The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
LABOR REV’EW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In this issue:
Deindustrialization and the shift to services
Consumer expenditures
* tu (*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
William E. Brock, Secretary
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Governm ent Center
Boston, MA 022 03
Phone: (6 1 7 )2 2 3 -6 7 6 1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region I— Boston:
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
Anthony J. Ferrara
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau ot Labor Statistics cf the U.S. Department
ot Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, DC 20212.
Phone: (2 0 2 )5 2 3 -1 3 2 7 .
1515 Broadway, Suite 3 400, New York, NY 10036
Phone: (2 1 2 )9 4 4 -3 1 2 1
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Subscription price per year— $ 2 4 domestic; $ 30 foreign.
Single copy— $4, domestic; $5 foreign.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (IS S N 0 0 9 8 - ' 818) and other Government
publications are set by the Governm ent Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changesi to:
3535 M arket Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia,
Phone: (2 1 5 )5 9 6 -1 1 5 4
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
W est Virginia
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Governm ent Printing Office
Washington, DC 204 02
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
friis periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of M anagem ent and Budget
tirough April 30 1987. Second-class
postage paid' at Washington, DC, and at
additional mailing addresses.
Region II— New York:
Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
Region III— Philadelphia:
Region IV—Atlanta:
Alvin I. Margulis
pa
19101
Donald M. Cruse
1371 P eachtree Street, N E ., Atlanta, GA 3 0367
Phone: (4 0 4 )3 4 7 - 4 4 1 8
Alabam a
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V—Chicago:
Lois L. Orr
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 6 0604
Phone: (3 1 2 )3 5 3 - 1 8 8 0
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI— Dallas:
Bryan Richey
Federal Building, Room 221
525 Griffin Street, Dallas, tx 7 5202
Phone: (2 1 4 )7 6 7 -6 9 7 1
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
O klahom a
Texas
Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City:
Gunnar Engen
911 W alnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (8 1 6 )3 7 4 -2 4 8 1
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X— San Francisco:
June cover:
The Garment Worker," a 1984 bronze sculpture by
Judith Weller. Courtesy The Public Art Fund, Inc. of
New York City and the International Ladies' Gar
ment Workers’ Union.
4 50 Golden G ate Avenue, Box 360 17
San Francisco, CA 9 4102
Phone: (4 1 5 )5 5 6 -4 6 7 8
IX
American Sam oa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
N evada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
(Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Sam M. Hirabayashl
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
JUNE 1986
VOLUME 109, NUMBER 6
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
R.E. Kutscher, V.A. Personick
3 Deindustrialization and the shift to services
The shift to a service economy does not signify a declining industrial base,
although a number of manufacturing industries remain in deep trouble
R. Gieseman, J. Rogers
14
Consumer expenditures: results from the Diary and Interview surveys
Urban consumers allocated about two-thirds of their spending to food, housing,
and transportation, according to the 1982-83 Survey of Consumer Expenditures
Laura Scofea
19
bls
area wage surveys will cover more areas
Earnings data for blue- and white-collar occupations will be published for 90 areas
instead of the current 70; two-thirds of the areas will be surveyed less frequently
William T. Moye
24
bls
and Alice Hamilton: pioneers in industrial health
In the early 1900’s, the Bureau contracted for and published studies
of industrial health and safety; its most active agent was Alice Hamilton
CONFERENCE PAPERS
S.M. Jacoby, D.J.B. Mitchell
28
Labor market data: supplementary sources
William J. Curtin
29
Airline deregulation and labor relations
J. Joseph Loewenberg
31
The 1984 postal arbitration: issues surrounding the award
Shulamit Kahn
33
Union membership trends: a study of the Garment Workers
Koji Taira
35
Labor market segmentation: how rigid is it?
John Niland
37
How do Australian unions maintain standing during adverse periods?
REPORT
David S. Johnson
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
Aggregate export price comparisons for U.S., Germany, Japan
DEPARTMENTS
2 Labor month in review
28
40
42
44
45
51
53
Conference papers
Research summaries
Research notes
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
EMPLOYMENT BENCHMARK. With
computation of data for May 1986, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics completed its
annual revision of employment, hours,
and earnings data from the establish
ment survey. The revision uses employ
ment counts for March 1985 as a
benchmark. As part of the usual annual
benchmarking process, the Bureau also
revised seasonally adjusted series for the
past 5 years, and computed new seasonal
adjustment factors.
Adjustment procedure. M onthly
estimates from the Current Employment
Statistics Survey are based on informa
tion collected from a sample of
establishments. These sample estimates
are “ benchm arked” —adjusted to
reflect actual employment counts—on
an annual basis. Benchmarks are counts
of employment based primarily on man
datory unemployment insurance reports
submitted by employers to State employ
ment security agencies. The current revi
sion affects unadjusted series from April
1984 (the month following the previous
benchmark) forward. Seasonally ad
justed series are revised from January
1981 forward. Selected hours and earn
ings estimates in the trade and services
divisions are revised beginning with
January 1984 data.
The current revisions. In March 1985,
the benchm ark count for to ta l
nonagricultural employment was 96.0
million, only 3,000 below the samplebased estimate for the same month. This
small aggregate adjustment is the result
of offsetting corrections to the total
private and government sectors. A
downward adjustment of 131,000 in
total private employment, stemming
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
primarily from manufacturing (down
104,000), was balanced by an upward
revision of 128,000 in State and local
government. Of the 255 3-digit Standard
Industrial Classification industry groups
for which the Bureau publishes employ
ment estimates, only 35 were revised by 5
percent or more. As is generally the case,
the largest industries in terms of employ
ment tended to have the smallest percen
tage revisions.
Sources of the difference. Differences
between the benchmark totals and the
sample-based estimates are caused by
both sampling and nonsampling error.
Sampling error may occur whenever in
ferences are drawn from a sample about
its universe.
Nonsampling error has three major
sources: (1) bias, (2) procedures for
handling changes in industrial classifica
tion, and (3) other errors of coverage,
response, processing, and collection.
Bias is inherent in establishment surveys
largely because sample estimates do not
readily capture employment growth
from new firms. The survey’s sample
design also places a higher probability of
selection on firms with greater employ
ment. This too creates a bias problem,
because small, young firms are responsi
ble for much of employment growth.
Coincident with this benchmark, the
Bureau is introducing increased sample
stratification by establishment size for
trade and service industry estimates.
With finer stratification by size, there is
an increase in the relative weight assign
ed to small firms during estimation, thus
lessening the large firm bias.
Revisions to other data. Benchmarks are
not available for the series on women,
production or nonsupervisory workers,
or hours and earnings. Women and pro
duction worker series are revised by ap
plying the sample-derived ratio to the
revised employment estimate at the basic
cell level. These revisions are then sum
marized to the broader industry groupings.
P roduction and nonsupervisory
worker employment estimates are used
as weights in the estimation of hours and
earnings at aggregate industry levels.
Benchmark revisions to employment
may cause shifts in these weights, affect
ing summary level estimates of hours
and earnings. This year, the introduc
tion of a new stratification pattern in
trade and services has resulted in a
slightly larger than usual hours and earn
ings revision.
Seasonal adjustment. Each year,
employment, hours, and earnings data
from the new benchmark are incor
porated into the calculation of new
seasonal adjustm ent factors. The
Bureau uses the X-l 1 arima seasonal ad
justment method, an adaptation of the
sta n d a rd ratio -to -m o v in g average
method, which provides for “ moving”
adjustment factors to take changing
seasonal patterns into account.
Revised estimates for employment,
hours, and earnings by detailed industry
appear in the June issue of Employment
and Earnings, along with a more com
plete explanation of the benchmarking
procedure and the new seasonal adjust
ment factors that will be used for the
p erio d A pril 1986-M arch 1987.
Estimates reflecting the new benchmark
will appear in the Current Labor
Statistics section of the Monthly Labor
Review, beginning with the July issue. □
Deindustrialization
and the shift to services
Does the employment shift to services imply
that the U.S. is losing its industrial base?
Data show the industrial sector
as a whole in healthy shape, but a few
manufacturing industries in deep trouble
R onald
E.
K ut sc h e r
and
V
a l e r ie
A.
P e r s o n ic k
Much discussion and concern recently has been focused on
the deindustrialization of the United States and the need for
a national industrial policy.1 The well-reported growth in
employment in the service sector and the relative decline in
employment in manufacturing industries implies to some a
decrease in our industrial capacity. The deindustrialization
argument points to a lack of investment in basic production,
plant closings and layoffs, and the large negative merchan
dise trade balance as evidence that the United States is
losing its manufacturing base.
But precisely how can deindustrialization be defined?
Does the shift to a service economy imply the erosion of an
industrial base? Should deindustrialization be described as a
loss of manufacturing jobs or should production changes
also be a criterion? Should these changes be measured in
absolute terms or relative terms? These are some of the
questions we examine in this article by reviewing data on
both employment and production for manufacturing and
other major sectors, first as a whole, and then for detailed
industries.
Our findings indicate that the shift to a service economy
is not really evidence of a declining industrial base, or
“deindustrialization.” The shift has largely been a relative
one. Employment in the manufacturing sector in absolute
Ronald E. Kutscher is the Associate Commissioner for the Office of Eco
nomic Growth and Employment Projections, Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
Valerie A. Personick is an economist in the same office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
terms has not declined appreciably over the last two decades
(except cyclically), and the most recent projections by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics show manufacturing employment
recovering most of its current recession-related losses. Fur
thermore, while employment in manufacturing is still off its
previous peak, the same is not true for output. Manufactur
ing production in real terms has bounced back from the
recession and by 1984 had reached a new peak level, hardly
proof of a loss of our industrial base.2
While little evidence of deindustrialization is present at
the macro or aggregate level, an additional finding is that for
about 20 manufacturing industries, including steel, leather,
and tires, the past 15 years have seen steady declines in both
output and employment. Further, the b l s projections for
these industries indicate little prospect for recovery. Thus,
while it is possible to say from the data we have examined
that the United States is not deindustrializing, this is not to
conclude that declines in both production and employment
have not hit certain industries particularly hard.
Although it is clear that there is little consensus on what
is meant by deindustrialization, certain points in these dis
cussions seem more important than others:
• Industrial base to most means the manufacturing sector.
• An absolute decline is more serious than a relative one.
• Production declines are a more alarming signal of a re
duction in the industrial base than employment declines,
because through efficiencies it is possible to have increas
ing output with stable or declining employment. Absolute
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Deindustrialization and the Shift to Services
declines in production may result from many factors,
such as increasing competition from other products or
from foreign producers, or a lack of capital investment. In
this article, we only examine the observed production
changes without looking at the reasons why.
• Production should be measured in quantity or real terms
to eliminate price effects.
gains in service-producing industries were not accomplished
at the expense of any of the major goods-producing indus
tries, except perhaps agriculture. Rather, employment has
remained fairly stable in the goods-producing sector as a
whole, including manufacturing, while increasing sharply in
the service-producing sectors, as chart 1 shows. The stabil
ity in the level of jobs in the goods-producing sector and in
manufacturing is evident throughout the 1959-84 period,
except for times of cyclical decline such as 1974-75 or
1980-82.3
The point that the employment shift to services has
largely been only a relative one has also been made by
Bureau economist Michael Urquhart in a 1984 Monthly
Labor Review article.4 His examination of labor force data
over the period of 1969 to 1979 showed that there had been
no real net migration of workers from the goods to the
services sector, but rather most of the growth in service
sector jobs was attributable to the increase in women’s labor
force participation.
Despite the overall stability in the absolute number of
goods-producing jobs, the change in shares between the
goods- and service-producing sectors has been dramatic. In
1959, the latter sector accounted for 60 percent of all em
ployment and the former, 40 percent; by 1984, that ratio had
shifted to 72 percent o f employment in the serviceproducing sector and only 28 percent in the goodsproducing sector. (See table 1.)
Macro review
Shifts in employment.
We begin this examination of
America’s possible deindustrialization by reviewing em
ployment changes at the macro or most aggregate level over
the past 25 years. Our analysis of data on changing job
shares clearly indicates significant structural change occur
ring in the U .S. economy. Does this imply that the United
States is losing its industrial capacity?
The goods-producing sector is defined here to include
manufacturing, construction, mining, and agriculture;
service-producing includes all other industries, including
government. While beginning the overview of employment
at the broad aggregations of goods-producing and serviceproducing, this article will focus more on manufacturing,
because as noted earlier, this is the sector with which the
deindustrialization argument is most concerned.
The first point to be made is that the shift to services has
been largely a relative shift and not an absolute one. Job
Chart 1. Total employment, 1959-84
Millions
Millions
120
120
100
100
80
40
0
1955
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
0
1985
Table 1.
Employment by major sector, 1959-84
Goods-producing
Year
Total
M anufacturing
Total
Agriculture
Mining
C onstruction
Total
Durable
Nondurable
Total
G overnm ent
Private
Level
(in thousands)
1959
.......................................
1969 .........................................
1979 .........................................
1980 ...........................................
67,784
81,508
101,471
102,146
27,125
28,964
31,324
30,589
5,583
3,622
3,340
3,356
614
501
704
723
3,910
4,374
5,879
5,842
17,018
20,467
21,401
20,668
9,582
12,080
12,985
12,419
7,436
8,387
8,416
8,249
40,659
52,544
70,147
71,557
8,008
12,117
15,832
16,114
32,651
40,427
54,315
55,443
1981
1982
1983
1984
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
102,972
101,643
102,528
106,841
30,403
28,739
28,284
29,643
3,341
3,396
3,369
3,293
737
729
650
651
5,766
5,460
5,440
5,920
20,559
19,154
18,825
19,779
12,343
11,262
10,959
11,744
8,216
7,892
7,866
8,035
72,569
72,904
74,244
77,198
15,896
15,702
15,736
15,851
56,673
57,202
58,508
61,347
1959
1969
1979
1980
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
40.0
35.5
30.9
29.9
8.2
4.4
3.3
3.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
5.8
5.4
5.8
5.7
25.1
25.1
21.1
20.2
14.1
14.8
12.8
12.2
11.0
10.3
8.3
8.1
60.0
64.5
69.1
70.1
11.8
14.9
15.6
15.8
48.2
49.6
53.5
54.3
1981
1982
1983
1984
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.5
28.3
27.6
27.7
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.5
20.0
18.8
18.4
18.5
12.0
11.1
10.7
11.0
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.5
70.5
71.7
72.4
72.3
15.4
15.4
15.3
14.8
55.0
56.3
57.1
57.4
1.8
1.9
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.8
-1.1
-2.1
-4.2
-0.8
-0.3
0.2
-2.0
3.5
-1.6
1.7
1.1
3.0
0.1
0.6
1.9
0.4
-1.6
0.8
2.3
0.7
-2.0
0.3
1.2
0.0
-0.9
2.6
2.6
2.9
1.9
2.8
4.2
2.7
0.0
2.6
2.2
3.0
2.5
Percent distribution
A vera ge annual rate of change
1959-84
1959-69
1969-79
1979-84
No t e :
......................................
.....................................
......................................
......................................
Data include wage and salary, self-employed, and unpaid family workers.
For manufacturing alone, the share decline has not been
as sharp, but still significant. While remaining fairly level at
about the 19 to 20 million mark for the past two decades
(except for the recessionary periods noted earlier), manufac
turing employment fell from 25.1 percent of all jobs in 1959
to 18.5 percent in 1984. It is this widely reported decline in
job share for manufacturing, along with reports of plant
closings and high regional unemployment in some heavy
manufacturing centers, which may have fostered much of
the concern about a loss in our industrial base. Of course,
these declines have resulted in many hardships among the
workers displaced.5
The difference between a 12.3-percentage-point share
loss for the goods sector as a whole between 1959 and 1984
and only a 6.6-percentage-point drop for manufacturing by
itself is accounted for mostly by the loss of agricultural jobs.
Agriculture was the only goods-producing sector to register
actual employment decreases over the period. The agricul
tural sector has been shrinking dramatically since at least the
1940’s. Low farm prices during the Great Depression of the
1930’s eliminated many farm jobs and forced rapid consol
idation, eventually leading to very high productivity gains in
farming. The movement away from the farm gradually be
gan to taper, and in the past decade the decline in agricul
tural employment has slowed appreciably.
It has also seemed that the shift to services has accelerated
in recent years because of the 1980-82 recessions and be
cause of the increase in imports, especially of manufactured
goods, resulting in part from the high value of the dollar.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment in the goods-producing sector declined by
3 million from the pre-recession 1979 level to 1983’s
trough, while service-producing jobs increased every year
during that time span, by a total of 4.1 million. Of the
3-million loss in jobs in the goods-producing sector,
2.6 million were in manufacturing, and only small amounts
were in the other goods-producing components. Goodsproducing employment recovered somewhat in 1984, rising
1.4 million, but this gain was dwarfed by the almost
3.0 million new service-producing jobs added in that single
year. Within the goods sector, construction employment re
covered to its pre-recession high, but manufacturing em
ployment was still off 1.6 million.
Thus, from an employment perspective, there clearly has
been a large relative decline in the share of employment in
goods-producing industries and a similar relative decline in
manufacturing. However, in absolute terms the employment
levels in all goods-producing sectors except agriculture were
relatively stable prior to 1979, and even increased in con
struction. Since 1979, manufacturing employment has de
clined appreciably, however, and only part of the cyclical
losses of 1980-82 have been recovered to date.
Shifts in output.
As noted, it may be more important for
an examination of the deindustrialization debate to review
production rather than just employment, on which most of
the debate seems to have focused thus far. A decline in
employment, whether absolute or relative, need not neces
sarily signify an erosion of the U.S. industrial base if real
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Deindustrialization and the Shift to Services
output is still increasing. Using production as a criterion, the
goods-producing sector, by reaching new peak levels in
1984, has clearly shown that it is not disappearing. In addi
tion, although a shift away from goods production in relative
terms has occurred, it can be seen from chart 2 that the
magnitude of that relative shift is less for output than it is for
employment. The goods-producing sector accounted for
54.9 percent of the real value of all production in 1959 and
46.7 percent in 1984, a drop of 8.2 percentage points. (See
table 2.) The decrease in its job share over that span, how
ever, was 12.3 percentage points. This differential comes
about because productivity gains, although slowing down
over time, have been more rapid in the goods-producing
than in the service-producing sector.
These conclusions relating to output are based on data
computed for the Bureau’s economic and employment pro
jections system.6 Actual production, rather than sales in
nominal dollars, should be the basis for this analysis, be
cause different price movements among goods and services
can distort actual production changes. However, it is impos
sible to measure the output of many industries’ goods or
services in actual production units.7 A proxy for production
that is widely used is sales or shipments in nominal prices,
deflated by a price index appropriate to the particular indus
try’s mix of goods and services. These data on real output,
as well as data on employment, are available for each of 150
individual industries encompassing the total U.S. economy.
Historical data are available from 1958 to 1984 and pro
jected data through 1995.
Another conclusion drawn from looking at this data base
is that more of the relative decline in goods-sector output is
attributable to agriculture and construction than to manufac
turing. In contrast, the loss in employment share occurred
primarily for the agriculture and manufacturing components
of the goods-producing sector. Manufacturing dropped 6.6
percentage points in its job share between 1959 and 1984,
but only 2.3 points in its output share.
The trend for only the more recent 1979-84 span is also
more positive for output than it is for employment. By 1984,
goods-producing output in constant dollars had recovered
from the 1980—82 recessions, surpassing the previous peak
reached in 1979 and hitting an all-time high. As mentioned,
employment in the goods-producing sector has also recov
ered from the 1980-82 downturns, but not enough to regain
the 1979 level.8
Again, the more important point is whether a relative
decline reflects the erosion of our industrial sector. If man
ufacturing production is still growing in absolute terms, then
we cannot be said to be eliminating our industrial base, even
though we are undergoing a relative structural shift in our
economy. The data at the aggregate level for each of the
major sectors show production levels for all compo-
Chart 2. Share of private output and employment, goods-versus service-producing
industries, 1959-84
Percent
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent
00
Table 2.
Gross duplicated output (1977 dollars) by major sector, 1959Goods-producing
Year
M anufacturing
Total
A griculture
Total
Mining
C onstruction
Total
Durable
Nondurable
Total
Governm ent
Private
Level
(in m illions)
1959
.......................
1969
.........................
1979
...........................
1980 ...........................................
2,002,527
2,969,101
3,950,145
3,860,734
1,100,342
1,585,583
1,944,892
1,847,174
102,441
116,916
138,569
132,706
55,927
79,609
83,108
82,928
205,398
255,346
275,190
258,543
736,576
1,133,712
1,448,025
1,372,997
375,635
607,876
773,604
718,710
360,941
525,836
674,421
654,287
902,185
1,383,518
2,005,253
2,013,560
151,907
222,002
255,706
260,851
750,278
1,161,516
1,749,547
1,752,709
1981
.............................
1982
.........................
1983
...........................
1984 ...........................................
3,919,714
3,796,261
3,970,865
4,309,342
1,853,677
1,710,370
1,809,382
2,012,679
141,675
136,897
130,381
150,908
82,262
80,304
78,735
82,787
249,458
232,300
253,667
293,618
1,380,282
1,260,869
1,346,599
1,485,366
719,069
628,634
678,978
783,483
661,213
632,235
667,621
701,883
2,066,037
2,085,891
2,161,483
2,296,663
263,066
262,277
263,017
265,023
1,802,971
1,823,614
1,898,466
2,031,640
1959
....................................
1969
....................................
1979
....................................
1980 ...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
54.9
53.4
49.2
47.8
5.1
3.9
3.5
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.1
2.1
10.3
8.6
7.0
6.7
36.8
38.2
36.7
35.6
18.8
20.5
19.6
18.6
18.0
17.7
17.1
16.9
45.1
46.6
50.8
52.2
7.6
7.5
6.5
6.8
37.5
39.1
44.3
45.4
1981
....................................
1982
..................................
1983 .........................................
1984 ...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
47.3
45.1
45.6
46.7
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.5
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
6.4
6.1
6.4
6.8
35.2
33.2
33.9
34.5
18.3
16.6
17.1
18.2
16.9
16.7
16.8
16.3
52.7
54.9
54.4
53.3
6.7
6.9
6.6
6.1
46.0
48.0
47.8
47.1
3.1
4.0
2.9
1.8
2.4
3.7
2.1
0.7
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
3.6
0.4
-0.1
1.4
2.2
0.8
1.3
2.8
4.4
2.5
0.5
3.0
4.9
2.4
0.3
2.7
3.8
2.5
0.8
3.8
4.4
3.8
2.8
2.3
3.9
1.4
0.7
4.1
4.5
4.2
3.0
Percent distribution
Avera ge annual rate of change
1959-84
1959-69
1969-79
1979-84
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
......................................
nents growing in absolute terms. Real output in manufactur
ing in 1984 was actually more than double what it was in
1959— hardly evidence of a reduction of an industrial base.
The impression that deindustrialization has accelerated re
cently because of the recession is also questionable. Real
manufacturing output did drop by almost 13 percent over the
4 years from the 1979 peak to the 1982 trough, but in the
2 years since, it has gained almost 18 percent, surpassing
the 1979 level. However, when looking at recent employ
ment trends, the story differs. Manufacturing employment
reached its low point in 1983, and in 1984, although
1 million jobs were added, it did not recover to the 1979
peak. Furthermore, preliminary data for 1985 indicate that
little further gains in manufacturing employment have oc
curred. Thus, output increases have been made without cor
responding increases in employment, the result of produc
tivity gains. This loss of manufacturing jobs is a severe
problem for certain industries and locales; however, the rise
in manufacturing output overall seems to preclude a conclu
sion of deindustrialization— at least at the level of total
manufacturing.
Another argument advanced in the discussion about dein
dustrialization is that the U .S. manufacturing sector has
performed poorly in comparison with other industrialized
countries. However, the evidence to support this impression
is mixed. A recent Bureau study of manufacturing produc
tivity trends in 12 countries shows that while the rate of gain
in U .S. manufacturing output over the years 1973-84 was
smaller than for four of the other countries, particularly
Japan, the rate of employment decline in U.S. manufactur
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing was the smallest of any of the countries studied.9
Hours.
Another point to be made about the shift to serv
ices at the major sector level concerns hours. Because at
least part of the growth in employment in the serviceproducing industries has been in part-time jobs, the amount
of the shift can be overemphasized by looking only at
employment. The share of worker-hours in the goodsproducing sector dropped from 41.1 percent of the total in
1959 to 30.3 percent in 1984, or 10.8 percentage points.
(See table 3.) This relative shift in hours is less than for
employment, but more than for output.
Quality of jobs.
One reason for the concern in the popular
literature about the shift away from manufacturing indus
tries toward service-producing industries, especially for em
ployment, is the fear that this will lead to the disappearance
of well-paying factory jobs. It is argued that the declining
smokestack industries have a large proportion of middleincome earners, while the growing service and high-tech
industries have a more bipolar wage structure, with more
high or low earners. The shift among industries, therefore,
will lead to a declining middle class.
Considerable doubt has been cast on this argument, how
ever, by Neal Rosenthal in a previous Monthly Labor Re
view article.10 He found through an analysis of occupational
data that while middle-income jobs have declined slightly as
a percentage of total employment, lower-paying jobs have
declined even more. Furthermore, declines in high-paying
smokestack industries (such as steel) have at least been
matched by declines in lower-paying manufacturing indus7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Deindustrialization and the Shift to Services
tries (such as textiles, apparel, and leather).11
Micro analysis
Industry shifts.
In the above section, we discussed output
and employment at the major sector or very aggregate level.
At that level we showed that while the U .S. economy in
relative terms is shifting in a very pronounced way towards
the service-producing sector and away from the goodsproducing sector, in absolute terms the manufacturing sector
is nearly stable in jobs and growing in production— giving
little evidence of a loss of the U.S. industrial base. How
ever, this examination at the macro level could be masking
important changes at the micro or industry level. In this
section, we examine some of these divergent employment
and output trends for individual industries, using the level of
detail in the b l s projections system.
In reviewing these industry output and employment data
closely for the period 1959-84, it appears that the time
frame 1959-69 is quite different in its characteristics from
either the 1969-79 or 1979-84 span. During the booming
1960’s, manufacturing increased its share of output and held
steady in its share of employment, whereas after 1969,
several recessions and other factors forced manufacturing
off its earlier upward path. Economic downturns in 1970,
1974-75, and 1980-82 had a larger impact on the cyclically
sensitive manufacturing sector than on the more cyclically
resistant service-producing sector. Because of the different
characteristics of the earlier years, the analysis in this sec
tion of the article will focus on the more recent 1969-84
period. The analysis consisted of examining industries over
the 15-year span and categorizing them into 1 of 3
Table 3.
groups: (1) consistent gainers in output and employment,
(2) consistent gainers in output but employment losers, and
(3) consistent losers of both output and employment.
Output and employment gainers. Table 4 lists those indus
tries which have shown a positive trend in both output and
employment during the last 15 years. (That is, the least
squares rate of change over 1969-84 has been positive. This
does not mean that these industries may not have shown
declines for a few of the years but only that the overall trend
for the span is positive.) One-half of the 150 industries in the
data base examined fall into this category. Among the
goods-producing industries which are included in the grow
ing industries are 4 of the 7 agricultural industries, 2 mining
industries, maintenance construction, and numerous manu
facturing industries. Most of the latter on the list of output
and employment gainers are durable goods industries, par
ticularly those which are included in 1 of the 3 hightechnology definitions developed earlier by b l s . 12 These
designations identify high-tech industries on the basis of
expenditures for research and development, the ratio of sci
entific and technical personnel to all workers in the industry,
and the degree of product sophistication. Many of the elec
trical machinery and electronic equipment industries which
meet one of the high-tech definitions have experienced both
production and employment advances in the last 15 years.
The rest of the industries on the list include virtually all
of the individual service-producing industries in the data
base. Only a few of the transportation industries, gas utili
ties, or service industries have lost either jobs or production,
or both, between 1969 and 1984. All the communications
Worker hours by major sector, 1959-84
G oods-producing
Service-producing
Ye ar
Total
M anufacturing
Total
Agriculture
Mining
C onstruction
Total
Durable
Nondurable
Total
G overnm ent
Private
Level
(in m illions)
1959
1969
1979
1980
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
140,710
163,320
196,381
196,153
57,791
61,462
65,805
63,202
12,991
8,328
7,626
7,574
1,285
1,109
1,555
1,566
7,969
9,036
11,956
11,443
35,546
42,989
44,668
42,619
20,162
25,671
27,425
25,838
15,384
17,318
17,243
16,781
82,919
101,858
130,576
132,951
16,718
25,159
32,951
33,528
66,201
76,699
97,625
99,423
1981
1982
1983
1984
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
197,268
192,992
195,250
204,741
62,924
58,639
58,508
61,983
7,563
7,522
7,362
7,303
1,603
1,564
1,406
1,427
11,276
10,591
10,659
11,784
42,482
38,962
39,081
41,469
25,723
23,093
22,972
24,938
16,759
15,869
16,109
16,531
134,344
134,353
136,742
142,758
33,070
32,670
32,756
33,020
101,274
101,683
103,986
109,738
1959
1969
1979
1980
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
41.1
37.6
33.5
32.2
9.2
5.1
3.9
3.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
5.7
5.5
6.1
5.8
25.3
26.3
22.7
21.7
14.3
15.7
14.0
13.2
10.9
10.6
8.8
8.6
58.9
62.4
66.5
67.8
11.9
15.4
16.8
17.1
47.0
47.0
49.7
50.7
1981
1982
1983
1984
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
31.9
30.4
30.0
30.3
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.8
21.5
20.2
20.0
20.3
13.0
12.0
11.8
12.2
8.5
8.2
8.3
8.1
68.1
69.6
70.0
69.7
16.8
16.9
16.8
16.1
51.3
52.7
53.3
53.6
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.7
-1.2
-2.3
-4.3
-0.9
-0.9
0.4
-1.5
3.4
-1.7
1.6
1.3
2.8
-0.3
0.6
1.9
0.4
-1.5
0.9
2.4
0.7
-1.9
0.3
1.2
0.0
-0.8
2.2
2.1
2.5
1.8
2.8
4.2
2.7
0.0
2.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
Percent distribution
A vera ge annual rate of change
1959-84
1959-69
1969-79
1979-84
8
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4.
Positive output trend and positive employment trend, average annual rate of change,1 1969-84
Output
Employment
Agriculture:
Food and feed grains.......................................................
Agricultural products, n.e.c..................................................
Forestry and fishery products .............................................
Agricultural, forestry, and fishery services ............................
2.4
1.7
0.3
1.7
0.6
1.4
3.0
3.8
Mining:
Coal mining ....................................................................
Chemical and fertilizer mineral mining..................................
2.8
1.6
3.3
2.5
Industry
Construction:
Maintenance and repair construction....................................
2.2
3.3
Canned and frozen foods ..................................................
Soft drinks and flavorings ..................................................
Food products, n.e.c...........................................................
Fabricated textile products, n.e.c..........................................
Paper products................................................................
Periodical and book printing, publishing................................
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.1
1.3
2.5
3.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
2.0
Printing and publishing, n.e.c...............................................
Industrial inorganic and organic chemicals............................
Agricultural chemicals.......................................................
Drugs .............................................................................
Cleaning and toilet preparations .........................................
Petroleum refining and related products ..............................
Plastics products, n.e.c.......................................................
3.2
1.4
2.2
5.0
2.7
1.6
4.9
2.0
0.9
0.5
2.4
1.4
0.4
3.7
Durable goods manufacturing:
Logging .........................................................................
Millwork, plywood, and wood products, n.e.c...........................
Furniture and fixtures, except household..............................
Primary aluminum and aluminum products ...........................
Fabricated structural metal products ....................................
Fabricated metal products, n.e.c...........................................
Construction, mining, and oilfield machinery .........................
Metalworking machinery....................................................
4.5
3.1
3.5
1.5
0.2
2.0
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.1
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.4
General industrial machinery..............................................
Nonelectrical machinery, n.e.c..............................................
Computers and peripheral equipment ..................................
Typewriters and office equipment .......................................
Service industry machines ................................................
Electric transmission equipment .........................................
Radio and communication equipment ..................................
Electronic components and accessories ..............................
1.4
3.0
16.3
5.6
2.1
2.1
6.4
11.3
0.2
2.4
5.8
0.2
0.8
1.0
1.9
4.2
Electrical machinery and supplies, n.e.c.................................
3.6
1.9
Nondurable goods manufacturing:
Industry
Output
Employment
Durable goods manufacturing—Continued
Aircraft...........................................................................
Ship and boat building and repair .......................................
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts .........................................
Scientific and controlling instruments....................................
Medical and dental instruments and supplies.........................
Optical and ophthalmic equipment.......................................
Photographic equipment and supplies..................................
1.3
3.1
2.0
4.3
5.5
8.6
6.0
0.3
1.0
0.1
1.9
5.7
1.5
1.2
Transportation and utilities:
Trucking and warehousing ................................................
Air transportation ............................................................
Pipelines, except natural gas .............................................
Transportation services.....................................................
Radio and television broadcasting.......................................
Communication, except radio and television .........................
Electric utilities, public and private.......................................
Water and sanitary services ..............................................
2.5
2.8
2.0
4.0
2.6
7.5
4.3
4.3
1.7
2.4
1.4
6.1
4.1
1.3
2.9
1.8
Trade:
Wholesale trade ..............................................................
Eating and drinking places ................................................
Retail trade, except eating and drinking................................
2.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
1.7
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Banking .........................................................................
Credit agencies and financial brokers ..................................
Insurance .......................................................................
Real estate.....................................................................
5.0
5.7
3.3
4.5
3.8
4.5
2.4
3.6
Services:
Hotels and lodging places..................................................
Personal and repair services..............................................
Business services.............................................................
Advertising......................................................................
Professional services, n.e.c.................................................
Automobile repair and services...........................................
Motion pictures................................................................
2.8
2.0
6.8
3.6
5.7
2.1
5.6
3.9
1.0
7.0
3.0
5.6
4.2
2.2
Amusements and recreation services ..................................
Doctors' and dentists’ services ...........................................
Hospitals .......................................................................
Medical services, n.e.c.......................................................
Educational services.........................................................
Noncommercial and membership organizations.....................
6.1
4.3
5.3
5.4
3.2
4.0
4.2
5.0
3.9
6.8
3.5
1.7
Local government passenger transit ....................................
State and local enterprises, n.e.c..........................................
General government.........................................................
4.5
1.8
1.2
5.4
2.3
2.0
1 Based on least squares trend line.
n.e.c. = Not elsewhere classified.
industries, electric and water utilities, trade, finance, and
most other service industries have had positive trends in
both output and employment during the last 15 years.
Of course, even within services, some industries have not
grown as rapidly as others. The biggest gainers in both
output and employment were business services and medical
services. Personal services and private educational services,
in contrast, have posted only moderate growth.
Output gainers and employment losers. In the second cat
egory of industries selected in our review process are 37 of
the 150 industries in the data base. These industries have
experienced real production increases between 1969 and
1984 but have had declining job trends. (See table 5.) This
category still could indicate relatively healthy industries,
where greater efficiency has allowed more output to be
produced with fewer workers. Many of the food processing,
textile, chemical, metal products, and industrial machinery
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
industries are on this list, as well as motor vehicles. Demand
for these products continued to be strong, but new manufac
turing technologies or better use of existing technologies
permitted increases in production with less employment.
Output and employment losers. Finally, table 6 shows
those industries which have declining trends for both pro
duction and employment over the 1969-84 period, 24 in all.
Chart 3 graphs that decline for a few of these industries.
Most of the industries included in table 6 are those wellrecognized as having long-term problems. The steel indus
try, for example, began its decline long before the last
recession. Because of large international wage differentials
and the failure to invest in more efficient new technologies,
the domestic steel industry lost out to cheaper-priced im
ports or to substitute materials, especially after the energy
crisis in 1973-74 forced transportation equipment manufac
turers and others to turn to lighter-weight materials. Other
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Deindustrialization and the Shift to Services
industries on this list of output and employment losers have
also faced either declining demand for their products or stiff
competition from imports or both, leading to a long-run
decline. Included would be some of the mining industries,
tobacco, leather products, rubber, wooden containers, metal
cans, and watches and clocks.
The troubled industries listed in table 6 lost a combined
total of 1.5 million jobs between 1969 and 1984, but of that
total, two-fifths was in one industry, the private household
industry— and that industry, of course, is not considered
part of our industrial base. Of the rest of the troubled indus
tries, blast furnaces and basic steel products dominates in
terms of both output and employment lost. The job decline
in this industry totaled .3 million between 1969 and 1984,
(one-fifth of the total loss for all troubled industries),
and production losses were 34 percent. Other industries in
table 6 with more than a 20-percent reduction in output over
the 15-year span included iron and ferroalloy ores mining,
copper ore mining, wooden containers, rubber products ex
cept tires, leather tanning and finishing, leather products
Table 5. Positive output trend and negative employment
trend, average annual rate of change,1 1969-84
Industry
O utput
Em ploym ent
Agriculture:
Dairy and poultry products .........................................
Meat animals and livestock..................................
Cotton ..................................................
1.0
0.0
1.9
-4.9
-2.9
-8.9
Nondurable goods manufacturing:
Dairy products ..............................................
Grain mill products.......................................
Bakery products................................................
Confectionery products............................
Alcoholic beverages..................................
Fabric, yarn, and thread mills.....................................
Floor covering mills ...........................................
Textile mill products, n.e.c.................................
1.6
2.8
0.0
3.3
3.1
0.6
3.1
2.0
-2.9
-0.1
-1.6
-0.8
-1.4
-2.2
-1.1
-1.8
Hosiery and knit goods..............................................
Apparel ..............................................
Paperboard containers and boxes.......................
Chemical products, n.e.c..........................................
Plastic materials and synthetic rubber.....................
Synthetic fibers.......................................
Paints and allied products..............................
1.1
1.1
1.3
2.2
2.3
4.0
1.2
-1.7
-1.4
-1.1
-0.6
-1.4
-2.5
-0.9
Durable goods manufacturing:
Sawmills and planing mills ................................
Household furniture ...........................................
Glass ..............................................
Stone and other mineral products, n.e.c.........................
Primary copper and copper products.......................
Screw machine products .......................
Cutlery, handtools, and general hardware.....................
Farm and garden machinery.......................................
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.6
0.1
0.9
0.4
1.0
-0.9
-0.8
05
-0.3
-1.2
-0.6
-0.5
-0.6
Household appliances ..............................
Electric lighting and wiring equipment...........................
Radio and television receiving equipment.....................
Telephone and telegraph apparatus .............................
Motor vehicles ...........................
Musical instruments, toys, and sporting goods................
Manufactured products, n.e.c................................
1.5
0.7
5.6
5.3
0.9
3.0
0.2
-1.8
-0.1
-3.2
-0.5
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
Transportation and utilities:
Railroad transportation..............................
Water transportation..............................
0.7
2.9
-3.0
-0.2
Government:
U.S. Postal Service ..............................................
Federal enterprises, n.e.c...................................
2.4
3.3
-0.6
-1.4
1Based on least squares trend line.
n.e.c. = Not elsewhere classified.
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 6. N e g a tiv e o u tp u t tr e n d a n d n e g a tiv e e m p lo y m e n t
tre n d , a v e ra g e a n n u a l ra te o f c h a n g e ,1 1 9 6 9 -8 4
Industry
Output
Employment
Mining:
Iron and ferroalloy ores mining .....................................
Copper ore mining .....................................................
Stone and clay mining and quarrying ...........................
-3.9
-1.7
-0.8
-3.1
-4.1
-0.7
Nondurable goods manufacturing:
Sugar....................................................
Tobacco manufacturing ............................................
Tires and inner tubes.......................................
Rubber products except tires and tubes .........................
Leather tanning and finishing .......................................
Leather products including footwear..............................
-0.2
-0.2
-1.3
-3.3
-2.7
-1.8
-2.3
-1.4
-1.5
-0.9
-2.9
-3.1
Durable goods manufacturing:
Wooden containers ................................................
Structural clay products ...........................................
Pottery and related products.....................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products .......................
Iron and steel foundries and forgings ............................
Primary nonferrous metals and products, n.e.c..................
Metal cans and containers .....................................
-4.1
-1.2
-0.4
-2.9
-1.3
-1.7
-0.6
-5.9
-3.6
-0.1
-3.5
-2.3
-0.2
-2.6
Heating equipment and plumbing fixtures .......................
Metal stampings...........................................
Materials handling equipment.........................
Special industry machinery.........................................
Railroad equipment ............................................
Transportation equipment, n.e.c..............................
Watches, clocks, and clock-operated devices ................
-1.8
-0.2
-0.6
-2.0
-5.1
-0.8
-1.7
-0.9
-1.3
-0.5
-0.6
-1.6
-2.5
-4.8
-3.2
-2.7
Households:
Household industry..............................................
1Based on least squares trend line.
n.e.c. = Not elsewhere classified.
(mainly shoes), primary nonferrous metals and products,
heating equipment and plumbing fixtures, railroad equip
ment, and watches and clocks. Combined, the troubled in
dustries in table 6 accounted for 6.7 percent of total real
production in the economy in 1969, but by 1984 they had
declined to only 3.7 percent. For jobs, the share drop was
equally sharp— from 6.0 to 3.1 percent. For the manufactur
ing industries only among the group of output and employ
ment losers, output dropped from a 6.1-percent share in
1969 to 3.4 percent in 1984, and employment from 3.5 to
1.8 percent. Thus, while we have shown that restructuring
does not necessarily mean “deindustrialization” or the loss
of an industrial base at the macro level, these data clearly
isolate a group of individual industries within the manufac
turing sector which are in deep trouble.
Recent problem industries.
In addition to the long-term
declining industries, several other manufacturing industries
seem to have been hit especially hard in the 1980-82 reces
sions and have not recovered previous production or em
ployment levels. Many machinery producers in addition to
those listed in table 6 are in this category, along with basic
chemicals, construction-related industries, and some textile
industries (but not apparel). The construction-related indus
tries showed good output growth in 1984, however, and are
on their way to surpassing 1979’s peaks. The chemical,
textile, and many of the metals and machinery industries
also showed gains in 1984 and may be expected to eventu
ally fully recover. The exceptions are nonferrous metal ores
mining, petroleum refining, and miscellaneous manufac
tured products. Demand for these items has not picked up
much, and output is still depressed. Also, although all the
metal and machinery industries did experience production
upturns in 1984, the recovery was weak for many and they
are still far from pre-recession levels. Examples not already
identified as long-term losers include fabricated structural
metal; cutlery and handtools; engines and turbines; farm and
garden machinery; construction, mining, and oilfield ma
chinery; electrical transmission equipment; and electrical
industrial apparatus. For all of these industries, as well as
several on the long-term declining list, production in 1984
was still at least 10 percent below pre-recession levels.
Outlook for the future
b l s projections of output and employment, published in
the November 1985 Monthly Labor Review, indicate that the
goods-producing sector (under the assumptions of the mid
dle projections scenario) is expected to grow in absolute
terms in both production and jobs, but to continue to decline
as a share of total. The share decline will be more rapid for
employment than for output. The goods-producing sector is
projected to gain 1.8 million jobs by 1995, but drop from
27.7 percent of all jobs to just 25.6 percent. Production in
goods-producing industries, in contrast, is projected to al
most keep pace with total output growth, and the decline in
the goods-producing share of output will be smaller than for
employment.
The decrease in the total employment share projected for
the goods-producing sector will be concentrated in agricul
ture, mining, construction, and nondurable manufacturing
industries. Durable goods industries, however, are projected
to account for greater shares of both output and employment
in 1995, contrary to past trends. This results from the
macroeconomic assumptions of strong growth in capital
spending for producers’ durable equipment, continued in
creases in defense purchases, and relatively faster growth in
exports than in imports of manufactured capital goods as the
high value of the dollar continues to fall. Productivity is also
projected to increase over the next 10 years, but demand for
durable manufacturing products is projected to be high
enough to stimulate job growth.
A look at the b l s individual industry projections rein
forces the conclusion that the goods-producing sector and
manufacturing in particular will not be shrinking in absolute
terms. (See table 7.) Among the top 15 fastest-growing
employment industries projected, 8 are in manufacturing,
and for output, that figure is 11 of 15. The manufacturing
industries on these lists of fastest-growing output and em
ployment reflect the assumptions of strong demand for so
phisticated capital equipment, medical supplies and drugs,
and defense materiel.
Chart 3. Output and job trends, selected long - term declining industries,
least squares rate of change, 1969-84
Percent
-4
All industries
-
3
-
2
-
1
0
1
2
3
4
I____
I____ L_I
I Output
Employment
Tobacco manufactures
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Iron and steel
foundries
Leather products
Special industry
machinery
Basic steel
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Deindustrialization and the Shift to Services
The outlook for the troubled industries identified in
table 6 is not so rosy. Some of the industries experiencing
long-term loss of markets are projected to continue their
decline through 1995. Some small production increases are
expected for the steel industry, but only if more efficient
technologies are implemented. Employment in steel is pro
jected to drop by more than 20 percent between 1984 and
1995. No production comebacks are anticipated for wooden
containers, leather products, tobacco, or the household in
dustry.
Some of the machinery and defense-related sectors on the
list, however, are projected to reverse trend and rebound
from current low levels. Demand for materials handling
equipment is projected to be so strong as to rank that indus
try among the top 10 in terms of projected output growth.
This turnaround is expected to occur as many factories add
new, highly engineered, computer-controlled production
systems, incorporating industrial robots and automatic ma
terial handling.
O u r a n a l y s i s h a s s h o w n that while there has clearly been
a long-term employment shift to the service sector, that shift
has for the most part been a relative shift only, and not an
absolute one. Only with the last cyclical downturn did the
manufacturing sector fail to hold a steady job level. Further
more, the relative shift to services has been far less
pronounced for output than for employment, and manu
facturing production has even been growing in absolute
levels. While some manufacturing industries clearly have
been in a long-term decline, and the 1980-82 recessionary
period may have exacerbated their problems, our data
indicate that the United States is not losing its industrial
base. Most manufacturing industries, indeed many that
would be considered “heavy” manufacturing, are at least
expanding production, if not employment. Higher produc
tivity has allowed domestic production of manufactured
Table 7. Fastest-growing employment industries and
output industries, 1984-95
Industry
Average annual
rate of change
Em ploym ent
Medical services, n.e.c......................
Business services .......................
Computers and peripheral equipment..............
Materials handling equipment................
Transportation services .....................
42
3.7
3.7
3.5
Professional services, n.e.c................
Scientific and controlling instruments ..............
Medical instruments and supplies..............
Doctors’ and dentists’ services.......................
Plastics products.....................................
3.5
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.5
Credit agencies and financial brokers.........................
Amusement and recreation services....................
Radio and communication equipment.....................
Complete guided missiles and space vehicles ...................
Electronic components and accessories..................
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
Output
Computers and peripheral equipment...........................
Electronic components and accessories....................
Communications except radio and television.......................
Telephone and telegraph apparatus.............................
Complete guided missiles and space vehicles .....................
8.4
7.6
6.6
6.0
5.7
Materials handling equipment.........................
Business services ..................................
Radio and communication equipment................
Scientific and controlling instruments ....................
Medical instruments and supplies...................
5.6
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.6
Drugs .....................................
Medical services, n.e.c........................
Optical equipment and supplies.......................
Plastics products.......................................
Amusement and recreation services....................
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.2
n.e.c. = Not elsewhere classified.
goods to increase without corresponding increases in em
ployment. Future expenditures for new capital equipment
and a return to more balanced international currency ex
change rates are projected to boost demand for U.S. goods
for many years.
□
-F O O T N O T E S -
1 See, for example, Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, T h e D e in d u s
tr ia liz a tio n o f A m e r ic a (Basic Books, Inc., 1982); Robert B. Reich,
Industrial policy,” N e w R e p u b lic , Mar. 31, 1982; “Do we need an indus
trial policy?” H a r p e r ’s , February 1985; “The hollow corporation,” B u s i
n e s s W e e k , Mar. 3, 1986; and numerous other articles.
2 These conclusions are supported by similar studies o f structural
change, for example, Robert Z. Lawrence, C a n A m e r ic a C o m p e te ? (The
Brookings Institution, 1984); and John E. Cremeans, “Three measures of
structural change,” U .S. Department o f Commerce Working Paper, 1985.
3 The last year o f actual data referenced in this article is 1984, because
even though preliminary 1985 employment data were available at time of
publication, 1985 output data were not.
4 Michael Urquhart, “The employment shift to services: where did it
come from?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1984, pp. 15-22.
5 Paul O. Flaim and Ellen Sehgal, “Displaced workers o f 1979-83: how
well have they fared?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1985, pp. 3 -1 6 .
6 For a description o f the output data and the latest projections, see
“Employment Projections for 1995: Data and Methods,” b l s Bulletin 2253,
March 1986.
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7 One limitation in the type of analysis presented in this article is the
difficulty o f accurately measuring real output. When possible, real output
is based on some physical measure o f production, such as units in manufac
turing, or tons in mining, or passenger- or freight-miles in transportation.
In many cases, however, output data are based on sales or receipts, deflated
by a producer or consumer price index, if available. In some industries,
such as noncommercial (or nonprofit) establishments, for example, output
data must be based on changes in employment. When the data are this
limited, any measure of productivity change is very questionable. Presen
tation o f these data should not be interpreted to mean all measurement
problems have been solved. Many difficult issues still remain for measur
ing output in many industries, as well as measuring price changes in those
industries.
8 The industry output data used in the b l s projections system can be
defined as “gross duplicated output,” because they include not only the
value added in each industry but also the value of all intermediate inputs
into the production process. A different definition of output, “gross product
originating,” measures just that portion of industry output that is value
added, that is, labor compensation, profits, rents, interest, and indirect
business taxes. This latter measure for all industries sums to Gross National
Product ( g n p ).
Gross product originating, or value added, is not used in the b l s model
system for several reasons. For one, it is not available for detailed indus
tries. In addition, total or duplicated output is probably a better variable to
use in estimating each industry’s demand for labor than just the valueadded portion o f output. Duplicated output can be more closely related to
total demand for an industry’s products, whether the demand is from final
consumers or from intermediate producers.
Gross product originating data can be used to analyze broad sectoral
shifts, however, and the results are quite similar to those just described
using duplicated output data. Because the former type of data excludes all
intermediate products, for each year the percent of total output (or g n p )
accounted for by the goods-producing sector is smaller than the percentage
based on gross product originating data (which double counts the value of
intermediate inputs, more of which are goods than services). However,
over time the percentages for both types of data in the goods-producing
sector have declined about the same relative amount.
As noted, the goods-producing gross duplicated output share fell from
54.9 percent o f total output in 1959 to 46.7 percent in 1984, a loss of 8.2
percentage points. The gross product originating share fell from 37.8 per
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent to 32.6 percent, or 5.2 percentage points. However, employment fell
from 40 to 27.7 percent, a drop of 12.3 percentage points. Thus, no matter
which measure of output is used, the shift between goods- and serviceproducing industries has been considerably less pronounced for output than
it has been for employment.
9 Edwin Dean, Harry Boissevain, and James Thomas, “Productivity and
labor cost trends in manufacturing, 12 countries,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
March 1986, pp. 3 -1 0 .
10 Neal H. Rosenthal, “The shrinking middle class: myth or reality?”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1985, pp. 3 -1 0 .
11 This analysis is being extended in a Bureau study by Patrick
McMahon and John Tschetter, currently underway. Their study reinforces
the conclusions of Rosenthal and further examines earnings shifts based on
demographic and structural changes.
12 Richard W. Riche, Daniel E. Hecker, and John U. Burgan, “Hightechnology today and tomorrow; a small slice of the employment pie,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1983, pp. 5 0-58.
A note on com m unications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered
for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po
lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
13
Consumer expenditures: results from
the Diary and Interview surveys
Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey
show that urban consumers spent
about two-thirds of their total expenditures
on food, housing, and transportation
R a y m o n d G ie s e m a n
and
Jo h n R o g e r s
Historically, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Ex
penditure Survey has been of importance largely for its role
in periodically revising the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
Results from the survey are used to select new market bas
kets of goods and services for the c p i , and to determine the
relative importance of the items selected. While this remains
an important use of the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the
increasing demand for more timely information about the
spending habits of different kinds of households has ex
panded the role of the survey, making it an important source
of information in its own right.
In the past, the expenditure survey was conducted about
every 10 years, the previous one being in 1972-73. How
ever, sharp increases in the costs of energy and housing
during the 1970’s highlighted the need for timely expendi
ture data in order to observe consumers’ response to these
phenomena. The b l s recognized the need for a survey that
would provide a continuous flow of data, and began the
current survey in 1980. Data from this ongoing survey allow
analysts to track expenditures classified by household char
acteristics over a period of time and to link expenditure
changes to changes in economic and social conditions.
Among the characteristics by which the expenditures may
be classified are: before-tax income, consumer unit size, age
of reference person, region of residence, and number of
earners. 1
Data from the 1982-83 Survey of Consumer Expendi
tures show that urban American consumers spent about twothirds of their total expenditures on food, housing, and
Raymond Gieseman and John Rogers are economists in the Division of
Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
transportation; they spent more than a third of their food
dollar on food away from home; and average transportation
expenditures increased 7 percent from 1980-81 to 1982-83,
despite a 10-percent decline in gasoline expenditures. These
are among the results that the Consumer Expenditure Survey
provides and that this article describes.
Description of the survey
The expenditure survey consists of two separate compo
nents, each with its own questionnaire and sample: a quar
terly interview survey in which each of the sampled con
sumer units reports information to an interviewer every
3 months for five consecutive quarters, and a diary survey in
which consumer units are asked to complete a diary of
expenses for two consecutive 1-week periods. At the same
time, a great deal of information is obtained about the char
acteristics of the members of the consumer unit. The Inter
view survey is designed to obtain data on expenditures and
income that respondents can be expected to recall for a
period of 3 months or longer, such as property or automobile
purchases, and those that occur on a regular basis, such as
rent, utility bills, or insurance premiums. It is estimated that
about 95 percent of expenditures are covered in the Inter
view survey. The Diary survey obtains data on frequently
purchased items such as food and beverages, housekeeping
supplies, and so forth, that respondents are less likely to be
able to recall over long periods of time. Expenditures in
curred away from home overnight or longer are excluded
from the Diary survey. Spending on trips is obtained in the
Interview survey. To obtain a complete picture of consumer
spending, it is necessary to integrate results from both sur
vey components. Data collection for both components of the
survey is carried out by the Bureau of the Census under
contract to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Average expenditure levels
Expenditures and income of consumer units classified by
five household characteristics— income quintile, age of ref
erence person, region of residence, size of consumer unit,
and number of earners— are shown in tables 1 and 2 .
Table 1 includes Interview survey data and table 2 shows
Diary survey data for 1982-83. The tables also include the
number of consumer units and average consumer unit size
for each class.
The interview data show that expenditures can vary sub
stantially when classified by different consumer unit charac
teristics. The amount spent for food and housing by con
sumer units in the highest income quintile was more than
three times the amount spent by those in the lowest income
quintile. Consumer units with reference persons aged 65 and
over spent four times as much on health care as those with
reference persons under 25 years of age. Consumer units in
the West spent 20 percent more on average for transporta
tion than those in the Northeast, and four-person consumer
units spent twice as much on housing as single persons.
Results from the Diary survey show that consumer units
in the highest income quintile spent more than 2\ times as
much on food at home as the lowest income quintile con
sumer units, and more than 4\ times as much on food away
from home. Consumer units whose reference person was
under 25 years of age spent about 38 percent less for food
at home than those with reference persons over 65 years of
age, but spent 48 percent more for food away from home.
Consumer units in the South spent about 11 percent less for
food than those in the Northeast.
Budget shares
While actual expenditure levels are revealing to some
users, others may find budget shares more appropriate. Bud
get shares are the portion of total expenditures spent on a
component or the portion of an average component expendi
ture spent on a subcomponent.
For example, the interview data show that the highest
income quintile consumer units spent more than three times
the amount for food and housing than did those in the lowest
quintile, but that amount accounted for only a 44-percent
Table 1. Average annual income and expenditures by selected household characteristics, urban United States, Interview
survey, 1982-83
Expenditures
Num ber of
consum er
units
(thousands)
Income
before
taxes1
C onsum er
unit
size
Total
Food and
alcoholic
beverages
Housing
Apparel
and
services
Transportation
Health
care
Entertainm ent
Personal
insurance
and
pensions
All consumer units ..............
71,570
$22,702
2.6
$18,892’
$3,422
$ 5,784
$1,030
$3,712
$ 822
$ 870
$1,625
$1,628
Income quintile:1
Lowest 20 percent............
Second 20 percent...........
Third 20 percent..............
Fourth 20 percent............
Highest 20 percent...........
12,328
12,321
12,373
12,337
12,403
4,097
10,611
18,129
28,231
52,267
1.8
2.3
2.6
3.0
3.3
8,324
12,155
16,733
22,425
35,171
1,887
2,529
3,150
3,965
5,302
2,980
3,994
5,032
6,466
10,188
429
612
870
1,174
2,054
1,231
2,259
3,451
4,604
6,950
514
807
825
882
1,074
284
429
710
1,123
1,851
191
570
1,301
2,347
4,548
807
954
1,395
1,864
3,204
Age of reference person:
Under 25 .......................
25-34 .............................
35-44 .............................
45-54 ............................
55-64 ............................
65 and over ....................
7,013
17,210
13,028
10,034
10,436
13,849
11,537
23,835
29,718
31,198
24,450
13,583
1.8
2.7
3.5
3.2
2.4
1.7
11,617
19,271
24,296
24,718
19,497
12,346
2,178
3,305
4,368
4,473
3,588
2,421
3,410
6,409
7,494
6,870
5,374
4,123
782
1,071
1,428
1,366
993
515
2,623
4,052
4,758
4,991
3,656
1,972
307
547
753
936
1,056
1,228
581
977
1,294
1,075
799
390
722
1,724
2,209
2,469
2,155
401
1,013
1,186
1,991
2,537
1,877
1,296
Region of residence:
Northeast.......................
Midwest .........................
South.............................
West..............................
16,236
18,666
22,833
13,835
21,704
22,318
22,472
24,655
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.5
18,038
18,881
18,444
20,650
3,535
3,358
3,254
3,653
5,677
5,731
5,479
6,484
1,002
987
1,033
1,118
3,360
3,667
3,798
4,044
758
786
863
876
779
876
793
1,097
1,354
1,793
1,645
1,685
1,573
1,683
1,581
1,693
Size of consumer unit:
One person.....................
Two persons....................
Three persons ................
Four persons ..................
Five persons....................
Six or more persons .........
20,523
20,946
11,344
10,726
4,801
3,230
13,361
23,423
26,970
30,992
29,803
26,086
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.8
11,469
19,377
21,472
24,959
25,656
23,658
2,058
3,328
3,816
4,610
4,965
5,080
3,827
5,909
6,490
7,575
7,365
6,628
608
992
1,163
1,473
1,437
1,418
2,046
3,851
4,367
4,891
5,354
4,735
539
1,023
866
858
926
882
499
850
955
1,248
1,319
1,142
775
1,740
2,000
2,326
2,181
1,818
1,117
1,684
1,813
1,979
2,110
1,955
7,060
13,463
7,130
16,400
1.0
1.0
7,707
13,442
1,519
2,341
3,107
4,205
300
770
926
2,633
756
425
205
653
47
1,156
846
1,259
7,252
15,059
21,476
12,278
22,107
30,661
2.5
3.1
3.1
12,759
19,289
24,175
2,854
3,639
4,081
4,324
6,159
7,301
542
1,054
1,341
2,071
3,492
5,055
1,167
948
804
447
918
1,161
161
1,504
2,565
1,193
1,576
1,867
7,260
38,130
4.6
29,556
5,445
7,511
1,742
6,545
1,068
1,383
2,964
2,898
Characteristic
Number of earners:
One-person consumer units:
No earner ....................
One earner..................
Consumer units of two
or more persons:
No earner ....................
One earner..................
Two earners ................
Three or more
earners.....................
O ther
11ncludes only consumer units providing complete reports of income.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Consumer Expenditures: Results From the Diary and Interview Survey
share of their total expenditures, compared with a 58percent share of the total for those in the lowest quintile.
Almost 10 percent of the total expenditures of consumer
units with reference persons aged 65 and over were spent on
health care, compared with less than 3 percent spent by
those with reference persons under 25. The youngest con
sumer unit class spent 23 percent of their total on transporta
tion, compared with 16 percent spent by the oldest class of
consumer units. Food and housing expenditures accounted
for a relatively constant share of total expenditures across
consumer unit size classes. Single persons spent 51 percent
of their total on food and housing, two-person consumer
units spent about 48 percent, and shares for other size
classes fell within that range.
The diary data show that consumer units spent over a third
of their total food dollar on food away from home. The
youngest class of consumer units spent about 47 percent of
their food dollar on food away from home, compared with
only 27 percent for the oldest class.
Food expenditures away from home were also influenced
by the number of wage earners in the consumer unit. Single
person consumer units in which the individual was not a
wage earner— primarily elderly persons— spent 31 percent
of total food expenditures away from home, compared with
58 percent for those in which the individual was a wage
earner. Consumer units of two or more persons with no
wage earner spent 23 percent of their food budget away from
home, compared with 30 percent for those with one earner,
and 37 percent for those with two earners.
Income also influences expenditures for food away from
home. Consumer units in the lowest income quintile spent
30 percent of their total food expenditures on food away
from home, compared with 42 percent for those in the
highest quintile. For the middle income quintile, the propor
tion was about 33 percent.
Aggregate expenditure shares
Some users of expenditure data may be interested in the
aggregate amount spent on a component by a particular class
of consumer units. Or they may be interested in the portion
that amount is of aggregate spending by all consumer units.
For such users, aggregate expenditure shares are another
Table 2'iQ82- in 9e weekly income and expenditures by selected consumer unit characteristics, urban United States, Diary
Items of expenditure
Number of
consumer
units
(thousands)
Income
before
taxes1
Consumer
unit size
All consumer units...........
73,145
$418.25
Income quintile:1
Lowest 20 percent.......
Second 20 percent . . . .
Third 20 percent .........
Fourth 20 percent .......
Highest 20 percent . . . .
11,367
11,374
11,380
11,387
11,393
Age of reference person:
Under 2 5 ...................
25-34 .......................
35-44 .......................
45-54 .......................
55-64 .......................
65 and over................
Food,
total
Food
at home
Food away
from home
Alcoholic
beverages
Tobacco
products
and smoking
supplies
Personal care
products and
services
Nonprescription
drugs and
supplies
Housekeeping
supplies
2.5
$55.11
$35.51
$19.60
$ 5.46
$3.24
$4.46
$1.85
$5.44
72.02
192.77
336.71
524.67
963.90
1.7
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
28.08
41.95
54.39
67.86
91.16
19.74
30.01
36.39
43.44
52.99
8.34
11.94
18.00
24.42
38.17
2.64
3.62
5.29
6.48
10.61
2.00
2.79
3.66
4.16
4.22
2.35
3.20
4.20
5.34
8.08
1 12
1 31
1 90
2 41
2.98
2 71
3 9?
5 57
6 84
9.37
8,467
16,767
13,465
9,744
10,498
14,203
216.83
433.90
557.63
593.87
469.42
246.02
1.8
2.7
3.4
3.1
2.3
1.7
32.33
54.22
71.27
74.48
59.59
37.80
17.00
33.20
46.01
48.78
39.28
27.42
15.34
21.03
25.26
25.70
20.31
10.37
5.11
6.46
6.16
6.64
5.78
2.80
2.33
3.07
4.16
4.41
3.81
1.87
2.63
3.95
5.42
6.04
5.18
3.63
53
1 78
1 79
2 60
2 29
1.96
5 n?
7 00
7 43
5 97
4.50
Region of residence:
Northeast ..................
Midwest.....................
South .......................
West.........................
17,307
18,981
21,637
15,219
429.83
394.92
404.44
452.65
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.4
58.48
53.23
52.24
57.68
38.48
34.73
33.30
36.23
20.00
18.50
18.94
21.45
5.58
4.86
5.14
6.54
3.51
3.39
3.18
2.81
4.41
4.45
4.37
4.66
1 67
1 57
1 93
2.32
4 86
5.41
Size of consumer unit:
One person................
Two persons..............
Three persons............
Four persons..............
Five persons..............
Six or more persons ...
22,181
20,416
12,472
10,626
4,681
2,769
239.46
451.94
482.58
576.44
535.50
496.50
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.7
28.12
53.97
62.14
81.21
87.65
92.72
13.98
33.77
42.62
53.90
63.07
71.58
14.14
20.20
19.53
27.31
24.58
21.14
4.60
6.22
5.44
6.30
4.91
4.69
1.78
3.32
3.90
4.30
4.48
5.12
2.60
4.97
4.61
6.14
6.13
5.69
93
2 06
2.66
2.43
1.93
1.78
7 81
8.47
8,155
14,026
128.96
298.17
1.0
1.0
22.51
31.39
15.49
13.10
7.03
18.28
1.69
6.29
1.32
2.05
2.51
2.65
1.14
.80
2 58
2.46
7,137
16,186
21,216
6,424
231.60
403.35
590.19
716.25
2.5
3.1
3.1
4.5
45.40
62.53
68.16
97.25
34.98
43.96
43.11
64.03
10.42
18.56
25.05
33.22
2.68
4.59
7.16
8.15
2.42
3.54
4.17
5.31
3.71
4.82
5.53
7.32
1.89
2.49
1.96
3.06
6 57
6 57
9.24
Characteristic
Number of earners:
One-person consumer
units:
No earner ..............
One earner ............
Consumer units of two or
more persons:
No earner ..............
One earner ............
Two earners............
Three or more earners
11ncludes only consumer units providing complete reports of income.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P 43
fi 05
P 51
5 84
6 Ofi
8 P5
5 25
way of analyzing the consumer expenditure data.
Aggregate expenditures on a component are determined
by multiplying the mean expenditure on that component by
the total number of consumer units. The aggregate expendi
ture share of a class of consumer units is determined by
multiplying the class’s mean expenditure on the component
by the number of consumer units in the class and dividing
by the aggregate expenditure. This differs from the budget
share of a class of consumer units which is the average
amount spent on a component as a portion of the average
total expenditures of the class. Even though the class’s com
ponent budget share may be large, the aggregate expendi
ture share will be relatively small if the class size is small or
the class mean expenditure for the component is low relative
to that of other classes. For example, the interview data
show that consumer units with reference persons under age
25 spent 23 percent of their average total expenditures on
transportation, compared with 20 percent spent by all con
sumer units. However, because the dollar value of their
mean expenditure is low relative to most other classes, the
aggregate expenditure share for units in the under-25 class
was only about 7 percent of total aggregate transportation
expenditures, although they account for 10 percent of the
total number of consumer units.
The Diary survey data show that consumer units with
reference persons age 65 or over had an aggregate expendi
ture share for food of 13 percent even though the class made
up about 19 percent of the population. When classified by
income quintile, each income class has a 20 -percent popula
tion share (of complete income reporters), but aggregate
food expenditure shares varied from 10 percent for con
sumer units in the lowest quintile to 32 percent for those in
the highest quintile.2 By size of household, one- and twoperson households accounted for 43 percent of aggregate
food expenditures, but 51 percent of aggregate expenditures
for food away from home. By age of reference person,
consumer units with reference persons age 65 or over ac
counted for 21 percent of aggregate expenditures for non
prescription drugs and supplies, compared with 3 percent
for consumer units with reference persons under 25.3
Per capita expenditures
Average consumer unit size varies by classifications of
consumer units according to age of reference person, num
ber of earners, and so forth. It may be useful to also consider
per capita expenditures because consumer unit size may
contribute to differences in expenditures among classes.
For age classes, mean expenditure levels per consumer
unit generally increase with age until they peak in the middle
age classes, then decline. However, per capita expenditures
show a different pattern. Per capita expenditures for housing
are highest, $2,425, for the age class with reference persons
age 65 or over, compared with the lowest per capita housing
expenditure of $1,894 by consumer units with reference
persons under 25.
Data from the Diary survey show that expenditure levels
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for food at home are highest for age classes with reference
persons ages 35 to 44 and 45 to 54. However, the highest per
capita expenditures are for those classes with reference per
sons ages 55 to 64 and 65 or over. Average expenditures for
nonprescription drugs and supplies are highest for the class
with reference persons ages 45 to 54, but per capita expen
ditures are highest for the class with reference persons age
65 or over.
Expenditure changes over time
Consumer Expenditure Survey data are used to document
changes in the expenditure patterns of American consumers
over a period of time. Changes in expenditure patterns can
be attributed to such factors as shifts in relative prices and
wage rates, changes in tastes and habits, changes in
lifestyles, and the availability of new products. DemoTable 3. Characteristics and average annual expenditures
of urban consumer units, and percent change in consumer
expenditures, Interview survey, and Consumer Price Index,
1972-73 and 1982-831
Percent change
Item
1972-73
1982-83
58,948
70,329
$12,388
2.8
47.1
$23,027
2.6
46.6
1.3
1.8
1.0
.3
1.4
1.8
.7
.3
—
—
Total expenditures .........................
Food.........................................
Food at home .........................
Food away from home..............
Alchoholic beverages ..................
Housing ...................................
Shelter ..................................
Owned dwellings ..................
Rented dwellings..................
Other lodging.......................
Fuels, utilities, and public
services................................
Household operations ..............
Housefurnishings and equipment .
$9,421
1,675
1,313
362
89
2,638
1,507
746
644
117
$19,128
3,175
2,238
937
286
5,869
3,309
1,947
1,065
296
103
90
70
159
221
122
120
161
65
153
_
118
113
130
76
—
—
—
389
3164
581
138
411
1,512
275
773
160
99
88
3192
127
71
Apparel and services....................
Transportation............................
Vehicles ................................
Gasoline and motor oil..............
Other vehicle expenses............
Public transportation ................
732
1,762
709
404
540
110
1,039
3,766
1,425
1,076
1,034
231
42
114
101
166
91
110
56
142
3130
232
3102
146
Health care................................
Entertainment............................
Personal care services ................
Reading ....................................
Education..................................
Tobacco ....................................
Miscellaneous............................
Cash contributions .....................
Personal insurance and pensions ..
Life and other personal
insurance............................
Retirement, pensions, Social
Security................................
432
389
106
50
126
131
102
372
818
834
879
178
128
257
208
274
586
1,651
93
126
68
156
104
59
169
58
104
154
88
103
3119
3126
98
—
—
—
367
262
-29
451
1,388
208
Number of consumer units
(in thousands) ............................
Consumer unit characteristics:
Income before taxes2 ..................
Size of consumer unit..................
Age of reference person ..............
Number in consumer unit:
Earners..................................
Vehicles ................................
Children under 18 ....................
Persons 65 and over................
C onsum er
expenditures
CPI-U
19
86
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1Expenditure categories for 1972-73 were adjusted to correspond with 1982-83 definitions;
estimates for 1982-83 exclude students.
2 Income before taxes is calculated using complete income reporters.
3 Estimated.
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Consumer Expenditures: Results From the Diary and Interview Survey
graphic trends such as changes in average family size, age,
and earner composition can also affect expenditures. The
current, ongoing survey allows users to recognize trends
more quickly than was possible in the past, and to identify
trends that might have been missed altogether using data that
were only infrequently available.
Tables 3 and 4 show Interview and Diary survey results
from 1972—73 and 1982—83 and percent changes between
the two periods. Also shown are c p i changes. The interview
data show that gasoline and motor oil expenditures in
creased 166 percent from 1972-73 to 1982-83, while total
expenditures rose 103 percent. This reflects the large in
creases in energy costs in the 1970’s resulting from oil price
increases. While the increase in gasoline and motor oil ex
penditures was somewhat higher than the increase in total
expenditures, it was still well below the 232-percent price
rise measured by the c p i . That was the result of consumers
Table 4.
Characteristics and average w eekly expenditures
of urban consumer units, and percent change in consumer
expenditures, Diary survey, and Consumer Price Index,
July 1972-June 1974 and 1982-83
B e t w e e n 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 a n d 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 , C P I-m easu red p r ic e s in
c r e a s e d m o r e th a n a v e r a g e e x p e n d it u r e s fo r a ll f o o d a t h o m e
Percent change
Item
Ju ly 1972Ju n e 1974
modifying their behavior in response to price increases by
reducing their gasoline and motor oil consumption, and
adjusting their longer term buying habits, as by purchasing
more fuel-efficient automobiles.
Although gasoline and motor oil expenditures rose
sharply over the decade 1972-73 to 1982-83, they actually
decreased by 10 percent from 1980-81 to 1982-83. This
recent decline can be attributed to falling prices and conser
vation measures over that period. These are the kinds of
trends that might have been missed had data for 1980-81 not
been available.
Diary survey data show that average weekly expenditures
for food increased 70 percent between 1972-73 and 1982—
83, well below the 104-percent price rise for food measured
by the c p i . Expenditures for food away from home increased
113 percent over the period, compared with a more modest
increase of 53 percent for food at home. The changes in the
expenditure data and the c p i for food away from home were
quite similar (113 percent, compared with 120 percent),
while there was a sharp difference in the changes for food
at home (53 percent, compared with 99 percent).
c a t e g o r ie s . F o o d c a t e g o r ie s w it h th e la r g e s t p r ic e in c r e a s e s
1982-831
C onsum er
expenditures
CPI
te n d e d to h a v e th e la r g e s t e x p e n d it u r e in c r e a s e s . H o w e v e r ,
p r ic e s f o r m e a t s , p o u ltr y , f i s h , a n d e g g s r o s e 7 0 p e r c e n t,
Number of consumer units
(in thousands) .........................
Consumer unit characteristics:
Income before taxes2 ................
Size of consumer un it................
Age of reference person ............
Number in consumer unit:
Earners.........................
Children under 18 ..................
Persons 65 and over..............
Average weekly expenditures:
Food, total ..............................
Food at home, total................
Cereals and bakery products .
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .
Dairy products....................
Fruits and vegetables...........
Other food at home ............
Food away from home............
Alcoholic beverages ............
Tobacco products and smoking
supplies ................................
Personal care products and
services ...........................
Nonprescription drugs and
supplies .......................
Housekeeping supplies............
59,159
71,356
—
—
$187.46
2.8
47.1
$427.21
2.6
46.4
128
_
—
—
$56.16
36.32
4.82
11.55
4.90
5.99
9.06
19.83
70
53
73
24
52
72
84
113
104
99
118
70
89
102
160
120
138
72
1.3
.9
.3
$33.11
23.79
2.79
9.35
3.23
3.48
4.93
9.32
1.3
.7
.3
_
_
_
2.32
5.51
2.19
3.30
51
95
2.92
4.53
55
102
1.19
2.99
5.55
1.89
59
86
103
144
w h il e e x p e n d it u r e s fo r t h o s e it e m s r o s e o n l y 2 4 p e r c e n t.
While not presented in this article, expenditure data for
specific products and services keep track of the speed with
which new products are disseminated. Such data are avail
able on public use tapes. The following tabulation shows
mean expenditures from the Interview survey, for selected
items:
1980 1981 1982 1983
VCR............................................
Cable TV ...............................................
Child care and babysitting ..........
$
8
$
10
$ 23
$
21
31
43
59
79
76
91
91
108
This article has presented some of the ways of analyzing
the consumer expenditure data. As speed and efficiency in
processing the data improve, the uses of the data and the
number of users are expected to multiply. The timeliness of
this ongoing survey enhances its application not only in
revising the c p i , but also as a valuable information source
for public and private analysts examining the relationships
of family characteristics, income, and expenditures.
□
1Excludes students.
2 Income before taxes is calculated using complete income reporters.
-F O O T N O T E S
1 A consumer unit is defined as a single person or group of persons in a
sample household, related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal
arrangement, or who share responsibility for at least two out of three major
types o f expenses— food, housing, and other expenses.
^ The distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is
based in general on whether the respondent provided values for major
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sources o f income, such as wages and salaries, self-employment income,
and Social Security income. Even complete income reporters may not have
provided a full accounting of all income from all sources.
3 For a more detailed discussion of aggregate expenditure shares, includ
ing data tables, see Kirk Kaneer, “Distribution of consumption examined
using aggregate expenditure shares,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1986,
pp. 5 0 -5 3 .
BLS area wage surveys
will cover more areas
Earnings data for blue- and white-collar occupations
will be published for 90 areas instead of the current 70,
but about two-thirds of the areas will be surveyed
on a 2-year rather than 1-year cycle
La u r a Sco fea
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will restructure the probabil
ity sample of labor markets for its area wage survey program
to reflect changes in the number and geographic boundaries
of the Nation’s metropolitan statistical areas. The new area
sample will be phased in over a 4-year period beginning in
January 1987, and will contain 90 areas when fully imple
mented. The 32 largest areas in terms of nonfarm employ
ment will be surveyed annually, and two groups of 29 areas
will be surveyed in alternate years.
Currently, 70 areas are surveyed annually. Of these areas,
56 will remain in the program; geographic boundaries, how
ever, will change for 34 of them.
This article gives a brief description of the Bureau’s area
wage survey program and the changes to be made in the
probability sample of areas surveyed. The article covers
area wage survey program objectives and program evolution
from initial 1947-48 studies of pay for office clerical occu
pations in 11 large cities. It also describes the metropolitan
area concept used in the program, reasons for changes in the
area sample, the method for selecting the new sample, and
the differences between the old and new area samples.
Program background
The Bureau’s area wage survey program is designed to
shed light on the level and structure of occupational pay
Laura Scofea is an economist in the Division of Occupational Pay and
Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rates within a local labor market by studying occupations
common to many industries. 1 The areas surveyed are a rep
resentative cross-section of the wide variety of local labor
markets found throughout the United States. The surveys,
relating to specific payroll periods, focus on pay relation
ships among occupations, industries, and areas of the coun
try. Successive survey findings are also useful in reviewing
pay changes over time.
Using a standard set of job descriptions, the Bureau de
signs surveys which cover narrowly defined occupations
selected from four categories— office clerical (such as sec
retaries, typists, and accounting clerks); professional and
technical (for example, computer programmers and elec
tronics technicians); maintenance, toolroom, and powerplant (maintenance electricians and stationary engineers);
and material movement and custodial (order fillers and
guards). Estimates of average straight-time hourly or
weekly earnings and distributions of workers by their earn
ings are developed for each of approximately 50 occupa
tions studied. (Fifteen of the occupations— for example,
word processors, computer systems analysts, and guards—
are divided into two work levels or more.)
In addition, every third year the surveys yield information
on the prevalence of provisions for cost-of-living adjust
ments in pay rates; minimum entrance salaries for inexperi
enced typists and other inexperienced clerical workers; pay
differentials for work on late shifts; work schedules; extent
of collective bargaining agreement coverage; holiday, vaca19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
bls
Area Wage Surveys Will Cover More Areas
tion, and other paid leave provisions; and the incidence of
health, insurance, retirement, severance pay, and supple
mental unemployment benefits. Data typically are devel
oped separately for production and office workers; informa
tion on shift pay differentials, however, is restricted to
production workers in manufacturing.
Findings for each area wage survey are published in a
separate BLS bulletin .2 To aid in interarea pay comparisons,
average area pay levels in four employment groups— office
clerical, electronic data processing, skilled maintenance,
and unskilled plant jobs— are related to pay levels for all
metropolitan areas combined, in index form, that is, all
metropolitan area pay levels = 1 0 0 . Results are published in
an annual summary release .3 Results of the individual sur
veys, after appropriate weighting to account for areas not
surveyed, are also combined to develop pay levels for the
narrowly defined occupations in all metropolitan areas com
bined; separate data are presented for major industry divi
sions and for four broad geographic regions.4 Also, special
articles appear in the Monthly Labor Review, with in-depth
analyses of specific survey findings.5
The area wage survey program has grown considerably
since it started in fiscal year 1948 as part of a restructuring
of the Bureau’s occupational wage survey activities. That
year’s surveys provided information on salaries in office
clerical occupations in 11 large cities. In 1950, the geo
graphic scope of the surveys expanded from cities to the
larger metropolitan areas as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget). A
year later, professional and technical, maintenance, and
custodial and material movement occupations were added.6
These developments roughly coincided with the outbreak
of the Korean conflict. Resources for area wage surveys
were expanded as a result of this emergency in order to
provide data for administering wage stabilization policies.
During the 1950’s, between 11 and 40 areas of various sizes
were studied in a given year, with the number depending on
resources available for the program.
Current program emerges
In fiscal year 1960, the current program emerged when
there was a conversion from studies in judgmentally se
lected areas to a statistically selected sample of areas chosen
to represent all metropolitan areas in the contiguous 48
States. Consequently, findings of individual areas could be
combined, after appropriate weighting, to yield national and
regional estimates. The sample selected for fiscal 1960 con
tained 60 areas, representative of the 188 areas then in the
scope of the program. A year later, the sample included 80
areas, and gradually grew to 85 areas, representing the 229
areas in scope for 1969.7
The major thrust of the 1960’s expansion was a need for
nationwide estimates of office clerical pay in private indus
try for use in evaluating Federal white-collar salaries. Data
obtained for plant jobs in the individual areas surveyed also
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were used by the Department of Defense and other agencies
in setting pay rates for their blue-collar “wage board” em
ployees.
The most recent change in the program occurred after the
Office of Management and Budget made major changes in
its list of metropolitan areas, based on results of the 1970
Census of Population. The Bureau selected a new 70-area
sample and introduced it in July 1974.8 These 70 areas will
continue as the area sample through December 1986, repre
senting the 262 metropolitan areas (excluding those in
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) recognized and defined
by the Office of Management and Budget as of February
1974.
Changing metropolitan area definitions
With few exceptions, area wage surveys have been con
ducted since 1950 in metropolitan areas as defined by the
Office of Management and Budget or its predecessor, the
Bureau of the Budget.9 Standard metropolitan area defini
tions were first developed by the Bureau of the Budget
shortly before the 1950 census, primarily to provide a com
mon set of geographic definitions for Federal statistical
agencies.
The metropolitan area concept recognizes that large pop
ulation concentrations often extend beyond the borders of a
single city. Under this concept, a metropolitan area consists
of one county or more, containing the area’s main popula
tion center, and may also include adjacent counties that have
close economic and social ties to the central counties. (In
New England, metropolitan areas are composed of cities
and towns rather than counties.) Areas are designated and
defined by the Office of Management and Budget based on
a set of criteria developed by the interagency Federal Com
mittee on Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
The number of recognized metropolitan areas has grown
substantially, from 172 in 1950 to 288 as of January 1 ,
1980. In part, this growth stems from changes in the criteria
for designating metropolitan areas that have been made at
the time of each population census since 1950.10 Although
these changes have not significantly altered the basic
metropolitan area concept, they have resulted in the recogni
tion of new areas and in changes in the boundaries of exist
ing areas. However, most of the growth in the number of
metropolitan areas is the result of population growth and
increased urbanization in the United States.
The most recent revision in standards for designating and
defining metropolitan areas was published in the Federal
Register on January 3, 1980.11 The new standards intro
duced revised terminology. The existing term, “Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area” (SM SA ), was replaced by
“Metropolitan Statistical Area” (M SA) and “Primary Met
ropolitan Statistical Area” (PM SA ). Areas such as San Anto
nio, t x (Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties), which
are not closely related to other metropolitan areas, and are
typically surrounded by nonmetropolitan counties, are
called MSA’s. PMSA’s are components of larger “Consoli
dated Metropolitan Statistical Areas” (CMSA’s). For exam
ple, Seattle (King and Snohomish Counties) and Tacoma
(Pierce County) are PMSA’s that jointly form the SeattleTacoma, Washington CMSA. CMSA’s , not studied in the area
wage survey program, have replaced the former “Standard
Consolidated Statistical Areas” (SCSA’s).
Restructuring the program
Using the new standards and data from the 1980 census,
the Office of Management and Budget defined a total of 326
MSA’s and PMSA’s in the contiguous 48 States, as of Octo
ber 31, 1984.12 As a result, BLS’ area sample for its area
wage surveys became outdated.
A principal consideration in planning for a revised sample
of areas was maximizing the usefulness of survey results,
given the level of resources available for area wage surveys.
The Bureau and its business and labor advisory groups ex
plored three alternatives: (1) a 70-area sample of the 326
metropolitan areas within the scope of the program, each
area to be surveyed annually; (2) a 70-area sample of the
155 areas with populations of 250,000 or more, surveyed
annually; and (3) a 90-area sample of all 326 areas, the 32
largest areas of the United States to be surveyed annually
and two groups of 29 smaller areas each to be surveyed in
alternate years. Each of these options, requiring about the
same level of resources annually, was designed to represent
areas differing in employment size, industrial composition,
and geographic location. Provision for probability sampling
permitted the development of national and regional esti
mates each year as in the past.
The third option was chosen because it provides informa
tion for the largest number of areas with the resources avail
able. Also, the burden on individual respondents is reduced
by rotating between the two groups of 29 areas.
To select the sample of 90 areas, all 326 M SA’s and
PMSA’s as of October 1984 were grouped into 90 statistical
“cells.” One area in each of the cells was then selected to
represent all areas in the cell. The 32 largest areas in terms
of nonagricultural employment were the sole occupants of
their cells and thus were automatically included in the
sample.
The 294 remaining areas were grouped into 58 (90 minus
32) cells according to the following criteria, which are listed
in descending order of importance:
•
•
•
•
Broad geographic region— Northeast, South, Midwest,
and West;
Similarity of manufacturing industries (with emphasis on
similarity of average earnings of production workers);
Approximate equality of total nonagricultural employ
ment; and
Boundaries of BLS regional offices.
One area was randomly selected from each cell. An area’s
chance of selection was proportionate to its share of the total
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
nonagricultural employment in the cell. For example, an
area with a quarter of the employment in its cell had a l-in-4
chance of selection. A statistical technique known as Keyfitzing was used to obtain as much overlap as possible be
tween areas in the current and new samples. 13
Exhibit 1 shows the result of the 90-area selection. Fiftysix of the areas in the new sample have been surveyed since
1974 ; 34 have not. Geographic boundaries stayed the same
in 22 of the 56 retained areas; in the remaining 34, new
boundaries resulted in nonagricultural employment in
creases or decreases of fewer than 10 percent in 23 areas;
between 10 and 20 percent in 8 areas; and decreases of more
than 25 percent in Dallas, Huntsville, and San Francisco.
(Decreases in Dallas and San Francisco reflect splits of the
former Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco-Oakland
areas. Two counties formerly in the Huntsville, a l , metro
politan area are now nonmetropolitan counties.)
The new sample, reflecting population shifts in the
United States, contains a slightly higher proportion of
Southern and Western areas than does the current sample.
Among the additions to the area wage survey program are
Phoenix, AZ, Riverside-San Bernardino, CA, and TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, which now rank among the
25 most populated areas.
Implementing the new sample
The 90-area sample will be phased into the area wage
survey program over a 4-year period, beginning in January
1987. Each year, surveys will be conducted in 61 areas—
the 32 largest areas and half of the smaller areas.
In the largest areas, wage and benefit data will be ob
tained from surveyed establishments through personal visits
by BLS field representatives once every 3 years. In the inter
vening years, collection (primarily by mail or telephone)
will be limited to wage information.
The smaller areas will be divided into two groups of 29
areas. The groups will be surveyed in alternating years.
Thus, an individual area will be studied twice in a 4-year
cycle: a survey of wages and benefits will be conducted by
personal visit one year; and a survey of wages only will be
conducted by mail and telephone 2 years later.
As new areas enter the program, those no longer in the
sample will be dropped. For areas retained in the program,
changes in the geographic boundaries of metropolitan areas
will be reflected in the year an area is surveyed by personal
visit.
Most of the areas to be dropped from the area wage
survey program will still be surveyed by BLS, but not as part
of its own program. Each year the Bureau conducts about
100 locality wage surveys for the Employment Standards
Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. 14 Results
from these surveys are used in administering the Service
Contract Act, which sets minimum wages by occupation for
employees of firms providing services to the Federal
Government.
D
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Exhibit 1 .
June 1986 •
Revised area sample for
bls
bls
Area Wage Surveys Will Cover More Areas
area wage surveys
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
Areas retained in program
B o sto n , m a 1
B u ffa lo , NY
H artford, CT
N a s sa u -S u ffo lk , NY1
N ew a rk , NJ1
N e w Y ork, NY1
P h ilad elp h ia, PA-NJ1
Pittsburgh, PA1
Portland, ME
P o u g h k eep sie, NY
S cra n to n -W ilk es-B a rre, PA3
T renton, NJ
W orcester, m a
Y ork, pa
A tlanta, g a 1
B altim ore, MD1
Corpus C hristi, TX
D a lla s, TX1’2
G a in esv ille, FL
H ou ston , TX1
H u n tsv ille, AL
Jackson , m s
L o u isv ille , KY-IN
M em p h is, t n - a r - m s
M ia m i-H ia le a h , FL1
N e w O rleans, LA1
R ich m o n d -P etersb u rg , VA
San A n to n io , TX
W ash in gton , d c - m d - v a 1
C h ica g o , IL1
C in cin n ati, o h - k y - i n 1
C lev ela n d , OH1
C olu m b u s, OH
D a v e n p o rt-R o ck I s la n d M o lin e , IA-IL
D etroit, Mi1
G a ry -H a m m o n d , IN
In d ian ap olis, IN
K ansas C ity , MO-KS1
M ilw a u k ee, w i 1
M in n e a p o lis -S t. P aul, M N -w i1
O m aha, NE-IA
St. L o u is, MO-IL1
South B en d -M ish a w a k a , IN
T o led o , OH
A n a h e im -S a n ta A n a, CA1
B illin g s , MT
D en v er, c o 1
F resn o, CA
L o s A n g e le s -L o n g B ea ch , CA1
Portland, OR
Sacram en to, CA
Salt L ake C ity -O g d e n , u t
San D ie g o , CA1
San F ran cisco, CA1
San J o se, CA1
S eattle, w a 1
Areas new to program
B e r g e n -P a ss a ic , NJ1,4
D an bu ry, CT
L a w r e n c e-H a v er h ill, m a -NH
M id d le s e x -S o m e r s e tH unterdon, NJ
M o n m o u th -O c e a n , NJ
P a w tu c k e t-W o o n s o c k e tA ttleb oro, ri - m a 6
R o ch ester, NY
A u gu sta, GA-SC
A u stin , TX
B radenton, F L
C h arleston, s c
C h a rlo tte-G a sto n ia -R o ck H ill,
NC-SC
F loren ce, SC
L ittle R o c k -N o r th L ittle R ock ,
AR
L o n g v ie w -M a r s h a ll, TX
M o b ile , AL
N a sh v ille , TN
O rlando, FL
San A n g elo , TX
Sh reveport, la
T a m p a -S t. P etersb u rg C learw ater, FL1
W ilm in g to n , DE-NJ-MD
A p p le to n -O s h k o s h N een a h , w i
C h a m p a ig n -U r b a n a R an toul, IL
D ecatu r, IL
E lk h a rt-G o sh en , IN
Joliet, IL
K o k o m o , in
S t. C lou d , MN
B o ise C ity , id
O akland, CA1’5
P h o en ix , AZ1
R iv e r s id e -S a n B ernardino, CA
V isa lia -T u la r e -P o r te r v ille , CA
Areas dropped from program
A lb a n y -S c h e n e c ta d y T ro y , NY
P a te r so n -C lifto n -P a ss a ic , NJ
P r o v id e n c e -W a r w ic k P aw tu ck et, ri - m a
C h attanooga, TN-GA
D ayton a B ea ch , FL
G r e e n sb o r o -W in s to n -S a le m H igh P oin t, NC
G reen ville-S p artan b u rg, s c
Jack so n v ille, FL
N o r fo lk -V ir g in ia B e a c h P ortsm outh, v a - n c
O klah om a C ity , OK
1 Surveyed annually. All other areas will be surveyed twice in a
4-year cycle.
2 Formerly included Fort Worth,
t x
.
3 Formerly titled Northeast Pennsylvania.
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D ayton , OH
G reen B a y , w i
S a g in a w , mi
W ich ita, KS
4 Formerly included in New York,
saic, n j .
n y
-
n j,
and Paterson-Clifton-Pas-
5 Formerly included in San Francisco-Oakland,
CA.
6 Formerly included in Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket,
r i- m a
.
-F O O T N O T E S -
1 The surveys include establishments in six broad industry divisions:
manufacturing; transportation, communication, and other public utilities;
wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and se
lected services. Major exclusions from the survey are construction, extrac
tive industries, and government. Establishments employing 50 workers or
more are included except in the 13 largest areas where the minimum
establishment size is 100 workers in manufacturing; transportation, com
munication, and other public utilities; and retail trade.
2 See, for example, A r e a W a g e S u rv e y : N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk —N e w
J e r s e y , M e tr o p o lita n A r e a , M a y 1 9 8 5 , Bulletin 3030—32 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, September 1985). Summaries of each of the 70 surveyed areas
are also reported in a single volume. See A r e a W a g e S u rv e y s : S e le c te d
M e tr o p o lita n A r e a s , 1 9 8 4 , Bulletin 3025—72 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
June 1985).
3See W a g e D iffe r e n c e s A m o n g M e tr o p o lita n A r e a s , 1 9 8 4 , Summary
8 5 -7 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, June 1985).
4 See O c c u p a tio n a l E a rn in g s in A ll M e tr o p o lita n A r e a s , J u ly 1 9 8 4 ,
Summary 8 5 -4 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1985).
5 See, for example, John E. Buckley, “Wage differences among workers
in the same job and establishment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1985,
pp. 11-16. An annual report compares wage levels in the areas surveyed.
A more detailed description of the area wage survey program, including a
discussion o f uses and limitations of survey findings, is in bls H a n d b o o k
o f M e th o d s , Vol. I, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, December
1982), pp. 6 7 -7 3 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 Test surveys including blue-collar jobs were conducted successfully in
1949 in six cities.
7 The program also included surveys in two nonmetropolitan areas—
B oise, Idaho, and Burlington, Vermont— located in States without
metropolitan areas. In addition, several surveys not part of the regular area
program were conducted under contract.
8 See Virginia L. Ward, “Area sample changes in the area wage survey
p r o g r a m ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1975, pp. 49—50.
9 The Chicago survey was limited to Cook County and the New York
survey to the five boroughs until 1963.
10 At times, changes have been made between census years.
11 They are also contained in the S ta tis tic a l R e p o r te r , December 1979,
pp. 3 3 -4 5 . For background information, see Federal Committee on Stand
ard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, “Documents Relating to the Metropoli
tan Statistical Area Classification for the 1980’s,” S ta tis tic a l R e p o r te r ,
August 1980, pp. 3 35-84.
12 m s a definitions generally do not change except after the decennial
census. Each year, however, a few new m s a ’ s may be announced, usually
because of population growth.
13 See Nathan Keyfitz, “Sampling with Probabilities Proportional to
Size: Adjusting for Changes in the Probabilities,” J o u r n a l o f th e A m e r ic a n
S ta tis tic a l A s s o c ia tio n , No. 46, 1951, pp. 105-09.
14 See, for example, A r e a W a g e S u r v e y : F o r t W a y n e ,
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 1985).
in ,
June 1985
23
BLS and Alice Hamilton:
pioneers in industrial health
In the early years of the century,
bls contracted for and published studies
of industrial health and safety;
its most active agent was Alice Hamilton,
‘special investigator for industrial diseases’
W
il l ia m
T.
M o ye
In September 1910, Alice Hamilton, chief medical exam
iner for the Illinois State Commission on Occupational Dis
eases, was in Brussels attending the International Congress
on Occupational Diseases, at which the Belgian delegate
dismissed U.S. activities in the field of industrial hygiene
with the comment, “£ a n’existe pas [They do not exist]”. 1
But that condition had already begun to change, and at the
International Congress, Hamilton met Charles P. Neill,
Commissioner of Labor, one of the persons primarily re
sponsible for the recent surge in publicity on industrial poi
sons. Shortly thereafter, Hamilton accepted N eill’s proposal
that she undertake investigations for the Bureau of Labor,
launching a decade of cooperation in which she studied
diseases and hazards associated with the lead, explosives,
pottery, and dye industries.
Early career
Hamilton was bom in New York City in 1869, but was
raised in Fort Wayne, i n , one of four sisters with a much
younger brother. From her youth, she was determined to be
useful. Indeed, at one point, she hoped to become a medical
missionary in Persia.2 In her activities, she was able to
combine her medical work with humanitarian services.
Upon graduation from medical school at the University of
Michigan in 1893, she worked at hospitals in Minneapolis
and Boston before returning to Michigan for graduate work.
William T. M oye, formerly a historian at the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
is the command historian at the U .S. Army Laboratory Command.
24 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Then she went to Europe for a year of study, followed by a
year at Johns Hopkins. In 1897, she accepted a teaching
position in Chicago and made the crucial decision to live at
Hull House, a settlement house where she found “an intense
and humane concern for people, especially for those who
had small chance in this world.”3 There she found activities
that married her research interests with social concerns.
During a typhoid epidemic in 1902, Hamilton surveyed
homes in the Hull House district, capturing flies around
open, undrained privies. When her tests confirmed the pres
ence of the typhoid bacillus, she published the results of her
research in the Journal of the American Medical Associa
tion, and along with other Hull House residents, urged the
Chicago Board of Health to clean up the area.4
In 1908, Hamilton published her first article on industrial
hygiene in Charities and The Commons.5 She had to turn to
Great Britain and Europe for information on the subject, “as
there is so little available in our own country where we are
still too much absorbed in the industrial battle to stop and
take stock of the killed and wounded.”6 Later that year,
Charles S. Deneen, governor of Illinois, appointed the Illi
nois Commission on Occupational Diseases— Hamilton and
eight men. She served on the commission for about 2 years,
resigning to accept the post of medical investigator for the
Commission’s Survey of Occupational Diseases.
Hamilton later wrote that her visit to European factories
in 1911 had been an eye-opener. She had previously thought
that U.S. factories provided better working conditions and
that American workers enjoyed better health and, therefore,
less industrial poisoning. However, after studying the sick-
ness records and dwellings of English and German workers,
she realized that she had found “a far larger number of
cases” during her Illinois surveys.7
According to Hamilton, when she entered the industrialhygiene field, “You could have counted the published arti
cles on industrial poisoning on the fingers of one hand.”
Employers eager to improve conditions could find but little
advice from medical experts. Many supervisors simply
relied on a large floating pool of foreigners and a high labor
turnover rate to cut exposure time in hazardous trades.8
Efforts at the Bureau
Carroll D. Wright, first chief of the Bureau, had commis
sioned the first Federal report on industrial hygiene and
published it in 1903. But the American awakening came
later as part of the national push for social and economic
reform known as the “Progressive Movement.” Bureau ac
tivity in industrial hygiene was further spurred by the as
sumption of administrative functions under the Federal em
ployees’ compensation act of 1908. Neill placed special
emphasis on industrial health and safety issues, and the
Bureau participated in and encouraged research on these
issues.
In 1909, the Bureau cooperated with the American Asso
ciation for Labor Legislation in examining the effects of
white phosphorus in the production of matches. The subse
quent report, published by the Bureau in 1910, spurred the
introduction of legislation banning phosphorus matches
from interstate commerce and eventually resulted in passage
of a law placing a heavy tax on such matches.9
In accepting N eill’s proposal to associate with the Bureau
of Labor, Hamilton assumed the title of “special investigator
for industrial diseases,” producing first “White-Lead Indus
try in the United States, With an Appendix on the LeadOxide Industry.” She investigated 23 of the 25 U.S. facto
ries known to manufacture white lead and discovered 358
specific cases of lead poisoning, 16 of them fatal, occurring
between January 1910 and April 1911.10 She then moved on
to study problems of lead poisoning in potteries, tile works,
and porcelain enameled sanitary ware, as well as in the
painters’ trade.
Royal Meeker, who succeeded Neill as Commissioner,
lauded the results of Hamilton’s work, “The studies of lead
poisoning, made by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics,
have induced some of the manufacturers of lead paints,
pottery, tile, and storage batteries to eliminate or modify
some of the most dangerous processes in their industries
which subjected workers to needless hazards from lead poi
soning.”11 Meeker wanted the Bureau to become a central
clearinghouse, declaring, “This Bureau should be in a posi
tion to furnish at any time advice as to the best methods of
preventing industrial accidents and occupational diseases.”12
Hamilton’s association with the Bureau continued, focus
ing first on problems in the lead industries, then the rubber
industry, the printing trades, the manufacture of explosives,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and the production of aniline dyes. She later wrote of the
independence which Meeker allowed her and the support
that he gave her: “I look back to my service under him with
pleasure and gratitude. He gave me a free hand, but was
always ready to help in any difficulty; he never edited my
stuff and when nervous manufacturers asked to see it before
publication, he would arrange a conference with them, call
me in to defend my statements, and stand by me.”13
Hamilton may have enjoyed the independence and free
dom from red tape, but she suffered from a lack of reliable
funding. She was employed by the Bureau on a contract, not
a salary basis, selling each study for a negotiated amount.
The Bureau itself suffered from limited appropriations,
prompting Hamilton to write to her sister in 1914, “They are
so poor they cannot make a contract with me for an investi
gation of rubber, but I mean to do it anyway and trust to their
making it in July, the new fiscal year.”14 Preferring the
freedom and variety afforded by her association with the
Bureau, she turned down job offers carrying larger salaries
but with more restrictions. However, she did supplement
her income by writing articles for The Survey .15
Early on, Hamilton developed her techniques of “shoeleather epidemiology.” Of her experiences in Illinois, she
said, “No one method of investigation can be adopted. One
must simply grope and catch at anything which offers the
least help.” She noted that England and Germany kept offi
cial records of workers’ sicknesses. By contrast, “In Illi
nois, one must simply grope again, and one must carefully
check up and control every bit of information one gets.”16
Hamilton’s biographer wrote of her procedures: thorough
investigation of factories, correlation of illness with specific
industrial processes, and compilation of medically diag
nosed cases of poisoning. Before heading to the field, she
learned the technical side of an industry. Then, she would
observe all processes, carefully check hospital and dispen
sary records, and talk to the workers in their homes and
union halls— and saloons, if necessary.17
Hamilton wrote her sister of “the risky things one has to
do” as part of an investigation of Arizona copper mines: “climb
steep ladders down into black holes, or scramble up through
low caves on one’s hands and knees, or pick one’s way over
rails laid across a deep dump, or be hauled up a rock that has
no foothold.” She was 50 years old at the time.18
She adamantly defended her work. When one of her early
studies was attacked by a company doctor who was also a
member of the State board of health as “a striking example
of exaggeration, either a false and apparently a malicious
and slanderous report, or an erroneous one,” Hamilton
wrote her superior at the Bureau of her distress. She sup
ported her findings, naming sources and doctors she had
interviewed and listing the establishments she had visited.19
She readily adopted the Bureau’s tradition of objectivity
as the best way to ensure the good will of the business
community— and, therefore, entrance to the plants, as no
Federal law granted entry and businessmen gave access at
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
bls
and Alice Hamilton: Pioneers in Industrial Health
their own discretion. (She later wrote that she could remem
ber only two large factories refusing her entrance.) She
made it a point to discuss her observations and criticisms
with plant managers in private consultations.
Some plant managers did try to cover up poor conditions,
for example, one lead works in the Middle West. Hamilton
described that company’s village as “the most depressing
industrial community I have ever seen.” One woman in
formed her, “We all knew you was coming. They’ve been
cleaning up for you something fierce. Why, in the room
where my husband works, they tore out the ceiling because
they couldn’t cover up the red lead. And a doctor came and
looked at all the men and them that’s got lead, forty of them,
has got to keep to home the day you’re there.” When Hamil
ton told the management of her findings, the company ad
mitted the fraud, showed her the doctor’s report, and
promised permanent improvements, including regular med
ical examinations for all employees.20
World War I brought new concerns to the fore, and
Hamilton surveyed conditions in such war-related industries
as munitions and airplace manufacturing. She also studied
aniline and other coal-tar dyes, in which U .S. manufacturers
were replacing the German products previously imported.21
In a 1917 article in The Survey, she discussed “a new form
of industrial poisoning from the manufacture of airplane
wings, which, so it appears, has caused a good deal of
trouble in England.” The b l s asked her to investigate the
kinds of “dope” used to treat the wings of planes manufac
tured in the United States, and the conditions under which
it was applied. She toured 18 factories and reported, “on the
whole, my findings were reassuring.”22
Because of the secrecy surrounding munitions plants,
Hamilton herself had to discover where the plants were
located and what they produced. For example, her search for
picric acid led her to the marshes of New Jersey where she
followed the chemical’s characteristic fumes to their source,
or she would spot the orange- and yellow-stained men,
known as “canaries,” who would then lead her to the site.23
The Bureau participated in joint projects with agencies in
the War Labor Administration of the Department of Labor.
For the Working Conditions Service, Hamilton chaired a
committee of experts studying health problems arising from
industrial poisons. The Bureau also worked with the
Woman in Industry Service, teaming with the Public Health
Service. Both Meeker and Hamilton participated in an in
vestigation of conditions at Niagara Falls, where plants
wanted to work women at night to speed deliveries to the
military and other war industries, action prohibited by New
York State labor law.
Hamilton worked with the Committee on Industrial Dis
eases, Poisons, and Explosives organized by the Committee
on Labor of the Advisory Commission of the Council of
National Defense. She also designed studies for the Com
mittee on Industrial Poisons of the National Research Coun
cil’s Division of Medicine and Related Services.
26FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
She was appalled by “the sight of men sickening and
dying in the effort to produce something that would wound
or kill other men like themselves. 24 However, she chose
not to protest the war as conspicuously as she might other
wise so she could keep her job with the Bureau where she
could continue to expose hazards and establish protective
standards, characterizing her investigations as “a patriotic
duty, as a piece of real war work and yet not the destructive
side of war but the saving of life.”25
After the war, Hamilton wrote, “England and France,
facing an emergency infinitely greater than ours, took
thought to protect their munitions workers, but we did
not.”26 As one writer has said, Hamilton cast her lot with
those institutions primarily concerned with “workers’ wel
fare, not industrial productivity.”27
The later years
The Bureau gradually lost control of Federal occupational
health programs to the better financed and equipped Public
Health Service. Hamilton, so active during the war years,
hesitated to return to the peace-time Bureau, saying, “it will
be too depressing to go back to general oblivion again.”28
Fortuitously, during her wartime work, she had met
David L. Edsall, dean of the Harvard Medical School, who
had launched the first degree program in the United States
in industrial hygiene. In 1919, Edsall offered Hamilton an
appointment to teach industrial medicine, and she became
the first woman on the Harvard faculty.
Edsall wrote the president of Harvard that Hamilton’s
studies were “unquestionably both more extensive and of
finer quality than those of anyone else who has done work
of this kind in this country.”29 Hamilton commented, “going
to Harvard is very grand. If one could wear it as a decora
tion, like the Order of the Garter, I would love it.”30
She worked only part time at Harvard, but she was so
active on so many fronts that one writer labeled her “the
Tinker Bell of industrial medicine.”31 She contributed arti
cles to the Journal of Industrial Hygiene , edited at Harvard.
In 1925, she published Industrial Hygiene in the United
States, the first American textbook in the field, following it
in 1934 with Industrial Toxicology. Also during that period,
several lead companies, at Hamilton’s initiative, agreed to
fund a 3-year study of lead poisoning to be headed by a
Harvard physiologist.32
Hamilton helped stimulate Federal action leading to two
conferences, one on tetra-ethyl lead in 1925 and the other on
radium in 1928. She praised the “informal and extra-legal
method” of investigation, conference, and agreement be
tween manufacturers and State and Federal health officials
as “the only way a quick and effective reform can be brought
about in several different States simultaneously.” However,
she warned, the method worked only on “a new striking
danger which lends itself to newspaper publicity”— not old
familiar dangers or newer, less spectacular poisons.33
Therefore, she continued to urge passage of adequate
compensation laws as “the best preventive measure for in
dustrial diseases,” pointing to the powerful influence of
insurance companies on employers with excessive numbers
of claims because of poor conditions.34
Upon retirement from Harvard in 1935, Hamilton re
turned to the Department o f Labor— whose chief was
Frances Perkins, a fellow member of the social reform net
work. In accepting the part-time job as medical consultant
to the Division of Labor Standards, she rejected a full-time
offer from the b l s rival, the Public Health Service.
As consultant, she conducted surveys, offered advice,
attended conferences, testified at hearings, and brought ne
glected problems to the Department’s attention. Her most
important work during the period involved a study of poi
sons in the manufacture of viscose rayon. Years earlier, she
had discovered cases of carbon disulphide poisoning arising
from the process for vulcanizing rubber. Yet, despite her
efforts and considerable European literature on the subject,
there had been no systematic investigation in the United
States. In the face of industry opposition, Hamilton con
ducted a survey in Pennsylvania and extended the work to
cover nine other States, resulting in Occupational Poisoning
in the Viscose Rayon Industry, published by the Division of
Labor Standards in 1940.35
Alice Hamilton died at her home in Hadlyme, Connecti
cut, September 22, 1970, a few months before the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Act was signed into law. The pre
vious year, on her 100th birthday, President Richard Nixon
had praised her “lasting contributions to the well being of
our people and of men and women everywhere.”36
□
-F O O T N O T E S -
Information on the Bureau o f Labor Statistics comes from b l s files
and publications, as well as Department of Labor archives.
Information on Alice Hamilton is based largely on two works: Barbara
Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n : A L ife in L e tte r s (Cambridge, m a , Harvard
University Press, 1984); and Angela Nugent Young, “Interpreting the
Dangerous Trades, Workers’ Health in America and the Career o f Alice
Hamilton, 1910-1935” (Ph.D. dissertation, Department o f History, Brown
University, 1982).
NOTE:
1 Alice Hamilton, E x p lo r in g th e D a n g e r o u s T r a d e s , A n A u to b io g r a p h y
o f A lic e H a m ilto n , M .D . (Boston, m a , Little, Brown & C o., 1943), p. 128.
2 Barbara Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n : A L ife in L e tte r s (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 33.
m a
14
Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , p. 174; and Young,
“Interpreting the Dangerous Trades.”
14 Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , pp. 182-83. T h e S u rv e y
grew out o f the Pittsburgh survey and was published in New York by
Survey Associates, Inc., a group of social reform and settlement house
leaders.
16 Hamilton, “Occupational Diseases,” pp. 2 00-01.
17 Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , pp. 166-67.
18 I b i d . ,
p. 25.
19 I b id .,
pp. 169-72.
,
3 Elizabeth Shepley Sergeant, “Alice Hamilton, M .D ., Crusader for
Health in Industry,” H a r p e r ’s M o n th ly M a g a z in e , May 1926, p. 767.
20 Hamilton, “Nineteen Years,” pp. 5 83-84.
21 For example, see I n d u s tr ia l P o is o n s U s e d o r P r o d u c e d in th e M a n u
4 Jane Addams, T w e n ty Y e a r s a t H u ll-H o u s e (New York, The Macmil
lan C o., 1912), pp. 292-98; and Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n : A L ife in
L e tte r s , pp. 145-46.
f a c tu r e o f E x p lo s iv e s , Bulletin 219 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1917); and
5 C h a r itie s a n d T h e C o m m o n s was published in New York by the Charity
Organization Society, which consisted of social reform and settlement
house leaders.
22 Alice Hamilton, “Dope Poisoning,” T h e S u rv e y , Nov. 17, 1917,
p. 168.
I n d u s tr ia l P o is o n in g in M a k in g C o a l- T a r D y e s a n d D y e I n te r m e d ia te s ,
Bulletin 280 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1921).
23 Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , p. 200.
6 Alice Hamilton, “Industrial Diseases, With Special Reference to the
Trades in Which Women Are Employed,” C h a r itie s a n d T h e C o m m o n s ,
Sept. 5, 1908, p. 655.
24 Hamilton, “Nineteen Years,” p. 584.
7 Alice Hamilton, “Nineteen Years in the Poisonous Trades,” H a r p e r ’s
M a g a z in e , October 1929, p. 582.
26 Hamilton, “Nineteen Years,” p. 584.
8 I b id ., pp. 582-83; Alice Hamilton, “Occupational Diseases,” P r o
c e e d in g s , N a tio n a l C o n fe r e n c e o f C h a r itie s a n d C o r r e c tio n , 1 9 1 1 , p. 198;
and “Forty Years in the Poisonous Trades,” A m e r ic a n I n d u s tr ia l H y g ie n e
A s s o c ia tio n Q u a r te r ly , March 1948, p. 9.
9 John B. Andrews, “Phosphorous Poisoning in the Match Industry in the
United States,” B u lle tin o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r , January 1910, pp. 31-140.
10 Alice Hamilton, “The White-Lead Industry in the United States, with
an Appendix on the Lead-Oxide Industry,” B u lle tin o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r ,
July 1911, pp. 189-259.
11 Royal Meeker, “The Why and How of Uniform Industrial Accident
Statistics for the United States,” P r o c e e d in g s , I n te r n a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f
I n d u s tr ia l A c c id e n t B o a r d s a n d C o m m is s io n s , 1 9 1 9 , Bulletin 210 (Bureau
o f Labor Statistics, 1917), pp. 9 2 -9 3 .
12 Woodrow Wilson Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.
Royal Meeker to Joseph Tumulty, Feb. 6, 1914.
13 Hamilton, E x p lo rin g th e D a n g e r o u s T r a d e s , p. 129.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25 Young, “Interpreting the Dangerous Trades,” p. 96.
27 Young, “Interpreting the Dangerous Trades,” pp. 8 2-8 3 .
28 I b id .,
pp. 42, 84, and 95.
29 Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , p. 210.
30I b id .,
p. 237.
31 Carey P. McCord, “A lice H am ilton,” J o u r n a l o f O c c u p a tio n a l
M e d ic in e , February 1972, p. 101.
32 Sicherman, A lic e H a m ilto n , A L ife in L e tte r s , p. 238.
33 Hamilton, “Nineteen Years,” p. 587; and “Forty Years in the Poi
sonous Trades,” p. 9.
34 Hamilton comments in A m e r ic a n F e d e r a tio n o f L a b o r P o s tw a r F o ru m
(Washington, DC, American Federation of Labor, 1944), p. 38.
35 Alice Hamilton, O c c u p a tio n a l P o is o n in g in th e V is c o s e R a y o n I n d u s
tr y , Bulletin 34 (U .S. Division of Labor Standards, 1940).
36 T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Feb. 28, 1969, p. 35.
27
Conference Papers
The following excerpts, closely related to the work of b l s ,
are adapted from papers presented at the Thirty-Eighth An
nual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Associa
tion, December 1985, in New York.
The full text of the papers appears in the copyrighted ir r a
publication, Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meet
ings, available from i r r a , University of Wisconsin, Social
Science Building, Madison, wi 53706.
Labor-market data:
supplementary sources
S a n f o r d M . Ja c o b y
and
D a n ie l J .B . M it c h e l l
In the past, private organizations and State government
agencies attempted to fill some of the statistical gaps left by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current evidence suggests
that the same tendency still exists: if there is a market for
data, some organization often steps in to provide them,
either for reasons of public relations, or as a direct item for
sale. In addition, State statistical agencies will provide in
formation felt to be useful within their jurisdictions.
To illustrate these sources— and their pitfalls— two areas
are discussed below: salary intention surveys and State in
dustrial relations data.1
Salary intention surveys
Although it is possible to collect data on expectations and
intentions (as the Commerce Department does with regard
to plant and equipment expenditures), b l s has not collected
data on planned pay adjustments. Some information is of
potential use to pay setters and to economic forecasters, and
some management consulting firms do survey such informa
tion.
As an example, data are collected by Hewitt Associates
on pay adjustments planned and under way for salaried
employees. We compared the Hewitt figures with realized
wage adjustments for white-collar workers taken from the
Employment Cost Index. It appears that surveyed personnel
Sanford M. Jacoby is an associate professor, Graduate School of Manage
ment, University of California at Los Angeles, and Daniel J.B. Mitchell is
Director, Institute o f Industrial Relations, u c l a . The full title of their i r r a
paper is, “Alternative Sources of Labor Market Data.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
managers at first underestimated the degree of wage disin
flation occurring in the early 1980’s, but then stabilized their
expectations in line with actual results. Thus, the Hewitt
data provide insight into the shift of wage norms that devel
oped during the economic downturn of 1980-82.
Unfortunately, use of salary intention surveys is hindered
by the misunderstanding common among personnel man
agers concerning the cost of “merit” increases. Particularly
among nonunion employers, there is often a confusion be
tween the gross and net effects of merit pay awards. In a
steady-state situation, a properly operated merit system (in
which across-the-board adjustments are segregated from
merit awards) should not raise average pay.2 Yet respond
ents to the Hewitt and other surveys seem to include gross
merit awards in their estimates, thus biasing up the figures
by roughly 1 to 2 percent. These upward-biased estimates
are then cited, giving a misleading indication of likely wage
trends.3 The merit problem illustrates the more general
methodological weakness sometimes associated with pri
vate data suppliers.
State industrial relations data
Although some State labor statistics agencies predate the
they have had a much less visible role collecting data
in modem times. Often, data available from State agencies
are derived from b l s or Census series. But in some States,
the agency collects industrial relations data on its own. For
example, the California Department of Industrial Relations
puts out data on union wage settlements and union member
ship by industry and region.
It is unlikely, however, that State agencies will quickly
fill gaps left by the reduction of b l s data collection. For
example, eight States were reported to have issued union
membership data during 1984, according to the Statistical
Reference Index . But closer inspection reveals that all but
three (California, South Carolina, and Wyoming) are still
reproducing the now-discontinued b l s series from 1978 or
1980. States which collected their own membership prior to
the b l s discontinuation continue to do so; the others have
not been motivated to undertake the effort.
bls,
t o t h e e x t e n t that a market or a public relations value is
perceived for collecting labor market data, private sector
organizations often undertake the task. However, general
availability of such data for research purposes can be a
problem. And problems of methodology (sampling, precise
definitions, technical explanations) are less likely to concern
private suppliers than b l s . Private organizations have less
authority than a government agency in requesting coopera
tion with surveys; potential respondents may have concerns
about confidentiality and the use to which data will be put;
and the users themselves may be less sophisticated than
statistical technicians about methodological issues. These
factors suggest that private collection— while playing a use
ful role in data provision— is really a complement to, rather
than a substitute for, Federally collected data.
State government statistical bureaus do have a level of
authority not found in the private sector. But they have
tended to become reliant on breakdowns from Federal data
sources for much of their output. And the statistical output
which State agencies produce is largely applicable only
within their borders.
□
1 References to non-BLS data sources can be found in Margaret A. Chaplan, L a b o r S ta tis tic s : T h e bls a n d B e y o n d (Champaign, University of
Illinois, 1984), Reprint 322; and Katherine I. Bagin and Kevin P. Barry,
U n e x p e c te d S o u r c e s o f In fo r m a tio n in I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s : A C u r r e n t
A w a r e n e s s A p p r o a c h (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University, Industrial Rela
tions Section, 1984).
2 Imagine a formal progression plan with a series of defined merit steps.
As long as the proportion o f employees at each step is constant, the average
wage will not change. In the steady state, the number of employees retiring
from the top will be offset by those entering from the bottom. Thus,
although existing workers may be receiving large merit increases (depend
ing on the gap between steps), the average wage will remain constant.
Confusion over this issue is rampant because managers are often given
“merit budgets” as a control device to prevent them from finding “too
many” employees to be especially meritorious. These merit budgets often
are based on gross cost or may include what amounts to across-the-board
money designed to raise the average wage. See Arnold R. Weber and
Daniel J.B. Mitchell, T h e P a y B o a r d ’s P r o g r e s s : W a g e C o n tr o ls in P h a s e
II (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1978), pp. 8 9-93.
3 Hewitt’s questionnaire asks respondents to calculate a salary structure
increase based on the movement of the midpoint of salary ranges and an
average base salary increase. The former is essentially a rate range adjust
ment and should be free of any merit system “taint.” The latter, defined as
the increase in the average wage per employee, ought to include only the
n e t cost o f merit (which in the steady state should be zero). Yet, it is
typically 1 to 2 percent higher than the former, suggesting respondents are
using a gross cost o f merit in their calculations. (When Hewitt asked its
respondents in late 1984 whether they were following the precise instruc
tions o f the questionnaire, 70 percent said “yes,” suggesting that the prob
lem is based on inadvertent misunderstanding of the impact of merit pay.)
Unfortunately, it is the base salary increase (and similar estimates from
other surveys) that tends to be reported. (See, for example, Audrey Freed
man and others, L a b o r O u tlo o k 1 9 8 5 (New York, The Conference Board,
1984), p. 9.
Airline deregulation
and labor relations
W i l l i a m J. C u r t i n
Over the past 6 years, the process of deregulation has placed
great stress on the system o f industrial relations in the airline
industry. Numerous commentators have described the sce
nario by which deregulation has led to an increase in compe
tition in the product market by encouraging new entrants and
by allowing existing carriers to expand their routes. Some of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the new entrants have successfully operated on a nonunion
basis and, as such, have enjoyed significant cost advantages
because of lower wages, lower benefit costs, and less strin
gent work rules.1 This, in turn, has created industrial rela
tions pressure on established carriers with unionized opera
tions to seek significant concessions from unions in order to
compete with the nonunion entrants.
Professor John T. Dunlop has properly asserted that the
industrial relations problems created by deregulation have
been exacerbated by the fact that, prior to deregulation,
inadequate consideration was given to the question of how
deregulation would impact the relevant labor markets and
the process of collective bargaining.2 Initially, the theoreti
cal case for deregulation focused on the need for competi
tion in the product market. Little attention was paid to the
fact that collective bargaining in the airline industry tradi
tionally operated as a form of labor market regulation that
allowed unions to capture a portion of the monopoly profits
generated by regulation of the product market. As a conse
quence, the disequilibrium that followed the withdrawal of
product market regulation was not anticipated.
In examining the impact of deregulation on the airline
industry, it is important to remember that much of the proc
ess of deregulation occurred during one of the worst eco
nomic recessions in recent memory. This economic down
turn undoubtedly compounded the industrial relations
problems.
Deregulation’s early impact
Early in the process of deregulation, the disequilibrium
described above presented a severe threat to the traditional
economic power of certain airline unions. Additionally,
there were events that caused some concern over the contin
uing viability of the process of collective bargaining under
the Railway Labor Act.
The experience at Continental Airlines reinforced these
perceptions. On September 24, 1983, Continental, the
eighth largest passenger airline in the United States, filed a
petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code. Pursuant to its perceived powers under Chapter 11,
Continental unilaterally implemented drastic changes in
wages, benefits, and work rules.3 In response, the Air Line
Pilots Association, the International Association of Machin
ists, and the Union of Flight Attendants went on strike.
Although these strikes dragged on for many months, they
did not halt Continental’s operations and they eventually
were discontinued without a restoration of prepetition wages
and benefits.
A surprising aspect of the Continental experience was that
significant reductions in wages and benefits were imposed
unilaterally and outside the traditional process of collective
bargaining. To support the assertion that the Continental
case was p e r c e iv e d as a threat to the en tire p r o c e ss of c o lle c William J. Curtin is a senior partner in the law firm o f Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Washington, D C . The full title of his i r r a paper is “Airline Labor
Relations Under Deregulation.”
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Conference Papers
tive bargaining, one only need recall the vigor with which
both National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act
unions sought Congressional action to amend the
Bankruptcy Code to prevent repetitions of the Continental
initiative.4
Moreover, union setbacks were not limited to bankruptcy
context. During late 1983, the Allied Pilots Association, as
representative of American Airlines’ pilots, agreed to a twotier wage scale. This scale reduced pay for new hires by
nearly 50 percent.5 In addition, the scales at American did
not merge at any set time in the future. New hires remained
permanently on a separate and lower scale.6 In the wake of
the American agreement, Eastern, Delta, Western, Repub
lic, and Pan Am also sought concessionary packages.
More recent developments
Recently there have been significant developments in air
line labor relations that may indicate a trend toward stabi
lization. First, it appears that Chapter 11 no longer exists as
an easy method to reduce labor costs without undertaking
the rigors of concessionary bargaining. In 1984, Congress
amended the Bankruptcy Code by adding section 1113,
regulating the rejection of collective bargaining agree
ments.7 In a review of section 1113, two points are most
significant. First, as a prerequisite to the rejection of any
collective bargaining agreement, an employer must engage
in collective bargaining with its union(s). The new statute
specifically requires that an employer seeking rejection must
(1) make a proposal to the union; (2) provide the union with
information to evaluate that proposal; and (3) engage in
good-faith negotiations prior to rejection.8 Second, if this
bargaining is not successful, an employer must seek court
approval before unilaterally changing the contract.9 In short,
the type of swift, unilateral action undertaken by Continen
tal Airlines is now impossible.
In addition to these changes in the applicable legal frame
work, there have been changes in the labor market, particu
larly for pilots, that would make it very difficult for another
carrier to duplicate the coup accomplished by Continental.
One of the keys to Continental’s success in the face of the
Air Line Pilots Association’s strike was its ability to hire
outside replacements.10 Today, many airlines are experienc
ing a shortage of qualified pilot applicants. Indeed, the
market is so tight that some carriers have been forced to
reduce qualifications and increase pay.11
If a carrier were to attempt to reject its collective bargain
ing agreement in this type of labor market, the Air Line
Pilots Association probably would be able to mount a more
effective strike effort. Moreover, the recent experience at
Wheeling-Pittsburgh12 suggests that the rejection of a col
lective bargaining agreement under the Bankruptcy Code
may not result in tremendous cost savings if a union is able
to conduct an effective strike in the face of that rejection.
Therefore, for both legal and economic reasons, it is un
likely that another carrier would be able to duplicate Conti
nental’s experience.
Digitized for30
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other recent developments in airline bargaining indicate
that airline unions may be regaining a measure of their
former vigor and that it may become more difficult for
carriers to exact cost-saving concessions. For example,
since late 1984, the Air Line Pilots Association has under
gone something of a transformation. Most significant in this
regard is that the international union has attempted to assert
greater control over the substance of collective bargaining
agreements negotiated by Master Executive Councils, the
subordinate Air Line Pilots Association groups existing at
each carrier. To this end, the international union has adopted
guidelines for crisis or concessionary bargaining.13 The As
sociation also amended its constitution to give its president
the right to approve all pilot contracts before they take effect
and to put dissident locals into trusteeship. Finally, the
Association has undertaken a program to improve communi
cations with members. During the recent strike at United
Airlines, the Air Line Pilots Association engaged in a series
of nationwide “teleconferences” to keep pilots informed
about the latest developments and to secure support for the
strike.
Some time ago, Professor John Dunlop predicted that the
significant disruptions in airline labor relations caused by
deregulation and concessionary bargaining would be con
centrated in a transitional period.14 The foregoing discus
sion indicates that the airline industry may be approaching
the end of this transitional period and entering a new stage
of relative stability.
□
1 See In r e : C o n tin e n ta l A ir lin e s C o r p . , No. 83-04019-H2-5, slip. op.
at 4 (Bankr. S.D . Tex. Aug. 17, 1984). In addition, some new entrants
have cost advantages that are not labor-related, for example, lower over
head due to their ability to use secondary airports. See address by John T.
Dunlop, National Academy o f Sciences, Transportation Research Board
(Jan. 14, 1985) (hereinafter “Dunlop Speech”).
2 See “Dunlop Speech.”
3 For example, Continental decreased average earnings for pilot captains
from $90,000 per year to $42,000 per year. Similarly, “hard hours” for
captains were increased from 52 to 68 per month. See In r e : C o n tin e n ta l
A ir lin e s C o r p . , Findings of Fact 3 0 -3 8 .
4 See D a ily L a b o r R e p o r t, No. 193, p. A-6 (Oct. 10, 1983).
5 See D a ily L a b o r R e p o r t, No. 217, p. A-7 (Nov. 8, 1983).
6 The system at American Airlines was subsequently changed so that the
two tiers of the wage scale merged after 17 years. See “The Pilots Are
Finally Throwing Their Weight Around,” B u s in e ss W e e k , Oct. 28, 1985,
pp. 3 6-37.
7 See 11 u.s.c. § 1113 (1984 supp.).
8See In r e : W h e e lin g -P itts b u r g h S te e l C o r p . , 50 B.R. 969, 975 (Bankr.
W .D. Pa. 1985). It is unlikely that the bargaining requirements under
section 1113 will be interpreted to require exhaustion o f the procedures
under the Railway Labor Act prior to the rejection o f a collective bargaining
agreement.
9 See 11 u.s.c. § 1113(f).
10 See In r e : C o n tin e n ta l A ir lin e s C o r p . , No. 83-04019-H2-5, slip. op.
at 23; see also Alton K. Marsh, “Continental Luring Passengers With Low
Fares, Credit Plans " A v ia tio n W e e k , Nov. 7, 1983, pp. 3 1 -3 2 (describing
hiring efforts by Continental).
11 The shortage of pilots can be explained by a combination o f two
factors: (1) major route expansions and (2) a dramatic reduction in military
training activities. See T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, Aug. 5, 1985, p. 6.
12 See B u s in e ss W e e k , Aug. 5, 1985, pp. 2 6 -2 7 .
13 See B u s in e ss W e e k , Dec. 31, 1984, p. 49.
14 See “Dunlop Speech.”
The 1984 postal arbitration:
issues surrounding the award
J. J oseph L oewenberg
The 1984 interest arbitration was the first time that the
United States Postal Service (U SPS) and its two largest
unions, the American Postal Workers Union and the Na
tional Association of Letter Carriers, implemented the legis
lated impasse procedure of the Postal Reorganization Act of
1970 to resolve all economic issues raised in bargaining. As
such, it represented a significant development in postal
labor relations and resulted in an award for more than
500,000 employees, the largest number of workers involved
in a single arbitration in the United States. It also raised
questions about standards to be employed in wage-setting
and in interest arbitration.
The 1984 negotiations
The 1984 postal negotiations were the first postal labor
talks since the air traffic controllers’ strike of 1981. The tone
for the negotiations was set by a policy statement issued by
the Board of Governors of USPS 2 weeks before the initial
bargaining meeting which found that postal workers’ com
pensation exceeded that of comparable private-sector em
ployees and which therefore directed USPS management “to
seek correction of this situation.”1 The mandate of the Board
was reflected in management’s economic proposals which
included a two-tier wage structure, with the scale for new
hires 33 percent below the current base.
The unions’ Joint Bargaining Committee (JBC) believed
that the USPS proposal was regressive and unwarranted by
the economic success of USPS. Postal volume had continued
to climb in spite of rate hikes and of doomsayers who had
predicted a decline in hard mail copy. Annual productivity
had also increased beyond that in the private sector in 7 of
the last 10 years. U SPS had accumulated more than
$1.5 billion in surplus in 3 successive years, even though
congressional subsidies had ended. Moreover, the unions
claimed that employees had received an overly modest eco
nomic settlement in the 1981 agreement. JBC wanted signif
icant improvements in wages and benefits.
Negotiations were unsuccessful. Impasse procedures
were initiated. Another attempt at negotiations proved no
more successful than the earlier one, leading the parties to
mandated binding arbitration.
Interest arbitration
The statutory arbitration format is a three-member panel,
with each party choosing one member and those two select
ing a third; if the two are unable to agree, the director of the
J. Joseph Loewenberg is professor of industrial relations, Temple Univer
sity. The title o f his full i r r a paper is “What’s 13 Billion Among Friends?
The 1984 Postal Arbitration.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service designates the
impartial neutral. The tripartite panel has 45 days in which
to issue its award. In 1984, the statutory scheme was com
plicated by the presence of a joint bargaining team of two
unions and by a time frame much shorter than the statute
envisioned. The parties eventually agreed on a five-member
panel: each union would nominate a member to the panel;
USPS would nominate two members to balance the union
representation; and one impartial chairman would be se
lected. Each representative arbitrator would cast a half vote;
the chairman would be entitled to a full vote. The impartial
chairman was Clark Kerr, an arbitrator and former chancel
lor of the University of California at Berkeley. The deadline
for the arbitration award according to the statutory timetable
was December 25. The hearings began December 11 and
concluded on December 19.
The central question addressed by the parties during the
arbitration hearings was the interpretation of Section 1003
of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970:
It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to maintain compensa
tion and benefits for all officers and employees on a standard of
comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for compara
ble levels of work in the private sector of the economy.
To demonstrate that postal employees were paid a pre
mium over comparable private-sector employees, u s p s pre
sented expert witnesses to testify on econometric studies,
job evaluation studies, occupational wage surveys, and
package industry wage surveys. JBC denied that the statutory
mandate should be the sole criterion guiding the arbitrators,
but was willing to present evidence to counter that presented
by USPS.
The key witnesses were Michael Wachter for USPS and
Joel Popkin for JBC. Their testimony centered on the validity
of their respective econometric studies about the existence
and size of a premium of postal wages over private sector
wages and about the applicability or utility of their findings
to collective bargaining.2 The importance attached to these
witnesses and an unusual departure from typical arbitration
hearing procedure was, following their testimony, a joint
seminar before the arbitration panel to allow Wachter and
Popkin to discuss their studies, point out areas of agreement,
and challenge each other on areas of disagreement.
Wachter asked the research question, “What wage would
a postal employee get in alternative sources of employ
ment?” and concluded that USPS paid a premium of 19.8
percent over the private sector. If only the wages of union
ized workers in the private sector were used as a compari
son, the wage premium for postal employees would still be
12.2 percent. Wachter validated his results by looking at the
large number of applicants for postal jobs, low quit rates,
lack of unemployment, and a comparison of wages of new
hires as postal mail handlers and material handlers in private
industry.
Popkin noted that 20.5 percent of represented employees
were nonwhite and 27 percent were women. He hypothe
sized that private industry discriminated in setting wages,
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Conference Papers
particularly against female and nonwhite employees per
forming work similar to that of white men. Given that USPS
was not a discriminatory employer, the white-male wage
comparison was the appropriate one for determining com
parability. The addition of race and sex variables in the
regression analysis accounted for the major portion of
postal-private sector wage differentials. In addition, Popkin
included variables for firm size, proportion of industry
unionized, and tenure in current job, all of which had been
shown to affect wage levels. He found no statistical signif
icance between the wages of white men in USPS and those of
white men comparably situated in the private sector.
The arbitration award provided for a 3-year agreement
retroactive to July 20, 1984. The award increased the
salaries in the current wage schedule by 2.7 percent annually
for incumbent employees. New employees in the first seven
grades would start at steps below those currently in the wage
schedule: three new steps for grades 1-3 and two new steps
for grades 4 -7 . The time for a newly hired employee to
reach step 1 of the 1981-84 wage scale would be 272 weeks
for grades 1 -3 , 184 weeks for grade 4, and 140 weeks for
grades 5 -7 . To reach the top of scale would require from 13
years in grades 1-3 to 10.5 years in grades 5 -7 . The award
added a new step at the top of the grade 8 wage scale and
two new steps at the top of the wage scales for grades 9 and
10. The COLA formula and times of computation were main
tained. COLA accumulated under the 1981-84 agreement
would be rolled into the basic salary schedule in October
1987, except that employees eligible for retirement by 1990
could elect an earlier roll-in. Martin Luther King Day was
added as a holiday beginning in 1986. The uniform al
lowance was increased 10 percent. No change was awarded
in leave, benefit plans, and premium pay provisions. It was
estimated that the award would add approximately $4 billion
in postal costs.3 Kerr explained the basis for the award:
This award reflects a policy of “moderate restraint” . . . . This
award interprets moderate restraint as a slowing of wage increases,
as against the private sector, by 1 percent a year or for 3 percent
in total over the life of this agreement.4
Issues raised
The 1984 postal arbitration raised fundamental questions
about the interpretation of statutory provisions for wage
setting in USPS, the relative roles of these provisions and
collective bargaining, and the criteria to be used by arbitra
tors. The issues were identified and discussed; all were not
answered clearly.
Several aspects of Section 1003 of the Postal Reorganiza
tion Act may be ambiguous. First, the provision calls for
USPS “to maintain” comparable compensation and benefits.
Does this suggest a minimum, a general guide, or an abso
lute standard for setting compensation? As might be ex
pected, JBC argued the first approach, while USPS adopted
the last one. Second, what is the base period for compari
sons? Wachter advocated 1969 because that was the last
year before postal reorganization was discussed seriously by
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the Congress. Counsel for USPS used 1970 on the ground
that the Congress awarded postal employees wage raises
following the end of the 1970 strike to establish comparable
rates. The unions adopted 1971 since that was the first time
the parties bargained collectively and interpreted freely the
meaning of the statutory language. The choice of a base
period for comparisons affects the results, especially be
cause postal wages rose significantly between 1969 and
1971. Third, how does one define “comparable levels of
work in the private sector of the economy?” The u s p s uti
lized a broad, all-inclusive definition to measure compara
bility. The unions preferred a more limited definition for
comparative purposes.
Even if these thorny issues regarding interpretation of
Section 1003 could be resolved, the question remains of the
significance of the statutory standards for collective bargain
ing. Congress granted postal employees the right to bargain
collectively on wages, hours, and conditions of employ
ment. If wages were determined by an agreed-upon defini
tion of comparability, what would remain for the negotia
tion of wages? Collective bargaining would then be
subordinated to the interpretation of Section 1003 promoted
by USPS at the arbitration hearings.
For the arbitrators, the issue was further compounded by
that of appropriate arbitral standards. The u s p s contended
that comparability was the sole standard before the panel.
The unions argued for a more flexible approach, suggesting
that the arbitrators refer to past collective bargaining settle
ments between the parties as a guide in their decision. The
award also raised additional questions. If postal employees
had gained a premium of the amount suggested by Wachter,
what reason could there have been to award incumbent
employees any wage increase, let alone one more generous
than the parties had negotiated in their prior agreement?
How are the parties to interpret these results in future nego
tiations? And is it simply coincidental that the cost of the
award was $4 billion, the same as that of the 1981-84
agreement and the amount u s p s projected in its filings with
the Postal Rate Commission earlier in 1984?
It is easier to raise questions than to fashion interest arbi
tration awards. Issuing an interest award 5 days after the end
of hearings is an accomplishment. The Kerr panel indicated
some directions, provided solace to the parties, and care
fully avoided direct answers to fundamental questions.
While neither side achieved all it had sought, each could live
with the result. Perhaps no more should be expected from
interest arbitration.
□
1 Bureau o f National Affairs, G o v e r n m e n t E m p lo y m e n t R e la tio n s ,
No. 1058 (Washington, Apr. 9, 1984), p. 685.
2 For earlier studies, see Michael Asher and Joel Popkin, “The Effect o f
Gender and Race Differentials of Public-Private Wage Comparisons: A
Study of Postal Workers,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , October
1984, pp. 16-25; and Jeffrey M. Perloff and Michael L. Wachter, “Wage
Comparability in the U .S. Postal Service,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s
R e v ie w , October 1984, pp. 2 6 -3 5 .
3 Bureau of National Affairs, G o v e r n m e n t E m p lo y m e n t R e la tio n s R e
p o r t , No. 1095 (Washington, Dec. 31, 1984), p. 2329.
4 “Arbitration Opinion and Award, U .S. Postal Service and National
Association o f Letter Carriers and American Postal Workers Union,”
Dec. 24, 1984, pp. 2 0 -2 1 .
Union membership trends:
a study of the Garment Workers
S h u l a m it K a h n
Aggregation obscures. When union growth and contraction
are studied on the national level, many systematic influ
ences on union growth within particular industries are lost.
This is both because union membership’s sensitivity to these
influences differs widely among industries, and because
changes in the influencing factors are often distributed very
unevenly among industries.
One factor that will be particularly difficult to consider on
a nationally aggregated level is imports. Imports have been
blamed for the last decade’s sharply decreasing unionization
rate. To evaluate this assertion empirically, it is necessary to
study the impact of imports in particular industries rather
than the impact of the overall U.S. balance of trade on the
national unionization rate. A related reason to study union
changes within specific industries is to separate the two
kinds of factors that influence aggregate union membership:
changes in the size of heavily unionized industries versus the
strength of the unions within the industries.
This paper studies changes in the size of one specific
industry and union, the International Ladies’ Garment
Workers’ Union ( i l g w u ) . The i l g w u is a mature union both
with regard to age and waning strength, and is located in an
industry undergoing many changes that have weakened the
union’s position. Membership in the i l g w u has decreased
sharply since 1970, both absolutely and as a percentage of
industry employment.
Modeling membership in the
a political variable, d e m o c , the percent of Democrats in
the House of Representatives.
Because equation 1 exhibits substantial serial correlation,
the Cochrane-Orcutt technique was used to correct for firstorder autocorrelation.6 The reestimated version appears as
equation 2.
Neither model explains a large proportion of the changes
in i l g w u membership, with adjusted R2’s of 30 percent
and 43 percent, respectively. In contrast, the AshenfelterPencavel model and other subsequent studies of aggregate
union growth explained as much as 75 percent of the 20th
century variation in U.S. union membership. Possible rea
sons for the relative success of the latter models are pre
sented in the paper from which this discussion is excerpted.
We can explain far more of the growth in i l g w u member
ship by including other industry-specific factors in the equa
tion. To this end, the results of several alternative models of
d)
Table 1. Results of regression analysis of Ladies’
Garment Workers’ Union membership, 1953-81
Dependent variable and equation num ber
Independent
variables1
23
3
4
5
6
CONSTANT...
0.062
(0.82)
0.076
(1.44)
-0.170
(-1.59)
-0.106
(-2.58)
-0.112
(-2.93)
-0.065
(-2.01)
UP ..............
-0.0011
(-2.02)
-0.0010
(-2.11)
-0.0020
(-3.34)
-0.002
(-4.20)
-0.002
(-4.59)
-0.0016
(-4.20)
UN ..............
0.0002
(0.39)
0.0001
(0.20)
0.0008
(1.43)
0.0008
(1.53)
0.0007
(1.44)
0.0005
(1.40)
-0.112
(-1.18)
-0.926
(-11.76)
0.317
(0.93)
—
—
-0.267
(-0.89)
—
—
_
—
—
_
—
—
PCEMP .........
-0.036
(-0.29)
-0.009
(-0.09)
-0.068
(-0.38)
-0.153
(-1.26)
P C C P I,-!) . . . .
-0.403
(-1.86)
-0.412
(-2.63)
0.298
(0.85)
PCCPI(-2) . . . .
_
_
-0.264
(-0.84)
DENSITY,--,, ..
-0.003
(-0.05)
-0.026
(-0.73)
0.056
(0.85)
DEMOC.........
-0.0007
(-0.68)
-0.0005
(-0.65)
0.0002
(0.23)
IMPORTS,-!, .
_
_
K/L(-1) ...........
_
LCTC,-!) . . . .
il g w u
Econometric studies of aggregate union membership be
gan with Orley Ashenfelter and John H. Pencavel’s seminal
1969 paper,1 which considered the impact of both economic
and political factors. Numerous subsequent studies attempt
to test this model and to increase explanatory power by
changing both the dependent and independent variables. Do
these aggregate models explain i l g w u membership ade
quately?
Equation 1 of table 1 replicates for the i l g w u a model
similar to Ashenfelter and Pencavel’s, but incorporates
some modifications from the later literature.2 The period
covered is limited to post-1950, because of data availabil
ity.3 In equation 1, the rate of change in i l g w u membership
is modeled as a function of: a) the rate of change in the
Consumer Price Index ( p c c p i ); b) separate variables for the
percentage increases ( u p ) and decreases ( u n ) in the non
durable manufacturing unemployment rate4; c) the density
or saturation of the industry (lagged 1 year),5 measured as
the inverse of the level of union density, or [ i l g w u membership/employment in the women’s apparel industry]-1 ; and,
C% CEM
% CM EM
1 2 ,3
-0.492
(-2.34)
-0.354
(-3.34)
-0.373
(-4.84)
-0.216
(-3.28)
_
0.638
(3.06)
0.609
(3.20)
0.655
(3.80)
0.368
(2.53)
_
_
1.452
(2.66)
1.607
(3.18)
1.660
(3.47)
1.026
(2.54)
PCNW,-!) . . . .
_
_
-0.476
(-1.47)
-0.545
(-1.80)
—
—
PCNW,-2) . . . .
_
—
0.472
(1.45)
0.544
(1.94)
—
—
PCRW,_i) . . . .
_
_
_
—
-0.495
(-1.77)
-0.308
(-1.33)
pcrw,_2)
_
_
—
—
0.431
(1.97)
0.215
(1.17)
....
Adjusted R2 ...
.30
.43
.64
.66
.69
.87
Durbin-Watson
statistic __
2.78
2.54
2.51
2.59
2.69
2.57
1Subscript indicates number of periods for which the variable is lagged.
2 Equation 1 is not corrected for first-order autocorrelation.
Shulamit Kahn is assistant professor of economics at the University of
California, Irvine. Her full IR R A paper is entitled, “Trends in Union Mem
bership in the Postwar Period: The Case of the i l g w u . ”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Results pertain to the period 1951-81.
Note: t statistics in parentheses.
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Conference Papers
il g w u union membership also are presented in table 1.
There are two versions of the dependent variable: the first is
the percentage change in union membership (% c m e m ) ,
which is used by most aggregate time series models; the
alternative is the change in the percentage of all (production)
workers in the female garment industry who are unionized
( c %m e m ) . The latter is conceptually a better measure of the
unionization of the industry, because it focuses on the per
centage of the industry unionized. However, movements in
this variable are generally caused by short-term cyclical
shocks in the denominator, the employment level, which
varies more than union membership. Therefore, because
c %m e m may simply be measuring movements in employ
ment, I concentrate on the alternative dependent variable,
%c m e m . The models reported also differ in the explanatory
variables included. (All of the alternative versions correct
for first-order serial correlation.)
Of central interest here are the explanatory variables that
do not appear in studies of aggregate time series union
growth and are expected to affect the elasticity of demand
for labor in the ladies’ garment industry. The first of these
is the level of imports, which is claimed to affect unioniza
tion adversely. Imports are measured as the ratio of clothing
imports to the total value added in the U .S. apparel manu
facturing industry, lagged 1 year to avoid simultaneity prob
lems. All of the model specifications corroborate the widely
held perception that foreign competition has substantially
weakened the i l g w u . The coefficient on im p o r t s is large
and statistically significant in all equations. Indeed, if only
imports are included in the regression, 25 percent of the
variance in the change in union membership is explained.
A second factor that can weaken unions is the substitut
ability of capital for labor. There is no straightforward way
to measure this substitutability. However, the capital/labor
ratio may indicate future opportunities for substitution, be
cause if the capital/labor ratio is already high, future capital
substitutability is not a substantial threat. Thus, the capital/
labor ratio is expected to be positively correlated with union
membership. The variable used to measure the capital/labor
ratio, k / l , is the lagged change in the capital stock of the
industry divided by the employment level.7 The expected
positive relationship is confirmed by all model specifica
tions.
A third factor that should affect the elasticity of demand
for labor, and thereby have an influence on union strength,
is the ratio of labor costs to total costs. Unions have more
strength when the demand for their labor is inelastic, and a
smaller ratio of labor costs to total costs is one factor that
leads to inelastic demand for labor. Therefore, we expect a
negative relationship between the (lagged) ratio of labor
costs to total cost ( l c /t c ) and union membership. However,
the empirical results measure a significant positive relation
ship. One possible explanation for this result is that firms
may hire more workers when they anticipate that union
strength may be growing, in order to dilute union gains.8
Alternatively, the l c /t c variable may be measuring an un
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment effect in the apparel industry that is not already
being captured by the less specific nondurable manufactur
ing unemployment rate variables.
Equation 3 also includes all variables in the AshenfelterPencavel model. As in the simpler specifications, a positive
increase in unemployment rates consistently causes il g w u
membership to fall, while decreases are never significant.
Increases in unemployment rates deter unionization both
because workers are concerned about being laid off in the
downturn and because they realize that the chances of find
ing a job if laid off are lower when unemployment rates are
higher.
The sign on the lagged saturation (or density) variable
used by Ashenfelter-Pencavel, defined above, is positive as
expected, but not significant at any conventional level. Both
because of the insignificant result and because there are
theoretical problems in using and interpreting this variable,
which is basically a lagged version of the dependent variable
(percent unionized), it was not included in subsequent speci
fications. The Democratic percentage of the House has no
effect on il g w u membership, so it too was dropped from
further specifications.
As in many of the aggregate time series studies, a mea
sure of actual wage levels (in women’s outerwear) was
included. The variable p c n w denotes percentage change in
the nominal wage in the industry, while p c r w is the percent
change in the real wage. In specifications 3 and 4, nominal
wages and prices are included in the specification sepa
rately, allowing nominal and real wages to have differing
effects. In specifications 5 and 6, only real wages appear,
thus constraining nominal wages to have no separate effect.
This constraint cannot be rejected, that is, real wages are the
only wage variable that significantly affects e lg w u size.
Both definitions of wages are lagged to avoid measuring
the direct effect of unionization on workers’ wages. Rising
prices erode workers’ earning power and are expected to
create incentives to unionize; falling wages in the apparel
industry may have the same effect. However, in a heavily
unionized industry, falling wages may indicate that the
union has not been successful in achieving its goals, and
inhibit further unionization. In fact, results in specifications
3 through 6 weakly indicate that last year’s wages may be
negatively related to union membership change, while
wages 2 years ago may be positively related. (Recall that
with the degrees of freedom in the model, for .95 signifi
cance the t statistic must be larger than 2.1.)
The percentage change in industry employment, p c e m p ,
has a different interpretation and expected sign with the two
different dependent variables. When %c m e m , the percentage
change in union membership, is the dependent variable, the
change in employment measures the increase in potential
membership. It is expected to have a positive sign, yet is
insignificantly different from zero in specifications 1
through 5. Other specifications not reported in table 1 also
included a 1-year lagged percentage change in industry em
ployment, or p c e m p (_!>; this coefficient was also indistin-
guishable from zero at any conventional significance level.
These results suggest that during the postwar period, in
creases and subsequent decreases of i l g w u membership
were not affected by changes in the available pool of unionizable workers. People entering the industry did not imme
diately enter the union, and new plants were not immedi
ately organized. Instead, the size of the membership
depended completely on prospects for the union’s bargain
ing strength.
In equation 6, the dependent varible is c %m e m , the
change in the percentage of the industry unionized. This
equation includes the independent variable p c e m p , percent
age change in industry employment, to capture changes in
the denominator of c %m e m caused by short-term fluctua
tions in the employment level. The sign, as expected, is
negative— that is, higher industry employment increases the
denominator of the dependent variable.
□
1 Orley Ashenfelter and John H. Pencavel, “American Trade Union
Growth: 1 900-1960,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , August 1969, pp.
4 3 4 -4 8 .
2 See, for example, Jack Fiorito and Charles R. Greer, “Determinants of
U .S. Unionism: Past Research and Future N eeds,” I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s ,
Winter 1982, pp. 1-19.
3 The lack o f prewar data for individual industries is a major drawback
in moving to a disaggregated level to study union membership. It cannot
be presumed that the model developed here would necessarily predict the
prewar growth o f the i l g w u .
4 This variation on the Ashenfelter-Pencavel model was introduced in
Farouk Elsheikh and George S. Bain, “American Trade Union Growth: An
Alternative Model, I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , February 1978, pp. 75-79.
5 The structure o f this variable follows the Ashenfelter-Pencavel vari
able.
6 For a discussion of this technique, see J. Johnston, E c o n o m e tr ic M e th
o d s , 3rd edition (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1984).
7 The exact measure is new capital expenditures on machines and equip
ment in women’s outwear, deflated by the g n p deflator for nonresidential
fixed investment in producers’ durable equipment and divided by employ
ment in the women’s outerwear industry.
8 See William T. Dickens, “Wages, Employment, and the Threat of
Collective Action by Workers,” paper presented at the North American
Meeting o f the Econometric Society, December 1984.
Labor market segmentation
in Japan: how rigid is it?
K oji T a ir a
In Japan, segmentation largely refers to two sets of firms,
large and small, rather than to two sets of jobs, primary and
secondary, as in the United States. The size of a firm in
Japan is an unusually powerful factor that makes firms and
employees behave differently. These differences are observ
able in all aspects of management, technology, and human
Koji Taira is professor of economics and industrial relations at the Univer
sity o f Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. His full i r r a paper is entitled, “Labor
Market Segmentation, Human Resource Utilization and Economic Devel
opment: The Case of Japan in Historical Perspective.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
resource utilization. Large firms are characterized by elabo
rate rules, procedures, and processes of “internal labor mar
kets.” They can therefore be considered constituting an
“internal labor-market sector.” This syndrome is entrenched
in firms large enough to employ 1,000 or more workers;
however it may begin to appear in firms with 500 or so
employees. Five or six hundred workers are considered
about the maximum size of work force that an ownermanager or a general manager can personally manage.
Three distinct features of employment practices in the
internal labor-market sector are already well-known: life
time employment, seniority wages, and enterprise-based
and -confined labor unions. Quantitatively, firms in this
sector show a higher degree of employment security and a
more powerful role of the length of service as a wage deter
mining factor than their U.S. counterparts. The prominence
of the sector relative to the rest of the economy may be seen
from more pronounced productivity and wage differentials
by size of firm in Japan than in the United States (manufac
turing census figures). These defining characteristics of
labor market segmentation are not free of controversy, but
a brief look at past events would leave far less doubt for
Japan than for the United States about the plausibility of
labor market segmentation as a real phenomenon.
Japan in 1920 was one of the five leading powers of the
world. Its development was certainly that of a market econ
omy, though with State guidance and participation. How
ever, it was not yet a full-fledged “capitalist” development:
the tardy growth of the labor market limited the growth of
a proletariat much needed for exploitation by the capitalists.
Japan’s difficulty in generating a proletariat appropriate to a
capitalist economy was attributed in large part to the nature
of Japan’s absolutist state under the imperial Constitution
(1889-1947) as a family system, “meaning a [state] system
of legal and political organization whereby the family is the
major unit of social organization, is a legal personality in
which property rights and duties are vested, and is repre
sented externally by a family head who exercises wide pow
ers of control over family members.”
Before the Second World War, many large Japanese
firms were family-owned or controlled. Their organizational
form was Zaibatsu, a conglomerate of diversified enter
prises held by interlocking directorates under a familycontrolled holding company (or its equivalent). The four
largest Zaibatsu were household names throughout the
world: Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, and Yasuda. Flow
families control giant firms even today can be seen from the
examples of Matsushita and Toyota.
Company acculturation
During the postwar period into the 1970’s, the
transaction-cost minimizing advantages of “the family”
metaphor weakened, and management could no longer de
pend upon worker incentives and discipline resulting from
the shared image of the company as a family. Furthermore,
the postwar family was no model for any organization that
35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Conference Papers
required authority and responsibility for getting work done.
The Japanese employment system that emerged from the
consolidation of labor market may well be called
“management by company culture.” Culture now takes the
place of erstwhile paternalism. It is well known that wellrun Japanese companies are making constant efforts to
shape and maintain a corporate identity that is distinct and
unique enough to motivate employee identification with it.
The culture-conscious Japanese companies devote enor
mous attention to the recruitment of compatible employees.
The general practice is to recruit employees once a year in
the spring, fresh out of schools or colleges, according to
careful long-run manpower plans. These companies regu
larly hire from the nation’s best universities and maintain a
stable mix of employees by university origin. Blue-collar
recruitment also runs by school or regional origin. Informal
groups formed by college, school, or regional ties mesh with
formal work groups. The “old boys” network is automati
cally stratified by year of graduation and can be used as an
instrument for orderly acculturation and training of em
ployees through senior-junior (senpai-kohai) relationships.
Several “old boys” groups in a company also generate com
petition for performance among them. Each group probably
desires to maximize its share in good positions and promo
tions. So long as personnel procedures and evaluations are
objective and unbiased, competition among these groups
may be channeled into higher aggregate performance (al
though it might also degenerate into dysfunctional office
politics). The role of a company culture is to integrate com
peting groups and individuals into a harmonious whole to
ensure the aggregate vitality of the firm.
The enterprise labor union also facilitates this cultural
integration by taking up all nonmanagerial white-collar and
blue-collar workers, regardless of their educational back
grounds. The union then can be viewed as a crucible of
social democracy within the enterprise, although managers
and organized employees of the internal labor-market sector
as a whole constitute an elite of the labor force vis-a-vis the
rest of the working population of the national economy.
Large versus small and medium
The modernization of “the family” and interpersonal rela
tions within it since the postwar democratic revolution has
proceeded unevenly in different socioeconomic strata. Stud
ies of lower middle-class merchants and artisans indicate a
strong survival of the prewar type of family and its applica
tion to employment relationships. Generally, small and
medium-sized enterprises contitute a nonintemal labormarket sector (the dual of the internal labor-market sector
where the Japanese employment system obtains) and labormarket indicators like labor turnover, length of service,
cyclical sensitivity of employment, and so forth which are
those of relatively open, fluid labor markets. These enter
prises obviously make up for the lower wages and less
attractive working conditions than in the internal labormarket sector by offering a “psychic income” of a family
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
atmosphere, familiar to their employees. Furthermore, em
ployees in the nonintemal labor-market sector are, in a
sense, residuals, dropouts or failures vis-a-vis their peers
picked by firms in the internal labor-market sector.
They are likely to be from the social strata which, because
of their relative backwardness, have lagged in moderniza
tion and still retain relatively greater doses of traditional
values and practices. The familiar syndrome of factors that
generates “occupational inheritance” is also observed in
Japan.
From a different point of view, the employers and em
ployees in small and medium-sized enterprises are the aver
age Japanese, and those in the internal labor-market sector,
an exception. On the basis of employment statistics by es
tablishment size, regular employees in private establish
ments (employing 500 or more regular employees), public
enterprises, and civil service amounted to 16 percent of the
Japanese labor force in 1981. This is roughly the size of the
internal labor-market sector in Japan by sheer head count
(9 million). The smallness of this sector enables it to choose
the cream of the crop. The employees of this internal labormarket sector themselves are also conscious of their elitist
position. The labor market segmentation of this kind does
not generate the classic classes of capitalists (or corpora
tions) and workers with distrust, misgivings, or even ani
mosity between them. The major divide is between large
bureaucratized firms in this sector and the small and mid
dling enterprises, mostly family-run or -controlled, in the
nonintemal labor-market sector. Tensions exist and occa
sionally flare up between large firms and small firms as in
the case of an organized protest by local store owners
against the plan of a large national distributor to open a
branch in their midst. Large firms have long since realized
the limits to direct expansion at the expense of smaller firms
and, instead, actively organized the smaller ones into net
works of close business relationships known as Keiretsu
(lining them up). However, the transaction costs in getting
things done through a Keiretsu, involving hundreds of
smaller, but independent firms, are apparently lower than
the large firm itself expanding in the equivalent scale to
internalize the network. Thus, some workable peace obtains
between large and small firms. It is noteworthy that re
silience and political sophistication of small firms limit the
physical growth of large firms and direct the attention of the
latter to “social” leadership over a multiplicity of lesser
firms.
The employees of the internal labor-market sector are
organized into enterprise employee unions and largely
coopted into a sharing system of the elite sector through
collective bargaining and joint consultation. Enterprise
unions see no community of interest with the unorganized
employees of smaller enterprises as exemplified by an al
most total absence of effort on the part of the established
unions to organize the unorganized. The basic behavioral
determinant is the union’s “enterprise consciousness” mean
ing that for their well-being, employees depend on their
employer’s prosperity and that the union’s role is to ensure
a “fair share” in the employer’s prosperity.
With no horizontal (class) solidarity among workers, em
ployees in the nonintemal labor-market sector perceive
themselves as being in the employee status only as long as
they learn the skills and accumulate the resources to strike
out on their own. This “Japanese dream” does not become
a reality for a majority of wage-earners in this sector, but it
does for a substantial number of them, who set and maintain
the entrepreneurial propensity. For a major capitalist-market
economy, Japan still has an unusual proportion of the labor
force in self-employment (together with family workers,
27 percent of the labor force in 1981) and an unusual propor
tion of the nonagricultural private regular employment in the
smallest establishments with fewer than 30 employees
(48 percent in 1981).
For more than half of Japan’s economically active popu
lation, “employer” and “employee” do not imply sharp
status differences, let alone “class consciousness.” Where
class consciousness should have arisen, and did for a while
after the war, namely the internal labor-market sector, em
ployees are the secure members of the nation’s elite. Labor
market segmentation has thus created in Japan a social strat
ification that the known formulae of differentiation have
difficulty in explaining. However, the upshot of certain
developments in Japan: inflation; employment cutbacks, de
spite lifetime employment; more extensive use of part-time,
temporary, or seasonal workers; equal employment opportu
nity legislation for women; the raising of the mandatory
retirement age from 55 to 60; and weakened union activity
at the enterprise level (causing them to turn to national
consolidation and economic policy) is the prospect of less
segmentation. The internal labor markets of major firms
cease to be the monopoly of standard male regular workers,
recruited fresh out of schools and colleges with expectations
to serve out their term until mandatory retirement.
□
How do Australian unions maintain
standing during adverse periods?
Jo h n N il a n d
Australian unions are organized on a craft or occupational
basis, much more than along industry or enterprise lines as
in the United States. Because unions typically enroll mem
bers from more than one industry, workers in a medium
sized factory of 500 or so typically will be covered by 5 to
10 unions: the production or process workers gravitate to 1
John Niland is a professor and head of the Department of Industrial Rela
tions, University o f New South Wales, Australia. His full i r r a paper is
entitled, “Gaining Against the Tide: Australian Unionism in the 1980’s.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
or 2 unions, white-collar and clerical people go to another,
and maintenance personnel join a further group of unions.
Also, supervisors and front-line managers increasingly have
been joining trade unions, primarily from fears generated by
increased redundancy and corporate rationalization, but also
as a defense mechanism against the growth in industrial
democracy practices which supervisors often perceive as a
challenge to their own job territory. Overall, 320 unions are
registered within the tribunal system.
Australian trade unionism has continued to be a numerical
force in the past decade, although the two main sets of
official statistics indicate marginally contradictory trends.
One set of data is based on a labor market survey of em
ployees in 1976 and again in 1982. Unionization declined
slightly from 51 percent to 49 percent, with women main
taining a rate at 43 percent and that for men decreasing from
56 percent to 53 percent. The alternate official series, with
statistics collected annually from the trade unions them
selves, shows that the overall union participation rate in
creased slightly from 56 percent in 1975 to 57 percent in
1982.
Unionization by industry
An analysis of industry shift in unionization between
1976 and 1982 reveals that, as in some other industrialized
market economies, the manufacturing sector is in some dif
ficulty with a drop of 3 percentage points, entailing a loss of
some 45,000 unionists. Debate over the causes covers many
possibilities, including deindustrialization through crowd
ing out by the nonmarket sector or through the influence of
multinational companies; the Gregory Thesis of booming
minerals sector deindustrialization; and the Cambridge Ef
fect, involving exports and balance of payments problems.
These lines of argument have little to do with unions di
rectly, although two other schools of thinking do: the rise of
inefficient protection policy which itself is linked to wages
policy that emphasizes standardization and uniformity; and
the real wage overhang effect through which many wage
rises in the past decade have outstripped appropriate produc
tivity movements. Whatever the primary cause, unionism in
its most important sector has lost ground. However, this is
almost offset by a 3-percentage-point rise in the incidence
of community services employment. Unionism has made
distinct gains in the wholesale/retail area, and has held its
own in the finance/insurance business services sector. In
both cases, negotiation of compulsory unionism agreements
has been important. For example, the union participation
rate in the private banking industry had been 57 percent in
1973, but toward the end of that decade it had risen to 84
percent with the introduction of a closed shop arrangement.
The labor market
The unionization picture is particularly noteworthy in the
light of movements in Australian unemployment figures.
From a rate of 2.4 percent in 1974, unemployment peaked
in 1983 at 9.9 percent, thereafter dropping to 7.9 percent in
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Conference Papers
1985. As one researcher points out, few Australian unions
provide advantages that would encourage displaced workers
to maintain membership:
. . . unlike some United States unions . . . few Australian unions
act as employment centers; nor do they provide unemployment
or other benefits. This, together with the fact that most forms
o f . . . union shops are confined to a small number of industries,
means that unemployed workers usually see little point retain
ing union membership.
However, Australian unions have held their membership
coverage despite considerable erosion of their recruitment
base by unemployment. Indeed, a leading school of thought
contends that unions have preserved their position at the
expense of the unemployed, particularly the hardest hit cat
egory of youth, whose rate of unemployment rose from 5.8
percent in 1974 to 22.6 percent in 1983.
The age profile on unionization trends is important in the
sense that disenchantment among the young could herald
future difficulties. At first sight, Australian unions might
well be concerned on this score, as the membership inci
dence varies sharply with age cohort: the figure in 1982 for
youth (15 to 19 years) was 31 percent, compared with
44 percent for young adults (20 to 24 years) and 53 percent
for adults (25 and over). However, up to 5 percentage points
of the gap between youth and adult unionization may be
accounted for by the fact that apprentices (an avenue
through which 25 percent of all boys enter the labor market)
traditionally are nonunionized. Another factor is the tend
ency for youth to concentrate in low unionized sectors, such
as wholesale/retail trade and entertainment: “If manufactur
ing is excluded, differences in the employment composition
between teenagers and adults account for half the difference
in their unionization.” Finally, high turnover rates among
young employees, who in adulthood presumably will settle
down, is also a significant factor for lower youth unioniza
tion rates.
Wages and conditions
The Australian system of industrial regulation is based
on the process of conciliation and arbitration which entails
government-appointed tribunals determining wages and
other conditions of employment. Because the industrial tri
bunals have official standing and operate in a semijudicial
environment, the propensity for standardization and central
ization is strong. These pressures have been particularly
pronounced in the past decade.
Commencing in March 1975, the Australian Conciliation
and Arbitration Commission (hereafter Arbitration Com
mission) has awarded wage increases to closely reflect
movements in the Consumer Price Index, the main indicator
of inflation. Of the 19 National Wage Case decisions in the
Indexation Era, the Arbitration Commission awarded full
c p i adjustments on 7 occasions, with the remainder produc
ing either partial percentage adjustment or some plateauing
arrangement in which only those from lower paid classifica
tions received real wage maintenance. Inevitably, this led to
compression of skill margins, particularly as it was the
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
stronger unions covering such groups as transport workers
and open cut coal miners rather than those covering trade
classifications which managed to breach the Arbitration
Commission’s “substantial compliance” guideline, and ne
gotiated privately to achieve wage increases beyond the
national minima. In the end, too many groups were running
outside the national guidelines, and in July 1981, the Arbi
tration Commission abandoned the Indexation Era, leaving
the parties to a form of disheveled bargaining.
Indexation had been introduced in 1975 to help spike
wage expectations which at that time were beginning to run
rampant. Fears were held of a repetition in 1982, and with
all parties increasingly cautious in light of a forthcoming
election, the Federal Government managed to sell the idea
of a wage pause. So crucial are industrial relations issues to
political fortunes in Australia that the subsequent success of
the Australian Labor Party in the March 1983 election owes
much to its deal with the Australian Council of Trades
Unions to re-introduce an orderly wage fixing arrangement.
The Prices and Incomes Accord provided the way for a
retu rn to c e n t r a liz e d w a g e f i x i n g , a n d by S e p t e m b e r 1983,
the Arbitration Commission had worked out a set of guide
lines to put the arrangement into operation. This virtually
guaranteed full c p i wage adjustment, although now the in
terdiction on groups negotiating private deals beyond the
national standard became much more effective. Even so,
classification creep and some increase in overtime enabled
average weekly earnings to keep ahead of inflation. The
period between 1971-72 and 1982-83 saw substantial wage
increases, with money wage aggregate growth of 129.9
percent well outstripping the aggregate c p i growth of
111.1 percent.
A significant development in the decade to 1985 has been
the growing authority of the Australian Council of Trade
Unions in national wage policy. In the mid-1970’s, this peak
union body resisted, unsuccessfully, maneuvers of the
Whitlam Labor Government and the Arbitration Commis
sion to locate wage fixing back within the Arbitration Com
mission. Initially, wage indexation meant holding wage in
creases below their recent trend line; 10 years later, with
rising unemployment and the salutory effect of the econom
ically awkward Whitlam years (1972-75), the council came
to see considerable merit in CPI-linked wage adjustment,
particularly as it became the joint-administrator in the trans
formed central system.
These developments hardly suggest a labor movement
losing ground in the face of economic adversity, as much as
theory might suggest such would be the outcome. What is
perhaps more important, the growth of real wages in such
difficult times was not achieved through trading off other
conditions: not since the early 1930’s have the industrial
tribunals attempted to meet unemployment concerns with
across-the-board reductions in industrial conditions, and
only in isolated instances do they now roll back provisions
for particular firms in trouble. Indeed, over the past decade,
unions have made gains in various non wage conditions,
which further reflect unionism’s enhanced standing. Per
haps most important has been the 35-hour week campaign.
Begun in the mid-1970’s, shorter hour gains were wide
spread by the early 1980’s, although many groups eventu
ally had to settle for 38 hours as their new regular working
week. This is now the standard accepted by the Arbitration
Commission, although cost savings through revised work
practices are a mandatory quid pro quo. This arrangement—
the linking of work efficiency to further reduced hours— is
perhaps one of only two developments in the formal indus
trial relations system over the past decade with appeal to
employers. The other is the emergence of the no-furtherclaims clause by which unions agree to hold the line on
wage claims for a designated period, and in other ways, to
abide the agreements.
Several other sets of improved conditions should also be
mentioned. While Australia lagged much of Europe in the
provision of job protection, advance notice of redundancy,
and compensating termination packages, a 1984 decision of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the Arbitration Commission in the Termination Change and
Redundancy Case, changed the picture somewhat. Also, as
part of its accord commitments, the Australian Government
in 1984 established the National Occupational Health and
Safety Commission to “develop national standards and pri
orities, upgrade research and training efforts, and provide a
basis for unions and employers to work together to make
workplaces safer.” Another development linked to the ac
cord is the program to more widely infuse industry with the
precepts and practices of industrial democracy, although
here the main initiatives will be in the Accord Mark II
(1985-87) more than in the Accord Mark I (1983-85). The
same can be said for the introduction of nationwide super
annuation schemes, due to start in July 1986, where all
unionists will have 3 percent of their wages paid by their
employer into the pension fund of the worker’s choice.
The arrangements for pension trust management, yet to be
finalized, could give unions the basis for further enhanced
standing.
D
39
Research
Summaries
Aggregate export price comparisons
developed for U.S., Germany, Japan
D
a v id
S . Jo h n s o n
In February 1986, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began
producing aggregate export price index comparisons be
tween the United States and Japan and the United States and
Germany on a quarterly basis. Previously, b l s had been
producing export price index comparisons only for detailed
commodity categories.
Export price comparison measures are ratios of the for
eign export price indexes in dollar terms to specially calcu
lated U.S. export price indexes. The measures, in index
form, are designed to show relative price movements be
tween the United States and Germany and the United States
and Japan for designated market baskets of products.
An increase in a comparison index represents an increase
in the price of the foreign export basket of goods compared
to the U.S. price of an export basket consisting of the same
volume and similar types of commodities. The opposite is
true in the case of a decrease in an index. Changes in relative
price movements are of interest because of their influence on
changes in relative export quantities.
Comparison measures are calculated by first translating
the foreign export price indexes into dollar terms and then
dividing these indexes by the special U.S. export price in
dexes matching the foreign export categories.1 The ex
change rates used in converting the foreign price indexes to
dollar terms are monthly averages of certified noon buying
rates in New York as published by the Federal Reserve
Board.2
The indexes for periods in which different export value
weights were used have been linked together. The GermanU.S. export price index comparisons use 1970 German ex
port value weights from June 1970 through March 1976;
1976 weights from June 1976 through December 1979; and
1980 weights from March 1980 to the present. The JapanU.S. export price index comparisons have been calculated
using 1975 Japanese export value weights from June 1970
through December 1979, and 1980 weights from March
1980 to the present.
David S. Johnson is an economist in the Division o f International Prices,
Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a
pom
a
a
o
The comparison measures have been aggregated accord
ing to foreign country export trade weights in order to match
the classification systems of the published foreign export
price indexes.3 Other weighting schemes, such as the use of
U.S. export trade weights or world trade weights, would
produce different results. Aggregating according to other
weighting schemes would require access to price data for
individual export commodities from Germany and Japan
which are not available at the present time.
German export price indexes are published by the Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office] of the Federal
Republic of Germany in the monthly publication, Preise
und Preisindizes fuer die Ein- und Ausfuhr [Prices and Price
Indexes for Imports and Exports]. The German export
price indexes used in the comparison measures are taken
from table 2.6 for the detailed product categories and from
table 2.5 ( s i t c , Rev. II) for the aggregate categories. Cur
rently, Germany calculates its export price indexes from
approximately 6,100 individual export price series. These
prices refer to export transactions concluded during the re
porting month for specified commodities on an f .o .b . (free
on board) German border basis, and are adjusted for quality
changes. Individual price relatives are aggregated by means
of the Laspeyres formula using export value weights.
The Japanese export price indexes used in the comparison
measures are taken from Section II, table 3 of Price Indexes
Monthly, published by the Bank of Japan. This table con
tains 319 export categories at different levels of aggrega
tion. Approximately 530 export prices are surveyed by the
Bank of Japan on a monthly basis. These prices are contract
prices on an f .o .b . port basis and are adjusted for quality
changes. The individual price relatives are aggregated as
above using Japanese export value weights.
The specially constructed U.S. export price indexes used
in the comparison measures have been designed to match the
commodity coverage of the German and Japanese published
export price indexes. The price series used in these indexes
have been selected from approximately 7,700 export prices
collected from U.S. exporters by the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics’ International Price Program. The prices collected are
either f .o .b . or f .a .s . (free alongside ship) transaction prices
which are adjusted for quality changes. The individual price
relatives are aggregated by means of the Laspeyres formula
using the respective foreign export trade weights.
The Statistisches Bundesamt, producer of Germany’s ex
port and import price indexes, has furnished b l s with a table
of weights and subclassifications within its published export
price index categories. By using this information along with
the description of Germany’s Commodity Classification for
Industrial Statistics (wi),4 it was possible to select export
products collected by the b l s International Price Program
which were judged to be similar to the products represented
in the German published series. A similar procedure was
used for the correct classification of U .S. products within
the Japanese classification scheme. The Bank of Japan
supplied b l s with a complete listing of product specifica
tions used in the production of Japanese export price in
dexes. From this listing it was possible to construct special
U .S. export price indexes with comparable commodity
coverage.5
In regard to product coverage, it should be noted that the
b l s export price data base is a sample designed to represent
U .S. export price trends at the level of 4- or 5-digit sit c
(Rev. II) product categories. Although a selection of export
prices from this data base has been used to produce the
special U.S. export price indexes for the comparison meas
ures, the product samples were not originally drawn for this
purpose. However, the mappings of products to foreign
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
export categories have been thoroughly examined to ensure
the fullest product coverage possible.6
□
---------- F O O T N O T E S --------: The author gratefuly acknowledges the helpful com
ments of Kim Zieschang of the Bureau’s Division of Index Number Re
search, and William Alterman and John Goth of the Division o f Interna
tional Prices.
a c k n o w le d g m e n t
1 f x p i * e r / u s x p i , where f x p i is a foreign published export price index
series; e r is the exchange rate; and u s x p i is the U .S. export price index
calculated to match the commodity coverage of the foreign published index
series.
2 Data are published monthly in the F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B u lle tin ; and S ta tis
tic a l R e le a s e G .5 : F o r e ig n E x c h a n g e R a te s (Board of Governors o f the
Federal Reserve System).
3 Three levels of aggregation above the detailed commodity level were
developed for Germany, and four levels were developed for Japan.
4 S y s te m a tis c h e s W a r e n v e r z e ic h n is f u e r d ie I n d u s tr ie s ta tis tik , Ausgabe
1975 [C o m m o d ity C la s s ific a tio n f o r I n d u s tr y S ta tis tic s , 1975 Edition]
(Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt, 1976).
5 “List o f Commodity Descriptions of 1980-Based Price Indexes”
(Tokyo, The Bank of Japan, Statistics Department).
6 C o m p a r is o n s o f U n ite d S ta te s , G e rm a n , a n d J a p a n e s e E x p o r t P r ic e
I n d e x e s , Bulletin 2046 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980).
41
Research Notes
Measuring wage premiums for job risks
During the past 10 years, a large amount of research has
been devoted to measuring the wage premiums which work
ers receive as a result of bearing additional occupational
injury and illness risks. Improved estimates of the premiums
are of value for policy evaluation because they are used to
assess the benefits of proposed occupational safety and
health regulations.
The motivation for this research is the idea that, in gen
eral, if a worker has a choice between two jobs of different
riskiness, he will choose the riskier one only if it pays a
sufficiently higher wage. The wage premium for bearing
extra risk is known as a compensating wage differential,
because the premium is viewed as being paid to compensate
for the additional riskiness. A compensating differential
should not be confused with workers’ compensation bene
fits. The former is paid as a component of wages, while the
latter is an indemnity benefit paid only if a worker is injured.
They are related, however, in that both are paid to compen
sate a worker for the costs he bears in the event of an injury
or illness.
Research on measuring compensating differentials en
deavors to explain observed variations in wages by means of
an equation which relates worker and job characteristics to
wage levels. Let W represent the wage level, X represent
worker and job characteristics known to affect wages, such
as education or experience, and let R represent the riskiness
of a job. It is hypothesized that wages are related to X and
R through the equation
W —a + bX + cR
where b and c are coefficients which indicate by how much
wages change with unit increases in X and R . For example,
suppose that R measures the number of injuries and illnesses
incurred by 100 workers in 1 year, that W measures weekly
wages, and that c has a value of 5. Then the equation
indicates that an increase in the riskiness of a job of 1 case
per 100 workers per year is associated with an increase in
weekly wages of $5. The object of empirical work on com
pensating differentials is to obtain better estimates of c from
data sets containing information on wages and worker and
job characteristics.
In a recent paper, we examine two issues in the measure
ment of compensating differentials. First, we study to what
extent the differentials differ for men and women and for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
union and nonunion workers. Second, we analyze the im
pact of including a measure of workers’ compensation ben
efits in the wage equations used to estimate the differentials.
The primary source of the data was a sample of private
nonagricultural blue-collar and service workers drawn from
the May 1980 Current Population Survey. Separate wage
equations were estimated for union men, nonunion men,
union women, and nonunion women. Standard education,
experience, and demographic characteristics were included
as X variables in the wage equations. In addition, two meas
ures of job risk and a measure of workers’ compensation
benefits were included as variables explaining wage varia
tions. The job risk variables, obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ 1980 Annual Survey of Occupational In
juries and Illnesses, measure the number of lost workday
injury and illness cases per 100 full-time workers and
the number of lost workdays per lost workday case. These
measure the frequency and severity of injury and illness
cases by industry, respectively. The workers’ compensation
variable measures the proportion of weekly wages replaced
by total temporary disability benefits. It was imputed from
information on the workers’ weekly wages and characteris
tics and the State laws regarding benefit payments.
Three principal conclusions emerge. First, there is strong
evidence of compensating wage differentials for both union
and nonunion men. Men receive higher pay to work at
riskier jobs; for women, however, the evidence is not as
conclusive. Only female union members appear to receive
higher wages for riskier jobs, and even here the evidence is
not as strong as for men. It is conceivable that the lack of
evidence for women suggests that they indeed do not receive
wage premiums for job risk. It is equally possible, however,
that the poor results for women suggest that the industry job
risk variables, which are not available by sex, do not ade
quately represent the job risks faced by female employees of
high-risk industries. Women tend to be underrepresented in
these industries and, within them, they tend to work in the
low-risk occupations.
A second finding of the research is that, everything else
being the same, an increase in the proportion of wages
replaced by workers’ compensation income benefits leads to
a drop in the wage level. This result is stronger for women
than for men. A final surprising result is that the inclusion
of the workers’ compensation benefit variable in the wage
equations has no effect on estimated compensating wage
differentials. Also, coefficients on the interaction of work
ers’ compensation benefits with the risk variables are gener
ally statistically insignificant.
The study and its results are described in full in the paper
“Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Compensating Wage
Differentials,” by John W. Ruser, BLS Working Paper No.
153 .—John W. Ruser, Office of Research and Evaluation,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
D
Interview group bias
In the Current Population Survey, like many data sets
used in studies of labor force behavior, respondents are
interviewed repeatedly. Previous research has shown that
responses systematically differ with the number of times
that individuals are interviewed. With the current and grow
ing emphasis on dynamic models of labor force behavior
and the increasing use of panel data, it is important to
examine the quality of the data and potential survey re
sponse error that can be confounded with the measurement
of systematic changes in behavior over time.
Empirical estimates of time-related bias in the Current
Population Survey (CPS) have grouped together all respond
ents who enter the sample at the same time. In the CPS, these
groups are referred to as rotation groups. This procedure
requires the implicit assumptions that respondents never
miss interviews and that there is no mobility in and out of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the sample. If these assumptions are not supported by the
data, they can lead to significant underestimates of timerelated effects on reported labor force status.
Microdata from the CPS are used to provide empirical
evidence of the effects of repeated interviewing on survey
responses. Using 3- and 4-month matches of three different
rotation groups from the CPS, we found that a substantial
number of respondents have not been surveyed in every
month. Respondents who have been interviewed the same
number of times are classified as members of the same
interview group. Estimates of the magnitude of bias within
these rotation groups of the CPS show that the unemploy
ment rate for respondents interviewed for the first time can
be more than 50 percent higher than for respondents inter
viewed for the fourth time. The paper includes a discussion
of the relative importance of rotation group bias and inter
view group bias in the CPS and concludes that interview
group bias can explain the patterns of rotation group bias
commonly observed. While this research focuses only on
the CPS, the same types of problems may arise in any panel
data set.
The study and its results are described in full in the paper
“Interview Group Bias: Effects of Repeated Interviewing
on Estimation of Labor Force Status,” by Janice ShackMarquez, BLS Working Paper No. 154.— Janice Shack-
Marquez, Office of Research and Evaluation, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
D
43
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
T h is list o f selecte d co llectiv e b a rg a in in g a g reem en ts ex p irin g in J u ly is b ased on in fo r m a tio n
collected by th e B u r e a u ’s O ffice o f W a g es a n d In d u stria l R ela tio n s. T h e list in clu d es agreem en ts
co v erin g 1 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers o r m o re. P riv a te in d u stry is a rra n g ed in ord er o f S ta n d a rd In d u strial
C la ssific a tio n .
Employer and location
Industry or activity
Labor organization1
Number of
workers
Private
Iron Ore Mining Companies (Interstate) ........................
Climax Molybdenum Co. (Climax, CO) ........................
Nassau and Suffolk Contractors Association (New York) ........
Association of Mechanical Contractors (Georgia)..................
Construction Industry Combined Committee and 2 others
(St. Louis, MO)
Mechanical Contractors Association (Utah)........................
Miller Brewing Co. (Milwaukee, wi) ..............................
Michigan Sugar Co. (Michigan)......................................
E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc. (Chicago, a.) ............................
Winery Employers Association (California) ....................................
Mining ............................................
Mining ............................................
Construction....................................
Construction....................................
Construction....................................
Steelworkers ................................
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers .
Laborers........................................
Plumbers ..............................
Iron Workers ....................................
3,000
2,000
2 000
1 150
1,200
Construction....................................
Food products ................................
Food products ................................
Food products ................................
Food products ................................
Plumbers ..............................
Brewery Workers ............................
Grain Millers ............................
Teamsters (Ind.) ..............................
Distillery W orkers............................
1 000
1,000
1,200
3,000
3,500
Southern California Cabinet Manufacturers (California)..................
Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Tennessee) ..............................
Weyerhaeuser Co. (Plymouth, nc) ............................
James River Co., kvp Division (Michigan) ........................
James River Co., Board and Carton Division (Michigan) ............
Hammermill Paper Co., Thilmany Pulp & Paper (Wisconsin) ............
Phoenix Steel Corp. (Interstate) ..........................
Armco Steel Corp. (Butler, pa) ........................................
Furniture ........................................
Paper ..............................................
Paper .............................................
Paper ..............................................
Paper .............................................
Paper ..............................................
Primary m etals................................
Primary m etals................................
1 500
1,000
1,600
1,000
1,200
1,250
1,000
2,000
Armco Steel Corp. (Ohio) ................................
Primary m etals................................
Martin Marietta Aluminum Inc. (Interstate) ..............
Primary m etals................................
Carpenters ........................................
Paperworkers ..................................
Paperworkers..................................
Paperworkers ..................................
Paperworkers ...................................
Paperworkers................................
Steelworkers ....................................
Butler Armco Independent Union
(Ind.)
Armco Employees Independent
Federation (Ind.)
Steelworkers ..............................
FMC Corp., Northern Ordnance Division (Fridley, mn) . . . .
Briggs and Stratton Corp. (Milwaukee, WI) ........................
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Joliet, il) ......................
Sealed Power Corp. (Muskegon, M I)....................................
Eltra Corp., Prestolite Division (Interstate)......................
Hayes International Corp. (Birmingham, al) ..................
Pacific Coast Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Firms (Interstate) ............
Rouge Steel Co. (Michigan)............................................
Frontier Airlines, agents (Interstate)2 ........................
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (New Y ork)..........................
Fabricated m etals............................
Machinery ......................................
Machinery ....................................
Machinery ......................................
Electrical products..........................
Transportation equipment ..............
Transportation equipment ..............
Transportation equipment ..............
Air transportation ..........................
Utilities ..........................................
Auto Workers ..........................
Industrial W orkers............................
Machinists ............................
Auto Workers ....................
Auto Workers ....................
Auto Workers ............................
Various......................................
Auto Workers ................................
Air Line P ilots..............................
Transport W orkers........................
2 200
8,200
1,300
1 000
1 200
2,200
10,000
15,000
2 400
2,200
Ohio Edison Co. (Ohio) ................................
Food Employers Association, Inc., warehouse (Oregon) ................
Montgomery Ward Co. (Interstate) ..................................
Fred Meyer Inc. (Portland, O R ) ................................................
Association of Private Hospitals (New York, NY) ........
Utilities ..........................................
Wholesale tra d e ..............................
Retail trade ....................................
Retail trade ....................................
Hospitals ........................................
Various..........................................
Teamsters (Ind.) ..............................
Teamsters (Ind.) ..............................
Food and Commercial Workers . . . .
Service Employees ..........................
2 100
1 700
9,600
1,700
7,000
Education........................................
Law enforcement............................
Education......................................
Teachers....................................
P o lice..........................................
Education Association (Ind.) ..........
1,400
2,500
Education......................................
Education......................................
Transit ............................................
University Professors (Ind.) ............
Education Association (Ind.) ..........
Transport Workers............................
1,400
1,500
1,450
4,800
1,900
Public
Illinois:
Cook County Community College, faculty ..............
Maryland: Baltimore p o lice..................................
Iowa:
Des Moines Independent Community School District,
professionals
Michigan: Wayne State University, faculty ........................
Tennessee: Chattanooga Board of Education, teachers . . .
Texas:
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority......................
1 Affiliated with a f l - c i o except where noted as independent
2 Information is from newspaper reports.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(in d ).
23)00
Developments in
Industrial Relations
First of the steel contracts
The first round of negotiations in the steel industry since
the 1985 breakup of the Coordinating Committee Steel
Companies, the industry’s pattern-setting bargaining associ
ation, led off with settlements at l t v Steel Co. and National
Steel Corp. In keeping with the Steelworkers acknowledg
ment that the severity of problems afflicting the industry
varies among the companies, the union agreed to different
terms at l t v Steel and National Steel.
In the past, the Coordinating Committee Steel Compa
nies, comprising U .S. Steel Corp. and other large compa
nies, had negotiated uniform terms that were followed by
nonmember companies. Deviation from the pattern terms
occurred in 1985 when Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
negotiated a substantial permanent cut in wages and bene
fits. Afterwards, U .S. Steel and other producers said that in
their 1986 negotiations, they would seek similar com
pensation cuts in order to maintain production cost parity
with Wheeling-Pittsburgh. Steelworkers’ President Lynn
Williams said the union would tailor each settlement to the
condition of the particular company.
At l t v Steel, which has suffered $1.7 billion in operating
losses since 1982, including $227 million in 1985, the union
agreed to a $3.15 cut in hourly compensation— a $1.14 cut
in pay and a $2.01 cut in benefits. The company estimated
that an additional 45 cents an hour would be saved in indi
rect costs because it will pay less social security and other
taxes and benefits from lower administrative costs, bringing
its total savings to $3.60. In addition to the pay cut, the
employees will forgo the final increment of the pay restora
tion required to bring wages back to the level that prevailed
prior to the 1983 settlements, which called for a temporary
pay cut of $1.25 an hour. The final increment (45 cents an
hour) was restored to employees of the other companies on
February 1, 1986, as scheduled, but the payment date had
been postponed to April 1, 1986, at l t v Steel as a result of
a 1986 contract modification. (See Monthly Labor Review,
April 1986, p. 57.)
In return for the $3.15 in direct savings, l t v agreed to a
Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan that will give the
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the
Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary
sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employees a “dollar-for-dollar payback in equity” for their
sacrifice. A union official noted that the accord provides for
“guaranteed job security opportunities and more worker in
volvement in decisionmaking at all levels of company pol
icy.”
Other cost cuts accepted by the union include:
• A reduction in shift premiums to 20 cents an hour, from
30 cents, for the second shift and to 30 cents, from 40
cents, for the third shift.
• Suspension of the cost-of-living pay adjustment provi
sion.
• Elimination of 3 of the 10 paid holidays.
• Elimination of 1 week of paid vacation for all employees
currently eligible for at least 2 weeks.
• Elimination of vision care benefits.
• A reduction in sickness and accident benefits, to a range
of $175-$229 a week.
Employees weekly pay statements will now indicate their
accumulating wage and benefit sacrifices. In April of each
year, they will receive the accrued value from company
profits, if any. The cash available for distribution will equal
10 percent of the first $100 million of l t v Steel profits plus
20 percent of all profits in excess of $100 million. If profits
are insufficient, workers will receive the balance in divi
dend-bearing shares of the l t v Steel preferred stock. After
2 years, the shares can be sold or exchanged (at $16 a share)
for common shares of the parent l t v Corp.
One of the major issues in the negotiations was resolved
by adoption of a restriction on subcontracting of work (ex
cept construction) if it can be performed by members of the
bargaining unit. To bypass this restriction, the company
must prove that proposed subcontracting is consistent with
past practice and the work must pass a “reasonableness
test,” excluding comparisons of costs.
Also in return for the wage and benefit cuts, l t v Steel
agreed to a program of monitoring overtime levels and to
give the local union a monthly accounting of the amount and
reasons for overtime work.
In a related job security provision, the company agreed
not to sell or transfer a plant covered by the agreement
unless the new owner recognizes the unit as bargaining
agent. Also, the new owner must negotiate an agreement
acceptable to the union before the sale can be completed.
45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Developments in Industrial Relations
The settlement covered 30,500 employees— including
8,500 on layoff— in 24 plants in seven States.
The contract at National Steel differed markedly from the
l t v Steel contract, apparently reflecting National’s smaller
losses. National, which is half owned by the Nippon Kokan
KK steel company of Japan, lost $88 million in 1985, in
cluding $27.2 million in the fourth quarter. Reportedly,
National Steel did not require compensation cuts as large as
l t v Steel because National has already closed a higher pro
portion of its inefficient facilities.
The 39-month accord provides for a 42-cent-an-hour
pay reduction, including suspension of the 11 cents costof-living adjustment that was effective February 1, 1986.
The employees will receive no further cost-of-livingadjustments during the agreement, but will receive annual
bonuses under a new profit-sharing plan. The distributions
will range from 50 cents per hour worked during the year if
the company loses money to a maximum of $1.75 per hour
if its net income is $300 million or more.
The workers also will be eligible for quarterly bonuses
based on future increases in productivity. The separate plans
at each of the three locations are based on any local increase
in tons shipped per worker, local cuts in the work force, and
corporate-wide cuts in the work force. These three factors,
weighted 30, 20, and 50 percent, will be compared with a
base level to determine possible improvements in productiv
ity. The quarterly payouts will range from 1 percent of each
employee’s pay if productivity rises 1 to 5 percent to 17
percent if the rise is 60 percent.
From the union’s viewpoint, probably the most important
contract provision is a new employment security plan which
prohibits layoffs during the contract term. Workers who
would otherwise have been laid off will be placed in an
employment security pool for retraining or for a new assign
ment.
In another change important to the employees, the con
tract provides that “work capable of being performed by
bargaining unit members shall be performed by [them].”
Further, the company cannot contract out work “unless it
demonstrates that such work meets one of the [limited]
exceptions.” Similarly, contractors can not perform work in
the National Steel plants unless the work has consistently
been performed by contractors in the past and the company
can prove that it is more reasonable for the contractor than
plant employees to perform the work.
Other contract terms include—
in a cooperative manner.
• Adoption of a cost containment program for health care
benefits.
• Elimination of the company’s 25-cent-an-hour payment
into the Supplemental Unemployment Benefits fund until
it is drawn down to its required level. At the time of
settlement, the fund was at 200 percent of the required
level.
Although not a part of the basic agreement, another im
portant development during the negotiations was National
Steel’s confirmation that it planned to continue a 5-year,
$1.2 billion capital investment plan started in 1985.
The 7,200 workers covered by the accord are employed
by three National Steel subsidiaries located in Illinois, Indi
ana, and Michigan. They are Midwest Steel, Great Lakes
Steel, and Granite City Steel.
General Telephone contract ‘concession-free’
The first settlement in the 1986 round of bargaining in the
telecommunications industry occurred when General Tele
phone Co. of California and the Communications Workers
of America ( c w a ) agreed on a 3-year contract for 20,000
workers. Based on past practice, the settlement was ex
pected to set a pattern for 30,000 employees of other Gen
eral Telephone companies. It also could influence the c w a ’ s
current bargaining with American Telephone and Telegraph
Co. and the various operating and manufacturing companies
resulting from the court-ordered 1984 breakup of the Bell
Telephone System, c w a President Morton Bahr said the
most important aspect of the accord was its “concessionfree” nature, which would also be the guiding principle in
the union’s talks with the former Bell System companies.
Bahr said the key to the settlement was General Tele
phone’s withdrawal of its demands for adoption of a two-tier
pay system and a provision automatically raising employee
deductibles under the health care plan as premiums rise.
Instead, deductibles were raised by a fixed amount and a
joint health care cost containment committee was estab
lished.
The contract, running to March 5, 1989, provides for
wage increases of 3 percent retroactive to March 5, 1986,
and 2 percent in September of 1987 and 1988. Some em
ployees will receive additional increases as a result of job
reclassifying.
More railroad accords
• Tighter restrictions on use of overtime.
• Assurances that sacrifices of employees not in the bar
gaining unit will equal those made by employees in the
unit.
• Personnel reductions only by mutual agreement and then
only by attrition.
• A Cooperative Partnership Agreement calling for the cre
ation of joint committees to solve problems quickly and
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The prolonged round of bargaining in the railroad indus
try inched closer to a conclusion when the Brotherhood of
Railway and Airline Clerks ( b r a c ) settled with the 25 major
carriers represented by the National Railway Labor Confer
ence. The 4-year accord provided for smaller general wage
increases but larger lump-sum payments than those negoti
ated in October 1985 by the United Transportation Union.
(See Monthly Labor Review, January 1986, pp. 7 -8 .)
Announcing that 85 percent of b r a c members had voted
in favor of the 4-year contract, union president Richard I.
Kilroy called the negotiations “the toughest. . . I’ve ever had
in my years in rail labor. I believe this contract is the abso
lute best we could obtain in today’s tough economic and
political climate.”
The contract is retroactive to the June 30, 1984, date
when wage and benefit terms were subject to change. It
provides for lump-sum payments of $565 within 60 days of
ratification, $335 on December 15, 1986, and $217 on June
15, 1988. The specified pay increases are 2 percent retroac
tive to December 1, 1985, and 2.25 percent on December 1
of 1986 and 1987. The increases will raise the average
hourly clerical pay rate to $13.94, from $13.08. The 85,000
workers covered by the accord also will continue to be
eligible for possible semiannual cost-of-living pay increases
of up to 8 percent a year, offset by the value of the specified
pay increases and lump-sum payments during the year.
New employees will start at 75 percent of the standard
rate for their job and progress to the standard rate in annual
5-percentage-point steps. Previously, workers started at 80
percent and attained the standard rate after 2 years of ser
vice. In a related action, a commission was established to
determine if current clerical pay rates are too high or too
low.
Other provisions included the formation of a joint com
mittee to study health care cost containment.
It was not clear when the other 11 unions would settle
with the carriers. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi
neers, which had rejected an earlier tentative accord, was in
arbitration under provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and
the other unions were negotiating.
Growers, pickers end 8-year dispute
A dispute noted for its duration and the number of parties
involved ended when Campbell Soup Co., tomato and cu
cumber growers in Ohio and Michigan, and the Farm Labor
Organizing Committee agreed on new labor contracts for
550 workers. The dispute began in 1978, when the Commit
tee began pressing Campbell Soup to support its efforts to
organize employees of the growers, who sell their crops to
Campbell. Campbell disagreed, contending that any collec
tive bargaining relationship should be strictly between the
farmers and the Committee.
As a result, the Committee instituted a boycott of Camp
bell products that was joined by the a f l -c io and other orga
nizations. The boycott was ineffective, according to a com
pany public relations director, but in 1985, the company and
the Committee agreed on elections in which the workers
voted to be represented by the Committee. Contract negotia
tions then began, assisted by a five-member mediation panel
headed by former Secretary of Labor John T. Dunlop. The
panel was selected by the National Council of Churches,
which will continue to assist the bargainers during the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
course of the new contracts by conducting representation
elections at growers not now covered by the agreements.
Expenses of the panel were covered by the Carnegie Corp.
and further expenses will be covered by a grant from the
William Penn Foundation.
The nearly 3-year agreement signed by Campbell, the
Farm Labor Organizing Committee, and the Campbell To
mato Growers Association provides for wage rates for hand
pickers to be set through further negotiations, and referred
to the Dunlop panel if not settled by June 15, 1986. Machine
harvesters receive $4.50 an hour for the 1986 season, in
creasing to $4.60 for the 1987 season. Other terms for the
150 employees in Ohio cover grievance procedures, dues
checkoff, union recognition, housing conditions, day care,
health and safety programs, and a joint study of the effect
of pesticides.
A nearly 4-year cucumber contract between Vlasic
Foods, Inc. (a Campbell subsidiary) and the Committee
covers 400 workers in Michigan. It includes grievance pro
cedures, dues checkoff, and other terms similar to the
tomato contract.
The cucumber pickers will continue to receive basic pay
equal to 50 percent of the gross value of the crop. In addi
tion, they will now receive bonus compensation, contingent
on a rise in cucumber prices. The size of the bonus will
increase over the term. For the 1989 season, the possible
bonus will range from 6 to 9 percent of basic pay.
Transportation Union leaves
a f l - cio
The United Transportation Union has disaffiliated from
the a f l - c i o . In the letter of withdrawal to a f l - c io President
Lane Kirkland, Transportation Union President Fred A.
Hardin attributed the action to a recent decision against the
union under the Federation’s procedures for resolving inter
union disputes over organizing workers; the election of a
Federation official to head a group supporting coal-slurry
pipelines, which the union opposes; alleged Federation sup
port of a plan for purchasing Conrail that the Transportation
Union did not favor; the Federation’s adoption of new regu
latory procedures viewed as inimical to the union’s organiz
ing efforts; and opposition to some of the Federation’s polit
ical endorsements.
In response, Kirkland contended that the Transportation
Union had misconstrued the Federation’s position on some
of the points, or that the position was not a major threat to
the union. He maintained that their differences are reconcil
able and that he was hopeful that the Transportation Union
might someday rejoin the Federation.
Company pays premium to bilingual employees
The Chemical Workers Union and the Utility Workers
Union of America jointly negotiated a 2-year contract with
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Developments in Industrial Relations
Southern California Gas Co. for 7,200 workers. The new
agreement provides for a 4 .5 -percent wage increase effec
tive April 1, 1986. On April 1, 1987, the workers will
receive a 3.5-percent guaranteed increase and an additional
possible increase of up to 2.5 percent, contingent on the
movement of the Consumer Price Index.
A new provision the company characterized as unique to
the industry provides for a 32-cent-an-hour premium for
about 40 bilingual employees who answer telephone in
quiries from persons who do not speak English.
In a cost-containment move, doctors planning to hospital
ize an employee or dependent covered by the health in
surance plan will have to clear the action with doctors hired
by Southern California Gas. In other benefit changes, two
free teeth cleanings per year were added to dental coverage
and the amount of vacation time that can be carried over
from year to year was increased to 3 weeks, from 2 weeks.
Philadelphia transit workers end strike
In the Philadelphia area, a 5-day transit strike ended when
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and
the Transport Workers agreed on a contract.
“Harassment” by supervisors, the most significant issue
from the workers’ viewpoint, was dealt with by adoption of
a provision requiring the Transit Authority to pay the cost of
grievance arbitration proceedings in which the arbitrator
rules in favor of the union. If the ruling favors management,
the union pays the full cost. If there is no clear winner, the
arbitration costs will be paid from a $50,000 a year fund that
Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode promised to set up. Any
unexpended portion of the annual allocation will be used to
provide joint labor-management training for supervisors and
stewards. Under the prior agreement, all arbitration costs
were shared by the Transportation Authority and the Trans
port Workers.
According to a union official, the 5,100 members of the
bargaining unit were involved in about 10,000 informal
grievance filings per year, with about 1,200 of them ending
as formal grievances and 120 going to arbitration.
The accord did not provide for a pay increase during the
first year, but the employees will recieve four increases
totaling $1 an hour during the balance of the 3-year term.
Their pay, which reportedly averaged $11.12 an hour at the
time of settlement, also will be subject to possible changes
during the second and third years as a result of the continu
ation of the provision for cost-of-living pay adjustments.
The major change in benefits was liberalization of the
pension formula for early retirement. Now, pensions will be
reduced by 4 percent for each year an employee is under age
65 at retirement. Previously, the reduction factor was 6
percent.
Electric workers negotiate wage increase
On the East Coast, three unions negotiated 3-year agree
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ments for 3,300 employees of the New England Electric
System. The contracts, which contained similar terms, pro
vided for wage increases of 4.3 percent in March 1986, 4.2
percent in March 1987, and 4.1 percent in March 1988.
The normal annual pension was raised to 1.8 percent
(from 1.7 percent) of average annual earnings during the
highest consecutive 5 years of the final 10 years of service,
multiplied by years of service to a maximum of 30. Also,
the early retirement age requirement was reduced to age 60,
from 61.
Other terms included an increase in employer financing of
health insurance and continuation of a program to contain
premium costs; and a 5- to 12-cent-an-hour increase in shift
premiums, varying by job category and union.
The three unions are the Brotherhood of Utility Workers
of New England, representing 1,600 workers, the Utility
Workers Union of America (525 workers), and the Interna
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1,050 workers).
New England Electric comprises Granite State Electric,
Co., Massachusetts Electric Co., Narragansett Electric,
New England Power C o., and New England Power Service.
The companies provide electrical service in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
Grocery clerks get five lump-sum payments
In Northern California, 40,000 grocery clerks were cov
ered by a contract between several grocery store chains and
13 locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Over the 3-year term, employees will receive five lump-sum
payments based on their hours worked (up to 40 hours per
week) during the preceding 6 months. The first payment will
be calculated at 25 cents for each hour worked during March
1 to August of 1986. The four succeeding payments will be
calculated at 42 cents per hour worked by top-rated clerks,
28 cents for general merchandise clerks, and 20 cents for
courtesy clerks. All five payments for courtesy clerks hired
after the effective date of the contract will be calculated at
15 cents per hour worked.
On the last day of the contract, February 28, 1989, there
will be a wage increase of 25 cents for general merchandise
clerks, 30 cents for top-rate clerks, and 35 cents for head
clerks.
The terms, which were similar to those negotiated by the
union’s meatcutters locals with the same companies in
1985, also include an $800,000 increase in major medical
coverage (to $1 million) and a new individual retirement
account plan supplementing the regular pension plan.
Spiegel contract contains ‘no move’ provision
About 2,800 catalogue sales employees in the Chicago
area were covered by a settlement between Spiegel, Inc.,
and local 743 of the Teamsters union. General wage in
creases total $1.15 over the 3-year term, with 700 workers
under the company’s production bonus system being eligi
ble to earn about a third more than $1.15.
Other terms included continuation of the provision for
annual cost-of-living pay adjustments calculated at 1 cent an
hour for each 0.4-point movement in the Consumer Price
Index for the Chicago area; a $50 bonus for full-time em
ployees and $25 for part-timers; a $2 increase in the pension
rate to $10 a month for each year of credited service; and
continuation of a “no-move” provision, requiring the com
pany to operate the covered facilities until February 29,
1991.
meatcutters will now be permitted to operate meat depart
ments without a top-rated cutter present after 6 p.m. week
days and all day on Sunday. Other efforts to control labor
costs included establishment of a joint committee authorized
to introduce new meat items during the contract term; a
program for moderating increases in health insurance costs,
and establishment of a “meat service” job category expand
ing the duties performed by a meat wrapper.
In return for these cost-cutting measures, the employers
gave up the right to lay off employees hired after August 31,
1985, except in cases where they decide to close a store or
can demonstrate a persistent and irreversible decline in
Department store workers in DC area settle
sales.
In the Washington, DC-Baltimore, m d , area, 5,500 de
partment store employees were covered by a settlement be
tween Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., and the United Food and
Commercial Workers. The 39-month contract, scheduled to
run to May 1, 1989, provided for hourly paid employees to
receive three wage increases over the term, each averaging
about 5 percent. According to the company, the increases
will range from 55 cents to $1.70 an hour, varying by job
classification.
Rates were not changed for employees paid on a commis
sion basis, but they received a lump-sum bonus equal to 1.5
percent of their 1985 earnings.
Benefit changes for all employees included a 5-percent
increase in pension rates for past service and a 25- to 30percent increase for future service; adoption of changes in
the health insurance plan intended to slow the rise in costs;
increases in sick leave pay; and increases in premium pay
for Sunday work.
Health care industry agreements
Minneapolis grocery workers get new contract
A wide-ranging 3-year contract between Minneapolis
grocery chains and the United Food and Commercial Work
ers provided for a two-tier pay system for part-time workers,
lump-sum payments for all 8,000 workers, a joint commit
tee to consider the introduction of new meat department
sales items, changes in job rules and duties, and additional
employee protection against layoffs.
During the first contract year, the workers will not receive
a pay increase, but in the second year they will receive a
3-percent increase, and in the final year will receive two
lump-sum payments together equal to 3 percent of their
earnings during a 12-month period. The pension rate was
increased to $26.67 a month for each year of credited ser
vice (from $20) and the service requirement was changed to
permit retirement after 30 years, regardless of age.
Part-time clerks and delicatessen workers hired after the
March 1 effective date of the contract will start at $5 an
hour, and advance to $8 after 5,200 hours of work. Parttime clerks hired earlier started at $5.76 and have a top rate
of $9.38.
In a move to control labor costs, stores with three or fewer
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In Chicago, a settlement between Northwestern Memorial
Hospital and the Hospital Employees Labor Program ( h e l p )
increased the incentive for the 1,000 service and mainte
nance workers to use Northwestern when they are sick or
injured. Under the 3-year contract, employees will not be
required to pay any medical care costs incurred in North
western. If they use another hospital, they will have to pay
the first $800 of costs and 20 percent of the balance. Under
the prior contract, employees who used other hospitals were
required to pay the first $50 of daily room and board for up
to 6 days and the health care plan paid all additional costs.
Other terms included wage increases totaling 62 cents an
hour that will reportedly raise average pay to $8.22; a $5 a
month increase in single employees’ financing of health
benefits and a $10 increase for family coverage; and adop
tion of a two-tier pay system under which new employees
will start at an average of $1.10 an hour below the top rate
for their job and will receive regular progression increases,
but will not attain the top rate during the agreement term.
h e l p is a joint organization of Service Employees Local
73 and Teamsters Local 743.
Elsewhere in the health care industry, 2,500 doctors,
dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and veterinarians em
ployed by the City of New York were covered by a 3-year
contract that provided for a 5-percent salary increase retro
active to July 1, 1984, another 5-percent increase retroactive
to July 1, 1985, and a 6-percent increase on July 1, 1986.
This will bring the maximum annual salary to $88,807 for
“attending III physicians” with at least 15 years of service.
Previously, their maximum was $72,709.
The contract was negotiated by a Doctors Council and the
city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation.
New York State, University Professions settle
A round of bargaining between the State of New York and
various unions was finally concluded when the United Uni
versity Professions, an affiliate of the American Federation
of Teachers, settled with the university system, ending an
impasse of more than 8 months. The other unions had settled
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Developments in Industrial Relations
with various State agencies in 1985. (See Monthly Labor
Review, October 1985, p. 52.)
The 3-year accord for the 17,000 academic and related
professional employees provides for 5-percent wage in
creases in each contract year. The union also joined a new
“preferred provider network” that went into operation on
January 1, 1986, in an effort to contain rising health care
costs.
Police officers get arbitrated pay increase
Police officers in Pittsburgh, p a , received a 4-percent
immediate pay increase under a 2-year arbitration award.
Resulting annual salaries included $25,792 for fourth-year
officers, $28,288 for sergeants, $30,992 for lieutenants, and
$34,112 for captains. There also is a provision for reopening
the contract on wages in 1987.
Other terms for the 1,200 officers, represented by the
Fraternal Order of Police, included longevity pay rang
ing from 2 percent of annual pay after 5 years’ service to
8 percent after 35 years; a 10-percent pay differential be
tween the ranks; a $4 a month city payment into the legal
services fund (formerly $2); and a $5 a month increase in the
city’s payment into a supplemental pension fund, bringing
the rates to $20 for each year of service for 20 through 24
years and to $25 for each additional year.
The award was handed down under a State law permitting
arbitration when bargainers cannot reach an agreement. □
Those other workers
Migrant workers usually have less security of tenure than the local
workers. If there are national economic difficulties, and workers have to be
dismissed, the migrant workers are likely to have to return home. Their
working conditions may be similar to those of others around them, but
their housing and entitlement to social services are usually inferior. They
are made aware daily that they are in a strange land, and enjoy few of the
rights of a citizen.
— I n t e r n a t io n a l L a b o r O r g a n iz a t io n
Working Conditions and Environment:
A Worker’s Education Manual
(Washington, International Labor
Organization, 1983), p. 44.
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Book Reviews
A positive approach
Economic Statecraft.
By David A. Baldwin. Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1985. 409 pp. $12.50
(us), paper.
n j,
David Baldwin’s aggressively scholarly book should be
come required reading for anyone making a serious study of
economics as an instrument of international politics. Bald
win cites three main purposes in writing this book: (1) to
submit the conventional wisdom— that economic instru
ments are poor instruments of statecraft— to critical review;
(2) to stimulate increased awareness of the many forms of
economic statecraft; and (3) to develop an analytical frame
work within which the utility of economic instruments of
policy can be discussed. Baldwin is successful to varying
degrees at each of these tasks, but it is his excellent handling
of the first that makes the book.
The conventional wisdom holds that “economic boycotts
never work,” “economic ‘sticks’ do not increase leverage
and control over another nation,” “sanctions end up making
the target country more self-sufficient and strengthening its
resolve to continue its policies.” These statements are so
categorical that one’s first suspicion is that they must be, at
the very least, overstatements. Indeed, Baldwin’s secondary
research indicates that close examination of existing case
studies finds conflicting evaluations of the efficacy of eco
nomic statecraft. His reexamination of several cases widely
cited in support of the conventional wisdom convinces the
reader that even these “classic” cases are not the definitive
evidence against economic statecraft they purport to be. The
widely cited “failures” often reflect the analyst’s evaluation
of the ends of a particular policy, with the specific instru
ments of that policy fallaciously branded as “ineffective.”
Baldwin dismisses this confusion of ends and means with
the disdain such errors deserve. The perception of policy
failure may also reflect an expectation that a narrow eco
nomic tool— usually a trade embargo— can be used to effect
profound changes in the internal and external behavior of
states. Baldwin extends the concept of economic statecraft
to include a wider variety of sanctions and rewards and with
respect to the conventional literature’s preoccupation with
single, sweeping goals, reminds the reader that “a given
influence attempt may involve multiple goals and targets of
varying generality and significance.”
Baldwin’s third objective, introduction of the basic meth
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ods of social power analysis to the study of instruments of
statecraft, is attempted in the second chapter. This is one of
the weaker points in this work. I did not feel I came away
from this chapter well enough briefed on “modem social
power analysis” to meaningfully distinguish it from the sim
ple application of generic critical analysis to the field of
economic statecraft.
In the end, Baldwin’s point is that economic statecraft is
a far subtler discipline than the conventional, oversimplified
cases suggest. Rather than ask, did a boycott get Castro to
step down, or did an embargo drive Israel to abolish itself,
a foreign policy analyst might have to be content asking if
costs were imposed by one nation for another’s noncompli
ance with relatively modest policy goals. The important
question is whether foreign policy is well served by eco
nomic instruments in an environment where, as Baldwin
sums up, “targets and goals are usually multiple,” “success
is usually a matter of degree,” “alternatives matter,” and
“the bases of power are many and varied.” Given that the
most frequently cited alternatives to economic instruments
are military adventures, every serious foreign policy analyst
should read Economic Statecraft.
— R ich a r d M . D e v e n s , Jr .
Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Publications received
Economic growth and development
Clegg, Stewart, Paul Boreham, Geoff Dow, Class, Politics and the
Economy. Boston, m a , Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986, 451
pp., bibliography. $59.95.
Pampel, Fred C. and Kazuko Tanaka, “Economic Development
and Female Labor Force Participation: A Reconsideration,” So
cial Forces, March 1986, pp. 599-619.
Semyonov, Moshe and Noah Lewin-Epstein, “Economic Develop
ment, Investment Dependence, and the Rise of Services in Less
Developed Nations,” Social Forces, March 1986, pp. 582-98.
Health
Haglund, Claudia L. and others, “Out-of-Plan Use of Medicare
Enrollees in a Risk-Sharing Health Maintenance Organization,”
Health Care Financing Review, Winter 1985, pp. 39-49.
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Book Review
McCall, Nelda and others, “Evaluation of the Arizona Health Care
Cost-Containment System,” Health Care Financing Review,
Winter 1985, pp. 77-88.
McDevitt, Roland and others, “Medicaid Program Characteristics:
Effects on Health Care Expenditures and Utilization,” Health
Care Financing Review, Winter 1985, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 Years of
Medicare and Medicaid: A Symposium (1985 Annual Supple
ment). Baltimore, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser
vices, Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Re
search and Demonstrations, 1985, 132 pp.
Labor force
Ashenfelter, Orley and David Card, Why Have Unemployment
Rates in Canada and the U.S. Diverged? Cambridge, m a , Na
tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 30 pp. ( n b e r
Working Paper Series, 1608.) $2, paper.
Bloom, David E. and Richard B. Freeman, The “Youth Problem”:
Age or Generational Crowding? Cambridge, m a , National Bu
reau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 66 pp. ( n b e r Working
Paper Series, 1829.) $2, paper.
Industrial relations
Boothby, Daniel, Women Reentering the Labour Force and Train
ing Programs: Evidence from Canada. Ottawa, Economic
Council of Canada, 1986, 56 pp. $5.95, Canada; $7.15, other
countries.
Bain, G. S. and J. D. Bennett, A Bibliography of British Industrial
Relations, 1971—1979. New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1985, 258 pp. $64.50.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Regional Labour
Force Outlook to 1991,” Employment Gazette, February 1986,
pp. 74-80.
Ichniowski, Casey, Public Sector Union Growth and Bargaining
---------“Temporary Work in Britain,” by Nigel Meager, Employ
ment Gazette, January 1986, pp. 7-15.
Laws: A Proportional Hazards Approach with Time-Varying
Treatments. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Re
search, Inc., 1986, 22 pp.
$2, paper.
(n b e r
Working Paper Series, 1809.)
Johnson, George E., Work Rules, Featherbedding, and ParetoOptimal Union-Management Bargaining. Cambridge, ma, Na
tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 32 pp. ( n b e r
Working Paper Series, 1820.) $2, paper.
Krislov, Joseph, “Comparing Two Estimates of Strike Incidence in
Kentucky,” Kentucky Economy Review & Perspective, Fall
1985, pp. 8-10.
MacDonald, Jeffrey A. and Anne Bingham, Pension Handbook
for Union Negotiators. Washington, The Bureau of National
Affairs, 1986, 197 pp. $20, paper.
Poole, Michael, Industrial Relations: Origins and Patterns of Na
tional Diversity. Boston, m a , Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986,
243 pp., bibliography. $37.
Sulzner, George T., Public Sector Labor Relations: Agent of
Change in American Industrial Relations? Reprinted from the
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Spring 1985, pp.
70-78. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Labor Relations
and Research Center. (Reprint Series, 78).
Industry and government organization
Card, David, The Impact of Deregulation on the Employment and
Wages of Airline Mechanics. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau
of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 26 pp. ( n b e r Working
Paper Series, 1847.) $2, paper.
Crandall, Robert W. and others, Regulating the Automobile.
Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1986, 202 pp. $28.95,
cloth; $10.95, paper.
Labor and economic history
Howe, Irving, Socialism and America. New York, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Publishers, 1985, 225 pp. $17.95.
Hamermesh, Daniel S., Plant Closings, Labor Demand and the
Value of The Firm. Cambridge, M A , National Bureau of Eco
nomic Research, Inc., 1986, 26 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Se
ries, 1839.) $2, paper.
Hayward, Mark D. and William R. Grady, “The Occupational
Retention and Recruitment of Older Men: The Influence of
Structural Characteristics of Work,” Social Forces, March
1986, pp. 644-66.
Holzer, Harry J., “Are Unemployed Black Youth Income Maximiz
ers?” Southern Economic Journal, January 1986, pp. 777-84.
Vasegh-Daneshvary, Nasser, Henry W. Herzog, Jr., Alan M.
Schlottmann, “College Educated Immigrants in the American
Labor Force: A Study of Locational Behavior,” Southern Eco
nomic Journal, January 1986, pp. 818-31.
Monetary and fiscal policy
Anderson, William, Myles S. Wallace, John T. Warner, “Gov
ernment Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?” Southern
Economic Journal, January 1986, pp. 630-39.
Chowdhury, AbdurR., James S. Fackler, W. Douglas McMillin,
“Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, and Investment Spending: An
Empirical Analysis,” Southern Economic Journal, January
1986, pp. 794-806.
Young, John E., “The Rise and Fall of Federal Reserve Float,”
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Economic Review,
February 1986, pp. 28-38.
Productivity and technological change
Grilliches, Zvi and Jacques Mairesse, R&D and Productivity
Growth: Comparing Japanese and U.S. Manufacturing Firms.
Cambridge, M A , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1985, 35 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1778.) $2, paper.
Jaffe, Adam B., Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of
R&D: Evidencefrom Firm’s Patents, Profits and Market Value.
Cambridge, M A , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1986, 33 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper, 1815.) $2, paper.
Keyssar, Alexander, Out of Work: The First Century of Unemploy
ment in Massachusetts. New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1986, 469 pp. $49.50, cloth; $14.95, paper.
Nadiri, M. Ishaq and Ingmar R. Prucha, Comparison and Analysis
Zieger, Robert H., American Workers, American Unions, 19201985. Baltimore, M D , The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1986, 233 pp. $25, cloth; $9.95 paper.
bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, 1986, 33
pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1850.) $2, paper.
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of Productivity Growth and R&D Investment in the Electrical
Machinery Industries of the United States and Japan. Cam
Current
Labor Statistics
Schedule of release dates for major bls statistical series
54
Notes on Current Labor Statistics ...................................................................................
55
Comparative indicators
1. Labor market indicators..............................................................................................................................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity ....................................................
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes ...............................................................................................
64
65
65
Labor force data
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Employment status of the total population, data seasonally ad ju sted .............................................................................
Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted ......................................................................
Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................
Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted ......................................................................................
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonally a d ju sted .............................................................
Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................
Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State .............................................................................................................
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Employment of workers by State ............................................................................................................................................
Employment of workers by industry, data seasonally adjusted........................................................................................
Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................
Average hourly earnings by industry .....................................................................................................................................
Average weekly earnings by industry.....................................................................................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index by industry..........................................................................................................................................
Indexes of diffusion: proportion of industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted ..................
Annual data: Employment status o f the noninstitutional population .............................................................................
Annual data: Employment levels by industry .....................................................................................................................
Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by in d ustry..........................................................................................
66
67
68
69
70
70
70
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
76
76
76
77
Labor compensation and collective bargaining data
Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group ...............................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p ......................................................
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e ...........................
Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments,
78
79
80
situations covering 1 , 0 0 0 workers or more ..........................................................................................................................
26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more
27. Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more ................................
28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining
situations covering 1 , 0 0 0 workers or more ..........................................................................................................................
29. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more .............................................................................................................
81
81
82
22.
23.
24.
25.
82
82
Price data
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Consumer Price Index: U .S. City average, by expenditure category and commodity and service groups .........
Consumer Price Index: U .S. City average and local data, all items .............................................................................
Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups .................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing ...................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing ..........................................................................................
U .S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification ....................................................................
U .S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification....................................................................
U .S. export price indexes by end-use category ...................................................................................................................
U .S. import price indexes by end-use ca teg o ry ...................................................................................................................
U .S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial C lassification......................................................................................
U .S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification ...................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
86
87
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
92
93
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics
Contents— Continued
Productivity data
42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted .............................................................................
43. Annual indexes o f multifactor productivity ...................................................................................................................................................
44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s .................................................................................................
93
94
95
International comparisons
45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................................
46. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age population, ten countries ....................................................................................
47. Annual indexes o f productivity and related measures, twelve countries ..........................................................................................................
95
96
97
Injury and illness data
48. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence r a tes...............................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for
b ls
98
statistical series
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Employment situation .......................
June 6
May
July 3
June
August 1
July
1; 4-21
Producer Price Index.........................
June 13
May
July 11
June
August 15
July
2; 33-35
Consumer Price Index.......................
June 20
May
July 23
June
August 21
July
2; 30-32
Real earnings....................................
June 20
May
July 23
June
August 21
July
14-17
Series
Major collective bargaining
settlements...................................
July 28
Employment Cost Index ....................
July 29
2nd qtr.
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and
manufacturing............................
July 30
2nd qtr.
Nonfinancial corporations................
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes ..
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1-3; 22-24
August 27
July 31
2nd qtr.
MLR table
num ber
2nd qtr.
2; 42-44
2; 36-41
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section o f the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical series collected
and calculated by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics: series on labor force,
employment, unemployment, collective bargaining settlements, consumer,
producer, and international prices, productivity, international comparisons,
and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each
group o f tables is briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the
data are set forth, and sources of additional information are cited.
A d ju stm en ts for p rice c h a n g es. Some data— such as the Hourly
Earnings Index in table 17— are adjusted to eliminate the effect o f 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 o f $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 $2 (or any other
resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
General notes
Additional information
The following notes apply to several tables in this section:
Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as climatic conditions,
industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday
buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term
evaluation o f the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been
adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past
experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions
may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. (Season
ally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -3 , 4 -1 0 , 13, 14, and 18.) Beginning
in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the sea
sonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being
seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called x - n arima, which was
developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X-n method
previously used by bls . A detailed description of the procedure appears in
T h e x - n a r im a S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d by Estla Bee Dagum (Statis
tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E , January 1983). The second change
is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6
months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated
at mid-year for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical
data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -1 0 were revised
in the February 1986 issue of the R e v ie w , to reflect experience through
1985.
Annual revisions o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables
13, 14, and 18 were made in July 1985 using the X -n arima seasonal
adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in
table 42 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 avail
able for this series.
S ea so n a l a d ju stm en t.
Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the
Bureau 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 preceding these general notes. More
information about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and
the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available
in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , a monthly publication of the Bureau. More
data from the household survey is published in the two-volume data book—
L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d F ro m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u r v e y , Bul
letin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appears in two data
books— E m p lo y m e n t, H o u r s , a n d E a rn in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , and E m p lo y
m e n t, H o u r s , a n d E a rn in g s , S ta te s a n d A r e a s , and the annual supplements
to these data books. More detailed information on employee compensation
and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodi
cal, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . More detailed data on consumer and
producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, T h e c p i D e ta ile d
R e p o r t, and P r o d u c e r P r ic e s a n d P r ic e I n d e x e s . Detailed data on all o f the
series in this section are provided in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s ,
which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued cover
ing productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally,
the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w carries analytical articles on annual and longer
term developments in labor force, employment and unemployment; em
ployee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; inter
national comparisons; and injury and illness data.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, prelim
inary figures are issued based on representative but incom
plete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability o f later
data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified,
n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified.
COMPARATIVE INDICATORS
(Tables 1-3)
Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of
major bls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included
series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
L a b o r m a rk et in d ica to rs include employment measures from two ma
jor surveys and information on rates of change in compensation provided
by the Employment Cost Index (eci) program. The labor force participation
rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for
major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”)
Survey are presented, while measures of employment and average weekly
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data.
The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by
bargaining status, is chosen from a variety of bls compensation and wage
measures because it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs
for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by
employment shifts among occupations and industries.
Data on ch a n g es in c o m p en sa tio n , p rices, an d p rod u ctivity are pre
sented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensation and wages
from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics
nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all
private nonfarm workers. Measures o f changes in: consumer prices for all
urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall
export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output
per hour o f all persons) are provided for major sectors.
A ltern a tiv e m ea su res o f w a g e a n d co m p en sa tio n ra tes o f c h a n g e,
which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table
3
.
Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes o f the
series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea
sures.
Notes on the data
Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later
sections o f these notes describing each set o f data. For detailed descriptions
o f each data series, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Volumes I and II,
Bulletins 2134-1 and 2 1 3 4 -2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 and 1984,
respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi
cations noted in the separate sections of the R e v ie w 's “Current Labor
Statistics N otes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the H a n d
b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , B u lle tin 2 2 1 7 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
Users may also wish to consult M a jo r P r o g r a m s , B u r ea u o f L a b o r S ta tis
tic s , Report 718 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985).
EMPLOYMENT DATA
(Tables 1; 4-21)
Household survey data
Description of the series
in this section are obtained from the Current Population
Survey, a program o f personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau
o f the Census for the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The sample consists of
about 59,500 households selected to represent the U .S. population 16 years
o f age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that
three-fourths o f the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
employment data
Definitions
E m p lo y ed p erso n s include ( 1 ) all civilians who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 1 2 th day of the month or who worked
unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2 ) those
who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness,
vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members o f the Armed
Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed
total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number o f hours.
U n em p lo y e d p erso n s 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 o v era ll u n em
p lo y m e n t ra te represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor
force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civ ilia n u n em p lo y m en t
rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor
force.
The la b o r fo rce consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus
members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons n ot
in th e la b o r fo rce are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this
group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house
work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work
because o f long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because
o f personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The
n on in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n comprises all persons 16 years o f age and
older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or
homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces
stationed in the United States. The la b o r fo rce p a rticip a tio n ra te is the
proportion o f the noninstitutional populaton that is in the labor force. The
e m p lo y m en t-p o p u la tio n ra tio is total employment (including the resident
Armed Forces) as a percent o f the noninstitutional population.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating
errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil
ity of historical data. 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 4 -1 0 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1984.
Additional sources of information
For detailed explanations o f the data, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s ,
Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 1, and for
additional data, H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta t is tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1985). A detailed description of the Current Population
Survey as well as additional data are available in the monthly Bureau of
Labor Statistics periodical, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . Historical data
from 1948 to 1982 are available in L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d f r o m th e
C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y : A D a ta b o o k , Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982).
A comprehensive discussion o f the differences between household and
establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing
employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 .
Establishment survey data
Description of the series
Employment, hours, and earnings data in this section are compiled from
payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 200,000
establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus
tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size o f the establishment;
most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is
not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware
house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll
are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab
lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment
figures between the household and establishment surveys.
Definitions
An e sta b lish m en t is an economic unit which produces goods or services
(such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type
of economic activity.
E m p lo y ed p erso n s are all persons who received pay (including holiday
and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 1 2 th of the
month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons
in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them.
P ro d u c tio n w o rk ers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker super
visors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production
operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc
tion; and nonsupervisory workers in the following industries: transportation
and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real
estate; and services. These groups account for about four-fifths o f the total
employment on private nonagricutural payrolls.
E a r n in g s are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re
ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or
late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments.
R ea l e a rn in g s are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (cpi- w). The
H o u rly E a r n in g s In d ex is calculated from average hourly earnings data
adjusted to exclude the effects o f two types o f changes that are unrelated
to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums
in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available)
and the effects o f changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers
in high-wage and low-wage industries.
H o u rs represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi
sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard
or scheduled hours. O v ertim e h o u rs represent the portion of gross average
weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime
premiums were paid.
T h e D iffu sio n In d ex , introduced in the May 1983 R e v ie w , represents
the percent o f 185 nonagricultural industries in which employment was
rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged
employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for
the 1-, 3-, and 6 -month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the
12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measur
ing the dispersion o f economic gains or losses and is also an economic
indicator.
Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are peri
odically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release
o f May 1985 data, published in the July 1985 issue of the R e v ie w . Conse
quently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue are not necessarily
comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to
April 1983; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January
1980. These revisions were published in the S u p p le m e n t to E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Unadjusted data from
April 1984 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1981 for
ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks.
Additional sources of information
Detailed data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the
periodical, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . Earlier comparable unadjusted
and seasonally adjusted data are published in E m p lo y m e n t, H o u r s , a n d
E a rn in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , 1 9 0 9 - 8 4 , Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discussion o f the
methodology o f the survey, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 2. For additional data, see
H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1985).
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 surveys,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 .
bls
Unemployment data by State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the
Current Population Survey (cps) and the Local Area Unemployment Statis
tics (laus) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employ
ment security agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment
for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local economic condi
tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility o f an area for
benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train
ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act.
Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are
those used in the national estimates obtained from the CPS.
Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained directly from the
cps , because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls standards
of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District o f Columbia
are derived using standardized procedures established by bls . Once a year,
estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the
remaining States and the District o f Columbia, data are benchmarked to
annual average cps levels.
Additional sources of information
Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used
to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as addi
tional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau o f Labor
Statistics periodical, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s , and the annual report,
G e o g r a p h ic P r o file o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics). See also bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f
Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 4.
COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA
(Tables 1-3; 22-29)
Compensation
and wage data
are gathered by the Bureau from business
establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bar
gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources.
Employment Cost Index
Description of the series
The E m p lo y m e n t C o st In d ex (eci) is a quarterly measure o f the rate of
change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and
employer costs o f employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market
basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer
costs o f employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted.
Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries
are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State
and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy,
which consists of private industry and State and local government workers
combined. Federal workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists o f about 2,200
private nonfarm establishments providing about 1 2 , 0 0 0 occupational ob
servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics
\
3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in
each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensa
tion information on five well-specified occupations. Data are collected each
quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, Septem
ber, and December.
Fixed employment weights from the 1970 Census of Population are used
each quarter to calculate the indexes for civilian, private, and State and
local governments. These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the
industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these in
dexes reflect only changes in compensation, not employment shifts among
industries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation.
For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area
series, however, employment data by industry and occupation are not
available from the census. Instead, the 1970 employment weights are
reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample.
Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggre
gate, industry, and occupation series.
Definitions
T otal c o m p en sa tio n costs include wages, salaries, and the employer
costs for employee benefits.
W a g es a n d sa la r ie s consist of earnings before payroll deductions, in
cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments.
B e n e fits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay
(including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and savings
plans, and legally required benefits (such as social security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items
as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of
1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private
nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in
cluded in 1980 to produce, when combined with the wages and salaries
series, a measure o f the percent change in employer costs for employee
total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci
coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the
c iv ilia n nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in
dexes (June 1981 = 100) o f the quarterly rates o f change are presented in the
May issue o f the bls monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts .
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see
Chapter 11, “The Employment Cost Index,” in the H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s ,
Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), and the following
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: “Employment Cost Index: a measure of
change in the ‘price o f labor’,” July 1975; “How benefits will be incorpo
rated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; “Estimation proce
dures for the Employment Cost Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new
weights for the Employment Cost Index,” June 1985.
Data on the eci are also available in bls quarterly press releases issued
in the month following the reference months of March, June, September,
and December; and from the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985).
Collective bargaining settlements
Description of the series
(wages and benefits costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private industry
and semiannually for State and local government. Compensation measures
cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000 workers or more
and wage measures cover all situations involving 1 , 0 0 0 workers or more.
These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local
governments, are calculated using information obtained from bargaining
agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and second
ary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally
adjusted.
Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments:
those that will occur within 1 2 months after contract ratification— first
year— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the contract
expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted.
Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may
occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered by future movements
in the Consumer Price Index.
E ffectiv e w age ad ju stm en ts measure all adjustments occurring in the
reference period, regardless o f the settlement date. Included are changes
from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from con
tracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjust
ment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are
prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period
yielding the average adjustment.
Definitions
W age rate c h a n g es are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages
by the average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, at the time the agree
ment is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the
change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by
existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost of previ
ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and
average hourly earnings.
C o m p en sation ch a n g es are calculated by placing a value on the benefit
portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates
are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of settle
ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition o f labor
force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated
changes and not of total changes in employer cost.
C on tra ct d u ration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the
expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual
percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding of
successive changes.
Notes on the data
Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature of the settle
ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because
of differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A
principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment (cola)
clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local
government settlements, but cover 50 percent of workers under private
sector settlements. Agreements without cola’s tend to provide larger speci
fied wage increases than those with cola’s . Another difference is that State
and local government bargaining frequently excludes pension benefits
which are often prescribed by law. In the private sector, in contrast,
pensions are typically a bargaining issue.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion on the series, see of the
bls
H andbook o f
M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 10.
C o llectiv e b a rg a in in g se ttlem en ts data provide statistical measures of
negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in
January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi-
annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor
ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year
appear in the April issue o f the bls monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e
monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . Historical data appear in
the bls H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s .
Other compensation data
D e v e lo p m e n ts .
Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on w o rk sto p p a g es measure the number and duration of major
strikes or lockouts (involving 1 , 0 0 0 workers or more) occurring during the
month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount o f time
lost because o f stoppage.
Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establishments
directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or second
ary effect o f stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle
owing to material shortages or lack of service.
Definitions
The number of strikes and lockouts involving
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
W o rk ers in volved : The number of workers directly involved in the
stoppage.
N u m b e r o f d a y s idle: The aggregate number of work days lost by
workers involved in the stoppages.
D a y s o f id len ess a s a p ercen t o f estim a te d w o rk in g tim e: Aggregate
work days lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard work days
in the period multiplied by total employment in the period.
N u m b e r o f sto p p a g es:
1 ,0 0 0
Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that
covered strikes involving six workers or more.
Additional sources of information
Data for each calendar year are reported in a bls press release issued in
the first quarter o f the following year. Monthly data appear in the bls
Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor
Statistics section of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , appear in and consist o f the
following:
I n d u s tr y W a g e S u r v e y s provide data for specific occupations selected to
represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed
by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules,
shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices,
and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans.
Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed.
Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w .
A r e a W a g e S u r v e y s annually provide data for selected office, clerical,
professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material
movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety o f indus
tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout
the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special
analyses also appear in the R e v ie w .
T h e N a tio n a l S u r v e y o f P r o fe s s io n a l, A d m in is tr a tiv e , T e c h n ic a l, a n d
C le r ic a l P a y provides detailed information annually on salary levels and
distributions for the types o f jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private
employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the
duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match
specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General
Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re
quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the
Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com
parability Act of 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5305.) Data are published in a bls news
release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and
analytical articles also appear in the R e v ie w .
E m p lo y e e B e n e fits S u r v e y provides nationwide information on the inci
dence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large
establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are
published in an annual bls news release and bulletin, as well as in special
articles appearing in the R e v ie w .
PRICE DATA
(Tables 2; 30-41)
P R IC E D A T A are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail
and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in
relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted).
Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The C o n su m er P rice In d ex (CPi) is a measure of the average change in
the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and
services. The cpi is calculated monthly for two population groups, one
consisting only o f urban households whose primary source of income is
derived from the employment o f wage earners and clerical workers, and the
other consisting o f all urban households. The wage earner index (cpi- w) is
a continuation o f the historic index that was introduced well over a halfcentury ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for
the cpi in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index
became apparent. The all urban consumer index (cpi- u ) introduced in 1978
is representative o f the 1972-73 buying habits of about 80 percent of the
noninstitutional population o f the United States at that time, compared with
40 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners and clerical
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
workers, the cpi- u covers professional, managerial, and technical workers,
the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and oth
ers not in the labor force.
The cpi is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans
portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services
that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality o f these
items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only
price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the
purchase and use of items are included in the index.
Data collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000
tenants in 85 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U .S.
city average.” Separate estimates for 28 major urban centers are presented
in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The
area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since
the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level o f prices among
cities.
Notes on the data
In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership
costs are measured for the cpi- u . A rental equivalence method replaced the
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics
asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January
1985, the same change was made in the cpi- w . The central purpose of the
change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of
homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost o f shelter
services provided by owner-occupied homes.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion o f the general method for computing the
cpi,
see
manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation;
the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey
universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to
Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been
phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is
easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ
ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial
Classification and the Census product class designations.
bls
H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , V o lu m e II, T h e C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x , Bulletin
Additional sources of information
2 1 3 4 -2 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1984). The recent change in the mea
surement o f homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and
Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in
the CPI,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 .
Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses of consumer price
changes are provided in the cpi D e ta ile d R e p o r t, a monthly publication of
the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings
may be found in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau
o f Labor Statistics, 1985).
For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In
dexes, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1982), chapter 7.
Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided
monthly in P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x es. Selected historical data may be found
in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1985).
International price indexes
Producer price indexes
Description of the series
P ro d u c er P rice In d ex es (ppi) measure average changes in prices re
ceived in primary markets o f the United States by producers of commodi
ties in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these
indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 60,000
quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all
commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage o f proc
essing structure o f Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of
buyer and degree o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate
goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of ppi
organizes products by similarity o f end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes
apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States
from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally
collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob
tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential
basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing
the 13th day o f the month.
Since January 1976, price changes for the various commodities have
been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their
importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as o f 1972. The
detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing
groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a
number o f special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are
subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the R e v ie w is no longer present
ing tables o f Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings, special
composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will continue to
be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s .
The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive
overhaul o f the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the
Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment
sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic
coverage o f the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Description of the series
The bls In tern a tio n a l P rice P ro g ra m produces quarterly export and
import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United
States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure
of price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers.
(“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes
corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza
tions to be U .S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The
import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased
from other countries by U .S. residents. With publication of an all-import
index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U .S.
merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The
reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated.
The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw
materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished
manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for
these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all
cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al
though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U .S. border
for exports and at either the foreign border or the U .S. border for imports.
For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the
first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June,
September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all
discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that
the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which
the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices for U .S. exports and imports,
indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and
imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail
of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System ( sitc). The calcula
tion of indexes by SITC category facilitates the comparison of U .S. price
trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed
indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classifi
cation (sic-based) basis, as well as by end-use class.
Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of the
Laspeyeres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each
weight category and are then aggregated to the sitc level. The values
assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled
by the Bureau o f the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute
both indexes relate to 1980.
Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from
period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica
tions or terms o f transaction have been modified. For this reason, the
Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys
ical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as
information on the number o f units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms,
packaging, class o f buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes
in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar
value o f each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the
“pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is
employed which allows for the continued repricing o f the item.
For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free
alongside ship) U .S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices
f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which
enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation.
An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import
price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the
basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the
import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U .S. port o f impor
tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the
product to the U .S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion o f the general method of computing International Price
Indexes, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, 1982), chapter 8 .
Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop
ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U .S . I m p o r t a n d
E x p o r t P r ic e I n d e x e s and in occasional M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles
prepared by b l s analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the
H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta t is tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1985).
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
(Tables 2; 42-47)
U. S. productivity and related data
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As
such, they encompass a family of measures which include single factor
input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or
output per unit o f capital input, as well as measures of multifactor produc
tivity (output per unit o f labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau
indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs.
The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and
nonfinancial corporate sectors.
Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit
nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided.
U n it p ro fits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust
ments per unit of output.
H ou rs o f all p erso n s are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers.
C ap ita l se rv ices is the flow of services from the capital stock used in
production. It is developed from measures o f the net stock o f physical
assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental
prices for each type of asset.
L a b or an d ca p ita l in p u ts combined are derived by combining changes
in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s
share o f total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units
o f labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of
the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number
formula).
Notes on the data
Definitions
O u tp u t p er h o u r o f all p e rso n s (labor productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input.
O u tp u t p er u n it o f ca p ita l se rv ices (capital productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services
input.
M u ltifa cto r p ro d u ctiv ity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital
inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of
factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology,
shifts in the composition o f the labor force, changes in capacity utilization,
research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage
ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the
impact o f these factors as well as the substitution o f capital for labor.
C o m p en sa tio n p er h o u r is the wages and salaries of employees plus
employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, and
the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed
(except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no selfemployed)— the sum divided by hours paid for. R ea l co m p en sa tio n per
h o u r is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
U n it la b o r co sts are the labor compensation costs expended in the
production o f a unit o f output and are derived by dividing compensation by
output. U n it n o n la b o r p a y m e n ts include profits, depreciation, interest,
and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting
compensation o f all persons from current dollar value o f output and divid
ing by output. U n it n o n la b o r co sts contain all the components o f unit
nonlabor payments e x c e p t unit profits.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Output measures for the business sector and the nonfarm businesss sector
exclude the constant dollar value o f owner-occupied housing, rest o f world,
households and institutions, and general government output from the con
stant dollar value of gross national product. The measures are derived from
data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out
put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti
mates o f output (gross product originating) from the Bureau o f Economic
Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data o f the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 4 describe
the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital
services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to
period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input.
Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they
do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific
factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect o f many influ
ences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level o f output;
utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f produc
tion; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force.
Additional sources of information
Descriptions o f methodology underlying the measurement o f output per
hour and multifactor productivity are found in the bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th
o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 13. His
torical data for selected industries are provided in the Bureau’s H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, Bulletin 2217.
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986
•
Current Labor Statistics
International comparisons
Canadian figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the
average for wage and salary employees.
Description of the series
Notes on the data
Comparative measures o f labor force, employment, and unemployment
(tables 45 and 46) are prepared regularly for the United States, Canada,
Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands,
and Sweden. Unemployment rates, approximating U .S. concepts, are pre
pared monthly for most o f the countries; the other measures, annually.
The Bureau o f Labor Statistics also prepares international comparisons
o f manufacturing labor productivity and labor costs (table 47) that cover the
United States and 11 foreign countries— those listed above plus Belgium
and Norway. These measures are limited to trend comparisons; that is,
intercountry series o f changes over time, rather than level comparisons
because reliable international comparisons of the levels of manufacturing
are unavailable. The U .S. measures are described in the notes on U .S.
productivity measurement; the measures for foreign countries are compiled
from various national and international data sources.
Definitions
O u tp u t measures are constant value output (value added) from the
national accounts o f each country, except for those for Japan prior to 1970
and for the Netherlands for 1969 forward, which are indexes of industrial
production. The national accounting methods for measuring real output
differ considerably among the 1 2 countries, but the use of different proce
dures does not, in itself, connote lack of comparability— rather, it reflects
differences among countries in the availability and reliability of underlying
data series.
H ou rs a n d c o m p en sa tio n measures refer to all employed persons in
cluding the self-employed in the United States and Canada, and to all wage
and salary employees in the other countries. H o u r s refer to hours p a i d in
the United States, hours w o r k e d in the other countries. C o m p e n s a tio n
( la b o r c o s ts ) includes not only all payments made directly to employees
and employer expenditures for social insurance and private benefit plans,
but changes in significant employment or payroll taxes that are not compen
sation to employees but are labor costs to employers (France, Sweden, and
the United Kingdom). Self-employed workers are included in the U .S. and
The data for the foreign countries in tables 45 and 46 have been adjusted,
where necessary, for greater comparability with U .S. definitions o f em
ployment and unemployment. The adjusted statistics have been adapted to
the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country. Therefore, the
adjusted statistics relate to the civilian population age 16 and over in the
United States, France, and Sweden, and from 1973 forward, Great Britain;
15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands;
and 14 and over in Italy. Prior to 1973, the data for Great Britain related
to persons age 15 and over. The institutional population is included in the
denominator o f the labor force participation rates and employmentpopulation ratios for Japan and Germany.
For most of the countries in table 47, the measures refer to total manu
facturing as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification.
However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning
1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1976) refer to manufacturing
and mining less energy-related products. For all countries, manufacturing
includes the activities of government enterprises.
In addition, for all countries, preliminary estimates for recent years are
generally based on current indicators o f manufacturing output, employment
and hours, and hourly compensation until national accounts and other
statistics used for the long-term measures become available.
Additional sources of information
For further information, see I n te r n a tio n a l C o m p a r is o n s o f U n e m p lo y
m e n t, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B and
Supplements to Appendix B. Additional detail is also found in the bls
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
1982), chapter 16. Additional international comparison statistics are avail
able in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, 1985). The most recent statistics are presented and analyzed
annually in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , typically in the December issue
(for the previous year) and in February.
H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1
OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA
(Table 48)
Description of the series
The Annual Survey o f Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to
collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in
the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act o f 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction;
construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale
and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded
from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11
employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws,
and Federal, State, and local government agencies.
Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the data
must meet the needs o f participating State agencies, an independent sam
ple is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all pri
vate industries in the States and territories. The sample size for the
survey is dependent upon ( 1 ) the characteristics for which estimates are
needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired; (3) the charac
teristics o f the population being sampled; (4) the target reliability of the
estimates; and (5) the survey design employed.
While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could
be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of
the most important characteristics and the least variable; therefore, it re
quires the smallest sample size.
The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the
establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size
o f employment.
Definitions
R e co r d a b le occu p a tio n a l in ju ries an d illn esses are: (1) occupational
deaths, regardless of the time between injury and death, or the length o f the
illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occupational
injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss o f consciousness,
restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment
(other than first aid).
O ccu p a tio n a l in ju ry is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu
tation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from exposure
involving a single incident in the work environment.
O ccu p a tio n a l illn ess is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than
one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environ
mental factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic
illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges
tion, or direct contact.
L o st w ork d a y cases are cases which involve days away from work, or
days o f restricted work activity, or both.
L o st w ork d a y ca ses in v o lv in g restricted w o rk activ ity are those cases
which result in restricted work activity only.
L o st w o rk d a y s a w a y fro m w o rk are the number of workdays (consec
utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not
because o f occupational injury or illness.
L o st w o rk d a y s— restr ic ted w o rk a ctiv ity are the number of workdays
(consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: ( 1 ) the em
ployee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or ( 2 ) the em
ployee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee
worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties
normally connected with it.
Comparable data for individual States are available from the bls Office
o f Occupational Safety and Health Statistics.
Mining and railroad data are furnished to bls by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, respec
tively. Data from these organizations are included in bls and State publica
tions. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occu
pational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local
government employees are collected by about half of the States and territo
ries; these data are not compiled nationally.
T h e n u m b er o f d a y s a w a y fro m w o rk o r d a y s o f restr ic ted w ork
a ctiv ity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days
on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work.
In cid en ce ra tes represent the number o f injuries and/or illnesses or lost
workdays per 1 0 0 full-time workers.
Notes on the data
Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for
severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases
without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where
the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work
activity was restricted. Estimates of the number o f cases and the number of
days lost are made for both categories.
Most o f the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the
number o f injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 1 0 0 full-time em
ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em
ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few o f the available
measures are included in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta t is tic s . Full detail is
presented in the annual bulletin, O c c u p a tio n a l I n ju r ie s a n d I lln e s s e s in th e
U n ite d S ta te s , b y I n d u s tr y .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Additional sources of information
The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information describ
ing various factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses.
These data are obtained from information reported by e m p lo y e r s to State
workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam
ines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses
on the circumstances surrounding the injury. These data are not included
in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s but are available from the BLS Office
of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics.
The definitions o f occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays
are from R e c o r d k e e p in g R e q u ir e m e n ts u n d e r th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty a n d
H e a lth A c t o f 1 9 7 0 . For additional data, see O c c u p a tio n a l I n ju r ie s a n d
I lln e s s e s in th e U n ite d S ta te s , b y I n d u s tr y , annual Bureau o f Labor
Statistics bulletin; bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f
Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 17; H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , Bulletin
2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , and annual U .S. Department of Labor press
releases.
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
1.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Comparative Indicators
Labor market indicators
1984
Selected indicators
1984
1986
1985
1985
II
III
IV
II
I
IV
III
I
Employment data
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey)1
Labor Force participation rate...................................................
Employment-population ratio....................................................
Unemployment rate .................................................................
Men ......................................................................................
16 to 24 years ....................................................................
25 years and over...............................................................
Women .................................................................................
16 to 24 years ....................................................................
25 years and over...............................................................
Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and over.................................
64.4
59.5
7.5
7.4
14.4
5.7
7.6
13.3
6.0
2.4
64.8
60.1
7.2
7.0
14.1
5.3
7.4
13.0
5.9
2.0
64.5
59.6
7.5
7.4
14.3
5.7
7.6
13.5
5.9
2.5
64.4
59.7
7.4
7.3
14.5
5.5
7.6
13.1
6.0
2.3
64.5
59.8
7.2
7.1
13.8
5.4
7.5
12.9
5.9
2.1
64.8
60.1
7.3
7.1
14.1
5.4
7.6
13.1
6.0
2.0
64.7
60.0
7.3
7.1
14.2
5.4
7.5
13.0
6.0
2.0
64.7
60.1
7.2
7.0
14.0
5.3
7.4
12.7
5.9
2.0
64.9
60.4
7.0
6.9
14.0
5.2
7.2
13.1
5.5
1.9
65.1
60.5
7.1
6.8
13.3
5.3
7.3
13.2
5.7
1.9
Total .........................................................................................
Private sector ..........................................................................
Goods-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing.......................................................................
Service-producing ....................................................................
94,461
78,477
24,730
19,412
69,731
97,699
81,404
25,057
19,426
72,643
94,013
78,082
24,680
19,394
69,333
94,915
78,898
24,861
19,509
70,055
95,849
79,745
24,973
19,564
70,876
96,640
80,522
25,077
19,564
71,563
97,338
81,143
25,055
19,430
72,283
97,967
81,588
24,986
19,331
72,981
98,815
82,321
25,098
19,384
73,717
Average hours
Private sector ..........................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................
Overtime............................................................................
35.3
40.7
3.4
35.1
40.5
3.3
35.3
40.8
3.5
35.3
40.5
3.5
35.2
40.5
3.6
35.1
40.4
3.4
35.1
40.3
3.3
35.1
40.5
3.2
35.1
40.8
3.4
1.3
.8
.9
.7
3.5
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.2
.7
.8
.7
1.0
.2
1.6
1.3
.6
1.8
3.4
.6
.6
.6
.5
.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
.7
.9
1.1
1.3
.7
1.6
.6
1.0
.8
1.4
.5
.6
1.0
1.2
Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data):1, 2
-
-
3.6
Employment Cost Index
Percent change in the ECI, compensation:3
All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) .....
Private industry workers ..........................................................
Goods-producing4 ...............................................................
Servicing-producing4 ...........................................................
State and local government workers........................................
Workers by bargaining status (private industry)
Union.....................................................................................
Nonunion ...............................................................................
-
-
-
-
-
-
.8
.9
.9
1.0
.4
-
-
.9
1.0
1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 Data for final quarter are preliminary.
3 Quarterly changes calculated using the last month of each quarter.
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Goods-produclng industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Serviceproducing industries include all other private sector industries.
- Data not available.
2.
Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
1984
Selected measures
1984
1985
1986
1985
II
III
IV
II
I
III
IV
I
Compensation data: 1, 2
Employment Cost Index-Compensation (wages, salaries,
benefits)
Civilian nonfarm ..............................................................
Private nonfarm .............................................................
Employment Cost Index-Wages and Salaries
Civilian nonfarm ..............................................................
Private nonfarm ...................................................................
-
-
-
-
0.8
.9
1.3
.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.7
.8
1.6
1.3
0.6
.6
1.1
1.1
.8
.9
1.3
.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
.9
1.1
1.7
1.3
.6
.6
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All items.....
4.0
3.8
1.1
1.2
.3
Producer Price Index
Finished goods...............................................................
Finished consumer goods..............................................
Capital equipment .........................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, components ..................
Crude materials...............................................................
1.7
1.6 .
1.8
1.3
-1.6
1.8
1.5
2.7
-.3
-5.6
-.2
-.3
.5
.6
-1.7
-.5
-.5
-.5
-.4
-2.0
.9
.8
1.1
-.1
-1.2
U.S. Export Price Index....................................................
U.S. Import Price Index....................................................
-
-
-
-
-
Price data1
1.0
.7
.9
-.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-.5
-4.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
.4
4.3
-3.1
-4.0
.2
-3.0
-7.7
”
1.1
.0
-.3
1.3
-.4
-3.1
.7
.7
.4
.2
-2.1
-
-
-
-
.7
-.2
-1.1
2.1
.5
3.2
-4.0
-4.7
-2.3
_
Productivity data1
Output per hour of all persons:
Business sector.............................................................
Nonfarm business sector
...........................................
Nonfinancial corporations
...........................................
4.0
3.0
4.2
.2
-.6
-.4
4.5
3.9
5.0
1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes
are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and Price
data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded.
Productivity data are seasonally adjusted.
3.
1.0
-.5
-.8
.0
-.5
-.3
1.3
1.1
-.2
2.5
3.4
-
2 Excludes Federal and private household workers,
3 Output per hour of all employees,
- Data not available.
Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Quarterly average
Components
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector............................................................
All employees, nonfarm business sector..........................................
Hourly earnings Index:2
All private nonfarm..........................................................................
Employment Cost Index-compensation:
Civilian nonfarm 3 ............................................................................
Private nonfarm ...........................................................................
Union ........................................................................................
Nonunion...................................................................................
State and local governments........................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm3 ............................................................................
Private nonfarm ...........................................................................
Union ........................................................................................
Nonunion...................................................................................
State and local governments .........................................................
Total effective wage adjustments4 .........................................................
From current settlements................................................................
From prior settlements ....................................................................
From cost-of-living provision............................................................
Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements4
First-year adjustments .....................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................................................
Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5
First-year adjustment ......................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................................................
1
2
3
4
1984
IV
I
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.0
1986
1984
I
IV
I
II
III
IV
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
1.2
.7
1.6
1.2
0.7
.8
.6
1.0
.2
1.6
1.3
.8
1.4
3.4
0.6
.6
.5
.6
.7
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
.9
1.3
.8
.7
.3
.2
.2
1.2
1.2
.7
1.4
1.0
.7
.1
.6
.1
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
.2
.8
.2
.5
.1
1.7
1.3
.9
1.5
3.5
1.2
.2
.5
.4
.6
.6
.5
.6
.8
.5
.1
.2
.1
2.3
1.5
3.3
3.2
2.5
2.8
2.0
3.1
3.7
2.0
3.6
2.7
3.5
3.4
2.0
3.0
Seasonally adjusted.
Production or nonsupervisory workers.
Excludes Federal and household workers.
Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four quarters ended in-
1985
1985
1986
II
III
IV
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.2
4.9
4.3
5.2
6.6
4.8
4.4
3.5
4.9
6.3
4.6
4.2
3.1
4.9
6.1
4.9
4.7
3.2
5.4
6.0
4.3
3.9
2.6
4.6
5.7
4.1
3.8
2.9
4.2
5.5
1.0
1.0
.7
1.1
1.0
.6
.0
.4
.2
4.5
4.1
3.4
4.5
5.9
3.7
.8
2.0
.9
4.4
4.1
3.0
4.6
5.6
3.6
.7
2.2
.7
4.5
4.3
3.4
4.8
5.5
3.5
.9
1.9
.7
5.0
4.8
3.6
5.4
5.6
3.5
.9
1.8
.8
4.4
4.1
3.1
4.6
5.6
3.3
.7
1.8
.7
4.2
3.9
3.2
4.3
5.5
3.1
1.7
.8
2.1
1.9
.8
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.4
.3
1.2
3.6
2.8
3.4
2.6
3.4
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.6
most recent data are preliminary.
5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.
- Data not available.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
4.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Number in thousands)
Annual average
1985
Employment status
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1986
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
TOTAL
Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ......
Labor force2...............................
Participation rate 3...............
Total employed 2.....................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ................................
Resident Armed Forces ' ......
Civilian employed ..................
Agriculture ..........................
Nonagricultural industries....
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate 5 ..........
Not in labor force ......................
178,080 179,912 179,501 179,649 179,798 179,967 180,131 180,304 180,470 180,642 180,810 181,361 181,512 181,678 181 843
115,241 117,167 116,958 117,044 116,726 116,976 117,069 117,522 117,814 117,832 117,927 118,477 118,779 118,900 118 929
64.7
65.1
65.2
65.2
64.9
65.0
65.0
65.2
65.3
65.2
65.2
65.3
65.4
65.4
65 4
106,702 108,856 108,574 108,644 108,303 108,575 108,936 109,251 109,513 109,671 109,904 110,646 110,252 110,481 110 587
59.9
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.2
60.3
60.5
60.6
60.7
60.7
60.8
61.0
60.7
60 8
60 8
1,697
1,706
1,702
1,705
1,702
1,704
1,726
1,732
1,700
1,702
1,698
1,691
1,691
1,693
1 695
105,005 107,150 106,872 106,939 106,601 106,871 107,210 107,519 107,813 107,969 108,206 108,955 108,561 108,788 108 892
3,321
3,179
3,353
3,284
3,140
3,120
3,095
3,017
3,058
3,070
3,151
3,299
3,096
3 222
3,285
101,685 103,971 103,519 103,655 103,461 103,751 104,115 104,502 104,755 104,899 105,055 105,655 105,465 105,503 105 670
8,539
8,312
8,384
8,400
8,423
8,401
8,133
8,271
8,301
8,161
8,023
7,831
8,527
8 342
8 419
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.6
71
7.2
70
62,839 62,744 62,543 62,605 63,072 62,991
63,062 62,782 62,656 62,810 62,883 62,885 62,733 62,778 62,914
Men, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ......
Labor force2.............................
Participation rate 3 ..............
Total employed 2 .....................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 ......
Civilian employed ..................
Unemployed...........................
Unemployment rate 5 ..........
85,156
65,386
76.8
60,642
86,025
65,967
76.7
61,447
85,827
65,929
76.8
61,373
85,898
66,012
76.8
61,498
85,970
65,808
76.5
61,175
86,052
65,884
76.6
61,273
86,132
65,945
76.6
61,510
86,217
66,074
76.6
61,629
86,293
66,227
76.7
61,656
86,374
66,176
76.6
61,731
86,459
66,139
76.5
61,793
86,882
66,679
76.7
62,458
86,954
66,838
76.9
62,243
87,035
66,864
76.8
62,288
87,120
66 757
76 6
62,254
71.2
1,551
59,091
4,744
7.3
71.4
1,556
59,891
4,521
6.9
71.5
1,553
59,820
4,556
6.9
71.6
1,556
59,942
4,514
6.8
71.2
1,552
59,623
4,633
7.0
71.2
1,554
59,719
4,611
7.0
71.4
1,574
59,936
4,435
6.7
71.5
1,580
60,049
4,445
6.7
71.4
1,551
60,105
4,571
6.9
71.5
1,552
60,179
4,445
6.7
71.5
1,549
60,244
4,346
6.6
71.9
1,539
60,919
4,221
6.3
71.6
1,539
60,704
4,595
6.9
71 6
1,540
60,748
4,577
6.8
71 5
1 541
60,713
4 503
6.7
92,924
49,855
53.7
46,061
93,886
51,200
54.5
47,409
93,674
51,029
54.5
47,201
93,751
51,032
54.4
47,146
93,828
50,918
54.3
47,128
93,915
51,092
54.4
47,302
93,999
51,124
54.4
47,426
94,087
51,448
54.7
47,622
94,177
51,587
54.8
47,857
94,266
51,655
54.8
47,939
94,351
51,788
54.9
48,111
94,479
51,797
54.8
48,187
94,558
51,941
54.9
48,009
94,643
52,036
55 0
48,194
94,723
52,172
55 1
48 333
49.6
146
45,915
3,794
7.6
50.5
150
47,259
3,791
7.4
50.4
149
47,052
3,828
7.5
50.3
149
46,997
3,886
7.6
50.2
150
46,978
3,790
7.4
50.4
150
47,152
3,790
7.4
50.5
152
47,274
3,698
7.2
50.6
152
47,470
3,826
7.4
50.8
149
47,708
3,730
7.2
50.9
149
47,790
3,716
7.2
51.0
149
47,962
3,677
7.1
51.0
152
48,035
3,610
7.0
50.8
152
47,857
3,932
7.6
50 9
153
48,041
3,842
7.4
154
48,179
3 839
7.4
Women, 16 years and over
*
Noninstitutional population ’ , 2 ......
Labor force2...............................
Participation rate 3...............
Total employed2 ....................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 ......
Civilian employed ..................
Unemployed...........................
Unemployment rate 5 ..........
~ r- —i-----—.- w . . v».
i vsivsw«? iiy u i & o a i o
i
a u ju o io u
iu i
o c d d U ila
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including
Forces).
the resident Armed
5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1985
Annual average
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1986
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .................................
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
Not in labor force ......................
176,383 178,206 177,799 177,944 178,096 178,263 178,405 178,572 178,770 178,940 179,112 179,670 179,821 179,985 180,148
113,544 115,461 115,256 115,339 115,024 115,272 115,343 115,790 116,114 116,130 116,229 116,786 117,088 117,207 117,234
64.4
64.8
64.8
64.8
64.7
64.7
64.8
64.9
64.6
65.0
64.9
65.0
65.1
65.1
65.1
105,005 107,150 106,872 106,939 106,601 106,871 107,210 107,519 107,813 107,969 108,206 108,955 108,561 108,788 108,892
59.5
8,539
7.5
62,839
60.1
8,312
7.2
62,744
60.1
8,384
7.3
62,543
60.1
8,400
7.3
62,605
59.9
8,423
7.3
63,072
60.0
8,401
7.3
62,991
60.1
8,133
7.1
63,062
60.2
8,271
7.1
62,782
60.3
8,301
7.1
62,656
60.3
8,161
7.0
62,810
60.4
8,023
6.9
62,883
60.6
7,831
6.7
62,885
60.4
8,527
7.3
62,733
60.4
8,419
7.2
62,778
60.4
8,342
7.1
62,914
76,219
59,701
78.3
55,769
77,195
60,277
78.1
56,562
76,988
60,165
78.1
56,390
77,068
60,240
78.2
56,544
77,135
60,246
78.1
56,384
77,243
60,158
77.9
56,403
77,306
60,269
78.0
56,636
77,389
60,407
78.1
56,751
77,498
60,526
78.1
56,849
77,566
60,553
78.1
56,897
77,651
60,548
78.0
56,982
78,101
61,212
78.4
57,706
78,171
61,183
78.3
57,384
78,236
61,268
78.3
57,459
78,309
61,053
78.0
57,391
73.2
2,418
53,351
3,932
6.6
73.3
2,278
54,284
3,715
6.2
73.2
2,358
54,032
3,775
6.3
73.4
2,352
54,192
3,696
6.1
73.1
2,260
54,124
3,862
6.4
73.0
2,230
54,173
3,755
6.2
73.3
2,231
54,405
3,633
6.0
73.3
2,171
54,580
3,656
6.1
73.4
2,188
54,661
3,677
6.1
73.4
2,210
54,687
3,656
6.0
73.4
2,278
54,704
3,566
5.9
73.9
2,349
55,356
3,507
5.7
73.4
2,258
55,127
3,799
6.2
73.4
2,411
55,048
3,809
6.2
73.3
2,347
55,043
3,663
6.0
85,429
45,900
53.7
42,793
86,506
47,283
54.7
44,154
86,274
47,103
54.6
43,925
86,380
47,082
54.5
43,883
86,477
47,185
54.6
44,033
86,575
47,190
54.5
44,070
86,652
47,340
54.6
44,197
86,727
47,558
54.8
44,363
86,810
47,663
54.9
44,609
86,901
47,713
54.9
44,656
86,988
47,870
55.0
44,882
87,112
47,895
55.0
44,980
87,185
47,921
55.0
44,710
87,263
47,952
55.0
44,797
87,355
48,107
55.1
45,009
50.1
595
42,198
3,107
6.8
51.0
596
43,558
3,129
6.6
50.9
633
43,292
3,178
6.7
50.8
600
43,283
3,199
6.8
50.9
572
43,461
3,152
6.7
50.9
596
43,474
3,120
6.6
51.0
581
43,616
3,143
6.6
51.2
557
43,806
3,195
6.7
51.4
609
44,000
3,054
6.4
51.4
591
44,065
3,057
6.4
51.6
597
44,285
2,988
6.2
51.6
696
44,284
2,915
6.1
51.3
593
44,117
3,211
6.7
51.3
598
44,199
3,155
6.6
51.5
576
44,433
3,097
6.4
14,735
7,943
53.9
6,444
14,506
7,901
54.5
6,434
14,538
7,988
54.9
6,557
14,496
8,017
55.3
6,512
14,483
7,593
52.4
6,184
14,445
7,924
54.9
6,398
14,448
7,734
53.5
6,377
14,456
7,825
54.1
6,405
14,463
7,925
54.8
6,355
14,472
7,864
54.3
6,416
14,474
7,811
54.0
6,342
14,458
7,678
53.1
6,269
14,465
7,984
55.2
6,467
14,485
,7,987
55.1
6,532
14,484
8,074
55.7
6,492
43.7
309
6,135
1,499
18.9
44.4
305
6,129
1,468
18.6
45.1
362
6,195
1,431
17.9
44.9
332
6,180
1,505
18.8
42.7
308
5,876
1,409
18.6
44.3
294
6,104
1,526
19.3
44.1
283
6,094
1,357
17.5
44.3
289
6,116
1,420
18.1
43.9
261
6,094
1,570
19.8
44.3
269
6,147
1,448
18.4
43.8
276
6,066
1,469
18.8
43.4
254
6,015
1,409
18.4
44.7
246
6,221
1,517
19.0
45.1
276
6,256
1,455
18.2
44.8
298
6,194
1,582
19.6
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .................................
Agriculture............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
Women, 20 years ond over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .................................
Agriculture............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .................................
Agriculture............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
White
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ................................
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
152,347 153,679 153,388 153,489 153,597 153,717 153,819 153,938 154,082 154,203 154,327 154,784 154,889 155,005 155,122
98,492 99,926 99,718 99,771
99,527 99,705 99,817 100,179 100,533 100,478 100,533 100,961 101,232 101,248 101,249
64.6
65.0
65.0
65.0
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.4
65.1
65.2
65.2
65.1
65.2
65.3
65.3
92,120 93,736 93,470 93,574 93,132 93,378 93,684 94,055 94,369 94,507 94,585 95,165 94,803 94,958 95,081
60.5
6,372
6.5
61.0
6,191
6.2
60.9
6,248
6.3
61.0
6,197
6.2
60.6
6,395
6.4
60.7
6,327
6.3
60.9
6,133
6.1
61.1
6,124
6.1
61.2
6,164
6.1
61.3
5,971
5.9
61.3
5,948
5.9
61.5
5,796
5.7
61.2
6,429
6.4
61.3
6,290
6.2
61.3
6,168
6.1
19,348
12,033
62.2
10,119
19,664
12,364
62.9
10,501
19,594
12,364
63.1
10,489
19,620
12,372
63.1
10,466
19,646
12,317
62.7
10,538
19,675
12,354
62.8
10,499
19,700
12,289
62.4
10,560
19,728
12,378
62.7
10,500
19,761
12,412
62.8
10,566
19,790
12,457
62.9
10,518
19,819
12,522
63.2
10,657
19,837
12,548
63.3
10,737
19,863
12,545
63.2
10,690
19,889
12,656
63.6
10,791
19,916
12,740
64.0
10,856
52.3
1,914
15.9
53.4
1,864
15.1
53.5
1,875
15.2
53.3
1,906
15.4
53.6
1,779
14.4
53.4
1,855
15.0
53.6
1,729
14.1
53.2
1,878
15.2
53.5
1,846
14.9
53.1
1,939
15.6
53.8
1,865
14.9
54.1
1,810
14.4
53.8
1,855
14.8
54.3
1,865
14.7
54.5
1,884
14.8
Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ................................
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Employment Data
5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1985
1986
Employment status
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
11,478
7,451
64.9
6,651
11,915
7,698
64.6
6,888
11,826
7,607
64.3
6,814
11,862
7,616
64.2
6,806
11,897
7,669
64.5
6,856
11,933
7,713
64.6
6,870
11,969
7,781
65.0
6,973
12,004
7,844
65.3
7,026
12,040
7,854
65.2
6,982
12,075
7,782
64.4
6,953
12,111
7,772
64.2
6,962
12,148
7,787
64.1
6,998
12,184
7,943
65.2
6,969
12,219
7,920
64.8
7,105
12,255
7,975
65.1
7,144
57.9
800
10.7
57.8
811
10.5
57.6
793
10.4
57.4
810
10.6
57.6
813
10.6
57.6
843
10.9
58.3
808
10.4
58.5
818
10.4
58.0
872
11.1
57.6
829
10.7
57.5
810
10.4
57.6
789
10.1
57.2
974
12.3
58.2
815
10.3
58.3
832
10.4
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.................................
Civilian labor force.....................
Participation rate ................
Employed ................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .................................
Unemployed............................
Unemployment rate.............
1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
6.
because data for the “other races” groups are not presented and Híspanles are included
in both the white and black population groups.
Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1985
Selected categories
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1986
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and
over......................................... 105,005 107,150 106,872 106,939 106,601 106,871 107,210 107,519 107,813 107,969 108,206 108,955 108,561 108,788 108,892
Men.......................................
59,091
59,891
59,820 59,942 59,623 59,719 59,936 60,049 60,105 60,179 60,244 60,919 60,704 60,748 60,713
Women ..................................
45,915 47,259 47,052 46,997 46,978 47,152 47,274 47,470 47,708 47,790 47,962 48,035 47,857 48,041
48,179
Married men, spouse present .. 39,056 39,248 39,362 39,260 38,966 39,096 39,142 39,103 39,272 39,314 39,278 39,615 39,382 39,365 39,555
Married women, spouse
present.................................
25,636 26,336 26,087 26,036 26,174 26,316 26,392 26,531
26,702 26,721
26,804 26,958 26,593 26,656 26,802
Women who maintain families .
5,465
5,597
5,603
5,626
5,643
5,607
5,627
5,556
5,514
5,605
5,693
5,702
5,733
5,771
5,812
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................................
Self-employed workers...........
Unpaid family workers............
1,555
1,553
213
1,535
1,458
185
1,653
1,493
219
1,582
1,498
196
1,530
1,451
159
1,479
1,474
170
1,456
1,444
176
1,438
1,414
179
1,465
1,436
172
1,537
1,361
158
1,572
1,409
164
1,673
1,492
163
1,519
1,444
156
1,689
1,453
172
1,587
1,475
180
93,565
15,770
77,794
1,238
76,556
7,785
335
95,871
16,031
79,841
1,249
78,592
7,811
289
95,493
15,955
79,538
1,218
78,320
7,717
305
95,660
15,936
79,724
1,255
78,469
7,711
290
95,391
16,000
79,391
1,228
78,163
7,728
292
95,523
15,949
79,574
1,251
78,323
7,724
277
95,791
16,075
79,716
1,295
78,421
7,874
303
96,546
16,145
80,401
1,266
79,135
7,846
266
96,530
16,213
80,317
1,271
79,046
7,991
248
96,676
16,157
80,519
1,197
79,322
8,013
249
96,921
16,194
80,727
1,131
79,596
7,903
250
97,911
16,418
81,494
1,256
80,238
7,655
273
97,516
16,104
81,412
1,197
80,216
7,669
270
97,698
16,095
81,604
1,213
80,390
7,644
240
97,831
16,187
81,643
1,321
80,322
7,571
253
5,744
2,430
2,948
13,169
5,590
2,430
2,819
13,489
5,690
2,567
2,767
13,356
5,876
2,607
2,871
13,078
5,544
2,524
2,751
13,439
5,596
2,414
2,766
13,634
5,680
2,480
2,835
13,622
5,554
2,433
2,815
13,496
5,475
2,251
2,89>
13,713
5,498
2,306
2,883
13,645
5,494
2,303
2,864
13,556
5,543
2,364
2,883
13,958
5,377
2,369
2,703
13,817
5,538
2,330
2,953
13,754
5,923
2,603
2,974
13,933
5,512
2,291
2,866
12,704
5,334
2,273
2,730
13,038
5,402
2,380
2,679
12,926
5,550
2,418
2,785
12,612
5,278
2,334
2,675
12,995
5,328
2,251
2,686
13,235
5,413
2,319
2,740
13,179
5,299
2,292
2,730
13,053
5,241
2,115
2,801
13,277
5,295
2,196
2,784
13,194
5,294
2,195
2,760
13,122
5,275
2,208
2,776
13,441
5,158
2,224
2,636
13,369
5,301
2,159
2,861
13,285
5,621
2,430
2,849
13,599
PERSONS AT WORK
PART TIME1
All industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time ...................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time ...................
1 Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such
reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
68 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.
Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Unemployment rates)
1986
1985
Annual average
Selected categories
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Total, all civilian workers......................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............................
Men, 20 years and over.................................
Women, 20 years and over.............................
7.5
18.9
6.6
6.8
7.2
18.6
6.2
6.6
7.3
17.9
6.3
6.7
7.3
18.8
6.1
6.8
7.3
18.6
6.4
6.7
7.3
19.3
6.2
6.6
7.1
17.5
6.0
6.6
7.1
18.1
6.1
6.7
7.1
19.8
6.1
6.4
7.0
18.4
6.0
6.4
6.9
18.8
5.9
6.2
6.7
18.4
5.7
6.1
7.3
19.0
6.2
6.7
7.2
18.2
6.2
6.6
7.1
19.6
6.0
6.4
White, total....................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years...........................
Men, 16 to 19 years ................................
Women, 16 to 19 years...........................
Men, 20 years and over ...............................
Women, 20 years and over...........................
6.5
16.0
16.8
15.2
5.7
5.8
6.2
15.7
16.5
14.8
5.4
5.7
6.3
15.2
15.7
14.5
5.4
5.8
6.2
16.0
16.7
15.1
5.2
5.8
6.4
16.0
16.7
15.2
5.7
5.8
6.3
16.1
17.1
15.0
5.6
5.7
6.1
15.2
17.2
13.0
5.3
5.7
6.1
15.3
16.2
14.4
5.2
5.7
6.1
17.0
18.5
15.3
5.2
5.5
5.9
15.5
15.8
15.1
5.2
5.4
5.9
15.9
16.2
15.5
5.1
5.4
5.7
14.9
14.7
15.1
5.0
5.3
6.4
16.2
16.5
15.8
5.4
5.9
6.2
14.5
15.3
13.7
5.5
5.8
6.1
16.4
17.2
15.6
5.2
5.5
Black, total ....................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years...........................
Men, 16 to 19 years ................................
Women, 16 to 19 years...........................
Men, 20 years and over ...............................
Women, 20 years and over...........................
15.9
42.7
42.7
42.6
14.3
13.5
15.1
40.2
41.0
39.2
13.2
13.1
15.2
39.3
39.4
39.3
13.3
13.2
15.4
40.4
39.3
41.5
13.4
13.5
14.4
39.5
41.0
37.8
12.5
12.7
15.0
41.2
43.1
39.0
12.8
13.1
14.1
35.3
34.9
35.9
11.9
13.1
15.2
38.8
41.1
36.1
13.3
13.5
14.9
39.7
41.0
38.2
13.7
12.1
15.6
40.8
45.2
36.0
13.7
13.6
14.9
41.6
41.0
42.3
13.1
12.6
14.4
41.9
41.3
42.4
12.7
12.0
14.8
39.1
38.7
39.5
13.3
12.5
14.7
43.7
44.1
43.4
12.6
12.2
14.8
42.6
41.4
43.7
12.6
12.5
Hispanic origin, total.......................................
10.7
10.5
10.4
10.6
10.6
10.9
10.4
10.4
11.1
10.7
10.4
10.1
12.3
10.3
10.4
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 .....................................
4.6
5.7
10.3
7.2
9.3
2.4
8.6
4.3
5.6
10.4
6.8
9.3
2.0
8.1
4.3
5.8
10.7
6.9
9.7
2.1
8.2
4.0
5.7
10.8
6.9
10.0
2.0
8.3
4.6
5.8
9.9
6.9
9.5
2.0
8.2
4.4
5.7
10.3
7.0
9.4
2.0
8.2
4.1
5.4
10.8
6.8
9.0
2.0
8.1
4.3
5.6
11.3
6.8
9.3
2.0
8.1
4.2
5.3
10.4
6.8
9.6
2.0
7.9
4.3
5.5
10.0
6.7
8.8
1.9
7.9
4.3
5.3
9.4
6.6
9.0
1.9
7.8
4.3
5.1
9.9
6.4
8.4
1.8
7.6
4.5
5.5
9.9
6.9
9.4
2.0
8.1
4.5
5.6
10.1
6.9
9.1
1.9
8.1
4.2
5.3
9.4
6.7
9.6
1.8
8.1
7.4
10.0
14.3
7.5
7.2
7.8
5.5
8.0
5.9
4.5
13.5
7.2
9.5
13.1
7.7
7.6
7.8
5.1
7.6
5.6
3.9
13.2
7.3
10.6
13.3
7.9
7.7
8.2
5.4
7.4
5.7
3.9
13.2
7.2
7.5
11.0
7.8
7.8
7.8
5.2
7.8
6.1
3.9
11.9
7.3
10.9
13.5
7.7
7.9
7.5
5.3
7.7
5.7
3.9
12.5
7.3
9.9
13.4
7.9
7.9
7.9
5.7
7.6
5.6
4.0
14.0
7.1
8.6
13.1
7.8
7.9
7.6
4.5
7.7
5.5
3.9
14.0
7.2
8.9
13.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
5.3
7.8
5.5
3.8
13.3
7.1
7.7
13.5
7.5
7.3
7.8
5.1
7.7
5.4
3.9
12.9
7.0
7.3
13.4
7.7
7.6
7.8
5.1
7.5
5.4
3.6
12.5
6.9
10.3
12.6
7.3
7.3
7.3
5.0
7.6
5.3
3.8
10.6
6.7
10.9
12.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
4.3
7.2
5.2
3.4
10.9
7.2
9.2
13.2
7.2
7.4
7.0
5.3
7.8
5.9
3.8
14.3
7.2
10.4
13.0
7.2
6.8
7.7
6.1
7.6
5.7
4.0
11.9
7.2
12.8
12.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
5.6
8.1
5.9
3.5
13.4
CHARACTERISTIC
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ....
Mining............................................................
Construction ...................................................
Manufacturing ................................................
Durable goods.............................................
Nondurable goods.......................................
Transportation and public utilities ...................
Wholesale and retail trade.............................
Finance and service industries.......................
Government workers..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................
1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic
reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
8.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Employment Data
Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Civilian workers)
Annual
average
Sex and age
1984
1985
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1986
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Dec.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
Total, 16 years and over............................................................
16 to 24 years.........................................................................
16 to 19 years......................................................................
16 to 17 years ....................................................................
18 to 19 years ....................................................................
20 to 24 years......................................................................
25 years and over....................................................................
25 to 54 years ....................................................................
55 years and over..............................................................
7.5
13.9
18.9
21.2
17.4
11.5
5.8
6.1
4.5
7.2
13.6
18.6
21.0
17.0
11.1
5.6
5.8
4.1
7.3
13.4
17.9
20.8
16.3
11.1
5.7
6.1
4.1
7.3
14.0
18.8
21.2
17.1
11.6
5.5
5.8
4.3
7.3
13.6
18.6
21.6
16.4
11.2
5.8
6.0
4.3
7.3
13.9
19.3
21.7
17.3
11.2
5.6
5.9
4.4
7.1
13.0
17.5
19.1
16.8
10.8
5.5
5.8
4.1
7.1
13.3
18.1
20.3
16.7
10.9
5.6
5.8
4.1
7.1
13.9
19.8
22.7
17.8
10.9
5.4
5.7
3.9
7.0
13.5
18.4
21.4
16.9
11.0
5.4
5.6
3.8
6.9
13.3
18.8
21.1
17.5
10.6
5.3
5.5
3.9
6.7
13.0
18.4
20.9
16.4
10.4
5.1
5.4
3.9
7.3
13.6
19.0
21.8
17.2
10.8
5.7
5.9
4.4
7.2
13.2
18.2
19.4
17.1
10.6
5.7
5.9
4.3
7.1
13.9
19.6
20.9
18.9
10.9
5.4
5.8
3.9
Men, 16 years and over.........................................................
16 to 24 years ....................................................................
16 to 19 years..................................................................
16 to 17 years...............................................................
18 to 19 years...............................................................
20 to 24 years..................................................................
25 years and over...............................................................
25 to 54 years...............................................................
55 years and over..........................................................
7.4
14.4
19.6
21.9
18.3
11.9
5.7
5.9
4.6
7.0
14.1
19.5
21.9
17.9
11.4
5.3
5.6
4.1
7.1
13.8
18.5
21.4
16.8
11.4
5.5
5.8
4.0
7.0
14.7
19.4
22.2
17.6
12.3
5.1
5.3
4.1
7.2
14.2
19.2
23.2
16.4
11.7
5.6
5.8
4.4
7.2
14.6
20.5
22.1
18.7
11.6
5.4
5.6
4.6
6.9
13.8
19.6
21.9
18.1
10.9
5.3
5.6
3.8
6.9
13.8
19.3
20.7
18.3
11.0
5.3
5.5
4.0
7.1
14.6
21.5
24.0
19.9
11.1
5.3
5.5
4.1
6.9
13.9
19.4
20.9
18.7
11.2
5.2
5.4
4.0
6.7
13.5
19.3
21.6
18.0
10.6
5.1
5.4
3.9
6.5
12.8
18.2
20.9
16.2
10.3
5.0
5.3
3.9
7.0
13.6
19.3
23.2
16.6
10.7
5.5
5.7
4.4
7.0
13.6
18.9
20.0
17.8
11.0
5.5
5.7
4.3
6.9
14.5
20.2
21.2
19.7
11.6
5.2
5.5
3.9
Women, 16 years and over...................................................
16 to 24 years...................................................................
16 to 19 years................................................................
16 to 17 years ..............................................................
18 to 19 years ..............................................................
20 to 24 years ................................................................
25 years and over..............................................................
25 to 54 years ..............................................................
55 years and over........................................................
7.6
13.3
18.0
20.4
16.6
10.9
6.0
6.3
4.2
7.4
13.0
17.6
20.0
16.0
10.7
5.9
6.2
4.1
7.5
12.9
17.2
20.0
15.7
10.7
6.0
6.3
4.2
7.6
13.3
18.1
20.1
16.5
10.8
6.1
6.4
4.4
7.5
12.9
17.8
19.9
16.4
10.6
6.0
6.3
4.1
7.4
13.1
17.9
21.2
15.7
10.7
5.9
6.2
4.2
7.3
12.2
15.3
15.8
15.3
10.7
5.8
6.1
4.5
7.5
12.9
16.9
19.8
14.9
10.9
6.0
6.2
4.2
7.3
13.1
17.9
21.2
15.5
10.7
5.6
5.9
3.7
7.2
13.1
17.4
22.0
15.1
10.8
5.6
5.9
3.6
7.1
13.2
18.3
20.6
16.9
10.6
5.4
5.7
3.9
7.0
13.2
18.5
20.8
16.5
10.5
5.3
5.6
3.8
7.6
13.6
18.6
20.2
17.7
11.0
5.9
6.2
4.4
7.4
12.7
17.5
18.7
16.3
10.1
5.9
6.3
4.4
7.4
13.2
19.0
20.5
18.1
10.0
5.8
6.2
3.8
9.
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1985
Reason for unemployment
1984
Job losers ..........................................................
On layoff..........................................................
Other job losers................................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants .........................................................
New entrants ......................................................
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1986
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
4,421
1,171
3,250
823
2,184
1,110
4,139
1,157
2,982
877
2,256
1,039
4,229
1,182
3,047
852
2,283
1,051
3,994
1,068
2,926
870
2,378
1,142
4,167
1,135
3,032
983
2,233
1,018
4,206
1,134
3,072
894
2,184
1,098
4,144
1,112
3,032
875
2,191
941
4,142
1,167
2,975
852
2,335
918
4,040
1,161
2,879
911
2,237
1,045
4,081
1,175
2,906
808
2,226
1,055
3,933
1,132
2,801
876
2,225
1,033
3,776
1,163
2,613
996
2,066
1,025
4,162
1,152
3,010
1,001
2,292
1,097
4,246
1,164
3,082
1,002
2,197
1,000
4,034
1,028
3,006
1,110
2,191
1,059
51.8
13.7
38.1
9.6
25.6
13.0
49.8
13.9
35.9
10.6
27.1
12.5
50.3
14.0
36.2
10.1
27.1
12.5
47.6
12.7
34.9
10.4
28.4
13.6
49.6
13.5
36.1
11.7
26.6
12.1
50.2
13.5
36.6
10.7
26.1
13.1
50.8
13.6
37.2
10.7
26.9
11.5
50.2
14.2
36.1
10.3
28.3
11.1
49.1
14.1
35.0
11.1
27.2
12.7
50.0
14.4
35.6
9.9
27.2
12.9
48.8
14.0
34.7
10.9
27.6
12.8
48.0
14.8
33.2
12.7
26.3
13.0
48.7
13.5
35.2
11.7
26.8
12.8
50.3
13.8
36.5
11.9
26.0
11.8
48.1
12.2
35.8
13.2
26.1
12.6
3.9
.7
1.9
1.0
3.6
.8
2.0
.9
3.7
.7
2.0
.9
3.5
.8
2.1
1.0
3.6
.9
1.9
.9
3.6
.8
1.9
1.0
3.6
.8
1.9
.8
3.6
.7
2.0
.8
3.5
.8
1.9
.9
3.5
.7
1.9
.9
3.4
.8
1.9
.9
3.2
.9
1.8
.9
3.6
.9
2.0
.9
3.6
.9
1.9
.9
3.4
.9
1.9
.9
PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers.........................................................
On layoff........................................................
Other job losers.............................................
Job leavers.......................................................
Reentrants........................................................
New entrants ...................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers ..........................................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants .........................................................
New entrants ......................................................
10.
Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1985
Weeks of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks ..
5 to 14 weeks ........
15 weeks and over...
15 to 26 weeks ...
27 weeks and over
Mean duration in weeks ...
Median duration in weeks
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1986
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
3,350
2,451
2,737
1,104
1,634
3,498
2,509
2,305
1,025
1,280
3,528
2,516
2,374
1,031
1,343
3,607
2,594
2,274
1,063
3,466
2,536
2,328
1,033
1,295
3,525
2,514
2,329
1,078
1,251
3,422
2,508
2,274
1,047
1,227
3,484
2,505
2,307
1,035
1,272
3,430
2,536
2,277
1,057
3,374
2,460
2,188
973
1,215
3,311
2,441
2,056
969
1,087
3,562
2,622
2,340
1,149
1,191
3,589
2,640
2,258
1,099
1,159
3,628
2,685
2,135
1,220
3,465
2,448
2,205
894
1,311
18.2
7.9
15.6
16.1
15.5
6.8
6.8
15.0
6.7
15.5
7.1
15.5
7.2
15.5
6.9
15.4
7.0
15.7
6.9
15.4
6.9
14.9
15.3
6.9
14.4
14.3
6.5
1,211
6.8
6.8
6.8
1,001
1,134
11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted
State
Mar.
1985
Mar.
1986
Arkansas..................................................
California..................................................
10.0
11.1
6.2
9.6
7.3
9.6
11.3
6.4
8.6
7.1
Colorado ..................................................
Florida.....................................................
6.2
5.1
6.2
8.9
5.9
4.0
5.5
7.0
5.8
Hawaii......................................................
Idaho.......................................................
Illinois ......................................................
Indiana ....................................................
6.6
5.3
9.3
8.1
8.9
5.7
5.7
9.8
9.1
7.4
9.3
5.4
10.0
11.7
6.6
8.6
6.2
11.3
13.1
6.6
4.9
4.7
10.4
7.0
11.3
7.1
4.5
4.3
9.6
7.2
11.2
6.1
Mar.
1985
Mar.
1986
9.2
60
84
4.2
92
65
75
3.8
New Jersey.............................................
6.6
90
72
56
7.8
4.9
92
73
57
8.1
Ohio .......................................................
9.7
7.4
9.9
8.4
5.7
7.9
80
9.8
7.9
4.7
7.3
60
8.5
7.2
6.8
7.3
52
8.2
8.4
5.7
5.7
5.9
89
15.0
8.5
5.2
5.5
82
11 7
8.3
79
10.6
State
Oregon...................................................
Pennsylvania...........................................
Rhode Island...........................................
South Carolina........................................
Kansas ....................................................
Kentucky..................................................
Maine.......................................................
Tennessee .............................................
Texas .....................................................
Utah ..........................................
Vermont..................................................
Minnesota ................................................
Mississippi................................................
- Data not available.
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data
Wisconsin...............................................
published elsewhere because of the continued updating of the
database.
12. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
State
Mar., 1985
Feb., 1986
Mar., 1986p
Alabama...............
Alaska ..................
Arizona .................
Arkansas..............
California..............
1,404.2
219.4
1,262.4
785.3
10,830.1
1,432.7
218.4
1,320.7
809.7
11,072.5
1,428.1
220.8
1,332.9
814.3
11,120.7
Colorado..............
Connecticut ..........
Delaware...............
District of Columbia
Florida................. .
1,414.9
1,543.2
284.9
621.4
4,430.3
1,430.3
1,568.5
287.6
632.1
4,540.2
1,441.7
1,581.1
292.0
635.2
4,569.6
Georgia.................
Hawaii.................. .
Idaho .............:......
Illinois.................. .
Indiana ................ .
2,519.3
424.6
328.1
4,727.2
2,128.2
2,596.1
427.9
331.4
4,692.7
2,184.5
Iowa......................
Kansas................ .
Kentucky...............
Louisiana...............
Maine...................
1,057.3
964.2
1,228.3
1,593.1
440.1
1,063.2
967.9
1,247.8
1,570.7
455.9
Maryland..............
Massachusetts..... .
Michigan...............
Minnesota.............
Mississippi.............
Missouri...............
Montana...............
1,849.1
2,888.2
3,446.1
1,823.0
825.9
2,051.7
271.8
1,869.3
2,917.9
3,524.2
1,844.5
842.4
2,085.9
270.8
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State
Mar., 1985
Feb., 1986 Mar., 1986p
Nebraska................................................
Nevada ...................................................
New Hampshire .......................................
643.5
436.3
447.7
642.0
448.9
471.8
648.0
453.5
473.9
New Jersey.............................................
New Mexico ............................................
New York................................................
North Carolina ........................................
North Dakota ..........................................
3,343.4
513.1
7,633.9
2,620.9
245.1
3,408.0
519.1
7,749.8
2,675.1
243.7
3,443.9
519.9
7,798.7
2,695.6
244.7
Ohio .......................................................
Oklahoma...............................................
2,600.1 Oregon...................................................
430.0 Pennsylvania...........................................
333.3 Rhode Island...........................................
4,724.5
2,203.1 South Carolina........................................
South Dakota..........................................
1,069.8 Tennessee ..............................................
979.8 Texas .....................................................
1,257.0 Utah .......................................................
1,569.6
456.3 Vermont..................................................
Virginia...................................................
1,890.3 Washington .............................................
2,945.6 West Virginia...........................................
3,528.7 Wisconsin...............................................
1,850.5
846.0 Wyoming.................................................
2,111.6 Puerto Rico .............................................
272.4 Virgin Islands ..........................................
4,282.7
1,181.1
1,008.3
4,652.0
417.6
4,387.1
1,158.3
1,024.4
4,706.9
421.0
4,421.6
1,159.8
1,029.1
4,738.1
422.2
1,278.5
243.6
1,831.0
6,630.2
614.3
1,313.8
242.0
1,878.9
6,709.0
629.4
1,327.6
244.5
1,900.5
6,714.1
634.0
218.8
2,392.6
1,670.8
583.9
1,927.8
229.8
2,478.8
1,715.8
583.8
1,958.9
229.0
2,496.5
1,729.4
586.7
1,967.2
196.0
691.9
37.6
194.9
696.7
37.3
196.5
-
37.0
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere
because of the continued updating of the database.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
13.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Employment Data
Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1985
1986
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
T O T A L .............................................
P R IV A T E S E C T O R .........................
94,461
78,477
97,699
81,404
97,120
80,962
97,421
81,208
97,473
81,260
97,707
81,366
97,977
81,634
98,217
81,765
98,559
82,073
98,801
82,317
99,086
82,573
99,496
82,992
99,656
83,108
99,834 100,040
83,295 83,499
G O O D S P R O D U C IN G .......................
M in in g ...................................................
24,730
974
613
25,057
969
616
25,090
982
623
25,066
982
624
25,010
974
619
24,980
969
619
25,015
965
615
24,962
962
615
25,051
960
610
25,089
954
605
25,155
952
603
25,300
947
598
25,251
929
580
25,161
902
556
25,182
866
522
4,345
1,158
4,662
1,240
4,641
1,233
4,658
1,234
4,638
1,223
4,660
1,228
4,688
1,242
4,721
1,252
4,753
1,262
4,754
1,269
4,770
1,274
4,906
1,329
4,883
1,327
4,870
1,304
4,954
1,308
19,412
13,310
19,426
13,214
19,467
13.249
19,426
13,203
19,398
13,169
19,351
13,137
19,362
13,145
19,279
13,087
19,338
13,140
19,381
13,169
19,433
13,219
19,447
13,222
19,439
13,216
19,389
13,175
19,362
13,167
11,522
7,749
11,566
7,692
11,608
7,730
11,586
7,704
11,560
7,671
11,509
7,630
11,519
7,638
11,449
7,586
11,493
7,627
11,512
7,636
11,534
7,651
11,541
7,650
11,527
7,631
11,480
7,592
11,470
7,596
707
487
595
858
703
497
600
816
694
497
600
823
697
493
599
819
694
494
598
815
697
494
599
806
700
499
601
798
701
494
598
795
708
496
600
799
712
497
601
804
715
499
604
810
720
499
607
804
719
499
610
802
716
500
607
792
715
500
610
787
334
1,464
303
1,472
306
1,479
305
1,477
304
1,472
302
1,467
289
1,467
291
1,462
292
1,465
299
1,466
303
1,463
300
1,462
299
1,457
292
1,456
288
1,455
Oil and gas extraction ...............
C o n s tru c tio n ......................................
General building contractors......
M a n u fa c tu rin g ...................................
Production workers...................
D u ra b le g o o d s .................................
Production workers...................
Lumber and wood products........
Furniture and fixtures.................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...
Primary metal industries .............
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products...................................
Fabricated metal products..........
Mar.»
Apr.p
Machinery, except electrical........
Electrical and electronic
equipment................................
Transportation equipment...........
Motor vehicles and equipment ....
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries.................................
2,197
2,181
2,207
2,203
2,191
2,175
2,167
2,143
2,143
2,137
2,133
2,137
2,128
2,118
2,108
2,208
1,906
860
714
2,208
1,990
872
724
2,223
1,982
876
726
2,216
1,981
873
723
2,205
1,990
875
725
2,190
1,985
868
724
2,194
1,995
868
725
2,175
1,986
861
722
2,179
2,008
872
722
2,180
2,017
868
723
2,186
2,025
875
725
2,188
2,023
868
725
2,187
2,020
860
726
2,185
2,000
846
728
2,181
2,010
850
727
384
376
377
378
376
372
373
373
373
375
374
376
379
378
377
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ...........................
7,890
5,561
7,860
5,523
7,859
5,519
7,840
5,499
7,838
5,498
7,842
5,507
7,843
5,507
7,830
5,501
7,845
5,513
7,869
5,533
7,899
5,568
7,906
5,572
7,912
5,585
7,909
5,583
7,892
5,571
Food and kindred products........
Tobacco manufactures...............
Textile mill products...................
Apparel and other textile
products...................................
Paper and allied products ..........
1,619
65
746
1,637
65
703
1,630
66
707
1,634
66
701
1,644
66
699
1,630
65
696
1,638
64
697
1,633
65
695
1,636
64
698
1,638
65
700
1,655
64
700
1,652
64
701
1,664
64
703
1,665
64
705
1,655
64
702
1,197
681
1,162
683
1,164
681
1,153
682
1,142
684
1,160
684
1,152
683
1,155
681
1,158
682
1,160
688
1,171
686
1,173
687
1,161
688
1,154
688
1,155
689
Printing and publishing...............
Chemicals and allied products....
Petroleum and coal products......
Rubber and mise, plastics
products...................................
Leather and leather products .....
1,372
1,048
189
1,422
1,042
177
1,411
1,049
182
1,414
1,044
181
1,419
1,042
180
1,426
1,040
178
1,429
1,038
176
1,427
1,040
170
1,431
1,036
170
1,442
1,033
169
1,442
1,033
169
1,447
1,032
168
1,454
1,031
167
1,457
1,029
167
1,460
1,026
166
782
192
795
175
795
174
791
174
789
173
787
176
792
174
790
174
795
175
800
174
804
175
810
172
810
170
811
169
809
166
S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ....................
T ra n s p o rta tio n an d p u b lic
u tilitie s .................................................
69,731
72,643
72,030
72,355
72,463
72,727
72,962
73,255
73,508
73,712
73,931
74,196
74,405
74,673
74,858
5,171
2,929
5,300
3,059
5,278
3,037
5,301
3,057
5,295
3,052
5,302
3,060
5,282
3,038
5,317
3,078
5,327
3,087
5,342
3,106
5,350
3,115
5,357
3,123
5,344
3,109
5,348
3,116
5,345
3,110
2,242
2,241
2,241
2,244
2,243
2,242
2,244
2,239
2,240
2,236
2,235
2,234
2,235
2,232
2,235
5,550
3,272
2,278
5,769
3,417
2,352
5,733
3,388
2,345
5,748
3,402
2,346
5,768
3,414
2,354
5,773
3,426
2,347
5,791
3,434
2,357
5,805
3,442
2,363
5,830
3,454
2,376
5,833
3,464
2,369
5,848
3,473
2,375
5,872
3,487
2,385
5,886
3,498
2,388
5,897
3,506
2,391
5,920
3,521
2,399
16,584
2,278
2,655
17,425
2,354
2,827
17,280
2,348
2,794
17,392
2,371
2,823
17,425
2,361
2,831
17,453
2,344
2,842
17,514
2,354
2,849
17,539
2,356
2,852
17,610
2,365
2,869
17,640
2,367
2,865
17,702
2,353
2,882
17,825
2,359
2,920
17,904
2,377
2,924
17,986
2,389
2,944
18,019
2,387
2,958
1,802
5,403
1,892
5,692
1,884
5,642
1,890
5,660
1,895
5,692
1,895
5,728
1,902
5,725
1,906
5,740
1,912
5,758
1,914
5,774
1,916
5,803
1,930
5,821
1,936
5,855
1,940
5,888
1,953
5,899
5,682
2,855
1,753
1,074
5,924
2,978
1,816
1,130
5,858
2,941
1,799
1,118
5,888
2,956
1,808
1,124
5,906
2,968
1,814
1,124
5,932
2,984
1,817
1,131
5,959
2,998
1,827
1,134
5,987
3,011
1,831
1,145
6,011
3,023
1,837
1,151
6,048
3,038
1,850
1,160
6,068
3,054
1,852
1,162
6,098
3,068
1,863
1,167
6,131
3,086
1,874
1,171
6,159
3,095
1,885
1,179
6,206
3,123
1,896
1,187
20,761
4,076
6,104
21,930
4,453
6,267
21,723
4,402
6,218
21,813
4,424
6,240
21,856
4,441
6,243
21,926
4,446
6,260
22,073
4,489
6,291
22,155
4,504
6,308
22,244
4,539
6,333
22,365
4,571
6,363
22,450
4,607
6,389
22,540
4,625
6,409
22,592
4,652
6,435
22,744
4,690
6,473
22,827
4,716
6,503
15,984
2,807
3,712
9,465
16,295
2,875
3,780
9,640
16,158
2,859
3,749
9,550
16,213
2,873
3,759
9,581
16,213
2,872
3,765
9,576
16,341
2,878
3,788
9,675
16,343
2,886
3,789
9,668
16,452
2,904
3,818
9,730
16,486
2,892
3,827
9,767
16,484
2,904
3,833
9,747
16,513
2,914
3,827
9,772
16,504
2,918
3,844
9,742
16,548
2,915
3,849
9,784
16,539
2,917
3,853
9,769
16,541
2,921
3,860
9,760
Production workers.....................
Transportation...........................
Communication and public
utilities......................................
W h o le s a le t r a d e ...............................
Durable goods...........................
Nondurable goods.....................
R etail t r a d e .........................................
General merchandise stores.......
Food stores...............................
Automotive dealers and service
stations....................................
Eating and drinking places.........
F in a n c e , In su ra n c e , a n d re a l
e s ta te ...................................................
Finance .....................................
Insurance..................................
Real estate................................
S e r v ic e s ...............................................
Business services......................
Health services ..........................
G o v e rn m e n t .......................................
Federal......................................
State.........................................
Local.........................................
p = preliminary
NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
revision.
14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry,
monthly data seasonally adjusted
Annual
average
1984
1986
1985
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P Apr.p
P R IV A T E S E C T O R ..................................................
35.3
35.1
35.0
35.1
35.1
35.0
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.0
35.1
35.2
35.0
35.0
35.0
C O N S T R U C T I O N ............................................................
37.7
37.7
38.0
37.6
37.2
37.6
37.5
37.9
37.9
37.4
37.1
38.5
36.3
36.9
38.0
M A N U F A C T U R IN G ........................................................
40.7
3.4
40.5
3.3
40.2
3.4
40.4
3.1
40.4
3.2
40.3
3.2
40.6
3.3
40.7
3.3
40.7
3.4
40.7
3.4
41.0
3.6
41.0
3.6
40.6
3.4
40.7
3.4
40.6
3.5
Overtime hours...........................................
Lumber and wood products.............................
Furniture and fixtures.......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products.......................
Primary metal industries ..................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products.........
Fabricated metal products...............................
41.4
3.6
39.9
39.7
42.0
41.7
40.6
41.4
41.2
3.5
39.8
39.4
41.9
41.5
41.1
41.3
40.9
3.6
39.5
39.3
42.0
41.0
40.2
41.1
41.1
3.2
39.8
38.9
42.1
41.2
40.7
41.1
41.2
3.3
40.1
38.9
41.9
41.6
41.2
41.3
41.0
3.3
39.7
38.8
42.0
41.4
41.2
41.3
41.3
3.4
40.0
39.2
42.0
41.7
41.8
41.4
41.3
3.5
40.1
39.4
42.0
41.5
41.0
41.6
41.3
3.5
40.3
39.4
42.1
41.8
41.7
41.5
41.3
3.6
39.9
39.4
41.6
41.8
42.0
41.4
41.7
3.8
40.2
40.1
41.7
42.2
41.9
41.6
41.7
3.7
40.4
40.4
42.8
41.8
41.6
41.6
41.3
3.5
39.9
39.7
41.8
42.1
41.7
41.5
41.4
3.6
40.2
39.6
41.8
42.0
41.7
41.3
41.2
3.7
40.1
39.2
42.5
41.0
40.1
41.2
Machinery except electrical .............................
Electrical and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment.................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.......................
Instruments and related products.....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing............................
41.9
41.0
42.7
43.8
41.3
39.4
41.5
40.6
42.7
43.5
41.0
39.4
41.2
40.2
42.3
43.3
40.7
39.0
41.4
40.4
42.6
43.5
40.9
39.3
41.6
40.6
42.3
42.7
41.1
39.4
41.3
40.3
42.5
43.3
40.7
39.0
41.6
40.7
42.9
43.8
40.7
39.3
41.6
40.5
42.9
43.8
40.9
39.8
41.6
40.6
42.8
43.8
40.8
39.9
41.6
41.0
42.6
43.7
41.1
39.7
41.8
41.4
43.2
44.2
41.9
40.0
41.7
41.2
43.0
43.6
41.2
40.4
41.5
40.8
42.7
43.5
41.1
39.8
41.6
41.0
42.6
43.3
41.3
39.9
41.6
40.9
42.2
42.7
41.2
39.9
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ......................................................
Overtime hours...........................................
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products....................
Paper and allied products ................................
39.6
3.1
39.8
38.9
39.9
36.4
43.1
39.5
3.1
40.0
37.2
39.7
36.3
43.1
39.1
3.0
39.6
35.4
38.8
35.6
43.0
39.4
2.9
40.1
37.0
38.9
36.2
43.0
39.4
3.0
39.6
36.6
39.4
36.3
42.9
39.4
3.0
40.0
34.6
39.1
36.3
42.7
39.6
3.1
39.9
36.8
40.0
36.4
43.0
39.8
3.1
40.2
36.9
40.7
36.5
43.1
39.9
3.2
40.3
38.2
40.7
36.6
43.3
39.8
3.2
39.9
35.2
41.0
36.8
43.3
40.1
3.4
40.3
38.0
41.3
37.0
43.6
40.0
3.4
40.2
38.7
40.9
37.0
43.7
39.6
3.2
39.7
38.3
40.4
36.2
43.6
39.8
3.3
39.9
38.7
40.6
36.5
43.6
39.7
3.3
39.8
37.6
41.2
36.5
43.1
Printing and publishing.....................................
Chemicals and allied products..........................
Petroleum and coal products...........................
Leather and leather products ...........................
37.9
41.9
43.7
36.8
37.7
41.9
43.0
37.3
37.6
41.9
42.0
37.0
37.4
41.9
41.7
37.1
37.5
42.0
42.6
37.0
37.5
41.8
42.9
37.0
37.9
41.8
43.3
37.3
38.0
41.6
43.4
37.8
37.9
41.7
44.3
37.9
37.8
41.9
43.1
37.7
38.2
42.0
43.7
37.8
38.0
41.9
43.6
37.6
37.8
41.8
43.7
36.6
38.0
42.1
44.5
36.9
37.9
41.9
44.5
36.3
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S ....
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.2
39.6
39.5
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.4
W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ...................................................
38.6
38.7
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.6
38.6
38.7
38.6
38.7
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.7
38.8
R E T A I L T R A D E ..............................................................
30.0
29.7
29.7
29.9
29.9
29.7
29.6
29.6
29.5
29.5
29.3
29.5
29.4
29.4
29.3
32.8
32.8
32.7
32.8
32.8
32.7
32.8
32.8
32.9
32.8
32.8
32.9
32.9
33.0
32.8
Overtime hours.................................... .......
D u ra b le g o o d s ..............................................................
S E R V IC E S .......................................................................
= preliminary
NO TE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
p
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
benchmark adjustment.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry
Industry
Anrtuai
ave rage
1985
1986
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
PRIVATE SECTOR.......................................
Seasonally adjusted .................................
$8.33
“
$8.58
“
$8.54
8.54
$8.53
8.55
$8.56
8.59
$8.54
8.57
$8.54
8.60
$8.68
8.65
$8.65
8.64
$8.68
8.67
$8.73
8.74
$8.73
8.67
$8.75
8.72
$8.74
8.74
$8.7«
8.74
Mar.p Apr.p
MINING........................................................
11.63
11.95
11.93
11.86
11.99
11.88
11.95
12.00
11.95
12.02
12.22
12.18
12.27
12.28
12.34
CONSTRUCTION..........................................
12.12
12.26
12.21
12.19
12.12
12.16
12.22
12.40
12.36
12.22
12.42
12.29
12.29
12.17
12.20
MANUFACTURING.......................................
9.18
9.52
9.48
9.48
9.50
9.53
9.48
9.55
9.54
9.61
9.72
9.68
9.68
9.70
9.70
Durable go ods............................................
Lumber and wood products.........................
Furniture and fixtures..................................
Stone, clay, and glass products...................
Primary metal industries..............................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products....
Fabricated metal products ..........................
9.74
8.03
6.85
9.57
11.47
12.99
9.38
10.09
8.20
7.19
9.83
11.68
13.35
9.66
10.03
8.04
7.08
9.80
11.64
13.32
9.64
10.04
8.12
7.11
9.80
11.64
13.31
9.63
10.08
8.24
7.18
9.84
11.65
13.29
9.65
10.10
8.20
7.22
9.89
11.78
13.51
9.66
10.05
8.26
7.22
9.87
11.63
13.37
9.61
10.15
8.31
7.29
9.90
11.69
13.45
9.70
10.14
8.29
7.31
9.86
11.61
13.34
9.68
10.21
8.28
7.34
9.90
11.76
13.44
9.73
10.34
8.34
7.40
9.94
11.84
13.46
9.88
10.27
8.28
7.38
9.95
11.81
13.49
9.82
10.28
8.34
7.33
9.93
11.96
13.82
9.81
10.29
8.29
7.36
9.92
11.99
13.84
9.83
10.28
8.29
7.36
9.98
12.01
13.92
9.81
Machinery, except electrical ........................
Electrical and electronic equipment..............
Transportation equipment............................
Motor vehicles and equipment...................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......... .............
9.96
9.04
12.22
12.74
8.85
7.04
10.29
9.47
12.71
13.44
9.19
7.28
10.17
9.40
12.63
13.40
9.11
7.22
10.22
9.39
12.63
13.38
9.13
7.28
10.28
9.46
12.66
13.39
9.15
7.28
10.31
9.47
12.65
13.38
9.20
7.30
10.27
9.50
12.65
13.34
9.22
7.26
10.39
9.55
12.78
13.51
9.28
7.30
10.41
9.56
12.77
13.46
9.27
7.30
10.48
9.61
12.83
13.55
9.30
7.35
10.55
9.68
13.06
13.84
9.42
7.47
10.50
9.61
12.90
13.69
9.35
7.47
10.53
9.60
12.87
13.62
9.42
7.48
10.58
9.63
12.89
13.71
9.42
7.48
10.57
9.63
12.86
13.64
9.39
7.46
Nondurable goods.......................................
Food and kindred products..........................
Tobacco manufactures................................
Textile mill products....................................
Apparel and other textile products...............
Paper and allied products...........................
8.37
8.38
11.27
6.46
5.55
10.41
8.68
8.54
12.05
6.71
5.73
10.82
8.67
8.59
12.16
6.70
5.74
10.72
8.64
8.58
12.65
6.68
5.69
10.75
8.65
8.55
12.83
6.69
5.70
10.79
8.72
8.54
12.91
6.69
5.70
10.91
8.67
8.47
12.44
6.72
5.68
10.86
8.70
8.51
11.47
6.75
5.75
10.90
8.69
8.49
11.45
6.76
5.73
10.91
8.75
8.58
12.08
6.79
5.75
10.97
8.84
8.68
11.90
6.83
5.80
11.07
8.83
8.70
12.01
6.84
5.81
11.02
8.83
8.68
12.48
6.83
5.78
10.99
8.85
8.72
12.85
6.86
5.79
11.02
8.86
8.75
13.02
6.86
5.80
11.04
Printing and publishing................................
Chemicals and allied products.....................
Petroleum and coal products.......................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products .
Leather and leather products......................
9.40
11.08
13.43
8.29
5.70
9.69
11.57
14.04
8.53
5.82
9.60
11.48
14.18
8.48
5.84
9.60
11.46
14.00
8.45
5.83
9.61
11.52
13.97
8.50
5.83
9.67
11.60
14.03
8.54
5.83
9.73
11.62
13.99
8.51
5.80
9.79
11.67
14.07
8.55
5.82
9.75
11.72
13.97
8.53
5.76
9.81
11.82
14.06
8.62
5.83
9.90
11.87
14.22
8.72
5.83
9.83
11.87
14.24
8.68
5.85
9.84
11.83
14.19
8.68
5.83
9.90
11.79
14.23
8.71
5.86
9.87
11.82
14.29
8.68
5.88
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
11.11
11.38
11.27
11.24
11.32
11.35
11.40
11.52
11.46
11.57
11.60
11.58
11.63
11.60
11.62
WHOLESALE TRADE...................................
8.96
9.26
9.24
9.24
9.28
9.27
9.25
9.33
9.25
9.32
9.41
9.38
9.42
9.38
9.36
RETAIL TRADE............................................
5.88
5.97
5.96
5.97
5.94
5.93
5.91
5.99
5.97
6.00
6.02
6.05
6.07
6.06
6.05
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
7.62
7.93
7.85
7.83
7.95
7.87
7.90
8.03
8.00
8.05
8.14
8.13
8.27
8.27
8.23
SERVICES ...................................................
7.64
7.95
7.89
7.88
7.91
7.86
7.87
8.04
8.04
8.10
8.16
8.17
8.22
8.22
8.18
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
benchmark revision.
16.
Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls by industry
1984
P R IV A T E S E C T O R
Seasonally adjusted....................................
Constant (1977) dollars .................................
1985
19£6
1985
Annual average
Industry
Apr.
June
May
Sept.
Aug.
July
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
Apr.p
Mar.p
S294.05 $301.16 $298.05 $298.55 $303.02 $301.46 $302.32 $305.54 $303.62 $302.93 $308.17 $303.80 $302.75 $304.15 $304.15
_ 298.90 300.11 301.51 299.95 301.86 303.62 303.26 303.45 306.77 305.18 305.20 305.90 305.90
"
173.48 171.60 170.80 170.50 172.56 171.48 171.68 173.01 171.54 170.47 172.93 170.01 169.99 171.74
M IN IN G ..............................................................................
503.58
518.63
516.57
515.91
523.96
509.65
517.44
524.40
516.24
520.47
535.24
540.79
520.25
520.67
521.98
C O N S T R U C T IO N ............................................................
456.92 462.20
461.54
464.44
461.77
469.38 468.03
477.40
472.15
448.47
458.30 457.19
431.38
444.21
461.16
M A N U F A C T U R IN G
373.63
220.43
385.56 380.15 382.04 385.70 382.15
219.69 217.85 218.18 219.65 217.38
382.99
217.48
389.64
220.63
388.28 393.05 404.35
219.37 221.19 226.91
Stone, clay, and glass products.......................
Primary metal industries ..................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products........
Fabricated metal products ...............................
403.24
320.40
271.95
401.94
478.30
527.39
388.33
415.71
326.36
283.29
411.88
484.72
548.69
398.96
410.06
325.54
276.53
418.35
485.34
559.31
394.13
412.05
333.70
285.19
418.49
480.32
550.84
395.93
420.21
337.39
290.14
420.75
487.47
554.14
403.52
418.78
334.92
292.40
418.06
480.65
545.61
401.72
Electrical and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment.................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.......................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing............................
417.32 427.04
370.64 384.48
521.79 542.72
558.01 584.64
365.51 376.79
277.38 286.83
417.99 421.06 427.65 420.65
376.00 377.48 385.02 376.91
538.04 539.30 539.32 531.30
586.92 587.38 579.79 574.00
368.96 372.50 376.07 370.76
280.86 285.38 286.10 281.78
331.45 342.86
333.52 341.60
438.40 448.26
257.75 266.39
202.02 208.00
448.67 466.34
337.26
336.73
424.38
257.28
203.20
458.82
356.26 365.31
464.25 484.78
586.89 603.72
360.00 358.08 358.45 360.69 369.74
481.01 480.17 484.99 482.56 483.39
595.56 583.80 596.52 606.10 605.77
Constant (1977) dollars..................................
D u ra b le g o o d s ...............................................................
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .......................................................
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 ...........................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC
U T I L I T I E S ......................................................................
411.64
325.61
275.16
415.52
479.57
543.05
395.79
410.23
317.58
276.83
411.60
480.73
547.45
395.24
339.55
343.20
469.32
260.52
205.98
460.10
345.69 350.58 346.83
209.76 217.09 215.50
437.73
448.37
417.31
336.19
281.46
418.20
486.97
552.86
400.48
342.54
340.29
483.69
266.93
209.19
463.97
341.82
341.60
437.65
258.23
206.34
465.86
422.10 432.22
383.80 387.73
531.30 544.43
566.95 586.33
373.41 381.41
284.59 292.00
348.00
347.21
438.15
275.40
209.88
473.06
344.20
341.34
461.52
270.14
207.32
465.89
423.72
327.06
292.13
413.82
491.57
557.76
404.77
393.98 389.14 394.79 392.85
220.47 218.50 222.92
430.97 438.06 451.54
388.14 396.89 408.50
545.28 550.41 578.56
586.86 590.78 626.95
377.29 384.09 400.35
294.19 295.47 303.28
346.73
343.00
448.84
276.48
210.86
472.40
350.00
344.92
439.71
279.75
212.18
477.20
421.48
327.76
285.14
403.16
503.52
579.06
402.21
426.01
331.60
289.98
411.68
505.98
579.90
405.98
423.54
332.43
287.04
424.15
496.01
570.72
403.19
437.85 435.94
394.97 389.76
554.70 544.40
596.88 584.30
384.29 386.22
297.31 293.96
442.24
395.79
551.69
597.76
389.99
299.20
438.66
391.94
546.55
589.25
384.99
296.91
346.14
338.52
456.77
273.88
206.92
473.67
351.35
343.57
481.88
278.52
211.34
478.27
349.97
344.75
481.74
279.20
209.96
473.62
425.18
328.72
290.77
413.92
493.66
557.14
406.55
439.45
335.27
304.14
414.50
504.38
565.32
420.89
358.02
353.28
452.20
283.45
215.18
490.40
350.55
347.13
452.78
278.39
212.65
479.37
370.59 369.00 377.19 373.09
496.17 493.31 496.36 495.26
615.17 611.59 626.12 635.91
373.98 369.53 373.76 384.12
487.81 486.38 496.44 504.48
620.49 620.27 610.20 621.41
345.61 350.20
218.04 221.54
346.72
218.63
346.36
216.92
351.41
219.41
350.58
216.58
454.86
457.34 452.67
366.24 359.35
221.54 217.04
355.88
209.88
359.72 355.88
212.72 212.86
457.02 460.52 451.62
356.01
219.79
441.78
441.73
449.40
448.33
454.73
455.88
455.50
360.99
359.68 358.90
362.00
357.98
361.62
366.99
362.07
360.79
361.13
361.30
177.90
175.52
175.80
180.00
174.24
174.21
175.74
175.45
W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ..................................................
345.86 358.36
354.82
357.59
R E T A I L T R A D E .............................................................
176.40
177.31
175.22
177.91
179.39
180.27
179.07
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L
ES TA TE
.................................................................
278.13
288.65
285.74
284.23
291.77
285.6Í
286.77
292.29
290.40
291.41
298.74
295.93
303.51
302.68
298.75
260.17
260.50
263.71
263.71
264.87
267.65
267.16
268.79
269.62
267.49
S E R V IC E S .......................................................................
p
250.59
260.76
257.21
257.68
261.03
Data not available.
= preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
17. The Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls by
industry
Seasonally adjusted
Not seasonally adjusted
Industry
Mar.
1986P
Apr.
1986P
Apr.
1985
Feb.
1986
P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c u rre n t d o l la r s ) ..............................
164.7
168.8
168.7
168.8
Mining1 ....................................................................
Construction............................................................
Manufacturing .........................................................
Transportation and public utilities.............................
Wholesale trade1.....................................................
Retail trade .............................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate1.........................
Services..................................................................
178.6
149.2
167.9
164.5
170.7
156.1
170.0
168.0
180.5
149.1
171.5
170.1
173.7
158.3
178.6
174.6
179.7
147.8
171.9
169.6
173.1
158.3
178.5
174.8
179.8
148.8
172.1
169.7
173.0
158.6
177.7
174.2
P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c o n s ta n t d o lla rs ) ...........................
94.4
94.8
95.3
-
1 This 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.
- Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Apr.
1985
Dec.
1985
Jan.
1986
Feb.
1986
Mar.
1986
164.8
168.4
167.4
168.5
168.9
Apr.
1986P
168.8
.
_
_
_
_
_
150.4
167.9
165.0
150.5
170.8
169.2
149.2
170.8
168.3
150.0
171.4
169.6
148.8
172.0
170.2
150.0
172.1
170.3
-
-
-
-
-
155.6
158.9
157.1
157.8
158.1
158.1
-
-
-
167.8
173.4
171.8
173.5
174.6
174.0
94.4
94.4
93.5
94.6
95.3
-
p = preliminary,
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
18.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted
(In percent)
Time span and year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Over 1-month span
1984 ..........................................................
1985 ................................................................
1986 ..................................................
67.3
57.6
63.0
72.7
50.3
51.6
66.8
55.9
53.0
67.3
44.6
45.7
60.5
50.3
64.3
47.0
65.7
54.9
-
58.1
56.8
-
48.4
45.7
-
66.5
63.5
-
55.1
61.6
63.5
63.2
Over 3-month span
1984 ...............................................................
1985 .......................................................
1986 ...................................................
78.1
58.6
62.4
75.9
54.1
56.2
77.6
46.8
48.1
68.9
45.9
-
69.7
44.1
-
67.0
49.7
-
65.4
50.5
-
60.3
49.2
-
60.0
53.8
-
56.5
52.7
-
67.0
65.1
60.0
65.1
Over 6-month span
1984 ...............................................
1985 ...................................................
1986 ....................................................
79.2
52.2
56.8
77.8
49.5
“
77.3
44.3
“
75.4
44.6
“
69.2
44.3
-
64.9
42.4
-
63.2
46.8
-
64.1
50.0
-
67.0
56.8
-
59.7
60.0
-
57.6
56.2
60.3
61.4
81.9
50.8
78.4
48.4
“
76.8
49.5
75.1
47.3
72.7
46.2
73.0
47.3
-
70.0
48.6
-
65.7
48.6
63.5
47.6
60.5
56.2
51.9
-
-
-
Over 12-month span
1984 ...........................................
1985 ...............................................................
1986 .................................................................
- Data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of
the unchanged components are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the
19.
spans. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a
description of the most recent benchmark revision,
Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Noninstitutional population.................................
160,689
163,541
166,460
169,349
171,775
173,939
175,891
178,080
179,912
Labor force
Total (number)..............................................
Percent of population....................................
100,665
62.6
103,882
63.5
106,559
64.0
108,544
64.1
110,315
64.2
111,872
64.3
113,226
64.4
115,241
64.7
117,167
65.1
93,673
58.3
1,656
97,679
59.7
1,631
100,421
60.3
1,597
100,907
59.6
1,604
102,042
59.4
1,645
101,194
58.2
1,668
102,510
58.3
1,676
106,702
59.9
1,697
108,856
60.5
1,706
92,017
3,283
88,734
96,048
3,387
92,661
98,824
3,347
95,477
99,303
3,364
95,938
100,397
3,368
97,030
99,526
3,401
96,125
100,834
3,383
97,450
105,005
3,321
101,685
107,150
3,179
103,971
Unemployed
Total (number)........................................
Percent of labor force.............................
6,991
6.9
6,202
6.0
6,137
5.8
7,637
7.0
8,273
7.5
10,678
9.5
10,717
9.5
8,539
7.4
8,312
7.1
Not in labor force (number) .............................
60,025
59,659
59,900
60,806
61,460
62,067
62,665
62,839
62,744
Employed
Total (number) .........................................
Percent of population ...............................
Resident Armed Forces..........................
Civilian
Total ..................................................
Agriculture........................................
Nonagricultural industries...................
20.
Annual data: Employment levels by industry
(Numbers in thousands)
Industry
Total employment.................................
Private sector....................................
Goods-producing ..................................
Mining...............................
Construction ............................................
Manufacturing..................................
Service-producing............................................
Transportation and public utilities .....................
Wholesale trade ......................................
Retail trade ............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ...........................
Services........................................
Government..............................................................
Federal................................................................
State.........................................................
Local ..............................................................
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
82,471
67,344
24,346
813
3,851
19,682
86,697
71,026
25,585
851
4,229
20,505
89,823
73,876
26,461
958
4,463
21,040
90,406
74,166
25,658
1,027
4,346
20,285
91,156
75,126
25,497
1,139
4,188
20,170
89,566
73,729
23,813
1,128
3,905
18,781
90,196
74,330
23,334
952
3,948
18,434
94,461
78,477
24,730
974
4,345
19,412
97,699
81,404
25,057
969
4,662
19,426
58,125
4,713
4,708
13,808
4,467
15,303
61,113
4,923
4,969
14,573
4,724
16,252
63,363
5,136
5,204
14,989
4,975
17,112
64,748
5,146
5,275
15,035
5,160
17,890
65,659
5,165
5,358
15,189
5,298
18,619
65,753
5,082
5,278
15,179
5,341
19,036
66,862
4,954
5,268
15,613
5,468
19,694
69,731
5,171
5,550
16,584
5,682
20,761
72,643
5,300
5,769
17,425
5,924
21,930
15,127
2,727
3,377
9,023
15,672
2,753
3,474
9,446
15,947
2,773
3,541
9,633
16,241
2,866
3,610
9,765
16,031
2,772
3,640
9,619
15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458
15,869
2,774
3,662
9,434
15,984
2,807
3,712
9,465
16,295
2,875
3,780
9,640
NOTE: Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. See See “ Notes on
the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
76
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural
payrolls, by industry
Industry
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
36.0
5.25
189.00
35.8
5.69
203.70
35.7
6.16
219.91
35.3
6.66
235.10
35.2
7.25
255.20
34.8
7.68
267.26
35.0
8.02
280.70
35.3
8.33
294.05
35.1
8.58
301.16
43.4
6.94
301.20
43.4
7.67
332.88
43.0
8.49
365.07
43.3
9.17
397.06
43.7
10.04
438.75
42.7
10.77
459.88
42.5
11.28
479.40
43.3
11.63
503.58
43.4
11.95
518.63
36.5
8.10
295.65
36.8
8.66
318.69
37.0
9.27
342.99
37.0
9.94
367.78
36.9
10.82
399.26
36.7
11.63
426.82
37.1
11.94
442.97
37.7
12.12
456.92
37.7
12.26
462.20
40.3
5.68
228.90
40.4
6.17
249.27
40.2
6.70
269.34
39.7
7.27
288.62
39.8
7.99
318.00
38.9
8.49
330.26
40.1
8.83
354.08
40.7
9.18
373.63
40.5
9.52
385.56
39.9
6.99
278.90
40.0
7.57
302.80
39.9
8.16
325.58
39.6
8.87
351.25
39.4
9.70
382.18
39.0
10.32
402.48
39.0
10.79
420.81
39.4
11.11
437.73
39.4
11.38
448.37
38.8
5.39
209.13
38.8
5.88
228.14
38.8
6.39
247.93
38.5
6.96
267.96
38.5
7.56
291.06
38.3
8.09
309.85
38.5
8.55
329.18
38.6
8.96
345.86
38.7
9.26
358.36
31.6
3.85
121.66
31.0
4.20
130.20
30.6
4.53
138.62
30.2
4.88
147.38
30.1
5.25
158.03
29.9
5.48
163.85
29.8
5.74
171.05
30.0
5.88
176.40
29.7
5.97
177.31
36.4
4.54
165.26
36.4
4.89
178.00
36.2
5.27
190.77
36.2
5.79
209.60
36.3
6.31
229.05
36.2
6.78
245.44
36.2
7.29
263.90
36.5
7.62
278.13
36.4
7.93
288.65
33.0
4.65
153.45
32.8
4.99
163.67
32.7
5.36
175.27
32.6
5.85
190.71
32.6
6.41
208.97
32.6
6.92
225.59
32.7
7.31
239.04
32.8
7.64
250.59
32.8
7.95
260.76
P riv a te s e c to r
Average weekly hours......................................................
Average hourly earnings...................................................
Average weekly earnings..................................................
M ining
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings ............................................
C o n s tru c tio n
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings .............................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings.............................................
T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d p u b lic utilitie s
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings .............................................
W h o le s a le tra d e
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings.............................................
R e ta il tra d e
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings .............................................
F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , an d rea l e sta te
Average weekly hours .................................................
Average hourly earnings..............................................
Average weekly earnings .............................................
S e rv ic e s
Average weekly hours ................................................
Average hourly earnings.............................................
Average weekly earnings ............................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
22.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1981=100)
Percent change
1985
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
125.5
126.4
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Dec.
Mar.
128.4
129.2
130.6
1.1
4.1
Sept.
Mar., 1986
C ivilia n w o rk e r s 2 ...............................................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ......................................................
Blue-collar workers........................................................
Service workers.............................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Manufacturing ...............................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................................
Services.....................................................................
Public administration 3 .................................................
P riv a te in d u s try w o r k e r s ..............................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers....................................................
Blue-collar workers......................................................
Service workers ..........................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Manufacturing..............................................................
Nonmanufacturing .......................................................
S ta te a n d lo ca l g o v e rn m e n t w o rk e r s .....................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers....................................................
Blue-collar workers......................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Services.....................................................................
Schools....................................................................
Elementary and secondary......................................
Hospitals and other services4 ....................................
Public administration3 ..................................................
119.8
120.8
122.4
123.9
120.9
117.7
122.0
122.1
118.6
122.1
124.0
119.6
124.6
125.5
120.9
126.8
127.3
122.2
127.8
128.3
123.1
128.0
130.7
124.4
130.9
131.6
124.9
131.8
133.1
126.2
133.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
4.6
3.3
4.1
117.9
120.7
125.0
122.9
119.1
121.6
125.5
123.7
120.4
123.3
128.8
126.9
122.0
124.8
130.9
128.6
123.9
126.2
131.9
130.1
124.6
127.2
132.6
130.3
125.5
129.7
136.4
134.2
126.0
130.6
137.1
134.8
127.7
131.9
138.8
136.8
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.5
3.1
4.5
5.2
5.1
119.0
120.1
121.1
122.7
124.2
125.2
126.8
127.5
128.9
1.1
3.8
119.9
117.5
121.5
121.4
118.4
121.2
122.4
119.3
123.2
123.9
120.6
125.7
125.8
121.9
126.3
127.1
122.8
126.5
128.8
124.0
128.8
129.8
124.4
129.5
131.3
125.7
130.9
1.2
1.0
1.1
4.4
3.1
3.6
117.9
119.6
119.1
120.7
120.4
121.6
122.0
123.1
123.9
124.4
124.6
125.6
125.5
127.6
126.0
128.4
127.7
129.7
1.3
1.0
3.1
4.3
123.9
124.4
128.8
130.1
131.7
132.0
136.5
137.5
138.9
1.0
5.5
124.5
121.9
125.0
122.3
129.7
125.0
131.1
125.9
132.5
128.1
132.9
128.5
137.6
131.9
138.6
132.7
140.0
134.7
1.0
1.5
5.7
5.2
124.5
124.5
125.4
124.4
122.9
125.0
124.7
125.7
125.7
123.7
129.9
130.6
132.1
127.9
126.9
131.3
132.0
133.5
129.2
128.6
132.8
133.4
134.4
131.1
130.1
133.2
133.7
134.6
131.5
130.3
137.9
139.1
140.9
134.1
134.2
139.1
140.3
142.0
135.2
134.8
140.4
141.5
143.0
136.8
136.8
.9
.9
.7
1.2
1.5
5.7
6.1
6.4
4.3
5.1
1 Cost (cents-per-hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
23.
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and Industry group
(June 1981=100)
Series
Mar.
June
1986
1985
1984
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent ;hange
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar., 986
C iv ilia n w o rk e r s 1 ................................................................................
117.9
118.8
120.3
121.7
123.1
124.2
126.3
127.0
128.3
1.0
4.2
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ......................................................
Blue-collar workers.........................................................
Service workers.............................................................
119.3
115.3
120.0
120.4
116.1
119.8
122.2
117.0
122.3
123.5
118.2
124.3
125.2
119.3
124.8
126.4
120.5
125.3
128.8
122.0
128.0
129.8
122.3
128.6
131.2
123.4
129.8
1.1
.9
.9
4.8
3.4
4.0
Public administration 2 .................................................
115.7
118.9
123.3
120.4
116.8
119.7
123.8
121.3
118.0
121.3
127.2
124.4
119.5
122.6
128.9
125.7
121.0
123.9
129.7
127.0
122.3
125.0
130.5
127.2
123.2
127.6
134.2
131.4
123.8
128.4
134.8
132.0
125.3
129.6
136.4
133.8
1.2
.9
1.2
1.4
3.6
4.6
5.2
5.4
P riv a te In d u s try w o r k e r s ...........................................................
117.2
118.2
119.2
120.6
122.0
123.3
124.9
125.6
126.8
1.0
3.9
Clerical workers......................................................
118.5
122.2
118.0
110.2
119.8
119.9
123.8
119.2
111.9
120.7
120.9
125.2
121.0
110.5
122.0
122.3
127.3
122.2
111.6
122.9
124.0
127.7
123.8
116.3
124.7
125.5
128.7
126.5
117.4
125.6
127.3
131.2
127.7
119.3
127.1
128.3
131.5
128.4
122.5
127.9
129.6
132.7
130.5
122.4
129.6
1.0
.9
1.6
-.1
1.3
4.5
3.9
5.4
5.2
3.9
Blue-collar workers...................................................
Craft and kindred workers .......................................
Operatives, except transport...................................
Transport equipment operatives ..............................
Nonfarm laborers...................................................
Service workers ........................................................
115.1
116.5
114.9
111.7
112.9
119.8
115.9
117.3
115.8
112.7
114.1
119.3
116.7
118.0
116.6
113.4
114.7
121.2
118.0
119.4
117.9
114.0
115.9
123.7
119.1
120.8
118.9
114.5
116.7
123.8
120.3
122.0
120.1
115.7
118.5
124.4
121.7
123.7
121.1
117.7
118.6
126.3
122.0
123.8
121.6
117.8
119.8
126.6
123.1
125.3
122.6
118.0
120.0
128.0
.9
1.2
.8
.2
.2
1.1
3.4
3.7
3.1
115.7
115.7
115.8
116.8
116.6
117.1
118.0
117.7
118.6
119.5
119.1
120.2
121.0
120.6
121.6
122.3
122.0
122.6
123.2
122.7
124.0
123.8
123.4
124.6
125.3
124.8
126.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.6
3.5
3.7
118.0
113.3
118.5
114.3
118.2
112.8
116.1
124.2
119.0
114.0
119.3
116.0
120.0
114.4
116.9
124.7
119.8
114.3
119.9
116.5
120.7
114.9
115.3
127.1
121.2
114.4
120.7
118.1
122.9
116.2
115.8
129.5
122.6
115.5
121.7
118.8
123.7
116.9
122.C
129.9
123.9
116.6
122.8
121.1
126.8
118.9
121.7
131.0
125.9
117.3
124.8
122.7
127.7
120.8
124.1
133.9
126.6
117.9
125.2
123.7
128.3
121.9
126.5
134.1
127.7
118.3
126.3
124.5
129.7
122.5
126.6
136.2
.9
.3
.9
.6
1.1
.5
.1
1.6
4.2
2.4
3.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
3.8
4.8
121.6
122.0
126.1
127.1
128.4
128.7
133.2
134.2
135.5
1.0
5.5
122.2
119.1
122.6
119.6
127.'
121 .fi
128.C
122.6
129.Ü
124.2
129.6
124.5
134.3
127.9
135.3
128.4
136.6
130.4
1.0
1.6
5.6
5.C
122.2
122.2
122.6
121.9
120.;
122.6
122.C
123.C
123.
121 .C
127.2
127.6
129.C
125.
124.;
128.
128.'
130.2
125.9
125."
129.;
129.9
130.6
127.7
127.C
129.7
130.2
131.1
128.C
127.2
134.3
135.6
137.6
130.2
131.;
135.6
137.C
138.5
130.9
132.C
136.6
138.C
139.;
132.;
133.6
.2
.7
.6
1.1
1.4
5.7
6.2
6.6
3.7
5.4
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..........................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers........................... ......................
Professional and technical.......................................
Managers and administrators..................................
Workers, by industry division:
Manufacturing...........................................................
Nondurables...........................................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................................
Construction...........................................................
Transportation and public utilities............................
Wholesale and retail trade.......................................
Wholesale trade...................................................
Services.................................................................
Workers, by occupational group
Workers, by industry division
Elementary and secondary ..................................
Public administration 2 ..............................................
1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.8
3.4
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities,
3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
24.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
(June 1981 = 100)
1984
1985
1986
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar., 1986
C O M P E N S A T IO N
W o rk e rs , b y b a rg a in in g s ta tu s 1
Union..........................................................
Manufacturing...........................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................
120.6
119.3
121.9
121.7
120.5
122.8
122.6
121.6
123.6
123.9
123.2
124.5
124.8
124.2
125.3
125.5
124.2
126.6
126.5
125.0
127.8
127.1
125.5
128.6
128.4
127.0
129.7
1.0
1.2
.9
2.9
2.3
3.5
Nonunion....................................................
Manufacturing ...........................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................
118.0
116.6
118.6
119.2
117.9
119.8
120.3
119.3
120.7
121.9
120.8
122.4
123.8
123.6
123.9
125.0
124.8
125.1
126.8
125.7
127.3
127.5
126.3
128.1
129.0
128.1
129.5
1.2
1.4
1.1
4.2
3.6
4.5
118.9
119.7
117.2
121.0
120.7
120.7
117.9
122.2
122.4
120.7
119.7
122.5
123.8
122.2
120.8
124.9
125.1
124.2
122.0
126.8
126.4
125.2
122.7
127.9
128.8
126.5
124.2
129.1
129.9
127.2
124.6
129.8
131.6
128.7
125.9
130.8
1.3
1.2
1.0
.8
5.2
3.6
3.2
3.2
119.4
116.7
120.6
117.4
121.5
119.0
123.2
119.8
124.7
121.4
125.7
122.5
127.3
123.9
128.1
123.9
129.5
125.5
1.1
1.3
3.8
3.4
Union ..........................................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................
118.1
116.1
120.1
119.0
117.1
120.7
119.8
118.1
121.3
120.9
119.5
122.1
121.7
120.4
122.8
123.0
121.7
124.1
124.1
122.8
125.3
124.7
123.3
125.9
■<25.6
124.2
126.9
.7
.7
.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Nonunion.....................................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................
116.7
115.4
117.2
117.8
116.5
118.3
118.8
117.9
119.2
120.4
119.5
120.7
122.1
121.5
122.3
123.4
122.8
123.6
125.2
123.7
125.9
125.9
124.4
126.6
127.3
«6.1
«7.8
1.1
1.4
.9
4.3
3.8
4.5
117.4
117.9
115.5
118.8
118.9
119.0
116.0
119.6
120.5
119.0
117.8
120.0
121.9
120.2
118.7
122.5
123.0
122.3
119.6
124.0
124.6
123.4
121.1
125.1
126.8
124.8
122.5
126.6
128.1
125.4
122.9
127.1
129.2
126.8
124.2
1.28.1
.9
1.1
1.1
.8
5.0
3.7
3.8
3.3
117.6
115.1
118.6
116.0
119.5
117.5
121.0
118.3
122.4
119.6
123.8
120.6
125.5
121.9
126.3
122.0
127.4
123.6
.9
1.3
4.1
3.3
W o rk e rs , b y re g io n 1
Northeast.....................................................
South ..........................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...................
West............................................................
W o rk e rs , b y a re a s iz e 1
Metropolitan areas.......................................
Other areas..................................................
W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S
W o rk e rs , b y b a rg a in in g s ta tu s 1
W o rk e rs , b y re g io n 1
Northeast.....................................................
South...........................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...................
West............................................................
W o rk e rs , b y a re a s iz e 1
Metropolitan areas.......................................
Other areas..................................................
1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor Review Technical Note, “ Estimation procedures for the
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.
Monthly
25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private
industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Quarterly average
Annual average
1984
Measure
1964
1985
1986
1985
II
III
IV
I
II
III
lp
IV
S p e c ifie d a d ju stm e n ts:
Total compensation 1 adjustments,2 settlements
covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract.......................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................
3.6
2.8
2.6
2.7
3.5
3.2
2.7
3.1
3.7
2.0
3.6
2.7
3.5
3.4
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.4
0.3
1.2
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000
workers or more:
First year of contract.......................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.1
2.6
2.3
1.5
3.3
3.2
2.5
2.8
2.0
3.1
2.1
1.9
.8
1.6
3.7
.8
3.3
.7
.9
.1
1.2
.2
.7
.3
.7
.1
.8
.2
1.2
.2
.5
.1
.6
.0
2.0
.9
1.8
.7
.7
.2
.7
.3
.2
.2
.6
.1
.5
.1
.5
.4
.2
.1
.4
.2
E ffe c tiv e a d ju stm e n ts:
Total effective wage adjustment3 .......................
From settlements reached in period .................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier
periods ...........................................................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses............
1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee
benefits when contract Is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases and no changes In
compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts.
p = preliminary.
26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private
industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters ending1984
Measure
1985
III
II
IV
I
II
1986
III
lp
IV
Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000
workers or more, all industries:
First year of contract.....................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.....................................................
4.7
3.5
4.2
3.2
3.6
2.8
3.4
2.6
3.4
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.6
3.5
4.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.2
4.5
2.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.9
2.1
2.4
1.8
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
1.3
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.5
2.8
2.4
1.9
2.7
2.5
1.8
3.0
2.3
1.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.8
3.1
2.8
3.6
2.6
1.5
3.7
2.8
1.8
3.8
2.3
2.1
2.9
1.5
1.0
3.3
2.1
2.0
2.5
1.4
.9
3.2
2.0
1.9
2.2
1.5
1.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.4
.8
.8
.9
1.8
2.1
1.6
.8
.8
.9
1.8
2.1
1.5
3.7
5.2
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.3
5.4
2.1
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.5
5.5
2.0
2.9
4.8
2.6
2.6
5.1
2.4
2.8
4.0
2.7
2.7
4.3
2.5
2.9
3.8
2.8
3.2
4.0
3.0
3.3
3.9
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.3
2.8
3.5
2.7
3.0
3.6
2.9
.8
-.4
.9
1.7
.0
1.8
.9
4.0
.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
.5
4.0
.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
.9
4.6
.8
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.1
9.2
1.0
1.7
4.6
1.7
Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All industries
First year of contract...................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Annual rate over life of contract...................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Manufacturing
First year of contract...................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Annual rate over life of contract...................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Nonmanufacturing
First year of contract...................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Annual rate over life of contract...................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Construction
First year of contract...................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
Annual rate over life of contract...................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses....................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...............................................
1 Data do not meet publication standards.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
p = preliminary.
1.0
O
(1)
(1)
(1)
1.7
1.7
1.5
0
(1)
<1)
(1)
2.1
(')
<1)
O
(’)
2.2
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000
workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment
1984
1985
III
IV
I
II
4.2
1.0
2.1
1.2
3.7
.8
2.0
.9
3.6
.7
2.2
.7
5.0
3.7
4.2
3.2
4.4
3.0
4.0
2.7
4.5
2.9
4.2
2.3
1986
III
IV
|p
3.5
.9
1.9
.7
3.5
9
1.8
.8
3.3
31
18
.7
.8
4.2
2.9
3.9
2.3
4.3
2.8
3.7
2.8
4.1
34
37
2.2
F o r all w o rk e r s :1
Total............................................
From settlements reached in period .....
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ....
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses..........
F o r w o rk e r s re c e iv in g c h a n g e s :
Total.........................................
From settlements reached in period ...............
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses...........
1 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts.
- Data not available.
p
40
2.5
= preliminary.
28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and
local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average
Measure
1984
Second 6 months
1985P
1985
Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract ........................
Annual rate over life of contract .....
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
First year of contract ..........................
Annual rate over life of contract .....
Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment3 ..........
From settlements reached in period........
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods
From cost-of-living-adjustment clauses.......
I------------- --------- — —
w u m w
,
a iiu
()
c m ^ iu y c ib
o ust
ui
t J iiip iu y e e
4.2
3.8
5.3
4.6
4.4
5.6
4.1
3.2
.9
(4)
(4)
3 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts.
4 Less than 0.05 percent.
p = preliminary.
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
compensation or wages.
29. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annual totals
1985
Measure
1984
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period....
In effect during period
Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
thousands)...................
In effect during period (in
thousands)...................
Days idle:
Number (in thousands)..............
Percent of estimated working
time1 .......................................
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
54
61
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
Mar.P
11
20
376.0
323.9
6.2
6.9
15.7
50.1
15.3
69.5
76.6
26.2
8.2
7.6
24.0
12.3
391.0
584.1
14.8
15.1
28.5
56.9
66.8
93.9
119.3
47.0
38.0
12.0
28.4
39.7
8,499.0
229.5
203.3
454.3
500.2
869.7
931.4
1,433.0
651.2
665.4
170.0
309.5
411.3
.04
.01
.01
.02
.02
.04
.04
.06
.04
.03
.01
.02
.02
1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total
working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An
explanation of the measurement of Idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is
found in "Total economy' measure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor Review, October
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Aug.
1968, pp. 54-56.
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
30. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or
service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all Items
(1967=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Series
1986
1985
Annual
average
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
324.5
377.4
325.5
378.5
326.6
379.9
327.4
380.8
328.4
381.9
327.5
380.8
326.0
379.1
325.3
378.3
301.8
309.7
295.9
318.5
259.7
257.4
326.3
361.7
401.8
297.1
449.6
295.8
348.4
228.9
302.1
309.9
295.6
319.2
260.6
258.0
319.9
362.6
401.1
294.8
452.8
296.3
349.9
229.3
302.5
309.8
295.3
318.9
261.1
257.1
317.1
363.0
402.6
291.2
454.1
296.8
350.3
236.4
303.6
311.0
296.6
319.9
266.1
257.1
314.3
362.2
401.4
292.1
451.7
296.8
351.3
236.2
305.6
313.2
299.3
321.9
269.9
256.9
323.9
361.3
402.2
290.3
448.8
297.3
352.1
236.2
307.9
315.6
302.5
322.0
271.5
257.2
334.4
365.7
405.1
292.1
459.7
298.0
353.1
237.5
307.7
315.3
301.5
322.5
268.4
257.3
320.7
375.1
408.6
291.4
485.3
299.5
354.2
238.3
307.8
315.4
301.2
322.7
267.7
256.8
319.2
375.7
408.4
290.2
488.0
299.3
355.5
238.8
308.5
316.1
301.5
322.5
264.2
256.8
329.5
376.1
411.4
288.5
487.4
300.2
357.0
239.5
351.6
383.2
115.8
265.0
405.1
113.5
113.5
112.7
367.8
421.1
267.8
399.9
497.3
601.9
467.1
242.8
246.5
198.8
313.1
339.8
352.9
385.9
116.6
266.6
409.9
114.3
114.3
113.0
370.6
425.1
269.2
398.9
494.4
594.6
465.1
244.2
247.0
199.1
313.5
340.7
353.8
386.9
117.0
267.7
410.7
114.6
114.6
113.7
368.7
421.9
268.6
400.5
496.8
601.7
466.5
244.6
247.1
199.0
313.9
341.5
354.4
389.1
117.9
269.9
412.5
115.1
115.1
114.6
368.5
422.2
268.0
395.6
488.4
615.3
453.9
244.7
248.4
200.3
315.7
342.2
355.0
391.3
118.4
271.7
408.7
115.8
115.9
114.5
372.7
426.4
271.5
392.1
481.5
641.6
440.5
245.9
248.9
200.8
316.4
342.7
355.8
392.3
118.3
272.4
398.1
116.3
116.3
115.0
373.7
426.2
273.3
393.3
483.6
657.3
439.9
245.8
248.8
200.1
317.7
343.2
356.8
393.8
118.8
273.4
401.1
116.7
116.7
115.7
379.1
432.6
277.1
394.6
484.7
650.3
442.6
247.3
248.8
199.8
318.3
343.9
356.5
394.8
119.0
273.7
404.1
117.0
117.0
117.4
379.6
432.8
277.8
390.0
476.3
591.2
444.5
247.9
249.0
199.7
318.6
344.5
357.0
397.0
119.6
275.0
405.5
117.9
117.9
118.0
367.5
422.4
266.1
385.5
467.6
549.9
442.3
249.0
249.8
201.0
317.9
345.1
358.0
400.1
120.9
277.9
410.8
118.7
118.7
118.3
367.6
424.6
264.5
381.8
459.6
518.3
439.2
251.3
249.6
200.4
318.5
345.4
204.6
190.2
196.4
166.5
300.7
213.9
216.3
319.9
202.8
188.0
194.5
163.4
294.5
211.4
216.7
321.4
205.3
190.6
197.2
167.7
300.6
210.3
217.5
322.9
209.6
195.3
201.5
176.1
302.0
210.9
215.2
324.1
211.1
196.7
203.2
177.9
302.1
212.3
214.9
325.7
211.2
196.8
203.6
176.5
307.0
215.5
214.9
326.3
209.0
194.2
202.0
172.6
304.1
213.1
214.6
326.9
205.0 204.1
189.5 188.5
198.6 196.8
164.4 163.4
313.9 311.6
209.1 207.9
215.5 216.1
329.8 330.7
321.4
316.0
214.2
214.5
384.2
381.6
381.4
349.6
285.6
201.3
310.7
398.4
321.8
316.3
214.3
214.7
380.3
384.7
384.5
350.4
286.6
203.9
311.3
399.3
321.8
316.1
214.3
214.7
376.7
385.5
385.3
351.1
287.6
202.2
313.0
402.4
320.7
314.9
214.2
214.6
374.0
381.9
381.8
351.9
287.7
202.8
313.0
403.7
319.7
313.6
214.2
214.5
374.3
377.7
377.4
353.5
285.8
203.4
310.4
408.0
320.9
314.7
215.9
216.2
375.3
374.6
374.2
355.7
289.6
202.6
315.4
411.6
323.2
317.0
218.2
218.4
376.4
376.7
376.1
355.8
293.9
201.6
321.2
412.8
324.0
317.8
219.2
219.4
375.6
377.6
376.8
357.6
295.2
202.1
322.7
412.8
323.9
317.3
219.7
219.9
374.1
373.3
372.5
357.9
297.7
203.4
325.5
419.6
398.0
253.9
429.4
363.C
509.6
399.5
255.2
430.2
364.5
511.2
401.7
257.C
433.C
366.4
513.6
404.0
257.8
435.8
368.1
517.6
406.6
259.3
438.6
370.C
521.6
408.3
260.2
440.6
371.7
523.E
410.6
261
443.C
373.2
527.'
413.C
262.7
445.8
375.6
530.8
414.'
262.6
448.6
377.
533.6
263.C
259.£
269.2
263.6
259.6
269.6
264.6
260.1
272.C
265.'
260.6
273.C
265.'
260.6
273.6
266.6
262.6
273.:
268.'
264.6
275.
269.C
264.C
276.6
268.
262.
277.
321.
324.C
279.Ì
277.
283.
388.
344.
398. 5
322.C
324.
280.«
277.
285.
388.
344.
398.
323.C
324.6
281.'
277.
286.
389.
344.
399. 4
325.C
330.(
282.:
278.
286.
390.
345.
400.
326.C
331.6
283.:
279.'
287.
390.
346.
401.
333.:
332.6
284.
280.6
288.
412.
362.
423. 9
334.
334. 4
285. 3
281. i
289. 2
414. 7
364. 5
426.2
335.:
334.'
285.'
281.
290.
415. X
364.
426. 9
336. 5
337. X
286. 3
282. 5
290. 6
415.5
364.7
427.0
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
322.2
374.7
320.1
372.3
321.3
373.7
322.3
374.8
322.8
375.5
323.5
376.2
295.1
302.9
292.6
305.3
266.6
253.2
317.4
352.2
389.1
288.0
443.0
284.9
333.4
222.1
302.0
309.8
296.8
317.0
263.4
258.0
325.7
361.1
398.8
294.4
451.7
294.2
346.6
229.5
301.6
309.6
297.7
314.8
263.6
258.3
333.2
360.8
396.1
294.0
454.0
292.8
343.9
226.7
301.0
308.9
296.2
315.9
259.8
258.4
330.3
361.3
397.6
294.0
454.1
293.4
345.1
227.7
301.4
309.3
296.0
317.3
259.8
257.8
329.0
360.8
398.3
296.0
451.5
293.4
346.9
227.8
301.6
309.5
296.2
317.3
260.5
257.8
328.9
360.6
400.2
297.8
448.2
294.5
347.3
227.8
336.5
361.7
108.6
249.3
373.4
107.3
107.3
107.5
359.2
409.7
262.7
387.3
485.5
641.8
445.2
230.2
242.5
199.1
303.2
327.5
349.9
382.0
115.4
264.6
398.4
113.1
113.2
112.4
368.9
421.1
269.6
393.6
488.1
619.5
452.7
240.7
247.2
200.1
313.6
338.9
345.9
375.9
113.5
260.4
390.9
111.3
111.3
111.4
368.0
418.2
270.4
388.7
483.0
623.5
445.9
236.4
247.9
201.7
312.6
337.9
348.5
379.5
114.5
262.6
396.5
112.4
112.5
112.0
366.2
416.0
269.2
393.0
490.0
620.8
454.7
236.8
247.6
201.2
312.9
338.0
350.4
381.0
115.1
263.6
401.6
112.8
112.8
112.7
367.6
423.2
265.7
399.4
497.7
612.0
465.6
241.1
247.1
200.0
313.6
338.3
200.2
187.0
192.4
163.6
287.0
209.5
216.4
305.0
206.0 205.9 205.3
191.6 191.8 191.0
197.9 197.4 197.8
169.5 170.0 168.0
299.7 295.3 298.3
212.1 213.2 213.2
215.5 215.8 215.1
320.9 318.4 319.4
311.7
306.6
208.0
208.5
375.7
370.7
370.2
341.5
273.3
201.5
295.0
385.2
319.9
314.2
214.9
215.2
379.7
373.8
373.3
351.4
287.6
202.6
312.8
402.8
320.0
314.6
213.9
214.1
386.4
374.2
373.8
348.2
285.8
202.8
310.5
398.0
379.5
239.7
410.C
346.1
488.C
403.1
256.7
435.1
367.C
517.C
255.1 265.C
253.: 260.6
258.C 271.6
1984
1985
311.1
361.9
Sept.
C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X F O R A L L U R B A N C O N S U M E R S :
All items................... ............... .................................................
Cereals and bakery products.............................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
307."
310.C
271.'
269.
274.
365.
322. 3
375. 3
326.<
328.
281.
278.
286.
397.
350. 3
407. 7
206.3 207.3
190.8 191.7
198.3 199.7
167.6 168.0
313.1 316.6
210.1 211.4
214.6 215.3
331.5 332.9
319.2 309.6
312.2 302.1
220.2 220.1
220.4 220.3
370.7 367.2
351.5 308.5
350.8 307.7
358.9 359.3
299.2 301.5
202.9 203.6
327.6 330.3
422.2 421.2
303.3
295.3
221.0
221.2
364.8
279.5
278.6
360.6
301.6
202.2
330.9
422.2
418.2 422.3
264.6 267.4
451 .S 456.2
378.9 381.6
540.C 546.4
425.6
269.4
460.1
385.C
550.6
428.0
271.3
462.3
386.9
553.5
270.6
264.'
279.9
272.C
265.2
282.1
271.6
265.C
282.:
272.3
264.8
283.5
339.
342.'
288.
285.:
291.6
416.
371.
427. 3
340.:
344.'
289.
286.6
293.6
417/
373.6
428.
341.
345.
290.
287.
294.
417.
374. 3
428. 3
341.8
346.5
290.5
287.7
294.1
418.9
374.4
429.5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Price Data
30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or
service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items
(1967=100, unless otherwise indicated)
1985
Annual
1986
Series
1984
1985
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
All items....................................................................................
Commodities...........................................................................
Food and beverages..............................................................
Commodities less food and beverages...................................
Nondurables less food and beverages .................................
Apparel commodities........................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ................
Durables.............................................................................
311.1
280.7
295.1
275.7
187.0
325.8
266.5
322.2
286.7
302.0
282.1
191.6
333.3
270.7
320.1
286.8
301.6
321.3
287.0
301.0
322.3
286.9
301.4
322.8
286.5
301.6
-
-
-
-
281.5
191.8
332.3
272.6
283.1
191.0
335.1
271.6
283.5
190.2
336.2
270.4
282.9
188.0
336.4
269.3
323.5
286.5
301.8
283.1
190.6
335.4
268.6
324.5
287.1
302.1
284.6
195.3
335.3
268.7
325.5
287.9
302.5
285.3
196.7
335.6
270.2
326.6
289.2
303.6
286.8
196.8
337.8
271.5
327.4
289.9
305.6
286.8
194.2
339.1
271.4
328.4
290.1
307.9
284.9
189.5
338.7
271.4
327.5
287.4
307.7
278.6
188.5
329.5
270.5
326.0
283.7
307.8
268.9
190.8
313.6
269.7
325.3
281.2
308.5
262.0
191.7
302.6
269.2
Services..................................................................................
Rent of shelter......................................................................
Household services less rent of shelter .................................
Transportation services.........................................................
Medical care services............................................................
Other services ......................................................................
363.0
107.7
108.1
321.1
410.3
296.0
381.5
113.9
111.2
337.0
435.1
314.1
376.2
112.0
109.8
334.1
429.4
309.9
378.9
113.2
110.9
334.5
430.9
310.7
381.3
113.6
112.7
335.3
433.0
312.0
383.3
114.3
113.2
337.0
435.8
313.0
384.9
115.1
113.2
337.4
438.6
313.8
386.5
115.4
113.5
337.1
440.5
319.7
387.7
116.1
112.1
341.1
443.0
321.4
388.7
116.7
110.8
344.7
445.8
322.5
389.5
117.0
110.8
346.1
448.0
322.9
391.7
117.4
111.4
349.0
451.9
324.8
393.3
117.7
111.8
351.0
456.2
326.1
394.9
118.5
111.6
352.4
460.1
326.6
396.8
119.4
111.6
353.2
462.3
327.6
311.3 323.3
295.1 303.9
106.3 109.7
307.3 317.7
267.0 272.5
270.8 277.2
311.9 319.2
286.6 293.2
108.5 113.5
355.6 373.3
423.6 426.5
302.9 314.8
301.2 314.4
253.1 259.7
409.8 409.9
356.4 375.9
320.8
302.8
109.2
315.8
272.8
276.5
318.1
292.7
112.2
368.1
424.4
312.7
311.8
260.0
410.8
370.7
322.4
303.4
109.5
317.0
273.4
278.0
320.7
293.3
112.8
370.9
431.7
313.3
312.8
259.6
417.0
372.9
323.6
304.3
109.8
317.9
273.1
278.4
321.7
293.7
113.7
373.3
436.8
313.9
313.4
259.0
418.7
374.6
324.2
304.4
109.9
318.4
272.4
277.9
321.9
293.5
114.2
375.2
437.1
314.5
314.1
258.2
418.1
376.6
325.0
304.6
110.1
318.9
272.3
278.1
321.1
293.7
114.5
376.7
433.8
315.6
315.3
258.8
414.0
378.6
326.2 327.4 328.5 328.9 329.5
305.7 306.3 307.2 307.9 308.8
110.4 110.7 111.1 111.3 111.6
319.9 320.8 321.9 322.6 323.4
273.1 274.4 275.7 275.7 274.7
279.6 280.7 282.0 282.0 280.4
321.0 322.0 324.0 325.1 324.9
294.6 295.1 296.4 297.4 297.7
115.0 115.1 115.2 115.4 116.2
378.3 379.3 380.1 380.8 382.7
432.6 427.1 425.1 426.5 424.7
316.8 318.4 319.8 320.5 321.8
316.9 318.9 320.4 320.7 321.6
260.2 262.0 262.7 262.2 261.8
411.2 410.1 415.2 417.9 413.2
380.2 382.5 384.8 385.8 387.9
328.5
307.4
111.2
322.2
270.9
274.5
316.8
294.3
116.8
384.0
408.9
322.3
322.3
261.6
386.5
389.4
326.6
305.2
110.5
320.5
265.2
265.6
302.7
289.5
117.1
385.4
381.3
323.3
323.6
262.0
343.0
391.5
325.7
303.6
110.1
319.7
261.2
259.2
292.9
286.3
117.4
387.2
361.8
324.4
324.8
262.1
313.3
393.8
32.1
27.6
31.0
26.7
31.2
26.9
31.1
26.8
31.0
26.7
31.0
26.6
30.9
26.6
30.8
26.5
30.7
26.4
30.6
26.3
30.5
26.3
30.5
26.2
30.5
26.3
30.7
26.4
30.7
26.4
All items .................................................................................
All items (1957-59-100)............................................................
307.6
357.7
318.5
370.4
316.7
368.3
317.8
369.6
318.7
370.6
319.1
371.2
319.6
371.8
320.5
372.7
321.3
373.7
322.6
375.1
323.4
376.1
324.3
377.1
323.2
375.8
321.4
373.7
320.4
372.6
Food and beverages ...............................................................
Food.....................................................................................
Food at home ....................................................................
Cereals and bakery products.............................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs............................................
Dairy products..................................................................
Fruits and vegetables........................................................
Other foods at home........................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................
Fats and oils..................................................................
Nonalcoholic beverages..................................................
Other prepared foods.....................................................
Food away from home ........................................................
Alcoholic beverages..............................................................
295.2
302.7
291.2
303.7
266.0
252.2
312.5
352.7
388.6
287.5
301.8
309.3
295.3
315.4
262.7
256.9
320.3
361.5
398.3
293.9
453.2
295.7
349.7
232.6
301.4
309.2
296.1
313.1
262.9
257.2
328.1
361.3
395.5
293.7
455.6
294.2
347.1
229.9
300.8
308.4
294.6
314.1
259.2
257.3
324.8
361.6
396.9
293.6
455.4
294.9
348.4
230.8
301.2
308.8
294.5
315.7
259.3
256.7
323.5
361.3
398.0
295.6
453.0
295.0
350.1
231.0
301.4
309.0
294.6
315.7
259.7
256.6
323.9
361.1
399.8
297.3
449.8
296.1
350.4
231.0
301.6
309.1
294.3
316.8
259.0
256.3
320.6
362.2
401.4
296.5
451.2
297.3
351.5
232.2
301.8
309.3
294.0
317.6
259.9
256.8
313.6
362.9
400.8
294.1
454.1
297.7
353.0
232.6
302.2
309.3
293.7
317.3
260.4
255.9
311.2
363.4
402.2
290.6
455.6
298.3
353.4
239.1
303.4
310.6
295.2
318.2
265.4
255.9
309.4
362.5
400.9
291.8
453.1
298.3
354.4
238.8
305.4
312.8
297.9
320.4
269.2
255.7
319.3
361.6
401.8
289.6
450.4
298.7
355.2
239.1
307.7
315.1
300.9
320.4
270.7
256.0
329.7
366.1
404.7
291.6
461.0
299.4
356.2
240.1
307.5
314.9
300.1
320.9
267.7
256.0
316.0
375.2
408.1
290.8
485.5
300.9
357.3
240.9
307.6
315.0
299.7
321.1
267.2
255.5
314.6
375.6
407.8
289.7
487.4
300.7
358.6
241.4
308.3
315.6
299.9
320.9
263.5
255.5
325.0
376.0
410.9
287.8
487.0
301.6
360.2
242.3
Housing ..................................................................................
Shelter .................................................................................
Renters’ costs (12/84 = 100)..............................................
Rent, residential...............................................................
Other renters’ costs .........................................................
Homeowners’ costs (12/84 = 100).......................................
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84 = 100)...............................
Household insurance (12/84 —100)...................................
Maintenance and repairs.....................................................
Maintenance and repair services .......................................
Maintenance and repair commodities.................................
Fuel and other utilities...........................................................
Fuels ................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ..........................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ...............................................
Other utilities and public services.......................................
329.2
350.0
Housekeeping supplies.......................................................
Housekeeping services.......................................................
248.6
372.4
356.3
403.5
257.2
388.6
485.0
644.3
444.1
231.2
239.1
197.0
300.2
328.0
343.3 339.5 342.1 344.0 345.0
370.4 364.7 368.1 369.5 371.5
263.7 259.6 261.8 262.7 264.1
397.9 391.0 396.7 401.0 405.2
103.1 101.4 102.5 102.8 103.4
103.0 101.4 102.4 102.8 103.4
103.2 102.4 102.8 103.4 103.5
364.1 363.1 361.8 362.9 363.4
415.0 411.7 410.1 417.0 415.3
261.1 261.6 260.7 258.4 260.0
394.7 389.7 393.8 400.9 401.2
487.5 482.3 488.9 497.7 497.0
622.0 625.9 623.2 614.3 604.2
451.6 444.6 453.0 465.1 466.3
241.6 237.3 237.7 242.0 243.7
243.4 244.1 244.0 243.3 242.6
197.6 199.2 198.9 197.6 196.2
310.7 309.8 310.0 310.8 310.3
340.2 339.0 339.2 339.5 341.0
346.2
374.0
265.7
409.6
104.1
104.1
103.7
365.6
419.6
260.6
400.1
494.0
596.9
464.2
245.1
243.1
196.6
310.4
342.2
347.2
375.0
266.8
409.8
104.3
104.3
104.3
364.4
416.8
260.5
401.9
496.7
604.3
465.9
245.6
243.2
196.5
311.0
342.9
347.5
377.1
268.9
411.6
104.8
104.8
105.2
364.6
417.4
260.5
396.3
487.2
618.1
452.0
245.7
244.5
197.7
312.7
343.9
348.3
379.3
270.7
408.0
105.5
105.5
105.2
367.7
420.9
262.7
393.2
481.0
644.3
439.5
246.8
245.1
198.3
313.5
344.5
349.1
380.4
271.5
397.5
105.9
105.9
105.7
368.5
420.1
264.2
394.3
483.1
659.9
438.8
246.7
245.2
197.8
315.0
345.0
350.1
381.8
272.5
400.8
106.3
106.3
106.3
373.2
426.2
267.2
395.6
484.1
652.7
441.4
248.3
245 1
197.3
315.8
345.6
349.7
382.9
272.8
403.5
106.6
106.6
107.8
374.0
426.5
268.1
390.9
475.7
593.6
443.2
248.8
245.3
197.2
316.4
346.3
350.1
385.0
274.1
405.4
107.4
107.3
108.2
364.7
416.6
261.1
386.3
467.1
552.8
441.2
249.9
246.0
198.5
315.5
346.6
351.1
388.1
277.0
411.6
108.1
108.1
108.5
364.6
419.2
259.4
382.6
459.1
521.5
438.0
252.1
246.0
198.1
316.3
347.1
Apparel and upkeep ...............................................................
199.1
205.0
204.3
208.7
210.2
210.2
208.1
204.1
203.1
205.2
206.1
Special indexes:
All items less food ................................................................
All items less shelter.............................................................
All items less homeowners’ costs ..........................................
All items less medical care....................................................
Commodities less food..........................................................
Nondurables less food ..............................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel .......................................
Nondurables..........................................................................
Services less rent of shelter...................................................
Services less medical care....................................................
Energy..................................................................................
All Items less energy .............................................................
All items less food and energy ..............................................
Commodities less food and energy........................................
Energy commodities ..............................................................
Services less energy..............................................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1967-$1.00..........................................................................
1957-59-$1.00....................................................................
C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X F O R U R B A N W A G E E A R N E R S
A N D C L E R IC A L W O R K E R S :
See footnotes at end of table.
Digitized for 84
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
444.4
286.4
336.7
225.3
-
204.9
204.2
203.7
201.8
30. Continued- Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or
service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items
(1967 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
195.1
201.8
178.2
314.9
211.0
202.5
321.6
196.6
203.5
180.0
314.8
212.6
202.4
323.2
196.5
203.7
178.3
320.7
215.9
202.5
323.6
194.1
202.2
174.5
317.3
213.6
202.4
324.4
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
188.2
196.8
165.2
328.6
208.4
190.4
198.0
169.0
329.6
210.7
203.5
329.0
191.2
199.3
169.3
331.3
322.3
318.0
213.5
213.9
374.0
383.8
383.7
352.9
287.6
204.9
312.1
393.5
321.1
316.6
213.5
213.8
374.3
379.5
379.2
354.5
285.2
205.6
308.9
396.8
322.2
317.6
215.3
215.5
375.3
376.3
375.8
356.9
289.2
205.0
314.1
399.3
324.6
320.1
217.5
217.8
376.4
378.7
378.1
357.2
293.7
203.7
320.2
400.1
325.3 3
320.8 C
218.6
218.8
375.6
379.6
378.9
359.0
294.7
204.3
321.3
400.2
320.1
314.8
219.4
219.7
370.7
353.0
352.3
360.4
298.4
205.4
325.7
412.6
310.3
304.5
219.4
219.5
367.2
309.6
308.8
360.9
300.6
206.0
328.3
412.0
303.5
297.4
402.0
257.4
433.3
368.5
514.4
404.5
259.0
436.1
370.4
518.4
406.3
259.8
438.1
372.1
520.7
408.5
260.9
440.6
373.7
524.4
410.9
262.2
443.2
375.8
527.5
412.6
262.3
445.4
377.6
530.4
420.0 423.5
267.0 268.8
453.5 457.3
382.2 385.6
543.0 547.3
425.7
270.7
459.5
387.4
550.0
260.9
254.5
273.2
260.8
254.3
273.3
261.6
256.0
272.6
263.0
257.1
274.6
263.7
257.2
276.3
263.0
255.7
276.8
266.5
258.3
282.1
266.9
258.4
283.0
396.1
253.5
427.1
363.6
506.6
397.7
254.8
428.7
365.0
508.2
399.8
256.7
430.7
366.8
510.5
258.6
253.2
269.2
258.9
253.1
270.0
260.1
253.9
272.0
Medical care...........................
Medical care commodities.....
Medical care services............
Professional services.........
Other medical care services
. 377.7
. 239.7
. 407.9
. 346.5
. 484.7
401.2
256.3
432.7
367.7
513.9
Entertainment......................
Entertainment commodities
Entertainment services......
.
.
.
260.1
254.2
271.6
Other goods and services .............................
Tobacco products......................................
Personal care..............................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances .
Personal care services .............................
Personal and educational expenses.............
School books and supplies.......................
Personal and educational services ............
.. 304.9 322.7
.. 309.7 328.1
.. 269.4 279.6
.. 270.3 279.0
.. 268.8 280.5
.. 368.2 399.3
.. 327.5 355.7
.. 378.2 410.1
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1967=81.00........................................
1957-59 = 81.00 ...................................
Apr
323.5
319.3
213.6
214.0
376.7
387.2
387.0
352.2
287.7
204.3
312.4
392.1
322.0
318.0
213.2
213.4
386.4
375.7
375.3
349.3
286.3
205.1
310.4
387.4
Special indexes:
All items less food ...........................................
All items less shelter .......................................
All items less homeowners’ costs (12/84=100).
All items less medical care...............................
Commodities less food.....................................
Nondurables less food .....................................
Nondurables less food and apparel .................
Nondurables...................................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 100).......
Services less medical care..............................
Energy............................................................
All items less energy ......................................
All items less food and energy ........................
Commodities less food and energy..................
Energy commodities .......................................
Services less energy.......................................
Mar.
323.6
319.6
213.6
214.0
380.3
386.2
386.0
351.5
286.9
205.9
310.9
388.4
321.6
317.4
214.2
214.5
379.7
375.4
375.0
352.6
287.7
204.7
312.3
391.7
Services.....................................................................
Rent of shelter (12/84 = 100)....................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 100).
Transportation services............................................
Medical care services...............................................
Other services .........................................................
Feb.
323.3
319.4
213.5
213.8
384.2
383.0
382.7
350.6
285.9
203.5
310.4
387.6
313.9
310.1
207.3
207.9
375.7
372.2
371.8
342.2
274.2
203.9
295.4
. 376.8
All items...................................................................
Commodities..........................................................
Food and beverages.............................................
Commodities less food and beverages..................
Nondurables less food and beverages ...............
Apparel commodities.......................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
Durables............................................................
JJan.
190.4
197.3
169.9
311.2
210.5
205.2
320.5
190.7
198.2
169.7
310.6
213.3
202.7
317.0
251.2
247.7
258.5
Dec.
187.8
194.8
165.5
306.4
211.6
204.5
319.0
191.5
197.8
172.0
306.4
213.3
203.3
316.1
Transportation ..............................................
Private transportation..................................
New vehicles............................................
New cars...............................................
Used cars................................................
Motor fuel ................................................
Gasoline................................................
Maintenance and repair............................
Other private transportation......................
Other private transportation commodities
Other private transportation services......
Public transportation..................................
Nov.
190.0
196.6
168.4
313.5
214.1
204.0
317.6
191.3
198.2
171.3
311.7
212.5
203.1
318.5
186.6
192.9
165.0
297.6
210.0
204.5
302.9
Oct.
Aug.
May
1985
Sept.
July
June
Apr.
1984
Apparel commodities ..............
Men’s and boys’ apparel.......
Women’s and girls’ apparel ....
Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel
Footwear.............................
Other apparel commodities ....
Apparel services.....................
1986
1985
Annu al
avera ge
318.3 318.8 319.5 321.8 322.9 328.7
323.6 323.6 324.4 329.7 331.1 332.4
277.5 278.6 279.2 279.9 280.9 281.8
277.5 277.8 278.2 279.2 280.0 281.1
278.0 279.7 280.7 280.9 282.2 282.8
390.7 390.9 391.6 392.5 393.2 414.5
349.4 349.5 349.9 350.6 351.2 366.9
401.0 401.2 401.9 402.9 403.6 426.1
379.3
265.4
257.8
280.0
266.5
258.3
282.0
212.1
204.1
330.2
220.2
220.4
364.8
280.1
279.1
362.2
300.4
204.6
328.5
413.0
330.1 330.5 331.9 334.9 336.1 337.0 337.6
334.0 334.3 337.1 342.4 344.4 345.2 346.0
282.7 283.1 284.0 285.9 286.8 288.0 288.2
282.0 281.9 283.3 285.9 286.7 288.1 288.4
283.7 284.8 285.2 286.4 287.4 288.4 288.4
416.5 417.3 417.4 418.9 419.9 420.1 421.2
369.2 369.3 369.4 375.6 378.4 379.0 379.1
428.1 428.9 429.1 429.7 430.3 430.5 431.8
.. 307.6 318.5 316.7 317.8 318.7 319.1 319.6 320.5 321.3 322.6 323.4
.. 280.4 286.5 286.7 286.8 286.8 286.4 286.3 286.8 287.6 288.9 289.7
.. 295.2 301.8 301.4 300.8 301.2 301.4 301.6 301.8 302.2 303.4 305.4
_
“
”
276.3 277.5 277.7
... 269.3
... 277.5 283.8 283.2 284.9 285.4 285.0 285.1 286.5 287.0 288.5 288.7
194.1
196.5
196.6
195.1
190.4
187.8
... 186.6 191.3 191.5 190.7 190.0
... 327.0 334.2 333.1 336.0 337.2 337.6 336.6 336.4 336.5 338.8 340.1
... 261.1 265.2 267.3 266.3 265.1 263.8 263.1 263.1 264.5 265.7 265.7
324.3
289.8
307.7
323.2
287.0
307.5
321.4
283.1
307.6
320.4
280.4
308.3
286.9
189.4
339.6
265.6
280.1
188.2
330.1
264.6
269.6
190.4
313.2
263.7
262.0
191.2
301.6
263.3
390.5
107.4
102.8
347.0
457.3
322.1
392.2
108.3
102.7
347.5
459.5
322.9
320.2
302.1
372.2
101.6
101.2
329.6
427.1
306.2
374.9
102.6
102.2
329.9
428.7
307.2
377.4
102.9
104.2
330.6
430.7
308.4
379.2
103.5
104.5
332.2
433.3
309.3
380.7
104.3
104.6
332.4
436.1
310.1
382.0
104.5
104.8
331.4
438.1
315.C
383.0
105.1
103.3
335.5
440.6
316.7
384.2
105.8
102.1
339.3
443.2
317.8
385.1
106.1
102.0
340.5
445.4
318.3
387.2
106.4
343.3
449.2
320.4
388.8
106.7
103.0
345.4
453.5
321.6
307.E 319.'
295.1 303.'
_ 101 .£
.... 304.C 314.:
272.Ì
.... 267.
.... 272.8 279.(
.... 313.: 320.
... 287.' 293.
102. 3
369. D
.... 350.
426. 3
.... 423.
309. 9
.... 298.
... 295. 3 308.7
... 250. 5 256.8
... 410. 5 410.9
... 350. 8 371.1
317.2
302.'!
101./
312.6
273.:
278.:
319.
293.'
101.'
364.
424.
308.
306. 4
257. 2
411. S
366. 2
318.7
303.C
101.'
313.“
273.8
279.8
321.
294.(
101.
366.
431.
308. 3
307. 3
256. 8
418.0
368.4
319.8
303.£
102.C
314.8
273.8
280.'
322.Î
294.'
102, I
369.
436.
309.
307. 3
256. 2
419. 9
369. 9
320.C
304.C
102.C
314.:
272.8
280.C
323.<
294.
103.
371.
437.
309. 5
308. 3
255. 3
419. 6
371.9
320.E
304. C
102.
315.C
280.
322.
294.
103.
372. 5
433. 9
310. 4
309. 4
255.8
415.7
373.7
321 .S
304.8
102.'
316.1
273.'
281.:
322.:
295.
103.
373.
432.
311. 5
310. 7
257. 2
412. 6
374.9
322.E
305.4
102.8
316.E
274.E
282.'
323.
295.'
103.«
374.
426.
313.
312.
258. 3
411. 2
377. 3
324.2
306.4
103.C
318.1
275.E
283.8
325.C
297.
103.Î
375.,
425.'
314.
314.
259.
416.
379. 3
324.6
307.2
103.2
318.9
275.9
283.9
326.3
298.2
104.2
376.2
426.8
315.3
314.6
259.2
418.9
380.8
325.1
307.9
103.5
319.6
275.0
282.3
325.9
298.4
104.9
378.2
424.7
316.5
315.4
258.8
414.1
382.9
323.8
306.4
103.0
318.3
270.9
276.1
317.5
295.0
105.5
379.5
408.1
316.9
316.1
258.5
387.3
384.5
321.5
303.8
102.3
316.2
264.9
266.4
302.6
289.8
105.7
381.0
379.0
317.8
317.2
258.7
343.3
386.5
31 4
27 0
31.6
27.2
31 5
27 1
31.4
27.0
31.3
26 9
31 3
26 9
31.2
26.8
31.1
26.8
31.0
26.7
30.9
26.6
30.8
26.5
30.9
26.6
31.1
26.8
...
358.0
...
...
...
317.2
407.9
292.9
377.3
103.2
102.6
332.2
432.7
310.1
....
....
32.5
28 0
Z72.~
101.8
315.2
260.7
259.4
292.2
286.3
105.9
382.7
358.4
318.8
318.3
258.8
312.9
388.8
31.2
26.8
- Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
31.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Price Data
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1967=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Urban Wage Earners
All Urban Consumers
Area1
Pricing
sche index
dule2
U.S. city average.................
Chicago, III.-Northwestern
Ind.......................................
Detroit, Mich..........................
Los Angeles-Long Beach,
Anaheim, Calif......................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern
N.J.......................................
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J..............
Anchorage, Alaska
(10/67 - 100) ....................
Baltimore, Md........................
Boston, Mass........................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind..........
Denver-Boulder, Colo.............
Miami, Fla. (11/77 - 100)....
Milwaukee, Wis......................
Northeast, Pa........................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.............
St. Louis, Mo.-lll.....................
San Diego, Calif.....................
Seattle-Everett, Wash............
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va........
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
-
320.1
321.3
327.4
328.4
327.5
326.0
325.3
316.7
317.8
323.4
324.3
323.2
321.4
320.4
-
319.1
315.8
319.8
316.1
325.9
323.1
326.3
323.1
326.4
322.9
323.9
320.0
323.7
318.8
306.2
306.3
306.9
306.6
312.6
313.1
312.9
313.4
312.8
312.3
309.7
309.3
309.1
308.1
315.9
319.1
326.1
326.8
326.6
328.2
326.8
311.2
314.1
320.1
320.9
320.4
321.6
320.2
311.8
312.4
312.6
314.2
320.8
319.7
323.1
320.3
322.3
320.1
322.4
319.1
321.4
317.8
305.1
315.3
305.8
317.2
313.5
322.5
315.8
323.0
314.7
322.8
314.5
321.4
313.2
319.7
-
278.8
323.1
315.2
330.4
356.3
171.0
330.9
306.0
310.4
315.9
372.1
321.0
319.8
-
287.1
332.0
327.1
333.2
364.4
174.6
333.9
311.6
321.3
322.4
381.9
327.0
331.1
-
291.2
331.1
324.9
329.4
355.7
174.5
329.1
309.3
315.0
319.2
379.2
325.0
329.1
-
-
271.9
322.3
313.2
324.0
351.9
172.2
350.2
305.2
301.2
313.0
336.5
308.4
323.0
-
280.2
331.1
324.5
326.0
359.1
175.7
353.0
310.6
311.0
319.1
344.7
313.5
332.6
-
284.4
329.5
322.3
321.8
350.1
175.1
347.2
308.3
304.3
315.0
341.9
311.4
330.5
-
-
335.3
309.8
348.8
344.5
298.5
336.8
321.8
_
-
336.9
310.1
350.2
347.0
301.2
337.2
321.1
_
-
334.9
308.0
346.9
341.4
299.0
330.0
320.7
322.3
291.9
321.8
329.6
300.1
332.8
309.7
_
-
332.6
295.9
327.5
338.3
305.8
334.1
311.7
_
-
334.3
295.8
328.3
340.4
308.5
334.3
310.1
_
-
331.7
292.7
324.4
334.1
306.0
327.7
308.9
.
_
M
M
M
1986
1985
May
-
1 10/67
1
1
1
1
1 11/77
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
_
_
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
324.6
305.4
342.4
335.6
292.7
335.3
319.8
2
2
2
-
333.6
324.3
330.4
-
340.4
331.5
336.4
-
339.9
330.1
341.1
-
338.4
328.1
339.3
329.2
306.8
326.1
_
-
336.0
312.8
331.3
_
-
334.9
311.4
336.0
“
332.3
307.8
333.2
Region3
Northeast ..........................
North Central.....................
South.................................
W est.................................
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
169.8
172.8
172.6
173.0
-
174.3
176.0
176.3
177.2
-
174.5
175.4
176.6
177.5
-
173.7
173.9
175.1
176.8
167.9
169.7
172.5
171.4
-
172.1
172.6
176.0
175.2
-
172.3
171.8
176.1
175.4
-
171.1
170.0
174.1
174.5
Population size class3
A-1 ....................................
A -2....................................
B .......................................
C .......................................
D .......................................
2
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
169.6
174.7
173.5
171.4
171.0
-
174.2
178.4
177.2
174.9
174.7
-
174.7
178.7
176.9
174.7
174.0
-
173.9
177.4
175.6
173.4
172.7
166.0
172.0
171.2
172.0
172.8
-
170.2
175.4
174.6
175.3
176.0
-
170.5
175.5
174.2
175.0
175.2
-
169.3
173.8
172.7
173.4
173.6
Region/population size class
cross classification3
Class A:
Northeast ........................
North Central...................
South ..............................
West................................
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
11/77
166.7
175.9
172.4
174.6
-
171.2
179.4
176.5
179.3
-
171.8
179.2
177.3
179.8
-
171.0
177.8
175.5
179.6
163.5
171.1
172.6
170.9
-
167.7
174.5
176.5
175.0
-
168.1
174.0
177.0
175.5
-
166.9
172.1
174.9
174.9
Class B:
Northeast .......................
North Central..................
South .............................
West...............................
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
173.5
171.7
173.7
174.4
176.7
174.2
178.0
178.4
-
176.4
173.7
178.2
177.6
174.7
172.1
177.0
176.7
170.5
168.4
170.7
175.1
-
173.5
170.5
174.7
178.9
Alanta, Ga.............................
Buffalo, N.Y...........................
Cleveland, Ohio....................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.............
Honolulu, Hawaii...................
Houston, Tex.........................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ......
Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minn.-Wis.............................
Pittsburgh, Pa........................
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.
See footnotes at end of table.
86
M
M
1986
1985
Apr.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
-
-
173.4
169.7
174.6
178.2
-
171.7
167.7
173.2
177.1
31. Continued— Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1967 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Urban Wage Earners
All Urban Consumers
Area1
Pricing Other
sche- index
dule2 base
1985
Apr.
Class C:
Class D:
May
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
177.8
168.6
172.2
166.9
_
-
184.1
171.5
175.3
169.1
-
183.1
170.4
175.3
171.1
-
183.0
168.5
173.6
170.5
182.5
165.7
173.9
165.9
2
2
2
2
12/77
12/77
12/77
12/77
174.2
169.1
171.6
170.8
_
-
178.1
172.6
174.5
176.2
-
178.9
170.7
174.7
174.8
-
177.9
170.0
173.2
172.6
174.2
171.4
173.7
172.4
_
I
I
1986
1985
1986
-
-
Dec.
188.8
168.2
176.7
167.8
177.7
174.2
176.1
177.7
-
-
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Apr.
187.8
167.1
176.6
169.6
“
“
"
187.4
165.1
174.3
168.9
178.6
172.4
176.0
176.3
"
“
177.2
171.4
174.0
173.9
I___
—
A-2 - 1,250,000 to 4,000,000.
B - 385,000 to 1,250,000
C - 75,000 to 385,000.
D - Less than 75,000.
Population size class A is the aggregation of population size classes A-1
and A-2.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI
program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national index,
it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more
sampling and other measurement error than the national index. As a result,
local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although
their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average
CPI for use in escalator clauses.
1 Area is generally the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA),
exclusive of farms. LA.-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif, is a combination of
two SMSA’s, and N.Y., N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. and Chicago, III.Northwestern Ind. are the more extensive Standard Consolidated Areas.
Area definitions are those established by the Office of Management and
Budget in 1973, except for Denver-Boulder, Colo, which does not include
Douglas County. Definitions do not include revisions made since 1973.
2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas;
most other goods and services priced as indicated:.
M - Every month.
1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December.
3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions.
The population size classes are aggregations of areas which have urban
population as defined;
A-1 - More than 4,000,000.
32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index all items and major groups
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
181.5
6.5
195.4
7.7
217.4
11.3
246.8
13.5
272.4
10.4
289.1
6.1
298.4
3.2
311.1
4.3
322.2
3.6
188.0
6.0
206.3
9.7
228.5
10.8
248.0
8.5
267.3
7.8
278.2
4.1
284.4
2.2
295.1
3.8
302.0
2.3
186.5
6.8
202.8
8.7
227.6
12.2
263.3
15.7
293.5
11.5
314.7
7.2
323.1
2.7
336.5
4.1
349.9
4.0
154.2
4.5
159.6
3.5
166.6
4.4
178.4
7.1
186.9
4.8
191.8
2.6
196.5
2.5
200.2
1.9
206.0
2.9
Percent change.........................................................
177.2
7.1
185.5
4.7
212.0
14.3
249.7
17.8
280.0
12.1
291.5
4.1
298.4
2.4
311.7
4.5
319.9
2.6
Percent change.........................................................
202.4
9.6
219.4
8.4
239.7
9.3
265.9
10.9
294.5
10.8
328.7
11.6
357.3
8.7
379.5
6.2
403.1
6.2
167.7
4.9
176.6
5.3
188.5
6.7
205.3
8.9
221.4
7.8
235.8
6.5
246.0
4.3
255.1
3.7
265.0
3.9
172.2
5.8
183.3
6.4
196.7
7.3
214.5
9.0
235.7
9.9
259.9
10.3
288.3
10.9
307.7
6.7
326.6
6.1
181.5
6.5
195.3
7.6
217.7
11.5
247.0
13.5
272.3
10.2
288.6
6.0
297.4
3.0
307.6
3.4
318.5
3.5
Series
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
Percent change.........................................................
Food and beverages:
Percent change.........................................................
Housing
Percent change.........................................................
Apparel and upkeep:
Percent change.........................................................
Transportation:
Percent change.........................................................
Other goods and services:
Percent change.........................................................
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers
All items:
Percent change........................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
33.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1967 = 100)
1986
1985
Annual average
G ro u p in g
F in is h e d g o o d s ..................................................
Finished consumer goods ......................
Finished consumer foods.....................
Finished consumer goods excluding
foods .................................................
Nondurable goods less food ..............
Durable goods ..................................
Capital equipment..................................
In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls, su p p lie s, an d
c o m p o n e n t s .......................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing .......................................
Materials for food manufacturing..........
Materials for nondurable manufacturing .
Materials for durable manufacturing......
Components for manufacturing.............
Materials and components for
construction..........................................
Processed fuels and lubricants...............
Containers.............................................
Supplies.................................................
C ru d e m a te ria ls f o r fu rt h e r p ro c e s s in g ...
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .....................
Nonfood materials’ ................................
1984
1985
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
291.1
290.3
273.3
293.8
291.9
271.2
294.1
292.4
269.5
294.0
292.2
268.7
294.8
293.1
271.2
293.5
291.4
268.7
290.0
288.2
265.7
294.7
292.3
268.2
296.4
294.4
271.8
297.2
295.4
275.0
296.2
294.1
274.9
292.3
288.9
272.3
288.1
283.5
272.2
286.9
281.6
272.4
294.1
337.3
236.8
294.0
297.4
339.4
241.5
300.5
299.0
342.4
241.4
300.3
299.0
342.1
241.9
300.5
299.2
342.4
241.9
300.8
297.8
340.0
241.8
301.0
294.7
340.3
234.5
296.3
299.4
340.3
244.9
303.5
300.7
342.6
245.0
303.8
300.7
343.2
244.3
303.7
298.8
340.3
243.6
304.0
292.5
329.3
243.6
304.2
284.4
315.0
243.9
304.3
281.4
308.6
245.4
305.6
320.0
318.7
319.9
319.3
318.6
317.9
317.7
317.6
318.1
318.9
317.2
313.5
309.4
307.0
301.8
271.1
290.5
325.1
287.5
299.4
258.7
285.8
320.2
291.5
300.5
261.9
286.7
323.0
291.1
300.3
262.0
286.4
322.3
291.3
299.8
260.3
285.8
320.9
291.6
299.1
253.0
285.8
320.3
291.9
298.4
249.9
285.1
319.2
292.1
298.0
252.3
283.3
318.6
292.3
297.7
254.0
282.8
317.5
292.3
297.9
254.3
283.1
317.6
292.4
297.0
252.4
283.2
313.9
292.9
296.5
248.9
283.0
313.0
293.3
296.4
246.3
281.9
313.6
294.2
295.2
244.6
279.0
313.1
294.1
310.3
566.2
302.3
283.4
315.2
549.4
311.2
284.2
315.9
558.0
311.7
283.4
317.3
549.1
312.0
283.3
316.9
544.0
311.4
283.6
316.5
539.8
310.3
284.1
315.6
542.4
309.9
284.5
315.5
542.6
310.4
285.1
315.0
550.5
309.8
285.6
315.7
557.2
310.6
285.7
316.3
539.8
310.7
286.7
316.6
500.7
310.6
286.3
316.8
453.9
311.2
286.7
318.0
430.2
312.5
287.0
330.8
259.5
380.5
306.2
235.0
355.4
309.1
236.3
357.7
305.6
233.7
354.0
303.9
231.6
353.5
295.3
221.0
351.2
291.8
215.4
352.2
297.8
224.6
352.8
304.7
236.6
352.0
304.3
236.8
351.6
301.3
231.4
351.2
290.5
226.9
321.7
280.9
224.0
293.2
272.8
220.1
280.8
294.8
750.3
265.1
257.8
262.3
299.1
721.4
269.2
261.3
268.7
300.1
746.1
268.4
260.3
268.2
300.2
741.4
268.4
260.3
268.6
300.5
733.8
269.7
261.9
269.4
299.5
719.9
269.0
260.9
269.4
295.9
718.2
265.5
257.7
265.7
301.3
716.5
270.5
262.1
271.6
302.4
729.5
271.6
263.4
271.8
302.4
733.8
272.2
264.3
271.4
301.1
704.8
272.7
264.8
272.1
296.7
636.8
272.2
264.1
272.4
291.1
551.1
272.3
264.2
272.6
289.4
511.3
273.2
265.0
273.7
245.9
252.1
251.5
252.0
252.9
252.9
249.6
254.9
255.0
254.6
255.5
255.9
256.1
257.1
239.0
246.2
245.2
245.6
247.4
247.3
247.9
248.3
248.5
248.3
250.6
251.1
251.3
251.8
325.0
253.1
545.0
303.8
325.0
232.7
528.8
303.9
326.4
232.6
536.7
304.5
325.7
232.2
528.6
304.6
325.0
231.7
523.8
304.3
324.5
227.1
519.8
303.9
324.4
225.4
522.3
303.4
324.1
228.6
522.2
303.4
324.5
231.4
529.3
303.2
325.3
232.7
536.2
303.5
323.5
232.4
519.1
303.4
319.7
228.6
481.9
303.0
315.5
227.6
437.4
303.2
312.9
226.8
414.9
302.8
303.6
305.2
305.9
306.0
305.6
305.5
305.0
304.6
304.2
304.5
304.2
304.2
304.4
304.0
785.2
255.5
266.1
749.1
233.2
249.7
760.7
234.8
252.3
754.5
231.7
247.4
752.6
230.1
247.2
742.9
221.8
245.8
743.2
217.9
246.7
743.1
224.7
246.5
737.1
233.2
244.6
735.6
233.0
242.9
739.9
229.1
243.7
679.0
225.9
244.6
618.4
224.0
245.6
570.7
221.8
249.1
S p e cia l g ro u p in g s
Finished goods, excluding foods...............
Finished energy goods .............................
Finished goods less energy......................
Finished consumer goods less energy.......
Finished goods less food and energy ........
Finished consumer goods less food and
energy....................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and
energy....................................................
Intermediate materials less foods and
feeds......................................................
Intermediate foods and feeds....................
Intermediate energy goods .......................
Intermediate goods less energy................
Intermediate materials less foods and
energy....................................................
Crude energy materials.............................
Crude materials less energy .....................
Crude nonfood materials less energy.........
1 Crude nonfood materials except fuel.
Digitized for 88
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34.
Producer Price indexes, by durability of product
(1967 = 100)
1985
Annual average
Grouping
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
298.2
316.9
298.3
309.0
298.7
300.6
299.5
295.7
306.0
299.5
312.5
304.7
299.1
310.3
301.0
299.2
302.7
297.3
299.5
294.7
296.0
300.3
291.2
327.6
244.3
332.7
326.9
247.6
331.7
319.0
250.6
323.1
310.4
251.5
313.8
302.0
252.7
304.7
1984
1985
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total durable goods....
Total nondurable goods
293.6
323.3
297.3
317.3
297.6
318.9
297.8
317.5
297.8
317.3
297.8
314.1
295.2
313.0
298.8
314.3
298.5
317.6
298.5
318.8
Total manufactures
Durable..............
Nondurable........
302.9
293.9
312.3
304.3
298.1
310.5
305.2
298.4
312.1
304.8
298.7
311.0
304.6
298.7
310.6
303.8
298.6
309.0
302.2
296.0
308.4
304.4
299.7
309.2
305.4
299.5
311.4
Total raw or slightly processed goods
Durable.........................................
Nondurable ...................................
346.6
266.7
351.4
328.2
252.2
332.8
329.8
255.4
334.3
327.3
247.3
332.1
327.5
247.6
332.3
320.2
249.7
324.4
317.6
249.7
321.6
320.6
248.1
324.9
326.2
245.2
331.2
35.
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1967 = 100)
Index
Finished goods:
Consumer goods .............. ...........................
Capital equipment ............................. ..........
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components:
Total ...............................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing.............................................
Materials and components for construction ....
Processed fuels and lubricants .....................
Supplies......................................................
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
181.7
180.7
184.6
195.9
194.9
199.2
217.7
217.9
216.5
247.0
248.9
239.8
269.8
271.3
264.3
280.7
281.0
279.4
285.2
284.6
287.2
291.1
290.3
294.0
293.8
291.9
300.5
201.5
215.6
243.2
280.3
306.0
310.4
312.3
320.0
318.7
301.8
310.3
566.2
302.3
283.4
299.4
315.2
330.8
259.5
380.5
931.3
306.2
235.0
355.4
195.4
203.4
282.5
188.3
188.7
208.7
224.7
295.3
202.8
198.5
234.4
247.4
364.8
226.8
218.2
265.7
268.3
503.0
254.5
244.5
286.1
287.6
595.4
276.1
263.8
289.8
293.7
591.7
285.6
272.1
293.4
301.8
564.8
286.6
277.1
209.2
192.1
212.2
372.1
234.4
216.2
233.1
426.8
274.3
247.9
284.5
507.6
304.6
259.2
346.1
615.0
329.0
257.4
413.7
751.2
319.5
247.8
376.8
886.1
323.6
252.2
372.2
931.5
Crude materials for further processing:
Nonfood materials except fuel .....................
Fuel............................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
284.2
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
36.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(June 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
1974
SITO
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
1986
1985
1984
1983
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
100.0
99.5
100.2
101.5
99.3
98.1
97.5
97.5
96.5
96.7
0
01
03
04
05
08
09
113.1
100.8
97.7
111.5
114.8
121.4
102.8
108.8
101.2
100.4
105.6
116.1
117.4
101.7
106.2
108.9
99.8
102.7
116.2
106.9
104.9
109.6
108.7
98.7
107.4
126.8
98.8
110.6
103.5
105.6
98.0
101.2
125.5
83.5
109.5
96.5
104.4
98.7
92.9
114.6
82.4
108.4
95.8
103.9
101.0
92.4
119.4
72.8
110.6
94.0
104.7
103.6
90.3
120.1
68.6
109.2
90.2
106.1
102.6
82.6
126.8
75.7
108.1
93.6
112.2
101.8
87.1
118.8
83.4
107.7
90.5
111.5
102.2
82.1
115.2
88.5
106.0
1
11
12
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.5
103.3
101.4
101.6
102.3
101.6
101.9
102.9
101.8
102.8
103.3
102.7
101.3
103.7
101.1
99.9
104.0
99.5
100.1
105.3
99.6
99.7
101.8
99.5
98.6
100.9
98.4
95.6
101.9
95.1
Raw hides and skins (6 /80-100).......................................................
Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit (9/77—100)...........................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9/83 —100)..............
Wood.................................................................................................
Pulp and waste paper (6/83=100) .....................................................
Textile fibers.......................................................................................
Crude fertilizers and minerals..............................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap .....................................................
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
114.6
129.2
105.6
100.0
128.7
103.5
117.3
144.8
100.0
112.2
135.2
96.8
102.2
129.8
106.0
123.1
144.8
96.7
112.5
145.6
93.9
103.3
131.1
112.5
120.5
146.6
100.2
118.3
154.7
104.3
106.0
129.4
122.1
125.6
147.7
98.5
105.2
153.7
79.9
104.1
123.8
120.8
109.4
163.0
93.2
101.4
133.6
74.8
104.0
125.4
114.2
106.7
163.2
92.4
97.5
121.0
71.0
106.4
128.7
100.5
102.4
165.6
89.2
96.8
126.2
71.2
106.3
125.7
96.1
105.8
167.9
82.0
93.3
129.0
64.2
107.1
124.5
93.8
103.6
169.4
80.1
92.5
139.9
63.9
106.0
128.1
92.7
97.7
165.5
78.7
95.8
138.9
66.9
106.0
128.7
99.3
101.6
168.0
83.4
Mineral fuels...............................................................................................
3
100.0
99.2
99.1
99.7
99.7
99.7
100.1
99.2
97.6
96.6
91.9
Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes.........................................
4
42
125.6
138.2
122.0
129.3
129.8
133.2
164.5
176.4
145.7
159.0
147.9
156.7
142.0
152.9
144.5
164.8
114.5
128.8
101.4
108.7
90.8
95.4
5
51
56
97.0
89.8
98.6
100.0
96.8
101.4
100.2
108.3
99.7
101.0
96.9
98.3
97.4
97.4
97.7
94.7
94.8
97.0
93.8
92.5
96.8
96.5
87.9
97.1
97.1
89.8
96.6
95.4
90.0
96.5
93.5
88.6
100.8
70.1
145.0
139.7
96.6
102.3
101.9
100.0
75.8
145.0
145.5
96.3
93.8
102.1
101.0
83.5
146.7
150.2
95.9
94.2
103.1
101.3
81.2
147.5
154.7
96.1
92.9
104.5
102.0
80.8
148.9
160.0
96.8
90.4
105.1
100.4
79.0
148.5
159.5
96.5
82.5
105.0
99.4
82.5
150.2
155.0
95.5
79.7
105.4
99.2
79.2
149.0
151.6
95.3
79.6
105.2
99.2
75.9
148.3
149.6
95.9
79.8
105.4
99.1
78.5
148.7
148.2
98.2
78.2
104.4
100.3
77.8
151.0
152.2
98.4
80.2
105.3
67
68
69
7
71
72
73
74
75
76
135.9
152.3
149.1
148.3
145.4
103.2
132.2
109.4
127.5
176.4
137.0
154.4
151.1
148.7
145.9
102.5
132.1
109.8
128.8
179.3
138.5
158.4
152.3
150.8
148.6
101.4
133.0
110.2
130.2
183.1
139.4
156.9
152.8
151.2
149.0
101.5
132.3
112.6
131.2
187.7
140.1
160.6
153.7
151.7
149.3
99.8
134.4
113.8
131.0
189.6
141.5
167.5
153.4
151.9
150.2
101.4
134.3
114.6
131.8
191.7
142.3
165.3
155.0
153.4
152.4
100.9
133.3
114.9
133.1
195.5
142.9
167.4
155.7
155.1
152.0
100.0
133.3
116.1
133.9
196.6
143.1
167.1
156.0
156.3
152.4
99.9
134.1
115.3
133.8
199.3
143.3
167.5
156.1
158.4
152.2
99.4
134.5
113.8
135.0
200.7
144.0
169.1
155.4
159.0
152.3
99.9
136.5
115.1
135.5
203.3
77
78
79
100.0
100.0
169.0
100.2
100.8
171.5
100.6
101.9
171.8
100.4
102.1
172.0
100.7
103.9
175.8
99.3
103.4
171.7
99.5
104.7
175.5
100.4
104.7
178.3
100.3
105.0
178.7
100.3
105.3
178.8
102.6
182.2
8
130.0
132.0
132.0
131.3
132.7
130.3
128.0
129.1
127.5
128.5
131.6
Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s...........................................
84
100.0
98.2
98.5
97.9
95.2
94.1
92.4
93.1
93.1
92.4
95.6
Gold, non-monetary (6/83—100) .........................................................
971
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 3 -1 0 0 )...............................................................
Food (3 /8 3 -1 0 0 ) .......................................................................................
Meat (3/83-100)...............................................................................
Fish (3/83 = 100)................................................................................
Grain and grain preparations (3/80 = 100) ...........................................
Vegetables and fruit (3/83 = 100) ........................................................
Feedstuffs for animals (3/83 = 100).....................................................
Misc. food products (3/83 = 100).........................................................
Beverages and tobacco (6/83—100).......................................................
Beverages (9/83 —100)......................................................................
Tobacco and tobacco products (6/83—100)........................................
Crude materials (6 /8 3 -1 0 0 ) ....................................................................
Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6/83 —100)...........................................
Chemicals (3 /8 3 -1 0 0 )...............................................................................
Organic chemicals (12/83—100) .........................................................
Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83 —100)..................................................
Intermediate manufactured products (9/81 =100)..............................
Leather and furskins (9/79=100)........................................................
Rubber manufactures .........................................................................
Paper and paperboard products (6/78=100).......................................
Iron and steel (3/82 —100) .................................................................
Nonferrous metals (9/81 -100) ..........................................................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3/82—100) ..............................................
Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military
and commercial aircraft (1 2 /7 8 -1 0 0 )....................................................
Power generating machinery and equipment (12/78=100) ..................
Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78—100) ..................
Metalworking machinery (6/78—100) ..................................................
General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9/78—100).....................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment.................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment.......
Electrical machinery and equipment....................................................
Road vehicles and parts (3/80—100)..................................................
Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation.......
Other manufactured articles ...............................................................
Apparel (9/83=100)........................... ...............................................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus........
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and
clocks (12/77-100)..........................................................................
-
Data not available.
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
6
61
62
64
-
97.0
37.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
1974
SITC
Meat..................................................................................................
Dairy products and eggs (6/81 =100) ................................................
Fish...................................................................................................
Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations
(9/77-100) ......................................................................................
Fruits and vegetables .........................................................................
Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey (3/82=100)..............................
Coffee, tea, cocoa..............................................................................
Beverages and tobacco ............................................................................
Beverages .........................................................................................
Crude materials..........................................................................................
Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84=100).........................
Wood (9/81-100) .............................................................................
Pulp and waste paper (12/81 = 100)...................................................
Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (12/83 = 100) ...............................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap (3/84=100)..................................
Crude vegetable and animal materials, n.e.s.........................................
Fuels and related products (6/82 = 100).............................................
Petroleum and petroleum products (6/82 = 100) ...................................
Fats and oils (9 /83-100)....................................................................
Vegetable oils (9/83=100).................................................................
Chemicals (9 /82-100)........................................................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (3/84=100)............................
Manufactured fertilizers (3/84=100)...................................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s. (9/84=100)............................
Intermediate manufactured products (12/77 = 100) ...........................
Leather and furskins ..........................................................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.................................................................
Cork and wood manufactures .............................................................
Paper and paperboard products .........................................................
Textiles..............................................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s...............................................
Iron and steel (9/78 —100) .................................................................
Nonferrous metals (12/81 =100) .........................................................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s....................................................................
Machinery and transport equipment (6/81 = 100).................................
Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78=100)..................
Metalworking machinery (3/80=100) ..................................................
General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s. (6/81 = 100) ..................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment
(3/80-100).....................................................................................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus
(3 /80-100).....................................................................................
Electrical machinery and equipment (12/81=100) ...............................
Road vehicles and parts (6/81 =100)..................................................
Mise, manufactured articles (3/80=100)............................................
Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80=100) ............................
Furniture and parts (6/80=100) .........................................................
Clothing (9/77-100) .........................................................................
Footwear................................................................................... .......
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
apparatus (12/79=100)....................................................................
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
98.0
98.3
96.7
95.7
93.5
93.0
92.9
94.2
88.5
0
01
02
03
102.5
133.4
100.8
132.7
103.5
133.8
99.8
134.2
102.0
135.4
98.9
134.2
98.1
132.3
98.4
133.9
98.5
130.4
98.3
132.9
96.8
118.2
97.9
129.4
94.9
120.6
99.1
129.7
102.8
131.2
100.5
132.7
113.5
122.7
106.8
139.3
04
05
06
07
136.5
136.1
117.1
61.4
134.8
135.8
120.3
62.4
132.9
135.4
119.0
60.3
132.8
117.2
118.5
58.4
131.8
127.1
118.4
57.0
132.3
129.4
122.6
56.0
136.3
120.2
123.1
54.4
141.9
131.3
111.9
64.6
146.9
119.4
124.6
85.9
1
11
155.3
152.6
156.3
153.6
157.1
153.5
156.5
152.8
156.2
154.2
157.1
154.3
158.0
156.0
162.1
159.1
163.2
161.8
2
23
24
25
27
28
29
103.2
100.0
114.8
87.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.6
93.7
103.2
96.1
96.2
102.8
100.8
100.6
90.7
99.6
96.3
98.0
100.1
101.1
98.9
83.8
104.0
93.2
98.6
95.6
106.4
94.0
77.6
100.7
84.0
100.3
90.4
104.3
93.6
76.4
106.9
80.4
101.7
87.6
104.9
91.5
68.9
101.6
76.8
102.7
89.5
102.5
91.2
73.2
99.4
75.8
102.1
90.1
102.5
94.7
78.8
104.3
74.9
101.5
96.2
103.6
3
33
88.3
88.2
88.0
88.1
86.9
87.0
85.2
85.2
82.9
83.8
80.9
81.6
79.8
80.3
79.1
80.1
55.3
54.7
4
42
117.4
118.1
141.8
143.1
124.4
125.3
114.9
115.3
89.9
89.5
76.7
75.9
57.6
56.2
50.6
48.9
41.4
39.3
5
54
56
59
101.1
100.0
100.0
-
100.6
98.5
101.7
-
98.8
96.4
98.5
100.0
97.1
94.6
92.9
97.5
95.7
91.6
94.2
96.1
94.9
95.1
82.0
95.6
94.5
95.3
80.8
96.9
94.2
96.7
78.5
97.8
94.6
102.9
79.2
99.9
6
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
137.6
141.6
141.8
130.1
148.0
130.8
168.4
118.5
95.0
119.7
139.6
145.3
140.8
131.0
150.4
130.1
166.6
123.8
96.3
120.5
137.2
144.0
139.6
126.4
156.1
131.6
156.6
124.7
90.2
119.3
136.8
140.4
140.5
126.1
157.5
132.9
159.4
123.7
87.3
119.3
133.1
135.3
139.5
121.3
157.6
130.4
154.3
121.0
81.9
117.4
132.4
133.3
138.6
121.2
157.2
127.5
151.8
120.1
82.3
117.8
133.6
137.0
137.3
123.4
157.8
126.5
157.6
119.1
83.7
119.5
133.4
141.3
138.1
124.0
156.5
128.1
162.3
118.3
80.4
121.6
134.0
141.6
136.5
130.8
157.1
131.2
164.2
117.3
79.4
124.4
7
72
73
74
104.0
100.4
94.3
93.7
104.1
100.0
93.8
94.4
102.6
98.8
92.1
92.4
102.9
98.0
89.9
91.3
101.6
96.2
86.3
89.2
102.6
97.0
90.5
91.1
103.5
101.4
94.2
94.3
107.2
104.9
98.1
98.0
111.5
112.1
105.0
103.8
75
97.8
96.7
94.1
92.2
89.6
89.4
90.3
93.7
96.9
88.8
83.9
112.1
88.3
81.4
112.7
88.6
83.1
117.8
89.4
84.3
123.4
98.0
114.1
136.7
133.9
136.7
99.6
117.8
142.1
134.5
142.1
100.8
115.0
142.7
134.5
142.7
103.3
120.1
147.0
133.4
147.0
ALL COMMODITIES (9/82-100).........................................................
Food (9/77-100)................................................................................
June
1986
1985
1984
Mar.
76
77
78
94.2
94.2
109.0
94.8
91.2
110.4
93.6
87.0
109.8
91.3
86.4
111.3
90.0
82.1
111.5
8
81
82
84
85
100.6
109.5
136.8
130.2
136.8
101.5
112.0
140.8
132.5
140.8
99.7
110.7
138.4
135.4
138.4
100.0
111.6
142.5
138.5
142.5
97.0
113.9
137.4
136.7
137.4
87
98.7
97.8
95.6
92.9
89.2
92.3
98.8
102.4
106.4
Mise, manufactured articles, n.e.s. (6/82=100)..................................
88
89
89.6
105.2
92.8
104.0
91.2
98.3
91.3
96.3
88.9
91.2
89.5
95.2
91.1
96.4
94.5
97.9
99.3
102.1
Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ).............................................................
971
-
-
-
-
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
-
-
-
-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
38.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Price Data
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category
(September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
Category
Percentage
of 1980
Trade
Value
1984
Mar.
16.294
30.696
21.327
9.368
30.186
7.483
7.467
3.965
3.501
39.
June
92.8
102.2
103.6
98.8
103.2
104.5
100.9
100.1
101.8
1985
Sept.
Dec.
88.8
100.5
102.8
95.0
104.6
105.3
101.3
99.4
103.0
98.5
102.5
104.4
97.7
103.9
105.3
100.9
99.6
102.1
Mar.
83.0
99.1
101.4
93.3
105.6
105.7
100.8
99.3
102.3
June
81.5
97.6
99.6
92.6
106.2
106.7
100.9
99.1
102.7
1986
Sept.
\
80.9
97.2
99.5
91.6
106.6
108.0
101.1
99.2
103.0
76.2
96.5
98.7
91.1
106.6
108.1
101.9
100.4
103.3
Dec.
77.5
95.9
97.9
91.0
106.6
109.2
101.4
99.5
103.3
Mar.
75.5
96.0
97.5
92.5
107.4
109.5
103.7
101.8
105.5
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
(December 1982=100)
Category
Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural gas................
Raw materials, excluding petroleum .........................................
Raw materials, nondurable ....................................................
Raw materials, durable..........................................................
Capital goods....................................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines....................................
Consumer goods..............................
Durable ..................................................
Nondurable...........................................
40.
Percentage
of 1980
Trade
Value
1984
Mar.
7.477
31.108
19.205
9.391
9.814
13.164
11.750
14.250
5.507
8.743
June
106.0
88.8
103.5
100.7
106.5
100.8
103.6
101.0
101.1
100.9
1985
Sept.
107.2
88.5
104.3
102.1
106.7
99.8
104.9
101.9
101.4
102.5
Dec.
105.6
87.5
102.5
101.7
103.3
98.0
104.0
100.6
98.8
103.0
Mar.
101.8
85.7
101.1
100.7
101.6
97.8
105.2
101.1
98.5
104.6
June
102.1
84.4
96.3
95.0
97.7
94.8
105.4
99.5
97.0
103.0
100.4
82.1
95.8
93.9
97.8
96.3
105.9
99.4
97.0
102.5
1986
Sept.
99.0
80.9
95.4
93.5
97.4
97.6
106.4
101.0
98.9
103.9
Dec.
106.0
80 5
93 9
91.8
96.2
100.0
111.4
102.4
100.7
104.7
U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1
1984
1985
1986
In d u s try g ro u p
Mar.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products (6 /8 3 = 100) ................................
Tobacco m a n u fa ctu res ..................................................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ........................................................................
Apparel and related products ......................................................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
( 6 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) .....................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures (9 /8 3 = 100) ...........................................
Paper and allied products (3 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................
Printing, publishing, and allied pro d u c ts ..................................
Chemicals and allied products ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) ........................
Petroleum and coal products (1 2 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic pro d u c ts ..........................
Leather and leather products ......................................................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products..............................
Primary metal products (3 /8 2 — 100) ........................................
Fabricated metal products ............................................................
Machinery, except electrical ( 9 / 7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................
Electrical machinery (1 2 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................
Transportation equipment ( 1 2 / 7 8 - 1 0 0 ) .................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks
( 6 / 7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities .............................
1 SIC - based classification.
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
109.0
June
112.7
Sept.
-
-
-
-
105.6
_
_
-
-
101.5
101.8
98.6
-
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
-
103.3
_
_
-
99.5
_
_
_
99.5
_
_
_
96.7
_
_
_
_
_
_
100.1
103.1
104.3
-
97.0
103.5
106.2
-
97.9
104.9
103.6
-
99.9
105.2
97.1
-
99.5
106.5
94.7
-
98.3
107.1
93.2
_
101.2
108.4
92.1
_
101.5
109.2
95.7
_
103.3
101.6
102.3
102.1
101.3
100.7
-
-
-
100.7
100.4
_
-
100.3
101.3
_
-
99.6
102.7
_
_
_
99.7
102.0
_
_
_
99.2
99.1
_
_
-
98.9
93.5
_
_
_
-
-
-
98.1
. .
_
97.0
-
-
-
105.1
-
104.0
-
100.0
-
95.8
91.2
92.7
-
-
-
93.6
_
93.6
_
96.4
_
137.4
108.0
155.7
137.9
109.5
157.2
138.0
110.7
157.8
139.9
111.1
158.9
140.4
111.3
160.5
140.5
112.4
161.9
140.6
111.9
162.8
140.5
111.2
164.3
140.6
112.6
165.2
153.1
153.2
156.0
153.0
154.9
156.6
156.2
156.7
159.7
“
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Data not available.
Mar.
115 8
55 4
91 1
98.0
102 8
115 6
104.5
103.4
106.0
41.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1
1984
1985
1986
In d u s try g ro u p
Mar.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products ( 6 / 7 7 — 100) ........................................
Tobacco manufactures ..........................................................................
Textile mill products ( 9 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
Apparel and related products ( 6 / 7 7 —1 0 0 ) .....................................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
( 6 / 7 7 - 1 0 0 ) .............................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures ( 6 / 8 0 — 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Paper and allied products ( 6 / 7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................
Printing, publishing, and allied p ro d u c ts ..........................................
Chemicals and allied products ( 9 / 8 2 — 1 0 0 ) ..................................
Petroleum and coal pro d u c ts ...............................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
( 1 2 / 8 0 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................................
Leather and leather products ..............................................................
Stone, clay, glass, concrete products...............................................
Primary metal products (6 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................
Fabricated metal products (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................
Machinery, except electrical ( 3 / 8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................
Electrical machinery ( 9 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
Transportation equipment ( 6 / 8 1 — 100) ...........................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks
( 1 2 / 7 9 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities
( 9 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) .............................................................................................
June
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
Mar.
126.6
-
124.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
103.8
129.6
104.3
133.9
104.7
138.2
102.8
135.6
101.0
133.0
100.4
133.9
101.8
134.4
104.7
133.4
129.4
95.7
136.5
-
121.1
96.9
141.9
-
117.3
96.2
146.0
-
120.0
95.6
145.5
-
116.3
93.9
141.5
-
120.6
96.1
139.8
-
117.5
97.7
138.7
-
115.8
98.2
137.4
-
122.1
101.2
137.6
-
101.8
-
101.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
98.1
140.3
98.5
143.7
97.8
141.6
98.0
144.2
-
-
-
-
96.9
139.1
-
96.7
138.9
-
96.6
142.3
-
82.2
99.0
91.8
95.1
113.1
83.0
99.1
93.4
95.8
114.2
99.8
91.9
118.8
Sept.
122.3
-
90.1
122.6
June
104.4
128.1
98.2
88.3
115.0
95.3
114.2
93.9
115.1
93.3
117.7
95.8
98.6
-
-
100.9
145.8
-
83.4
101.0
96.6
94.5
114.8
97.5
144.0
■ 81.9
102.6
100.0
95.8
119.6
-
-
97.8
110.6
111.6
95.5
100.0
110.7
86.6
100.0
94.1
98.6
112.9
94.0
95.5
94.4
93.2
90.7
91.7
94.6
98.8
103.9
99.8
99.1
95.8
96.4
95.1
95.1
96.6
98.7
100.0
97.1
-
1 SIC - based classification.
42.
Dec.
82.0
104.9
105.5
96.8
123.9
- Data not available.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
(1977 = 100)
Annual
average
Quarterly Indexes
Item
1983
1984
1985
1986
1984
III
IV
105.2
168.2
98.2
159.9
156.5
158.7
103.5
162.1
98.1
156.6
146.8
153.1
103.6
164.1
98.3
158.4
148.6
154.9
104.9
166.1
98.3
158.4
153.4
156.6
104.1
168.0
98.0
161.4
156.3
159.6
103.3
162.3
98.2
157.1
148.9
154.2
103.0
164.0
98.2
159.1
150.7
156.1
106.2
166.1
96.9
161.2
156.4
175.3
135.6
161.4
158.1
104.6
160.8
97.3
159.6
153.8
176.7
114.4
154.9
154.2
118.5
169.1
98.7
142.8
114.5
163.3
98.8
142.6
I
II
III
IV
105.5
167.5
98.2
158.7
156.8
158.0
105.3
169.1
98.2
160.6
157.3
159.4
105.0
170.4
98.1
162.3
158.0
160.8
105.3
172.4
98.5
163.8
157.6
161.6
104.0
165.9
98.1
159.6
152.5
157.1
104.5
167.4
98.1
160.1
156.3
158.8
104.2
168.8
98.0
162.0
157.6
160.5
103.8
170.1
97.9
163.9
158.4
161.9
105.0
162.4
97.3
159.5
154.8
173.7
124.0
156.3
155.3
106.2
164.2
97.1
159.1
154.7
172.3
132.9
158.5
156.0
106.7
165.6
97.1
159.9
155.1
174.0
139.1
161.8
157.4
106.1
166.8
96.9
162.2
157.2
177.0
134.3
162.1
158.9
114.7
164.4
98.5
143.4
116.7
166.7
98.6
142.8
117.8
168.1
98.6
142.7
119.8
169.9
98.7
141.9
I
II
III
IV
105.5
174.3
98.5
165.2
158.2
162.7
105.9
176.1
98.9
166.3
158.6
163.5
104.9
177.6
98.7
169.3
156.2
164.6
105.5
178.3
98.8
169.1
159.0
165.4
104.1
172.1
98.3
165.3
158.8
163.0
104.2
173.7
98.2
166.8
160.2
164.5
104.3
175.0
98.3
167.8
161.4
165.5
103.2
176.4
98.0
170.9
157.7
166.3
104.1
177.4
98.3
170.5
161.8
167.4
105.8
167.9
96.7
163.6
158.7
177.9
135.9
163.2
160.3
105.8
169.4
96.7
164.4
160.0
177.6
138.3
163.8
161.3
105.8
170.8
96.6
165.8
161.5
178.6
139.1
164.8
162.6
106.5
172.0
96.6
165.5
161.5
177.2
150.2
167.7
163.6
105.9
173.3
96.3
167.2
163.7
177.8
143.1
165.7
164.4
119.5
171.8
98.9
143.7
119.9
174.3
99.5
145.4
121.7
176.1
99.5
144.7
122.7
177.3
99.6
144.5
122.3
178.8
99.4
146.2
I
Business:
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees......................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Total unit costs.................................................
Unit labor costs .............................................
Unit nonlabor costs........................................
Unit profits........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
123.0
179.2
99.3
145.6
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
43.
Current Labor Statistics:
June 1986 •
Productivity Data
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years
(1977 = 100)
Item
1960
1970
1974
1973
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
P riv a te b u s in e s s
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons........................
Output per unit of capital services...................
Multifactor productivity....................................
Output..............................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.......................................
Capital services ... ..........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input........
Capital per hour of all persons..........................
64.8
98.4
75.4
53.3
86.1
98.5
90.2
78.3
94.8
103.0
97.5
91.8
92.5
96.5
93.8
89.9
97.6
96.1
97.1
93.7
100.5
101.8
101.0
105.5
99.3
100.3
99.7
107.9
98.7
95.6
97.6
106.4
100.6
94.1
98.3
109.2
100.8
89.5
96.8
106.3
103.7
92.3
99.6
111.1
107.1
97.4
103.7
121.0
82.2
54.1
70.7
65.9
90.8
79.4
86.7
87.4
96.8
89.1
94.1
92.0
97.2
93.1
95.8
95.9
95.9
97.5
96.5
101.6
105.0
103.6
104.5
98.7
108.6
107.5
108.2
98.9
107.8
111.4
109.0
103.3
108.5
116.0
111.0
106.9
105.4
118.8
109.9
112.7
107.2
120.4
111.6
112.3
113.0
124.3
116.8
109.9
68.0
98.4
77.6
52.3
86.8
98.6
90.7
77.8
95.3
103.2
97.9
91.7
92.9
96.5
94.1
89.7
97.8
96.1
97.2
93.6
100.6
101.9
101.0
105.7
99.0
100.1
99.4
108.0
98.2
95.2
97.2
106.4
99.6
93.2
97.4
108.7
99.9
88.7
95.9
105.9
103.5
91.9
99.4
111.3
106.3
96.6
102.9
121.0
77.0
53.2
67.4
69.1
89.7
78.9
85.9
88.0
96.2
88.8
93.6
92.4
96.5
93.0
95.3
96.3
95.7
97.4
96.3
101.8
105.1
103.7
104.6
98.7
109.1
107.9
108.7
98.9
108.4
111.7
109.5
103.1
109.1
116.6
111.6
106.8
106.0
119.4
110.4
112.6
107.6
121.1
112.0
112.6
113.8
125.2
117.5
110.1
60.0
87.9
67.0
50.7
79.2
91.8
82.3
77.0
93.0
108.2
96.8
95.9
90.8
99.6
93.1
91.9
97.6
96.1
97.1
93.6
100.9
101.5
101.1
105.3
101.6
99.5
101.0
108.2
101.7
90.7
98.8
103.5
104.9
89.9
100.8
106.1
107.1
82.9
100.3
99.3
111.6
87.6
104.9
104.4
115.6
96.0
110.4
115.3
84.4
57.6
75.6
68.3
97.3
83.9
93.5
86.2
103.1
88.6
99.0
85.9
101.2
92.2
98.7
91.1
95.9
97.4
96.3
101.6
104.4
103.8
104.2
99.4
106.5
108.8
107.1
102.1
101.7
114.1
104.8
112.2
101.1
118.0
105.2
116.7
92.7
119.8
99.0
129.2
93.5
119.2
99.5
127.5
99.8
120.2
104.5
120.4
P riv a te n o n fa rm b u s in e s s
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons........................
Output per unit of capital services...................
Multifactor productivity....................................
Output..............................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.......................................
Capital services .............................................
Combined units of labor and capital input........
Capital per hour of all persons..........................
M a n u fa c tu rin g
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons........................
Output per unit of capital services...................
Multifactor productivity....................................
Output..............................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.......................................
Capital services .............................................
Combined units of labor and capital inputs......
Capital per hour of all persons...........................
44.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
(1977 = 100)
Item
1960
1970
1973
1974
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
67.5
33.6
68.8
49.8
46.3
48.5
88.3
57.7
90.1
65.4
59.4
63.2
95.9
70.9
96.7
73.9
72.5
73.4
93.9
77.6
95.4
82.7
76.4
80.5
98.3
92.8
98.7
94.3
93.4
94.0
100.8
108.5
100.8
107.7
106.7
107.3
99.6
119.1
99.4
119.6
112.5
117.0
99.2
131.5
96.7
132.6
118.8
127.6
100.7
143.7
95.7
142.7
134.7
139.8
100.3
154.9
97.3
154.5
136.8
148.1
103.2
161.9
98.5
157.0
145.4
152.8
105.2
168.2
98.2
159.9
156.5
158.7
105.3
175.0
98.6
166.2
157.7
163.1
70.9
35.3
72.2
49.8
46.2
48.5
89.1
58.1
90.7
65.2
60.0
63.4
96.4
71.2
97.1
73.9
69.4
72.3
94.3
78.0
95.9
82.7
74.0
79.7
98.5
92.8
98.8
94.2
93.1
93.8
100.8
108.6
100.9
107.7
105.6
107.0
99.2
118.9
99.2
119.8
110.5
116.5
98.8
131.3
96.6
132.9
118.5
127.8
99.8
143.6
95.7
144.0
133.5
140.3
99.2
154.8
97.2
156.0
136.6
149.2
102.6
162.1
98.6
158.0
147.0
154.1
104.1
168.0
98.0
161.4
156.3
159.6
103.9
174.2
98.1
167.7
159.5
164.8
73.4
36.9
75.5
50.2
51.5
50.7
91.1
59.2
92.4
65.0
60.1
63.3
97.5
71.6
97.6
73.4
68.9
71.9
94.6
78.2
96.1
82.6
73.1
79.4
98.4
92.9
98.9
94.3
93.8
94.2
100.6
108.4
100.7
107.8
104.4
106.6
99.8
118.7
99.1
119.0
108.4
115.4
99.1
131.1
96.4
132.3
118.6
127.6
99.6
143.3
95.5
143.8
137.8
141.7
100.4
154.3
96.9
153.8
142.1
149.8
104.0
160.6
97.7
154.5
152.2
153.7
106.2
166.1
96.9
156.4
161.4
158.1
105.9
171.3
96.5
161.7
165.5
163.0
62.2
36.5
74.7
58.7
60.2
59.1
80.8
57.3
89.4
70.9
64.3
69.0
93.4
68.8
93.8
73.7
70.7
72.8
90.6
76.2
93.6
84.1
67.7
79.3
97.1
92.1
98.1
94.9
93.5
94.5
101.5
108.2
100.5
106.6
101.9
105.2
101.4
118.6
99.1
117.0
98.9
111.7
101.4
132.4
97.4
130.6
97.8
121.0
103.6
145.2
96.7
140.1
111.8
131.8
105.9
157.5
98.9
148.7
114.0
138.6
112.9
163.2
99.3
144.5
132.4
141.0
118.5
169.1
98.7
142.8
140.5
142.1
121.6
176.6
99.5
145.2
B u s in e s s :
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
N o n fa rm b u s in e s s :
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
N o n fin a n cia l c o rp o ra tio n s :
Output per hour of all employees......................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g :
Output per hour of all persons...........................
Compensation per hour.....................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments....................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
- Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
_
-
45.
Unemployment rates in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
1984
Annual average
1985
1986
Country
1984
1985
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
Total labor force basis
United States.................................
Canada ..........................................
Australia ........................................
Japan ............................................
7.4
11.2
8.9
2.7
7.1
10.4
8.2
2.6
7.3
11.2
8.8
2.8
7.1
11.1
8.5
2.7
7.2
11.0
8.5
2.6
7.2
10.5
8.4
2.6
7.1
10.2
8.1
2.6
6.9
10.1
7.7
2.8
France ...........................................
Germany........................................
Great Britain ..................................
Italy ’ , 2 ..........................................
Sweden .........................................
9.7
7.7
12.8
5.8
3.1
10.1
7.7
13.1
6.0
2.8
9.9
7.8
13.0
5.7
3.0
10.0
7.7
12.8
5.7
3.0
10.2
7.8
13.0
5.8
3.0
10.1
7.8
13.1
5.8
2.9
10.1
7.7
13.3
6.0
2.7
9.9
7.7
12.9
6.2
2.7
United States.................................
Canada ..........................................
Australia ........................................
Japan .............................................
7.5
11.3
9.0
2.8
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
7.4
11.3
8.8
2.8
7.2
11.1
8.6
2.7
7.3
11.1
8.5
2.6
7.3
10.6
8.5
2.6
7.2
10.2
8.2
2.7
7.0
10.1
7.8
2.9
France ...........................................
Germany........................................
Great Britain ..................................
Italy...............................................
Sweden .........................................
10.0
7.8
13.0
5.9
3.1
10.3
7.9
13.3
6.1
2.8
10.1
7.9
13.2
5.8
3.1
10.3
7.8
13.0
5.8
3.0
10.4
7.9
13.1
5.9
3.0
10.3
8.0
13.3
5.9
2.9
10.4
7.9
13.4
6.2
2.8
10.1
7.8
13.1
6.3
2.7
7.0
9.7
7.9
2.6
10.0
7.7
-
6.2
2.8
Civilian labor force basis
1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.
2 Major changes in the Italian labor force survey,
introduced in 1977, resulted in a large increase in persons
enumerated as unemployed. However, many persons reported
than they had not actively sought work in the past
30 days, and they have been provisionally excluded for
comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons
would more than double the Italian unemployment rate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.1
9.7
8.0
2.7
10.2
7.8
-
6.3
2.8
shown.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Quarterly and monthly figures for France, Germany,
and Great Britain are calculated by applying annual adjust
ment factors to current published data and therefore should
be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the annual figures.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
46.
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
International Comparisons Data
Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, ten countries
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status and country
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
96,158
10,203
6,244
53,100
22,010
25,900
25,290
20,300
4,890
4,149
99,009 102,251 104,962 106,940 108,670 110,204 111,550 113,544
10,500 10,895 11,231
11,573 11,904 11,958
12,183 12,399
6,358
6,443
6,519
6,693
6,810
6,910
6,997
7,133
53,820 54,610 55,210 55,740 56,320 56,980 58,110 58,480
22,320 22,490 22,680 22,810 22,950 23,170 23,110 23,260
25,870 26,000 26,240 26,500 26,610 26,640 26,640 26,700
25,430 25,620 25,710 25,870 25,870 25,880 25,980 26,390
20,530 20,630 20,910 21,210 21,410 21,450 21,610 21,600
4,950
5,010
5,100
5,290
5,500
5,560
5,720
5,740
4,168
4,203
4,262
4,312
4,326
4,350
4,369
4,385
1983
1984
Labor force
United States...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ...............................................................
France ..............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
Participation rate
United States...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ...............................................................
France ..............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
61.6
61.1
62.7
62.4
57.4
53.8
63.2
47.8
49.1
66.0
62.3
61.6
62.7
62.5
57.6
53.4
63.2
48.0
49.0
65.9
63.2
62.7
62.0
62.8
57.6
53.3
63.3
47.7
48.8
66.1
63.7
63.4
61.7
62.7
57.5
53.3
63.2
47.8
49.0
66.6
63.8
64.1
62.2
62.6
57.2
53.2
63.2
48.0
50.0
67.0
63.9
64.8
62.0
62.6
57.1
52.9
62.2
48.0
51.3
66.8
88,752
9,477
5,946
52,020
21,020
25,010
23,810
19,600
4,630
4,083
92,017
9,651
6*000
52,720
21,200
24,970
23,840
19,800
4,700
4,093
96,048
9,987
6,038
53,370
21,280
25,130
24,040
19,870
4,750
4,109
98,824
10,395
6,111
54,040
21,310
25,460
24,360
20,100
4,830
4,174
56.8
56.7
59.7
61.1
54.8
52.0
59.5
46.1
46.5
64.9
57.9
56.6
59.2
61.2
54.7
51.6
59.3
46.3
46.5
64.8
59.3
57.5
58.1
61.3
54.5
51.5
59.4
45.9
46.3
64.6
59.9
58.7
57.9
61.4
54.0
51.7
59.8
45.9
46.4
65.3
59.2
59.3
58.4
61.3
53.5
51.6
58.9
46.1
46.9
65.6
59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
50.7
55.8
45.9
46.5
65.1
57.8
57.0
57.3
61.2
52.4
49.4
54.6
45.2
45.4
64.7
57.9
56.7
55.4
61.4
51.7
48.8
54.2
44.7
44.8
64.4
59.5
57.4
56.0
61.0
50.9
48.9
54.6
44.8
44.5
64.7
7,406
726
298
1,080
990
890
1,480
700
260
66
6,991
849
358
1,100
1,120
900
1,590
740
250
75
6,202
908
405
1,240
1,210
870
1,580
760
260
94
6,137
836
408
1,170
1,370
780
1,350
810
270
88
7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
1,770
830
330
86
8,273
898
394
1,260
1,730
1,090
2,680
920
510
108
10,678
1,314
495
1,360
1,920
1,580
3,060
1,020
630
137
10,717
1,448
697
1,560
1,960
1,990
3,330
1,140
830
151
8,539
1,399
642
1,610
2,320
2,090
3,430
1,200
860
136
7.7
7.1
4.8
2.0
4.5
3.4
5.9
3.4
5.3
1.6
7.1
8.1
5.6
2.0
5.0
3.5
6.3
3.6
5.0
1.8
6.1
8.3
6.3
2.3
5.4
3.4
6.2
3.7
5.2
2.2
5.8
7.4
6.3
2.1
6.0
3.0
5.3
3.9
5.3
2.1
7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
6.8
3.9
6.2
2.0
7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.5
4.1
10.4
4.3
9.3
2.5
9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.9
11.8
4.8
11.3
3.1
9.6
11.9
10.0
2.7
8.5
7.5
12.8
5.3
14.5
3.5
7.5
11.3
9.0
2.8
10.0
7.8
13.0
5.9
15.0
3.1
64.0
64.1
61.8
62.7
57.1
52.5
61.9
47.4
51.2
66.8
64.0
64.4
61.5
63.1
56.5
52.8
62.2
47.2
52.4
66.9
64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
53.1
62.7
47.5
52.3
67.0
Employed
United States...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ..............................................................
France..............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
99,303 100,397
10,708 11,006
6,284
6,416
54,600 55,060
21,340 21,220
25,730 25,520
24,100 23,190
20,380 20,480
4,960
4,990
4,226
4,218
99,526 100,834 105,005
10,644 10,734 11,000
6,415
6,300
6,490
55,620 56,550 56,870
21,250 21,150 20,940
25,060 24,650 24,610
22,820 22,650 22,960
20,430 20,470 20,400
4,930
4,890
4,880
4,213
4,218
4,249
Employment-population ratio
United States ...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ...............................................................
France ..............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
Unemployed
United States...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ..............................................................
France .............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
Unemployment rate
United States...................................................
Canada ............................................................
Australia...........................................................
Japan ...............................................................
France..............................................................
Germany..........................................................
Great Britain.....................................................
Italy..................................................................
Netherlands......................................................
Sweden............................................................
96FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47.
Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries
(1977 = 100)
Item and country
1960
1970
1973
1974
1976
1977
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
62.2
50.3
23.2
32.8
36.4
36.4
40.5
36.5
32.4
54.6
42.3
53.9
80.8
76.8
64.8
60.0
65.3
69.6
71.5
72.7
64.3
81.7
80.7
77.7
93.4
91.3
83.1
78.3
82.8
82.2
84.2
90.9
81.5
94.6
94.8
93.1
90.6
93.4
86.5
82.7
85.5
85.2
87.6
95.3
88.1
97.7
98.8
95.5
97.1
96.2
94.3
95.1
98.0
95.0
96.6
98.9
95.8
99.7
101.7
99.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
104.2
114.8
112.1
108.3
110.3
107.8
110.5
112.3
107.1
110.9
101.9
101.4
101.9
122.7
119.7
114.3
112.0
108.3
116.9
113.9
109.3
112.7
99.7
103.6
104.0
127.2
128.0
116.2
116.4
110.6
121.0
116.9
109.7
113.2
105.9
105.9
101.0
135.0
134.0
115.3
123.5
112.4
123.4
119.8
112.7
116.5
110.6
112.9
107.6
142.3
143.0
119.4
128.6
119.3
126.4
126.1
119.0
125.5
118.7
118.5
111.5
152.2
149.6
120.4
135.9
124.8
134.7
139.3
121.4
132.6
124.3
52.5
41.5
19.2
41.7
48.2
35.4
50.0
37.4
44.8
55.1
52.6
71.0
78.6
75.1
69.9
78.1
81.7
73.3
86.6
78.0
84.4
87.0
92.5
94.7
96.3
94.6
91.9
95.8
95.4
88.6
96.1
90.5
95.8
99.5
100.3
104.7
91.7
98.0
91.7
99.6
96.8
91.8
95.4
96.3
100.0
104.0
105.7
103.5
93.1
98.1
94.8
99.5
99.4
96.1
98.0
97.9
99.0
101.4
106.1
98.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
108.1
110.9
113.9
104.2
107.2
106.1
106.6
108.6
106.1
100.3
103.6
100.5
103.2
107.7
124.1
107.2
112.1
106.6
106.6
115.4
106.6
101.3
104.0
91.7
104.8
108.8
129.8
105.9
108.5
105.9
104.9
114.3
106.7
100.1
100.6
86.2
98.4
96.4
137.3
109.1
110.2
106.0
102.4
111.6
105.0
99.9
100.1
86.4
105.6
101.7
148.2
110.7
114.2
107.4
103.5
109.0
105.3
98.7
105.2
88.9
117.9
110.1
165.2
112.8
120.6
109.6
107.5
113.1
110.8
101.2
112.4
92.4
84.4
82.6
82.7
127.1
132.4
97.2
123.4
102.3
138.4
101.0
124.4
131.8
97.3
97.7
107.9
130.2
125.1
105.3
121.2
107.4
131.2
106.4
114.6
121.9
103.1
103.6
110.7
122.3
115.2
107.8
114.2
99.6
117.6
105.1
105.7
112.4
101.2
105.0
106.1
120.4
113.2
107.8
108.9
101.0
113.5
106.5
107.0
108.4
95.9
102.0
100.6
104.6
101.4
101.2
101.5
99.0
103.3
101.7
104.3
98.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
106.5
106.4
99.3
93.0
99.0
96.2
98.9
98.2
94.4
93.6
93.4
98.6
101.7
105.7
101.2
89.6
98.0
95.2
98.4
98.7
93.6
92.6
92.3
92.0
101.1
104.6
102.0
82.8
93.4
91.0
94.9
94.5
91.2
91.3
88.9
81.5
92.9
95.4
101.7
81.4
95.6
85.9
91.1
90.5
87.7
88.6
85.9
78.1
93.5
94.6
104.2
77.4
95.6
83.5
86.8
86.2
83.5
82.9
83.9
74.9
99.5
98.7
108.5
75.4
100.2
80.7
86.2
83.9
79.5
83.4
84.8
74.3
36.5
27.1
8.9
13.9
68.8
59.2
55.1
53.6
56.1
52.3
67.9
43.7
60.5
54.5
54.2
44.9
76.2
68.5
72.3
65.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
132.4
130.6
120.7
130.4
145.2
151.5
129.8
144.9
123.2
135.9
149.7
129.3
116.0
134.7
117.0
116.0
120.1
137.3
147.5
125.7
160.2
123.6
128.0
133.6
163.3
170.3
134.6
197.1
129.1
142.8
148.1
185.4
157.5
167.1
136.6
152.1
161.1
200.8
141.3
237.3
138.0
156.0
158.9
202.6
163.2
179.3
140.7
164.4
174.3
225.0
149.4
277.0
144.7
173.4
173.3
217.8
169.1
181.8
144.8
174.9
62.0
77.4
54.5
71.9
63.6
63.8
57.1
92.1
89.9
90.7
89.4
90.4
88.9
91.7
84.1
91.9
88.8
91.5
88.8
118.6
118.3
113.4
117.5
15.1
18.9
8.3
12.5
15.8
14.7
14.8
57.3
46.5
33.9
34.7
36.3
36.6
48.4
26.1
39.0
37.9
38.5
30.8
244.0
155.0
306.9
152.8
185.6
190.7
233.6
58.7
53.9
38.4
42.3
34.5
41.6
46.8
22.8
38.5
29.0
34.8
27.6
70.9
60.6
52.3
57.9
55.6
52.6
67.6
36.0
60.7
46.4
47.7
39.7
73.7
64.8
66.4
68.5
67.8
63.6
80.6
48.1
74.3
57.6
57.2
48.2
84.1
73.3
83.6
79.0
79.4
72.8
88.3
57.2
81.6
65.2
64.6
59.7
94.9
93.5
96.2
94.1
92.3
93.6
95.0
85.1
96.0
89.1
90.0
89.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
117.0
113.5
98.8
104.8
113.7
117.3
107.7
121.9
104.1
108.2
108.3
134.7
130.6
128.1
98.4
108.9
118.9
131.7
116.1
137.0
108.5
117.0
118.6
163.8
140.1
145.7
102.0
113.2
128.8
146.3
121.7
162.9
110.4
130.2
130.9
175.1
148.7
165.4
101.2
113.5
139.7
162.6
125.7
192.4
115.2
138.5
136.3
183.1
144.5
166.7
98.9
114.9
146.0
175.0
125.3
219.2
114.7
145.6
138.1
183.5
142.8
163.0
95.1
116.9
152.8
179.5
124.2
227.7
109.7
152.9
143.8
187.9
58.7
59.0
28.5
30.4
30.1
41.7
26.0
32.5
25.1
21.7
30.1
44.4
70.9
61.7
39.1
41.8
44.5
46.8
43.1
50.6
41.2
34.5
41.1
54.4
73.7
68.8
65.6
63.2
67.6
70.4
70.7
73.1
65.6
53.4
58.7
67.7
84.1
79.7
76.8
72.8
78.4
74.5
79.4
77.6
74.6
62.8
65.1
80.1
94.9
100.7
86.9
87.4
91.7
96.3
87.6
90.5
89.1
86.9
92.3
92.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
117.0
103.0
121.3
128.1
129.7
135.5
136.4
129.5
127.4
113.8
112.9
163.9
130.6
116.4
116.8
133.7
126.8
153.4
148.5
141.4
134.2
126.2
125.3
218.3
140.1
129.1
123.8
109.5
108.4
132.2
125.3
126.3
108.9
120.6
115.4
203.1
148.7
142.3
108.8
88.9
100.5
121.5
120.2
125.4
105.8
114.1
96.9
183.5
144.5
143.7
111.5
80.6
95.8
112.9
113.9
127.4
98.6
106.2
80.4
159.4
142.8
133.7
107.2
72.5
88.6
101.0
101.3
114.5
83.9
99.7
77.7
143.9
Output per hour
United States...............................................................................
Canada .......................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium.......................................................................................
Denmark......................................................................................
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands..................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
Output
United States ...............................................................................
Canada .......................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium.......................................................................................
Denmark......................................................................................
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
Total hours
United States...............................................................................
Canada .......................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium.......................................................................................
Denmark......................................................................................
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
Compensation per hour
United States...............................................................................
Canada .......................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium.......................................................................................
Denmark ......................................................................................
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
12.6
67.9
184.0
Unit labor costs: National currency basis:
United States...............................................................................
Canada ........................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium........................................................................................
Denmark......................................................................................
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis:
United States ...............................................................................
Canada .......................................................................................
Japan ..........................................................................................
Belgium........................................................................................
Denmark.................................................................................. .
France.........................................................................................
Germany......................................................................................
Italy.............................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................................
Norway........................................................................................
Sweden.......................................................................................
United Kingdom...........................................................................
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
June 1986 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Injury and Illness Data
48. Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
PRIVATE SECTOR3
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
9.4
4.1
63.5
9.5
4.3
67.7
8.7
4.0
65.2
8.3
3.8
61.7
7.7
3.5
58.7
7.6
3.4
58.5
8.0
3.7
63.4
11.6
5.4
80.7
11.7
5.7
83.7
11.9
5.8
82.7
12.3
5.9
82.8
11.8
5.9
86.0
11.9
6.1
90.8
12.0
6.1
90.7
11.5
6.4
143.2
11.4
6.8
150.5
11.2
6.5
163.6
11.6
6.2
146.4
10.5
5.4
137.3
8.4
4.5
125.1
9.7
5.3
160.2
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
General building contractors:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases ...........................................................................
16.0
6.4
109.4
16.2
6.8
120.4
15.7
6.5
117.0
15.1
6.3
113.1
14.6
6.0
115.7
14.8
6.3
118.2
15.5
6.9
128.1
15.9
6.3
16.3
6.8
15.1
6.1
Lost w orkd a y s ................................................................................................................
105.3
111.2
15.5
6.5
113.0
107.1
14.1
5.9
112.0
14.4
6.2
113.0
15.4
6.9
121.3
16.6
6.2
110.9
16.6
6.7
123.1
16.3
6.3
117.6
14.9
6.0
106.0
15.1
5.8
113.1
15.4
6.2
122.4
14.9
6.4
131.7
15.8
6.6
111.0
16.0
6.9
124.3
15.5
6.7
118.9
15.2
6.6
119.3
14.7
6.2
118.6
14.8
6.4
119.0
15.8
7.1
130.1
13.2
5.6
84.9
13.3
5.9
90.2
12.2
5.4
86.7
11.5
5.1
82.0
10.2
4.4
75.0
10.0
4.3
73.5
10.6
4.7
77.9
22.6
11.1
178.8
20.7
10.8
175.9
18.6
9.5
171.8
17.6
9.0
158.4
16.9
8.3
153.3
18.3
9.2
163.5
19.6
9.9
172.0
17.5
6.9
95.9
17.6
7.1
99.6
16.0
6.6
97.6
15.1
6.2
91.9
13.9
5.5
85.6
14.1
5.7
83.0
15.3
6.4
101.5
16.8
7.8
126.3
16.8
8.0
133.7
15.0
7.1
128.1
14.1
6.9
122.2
13.0
6.1
112.2
13.1
6.0
112.0
13.6
6.6
120.8
17.0
7.5
123.6
17.3
8.1
134.7
15.2
7.1
128.3
14.4
6.7
121.3
12.4
5.4
101.6
12.4
5.4
103.4
13.3
6.1
115.3
19.3
8.0
112.4
19.9
8.7
124.2
18.5
8.0
118.4
17.5
7.5
109.9
15.3
6.4
102.5
15.1
6.1
96.5
16.1
6.7
104.9
14.4
5.4
75.1
14.7
5.9
83.6
13.7
5.5
81.3
12.9
5.1
74.9
10.7
4.2
66.0
9.8
3.6
58.1
10.7
4.1
65.8
8.7
3.3
50.3
8.6
3.4
51.9
8.0
3.3
51.8
7.4
3.1
48.4
6.5
2.7
42.2
6.3
2.6
41.4
6.8
2.8
45.0
11.5
5.1
78.0
11.6
5.5
85.9
10.6
4.9
82.4
9.8
4.6
78.1
9.2
4.0
72.2
8.4
3.6
64.5
9.3
4.2
68.8
6.9
2.6
37.0
7.2
2.8
40.0
6.8
2.7
41.8
6.5
2.7
39.2
5.6
2.3
37.0
5.2
2.1
35.6
5.4
2.2
37.5
11.8
4.5
66.4
11.7
4.7
67.7
10.9
4.4
67.9
10.7
4.4
68.3
9.9
4.1
69.9
9.9
4.0
66.3
10.5
4.3
70.2
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Mining
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Construction
Heavy construction contractors:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Special trade contractors:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Manufacturing
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Primary metal industries:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Fabricated metal products:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases ...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Machinery, except electrical:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases ...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Electric and electronic equipment:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases ...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Transportation equipment:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Instruments and related products:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
Total cases........................................................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48.
Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products:
19.4
8.9
132.2
19.9
9.5
141.8
18.7
9.0
136.8
Ì7.8
8.6
130.7
16.7
8.0
129.3
16.5
7.9
131.2
16.7
8.1
131.6
8.7
4.0
58.6
9.3
4.2
64.8
8.1
3.8
45.8
8.2
3.9
56.8
7.2
3.2
44.6
6.5
3.0
42.8
7.7
3.2
51.7
10.2
3.4
61.5
9.7
3.4
61.3
9.1
3.3
62.8
8.8
3.2
59.2
7.6
2.8
53.8
7.4
2.8
51.4
8.0
3.0
54.0
6.5
2.2
32.4
6.5
2.2
34.1
6.4
2.2
34.9
6.3
2.2
35.0
6.0
2.1
36.4
6.4
2.4
40.6
6.7
2.5
40.9
13.5
5.7
103.3
13.5
6.0
108.4
12.7
5.8
112.3
11.6
5.4
103.6
10.6
4.9
99.1
10.0
4.5
90.3
10.4
4.7
93.8
7.0
2.9
43.8
7.1
3.1
45.1
6.9
3.1
46.5
6.7
3.0
47.4
6.6
2.8
45.7
6.6
2.9
44.6
6.5
2.9
46.0
7.8
3.3
50.9
7.7
3.5
54.9
6.8
3.1
50.3
6.6
3.0
48.1
5.7
2.5
39.4
5.5
2.5
42.3
5.3
2.4
40.8
7.9
3.4
58.3
7.7
3.6
62.0
7.2
3.5
59.1
6.7
2.9
51.2
5.3
2.5
46.4
5.5
2.4
46.8
5.1
2.4
53.5
17.1
8.1
125.5
17.1
8.2
127.1
15.5
7.4
118.6
14.6
7.2
117.4
12.7
6.0
100.9
13.0
6.2
101.4
13.6
6.4
104.3
11.7
4.7
72.5
11.5
4.9
76.2
11.7
5.0
82.7
11.5
5.1
82.6
9.9
4.5
86.5
10.0
4.4
87.3
10.5
4.7
94.4
10.1
5.7
102.3
10.0
5.9
107.0
9.4
5.5
104.5
9.0
5.3
100.6
8.5
4.9
96.7
8.2
4.7
94.9
8.8
5.2
105.1
7.9
3.2
44.9
8.0
3.4
49.0
7.4
3.2
48.7
7.3
3.1
45.3
7.2
3.1
45.5
7.2
3.1
47.8
7.4
3.3
50.5
8.9
3.9
57.5
8.8
4.1
59.1
8.2
3.9
58.2
7.7
3.6
54.7
7.1
3.4
52.1
7.0
3.2
50.6
7.2
3.5
55.5
7.5
2.8
39.7
7.7
3.1
44.7
7.1
2.9
44.5
7.1
2.9
41.1
7.2
2.9
42.6
7.3
3.0
46.7
7.5
3.2
48.4
2.1
12.5
2.1
.9
13.3
2.0
.8
12.2
1.9
.8
11.6
2.0
.9
13.2
2.0
.9
12.8
1.9
.9
13.6
5.5
2.4
36.2
5.5
2.5
38.1
5.2
2.3
35.8
5.0
2.3
35.9
4.9
2.3
35.8
5.1
2.4
37.0
5.2
2.5
41.1
Tobacco manufacturing:
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 trade
Lost workday cases............................................................................
Wholesale trade:
Retail trade:
Finance, insurance, and real estate
.8
Services
1 Total cases Include fatalities.
2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and
illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were
calculated as:
(N/EH) X 200,000, where:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.
EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year.
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40
hours per week, 50 weeks per year.)
3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
NEW FROM BLS
SALES PUB LICATIO NS
BLS Bulletins
Em ploym ent Projections for 1995: Data and M ethods. Bulletin
2253, 131 p p ., $6.50 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02897-1). Pro
vides the latest industry and occupational em ploym ent projec
tions for the year 1995.
Injuries to Construction Laborers. Bulletin 2252, 26 p p ., $1.75
(G PO Stock N o. 029-001-02893-8). Summarizes the results o f
a survey o f construction laborers who were injured on the job in
October 1983.
Injuries to W arehouse Workers. Bulletin 2257, 24 p p ., $1.75
(G PO Stock N o . 029-001-02898-9). Summarizes the results o f
a survey o f warehouse workers who were injured on the job in
September 1984.
O ccupational Projections and Training D ata, 1986 Edition.
Bulletin 2251, 202 p p ., $10 (G PO Stock N o. 029-001-02896-2).
Provides detailed statistics on current and projected occupa
tional em ploym ent and related inform ation on occupational
dem and and supply.
Productivity Measures for Selected Industries, 1958-84. Bulletin
2256, 295 p p ., $14 (G PO Stock N o . 029-001-02894-6). Updates
through 1984 indexes o f output per em ployee for the industries
currently included in the U .S . G overnm ent’s productivity pro
gram.
Relative Im portance o f Com ponents in- the Consum er Price In
dexes, 1985. Bulletin 2261, 36 pp., $2.25 (G PO Stock N o.
029-001-02895-4). Presents data on the expenditure or value
weights o f com ponents in the Consum er Price Indexes (CPI-U
and C P I-W ), expressed as a percentage o f all items.
Area W age Surveys
are useful for wage and salary adm inistration, union contract
n eg o tia tio n , arb itration , and G overnm ent p olicy co n
siderations.
Petroleum Refining, June 1985. Bulletin 2255, 35 pp., $2.25 (GPO
Stock N o. 029-001-02892-0).
Periodicals
CPI Detailed Report. Each issue provides a comprehensive
report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus statistical tables,
charts, and technical notes. $4 ($25 per year).
Current W age D evelopm ents. Each issue includes selected wage
and benefit changes, work stoppages, and statistics on com
pensation changes. $2 ($21 per year). March issue features
Em ploym ent Cost Index, December 1985; Major Work Stop
pages: 1985; Union Membership o f Em ployed W age and Salary
W orkers. April issue features m ajor collective bargaining
settlem ents in private industry, 1985.
Em ploym ent and Earnings. Each issue covers em ploym ent and
unem ploym ent developm ents in the m onth plus regular
statistical tables on national, State, and area em ploym ent,
hours, and earnings. $4.50 ($31 per year). April issue features
note on reintroduction o f labor force data by area o f residence.
Producer Price Indexes. Each issue includes a comprehensive
report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus regular tables
and technical notes. $4.25 ($29 per year).
Area W age Sum m aries
C olum bus, G A -A L , March 1986. 3 pp.
El P aso-A lam ogordo-L as Cruces, T X -N M , March 1986. 3 pp.
Logansport-Peru, IN, April 1986. 6 pp.
M iddlesex, M onm outh, and Ocean C ounties, N J, December 1985.
7 pp.
N ashville-D avidson, T N , February 1986. 3 pp.
Savannah, G A , March 1986. 3 pp.
BLS Sum m aries
These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, m aintenance,
custodial, and material m ovem ent jobs in m ajor m etropolitan
areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for
$102 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available
separately.
O ccupational Earnings in Banking, Selected M etropolitan Areas,
1985. Summary 86-2 (N o. 2 o f 2). 6 pp.
Davenport-Rock Island-M oline, Iow a-Illinois, M etropolitan Area,
February 1986. Bulletin 3035-7, 43 p p ., $2.25 (G PO Stock N o.
829-001-00079-9).
To Order:
H untsville, Alabam a, M etropolitan Area, February 1986. Bulletin
3035-5, 42 p p ., $1.75 (G PO Stock N o. 829-001-00077-2).
Newark, New Jersey, M etropolitan Area, January 1986. Bulletin
3035-6, 55 p p ., $2.75 (GPO Stock N o . 829-001-00078-1).
W ashington, DC ,— M aryland— Virginia, M etropolitan Area,
March 1986. Bulletin 3035-8, 39 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o.
829-001-00080-2).
Industry W age Surveys
These studies include results from the latest BLS survey o f wages
and supplem ental benefits, with detailed occupational data for
the N ation, regions, and selected areas (where available). Data
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O ccupational Earnings and W age Trends in M etropolitan Areas,
1985. Summary 86-1 (N o. 3 o f 3). 10 pp.
S a le P u b l i c a t i o n s : Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and
G PO stock number from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S .
G overnm ent Printing O ffice, W ashington, DC 20402, or from the
Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P .O . Box
2145, C hicago, IL 60690. Subscriptions, including m icrofiche
subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent o f
D ocum ents. A ll checks— including those that go to the Chicago
Regional O ffice— should be m ade payable to the Superintendent
o f D ocum ents.
O th e r P u b lic a tio n s : Request from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
U .S . Department o f Labor, Room 2421, 441 G Street, N .W .,
W ashington, DC 20212, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
Chicago Regional O ffice, P .O . Box 2145, C hicago, IL 60690.
* U. S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1 9 8 6
4 9 1 -5 3 7 /4 0 0 0 4
BLS Data
Diskettes
now
available
BLS data users now can
store and manipulate
the Bureau’s data series
on their personal,
IBM-compatible
m icrocom puters
The following data diskettes are form atted for use with LOTUS 1-2-3:
Producer Price Indexes—
Monthly
Em ploym ent, hours, and
earnings from the
estab lish m en t s u r v e y -
national monthly and
annual average data for
256 industrial series for
the current year-to-date
and the 3 prior years.
Single diskette, $35.
Annual subscription of 12
monthly diskettes, $288.
selected commodity
groupings by stage of
processing for the most
recent 13 months. Single
diskette, $35. Annual
subscription of 12 monthly
diskettes, $288.
Quarterly
Em ploym ent Cost In d e x -
Labor force, em ploym ent,
and unem ploym ent from
the Current Population
Survey — monthly and
annual average information
on the employment and
unemployment experience
of the Nation's population
classified by age, sex, and
race for 282 series for the
current year-to-date and
the 3 prior years. Single
diskette, $35. Annual
subscription of 12 monthly
diskettes, $288.
quarterly measures of
change in total
compensation (wages,
salaries, and employer
costs for employee
benefits) and in wages and
salaries only; 180 series
beginning in 1980-81 and
120 series from 1975 to
the most recent quarter.
Single diskette, $35.
Annual subscription of 4
quarterly diskettes, $104.
N a tio n al productivity
indexes— 63 quarterly
labor productivity and cost
Price
Order form
measures for business,
nonfarm business,
nonfinancial corporations,
and manufacturing from
1947 to the current quarter.
Also, 24 annual multifactor
productivity measures
(output per unit of
combined labor and
capital inputs) for private
business, private nonfarm
business, and
manufacturing from 1948
to the current year. Single
diskette, $35. Annual
subscription of 8 quarterly
diskettes, $196.
U.S. export and import
price indexes — quarterly
export and import price
indexes for 450 Standard
Industrial Trade
Classification categories
for the most recent 8
quarters. Single diskette
$35. Annual subscription
of 4 quarterly diskettes,
$104.
Please send your order to:
Single Sub
copy scription
Employment, hours, and earnings
L a b o r fo rc e ,
employment,
and
unemployment
Industry productivity
d a ta — annual indexes
showing change over time
in the relationship between
the output of an industry
and the employee hours
expended on the output for
over 130 industries: most
start in 1958 and go to the
most recent year. Also,
annual Federal Government
productivity indexes
Foreign labor s ta tis tic s showing the change over
129 annual indexes of
time in the relationship
manufacturing productivity
between the output of the
and labor costs for the
combined organizations
United States and 9
foreign countries from 1950 within a function and the
employee years expended
to 1984; and levels of the
on that output from 1967 to
labor force, unemployment,
1984. Single diskette, $35.
and related measures for
the United States and 9
O ccup atio nal injury and
countries from 1954 to
illness d a ta — annual
1985. Single diskette, $35.
number of work related
Annual subscription of 4
injuries and illnesses or
quarterly diskettes, $104.
lost workdays per 100 full
time employees from 1981
to 1984. Single diskette,
$35.
Econom ic projections to
1995— average annual
output, total employment,
hours, and wage and salary
employment for 1984 and
projected 1985-95 for 150
industries. Single diskette,
$35.
BLS Data Diskettes
Room 2127
441 G Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20212
Make checks or money
orders payable to
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
□ $35 □ $288
□ $35 □ $288
P r o d u c e r P r ic e In d e x e s
□ $35 □ $288
E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x
□ $35 □ $104
N a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y in d e x e s
a $35 □ $196
U .S . e x p o r t a n d i m p o r t p r i c e in d e x e s
□ $35 □ $104
E c o n o m ic p r o je c t io n s to 1 9 9 5
□ $35
F o r e ig n la b o r s t a t is t ic s
□ $35 □ $104
In d u s tr y p r o d u c tiv ity d a t a
□ $35
O c c u p a t i o n a l i n ju r y a n d i l l n e s s d a t a
□ $35
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Annual
Please send___________ — diskette subscription(s) or
indicated for a total cost of $ _--------------------------------Name
Address
City, State,
Zip code
single diskette(s)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER