The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW iPBhbepartnent of Labor Böreau of Labor Statistics I W Q A June 19ö9 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 V U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Elizabeth Dole, Secretary Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner Region I—Boston: Anthony J Ferrara Kennedy Federal Building, Suite 1603 Boston, MA 02203 Phone: (617) 565-2327 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont The Monthly Labor Review is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327. Region II— New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 201 Varick Street, Room 808. New York, NY 10014 Phone (212) 337-2400 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Subscription price per year— $20 domestic; $25 foreign Single copy, $5 domestic; $6.25 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0 0 9 8 -1 8 1 8 ) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. The Secretary of Labor has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses. Region III—Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, PA 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV—Atlanta: Donald M Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street. N E . Atlanta, GA 30367 Phone: (404) 347-4416 Alabama 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 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, TX 75202 Phone (214) 767-6970 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ■ | | II II II m June cover: Hanover Square, a 1929 lithograph on zinc plate, by Louis Lozowick; Picture courtesy of the National Museum of American Art (Gift of Adele Lozowick), Washington, DC. Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions VII and VIII—Kansas City: Gunnar Engen 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City. MO 64106 Phone: (816) 426-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hlrabayashi 71 Stevenson Street, P.O. Box 3766 San Francisco, CA 94119 Phone: (415) 995-5605 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW RESEARCH LIBRARY Federai Rese nrs Bank JUNE 1989 VOLUME 112, NUMBER 6 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor of St. Louis JUL 1 2 1989 Analyzing short-term disability benefits James N. Houff, William J. Wiatrowski For the first time, BLS has combined data on sick leave and illness and accident insurance; benefits vary by length of service and between public and private sectors Patricia Capdevielle 10 International comparisons of hourly compensation costs In 1988, U.S. hourly compensation costs increased by 3.3 percent; similar costs in 22 foreign countries rose faster than here after exchange rate adjustments Mark S. Littman 13 Poverty in the 1980’s: are the poor getting poorer? Based on several different measures, poor persons in 1986 were no closer to their respective poverty thresholds than at the beginning of the decade Diane Litz, Linda Moore 19 Multifactor productivity in tires and inner tubes industry Upswings in both output per employee hour and multifactor productivity were aided, in part, by the rapid diffusion of radial tire-related technology Gordon Berg 28 Frances Perkins and the flowering of socioeconomic policies Only through the free and open discussion of differing points of views could the truth emerge and human needs and problems be solved REPORTS Constance Sorrentino 36 Japanese unemployment rate remains below 3 percent in 1987-88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 33 36 39 40 44 47 Labor month in review Research summaries Foreign labor developments Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Labor Month In Review THE NEED FOR TRAINING. Most American workers are not getting the training they need to keep their companies competitive, according to a new report by the American Society for Training and Development. Called The Learning Enterprise, the report was prepared by the Society’s Anthony P. Carnevale and Leila J. Gainer, on a grant from the U.S. Department of L abor’s Employment Training Administration. The report declares that job training is critically important both for individual opportunity and business competitiveness, but that there is not enough of it and it is unevenly distributed among the population, focusing mostly on white-collar and technical elites. Among the report’s recommendations is that, in the near term, companies should increase their commitment of formal training from $30 billion, which represents 1-1/2 percent of payroll and reaches 10 percent of the Nation’s employees, to $44 billion, representing 2 percent of payroll and covering 15 percent of employees. For the long term, the report recommends a commitment of $88 billion, representing 4 percent of payroll and serving 30 percent of all employees. Outdated curricula. The Learning Enterprise looks at the role of elementary and secondary schools, vocational institutions, and other learning systems in preparing workers for jobs, and at the kind of training that is provided on the job in various occupational categories. According to the report, throughout most of this century, the United States had an oversupply of workers and a shortage of jobs. However, as the century draws to a close, the situation is reversing. By the year 2000, say the authors, “ there are likely to be too few well educated and well-trained workers to satisfy the Nation’s economic needs.“ In this kind of an environment, human Digitized for2 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis skills are replacing natural and machine resources as the basic building blocks of production and service delivery, the authors say. “ The acquired skills and abilities of the population have become the pivotal resource.” The authors contend that high school students in the general and vocational education tracks are not well served either in school or on the job, even though they represent 61 percent of the high school population. This group, they say, appears to be receiving “ a poor basic skills education and outdated occupational preparation that ultimately limits their opportunities and effectiveness in the workplace . . . (they) require new curricula that integrate the basics with job-related learning. ” According to the report, the employee training system mirrors the education system, providing more training and development opportunities to those with more education, and fewer opportunities to the less educated. Skills and opportunities. The report has this to say on skills and individual opportunities: Skills leverage an individual’s earnings. On average, learning in school and on the job account for about half of the differences in what people earn in the United States. Career and locational choices, chance, and opportunity account for the other half. Each individual may trade earning power for a preferred location, occupation, or employer. But individuals with poor skills do not have much to bargain with; they are condemned to low earnings and limited choices. Most studies show that, among Americans, about 10 percent of the differences in earnings over a lifetime can be attributed to preemployment learning in school. But this small figure masks wide variations in the importance of education in determining earning potential. For instance, education is more important in determining earnings of employees in high-tech industries than in other industries. In high-tech industries, earnings of a high school graduate are twice those of a dropout; earnings of someone with a post-graduate education are 30 percent higher than earnings of a college graduate. Ostensibly, education is a particularly good investment in these industries because it prepares employees for the highly skilled jobs these industries generate, and because it produces adaptable employees who can cope with rapid technical change. Education also improves earnings because it leverages learning on the job. Skills learned in school and skills learned on the job are complementary. For instance, compared with persons who have only a high school diploma, those with 2 years of formal education beyond high school have a 20-percent greater probability of getting training on the job. College graduates have a 50-percent greater probability of getting training on the job than high school graduates. And in most American industries, workers with education beyond 4 years of college have a 30-percent greater probability of getting training on the job than college graduates. Although educational attainment certainly influences earnings, learning on the job has the most powerful and substantial effect on earnings. Training in the workplace has ef fects on productivity and earnings beyond the current job. Most people, after all, use what they learn on their current jobs to get new and better jobs. Workplace training also seems to have a more durable influence on earnings than education and training from other sources. The positive effect of workplace learning on wages lasts 13 years, compared with 8 years in the case of learning in schools. Learning in school and learning on the job are by far the most important factors account ing for American economic growth and pro ductivity in this century and will determine the Nation’s economic prospects in the next. Single copies of the 54-page illustrated report are available from the American Society for Training and Development, 1360 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22313, telephone (703) 683-8100. □ Analyzing short-term disability benefits For the first time, b l s has combined data on sick leave and sickness and accident insurance; results show that short-term disability benefits vary by length of service and between the private and public sectors Ja m e s N . H o u f f and W il l ia m J. W ia t r o w sk i Since 1979, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employee Bene fits Survey ( e b s ) has reported on the availability of benefit plans that replace earnings lost during periods of short-term disability. Through 1986, this annual survey was conducted on full-time workers in medium and large private-sector firms whose minimum employment ranged from 50 to 250, depending on industry. Industries covered included manu facturing; mining; construction; transportation, communica tions, electric, gas, and sanitary services; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and selected services.1 In 1987 the survey was conducted in State and local governments,2 and in 1988 it returned to the privatesector arena, for which survey findings are currently being tabulated. Regardless of year, the reports show that nearly all full-time employees of the sources surveyed have short term protection, through either paid sick leave, paid sick ness and accident insurance, or a combination of both. (See table l . ) 3 All these e b s reports focused separately on the terms of sick leave and of sickness and accident insurance plans. This article, the first to look at combined benefits from the two sources, presents new measures of the number of days of paid time off available to employees for short term disabilities.4 By displaying the combined benefits of employees under more than one short-term disability plan, the new tabulations add to the existing data on in dividual sick leave and sickness and accident insurance plans. Beginning with the publication of the 1988 survey findings, the new measures will be regular features of EBS reports. In the 1986 e b s , private-sector employees with 10 years of service had available an average of 127 days of short term disability benefits. Since many of these days, partic ularly those from sickness and accident insurance plans, were paid at less than the regular rate of pay, the average number of full-pay equivalent days available was 76. The comparable averages for State and local government em ployees in 1987 were 47 days available and 28 full-pay equivalent days. Short-term disability benefits James N. Houff and William J. Wiatrowski are labor economists in the Division o f Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Of the two forms of short-term disability benefits, sick leave is often considered a continuation of salary and thus is most frequently found among salaried workers. As a result, 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Disability Benefits it covers the large majority of public-sector workers, as well as white-collar workers in the private sector.5 Sickness and accident insurance plans are more common among bluecollar workers in the private sector, who are often paid an hourly wage rather than a salary. Sick leave provides income replacement through operat ing funds of the establishment. The employee’s full salary is generally replaced for a specified number of workdays lost, such number often increasing with length of service. Additional days off at less than full salary may also be available. (In 1986, 2 percent of the private-sector workers covered by sick leave plans had only partial-pay benefits available.) Sick leave plans typically specify a number of paid days off. (A few plans grant leave “as needed.”) When such days are specified, they can be on either an annual or perdisability basis. Annual plans (for example, 12 days per year) may allow employees to cash in unused benefits or carry them forward to future years. Per-disability plans (for example, 60 days per illness) renew the entire benefit dura- Table 2. Percent of full-time employees in paid sick leave plans by type of plan, medium and large private firms, 1986, and State and local governments, 1987 P ro fessio n al T e ch n ic al Type of A ll and and P roductio n s ic k lea v e c o ve rag e e m p lo y e es a d m in is tra tiv e cle rica l e m p lo y e e s e m p lo y e es e m p lo y e es 100 100 M e d iu m a n d larg e Arm s, 1986 All employees ........ 100 100 With paid sick leave.......... 70 93 93 45 Annual sick leave only .. 51 59 68 37 Per-disability sick leave only ........................... 14 23 16 7 Both annual and per-disability sick leave . 3 4 6 1 Other basis2 ................. 3 7 3 1 Without paid sick leave___ 30 7 7 P o lice and fire fig h te rs T e ac h e rs 55 A ll o th e r e m p lo y e e s S ta te and local g o v ern m e n ts , 1987 Table 1. Percent of full-time employees in short-term disability benefit plans by type of plan, medium and large private firms, 1986, and State and local governments, 1987 P ro fe ss io n al T e ch n ic al and P ro d u ctio n e m p lo y e es T y p e of A ll and d is a b ility c o v e ra g e e m p lo y e es a d m in is tra tiv e cle rica l e m p lo y e es e m p lo y e es All employees ........ 100 100 100 With paid sick leave.......... 97 97 95 97 Annual sick leave only .. 95 88 94 96 Per-disability sick leave only ........................... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 (1) 8 (1) (1) Other basis2 ................. (1) (1) Without paid sick leave . . . . 3 3 5 3 Both annual and per-disability sick leave . M e d iu m a n d la rg e firm s , 1 Less than 0.5 percent. 1986 All employees ........ 100 100 100 100 With short-term disability benefits ......................... 94 97 98 91 Sickness and accident insurance only ............ 24 4 5 46 Paid sick leave only ___ 46 69 63 23 Sickness and accident insurance and paid sick leave ......................... 25 24 30 22 Without short-term disability benefits ......................... 6 3 2 9 P o lic e and fire fig h te rs T e ac h e rs A ll o th e r e m p lo y e e s S ta te a n d lo cal g o v e rn m e n ts , 1987 All employees ........ 100 100 100 100 With short-term disability benefits ......................... 97 98 96 98 Sickness and accident insurance only ............ 1 1 1 1 Paid sick leave only . . . . 83 84 91 79 Sickness and accident insurance and paid sick leave ......................... 14 13 5 18 Without short-term disability benefits ......................... 3 2 4 2 Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Digitized for 4 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100 2 Sick leave provided “as needed,” or switches from annual to per-disability sick leave after a stated period of service. Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. tion for successive disabilities, eliminating the need to carry days forward. As shown in table 2, annual plans are far more common than per-disability plans, particularly in the public sector. In both plans, benefits are seldom subject to a waiting period. By contrast with sick leave, sickness and accident insurance plans provide less than full pay—either a dollar amount or a percent of wages—for a stated period, often 6 months. Moreover, benefits generally do not begin until after a waiting period, such as 1 week, is completed, thereby reserving payments for disabilities of longer duration. Typically, benefits do not vary with length of service. Although most employees have only one source of short term disability benefits, 25 percent of the full-time em ployees in medium and large private-sector firms and 14 percent in State and local governments could receive both sick leave and sickness and accident insurance. In these instances, benefits are coordinated by either starting in surance payments after sick leave pay ends or reducing sick leave pay by the amount of the insurance benefit. Table 3. Average number of days and percent of pay covered under formal short-term disability plans for full-time participants, medium and large private firms, 1986, and State and local governments, 19871 Medium and large private firms, 1986 All participants Length of service Days available Full-pay equiva lent days Replace ment ratio2 Days available Full-pay equiva lent days Replace ment ratio2 Production jarticipants Technical and clerical participants Professional and administrative participants Days available Full-pay equiva lent days Replace ment ratio2 Days available Full-pay equiva lent days Replace ment ratio2 At 1 y e a r ................ 110 58 53 104 70 67 94 56 60 122 53 43 At 5 y e a rs .............. 120 127 70 58 117 85 108 128 126 46 47 132 93 70 75 132 85 96 104 59 62 133 60 64 72 82 67 76 73 76 139 69 50 134 87 65 133 108 96 77 140 70 50 At 10 y e a rs ............ At 20 y ea rs ............ At 30 y e a rs ............ 79 117 124 81 125 State and local governments, 1987 At 30 y ea rs ............ 24 63 24 19 79 40 28 70 25 57 46 28 61 25 19 76 46 31 67 54 31 57 47 28 60 26 20 77 47 32 68 55 31 56 47 29 62 26 20 77 48 32 67 56 32 57 48 29 60 26 20 77 49 33 67 57 32 56 1 Coverage includes annual and per-disability sick leave, sickness and accident insurance, and any combinations available. Averages are for the first illness of the year, with no benefits carried over from prior years. Benefits may or may not require a waiting period, either initially, or between various payments. Full-pay equivalent days take into account days available at full and partial pay. (For example, an employee receiving 30 days at full pay and 60 days at half pay would have 60 full-pay equivalent days (30 x 1.00 + 60 x .50).) The new data The new data show that large numbers of short-term dis ability days are available to employees as a result of sickness and accident insurance and per-disability sick leave plans. In addition, because o f sick leave provisions, the duration of short-term disability benefits varies markedly with length of service (table 3). In 1986, medium and large private-sector firms made available to full-time employees an average of 110 paid days off at 1 year of service, and 134 days off at 30 years. Private-sector averages also varied by occupa tional group, ranging, for example, from 117 days for tech nical and clerical workers with 10 years of service to 132 days for production workers with the same number of years of service. Tables 4 and 5 show the wide variations in benefits pro vided by individual employer plans. For example, in the private sector in 1986, the number of days available com monly ranged from under 10 to more than 240 at each length-of-service period examined. Short-term disability payments, particularly from sick ness and accident insurance, may be less than the regular rate of pay. To account for this, table 3 shows the number of full-pay equivalent days available. For example, for an employee who is allowed to receive benefits for 130 work days at 50 percent of pay, the tabulation would show 130 days available, but only 65 full-pay equivalent days avail able (50 percent of 130 days). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis All other partici!lants 44 38 At 10 y ea rs ............ Police and firefighters Teachers All participants 2 Represents the percent of full pay replaced during the available short-term disability days. An employee with 110 days available and 60 full-pay equivalent days has a replacement ratio of 55 percent. N o t e : Averages exclude workers covered by plans that do not specify the maximum number of days available, and workers not covered by short-term disabil ity benefit plans. Table 3 also shows the replacement ratio, that is, the percent of an employee’s regular pay that is received during available short-term disability days. Replacement ratios are computed by dividing the number of full-pay equivalent days by the number of days available. For ex ample, for an employee who has 100 days available, but only 70 full-pay equivalent days, the replacement ratio is 70 percent. Table 3 shows that at 10 years of service, private-sector workers have an average of 127 days of short-term disability leave available. But because many of these would be paid at partial pay, workers would be provided the equivalent of 76 days at full pay. Thus, if an employee who received average benefits were out of work for the entire 127-day period, 60 percent (76 divided by 127) of lost pay would be replaced. The flow of income, however, would not necessarily be constant over the disability period. If the initial days away from work were covered by paid sick leave (at full pay), and the remainder by sickness and accident insurance (at partial pay), the initial replacement rate would be higher than that subsequently received. In this regard, full-pay equivalent days are highest in relation to total days available in occupational groups that receive predominantly sick leave benefits, such as privatesector professional and administrative workers. The ratio of full-pay equivalent days to all available days in 1986 was 79 percent for professional and administrative workers at 20 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Disability Benefits years of service, higher than for any other group shown in table 3 with comparable seniority. At the other extreme, the replacement rate was 50 percent for production workers, who rely more heavily on benefits from sickness and acci dent insurance. Comparison of the data in table 3 for the private and public sectors yields two significant findings: private-sector workers have greater numbers of paid benefit days than do their public-sector counterparts, and their full-pay equiva lent benefits vary more than those of public-sector em ployees by length of service.6 These findings reflect both the availability and characteristics of benefit plans in the two sectors. First, private-sector workers are more likely to receive combined sick leave and sickness and accident in surance benefits, whereas government employees predomi nantly receive just annual sick leave benefits, commonly 12 or 13 days per year with no variation by years of service. Second, annual sick leave plans in the private sector provide greater benefits than do those in government, and the bene fits often increase with employee service. In the private sector, average annual sick leave benefits in 1986 ranged from 15 days at 1 year of service to over 40 days at 25 years of service. Per-disability plans, while less common, were even more generous and also increased benefits with length of service. Under these plans, benefits averaged 52 days at 1 year, and 137 days at 25 years, of service. The greater number of days in private-sector plans is counterbalanced by the more common provision in govern ment plans for carrying over unused sick leave to future years. More than 9 out of 10 public-sector workers in short term disability plans may carry forward unused sick leave benefits, while this feature is available to fewer than one out S g e privaterhrms0 1986timC participants in formal short-term disability benefit plans, by days of coverage,1 medium and All pa iicipants Length of service and days of coverage Professional and administrative participants Technical and clerical participants Production participants Days available Full-pay equivalent days Days available Full-pay equivalent days Days available Full-pay equivalent days Days available Full-pay equivalent days Total ............ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 At 1 year: Under 1 0 .............. 10 and under 30 . 30 and under 60 . 60 and under 90 . 90 and under 120 12 15 4 10 2 15 24 20 19 8 13 19 6 6 3 13 24 12 19 11 14 23 6 7 2 15 30 17 16 7 10 7 2 15 3 15 21 27 20 6 and under 150 and under 180 and under 210 and under 240 and under 270 and over ........ 41 1 2 (2) 11 1 10 2 1 1 (2) (2) 38 3 3 (2) 7 2 14 3 1 2 (2) (2) 36 1 2 (2) 8 1 11 2 (2) 1 (2) (2) 46 (2) 2 16 1 8 2 (2) (2) (2) At 5 years: Under 1 0 ................ 10 and under 30 .. 30 and under 60 .. 60 and under 90 .. 90 and under 120 . 9 10 4 12 4 12 18 22 19 12 10 13 5 8 5 10 16 13 18 16 9 17 5 11 5 10 20 20 17 14 8 5 2 15 4 13 18 28 20 8 under 150 under 180 under 210 under 240 under 270 over ___ 42 2 2 (2) 12 2 9 5 1 1 (2) (2) 40 4 4 1 8 2 15 5 3 2 1 1 37 3 2 (2) 9 2 9 6 1 2 1 (2) 46 (2) 2 (2) 16 1 6 5 1 (2) (2) (2) At 10 years:3 Under 1 0 ................ 10 and under 30 .. 30 and under 60 .. 60 and under 90 .. 90 and under 120 . 9 10 3 11 5 11 17 20 16 13 10 12 4 8 5 10 15 11 14 15 9 16 3 10 6 10 19 16 15 16 8 5 2 14 4 13 17 28 19 10 42 1 3 1 14 2 11 7 2 2 1 (2) 38 2 4 1 12 3 18 8 4 3 2 1 37 1 3 1 12 2 11 8 2 2 2 1 47 (2) 3 (2) 17 1 6 5 1 1 (2) (2) 120 150 180 210 240 270 120 150 180 210 240 270 120 150 180 210 240 270 and and and and and and and and and and and and under 150 under 180 under 210 under 240 under 270 o v e r ........ insurance, and any combinations available. Data are for the first illness of the year, with no benefits carried over from prior years. Benefits may or may not require a waiting period, either initially, or between various payments. Full-pay equivalent days are weighted averages of days available at full and partial pay. 2 Less than 0.5 percent. 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ 3 Provisions were virtually the same after longer years of service. N o t e : Tabulations exclude workers covered by plans that do not specify the maximum number of days available, and also workers not receiving benefits. Be cause of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no employees in this category. Table 5. Percent of full-time participants in formal short-term disability benefit plans, by days of coverage,1 State and local governments, 1987 Police and firefighters Teachers All participants Length of service and days of coverage Days available Days available Full-pay equivalent days 100 100 100 100 100 6 83 3 (2) 1 2 4 1 6 83 2 3 3 1 (2) 1 3 70 8 2 (2) 1 13 3 3 73 7 5 5 1 4 2 5 72 3 1 1 2 14 3 5 72 3 7 8 2 1 1 4 76 2 7 6 2 1 2 6 83 1 1 1 2 5 1 6 84 1 3 3 1 (2) 1 2 69 7 3 1 1 12 4 2 71 7 7 4 1 4 3 4 72 2 1 2 2 12 5 4 73 2 8 7 2 2 3 4 74 4 6 6 2 2 2 6 83 2 (2) 1 2 4 2 6 83 1 3 3 1 (2) 1 2 67 9 2 1 2 12 4 2 69 9 6 6 1 4 3 4 70 3 1 1 3 12 5 4 70 4 7 8 2 2 3 Days available 100 100 5 75 3 1 1 2 11 3 5 75 3 6 6 2 1 1 At 5 years: Under 1 0 ........................... 10 and under 20 .............. 20 and under 30 .............. 30 and under 60 .............. 60 and under 90 .............. 90 and under 120 ............ 120 and under 1 5 0 .......... 150 and over .................. 4 75 2 1 2 2 10 4 At 10 years:3 Under 1 0 ........................... 10 and under 20 .............. 20 and under 30 .............. 30 and under 60 .............. 60 and under 90 ............. 90 and under 120 ............ 120 and under 1 5 0 .......... 150 and over ................... 4 73 3 1 1 3 10 4 Days available Total ......................... 100 At 1 year: Under 1 0 ........................... 10 and under 20 .............. 20 and under 30 .............. 30 and under 60 .............. 60 and under 90 .............. 90 and under 120 ............ 120 and under 1 5 0 .......... 150 and o v e r ................... 1 Coverage includes annual and per-disability sick leave, sickness and accident insurance, and any combinations available. Data are for the first illness of the year, with no benefits carried over from prior years. Benefits may or may not require a waiting period, either initially, or between various payments. Full-pay equivalent days are weighted averages of days available at full and partial pay. Table 6. Percent of short-term disability by source of pay ment and length of service, medium and large firms, 1986 Percent of days available At 1 year At 5 years At 10 years At 20 years At 30 years Professional and administrative participants: Total days available . . . . From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ Technical and clerical participants: Total days available ___ From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ........... Production participants: Total days available — From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ 100 34 100 38 100 41 100 42 100 42 66 1 60 1 57 2 56 2 56 2 100 59 100 64 100 67 100 68 100 68 39 2 33 3 29 4 28 4 28 4 100 49 100 55 100 58 100 59 100 60 50 2 42 3 38 3 37 4 37 4 100 14 100 16 100 18 100 18 100 18 86 (2) 84 (2) 82 (2) 82 (2) 81 (2) 1 Short-term disability benefit payments are provided from both sick leave and sickness and accident insurance plans for these days. 2 Less than 0.5 percent. Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Less than 0.5 percent. 3 Provisions were virtually the same after longer years of service. N o t e : Tabulations exclude workers covered by plans that do not specify the maximum number of days available, and also workers not receiving benefits. Be cause of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Table 7. Percent of short-term disability days available by source of payment and length of service, State and local governments, 1987 Length of service All participants: Total days available ___ From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ No t e : All other participants Full-pay equivalent days Full-pay equivalent days Full-pay equivalent days Percent of days available Length of service At 1 year At 5 years At 10 years At 20 years At 30 years All participants: Total days available . . . . From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ Teachers: Total days available ___ From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ Police and firefighters: Total days available . . . . From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ All other participants: Total days available . . . . From sick leave only .. From sickness and accident insurance . . . Combination1 ............ 100 37 100 34 100 35 100 36 100 37 62 1 65 1 64 1 63 1 63 1 100 60 100 61 100 62 100 62 100 62 40 (2) 39 (2) 38 (2) 38 (2) 38 (2) 100 47 100 43 100 44 100 46 100 47 53 (2) 56 (2) 55 (2) 54 (2) 53 (2) 100 31 100 29 100 29 100 30 100 31 68 1 71 1 70 1 69 1 68 1 1 Short-term disability benefit payments are provided from both sick leave and sickness and accident insurance plans for these days. 2 Less than 0.5 percent. No t e : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Disability Benefits of four private-sector plan participants. The effect of carry over provisions could not be factored into the data of tables 3 -5 , but their greater presence in government plans must be considered when making comparisons between the two sectors. Relative importance of components The duration of short-term disability benefits available to employees at specific service intervals is composed of sick leave days, sickness and accident insurance days, and com bined benefit days. (Combined benefit days are those days on which both sick leave and sickness and accident in surance benefits are received.) Tables 6 and 7 show the relative importance of these three components. In the private sector, sick leave benefits make up about a half to two-thirds o f the total days available for whitecollar workers, depending upon length o f service, but less than a fifth o f the blue-collar total. This difference reflects the greater availability of sickness and accident insurance plans for blue-collar workers. As table 6 shows, in all three occupational groups, the importance of sick leave rises with seniority. By contrast with the data for the private sector, publicsector figures are affected more by the large difference in the length of sick leave and that of sickness and accident insurance benefits than by variations in their incidence. Even though sickness and accident insurance plans are less common in the public sector, their large numbers of days available compared with relatively small numbers of sick leave days influence the distribution of days. Thus, sickness and accident insurance days make up nearly two-thirds of the total days available for all workers and predominate in all occupations except teaching (table 7). In both the private and public sectors, combined days, available to only a small percentage of workers, were a minor component of total days available. □ -FOOTNOTES 1 The most recent o f these reports is Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1986, Bulletin 2281, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1987. 3 For additional information on short-term disability benefits, see William J. Wiatrowski, “Employee income protection against short-term disabilities,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1985, pp. 32—38. 5 Data are reported for full-time employees and for three broad occupa tional groupings constituting this total. In the survey of medium and large private firms, employees are classified as professional and administrative, technical and clerical, or production. (The first two groups are considered white-collar, the last blue-collar, em ployees.) State and local government workers are classified as teachers, police and firefighters, and all other employees (those not falling into the first two groups). 4 Income replacement for employees disabled for longer periods— gen erally in excess of 6 months or 1 year— is often available through employersponsored long-term disability insurance or disability provisions of defined benefit pension plans. See Diane Hill, “Employer-sponsored long-term disability insurance,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1987, pp. 16-22, and Donald Bell and William Wiatrowski, “Disability benefits for employees in private pension plans,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1982 pp. 3 6 -4 0 . 6 A detailed comparison of benefits offered to private- and public-sector employees is available in a series o f articles published in the December 1988 Monthly Labor Review. See William J. Wiatrowski, “Comparing employee benefits in the public and private sectors,” pp. 3 -8; Allan P. Blostin, Thomas P. Burke, and Lora M. Lovejoy, “Disability and insruance plans in the public and private sectors,” pp. 9-17; and Lora Mills Lovejoy, “The comparative value of pensions in the public and private sectors,” pp. 18-26. 2 Data are in Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments, 1987, Bulletin 2309, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988. APPENDIX: Counting disability days The tabulations of total short-term disability benefits in this article include formal plans for paid time off through sick leave at full and partial pay, and sickness and accident insurance. Plans providing unlimited sick leave benefits and those providing benefits at the discretion of a supervisor were excluded because it was not possible to assign a specific duration to their benefits. The tabulations presented project the benefits available to employees for their first disability of the year. Thus, the full sick leave benefit is assumed available. For plans that renew the entire benefit for successive disabilities (per-disability sick leave and sickness and accident insurance plans), the tabulations reflect the length of paid time off for a single spell of disability. For annual sick leave plans, the counts Digitized 8for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reflect the number of days available in a year and assume that no sick leave days were carried forward from prior years. The tabulations take account of benefit coordination, in which employees are covered by both annual and perdisability sick leave plans or sick leave and sickness and accident insurance. For example, an employee may have available 30 days of annual sick leave and 130 days of sickness and accident insurance beginning after a 1-week waiting period. The total number of days available to the employee would then depend on how the benefits were coordinated. If the insurance plan begins benefits after 1 week away from work, regardless of the existence of sick leave, but sick leave is reduced by the amount of the in- surance payments, the employee’s maximum credit would be 135 days of short-term disability benefits. Conversely, if the insurance benefits begin at the end of the waiting period or the exhaustion of sick leave, whichever is later, the em ployee would be credited with 160 days. It should be noted that waiting periods under sickness and accident insurance plans may be shortened, or eliminated entirely, for employees who have been in an accident or whose disability requires hospitalization. Waiting periods reflected in the tabulations are those for illnesses not requir ing hospitalization. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The measures of full-pay equivalent days reported takes into account days available at full and partial pay. For instance, an employee with 30 sick leave days at full pay and 60 sick leave days at half pay is shown as having 90 days available, but only 60 full-pay equivalent days (30 X 1.00 + 60 X .50). For sickness and accident insurance plans that expressed benefits as a dollar amount per week, such as $200 per week, full-pay equivalent days were based on assumed earnings. For 1986, annual earnings of $23,192 were used; for 1987, $26,988. These figures are derived from b l s average earnings and employment cost index data. Work sharing The current advocacy of shorter hours and work sharing implies a largescale response to the social and economic problems of mass unemploy ment. It therefore has to be distinguished from an old-established approach to work sharing: a temporary arrangement among workers at a firm or establishment in response to a downturn in business. In such cases, to avoid layoffs, all workers accept a reduced workweek at reduced pay: short-time working. This approach has been encouraged in some countries in recent times by the provision of state subsidies for short-time working to bring wages closer to their normal level. In all such cases, however, the arrange ment is limited to a short period, and is to be replaced by normal working at normal wages once the business setback has been overcome, or by a reduction of the work force and resumption of normal hours if the business problem proves to be protracted. — M ic h a e l W h it e Working Hours: Assessing the Potential for Reduction (Washington, International Labour Office, 1987), p. 27. 9 International comparisons of hourly compensation costs In 1988, U.S. hourly compensation costs increased hy 3.3 percent; after exchange rate adjustments, compensation costs in 22 foreign countries rose faster than those in the United States P a t r ic ia C a p d e v ie l l e In 1988, hourly compensation costs for manufacturing pro duction workers in Canada rose to 98 percent of average U.S. costs and in Japan the level rose to 95 percent of U.S. costs. (See table 1 and chart 1.) The trade-weighted average cost level for 15 European countries rose to 105 percent of the U.S. level and the average cost level in the Asian newly industrializing economies of Hong Kong, Korea, Singa pore, and Taiwan rose to 19 percent of U .S. costs. For all 22 foreign countries for which 1988 data are available, the trade-weighted average compensation cost level rose from 80 percent of the U .S. cost level in 1987 to 87 percent in 1988. Canada and Japan accounted for two-thirds of this relative increase. Compensation cost levels in 1988 were higher than 1987 relative costs for all 22 foreign countries or areas. For Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, they were also new long term highs relative to the U.S. cost level. France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and five other European countries also exceeded their previous peaks versus U .S. cost levels. How- Patricia Capdevielle is an economist in the Division o f Foreign Labor Statistics, O ffice o f Productivity and Technology, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. Digitized 10 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ever, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, the Nether lands, Portugal, and Sweden were still below earlier peaks recorded between 1975 and 1980, and Singapore was below its 1984 peak. The 1988 average compensation costs for the European countries were up significantly from their 1985 low, but just 2 percentage points above their previous 1980 peak, relative to U.S. cost levels. For all 22 foreign countries, however, the 1988 average cost level was 14 percentage points above the 1980 peak, reflecting the much higher 1988 relative cost levels for Canada and Japan. Compensation costs include pay for time worked, other direct pay, employer expenditures for legally required in surance programs and contractual and private benefit plans, and for some countries, other labor taxes. Social insurance cost increases contributed modestly to the 1988 compensa tion cost increases for the United States, Canada, Singa pore, and several European countries. For Finland and the Netherlands, reductions in annual hours worked in the form of additional paid holidays contributed 1 percent to their 1988 cost increases. In the United States, hourly compensation costs increased 3.3 percent from 1987 to 1988. Only Belgium, the Nether lands, and Switzerland showed compensation increases Chart 1. Hourly com pensation costs for production w o rk e rs in manufacturing, 1 9 8 0 -8 8 U.S. dollars more moderate than in the United States. After adjustment for exchange rates, compensation costs in all of the foreign countries rose at a higher rate than those in the United States. The average compensation cost increase in all 22 foreign countries was about 6.5 percent in national currency terms and 15 percent in U .S. dollars. The average change in national currency was larger than for 1987, but the change in U .S. dollars was smaller. Recent exchange rates. As of January 1989, the value of the Canadian dollar was 3 percent higher than its 1988 average, the Japanese yen and the British pound were un changed from 1988 average values, while most other Eu ropean currency values were 4 to 6 percent lower. Among other Pacific rim countries or areas, the relative value of the Australian dollar was 11 percent higher; the Korean won, 7 percent higher; the Taiwan and Singapore dollars, 3 and 4 percent higher, respectively; and the Hong Kong dollar, unchanged. Assuming their underlying compensation trends continue, these changes should put Canada’s hourly com pensation cost level about on par with the United States, bring costs for Australia to more than 85 percent of the U.S. level, and raise costs further for Korea, Taiwan, and Singa pore. The lower European exchange rates should reduce most European cost levels, unless their underlying hourly compensation changes are significantly greater than those in the United States. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. dollars Trade-weighted measures and trade weights. The meas ures of hourly compensation costs were developed in order to provide a basis for assessing international differences in employer labor costs. The measures are often used in analy ses of changes in the relative competitive position of the United States and other countries in the international trade of manufactures. Hourly labor costs are an important ele ment in determining the underlying price competitiveness of manufactured products. The series provide comparative compensation costs on a country-by-country basis, however, while the countries covered differ greatly in their relative importance to U.S. trade in manufactured goods. For example, Canada and Japan each accounted for 20 percent of total U.S. imports and exports of manufactured goods in 1986; Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, and the four large European countries each accounted for 3 to 7 percent; while some other countries covered accounted for .5 percent or less. Therefore, the Bureau has computed trade-weighted measures that take account of these differences. Measures are computed for all foreign countries and for selected country groups, such as Europe and the Asian newly industrializing economies. The trade weights used are the sum of 1986 U.S. imports of manufactured products for consumption (customs value) and U.S. domestic exports of manufactured products (f.a.s. value), both adjusted to eliminate the U.S. value content of 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Hourly Compensation Table 1. Indexes of hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing and trade share, 30 countries or areas, selected years [United States = 100] T ra d e 1987 1989 1980 1985 1986 100 100 100 100 100 85 14 30 86 83 9 16 63 83 12 11 64 89 11 12 69 98 Australia ........................... 199 1.7 31 1.4 15 39 57 10 14 31 50 10 14 39 72 11 16 47 83 13 17 Korea ............................... 23 .8 204 3.5 Taiwan............................... 3 15 .1 4.8 54 15 2 10 34 19 2 11 40 17 2 13 51 17 2 16 Denmark........................... Finland ............................. 3 17 .4 .2 87 133 111 84 56 69 63 62 78 93 84 81 97 112 108 100 C o u n try o r area s h a re 1 _ C o u n try o r a rea T ra d e s h a re 1 1980 1985 1986 1989 France ........................... Germany....................... Greece ......................... Ireland........................... Italy............................... 3.1 6.8 .1 .5 2.9 91 125 38 60 81 58 74 28 45 56 78 101 31 59 75 92 125 34 68 90 93 130 Luxembourg ................. Netherlands................... Norway......................... Portugal......................... — 122 123 119 21 59 69 82 12 80 96 103 16 — — 2.0 .3 .2 116 129 19 117 140 20 Spain............................. Sweden......................... Switzerland................... United Kingdom.............. .9 1.2 1.4 4.4 61 127 113 76 37 75 75 48 49 94 104 57 58 112 127 67 63 121 129 76 22 foreign countries2 ___ 80.0 67.9 26.2 73 83 103 57 65 63 69 79 83 80 91 101 87 99 105 12.1 12 13 13 15 19 — 71 93 79 95 18 _ 19 19 100 113 114 111 OECD3 .............................. Europe4 ......................... Asian newly industrialsing economies5 .......... 1 Share of U.S. trade in manufactured goods in 1986. 4 The 15 European countries for which 1988 data are available. 2 The 22 countries for which 1988 data are available. 5 Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. 3 Canada, Australia, Japan, and the 15 European countries for which 1988 data are available. Note : Dash indicates data not available. U.S. imports under items 806.30 and 807.00 of the U.S. Tariff Schedules. Table 1 shows the share of U .S. adjusted trade in manufactured goods for each country or area and selected country groups. All 30 countries or areas included in the table accounted for 88.3 percent of U .S. manufac tured goods trade in 1986. China and Venezuela are the only countries not covered that account for as much as 1 percent of such trade. The trade-weighted measures featured in this article and shown in the table and chart relate to the 22 foreign countries or areas for which 1988 data are available; their total share of U .S. trade in manufactured goods was 80 Digitized for12 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1987 percent in 1986. International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing, 19751987, Report 754 (August 1988); and for 1988, Report 766 (March 1989), are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212. The reports present com parative levels and trends in compensation costs in 30 countries or areas. These comparative measures have been developed to provide a basis for assessing international dif ferences in employer labor costs. Definitions, methods, and data limitations are summarized in the reports. □ A note on communications 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 polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20212. Poverty in the 1980’s: are the poor getting poorer? Based on several different measures, poor persons were no closer to their respective poverty thresholds in 1986 than at the beginning of the decade M ark S . L it t m a n Many recent discussions of socioeconomic change have focused on whether or not America’s middle class is disappearing. By implication, these discussions raise ques tions about the level of deprivation of the poor as well. For example, Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Bud get and Policy Priorities, testified before a Senate committee that “The average poor family now falls further below the poverty line than at anytime since 1963, with the exception of the recession and high unemployment years of 1982 and 1983. . . .the ‘poorest of the poor’ category. . .reached its highest level in more than a decade.”1 And in a similar vein, Tom Wicker, in a recent article citing figures by the spon sors of Justice for All Day, wrote, “As always the poor are getting poorer. Adjusted for inflation the amount by which the incomes of the poor fell below the poverty line rose to $49.2 billion in 1986, from $39.5 billion in 1980.”2 This article addresses the issue of whether or not it is demonstrable that the poor are worse off now, in the aggre- Mark S. Littman is a sociologist in the Poverty and Wealth Statistics Branch, U .S. Bureau o f the Census. The views expressed in this article are those o f the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Census Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis gate, than they were at the beginning of the 1980’s (and, where possible, since 1959). Money income is the only measure used, although the effects of various noncash ben efits are discussed. Several indicators of relative well-being, based on the Federal Government’s official definition of poverty, are defined, and the data are official poverty fig ures derived from the Current Population Survey and pub lished by the Census Bureau in its Current Population Reports. 3 The Government’s definition of poverty consists of a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and number of children and are adjusted annually for infla tion by multiplying by the change in the Consumer Price Index. In 1986, the average poverty threshold for a fourperson family was $11,200, but thresholds ranged from about $5,600 for a person living alone to $22,500 for a family of nine or more.4 Aggregate income deficit The aggregate income deficit is the amount of money needed to raise the money incomes of all poor families and unrelated persons5 just above the poverty level applicable to their family size in any given year. In other words, it is the aggregate difference between the income received by poor 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Poverty in the 1980’s families and unrelated persons and their particular poverty thresholds. Since this deficit is based on income in a partic ular year, it needs to be put into constant dollars for interyear comparisons. Table 1 shows the combined aggregate income deficit for all poor families and unrelated persons, in current dollars as well as constant 1986 dollars. In constant dollars, the aggregate income deficit in 1986 was $49.2 billion, an amount higher than in any year but two: the $51 billion deficit in 1983, the most recent peak of the poverty population in size and rate, and the $51.4 billion deficit in 1959, the first year for which poverty statistics were pub lished using the official definition. The aggregate income deficit is not without shortcom ings. For one, its size is obviously influenced by the size of the aggregate population living in poverty, making it diffi cult to judge whether or not the poor, on average, need a greater or lesser amount of cash income each year to reach their poverty threshold. Also, it is influenced by demo graphic shifts within the population living in poverty which affect which thresholds are applied. Finally, it is impossible to compare the relative deprivation of different segments of the poverty population using the aggregate income deficit. Average income deficit The average (mean) income deficit overcomes some of these deficiencies in the aggregate deficit regarding inter year comparisons. The income deficit is the amount of money separating the income of a given family or unrelated person from the appropriate poverty threshold. In 1986, the average income deficit for families was $4,394, a figure that has remained statistically unchanged since 1982 (in 1986 dollars), but has increased since the mid- to late 1970’s. (See table 2.) In 1959, the average deficit for families was about the same ($4,435), but it decreased to $3,837 by 1969 and then varied little from that amount during the 1970’s. Table 1. Combined aggregate income deficit, in current and constant 1986 dollars, families and unrelated persons. 1 O C A OC Y ea r A g g re g a te in co m e A g g re g a te in co m e d eficit, c u rre n t do llars d e ficit, 1986 d o llars (th o u s a n d s ) (th o u s a n d s ) $13,667,904 11,607,850 10,120,077 11,447,204 12,033,576 $51,418,654 40,337,278 31,728,079 32,326,904 32,574,890 1959 1965 1969 1970 1971 ............................... ............................. ............................. ..................................... ........................... 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 ............................. ............................. ........................... ............................. ................................. 12,031,807 11,979,272 14,250,925 16,085,838 16,730,456 31,535,366 29,552,864 31,679,806 32,766,852 32,222,858 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 ............................. ................................. ........................... ............................. ................................... 17,758,655 19,513,880 22,741,320 29,715,299 37,014,391 32,125,406 32,802,832 34,362,134 39,551,062 44,639,355 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ........................... ............................. ........................... ....................................... ....................................... 42,912,506 45,965,844 46,339,390 47,811,780 49,211,130 48,748,606 51,026,683 48,934,395 48,720,203 49,211,130 14 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Mean income deficit, in constant 1986 dollars, for all poor families and unrelated persons, 1959-86 Year Mean deficit, poor families Deficit per family member, all families Mean deficit, unrelated persons 1959 1965 1969 1970 1971 .............................. ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... $4,435 4,204 3,837 4,007 3,914 $1,068 996 978 1,019 1,018 $2,945 2,502 2,324 2,276 2,292 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 .............................. ............................. ........................... .............................. ........................... 3,934 3,890 4,101 3,966 3,836 1,019 1,026 1,078 1,038 1,038 2,369 2,304 2,225 2,191 2,216 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 ....................... .............................. ........................... ......................... ......................... 3,938 3,983 4,081 4,136 4,234 1,072 1,102 1,119 1,138 1,167 2,149 2,165 2,259 2,221 2,408 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ........................... ........................... ....................... .............................. ........................... 4,425 4,426 4,389 4,359 4,394 1,215 1,216 1,220 1,235 1,260 2,400 2,457 2,401 2,408 2,492 Like the aggregate income deficit, the average income deficit for families has its own shortcomings, chief among them being that it masks changes in family size over time and varying mixes of family type. As an extreme example, if the average family size was two persons in one year and five persons in another, the potential deficit for the former is restricted to a poverty threshold that is only about half that of the latter. Since the percentage of families headed by a woman has increased over time among the poor (as well as in the total population), and since average family size has varied by sex of the householder, average deficit figures are presented separately by sex in tables 3 and 4.6 In 1986, 51 percent of poor families were maintained by women with no husband present, a proportion that has not changed much in the 1980’s, but is more than double the 1959 figure of 23 per cent. By contrast, only 12 percent of nonpoor families were headed by women in 1986, although even this figure is up from 7 percent in 1959. In any case, the shift to a majority of female heads of poor households is not the explanation for increases in the average income deficit of these house holds during the 1980’s, since both male- (either with or without spouse present) and female-headed families have experienced such increases (although proportionally larger increases have occurred for female-headed families). Also, the proportion of female-headed families among all poor families leveled off in the early 1980’s and was actually slightly lower in 1985 (48 percent) than in 1978 (50 percent). The trends in average income deficit for families are similar by sex of householder. (See chart 1.) Both male- and female-headed poor families saw relatively large decreases in the average deficit during the 1960’s, but the average deficit for poor households headed by a woman began the decade $1,000 higher than the deficit for poor families maintained by a man ($5,200 versus $4,200 in 1959) and remained higher through the 1970’s and 1980’s, despite the fact that average family size is smaller for poor families headed by a woman (3.31 for poor female-headed families in 1986, 3.76 for other family types). During the 1970’s the deficit for poor families headed by a woman varied between $4,530 (in 1970) and $3,908 (in 1976), ending the decade at $4,296 in 1979. Since 1982, the deficit for these families has not changed significantly, averaging $4,688 in 1986. Nonetheless, it was still $400 higher than at the beginning of the decade. For poor families with a male householder (again, with or without a spouse), the income deficit varied between $3,625 in 1971 and $3,959 in 1974, ending the decade at $3,880. The deficit then climbed to $4,254 in 1982, before leveling off at around $4,100 in 1985 and 1986. The mean income deficit for poor unrelated persons de creased from $2,945 in 1959 to $2,324 in 1969, stabilized during the 1970’s (reaching a low of $2,149 in 1977), but increased during the 1980’s, averaging about $2,400 through 1986. (See table 2.) In 1986, the average deficit for unrelated persons was $2,492, about 44 percent short of the average poverty threshold for such a person. It is important to note that the apparent increase in the homeless is probably not a factor in this increase in deficit for unrelated persons during the 1980’s. The homeless are in large measure ex cluded from the Current Population Survey, the source of the Government’s official statistics on poverty, because the cps is primarily a household survey, and although some components of the shelter population are included in it, homeless persons not living in shelters would be excluded from these numbers. The average deficit for poor male unrelated persons has been almost as high throughout the 1980’s as in 1959 and was $2,887 in 1986. The deficit for poor male unrelated Table 3. Mean income deficit, in constant 1986 dollars, for poor families with a female householder and no spouse present and for female unrelated persons, 1959-86 Year Mean deficit, poor families with female householder and no spouse present Deficit per family member, families with female householder and no spouse present Mean deficit, female unrelated persons 1959 1965 1969 1970 1971 ................. ................. ................. .................. ................. $5,214 4,782 4,406 4,530 4,356 $1,425 1,217 1,137 1,149 1,172 $2,968 2,474 2,246 2,152 2,136 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 .................. ................. .................. ................. ................. 4,236 4,157 4,270 4,180 3,908 1,127 1,115 1,172 1,149 1,100 2,249 2,188 2,016 2,041 2,084 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 ................. .................. ................. ................. .................. 4,050 4,174 4,296 4,280 4,455 1,149 1,195 1,210 1,256 1,311 1,916 1,975 2,043 1,982 2,190 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 .................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 4,630 4,700 4,591 4,616 4,688 1,359 1,391 1,379 1,400 1,439 2,187 2,243 2,173 2,161 2,260 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Mean income deficit, in constant 1986 dollars, for poor families with a male householder and for male unrelated persons, 1959-86 P o o r fa m ilie s Y ea r w ith m ale h o u s e h o ld e r1 D e fic it per fa m ily m em b er, all fa m ilie s w ith m a le h o u s eh o ld er M e a n d e ficit, m a le u n re la te d p e rs o n s 1959 1965 1969 1970 1971 .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. $4,202 3,972 3,511 3,697 3,625 $977 915 888 940 920 $2,897 2,582 2,521 2,590 2,656 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. 3,711 3,668 3,959 3,791 3,771 944 955 1,003 959 984 2,671 2,551 2,643 2,497 2,485 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. 3,830 3,791 3,880 4,005 4,034 1,004 1,017 1,040 1,041 1,052 2,596 2,540 2,668 2,688 2,823 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. 4,254 4,188 4,192 4,108 4,064 1,109 1,083 1,087 1,093 1,085 2,774 2,802 2,757 2,828 2,887 1 1ncludes all married-couple families and families with a male householder and no spouse present. persons has been higher than that for poor female unrelated persons since the mid-1960’s. The average deficit for poor female unrelated persons has been high in the 1980’s rela tive to the latter half of the 1970’s, averaging $2,260 in 1986, but this was still considerably below the 1959 level of $2,968. Deficit per family member The deficit per family member controls for changes in family size over time, as well as differences in family size among different types of family. The overall deficit per family member, in constant 1986 dollars, has remained at a higher level in the 1980’s than during any prior decade and shows no evidence of decreasing, having reached $1,260 in 1986. (See table 2.) The overall deficit per family member varied only slightly (between $1,102 and $1,018) during the 1970’s and was $1,068 in 1959. The increase in the 1980’s appears to be chiefly the result of an increase in the deficit per family member for persons in female-headed families;7 the figure for other types of families has remained fairly constant. (See tables 3 and 4.) The deficit per family mem ber increased from $1,210 in 1979 to $1,439 in 1986 for families headed by a female, while the comparable figure for married-couple families or families with a male as head with no spouse present varied only between $1,040 and $1,109 during the 1980’s. While not increasing, the latter deficit has shown no sign of lessening in this decade. Persons below half their poverty threshold Since about 1970, some fractions and increments of the amount officially stated as the poverty threshold have been published by the Census Bureau. One such increment, be tween 100 and 125 percent of the poverty threshold, has 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Poverty in the 1980’s come to define the “near poor,” although neither the Census Bureau nor the Government as a whole has officially adopted such a definition. Another such fraction which has gained recent popularity is the proportion of the poor below 50 percent of their respective poverty threshold,8 the source of which is perhaps a proposal by Victor Fuchs9 in the mid-1960’s that any income below one-half the U.S. me dian family income be considered poverty. This particular fraction has been published by the Census Bureau since 1975. (See table 5.) It has the advantage that the poverty level of poor persons can be characterized, rather than families and unrelated persons separately. In 1975, the per centage of poor persons whose income was less than half their poverty threshold was 30 percent. This figure in creased to about 33 percent of the poor in 1979 and reached 39 percent in 1986. By contrast, from 1975 to 1978, the fraction below 50 percent of the poverty threshold varied between 28 percent and 32 percent. The proportions of both male- and female-headed families with income of less than half the poverty threshold increased since 1975, the former from 25 percent to 30 percent, and the latter from 35 percent to 48 percent. Most of this increase for male-headed families occurred prior to 1979, while for female-headed families, most of the in crease has occurred in the 1980’s. Noncash benefits as a complicating factor It would be plausible that the apparent growth (or stability in the case of male-headed families) in the average income deficit of poor families and unrelated persons in the 1980’s could be explained away by growth in the receipt of noncash benefits if, on average, poor households were receiving more noncash benefits per household during that decade.10 But in fact, growth in noncash benefits does not explain much of the increase in the income deficit: although noncash benefits have increased in the aggregate from $96.6 billion to $135.7 billion between 1979 and 1986 (in 1986 dollars), the average market value of noncash benefits for poor Table 6. Average market value of noncash benefits received by poor families and unrelated persons who received benefits, 1979-86 C u rre n t do llars C o n s ta n t 1986 d o llars Y ea r P o o r u n related P o o r fa m ilie s perso n s P o o r fa m ilie s P o o r u nre la te d p erson s 1979 1980 1981 1982 ................. .................. ................. .................. $2,794 2,977 3,037 3,330 $1,761 2,109 2,329 2,626 $4,221 3,962 3,662 3,783 $2,661 2,807 2,809 2,983 1983 1984 1985 1986 ................. ................. ................. ................. 3,503 3,637 3,941 4,088 2,749 3,064 3,293 3,334 3,857 3,839 4,017 4,088 3,027 3,236 3,356 3,334 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Papers 51, 52, 55, and 56, P o v e r ty In c lu d in g th e V a lu e o f N o n c a s h B e n e fits , E s tim a te s o f and unpublished data for 1986 from U S Bureau of the Census. families was actually less in 1986 than in 1979 in real terms. (See table 6.) The average market value of noncash benefits received by poor families decreased from $4,221 in 1979 to $3,662 in 1981, before recovering to $4,088 in 1986. Al though the comparable figure for unrelated persons in creased from $2,661 in 1979 to $3,334 in 1986, the increase was entirely in medical benefits (see table 7), since the average market value, in real terms, of the food benefits and housing benefits of these individuals decreased or remained unchanged between 1979 and 1986.11 Moreover, medical benefits increased from 79 percent of all noncash benefits in 1979 to 85 percent in 1986, and there is considerable contro versy anyway over whether medical benefits should be included in evaluating poverty, since their inclusion over estimates the resources available for regular daily consump tion if one defines poverty as “a shortage of disposable, fungible resources (measured as a money flow) that prevents Table 7. Average market value of noncash benefits by type of benefit received by poor families and unrelated persons who received benefits, 1979-86 C u rre n t do llars C o n s ta n t 1986 d o lla rs 1 Y ea r Table 5. Number and percent of poor persons below a specified fraction of poverty level, 1975-86 [Number in thousands] Y ear B e lo w B e tw e en 50 B etw een 75 5 0 p e rc e n t a n d 74 pe rce n t and 99 pe rce n t N u m b e r P erc en t N u m b e r T o ta l p o o r P ercen t N u m b e r P ercen t N u m b e r P ercen t 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 7,733 7,016 7,474 7,708 8,340 9,804 29.9 28.1 30.2 31.5 32.9 33.5 7,595 7,760 7,420 7,200 7,534 8,935 29.4 31.1 30.0 29.4 29.7 30.5 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 11,189 12,806 13,583 12,770 12,380 12,677 35.2 37.2 38.5 37.9 37.4 39.2 9,436 10,430 10,027 9,803 9,843 9,030 29.7 30.3 28.4 29.1 29.8 27.9 10,550 9,826 9,588 9,471 10,533 40.8 40.1 39.7 39.1 37.4 36.0 25,877 24,975 24,720 24,497 25,345 29,272 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 11,197 11,162 11,656 11,127 10,841 10,663 35.2 32.4 33.1 33.0 32.8 32.9 31,822 34,398 35,266 33,700 33,064 32,370 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10,200 Food H ousing M edical Fo o d H ou s in g M edica l Families: 1979 ....................... 1980 ....................... 1981....................... 1982 ....................... $1,108 1,182 1,184 1,299 $1,878 1,802 1,765 1,757 $2,251 2,469 2,565 2,847 $1,674 1,573 1,427 1,476 $2,837 2,398 2,128 1,996 $3,400 3,285 3,092 3,234 1983 ....................... 1984 ....................... 1985 ....................... 1986 ....................... 1,358 1,387 1,435 1,479 1,774 1,726 1,790 1,777 3,014 3,037 3,334 3,463 1,494 1,464 1,463 1,479 1,952 1,822 1,824 1,777 3,317 3,206 3,398 3,463 Unrelated persons: 1979 ....................... 1980....................... 1981....................... 1982 ....................... 340 376 392 437 1,207 1,361 1,452 1,491 1,630 1,941 2,193 2,539 514 500 473 496 1,823 1,811 1,751 1,694 2,462 2,582 2,644 2,884 1983 ....................... 1984 ....................... 1985 ....................... 1986 ....................... 401 457 452 485 1,528 1,653 1,600 1,567 2,698 2,911 3,141 3,218 441 482 461 485 1,682 1,745 1,631 1,567 2,969 3,073 3,201 3,218 100.0 1 Using the cpi for all items combined. Note: Both numbers and percentages for a given level do not always sum to 100, because of rounding. 16 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Papers 51 through 56, E s tim a te s o f P o v e rty In c lu d in g th e V a lu e o f N o n c a s h B e n e f it s . Chart 1. Average income deficit for poor families by sex of householder, 1 9 5 9 -8 6 Deficit (1986 dollars) Deficit (1986 dollars) $ 6 ,0 0 0 $ 6,000 $ 5 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,0 0 0 1 The ’other family types' category consists of all poor married-couple families and families with a male householder and no spouse present. regular and continuous access to the minimal necessities of everyday life for all members of an economic household.”12 Thus, while the growth of noncash benefits was a factor in keeping down the growth in the average deficit of poor persons in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is not a factor that can be used to explain away the growth in the deficit of poor persons in the 1980’s. Conclusion Regardless of the income measure used, it would appear that the poor are no better off in the 1980’s than they were in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The average deficit per family member, the average deficit per family, and the percent of the poor below 50 percent of their poverty threshold have all remained at about the same level or even increased during the 1980’s. While the lot of the poor, in the aggregate, was certainly bettered during the late 1960’s and 1970’s by the growth of noncash assistance, the average market value of noncash benefits received has generally decreased during the 1980’s. Although improving economic conditions have reduced the number of poor in the last few years, those that fell below the poverty level in any given year in the 1980’s have, on average, not come any closer to their poverty threshold. □ -FOOTNOTES- 1 Robert Greenstein, testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Oct. 7, 1987, pp. 2 -3 . 2 Tom Wicker, “Always with Us: The Plight of America’s Poor Wors ens,” The New York Times, Nov. 19, 1987, p. A31. 3 The latest such report is “Poverty in the United States: 1986,” in Current Population Reports , Series P -6 0 , No. 160. 4 These data are not longitudinal and thus do not illustrate the relative well-being o f the same persons over time. Rather, they indicate the mix of persons classified as poor in March of each year. Many of these individuals are poor for only a year or two, and few are poor for a decade or more. For a discussion o f the dynamics of poverty, see Greg Duncan, Years of Pov erty, Years o f Plenty (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1984). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 An unrelated person is defined as a person who is living alone or only with nonrelatives. The term is synonymous with “unrelated individual” as used in Census Bureau publications. 6 Several technical changes in the Government’s official definition of poverty, including the elimination of separate poverty thresholds for families headed by women, were made in 1981 as a result o f recommenda tions of a Federal Interagency Committee. (See “Characteristics o f the Population below the Poverty Level: 1981,” Current Population Reports, Series P -6 0 , No. 138, pp. 2 -3 .) All data shown for male householder families are for all married couples plus male householder families in which no spouse was present. In the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, between 5 and 10 percent of householders in poor married-couple families are women. Prior to 1979, the husband was always designated the head o f 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Poverty in the 1980’s the family in married-couple families. 7 The deficit per family member has been higher for families with a woman head o f household throughout the period 1959-86. 8 See annual press releases of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Children’s Defense Fund. 9 Mentioned in Herman P. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man (New York, Thomas Crowell, 1971), pp. 120-21. 10 Alternative procedures for valuing noncash benefits received by the low-income population, which are not taken into account in the Govern ment’s official poverty statistics, have been published for 1979 through 1986 by the Census Bureau in Technical Papers 50 through 57. Such benefits include food stamps, free and reduced-price school lunches, public or subsidized housing, Medicaid, and Medicare. It should be noted that (1) regardless o f income level, the Census Bureau’s concept o f income https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis generally includes money income only and does not include the value of employer-provided benefits such as health and life insurance, the use of company cars, stock options, and so forth, received by families with income above the poverty level; (2) about 40 percent of poor households reported receiving neither cash nor noncash benefits throughout the 1980’s; and (3) the number of poor persons was 24 percent greater in 1986 than in 1979, accounting for some o f the increase in the aggregate noncash benefits during the 1980’s. 11 For families, food and housing benefits decreased between 1979 and 1986, and medical benefits were about the same in 1986 as in 1979. If, instead of the c p i for all items combined, the separate indexes for medical and housing benefits were utilized, the declines in real terms in these items would have been greater. See Economic Report of the President , February 1988, Table B -5 8 , p. 313. 12 Harold W. Watts, “Have Our Measures of Poverty Become Poorer?” Focus, Summer 1986, p. 21. Is the 40-hour week immutable? Most workers— women as well as men— have a strong work commit ment, typically asserting that they would continue to work even if it were financially unnecessary to do so. But this psychological commitment to work is not always reflected in the work histories of women, who move in and out of the labor force and between full-time and part-time jobs as a consequence of their changing family responsibilities. Permitting workers to tailor their working hours to their family circumstances would both reinforce their work commitment and contribute to the development of a more productive and satisfied labor force. Much of the stress experienced by parents— mothers and fathers— is a consequence of the existing structure of work. But the 5-day, 40-hour workweek need not be considered immutable. Indeed, this “normal” work schedule is itself a fairly recent phenomenon, dating back only to the 1930’s. Employment policies offering greater flexibility in working hours through both temporary leaves and a reduction in work hours could sub stantially alleviate the conflicts and strains working parents now face. — P h y l l is M oen “New Patterns of Work,” Work & Family: A Changing Dynamic (Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986), p. 219. Multifactor productivity advances in the tires and inner tubes industry Upswings in both output per employee hour and multifactor productivity were aided by the rapid diffusion o f radial tire-related technology and computer-assisted innovation in the manufacturing process D iane Litz and Linda Moore Many factors influence movements in labor productivity, such as technological change, changes in the skills and efforts of the work force, economies of scale, and the amount of capital input per worker and intermediate pur chases input per worker. For many years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published a labor productivity mea sure for the tires and inner tubes industry as measured by output per employee hour. This article presents a supple mentary productivity measure for the tires and inner tubes industry— multifactor productivity— in which out put is related to the combined inputs of labor, capital, and intermediate purchases. Multifactor productivity differs from the traditional measure in that it accounts for the influences o f capital and intermediate purchases in the input measure and therefore does not reflect the impact of these influences in the productivity residual. Output per employee hour in the tires and inner tubes industry experienced substantial growth during the 1958-86 period, averaging 3.2 percent per year, as output increased 2.4 percent, while hours dropped 0.8 percent per year. For the manufacturing sector as a whole, the average rate of increase in output per employee hour was 2.5 percent. Output per employee hour can be described as the sum of the effects of changes in capital and intermediate pur chases inputs relative to labor and changes in multifactor Diane Litz is an econom ist in the Office o f Productivity and Technology, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. Linda Moore is an econom ist formerly with that office. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis productivity. (See table 1.) The influence of capital on output per employee hour will be referred to as the “capi tal e ffe c t” and is m easu red as the ch an ge in the capital-labor ratio multiplied by the share of capital in com e in to ta l o u tp u t. S im ila rly , the in flu e n c e o f intermediate purchases on output per employee hour will be referred to as the “intermediate purchases effect” and is measured as the change in the intermediate purchaseslabor ratio m ultiplied by the share o f interm ediate purchases in total output. M ultifactor productivity growth accounted for 1.7 percentage points of the 3.2percent gain in output per employee hour, while the intermediate purchases effect accounted for 1.1 percent age points and the capital effect for 0.4 percentage point over the 1 9 5 8 -8 6 period. The 1.7 percentage points growth in multifactor productivity (or output per unit of combined inputs) reflected a 2.4-percent growth in out put, while combined inputs increased at an average rate of 0.7 percent. Output per employee hour for this industry did not experience the post-1973 slowdown that was present for the manufacturing sector as a whole. Output per em ployee hour, which increased at a rapid 3.9-percent rate in the 1958-73 period, accelerated slightly to a 4.3-percent growth rate between 1973 and 1986. This acceleration in output per employee hour was accompanied by a dra matic falloff in the growth rate of output. Output, which had experienced a rapid 5.7-percent growth rate in the 1958-73 period, declined at a rate of 0.9 percent in the latter period. Hours, which rose slightly in the first period 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Productivity in Tires and Inner Tubes June 1989 • at a rate of 1.7 percent, fell dramatically in the second period, declining at an average annual rate o f 5.0 percent. Multifactor productivity accelerated more than labor productivity, from a 1.1-percent growth rate in the 1958-73 period to 3.6 percent in 1973-86. (See table 2.) The slight acceleration in output per employee hour oc curred in spite o f slowdowns in the growth rates of the capital effect and the intermediate purchases effect, be cause o f this relatively rapid increase in m ultifactor productivity. The capital effect slowed from an average growth rate of 0.6 percent during 1958-73 to 0.1 percent in the following period. The growth rate of the intermedi ate purchases effect fell faster, averaging 2.1 percent in the 1958—73 period and 0.6 percent in the following years. (See chart 1.) Upswings in both output per employee hour and multifactor productivity were aided by the rapid dif fusion of radial tire-related technology and computerassisted innovations in the manufacturing process. The capital effect (the weighted change in the capitallabor ratio) reflects the differential movements in its components. The slowdown in the capital effect can be decomposed into changes in capital services, labor, and the capital share weight. Capital services plunged from a 6.1-percent average annual gain in the first period to a 3.7-percent decline in the latter period. (See table 3.) The falloff in labor hours was less sharp— from a growth rate of 1.7 percent in the first period to a decline of 5.0 percent per year in the second period. The greater falloff in the growth rate o f capital relative to that of labor resulted in a slowdown in the growth of the capital-labor ratio. The average annual growth rate in the capital-labor ratio fell from 4.4 percent during 1958-73 to 1.3 percent during 1973-86. Weighted with capital’s share in the value of total output o f 16 percent, this drop translated into a slowdown o f 0.5 percent in the capital effect, from 0.6 to 0.1 percent. Table 1. Average annual growth rates in output per employee hour, multifactor productivity, and related measures, tires and inner tubes industry, 1958-86 Acceleration M easure 1 9 5 8 -8 6 1 9 5 8 -7 3 1 9 7 3 -8 6 (+) or slowdown (-) Output per employee hour1 ............................ 3.2 3.9 4.3 + 0.4 Multifactor productivity ... 1.7 1.1 3.6 + 2.5 Capital effect2.................. .4 .6 .1 - .5 1 1 2.1 Intermediate purchases effect3 ....................... -1 .5 ’Output per employee hour equals multifactor productivity plus the capital effect plus the intermediate purchases effect. 2The capital effect is the change in the capital-labor ratio multiplied by the share of capital income in total output. The intermediate purchases effect is the change in the intermediate purchases-labor ratio multiplied by the share of intermediate purchases income in total output. Digitized 20 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The intermediate purchases effect (the weighted change in the intermediate purchases-labor ratio) can be decom posed in a similar fashion, although its value share is much larger than that of capital, averaging 59 percent for the period. Intermediate purchases increased 5.2 percent annually during 1958-73, but declined 4.0 percent per year in the later period. Consequently, the growth in the intermediate purchases-labor ratio slowed from a 3.4 percent annual rate in the first period to 1.1 percent in the 1973-86 period. This falloff, weighted by the value share of intermediate purchases, resulted in a 1.5-percent slowdown in the intermediate purchases effect from 2.1 percent annually in the first period to 0.6 percent in the latter period. Output The output of this industry comprises tires, which ac counted for 92 percent of the value of shipments in 1982; inner tubes, which accounted for 2 percent; and tread rubber, which accounted for 6 percent of the value of shipments. In the same year, passenger car tires ac counted for 79 percent of all tires; truck and bus tires, for 15 percent; and aircraft, industrial, and bicycle tires con stituted the remaining 6 percent. As mentioned earlier, output grew at the relatively high average annual rate of 5.7 percent in the period 1958-73, then fell off precipi tously in the following period, declining at a rate of 0.9 percent. (See table 4.) Even during the high output growth period of 1958-73, the rate of increase slowed. During 1958-66, the average annual rate of growth was 6.6 percent, while in the 1966-73 period, it was 5.1 per cent. In the post-1973 period, double-digit declines in 1974-75 (-13.5 percent) and 1979-80 (-21.9 percent) occurred mainly as a reaction to two major recessions. The recessions affected both the original and replacement tire markets. The original tire market was depressed due to declining auto sales, while the replacement market was affected by concurrent soaring gasoline prices which re sulted in fewer miles driven. The average number of miles driven per car peaked at 11,500 in 1972. It again reached that number in 1978 before the energy crisis pushed aver age miles down to 11,000 in 1979 and down even further to 10,600 in 1980.1 Fluctuations in output are greatly influenced by changes in the passenger car replacement tire market, as passenger car tires account for about three-fourths of all tires2 and replacement tires account for 73 percent of all passenger car tires sold.3 One key factor for the declining output in the replacement tire market since the early 1970’s is the greater longevity of car tires brought about by the intro duction of radials. In the past two decades, this has been responsible for the doubling of tire service life.4 Addition ally, studies have shown that although front tires are wearing faster than rear tires on the growing share of front-wheel drive cars, the average mileage on all four Chart 1. Output per employee hour In the tires and Inner tubes Industry accelerated slightly after 1973, despite falloffs In capital and intermediate purchases relative to labor, as multifactor productivity surged El Output per employee hour 1 9 5 8 -7 3 □ Multifactor productivity ■ Capital effect ■ Intermediate purchases effect 1 9 7 3 -8 6 0.0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5 .0 Average annual percent change tires is one-fourth to one-third greater than the average mileage obtained from four tires on a comparable rearwheel drive car.5 Also, as noted, relatively high gasoline prices negatively affect miles driven and, thus, have a negative impact on the replacement tire market. As men tioned before, average driver miles per year peaked in 1972, reaching 11,500, decreased during the two energy crises, but is once again rising.6 The decrease in domestic car production over the pe riod studied has severely affected the original tire market. Auto production declined 18 percent between 1973 and 1974 and fell 19 percent between 1974 and 1975. A l though production rebounded in the 1976-78 period, output fell 26 percent in the 1979-80 period and produc tion levels have remained below 1979 levels through 1986.7 Domestic tiremakers face not only contraction in the domestic tire market, but also a growing import share. Tires from France, Japan, South Korea, and other nations accounted for 23.7 percent of the U.S. replacement tire market in 1987, compared with 10.8 percent in 1980. Capital Capital input is the flow of services derived from the equipment needed in the production of tires and tubes, structures (mostly buildings which house the production https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis process), finished goods, work-in-process, and materials and supplies inventories that are kept on hand in the firm, and the land on which plants are located. For the 1958-86 period, capital input in the tire industry rose an average 2.1 percent per year. From 1958 to 1973, capital input in creased at a rapid rate of 6.1 percent per year, exceeding the average annual increase in output of 5.7 percent. During the post-1973 period, however, capital input fell by 3.7 percent per year, considerably more than the output decline for that period (-0.9 percent). Capital input rose steadily beginning in 1958 and at a faster rate than output, reaching its peak in 1975— ap proximately 150 percent above the earlier year. Many new plants which were built in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were designed specifically for radial tire production. Approximately nine new plants began operation in the 1968-75 period.8 Also, some plants were being converted from bias-belted to radial tires, requiring additional equipment and workers. The extra equipment reduces the number of work stations a given plant can hold. Thus, a plant that has been converted to radials produces fewer tires for any given investment.9 From 1976 to 1986, capital input decreased in every year, except for a slight gain in 1985, so that its level in that year was approximately the same as in 1967, about 35 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Productivity in Tires and Inner Tubes T a b le 2. M u ltifa c to r an d re la te d p ro d u c tiv ity in d e x e s in th e tire s an d in n e r tu b e s in d u s try , 1 9 5 8 - 8 6 [1977 = 100] Output per unit of intermediate purchases Multifactor productivity Output per employee hour 1958 .............................. 1959 .............................. 73.9 79.7 52.7 58.2 87.7 103.5 80.5 84.2 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 80.2 81.1 84.9 87.7 92.8 59.7 61.7 67.9 72.9 79.4 95.5 87.5 95.5 97.1 104.2 85.9 88.2 89.6 91.6 95.6 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 92.1 90.8 86.3 91.0 87.4 80.9 82.4 82.2 87.8 85.1 103.5 104.4 90.8 100.9 91.6 93.9 90.9 86.6 89.7 87.0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 86.4 91.7 93.5 92.7 90.8 87.2 93.5 97.1 94.3 92.2 80.4 87.9 94.0 90.4 86.8 87.6 91.6 91.2 92.2 91.0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 87.3 90.9 100.0 103.6 105.5 90.8 99.4 100.0 108.1 107.6 73.0 77.4 100.0 99.5 99.2 89.9 91.3 100.0 102.7 106.1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 103.4 112.1 118.9 126.9 132.6 102.2 118.1 128.8 136.6 147.7 80.5 91.3 93.0 107.2 128.2 110.0 114.8 121.9 126.6 124.2 1985 .............................. 1986 .............................. 130.9 134.5 147.3 151.2 120.5 116.5 124.0 130.2 Year Output per unit of capital A verage annual rates of change (p e rc en t) 1958-86........................ 19 58-7 3.................... 19 73-8 6.................... 1.7 1.1 3.6 3.2 3.9 4.3 0.4 -0.4 3.0 1.4 0.5 3.2 percent below its peak. The decline of capital input after 1975 occurred because the conversion of tire plants from bias to radial production was completed. By 1976, conver sion to radial capacity had reached its final stages for most producers, so that capacity was ample and there was less need for purchases of new processing equipment. Movements in the stocks of the various types o f capital input— equipment, structures, inventories, and land— were not always the same. For the earlier period, in which capital input grew by a significant 6.1-percent average annual rate, the growth rate for equipment was 6.7 per cent, and for structures, 7.1 percent. Land input also grew faster than capital input— at a 7.1-percent average annual rate. However, inventories grew at a slower 4.8 percent rate. During the later period, 1973-86, when capital input fell by 3.7 percent per year, equipment steadily declined by an average annual rate o f 5.0 percent. Inventories also dropped off significantly after 1975, resulting in an aver age annual decrease of 6.8 percent during the 1973-86 period. However, increases in the stocks of structures con tinued between 1973 and 1980 before finally declining 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis after 1980. Land requirements increased an average 0.9 percent in the post-1973 period, and, as in the case of structures, continued to rise during 1973-81, and then fell off in later years. Inventories of finished goods and raw materials were built up in the mid-1970’s in anticipation of strikes by members of the United Rubber Workers union. The manufacturers were able to stockpile up to 90 days of inventory. However, in the late seventies and early eight ies, inventories fell much faster than output. The drop in inventories in the late 1970’s can be attributed to the decrease in the demand for tires. Labor Employee hours declined at an average annual rate of 0.8 percent over the 1958-86 period. Between 1958 and 1973, when output grew at a rapid rate of 5.7 percent, employee hours increased at a rate of 1.7 percent. How ever, while output decreased at a rate of 0.9 percent in the 1973-1986 period, employee hours declined 5.0 percent per year. Trends in employment were similar to those in total employee hours, as average weekly hours, although fluctuating somewhat from year to year, showed no long term growth or decline. In 1982, establishments in the tire industry averaged 429 employees, compared with 727 employees in 1958. This decrease resulted from reductions in labor require ments, and occurred despite increases in the number of tires produced per establishment. The average number of employees per plant has been much greater in the tire industry than in total manufacturing. The average for all manufacturing industries increased from 53 employees per plant in 1958 to a high of 62 in 1967, but has de creased since then to its 1958 level. The average for the entire industry (Standard Industrial Classification 3011) is lowered by the inclusion of smaller plants producing products other than tires. Plants with 500 or more em ployees, which would include virtually all tire plants, employed an average of 1,471 workers in 1982. Eighty percent of total employment in 1982 for the tires and inner tubes industry was in establishments with 1,000 employees or more. Many changes that have directly affected employment have taken place in the latter period. In 1974, employ ment peaked at 117,300. This occurred concurrently with rising demand and the retooling of plants for the produc tion of radial tires. In the interval 1974-76, employment declined steeply. Factors responsible for this decline were decreased auto sales and, thus, reductions in original tire sales; a decline in miles driven attributable to the energy crunch; and low replacement tire sales as the popularity of radials increased. In addition, a lengthy United Rubber Workers strike in 1976, from mid-April to the end of August, kept average employment levels low in that year. In 1977, em ploym ent rebounded after the strike, spurred by a strong output gain, only to decrease steadily thereafter until 1984. This decline was chiefly as a result of 24 plant closings since 1978; only five plants began operations during this period. The closed plants were mainly bias and bias-belted tire operations that were made obsolete by the conversion to radial tires. Also slowing tire demand in the early 1980’s were the continued popu larity of the longer-lived radial and increased penetration of foreign sales into the domestic market. Intermediate purchases Intermediate purchases grew at a 1.0-percent average annual rate for the period 1958-86. This figure reflects a fairly rapid growth rate of 5.2 percent in the earlier period 1958-73, while intermediate purchases declined by 4.0 percent per year in the latter period— a falloff of 9.2 per cent. Intermediate purchases productivity accelerated from one period to the other— rising from a 0.5-percent annual average rate of growth in the 1958-73 period to a 3.2-percent rate for the second period. Intermediate purchases fell off more sharply than output between the two intervals, partly attributable to technological changes aimed at reducing materials wastage and to the produc tion of smaller diameter tires for smaller cars. Intermediate purchases are composed of materials, fuels, electricity, and purchased services. Of these com ponents, materials is by far the largest, constituting 84 percent of intermediate purchases on average. In 1982, the latest year for which detailed data are available, styrene-butadiene ( s b r , a synthetic rubber) made up 29 percent of total materials consumed in census-specified items. Tire cord (nylon and polyester) constituted 24 per cent; carbon black, 19 percent; natural rubber, 18 percent; and rubber processing chemicals, 11 percent. Since 1958, synthetic rubber has become an increasing percentage of total rubber consumed by the tires and in Table 3. Average annual rates of growth in output per employee hour and related measures in the tires and inner tubes industry, 1958-86 Acceleration Measure 1 9 5 8 -7 3 1 9 7 3 -8 6 (+ ) or slowdown (-) Output per employee hour....... Employee hours....................... Capital........................................ Capital per employee ho u r...... Capital effect1............................ 3.9 1.7 6.1 4.4 .6 4.3 -5 .0 -3 .7 1.3 .1 +0.4 -6 .7 -9 .8 -3.1 - .5 Intermediate purchases........... Intermediate purchases per employee hour......................... Intermediate purchases effect2 ....................................... 5.2 -4 .0 -9 .2 3.4 1.1 -2 .3 2.1 .6 -1 .5 1Capital per employee hour multiplied by the share of capital income in total output. intermediate purchases per employee hour multiplied by the share of inter mediate purchases income in total output. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ner tubes industry, in spite of the fact that radials contain twice the amount of natural rubber as bias tires. While natural rubber steadily decreased from 23 percent of total census-specified items in 1958 to 12 percent in 1982 (the latest available year), synthetic rubber decreased only slightly from 32 percent in 1958 to 31 percent in 1982. However, as the conversion to radials continues, it is ex pected that consumption of natural rubber for tires will increase. Counter to this trend are the projected increase in the popularity of retreading, the downsizing of tires, and the increased use of polyisoprene. In many tire appli cations, synthetic polyisoprene may be substituted for natural rubber. This elastomer has the advantage of uni formity, automated processing, and production near the consuming industry. Partly because of the inroads of syn thetic polymers into natural rubber demand, synthetic polymers will continue to be the major elastomer used in passenger tire production. In 1984, world consumption of polyisoprene was 20 percent of natural rubber. Currently, radial passenger tires contain about 30 percent synthetic rub ber, while the percentage for natural rubber is slightly less.10 Except for natural rubber, the raw materials mentioned earlier are largely composed of petroleum derivatives. As such, they are subject to price fluctuations in response to oil price changes. The average annual increase of 10 per cent in the price of materials for the years 1973-82 is chiefly attributable to the rapid increase in the cost of petroleum derivative materials. This rapid increase was attributable to the tremendous oil price hikes of 1973-75 and 1980-82. Fueling this 10-percent average price rise were four double-digit rises. These price pressures from the oil sector were the main cause of jumps of 22 percent between 1973 and 1974 and 17 percent from 1979-80 in the overall price of tire materials. The average annual rate of growth for the 1958-72 period had been -0 .2 percent. Technological innovations have been introduced during the 1973-86 period to avoid materials wastage. In the calendering process, the reduction of waste is critical be cause fabric is relatively expensive and scrap produced is impossible to rework. The industrywide adaptation of computer monitoring of the calendering step assures uni formity of calendered fabric, reduces scrap, and prevents excessively thick sections of calendered stock. Computer monitoring in the tire curing process also minimizes waste. Because unsatisfactory conditions are immediately detected by the computer, at most only one round of tires can be improperly cured. Another explanation of the slow growth in intermedi ate purchases relative to output growth that has been offered is that, during the 1973-86 period, lighter and more sophisticated tire construction, attributable to the downsizing of the American automobile, predominated. In terms of rubber consumption, 30 percent less rubber is used in tires which average 13 inches versus the previous 14- to 15-inch standard and are 10 to 15 pounds lighter 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Productivity in Tires and Inner Tubes Table 4. Output and input indexes in the tires and inner tubes industry, 1958-86 [1977 = 100] Year O utput Combined Em ployee inputs hours Capital Inte rm ed ia te purchases 1958........... 1959........... 39.9 47.5 54.0 59.6 75.7 81.6 45.5 45.9 49.6 56.4 1960........... 1961........... 1962........... 1963........... 1964........... 47.1 45.7 52.1 54.2 61.0 58.7 56.4 61.4 61.7 65.8 79.0 74.1 76.7 74.3 76.9 49.3 52.2 54.5 55.8 58.6 54.8 51.8 58.1 59.1 63.8 1965........... 1966........... 1967........... 1968........... 1969........... 64.6 69.2 64.3 78.1 79.9 70.1 76.2 74.5 85.9 91.5 79.9 84.0 78.2 88.9 94.0 62.4 66.3 70.8 77.4 87.2 68.8 76.2 74.3 87.1 91.9 1970........... 1971........... 1972........... 1973........... 1974........... 75.7 84.9 92.8 93.6 94.8 87.6 92.6 99.2 100.9 104.4 86.9 90.8 95.6 99.2 102.8 94.2 96.6 98.7 103.5 109.2 86.5 92.8 101.8 101.4 104.1 1975........... 1976........... 1977........... 1978........... 1979........... 82.0 81.4 100.0 97.2 94.1 93.9 89.6 100.0 93.8 89.2 90.2 81.9 100.0 89.8 87.4 112.2 105.2 100.0 97.6 94.9 91.2 89.1 100.0 94.6 88.7 1980........... 1981........... 1982........... 1983........... 1984........... 73.5 79.0 75.0 79.8 91.3 71.1 70.5 63.0 62.9 68.9 71.9 66.9 58.2 58.4 61.9 91.3 86.5 80.6 74.4 71.2 66.9 68.9 61.5 63.0 73.6 1985........... 1986........... 86.8 83.6 66.3 62.2 58.9 55.3 72.0 71.7 70.0 64.2 A verage annual rates of change (p e rc en t) 1 95 8 -8 6 ... 195 8 -7 3 197 3 -8 6 2.4 5.7 -0 .9 0.7 4.5 -4 .3 -0 .8 2.1 1.7 6.1 -3 .7 -5 .0 1.0 5.2 -4 .0 than the former 30-pound average. One industry official cites a 50-percent decline in total North American styrenebutadiene rubber consumption since 1979.11 Technological change In the period studied, many innovations were intro duced to achieve the current state-of-the-art in tire pro duction. In the 1950’s, tubeless tires were introduced along with the first successful commercial preparation of synthetic rubber. The 1960’s saw the advent of the first commercial use o f polyester tire cord; but the most criti cal development was the first commercial production in the United States of the radial tire in 1965. The introduc tion of radials prompted significant changes to many steps in the production process. In the two decades that fol lowed, computer technology was applied to almost every aspect of production.12 The introduction of the radial has helped induce the closing of old and inefficient plants embedded with tech nology designed for bias and bias-belted tires. Radial technology required equipment and process changes that older plants could not accommodate; therefore, new plants incorporating the new technology had to be built https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and the old plants shut down. Twenty-seven tire plants have been shut down since 1975. However, 26 new tire plants have been built since 1960, 15 of them since 1969. The new plants have increasingly included automated equipment and more efficient material handling machin ery. Plants were also built in decentralized areas where the cost of shipping raw materials was less, and land was less expensive. All of these changes have added up to decreased costs of production, as compared with the older tire plants.13 With automation and the complications of radial tire production, plant designs have been improved to allow for a continuous flow of materials from the beginning of the manufacturing process to the end. Computer monitors are now being used to schedule the wide variety of styles and sizes to ensure that all capital equipment is being fully utilized. Each stage of the tire building process— raw materials handling, mixing, calendering, extrusion, tire building, curing— has been made more efficient by the use of innovations. Increasingly, raw materials are re ceived in bulk load quantities and stored in bulk storage bins rather than in bags or drums. Automated systems that weigh and feed materials directly into mixers reduce the number of workers needed to handle raw materials and reduce error in the measurement of different mate rials used in production of the various types of tires.14 Mixing is one of the most capital-intensive procedures of the production process. In the 1960’s, the newly devel oped high powered motors of the Banbury mixer allowed mixing times to be reduced by 90 percent and high-speed mixes to be completed in 2 minutes.15 Consequently, an extruder was developed to handle this higher rate of output. Uncured treads and sidewalls are processed in extruders in what has become a very capital-intensive operation. Previously, tire strips had to be cut by hand in predetermined lengths to wrap exactly around the “green” carcass. If the strip was not exact, a non-uniform tire resulted. However, a process has been developed called “orbitread,” which enables the winding of the tread strip onto the “green” tire. The benefits of such a process include: requirement of a much smaller extruder (there fore, less initial capital investment), elimination of tread splices, better adhesion through application of hot treads to the “green” tire, and improved uniformity.16 Calendering, the process in which the tire fabric is im pregnated with the extruded rubber stock, is also capital intensive. Normally, a calender’s maximum size is so large that it can never be fully utilized. The most impor tant innovation in this process was the adaptation of computer controls, as early as 1974, which ensure unifor mity, reduce scrap, and prevent excessively thick stock. Waste is critical as the fabric is expensive and the scrap cannot be reworked. This factor becomes increasingly im portant with increases in the price of raw materials. Both the elimination of waste and the increase in line speed reduce operating costs and increase production. Previ ously, a calender operator cut and measured the stock sheet manually and the calender was adjusted by trial and error.17 Fabric preparation for the calendering process, especially for steel belting, has required newly designed or modified equipment in order to account for differences in roll widths, weights, take away equipment, and cutting. Tire building is the most labor-intensive step in the production process. Attempts to automate this process have been made in order to decrease labor costs and increase tire uniformity. The conventional method of building bias-belted tires is to manually apply the tire components onto a rotating drum. Automation is ham pered by the large variety of tire styles and types. Radial tires further complicate automation by requiring two sep arate building stages and the need to shape the tire while building.18 uncured tire as the mold is closed upon it; they also pre vent the damage to the cured tire that occurs when the relatively inflexible radial is taken out of a regular mold.23 Tire finishing, warehousing, and shipping have also been made less labor intensive through automated tiremovers and inspection stations. By the early 1980’s, even tire design had been transformed by the adoption of com puter-assisted drafting, which reduces repetitive hand work. It has been estimated that it takes 2.5 days to design a tire mold for a new tire style, whereas before it took 21 days. Once the design is drafted, 12 to 15 different tire molds can easily be produced by using a computer.24 Summary Automation in the final production step, tire curing, has decreased production time. Early in the 1960’s, tires were moved by conveyors to the tire presses. The tire curing press was totally automated except for an operator inserting the “green” tire into the press and then transfer ring the cured tire to the finishing area. Typically, 17 workers were needed to complete this process, but by the mid-1960’s, only two were needed.19 A t one of the major tire companies, a computer monitoring system has been installed which performs 22 checks to detect any devia tions from established standards. Curing, temperature range, and process time are optimized in this way.20 A n other important objective of the computerized tire-curing process is to eliminate waste by reducing the number of defective tires.21 Segmented molds were needed for radial tires in the curing process and added to the cost of invest ment, but were not a difficulty in conversion.22 Previ ously, one-half of the mold was closed upon the other, forcing the tread design onto the uncured tire. Segmented molds (of six to eight parts) prevent distortion of the Output per employee hour in the tires and inner tubes industry grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent over the 1958-86 period. Multifactor productivity growth accounted for 1.7 percentage points of this gain, while the intermediate purchases effect accounted for 1.1 percentage points, and the capital effect, 0.4 percentage point. The growth of multifactor productivity was substantially higher in the post-1973 period, accounting for 3.6 percentage points of the 4.3-percent average annual growth rate in output per employee hour for the same period. The growth of output per employee hour did not slow down after 1973 as it did in many industries and was well above the manufacturing average of both the pre- and post-1973 periods. While output itself grew at a rapid 5.7percent rate in the first period, its growth rate dropped dramatically in the latter period. This decrease in produc tion reflects the greater longevity of radial tires, decreases in domestic car production, and increasing penetration of foreign firms into the U.S. replacement tire market. The production o f radial tires has introduced many changes to the production process. Automation and computer technology have also been applied to many stages of production, decreasing costs and increasing productivity. □ 1 N ew slog, “Study Predicts Tire Needs W ill Drop,” Elastomerics, August 1982, p. 36. 9 D. H. Blank, “Tire Industry Study” (International Trade Administra tion, U .S. Department of Commerce, March 1979), pp. 17-18. 2 Data are for 1984 and are from the Rubber Manufacturers A sso ciation. tomerics, January 1984, p. 15. 3 “Tire Imports Pressure U .S . M akers,” The Washington Post, Mar. 1, 1987, Sec. H, p. 1. Data are for 1984. 11 “Rubber Firms Seek Efficiency,” Chemical Marketing Reporter, Aug. 25, 1986, p. 3. 4 J. S. Dick, “How Technological Innovations Have Affected the Tire Industry’s Structure: Part V I,” Elastomerics, February 1981, pp. 4 2 -4 7 . 12 For further examination of the changes in technology o f the tires and inner tubes industry, see “Tires and Inner Tubes,” Technology and Its Impact on Labor in Four Industries, bls Bulletin 2242 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986). 5 “Study Predicts Tire N eeds W ill D rop,” Elastomerics, August 1982, p. 36. 6 Ibid. 7 Ward’s Automotive Yearbook (Detroit, Ward’s Communications, Inc., various years). 8 J. S. Dick, “How Technological Innovations Have Affected the Tire Industry’s Structure: Part II,” Elastomerics, October 1980, p. 36. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10 Frank W. Stuchal, “Tire Material Trends into the Nineties,” Elas 13 J. S. Dick, “Technological Innovations: Part II,” Elastomerics, October 1980, pp. 3 6 -4 1 . 14 J. S. Dick, “Technological Innovations: Part IV ,” Elastomerics, December 1980, pp. 4 7 -5 2 . 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Productivity in Tires and Inner Tubes 17 Paul L. Spivy, “Computerized Calendering Improves Quality and Increases Productivity,” Rubber World, December 1978, pp. 4 4 -4 5 . 18 J. S. Dick, “Technological Innovations: Part IV ,” Elastomerics, December 1980, p. 49. 19 Ibid. 20 “Firestone to Install Computerized Monitors,” Elastomerics, Novem ber 1980, p. 60. APPENDIX: The following is a brief summary of the methods and data underlying the multifactor productivity measure for the tires and inner tubes industry. A technical note, describing the procedures and data in more detail, is available from the Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212. Output. The output measure for the tires and inner tubes industry is based on the weighted change in quantity of production of various types of tires and inner tubes as re ported by the Rubber Manufacturers Association. This measure is, in turn, benchmarked to indexes of constant dollar production calculated from detailed quantity and value data published in the Census of Manufacturers for 1958, 1963, 1967, 1972, 1977, and 1982. For multifactor measures of individual industries, output is defined as total production, rather than the alternative of value added. For a value-added measure, intermediate in puts are subtracted from total production. Consequently, an important difference between the industry level measures and the multifactor productivity indexes that b l s publishes for aggregate sectors of the economy is that the major sector measures are constructed within a value-added framework. For the major sectors of the economy, intermediate transac tions tend to cancel out. Intermediate inputs are much more important in production at the industry level. Further, output in these measures is defined as total production which “leaves” an industry in a given year in the form of shipments plus net changes in inventories of finished goods and work in process. Shipments to other establishments within the same industry are excluded, when data permit, because they represent double counting which distorts the productivity measures. Employee hour indexes, which represent the labor input, measure the aggregate number of employee hours. These hours are the sum of production worker hours from Censuses and Annual Surveys of Manufactures and nonpro duction worker hours derived by multiplying the number of nonproduction workers from Census by an estimate of non production worker average annual hours. The labor input data are the same as those used in the published b l s output 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22 D. H. Blank, “Tire Industry Study,” p. 17. 23 John Graham, “Radial Tire Equipment,” Rubber Age, September 1974, p. 38. 24 “Computerized-Controlled Drafting Equipment Eases Mold Design Processing,” Elastomerics, November 1980, p. 51. Multifactor productivity measurement Methodology and data definitions Labor. 21 David Smith, “Computerized Control of Tire Curing Presses,” Rubber Age, July 1976, pp. 3 1 -3 4 . per employee hour series. Capital. A broad definition of capital input, including aequipment, structures, land, and inventories, is used to measure the flow of services derived from the stock of physical assets. Financial assets are not included. For productivity measurement, the appropriate concept of capital is “productive” capital stock, which represents the stock used to produce the capital services employed in current production. To measure the productive stock, it is necessary to take into account the loss of efficiency of each type of asset as it ages. That is, assets of different vintages have to be aggregated. For the measures in this article, a concave form of the age/efficiency pattern (slower declining efficiency during earlier years) is chosen. In combining the various types of capital stock, the weights applied are implicit rental prices of each type of asset. They reflect the implicit rate of return to capital, the rate of depreciation, capital gains, and taxes. (For an extensive discussion of capital measurement, see Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983).) Intermediate purchases. Intermediate purchases primarily include materials, fuels, electricity, and purchased business services. Materials measured in real terms refer to items consumed or put into production during the year. Freight charges and other direct charges incurred by the establish ment in acquiring these materials are also included. The data from which the intermediate inputs are derived include all purchased materials and fuels regardless of whether they were purchased by the individual establishment from other companies, transferred to it from other establishments of the same company, or withdrawn from inventory during the year. An estimate of intra-industry transactions is removed from materials and fuels. Annual estimates of the cost of services purchased from other business firms are also required for multifactor pro ductivity measurement in a total output framework. Some examples of services are legal services, communications services and repair of machinery. An estimate of the constant dollar cost of these services is included in the intermediate purchases input. PkK Capital, labor, and intermediate purchases income shares. Weights are needed to combine the indexes of the major inputs into a combined input measure. The weights for this industry are derived in two steps. First, an estimate of in come in current dollars for each input is derived. Second, the income of an input is divided by the total income of all inputs. Conceptual framework The multifactor productivity measure presented here is computed by dividing an index of output by an index of combined inputs of capital, labor, and intermediate pur chases. The framework for measurement is a production function describing the relation of output and inputs and an index formula that is consistent with this production function. The general form of the production function underlying the multifactor productivity measures is postulated as: (I) Q(0 = Q(K(t), „ V (2) Q q = , , k , A + wk - L , M + wi - + wm ~ , where A is the rate of change of multifactor productivity, wk is output elasticity (percentage change in output due to a 1-percent change in input) with respect to the capital input, wt is output elasticity with respect to the labor input, and wm is output elasticity with respect to the intermediate pur chases input (the dot over a variable indicates the derivative of the variable with respect to time). Equation (2) shows the rate of change of output as the sum of the rate of change of multifactor productivity and a weighted average of rates of change of capital, labor, and intermediate purchases inputs. Now, if competitive input markets are assumed, then each input is paid the value of its marginal product. The output elasticities in equation (2) can then be replaced by factor income shares: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Wl PqQ and Wm PqQ ’ where Pq is the price of output, and Pk, Ph and Pm are the prices paid for the capital, labor, and intermediate purchases inputs, respectively. Furthermore, if constant returns to scale are assumed, then wk + w; + wm = 1. Equation (2) can be rewritten as: (3) A q wk K W[ L wm M In this expression, the growth of multifactor productivity can be seen as a measure of economic progress: it measures the increase in output over and above the gain due to in creases in inputs. Equation (2) can also be transformed into the contribution equation which allows for an analysis of the change in output per employee hour. First, subtract L/L from both sides of equation (2) . Because the weights sum to unity, apply the term (wk + wz + wm) to the L/L term inserted on the right-hand side. Next, gaither terms with the same weight and derive the following equation: (4) Q Q • L L • IK \j< with some algebraic manipulations, the sources-of-growth equation is: _ PmM _ iP/L PqQ’ * ii where Q(t) is total output, K(t) is input of capital services, L(t) is input of labor services, M(t) is input of intermediate purchases, and t is time. Differentiating equation (1) with respect to time, and Wk L\ (M ” L + M m The left side of equation (4) is the growth rate of output per employee hour. The terms in parentheses on the right side are, in order, the rates of change in the capital-labor ratio and the intermediate purchases-labor ratio. Thus, the rate of growth in output per employee hour can be decomposed into the weighted sum of changes in these ratios plus the change in multifactor productivity. Equations (2), (3), and (4 ) are Divisia indexes which require continuous data for computation. The b l s multi factor indexes are actually constructed according to a Tomquist formula which represents a discrete approx imation to the Divisia index. The rate of change in output or an input is calculated as the difference from one period to the next in the natural logarithms of the variables. For example, QIQ is calculated as In Q(t) —In Q(t —\). In dexes are then constructed from the antilogarithms of this differential. The weights wk, w;, and wmare calculated as the arithmetic averages of the respective shares in time periods t and t —1. 27 Labor Hall of Fame Frances Perkins and the flowering of economic and social policies Only through the free and open discussion of differing points of view could the truth emerge and human needs and problems be solved; Frances Perkins always employed those ideals in conducting the public's business for the public's benefit G o r d o n B erg In late February 1933, Frances Perkins received a call to visit President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt at his home in New York City. She anticipated that he would invite her to become Secretary of Labor. Before she accepted, she had to know if he would support her ideas. Those ideas have changed and improved the quality of life of all Americans. Before Frances Perkins would accept the Cabinet appoint ment, she told President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “I don’t want to say yes to you unless you know what I’d like to do and are willing to have me go ahead and try.”1 She then read Roosevelt her list. It contained much of what would become the New Deal’s most important social welfare and labor legislation: direct Federal aid to the States for unemployment relief, public works projects, maximum hours of work, minimum wages, child labor laws, unem ployment insurance, social security, and a revitalized public employment service. “Are you sure you want these things done?” she asked. “Because you don’t want me for Secre tary of Labor if you don’t.” Gordon Berg is a supervisory public information specialist in the Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs, U .S. Depart ment o f Labor. This article is drawn from an essay published in 1980 to mark the dedication o f the Frances Perkins Building in Washington, DC. A booklet o f this and other biographies of Labor Hall of Fame honorees is scheduled for publication later this year by Friends o f the Department of Labor, which sponsors the Labor Hall o f Fame. 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Roosevelt never hesitated. He was convinced that Perkins was the most qualified person for the job. “Y es,” he said. “I’ll back you.” With that, Perkins accepted the post and served as Secretary of Labor during the 12 years of the Roosevelt Administration, 1933-45. She was the first woman to serve as a Cabinet member, and her tenure was longer than any Secretary of Labor. Who was this woman in whom Roosevelt had such confidence? How did she become an expert in the field of labor affairs? To answer these questions brings into focus the life of one of America’s most remarkable women. It is a dedicated life filled with hard work and perseverance. Striving for social change Perkins’ social and moral attitudes developed during the early decades of the 20th century, a time when women were increasingly active in the era’s many important social cru sades. She met and worked with many of the leaders of these movements, and by combining the lessons she learned from them with her own unique talents and strengths, she was able to choose her life’s work and make a success of it. Bom in Boston on April 10, 1880, Perkins had roots dating back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the midn th century. After a rather strict upbringing, she entered Mount Holyoke College in the fall of 1898. Although she New Labor Hall of Fame This is one o f several articles, commissioned by Friends of the Department of Labor, about members of the Labor Hall of Fame, which honors posthumously Americans who have contributed most to enhance the quality of life of American workers. The Labor Hall of Fame is an activity of Friends of the Department of Labor, an independent membership organization estab lished in 1987 “to support the traditional programs and goals of the U.S. Department of Labor, and to generally support the cause of improved labor-management rela tions.” The first four persons elected to the Labor Hall of Fame, were: Samuel Gompers (1850-1924), the first president of the American Federation of Labor. John R. Commons (1862-1945), a pioneer in making the field of labor economics a respectable area of study. Cyrus S. Ching (1876-1967), the first director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Frances Perkins (1880-1965), Secretary of Labor during the economic recovery period of the Depression, who helped establish numerous landmark social pro grams, including the Social Security Act. liked the sciences, a course in American colonial history with Professor Annah May Soule proved far more important in her later life. Students were required to visit a factory and survey its working conditions. For Perkins, going through several tex tile and papermill plants was her first glimpse of the modem industrial process. The things she saw, the conditions under which the workers labored, made her aware of their needs. The social education of Frances Perkins had begun. Following her graduation in 1903, Perkins did volunteer work among the factory girls of Worcester, m a . In 1904, she took a teaching job at Ferry Hall, a girls’ prep school in Lake Forest, i l . While there, she met Dr. Graham Taylor, head of Chicago Commons, one of the city’s famous settle ment houses. From him, Perkins learned the social meaning of trade unionism and also met other social reform leaders, including Jane Addams, Ellen Gates Starr, and Grace Ab bott. By 1907, Perkins had worked at the Commons, lived at Hull House, and was firmly committed to social work. For the next 25 years, Perkins’ career, first as a social worker and later as a civil servant, was at the center of social reform activities. As the only paid staff member of the Philadelphia Research and Protective Association, Perkins surveyed the city’s roominghouses, improved methods of investigation and counseling, and pressured city authorities https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Elected to the Labor Hall of Fame on April 12 were: John L. Lewis (1880-1969), propagator of unionism in industry and longtime president of the United Mine Workers. A. Philip Randolph (1889-1979), founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and respected civil rights leader. George Meany (1894-1980), founding president of the AFL-CIO. Janies P. Mitchell (1900-1964), popular Secretary of Labor from 1953 to 1961, and a proponent of progressive management in industry and Government. A panel composed of national leaders from unions, industry, academia, and government, and chaired by Monsignor George Higgins, makes the selection to the Labor Hall of Fame. Former Secretary of Labor W. J. Usery, Jr., chairs Friends of the Department of Labor. The Hall of Fame is housed in the north lobby of the Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N .W ., Washington, DC 20210. Friends of the Depart ment of Labor invites Hall of Fame nominations. They may be submitted to Friends of the Department of Labor, Box 2258, Washington, DC 20013. to enact stricter lodginghouse licensing. She studied eco nomics and sociology at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce and accepted a fellowship at the New York School of Philanthropy. After Perkins arrived in New York City, her hectic pace intensified. She studied for a master’s degree at Columbia University and surveyed the H ell’s Kitchen section of the West Side for Pauline Goldmark, head of the School of Philanthropy. During one of her surveys, she visited Timothy J. McManus, a State senator and the notorious Tammany Hall boss of Hell’s Kitchen. Perkins needed his help for a slum family she had visited. McManus was moved by her arguments. Perkins received the help she needed and learned a valuable political lesson— machine politics could be helpful in enacting social welfare legisla tion. It was a lesson the pragmatic young social worker would soon put to use. In 1910, Perkins became general secretary of the National Consumers’ League in New York City. Organized by Lil lian Wald of the Henry Street Settlement House, the league spread information about harmful industrial conditions and lobbied for protective legislation. Its national director, Flo rence Kelley, helped Perkins become a recognized expert on industrial conditions by assigning her to make extensive surveys of unsanitary cellar bakeries, unsafe laundries, and 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Frances Perkins overcrowded textile sweatshops. She taught Perkins to look behind the immediate conditions and search for the real causes of safety and health problems in industry. These surveys gave Perkins the statistics she needed to back up her moral conviction regarding the need for protective social and labor legislation. On March 25, 1911, Perkins witnessed the tragic holo caust of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.2 In less than an hour, 146 people— most of them young girls— had died. Perkins saw them leap from the eighth floor of the Asch Building because the doors were locked. She saw their charred re mains lining the sidewalk and vowed that this horror would not be allowed to happen again. The tragedy of the Triangle fire spurred the city’s social reform agencies into action. They formed a Committee on Safety, and Perkins served as executive secretary from 1912 to 1917. Perkins had met A1 Smith, assemblyman from New York City, in early 1911. He taught Perkins the realities of prac tical politics, and she educated him on the need for reform. They joined forces, and their long and fruitful relationship helped change the course of American social history. Health and safety legislation The New York State Factory Commission, created by the New York State legislature in response to the Triangle fire, reviewed the entire scope of job safety and health conditions in New York. Between 1911 and 1915, the commission rewrote the New York industrial code and the legislature enacted 36 new laws protecting workers on the job, limiting the hours of women and children, and compensating victims for on-the-job injuries. Perkins testified several times while serving as an investigator on the staff of the commission’s director of investigation from 1912 to 1913. But she did much more than document dangerous working conditions: she insisted that the commissioners experience them. Perkins arranged for them to see children shelling peas in a cannery at 4 a.m. At dawn, they stood at the gate of a ropeworks as women filed out after working most of the night. Perkins and the legislators went into the workers’ homes, where they heard, as she had so often heard, of the hardships workers faced on the job. Those experiences helped motivate the lawmakers to push for strong protective legislation. For Perkins, safe working conditions and reasonable hours of labor were basic human rights which society should guarantee through prac tical, morally sound legislation. On September 26, 1913, Perkins married Paul C. Wilson, an economist and assistant secretary to John Purroy Mitchell, New York City’s reform mayor. The marriage was the source of both great happiness and great heartbreak for Perkins. The couple agreed she would retain her maiden name for professional purposes. Perkins feared she might lose some of the stature she had gained if she changed it. In December 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1916, a daughter, Susanna, was bom. Both Perkins and Wilson continued their active careers. But in 1918, Wilson showed the first symptoms of an illness which lasted until his death in 1952. Through the long years of his confinement, Perkins worked diligently to meet both her family and her professional obligations. Always a very private person, she sought to protect her husband and daughter from the press and public. In this, she was largely successful and continued to carry on her active public service career. After A1 Smith became governor of the State of New York in 1919, he appointed Perkins to the State Industrial Commission, despite strong opposition from manufacturers’ associations. When Smith was again elected governor in 1922 after 2 years out of office, he reappointed Perkins to her old post. She was also an active member of the Industrial Board of the State Labor Department. By 1926, when Smith appointed her chairman of the Industrial Board, she had become a recognized expert in labor law. Judge Benjamin Cardozo, who sat on a court upholding many of her deci sions, said that she had made new laws with some of her rulings. Years later, Supreme Court Justice Cardozo would hold Roosevelt’s old Dutch bible and administer the oath of office to Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor. Smith ran for the Presidency in 1928 and lost. Roosevelt was narrowly elected Governor of New York. Although Roosevelt did not retain many of Smith’s assistants, he appointed Perkins Industrial Commissioner of New York. She was the first woman to hold such a position in the United States. During the next 15 years, their partnership altered the basic fabric of American life. The New Deal This, then, was the woman President Roosevelt entrusted with the awesome responsibility of helping to restore public confidence and to put people back to work. Much had to be done and done quickly. The first 100 days of the Roosevelt Administration are legendary. Before adjourning on June 15, 1933, Congress had enacted 15 major laws. Perkins was at the center of this feverish activity. Among the programs enacted during Perkins’ first year in office were: the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which spent millions of dollars on food, shelter, and other human needs; the Civilian Conservation Corps, which paid young men, ages 18 to 25, $30 a month to work in floodcontrol programs, reforestation, soil conservation, and high way construction; the Civil Works Administration, which created 4 million temporary jobs; the National Recovery Administration, which regulated minimum wages, maxi mum hours, and child labor; and the Public Works Admin istration, which undertook large-scale construction of schools, hospitals, and river-control projects. Although Perkins was deeply involved in creating and implementing the Administration’s massive relief and employment programs, she simultaneously worked to reorganize the Department of Labor to make it a more effective and efficient Government agency. She improved conditions in the Bureau of Immigration and increased the responsibilities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Social Security Act of 1935 was probably the most enduring contribution Perkins made as a Government offi cial. As a member of the Committee on Economic Security, she worked tirelessly to create a practical Social Security program which the Congress would pass. She made hun dreds of speeches supporting Social Security. Its enactment, on August 14, 1935, helped change the economic and social structure of American life. Her belief that working people had a right to benefits during unemployment and in thenold age was made the law of the land by this act. Her leader ship, and the dedicated work of many others, helped remove the threat of starvation, eviction, and destitution from the doorstep of every worker’s home. Federal labor policies If Social Security was Frances Perkins’ pride, the FanLabor Standards Act must have been her joy. She had long advocated minimum wage and maximum hour legislation. The collapse of labor standards during the Depression made some type of government action imperative. Many among Roosevelt’s advisers were uncertain of the constitutionality of Federal labor standards legislation. To lay the ground work for Federal standards she believed inevitable, Perkins instructed the Labor Department to work with State govern ments to create a body of consistent laws and standards. She set up a Division of Labor Standards and was the first Labor Secretary to show real interest and concern for State labor agencies. She made an effort to attend meetings with State representatives and considered those sessions very useful in developing workers’ compensation and safety and health standards. During his 1936 campaign for reelection, Roosevelt promised to support a Federal labor standards bill. The meas ure passed the Senate but died in the House Rules Commit tee. Perkins and Roosevelt would not let it rest. Compro mises were made and pressure was applied. The Fair Labor Standards Act finally became law on June 25, 1938. The last of the New Deal’s major social measures, this act was also one of its most far reaching. It covered 12 million workers and immediately raised the pay of 300,000 people and shortened hours for a million more. Most workers in volved in interstate commerce or producing goods for inter state commerce were covered by the law. Child labor, a major concern of Perkins since her days as a social worker, was prohibited in many industries. Perkins’ greatest trial during her term of office came not from management or labor, but from Congress. The attack was not on her ability, but on her integrity. The issue cen tered on Harry Bridges, an Australian and leader of a long and bitter longshoremen’s strike on the west coast in 1934. The Labor Department and the Federal Bureau of Investiga https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tion, investigating allegations of Communist influence in the strike, could find no evidence to justify deporting Bridges as an undesirable alien. But a vicious whispering campaign, aimed at forcing Bridges out of the country and Perkins out of office, began in mid-1938. A special House Committee on Un-American Activities held hearings, and its chairman, Martin Dies, publicly called for Perkins’ resignation. Hate mail poured into the Labor Department. The ordeal lasted more than 6 months. Through it all, Perkins continued to meet every engage ment, fulfilled her duties as Secretary, and stood firm in her decision not to order Bridges deported. In the end, the House Judiciary Committee confirmed Perkins’ opinion by reporting that sufficient evidence had not been presented to warrant Bridges’ deportation. The official proceedings were closed, but the ugly scars remained. Social legislation of the 1930’s forever changed the position of the American worker. While the Federal Gov ernment was instrumental in creating these laws and indispensable for putting them into operation, Perkins often advocated more involvement for the individual States. She believed that programs such as unemployment insurance should be administered by a Federal-State system. At the Na tional Conference for Labor Legislation in February 1934, she said: “The fundamental power to make regulations with regard to welfare . . . lies with the sovereign States.”3 While many New Dealers have been seen as “big Government” people, Perkins rarely favored the Federal Government dic tating or making policy for the States. The closer the deci sionmaking process was to the people, the better Perkins liked it. The outbreak of World War II dramatically shifted much government attention from domestic to foreign and military affairs. But Perkins still fought some important, although less historic, battles on the homefront. She counseled Roo sevelt against fbi Director J. Edgar Hoover’s plan to finger print and keep a dossier on every citizen. The idea went against her firm belief that privacy was the basis of individ ual liberty. The internment of more than 100,000 JapaneseAmericans— two-thirds of them U.S. citizens— horrified her. Even at the height of the war, Perkins opposed extraor dinary measures for total national mobilization. She be lieved that the social regimentation which might result was a step toward treating people like cattle. Her trust in the innate intelligence of the people to make sound decisions and to act on them never wavered. During her years in office, Perkins’ steadfast commitment to principles of law and morality won her many admirers from all walks of life. In her work, however, her loyalties were few and well defined. In a letter to Justice Felix Frank furter, written just after her resignation as Secretary of Labor, she said: “I came to work for God, F.D .R ., and the millions of forgotten plain, common working men.”4 Friend or foe, powerful or powerless, they were all treated squarely and honestly by Frances Perkins. 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Frances Perkins When Roosevelt died in April 1945, Perkins submitted her resignation as Secretary of Labor. She was 65, but had no intention of otherwise retiring. In October, President Harry S Truman sent her as a Government representative to the International Labour Organization meeting in Paris. Perkins certainly deserved to go, because it was she who originally urged Roosevelt in 1934 to submit legislation— which was accepted by Congress— authorizing the Presi dent to apply for membership to the i l o . On September 26, 1946, Truman appointed Perkins to the Civil Service Commission. During her 7 years as a commis sioner, the principle guiding all her work was that the Com mission “is concerned only with the question as to whether the applicant is a suitable person for the post for which he applies.”5 She opposed any questions on applications which pried into a person’s private life. She believed that the right to privacy was a basic human right, the basis of liberty in a democratic society. Frances Perkins ended her government career in 1952. She still had no thought of retirement, however. For 2 years, she lectured and held seminars at the University of Illinois. In the spring of 1955, she returned to New York City, where she began her illustrious career. In May 1955, Perkins delivered a lecture at Cornell Uni versity. A few months later, she was asked to join the faculty of the university’s prestigious School of Industrial and Labor Relations. In the spring of 1960, she was invited to become a member of the scholarly Telluride Association at Cornell. As in the past, Perkins was the first woman ever to live at Telluride House. Telluride and her work at Cornell made her last years happy and personally fulfilling. She died on May 14, 1965. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 George Martin, Madame Secretary: Frances Perkins (Boston, Houghton Mifflin C o., 1976), p. 240. 2 Martin, Madame Secretary, p. 84. 4 Ibid., p .3 7 5 . 5Ibid., p. 477. (From a decision by Perkins in a U .S. Civil Service Commission case.) 3 Ibid., p. 421. 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A similar labor policy framework The 1930’s and 1940’s were decades in which trade unions and collec tive bargaining grew rapidly throughout North America. Labor legislation, and in particular the Wagner Act that had been passed in the United States in 1935 and inspired the model of that name, provided the impetus. It became United States labor policy for the first time to encourage unions and collective bargaining. A policy similar to the one embodied in the Wagner Act was adopted in Canada in the mid-1940’s under pressure from the growing labor movement and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a social democratic party formed in the 1930’s. Although employers in both countries at first opposed the expansion of unionism, the combined lever age of militant unions, determined governments and public opinion sympa thetic to unions and collective bargaining apparently convinced them of the need to reach an accommodation with organized labor. . . . — R o y J. A dams “North American Industrial Relations: Divergent Trends in Canada and the United States,” International Labour Review, Vol. 128, No. 1, 1989, pp. 47-48. Wages and benefits in pulp, paper, and paperboard mills According to a survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, straight-time earnings of production and related workers in pulp, paper, and paperboard mills averaged $12.92 an hour in September 1987.1 This was one of the highest averages among manufacturing industries included in the Bureau’s industry wage survey program.2 Pay levels, however, varied by type of establishment, averaging $14.38 in pulp mills, $13.30 in paperboard mills, and $12.72 in paper mills. Contributing to these wage levels were such factors as the concentration of highly skilled workers from the machine rooms and maintenance departments, where occupational earnings frequently topped $13 an hour, and the prevalence of labor-management agreements, which covered more than nine-tenths of the industries’ production workers. The United Paperworkers International Union (afl-CIO) was the predominant union, except in the Pacific States, where most workers were covered by agreements with the independent Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers. Average hourly pay in pulp, paper, and paperboard mills in September 1987 was 26 percent higher than the $10.22 reported by a similar survey conducted in July 1982.3 This increase, averaging 4.6 percent annually,4 compares with a 25-percent rise (4.3 percent a year) in wages and salaries for all nondurable goods manufacturing industries between June 1982 and September 1987, according to the Bureau’s Employment Cost Index. In contrast to rising wages, production worker employ ment in the three industries fell by 7 percent (1.4 percent annually) between the two surveys, from 150,200 workers in July 1982 to 139,777 in September 1987. Among six regions for which data could be presented, average hourly earnings ranged from $14.49 in the Pacific States to $11.12 in the Middle Atlantic region. In the South east region, where three-tenths of the production workers were employed, hourly earnings averaged $13.52. Nearly three-fifths of the production workers covered by the survey were in nonmetropolitan areas, where occu pational pay averages were generally higher than in metro https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis politan areas.5 Regionally, the proportion of workers in nonmetropolitan areas ranged from seven-tenths in New England to three-tenths in the Middle Atlantic region. Fifty-two occupations, accounting for almost one-half of the production work force, were selected to represent the wage structure and manufacturing activities in the three industries. General maintenance mechanics, who perform the work of two or more maintenance trades rather than specializing in one trade or one type of maintenance work, constituted the largest and highest paid occupation studied separately; the 9,555 workers in the job averaged $16.50 an hour. Other skilled maintenance occupations, including electricians, machinists, millwrights, and pipefitters, had pay averages of at least $14.73 an hour. At the other end of the wage distribution were the 1,166 janitors, who averaged $10.38 an hour. In the machine room, where paper is man ufactured, average hourly earnings ranged from $15.29 for paper-machine tenders to $11.97 for fifth hands, who assist in removing finished paper rolls from paper machines. (See table 1.) Two jobs— guards and truckdrivers— were surveyed for the first time by bls in pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. Their average hourly earnings were $11.22 and $11.40, respectively. In September 1987, nine-tenths of the production workers were paid time rates, under formal plans providing single rates for specific job categories. Many mills had several job categories, each with its own pay scale, falling within one bls occupational definition. Some of the pay determinants were the type of pulpmaking process, grade of paper or paperboard manufactured, and size of machine used to make paper and paperboard. For example, hourly earnings in the pulpmaking department usually were higher for workers using the sulphate process rather than the sulphite process, pay generally averaged 25 to 50 percent higher for workers producing newsprint and groundwood paper than for those producing boxboard, and pay levels were progressively higher as the width of the papermaking machinery used increased from 100 inches or less to 301 inches or more.6 Seven-tenths of the production workers were assigned to rotating shifts. Employees alternated between day, evening, and night shifts, typically changing shifts every 7 days. 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Research Summaries Table 1. Number of production workers and average hourly earnings1 in pulp, paper, and paperboard mills, by selected characteristics, United States and selected regions,2 September 1987 United States3 Characteristic New England Middle Atlantic Southeast Southwest Great Lakes All production workers4................... 139,777 $12.92 20,145 Type of mill:5 Pulp mills........................................... Paper mills....................................... Paperboard mills............................... 5,283 99,912 34,582 14.38 12.72 13.30 18,969 1,176 11.52 9.79 11,075 1,161 Type of community: Metropolitan areas6 ........................... Nonmetropolitan areas....................... 57,546 82,231 12.41 13.28 5,614 14,531 10.83 11.65 Size of mill: 100-249 workers............................... 250-999 workers............................... 1,000 workers or more....................... 11,906 68,168 59,703 10.57 13.09 13.21 3,957 7,873 8,315 Woodyard and wood preparation: Crane operators................................. Barkers, drum................................... 879 241 14.48 12.33 Pulpmaking: Cooks, batch digester....................... Cooks, continuous digester............... Screen tenders................................. Bleach-plant operators....................... Pulp testers....................................... 433 370 312 517 832 $11.42 12,236 $11.12 41,508 $13.52 12,286 — 3,967 21,192 16,349 14.53 13.49 13.31 __ __ 11.30 9.40 5,587 6,699 13.88 14.34 28,674 3,647 8,743 3,493 11.21 10.90 12,529 28,979 13.17 13.67 4,302 7,984 13.40 14.52 9.48 11.36 12.40 1,461 7,878 9.20 11.50 — 880 18,650 21,978 9.16 13.73 13.51 521 7,084 4,681 33 41 12.94 11.30 51 14 11.81 10.98 502 98 15.14 12.75 15.67 15.50 13.48 15.01 12.13 11 32 41 42 103 13.02 13.11 12.26 12.15 11.46 14 34 22 38 47 11.40 12.72 10.79 11.64 10.87 196 87 102 177 358 415 16.13 28 14.27 14 11.76 305 14.52 26 11.96 Stock preparation: Head stock preparers, group I ............ Head stock preparers, gorup II............ 846 820 13.93 13.10 70 261 13.40 11.42 Machine room: Paper-machine tenders..................... Backtenders..................................... Third hands....................................... Fourth hands..................................... Fifth hands....................................... 3,371 3,364 3,169 2,840 2,221 15.29 14.09 13.05 12.38 11.97 704 722 626 418 285 Finishing, roll: Rewinder operators........................... Rewinder helpers............................... 2,024 1,272 12.20 11.22 Laboratory: Paper testers..................................... 1,856 Guards................................................. Janitors, porters, and cleaners................ Maintenance electricians....................... Maintenance machinists....................... Maintenance mechanics, general............ Maintenance pipefitters......................... Millwrights, pulp and paper................... Oilers.................................................. Power-truck operators........................... Truckdrivers......................................... P a p e r M a n d $14.13 32,321 $12.30 16,112 $14.49 12.41 11.42 1,316 10,753 4,043 13.90 14.41 14.89 17,208 15,113 11.90 12.76 8,058 8,054 14.07 14.90 11.86 14.17 14.32 3,556 12,696 16,069 11.20 12.05 12.75 1,259 10,182 4,671 14.43 14.29 14.93 117 37 14.78 12.65 107 25 12.78 12.02 40 14 14.50 13.12 15.83 16.57 14.50 16.05 12.21 56 57 20 52 62 17.06 17.69 13.66 16.62 12.12 59 52 48 90 165 14.26 34.48 12.74 13.13 12.07 69 80 59 73 60 16.59 16.19 14.41 16.25 13.44 190 16.61 62 16.62 37 13.83 48 16.34 — 148 14.72 65 15.16 10 13.30 36 14.80 91 154 11.07 11.48 200 132 14.98 14.44 69 52 13.41 19.68 301 148 12.97 12.81 95 48 17.60 16.55 13.04 11.86 11.28 11.48 11.55 409 409 392 331 191 12.56 11.90 11.16 10.75 10.86 589 598 576 567 581 17.57 16.05 14.69 13.22 11.93 264 272 274 276 246 17.45 16.42 14.65 13.61 12.53 913 879 849 847 557 14.26 13.22 12.24 11.76 11.37 412 400 368 325 285 18.96 17.25 15.90 14.17 13.42 466 334 11.39 10.59 238 97 10.32 10.30 124 64 13.31 11.98 63 38 12.56 11.16 909 643 12.72 11.44 160 56 12.55 12.44 12.20 325 11.04 232 11.04 351 12.80 235 13.16 443 11.79 173 13.86 421 1,166 3,603 1,192 9,555 11.22 10.38 15.55 14.73 16.50 135 212 529 215 933 10.72 9.61 14.10 13.72 12.89 27 185 242 119 569 10.38 9.68 12.35 13.18 13.36 115 268 923 331 4,264 12.01 10.43 16.05 15.51 17.07 40 469 31 1,880 8.79 17.56 16.28 17.98 85 348 726 350 584 11.54 11.16 14.18 14.07 13.43 80 571 127 646 11.23 17.24 16.86 18.13 2,641 4,392 1,366 5,180 532 15.19 15.07 13.23 11.75 11.40 338 665 139 559 73 13.97 14.21 11.96 10.54 10.51 199 340 127 564 92 12.02 12.12 11.32 10.20 10.63 744 1,028 411 1,176 131 15.99 15.79 13.81 11.84 11.52 120 198 76 416 49 16.44 16.32 14.23 12.00 11.02 722 1,203 354 1,452 131 14.22 13.83 12.13 11.61 11.78 464 837 191 766 34 17.05 17.18 15.15 13.48 13.64 — — — _ — _ u lp Recovery, caustic, and acidmaking: Recovery operators (sulphate)............ Caustic operators (causticisers) (sulphate)....................................... P Pacific Number Average Number Average Number Average Number Average Number Average Number Average Number Average of work hourly of work hourly of work hourly of work hourly of work hourly of work hourly of work hourly ers earnings ers earnings ers earnings ers earnings ers earnings ers earnings ers earnings — p a p e r b o a r d is c e l l a n e o u s 7 1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. 2 The regions used in this study include N e w E n g la n d — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; M id d le A tla n tic — N e w Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; S o u t h e a s t — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Caro lina, Tennessee, and Virginia; S o u th w e s t— Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; G r e a t L a k e s — Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and P a c ific — California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. _ paper and paperboard mills. 5 Data for pulp mills are limited to workers in separate pulpmaking establishments; data for paper and paperboard mills include workers In pulpmaking departments of these mills. 6 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget through October 1984. 3 Includes data for regions in addition to those shown separately. 7 Includes workers in converted paper products departments of paper and paperboard mills. 4 Includes data for approximately 12,000 workers in converted paper products departments of Note: Dashes indicate that no data were reported or that data did not meet publication criteria. Digitized for 34FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis While assigned to evening and night shifts, workers almost always received cents-per-hour differentials over fixed dayshift rates, most commonly between 10 and 20 cents on evening shifts and between 20 and 40 cents on night shifts. Work schedules of 40 hours per week were predominant in the industries, covering almost half of the production workers. Workweeks of 42 hours covered two-fifths, and 48-hour workweeks one-tenth, of the workers. Workweeks longer than 42 hours were most common in the Middle Atlantic region, where two-fifths of the workers were in mills scheduling 48-hour workweeks. Virtually all of the mills provided paid holidays to their production workers. Over three-fourths of the workers re ceived between 11 and 13 paid holidays. The most liberal holiday provisions were reported in the Pacific region, where three-fourths of the workers received 14 or 15 days. All production workers covered by the survey were in mills that provided paid vacations. Typically, provisions were 1 week after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 years, 3 weeks after 8 years, 4 weeks after 15 years, 5 weeks after 20 years, and 6 weeks or more after 25 years. Virtually all production workers were in establishments providing life, hospitalization, surgical, basic, and major medical insurance and retirement pension plans. In addi tion, over nine-tenths of the workers were offered sickness and accident insurance, four-fifths were offered dental insurance, and about one-fourth were offered vision care. Most of the life insurance and pension plans were financed entirely by the employer. Health maintenance organization ( h m o ) membership was available to about three-tenths of the workers nationwide. The use of temporary help and the contracting out of various services also were studied during the current survey. Slightly more than one-third of the production workers were in mills regularly using temporary help services in lieu of new hires. The number of production workers in mills con tracting out various services to outside firms varied by the type of service contracted out. Trucking was, by far, the activity most commonly contracted out: mills employing slightly more than seven-tenths of the production workers used contract truckers. More than half of the production https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis workers were in mills that contracted out machine mainte nance, while more than two-fifths each were in mills that used janitorial and engineering/drafting services. A comprehensive bulletin, Industry Wage Survey: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills, September 1987, Bul letin 2324, may be purchased from the Bureau of Labor Statis tics, Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, il 60690, or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The bulletin provides additional information on occupational pay and employee benefits. O ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Cost-of-living pay increases (but not bonuses) were included as part of the workers’ pay. Excluded were per formance bonuses and lump-sum payments o f the type negotiated in the auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attend ance bonuses, Christmas or yearend bonuses, and other nonproduction bonuses. The Bureau’s survey included establishments employing 100 workers or more and primarily engaged in manufacturing (1) pulp from wood or other materials such as rags, Enters, wastepaper, or straw; (2) paper (except building paper) from woodpulp and other fibers; and (3) paperboard, in cluding paperboard coated on the paperboard machine, from woodpulp and other fibers. Logging camps operated by pulp mills and not separately reported were also included. Excluded were paper mills that primarily manufacture building paper, which is used as an interlining in construction. 2 Of 20 manufacturing industries studied regularly, including durable goods industries, paper and allied products ranked sixth in September 1987, according to data from the Bureau’s monthly employment and earn ings series. Other industries in the program with higher average hourly earnings were petroleum and coal products, tobacco manufactures, trans portation equipment, chemicals and allied products, and primary metals. 3 For an account of the earlier survey, see Industry Wage Survey: Pulp, bls Bulletin 2180 (1983). The 1982 average is not strictly comparable with the 1987 level, because the latter includes earnings from converted paper products departments of paper and paperboard mills. After adjusting for this difference, the earnings increase over the 5 years was 28 percent. Paper, and Paperboard Mills, July 1982, 4 Or 4.8 percent by the adjustment in the previous footnote. 5 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as defined by the U .S. Office o f Man agement and Budget through October 1984. 6 For purposes of the study, machine widths were grouped into five categories: 100 inches or less; 101 inches-150 inches; 151 inches-200 inches; 201 inches-300 inches; and 301 inches or more. 35 Foreign Labor Developments Adjusted Japanese unemployment rate remains below 3 percent in 1987-88 Table 1. Adjustment of Japanese unemployment and labor force data to approximate U.S. concepts, February 1984-88 [Numbers in thousands] C o n s t a n c e S o r r e n t in o In addition to regular monthly labor force surveys, Japan conducts a special labor force survey each year to investi gate, in more detail, the labor force status of the population. These special surveys allow for a more complete analysis of Japanese unemployment under U .S. concepts. Such analy ses were presented in 1984 and 1987 articles in the Review, and this report updates the results to include data from the February 1987 and 1988 special surveys.1 Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not use the special survey results to adjust the overall Japanese unem ployment rate to U .S. concepts, the Bureau continues to follow the surveys to better understand the results of the regular monthly surveys. The 1987 and 1988 special sur veys continue to support the Bureau’s contention that the Japanese unemployment rate is only slightly changed when U.S. concepts are applied. In addition, the b l s uses the special surveys for two other purposes: they allow calcu lation of (1) adjusted unemployment rates by sex; and (2) expanded unemployment measures which go beyond the conventional unemployment rate to cover persons involun tarily working part time and discouraged workers. Adjustment to U.S. concepts Several adjustments are made to the special surveys to bring them closer to U.S. concepts. After adjustment, some persons counted as unemployed in the surveys are excluded from the labor force, and some reported as not in the labor force are included among the unemployed. The magnitude of each of the adjustments is significant, but, on balance, they tend to cancel each other out, leaving the Japanese unemployment rate virtually unchanged. The adjustments are discussed in detail in the previous studies. Table 1, using the same format as the earlier analyses, shows the adjust ments for February 1984 through February 1988. In both 1987 and 1988, the adjustments to U .S. concepts result in a slightly lower unemployment rate than figures Constance Sorrentino is an economist in the Division o f Foreign Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Cateogry Reported unemployed ................... Less inactive jobseekers............. Plus jobseekers not in labor force who intended to start work Immediately ............................. Less those not available due to housework or school .......... Plus persons waiting to begin a new job within 1 month............. Less students awaiting jobs after graduation......................... 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1,710 430 1,640 370 1,640 360 1,860 480 1,730 460 130 130 120 120 140 10 10 10 10 10 1,340 1,130 1,300 1,380 1,380 1,170 960 1,100 1,160 1,160 Adjusted unemployed..................... 1,570 1,560 1,590 1,710 1,620 Reported labor force ..................... Less family workers working less than 15 hours ......................... Less inactive jobseekers.............. Plus unemployed classified “not in labor force”1 ................. 57,240 57,990 58,400 58,770 59,640 560 430 520 370 500 360 550 480 570 460 290 290 310 330 350 Adjusted labor force....................... 56,540 57,390 57,850 58,070 58,960 Unemployment rates: Reported ................................... Adjusted to U.S. concepts............ 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.7 1 Net sum of jobseekers not in labor force and persons waiting to begin a new job (less students). Note: Data are on a total labor force basis. Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Japanese Statistics Bureau, Report on the Special Survey of the Labour Force Survey, February 1984-88. based on Japanese definitions. This was the same direction indicated by analyses of previous surveys for February. However, special surveys conducted in March 1977-80 led to a slight upward adjustment. As discussed in the previous articles, March is a highly unusual month for the Japanese labor market because it is the end of the Japanese fiscal year, when firms traditionally take on new workers, and also the end of the school year, when new graduates enter the labor market. Although February is also a month of higher than average unemployment, there is somewhat less seasonality associated with this month than with March. The b l s comparative unemployment rates program regularly compiles unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts for certain foreign countries. (See tables 45 and 46 in the “Current Labor Statistics” section of the Review .) For Japan, b l s does not attempt to make annual or quarterly adjustments based on the February and March special survey data. Instead, b l s accepts the published Japanese unemployment figures as closely comparable with U.S. concepts and makes some minor adjustments to the labor force figures, b l s adjusts the Japanese labor force figures to exclude unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours. For civilian unemployment rates, the National Defense Force is also excluded. These small adjustments to the denominator of the unemployment rate usually make no difference; on occasion they raise the annual average rate by 0.1 percentage point. (See table 2.) Comparisons by sex Although the overall Japanese unemployment rate is changed only slightly when the special survey data are ad justed to U .S. concepts, there is a more significant differ ence in the adjusted rates for men and women. The official Japanese data show virtually no difference in unemployment rates for men and women. However, according to the b l s adjustments, women have higher unemployment rates than men. (See table 3.) Reasons for the wider male-female differential after ad justment are evident from the table. Women account for most of the unemployed originally classified as not in the labor force, while men account for most of the unemployed who did not actively seek work in the month of the survey. Japan’s unemployment rates, both on the official basis and adjusted to U .S. concepts, are well below U.S. rates. Annual civilian U .S. jobless rates of 6.2 percent in 1987 and 5.5 percent in 1988 contrast with adjusted civilian Japanese rates of 3.0 percent and 2.8 percent in February of those years. Other Western nations (Canada, France, Italy, United Kingdom) had rates in the 8- to 11-percent range during the same years. (See the aforementioned tables 45 and 46 in “Current Labor Statistics.”) Is the comparative efficiency of the Japanese labor market really 2 or 3 times greater than that of most Western nations? A strict comparison of unem ployment rates would arrive at that misleading conclusion. However, a substantial part of Japan’s labor underutilization falls in the realm of underemployment (workers on reduced hours) and discouragement, or labor force withdrawal. These forms of labor slack do not show up in the conven tional unemployment rate, but they are part of the Bureau’s Table 2. Japanese unemployment rates as published and adjusted to U.S. concepts, annual averages, 1984-1988 [In percent] Adjusted to U.S. concepts 1984 ................... 1985 ..................... 1986 ................... 1987 ..................... 1988 ..................... As published1 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5 Total labor force basis Civilian labor force basis 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 1Total labor force basis (includes National Defense Force). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis [Numbers in thousands] February 1987 February 1988 Category Men Women Men Women Reported unemployed ..................................... Less inactive jobseekers............................... Plus jobseekers not in labor force who intended to start work immediately................ Less those not available due to housework or school ........................... Plus persons waiting to begin new job within 1 month ........................................... Less students awaiting jobs after graduation........................................... 1,110 330 750 150 1,060 310 670 160 20 100 40 100 10 10 10 0 680 700 650 720 600 560 550 600 Adjusted unemployed....................................... 870 830 880 730 Reported labor force ....................................... 35,700 Less family workers working less than 50 15 hours................................................... 330 Less inactive jobseekers............................... Plus unemployed classified “not in 90 labor force”1 ............................................. 23,070 36,110 23,530 500 150 50 310 530 160 230 130 220 Adjusted labor force......................................... 35,410 22,650 35,880 23,060 Unemployment rates: Reported .................................................... Adjusted to U.S. concepts............................. 3.1 2.5 3.3 3.7 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 1 Net sum of jobseekers not in labor force and persons waiting to begin a new job (less students). Note: Data are on a total labor force basis. Sums of the statistics for men and women may not exactly coincide with the totals on tattle 1 due to rounding. Source : Management and Coordinaition Agency, Japanese Statistics Bureau, Report on the Special Survey of the Labour Force Survey, February 1987 and February 1988. An expanded unemployment concept Year Table 3. Adjustment of Japanese unemployment and labor force data to approximate U.S. concepts, for men and women, February 1987 and 1988 u -i to U-7 framework of alternative unemployment rates.2 Updating previous analyses, table 4 shows expanded unemployment measures which bring into consideration employed persons on part time for economic reasons (u-6) and discouraged workers (u-7). It was not possible to meas ure discouraged workers in Japan in exactly the same way as they are measured in the United States. Therefore, table 4 shows u-7 for Japan as a range rather than a precise rate. The lower rate of the range includes persons who seem to fall strictly within the U.S. concept of discouraged workers; the upper rate of the range includes some who might not be counted under the U.S. definition, but they would fall under a broader concept of labor underutilization. (See the ap pendix to the 1987 article for further discussion.) Comparisons of the U-6 and U-7 rates in relation to the conventionally defined rate (U-5) show that the Japanese rates are increased to a greater degree than the U.S. conven tional rates. In other words, there is a convergence in the “unemployment rates” for the two countries when the defi nition is broadened. In addition, the gap between each of the three rates for the United States and Japan has narrowed between 1984 and 1988, as overall labor market conditions improved in the United States, but not in Japan. The follow ing tabulation, based on table 4, shows the ratio of the U.S. unemployment rate to the Japanese rate: Rate 1984 U-5 ............ 2.7 U - 6 ............ 2.1 U - 7 ........ 1.1-1.4 1985 2.7 2.0 .9-1.2 1986 2.5 1.9 .9-1.2 1987 2.1 1.7 .8-1.0 1988 2.0 1.7 .8-1.0 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Table 4. Foreign Labor Developments June 1989 • Expanded unemployment measures for the United States and Japan, 1984-88 [Numbers in thousands] Japan U nited S tates Category 1984 Unemployed: Total, U.S. standard definition........................................... Full-time jobseekers ............................................... Part-time jobseekers............................................... Half...................................................... Part-time for economic reasons........................................... Reduced hours............................................... Half.............................................................. Zero hours ........................................................ U-6 numerator5 ...................................................... Plus discouraged workers .................................................. Japan: Discouraged workers I6 ....................................... Discouraged workers II7 ........................................... U-7 numerator...................................................... Japan:1...................................................... Japan: II ............................................................ 1985 1986 1987 1988 8,538 7,057 1,481 741 8,312 6,793 1,519 760 8,237 6,708 1,529 765 7,425 5,979 1,446 723 5,744 5,744 2,872 (3) 10,669 1,283 5,590 5,590 2,795 (3) 10,348 1,204 5,588 5,588 2,794 (3) 10,267 1,121 5,401 5,401 2,701 (3) 9,403 1,026 — — Feb. 1984 Feb. 1985 Feb. 1986 Feb. 1987 Feb. 1988 6,701 5,357 1,343 672 1,570 11,170 1400 200 1,560 11,130 1430 220 1,590 11,180 1410 210 1,710 11,250 1460 230 1,620 11jl 40 1480 240 5,206 5,206 2,603 (3) 8,632 954 2,180 21,900 950 4280 2,600 _ 2,240 21,960 980 4280 2,610 2,350 22,060 1,030 290 2,710 2,330 22,080 1,040 250 2,770 2,050 21,870 940 180 2 500 1,830 3,250 _ 2,240 4,020 _ 2,340 4,190 2,410 4,380 2 260 4’090 4,430 5,850 4,850 6,630 5,050 6,900 5,180 7,150 4,760 6,590 57,150 50,330 6,820 3,410 53,740 57,620 51,030 6,590 3,300 54,320 57,830 51,030 6,800 3,400 54,430 58,720 5L200 7,520 3,760 54,960 — — 11,952 — — — 11,552 — — — 11,388 — — Civilian labor force: Total, U.S. standard definition........................................................ Full-time labor force................................................... Part-time labor force ............................................... Half...................................................... U-6 denominator8 ....................................................... U-7 denominator9 ........................................... Japan:1................................................................ Japan: II ..................................................... 113,544 97,632 15,912 7,956 105,588 106,871 — — 115,461 99,178 16,283 8,142 107,319 108,523 — — 117,834 101,085 16,750 8,375 109,459 110,580 — — 119,865 102,631 17,234 8,617 111,248 112,274 121,669 104,017 17,651 8,826 112,843 113,797 56,300 49,880 6,420 3,210 53,090 — — — — 54,920 56,340 55,980 57,760 56,660 58,510 56,840 58,810 57,220 59,050 Unemployment rates (percent): U-5: U.S. standard definition (civilian basis)................................... — — 10,429 9,586 — — — — _ — 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2 5.5 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.8 U-6: Total full-time jobseekers plus one-half part-time jobseekers plus one-half total on part-time for economic reasons10 as a percent of the civilian labor force less one-half of the part-time labor force . . . 10.1 9.6 9.4 8.5 7.6 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.5 U-7: U-6 plus discouraged workers in numerator and denominator ................................................... 11.2 10.6 10.3 9.3 8.4 118.1-10.4 118.7-11.5 118.9-11.8 "9.1-12.2 "8.3-11.2 1 Breakdown into full-time and part-time jobseekers partially estimated. 2 Includes reported number of persons usually working part time who want more work plus reported number of persons on reduced (but not zero) hours due to slack work or other business reasons. 3 Included in U.S. standard definition. 4 Not reported—estimated as 18 percent of adjusted unemployed based upon February 1986 proportion. 5 All full-time jobseekers plus one-half part-time jobseekers plus one-half on reduced hours for economic reasons plus all on zero hours for economic reasons. 6 For Japan, all persons not in the labor force who reported that they desired a job but were not seeking work because there was no prospect of finding it, excluding the following two groups: (1) those who had sought work earlier in the month and were immediately available (reclassified by bls as unemployed under U.S. concepts); and (2) persons who respond “no, or undecided” as to Under the conventional definition of unemployment the tabulation shows that the U.S. rate was 2.5 to 2.7 times the Japanese rate during 1984-86, but the differential narrowed to about 2 during 1987-88. Similarly, the differ ential between the expanded rates (u-6 and u-7) also nar rowed, both down and across the tabulation. When the unemployment definition includes persons working part time for economic reasons ( U - 6 ) , the U .S. rate declined from about twice the Japanese rate during 1984-86 to 1.7 times during 1987—88. An even broader definition of unem ployment which encompasses discouraged workers (U -7 ) illustrates that the U.S. and Japanese rates converged to approximately the same level. At the high end of the Japanese U -7 range, the Japanese rate has surpassed the U.S. rate since 1985. However, it should be emphasized that the upper Japanese U -7 rate includes some persons who might not be classified as discouraged workers under U.S. definitions. (U -5 ), Digitized for 38FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis whether they could take up a job now. Discouraged workers I comes as close as possible to U.S. concepts. 7 For Japan, this group may include some persons who would not be classified as discouraged under U.S. concepts. It includes the persons in discouraged workers I plus (1) persons who respond “no, or undecided” as to whether they could take up a job now, and (2) persons reported as unemployed in the Japanese survey, but who were not seeking work in the past month (reclassified by bls as not in the labor force under U.S. concepts). 8 Civilian labor force less one-half the part-time labor force. 9 U-6 denominator plus discouraged workers. 10 Japanese workers on “zero hours” are given full weight. 11 Range reflects two different groups of discouraged workers (I and II). Note: Data are on a civilian labor force basis. Expanding the unemployment concept to include other elements of labor slack draws the Japanese rate closer to U.S. levels. Explanations for any remaining differential lie in such factors as the composition of the labor force, levels of frictional unemployment, and economic growth rates. ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 In the Monthly Labor Review , see Constance Sorrentino, “Japan’s low unemployment: an in-depth analysis,” March 1984, pp. 18-27; and “Japa nese unemployment: BLS updates its analysis,” June 1987, pp. 4 7 -5 3 . 2 The U - l to U -7 framework was introduced in Julius Shiskin, “Employment and unemployment: the doughnut or the hole?” Monthly Labor Review, February 1976; pp. 3 -1 0 . For an international comparison based on the U -l to U-7 framework, see Constance Sorrentino, “The Uses o f the European Community Labor Force Survey for International Unem ployment Comparisons,” paper prepared for the Statistical Office o f the European Communities, October 1987. Copies are available upon request to the author at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in July is based on information collected by the Bureau’s Office of Compensation and Working Conditions. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. Em ployer and location Industry or a ctivity Labor organization 1 Number o f workers Private M ining ........................................... Anthracite Coal Operators Association (Eastern Pennsylvania) ............ United Mine Workers ..................... 1,000 C onstruction................................... Associated General Contractors o f Saginaw Valley (M ichigan)............ Missouri River Basin Agreement (Interstate) ....................................... Building Trades Employees Association and Mason Contractors (Boston, ma) Association o f Mechanical Contractors (Atlanta, G A )........................... Carpenters ....................................... Boilermakers ................................... B ricklayers....................................... 1,550 2,200 3,000 Plumbers ......................................... Iron Workers ................................... 1,200 1,700 Painters .......................................... 1,000 Painters .......................................... Plumbers ......................................... 1,200 1,500 Combined Industry Construction Committee (St. Louis, MO) .............. Floor Covering Association and independent companies (Los Angeles, CA) Northern California Drywall Contractors (Northern C a lifo rn ia )............ Mechanical Contractors Association (U ta h ).......................................... Food products ............................... Meat Trade Institute (New York and New Jersey) ............................... Food and Commercial Workers ----- 1,600 Paper ............................................. Container Corp. o f America (Interstate) .............................................. Scott Paper Co., Southern Division (M obile, A L)................................. James River Corp. (Michigan) .............................................................. Paperworkers................................... Paperworkers................................... Paperworkers ................................... 1,250 2,400 1,700 S te e l.............................................. Armco, Inc. (Ashland, KY) .................................................... ............. Armco, Inc. (Kansas C ity, MO) ............................................................ Northwestern Steel and W ire Co. (Sterling, IL) ................................... Steelworkers ................................... Steelworkers ................................... Steelworkers .................................. 2,600 1,500 2,400 Fabricated metal products.............. FMC Corp., Northern Ordance D ivision (Fridley, MN) ....................... Auto Workers ................................. 1,400 Machinery ..................................... Briggs and Stratton Corp. (Milwaukee, WI) ......................................... Sealed Power Corp. (Muskegon, M l).................................................... Tecumseh Products Co., Lauson Engine Division (New Holstein, w i) . A llied Industrial Workers ............... Auto Workers ................................. Machinists ....................................... 9,000 1,000 1,500 S hipbuilding................................... Todd Shipyards Corp. (San Pedro, C A )...................................................... Marine and S hipbuilding................. 1,700 Retail trade ................................... Montgomery Ward and Co. (Interstate)................................................ Big Star Markets (South Atlantic States).............................................. Fred Meyer, Inc. (Portland, OR) ................................................................. Teamsters........................................ Food and Commercial Workers . . . . Food and Commercial Workers ----- 3,000 2,000 1,700 Illinois: Cook County Community College, faculty ................. National Education Association . . . . 1,000 Florida: Pasco County, teachers................................................ Lee County, teachers .................................................. Lee County, noninstructional em ployees..................... American Federation o f Teachers . . . National Education Association . . . . National Education Association . . . . 1,950 1,250 1,000 Washington: Edmonds, teachers ...................................................... National Education Association . . . . 1,000 Public E ducation....................................... 1A ffiliated w ith AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 39 Developments In Industrial Relations Difficulties continue at Eastern Eastern Air Lines, long beset by financial difficulties and an acrimonious relationship with its unions, experienced heightened problems that threatened its existence as an oper ating entity. On March 4, 8,500 members of the Machinists union walked out after rejecting company demands for wage cuts and changes in work rules that had been the focus of 17 months of negotiations. Eastern’s plan to maintain a sub stantial part of its flight schedule was dashed when only a small number of the 3,500 cockpit crew members, repre sented by the Air Line Pilots, crossed Machinists’ picket lines. Similar support for the stoppage came from 6,000 flight attendants, represented by Transport Workers. The abbreviated flight schedule and the resulting increase in corporate financial losses led to the layoff of 10,000 nonunion employees, leaving only about 1,500 workers on the job. A few days after the walkout began, Eastern filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. Despite Eastern’s initial assurances that it would continue operating, groups of investors, some joined by the unions, began making purchase offers, partic ularly after entrepreneur Donald Trump indicated he might terminate a commitment he made in 1987 to purchase East ern’s shuttle operations. The strike had lowered the value of the shuttle operations from $365 million to less than $250 million. This latest controversy at Eastern began in 1986, when members of the Air Line Pilots and Transport Workers agreed to wage cuts of more than 20 percent. Since then, Eastern has been pressing the Machinists to accept compara ble contract changes. Eastern’s last proposal to the Machin ists before the work stoppage began was for lowering hourly wage rates to $16 (from $18.83) for mechanics and to $11.54 (from $15.60) for ramp service employees, and for cost-reducing changes in work rules. Program opens jobs to longshore workers The International Longshoremen’s Association ( i l a ) and major freight handling firms on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts have adopted a program intended to open jobs to longshore workers who had been laid off because of the Federal Maritime Administration’s invalidation of the industry’s container rule. (S ze Monthly Labor Review, April 1989, pp. 4 2 -4 3 .) The rule had reserved to il a members the right to pack and unpack containerized cargo within 50 miles of a port where the union holds bargaining rights. The legal challenge was initiated by some shippers who contended that it hurt their ability to compete with shippers using lower cost labor. The new program is financed by a 30-cent-a-ton levy on container cargo moving through ports on the coasts. The $5 million expected to be accumulated by the September 30, 1989, termination date of the plan (and the current overall labor agreement between the il a and the industry) will be used to pay part of the wages of unemployed workers who find stevedoring jobs. Television, radio performers settle Negotiators for the n b c , c b s , and a b c television and radio networks and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists settled for 70,000 performers, of whom about 4,000 are employed at any given time. The 3-year settle ment actually comprises 37 separate contracts for the vari ous types of employees, but there were some uniform terms: • 3-percent increases in minimum pay rates for those with speaking parts, effective in November of 1989 and 1990; • 2-percent increases in each contract year in minimum pay rates for those on news programs; • an increase in the number of performers and news person nel entitled to residual payments for repeat broadcasts of programs in which they appear; • a new provision preserving jobs for camera operators by permitting news reporters to refuse to operate cameras; • an increase in management’s financing of pension and health and welfare benefits to 10.5 percent of employee earnings, from 9.5 percent; and • increases in premium pay for hours worked in excess of the 6-hour normal limit on the 2 consecutive days per week designated as “rest days” for performers in serials and soap operas. Retail trade settlements “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. 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis More than 13,000 employees of retail food store chains in Minneapolis and St. Paul, m n , were covered by similar 3-year contracts negotiated by the United Food and Com- mercial Workers. Terms for the 3,600 employees in St. Paul included a 40-cent-an-hour immediate wage increase for full-time top-rated grocery clerks and meatcutters, followed by 35-cent increases in the second and third years. The previous hourly wage rates were $13.58 for grocery clerks and $14.69 for meatcutters. For part-time employees (less than 40 hours a week), the starting rate was increased by 6 percent in the first contract year, to $4.75 an hour; the top rate was increased by 3 percent (to $9.66) immediately, followed by additional 3-percent increases in the second and third years. The St. Paul accord also provided for increases in em ployer financing of the health insurance plan, but benefits are now subject to reduction if they cannot be maintained with the increased financing. The financing increases are $26 a month for full-time employees and $13 for parttimers, effective immediately, and, if needed, $13 a month for all employees in both the second and third years. Previ ously, the employer obligation for full-time employees was $195 a month for clerks, $205 for meatcutters, and $40 for part-time workers. Also, in the retail food store industry, Safeway Stores Inc. in Richmond, v a , and Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 negotiated a 3-year contract for 1,500 workers at 20 stores. The contract superseded the existing 3-year con tract which was scheduled to expire in June 1990. Safeway officials explained that they wanted to settle early “to reaf firm to these employees our commitment to staying in the area and being a viable, growing market force.” The new contract, which runs to March 1992, provides for total wage increases of $1 to $2.75 an hour, in contrast to the 1987 accord, which cut the pay rates of top-rated employees by as much as $2.71 an hour. The pay cut and the closing of 40 stores in Richmond and nearby areas— and the closing of numerous stores elsewhere in the Nation— re sulted from a restructuring following the 1986 leveraged buyout of the company. Over the term of the 1989 accord, increases in top rates of progression schedules total $2 for full-time clerks, bring ing their wage rate to $10 an hour; $1.75 for part-time clerks (to $8.75), $2.75 for meatcutters (to $12.25), and $1 for assistant managers (to $12.90). Other employees will re ceive increases under the progression schedules, which were extended to 18 months, from 12 months, from the date of hiring to attainment of top rate. The settlement also restored two annual paid personal days off that had been eliminated in 1987. Compensation improved for catalog sales workers In Chicago, 3,100 catalog sales employees were covered by a 3-year settlement between Spiegel Inc. and Teamsters Local 743. Pay, which averaged $8.60 an hour, was in creased by 50 cents effective March 1, 1989, followed by increases of 40 cents in March 1990 and 50 cents in March 1991. About 1,300 of the employees will also receive one https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis time inequity adjustments ranging from 15 to 25 cents an hour. Benefit changes included a $1 increase in the $10 a month pension for each year of credited service; a $5,000 increase in the $10,000 employer-financed life insurance for em ployees, along with the addition of $1,500 of optional cov erage for the employee’s spouse, costing the employee $1 a month; various improvements in health insurance, including coverage under “well baby” provisions, extended care, con valescent care, and provision of social workers; and a new dental plan financed by monthly contributions of $4 by the company, $3.95 by single employees, and $17.75 by em ployees with dependents. Boeing to ‘borrow’ production workers In the aircraft industry, Boeing Co. announced it would borrow up to 670 production workers from Lockheed Corp. to aid in reducing a large backlog of orders for its 747-400 commercial jumbo jetliners. This move also aided Lockheed by providing work for employees of its Marietta, g a , plant, which is nearing completion of a contract to produce a C-5B transport aircraft for the Air Force. The plant has 10,000 employees, compared with 20,000 at the end of 1987. The president of Machinists Local 709 at Marietta called the 6-month transfer of employees to Boeing’s Everett, w a , plant a “blessing, because our main goal is to keep people working.” Although Boeing’s workers also are represented by the Machinists, the transferred workers will be covered by Local 709 contract terms. The local president said the employees will receive a wage increase for being on “field duty” and that Boeing will aid them in finding housing. The so-called industry assistance agreement also led some observers to speculate that Boeing and Lockheed might later agree to shift some Boeing work to the Marietta plant. Paper workers accept previously rejected terms In Camden, a r , members of three local unions of the United Paperworkers and one local of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers approved a 5-year con tract with International Paper Co. The contract provided for 2-percent pay raises in February of 1989 and 1990 for most employees (lump-sum and/or wage increases for some em ployees), $750 or $1,000 lump-sum payments in February 1991 for all employees, and 2-percent wage increases in February 1992 and 1993 for all employees. Other terms included reductions in Sunday premium pay, greater company flexibility in assigning work, and adoption of a 401(k) savings plan. Union officials said they were not satisfied with the terms but, according to one official, accepted them because “that was all there was for us.” The terms were essentially the same as those in an offer International Paper made in Febru ary 1988, when the prior agreement expired. Since then, the employees have worked under contract extensions. 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Developments in Industrial Relations Meanwhile, the United Paperworkers union was continu ing a corporate campaign to pressure International Paper to end its drive to cut labor costs at various plants by such measures as reducing Sunday premium pay and broadening job assignments. The campaign began during bitter work stoppages at several plants; the stoppages ended in 1988 when the workers voted to return to work, but the campaign continued. (See Monthly Labor Review , November 1988, PP- 4 7 -4 8 .) Recently, a union ally, the Laborers, withdrew $200 million from a bank subsidiary of p n c Financial Corp. because an International Paper executive was a member of the bank’s board of directors. Also in the papermaking industry, Westvaco Corp. and United Paperworkers locals in Luke, n c , and Covington, v a , agreed to extend their existing contract for 3 years, to December 1, 1992. Contract terms included a $300 bonus for immediate rat ification; 2.5-percent wage increases in December of 1989, 1990, and 1991; $1 increases in the monthly pension rate for each year of service, effective in April of 1990 and 1991; and a $1,000 increase in life insurance and a $5 increase in weekly sickness and accident benefits in each of the 3 years of the extended contract. New York independent drug stores settle In the New York City area, the Empire State Pharmaceu tical Society, comprised of 320 independent drug stores, settled with Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees, a unit of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. The 3-year agreement, which was reportedly similar to the union’s December 1988 settlement with sev eral major drug store chains, included an 8-percent salary increase retroactive to the October 8, 1988, termination date of the prior agreement, and 7-percent increases in October of 1989 and 1990. After the initial increase, minimum weekly salaries were $700 for pharmacists and $190 for cashiers, clerks, and stockworkers. The contract, covering 2,500 employees, also provided for increasing the stores’ payment to the benefit fund to an amount equal to 11.8 percent of payroll, from 11.4 percent; shifting 1.3 percentage points of the stores’ financing of pensions to the benefit fund; establishing a drug and alcohol testing policy; and establishing a provision that employees hired after April 7, 1990, must join the union and employers are required to withhold union dues from the pay of these employees if they sign check-off forms. Nurses in New York negotiate salary increase Some specialized nurses with 20 years’ service will be paid more than $66,000 a year under a 3-year contract between The Presbyterian Hospital in New York City and the New York State Nurses Association. The new maxi mum, effective in the final contract year, results from a revamping of the salary progression schedule. For general Digitized for 42 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis duty nurses, the new 20-year maximum rates are $44,000 retroactive to December 1988, rising to $50,500 in Decem ber 1989 and to $52,200 in December 1990. On the same dates, minimum salary rates move to $31,500, $34,000, and $35,700. Previously, the minimum was $29,000 and the maximum was $32,600 after 10 years of service. A spokesperson for the Nurses Association said the new salary rates are the highest in the area, but comparable rates are expected to be attained in negotiations underway with other hospitals. The Presbyterian agreement also increased the hourly rate for per diem nurses to $28, from $21.88, in three steps over the contract term, and increased the shift differential to $4,500 immediately, from $3,200, subject to further in creases in the second and third years to match the highest differential then prevailing at any of three competing hospitals. The settlement covers 1,500 nurses. Initial contract for Swift textile workers In Erwin, n c , 1,050 employees of Swift Textiles, Inc.’s denim manufacturing plant were covered by a settlement that provided for an immediate 4-percent pay increase. The 3-year agreement negotiated by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers also provided for possible reopening of bargaining when nonunion textile manufacturers give wage or benefit improvements to employees. The agreement was the first between Swift and the union, which represented the employees under the former owner, Burlington Industries Inc. Burlington sold the plant to Swift’s parent, Dominion Textile Ltd. of Canada in Novem ber 1987. Moderate terms allow plant to modernize The H.J. Heinz C o.’s Heinz u .s .a . Division announced a $90 million modernization of operations in Pittsburgh, p a , after members of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 325 approved a “moderate” 5-year contract. The 1,000 food preparation employees had been informed that the conversion was vital to revive the factory and avert a steady decline in production and jobs. Despite the settle ment, the bargainers still expected about 250 jobs to be lost during the modernization. Teachers’ contracts About 1,400 public school teachers in Chattanooga, t n , received an immediate salary increase averaging 9 percent under a new 2-year contract. The increase brought annual salary rates to $19,000 for starting teachers, $30,766 for teachers with a master’s degree and 16 years of experience, and a maximum of $32,882 for those with a doctorate and 16 years of experience. At the start of the 1989-90 school year, the respective salaries are expected to be $19,500, $32,036, and $34,239, depending on the amount of finan cial assistance from the State. The teachers are represented by an affiliate of the Na tional Education Association. In Illinois, 1,150 teachers and training specialists will receive a 6.5-percent annual salary increases under a 4-year contract negotiated by Cook County Community College District 508 and an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. A new faculty evaluation system calls for onefourth of the teachers to be rated each year by a committee composed of two administrators and two faculty members. The committee will follow a 12-step assessment procedure including self review, peer review, student evaluation, and administrative review. If necessary, the committee will aid teachers in improving their skills. joined the majority in the railroad case because of the com pelling need to protect railroad passengers, but could not favor the decision in the Customs Service case because only 5 of 3,600 employees tested had positive results, leading to the conclusion that there was “no real evidence of a problem that will be solved by urine testing.” U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh described the two decisions as victories in the war on drugs, saying that the Administration would tailor drug-testing plans being established in Federal agencies to conform with the ruling. Federal employee unions, which have filed legal challenges to a number of the testing programs, contended that the Court’s rulings had limited application and, pending further decisions, would not apply to “general” employees. Bank to distribute back pay to bias victims Supreme Court drug test rulings Drug testing, which is becoming an increasingly divisive issue in collective bargaining and legislative halls, drew two opinions from the Supreme Court that validated such ef forts, in limited circumstances. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, the Court held that railroad operating crews can be tested for drug use after being involved in accidents. Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting searches without probable cause did not apply in this case because of “special needs” in the safe transport of the public resulting from the fact that railroad employees “can cause great human loss before any sign of impairment becomes noticeable to supervisors or others.” In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., conceded that eradication of illegal drug use was a proper national objective, but concluded that testing of railroad workers without any evidence of wrong doing allows “basic constitutional rights to fall prey to momentary emergencies.” In the other case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Van Raab, Justice Kennedy, writing for the five-member majority, held that the U .S. Customs Service’s Drug En forcement Administration had the right to routinely test em ployees involved in interdicting illegal drugs and employees who carry firearms. Justice Kennedy said that testing of these employees is necessary to assure that they have the “unimpeachable integrity and judgment” required to counter illegal drug traffic, which is “one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population.” The Court did not extend the ruling to messengers and baggage clerks because of uncertainty over whether individual em ployees would gain access to restricted information. Justice Antonin Scalia led the dissent, explaining that he https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Harris Bank of Chicago will distribute $14 million in back pay to some of its employees to settle charges of race and sex discrimination filed by the Federal Government. The payment is the largest of its kind in U.S. history. The case began in 1973 when employees complained to the Department of Labor that Harris Bank discriminated against women and minorities in its pay, promotion, job placement, and training policies. The Department filed charges under Executive Order 11246, which imposes .equal employment opportunity rules on employers of 50 workers or more who have Federal contracts totaling $50,000 in a year. Among other findings, the Department’s action was based on the fact that Harris offered clerical jobs to some women with college degrees, while offering higher paid jobs and training to white male college graduates. In 1981, an administrative law judge found Harris guilty of discrimination and ordered back pay. Harris appealed the ruling but, in 1986, another administrative law judge also ruled against the bank. A Department of Labor official called the settlement “a major civil rights victory for the Federal Government” because it “provides an excellent precedent for future gov ernment action under the Executive Order.” Observers maintain employees are better able to complete actions un der the Executive Order than under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the Executive Order, unlike the Civil Rights Act, calls for legal costs to be borne by the government. Harris Bank denied that it practiced discrimination, say ing that it settled “to put the matter behind us.” The selection of employees and ex-employees who will receive payments, the size of payments, and the distribution of the money will be handled by the Department of Labor. The Department will also monitor Harris’ commitment to establish training programs for women and minorities and to affirmative action. O 43 Book Reviews Balancing work and family responsibilities What’s Happening to the American Family? Tensions, Hopes, Realities. Rev. ed. By Sar A. Levitan, Richard S. Belous, and Frank Gallo. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. 228 pp. Save the American family! This, or something like it, has become a theme of the 1980’s. We read about high divorce rates, teenage pregnancy, single-parent families, latchkey children, and so forth. All o f these, and more, we are told, mean the family as we know it is in trouble. But, few of these Cassandras take the time to explain what they mean by the “family.” Thus, it becomes difficult to formu late any rational opinions regarding the causes and possible cures for the problems. What’s Happening to the American Family takes a close look at the institution of the family. The authors find that the family is not the mother, father, and two children household of popular myth, but an incredibly diverse social organism. For example, fewer than 5 percent of American families are so-called traditional families with a working father, stayat-home mother, and two children; families maintained by women make up about 16 percent of all families; more than a fifth of all children live with just one parent; 65 percent of all mothers are in the labor force; and 60 percent o f all children have a working mother. It is true that the majority of families still conform to the general notion of a social unit consisting of two adults of the opposite sex living together with their blood or adoptive relatives. But a significant and growing minority of families no longer contain two adults who are parents; the population is aging and many families no longer contain children while many young families are delaying having children. Moreover, the labor force and household roles o f all family members in today’s two-parent families tend to differ profoundly from the norm o f just 30 years ago. The authors use quantitative data to present a coherent picture of today’s families and the trends that underlie some of the changes in family life that are troublesome to many people. For instance, they note that, while men and women are delaying marriage today (as compared with the 1950’s and 1960’s), most will marry. Of course, divorce rates are very high by historical standards, yet, as the authors note, family breakup is not the relatively new phenomenon that this might imply; death was the leading cause o f f a m ily Digitized 44 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis disruption before the enormous strides in health care during the 20th century. However, high rates of divorce and out-ofwedlock births mean that increasing numbers of children are living in single-parent families (a situation that usually means economic hardship), and that increasing numbers are living in married-couple households where one adult is not the natural parent. Of course, the authors also discuss what many perceive as the two most important social trends of the 20th century— the rapid increase in labor force participation among married women and the increase in the number of households maintained by women. Do the authors conclude from these trends that the family is indeed in trouble? No— but neither do they give it a clean bill of health. Traditionally, the family’s role has been one of support for its members. However, the authors find that the alterations in family structure, combined with the sweeping social and economic changes that followed World War II, have not strengthened the family in its supportive role. For example, in terms of cash income, single-parent families are generally less well-off than two-parent families. Also, the high mobility associated with modem life has weakened family and community ties, leaving individuals more exposed to economic and other misfortunes. Thus, in some ways, the supportive role of families may have deteriorated. The authors also analyze government programs designed to help families. They do this with the same skill and clarity they use to analyze family structure, pointing out that a great many programs have an effect on families whether intended or not. Perhaps the most important point they make regard ing family policy is: “. . . government interventions fail to pay adequate heed to changing family structures and atti tudes about the diverse roles of families in modem society. The basic assumptions concerning the typical American family that prevailed during the 1930’s, when some of the major current programs were initiated, no longer fit Ameri can family life.” In other words, policies and programs whose underlying assumptions about families are based on outdated perceptions of reality will not help today’s families cope with the problems they face. Indeed, such ill-founded policies may be harmful. —Howard V. Hayghe Division of Labor Force Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics The plight of European unions Trade Unions Today and Tomorrow: Vol. 1, Trade Unions in a Changing Europe; Vol. 2, Trade Unions in a Changing Workplace. Edited by Georges Spyropoulos. Maastricht, The Netherlands, Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, 1988. Unions under stress— if not in crisis— is the theme which unifies this collection of papers. The setting is Western Europe in the 1980’s. Because Western European labor movements have long stood for “the ideal-type,” their unset tled state may be ushering in a new era in industrial relations, just as the 1980’s represented a new order for American unions for largely the same root causes. This work consists of approximately 30 research papers, essays, commentaries, and polemics. The authors are trade union professionals and officials and university scholars representing every region of Western Europe. The editor is a former official of the International Labour Organization. All perceive the union as indispensable in a democratic industrial society. The predicament of trade unionism and the labor movement is seen in some measure as a result of their own inadequacies, but in larger measure through over arching economic forces beyond their control. The papers were originally presented at a conference sponsored by the European Center for Work and Society in Maastricht, The Netherlands in 1985. The center merits commendation for bringing together these papers in an attractive English-language edition. The interlocutor, so to speak, is Georges Spyropoulos, whose commentaries throughout the two volumes do much to impart coherence and structure to an otherwise heterogenous collection. The sources of the crisis are internationalization of mar kets, technological restructuring, demographic changes in the labor market, the erosion of the welfare state, and the rise of conservative governments to power, ending the long postwar hegemony of social democracy. All of these ele ments have fused to produce unprecedentedly high levels of unemployment alien to the longstanding reign of full em ployment as the centerpiece of postwar European economic policy. Unemployment has necessarily led to a weakening of union power in collective and political bargaining. In the large, this is the American story as well except that the American union-free experience is not replicated in Western Europe with the possible exception of the United Kingdom. A book review can only hint at the diversities reflected in the papers. “Country profiles” of Denmark and The Nether lands note the breach and possible breakdown in the historic social contract relationships. Paradoxically, union influence in France has deteriorated with the Left’s access to political power. Neither Spanish nor Greek unions have been able to shake off the lethargy acquired in Fascist and quasi-Fascist times. A comparison between the coal strikes of 1974 and 1984-85 dramatizes how far the fortunes of British union https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ism have fallen and reflects the disarray of the larger labor movement. Another set of cases on multinational bargaining demonstrates the gap between the rhetoric of international class solidarity and the reality of national union power and national interest. “New Managerial Strategies and the Trade Union Re sponse” is the most interesting section. Drawn from British experience, the parallel to the “union-free” strategy in the United States is the strongest in Western Europe. The mortal challenge to British unionism has come, however, from the Thatcher government, not primarily from British employ ers, who may very well believe that the government has gone too far. In ways atypical of British industrial relations, American and Japanese firms in Britain have sought to “marginalize external union influence or attempt to forestall union organi zation altogether” (Vol. II, p. 65). Nor has unionism fared much better in the institutionalized modes of participation as evident in the French “direct expression” groups and in a series of British cases. Flexibility in the labor market, ac cording to a French scholar, is the “boss’ weapon in a class war” to dismantle union power and revive “management and executive power” (Vol. II, p. 145). The strong forte of the various papers is that they confront the sources of union vulnerability squarely: rhetoric and ideology out of touch with reality, union structures and resources unequal to the demands of the new industrial relations, and union militancy unrelated to the availability of union resources. The mainline unions of Western Europe need have no qualms about taking stock of their shortcomings. In a sense, they are victims of their own successes in contributing to a reconstructed Europe which now rivals the United States in most of the success indicators, except unemployment. In general, most of the papers and commentaries reflect favorably on the capacity of trade union scholars and practi tioners and their associates to make responsible assessments of where they are at this critical juncture of events, even if it hurts. — Ja c k B a r b a s h Professor of economics and industrial relations (Emeritus), University of Wisconsin, Madison, and visiting professor, University of California, Davis Publications received Economic and social statistics U.S. Department of Labor, Directory of Labor Offices in State and Federal Government. By Sandra W. Hamlett. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Adminis tration, Office of States Liaison and Legislative Analysis, Division of State Employment Programs, 1988, 127 pp. 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Book Reviews (Bulletin 177, revised; e s a 1437.) Free copies are available upon request as long as supplies last. Whitfield, Keith, “Can Statistics Make for Better Management? The Experience of Companies House,” Statistical News (London, HMSO Publications Center), February 1989, pp 84.18-21. Industrial relations Barbash, Jack and Kate Barbash, eds, Theories and Concepts in Comparative Industrial Relations. Columbia, sc, University of South Carolina Press, 1989, 268 pp. $29.95. Donn, Clifford B., “Concession Bargaining in the Ocean-Going Maritime Industry,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1989, pp. 189-200. Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and George H. Jakubson, Advance Notice Provisions in Plant Closing Legislation. Kalamazoo, Ml, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988,101 pp. $9.95, paper. Labor and economic history Quaglieri, Philip L., America’s Labor Leaders. Lexington, m a , Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1989, 292 pp. $39. Labor force Hochner, Arthur and others, Job-Saving Strategies: Worker Buy outs and QWL. Kalamazoo, Ml, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1989, 345 pp. $22.95, cloth; $15.95, paper. National Alliance of Business, Shaping Tomorrow’s Workforce: A Leadership Agenda for the 90’s. Washington, 1988, 21 pp. Parasuraman, Saroj and others, “Work and Family Variables as Mediators of the Relationship Between Wives’ Employment and Husbands’ Well-Being,” Academy of Management Jour nal, March 1989, pp. 185-201. Peterson, Richard R., Women, Work, and Divorce. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1989, 179 pp., bibliog raphy. $39.50, cloth; $12.95, paper. Estreicher, Samuel and Daniel G. Collins, eds., Labor Law and Business Change: Theoretical and Transactional Perspec tives. Westport, c t , Quorum Books, 1988, 353 pp. $55. Klein, James A., AIDS: An Employer’s Guidebook. Washington, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1988, 84 pp. $20 members; $33, nonmembers, paper. Truchil, Barry E., Capital-Labor Relations in the U.S. Textile Industry. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1988, 216 pp. $39.95. Zack, Arnold M., Grievance Arbitration: Issues on the Merits in Discipline, Discharge, and Contract Interpretation. Lexing ton, MA, Lexington Books, 1989, 291 pp. $44.95. Industry and government organizations U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989 U.S. Industrial Outlook: Prospects for Over 350 Industries. Washington, U.S. De partment of Commerce, International Trade Administration, 1989, various pagings. $24, paper, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington 20402. Vogel, David, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1989, 352 pp. $20.95. Management and organization theory Bittel, Lester R., The McGraw-Hill 36-Hour Management Course. New York, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1989, 333 pp. $34.95, cloth; $19.95, paper. Folger, Robert and Mary A. Konovsky, “Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions,” Academy of Management Journal, March 1989, pp. 115-30. Hannaway, Jane, Managers Managing: The Workings of an Ad ministrative System. New York, Oxford University Press, 1989, 171 pp., bibliography. $19.95. Muson, Howard, “The Nonprofits’ Prophet: An Across the Board Interview with Peter F. Drucker,” Across the Board, March 1989, beginning on p. 24. Roomkin, Myron J., Managers as Employees: An International Comparison of the Changing Character of Managerial Em ployment. New York, Oxford University Press, 1989, 288 pp. $29.95. Shapero, Albert, Managing Professional People: Understanding Creative Performance. New York, The Free Press, A Divi sion of Macmillan, Inc., 1989, 252 pp., bibliography. $12.95, paper. International economics Productivity and technological change Pool, John Charles and Stephen C. Stamos, Jr., International Economic Policy: Beyond the Trade and Debt Crisis. Lex ington, m a , Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1989, 142 pp., bibliography.$29. Miller, Steven M., Impacts of Industrial Robotics: Potential Ef Digitized for 46 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fects on Labor and Costs within the Metalworking Industries. Madison, Wl, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, 255 pp., bibliography. $45, cloth; $19.95, paper. Current Labor Statistics S c h e d u le o f r e le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r s t a t i s t i c a l s e r i e s ...................................................................................................... 48 ................................................................................................................................................................. 49 1. Labor market in d icators................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity ........................................................................................ 3. Alternative measures o f wage and compensation changes ................................................................................................................................... 58 59 59 N o te s o n C u r r e n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s bls C o m p a r a tiv e in d ic a to r s L a b o r fo r c e d a ta 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Employment status o f 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 o f civilian workers, by State ................................................................................................................................................. Employment o f workers by State ............................................................................................................................................................................... Employment o f workers by industry, data seasonally adjusted........................................................................................................................... Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted ............................................................................................................................... Average hourly earnings by industry, data seasonally adjusted .......................................................................................................................... Average hourly earnings by industry ............................................................................................................ Average weekly earnings by in d ustry.......................................................................................................................................................................... Diffusion indexes of employment change, data seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................. Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population ........................................................................................................... Annual data: Employment levels by industry .......................................................................................... Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry............................................................................................................................... 60 61 62 63 64 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 71 71 72 L a b o r c o m p e n s a tio n a n d c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g d a ta 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 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, situations covering 1,000 workers or more .......................................................................................................................................................... Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e .................................... Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers ormore ...................................................................... Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more ................................................................................................................................................. 73 74 75 76 76 77 77 77 P r ic e d a ta 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 g ro u p s................................................ Consumer Price Index: U .S . city average and local data, all ite m s .................................................................................................................... Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups ...................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes by stage o f processing ........................................................................................................................................................ Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f product ................................................................................................................................................... Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of p ro cessin g ............................................................................................................................... U .S . export price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification .......................................................................................................... U .S . import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification...................................................................................................... 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 78 81 82 83 84 84 85 86 87 87 87 88 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics Productivity data 42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity ......................................................................... 88 89 90 44. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s ................ International comparisons 45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted ....................................... 46. Annual data: Employment status o f civilian working-age population, ten countries 47. Annual indexes o f productivity and related measures, twelve countries ......................... 91 92 93 Injury and illness data 48. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence r a te s............................................... Schedule of release dates f<or Series bls 94 statistical series Release date Period covered Release date Period covered June 1 1st quarter Release date Period covered mlr table number Productivity and costs: Nonfinancial corporations................... Nonfarm business and manufacturing .. May 3 1st quarter Employment situation ........................... May 5 April June 2 May July 7 June 1; 4-21 Producer Price Index........................... May 12 April June 9 May July 14 June 2;33-35 2,42—44 *lfc^W Consumer Price Index......................... May 18 April June 16 May July 19 June 2:30-32 Real earnings............................. May 18 April June 16 May July 19 June 14-17 July 25 2nd quarter Major collective bargaining settlements ............................. Employment Cost Index ....................... U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes......................... 48 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July 25 July 27 3; 25-28 1-3; 22-24 2nd quarter 36-41 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section o f the Review 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 are briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources o f additional information are cited. General notes Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the “real” earn ings shown in table 15— 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 o f 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 1977 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1977” dollars. Additional information The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing o f 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 o f 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, 15, 17, and 18.) Beginning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are seasonally adjusted with a procedure called x - n arima , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension o f the standard x - n method previously used by bls . A detailed description o f the procedure appears in The x -n arima Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statis tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E , February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors are calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at midyear for the July-December period. However, revisions o f historical data con tinue to be made only at the end o f each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 1 0 were revised in the February 1989 issue o f the Review to reflect experience through 1988. Annual revisions o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 13 and 17 were made in the July 1988 Review using the X -ll 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 c pi . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are avail able for this series. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau in a variety o f sources. News 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 Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. More data from the household survey are published in the data books—Revised Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force Statistics, Bulletin 2306, and Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2307. More data from the establishment survey appear in two data books— Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and the supplements to these data books. More detailed information on employee compensation and collec tive bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The cpi Detailed Report, and Producer Price Indexes. Detailed data on all of the series in this section are provided in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued covering productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the Monthly Labor Review carries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment, and unemployment; employee compensation and col lective bargaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and in jury and illness data. Symbols p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness o f some series, preliminary figures are issued based on representative but incomplete 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 o f the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include employment measures from two major surveys and information on rates o f change in compensation pro vided by the Employment Cost Index ( eci) program. The labor force partic ipation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”) Survey are presented, while measures o f employment and average weekly hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricul https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is chosen from a variety o f bls compensa tion and wage measures because it provides a comprehensive measure o f employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among occupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are pre sented in table 2. Measures of rates o f change o f compensation and wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics urban consumers; producer prices by stage o f processing; and the overall Notes on the data export and import price indexes are given. Measures o f productivity (output per hour o f all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, 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 measures. Definitions o f each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections of these notes describing each set o f data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see bls Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publications noted in the separate sections o f the Review’s “Current Labor Statistics Notes. Users may also wish to consult Major Programs, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Report 718 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT DATA (Tables 1; 4-21) Household survey data the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes o f Employment and Earnings. 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 o f about 55,800 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. Data in tables 4 - 1 0 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1988. employment data Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day o f 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 o f 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. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unem ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent o f the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian employment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The labor force consists o f all employed or unemployed civilians plus members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force 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 noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years o f age and older who are not inmates o f penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion o f the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio 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 are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil ity o f historical data. A description o f these adjustments and their effect on 50FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Additional sources of information For detailed explanations o f the data, see bls Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical unadjusted data from 1948 to 1987 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2307 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical seasonally adjusted data appear in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey: A Databook, Vol. II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), and Revised Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force Statistics, 1978-87, Bulletin 2306 (Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, 1988). 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,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . Establishment survey data Description of the series E mployment , hours , and earnings data in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 300,000 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 o f 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 establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type o f economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part o f the payroll period including the 12th o f the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent o f all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and non supervisory 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 employ ment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings 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. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects o f 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 ). Hours represent the average weekly hours o f production or nonsupervi sory workers for which pay was received, and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of average weekly hours which was in excess o f regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index represents the percent o f industries in which em ployment was rising over the indicated period, plus one-half o f the indus tries with unchanged employment; 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data are centered within the span. The March 1989 Review introduced an expanded index on private nonagricultural employment based on 349 industries, and a new manufacturing index based on 143 industries. These indexes are useful for measuring the dispersion o f economic gains or losses and are also economic indicators. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics are peri od ically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called “benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release o f May 1988 data, published in the July 1988 issue o f the Review. Conse quently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1986; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1983. These revisions were published in the Supplement to Employment and Earnings (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). Unadjusted data from April 1987 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1984 for ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months are based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the tables (13 to 18 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the esti mates are revised and published as final in the third month o f their appear ance. Thus, August data are published as preliminary in October and November and as final in December. For the same reason, quarterly estab lishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months o f publication and final in the third month. Thus, second-quarter data are published as preliminary in August and September and as final in October. Additional sources of information Detailed national data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the bls periodical, Employment and Earnings. Earlier compara ble unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discus sion o f the methodology o f the survey, see bls Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). 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,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . Unemployment data by State Description of the series Data presented in this section aire 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f the sample is large enough to meet bls standards o f 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, Employment and Earnings, and the annual report, Geographic Profile o f Employment and Unemployment (Bureau o f Labor Statistics). See also bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA (Tables 1-3; 22-29) C ompensation 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 Employment Cost Index ( 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 o f 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, on wages and salaries, and on benefit costs are available for private nonfarm workers excluding propri etors, the self-employed, and household workers. The total compensation costs and wages and salaries series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists o f private industry and State and local government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists o f about 3,400 private nonfarm establishments providing about 18,000 occupational 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics observations and 700 State and local government establishments providing 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 o f March, June, Septem ber, and December. Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the 1980 Census o f Population are used each quarter to calculate the civilian and private indexes and the index for State and local governments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census o f Popu lation.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all o f the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in compensation, not employment shifts among industries or occu pations with different levels o f wages and compensation. For the bargain ing status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggregate, industry, and occu pation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s costs for employee benefits. (wage and benefit 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 1,000 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 o f future specified adjustments: those that will occur within 12 months o f the contract effective date__firstyear— and all adjustments that will occur over the life o f 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. Effective wage adjustments 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 Wages and salaries consist o f earnings before payroll deductions, in cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments. Benefits 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 for changes in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm economy was published beginning in 1975. Changes in total compensation cost— wages and salaries and benefits combined— were published beginning in 1980. The series o f changes in wages and salaries and for total compensation in the State and local government sector and in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees) were pub lished beginning in 1981. Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) o f the quar terly rates o f change are presented in the March issue o f the bls periodical, Current Wage Developments. Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion o f the Employment Cost Index, see the Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988), and the following Monthly Labor Review articles: “Employment Cost In dex: a measure o f change in the ‘price o f labor’,” July 1975; “How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; “Estimation procedures 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 o f March, June, September, and December; and from the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Collective bargaining settlements Description of the series Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation Digitized 52 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages by the average straight-time hourly wage rate plus shift premium at the time the agreement is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the change in the value o f 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. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion o f the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time o f settle ment (for example, methods o f financing pensions or composition of labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures o f negotiated changes and not o f total changes o f employer cost. Contract duration runs from the effective date o f the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account o f the compounding o f successive changes. Notes on the data Comparisons o f major collective bargaining settlements for State and local government with those for private industry should note differences in occupational mix, bargaining practices, and settlement characteristics. Pro fessional and white-collar employees, for example, make up a much larger proportion o f the workers covered by government than by private industry settlements. Lump-sum payments and cost-of-living adjustments (cola ) clauses, on the other hand, are rare in government but common in private industry settlements. Also, State and local government bargaining fre quently excludes items such as pension benefits and holidays, that are prescribed by law, while these items are typical bargaining issues in private industry. Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion on the series, see the bls Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semiannually (in February and August) for State and local government. Historical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the bls periodical. Current Wage Developments. Other compensation data Work stoppages Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor Statistics section o f the Monthly Labor Review, appear in and consist of the Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of 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 o f service. following: Industry Wage Surveys 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 o f 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 Monthly Labor Review. Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical, Definitions 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift dr longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the 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 stoppage. analyses also appear in the Review. Number of stoppages: Number of days idle: The number o f strikes and lockouts involving The aggregate number of workdays lost by workers involved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number o f standard workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. 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 and historical data appear in the BLS periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical data appear in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor The National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay 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 Review. Employee Benefits Survey 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 Review . Statistics, 1985). PRICE DATA (Tables 2; 30-41) P r ic e data are gathered by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1982 = 100 for many Producer Price Indexes or 198284 = 100 for many Consumer Price Indexes, unless otherwise noted). Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consumer Price Index (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 of 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 1982—84 buying habits o f about 80 percent o f the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, com pared with 32 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners and clerical workers, the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cpi-U covers professional, managerial, and tech nical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The cpi is based on prices o f 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 21,000 retail establishments and 60,000 housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U .S . city average.” Separate estimates for 27 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 asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the cpi- w . The central purpose o f 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. An updated cpi-u and cpi-w were introduced with release of the January 1987 data. 53 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics Additional sources of information For a discussion o f the general method for computing the Additional sources of information cpi , see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). The recent change in the measurement o f homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment o f shelter costs for homeowners in the CPI,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . An overview o f the recently introduced revised cpi , reflecting 1982— 84 expenditure patterns, is contained in The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision , Report 736 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1987). Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses o f consumer price changes are provided in the cpi Detailed Report, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Producer Price Indexes Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure average changes in prices re ceived by domestic producers of commodities in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,100 commodities and about 75,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices o f all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of processing structure o f Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class o f buyer and degree of fabrica tion (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure o f ppi organizes products by similarity of 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 o f the week containing the 13th day o f the month. Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value o f all commodities as o f 1982. 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 Review 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 Producer Price Indexes. The Bureau has completed the first major stage o f 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 o f virtually all industries in the mining and manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion o f imports from, and the inclusion o f exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification o f commodities priced to conform to Bureau o f 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 o f the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In dexes, see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). International Price Indexes Description of the series The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest o f the world. The export price index provides a measure o f 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 o f price change for goods purchased from other countries by U .S. residents. With publication o f 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 1985 = 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f detail o f the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System ( sitc ). The calcula tion o f indexes by sitc category facilitates the comparison o f 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 o f the Laspeyres 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 of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1985. 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 o f the products being priced, as well as information on the number o f units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms o f 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 Beginning in 1988, the Bureau has also been publishing a series o f indexes which represent the price of U .S . exports and imports in foreign currency terms. 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 Additional sources of information 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 o f exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation o f 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. For a given product, only one price basis series is used in the construction of an index. For a discussion o f the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see bls Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles prepared by bls analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). For further information on the foreign currency indexes, see “ bls publishes average exchange rate and foreign currency price indexes,” Monthly Ixibor Review, December 1987, pp. 4 7 -4 9 . PRODUCTIVITY DATA (Tables 2; 42-44) 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 productivity 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 productivity (output per unit of combined labor and capital inputs). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufactur ing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes o f hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Definitions Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity is output per unit o f combined labor and capital inputs. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process, such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts o f 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. Compensation per hour 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. Real compensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor compensation costs expended in the production o f a unit o f output and are derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and indirect taxes per unit o f output. They are computed by subtracting compensation o f all persons from current-dollar value of output and divid ing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components o f unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits with inventory valuation and cap ital consumption adjustments per unit o f output. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Hours of all persons are the total hours paid o f payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock o f physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental prices for each type o f asset. Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data Constant-dollar output for the business sector is equal to constant-dollar gross national product but excludes the rental value of owner-occupied dwellings, the rest-of-world sector, the output of nonprofit institutions, the output of paid employees of private households, general government, and the statistical discrepancy. Output o f the nonfarm business sector is equal to business sector output less farming. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department o f Com merce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics to annual measures of manufacturing output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data of the Bureau o f 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 o f 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 o f the work force. Additional sources of information Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement o f output per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the bls Handbook of Meth ods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical data for selected industries are provided in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bul letin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS (Tables 45-47) Labor force and unemployment Description of the series Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures o f the labor force, employment, and unemployment— approximating U .S. concepts— for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and several European countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statistics) published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable to U .S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major definitional differences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these adjusted figures provide a better basis for international comparisons than the figures regularly published by each country. Definitions For the principal U .S . definitions o f the labor force, employment, and unemployment, see the Notes section on EMPLOYMENT AND UNEM PLOYMENT DATA: Household Survey Data. Notes on the data The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U .S. standard o f 16 years o f age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United Kingdom; 15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Nether lands, and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; and 14 and over in Italy. The institutional population is included in the denominator o f the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Ger many; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries. In the U .S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite different in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application o f the U .S. definition has not been made on this point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review, December 1981, pp. 8 -1 1 . The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated using adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys become available. Additional sources of information For further information, see International Comparisons of Unemploy ment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B, and unpublished Supplements to Appendix B, available on request. The statis tics are also analyzed periodically in the Monthly Labor Review . The latest article appears in the April 1988 Review. Additional historical data, gener ally beginning with 1959, are published in the Handbook of Labor Statistics and are available in unpublished statistical supplements to Bulletin 1979. Manufacturing productivity and labor costs Description of the series Table 47 presents comparative measures of manufacturing labor produc tivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series of changes over time— rather than level comparisons because reliable international com parisons of the levels o f manufacturing output are unavailable. Definitions Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from the national accounts o f each country. While the national accounting methods for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12 countries, the use o f different procedures does not, in itself, connote lack o f comparabil ity— rather, it reflects differences among countries in the availability and reliability o f underlying data series. Hours refer to all employed persons including the self-employed in the United States and Canada; to all wage and salary employees in the other countries. The U .S. hours measure is hours paid; the hours measures for the other countries are hours worked. Compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or kind made directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally required in surance programs and contractual and private benefit plans. In addition, for some countries, compensation is adjusted for other significant taxes on payrolls or employment (or reduced to reflect subsidies), even if they are not for the direct benefit o f workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs. However, compensation does not include all items o f labor cost. The costs o f recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services— such as cafeterias and medical clinics— are not covered because There are breaks in the date series for Germany (1983), Italy (1986), the Netherlands (1983), and Sweden (1987). For both Germany and the Netherlands, the breaks reflect the replacement of labor force survey results tabulated by the national statistical offices with those tabulated by the European Community Statistical Office ( eurostat). The Dutch figures for 1983 onward also reflect the replacement o f man-year employment data with data from the Dutch Survey of Employed Persons. The impact o f the changes was to lower the adjusted unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage point for Germany and by about 2 percentage points for the Netherlands. For Italy, the break in series reflects more accurate enumeration o f time o f last job search. This resulted in a significant increase in the number of people reported as seeking work in the last 30 days. The impact was to increase the Italian unemployment rates approximating U .S. concepts by about 1 percentage point. For most o f the countries, the measures refer to total manufacturing as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification. However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1971), refer to manufacturing and mining less energy-related products and the figures for the Netherlands exclude petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For all countries, manufacturing includes the activities o f government enterprises. Sweden introduced a new questionnaire. Questions regarding current availability were added and the period of active workseeking was reduced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These changes result in lowering Sweden’s unemployment rate by 0.5 percent point. The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on current indicators o f manufacturing output, employment, hours, and hourly com pensation and are considered preliminary until the national accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data are not available for most countries. Self-employed workers are in cluded in the U .S. and Canadian compensation figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. Notes on the data Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). The statistics Additional sources of information For additional information, see the bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988), and periodic Monthly Labor are issued twice per year— in a news release (generally in May) and in a Monthly Labor Review article. 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 em ployees, 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 o f 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 allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size o f employment. 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. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day o f injury or onset o f illness or any days on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number o f injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per 100 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 o f the number o f cases and the number o f days lost are made for both categories. Most o f the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 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 Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Full detail is presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry. Comparable data for individual States are available from the bls Office o f Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. Mining and railroad data are furnished to bls by the Mine Safety and H ealth A d m in istra tio n and the Federal R ailroad A d m in istra tio n , respec Definitions Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regardless o f 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 o f the following: loss o f consciousness, restriction o f work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury 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. Occupational illness 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. Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or days o f restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work 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. Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which, because o f injury or illness: (1) the em https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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. 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 infoirmation reported by employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. ITie 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 Handbook o f Labor Statistics but are available from the BLS Office of Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 . For additional data, see Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry, annual Bureau o f Labor Statistics bulletin; bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988); Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bu reau o f Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor Review, and annual U .S. Department of Labor press releases. 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators Selected indicators Employment data Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey):' 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.................................. 65.6 61.5 11.7 4.8 1.7 65.9 62.3 5.5 5.5 11.4 4.2 5.6 10.6 4.3 1.3 Total ......................................................................................... Private sector ........................................................................ Goods-producing................................................................... Manufacturing..................................................................... Service-producing .................................................................. 102,310 85,295 24,784 19,065 77,525 Average hours: Private sector ........................................................................ Manufacturing .................................................................. Overtime.......................................................................... 34.8 41.0 3.7 6.2 6.2 12.6 4.8 6.2 65.6 61.5 6.3 6.4 13.1 4.9 65.6 61.7 6.0 12.2 4.6 65.7 61.9 5.9 5.8 11.9 4.4 6.2 6.0 6.0 11.7 4.7 1.7 11.4 4.7 1.6 11.2 4.6 1.5 106,039 88,653 25,565 19,539 80,475 101,841 84,869 24,644 18,965 77,196 102,669 85,643 24,847 19,112 77,782 34.8 41.1 3.9 34.7 40.9 3.7 34.7 40.9 3.8 6.0 65.8 62.1 5.7 5.6 4.3 5.8 11.0 4.5 1.4 65.8 62.2 5.5 5.4 11.2 4.2 5.6 10.7 4.3 1.3 65.9 62.3 5.5 5.4 11.4 4.1 5.6 10.5 4.4 1.3 66.1 62.5 5.3 5.4 11.3 4.1 5.3 10.3 4.2 1.2 66.4 62.9 5.2 5.2 11.2 4.0 5.2 10.2 4.0 1.1 103,683 86,518 25,116 19,290 78,567 104,670 87,406 25,260 19,388 79,410 105,609 88,263 25.498 19.498 80,111 106,478 89,063 25,648 19,567 80,830 107,344 89,812 25,827 19,701 81,517 108,306 90,710 26,015 19,787 82,291 34.8 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.0 3.8 34.8 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.8 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.9 11.8 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:' E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) Private industry workers ....................................................... Goods-producing2 .............................................................. Service-producing2 ............................................................ State and local government workers................................... 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.2 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): Union..................................................................................... Nonunion ............................................................ ' Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service- 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .8 1.5 producing industries include all other private sector industries. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1989 1988 1987 Selected measures 1988 1987 II I IV III II I IV III C o m p e n s a t io n d a ta 1, 2 Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries, benefits): 3.6 3.3 5.0 4.9 0.7 .7 1 .2 1 .0 .7 1.4 1.5 3.5 3.3 4.3 4.1 .5 .7 1.3 .7 1 .0 1 .0 .6 1 .0 Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries 0 .8 1.1 1.3 1 .0 1 .2 1 .2 1 .0 1 .0 1.3 1.3 1 .0 1.1 1 .0 1 .0 1.1 .9 1.1 P r ic e d a t a 1 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All items...... .3 4.4 4.4 1 .2 1.3 2 .2 4.0 4.0 3.6 5.6 3.1 1 .2 .2 .1 1 .6 .3 -.2 Producer Price Index: 2 .6 1.3 5.4 8.9 .3 1.9 5.3 -.2 1.1 1 .2 .9 -1.4 .6 1 .0 .5 .4 .7 1.3 1.5 .6 1.5 1.3 1.4 .8 1.3 2 .0 1 .0 1.1 2.3 .9 .6 .4 1 .8 1.1 2 .6 1 .2 .6 2 .0 -.3 4.0 - 1 .2 .6 6 .0 P r o d u c t iv it y d a t a 3 Output per hour of all persons: .8 1.1 .8 1.5 1.3 1.5 3.9 3.7 4.7 2.7 3.2 3.1 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. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. -3.4 -2.4 - 1 .6 3.5 3.4 4.3 .6 .9 - .1 1.7 - 1 .0 2 .0 1 .0 -.8 .2 3.5 .5 - dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted. 4 Output per hour of all employees. - Data not available. 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Four quarters ended- Quarterly average Components 6 .2 6.4 .8 .7 Nonunion........................................................................................... State and local governments.............................................................. Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm2 ................................................................................... Private nonfarm .................................................................................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4.8 4.2 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 1 .2 1 .0 1 .6 1 .0 1.5 1.3 1.3 .3 .7 1 .0 .6 1 .0 .5 .9 .4 1 .0 .9 .4 .9 1.1 1989 1987 I IV III II I IV I 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.6 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.7 5.2 5.2 1 .0 1 .2 1 .0 1.3 3.6 3.3 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.4 5.0 4.9 3.9 5.1 5.6 4.8 4.6 3.0 5.1 5.5 3.9 3.7 2.9 3.9 4.7 2.9 4.3 4.1 .7 1.3 4.4 4.2 2.5 4.8 4.8 2.7 .7 1.3 .6 .6 .8 2 .8 1.1 1 .2 1.5 2.7 1.1 1 .2 3.6 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.9 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 .7 1989 1988 5.7 5.7 4.3 5.2 .5 1.3 1 .0 1 .1 1 .0 1 .0 1 .1 .4 .8 .7 1 .0 1.1 2 .6 1 .0 .7 1.3 2 .6 2 .6 3.5 4.4 3.2 3.9 3.7 2.9 4.0 4.4 3.0 .8 1 .0 1 .0 1 .8 1 .6 .5 1.4 .5 2 .2 4.5 4.8 .8 .5 .5 .2 .1 .1 3.6 4.2 3.1 .7 .4 .2 .3 1 .8 .1 .2 .2 .1 3.2 3.1 2 .2 2.4 2.4 2.5 2 .1 2 .2 2 .0 2 .2 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.1 2.5 3.3 2 .6 .3 .3 .9 .3 .5 .2 .1 .1 6 .2 5.7 1 .2 .3 .3 .8 2.4 2 .1 2 .6 2.7 2 .6 1 .8 2.3 2 .2 2 .8 2 .2 3.4 2.4 1 .8 1 .8 3.1 2.4 3.4 3.2 2 .1 Seasonally adjusted. Excludes Federal and household workers. 3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. 1 2 3.7 3.5 .6 .9 IV III 1.1 1.1 State and local governments............................................................... Total effective wage adjustments3 ............................................................... From current settlements...................................................................... From prior settlements .......................................................................... From cost-of-llving provision.................................................................. Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3 First-year adjustments ........................................................................... Annual rate over life of contract........................................................... Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:4 First-year adjustment............................................................................. Annual rate over life of contract........................................................... II I IV Average hourly compensation: 1 All persons, business sector................................................................. All persons, nonfarm business sector .............................................. Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 2 ................................................................................... 1988 1987 3.5 .8 .5 .5 2 .6 2 .6 4 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 4. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 Employment status 1989 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 184,490 121,602 65.9 114,177 186,322 123,378 185,964 123,060 186,088 122,917 186,247 123,209 186,402 123,331 186,666 123,688 66.3 117,074 186,801 123,778 66.3 117,260 186,949 124,215 66.4 117,652 187,098 124,259 66.4 117,705 187,340 125,124 187,461 124,865 187,581 124,948 6 6 .8 6 6 .6 6 6 .6 66 8 118,407 118,537 118,820 118,797 62.9 1,705 115,947 3,238 112,709 6,563 5.3 62,734 62.9 1,696 116,009 3,193 112,816 6,554 5.3 62,839 63.2 1,696 116,711 3,300 113,411 6,716 5.4 62,216 63.2 1,684 116,853 3,223 113,630 6,328 5.1 62,596 63.3 1,684 117,136 3,206 113,930 6,128 4.9 62,633 63 3 1,684 117,113 3,104 114,009 89,716 89,914 69,032 76.8 65,322 89,973 69,113 76.8 65,572 90,032 69,190 76.9 65,920 90,094 69 360 77 0 65,767 Mar. Apr. TO TAL Noninstitutional population \ 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 ........................ 6 6 .2 6 6 .2 116,117 116,686 116,707 186,522 123,692 66.3 116,895 5.4 62,904 62.4 1,714 114,403 3,110 111,293 6,800 5.5 63,171 62.7 1,685 115,001 3,121 111,880 6,523 5.3 63,038 62.6 1,673 115,034 3,060 111,974 6,624 5.4 63,071 62.7 1,692 115,203 3,142 112,061 6,797 5.5 62,830 62.7 1,704 115,370 3,176 112,194 6,614 5.3 62,978 62.8 1,687 115,573 3,238 112,335 6,518 5.3 63,023 89,404 68,474 76.6 64,820 89,225 68,462 76.7 64,866 89,287 68,409 76.6 64,672 89,367 68,436 76.6 64,894 89,445 68,461 76.5 64,941 89,504 68,685 76.7 64,931 89,577 68,604 76.6 65,015 89,637 68,569 76.5 64,976 76.6 65,074 89,792 68,638 76.4 65,055 6 .1 72.5 1,547 63,273 3,655 5.3 72.7 1,569 63,297 3,596 5.3 72.4 1,553 63,119 3,737 5.5 72.6 1,523 63,371 3,542 5.2 72.6 1,512 63,429 3,520 5.1 72.5 1,529 63,402 3,754 5.5 72.6 1,540 63,475 3,589 5.2 72.5 1,526 63,450 3,593 5.2 72.5 1,542 63,532 3,612 5.3 72.5 1,534 63,521 3,583 5.2 72.6 1,532 63,790 3,710 5.4 72.9 1,521 64,051 3,540 5.1 73.2 1,521 64,399 3,270 4.7 73 0 1,521 64,246 3 593 5.2 96,013 53,818 56.1 50,494 96,918 54,904 56.6 51,858 96,739 54,598 56.4 51,526 96,801 54,508 56.3 51,445 96,880 54,773 56.5 51,792 96,957 54,870 56.6 51,766 97,018 55,007 56.7 51,964 97,089 55,084 56.7 52,059 97,164 55,209 56.8 52,284 97,234 55,529 57.1 52,578 97,306 55,621 57.2 52,650 97,427 56,091 57.6 53,085 97,488 55,752 57.2 52,965 97,550 55,758 57.2 52,900 97,614 55,983 57.4 53,029 52.6 160 50,334 3,324 53.5 162 51,696 3,046 5.5 53.3 163 51,363 3,072 5.6 53.1 161 51,284 3,063 5.6 53.5 162 51,630 2,981 5.4 53.4 161 51,605 3,104 5.7 53.6 163 51,801 3,043 5.5 53.6 164 51,895 3,025 5.5 53.8 161 52,123 2,925 5.3 54.1 163 52,415 2,951 5.3 54.1 162 52,488 2,971 5.3 54.5 164 52,921 3,006 5.4 54.3 163 52,802 2,787 5.0 54.2 163 52,737 2,858 5.1 54.3 163 52,866 2,953 5.3 6 6 .2 6 6 .2 116,677 116,392 62.6 1,732 114,660 3,187 111,473 62,888 62.6 1,709 114,968 3,169 111,800 6,701 5.4 62,944 88,476 67,784 76.6 63,684 72.0 1,577 62,107 4,101 61.9 1,737 112,440 3,208 109,232 7,425 6 .1 6 ,6 6 8 6 6 .1 187,708 125,343 52 62,365 M e n , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r 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 ........... 6 8 ,6 8 6 W o m e n , 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r Noninstitutional population 2 ....... Labor force2 .................................. Participation rate 3 ................ Total employed2 ........................ Employment-population ratio 4 ................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed .................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate 5 ........... 1 2 3 6 .2 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 5 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces). 5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1989 1988 Annual average Employment status Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 184,962 121,984 185,114 122,091 185,244 122,510 185,402 122,563 Jan. Apr. Feb. Mar. 185,777 123,181 66.3 116,853 185,897 123,264 66.3 117,136 186,024 123,659 66.5 117,113 May June July 184,232 121,328 65.9 114,660 184,374 121,203 65.7 114,403 184,562 121,524 65.8 115,001 184,729 121,658 65.9 115,034 6 6 .0 6 6 .0 6 6 .0 115,203 115,370 115,573 115,947 116,009 185,644 123,428 66.5 116,711 62.2 5.5 62,904 62.0 6,800 5.6 63,171 62.3 6,523 5.4 63,038 62.3 6,624 5.4 63,071 62.3 6,797 5.6 62,830 62.4 6,614 5.4 62,978 62.4 6,518 5.3 63,023 62.6 6,563 5.4 62,734 62.6 6,554 5.3 62,839 62.9 6,716 5.4 62,216 62.9 6,328 5.1 62,596 63.0 6,128 5.0 62,633 63.0 6,546 5.3 62,365 80,553 62,768 77.9 59,781 80,326 62,774 78.1 59,833 80,402 62,721 78.0 59,656 80,526 62,669 77.8 59,780 80,608 62,729 77.8 59,897 80,669 62,916 78.0 59,839 80,751 62,884 77.9 59,979 80,851 62,915 77.8 60,004 80,924 62,995 77.8 59,999 81,001 63,002 77.8 60,049 81,162 63,358 78.1 60,420 81,256 63,490 78.1 60,636 81,333 63,557 78.1 60,869 81,413 63,709 78.3 60,757 73.8 2,329 56,397 3,369 5.4 74.2 2,271 57,510 2,987 4.8 74.5 2,259 57,574 2,941 4.7 74.2 2,238 57,418 3,065 4.9 74.2 2,231 57,549 2,889 4.6 74.3 2,252 57,645 2,832 4.5 74.2 2,273 57,566 3,077 4.9 74.3 2,249 57,730 2,905 4.6 74.2 2,315 57,689 2,911 4.6 74.1 2,313 57,686 2,996 4.8 74.1 2,292 57,757 2,953 4.7 74.4 2,277 58,143 2,938 4.6 74.6 2,320 58,316 2,853 4.5 74.8 2,317 58,552 4.2 74.6 2,252 58,505 2,952 4.6 88,583 49,783 56.2 47,074 89,532 50,870 56.8 48,383 89,307 50,591 56.6 48,120 89,382 50,532 56.5 48,040 89,502 50,690 56.6 48,205 89,588 50,807 56.7 48,242 89,670 50,959 56.8 48,492 89,735 50,991 56.8 48,535 89,807 51,201 57.0 48,788 89,887 51,558 57.4 49,113 89,954 51,587 57.3 49,165 90,072 51,998 57.7 49,543 90,153 51,821 57.5 49,514 90,242 51,851 57.5 49,484 90,318 51,992 57.6 49,544 53.1 622 46,453 2,709 5.4 54.0 625 47,757 2,487 4.9 53.9 653 47,467 2,471 4.9 53.7 604 47,436 2,492 4.9 53.9 626 47,579 2,485 4.9 53.8 549 47,693 2,565 5.0 54.1 609 47,883 2,467 4.8 54.1 638 47,897 2,456 4.8 54.3 640 48,148 2,413 4.7 54.6 640 48,473 2,445 4.7 54.7 646 48,519 2,422 4.7 55.0 715 48,827 2,455 4.7 54.9 48,849 2,306 4.5 54.8 664 48,819 2,367 4.6 54.9 615 48,929 2,448 4.7 14,606 7,988 54.7 6,640 14,527 8,031 55.3 6,805 14,598 7,963 54.5 6,707 14,590 7,950 54.5 6,707 14,534 8,165 56.2 7,016 14,533 55.9 6,895 14,491 8,125 56.1 6,872 14,477 8,109 56.0 6,856 14,456 7,975 55.2 6,781 14,433 7,957 55.1 6,835 14,447 7,974 55.2 6,795 14,410 8,071 56.0 6,748 14,367 7,871 54.8 6,703 14,323 7,856 54.9 6,783 14,293 7,958 55.7 6,812 45.5 258 6,382 1,347 16.9 46.8 273 6,532 1,226 15.3 45.9 275 6,432 1,256 15.8 46.0 268 6,439 1,243 15.6 48.3 264 6,752 1,149 14.1 47.4 259 6,636 1,227 15.1 47.4 260 6,612 1,253 15.4 47.4 289 6,567 1,253 15.5 46.9 283 6,498 1,194 15.0 47.4 285 6,550 14.1 47.0 255 6,540 1,179 14.8 46.8 307 6,441 1,323 16.4 46.7 237 6,466 1,168 14.8 47.4 224 6,559 1,073 13.7 47.7 237 6,575 1,146 14.4 156,958 103,290 65.8 97,789 158,194 104,756 157,943 104,517 158,034 104,433 158,166 104,716 158,279 104,651 158,705 105,411 66.4 100,567 101,183 101,278 159,020 105,988 66.7 101,554 159,098 106,312 6 6 .6 99,663 158,603 105,395 66.5 100,543 6 6 .8 99,812 158,524 105,051 66.3 100,199 158,947 105,798 6 6 .2 158,422 105,036 66.3 100,058 158,865 106,106 6 6 .2 101,458 62.3 5,501 5.3 63.1 4,944 4.7 20,352 12,993 63.8 11,309 55.6 1,684 13.0 1987 1988 182,753 119,865 65.6 112,440 184,613 121,669 65.9 114,968 61.5 7,425 62,888 62.3 6,701 5.5 62,944 79,565 62,095 78.0 58,726 Apr. TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. Not in labor force ........................ 6 .2 6 ,6 6 8 184,830 1 2 2 ,0 0 0 6 6 .1 6 6 .1 M en, 20 y e a rs a n d o v e r Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 2 ,6 8 8 W o m e n , 20 y e a rs o n d o v e r Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 666 B o t h s e x e s , 16 t o 1 9 y e a r s Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 8 ,1 2 2 1 ,1 2 2 W h it e Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 6 6 .2 6 6 .1 99,508 99,902 99,761 158,340 105,013 66.3 99,907 63.1 4,854 4.6 63.0 4,925 4.7 63.2 4,814 4.6 63.0 4,890 4.7 63.1 5,106 4.9 63.2 4,978 4.7 63.2 4,852 4.6 63.4 4,852 4.6 63.4 4,844 4.6 63.7 4,923 4.6 63.7 4,521 4.3 63.9 4,434 4.2 63.8 4,854 4.6 20,692 13,205 63.8 11,658 20,622 13,101 63.5 11,534 20,650 13,102 63.4 11,514 20,683 13,066 63.2 11,543 20,715 13,283 64.1 11,761 20,736 13,236 63.8 11,733 20,762 13,201 63.6 11,758 20,786 13,290 63.9 11,807 20,811 13,330 64.1 11,831 20,842 13,405 64.3 11,856 20,877 13,477 64.6 11,860 20,905 13,476 64.5 11,873 20,930 13,425 64.1 11,961 20,956 13,287 63.4 11,846 56.3 1,547 11.7 55.9 1,567 55.8 1,588 55.8 1,523 11.7 56.8 1,522 11.5 56.6 1,503 11.4 56.6 1,443 109 56.8 1,483 56.8 1,499 56.9 1,549 56.8 1,617 1 1 .2 1 1 .6 1 2 .0 56.8 1,603 11.9 57.1 1,464 10.9 56.5 1,442 1 1 .2 6 6 .1 6 6 .8 B la c k Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 1 2 .0 1 2 .1 1 0 .8 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: 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 1988 1989 Employment status 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 12,867 8,541 66.4 7,790 13,325 8,982 67.4 8,250 13,230 8,823 66.7 8,030 13,268 8,910 67.2 8,128 13,306 9,009 67.7 13,344 8,997 67.4 8,265 13,381 8,963 67.0 8,214 13,419 9,061 67.5 8,378 13,458 9,075 67.4 8,368 13,495 9,148 67.8 8,419 13,533 9,133 67.5 8,441 13,564 9,205 67.9 8,434 13,606 9,219 67.8 8,596 13,649 9,210 67.5 8,607 13,690 9,262 67.7 8,495 60.5 751 61.9 732 61.3 782 61.4 749 8.4 62.4 683 7.5 62.2 707 7.8 62.4 729 62.4 692 7.6 62.2 771 8.4 63.2 624 8 .2 61.8 787 8.7 61.9 732 8 .8 60.7 793 9.0 63.1 603 6.5 62.1 767 8.3 Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate.............. 8 .8 8 ,2 2 2 8 .1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian nonlnstltutional population. NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals 6. 8 .0 6 .8 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 1988 1989 Selected categories 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 112,440 62,107 50,334 40,265 114,968 63,273 51,696 40,472 114,660 63,297 51,363 40,494 114,403 63,119 51,284 40,317 115,001 63,371 51,630 40,493 115,034 63,429 51,605 40,518 115,203 63,402 51,801 40,511 115,370 63,475 51,895 40,513 115,573 63,450 52,123 40,504 115,947 63,532 52,415 40,407 116,009 63,521 52,488 40,483 116,711 63,790 52,921 40,925 116,853 64,051 52,802 40,928 117,136 64,399 52,737 41,083 117,113 64,246 52,866 40,890 28,107 6,060 28,756 28,772 6,091 28,632 6 ,0 0 0 28,678 6,130 28,669 6,170 28,809 6,280 28,836 6,253 28,890 6,344 28,995 6,375 29,053 6,399 29,589 6,416 29,412 6,385 29,569 6,256 29,656 6,243 1,632 1,423 153 1,621 1,398 150 1,632 1,390 152 1,574 1,365 155 1,583 1,375 161 1,572 1,362 149 1,607 1,411 158 1,612 1,421 137 1,661 1,405 177 1,672 1,450 125 1,698 1,349 149 1,684 1,387 189 1,645 1,419 150 1,656 1,403 138 1,554 1,419 124 100,771 16,800 83,970 1,208 82,762 102,562 17,012 85,550 1,114 84,436 8,567 272 102,145 16,946 85,199 1,152 84,047 8,816 301 102,953 17,049 85,904 1,146 84,758 8,536 297 103,189 17,031 86,158 1,132 85,026 8,531 251 103,207 17,111 86,096 1,128 84,968 8,508 241 103,501 17,145 86,356 1,119 85,237 8,570 230 103,733 17,240 86,493 1,152 85,341 8,479 232 103,770 17,387 86,383 1,209 85,174 8,619 300 103,904 17,423 86,481 260 103,021 17,114 85,907 1,153 84,754 8,519 260 85,271 8,602 266 104,510 17,393 87,117 1,196 85,921 8,718 298 104,797 17,311 87,486 1,135 86,350 8,517 285 104,982 17,382 87,600 1,163 86,437 8,645 332 104,985 17,180 87,806 1,117 86,689 8,671 281 5,401 2,385 2,672 14,395 5,206 2,350 2,487 14,963 5,212 2,264 2,519 14,949 4,878 2,267 2,353 14,813 5,302 2,346 2,586 14,612 5,341 2,471 2,538 15,026 5,192 2,315 2,473 14,999 5,097 2,266 2,389 15,270 4,963 2,399 15,161 5,061 2,279 2,375 15,446 5,321 2,549 2,410 15,363 5,097 2,302 2,352 15,401 4,981 2,303 2,333 15,126 4,968 2,232 2,393 15,561 5,143 2,373 2,425 15,498 5,122 4,965 2,199 2,408 14,509 4,953 2,131 2,426 14,441 4,676 2,136 2,276 14,376 5,073 2,183 2,504 14,180 5,102 2,334 2,493 14,606 4,972 2,171 2,408 14,564 4,727 2,095 2,319 14,679 4,819 2,116 2,288 14,986 5,033 2,377 2,307 14,928 4,837 2,144 2,283 14,970 4,697 2,105 2,272 14,688 4,709 2,048 2,317 15,127 4,930 2,243 2,369 15,060 C H A R A C T E R IS T IC Civilian employed, 16 years and over............................................. M en.......................................... Women .................................... Married men, spouse present .. Married women, spouse present................................... Women who maintain families . 6 ,2 1 1 M A J O R IN D U S T R Y A N D C L A S S OF W ORKER 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............. 8 ,2 0 1 1 ,2 1 0 PERSONS A T W ORK P A R T T IM E ' 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 2 ,2 0 1 2,587 13,928 4,862 2 ,1 0 2 2,317 14,819 2 ,2 2 0 Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) 1989 1988 Annual average Selected categories 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 6 .2 5.1 14.8 4.5 4.5 5.0 13.7 4.2 4.6 5.3 14.4 4.6 4.7 4.3 14.0 4.2 11.3 12.3 1 0 .2 1 0 .2 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.6 12.3 13.1 11.5 4.0 4.1 C H A R A C T E R IS T IC Total, all civilian workers......................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................................ Men, 20 years and over.................................... Women, 20 years and over................................ 16.9 5.4 5.4 5.5 15.3 4.8 4.9 5.5 15.8 4.7 4.9 5.6 15.6 4.9 4.9 5.4 14.1 4.6 4.9 5.4 15.1 4.5 5.0 5.6 15.4 4.9 4.8 5.4 15.5 4.6 4.8 5.3 15.0 4.6 4.7 5.4 14.1 4.8 4.7 5.3 14.8 4.7 4.7 5.4 16.4 4.6 4.7 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............................. 5.3 14.4 15.5 13.4 4.8 4.6 4.7 13.1 13.9 12.3 4.1 4.1 4.6 13.9 14.4 13.3 4.0 4.0 4.7 13.2 14.0 12.3 4.2 4.1 4.6 12.3 13.2 11.4 4.0 4.1 4.7 12.9 14.3 11.4 3.9 4.3 4.9 13.7 13.9 13.5 4.3 4.1 4.7 13.4 14.5 12.3 4.1 4.1 4.6 12.9 14.4 11.3 4.1 4.0 4.6 11.9 4.6 1 2 .6 1 2 .6 13.4 11.3 4.2 4.0 1 1 .8 4.6 14.1 16.4 11.7 4.0 3.9 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............................. 13.0 34.7 34.4 34.9 11.7 32.4 32.7 32.0 1 1 .6 1 2 .0 1 0 .0 30.9 32.8 28.6 9.6 9.8 31.1 32.1 29.9 9.8 9.8 29.6 29.8 29.3 1 1 .6 10.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 9.1 9.7 1 1 .2 1 0 .1 11.4 32.1 32.1 32.0 9.7 1 1 .2 1 1 .1 11.5 31.7 31.2 32.4 9.6 10.3 10.5 34.5 36.7 32.0 10.4 10.4 11.9 32.4 33.1 31.6 10.5 10.3 10.9 31.6 28.6 34.8 9.8 9.1 Hispanic origin, total........................................... 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 ........................................ 4.1 3.9 1 2 .1 1 2 .0 1 2 .1 33.9 33.2 34.8 10.4 11.7 30.6 31.5 29.6 9.9 10.4 30.8 27.9 33.9 10.4 10.9 1 0 .6 1 0 .6 8 .8 8 .2 9.0 8 .8 8.7 8 .1 8.4 7.5 7.8 8 .0 7.6 8.4 6 .8 6.5 8.3 3.9 4.3 9.2 5.8 8.4 1.7 7.1 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.8 8.5 5.1 7.5 1.3 3.3 3.9 8.4 5.2 7.7 1.3 6.4 3.2 3.9 7.9 5.0 7.7 1.3 6.3 3.1 4.0 8.5 5.0 3.4 4.0 7.5 5.3 7.4 1.3 6.4 3.1 3.8 3.1 3.7 7.9 5.0 7.4 1.3 3.3 3.8 7.7 5.0 7.1 3.1 3.7 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.4 8 .2 8 .0 8 .0 5.1 7.0 5.0 7.9 4.8 7.3 2.9 3.5 7.9 4.8 3.2 4.0 7.6 5.0 7.2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1.1 1.1 1 .2 6 .1 6 .2 6.3 6 .2 5.9 5.8 6 .0 5.4 7.7 10.4 5.2 5.0 5.5 3.8 6.3 4.1 2.7 5.6 5.1 6 .1 8 .0 5.0 7.0 9.4 4.8 4.7 4.9 3.9 5.6 4.1 5.4 5.6 9.7 4.9 4.7 5.2 4.0 5.9 4.8 2.7 10.5 8 .1 5.2 7.6 1.3 6.3 6 .2 8 .0 1.3 6.4 8 .1 5.1 7.4 1.3 6.3 1 0 .0 6 .2 1 0 .8 30.8 35.5 26.2 1 0 .0 8 .8 IN D U S T R Y 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 5.5 7.9 5.4 1 0 .0 1 1 .6 1 0 .6 1 0 .6 6 .0 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.9 6 .2 5.8 6.3 4.5 6.9 4.9 3.5 10.5 8 .1 2 .8 5.3 4.8 5.9 3.8 5.9 4.3 3.0 1 0 .6 1 1 .0 6 .2 4.5 5.6 9.4 10.5 5.3 4.9 5.9 4.2 6.3 4.6 2.9 12.4 10.3 4.9 4.5 5.5 4.1 5.4 5.4 10.4 5.2 4.9 5.6 3.6 5.4 6 .0 6 .2 4.6 2.9 4.5 3.0 5.6 7.0 10.7 5.5 5.0 6.3 3.8 6.4 4.4 2.9 1 0 .0 1 1 .0 1 1 .0 6 .8 5.4 5.4 8 .6 8 .8 5.5 8.9 9.6 5.4 5.2 5.8 3.8 1 0 .0 1 0 .6 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.5 5.1 4.9 5.3 4.0 6 .2 6 .0 6 .2 4.4 2.7 4.5 1 0 .8 1 0 .2 4.6 2.5 9.3 2 .6 8 .8 10.4 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.8 6.3 4.7 2.7 9.5 1 0 .0 4.9 4.4 5.5 3.9 5.6 4.3 2.7 8.9 2 .6 8.9 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 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 8. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1987 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.................................................................... Apr. 5.5 May 5.5 June 5.6 1 2 .2 1 1 .0 1 1 .2 1 1 .2 16.9 19.1 15.2 9.7 4.8 5.0 3.3 15.3 17.4 13.8 8.7 4.3 4.5 3.1 15.8 17.7 14.1 8.7 4.2 4.4 3.0 15.6 16.7 14.8 6 .2 5.4 16.0 9.9 4.8 5.0 3.5 5.5 11.4 16.0 18.2 14.6 8.9 4.2 4.4 3.3 15.9 17.6 14.7 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.2 5.6 11.5 16.3 17.4 15.3 8.9 4.3 4.4 3.5 6 .2 5.6 5.6 11.7 15.9 18.0 14.3 9.4 4.8 5.1 3.0 1 0 .6 1 1 .1 14.4 16.6 12.9 8.5 4.3 4.6 15.6 17.7 13.5 2 .8 2 .8 1 2 .6 17.8 2 0 .2 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.............................................................. 9. 1988 6 .2 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................................................................ 1988 8 .8 4.3 4.5 3.3 1 1 .2 July 5.4 10.5 14.1 15.9 13.3 8.5 4.2 4.4 3.0 5.4 10.9 15.1 17.5 13.1 8.5 4.2 4.4 3.1 15.4 18.5 13.7 8.4 4.4 4.5 3.2 5.3 5.3 11.3 16.3 18.1 14.4 8.5 4.0 4.2 3.2 5.6 11.4 16.0 17.7 14.5 8.9 4.4 4.5 3.4 14.1 5.7 10.5 13.8 16.8 1 2 .1 1 1 .0 15.4 17.5 14.3 8.5 4.1 4.2 3.2 5.6 10.9 15.0 16.0 14.2 Aug. 5.5 1 0 .0 1 2 .6 5.6 1 1 .0 1989 Sept. Oct. 5.4 10.9 15.5 19.6 1 2 .8 8.4 4.2 4.4 2.9 5.4 11.3 16.4 Nov. 5.3 10.9 15.0 17.2 13.3 Dec. 5.4 1 0 .6 14.1 15.8 12.9 8.7 4.2 4.4 8 .6 4.1 4.3 2 .8 2 .8 5.4 5.4 10.9 14.8 17.3 13.0 1 1 .8 13.5 8.5 4.1 4.3 2.9 16.5 18.5 15.0 9.2 4.0 4.2 3.0 5.5 10.4 14.8 19.2 5.5 10.5 14.5 18.2 5.3 9.9 13.3 15.8 5.3 10.3 13.3 14.1 1 1 .6 1 2 .8 1 2 .0 1 1 .6 1 2 .8 7.9 4.2 4.5 2.4 4.2 4.4 2.4 2 0 .8 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .0 8 .2 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.6 3.1 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.7 2.9 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.5 2.9 2 .8 2 .8 8 .8 4.2 4.4 3.2 Jan. Mar. 5.3 10.9 14.8 16.6 13.3 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.0 5.4 11.9 16.4 18.3 15.4 9.3 4.1 4.2 3.1 5.1 10.5 14.8 18.2 12.7 5.3 5.5 5.2 8 .1 1 1 .1 1 2 .8 1 1 .1 18.6 16.7 19.6 15.1 2 0 .6 17.9 9.6 4.0 4.2 3.0 2 .6 5.3 10.5 14.4 14.9 13.8 8.4 4.1 4.4 2.9 2 .6 4.8 9.7 14.2 15.8 13.2 7.2 3.8 4.0 8 .1 4.0 4.1 3.4 5.4 10.9 14.0 15.9 12.7 9.1 4.1 4.3 3.1 Apr. 5.0 9.8 13.7 15.3 12.5 7.7 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.2 3.1 15.4 17.3 13.5 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.3 5.4 10.7 14.2 15.8 13.1 8.7 4.1 4.4 8 .6 Feb. 5.3 10.7 15.5 17.0 14.6 8 .0 4.2 4.4 3.2 2 .8 5.0 9.7 5.1 1 0 .0 13.1 14.8 11.7 8.3 4.0 4.3 2.3 1 2 .8 16.8 1 0 .0 8 .0 3.9 4.2 2.5 5.3 10.4 13.2 12.7 1 2 .8 8.9 4.1 4.4 2 .6 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Reason for unemployment 1987 Job losers ................................................................ On layoff................................................................ Other job losers.................................................... Job leavers .............................................................. Reentrants ............................................................... New entrants ........................................................... 1988 Apr. May 3,201 806 2,395 942 1,804 811 3,070 861 2,209 953 1,747 800 3,085 853 2,232 923 1,883 799 3,112 880 2,232 986 1,843 800 47.4 11.9 35.4 13.9 26.7 46.7 13.1 33.6 14.5 26.6 46.1 1 2 .0 1 2 .2 33.4 13.8 28.1 11.9 46.2 13.1 33.1 14.6 27.3 11.9 2 .6 2.5 2.5 3,566 943 2,623 965 1,974 920 3,092 851 2,241 983 1,809 816 2,968 844 2,124 985 1,804 48.0 12.7 35.3 13.0 26.6 12.4 46.1 12.7 33.4 14.7 27.0 1 2 .2 44.7 12.7 32.0 14.8 27.2 13.3 3.0 2.5 2.4 886 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 3,079 833 2,246 985 1,767 761 2,951 844 2,107 984 1,747 747 3,031 814 2,217 963 1,766 799 3,066 819 2,247 998 1,725 799 3,121 827 2,294 985 1,835 780 2,876 774 2,831 808 2,023 885 1,730 713 2,984 847 2,137 978 1,894 671 46.7 45.9 13.1 32.8 15.3 27.2 46.2 12.4 33.8 14.7 26.9 46.5 12.4 34.1 15.1 26.2 46.4 12.3 34.1 14.7 27.3 45.2 33.0 15.5 27.3 46.0 13.1 32.8 14.4 28.1 1 1 .6 1 2 .2 1 2 .1 1 1 .6 1 2 .0 1 1 .6 45.7 13.0 32.7 15.0 29.0 10.3 2.4 2 ,1 0 2 985 1,740 765 PER CENT OF UNEM PLO YED Job losers.............................................................. On layoff............................................................. Other job losers.................................................. Job leavers............................................................ Reentrants............................................................. New entrants ........................................................ 1 2 .8 1 2 .6 34.1 14.9 26.8 11.5 1 2 .2 PERCENT OF C IV IL IA N L A B O R F O R C E Job losers ............................................................... Job leavers .............................................................. Reentrants ............................................................... New entrants ........................................................... 10. 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 1 .6 1.5 .7 1.5 .7 1.5 .7 1.4 .7 1.5 .7 1.5 .7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 .6 1.4 .7 2.3 .7 1.4 .6 1.4 .7 .6 .6 .6 .8 2 .6 2.4 .8 1.5 .5 Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Weeks of unemployment 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Less than 5 weeks ........................................... 5 to 14 weeks .................................................. 15 weeks and over........................................... 15 to 26 weeks .............................................. 27 weeks and over........................................ 3,246 2,196 1,983 943 1,040 3,084 2,007 1,610 801 809 3,093 1,969 1,582 756 826 3,072 2,068 1,614 789 825 3,093 1,910 1,543 749 794 2,985 2,041 1,619 826 793 3,158 1,956 1,636 831 805 3,116 1,896 1,568 775 793 3,059 1,835 1,554 788 766 3,117 1,935 1,502 787 715 3,029 2,039 1,495 758 737 3,181 2,081 1,512 757 755 3,247 1,865 1,304 665 639 3,055 1,821 1,310 648 663 3,090 2,034 1,426 689 737 Mean duration in weeks.................................... Median duration in weeks................................. 14.5 6.5 13.5 5.9 13.5 5.8 13.8 5.9 13.2 5.9 13.5 13.5 5.9 13.5 5.7 13.4 5.7 1 2 .6 1 2 .8 5.6 5.8 12.7 5.7 12.4 5.4 12.7 5.4 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 .2 1 2 .1 5.3 11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted State Mar. 1988 Mar. 1989 6 .8 California...................................................... 5.3 7.3 9.5 5.8 7.5 4.7 _ 74 29 39 52 4.7 7.3 3.0 3.7 5.7 4.7 58 30 7.9 7.8 7.0 5.3 3.4 6.5 5.5 48 4.5 4.5 79 9.6 4.2 11 1 58 8 6 1 Florida.......................................................... . Indiana ......................................................... lowe 9 .3 11 6 Maine............................................................ 4.7 .. 45 3.6 , . Massachusetts............................................. Michigan....................................................... Mississippi.................................................... 6 .2 Mar. 1988 Mar. 1989 Montana ..................................................... 8.3 4.1 6.4 New Hampshire.......................................... 2 .6 7.7 3.5 5.7 2.7 New Jersey................................................. North Dakota .............................................. 4.4 8.5 4.3 4.0 5.6 3.4 7.7 4.6 3.2 5.2 Ohio ............................................................ Oklahoma.................................................... 7.9 7.0 5./ 6.5 State New York.................................................... 6 .6 6 .2 Pennsylvania............................................... Rhode Island............................................... 5.6 3.7 4.2 4.3 South Carolina............................................ South Dakota.............................................. 4.6 4.1 5.7 8.3 5.9 4.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 6.9 10.7 5.5 3.8 4.1 6.3 5.1 Vermont...................................................... 8 .6 4.5 7.6 5.9 4.0 4.1 7.1 4.5 8.5 5.9 NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the Washington ................................................. West Virginia............................................... Wisconsin.................................................... 6 .0 6.3 5.5 8 .1 5.2 7.1 Wyoming..................................................... database, 12. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State Arkansas ...................................................... Colorado ...................................................... District of Columbia..................................... Georgia ........................................................ Illinois........................................................... lows Louisiana...................................................... Minnesota.................................................... Mar. 1988 1,536.8 202.3 1,422.5 851.4 11,940.2 1,420.9 1,661.2 324.6 Feb. 1989 1,556.0 203.6 1,429.7 8 6 6 .0 12,246.5 5,065.4 1,427.2 1,670.7 334.4 675.4 5,254.8 2,843.8 473.8 335.7 5.022.0 2.343.1 2,929.9 488.0 346.3 5.085.8 2.406.9 1,129.0 1,023.9 1.351.7 1.496.7 503.2 1,165.5 1,036.8 1,372.3 1,501.0 515.7 2.063.4 3.086.5 3,737.4 1,971.0 881.9 2,213.6 273.0 2,086.0 3.102.7 3.809.8 2,018.6 899.5 2,225.4 273.0 6 6 6 .2 Mar. 1989p 1,558.5 Nebraska.................................................... 206.9 Nevada ....................................................... 1,437.7 New Hampshire.......................................... 875.2 12,320.0 New Mexico ................................................ 1,435.7 New York..................................................... 1,684.3 336.3 680.8 5,279.7 Oklahoma.................................................... 2,927.8 Oregon........................................................ 490.8 Pennsylvania..................... ......................... 348.6 5,108.4 2,421.2 South Carolina............................................ South Dakota.............................................. 1,173.8 1,046.2 1.379.0 Utah ............................................................ 1.510.0 515.7 Virginia ........................................................ 2,094.1 3,118.6 3,815.9 2,030.3 906.4 Wyoming...................................................... 2,243.9 Puerto Rico................................................. 275.9 Virgin Islands .............................................. p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State Mar. 1988 Feb. 1989 Mar. 1989p 677.7 520.3 516.0 697.0 552.4 526.5 702.8 558.0 527.1 3,594.8 534.9 8,102.4 2,942.3 250.4 3,610.9 543.8 8,134.7 2,995.3 253.2 3,635.9 547.0 8,193.1 2,999.6 254.8 4,586.2 1,125.4 1,123.6 4,964.7 450.1 4,671.4 1,131.0 1,158.4 5,016.3 449.8 4,705.1 1,137.5 1,170.5 5,044.3 453.9 1,426.1 257.8 2,053.6 6,599.1 646.4 1,469.1 259.0 2,052.2 6,704.8 665.4 1,482.8 260.3 2,064.6 6,732.7 671.5 250.9 2,725.2 1,886.5 596.9 2,099.5 261.2 2,817.1 1,960.8 600.7 2,150.4 259.9 2,842.1 1,981.6 607.6 2,156.6 177.9 803.1 41.9 176.2 820.1 41.5 178.7 819.6 42.0 because of the continual updating of the database. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Current Labor Statistics: June 1989 • Employment Data 13. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average Industry 1987 TOTAL .......................... PRIVATE SECTOR ..... GOODS-PRODUCING ..... Mining .................... Oil and gas extraction .............. Construction .................. General building contractors. Manufacturing............ Production workers .......... Durable goods........ 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...... Machinery, except electrical........ Electrical and electronic equipment.................... Transportation equipment............ Motor vehicles and equipment .... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries ..................... 1988 Apr. May June 105,281 87,973 105,489 88,139 106,057 88,678 25,435 737 421 25,466 739 425 5,238 1,400 10 085 12 005 218 7 452 102 21 0 85 205 24 784 405 4 008 1,326 1,396 11 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar.p Apr.F 106,271 88,941 106,425 89,066 106,737 89,205 106,973 89,481 107,419 89,855 107,641 90,100 108,065 90,506 108,341 90,725 108.512 90,898 108,629 91,029 25,592 740 425 25,663 740 424 25,639 739 423 25,648 734 419 25,743 729 413 25,849 722 406 25,889 719 402 26,048 718 400 26,011 716 401 25,986 720 406 25,991 728 410 5,237 1,394 5,308 1,412 5,330 1,400 5,340 1,401 5,365 1,404 5,366 1,393 5,413 1,406 5,430 1,414 5,537 1,444 5,514 1,437 5,479 1,414 5,485 1,407 19,460 13,280 19,490 13,302 19,544 13,341 19,593 13,382 19,560 13,352 19,549 13,332 19,648 13,412 19,714 13,465 19,740 13,481 19,793 13,518 19,781 13,510 19,787 13.512 19,778 13,501 11,459 7,632 11,477 7,649 11,515 7,676 11,566 7,720 11,547 7,705 11,537 7,689 11,595 7,733 11,637 7,765 11,651 7,776 11,686 7,799 11,667 7,781 11,653 7,766 11,646 7,760 740 518 582 749 758 538 587 782 758 535 587 773 757 537 585 776 757 537 587 781 756 541 589 789 753 537 586 785 753 538 585 787 760 540 588 794 767 541 590 796 771 540 592 794 775 540 593 796 769 542 593 794 765 544 591 795 759 545 590 796 269 1,407 281 1,455 281 1,444 281 1,448 281 1,457 282 1,464 281 1,458 280 1,460 282 1,469 282 1,474 280 1,479 281 1,487 281 1,487 281 1,485 281 1,482 2,023 2,138 2,111 2,121 2,134 2,151 2,156 2,159 2,173 2,185 2,190 2,198 2,204 2,204 2,206 2,084 2,048 865 696 2 ,1 2 0 2,117 2,045 848 706 2,115 2,048 851 709 2 ,1 2 0 2 ,1 2 2 2,047 850 713 2,052 857 715 2,126 2,044 855 718 2,124 2,032 849 716 2,126 2,045 859 719 2,130 2,050 860 721 2,123 2,051 858 726 2,118 2,066 872 727 2.114 2,048 858 728 2,109 2,042 849 731 2,104 2,046 852 731 383 381 383 385 386 388 387 387 8,077 5,700 8,089 5,705 8,107 5,719 8.114 5,729 8,134 5,746 8,132 5,741 2,042 850 713 370 383 383 381 382 387 384 Nondurable goods.......... Production workers................ 7,847 5,543 8,023 5,662 8,001 5.648 8,013 5,653 8,029 5,665 8,027 5,662 8,013 5,647 5,643 8,053 5,679 Food and kindred products .... Tobacco manufactures........ Textile mill products.......... Apparel and other textile products.......................... Paper and allied products ........ 1,624 54 725 1,645 53 726 1.648 54 727 1,643 52 728 1,645 53 727 1,631 52 726 1,630 52 719 1,632 51 722 1,654 52 722 1,661 53 723 1,656 53 722 1,663 52 727 1,660 53 726 1,663 53 726 1,666 51 726 1 ,1 0 0 679 1,097 689 1,100 687 1,100 689 1,097 691 1,096 692 1,089 691 1,087 688 1,086 691 1,093 691 1,096 692 1,097 692 1,103 691 1,108 692 1,103 692 1,507 1,026 165 1,565 1,063 167 1,554 1,056 165 1,559 1,060 166 1,565 1,065 167 1,567 1,067 167 1,572 1,070 167 1,575 1,069 168 1,581 1,071 169 1,583 1,073 169 1,592 1,076 168 1,598 1,080 166 1,596 1,082 167 1,601 1,083 167 1,603 1,086 168 823 144 873 146 864 146 870 146 873 146 882 147 878 145 874 146 882 145 887 144 890 144 887 145 891 145 895 146 893 144 77,525 80,475 79,846 80,465 80,608 80,786 81,089 81,230 81,570 81,752 82,017 82,330 82,526 82,638 5,385 3,166 5,584 3,336 5,543 3,298 5,582 3,332 5,598 3,345 5,605 3,351 5,618 3,366 5,631 3,380 5,658 3,407 5,670 3,422 5,692 3,441 5,705 3,455 5,701 3,449 5,718 3,463 Printing and publishing........... Chemicals and allied products ... Petroleum and coal products...... Rubber and misc. plastics products.................... Leather and leather products . SERVICE-PRODUCING ..... Transportation and public utilities.................... Transportation.................... Communication and public utilities...................... 5,556 3,308 8 ,0 1 2 2,218 2,248 2,245 2,248 2,250 2,253 2,254 2,252 2,251 2,251 2,248 2,251 2,250 2,252 2,255 5,872 3,449 2,423 6,156 3,666 2,490 6,089 3,610 2,479 6,115 3,635 2,480 6,148 3,660 2,488 6,174 3,681 2,493 6,192 3,696 2,496 6,219 3,714 2,505 6,246 3,736 2,510 6,275 3,758 2,517 6,301 3,779 2,522 6,332 3,796 2,536 6,361 3,817 2,544 6,388 3,838 2,550 6,399 3,836 2,563 18,509 2,432 2,957 19,206 2,540 3,089 2,546 3,049 19,130 2,541 3,053 19,205 2,549 3,080 19,261 2,545 3,097 19,279 2,539 3,106 19,291 2,533 3,110 19,327 2,520 3,143 19,401 2,533 3,157 19,429 2,544 3,177 2,563 3,195 19,619 2,570 3,202 19,689 2,592 3,224 19,694 2,599 3,221 2,004 6,127 2,079 6,360 2,064 6,326 2,070 6,336 2,076 6,352 2,088 6,369 2,095 6,377 2,095 6,384 2,103 6,415 2,106 6,440 2,106 6,449 2,109 6,466 2,115 6,493 2,116 6,514 2,120 6,528 6,549 3,275 6,650 3,302 2,065 1,283 6,656 3,299 2,067 1,290 6,679 3,304 2,074 1,301 6,684 3,300 2,077 1,307 6,689 3,298 2,081 1,310 6,692 3,300 2,083 1,309 6,708 3,308 2,089 1,311 6,725 3,314 2,092 1,319 6,741 3,325 1,252 6,679 3,305 2,075 1,299 6,733 3,320 2,096 1,317 6,757 3,329 2,103 1,325 6,761 3,331 2,103 1,327 6,755 3,330 2,103 1,322 Services............... Business services............. Health services .......... 24,196 5,172 6,828 25,464 5,478 7,228 5,420 7,126 25,216 5,443 7,153 25,472 5,480 7,203 25,561 5,500 7,238 25,662 5,512 7,271 25,737 5,538 7,323 25,826 5,553 7,365 25,947 5,563 7,414 26,070 5,605 7,466 2 5,583 7,494 26,272 5,621 7,547 26,373 5,617 7,596 26,472 5.630 7.630 Government ................... Federal....................... State........................... Local......................... 17,015 2,943 3,963 10,109 17,387 2,971 4,051 10,365 17,350 2,957 4,050 10,343 17,379 2,951 4,049 10,379 17,330 2,951 4,059 10,320 17,359 2,956 4,070 10,333 17,532 2,989 4,086 10,457 17,492 2,989 4,070 10,433 17,564 2,989 4,074 10,501 17,541 2,990 4,071 10,480 1 2,981 4,063 1 17,616 2,987 4,079 10,550 17,614 2,979 4,084 10,551 17,600 2,974 4,087 10,539 Wholesale trade ........ Durable goods............... Nondurable goods......... Retail trad e................ General merchandise stores .... Food stores.................... Automotive dealers and service stations.................. Eating and drinking places........ Finance, insurance, and real estate ................ Finance.................. Insurance.................... Real estate................. ^OTE. 2 ,0 2 2 2,963 4,041 ®ee n° 1es on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Digitized for 66 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 ,1 0 1 1,315 14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally a d j u s t e d _____________________________________________________ Annual average 1987 P R IV A T F S E C TO R .................................................. 34.8 1988 34.8 1989 1988 Apr. 34.9 May 34.7 June July 34.7 34.9 Aug. 34.6 Sept. 34.7 Oct. 34.9 Nov. 34.8 Dec. 34.7 Jan. 34.8 Feb. Mar.p Apr.p 34.6 34.6 35.0 41.3 4.0 41.0 3.7 41.1 3.9 41.2 3.9 41.0 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.0 3.9 41.2 3.9 41.2 4.0 41.2 3.9 40.8 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.0 3.9 41.5 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.3 43.1 43.4 41.5 41.8 4.1 40.3 39.4 42.3 43.6 44.0 41.8 42.0 4.2 40.6 39.5 42.5 43.5 43.8 42.0 41.8 4.2 40.1 39.5 42.3 43.6 43.9 41.9 41.8 4.1 40.2 39.4 42.4 43.6 44.3 42.0 41.8 4.0 40.5 39.7 42.1 43.4 44.0 41.7 41.6 4.1 40.0 39.0 42.1 43.5 44.0 41.8 41.9 4.0 39.9 39.6 42.3 44.0 44.6 42.0 41.9 4.2 40.7 39.4 42.5 43.8 44.3 41.9 41.9 4.2 40.3 39.4 42.6 43.7 44.0 42.2 41.5 4.1 40.3 39.2 42.4 43.4 43.7 41.7 41.8 4.1 40.3 40.1 42.6 43.6 44.0 41.9 41.7 4.1 39.5 39.7 42.1 43.3 43.7 41.8 41.6 4.0 40.0 39.9 42.3 43.4 44.1 41.6 42.0 4.1 40.3 39.8 42.8 43.4 44.0 41.9 42.2 40.9 42.0 42.2 41.4 39.4 42.6 41.0 42.7 43.5 41.5 39.2 42.8 41.2 43.0 44.1 41.8 39.4 42.6 41.0 43.0 44.0 41.4 39.2 42.5 41.1 43.0 44.2 41.3 39.3 43.0 41.0 42.6 42.5 41.8 39.2 42.4 40.8 42.7 43.6 41.5 39.2 42.7 41.0 43.3 44.5 41.6 39.2 42.6 41.0 43.3 44.2 41.9 39.1 42.5 41.0 43.3 44.6 41.6 39.2 42.3 40.7 42.4 43.0 41.0 38.9 42.5 40.8 42.6 43.3 41.6 39.4 42.5 40.9 43.0 43.7 41.6 39.5 42.3 40.5 42.9 43.5 40.9 39.3 42.6 41.2 43.3 44.0 41.4 39.8 40.2 3.6 40.2 41.8 37.0 43.4 40.2 3.7 40.4 41.1 36.9 43.2 40.3 3.6 40.1 41.6 37.4 43.3 40.0 3.6 40.1 40.8 36.8 43.3 40.1 3.6 40.3 40.7 36.9 43.2 40.2 3.7 40.5 41.1 36.9 43.2 40.1 3.6 40.4 41.1 36.8 43.2 40.2 3.7 40.3 41.1 37.1 43.3 40.2 3.8 40.6 41.0 36.8 43.2 40.2 3.6 40.6 41.0 37.0 43.1 39.9 3.6 40.3 40.5 36.6 43.1 40.1 3.6 40.1 40.9 37.0 43.1 40.2 3.7 40.3 40.7 37.1 43.2 40.1 3.8 40.4 41.2 36.9 43.3 40.3 3.8 40.5 41.6 37.5 43.3 38.0 42.3 41.6 38.2 38.0 42.3 41.6 37.5 38.2 42.1 42.0 37.3 37.7 42.0 41.7 37.3 38.0 42.4 41.6 36.9 38.0 42.3 41.6 37.0 38.0 42.1 41.5 37.6 38.1 42.1 41.6 37.5 38.0 42.5 41.5 37.9 37.8 42.4 41.7 37.3 37.7 42.3 41.2 37.7 38.0 42.4 41.7 38.3 38.0 42.5 41.7 38.8 37.9 42.3 41.5 37.9 37.9 42.4 41.6 38.0 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S 39.2 39.3 39.5 39.4 39.3 39.5 39.3 39.4 39.4 39.2 39.4 39.7 39.3 39.5 39.8 W HOLESALE TRA DE 37.5 37.4 38.3 38.0 37.9 38.2 37.8 38.1 38.1 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.0 38.0 38.2 29.0 29.1 29.3 29.0 28.9 29.2 29.0 29.2 29.1 28.9 28.9 29.2 32.5 32.5 32.7 32.4 32.6 32.8 32.6 32.6 32.8 32.5 32.5 32.9 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ........................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..... .......................................................... 29.2 29.1 29.2 .......................................................................... 32.5 32.6 32.7 R E T A IL T R A D E S E R V IC E S ...................................................... _ preliminary NOTE: See “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 Current Labor Statistics: June 1989 • Employment Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry seasonally adjusted An lual ave rage Industry 1988 1989 1987 1988 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. $8.98 $9.29 $9.23 $9.27 $9.27 $9.32 $9.32 $9.37 $9.43 $9.42 $9.45 $9.49 $9.50 $9.52 $9.59 Construction ...................................... 12.69 Manufacturing ..................................... 9.91 Excluding overtime ............................. 9.48 Transportation and public utilities ................... 12.03 Wholesale trade................................... 9.59 Retail trade.......................................... 6 .1 1 Finance, insurance, and real estate .................... 8.73 Services.................................... 8.48 12.97 10.17 9.71 12.32 9.92 6.31 9.10 8.90 12.93 12.93 10.18 9.72 12.33 9.86 6.29 9.00 12.99 9.65 12.29 9.88 6.25 8.99 8.81 12.91 10.15 9.69 12.35 9.88 6.28 9.08 9.74 12.39 9.93 6.32 9.09 8.93 13.04 10.26 9.78 12.37 6.34 9.18 8.99 13.03 10.28 9.81 12.43 10.13 6.37 9.36 9.06 13.01 10.29 9.83 12.37 10.04 6.42 9.26 9.04 13.09 10.31 9.84 12.36 10.08 6.42 9.37 9.09 13.14 10.32 9.86 12.46 10.18 6.43 9.41 9.14 13.18 10.35 9 88 12.46 10.15 6.43 9.35 9.17 13.25 10.37 9 90 12.51 10.17 6.44 9.36 9.20 13.34 10 39 9 9? 12 59 10.32 6 47 9.50 9.29 4.86 4.84 4.85 4.82 4.83 4.84 4.82 4.82 4.81 4.80 4.79 P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c u r r e n t d o lla r s ) 1 ................ P R IV A T E S E C T O R (In c o n s t a n t ( 1 9 7 7 ) d o lla r s ) 1 1 0 .1 1 8 .8 8 8 .8 6 13.03 10.17 9.71 12.37 9.97 6.33 9.10 8.92 4.85 4.84 4.84 Includes mining, not shown separately - Data not available. p = preliminary 1 0 .2 0 1 0 .0 1 Mar.p Apr.p - NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Annual average Industry 1988 1989 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Q. 1988 < 1987 P R IV A T E S E C T O R ............................................................... $8.98 $9.29 $9.23 $9.26 $9.23 $9.25 $9.24 $9.40 $9.45 $9.46 $9.46 $9.54 $9.54 $9.55 $9.60 M I N I N G ........................................................................................ 12.52 12.69 12.60 12.54 12.55 1 2 .6 6 12.62 12.75 12.72 12.83 12.97 13.14 13.16 13.09 13.05 C O N S T R U C T I O N ................................................................... 12.69 12.97 1 2 .8 8 12.87 12.85 12.91 12.95 13.13 13.13 13.04 13.16 13.22 13.17 13.22 13.29 M A N U F A C T U R I N G ............................................................... 9.91 10.17 1 0 .1 2 10.14 10.16 10.16 1 0 .1 2 10.25 10.24 10.30 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.39 10.40 10.43 Lumber and wood products................................ 8.40 7.67 Furniture and fixtures.......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products......................... 10.25 Primary metal industries ..................................... 11.94 Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... 13.78 Fabricated metal products .................................. 1 0 . 0 0 10.70 8.60 7.92 10.48 12.15 13.98 10.24 10.65 8.50 7.81 10.41 10.69 8.60 7.91 10.48 12.15 13.96 10.26 10.67 8.65 7.97 10.54 10.64 8.58 10.85 10.92 8 .6 6 13.96 1 0 .2 0 14.04 10.32 10.61 12.23 14.01 10.35 8.06 10.63 12.28 14.13 10.44 8 .1 0 1 2 .1 1 10.89 8.70 8.08 10.60 12.28 14.04 10.44 8 .6 8 14.09 10.18 10.90 8.75 8.04 10.58 12.27 14.07 10.43 10.90 1 2 .2 2 10.78 8.67 8.07 10.55 12.25 14.08 10.32 10.78 8.76 8.04 10.58 1 0 .2 2 10.67 8.54 7.87 10.45 12.13 13.96 10.23 10.94 8.76 8.09 10.72 12.37 14.26 10.49 Machinery, except electrical ............................... 10.70 Electrical and electronic equipment.................... 9.88 Transportation equipment.................................... 12.95 Motor vehicles and equipment......................... 13.55 Instruments and related products ...................... 9.71 Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................. 7.75 10.97 10.13 13.36 14.07 9.95 7.98 1 0 .8 8 10.90 13.31 14.10 9.87 7.94 10.93 10.15 13.35 14.16 9.88 7.93 10.94 10.13 13.23 13.86 9.93 7.94 10.93 10.15 13.26 13.90 9.91 7.93 11.05 10.19 13.49 14.17 9.97 7.99 11.07 10.16 13.49 14.16 10.05 8.07 11.17 10.24 13.60 14.25 10.05 8.09 1 1 .2 0 10.09 13.28 14.09 9.89 7.92 11.19 10.25 13.64 14.27 8.17 11.16 10.27 13.62 14.27 10.09 8.19 9.18 Food and kindred products................................. 8.94 Tobacco manufactures....................................... 14.03 Textile mill products............................................ 7.17 Apparel and other textile products..................... 5.93 Paper and allied products ................................... 11.43 9.42 9.11 14.56 7.37 9.38 9.15 15.24 7.31 6.05 11.64 9.39 9.12 15.78 7.33 6.08 11.65 9.45 9.13 15.66 7.31 9.40 9.04 14.84 7.37 6.07 11.63 9.50 9.12 13.98 7.43 6.19 11.70 9.48 9.04 13.92 7.45 11.64 9.37 9.14 14.98 7.35 6.04 11.60 11.67 9.53 9.16 14.43 7.47 6.23 11.72 9.60 9.26 14.18 7.52 6.27 11.79 Printing and publishing........................................ 10.28 Chemicals and allied products............................ 12.37 Petroleum and coal products.............................. 14.59 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..... 8.91 Leather and leather products ............................. 6.08 10.53 12.67 15.05 9.11 6.28 10.40 12.57 15.00 9.04 6.29 10.43 12.59 14.93 9.04 6.27 10.43 12.60 15.04 9.07 6.27 10.49 12.70 14.99 9.11 10.70 12.76 15.08 9.18 6.31 1 0 .6 8 1 0 .6 8 6 .2 0 10.55 12.63 14.91 9.14 6.23 12.79 15.22 9.20 6.34 12.87 15.25 9.22 6.42 10.71 12.91 15.28 9.27 6.45 15.31 9.28 6.49 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 ..... 12.03 12.32 12.27 12.28 12.27 12.33 12.35 12.41 12.43 12.46 12.43 12.47 12.51 12.48 12.56 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ......................................................... 9.59 9.92 9.88 9.87 9.85 9.93 9.88 1 0 .0 1 10.08 10.05 1 0 .1 2 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .2 1 10.19 10.32 6.26 6.28 6.26 6.28 6.26 6.38 6.43 6.42 6.46 6.46 6.48 9.14 9.29 9.27 9.32 9.46 9.47 9.43 9.55 8.98 9.07 9.10 9.15 9.24 9.26 9.26 9.30 D u r a b le g o o d s ....................................................................... N o n d u r a b le g o o d s .............................................................. 6 .1 0 1 2 .1 1 13.94 1 0 .1 2 6 .0 2 11.71 8 .0 0 10.46 R E T A IL T R A D E ..................................................................... 6 .1 1 6.31 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ..... 8.73 9.10 9.03 9.09 8.98 9.03 9.04 S E R V IC E S ................................................................................ 8.48 8.90 8.82 8.84 8.78 8.79 8.79 p = preliminary NOTF' Spp “ Notes https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benchmark revision. on the data” for a description of tho most rocont 6.37 1 2 .2 0 6 .2 0 8 .6 8 8 .0 0 10.29 13.65 14.31 1 0 .1 0 10.62 12.28 14.14 10.45 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 8 .2 0 10.29 13.69 14.34 10.15 8.19 10.29 13.63 14.25 10.23 8.19 9.61 9.28 14.28 7.60 6.29 11.77 9.62 9.27 14.62 7.59 6.29 11.79 9.65 9.34 15.18 7.59 6.31 11.82 9.64 9.31 15.56 7.62 6.31 11.78 10.73 10.75 12.89 15.52 9.27 6.51 10.80 12.92 15.54 9.29 6.55 10.76 12.87 15.49 9.32 6.54 1 2 .8 6 6.47 1 0 .1 1 17. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry 1987 P R IV A T E S E C T O R 1988 19 39 1988 Annual average Industry Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. MarT Apr.e $312.50 $323.29 $320.28 $320.40 $322.13 $324.68 $323.40 $327.12 $329.81 $328.26 $330.15 $329.13 $327.22 $328.52 $334.08 322.13 321.67 321.67 325.27 322.47 325.14 329.11 327.82 327.92 330.25 328.70 329.39 335.65 169.28 168.29 168.57 167.92 168.13 168.75 167.30 168.10 168.96 167.99 168.70 167.41 165.76 165.58 " _ _ M I N I N G ........................................................................................ 530.85 536.79 539.28 529.19 533.38 535.52 530.04 538.05 543.14 537.58 553.82 553.19 548.77 548.47 561.15 C O N S T R U C T I O N ................................................................... 479.68 491.56 488.15 491.63 497.30 497.04 499.87 504.19 512.07 491.61 489.55 481.21 475.44 493.11 501.03 406.31 417.99 217.59 414.92 218.38 414.73 217.36 418.59 218.47 413.51 214.92 412.90 213.61 423.33 217.54 422.91 216.66 427.45 218.76 431.39 220.43 425.17 216.26 423.10 214.34 424.95 214.19 426.40 2 2 0 .1 0 432.85 341.04 306.80 433.58 514.61 598.05 415.00 447.26 346.58 312.05 443.30 529.74 615.12 428.03 444.11 345.10 305.37 442.43 526.79 613.36 426.17 444.94 345.87 307.72 447.26 527.66 612.84 426.59 448.98 351.74 311.65 448.54 530.96 621.22 431.95 439.60 348.60 310.03 446.90 525.46 619.96 417.38 439.43 345.77 314.40 444.55 521.94 608.66 423.30 452.76 348.53 323.61 451.54 539.00 629.38 433.44 452.76 358.28 322.40 454.94 531.92 616.36 433.44 457.87 347.20 318.40 451.99 536.90 616.44 439.88 462.16 353.50 325.62 446.48 541.11 621.89 445.36 454.11 344.52 317.54 439.90 536.64 617.76 437.44 452.35 338.52 315.15 436.89 532.95 617.48 433.26 455.36 344.67 320.76 446.04 534.18 622.16 434.72 456.20 353.03 318.75 458.82 536.86 630.29 436.38 451.54 404.09 543.90 571.81 401.99 305.35 467.32 415.33 570.47 612.05 412.93 312.82 463.49 411.67 569.71 621.37 410.44 309.67 462.16 411.88 572.33 624.63 406.64 309.66 465.62 417.17 574.05 625.87 409.03 311.65 462.76 409.25 551.69 576.58 408.12 305.69 459.06 412.09 554.27 587.97 408.29 309.27 471.84 417.79 580.07 624.90 414.75 314.01 470.48 416.56 581.42 623.04 419.09 319.57 478.08 423.94 592.96 635.55 422.10 321.17 486.08 430.12 595.14 636.80 424.20 324.35 475.42 421.07 584.30 623.60 419.74 321.05 474.46 416.15 586.52 625.03 419.57 320.62 476.43 416.75 592.78 633.83 417.17 321.87 475.30 419.83 588.82 627.00 420.45 323.51 369.04 359.39 547.17 299.71 219.41 496.06 378.68 368.04 579.49 302.91 225.09 502.85 373.86 361.03 576.73 301.35 222.27 498.80 374.26 366.92 601.98 297.52 222.64 501.68 377.48 367.54 628.04 300.53 226.18 502.12 377.06 368.85 613.87 295.32 220.33 502.36 377.88 368.83 595.08 304.38 223.98 498.93 384.75 373.01 575.98 307.60 229.03 511.29 382.04 368.83 574.90 306.94 229.40 505.31 385.97 374.64 581.53 309.26 232.38 508.65 388.80 378.73 565.78 309.07 232.62 518.76 384.40 371.20 542.64 309.32 230.84 508.46 382.88 367.09 552.64 307.40 231.47 505.79 385.04 372.67 551.03 311.19 232.84 508.26 384.64 371.47 608.40 312.42 232.84 506.54 400.14 535.94 395.20 529.20 6 6 8 .2 2 6 6 6 .0 0 391.13 528.78 658.41 392.17 534.24 678.30 396.52 533.40 679.05 403.01 527.93 664.99 411.95 539.75 674.08 406.91 541.02 680.33 406.91 548.26 674.05 411.26 553.84 676.90 404.52 545.26 665.99 405.28 546.54 682.88 409.32 546.52 Petroleum and coal products.............................. 390.64 523.25 641.96 6 6 8 .2 2 405.65 545.69 673.82 plastics products............................................... Leather and leather products ............................. 370.66 232.26 378.98 235.50 377.87 232.73 376.06 235.75 378.22 237.63 373.51 231.26 377.48 234.87 381.89 236.63 382.72 240.29 386.32 240.11 389.34 247.04 387.90 245.97 384.71 246.08 385.54 244.97 385.85 246.56 471.58 484.18 480.98 481.38 484.67 490.73 490.30 490.20 490.99 489.68 490.99 490.07 489.14 490.46 496.12 384.92 385.18 393.19 Seasonally adjusted....................................... Constant (1977) dollars ................................... M A N U F A C T U R IN G Constant (1977) dollars..................................... D u r a b le g o o d s ....................................................................... Primary metal Industries..................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products .................................. Machinery, except electrical ............................... Electrical and electronic equipment.................... Transportation equipment.................................... Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................. N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .............................................................. Textile mill products............................................ Apparel and other textile products..................... Paper and allied products................................... Printing and publishing........................................ 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 ................................................................................ W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ......................................................... 365.38 377.95 377.42 375.06 375.29 380.32 375.44 381.38 385.06 381.90 386.58 386.96 R E T A IL T R A D E ..................................................................... 178.41 183.62 180.91 181.49 184.04 188.40 186.55 184.73 185.66 185.18 190.03 183.75 182.82 184.11 187.27 316.90 326.69 326.89 325.42 321.48 326.89 322.73 327.21 334.44 330.94 333.66 341.51 339.03 337.59 347.62 301.22 300.02 300.02 305.04 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E .................................................................................... S E R V IC E S ................................................................................ - Data not available, p = preliminary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 275.60 290.14 287.53 286.42 287.11 290.07 288.31 291.85 296.59 295.75 297.38 NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 18. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted (In percent) Time span and year Over 1-month span: 1987 ..................... 1988 ..................... 1989 ..................... Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Private nonagricultural payrolls, 349 industries 57.4 60.3 65.C 58.3 64.6 57.9 59.9 64.0 59.0 64.6 63.0 53.0 61.3 58.9 61.6 6 8 .6 6 6 .6 62.3 “ “ 60.6 56.2 “ 62.3 54.0 67.6 62.5 “ 63.9 68.9 - 72.5 61.9 “ 72.1 62.6 “ 73.4 68.3 “ 74.5 71.9 78.5 71.1 “ 74.2 72.3 74.4 72.5 - 75.6 73.6 79.1 75.2 78.7 75.5 77.8 “ 80.5 64.2 61.7 - 64.2 61.0 57.4 74.1 65.6 - 74.5 70.9 - 67.0 69.5 72.7 67.7 - 72.3 71.6 65.0 61.7 ' Over 3-month span: 1987 ..................... 1988 ...................... 1989 ...................... 61.3 70.6 68.5 62.2 6 8 .8 67.0 67.3 68.3 60.2 68.9 67.2 69.3 69.1 ” 69.8 69.8 ” 6 8 .8 72.5 72.2 75.2 69.1 ~ 6 8 .8 ” 77.4 74.5 “ 77.2 75.6 77.4 77.8 77.8 76.5 71.5 “ 6 8 .2 73.4 ' Over 6 -month span: 1987 ...................... 1988 ..................... 1989 ...................... 69.2 72.2 72.9 66.3 71.5 66.3 70.8 70.1 74.2 76.9 ' Over 12-month span 1987 ...................... 1988 ..................... 1989 ..................... 6 8 .1 77.2 70.3 78.1 71.1 74.2 74.1 73.9 76.6 75.6 Manufacturing payrolls, 143 industries Over 1-month span 1987 ................... 1988 .................... 1989 .................... 46.8 58.2 61.0 52.5 55.7 51.4 53.9 55.7 53.5 56.4 60.6 46.8 58.9 57.4 “ 55.7 61.3 Over 3-month span: 1987 .................... 1988 .................... 1989 .................... 50.7 50.7 61.0 61.3 58.5 62.8 51.8 63.8 64.5 63.5 66.7 68.4 62.1 6 6 .0 67.7 60.3 ” 56.0 44.0 “ 64.2 46.8 69.5 61.3 73.8 52.1 70.2 53.5 74.5 63.8 ” 75.5 62.1 “ 76.6 79.4 74.1 6 8 .8 6 6 .0 6 6 .0 73.8 70.9 “ 75.2 72.3 “ 75.2 71.3 “ 6 8 .8 “ 6 8 .1 - " Over 6 -month span: 1987 .................... 1988 .................... 1989 .................... Over 12-month span: 1987 ........................ 1988 ........................ 1989 ........................ 58.5 68.4 66.7 57.1 67.0 59.6 74.1 63.5 72.3 57.1 6 6 .0 69.1 6 6 .0 “ 64.5 6 8 .8 6 8 .8 70.6 - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing Digitized for 70FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 66.7 70.9 73.0 72.0 “ - 75.9 69.5 75.9 69.5 75.2 79.1 - - - - employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary. See the “Definitions” in this section. See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 19. Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Noninstitutional population.................................... 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 182,293 184,490 186,322 Labor force: Total (number).................................................. Percent of population....................................... 108,544 64.1 110,315 64.2 111,872 64.3 113,226 64.4 115,241 64.7 117,167 65.1 119,540 65.6 121,602 65.9 123,378 100,907 59.6 1,604 102,042 59.4 1,645 101,194 58.2 1 ,6 6 8 102,510 58.3 1,676 106,702 59.9 1,697 108,856 60.5 1,706 111,303 61.1 1,706 114,177 61.9 1,737 116,677 62.6 1,709 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 3,179 103,971 109,597 3,163 106,434 112,440 3,208 109,232 114,968 3,169 111,800 Unemployed: Total (number)............................................ Percent of labor force................................ 7,637 7.0 8,273 7.5 10,678 9.5 10,717 9.5 8,539 7.4 8,312 7.1 8,237 6.9 7,425 6,701 5.4 Not in labor force (number) ................................ 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 62,752 62,888 Employed: Total (number)............................................. Percent of population .................................. Resident Armed Forces............................ Civilian Total ....................................................... Agriculture............................................ Nonagricultural industries..................... 20. 6 6 .2 6 .1 62,944 Annual data: Employment levels by industry (Numbers in thousands) Industry 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total employment.................................................................... Private sector......................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................. Mining............................................................................. 90,406 74,166 25,658 1,027 Manufacturing................................................................ 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 90,200 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,496 78,472 24,727 966 4,383 19,378 97,519 81,125 24,859 927 4,673 19,260 99,525 82,832 24,558 777 4,816 18,965 102,310 85,295 24,784 721 4,998 19,065 106,039 88,653 25,565 733 5,293 19,539 Service-producing................................................................ Transportation and public utilities................................... Wholesale trade .............................................................. Retail trade ..................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate............................... Services........................................................................... 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 6 6 ,8 6 6 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,769 5,159 5,555 16,545 5,689 20,797 72,660 5,238 5,717 17,356 5,955 2 2 ,0 0 0 74,967 5,255 5,753 17,930 6,283 23,053 77,525 5,385 5,872 18,509 6,549 24,196 80,475 5,584 6,156 19,206 6,679 25,464 Government................................................................... Federal...................................................................... State .......................................................................... Local ......................................................................... 16,241 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 16,024 2,807 3,734 9,482 16,394 2,875 3,832 9,687 16,693 2,899 3,893 9,901 17,015 2,943 3,963 10,109 17,387 2,971 4,051 10,365 4 ,3 4 6 NOTE: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 ,8 6 6 3,610 9,765 See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry Industry 1980 1981 1982 1983 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 34.8 7.68 267.26 43.3 9.17 397.06 43.7 10.04 438.75 37.0 9.94 367.78 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 280.70 35.2 8.32 292.86 34.9 8.57 299.09 34.8 8.76 304.85 34.8 8.98 312.50 34.8 9.29 323.29 42.7 10.77 459.88 42.5 11.28 479.40 43.3 11.63 503.58 43.4 11.98 519.93 42.2 12.46 525.81 42.4 12.52 530.85 42.3 12.69 536.79 36.9 10.82 399.26 36.7 11.63 426.82 37.1 11.94 442.97 37.8 12.13 458.51 37.7 12.32 464.46 37.4 12.48 466.75 37.8 12.69 479.68 37.9 12.97 491.56 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 9.19 374.03 40.5 9.54 386.37 40.7 9.73 396.01 41.0 9.91 406.31 41.1 10.17 417.99 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 1 1 .1 2 438.13 39.5 11.40 450.30 39.2 11.70 458.64 39.2 12.03 471.58 39.3 12.32 484.18 38.5 329.18 38.5 8.89 342.27 38.4 9.16 351.74 38.3 9.35 358.11 38.1 9.59 365.38 38.1 9.92 377.95 29.2 P r iv a te s e c t o r Average weekly hours..................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ............................ 35.3 6 .6 6 35.0 8 .0 2 M in in g Average weekly hours ............................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... C o n s tr u c tio n Average weekly hours .......................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... M a n u fa c tu r in g Average weekly hours .................................. Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s Average weekly hours ............................................. Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .............................. Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... W h o le s a le tr a d e Average weekly hours .................................. A v e ra g e h o u rly e a rn in g s (in d o lla rs ) .......................................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)........................ 38.5 38.5 6 .9 6 7 .5 6 267.96 291.06 38.3 8.09 309.85 30.2 4.88 147.38 30.1 5.25 158.03 29.9 5.48 163.85 29.8 5.74 171.05 29.8 5.85 174.33 29.4 5.94 174.64 29.2 6.03 176.08 178.41 29.1 6.31 183.62 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 7.63 278.50 36.4 7.94 289.02 36.4 8.36 304.30 36.3 8.73 316.90 35.9 9.10 326.69 32.6 5.85 190.71 32.6 6.41 208.97 32.6 6.92 225.59 32.7 7.31 239.04 32.6 7.59 247.43 32.5 7 .9 0 32.5 8.18 265.85 32.5 8.48 275.60 32.6 8.90 290.14 8 .5 5 R e ta il tr a d e Average weekly hours ..................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 6 .1 1 F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , a n d re a l e s t a te Average weekly hours ............................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... S e r v ic e s Average weekly hours ........................................ Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... Digitized for 72FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 256.75 22. Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1981=100) Series Mar. June 1989 1988 1987 Sept. June Dec. Mar. 142.1 Percent change 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. Mar. 144.0 145.5 147.3 1 .2 4.8 5.3 3.6 5.0 Sept. Mar. 989 Workers, by occupational group: Workers, by industry division: Manufacturing ..................................................................... Service-producing................................................................. 135.0 135.9 137.5 138.6 140.6 138.5 129.1 138.0 139.3 130.1 138.5 141.2 131.3 139.9 142.2 132.5 140.8 144.2 134.7 142.9 145.7 136.2 144.3 147.9 137.2 147.2 149.7 138.2 148.5 151.9 139.6 150.0 1.5 130.2 130.7 138.1 145.2 132.2 132.7 140.8 149.2 146.4 139.6 133.5 134.1 141.7 150.6 148.1 140.5 135.8 136.8 143.6 152.8 150.3 142.3 137.3 138.1 145.1 153.8 151.2 143.9 138.2 139.0 147.6 157.7 154.0 146.1 139.3 140.1 149.2 159.7 154.4 147.7 140.7 141.9 151.4 161.8 156.7 149.7 1 .0 _ 144.1 136.9 131.1 131.5 138.9 145.8 144.7 137.8 132.9 133.8 135.1 136.0 138.1 139.8 141.2 142.6 144.4 1.3 4.6 136.1 137.0 138.5 139.3 _ 141.2 - 143.0 - 144 6 148.6 - 1 .6 " 146.3 ” 5.2 5.0 4.6 7.5 _ - 137.6 _ Public administration 3 ....................................................... Workers, by occupational group: Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations - _ _ - - - - Precision production, craft, and repair occupation........ 129.5 - _ _ 1 .6 131.8 - 134.1 “ 135.6 “ 136.5 _ : _ - - - - - - 143.9 145.4 1 .0 1 .0 135.2 135.9 136.7 138.6 140.1 130.7 130.8 131.5 131.9 132.7 133.2 134.1 135.6 136.8 137.1 138.1 137.9 139.0 139.0 140.1 140.4 141.9 135.3 136.3 .9 .7 1.3 .8 138.4 “ 140.2 - 142.1 - 143.8 - 145.5 - 147.7 “ _ _ - - - - “ _ _ _ 1 .0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 3.6 3.7 5.4 5.9 6.4 6 .6 4.3 5.2 4.7 3.6 3.1 4.4 3.9 3.4 4.9 3.5 4.0 3.7 3.5 _ _ - - - 137.7 “ - - - ” - - - - 6 .8 - “ 1 .6 _ - 2 .0 - - 4.9 7.5 5.8 2.3 7.1 134.1 135.1 136.4 137.1 138.9 140.8 142.4 143.9 145.9 1.4 5.0 145.9 146.3 149.7 151.1 153.1 153.6 157.8 159.6 161.5 1 .2 5.5 159.6 148.4 161.8 149.1 163.7 151.9 1 .2 5.7 4.1 _ _ Workers, by occupational group: _ 147.2 140.8 147.5 141.3 151.2 143.3 147.3 142.5 147.6 143.3 148.9 150.5 144.1 149.1 150.7 144.7 151.8 145.1 154.1 156.5 146.4 Workers, by industry division: _ Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 138.9 _ 130.6 - 129.9 _ 1 2 .0 134.7 _ Finance, insurance, and real estate................................. - 142.2 Workers, by industry division: Wholesale and retail trade............................................... 1 .6 1.4 1.1 Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .... Manufacturing................................................................... 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.4 _ Administrative support occupations, including 128.4 - - - 1 .0 1 .0 152.7 144.3 - 154.8 145.9 1.3 5.3 3.0 3.6 2.5 5.2 2 .6 6 .0 1 .1 .7 2 .2 155.2 145.9 1.9 6 .1 1 .0 164.6 163.0 4.6 1.3 157.2 155.2 5.1 1.5 6 .6 .9 167.2 165.7 6.5 .6 169.3 168.3 4.3 1.5 156.7 154.4 -I------------I-----------3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. - Data not available. 153.1 146.3 155.5 157.8 148.1 155.2 150.3 156.8 158.9 150.3 155.6 150.4 157.3 159.4 151.2 160.5 153.2 163.1 165.4 154.0 J___ 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1981 = 100) 1 987 1988 1989 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 months ended 12 ended Mar 1989 C iv ilia n w o r k e r s 1 ............................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ............... Blue-collar workers.................. Service occupations................ Workers, by industry division Goods-producing....................... Manufacturing .......................... Service-producing ..................... Services................................. Health services.................... Hospitals............................... Public administration 2 .......... Nonmanufacturing .................... Blue-collar workers.................................................. Precision production, craft, and repair occupations......................................................... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors ... Transportation and material moving occupations .. Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers................................................................. Service occupations................................................. Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing....................................................... Construction ............................................................. Manufacturing............................................................ Durables................................................................. Nondurables............................................................ Service-producing....................................................... Transportation and public utilities.......................... Transportation....................................................... Public utilities......................................................... Wholesale and retail trade..................................... Wholesale trade ............................................... Retail trade. Finance, insurance, and real estate Services........................................... Health services .............................. Hospitals....................................... S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s . Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers . Blue-collar workers Workers, by industry division Services Hospitals and other services : Health services Schools. Elementary and secondary Public administration 2 . ------------- ,— 133.E 135.2 136.1 137.4 138.7 140.6 141.£ 143.4 1.1 4.4 136.É 126.2 134.2 137.C 127.1 134.7 139.4 128.3 136.0 140.2 129.4 136.6 141.£ 130.4 138.0 143.0 131.6 139.3 145.2 132.5 141.8 146.8 133.4 142.9 148.6 134.6 143.9 1.2 50 32 4.3 127.8 128.7 135.8 142.7 128.5 129.5 136.5 143.4 129.8 130.8 138.5 146.8 ” 131.0 132.2 139.2 148.2 “ 132.2 133.3 140.5 149.5 - 133.4 134.4 141.9 150.4 - 134.1 135.1 144.2 154.0 - 135.1 136.2 145.8 155.7 - 136.3 137.4 147.5 157.4 - .9 .9 142.6 137.1 143.8 137.8 145.5 139.0 146.4 140.5 148.9 142.7 149.4 144.1 150.9 145.8 1 .2 140.5 134.5 Private industry workers........................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers................................................ Professional specialty and technical occupations Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations.......................................................... Sales occupations................................................. Administrative support occupations, including clerical.................................................................. Nonmanufacturing . 132.E 141.0 135.2 1 .2 1.1 1.7 1.7 1 .0 31 31 50 5.3 6 .6 6.4 37 4.9 130.8 131.7 133.0 133.8 135.1 136.6 137.9 139.3 140.8 1.1 4.2 134.6 138.4 135.4 139.1 137.0 141.2 137.6 142.6 139.0 140.8 142.4 144.0 1 4 4 .0 1 4 5 .8 148.1 1 4 8 .9 145.9 151.0 1.3 1.4 50 4.9 135.6 126.7 136.4 127.1 138.6 127.0 139.2 126.1 139.9 127.5 141.3 130.8 142.5 131.5 144.4 134.4 146.2 136.7 1 .2 1.7 45 7.2 144.1 146.0 1.3 4.1 134.3 135.5 137.1 138.1 140.2 141.2 143.2 125.6 126.6 127.7 128.9 129.9 131.1 131.9 132.9 134.0 .8 3.2 127.9 125.b 120.5 128.8 126.7 121.5 130.2 127.5 122.3 131.1 129.2 122.9 132.1 129.9 123.7 133.4 131.2 125.4 134.0 131.9 126.7 134.9 133.3 126.9 136.1 134.5 127.8 .9 .9 .7 30 35 3.3 121.9 131.4 1 2 2 .6 131.9 123.7 132.6 125.0 133.2 126.7 134.5 127.5 135.8 128.4 137.6 129.3 139.1 130.4 140.0 .9 .6 2.9 4.1 127.5 121.7 128.7 127.7 130.5 133.4 128.1 128.3 122.7 129.5 128.7 131.0 134.3 129.3 129.6 123.8 130.8 129.7 132.8 135.7 130.0 “ 130.8 124.7 132.2 •131.1 134.1 136.2 130.2 - 132.0 125.9 133.3 132.1 135.6 137.5 131.3 - 133.2 127.6 134.4 133.1 136.7 139.3 132.5 - 133.9 128.6 135.1 133.7 137.6 141.0 133.5 - 134.9 129.4 136.2 134.6 139.1 142.6 133.4 - 136.1 130.4 137.4 135.9 140.2 144.5 134.6 - 127.9 134.8 125.2 133.5 141.8 129.9 137.2 127.1 131.5 142.8 130.6 137.8 127.8 131.8 145.9 “ 130.7 138.5 127.7 131.6 147.1 “ 131.9 139.0 129.2 132.9 148.6 “ “ 134.6 141.7 131.7 134.9 149.8 “ 136.0 143.2 133.2 134.9 152.9 “ 136.9 143.6 134.3 139.9 154.4 - 138.6 147.5 135.1 142.7 156.4 136.0 137.8 139.4 140.8 “ 131.9 132.8 134.2 134.8 .9 .8 3.1 3.6 3.1 29 3.4 5.1 2.5 2.4 .9 2 .6 .8 .9 1 .0 .8 1.3 .9 1 .2 2.7 51 6 .1 - 1 .8 - 2 .0 46 74 5.2 6.9 6.9 142.6 1.3 4.9 .6 2 .0 1.3 142.5 142.8 146.1 147.4 148.7 149.1 153.0 154.5 155.8 .8 4.8 143.9 136.3 144.1 136.9 147.7 139.0 149.3 139.6 150.5 141.1 150.8 141.1 154.9 143.5 156.8 144.1 158.0 146.1 .8 1.4 50 3.5 143.9 138.6 144.2 139.4 “ 145.6 146.6 141.0 148.2 141.2 “ 150.3 152.0 142.6 149.5 142.2 151.8 153.4 143.8 150.7 144.5 151.1 144.7 155.6 147.4 157.6 148.7 158.6 150.2 145.5 146.5 140.5 Iam I a iiu nuu sen u iu w orke rs; and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. Digitized for 74 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .£ .7 - 152.6 154.0 145.5 153.0 154.3 146.4 - 158.0 159.7 148.9 - 160.3 162.1 149.4 _ 161.2 162.8 150.9 Includes, for example, library, social and health services. - Data not available. .6 1 .0 1.3 .6 .4 1 .0 5.2 3.9 5.5 5.6 5.7 3.7 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1981=100) Percent change 1988 Series Mar. Sept. Mar. Sept. June 12 months ended 3 months ended Mar. 1989 C O M P E N S A T IO N W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s t a t u s 1 130.5 128.0 134.4 128.0 132.6 131.2 128.7 135.2 128.7 133.5 132.0 129.5 135.9 129.5 134.3 133.4 131.3 136.7 131.5 135.1 135.6 134.1 138.0 135.0 136.2 136.9 135.3 139.4 136.2 137.5 137.9 136.2 140.5 137.0 138.6 138.6 137.2 140.9 138.2 138.9 139.7 137.9 142.6 139.9 139.5 0.8 3.0 Union ............................................................... Goods-producing .......................................... Service-producing......................................... Manufacturing ............................................... Nonmanufacturing ........................................ .5 1.2 2.8 .4 3.3 3.6 2.4 Nonunion......................................................... Goods-producing.......................................... Service-producing...................... .................. Manufacturing ............................................... Nonmanufacturing ........................................ 133.6 130.8 135.3 132.2 134.3 134.6 131.8 136.4 133.2 135.3 136.1 133.1 137.9 134.6 136.8 136.9 134.1 138.6 135.6 137.5 138.9 136.2 140.5 137.8 139.4 140.7 137.8 142.5 139.2 141.5 142.2 138.7 144.4 140.1 143.2 143.9 139.9 146.3 141.3 145.0 146.0 141.6 148.6 143.1 147.3 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.6 5.1 4.0 5.8 3.8 5.7 137.4 132.1 129.1 134.1 138.6 133.2 130.2 134.2 140.3 134.2 131.2 135.8 141.9 135.4 131.7 136.3 143.7 137.1 134.4 138.3 145.9 139.3 135.5 139.5 147,8 1404 136 7 140.6 150.4 141.3 138.0 141.5 153.5 142.7 139.3 143.2 2.1 1.0 .9 1.2 6.8 4.1 3.6 3.5 133.5 129.0 134.4 130.2 135.8 131.3 136.7 132.0 138.9 133.6 140.5 135.5 142.0 136.2 143.6 136.8 145.6 137.5 1.4 .5 4.8 2.9 127.7 125.0 131.7 125.6 129.5 128.3 125.8 132.2 126.2 130.1 129.1 126.5 132.9 127.0 130.8 130.5 128.5 133.6 129.3 131.5 131.0 128.7 134.4 129.6 132.1 132.0 129.7 135.4 130.4 133.3 132.9 130.4 136.7 131.0 134.5 133.4 131.2 136.8 132.1 134.6 134.3 132.0 137.8 133.0 135.4 .7 2.5 Union ............................................................... Goods-producing........................................... Service-producing.......................................... Manufacturing ............................................... Nonmanufacturing........................................ .6 2.6 .7 .7 .6 2.5 2.6 2.5 Nonunion............................ ................ ............ Goods-producing.......................................... Service-producing......................................... Manufacturing ............................ .................. Nonmanufacturing............ ..........,................ 131.8 128.8 133.6 130.6 132.4 132.8 129.6 134.6 131.5 133.4 134.3 131.1 136.2 133.0 134.9 135.0 132.1 136.7 133.9 135.4 136.4 133.6 138.0 135.5 136.8 138.1 135.0 140.0 136.7 138.8 139.5 135.7 141.8 137.4 140.4 141.1 136.8 143.6 138.6 142.2 142.9 138.2 145.6 139.9 144.1 1.3 1.0 1.4 .9 1.3 4.8 3.4 5.5 3.2 5.3 135.4 130.1 127.4 131.2 136.6 131.1 128.5 131.1 138.3 132.1 129.6 133.1 139.7 133.0 129.9 133.5 140.9 134.0 131.3 134.9 142.9 136.1 132.1 136.0 144.6 137.1 133.3 137.4 147.3 137.8 134.5 138.1 150.1 138.9 135.6 139.4 131.6 126.6 132.4 127.8 133.7 129.1 134.6 129.8 135.8 130.9 137.3 133.0 138.7 133.5 140.2 133.7 141.9 134.6 W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1 Northeast.................................... South .......................................... Midwest (formerly North Central) West............................. .............. W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1 Metropolitan areas...... Other areas................. 1.2 W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s ta tu s 1 W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1 Northeast......................................................... South ............................................................Midwest (formerly North Central)................... West................................................................ W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1 Metropolitan areas..... Other areas......... t...... The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the 1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.9 .8 .8 .9 1.2 .7 6.5 3.7 3.3 3.3 4.5 2.8 1 Monthly Labor Review Technical Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. Note, “Estimation procedures for the MONT HLY LABOR REVIEW Current Labor Statistics: June 1989 • Compensation & Industrial Relations 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) Annual average Quarterly average Measure 1987 1986 1988 1987 II III IV I II 1 .8 1 .8 3.1 2.4 1989 mp ivp F S p e c if ie d a d ju s tm e n ts : Total compensation 1 adjustments, covering 5,000 workers or more: 2 settlements 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.................... 1.1 3.0 1 .6 2 .6 3.9 3.4 2.4 1 .2 2 .2 2 .6 2.4 2 .1 2 .6 1 .8 2.9 2.7 2 .6 2 .1 1 .8 2.3 2 .2 2 .8 2 .2 3.1 .7 1 .0 .8 .4 .3 .5 .5 .1 .9 .3 .8 .2 .2 .1 .1 .3 .3 .5 .4 .2 .3 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 2 .1 3.2 3.1 E f f e c t i v e a d ju s tm 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............. ---- ------------- ---- a n u o m p iu y c io W dl Ul 2.3 .5 1.7 1 .8 .2 .5 .2 .1 CMI ip i U y t i t i 2 compensation or wages. 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary. benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in 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 endingMeasure 1987 II 1988 III IV I II 1989 IVP IIP F workers or more, all industries: First year of contract......................................................................... Annual rate over life of contract....................................................... Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering more: 1 ,0 0 0 Digitized 76 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.7 3.0 2 .6 2 .6 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.1 2.5 2 .6 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.5 3.3 workers or 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. 2 Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent. 1 .8 2 .1 1.5 1 .8 2 .1 2.3 2 .2 1.3 2 .0 2 .1 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2 .6 2 .0 2 .2 2 .1 2 .2 2 .0 1.7 2 .2 1.7 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.4 2.7 1.5 2.5 1.5 1 .8 1 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2.9 -.8 1.1 2 .1 1.3 -2.7 .3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 .2 2.4 1.3 1.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.5 2 .6 2 .1 1.3 2.5 2 .0 2 .1 2 .2 - .1 1 .0 1 .6 2.4 3.0 1.9 1.4 3.1 2 .1 2.5 2 .1 .8 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 -.2 1 .2 2 .1 2.7 2.3 1 .6 2 .2 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.9 2 .6 2.7 2 .8 2.9 2 .6 2 .1 2 .2 2.3 2.4 2 .1 2 .1 2.3 2 .6 2 .6 2 .8 2 .2 2.4 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.8 2.9 (’) (1) (1) (1) 3.2 O (’) = preliminary. 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 1 .8 1 .8 2.7 2 .8 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.7 (’) (2) (2) (2) 2 .6 2 .1 2 .2 2.7 (2) 2.7 2.4 (2) 2.4 2 .6 3.1 (’) (1) 2 .1 1 .8 2 .6 0 3.1 0 0 2.3 2 .2 2 .1 2.5 (2) 2 .6 2.4 (2) 2.4 2.7 (2) 2.7 27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in p e r c e n t ) _____________________________________ Average for four quarters ending- IVp lp 2.9 2 .6 1 .0 .7 1.3 2.7 .7 1.3 .6 .6 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 III IV I II IIP 2 .6 3.1 .7 3.2 3.0 .8 1 .0 1 .8 1 .8 1 .6 F o r a ll w o r k e r s : 1 .4 1.7 .4 F o r w o r k e r s r e c e iv in g c h a n g e s : 3.2 1 .8 3.3 2.3 1 1989 1988 1987 Effective wage adjustment .5 .5 .5 1.4 .5 3.6 2.9 3.3 3.8 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.5 2 .6 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p = 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 1987 1988 6 .0 4.9 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.7 5.7 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.5 2.4 3.0 (4) 4.9 2.7 4.7 2.3 2.4 (4) 1986 Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: 6 .2 Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: Effective adjustments: 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 4 2 .2 (4) Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts, Less than 0.05 percent. 29. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more 1987 1988 Apr. 46 51 40 43 0 Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands)................................. In effect during period (in thousands)................................. 174.4 118.0 .0 377.7 121.4 4,455.6 4,381.0 .0 2 .0 2 June May Number of stoppages: Beginning in period..................... In effect during period................ Days idle: Number (in thousands)............... Percent of estimated working time1 .......................................... Oct. Sept. Aug. July Nov. Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. Apr. 7 15 4 14 7 18 3 9 1 0 2 4 5 1 3 4 0 14 2 4 8 14.5 13.6 2 1 .0 11.7 4.0 8 .6 2.3 .0 7.4 0 30.3 6 .6 23.9 31.4 34.8 47.4 46.9 34.0 25.9 1 0 .6 2.5 9.9 7.7 37.0 43.6 331.7 344.5 490.5 725.9 713.1 510.0 293.2 77.9 52.5 152.7 137.8 949.6 1,064.2 .0 2 .0 2 .0 2 .03 .03 .0 2 .04 .0 2 .04 .05 7 5 11 ' 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 1968, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1989P 1988 Annual totals Measure 2 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 pp. 54-56. p = preliminary 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 30. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. cltv average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group ^ (1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1987 1988 1988 Apr. May 1989 June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 353. 118. 5 354. 119. 356. 119. 358. 1 2 0 .2 360. 1 2 0 .3 360. 5 120. 5 360. 121. 362. 7 1 2 1 .6 364. 1 2 2 .3 366. 2 123.1 368.8 118. 118. 117.5 122. 116.5 107.5 119.119.118. 124.C 117.5 108.2 129.£ 113.6 114.6 114.5 107.C 118.7 122.5 119.3 120. 1 2 0 ., 119.5 124.' 117.108.6 133.2 114. 115.6 115.S 107.4 119.1 123.0 119.6 124.0 124.2 123.5 130.4 119.9 128.4 134.7 129.1 135.5 132.6 132.7 130.2 115.3 118.1 111.7 106.4 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.............................. All items (1967=100) .................. 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........................... Housing ..................................................... Shelter................................................. Renters’ costs (12/82=100).......................... Rent, residential........................................... Other renters’ costs .............................. Homeowners’ costs (12/82=100)............. Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82=100) ........ Household insurance (12/82 = 100)........ Maintenance and repairs........................ Maintenance and repair services .......................................... Maintenance and repair commodities.................................... Fuel and other utilities................................... Fuels ............................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ............................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .................................................... Other utilities and public services............................................ Household furnishings and operations....................................... Housefurnishings................................... Housekeeping supplies................................ Housekeeping services............................. Apparel and upkeep............................ Apparel commodities................................ Men’s and boys’ apparel.......................... Women’s and girls’ apparel ............................ Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel.................................................. Footwear............................................ Other apparel commodities............................. Apparel services................................ 111.5 114.f 1 2 2 .1 1 1 0 .6 114.C 105.£ 119.1 1 10.5 111.C 108.1 107.5 113.8 117.0 114.1 3 128.1 123.1 127.4 124.8 124.8 124.0 119.8 111.5 128.1 113.1 126.C 107.5 118.0 107.8 115. 120.5 1 1 2 .1 127.1 111.V 114.8 107.8 103.0 97.3 77.9 103.8 1 2 0 .1 107.1 103.6 111.5 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .6 108.9 109.1 110.4 1 1 2 .1 105.1 108.0 119.6 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .1 118.6 119.2 114.7 118.1 114.5 117.9 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .8 105.9 106.0 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 79.1 107.8 122.3 109.6 105.3 76.9 108.1 122.4 109.8 105.5 115.2 115.0 106.1 100.9 76.3 108.3 126.6 133.6 127.8 134.8 131.1 131.1 129.0 114.7 117.9 110.4 104.4 78.1 104.6 122.9 109.4 105.1 114.7 114.3 115.4 113.7 113.4 114.9 116.4 109.9 116.0 123.7 132.9 139.2 129.4 129.5 128.2 115.3 119.4 109.7 1 0 2 .8 95.7 80.2 129.9 130.0 114.3 117.8 109.8 103.5 96.5 80.0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .6 122.3 109.1 104.9 113.8 114.7 1 2 2 .6 109.3 104.9 131.1 112.7 112.9 119.6 117.1 109.4 114.6 117.7 109.7 1 2 2 .6 1 2 2 .8 116.5 109.2 114.6 123.1 107.2 106.0 115.6 115.9 116.6 79.4 79.2 118.8 125.0 98.2 130.5 108.1 107.0 115.9 116.3 117.0 81.4 81.3 119.3 126.3 98.9 132.0 108.5 107.4 116.1 116.5 117.6 81.4 81.3 119.7 127.2 98.8 133.1 1 2 1 .1 80.9 80.8 119.7 127.9 98.9 133.9 123.3 Medical care................................... Medical care commodities............................. Medical care services.......................... Professional services...................... Hospital and related services................... 130.1 131.0 130.0 128.8 131.6 139.9 138.3 137.5 143.9 136.0 140.7 136.4 141.8 137.5 142.1 Entertainment ............................................ Entertainment commodities .......................... Entertainment services............................... 115.3 110.5 1 2 2 .0 120.3 115.0 127.7 119.6 114.2 127.0 119.7 114.5 126.9 114.8 127.3 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.......................................... 128.5 133.6 115.1 113.9 116.2 138.5 138.1 138.7 137.0 145.8 119.4 118.1 120.7 147.9 148.1 148.0 134.8 142.9 118.5 117.4 119.5 145.2 146.3 145.3 135.1 143.2 118.7 117.2 See footnotes at end of table. Digitized for 78 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 2 0 .8 96.9 125.6 108.7 107.6 116.5 116.9 119.1 127.4 134.7 119.5 128.2 135.6 128.4 141.3 131.8 131.9 130.1 115.0 118.1 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............................... 105.4 104.2 114.4 114.6 113.1 80.2 80.1 114.8 112.6 107.2 118.3 121 1 1 1 .8 115.« 120.5 114.5 137 138.1 139.4 1 2 0 .1 145.5 146.4 145.6 1 2 0 .1 135.5 143.6 119.0 117.5 120.4 146.0 146.5 146.2 1 0 1 .0 1 2 2 .6 75.9 108.5 123.3 109.7 105.3 114.8 115.1 105.7 115.5 115.5 1 1 2 .6 1 1 0 .1 117.8 116.2 115.2 118.1 119.0 1 1 0 .8 110.7 111.9 1 1 1 .6 116.2 108.2 116.5 123.4 109.9 118.2 107.4 116.2 124.0 117.4 124.4 108.9 107.8 116.1 116.5 117.9 82.3 82.3 127.5 98.2 133.7 123.7 109.6 108.6 115.9 116.3 119.2 84.1 84.2 120.3 128.7 99.2 134.8 123.7 109.7 108.6 116.2 116.8 119.4 83.1 83.1 120.9 129.3 99.7 135.5 124.0 139.3 140.5 139.0 138.4 144.3 139.9 141.1 139.6 138.7 145.9 120.5 115.3 127.7 1 1 2 .2 120. 120. 120. 122. 120. 1 2 2 .7 120. 120. 1 2 2 ., 119.5 125.5 116.5 109.£ 131.' 114.6 116.C 117.1 108.1 119.S 123.4 119.8 118. 125.S 116.- 1 2 2 .9 119. 126.6 116.1 1 1 1 .131 .C 115.C 116.7 118.5 107.6 120.7 124.1 119.9 123. 3 123. 5 1 2 1 .2 122. 1 2 2 .7 127.$ 118.6 128. 118. 113.137. 117.6 117.6 119.9 128.8 134.8 129.4 134.8 133.1 133.1 130.4 115.0 117.6 1 1 1 .6 105.4 98.6 74.6 105.8 124.5 110.3 105.9 115.6 115.5 120.7 119.3 117.6 121.9 118.1 115.9 119.4 125.5 1 1 0 .6 129.6 114.£ 115.£ 117.1 108.2 1 2 0 .1 123.7 119.9 119.9 129.1 134.2 129.8 131.1 133.8 133.9 130.2 115.4 118.2 111.7 104.3 96.8 75.0 103.7 124.4 1 2 0 .2 129.3 134.1 130.1 130.0 134.0 134.1 130.6 115.8 118.4 112.4 105.0 97.4 76.8 104.1 125.5 1 1 2 .6 134.6 116.6 117.2 119.6 109.6 121.9 124.7 120.3 120.7 129.8 135.2 130.5 132.7 134.4 134.5 130.9 116.1 118.7 1 1 2 .8 106.0 98.7 80.5 105.1 125.9 110.9 106.0 117.5 116.6 1 2 0 .6 1 1 1 .8 125.2 126.2 122.3 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .6 130.3 136.3 130.9 136.2 134.7 134.8 131.2 117.1 119.9 113.4 105.9 98.6 81.4 104.9 126.0 110.9 105.9 117.7 116.8 131.2 138.6 131.1 144.7 135.0 135.1 131.3 117.1 119.6 113.8 105.9 98.5 81.5 104.8 125.9 110.5 105.1 118.5 116.9 131.2 137.9 131.4 140.7 135.4 135.5 131.4 117.3 119.8 114.1 106.2 98.8 82.5 105.0 126.2 110.7 105.0 119.6 117.1 115.3 113.3 114.2 111.4 118.8 112.7 120.4 127.8 119.3 117.5 115.9 119.4 118.5 114.1 120.4 128.5 120.9 119.3 117.2 121.5 123.6 115.3 121.5 128.9 111.9 110.7 119.4 119.6 120.5 81.5 81.3 123.5 134.5 114.6 113.6 119.2 119.4 120.7 92.1 92.1 123.8 134.7 1 1 0 .6 119.9 118.4 118.2 118.0 116.3 117.3 116.5 117.3 113.5 119.1 126.7 119.2 127.3 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .6 109.6 119.0 119.1 109.8 119.4 119.5 120.5 79.6 79.4 122.4 133.5 110.3 119.5 119.6 120.5 80.3 80.1 123.3 134.3 1 1 1 .6 115.6 1 1 2 .2 1 2 1 .6 1 1 1 .6 123.125.' 105.9 117.0 115.9 1 2 0 .2 114.1 138.0 119.0 117.9 1 1 1 .6 1 1 0 .6 117.2 114.5 119.5 126.3 1 2 0 .6 113.6 135. 118. 118.C 1 2 0 .- 123.C 125.2 106.1 116.5 115.7 115.3 113.3 115.1 129. 120. 131.0 99.3 137.7 124.2 110.7 109.6 118.4 118.7 119.7 81.5 81.4 121.5 132.1 99.4 139.1 125.3 80.3 80.3 121.5 132.5 100.3 139.3 126.5 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .8 140.4 127.5 141.4 128.1 141.9 128.2 142.0 128.4 140.4 142.0 140.1 139.2 146.9 141.2 143.2 140.8 139.8 148.5 141.8 143.3 141.5 140.4 149.7 142.3 144.2 141.9 140.8 150.8 143.8 145.0 143.5 142.2 152.9 145.2 145.8 145.1 143.5 155.1 146.1 147.2 145.9 144.4 155.8 146.8 148.4 146.4 144.9 156.6 120.7 115.4 128.1 121.3 116.0 128.6 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .2 1 2 2 .8 116.3 129.4 117.2 129.3 117.5 130.0 123.8 118.1 131.6 124.3 118.4 132.3 124.7 118.5 132.9 125.4 119.0 134.0 136.5 147.5 119.2 117.8 137.5 148.6 119.0 117.2 140.6 149.3 141.0 149.7 143.4 157.0 1 2 1 .0 1 2 1 .8 141.3 149.9 122.4 119.8 1 2 1 .0 146.3 146.5 146.5 147.8 146.9 148.1 120.7 122.7 152.7 152.1 152.9 123.1 153.0 152.2 153.2 144.1 158.5 123.2 121.9 124.4 154.4 155.0 154.6 144.4 159.2 123.6 122.4 124.8 154.6 155.1 154.7 144.7 159.5 124.1 1 2 0 .6 140.0 148.9 120.3 118.7 121.9 151.8 151.1 152.1 1 2 0 .0 1 1 0 .0 109.0 117.2 117.7 119.9 81.6 81.6 1 2 1 .1 1 2 2 .0 152.4 152.0 152.7 1 2 0 .2 1 2 1 .6 1 2 2 .8 121.7 123.8 154.0 153.3 154.2 1 2 2 .6 125.4 154.9 155.2 155.1 30. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) 1989 1988 Annual average Sept. July Aug. 118.5 111.5 118.8 107.0 104.7 119.8 113.0 104.0 110.3 119.0 111.9 119.4 107.3 105.2 110.7 104.8 110.3 125.5 131.5 116.6 127.6 137.9 131.6 126.1 132.3 116.9 128.1 139.0 131.9 118.1 115.7 119.3 116.8 107.4 105.5 104.0 111.4 128.4 124.1 91.0 122.4 115.5 79.7 126.5 117.6 115.2 118.8 116.3 107.6 106.0 103.8 111.4 127.1 123.2 88.7 121.5 122.7 115.5 81.4 126.9 84.6 28.2 85.4 28.5 112.5 335.0 117.0 348.4 113.3 113.3 111.7 114.8 110.4 105.7 118.8 110.4 110.9 107.9 107.5 113.6 116.9 113.9 117.9 117.9 116.2 118.3 117.9 1 1 2 .8 . . 106.' 103. 1 1 1 .« 1 10.5 116.8 124.3 119.2 127.5 135.2 119.5 119.5 118.2 114.0 117.7 108.3 104.1 97.7 77.5 104.4 122.5 108.5 104.« 115.1 115.« 115.6 116.0 116.9 117.4 123.0 123.4 123.9 124.5 118.4 118.6 119.3 1 2 0 . 0 126.3 126.6 126.9 127.5 136.1 136.2 138.8 140.8 118.C 118.4 118.8 119.4 118.C 118.5 118.8 119.5 117.3 117.3 118.0 118.6 114.7 113.7 113.9 113.8 119.« 117.6 117.9 117.6 107.« 107.9 107.9 108.C 103.C 105.E 105.6 1 0 2 .E 96.1 100.E 100.E 95.76.7 78.5 79.7 79.5 102.5 107.E 107.6 1 0 1 .122.5 1 2 2 .1 2 2 .E 1 2 2 .« 108." 108.6 109.1 109.104.5 104.« 104.5 104., 114.E 115.1 115.6 114.. 115.5 115.' 115." 115. . 1 1 0 .- 114.5 116. 3 May 118.3 111.5 118.2 107.3 105.2 113.7 103.2 110.4 117.1 110.7 116.7 106.9 105.0 115.5 117.5 118.0 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .1 117.6 107.1 104.9 112.9 103.2 109.7 117.1 107.2 105.4 114.8 103.0 109.9 1 1 0 .2 125.7 132.0 115.3 128.0 138.3 132.6 124.1 130.6 113.7 125.8 136.6 131.0 124.6 131.0 114.3 126.7 137.2 131.1 118.3 115.9 119.5 117.0 107.7 105.8 104.0 117.2 114.7 118.4 115.9 107.3 105.6 102.9 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .0 128.3 124.3 89.3 122.3 123.4 115.8 80.8 127.9 126.5 29.4 1988 113.6 107.7 113.5 104.0 Commodities less food and beverages...................................... 1 0 1 .1 108.9 99.5 108.2 1 2 0 .2 125.9 113.1 121.9 130.0 125.7 Special indexes: 113.6 1 1 1 .6 115.1 1 1 2 .6 104.3 1 0 1 .8 100.3 107.5 123.1 119.1 8 8 .6 117.2 118.2 All Items less food and energy .................................................. Commodities less food and energy............................................ June Apr. 1987 1 1 1 .8 80.2 1 2 2 .0 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 8 8 .0 Oct. 1 2 0 .2 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 120.5 113.5 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .6 113.9 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .6 1 2 2 .0 122.3 115.2 123.3 123.1 116.7 124.0 109.4 107.7 118.4 104.6 109.0 106.9 116.3 104.5 114.3 122.7 109.1 106.9 113.3 106.1 112.4 1 1 0 .1 1 1 2 .2 108.9 117.5 106.9 111.9 112.5 119.3 111.5 Nov. Dec. 120.3 113.5 108.5 107.1 116.2 104.9 113.5 120.3 109.2 107.8 119.3 104.5 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .2 108.9 106.4 113.3 105.3 112.5 126.7 133.1 117.0 128.8 139.6 132.8 127.3 133.4 117.4 129.3 140.1 134.9 127.6 133.8 116.6 130.6 140.8 135.5 127.8 134.1 115.6 131.6 141.5 135.7 128.1 134.3 116.2 132.1 141.9 136.2 128.9 134.8 117.0 133.0 143.5 137.3 129.4 135.4 116.9 133.9 145.1 137.8 130.0 136.3 116.9 134.3 145.9 138.2 130.2 136.3 117.2 134.5 146.4 138.8 118.9 116.5 120.3 117.8 107.7 105.9 105.5 112.4 129.4 125.3 92.3 119.7 117.5 1 2 0 .2 1 2 2 .0 122.9 119.9 123.7 1 2 1 .0 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .8 123.8 115.2 83.4 128.8 119.1 109.4 107.5 105.3 113.9 131.1 126.6 88.7 124.8 126.0 118.0 80.1 130.6 118.7 122.3 119.7 109.2 107.1 106.0 114.3 132.1 127.3 89.0 125.5 126.4 117.9 79.9 131.4 121.3 119.2 122.9 118.6 108.9 107.7 105.6 113.7 130.3 125.9 91.9 123.8 124.7 116.9 82.5 129.3 120.3 118.0 121.5 119.0 109.7 108.2 105.4 114.1 130.6 126.3 88.9 124.7 125.8 118.2 80.9 130.3 1 2 0 .8 117.9 121.5 118.9 109.5 108.3 105.2 114.2 130.5 126.2 89.9 124.4 125.5 118 0 81.0 129.9 120.4 118.1 123.0 115.4 81.4 127.4 118.4 116.1 119.8 117.2 107.4 105.4 104.8 111.9 128.9 124.7 91.4 122.3 123.3 115.2 81.9 128.0 109.5 107.6 106.8 114.9 132.7 127.8 89.3 126.0 126.9 118.1 80.6 132.0 110.5 109.4 107.6 116.2 133.0 128.3 89.8 126.7 127.6 119.0 81.7 132.7 85.1 28.4 84.7 28.3 84.4 28.2 84.0 28.0 83.5 27.9 83.2 27.8 83.1 27.7 83.0 27.7 82.6 27.6 82.3 27.5 81.8 27.3 115.7 344.7 116.2 346.1 116.7 347.6 117.2 349.1 117.7 350.7 118.5 353.0 118.9 354.2 119.0 354.6 119.2 355.0 119.7 356.7 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .8 358.0 360.0 362.9 116.3 116.2 114.2 119.9 111.4 106.9 125.2 116.8 116.7 114.7 120.4 117.4 117.3 115.5 118.5 118.5 116.9 122.4 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .2 114.5 107.0 125.5 112.3 113.1 111.4 107.3 116.9 121.4 118.4 116.3 107.3 128.4 113.0 113.9 112.5 107.4 118.1 120.3 120.4 118.8 126.7 115.8 1 2 2 .6 1 1 2 .0 119.9 119.9 118.4 126.0 116.1 110.4 129.1 114.8 115.7 117.0 108.4 119.9 123.5 119.5 121.7 121.9 1 2 2 .1 119.8 119.9 118.7 124.8 117.3 108.6 132.8 113.9 115.6 115.8 107.6 118.8 1 2 0 .0 1 2 0 .8 119.1 119.2 117.8 124.1 117.1 107.9 129.6 113.5 114.8 114.8 107.2 118.5 122.3 118.9 123.1 123.3 122.4 129.7 120.3 113.6 135.4 118.0 118.0 120.3 111.4 123.6 125.5 121.4 123.7 123.9 123.2 130.5 120.4 114.0 137.7 118.9 118.1 121.5 111.9 125.0 126.1 117.8 125.3 120.7 128.0 143.0 118.2 125.6 118.3 126.4 118.5 126.5 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .0 129.4 131.4 129.7 129.2 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .2 119.6 128.1 123.0 130.7 144.2 123.0 123.1 119.8 128.3 122.7 131.0 140.9 123.4 123.5 1 0 2 .0 1 2 2 .8 87.3 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .8 1 1 0 .8 1 2 2 .8 1 2 0 .1 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .6 1 1 1 .8 124.7 121.7 112.5 1 1 2 .8 111.7 118.4 133.4 128.5 94.9 127.1 128.0 119.6 91.2 132.9 81.2 27.1 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 : Nonalcoholic beverages..................................................... Other prepared foods......................................................... Food away from home ............................................................ 118.8 114.6 122.9 128.2 113.8 113.7 114.1 1 1 1 .2 114.7 106.C 102.7 97.1 77.« 103.« Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s .............................................. 1 2 0 .1 1 2 2 .2 114.1 108.1 127.6 113.0 113.9 113.0 107.7 117.8 1 2 1 .6 107.2 126.4 1 1 2 .2 112.4 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .0 107.9 116.4 107.7 116.8 120.9 118.0 1 2 0 .6 115.' 114. 1 2 2 .0 118.9 1 1 2 .- 1 2 2 .8 119.2 1 2 0 .1 118.7 125.7 116.6 109.7 131.4 114.7 115.9 117.0 108.3 119.7 123.2 119.5 119.0 114.2 118.C 108.2 105.8 128.7 136.1 120.9 120.9 119.1 114.4 117.7 109.1 106.1 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .8 76.5 108.C 122.E 109.1 104.E 115.1 116.« 75.S 108.5 123.C 109.« 105.1 115.6 116.« 118.2 126.0 120.4 129.0 135.1 121.3 121.4 119.3 114.1 117.0 109.2 105.1 98.3 74.6 105.6 124.7 109.5 105.116.1 116.6 112.5 117.5 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .2 1 1 1 .2 130.8 115.1 116.7 118.3 107.8 120.5 124.0 119.5 1 2 0 .8 128.0 118.3 112.4 134.3 116.5 117.3 119.5 109.8 121.7 124.6 119.8 1 2 2 .1 1 2 2 .2 119.2 114.6 117.6 109.7 104.1 96.6 75.C 103.E 124.« 110.5 105.« 116.5 116.- 119.6 115.2 117.6 104.6 97.5 76.' 103.5 125.« 110.5 105.117.116.: 119.0 126.9 120.7 130.1 131.8 122.5 122.5 119.9 115.6 118.C 110.9 105.7 98.80.« 104.6 126.5 1 1 0 .105.£ 117.5 116.5 119.E 117.« 114.! 110.6 121.7 129.0 118.0 113.3 136.8 117.7 117.8 120.4 111.4 1 2 2 .8 125.1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .0 119.3 127.4 121.5 130.4 135.2 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .1 105.7 98.C 81.C 104.« 126.« 1 1 0 .105.118.1 117.« 105.7 98.5 81.5 104.« 126.5 1 1 0 .C 104.E 118.5 117.1 105.9 98.5 82.1 104.8 126.5 114." 118.- 1 2 0 .0 1 2 2 .8 1 2 2 .8 1 2 0 .0 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .2 116.7 119.5 116.7 119.2 116.7 119.3 1 1 0 .1 104.3 1 2 0 .0 117.2 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: % £ & itjs s s z 2 % Price Data ,or urban wa9e Earners and ciericai w° rkers: u s - ««y (1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) Annual average Series 1987 Apparel commodities............... Men’s and boys’ apparel....... Women’s and girls’ apparel ... Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel. Footwear................................. Other apparel commodities.... Apparel services....................... 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...................................... 8 1988 Apr. May June 113. 4 114. 9 114. 3 112. 6 113. .... .... 114.C 113. 80.£ 115.' 116.£ 79.* 116.C 116.S 81.* 98.6 131.7 97.S 128.3 98.6 129.7 143.3 119.7 115.1 127.2 136.5 146.0 119.3 118.0 120.5 147.4 147.1 147.7 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............. .. .. 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.................................................................................... . . 127.8 133.7 115.0 113.9 116.1 138.2 137.9 138.4 117.0 103.6 1 0 0 .8 108.8 99.2 106 6 106.6 119.4 114.0 104.0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .5 5 109. 5 B 118. 3 109. 3 108. 7 113. 115. 122. 122. I 110. 110.4 109. 109.5 118. 118 8 118.. 1189 119.6 1 2 0 1 81.£ 80.4 81.5 80.4 121.5 121.5 130.C 130 4 99 9 99.C 136.5 137.1 124.3 125.4 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.5 >.4 .4 .5 .2 111. 111. 110. .1 110, 119., 119.« 120.* 80.£ 80.£ 123.C 132.2 100.7 139.2 126.5 119. 119.* 1 2 0 .C 81.£ 81.* 123.£ 132.5 99.5 139.5 126.S 114.5 113.7 118.9 119.2 120.5 92.3 92.3 123.9 132.7 100.4 139.8 127.1 141.7 142.1 141.6 139.5 147.8 142.2 142.2 142.2 140.6 148.9 142.8 143.1 142.7 141 0 150.0 .2 .9 .2 .4 .9 145.6 144.7 145.8 143.7 154.2 146.5 146.0 146.7 144.7 154.8 147.2 147.4 147.2 145.1 155.6 121.7 117.3 129.0 122 2 117 6 129.7 1 1 3 123.6 118.4 131.9 124.1 118.7 132.7 124.8 119.1 133.8 0 9 7 7 143.7 158.2 123.0 121.9 124.2 153.7 153.9 154.0 144.0 158.9 123.5 122.3 124.6 153.9 154.0 154.1 144.4 159.2 123.9 122.7 125.2 154.3 154.1 154.6 120. 6 116. 3 117. 3 124. 7 141.2 141.5 119.4 114.9 126.8 119.8 115.4 127.2 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .2 115.5 127.6 116.0 128.1 116.5 128.9 134.2 143.1 118.1 117.0 119.3 144.7 145.4 144.9 134.5 143.4 118.5 117.1 119.9 145.2 145.4 145.4 135.0 143.8 118.8 117.4 137.2 148.9 119.0 117.4 120.7 147.4 146.0 147.8 139.3 149.2 120.3 118.8 121.9 151.1 150.0 151.5 139.9 149.5 120.9 119.9 145.8 145.6 146.0 136.3 147.9 119.1 117.8 120.4 146.0 145.6 146.3 115.7 116.2 110.5 116.8 106.7 104.8 114.3 116.7 110.7 117.4 106.5 104.3 117.2 117.7 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .6 118.5 106.6 104.3 1 1 2 .6 1 1 0 .6 103.7 108.8 119.1 107.0 104.9 110.5 104.7 108.8 118.5 112.5 119.8 108.1 106.6 115.8 104.7 109.1 125.7 120.3 107.6 127.8 140.3 131.6 126.3 120.7 108.0 128.4 140.8 133.6 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .1 117.9 106.8 104.6 113.4 102.9 108.9 116.3 106.3 104.3 114.9 1 2 0 .2 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .8 108.1 108.4 108.7 1 2 0 .2 89.0 29 9 29.9 112. 8 116. 7 113.4 115. 1 110. 7 118. 3 121. B 1 2 1 .7 113. 114. 119. 3 118. 5 126. 127. 7 119.0 114.6 126.3 8 8 .6 80.3 3.0 4.4 1.3 8.5 2.8 7.8 3.4 140.1 8 8 .0 1 2 1 .2 116.0 116.5 116.2 120.3 114.0 117.8 125.8 118.9 114.2 126.5 118.2 116.0 116.8 118. 1 117.5 119. 9 120. 115. 3 118. 2 125. 138.0 116.8 115.4 110.7 116.0 107.0 105.1 104.5 1 1 0 .8 118. 9 116. 9 1 2 1 .5 140.3 140.0 140.3 138.5 145.4 116.5 115.0 107.2 Feb. 139.6 139.4 139.6 138.5 143.8 116.0 114.4 109.7 115.0 107.0 105.4 103.4 1 1 0 .8 1. 138.5 138.3 138.5 116.7 115.2 110.4 115.8 107.2 105.3 103.7 111.5 115.6 123.3 1 0 0 .0 Dec. 125.4 97.S 131.3 123.0 125.1 119.6 107.4 127.1 139.6 130.8 106.4 111.5 103.9 101.4 115. 8 114. 4 117. 6 121. 5 1 1 2 .7 116. 2 123. Nov. 98.6 130.6 122.3 124.5 119.0 107.2 126.6 138.5 130.5 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .5 111. 0 109. 5 120. 4 108. 0 114. 9 123. Oct. 109. 109. 109. 108.6 108.6 109. 115., 115.: I 116. 116.C 116.* 117.. 119.6 119.2 119.6 84.C 83.1 81.6 84. 83.2 81. 120.5 121 .C 1 2 1 .C 126.5 127.2 128.5 98.6 99.C 98.5 132.5 133.2 135.5 123.0 123.1 123.5 123.6 118.5 104.9 125.8 137.7 130.0 1 1 1 .0 Sept 108.1 107. 115.6 116.2 117.6 82.£ 82.£ 123.1 118.2 104.4 124.8 137.1 129.8 130.3 124.7 1989 Aug. 108. 107., 115.f 116.2 117.J 81.* 81. 124.7 119.4 105.9 127.1 139.0 131.4 1 2 0 .8 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 (1 2/8 4=1 0 0 )........ 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............................................. Digitized 80 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July 1 2 0 .1 Entertainment....................... Entertainment commodities Entertainment services...... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-84 = 51.00 ................................................................ 1967=$1.00.................................................................. 3 114. 3 i i 6 .e 117.£ 80.£ Medical care............................... Medical care commodities....... Medical care services.............. Professional services ............ Hospital and related services Services........................................................................... Rent of shelter (12/8 4=1 0 0 )....................................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/84=100). Transportation services................................................. Medical care services................................................... Other services ................................ 1988 1 2 1 .0 115.5 113.9 109.2 114.6 106.6 104.9 102.5 110.5 113.9 121.7 86.7 119.9 121.9 114.7 80.9 127.0 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .1 114.3 79.7 125.6 114.4 81.5 126.0 85.5 28.7 86.4 29.0 28.9 1 1 0 .2 115.6 106.9 105.0 103.6 117.3 115.9 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .6 114.4 115.7 123.1 90.3 120.5 121.4 114.3 81.4 126.5 116.1 123.6 90.7 1 2 1 .0 116.6 107.3 105.6 105.3 112.3 116.6 124.3 91.8 121.5 121.7 114.2 82.1 127.1 114.3 83.8 127.8 85.7 28.8 85.3 28.6 84.9 28.5 1 2 2 .2 8 8 .1 8 6 .1 _ _ 1 2 2 .2 140.8 141.0 140.8 139.C 146.3 140.3 149.9 121.7 122.7 152.0 150.9 152.3 140.6 150 2 122.3 121.5 123 0 152 3 151 1 152.7 119.0 113.1 119.9 108.9 107.1 118.1 104.3 110.4 119.2 113 0 120 3 108 6 106 3 116 0 104 1 110.7 126.9 121.4 106.2 130.9 142.2 134.5 127 2 121 5 106 8 131.2 142 7 135.0 118.1 118.6 118.8 116.8 117.2 117.3 111.9 1 1 2 . 2 112.3 117.3 117.7 117.8 108.4 109.0 109.2 107.2 107.8 107.6 105.3 104.9 105.1 113.4 113.8 113.7 117.3 117.6 117.6 124.9 125.2 125.3 91.3 89.3 88.4 122.4 123.1 123.4 123.1 124.0 124.3 115.8 116.9 117.1 82.7 81.2 81.2 128.4 129.1 129.5 118 8 117 4 112.4 117 9 108 9 106 9 104 9 1135 118 1 125.6 84.4 28.3 1 2 2 .0 151.7 150.8 152.0 118.9 113.0 1 2 0 .0 108.7 107.2 118.9 104.1 109.7 126.7 1 2 1 .1 107.2 129.9 141.6 134.2 84.1 28.2 1 2 0 .6 84.0 28.2 6 3 0 7 119.7 7 113.55 121.7 7 108.44 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 88.3 88 1 123 6 124.4 117.0 80 3 129.8 83 9 28.2 1 1 1 1 120.2 113.9 122.4 108.7 106.3 Mar. Apr. 118.4 116.4 120.2 126.7 115.2 119.6 128.1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .8 116.4 123.7 105.6 114.7 123.1 109.5 108.1 116.7 106.5 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .6 110.5 128.4 122.4 107.4 133.1 145.8 136.5 128.9 123.1 107.4 133.5 146.7 137.0 129.1 123.2 107.6 133.7 147.2 137.6 1 2 0 .2 121.3 120.4 115.2 120.5 1 1 2 .8 119.6 118.5 113.4 118.9 109.0 107.0 106.4 114.6 119.5 126.7 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .1 118.4 1 1 1 .6 124.7 125.3 117.1 80.6 131.1 119.1 114.1 119.5 109.9 108.7 107.2 115.8 119.8 127.2 89.2 125.3 125.9 117.9 81.7 131.6 127.4 94.8 125.8 126.3 118.4 91.6 131.9 83.2 27.9 82.8 27.8 82.1 27.6 8 8 .6 1 1 2 .1 112.4 111.7 118.1 1 2 0 .1 31. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Urban Wage Earners All Urban Consumers Area1 Pricing sche dule2 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr Apr. May Dec Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr 120.5 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .6 122.3 123.1 115.7 116.2 119.2 119.7 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .8 120.7 124.5 125.4 125.8 126.7 127.4 119.2 119.5 123.3 124.1 124.5 125.4 126.2 1 2 1 .6 125.3 126.1 126.5 127.4 128.0 119.3 119.5 123.2 124.0 124.3 125.2 125.9 122.7 123.9 124.9 Apr. May Dec M 117.1 117.5 M 120.4 M 121.3 R e g io n a n d a r e a s iz e 3 Size A - More than 1 POO 000 ............................. Size B - 500,000 to 1 POO 000 ..................................... Size C - 50,000 to 500 000 .............................. Size A - More than 1 POO 000 ...................................... Size B - 360,000 to 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 ............................. Size C - 50,000 to 360 000 ............................... Size D - Nonmetro politan (less Size A - More than 1 POO 000 ............................ Size B - 450,000 to 1 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ............................. Size C - 50,000 to 450 000 ................................ Size D - Nonmetro politan (less Size A - More than 1 P50 000 .......................... Size B - 330,000 to 1 250 000 ............................. Size C - 50,000 to 330 000 .............................. Size classes: A —100) .................... B ...................................... c ................................. D .................................... 1989 1988 1989 M 118.2 118.9 1 2 2 .2 123.1 123.9 125.1 126.1 117.0 117.7 1 2 1 .0 121.9 M M 118.2 114.9 118.7 115.5 123.3 118.2 124.4 118.7 124.3 119.3 125.5 119.8 126.2 120.7 113.0 1 2 1 .2 1 2 0 .8 113.6 125.7 116.3 126.8 116.8 126.7 117.3 127.8 117.9 128.6 118.9 M 115.7 116.0 119.2 119.8 120.4 1 2 1 .1 121.9 113.1 113.5 116.6 117.1 117.7 118.4 119.2 M 115.0 115.7 118.2 118.3 118.6 119.2 1 2 0 .6 1 1 2 .6 113.4 115.8 116.0 116.2 116.8 118.2 1 2 1 .2 114.0 114.9 117.1 117.7 118.4 118.7 1 2 0 .1 116.3 116.1 118.2 118.8 119.5 119.9 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .2 115.4 115.6 114.0 118.5 114.5 118.9 115.1 119.2 115.5 119.8 1 2 0 .8 111.3 114.7 111.9 114.9 113.8 118.0 114.3 118.3 114.8 118.7 115.1 119.1 116.1 120.3 116.0 116.7 119.2 119.7 1 2 0 .1 120.5 121.4 115.1 115.7 118.4 118.8 119.3 119.6 1 2 0 .6 114.0 117.8 117.9 118.2 118.8 1 2 0 .1 M 115.2 M M M M 116.3 116.2 119.7 119.9 120.3 1 2 1 .0 1 2 2 .2 114.1 M 114.5 114.6 117.6 117.8 118.0 118.5 119.4 114.9 115.0 118.1 118.4 118.6 119.0 1 2 0 .0 M M 113.6 117.9 113.7 118.5 116.3 120.9 116.9 121.7 117.4 122.3 118.0 123.1 119.4 123.8 114.2 116.6 114.4 117.2 117.0 119.6 117.7 120.3 118.1 120.9 118.7 121.7 1 2 0 .2 124.7 125.3 116.6 117.4 119.7 120.5 1 2 1 .0 121.9 122.7 M 119.2 M 1 2 2 .6 1 2 0 .1 122.5 123.3 123.7 - 119.3 - - - - - - 119.4 - - - - 120.5 120.7 1 2 2 .1 116.2 115.9 118.4 119.3 119.9 1 2 0 .1 121.5 106.6 115.3 116.4 114.6 109.3 118.5 119.4 117.1 109.9 118.8 1 1 1 .0 111.7 117.8 110.3 119.3 120.4 118.3 M 116.8 116.5 119.0 M M M M 106.3 116.4 115.8 114.1 106.7 116.7 116.1 114.3 109.4 119.8 119.1 116.8 M 117.1 117.0 119.8 1 1 0 .0 110.5 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .8 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .6 119.6 117.5 1 2 0 .0 118.0 121.5 120.5 118.4 119.6 106.1 114.9 116.1 114.3 121.3 121.5 1 2 2 .2 123.0 123.6 113.3 113.3 117.7 117.9 125.5 126.2 127.2 118.0 118.9 1 2 1 .1 121.4 128.9 126.0 129.5 126.7 1 2 0 .6 120.7 119.8 1 2 0 .8 124.1 125.2 121.5 1 2 1 .6 1 2 0 .0 1 2 1 .2 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .0 118.7 119.9 118.4 119.1 119.8 122.3 122.9 124.0 125.1 125.5 125.5 125.4 126.8 125.8 127.5 126.7 1 2 2 .8 122.9 124.6 124.8 120.9 128.9 113.8 118.8 118.0 123.7 _ 122.3 129.7 116.2 118.7 119.1 125.6 1 2 0 .0 S e le c t e d lo c a l a r e a s Chicago, ILLos Angeles-Long M 1 2 1 .1 1 2 2 .0 124.2 124.6 M M 1 2 2 .6 1 2 0 .0 122.7 120.9 126.0 125.6 127.0 125.7 127.6 125.4 M 118.7 119.7 1 2 2 .6 124.0 124.0 125.9 125.4 117.8 118.7 121.3 129.0 118.9 _ 1 2 2 .8 _ - - - 1 2 0 .0 - 129.7 121.5 119.8 119.4 126.1 “ 117.4 123.1 111.7 115.1 113.7 119.3 New York, NY- San Francisco- 1 1 1 1 1 Washington, DC-MD-VA ....... _ _ _ 2 2 2 117.8 123.1 116.6 116.2 114.1 1 2 0 .1 1 2 Pittsburgh, P A ....................... _ 115.4 114.4 108.2 114.5 _ _ - _ - - 117.2 118.3 111.3 116.7 118.4 124.3 117.5 - 1 Area is the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), ex clusive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by the Office of Management and Budget in 1983, except for BostonLawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwau kee, Wl Area (includes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not in clude revisions made since 1983. 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. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 1 2 0 .1 - 112.7 117.9 - - 118.7 121.7 113.2 119.2 _ _ - 114.8 111.9 108.1 - 117.0 115.7 111.4 1 1 0 .1 - 1 1 2 .2 - _ - 117.2 117.3 112.9 113.4 - _ - 118.6 119.0 113.5 114.7 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. - 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 in dex, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substan tially more sampling and other measurement error than the national in dex. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the na tional index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use In escalator clauses. 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups (1982-84 = 100) Series 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: 82.4 13.5 90.9 10.3 96.5 6 .2 99.6 3.2 103.9 4.3 107.6 3.6 109.6 1.9 113.6 3.6 118.3 4.1 86.7 8.5 93.5 7.8 97.3 4.1 99.5 2.3 103.2 3.7 105.6 2.3 109.1 3.3 113.5 4.0 118.2 4.1 81.1 15.7 90.4 11.5 96.9 7.2 99.5 2.7 103.6 4.1 107.7 4.0 110.9 3.0 114.2 3.0 118.5 38 90.9 7.1 95.3 4.8 97.8 1 0 0 .2 1 0 2 .1 105.0 2.5 1.9 2 .8 105.9 .9 1 1 0 .6 2 .6 4.4 115.4 4.3 83.1 17.9 93.2 97.0 4.1 99.3 2.4 103.7 4.4 106.4 102.3 -3.9 105.4 3.0 108.7 3.1 74.9 82.9 10.7 92.5 1 0 0 .6 106.8 130.1 1 1 .6 8 .8 6 .2 113.5 6.3 1 2 2 .0 1 1 .0 7.5 6 6 138 6 6 5 83.6 9.0 90.1 7.8 96.0 6.5 1 0 0 .1 103.8 3.7 107.9 3.9 1 1 1 .6 75.2 9.1 82.6 9.8 91.1 10.3 1 0 1 .1 107.9 6.7 114.5 121.4 1 1 .0 82.9 13.4 91.4 10.3 96.9 99.8 3.0 103.3 3.5 106.9 3.5 Food and beverages: Housing: Apparel and upkeep: Transportation: 1 2 .2 2 .6 Medical care: Entertainment: 4.3 3.4 115.3 33 120.3 4.3 128.5 5.8 137 0 112.5 3.6 117.0 4.0 Other goods and services: 6 .1 6 .0 6 6 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: All items: Digitized for 82 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 .0 108.6 1 .6 33. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982-100) 1987 105.4 103.6 109.5 Finished consumer goods excluding Materials and components for C r u d e m a t e r ia ls f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s in g ... S p e c ia l g r o u p in g s Finished consumer goods less energy....... Finished goods less food and energy ........ Finished consumer goods less food and Consumer nondurable goods less food and Intermediate materials less foods and Intermediate materials less foods and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 108.0 106.2 107.5 105.7 1 1 2 .6 1 1 1 .2 June 107.7 105.9 112.3 July 108.6 107.0 113.6 Aug. 108.7 107.1 113.6 Oct. Nov. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 108.6 107.0 115.1 109.4 107.6 114.6 109.8 108.0 114.9 1 1 0 .0 1 1 1 .0 111.7 1 1 2 .2 113.0 108.2 115.1 116.5 117.3 104.6 98.4 116.1 116.1 104.8 105.8 106.6 106.9 116.1 116.4 116.6 116.7 116.8 Sept. Dec. 1 1 1 .8 117.8 108.9 100.7 94.9 111.5 111.7 103.1 97.3 113.8 114.3 103.0 97.4 113.1 113.8 1 0 2 .8 97.1 113.2 113.9 103.8 98.3 113.6 114.2 103.9 98.4 113.8 114.5 103.0 97.6 114.3 101.5 107.1 106.3 107.4 108.2 108.4 108.7 108.6 108.9 109.4 110.5 110.9 1 1 1 .6 112.3 105.3 113.2 106.0 112.9 118.7 112.3 112.3 104.0 111.7 117.7 111.9 112.9 106.9 114.0 109.9 113.8 119.3 112.4 114.3 108.9 114.5 119.7 115.5 108.3 116.0 116.2 107.7 116.8 123.2 113.8 116.8 108.6 11 7.5 124.3 114.1 117.8 118.2 118.9 118.9 118.9 125.3 114.9 119.7 125.3 115.2 119.9 126.9 115.6 1 2 0 .6 1 1 2 .8 114.9 109.5 115.2 120.3 113.2 109.8 73.3 114.5 107.7 116.1 71.2 115.4 71.5 119.5 112.3 115.8 73.9 116.5 73.6 120.5 115.2 116.7 73.5 121.3 115.1 117.1 72.6 122.3 115.6 117.5 69.7 122.4 116.0 118.1 69.0 118.7 69.8 122.7 119.3 119.8 120.4 1 2 1 .0 123.0 124.1 124.5 93.7 96.2 87.9 96.0 106.1 85.5 97.2 104.7 97.3 94.5 108.0 82.0 97.3 109.5 85.4 1 0 1 .0 112.4 89.5 1 1 1 .0 103.1 113.7 104.1 111.4 83.0 95.9 111.9 81.9 1 0 1 .0 1 1 2 .0 85.1 96.9 110.4 84.4 96.7 1 1 0 .1 8 8 .2 97.9 108.6 87.0 104.0 61.8 112.3 112.5 113.3 106.5 59.8 115.8 116.3 117.0 106.2 61.6 114.8 115.2 116.2 106.1 60.3 115.3 115.8 116.4 106.9 61.3 116.2 116.9 117.1 107.1 61.1 116.4 117.0 117.4 106.4 58.8 116.7 117.5 117.2 107.7 58.7 117.7 118.3 118.8 108.1 60.0 117.8 118.5 118.9 108.3 59.2 118.2 118.9 119.4 109.1 60.9 119.1 119.9 109.8 61.9 1 1 0 .1 111.4 1 2 0 .0 1 2 0 .6 120.9 120.9 114.2 118.5 117.6 117.9 118.8 119.1 118.9 120.5 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .6 1 2 2 .8 1 2 2 .8 127.2 127.5 111.5 112.3 1 0 0 .8 Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable manufacturing....... May 104.1 97.7 116.4 116.0 I n t e r m e d i a t e m a t e r ia ls , s u p p lie s , a n d Materials and components for 1988 196 9 1988 Annual average G r o u p in g 1 0 2 .2 106.2 108.8 1 2 0 .1 113.7 1 1 2 .2 118.5 1 1 2 .1 1 2 0 .0 113.8 1 1 2 .8 1 2 1 .8 113.5 1 2 2 .6 117.6 125.7 115.8 116.2 62.1 1 2 0 .6 116.3 1 2 2 .0 120.9 121.3 122.7 123.0 123.3 123.6 123.9 125.0 125.8 126.9 101.7 99.2 73.0 107.3 106.9 109.5 70.9 114.6 106.4 104.8 71.2 113.6 107.2 108.1 114.5 73.1 115.7 108.3 115.5 72.3 116.3 108.3 114.7 69.4 116.8 108.7 109.2 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .8 73.5 114.4 107.8 116.6 73.3 115.5 68.7 117.3 69.5 117.8 71.2 118.7 71.6 119.1 107.8 115.2 114.4 114.9 115.7 116.1 116.7 117.3 118.0 118.6 119.4 119.9 120.5 120.7 75.0 100.9 115.7 71.4 62.9 114.7 135.6 116.1 136.9 71.2 118.5 137.7 77.0 131.3 63.3 117.0 133.4 73.2 116.0 133.9 64.7 117.1 133.4 72.0 133.0 67.3 115.5 132.9 6 6 .6 1 1 1 .1 70.0 114.0 131.2 6 6 .1 1 1 2 .6 67.7 1 1 1 .8 138.5 j _______ 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 34. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data Producer Price indexes, by durability of product (1982 = 100) Annual average 1988 1989 G r o u p in g 1987 1988 May June July Aug. Total durable goods.................................... Total nondurable goods............................... 109.9 97.5 114.7 114.1 114.4 114.8 115.1 1 0 1 .1 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 Total manufactures...................................... Durable...................................................... Nondurable ............................................... 104.4 109.6 99.2 109.1 114.1 104.1 108.6 113.5 103.7 109.0 113.7 104.3 109.8 114.1 105.4 Total raw or slightly processed goods ....... Durable...................................................... Nondurable ................................................ 94.2 1 2 2 .6 95.9 148.0 93.4 95.6 143.1 93.3 97.5 144.2 95.3 97.8 149.3 95.3 97.2 150.6 94.7 92.9 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 115.2 102.7 116.4 116 8 117.2 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .8 117.9 104.6 118.2 105.2 118.7 106.1 118.6 107.4 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .1 116.0 106.1 111.4 116.4 106.4 112.3 117.0 107.6 1 1 2 .8 114.5 105.6 110.5 115.6 105.4 1 1 1 .0 114.4 105.6 117.3 108.3 113.5 117.8 109.2 114.4 117.7 110.9 97.5 149.5 95.0 96.5 150.1 93.9 94.8 154.8 92.0 96.7 157.5 93.9 99.8 158.4 97.0 1 0 0 .1 1 0 1 .0 159.0 97.3 161.7 98.1 101.3 158.3 98.6 35. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982 = 100) In d e x 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 104.7 103.8 107.5 103.2 101.4 109.7 105 4 103.6 111.7 F in is h e d g o o d s : Total .................................................................... Consumer goods ............................................. Capital equipment .......................................... 77.6 77.5 77.5 96.1 96.6 94.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 101.3 85.8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 103.7 103.3 105.2 8 8 .0 8 8 .6 In t e r m e d i a t e m a te r ia ls , s u p p lie s , a n d c o m p o n e n ts : Total.................................................................... Materials and components for manufacturing................................................. Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lubricants....................... Containers ....................................................... Supplies........................................................... 78.4 90.3 98.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 103.1 102.7 99.1 101.5 80.9 84.2 61.6 79.4 80.2 91.7 91.3 85.0 89.1 89.9 98.7 97.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .2 104.1 105.6 95.7 105.9 104.1 103.3 107.3 92.8 109.0 104.4 1 0 2 .2 105 3 108 1 72.7 110.3 105.6 73 3 114.5 107.7 85.9 95.3 104.6 84.6 69.4 103.5 104.7 95.8 94.8 96.9 102.7 87.7 93 2 81.6 92.2 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 96.7 96.9 1 0 0 .0 95.4 100.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 103.0 103.9 1 0 0 .0 101.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 84.8 1 0 0 .0 100.7 105.1 C r u d e m a t e r ia ls f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s in g : Total .................................................................... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ............................... Nonfood materials except fuel ....................... Fuel ................................................................. Digitized 84 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 0 0 .0 69.6 57.3 1 0 2 .2 105.1 93 7 87.9 84.1 36. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (1985=100, unless otherwise indicated) C a te g o r y Sept. 97.9 A L L C O M M O D IT IE S Coal and coke .......................................... Crude petroleum and petroleum products F a t s a n d o i l s .................................... Animal oils and fats .............. Fixed vegetable oils and fats . C h e m ic a ls a n d r e la t e d p r o d u c t s ........................................... Organic chemicals........................................................ Dyeing, tanning, and coloring materials...................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (12/85 = 100) Essential oils, polish and cleaning preparations.......... Fertilizers, manufactured.............................................. Artificial resins, plastics and cellulose......................... Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................ In t e r m e d i a t e m a n u f a c t u r e d p r o d u c t s ..................... Leather and furskins ..................................................... Rubber manufactures ......................................... Paper and paperboard products ........................ Textiles................................................................. Non-metallic mineral manufactures (9/85=100) Iron and steel...................................................... Nonferrous metals............................................... Metal manufactures, n.e.s.................................... c o m m e r c ia l a i r c r a f t ............................................................................................. M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t i c l e s ............................................................... 109.5 111.9 1 1 1 .6 113.2 103.4 131.0 145.0 87.2 104.3 158.1 114.2 130.3 174.0 1 0 2 .8 118.7 137.0 175.9 108.5 109.9 161.0 105.2 117.1 132.9 169.1 108.0 108.8 154.1 106.8 111.7 1 1 1 .8 105.7 131.9 90.4 99.9 114.5 149.6 118.7 147.7 95.1 1 0 1 .0 1 0 2 .8 116.2 149.9 112.4 94.0 107.0 141.7 153.0 116.5 91.6 117.4 130.0 171.4 115.6 104.5 150.2 171.2 107.5 92.8 131.8 139.9 166.8 143.0 106.1 149.6 179.5 109.9 94.2 146.0 140.8 156.7 154.7 109.1 150.0 181.7 94.8 145.0 135.8 136.8 135.7 109.9 148.6 182.1 103.6 94.8 150.4 142.4 146.5 139.3 1 1 1 .2 125.2 157.1 109.6 105.3 146.0 160.4 81.3 92.6 “ 82.8 “ 84.6 91.0 “ 79.3 90.6 90.8 82.1 92.0 97.2 79.5 92.9 89.2 79.4 93.4 88.4 81.7 93.7 94.3 79.9 64.6 81.1 67.3 86.7 71.9 86.7 71.2 88.7 75.4 101.3 85.7 1 0 1 .6 104.3 99.1 95.7 87.1 8 8 .2 95.2 92.4 101.4 99.6 101.9 103.6 106.7 118.4 104.2 101.4 105.7 91.6 111.9 97.7 107.7 116.1 105.5 112.9 123.5 108.5 105.4 108.4 117.9 135.1 109.1 109.3 1 2 1 .6 124.9 153.3 111.5 105.9 106.5 124.8 98.2 1 1 0 .6 125.5 150.8 113.0 107.5 122.4 119.9 132.5 105.4 125.5 149.6 115.5 108.9 124.9 119.4 125.8 108.4 110.3 128.7 103.9 1 1 1 .2 77.8 92.0 " 4 41 42 62.2 60.2 95.7 91.6 144.2 97.8 94.4 98.8 89.9 1 2 1 .2 125.8 71.0 112.4 123.8 1 0 1 .6 8 8 .2 86.7 118.8 131.1 67.8 1 0 1 .1 1 0 2 .2 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .0 104.5 85.1 98.2 97.6 104.2 77.4 99.5 97.3 105.5 85.6 104.8 97.5 104.2 107.8 100.9 106.4 123.6 1 1 0 .8 68 103.8 104.2 100.5 109.1 101.9 104.7 102.3 105.3 69 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 114.7 103.3 106.8 102.9 106.6 101.5 107.9 126.9 102.5 117.0 103.7 108.7 102.9 113.0 101.3 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .1 103.7 101.7 104.6 1 0 1 .8 102.5 100.4 103.0 102.5 98.8 99.7 99.7 101.9 103.7 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .1 104.2 103.3 98.2 101.3 100.3 103.3 105.8 104.2 96.0 101.9 101.7 103.1 106.7 104.5 96.1 101.4 103.5 104.8 100.5 107.8 104.6 95.7 101.4 102.5 103.8 79 1 0 2 .8 103.5 104.5 105.5 103.4 - 103.8 - 104.6 - 87 103.0 103.5 88 102.4 6 61 62 64 65 66 67 8 Furniture and parts.............................................................................. Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus...... ................................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and clocks............................................................................................... 82 Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s. 89 - 95.2 1 1 2 .1 107.3 100.9 116.4 97.1 1 1 1 .6 91.6 125.9 82.5 89.8 1 0 0 .0 1 2 2 .8 140.9 79.8 97.5 134.6 102.3 1 1 1 .2 93.7 144.6 1 1 0 .1 106.3 113.6 1 0 0 .8 1 2 0 .2 1 0 2 .0 110.3 157.0 104.9 117.2 117.6 1 1 0 .6 156.8 192.2 107.0 98.9 162.8 92.0 109.8 137.5 101.7 116.4 138.2 104.1 114.4 125.7 105.2 126.2 106.5 113.4 106.1 134.0 104.5 117.7 125.1 108.8 129.0 107.9 114.1 1 2 0 .6 1 2 2 .6 125.0 110.4 131.1 1 1 1 .6 118.3 112.9 132.7 113.9 116.8 1 2 0 .2 1 1 2 .1 143.5 107.6 119.6 128.6 109.4 130.2 108.6 115.6 111.4 149.1 109.9 116.0 151.4 102.4 105.2 100.9 108.2 105.4 95.5 101.9 103.2 107.0 104.0 108.4 103.6 104.8 108.5 104.7 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .0 1 0 1 .8 104.6 103.1 104.5 108.1 95.7 104.6 103.4 104.9 109.3 96.8 104.1 105.3 105.4 105.8 109.3 106.0 114.4 110.3 96.4 105.1 105.7 106.8 107.2 115.8 112.4 95.5 107.1 106.2 107.2 105.8 106.6 107.4 109.6 109.7 111.9 113.5 105.2 - 105.4 - 105.6 - 106.9 - 108.1 - 108.9 - 110.5 1 1 1 .6 104.4 105.5 106.3 107.1 1 1 0 .0 1 1 1 .1 112.5 113.9 115.5 1 0 2 .1 102.7 102.5 99.0 97.9 97.6 1 0 0 .1 99.4 99.9 98.6 - - - - - - - - 1 0 1 .8 108.0 101.9 1 0 2 .6 M a c h in e r y a n d t r a n s p o r t e q u ip m e n t , e x c lu d in g m ilit a r y a n d Power generating machinery and equipment................................... Machinery specialized for particular industries.................................. Metalworking machinery.................................................................... General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s..................................... Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ........... Telecommunications, spund recording and reproducing equipment Electrical machinery and equipment................................................. Road vehicles and parts ...................................................... ............ Other transport equipment, excluding military and commercial aviation............................................................................................ 106.5 1 1 2 .0 77.4 93.5 - 1 0 1 .1 104.9 110.7 3 32 33 5 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 1 0 2 .8 1 1 0 .6 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 1 0 2 .2 109.6 109.8 102.4 115.9 95.2 98.9 107.9 129.4 90.9 96.8 96.8 21 Mar. 107.0 107.0 99.6 108.3 97.5 99.6 102.9 129.0 73.0 98.0 100.4 2 Raw hides and skins........... Oilseeds............................... Crude rubber....................... Wood.................................... Pulp and waste paper......... Textile fibers........................ Crude minerals.................... Metal ores and metal scrap Dec. 105.5 105.5 1 0 2 .6 C r u d e m a t e r i a l s .......................... Sept. 105.0 105.0 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 1 12 Mar. June 1 0 0 .6 1 0 2 .6 03 04 05 08 09 Dec. 123.1 100.3 97.3 97.0 8 6 .0 111.3 111.9 66.3 114.6 123.9 98.7 Sept. June 94.6 116.8 138.5 77.4 100.5 145.2 100.3 1 0 0 .1 01 F u e ls a n d r e la t e d p r o d u c t s ............................. 99.9 87.3 115.0 117.1 68.3 115.3 117.0 0 Meat and meat preparations.................... Fish and crustaceans ............................. Grain and grain preparations................... Vegetables and fruit................................. Animal feeds, excluding unmilled cereals Miscellaneous food products................... Tobacco and tobacco products. 99.0 Mar. 90.1 114.5 115.9 72.5 117.5 119.7 99.9 F o o d ............................................................................... B e v e r a g e s a n d t o b a c c o ................ Dec. 1989 1988 1987 1986 1974 SITO 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .1 1 2 0 .1 104.1 110.4 100.7 123.0 102.3 - 118.0 104.1 122.4 105.2 111.3 102.9 124.4 103.4 129.4 100.3 1 0 2 .1 109.3 106.7 95.8 1 0 2 .8 1 1 0 .8 - 150.0 110.9 1 1 2 .6 106.6 1 1 1 .8 “ - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 37. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (1985 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITO ALL COMMODITIES .............................................................. ALL COMMODITIES, EXCLUDING FUELS..................................... Food and live animals........................................................................ Meat and meat preparations........................................................... Dairy products and eggs ................................................................. Fish and crustaceans...................................................................... Bakery goods, pasta products, grain, and grain preparations....... Fruits and vegetables...................................................................... Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey............................................ Coffee, tea, cocoa........................................................................... 1987 1988 June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. 106.5 113.7 1 1 0 .0 112.5 116.5 110.9 117.5 1 2 0 .8 113.8 123.7 116.8 126.7 115.3 126.1 117.6 129.1 119.6 129.7 108.3 108.0 122.3 126.0 126.2 109.1 114.4 121.7 130.4 124.8 1 1 0 .0 114.0 107.0 125.0 129.3 139.8 120.3 109.6 87.0 125.9 136.9 123.7 109.0 85.1 114.1 111.5 125.6 132.5 135.8 115.4 109.6 94.3 112.7 1 1 0 .1 112.5 113.4 125.1 131.0 130.7 116.2 107.0 90.6 114.3 108.7 125.8 126.7 142.2 127.7 1 1 0 .0 1 1 2 .1 1 1 0 .8 93.3 87.4 90.6 124.0 126.9 139.9 124.0 109.8 91.2 113.5 116.2 116.0 118.7 116.2 115.3 118.9 116.2 119.9 117.0 120.7 1 2 2 .1 135.4 133.3 109.7 169.6 141.9 97.2 172.2 143.2 121.5 107.8 174.7 145.6 1 1 2 .1 02 105.2 105.0 119.3 03 04 05 06 07 122.3 101.9 107.4 89.9 1 107.8 1 1 2 .8 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .1 114.2 114.8 115.1 98.4 113.5 127.0 110.9 98.2 116.2 103.7 113.0 132.0 118.4 99.6 124.5 109.0 120.3 110.7 117.4 133.4 128.1 99.2 128.7 107.6 108.8 141.0 135.2 99.9 137.9 118.3 129.2 121.7 112.4 151.0 137.8 100.4 151.2 135.8 167.6 148.2 74.3 75.2 67.2 67.8 60.6 60.4 63.4 63.6 0 01 1 2 1 .8 Beverages and tobacco..................................................................... Beverages......................................................................................... 11 Crude materials................................................................................... Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed)........................... Cork and wood ................................................................................ Pulp and waste paper...................................................................... Textile fibers..................................................................................... Crude fertilizers and crude minerals................................................ Metalliferous ores and metal scrap.................................................. Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s.................................... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Fuels and related products............................................................... Crude petroleum and petroleum products........................................ 3 33 67.4 67.4 74.1 74.4 Fats and oils......................................................................................... Fixed vegetable oils and fats (9/87=100) ..................................... 4 42 82.9 ” 87.9 “ Chemicals and related products....................................................... Organic chemicals............................................................................ Inorganic chemicals.......................................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products.......................................... Essential oils and perfumes............................................................. Manufactured fertilizers..................................................................... Artificial resins and plastics and cellulose ....................................... Chemical materials and products, n.e.s............................................. 5 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 2 1 2 2 .8 1 0 2 .6 96.1 90.5 1 2 0 .1 117.6 92.9 1 1 0 .0 115.1 1 1 0 .2 104.8 99.8 89.8 123.4 117.8 94.6 114.7 117.7 96.4 1 0 0 .0 105.6 98.2 89.8 124.3 119.2 109.3 114.4 1 2 0 .1 112.5 117.3 1 1 0 .1 114.2 105.8 92.0 135.3 125.7 133.7 119.2 111.3 93.0 145.4 127.5 136.5 127.6 153.4 1 2 2 .2 138.7 116.4 107.3 92.3 140.3 126.2 136.3 124.3 148.5 115.1 96.1 146.4 130.5 139.9 129.5 156.5 123.6 117.7 93.1 155.2 130.3 143.5 129.6 154.3 124.4 131.8 106.0 133.8 117.2 132.2 137.0 107.7 138.2 118.3 1 2 0 .0 1 2 0 .6 137.4 142.5 127.2 159.7 126.9 132.3 136.6 109.1 136.1 119.5 119.1 139.7 129.9 158.9 127.5 127.3 1 2 0 .6 116.3 117.8 103.2 128.3 110.3 114.6 130.4 109.4 120.9 114.6 119.8 124.4 104.6 128.2 112.3 118.6 133.4 114.0 125.8 117.8 7 7hyb 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 117.5 119.9 - - - 130.4 126.4 127.9 136.1 128.1 130.8 114.0 110.3 115.8 120.5 134.3 130.2 130.1 114.8 142.1 135.5 137.0 118.3 1 2 0 .6 1 2 2 .6 118.5 116.2 119.0 98.2 111.9 119.0 1 2 1 .8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles................................................. Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures............................................. Furniture and parts............................................................................. Travel goods, handbags, and similar goods (6/85=100) ................ Clothing............................................................................................... Footwear............................................................................................. Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus......................................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and clocks............................................................................................. Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s........................................ - Data not available. Digitized for 86FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 66.7 67.2 112.3 117.4 Machinery and transport equipment ................................................ Machinery (including SITC 71-77) .................................................... Machinery specialized for particular industries................................. Metalworking machinery................................................................... General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s................................... Office machines and automatic data processing equipment........... Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus . Electrical machinery and equipment................................................. Road vehicles and parts.................................................................... 1 1 0 .0 56.4 56.1 114.0 119.2 1 1 2 .1 110.5 112.4 118.6 57.7 57.7 1 0 0 .2 116.1 103.0 90.1 126.3 123.0 133.6 117.6 124.8 119.9 205.4 139.5 1 1 1 .2 69 67 1 2 2 .0 184.5 151.5 103.2 204.3 150.7 1 1 1 .1 68 1 1 1 .8 1 0 1 .0 147.2 123.0 106.4 126.7 106.6 112.4 112.7 66 112.5 116.6 104.6 124,3 104.9 137.8 151.1 111.4 160.5 145.5 114.2 1 1 1 .2 1 0 2 .1 108.6 110.9 104.3 118.0 104.8 110.4 120.5 102.7 102.5 6 1 2 0 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 2 2 .2 105.7 Intermediate manufactured products................................................ 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.................................................................................... Nonferrous metals............................................................................. Metal manufactures........................................................................... 61 62 63 64 65 1989 Mar. 123.1 1 2 1 .6 1 2 0 .0 132.7 1 2 1 .1 125.4 135.0 134.9 1 1 1 .1 137.3 134.0 111.7 136.7 134.1 119.9 120.5 141.9 130.7 169.1 130.7 120.4 147.5 132.7 172.7 132.4 1 2 0 .6 126.7 _ 129.9 130.1 125.5 149.8 142.4 143.7 119.5 113.8 124.2 127.6 143.7 139.7 139.6 118.7 113.9 125.9 127.1 150.8 144.1 144.2 118.7 115.5 129.3 130.8 149.1 142.9 144.1 119.2 115.5 130.7 130.6 124.3 103.0 112.3 124.3 124.2 123.4 125.4 105.8 115.6 125.4 125.7 126.9 129.6 107.3 114.9 129.6 124.2 124.5 128.0 111.3 116.7 128.0 126.6 127.2 129.1 115.1 117.2 129.1 126.2 130.1 127.2 117.7 117.6 127.2 _ 146.8 139.9 140.4 118.1 1 1 0 .2 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .8 115.1 118.2 1 2 2 .2 _ 8 114.5 81 82 83 84 85 114.8 96.1 106.4 114.8 117.8 117.0 119.8 99.8 109.2 119.8 87 131.3 135.9 132.7 138.7 140.0 142.5 135.8 141.9 141.1 88 123.7 126.0 “ 1 2 2 .1 127.3 “ 129.2 129.3 - 125.4 - 130.6 130.3 89 1 1 1 .6 ~ 1 2 1 .0 38. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (1985 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) Category 87.4 Foods, feeds, and beverages ....................................................... Industrial supplies and materials.................................................... Capital goods.................................................................................. Automotive..................................................................................... Consumer goods............................................................................ Consumer nondurables, manufactured, except rugs.................. Consumer durables, manufactured............................................. Agricultural (9 /8 8 = 10 0 )............................................... ............... All exports, excluding agricultural (9 /88= 100).......................... Sept. June Mar. 1 0 0 .8 101.4 103.4 105.9 105.4 105.5 89.8 1989 1988 1987 91.5 106.1 8 8 .0 96.6 109.1 1 1 1 .8 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .8 1 0 2 .1 103.6 106.3 104.3 106.6 95.0 104.0 106.9 104.6 107.3 92.1 104.5 108.0 106.3 107.9 99.3 Sept. June Mar. Dec. 98.5 114.2 103.4 104.3 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .6 107.4 110.4 108.7 110.4 110.9 118.3 104.3 104.8 1 0 1 .1 Mar. Dec. 124.5 118.7 104.9 106.5 111.3 109.3 110.7 117.4 118.6 105.7 107.7 112.9 1 2 0 .6 114.0 1 2 0 .6 120.5 106.7 108.1 115.4 111.3 115.6 117.4 1 1 0 .0 1 1 2 .6 - Data not available. 39. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (1985=100) Category 118.7 116.5 114.2 1 2 2 .2 118.4 116.9 117.0 109.0 95.3 74.7 121.9 118.4 118.2 - - - 116.1 107.8 93.5 74.1 - 113.1 105.2 88.4 67.2 All imports, excluding petroleum (6 / 8 8 = 100)................................. Foods, feeds, and beverages ....................................................... Industrial supplies and materials................................................... Petroleum and petroleum products, excluding natural g a s....... Industrial supplies and materials, excluding petroleum.............. Capital goods, except automotive ................................................. Automotive vehicles, parts and engines....................................... Consumer goods except automotive............................................. Nondurables, manufactured........................................................ Durables, manufactured .............................................................. Sept. June Mar. - 1989 1988 1987 Sept. June Mar. Dec. Mar. Dec. 125.4 112.7 95.2 57.5 126.2 113.7 97.8 63.5 121.4 131.0 125.8 126.3 129.0 126.0 125.0 132.3 129.2 127.4 “ “ ” ” ” 1 1 2 .1 93.7 67.6 126.6 1 2 0 .6 “ “ ” 128.8 113.9 101.9 67.1 “ 132.3 129.1 128.5 128.3 114.2 96.4 56.2 123.2 113.7 92.7 60.3 “ 128.6 123.7 124.2 120.3 ' - Data not available. 40. U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 (1985 = 100) ____________ Mar. Manufacturing: 1 0 2 .0 1 1 2 .8 108.0 109.3 100.5 73.5 1 1 0 .6 99.6 101.9 106.2 105.8 SIC - based classification. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 107.4 116.2 108.6 112.3 107.6 80.5 117.2 99.4 1 0 2 .1 106.7 106.8 1989 1988 1987 Industry group Sept. 107.1 138.9 108.7 115.5 108.7 81.4 122.3 99.4 102.5 106.9 106.6 Dec. 116.3 142.5 1 1 1 .2 119.3 113.8 78.8 126.6 99.7 1 0 2 .2 107.8 107.1 Mar. 1 2 0 .8 146.1 112.5 124.6 118.4 73.0 126.9 1 0 0 .6 102.9 108.1 109.2 June 125.1 145.4 112.9 129.8 122.3 77.8 133.8 101.3 103.7 109.1 1108 Sept. Dec. 128.9 146.1 112.9 133.1 125.4 73.7 133.5 123.5 144.0 115.3 135.6 125.5 75.4 133.6 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .8 104.9 109.4 105.4 110.9 113.4 1 1 2 .0 Mar. 124.5 151.3 115.9 139.8 125.8 79.6 130.8 103.2 106.4 111.9 114.5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 41. June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data & Productivity Data U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 (1985 = 100) 1988 Industry group Mar. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products............................ Textile mill products ....................................... Apparel and related products ........................ Lumber and wood products, except furniture , Furniture and fixtures..................................... Paper and allied products .............................. Chemicals and allied products....................... Petroleum refining and allied products.......... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . Leather and leather products ........................ Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products..... Primary metal products................................... Fabricated metal products.............................. Machinery, except electrical........................... Electrical machinery and supplies.................. Transportation equipment............................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks .. Miscellaneous manufactured commodities .... June 103.8 114.1 107.0 114.8 116.1 105.1 105.7 120.2 110.6 109.3 121.6 102.7 116.7 123.4 109.4 119.9 128.8 115.1 Sept. 106.3 116.1 109.4 115.0 117.0 105.9 106.2 136.4 113.6 113.3 130.0 110.4 117.5 127.4 110.7 122.1 132.5 118.1 Dec. 108.4 119.4 112.3 120.3 118.3 110.9 107.2 138.4 112.3 113.3 129.6 115.2 119.8 127.8 110.2 122.5 128.8 121.4 Mar. 110.6 124.3 113.4 115.4 118.9 113.6 112.2 127.4 115.7 118.4 133.9 120.0 123.2 133.9 112.5 124.6 134.0 123.8 1989 Sept. 114.0 127.4 116.6 119.5 122.2 119.1 116.8 114.5 117.2 120.8 138.2 122.6 127.3 135.9 114.7 127.3 135.8 127.7 114.4 128.9 115.8 120.3 124.0 121.3 121.3 119.2 119.0 124.6 141.5 137.0 133.3 138.2 116.1 129.5 137.0 133.1 Dec. 115.0 127.0 117.0 118.6 124.8 123.8 123.5 110.8 117.7 123.7 140.5 136.2 133.0 135.0 116.7 129.3 132.2 130.6 115.4 127.8 117.5 117.0 128.0 125.2 130.6 111.6 122.6 124.0 144.3 140.2 136.3 138.4 119.0 132.8 137.7 132.2 SIC - based classification. 42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1977 = 100) Quarterly Indexes Item 1 £8 6 III 1987 IV I II 1988 III IV I II 1989 III IV I Business: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour ... Unit labor costs...................... Unit nonlabor payments......... Implicit price deflator .............. 184.0 109.8 186.2 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .1 167.3 166.6 167.0 108.0 183.1 1 1 0 .0 169.6 163.7 167.5 109.9 187.3 101.4 170.5 165.6 168.7 107.8 185.4 101.7 172.1 164.9 169.5 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .8 1 1 1 .8 112.3 1 1 2 .0 194.0 101.9 173.5 168.9 171.9 195.8 101.9 173.5 170.0 172.3 198.1 2 0 1 .1 1 0 2 .0 170.8 168.7 170.1 111.7 191.1 101.3 171.1 171.5 171.2 102.4 179.0 172.7 176.8 203.2 102.3 181.4 174.6 179.0 107.8 186.4 100.9 172.9 167.2 170.9 108.6 187.9 100.5 173.0 169.8 171.9 109.6 190.0 100.7 173.3 173.0 173.2 109.9 192.9 101.4 175.6 170.9 174.0 1 1 0 .8 1 1 0 .1 194.6 101.3 175.7 171.6 174.2 196.6 101.3 178.6 171.8 176.2 110.7 199.4 101.5 180.2 173.9 178.0 110.9 201.9 101.7 182.0 177.9 180.6 1 1 0 .1 110.9 184.3 98.6 170.3 166.1 182.6 129.8 164.1 165.4 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 186.1 98.7 170.2 165.9 183.0 136.4 166.6 166.1 188.5 99.0 172.0 168.1 183.6 128.3 164.2 166.7 113.3 189.9 98.9 171.5 167.5 183.4 132.5 165.6 166.9 112.9 191.9 98.8 173.8 170.0 185.1 132.6 166.7 168.8 112.7 194.5 99.0 176.4 172.6 187.8 129.6 167.4 170.8 112.7 196.6 99.0 178.3 174.4 189.6 133.9 170.1 172.9 131.7 186.3 99.7 141.4 132.8 187.2 99.3 141.0 133.2 188.2 98.9 141.3 134.3 190.7 99.3 142.1 135.5 192.1 99.0 141.8 137.2 194.4 99.0 141.6 137.8 196.8 99.1 142.9 1 1 0 .6 189.0 1 0 1 .1 177.1 170.4 174.7 113.0 206.0 102.4 182.3 177.0 180.4 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour ... Unit labor costs...................... Unit nonlabor payments......... Implicit price deflator .............. 1 0 1 .2 169.5 168.1 169.0 1 1 1 .1 204.8 1 0 1 .8 184.3 177.6 182.0 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................... 109.6 180.2 99.5 168.4 164.3 180.3 133.6 164.0 164.2 168.8 165.1 179.6 129.7 162.1 164.1 182.9 99.0 169.9 166.2 180.8 128.5 162.5 164.9 128.0 183.6 101.4 143.4 128.8 185.3 101.7 143.8 130.0 185.9 100.7 143.1 110.3 182.2 1 0 0 .0 - 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 139.0 198.8 98.8 143.0 Mar. 114.8 128.1 118.1 120.4 125.6 127.4 130.7 121.2 122.3 122.7 145.0 140.7 138.5 138.4 119.7 132.7 136.7 136.6 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years (1977=100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1977 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Private business 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............................. 67.3 103.7 78.5 55.3 88.4 102.7 93.1 80.2 95.9 105.6 99.2 93.0 82.2 53.3 70.5 64.9 90.8 78.1 96.9 1 0 0 .0 8 8 .0 1 0 0 .0 93.7 90.8 1 0 0 .0 70.7 104.9 81.2 54.4 89.2 103.5 93.8 79.9 96.4 106.3 99.7 92.9 77.0 51.9 67.1 67.4 89.6 77.2 85.2 96.3 87.3 93.2 90.7 62.2 103.0 72.0 52.5 80.8 99.1 85.3 78.6 84.4 51.0 72.9 60.4 97.3 79.3 92.1 81.5 8 6 .1 8 6 .1 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 103.0 88.3 97.6 109.9 105.6 92.7 100.9 119.2 107.9 92.9 102.4 124.3 110.3 93.0 103.9 128.7 106.7 124.4 112.9 128.6 118.1 113.9 115.2 133.8 121.4 116.1 116.7 138.5 123.9 118.7 106.2 91.0 100.7 124.0 108.3 90.8 1 1 0 .1 104.7 91.3 99.9 119.3 128.3 109.1 91.5 102.7 133.2 107.4 126.1 113.5 117.4 114.0 130.6 119.4 114.6 116.8 136.3 123.1 116.7 118.5 141.3 125.8 119.3 145.5 129.6 119.2 1 1 2 .0 118.1 95.5 1 1 2 .1 123.6 97.3 116.4 117.5 1 2 2 .0 127.7 98.4 119.5 124.7 99.5 123.0 104.8 123.7 98.7 125.4 104.8 127.1 97.7 126.8 104.4 129.8 99.5 99.7 99.6 107.9 1 0 0 .6 100.3 92.3 97.6 108.9 8 6 .6 108.4 108.2 108.3 99.8 108.2 117.9 111.5 108.9 105.2 110.7 115.8 1 1 2 .6 99.2 98.9 99.1 107.9 99.6 91.0 96.7 108.4 99.1 85.1 94.1 104.8 102.5 87.3 97.0 108.8 109.1 108.9 100.3 108.8 119.1 109.4 105.7 123.3 111.4 116.6 101.4 99.5 100.9 108.1 103.6 89.0 99.7 104.8 105.9 81.6 99.2 98.4 106.5 108.6 107.1 101.9 1 0 1 .1 92.9 120.5 99.2 129.8 95.2 105.4 1 2 1 .8 116.6 1 1 1 .2 93.7 104.7 133.4 1 2 0 .0 142.4 127.4 118.6 Private nonfarm business 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............................. 8 6 .2 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 1 2 .2 1 0 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 Manufacturing 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............................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93.4 1 0 0 .0 1 1 2 .0 1 0 0 .0 98.0 96.3 1 0 0 .0 103.1 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 8 6 .0 1 0 0 .0 98.3 83.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 117.8 105.1 116.5 86.7 105.0 104.7 93.5 1 2 0 .8 99.7 129.3 131.9 1 0 2 .0 123.6 130.1 98.6 127.6 105.3 129.4 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data 44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 67.6 33.6 68.9 49.7 46.4 48.5 88.4 57.8 90.3 65.4 59.4 63.2 95.9 70.9 96.8 73.9 72.5 73.4 71.0 35.3 72.3 49.7 46.3 48.5 89.3 58.2 90.9 65.2 60.0 63.4 96.4 71.2 97.2 73.9 69.3 72.3 73.4 36.9 75.5 49.4 50.2 47.0 59.8 51.5 50.7 91.1 59.2 92.5 64.8 65.0 64.2 52.3 60.1 63.3 97.5 71.6 97.7 72.7 73.4 70.7 65.6 68.9 71.9 62.2 36.5 74.8 58.7 60.0 59.1 80.8 57.4 89.6 71.0 64.1 69.0 1977 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1 0 0 .0 99.6 119.1 99.4 119.5 112.5 117.0 100.7 143.7 95.8 142.7 134.6 139.8 100.3 154.9 97.3 154.5 136.6 148.1 103.0 161.4 98.2 156.7 146.4 153.0 105.5 167.9 97.9 159.1 156.5 158.2 107.7 175.5 98.8 162.9 160.9 162.2 99.3 118.9 99.2 119.7 110.5 116.5 99.8 143.6 95.8 144.0 133.5 140.3 99.2 154.8 97.2 156.0 136.5 149.2 102.5 161.5 98.3 157.6 148.3 154.3 104.6 167.8 97.9 160.4 156.3 159.0 106.1 174.9 98.5 164.9 161.9 163.8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .0 168.6 166.4 167.8 173.8 170.2 172.5 99.8 118.7 99.1 118.2 119.0 115.8 94.5 108.4 115.4 99.6 143.3 95.5 147.7 143.8 159.1 98.1 137.8 141.7 100.4 154.3 96.9 159.5 153.8 176.4 78.5 142.1 149.8 103.5 159.9 97.3 159.5 154.5 174.3 110.9 152.1 153.7 106.0 165.8 96.7 160.8 156.5 173.6 136.5 160.6 157.9 107.7 172.5 97.1 164.1 160.2 175.8 133.0 160.8 160.4 109.7 179.5 99.2 167.3 163.6 178.4 132.4 162.3 163.2 111.3 185.5 98.9 170.6 166.6 182.5 130.8 164.4 165.8 101.4 118.6 99.0 117.0 98.9 111.7 103.6 145.2 96.8 140.1 105.9 157.5 98.9 148.7 114.0 138.6 1 1 2 .0 162.4 98.8 145.0 128.5 140.2 118.1 168.0 98.0 142.2 138.6 141.2 123.6 176.4 99.3 142.7 130.4 139.1 127.7 183.0 132.0 186.9 99.7 141.7 139.2 141.0 1986 1987 1988 Business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per hour................................ Unit labor costs.................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 1 0 .1 1 1 1 .0 1 1 2 .2 183.1 199.4 166.3 165.0 165.8 190.4 101.5 171.5 168.7 170.5 108.2 182.3 109.0 189.4 1 0 1 .2 1 0 2 .1 177.8 172.0 175.7 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per hour................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1106 198 0 101.4 179.1 173.9 177.3 Nonfinanclal 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 ............................................ 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 112 8 193 1 98.9 175.0 171.1 186.5 132.2 167.5 169.9 Manufacturing: 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 93.4 1 0 0 .0 6 8 .8 1 0 0 .0 93.9 73.7 70.7 72.8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 1 1 .8 131.8 1 0 1 .2 143.3 136.3 141.3 136.2 193.5 99.1 142.1 - 45. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted 1987 Annual average 1988 1989 Country 1987 1988 III IV I II III l\) I Total labor force basis United States.................................... Canada .............................................. Australia ............................................ Japan ................................................. France ............................................... Germany............................................ Italy \ 2 .............................................. Sweden3 ............................................ United Kingdom................................. 6 .1 8 .8 8 .1 2.9 1 0 .6 6 .8 7.7 1.9 5.4 7.7 7.2 2.5 10.3 7.0 7.8 1 .6 1 0 .2 8.3 6 .2 5.5 7.8 7.2 2.5 5.9 5.8 8 .6 8 .1 7.9 7.9 2.7 5.6 7.8 7.5 2.7 5.4 7.6 7.4 2.5 5.4 7.8 6.9 6 .8 2 .6 2.4 10.3 7.0 7.9 1.7 9.4 10.3 7.0 7.8 1.7 9.0 10.3 7.0 7.8 10.4 7.0 7.8 1 0 .2 1 0 .2 6 .8 1 .6 1 .6 8 .6 8 .0 7.8 1.4 7.5 6.3 7.6 1.4 7.0 6 .0 5.9 8 .6 8 .1 5.5 7.7 7.5 2.5 5.5 7.8 7.0 5.3 7.7 5.2 7.6 6 .8 - 2 .6 2.4 - 10.5 7.2 7.9 1 0 .6 10.4 6.9 7.9 1.4 7.6 2 .8 1 0 .6 7.0 7.8 1.9 1 0 .0 5.3 7.7 5.1 7.5 - Civilian labor force basis United States.................................... Canada .............................................. Australia ............................................ Japan ................................................. France ............................................... Germany............................................ Italy1, 2 ............................................... Sweden3 ............................................ United Kingdom................................. 8.9 8 .1 2.9 1 0 .8 6.9 7.9 1.9 10.3 10.5 7.1 7.9 1 .6 8.3 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. Many Italians reported as unemployed did not actively seek work in the past 30 days, and they have been ex cluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons would about double the Italian unemployment rate in 1985 and earlier years and increase it to 11-12 per cent for 1986 onward. 3 Break in series beginning in 1987. The 1986 rate based https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 2 8 .0 8 .0 2 .8 2.7 5.7 7.8 7.6 2.7 1 0 .8 1 0 .6 1 0 .6 7.2 7.1 8 .0 8 .1 1.9 1.7 9.5 1 0 .0 7.1 7.9 1.7 9.0 7.1 8 .0 1 .6 1 .6 8 .6 8 .0 10.4 6.5 7.7 1.4 7.0 on the new series was 2 . 2 percent. - Data not available. NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust ment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data 46. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts 10 countries ’ (Numbers in thousands) Employment status and country Labor force United States........................ Canada .................................. Australia................................. Japan .................................... France.................................... Germany................................ Italy........................................ Netherlands........................... Sweden.................................. United Kingdom.................... Participation rate1 United States......................... Canada .................................. Australia................................. Japan ..................................... France.................................... Germany................................. Italy......................................... Netherlands............................ Sweden................................... United Kingdom..................... 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 104,962 11,231 6,519 55,210 22,660 26,250 20,850 5,100 4,262 26,350 106,940 11,573 6,693 55,740 22,800 26,520 108,670 11,904 6,810 56,320 22,950 26,650 21,320 5,520 4,327 26,590 110,204 11,958 6,910 56,980 23,160 26,700 21,410 5,570 4,350 26,740 111,550 12,183 6,997 58,110 23,140 26,650 21,590 5,600 4,369 26,790 113,544 12,399 7,133 58,480 23,300 26,770 21,670 5,620 4,385 27,180 115,461 12,633 7,272 58,820 23,360 26,970 21,800 5,710 4,418 27,370 117,834 12.87C 7,562 59,410 23,450 27,110 22,280 5,760 4,443 27,540 119,865 13,121 7,736 60,050 23,520 27,290 22,340 5,810 4,480 27,760 121,669 13,275 7,949 60,860 63.7 63.4 61.6 62.7 57.5 53.3 48.0 49.0 63.8 64.1 62.1 62.6 57.2 53.2 48.2 50.2 66.9 62.5 63.9 64.8 61.9 62.6 57.1 52.9 48.3 51.4 64.0 64.1 61.7 62.7 57.1 52.6 47.7 51.2 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 52.4 47.3 50.5 64.8 65.2 61.8 62.3 56.3 52.6 47.2 50.7 66.9 62.7 65.3 65.7 63.0 62.1 56.1 52.8 48.2 50.5 67.1 62.7 65.6 63.0 61.9 55.8 53.1 48.2 50.3 67.4 63.0 65.9 66.7 63.4 61.9 6 6 .6 62.6 2 1 ,1 2 0 5,310 4,312 26,520 6 6 .8 62.2 62.3 100,397 11,006 6,416 55,060 99,526 10,644 6,415 55,620 21,240 25,140 20,250 4,980 4,213 23,710 100,834 10,734 6,300 56,550 21,170 24,750 20,320 4,890 4,218 23,600 105,005 6,490 56,870 20,980 24,800 20,390 4,930 4,249 24,000 107,150 11,311 6,670 57,260 20,920 24,960 20,490 5,110 4,293 24,310 109,597 11,634 6,952 57,740 20,960 25,220 20,610 5,200 4,326 24,450 112,440 11,955 7,107 58,320 20,970 25,400 20,590 5,270 4,396 24,910 114,968 12,244 7,373 59,310 61.5 60.3 57.9 60.1 49.7 49.4 44.4 45.6 62.3 61.6 58.8 60.4 6 6 .2 66.7 6 6 .6 62.6 4,980 4,226 24,670 25,560 20,280 5,010 4,219 23,800 Employment-population ratio2 United States.......................... Canada ................................... Australia.................................. Japan ...................................... France..................................... Germany.................................. Italy.......................................... Netherlands............................. Sweden................................... United Kingdom...................... 59.9 58.7 57.8 61.4 54.0 51.7 45.9 46.4 65.3 59.2 59.2 59.3 58.3 61.3 53.5 51.7 46.1 47.0 65.6 58.1 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.8 45.9 46.6 65.1 55.7 57.8 57.0 57.3 61.2 52.3 49.6 45.2 45.8 64.7 55.3 57.9 56.7 55.3 61.4 51.8 48.6 44.7 44.5 64.4 54.7 59.5 57.4 56.0 61.0 51.0 48.5 44.5 44.3 64.5 55.3 60.1 58.4 56.6 60.6 50.4 48.7 44.4 45.3 65.0 55.7 60.7 59.4 57.9 60.4 50.2 49.2 44.6 45.6 65.4 55.7 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,360 780 920 270 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 920 330 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,750 1,090 1,040 510 108 2,790 10,678 1,314 495 1,360 1,920 1,560 1,160 590 137 3,030 10,717 1,448 697 1,560 1,970 1,900 1,270 710 151 3,190 8,539 1,399 642 1,610 2,320 1,970 1,280 690 136 3,180 8,312 1,328 602 1,560 2,440 1,310 600 125 3,060 8,237 1,236 610 1,670 2,490 1,890 1,680 560 117 3,090 9.7 9.6 11.9 7.5 11.3 9.0 7.2 10.5 8.3 Unemployed United States.......................... Canada .................................... Australia.................................. Japan ...................................... France ..................................... Germany.................................. Italy.......................................... Netherlands............................. Sweden.................................... United Kingdom....................... Unemployment rate United States........................... Canada .................................... Australia................................... Japan ....................................... France ...................................... Germany................................... Italy........................................... Netherlands.............................. Sweden.................................... United Kingdom....................... 99,303 10,708 6,284 54,600 21,330 25,750 2 0 ,2 0 0 88 86 1,420 1,850 5.8 7.4 6.3 7.1 7.5 6 .1 7.6 7.5 5.8 2 .1 2 .0 2 .2 6.4 2.9 4.4 7.6 4.1 4.9 9.2 2.5 10.5 6 .2 2 .1 2 .0 5.4 7.0 1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population. 2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population. Digitized for92 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 1 ,2 0 0 6 .0 3.0 4.4 5.3 4,530 6 6 .8 54,040 21,300 25,470 19,930 4,830 4,174 24,940 6 ,1 1 1 _ 64.0 64.4 61.4 63.1 56.6 52.3 47.5 50.9 66.7 62.1 Employed United States......................... Canada ................................... Australia.................................. Japan ..................................... France.................................... Germany................................. Italy......................................... Netherlands............................ Sweden................................... United Kingdom..................... 98,824 10,395 - 27,440 1 1 .0 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.8 5.4 1 0 .6 3.1 11.3 1 0 .0 2.7 8.5 7.1 5.9 12.7 - 11.9 - Data not available. 1 1 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 1 0 6 6 .2 7,425 1,167 629 1,730 2,550 1,890 1,760 540 84 2,850 7.0 9.6 6 .2 8 .1 8 .1 8.9 2 .8 2 .6 2 .8 2.9 10.4 7.5 1 0 .6 1 0 .8 7.0 7.5 9.7 6.9 7.9 9.3 1.9 10.3 6 .0 10.5 2 .8 2 .6 1 1 .2 1 1 .2 25,490 4,458 56.6 1 0 .0 7.4 5.9 12.3 3.1 11.7 67.7 6,701 1,031 575 1,550 1,950 72 5.5 7.8 7.2 2.5 10.5 7.1 7.9 1 .6 8.3 47. Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries (1977 = 100) Item and country 1960 1970 Output per hour Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway................................................................... United Kingdom.................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Norway.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... Total hours Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Nonway.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 80.8 75.6 64.8 60.4 65.6 71.4 71.2 72.7 64.3 81.3 80.7 80.4 93.4 90.3 83.1 78.8 83.3 83.8 84.0 90.9 81.5 94.4 94.8 95.5 97.1 94.8 94.3 95.3 98.2 94.4 96.4 98.9 95.8 100.4 101.7 99.1 52.5 41.3 19.2 41.9 49.2 36.5 50.0 36.4 44.8 54.8 52.6 71.2 78.6 73.5 69.9 78.6 82.0 75.5 78.0 84.4 86.5 92.5 95.0 96.3 93.5 91.9 96.4 95.9 90.5 96.1 90.5 95.8 99.2 100.3 104.8 93.1 96.5 94.8 99.7 99.6 95.6 98.0 97.9 99.0 84.4 81.4 82.7 127.1 132.4 97.6 123.8 97.3 97.2 107.9 130.2 125.1 105.7 121.7 107.4 131.2 106.4 114.6 118.1 103.1 103.6 110.7 122.3 115.2 107.9 114.4 99.6 117.6 105.1 105.7 109.8 6 8 .8 15.0 18.8 8.4 12.5 15.8 14.7 15.2 57.4 47.9 33.9 34.9 36.3 36.3 48.0 26.1 39.0 37.9 38.5 31.4 60.0 55.1 53.5 56.1 51.9 67.5 43.7 60.5 54.5 54.2 47.9 58.7 54.2 38.4 41.7 33.8 40.2 46.6 23.7 38.5 29.2 34.8 27.2 71.0 63.4 52.3 57.8 55.4 50.8 67.4 36.0 60.7 46.6 47.7 39.1 73.7 66.5 66.4 67.9 67.4 62.0 80.3 48.1 74.3 57.8 57.2 50.2 94.9 95.3 96.2 93.9 92.1 93.0 94.6 85.1 96.0 88.5 90.0 89.2 58.7 59.4 28.5 30.0 29.5 40.3 25.9 33.7 25.1 71.0 64.5 39.1 41.7 44.4 45.2 42.9 50.6 41.2 34.7 41.1 53.7 73.7 70.6 65.6 62.7 67.2 94.9 102.7 86.9 87.2 91.5 95.8 87.3 90.5 89.1 86.4 92.3 92.2 1 0 2 .8 138.4 1 0 1 .0 124.4 127.3 8 6 .6 Compensation per hour Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. 36.5 27.5 8.9 13.8 1 2 .6 Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Norway.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... Unit labor costs: National currency basis Japan .................................................................... Belgium................................................................. Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Norway.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Germany................................................................ Italy....................................................................... Norway................................................................. United Kingdom................................................... 1976 62.2 50.7 23.2 33.0 37.2 37.4 40.3 35.4 32.4 54.3 42.3 55.9 Output Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. 1973 2 1 .8 30.1 43.7 6 8 .6 70.4 73.1 65.6 53.5 58.7 70.5 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 101.4 98.2 122.7 119.2 112.3 103.6 102.9 127.2 127.6 114.2 113.9 105.9 98.3 135.0 135.2 114.6 1 1 2 .0 105.4 142.3 148.2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 2 .6 124.8 116.9 108.0 113.2 107.0 129.6 119.4 109.2 116.5 113.5 118.1 114.4 152.5 154.3 119.6 127.6 123.7 147.8 140.5 124.1 131.0 130.0 123.6 117.3 161.1 159.0 117.6 131.0 128.4 151.7 145.5 126.8 136.1 134.7 127.7 117.7 163.8 165.3 113.5 134.9 128.4 152.9 144.8 125.9 136.0 138.3 132.0 120.5 170.5 170.3 114.9 139.2 130.3 157.8 145.5 134.9 141.8 147.8 104.8 107.4 129.8 105.7 106.6 102.9 104.9 115.1 106.7 98.6 98.4 93.6 137.3 117.5 112.5 165.4 117.5 1 2 2 .0 124.7 121.9 178.0 108.3 104.0 102.4 113.4 105.0 96.8 130.1 128.5 184.1 123.1 120.5 103.3 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .1 104.7 99.6 148.2 114.8 115.6 103.8 103.6 114.3 107.0 97.2 105.2 88.9 99.5 98.3 108.5 76.1 85.9 76.2 93.5 94.5 104.2 77.5 96.2 83.0 86.9 82.5 83.9 82.9 83.9 72.2 1 0 0 .0 101.5 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .1 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 108.0 106.1 101.5 104.6 103.1 103.0 106.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .0 101.5 1 0 0 .0 106.0 104.6 106.7 101.4 99.7 102.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 1 0 .6 108.6 116.9 113.9 107.4 112.7 101.9 103.2 103.6 124.1 106.8 1 1 0 .1 104.6 106.6 115.4 106.6 99.5 104.0 91.7 1 2 2 .0 1 1 0 .1 1 2 0 .2 125.1 119.2 138.6 127.5 117.2 125.5 123.2 1 2 1 .0 1 0 2 .6 106.4 119.0 113.3 102.7 111.5 92.6 118.8 177.0 119.9 123.0 101.5 1 2 2 .0 123.9 1 0 2 .1 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .6 1 2 1 .8 125.8 118.1 106.9 114.7 95.4 131.2 118.7 108.3 119.2 80.5 80.6 82.8 85.1 71.2 109.8 75.4 104.6 77.5 85.7 80.3 80.2 84.0 84.7 70.7 97.7 103.6 108.7 73.8 109.2 75.7 86.3 82.3 81.5 84.9 84.3 69.0 98.6 106.6 108.0 72.3 104.9 74.2 85.7 83.2 81.6 80.3 84.0 116.7 106.5 115.3 95.2 106.1 98.2 1 0 0 .0 97.7 97.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 95.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 104.4 103.4 98.8 95.5 98.3 97.8 98.7 98.8 96.6 96.5 94.6 99.1 89.6 98.0 94.6 98.1 98.7 93.6 92.6 92.3 90.1 82.8 93.4 90.3 94.6 92.2 91.2 91.3 88.9 80.6 1 0 0 .0 108.2 107.6 106.6 107.8 1 0 0 .0 1 1 0 .2 1 0 0 .0 132.4 131.3 120.7 130.3 135.9 148.5 125.6 160.2 123.6 128.0 133.6 168.6 145.2 151.1 129.8 144.5 149.7 172.0 134.5 198.4 129.1 142.8 148.1 193.4 157.5 167.0 136.6 150.7 162.9 204.0 141.0 238.3 137.5 156.0 158.9 211.7 162.4 177.2 140.7 159.8 174.2 225.1 148.3 282.9 144.0 173.5 173.3 226.6 168.0 185.6 144.9 173.1 184.1 245.0 155.5 316.5 150.0 188.3 189.7 242.3 176.4 194.4 151.4 183.6 196.2 265.4 164.6 348.0 157.4 204.3 212.4 258.8 183.0 203.5 158.8 190.8 202.7 277.2 171.7 359.4 162.2 224.2 228.7 277.9 186.9 214.0 161.1 194.5 226.3 285.7 178.6 380.5 166.5 262.6 244.8 297.6 130.6 133.7 98.4 109.3 140.1 146.7 148.7 170.0 1 0 2 .0 1 0 1 .2 142.2 162.3 95.0 113.2 131.1 151.0 158.9 110.4 132.2 130.9 180.7 111.5 142.2 167.2 125.2 184.0 115.2 142.9 136.3 186.5 145.0 168.1 98.9 107.8 144.9 179.9 124.4 204.1 113.0 148.0 138.1 184.0 142.7 165.7 94.0 115.5 166.8 202.7 128.3 229.4 108.1 161.1 156.1 192.1 143.3 172.8 97.0 115.5 178.7 205.4 133.7 235.1 141.7 177.5 94.5 114.2 197.0 205.2 137.1 241.2 114.4 194.7 172.6 201.3 140.1 130.0 123.8 109.6 110.3 136.4 124.9 123.2 108.9 122.5 115.4 209.6 148.7 146.3 108.8 87.2 102.3 124.9 119.7 119.9 105.8 117.8 96.9 186.9 145.0 144.9 111.5 75.6 95.1 116.1 113.1 118.6 97.1 107.9 80.4 159.8 142.7 128.9 105.6 69.7 94.5 143.3 132.1 154.2 92.6 132.5 145.8 143.0 139.2 1 0 2 .1 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 104.6 101.4 101.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 99.0 103.3 101.7 104.3 99.0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 92.1 90.3 90.7 89.5 90.4 87.8 91.2 84.2 91.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 113.0 107.8 114.5 108.4 8 8 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 1 0 .0 91.5 88.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 111.4 116.7 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 106.6 106.5 98.7 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 108.6 108.0 104.5 1 0 0 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 108.7 108.4 115.0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 106.6 99.3 126.8 115.8 118.4 117.9 1 0 0 .0 1 2 1 .0 1 0 0 .0 115.6 115.7 110.4 107.2 126.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 8 6 .2 86.4 101.7 105.5 1 0 1 .1 1 0 1 .2 1 0 2 .0 92.9 95.2 101.7 81.4 94.5 85.2 91.0 87.5 1 2 1 .0 134.3 115.7 137.0 108.5 119.1 118.6 165.5 130.6 121.5 116.8 134.2 129.0 156.4 147.9 141.4 134.1 128.4 125.3 2 2 0 .6 104.3 1 2 1 .2 8 8 .0 8 8 .6 1 0 1 .2 80.4 8 6 .1 1 1 2 .2 153.9 192.0 125.8 214.1 106.8 151.8 144.8 186.4 142.2 133.2 107.2 69.6 89.3 108.1 98.7 1 0 1 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 0 2 .6 1 0 1 .2 107.6 81.6 99.0 78.2 142.8 106.1 80.0 99.8 81.1 142.9 1 1 2 .0 178.1 168.2 200.9 1 1 2 .2 128.1 105.4 169.0 1 0 0 .6 6 8 .0 141.7 142.3 175.0 109.6 172.7 167.8 177.0 164.2 138.6 153.7 121.5 189.2 - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1989 • 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 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 PRIVATE SECTOR3 Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ 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 3.7 63.4 11.7 5.7 83.7 11.9 5.8 82.7 12.3 5.9 82.8 1 1 .8 11.9 1 2 .0 6 .1 6 .1 8 6 .0 90.8 11.4 1 1 .2 1 1 .6 6 .8 6.5 163.6 6 .2 146.4 10.5 5.4 137.3 15.7 6.5 117.0 15.1 6.3 113.1 14.6 115.7 15.5 6.5 113.0 15.1 1 1 1 .2 16.6 6.7 123.1 16.3 6.3 117.6 16.0 6.9 124.3 15.5 6.7 118.9 13.3 5.9 90.2 5.4 86.7 11.5 5.1 82.0 175.9 18.6 9.5 171.8 17.6 7.1 99.6 6 .6 6 .2 97.6 91.9 15.0 7.1 128.1 134.7 15.2 7.1 128.3 19.9 8.7 124.2 18.5 14.7 5.9 83.6 7.9 3.6 64.9 7.9 3.6 65.8 1 1 .2 1 1 .2 90.7 11.4 5.7 91.3 5.6 93.6 5.7 94.1 8.4 4.5 125.1 9.7 5.3 160.2 8.4 4.8 145.3 7.4 4.1 125.9 8.5 4.9 144.0 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 15.2 15.2 6.9 134.5 14.7 128.9 15.4 6.9 121.3 15.2 14.9 6 .8 6 .6 120.4 122.7 14.2 6.5 134.0 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 14.5 6.3 127.3 14.7 6.3 132.9 14.5 6.4 139.1 15.8 7.1 130.1 15.4 7.0 133.3 15.6 7.2 140.4 15.0 7.1 135.7 1 0 .6 8 .0 8.3 3.8 69.9 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3 Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 5.9 Mining Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 150.5 Construction Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ General building contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Heavy construction contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Special trade contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 16.2 6 .8 120.4 16.3 6 .8 6 .0 6 .8 6 .8 135.8 14.1 5.9 14.4 6 .1 107.1 1 1 2 .0 113.0 14.9 15.4 106.0 15.1 5.8 113.1 15.2 14.7 6 .6 6 .2 119.3 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 1 0 .2 1 0 .0 1 0 .6 4.4 75.0 4.3 73.5 4.7 77.9 10.4 4.6 80.2 4.7 85.2 11.9 5.3 95.5 17.6 9.0 158.4 16.9 8.3 153.3 18.3 9.2 163.5 19.6 9.9 172.0 18.5 9.3 171.4 18.9 9.7 177.2 18.9 9.6 176.5 15.1 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 15.0 6.3 100.4 15.2 6.3 103.0 15.4 6.7 103.6 14.1 6.9 13.0 13.1 13.6 6 .1 6 .0 6 .6 1 2 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 2 0 .8 13.9 6.7 127.8 13.6 6.5 126.0 14.9 7.1 135.8 14.4 6.7 121.3 12.4 5.4 13.3 1 2 .6 13.6 1 0 1 .6 12.4 5.4 103.4 115.3 5.7 113.8 125.5 17.0 7.4 145.8 118.4 17.5 7.5 109.9 15.3 6.4 102.5 96.5 16.1 6.7 104.9 1 1 0 .1 115.5 17.0 7.2 121.9 13.7 5.5 81.3 12.9 5.1 74.9 9.8 3.6 58.1 10.7 4.1 65.8 1 0 .8 6 6 .0 4.2 69.3 10.7 4.2 72.0 11.3 4.4 72.7 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 6.3 6 .8 2 .6 2 .8 41.4 45.0 6.4 2.7 45.7 6.4 2.7 49.8 7.2 3.1 55.9 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 9.0 3.9 71.6 9.6 4.1 79.1 13.5 5.7 105.7 5.2 5.3 2.3 42.2 5.8 2.4 43.9 1 0 .2 10.7 4.6 81.5 6 .0 6 .2 6 .2 Manufacturing Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 1 2 .2 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. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20.7 1 0 .8 16.8 8 .0 133.7 17.3 8 .1 16.0 8 .0 8 .6 8 .0 3.4 51.9 3.3 51.8 1 1 .6 1 0 .6 5.5 85.9 4.9 82.4 10.7 4.2 15.1 6 .1 6 .1 6 8 .8 16.3 6.9 7.2 6 .8 2 .8 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.6 2.3 37.0 2 .1 2 .2 2 .2 40.0 2.7 41.8 35.6 37.5 37.9 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 9.7 4.2 73.2 5.2 5.4 6 .1 16.0 6 .8 4.3 70.9 48. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 1983 1985 1986 1987 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products: Total cases.......................................................................... ,..................... Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Tobacco manufacturing: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Textile mill products: Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Apparel and other textile products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Paper and allied products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Printing and publishing: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Chemicals and allied products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays....................................................... .................................... Petroleum and coal products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Leather and leather products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases .................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 17.8 16.7 8 .6 8 .0 130.7 8 .1 8 .2 3.8 45.8 3.9 56.8 19.9 9.5 141.8 18.7 9.0 136.8 16.7 16.7 16.5 8 .1 8 .1 8 .0 8 .6 138.0 137.8 153.7 9.3 4.2 64.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 7.3 3.0 51.7 6.7 2.5 45.6 2.5 46.4 9.7 3.4 61.3 9.1 3.3 62.8 8 .8 3.2 59.2 7.4 8 .0 2 .8 51.4 3.0 54.0 7.5 3.0 57.4 7.8 3.1 59.3 9.0 3.6 65.9 53.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 6 .0 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .1 6.7 2.5 40.9 6.7 36.4 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.7 49.4 7.4 3.1 59.5 34.1 34.9 35.0 13.5 1 1 .6 108.4 12.7 5.8 112.3 1 0 .6 1 0 .0 4.9 99.1 4.5 90.3 4.7 94.6 10.5 4.7 99.5 1 2 .8 5.4 103.6 10.4 4.7 93.8 5.8 122.3 7.1 3.1 45.1 6.9 3.1 46.5 6.7 3.0 47.4 6 .6 6 .6 2 .8 45.7 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 6.3 2.9 49.2 6.5 2.9 50.8 6.7 3.1 55.1 7.7 3.5 54.9 6 .8 6 .6 3.1 50.3 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 5.1 2.3 38.8 6.3 2.7 49.4 7.0 3.1 58.8 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 5.1 2.4 49.9 7.1 3.2 67.5 7.3 3.1 65.9 17.1 14.6 7.2 117.4 12.7 13.0 6 .2 100.9 101.4 13.6 6.4 104.3 13.4 6.3 107.4 14.0 6 .0 127.1 15.5 7.4 118.6 118.2 15.9 7.6 130.8 11.5 4.9 76.2 11.7 5.0 82.7 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 1 0 .0 4.4 87.3 10.5 4.7 94.4 10.3 4.6 88.3 10.5 4.8 83.4 12.4 5.8 114.5 1 0 .0 9.4 5.5 104.5 9.0 5.3 8.5 4.9 96.7 8 .2 8 .8 8 .6 8 .2 1 0 0 .6 4.7 94.9 5.2 105.1 5.0 107.1 1 0 2 .1 8.4 4.9 108.1 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 7.4 3.2 50.7 7.7 3.3 54.0 7.7 3.4 56.1 6 .0 8 .2 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 131.6 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.6 2 .8 2 .6 44.1 1 0 .2 6 .6 17.7 8 .6 Transportation and public utilities Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases ..................................................................... ........ . Lost workdays .......................................................................................... 5.9 107.0 4.8 Wholesale and retail trade Total cases........................... ..................................................................... Lost workday cases .................................................................................. Lost workdays........................................................................... ................ Wholesale trade: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Retail trade: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases............. ..................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ 8 .0 8 .8 8 .2 4.1 59.1 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 7.2 3.5 59.8 7.2 3.6 62.5 7.4 3.7 64.0 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 7.5 3.1 47.0 7.8 3.2 50.5 7.8 3.3 52.9 2 .0 Finance, Insurance, and real estate Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 1.9 2 .0 2 .0 2 .0 .8 .8 1 2 .2 1 1 .6 .9 13.2 1 2 .8 1.9 .9 13.6 2 .0 .9 13.3 .9 15.4 .9 17.1 .9 14.3 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 5.4 45.4 5.3 2.5 43.0 5.5 2.7 45.8 2 .1 2 .0 .9 Services Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 1 Total cases Include fatalities. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 1 0 0 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 .6 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. Microfiche* Subscription Service Available for Provides monthly, provisional estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment, for States, metropolitan areas, counties, and cities of 25,000 or more. These estimates are used by industry marketing departments, by labor organizations, and by administrators of various Federal economic assistance programs. The subscription service also includes annual revisions of the monthly data and supplemental material issued on an irregular basis. One year subscription: $50.00 Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor M 8X O rd er form □ □ □ □ □ Nam e O rganization (if applicab le ) Street Address City. State. Zip. C ountry https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Send order form and check or money order to Superintendent of Documents. U S Government Printing Office. W ashington. D C 20402 Please enter a 1 -year subscription to U n em p lo ym e n t in States and Local Areas issued m onthly at $50 dom estic $62.50 foreign Enclosed is a c h e ck Please ch a rg e to my Please cha rge to my Please cha rge to my or m oney order payable to S uperintendent of D o cum ents f o r _______________________ GPO A cco u n t N o ________________________ _______________________________________ M aster Card A cco u n t N o ________________________ Expiration d a te ________________ Visa A cco u n t N o ____ „___________________________ Expiration d a te ________________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sound > Economics t Twelve issues of the M on th ly Labor Review for only $20. Analytical articles. Developm ents in Industrial Relations. M ajor Agreem ents Expiring. 48 tables of C urrent Labor Statistics, Research Summaries. Book Reviews, and m uch more. , Use the cou po n below A to place your order ^ r \ for 1 or 2 years. O rd er form Please start___ subscriptions to the Monthly Labor Review for □ one year. $20 or. D two years, $40. "1 | I ■ Total cost________ □ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents D Charge to GPO Deposit Account No___________________ Order No-------------- □ Charge to [H W jjjB B Credit card no Name Company name Address City, State Zip code □ I Expiration date. Send subscription orders to: Superintendent of Documents U S. Government Printing Office Washington. DC 20402 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington D.C. 20212 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business Penalty for private use. $300 RETURN POSTAGE'GUARANTEED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MLR L $ B R A <,,42L A ISSDUE0 1 OR 1 LI BR AR Y FED RES BANK OF ST LOUI S ^ .t, P 0 BOX 442 SA IN T LOUIS MO 63166
@FedFRASER