of work,
such as dressmakers; and an increase in imports of cer
tain goods that may have limited the jobs available,
such as for textile workers. The proportion of female
operatives (excluding transport) edged up to 40 percent
in 1980. In more than a third of the specific operative
occupations, the majority of workers were women.
The almost 100-percent growth among insulation
workers, bringing their number in 1980 to slightly fewer
than 60,000, was the result of the need for insulation in
new homes and offices and the demand for more of it
among energy-conscious owners of older homes. Almost
all insulation workers are men, and the majority are
Nonfarm laborers. The number of nonfarm laborers, like
transport equipment operatives, creeped upward during
1972-80, following a decade of little or no growth. The
substitution of machines for laborers, as well as the
trend toward employing more highly skilled workers,
depressed the hiring of laborers. Although 4 of the 9
specific laborer occupations posted employment de
clines, stockhandlers increased by more than 200,000
and warehouse laborers were among the fastest growing
occupations.
The level of employment among stockhandlers rose
by almost 220,000, with virtually all of the growth tak
ing place in retail trade establishments (other than eat
ing and drinking places), their biggest employer. Nearly
a fourth of all stockhandlers in 1980 were women—up
from 17 percent 8 years earlier—as an additional
100,000 women joined the field. More than 1 of 3
stockhandlers works part time,10 which helps account
for the large number of young persons—both male and
female—holding these jobs.
Warehouse laborers (excluding those already counted
as stockhandlers) rose by more than 120,000, as several
major industry groups increased their hiring of these la
borers substantially. Half of all warehouse laborers
work in wholesale or retail trade establishments, and
many others work in factories or in the transportation
industry. Only about 15,000 of the employment increase
can be attributed to women. Yet this represents a nota
ble change from the early 1970’s when only a few thou
sand women were employed in this occupation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employed by insulation contractors.
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Occupational Winners and Losers, 1972-80
Yes, there were losers, too
Despite the magnitude of the employment increase
during the 1970s, about 1 of 4 specific occupational
groups did not post an employment advance. The de
clines— spread among about 50 occupations— totaled
more than 2 million, ranging from 1,000 workers to
more than 300,000. More than half of the 30 occupa
tions which dropped by at least 10,000 workers during
1972-80 were blue-collar jobs, especially those of opera
tives. There were only five white-collar losers, four of
which were in the clerical grouping. And, the same pat
tern occurred among the 10 biggest losers— that is, oc
cupations whose level of employment dropped by
50,000 or more. Again, the blue-collar category posted
the most losers. (See table 3.)
Occupational employment can fall in much the same
way it can be boosted by changes in consumer tastes,
technology, labor supply, and other factors. For exam
ple, a preference for longer hair resulted in less
consumer demand for barbers, while the use of dicta
tion machines reduced the business community’s need
for stenographers.
Delivery and route workers posted the biggest occu
pational loss— almost 310,000, or a third of the 1972
employment total. These workers, who are employed in
wholesale or retail trade, in manufacturing, and to some
extent by transportation and service firms, may deliver
to homes or stores. The largest percentage declines were
posted among those working for factories which pro
duce nondurable goods and those employed in both
Table 3. Employment in occupations with declines of
60,000 or more between 1972 and 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
1972
1980
Number
Percent
Rank by
size of
decrease
Clerical workers:
Telephone operators ..
Stenographers ...........
392
125
316
64
-7 6
-61
-19.4
-48.8
9
10
Craftworkers:
Garage workers and gas
station attendants ..
502
337
-165
-32.9
5
Operatives except transport:
Sewers and stitchers ..
Textile operatives . . . .
936
424
788
323
-148
-101
-15.8
-23.8
6
8
Transport equipment
operatives:
Delivery and route
workers....................
892
584
-308
-34.5
1
Private household workers:
Child-care workers . . .
Cleaners and servants .
543
713
431
491
-112
-222
-20.6
-31.1
7
2
1,658
1,447
-211
-12.0
3
455
284
-171
-37.6
4
Employed
Occupation
Farmworkers:
Farm owners and tenant
farm ers....................
Farm laborers, unpaid
family w orkers.........
N ote :
Data are annual averages.
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment decreases
wholesale and retail trade. A large drop—more than
200,000— occurred from 1973 to 1974, as many
businesses were perhaps influenced by the gasoline
shortage and resulting high gas prices to reduce delivery
services. Employment in this occupation appears to
have stabilized during the decade’s second half. But de
spite the occupation’s overall employment decline, the
number of women who are delivery and route workers
almost doubled during 1972-80, though the female pro
portion was still only 7 percent by 1980.
The number of private household workers has been
dropping for four decades, as it fell from about 2.4 mil
lion in 1940 to 1.4 million by 1972 and 1.0 million by
1980. The two largest specific occupations within the
private household workers category—cleaners and ser
vants, and child-care workers—are among the biggest
losers of the most recent decade.
Cleaners and servants totaled less than a half million
in 1980, following a nearly one-third decline of 220,000
since 1972. This decrease was partially offset by a rise
in employment within commercial cleaning businesses.
Also, the supply of the private household workers—a
group generally paid low wages— declined, perhaps
more than the demand for them, as employment oppor
tunities in other fields increased and as public assistance
became more available." Just over half of the cleaners
and servants in 1980 were black and other minority
women; however, nearly 90 percent of the employment
decline among workers in this occupation took place
among minority women, as older workers retired and
younger, better-educated blacks entered other types of
occupations. The representation of total women in this
field— about 97 percent— was steady over the decade.
Child-care workers in private households, including
both young part-time babysitters and full-time experi
enced adults, also posted a sizable employment decline.
Their number dropped by about 110,000, or 20 percent
of the 1972 total. During the same period, employment
of child-care workers outside the child’s own home—
such as in day care centers or in the homes of women
who care for several children—increased by 75,000, as
many working parents turned to these alternatives.
Moreover, much of the decrease in private household
child-care workers occurred in the early 1970’s, with
employment in this occupation remaining relatively flat
during the decade’s latter half. The 1976 change in the
income tax law permitting a tax credit to families with
certain child-care expenses—in contrast to their early
classification as an itemized deduction only—may have
helped stem the downward trend of this occupation.
About 9 of 10 child-care workers are white women, and
most of the 1972-80 decline was among them.
Agricultural employment has dropped dramatically
since the early 1900’s, when the agricultural count to
taled more than 12 million— or a third of all workers—
to the 1980 employment level of 3.3 million, represent
ing just over 3 percent of all employees. Accordingly,
farmworkers, who account for 4 of 5 agricultural em
ployees, posted sizable decreases, too. Between 1972
and 1980, the ranks of farmworkers were diminished by
365,000 as farms became more mechanized and the
trend towards fewer farms continued. However, it
should be noted that the rate of decline among
farmworkers slowed considerably during the 1970’s and
practically all of the 1972-80 decline took place among
farmers— that is, farmowners and tenant farmers—and
unpaid family workers who are farm laborers; these two
groups made up two-thirds of all farmworkers in 1972.
Hence, over the same period, the number of wage- or
salary-earning farm laborers changed little.
Both owners and renters of small farms and unpaid
laborers posted their largest losses before 1978, as their
employment level held fairly steady for the balance of
the decade. Interestingly, as the number of farmowners
and renters declined— by about 210,000— the number
of women in this occupation rose by 50,000. Still, about
90 percent of all farmers in 1980 were men.
Approximately 2 of 3 unpaid farm laborers are wom
en, generally the farmer’s wife, but his daughter or oth
er female relative also would be included. These unpaid
family members must work 15 hours or more per week
on the family farm to be counted as employed farm la
borers. The 170,000 drop in the number of unpaid
workers is partly a response to the reduced number of
family farms; the number of farms fell by half a million
during the 1970’s.12 Moreover, some of the decrease can
be attributed to women moving into paid jobs in the
nonagricultural sector, either replacing or supplement
ing their hours spent on farmwork. If these unpaid
farmworkers spend more hours at their off-farm job—
which often happens during slack farming seasons—
they are classified accordingly. Hence, the decline
among farm laborers is caused by more moonlighting
among some farmers’ relatives and a complete cessation
of farmwork among others.
A one-third decline in the number of garage workers
and gas station attendants took place between 1972 and
1980. A large factor in this drop was undoubtedly the
gasoline shortage of 1973, with the resulting cutbacks in
the number and hours of gas stations; but probably of
even greater importance was the introduction of self-ser
vice pumps. In fact, half of the overall employment
drop occurred between 1978 and 1980. Garage workers
and gas station attendants, many of whom are relatively
young, include a substantial proportion of part-timers—
about 30 percent in 1976.13
Two of the occupations which posted large job losses
— textile operatives and sewers and stitchers— were in
many ways related, as some textile firms produce the
materials which are then used by sewers. A 150,000 de
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cline among sewers and stitchers and a 100,000 drop
among textile operatives—including, for example, spin
ners, knitters, and weavers— occurred as more efficient
machinery, the use of synthetic fibers, and competition
from imports have combined to reduce the demand for
these workers. As about 95 percent of all sewers and
stitchers are women, virtually all of the decrease took
place among women. Although women represent about
3 of 5 textile operatives, about half of the reduction
among these operatives was accounted for by men.
The employment of telephone operators declined by
about 75,000 during 1972-80, as several factors com
bined to reverse their earlier upward trend. Most of the
drop—about 60,000— occurred among telephone com
pany operators, whose job total was affected by chang
ing consumer habits, such as less use of directory
assistance caused by the imposition of charges in some
areas, and more direct dialing of long-distance calls. In
addition, improved switching equipment reduced the
need for so many operators. Private branch exchange
switchboard operators, who work mainly for large com
panies, also experienced some decline in demand as
firms adopted the operatorless Central Exchange
(CENTREX) telephoning system. All of the job loss took
place among women, as the number of men employed
as telephone operators rose during the 1970’s.
In terms of absolute size of the employment decline,
those construction laborers who are employed as car
penters’ helpers would qualify as the Nation’s 10th larg
est occupational loser. Because much of their 65,000
drop undoubtedly is cyclical, rather than secular, and
because the number of carpenters actually rose during
the decade, a better choice of occupations for the list of
those with big losses probably is stenographers.
The employment of stenographers fell rapidly during
the 1970’s, as their job count in 1980—at less than
65,000— was only half of its 1972 level. As mentioned
earlier, the overall demand for stenographers was great
ly diminished, both in the 1960’s and 1970’s, as a result
of the increased use of dictation machines. Virtually ev
ery industry which employed stenographers in the early
1970’s had drastically reduced the number of these jobs
by 1980. For instance, the estimated number of stenog
raphers working in telecommunications fell from 21,000
to 1,000; in manufacturing, their employment dropped
from almost 20,000 to less than 5,000. The relative de
clines among public administration workers were not as
large, as skilled shorthand reporters found job opportu
nities within the court systems. It is likely that many
persons who had been classified as stenographers in the
early 1970’s were working as secretaries, dictaphone
typists, or in other clerical fields by 1980. Employment
of both male and female stenographers '.vas reduced by
about half, resulting in virtually no change in the 90
percent female share of theses jobs.
27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Occupational Winners and Losers, 1972-80
Some of the specific occupational changes of the
1970’s were similar to those of the previous decade—
for example, strong growth was maintained among
computer specialists and cashiers, and declines contin
ued among unpaid farm laborers. However, the employ
ment changes for some occupations in the 1970’s were
in contrast to changes in the 1960’s. For instance, the
big winners of the 1960’s included billing clerks and li
brary attendants, which were both slower than average
gainers during the 1970’s; but a substantial loss was
posted by machinists in the 1960’s, whose number had
shown strong growth during the more recent decade.
How much the occupational employment trends of the
1970’s continue through the 1980’s remains to be seen.D
NOTE: The data are based on 1970 Decennial Census
population counts, adjusted for the aging of the popula
tion, deaths, and net migration. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics has subsequently converted current CPS esti
mates to reflect the 1980 census, which enumerated 4.7
million more people than had been estimated in
updating the 1970 figure. Because this difference was so
much larger than previous censuses, historical CPS data
series also are being revised, including broad occupa
tional employment categories. Unlike data for the major
labor force series, the full range of revised data for de
tailed occupational categories was not available at this
writing; indeed, revisions of some of the detailed series
may not be undertaken. However, even if revised data
were available, their validity might be questionable at
the level of detail in this analysis. (The size and scope
of the revisions of major labor force data as a result of
the 1980 census will be discussed in an article in the
July Review.)
FOOTNOTES
' The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey of about
60,000 households around the Nation conducted by the Bureau of the
Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For all persons ages 16 and
over, the following questions are asked in order to classify workers by
occupation: (1) “What kind of work was . . . doing? and (2) What
were . . .’s most important activities or duties?” For a listing of the
job titles which made up each detailed occupation during 1972-80 see
C la ss ifie d I n d e x o f I n d u s tr ie s a n d O ccu p a tio n s, 1970 Census of Popula
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1971. Beginning in
1983, the Current Population Survey will use the Standard Occupa
tional Classification on which the 1980 Census of Population was
based. For information detailing occupational changes between 1960
and 1970 based on the censuses for those years, see Constance Bogh
DiCesare, “Changes in the occupational structure of U.S. jobs,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1975, pp. 24-34.
Data on occupational employment are also developed by the Bu
reau based on the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) surveys.
The OES surveys cover wage and salary workers on the payrolls of
nonagricultural establishments, except private households. Data are
collected from a sample of employers who report occupational em
ployment totals in their establishments based on specific occupational
definitions on the survey questionnaire. The OES surveys are conduct
ed on a 3-year cycle, with about one-third of the economy covered
each year. To develop occupational employment estimates for a spe
cific year, occupational staffing patterns of industries are developed
from the OES survey data. These patterns are then applied to annual
averages of total employment by industry from the Bureau’s Current
Employment Statistics Survey. The resulting data are summed across
industries and added to Current Population Survey (CPS) employ
ment data for workers not covered by the OES surveys— agriculture,
private household, self-employed, and unpaid family workers— to de
velop estimates of total employment by occupation.
This procedure was used for the first time in 1980 to develop occu
pational employment estimates for 1978. These estimates were also
used as the base of occupational projections to 1990 (see Max Carey,
“Occupational employment growth through 1990,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , August 1981, pp. 43-55).
For many comparable occupations, significant differences exist be
tween occupational employment estimates in the CPS and those based
on OES survey data. These differences not only reflect sampling and
nonsampling errors of each survey, but also conceptual differences.
For example, the CPS is a count of individuals and therefore workers
with two jobs or more are counted once in their primary occupation.
On the other hand, the OES surveys count jobs, and workers on the
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
payrolls of two employers or more (establishments) are counted in the
occupation held in each establishment. More complete details on dif
ferences in occupational employment data derived from the CPS and
the OES surveys are available in an unpublished paper Comparison of
Occupational Employment in the 1978 Census-based and OES Surveybased Matrices, OES Technical Paper-1. Available from the BLS Divi
sion of Occupational Outlook.
2 For more information on the growth of the health industry, see
Edward S. Sekscenski, “The health services industry: a decade of ex
pansion,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1981, pp. 9-16.
3The data source for the number of computer specialists in 1960
(12,142) is the 1960 Census of Population. See DiCesare, “Changes in
the occupational structure.”
4 For more information on the growth and outlook of the computer
industry and its related occupations, see H. Phillip Howard and
Debra Rothstein, “Up, Up, Up, and Away: Trends in Computer Oc
cupations,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Summer 1981, pp. 3-11.
Also see “Small business computers: the need for them is increasing,”
Office, July 1979, pp. 77-79.
5 Data presented in this report on the part-time status of workers
by detailed occupational group refer to 1976 and can be found in
“Who’s Working Part Time These Days?” Occupational Outlook Quar
terly, Summer 1979, pp. 14—17.
6 Ibid.
7For more on the changing distribution of computer jobs, see
Howard and Rothstein, “Up, Up, Up, and Away.”
8 “Who’s Working Part Time?”
9Some of the specific craft occupations in which the number of
women at least tripled were: carpenters, among whom the number of
female jobholders increased from 5,000 to 18,000; other construction
craftworkers, with an increase from about 15,000 to almost 50,000;
machinists, from 2,000 to 18,000; heavy equipment mechanics, from
5,000 to 15,000; and telephone installers and repairers, from 6,000 to
27,000.
10 “Who’s Working Part Time?”
" See Allyson Sherman Grossman, “Women in domestic work: yes
terday and today,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1980, pp. 17-22.
12 For more information on farmworkers, see Patricia A. Daly, “Ag
ricultural employment: has the decline ended?” Monthly Labor Review,
November 1981, pp. 11-17.
13 “Who’s Working Part Time?”
Blacks in the 1970’s:
Did they scale the job ladder?
More blacks obtained white-collar jobs
but fewer penetrated higher-salaried positions;
mobility in higher-paid blue-collar jobs
was somewhat more impressive
D iane N ilsen Westcott
The proportion of workers holding white-collar jobs has
increased steadily over the past few decades as employ
ment grew quite rapidly in the professional and clerical
fields. Accompanying this movement were substantial
declines among private household workers and farm
workers. Each of these trends has had an impact on the
employment patterns of black workers.1 Blacks made
some advances in the more highly skilled occupational
groups. For example, in 1960, 11 percent of black
workers were in professional and technical and craft
worker positions; by 1980, their proportion had almost
doubled to 21 percent.
Throughout the 1960’s, blacks advanced both socially
and economically, making notable strides in a num
ber of areas including educational attainment, voting
rights, equal housing opportunities, and earnings, as
well as in employment.2 These advancements came
about during a period of favorable economic conditions;
however, it was also a time of social change which saw
the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the es
tablishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. During the 1970-80 period, however, job
opportunities and occupational mobility slowed consid
erably as the Nation underwent three recessions. With
each contraction came periods of sustained and progres
sively higher levels of unemployment, accompanied by
Diane Nilsen Westcott is an economist in the Division of Employ
ment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
severe inflationary pressures which failed to subside
over the course of the decade. Movement up the occu
pational scale for blacks progressed more slowly during
the 1970’s, as the number of black professional and
craft workers increased only about half as fast as during
the 1960’s. Clearly, economic disruptions affected the
occupational advancement not only of blacks, but of all
workers as well.
Between 19723 and 1980, the number of employed
blacks increased by 1.3 million, or 17 percent. Their
proportion of the Nation’s employed work force— 9.4
percent— did not change, as the white employment lev
el rose by 18 percent. The largest employment gains for
blacks occurred in the white-collar occupations, where
the four major subcategories— professional and techni
cal, managerial and administrative, sales, and clerical —
increased very sharply. (See table 1.) While their ad
vancement in these occupational categories was propor
tionately greater than for whites, it was not sufficient to
alter materially the overall black-white proportions of
the previous decade, and blacks continued to represent
a disproportionately small number of white-collar work
ers.
This article examines the occupational shifts of black
workers between 1972 and 1980, using Current Popula
tion Survey data on employment by detailed occupa
tion, race, and sex. To further assess the extent of
occupational mobility among blacks during this period,
occupational data by area of residence and usual weekly
earnings are also analyzed.
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Black Job Gains in 1970’s
Table 1. Employment change by occupation and race,
1972 and 1980, annual averages
[Numbers in thousands]
Occupation
Black employment
change, 1972-1980
Number
Percent
1,344
17.3
White-collar workers ...............
Professional and technical .
Managers and administrators
S ales.................................
Clerical .............................
1,185
354
168
88
580
Blue-collar workers ..................
Craft and kindred workers .
Operatives, except transport
Transport equipment opera
tives ...............................
Nonfarm la borers.............
Total employment.........
White employment
change, 1972-1980
Number
'
Percent
13,306
18.2
55.3
55.4
69.1
51.9
52.7
10,022
3,592
2,639
698
3,094
27.4
33.8
34.2
13.5
23.8
215
217
73
6.8
32.3
5.8
1,760
1,427
-209
7.0
14.2
-2.3
41
-116
9.0
-14.7
204
337
7.5
10.0
Service workers........................
Private household workers
Other service workers . . . .
21
-238
259
1.0
-41.8
15.9
1,826
-159
1,985
21.2
-18.6
25.6
Farmworkers.............................
Farm managers ...............
Farm laborers ..................
-7 4
-2 3
-51
-31.9
-51.1
-27.3
-302
-187
-116
-10.8
-11.4
-9.9
Black-white employment changes
Between 1972 and 1980, employment in the profes
sional and technical occupations expanded rapidly, and
both blacks and whites increased their participation in
these fields accordingly. The number of black men in
professional positions grew at a slightly faster pace than
that of white males during the decade. Still, in 1980, 16
percent of all white men were employed as professional
workers, twice the black male proportion. This 2-to-l
ratio is only slightly lower than that which prevailed in
1972. (See table 2.)
Relative to their white counterparts, black women
strengthened their foothold as professional workers.4
Black women professionals, who had accounted for
nearly 11 percent of all employed black women in 1972,
made up 14 percent of the total in 1980, a proportion
approaching that for white women.
Jobs for managers and administrators also increased
during the decade. Black men and women shared more
than proportionately in the gains but were still much
less likely to be employed in these fields than their
white counterparts. For example, in 1980, 15 percent of
all white men were engaged as managers or administra
tors, compared with fewer than 6 percent of black
men.
Employment in clerical occupations rose rapidly be
tween 1972 and 1980. Among women— who make up
four-fifths of all clerical workers— the increase was pro
portionately much greater for blacks than for whites.
Black men also increased their participation in this field,
while white men experienced a decline. There was a
similar occurrence in sales, where both black men and
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
women increased their representation, while white par
ticipation declined.
Blue-collar jobs grew at a relatively slow pace during
the 1970’s. Overall, the proportion of black men who
were blue-collar workers was down somewhat from
1972. This stemmed from reduced participation in the
relatively undesirable operative and nonfarm laborer
jobs, as their representation in the skilled craft and kin
dred trades actually rose. By 1980, the largest propor
tion of black men in any single occupational group was
in skilled craftwork; this has long been true for white
men. Despite this improvement, there were still relative
ly high concentrations of black men in the less skilled
job categories. For example, they were still twice as
likely to be in laborer jobs as their white counterparts.
After the craft trades, service work employed more
black men than any other occupation. One-sixth of all
employed black men were engaged in service work (ex
cluding private household) in 1980—not much different
than in 1972. Blacks continued to be more than twice
as likely to have service jobs as white men.
The most substantial movement among black women
during the 1970’s occurred in private household work,
as their proportion fell from 16 to 7 percent. One-fourth
of employed black women had jobs in other service oc
cupations in 1980—a small decline from 1972. Only
clerical work was more prevalent among black women,
accounting for 29 percent of those employed. Like pri
vate household workers, farmworkers registered an em
ployment drop between 1972 and 1980; black men left
this occupation more quickly than white men.
Clearly, the movement out of the lower paying nonfarm-labor, service, and farm jobs and into mid- and
Table 2. Percent distribution of employed persons by
occupation, race, and sex, 1972 and 1980
Occupation
Black
men
Black
Women
White
men
White
Women
1980
1972
1980
1972
1980
Total employed . . . .
4,347
4,704 45,769
5,033
3,406
4,394 27,305 36,043
Percent....................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.4
8.2
14.3
16.1
10.6
13.8
14.9
17.0
4.0
1.7
7.6
5.6
2.5
8.4
14.0
6.6
6.8
15.3
6.4
6.2
2.1
2.5
22.7
3.4
2.8
29.3
4.8
7.8
36.2
7.4
7.3
36.0
14.8
17.6
21.2
21.5
.9
1.4
1.3
1.9
17.4
15.5
13,1
10.7
14.8
13.8
12.5
9.4
10.3
17.4
1.0
9.9
13.0
.4
5.7
6.8
3.4
5.4
6.5
2.6
.4
.9
.7
1.4
—
.4
.9
.4
.7
1.2
.4
3.5
2.4
1.7
1.5
1.1
.5
1.5
1.3
.3
15.8
.1
16.4
16.4
27.6
7.4
25.4
3.0
16.2
1.9
16.0
Professional and
technical ........................
Managers and administrat o r s .................................
Sales .................................
Clerical ...............................
Craft and kindred
w o rkers...........................
Operatives, except
transport ........................
Transport equipment
operatives ......................
Nonfarm laborers...............
Farm and farm managers ..
Farm laborers and
forem en...........................
Private household
w o rkers...........................
Other service workers . . . .
—
7.3
—
7.9
—
1972
1980
1972
upper-level jobs in the white-collar occupations and
craft trades was sustained during the 1-970’s, although
the changes were not as dramatic as those which oc
curred in the previous decade. But while blacks moved
into higher skilled (and more highly paying) occupa
tions in greater numbers and, correspondingly, dimin
ished their proportions in the less desirable job groups,
they still accounted for a disproportionately large share
of private household workers, nonfarm laborers, and
transport equipment operatives, while constituting a
disproportionately small share among most white-collar
jobs— clerical workers being the exception.
Specific job changes
It is important to know the specific job markets in
which blacks have actually made headway relative to
their white counterparts. Are blacks increasingly more
likely to become physicians or accountants or are they
still, as in the past, finding teaching and technicians
jobs their primary source of entry into the professional
occupations? If the jobs blacks hold are found in the
lesser skilled and lower paying professional positions,
then the conclusion that there has been significant occu
pational upgrading may not be justified. Detailed occu
pational data permit a finer analysis of the areas of the
job market in which blacks are overrepresented and
those in which their entry seems to have been restricted.
An examination of occupational participation rates5dur
ing the 1970’s is a useful yardstick of progress in this
area.
Overall, black occupational advancement in the
1970’s is not particularly impressive when the detailed
occupational data are examined. In most cases, black
workers were concentrated in the same jobs in which
they were employed in 1972. In other words, although a
higher proportion of blacks could be found among the
professional and technical occupations in 1980 than in
1972, they were concentrated in jobs at the lower end
of the professional pay scale, such as nursing, technical
trades, and vocational and educational counseling. And
even though their numbers have expanded in some of
the more desirable and better paid jobs, there are few
examples where black men and women have been able
to significantly increase their representation in a partic
ular job.
Black men. Despite a substantial increase in the propor
tion of black men in the professional and technical
occupations, their proportion of all employed men in
this category rose only slightly over the 1972-80 period,
from 4.0 to 4.4 percent. By way of comparison, black
men accounted for 8.4 percent of employed men in
1980, a small drop from the 8.6 percent in 1972. The
1980 recession undoubtedly had an impact on the em
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ployment of black men. In the previous year, 1979,
black men had accounted for 8.6 percent of employ
ment, the same as in 1972. (See table 3.)
In 1980, black males in the professional and technical
occupations accounted for 8 percent or more of all men
employed as health technicians, nurses, social and recre
ational workers, vocational and educational counselors,
and personnel and labor relations workers. In every
case, these were the same professions in which they
were concentrated in 1972.
The proportions of black men in certain higher-status
professional occupations—such as accountants, com
puter specialists, engineers, and lawyers—showed some
increases over the period, but were still disproportion
ately low. The proportion employed as physicians, at
2.1 percent, did not increase at all between 1972 and
1980.
The overall black occupational participation rates for
managers and administrators rose slightly— but to only
3.2 percent— with bank officials and financial managers
showing a healthy increase. Nevertheless, blacks in
1980, as well as 1972, were most likely to be employed
as managers of restaurants, cafeterias, and bars, and as
school administrators. Black employment in school ad
ministration actually declined during the 1972-80 peri
od, while those working as food establishment
managers showed a rise.
Overall, employment growth in sales was rather slug
gish during the 1970’s, yet black men were able to in
crease their proportion of those employed from 2.4 to
3.5 percent. However, gains occurred in occupations in
which blacks have traditionally been concentrated— re
tail salesclerks and insurance agents.
Some of the largest occupational gains among black
men during the decade occurred in the clerical occupa
tions, in particular as banktellers, bookkeepers, estima
tors and investigators, office machine operators,
statistical clerks, and secretaries—jobs that had shown
substantial growth during the 1970’s. For example, the
participation rate of black men who were estimators
and investigators rose from 3 to 6 percent and the rate
for office machine operators increased from 10 to 14
percent. Areas in which black men had been highly
concentrated in 1972 (15 percent or more)— file clerks,
mailhandlers, messengers and office boys, and postal
clerks— showed little growth or declined by 1980, al
though they still accounted for a significant proportion
of black male employment.
To capsulize, black men were able to realize greater
participation in a substantial number of white-collar oc
cupations over the decade. One significant exception
was the better paying professional and technical jobs, in
which they advanced, but not significantly. Despite
some progress in the professional ranks, they were con-
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Black Job Gains in 1970's
centrated in the same occupations as they were almost a
decade earlier.
Blue-collar occupations expanded much less rapidly
than white-collar jobs over the decade. The occupation
al participation rate of black men held steady for both
transport equipment and other operatives, declined
among laborers, but rose in the craft trades. However,
even with the rise from 6 to 7 percent, the craft trades
remained the only major blue-collar category in which
black men accounted for less than their proportion of
overall employment.
Black men increased their share in a number of the
more highly skilled job categories including electricians,
painters, plumbers, metal and printing craftsmen, and
excavating and grading road machine operators. How
ever, the two largest job concentrations of black men
continued to be as cement and concrete finishers and
crane operators.
The overall participation of black men in operative
and transport equipment operative positions held steady
between 1972 and 1980, with blacks continuing to rep
resent a disproportionately large number of employed
persons in these occupations. They made up about 20
percent or more of all men employed as clothing ironers
and pressers, furnacemen, laundry and drycleaning op
eratives, sawyers, textile operatives, busdrivers, forklift
Table 3. Employed blacks as a percent of all employed men and women in selected detailed occupations, 1972 and 1980,
annual averages
Black men
Black men
Black women
Occupation
1972
1980
1972
1980
8.6
8.4
11.0
10.6
4.0
2.1
3.5
1.4
6.1
2.1
8.6
12.4
1.3
10.0
13.8
3.6
7.0
3.5
9.0
4.2
4.4
3.6
4.1
2.2
7.9
2.1
13.2
8.4
3.1
5.7
16.4
3.3
5.5
5.6
15.2
4.1
8.0
5.2
6.5
(’ )
12.5
(’ )
6.1
7.8
n
(’)
17.4
5.4
9.0
(’ )
13.4
2.8
8.8
7.4
9.3
( 1)
10.8
5.0
8.2
9.2
7.1
( 1)
17.4
5.3
10.2
6.7
17.8
3.6
Managers and administrators ......................................
Bank officials and financial m anagers..................
Restaurant, cafeteria, and bar managers ...........
School administrators, elementary and secondary
2.6
( 1)
4.8
6.7
3.2
2.6
5.7
6.0
5.0
( 1)
10.6
6.9
5.2
4.6
7.9
12.2
Sales
Insurance agents, brokers, and underwriters
Sales clerks, retail tra d e .............................
2.4
2.3
4.2
3.5
4.3
7.0
3.8
7.8
4.1
4.4
8.2
5.0
C lerical..............................................
Bank tellers ...............................
Bookkeepers .............................
Cashiers ....................................
Counter clerks, except food . . . .
Estimators and investigators . . .
File clerks .................................
Library attendants and assistants
Mail carriers, post office ...........
Mail handlers, except post office
Messengers and office helpers .
Office machine operators .........
Postal clerks .............................
Receptionists .............................
Secretaries ...............................
Shipping and receiving clerks . . .
Statistical c le rk s ........................
Stock clerks and storekeepers .
Teachers aides...........................
Telephone operators..................
Typists........................................
9.5
(’ )
3.7
7.5
4.7
2.5
22.0
10.9
10.3
6.7
8.7
5.4
6.0
25.6
(’ )
13.1
25.0
16.4
9.8
16.0
( 1)
(’ )
13.0
8.0
12.2
(’)
( 1)
( ')
Craft and kindred workers ............................................
Carpenters..............................................................
Brlckmasons and stonemasons .............................
Bulldozer operators ...............................................
Cement and concrete finishers .............................
Electricians ............................................................
Excavating, grading, and road machinery operators
Painters, construction and maintenance ...............
6.2
5.1
13.6
13.6
33.3
2.8
6.6
9.3
Total
Professional and technical .................................
Accountants.................................................
Computer specialists...................................
Engineers.....................................................
Personnel and labor relations ....................
Physcians, dentists, and related practioners
Nurses, dietitians, therapists ......................
Health technologists and technicians .........
Lawyers and judges ...................................
Religious w o rkers........................................
Social and recreation w o rke rs ....................
Teachers, college and university ...............
Teachers, except college and university . . .
Engineering and science technicians...........
Vocational and educational counselors
Writers, artists, and entertainers..................
( 1)
11.6
22.1
16.9
14.0
14.8
( ')
12.1
13.1
11.8
10.5
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
7.2
4.0
2.4
6.5
6.2
7.3
16.0
8.7
(’ )
12.5
( 1)
11.9
26.7
6.4
4.4
13.4
7.1
10.3
21.2
( 1)
10.9
8.9
5.9
3.4
8.6
8.6
11.7
18.2
8.5
7.0
4.4
14.6
11.7
31.0
4.1
8.2
10.5
8.0
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
( ')
( ')
( 1)
( ')
8.1
( 1)
(’ )
' Data not shown where numerator is less than 4,000 or denominator is less than 35,000.
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
V)
17.9
( 1)
15.1
32.7
6.4
5.5
8.3
11.3
11.0
17.3
14.8
13.2
V)
(' )
(' )
(' )
(’ )
Plumbers and pipe fitters.....................................................
Machinists and jobsetters ...................................................
Metal craftsmen, except mechanical, machinery, and
jobsetters.........................................................................
Mechanics, automotive .......................................................
Mechanics, except automotive............................................
Printing craftsmen................................................................
Cranesmen, derrickmen, holstm en......................................
Black « omen
1972
1980
1972
1980
5.1
5.6
8.5
6.3
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
4.9
7.4
4.5
4.5
15.5
6.2
7.7
6.1
7.3
16.3
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
8.5
( 1)
(’ )
8.9
8.6
(’ )
(’ )
Operatives, except transport.......................................................
Assemblers .........................................................................
Checkers, examiners, and inspectors
(manufacturing)................................................................
Clothing ironers and pressers ............................................
Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers .............................
Garage workers and gas station attendants ......................
Laundry and drycleaning operators ...................................
Meatcutters and butchers ...................................................
Packers and wrappers .......................................................
Painters, manufacturing a rtic le s ..........................................
Precision machine operators ...............................................
Punch and stamping press .................................................
Sawyers ..............................................................................
Sewers and stichers............................................................
Textile operatives................................................................
Welders and flam ecutters...................................................
11.9
13.3
11.7
11.2
12.7
11.8
14.6
11.9
7.6
28.9
23.9
7.3
24.0
9.4
12.6
14.5
6.9
10.5
19.1
9.3
38.4
(’ )
18.9
9.4
9.6
(’ )
25.4
7.9
21.9
8.5
20.4
10.7
6.7
11.0
17.4
14.3
22.1
9.8
10.8
40.4
( ')
(’ )
23.3
18.6
15.4
( 1)
18.2
9.1
( 1)
13.8
20.7
( 1)
(’ )
Transport equipment operatives .................................................
Busdrivers ...........................................................................
Deliverypersons and routepersons......................................
Forklift and tow motor operators ........................................
Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs ..........................................
Truck drivers .......................................................................
14.5
21.7
10.0
21.7
22.5
13.9
14.7
24.0
9.2
18.8
24.0
13.5
9.0
7.0
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
n
11.2
13.1
571
( 1)
( 1)
7.3
Laborers, except farm ................................................................
Construction laborers ..........................................................
Freight and material handlers ............................................
Garbage collectors..............................................................
Gardeners and groundskeepers..........................................
Stockhandlers .....................................................................
Vehicle washers and equipment cleaners..........................
19.2
24.7
21.7
33.3
16.5
8.8
21.9
15.5
15.4
17.5
32.8
14.1
10.4
18.4
12.0
( 1)
17.8
(’ )
(’ )
10.7
(’ )
12.2
Farm and farm managers............................................................
Farmers (owners and tenants)............................................
2.6
2.6
1.6
1.6
3.0
3.0
C)
( 1)
Farm laborers and foremen .......................................................
Farm laborers, wage workers ............................................
16.1
19.3
12.7
14.3
8.1
23.5
7.0
15.7
Service workers, except private household ...............................
Cleaning service workers ...................................................
Food service workers ..........................................................
Health service w o rkers.......................................................
Personal service workers ...................................................
Protective service workers .................................................
16.8
25.4
12.8
24.5
13.9
9.2
15.7
22.8
11.5
32.1
15.0
9.8
17.3
35.3
11.2
23.7
11.2
16.9
15.9
30.2
10.1
21.0
12.6
17.4
Private household w o rk e rs ..........................................................
Child care ...........................................................................
Maids and servants ............................................................
(’ )
( ')
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
39.8
8.0
31.9
7.0
52.5
(’ )
( 1)
28.7
19.4
13.4
( 1)
10.3
11.6
(’ )
11.3
12.4
(’ )
19.7
(’ )
( 1)
10.0
(’ )
operatives, and taxicab drivers. For the most part, par
ticipation of black men in these occupations increased
or was about the same between 1972 and 1980, because
white men were moving out of these jobs.
In the nonfarm laborer and service worker occupa
tions— which also have relatively large numbers of
black men—there were declines in the proportion en
gaged in these jobs. The number of laborers dropped
substantially during the 1970’s, but the employment of
black men in these occupations fell even more rapidly.
Black women. Despite the fact that they made up a
smaller percentage of employed women in 1980 than in
1972— because of the huge influx of white women into
the labor force— black women were able to increase
their proportions in most of the professional and techni
cal job categories. (See table 3.) And a definite occupa
tional shift occurred over the period. In 1972, black
women had participation rates of 12 percent or more in
three occupations— social and recreation work, voca
tional and educational counseling, and personnel and
labor relations work. By 1980, although they were still
highly visible in these three areas, their concentration in
other professional occupations had broadened consider
ably. The most notable change occurred in the fast
growing computer field, where black women increased
their participation by 2.8 percentage points to 9.3 per
cent. Other noteworthy gains were among accountants,
nurses, dieticians and therapists, engineering and science
technicians, and vocational and educational counselors.
Still, in contrast to developments in the 1960’s, growth
in the professional and technical occupations among
black women continued to be relatively slow.
Limited gains among black women were realized in
most managerial and administrative positions and sales
occupations. The rate of employment participation
among school administrators, insurance agents, and
bank officials increased, while there was a declining rate
among restaurant managers.
Black women made some progress moving out of
salesclerk positions, although their participation rate ac
tually increased during the 1970’s as white women left
this occupation in even greater numbers. In 1972, 75
percent of all black women in sales were retail clerks,
but by 1980, this proportion had fallen to 68 percent.
Black women accounted for about 5 percent of
employed women in this field.
Employment gains of black women in the fast grow
ing clerical field were widespread as their overall partici
pation rate moved from 7 to 9 percent over the 8-year
period— still somewhat below the percentage of all
employed women who were black. Gains were strong
for black women as estimators and investigators,
mailhandlers, postal clerks, statistical clerks, and tele
phone operators. The largest numbers of black women
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were employed as cashiers, typists, and secretaries.
Although blue-collar occupations are generally male
dominated, black women made a number of inroads
into some job fields. It should be noted that the occu
pational participation rates of black women in the bet
ter paying craft trades are difficult to measure, as the
actual numbers engaged in these jobs were very low.
While some increases in specific crafts were registered,
the overall proportion of black women in the craft
trades remained about the same over the period, at 8.1
percent.
The largest concentration of black women in bluecollar jobs was in the operative category, a group in
which black women have been traditionally overrepre
sented relative to their employment total. In 1980,
black women had participation rates of 18 percent or
more in six occupational categories; this compares with
three such categories in 1972. Among transport equip
ment operatives, black women advanced rather strongly
as busdrivers, reaching 13 percent in 1980. They also
registered strong growth in two occupations in which
they had shown little representation in the past—deliv
ery persons and truckdrivers.
The participation rate of black women in occupations
at the lower end of the earnings ladder was unchanged
for laborers and declined among household workers
during the 1970’s. Furthermore, the drop in the rate
among black women engaged in private household ser
vices, from 40 to 32 percent, is particularly important,
given the large concentration of women in this occupa
tion and the fact that black women are moving out at a
faster rate than white women.
Residential location
To better understand the growth of blacks in certain
occupations and their decline in others, it is helpful to
examine their residential location. In 1980, approxi
mately 55 percent of all blacks lived in central cities,
with the other 45 percent divided almost equally be
tween suburban and nonmetropolitan areas. In contrast,
only 24 percent of all whites lived in central cities, with
the bulk residing in suburban rings (42 percent). This
concentration of blacks in the central city becomes par
ticularly important when one realizes that it is the sub
urban rather than city blacks who were the recipients of
most of the occupational upgrading during the 1970’s.
Overall, the occupational distribution of black men
and women residing in the suburbs was similar to that
of their counterparts living in central cities in 1973.6
However, by 1980, this was no longer the case. (See ta
ble 4.) While virtually all occupational changes among
residents of both cities and suburbs were in the same
direction, blacks in the suburbs fared better than those
in the central cities or nonmetropolitan areas during the
1970’s. This is evident from the rather impressive in33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Black Job Gains in 1970's
Table 4.
Occupational distribution of employed blacks, by sex and area of residence, 1973 and 1980
[In percent]
Men
Nonmetropolitan areas
Suburbs
Central cities
Occupation
Men
Women
Women
Men
Women
1973
1980
1973
1980
1973
1980
1973
1980
1973
1980
1973
1980
Total employed (In thousands).............
2,899
2,915
2,373
2,835
1,061
1,499
801
1,366
1,176
1,236
831
1,037
White-collar workers ........................................
Professional and technical........................
Managers and administrators....................
S ales..........................................................
Clerical .....................................................
26.2
8.5
5.6
2.5
9.6
30.2
9.8
6.7
3.1
10.7
46.2
12.2
2.7
2.5
28.8
54.5
15.0
3.6
3.0
32.8
27.9
12.0
6.8
2.2
7.2
36.2
16.2
8.7
3.1
8.1
46.6
14.7
3.0
2.7
26.1
58.1
17.6
4.5
4.0
32.1
10.5
4.2
2.8
1.1
2.5
14.7
6.3
4.1
1.2
3.1
23.0
8.8
2.7
2.1
9.4
31.4
10.8
2.7
2.1
15.9
Blue-collar workers ..........................................
Craft and kindred ......................................
Operatives, except tran sport....................
Transport equipment operatives...............
Nonfarm la borers......................................
56.6
15.5
17.3
9.7
14.1
51.3
16.9
14.3
9.3
10.8
16.6
1.1
13.9
.4
1.1
15.1
1.5
11.6
.6
1.3
53.4
15.1
15.8
8.5
14.0
47.3
17.2
12.6
7.7
9.9
17.0
1.2
14.2
.7
1.0
15.0
1.2
11.7
.7
1.4
64.0
13.5
19.4
8.5
17.6
62.5
17.5
18.5
9.1
17.4
28.1
1.1
25.3
.4
1.3
28.7
1.5
24.9
.7
1.6
Service workers.................................................
Private household......................................
17.0
.2
18.5
37.2
11.0
30.4
5.1
16.3
—
13.7
.1
24.2
11.2
26.3
5.2
10.9
.1
12.9
.2
44.0
20.1
37.9
11.6
Farm workers ...................................................
Farmers and managers.............................
Farm laborers ..........................................
—
—
_
_
—
—
—
—
—
2.8
.3
2.5
1.1
.2
.9
.7
—
.7
14.4
4.2
10.2
10.0
2.5
7.6
4.9
.4
4.5
2.1
.3
1.7
N ote :
—
—
—
2.5
.8
1.7
Data include persons of black and other minority races.
creases in the proportion holding white-collar jobs, par
ticularly professional and technical and managerial posi
tions. For example, black suburban men had a
91-percent rise in employment in the professional fields,
compared with a 16-percent increase among city resi
dents. Likewise, black suburban women had a 158-percent increase in the managerial ranks, compared with 63
percent among their city counterparts. (These increases
may be partially explained by the migration of success
ful white-collar blacks from the cities to the suburbs.)
In 1973, black workers in blue-collar occupations
were predominant in central cities and suburban areas.
However, by 1980, while both areas had made the shift
to a predominance of white-collar jobs, the changes
were more pervasive in the suburbs. Cities and suburbs
alike experienced a drop in the percentage of men hold
ing semi-skilled and unskilled blue-collar jobs. Metro
politan women also contributed to this growth in whitecollar jobs, as they left the service occupations in great
numbers.
Nonmetropolitan area blacks also moved into whitecollar jobs during this period, though not to as great an
extent as blacks living in the cities and suburbs. The
proportion of blacks in blue-collar jobs remained
unchanged between 1973 and 1980, while blacks moved
out of service and farm jobs. In general, the occupation
al distribution of nonmetropolitan workers is very much
different from that of their metropolitan counterparts in
that a much larger proportion are engaged in blue-col
lar work and comparatively few are in white-collar oc
cupations.
That blacks are moving into the professional, clerical
and craft occupations is readily apparent, but nowhere
more so than for those who live in the suburbs.7 And
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
that blacks are still disproportionately concentrated in
the less skilled and service jobs is also evident, particu
larly for those residing in the city and nonmetropolitan
areas. In part, central city, suburban, and non
metropolitan employment differences reflect the strong
growth of white-collar occupations in the metropolitan
areas and the predominance of blue-collar jobs available
in the nonmetropolitan areas. Black occupational ad
vancement is somewhat related to residential location,
in that most workers have jobs in the geographic area
in which they live.8 However, individual levels of educa
tional attainment, skill, and ability are the predominant
factors in determining one’s occupational classification.
Earnings
Because the white-collar professions are considered
among the most powerful and prestigious occupations
in American society, it is easy to assume that the grow
ing proportions of workers in these jobs are a sign of
achievement. While white-collar jobs are often associat
ed with higher pay status and most blue-collar and ser
vice jobs are equated with lower paying positions,
movement of workers from blue-collar to white-collar
jobs should not be construed as an improvement in
one’s relative economic position. Earnings differentials
by occupation are more complex than the relationship
noted above. There is a broad range of earnings within
each major occupational category. (See chart 1.) In a
number of instances, blue-collar trades have higher
earnings than white-collar jobs, particularly those in the
skilled craft occupations.
Median weekly earnings for all workers were $265 in
1980. Managers and administrators had the highest
weekly earnings, $380, followed by professional
and technical workers, $341; craft and kindred workers,
$328; transport equipment operatives, $286; and sales
workers, $279. Those occupations with earnings below
the overall median were farmers and farm managers,
$243; operatives, $225; nonfarm laborers, $220; clerical
and kindred workers, $215; service workers, except pri
vate household, $184; farm laborers and foremen, $167;
and private household workers, $94. Exhibit 1 shows
specific occupations which are above or below the medi
an level for four key occupational groups. The highestpaid professional and technical jobs—engineers, law
yers, physicians, and scientists—are all categories in
which blacks were underrepresented in both 1972 and
1980. By contrast, health technologists, social and rec
reational workers, nurses, and teachers were among the
lowest-paid professional positions and the ones in which
blacks continued to be concentrated.
Black workers in management and sales professions
were concentrated in jobs that paid below the median
for the overall occupation. Only in the clerical field
were black workers well dispersed and advancing in
some of the better paying positions, such as postal
clerks, stock clerks, and shipping and receiving clerks.
Blacks in the craft trades were able to advance in a
number of the higher paid positions, including plumbers
and electricians, though they were still underrepresented
in the latter. In contrast to the professional and mana
gerial fields, blacks in craft jobs were more widely dis
persed and not relegated to the lower paid positions.
Between 19739 and 1980, black full-time workers in
creased their earnings by 68 percent, compared with 65
percent for whites. Blacks posted larger gains than
whites in the blue-collar occupations, while white work
ers outpaced blacks in white-collar jobs. Even though
blacks were entering the white-collar professions in in
creasing numbers, they were generally concentrated in
the lower paying jobs of those particular occupations.
In addition, their pay increases were smaller relative to
those of whites in the white-collar occupations. Conse
quently, the earnings of black workers relative to whites
in white-collar jobs, which had averaged 91 percent in
1973, dropped to 86 percent in 1980. However, blacks
were able to advance in occupational standing in the
blue-collar professions, as they increased their earnings
relative to whites in a number of the higher paying
jobs. (See table 5.) For example, in 1973, black trans
port equipment operatives made 73 percent of the earn
ings of their white counterparts; by 1980, this
percentage had risen to 85 percent—evidence of their
penetration into some of the better paid positions.
Differences in earnings by race were more discernable
among men than among women. In 1980, black males
made about 80 percent of the earnings of white men in
both the white-collar and blue-collar occupations. How-
Chart 1. Percent distribution of full-time weekly earnings by occupation, 1980, annual average
Percent
100
U nder$199
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$200-299
$300-599
O v e r$600
35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Black Job Gains in 1970's
E x h ib it 1.
O c c u p a tio n s a b o v e a n d b e lo w th e m e d ia n w e e k ly e a rn in g s o f fu ll-tim e w a g e a n d s a la ry w o r k e r s in
s e le c te d o c c u p a tio n a l g ro u p s , 19 8 0
F u rn a c e m e n , s m e lte rm e n , a n d p o u re rs
M e a tc u tte rs a n d b u tc h e rs
P a in te rs, m a n u fa c tu re d a rtic le s
P re c is io n m a c h in e o p e ra to rs
P un ch a n d s ta m p in g p re s s o p e ra to rs
W e ld e rs a n d fla m e c u tte rs
P ro fe s s io n a l a n d te c h n ic a l w o r k e r s
Above median
A c c o u n ta n ts
C o m p u te r s p e c ia lis ts
E n g in e e rs
L a w y e rs a n d ju d g e s
L ife a n d p h y s ic a l s c ie n tis ts
P e rs o n n e l a n d la b o r re la tio n s w o rk e rs
P h y s ic ia n s , d e n tis ts , a n d re la te d p ra c titio n e rs
V o c a tio n a l a n d e d u c a tio n a l c o u n s e lo rs
Below median
A s s e m b le rs
C lo th in g iro n e rs a n d p re s s e rs
G a ra g e w o rk e rs an d g a s s ta tio n a tte n d a n ts
L a u n d ry a n d d ry c le a n in g o p e ra to rs
P a c k e rs a n d w ra p p e rs
S a w y e rs
S e w e rs a n d s titc h e rs
T e x tile o p e ra tiv e s
Below median
E n g in e e rin g a n d s c ie n c e te c h n ic ia n s
H e a lth te c h n o lo g is ts a n d te c h n ic ia n s
N u rs e s , d ie titia n s , an d th e ra p is ts
S o c ia l a n d re c re a tio n w o rk e rs
T e a c h e rs , e x c e p t c o lle g e a n d u n iv e rs ity
C le ric a l an d k in d re d w o r k e r s
Above median
C r a ft an d k in d re d w o r k e r s
M ail c a rrie rs , p o s t o ffic e
O ffic e m a c h in e o p e ra to rs
P o sta l c le rk s
S h ip p in g a n d re c e iv in g c le rk s
S ta tis tic a l c le rk s
S to c k c le rk s a n d s to re k e e p e rs
T e le p h o n e o p e ra to rs
Above median
B ric k m a s o n s a n d s to n e m a s o n s
C e m e n t an d c o n c re te fin is h e rs
C ra n e m e n , h o is tm e n , a n d d e rric k m e n
E le c tric ia n s
M a c h in is ts an d jo b s e tte rs
P lu m b e rs a n d p ip e fitte rs
Below median
Below median
B a n k te lle rs
B o o k k e e p e rs
C a s h ie rs
C o u n te r c le rk s
E s tim a to rs a n d in v e s tig a to rs
F ile c le rk s
L ib ra ry a tte n d a n ts
M ail h a n d le rs , e x c e p t p o s t o ffic e
R e c e p tio n is ts
S e c re ta rie s
T e a c h e rs ’ a id s
T y p is ts
B u lld o z e r o p e ra to rs
C a rp e n te rs
E x c a v a tin g , g ra d in g , a n d ro a d m a c h in e
o p e ra to rs
M e c h a n ic s a n d re p a ire rs
P a in te rs , c o n s tru c tio n a n d m a in te n a n c e
P rin tin g c ra fts m e n
O p e ra tiv e s
Above median
C h e c k e rs , e x a m in e rs , a n d in s p e c to rs
ever, black women made almost the same as their coun
terparts in white-collar jobs and over 90 percent of
white women’s earnings in the blue-collar trades. The
following tabulation shows the 1980 black-to-white
earnings differential by sex and occupation:
Male
Female
Total ...........................
75.1
92.2
White-collar ...........................
Professional and technical
M anagerial......................
Sales ................................
Clerical ...........................
79.2
85.5
76.7
69.2
80.7
98.7
97.6
105.9
99.4
98.5
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Blue-collar .................................................
C r a f t....................................................
Operatives, except transport ............
Transport equipment operatives . . . .
Laborers ............................................
81.4
86.9
86.8
82.6
86.2
93.9
99.5
94.3
97.2
100.6
Service........................................................
Private household workers ...............
Other .................................................
86.6
73.5
86.6
102.7
140.7
103.9
F a r m ...........................................................
78.3
81.4
Black women, while still at the bottom of the earnings
hierarchy, have narrowed the earnings gap between
themselves and white women in most occupational cate-
Table 5. Earnings data by race and occupation for May
1973 and second quarter 1980
Occupation
Percent increase in
earnings, 1973-1980
Black
White
Black/ white
earnings ratio
1973
1980
T o ta l....................................
68.2
65.4
79.6
81.0
White-collar w orkers......................
Professional and technical .. .
Managers and administrators .
S a le s ......................................
Clerical....................................
, 53.2
58.3
42.4
76.9
47.5
63.6
57.5
58.2
64.0
63.6
91.3
89.7
87.9
71.3
107.8
85.5
90.2
79.1
77.0
97.2
Blue-collar workers........................
Craft and kindred workers . . .
Operatives, except transport .
Transport equipment operatives
Nonfarm laborers ..................
77.2
61.7
77.4
89.9
58.0
69.9
66.5
70.4
63.6
56.6
77.9
84.8
85.2
73.3
83.2
81.2
82.3
88.7
85.1
83.9
Service w o rkers.............................
Private household workers . . .
Other service w o rkers...........
74.0
123.5
67.0
65.1
157.6
64.3
88.1
154.5
92.0
92.8
133.1
93.3
73.7
67.3
75.2
78.1
Farmworkers ...............................
May 1973 data are for black and other races; second quarter 1980 data are for
blacks only.
N ote :
gories, much more so than black men have succeeded in
doing with respect to white men. This is because wom
en are more concentrated in lesser skilled, lower paying
jobs which traditionally have been easier for blacks to
enter.10
Overview
Black occupational status improved somewhat during
the 1970’s, as proportionately more blacks moved into
white-collar jobs, although few penetrated the highersalaried professional and managerial positions. In fact,
the black-to-white earnings differential was unchanged
for professional and technical workers between 1973
and 1980, and, even more importantly, black earnings
relative to those of whites fell in the fast growing cleri
cal field: Black mobility in the blue-collar, service, and
farm occupations was more impressive, as blacks moved
out of unskilled work—especially private household
and laborer positions— and into the craft trades. The
growth of black employment in the expanding skilled
craft area was particularly important, in that blacks
were able to move into some of the better-paid posi
tions, and, for the most part, were able to increase their
earnings relative to their white counterparts in the bluecollar occupations.
Overall, shifts by blacks into the higher-salaried occu
pations were rather limited; this was most apparent for
those who resided in the central city areas. The majori
ty of blacks lived in central cities, which have high con
centrations of office and other business district-type
activities. Yet, by 1980, central city blacks had made
little progress in increasing their proportion in whitecollar occupations. Most of the occupational upgrading
occurred among the smaller number of blacks who re
sided in suburban areas. Furthermore, the progress that
did occur among blacks living in the city was mostly
accounted for by women, whereas, in the suburbs, black
men and women shared equally in the gains. This indi
cates that black women in both areas competed success
fully for jobs in those occupations in which women are
heavily recruited. Clearly, black workers, especially
black men and city dwellers, need to gain more access
to the higher-skilled, better-paying jobs in the rapidly
growing white-collar fields, if their earnings are to in
crease.
□
NOTE: The statistics are based on the 1970 Decennial
Census population counts, adjusted for the aging of the
population, deaths, and net migration. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics has subsequently converted Current
Population Survey estimates to reflect the 1980 census,
which enumerated 4.7 million more people than had
been estimated in updating the 1970 figure. Because this
difference was so much larger than previous censuses,
historical CPS data series are also being revised, includ
ing broad occupational employment categories. Howev
er, the full range of revised data for detailed occu
pational categories was not available at this writing;
indeed, revisions of some of the detailed series may not
be undertaken. Even if revised data were available, their
validity might be questionable at the level of detail in
this analysis. (The size and scope of the revisions of ma
jor labor force data as a result of the 1980 census will
be discussed in an article in the July Review.)
FOOTNOTES
' Unless otherwise stated, the term “black” in this article refers ex
clusively to the “black only” population and not to the “black and
other” category which is made up of blacks, American Indians, Alas
kan Natives, and Asian and Pacific Islanders.
2See Sylvia Small, Black Americans, A Decade of Occupational
Change, Bulletin 1760 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, revised 1972). For
a short history of occupational change among blacks, see “The Social
and Economic Status of the Black Population in the U.S.: An Histori
cal View, 1790-1978,” Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 80
(Bureau of the Census), pp. 61-63.
The year 1972 was chosen for comparison with 1980, rather than
1970, because occupational data before that time are not strictly com
parable with data for later years due to classification changes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For a recent analysis of the employment situation of black wom
en, see Phyllis A. Wallace, Black Women in the Labor Force
(Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1980).
5For the purposes of this analysis, an occupational participation
rate is defined as the ratio of black men employed in a given occupa
tional group to all men in that occupation and black women to all
women. It is appropriate to examine data for men and women sepa
rately, as occupational differences between the sexes are so pro
nounced. Though this statistic is not unique, the term “occupational
participation rate” was made popular by Stuart Garfinckle back in
1974 in his article, “Occupations of women and black workers, 19621974,” Monthly Labor Review, Nov. 1975, pp. 25-35.
6 Data by area of residence are not available for 1972. Also, the
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Black Job Gains in 1970’s
term “blacks” in this section refers to persons classified as blacks and
other minorities, as area of residence data by occupation are not pres
ently available for the “black only” category.
7 For a detailed account on the growth of white-collar jobs by area
and how it relates to black employment, see Brian J. O’Connell,
Blacks in White-Collar Jobs (New Jersey, Allanheld, Osmum and Co.,
pub., 1979). Also see Thomas M. Stanback, Jr. and Richard Knight,
Suburbanization and the City (Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing
Co., 1974).
8See Diane N. Westcott, “Employment and commuting patterns: a
residential analysis,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1979, pp. 3-9.
9 Earnings data used in this article are collected through the Cur
rent Population Survey. For purposes of comparability, it was neces
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sary to compare May 1973 data with that for the second quarter
1980, as earnings data were not available on an annual average basis
prior to 1979. Also, data for black and other races were the only race
data available in 1973; by 1980, however, earnings data were tabulat
ed for blacks only, excluding other minorities. Hence, the data are not
strictly comparable but do provide very close estimations of earnings
changes during this period for blacks.
10
The earnings gains of black women have been attributed to a re
duction in racial discrimination among the female sex. For an expla
nation of these and other findings on black male /female earnings, see
Ronald N. Oaxaca, “The Persistence of Male-Female Earnings Dif
ferentials,” and others in F. Thomas Juster, ed., The Distribution of
Economic Well-Being (Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing Co.,
1977).
Dividends for two
Under the social security system of Old-Age, Survivors, and Dis
ability Insurance the two-worker family “receives more insurance pro
tection for its ‘investment’ than does the one-worker family with an
equal income. If one worker in such a family retires before the other,
then benefits will be paid to that worker. On the other hand, in the
one-worker family, no benefits are payable to the nonworker unless
the worker retires. Also, child survivor benefits are payable in the
event of the death of either spouse in a two-worker family, but only
on the death of one spouse (the worker) in the one-worker family.
Further, prior to retirement, both spouses in the two-worker family
have disability insurance, whereas in the one-worker family only the
working spouse does.”
— R obert
J.
M yers
“Incremental Change in Social Security Needed to Result
in Equal and Fair Treatment of Men and Women,”
in Richard Burkhauser and Karen Holden, eds.,
The Changing Roles o f Women and Men in American Society (Proceedings of
a conference sponsored by the Institute for Research on Poverty and the
Women’s Studies Research Center, University of Wisconsin, held April 11-12,
1980) (New York, Academic Press, 1982), p. 239.
Labor Department’s first program
to assist black workers
The philosophy of equal employment opportunity
began with the Department's Division o f Negro Economics,
created to mobilize black workers for the war effort;
however, the project was ahead of its time,
and efforts to make it permanent were not successful
H enry P. G uzda
Sixty years ago, the Division of Negro Economics, one
of the great, yet virtually ignored experiments in the
history of the Department of Labor, ceased operation.
Long before equal employment opportunity became a
priority, this division promoted the concepts of that
philosophy. The largest demographic shift of blacks in
this Nation occurred between 1915 and 1920, and the
division assisted many of these migrants in obtaining
employment and in finding suitable housing, advised
them on business and financial matters, encouraged ra
cial harmony in the workplace, and even devoted atten
tion to the issues of female workers.
Born amidst the feverish demand for workers during
the first world war, the Division of Negro Economics
was dismantled as part of an alleged return to prewar
“normalcy.” But, prejudice played a significant role in
the division’s demise. Despite its generally conservative
approach to racial issues, the division made enemies
during a period which historians agree was not condu
cive for promoting black aspirations. Subsequently, offi
cials of the Labor Department did not accomplish all
they set out to do. They did, however, plant the seed,
and although slow in developing, the dreams of the
1920’s finally started to bloom in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
A pioneer in the civil rights movement succinctly evalu
ated this noble experiment stating: “This division,
though handicapped by the turmoil of transition general
in the federal government and by the past Congress,
Henry P. Guzda is a historian in the U.S. Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
has made an excellent beginning [in fostering economic
and social justice].” 1
The Department of Labor’s novel and progressive
program to assist black Americans, juxtaposed against
that of most other cabinet-level agencies in the adminis
tration of Woodrow Wilson, was the result of the en
lightened leadership of Secretary of Labor William B.
Wilson and his Assistant Secretary, Louis Post. Post, in
particular, had a great interest in the civil rights move
ment as a cofounder of the National Negro Conference
of 1909 (the forerunner of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People— n a a c p ). An ad
mirer commented on Post’s devotion to justice stating,
“He dared in a trying time, to defy the forces of mad
ness, hatred and greed.”2
South to North exodus
Beginning in 1915, blacks began moving from the
South to the industrialized North. When the First
World War erupted, in 1914, in Europe, cutting off the
flow of immigration to the United States, industrialists
looked for a cheap, preferably nonunion, source of labor
to replace the Hungarians, Poles, Italians, Czechs, and
other foreign nationals who, heretofore, had represented
the bulk of the unskilled work force. Blacks, seeking to
escape the economic poverty and repression of the
South, answered the call.
The extent and composition of the migration fostered
concern among varied interests. Southern employers, es
pecially farmers, feared that the depletion of their tradi39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • First Program to Aid Black Workers
tional labor supply would imperil their economy.
Northern trade unionists felt that the additional number
of workers in the labor market would play into the
hands of those employers who wanted to destroy orga
nized labor. J. H. Walker, president of the Chicago
Federation of Labor, for example, claimed that certain
employers in Illinois financed agents to recruit black
workers, transporting them free of charge to the North
to work for submarginal wages and to act as a reserve
corps of strikebreakers.3
To assess the migration problem, the Labor Depart
ment contracted with Dr. James Dillard, a leading civil
rights leader of the period, to conduct a study. Dillard
found that blacks did not saturate the northern labor
force. He also reported that as the southern economy
changed from labor-intensive cotton crops to mixed
farming with fewer demands, blacks left the South to
take advantage of economic opportunities in the North
as well as to escape repression.
A few weeks after the report’s release, Lathrop
Brown, special assistant to Interior Secretary Franklin
Lane, addressed the migration issue. He brashly claimed
that the stringent prohibition laws prevalent in the
South, and the lack thereof in the North, was the rea
son behind black migration. Assistant Secretary Louis
Post complained to Interior Secretary Lane that
Brown’s specious remarks would only serve to embar
rass the Administration, that Labor Department studies
proved that the inducement of higher wages, not prohi
bition, was the cause for the migration.4
Calls for black adviser answered
Incidents such as these demonstrated to advocates of
social justice that they had friends in the Department of
Labor. As a result, many concerns inquired about the
possibility of a black labor adviser in the Department
to deal with the problems of black wage earners. Even
private citizens saw the Labor Department, or its func
tion, as an appropriate guide rail to assist black eco
nomic advancement. As early as 1913, Thomas Swann,
a private citizen, suggested to President Wilson that he
establish an advisory body of blacks to help the wage
earning members of their race. In 1917, a New York
City minister, Richard Bolden, requested that the Presi
dent appoint a black man or woman to represent the la
bor interests of black Americans.5
Not until America’s entry into the world war, in
1917, however, did either Secretary Wilson or Assistant
Secretary Post think it opportunistic to appoint a black
adviser. Racial issues were “delicate and difficult,’’ and
neither official wanted to embroil the young Depart
ment—created in 1913—in a major controversy. But,
because the Department was responsible for allocation
of the Nation’s labor force for the war effort, the two
officials thought it more than just to attend to the labor
Digitized for
40 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
concerns of approximately 12 percent of America’s
working population. As a result, Wilson, Post, and the
representatives of seven major civil rights organizations,
including the NAACP and National Urban League,
worked out a basic agreement to establish a “Division
of Negro Economics” in the Department of Labor. The
purpose of this division was to mobilize the black work
force in the United States, and also to work for the gen
eral advancement of black wage earners.6
While the chief of the Division of Negro Economics
and a small staff would be part of the secretary’s office,
the majority of personnel, including 15 state representa
tives and 134 examiners, stenographers, and secretaries,
would be incorporated within the existing framework of
the U.S. Employment Service. Assistant Secretary Post
and his superior feared that the creation of an indepen
dent black division would cause criticism from some
blacks who would view it as a “jim crow bureau,” and
from segregationists who would oppose any black-ori
ented program encouraging interracial harmony. The
arrangement worked to the division’s advantage, be
cause it could make use of the already established em
ployment procurement functions and facilities of the
Employment Service.7
The infrastructure of the division included integrated
local advisory committees. These committees, composed
of volunteer white and black community members,
monitored social, cultural, and employment conditions
at the job sites. The committees worked under the guid
ance of State representatives from the Division of Negro
Economics to ameliorate racial problems. These adviso
ry committees completed a linkage of Federal-State-local cooperation, and the flexibility of this network
achieved some remarkable results.
Before the program could be implemented, Secretary
Wilson and Assistant Secretary Post faced the task of
picking a division chief. Many candidates offered their
services or had someone promote them, but Giles Jackson ran the most aggressive campaign for the job. A
black politician from Richmond, Va., he sought and
gained endorsements from both of Virginia’s U.S. Sena
tors, the American Federation of Labor, and the White
House. Wilson almost offered him the job when Louis
Post interceded.8
Jackson was persona non grata with most of the black
community, and they let Assistant Secretary Post know
their displeasure. The Washington Bee, a black newspa
per, sent an editorial to Post saying that Jackson was
not fit to be a dog catcher, let alone the representative
for the black working class. W.E.B. Dubois begged Post
to reconsider, calling Jackson “one of the most disrepu
table characters the Negro race has produced.” Even
Post himself had doubts about Jackson’s character and
competency.9
On May 1, 1918, Secretary Wilson chose another
candidate, George E. Haynes, professor of Sociology
and Economics at Fisk University in Tennessee, to head
the Division of Negro Economics. A recognized scholar
and authority on the black migration phenomenon, a
cofounder of the National Urban League, and the first
black American to receive a Ph.D. from Columbia Uni
versity, Haynes was most qualified.10 He announced
that although his primary responsibility was to mobilize
the black work force for the war effort, achieving coop
eration of the races and opening the doors of opportuni
ty to blacks was equally important.
State programs established
Although planned and programmed at the Federal
level, the Division of Negro Economics was basically
State and local oriented. It was on that level that inter
action between the races was most intimate. Haynes
wanted to make sure that the transmission of the Labor
Department’s program to the people it intended to help
was clear and direct. Therefore, he personally assisted
in founding the State branches.
Haynes bearded the lion in its own den, establishing
the first State division in the South, where opposition to
race-related programs was the strongest. To stir up an
aura of good feelings, a massive public relations rally
was held to “kick-off’ each State’s program. At the first
rally in Raleigh, N.C., Haynes told the large audience,
speckled with white and black faces, that blacks wanted
to help win the war and share the bounties of the Na
tion.
With flourishes of rhetoric that paled some of the
propaganda statements of George Creel’s Division of
Information (an agency designed to sell America’s in
volvement in World War I), Haynes’ related acts of pa
triotism performed by blacks, stating they were among
the first American soldiers to sacrifice their lives in the
trenches of France. He added that on the homefront
blacks had accomplished different feats of patriotism,
citing as an example the black riveter in a Baltimore,
Md., shipyard who drove a record 4,875 studs in 1 day
into a vessel under construction. Many black Ameri
cans, claimed Haynes, demonstrated their patriotism ev
ery day and in doing so destroyed many of the
prevalent myths about racial inferiorities.
The rally was a success. Immediately afterwards, the
first local advisory committee was formed. It consisted
of 30 influential residents, white and black, including
the Governor of North Carolina. In 6 months, the spirit
of good will generated at the rally helped in the estab
lishment of more than 25 advisory committees through
out the State. The best indication of the rally’s influence
was in a letter to Assistant Secretary Post from North
Carolina’s Governor Bickett who called it, “the most
helpful and patriotic conference I attended.” 11
Following close on the heels of the North Carolina
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
experiment, Haynes proceeded to establish offices in
other States. In Virginia, the second State targeted by
Haynes, a different approach to stimulation of good
working conditions took place. Virginia’s Division of
Negro Economics representative, T.C. Erwin, assisted
the U.S. Housing Bureau in planning and building 254
modern residential units for blacks near Richmond.
Erwin, like Haynes, believed that better living condi
tions would make healthy, contented, and stable work
ers. Erwin also assisted in organizing a cooperative
savings and loan institution to pay off the mortgages on
the units, and a governing council to impose rules and
regulations on the community.
Racial issues were not always so pleasantly natured.
In Norfolk, the division ameliorated a potentially riot
ous situation. This busy port city suffered from a short
age of stevedores to load and unload cargo from
merchant ships. The local Chamber of Commerce want
ed the city council to pass “work or fight laws,” man
dating that able bodied men work at war-related jobs
or face conscription into the Armed Forces. Blacks
viewed the laws as alternative forms of slavery, directed
at them disproportionately when compared to whites.
Erwin persuaded the city council to delay action; he
held a job fair and in 2 days recruited more workers
than there were jobs to fill. These newly hired blacks
received wages equal to their white counterparts, which
would not have been the case under work or fight laws,
and the praise of the local press for demonstrating their
patriotism.12
As the division moved deeper into the South, the
problems facing it became more difficult and serious.
For example, in Mobile, Ala., some employers were
exploiting black workers to the degree of slavery, and
neither the local advisory committee nor the State’s Di
vision of Negro Economics representative could get
them to stop. Haynes tried to meet with the local
Chamber of Commerce, hoping to persuade the business
group to pressure their colleagues to act humanely, but
they refused to see him. This brought a visit from As
sistant Secretary Post who told the chamber that many
of the employers in question held government contracts
and could forfeit them if the problems were not reme
died. A high ranking official of Tuskeegee University in
Alabama wrote Haynes: “Mr. Post’s visit here did a lot
of good in the matter of putting a stop to some of the
injustices practiced against colored labor. I do not
mean to state that these [employers]. . . have come over
to the Lord’s side . . . , but they have desisted from
some of the more flagrant abuses practiced.” 13
In the North, the Division also demonstrated a versa
tility. The basic format of organizational activities, a
rally, the founding of a State branch, and the founding
of local advisory committees, was the same, but with a
few twists. Residential restrictions against blacks creat41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • First Program to Aid Black Workers
ed a severe housing shortage, and some employers, not
with altruism in mind, operated boardinghouses to keep
black workers near the job sites. Local advisory com
mittees monitored the conditions of these houses and
reported violations to the State’s Division of Negro
Economics representative. At times, employers cooper
ated and corrected the situation; too often it took
threats of debarment from government contracts.14
Throughout the North, the division made great
strides towards benefiting black wage earners, while
stimulating stability for the production of war materiel.
In Chicago, the division, often working out of the of
fices of the National Urban League or the Young Men’s
and Women’s Christian Associations, provided employ
ment offices that informed blacks of job opportunities
or residential openings. The local representative encour
aged strong community roots by helping blacks invest
in cooperative stores and savings institutions. In New
York, State representative Jesse Thomas helped break
the color barriers in the city retail trade by convincing
Gimbel’s department store to hire blacks. And, in De
troit, Mich., the division successfully encouraged the
promotion of some workers into supervisory positions.
Also in Detroit, the American Car Foundry praised the
division telling representative William Jennifer, “your
labors . . . will be crowned with the success it de
serves.” 15
Problems of black women exposed
According to a Division of Negro Economics special
report on black women, the great labor shortage during
the war, especially in northern industries, gave black
women the opportunity to enter industrial pursuits nev
er opened to them before. The study of working condi
tions of black women exposed many problems that
would not become topics of scrutiny for another 25
years. In addition to the conditions of employment,
wages, hours, and standards, the report also touched
on discrimination against black women and how such
practices could be prevented. It even recommended that
black women be promoted into supervisory positions as
rewards for competent performances, an almost un
heard of proposal 1 year before women had the right to
vote.
The special study was as revealing as it was clairvoy
ant. It disclosed that black women suffered occupation
al discrimination vis a vis white women, the same as
black men did in relation to their white counterparts.
The report claimed this reached ludicrous proportions
in perpetuating racial discrimination and stereotyping.
Blacks were precluded from skilled jobs because em
ployers thought them inferior to whites. This, said
Helen B. Irvin, coauthor of the report, was totally false.
She found, among many cases, a cigar maker who
employed fair-complexioned black women in skilled po
Digitized for
42 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sitions “in order that they may be regarded by patrons
as Cuban, South American or Spanish.” 16
The unabashed forms of discrimination were not con
fined to the private sector. Irvin found black women in
the Federal Government working at the least desirable
jobs, with the specter of unemployment hanging over
their heads when the soldiers returned from the war.
She labeled this a guise for blatant discrimination, stat
ing, “Others were frankly told that such position as re
mained available were intended for white workers, and
that they had been used merely because no others could
be obtained . . . . ” 17
Concluding on a more positive note, the report pre
dicted that the Federal Government would be the pri
mary means of breaking the bonds of segregation and
discrimination. Irvin predicted that black female work
ers would be rewarded in the future with promotions
and job security in the Federal Government, and that it
was not too far in the future that this would come to
pass. Unfortunately, the time span was considerably
longer than even she expected.
Fight for survival
As the war began to wane, it affected industrial pro
duction in tandem, and the Division of Negro Econom
ics again demonstrated flexibility in handling new
situations. The transition from a war to a peacetime
economy, if precedents held true, meant the laying off
of most black workers. The projections of unemployed
blacks, packed into ever growing slums and facing daily
diets of poverty and dispair, appeared imminent.
The division wanted to deter this grim prophecy. The
local advisory committee in Pittsburgh, Pa., negotiated
an agreement with the Carnegie Steel Co., for the reten
tion of one-third of the black workers it employed dur
ing the peak of wartime production. This agreement set
a precedent, as several other steel companies in the val
leys washed by the Allegheny and Monongehela rivers
instituted similar plans. Unfortunately, some steel com
panies, as well as other industries, retained black work
ers only to thwart the growing trend towards industrial
unionism— some employers used the black workers as
strikebreakers and union busters, particularly during the
brutal and violent steel and meatpacking strikes of
1919. But despite this, Haynes still thought that the
worker retention plans “show to a small degree some of
the practical work accomplished by this division within
a short period of time.” 18
The welcomed winds of peace bore ill tidings for the
Division of Negro Economics. Promises of social and
economic justice, if not social acceptance, looked bright
and meaningful before the armistice. But, once the
peace was consummated, submerged racial antagonisms
crept towards the surface. Indicative of the changing at
mosphere was a series of race riots which swept across
the Nation, crippling Detroit, Washington, Chicago,
and other cities.
The first signs of trouble for the division came from
Florida. In April 1919, Governor Sidney Catts request
ed that the Department of Labor abolish the Florida
Division of Negro Economics, and at the same time re
place the head of the U.S. Employment Service (who
was white) with a personal friend he described as “a
real Florida cracker.” Catts accused the Division’s “car
pet-bag negro federal officers” of inciting riots by pro
mulgating the amalgamation of the races. “I am looking
upon this question as a white man,” he said, ” . . . I
could look upon it from no other viewpoint . . . . ” 19
Assistant Secretary Post found Catts’ remarks spe
cious at best. The State representative had been a me
chanic, teacher, and businessman in Florida for a
number of years and was respected by many influential
white persons of the State. Secretary Wilson, temporari
ly suspended the division’s program until he could in
vestigate Catts’ charges, but later reinstated it.
The Florida dispute was only a harbinger of future
problems. A few weeks later, the New York Tribune,
quoted an unnamed U.S. Senator who complained that
irritation over the use of black labor conciliators in the
South had reached a high point from the Atlantic Coast
to Texas. “If Secretary Wilson, and more particularly
Assistant Secretary Post,” said the unnamed source,
“do not pull in their horns very promptly, it will topple
the cornerstone of the Democratic South.20
Tensions increased and criticism became uglier. At
the convention of the southern-based National Lumber
Manufacturers Association, in 1919, the association’s
president, John Kirby, expressed displeasure over the
division. Referring to the Labor Department’s request
for a conference to iron out difficulties, Kirby told the
audience, “I shall be glad to confer with Mr. Wilson or
Mr. Post, but when it comes to sitting in counsel with
Dr. Haynes, a negro, you will have to excuse me. In the
South we tell negroes what to do; we do not take coun
sel with them.” A reporter covering the convention
wrote, “his audience broke into a storm of cheers when
the speaker dramatically told of refusing to sit with a
negro.”21
Battle lost
Criticism and condemnation only convinced officials
of the Labor Department that the division should be
come permanent. “I desire for the Division of Negro
Economics to be continued,” Secretary Wilson wrote to
Louis Post. Apparently, Wilson also informed Haynes
of this, for Haynes, in a confidential letter to his New
York representative, wrote, “the Secretary wants to
make it [the division] permanent.” In fact, Secretary
Wilson, as early as 1918, submitted a bill to the Con
gress to accomplish this task, but it died in committee.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
As an alternative, the Secretary proposed funds for the
division in the appropriations request before the Con
gress.22
In the Congress, the division’s friends and foes met
to decide its fate. An optimistic Haynes said, “on every
side, everyone who has looked into it commends the
work as valuable and necessary, but no one can tell
what Congress will do.”23When the bill came before the
labor committee, an unnamed legislator raised a parlia
mentary point of order over funding, claiming that the
Secretary of Labor, by creating a public agency,
usurped powers mandated to the Congress, and that the
issue of appropriations was moot. The conferees upheld
this point.
The issue of usurpation of powers was a ploy. Section
4 of the organic act creating a Department of Labor
allowed the Secretary to appoint special advisers and
utilize them in a cooperative effort with other branches
of government. Solicitor of Labor John Abercrombie
cited similar cooperative efforts, including those in the
U.S. Public Health Service and the War Risk Insurance
Bureau of the Treasury Department. Apparently none
of this impressed the committee, and the division faced
extinction with the beginning of fiscal year 1920.24
Civil rights leaders fulminated with anger. Mary
White Ovington of the NAACP accused the Congress of
unabashed racism; Eugene K. Jones of the Urban
League expressed shock and sorrow over the Congress’
shallow excuses; and T. J. Woofter of the Phelps Stokes
Foundation called the action “sheer political chican
ery.”25
But the division was not yet dead, only critically
wounded. Haynes and Assistant Secretary Post drafted
new legislation for the next session of the Congress (in
1921), and Secretary Wilson transferred funds from oth
er appropriations to maintain a skeleton Division of Ne
gro Economics. Haynes’ services were shared with the
Inter-Church World Movement which, in turn, paid
part of his salary. The U.S. Conciliation Service
absorbed some of the division’s personnel, but pro
grams and activities were drastically suppressed. Local
advisory committees, without central direction, began to
disperse, decay, and finally disappear.
One last gasp of hope remained. The Congress could
legislate the division into existence, and some heavy
lobby pressure by civil rights groups resulted in hear
ings on a bill. Haynes testified as the official Labor De
partment representative, arguing that such a Federal
agency would help improve race relations in the Nation
and coordinate local efforts to achieve racial harmony
and equal opportunity. Such a program, said Haynes,
could only be administered at the Federal level.
Haynes’ appeals fell on deaf ears. Senator Francis
Warren of Wyoming expressed the general feeling about
the bill’s chances, stating: “You are exactly equal under
43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • First program to Aid Black Workers
the law. You are exactly equal, of course, under those
appropriations. But as far as we are concerned, there
should not be division between different classes of
workmen, one against the other . . . we have to look at
it with the idea of preserving equality. The same rule
applies to both.”26 Haynes retorted, “the fact is Senator,
that heretofore the inequality has rested the other way
when it has come to matters of industrial opportunity
and employment.”
No clever repartee, however, could change the out
come. In 1921, a new Administration took over, and
with it came a new chief of the Labor Department,
James J. Davis, who showed little interest in fighting
for the Division of Negro Economics’ continuance. The
division limped along for another year before
succumbing to neglect and disuse. Even though its
death was neither a cause nor an effect for the growth
of slums and poverty or the escalation of unemploy
ment rates among blacks, it is conceivable that its con
tinued operations might have at least improved
conditions. Unfortunately, the program was too ad
vanced for the time in which it existed.
□
FOOTNOTES
' T.J. Woofter, “The Negro and Industrial Peace,” T h e S u rv e y , Dec.
18, 1920, p. 421.
2 Clark Wilhelm, “William B. Wilson: The First Secretary of La
bor,” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1967) p. 180; Henry
Mussey, “Louis Post, American,” N a tio n , June 12, 1920, p. 793.
Samuel Gompers to William B. Wilson, Jan. 19, 1971 and J. H.
Walker, Illinois Federation of Labor, to Wilson, Mar. 16, 1917, file
13/65; Southern States Phosphate Co. to Louis Post, May 25, 1917
and Theodore Bilbo to William B. Wilson, June 6, 1917, file 16/433,
National Archives Record Group (NARG) 174; Ray Stannard Baker,
“The Negro goes North,” W o rld s W o rk , July 1917, p. 315.
4 Louis Post to Presidential Assistant J.P. Tumulty, Dec. 12, 1916,
Woodrow Wilson Papers, Series # 4 , 1913-17, Library of Congress
Manuscript Division (LCMD).
5Thomas Swann to President Woodrow Wilson, Mar. 31, 1913, file
16/38, NARG 174; Richard Bolden to Wilson, July 9, 1917, NAACP
Papers, Box 319, LCMD.
6 Minutes of the NAACP Board of Directors, May 13, 1918,
NAACP Papers, Box A -l, LCMD; Louis Post to W.B. Wilson, Feb.
15, 1918, file 8/102 and Louis Post to George Haynes, Apr. 24, 1918,
file 8/102-B, NARG 174.
7Criticisms that the Division of Negro Economics was a segregated
branch of the U.S. Employment Service were based on ironic twists of
fate. The immediate personnel of the division were black because its
chief believed that they could better relate to black problems. The of
fices which housed the division branches did not have segregated fa
cilities. In fact, the first recorded case of what now is called “reverse
discrimination” may have occurred when Jesse Thomas, the division’s
representative in New York, told the USES director he did not want
the loan of a white secretary, saying, “although I have no objections
professionally, I prefer a ‘colored’ girl.” See Jesse Thomas to Annette
Erdman, U.S. Employment Service, Mar. 25, 1919, National Urban
League Papers, SRO Box B-4, LCMD; Department of Labor Press
Release, Information and Education Service, Nov. 25, 1918, file
8/102-C, NARG 174.
'W.E.B. DuBois to Louis Post, Apr. 16, 1918 and Post to DuBois,
Apr. 18, 1918, file 8/102-B; W ash in g to n B ee, Apr. 1918, file 8/102-B;
Emmett Scott, War Department to Dr. James Dillard, Mar. 23, 1918,
file 8/102-A, NARG 174.
4
Giles B. Jackson to J.P. Tumulty, July 13, 1917, Woodrow Wilson
Papers, Series # 4 , 1914-1918; Giles B. Jackson to Samuel Gompers,
July 31, 1917, Mar. 2, 1918, file 8/102-A; Gompers to Jackson, Jan.
Digitized for
44 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14, 1918, file 8/102-A, NARG 174.
10John Shillady of the NAACP to Secretary Wilson, Mar. 25, 1918,
Grahm Taylor to Louis Post, Mar. 30, 1918, Emmett Scott to Secre
tary of War, Newton Baker, Apr. 26, 1918, file 8/102-A, NARG 174.
" U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Negro Economics, Negro
At Work During the World War and Reconstruction (Washington,
Government Printing Office, 1921), Post to Wilson (quotes Bickett)
July 2, 1918, file 8/102-A; Department of Labor Press Release, State
ment of George E. Haynes, file 20/40-A, NARG 174.
12 U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, pp. 119-23.
13 Melvin Chisum of the Tuskeegee Institute to George Haynes, Oct.
5, 1918, file 8/102-A (taken from Robert Rusa Moton papers, Gener
al Correspondence File, Tuskeegee Archives).
14Charles Hall to George Haynes, (undated), file 8/102-C, NARG
174; U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, pp. 112-15.
‘’ Officials of the American Car Foundry to E.B. Williams, Michi
gan representative of Negro Economics, 1919, Carter Woodson Pa
pers, file 170, Box 14, LCMD.
16U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, pp. 127-28.
1 U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, pp. 127-28.
18U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, p. 118.
'’ Sidney Catts to Secretary Wilson, Apr. 7, 1919, Apr. 22, 1919,
and Wilson to Catts, Apr. 15, 1919, file 8/102-E, NARG 174.
20New York Tribune, Apr. 21, 1919.
21 Washington Post, Apr. 3, 1919; Pittsburgh Courrier, Apr. 12, 1919,
New Orleans Vindicator, Apr. 12, 1919.
22Report of the Division of Negro Economics to the Secretary of La
bor: 1919, file 8/102-E; Report of the Conference on Inter-Racial Af
fairs, Feb. 19, 1919, file 16/726; Haynes to Post, May 10, 1919, file
8/102, NARG 174.
Haynes to Jesse Thomas, Feb. 28, 1919, May 12, 1919, National
Urban League Papers, SRO Box B-4, LCMD.
24 U.S. Department of Labor, Negro at Work, pp. 135-36; U.S. Con
gress, Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings on H.R.
15543, Appropriations— Civil Sundry Bill, Jan. 28th to Feb. 2nd, 1921
(65th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1921), pp. 98-100.
2' T.J. Woofter to George Foster Peabody, (undated), NAACP Pa
pers, Box C-319, Mary White Ovington, Aug. 19, 1919, NAACP Pa
pers, Box C-319, LCMD.
26 U.S. Congress, Hearings on H.R. 15543, pp. 98-100.
Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present
ed at the Thirty-Foufth Annual Meeting of the Indus
trial Relations Research Association, December 1981,
in Washington, D.C.
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 appears in the IRRA publi
cation, Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting,
available from IRRA, Social Science Building, Madison,
Wis. 53706.
Human capital and multinationals:
evidence from Brazil and Mexico
R ichard U. M iller
and
M ahmood A. Zaidi
Although the theoretical and empirical literature dealing
with economic growth is by now quite extensive, one
cannot say the same for the issue of human capital and
development. In the first place, much of the research
has been carried out in the industrialized countries.1
Moreover, those studies that deal with less developed
countries have focused almost solely on returns to gen
eral training or education without touching those ques
tions associated with on-the-job specific training.2
This void in the human capital literature is particu
larly important from the standpoint of less developed
nations, given their reliance on economic development
via industrialization and the preeminent role in this pro
cess assigned to foreign capital. For example, it is not
clear to what extent investment in general education ac
tually pays off in higher earnings for those workers ei
ther aspiring to or gaining access to the modern sectors
of a developing country. Related questions also involve
the emergence of credentialism as a consequence of gen
eral education investments; the incidence of specific
Richard U. Miller is professor of management and industrial relations
at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Mahmood A. Zaidi is a pro
fessor and director of graduate study in the Industrial Relations Cen
ter of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Their full i r r a paper
is entitled “Human Capital and Earnings: Some Evidence From Brazil
and Mexico.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
training in modern-sector firms and its payoffs, the way
in which training investments are funded and who bears
the costs in such firms; and so on. Without adequate
evaluation, educational policy may not only be ineffec
tual but may, in fact, produce negative consequences.3
Broadly speaking, two competing hypotheses may be
considered. The first is that the presence of multination
al corporations in a host country stimulates investment
in human capital. This could result either from on-thejob and other training (and other human services) pro
vided by the multinational corporation to its employees,
or from an increased incentive for the domestic popula
tion to engage in schooling and “off-the-job” training.
Such incentive is presumably the result of the presence
of modern-sector jobs provided by the multinational
corporation. Alternatively, it may be argued that multi
nationals contribute only marginally to the development
of human capital in less developed countries because
they tend to import capital intensive technologies which
imply the need for relatively few skilled employees who
may themselves be foreign nationals.
To evaluate these hypotheses, we expanded the stan
dard human capital model proposed by Jacob Mincer,4
and tested its applicability to particular multinational
corporations in developing countries. (For a discussion
of the model, see the full paper.)
An alternative to the education-productivity-earnings
relationship of the human capital model is the screening
hypothesis, or theory of credentialism, which asserts
that employers prefer better educated workers for rea
sons other than increased productivity. Therefore, they
will treat educational qualifications merely as a screen
ing device when hiring new workers.5 It is argued that
the employer’s main concerns are with trainability and
with administrative expedience. Hence, as educational
levels rise in a society, so too will the educational hiring
standards. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the implica
tions are enormous, particularly for a developing coun
try. First, cohorts of older workers may become
increasingly disadvantaged vis-à-vis younger workers
and society may thus become more stratified. Second,
returns to education may be more highly correlated
with starting wage than with long-term earnings. Third,
the incidence of credentialism may be highest among
those firms with the strongest internal labor markets,
that is, modern-sector multinational firms, thereby con-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Conference Papers
tributing further to occupational and economic stratifi
cations. And, finally, from a general social standpoint,
educational expansion in general is unlikely to have
much impact on earnings differentials. The results of
our model do not provide hard evidence for or against
the screening hypothesis, but we were able to draw cer
tain conclusions from ancillary data on our sample of
workers.
The incidence and costs of on-the-job training are
generally considered to be more difficult areas of human
capital theory to deal with conceptually and empirical
ly. As one observer points out, “From the earliest for
mulations of the human-capital model by Schultz,
Becker and Mincer, it was on-the-job training and not
formal schooling that was taken to be the paradigm
case of self-investment.”6 Yet the difficulties in measur
ing returns to such investment grew as it became clear
that it was possible to identify a number of forms of
on-the-job training, for example, general versus specific
training, or training which occurred under supervision
versus that acquired simply by doing. Training might,
in fact, be acquired off the job but while still employed
by the firm and this, too, might be general or specific.
Thus, simply to speak of general versus specific training
or even off-the-job versus on-the-job training is method
ologically inadequate. However, our model has obvious
shortcomings concerning the identification and measure
ment of who bears the training investment costs and
who reaps the returns. Therefore, alternative informa
tion was analyzed to answer these questions.
The data for this analysis were collected in Mexico
City in 1975-76 and in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1977, and
consist of a 10-percent random sample of employees at
one plant or location for two American multinational
firms in each country. In order to standardize the data
as much as possible, the main sample is composed of
workers from the same auto manufacturing and retail
trade firms in Mexico and in Brazil. In addition, supple
mentary data were also gathered in Brazil from two
other U.S. multinational corporations and from a large
Brazilian utility company. The total sample consists of
1,137 workers.
The findings
According to ordinary least squares results from our
regression model, the current wage was, almost without
exception, not significantly associated with such vari
ables as previous training, current training, and years of
work experience prior to current employment in the
firms in Brazil, but prior work experience was signifi
cant in the Mexican branches. However, education and
tenure were significantly related in both countries.
The above findings lend themselves to several conclu
sions. For example, prior experience and training do not
seem to pay off directly in higher earnings in the Brazil
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ian firms as one might expect if they were a form of
specific investment in human capital that workers have
paid for. Rather, they enhance the credentials of the job
applicant, helping him or her to gain access to the mod
ern sector, or they represent investments that workers
did not pay for. Education, however, clearly both en
hances credentials, and provides a direct payoff. In the
Mexican firms, prior work experience, education, and
tenure all are beneficial to the employee.
The fact that our tenure and experience variables
were significant raises questions for which the answers
can be only speculative. However, if one assumes that
as work experience increases, so too will skills, knowl
edge, and productivity, our findings may indicate re
turns to learning by doing. Because this assumption
seems plausible, the tenure and experience results, along
with the significant coefficients on education, appear to
support the hypothesis that multinational corporations
do reward individuals for investments in human capital.
Regarding the credentialism hypothesis, our inter
views and data suggest that such screening occurs in
both Mexico and Brazil. In the auto assembly plants,
managers freely admitted that 80 percent of the work
required no previous experience or skill, and another 16
percent could be classified at best as semi-skilled. Yet
these same firms hired no one without at least the com
pletion of primary education. For example, the mean
years of education at the date of hiring at the Mexican
auto plant had increased from 4.8 years during the
1940-50 period to 6.9 years during 1970-80 with no
corresponding increase in job requirements. In both
Mexico and Brazil, this educational criterion would ef
fectively shut out 65 to 70 percent of the urban job seek
ers and nearly all the urban migrants.
To analyze the incidence and costs of on-the-job
training in our main sample of firms, we differentiated
between the auto companies and the retail trade organi
zations. In the former case, formal on-the-job training is
almost nonexistent. The basic approach is learning
while doing. Perhaps 4 percent of the workers get for
mal training and another 16 percent are permitted, on
their own time, to practice other jobs and prepare them
selves for promotion.7 The retail trade firms were much
more inclined to engage in formal on-the-job training,
averaging better than 3 months of such training among
the workers surveyed.
Those modern-sector firms that employ primarily
blue-collar workers show a marked reluctance to bear
the costs of formal training.8 One must conclude that
such employers place a high value on the forgone pro
duction that would occur with such “training.” For
their part, the retail trade firms do not seem to share
this reluctance, for they train employees even in the face
of much higher rates of voluntary turnover. This obser
vation implies a much greater rate of return to such
training investments for retail employers. Assuming that
workers leave before their earnings equal their marginal
productivity, these employers can pay off the investment
in training and still retain a significant surplus in the
classical sense.
□
-------- FOOTNOTES--------1The standard references are, of course, Gary S. Becker, Human
Capital, 2d ed. (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1980); and
Jacob Mincer, Schooling, Experience and Earnings (New York, Colum
bia University Press, 1974). See also Mark Blaug, “The Empirical Sta
tus of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced Survey,” Journal
of Economic Literature, September 1976, pp. 817-55.
2See, for example, Carmel U. Chiswick, “On Estimating Earnings
Functions for LDCs,” Journal of Development Economics, December
1977, pp. 67-78; Pak-wai Liu and Yue-chim Wong, “Human Capital
and Inequality in Singapore,” Economic Development and Cultural
Change, January 1981, pp. 275-93; and George Psacharopoulos,
“Schooling Experience and Earnings: The Case of an LDC,” Journal
of Development Economics, December 1977, pp. 39-48.
The following discussion reviews the empirical studies
of the employment effects of the minimum wage in agri
culture, and presents the results of an effort to extend
and refine that research by employing a new model to
test the robustness of the minimum wage effect. Results
of this model, using 1967-79 data, indicate that a
10-percent increase in the agricultural minimum wage
causes an employment decline of about 3 percent—the
equivalent of some 45,000 farm jobs in 1979.
A review of the literature
The effect of the minimum wage on employment and
unemployment has received considerable attention in
the empirical labor economics literature. Most analysts
have tried to measure the minimum wage effects on de
mographic subgroups of the population, and some have
investigated the effects on particular industry groups.1
But relatively few have specifically focused on the em
ployment effects of the minimum wage on agriculture,
and their findings are generally in accord with the re
ceived neoclassical theory which hypothesizes reductions
in employment as the minimum wage rises.
Following the standard competitive labor market
model, an increase in (or introduction of) a statutory
minimum wage would cause optimizing employers to
reduce the quantity of labor demanded. On the supply
side, workers would offer more of their services at the
higher wage. The result would be an excess supply of
labor as fewer jobs are rationed among more workers.
One basic extension of this familiar comparative-stat
ic model in the recent theoretical work on the employ
ment effects of the minimum wage is the consideration
of both the covered and uncovered sectors. Recognizing
that two types of jobs exist—those which are covered
by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
those which are not—an increase in the Federally man
dated wage would be expected to reduce employment in
the covered sector. Those workers unable to find jobs
there would (1) withdraw from the labor force, (2) re
main unemployed in hopes of becoming reemployed in
the covered sector, or (3) search for work in the uncov
ered sector. In the case of farmworkers, they may
choose to leave agriculture altogether, and search for
work in nonagricultural industries.
To the extent that agricultural workers search for
work either in the uncovered sector or in nonfarm in
dustry, the wage in the uncovered agricultural sector
would fall, and the resulting employment increase
would, to some extent, offset the employment loss in
the covered sector. The net result depends on the rate
of withdrawal of workers from the labor force, the ex
tent to which displaced workers in the covered sector
hold out in search of work there, the elasticities of de
mand for labor in the covered and uncovered sectors,
and perceived and real employment opportunities in the
nonagricultural sector. Although the relative importance
of these factors is an empirical issue, the findings of the
previous major studies unequivocally support the com
petitive hypothesis that increases in the mandated mini
mum have adverse employment effects. Among the find
ings:
Curtis L. Gilroy is chief, Personnel Policy Research Group, U.S.
Army Research Institute. His full i r r a paper is entitled “Minimum
Wages and Agricultural Employment: A Review of the Evidence.”
• Edward Schuh found that a 10-percent increase in the
minimum wage would reduce agricultural employ
ment by 2.6 and 4.9 percent in the short and long
run, respectively.2
For an example, see Claudio de Moura Castro, “Vocational Edu
cation and the Training of Industrial Labour in Brazil,” International
Labour Review, September-October 1979, pp. 617-29.
4 See Mincer, Schooling.
5See Blaug, “The Empirical Status,” pp. 845^-9.
p. 836.
6Ibid,
7This finding is supported by Samuel Morley and others in their
study of 82 Brazilian firms. See Samuel A. Morley, Milton Barbosa,
and Christina C. de Souza, “Evidence on the Internal Labor Market
During a Process of Rapid Economic Growth,” Journal of Develop
ment Economics, June 1978, p. 267.
KMorley and others, “Evidence on the Internal Labor Market,” pp.
266-69. See also issues of Business Latin America, May 2, 1979, pp.
139—41, and June 6, 1979, pp. 182-83 for a description of relevant
laws.
The effects of the minimum wage
on farm employment: a new model
Curtis L. G ilroy
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Conference Papers
• Vernon Grise concluded that if the minimum wage
were set between 9 and 50 percent above the prevail
ing average farm wage, the decline in the hired farm
work force would vary between 2 and 10 percent in
the short run, and 8 and 33 percent in the long run.3
• Bruce Gardner estimated that the 1966 flsa extend
ed minimum wage coverage reduced hired farm em
ployment by about 18 percent from what it would
otherwise have been in the 1967-70 period.4
• Theodore Lianos found the reduction in farm em
ployment to be between 24 and 51 percent over the
years 1967-69.5
• Using pooled cross-section data, H.F. Gallasch, Jr.
estimated that a 10-percent increase in the agricultur
al minimum wage would result in a decrease of 6 per
cent in hired farmworker employment in 1971.6
• Using census data, Gallasch and Gardner found that
minimum wage legislation reduced hired agricultural
employment about 42 percent from what it would
otherwise have been in 1970.7
• Gardner estimated that the minimum wage reduced
the number of hired farmworkers by about 115,000
or 9 percent of its 1979 level.8
• And, in a specialized study of seasonal cotton work
ers, John Trapani and J.R. Moroney found that 1966
extended FLSA coverage accounted for 65 percent of
the 93,000 cotton-worker jobs eliminated between
1967 and 1969.9
Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare the results of
these studies in terms of relative size of the measured
employment effects, because each differs considerably in
the period analysed, variables included, and functional
form. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess how diferences in the models affect the results, since most au
thors do not report how their findings changed as a re
sult of changes in variables or equation specification. In
addition, most studies estimate minimum wage impacts
on the basis of only a few years during which the mini
mum wage was in effect. And in some cases, a dummy
variable is used for the minimum wage.
Nonetheless, for most studies, a point employment
elasticity can be derived.10 The estimated employment
elasticities are the effects of a 10-percent increase in the
minimum wage, (that is, 10 times the elasticity), and
range widely from —0.7 to —6.6 percent.
Extending the standard model
The time-series studies which estimate the effect of
the minimum wage on agricultural employment have
most often used a single equation model of the form:
Y = f(M W , N W , T, X , . . . X n)
where the dependent variable Y is the measure of agri
cultural employment—in all cases, the level of hired
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
farm labor employment. Independent variables include
M W as the agricultural minimum wage, usually the de
flated value of the Federal statutory minimum; NW as
the average wage in nonagricultural industries, a mea
sure of the opportunity wage; T as a time trend; and
Xr . . Ynas other exogenous variables, such as the cost
of non-labor inputs, amount of land in use, and farm
product prices. Although a business cycle variable is
not explicitly included, its effect is accounted for in NW,
in that NW is multiplied by 1 minus the unemployment
rate to adjust for the likelihood that a farmworker may
not find work at the opportunity wage.
For purposes of this analysis, a number of refine
ments were made to the standard model, which it was
hoped would provide additional time-series evidence of
the effects of the minimum wage on agricultural em
ployment:
— A dummy variable was included in the specification
to account for the sharp discontinuity of the agricultur
al employment series used in most studies of this type.
As a result of significant changes in the sample design
and collection procedure of the U.S. Department of Ag
riculture ( u s d a ) Agricultural Labor Survey, there is a
break in the series between 1973 and 1974.11
— A family labor variable was constructed to test for
the substitutability of family labor for hired labor. Al
though earlier studies of the agricultural labor market
found that various components of the farm work force
were interchangeable,12no studies of the minimum wage
have tested directly for this substitutability.
—The nonfarm wage variable was separated into its al
ternative nonfarm (opportunity) wage component and
the unemployment (cyclical) component. Previous re
search has unnecessarily constrained these factors to ra
tio form.
—The period was limited to that during which the
minimum wage was applicable to agricultural workers—
1967 to the present (1979). During this 13-year period,
the agricultural minimum wage increased in eight steps
from $1 to $2.90 an hour. Previous authors’ use of
longer time series, covering many years during which
there was no minimum wage in agriculture, may mask
the unemployment effect of the mandated wage and
make the interpretation of employment elasticities less
precise.
— Quarterly data were used instead of annual observa
tions, because employment data are collected on a quar
terly basis in the Agricultural Labor Survey. As a
result, three dummy variables were included in the spec
ification to account for seasonal influences (Q2, Qv and
Q4 for the second, third, and fourth quarters). Quarterly
data permit us to more precisely capture changes in the
minimum wage, because the change is often mandated
to take effect at a time other than at the beginning of a
calendar year. In addition, cyclical fluctuations are more
easily discernible using quarterly, rather than annual,
observations. Finally, quarterly data provide us with
more degrees of freedom. For those variables for which
only annual observations exist, one value is carried
throughout each of the relevant quarters.
— A measure of technical change was introduced to ac
count for innovation in agriculture.13This variable is the
sum of expenditures on experiment station research and
extension work, the former from the USDA Inventory of
Agricultural Research and the latter from unpublished
USDA data. Having experimented with lags of from one
to six quarters, a two-quarter lag was chosen as per
forming best.
— An attempt was made to account for changes in cov
erage of agricultural workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Although coverage data are not rich, no
other study has attempted to control for any changes in
coverage, nor is there any mention in other studies of
its potential impact. Unpublished coverage data are
from the Employment Standards Administration of the
U.S. Department of Labor.
— Finally, the analysis was extended to include the esti
mated employment effects by sex and age. Although
Agricultural Labor Survey data are not disaggregated
by demographic characteristics, data from the Current
Population Survey permit such a breakdown.
Results of the new model
Table 1. Estimated effect of a 10-percent increase in the
minimum wage on hired agricultural employment, 1967-791
[In percent]
Constrained2
Specification
Basic3 ......................................
Basic + LAND4+ TECH5 . . .
Basic + LAND + TECH +
FAM6 .................................
Basic7 ......................................
Basic +LAND +
TECH7 ...............................
Basic +LAND +
TECH +FAM 7 ....................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Logarithmic
Linear
Logarithmic
-2.56
(2.16)
-4.36
(2.49)
-1.57
(1.05)
-4.61
(1.91)
-3.23
(2.42)
-5.80
(3.08)
-2.03
(1.23)
-5.34
(2.05)
-4.65
(2.57)
-1.47
(2.38)
-3.20
(2.16)
-1.69
(0.93)
-6.27
(3.22)
-1.86
(2.70)
-3.63
(2.29)
-2.27
(1.14)
-2.68
(2.76)
-5.25
(1.83)
-2.98
(3.05)
-5.39
(1.83)
-2.76
(2.79)
-3.11
(1.75)
-3.12
(3.14)
-3.22
(1.79)
1To control for the appreciable serial correlation evidenced by ordinary least squares
equations, these estimates were calculated using generalized least squares, according to the
Cochrane-Orcutt method.
2 “ Constrained” or "unconstrained” refers to the form of the important nonfarm wage vari
able.
3The basic specification Includes:
— Dummy variables (0 2, 0 3, and Q4) to indicate the reference quarter for the data.
— A dummy variable which assumes a value of 1 for the years 1974-79 and 0 for
years before 1974, to account for the methodological break in the Agricultural
Labor Survey.
— MW— The Federally mandated agricultural minimum wage, deflated by the CPI.
— PROD— The index of prices received by farmers for products sold, deflated by
the CPI.
— INPUT— The index of prices paid by farmers for nonlabor inputs, deflated by the
CPI.
4 PLANO is a variable representing the index of the price of agricultural land, deflated by
the CPI.
5 TECH Is the measure of technical change, as indicated in the text.
e PAM \s the ratio of the number of family workers to all agricultural workers.
7 In addition to the variables listed in footnote 3, COV[ the proportion of farm workers sub
ject to the minimum wage) is also included In the specification.
N ote :
Table 1 summarizes the estimates of the effects of
minimum wages on agricultural employment using vari
ous specifications of the new estimating equation. The
four columns reflect differences in the functional form of
the equation (linear or double-log) and the form of the
important nonfarm wage variable (constrained to ratio
form or unconstrained).
The rows of table 1 differ in the control variables in
cluded in addition to the minimum wage variable in
explaining farm employment. For example, line 1 re
ports estimates of the basic equation— one which con
trols for season of the year, employment opportunities
in the nonfarm sector, farm product prices, farm input
prices, and changes in the Agricultural Labor Survey, in
addition to the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation).
The coefficients from these regressions have been con
verted to reflect the percentage change in agricultural
employment as a result of a 10-percent increase in the
minimum wage, that is, 10 times the employment elas
ticity of the minimum wage.14
The versions of the basic equation imply a 1.6- to
3.2-percent reduction in hired agricultural employment
in response to a 10-percent increase in the minimum
wage over the 1967-79 period. Unlike “basic” linearequation estimates using annual data (not shown), the
coefficients of the minimum wage variable in these simi
Unconstrained2
Linear
t-statlstics indicated In parentheses.
larly specified equations, which are based on quarterly
data over a more relevant period, are statistically signif
icant.
Lines 2 and 3 report the results of adding various
combinations of control variables to the basic equation.
The size and significance of the employment elasticities
appear to be largest in these more complete versions of
the model. This holds true regardless of functional
form. Only when a trend variable is added to the equa
tion (not shown) are both size and statistical signif
icance of the employment effects adversely affected. This
result can be explained by the presence of trended vari
ables— particularly technological change—already in
the equation.15
The preferred model is that which includes all vari
ables with sound theoretical basis (line 3). Among the
four estimates, the model which includes the
unconstrained version of the nonfarm wage variable
makes more intuitive sense. Combining average hourly
earnings and employment into one variable (common to
all previous studies which measure this effect) assumes
that a given change in each affects agricultural employ
ment the same. There is no reason to assume this would
be true.
The choice between functional forms is more compli49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Conference Papers
cated. The tendency is to prefer the logarithmic specifi
cation because variance is compressed; standards are
then more stringent for levels of significance. Even so,
the employment elasticities remain statistically signif
icant at conventional levels in the more complete model
(line 3). Although the elasticities are somewhat smaller
in the logarithmic equations, they do provide a more
conservative estimate of the minimum wage’s impact. In
summary, the estimates imply a reduction in employ
ment of between 3.2 and 3.6 percent in response to a
10-percent increase in the minimum wage. This is
equivalent to 41,000 to 46,000 farm jobs forgone in
1979.
Just as an increase in the minimum wage of a given
number of workers raises the total wage bill, so does an
increase in the number of those subject to the minimum
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Therefore, in an attempt to account for changes in the
level of FLSA coverage of agricultural workers, a vari
able COV (the proportion of farmworkers subject to
minimum wage provisions of the Act) was added to the
model (lines 4-6). This is preferable to combining the
level and coverage into a single index, as has been done
in most of the nonagricultural studies; such a multipli
cative constrained relationship does not permit the esti
mation of the relative importance of changes in level
and coverage alone.16
The coverage variable itself is everywhere positive,
but very small and statistically insignificant (not
shown). Like most studies of the nonagricultural sector,
coverage effects are found to be weak. This is not alto
gether unexpected as the proportion of farmworkers
covered is relatively low; with little variation, it has
hovered about the 45-percent level throughout the
1970’s. The new estimates of the minimum wage vari
able from this preferred model (line 6) imply an em
ployment reduction of slightly over 3 percent, or about
41.000 jobs. These employment effects are somewhat
lower than those reported in line 3, but the difference
between elasticities from the linear and logarithmic
equations is generally less.
Unpublished CPS employment data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics permit the estimation of minimum
wage effects in agriculture by sex and age. The resulting
employment elasticities for all workers and for men age
16 and over remain fairly stable (between —2.5 and
—3.0 percent) and statistically significant depending
upon variables included (not shown). This implies re
ductions in employment of between 85,000 and 100,000
for all agricultural workers, and between 65,000 and
80.000 for men.
Although less significance is exhibited in the esti
mates for women, striking results appear for young
workers age 16 to 24. Significant disemployment effects
of between 4.5 and 5.5 percent are reported. In the pre
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ferred model, a 10-percent increase in the minimum
wage is estimated to result in a 5.7-percent decrease in
youth employment in agriculture. Although somewhat
larger, these results are consistent with those found in
the literature estimating employment effects for all
youth.17
Despite the consistently negative employment effects
found using both the CPS and Agricultural Labor Sur
vey data, significant conceptual and methodological dif
ferences in the surveys exist which make the elasticities
derived from equations based on both data sets not
strictly comparable. For example, the Agricultural La
bor Survey separates hired from family agricultural
workers; in the CPS there is no way to distinguish be
tween the two. Also, the CPS is limited to persons 16
years and over, while the Agricultural Labor Survey has
no age cutoff. In addition, the Agricultural Labor Sur
vey counts all persons who do any agricultural work,
including those with other jobs, but the CPS includes
only those whose major activity is in agriculture. Final
ly, Agricultural Labor Survey data are collected four
times a year on a quarterly-month basis, whereas the
CPS is a monthly survey of about 65,000 households
from which quarterly averages can be calculated.
□
-------- FOOTNOTES--------' For a survey of the literature, see Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy,
and Andrew Kohen, “The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Employ
ment and Unemployment,” Journal of Economic Literature, forthcom
ing.
2G. Edward Schuh, “An Econometric Investigation of the Market
for Hired Labor in Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, May
1962, pp. 307-21.
3Vernon N. Grise, Hired Farm Labor: 1966 Patterns, Future De
mand Prospects, Proposed Farm Wage Legislation, Bulletin 462 (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1971).
4 Bruce Gardner, “Minimum Wages and the Farm Labor Market,”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, August 1972, pp. 473-76.
5Theodore Lianos, “Impact of Minimum Wages Upon the Level
and Composition of Agricultural Employment,” American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, August 1972, pp. 477-84.
6H. F. Gallasch, Jr., “Minimum Wages and the Farm Labor Mar
ket,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1975, pp. 480-91.
7 H. F. Gallasch, Jr., and Bruce L. Gardner, “Schooling and the
Agricultural Minimum Wage,” American Journal of Agricultural Eco
nomics, May 1978, pp. 264—68.
8Bruce Gardner, “What Have Minimum Wages Done in Agricul
ture?” in Simon Rottenberg, ed., The Economics of Legal Minimum
Wages (Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1981), pp. 21032.
’ John Trapani and J. R. Moroney, “The Impact of Federal Mini
mum Wage Laws on Employment of Seasonal Cotton Farm Work
ers,” in Simon Rottenberg, ed., The Economics of Legal Minimum
Wages (Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1981), pp. 23346.
10In a linear equation, the employment elasticity equals the regres
sion coefficient of the minimum wage times the value of the ratio of
the minimum wage to agricultural employment at some point in time.
This is generally the last period (year) of the data time series.
" For an extensive discussion of the Agricultural Labor Survey de
sign and sampling procedure, see James S. Holt and J. G. Elterich,
“Coverage and Exemptions of Agricultural Employment Under the
Fair Labor Standards Act,” in Report of the Minimum Wage Study
Commission, Vol. IV (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1981), pp. 377-473.
12 Edward W. Tyrchniewicz and G. Edward Schuh, “Econometric
Analysis of the Agricultural Labor Market,” American Journal of Ag
ricultural Economics, November 1969, p. 782.
13This variable was first used by Schuh, in “An Econometric Inves
tigation.” The form of the variable in the present study is that
suggested by Zvi Griliches in “Research Expenditures, Education, and
the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function,” American Economic
Review, December 1964, pp. 961-74, and later employed by T. D.
Wallace and D. M. Hoover in “Income Effects of Innovation: The
Case of Labor in Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, May
1966, pp. 325-36; Gallasch in “Minimum Wages in the Farm Labor
Market”; and Gallasch and Gardner in “Schooling.”
14 In double-logarithmic equations, the coefficient of the minimum
wage variable is simply the employment elasticity. In a linear equa
tion, the elasticity equals the regression coefficient times the mean val
ue of the ratio of the minimum wage to hired employment over the
sample period.
15 For discussions of the relationship between the time trend and
technology variables, see Schuh, “An Econometric Investigation”; G.
Edward Schuh, “Interrelations Between the Farm Labor Force and
Changes in the Total Economy,” in Rural Poverty in the United States
(Washington, The President’s National Advisory Commission on Ru
ral Poverty, 1968), pp. 170-84; and Tyrchniewicz and Schuh, “Econo
metric Analysis.”
See Hyman Kaitz, “Experience of the Past: The National Mini
mum,” in Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, Bulletin 1657
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970), pp. 30-54, for a discussion of the
coverage-weighted minimum wage variable; and Charles Brown,
Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Kohen, Time-Series Evidence of the Effect
of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment and Unemployment
(Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research, 1981),
for the estimation of separate level and coverage effects.
17See Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen, Time-Series Evidence.
Public-sector union wage effects:
a time series analysis
William J. Moore
and
John R aisian
Researchers have been attempting to measure the rela
tive wage impact of unionism in the public sector for
more than a decade. After surveying these research ef
forts, David Lewin expressed the feelings of many oth
ers when he concluded that “the ‘average’ wage effect of
unionism in government . . . is roughly on the order of
5 percent, a much smaller impact than is popularly sup
posed and smaller than the average union wage impact
in private industry.” 1 But while this result should be
comforting to those who have doubts about the propri
ety of transferring the process of collective bargaining
to the public sector,2 we have new time series evidence
William J. Moore is Julian G. Lange Professor of Economics at Mi
ami University, Oxford, Ohio. John Raisian is a senior economist in
the Office of Research and Evaluation, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Their full i r r a paper is entitled “A Time Series Analysis of UnionNonunion Relative Wage Effects in the Public Sector.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
which could alter existing views on the issue.
Using longitudinal microdata from the Income Dy
namics survey,3 we developed some standardized results
for a group of public employees for an extended period
of time. That is, we calculated the union wage premium
using the same model specification for each year for the
period 1967 through 1977. (A description of our hu
man-capital earnings model may be found in the full
paper.) With these estimates, we can examine the yearto-year fluctuations in the premium to see whether there
is danger in treating single-year cross-section estimates
as stable indicators. Next, we pooled the annual crosssection data to estimate the overall effects of public
unions for the entire period. This approach should pro
vide us with more reliable estimates of the effects of
public unions on various groups of public employees
during this period. Finally, we estimated regressions for
separate samples of union and nonunion public employ
ees in order to analyze the growth rate of real wages for
these types of employees. Throughout the following dis
cussion, we present similar estimates for the economy as
a whole from the same data base for comparative pur
poses.4
Annual estimates. The annual union wage premiums for
public employees were calculated from ordinary least
squares regressions for each year from 1967 to 1977,
and were compared with union premiums for the whole
economy, which we estimated earlier using an almost
identical model specification.
Our results suggest that the public sector wage pre
mium may have increased during the period 1967 to
1977, both in absolute terms, and relative to the union
premium in the private sector. The average public sector
union wage premium for the period 1967 to 1972 was
only 8.64 percent compared to 15.87 percent for the last
5-year period observed. However, the interpretation that
the public sector union wage premium has increased in
recent years should be treated cautiously. Conventional
F-tests revealed that the parameter estimates on the
union variables are not statistically significantly differ
ent for each year. Also, the sample size virtually dou
bled in the latter period, perhaps accounting for the
increased statistical significance of the later individualyear estimates. Finally, the public sector union premium
ranged from —.12 percent to 18.32 percent over the
years studied, and was substantially smaller than the
wage premium for the private sector, which varied from
19.81 to 25.51 percent.
One other important point is worth noting in these
cross-section results. That is, substantial variation exists
in the year-to-year estimates of the union wage premi
um in both the public and private sectors in the United
States. This finding suggests that one should be ex
tremely cautious in drawing conclusions concerning
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Conference Papers
union wage effects from cross-section studies of a point
in time.5 To lessen this problem, we pooled the crosssection data to obtain an overall union wage premium
for 1967-77, using a modification of the human capitalearnings model which included a Consumer Price Index
deflator and a simple time trend.
The premium over time. Table 1 presents the estimated
1967-77 overall public sector union wage premium for
all public employees and for some important subgroups.
For comparative purposes, we also show the corre
sponding union wage premiums for the economy as a
whole.
Our estimates of the overall wage effect of unions led
to the following conclusions with respect to the influ
ence of public unions in recent years. First, public
unions have had a very substantial positive influence on
the wages of their members relative to the wages of
nonunion public employees, other things equal. The av
erage public sector union wage premium for all public
employees over the 1967-77 period was 12.82 percent.
While this figure is substantially below the figure for
private unions, 23.83 percent, it is considerably higher
than the level reported in most other studies of the pub
lic sector, as noted above.6This is probably because our
data extend to more recent years than those underlying
most of the other studies, and the public sector union
wage premium has been rising over time.
Second, we found that the public sector union wage
premium differs significantly among various types of
workers, but that the pattern of deviation is almost
identical to that for the economy as a whole. In general,
the premium is significantly larger for nonwhite workers
(16.63 percent), southern workers (20.97 percent), and
blue-collar employees (22.96 percent). Because column 3
indicates that this same pattern is present among union
wage premiums for the total economy, it would appear
that some basic force is in operation in union wage de
termination in both the public and private sectors. In
an earlier paper, we attributed the relatively large union
premiums for nonwhite, southern, blue-collar, and less
educated workers to the attempt by unions to pursue a
more-or-less standard wage for their members for rea
sons of equity and administrative convenience.
The pace of wage growth. In order to ascertain the ex
tent of differential wage growth between union and
nonunion public employees over the period, we reestimated the modified human capital-earnings equation
with a simple trend variable added for separate samples
of union and nonunion employees. According to these
estimates, the real hourly wage of union employees in
the public sector rose by 2.044 percent annually during
1967-77, compared to only 1.543 percent for nonunion
employees. However, the difference in the two growth
rates was not statistically significant at the .05 level.
For the economy as a whole, wages in the union sector
did rise at a statistically significant higher rate (1.884
percent) than in the nonunion sector (1.118 percent).
The annual growth rate for union workers was higher
in the public sector (2.044 percent) than for the total
economy (1.884 percent) but the difference was not sta
tistically significant by conventional standards. The
growth rate in wages for nonunion employees was also
higher in the public sector (1.543 percent) than for the
economy as a whole (1.118 percent), suggesting that
forces other than growth in union membership have
been partially responsible for the relative gain in public
sector wage rates over the period.
O u r r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the relative wage effects of
unions in the public sector may have risen in recent
years. For the period 1973-77, we calculated the public
sector average union wage premium to be 15.87 percent,
a threefold increase over earlier cross-section estimates.
For the entire 1967-77 period, the premium was 12.82
percent. While these figures are still substantially below
private sector union wage premiums, it appears that the
differential is narrowing. In this last regard, we found
that union and nonunion employees in the public sector
experienced faster rates of growth in wages than their
private sector counterparts over the period. Finally, be
cause fringe benefits are generally greater in the public
sector than in the private sector, and because the threat
effects of public unions may exceed those of unions in
the private sector, growth in the economic influence of
unions in the public sector is a phenomenon which
should be watched closely in the future.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ----------
Table 1. Pooled estimates of union-nonunion relative
wage effects in the public sector, 1967-77
Percentage union wage premium
Union group
(1)
All union members ......................................
W hite...................................................
Nonwhite .................................................
South.......................................................
Nonsouth .................................................
Blue-collar ...............................................
White-collar ............................................
Digitized 52
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Public sector
(2)
Total economy
(3)
12.82
10.15
16.63
20.97
8.70
22.96
5.79
23.83
20.09
30.93
30.94
20.44
30.92
4.17
David Lewin, “Public Sector Labor Relations,” L a b o r H isto ry,
Winter 1977, p. 138.
"H. Wellington and R. Winter, T h e U n io n s a n d th e C itie s (Wash
ington, The Brookings Institution, 1971); and Daniel Orr, “Public
Employee Compensation Levels,” in A. Lawrence Chickering, ed.,
P u b lic E m p lo y e e U n io n s (San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary
Studies, 1977), pp. 131-44.
The Income Dynamics Panel was collected and processed by the
Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. Because part
of the sample was purposefully taken from low-income households,
some caution should be used in generalizing our empirical results to
the entire economy.
4 For an extended discussion of these results, see William J. Moore
and John Raisian, A Time Series Analysis of the Growth and Determi
nants of Union/Nonunion Relative Wage Effects, 1967-1977, Working
Paper No. 115 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981).
5William J. Moore and John Raisian, “Cyclical Sensitivity of
Union/Nonunion Relative Wage Effects,” Journal of Labor Research,
Spring 1980, pp. 115-32.
6 Part of the explanation for this is that we omitted educational and
medical employees from our sample of public employees. Because it is
well established that union wage premiums for public schoolteachers
are relatively small (0 to 5 percent), their omission from our sample is
reflected in larger union premiums.
Organizations of working women
can pave the way for unions
K aren S. K oziara
and
Patrice J. Insley
Almost two-thirds of all women who work full-time are
in white-collar occupations. Relatively few of them
(about 13 percent) belong to unions.1 During the last
few years, however, a number of organizations have
formed outside the traditional labor movement to ad
dress working women’s problems.
Between 15 and 20 major organizations of working
women formed in urban areas during the last decade.
About 12 of them are linked nationally. The others are
local and autonomous. All are still relatively small, giv
en the size of their potential constituencies. Few have
more than a thousand members. Those members work
for a number of employers in a given area, and any one
firm may employ only a few members.2 The general
overarching goal of these organizations is improving
employment conditions faced by working women, par
ticularly women in low income white-collar jobs. This
goal has two related dimensions. The first involves eco
nomic or “bread and butter” issues, including low
wages, employment discrimination, and lack of promo
tional opportunities. The second dimension involves the
right to be treated with dignity and to have one’s work
be seen as meaningful and serious and includes prob
lems such as sexual harassment and arbitrary and de
meaning treatment by supervisors. A related goal is
building a firm organizational base. This involves con
tinued organizing efforts designed to introduce working
women to the idea of working together to solve shared
problems.
Organizations of working women generally focus on
resolving immediate problems as a way of achieving
Karen S. Koziara is chairperson and a professor in the Industrial Re
lations and Organizational Behavior Department, Temple University,
and Patrice J. Insley is a graduate student at the university. The title
of their full i r r a paper is “Organizing Low-Income Women in New
Ways: Who, Where, and Why.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
goals. The tactics used vary enormously and are tai
lored to the specific problem being addressed. These
tactics can be classified into four general categories: in
formation gathering, conciliation, direct action, and ed
ucation.
Information gathering is both an important first step in
becoming established and also an important ongoing ac
tivity for these organizations. Initially, surveys conduct
ed among selected populations of working women help
identify particular employment problems and problem
employers. This information serves as a basis for pro
gram planning and as a way of letting people know of
the organization’s existence. Employment problems are
handled on a case-by-case basis. Examples of the issues
handled are failure of a firm to live up to an affirmative
action plan, specific incidents of sexual harassment, low
wages, and employer failure to post promotional oppor
tunities.
Conciliation involves approaching the employer or gov
ernmental agency in an effort to resolve an identified
problem. In some instances, the problem can be re
solved through discussion sessions; in other instances,
the employer or concerned agency is unwilling to meet
with representatives of the organization or is unwilling
to make any concessions. If efforts at conciliation
through discussion are unsuccessful, then direct action
can be used.
Direct action can take many forms. Not enough mem
bers work for any one employer to make effective use of
strikes and strike threats; therefore, most forms of di
rect action are designed to bring the involved employer
unfavorable publicity. Examples of such activities in
clude public awards, such as a Christmas “Scrooge of
the Year” award and a “Pettiest Office Procedure”
award. These have the combined impact of making the
organization visible, while at the same time putting
pressure on the involved employer. Other forms of di
rect action include presentation of signed petitions,
picketing, and even sit-ins.
Also government agencies can be used to pressure
employers to live up to their legal obligations. This is
most frequently used when the issue is affirmative ac
tion, equal employment opportunity, or age discrimina
tion. Banks have been a major focus of this type of
action because of the large numbers of low income
women employed in banking. Efforts have been made
by organizations of working women to have the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Com
pliance Programs monitor affirmative action programs
in the banking industry, and a number of administrative
complaints have resulted. These tactics have had some
success: a number of banks have made backpay settle53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Conference Papers
ments, four banks in Baltimore raised wages of low lev
el bank employees, several banks and insurance compa
nies have agreed to job posting programs, and at least
one bank has instituted a major training program for
clerical employees.3
Education and outreach are extremely important activi
ties for working women’s organizations. They are ac
complished through programs, seminars, and publi
cations and serve two major functions. First, they are a
way to get visibility and to reach potential members.
Getting people involved in educational programs is also
an important way of increasing member commitment. It
is also a service that encourages people to maintain
their membership, perhaps even after a specific employ
er-based problem has been resolved.
The second major function performed by educational
activities is to help women understand and develop
ways of handling problems at work. Examples of typi
cal subjects include skills assessment, conflict manage
ment in an office setting, equal employment opportunity
law, retirement planning, assertiveness training, and ca
reer planning. Additionally, some educational programs
are more general and aim at developing an understand
ing of common problems and solutions.
Currently, organizations of working women do not
perform the functions performed by unions. They do not
press for certified bargaining rights, they negotiate with
employers only over limited issues, and they do not sign
collective bargaining contracts. Additionally, they have
relatively little contact with the labor movement.
A major reason for their independence from the labor
movement is the belief that the organizing model used
by unions is ineffective in organizing women in clerical
occupations. There are several explanations for the la
bor movement’s inability to effectively organize these
workers. One explanation is that the labor movement
has not been willing to expend the resources or develop
the tactics necessary to organize successfully in these
areas. A second explanation is that female clerical and
service workers have not been ready to join unions.4
Both explanations are consistent with the emergence
of working women’s organizations which provide a new
model for organizing female clerical workers. Some ob
servers have described this model as “preorganizing,” or
creating the conditions that make union organizing via
ble.
In theory, the potential exists for innovative and co
operative arrangements between working women’s
organizations and the labor movement. There are mutu
al interests. Many unions are interested in organizing in
new areas, and organizations of working women do not
provide as broad employment protections as do collec
tive bargaining contracts. In fact, members of one affili
ate, Nine to Five in Boston, formed a local union,
which joined the Service Employees International
Union as Local 925.5
This indicates that innovative arrangements can be
developed. However, the essence of innovation is doing
things differently than before, and that type of organiza
tional change is often difficult to achieve because of in
stitutional barriers facing it.
□
FOOTNOTES
' Linda H. LeGrande, “Women in labor organizations: their ranks
are increasing,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1978, p. 9.
2Information in this report comes primarily from interviews with
officers and directors of Working Women, Women Employed, and In
terfaith Women’s Alliance for Working Women conducted by the au
thors during 1980 and 1981.
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3Working Women, Report from Working Women, April 1980.
4 Roberta Lynch, “Women in the Workforce,” The Progressive,
October 1979, p. 29.
5Nancy Seifer and Barbara Wertheimer, “New Approaches to Col
lective Power,” in Bernice Cummings and Victoria Schuck, eds.,
Women Organizing: An Anthology.
Research
Summaries
Employment problems and poverty:
examining the linkages
Paul M. R yscavage
The sharp upturns in the unemployment rate in 1980
and 1981 have again focused attention on the economic
consequences of unemployment and other employment
problems. There is, for example, much information
about the unemployed— who they are, where they live,
how long they have been unemployed— but little infor
mation on the impact of unemployment on family or
household income.
The generally accepted notion is that unemployment
still disrupts the economic well-being of many house
holds, although not as seriously as during the Great
Depression. This is because of the increase in the num
ber of families with two or more wage earners, and the
protection now afforded workers by unemployment in
surance, food stamps, public assistance, and other main
tenance programs. Also a greater proportion of un
employed workers today are not the traditional primary
breadwinners. In sum, there has been increasing evi
dence that the relationship between unemployment and
economic hardship has weakened in recent decades, but
this has not been quantified in any systematic way.1
The National Commission on Employment and Un
employment Statistics recommended in 1979 that data
on unemployment, as well as other employment prob
lems, be linked with data on income to determine the
extent that job market problems cause economic hard
ship. The Bureau of Labor Statistics developed a data
base to shed light on this question; in 1982, it issued a
study which linked statistics on the labor force with sta
tistics on family income and on the poverty status of
the family.2
From this newly created data base for 1979—a rel
atively good employment year—two conclusions
emerged:
• The relationship between unemployment (or other
employment problems) and economic hardship was
Paul M. Ryscavage is an economist in the Division of Labor Force
Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a
evident, but was not close. Unemployment occurred
among all income levels and not all who experienced
unemployment were in families with income below
the poverty level.
• The linkage between unemployment (or other em
ployment problems) and economic hardship was
much tighter for some marital groups than others.
For example, among women who maintained families
and experienced some unemployment in 1979, the
chance of living in poverty was almost 50 percent.
On the other hand, for husbands who experienced
some unemployment in 1979, the chance of living in
poverty was only a little more than 1-in-10.
This report summarizes some of the statistics for
1979 presented in the full report. In addition, it discuss
es some conceptual and technical issues involved with
linking labor force and income statistics, and illustrates
how this new data base can be refined to produce new
insights into the relationship between various employ
ment problems and economic hardship.
Conceptual and technical issues
Labor force statistics and information on family in
come and poverty status were obtained from the March
1980 Current Population Survey (cps). In March of
each year, a supplemental questionnaire is used to gath
er information on the extent to which members of a
sampled household engage in employment or job-search
activities during the previous calendar year, and on the
income derived from employment and other sources.
This information differs from that which is collected in
the monthly CPS. The monthly statistics may be regard
ed as a snapshot of the labor force of persons for the
reference week of the survey. In this snapshot, persons
are classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the la
bor force. The statistics from the March supplement
measure the extent to which persons engaged in employ
ment and unemployment activities during the previous
calendar year. In this body of information, commonly
referred to as the “work experience data,” persons may
be classified in more than one labor force category over
the 12-month period.
Annual family income statistics are also collected in
March and are for the previous calendar year. These
statistics include wages and salaries, self-employment
income, dividends, interest, rental income, public assis-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Research Summaries
tance, social security, and any other money income reg
ularly received.3 Not included are the value of “non
cash” benefits, such as food stamps, medicaid, public
housing, fringe benefits, and other items which some
families receive as part of their income.4 The poverty
status of families is determined on the basis of money
income. A matrix of poverty lines reflects the dif
ferent consumption requirements of families based on
family size, composition, age of the householder, and
farm-nonfarm residence. Families with money income
below a threshold amount are considered by the Feder
al Government to be living in poverty. In 1979, the
poverty threshold for a nonfarm family of four was
$7,412; for a nonfarm family of seven persons or more,
it was $12,280; and for an unrelated individual age 65
or over in a farm area, $2,963.5
Because the annual data on work experience and fam
ily income statistics are collected at the same time and
have the same reference period, it is possible to link, or
cross-classify them at the micro-level. The full study
linked family income and poverty status with earnings
of (1) the fully employed (those who usually work 35
hours or more a week for 50 or 52 weeks); (2) the par
tially employed (those who usually work less than 35
hours or more a week for 50 or 52 weeks); (3) those
with some part-time employment; (4) those with some
unemployment; (5) those employed less than 40 weeks;
and (6) nonworkers unable to find work. These linkages
Table 1.
are discussed by the various marital and family status
categories: husbands, wives, others in married-couple
families; women who maintain families; others in fami
lies maintained by women; men who maintain families;
others in families maintained by men; and unrelated in
dividuals. This breakdown is useful in interpreting the
linkages. However, this summary discusses only three of
the linkages—those involving the relationship between
family income and (1) unemployment, (2) part-time em
ployment, and (3) low earnings among the fully
employed.
The linked labor force and income statistics are, of
course, subject to different interpretations regarding
economic hardship because of differences in opinion
over the definition of economic hardship. In both the
full report and this summary, economic hardship is dis
cussed in terms of the Federal Government’s poverty
guidelines, although the BLS recognizes that other defi
nitions could have been used. The problem of interpre
tation becomes particularly difficult among workers
who experience an employment problem, but whose
family income does not fall below the poverty level.
Personal inconveniences and economic disruptions obvi
ously result, but without a universally agreed-upon defi
nition of hardship for such workers it is difficult to evalu
ate the data. As a guide for data users, however, workers’
family incomes have been categorized according to their
proximity to the Federal Government’s poverty lines.
Relationship between duration of unemployment and family income and poverty status, 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
With unemployment
With labor
force
experience
Without
unemployment
All persons age 16 and
o v e r...................................
114,648
96,676
17,971
5,676
Family income:1
Under $5,000 ...............
$5,000 to $9,999 ...........
$10,000 to $14,999 . . . .
$15,000 to $19,999 . . . .
$20,000 to $24,999 . . . .
$25,000 and over .........
6,079
12,229
16,262
17,058
16,579
46,441
3,870
8,975
13,266
14,492
14,405
41,668
2,209
3,253
2,996
2,566
2,173
4,773
Below poverty level:
Tota .............................
Percent ........................
7,024
6.1
4,467
4.6
Below 1.25 poverty level:
Total .............................
Percent ........................
10,369
9.0
Below 1.50 poverty level:
Total .............................
Percent ........................
Family income and
poverty status
27 to 51 weeks
6,298
3,534
2,141
322
606
913
804
822
747
1,784
607
1,122
1,105
965
789
1,710
456
731
657
509
378
802
448
431
367
249
225
422
93
56
63
21
33
55
2,557
14.2
653
11.5
744
11.8
540
15.3
501
23.4
120
37.1
6,785
7.0
3,583
19.9
925
16.3
1,033
16.4
803
22.7
688
32.1
134
41.6
14,064
12.3
9,501
9.8
4,563
25.4
1,195
21.1
1,391
22.1
1,002
28.3
821
38.4
154
47.7
Below 2.00 poverty level:
Total .............................
Percent ........................
23,530
20.5
16,752
17.3
6,778
37.7
1,819
32.0
2,215
35.2
1,461
41.3
1,100
51.4
184
57.1
Median family in com e...........
$21,627
$22,600
$16,046
$18,007
$16,685
$14,299
$12,366
$10,758
56 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 to 4 weeks
5 to 14 weeks
52 weeks
or more
15 to 26 weeks
1Personal income for unrelated individuals.
Total
Linked data
One of the most striking findings from the linkage of
labor force and income data is that unemployment, in
voluntary part-time employment, low earnings, and oth
er forms of inadequate employment are found among
families at all income levels. These problems, however,
were clearly most frequent among families with low in
comes or little financial protection.
To put these findings in perspective, it should be not
ed that in 1979, the unemployment rate averaged only
5.8 percent. The linking of labor force and income data
for 1980 and 1981— years in which the unemployment
rate averaged more than 7 percent— would undoubted
ly reveal a greater amount of labor market related eco
nomic hardship than was evident using 1979 data.
Unemployment. About 18 million persons experienced
some unemployment in 1979; 30 percent of them were
in families with incomes below $10,000, and 39 percent
were in families with income above $20,000. (See table
1.) Slightly more than 14 percent of those with unem
ployment were in poor families. The prevalence of
multi-earner families and the availability of unemploy
ment insurance and welfare programs obviously cush
ioned the economic burden of unemployment.
Although no income class was immune to unem
ployment, the workers with the longest duration of
unemployment were more likely to be found among
lower income families. Among members of families with
incomes of $20,000 or more, 10 percent of those who
encountered unemployment during 1979 were jobless
for 26 weeks or more; among those from families with
incomes below $10,000, nearly 20 percent were unem
ployed for 26 weeks or more. The relationship between
the duration of unemployment and income class can
also be examined in terms of marital and family status.
For all workers encountering unemployment, median
family incomes declined as the duration of unemploy
ment became longer— from about $18,000 for those
Table 2. Relationship between duration of unemployment
of selected marital and family groups and their median
family incomes, 1979
Table 3. Relationship between part-time employment and
family income and poverty status, 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Involuntary
Family income and
poverty status
Total
Slack work
or material
shortage
Could only
find
part-time
work
Voluntary
Other
All persons age 16 and
o v e r .............................
42,400
7,496
3,711
19,515
11,678
Family income:1
Under $5,000 .........
$5,000 to $9,999 . . .
$10,000 to $14,999 .
$15,000 to $19,999 .
$20,000 to $24,999 .
$25,000 and ov e r. ..
3,669
6,029
6,401
6,044
5,502
14,756
649
1,310
1,450
1,236
1,006
1,846
636
688
567
464
413
943
1,511
2,334
2,523
2,490
2,600
8,057
872
1,698
1,860
1,854
1,483
3,910
Below poverty level:
T o ta l........................
Percent....................
3,967
9.4
770
10.3
722
19.5
1,493
7.6
982
8.4
Below 1.25 poverty level:
T o ta l........................
Percent....................
5,807
13.7
1,177
15.7
992
26.7
2,194
11.2
1,444
12.4
Below 1.50 poverty level:
T o ta l........................
Percent....................
7,724
18.2
1,603
21.4
1,217
32.8
2,903
14.9
2,002
17.1
Below 2.00 poverty level:
T o ta l........................
Percent....................
12,194
28.8
2,543
33.9
1,665
44.9
4,741
24.3
3,245
27.8
Median family income . . .
$19,225
$16,329
$14,618
$21,669
$18,810
1Personal income for unrelated Individuals.
with the shortest spells to $11,000 for those with 52
weeks or more of joblessness. (See table 2.) The extent
of the downward impact on family income, however,
varied depending on which member of the family was
the victim of unemployment. When only the husband
encountered unemployment, the duration of the spell
had a sharp impact on family income. When only the
wife had been unemployed, family incomes changed
very little as unemployment duration lengthened. In
families where only “other” members (mostly youths)
experienced unemployment, income declined slightly but
remained well above $20,000 regardless of the duration
of unemployment. Family income was low for women
who maintained families (no spouse present) and experi
enced unemployment, and it was even lower if their un
employment duration was more than 15 weeks.
Weeks of unemployment
Median family income of
all employed persons1 . . .
Husbands ....................
W ives...........................
Others in marriedcouple families.........
Women who maintain
fam ilies....................
1 to 4
5 to 14
15 to 26
27 to 51
$18,007
$16,685
$14,299
$12,366
19,738
19,990
17,457
19,402
14,342
18,749
10,769
18,556
( 2)
( 2)
31,208
29,435
28,193
24,241
23,847
6,595
6,914
6,689
5,143
1Personal income for unrelated individuals.
2 Not shown because of base smaller than 75,000.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
52 and over
$10,758
( 2)
Involuntary part-time employment. Involuntary part-time
employment can also cause a reduction in personal
earnings and family income. Two specific causes of in
voluntary part-time employment are slack work and the
inability to find full-time work. Of the 42.4 million per
sons who worked part time some weeks in 1979, about
11.2 million, or one-quarter of the total, did so involun
tarily. (See table 3.) About 7.5 million were on parttime schedules because of slack work, and 3.7 million
worked part time because they could not find full-time
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Research Summaries
jobs. Workers who experienced some involuntary parttime employment had lower family incomes than those
who worked part time voluntarily or because of strikes,
bad weather, plant retooling, and other “hard-to-classify” reasons. Furthermore, a greater proportion of invol
untary part-time workers were poor; their poverty rate
was about 13 percent. Nevertheless, involuntary parttime employment occurs among workers from all income
classes. The incidence of poverty among those with some
involuntary part-time employment varies greatly by the
worker’s marital and family status. The incidence of pov
erty was 36 percent among women who maintained fam
ilies, and was more than 20 percent among unrelated
individuals. On the other hand, among wives and other
members of married-couple families (except husbands)
the proportion averaged only about 5 percent.
The following tabulation shows the incidence of pov
erty among persons who had some involuntary parttime work in 1979, by the worker’s marital and family
status:
Percent
Total, 16 and over ..............................................
13.3
H u sb an d s.........................................................................
11.2
W ives............................................................................
6.2
Others in married-couple fam ilies..............................
4.7
Women who maintain fam ilies...................................
36.5
22.8
Others in families maintained by w o m e n .................
Men who maintain fam ilies...........................................
17.2
Table. 4
Others in families maintained by m e n ......................
Unrelated individuals, men .......................................
Unrelated individuals, women ..................................
5.9
21.9
26.4
Low earnings. The vast majority of the 63.4 million full
time, year-round (fully employed) workers had annual
earnings above $6,000. (See table 4.) The Federal mini
mum wage in 1979 was $2.90 an hour, and annual earn
ings of $6,000 implies that hourly wages were slightly
above that minimum. There were 4.8 million workers
with year-round full-time jobs who earned less than
$6,000 in 1979. Not surprisingly, the median income of
their families was relatively low. About 1.1 million, or
nearly one-fourth, were members of poor families. How
ever, not all of the low earners were members of poor
families: almost 1.2 million lived in families with in
comes of $20,000 a year or more.
Husbands are seldom found among the low-earning
fully employed workers whose family income is still rel
atively high. Wives and other members of married-cou
ple families make up the majority of such workers. On
the other hand, the majority of low-earning, fully
employed workers who lived in poverty families are ei
ther husbands, women who maintain families, or un
related individuals of both sexes.
Multiple employment problems
Although not included in the full report, experimen
tal tabulations were created from the March 1980 CPS
Relationship between earnings of full-time year-round workers and family income and poverty status, 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Personal earnings
Family income and
poverty status
Median
personal
earnings
Under
$3,000
$3,000
to
$5,999
$6,000
to
$7,999
$8,000
to
$9,999
$10,000
to
$11,999
$12,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
and
over
63,415
1,543
3,273
5,953
6,800
7,354
9,359
29,133
985
4,576
8,552
10,130
10,181
28,992
604
296
198
146
89
210
369
944
589
438
305
628
6
1,738
931
997
752
1,527
3
1,582
1,104
1,135
955
2,023
4
10
2,802
1,131
1,102
2,305
( 2)
4
2,913
1,648
1,567
3,227
Below poverty level:
Total ..........................................................
Percent .....................................................
1,340
2.1
661
42.8
408
12.5
181
3.0
64
.9
22
?3
Below 1.25 poverty level:
Total ..........................................................
Percent .....................................................
2,321
3.7
761
49.3
732
22.4
438
7.4
248
3.6
103
1.4
39
.4
Below 1.50 poverty level:
Total ..........................................................
Percent .....................................................
3,632
5.7
841
54.5
1,118
34.2
728
12.2
481
7.1
294
4.0
145
1.6
25
.1
$5,492
39.0
Below 2.00 poverty level:
Total ..........................................................
Percent .....................................................
7,597
12.0
995
64.5
1,627
49.7
1,909
32.1
1,119
16.4
838
11.4
714
7.6
396
1.4
$7,166
50.9
Median family in com e........................................
$23,611
$7,603
$12,617
$16,419
$18,093
$18,932
$20,362
$29,357
Total
All persons age 16 and o v e r .............................
Family income:1
Under $5,000 ............................................
$5,000 to $9,999 ........................................
$10,000 to $14,999 ...................................
$15,000 to $19,999 ...................................
$20,000 to $24,999 ...................................
$25,000 and over ......................................
' Personal income for unrelated Individuals.
2Zero or rounds to zero.
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Not applicable.
4
<2)
n
2
15
4,634
5,411
19,072
$14,077
2,188
7,230
10,839
14,221
15,619
19,487
( 2)
3,029
21.5
( 2)
( 2)
$4,588
32.6
n
( 3)
Table 5. Persons with unemployment and other labor
market problems, by poverty status, 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Characteristic
Total
Number living in
families below
poverty level
Percent living in
families below
poverty level
T o ta l......................................
17,971
2,557
14.2
Year-round, full-time workers1 .........
Nonworkers......................................
All other workers .............................
Unemployed 4 weeks or less ..
Unemployed 5 weeks or more .
Unemployment and low hourly
earnings2 .............................
Unemployment and involuntary
part-time employment .........
Unemployment and employment
of fewer than 40 weeks . . . .
Unemployment, low hourly
earnings, and Involuntary
part-time employment .........
Unemployment, low hourly
earnings, and employment of
fewer than 40 weeks3 .........
Unemployment, involuntary
part-time employment, and
employment of fewer than
40 weeks .............................
Unemployment, low hourly
earnings, involuntary parttime employment, and
employment of fewer than 40
w eeks...................................
793
1,927
15,243
1,196
1,380
20
608
1,929
15
18
2.5
31.6
12.7
1.3
1.3
525
92
17.5
828
21
2.5
5,835
539
9.2
227
54
23.8
2,294
588
25.6
1,886
255
13.5
1,072
347
32.4
1Year-round full-time workers are persons who worked 50 or more weeks of the year for
usually 35 hours a week or more. By definition, therefore, these persons could experience a
maximum of only 2 weeks of unemployment.
2 Low hourly earnings were defined to be $2.90 an hour or less (the minimum wage in
1979 was $2.90).
3 Employment of fewer than 40 weeks may not represent a problem for workers who limit
ed their workweeks because of voluntary reasons, for example, students, youths, and home
makers.
N ote : Data may not add to total because of rounding.
showing workers with multiple employment problems.
For example, workers with low earnings and unemploy
ment were cross-classified by the poverty status of their
families. Previous hardship analyses have examined vari
ous employment problems but only one problem at a
time. Yet in a year’s time, many workers are likely to
encounter more than one employment difficulty. To sin
gle out unemployment as the primary problem responsi
ble for a family’s economic hardship may, for example,
overlook a problem of low earnings caused by jobs pay
ing minimum or sub-minimum wages.
Table 5 shows individuals who experienced some un
employment in 1979 and other possible employment
problem or problems they had, and their poverty status.
The majority of persons encountering unemployment in
1979 also experienced other possible employment diffi
culties, such as employment for less than 40 weeks, low
hourly earnings, and involuntary part-time employ
ment.6 In fact, only a small proportion of the partially
employed persons encountering unemployment during
1979 were observed as having unemployment as their
sole employment problem. The incidence of poverty for
these workers was negligible. Workers with the highest
incidences of poverty were those who experienced such
combinations of employment problems as (1) unemploy
ment, low hourly earnings, and involuntary part-time
employment; (2) unemployment, part-year employment
of less than 40 weeks, and low hourly earnings; and (3)
unemployment, low hourly earnings, part-year employ
ment, and involuntary part-time employment. For
workers with this last combination of problems, the in
cidence of poverty was more than 30 percent. Clearly
then, this experimental tabulation indicates that, for
many workers, unemployment is frequently associated
with other employment problems.
□
FOOTNOTES
' Labor force statistics have been published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, while income statistics have been reported by the Bureau of
the Census.
2Linking Employment Problems to Economic Status, BLS Bulletin
2123 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), is available from the Superin
tendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
20402, and from the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front
cover.
5Money
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1979,
Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 129, November 1981,
pp. 282-93.
4Money Income, 1979, p. 283.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5For more information, see Characteristics of the Population Below
the Poverty Level: 1979, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No.
130, December 1981, pp. 201-14.
6 For the purposes of this special tabulation, hourly earnings were
derived for workers by dividing the product of weeks worked and
usual weekly hours into annual earnings. Persons with hourly earn
ings of $2.90 (the minimum wage in 1979) or less were considered to
have low hourly earnings. Many persons who worked fewer than 40
weeks in 1979 may not have had an employment problem if they lim
ited their number of workweeks voluntarily. This is particularly true
of students, youths, housewives, and others who have only a marginal
attachment to the work force.
59
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in July is based on contracts on file in
the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering
1,000 workers or more.
N u m b er of
w ork ers
U n io n 1
Ind u stry
E m p lo y er and lo c a tio n
4,800
1,000
1,500
3,000
3,200
2,500
A m u sem e n ts................................
Electrical Workers (U E -In d .)................
Auto Workers (I n d .) ................................
Iron Workers ...........................................
Rubber Workers ......................................
Ladies’ Garment W o r k e r s .....................
Building and Construction Trades
Council; including Teamsters (Ind.)
Theatrical Stage E m ployes.....................
A m u sem e n ts................................
Teamsters (Ind.)
......................................
2,000
Babcock and Wilcox Co., Power Generation G roup (O h io )...........................
Fabricated metal products
. . .
B oilerm akers..............................................
2,100
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Co............................................................
Utilities ........................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
1,600
Diamond-Sunsweet, Inc. (Stockton, C a l if .) ........................................................
Dried Fruit Industry (California)2 .........................................................................
Food products
Food products
...........................
...........................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................
Longshoremen and Warehousemen
(Ind.)
1,100
1,000
East Bay Restaurant Association, Inc. (California)
Restaurants
................................
Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .
5,500
Allen-Bradley Co. (Milwaukee, W is .)...................................................................
American Seating Co. (Grand Rapids, M ic h .)...................................................
Arizona Steel Erectors Association ......................................................................
A rmstrong Rubber Co., Master Agreement (Interstate) ................................
Associated G arment Industries of St. Louis (M isso u ri)...................................
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.:
Mobile Chapter (Alabama and Florida)
Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, Inc., Basic
Agreement (California)
Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, Inc. (California) .
Electrical p ro d u c ts .....................
F u r n itu r e ......................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Rubber ........................................
A p p a r e l........................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
........................................
20,000
................................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Machinists
................................................
3,500
Garage A ttendants Agreement (Illinois)2 ...........................................................
General Electric Co., 2 agreements (Evandale, O h i o ) ......................................
General Electric Co., National Agreement (I n te r s ta te )...................................
General Telephone Company of Michigan ........................................................
Retail trade ................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Electrical p ro d u c ts .....................
C om m unication...........................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................
Machinists; Auto Workers (Ind.) . . . .
Electrical Workers (I U E ) .....................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
1,700
5,950
70,000
3,100
Hamilton Industries (Two Rivers, W is .)..............................................................
Hammermill Paper Co. (Kaukauna, Wis.) ........................................................
Houston Sheet Metal Contractors Association (T e x a s )...................................
F u r n itu r e ......................................
P a p e r ..............................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Carpenters ................................................
Paperworkers ...........................................
Sheet Metal Workers .............................
1,200
1,200
1,200
Ingersoll-Rand, Torrington Co. (C o n n ecticu t)...................................................
Machinery ...................................
Auto Workers (I n d .) ................................
1,650
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (Florida)
Transportation equipment . . . .
B oilerm akers..............................................
1,800
Korvettes, Inc. (New York, N .Y .) .........................................................................
Retail trade
Retail C le r k s ..............................................
3,500
Laclede Gas Co. (St. Louis, Mo.) ........................................................................
Utilities ........................................
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
. .
1,250
M ajor Shoe Chain Stores (New York, N .Y .)2 ...................................................
Missouri River Basin Agreement (Interstate)2 ...................................................
Monterey Peninsula Hotel and Restaurant Association, Inc. (California) . .
Retail trade ................................
C o n stru ctio n ........................ ..
H o t e l s ...........................................
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
B oilerm akers..............................................
Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .
1,000
3,300
2,400
National Football League Management Council (I n te r s ta te ) ........................
A m u sem e n ts................................
1,500
National Elevator Industry, Inc. (I n te rsta te )......................................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
National Football League Players
Association (Ind.)
Elevator C o n stru c to rs.............................
16,000
Presidents' Council of Food, Beverage and Lodging Industries (Oregon) . .
Restaurants
................................
Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .
3,850
Retail Meat C u tters2 .................................................................................................
Retail trade
................................
Meat C u tte r s ..............................................
1,900
Stop and Shop Companies, Inc., 2 agreements (New England a r e a ) ...........
Summa Corp., Hughes Helicopters Division (C alifornia)................................
Retail trade ................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Retail C le r k s ..............................................
Carpenters ................................................
1,800
7,000
1,600
Trane Company (La Crosse. Wis.) ......................................................................
TRW , Inc. (Harrisburg. Pa.) .................................................................................
Fabricated metal products . . .
Transportation equipment . . . .
Machinists ................................................
National Federation of Independent
Unions
Fairchild Industries, Inc. (Farmingdale, N.Y.)
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.................................................................
................................
1,800
1,200
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
E m p lo y er and lo c a tio n
U n io n 1
Ind u stry
N u m b er of
w ork ers
......................................................................
P a p e r ..............................................
Paperworkers; and Firemen and Oilers
1,250
Vornado Corp. (I n te r s ta te )......................................................................................
Retail t r a d e ...................................
Retail C l e r k s ..............................................
7,000
W ashington Post Co. (Washington, D .C .) ...........................................................
Western Airlines, Clerical (Interstate) ' ................................................................
Western Union Telegraph Co., 2 agreements (I n te rsta te )................................
Printing and p u b lish in g .............
Air transportation .....................
C o m m u n ic atio n ...........................
1,000
4,500
10,500
W estinghouse Electric Corp., 6 agreements (I n te rs ta te )...................................
Electrical p r o d u c ts .....................
Newspaper G u i l d ......................................
Air Transport E m ployees........................
Telegraph Workers; Communications
Workers
Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaried Unions (Ind.)
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (UE-Ind.) ................
Electrical Workers ( I U E ) ........................
P ap e rw o rk e rs..............................................
Teamsters ( I n d .) ........................................
Union Camp Corp. (Franklin, Va.)
Westvaco Corp. (Interstate) ...................................................................................
Whirlpool Corp. (Minnesota) .................................................................................
P a p e r ..............................................
Electrical p r o d u c ts .....................
G o v ern m en t a c tiv ity
California: Riverside County Supporting Services U n i t ...................................
Central administration
New York: New York City Transit Authority,
Subway-Surface Supervisors
T ra n sp o rta tio n .............................
Ohio: G reater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority,
O perator’s Unit
Texas: Houston M etropolitan Transit A uthority
..............................................
'A ffiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
in d u s try area (group of companies signing same contract).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11,250
18,450
4,950
18,200
1,200
1,650
U n io n or e m p lo y e e o r g a n iz a tio n 1
Public Employees Association of
Riverside County (Ind.)
Subway-Surface Supervisors
Association (Ind.)
2,200
T ra n sp o rta tio n .............................
Amalgamated Transit .............................
2,500
T ra n sp o rta tio n .............................
Transport W o r k e r s ...................................
1,300
.............
3,300
in fo rm a tio n is from newspaper reports,
61
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Clothing workers get new contract
Shortly before the expiration date of their agreement,
the Clothing Manufacturers Association and the Cloth
ing and Textile Workers agreed to a new 38-month
agreement for 70,000 workers in the men’s and boys’
clothing industry. The new contract provided for a total
wage increase of $1.05 an hour— 25 cents an hour on
October 4, 1982, 30 cents in June 1983, and 50 cents in
June 1984. The automatic cost-of-living pay adjustment
formula was liberalized to provide for a June 1983 ad
justment of 5 cents an hour if the CPI-W rises 4.8 per
cent from December 1981 to December 1982, plus 1
cent for each additional .5 percent rise. An additional 5
cents will be paid in June 1984 if the index rises 5.4
percent from December 1982 to December 1983, plus 1
cent for each additional .5-percent rise.
Other terms included a 1-percent (of payroll) increase
in the employer financing of pensions; establishment of
paid leave for service on trial juries; and 6 hours of callin pay (formerly 5 hours).
United Airlines settles with Machinists union
United Airlines and the Machinists negotiated a 2year contract to lead off the union’s round of bargain
ing with various air carriers. The accord covered me
chanics and food service workers, and was the first one
the parties reached in direct negotiations without a me
diator in 20 years.
Company president Richard J. Ferris said that the
peaceful settlement marked a “new era in labor rela
tions” between the parties. A union official attributed
the peaceful settlement to “the condition airlines are in
today,” referring to problems resulting from deregula
tion of the industry, the state of the economy, and af
ter-effects of the 1981 strike by air traffic controllers.
(The union currently represents 14,000 United employ
ees, compared with 18,600 in 1979.) Both parties agreed
that the economic condition of the industry means that
it is unlikely that the union’s coming settlements with
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from
secondary sources.
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the other carriers would continue the practice of follow
ing the lead settlement.
The settlement called for mechanics to receive a
10-percent pay increase, retroactive to November 1981,
and an 8-percent increase in November 1982, bringing
their pay rate to $15.91 an hour. Food service workers
receive 8 percent and 4 percent on the respective dates.
Other terms included termination of the automatic
cost-of-living pay adjustment clause (it had yielded 39
cents in increases during the previous agreement); a twostep increase in the pension rate for mechanics, bringing
their rate to $29.50 a month (from $27) for each year of
credited service and a two-step increase to $20.90 for
food service workers; a 30-cent-an-hour increase in shift
premiums; a 20-cent-an-hour increase in the premium
for mechanics holding two Federal Aviation Adminis
tration licenses, bringing it to 85 cents; and improve
ments in medical, surgical, and dental benefits.
United gained some changes intended to improve
productivity, including merging of some job classifica
tions and changes in work schedules and hours. In
1981, United’s pilots had agreed to cost-saving changes
in a contract that called for pay increases of nearly 30
percent over 26 months. (See Monthly Labor Review,
November 1981, p. 53.)
Difficulties continue in trucking industry
The Teamsters and the National Automobile Trans
porters Association agreed to a 3-year contract pat
terned on the National Master Freight Agreement the
union negotiated earlier. (See Monthly Labor Review,
April 1982, p. 64.)
Meanwhile, the union was encountering difficulties in
enforcing the general freight agreement, as some of the
covered companies withheld a scheduled April 1982
cost-of-living pay adjustment of 47 cents an hour, plus
25 cents to be applied to maintaining benefits. General
ly, these firms said they would not pay the money be
cause it would put them at a competitive disadvantage
with companies that had withdrawn from the major
employer associations prior to the “national” settlement
and were now in the process of settling separately with
the union. Reportedly, Trucking Management, Inc., the
largest of the associations that signed the national
agreement, had only 284 firms in 1982, compared with
nearly 500 in 1979.
Some of the companies covered by the master freight
contract also were pressing for further concessions in
negotiating the supplemental local riders to the master
contract.
The difficult economic conditions in the trucking in
dustry were indicated by the demise of Spector-Red
Ball Inc., which closed its general freight hauling opera
tions, eliminating 6,500 jobs nationwide. The company
attributed the closing to intensive rate discounting re
sulting from the “depressed economy.” The decision
came despite an agreement by employees to lend the
company 15 percent of their pay. Spector lost $20 mil
lion in 1981.
Elsewhere, the Teamsters and Boss Linco Lines, Inc.,
of Cheektowaga, N.Y., agreed to wage concessions, re
placing a voluntary stock-purchase plan instituted in
1981, in which only half of the employees participated.
Company president James C. Findlay said the pay con
cessions had been backed by 95 percent of the workers.
Boss Linco, which has terminals in 14 Northeastern
States, also has been operating at a loss.
AT&T guarantees jobs
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and the Com
munications Workers of America agreed on a broad job
and wage protection agreement for the union’s mem
bers, averting a possible confrontation when the compa
ny begins its divestiture of 22 local operating units. The
union started pressing for such protection after the Jan
uary 1982 divestiture announcement, which was part of
the settlement of an antitrust action against AT&T initi
ated by the Federal Government.
Under the worker protection agreement, the 235,000
union members expected to be affected by the shedding
of companies are guaranteed to receive A T&T transfer
benefits or those of the new firm, whichever is larger
and, for 7 years after the divestiture, they are protected
against loss of employment, current pay and seniority,
changes in the condition of their employment, and re
ductions in pension, insurance, and other benefits.
CWA President Glenn Watts had pressed for broad
ened protections for workers because existing protec
tions only applied to transfers within the Bell System.
c w a also represents 290,000 workers in the system who
will not be affected by the divestitures.
Meanwhile, AT&T was proceeding with plans to
reduce the number of outside professional firms manag
ing its two pension funds, despite the possibility that
the funds would have to split into a number of funds
when the divestiture occurs. A T&T said the process was
being continued to put the funds in the best possible
shape for the split-up of the system and that the perfor
mance
of the outside managers, who received $50 mil
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
lion in commissions in 1981, had generally been “just
average.”
The two funds— one for management and the other
for workers— total $36 billion. Prior to October 1980,
A T&T had maintained 33 pension funds.
Marine unions seek to aid the industry
In a move to increase job opportunities and to aid
the Nation’s merchant marine fleet, the Seafarers and
the Marine Engineers agreed on principles designed to
foster closer cooperation between the two unions. One
principle called for the unions to negotiate joint collec
tive bargaining agreements, which would improve labor
relations administration and cost efficiency and end ju
risdictional conflicts between the unions. Union officials
said this principle was impelled by the drastic decline in
the merchant fleet resulting primarily from labor cost
advantages enjoyed by foreign fleets. The U.S. fleet now
consists of 749 vessels, with many of them in need of
replacement, compared with 3,000 vessels in 1946.
The unions also agreed to joint training and up
grading programs to increase efficiency and save money;
reciprocal operation of benefit funds to enable workers
to preserve pension and other service credits when they
change jobs, and joint legislative and political efforts to
improve the condition of the industry.
The principles apply to 35,000 members of the Sea
farers and 3,000 members of the Marine Engineers.
Investment plan offered at Ford
Ford announced a new investment fund for its sala
ried employees that will increase the money available
for financing dealer and consumer purchases of compa
ny products. Under the plan, each of the 70,000 em
ployees will be permitted to invest as little as $50 a
month in Ford Motor Credit Co. floating-rate demand
notes, which will pay interest one-half of a percentage
point above the average yield of money market funds in
the United States.
Some outside investment advisers viewed the plan as
a move to bring more money into the finance subsid
iary, whose commercial paper had recently been
downgraded by two major credit rating services. How
ever, Ford said that employees had been asking for such
a plan and that it had been in preparation for several
months.
The plan will be offered to Ford employees represent
ed by the United Auto Workers, if the union approves.
New programs aid laid-off workers at Rockwell
The United Automobile Workers and Rockwell Inter
national Corp. announced two new programs to provide
jobs for laid-off auto workers. One program gives 2,000
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Development in Industrial Relations
laid-off workers from Rockwell’s automotive division
preferential hiring rights at the company’s aerospace
plant in Columbus, Ohio. Rockwell expects to hire
about 4,000 workers for the plant to build long-range
combat aircraft.
UAW Secretary-Treasurer Raymond Majerus said that
the program indicated Rockwell’s awareness that “ UAW
members on layoff from its automotive plants are a very
valuable resource for the company to draw upon.” UAW
President Douglas Fraser also applauded the hiring ar
rangement and said that he hoped such plans could be
instituted at other aerospace firms. The UAW represents
workers at Rockwell’s aerospace operations, as well as
at the automotive parts operations.
The other program will use a $300,000 grant from
the Department of Labor to retrain workers laid off
from the automobile industry for jobs at Rockwell’s
plants that will build the long-range aircraft.
The union indicated that the method for selecting the
400 participants in the pilot program — 200 from South
west Michigan and 200 from Ohio— would be worked
out with the Department of Labor. This program is in
tended to provide jobs for laid-off workers, some of
whom have been unemployed for many months and
have exhausted all of their benefits.
Sugar workers’ pay increase delayed 6 months
In Hawaii, sugar and pineapple growers sought con
tract concessions in separate negotiations with the Inter
national Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s union,
but only the sugar growers gained cost relief.
The sugar settlement called for the deferral to July 1,
1982, of half of the 10-percent wage increase scheduled
for February 1, 1982.
A union official said that the 6-month delay of half
the increase would save the growers $365 per employee.
Lost money would be restored to the workers if the
wholesale price of sugar (19 cents a pound at the time
of settlement) rises to 28 cents a pound and holds there
for 30 days. Prior to the settlement, the workers earned
between $6.69 and $8.62 an hour. During 1981, the
sugar growers lost $83.5 million. There also was a $5
rise in the monthly rent paid by workers who live in
1,600 company-owned homes. Existing rents (for exam
ple, $35 a month for a two-bedroom unit) had not been
increased since 1946.
The union agreed to establish a committee to foster
increased productivity and to correct sick leave abuses.
Another employer demand, for modification or elimina
tion of incentive pay plans, led to adoption of a provi
sion permitting local units of workers to bargain on the
issue, with the international union to be given 30 days
notice of any changes.
Despite the pineapple growers’ contention that they
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal 64
Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were unable to compete effectively because the Hawai
ian workers’ minimum pay of $1,036 a month was far
higher than for competitors in other countries, the 4,500
workers represented by the union won a 3-percent wage
increase effective February 1, 1982, and a 2-percent in
crease 6 months later. Other terms of the 1-year con
tract included $900 annual dental insurance coverage
(fomerly $600) and a change permitting nonregular
workers to use paid vacation time if they are not offered
work because of adverse weather.
Steel workers accept stock for benefits
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. agreed to exchange
shares of preferred stock for cost-cutting concessions by
11,000 workers represented by the Steelworkers union.
Paul Rusen, director of Steelworkers’ District 23, said
the union was willing to cooperate because WheelingPittsburgh was making a determined effort to invest in
steel and keep its plants operating. Wheeling-Pitts
burgh, the Nation’s eighth largest producer, reportedly
has a long-term debt of $359 million, more than 30 per
cent of its assets.
Under the accord, scheduled to expire in November
1983, the employees agreed to defer a 15-to47-cent
wage increase scheduled to become effective in August
1982, give up a week of vacation in 1982 and in 1983,
and give up 13 paid holidays from April 1982 to Febru
ary 1984. In return, they will be credited with preferred
stock of equal value that will pay dividends of 5 per
cent. The stock will become available to the employee
when he or she leaves the company. Wheeling-Pitts
burgh also agreed to establish a training program to
prepare union members for greater participation in com
pany operations.
A&P workers reject concessions
The Food and Commercial Workers union rejected
wage and work-rule concessions A&P had proposed to
help avoid further store closings. The company and
union had started national negotiations on concessions
in the wake of 400 store closings since last fall that
had idled 15,000 members of the union. The rejected
company proposal called for a 2-year wage freeze and
suspension of certain scheduling restrictions, or a
10-percent pay cut so that labor costs will be “competi
tive with the industry average.”
The union’s chief bargainer said the proposal was re
jected because it was “extreme” and did not offer
employees “even the slightest shred of a guarantee
against further reductions in staff or further store clos
ings.” A&P said that it would continue to pursue conces
sions in local negotiations because “we can do it better
there.”
General Tire to close Ohio plant
More than, 1,000 employees will lose their jobs as a
result of General Tire and Rubber Co.’s announced
closing of its Akron, Ohio, plant. M.G. O’Neil, chair
man and president of the company, said the decision
was forced by excess capacity in the tire industry, noting
that 14 tire and rubber plants had closed since 1979.
United Rubber Workers President Milan Stone called
the move particularly sad in view of the local’s effort to
save the plant. In 1979, members of Local 9 agreed to a
36-cent-an-hour wage cut and a number of changes in
work rules to help General Tire accumulate funds to
build a replacement for the 67 year-old facility. (See
Monthly Labor Review, August 1979, pp. 60-61.)
The savings from the pay cut will be distributed to
the workers if the parties are unable to work out a way
to keep the plant open before termination of the
6-month notice period required by the 1979 agreement.
Stanford nurses’ pay now highest in Nation
Registered nurses at Stanford University Medical
Center in California approved a 2-year contract that,
union officials said, made them the highest paid nurses
in the Nation. Under the contract, a nurse with 5Vi
years of service in the highest of four skill categories
will earn $31,283 a year, effective immediately, and $35,
298 beginning March 1, 1983. Nurses in all categories
received at least a 10-percent increase immediately and,
in 1983, will receive a minimum of 8 percent; the maxi
mum value of the two increases can range up to 31 per
cent.
Hedy Dumpel, president of the Committee for
Recognition of Nursing Achievement, said the union’s
1,250 members “may not be ahead in the benefit pack
age but . . . I am sure that our salaries are the highest
[in the Nation].”
The nurses’ demand for greater recognition of their
role in patient treatment was met by establishing a
Stanford Committee on Nursing Practice that will give
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the nurses a direct voice in setting professional stan
dards. The committee of four hospital representatives
and four staff nurses will seek ways to better utilize
nurses’ skills and to promote a more cooperative ap
proach between doctors and nurses in patient treatment.
Supreme Court rules on seniority systems
In a case involving American Tobacco Co. operations
in Richmond, Va., the Supreme Court held that the im
munity from legal challenge granted to bona fide work
er seniority systems by the Civil Rights Act of 1964
also applies to systems adopted after passage of the act.
Writing for the five member majority, Justice White
said that those who challenge a seniority system must
prove that it was established with a deliberate intent to
discriminate. Justice White cited Section 703 (h) of the
act, which provides that “it shall not be an unlawful
employment practice . . . to apply different terms, con
ditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona
fide seniority or merit system . . . provided that such
differences are not the result of an intention to discrimi
nate. . . . ”
In one of the dissenting opinions, Justice Stevens
backed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals finding
that the lines of progression violated title VII of the act
“because they had a disparate impact on protected em
ployees that was not justified by any legitimate business
purpose.”
The case was remanded to the Fourth Circuit for re
consideration. It originated after American Tobacco
Co., in 1968, combined the separate progression sys
tems for black and white workers. John Patterson and
two other black employees then filed charges with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging
that American Tobacco Co. and the Tobacco Workers
union had engaged in racial discrimination against them
in some progression lines within the new system.
Robinson’s position was backed by the Federal District
Court and, on appeal, by the Fourth Circuit, leading to
American Tobacco’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
65
Book Reviews
Reshaping adult education
Worklife Transitions: The Adult Learning Connection.
By Paul Barton and the National Institute for
Work and Learning. New York, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1982. 196 pp. $14.95.
This book was commissioned by the National Insti
tute for Work and Learning and is the product of an
advisory committee (consisting of 29 members from
business, organized labor, education, and professional
associations) led by Paul Barton, vice president of the
National Institute (formerly the National Manpower In
stitute), who pulled it all together.
Although many persons were involved in discussions
and preparation of papers, the result is not the stereo
typical camel produced by committee action but it does
not flow as smoothly as does a good book written by
one author. Nevertheless, it is replete with many pro
vocative as well as sensible suggestions that should be
studied by public policymakers, employers, unionists,
educators, and others.
The book begins with an excellent foreword by Wil
lard Wirtz, who puts everything into clear perspective.
He notes that adult education serves occupational, avocational, and cultural interests through a very large and
diverse system composed of private and public institu
tions and programs. While much is known about adult
education, only dimly perceived are the shape and char
acter of the principles that will be required in the com
ing years to help manage an almost complete
transformation of our economic system. The important
question explored throughout this volume is what is the
proper role for broadly conceived adult education in a
situation where the U.S. economy is undergoing an ex
traordinary and often painful transition from goods
producing to one that is service oriented.
In 11 rather brief chapters, the authors outline the
adult educational services that are available and de
scribe the extent of participation and what needs to be
done to make the system more effective for individuals
and society alike. In somewhat more detail, the topics
covered include the extent and characteristics of adult
educational opportunity as provided by public schools,
junior colleges, technical institutes, collegiate institu
tions, private business and industry, Federal employ
ment and training programs, cooperative extension,
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
professional associations, organized labor, community
organizations, free universities, correspondence courses,
and private instruction; who participates in such pro
grams and why and who does not and why; who pro
vides information concerning educational opportunities
and how; what public support is available; what is of
fered in business, industry, and government to employ
ees; similarly, what is being offered by trade unions, by
colleges and universities, tuition aid policies and pro
grams; the problems and prospects of longer worklife
and later retirements; and an excellent final chapter
which integrates these themes and spells out specific
recommendations. The mere listing of these topics indi
cates the broad design of the book.
Several themes are emphasized and reemphasized. For
one, although much is known about our educational
and training system, there is no available statistical in
formation that is collected regularly and consistently.
The U.S. Department of Labor has conducted experi
mental and feasibility studies but to date there is no ad
equate informational clearinghouse. The book points
out that between 38 million and 84 million people are
engaged in organized learning— hardly definitive data.
For another, the present system appeals more to those
who have had some successful experiences in schools
than those with little or minimal formal education.
More white-collar than blue-collar jobholders use the
adult educational system which means that better speci
fic efforts must be made to provide information, coun
seling, and access for all segments of our population.
Also emphasized is the fact that public employment and
poverty programs have not facilitated occupational ad
justments as much or as well as is required. In all cases,
the authors’ criticisms are made in a straightforward
and reasoned manner.
The last chapter reemphasizes that information about
our adult educational system, which might be much
more useful to us as transition points in our lifetime, is
scattered and incomplete. This, coupled with the fact
that we have few qualified mentors or counselors to
guide us to the right learning at the right time and from
the right sponsor, means that even the present adult ed
ucational system is not as productive as it could be.
What then needs to be done? Suggestions for improve
ment include paid educational leaves akin to sabbati
cals; adult education entitlements or grants; encourag-
ing more private investments in training; developing a
national occupational change adjustment program; of
fering unemployed workers educational and skill im
provement programs; encouraging a sincere commit
ment to adult education by educators; and establishing
Work-Education Councils composed of employers,
unions, educators, local governments, and others in ev
ery community of the Nation. Truly, an ambitious, but
not impossible, agenda.
The authors have essayed a task of considerable mag
nitude where they attempt to prescribe the adult
educational /training model for our complex society/
economy of the future. They have presented the impor
tant issues relating to education and work not only for
entry into work but over a lifetime of work. There is
much to think about, written in a clear style, devoid of
jargon and polemics.
—F e l ic ia n F. F o ltm a n
Professor, Department of Personnel
and Human Resource Studies,
Cornell University
Union membership concentration
Trade Unions in the Developed Economies. Edited by E.
Owen Smith. New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1981.
218 pp., bibliography. $32.50.
This slim volume discusses trade unions of seven de
veloped countries— Australia, France, Japan, Sweden,
West Germany, the United States, and the United
Kingdom—and includes sections on union growth,
structure, and policies. Several of the authors have had
firsthand knowledge of their subject matter, for exam
ple, the chapter on Swedish trade unions, was written
by T. L. Johnston, the author of an important study on
collective bargaining in that country; the chapter on
Australian unions was authored by two Melbourne aca
demicians, L. Cupper and J. M. Hearn. An introduction
by the editor of this book, E. Owen Smith, summarizes
the contributions; Smith also contributed the chapters
on the United Kingdom and West Germany.
It is not clear why the seven particular countries were
selected for discussion. Each country’s per capita in
come was probably a key factor, but several other Eu
ropean countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, and
Austria, for example) exceed that of the United King
dom. Presumably, the authors preferred to describe
trade unions in different political and economic settings
and therefore selected certain countries in order to pre
sent the reader with a variety of patterns.
There is very little new material presented in the
chapter on American trade unions. The discussion on
the American labor movement’s failure to grow during
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the 1970’s was well done. It is disappointing, however,
that the section on union structure did not include a
discussion on “intermediate bodies” within national
unions. The 5-page section on trade-union policy began
with Robert Hoxie’s classification of unions and then
explained “business unionism” and the absence of a la
bor party in the United States. There is little in the
chapter regarding the economic impact of American
unions, although some discussion was included in the
introductory chapter.
If reasonably informed readers fail to learn much
from this book regarding trade unions in their own
countries, they will, I think, profit from the essays on
the other countries. The discussion of the French trade
unions’ membership figures was particularly edifying be
cause for many years this reviewer had read that there
were “problems” in determining these figures. Now, at
last, there is a brief explanation of the difficulties. Simi
larly, the chapter on Japan includes a balanced account
of the strengths and weaknesses of the seniority-linked
remuneration system and the lifetime employment prac
tices.
The introductory chapter reminded us that “trade
unions are very important” and that policy prescrip
tions involving them should be based on accurate infor
mation. Although the contributors to this volume have
succeeded in supplying accurate information, this re
viewer is disappointed that some effort was not made to
interpret and explain the varying growth structure and
policies of trade unions in the developed countries.
— J oseph K rislov
Professor, Department of Economics
University of Kentucky
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
Chambers, Robert, “Health, Agriculture, and Rural Poverty:
Why Seasons Matter,” The Journal of Development Stud
ies, January 1982, pp. 217-38.
Chan, Arthur H., “The Nature of Water Resources Policy
and Policymaking,” The American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, January 1982, pp. 85-93.
“Energy and Agriculture,” News Report, National Academy of
Sciences, March 1982, pp. 19—21.
Green, Christopher and Colin Kirkpatrick, “A Cross-Section
Analysis of Food Insecurity in Developing Countries: Its
Magnitude and Sources,” The Journal of Development
Studies, January 1982, pp. 185-204.
Economic and social statistics
Mead, R. and Janet Riley, “A Review of Statistical Ideas Rel
evant to Intercropping Research,” Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Vol. 144, Pt. 4, 1981, pp. 462-509.
67
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Book Reviews
U.S. Department of Commerce, A Directory of Federal Statisti
cal Data Files. Prepared through the Coordination of the
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Infor
mation Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, 1981,
521 pp. (Report No. PB81—133175.) $25, National Tech
nical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.
“Labor-Management Climate,” The AFL-CIO American Federationist, January 1982, pp. 11-15.
Leap, Terry and Terence A. Oliva, “Public Sector Multilateral
Collective Bargaining: A Microeconomic Analysis,” Jour
nal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 10,
No. 4, 1981, pp. 287-307.
Economic growth and development
Lederer, Philip C., “Wright Line or Sput Track?” Labor Law
Journal, February 1982, pp. 67-81.
Miller, Michael V., Economic Growth and Change Along the
U.S.-Mexican Border. Austin, University of Texas at Aus
tin, Bureau of Business Research, 1982, 54 pp. $5, paper.
Lowit, Thomas, “The Working Class and Union Structures in
Eastern Europe,” British Journal of Industrial Relations,
March 1982, pp. 67-75.
Peterson, Wallace C., Our Overloaded Economy: Inflation, Un
employment, and the Crisis in American Capitalism.
Armonk, N.Y., M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1982, 240 pp. $14.50.
McCollum, James K., Politics and Labor Relations in Virginia:
The Defeat of Public Sector Unionism. Reprinted from
Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1981, pp.
414-31.
Health and safety
Moss, Herbert A., “The 24-hour Rule in NLRB Elections,” La
bor Law Journal, February 1982, pp. 102-08.
Alacchi, Georges and Constantin Todradze, “Safety in Mines
and the Role of Training,” International Labour Review,
September-October 1981, pp. 615-29.
Wittman, Donald, “Efficient Rules in Highway Safety and
Sports Activity,” The American Economic Review, March
1982, pp. 78-90.
Industrial relations
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Re
view: 1981 Session of the Congress. Washington, 1982, 39
pp. ( a e i Legislative Analysis, 31, 97th Cong.)
Angel, Marina, “White-Collar and Professional Unionization,”
Labor Law Journal, February 1982, pp. 82-101.
Bain, George Sayers and Farouk Elsheikh, “Union Growth
and the Business Cycle: A Disaggregated Study,” British
Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1982, pp. 34-43.
Commerce Clearing House Labor Law Staff, “Interface of Na
tional Labor and Antitrust Policies: When Antitrust Lia
bility Attaches,” Labor Law Journal, February 1982, pp.
115-20.
— “When Has a Substantial Agreement Been Reached for
Application of the Contract-Bar Rule?” Labor Law Jour
nal, February 1982, pp. 121-25.
Dabscheck, Braham, “Theories of Regulation and Australian
Industrial Relations,” Journal of Industrial Relations, De
cember 1981, pp. 430-46.
Davey, Harold W., Mario F. Bognanno, David L. Estenson,
Contemporary Collective Bargaining. 4th ed. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982, 472 pp. $22.95.
Niland, John, “Research and Reform in Industrial Relations,”
Journal o f Industrial Relations, December 1981, pp. 482503.
Ogden, Warren C. and Josephine B. Vestal, “After-Acquired
Clauses: The Fire Next Time,” Labor Law Journal, Feb
ruary 1982, pp. 109-14.
Piore, Michael J., “American Labor and the Industrial Cri
sis,” Challenge, March-April 1982, pp. 5-11.
Prais, S. J., “Strike Frequencies and Plant-Size: A Comment
on Swedish and U.K. Experience,” British Journal of In
dustrial Relations, March 1982, pp. 101-04.
Schnebly, John R., “Comparable Worth: A Legal Overview,”
Personnel Administrator, April 1982, beginning on p. 43.
Terry, Michael, “Organizing a Fragmented Workforce: Shop
Stewards in Local Government,” British Journal of Indus
trial Relations, March 1982, pp. 1-19.
Wagner, Thomas E., “Public Employee Collective Bargaining
in the Absence of Enabling State Legislation,” Journal of
Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 10, No.
4, 1981, pp. 337-44.
Whaley, George L„ “Controversy Swirls Over Comparable
Worth Issue,” Personnel Administrator, April 1982, pp.
51-61.
Industry and government organization
Adams, Walter, “Mega-Mergers Spell Danger,” Challenge,
March-April 1982, pp. 12-17.
Dufty, N. F., “Influences on Public Opinion of Unions and
Industrial Relations,” Journal o f Industrial Relations, De
cember 1981, pp. 417-29.
Nielsen, Richard P., “Government-Owned Businesses: Market
Presence, Competitive Advantages and Rationales for
Their Support by the State,” The American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, January 1982, pp. 17-27.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Proposals for In
dustrial Relations Legislation,” Employment Gazette, De
cember 1981, pp. 510-14.
International economics
Honadle, Beth Walter, “Wage Determination in the Public
Sector: A Critical Review of the Literature,” Journal of
Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 10, No.
4, 1981, pp. 309-25.
Johnstone, Ronald L., The Scope of Faculty Collective Bar
gaining: An Analysis of Faculty Union Agreements at FourYear Institutions of Higher Education. Westport, Conn.,
Greenwood Press, 1981, 196 pp., bibliography. $27.50.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bertrand, O., J. Timar, F. Achio, “The Planning of Training
in the Third World,” International Labour Review, Sep
tember-October 1981, pp. 531-44.
Blejer, Mario I. and Donald J. Mathieson, “The Prean
nouncement of Exchange Rate Changes as a Stabilization
Instrument,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers,
December 1981, pp. 760-92.
Donovan, Donal J., “Real Responses Associated with Ex
change Rate Action in Selected Upper Credit Tranche
Stabilization Programs,” International Monetary Fund
Staff Papers, December 1981, pp. 698-727.
Eichner, Alfred S., “Reflections on Social Democracy,” Chal
lenge, March-April 1982, pp. 33-42.
Fairlamb, David, “Recession in Eastern Europe,” Dun's Busi
ness Month, March 1982, pp. 88-91.
Feltenstein, Andrew, “A General-Equilibrium Approach to
the Analysis of Monetary and Fiscal Policies,” Interna
tional Monetary Fund Staff Papers, December 1981, pp.
653-81.
“Latin America, 1982,” Current History, February 1982, pp.
49-90.
Schott, Jeffrey J., “Can World Trade be Governed?” Chal
lenge, March-April 1982, pp. 43-49.
Watanabe, Susumu, “Multinational Enterprises, Employment
and Technology Adaptations,” International Labour Re
view, November-December 1981, pp. 693-710.
Labor force
Freeman, Richard B., Changing U.S. Labor Market for Higher
Education ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 697, 49 pp.,
$1.50); Have Black Labor Market Gains Post-1964 Been
Permanent or Transitory? ( n b e r Working Paper Series,
751, 25 pp., $1.50); Troubled Workers in the Labor Mar
ket ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 816, 172 pp., $1.50).
Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Re
search, Inc., 1982.
Gordus, Jeanne Prial, Paul Jarley, Louis A. Ferman, Plant
Closings and Economic Dislocation. Kalamazoo, Mich.,
The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,
1981, 173 pp. $7.95, cloth; $5.95, paper.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Probabilities of
Employment After Work Experience,” by David
O’Connor, Employment Gazette, January 1982, pp. 8-11.
Roberts, Markley and Stephen Dohrmann, “The Human Price
of Unemployment,” The A F L -C io American Federationist,
January 1982, pp. 6-10.
Standing, Guy, “The Notion of Voluntary Unemployment,”
International Labour Review, September-October 1981,
pp. 563-79.
Management and organization theory
Armandi, Barry R. and Edgar W. Mills, Jr., “Organizational
Size, Structure, and Efficiency: A Test of a Blau-Hage
Model,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociolo
gy, January 1982, pp. 43-60.
Bearak, Joel A., “Termination Made Easier: Is Outplacement
Really the Answer?” Personnel Administrator, April 1982,
beginning on p. 63.
Bell, Chip R., “ ‘Energize’ Your Staff to Improve Productivi
ty,” Management Review, February 1982, pp. 46-51.
Bushardt, Stephen C. and Aubrey R. Fowler, “Compensation
and Benefits: Today’s Dilemma in Motivation,” Personnel
Administrator, April 1982, pp. 23-26.
Dvorak, Donald F., “Executive Search: Management Head
ache or Opportunity for Creative Change?” Management
Review, April 1982, beginning on p. 27.
Dunham, Randall B. and Roger A. Formisano, “Designing
and Evaluating Employee Benefit Systems,” Personnel
Administrator, April 1982, pp. 29-35.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“Employment Practices,” Personnel Administrator,
1982, pp. 21-53.
March
Felton, Barbara and Sue Ries Lamb, “A Model for Systemat
ic Selection Interviewing,” Personnel, January-February
1982, pp. 40-48.
Fisher, Roger and William Ury, “Getting to Yes,” Manage
ment Review, February 1982, pp. 16-21.
Fonvielle, William H., “Making Employee Surveys Work for
Your Organization,” Management Review, April 1982, pp.
47-54.
Franke, Arnold G., Edward J. Harrick, Andrew J. Klein,
“The Role of Personnel in Improving Productivity,” Per
sonnel Administrator, March 1982, pp. 83-88.
Gorlin, Harriet, “An Overview of Corporate Personnel Prac
tices,” Personnel Journal, February 1982, pp. 125-30.
Harrison, Edward L., “Legal Restrictions on the Employer’s
Authority to Discipline,” Personnel Journal, February
1982, pp. 136-41.
Holley, William H. and Hubert S. Field, “Will Your Perfor
mance Appraisal System Hold Up in Court?” Personnel,
January-February 1982, pp. 59-64.
Joyal, Donald L., Trends and Developments in Business Ad
ministration Programs. New York, Praeger Publishers,
1982, 172 pp., bibliography. $21.95.
Karger, Theodore, “Defining a Leadership Mandate,” Man
agement Review, April 1982, pp. 14-17.
Marchione, Anthony R. and Jon English, “Managing the Un
predictable . . . A Rational Plan for Coping with
Change,” Management Review, February 1982, pp. 5257.
Meyer, John H. and Teresa C. Meyer, “The Supervisor as
Counselor— How to Help the Distressed Employee,”
Management Review, April 1982, pp. 42-46.
Nardoni, Ren, “The Personnel Office of the Future Is Avail
able Today,” Personnel Journal, February 1982, pp. 132—
34.
Novit, Mitchell S., “Employer Liability for Employee Miscon
duct: Two Common Law Doctrines,” Personnel, JanuaryFebruary 1982, pp. 11-19.
Ohmae, Kenichi, “The Secret of Strategic Vision,” Manage
ment Review, April 1982, pp. 8-13.
Perham, John, “Putting Retirees to Work,” Dun's Business
Month, March 1982, pp. 80-82.
Plotzke, George T., “New Technology Creates ‘the Office of
the Future,’ ” Management Review, February 1982, pp. 815.
Stern, David, Managing Human Resources: The Art o f Full
Employment. Boston, Mass., Auburn House Publishing
Co., 1982, 142 pp., bibliography. $19.95.
Van Cleve, Roy R., “Human Resources Administration: Cur
riculum for a Profession,” Personnel Administrator,
March 1982, pp. 61-67.
Vogel, Alfred, “Employee Surveys: The Risks, The Benefits,”
Personnel, January-February 1982, pp. 65-70.
Monetary and fiscal policy
Hughes, Dean W. and Duane Weimer, “The Impact on Busi
ness Investment of the Federal Reserve System’s Opera-
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Book Reviews
ting Procedures,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank
of Kansas City, February 1982, pp. 14-25.
Time for Managers and Professionals. New York, Praeger
Publishers, 1982, 184 pp., bibliography. $21.95.
Solomon, Anthony M., “New Strategies for the Federal
Reserve?” Challenge, March-April 1982, pp. 18-24.
Long, James E., “Are Government Workers Overpaid? Alter
native Evidence,” The Journal of Human Resources, Win
ter 1982, pp. 123-31.
West, Robert Craig, “The Depository Institutions Deregula
tion Act of 1980: A Historical Perspective,” Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February
1982, pp. 3-13.
Wilson, Marilyn, “Will the Fed Crush the Recovery?” Dun's
Business Month, March 1982, beginning on p. 64.
Prices and living conditions
Dougherty, Ann and Robert Van Order, “Inflation, Housing
Costs, and the Consumer Price Index,” The American
Economic Review, March 1982, pp. 154-64.
Kolluri, Bharat R., “Gold as a Hedge Against Inflation: An
Empirical Investigation,” The Quarterly Review o f Eco
nomics and Business, Winter 1981, pp. 13-24.
Martin, Joanne, “The Fairness of Earnings Differentials: An
Experimental Study of Perceptions of Blue-Collar Work
ers,” The Journal of Human Resources, Winter 1982, pp.
110- 22.
Minimum Wage Study Commission, Report of the Minimum
Wage Study Commission: Vol I. Washington, 1981, 251
pp.
New York State, Department of Labor, Annual Report of the
State Advisory Council on Employment and Unemploy
ment Insurance. New York, Department of Labor, State
Advisory Council on Employment and Unemployment
Insurance, 1981, 46 pp.
Starr, Gerald, “Minimum Wage Fixing: International Experi
ence with Alternative Roles,” International Labour Re
view, September-October 1981, pp. 545-62.
McFarland, Floyd B., “Markup Pricing and the Auto Indus
try: A Partial Explanation of Stagflation in an Oligopo
listic Economy,” The American Journal o f Economics and
Sociology, January 1982, pp. 1-15.
Thompson, John B., “Actuarial Assumptions for Designer
Benefits,” Hay Huggins Bulletin, March 1982, pp. 1-4.
Oswald, Rudy, “Inflation: Attacking the Real Causes,” The
AFL-CIO American Federationist, January 1982, pp. 2-5.
Worker training and development
Schwab, Robert M., “Inflation Expectations and the Demand
for Housing,” The American Economic Review, March
1982, pp. 143-53.
Carey, Max L., “Three Paths to the Future: Occupational
Projections, 1980-90,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly,
Winter 1981, pp. 2-11.
Urban affairs
Dillich, Lisa S., “School Administrators: Educators Without
Classrooms,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Winter
1981, pp. 24-27.
Dommel, Paul R. and others, Decentralizing Urban Policy:
Case Studies in Community Development. Washington,
The Brookings Institution, 1982, 271 pp. $24.95, cloth;
$9.95, paper.
Schechter, Henry B., “Housing and Related Victims of Tight
Money,” The AFL-CIO American Federationist, January
1982, pp. 16-21.
Wages and compensation
Carliner, Geoffrey, “The Wages of Older Men,” The Journal
of Human Resources, Winter 1982, pp. 25-38.
Cleeton, David L., “The Theory of Real Wage Indices,” The
American Economic Review, March 1982, pp. 214-25.
Darity, William A., Jr., “The Human Capital Approach to
Black-White Earnings Inequality: Some Unsettled Ques
tions,” The Journal o f Human Resources, Winter 1982;
pp. 72-93.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Alan J. Marcus, “Minimum
Wages and Teenagers’ Enrollment Employment Out
comes: A Multinomial Logit Model,” The Journal of Hu
man Resources, Winter 1982, pp. 39-58.
Hansen, W. Lee, “The Decline of Real Faculty Salaries in the
1970s,” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Business,
Winter 1981, pp. 7-12.
Harriman, Ann, The Work/Leisure Trade Off: Reduced Work
Digitized for
70 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment and Training Report of the President, Including
Reports by the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Depart
ment of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Depart
ment of Education, Transmitted to the Congress January
1981. Washington, 1981, 307 pp. Stock No. 029-00000410-2. $8.50, Superintendent of Documents, Washing
ton 20402.
Martin, Gail M., “Retailing: Careers in the Department Store
Industry,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1981,
pp. 15-23.
National Council on Employment Policy, Management of Re
medial Employment and Training Programs in the 1980s:
A Policy Statement. Washington, The National Council
on Employment Policy, 1982, 15 pp.
University of Connecticut, Our Manpower Future: Connecticut,
1980-2000. Storrs, University of Connecticut, Labor Ed
ucation Center, 1981, 21 pp.
“Yesterday’s Graduates, Tomorrow’s Students: Some Recent
Reports from the National Center for Education Statis
tics,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1981, pp.
12-14.
Williams, Gerry, ed., Apprenticeship in Craft. Goffstown,
N.H., Daniel Clark Books, 1981, 215 pp., bibliography.
$9.50, paper.
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.
.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-81 ................................................................
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.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted .......................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group ..............................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted .....................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions
..................................................................................................................
18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations .......................................................................................
Price data. Definitions and notes
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-81
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selecteditems ............................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population sizeclass ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ..................................................................................
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
72
72
73
73
74
75
76
77
77
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
83
84
85
85
86
87
87
88
89
89
95
96
97
98
100
100
100
........................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-81
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1971-81
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,seasonallyadjusted ......................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unitcosts, and prices . .
103
Wage and compensation data. D efin ition s .....................................................................................................................
106
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Employment Cost Index, total com pensation........................................................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by bargaining status, region, and area size ........................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p ........................................................
Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1977 to date ..........................................
Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more,1977to d a t e .................
Work stoppage data. D efinition............................................................................................................
37. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date .....................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
104
104
105
107
108
109
110
110
111
HI
71
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.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2-7 were revised in
the March 1982 issue of the Review to reflect experience through 1981.
The original estimates also were revised to 1970 to reflect 1980 census
population controls.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifi
cations in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data.
First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure
called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an
extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the
procedure appears in The X -ll ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment Method
by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, Feb
ruary 1980). 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 period. 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, 14, and 16 begins with the August 1980 issue using the X -ll
ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for
productivity data in tables 30 and 31 are usually introduced
in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are
published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety 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 BLS Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2070, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
Monthly Labor Review. More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a
monthly publication of the Bureau. Historically, comparable informa
tion from the establishment survey is published in two comprehensive
data books— Employment and Earnings, United States and Employ
ment and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements.
More detailed information on wages and other aspects of collective
bargaining appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Develop
ments. More detailed price information is published each month in the
periodicals, the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price In
dexes.
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
Series
Employment situation..................................................................
Producer Price Index ..................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ......................................
Major collective bargaining settlements ........................................
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
MLR table
number
June 4
June 11
June 22
June 22
May
May
May
May
July 2
July 16
July 23
July 23
June
June
June
June
1-11
23-27
19-22
12-17
July 29
July 29
2nd quarter
1st half
28-31
35-36
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 60,000
households,selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years
of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating
basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2
consecutive months.
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
1.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
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 1981.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-81
[Numbers in thousands]
Civilian labor force
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Unemployed
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Total
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
140,272
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,959
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,771
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,678
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,463
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,215
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,093
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,315
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
143,033
146,574
149,423
152,349
155,333
87,198
89,484
91,756
94,179
95,955
61.0
61.1
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,382
87,034
89,429
91,949
93,775
79,367
82,153
85,064
86,794
85,846
3,394
3,484
3,470
3,515
3,408
75,972
78,669
81,594
83,279
82,438
5,016
4,882
4,365
5,156
7,929
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,834
57,091
57,667
58,171
59,377
1976 ............................................................
1977 ............................................................
1978 ............................................................
1979 ............................................................
158,294
161,166
164,027
166,951
98,302
101,142
104,368
107,050
62.1
62.8
63.6
64.1
96,158
99,009
102,251
104,962
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824
3,331
3,283
3,387
3,347
85,421
88,734
92,661
95,477
7,406
6,991
6,202
6,137
7.7
7.1
6.1
5.8
59,991
60,025
59,659
59,900
1980 ............................................................
1981 ............................................................
169,848
172,272
109,042
110,812
64.2
64.3
106,940
108,670
99,303
100,397
3,364
3,368
95,938
97,030
7,637
8,273
7.1
7.6
60,806
61,460
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
73
M O N TH L Y LA B O R R EV IEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average
1981
1982
Employment status
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
169,848
109,042
167,745
106,940
99,303
3,364
95,938
7,637
7.1
60,806
172,272
110,812
170,130
108,670
100,397
3,368
97,030
8,273
7.6
61,460
171,770
110,906
169,641
108,777
100,878
3,470
97,408
7,899
7.3
60,864
171,956
111,420
169,829
109,293
101,045
3,405
97,640
8,248
7.5
60,536
172,172
110,565
170,042
108,434
100,430
3,348
97,082
8,004
7.4
61,608
172,385
110,827
170,246
108,688
100,864
3,342
97,522
7,824
7.2
61,558
172,559
110,978
170,399
108,818
100,840
3,404
97,436
7,978
7.3
61,581
172,758
110,659
170,593
108,494
100,258
3,358
96,900
8,236
7.6
62,099
172,966
111,170
170,809
109,012
100,343
3,378
96,965
8,669
8.0
61,797
173,155
111,430
170,996
109,272
100,172
3,372
96,800
9,100
8.3
61,724
173,330
111,348
171,166
109,184
99,613
3,209
96,404
9,571
8.8
61,982
173,495
111,038
171,335
108,879
99,581
3,411
96,170
9,298
8.5
62,456
173,657
111,333
171,489
109,165
99,590
3,373
96,217
9,575
8.8
62,324
173,843
111,521
171,667
109,346
99,492
3,349
96,144
9,854
9.0
62,321
174,020
111,824
171,844
109,648
99,340
3,309
96,032
10,307
9.4
62,197
71,138
56,455
53,101
2,396
50,706
3,353
5.9
14,683
72,419
57,197
53,582
2,384
51,199
3,615
6.3
15,222
72,142
57,157
53,820
2,419
51,401
3,337
5.8
14,985
72,251
57,479
53,884
2,390
51,494
3,595
6.3
14,772
72,359
57,094
53,597
2,379
51,218
3,497
6.1
15,265
72,472
57,172
53,874
2,383
51,491
3,298
5.8
15,300
72,559
57,250
53,791
2,422
51,369
3,459
6.0
15,309
72,670
57,262
53,693
2,383
51,310
3,569
6.2
15,408
72,795
57,355
53,504
2,413
51,091
3,851
6.7
15,440
72,921
57,459
53,354
2,382
50,972
4,105
7.1
15,462
73,020
57,665
53,122
2,311
50,811
4,543
7.9
15,355
73,120
57,368
53,047
2,390
50,657
4,322
7.5
15,752
73,209
57,448
53,097
2,386
50,711
4,351
7.6
15,761
73,287
57,554
53,006
2,377
50,629
4,548
7.9
15,733
73,392
57,730
52,988
2,382
50,606
4,742
8.2
15,662
80,065
41,106
38,492
584
37,907
2,615
6.4
38,959
81,497
42,485
39,590
604
38,986
2,895
6.8
39,012
81,193
42,332
39,536
609
38,927
2,796
6.6
38,861
81,308
42,608
39,737
605
39,132
2,871
6.7
38,700
81,434
42,581
39,757
585
39,172
2,824
6.6
38,853
81,561
42,682
39,810
590
39,220
2,872
6.7
38,879
81,671
42,666
39,841
609
39,232
2,825
6.6
39,005
81,792
42,344
39,426
608
38,818
2,918
6.9
39,448
81,920
42,831
39,814
596
39,218
3,017
7.0
39,089
82,038
42,987
39,878
635
39,243
3,109
7.2
39,051
82,151
42,888
39,713
572
39,141
3,175
7.4
39,263
82,260
42,868
39,764
649
39,115
3,104
7.2
39,392
82,367
43,031
39,744
628
39,116
3,286
7.6
39,336
82,478
43,243
39,807
636
39,172
3,435
7.9
39,235
82,591
43,301
39,715
601
39,114
3,686
8.3
39,290
16,543
9,378
7,710
385
7,325
1,669
17.8
7,165
16,214
8,988
7,225
380
6,845
1,763
19.6
7,226
16,305
9,288
7,522
442
7,080
1,766
19.0
7,017
16,270
9,206
7,424
410
7,014
1,782
19.4
7,064
16,249
8,759
7,076
384
6,692
1,683
19.2
7,490
16,213
8,834
7,180
369
6,811
1,654
18.7
7,379
16,169
8,902
7,208
373
6,835
1,694
19.0
7,267
16,131
8,888
7,139
367
6,772
1,749
19.7
7,243
16,093
8,826
7,025
369
6,656
1,801
20.4
7,267
16,037
8,826
6,940
355
6,585
1,886
21.4
7,211
15,995
8,631
6,778
326
6,452
1,853
21.5
7,364
15,955
8,643
6,771
373
6,398
1,872
21.7
7,312
15,913
8,686
6,748
359
6,389
1,938
22.3
7,227
15,902
8,549
6,679
336
6,343
1,870
21.9
7,353
15,861
8,616
6,637
326
6,311
1,979
23.0
7,245
146,122
93,600
87,715
5,884
6.3
52,522
147,908
95,052
88,709
6,343
6.7
52,856
147,539
95,199
89,080
6,119
6.4
52,340
147,670
95,666
89,237
6,429
6.7
52,004
147,804
94,887
88,799
6,088
6.4
52,917
147,976
95,126
89,170
5,956
6.3
52,850
148,144
95,163
89,221
5,942
6.2
52,981
148,370
94,884
88,628
6,256
6.6
53,486
148,562
95,365
88,734
6,631
7.0
53,197
148,631
95,535
88,498
7,037
7.4
53,096
148,755
95,329
88,010
7,319
7.7
53,426
148,842
95,120
87,955
7,165
7.5
53,722
148,855
95,333
87,990
7,344
7.7
53,522
149,132
95,508
87,956
7,552
7.9
53,624
149,249
96,015
87,988
8,026
8.4
53,234
17,824
10,865
9,313
1,553
14.3
6,959
18,219
11,086
9,355
1,731
15.6
7,133
18,137
11,126
9,488
1,638
14.7
7,011
18,170
11,126
9,460
1,666
15.0
7,044
18,206
11,033
9,310
1,723
15.6
7,173
18,239
10,971
9,338
1,633
14.9
7,268
18,266
11,069
9,267
1,802
16.3
7,197
18,297
11,134
9,319
1,815
16.3
7,163
18,333
11,188
9,313
1,875
168
7,145
18,362
11,207
9,321
1,886
16.8
7,155
18,392
11,226
9,279
1,947
17.3
7,166
18,423
11,188
9,314
1,874
16.8
7,235
18,450
11,205
9,265
1,939
17.3
7,245
18,480
11,217
9,197
2,020
18.0
7,263
18,511
11,170
9,111
2,058
18.4
7,341
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population1 ..........................
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 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Black
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
'As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Digitized for
74 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[ Numbers in thousands]
Annual average
1981
1982
Selected categories
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
99,303
57,186
42,117
39,004
23,532
100,397
57,397
43,000
38,882
23,915
100,878
57,792
43,086
39,186
23,979
101,045
57,793
43,252
39,120
24,192
100,430
57,279
43,151
38,930
24,106
100,864
57,640
43,224
38,961
24,159
51,882
15,968
11,138
6,303
18,473
31,452
12,787
10,565
3,531
4,567
13,228
2,741
52,949
16,420
11,540
6,425
18,564
31,261
12,662
10,540
3,476
4,583
13,438
2,749
52,855
16,178
11,616
6,290
18,771
31,685
12,825
10,691
3,483
4,686
13,468
2,826
53,016
16,093
11,488
6,562
18,873
31,796
12,911
10,716
3,466
4,703
13,470
2,748
52,957
16,410
11,411
6,513
18,623
31,538
12,749
10,703
3,493
4,593
13,214
2,710
52,907
16,364
11,578
6,373
18,592
31,580
12,787
10,719
3,526
4,548
13,526
2,727
53,141
16,621
11,460
6,490
18,570
31,611
12,724
10,658
3,530
4,699
13,282
2,753
1,425
1,642
297
1,464
1,638
266
1,560
1,661
286
1,499
1,654
235
1,437
1,664
263
1,495
1,593
244
88,525
15,912
72,612
1,192
71,420
7,000
413
89,543
15,689
73,853
1,208
72,645
7,097
390
89,913
15,885
74,028
1,249
72,779
7,150
325
90,402
15,776
74,626
1,192
73,434
6,966
356
89,508
15,707
73,801
1,177
72,624
7,128
376
90,209
73,590
4,064
1,714
2,350
12,555
91,377
74,339
4,499
1,738
2,761
12,539
91,094
74,259
4,200
1,593
2,607
12,635
91,745
74,871
4,264
1,657
2,607
12,610
91,500
74,693
4,033
1,465
2,568
12,774
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
100,343
57,266
43,077
38,746
23,874
52,908
16,598
11,533
6,441
18,336
31,266
12,514
10,524
3,506
4,722
13,391
2,743
1,501
1,638
256
89,971
15,637
74,334
1,216
73,118
7,071
389
92,532
75,620
4,374
1,680
2,694
12,538
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
100,172
57,051
43,121
38,553
23,820
99,613
56,725
42,888
38,342
23,691
99,581
56,629
42,952
38,234
23,744
99,590
56,658
42,932
38,255
23,727
99,492
56,472
43,020
38,181
23,900
99,340
56,401
42,940
38,142
23,831
53,199
16,681
11,616
6,400
18,502
30,953
12,446
10,410
3,580
4,517
13,525
2,770
53,086
16,657
11,461
6,418
18,550
30,683
12,411
10,220
3,438
4,614
13,670
2,802
53,084
16,774
11,424
6,450
18,436
30,344
12,446
10,169
3,368
4,361
13,639
2,660
52,836
16,803
11,091
6,520
18,423
30,203
12,370
9,966
3,415
4,451
13,709
2,817
52,841
16,612
11,253
6,544
18,432
30,309
12,454
9,955
3,503
4,397
13,612
2,787
52,763
16,659
11,311
6,637
18,155
30,416
12,511
9,860
3,397
4,648
13,526
2,710
53,177
16,844
11,501
6,603
18,229
29,924
12,492
9,688
3,400
4,343
13,555
2,623
1,461
1,643
256
1,502
1,631
261
1,436
1,641
321
1,352
1,602
228
1,377
1,674
380
1,426
1,596
359
1,416
1,644
277
1,423
1,664
270
89,995
15,526
74,469
1,259
73,210
7,103
387
89,376
15,475
73,901
1,102
72,799
7,217
399
89,460
15,491
73,969
1,162
72,807
7,152
451
89,238
15,397
73,841
1,204
72,637
7,141
425
88,991
15,585
73,406
1,291
72,115
7,057
410
88,759
15,578
73,181
1,248
71,932
6,971
410
88,586
15,527
73,059
1,161
71,898
7,055
408
88,526
15,492
73,034
1,225
71,809
7,126
434
88,322
15,453
72,869
1,192
71,677
7,264
413
91,569
74,467
4,350
1,729
2,621
12,752
90,878
73,794
4,656
1,759
2,897
12,428
91,384
73,886
5,009
2,006
3,003
12,489
91,323
73,915
5,026
1,945
3,081
12,382
90,922
73,360
5,288
2,121
3,167
12,274
90,125
72,803
5,071
1,783
3,287
12,251
90,892
73,028
5,563
2,193
3,370
12,300
90,548
72,649
5,717
2,237
3,480
12,183
90,596
72,335
5,834
2,223
3,611
12,427
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
Men ............................................................
Women........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
100,840 100,258
57,551 57,471
43,289 42,787
38,961 38,855
24,043 23,626
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
75
M O N T H L Y LA B O R REV IEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
Annual average
1981
1982
Selected categories
1980
1981
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 to 19 years............................
7.1
5.9
6.4
17.8
7.6
6.3
6.8
19.6
7.3
5.8
6.6
19.0
7.5
6.3
6.7
19.4
7.4
6.1
6.6
19.2
7.2
5.8
6.7
18.7
7.3
6.0
6.6
19.0
7.6
6.2
6.9
19.7
8.0
6.7
7.0
20.4
8.3
7.1
7.2
21.4
8.8
7.9
7.4
21.5
8.5
7.5
7.2
21.7
8.8
7.6
7.6
22.3
9.0
7.9
7.9
21.9
9.4
8.2
8.3
23.0
White, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over..........................
Women, 20 years and over ....................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
6.3
5.3
5.6
15.5
6.7
5.6
5.9
17.3
6.4
5.2
5.7
17.0
6.7
5.6
5.9
17.5
6.4
5.3
5.7
16.8
6.3
5.0
5.8
16.4
6.2
5.2
5.5
16.1
6.6
5.5
5.9
17.2
7.0
5.9
6.1
17.7
7.4
6.4
6.3
19.0
7.7
6.9
6.4
19.0
7.5
6.6
6.3
19.6
7.7
6.7
6.6
20.0
7.9
7.0
6.9
19.0
8.4
7.3
7.2
20.8
Black, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over..........................
Women, 20 years and over ....................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
14.3
12.4
11.9
38.5
15.6
13.5
13.4
41.4
14.7
12.1
12.9
40.2
15.0
13.0
13.1
36.9
15.6
13.7
13.3
40.9
14.9
12.7
13.1
40.0
16.3
13.6
13.8
49.0
16.3
14.5
14.0
40.8
16.8
14.7
13.9
45.6
16.8
15.5
13.6
44.1
17.3
16.5
14.1
42.2
16.8
16.3
13.3
41.2
17.3
16.0
14.5
42.3
18.0
16.0
15.4
46.0
18.4
16.9
15.6
48,1
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who maintain families........................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers..........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ....................................
4.2
5.8
9.2
6.9
8.8
1.7
7.9
4.3
6.0
10.4
7.3
9.4
2.1
8.5
3.8
5.9
9.9
6.9
9.2
2.0
8.2
4.0
5.8
10.4
7.1
9.6
2.0
8.6
4.2
5.7
10.7
7.1
9.2
2.2
7.9
3.9
5.7
11.2
6.8
9.3
2.0
7.9
4.0
5.5
10.1
6.9
9.6
2.0
7.9
4.4
6.0
10.7
7.3
9.6
2.1
8.5
4.8
6.1
10.6
7.7
9.5
2.1
9.1
5.2
6.5
10.8
8.1
10.2
2.2
9.5
5.7
6.6
10.5
8.7
9.2
2.2
10.1
5.3
6.2
10.4
8.4
9.6
2.2
10.0
5.3
7.0
10.2
8.5
10.8
2.5
9.8
5.5
7.1
10.6
8.9
10.0
2.7
10.4
6.0
7.8
11.5
9.2
10.9
2.7
10.4
3.7
2.5
2.4
4.4
5.3
10.0
6.6
12.2
8.8
14.6
7.9
4.6
4.0
2.8
2.7
4.6
5.7
10.3
7.5
12.2
8.7
14.7
8.9
5.3
4.0
3.1
2.4
4.2
5.6
9,7
6.8
11.6
8.1
14.0
8.5
3.9
4.0
2.8
2.6
4.6
5.6
9.9
7.2
11.8
8.2
13.5
9.4
5.2
3.9
2.8
2.7
4.3
5.4
9.8
7.1
11.1
8.1
14.7
8.9
6.2
4.0
2.8
2.6
4.9
5.7
9.5
6.9
11.1
7.3
14.4
8.0
4.8
3.9
2.5
2.7
4.7
5.7
9.5
7.0
11.1
8.0
13.2
8.9
5.4
4.1
2.8
2.7
5.0
5.8
10.2
7.7
11.6
8.7
14.6
9.0
4.0
4.1
2.6
2.8
4.9
6.0
10.9
8.3
12.8
8.0
15.6
9.3
6.2
4.2
2.7
3.0
5.0
6.0
11.8
8.5
14.1
10.4
16.0
9.7
6.2
4.5
3.4
3.1
4.9
6.2
12.7
9.3
15.5
10.5
16.9
9.6
6.4
4.2
2.9
2.7
4.5
6.3
12.5
9.0
15.4
10.2
16.9
9.2
6.9
4.6
3.1
3.1
4.8
6.7
12.5
8.4
15.4
10.3
17.9
9.8
4.9
4.8
3.2
3.0
5.8
6.9
12.9
9.1
15.9
10.4
17.9
10.2
5.4
4.9
3.2
3.3
5.6
7.2
13.7
9.6
16.9
10.7
19.2
11.1
5.8
7.4
14.1
8.5
8.9
7.9
4.9
7,4
5.3
4.1
11.0
7.7
15.6
8.3
8.2
8.4
5.2
8.1
5.9
4.7
12.1
7.3
14.5
7.6
7.5
7.8
5.5
7.5
5.8
4.7
9.4
7.7
15.7
7.8
7.4
8.6
5.7
8.3
5.8
4.7
11.0
7.4
16.1
7.4
7.1
7.9
4.9
7.7
5.8
4.6
13.3
7.2
15.2
7.3
7.1
7.6
4.1
7.9
5.7
4.6
10.7
7.3
16.2
7.0
6.5
7.9
4.8
7.9
5.7
4.5
12.0
7.7
16.3
7.9
7.7
8.3
4.2
8.5
6.0
4.7
11.0
8.1
17.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
4.8
8.4
6.2
4.7
13.4
8.4
17.8
9.4
9.5
9.3
5.5
8.6
6.1
5.2
14.1
9.1
18.1
11.0
11.8
9.6
6.0
8.9
6.4
5.0
14.8
8.8
18.7
10.4
11.0
9.5
6.4
8.7
5.9
4.8
16.2
9.0
18.1
10.6
11.3
9.5
5.9
9.0
6.5
5.2
12.8
9.5
17.9
10.8
10.8
10.8
5.6
10.3
6.9
4.9
14.0
9.9
19.4
11.3
11.9
10.5
7.0
10.1
7.0
5.3
14.6
CHARACTERISTIC
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 workers2 .
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing ..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities....................
Wholesale and retail trade ............................
Finance and service industries........................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers....................
1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
Digitized 76
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Includes mining, not shown separately,
5.
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Annual average
1981
Sex and age
1980
1981
Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years..............................................
16 to 17 years........................................
18 to 19 years........................................
20 to 24 years..............................................
25 years and over ........................................
25 to 54 years........................................
55 years and over..................................
7.1
17.8
20.0
16.2
11.5
5.1
5.5
3.3
7.6
19.6
21.4
18.4
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.6
7.3
19.0
21.6
17.2
12.0
5.1
5.4
3.4
7.5
19.4
21.3
17.7
12.6
5.2
5.6
3.4
7.4
19.2
22.6
17.5
12.1
5.3
5.6
3.5
7.2
18.7
19.8
17.8
11.5
5.2
5.5
3.5
Men, 16 years and over ................................
16 to 19 years........................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years........................................
25 years and ove r..................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over ............................
6.9
18.3
20.4
16.7
12.5
4.8
5.1
3.3
7.4
20.1
22.0
18.8
13.2
5.1
5.5
3.5
6.9
19.5
22.5
17.4
13.0
4.6
4.9
3.2
7.3
20.0
22.3
18.0
13.8
4.7
5.1
3.4
7.2
20.0
24.0
18.2
12.9
5.0
5.2
3.4
Women, 16 years and over............................
16 to 19 years........................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years........................................
25 years and o ve r..................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over............................
7.4
17.2
19.6
15.6
10.4
5.5
6.0
3.2
7.9
19.0
20.7
17.9
11.2
5.9
6.3
3.8
7.7
18.4
20.5
17.1
10.9
5.7
6.1
3.7
7.8
18.7
20.2
17.4
11.2
5.8
6.4
3.4
7.7
18.4
21.1
16.8
11.2
5.7
6.1
3.5
6.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1982
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
7.3
19.0
20.8
17.6
12.1
5.2
5.5
3.5
7.6
19.7
21.4
18.5
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.8
8.0
20.4
21.5
20.0
12.7
5.7
6.2
3.8
8.3
21.4
22.6
20.5
13.0
6.0
6.5
3.8
8.8
21.5
21.9
21.2
13.5
6.5
6.9
4.1
8.5
21.7
21.9
21.3
13.5
6.3
6.7
4.2
8.8
22.3
22.7
22.0
14.1
6.4
6.8
4.3
9.0
21.9
22.7
21.3
14.2
6.8
7.3
4.6
9.4
23.0
24.6
21.9
14.7
7.0
7.4
5.0
6.7
18.8
19.9
17.9
11.6
4.7
5.0
3.4
7.1
19.8
21.5
18.3
12.9
4.9
5.2
3.4
7.3
19.9
21.5
18.7
13.1
5.0
5.5
3.5
7.7
20.1
21.1
19.3
13.8
5.5
5.9
3.7
8.3
21.8
22.7
21.0
14.4
5.8
6.3
3.7
9.0
22.3
22.6
22.2
14.8
6.5
6.9
4.4
8.6
22.1
23.0
21.4
14.9
6.3
6.7
4.3
8.7
22.5
23.0
22.1
15.4
6.3
6.7
4.2
9.0
23.5
24.3
22.9
15.7
6.6
7.1
4.8
9.4
24.4
24.7
24.3
16.0
6.9
7.2
5.1
7.8
18.6
19.7
17.7
11.3
5.8
6.1
3.7
7.7
18.2
20.0
16.9
11.1
5.6
6.0
3.7
8.0
19.5
21.2
18.3
11.4
6.0
6.3
4.3
8.2
20.7
21.9
20.6
11.5
6.1
6.5
4.0
8.4
20.9
22.5
19.9
11.3
6.4
6.8
3.8
8.5
20.5
21.1
20.0
12.0
6.4
6.9
3.7
8.4
21.2
20.6
21.1
11.9
6.3
6.7
4.1
8.9
22.1
22.5
21.9
12.7
6.5
7.0
4.3
9.0
20.1
20.8
19.6
12.6
7.0
7.6
4.3
9.4
21.3
24.5
19,4
13.3
7.2
7.7
4.8
Mar.
Apr.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1981
Reason for unemployment
1982
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
3,958
1,303
2,655
903
2,044
988
4,032
1,357
2,675
1,004
2,106
956
4,173
1,302
2,871
896
2,039
973
3,867
1,225
2,642
926
2,078
940
4,106
1,276
2,830
879
2,034
971
4,426
1,452
2,974
921
2,058
977
4,573
1,631
2,942
976
2,178
1,002
4,905
1,826
3,079
916
2,339
996
5,343
2,042
3,301
923
2,244
1,021
5,205
1,860
3,345
835
2,079
1,055
5,153
1,740
3,413
964
2,277
1,100
5,622
1,828
3,794
885
2,249
1,044
5,906
1,946
3,959
937
2,365
1,081
100.0
50.1
16.5
33.6
11.4
25.9
12.5
100.0
49.8
16.8
33.0
12.4
26.0
11.8
100.0
51.6
16.1
35.5
11.1
25.2
12.0
100.0
49.5
15.7
33.8
11.9
26.6
12.0
100.0
51.4
16.0
35.4
11.0
25.5
12.2
100.0
52.8
17.3
35.5
11.0
24.6
11.7
100.0
52.4
18.7
33.7
11.2
25.0
11.5
100.0
53.6
19.9
33.6
10.0
25.5
10.9
100.0
56.1
21.4
34.6
9.7
23.5
10.7
100.0
56.7
20.3
36.5
9.1
22.7
11.5
100.0
54.3
18.3
35.9
10.2
24.0
11.6
100.0
57.4
18.7
38.7
9.0
22.9
10.7
100.0
57.4
18.9
38.5
9.1
23.0
10.5
3.7
.8
1.9
.9
3.7
.9
1.9
.9
3.8
.8
1.9
9
3.6
.9
1.9
.9
3.8
.8
1.9
.9
4.1
.8
1.9
.9
4.2
.9
2.0
.9
4.5
.8
2.1
.9
4.9
.8
2.1
.9
4.8
.8
1.9
1.0
4.7
.9
2.1
1.0
5.1
.8
2.1
1.0
5.4
.9
2.2
1.0
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last jo b ....................................................................................
On layoff......................................................................................
Other job losers........................................................................
Left last job ........................................................................................
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]
Annual average
1981
Weeks of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks ..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over..............................................
15 to 26 weeks ............................................
27 weeks and over........................................
Average (mean) duration, in weeks ......................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1982
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
3,295
2,470
1,871
1,052
820
11.9
3,449
2,539
2,285
1,122
1,162
13.7
3,189
2,472
2,187
1,048
1,139
13.7
3,378
2,606
2,231
1,061
1,170
13.3
3,303
2,423
2,363
1,227
1,136
14.3
3,323
2,312
2,170
1,096
1,074
14.1
3,326
2,469
2,217
1,078
1,139
14.3
3,529
2,585
2,248
1,146
1,102
13.7
3,707
2,686
2,292
1,166
1,126
13.6
3,852
2,882
2,364
1,229
1,135
13.1
4,037
3,016
2,372
1,189
1,183
12.8
3,852
3,068
2,399
1,210
1,190
13.5
3,789
3,052
2,724
1,445
1,278
14.1
3,825
3,078
2,954
1,605
1,349
13.9
3,958
3,304
3,015
1,508
1,507
14.2
77
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including 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 12-17 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 services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change, using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The Hourly Earnings Index
is calculated from average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude
the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated to underlying
wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manu
facturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and
the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of work
ers in high-wage and low-wage industries.
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.
Notes on the data
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 June 1981 data, published in the August 1981 issue of the Re
view. Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through March 1981 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through March 1981) and in Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. See also BLS
Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1976).
8.
Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Year
Total
Mining
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insur
ance,
and real
estate
Services
Government
Total
Federal
State
and local
1950
1955
I9601
1964
1965
45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765
901
792
712
634
632
2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232
15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062
4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036
9,386
10,535
11,391
12,160
12,716
2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466
6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250
1,888
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977
5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036
6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074
1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378
4,098
4,727
6,083
7,248
7,696
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
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
1980
,
.
.
.
.
79,382
82,471
86,697
89,823
90,564
779
813
851
958
1,020
3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,399
18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,300
4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,143
17,755
18,516
19,542
20,192
20,386
4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,281
13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,104
4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,168
14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,901
14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,249
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866
12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,383
1981 .
91,543
1,104
4,307
20,261
5,151
20,738
5,343
15,395
5,331
18,598
16,054
2,772
13,282
’ Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959,
9.
Employment by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State
Mar. 1981
Feb. 1982
Mar. 1982»
Alabama ....................................
Alaska ........................................
Arizona .................................
Arkansas ...........................
California........................................
1,350.5
165.5
1,044.9
738.7
9,952.0
1,338.4
171.6
1,049.4
717.8
10,004.4
1,332.8
175.7
1,050.2
722.0
10,034.7
Colorado ......................................
Connecticut .................................
Delaware.............................
District of Columbia......................
Florida...............................................
1,271.5
1,422.9
254.8
612.5
3,739.9
1,274.8
1,409.6
248.0
598.9
3,816.1
Georgia ....................................
Hawaii ..........................................
Idaho.............................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana.................................................
2,186.3
407.7
324.8
4,711.7
2,110.9
Iowa ....................................
Kansas ...............................................
K entucky...............................
Louisiana....................................
Maine ...........................
M aryland...........................
Massachusetts......................
Michigan ..................
Minnesota ...............................
Mississippi ......................
Missouri........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State
Mar. 1981
Feb. 1982
Mar. 1982»
Montana.................................................
Nebraska............................................................
Nevada ........................................................
New Hampshire ....................................
New Jersey .................................................
276.3
615.3
404.2
382.6
3,036.7
288.9
610.1
412.3
386.3
3,025.7
288.5
611.5
413.8
386.8
3,036.5
1,279.1
1,413.9
253.6
599.4
3,830.3
New M exico........................................................
New Y o rk...................................................
North Carolina ......................................
North Dakota ...............................................
Ohio ..............................................................
470.6
7 197 7
2,384.7
240.9
4,289.4
471.2
7 20? 8
2,344.3
245.2
4,171.8
472.7
2,342.9
246.8
4,198.8
2,160.7
402.2
313.4
4,614.3
2,021.0
2,159.9
403.3
314.5
4,625.6
2,025,4
Oklahoma .................................................
Oregon ..........................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................
Rhode Island .............................................
South Carolina .................................................
1,178.4
1,019.8
4,693.4
394.3
1,193.6
1,201.7
970.1
4,573.7
387.2
1,176.3
1,214.5
970.6
4,578.8
386.9
1,179.7
1,091.3
946.7
1,190.9
1,602.7
406.2
1,049.3
933.4
1,166.2
1,627.0
399.7
1,046.5
940.6
1,169.0
1,629.9
398.9
South D a kota ...............................................
Tennessee ...............................
Texas ..........................................................
Utah .................................................................
Vermont.................................................
232.5
1,743.5
6,055.8
549.8
200.3
228.3
1,708.7
6,283.6
556.7
200.7
229.2
1,771,8
6,290.6
559.6
200.3
1,706.5
2,639.2
3,375.1
1,737.9
817.2
1,950.3
1,653.2
2,589.4
3,218.2
1,710.1
808.6
1,920.3
1,662.6
2,606.3
3,227.4
1,715.4
809.4
1,939.8
Virginia...................................................
Washington ...............................................
West Virginia ........................................
Wisconsin........................................
Wyoming .................................................
2,140.0
1,602.0
630.0
1,884.0
211.2
2,139.1
1,538.1
607.7
1,859.1
208.7
2,145.2
1,548.0
610.1
1,857.3
211.4
38.1
36.6
36.6
Virgin Islands ...................................................
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1982
1981
Annual average
Industry division and group
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P
Apr.p
TOTAL ................................................................
90,564
91,543
91,337
91,848
92,481
91,600
91,598
92,159
92,424
92,293
91,932
89,799
89,945
90,192
90,451
MINING .....................................................................
1,020
1,104
941
957
1,132
1,155
1,169
1,169
1,164
1,170
1,166
1,149
1,145
1,144
1,141
CONSTRUCTION .....................................................
4,399
4,307
4,246
4,356
4,477
4,554
4,579
4,516
4,493
4,369
4,155
3,721
3,703
3,769
3,869
20,300
14,223
20,261
14,083
20,253
14,127
20,342
14,195
20,531
14,325
20,337
14,108
20,473
14,230
20,600
14,376
20,368
14,147
20,122
13,904
19,804
13,583
19,462
13,276
19,410
13,243
19,315
13,168
19,182
13,057
Production workers..................................
12,181
8,438
12,136
8,316
12,197
8,412
12,235
8,438
12,334
8,500
12,198
8,347
12,188
8,323
12,292
8,440
12,163
8,313
11,999
8,153
11,786
7,941
11,589
7,763
11,536
7,729
11,482
7,686
11,384
7,598
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 ..........................
690.3
468.8
665.6
1,144.1
1,609.0
2,497.0
2,103.2
1,875.3
708.5
419.3
679.3
476.6
650.2
1,128.2
1,583.6
2,512.6
2,133.9
1,837.8
718.0
415.3
686.9
478,0
652.6
1,149.9
1,593.7
2,506.1
2,129.7
1,874.3
714.4
411.3
703.4
479.0
659.7
1,147.5
1,596.1
2,508.6
2,134.7
1,877.4
715.2
413.4
711.0
480.5
671.0
1,155.5
1,606.8
2,531.3
2,152.7
1,882.7
723.2
419.5
708.6
472.0
666.7
1,135.5
1,584.5
2,517.4
2,138.9
1,840.3
722.1
412.3
701.5
480.6
669.1
1,140.3
1,590.9
2,511.4
2,146.1
1,799.6
726.2
421.8
691.0
484.7
664.5
1,138.8
1,607.5
2,540.7
2,164.8
1,848.3
723.1
428.7
664.5
483.5
652.8
1,109.3
1,584.2
2,528.4
2,158.3
1,832.3
720.0
429.9
638.7
476.5
641.2
1,087.8
1,563.5
2,512.3
2,131.3
1,803.0
718.6
426.2
618.8
471.1
619.6
1,058.0
1,532.8
2,495.4
2,104.1
1,755.7
718.0
412.2
602.4
463.2
589.1
1,041.7
1,502.3
2,465.0
2,099.3
1,719.4
710.8
395.3
610.3
459.7
584.5
1,025.0
1,494.5
2,457.7
2,088.1
1,712.6
707.3
396.5
609.8
455.1
588.8
1,013.8
1,483.9
2,429,1
2,074.8
1,723.8
706.1
397.2
613.5
451.7
593.7
998.6
1,466.8
2,393.6
2,071.9
1,696.8
703.9
393.2
Production workers..................................
8,118
5,786
8,125
5,766
8,056
5,715
8,107
5,757
8,197
5,825
8,139
5,761
8,285
5,907
8,308
5,936
8,205
5,834
8,123
5,751
8,018
5,642
7,873
5,513
7,874
5,514
7,833
5,482
7,798
5,459
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 ..........................
1,710.8
69.2
852.7
1,265.8
694.0
1,258.3
1,107.4
196.6
730.7
232.6
1,684.1
71.1
839.3
1,255.8
692.3
1,288.0
1,107.3
210.8
744.4
232.3
1,631.0
66.2
841.6
1,255.2
690,9
1,280.4
1,106.2
209.5
743.5
231.7
1,648.1
65.2
844.3
1,265.9
693.1
1,281.8
1,110.3
212.9
749.2
235.9
1,673.4
66.4
851.0
1,283.9
701.0
1,286.2
1,121.1
215.4
759.0
239.1
1,714.8
66.3
836.5
1,231.1
696.4
1,286.5
1,116.6
216.1
747.0
227.5
1,773.2
75.6
847.3
1,276.8
700.3
1,289.4
1,112.0
215.4
756.8
238.6
1,776.1
77.7
850.2
1,287.3
702.0
1,294.1
1,110.5
212.7
760.8
237.0
1,729.0
77.0
834.3
1,274.1
691.4
1,299.7
1,104.4
211.4
748.2
235.7
1,689.2
74.9
826.8
1,259.5
686.4
1,305.1
1,100.2
210.4
738.6
232.1
1,657.3
73.3
816.5
1,224.4
681.7
1,312.5
1,096.3
206.8
726.4
223.1
1,613.3
72.2
795.5
1,189.8
674.9
1,300.9
1,088.0
199.0
720.4
218.5
1,613.1
68.8
795.1
1,208.5
671.4
1,304.6
1,086.5
197.5
715.8
212.2
1,608.4
65.4
777.2
1,199.0
671.0
1,306.9
1,087.4
198.4
708.5
210.5
1,591.9
63.0
785.1
1,181.4
667.1
1,305.3
1,081.9
199.2
709.6
213.0
5,143
5,151
5,120
5,148
5,195
5,177
5,175
5,222
5,204
5,183
5,153
5,063
5,049
5,047
5,059
20,386
20,738
20,513
20,672
20,795
20,735
20,811
20,919
20,999
21,148
21,413
20,682
20,538
20,590
20,697
5,370
5,381
5,379
5,352
5,294
5,284
5,284
5,285
MANUFACTURING
Production workers..................................
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE ...............................................
5,281
5,343
5,317
5,335
5,381
5,376
5,386
RETAIL TRADE..........................................................
15,104
15,395
15,196
15,337
15,414
15,359
15,425
15,549
15,618
15,769
16,061
15,388
15,254
15,306
15,412
5,408
5,361
5,349
5,344
5,350
5,329
5,328
5,345
5,350
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICES
GOVERNMENT ..........................................................
Federal..........................................................
State and local ..............................................
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5,168
5,331
5,295
5,326
5,384
5,408
17,901
18,598
18,512
18,633
18,764
18,847
18,835
18,812
18,826
18,800
18,762
18,506
18,666
18,793
18,990
16,203
2,825
13,378
15,387
2,833
12,554
15,148
2,803
12,345
15,560
2,735
12,825
16,021
2,737
13,284
16,157
2,729
13,428
16,129
2,729
13,400
15,887
2,717
13,170
16,106
2,723
13,383
16,189
2,721
13,468
16,163
2,722
13,441
16,249
2,866
13,383
16,054
2,772
13,282
16,457
2,773
13,684
16,414
2,782
13,632
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1981
1982
Industry division and group
TOTAL
MINING
CONSTRUCTION .................................
MANUFACTURING .................................
Production workers................................................
Durable goods
Production workers..........................................
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 ..............................
Nondurable goods
Production workers..............................
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 ..........................................................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ..................
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRA DE........................................................
WHOLESALE TRADE ..........................................
Apr.
May
91,458
950
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.e
91,564
91,615
91,880
91,901
92,033
91,832
91,522
91,113
90,879
91,019
90,760
90,593
957
1,110
1,132
1,151
1,162
1,162
1,172
1,175
1,166
1,165
1,159
1,151
4,418
4,334
4,284
4,272
4,275
4,272
4,259
4,229
4,193
4,085
4,165
4,110
4,026
20,332
14,187
20,414
14,247
20,424
14,245
20,535
14,327
20,505
14,294
20,496
14,281
20,241
14,030
20,017
13,797
19,736
13,514
19,550
13,342
19,506
13,316
19,340
13,188
19,258
13,113
12,207
8,412
12,254
8,442
12,278
8,455
12,333
8,491
12,332
8,485
12,311
8,465
12,115
8,267
11,932
8,083
11,714
7,868
11,596
7,758
11,559
7,740
11,458
7,661
11,393
7,596
702
478
656
1,145
1,595
2,491
2,134
1,878
714
414
710
484
658
1,142
1,604
2,511
2,143
1,872
716
414
699
486
658
1,144
1,604
2,521
2,148
1,886
717
415
702
488
658
1,140
1,614
2,533
2,163
1,886
723
426
686
487
660
1,148
1,610
2,542
2,166
1,889
727
417
677
485
655
1,139
1,606
2,551
2,163
1,889
727
419
652
480
644
1,114
1,575
2,549
2,150
1,811
723
417
634
470
634
1,090
1,546
2,522
2,119
1,783
719
415
619
464
622
1,058
1,516
2,488
2,089
1,725
717
416
615
458
607
1,042
1,501
2,455
2,093
1,706
711
408
625
622
454
450
605
600
1,027 ' 1,013
1,493
1,479
2,441
2,405
2,084
2,073
1,719
1,712
708
705
403
399
627
452
597
995
1,468
2,379
2,076
1,700
703
396
8,125
5,775
8,160
5,805
8,146
5,790
8,202
5,836
8,173
5,809
8,185
5,816
8,126
5,763
8,085
5,714
8,022
5,646
7,954
5,584
7,947
5,576
7,882
5,527
7,865
5,517
1,697
72
842
1,250
691
1,280
1,107
211
744
231
1,703
71
843
1,258
694
1,283
1,109
213
753
233
1,673
71
846
1,264
695
1,284
1,111
212
757
232
1,691
71
856
1,278
696
1,290
1,110
212
760
238
1,668
73
849
1,272
698
1,295
1,106
212
764
236
1,669
71
849
1,273
703
1,301
1,112
211
760
236
1,675
70
833
1,259
691
1,302
1,108
210
744
234
1,676
70
823
1,251
686
1,302
1,104
210
733
230
1,669
70
812
1,233
682
1,302
1,100
208
722
224
1,663
71
795
1,210
678
1,301
1,093
203
718
222
1,677
70
793
1,212
673
1,303
1,092
201
712
214
1,665
69
775
1,192
671
1,304
1,088
201
706
211
1,657
68
785
1,177
667
1,305
1,083
201
710
212
5,161
5,148
5,149
5,167
5,170
5,186
5,168
5,147
5,122
5,124
5,105
5,088
5,100
20,636
20,714
20,717
20,796
20,862
20,872
20,916
20,838
20,735
20,849
20,934
20,892
20,853
5,333
5,346
5,349
5,360
5,375
5,370
5,360
5,363
5,336
5,321
5,321
5,305
5,301
15,303
15,368
15,368
15,436
15,487
15,502
15,556
15,475
15,399
15,528
15,613
15,587
15,552
5,316
5,326
5,331
5,344
5,354
5,366
5,360
5,355
5,366
5,361
5,366
5,377
5,371
SERVICES
18,475
18,540
18,560
18,642
18,667
18,774
18,788
18,838
18,856
18,845
18,893
18,887
18,952
GOVERNMENT
16,170
2,767
13,403
16,131
2,779
13,352
16,040
2,781
13,259
15,992
2,777
13,215
15,917
2,770
13,147
15,905
2,765
13,140
15,938
2,759
13,179
15,926
2,748
13,178
15,930
2,741
13,189
15,899
2,742
13,157
15,885
2,739
13,146
15,907
2,729
13,178
15,882
2,717
13,165
RETAIL TRADE.............................................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ..................
Federal......................................................................
State and local ....................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
12.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
Construction
Mining
Total private
Average
weekly
hours
1950 ..................
1955 ..................
I960’ ................
1964 ..................
1965 ..................
$53.13
67.72
80.67
91.33
95.45
39.8
39.6
38.6
38.7
38.8
$1.335
1.71
2.09
2.36
2.46
$67.16
89.54
105.04
117.74
123.52
37.9
40.7
40.4
41.9
42.3
$1.772
2.20
2.60
2.81
2.92
$69.68
90.90
112.67
132.06
138.38
37.4
37.1
36.7
37.2
37.4
$1.863
2.45
3.07
3.55
3.70
$58.32
75.30
89.72
102.97
107.53
40.5
40.7
39.7
40.7
41.2
$1.440
1.85
2.26
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
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
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66
273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
396.14
42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.2
6.46
6.94
7.67
849
9.17
283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.04
36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0
7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.92
209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27
1981..................
255.20
35.2
7.25
438.62
43.6
10.06
395.60
36.8
10.75
317.60
39.8
7.98
Transportation and public
utilities
1950
1955
I9601
1964 ..................
1965 ..................
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
Wholesale and retail trade
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
$44.55
55 16
66 01
74.66
76.91
Services
40 5
39.4
38 6
37.9
37.7
$1.100
1.40
1.71
1.97
2.04
$50.52
63.92
75.14
85.79
88.91
37.7
37.6
37.2
37.3
37.2
$1.340
1.70
2.02
2.30
2.39
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
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
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
256.71
278.90
302.80
325.58
351.25
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87
133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
176.46
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.2
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48
155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.24
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2
4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.78
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85
1981 ..................
382.97
39.4
9.72
190.35
32.1
5.93
228.69
36.3
6.30
208.97
32.6
6.41
1Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
Digitized 82
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
\
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
13.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1981
1982
Industry division and group
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
35.1
35.2
33.9
34.7
34.7
34.6
35.3
35.2
35.2
35.2
35.4
35.6
35.6
35.0
35.1
M IN IN G ........................
43.2
43.6
43.6
43.8
42.1
43.5
44.1
43.8
44.5
44.3
44.7
42.8
43.5
43.7
43.1
CONSTRUCTION...................................................
37.0
36.8
36.9
36.9
37.2
37.7
37.3
35.7
37.5
37.0
37.0
33.2
35.7
36.9
36.2
MANUFACTURING .................................
39.7
2.8
39.8
2.8
39.7
2.6
40.1
2.9
40.2
3.0
39.6
2.8
39.8
3.0
39.5
2.9
39.7
2.8
39.6
2.6
39.9
2.6
37.1
2.2
39.2
2.3
39.1
2.3
38.7
2.1
Overtime hours......................................
40.1
2.8
40.2
2.8
40.3
2.7
40.6
3.0
40.6
3.0
39.9
2.8
40.2
2.9
39.8
2.8
40.1
2.7
40.0
2.5
40.4
2.6
37.7
2.1
39.7
2.2
39.6
2.2
39.1
2.0
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
38.6
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4
38.7
38.4
40.6
40.5
40.3
39.1
38.2
40.9
41.2
40.2
39.6
38.5
41.1
40.9
40.7
39.5
38.9
41.2
40.9
40.8
38.7
37.8
40.8
40.3
39.9
39.0
38.6
41.0
40.3
40.3
37.9
37.7
40.6
40.8
39.6
38.2
38.6
40.5
39.6
40.1
37.6
38.1
40.5
39.7
40.0
38.1
38.9
40.1
39.6
40.4
33.7
32.3
37.4
38.4
37.8
37.6
37.4
39.2
39.6
39.4
37.7
37.6
39.7
38.9
39.5
37.5
37.1
39.8
38.4
38.9
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment ..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
41.0
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7
40.9
39.9
40.9
40.4
38.9
40.8
39.8
41.0
39.9
38.6
41.2
40.1
41.6
40.3
38.9
41.1
40.2
41.3
40.4
39.0
40.4
39.7
40.7
39.9
38.5
40.7
40.0
40.5
40.4
39.0
40.4
39.7
39.9
40.4
38.7
40.6
39.9
40.9
40,4
39.3
40.9
39.8
40.8
40.8
39.5
41.5
40.3
41.4
40.7
39.1
39.1
38.1
38.4
38.6
36.7
40.7
39.8
40.5
40.0
38.5
40.4
39.6
40.5
40.1
38.7
39.7
39.1
40.6
39.3
38.3
Overtime hours......................................
39.0
2.8
39.2
2.8
38.9
2.6
39.4
2.9
39.5
2.9
39.1
2.8
39.4
3.0
39.1
3.1
39.1
2.9
39.1
2.8
39.2
2.6
36.2
2.4
38.6
2.5
38.4
2.4
38.0
2.3
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products..................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.7
38.1
40.1
35.4
42.3
39.7
38.8
39.7
35.7
42.5
39.3
37.2
39.4
35.2
42.3
39.8
38.6
40.3
36.0
42.5
39.8
38.5
40.4
36.4
42.7
39.6
38.6
39.7
36.0
42.4
40.0
40.7
40.0
36.3
42.5
39.8
40.2
38.9
35.2
43.2
39.6
39.4
39.4
35.8
42.4
39.9
38.8
39.2
35.8
42.3
40.4
38.1
38.6
35.5
42.7
38.8
36.1
31.2
30.0
41.3
39.7
38.3
38.1
35.2
42.0
39.2
37.0
37.7
35.1
41.7
38.9
36.7
37.0
34.5
41.9
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..
Leather and leather products ........................
37.1
41.5
41.8
40.1
36.7
37.3
41.6
43.2
40.4
36.8
37.0
41.6
43.9
40.4
36.3
37.3
41.6
43.6
40.9
37.4
37.2
41.6
43.5
40.9
38.1
37.2
41.5
43.7
40.0
36.6
37.5
41.4
43.0
40.4
36.9
37.4
42.2
44.4
39.8
36.0
37.2
41.5
43.1
40.2
36.7
37.3
41.7
43.0
39.9
36.6
37.9
41.8
42.6
40.1
36.4
36.2
40.8
43.1
37.9
33.3
37.0
41.1
42.2
39.9
35.3
37.1
40.8
42.4
39.7
35.5
36.5
40.5
42.6
39.4
35.2
39.6
39.4
39.3
39.3
39.8
39.8
39.5
39.2
39.1
39.3
39.3
38.4
39.2
38.9
39.0
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ......................
32.2
32.1
32.1
32.0
32.3
32.8
32.8
32.2
31.9
31.9
32.2
31.1
31.5
31.5
31.5
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.5
38.6
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.8
38.7
38.5
38.7
38.6
38.7
37.8
38.2
38.2
38.1
RETAIL TRADE ........................................................
30.2
30.1
30.0
29.9
30.4
30.9
30.9
30.2
29.8
29.8
30.3
29.0
29.4
29.4
29.5
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.1
36.1
36.3
36.3
36.0
36.2
36.2
36.2
36.2
36.2
36.2
36.1
SERVICES..............................................................
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.7
33.0
32.9
32.4
32.5
32.5
32.6
32.3
32.5
32.5
32.5
TOTAL PRIVATE...............................................
Overtime hours....................................
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
14.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1982
1981
Industry division and group
Mar.p
Apr.p
35.0
34.9
34.8
39.5
2.4
39.0
2.3
39.1
2.4
37.9
2.2
39.9
2.2
39.4
2.1
39.6
2.2
37.6
37.7
39.5
39.2
39.2
34.6
32.6
38.3
38.4
37.9
38.2
37.6
40.2
39.6
39.6
37.9
37.4
39.8
38.8
39.3
38.0
37.7
40.1
38.4
39.6
40.6
39.3
40.3
40.3
39.0
40.3
39.2
39.4
39.9
38.4
39.0
38.1
38.7
38.6
36.9
40.7
39.8
40.9
40.0
38.7
40.1
39.4
40.4
40.0
38.5
40.2
39.5
41.6
39.5
38.6
39.0
2.8
38.8
2.7
38.6
2.4
36.4
2.4
38.9
2.6
38.5
2.5
38.4
2.6
39.2
38.9
35.2
43.1
39.5
39.3
35.7
42.4
39.6
38.8
35.6
41.9
39.8
37.8
35.1
41.8
39.1
31.3
30.7
41.2
40.3
38.1
35.4
42.2
39.8
37.5
35.0
41.7
39.7
37.4
34.8
42.2
37.3
41.7
42.8
40.6
36.9
37.1
42.3
43.3
39.6
36.1
37.1
41.5
42.1
40.0
36.8
36.9
41.3
42.3
39.6
36.7
37.2
41.3
42.6
39.4
36.1
36.5
40.8
44.3
37.8
33.6
37.4
41.2
43.5
40.0
35.5
37.1
40.7
43.4
39.5
35.8
36.8
40.4
42.8
39.7
35.4
32.1
32.1
31.9
32.0
31.9
31.6
31.9
31.8
31.8
38.7
38.6
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.4
38.0
38.5
38.3
38.2
30.1
30.1
30.1
29.9
29.9
29.9
29.6
29.9
29.8
29.8
32.4
32.4
32.5
32.6
32.7
32.5
32.7
32.7
32.7
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
35.2
34.9
35.0
35.0
34.9
34.2
40.0
3.0
39.3
2.7
39.5
2.7
39.3
2.5
39.0
2.4
37.3
2.3
40.5
3.0
39.7
2.6
39.9
2.6
39.7
2.4
39.3
2.4
38.8
38.5
40.9
40.5
40.5
38.6
38.6
40.8
40.7
40.5
37.3
37.5
40.3
40.6
39.5
37.6
38.1
40.0
39.8
40.0
37.5
37.7
40.0
39.7
39.6
41.1
40.2
41.4
40.4
39.1
41.1
40.5
41.2
40.5
39.2
41.2
40.4
41.3
40.8
39.1
40.3
39.6
39.9
40.5
38.4
40.7
39.9
40.5
40.4
39.0
39.6
3.1
39.4
3.0
39.3
2.9
39.3
2.9
38.9
2.8
40.1
39.8
35.5
42.6
40.0
40.5
36.0
42.8
39.8
40.2
36.1
42.7
39.4
40.4
35.9
42.7
39.4
40.3
36.1
42.7
37.3
41.5
44.1
40.7
36.6
37.6
41.7
43.8
41.3
37.1
37.4
41.7
43.4
41.0
37.1
37.3
41.8
43.1
40.5
36.5
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.3
32.1
32.1
32.2
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.6
38.5
38.5
RETAIL TRADE
30.3
30.1
30.1
SERVICES
32.8
32.7
32.5
32.5
Apr.
May
June
July
35.4
35.3
35.2
35.3
40.2
2.9
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.0
40.0
3.0
Overtime hours............................................
40.8
3.0
40.8
3.2
40.5
3.0
40.5
3.0
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures ..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
39.6
38.8
41.2
41.2
40.9
39.8
39.0
41.0
41.0
40.9
39.0
38.9
40.8
40.8
40.7
Machinery, except electrical ................................
Electric and electronic equipment ........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
41.3
40.2
42.0
40.1
38.9
41.4
40.4
41.8
40.4
39.2
Overtime hours............................................
39.3
2.9
Food and kindred products..................................
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 ..............................
TOTAL PRIVATE...................................................
MANUFACTURING
Overtime hours............................................
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
N ote : The industry divisions of mining; construction; tobacco manufactures (a major
manufacturing group, nondurable goods); transportation and public utilities; and finance, insurance,
and real estate are no longer shown. This is because the seasonal component in these is
Digitized for
84 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Aug.
small relative to the trend-cycle, or irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be precisely
separated,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1981
1982
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE.................................
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr. p
$6.66
$7.25
$7.13
$7.17
$7.20
$7.24
$7.30
$7.40
$7.42
$7.46
$7.45
$7.55
$7.55
$7.54
$7.56
M IN IN G ................
9.17
10.06
9.70
9.68
9.94
10.11
10.15
10.29
10.28
10.42
10.43
10.68
10.65
10.64
10.68
CONSTRUCTION.........
9.92
10.75
10.43
10.53
10.60
10.74
10.87
11.02
11.10
11.12
11.19
11.56
11.28
11.30
11.22
MANUFACTURING . .
7.27
7.98
7.88
7.92
7.97
8.02
8.02
8.15
8.15
8.20
8.26
8.41
8.34
8.35
8.40
Lumber and wood products ....................
Furniture and fixtures..............................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..............
Primary metal industries..........................
Fabricated metal products ......................
7.75
6.53
5.49
7.50
9.77
7.45
8.52
7.00
5.90
8.27
10.81
8.20
8.40
6.83
5.78
8.11
10.76
8.05
8.45
6.92
5.83
8.20
10.68
8.17
8.52
7.10
5.89
8.31
10.76
8.23
8.55
7.16
5.91
8.39
10.79
8.22
8.57
7.13
5.98
8.41
10.99
8.27
8.68
7.15
6.00
8.53
11.22
8.34
8.71
7.09
6.05
8.50
10.97
8.39
8.75
7.15
6.04
8.54
11.10
8.43
8.81
7.17
6.11
8.56
11.09
8.53
8.91
7.40
6.27
8.73
11.23
8.55
8 88
7 28
6 18
8.65
11.20
8.57
8 89
7 24
6 20
8 65
11.16
8.63
8 91
7 18
6 20
8 70
11 30
8.68
Machinery, except electrical....................
Electric and electronic equipment............
Transportation equipment........................
Instruments and related products ............
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..................
8.00
6.95
9.32
6.80
5.47
8.83
7.65
10.31
7.44
5.98
8.67
7.51
10.14
7.25
5.91
8.75
7.55
10.25
7.31
5.93
8.81
7.60
10.36
7.34
5.93
8.85
7.69
10.35
7.44
5.98
8.86
7.76
10.30
7.56
5.97
8.98
7.79
10.41
7.60
6.07
9.05
7.84
10.65
7.61
6.06
9.10
7.86
10.66
7.70
6.12
9.20
7.93
10.69
7.83
6.20
9.21
8.02
10.72
7.94
6.31
9.22
8.00
10 75
7 95
6.33
9 19
8 06
1080
8 01
6.36
9 18
8 09
10 76
8 04
6.40
Food and kindred products......................
Tobacco manufactures............................
Textile mill products........
Apparel and other textile products ..........
Paper and allied products............
6.56
6.86
7.73
5.08
4.57
7.84
7.19
7.45
8.82
5.52
4.98
8.60
7.08
7.37
8.90
5.36
4.96
8.37
7.11
7.43
9.03
5.40
4.98
8.42
7.14
7.43
9.33
5.42
5.00
8.55
7.23
7.47
9.43
5.51
4.94
8.73
7.24
7.50
8.61
5.66
4.98
8.67
7.37
7.58
8.66
5.69
5.06
8.95
7.34
7.53
8.58
5.72
5.07
8.82
7.39
7.63
8.96
5.74
5.06
8.89
7.45
7.69
8.90
5.72
5.05
8.96
7.68
7.83
9.15
5.76
5.20
9.07
7.55
7.75
9.51
5 76
5 15
9.00
7.57
7 79
9 62
5 77
5 17
9.03
7 66
7 89
9 94
5 80
5 21
9.13
Printing and publishing............................
Chemicals and allied products ................
Petroleum and coal products ........
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products..................
7.53
8.30
10.09
6.56
4.58
8.20
9.12
11.37
7.25
4.99
8.04
8.94
11.40
7.15
4.93
8.10
8.99
11.28
7.22
4.95
8.13
9.07
11.29
7.23
4.98
8.22
9.16
11.41
7.28
4.96
8.27
9.19
11.31
7.32
4.97
8.40
9.38
11.53
7.38
5.08
8.42
9.37
11.46
7.39
5.09
8.44
9.42
11.57
7.41
5.10
8.50
9.52
11.58
7.48
5.14
8.61
9.68
11.90
7.62
5.18
8.60
9.68
12.27
7 59
5.21
8.63
9 66
12 20
7 55
5.22
8 67
9 79
12 45
7 63
5.23
9.96
10.07
10.08
10.15
10.19
10.14
10.19
Durable g o o d s ................
Nondurable g o o d s ...........
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . .
8.87
9.72
9.54
9.59
9.63
9.69
9.89
9.97
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ......................
5.48
5.93
5.87
5.89
5.89
5.91
5.94
6.04
6.00
6.03
6.01
6.17
6.16
6.15
6.17
WHOLESALE TRADE...........
6.96
7.58
7.47
7.51
7.51
7.59
7.67
7.71
7.74
7.81
7.83
7.95
7.95
7.94
7.97
RETAIL TR A D E ...........................
4.88
5.26
5.22
5.23
5.23
5.24
5.26
5.37
5.29
5.32
5.32
5.44
5.43
5.43
5.45
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . . .
5.78
6.30
6.20
6.24
6.24
6.27
6.37
6.38
6.42
6.51
6.46
6.57
6.62
6.60
6.64
SERVICES..................
5.85
6.41
6.30
6.33
6.33
6.34
6.41
6.51
6.57
6.67
6.66
6.79
6.79
6.77
6.79
16.
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1977=100]
1981
1982
Industry
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
f
Apr.
p
Mar. 1982
Apr. 1981
Apr. 1982
Apr. 19821
TOTAL PRIVATE (In current dollars) .
136.7
137.7
138.4
139.0
140.7
141.5
141.9
143.2
143.5
145.1
145.3
145.7
146.4
0.4
7.1
Mining2 ......................................
Construction ..............................
Manufacturing ............................
Transportation and public utilities ..
Wholesale and retail trade ..........
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services ....................................
145.7
129.0
139.9
137.3
136.4
135.4
134.8
145.6
129.4
140.7
138.9
137.4
136.8
136.0
147.2
130.4
141.6
139.8
137.8
137.1
136.6
148.9
131.8
142.5
139.3
138.4
137.4
136.9
149.4
132.5
143.6
141.8
140.0
140.4
139.4
151.5
132.9
144.8
141.7
141.2
140.3
139.8
151.3
134.3
145.5
142.0
140.5
140.9
140.7
153.3
135.4
146.4
144.0
141.5
143.2
142.6
153.2
136.2
147.0
144.4
141.9
141.8
142.7
156.0
140.8
149.0
145.8
142.3
143.4
143.6
155.9
138.2
149.1
146.5
143.0
143.9
144.0
155.8
138.3
149.8
147.2
143.2
144.9
144.2
156.8
137.8
150.8
147.1
144.0
144.9
145.1
.6
-.3
.7
-.1
.5
.4
.7
7.6
6.9
7.8
7.1
5.5
7.1
7.7
TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)
r93.1
r93.0
92.9
92.2
92.6
92.1
92.0
92.5
92.3
93.1
92.9
93.5
( 3)
(3)
(3)
1Over-the-year percent change before seasonal adjustment.
2This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trend-cycle,
irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Not available.
r=revised.
85
17.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
196 2
1981
Annual average
Industry division and group
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
1980
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Constant (1977) dollars..............................
$235.10
172.74
$255.20
170.13
$250.98
170.73
$252.38
170.18
$254.88
170.49
$257.74
170.35
$259.88
170.64
$259.00
168.40
$260.44
169.01
$261.85
169.48
$262.24
169.30
$255.95
164.70
$261.99
168.05
$261.64
168.1b
$261.58
( 1)
MINING ..............................................................
396.14
438.62
422.92
423.98
418.47
439.79
447.62
450.70
457.46
461.61
466.22
457.10
463.28
464.97
460.31
CONSTRUCTION ...............................................
367.04
395.60
384.87
388.56
394.32
404.90
405.45
393.41
416.25
411.44
414.03
383.79
402.70
416.97
406.16
288.62
212.06
317.60
211.73
312.84
212.82
317.59
214.15
320.39
214.31
317.59
209.91
319.20
209.59
321.93
209.32
323.56
209.97
324.72
210.17
329.57
212.76
312.01
200.78
326.93
209.70
326.49
209.83
325.08
(’ )
310.78
252.06
209.17
306.00
391.78
300.98
342.50
270.90
226.56
335.76
437.81
330.46
338.52
267.05
220.80
331.70
443.31
323.61
343.07
274.03
224.46
337.02
436.81
332.52
345.91
280.45
229.12
342.37
440.08
335.78
341.15
277.09
223.40
342.31
434.84
327.98
344.51
278.07
230.83
344.81
442.90
333.28
345.46
270.99
226.20
346.32
457.78
330.26
349.27
270.84
233.53
344.25
434.41
336.44
350.00
268.84
230.12
345.87
440.67
337.20
355.92
273.18
237.68
343.26
439.16
344.61
335.91
249.38
202.52
326.50
431.23
323.19
352.54
273.73
231.13
339.08
443.52
337.66
352.04
272.95
233.12
343.41
434.12
340.89
348.38
269.25
230.02
346.26
433.92
33/.65
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................
328.00
276.61
378.39
275.40
211.69
361.15
305.24
421.68
300.58
232.62
353.74
298.90
415.74
289.28
228.13
360.50
302.76
426.40
294.59
230.68
362.09
305.52
427.87
296.54
231.27
357.54
305.29
421.25
296.86
230.23
360.60
310.40
417.15
305.42
232.83
362.79
309.26
415.36
307.04
234.91
367.43
312.82
435.59
307.44
238.16
372.19
312.83
434.93
314.16
241.74
381.80
319.58
442.57
318.68
242.42
360.11
305.56
411.65
306.48
231.58
375.25
318.40
435.38
318.00
243.71
371.28
319.18
437.40
321.20
246.13
364.45
316.32
436.86
315.97
245.12
Apparel and other textile products..............
Paper and allied products ..........................
255.84
272.34
294.51
203.71
161.78
331.63
281.85
295.77
342.22
219.14
177.79
365.50
275.41
289.64
331.08
211.18
174.59
354.05
280.13
295.71
348.56
217.62
179.28
357.85
282.03
295.71
359.21
218.97
182.00
365.09
282.69
295.81
364.00
218.75
177.84
370.15
285.26
300.00
350.43
226.40
180.77
368.48
288.17
301.68
348.13
221.34
178.11
386.64
286.99
298.19
338.05
225.37
181.51
373.97
288.95
304.44
347.65
225.01
181.15
376.05
292.04
310.68
339.09
220.79
179.28
382.59
278.02
303.80
330.32
179.71
156.00
374.59
291.43
307.68
364.23
219.46
181.28
378.00
290.69
305.37
355.94
217.53
181.47
376.55
291.08
306.92
364.80
214.60
179.75
382.55
279.36
344.45
421.76
305.86
379.39
491.18
297.48
371.90
500.46
302.13
373.98
491.81
302.44
377.31
491.12
305.78
380.14
498.62
310.13
380.47
486.33
314.16
395.84
511.93
313.22
388.86
493.93
314.81
392.81
497.51
322.15
397.94
493.31
311.68
394.94
512.89
318.20
397.85
517.79
320.17
394.13
517.28
316.46
396.50
530.37
263.06
168.09
292.90
183.63
288.86
178.96
295.30
185.13
295.71
189.74
291.20
181.54
295.73
183.39
293.72
182.88
297.08
186.80
295.66
186.66
299.95
187.10
288.80
172.49
302.84
183.91
299.74
185.31
300.62
184.10
351.25
382.97
374.92
376.89
383.27
385.66
390.66
390.82
389.44
395.75
396.14
389.76
399.45
394.45
397.41
176.46
190.35
188.43
188.48
190.25
193.85
194.83
194.49
191.40
192.36
193.52
191.89
194.04
193.73
194.36
301.47
303.02
300.51
303.69
303.31
303.66
TOTAL PRIVATE:
MANUFACTURING
Constant (1977) dollars ..........................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Fabricated metal products..........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Chemicals and allied products....................
Petroleum and coal products......................
Rubber and miscellaneous
Leather and leather products......................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
.
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
267.96
292.59
287.60
289.14
289.89
294.49
296.83
296.84
299.54
RETAIL TR A D E .....................................................
147.38
158.33
156.60
156.38
158.99
161.92
162.53
162.17
157.64
158.54
161.20
157.76
159.64
159.64
160.78
233.85
237.83
239.64
238.92
239.70
217.12
219.32
220.68
220.03
220.68
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
..
SERVICES..............................................................
1Not available.
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
209.24
228.69
225.06
225.26
225.26
227.60
231.23
229.68
232.40
235.66
190.71
208.97
205.38
206.73
206.99
209.22
210.89
210.92
213.53
216.78
U N EM PLO YM ENT INSURANCE DATA
N a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled
monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of
the U.S. Department of Labor from monthly reports of unem
ployment insurance activity prepared by State agencies. Rail
road unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10
percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. 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.
Definitions
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
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.
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
18.
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
[All Items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1981
Mar.
All programs:
Insured unemployment ......................
State unemployment insurance
program:'
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:4
Initial claims......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Apr.
3,948
May
3,453
June
3,111
2,949
July
1982
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
3,012
2,874
2,680
2,753
3,228
3,935
4,681
4,723
4,892
1,684
1,647
1,417
1,741
2,114
1,610
1,681
1,996
2,286
3,272
3,328
2,272
2,416
3,382
3.9
2,988
3.4
2,691
3.1
2,596
- 3.0
2,743
3.1
2,656
3.0
2,488
2.9
2,592
3.0
3,061
3.5
3,778
4.3
4,470
5.1
4,376
5.0
4,280
4.9
13,504
11,871
9,790
9,928
10,486
9,594
9,565
9,424
10,052
14,592
15,962
15,631
18,064
$105.63
$105.96
$105.49
$99.02
$103.47
$105.94
$107.39
$1,393,612 $1,226,815 $1,006,341 $1,012,764 $1,061,899 $1,004,864 $1,001,020
$108.92
$110.52
$997,757 $1,080,810
$112.83
$114.83
$1-16.95
$117.06
$1,592,546 $1,764,206 $1,781,830 $2,062,887
18
16
15
19
22
19
15
11
9
51
46
43
42
44
44
34
26
22
19
16
13
11
234
$24,668
214
$23,048
183
$19,965
192
$21,145
203
$22,785
190
$21,425
153
$17,144
116
$12,952
91
$10,043
93
$10,155
65
$7,098
49
$5,311
48
$5,129
12
12
11
13
15
17
18
20
16
17
17
12
13
36
31
27
25
25
25
29
32
36
39
40
40
38
156
$15,561
135
$13,701
107
$11,023
105
$10,705
105
$10,805
102
$9,543
100
$10,495
112
$11,719
127
$13,491
174
$18,891
162
$18,040
154
$17,517
172
$19,628
5
6
6
26
41
13
11
8
8
10
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
paymert........................................
Total benefits paid ............................
15
21
13
19
22
11
9
44
115
41
94
35
79
30
86
28
32
29
63
34
74
40
86
44
83
54
117
75
153
67
140
65
154
$214.93
$23,233
$201.12
$19,239
$199.43
$15,428
$201.06
$16,206
$199.63
$11,541
$202.53
$7,071
$207.98
15,046
$197.26
15,994
$207.08
$16,377
$212.33
$25,292
$213.39
$30,544
$214.07
$28,011
$215.71
$33,853
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals ..........
Nonfarm placements..........................
8,778
1,595
12,868
2,446
1Initial 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
16,502
3,509
3,363
602
5,834
990
4 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs,
5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly.
N ote : Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included.
Dashes indicate data not available.
87
PRICE DATA
P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and 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 meas
ures 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.
88
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 Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the 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 Review, 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 21.)
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 Facts About the Revised Consumer Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stand
ards of living, see the family budget data published in the Handbook
of Labor Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price
Indexes, 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 BLS Handbook of Methods
for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the meas
urement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 7-15. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.
19.
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967^81
[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages
All Items
Year
Index
1967
1968
1969
1970
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Medical care
Percent
change
Index
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Percent
change
Index
Index
Percent
change
..................
..................
..................
..................
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
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248,7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8
1981 ..................
272.3
10.2
267.8
7.7
293.2
11.4
186.6
5.2
281.3
12.3
295.1
10.4
219.0
7.5
233.3
9.2
20. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1981
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1982
1981
1982
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
All item s....................................
265.1
279.9
280.7
281.5
282.5
283.4
283.1
265.2
279.7
280.4
281.1
Food and beverages ..............................................
Housing..............................................
Apparel and upkeep..............................................................
Transportation ................................................
Medical care ......................................................................
Entertainment ................................................
Other goods and services..................................................
265.0
282.6
185.1
273.5
284.7
218.2
228.7
270.3
303.5
191.5
287.2
304.8
225.5
245.2
269.9
304.2
191.3
289.1
308.2
226.8
245.9
270.5
305.2
190.5
289.8
310.2
227.3
246.7
273.6
306.1
187.3
289.9
313.4
229.2
248.4
275.8
307.3
188.0
288.0
316.2
231.2
250.3
275.6
306.7
191.1
285.1
318.8
232.8
252.2
265.5
282.2
184.3
274.4
287.0
216.1
226.8
270.7
303.3
190.6
288.9
304.0
223.4
241.4
270.3
303.8
190.5
290.8
307.1
224.3
242.5
270.8
304.7
189.4
291.5
309.1
224.4
243.5
Commodities................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables..................................................................
249.8
239.0
263.1
219.8
257.9
248.0
266.4
232.9
258.0
248.3
266.7
233.2
258.4
248.7
266.7
233.7
258.8
248.0
265.6
233.4
259.5
248.1
265.3
233.7
258.8
247.1
263.4
233.5
250.2
239.4
265.7
217.8
258.4
248.7
268.6
232.0
258.5
249.1
269.0
232.3
Services ............................................................
Rent, residential..............................................................
Household services less rent ......................................
Transportation services......................................................
Medical care services........................................
Other services........................................................
292.5
203.0
348.8
262.5
307.5
233.2
318.6
213.6
387.2
281.0
329.7
247.8
320.6
215.0
389.2
283.2
333.7
248.7
321.8
216.5
390.4
284.2
335.7
249.5
323.9
217.8
392.4
286.6
339.4
251.7
325.3
218.6
393.7
287.6
342.4
253.0
325.5
219.6
392.5
288.8
345.1
254.0
293.1
202.7
351.8
261.3
310.2
233.0
319.2
213,2
391.8
279.9
328.3
246.6
All items less food ........................................................
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..........................................
262.3
252.3
237.0
257.5
297.3
265.2
309.5
288.9
255.4
210.9
409.3
253.8
248.1
212.2
460.0
289.9
279.0
263.6
245.9
260.7
299.5
269.5
338.7
315.1
259.5
275.5
414.9
269.4
265.9
223.4
448.2
315.3
280.1
264.2
246.2
261.1
300.1
269.5
340.8
316.9
258.3
271.9
414.1
270.4
267.2
223,8
448.2
317.7
280.8
264.9
246.5
261.1
300.7
269.8
342.0
318.1
259.1
270.7
414.6
271.1
267.9
224.2
448.0
318.9
281.4
266.1
245.9
260.2
301.0
270.8
344.2
320.0
262.4
269.6
416.4
272.1
268.5
223.7
446.4
320.5
282.1
267.1
246.0
260.1
300.5
271.7
345.7
321.1
265.1
271.7
413.0
273.4
269.5
224.5
440.1
321.9
281.7
267.2
245.2
258.4
296.6
270.7
345.7
321.1
263.8
272.0
406.1
273.6
269.8
225.3
424.5
321.5
262.6
252.9
237,4
259.9
299.5
266.6
310,4
289.2
254.9
273.9
413.7
252.9
246.9
210.7
460.9
290.6
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................
$0,377
$0,357
$0,356
$0,355
$0,354
$0,353
$0,353
$0,377
Feb.
Mar.
282.1
282.9
282.5
273.9
305.6
186.5
291.6
312.0
226.1
245.0
276.0
306.7
187.3
289.6
314.9
228.1
247.1
275.9
306.2
190.5
286.6
317.4
229.5
249.3
258.8
249.3
268.9
232.7
259.3
248.7
267.8
232.4
259.9
248.6
267.5
232.5
259.1
247.5
265.3
232.4
321.1
214.5
393.6
282.3
332.0
247.2
322.4
216.0
394.8
283.6
334.0
248.0
324.3
217.4
396.5
285.9
337.5
250.0
325.5
218.1
397.7
286.7
340.6
251.3
325.8
219.1
396.6
287.9
343.0
252.4
279.1
264.0
246.6
263.0
301.5
270.7
339.7
315.8
258.6
276.5
417.9
268.3
264.8
222.6
448.9
316.0
280.1
264.6
247.0
263.4
302.0
270.7
341.6
317.5
257.8
273.2
417.3
269.2
265.9
223.0
449.0
318.2
280.7
265.2
247.2
263.3
302.5
270.9
342.9
318.7
258.2
271.9
417,6
269.9
266.6
223.3
448.7
319.5
281.3
266.4
246.6
262.4
302.6
271.9
345.0
320.5
261.4
271.1
419.0
270.9
267.1
222.8
447.0
321.0
281.7
267.2
246.6
262.2
302.0
272.8
346.3
321.6
264.0
273.1
415.4
272.1
268.0
223.6
440.7
322.2
281.3
267.3
245.6
260.2
297.8
271.6
346.4
321.6
262.7
273.3
407.9
272.3
268.3
224.5
425.0
321.8
$0,358
$0,357
$0,356
$0,354
$0,353
$0,354
Special indexes:
Note :
The correct figure for the September 1981 "All items” Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers was 279.3, not 297.3 as previously reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
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
1982
1981
1982
1981
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES ..............................................................................
265.0
270.3
269.9
270.5
273.6
275.8
275.6
265.5
270.7
270.3
270.8
273.9
276.0
275.9
Food ...............................................................................................................
272.2
277.6
277.1
277.8
281.0
283.3
283.0
272.6
277.8
277.4
277.9
281.1
283.4
283.1
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, 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) ............
268.6
266.7
145.2
138.5
146.9
148.9
139.7
232.9
137.9
140.1
140.0
139.7
129.1
141.1
272.1
275.0
150.0
139.3
156.1
151.1
144.0
238.4
141.6
144.8
143.9
145.7
133.2
144.4
271.0
276.3
149.9
138.4
157.4
149.6
144.9
241.3
142.8
145.2
145.0
146.3
133.1
144.8
271.7
277.7
151.5
137.8
160.2
151.7
145.4
241.5
143.4
145.9
144.9
147.6
134.2
145.4
275.3
279.8
153.0
139.1
163.1
151.1
146.4
243.3
143.9
146.5
147.2
148.1
133.4
146.2
278.0
280.9
154.0
139.1
164.8
152.4
146.8
243.8
143.7
146.4
147.0
149.2
135.4
147.0
277.1
281.3
153.9
139.2
165.2
151.2
147.1
242.3
145.1
148.4
148.0
149.4
135.3
146.3
268.1
266.5
146.5
139.4
148.5
150.5
139.2
231.2
140.3
138.4
139.5
140.6
129.6
140.7
271.3
274.0
151.5
140.9
157.9
152.7
142.8
235.5
143.6
141.7
141.7
146.4
134.0
144.9
270.4
275.5
152.1
140.2
158.9
153.9
143.7
237.6
144.9
141.9
143.2
146.8
133.4
145.8
270.8
276.6
152.5
138.4
162.1
152.9
144.3
237.4
145.3
141.9
143.7
148.4
135.6
147.8
274.4
278.6
153.9
139.6
165.1
152.4
145.3
239.4
145.7
142.5
145.8
148.9
134.7
148.9
277.0
279.8
155.0
139.6
166.8
153.6
145.7
240.0
145.5
142.8
145.8
150.1
136.8
149.3
276.2
280.0
154.8
139.6
167.2
152.4
146.0
238.3
147.0
144.6
146.4
150.2
136.5
148.7
141.9
148.9
149.2
149.3
151.2
151.5
153.5
137.6
142.8
143.1
143.0
144.7
144.8
146.8
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs............................................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ..............................................................
Meats ................................................................................
Beef and ve a l..................................................................
Ground beef other than canned ....................................
Chuck roast ................................................................
Round roast ................................................................
Round steak ................................................................
Sirloin steak ................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Pork................................................................................
Bacon ..........................................................................
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) ........................................
Fish and seafood ................................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 - 100)........................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)..........
Eggs ........................................................................................
250.5
256.2
254.4
270.3
269.7
284.1
243.9
256.1
259.8
157.8
221.6
218.5
209.3
98.7
281.0
236.6
124.2
258.5
257.8
147.0
128.1
144.7
201.6
203.1
131.6
127.6
358.8
138.9
135.3
180.5
256.4
262.2
262.5
274.9
267.4
287.8
245.1
259.0
273.3
163.4
238.6
240.1
223.1
109.4
298.7
241.9
134.1
261.6
261.2
147.6
131.8
143.4
196.6
194.0
129.2
127.2
360.8
140.5
135.6
185.9
254.2
259.2
259.6
271.5
266.1
282.6
245.0
256.7
262.0
161.1
235.6
238.1
217.0
108.9
298.1
243.1
131.1
260.5
259.9
146.7
132.1
141.7
192.3
190.9
127.3
122.2
358.9
141.5
133.9
194.7
253.7
258.4
258.7
270.5
264.5
282.2
242.6
254.6
260.1
161.0
234.3
237.2
212.4
109.1
299.1
244.3
130.0
260.6
261.0
146.4
132.6
140.7
191.7
190.1
128.1
120.7
359.6
140.7
134.7
198.0
253.7
259.1
257.8
269.4
262.2
279.6
241.6
257.5
258.2
160.9
234.7
235.5
219.2
107.3
297.6
245.4
129.5
258.1
256.7
145.4
132.2
138.6
194.2
193.1
128.5
123.2
373.3
140.6
143.2
189.4
256.8
261.2
260.2
271.5
265.0
285.8
245.3
256.1
257.1
161.4
238.9
245.6
222.1
107.0
300.0
246.1
133.8
258.1
258.0
146.1
131.7
137.7
195.7
196.3
128.9
123.2
373.8
140.9
143.2
205.1
256.9
262.1
261.2
271.7
265.8
284.3
243.0
258.8
260.6
161.5
239.5
249.6
216.3
109.2
305.8
247.6
132.6
262.4
260.5
149.2
133.7
141.0
194.7
195.1
127.5
123.9
376.3
141.0
144.7
195.2
249.9
255.7
254.2
272.6
272.9
295.6
248.8
253.3
264.5
156.7
221.3
221.6
206.9
96.3
282.7
237.9
124.3
256.0
257.2
144.7
126.4
146.0
200.6
200.9
130.1
128.9
351.5
136.2
132.5
180.5
256.0
261.7
262.1
275.3
268.6
297.2
250.1
254.9
275.1
161.3
239.3
245.1
221.3
107.5
302.1
244.7
134.5
260.5
262.4
146.9
130.2
145.0
194.7
189.9
129.7
126.1
358.2
140.3
134.0
187.2
254.0
258.8
259.3
272.2
268.0
292.6
248.2
254.8
260.7
159.2
235.9
242.9
216.2
106.6
299.2
247.0
130.9
259.9
260.9
145.9
130.6
144.6
190.6
188.5
126.5
121.5
356.6
141.0
132.7
196.7
253.1
257.7
257.9
270.9
265.8
291.5
245.9
252.2
260.7
159.1
233.8
240.5
211.0
106.3
300.0
247.7
129.2
259.7
260.0
146.3
130.6
143.9
189.5
187.8
126.3
119.8
358.6
140.2
134.4
198.8
253.3
258.6
257.3
270.1
263.7
288.5
244.7
256.1
258.9
159.3
234.4
239.3
217.6
104.8
298.8
249.0
128.8
257.3
256.1
145.4
130.2
141.4
192.4
190.9
126.9
123.0
372.4
140.0
143.0
190.6
256.4
260.7
259.7
272.2
266.3
295.0
248.9
254.4
257.8
159.7
238.5
249.3
220.2
104.7
301.0
249.9
133.1
257.4
257.1
146.2
129.7
141.0
193.8
194.4
127.1
122.6
373.2
140.4
143.2
206.1
256.4
261.5
260.6
272.3
266.9
293.1
245.9
256.4
262.2
159.8
238.9
253.3
214.7
106.5
306.6
251.2
131.7
261.7
260.0
149.4
131.7
144.2
192.8
192.8
125.9
123.3
375.5
140.5
144.6
196.3
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) ................................
242.6
134.3
219.9
134.4
141.1
243.0
139.8
145.3
135.1
244.6
134.7
220.2
135.2
143.3
247.2
140.9
149.9
137.0
245.0
134.9
220.8
134.9
143.5
248.0
141.1
149.3
138.7
245.5
135.2
221.2
135.3
143.9
248.7
141.0
150.3
139.7
245.8
135.1
221.2
135.1
144.4
249.3
142.0
150.8
138.4
246.5
135.5
221.5
135.8
144.8
248.9
142.8
150.0
140.0
246.5
135.3
221.7
135.1
144.9
250.1
143.3
149.5
139.5
242.7
134.1
219.4
134.5
141.8
246.4
140.0
146.1
136.1
244.2
134.4
219.5
135.2
143.6
249.7
140.7
149.9
138.1
244.7
134.6
220.1
134.9
144.0
250.2
141.1
149.4
140.2
244.9
134.6
220.2
134.9
144.2
251.3
141.3
149.4
140.5
245.2
134.6
220.2
134.7
144.7
252.0
142.3
149.9
139.1
245.8
134.9
220.5
135.5
145.1
251.4
143.1
149.1
140.8
245.9
134.8
220.8
134.6
145.3
252.7
143.6
148.9
140.3
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) ..........................
278.2
293.9
265.2
227.9
264.1
287.4
141.1
320.8
363.9
225.2
367.8
177.0
275.2
273.5
291.4
237.0
254.9
328.5
160.9
256.8
290.4
258.3
207.3
139.6
272.0
267.8
276.1
248.7
249.4
314.0
144.7
260.1
286.3
257.1
206.9
145.0
276.4
274.9
269.6
261.2
254.9
280.6
141.0
279.8
286.8
343.1
204.6
150.4
294.7
308.0
276.7
273.0
253.5
283.1
145.9
337.3
288.8
514.4
245.6
174.8
301.5
319.6
291.2
279.5
251.0
313.1
154.5
346.2
297.4
408.9
288.5
199.1
293.1
302.1
297.8
288.7
263.0
316.3
157.2
306.1
301.0
270.9
258.1
185.0
275.0
289.4
259.0
225.7
258.8
268.4
139.9
316.9
359.6
219.3
354.0
177.1
270.8
267.2
279.5
236.5
253.3
299.9
154.7
256.1
287.7
257.2
206.4
140.0
268.1
261.9
266.0
249.1
248.3
286.0
139.7
258.2
281.5
247.4
209.7
145.8
272.6
269.4
260.5
261.2
252.8
252.8
136.7
277.6
280.0
342.7
207.8
149.1
291.3
303.1
267.0
272.6
251.1
255.1
141.0
335.8
282.7
515.8
248.8
173.9
297.4
313.4
280.1
279.9
247.9
281.1
149.0
343.5
291.5
408.0
293.2
197.2
289.1
296.1
287.3
288.5
261.1
285.9
151.8
304.2
294.8
271.3
261.8
184.0
Processed fruits and vegetables ..........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)........................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ....................
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100)..................
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100)..........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) ................................
263.3
137.6
135.3
141.2
135.7
127.0
126.9
279.4
144.9
144.7
148.4
141.2
135.9
136.9
279.2
145.1
144.9
148.6
141.6
135.4
137.4
280.6
145.0
142.3
149.5
142.6
136.9
139.1
282.7
146.4
143.5
151.4
143.6
137.6
140.7
284.2
147.9
147.8
151.5
144.3
137.7
141.7
285.8
149.0
149.2
152.4
145.3
138.2
142.0
261.3
137.5
134.6
140.7
136.3
125.8
126.4
277.2
144.2
143.4
147.6
141.1
134.9
137.5
277.3
144.6
144.1
147.4
141.8
134.7
139.2
278.4
144.5
141.2
148.3
143.0
135.7
140.2
280.6
146.0
142.8
150.1
144.0
136.5
141.8
282.0
147.4
146.6
150.3
144.8
136.6
143.1
283.7
148.6
148.2
151.4
145.9
137.2
143.4
Digitized for
90FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1981
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1982
1981
1982
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) . . .
128.4
126.4
324.1
383.2
142.8
209.7
139.3
268.9
255.7
179.3
129.9
412.2
295.9
140.5
359.4
340.8
132.4
249,4
128.4
142.3
143.9
139.1
138.1
135.9
134.1
137.7
134.6
326.4
359.9
148,8
157.1
145.2
268.5
256.6
176.5
130.5
414.8
301.1
142.3
343.1
329.9
135.6
260.5
133.1
144.1
152.0
146.2
143.5
144.5
140.5
138.3
133.1
326.0
359.1
149.3
155.2
144.9
262.2
255.2
163.0
129.8
413.4
298.8
141.4
341.0
330.8
136.4
262.7
133.4
146.5
152.5
148.9
145.0
144.8
141.8
138.9
134,8
325.6
359.3
149.9
153.4
146.1
261.1
255.7
160.1
129.7
412.5
298.1
139.3
344.4
332.0
137.0
262.8
133.7
145.9
152.2
148.8
144.6
145.8
142.5
139.9
135.0
328.7
361.6
150.1
155.6
147.1
261.6
257.8
157.7
130.5
418.7
302.4
141.9
353.3
336.9
138.0
264.6
134.3
147.8
152.6
149.7
146.4
146.9
142.5
140.7
134.1
330.7
364.2
150.0
160.0
146.9
260.5
256.7
157.8
129.8
423.4
304.6
143.8
364.4
342.8
138.4
265.3
135.9
146.2
153.4
151.3
146.9
147.0
143.0
141.2
134.8
331.7
365.5
150.3
161.0
147.4
259.6
256.7
156,1
129.5
424.8
306.6
143.4
366.6
343.6
138.9
266.5
135.6
147.0
153.4
153.2
148.2
147.7
143.2
126.3
125.3
325.2
384.6
143.6
209.6
138.2
270.5
257.7
180.0
130.3
415.4
295.4
138.7
355.0
343.9
132.7
250.0
129.2
139.6
145.5
137.9
140.0
136.2
134.4
135.5
133.3
327.1
360.2
148.7
158.4
144.0
268.1
255.9
175.2
130.3
416.0
297.7
139.6
338.9
332.7
135.5
262.3
135.6
142.8
155.3
144.8
145.5
143.9
141.9
136.0
131.8
327.0
359.0
148.9
157.0
143.1
263.1
254.9
163.0
130.4
415.2
296.1
139.3
337.3
333.2
136.4
264.5
136.1
145.1
155.6
147.4
146.5
145.2
143.0
136.5
133.2
326.4
359.3
149.9
154.6
144.2
261.0
254.9
158.5
130.1
414.2
295.7
137.2
340.1
331.6
137.1
264.4
135.7
145.3
154.2
147.7
146.2
145.8
143.9
137.5
133,5
329.6
361.6
150.0
157.0
145.2
261.5
257.2
156.0
131.0
420.5
300.0
139.7
348.8
336.5
138.2
266.3
136.4
147.4
154.6
148.6
148.0
147.0
143.9
138.3
132.6
331.5
364.1
149.8
161.3
145.1
260.6
256.1
156.3
130.2
425.0
302.0
141.7
359.9
342.5
138.6
266.9
137.9
145.6
155.2
150.3
148.4
147.1
144.5
138.8
133.3
332.6
365.4
150.1
162.4
145.5
259.7
256.1
154.4
130.0
426.6
303.8
141.4
362.2
343.4
139.1
268.1
137.8
146.5
155.4
152.2
149.9
147.9
144.5
Food away from home......................................................................
Lunch (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ..............................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100) ..............................................
286.1
139.2
138.8
137.9
296.2
143.9
143.2
143.9
297.2
144.4
143.6
144.6
297.7
144.6
144.0
144.7
299.8
146.1
144,8
145,4
301.2
146.6
145.2
146.9
302.4
147.0
145.7
147.9
288.6
140.3
140.1
139.3
299.0
145.3
144.8
144.8
299.6
145.6
145.1
145.1
300.7
146.3
145.6
145.4
302.8
147.7
146.4
146.2
304.2
148.2
146.8
147.6
305.4
148.6
147.3
148.7
Alcoholic beverages
197.1
201.4
202.3
202.7
204.0
205.6
206.6
198.7
204.3
204.6
204.9
206.0
207.6
208.8
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)..............................................
Beer and a le ..........................................................................
Whiskey ..............................................................
Wine................................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)............................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100)............................
128.1
198.2
141.6
224.3
115.0
131.1
130.5
202.5
144,0
228.2
116.3
135.5
131.2
204.0
144.8
227.5
117.3
135.7
131.4
204.1
145.0
230.0
117.3
135.8
132.2
205.0
145.9
232.2
117.5
137.0
133.3
207.4
146.8
234.2
117.8
137.6
134.0
209.2
147.0
235.3
118.1
138.2
129.6
198.5
142.3
233.6
114.0
129.9
132.5
203.1
146.4
238.1
115.7
136.4
132.8
203.6
146.2
237.4
116.8
136.6
132.8
203.5
145.9
238.0
117.4
137.3
133.4
204.3
146.8
239.8
117.5
138.6
134.6
206.5
147.7
241.6
117.8
139.1
135.4
208.3
147.8
243.3
118.0
139.7
HOUSING
282.6
303.5
304.2
305.2
306.1
307.3
306.7
282.2
303.3
303.8
304.7
305.6
306.7
306.2
FOOD AND BEVERAGES-Continued
Food— Continued
Food at home — Continued
Shelter
301.6
326.6
327.2
328.0
328.3
329.5
327.6
302,6
328.1
328.5
329.3
329.4
330.3
328.5
Rent, residential................................................................
203.0
213.6
215.0
216.5
217.8
218.6
219.6
202.7
213.2
214.5
216.0
217.4
218.1
219.1
Other rental costs ..................................................................
Lodging while out of town..............................................
Tenants'insurance (12/77=100) ......................................................
2836
304.8
130.1
308.7
324.2
140.0
305.3
318.6
140.4
306,3
319.9
140.7
313.6
331.1
141.8
316,9
335.9
143.5
320.1
340.9
144.1
283.5
303.2
130.8
308.4
323.3
140.1
305.0
317.9
140.3
305.3
318.0
140.6
312.3
328.4
142.0
315.6
333.0
143.6
318.9
337.9
144.3
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 = 10 0 )..........................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100)..............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)......................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ............
336.8
261.1
441.1
375.6
199.0
570.9
216.0
306.1
332.6
243.9
366.7
272.5
501.8
392.5
207.4
661.3
239.5
320.8
351.1
249.3
367.2
270.2
505.6
393.3
208.0
666.8
244.1
322.8
353.8
249.7
367.8
270.5
506.3
394.1
210.7
666.6
243.9
324,1
355.4
250.3
367.5
269.3
506.0
393.0
212.9
665.2
244.4
326.7
358.2
252.5
368.7
270.4
507.2
393.7
215.1
666.1
243.9
328.2
359.4
254.6
365.7
269.2
500,9
394.1
2166
655.5
240.7
327.2
357.8
255.0
338.8
260.2
446.4
379.9
201.0
572.0
216.7
302,7
331.3
239.9
369.7
271.4
508,3
394.7
209.2
662.5
240.5
319.2
354.2
244.0
369.8
268.6
511.9
395.5
210.0
667.7
245.3
319.8
354.9
244.5
370.4
268.7
512.9
396,5
212.5
668.1
245.3
321.0
356.5
244.9
369.9
267.4
512.2
395.6
214.5
666.3
245.7
323.3
359.2
246.4
370.8
268.3
513.2
396.0
217.2
666.6
245.4
324.6
360.1
248.2
367.9
267.1
507.0
396.5
218.5
656.4
242.3
323.7
358.6
248.6
1437
123.3
146.7
124.4
146.5
124,1
147,3
124.3
149.4
124.6
150.9
124.6
151.8
123.9
138.5
122.4
139.9
122.3
140.0
121.8
140.5
121.6
142.3
121.9
143.7
121.7
144.7
121.2
127.6
125.9
132.4
131.7
133.1
131.6
131.5
132.5
131.9
133.6
133.8
134.8
133.4
135.1
127.8
128.8
132.1
133.7
132.4
134.2
131.6
134.7
131.8
135.7
133.4
136.9
133.1
137.1
Fuel and other utilities
308.4
330.1
329.8
331.8
336.2
337.1
339.3
309.4
330.9
330.9
332.7
337.0
337.9
340.2
Fuels ........................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas............................................................
Fuel o il..................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ..........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ................................................................
Electricity..................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ......................................................................
393.7
693.4
730.9
161,5
326.7
273.9
395.2
419,0
672.7
704.3
165.0
360.6
303.0
434.5
417.6
676.1
706.8
167.7
358.3
298.6
437.0
420.0
682.5
713.5
169.4
359.9
300.3
438.2
426.9
686.0
716.8
170.9
367 4
306.6
447.2
427.6
683.1
713.8
170.0
368.7
306.8
450.8
430.5
664.0
692.3
168.0
375.9
313.3
458.6
393.4
696.3
733.2
162.9
325.9
273.5
392.8
418.4
675.9
707 1
166.4
359.3
302.7
430.8
417.4
679.3
709.6
169.1
357.5
297.7
436.0
419.6
685.5
716.0
170.8
358.8
299.3
436.4
426.2
688.9
719.3
172.1
3CC.0
305.3
445.2
426.8
686.0
716.3
171.4
367.3
305.5
448.7
429.9
666.7
694.4
169.5
374,8
312.3
456.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
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
1982
1981
1982
1981
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone serv ces ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
174.0
142.5
113.6
101.8
101.2
277.1
189.4
154.3
121.5
116.6
105.5
305.2
190.7
155.6
123.5
116.7
105.3
306.1
191.9
156.8
124.4
116.7
107.1
307.4
192.7
157.2
124.0
116.8
109.2
309.8
193.9
157.9
125.3
116.6
109.1
313.3
195.0
158.5
125.6
117.7
109.0
316.9
174.4
142.6
113.7
101.9
101.0
279.0
189.8
154.5
121.8
116.6
105.3
307.3
191.0
155.8
123.8
116.8
105.0
307.9
192.2
156.9
124.6
116.8
106.9
309.4
193.1
157.3
124.2
116.9
109.0
312.2
194.3
158.0
125.4
116.7
108.8
315.7
195.4
158.6
125.7
117.8
108.7
319.7
Household furnishings and operations .....................................................
216.9
225.6
227.2
227.7
228.4
230.2
231.6
213.7
222.2
223.6
224.2
224.9
226.7
228.0
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 freezers..........................................
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) .
182.6
199.8
123.1
126.1
201.6
133.2
115.8
116.5
130.8
144.2
108.0
105.6
111.2
168.9
168.5
124.5
115.9
188.7
210.4
130.1
132.2
207.9
137.4
119.3
117.0
137.3
147.8
109.1
105.0
113.8
175.3
177.0
130.5
118.9
189.4
211.7
130.8
133.1
209.2
139.6
118.7
118.8
137.1
148.2
109.0
104.8
113.9
176.1
178.7
130.7
119.4
189.2
211.2
128.8
134.7
209.7
138.6
119.4
119.0
138.4
147.9
108.9
104.7
113.7
175.9
179.9
130.5
118.7
189.8
210.1
127.3
134.8
209.5
139.7
117.3
118.9
138.5
148.8
108.8
104.4
113.8
178.0
180.8
132.2
120.6
191.4
216.0
131.0
138.5
209.4
140.5
116.4
118.6
138.1
149.9
109.2
104.5
114.5
179.7
182.6
133.5
121.6
192.7
217.7
134.7
136.7
212.1
140.8
118.0
121.6
140.5
150.1
109.1
104.7
114.0
180.3
183.7
133.3
122.2
180.2
201.4
124.1
127.2
198.0
129.4
114.1
116.7
128.3
143.4
106.4
104.3
109.3
169.0
172.7
124.3
114.5
186.6
214.1
132.0
135.2
203.8
132.3
119.0
118.5
133.0
147.2
108.1
103.8
112.8
175.1
181.6
129.8
117.1
187.3
214.7
131.9
136.1
205.3
135.2
118.8
118.9
133.1
147.7
108.3
103.6
113.4
175.9
182.7
130.8
117.4
187.1
213.9
129.9
137.4
206.0
135.2
119.5
119.1
134.0
147.5
108.0
103.3
112.9
176.0
185.3
130.3
116.8
187.7
212.5
128.6
137.0
205.9
136.5
117.6
119.0
133.9
148.5
107.9
103.1
113.0
178.1
186.1
132.4
118.5
189.3
218.5
132.1
141.0
205.5
137.1
116.5
118.8
133.4
149.6
108.4
103.3
113.8
179.9
187.9
133.8
119.7
190.4
219.9
135.6
138.7
208.2
137.2
118.2
121.8
135.8
149.7
108.2
103.5
113.2
180.4
189.3
133.5
120.0
115.1
118.2
118.7
117.9
119.4
121.0
121.9
115.2
115.9
116.8
116.2
117.4
118.9
119.3
116.9
129.1
119.8
134.2
120.1
134.4
119.6
134.0
121.9
134.9
122.4
136.7
122.5
137.3
113.7
126.9
118.4
132.4
118.1
132.4
117.3
131.9
119.7
132.9
120.5
134.7
120.7
135.3
130.7
125.7
135.4
128.7
136.1
129.5
135.9
128.4
136.3
128.6
139.1
129.8
140.9
129.0
123.2
121.7
129.6
124.5
129.7
125.2
128.3
124.7
128.6
124.8
131.0
126.0
133.3
125.4
135.6
120.8
141.1
127.2
141.2
126.9
141,0
126.3
142.3
127.8
143.3
130.3
143.1
132.1
132.1
125.1
137.9
131.2
137.5
131.6
137.1
131.5
138.2
133.2
139.5
135.5
139.0
137.3
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)..........................................
264.2
255.3
129.7
137.9
122.3
137.3
136.6
274.3
269.3
136.7
141.8
128.1
142.8
136.6
275.4
269.7
137.3
143.6
128.5
143.0
136.8
277.4
271.6
138.8
144.5
128.8
145.4
136.7
279.1
275.5
139.6
145.1
128.8
146.2
137.1
282.4
278.0
141.0
145.7
130.4
146.9
141.8
284.2
279.5
142.1
145.7
130.7
147.5
144.7
261.2
253.8
130.3
138.1
123.7
133.2
128.5
271.2
265.3
136.6
142.4
130.8
137.8
129.0
271.9
265.2
137.0
143.9
131.3
137.4
129.6
274.1
268.0
137.5
144.4
131.6
140.4
129.4
275.7
272.0
138.4
145.1
131.7
141.2
129.2
278.8
274.4
139.8
145.6
133.4
141.8
134.1
280.4
275.7
140.9
145.4
133.8
142.4
136.7
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 - 100) ....................................
284.8
274.3
300.5
308.0
305.2
337.5
306.9
337.5
307.4
337.5
308.1
337.5
309.9
337.5
283.3
274.2
298.9
308.1
303.9
337.5
305.4
337.5
305.9
337.5
306.8
337.5
308.2
337.5
139.0
124.5
145.5
131.3
147.0
132.2
147.8
133.0
148.4
133.6
149.4
134.2
150.8
135.0
139.0
123.8
145.2
130.5
146.7
131.2
147.6
131,6
148.0
132.2
149.1
132.8
150.6
133.5
APPAREL AND UPKEEP
185.1
191.5
191.3
190.5
187.3
188.0
191.1
184.3
190.6
190.5
189.4
186.5
187.3
190.5
177.4
180.8
HOUSING - Continued
Fuel and other utilities — Continued
Apparel commodities
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 g.rls ..........................................................................
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)..............................................
Digitized92
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
176.3
182.1
181.8
180.7
177.0
177.6
180.8
175.8
181.5
181.5
180.1
176.7
172.7
175.0
110.2
103.2
97.9
127.2
118,0
104.7
113.7
106.5
121.2
116.5
157.5
104.4
157.9
166.4
99.3
117.8
93.0
106.4
101.2
106.2
178.4
183.6
115.9
109.8
102.4
134.3
123.0
109.2
118.1
111.9
125.6
119.9
161.2
106.8
167.3
166.9
100.4
123.0
92.4
109.2
99.8
112.0
177.9
183.6
115.9
109.9
102.8
133.6
123.0
109.8
118.0
111.6
127.0
119.3
160.6
106.3
164.0
165.0
101.1
124.1
89.5
109.2
100.3
111.3
176.6
181.6
114.5
106.4
101.4
134.2
122.7
108.5
117.2
109.9
127.5
118.8
159.6
105,8
161.8
164.0
100.7
124.8
87,7
107.7
98.4
108.9
172.8
178.7
112.9
104.3
96.4
133.6
120.7
108.2
114.6
104.7
127.3
117.2
154.3
102.3
158.4
153.1
96.7
124.0
84.2
104.4
93.4
106.3
173.4
179.3
113.0
104.8
95.8
134.7
119.3
108,6
116.0
105.9
128.2
119.1
154.7
102.9
156.4
152.8
96.3
126.2
87.0
102.7
92.6
103.4
176.8
181.7
114.5
107.2
98.1
136.8
119.9
108.6
117.8
109.4
128.7
120.1
160.3
106.8
162.0
163.1
100.3
127.1
92.7
105.6
98.2
104.6
172.3
174.9
110.1
98.5
98.9
121.5
119.2
110.0
112.9
109.5
117.4
113.9
158.9
105.5
156.9
154.3
101.6
117.7
109.5
106.4
98.4
109.1
177.7
182.9
115.8
102.0
104.9
130.0
125.5
114.7
116.4
113.5
121.8
116.6
162.7
108.1
171.4
151.5
102.3
123.4
110.2
108.4
99.8
110.6
177.3
183.2
115.9
102,0
105.1
129.8
125.4
115.5
116.5
112.8
123.3
116.9
162.1
107.6
166.3
151.9
101.9
124.0
108.5
108.4
99.9
110.2
175.6
181.7
115.0
99.5
104.1
130.6
125.3
114.1
115.4
110.9
123.5
115.9
160.7
107.1
167.3
149.5
101.3
124.5
106.0
106,0
96.1
107.5
172.2
178.6
113.3
97.8
97.6
129.8
123.3
113.6
112.9
105.3
123.3
114.7
156.4
103,9
161.6
140.7
97.3
123.7
104.0
104.2
91.2
108.2
173.0
179.4
113.5
98.2
97.2
131.1
121.8
114.1
114.3
106.3
124.2
116,7
157.1
104.8
163.1
140.9
96.8
126,0
105.6
103.1
91.5
106.0
176.6
181.6
114.7
100.4
99.7
133.1
122.3
114.2
116.1
109.7
124.7
117.8
163.0
109.0
173.1
148.1
101.2
126.9
114.1
106.0
97.2
106.9
115.6
119.6
120.0
120.7
119.2
118.0
119.6
114.6
118.5
119.0
119.5
118.2
117.0
118.7
20.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1981
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1982
1981
1982
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) ..............
255.3
212.2
113.3
147.3
268.5
216.2
118.1
149.0
264.9
214.8
118.6
147.5
259.4
214.5
118.3
147.4
259.6
212.9
116.2
146,7
262.2
214.3
117.6
147.4
264.7
212.7
118.1
145.7
266.4
204.5
113.3
140.9
281.6
206.2
116.3
141.1
274.1
206.1
116.4
141.0
270.6
203.2
116.2
138.4
270.1
201.4
114.3
137.5
271.4
202.8
115.9
138.1
275.4
201.6
116.5
136.7
Footwear....................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ........................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 = 100) ................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)........................
197.4
125.2
127.6
120.0
204.2
129.3
131.1
124.9
205,4
130.3
132.1
125.2
205.7
130.7
132.1
125.4
202.8
130.3
130.1
122.6
202.8
130.7
129.5
122.7
204.9
132.5
129.2
124.7
195.9
125.4
127.3
117.0
204.1
130.3
132.2
122.5
206.2
132.3
134.0
122.9
205.9
132.5
134.8
121.6
203.1
132.2
132.5
118.9
203.3
132.6
132.3
119.0
205.2
134.5
132.1
120.8
Apparel services
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ..................
252.4
149.6
133.7
263.2
157.1
137.5
264.6
158.2
137.9
266.4
159.2
139.1
267.6
160.0
139.4
269.4
161.4
139.8
271.3
162.4
141.1
251.5
149.3
133.9
262.1
156.4
138.3
262.3
156.3
138.6
264.4
157.8
139.6
265.5
158.5
139.9
267.2
159.9
140.3
269.0
160.9
141.5
TRANSPORTATION ...............................
273.5
287.2
289.1
289.8
289.9
288.0
285.1
274.4
288.9
290.8
291.5
291.6
289.6
286.6
P riv a te ...............................
271.7
283.9
285.8
286.5
286.6
284.5
281.3
273.2
286.4
288.3
289.0
289.0
286.9
283.7
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) . . .
Tires ........................................
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' licenses (12/77 = 100) ..........
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ..............
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........
182.9
235.4
420.7
287.7
140.3
192.5
278.2
409.9
301.3
148.7
195.3
281.4
409.5
302.8
149.9
197.0
281.9
408.4
304.1
150.6
197.4
280.5
406.0
305.5
151.5
195.5
279.7
399.1
307.7
153.7
194.4
280.9
383.9
310.2
154.5
182.7
235.4
422.3
288.2
140.2
192.7
278.2
411.3
301.8
147.2
195.2
281.4
410.9
303.4
148.3
196.9
281.9
409.8
304.8
148.9
197.3
280.5
407.5
306.2
149.8
195.3
279.7
400.6
308.4
152.1
194.2
280.9
385.4
311.1
152.7
137.7
134.8
137.0
234.7
206.2
141.6
132.1
184.1
129.2
244.6
254.4
164.3
118.2
146.9
105.4
126.1
138.4
144.0
140.3
144.0
247.5
212.7
148.0
136.0
189.4
133.4
259.1
264.6
184.4
120.2
147.9
109.9
144.7
141.5
145.6
250.6
214.5
148.7
137.2
191.5
133.9
262.6
266.0
190.5
120.8
149.0
111.9
128,3
141.6
145.7
142.0
146.2
253.3
215.5
148.2
138.1
192.8
134.3
265.8
266.8
190.9
127.6
166.9
117.3
129.2
142.5
146.5
142.7
147.3
253.4
214.8
149.3
137.4
191.3
134.6
266.1
268.1
188.9
128.9
167.1
121.7
129.3
144.8
148.7
143.9
148.0
254.5
215.6
150.2
137.9
191.7
135.7
267.2
269.8
188.9
129.7
168.5
122.9
129.3
145.3
140.2
134.7
135.9
237.3
208.0
139.8
133.7
186.9
129.5
247.4
253.9
163.4
119.9
147.0
105.1
126.7
148.9
146.5
140.3
143.5
250.6
216.1
144.8
138.9
194.6
134.3
262.2
264.3
183.1
120.0
148.0
109.8
147.3
140.5
144.7
253.0
216.8
146.7
139.2
195.1
134.1
265.1
265.0
187.6
121.1
149.0
110.3
141.2
144.2
140.9
144.9
249.5
213.4
148.5
136.4
189.7
134.1
261.5
265.4
188.7
120.7
149.0
110.4
( 1)
141.3
148.5
141.0
145.1
254.2
216.9
147.2
139.2
195.2
133.9
266.6
265.6
189.9
121.4
149.0
111.9
129.0
149.2
149.5
141.5
145.7
256.9
218.0
146.9
140.0
196.5
134.5
269.7
266.6
190.3
128.4
166.2
117.1
130.5
150.4
150.2
142.3
146.8
256.8
217.3
147.8
139.4
195.1
134.9
269.8
268.0
188.3
129.5
166.5
121.7
130.6
152.4
152.8
143.4
147.5
257.8
218.2
148.7
139.9
195.5
135.9
270.8
269.6
188.2
130.1
167.8
123.0
130.6
152.5
APPAREL AND UPKEEP - Continued
Apparel commodities — Continued
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
146.5
148.6
Public
293.9
330.8
333.2
333.8
334.9
336.8
336.7
285.1
326.6
328.2
328.6
329.4
331.0
331.0
Airline fare........................................
Intercity bus fare ....................................
Intracity mass transit ................................
Taxi fare ................................
Intercity train fare..................................
343.7
323.2
250.8
273.8
276.7
372.0
361.3
301.7
289.3
315.0
374.5
362.2
304.4
291.3
319.2
374.7
365.2
304.6
294,7
319.2
375.5
367.3
305.9
296.3
318.1
379.3
365.7
306.7
296.7
314.0
379.0
365.6
306.6
297.2
314.1
342.3
323.9
249.1
280.5
277.1
372.9
362.1
301.3
298.1
314.9
373.1
362.9
303.6
300.4
318.9
372.8
366.1
303.9
304.1
318.9
372.7
368.9
305.1
305.6
317.9
376.3
367.4
305.8
306.1
314.5
373.3
367.0
305.7
306.6
314.5
MEDICAL CARE
284.7
304.8
308.2
310.2
313.4
316.2
318.8
287.0
304.0
307.1
309.1
312.0
314,9
317.4
Medical care commodities
180.7
192.1
193.1
194.9
195.9
197.7
200.0
181.2
192.9
193.8
195.4
196.4
198.3
200.6
Prescription drugs ......................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100) . .
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ..
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)........
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ..
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) .
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)..................
166.5
130.5
132.8
122.2
178.6
136.8
141.9
129.5
179.6
136.3
143.6
130.4
181.0
137.8
144.8
131.9
181.9
138.2
145.4
132.2
183.7
138.4
146.8
134.0
186.1
139.3
146.8
135.7
166.8
131.0
131.5
123.7
179.4
139.6
141.3
130.5
180.3
138.9
143.3
131.0
181.9
139.7
144.4
131.8
182.8
140.1
144.9
132.1
184.7
140.4
146.5
134.0
187.0
141.1
148.3
135.6
148.2
132.7
161.9
144.1
163.3
144.9
164.6
145.9
165.6
147.3
168.4
148.8
170.8
150.8
147.8
134.1
162.8
144.2
164,1
145.4
165.9
147.3
166.9
148.7
169.7
150.3
172.0
152.3
126.3
136.8
137.5
138.1
138.8
139.9
142.7
126.5
136.1
136,8
138.0
138.8
139.9
142.7
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)
129.9
124.6
204.2
125.0
137.0
127.4
217.3
132.7
137.8
127.8
218.6
133.7
139.2
128.4
221.6
134.6
139.9
128.3
222.8
135.9
141.1
128.9
225.1
137.1
142.5
129.5
228.1
138.1
130.5
122.6
205.5
127.1
137.9
126.0
219.5
133.8
138.5
126.7
220.2
134.7
139.7
127.1
222.8
135.2
140.4
127.1
223.9
136,6
141.6
127.6
226.4
137.7
143.2
128.1
229.6
138.8
Medical care services
307.5
329.7
333.7
335.7
339.4
342.4
345.1
310.2
328.3
332.0
334.0
337.5
340.6
343.0
Professional services ................................
Physicians’ services..............................
Dental services..........................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)..............
269.6
290.3
254.9
131.5
286.4
307.9
271.6
138.9
288,4
311.3
272.3
139.5
290,0
313.0
273.9
140.3
292.0
315.5
275.8
140.3
294.2
318.8
276.8
141.5
295.8
320.3
278.6
142.4
274.2
296.3
259.8
129.9
286.2
310.9
269.5
134.9
288.2
314.1
270.1
136.2
290.3
316.0
272.3
137.2
292.2
318.6
274.1
137.2
294.3
321.7
274.9
138.5
295.9
323.2
276.6
139.4
Other medical care services..........................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)
Hospital room............................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100)
353.4
147.1
460.9
146.7
382.1
159.0
503.0
157.2
388.4
161.9
515.4
159.2
390.9
162.7
519.3
159.6
396.8
165.6
529.4
162.2
400.8
167.1
533.8
163.8 I
404.7
168.5
538.5
165.2
354.4
146.7
459.2
146.3 I
380.3
157.9
498.9
156.1
386.2
160.6
509.6
158.3
388.1
161.1
512.6
158.4
393.8
164.0
522.0
161.2
398.0
165.7
527.0
163.0
401.6
166.9
531.0
164.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
ENTERTAINMENT.........................................................................................
1982
1981
1982
1981
General summary
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
224.3
224.4
226.1
228.1
229.5
226.7
228.9
230.8
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
218.2
225.5
226.8
227.3
229.2
231.2
232.8
216.1
223.4
Entertainment commodities
222.1
228.9
230.3
230.6
232.0
234.3
236.6
218.0
224.2
225.5
225.4
Reading materials (12/77 - 100)..........................................................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................
133.2
256.6
136.2
138.7
267.1
141.9
139.8
267.6
143.9
139.6
267.7
143.5
142.9
270.5
149.0
144.1
273.1
149.9
146.1
276.4
152.4
133.0
256.7
136.3
138.3
266.9
141.9
139.3
267.5
143.7
139.1
267.6
143.4
142.1
270.1
148.8
143.3
272.8
149.7
145.3
276.0
152.2
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) ........................
126.1
128.5
116.2
188.4
121.2
128.3
129.4
119.2
194.4
126.6
130.2
(’ )
119.6
194.3
126.7
130.0
132.1
119.9
193.9
126.2
129.5
c( 1)
120.1
194.8
125.3
131.5
133.9
119.6
197.3
127.0
132.3
135.4
119.9
197.6
125.6
120.3
119.5
115.2
189.4
119.3
121.4
118.6
117.3
195.9
126.2
122.8
122.4
120.2
117.9
195.2
126.3
122.4
( 1)
118.2
196.3
126.9
( ')
118.2
196.2
125.2
123.9
121.9
117.7
198.9
127.4
124.3
122.5
118.1
198.9
126.0
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 - 100)............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 - 100)........................
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 - 100) ......................................
127.2
125.6
124.0
132.3
131.3
129.6
126.0
138.3
131.3
129.7
125.5
138.3
132.0
130.1
125.2
140.2
132.2
130.8
125.2
139.7
133.2
131.7
126.9
140.6
134.5
133.4
128.3
140.8
126.3
123.1
125.5
132 8
130.5
126.2
127.8
139.9
130.8
126.7
127.5
140.1
130.9
126.9
126.3
140.9
131.2
127.7
126.3
140.5
132.3
128.6
127.9
141.6
133.5
130.2
129.5
141.7
Entertainment services ..............................................................................
213.0
221 0
222.3
223.0
225.5
227.1
227.8
213.8
223.3
223.4
223.9
226.1
227.8
228.4
Fees for participant sports (12/77 - 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 - 100)....................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 - 100)..........................................
129.8
125.3
121.0
136.4
128.3
123.1
137.3
128.9
123.4
137.6
129.7
123.7
139.6
131.2
124.2
140.9
131.6
125.0
141.9
131.2
125.1
129.6
125.9
121.7
138.9
128.2
124.2
139.1
128.3
124.1
139.3
128.7
124.3
141.2
130.1
124.7
142.5
130.6
125.9
143.5
130.3
125.9
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES.................................................................
228.7
245.2
245.9
246.7
248.4
250.3
252.2
226.8
241.4
242.5
243.5
245.0
247.1
249.3
230.7
234.1
212.4
224.5
225.4
225.9
226.2
229.8
233.2
Tobacco products .......................................................................................
212.5
225.3
226.2
226.8
227.1
Cigarettes............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 - 100)............
214.8
128.0
228.1
134.0
228.9
134.7
229.7
134.4
230.0
134.7
233.6
136.8
237.3
138.1
214.9
128.1
227.2
134.7
228.1
135.0
228.7
134.7
229.1
135.0
232.7
136.9
236.3
138.2
Personal care
226.9
236.9
237.7
239.1
240.9
242.3
243.7
225.1
234.1
235.5
237.1
238.8
240.4
241.8
241.5
140.0
146.6
..............................................................................................
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)
222.4
131.4
135.3
231.6
134.9
139.8
232.5
135.4
140.5
234.7
136.5
141.2
236.4
137.2
144.0
238.5
138.4
145.6
240.6
140.8
148.0
220.9
128.4
133.3
231.4
131.8
138.0
233.1
133.3
139.3
235.4
135.8
139.8
236.9
136.4
142.6
239.2
137.8
144.2
123.9
128.3
131.2
133.7
131.8
134.3
133.2
136.0
134.1
135.9
135.0
137.0
135.1
137.4
123.4
130.7
131.6
138.2
132.2
139.1
133.7
139.1
134.5
138.9
135.8
140.2
136.1
140.7
Personal care services..........................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women....................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
231.7
233.6
129.2
242.3
243.9
135.6
243.1
244.8
135.9
243.9
245.2
136.8
245.7
246.9
138.0
246.5
247.7
138.4
247.3
248.9
138.4
229.4
230.8
128.4
237.1
236.7
134.5
238.1
237.8
134.9
239.2
238.8
135.7
241.0
240.5
136.8
241.8
241.3
137.2
242.6
242.5
137.2
Personal and educational expenses
255.2
284.6
284.9
285.1
288.1
289.2
290.4
256.0
284.8
285.6
285.9
288.9
290.2
291.7
Schoolbooks 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)..................................................
230.5
261.2
132.8
132.3
134.4
138.7
254.5
291.7
149.0
148.2
151.6
152.3
254.6
292.1
149.1
148.3
152.0
152.8
254.5
292.3
149.1
148.3
152.0
153.4
260.7
294.8
150.5
149.9
152.1
154.3
262.9
295.8
150.6
150.1
152.2
156.1
263.3
297.1
151.1
150.7
152.2
157.4
234.4
261.6
133.0
132.3
134.4
138.1
258.3
291.6
149.3
148.1
152.2
150.4
258.3
292.5
149.4
148.1
152.7
152.1
258.5
292.8
149.4
148.1
152.7
152.7
264.8
295.2
150.7
149.6
152.8
153.7
267.1
296.3
150.9
149.8
152.9
155.3
267.5
298.0
151.7
150.9
152.9
156.7
414.5
373.6
265.2
318.3
404.3
419.0
292.7
335.9
403.9
422.2
292.6
339.6
402.8
423.1
293.9
341.3
400.5
423.9
297.7
343.0
393.9
424.8
299.1
344.0
379.3
420.9
302.7
344.0
415.9
373.0
263.6
317.2
405.4
417.6
291.6
337.3
405.1
420.9
291.5
339.9
404.0
422.1
292.6
341.5
401.8
422.8
296.4
343.3
395.3
423.5
297.7
344.2
380.6
419.9
301.5
344.0
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products......................................
Insurance and finance ..........................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
' Not available.
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Size class B
(385,000-1.250 million)
1981
Oct.
I
Dec.
Size class C
(75,000-385,000)
1981
I
Feb.
Oct.
Dec.
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
1981
Feb.
Oct.
I
Dec.
1981
I
Feb.
Oct.
Dec.
Feb.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ........................................
Food and beverages ............................
Housing ..........................................
Apparel and upkeep ........................
Transportation......................................
Medical care..................................
Entertainment ..............................
Other goods and services ........................
143.8
139.7
147.8
118.9
156.3
140.0
131.8
134.6
144.2
139.6
148.0
117.5
157.9
142.0
131.9
135.4
144.2
143.3
146.0
117.0
156.5
145.1
133.3
136.9
152.3
139.9
161.4
124.8
164.0
143.6
129.6
138.0
152.9
139.6
161.9
123.1
165.4
146.6
131.0
138.7
150.7
142.7
155.7
120.5
164.2
147.0
132.4
140.6
156.2
142.6
170.1
124.8
162.0
146.5
129.5
141.5
159.2
142.8
176.3
125.9
162.7
146.3
133.7
142.0
158.1
145.7
172.5
123.1
161.6
148.7
136.1
142.9
149.2
137.4
156.6
126.5
159.7
142.3
133.2
137.5
150.7
137.0
159.3
125.4
161.8
143.0
134.3
138.5
151.4
140.4
159.5
119.9
161.7
144,8
137.6
140.6
142.1
143.7
146.0
141.8
143.2
147.3
142.1
141.4
146.9
149.6
154.3
156.5
149.6
154.5
158.0
147.9
150.5
155.1
149.8
153.1
166.7
151.1
154.9
172.5
150.1
152.2
171.0
146.4
150.7
153.5
147.2
152.1
156.1
147.6
151.0
157.3
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..................
Services ....................................
North Central region
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ....................................
Food and beverages ..............................
Housing ..........................
Apparel and upkeep ..........................
Transportation........................................
Medical care........................................
Entertainment....................................
Other goods and services ..............................
152.6
139.7
164.4
115.5
161.2
142.8
132.2
136.0
152.6
139.8
163.3
113.7
162.9
144.6
134.1
137.0
153.6
141.6
164.9
112.7
161.1
148.4
137.1
138.8
148.8
139.3
153.6
127.2
159.5
145.6
123.8
142.4
149.2
139.3
153.8
128.0
160.8
146.8
124.4
142.9
151.9
140.8
159.9
121.1
159.7
150.8
126.4
145.1
145.9
140.3
147.5
123.4
161.2
145.3
131.3
135.1
147.4
140.7
150.0
122.4
162.3
147.7
132.6
135.6
149.1
143.1
152.7
121.8
161.0
150.3
136.1
137.3
146.7
143.3
148.3
123.1
158.6
147.7
128.4
140.4
147.6
143.4
149.1
123.6
160.1
151.2
129.2
141.7
151.0
144.7
155.5
119.5
160.3
154.5
132.5
144.6
145,7
148.5
162.9
145.1
147.6
163.7
145.2
146.9
166.1
142.9
144.4
158.3
142.9
144.4
159.5
145.4
147.3
162.6
141.4
141.9
153.3
142.2
142.8
156.1
143.5
143.6
158.4
140.7
139.6
156.2
140.7
139.5
158.7
142.1
141.0
165.0
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ..........................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..............
Services ........................................
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..........................
Food and beverages ................................
Housing ......................................
Apparel and upkeep ............................
Transportation........................................
Medical care................................
Entertainment ............................
Other goods and services ......................
150.9
141.2
158.6
124.4
160.6
141.6
127.1
139.2
152.0
141.4
160.3
123.5
161.9
143.2
127.4
139.7
152.6
144.2
160.2
122.6
161.5
145.9
129.3
141.2
153.4
141.1
162.5
122.6
162.3
145.9
133.4
139.5
155.9
141.3
166.7
123.7
164.1
147.6
137.1
139.5
157.2
144.8
168.3
121.1
162.8
150.5
140.0
140.7
149.2
141.2
154.7
118.3
160.2
148.8
134.8
138.5
152.3
141.9
159.7
118.2
162.3
153.0
136.4
139.9
154.0
144.1
162.7
117.0
160.7
155.4
140.4
142.0
149.4
144.0
153.5
111.8
160.6
156.3
138,8
139.5
150.8
143.4
156.2
110.4
161.6
160.1
138.4
140.5
152.3
146.1
158.8
105.7
159.9
162.5
140.4
147.9
145.0
146.6
159.3
145.9
147.9
160.5
146.8
148.0
160.7
145.7
147.7
164.9
147.5
150.1
168.6
148.4
149.9
170.4
143.6
144.6
157.9
145.3
146.7
163.1
146.0
146.8
166.3
144.1
144.2
157.4
145.1
145.8
159.5
145.0
144.6
163.3
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ..............................
Commodities less food and beverages
Services ......................................
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ................................
Food and beverages ....................
Housing ..............................
Apparel and upkeep ................
Transportation................................
Medical care................................
Entertainment ......................
Other goods and services ............
156.3
140.3
167.1
121.8
161.8
150.5
133.0
140.1
156.1
140.8
165.5
121.9
162.9
155.7
133.6
141.0
157.9
143.9
167.2
121.7
164.2
157.8
135.1
144.5
155.0
144.9
162.6
127.6
163.5
148.1
132.5
141.4
155.1
145.4
161.6
127.1
165.0
151.3
133.9
142.8
157.1
147.9
164.9
126.4
163.6
153.7
135.5
145.3
149.2
141.4
153.5
116.5
162.1
149.4
131.4
136.1
149.4
140.1
153.8
117.1
162.8
151.1
129.4
136.8
150.2
143.4
154.4
118.8
160.9
154.8
130.4
137.1
152.1
145.5
153.9
135.9
162.5
150.4
144.4
145.5
149.1
145.8
146.1
135.6
164.6
152.8
145.6
148.0
153.3
148.1
153.9
131.9
164.5
157.9
147.8
147.6
145.1
147.1
171.2
144.9
146.6
170.9
146.0
146.9
173.7
147.0
147.8
166.0
147.2
148.0
166.0
148.4
148.6
169.1
144.4
145.6
156.1
143.7
145.1
157.5
145.2
145.9
157.3
146.2
146.5
160.9
145.5
145.4
154.6
147.5
147.3
161.8
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities..........................
Commodities less food and beverages..........
Services ................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
22.
Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
Area1
1981
1981
1982
1982
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
U.S. city average2 ..............................................................
265.1
279.9
280.7
281.5
282.5
283.4
283.1
265.2
279.7
280.4
281.1
282.1
282.9
282.5
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 -100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Me.......................................................................
Boston, Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
241.1
260.0
236.2
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
259.7
266.1
Detroit, Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif................................
268.2
Miami, Fla. (11/77-100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................
140.0
269.9
253.7
276.1
277.0
276.6
281.4
253.9
257.6
258.3
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif....................................................................
268.1
259.3
293.1
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.......................................................
271.1
262.3
273.9
279.6
281.8
278.3
258.3
302.7
273.5
282.3
274.7
277.7
267.8
272.2
274.1
298.7
267.9
274.9
281.8
285.8
268.5
272.5
275.7
289.2
275.5
276.4
284.9
258.9
267.7
306.0
269.0
275.5
278.6
295.9
278.0
276.3
277.3
279.0
309.2
285.8
278.2
263.6
286.6
266.5
155.1
289.3
141.7
274.6
267.4
267.2
253.7
260.6
274.7
259.5
286.7
280.7
319.0
267.0
259.4
288.0
293.4
278.8
267.9
264.2
276.4
285.5
275.2
278.4
275.9
288.4
266.9
275.2
274.5
274.1
282.6
276.5
287.2
285.0
289.8
277.8
315.0
289.8
274.8
263.2
300.3
274.1
289.4
267.5
274.5
275.1
275.1
290.4
156.4
292.5
156.4
295.3
298.3
266.9
305.3
267.8
275.1
280.0
265.9
268.4
274.3
283.9
279.3
313.9
285.5
277.1
317.4
276.3
273.0
315.1
294.9
292.7
285.7
279.3
275.4
310.5
275.1
259.3
298.8
272.0
286.1
154.7
291.5
291.6
267.0
295.6
Area is used for New York and Chicago.
2Average of 85 cities.
274.4
302.8
278.2
259.1
295.9
271.3
284.9
258.0
281.2
291.0
282.3
288.8
295.8
294.0
297.0
277.8
262.2
304.1
276.0
285.6
288.4
278.4
323.1
278.7
273.8
321.3
'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
96
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
280.8
155.2
291.3
153.6
287.5
291.6
268.0
274.9
282.2
269.8
282.3
273.4
262.7
261.2
285.9
293.6
305.4
297.8
281.5
259.3
300.0
272.6
281.3
275.4
285.7
281.6
295.1
282.8
292.5
282.7
284.1
280.9
274.3
269.6
261.8
259.9
264.3
262.5
281.9
269.8
254.5
248.6
249.3
283.0
279.8
282.1
274.0
280.7
274.2
270.3
262.3
263.3
253.0
282.2
281.5
291.9
281.8
289.6
283.8
23.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Commodity grouping
Annual
average
1981
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1982
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
'275.4
277.4
277.4
276.9
276.9
'275.8
'252.9
r 273.9
'249.0
'326.3
r 225.4
'213.9
'274.1
277.4
256.4
280.1
252.2
328.1
225.8
216.2
276.1
278.1
258.2
282.0
253.9
329.3
223.5
218.8
274.8
277.2
257.1
262,9
254.4
328.0
223.5
219.6
275.7
276.9
259.8
266.1
257.1
324.9
223.8
221.4
277.1
FINISHED GOODS
Finished goods....................................................
Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods............................................
Crude....................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable goods ..........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment ........................................................
269.8
268.5
269.6
270.5
271.8
271.5
271.5
274.3
274.7
271.2
253.5
263.6
250.6
319.4
218.5
208.6
264.3
270.6
251.9
279.3
247.4
320.4
216.6
207.3
260.8
271.5
252.8
263.1
249.8
321.0
218.1
207.7
262.5
272.3
253.8
258.9
251.3
322.0
218.2
208.4
263.8
273.5
257.6
262.7
255.0
322.5
218.1
209.5
265.4
273.0
256.3
256.9
254.2
322.1
218.3
210.4
265.8
273.1
256.2
253.5
254.4
324.2
215.8
211.8
265.3
275.1
254.0
253.8
252.0
324.3
224.5
212.6
271.5
275.2
252.7
260.0
249.9
325.4
224.7
213.6
273.0
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
306.0
305.8
306.7
307.2
308.5
310.1
309.7
309.4
309.0
'309.4
311.3
311.3
310.9
310.1
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing ................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................
286.2
260.9
285.9
312.2
259.2
284.1
263.1
284.3
310.6
255.4
285.1
259.0
287.0
311.2
256.3
285.8
262.4
287.7
310.7
257.3
287.9
260.5
289.2
314.4
259.5
289.8
261.0
291.0
316.0
261.8
290.2
254.6
291.2
317.1
263.8
290.2
250.9
290.9
316.7
265.1
289.5
246.8
289.4
314.9
266.9
'289.3
'245.6
'288.8
'314.0
'267.8
290.8
252.9
289.4
314.2
269.7
291.3
254.3
289.5
313.5
271.1
290.8
252.0
289.5
311.2
272.0
290.9
254.3
288.1
311.2
272.9
Materials and components for construction ....................
287.5
288.0
288.5
289,6
290.4
290.7
290.0
290.1
290.2
'291.1
291.9
292.8
293.3
293.8
Processed fuels and lubricants ......................................
Manufacturing industries ............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ......................................
595.0
498.2
680.5
608.5
509.0
696.2
608.7
510.7
695.2
605.7
505.4
694.3
602.0
500.3
692.0
607.8
508.3
695.6
601.4
500.5
690.5
596.9
497.5
684.7
595.1
496.4
6822
'598.1
'499.0
'685.6
605.7
507.7
692.0
597.1
498.7
683.9
593.5
497.1
678.4
579.8
487.6
660.9
Containers....................................................................
276.2
274.3
276.4
277.2
278.8
280.3
280.6
280.9
280.6
'280.2
282.2
285.2
286.5
287.4
Supplies ......................................................................
Manufacturing industries ............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ......................................
Feeds ....................................................................
Other supplies........................................................
263.9
253.2
269.6
230.4
276.4
262.4
250.6
268.7
239.2
272.9
264.0
252.3
270.2
242.9
273.8
264.6
253.4
270.5
235.4
276.3
266.0
255.0
272.0
232.8
278.7
266.1
256.0
271.6
229.1
279.3
266.1
256.8
271.1
221.3
280.7
266.6
258.2
271.2
215.9
282.3
267.2
259.2
271.6
212.0
283.7
'268.3
'261.0
'272.4
'214.6
'284.1
269.8
262.5
273.9
215.2
285.8
270.7
263.5
274.8
212.7
287.6
270.9
264.8
274.4
208.8
288.1
272.3
265.6
276.0
212.9
289.1
CRUDE MATERIALS
Crude materials for further processing ..................................
329.1
336.3
334.4
335.4
337.3
333.0
327.4
319.9
313.9
'311.5
318.2
321.5
319.9
322.8
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ..............................................
257.4
263.5
260.6
264.3
267.2
261.8
253.4
245.7
238.3
233.7
242.5
248,3
247.9
254.3
Nonfood materials ........................................................
481.6
492.1
492.4
487.4
487.2
485.3
486.0
479.2
476.3
'478.6
481.1
479.3
475.0
470.4
Nonfood materials except fuel ....................................
Manufacturing industries..........................................
Construction ..........................................................
413.9
429.6
262.4
432.5
450.2
261.5
428.3
445.5
261.7
418.1
434.2
262.6
413.1
428.7
262.6
413.9
429.6
263.1
410.2
425.4
263.6
404.1
418.6
264.7
397.8
411.7
264.8
'396.2
'409.8
'265.2
399.7
413.2
269.6
395.1
407.6
272.1
387.4
398.5
275.1
379.0
389.0
275.3
Crude fuel ................................................................
Manufacturing industries..........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries....................................
676.5
865.4
674.3
716.6
821.9
645.8
738.4
850.6
662.2
759.2
877.2
678.5
781.2
902.6
698.1
766.7
883.0
687.8
788.7
911.4
704.8
779.0
898.4
697.8
792.5
915.8
708.2
'813.0
'942.5
'724.0
810.0
936.3
723.6
823.5
953.4
734.4
837.7
972.8
744.5
853.7
992.4
757.6
Finished goods excluding foods ............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................
273.2
276.3
233.9
272.1
276.1
231.8
273.3
277.0
232.8
274.1
277.7
233.4
274.7
277.9
235.0
274.6
277.7
235.0
274.7
277.9
234.9
279.1
281.6
237.2
280.0
282.4
237.2
'280.9
'283.2
'237.6
282.3
284.4
239.8
281.8
284.1
240.8
281.5
283.3
240.7
280,6
281.7
242.4
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................
310.1
285.2
309.5
283.7
310.7
284.7
311.2
285.5
312.7
287.2
314.5
288.5
314.6
288.7
314.6
288.8
314,5
288.5
'314.9
'288.7
316.6
290.1
316.6
290.9
316.3
290.7
315.3
291.2
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
250.7
254.9
253.1
253.2
251.1
250.2
243.5
239.3
235.2
'235.2
240.4
240.6
237.8
240.7
Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy..........................................
545.8
254.0
556.0
261.1
557.5
257.9
551.3
259.7
550.6
261.8
549.1
258.0
551.4
250.4
543.4
243.2
540.7
235.8
'543.5
231.6
545.7
239.2
543.9
243.4
538.2
242.8
532.2
247.3
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
’ Data for December 1981 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
r=revised,
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
24.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
Annual
average
1982
1981
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
'295.8
r 313.8
298.2
316.4
298.5
316.7
297.9
316.1
297.9
316.1
242.5
309.3
'241.0
'310,0
246.2
311.7
248.5
311.4
247.5
311.0
251.4
309.9
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
All commodities
All commodities (1957-59 = 100)..............................................
2934
311.3
293.4
311.3
294.1
312.0
294.8
312.8
296.2
314.3
296.4
314.5
295.7
313.7
296.1
314.2
295.5
313.5
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities
251.5
304.1
253.8
303.5
252.9
304.7
254.3
305.1
2568
306.2
254.2
307.2
250.3
307.4
246.0
309.0
Dec.1
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
254.9
267.0
248.4
248.0
201.2
242.0
287.4
187.1
274.1
274.3
263.3
286.1
264.7
246.6
195.4
274.2
287.2
196.2
296.3
295.9
259.6
275.3
257.7
251.8
207.2
258.3
283.6
165.0
299.0
259.7
260.7
263.3
257.1
263.0
210.0
259.6
285.0
174.6
285.3
242.7
263.3
265.6
257.4
266.5
215.3
251.3
284.3
185.1
290.0
250.2
257.9
258.1
242.7
262.0
210.3
232.5
285.0
180.7
284.3
263.9
251.1
252.8
227.0
257.3
196.7
206.5
287.3
193.2
267.2
268.9
243.1
248.8
227.6
244.5
185.7
211.7
294.3
193.8
230.4
263.3
237.4
254.0
226.5
231.1
175.0
198.5
288.2
209.7
221.1
273.1
'234.6
'280.5
213.6
225.0
171.4
188.4
286.7
195.5
218.8
280.2
242.1
288.3
225.2
236.8
186.8
198.2
287.6
187.0
218.4
280.1
247.1
289.3
223.2
251.2
197.3
193.6
285.8
200.6
217.6
273.7
244.6
256.4
220.9
255.6
197.7
199.7
282.5
204.0
213.7
273.0
250.6
266.7
226.0
267.6
186.2
207.4
280.3
192.1
222.8
274.2
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 ................................................
Prepared animal feeds..............................................................
248.7
255.5
246.2
245.7
261.1
276.8
247.5
227.5
250.1
230.3
247.6
253.9
239.1
245.4
258.0
284.5
246.0
232.4
249.9
237.7
248.2
256.3
245.2
244.6
259.4
262.8
247.6
228.2
251.1
241.0
249.9
256.4
248.6
245.2
262.5
274.8
248.1
227.3
251.5
234.3
252.2
258.3
257.1
245.1
265.9
266.0
249.0
234.8
252.2
232.2
251.2
257.7
254.4
245.3
267.3
267.3
2494
229.5
252.1
228.9
248.9
258.5
253.3
245.5
270.0
246.8
249.1
224.3
253.0
222.9
246.6
256.9
246.6
246.8
271.7
246.7
250.0
223.4
249.9
218.1
244.3
256.5
240.0
246.9
270.5
244.1
251.4
221.5
250.1
214.7
'243.6
'255.1
'236.1
247.2
'271.8
'247.6
'251.9
'219.1
250.1
'217.2
247.4
256.6
244.2
247.7
272.8
260.8
253.5
217.0
250.5
217.7
248.3
255.3
247.4
248.0
274.7
260.3
254.2
218.1
250.9
215.4
248.1
254.2
249.7
248.0
275.7
255.0
255.7
214.1
249.6
212.0
250.8
253.8
257.1
248.4
274.5
256.4
256.6
218.6
249.5
216.1
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............................................................
199.6
156.7
137.8
146.7
125.2
185.5
228.2
197.6
151.5
135.0
146.6
124.9
184.3
222.1
199.2
156.4
138.6
145.8
125.7
185.2
224.0
200.1
157.9
139.3
147.4
125.6
186.2
223.9
201.3
159.7
140.3
148.2
126.0
187.2
227.1
202.4
161.2
142.0
149.0
126.8
187.8
228.8
202.9
161.0
142.3
149.1
126.8
188.0
232.2
204.0
162.7
144.4
148.0
126.7
189.9
233.0
203.6
161.6
140.3
147.4
126.5
190.8
233.4
'203.4
'161.5
'139.6
'147.2
'125.6
'191.0
'233.6
203.7
163.7
135.3
148.3
126.7
190.1
241.9
204.2
164.1
134.9
147.4
126.9
191.0
245.5
205.0
163.8
140.8
147.1
125.7
191.7
246.2
204.7
162.1
140.4
145.8
125.5
192.2
246.5
04
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Leather....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................
261.5
319.5
241.2
243.5
263.5
337.8
241.1
238.5
263.7
330.0
241.4
244.2
261.6
321.0
241.5
244.3
261.1
319.0
2424
242.9
261.3
313.7
242.5
245.1
261.7
313.2
242.9
245.0
260.0
313.7
239.6
245.0
259.8
311.3
239 8
245.4
'260.7
'312.3
'240.1
'245.4
264.5
320.3
241.4
252.7
263.3
317.8
239.2
253.3
262.7
315.5
240.6
253.3
264.4
313.2
243.7
253.2
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels2 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum3 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined4 ....................................................
694.4
497.3
456.5
939.8
366.8
803.6
805.8
707.2
486.1
430.1
907.8
355.5
842.5
840,9
709.0
487.3
467.9
933.9
360.4
839.9
835.3
707.6
491.7
469.7
954.6
366.6
815.9
828.1
704.9
505.5
469.7
969.4
374.6
798.9
816.3
704.3
507.0
469.7
949.3
385.8
796.8
813.4
703.5
510.2
469.7
976.6
383.8
796.8
806.1
698.1
510.8
469.7
965.6
378.4
788.2
802.3
'702.5 705.8
698.1
512.7
'515.2 526.1
'469.7 470.3
469.7
983.0 '1,003.7 990.2
'384.2 392.5
378.3
'787.2 787.4
785.9
798.3
'798.6 802.9
697.6
529.1
470.3
987.9
392.6
770.4
789.4
690.1
527.0
468.1
993.8
404.1
745.0
770.5
671.2
532.5
468.1
996.6
406.7
718.0
733.4
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals5 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Pairt materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products ..........................................
287.8
363.8
249.9
300.2
193.4
295.6
284.8
289.2
254.4
286.0
362.4
248.1
295.4
191.0
312.7
277.8
285.1
255.3
288.6
368.5
250.0
300.3
192.4
312.1
279.1
287.9
254.8
290.5
369.7
250.0
300.8
193.2
303.1
288.9
290.0
256.3
291.3
370.4
250.7
304.5
195.5
290.9
288.9
295.9
254.8
293.3
371.5
250.7
308.5
195.0
305.6
293.4
297,5
257.3
293.3
371.8
250.7
308.0
197.8
285.6
292.6
296.8
257.4
292.4
367.9
250.7
308.1
198.5
277.7
293.1
299.5
256.9
292.0
363.7
254.5
308.3
198.2
282.5
295.7
293.2
259.9
'291.8
'362.8
'256.4
'305.8
'198.9
280.4
'294.9
'294.2
'260.0
293.4
363.8
259.3
308.7
200.9
272.8
295.8
293.8
262.8
294.5
362.8
259.3
308,6
203.0
274.2
297.9
295.9
265,0
294.6
362.6
259.3
306.8
204.8
290.1
297.0
286.8
267.7
294.5
359.6
259.3
306.8
208.6
282.6
296.3
286.1
269.0
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) ..................................................
232.8
256.7
281.7
250.9
252.4
128.4
230.8
2530
279.8
250.7
243.8
128.2
231.8
254.4
283.2
251.2
245.7
128.6
233.4
256.8
285.2
251.2
250.9
129.1
232.1
254.7
284.2
246.8
2514
128.7
234.1
256.9
284.7
249.9
253.1
129.8
235.7
260.3
283.1
256.5
253.9
129.9
237.3
262.9
279.8
257.1
261.1
130.3
238.0
264.4
279.0
255.9
266.7
130,3
'238.3
' 264.6
'280,8
'255.4
'267.2
'130.6
239.5
267.3
281.8
256.6
272.6
130.5
241.0
269.7
282.1
259.6
274.9
130.9
241.8
269.3
282.8
256.3
278.1
132.0
241.9
268.7
283.2
254.4
278.8
132.4
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Ml work ..................................................................................
P'ywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................
292.8
325.2
273.4
245.7
239.2
299.4
333.6
276.5
256.0
238.3
298.4
336.3
274.8
248.3
238.2
298.1
335.8
272.2
251.5
239.8
296.5
332.4
273.6
247.8
240.7
294.5
329.9
272.3
245.6
239.8
289.3
320.2
271.4
240.8
240.5
284.3
311.7
271.3
234.3
239.9
282.1
306,6
271.8
233.5
239.3
'285.4
'309.9
'273.7
'239.7
'239.4
285.7
310,6
276.8
236,8
239.4
285.4
308.3
278.4
235.7
239,8
285.4
308.1
276.4
237.1
239.6
286.1
311.5
276.4
234.1
237.7
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
See footnotes at end of table.
Digitized 98
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
Code
1981
Commodity group and subgroup
1982
1980
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
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 . . .
Woodpulp............................................
Wastepaper ....................................................
Paper ......................................................
Paperboard ......................................
Converted paper and paperboard products..........
Building paper and board..........................................
273.7
271.0
398.1
175.7
280.0
258.2
259.0
231.3
271.4
268.6
394.1
184.2
275.2
255.7
257.3
232.5
272.1
269.9
394.2
182.7
275.9
258.8
258.8
237.3
272.9
271.2
394.2
182.9
278.5
259.2
259.9
237.4
274.9
272.3
394.2
182.1
279.7
259.4
261.2
235.5
275.9
273.7
394.2
182.1
282.1
260.6
262.4
234.2
277.8
274.8
394.2
178.5
285.9
261.6
262.8
234.2
279.2
275.7
402.3
165.1
287.8
261.7
263.2
233.3
280.4
275.8
413.7
144.5
287.4
261.6
263.1
232.1
r 281.0
'275.6
'413.7
143.4
'287.2
'260.0
'263.2
'230.3
283.9
276.1
412.8
135.2
288.8
259.7
263.9
233.2
285.4
277.0
412.8
128.8
289.5
261.4
264.9
231.1
286.3
277.3
414.1
129.2
289.5
261.1
265.5
237.5
287.9
276.4
392.3
128.1
291.7
261.2
265.0
235.5
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................................
300.4
333.8
337.6
286.0
315.9
262.4
267.4
223.9
295.4
270.8
2988
331.0
331.8
288.4
314.1
258.5
265.3
219.8
93.1
267.2
299.1
330.4
331.8
287.7
314.1
259.4
266.2
222.3
294.0
269.7
298.4
330.1
332.2
284.5
314.1
259.7
268.9
223.5
295.0
269.4
302.0
338.8
344.9
282.8
315.2
263.8
2709
226.4
297.9
272.0
304.1
339.9
344.9
287.3
318.7
265.3
271.2
227.9
299.3
272.9
304.9
339.8
345.3
289.4
318.8
267.8
271.6
228.5
300.0
273.7
305.3
341.3
348.7
285.4
318.2
269.5
272.9
229.0
302.6
276.1
304.2
340.0
348.6
281.1
318.1
271.5
273.1
228.8
303.2
278.0
'303.3
'339.9
348.9
'277.1
'316.8
'272.0
'274.0
'229.9
'303.0
'278.3
305.1
343.1
350.8
275.4
323.4
271.3
274.4
232.2
303.1
284.3
305.0
343.0
350.5
274.2
325.4
272.5
276.1
231.9
303.5
284.0
303.6
342.4
350.5
267.6
326.1
275.7
278.9
233.5
304.5
284.6
303.8
342.6
352.2
266.1
329.7
276.2
280.3
235.8
305.0
285.3
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment ..............................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment......................
Construction machinery and equipment........................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ..................
General purpose machinery and equipment............................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ......................
Miscellaneous machinery................................................
263.1
287.7
320.8
301.2
288.5
308.0
220.1
252.3
259.6
282.5
317.0
298.7
284.4
303.2
217.4
248.5
260.7
285.7
318.4
299.9
285.9
307.2
217.5
248.8
262.1
286.8
320.1
301.3
287.0
308.8
219.2
250.1
264.8
288.1
323,8
302.9
290.6
311.0
221.1
254.0
266.2
290.3
325.0
303.5
292.3
310.3
222.8
256.0
268.1
292.8
326.5
305.3
293.9
312.8
224.2
258.5
269.3
295.5
328.3
306.6
295.1
314.6
225.3
259.0
270.4
300.8
329.6
307.9
296.2
315.0
2260
259.8
'272.0
'302.8
332.0
'312.9
'297.9
'316.4
'227.0
'260.4
273.5
302.2
337.0
313.7
299.6
319.5
228.3
261.3
274.9
303.7
338.1
315.8
300.8
320.3
229.4
263.4
275.7
304.6
337.4
317.0
301.5
320.6
230.5
264.1
277.3
306.1
341.4
318.7
302.9
323.1
231.6
265.4
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 ..................
198.4
219.4
257.6
178.6
186.9
89.1
280.8
196.4
216.5
254.5
175.3
185.1
90.9
275.3
197.4
216.4
257.7
179.5
185.5
90.8
276.7
197.3
218.6
257.9
180.7
186.1
86.7
276.4
199.5
220.0
258.7
182.8
188.8
87.4
282.1
199.6
220.7
259.1
181.9
189.1
87.6
280.9
201.0
222.2
261.6
181.7
190.1
87.8
285.8
201.3
222.8
262.1
180.9
190.8
88.1
285.8
202.1
225.1
263.3
182.3
190.9
88.0
285.3
'202.9
'226.6
'263.9
'181.4
'191.3
'89.6
'286.2
202.7
228.2
266.6
179.6
192.0
87.5
282.8
203.9
228.3
271.6
179.8
193.8
87.5
283.0
204.7
228.5
273.9
179.8
195.9
86.8
284.3
205.6
230.6
274.5
180.3
196.3
88.2
283.5
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....................................
309.5
212.9
296.3
291.2
249.7
302.5
407.0
256.2
328.5
463.9
310.8
210.2
297.4
289.9
246.0
296.4
415.9
256.8
326.7
479.1
312.0
210.2
297.5
291.2
250.1
304.0
407.4
261.1
335.3
477.6
313.6
210.3
297.5
293.5
250.7
307.1
428.5
260.7
335.3
476.8
314.3
218.3
297.7
293.4
250.9
307.1
421.9
259.7
335.5
476.2
314.1
218.3
298.0
293.4
250.9
307.1
420.9
255.3
335.5
475.3
313.2
218.3
298.5
292.9
255.3
307.1
401.6
252.9
335.5
474.3
313.3
218.5
298.4
293.3
256.2
307.8
402.9
252.4
335.5
473.3
313,7
218.5
298.5
293.4
256.5
308.9
410.2
251.3
335.5
473.5
'313.5
'216.1
'298.7
'293.6
'257.5
'311.3
'405.6
249.7
'335.5
'474.7
315.1
216.0
305.9
294.8
257.1
315.4
399.7
250.4
334.7
474.9
318.4
216.1
308.1
295.6
257.4
330.9
398.8
255.0
349.6
479.0
319.7
216.2
309.5
296.0
257.4
338.4
392.8
260.7
355.2
480.1
320.0
216.2
309.2
297.3
260.7
339.7
385.2
262.8
357.4
478.8
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)............
Motor vehicles and equipment ..........................
Railroad equipment ....................................
235.4
237.5
338.2
231.9
233.9
335.7
233.6
236.0
331.2
234.3
236.7
331.4
235.0
237.4
338.1
235.9
238.4
338.7
231.8
232.8
338.7
244.5
247.8
338.7
246.3
248.9
341.3
'246.8
'249.5
'340.1
248.3
250.4
352.4
244.7
246.1
352.4
244.9
246.4
352.8
245.6
246.6
353.9
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
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 ................................
265.6
212.2
268.3
259.6
210.1
(6)
346.9
266.0
211.3
268.7
248.4
212.4
(6)
349,0
266.9
211.4
268.7
267.8
212.5
(6)
349.4
266.3
211.2
268.7
268.0
212.5
(6)
346.9
263.2
213.2
268.8
267.5
211.4
158.1
333.1
262.6
212.7
268.8
267.7
207.1
158.3
334.6
267.0
213.6
274.5
267.8
208.7
158.7
345.5
268.5
213.0
278.2
269.7
208.9
159.1
348.5
269.5
212.7
278.2
269.7
209.0
159.3
344.8
'267.6
'213.3
'278.2
269.7
'209.1
'159.3
'344.6
268.4
219,3
277.9
270.5
210.3
159.1
341.9
273.7
221.0
306,4
270.7
210.8
159.6
340.9
272.9
221.6
306.4
271.8
212.5
161.6
334.3
273.3
221.9
306.5
271.8
214.6
162.0
333.5
1Data for December 1981 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
« Not available.
r=revised.
99
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
25.
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Commodity grouping
All commodities
less farm products
Processed foods
Industrial commodities less fu e ls ......................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 - 100 )...........
Underwear and nightwear ...............................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yarns.....................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations ..........................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding m illw ork.............
Special metals and metal products.................................
Fabricated metal products...............................................
Copper and copper products ..........................................
Machinery and motive products ......................................
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 p a r ts ...........
Farm and garden tractors less p a rts ...............................
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts . . .
Industrial fittings ..............................................................
Construction materials.....................................................
Annual
average
1981
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
135.9
134.3
203.5
295.0
251,4
250.3
261.8
134.5
134.2
202.1
296.1
250.3
250.5
262.9
135.7
134.6
202.3
296.7
252.2
253.1
263.5
135.9
135.7
203.5
298.0
255.2
256.0
265.0
136.8
135.8
204.7
298.7
253.7
255.0
266.1
137.2
135.3
204.7
298.5
251.7
252.8
266.4
138.1
135.5
204.7
299.5
249.1
250.0
268.7
138.2
136.5
204.7
299.4
247.4
247.6
269.0
138.4
136.5
205.7
r 300,0
r 247.6
r 246.5
269.4
r 137.9
136.7
' 206.3
301.9
252.0
251.0
270.9
139.3
137.0
212.4
301.8
253.5
252.2
271.4
140.0
137.0
216.0
301.4
251.5
252.1
271.6
139.0
13/.5
216.4
300.9
254.4
254.9
272.2
138.9
138.1
216.4
278.6
186.8
303.1
279.4
280.0
204.0
256.7
276.1
184.0
312.3
276.8
277.0
207.7
253.1
279.0
185.7
311.5
277.9
278.5
206.6
254.4
281.2
186.6
312.2
277.9
279.0
203.7
255.6
282.3
189.0
308.7
280.2
281.7
202.5
257.4
284.0
188.4
306.2
281.9
283.1
206.2
258.6
284.4
191.6
298.0
280,1
283.9
205.1
257.7
283.8
192.8
290.1
286.7
286.0
201.9
264.3
283.2
192.5
286.4
286.8
287.0
198.9
265.8
'283.1
'193.3
'290.7
286.6
'287.1
'195.4
' 266.9
284.9
195.5
290.2
288.0
290.0
195.1
268.5
286.0
198.0
288.3
286.1
290,4
194.1
267.6
285.8
200.0
288.6
¿85.5
291.5
191.0
268.2
285.7
204.4
289.9
285.7
292.5
190.5
269.3
288.3
296.2
329.4
239.4
324.0
289,0
298.9
294.4
314.8
302.1
283.0
284.3
289.6
325.9
235.7
316.8
283.2
289.3
290.2
314.0
302.7
283.9
285.9
293.7
327.1
237.3
322.0
286.7
297.7
290.8
314.3
303.0
284.2
287.3
294.8
328.3
241.4
322.5
287.9
298.0
292.5
315.3
303.0
285.0
290.4
295.6
330.1
241.7
325.5
288.6
298.0
293.9
317.5
303.0
285.7
291.7
298.2
331.4
241.8
327.8
291.1
301.4
295.8
319.8
303.0
285.5
293.8
301.6
333.9
241.8
330.7
294.0
305.5
298.7
322.7
304.3
284.4
295.0
305.7
336.7
241.8
338.3
297.6
313.0
299.9
322.4
304.1
284.6
296.4
312.5
338.3
242.2
342.2
303.5
319.6
303.5
323.4
304.1
284.1
'298.4
'314.7
'341.2
'242.0
'342.3
'305.8
'319.7
'310.9
'325.3
304.1
'285.2
300.1
313.7
342.1
240.5
346.2
305.3
318.5
310.0
325.2
304.1
286.4
301.6
314.6
343.3
240.1
346.2
306.3
318.5
311.6
326.8
304.1
286.9
302.2
315.5
346.4
240.3
346.4
307.3
318.8
307.3
327.1
304.1
287.4
304.1
317.7
348.8
240.2
351.7
309.2
322.3
314.3
327.7
309.1
288.1
295.7
251.9
252.2
1Data for December 1981 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
26.
1982
1981
Apr.
r=revised,
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
Commodity grouping
Annual
average
1981
1982
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Total durable goods .......................................................
Total nondurable g o o d s...................................................
269.8
312.4
267.8
314.2
268.6
314,8
269.1
315.7
270.8
316.8
271.9
316.2
271.8
315.0
275.0
312.8
275.4
311.4
'276.0
'311.4
277.4
314.7
277.3
315.3
277.3
314.2
278.1
313.5
Total manufactures ..........................................................
285.9
269.6
303.6
285.3
267.2
304.9
286.2
268.2
305.7
286.9
268.9
306.4
288.0
270.6
306.9
288.6
271.7
306.9
288.3
271.7
306,3
289.8
275.1
305.5
289.7
275.8
304.5
'289.9
'276.5
'304.3
291.8
277.8
306.8
291.9
277.7
307.2
291.9
277.8
305.8
290.9
278.7
303.9
330.7
271.4
334.0
334.6
286.0
337.1
334.2
280.4
337.1
335.4
272.4
338.9
337.9
271.2
341.8
335.8
275.9
339.1
332.7
270.4
336.3
326.4
263.7
330.0
323.3
253.4
327.4
'323.6
'247.8
'328.2
329.0
254.4
333.4
330.6
254.4
335.1
329.9
250.7
334.7
332.2
245.9
337.5
Nondurable................................................................
Total raw or slightly processed goo ds.............................
Nondurable................................................................
' Data for December 1981 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.
27.
r=revised.
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1981
Apr.
167.3
346.0
493.9
898.8
277.3
138.7
243.1
241.3
192.0
274.8
1982
1981
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
168.1
354.1
483.5
908.6
278.0
137.1
168.1
347.9
484.5
919.7
278.4
137.1
168.1
352.0
488.4
713.7
278.4
137.1
168.1
358.3
502.1
911.5
278.4
137.1
168.1
365.4
503.4
900.3
278.2
137.1
168.1
364.5
506.0
913.6
279.2
137.1
168.1
354.1
506.2
900.8
279.7
143.4
171.3
354.1
507.8
907.5
279.8
143.4
171.3
343.7
'510.3
'921.7
'280.7
143.4
171.3
347.9
521.3
917.6
287,0
147.1
171.3
313.7
524.7
913.5
289.5
149.6
171.3
325.0
521.9
904.7
292.7
149.6
171.3
327.0
527.2
894.9
292.2
151.7
237.8
227.5
186.7
273.4
243.6
230.4
196.2
273.4
245.9
238.1
198.3
273.5
252.6
246.0
203.6
273.8
250.9
254.0
201.2
273.7
252.7
253.9
188.8
275.0
244.1
252.2
175.5
279.2
237.0
248.9
172.8
279.5
'234.1
'247.0
166.7
275.0
236,6
245.7
(2)
275.0
243.8
250.5
( 2)
276.4
247.0
248.2
<2)
276.8
253.3
253.4
( 2)
275.3
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 gas ....................................
Construction sand and gravel ..........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 - 100)....................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meatpacking plants ........................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats................................
Poultry dressing plants ....................................................
Creamery butter..............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis
100
27.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
Industry description
SIC
code
MANUFACTURING
Annual
average
1981
1982
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Continued
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
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 care sugar ..........................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................................
Chewing gum ........................................................
215.8
211.9
248.5
177.6
195.9
277.2
124.6
273.5
320.6
309.8
216.2
211.4
244.0
174.2
201.5
300.9
128.5
275.7
350.5
323.1
216.2
212.4
245.9
175.3
199.4
300.3
129.8
224.8
334.4
303.1
216.1
212.4
248.9
175.0
199.3
300.3
127.5
263.3
339.7
303.1
213.8
212.7
251.6
180.5
196.5
297.4
125.9
272.2
274.1
303.1
214,5
212,7
252.9
178.7
191.0
284.3
124.8
254.6
287.5
303.2
215.0
212.7
254.3
183.4
195.3
268.2
119.6
212.3
270.7
303.2
215.4
212,5
257.0
182.1
191.1
247.3
117.3
219.9
250.3
303.2
215.9
212.5
256.4
181.4
191.5
235.4
116.4
224.3
230.4
303.2
'218.4
'212.7
'258.9
182.1
'189.2
215.1
'116.0
230.8
'250.5
303.2
218.6
212.8
259.6
184.0
191.4
205.9
116.6
247.6
292.5
303.3
217.9
212.8
262.2
181.8
187.4
192.2
116.5
245.1
292.6
303.3
216.8
210.9
262.7
181.5
187.3
183.5
114.8
233.0
272.4
303.4
216.6
214.2
261.5
181.5
192.5
177.9
115.4
242.9
272.6
303.4
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....................................................................
199.0
245.8
288.1
282.5
134.7
187.8
369.6
238.0
252.0
277.7
218.4
259.1
301.7
286.1
133.9
187.7
393.5
238.5
243.6
278.3
216.6
258.1
304.3
286.1
134.3
187.3
378.2
238.6
246.6
278.3
212.3
248.4
291.3
286.1
134.6
187.5
375.5
238.6
246.6
278.3
212.0
253.7
288.8
286.1
134.6
187.4
367.6
236.4
259.5
278.3
206.0
245,8
294.1
286.1
135.5
188.4
347.1
235.7
259.5
278.3
182,3
234.2
281.2
275.4
135.5
188.8
353.5
237.3
259.5
284.2
172.0
229.7
274.0
275.4
135.5
188.2
356.9
238.2
259.5
288.4
167.2
221.2
272.3
275.4
137.9
188,3
360.8
239.2
259.5
288.4
'182.4
'221.9
266.6
275.4
137.9
188.5
'369.5
240.4
259.5
288.4
184.9
222.6
260.3
267.1
140.1
187.2
398.3
245.0
259.5
288.4
170.6
219.9
262.6
267.1
137.9
187.0
390.8
247.1
259.5
319.7
158.2
217.8
271.8
267.1
140.2
187.7
420.7
248.7
259.5
319.7
164.6
225.0
273.3
259.1
140.2
188.2
433.8
250.7
259.5
319.7
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
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) ................
169.1
320.9
234.1
136.6
113.5
210.2
110.8
144.9
126.5
168.5
320.8
235.3
134.9
114.1
209.8
110.8
146.9
125.2
168.5
320.8
233.5
135.7
114.2
210.0
110.5
147.0
126.6
168.5
320.8
234.3
137.1
115.6
210.0
110.4
146.2
126.6
169.7
321,0
234.7
138.0
115.5
210.7
111.0
146.3
127.1
169.7
321.3
237.4
139.3
115.0
210.8
112.0
146.2
127.8
174.5
325.3
236.0
139.5
115.0
210.9
111.9
145.4
129.0
174.5
326.1
233.2
139.4
115.2
210.9
112.0
144.9
129.1
174.5
326.1
229.8
139.8
115.1
212.8
112.4
143.5
129.1
'174.5
'326.1
'227.6
139.5
'115.2
'213.0
'111.8
141.4
128.6
171.6
326.0
227.5
139.8
115.6
228.7
111.8
140.5
129.3
175.6
349.4
226.9
139.8
115.6
234.7
112.3
140.3
129.7
175.6
349.4
226.5
139.9
116.2
235.5
110.6
140.8
128.3
176.8
349.4
226.1
139.2
116.3
235.6
110.1
141.6
128.1
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................................
154.3
221.8
138.6
151.4
134.8
223.9
208.8
230.6
114.6
186.1
151.5
220.9
131.5
150.8
132.7
220.3
207.6
231.0
115.4
186.0
154.5
224.1
139.1
150.9
134.3
220.4
207.1
231.0
115,4
186.1
155.6
225.8
139.3
151.1
134.3
224,6
207.5
230.7
115.4
186.1
158.3
225.1
142.7
151.1
134.3
225.9
210.5
230.8
113.9
186.4
157.4
225.4
146.8
151.1
134.3
226.2
210.6
230.8
113.9
186.4
157.3
223.8
148.0
154.8
139.3
226.5
211.5
230.8
113.9
186.4
155.7
222.4
154.5
157.0
139.3
227.4
212.4
230.8
113.9
186.8
157.0
219.9
145.6
157.0
139.3
228.4
212.6
233.0
113.9
186.9
'156.7
'217.2
146.0
156.8
140.7
'230.5
'213.4
233.0
113.9
'187.1
155.1
216.0
135.3
156.8
141.0
230.7
190.9
237.6
115.3
187.0
155.3
215.3
135.2
156.8
141.0
232.1
191.7
246.9
117.3
187.0
155.7
215.6
150.8
156.8
141.0
233.9
192.7
247.4
117.3
188.2
156.1
214.6
150.9
156.7
141.0
234.3
193.1
247.4
117.3
193.0
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men's and boys’ work clothing ......................................
Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
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)......................
248.4
119.8
121.1
169.9
136.8
120.3
289.3
132.1
131.0
228.2
247.0
118.3
118.4
169.0
135.0
120.7
289.1
129.3
131.0
233.3
248.2
118.4
122.3
169.2
135.0
120.5
292.1
130.0
131.0
234.8
248.3
118.5
122.5
170.5
136.9
120.5
292.1
130.1
131.0
234.8
250.8
121.0
123.0
170.6
138.8
121.6
289.2
130.1
131.0
233.5
251.1
121.2
124.3
170.6
138.8
121.7
289.2
133.1
131.0
231.2
251.2
121.3
123.5
170.6
138.8
121.7
289.2
134.6
131.0
225.2
253.1
126.4
123.4
170.6
138.8
122.0
289.2
137.6
131.0
219.5
253.2
126.7
124.1
171.6
138.9
122.5
289.2
137.6
131.0
216.5
'253.3
' 126.7
'122.7
'171.6
'140.1
'123.2
289.2
'139.7
131.0
'218.6
251.9
123.8
122.6
175.3
145.5
122.0
293.8
145.5
131.0
218.5
251.8
123.8
122.9
175.4
149.2
122.0
297.4
145.5
131.0
217.6
252.9
123.9
123.6
175.7
149.2
122.0
295.5
147.8
131.0
217.1
253.8
123.8
122.9
175.7
149,2
121.0
295.5
146.3
131.0
218.4
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100)................
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..........................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)........................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Wood household furniture (12/71 =100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100)..............
Mattresses and bedsprings............................................
Wood office furniture................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................................
142.0
156.6
152.5
156.8
172.8
197.4
174.9
193.7
254.6
253.2
152.6
158.3
153.1
155.8
180.9
195,4
171.8
190.5
254.5
251.2
145.7
158.2
153.1
155.9
184.5
196.2
169.7
190.4
255.4
251.3
148.1
158.2
153.0
156.1
182.3
197.5
173.9
190.5
254.6
251.3
143.8
157,6
153.1
158.1
179.6
198.6
175.1
191.3
254.7
251.3
139.6
156.9
152.9
158.3
173.6
199.2
175.1
194.6
254.7
251.3
135.4
156.6
152.8
158.7
170.5
200.1
175.3
195.2
257.1
251.3
129.3
154.8
152.0
159.2
168.0
201.0
175.6
195.2
257.1
255.0
129.0
154.2
150.4
159.3
166.9
202.0
179.5
197.5
257.0
262.5
'134.5
'153.2
'149.9
'160.3
' 170.3
'202.8
'182.1
'198.0
'257.6
'262.5
132.0
153.2
149.8
160.2
171.3
203.3
184.1
207.5
262.9
260.9
131.1
153.2
148.9
160.7
170.2
204.2
182.0
210.0
271.8
260.9
132.3
152.3
148.1
162.7
173.4
204.8
182.0
210.0
271.9
262.9
129.2
152.9
145.8
162.9
176.8
207.0
184.6
210.1
271.9
255.8
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) ............................
156.3
151.8
343.8
245.3
163.0
305.3
150.8
292.9
155.7
142.7
153.9
151.0
343.2
239.2
160.8
294.4
148.1
288.1
149.9
147.1
154.3
152.1
344.3
239.2
160.9
302.2
149.7
293,3
156.2
148.5
155.7
152.3
344.4
242.2
160.9
309.3
150.7
296.3
156.8
143.4
157.0
151.7
344.2
246.0
163.2
306.2
155.0
297.3
159.2
143.5
157.4
152.4
344.3
252.9
163.2
310.4
155.6
299.4
160.3
143.9
158.8
153.7
344.3
253.2
163.2
316.0
156.0
299.3
160.6
142.1
159.8
153.6
344.0
253.4
167.6
317.7
156.3
301.0
164.2
142.9
159.7
153.5
344.1
253.3
167.6
317.0
153.7
301.4
162.5
144.2
'159.6
152.7
1344.6
'253.3
'170.0
'324.8
'154.3
302.7
161,9
'142.9
161.8
152.6
345.6
255.3
175.3
329.3
154.2
304.0
161.0
142.4
162.0
153,6
345.6
258.3
176.5
333.7
156.4
306.2
161.1
142.5
161.9
153.2
345.6
261.4
176.5
335.0
151.7
305.6
162.4
142.2
161.8
153.0
345.5
261.4
176.5
322.1
151.2
306.6
161.7
142.7
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) ............................
254.1
270.2
312.0
294.4
194.3
176.7
215.9
251.6
271.1
324,8
306.0
198.1
180.4
215.5
251.5
273.6
314.5
304.1
198.8
176.3
216.2 |
250.9
273.1
312.6
302.6
198.4
185.7
216.2
249.4
275.3
315.7
299.1
197.1
182.8
213.1
260.0
273.0
319.8
297.5
196.3
182.3
215.5
259.4
272.0
316.5
295.8
196.0
174.3
220.6
259.4
273.8
318.7
294.6
196.3
174.9
221.0
258.5
273.7
316.5
293.3
196.4
178.1
220.1
259.0
'270.5
'315.6
'293.1
'196.0
'176.1
'221.2 I
261.4
269.1
315.6
293.5
197.2
173.5
222.0 |
265.5
275.5
312.9
288,8
198.4
173.2
224.4
261.7
278.1
316.3
281.9
198.8
170.5
222.3
258.5
278.4
322.2
267.5
197.1
167.4
220.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1981
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.1
Jan.
Feb.
1982
Mar.
Apr.
1981
3021
3031
3079
3111
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)....................................
Men’s footwear, except athletic (12/75 - 100)................................
Women’s footwear, except athletic..................................................
Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 - 100) ..............................
Flat glass (12/71 - 100) ..............................................................
Glass cortame-s............................................................................
184.4
193.4
128.8
150.6
169.1
217.8
155.5
175.6
328.4
183.6
187.7
128.7
158.6
168.7
218.7
149.7
174.5
326.6
184.0
187.7
129.1
154.7
168.9
219.3
158.4
174.5
335.2
184.1
187.7
129.6
150.7
169.6
218.5
158.4
174.6
335.2
185.0
192.9
129.2
151.3
170.7
218.9
158.4
180.0
335.4
185.4
200.3
130.2
148.5
171.4
217.8
158.4
180,0
335.4
185.3
200.3
130.3
148.3
170.9
218.2
158.4
180.0
335.4
185.0
200.3
130.8
148.2
170.5
212.5
158.4
180.1
335.4
185.0
200.3
130.8
146.8
170.6
212.7
158.4
180.1
335.4
185.2
'200.3
'131.0
'147.5
'171.3
'212.4
158.4
'177.4
'335.4
186.1
198.1
130.9
150.7
172.6
213.8
158.4
177.3
334.7
186.5
198.1
131.3
149.2
171.6
211.3
158.4
177.4
349.5
189.1
204.9
132.5
148.2
173.6
211.6
158.4
177.5
355.1
189.0
206.9
132.9
147.5
174.9
215.6
158.4
177.5
357.3
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
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............ ............................................
Fine earthenware food utensils........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)............................................
Concrete block and brick................................................................
328.5
296.9
132.5
310.4
222.7
254.9
335.0
308.9
160.1
270.4
332.4
296.0
129.6
308.6
212.7
252.0
328.2
308.2
158.6
267.4
332.3
297.4
132.1
311.0
223.9
252.5
336.6
309.6
160.6
271.2
331.0
298.5
132.1
312.2
223.9
255.8
336.6
309.6
160.7
271.2
331.6
298.9
132.1
312.3
223.9
258.7
336.6
309.6
160.7
271.2
331.6
298.9
132.1
312.3
223.9
259.6
336.6
309.6
160.7
274.0
332.0
299.9
140.4
312.5
227.5
259.0
336.8
313.8
161.8
274.2
330.3
299.9
140.4
313.9
231.7
259.0
336.8
313.8
161.8
274.3
330.3
300.5
140.4
315.2
231.7
259.3
344.7
315.0
163.7
274.2
'330.3
'300.5
'140.4
'319.9
'236.6
260.1
344.7
'315.0
'163.7
'275.1
336.4
291.4
136.8
327.0
196.4
261.1
347.7
314.5
164.2
274.8
338.2
291.8
136.8
346.5
196.7
260.6
347.7
314.5
164.2
276.0
338.3
291.8
136.8
357.5
196.8
260.7
347.3
314.4
164.1
276.3
337.9
295.9
137.1
357.0
202.4
261.9
336.2
312.8
161.4
276.4
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete....................................................................
Lime (12/75 - 100) ......................................................................
Gypsum products ..........................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 - 100) ..................................................
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)..................................................
298.7
172.5
257.3
232.5
185.3
342.8
121.8
316.2
341.5
299.5
298.5
172.4
257.1
232.7
178.9
336.7
120.8
308.2
333.1
297.0
299.4
172.6
261.4
233.2
186.6
337.3
120.6
308.2
334.1
298.4
301.7
173.0
260.9
234.1
189.7
338.2
120.7
309.5
336.3
298.4
300.7
173.1
261.8
235.0
189.7
350.1
121.2
325.0
348.2
298.8
300.0
173.9
258.9
235.1
189.7
350.0
121.5
325.7
350.6
299.9
299.2
173.7
252.9
237.3
189.7
350.3
121.4
326.2
350.5
302.0
299.5
173.7
251.5
237.6
189.7
353.1
125.4
326.4
362.0
303.3
299.4
173.5
252.5
241.0
190.2
353.0
125.4
326.4
362.3
305.2
'299.6
'173.8
250.6
'241.0
'190.3
'353.3
125.3
326.7
'363.0
'306.1
301.1
179.1
250.9
239.9
191.1
354.9
125.3
327.0
363.8
308.0
301.4
184.0
253.9
245.0
198.1
354.6
123.4
327.0
364.2
310.4
302.0
186.0
260.5
247.8
200,5
354.5
120.3
327.0
366.0
310.6
303.3
186.6
262.2
248.9
202.4
356.1
120.3
327.6
365.8
310.4
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary zin c..................................................................................
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) ..............................
Meta cans....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100) ....................................
Metal sanitary ware........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 - 100) ............................................
326.5
333.5
212.4
175.9
180,1
159.1
305.3
201.3
265.0
146.4
311.9
332.8
213.1
173.8
180.6
157.3
304.7
198.1
262.8
145.0
332.7
334.2
212.6
174.4
180.7
157.4
304.7
200.2
264.8
145.0
335.1
332.5
210.6
176.1
180.8
157.3
304.7
200.2
265.2
145.2
335.4
334.2
209.4
177.3
181.2
157.2
305.5
204.1
269.2
146.2
353.8
334.4
212.9
177.4
181.3
157.2
306.7
204.2
269.7
146.4
355.9
333.6
214.1
178.0
181.2
157.7
306.8
204.6
270.2
146.9
337.0
333.5
212.3
179.9
181.3
163.0
307.0
204.8
270.3
147.4
337.5
332.5
209.2
180.2
181.4
166.2
306.0
205.0
271.6
149.7
'315.7
332.8
'207,1
'180.8
181.1
166.1
'304.9
'206.0
'271.8
'149.1
308.0
332.4
205.6
181.5
180.7
166.1
310.3
211.0
270.9
154.6
308.9
327.9
204.1
181.6
180.8
166.6
314.4
214.2
271.8
152.5
298.6
320.7
199.6
181.4
180.5
165.9
315.1
214.3
273.8
152.6
273.4
316.5
196.6
180.1
179.9
162.9
319.6
214.9
275.8
152.7
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 100) ..........................................
Steel springs, except wire ..............................................................
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) ..........................
160.5
245.1
248.4
361.4
311.0
157.0
282.3
395.4
253.5
306.4
157.8
241.2
247.6
358.8
306.0
154.4
279.5
382.2
251.2
303.0
157.8
241.7
247.9
359.9
306.2
155.3
280.0
384.6
251.2
304.5
157.8
241.9
248.5
361.6
307.2
156.9
280.8
390.3
251.2
305.7
157.8
243.7
250.0
364.6
312.0
159.0
282.7
401.3
252.1
307.6
159.9
248.9
251.0
370.0
314.2
159.5
285.3
406.5
252.8
309.5
159.9
252.4
252.7
375.1
322.1
160.1
286.9
411.3
254.6
312.0
159.9
253.9
252.9
377.7
323.2
161.0
288.5
415.6
257.0
311.7
159.9
254.1
253.5
378.6
326.4
161.6
290.8
418.2
260.7
312.3
'163.9
'256.1
'255.7
'379.3
'325.4
'159.7
'292.9
'420.3
'265.6
'319.3
173.2
256.4
255.8
378.6
327.3
164.8
293.9
427.1
268.0
313.5
173.2
257.2
257.1
377.7
330.0
163.1
297.5
429.1
268.9
316.9
173.2
256.6
257.4
376.5
330.7
163.2
299.6
433.7
269.9
324.5
171.9
256.0
258.6
385.5
332.6
164.1
301.4
436.2
270.8
325.5
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 - 100)..........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 - 100)....................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 - 100)..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory ......................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 - 100)..............................
Transformers ................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 - 100)......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 - 100)..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 - 100) ..............................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 - 100)..................................
147.1
243.4
224.5
226.2
177.9
209.7
227.2
141.1
132.3
174.2
146.4
240.4
225.5
230.2
172.0
206.0
224.3
140.5
129.4
173.5
147.0
241.2
219.1
230.2
172.0
207.8
225.9
140.7
129.5
173.9
147.1
244.4
219.7
230.3
176.5
209.6
227.2
141.0
130.8
173.6
148.2
246.2
224.0
226.6
180.8
210.7
228.3
140.5
135.5
174.1
148.4
245.4
225.4
226.6
181.3
212.8
229.6
141.5
135.5
174.6
148.6
248.2
228.9
226.1
182.1
214.5
231.6
141.6
136.4
177.2
149.5
248.0
228.9
226.2
185.4
217.3
232.5
141.6
137.8
177.0
149.5
247.9
229.1
226.3
187.2
222.0
233.2
141.9
137.9
178.4
'150.0
'249.9
'229.1
'226.5
'187.3
'222.0
'235.8
142.6
'137.9
178.8
153.3
249.8
229.4
228.2
185.0
220.3
235.9
144.6
138.6
179.8
153.4
250.7
229.2
228.9
189.4
221.9
236.0
146.3
139.6
180.4
153.4
253.4
229.6
229.8
190.2
222.4
231.5
146.9
140,8
186.2
154.0
256.2
235.0
229.6
192.6
223.2
232.9
146.2
142.5
186.9
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum cleaners ..........................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 - 100)....................................................
Electric lamps................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ........................................
Electron tubes receiving typ e ..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..............................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100)..................................................
156.8
146.6
277.5
250.4
154.4
155.7
309.7
90.4
170.3
141.3
158.4
131.8
275.5
242.6
156.1
153.2
285.0
91.2
168.7
140.0
158.5
153.8
275:1
242.8
156.2
153.3
285.1
90.6
168.5
140.8
158.6
153.8
276.5
251.5
156.2
153.7
312.5
90.3
171.2
141.2
158.6
153.8
275.2
253.3
154.4
153.8
327.4
89.2
171.4
142.1
158.8
153.8
280.0
253.8
155.5
161.3
327.5
89.2
178.8
142.5
158.8
153.8
283.1
258.5
157.6
161.7
327.5
91.4
172.4
142.7
161.3
156.0
285.9
258.7
158.9
162.0
327.5
91.6
171.5
142.7
161.0
156.0
284.8
262.1
159.3
162.4
327.8
92.0
168.1
143.0
'160.8
'156.0
'281.3
'262.1
'159.2
'163.1
'342.2
'91.7
'166.6
'142.8
158.7
155.4
282.0
261.5
159.9
162.7
371.8
90.9
166.4
142.9
158.3
155.2
286.2
261.5
161.1
167.8
374.9
90.8
169.3
143.9
158.8
155.2
283.5
261.5
163.2
168.8
375.1
91.2
168.6
144.0
158.2
153.7
290.7
259.5
163.6
170.2
375.2
90.1
167.8
144.7
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 - 100)..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and w e t........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100)..................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100)......................................................................
Games, toys, and children's vehicles ..............................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 - 100)..............................
Burial caskets (6/76 - 100) ..........................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)....................................
154.8
182.2
150.2
131.1
220.5
138.6
139.5
151.8
154,4
182.6
148.4
132.4
221,2
136.9
138.1
151.5
153.7
181.0
149.6
130.9
221.8
136.9
138.3
151.5
154.3
181.0
150.3
130.9
221.9
140.4
138.3
151.5
155.0
181.6
150.3
130.9
2220
140.4
138.3
153,3
155.8
182.7
150.1
130.9
222.0
140.6
140.6
153.6
156.5
182.7
143.4
130.9
222.2
140.6
143.4
153.7
156.8
182.7
158.6
130.9
222.2
140.2
143.4
153.7
155.8
182.7
158.7
130.9
222.6
140.2
143.4
153.7
'155.8
182.7
'159.1
'130.9
'223.9
'140.3
142.7
153.7
157.2
182.1
159.5
134.9
225.8
140.3
142.7
155.1
156.9
185.0
154.5
136.2
229,9
140.3
143.8
155.2
157.1
191.2
154.7
136.2
231.4
140.3
145.3
156.1
156.7
195.4
154.5
136.5
231.4
140.3
145.3
156.1
’ Data for December 1981 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.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Not available,
r=revised.
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
r o d u c t iv it y
d a t a
are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
P
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.
28.
The use of the term “man hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 28 through 31, 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 , the produc
tivity tables were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— pri
vate business 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 eview , October 1976, pages 40-42.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-81
[1977 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor c o s t............................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t........................................
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 nonlabor payments ............................
Implicit price deflator ......................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ................................
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor c o s t..............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..............................
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
50.3
20.0
50.4
39.8
43.5
41.0
58.2
26.3
59.6
45.2
47.8
46.1
65.1
33.9
69.4
52.1
50.8
51.7
78.2
41.7
80.0
53.3
57.8
54.8
86.1
58.2
90.8
67.6
63.4
66.2
92.7
78.0
95.9
84.2
78.9
82.4
94.8
85.5
96,3
90.2
90.7
90.4
97.9
92.9
98.8
94.8
94.4
94.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.4
100.7
108.6
105.1
107.4
99.5
119.3
99.6
119.9
110.9
116.9
99.3
131.5
96.7
132.4
118.3
127.6
100.4
144.6
r96.3
144.0
r 130.6
139.4
56.2
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.8
40.2
62.7
28.3
63.9
45.1
47.9
46.0
68.2
35.6
73.0
52.3
50.5
51.7
80.4
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.2
54.9
86.7
58.6
91.5
67.6
64.0
66.4
93.1
78.4
96.4
84.3
76.1
81.6
95.0
86.0
96.8
90.5
88.9
89.9
98.1
93.0
99.0
94.8
94,0
94.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
1000
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.5
100.7
108.7
103.6
107.0
99.1
119.0
99.3
120.0
108.5
116.2
98.8
130.8
96.2
132.4
117.6
127.4
99.7
143.9
95.9
144.3
r 130.4
r 139.7
(’ )
( ')
( ')
( ')
(’ )
c>
( 1)
(' )
66.3
36.3
74.2
54.7
54.6
54.7
79.9
43.0
82.6
53.8
60.8
56.2
85.4
58.3
91.0
68.3
63.1
66.5
91.3
77.6
95.4
85.1
75.7
81.8
94.4
85.5
96.3
90.6
90.9
90.7
97.4
92.5
98.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.8
106.4
100.4
118.7
99.1
118.2
108.3
114.8
101.0
130.7
96.2
129.4
117.3
125.2
103.5
143.9
95.9
r 139.0
132.3
136.7
49.5
21.5
54.1
43 4
55.1
46.8
56.5
28.8
65.2
51.0
59.4
53.4
60.1
36.7
75.1
61.1
62.0
61.3
74.6
42.9
82.3
57.4
70.3
61.2
79,2
57.6
89.9
72.7
66.0
70.7
90.9
76.4
93.9
84.1
70.4
80.1
93.5
85.5
96.3
91.4
88.5
90.6
97.7
92.4
98.3
94.6
95.1
94.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.9
108.2
100.5
107.3
104.7
106.5
102.0
118.8
99.2
116.5
105.7
113.4
101.7
131.6
96.8
129.4
108.7
123.4
'104.0
146.2
97.4
'140.6
o 122.6
p 135.4
n
<’ )
o
(M
r = revised.
103
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
29.
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1971-81
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
1960-81
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4.4
3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4
2.7
8.0
1.7
5.2
5.9
5.4
-2.3
9.4
-1.4
11.9
4.4
9.4
2.3
9.6
0.4
7.2
15.0
9.7
3.3
8.6
2.7
5.1
4.1
4.7
2.1
7.7
1.2
5.5
5.9
5.6
-0.2
8.4
0.7
8.6
5.1
7.4
-0.3
10.1
-1.1
10.4
5.5
8.8
-0.2
10.2
-2.9
10.4
6.6
9.2
1.1
10.0
-0.3
8.8
'10.4
9.3
2.4
6.2
2.3
3.6
3.3
3.5
2.1
7.2
1.7
5.0
4.5
4.9
3.3
6.6
2.2
3.1
7.4
4.5
3.7
6.7
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.0
2.5
7.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
3.7
-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
5.9
10.1
2.1
9.6
0.4
7.4
16.7
10.3
3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1
2.0
7.6
1.0
5.5
6.4
5.8
-0.2
8.5
0.7
8.7
3.6
7.0
-0.7
9.7
-1.4
10.4
4.8
8.6
-0.3
9.9
-3.2
10.3
8.4
9.7
0.9
r 10.0
-0.3
9.0
r 10.9
9.6
2.1
5.9
2.0
3.7
3.3
3.6
1.8
7.0
1.5
5.0
4.4
4.8
4.8
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5
3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
7.7
1.4
4.9
1.5
3.8
-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4
3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9
3.2
8.2
2.3
4.9
4.6
4.8
2.7
8.1
1.5
5.3
5.2
5.2
0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.8
6.4
0.0
9.7
-1.4
9.7
4.4
7.9
0.6
10.1
-3.0
9.5
8.3
9.1
r2.4
r 10.0
-0.3
7.4
12.8
9.2
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
n
2.0
6.9
1.4
4.8
4.0
4.5
6.1
6.1
1.8
5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5
5.3
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3
-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0
2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1
4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6
2.4
8.3
1.7
5.7
5.2
5.6
0.9
8.2
0.5
7.3
4.7
6.5
1.1
9.8
-1.3
8.6
0.9
6.4
-0.3
10.7
-2.5
11.0
2.9
8.8
2.7
11.1
0.7
'8.7
p 12.7
p9.7
2.6
5.8
2.0
3.1
p2.9
p3.1
2.6
6.9
1.4
4.1
p4.3
°4.3
III
IV
I
0.0
11.2
3.1
= revised.
1Not available.
30.
1950-81
1971
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1977=100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
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 cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available.
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Annual
average
1979
1982
1981
1980
1981
III
IV
I
II
Ill
IV
99.3
131.5
96.7
132.4
118.3
127.6
100,4
144.6
r 96.3
144.0
r 130.6
139.4
99.4
120.7
99.2
121.4
111.5
118.1
99.1
123.2
98.0
124.3
112.2
120.2
99.5
126.4
96.7
127.0
115.2
123.0
99.1
130.1
96.6
131.3
116.0
126.1
99.4
133.1
96.9
133.9
119.7
129.1
99.1
135.9
96.0
137.1
122.7
132.2
100.3
139.8
96.1
139.4
127.6
135.4
101.2
143.3
96.9
141.6
129.3
137.5
100.9
146.5
96.3
145.2
132.4
140.9
99.2
148.5
95.8
149.7
'132.6
143.9
'98.9
p 151.4
p96.9
p 153.0
p 129.0
p 144.9
98.8
130.8
96.2
132.4
117.6
127.4
99.7
143.9
95.9
144.3
r 130.4
r 139.7
98.9
120.2
98.8
121.5
109.2
117.4
98.8
123.0
97.8
124.4
110.1
119.7
98.9
126.0
96.4
127.4
113.9
122.9
98.2
129.4
96.0
131.8
115.1
126.3
99.0
132.3
96.3
133.6
119.2
128.8
99.0
135.4
95.7
136.8
122.0
131.9
100.0
139.2
95.7
139.1
127.8
135.3
100,4
142.4
96.3
141.9
128.7
137.5
99.9
145.7
95.8
145.8
132.2
141.2
98.2
147.9
95.4
'150.7
'132.8
'144.7
p98.3
p 150.9
p96.6
p 153.6
p 129.2
p 145.5
101.0
130.7
96.2
129.7
129.4
130.2
90.2
125.2
103.5
143.9
95.9
140.9
r 139.0
146.1
103.6
136.7
100.5
120.1
98.7
118.2
119.5
114.6
97.5
115.9
99.9
122.7
97.5
121.3
122.8
117.2
92.2
118.1
100.2
125.7
96.2
124.2
125.4
120.9
95.5
121.0
100.1
129.3
95.9
129.2
129.1
129.3
83.4
124.1
101.8
132.5
96.5
131.1
130.2
133.8
89.1
126.4
101.8
135.5
95.7
134.1
133.1
136.9
92.4
129.5
' 103.4
'139.3
95.7
136.0
134.7
139.5
106.8
132.7
' 104.0
'142.4
'96.3
138.7
137.0
143.6
102.8
134.7
103.8
145.5
'95.7
142.2
140.2
147.7
106.7
138.2
p 102.4
p 148.0
p95.9
p 147.0
p 144.6
p 153.8
p 96.6
p 1414
(' )
101.7
131.6
96.8
129.4
r 104.0
146.2
97.4
' 140.6
102.0
119.8
98.5
117.5
102.1
122.3
97.2
119.8
r 102.1
125.4
96.0
'122.8
'100.8
130.0
96.5
129.0
100.7
133.9
97.5
133.0
'103.1
137.3
97.0
'133.2
'103.6
141.1
97.1
'136.2
'104.6
144.8
97.9
'138.4
'105.0
148.0
97.3
'141.0
'102.0
'150.8
'97.3
'147.8
p 100.5
= revised.
I
II
1980
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
C)
p 154.7
p 99.0
p 154.0
31. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977 = 100]
Quarte rly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ....................
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor costs ..................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................
Implicit price deflator ......................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..........
Compensation per hour ....................
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor costs ..........................
Unit nonlabor payments ............
Implicit price deflator ..............
Nonflnancial 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 costs ........................
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
Ill 1980
to
IV 1980
IV 1980
to
I 1981
I 1981
to
II 1981
II 1981
to
III 1981
III 1981
to
IV 1981
-1.1
8.6
-3.8
9.8
10.2
9.9
4.7
11.9
0.5
6.9
17.1
10.0
3.5
10.4
3.2
6.6
5.3
6.2
-1.1
9.3
-2.3
10.6
10.1
10.4
-6.5
5.5
-2.1
12.9
0.0
8.7
-0.2
9.8
-2.7
10.1
9.9
10.0
4.4
11.7
0.3
7.0
20.2
11.0
1.4
9.6
2.5
8.1
3.0
6.5
-1.7
9.5
-2.2
11.5
11.3
11.4
0.0
9.4
-3.1
9.4
9.4
9.5
15.7
9.9
r6.6
r 11.7
r0.3
5.6
4.8
7.9
77.9
10.4
2.2
9.3
2.1
8.4
7.0
12.3
-13.9
6.2
'9.8
10.5
-2.2
0.6
'1.9
11.6
-0.2
'4.1
10.8
3.5
'6.4
' 9.5
IV 1981
to
I 1982
IV 1979
to
IV 1980
I 1980
to
I 1981
II 1980
to
II 1981
III 1980
to
III 1981
IV 1980
to
IV 1981
1 1981
to
I 1982
p -1.0
p8.1
p4.7
p9.1
p —10.3
»2.8
0.0
10.3
-2.0
10.3
9.3
10.0
0.8
10.6
-0.6
9.7
10.8
10.1
2.1
10.1
0.3
7.8
11.5
9.0
15
10 1
-0.6
8.5
10.6
91
00
93
0.2
92
r8 1
r8 9
p8 3
p0 8
p9 8
p1 1
-6.8
6.2
-1.5
14.0
-1.6
10.0
»0.3
p8.4
»5.0
»8.1
»-10.2
»2.2
0.2
10.1
-2.2
9.9
10.8
10.2
1.2
10.5
-0.7
9.2
12.2
10.1
2.3
10.0
0.3
7.6
11.8
8.9
09
102
-0.6
9.2
109
97
08
r9 3
02
10 1
88
97
-0.5
'9.1
-2.5
10.3
9.7
11.8
15.7
10.7
0 -5.5
p6.9
p0.8
p 14.4
p 13.2
p 17.6
p -32.6
p9.6
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
n
<M
<1)
t 1)
1.9
10.4
-1.9
10.5
8.4
16.8
0.3
9.6
'3.2
10.8
' —0.4
9.5
7.4
15.4
11.8
9.7
38
10 1
'0.4
7,4
6.1
11.1
23.3
8.6
20
r9 9
08
8.4
77
10.4
19.7
93
p 03
p96
p8 6
p 12.3
p4 5
p9 2
(M
( 1)
( 1)
<’ )
( 1i
i 1)
1.2
9.3
-2.4
'7.9
'- 0 .8
'7.6
' -0.2
20.7
»-5.8
»10.9
»7.4
»17.8
'1.0
12.3
-0.2
'11.2
'1.5
12.5
r3 8
11.4
1.5
'7.3
r4 2
105
-0.2
'6.0
98
03
'1.0
p9 6
p2 0
»13.0
1.1
'10.9
r
p0 9
p 10 4
P1 2
( 1\
r=revised.
105
WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA
Data for the Employment Cost Index are reported to the Bu
reau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm
establishments and 750 State and local government units se
lected to represent total employment in those sectors. The
sample covers approximately 10,000 occupations in the private
sector and about 3,700 in State and local governments.
Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained
from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the
parties, and secondary sources.
Definitions
The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the
average change in the cost of employing labor. The rate of total com
pensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for
employee benefits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks.
Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all se
ries produced in the ECI, except those by region, bargaining status,
and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are meas
ured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Cen
sus of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the ECI.
While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in
the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the
employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord
with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is avail
able for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data
are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey
months of March, June, September, and December. The statistics are
neither annualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, ex
cluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays,
and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, com
missions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction
bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the bene
fits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are
excluded. Benefits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and
savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits.
Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more.
Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements cover
ing 5,000 workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes
refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settle
ments reached in the period and implemented within the first 12
months after the effective date of the agreement. Changes over the life
Digitized 106
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of the agreement refer to all adjustments specified in the contract,
expressed as an average annual rate. These measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)
clauses, that are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index
Wage-rate changes are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly
earnings: compensation changes are expressed as a percent of total
wages and benefits.
Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes implemented
in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They include
changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred
from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-of-living ad
justments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no wage ad
justment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of their
components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units with at
least 1,000 workers.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quar
ter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in
the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee bene
fits were included in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent
change in employers’ cost for employees’ total compensation. State
and local government units were added to the ECI coverage in 1981,
providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian non
farm economy.
Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker
groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service indus
try groups are presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and in
dustry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of
total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local
government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total
compensation and its wages and salaries component.
Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of
changes presented in the ECI are also available.
For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 25, “The
Employment Cost Index,” of the BLS Handbook of Methods (Bulletin
1910), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “Employment Cost In
dex: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July 1975; “How
benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” Janu
ary 1978; and “The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and ex
pansion,” May 1982.
Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and com
pensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly
periodical of the Bureau.
32.
Employment Cost Index, total compensation
[June 1981 =100]
Percent change
1981
1980
1979
12 months
ended
Series
Dec.
March
June
Sept.
Dec.
March
Civilian nonfarm workers1
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Blue-collar workers......................................
Service workers ..........................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Services..................................................
Public administration2 ................................
Private nonfarm workers3
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Blue-collar workers ......................................
Service workers ..........................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Dec.
1980
12 months
ended
Dec. 1981
June
Sept.
Dec.
100.0
102.6
104.5
1.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.7
102.3
102,8
104.9
104.1
104.2
2.1
1.8
1.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0
102.1
102.8
104.4
104.3
104.0
104.8
107.1
106.0
1.9
1.9
2.6
1.6
86.3
88.6
90.7
92.8
94.7
98.1
100.0
102.0
104.0
9.8
2.0
9.8
86.3
86.2
86,2
88.7
88.3
89.9
90.8
90.5
90.8
92.6
93.0
92,7
94.5
94.9
94.3
98.3
97.8
99.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.8
102.2
101.9
104.0
104.0
103.1
9.5
10.1
9.4
2.2
1.8
1.2
10.1
9.6
9.3
86.3
86.3
88.7
88.6
90.5
90.8
92.6
92.9
94.7
94.7
98.0
98.2
100.0
100.0
102.1
102.0
104.0
103.9
9.8
9.8
1.9
1.9
9.8
9.7
100.0
105.3
107.4
2.0
100.0
100.0
105.7
104.2
107.8
105.9
2.0
1.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
105.8
106.0
106.3
105.0
104.3
107.9
107.9
108.3
107.8
106.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.7
1.6
State and local government workers
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Blue-collar workers ......................................
Workers, by industry division
Services......................................................
Schools ..................................................
Elementary and secondary....................
Hospitals and other services4 ....................
Public administration2 ..................................
'Excludes private household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
Excludes private household workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 months
ended
“Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
N ote :
Dashes indicate data not available.
107
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
33.
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by bargaining status, region, and area size
[June 1981 = 100]
________________________________ _______________________________________
Percent change
1981
1980
1979
12 months
ended
3 months
ended
12 months
ended
Series
Dec. 1981
Dec.
March
June
Sept.
Dec.
March
June
Sept.
Dec.
86.4
86.6
86.2
88.0
88.4
87.9
88.4
88.8
88.0
90.2
91.0
89.9
90.8
91.3
90.4
91.8
92.3
91.5
93.5
93.8
93.1
93.4
93.4
93.4
95.8
96.1
95.5
95.1
95.4
95.0
97.4
97.7
97.1
98.2
97.9
98.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.7
102.6
102.8
101.6
101.7
101.6
105.0
104.7
105.2
103.2
103.3
103.2
10.9
11.0
10.8
8.0
7.9
8.1
2.2
2.0
2.3
1.6
1.6
9.6
8.9
10.2
8.5
8.3
8.6
West ..............................................................
88.4
87.3
87.6
86.0
90.6
89.7
89.7
88.2
92.5
91.4
91.6
90.4
94.2
93.2
93.3
93.5
96.0
94.9
95.3
95.3
98.3
98.0
98.1
97.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.7
101.9
101.6
103.2
104.4
102.8
103.3
105.1
8.6
8.8
8.8
10.8
2.7
.9
1.7
1.8
8.8
8.3
8.4
10.3
Other..............................................................
87.6
87.0
89.4
90.1
91.4
91.5
93.5
92.9
95.4
95.1
97.9
98.3
100.0
100.0
102.1
101.8
104.0
103.1
9.0
9.4
1.9
1.3
9.0
8.4
Workers, by bargaining status'
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Workers, by region1
'The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For
a detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
108
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis
1980
1.6
34.
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1981 =100]
Percent change
1979
1981
1980
12 months
ended
Series
Dec.
March
June
Sept.
Dec.
March
June
Sept.
Dec.
3 months
ended
Dec. 1981
Dec. 1980
100.0
102.5
104.4
1.9
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Blue-collar workers ......................................
Service workers ..........................................
100.0
100.0
100,0
102.6
102.4
102.5
104.7
104.0
103.6
2.0
1.6
1.1
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Services..................................................
Public administration2 ................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.1
102.7
104.4
103.8
104.0
104.5
106.6
105.5
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.6
Civilian nonfarm workers’
12 months
ended
87.5
89.6
91.5
93.5
95.4
98.0
100.0
102.0
103.8
9.0
1.8
8.8
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Professional and technical workers............
Managers and administrators....................
Salesworkers ..........................................
Clerical workers ......................................
Blue-collar workers......................................
Craft and kindred workers ........................
Operatives, except transport ....................
Transport equipment operatives ................
Nonfarm laborers ....................................
Service workers ..........................................
87.6
86.3
88.3
88.9
87.7
87.4
87.8
86.6
88.1
87.4
87.7
89.7
89.2
90.6
88.5
90.3
89.3
89.3
89,4
89.1
89.6
90.8
91.4
90.8
92.0
90.7
91.9
91.6
91.4
91.5
92.2
91.8
91.9
93.3
93.2
93.5
92.2
93.8
93.8
94.0
93.6
93.5
93.9
93.4
95.2
95.3
94.7
94.8
95.7
95.7
96.1
95.5
95.3
95.7
94.8
98.1
98.2
98.6
96.2
98.6
97.7
97.8
97.8
96.8
97.5
99.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.8
103.3
101.6
98.0
102.7
102.3
102.9
102.1
101.0
101.5
101.8
103.9
105.5
102.8
101.9
104.2
103.9
104.3
104.1
102.7
103.3
102.7
6.7
10.5
7.2
6.7
9.1
9.6
9.4
10.2
8.2
9.5
8.1
2.1
2.1
1.2
4.0
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.8
.9
9.1
10.7
8.6
7.5
8.9
8.6
8.5
9.0
7.8
7.9
8.3
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing..................................................
Durables......................................................
Nondurables................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................
Construction................................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trade............................
Wholesale trade ......................................
Retail trade..............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate................
Services......................................................
87.5
87.1
88.1
87.5
88.2
86.0
88.2
87.2
88.6
86.7
88.0
89.9
89.3
91.0
89.5
89.3
88,2
90.5
89.7
90.8
87.1
90.5
91.8
91.2
92.7
91.3
91.9
90.2
92.2
92.1
92.2
89.4
91.9
93.6
93.5
93.8
93.4
94.5
93.1
93.6
93.0
93.8
91.2
94.2
95.7
95.7
95.7
95.2
95.9
95.6
95.1
95.9
94.8
93.1
95.7
97.9
97.9
97.8
98.1
97.6
97.7
98.2
98.5
98.1
95.7
99.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.1
102.1
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
101.3
102.0
101.0
98.3
103.6
104.0
104.5
103.1
103.8
104.3
103.6
102.3
103.4
101.9
102.3
105.8
9.4
9.8
8,6
8.8
8.8
11.1
7.8
10.0
7.0
7.4
8.7
1.9
2.4
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.4
.9
4.1
2.1
8.7
9.2
7.7
9.0
8.8
8.4
7.6
7.8
7.5
9.9
10.6
100.0
105.0
107.0
1.9
100.0
100.0
105.4
103.9
107.5
105.5
2.0
1.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
105.5
105.7
106.0
104.6
103.3
107.6
107.7
107.9
107.3
105.5
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.6
1.6
All private nonfarm workers3
State and local governments
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ....................................
Blue-collar workers ......................................
Workers, by industry division
Services......................................................
Schoo.s ..................................................
Elementary and secondary....................
Hospitals and other services4 ....................
Public administration2 ..................................
'Excludes private household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
3 Excludes private household workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Includes for example, library, social, and health services.
Dashes Indicate data not available.
N ote :
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
35.
Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1977 to date
[In percent]
Quarterly average
Measure
1980
1981
1978
1979
1980
1981
1
II
III
IV
1
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
10.4
7.1
10.2
8.3
8.8
6.7
10.2
7.4
11.4
7.2
8.5
6.1
First year of contract....................
Annual rate over life of contract . . .
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
9.5
7.1
9.8
7.9
8.2
6.5
9.1
7.3
10.5
7.4
Manufacturing:
First year of contract....................
Annual rate over life of contract . . .
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
7.4
5.4
7.2
6.1
7.2
5.7
6.7
5.1
Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract....................
Annual rate over life of contract . . .
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
9.5
6.6
9.8
7.3
9.4
7.6
Construction:
First year of contract....................
Annual rate over life of contract . . .
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
13.6
11.5
13.5
11.3
10.8
9.1
1982
II
III
IV
7.7
7.2
11.6
10.8
10.5
8.1
11.0
5.8
1.8
1.1
8.3
6.5
7.1
6.2
11.8
9.7
10.8
8.7
9.0
5.7
2.2
2.0
8.4
5.6
7.8
5.8
6.4
5.5
8.2
6.7
9.0
7.5
6.6
5.4
1.9
1.8
10.3
8.5
9.5
5.9
8.2
6.8
8.0
7.3
11.8
9.1
8.6
7.2
9.6
5.6
1.8
1.4
12.2
10.4
15.4
13.0
14.3
12.0
11.4
10.3
12.9
11.1
16.4
12.4
11.4
11.7
9.3
8.9
|P
Total compensation changes covering
5,000 workers or more, all
Industries:
First year of contract....................
Annual rate over life of contract . . .
Wage rate changes covering at least
1,000 workers, all industries:
36.
Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1977 to date
Year
Year and quarter
1980
Measure
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982 p
1981
I
II
Ill
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
Average percent adjustment (including no change):
All Industries....................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
8.0
8.4
7.6
8.2
8.6
7.9
9.1
9.6
8.8
9.9
10.2
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.5
1.6
2.0
1.3
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.5
2.9
4.0
1.3
1.7
1.1
1.7
2.3
1.2
3.2
2.4
3.8
3.3
3.1
3.4
1.5
1.9
1.1
.9
.8
1.0
From settlements reached in period......................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .
From cost-of-living clauses..................................
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.5
2.8
2.5
3.8
3.2
.4
.5
.7
1.0
1.4
.8
1.7
1.2
.7
.5
.3
.6
.4
.5
.7
1.1
1.4
.7
.5
1.5
1.2.
.4
.4
.6
.1
.5
.2
Total number of workers receiving wage change (in
thousands)1..............................................
-
—
—
—
8,648
—
—
—
,—
3,855
4,701
4,364
3,225
2,713
-
-
-
-
579
909
540
604
153
—
—
—
—
888
2,639
2,055
2,669
3,023
2,934
882
2,179
1,033
1,750
_
4,937
4,092
4,428
5,568
6,176
From settlements reached
in period......................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached In earlier period ..............................
From cost-of-living clauses................................
Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in
thousands) ......................................................
-
-
-
-
2,270
—
—
—
—
6,267
4,593
_
145
_
_
—
_
1The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the
period.
110
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
WORK STOPPAGE DATA
WORK STOPPAGES include all known strikes or lockouts involving 1,000
Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working time meas
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data are based
ures only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more). For
largely on newspaper accounts and cover all workers idle one shift or
merly, these estimates measured the impact of strikes involving 6
more in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not
workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually
measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving 6 workers
whose employees are idle owing to material or service shortages.
or more was discontinued with the December 1981 data.
37.
a ll
strikes. Due to
Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
or year
Days idle
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(in thousands)
In effect
during month
(in thousands)
Number
(in thousands)
1947
1948
1949
1950
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
270
245
262
424
1 629
1 435
2 537
1 698
25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
415
470
437
265
363
1 462
2 746
1 623
1 075
2 055
15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
287
279
332
245
222
1 370
887
1 587
1 381
896
26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13.260
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
195
211
181
246
268
1 031
793
512
1 183
999
10.140
11.760
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
321
381
392
412
381
1 300
2 192
1 855
1 576
2 468
31,320
35,567
29,397
52.761
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
298
250
317
424
235
2516
975
1 400
1 796
965
35,538
16,764
16.260
31,809
17,563
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
231
298
219
235
187
1 519
1 212
1 006
1 021
795
23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844
1981 ........................................................................................
145
10,020
16,220
15.140
16,000
729
16,908
1981:
January ..............................................................
February ............................................................
March ................................................................
April ..................................................................
6
7
16
17
12
10
20
27
12.0
10.7
201.6
48.0
29.6
20.9
207.8
223.5
257.9
118.5
861.8
4,085.2
1982p:
January..............................................................
February ............................................................
March ................................................................
April ..................................................................
2
2
2
8
4
6
7
14
6.1
2.5
7.1
34.7
11.4
13.9
20.1
53.1
199.9
236.9
330.6
451.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent of
estimated
working time
111
Published By BLS in April 1982
SALES PUBLICATIONS
BLS Bulletins
Periodicals
A Guide to Seasonal Adjustment of Labor Force Data. Bulletin
2114, 10 pp., $2 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02643-9).
CPI Detailed Report, February. Comprehensive report on con
sumer price movements, including statistical tables and technical
notes, 109 pp., $3.50 ($20 per year).
Analysis of Work Stoppages, 1980. Bulletin 2120, 90 pp., $5 (GPO
Stock No. 029-001-02696-0).
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1980.
Bulletin 2111, 148 pp., $6 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02697-8).
Industry Wage Surveys:
Communications, October-December 1980. Bulletin 2126, 17 pp.,
$2.25 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02704-4).
Machinery Manufacturing, January 1981. Bulletin 2124, 97 pp.,
$5 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02703-6).
Men’s and Women’s Footwear, April 1980. Bulletin 2118, 78 pp.,
$4.75 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02690-1).
Textile Mills and Textile Dyeing and Finishing Plants, August
1980. Bulletin 2122, 135 pp., $6 (GPO Stock No.
029-001-02701-0).
Labor and Material Requirements for Commercial Office Building
Construction. Bulletin 2102, 50 pp., $3.25 (GPO Stock No.
029-001-02699-4).
Occupational Employment in Transportation, Communications,
Utilities, and Trade. Bulletin 2116, 70 pp., $4.75 (GPO Stock
No. 029-001-02700-1).
Productivity Measures for Selected Industries, 1954-80. Bulletin
2128, 218 pp., $7 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02702-8).
Current Wage Developments, April. Monthly report on employee
wage benefit changes; collective bargaining settlements; and
special wage trends, 66 pp., $2.50 ($14 per year).
Article: Negotiated Changes in Wages and Benefits in Major
Collective Bargaining Agreements in 1981.
Employment and Earnings, April. Report on national,
State, and area em ploym ent, unem ploym ent, hourly
and weekly earnings, and hours of work for March, 163 pp.,
$3.75 ($31 per year).
Producer Prices and Price Indexes, Data for February 1982. Mon
thly report on producer price movements. Text, tables, and
technical notes, 112 pp., $3.25.
Mailgram Service
Consumer price index data summary by mailgram within 24 hours
of the CPI release. Provides unadjusted and seasonally adjusted
U.S. City Average data for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CP1-W).
(NTISUB/158). $95 in contiguous United States.
FREE PUBLICATIONS
BLS Reports
Area Wage Survey Bulletins
The annual series of 70 publications is available by subscription
for $90 per year. Individual area bulletins also are available
separately. The following were published in April:
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, lowa-Illinois, Metropolitan Area,
February 1982. Bulletin 3015-7, 27 pp., $2.50.
Huntsville, Alabama, Metropolitan Area, February 1982. Bulletin
3015-3, 25 pp., $2.50.
Jackson, Mississippi, Metropolitan Area, January 1982. Bulletin
3015-1, 40 pp., $2.75.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Metropolitan Area,
January 1982. Bulletin 3015-2, 41 pp., $3.00.
Newark, New Jersey, Metropolitan Area, January 1982. Bulletin
3015-4, 40 pp., $2.75.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Area, January 1982.
Bulletin 3015-6, 56 pp., $3.25.
Sacramento, California, Metropolitan Area, December 1981.
Bulletin 3010-71, 28 pp., $2.50.
Seattle-Everett, Washington, Metropolitan Area, December 1981.
Bulletin 3010-70, 27 pp., $2.50.
Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1980. Bulletin 3000-72, 128 pp.,
$5.50.
York, Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Area, February 1982. Bulletin
3015-5, 28 pp., $2.50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment In Prespective:
Working Women, 1981 Annual Summary. Report 663. 3 pp.
Working Women, First Quarter 1982. Report 665. 3 pp.
Area Wage Survey Summaries
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, January 1982. 6 pp.
New Bern-Jacksonville, N.C ., March 1982. 6 pp.
Portsmouth-Chillicothe-Gallipolis, Ohio, February 1982. 3 pp.
Sandusky, Ohio, February 1982. 3 pp.
To order:
S a le s p u b l i c a t i o n s — Order from BLS regional offices (See inside
front cover), or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20212. Order by title and
GPO Stock number. Subscriptions available o n l y from the
Superintendent o f Documents. Orders can be charged to a deposit
account number or checks can be made payable to the Superinten
dent of Documents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted; in
clude card number and expiration date.
Available from the National Technical Infor
mation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
M a ilg r a m s e r v ic e —
F re e p u b l i c a t i o n s —Available
from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212 or from any
BLS regional office. Request regional office publications from the
issuing office. Free publications are available while supplies last.
Two
Productivity
Reports
□
Productivity
M easures fo r
S elected Industries,
1 9 5 4 -8 0
Productivity M easures for
S ele cted Industries, 1954-80
Bulletin 2128
□
Technology,
Productivity, and
Labor in the
Bitum inous C oal
Industry, 1950-79.
Bulletin 2072
Where to
send order
The following BLS
regional offices will
expedite orders:
1603 JFK Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10036
How to pay
P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
1371 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, Ga. 30367
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, III. 60604
2nd Floor
555 Griffin Square Bldg.
Dallas, Tex. 75202
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Updates through 1980
indexes of output per
employee hour for the
industries currently
included in the U.S.
Government’s program
of productivity
measurement. Data are
presented for 103
industries.
GPO Stock No.
029-001-02702-8
218 pages.
Price $7.00
A chartbook appraising
some of the major
structural and
technological changes in
the bituminous coal
industry.
GPO Stock No.
029-001-02556-4
69 pages.
Price $4.50
You may send your order directly to:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36017
Note: GPO prices are subject to
San Francisco, Calif. 94102 change without notice.
Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents.
Charge to my GPO account no_________________
Charge to MasterCard*,
Account no._________________________________
Expiration date
Charge to VISA*,
Account no.
Expiration date.
-------------------------------------------- ---------
‘ Available only on orders sent directly to Superintendent of Documents.
Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Street address
City, State,
ZIP Code
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212
Official Business
SECOND CLASS MAIL
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
.
tlbk A ^ÏL
<“ t u K t ^ t k v t
FU bÙA
b/U k l
: . " -
zzati ?*'
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
¡l UU là
ï^& üEO iO i
bftÌVK UF
MU
$ l~ L ü Û ÏÏ
¿3166
U.S.MAIL
@FedFRASER