View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

$ *■ (

« rO r'i

^> v

In this Issue:

Monthly Labor Review
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Import and export prices in 1989
Measuring differences in union and nonunion pay
Productivity in photographic equipment
From m l r ’s 75th year, an editor looks back

U.S. Department of Labor
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner

The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Washington, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327
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 0098-1818) 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.

Regional Offices and Commissioners
Region I

Anthony J. Ferrara

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

Kennedy Federal Building
Suite 1603
Boston. MA 02203

Region II

Samuel M. Ehrenhalt

New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands

Room 808
201 Varick Street
New York. NY 10014

Phone: (617) 565-2327

Phone: (212) 337-2400

Region III

Alvin I. Margulis

Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia

3535 Market Street
P O Box 13309
Philadelphia PA 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154

Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi

Donald M. Cruse
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee

1371 Peachtree Street. N.E

Atlanta GA 30367
Phone: (404) 347-4416

Region V

Lois L. Orr

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin

9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880

Region VI

Bryan Richey

Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

Room 221
Federal Building
525 Griffin Street
Dallas TX 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6970

June cover:
Woman Emptying a Wheelbarrow,
an 1880 aquatint and drypoint rendering
by Camille Pissarro (1831-1903);
Photograph courtesy
of the National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC.
Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Region VII

Region VIII

Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska

Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

Gunnar Engen
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 426-2481

Region IX

Region X

Sam M. Hirabayashi

American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands

Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

San Francisco, CA 94119

71 Stevenson Street
P O Box 3766
Phone: (415) 744-6600

wir

Monthly Labor Review

June 1990
Volume 113, Number 6
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

Articles

3

Import and export price gains ease in 1989
Price increases were considerably lower than those posted in the preceding
2 years, reflecting economic slowdown and a turnaround in the dollar
Kim Arbogast and Adam Ochlis

26

Measuring union-nonunion earnings differences
Three b l s statistical series suggest that the union pay edge persists,
although estimates of its magnitude depend on the data analyzed
Kay E. Anderson, Philip M. Doyle, and Albert E. Schwenk

39

Productivity in the photographic equipment and supplies industry
Introduction of computers and automated equipment and new corporate
strategies were significant in productivity growth during the 1980’s
Stuart Kipnis and Clyde Huffstutler

50

Recollections of a former editor
Two decades after retiring, a former editor-in-chief
reflects on his 2 2 eventful years at the m l r helm
Lawrence R. Klein

Reports

56

Consumer expenditures on travel, 1980-87
Geoffrey Paulin

61

1989 employee benefits address family concerns
Cathy A. Cooley

Departments

Jacket Number—262-275
Program
No.—C535-S

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2
56
64
67
68
71
75

Labor month in review
Research summaries
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

Print Order No.20001

Proof date 6-15-90 Job No. 2066
TOC

Labor
month
in review

QUALITY AWARD. The President’s
Council on Management Improvement
honored the bls Consumer Price Index
staff with a coveted management excel­
lence award. The award, presented June 1
at the Third Annual Conference on
Quality and Productivity, was based on a
nomination by the Department of Labor.
The Council presents only 10 such awards
each year.
Basis for the citation. The Council made
the award for improving the timeliness
of the release of statistical information
on price change for use by policymakers
and the general public. Using a team
approach, the cpi staff identified problems
and implemented solutions that led to this
improvement. Managers and staff also
conducted a survey to identify opportuni­
ties to better meet the needs of cpi data
users. According to bls Commissioner
Janet L. Norwood, these cooperative
efforts by many employees to produce a
good product for bls “customers”
exemplify “total quality management” at
work within the Department of Labor.
Timeliness. Because the consumer sector
represents about two-thirds of current
spending in the U.S. economy, a more
timely cpi alerts the Nation’s policymak­
ers to inflationary pressures in the
economy so that policy decisions can be
made more expeditiously. It also enables
the Commerce Department’s Bureau of
Economic Analysis to do better and more
timely deflation of personal consumption
expenditures to measure real changes in
the consumption component of gross
national product.
The Bureau’s efforts accelerated release
of the cpi, resulting in an average monthly
improvement of 5 days-the equivalent of
a 25-percent reduction in the time taken to
process, review, analyze, and issue the
data. On June 15, 1990, the cpi will be
released on the earliest date in the history
of the program.
A cpi Program team involved with the
receipt and recording of data collected by
bls field staff achieved a 3-day reduction
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

iiSSiP"

in processing time. The team reviewed
existing procedures, recommended im­
provements, developed a test plan, and
implemented the improvements. Their
efforts resulted in a decline in the number
of workers involved in data keying and
computer processing and a significant im­
provement in the productivity of the data
entry staff.
A team of managers succeeded in
cutting 1 day off the time needed for data
review. After analyzing the process and
identifying the most important source of
errors, they implemented revised proce­
dures that feature additional data analysis
and edits that significantly reduce rework
in later data review process stages.
An additional day was shaved from
press release preparation through’ the
efforts of a team of managers, economic
analysts, and computer systems staff, who
reviewed the processing and development
materials for press releases. The team
found that a major source of delay in the
process was the mailing of press release
tables to bls regional offices. As a result,
they developed a system for electronic
transmission of the tables that saved 1 day
in mailing time and the cost of overnight
mail charges.
User survey. An overriding focus on
customer needs is key to the success of
public- and private-sector organizations.
The cpi staff conducted a User Survey to
strengthen the customer focus of their
program by:
• Obtaining information about how cpi
customers use data in order to better
understand how users are affected by
changes in the cpi Program;
• Evaluating information services, the
quality attribute of the cpi Program that is
most visible to customers; and
• Learning directly from customers what
opportunities exist to better meet their
needs.
To address these aims, the cpi staff
contacted a sample of 4,213 of the more
than 150,000 users who obtain their cpi
data directly from bls.

The most enlightening finding about
uses of the cpi was that more than 75
percent of customers use it to adjust
payments for inflation. The types of
payments most commonly adjusted are
rent/lease and wage/salary payments, but
large numbers of customers also use
the cpi to adjust purchase contracts,
alimony/child support payments, and
retirement payments. The knowledge
that the financial well-being of customers
is directly affected by the cpi provides a
strong motivation for quality improve­
ment throughput the program.
Feedback from the survey was general­
ly very positive. Users liked the cpi
publications and felt that bls staff who
handle telephone requests are responsive
and knowledgeable, cpi customers did
express dissatisfaction with the timeliness
of cpi information, confirming that recent
improvement efforts in that area were
properly focused. The survey also uncov­
ered other opportunities to better meet
user needs. The most important such
need is for less complicated information
on cpi methods, data availability, and
data sources. This crucial need by
customers for education in the proper use
of cpi data and for information on
limitations inherent in all statistical esti­
mates is one that the cpi Program must
begin to satisfy immediately.
Several projects are planned or under
way to meet the needs revealed in the
survey. Development of two new publica­
tions has begun: 1) a simple questionand-answer treatment of cpi methods and
uses, and 2) a compilation of data series
available. A publication describing the
use of the cpi for adjustment of payments
is now being mailed to all users on cpi
mailing lists. And a number of quality im­
provement teams have begun to analyze
different survey processes to find addi­
tional ways to accelerate the cpi release.
In the planning stages are projects to
speed up the printing and mailing of cpi
publications, and to develop a short
informational seminar on the cpi to
be delivered by program staff at user con­
ferences around the country.
□

Import and export pnce
gains ease in 1989
Annual rates of price increase for both imports
and exports were considerably lower
than those posted during the preceding 2 years,
reflecting a slowdown in the U.S. economy
and the turnaround of the dollar

Kim Arbogast
and
Adam Ochlis

rices of U.S. imports advanced 1.9 per­
cent during 1989, as all major categories
except fuels recorded annual price de­
clines or smaller rates of increase than in 1987
and 1988.1 (See table 1.) Prices of fuels and
related products, noted for their volatility, rose
30 percent over the year after declining more
than 16 percent in 1988. When fuels are ex­
cluded, import prices actually fell 0.5 percent
in 1989. In 1987 and 1988, nonfuel import
prices had advanced 8.9 and 6.9 percent, re­
spectively, reacting to the depreciating dollar
and strong domestic growth.
Export prices climbed just 0.6 percent in
1989, following gains of 6.0 and 6.4 percent in
1987 and 1988. A decrease in food prices from
the previous year’s drought-inflated levels, as
well as weaker world demand for industrial
products, helped to dampen price increases. Ex­
port prices decreased in the year’s final three
quarters after a relatively steep 1.5-percent jump
in the first quarter, in part the result of strong
export growth in the first half of the year.

P

Developments influencing prices
Kim Arbogast and Adam
Ochlis are economists
in the Division o f
International Prices,
Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
John Skwiot, an economist
in the same division,
prepared the charts.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Exchange rates influenced import and export
prices throughout 1989. The year marked the
first time since 1984 that the trade-weighted
value of the dollar strengthened against foreign
currencies. The 3.5-percent annual appreciation
of the dollar, spurred by the 7.3-percent gain in

the first half of the year,2 contributed heavily to
the 0.8-percent drop in prices for all nonfuel
imports during the second quarter. The April-toJune movement represented the year’s largest
3-month decline and the steepest quarterly slide
in nonfuel import prices since the 1.8-percent
decrease recorded for the first quarter of 1985.
(See chart 1.)
The stronger dollar in the first half of 1989,
which lowered United States import prices, and
the slowing U.S. economy in the second half of
the year, which reduced industrial demand, had
their greatest effect on prices for imported raw
materials and the finished goods they are used
to produce. The rapid growth in prices for the
intermediate manufactures category experi­
enced during the 2 earlier years came to a halt
in 1989 when prices decreased 0.7 percent after
double-digit advances in 1987 and 1988. The
same was true for the machinery and transport
equipment category, where prices rose a modest
0.2 percent after averaging 6.6-percent increases
for the preceding 2 years. (See chart 2.)
Export prices also responded to moderating
growth in the U.S. and global economies and to
the movement of the dollar in 1989. In particu­
lar, chemicals prices declined 8.4 percent during
the year, following 18.6- and 11.2-percent
jumps in 1987 and 1988. Prices of exported
crude materials advanced just 0.7 percent in
1989, as large increases for some categories,
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

3

Import and Export Prices in 1989
caused by strong export growth, offset de­ Newly Industrialized Countries (Taiwan, South
creases for other categories. Prices for exported Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore), losing 7.8
machinery and transport equipment, which had and 8.2 percent of its average value against the
increased 3.3 percent in 1988, rose 2.6 percent Taiwan dollar and South Korean won for the
during the year. (See chart 3.)
year as a whole. (See chart 4.)
The dollar’s strength early in 1989 coincided
The first-half appreciation of the dollar in
with the firm U.S. economy through the middle 1989 took many observers by surprise and may
of the year. Most major foreign currencies de­ have signaled a temporary halt of effective co­
preciated against the dollar through June. The operation by major industrial nations to control
Japanese yen, the West German mark, and the currency movements. Prior to 1989, an overall
U.K. pound all declined more than 10 percent 4-year decline of the dollar, which was precip­
versus the dollar in the first half of the year.3 itated by the Group of Five’s (G-5) signing of
The trend of dollar appreciation slowed in the the Plaza Accord in 1985 and which contin­
second half when speculation about a domestic ued—albeit at a slower rate—following the
economic slowdown and the possibility of a signing of the Louvre Accord by the Group of
recession moderated demand for dollars.
Seven (G-7) in 1987,5 was designed to promote
The dollar’s depreciation during the second U.S. exports and to balance world trade. How­
half again spanned most major currencies, al­ ever, the trade-weighted 2.1-percent deprecia­
though the magnitude of the decline against tion of the dollar in 1988 for all import
each varied considerably. For example, the commodities was the smallest annual decline
mark appreciated nearly 14 percent against the since 1985. The dollar’s rise during the middle
dollar between July and December, while the of 1988, while reversed in the fourth quarter,
pound and yen rose just 2.8 and 0.2 percent, foreshadowed things to come.
respectively, over the same period.4 For the year,
The erratic nature of currency fluctuations
the dollar averaged 7.7 percent higher against the and the numerous factors that influence ex­
yen, 8.7 percent higher against the pound, and 7.0 change rates had more effect in 1989 than in the
percent higher against the mark. The dollar con­ past. Interest rates, international developments,
tinued to depreciate against the currencies of the and a global increase in oil prices created a

Chart 1.

Quarterly indexes of U.S. dollar prices and average exchange rates
for all imports except fuels, and all exports, 1 9 85-89

Index
(1985 - 100)
140

Index
(1985 - 100)

130

120
110
100

90

80

70

Digitized4for Monthly
FRASERLabor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

After reaching a high of 9.57 percent in March,
the average annual yield for 1-year U.S. Trea­
sury notes and bonds fell to 7.77 percent by
Interest rates. High U.S. interest rates, a tight November.12
money supply, and widening interest rate differ­
Canada was the one major industrialized
entials with foreign trading partners were the country whose currency failed to depreciate
major reasons behind the dollar’s increase early against the dollar during the first half of 1989.
in 1989. In an effort to ease inflationary con­ Subsequently, the U.S. dollar lost nearly 4 per­
cerns and temper economic growth by discour­ cent of its annual average value against the
aging borrowing, U.S. monetary authorities Canadian dollar.13 High Canadian interest rates
permitted short-term interest rates to rise. On throughout 1989 matched those in the United
February 24, the Federal Reserve increased the States, as Canada attempted to slow its economy
discount rate by one-half of a percentage point.6 and avoid accelerating inflation. Average short­
In the interim, monetary policy in West Ger­ term interest rates peaked in Canada at about the
many, Japan, and England kept interest rates in same time as in the United States, rising to
those nations stable, causing demand for the 12.58 percent in April after averaging 11.15
dollar to grow, and hence increasing its value.
percent at the end of 1988. The rate differential
In April, spurred by the G-7 statement that reached a 9-year high in November, when inter­
the “continued rise of the dollar which under­ est rates in the United States dropped and those
mined adjustment efforts, or an excess decline, in Canada remained stable.14
would be counterproductive,”7 many European
Developments
central banks followed West Germany’s lead by International developments.
raising their own discount rates. Concern for the around the world, ranging from in-house gov­
dollar’s upswing also emanated from the White ernment dissension in England to the opening of
House, which claimed that the strong dollar borders in Eastern Europe, played a role—albeit
could detract from the goal of reducing global not a quantifiable one—in currency markets
during 1989. In general, political instability
trade imbalances.
From the end of 1988 through June of 1989, abroad worked to the dollar’s advantage during
the dollar was nearly 13 and 17 percent higher the first half of the year, while events later in
against the mark and yen,8 with similar double­ the year benefited the foreign currencies.
In April, Japanese Prime Minister Noboru
digit increases posted against other European
currencies. Despite the efforts of the G-7 to Takeshita announced that he would resign after
fight the rise of the dollar, its exchange rate allegations linked him to an insider trading
climbed to yearly highs of 2.03 marks and 149 scandal. In addition, the ruling Liberal Demo­ Political
yen,9 notably higher than the 1.90-mark and cratic Party lost the upper house of parliament, instability
140-yen levels thought to be the upper limits and speculation about the potential resignation abroad worked
by the Bank of Japan’s Governor Sumitato con­ to the dollar s
desired by the G-7.
During the second half of 1989, the combi­ tributed to continued political uncertainty in that advantage during
nation of declining U.S. interest rates and rising country.15
first-half 1989.
During the spring, West Germany’s Chan­
foreign rates began to narrow the differential.
After continued strong domestic economic cellor Helmut Kohl was engaged in an intra­
growth in the beginning of the year, statistics party struggle. This, and a belief that Kohl’s
that indicated an easing economy led to fears of ruling coalition could possibly be replaced by
a slowdown. Monetary policy was loosened and an alliance of socialists and environmentalists,
short-term interest rates declined. On August 1, caused many investors to view the dollar as a
many banks reduced their prime lending rates.10 safer haven than the mark. Also contributing to
In September, finance ministers of the G-7 economic uncertainty was confusion over the
met and again issued a statement that the strong implementation and ensuing removal of a with­
dollar was unwanted and could adversely affect holding tax on interest, as well as Kohl’s strug­
the world economy. Thereafter, the dollar gle in NATO over nuclear weapons policy.16
In the People’s Republic of China, anti-gov­
started to fall, picking up speed when the central
bank of West Germany increased its discount ernment protests by students, although unsuc­
rate another 1 percent in October in response to cessful, moved some to worry that disorder
its own growing economy. Other Western Eu­ could spread to other parts of Asia. There also
ropean countries, including Britain, France, and was concern that the economies of other coun­
Switzerland, supported their discount rates as tries in the region that rely heavily on export
well, while Japan raised its rate by one-half of growth, especially the Newly Industrialized
1 percent.11 Meanwhile, U.S. interest rates con­ Countries, might be adversely affected by pos­
tinued their descent as the year came to a close. sible lower demand for goods in China. Both the
climate more conducive to volatile currency
swings throughout the year.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 5

Import and Export Prices in 1989

A sharp increase
in world oil
prices also
tended to drive
up the dollar.

6
Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Taiwan dollar and South Korean won, which
had been appreciating against the U.S. dollar
through the year’s first 5 months, began to de­
cline in June. The yen, which had been depre­
ciating up to that time, experienced its biggest
monthly drop of the year during June, falling
more than 4 percent.17
The U.K. pound grew stronger against the dol­
lar during the second half of the year, although its
rise was the smallest among the other G-7 Eu­
ropean countries.18 Developments reflected politi­
cal tensions which heightened towards the end of
October, when both the Chancellor of the Excheq­
uer and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s chief
economic advisor resigned in a dispute over who
was in charge of monetary and economic policy.
The controversy, reported as Thatcher’s most
serious crisis in her 10-year tenure, centered
around Britain’s joining the European Monetary
System (EMS). At the time, Britain was the last
major country in the European Community yet
to commit to the EMS. Thatcher, who previously
opposed joining the EMS and believed that Brit­
ain should keep its independence in determining
economic policy rather than targeting the pound
with the other European currencies, softened her
stance, providing certain conditions were met.
Among the conditions specified were guaran­
tees that the movement of capital would not be
restricted, that all subsidies would be removed,
and that foreign exchange controls would be
eliminated.19
The steepest decline of the dollar in the sec­
ond half of the year occurred against the West
German mark, which seemed to benefit most
from the opening of East Germany’s borders in
November and the subsequent opening of many
other Eastern European countries. The ramifica­
tions of these political developments were espe­
cially vague, how ever, as some analysts
predicted that the mark would start to depreciate
for the very same reasons.
Increase in oil prices. The sharp increase in
world oil prices also played a role in the higher
value of the dollar early in the year. Because all
of the world’s oil is purchased in dollars, higher
oil prices translated into stronger demand for
dollars from abroad. In the United States alone,
the price index for imported crude petroleum
jumped 36.9 percent through the first 6 months
of 1989. During the final two quarters, however,
the index rose just 3 percent.

The trade deficit
Despite the appreciation of the dollar, the
Nation’s real merchandise trade deficit fell to
$107.6 billion in 1989, the third consecutive
June 1990

annual decline since the $167.8 billion peak in
1986.20 (See charts 5 and 6.) Although the trade
deficit declined at a slower 12.4-percent rate for
the year, in comparison to the 20.7-percent re­
duction in 1988, it ended the year at its lowest
level since 1983. Imports grew 5.8 percent in
1989 to $494.4 billion, slightly slower than the
6.1-percent rate recorded in 1988. However, ex­
ports increased 12.3 percent to $386.8 billion,
considerably less than the 16.2-percent and 20.6percent advances in 1987 and 1988, respectively.
The imbalance with selected trading partners
fell in 1989 as well. The deficit with the Eu­
ropean Community dropped 87.6 percent to
$1.5 billion for the year.21 Highlights of this
reduction include a 25.2-percent decrease in the
deficit with France, a 34.5-percent fall in the
deficit with West Germany, and the reversal of
the previous year’s $497 million deficit with the
United Kingdom to a $1.7 billion surplus in
1989. The U.S. trade debt with the Newly In­
dustrialized Countries improved by 16.3 percent
for the year, with deficits falling to $3.8 billion
with Hong Kong, $6.4 billion with South Korea,
and $1.9 billion with Singapore. The deficit
with Taiwan, however, rose 0.9 percent to $13.2
billion, while that with Japan remained persist­
ently high, declining only 7.5 percent to $49.1
billion.
On the export side, the year started out strong
for overall deficit reduction, with seasonally
adjusted and annualized merchandise exports in
the first half of 1989 climbing 10.3 percent over
1988 levels, while the constant-dollar value of
imports rose just 3.3 percent for the same pe­
riod.22 The resulting $102.8 billion deficit for
the first 6 months of 1989 was a 16.3-percent
improvement over 1988. The robust export
growth began in 1987 and continued through
June of 1989, as exports became increasingly
important to the U.S. economy. Exports of
goods and services as a percentage of constantdollar GNP climbed from 11.1 percent in 1987
to 13.2 percent the following year, and to 14.0
percent for the first two quarters of 1989.23 If
services are excluded, the export share of GNP
is even higher, having risen from 17.2 percent
in 1987 to 20.7 percent in the first half of
1989.24
The depreciation of the dollar was an impor­
tant factor in the two-and-a-half-year U.S. ex­
port expansion. After an expected lag, the sharp
fall in the value of the dollar between 1985 and
1988 increased the competitiveness of U.S. ex­
ports on world markets in 1987 and 1988. De­
spite a subsequent reversal of the dollar’s
direction, which resulted in a 6.9-percent appre­
ciation of the currency on a trade-weighted

basis for U.S. exports in first-half 1989, the
lingering effects of the cheaper dollar remained
a positive influence on exports during the first
half of the year.
Strong economic growth among the Nation’s
major trading partners contributed to the export
boom by ensuring healthy demand for U.S. ex­
ports from early 1987 through midyear 1989.
For Canada, the annual increase in gross domes­
tic product (GDP) rose steadily from 3.1 percent
in 1986 to 5.0 percent in 1988; in Japan, it
climbed from 2.5 percent to 5.7 percent for the
same period; and the rate of increase for the
European Community rose from 2.6 percent to
3.8 percent.25
In the second half of 1989, the real U.S. trade
deficit deteriorated to $112.4 billion dollars, as
exports grew only 3.7 percent above first-half
levels and the rate of increase in imports quick­
ened to 4.9 percent.26 Although the dollar re­
versed direction in the latter half of the year,
falling 4.2 percent on an export trade-weighted
basis, lagged effects of the dollar’s unexpected
appreciation in the first half reduced U.S. com­
petitiveness in world markets in the final two
quarters of 1989. The resulting slowdown in
export growth was intensified by softened de­
mand for U.S. exports late in 1989, as the in­
crease in GDP slowed for many U.S. trade
partners, such as Canada, Japan, and the Eu­
ropean Community. As previously noted, the
latter countries were raising interest rates during
this time to curb their growing economies.
The divergent trends in constant-dollar ex­
ports between the first and second halves of
1989 were especially evident for industrial sup­
plies and materials and for consumer goods. In
the former category, exports were a seasonally
adjusted and annualized 14.7 percent greater in
the first 6 months of 1989 than in 1988 and just
0.8 percent higher in the second half of the year
than in the first half.27 For consumer goods, the
first-half increase in exports was 24.4 percent
and a comparatively small 6.7 percent in the
latter half. (See chart 7.)
When measured in current dollars, the cate­
gory of capital goods excluding autos also ex­
hibited a large difference in export growth
between the two periods. For the first two quar­
ters, exports of capital goods climbed 12.5 per­
cent, a sharp contrast to the 6.6-percent rise in
the final two quarters.28
Unlike the overall large increase in exports
in 1989, merchandise import growth in constant
dollars moderated only slightly for the year. Of
the $27.3 billion rise in imports in 1989, 22.7
percent was due to an increase in oil imports.29
In current dollars, oil imports constituted a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

much larger 35.6-percent share of the year’s
$31.2 billion increase in all imports because of
sharply higher crude petroleum prices in 1989.30
In contrast to those for exports, the trends in
current- and constant-dollar values for non­
petroleum imports were notably different. Current-dollar nonpetroleum imports, which are not
adjusted for price changes, rose 4.9 percent in
1989, a little less than one-half the rates of
increase in both 1987 and 1988.31 However,
constant-dollar nonpetroleum imports, which
measure actual volumes, climbed 5.5 percent
for the year, slightly faster than the 5.2-percent
rate recorded in 1988.32
While the level of U.S. exports has re­
sponded favorably to currency fluctuations and
increased dramatically over the last 3 years,
import penetration has not abated in response to
the depreciation of the dollar between 1985 and
1988. In fact, constant-dollar imports of goods
and services as a percentage of gross domestic
purchases have risen fairly steadily. In 1989, the
import share totaled 15.3 percent, compared to
14.8 percent in 1988 and 14.0 percent in 1987.33
For merchandise imports only, the degree of
import penetration was even larger, having
grown to 24.6 percent in 1989 from 23.6 percent
in 1988, and 24.2 percent in 1987.34

Chart 2.

Annual percent price changes for
selected categories of U.S. Imports,
1987-89

Percent
35
H Fuels and related products
30

□ Intermediate manufactured goods

25

■ Machinery and transport
equipment

20
15
10
5

0

I

B

-5

-1 0
-1 5
-2 0

1987

1988

19 8 9

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

7

Imp or t and Export Prices in 1989
A notable factor in the failure of U.S. import
volumes to decline significantly has been the
minimal amount of home currency appreciation
passed along by foreign producers to U.S. con­
sumers in the form of higher prices since 1985.35
Although the pass-through rate for nonfuel im­
ports increased to 58.4 percent for the period
between March 1985 and December 1988, com­
pared to 42.5 percent between March 1985 and
December 1987,36 the rate still remains consid­
erably below levels of the 1970’s. Plausible
explanations for the lower pass-through rates are
that foreign producers are shaving profits, as well
as cutting costs, to preserve U.S. market share.

Import price trends

Merchandise
import growth
moderated only
slightly for the
year.

8 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Energy. After a 16.1-percent decline in 1988,
the index for imported fuels and related prod­
ucts clim bed 30 percent in 1989, largely
because of a 41-percent jump in crude petro­
leum prices. Early in the year, perceptions of
improved unity within the Organization of Pe­
troleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), coupled
with strong world demand for OPEC oil, contrib­
uted to the surge in imported petroleum prices,
much of which occurred in the first quarter.
In November of 1988, the 13-member cartel
had unanimously signed an agreement to restrict
their combined output to 18.5 million barrels
per day (mb/d) for the first half of 1989, sub­
stantially below the 20.9 mb/d production level
recorded in 1988.37 After gaining quota parity
with Iran, Iraq signed the agreement, marking
this as the first time Iraq has signed any OPEC
agreement since 1986. Subsequently, the No­
vember accord was hailed as one of the strong­
est OPEC actions in years, and much needed after
lack of unity within the cartel during 1988 led
to overproduction, which caused crude oil
prices to drop 20.5 percent for that year.
Despite the perceived cohesiveness of the
organization, OPEC production for the first 3
months of 1989 averaged 21.1 mb/d, 2.6 mb/d
over quota.38 Although every country in the
cartel overproduced during the first quarter, the
United Arab Emirates and Kuwait exceeded
their quotas by the largest amounts. The United
Arab Emirates produced 1.7 mb/d, almost 75
percent above its allotment, while Kuwaiti oil
production was 1.3 mb/d, 25.4 percent above
quota.39 Many observers had speculated that
Iran and Iraq would produce as much oil as
possible to finance reconstruction after the IranIraq war ended in August of 1988. Realizing
that revenue m axim ization would not be
achieved by flooding the market, however, nei­
ther country exceeded its first-quarter quota by
a large margin.
June 1990

Unlike the situation in 1988, increased de­
mand for OPEC oil absorbed the excess supply
and, in turn, drove up prices during the first 3
months of 1989. Petroleum consumption by
member nations of the Organization for Eco­
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)40
rose by 537,000 b/d for the period.41 Petroleum
consumption in the United States, which ac­
counts for over 45 percent of OECD consump­
tion, grew just 0.2 percent. However, a 6.6percent reduction in U.S. crude oil production
for the first quarter forced the Nation to increase
its reliance on foreign oil to fill the widening
gap between petroleum supply and demand.42
OPEC provided much of the crude oil needed, as
output was reduced by some non-OPEC coun­
tries, such as the United Kingdom, where a
series of oilfield accidents late in 1988 had
forced cutbacks in North Sea area production.
In the second quarter of the year, crude pe­
troleum prices rose 7.2 percent, considerably
less than the 27.8-percent jump in the first quar­
ter. The primary reason for the moderating
prices was increased overproduction by OPEC,
which coincided with disunity among cartel
members. Total o p e c production averaged 22.2
mb/d from April to May, 3.7 mb/d above
quota.43 All 13 members produced over quota,
with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait ex­
ceeding their allotm ents by 827,000 and
898,000 b/d, respectively, in continued protest
of what they believed to be unjustifiably low
quotas assigned to them in November of 1988.44
As the third largest reserve holder in the
world, with most of its oil sold as petroleum
products, Kuwait has a big incentive to exceed
quota and therefore benefits from lower crude
oil prices that increase product margins.45 It
was Kuwait’s tendency to overproduce that
resulted in the continuing deterioration of SaudiKuwaiti relations, causing both the June and
September OPEC meetings to fall short of expec­
tations. Saudi Arabia’s continual insistence on
stable prices and the maintenance of its 24.6percent OPEC share remained a source of friction
with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, both
of which prefer quota allocation based on re­
serve holdings and production capacity. The
agreements reached at the two meetings in­
creased the OPEC production ceiling by 1 mb/d
for each quarter, but Kuwait, which, along with
the United Arab Emirates, had pushed for a
disproportionate increase in its quota, signed
both accords “with reservations,” thus making it
known that Kuwait would continue to produce at
a level it considered optimal for its own interests.
The breakdown of relations among OPEC
members led to repeated overproduction in both

the third and fourth quarters of 1989 as demand
from the slower-growing Western economies
fell slightly, causing crude petroleum prices to
stabilize in the latter half of the year. In the
United States, petroleum consumption from
July to D ecem ber averaged 17.25 mb/d,
230,000 b/d below year-earlier levels.46
Although crude oil prices were sharply
higher for the year, net U.S. petroleum imports
were up 8.1 percent in 1989 to 7.119 mb/d, the
highest level since 1979.47 This reflected the
continuation of a 3-year trend of growing U.S. .
dependence on crude oil imports. Net imports
as a percentage of U.S. petroleum products sup­
plied reached 41.3 percent for the year, com­
pared to 38.1 percent in 1988. Plummeting
world oil prices in the mid-1980’s precipitated
the increased reliance on foreign oil, as U.S.
petroleum consumption rose 1.5 mb/d from
1985 to 198948 while domestic production fell
1.34 mb/d over the same period.49
Growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil,
largely from OPEC, is likely to continue, because
the U.S. oil industry has not supported signifi­
cant amounts of additional spending on explo­
ration projects. The average number of rotary
rigs in operation in the United States, an impor­
tant indicator of future U.S. production levels,
totaled 869 in 1989 compared to 936 in 1988
and the 3,970 record set in 1981.50 The number
of oil wells completed in the United States
dropped to 10,860 for the year, 15.9 percent prices for metal manufactures, which had in­
creased nearly 21 percent during 1987-88,
below the number completed in 1988.
moved up 2.4 percent, the smallest change in
Intermediate manufactures. Import prices for that index since 1984. These three categories
intermediate manufactured products decreased represent the first, second, and fourth largest
0.7 percent in 1989. The drop was primarily a groups within the intermediate manufactured
result of domestic economic conditions, which products index, with iron and steel and nonfer­
were characterized by some analysts as the fore­ rous metals accounting for more than one-third
shadowing of a recession, by others simply as a of the aggregate index. The 8.1-percent jump in
slowdown, and by Federal Reserve Board nonmetallic mineral manufactures, caused in
Chairman Alan Greenspan as a “temporary hes­ part by the 14.8-percent increase for gemstones,
was the only major subcategory to post a signif­
itation.”51
The downward trend in the index for inter­ icant increase.
While the economy completed its seventh
mediate manufactured products, which accounts
for nearly 16 percent of the all-import index, consecutive year of expansion in 1989,52 the rate
marked the end of 3 years of upswings that had of growth declined, with most economic indica­
included 12.3- and 12.7-percent surges in 1987 tors falling from previous levels. Real g n p in­
and 1988. Among the index’s nine subcatego­ creased 3.0 percent in 1989, the smallest annual
ries, three experienced annual price declines advance since 1986 and significantly below the
while another three experienced rates of in­ 4.4-percent advance in 1988.53 In addition, out­
crease smaller than those recorded in 1987 and put from the automobile, construction, and
housing industries, which are major end users of
1988. (See chart 8.)
Steel prices, which had climbed a cumulative iron, steel, and nonferrous metals, fell from the
30 percent over the years 1987-88, showed no record levels set in the past few years. The result
change in 1989. Nonferrous metals prices, was stagnant or lower prices for the intermedi­
which had risen 66.6 percent over the same ate products, especially in the second half of the
period, decreased 14.4 percent in 1989, and year, during which the slowdown combined

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 9

Import and Export Prices in 1989
with cautious expectations for the near future to
reduce demand even further.
During the expansive years of 1987 and
1988, demand for intermediate products and the
outputs they are used to manufacture sky­
rocketed, supply shortages arose, and prices
jumped. In response to rising prices, metal
plants that had closed during the recessionary
times of the early 1980’s were reopened, com­
pany investment increased, and capacity levels
grew. The additional capacity that came online
between late 1988 and the middle of 1989, along

Chart 4.

with the economy’s slowdown, resulted in rising
inventory levels that lasted throughout the year.
Import prices for iron and steel moderated
during 1989, as the 1.5-percent increase during
the first quarter was followed by relative price
inactivity in the middle 6 months, and was sub­
sequently negated by the 2.2-percent drop in the
final quarter. At the subgroup level, the small
annual increase for the universals, plates, and
sheets index was offset by declines in the in­
dexes for ferroalloys and for tubes, pipes, and
fittings.

Annual percent change in the exchange rate of the dollar against
various foreign currencies, 1 9 8 6 -8 9
Percent

-3 0

-2 5

-2 0

-1 5

-1 0

-5

0

5

10

1986

□
1987

South Korea

■ Taiwan
Ö Italy
£3 United Kingdom
□

Canada

El West Germany
■ Japan
1988

1989

SOURCE:

Federal Reserve Bulletin, various issues, table 3.2 8, ’Foreign Exchange Rates.*

10 forMonthly
Digitized
FRASERLabor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

15

Table 1.

Changes in import and export price indexes for selected product categories, 1988 - 89
Quarterly percent change

Annual percent change
SITC

Product category

code

Percent

December
1987
to
December
1988

December
1988
to
December
1989

December
1988
to
March
1989

March
1989
to
June
1989

All imports ....................................

100.000

4.5

1.9

0.1

All imports excluding fuels ...................

90.746

6.9

-.5

-.8

Food .................................................
Beverages and to b a c c o ...................
Crude m a te ria ls................................
Fuels and related products...............
Fats and o ils ......................................

4.940
I . 117
3.629
9.252
.179

Chemicals and related products . . . .
Intermediate manufactured products
Machinery and transport equipment .
Miscellaneous manufactured articles

4.213
15.847
44.295
15.745

All exports .............................................
Food .............................. ...................
Beverages and to b a c c o ...................
Crude m a terials................................
Fuels and related products...............
Fats and o ils ......................................

100.000

Chemicals and related products
Intermediate manufactured products
Machinery and transport equipment .
Miscellaneous manufactured articles

II.
8.194
45.294
7.702

September
1989
to
December
1989

1.2

1.2

-

-.7

9.603
1.628
10.676
4.013
.560

Import prices and volumes of iron and steel
reflected the condition of the domestic steel
industry, which was considerably stronger in the
beginning of the year than at yearend. For ex­
ample, U.S. steel shipments in 1989 rose less
than 1 percent over 1988’s record-setting total,54
despite having increased 4.5 percent in the first
quarter.55 Capacity utilization, while on a par
with 1988 levels through May at nearly 90
percent,56 ended the year at just over 84 per­
cent.57 In addition, steel production, which rose
9 and 12 percent in 1987 and 1988, respectively,
declined more than 2 percent in 1989. Domestic
consumption also fell more than 5 percent for
the year.
Declines in shipments to the two largest do­
mestic markets, service centers and the automo­
tive industry, were the primary reason for the
steel industry’s lethargy. Shipments to service
centers and distributors, which account for more
than one-fifth of all steel shipments, fell an
estimated 3.2 percent to 18.4 million tons in
1989;58 m eanwhile, those to auto markets
dropped 7.1 percent to 11.2 million tons, after
increasing more than 13 percent in the first
quarter.59
The decline in sales of both domestic and
imported automobiles in the United States
caused car inventories to grow throughout 1989,
particularly in the latter half of the year. Con­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June
1989
to
September
1989

645

currently, distributor steel inventories rose and
peaked in the summer because of deliberate
overstocking in midyear to combat the threat of
a potential steelworkers strike that failed to
occur, lower lead times between orders by cus­
tomers and contracted delivery dates, and a gen­
eral inability to draw down stock levels in the
face of weak demand.
Import volumes of steel also declined in
1989, falling 16.7 percent from the previous
year.60 The combination of sluggish U.S. de­
mand, the relatively weak dollar, and stronger
economies in Europe and Japan kept foreign
shipments to this country below the import lev­
els dictated by the Voluntary Restraint Agree­
ments (VRA’s) that were negotiated in 1984. In
all, the volume of imports from the 29 countries
affected by the VRA’s 61 for steel mill products
and certain fabricated steel products declined
12.3 percent during 1989.62 This continues a
trend also noted in 1988, during which foreign
producers exported to the United States just 75
percent of their allotted total,63 and concentrated
more on supplying their own growing markets.
U.S. purchasers of steel have responded to
lower import levels by buying their steel domes­
tically. Imports from Canada, the only major
producer not covered by a VRA, decreased more
than 6 percent as well.64 Since the VRA’s went
into effect, total imports as a percent of U.S.
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

11

Import and Export Prices in 1989
market share have fallen from 28.4 percent to
just over 17 percent in 1989.65
The VRA’s have achieved their goal of reduc­
ing foreign competition in the U.S. steel market.
To ensure that this trend would continue, the
industry began lobbying for a 5-year extension
of the program well before its scheduled Sep­
tember 30, 1989, expiration date. In July, the
agreements were extended until March 31,
1992. The new pacts, while similar to the earlier
ones, allow import penetration starting at 18.4
percent to increase by 1 percent each year. Pro­
visions were also made to loosen restrictions in
the event that steel supplies become scarce at
any time. However, a decision to extend the
VRA’s for only two-and-a-half years was a com­
promise of a sort, as domestic steel purchasers
had argued for the abolition of such agreements.
Prior to the extension, the International
Trade Commission released the findings of its
investigation of the effects of the VRA’s on the
domestic steel industry. The investigation,
which was initiated by the Subcommittee on
Trade of the U.S House of Representatives’
Ways and Means Committee, concluded that the
v r a ’ s caused imported and domestic steel
prices to increase between 0.2 and 1.6 percent

Chart 5. Value of U.S. merchandise exports
and Imports, 1 9 8 5 -8 9
Billions of
1982 dollars
550
H Merchandise imports
500

BS Merchandise exports

450

400

iffiipliiti

350

300

250

200
II III IV I
1985

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized12for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

II III IV
1986

June 1990

II III IV I
1988

II III IV
19 8 9

more each year between 1985 and 1988 than if
the agreements had not been in place.66 How­
ever, the Commission also decided that the
v r a ’ s had little, if any, adverse effect on the
automotive, construction, or agricultural equip­
ment industries.
Import prices for nonferrous metals, histori­
cally the most volatile category of the interme­
diate manufactured products index, followed a
path similar to that of iron and steel prices in
1989, rising moderately in the first quarter and
dropping rapidly in the final three quarters. The
14.4-percent annual decline was the first down­
ward movement in the index since 1985 and the
largest decrease since publication of the nonfer­
rous metals index began in 1982. Import prices
for all of the major subcategories of the index
declined, except for a slight annual increase for
zinc.
The slowdown in the economy also was the
driving force behind lower prices for copper,
aluminum, and nickel, and the slowed increase
for zinc. Prices of the aforementioned metals,
like those of iron and steel, all depend heavily
on consumer demand and the strength of indus­
trial activity. Consequently, the slowdown in the
key transportation, housing, and construction
sectors affected nonferrous metal prices simi­
larly.
Copper prices—which in general appeared to
be affected by the economic slowdown, falling
16.1 percent in 1989 after rising 32.9 percent in
1988—were more erratic during the year due to
world production problems caused by work
stoppages and other troubles in Belgium, Peru,
Canada, Mexico, Chile, Zambia, and Papua
New Guinea. All of the problems were resolved
later in the year, except for the disorder in Papua
New Guinea. The United States was the only
major free world copper producer that failed to
experience supply problems in 1989.
In response to the production disruptions and
despite weak seasonal demand, imported copper
prices increased 5.2 percent during the third
quarter after falling the previous two. Unlike
those of the other metals, copper supplies did
not finish the year at especially strong levels,
although the resolution of the supply interrup­
tions and the continued slack in industrial activ­
ity caused prices to fall nearly 9 percent in the
fourth quarter.
Despite the turmoil in most copper producing
countries, global copper production increased
during the year, most notably in the United
States, which is second only to Chile as the
world’s largest copper producing nation.67 The
U.S. producers took advantage of the new
solvent extraction electrowinning (SX-EW )

technology, an innovative, low-cost method of
extracting copper from ore. In 1989, about 18
percent of U.S. copper was produced using
S X - E W technology, up from about 1 2 percent in
1987.68 Copper ranks second only to aluminum
as the most commonly used nonferrous metal in
the U.S. and world economies.
The Nation’s building and construction in­
dustry continued to be the largest market for
copper shipments, accounting for more than 40
percent of all U.S. shipments.69 In 1989, spend­
ing on construction projects grew just 1.2 per­
cent, the lowest rate of increase since 1982.70
The electrical and electronics sector and the
industrial machinery and equipment industry
were other major end markets for copper, while
demand from the automobile industry ac­
counted for slightly more than 10 percent of all
copper shipments.71
Among the other nonferrous metals, alumi­
num recorded a price decline— 18.7 percent—
during the year because of increased capacity
levels worldwide and weakening demand from
many major end markets. Nickel prices fell al­
most 43 percent during the final three quarters
and slightly more than 30 percent for the year
as a whole. This was due to the softening stain­
less steel market, which accounts for about 40
percent of U.S. nickel demand and 60 percent
of world demand.72
The 8.1-percent increase for imported nonmetallic mineral manufactures, which represent
almost 16 percent of the intermediate manufac­
tured products index, was the largest jump
among all the index subcategories. The large
increase in gemstone prices was primarily a
result of the 15.5-percent price increase in
March for rough or uncut diamonds by De
Beers’ Central Selling Organization, the South
African cartel which controls 80 percent of the
worldwide rough diamond market.73 The 1989
increase for gemstones was the largest in 4
consecutive years of price increases by De
Beers.
Im ported diamond and other gemstone
prices slowed considerably following the first
quarter’s 7.8-percent rise, especially in the
United States, where diamond demand slack­
ened following the cartel’s action. Global de­
mand for diamonds remains high, however,
particularly in Japan, where the government
substantially reduced the luxury tax, which ap­
plies to such items. Speculation for the future
centers upon whether producers in Australia,
Botswana, Namibia, Zaire, and the Soviet
Union will follow the lead of those in Angola
and break with the De Beers pricing strategy in
an attempt to sell more of their stones on the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

open market. In all, De Beers’ second-half 1989
sales were 24 percent lower than first-half sales,
while their annual sales were 2 percent lower
than 1988’s record level.74
Machinery and transport equipment.
The
sluggish performance of the U.S. economy in
1989 and the appreciation of the dollar during
the first half of the year were evident, to perhaps
the greatest degree, in the price trends for im­
ported machinery and transport equipment. The
index for this category of goods, which accounts
for almost 45 percent of the all-import index,
experienced just a 0.2-percent annual upturn,
substantially lower than the 7.6- and 5.5-percent
yearly gains of 1987 and 1988. If the heavily
weighted subcategory of road vehicles and parts
is excluded, import prices for the remaining
finished goods actually declined 0.5 percent.
There is evidence that the slowdown of the
domestic economy played a part in the stagna­
tion of import price growth, in that none of the
machinery and transport equipment index’s
seven published subcategories posted a yearly
rise of more than 0.8 percent in 1989. In com­
parison, over the 3-year period from 1986
through 1988, all subcategories except one reg­
istered annual increases of at least 2.9 percent
each year. In 1989, import prices decreased in
four subcategories— specifically, specialized
machinery, office machines and automated data
processing equipment, telecommunications
equipment, and electrical machinery and equip­
ment. Not since 1985 had any subcategory ex­
perienced an annual drop in prices, and not
since 1984 had prices declined in so many prod­
uct areas.
The aggregate index for machinery and
transport equipment increased in the first and
fourth quarters of 1989 and decreased during the
middle two. The 0.7-percent second-quarter de­
cline and 0.9-percent fourth-quarter rise were
the index’s largest quarterly movements. The
trade-weighted value of the dollar for such com­
modities showed the most volatility during these
two periods, appreciating 5.6 percent in the sec­
ond quarter and depreciating 2.9 percent in the
fourth quarter.
It is important to note that the B L S Interna­
tional Price Program accepts import price data
reported in terms of both foreign currency and
U.S. dollars. For the purposes of index calcula­
tion, prices stated in foreign denominations
must be converted to dollars. Prices for as many
as 37 percent of all metalworking machinery
products and 33 percent of all general industrial
machinery products were reported in foreign
currencies, thus making the indexes in those

In 1989,
spending for
construction
posted its lowest
increase since
1982.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

13

14 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Import and Export Prices in 1989
areas more susceptible to exchange rate fluctu­
ations. Consequently, these two subcategories
of the machinery and transport equipment index
showed the most sensitivity to the appreciation
of the dollar in the second quarter.
Although fluctuations in the value of the
dollar affected the direction of quarterly index
movements, many other factors contributed to
lower import prices in 1989. Among these were
the sharp drop-off in consumer demand for au­
tomobiles and computers, an easing of supply
constraints in such areas as semiconductors, and
a leveling-off of production in machinery indus­
tries as a result of negligible growth of construc­
tion projects.
Prices for road vehicles and parts, which is
the largest subcategory within the machinery
and transport index and accounts for more than
18 percent of the all-import index, increased 0.8
percent for the year. That figure represents the
lowest price advance in this area since 1982, at
which time the U.S. economy was experiencing
a recession. In 1989, the index decreased in
each of the first three quarters, while the 1.9percent advance in the fourth quarter, which
reflected the introduction of the new 1990
model cars into the index, was lower than the

Chart 6.

June 1990

2.4-percent mean increase for all fourth quarters
between 1982 and 1988. On average, the road
vehicles and parts index had increased 7.5 per­
cent annually between 1985 and 1988.
Prices for imported passenger automobiles
rose 0.4 percent during 1989, the smallest an­
nual increase since 1982, while those for auto­
motive trucks advanced just 0.1 percent, the
smallest gain in that area since publication of
the trucks and special purpose vehicles index
began in 1984. Most of the fourth-quarter price
growth was attributed to higher costs associated
with the new passive restraint systems required
on all 1990 model cars sold in the United States.
The slowdown in the automobile industry
during 1989 followed more than 4 years of
substantial growth and record or near-record
sales and profits.75 Demand for passenger cars,
in particular, stalled during 1989. Consumers
stopped buying a new car every 3 or 4 years as
a result of the increasing costs of purchasing an
automobile and the cyclical lull that followed
the recent boom. The two concepts are related,
in that the higher retail car prices have caused
consumers to extend their financial liabilities
over a greater timespan.

U.S. trade deficit and real exchange rate of
the U.S. dollar, quarterly data, 1 9 8 5 -8 9

As a result, U.S. sales of both domestic and
imported passenger automobiles declined con­
siderably throughout the year, falling a com­
bined 6.6 percent from 1988 levels.76 While
performance during the first 9 months of 1989
led to speculation that an industrywide down­
turn was a possibility, it did not become a reality
until the final 3 months. From October through
December, total U.S. sales of all passenger au­
tomobiles fell nearly 17 percent from year-ear­
lier levels. In December alone, car sales were
down more than 25 percent from December
1988. Meanwhile, as production facilities were
shut down, inventories continued to increase
despite massive incentive packages that offered
discounts, rebates, and cash-back programs to
prospective buyers.
Although sales of imported automobiles de­
creased 8 percent in 1989 and the import share
of the U.S. market fell nearly 0.5 percent,77 the
impact that foreign competition has had on the
domestic car industry continued to grow. Output
of automobile “transplants”—cars built in the
United States in factories owned by foreign
manufacturers—surged, with U.S. sales from
transplant firms and joint ventures increasing 30
percent in 1989.78 By November, a record was
set, as more than 1 million cars were produced
in transplant facilities. In addition, the market
share held by Japanese manufacturers reached
an all-time high of 26 percent during the year.79
Two Japanese companies sold more cars in the
United States during December than one of
America’s “Big Three” automakers, a historic
first. Finally, although the public’s perception of
the quality gap between foreign-made and
American-made cars narrowed, as indicated by
the J.D. Power and Associates Consumer Satis­
faction Index,80 the Honda Accord became the
best-selling car in the Nation during 1989, a
distinction never before held by a non-Ameri­
can manufactured automobile.81
The influx of Japanese transplant auto­
mobiles, which comprised about 10 percent of
the U.S. market through September of 1989,82
has resulted from the decrease in manufacturers’
distribution expenses; the depreciation of the
dollar, which in theory makes imports more
expensive; and the restriction of imports to a
bilaterally agreed-upon level of 2.3 million units
per year. Because transplants are manufactured
in the United States, they are not considered
imports and thus are not subject to trade restric­
tions.
Among all of the machinery and transport
equipment subcategories, the index for electri­
cal machinery and equipment, which accounts
for nearly 6 percent of the all-import index,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

showed the greatest reversal between 1988 and
1989. After increasing 9.4 percent in 1988, the
largest gain in the history of the index’s publi­
cation, prices for electrical machinery and
equipment declined 0.3 percent in 1989. The
contrasting movements followed the divergent
annual trends noted in the electronic compo­
nents area— consisting primarily of semicon­
ductors—for which prices fell 4.1 percent last
year after rising 16 percent in 1988.
Contributing to the downward movement
was an easing of supply problems, combined
with weak demand for semiconductors and
other electronic components after a somewhat
unanticipatedly strong year in 1988. The soften­
ing computer, telecommunications, and automo­
tive markets in the United States all played a
role in weakening demand, as did an increase in
capacity. The electronic components index de­
creased in all four quarters of 1989, as the
average price of a 1-megabit d r a m (Dynamic
Random-Access Memory) chip fell from more
than $15 in January to less than $11 by Octo­
ber.83
Japan, which controls between 65 and 70
percent of the world market for memory devices,
continues to hold an even greater share of the
d r a m market.84 The supply shortage of 1988
transpired as the result of a 1986 agreement
between the United States and Japan whereby
Japan would stop “dumping” semiconductors—
that is, selling them below cost—on the U.S.
market, while the United States would take
measures to increase its own production. In June
of 1989, U.S. Memories, a consortium of U.S.
computer and semiconductor companies that in­
cluded IB M and Digital Equipment Corporation,
was established, with the goal of producing
large quantities of memory chips inexpensively.
(However, the group was disbanded in January
1990 because of reported financing problems
and a lack of commitment on the part of many
companies to invest in the long-term project.85)

The impact of
foreign
competition on
the domestic car
Developments in export prices
industry
Food. Following 2 years of increases—includ­ continues to
ing the drought-generated 20.7-percent rise in grow.
1988—the index for exported food products,
which accounts for nearly 10 percent of the
all-export index, declined 5.2 percent in 1989.
Whereas the grain category constitutes nearly
60 percent of the index and is customarily the
most volatile food subdivision, large decreases
in other areas such as exported meat, fish, and
animal feeds edged the index down even further
than did the modest 1.0-percent drop in grain
prices.
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

15

Import and Export Prices in 1989
In all, export prices for four of the six major
food categories fell, with only those for fruits
and vegetables and miscellaneous food products
showing slight over-the-year increases. The
index for exported fish and crustaceans dropped
24 percent after having risen 80.7 percent since
1984. Like that for fish, the index for animal
feeds, consisting largely of soybean meal, reg­
istered its first annual decline in 5 years, drop­
ping 17.9 percent. The index for exported meat
and meat preparations declined 10.4 percent, its
first downturn since b l s began publication of
the index in 1983.
The slight dip in grain prices during 1989
marked the smallest change in the grain index
since it was first published in 1980 and was a
notable reversal from the cumulative 40.7-percent advance in the index over the years 198788. Prices were not pushed down substantially
from inflated 1988 levels, primarily because
beginning stock inventories were depleted as a
result of the drought. That exported grain prices
fell just 1 percent, as compared to the 12-percent annual drop in 1983—the year following
the last domestic drought—tends to support
claims that the 1988 drought was the worst since
the mid-1930’s.86

Weather conditions around the country were
considered adequate for food production during
1989. However, climatic effects of the 1988
drought lingered. The middle part of the coun­
try, including the Corn Belt and Northern
Plains, was adversely affected during the grow­
ing season by already low ground moisture, a
small rainfall, and other postdrought conse­
quences. Cool summer temperatures and an in­
crease in precipitation helped to offset those
problems. The East, meanwhile, enjoyed a good
year, as heavy rains helped the Southeast to its
best crop in 5 or 6 years.87 The western part of
the country was dry once again.
Farmers tried to compensate for the effects
of the drought by increasing acreage in 1989.
For example, cropland idled in 1989 under the
terms of annual Federal commodity programs
was almost 50 percent below that in 1988.88 The
Federal Acreage Reduction Program’s require­
ments, which make participating farmers reduce
the amount of crop planted in order to qualify
for price support assistance, were relaxed for
wheat, com, grain sorghum, and barley.
Declines in the aggregate exported grain
index in the final three quarters offset the 6.3percent increase registered in the first quarter.

Chart 7.
quarterly data, 1 9 8 8 -8 9
Billions of
1982 dollars
180
160

-

140

-

120

-

Billions of
1982 dollars
180
Capital goods,
except autos

-

160
140

120
Industrial supplies
and materials

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40
Consumer goods

20

20

0

_ i_

I

II

III
1988

SOURCE:

16 Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IV

III
19 8 9

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economie Analysis

IV

0

The index for yellow com, accounting for
nearly 50 percent of the grain index, decreased
3.8 percent for the year, as sharp price drops
during the harvest season more than compen­
sated for increases in the first and fourth quar­
ters. Wheat prices, however, continued to climb,
rising 1.4 percent for the year as U.S. and world
wheat supplies remained the tightest they had
been in 20 years.89 The wheat index constitutes
nearly 32 percent of the grain index and almost
2 percent of the all-export index. The indexes
for com and wheat had increased 32.1 and 50.3
percent, respectively, during 1988. Rice prices,
which were unaffected by the drought and had
fallen 22.4 percent in 1988, rose 6.8 percent in
1989, primarily because of increased world con­
sumption.
The decrease in com prices subsequently
proved to be the principal factor in lower grain
prices. Com production and yields for 1989
rebounded sharply from those achieved in 1988,
reaching levels more in line with nondrought
years. Production was estimated at 7.5 billion
bushels, up from 4.9 billion, and the number of
bushels harvested per acre jumped from 84.6 to
116.2.90
Yields typically increase further the second
year after a drought because the recovery year
is often spent replenishing ground water and
dealing with soil problems caused by unused
fertilizer and chemicals. Following the droughts
in 1970, 1974, 1980, and 1983, yields averaged
6.7 percent higher in the second postdrought
year than in the recovery year.91 This past per­
formance gives farmers high expectations for
crops set to be harvested in 1990.
Com stocks at the beginning of the 1989-90
marketing year— September 1989 through Au­
gust 1990— were well below year-earlier levels
as a result of the poor 1988 harvest and export
expansion during the 1988-89 marketing year.
(Grain and other agricultural statistics are often
quoted in marketing year terms in order to re­
flect the 12 months between harvests.) Septem­
ber 1989 stocks numbered only 1.9 billion
bushels, down substantially from the nearly 4.3
billion bushels available to start the 1988-89
marketing year.92 The United States, which be­
came the world’s largest exporter of com in
1972-7393 and accounted for 80 percent of the
world’s exports in fiscal year 1989 (October
1988-September 1989),94 has started to sell
abroad in volumes not seen since early in the
decade. During the 1988-89 marketing year—
the marketing year immediately following the
drought—2.1 billion bushels of com were ex­
ported.95 This represents an 18.9-percent in­
crease over the 1987-88 level.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The movements in com export prices during
the 1989 calendar year reflected the increased
production but also stronger world demand.
After a 7.0-percent drought-induced increase in
the first quarter, the com index fell 13 percent
between March and September. The index was
down 9.4 percent in the third quarter alone, due
to seasonal decreases that are common with the
fall harvest. The 3.3-percent turnaround in the
fourth quarter was a result of the increased
demand from the Soviet Union, which pur­
chased nearly 8 million tons of U.S. com during
a 3-week period in October. That amount was
equal to almost 50 percent of the Soviet Union’s
total com purchases from the United States in
1988.96 The increased Soviet demand resulted in
revisions to the U.S.-Soviet Long Term Grain
Agreement, which originally stated that the
U.S.S.R. could buy as much as 12 million tons
of grain each marketing year. In November,
with Soviet purchases increasing, the limit was
raised to 16 million tons, and later, to 20 million
tons.97
The wheat index increased 1.4 percent for
the year, the smallest annual movement since
1984. The 6.8-percent advance in the first quar­
ter was caused by poor growing conditions for
winter wheat. Strong winds and an arctic flow
of cold air in the Plains States preceded warmerthan-normal spring temperatures to reduce pro­
duction. Output levels for Hard Winter Ordinary
Wheat ( h r w ), which represents 45 percent of all
U.S. exported wheat, posted 20-year lows and
were down 18 percent from the 1988 crop.98
Stocks of H R W were estimated at 300 million
bushels on June 1, nearly 50 percent below
year-earlier levels and the lowest since 1975.
Wheat exports decreased an estimated 3 mil­
lion tons during the 1989 fiscal year. The Soviet
Union purchased more than one-third fewer tons
than their record 9 million tons in fiscal 1988
because of a better domestic crop.99 Exports to
Eastern Europe and Latin America also were
estimated to be lower, offsetting larger exports
to Pakistan and China.
The value of all agricultural exports, as well
as the agricultural trade surplus, increased in
fiscal 1989 as a result of higher prices for most
agricultural products and the greater value of
the dollar at the beginning of the year. U.S.
exports were valued at $39.7 billion, the highest
total since 1981,100 a 12-percent increase over
fiscal 1988 performance, and the third consecu­
tive yearly rise.101 Japan was the leading market,
importing $8.2 billion worth of U.S. products.
The European Community and the U.S.S.R. fol­
lowed at $6.5 billion and $3.2 billion, respec­
tively. In unit terms, however, agricultural

The Soviet Union
purchased nearly
8 million tons of
U.S. corn during
a 3 -week period
in October.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

17

Import and Export Prices in 1989

Prices of wood
exports posted
the largest
advance within
the crude
materials
category.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized 18
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

exports declined about 1 percent from the pre­
vious year in fiscal 1989. The trade surplus for
U.S. agricultural products reached its highest
level since fiscal 1984 at $18.2 billion, $3.8
billion greater than the 1988 mark.102
The 24-percent decline in the fish and crus­
taceans index, which accounts for slightly more
than 5 percent of the aggregate food index,
represented the largest annual movement among
the food subcategories. The index for fresh fish,
accounting for 64 percent of all U.S. exported
fish, was chiefly responsible for the drop, falling
27.1 percent. After having risen 25.2 and 29.0
percent in 1987 and 1988, fresh fish prices at
the end of 1989 stood at their lowest levels since
the middle of 1987.
Lower world salmon prices, the result of an
oversupplied market, spurred the downturn. The
total Alaskan salmon catch for the year reached
a record 152 million,103 up 21 percent from the
March estimate of 125.6 million,104 and 131
percent greater than the 1988 catch.105 Alaska is
the biggest supplier of the world salmon market,
and the larger catch marked the first major U.S.
production increase since 1985.106
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in March of 1989,
in which 11 million gallons of crude oil spilled
into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, had only
minor impact on the salmon fishing industry.
Although many fishing areas were forced to
close and more than 1,000 fisherman claimed
damages from Exxon Corp.,107 the distant fish­
ing waters in southeast Alaska and Bristol Bay
were uncontaminated and extremely productive.
Even in the well-harvested area surrounding
Prince William Sound, salmon fishing was quite
strong, with the catch nearly doubling the pre­
vious year’s level.
The catch increase exacerbated an oversup­
ply on the salmon market that had existed before
the 1989 harvest began. The glut was actually
caused during 1988 when demand grew, the fish
catch was expected to be poor, and prices rose.
Consumer demand subsequently fell, and prices
began slipping in the fourth quarter of 1988 as
sellers tried to move the old supplies. However,
Japan, the United States’ largest export fish
market, apparently believed the leftover inven­
tories were overpriced and slowed its purchases
of salmon.
The United States was not the only fish pro­
ducer to have a strong year. Norway doubled its
production of farmed salmon in 1989 to 160,000
tons.108 In addition, British Columbia, eastern
Canada, Chile, Scotland, Ireland, and the Shet­
land Islands all registered productive years.
Prices for exported fish declined in all four
quarters of 1989, with the third quarter’s 13.7June 1990

percent drop being the largest as it became
apparent that production levels were going to be
higher than anticipated. In response to the over­
supplied market, Norway and British Columbia,
as well as other countries, started advertising
campaigns designed to increase salmon con­
sumption. Attempts to do the same in the United
States were rejected by the International Salmon
Farmers Association early in the year, with talks
set to resume in February 1990.109 U.S. whole­
salers have generally neglected the chance to
introduce lower salmon prices at the retail level,
preferring instead to realize larger profit mar­
gins.
Crude materials. Exported crude materials
prices rose 0.7 percent in 1989, following gains
of 22.3 percent in 1987 and 8.5 percent in 1988.
Last year’s rise was the smallest annual increase
since the crude materials index was first pub­
lished in 1983, and can be attributed to offset­
ting price movements among major components
of the index. For example, annual increases
were registered for wood (19.4 percent), textile
fibers (12.4 percent), and pulp and wastepaper
(6.7 percent), while decreases were recorded for
oilseeds (19.3 percent) and metal ores and scrap
(8.0 percent).
After rising only 1.8 percent in 1988, prices
for exported wood climbed 19.4 percent, the
year’s largest advance within the crude materi­
als category. Much of the increase occurred
between March and September, with a peak in
the second quarter. Tightened supplies within
the United States and an export surge early in
the year were the two primary forces driving up
wood prices in 1989.
Wood supplies were restricted in March of
last year when U.S. environmentalists blocked
the logging of old-growth timber on Federal
lands in the Pacific Northwest in order to pro­
tect the nesting sites of the threatened Northern
Spotted Owl.110 The resulting 14.1-percent re­
duction in the total supply of forest land in
Washington and Oregon forced many small in­
dependent sawmills, which depend heavily on
Federal timber, to shut down. As court injunc­
tions continued to restrict timber supplies
throughout the spring and summer, the remain­
ing larger forest product companies found it
increasingly difficult to supply the market.
Growth in wood exports, especially to Japan,
put further pressure on those U.S. producers still
in business. Japan increased its purchases of
softwood logs by 25.3 percent and of softwood
lumber by 14.0 percent in 1989.111 At the same
time, U.S. lumber exports to the Middle East
rose 39.4 percent. To avoid overcutting their

Chart 8.

-1 5

Annual percent price changes for selected categories of Imported
metals manufactures, 1 9 8 6 -8 9
-1 0

-5

0

5

Percent
10

15

20

25

30

35

Bi Nonmetallic mineral manufactures
□ Iron and steel
03 Nonferrous metals

1986

■ Metal manufactures,
not elsewhere specified

1987

1988

1989

own future supplies, U.S. landholders used most
of their private timber for export because, by
law, logs cut from Federal land cannot be ex­
ported. As a result, prices were bid up for the
already scarce and increasingly expensive Fed­
eral timber to supply the domestic market.
In Japan, the destination for over 60 percent
of U.S. softwood exports in 1989, increased
demand resulted in the payment of higher prices
by the Japanese than by U.S. consumers. Strong
levels of housing starts in Japan over the past 3
years, averaging 1.6 million to 1.7 million units

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

compared to 1.1 million units in the early
1980’s, have kept wood consumption in that
country high.112 In the case of U.S. lumber, yen
prices historically have been low, but they stood
at or near record levels in dollars in 1989.113
This reflects cost advantages enjoyed by U.S.
saw m ills over Japanese sawm ills gained
through the declining value of the dollar against
the yen during the past 3 years. The cost differ­
ence was reportedly large enough that the
dollar’s rebound in 1989 had little effect on the
U.S. marketing edge.
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

19

Import and Export Prices in 1989

U.S. soybean
exporters faced
stiff competition
from their
Brazilian
counterparts
in 1989.

2 0 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Spurred by a 15.4-percent increase in cotton
prices, the index for exported textile fibers
climbed 12.4 percent in 1989, reversing the previ­
ous year’s decline of 7.2 percent. Most of this
increase was the result of an 11.2-percent rise in
cotton prices in the second quarter of 1989.
The strength of the world cotton market in
the spring was a principal factor in rising U.S.
cotton export prices. World cotton production
was up 4 percent in the 1988-89 marketing year
(August 1988-July 1989), but estimates for
1989-90 are down 5.1 percent, to 80.1 million
bales, as crops worldwide suffered from poor
weather conditions.114 Furthermore, world con­
sumption in 1989-90 is projected at 85.6 million
bales, up 800,000 bales over 1988-89. Many of
the leading suppliers of cotton, such as China,
Pakistan, and the U.S.S.R., are facing growing
domestic demand and have pulled their crops
from the world market for lack of exportable
supplies.115 China, the largest cotton producer,
became a net importer of cotton in 1989 for the
first time since the early 1980’s, as the country’s
total consumption, driven by an expanding tex­
tile industry’s needs, outweighed production.
In 1989, the U.S. cotton industry was in a
position to take advantage of the tightness in
foreign supplies, which led to higher prices
abroad and thus made the U.S. cotton price
more competitive. As a result, projected exports
for 1989-90 are estimated at 7.7 million bales,
a 25.2-percent increase over 1988-89 levels, as
the U.S. share of global cotton trade grows from
24 percent to 30.1 percent.116
Exported oilseeds prices fell 19.3 percent in
1989 following two consecutive yearly in­
creases of 15.1 percent and 23.8 percent. The
decline was led by a 21.8-percent drop in soy­
bean prices, most of which occurred in the sec­
ond and third quarters. The 1988-89 production
year (September 1988-August 1989) marketed
the crop from the U.S. drought, which had
driven production down 20.1 percent from the
previous year to the lowest level for the dec­
ade.117 The drought-induced price effects, how­
ever, peaked in September of 1988, when low
crop yield expectations forced prices 66.8 per­
cent above year-earlier levels. Later projections
for a 26.7-percent increase in the U.S. crop for
the 1989-90 marketing year began to ease pres­
sure on soybean prices, which fell in the second
quarter.118
The size of the Brazilian crop, second only
to that of the United States, also influenced
soybean prices in 1989. In March of 1989, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture predicted that
Brazil’s crop, which is harvested in February,
would reach a record 21 million metric tons, a
June 1990

16.3-percent increase over the previous market­
ing year.119 Brazilian soybean exports for the
1989-90 marketing year (February 1989-January 1990) were estimated at 4.2 million metric
tons, up 39.5 percent from a year earlier. This
increase might not have had a large effect on
U.S. prices if, as in previous years, Brazil’s crop
had hit the market soon after harvesting. How­
ever, as of June, only 30 percent of the crop had
been marketed,120 as Brazilian farmers held
back stocks because soybean export prices of­
fered to them by their Government failed to
match world prices adjusted for Brazilian infla­
tion.121 (Unlike farmers in the United States,
those in Brazil must sell their crop on the global
market through the Government.) The market­
ing delay was exacerbated by a dock workers
strike begun in April at Santos, the largest port
in Brazil, through which 40 percent of last
year’s soybean exports passed.122
When the Brazilian crop finally did enter the
market late in the summer, the United States
faced stiff competition for sales and prices fell
further. As a result, the volume of U.S. soybean
exports for 1989-90 is expected to increase only
11.9 percent over that posted for the drought
year—which is still 26.6 percent below the
1987-88 level, despite an increase in exportable
supplies of 29.7 percent over year-earlier lev­
els.123 Ending stocks are projected to be 81.3
percent higher for 1989-90 than for the previ­
ous year, but will still remain below the ex­
tremely high levels of 1985-86 and 1986-87.
Prices for exported metal ores and scrap also
experienced a downturn in 1989. After 3 years
of uninterrupted gains, the index for these ex­
ports fell 8.0 percent for the year, with the
sharpest drop occurring in the final quarter. A
10.6-percent price decline for waste and scrap
metal of iron or steel, together with a 15-percent
reduction in nonferrous base metal waste and
scrap prices, accounted for most of the drop.
The bearish trend in 1989 was primarily the
result of a slowing U.S. economy, as well as
increased supplies in the nonferrous metal mar­
kets. Demand for metals flattened out in 1989,
and fell in the key construction and auto mar­
kets. At the same time, new capacity began to
come online in late 1988 and early 1989 in
response to rising prices over the past 3 years.
This triggered price declines for the nonferrous
base metals as well as for nonferrous scrap,
which, pricewise, trend similarly to the primary
metal markets.
Much of the downward impetus for ferrous
scrap prices in 1989 was provided by stainless
steel scrap. The primary end use for this mate­
rial is as a source of nickel and chromium in the

production of cold rolled stainless steel prod­
ucts, and its price therefore trends with those of
both metals. A sharp decline in output of stain­
less steel, which is the most important use of
refined nickel, in the United States, Europe, and
Japan, depressed prices for nickel, and conse­
quently those for stainless steel scrap.124
Chemicals. Prices for exported chemicals and
related products fell 8.4 percent in 1989, after
increases of 18.6 and 11.2 percent in 1987 and
1988. The year’s decline was the largest for this
index since initial publication in 1983, with
indexes for most of the major subcategories
falling in 1989. Those for manufactured fertil­
izers and for artificial resins, plastics, and cellu­
lose recorded the largest declines, at 20.9 and
16.2 percent, respectively. Organic chemicals
prices decreased 15.6 percent, while prices for
inorganic elements, oxides, and salts edged
down 3.6 percent.
The lower prices largely reflected a down­
turn in the U.S. chemicals industry, as well as a
decline in orders from China, a big market for
thermoplastics and basic chemicals. After a 3year boom, activity in the U.S. chemicals indus­
try began to ease in 1989. Operating rates fell
to 88.3 percent after rising to 90.5 percent in the
final quarter of 1988, the highest in 37 years.125
Production growth slowed to an estimated 5
percent in 1989, compared to 7- and 8-percent
increases in 1987 and 1988,126 while industry
capacity rose as nominal spending in the chem­
icals sector climbed 13.3 percent for the year.127
Because China has become increasingly im­
portant to the U.S. chemicals industry, an unex­
pected reduction in chemicals exports to that
country caused export prices to fall further. In
each of the 2 previous years, exports of U.S.
chemicals and related products to China grew
by more than 70 percent.128 In 1989, however,
U.S. exports destined for China fell 13.1 per­
cent. The decline in shipments can be attributed
to an overheated Chinese economy, a lack of
foreign currency reserves in that country precip­
itated by problems encountered in the transition
to a more market-oriented economy, and to po­
litical upheaval.
Lower domestic prices for ethylene, the pe­
trochemical produced in largest volume and the
raw material for many other chemicals products,
contributed significantly to the 15.6-percent de­
cline in the index for organic chemicals exports.
U.S. wholesale prices for ethylene fell 26.7 per­
cent in 1989 after fears of a shortage had driven
prices up 69 percent in 1988.129 Excess capacity
during 1989 was partly the reason for the price
decline. In response to tight supplies in 1988,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

producers brought approximately 1.4 million
metric tons of additional capacity online in
1989.130 At the same time, however, ethylene
demand fell as purchasers tried to work off high
inventories stockpiled during the previous
year’s shortage. In addition, U.S. exports of
ethylene and its derivatives were hard hit by the
curtailment of shipments to China in 1989,
which furthered the decline in export prices.
The plastics industry, which uses ethylene as
an input for many of its products, was similarly
affected by depressed ethylene prices. Export
prices for artificial resins, plastics, and cellulose
fell 16.2 percent in 1989, following 25.4- and
6.2-percent increases in 1987 and 1988. Domes­
tic wholesale prices for plastic resins and mate­
rials, which trend with export prices, declined
12.4 percent for the year.
In 1987 and 1988, prices for exported plastic
materials rose sharply as U.S. operating rates
were driven to near-capacity levels, the result
both of capacity cutbacks in the early 1980’s
and vigorous demand. The trend was reversed
last year when additional U.S. capacity came
online and, as was the case for ethylene, pur­
chases of many plastics materials by all levels
of consumers were reduced as inventories were
drawn down. Export prices were pulled down
further by the sudden decline in shipments to
China late in 1988 and throughout 1989. As a
leading plastics products producer, China’s pur­
chases of polyethylene and polypropylene usu­
ally total 1 billion pounds of each a year.131
The fertilizer industry also suffered a disap­
pointing year in 1989, as a 20.9-percent drop in
export prices followed annual increases of 37.6
percent in 1987 and 12.6 percent in 1988. In the
United States, excess production was pre­
cipitated by a projected 8- to 10-percent in­
crease in domestic fertilizer demand for 1989 as
farmers were expected to increase their crop
acreage and replenish the soil to recoup losses
from the drought of 1988.132 This did not prove
to be the case, however, and domestic demand
increased by only 4 to 5 percent.
Furthermore, the U.S. phosphate fertilizer
industry, which exports approximately half of
its production, has been losing market share to
Morocco, the second largest producer of phos­
phate fertilizers.133 Although the U.S. fertilizer
industry has relatively low fixed costs compared
to Third World countries such as Morocco, it
has higher variable costs due to its depend­
ence on higher priced raw materials. Because
Morocco prices its fertilizers on the basis of
variable costs, that country has enjoyed a com­
petitive advantage over the United States. Re­
structuring of the U.S. fertilizer industry is

After a 3 -year
boom, activity
in the U.S.
chemicals
industry began
to ease in 1989

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

21

Import and Export Prices in 1989

The lull in U.S.
exports of
computers
reflected weak
global demand
and intense
foreign
competition.

2 2 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

currently under way to reduce costs and regain
market share.
In spite of the fall in chemicals export prices,
the U.S. chemicals trade surplus reached $16
billion in 1989, up 33 percent over 1988’s
level.134 Chemicals exports climbed 14.3 per­
cent over 1988 to $36.5 billion, despite the
aforementioned loss of a significant portion of
the Chinese market. In contrast, imports rose
just 3.1 percent, to $20.5 billion, in 1989.
The improvement in the chemicals trade sur­
plus occurred despite the appreciation of the
dollar in 1989. When measured against a tradeweighted basket of currencies representing the
major markets for U.S. chemicals and related
products, the dollar rose 3.1 percent for the year,
causing prices for U.S. chemicals exports in
foreign currencies to fall only 5.5 percent,135
considerably less than the 8.4-percent decline in
U.S. dollar prices for the year. The recent
strength of the dollar is in sharp contrast to the
experience of the previous 3 years, during
which the dollar fell, greatly enhancing U.S.
chemicals export competitiveness. The year’s
exchange rate reversal did not adversely affect
the chemicals industry, however, given that, at
the end of 1989, the value of the dollar remained
28.4 percent below that in March of 1985.
Machinery and transport equipment. Reacting
to continued strong demand for U.S. products
overseas, prices for exported machinery and
transport equipment increased 2.6 percent in
1989. The upward movement marks the 11th
consecutive annual advance in this index, yet
the rise in prices slowed slightly from the 3.3percent hike of the previous year, during which
exports surged significantly as a result of the
lower value of the dollar and economic expan­
sion abroad.
All but one of the subcategories within the
machinery and transport equipment index,
which accounts for more than 45 percent of the
all-export index, increased during the year. Only
the index for office machines and automated
data processing equipment fell in 1989, declin­
ing 2.0 percent. Among the major index subcat­
egories, the index for road vehicles and parts
climbed 3.0 percent in 1989 and that for power
generating machinery and equipment rose 4.6
percent. The index for electrical machinery and
equipment gained a modest 1.2 percent.
The index for specialized machinery showed
the strongest movement among the subcat­
egories, rising 5.0 percent during 1989 follow­
ing a 5.1-percent increase for the previous year.
Prices for construction machinery and construc­
tion machinery parts, which together comprise
June 1990

nearly half of the specialized machinery index,
experienced the largest increase, rising 7.3 per­
cent in 1989 after a 5.5-percent jump in 1988.
The continued price gains in 1989 were partially
a result of higher raw materials costs that were
prevalent in 1987 and 1988. In addition, strong
demand, which has led to lower transaction lead
times and smaller, yet more frequent, orders,
has boosted shipping and distribution costs,
which have subsequently been passed along to
the foreign buyer. Most significantly, however,
is the transformation within the industry that
began in the mid-1980’s and resulted in more
competitive U.S. products. This has enabled do­
mestic producers to realize larger profit margins
by increasing prices without losing market share.
From 1982 through 1987, prices for con­
struction machinery and parts were relatively
stable, with 3 years of modest increases coun­
tering 3 years of modest decreases. Price devel­
opments reflected a sagging U.S. construction
industry that failed to respond to worldwide
technological innovations and to a loss of do­
mestic market share to foreign imports.
The improved trade position for construction
machinery in recent years is a result of the
concerted effort by domestic producers to up­
grade plants, retool aging manufacturing facili­
ties, and implement more effective worldwide
distribution and service. The consolidation of
companies within the industry has led to an
increase in expenditures for research and devel­
opment. As a result, U.S. products have im­
proved to a level of quality comparable to that
of products manufactured abroad.
Exports of construction machinery and parts,
which currently account for as much as half of
all shipments for some U.S. producers,136 have
surged in the last 2 years. Favorable exchange
rates, for which the construction industry lob­
bied intensely, and strong global demand caused
the value of exports to increase 32 percent in
1988 and an estimated 30 percent in 1989, after
falling nearly 12 percent in 1985 and rising
slightly less than 6 percent in 1986.137 The U.S.
Department of Commerce, in an attempt to
calculate 1988 figures using the Harmonized
classification, estimated that the value of ex­
ports for 1989 increased just 7 percent.138
The 2-percent decrease in prices for office
machines and automated data processing equip­
ment followed a relatively strong year in 1988,
during which prices rose for the first time since
1981. In 1989, the U.S. computer industry fell
back into the lull that was evident in the market
earlier in the decade. Prices for all categories
within the index, which accounts for slightly
more than 7 percent of the all-export index,

declined during the year, except for the parts
component, which showed no change. Weak
global demand for the larger mainframe and
minicomputer systems has combined with in­
creased competition in the more popular work­
station and personal computer markets to force
manufacturers to cut prices. Excess capacity,
which has also led to lower prices, has resulted
from the rapid pace of technology and product
changes, standardization, and advances in man­
ufacturing productivity. The United States, once
the major worldwide supplier of computer
equipment, has continued to lose market share

in each of its five major foreign markets—
France, Italy, the United Kingdom, West Ger­
many, and Japan.139
The potential for export growth for the U.S.
computer industry lies in the political and eco­
nomic opening of Eastern Europe and the devel­
opment of a single integrated market in the
European Community by the end of 1992. Within
the European Community, the restructuring of
financial and insurance industries should boost
demand for information systems, and to that end,
many U.S. companies have already built, or plan
to build, plants in the region.
□

Footnotes
A c k n o w le d g m en t : T h e f o llo w in g e c o n o m is ts in the
B u r ea u ’s D iv is io n o f In tern ation al P r ic e s a s sis te d in th e
a n a ly s is o f th e v a rio u s in d e x e s d is c u s s e d in th is article:
R o b ert B la n c h fie ld , F ra n ces B o y c e , A n d rea B reu h an , S u san
C h en , Jill C raven , K aren M a h a ffie, D a v id M a rsh a ll, E d w ard
M u rp h y, M ik e M u rp h y, S te v e R ich ard s, A ric S ch n eid er,
D a ry l S lu sh er , Jim T h o m a s, A m y W alter, P au l W ash b u rn ,
and D a v id Y o c h u m . W e g ra tefu lly a c k n o w le d g e th e h e lp o f
W illia m A lterm a n , B rian C o ste llo , R ob ert F ru m k in , and
C h eryl K err in th e prep aration o f th is article.

1 P rice d e v e lo p m e n ts d is c u s se d in th is a rticle are b a sed
o n data fro m th e B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s Internation al
P rice P rogram ( ipp ). T h at p rogram p r o d u ce s im p ort and
e x p o rt p r ic e in d e x e s b a se d o n th e Standard In tern ation al
T rad e C la s sific a tio n ( sitc ) sc h e m e . B o th in d e x e s u s e a m o d ­
ifie d L a sp ey r e s form u la. P rice data are c o lle c te d fo r m ore
th an 2 2 ,0 0 0 p rod u cts, and are n o t se a s o n a lly ad ju sted . B e ­
g in n in g w ith data for the first quarter o f 1 9 8 8 , r elea se d in
A p ril o f that y ear, ipp in d e x e s w e re w e ig h te d b y th e v a lu e o f
trade in 1 9 8 5 . (F o rm erly , th e in d e x e s h ad b e e n w e ig h te d b y
th e v a lu e o f trade in 1 9 8 0 .) In a d d ition , th e in d e x e s w e re
rec a lc u la ted fr o m 1 9 8 5 forw ard u s in g th e n e w w e ig h ts . T h e
B u reau a ls o p u b lis h e s th ese ser ie s b y Standard Industrial
C la s sific a tio n (s ic ) , as d eterm in ed b y th e U .S . O ffic e o f
M a n a g e m e n t and B u d g e t, and e n d -u se c la s s ific a tio n s as d e ­
v e lo p e d b y th e U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f C o m m e r c e ’s B u reau o f
E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is (BEA).
2 T h e se resu lts are b a se d o n the Internation al P rice
P r o g r a m ’s n o m in a l a v era g e e x c h a n g e rate in d ex . T h e aver­
a g e e x c h a n g e rate in d e x e s m ea su re th e c h a n g e in th e p rice
o f tr a d e -w e ig h ted b a sk ets o f c u rren cies a g a in st th e d ollar and
are d e s ig n e d to m a tch th e im p ort and e x p o rt p rice in d ex
ser ie s p u b lish e d b y bls at th e 2 -d ig it, 1-d ig it, a ll-im p o rt, and
a ll-ex p o rt le v e ls as d e fin e d b y th e Standard In tern ation al
T rad e C la s sific a tio n , R e v . II sy ste m .
3 S e e “F o r e ig n E x ch a n g e R a te s,” F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B u l­
le tin , se le c te d is s u e s , tab le 3 .2 8 .
4 Ib id .
T h e G roup o f F iv e (G -5) c o n s iste d o f Japan, W e st
G erm a n y , B ritain , F ran ce, and th e U n ited S ta tes. In 1 9 8 6 ,
C an ad a and Italy e n d o r sed th e G -5 p rogram , and th e o rg a n i­
za tio n h as s in c e b e e n k n o w n as th e G roup o f S e v e n (G -7).
6 “T reasu ry and F ed eral R e se r v e F o r e ig n E x c h a n g e O p ­
e ra tio n s, F e b r u a r y -A p ril 1 9 8 9 ,” Q u a r te r ly R e v ie w (F ed eral
R e se r v e B a n k o f N e w Y o rk ), S u m m er 1 9 8 9 , p. 7 1 .
7 I b id ., p. 7 2 .
8 “F o r e ig n E x c h a n g e R a te s,” F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B u lle tin ,
s e le c te d is s u e s , ta b le 3 .2 8 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

9 A la n R. Z im m erm an, “A n a ly sts E x p ect D o lla r to D ip
N ea r ’8 9 L o w s,” J o u rn a l o f C o m m e rc e , N o v . 2 4 , 1989, p. 3A .
10 “T reasury and F ed eral R e se r v e F o r e ig n E x ch a n g e O p ­
e ra tio n s, A u g u s t- O c t o b e r 1 9 8 9 ,” Q u a r te r ly R e v ie w (F ed era l
R e se r v e B a n k o f N e w Y o rk ), A u tu m n 1 9 8 9 , p. 5 4 .
11 I b id .
12 “ Interest R a tes, M o n e y and C a p ita l M a rk ets,” F e d e r a l
R e s e r v e B u lle tin , Ju ly 1 9 8 9 , p. A 2 4 , and February 1 9 9 0 , p.
A 24.
13 “ F o reig n E x ch a n g e R a te s,” F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B u lle tin ,
s e le c te d is su e s , tab le 3 .2 8 .
14 Jonathan Fu erbrin ger, “C a n a d a ’s D o lla r D e f ie s the
T ren d ,” T h e N e w Y o rk T im e s , N o v . 2 0 , 1 9 8 9 , p. D 1 0 .
15 M ic h a e l R. S e s it, “D o lla r ’s M o v e s D e fie d P r e d ic ­
tio n s,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, Jan. 2 , 1 9 9 0 , p. R 6.
16 “ T h e D o lla r C o m e s R o a rin g B a c k ,” B u s in e ss W eek ,
M a y 2 7 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 7 ; and “ W h a t’s R e a lly D r iv in g U .S .
D o lla r H ig h er ? ” F u tu re s, J u ly 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 0 .
17 “F o r e ig n E x ch a n g e R a te s,” F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B u lle tin ,
s e le c te d is s u e s , tab le 3 .2 8 .
18 Ib id .
19 C raig R . W h itn e y , “ B ritish C a b in et in a Flurry; M in ­
ister and R iv a l B o th O u t,” T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, O ct. 2 7 ,
1 9 8 9 , p. 1; and C raig R . W h itn e y , “T h a tch er S k ep tic a l o n
E u rop e M o n e y T ie s ,” T h e N e w Y o r k T im es, N o v . 3 0 , 1 9 8 9 ,
p. D l .
20 T a b le 4 .4 — "M erch an d ise E x p o rts and Im ports b y
T y p e o f P ro d u ct and b y E n d -U s e C a teg o ry in C o n sta n t
D o lla rs," S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e s s (U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f
C o m m e r c e, B u rea u o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is ), M arch 1 9 9 0 .
T h e se data, a lo n g w ith th o se in ta b le 4 .3 , are o n a g n p b a sis.
21 U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f C o m m e r c e N e w s , F T -900 (B ureau
o f th e C e n su s), D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 .
22 T a b le 4 .4 , S u rv e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss , M arch 1 9 9 0 .
23 T a b le 1 .6 — " R elation s o f G ro ss N a tio n a l P rod u ct,
G r o ss D o m e s t ic P u rch a ses, and F in a l S a le s to D o m e s t ic
P u rch a ses in C o n sta n t D o lla rs," S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss
(U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f C o m m e r c e, B u rea u o f E c o n o m ic A n a l­
y s is ) , M a rch 1 9 9 0 .
24 T a b le 1.4— "G ross N a tio n a l P ro d u ct b y M ajor T y p e
o f P ro d u ct in C o n sta n t D o lla rs," S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss
(U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f C o m m e r c e, B u rea u o f E c o n o m ic A n a l­
y s is ) , M arch 1990; and ta b le 4 .4 , S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss ,
M arch 1 9 9 0 .
25 M a in E c o n o m ic I n d ic a to r s (O rg a n iza tio n fo r E c o ­
n o m ic C o o p era tio n and D e v e lo p m e n t) , January 1 9 9 0 , p. 11.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

23


2 4 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Import and Export Prices in 1989
26 T a b le 4 .4 , S u rv e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e s s , M arch 1 9 9 0 .
27 I b id .
28 T a b le 4 .3 —“M er c h a n d ise E x p o rts and Im p o rts b y
T y p e o f P rod u ct and b y E n d -U s e C a te g o r y ,” S u r v e y o f
C u r r e n t B u s in e s s (U .S . D e p a rtm en t o f C o m m e r c e, B u rea u
o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is ), M arch 199 0 .

53 H ila ry S to u t, “G ro w th in GNP fo r 4 th Q uarter R e v ise d
U p w a r d ,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, M ar. 2 9 , 1 9 9 0 , p. A 2 .
54 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l In d u s try
(U .S . In tern ation al T rad e C o m m iss io n ), M a rch 1 9 9 0 , tab le
1, p . 1.
55 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l In d u s try ,
Jun e 1 9 8 9 , ta b le 1, p. 1.

30 T a b le 4 .4 , S u rv e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e s s , M a rch 1 9 9 0 .
31 T a b le 4 .3 , S u rv e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e s s , M a rch 1 9 9 0 .
32 T a b le 4 .4 , S u rv e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss , M arch 1 9 9 0 .
33 T a b le 1.6, S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss , M arch 1 9 9 0 .
34 T a b le 1.4 and tab le 4 .4 , S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e ss ,
M arch 19 9 0 .
35 T h e p a ss-th ro u g h rate is d e fin ed as the p ro p o rtio n o f
a g iv e n e x c h a n g e rate sh ift that an ex p o rter a llo w s to be
r e fle c te d in th e fo r e ig n cu rren cy p rice o f a p ro d u ct (that is,
th e p rice d e n o m in a te d in th e cu rren cy o f th e co u n try o f
d e stin a tio n or im p o rtin g c o u n try ). F o r e x a m p le , a 1 0 0 -p er ­
c e n t p a ss-th ro u g h rate in d ic a te s that th e h o m e cu rren cy p rice
o f a particular p rod u ct (th e p rice d en o m in a te d in th e cu rren cy
o f th e e x p o r tin g co u n try ) rem a in ed u n ch a n g e d , w h ile the
c h a n g e in th e fo r e ig n cu rren cy p rice fu lly r efle cted the
e x c h a n g e rate sh ift. C o n v e r se ly , a p a ss-th r o u g h rate o f 0
p e rcen t s ig n ifie s th at th e fo r e ig n cu rren cy p rice o f a p rod u ct
r em a in ed u n ch a n g e d w h ile th e ch a n g e in th e h o m e cu rren cy
p r ic e fu lly c o m p e n s a te d fo r th e s h ift in e x c h a n g e rates.
35 T h e se resu lts w e re o b ta in ed b y d iv id in g th e ch a n g e in
U .S . d ollar p rices o f all im p o rted p ro d u cts e x c e p t fu e ls fo r
th e app rop riate p erio d b y th e c h a n g e in th e r ecip ro ca l o f the
a v e ra g e e x c h a n g e rate in d e x fo r th is c a te g o r y o f p ro d u cts
d u rin g th e sa m e p eriod . T h is d e m o n stra tes th e m e th o d fo r
c a lc u la tin g p a ss-th r o u g h rates fo r a n y g iv e n c a te g o ry o f
im p orted p rod u cts u sin g th es e data.
37 M o n th ly E n e r g y R e v ie w , doe - eia -0035 (89-10) (U .S .
D ep a rtm en t o f E n e rg y , E n erg y In fo rm a tio n A g e n c y ), O c to ­
b er 1 9 8 9 , p. 113.

56 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l I n d u s try ,
S ep tem b e r 1 9 8 9 , ta b le 1, p. 1.
57 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l I n d u s try ,
M arch 1 9 9 0 , ta b le 1, p. 1.
58 m s i M o n th ly 1 6 R e p o r t, D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 0 .
59 L e o J. L ark in, “ S te e l and H e a v y M a ch in e r y ,” S ta n d ­
a r d a n d P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , N o v . 2 3 , 1 9 8 9 , p . S 2 .
60 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l I n d u s try ,
M arch 1 9 9 0 , ta b le 1, p. 1.
D a ta b e fo r e 1 9 8 9 are e stim a te d d u e to th e c o n v e r s io n
fro m rep o rtin g in tern a tio n a l tra n sa ctio n s b a se d o n th e T a riff
S c h e d u le c la s s ific a t io n s y ste m to u s e o f th e H a r m o n ize d
T a riff S c h e d u le . S tartin g in 1 9 8 8 , m a n y c o u n trie s sw itc h e d
to th e H a r m o n ize d c la s s ific a t io n s y s te m in an effo r t to
sta n d a rd ize th e rep ortin g o f im p o rt and e x p o rt tra n sa ctio n s.
T h e U n ite d S ta tes b e g a n u s in g th e H a r m o n ize d T a riff S c h e d ­
u le in 1 9 8 9 . P r e v io u s ly in th e U n ited S ta tes, im p o rt tra n sa c­
tio n s w e re c la s s ifie d u s in g th e T a riff S c h e d u le o f th e U n ited
S ta tes A n n o ta ted (t su sa ), and e x p o rt tra n sa ctio n s w e re c la s ­
s ifie d u s in g th e S c h e d u le B . In m a n y a reas, o n e -to -o n e
c o n v e r s io n s w e re n o t p o s sib le , m a k in g it n e c e s s a r y fo r data
prior to 1 9 8 9 to b e e stim a ted .
61 T h e c o u n tries that h a v e en tered in to V o lu n ta ry R e ­
straint A g r ee m e n ts w ith th e U n ite d S ta tes fo r s te el and s te el
fa b r ic a te d p r o d u c ts in c lu d e A u s tr a lia , A u s tr ia , B r a z il,
C z e c h o s lo v a k ia , E a st G erm a n y , m e m b er s o f th e E u ro p ea n
C o m m u n ity , F in la n d , H u n g a ry , Japan, M e x ic o , th e P e o p le ’s
R e p u b lic o f C h in a , P o la n d , R o m a n ia , th e R e p u b lic o f S o u th
A fr ic a , th e R e p u b lic o f K o rea , T rin id ad and T o b a g o , V e n e ­
z u e la , and Y u g o s la v ia .
62 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l In d u s try ,
M a rch 1 9 9 0 , ta b le 7 , p. 7 .

39 I b id , p .1 2 .
40 T h e O rg a n iza tio n fo r E c o n o m ic C o o p era tio n and D e ­
v e lo p m e n t c o m p r is e s A u stra lia , A u stria , B e lg iu m , C anada,
D en m a rk , F in la n d , F ran ce, G r e ec e , I ce la n d , Irelan d , Ita ly ,
Japan, L u x e m b o u rg , th e N eth e r la n d s, N e w Z ea la n d , N o r ­
w a y , P ortu gal, S p a in , S w e d e n , S w itze r la n d , T u rk ey , the
U n ite d K in g d o m , th e U n ited S tates and its territories, and
W e st G erm an y.
41 M o n th ly E n e r g y R e v ie w , O c to b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 117.

63 L e o J. L ark in, “ S te e l and H e a v y M a ch in e r y ,” p. S 3 .
64 M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e S ta tu s o f th e S te e l I n d u s try ,
M a rch 1 9 9 0 , ta b le 7 , p. 7 .
65 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 1 6 - 2 .
66 T h e E ffe c ts o f th e S te e l V o lu n ta ry R e s tr a in t A g r e e ­
m e n ts o n U .S . S te e l-C o n s u m in g I n d u s tr ie s (U .S . Interna­
tio n a l T rade C o m m iss io n ), M a y 1 9 8 9 , p. v ii.
67 A n th o n y M . S o rren tin o , “ M e t a ls - N o n fe r r o u s ,” S ta n d ­
a r d a n d P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , A u g . 17, 1 9 8 9 , p. M 8 1 .

42 I b id , p .1 1 3 .
43 I b id .
44 I b id , p. 112.
45 Joan n e L e g o m sk y , “O il-G a s B a sic A n a ly s is ,” S ta n d ­
a r d a n d P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , A u g . 3 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 0 - 2 0 .
46 W e e k ly P e tr o le u m S ta tu s R e p o r t, doe -e ia -0208 (90-12)
(U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f E n e rg y , E n e rg y In fo rm a tio n A g e n c y ),
M ar. 3 0 , 1 9 9 0 , p .1 6 .
47 M o n th ly E n e rg y R e v ie w , D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 1 .

68 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 1 7 -4 .
69 Ib id .
70 H ila ry S to u t, “In dustrial S e c to r S h o w s S ig n s o f W e a k ­
n e s s ,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, F eb. 2 , 1 9 9 0 , p . A 2 .
71 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 17—4.
72 A n th o n y M . S o r r e n tin o , “ M e t a ls - N o n f e r r o u s ,” p.
M 99.
73 Jane E verhart, R a p a p o r t D ia m o n d R e p o r t, Jan. 19,
1 9 9 0 , p. 9.

48 I b id ., p. 4 6 .

74 I b id .

49 M o n th ly E n e r g y R e v ie w , D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p . 5 0 .

15 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k ,

50 M o n th ly E n e rg y R e v ie w , N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , pp. 6 6 - 6 7 .
51 H ilary S tou t, “L ea d in g In d ex R o se S h arp ly in D e c e m ­
b er,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, F eb . 1, 1 9 9 0 , p. A 2 .
52 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k (U .S . D ep a rt­
m e n t o f C o m m e r c e, In tern ation al T rad e A d m in istra tio n , Jan­
uary 1 9 9 0 ), p. 4.

June 1990

p. 3 8 - 1 .

76 T h e U .S . A u to m o b ile I n d u s tr y M o n th ly R e p o r t o n S e ­
le c te d E c o n o m ic I n d ic a to r s (U .S In tern ation al T rad e C o m ­
m is s io n ), January 1 9 9 0 , p. 6 .
77 Ib id .
78 John K . T ea h en , Jr., “ S to ry o f th e Y e a r ,” A u to m o tiv e
N e w s , D e c . 2 5 , 1 9 8 9 , p. E 2 .

79 Jo sep h B . W h ite, “S lo w C ar S a le s S h o w th e P rice I sn ’t
R ig h t,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, Jan. 5, 1 9 9 0 , p. B l .

3 W o r ld C o tto n S itu a tio n , M a y 1 9 8 9 , p. 2.
116 W o r ld C o tto n S itu a tio n , M arch 1 9 9 0 , p. 6.

80 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 3 8 - 3 .
81 W h ite, “ S lo w C ar S a le s ,” p. B l .
2 J o sh u a H arari, “A u to s -A u to P arts,” S ta n d a r d a n d
P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , N o v . 3 0 , 1 9 8 9 , p. A 8 7 .
83 S te v e n K reid er Y o d er, “L e s s o n s L in g e r as U .S . M e m ­
o ries F a ils ,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, Jan. 16, 1 9 9 0 , p. B l .
84 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 1 9 -2 .
85 Y o d er, “L e s s o n s L in g e r ,” p . B l .
86 M ark D rab en stott and A la n B ark em a, “U .S . A g r ic u l­
ture S h ru gs O f f th e D r o u g h t,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w (F ed eral
R e se r v e B an k o f K a n sa s C ity ), D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 8 , p. 33.
87 A g r ic u ltu r a l O u tlo o k (U .S . D ep artm en t o f A g ricu ltu re,
E c o n o m ic R ese a r ch S e r v ic e ), O c to b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 3.

117 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts , FO P1-9 0 (U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f A g ricu ltu re, F o r e ig n A g ricu ltu ra l
S e r v ic e ), January 1 9 9 0 , p. 2 2 .
118 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts , Ju ly
1 9 8 9 , p. 17.
119 W o r ld O i l s e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts ,
M arch 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 3 .
120 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts , June
1 9 8 9 , p. 5.
121 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts , Ju ly
1 9 8 9 , p. 6 4 .
1-2 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts , M a y
1 9 8 9 , p. 2 7 .

88 A g r ic u ltu r a l O u tlo o k , D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 19.
89 W h e a t S itu a tio n a n d O u tlo o k R e p o r t, WS-287 (U .S .
D ep a rtm en t o f A g ricu ltu re, E c o n o m ic R e se a r ch S e r v ic e ),
N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 3.
90 W o r ld G ra in S itu a tio n a n d O u tlo o k , FG 1-90 (U .S .
D ep a rtm en t o f A g ricu ltu re, F o r e ig n A g ricu ltu ra l S e r v ic e ),
January 1 9 9 0 , p. 2 7 .
91 “B ea rish C ast to usda O u tlo o k ,” F u tu re s, January
1 9 9 0 , p. 16.
92 W o r ld G ra in S itu a tio n a n d O u tlo o k , p. 14.
93 “C an C o m D e c lin e i f S to c k s D r o p ? ” F u tu r e s, O ctob er
1 9 8 9 , p. 28b .
94 W o r ld G ra in S itu a tio n a n d O u tlo o k , p .1 4 .
95 I b id ., p. 2 7 .
96 “ S o v ie t B u y in g , W eath er, S to ra g e C o u ld K e e p C o m
P o p p in g ,” F u tu r e s, D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 8 .
97 F o c u s, A P u b lic a tio n o f th e U .S . F e e d G r a in s C o u n c il
(W ash in gton , U .S . F e e d G rains C o u n cil), D e c. 2 2 , 1989, p. 1.
W h e a t S itu a tio n a n d O u tlo o k R e p o r t, p . 13.
99 A g r ic u ltu r a l O u tlo o k , O c to b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 18.
100 F o c u s, N o v . 2 4 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 2.
101 F o c u s, Jan. 5 , 1 9 9 0 , p. 2.
102 F o c u s, N o v . 2 4 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 2.
103 S e a fo o d B u s in e ss , N o v e m b e r /D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 22.

1"3 W o r ld O ils e e d S itu a tio n a n d M a r k e t H ig h lig h ts ,
M arch 1 9 9 0 , p. 2 4 .
124 “ N ic k e l and ch rom e: an u n certa in fu tu re,” M e ta ls
B u lle tin , N o v . 3 0 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 3 .
125 “ O utput, C a p a city , and C a p a city U tiliz a t io n ,” F e d ­
e r a l R e s e r v e B u lle tin , February 1 9 9 0 , p. A 4 8 .
126 R ic h a r d O ’R e illy , “ B a s ic C h e m ic a ls A n a ly s is , ”
S ta n d a r d a n d P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , N o v . 2 , 1 9 8 9 , p.
C 16.
127 “ S lid in g P ro fits D im S p en d in g P la n s,” C h e m ic a l E n ­
g in e e r in g , January 1 9 9 0 , p. 6 2 .
1-8 U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f C o m m e r c e N e w s , F T -900, D e ­
cem b e r 1 9 8 9 .
129 S e e P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s (B u rea u o f L ab or S ta tis­
tic s , v a rio u s is s u e s ). T h e se and all o th er fig u re s referrin g to
c h a n g e s in th e d o m e s tic p rices o f certain p ro d u cts m a y be
fo u n d u sin g ta b le 6 o f P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s fo r the
app rop riate m on th s.
130 “ S till B u b b lin g , but a L o t M o re S lo w ly ,” B u s in e ss
W ee k , Jan. 8, 1 9 9 0 , p. 7 8 .
131 R ich ard O ’R e illy , “ B a sic C h e m ic a ls A n a ly s is ,” p.
C 28.
132 Jo h n H o ffm a n , “ In o r g a n ic s P ro m isin g ; F er tiliz e r s
H o p e fu l,” C h e m ic a l M a r k e tin g R e p o r te r , Jan. 1, 1 9 9 0 , p.
SR 20.

104 S e a fo o d B u s in e ss , M a rch /A p ril 1 9 8 9 , p. 2 2 .
105 F o o d I n stitu te R e p o r t (A m e r ic a n In stitu te o f F o o d
D istrib u tio n , I n c .), Jan. 6 , 1 9 9 0 , p. 15.
106 S e a fo o d B u s in e ss , M a y /J u n e 1 9 8 9 , p. 3 7 .
107 H al B e m to n , “A la s k a S a lm o n C atch N ea rs S tate R e c ­
o rd ,” T h e W a sh in g to n P o s t, A u g . 3 1 , 1 9 8 9 , p. A 3 .
108 S e a fo o d B u s in e ss , N o v e m b e r /D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , p. 24.
109 I b id .
110 N ic h o la s T etrick , “ B u ild in g and F o r e st P ro d u cts
B a s ic A n a ly s is ,” S ta n d a r d a n d P o o r ’s I n d u s tr y S u r v e y s , D e c .
14, 1 9 8 9 , p. B 8 1 .
111 “ Q uarterly S ta tis tic s,” R a n d o m L e n g th s E x p o rt, M ar.
2 9 , 19 9 0 .
112 “E xp ort O u tlo o k M ix e d , but P o s itiv e O v e r a ll,” R a n ­
d o m L e n g th s E x p o r t, Jan. 4 , 1 9 9 0 , p. 2
113 “A D iffe r e n t P e r sp ec tiv e o n L o g E xport I ss u e ,” R a n ­
d o m L e n g th s , M a y 19, 1 9 8 9 , p. 2.
114 W o r ld C o tto n S itu a tio n , F C -1 -9 0 (U .S . D ep artm en t o f
A gricu lture, F oreign A gricultural S erv ice), M arch 1990, p. 6.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

133 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 1 3 - 5 .
134 U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f C o m m e r c e N e w s , F T -900, D e ­
c em b e r 1 9 8 9 .
135 T h is fig u re w a s o b ta in ed u sin g th e fo r e ig n cu rren cy
p rice in d ex fo r e x p o r te d c h e m ic a ls . T h e fo r e ig n cu rren cy
p rice in d ex fo r a g iv e n c a te g o ry o f e x p o rts or im p o rts is
c a lc u la te d b y m u ltip ly in g the app rop riate a v era g e e x c h a n g e
rate in d ex b y th e U .S . d o lla r p rice in d ex fo r th e sa m e p rod u ct
ca te g o ry .
136 “ C an C aterp illar In ch its W a y B a ck to H e ftier P r o f­
its ? ” B u s in e ss W eek , S ep t. 2 5 , 1 9 8 9 , p. 7 8 .
137 1 9 8 9 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 2 1 - 2 ; and
1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p . 2 2 - 2 .
138 S ta tistic s fo r 1 9 8 9 are e s p e c ia lly in fla ted to so m e
d e g r ee fo r all s p e c ia liz e d m a c h in er y b e c a u s e o f th e c o n v e r ­
s io n fro m rep o rtin g in tern a tio n a l tra n sa ctio n s b a se d o n th e
T a riff S c h e d u le c la s s ific a t io n s y ste m to u s e o f th e H a rm o ­
n iz e d S y ste m . S e e a ls o fo o tn o te 6 0 .
139 1 9 9 0 U n ite d S ta te s I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 3 0 - 2 .

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

25

Measuring union-nonunion
earnings differences
Although wages and salaries have risen faster
for nonunion workers than for union workers in recent years,
three BLS statistical series suggest that the union edge persists;
estimates of its magnitude depend on the data analyzed

Kay E. Anderson,
Philip M. Doyle,
and
Albert E. Schwenk

K a y E. A n d e r so n , P h ilip
M . D o y le , and A lb ert E.
S c h w e n k are e c o n o m is ts in
th e O ffic e o f C o m p e n s a ­
tio n and W o r k in g C o n d i­
tio n s, B u reau o f L abor
S ta tistic s. M ary K a y R ie g
o f th e R e v ie w s ta ff p r o ­
v id e d s p e c ia l ed ito r ia l a s­
sista n c e.

Digitized for 2FRASER
6 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

nion workers historically have earned
more than nonunion workers. Recently,
however, wages and salaries of nonunion
workers have been rising faster than those of
union workers. What has this trend done to the
union-nonunion earnings differential? And, what
happens to the union advantage when total com­
pensation (wages and benefit costs) is taken into
account?
This article discusses recent data from three
Bureau of Labor Statistics programs that pro­
vide employee compensation and earnings in­
formation for union and nonunion workers.
These programs are the Current Population Sur­
vey, Industry Wage Surveys, and the Employ­
ment Cost Index. After summarizing earlier
research in this area, the article describes the
three B L S programs and examines what the data
show about union-nonunion pay differences—
how large they are now, how they have changed
during recent years, and how both the size of
the difference and the amount it changes have
varied. The discussion demonstrates how differ­
ent types of published data can be used to gain
a variety of perspectives on the complex issue
of union-nonunion compensation and earnings
differentials.

U

Background
Many economists have conducted research in
efforts to estimate how much of the difference
between union earnings and nonunion earnings
is due to union membership status and how
June 1990

much is due to other worker characteristics.
(Union workers, for example, tend to be concen­
trated in large firms, which are often higher
paying than small ones; they typically are em­
ployed in urban areas, which have higher pay
levels than rural areas; and a larger proportion
of union than of nonunion workers is employed
in the higher paying manufacturing and public
utilities industries.) The results of the research
have varied, depending on the data used and the
method by which they were analyzed.
One of the more prominent works on this
topic is H. Gregg Lewis’ Unionism and Relative
Wages in the United States, published in 1963.
In this book, Lewis reviewed 20 empirical stud­
ies conducted between 1945 and 1961, deriving
a set of estimates of relative wage differentials
traceable to unionization. Although his esti­
mates varied by worker category and period,
one of his most notable findings was that, in
1957-58, the average union wage advantage
was between 10 and 15 percent.1
In 1980, Daniel Mitchell suggested that, by
the mid-1970’s, the union-nonunion wage gap
had widened to between 20 and 30 percent for
production and nonsupervisory workers. This
estimate was supported by results from other
studies, which indicated that earnings had
grown more rapidly in the union sector than in
the nonunion sector over the preceding two de­
cades.2
Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff
concurred with this new estimate, referring to
it as the standard estimate of the union wage

effect during the 1970’s in their 1984 book,
What Do Unions D ol In this look at the effects
of unions on wages, Freeman and Medoff
estimated union-nonunion wage differentials
using different data sets, controlling for wage­
determining factors other than unionism. Their
estimates of the wage advantage attributable to
unionization included 21 percent using the Cur­
rent Population Survey for May 1979, 26 per­
cent using the University of Michigan Panel
Study of Income Dynamics for 1970-79, and
27 percent using the BLS Expenditures for Em­
ployee Compensation Survey for 1972-76.3
Freeman and Medoff noted that analyses
were becoming more detailed and sophisticated
with the advent of computerized data process­
ing. In addition to enjoying access to mass
quantities of data, researchers could now com­
pare the wages of union and nonunion workers
while controlling for their demographic charac­
teristics, industry, occupation, and location. Es­
tablishment data also were available in which
establishment size, location, and industry could
be controlled. The authors added, however, that
the use of more data in analyses did not elim­
inate the errors that arose from the inability to
conduct controlled laboratory experiments,
varying one factor (unionism) while holding all
others fixed.
Lewis discussed the differences in estimates
that arise from data imperfections in Union Rel­
ative Wage Effects: A Survey, which appeared
in 1986. He pointed out that many surveys,
particularly household surveys, do not include
employer-paid benefits in their wage measures,
thereby excluding such benefits as independent
factors in wage determination.4 This omission is
important to remember when considering the
union wage effect, because benefits make up a
larger percentage of total compensation for
union than for nonunion workers.5
Lewis also noted that estimation differences
arise from differing definitions of union status.
In some surveys, a worker must be a union
member to be classified as “union.” In others,
the worker is classified as “union” if the job is
covered by a collective bargaining agreement,
regardless of the worker’s actual union member­
ship status.
Lewis reviewed nearly 200 post-1963 stud­
ies for this follow-up to his earlier survey.
From the results of these studies, he derived a
set of estimates of the union wage effect and
found that the differential between union and
nonunion wages had not changed much from his
earlier estimates. For the period 1967-79, his
yearly estimates ranged from 12 to 20 percent,
with a mean of 15 percent for the 13-year period.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Unlike these and similar studies, this article
does not attempt to measure the effect of union
status on earnings. However, it does describe
BLS programs that provide data used in research
to measure the effect.

CPS data examined
One program that produces estimates for union
and nonunion workers is the monthly Current
Population Survey (C PS), conducted by the Bu­
reau of the Census for BLS. The CPS is a major
source of data on the Nation’s labor force.
Because it is a household-based survey, the CPS
can obtain data on employee demographic char­
acteristics—sex, race, and ethnicity, for exam­
ple—that are not readily obtained through an
establishment survey. However, CPS data on
union and nonunion earnings are published for
broad industry and occupational groups, and
thus do not allow for the level of comparison
between union and nonunion earnings that
would be possible with more detailed cat­
egories. With broad categories, the earnings dif­
ferentials between union and nonunion workers
will also be affected by differences in occupa­
tion and industry among the workers in each
group. It should be noted, however, that most of
the studies discussed in the background section
of this article were based on unpublished CPS
data, which offer greater detail than published
data.
BLS publishes CPS average annual data on
median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage
and salary employees by demographic and em­
ployment characteristics according to union
membership status. Usual weekly earnings are
what the household respondent reports as the
employed person’s usual earnings per week be­
fore deductions and including overtime pay,
commissions, or tips usually received. Median
earnings are the midpoint of the frequency dis­
tribution of workers by earnings: one-half the
workers have earnings above the median, the
other half have earnings below the median. Data
are published for wage and salary employees
(except the incorporated self-employed) who
usually work full time (at least 35 hours per
week) at their sole or primary job.6
CPS data show that the union-nonunion earn­
ings differential ranged between 34 and 39 per­
cent during the period from 1983 (when annual
median weekly earnings data by union affilia­
tion were first published) to 1989. When data
were grouped by various employee characteris­
tics (race, sex, occupation, and industry), the
union-nonunion differential varied among the
groups. The differential tended to be greater for
women than for men. It was also higher for

Analyses have
become more
sophisticated
with the advent
o f computerized
data processing.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

27

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
minorities than for whites. In each of these
cases, differences in the occupational and indus­
trial characteristics of these workers contributed
to the differential. 7

Estimates from industry surveys
A second source of estimates of earnings by
union membership status is the Industry Wage
Survey (IW S) program. This program surveys
establishments in 25 manufacturing and 15 non­
manufacturing industries, accounting for about
22 million workers. Individual industries typi­
cally are surveyed every 2 to 6 years. Data on
straight-time hourly earnings are collected dur­

Table 1.

ing the survey reference period for narrowly
defined occupations selected as representative
of the range of activities performed by workers
in the industry.8
The iws produces data on wages only, but
among the three BLS programs discussed in this
article, it provides them for the most narrowly
defined groups of workers, by occupation.
These data are often disaggregated geographi­
cally as well. With this narrow focus, the unionnonunion wage differentials computed from IWS
data are less affected by workers’ occupation
and industry than are differentials computed
from more aggregate data. Although they cover
a smaller part of the work force than the Current

Average straight-time earnings of production workers in union establishments1 as a percent of those in
nonunion establishments, selected Industry Wage Survey manufacturing industries

[A verag e earnings in nonunion establishm ents = 100]

1979-83 surveys

1984-88 surveys

Industry

Food and kindred products:
Meatpacking ............................
Prepared meat products...........
Flour and other grain mill
products..................................
Textile mill products:
Cotton and manmade fiber
textile m ills ..............................
Textile dyeing and finishing . . .
Apparel:
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats
Men’s and boys’ shirts and
nightwear................................

Union pay
relative2

Union pay
relative2

Survey
year

Number of
production
workers
(in thousands)

Percent
union­
ized2

123
135

1979
1979

104.3
48.8

80
71

143
159

139
148

138

—

1982

8.1

79

148

145

12
26

107
119

112
121

1980
1980

251.8
48.9

11
24

105
110

111
108

46.7

78

132

—

1979

61.4

81

132

—

21

117

114

1981

65.0

30

112

111

Survey
year

Number of
production
workers
(in thousands)

Percent
unionized2

1984
1984

83.0
50.9

71
57

124
149

1987

8.3

81

1985
1985

199.7
36.3

1984

Regional
U.S.
average average*

Regional
U.S.
average average

1987

59.4

Lumber and wood products:
M illw ork....................................

1984

50.4

32

125

120

1979

43.9

46

123

110

Furniture and fixtures:
Nonupholstered wood
household furniture ...............
Upholstered wood household
furniture..................................

1986

79.2

14

115

113

1979

137.2

30

122

113

1986

59.6

14

115

115

1979

61.9

25

120

114

Paper and allied products:
Corrugated and solid fiber
boxes ......................................

1987

67.8

70

119

118

1981

57.3

82

126

119

Chemicals and allied products:
Industrial chem icals.................

1986

89.2

61

102

102

1981

115.2

75

100

102

Stone, clay, glass, and concrete
products:
Structural clay p ro d u c ts ...........

1986

23.5

52

127

120

1980

26.3

69

131

121

Primary metals industries:
Basic iron and steel .................
Iron and steel fo u n d rie s ...........

1988
1986

178.9
84.1

89
66

110
129

107
116

1983
1979

184.1
177.4

92
83

124
132

—
114

1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays,
and late shifts; union establishments are those with a majority of their produc­
tion workers covered by a labor-management agreement.
2 Percent of workers employed by establishments reporting labor-manage­
ment agreements covering a majority of their production workers.

Digitized for2 FRASER
8 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

3 Average hourly earnings in unionized establishments divided by hourly
earnings in nonunion establishments.
4 Unweighted average of relative differences of individual regions.
No te:

Dashes indicate that data did not meet publication criteria.

Population Survey and the Employment Cost
Index (eci), the iws data allow a more detailed
examination of the relationship between wage
differences and unionization.
Fifteen industry surveys were chosen for this
analysis because they include nationwide esti­
mates of earnings of all production workers
combined and report a sufficient mix of union
and nonunion establishments to make valid
comparisons possible.9 The industries cover a
cross-section of the manufacturing sector, in­
cluding food processors and garment makers, as
well as such durable goods producers as steel
mills and furniture factories.
Pay comparisons by industry. Among the in­
dustries, the union wage advantage ranged from
2 percent for industrial chemicals producers and
7 percent for textile mills to 49 percent for
prepared-meat-products plants. (See table 1.) In
nine industries, however, the differences ran
between 15 and 30 percent. Basic iron and steel
mills, the largest industry surveyed, reported
that wages for unionized workers exceeded
those of nonunion counterparts by 10 percent in
October 1988.
Pay differentials for the six durable goodsproducing industries studied (basic iron and
steel, iron and steel foundries, millwork, struc­
tural clay products, upholstered furniture, and
nonupholstered furniture) ranged from 10 per­
cent to 29 percent. However, nondurable goods
producers reported much more dispersed re­
sults, as differentials ranged from 2 percent for
industrial chemicals to 49 percent for prepared
meat products.
In terms of straight-time earnings, differen­
tials exceeded $1 an hour in 10 of the 15 indus­
tries and topped $2 in 3 surveys. The smallest
differentials were reported in the chemicals in­
dustry (29 cents per hour) and in textile mills
(43 cents). The food and kindred products in­
dustries accounted for some of the largest dif­
ferentials: earnings of production workers in
unionized prepared-meat-products plants ex­
ceeded those of their nonunion counterparts by
$2.90 an hour; in flour mills, the union advan­
tage was $2.85 an hour.
Extent o f union coverage. The proportion of
workers in unionized plants ranged from 12
percent in textile mills to 89 percent in steel
mills. In nine of the industries, more than half
of the production workers were in establish­
ments reporting union contracts covering at
least a majority of their production work force.
The union-nonunion differential was typi­
cally higher in those industries reporting a
greater proportion of union workers. In six of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 2.

Union pay as a percent of
nonunion pay, numerically
important occupations, selected
Industry Wage Survey
manufacturing industries,
1984-1988

Industry and occupation

Meatpacking:
Boners (boxed b e e f)..........................
Prepared meat products:
Ham bo n e rs.........................................
Flour and other grain mill products:
P rocessors...........................................
Textile dyeing and finishing:
Dyeing machine tenders (cloth) . . . .
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats:
Sewing machine operators (co ats)..
Men’s and boys’ shirts:
Sewing machine o p erators...............

Millwork:
Assemblers .........................................
Nonupholstered furniture:
Assemblers (except chairs)...............
Upholstered furniture:
Upholsterers ....................................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes:
Flexographic printer o p e ra to rs.........
Industrial chemicals:
Chemical op erators............................
Structural clay products:
Tunnel kiln fire rs ................................

Percent

99
142
121

135
131
113

107
113
109

106
99
122

the nine industries in which a majority of the
workers were covered by labor-management
agreements, the union pay advantage exceeded
20 percent, compared with only one of the six
industries in which unions covered a minority.10
Significant exceptions, however, were noted.
For example, although 61 percent of the produc­
tion workers in industrial chemicals plants were
unionized, the industry’s differential was the
smallest reported—2 percent. Similarly, the
steel industry reported the highest level of
unionization among the 15 industries (89 per­
cent), but the third smallest differential (10 per­
cent).
Earnings of production workers in the indus­
tries studied tended to be somewhat lower than
those reported for all manufacturing industries
combined in the bls Current Employment Sta­
tistics series. Industry pay levels ranged from 50
percent of the overall average in the men’s shirt
industry to 98 percent in foundries and flour
mills. Pay rates in two industries, basic iron and
steel and industrial chemicals, exceeded the
manufacturing average by 18 and 32 percent,
respectively.
The relationship of a particular industry to
the all-manufacturing-industries pay level, howMonthly Labor Review June 1990

29

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
ever, appeared to have little effect on the unionnonunion differential. The two industries report­
ing pay higher than the all-manufacturingindustries level had some of the smallest differ­
entials, as did such relatively low-paying indus­
tries as textile mills. Conversely, in both the
relatively low-paying suit industry and highpaying foundries, unionized workers enjoyed a
comparatively large pay advantage.
The Industry Wage Survey program also per­
mits an examination of union-nonunion pay dif­
ferences for specific occupations. Most of the
surveys obtained detailed earnings data for two
types of occupations—intraindustry jobs, such
as sewing machine operators in garment plants;
and interindustry jobs, such as maintenance and
custodial occupations.
To compare union and nonunion pay for
industry-specific occupations, the most nu­
merous occupation in an industry was studied.
(See table 2.) Among the 12 industries permit­
ting such comparisons, differentials ranged
from a 42-percent advantage for unionized ham
boners in prepared-meat-products plants to a
1-percent nonunion edge for boxed beef boners
in meatpacking and chemical operators in the
industrial chemicals survey. In general, the unionnonunion pay gap for the numerically import­
ant occupations was slightly smaller than the
industry’s all-production-worker differential.

0 Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for 3FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 3.

Union pay as a percent of
nonunion pay for selected
occupations, selected Industry
Wage Survey manufacturing
industries, 1984-1988

Industry

M e a tp a ckin g ...................
Prepared meat products ..
Flour and other grain mill
products.........................

Janitors

Maintenance
electricians

128
171

118
119

141

—

Textile dyeing and finishing

131

106

Men’s and boys’ suits and
coats ..............................
Men’s and boys’ shirts . ..

130
130

—
—

Millwork ...........................

130

—

Nonupholstered furniture .
Upholstered furniture . . . .

118
119

99
109

Corrugated and solid fiber
boxes ..............................

108

99

Industrial chemicals ........
Structural clay products ..

126
130

105
104

N o t e : Dash indicates insufficient number of observa­
tions for comparisons.

June 1990

An analysis of the impact of varying skill
levels on pay differentials within and among
industries was possible for eight industries.
Maintenance electricians were selected to repre­
sent a high-skilled occupation, while janitors
represented lower skilled, often entry level,
jobs. (See table 3.) In each industry, janitors in
unionized plants enjoyed a substantially larger
pay differential than did electricians. In fact, the
janitor differential was often 4 or 5 times that
reported for electricians. These findings echo
those of an analysis of Industry Wage Survey
data from the 1960’s.11
Changes in unionization and pay. Data from
the Industry Wage Survey program permit an
examination of changes during the 1980’s in the
degree of unionization and relative pay levels
among union and nonunion firms. In each of the
industries chosen for analysis, a similar survey
had been conducted between 1979 and 1983,
approximately 5 to 7 years before the “current”
round of surveys.
Changes in the relative wage advantage of
unionized workers between survey rounds pres­
ent a varied picture. The union-nonunion pay
gap increased in 6 of the 15 industries, some­
times by a substantial amount. (See table 4.) For
example, in textile dyeing and finishing plants,
the pay of unionized workers was 19 percent
higher than that of nonunion workers in June
1985, nearly double the 10-percent differential
reported in August 1980. In men’s shirt manu­
facturing, the difference increased from 12 per­
cent in June 1981 to 17 percent in June 1987.
Among the nine industries reporting declines
in the union wage advantage, changes also were
often substantial. The largest decrease was re­
ported in steel mills, where pay in unionized
plants was 10 percent higher than that in non­
union plants in October 1988, compared with a
difference of 24 percent in August 1983.
Among meatpackers, the pay differential fell
from 43 percent in May 1979 to 24 percent in
June 1984.
The narrowing of steel pay differentials re­
sulted from a 14-percent increase in the wages
of nonunion workers between August 1983 and
October 1988, while unionized workers’ earn­
ings were virtually unchanged. In the union
sector, contract negotiations in 1983 and again
in 1986-87 led to wage rate reductions aimed at
helping the industry meet foreign and domestic
competition. The decreases were partly offset
by payouts from profit-sharing, stock owner­
ship, and nonwage payment plans.12 In addition,
during the life of each agreement, deferred wage
adjustments typically raised wage rates to about
the level in effect prior to the initial cuts.

Negotiated wage reductions also contributed
to the narrowing of the union-nonunion pay gap
in the meatpacking industry. To help compete
with newer facilities, unions representing em­
ployees of long-established meatpacking firms
agreed to reductions of $2 an hour in base pay
between 1979 and 1984.13 The effect of these
concessions was to dampen the rate of wage
increase for all unionized meatpackers: over the
5-year span, the pay of unionized workers rose
by 11 percent, compared with a 28-percent gain
at nonunion plants.
A clearer pattern emerges when the indus­
tries are arrayed by the level of the relative
wage advantage reported during the earlier
round of surveys. Among the eight industries
reporting union wage differentials of less than
25 percent during the 1979-83 period, five re­
ported increases in this measure during the
1984-88 survey round. Conversely, of the seven
industries with the largest union pay advantages
in the earlier period, six reported decreases in
the later round.
Since the earlier round of surveys, each of
the industries reported relatively small increases
in average wage rates, ranging from less than 1
percent a year in the steel industry to about 5
percent a year in textiles, furniture, millwork,
and chemical plants. (See table 4.) (By compar­
ison, the Bureau’s Employment Cost Index for
manufacturing industries showed an average in­
crease in wages and salaries of 5.4 percent a
year from December 1978 to December 1988.)
The overall rate of wage change in an industry,
how ever, was som ewhat correlated with
changes in the union-nonunion pay gap: those
industries that reported an increase in pay dif­
ferential typically also reported some of the
faster rates of wage increase. The converse—
slow growth in earnings accompanied by a de­
crease in the pay gap—also generally held true.
Employment declines. Employment of produc­
tion workers in 11 of the 15 industries decreased
between the two survey rounds, typically by about
10 to 25 percent. Four industries (prepared meat
products, flour, millwork, and boxes) reported em­
ployment gains of 2 to 18 percent. In four of the
seven industries reporting employment declines of
more than 20 percent, the union-nonunion pay gap
widened. Conversely, an increase in the differen­
tial was noted in only one of four industries in
which employment grew.
The proportion of workers covered by a
union contract increased between the two sur­
vey rounds in only three industries. These in­
creases were 1 or 2 percentage points in flour
mills, textile mills, and dyeing and finishing

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 4.

Percent change in selected characteristics between
“earlier round” and “later round” surveys, selected
Industry Wage Survey manufacturing industries
Industry

Production
Average
worker
hourly
employment earningsi

Unionization2

Union
pay
differential2

Meatpacking ..................................
Prepared meat products ...............
Flour and other grain mill products .
Textile m ills ....................................
Textile dyeing and finishing ...........

-21
4
2
-21
-26

2.2
3.1
2.7
4.7
5.2

-11
-19
2
9
9

-44
-17
-21
45
92

Men’s and boys’ suits and coats . . .
Men’s and boys’ s h irts ...................
M illw ork..........................................
Nonupholstered furniture...............
Upholstered furniture.....................

-24
-9
15
-42
-4

4.8
2.5
5.6
4.8
5.0

-3
-29
-30
-54
-45

1
36
7
-33
-24

Corrugated and solid fiber boxes . .
Industrial chem icals.......................
Structural clay p roducts.................
Basic iron ana s te e l.......................
Iron and steel fou ndrie s.................

18
-23
-10
-3
-53

3.5
5.3
3.9
0.4
4.1

-15
-18
-24
-3
-21

-26
(4)
-12
-57
-10

1 Annualized rate.
2 Change in proportion of workers em­
ployed by establishments reporting laborm anagem ent ag reem ents cove ring a
majority of their production workers.
3 Change in the percent differential in

average hourly earnings between unionized
establishments and nonunion establish­
ments.
4 The 2-percent union advantage re­
ported in 1986 compares with a nonunion
advantage of less than 1 percent in 1981.

plants. The union pay advantage increased in
the two textile industries, while flour mills re­
ported a substantial decrease. Eight of the
twelve industries reporting a decline in the pro­
portion of production workers covered by union
agreements also reported a decrease in the union
pay advantage. However, there appeared to be
little correlation between the magnitudes of the
changes of these two measures. For example,
manufacturers of men’s suits and of steel both
recorded a small decrease in unionization, but
the suit industry pay advantage grew slightly,
while that of steel mills declined by more than
half.
Factors influencing pay levels. There are, of
course, a number of factors that influence pay
levels besides the presence or absence of a
labor-management agreement. The Bureau’s oc­
cupational wage surveys typically report higher
pay rates for workers employed in larger estab­
lishments than for those in smaller plants; for
those working in metropolitan areas than for
those in rural settings; and so on. Often, these
factors are also associated with varying levels
of unionization, making it difficult to isolate the
effect of each factor.
Published data from the Industry Wage Sur­
vey program, however, make it possible to esti­
mate the influence of one important determinant
of wage levels—region. For a variety of reasons,
including differences in living costs and the mix
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

31

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
of urban and rural work sites, Industry Wage
Surveys typically report regional variations in
pay levels. Therefore, some of the difference
between union and nonunion pay levels may be
traced to the varying proportions of workers in
geographic regions with differing pay rates and
degrees of unionization.
For example, wage rates for both union and
nonunion workers tend to be lower in the South
than in the Northeast. In addition, workers in the
South generally are less likely to be covered by
a union agreement. Therefore, lower paid work­
ers in the South may significantly affect the
nationwide estimate of nonunion earnings,
while their higher paid counterparts in the
Northeast may dominate the union averages.
Union-nonunion pay differentials were com­
puted for each of the regions for which data met
publication criteria. The regional pay gap was
smaller than the corresponding nationwide dif­
ferential in 47 of 74 comparisons. Among indi­
vidual regions, however, wide variations were
reported. For example, in the prepared-meatproducts industry, pay of unionized workers ex­
ceeded that of nonunion employees by as little
as 19 percent in the Mountain region and by as
much as 53 percent in the Southwest.
By computing a simple average of the re­
gional results, a nationwide pay differential can
be prepared in which the impact of varying
geographic employment patterns is minimized.
Nationwide pay differences measured in this
manner were slightly smaller than those pro­
duced by comparing national pay averages. The

Digitized for 32
FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 5.

Cumulative percent changes in
the Employment Cost Index of
wages and salaries for union
and nonunion workers, se­
lected periods, 1975-89
Union

Non­
union

September 1975-December 1983:
All private industry.......................
Goods-producing ...................
Service-producing...................
Manufacturing.........................
Nonmanufacturing...................

89.5
87.3
93.5
90.1
89.0

76.7
75.2
77.1
75.7
76.8

December 1983-September 1989:
All private industry.......................
Goods-producing ...................
Service-producing...................
Manufacturing..........................
Nonmanufacturing...................

16.5
16.7
16.1
17.7
tb.a

27.0
24.1
28.7
25.0
27.8

September 1975-September 1989:
All private industry.......................
Goods-producing ...................
Service-producing...................
Manufacturing.........................
Nonmanufacturing...................

120.7
118.6
124.7
123.7
118.0

124.4
117.4
127.9
119.7
125.8

Period and worker group

June 1990

narrowing of the pay gap, however, typically
amounted to less than 4 percentage points.
In the late 1970’s, multiple regression analysis
techniques were applied to data from a limited
number of Industry Wage Surveys in an attempt
to isolate the independent effect on wages of
various establishment and worker characteristics.
Use of this technique permitted the impact of each
of a variety of factors influencing wage levels to
be measured separately.
Results of these analyses typically confirmed
that the union status of the production work
force was a significant determinant of wage
levels. For example, simple comparison of
union and nonunion averages from a May 1978
survey of men’s and boys’ shirts producers
showed that earnings of union workers ex­
ceeded those of nonunion workers by 51 cents
per hour.14 When other factors, such as plant
size, region, and city size, were held constant by
use of multiple regression techniques, the pay
gap narrowed to 42 cents per hour. Unioniza­
tion, however, remained the largest influence on
pay levels in this industry.

The Employment Cost Index
A third program that yields data on earnings by
union membership status is the Employment
Cost Index (ECl) survey, providing two types of
information on union-nonunion differences—
indexes of change and compensation cost levels.
The ECl is an employment-weighted measure of
change over time in the cost of employing a
fixed set of labor inputs.15 It is a quarterly series
that relates to payroll periods including the 12th
of March, June, September, and December. The
survey covers all nonfarm establishments (ex­
cept private households and the Federal Gov­
ernment), regardless of size, and provides detail
by industry, occupation, region, union status,
and occupational group within industry cate­
gory.16
A special advantage of the ECl program is
that it publishes data on cost levels17 and
changes for total compensation as well as for its
components, wages and salaries and benefit
costs. The ECl thus addresses Lewis’ concern,
noted earlier, that both wages and benefits
should be considered to get a more complete
estimate of union-nonunion differentials.
In the ECl, the basic unit of observation is the
occupation within an establishment.18 An occu­
pation in an establishment is considered to be
union if the workers are covered by a union
contract; otherwise, it is nonunion.19 Because
both establishments and occupations are se­
lected on a probability-proportionate-to-size
basis, the sample reflects the distribution of

Chart 1.

Percent wage and salary changes from the Employment Cost Index
for 12-month periods ending March, June, September, and December,
private Industry workers by union status, 1976-89
Percent
12

Percent

11
10
9

8
7

6
5
4
3

2
1

0
1976

Chart 2.

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

19 8 3

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Percent changes In compensation from the Employment Cost Index
for 12-month periods ending March, June, September, and December,
private industry workers by union status, 1 9 8 0 -8 9
Percent

Percent
12

1980


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1989

----

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

12

1989

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

33

3 4 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
union and nonunion workers in the private
economy.
Trends in wages and salaries.
From 1975,
when wage change data from the ECl were first
available, until the early 1980’s, the union-non­
union wage differential grew steadily as wage
increases for union workers almost always ex­
ceeded those for their nonunion counterparts.
(See chart 1.) Other b l s data suggest that, in
manufacturing at least, the long string of years
with relatively large union pay gains began in
1969 and that, by 1983, the union-nonunion
differential was at a historic high.20
During the early 1980’s, pay increases for
both union and nonunion workers dropped
sharply. Factors contributing to the decline were
the 1981-82 recession, which led to wage
freezes and pay cuts, and the lower rate of price
increase. Pay gains in the union sector contin­
ued to exceed those in the nonunion sector
through the end of 1982, but the drop in the rate

Table 6.

Cumulative percent changes in
wages and salaries from the
Employment Cost Index (ECl)
and effective wage adjustments
from major bargaining
agreements, selected periods,
1975-88

Series
Total private industry:
ECl, to ta l...............
ECl, u n io n .............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .

December December December
1975-83 1983-88 1975-88

77.6
85.3

20.3
14.1

113.7
111.4

84.5

15.9

113.9

78.3
85.8

19.0
15.1

112.1
113.8

83.0

15.9

111.7

77.3
84.9

20.9
13.2

114.3
109.3

85.3

16.1

115.2

68.8

14.6

93.4

82.1

15.8

110.9

89.6

14.2

116.6

88.8

14.9

117.0

ECl, to t a l...............

70.2

21.9

107.4

Effective wage
adjustments . . . .

77.8

14.7

103.9

77.7

26.7

125.1

77.2

22.8

117.7

Manufacturing:
ECl, to ta l...............
ECl, u n io n .............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .
Nonmanufacturing:
ECl, to t a l...............
ECl, u n io n .............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .
Construction:
ECl, to t a l...............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .
Transportation and
public utilities:
ECl, to t a l...............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .
Trade:

Services:
ECl, to t a l...............
Effective wage
adjustments . . . .

June 1990

of pay increase was sharper for union workers,
due in part to the growing importance of lump­
sum payments offered in lieu of wage increases
in union contracts.
In 1983, there was a dramatic break in the
pattern of larger pay gains for union workers.
Since that time, nonunion wage increases have
consistently exceeded those for union workers.
By September 1989, the union-nonunion differ­
ential in wage rates was smaller than it had been
in 1975.21 (See table 5.)
This same pattern of a widening of the unionnonunion wage differential during 1975-83 and
of a narrowing of the differential since 1983 is
evident in data for the major industrial sectors
within private industry. As shown in table 5,
over the September 1975-December 1983 pe­
riod, wage increases for union workers ex­
ceeded those for nonunion workers in both
goods-producing and service-producing indus­
tries and in both manufacturing and nonmanu­
facturing. Over the December 1983-September
1989 period, in contrast, nonunion pay increases
exceeded those for union workers by roughly
the same proportion in all four of those industry
categories. Over the entire September 1975-89
period, union pay increases exceeded nonunion
gains in manufacturing, but trailed them in non­
manufacturing, although the differences were
not great.
U nion-nonunion com parisons of wage
change for major industry groups, such as con­
struction, cannot be made from the ECl because
of insufficient sample sizes. However, it is pos­
sible to make rough comparisons for those in­
dustry groups by using data on effective wage
adjustments from the Bureau’s major bargaining
settlements program22 in conjunction with ECl
data. For example, if the effective wage adjust­
ments for union workers are lower than the ECl
change for all workers in the industry group,
this would suggest that nonunion increases are
larger than union gains. (See table 6.)
Effective wage adjustments are not strictly
comparable to ECl wage and salary changes for
union workers. A major difference is that effec­
tive wage changes are based on data for all
bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers
or more, whereas ECl union data are based on a
sample of all bargaining situations, regardless of
number of workers covered.23
Despite differences in the two series, the
sizes of effective wage adjustments are very
similar to ECl union wage changes where com­
parison is possible—for all private industry
workers and for manufacturing and nonmanu­
facturing. This similarity provides support for
using the effective wage adjustments as an in-

d icator o f u n io n w a g e c h a n g e s to co m p a r e w ith
c h a n g e s fo r all w o rk ers fro m the ECI in in d u s­
tries fo r w h ic h ECI m e a su r es o f u n io n w a g e
c h a n g e s are n o t a v a ila b le .

Comparisons of overall ECI wage changes
with effective wage adjustments by industry
sector outside manufacturing generally support
the finding of relatively large union pay gains
during 1975-83 and relatively small gains dur­
ing 1983-88. The exceptions are services during
1975-83, construction during 1983-88, and
transportation and public utilities over the entire
period. For transportation and public utilities,
the effective wage changes for all periods are
very similar to ECI changes; this pattern may be
due to the fact that the industry has a far higher
proportion of workers covered by union con­
tracts than any other.24
Compensation cost changes. Data on wage
and salary changes, the focus of discussion to
this point, tell only part of the story. Com­
prehensive analysis of labor cost trends requires
data on compensation costs, which include ben­
efit costs as well as wages and salaries. Com­
pensation cost changes by union status for the
major industry sectors are available from the
ECI, beginning with data for June 1981. (See
chart 2.)
In addition to wages and salaries, compensa­
tion costs as measured by the ECI include paid
leave, employer outlays for private insurance
and retirement plans, costs of legally required
programs, supplemental pay, and other benefits.
The supplemental pay category includes pre­
mium pay for work on weekends and holidays,
shift pay, and nonproduction bonuses, including
lump-sum payments made in lieu of wage ad­
justments.
Benefits differ widely in the degree to which
they are related to wages. The cost of some
benefits, such as paid vacations or holidays, is
directly related to wages because the benefits
are paid for at the wage rate. Costs of other
benefits, such as Social Security, are related to
wages but also can be affected by factors out­
side the control of parties in negotiations, such
as legislated changes in tax rates or ceilings on
taxable earnings.
Still other benefits, such as health insurance
and pensions, show cost changes that are almost
totally unrelated to wage movements.25 Con­
sider, for example, insurance costs. During
1980-84, employer insurance costs rose much
more rapidly than wages and salaries. During
1985-87, insurance cost increases dampened
dramatically, due to lower rates of increase in
medical costs and cost containment efforts by

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 7.

Cumulative percent changes in the Employment Cost
Index of compensation costs for union and nonunion
workers, selected periods, 1981-89
Compensation costs

Wages and salaries

Category
Union

Nonunion

Union

Nonunion

June 1981-December 1983:
All private Industry .......................
Goods-producing.....................
Service-producing ...................
Manufacturing .........................
Nonmanufacturing ...................

18.8
17.3
21.3
17.2
20.4

15.9
14.6
16.7
14.9
16.4

16.9
15.0
20.0
14.8
18.9

15.2
13.7
16.0
14.2
15.6

December 1983-September 1989:
All private industry .......................
Goods-producing.....................
Service-producing ...................
Manufacturing .........................
Nonmanufacturing ...................

19.8
19.9
19.6
21.6
18.0

29.2
26.5
30.8
27.5
29.9

16.5
16.7
16.1
17.7
15.3

27.0
24.1
28.7
25.0
27.8

June 1981-September 1989:
All private industry .......................
Goods-producing.....................
Service-producing ...................
Manufacturing .........................
Nonmanufacturing ...................

42.3
40.6
45.1
42.5
42.1

49.8
45.0
52.7
46.5
51.2

36.2
34.2
39.3
35.1
37.1

46.3
41.1
49.3
42.8
47.7

employers. Over the past 2 years, insurance
costs have once again been increasing more
rapidly than wages and salaries.
Another benefit for which cost does not rise
at the same rate as wages and salaries is lump­
sum payments, which often are provided in lieu
of wage increases. Lump sums are popular
among employers because they do not alter base
wages and may more easily be discontinued in
future contract negotiations than wage changes.26
The relative importance of benefits differs
substantially between union and nonunion
workers. In March 1989, for example, benefits
made up 27.3 percent of total compensation for
all private industry workers, 33.6 percent for
union workers, and 25.6 percent for nonunion
workers. Furthermore, the union advantage in
terms of benefit costs as a percentage of com­
pensation costs was greatest for those benefits
whose costs were least closely related to
wages—insurance, supplemental pay, and pen­
sion and retirement costs. This pattern suggests
that the union-nonunion relationship will be dif­
ferent for compensation cost changes than for
wage and salary changes.
Although both wage and salary changes and
compensation cost changes show the same gen­
eral pattern of relatively large union gains until
1983 and relatively small gains thereafter, there
are important differences between the two mea­
sures. A major difference is that, since 1983,
union gains relative to nonunion gains have
been larger for compensation costs than for
wages and salaries; that is, the union-nonunion
differential in compensation costs is narrowing
more slowly than is the differential in wages and
salaries.27
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

35

6 Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for3 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
Table 7 summarizes the union-nonunion
compensation comparison for the period over
which data for all of the categories shown are
available. When one compares union and non­
union compensation trends, it is clear that the
period prior to 1983 differs from the period
since. This pattern holds whether the compari­
son is made for all private industry or for major
industry sectors.
When the union-nonunion comparisons are
restricted to blue-collar workers in manufactur­
ing, which is possible only for the short period
since 1987, the pattern is not as clear-cut. For
the period June 1987-September 1989, the rela­
tionships between the cumulative increases for
the union and nonunion groups are as shown
below:
Compensation
Wages and
costs
salaries
NonNonUnion union Union union
A ll w o r k e r s ..........
B lu e-co lla r . . .
M anufacturing .
B lu e-co lla r . . .

. 8.5
. 8.9
. 10.7
. 11.0

11.3
10.6
10.0
10.4

6 .2
6 .6
7.1
7 .2

10.2
9 .2
8.6
8.7

For wages and salaries, the pattern of smaller
increases for union than for nonunion workers
holds for all of the categories. For compensa­
tion, however, the pattern holds for all workers
and for blue-collar workers, but not for manu­
facturing overall or for blue-collar workers
within manufacturing. The reason for the differ­

Table 8. Employment Cost Indexes of
wages and salaries, benefits,
and compensation costs of
union workers relative to
nonunion workers,
March 1988-89
[Nonunion = 100]

Wages and
salaries

Benefit
costs

Compen­
sation
costs

Private industry
workers:
1988 .............
1989 .............

125.3
120.7

186.0
178.0

140.8
135.4

Blue-collar:
1988 .............
1989 .............

150.0
148.2

224.9
214.4

169.9
166.2

Manufacturing:
1988 .............
1989 .............

98.2
100.9

131.1
139.0

107.9
112.1

Blue-collar:
1988 .............
1989 .............

134.8
136.1

176.7
180.0

147.3
149.4

Nonmanufacturing:
1988 .............
1989 .............

134.1
127.7

195.4
181.8

149.2
141.0

Series

June 1990

ence is that health insurance costs, which have
been rising rapidly since 1986, make up a higher
proportion of compensation for union workers
than for nonunion workers in manufacturing.
Thus, the table also illustrates the point that
compensation cost changes may differ from
wage and salary changes.
There are a number of explanations for the
more rapid rise in nonunion than in union pay
over the past 6 years. Most are related to the
characteristics of the industries in which unions
are strongest. Highly unionized manufacturing
industries, such as automobiles and steel, have
been strongly affected by foreign competition.
Highly unionized transportation industries, such
as trucking and airlines, have been affected by
deregulation. However, a recent study of wage
settlements found that, by 1985, concessionary
wage adjustments had spread from a few trou­
bled industries to nearly all.28
Another factor in the decline in the differen­
tial is the difference in occupational composi­
tion of union and nonunion worker groups.
White-collar workers are more likely to be non­
union, and their pay has been rising more rap­
idly than that of blue-collar workers, who are
more likely to be unionized. Yet another factor
partly explaining the decline in the union-non­
union differential is the continuing drop in the
percent of the work force that is unionized.
Compensation cost levels. Even though the
union pay advantage has been narrowing over
the past 6 years, a gap remains. This is shown
by a review of information available from the
ECl on compensation cost levels—employer
costs for employee compensation.29
As noted in the discussion of compensation
change, benefits made up a larger percentage of
compensation costs for union than for nonunion
workers in March 1989:
Total benefit
costs

Insurance
costs

Non­
Union union

Non­
Union union

P rivate industry
w o r k e r s .................. 3 3 .6
B lu e - c o lla r .......... . 3 5 .2

2 5 .6
2 7 .2

8 .3
8 .7

5 .3
5 .6

M a n u fa c tu rin g . . . 3 6 .4
B lu e - c o lla r .......... 3 6 .4
Nonmanufacturing . 3 1 .6

2 9 .3
3 0 .2
2 4 .5

1 0 .0
1 0 .0
7 .1

7 .2
7 .5
4 .8

A major difference between the two sectors is
in employers’ costs for insurance, which ac­
count for 8.3 percent of compensation cost for
union workers, compared with 5.3 percent for
nonunion workers. This same pattern is found
even when the comparison is restricted to more
narrow categories. For blue-collar workers in

manufacturing, for example, insurance costs
made up 10 percent of compensation costs for
union workers and 7.5 percent for nonunion
workers.
Table 8 shows that wage, benefit, and com­
pensation costs typically are higher for union
than for nonunion workers, but the difference
depends on the measure of compensation and
the group of workers examined. For all private
industry workers in March 1989, wage and sal­
ary costs were one-fifth higher for union than
for nonunion workers, whereas compensation
costs were more than one-third higher. And in
manufacturing, the union compensation cost ad­
vantage was 12 percent for all workers and
nearly 50 percent for blue-collar workers.
Clearly, when making union-nonunion compar­
isons, it is important to look at total compensa­
tion rather than simply wages and salaries, and
at narrowly defined occupations rather than all
workers combined.

Some final observations
As indicated throughout this article, it is diffi­
cult to draw simple conclusions about the size
of the pay gap, the rate of change in this mea­
sure, or even the direction of the change.
Data from all three b l s programs support the
presence of an overall union wage advantage,
but estimates of its magnitude vary. As one

might expect, the differences in the results stem
in large measure from the differences in the data
used. The three surveys differ in scope, defini­
tion, and method. The C P S , for example, in­
cludes farm workers and Federal employees;
these groups are not included in the Industry
Wage Surveys or the E C I survey. The E C I and
Industry Wage Surveys include part-time work­
ers (although the latter exclude them from data
on individual jobs), while the C P S data are for
full-time workers only.
The Industry Wage Surveys classify a worker
as union if a majority of the production workers
in the establishment are covered by a collective
bargaining agreement; the E C I bases the worker’s
classification on the contract coverage of the
w orker’s occupation. In both surveys, the
worker’s actual union membership status is not
considered. In the C P S , on the other hand, the
worker is classified as union only if the house­
hold respondent indicates that the worker is a
member of a union on the job. Both the E C I and
Industry Wage Surveys collect data from
employers’ establishments; the C P S is a house­
hold-based survey. And finally, the Industry
Wage Surveys provide union-nonunion data by
detailed occupation and industry; the E C I pro­
vides such data for all workers classified by broad
occupational and industry groups; and the C P S
yields publishable data at only the most aggre­
gate levels.
□

Footnotes
1 H . G r e g g L e w is , U n io n ism a n d R e la tiv e W a g e s in the
U n ite d S ta te s (C h ic a g o , U n iv e r sity o f C h ic a g o P ress, 1 9 6 3 ),
p. 193.
2 D a n ie l M itc h e ll, U n io n s, W a g e s , a n d I n fla tio n (W a sh ­
in g to n , T h e B ro o k in g s In stitu tion , 1 9 8 0 ), p. 9 9 .
3 R ich ard B . F reem an and Jam es L. M e d o ff, W h a t D o
U n io n s D o ? (N e w Y ork , B a sic B o o k s , In c., 1 9 8 4 ), pp. 4 4 46.
4 H . G r e g g L e w is , U n io n R e la tiv e W a g e E ffe c ts: A S u r­
v e y (C h ic a g o , U n iv e r sity o f C h ic a g o P ress, 1 9 8 6 ), pp. 9 ,
1 7 4 -8 7 .
5 A d is c u s s io n o f u n io n -n o n u n io n d iffe re n c e s fro m c o m ­
p e n s a tio n data ap p ears later in th is article.
6 F or m ore in fo rm a tio n abou t the Current P o p u la tio n
S u rv e y , s e e M e a s u r e s o f C o m p e n s a tio n , B u lle tin 2 2 3 9 (B u ­
reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 6 ), pp. 34—47; and bls H a n d ­
b o o k o f M e th o d s , B u lle tin 2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s,
1 9 8 8 ), pp. 3 - 1 2 .
7 A n n u al data o n m ed ia n w e e k ly e a rn in g s b y u n io n
a ffilia tio n are p u b lish e d in January is s u e s o f E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s , a bls m o n th ly p e r io d ic a l. T h e first data, fo r
1 9 8 3 and 1 9 8 4 , w e re p u b lish e d in the January 1 9 8 5 issu e.

in c lu d in g h o lid a y and v a c a tio n sc h e d u le s and th e in c id e n c e
o f h ea lth , in su ra n ce, and retirem en t p la n s.
9 In th e Industry W a g e S u rv ey program , esta b lish m e n ts
and th eir w o rk ers are c la s s ifie d as “ u n io n ” i f a m a jo r ity o f
th e p ro d u ctio n w o rk fo r c e is c o v e r e d b y term s o f a lab orm a n a g em en t a g reem en t. T h u s, th e p ro p o rtio n o f w o rk ers
rep orted as u n io n iz e d , as w e ll as e stim a te s o f th eir ea rn in g s,
m a y in c lu d e s o m e e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re n o t c o v e r e d b y a
co n tra ct. F o r e x a m p le , i f u n io n iz e d a s s e m b ly -lin e e m p lo y e e s
co n stitu te d a m a jo rity o f a p la n t’s p ro d u ctio n w o rk fo r c e, all
p ro d u ctio n w o rk ers in th e p la n t w e re reco rd ed as u n io n iz e d ,
in c lu d in g sh ip p in g and m a in te n a n c e w o rk ers w h o , in fact,
w e re n o t c o v e r e d b y an a g reem en t. A lth o u g h n o e stim a te s
o f th e n u m b er o f w o rk ers “m is c la s s ifie d ” in th is w a y are
a v a ila b le, it is b e lie v e d that the e ffe c t o n th e a n a ly s is is
sm a ll. T h is is b e c a u se u n io n a g reem en ts ten d to b e b road b a se d , lim itin g th e n u m b er o f n o n u n io n w o rk ers in “ u n io n ”
e sta b lish m e n ts, and b e c a u s e w a g e le v e ls o f th es e w ork ers
are lik e ly to b e h e a v ily in flu e n c e d b y th o se o f th e p r e d o m i­
nan t (that is, u n io n ) grou p .

8 F or m ore in fo rm a tio n ab ou t the Industry W a g e Su r­
v e y s , s e e M e a s u r e s o f C o m p e n s a tio n , pp. 7 —21; and bls

10 A s e x p la in ed in fo o tn o te 9 , th e la b o r-m a n a g em en t
a g r ee m e n t c o v e r a g e status o f e a ch e sta b lish m e n t is d eter­
m in ed b y the status o f a m a jo rity o f its p ro d u ctio n w o rk
fo r c e. T h e status o f an in d u stry r e fle cts th e rela tiv e e m p lo y ­
m e n t o f e sta b lish m e n ts rep o rtin g m a jo rity c o v e r a g e and
th o se rep o rtin g m in o rity (o r n o ) c o v er a g e .

H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , pp. 4 1 - 4 8 .
T h e su r v ey s a ls o c o m m o n ly p r o v id e in fo rm a tio n o n e s ­
ta b lish m e n t p r a ctices su ch as w e e k ly w o rk sc h e d u le s and
sh iftw o r k p r o v is io n s and a v a riety o f e m p lo y e e b e n e fits,

11 S e e S an dra L . M a so n , “ C o m p a rin g u n io n and n o n ­
u n io n w a g e s in m a n u fa ctu rin g ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
M a y 1 9 7 1 , pp. 2 0 - 2 6 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

37

8 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized3for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Union-Nonunion Pay Differences
12 F or an a n a ly sis o f th e c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g is su e s ,
p lu s an a c co u n t o f th e term s o f th e fin a l 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7
a g r ee m e n ts, s e e th e f o llo w in g is s u e s o f th e bls p erio d ic a l
C u r r e n t W a g e D e ve lo p m e n ts'. M a y 1 9 8 6 , pp. 1 - 2 ; Ju ly
1 9 8 6 , p. 1; O c to b e r 1 9 8 6 , p. 2; and M a rch 1 9 8 7 , pp. 1 -2 .
13 S e e I n d u s try W a g e S u rv e y : M e a t P r o d u c ts , J u n e
1 9 8 4 , B u lle tin 2 2 1 7 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 5 ).
14 S e e I n d u s try W a g e S u rv e y : M e n ’s S h irts a n d S e p a ­
r a te T r o u s e r s , M a y 1 9 7 8 , B u lle tin 2 0 3 5 (B u rea u o f L abor
S ta tistic s, 1 9 7 9 ).
15 A lth o u g h th e eci is d e s ig n e d to b e a fix e d - w e ig h t
L a sp ey r e s in d ex , in d e x e s fo r s e r ie s rela ted to u n io n status
are m o re lik e L a sp ey r e s c h a in in d e x e s . S e e G . D o n a ld W o o d ,
“E stim a tio n p ro ced u res fo r th e E m p lo y m e n t C o st I n d e x ,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , M a y 1 9 8 2 , pp. 4 0 - 4 2 .
16 F or m ore in fo rm a tio n abou t the ECI, s e e E m p lo y m e n t
C o s t I n d e x e s a n d L e v e ls , 1 9 7 5 -8 9 , B u lle tin 2 3 3 9 (B u rea u o f
L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ).
S ep arate data fo r u n io n and n o n u n io n w o rk ers w e re n o t
a v a ila b le u n til 19 8 8 .
17 S e e F e lic ia N a th a n , “A n a ly z in g e m p lo y e r s ’ c o sts for
w a g e s , sa la ries, and b e n e fits ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , O c ­
tob er 1 9 8 7 , pp. 3 - 1 1 .
18 A n e sta b lish m e n t g e n e ra lly is a s in g le p h y sic a l lo c a ­
tio n w h e r e b u sin e s s is c o n d u c te d or w h e r e s e r v ic e s or in d u s­
trial o p era tio n s are p erform ed .
19 I f s o m e w ork ers in an o c cu p a tio n in the e sta b lish m e n t
are c o v e r e d b y a u n io n con tract and oth ers are n o t, th e tw o
gro u p s o f w ork ers are c o n s id e re d to b e in d iffe re n t o c c u p a ­
tio n s, and o n e o c c u p a tio n is se le c te d o n a p r o b a b ility -p ro p o r tio n a te -to -siz e b a sis.
20 S e e R o b ert J. F la n a g a n , “W a g e C o n c e s s io n s and
L o n g -T e rm U n io n W a g e F le x ib ility ,” B r o o k in g s P a p e r s o n
E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , 1 9 8 4 :1 , p. 187. T h e pre-ECi data o n
u n io n and n o n u n io n w a g e c h a n g e s w e re fro m th e B u r e a u ’s
W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts in M a n u fa ctu rin g p ro g ra m , w h ic h w a s
d is c o n tin u e d in th e late 1 9 7 0 ’s.
21 In “W a g e C o n c e s s io n s ,” F la n a g a n o b se rv e d th at “ It
w o u ld tak e an oth er d e c a d e o f d iffe r e n c e s in u n io n and
n o n u n io n w a g e g r o w th o f th e s iz e o b s e r v e d in 1 9 8 3 to restore
th e rela tiv e u n io n w a g e in m a n u fa ctu rin g to its 1 9 6 9 le v e l.”

June 1990

22 E ffe c tiv e w a g e a d ju stm en t data are o b ta in ed from all
u n io n co n tra cts c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers o r m o re. T h e y m e a ­
sure a ll ad ju stm en ts in th e refer e n c e yea r, reg a rd less o f the
s e ttle m e n t date. F o r a m o re c o m p le te d is c u s sio n , s e e bls
H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s.
23 B e c a u s e eci data are b a sed o n a sa m p le , w a g e and
c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e e stim a te s fro m th e su r v ey h a v e s a m ­
p lin g errors a s so c ia te d w ith th em ; b e c a u s e th ey are b a se d o n
data fo r th e u n iv er se, e ff e c t iv e w a g e a d ju stm en ts d o n o t h a v e
sa m p lin g error.
24 In 1 9 8 8 , ab o u t o n e-th ird o f all e m p lo y e e s in transpor­
ta tio n and p u b lic u tilitie s w ere c o v e r e d b y u n io n co n tra cts.
S e e E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s , January 1 9 8 9 , p . 2 2 6 . O f
c o u r se , a s o m e w h a t sm a lle r p ro p o rtio n o f w o rk ers w o u ld be
c o v e r e d b y m a jo r b a r g a in in g a g ree m e n ts in th e ind ustry.
25 S e e B ra d le y R. B ra d en , “ In crea ses in e m p lo y e r c o sts
fo r e m p lo y e e b e n e fits d a m p en d ra m a tica lly ,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R e v ie w , Ju ly 1 9 8 8 , pp. 3 - 7 .
26 S e e L in d a A . B e l l , “ U n io n C o n c e s s io n s in th e
1 9 8 0 ’s ,” Q u a r te r ly R e v ie w (F ed era l R e se r v e B a n k o f N e w
Y o rk ), S u m m e r 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 4 - 5 8 .
27 T h e c h ie f e x c e p tio n to th is pattern is fo r th e y ea r
e n d e d D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 5 , du rin g w h ic h c o m p e n s a tio n c o st
in c r e a se s in th e n o n u n io n sec to r e x c e e d e d th o se in th e u n io n
sec to r b y 2 .0 p e r ce n ta g e p o in ts , and n o n u n io n w a g e and
sa la ry in c r e a se s w e re 1.5 p er ce n ta g e p o in ts greater. T h e
app arent rea so n fo r th is a n o m a ly is that h ea lth in su ra n ce c o st
c o n ta in m e n t w a s im p le m e n te d d u rin g that p erio d , and h ea lth
in su ra n ce c o s t s are r e la tiv e ly m o re im p ortan t fo r u n io n than
fo r n o n u n io n w ork ers.
28 R e a so n s fo r the rela tiv e d e c lin e in th e rate o f w a g e
and b e n e fit in c r e a se s fo r u n io n w o rk ers are e x p lo r e d in B e ll,
“ C o n c e s s io n s ,” pp. 44—5 8 .

29 eci data o n c o m p e n s a tio n c o sts b y u n io n status are
a v a ila b le o n ly fo r 1 9 8 8 and 1 9 8 9 . N o te that u n io n and
n o n u n io n c o s t le v e ls r e fle c t a v a riety o f in flu e n c e s, in c lu d in g
c o v e r a g e b y a c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g a g r ee m e n t and v a ria tio n
in d istrib u tio n o f u n io n and n o n u n io n w o rk ers a m o n g o c c u ­
p a tio n s and in d u stries.

Productivity trends in the photographic
equipment and supplies industry
The introduction of computers and automated
equipment, along with modifications
in corporate strategy, inventory control,
and employee training, was a significant
factor in productivity growth during the 1980’s

Stuart Kipnis
and
Clyde Huffstutler

Stuart K ip n is and C ly d e
H u ffstu tler are e c o n o m is ts
in th e D iv is io n o f Industry
P ro d u ctiv ity and
T e c h n o lo g y S tu d ie s, B u ­
reau o f L ab or S ta tistics.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

rior to World War II, the photographic
equipment and supplies industry primarily
manufactured cameras, film, and projec­
tors. In the postwar years and especially since the
late 1950’s, the industry has helped to develop
and refine several products that have had a sub­
stantial impact on our lives. Photocopiers, which
have become the largest item produced in the
industry during the last 20 years, have greatly
boosted office productivity. Advances in x-ray
technology have led to significant improvements
in health care. Micrographics, “instant” photog­
raphy, and audiovisual communications are other
examples of important product developments.
By responding to user demands for new and
innovative products, the industry experienced
strong growth throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.
However, as in the case of other advanced elec­
tronic industries, intense competition from for­
eign manufacturers dampened output growth
during the 1980’s. To regain a competitive edge,
a number of the major U.S. manufacturers of
photographic products have recently implement­
ed broad, corporate-wide restructuring plans.
This study introduces a new Bureau of Labor
Statistics measure of productivity in this indus­
try. It seeks to capture the dynamics of an in­
dustry that has gone from a period of strong
output growth to one of slower growth and is
currently attempting to recover.
Output per employee hour in the photo­
graphic equipment and supplies industry in­
creased at an average annual rate of 4.3 percent

P

between 1967 and 1987, compared with 2.7
percent for all manufacturing.1 Over this period,
output rose 4.9 percent a year while employee
hours rose 0.6 percent. Average annual growth
rates between the two subperiods defined below
differ markedly with regard to output and em­
ployee hours:

Period

Output per
employee
hour

1 9 6 7 - 8 7 ....................
1 9 6 7 - 7 9 ...............
1 9 7 9 -8 7 ...............

4 .3
5 .5
3 .8

Output
4 .9
7 .5
1 .0

Employee
hours
0 .6
2 .0
-2 .7

Between 1967 and 1979, output per employee
hour increased at an average annual rate of 5.5
percent, more than double the 2.6-percent rate for
all manufacturing. Strong demand for such prod­
ucts as plain paper copiers, cartridge-loading cam­
eras, and photographic film caused output to rise
7.5 percent a year. This strong demand was fueled
by favorable demographic trends, increases in per­
sonal disposable income and leisure time, and a
diverse market for photographic equipment and
supplies. To meet this demand, manufacturers
added production capacity and increased the num­
ber of production workers by 1.4 percent a year.
By contrast, in the 1979-87 period, output
per employee hour rose 3.8 percent a year, equal
to the rate for all manufacturing. With strong
competition from imports of photographic prod­
ucts, industry output rose only moderately. The
dominant factor behind this growth in producMonthly Labor Review June 1990

39

Productivity in Photographic Equipment and Supplies
tivity was a decline in employee hours. This
reduction in employee hours was part of a re­
structuring that a number of the major manufac­
turers undertook in the 1980’s to become more
productive and cost effective. Along with a re­
duction in employment, these manufacturers
adopted the latest automation and manufactur­
ing techniques, improved inventory methods
and supplier relations, and streamlined their cor­
porate structures to expedite decisionmaking.
These changes, though not yet fully im­
plemented, have led to a substantial decline in
the manufacturing cost and development time
for a number of new products.

Employment cuts
were part of the
industry
restructuring
during the 1980’s.

0 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized4 for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

this period, the industry was successful in mak­
ing photography appealing to the mass market
with the introduction of inexpensive and easy to
operate cameras. This greatly expanded the base
of camera owners, leading to an increase in
demand for photographic supplies such as film
and paper.4
Photocopying equipment was the fastest
growing product in this industry during the pe­
riod 1967-79. The demand for copiers, and in
particular plain paper copiers (ppc’s), was fed
by the need for quick, inexpensive, and highquality reproductions of documents. A major
problem that photocopier manufacturers faced
in capturing the enormous market for their prod­
Output
ucts was the prohibitive cost of the equipment.
This was overcome by liberal rental policies.
The photographic equipment and supplies in­
PPC’s
became standard equipment for mediumdustry manufactures products which may be
and
large-size
offices during the 1960’s and
classified into two categories: equipment and
sensitized materials. Photographic equipment 1970’s, while either ppc’s or the less-expensive
consists of such items as still and motion picture but poorer quality coated paper copiers were
cameras and accessories, audiovisual projectors found in an increasing number of small offices.5
Growth in output slowed considerably after
and screens, and photocopying and micro­
graphic equipment. Sensitized materials include 1979 to an average annual rate of 1.0 percent,
still and motion picture film, photographic paper only one-third of the rate for all manufacturing.
The past success of the industry played a role in
and chemicals, and x-ray film.
With its array of products, this industry this slower growth. With so many high-quality,
serves a wide range of markets. The consumer long-lasting products already in circulation, it
market for equipment and sensitized materials— was difficult to persuade businesses and con­
mainly still cameras and film—is enormous, as sumers that new purchases were necessary.
more than 85 percent of all families own at least Against this market saturation, new product in­
one camera.2 Likewise, demand from the more troduction was less effective than in the previ­
than 100,000 professional photographers for still ous decade.6
Output growth was further limited by the
and motion picture equipment, and for film,
paper, and chemicals, is substantial.3 Photocopy­ intensification of competition from a number of
ing equipment, once considered a luxury pur­ sources. Certain consumer electronics products
chase, is found in virtually every office. Other not included in the industry served as substitutes
business and industrial uses include storage and for photographic products. The most notable
retrieval of documents by micrographics and example of this trend was the 50-percent decline
in motion picture cameras produced from 1979
medical and dental diagnostics by x-ray.
Output in the industry rose at an average to 1987 due to the popularity of the new video
annual rate of 4.9 percent between 1967 and cameras.7 Furthermore, foreign manufacturers
1987, compared with 2.4 percent for all manu­ were able to capture a significant share of the
facturing. This single rate, however, masks the domestic market in a number of product lines.
substantial difference in growth rates between Shipments of 35mm cameras, virtually all im­
the subperiods 1967-79 and 1979-87. Further­ ported, rose from 2.6 million units in 1979 to
more, year-to-year rates vary considerably due 7.7 million in 1987.8 This was a major factor in
to cyclical swings in the economy and new the nearly 30-percent decline in still cameras man­
product introductions.
ufactured domestically over this period. This same
From 1967 to 1979, output in the photographic dominance by foreign manufacturers was evi­
industry rose at an annual average rate of 7.5 dent in new photocopier placements (sales and
percent, nearly triple that of all manufacturing. rentals), especially in the low-cost, low-volume
There were a number of factors behind this segment of the market where the majority of
strong growth. An increase in the percent of the new placements have taken place since 1979.
population ages 25 to 44, the most active picture
Year-to-year movements in output fluctuated
takers, along with a rise in real disposable per­ considerably throughout the 1979-87 period. In
sonal income, contributed to the high demand 4 of the years studied, output declined; in 6 of
for amateur camera equipment and film. During the years, output increased by double-digit perJune 1990

T a b le

1.

Indexes of output per employee hour, output, and employee hours in the photo­
graphic equipment and supplies industry, 1967-87

[1 9 7 7 - 1

0

0

1

_________________________________________________________ ______

Employee hours

Output per employee hour
All
employees

Production
workers

Non­
production
workers

5 1 .2
5 4 .5
6 0 .7
5 9 .4

8 0 .5
8 3 .0
8 6 .7
8 7 .9

8 7 .5
8 7 .9
9 0 .4
8 8 .9

7 2 .9
7 7 .6
8 2 .7
8 6 .8

7 0 .6
82 .5
9 2 .8
9 8 .8
8 9 .9

6 2 .4
7 5 .2
8 6 .5
9 4 .5
8 4 .6

8 6 .3
9 0 .7
9 6 .3
9 8 .9
91.1

8 4 .5
9 0 .3
9 9 .2
1 0 1 .9
8 8 .4

8 8 .4
91.1
9 3 .2
9 5 .6
94.1

9 8 .9
100 .0
1 1 0 .2
1 2 2 .3
11 7 .0

9 9 .9
10 0 .0
11 1 .2
1 1 8 .8
1 0 8 .4

9 5 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 1 2 .6
1 2 4 .7
1 1 5 .2

9 5 .6
1 0 0 .0
1 0 1 .8
1 0 3 .4
1 0 2 .2

96.1
1 0 0 .0
1 0 2 .2
1 0 2 .0
9 8 .5

95.1
1 0 0 .0
1 0 1 .3
1 0 5 .0
1 0 6 .3

1 1 1 .2
1 1 0 .2
1 2 4 .8
1 3 1 .8
131.1

1 1 5 .8
1 1 6 .5
13 5 .9
1 3 9 .4
1 4 2 .3

1 0 6 .5
104.1
1 1 4 .6
124 .3
1 2 0 .4

1 1 6 .5
1 1 7 .3
121.1
1 2 5 .9
1 2 4 .4

1 0 4 .8
1 0 6 .4
9 7 .0
9 5 .5
9 4 .9

1 0 0 .6
1 0 0 .7
89.1
9 0 .3
8 7 .4

1 0 9 .4
1 1 2 .7
1 0 5 .7
1 0 1 .3
1 0 3 .3

1 4 4 .3
1 5 3 .4

161 .9
1 7 6 .4

1 2 8 .9
13 4 .0

1 2 6 .3
1 2 8 .4

8 7 .5
8 3 .7

7 8 .0
7 2 .8

9 8 .0
9 5 .8

- 0 .2
1.4
-4 .0

1.4
2 .6
-1 .4

All
employees

Production
workers

Non­
production
workers

Output

..........
..........
..........
..........

63 .6
6 5 .7
7 0 .0
6 7 .6

5 8 .5
6 2 .0
67.1
6 6 .8

7 0 .2
7 0 .2
7 3 .4
6 8 .4

1 9 7 1 ..........
1972 ..........
1973 ..........
1974 ..........
1975 ..........

7 2 .3
8 2 .9
8 9 .8
9 5 .6
9 2 .9

7 3 .8
8 3 .3
8 7 .2
9 2 .7
9 5 .7

..........
..........
..........
..........
..........

9 9 .4
1 0 0 .0
1 1 0 .6
1 2 0 .6
1 1 2 .7

1 9 8 1 ..........
1982 ..........
1983 ..........
1984 ..........
1985 ..........
1986 ..........
1987 ..........

Year

1967
1968
1969
1970

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

Average annual rates of change (percent)
1 9 6 7 -8 7 . .
1 9 6 7 -7 9 . .
1 9 7 9 -8 7 . .

4 .3
5.5
3 .8

5.1
6.1
5.2

3 .4
4 .8
2 .4

centages. These movements have roughly cor­
responded with the cyclical growth of the econ­
omy. Other factors that affected yearly output
rates were the introduction of new products and
the improvement of old products.
Three of the four years in which output de­
clined were recession years. In these years, sales
of photographic equipment, in particular, were
adversely affected by the slowdown in eco­
nomic activity. With disposable personal in­
com e and b usiness profits dow n, many
customers postponed buying new equipment
and continued to use their old cameras or pho­
tocopiers. The use of either old or new equip­
ment, however, still requires supplies such as
film or paper. With the usage of photographic
equipment only moderately affected by these
economic downturns, demand for photographic
supplies remained strong. This served to mod­
erate the decline in industry output.9
Increased demand for photographic equip­
ment and supplies brought about by upswings
in the economic cycle partially explains the
strong rate of growth in a number of years.
While sales of new equipment declined during
periods of slow economic growth, these pur­
chases, along with those of sensitized materials,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4 .9
7 .5
1.0

0 .6
2 .0
-2 .7

increased when the economy strengthened. For
example, from 1975 to 1979, real gross domes­
tic product rose nearly 21 percent. Over the same
period, output in this industry grew by 47 percent.
Besides the health of the economy, the
strength of output growth in many of the years
covered can be attributed to the industry being
able to avoid the output-depressing effects of
market saturation. The very nature of the indus­
try, with its array of products manufactured and
markets served, has kept output high. Slumps in
demand for a particular product or from a single
market, when not related to an economic down­
turn, have not affected output growth signifi­
cantly. The continued high demand for other
products or from other markets has prevented
industry output from falling significantly.10
Introduction of new products, along with cont­
inuous improvement of old products, has been
effective in countering market saturation and
keeping demand high. The prime example of a
completely new product leading to an increase
in output was the pocket instamatic camera.11 In
1972, the year this new product was introduced,
output of still cameras increased by 59.1 per­
cent. This was the dominant factor in the 20.5percent increase in industry output. The next
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

41

Productivity in Photographic Equipment and Supplies

Introduction of
new products
and refinements
o f existing ones
have helped keep
demand high.

42

year, with sales of this camera remaining high, both hours worked per week and numbers of
still camera output and industry output rose by workers employed.
28.7 percent and 15.0 percent, respectively.
In 1970 and 1971, the only years in which
Introductions of totally new products, how­ output and employee hours moved in opposite
ever, are rare. More common is the ongoing directions, a substantial number of hours were
process of product refinement. Plain paper being devoted to the development of new prod­
copying machines and photographic film are ucts. Manufacturers hired more nonproduction
excellent examples. The basic technology used workers, such as engineers, than production
in each product was developed prior to 1967: in workers. This was reversed in 1972 with the
copiers, electrostatic charges to transfer an introduction of the 110 still camera system, re­
image, and in film, light-sensitive silver halide quiring large-scale increases in production
crystals to form the image. To maintain user worker hours.
interest in an increasingly mature market, man­
A sharp reduction in the level of employ­
ufacturers of copiers have continually improved ment, rather than changes in output, was the
their product. This evolutionary process, using dominant factor influencing employee hours
microprocessor, laser, and fiber optic technol­ during 1979-87. The major manufacturers
ogy, has changed photocopiers from basic copy­ viewed work force reductions as a necessary
ing machines to complex machines able to step in the successful implementation of sophis­
perform a number of functions, such as self-di­ ticated manufacturing technologies. Thus, this
agnostics, multiple-size duplication, and com­ reduction in industry employment was an inte­
munications with computers and other office gral element in the overall effort to boost pro­
equipment.12 Likewise, advances in film build­
ductivity and lower manufacturing costs.13
ing technology have led to marked advances in
These cutbacks affected both production and
film speed, fineness of grain, and sharpness of
nonproduction workers. With the introduction
image, maintaining user interest in silver halide
of automated equipment and computer inte­
photography. The improvement of these and
grated manufacturing, production worker hours
other photographic products and the introduc­
fell by 28 percent from 1982 to 1987, an annual
tion of new products have been key factors in
keeping demand high for photographic equip­ average decline of 5.7 percent. While produc­
tion worker hours in this industry have histori­
ment and supplies.
cally been volatile, rising and falling with
changes in output, nonproduction worker hours
Employment
rose every year but one between 1967 and 1982.
Employment in the photographic equipment and Therefore, the 15-percent reduction in nonpro­
supplies industry increased at an annual average duction workers from 1982 to 1987 is signifi­
rate of 0.6 percent from 1967 to 1987, compared cant. During the 1980’s, a number of the major
to a 0.1-percent decline for all manufacturing. manufacturers reorganized their corporate struc­
Over the period 1967-79, industry employment tures, leading to a decline in managerial and
rose from 103,600 persons to 134,200, an an­ administrative positions. Lower level manage­
nual average increase of 2.1 percent. This ment, closer to the manufacturing process, was
growth continued until 1982, with employment given more responsibility for product decisions.
peaking at 140,200 persons. Large-scale cut­ The resulting decrease in the time to bring new
backs in employment during 1983-87 reduced products to market was necessary to improve
the number of employees to 107,800. Overall, competitiveness.14
In 1967, production workers accounted for
from 1979 to 1987, employment declined by 2.8
percent a year. For all manufacturing, employ­ 55 percent of all employees in the industry.
ment rose by 0.3 percent a year in the 1967-79 From 1967 to 1987, production workers de­
period and fell by 1.1 percent annually from clined by 0.3 percent a year while nonproduc­
1979 to 1987.
tion workers increased by 1.5 percent. Thus, by
Between 1967 and 1979, movements in in­ 1987, the proportion of employees classified as
dustry employment followed fluctuations in out­ production workers was only 43 percent. The
put. Chart 1 shows the close relationship corresponding ratio for all manufacturing also
between employee hours and output. In all but fell during this period, but remained substan­
one of the years in which output rose between tially greater than that for the photographic in­
1967 and 1979, employee hours grew because dustry: 74 percent in 1967 and 68 percent in 1987.
of increases in average weekly hours along with
Table 2 compares employment by occupa­
the addition of new workers. In 1975, with tion in the photographic equipment and supplies
output falling significantly, employee hours ex­ industry and in all manufacturing for 1986. The
perienced a large decline as employers reduced industry’s particularly high proportion of engi-

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

neers, scientists, and technicians—over twice
the percentage for all manufacturing—reflects
the highly technical nature of the development
and manufacture of photographic products. De­
spite reductions during the 1980’s, managerial
and administrative workers remain a major
component of all employees. While retail out­
lets sell much of this industry’s output, there are
notable exceptions. In the highly competitive
photocopying and micrographie equipment
market, domestically manufactured products,
unlike most imports, are usually sold directly to
the customer. Therefore, marketing and sales
personnel, although only 2.5 percent of employ­
ment, are very important in this industry.
The comparatively low proportion of produc­
tion workers reflects the high capital intensity
of the industry, especially in the manufacture of
sensitized materials.15 Another factor lessening
the need for machinists and other production
workers is the industry’s substantial level of
outside purchases of such goods as plastic and
metal parts. However, the industry does employ
many assemblers and other handworkers, as the
manufacture of photographic equipment in­
volves a great deal of manual assembly. In
comparison with all manufacturing, there is a

higher percentage of skilled employees, such as
precision assemblers and product inspectors,
employed in the industry.16 This is due to the
advanced technology used as well as the need
for extreme accuracy in the manufacture of pho­
tographic film and paper. The relatively small
physical size of the material inputs and of the
final products contributes to the low percentage
of material movers employed.
During the 1980’s, the adoption of sophisti­
cated technology by the major manufacturers
had an impact not only on the number of pro­
duction workers but also on their function. For
example, the industry traditionally has had a
separate staff responsible for inspection. Now,
however, workers using computers are increas­
ingly involved in their own quality control. In
addition, the use of computers in the design and
the manufacture of products has made it even
more important for workers to become com­
puter literate. Automated equipment has re­
duced the direct involvement of workers in the
manufacturing process. Instead, workers must
ensure that this complex equipment functions
properly. Furthermore, the input of production
workers has become a vital element in the effort
by research and development personnel to design

Chart 1. Changes In output and employee hours In the photographic equipment
and supplies industry, 1967-87
Percent
change


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Percent
change
25

20

15

10

-

-5

-

-1 0

-1 5

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

43

Productivity in Photographic Equipment and Supplies
products for easy assembly.17 While only recent­
ly having an impact on the role of workers, it
is apparent that these changes will eventually
affect a majority of the industry’s work force.

Industry structure

Table 2.

The two categories of products manufactured
in the industry, sensitized materials and photo­
graphic equipment, require vastly different
technologies in their production. These differ­
ences have important effects on industry struc­
ture. The manufacture of sensitized materials,
requiring extreme precision, is highly capital
intensive. The great initial expense of the capital
equipment, along with the long lead time from
product development to manufacture, precludes
entry into this field for all but the largest
companies. In 1982, the eight largest companies
in the industry accounted for 97 percent of the
total value of shipments of photographic film, Capital structure
the largest component of sensitized materials. By
contrast, hundreds of companies are active in the The manufacture of photographic products,
more labor-intensive manufacture of equipment. especially sensitized materials, requires a high
Still, the major innovators of photographic degree of mechanization and automation. In­
equipment are the few very large companies, creases in production capacity as well as im­
reflecting the need to commit large expenditures provements in manufacturing efficiency have re­
to research and development. Furthermore, due quired large expenditures for new plants and
to the technological interdependence between equipment. The high level of capital asset ac­
photographic equipment and sensitized materials, cumulation over time is an indication of the
most of the large companies are active in both capital intensity of this industry. For example,
fields.18
the ratio of fixed assets per production worker
In comparison to all manufacturing, the photo­ was at least 1.5 times the corresponding level for
graphic equipment and supplies industry is all manufacturing in every year but one from
characterized by a high degree of manufacturing 1967 to 1986.
concentration among a few very large compa­
Much of the expenditure on new plant and
nies. This is illustrated in table 3, which shows equipment during the 1970’s went to expand
the 1982 percent distribution of establishments, manufacturing capacity. There was little pres­
employment, and value of shipments in the sure to introduce new production technology.
This changed during the 1980’s, as competition
from foreign manufacturers in such product
lines as photographic film and paper and photo­
Percent distribution of employment by occupation for
copiers intensified. To remain competitive, it
ail manufacturing and for the photographic equipment
and supplies industry, 1986
became necessary for domestic producers to
introduce advanced automated equipment and
computers into the production process. These
Photographic
expenditures on sophisticated equipment were a
All
Occupation
equipment
manufacturing
major component of the restructuring under­
and supplies
taken by a number of the very large manufac­
T o ta l..........................................
100.0
100.0
turers in the 1980’s.19

Managerial and management related occupations .
Engineers, scientists, and technicians...........
Marketing and sales occupations ...........
Administrative support occupations...........
Blue-collar worker supervisors . . . .

8.1
7.6
3.0
11.8
4.2

13.8
16.6
2.5
16.9
4.2

Mechanics, installers, and repairers ...........
Precision production occupations.............
Machine setters, operators, and te n d e rs........
Assemblers and other handworking occupations .
Various material movers and other laborers ........

4.2
9.2
22.9
12.1
11.4

3.1
7.6
14.6
11.8
3.2

5.5

5.7

All other occupations ..............................

44

industry and in all manufacturing by establish­
ment size.
From 1967 to 1982, the photographic industry
increased from 505 companies to 723. Over the
same period, the number of physical establish­
ments grew from 557 to 795. This growth was
reversed between 1982 and 1987, as the number
of establishments fell to 779. The reorganization
of many of the major manufacturers, along with
lower than expected demand and strong foreign
competition, resulted in a sharp drop in employ­
ment levels.
With only 17 percent of the establishments, the
State of New York accounted for 54 percent of
industry employment, 59 percent of value ship­
ments, and 65 percent of value added in 1977.
Other major manufacturing centers are located
in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New
Jersey.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Research and development
Expenditures on research and development have
been extremely important in maintaining strong
growth in the photographic industry. The intro­
duction of new products and the improvement
of old products have helped maintain user inter­
est in an increasingly mature market. Some in­
novations, such as the instant camera, were

atin, made from animal bones and hides, is
dissolved in purified water and then agitated in
large vessels. During this agitation, a light-sen­
sitive silver halide solution and other chemicals
are introduced in very precise increments. Any
variations from the desired mix will affect the
characteristics of the final product. In the past,
obtaining uniformity between batches has been
a costly problem. Defective mixes have resulted
in labor time being expended to extract the
silver from the emulsion and repeat the proce­
dure. Process control computers are now in­
creasingly being used to regulate the manu­
facture of emulsion and should lead to a reduc­
tion in defects. After additional steps, in which
the emulsion is further treated to obtain the
desired photographic properties, it is ready to be
coated onto the base.
Before the application of the emulsion, both
Technology
film and paper base must be treated to improve
the adhesion of the emulsion. This also in­
The technologies used in the manufacture of
creases the wet strength of the final product,
photographic equipment and of sensitized mate­
which is important to its being able to withstand
rials differ greatly. The production of photo­
rigorous treatment in photoprocessing solutions.
graphic equipment is a labor-intensive process
The equipment used in this initial coating stage
in which manufacturers have only recently
is similar to that used in the application of
adopted automation and other advanced tech­
emulsion. Nearly all photographic paper is
nologies. On the other hand, manufacture of
coated with layers of polyethylene, a polymer
sensitized materials is highly capital intensive
known for its chemical inertness, water im­
due to the exacting standards required. While
these differences in methods of production re­ permeability, and adhesiveness. The chemical
quire covering the two product categories sepa­ properties of the particular polyethylene applied
rately, it is im portant to rem em ber their determine the surface texture of the final print:
interdependence in the overall photographic sys­ glossy, semi-matte, matte, and textured.
Manufacturers coat film base on both sides
tem from product development to final usage.
with a substance that improves the strength of Today, integrated
Sensitized materials. The two major compo­ the film before and after processing. A gelatin circuits and
nents of sensitized materials, film and paper, are layer is then applied to the underside of the base microprocessors
manufactured by very similar processes. The to prevent blurring of the exposed film caused are widely used
major difference is in the base used. Pho­ by reflection of light through the emulsion. in the more
tographic paper base is made by a method sim­ Also, the gelatin prevents the film from curling sophisticated
ilar to that used for other papers.23 However, the during and after processing.
products.
The coating of both film and paper base with
need for a chemically pure final product re­
quires special care to ensure freedom from any the light-sensitive emulsion is done in the dark.
impurities and contaminants such as metals, Operators unwind the base onto long machines
where the melted emulsion is floated up to one
bark, and wood dirt.24
Cellulose acetate is the most common foun­ side of the base and an airknife blows off excess
dation for film base. Solvents are mixed with emulsion. To ensure that the photographic film
cellulose acetate to form a honey-like substance or paper has the proper properties, the emulsion
called “dope.” After being purified, the dope is layers must not deviate from the desired thick­
piped in a constant flow through a very narrow ness by more than a tiny fraction of an inch.
slot onto a large coating wheel. The need for Film and paper manufacturers have recently in­
uniformity of thickness in the extremely thin stalled a 100-percent testing procedure using
film base is paramount. The solvents either infrared scanners to monitor coating accuracy.
evaporate as the wheel rotates or are removed This replaces the time-consuming and labor-in­
by circulating air around the drying sheet. The tensive process of checking a few feet from each
film base is then rolled and is ready for coating. roll. After being dried in a cooling chamber, the
The film emulsion consists of gelatin con­ now sensitized film and paper is rewound and
taining suspended crystals of silver halide. Gel­ sent to be cut and packaged.

developed within the industry. Other technolo­
gies have been developed elsewhere and
adapted for industry use. These include micro­
processors, fiber optics, and lasers used in mi­
crographie and photocopying equipment.20 To
improve competitiveness, product designers
have begun to interact with engineers, shopfloor managers, and assembly workers to create
products designed for assembly.21 Because of
the expense of developing and manufacturing
new and improved products, as well as the so­
phistication of the technology used, the major
manufacturers perform most research and devel­
opment. That 2 of the 12 domestic manufactur­
ers with the largest research and development
budgets are in the photographic industry is an in­
dication of the importance of such expenditures
in the development of photographic products.22


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 4 5

Productivity in Photographic Equipment and Supplies
Given the increased competition from for­
eign manufacturers, there has recently been ex­
tensive cap ital investm ent in sensitized
materials manufacturing by U.S. producers.
While the basic technology and process have
remained the same for decades, the addition of
process control computers and infrared scan­
ners, for example, has made it possible for out­
put to rise while employment is being cut.
Quality control measures have led to significant
declines in product defects. Furthermore, pro­
duction of photographic film and paper has be­
com e m ore flexible, allow ing for quick
changeovers from one product to another and
the cost-efficient production of low-volume
runs. Material handling, traditionally the most
labor-intensive activity in sensitized materials
manufacturing, is just now being automated.25
Equipment. The manufacture of photographic
equipment involves a number of technologies
found in other industries. Due to the great ex­
pense of acquiring the capital equipment used
to manufacture the many diverse components of
photographic equipment, it is common not only
for small and medium, but also for large and
very large manufacturers to purchase a high pro­
portion of these parts from outside suppliers.
These include the metal frames of photocopiers,
the plastic bodies of cameras, and the micropro­
cessors of the more advanced equipment.26 Ef­
forts to lower costs of production and improve
productivity in the industry have focused on the
manufacture of the components as well as on
the final assembly of the equipment.
Product designers have worked closely in
recent years with outside vendors, as well as with
floor managers, assemblers, and engineers, to
simplify equipment assembly. Input from these
sources has led to a number of laborsaving
modifications in equipment design. For exam­
ple, a switch on a photocopier was simplified
from seven parts to two, resulting in a reduction

Ta b le

3.

Percent distribution of firms in the photographic equipment and supplies
industry and in all manufacturing, by selected characteristics, 1982
Establishments

Average
establishment
employment

Total ........
1 - 1 9 ...........
2 0 - 9 9 ........
1 0 0 -9 9 9 . . .
1000 or more .

46

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in assembly time from 77 seconds to 7. Im­
proved design also lowers material costs. A printer
head with a new snap-fit design saved 50 percent
in material costs and 40 percent in manufacturing
time over the old design.27
An aspect of product design that manufactur­
ers implemented to improve the capacity of the
final product and to simplify assembly was the
use of integrated circuits and microprocessors in
the more technologically advanced equipment.
First used in photocopiers in the mid-1970’s and
later applied to other equipment, this technology
replaced a multitude of mechanical parts. The
result was an overall decline in the number of
components used and a reduction in assembly
time.28
During the 1980’s, the large manufacturers
have used computer-aided design ( c a d ) exten­
sively in the design and development of photo­
graphic equipm ent. The use of c a d has
significantly reduced the time spent designing
new products. Furthermore, revisions in design,
either to correct an error or adapt a product to a
specific market, are handled easily with c a d .
Computers enable the designer to interact in the
initial stages of product development with sup­
pliers, whether external or internal. By using
c a d , parts manufacturers can design production
tools nearly simultaneously with the design of
the product, further reducing the time required
to bring a new product to market.29
Manufacturers have also used computers in
the production of equipment components and in
the final assembly of these parts and subassemblies. The use of computers to track in­
ventory levels, together with the adoption of
automated material handling equipment, has al­
lowed manufacturers to reduce the number of
workers involved in material handling and the
number of days that inventory is held. The ap­
plication of statistical process control to the
quality control process has led to large-scale
reductions in product defects and a correspond-

Employment

Value of shipments

Photographic
equipment
and supplies

All
manufacturing

Photographic
equipment
and supplies

All
manufacturing

Photographic
equipment
and supplies

All
manufacturing

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

63.6
24.8
9.8
1.8

66.1
24.0
9.3
.6

2.6
7.3
19.2
70.9

7.9
20.5
46.4
25.2

1.7
4.8
15.8
77.7

5.0
16.3
47.8
30.9

ing decrease in labor time expended on reworks
of poor quality output.30 Computer-aided manu­
facturing ( c a m ) is used in the programming of
automated machinery. In an integrated c a d /
cam
system, manufacturers are able to use
more-flexible manufacturing techniques, allow­
ing for cost-effective, low-volume product runs.
For example, a computer-controlled robot can
now perform in just 15 minutes a die change­
over that once took 6 to 10 hours.31
Use of computers and automated equipment
has proven to be most successful when com­
bined with a strategy to simplify the product, the
process, and the organization. Therefore, the
utilization of advanced technology by many large
manufacturers of photographic equipment is not
an isolated occurrence. Instead, these invest­
ments are an integral part of the broad restruc­
turing plans adopted to improve productivity and
competitiveness.32
The high labor requirements of photographic
equipment assembly have made this one area of
the production process in which manufacturers
have implemented a number of changes de­
signed to boost productivity. For instance, man­
ufacturers have concentrated on the simpli­
fication of product assembly, the improvement
of quality through statistical process control,
and the continuous tracking of inventory by
computers. These changes have substantially
improved the efficiency of equipment assembly,
as well as that of parts manufacture. Still, as­
sembly remains highly labor intensive, as auto­
mated equipment is not yet suitable for most of
the delicate operations required in assembly.
Instead, manufacturers have introduced a vari­
ety of assembly processes based on the multi­
tude of products manufactured, ranging from
disposable cameras with 21 parts to photocopi­
ers with nearly 5,000.
Complex equipment, such as photocopiers
and microfilmers, is increasingly being assem­
bled using a series of workstations. Rather than
having each assembler perform discrete steps as
in a traditional assembly line, workers at these
stations execute a number of assembly, as well
as nonassembly, tasks. For example, at each
station, workers attach various subassemblies and
components to the mainframe. Before sending
the mainframe to the next station, the assem­
blers perform a quality check. This is important
in locating problems immediately and at their
source. The complex flow of components to the
various workstations is handled by inventory con­
trol computers at each station. Unlike traditional
lines, which are best suited for high-volume
runs of a single product, assembly by work­
stations can accommodate changes in subassem­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

blies or components without long delays. With
the increasing need to adapt products to special­
ized markets, this flexibility is highly desirable.33
Workstations have also proven effective in
the assembly of less complex equipment, such
as cameras and basic microfilmers. In the as­
sembly of these machines, frequently only one
workstation is needed. This focuses responsibil­
ity for all of the functions associated with as­
sembly on a small group of workers or even on
a single individual working unaccompanied.
With this increased accountability, there has
been a dramatic improvement in the quality of
the output as well as a reduction in nonassembly
workers involved in inventory control and prod­
uct inspection.34
The use of traditional assembly line techni­
ques is most effective in high-volume produc­
tion runs, w here changes in parts and
subassemblies are few. The final assembly of a
still camera with 225 components involves 10
workers. Assembly takes only 18 minutes, with
each worker executing a discrete step along the
line. The assemblers perform quality control
checks on a random basis at various points on
the line. Design-for-assembly programs, which
reduce the number of parts used and simplify
assembly, have enabled assembly lines to re­
main a cost-effective technique.35
Equipment manufacturers have adopted au­
tomated assembly techniques for a few prod­
ucts, the most notable being the disposable
camera. Consisting of just 21 parts, this product
was designed to be assembled by two automated
assembly lines. There are no fasteners, which
are difficult for automated equipment to handle.
Instead, all parts are engineered to snap and fit
together. The use of computers in the design and
automated equipment in the manufacture of this
camera has allowed for its low-cost produc­
tion.36 Still, despite the success of automation in
the assembly of the disposable camera, the as­
sembly of most equipment remains heavily
labor intensive.

Computer-aided
design helps
producers target
specific markets.

Outlook
Competition from electronic products not clas­
sified in the industry and from imports of pho­
tographic products should continue to affect
output in the U.S. photographic equipment and
supplies industry. Introduction of new products
and improvement of existing products will re­
main essential in countering this strong compe­
tition. It is expected that significant product
advances will include “intelligent” copiers with
the capacity to communicate with other office
products and photographic film with improved
speed, grain, and sharpness.37
Monthly Labor Review June 1990 4 7

Productivity in Photographic Equipment and Supplies
One product expected to have a significant
impact on the photographic industry in coming
years is the electronic still camera. These cam­
eras electronically record, on magnetic discs,
images that may be viewed and transmitted in­
stantly without chemical processing. At present,
photojoumalists are the primary users of these
cameras, as the importance of their transmitting
images quickly is paramount.
A number of obstacles must be overcome
before electronic cameras are likely to be
widely accepted in the important consumer mar­
ket. These cameras are currently very expen­
sive. The quality of the color hard-copy prints
produced from the magnetic discs is much
poorer than that of traditional 35mm prints. Fur­
thermore, with the enormous base of conven­
tional cameras in circulation, it will be difficult
to persuade consumers to purchase an entirely

new system. Thus, many experts feel electronic
photography will not replace conventional pho­
tography. Instead, the dominant view is that the
two systems will coexist in the form of combi­
nation units, with aspects of both formats.38
The ability of manufacturers to continue to
lower production costs will be essential in order
to compete successfully with photographic im­
ports and with substitute products. The introduc­
tion of computers and automated equipment, in
combination with important modifications in
such areas as corporate decisionmaking, inven­
tory control, and employee training, was a signif­
icant factor in productivity growth during the
1980’s. That manufacturers implemented these
changes as part of broad, corporate-wide restruc­
turing plans, rather than in isolation, should allow
for the efficient use of advanced technology in
the future.
□

Footnotes
1 T h e 1 9 8 7 S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la s s ific a tio n M a n u a l o f
the U .S . O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t and B u d g e t d e fin e s the
P h o to g ra p h ic E q u ip m en t and S u p p lie s Industry and c la s s if ­
ie s it as s ic 3 8 6 1 . T h e m ajor p rod u cts in clu d ed are (1 )
p h o to g ra p h ic apparatus, e q u ip m en t, parts, atta ch m en ts, and
a c c e s so r ie s, su ch as still and m o tio n pictu re ca m era s and
p r o je c tio n apparatus; p h o to c o p y and m ic r o film eq u ip m en t;
b lu ep rin tin g and d ia z o ty p e (w h ite p rin tin g ) apparatus and
eq u ip m en t; and oth er p h oto g ra p h ic eq u ip m en t; and (2 ) s e n ­
s itiz e d film , pap er, c lo th , and p la tes, and prepared p h o to ­
grap h ic c h e m ic a ls fo r u s e th erew ith .
A v e r a g e ann ual rates o f c h a n g e s h o w n in th e te x t and
ta b les are b a se d o n th e lin ea r le a st sq u ares trend o f the
log a rith m s o f the in d e x n u m b ers. T h e in d e x e s fo r p ro d u c­
tiv ity and related variab les w ill b e up dated a n n u a lly , and
p u b lish e d in th e an n u al bls b u lletin , P r o d u c tiv ity M e a s u r e s
f o r S e le c te d I n d u s tr ie s a n d G o v e r n m e n t S e r v ic e s .
1 9 8 6 - 8 7 W o lfm a n R e p o r t on th e P h o to g r a p h ic a n d
I m a g in g I n d u s tr y in th e U n ite d S ta te s (N e w Y o rk , abc
L eisu re M a g a z in e s, In c., 1 9 8 7 ), p. 4 6 .
3 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 W o lfm a n R e p o r t, p . 85.
4 R ich ard M . B la s s e y and J erom e D e itc h , T h e U .S .
P h o to g r a p h ic I n d u s tr y : 1 9 6 3 - 7 3 , a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w
(U .S . D ep artm en t o f C o m m e r c e, 1 9 7 6 ), pp. 8 - 9 .
In 1 9 8 0 , 4 7 p e rcen t o f am ateu r s till film w a s u sed b y
p e o p le a g e s 2 5 to 4 4 , a c co rd in g to th e 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 W o lfm a n
R e p o r t, p. 3 2 .
In 1 9 6 5 , 2 4 .1 p ercen t o f th e p o p u la tio n w a s b e tw e e n 2 5
and 4 4 years o ld . T h is p rop ortion fe ll slig h tly to 2 3 .6 p er­
c e n t in 1 9 7 0 and th en r o se s te a d ily to 2 7 .8 p e rcen t b y 1 9 8 0 .
S e e U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f C o m m e r c e, B u rea u o f th e C e n su s,
S ta tis tic a l A b s tr a c t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s 1 9 7 0 (W a sh in g to n ,
G o v ern m en t P rin tin g O ffic e , 1 9 7 0 ), p. 8; and S ta tis tic a l
A b s tr a c t 1 9 8 6 , p. 2 6 .
R ea l d is p o s a b le p erso n a l in c o m e in 1 9 8 2 d o lla rs ro se
from $ 1 ,6 6 8 b illio n in 1 9 7 0 to $ 1 ,9 3 2 b illio n in 1 9 7 5 , and
to $ 2 ,2 1 4 b illio n in 1 9 7 9 . S e e S ta tis tic a l A b s tr a c t 1 9 8 7 , p.
423.
5 “M ature M ark et F o r g in g A h e a d ,” F in a n c ia l T im e s S u r­
v e y : R e p r o g r a p h ic s , A pr. 2, 1 9 8 0 , p. 2 7 .
6 M ik e A n to n ia k , “Industry to R o ll w ith th e C h a n g e s ,”
P h o to g r a p h ic T r a d e N e w s , S ep t. 5 , 1 9 8 8 , p. 12; T h o m a s D .
H e n w o o d , “H e n w o o d A n a ly z e s Industry P erfo rm a n ce, F u ­

48

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ture Trends,” P h o to W ee k ly , Apr. 30, 1984, p. 1; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administra­
tion, 1 9 8 6 U .S . I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k (Washington, U.S. Gov­
ernment Printing Office, 1986), p. 35-1.
7Video camera shipments rose from 61,000 units in 1979
to 448,000 in 1984. Shipments of the more versatile
camcorders, also classified in sic 3651, were 517,000 in 1985
and 1,604,000 in 1987. Source: Electronic Industry Associ­
ation.
81 9 8 8 -8 9

W o lfm a n R e p o r t,

p. 22.

9 Blassey and Deitch, T h e U .S . P h o to g r a p h ic I n d u s try ,
p. 12; and 1 9 7 6 U .S . I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 271.
10 1 9 8 9 U .S . I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k ,

11 Blassey and Deitch,

p. 33-1.

The U .S. P h o to g ra p h ic Industry,

p.

11.

12Robert Anderson, “The Revolution in Reprographics,”
November 1982, p. 61.

M o d e r n O ffic e P r o c e d u r e s ,

13 “The New Lean, Mean Xerox: Fending Off the Japan­
ese,” B u s in e s s W ee k , Oct. 12, 1981, pp. 126-28; and
Thomas Moore, “Old-line Industry Shapes Up,” F o rtu n e ,
Apr. 27, 1987, p. 23 and pp. 26-28.
14 “The Shrinking of Middle Management,”
Apr. 25, 1983, p. 54.

B u s in e s s

W ee k ,

15 The manufacture of sensitized materials has tradition­
ally been capital intensive due to the exacting standards
required. Equipment manufacture, on the other hand, is labor
intensive. Only in the last decade have automation and other
advanced technologies such as cad / ca m been applied to the
manufacture of components for photographic equipment.
Final assembly remains highly labor intensive. See sections
on industry structure and on technology for more detailed
coverage.
16The percentages of precision assemblers and product
inspectors in the photographic industry are 3.95 and 3.97,
respectively. For all manufacturing, these figures are 1.81
and 3.05.
17 Halbert Harris, “Design for Profitable Manufactur­
ing,” A p p lia n c e M a n u fa c tu r e r , September 1987, p. 21;
“Leadership Through Quality,” A p p lia n c e M a n u fa c tu re r,
November 1988, p. 43; and industry source.

18 B la s s e y and D e itc h , T h e U .S . P h o to g r a p h ic In d u s try ,
pp. 14—17.
19 “K o d a k p lan s 46% R is e in ’85 O u tla y s, S e e k s to B o o s t
P r o d u ctiv ity ,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l, D e c . 2 1 , 1 9 8 4 , p.
2 6 ; M ic h a e l C. G a b riele, “K o d a k S h o o ts fo r C o m p e titiv e
N ic h e ,” M e ta lw o r k in g N e w s , M ar. 2 8 ,1 9 8 8 , p. 4; and “F rom
W o m b to T o m b ,” A p p lia n c e M a n u fa c tu re r, N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 8 ,
pp. 4 0 - 4 2 .
20 “T h e C h ip is O n ly H a lf th e S to ry ,” F in a n c ia l T im e s
S u r v e y : R e p r o g r a p h ic s , A pr. 2 , 1 9 8 0 , p. 28; and A n d erso n ,
“T h e R e v o lu tio n in R e p ro g ra p h ics,” p. 61.
21 H arris, “D e s ig n for P ro fita b le M a n u factu rin g,” p. 21;
“ C o p iers M o re P ro d u ctiv e— b y D e s ig n ,” A p p lia n c e M a n u ­
f a c tu r e r , N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 8 , pp. 3 9 —40; and Joh n H o lu sh a ,
“B e a tin g Japan at Its O w n G a m e ,” T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, July
16, 1 9 8 9 , sec . 3 , p . 1.
22 “T h e r &d E lite ,” B u s in e ss W e e k S p e c ia l 1 9 8 9 B o n u s
I ss u e : I n n o v a tio n in A m e r ic a , pp. 6 6 - 6 7 .
23 F or in fo rm a tio n o n th e te c h n o lo g y u se d in th e m an u ­
factu re o f paper, s e e T h e I m p a c t o f T e c h n o lo g y o n L a b o r in
F o u r I n d u s tr ie s , B u lle tin 2 2 2 8 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s,
M a y 1 9 8 5 ), pp. 9 - 1 9 .
24 E llio tt N o v a k , “ C o lo r P ap er S a le s G ro w , D e sp ite M ar­
k et M a tu rity ,” P h o to M a r k e tin g , N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 4 , p. 28; and
P eter K rau se, “O u tlo o k fo r th e P h o to P ap er Industry Is
G o o d ,” P h o to M a r k e tin g , D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 0 , p. 3 4 .
D u e to th e e x a c tin g s p e c ific a tio n s req uired in th e m a n u ­
factu re o f th e u ltra-h igh grad e p ap er b a se , th ere w e re o n ly
s ix m a in b a se p ap er p rod u cers in th e n o n -C o m m u n ist w orld
as o f 1 9 8 4 , tw o o f w h ic h w e re lo c a te d in th e U n ited S tates.
T h ree o f th es e c o m p a n ie s , and o n e in th e U n ite d S ta tes, co a t
th e p ap er b a se w ith lig h t-s e n s itiv e e m u ls io n and m arket the
fin a l produ ct. T h e oth er m an u factu rers act as su p p liers o f
u n se n sitiz e d p ap er b a se to c o m p a n ie s e n g a g e d in th e s e n s i­
tiz in g o f p h o to g ra p h ic p rod u cts.
25 In d u stry so u rces.
26 In fo rm a tio n o n a n u m b er o f th e te c h n o lo g ie s u s e d to
m an u factu re c o m p o n en ts fo r p h o to g ra p h ic e q u ip m e n t can
b e fo u n d in th e fo llo w in g M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles:
Jam es D . Y ork , “P ro d u ctiv ity gro w th in p la stic s lo w e r than
all m a n u fa ctu rin g ,” S ep tem b e r 1 9 8 3 , pp. 1 9 -2 1 ; Barbara
B in g h a m , “Instru m en ts to m easu re electric ity : in d u stry ’s

APPENDIX:

36 I b id .

37 “Copiers ’86,” A d m in is tr a tiv e M a n a g e m e n t, Decem­
ber 1985, pp. 34-36.
38 Stephen Booth, “See, No Film,” R o llin g S to n e , Mar.
9, 1989, p. 113; George Berkowitz, “Electronic Photogra­
phy Will Not Displace Film,” P h o to W e e k ly , May 21, 1984,
p. 1; and 1 9 8 8 U .S . I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k , p. 37-2.

Measurement techniques and limitations

I n d e x e s o f o u tp u t p er e m p lo y e e h ou r m ea su re
ch a n g es in the relation b etw een the output o f an
industry and e m p lo y e e hours exp en d ed on that ou t­
put. A n in d ex o f output per e m p lo y e e hour is derived
by d iv id in g an in d ex o f output b y an in d ex o f industry
em p lo y e e hours.
T h e preferred output in d ex for m anufacturing in­
dustries w o u ld b e ob tain ed from data on quantities o f
the variou s g o o d s p roduced by the industry, each
w eig h ted (m u ltip lied ) by the em p lo y e e hours required
to prod u ce o n e unit o f each g o o d in so m e sp ec ific
b a se period. T hus, th ose g o o d s that require m ore
labor tim e to prod u ce are g iv en m ore im portance in
the in d ex.
In the a b sen ce o f adequate p h ysical quantity data,
the output in d ex es for the industries d iscu ssed here
w ere d ev elo p ed u sin g a d eflated valu e tech n iqu e. T h e
v a lu e o f sh ip m en ts o f the various product cla sse s w as
adjusted for price ch an ges b y appropriate Producer


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

productivity growth rises,” October 1983, pp. 14—15; and
Horst Brand and Clyde Huffstutler, “Trends in labor pro­
ductivity in metal stamping industries,” May 1986, pp. 1617.
27 “Xerox Design Institute Cuts Product Development
Time,” A p p lia n c e M a n u fa c tu re r, November 1987, pp. 2526.
28 Ted Wirth, “Three Good Reasons for the Boom in
Copying Machine Use,” T h e O ffice , July 1982, p. 129; and
“Innovation in the Camera Industry,” P h o to I n te r n a tio n a l,
November 1984, p. 25.
29 Gabriele, “Kodak Shoots for Competitive Niche,” p.
4; “Copiers More Productive—by Design,” pp. 39^40; and
“From Womb to Tomb,” pp. 40-42.
30 “How Xerox Speeds Up the Birth of New Products,”
B u s in e ss W eek , Mar. 19,1984, pp. 58-59; Norm Alster, “An
American Original Beats Back the Copycats,” E le c tr o n ic
B u s in e ss , Oct. 1,1987, pp. 56-59; and “Leadership Through
Quality,” p. 43.
Statistical process control is used at each stage of the
manufacturing process to continuously monitor quality con­
trol. Workers subject randomly selected parts and compo­
nents to a series of performance criteria. Computers analyze
the results and determine if quality standards are met. Sta­
tistical process control allows manufacturers to pinpoint
trouble areas at the source.
31“From Womb to Tomb,” p. 42; and an industry source.
32 “Smart Factories: America’s Turn?” B u s in e s s W eek ,
May 8, 1989, pp. 142-48.
33 Industry source.
34 Holusha, “Beating Japan at Its Own Game,” p. 1 and
p. 8; and an industry source.
35 Gabriele, “Kodak Shoots for Competitive Niche,” p.
4 and p. 46.

P rice In d exes to d erive real output m easu res. T h ese,
in turn, w ere com b in ed w ith e m p lo y e e hour w eig h ts
to d erive overall output m easu res. T h e result is a final
output in d ex con cep tu ally c lo s e to the preferred ou t­
put m easure.
T h e em p lo y m en t and em p lo y ee hours in d ex es
u sed to m easu re labor input w ere d erived from data
p u b lish ed by the Bureau o f L abor S tatistics. E m p lo y ­
e e s and em p lo y e e hours are each con sid ered h o m o ­
g en eo u s and ad d itive, and thus d o not reflect ch an ges
in the q u alitative asp ects o f labor, su ch as sk ill and
exp erien ce.
T h e in d ex es o f output per em p lo y e e hour do not
m easure any sp e c ific con trib ution s, su ch as that o f
labor or capital. Rather, they reflect the jo in t e ffe c t o f
such factors as changes in technology, capital invest­
m ent, capacity utilization, plant design and layout, skill
and effort o f the w ork force, m anagerial ab ility, and
lab or-m an agem en t relations.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

49

Recollections
of a former editor
During 22 years as MLR editor-in-chief,
the author changed the magazine
from a staid, sober, reliable journal
to an innovative, exciting, sober,
reliable journal

Lawrence R. Klein

Lawrence R. Klein became something o f a
legend during his 22 years as editor-in-chief
o f the Monthly Labor Review and director o f
publications in the Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
When he retired in 1968, he established an
annual award to recognize good writing in the
M L R . To do this, he matched the funds his
friends collected to buy him a retirement gift
and donated the total — the latter matched by
his friend, then Assistant Labor Secretary John
W. Gibson. As a trustee o f the Lawrence R.
Klein Award Fund, Klein not only participates
annually in selecting the best articles published
in the M L R , but also continues to contribute to
the fund each year.
To help mark the Review’s 75th year, the
current editor invited Klein, now 82, a resident
o f Tucson, Arizona, and still engaged in teach­
ing writing, to reminisce about his 22 years at
BLS

BLS.

he day I left the Monthly Labor Review is
fuzzy, lost behind a turn in the road, but the
events of that first chilly day in March 1946
when I came to the Review are frozen in time. I
had come to town very early in the morning, by
train, a stranger, and carried my luggage to the
b l s offices, which then were in the old and ornate
Labor Department building at 14th and Constitu­
tion, a latter-day Horatio Alger character carry­
ing his possessions, only this time not as a bundle
on a stick.
Charles D. “Chuck” Stewart, a friend from
college days at The University of Michigan, was
the only staff member I knew, and so it was with

T

50 Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a feeling of insecurity that I reported at the
Commissioner’s office. Isador Lubin was the
Commissioner, but he hadn’t been around the
Bureau in almost 6 years because President
Roosevelt had dragooned him for defense and
war work at the White House. A. Ford Hinrichs
was the acting commissioner. As he wasn’t in,
Aryness Joy Wickens, his deputy, received me.
After a briefing, I was taken to my office, which
consisted of three rooms: A reception room
where my secretary and a typist sat, a connect­
ing office for a leading editorial staff member,
and another connecting office for me. Leading
off the reception room was a huge bathroom,
tiled from floor to ceiling, complete with
glassed-in shower. This suite had been used by
Hugh S. Hanna, my predecessor, who had re­
tired 2 years previously. When the building was
designed, the suite had been intended as the
Com m issioner’s office. But Commissioner
Lubin wanted a comer office, so one was as­
signed to him with a newly-installed bath. An
ironical footnote: My stay in the royal suite
lasted only about 2 years. I was ousted to make
room for the departmental information director
who insisted on a private bath. Sic transit glo­
ria mundi.

The first staff meeting
After I greeted the new secretary (who was a
jewel), I asked her to call a staff meeting. To
my amazement and no little consternation, my
new office was bare—not a stick of furniture.

The telephone on the floor bore the extension
327, which I had for 22 years and which still is
the number of the publications office, except
that the prefix 1 has been added.
The staff trooped in. Another surprise: There
were 23 members—all women. Except for a
couple of youthful clerk-typists, they were all
middle-aged or older, and all—I could tell from
their expressions which ranged from skepticism
to apprehension—wanted to size up the new kid
on the block. There was no question of equal
rights: they had no place to sit, nor did I.
After a few conventional remarks—“ coop­
eration . . . open door . . . part of a renowned
venture” —they told me what they did. The
division consisted of 3 units: The Monthly Labor
Review (5 staff members), Bulletins (12), and
Inquiries and Correspondence (4). My immedi­
ate staff numbered two. The Review was headed
by a very competent person who had been the
acting editor-in-chief; she was an expert on co­
operatives and a national figure in that move­
ment. Another senior M L R staffer was a longtime
employee, scholarly and wise. There was a book
review editor, and I listened to her remarks
carefully because I thought a reorganized book
review section was high on the list of new
projects. I noted with some surprise that even in
1946 she wore high-button shoes. Proofreading
for the M L R apparently was shared with the
Bulletin staff. The Bulletin series had begun
almost with the establishment of the Bureau
under Carroll D. Wright. The Correspondence
group handled routine requests for information
and reviewed all letters from around the Bureau
requiring the Commissioner’s signature.
I learned that none of the staff had previous
editorial experience. Some were close to the
then compulsory retirement age of 70. There
were the usual feuds and jealousies and an
attitude of “do-not-encroach-on-my-territory.” I
asked each person’s opinion on what the office
needed, and some responses suggested good
thinking. Later in a session with my top staff, I
sounded them out on a few specific plans. They
were enthusiastically supportive and promised
to help guide me through the mine fields.
I ended the day with trepidation, much as I
had begun it. I was tired, I had not yet found a
place to stay, my family had remained in Mich­
igan, and after becoming acquainted, during af­
ternoon interview s, with the professional
competence of all the top Bureau staff members
and the unquestionable brilliance of many, I
began to have a quavering doubt about my own
ability to accomplish what the Commissioner
and the Secretary’s office had in mind for the
development of the b l s publications program.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

But when day two dawned, I awoke with
restored energy and fresh enthusiasm. But
breakers lay ahead.

New goals
Although somewhat lacking in specificity, a
general goal for b l s publications was made
known to me. The Review should be brightened
up, in substance, writing, and appearance. Re­
furbished, the Review was to become a spar­
k lin g w indow on the B ureau and the
Department. Other publications also were to be
spruced up. We were to make a determined
effort at a press and public relations program.
It all seems like fun now; at the time, the first
couple of years exuded agony—frustrations, op­
position, a search for talent. Our first step, while
apparently superficial, was very important psy­
chologically: it was to start work on a new
format for the Review. I sidestepped the Gov­
ernment Printing Office’s Typography and De­
sign section because of its reputation for
stodginess, and engaged the late Charles Pol­
lock, professor of design at Michigan State Uni­
versity and the brother of the famed artist
Jackson Pollock. While this innovation was in
progress, we set about drafting three b l s ad­
ministrative orders. One— written by Charles
Stewart, later to become a deputy assistant sec­
retary—formally established the Review as a
Bureau program, set the boundaries of the
editor’s prerogatives, created a Monthly Labor
Review Planning Advisory Committee, and ex­
plicated Review standards. The second created
a Special Publications Division within the Of­
fice of Publications and gave it a role in plan­
ning as well as editing the Bulletin series and
other publishing ventures. The third order
placed authority within the Office of Publica­
tions to administer press and public relations.
After some difficulty, the three orders were
approved. The major objections were to the
proposals for more autonomy for the Monthly
Labor Review and to the authority given to the
Director of Publications for press release clear­
ance. I was green when it came to coping with
internecine warfare. Around the Bureau and De­
partment a frequent question was: “Upon what
meat doth this our Caesar feed?” In retrospect,
I recognize I was pretty brash. But one learns.
And there is no better teacher than a bloody
nose.
But there was also support from both the
Secretary (former Federal Judge Lewis B.
Schwellenbach) and Assistant Secretary John
W. Gibson, from newly-appointed Commis­
sioner Ewan C lague, and from A ryness
Wickens. Hugh Hanna, cognizant of the prob-

There is no
better teacher
than a bloody
nose.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

51

Recollections o f a Former Editor
lems with the Review, was helpful from the
beginning. When plans became known, there
was growing support from a number of influen­
tial staff members, both newcomers and veter­
ans—Edward Hollander, Witt Bowden, Duane
Evans, Dorothy Brady, Henry Fitzgerald, Max
Kossoris, Wendell MacDonald, Phil Amow,
and other resourceful and creative people. It was
all going to take time and patience to achieve
the goals, and I had little of the latter.

Editorial problems

The MLR had
been virtually
unchanged for
more than three
decades.

52

The manuscripts I reviewed and the galley
proofs of a current issue revealed some of the
problems that had to be solved, but only the
superficial problems. Apparently, there was no
real concept that editing went beyond copy
reading. The editing staff needed training and a
blood transfusion. Though not an issue of gen­
der, it was emblematic of the inertia that
abounded that I was still the lone male in resi­
dence.
The editorial problems were embedded in the
Review’s history. The journal had been virtually
unchanged for more than three decades, in con­
tent and style, in its kind of bland, stilted, and
even monotonous way of dealing with ma­
terial—the “good, gray Monthly Labor Review.'”
It had a paid ($3.50 per year) circulation of
about 3,000. It was laid out in a 6 x 9-inch page
format that didn’t lend itself to good layout and
design. More important, its contents were or­
ganized with no set scheme. Statistical series
were scattered helter-skelter. The books section
consisted of a listing of Government documents
and volumes recently received by the Labor
Department Library. The only continuing indi­
cation of emerging events was a Chronology of
Recent Labor Events and brief summaries of
significant court decisions in labor-related
cases. For example, in the issues published from
1929 to 1940, there had been no serious exam­
ination of that personal and public tragedy
known as The Great Depression and little more
than passing mention of the crisis engendered
by mass unemployment or of the dramatic new
concepts of government relief programs.
In all candor, the Review little resembled a
professional journal circulating almost without
competition in a vital part of the social sciences.
But wait, there was a positive side: The Re­
view enjoyed a nationwide reputation for integ­
rity and reliability. The desideratum of the
whole Department was to enhance these quali­
ties, to broaden their influence, and to make
them more useful. The rub was, how to go about
achieving all this.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I could see in the offing the grail, But I was
no Galahad. Many a lance was broken and many
a rule of chivalry was ignored by me in the
pursuit.

Lights, camera, renewal
First we changed the page size to the present
format. Our first cover design was rejected by
G P O because of a ukase against two-color print­
ing. So we settled for a cover design in one
color of ink, using Century Bold, a clean assert­
ive type face, in up to 60-point size. Interior
page heads used the same face with a compati­
ble body type. Great care was taken with page
layout. We tried mightily, but for many years
did not succeed, to spruce up, simplify, and
make more meaningful our chart work.
How well was the Review serving the needs
of readers? No one really knew. Yet here we
were, a part of one of the world’s greatest sur­
vey institutions— B L S —with superb skills in de­
vising questionnaires and selecting samples for
surveys. The Review staff enlisted the best talent
B L S had on tap to create a reader survey. Aes­
thetically, the survey form was beautiful—a col­
orful four-page fold, with a b rief letter
comprising the first page, promising the respon­
dent that the nine or so questions could be
“check-mark answered” in “less than four min­
utes.” To encourage readers to respond, the
questions were in large type with lots of white
space. The back of the form contained only a
block for the address and a note “To Library or
Mail Room,” pointing to a facsimile of the M L R
cover, asking that the form be given to “the
usual first reader” of the magazine. By this, we
discovered who read the M L R , what they read
first, what they liked best, which of their inter­
ests weren’t covered, what was in it that they
didn’t like, how long they had been subscribers,
and so on. In the end, we had an amazing
83-percent response rate.

Blood transfusion
Meanwhile, the publications staff received a
blood transfusion in the form of some new staff
members and reorganized operations. A manag­
ing editor and an executive editor for the Review
were appointed. Three staff writers were hired
to write articles based on their own investiga­
tions of subjects that were not the province of
the operating divisions. A superb staff addition
was acquired by opportunism on my part. Mary
S. Bedell, administrative assistant to the Deputy
Commissioner, was a good writer and alert to
faults in writing and reasoning. She was conver­
sant with all the operational facets of B L S . She

was sharp as an eagle in her knowledge of
economic analysis. In short, she had all the
attributes of a Review editor. The deputy com­
missioner happened to be away for a few weeks.
I offered Bedell a better job. She accepted. The
Personnel Office was in a tizzy, bracing itself
(as did I) for the inevitable wrath and cry of
“foul” from the deputy commissioner. We won,
and thus achieved the greatest assist the staff
ever had. Within a half dozen years, she was
executive editor.
John Thurber, who held a doctorate in labor
economics from Cornell, headed up the special
publications branch (succeeded by Marjorie
Egloff). Mead Smith, Phyllis Groom, George
Kotrosios, and Robert Fisher (currently exec­
utive editor) served as staff writers.
There was other great staff support. The
Monthly Labor Review Planning Advisory
Committee did what its name suggested. It con­
sisted of about a dozen members representing
B L S , the Department, and a couple of other
Departments— all chosen for imagination and
planning acumen. (The committee also had
other talents: It may still be remembered by
oldtimers for the rather reclusive and exclusive
and raucous Christmas parties it put together.)
A flurry of persons (and their talents) come
to mind as I think back to the publications staff
members of yesteryear: Margaret Schoenfeld
(fighter for high standards), Jack Strickland (in­
novator with high-voltage energy), Elizabeth
Black, my first managing editor, Gladys Wash
and Marie Pryor (invaluable connections with
the Government Printing Office), Olivia Amiss
(still aboard and now engaged in general editing
as well as handling book reviews), Glenn
Tibbott (who ruled the Inquiries and Corre­
spondence Section with a brook-no-nonsense
approach and terrorized many an operatingdivision chief), Irene Reedy (she worked her
heart out on the M L R ), Gene Skotzko (the fiery tempered Ukrainian emigre), and Ago Ambre.
Two of the best were Alma St. Clair and Vivian
Hogans (my first and last secretaries), and sure­
ly a score of others, performing importantly,
loyally, and competently.
I dwell on these persons to thwart any no­
tions that the progress of the Review and of
other programs of the Publications Office was
the work of a one-man gang.

The payoff
After all these preparatory moves—format and
design, reader survey, planning committee, aug­
mented staff, reorganized contents—what was
accomplished? By the 1950’s, all things were in
place. I recall how astounded the Bureau was—

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and proud—when the American Institute of
Graphic Arts at its magazine show of 1950 gave
the M L R a Certificate of Excellence award, the
first ever to a Government magazine. The award
was repeated in 1952.
Paid circulation went up fast, due partly to
some persistent promotion by circular, exhibits
at meetings, and a lot of publicity. Business
Week, in a two-page spread in its December 11,
1954 issue, gave the Review a kind of rave
review, reported our paid circulation at 8,000,
and noted our readers’ survey response rate,
most of it from top management.
I have vivid memories of the struggle to
build a solid, professional-journal type book
review section which the planning advisory
committee and the division chiefs approved.
After we convinced publishing houses that we
had an affluent and quality-conscious readership
and expert reviewers from the Bureau, the
Department, and throughout the country, the
books poured in. Each month, we ran seven or
eight fUll-scale signed reviews, a page or so of
brief notes, and up to four pages of listings. I
believe the improvement in this section gave me
more satisfaction than anything else we did in
the whole constellation of changes.
Regular promotional meetings with potential
authors in each area were held in the regional
offices, with enthusiastic help from regional di­
rectors.

The special issues
Beginning in 1947, and throughout the years,
the M L R has published specialized issues based
on regions or specific themes. A disclaimer is
in order here. I have been credited with conceiv­
ing the idea. Not true. The first one was fortu­
itous. We had a New England employment
article. Later a second New England article on
wage patterns came in, scheduled to be pub­
lished at a later date. On request, the regional
director dug up or contrived to have written two
more. And lo, the first special issue was bom—
published in July 1946.
We did, however, do serious planning for
subsequent special issues, close to a dozen of
them through 1968. My favorites were Fifty
Years ’ Progress o f American Labor (July 1950,
celebrating the Review's, 35th birthday); Seven­
ty Years o f Service, the Story o f B L S (January
1955); Fifty Years o f the M L R (July 1965); and
Labor in the South (March 1968).
The 1950 issue celebrated two anniversaries:
the 35th of the Review and the 100th of Samuel
Gompers’ birth. There were 24 special pieces
representing the best possible authors from B L S ,
and from outside notables, fashioning a broad

The M onthly
L abor R eview
Planning
Advisory
Committee lived
up to its name.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

53

Recollections o f a Former Editor

Memorable
moments can
relate to pride,
apprehension,
and shame.

54

spectrum of thought and expertise “to plot those the supervision of Witt Bowden, one of the
currents of American development upon which all-time great B L S analysts and authors. Nearly
our labor progress has been borne and to mea­ a million copies of this volume were distributed
sure some of labor’s aspirations against the re­ in this country and in a German edition by the
sults___ ”
U.S. State Department. It had a large propa­
The book review section of that issue proved ganda slant, designed to counter Communist
to be particularly well-received. It was devel­ activity among workers in postwar Germany,
oped by Merlyn S. Pitzele, then labor editor of but it was an accurate report on labor conditions
Business Week, and contained evaluations by 10 in America through statistics and well-written
experts of 13 books (published since the turn of commentary.
the century) to interpret “what meaningful
A grimly amusing footnote to the publication
things do these books tell us today.” Taken as a of The Gift o f Freedom, can be related after 40
whole, the issue was a painstaking endeavor that years: I wrote an introduction to the book that
involved almost a year of effort from conception interspersed quotations from Walt Whitman on
to birth.
the first page. The monitors of the book in the
Almost as arduous a task was the conception U.S. State Department objected to Whitman—
and development of the 50th anniversary issue they called him a radical—and wondered out
of the m l r (July 1965). The plan was to sum up loud who in Europe had ever heard of him?
accomplishments and to invoke, through a spe­ After a somewhat lengthy and spirited ex­
cial section called “Future Assignments,” in the change, some scholars finally convinced them
form of essay-letters from highly-respected that Whitman today is more widely read in
users of the Review (ominously 13 in number), Europe than in this country.
a mandate as to the form in which the Review
I also recall the report, How American Buy­
should endure in the face of faster and more ing Habits Change, written 10 years later by
complex social changes. There were widely various Bureau authors (mainly from the Price
(and wildly) differing admonitions, from George Division, with major substantive editing and
Shultz to George Brooks to George Taylor, and rewriting by Mary Bedell). It was a masterful
from John Dunlop to John Post. Even today, and beautifully integrated cooperative effort. I
people who have more than a passing interest in was proud to have contributed a chapter.
the Review might do well to reread them. The
You would have to be well into your seven­
institutional setting of the Review and the man­ ties to remember the debut of these two vol­
ner in which it is flexible enough to adapt to um es, but to contem poraries they were
changing social conditions and needs was admi­ scintillating examples of old-time B L S imagina­
rably and perceptively delineated by H. M. tion and consummate professional skill.
Douty, then a b l s associate commissioner.
I recall the work and devotion to purpose that Treasured memories
resulted in major articles by two of our staff
writers. One by Phyllis Groom, called “From Memorable moments can relate to pride, appre­
Model-T to Medicare—Paragraphs from His­ hension, and shame. During my years at b l s , I
tory,” attempted to show, by means of exten­ experienced all three types but happily not in
sive quotes and ample commentary, how the equal proportions. In this memoir, we show
Review had, over the years, covered, analyzed, mostly the silver lining: Like the time Secretary
and anticipated emerging problems and events. Maurice Tobin personally threatened to fire me
The other, by Marjorie C. Egloff, titled “From for refusing to write a speech for him, until he
the Best of the Review,” was based on a selec­ first checked with Commissioner Ewan Clague;
tion of nine articles from among the scores in counterpoint, the time when Secretary Arthur
published over the 50 years. Brief notes ex­ Goldberg presented me with the Career Service
plained the reasons for each choice, although Award, permitting me to go to England to ex­
the main criteria were excellence of writing and plore ways to improve Government writing— it
relevance.
didn’t improve; working on the report of that
study, called High Symmetry, and relishing its
editorial notices; receiving permission to work
Other changes, other publications
full time for about a year on the Department’s
Life picked up for the Special Publications monumental work on Collective Bargaining in
Branch as well. We started a monthly catalogue the Basic Steel Industry, having the MLR become
of all b l s publications and press releases and the first publication to really analyze the role of
initiated a continuing series of the Handbook of the National Education Association as a true
Labor Statistics. Notable in my recollection was collective bargaining organization; recalling the
The Gift o f Freedom, produced in 1949 under interview with Lord Robens, Chairman of the

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

National Coal Board in England, in which he in that same statement about how much good
said that the only two professional journals he the M L R had done for me, I had reached the point
looked at were the London Economist and the at which I was no longer much good for the
Monthly Labor Review, the fun I had in 1967 M L R .
Those who know me recall that I have a
doing interviews around the country with pro­
fessional baseball, football, basketball, and penchant for quotations, so it is meet that I end
hockey players, coaches, and managers prepara­ this swan song with one. In the much-referredtory to a series of four articles for the M L R to be to July 1950 issue, I wrote about integrity and
called “The Bargaining Practices of Profes­ usefulness, and that these qualities always have
sional Athletes”—alas, to my shame, I retired been and always should be the watchwords of
before I wrote the series; the sale of about the Bureau and the Review, and then I stuck in
12,000 single copies of the July 1950 special this quotation from Maeterlinck:
issue of the M L R .
I h ave steadfastly resisted the tem ptation
These and many more treasured memories
to en h an ce the m arvel o f reality by adding
pale before the golden memory of simply being
m arvels that m ay b e attractive but are not
part of that stately, tireless, resourceful, incor­
true. B ein g o ld er, I h ave found the tem p ­
ruptible institution known as the U.S. Bureau of
tation less: for little b y little, the years
Labor Statistics.
teach ev ery m an that truth a lon e is
When I left in 1968, I made the point in a
m arvelou s. A n other thing they teach an
farewell editorial statement that editors develop
author is that em b ellish m en ts are the first
an increasingly persistent sense of proprietor­
o f all to fad e, and they age m ore q u ick ly
than he; and that only facts, strictly set forth,
ship in their publications. Now, after 22 years
and reflectio n s that are p recise and sin cere,
in absentia, I am glad to report this is no longer
w ill present the sam e appearance tom orrow
the case. Publications change and editors should
as they d o today.
but usually don’t. I left because editorial senility
□
had set in, and despite some mawkish comment

Migration from the South
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the labor-supply situation in the
South is that the region not only provides labor for its own factories and
farms, but it also contributes substantially to the labor supply of other
regions of the Nation. The natural rate of population increase is consid­
erably greater in the South than in the remainder of the country, owing
to the higher fertility in the predominantly rural South than in the North
and West. The pressure of population on economic opportunities in the
South had been such, however, that large outward migration has taken
place. During the 1920-30 decade, the number of migrants leaving the
South exceeded the number entering by an average of 130,000 a year.
During the depression of the 1930’s, when job opportunities in northern
and western cities were at low levels, the net out-migration continued
but reached only 100,000 a year. With the growth of the defense pro­
gram, and then of the war production program, the annual rate stepped
up to the unprecedented figure of 300,000.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

—Sophia C. Mendelsohn and Lester M. Pearlman
’ ’Labor Su p ply in the S o u th ,”

Monthly Labor Review, O ctob er 1 9 4 6 , p . 4 8 4 .

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

55

Research
sum m aries

Consum er expenditures
on travel, 1980-87
Geoffrey Paulin
With worldwide sales of $2 trillion,
travel and tourism are the world’s larg­
est civilian industry.1At the same time,
Americans are apparently spreading
their vacations more evenly throughout
the year, thus smoothing the seasonal
variation seen in patterns of travel.2 The
industry is expected to grow during the
1990’s. For example, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics projects strong in­
creases in the employment of travel
agents, pilots, and flight attendants.3
Given the importance of this industry
and the changing habits of its consum­
ers, it is interesting to compare recent
patterns of expenditure with earlier pat­
terns to determine whether other signif­
icant changes have occurred. This
report is based on data collected in the
1987 Consumer Expenditure Survey.4
In an earlier study, Alice Lippert
used results from the 1980-81 survey to
examine travel spending of urban con­
sumer units5 in 1972-73 and 1980-81.
She found few differences in spending
between the two periods.6 However, be­
tween 1980 and 1987, some differences
were observed. Although consumers
spent the same proportion of their total
budgets on vacations, they allocated
their dollars differently.
Tables 1 and 2 show demographic
characteristics, travel expenditures, and
detailed data by income quintile and age
of reference person in 1980 and 1987.

Vacations and pleasure trips
The main components of the budget for
vacations and pleasure trips7 to be dis-

G e o ffr e y P a u lin is an e c o n o m is t w ith th e D iv is io n
o f C o n su m e r E x p e n d itu r e S u rv e y s, B u reau o f
L a b o r S ta tisitics.

5 6FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

cussed here are transportation, food and
beverages, and lodging.
Americans chose nearly identical
travel budgets in 1980 and 1987. Vaca­
tion and pleasure trips accounted for 3.6
percent of total expenditures for all
families in 1980 and 3.7 percent in
1987. In 1980, ranked by income,
Americans in the middle-income group8
allocated the lowest share (2.8 percent)
of their spending to vacations and
pleasure trips. The highest income
group allocated the most (4.4 percent).
In 1987, the two lowest groups spent the
smallest share9 (2.8 percent); not sur­
prisingly, the wealthiest group still
spent the highest share (4.3 percent).
When classified by age of house­
holder,10 average travel expenditures as
a proportion of the budget ranged from
3.0 percent (for those 25 to 34) to 4.6
percent (for those 55 to 64) in 1980. In
1987, the range widened from 2.8 per­
cent (for those 25 to 34) to 4.9 percent
(for those 65 to 74).

Transportation
Of the four components of the travel
budget, the largest percentage change—
and only decline—in expenditures was
in transportation. This was due to a large
decrease in expenditures for gasoline
and motor oil. Other transportation ex­
penses increased.
For all families, transportation ex­
penditures fell as a share of the travel
budget from 47 percent in 1980 to 39
percent in 1987. The largest decline was
for the middle-income group, whose
share decreased from 52 percent to 40
percent, reflecting a decline in gasoline
and motor oil expenditures. As ex­
pected, upper-income households allo­
cated more for airfare expenditures than
did middle-income households, but
gasoline shares declined more for upperincome households.
Similarly, families ages 25 to 74 al­
located between 6 percent and 10 per­
cent fewer vacation dollars to trans­

portation in 1987 than they did in 1980.
The decline for families under 25 was
not statistically significant; the share
spent by families over 75 was nearly
identical in both years.
Gasoline. Gasoline and motor oil ex­
penditures for travel decreased—not
surprisingly—about 14 percent for all
families. In 1979 and 1980, oil shocks
sharply drove up gasoline and motor oil
prices, resulting in large shares of travel
expenditures being spent on transporta­
tion costs. In 1986, prices plummeted
throughout the year and did not fully
recover by 1987, resulting in lower
transportation costs even for the same
level of travel expenditures. According
to the Consumer Price Index ( C P I - U ) ,
prices of motor fuel, motor oil, coolant,
and other products declined 21 percent
from 1980 to 1987.
Although reductions were signifi­
cant for households in all but the second
income quintile, the sharpest declines
occurred at the lowest and highest ends
of the income distribution. In 1980,
members of the lowest income quintile
spent about 40 percent of their travel
budget on gasoline and motor oil, com­
pared with 26 percent in 1987. Con­
sumers in the highest income group
spent 36 percent of their travel budget
for gasoline and motor oil in 1980 but
only about 20 percent in 1987.
Similarly, gasoline and motor oil ex­
penditures declined significantly for all
households except those 75 and older,
whose expenditures were far below
average in both years. Householders 65
to 74 experienced the largest decline in
gasoline share—from 43 percent to 22
percent. Those ages 55 to 64 showed the
smallest decline, from 35 percent to 24
percent.
Airfares. As a result of Federal de­
regulation in 1978, the structure of the
airline industry has changed dramati­
cally. The consumer survey data for

1987 suggest that some changes in ex­
penditures have also occurred.
American families spent more of their
travel budget for airfares in 1987 than in
1980, with the proportion rising from
about 42 percent to almost 57 percent.

In almost every income group, air­
fares in 1987 took a higher share of
transportation expenditures than in
1980. (The share for middle-income
consumers appeared to increase, but the
change was not statistically significant.)

For families in the highest income quin­
tile, airfares increased from 48 percent
of their transportation budgets to 60 per­
cent in 1987.
Almost every age group spent more
on airfares as a percentage of travel

Table 1. Annual travel expenditures of consumer units classified by quintiles of income before taxes, interview
survey, 1980 and 1987

Item

Number of consumer
units (thousands) . . .

All consumer
units

Complete reporting of income
Total
reporting

Lowest
20 percent

Second
20 percent

Third
20 percent

Fourth
20 percent

Highest
20 percent

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

82,052

94,150

69,817

81,070

13,902

16,187

13,983

16,215

13,953

16,215

13,477

16,214

14,002

$15,956 $24,871 $15,956 $24,871
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.5

$2,308
1.8

$4,494
1.8

1987

Incomplete
reporting
of income
1980

1987

239

12,235

13,080

$8,456 $11,424 $13,862 $19,500 $20,203 $30,373 $34,845 $58,477
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.6
3.2
2.9
3.5
3.2

(1)
2.7

(1)
27

Consumer unit
characteristics
Income after taxes1 . . .
Size of consumer unit .
Age of reference
pe rson .......................
Number in consumer
unit:
E a rn e rs ...................
Children under 18 . .
Persons 65 and over
Vehicles .................
Average annual
expenditures.............
pleasure trips to ta l.
Transportation total
Gas and oil for
own vehicles .
Plane fares . . .
Other2 .............
Food and
beverages total .
L o d g in g ...............
Entertainment,
recreation, and
other expenses3

46.9

47.0

46.3

47.0

53.7

51.7

49.0

50.7

42.7

44.9

41.7

43.0

44.3

44.8

50.8

47.3

1.4
.8
.3
2.0

1.4
.7
.3
2.0

1.4
.8
.3
2.0

1.3
.7
.3
2.0

.6
.4
.5
.9

.6
.4
.4
.8

1.0
.6
.5
1.4

.9
.6
.5
1.5

1.5
.9
.2
2.0

1.4
.7
.3
2.0

1.8
1.1
.1
2.6

1.7
.9
.2
2.5

2.2
1.0
.1
3.1

2.1
.9
.1
3.0

1.4
7
.4
1.0

15
7
.2
2.0

$16,184 $23,242 $16,292 $23,307

$7,461

$9,868 $11,044 $14,487 $14,708 $20,288 $19,299 $27,815 $28,875 $44,020 $15,571 $22,837

581
272

850
334

579
274

835
323

232
118

279
128

352
187

418
192

416
216

633
256

626
290

930
351

1267
555

1910
686

591
264

945
401

112
115
46

90
189
55

115
112
46

92
176
55

48
46
25

33
66
28

73
70
45

63
98
31

101
85
30

92
121
44

151
92
47

117
182
52

202
268
85

153
410
122

93
129
42

76
273
51

146
104

239
186

147
103

235
184

54
30

72
55

79
59

112
72

98
61

187
122

176
104

277
184

325
251

527
488

141
109

263
194

59

91

56

92

22

25

27

41

41

67

55

118

135

210

77

87

100.0
46.8

100.0
**39.3

100.0
47.3

100.0
**38.7

100.0
50.9

100.0
45.9

100.0
53.1

100.0
45.9

100.0
51.9

100.0
**40.4

100.0
46.3

100.0
“ 37.7

100.0
43.8

100.0
**35.9

100.0
47.7

100.0
42.4

41.2
42.3
16.9

**26.9
“ 56.6
16.5

42.0
40.9
16.8

**28.5
**54.5
17.0

40.7
39.0
21.2

**25.8
*51.6
21.9

39.0
37.4
24.1

32.8
*51.0
*16.1

46.8
39.4
13.9

*35.9
47.3
17.2

52.1
31.7
16.2

**33.3
“ 51.9
14.8

36.4
48.3
15.3

**22.3
*59.8
17.8

36.2
48.9
15.9

19.0
68.1
12.7

25.1
17.9

"28.1
“ 21.9

25.4
17.8

**28.1
**22.0

23.3
16.4

25.8
19.7

22.4
16.8

26.8
17.2

23.6
14.7

*29.5
*19.3

28.1
16.6

29.8
*19.8

25.7
19.8

27.6
*25.5

23.9
18.4

27.8
20 5

10.2

10.7

9.7

"11.0

9.5

9.0

7.7

9.8

9.9

10.6

8.8

“ 12.7

10.7

11.0

13.0

9.2

Allocation of
expenditure shares4
Vacation and pleasure
trips to ta l...................
Transportation total 5
Gas and oil for
own vehicles6 . .
Plane fares6 ........
Other6 .................
Food and beverages
total5 .....................
Lodging5 .................
Entertainment,
recreation, and other
expenses5 .............

Income values are derived for “complete income reporters” only. The
distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is based in
general on whether the respondent provided values for major sources of
income, such as wages and salaries, self-employment income, and Social
Security income. No significance tests were conducted for incomplete report­
ers; expenditures are reported for informational purposes only.
2 Other includes trip expenditures for train, bus, and boat fares; taxis; tolls;
rented motor vehicles; and other vehicle expenses.
3 Category includes expenditures for admission to movies, sporting events,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and other activities; fees for participant sports (for example, golf or bowling);
other entertainment and recreation expenditures including souvenirs, pass­
ports and visas, and other expenses.
4 Shares may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
5 Vacation and pleasure trips equal 100.0.

6 Transportation equals 100.0.
*

Change in share is significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
Change in share is significant at the 99-percent confidence level.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

57

Research Summaries
Table 2.

Annual travel expenditures of consumer units classified by age of householder, interview survey,
1980 and 1987

Item

Number of consumer
units (in thousands) .

All consumer
units
1980

1987

82,052

94,150

1980

8,130

1987

7,811

75 and older

65 to 74

55 to 64

45 to 54

35 to 44

25 to 34

Under 25

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

1980

1987

18,840

21,345

13,480

18,747

11,907

13,395

12,666

13,080

10,751

11,578

1980

6,278

1987

8,194

Consumer unit
characteristics
Income after taxes1 . . .
Size of consumer unit .
Age of reference
person . ......................
Number in consumer
unit:
E a rn e rs ...................
Children under 18 . .
Persons 65 or over .
Vehicles .................
Average annual
expenditures.............
Vacation and
pleasure trips total .
Transportation total
Gas and oil for
own vehicles . .
Plane fares . . . .
Other2 ...............
Food and
beverages total .
L o d g in g ...............
Entertainment,
recreation, and
other expenses3

$15,959 $24,871
2.7
2.6

$9,517 $11,693 $16,696 $25,322 $20,340 $32,666 $22,554 $33,064 $17,544 $28,137
2.4
2.9
2.3
3.4
3.5
3.9
2.8
2.9
1.8
1.8

$9,566 $17,637
1.9
1.9

$7,929 $12,280
1.5
1.9

46.9

47.0

21.6

21.6

29.5

29.6

39.2

39.1

49.6

49.2

59.3

59.6

69.3

69.1

80.3

80.2

1.4
.8
.3
2.0

1.4
.7
.3
2.0

1.3
.4
.0
1.3

1.2
.4
.0
1.2

1.5
1.2
.0
2.0

1.5
1.1
.0
1.9

1.9
1.8
.0
2.4

1.8
1.5
.0
2.4

2.2
.9
.0
2.9

2.0
.6
.0
2.7

1.4
.3
.1
2.2

1.4
.3
.1
2.3

.5
.1
1.3
1.4

.6
.1
1.3
1.6

.3
.0
1.4
.8

.2
.0
1.3
.9

$16,184 $23,242 $10,745 $13,996 $17,181 $22,974 $20,614 $29,948 $21,515 $30,246 $16,653 $24,408 $10,744 $18,062

$8,984 $11,418

581
272

850
334

394
198

481
215

514
248

668
275

705
313

1004
387

762
349

1127
409

763
366

1106
425

460
215

929
366

257
119

349
163

112
115
46

90
189
55

96
72
30

68
119
28

112
96
39

87
155
33

129
131
53

101
225
61

142
158
48

118
227
65

129
169
68

106
250
69

93
78
43

82
203
81

34
61
24

31
82
49

146
104

239
186

93
41

132
78

129
76

191
124

185
133

281
222

196
140

335
257

180
153

311
259

121
89

252
219

60
62

80
83

59

91

61

55

61

78

75

114

78

126

63

110

35

91

15

24

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

46.8

**39.3

50.3

44.7

48.2

*41.2

44.4

*38.5

45.8

**36.3

48.0

**38.4

46.7

*39.4

46.3

46.7

41.2
42.3
16.9

**26.9
*56.6
16.5

48.5
36.4
15.2

**31.6
**55.3
13.0

45.2
38.7
15.7

**31.6
*56.4
12.0

41.2
41.9
16.9

**26.1
*58.1
15.8

40.7
45.3
13.8

‘ *28.9
**55.5
15.9

35.2
46.2
18.6

**24.9
**58.8
16.2

43.3
36.3
20.0

**22.4
**55.5
22.1

28.6
51.3
20.2

19.0
50.3
30.1

25.1
17.9

**28.1
**21.9

23.6
10.4

27.4
**16.2

25.1
14.8

*28.6
*18.6

26.2
18.9

28.0
22.1

25.7
18.4

*29.7
**22.8

23.6
20.1

*28.1
23.4

26.3
19.3

27.1
23.6

23.3
24.1

22.9
23.8

10.2

10.7

15.5

11.4

11.9 I **11.7

10.6

11.4

10.2

11.2

8.3

9.9

7.6

9.8

5.8

6.9

Allocation of
expenditure shares4
Vacation and pleasure
trips to t a l...................
T ransportation
total3 .....................
Gas and oil for
own vehicles6 . .
Plane fares6 ........
Other6 .................
Food and
beverages to ta l5 ..
L o d g in g ^ .................
Entertainment,
recreation, and
other expenses5 ..

1 Income values are derived for “complete income reporters” only. The
distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is based in
general on whether the respondent provided values for major sources of
income, such as wages and salaries, self-employment income, and Social
Security income. No significance tests were conducted for incomplete report­
ers; expenditures are reported for informational purposes only.
2 Other includes trip expenditures for train, bus, and boat fares; taxis; tolls;
rented motor vehicles; and other vehicle expenses.
3 Category includes expenditures for admission to movies, sporting events,

expenses in 1987 than in 1980. (The
share spent by those age 75 and older
remained virtually unchanged.) Con­
sumers ages 65 to 74 showed the largest
percentage increase, airfares rising
from 36 percent to 55 percent of trans­
portation expenditures for travel.

58 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

and other activities; fees for participant sports (for example, golf or bowling);
other entertainment and recreation expenditures including souvenirs, pass­
ports and visas, and other expenses.
4 Shares may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
5 Vacation and pleasure trips equal 100.0.
6 Transportation equals 100.0.
*
Change in share is significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
**

Change in share is significant at the 99-percent confidence level.

Deregulation was accompanied by
frequent special fares and inducements
for air travel, such as family rates. These
promotions probably stimulated travel
by air, thereby increasing the share for
air travel expenditures. Savings from
lower gasoline and motor oil expendi­

tures may have also encouraged more
air travel.11

Food
Families spent 64 percent more on food
on trips in 1980 than in 1987, increasing

average expenditures from $146 to
$239. Middle-income families spent
nearly 91 percent more in 1987 than in
1980, while those in the lowest income
group increased their expenditures by
one-third. Consumers age 75 and older
spent one-third more on food while on
vacation in 1987 than in 1980, while
those ages 65 to 74 more than doubled
their expenditures. Those under age 25
spent 42 percent more.
By comparison, the C P I -U shows that
all food and beverage prices rose 31
percent between 1980 and 1987. Prices
for food away from home12 rose at a
faster rate— increasing more than 40
percent during the same period.
However, family budget shares did
not change appreciably. All families in­
creased their allocation to food on trips
from 25 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in
1987. Lower-income families spent 23
percent13 of total travel expenditures on
food in 1980, while upper-income fami­
lies spent 26 percent. In 1987, lower-in­
come families spent 26 percent, while
upper-income families spent 28 percent.
Only middle-income families signifi­
cantly increased their expenditures,
with allocations rising from 24 percent
in 1980 to 30 percent in 1987.
Families under age 75 spent about 25
percent of total vacation expenditures
on food in 1980, and between 27 percent
and 30 percent in 1987. Those age 75
and older allocated slightly less (23 per­
cent) in both years. Changes were sig­
nificant for consumers ages 25 to 34 and
45 to 64. (See table 2.)

Lodging
According to the C P I -U , prices for lodg­
ing while out of town increased faster
than the general rate of inflation every
year between 1980 and 1987. While the
overall C P I -U rose 39 percent during this
period, lodging prices advanced 66 per­
cent. On average, prices for out-of-town
lodging each year rose almost 3 percent­
age points faster than prices of all goods.
At the same time, all consumer units
spent a larger share of the vacation and
pleasure trip budget on lodging, as the
proportion increased from 18 percent to
22 percent in 1987. Expenditure shares
for families in the middle- and upper-in­
come quintiles increased between 3 per­
cent and 6 percent. Consumers under

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

age 35 and those 45 to 54 increased
shares between 4 percent and 6 percent.

Conclusions
Although households spent the same
share of total expenditures on vaca­
tions, they allocated their travel dollars
differently. Households spent less
(fewer dollars and lower shares) on
gasoline and motor oil in 1987 and
more (dollars and shares) on airfares.
Although most families continued to
spend about the same amount on food
while on vacation, some consumers
spent more on lodging.
□

Footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Steve Montgomery
of the Consumer Prices and Consumption Studies
division provided tables from which the data pre­
sented here are derived.
1 See “The Business of Going Away,”
15, 1989, p. 73.

Th e

E c o n o m is t, A p r.

2 See Asra Q. Nomani, “Vacationers Rewrit­
ing the Travel Calendar by Taking Time Off
Throughout the Year,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u r n a l,
Dec. 22, 1988.
3 See “1988-89 Job Outlook in Brief,” re­
printed from the Spring 1988 issue of O c c u p a ­
t i o n a l O u t l o o k Q u a r t e r l y (Bureau of Labor
Statistics), pp. 33—44.
4 Although travel expenditures are included
in the survey, they are not published as separate
items. They appear in broader categories (for ex­
ample, “gasoline and motor oil” includes pur­
chases both at home and on trips).
5 A consumer unit is a single person or group
of persons in a sample household related by blood,
marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangement, or
who share responsibility for at least 2 out of 3
major types of expenses—food, housing, and
other expenses. The terms “household” and “fam­
ily” are used for convenience, although there may
be more than one consumer unit in a household
and one-person families are included.
6 See Alice A. Lippert, “Trip expenditure
comparisons from 1972-73 to 1980-81,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1985, pp. 46^18. Lippert’s
results and those shown here are not comparable
because Lippert used only urban consumer data,
and both urban and rural families are included in
the data shown here.
7 The terms “travel” and “vacation and pleas­
ure trips” are used interchangeably. The Con­
sumer Expenditure Survey definition of “trips”
includes all overnight trips and all-day trips of 75
miles or more. Trips fully reimbursed by an em­
ployer or a third party and commuting to work or
school are not included in the “trip” definition.
8 Data are for consumer units defined as com­
plete income reporters. The distinction between
complete and incomplete income reporters is

b a sed in g e n era l o n w h eth er th e resp o n d en t, w h e n
su r v ey e d , p r o v id e s v a lu e s fo r m a jor so u r ce s o f
in c o m e , su c h as w a g e s and sa la ries, s e lf -e m p lo y ­
m e n t in c o m e , and S o c ia l S ecu rity in c o m e . E v en
“ c o m p le te ” in c o m e rep orters m a y n o t h a v e p ro ­
v id e d a fu ll a c co u n tin g o f all in c o m e fro m all
so u rces.
9 B a s e d o n a w e ig h te d a v era g e o f th e first and
s e c o n d in c o m e q u in tiles.
10 E ach co n su m e r un it has a h o u se h o ld er or
“ r efe r e n c e ” p erso n . T h is p erso n is th e first m e m ­
ber m e n tio n e d b y th e su r v ey r esp o n d en t w h e n
a sk ed b y the in ter v ie w e r to n a m e th e p er so n or
p er so n s w h o o w n or rent th e h o m e. It is w ith
resp e c t to that p erso n that c o n s u m e r u n its are
c la ss ifie d .
11 Further p r o o f that p e o p le fle w m o re and
d ro v e le s s in 1 9 8 7 c o m e s fro m th e S ta tis tic a l
A b s tr a c t. In 1 9 8 0 , the v o lu m e o f d o m e s tic in ter­
c ity p a sse n g e r tra ffic to ta led 1 ,5 5 8 b illio n . P rivate
a u to m o b ile s a c co u n te d fo r 1 ,4 9 4 b illio n p a s se n ­
g e r -m ile s (that is, th e m o v e m e n t o f o n e p a sse n g e r
fo r the d ista n ce o f o n e m ile ). P riv a te a u to m o b ile s
a c co u n te d fo r 1 ,3 0 0 b illio n (8 3 p ercen t) o f total
p a s s e n g e r - m ile s , w h ile d o m e s t ic a ir w a y s a c ­
c o u n ted fo r 2 1 9 b illio n (1 4 p ercen t) o f total v o l­
u m e. (T h e rest o f the total w a s shared b y b u se s and
ra ilro a d s.) P relim in a ry 1 9 8 7 fig u re s s h o w that the
v o lu m e o f p a s se n g e r -m ile s to ta led 1 ,8 7 0 b illio n .
P riv a te a u to m o b ile s a c c o u n te d fo r 1 ,4 9 4 b illio n
(8 0 p ercen t) o f th e to ta l, w h ile d o m e s tic a irw a y s
a c co u n te d fo r 3 4 1 b illio n (1 8 p ercen t). A lth o u g h
th es e fig u res in c lu d e b u sin e s s tra v el, it is p ro b a b le
that p riv a te v a c a tio n travel f o llo w e d a sim ila r
pattern. (S e e S ta tis tic a l A b s tr a c t o f th e U n ite d
S ta te s : 1 9 8 9 , 1 0 9 th ed itio n (B u reau o f th e C e n su s,
1 9 8 9 ).
12 T h is in c lu d e s all fo o d a w a y fro m h o m e, not
ju st that p u rch a sed o n trips.
13 F ig u res fo r lo w e r- and u p p er-in co m e fa m ­
ilie s are b a se d o n w e ig h te d a v era g es.

Appendix
T h e C on su m er E xpenditure S u rv ey is the
m ost co m p reh en siv e sou rce o f d etailed in­
form ation on h o u seh o ld exp en d itu res and
in co m e related to the so c io e c o n o m ic and
d em ograp hic characteristics o f the U .S . p op ­
u lation. B e fo re 1980, the su rvey had b een
con d u cted about every 10 years, but n o w it
is con d u cted on a con tinu al b a sis.1 T h e sur­
v e y co n sists o f tw o m ajor com p onents: the
diary and the quarterly in terview . T h e diary
su rvey is d esig n ed to c o lle c t inform ation on
freq u en tly p u rchased item s, su ch as fo o d and
h ou seh old products. E xp en d itures on trips
are not recorded in the diary su rvey. T h e
in terview su rvey is d esig n ed to c o lle c t infor­
m ation on relatively large item s such as
h o u sin g , e d u c a tio n , v e h ic le s , and m ajor
ap p liances. In addition, data are co lle c te d for
exp en d itu res w h ich o ccu r at regular inter­
v a ls, su ch as rent and u tility b ills. E xp en d i­
tures on v a ca tio n and p leasu re trips are
in clu d ed in the quarterly in terview survey.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

59

Research Summaries
T h e Bureau o f the C en sus c o lle c ts the
data for the Bureau o f Labor S tatistics. E ach
survey con tains its o w n ind ep en dent sam p le
o f ap p roxim ately 5 ,0 0 0 con su m er units. T he
diary survey is co m p leted by participating
h o u seh o ld s o v er a 2 -w e e k period. T h e inter­
v ie w survey is co n d u cted w ith rotating pan­
e ls o f c o n su m e r s o n a q u arterly b a sis.
C on su m ers are in terv iew ed for 5 c o n se cu ­
tiv e quarters; o n e-fifth o f the sam p le is n ew
to the survey each quarter.

Statistical test

jected , and the lo w er the probability o f error
in such a rejection . (T he probability o f error
is 1 m inu s co n fid e n c e le v e l, or 5 p ercent at
the 9 5-p ercen t co n fid e n c e le v e l.)
S o m e tim es m ean s o f tw o p op u lation s are
com pared. In this w a y X n o w b e co m es the
m ean for the first sam p le (for ex a m p le, m ean
exp en d itu re by type o f fa m ily in 1 9 8 7 ), and
U b eco m es the m ean for the seco n d sam p le
(for exam p le, m ean exp en d itu re by the sam e
type o f fa m ily in 1 980). H o w ev er, the d e ­
nom inator b eco m es a little m ore c o m p li­
cated. T h e n ew eq u ation can b e w ritten as:
Z

The Z-test.

W h en testin g d ifferen ces b e ­
tw een m ean s o f tw o large sam p les,“ a Z -test
is o ften em p lo y ed . T he variable Z is d efin ed
as h a v in g a standard norm al distribution
around its m ean (that is, a graph o f its distri­
b u tio n is sh ap ed lik e the fam iliar “b ellcu rv e,” w h ere the “p eak ” valu e represents
the m ea n ). T he prob ab ility o f Z b ein g greater
than (or less than) any num ber is know n:
there is n o uncertainty in v o lv ed in d eterm in­
in g this probability. If the large sam p le is
k n ow n (or assu m ed ) to h ave a standard nor­
m al distribution, then u sin g the Z-test, the
prob ab ility that the sam p le m ean is greater
than (or le s s than or n ot equal to) a predeter­
m ined v a lu e can b e found. I f the large sam ­
p le is k n o w n (or assu m ed ) to h ave a standard
norm al distribution, it can be transform ed so
that:
Z* =

(x-u) / (s / N0'5)

w here:
Z*

=

X

=

th e m ea n o f th e test sam p le;

u
s

=
=

s o m e p red eterm in ed valu e;

N

=

th e c o m p u te d v a lu e o f Z;

th e (e stim a ted ) standard d e v ia ­
tio n o f th e te st sam p le; and
th e s iz e o f th e test sa m p le. (N o ­
tic e it is th e square root o f N that
is a c tu a lly u s e d in th e a b o v e
e q u a tio n .)

T h e a b o v e eq u ation can b e u sed to test,
at any g iv en le v e l o f probability, the h yp oth ­
e s is that X and U are equal. If the test is
co n d u cted at the 9 5 -percent co n fid e n c e le v e l
(that is, there is a 9 5 -p ercen t probability that
any appearance o f d ifferen ce b etw een the
tw o v a lu es is b eca u se o f random sam p lin g
error rather than “true” d ifferen ces in the
p o p u lation s), the appropriate v alu e o f Z* is
ap p roxim ately 1.96. If the ab solu te valu e
from the right-hand sid e o f the eq u ation is
greater than 1.96, then the h yp oth esis th a tX
and U are equal can b e rejected at the 9 5 percen t c o n fid e n c e le v e l. I f the ab solu te
va lu e is greater than 2 .5 8 , then the h yp oth e­
sis can b e rejected at the 99-p ercen t co n fi­
d e n c e le v e l. O b v io u s ly , the h ig h e r the
a b solu te v a lu e o f the right-hand sid e o f the
eq u ation , the greater the co n fid e n c e le v e l at
w h ich the h y p o th esis o f eq u ality can b e re­


6 0 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

C V (v i 9 8 7 ) =

C V ( t \ 980 ) =

CV(vi980) =

th e c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a r ­
ia tio n fo r 1 9 8 7 total v a c a ­
tio n e x p en d itu res;
th e c o e f fic ie n t o f v a ria ­
tio n fo r 1 9 8 0 transporta­
tio n o n trips e x p e n d ­
itu res; and
th e c o e f fic ie n t o f v a ria ­
tio n fo r 1 9 8 0 to ta l v a c a ­
tio n e x p en d itu res.

T h e form u la for testin g d ifferen ces in
shares still rem ains:
Z*

= (X shr— Ushr) / (Sx+u)0.5

= (Xmean ~ Umean) / (Sx+u)

w h ere the n ew d en om in ator is the p o o led
standard error, ch aracterized b y the variable

Sx+u, is sp ec ified as fo llo w s:
Sx+u

= (S^/Nx) + (Su/Nu)

w here:

Sx

=

th e standard d e v ia tio n fo r the
first sa m p le;

Nx
Su

=

th e s iz e o f th e first sa m p le;

=

the standard d ev ia tio n fo r the
s e c o n d sa m p le; and

Nu =

th e s iz e o f th e s e c o n d sa m p le.

T h e p resent ca se is m o st lik e the test for
d ifferen ces in m ean s ju st d escrib ed , ex cep t
that it is the siz e o f exp en d itu re shares, and
not actual m ean s, that is com p ared w ith the
Z -test. T he num erator c o n sists o f the 1987
share for a certain fa m ily typ e m inu s the
1980 share for the sam e type o f fam ily. T o
test for the d ifferen ce b etw een exp en d itu res
for transportation on trips as a share o f total
vacation exp en d itu res in 1980 and 1987,
then,

Xshr = T 1987 / IZ1987
Ushr — T1980 / V1980

Footnotes to the appendix
'F or a c o m p le te d is c u s s io n o f the h isto ry and
m e th o d o lo g y o f th e C o n su m e r E x p en d itu re S u r­
v e y , s e e b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , B u lle tin 2 2 8 5
(B u rea u o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ), ch . 18.
2F o r sm a ll s a m p le s, a i-te s t is u s u a lly u sed . A s
sa m p le s iz e s g r o w la rg e, th e t d istrib u tio n a p p ro x ­
im a tes th e Z -d istrib u tio n . W h e n te stin g s ig n if i­
c a n c e at th e 5 -p er c en t le v e l fo r a s a m p le s iz e o f
1 2 0 , th e app rop riate v a lu e o f t is a b o u t 1 .9 8 . W h en
te stin g s ig n ific a n c e fo r a sa m p le w h o s e s iz e a p ­
p ro a ch es in fin ity , th e app rop riate v a lu e o f t is
1 .9 6 . B e c a u s e m o s t t ta b les s h o w sa m p le s iz e s
sk ip p in g fro m 1 2 0 to in fin ity , a la rg e sa m p le s iz e
is d e fin e d h ere to lie s o m e w h e r e b e tw e e n 1 2 0 and
in fin ity . A s in g le critica l v a lu e b e lo w w h ic h th e
sa m p le s iz e is “ sm a ll” and a b o v e w h ic h it is
“ la r g e ” is d iffic u lt to fin d . In terp o la tio n y ie ld s an
e stim a tio n o f a p o s s ib le critica l ran ge, bu t still
s o m e su b je c tiv e criteria are u n d o u b ted ly u s e d in
d e te r m in in g v a lu e s fo r critica l ran ge. B e c a u s e the
C o n su m e r E x p en d itu re S u rv e y w a s c o m p o s e d o f
r es p o n se s fro m sev e r a l th o u sa n d c o n s u m e r u n its
o f e a c h ty p e (fo r e x a m p le , u n der a g e 2 5 or m id ­
d le -in c o m e q u in tile) in b o th 1 9 8 0 and 1 9 8 7 , d e ­
fin in g the sa m p le s iz e as “la r g e ” p resen ts n o
p ro b lem .
3T h e c o e f fic ie n t o f v a ria tio n is th e standard
error o f a sa m p le d iv id e d b y the sa m p le m ea n .

w here:
T

=

transportation o n trips; and

V

=

total v a c a tio n ex p en d itu res.

In this ca se, Sx+u is a m ore com p licated
fun ction . N o w it is true that

Sx+u =

(Xshr^ [CV (Tl987)
+ CV 1(V1987)
- 2 (Xshr) (CV2(71987))]
+ (U s h rf \C V 2(71980)

+ CVZ(V I980)
- 2 (Ushr) (CV(71980))]
w here:
CV(ri987) =

th e c o e f fic ie n t o f v a ria ­
tion 3 fo r 1 9 8 7 transporta­
tio n o n trips ex p en d itu res;

1989 em ployee benefits
address fam ily concerns

Cathy A. Cooley
Parental leave, typically unpaid, was
one of several benefits provided to em­
ployees to assist in balancing work and
family responsibilities, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recently re­
leased 1989 Employee Benefits Survey.
The survey presents information on the
incidence and detailed characteristics of

employee benefits available to full-time
workers in private-sector establish­
ments employing 100 or more workers.
Among the 1989 findings are that un­
paid maternity leave was available to
nearly two-fifths of employees, unpaid
paternity leave to almost one-fifth; re­
imbursement accounts to help pay for
medical and dependent care expenses
were offered to about one-fourth of
workers; and flexible work arrange­
ments were provided to one-tenth of
employees.
Parental leave plans provide time off
for mothers and fathers to care for new­
born or newly adopted children. Such
plans, as defined in the survey, are sep­
arate from other leave benefits, such as
short-term disability coverage and paid
vacations, which may also be used for
parenting purposes. In 1989, 37 percent
of employees could take unpaid mater­
nity leave, with the maximum leave
available averaging 20 weeks. (See
table 1.) Eighteen percent of employees
could take unpaid paternity leave, with
the maximum leave available averaging
19 weeks. Paid parental leave was rare.
The survey found that 5 percent of
employees were eligible for child care
benefits subsidized by their employer.
These benefits include both on-site and
near-site child care expenses. A more
common means of assisting employees
with child care expenses was through
reimbursement accounts, from which
employees pay for a variety of qualified
expenses. Child care, elderly or depend­
ent care, and other medical care ex­
penses were the most common items
covered. Twenty-three percent of em­
ployees were eligible for such accounts
in 1989, up from 12 percent in 1988.
Reim bursem ent accounts often are
funded solely by employees seeking
tax advantages through salary reduc­
tion arrangements.
For the first time, the survey included
information on flexible work schedules.
Eleven percent of workers studied had
such arrangements available. Flexible
schedules give employees the opportu­
nity to begin and end work within a
specified range of hours, thereby help-

C ath y A . C o o le y is an e c o n o m is t in th e D iv is io n
o f O c c u p a tio n a l P a y and E m p lo y e e B e n e fit L e v ­
e ls , B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistics.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 1.

Full-time employees participating in selected employee benefit
programs, medium and large private firms, United States,11989

[in percent]

All
employees

Professional
and
administrative
employees

Technical
and
clerical
employees

Production
and
service
employees

Paid:
H olida ys..........................................
V acatio ns........................................
Personal le a v e ................................
Lunch period ..................................
Rest t i m e ........................................

97
97
22
10
71

97
98
28
4
57

96
99
30
4
69

97
95
14
16
80

Funeral le a v e ..................................
Jury duty le a v e ................................
Military leave ..................................
Sick leave........................................
Maternity le a ve ................................
Paternity le a v e ................................

84
90
53
68
3
1

87
95
61
93
4
2

86
92
57
87
2
1

80
87
45
44
3
1

Unpaid:
Maternity le a ve ................................
Paternity le a v e ................................

37
18

39
20

37
17

35
17

Sickness and accident insurance .
Long-term disability insurance...........
Medical care ......................................
Dental care ........................................
Life insurance ....................................
Defined benefit p e n sio n .....................

43
45
92
66
94
63

29
65
93
69
95
64

29
57
91
66
94
63

58
27
93
65
93
63

Defined contribution p la n s .................
Retirement2 ....................................
Capital accumulation3 ...................
All retirement4 ....................................
Flexible benefits p la n s .......................
Reimbursement accounts .................

48
36
14
81
9
23

59
43
18
85
14
36

52
39
14
81
15
31

40
31
11
80
3
11

Employee
benefit
program

Survey coverage excludes executives and
employees on constant travel, such as airline pi­
lots, as well as data for Alaska and Hawaii. Except
for maternity and paternity leave and reimburse­
ment accounts, benefits paid for entirely by the
employee were excluded from the tabulations.
Professional-administrative and technical-clerical
workers are often discussed jointly as white-collar
workers. Production-service workers are often
called blue-collar workers.
2 Includes money purchase pension, profit-

ing to accommodate family commit­
ments. Limits on the amount of flex­
ibility vary from plan to plan, but gener­
ally, employees must be at work during
certain midday “core” hours. Fifteen
percent of white-collar workers had
flexible work schedules available, more
than double the coverage for blue-collar
workers.
Employers also offered a variety of
health-related benefits outside of the
traditional health care plans. Employee
assistance programs, which provide
counseling and referral services for sub­
stance abuse and family, financial,
legal, and related problems, were avail­
able to 49 percent of workers. Wellness
programs, designed to encourage health­

sharing, savings and thrift, stock bonus, and em­
ployee stock ownership plans in which employer
contributions must remain in the participant’s ac­
count until retirement age, death, disability, sepa­
ration from service, age 591/2, or hardship.
3 Includes plans in which participants may with­
draw employer contributions from their accounts
without regard to the conditions listed in footnote 2.
4 Includes defined benefit pension plans and
defined contribution retirement plans. Many em­
ployees participated in both types of plans.

ier lifestyles, were available to 23 per­
cent of employees. These programs
typically include health screenings,
smoking cessation classes, and guid­
ance on healthier diets.
For the first time, the survey gathered
data on the availability of long-term
care insurance. Three percent of em­
ployees had such insurance plans avail­
able to them. Long-term care plans are
designed to help pay for protracted nurs­
ing home care for employees or depend­
ents, including elderly dependents.
(Ordinary health care plans exclude
such coverage from the benefits they
provide.) Although long-term care
plans are typically wholly employee
paid, workers gain because coverage is
Monthly Labor Review June 1990

61

Research Summaries
available through employers at group
insurance rates.

Health care benefits
Ninety-two percent of full-time em­
ployees had medical care benefits fully
or partially financed by their employer
in 1989. Seventy-four percent of those
with benefits were in traditional fee-forservice plans. Nontraditional plans,
such as health maintenance organiza­
tions ( h m o ’ s ) and preferred provider
organizations ( p p o ’ s ), accounted for 17
percent and 10 percent of medical care
participants, respectively. Under p p o ’ s ,
subscribers are provided health care
services at a lower cost if they receive
treatment from designated hospitals, phy­
sicians, or dentists.
Alcohol and drug abuse treatment
coverage was provided to 97 and 96
percent of the medical care participants,
respectively. Benefits may be provided
for detoxification, rehabilitation serv­
ices, or both. Detoxification involves
supervised medical care to reduce or
eliminate the symptoms of chemical de­
pendency. Rehabilitation is designed to
alter the behavior of substance abusers,
once they are free of acute physical and
mental complications. The number of
medical care participants with alcohol
and drug abuse treatment coverage re­
ported by the survey increased by 21
and 30 percent, respectively, from 1988
to 1989. The increases reflect both a
greater incidence of these benefits in
medical care plans and a refinement of
the survey’s procedures for tabulating
detoxification benefits.
The survey found a wide range of
coverage for less costly alternatives to
hospital stays. Three-fourths of the par­
ticipants with medical care had cover­
age for home health care, and four-fifths
had coverage in extended care facilities.
In addition, hospice care, for the termi­
nally ill, was available to approximately
two-fifths of participants.

Defined benefit pension plans
Defined benefit pension plans, which
specify a formula for determining an
employee’s annuity, covered 63 percent
of full-time workers in 1989, unchanged
from the figure in 1988, when the sur­
Digitized for
6 2 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

vey expanded to smaller establishments
and more service industries.
The survey found that the most com­
mon type of defined benefit pension
plan is the terminal earnings plan, which
bases pension payments on an em­
ployee’s average earnings in the last
few years prior to retirement (usually a
5-year period). In 1989, terminal earn­
ings plans covered 64 percent of partic­
ipants in defined benefit pension plans.
The average benefit formula in such
plans was approximately 1.5 percent of
annual earnings, multiplied by the num­
ber of years of service. More than half
of the participants in these plans were
subject to a limit on the number of years
of service that could be applied toward
pension benefits, commonly 30, 35, or
40 years. In addition, benefits were usu­
ally c o o r d in a t e d with S o c i a l Security
payments.
Eamings-based pension formulas
are more common among white-collar
workers than among blue-collar work­
ers, who often have plans calling for
dollar amount benefits based on years of
service. In 1989, the monthly benefit
under dollar amount formulas averaged
about $20 multiplied by the number of
years of service. Unlike eamings-based
plans, dollar amount plans usually do
not limit the number of years of service
credited and rarely coordinate benefits
with Social Security payments.

Defined contribution plans
Forty-eight percent of employees par­
ticipated in one or more defined contri­
bution plans in 1989, up from 45 percent
in 1988. These plans, which usually
specify the employer’s contribution but
cannot predetermine the employee’s ac­
tual amount of benefits, include savings
and thrift programs (covering 30 per­
cent of full-time workers), profit-shar­
ing plans (16 percent), money purchase
pension arrangements (5 percent), and
stock ownership plans (3 percent). Most
defined contribution plans require em­
ployee contributions, but about 30 per­
cent of participants were in plans
wholly financed by the employer.
Forty-one percent of workers cov­
ered by the survey participated in
401(k) plans (also known as cash or
deferred arrangements), which permit
pretax employee contributions. Most of

these plans were salary reduction plans,
allowing employees to reduce their tax­
able income by making voluntary con­
tributions that are not taxed until
withdrawn from the plan. For example,
savings and thrift plans commonly
allow participants to make pretax
savings, some or all of which are
matched by the employer.

Life insurance
Life insurance benefits were provided
to 94 percent of employees in 1989,
with the cost paid entirely by the em­
ployer for all but 13 percent of covered
workers. For 68 percent of those cov­
ered, the amount of life insurance was
based on earnings, typically one or two
times annual pay. Most of the remain­
ing participants were provided flat dol­
lar amounts of coverage. Flat dollar
amounts were most common among
blue-collar workers, with the benefit
averaging slightly more than $11,000.

Disability income benefits
In 1989, almost all workers were cov­
ered by an income protection plan— ei­
ther sick leave or sickness and accident
insurance, or both—in the event of a
short-term illness or injury. Sick leave
plans, covering 68 percent of all work­
ers studied, but mostly white-collar
workers, commonly specified a set
number of sick days per year. Workers
in such plans who had 1 year of service
had an average of 15.4 sick days avail­
able; at 20 years of service, the figure
rose to 27.8 days.
Forty-three percent of workers sur­
veyed received a sickness and accident
insurance plan, and about half of these
workers also received sick leave. Sick­
ness and accident insurance, twice as
prevalent among blue-collar workers as
among white-collar workers, provides
either a percentage of pay (commonly
50 percent) or a flat amount per week
during a period of disability due to ill­
ness or accident. Payments are for a'
limited period of time, usually 26
weeks.
Forty-five percent of employees had
long-term disability insurance cov­
erage. Such coverage is intended to re­
place income lost during an extended or
permanent period of disability. The ma-

jority of workers with long-term cover­
age would receive between 50 and 60
percent of predisability pay during a
period of disability.

Paid time off
Time off with pay is available to em­
ployees in a variety of forms, from daily
rest breaks to annual vacations lasting
several weeks. Most types of paid leave
were available to a majority of employ­
ees. Exceptions were paid lunch time,
averaging 26 minutes a day, which ap­
plied to a tenth of workers, and personal
(multipurpose) leave, averaging 3.1
days a year, which covered nearly onefourth of workers. The number of paid
holidays averaged 9.2 per year, and the
amount of vacation, which commonly
increased with length of service, aver­
aged 9.1 days after 1 year, 16.5 days
after 10 years, and 20.4 days after 20
years of service. Paid rest time averaged
26 minutes a day, funeral leave 3.3 days
per occurrence, and military leave 11.9
days a year. Paid time off for jury duty
was usually provided as needed.

Availability of survey results
The Employee Benefits Survey pro­
vides data on 32 million full-time em­
ployees in 48 States and the District of
Columbia. Data represent benefit provi­
sions for workers in about 109,000 es­
tablishments employing 100 or more
workers in private nonfarm industries.
A comprehensive report on the survey,
Employee Benefits in Medium and
Large Firms, 1989, may be purchased
this summer from the Superintendent
of Documents, Government Printing
Office, W ashington, D C 20402, or
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box
2145, Chicago, IL 60690.
□


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Characteristics of households
with discretionary income
About 26 million American households
have some discretionary income, and
this income accounts for more than 53
percent of total personal income, ac­
cording to a 1989 joint study by the
Consumer Research Center of The
Conference Board and the U.S. Bu­
reau of the Census.
Discretionary income was deter­
mined by cross-tabulating and class­
ifying the 60,000 households in the
March 1987 Current Population Survey
by income, age, occupation, education,
number of earners, and other demo­
graphic characteristics. After-tax, or
spendable, income was then calculated.
Households with spendable incomes at
least 30 percent higher than average ex­
penditures for their comparable group
were considered to have discretionary
income. The previous survey of discre­
tionary income was in March 1983.
The total number of households in
the United States increased by 5.4 mil­
lion over the March 1983 to March 1987
period to a total of 89.5 million. The
number of households with discretion­
ary income rose by 2.1 million (from 28
percent to 29 percent of households).
The mean amount of discretionary in­
come was up 12 percent to $12,330.
This translates into a $57 billion in­
crease in aggregate discretionary in­
come to $319 billion, or a 22-percent
rise from 1983. The study suggests that
this significant increase in the size of
discretionary income reflects both re­
covery from the 1980 and 1981-82 re­
cessions and continued growth of the
economy since that time. Mean income
of all households rose 11 percent, which
is reflected in the large increases in the
discretionary income bracket.

The average after-tax income in
1987 was $42,000 for households with
discretionary income, compared with
$17,000 for all other households and
$30,800 for the Nation as a whole. Dis­
cretionary income was found largely in
the 35-60 age group, and also was prev­
alent among those in professional and
managerial positions. Blue-collar work­
ers’ incomes accounted for only 15 per­
cent o f d iscre tio n a ry incom e. A
majority of those with discretionary in­
come have college degrees. Almost
one-third of white households have dis­
cretionary income; black households
have 6 percent and Hispanic households
have 2 percent of all discretionary in­
come.
The study revealed other charac­
teristics individuals in the discretionary
income category share: most are homeowners who pay an average of 26 per­
cent of their earnings in taxes. The
homeowners have more discretionary
income than do renters, as do those who
live in the suburbs, compared with those
who live in other areas. Furthermore,
households with two or more workers
make up 45 percent of all households
but almost 65 percent of the country’s
households with discretionary income.
Fewer than 25 percent of homes with
discretionary income have only the
husband working.
A Marketer’s Guide to Discretionary
Income also lists discretionary income
according to salary, age, race, size of
household, number of earners, educa­
tion, occupation, region, metro and non­
metro residence, and housing tenure. It
is available from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census.
□
—Laurie Lande
O ffice o f P ub lication s

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

63

Significant
decisions in
labor cases

Arbitration
Does an employee give up the right to
sue his or her employer for age dis­
crimination by agreeing to arbitrate all
employment-related claims? According
to a divided Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit in Gilmer v. Interstate/
Johnson Lane Corp.} the answer to
this question is yes because Federal
policy, as expressed by the Federal Ar­
bitration Act,2 favors arbitration.
When Richard Gilmer was hired
as a manager of financial services by
the Interstate/Johnson Lane Corpora­
tion, he was required to register as a
securities representative with the
New York Stock Exchange. At the
time he registered, Gilmer agreed
that any employment-related dispute
between himself and his employer
would be subject to the stock ex­
change’s arbitration procedures. Six
years after entering into this agree­
ment, Gilmer’s job was terminated.
Believing that his former employer
had fired him because of his age,
Gilmer chose to file suit in Federal
court under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act,3 rather than
submit his dispute to arbitration. The
employer objected, claiming that the
Federal Arbitration Act required Gil­
mer to abide by his agreement to ar­
bitrate.
Writing for a 2-1 majority of the
Fourth Circuit panel, Judge J. Harvie
Wilkinson agreed that arbitration, not
Federal court litigation, was required.
Arbitration agreements, he wrote,
should be enforced unless the party
opposing arbitration can show that
Congress, by enacting specific legis­
lation, intended to limit or prohibit
“ S ig n ific a n t D e c is io n s in L ab or C a se s ” is w ritten
b y C raig H u k ill, an attorn ey in th e O ffic e o f the
S o lic ito r , U .S . D ep a rtm en t o f L abor.


4 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

parties from waiving a statutory right
to judicial determination.4 Judge Wil­
kinson examined the text, legislative
history, and purposes of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and
concluded that in enacting this law
Congress had not provided the type of
“affirmative guidance” that is needed
to override the Federal Arbitration Act
requirement that arbitration agree­
ments ordinarily should be honored.5
Courts of appeals that addressed
this issue before the decision in Gil­
mer was issued all had held that em­
ployees can file age discrimination
suits despite the existence of an
agreement to arbitrate.6 In the most
recent of these decisions, Nicholson
v. CPC International Inc.,1 the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit held
that arbitration agreements are in­
herently inconsistent with the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act’s
enforcem ent schem e and should
therefore not be enforced.8 The Third
C irc u it n o ted th a t p rim ary en­
forcement authority under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act
lies with the Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission and that an
individual’s right to sue is subordi­
nate to this authority. Thus, in the
court’s view, enforcing arbitration
agreem ents w ould dim inish the
Commission’s statutory role9 and en­
courage employers to prepare similar
employment contracts so as to avoid
that agency’s scrutiny.10
The Nicholson court also was per­
suaded by the legislative history of
the Age Discrimination in Employ­
ment Act, which showed that Con­
gress had deliberately opted for
Federal court enforcem ent rather
than a less formal administrative
scheme.11 In the c o u r t’s w ords,
“ [tjhis suggests that Congress in­

tended that extrajudicial methods of
seeking resolution of age discrimina­
tion claims should not impede ulti­
mate resolution of those claims in a
judicial forum when extrajudicial
methods proved inadequate.”12
Finally, the Nicholson court em­
phasized that an arbitrator’s power to
address workplace discrim ination
may be more limited than that of a
Federal district court. As an exam­
ple, the court noted that arbitrators
are limited to resolving the disputes
of particular grievants, whereas Fed­
eral court judges may address com­
panywide discrimination by enjoining
employers from committing future
acts of discrimination.
The Supreme Court has not ad­
dressed the issue raised by the
courts’ decisions in Gilmer and Nich­
olson. Because the Gilmer decision
creates a conflict between circuit
courts, the High Court may now be
more likely to consider this impor­
tant issue.

Discrimination abroad
For the first time, a Federal appeals
court has held that Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 196413 does not
protect an American citizen working
overseas for an American company
against discrimination in employ­
m ent. The ca se, Boureslan v.
Aramco,14 cam e ab o u t a fte r A li
Boureslan, a naturalized American
citizen, complained to the Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission
th a t his A m erican em p lo y er,
Aramco, had harassed and fired him
because of his race, religion, and na­
tional origin. Aramco disputed this
claim and raised the additional argu­
ment that Title VII’s protections do
not extend to the company’s opera-

tio n s in S au d i A ra b ia, w here
Boureslan had been employed.
Judge W. Eugene Davis, writing
for a 9-5 majority of the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, agreed
with Aramco.15 Neither the language
of Title VII, nor its legislative his­
tory, he wrote, supports the notion
that Congress intended the law to
apply outside the United States. As a
result, he found no reason to over­
ride what he held to be a presump­
tion that Federal laws apply only
within the United States. In reaching
this conclusion, he rejected Boure sla n ’s argum ent that Title VII
should be applied extraterritorially
through its “alien exemption provi­
sio n ,” which exempts em ployers
from coverage “with respect to em­
p loym ent of aliens outside any
State.”16 Boureslan had argued that if
Congress had intended that all em­
ployers in foreign lands be exempt
from Title VII, it would not have
enacted the alien exemption provi­
sion, which exempted only some em­
ployers. Thus, he had urged the
court to infer that overseas employ­
ers not exempted by this provision—
namely, those that employ American
citizens—are covered by Title VII.
Judge Davis, however, refused to
draw this inference. The alien ex­
emption provision, he held, has noth­
ing to do with the employment of
American citizens overseas. Instead,
he said, the provision “reflects a
Congressional intent to provide Title
VII coverage to aliens employed
within the United States.”17
Judge Davis noted two other rea­
sons why Title VII should be limited
to cases involving allegations of em­
ploym ent discrim ination that oc­
curred w ithin the U nited States.
First, he said that Title VII is “curi­
ously silent in a number of areas
where Congress ordinarily speaks if
it wants to extend its legislation be­
yond our borders.”18 For example, he
suggested that if Congress had in­
tended extraterritorial coverage, it
most likely would have addressed
the issue of whether foreign—but
not American—companies employing
American workers outside of the
U nited States must comply with
Title VII.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Next, he indicated that “when it
desires to do so, Congress knows
how to give extraterritorial effect to
one of its statutes.”19 As an example,
he cited a 1984 amendment to the
Age Discrimination in Employment
Act in which Congress modified that
act’s definition of “employee” to in­
clude “a citizen of the United States
employed by an employer in a work­
p lace in a fo reig n c o u n try .”20
Because Congress failed to include
similar language in Title VII, Judge
Davis concluded that it did not in­
tend to give this statute such broad
coverage.
The decision by the court in
Boureslan is contrary to the position
taken by the Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission, which is the
Federal agency charged with enforc­
ing Title VII.21 Moreover, the dis­
senting judge in Boureslan noted
that the majority’s decision conflicts
with the decisions of all Federal dis­
trict courts that have addressed the
issue.22 T hus, this case w ill be
watched closely to see whether other
courts will follow it and whether the
Supreme Court will agree to review
it if an appeal is filed.

Severance payments
The Supreme Court recently held, in
Crandon v. United States,23 that lump­
sum severance payments to five em­
ployees who intended to leave pri­
vate employment for Government
service did not run afoul of Federal
crim inal conflict-of-interest laws,
even though the payments were an
attempt to soften the expected finan­
cial losses occasioned by these
employees’ acceptance of less lucra­
tive Federal employment. In this
case, the departing employees were
Boeing Company executives who left
their jobs for high-level positions
with the Defense Department and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
They received a total of $485,000 in
severance pay, with individual pay­
m ents ranging from $40,000 to
$183,000.24
The Government claimed that the
severance payments were improper
under 18 U.S.C. § 209, a Federal
criminal law that prohibits Govern­
ment employees from receiving, and

others from paying, supplemental
compensation for the official services
of those employees.25 It argued that
even though Boeing’s payments had
been made before the five executives
began their Government service, the
payments had been intended to sup­
plem ent Governm ent salaries and
therefore were improper.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing
for six members of the Court, examined
the language and legislative history of
section 209 and concluded that pay­
ments to prospective Government em­
ployees are not prohibited.26 In his
opinion, “ [djespite...awkward draft­
ing...[t]he text of §209(a)...indicates
that employment status is an element of
the offense.”27 Although he conceded
that the payments might give rise to an
appearance of impropriety, a concern
addressed by section 209, Justice Ste­
vens said that this concern was miti­
gated because Boeing’s payments were
unconditional and had been made on a
lump-sum, rather than periodic, basis.
In addition, he noted a policy “that
counselled] against reading [section
209] too broadly.”28 This policy of en­
couraging qualified employees to make
their special skills available to the Gov­
ernment, he said, is a policy that Presi­
dent Kennedy identified when he
sought to overhaul Federal conflict-ofinterest laws in 1961. Justice Stevens
concluded that his literal interpretation
of section 209 was appropriate because
it was consistent with that policy and
because he was construing a criminal,
not a civil, statutory provision.
□

Footnotes
1 8 9 5 F .2 d 195 (4 th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ).
2 9 U .S .C . § 1 (1 9 8 8 ) . T h is p o lic y is e x ­
p r e sse d in s e c tio n 2 o f th e F ed era l A rb itration
A c t, w h ic h p r o v id e s that a “ w ritten p r o v is io n in
. . . a co n tra ct e v id e n c in g a tra n sa ctio n in v o lv in g
c o m m e r c e to settle b y arbitration a c o n tr o v e rsy
th erea fter a risin g o u t o f su c h co n tra ct . . . sh all
b e v a lid , irrev o c a b le , and e n fo r c e a b le , sa v e u p on
su c h g ro u n d s as e x is t at la w or in e q u ity fo r the
r ev o c a tio n o f a n y c o n tra ct.” 3 U .S .C . § 2 (1 9 8 8 ) .
3 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 ( 1 9 8 2 & S u p p . V 1 9 8 7 ).
4 T h is standard has b e e n a rticu la ted b y the
S u p rem e C ourt in R o d r ig u e z d e Q u ija s v . S h ea rson /A m . E x p re ss, In c., 109 S . Ct. 1917, 1921
(1 9 8 9 ); S h ea rso n lA m . E x p re ss, Inc. v . M cM a h o n ,
4 8 2 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 2 6 (1 9 8 7 ); and M its u b is h i M o ­
to r s C o r p . v . S o le r C h r y s le r - P ly m o u th , In c ., 4 7 3
U .S . 6 1 4 , 6 2 7 (1 9 8 5 ) .

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

65

Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
5 8 9 5 F .2 d at 2 0 3 .
6 S e e N ic h o ls o n v. c p c l n t ’l In c., 8 7 7 F .2 d
2 2 1 (3 d C ir. 1 989); C o o p e r v. A s p lu d h T re e
E x p e r t C o ., 8 3 6 F .2 d 1 5 4 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1988);
C r is w e ll v. W e s te rn A ir lin e s , In c ., 7 0 9 F .2 d 5 4 4
(9 th Cir. 1 9 8 3 ), a j f d on o th e r g r o u n d s , 4 7 2 U .S .
4 0 0 (1 9 8 5 ).
7 8 7 7 F .2 d 2 2 1 (3d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). T h e p an el in
N ic h o ls o n , lik e th e p a n el in G ilm e r , w a s d iv id e d

2- 1.
8 E n fo r c em en t u n d er th e A g e D is c r im in a tio n
in E m p lo y m e n t A c t is b e g u n w h e n the p erso n
c la im in g to b e a v ic tim o f d isc rim in a tio n file s a
“ c h a r g e,” or c o m p la in t, w ith the E q u al E m p lo y ­
m e n t O p p o rtu n ity C o m m is s io n . 2 9 U .S .C . §
6 2 6 (d ) (1 9 8 2 ) . T h e C o m m iss io n in v e s tig a te s th is
ch a rg e and attem p ts to e lim in a te any a lle g e d
u n la w fu l p ra ctice th rou gh c o n c ilia tio n and p er­
su a sio n . Id. S ix ty d a y s after th e ch a rg e is file d ,
th e a lle g e d v ic tim o f d isc rim in a tio n m a y file
su it, but o n ly i f th e C o m m iss io n has n o t alread y
d o n e so . 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 6 (c ) (1 ), (d ) (1 9 8 2 ).
9 T h e G ilm e r cou rt d isa g reed on th is p oin t.
In its v ie w , th e E q u al E m p lo y m e n t O p p ortu n ity
C o m m is s io n ’s r o le h as n e v e r b e e n to r e s o lv e all
A g e D is c r im in a tio n in E m p lo y m e n t A c t c la im s.
8 9 5 F .2 d at 197. In d iv id u a ls, the cou rt said , h a v e
a lw a y s b e e n free to en ter in to vo lu n ta ry , n o n su p e r v ise d settle m e n ts. Id.

to s e e k to r ep la ce th em w ith y o u n g er e m p lo y e e s
e arn in g lo w e r sa la ries.” Id . at 2 3 0 .
" Id . at 2 2 6 . T h e court in G ilm e r w a s not
p ersu ad ed b y th is a n a ly sis. 8 9 5 F .2 d at 199.
A c c o r d in g to th e G ilm e r cou rt, sim p ly b e c a u se
C o n g r e ss c h o s e to a llo w su its to b e file d in
F ed eral d istrict cou rt d o e s n o t m ea n that th ey
m a y n o t b e r e s o lv e d in s o m e o th er, m u tu a lly
a g reed -u p o n forum . Id .
12 8 7 7 F .2 d at 2 2 6 . Im portant to th e co u rt in
r ea c h in g th is c o n c lu s io n w a s a c a se d e c id e d
u n d er th e F air L a b o r S tandards A c t, 2 9 U .S .C .
§ 2 0 1 (1 9 8 2 & S u p p . V 1 9 8 7 ), B a r r e n tin e v .
A r k a n s a s - B e s t F r e ig h t S y s ., In c ., 4 5 0 U .S . 7 2 8
(1 9 8 1 ). T h e S u p rem e C ourt h e ld in B a r r e n tin e
that an e m p lo y e e ca n n o t w a iv e the right to file
su it u n der th e F air L a b o r S tandards A c t b y s ig n ­
in g an a g reem en t to arbitrate e m p lo y m e n t d is ­
p u tes. T h e N ic h o ls o n cou rt atta ch ed im p o rta n ce
to th is c a se n o t o n ly b e c a u s e th e A g e D is c r im i­
n a tio n in E m p lo y m en t A c t in co rp o ra tes certain
F air L ab or S tandards A c t e n fo r c em en t p r o v is ­
io n s , but a ls o b e c a u s e b oth o f th es e statu tes are
c o n c er n e d w ith situ a tio n s in w h ic h th e “d isp a rity
in b a rg a in in g p o w e r b e tw e e n an e m p lo y e r and
an in d iv id u a l e m p lo y e e is w e ll k n o w n .” 8 7 7
F .2 d at 2 2 9 . S u ch situ a tio n s, th e co u rt sa id , are
d iffe re n t from c o m m e r cia l situ a tio n s, in w h ic h
arbitration a g ree m e n ts o fte n h a v e b e e n g iv e n
e ffe c t.
13 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (1 9 8 2 ).

10 T h is c o n s e q u e n c e w o u ld be p articu larly
tr o u b leso m e in the a g e d isc rim in a tio n co n te x t,
th e N ic h o ls o n cou rt h e ld , g iv e n th e “rea litie s o f
th e w o r k p la c e ,” w h e r e in “ [o jld e r e m p lo y e e s
w h o h a v e in v e s te d m an y years o f th eir careers
w ith a p articu lar e m p lo y e r m a y la ck an y r ea listic
o p tio n to refu se to s ig n a stan d ard -form arbitra­
tio n a g reem en t p r e se n ted to th em b y th eir e m ­
p lo y e r s. N e w e m p lo y e e s w h o n e e d a jo b m a y be
in a sim ila r p o s itio n .” 8 7 7 F .2 d at 2 2 9 .
T h e e m p lo y e r in N ic h o ls o n , th o u g h , c la im e d
that arbitration a g ree m e n ts in th e a g e d is c r im i­
n a tio n c o n te x t d o n o t m erit h e ig h ten ed scru tin y,
b e c a u s e p e r so n s w ith a g e d isc rim in a tio n c la im s
are u s u a lly p r o fe s sio n a l and m an a g eria l e m p lo y ­
e e s w h o are ca p a b le o f m a k in g w e ll-in fo r m e d
and v o lu n ta ry d e c isio n s to arbitrate e m p lo y m en t
d isp u te s. T h e cou rt in d ica ted , h o w e v e r , that e m ­
p lo y e e s lik e M r. N ic h o ls o n , w h o w a s a h ig h ly
p a id a ttorn ey and v ic e -p r e sid e n t o f corp orate
fin a n c ia l s e r v ic e s, are “p articu larly v u ln er a b le ”
b e c a u s e “e m p lo y e r s . . . h a v e a greater in c e n tiv e

66

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

14 8 9 2 F .2 d 1 271 (5 th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ).
15 O rd in arily, c a s e s in th e F ed era l cou rts o f
ap p ea ls are heard and d e c id e d b y th ree-ju d g e
p a n els. H o w e v e r , a m a jo rity o f th e c ircu it ju d g e s
in regu lar a c tiv e s e r v ic e m a y order an a p p ea l to
b e heard b y th e en tire cou rt sittin g e n b a n c. F ed.
R. A p p . P. 3 5 . T h is order fo r a h ea rin g or
reh earin g e n b a n c m a y o c cu r w h e n co n sid e ra tio n
b y th e fu ll co u rt is th o u g h t to b e n e c e s s a r y in
order to sec u r e or m a in ta in u n ifo rm ity o f a c ir ­
c u it c o u r t’s d e c is io n s or w h e n the c a se p resen ts
an is su e o f e x c e p tio n a l im p o rta n ce. Id .
In B o u r e s la n , a th ree-ju d g e p a n el first heard
and d e c id e d the c a se . B o u r e s la n v . A r a m c o , 8 5 7
F .2 d 1 0 1 4 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 8 ). T h e F ifth C ircu it th en
d e c id e d that th e c a se m erited reh ea rin g e n b a n c,
so it ord ered th e p arties to p repare a d d itio n a l
b rie fs and to reargue the c a se b e fo r e th e fu ll
court. J u d ge D a v is w ro te b o th th e p a n el and the
e n ban c m ajority o p in io n s.
16 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - l (1 9 8 2 ).

8 9 2 F .2 d at 1 2 7 3 . J u d g e C a ro ly n D . K in g ,
w ritin g in d issen t, stro n g ly d isa g reed . Id . at 1 2 7 4
(J u d g e K in g , d is s e n t in g ) . A lie n s e m p lo y e d
w ith in the U n ited S ta tes, sh e sa id , alread y fit
w ith in the statutory d e fin itio n o f “e m p lo y e e ,”
m e a n in g that th ey are alrea d y c o v e r e d b y T itle
V II. S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (b ) , (e ) (1 9 8 2 ) . T h u s,
in J u d g e K in g ’s o p in io n , p r o v id in g c o v e r a g e to
th ese p e o p le th ro u g h the a lie n e x e m p tio n p r o v i­
s io n w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n n ecessa ry .
18 8 9 2 F .2 d at 1 2 7 4 .

The Older Americans Act Amendments
of 1984, Pub. L. 98—459, § 802(a), 98 Stat.
1767, 1792 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §
630(f) (1982 & Supp. V 1987)).
21 See Boureslan v. Aramco, 892 F.2d 1274,
1277 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1990) (Judge King, dissenting).

22 Id . at 1281.
23 110 S. Ct. 997 (1990), reversing 845 F.2d
476 (4th Cir. 1988).
24 I d . at 1000 n. 5.
25 Section 209(a) states that:
Whoever receives any salary, or any
contribution to or supplementation of sal­
ary, as compensation for his services as
an officer or employee of the executive
branch of the United States Govern­
ment...from any source other than the
Government of the United States...or
[wjhoever... makes [a] contribution to, or
in any way supplements the salary of,
any such officer or employee...[sjhall be
fined not more than $5,000 or im­
prisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 209(a) (1988).
Although section 209 is a criminal provision, the
Government did not seek to impose criminal
penalties. Instead, it sought to recover the sev­
erance payments under the civil law theory that
the employees, by violating section 209(a), had
breached a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty
and should not profit from their actions.
26 The three remaining justices agreed with
the result, but for different reasons. 58 U.S.L.W.
at 1007 (Justice Scalia, concurring).
27 58 U.S.L.W. at 1002.

28 Id . at 1005.

Major
agreem ents
expiring
next month

This list of selected collective bar­
gaining agreements expiring in July
is based on information collected by
the Bureau’s Office of Compensation
and Working Conditions. The list in­
cludes agreements covering 1,000
workers or more. Private industry is
arranged in order of Standard Indus­
trial Classification. Labor organiza­
tions listed are affiliated with the
A F L -C I O , except where noted as inde­
pendent (Ind.).

Food and kindred products

Retail trade

A m a lg a m a ted S u gar C o ., Interstate;
Grain M illers, 7 ,0 0 0 w orkers

F ood E m p loyers C ou n cil, In c., sou th ­
ern C a lifo rn ia ; F o o d and C o m m e r c ia l
W orkers, 9 ,0 0 0 w orkers

Private industry

Furniture and fixtures

Construction
A ir C on d itio n in g C ontractors o f A ri­
zon a, P h o en ix , az ; S h eet M etal W orkers,
1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
A s s o c ia te d G en eral C on tractors and
o th ers, sou th ern C aliforn ia; C arpenters,
7.500 w orkers
A s s o c ia tio n o f M ech a n ica l C on trac­
tors, A tlanta, GA; P lum bers, 1,200 w ork ­
ers
B u ild ers A sso cia tio n , southern Illin ois;
Carpenters, 3 ,7 0 0 w orkers
C ontractors A sso cia tio n , southern Illi­
nois; L aborers, 4 ,0 0 0 workers
C o n tra cto rs A s s o c ia tio n and o th ers,
so u th ern Illin o is; O p era tin g E n g in eers,
1 ,8 0 0 w orkers
M ech a n ica l C ontractors A sso cia tio n o f
Utah, Salt Lake C ity, ut ; Plumbers, 1,200
w orkers
P a in tin g and D eco ra tin g C ontractors
A sso cia tio n and others, central co a st C al­
ifornia; Painters, 1 ,5 00 w orkers
Sheet M etal and Air C onditioning C on­
tractors A sso cia tio n o f N e w Y ork C ity,
In c., N e w York; S h eet M etal W orkers,
4 .5 0 0 w orkers


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A m erica n C rystal S u gar C o ., Inter­
state; Grain M illers, 2 ,4 0 0 workers
B ay A rea S oft Drink Bottlers A ssocia­
tion, California; Teamsters, 1,250 workers

Portland F o o d E m p loyers A sso cia tio n ,
O regon; F o o d and C om m ercial W orkers,
4 ,2 0 0 w orkers
Greater St. L ouis A utom otive A sso cia ­
tion, M issouri; M achinists, 1,500 workers

E. J. Brach and S on s, In c., Illin ois;
T eam sters, 2 ,7 0 0 workers

Services

S eagram D istilleries, Interstate; D istill­
ery W orkers, 1,400 workers

A llia n ce o f M otion P icture and T e le ­
v isio n P roducers, L o s A n g e le s, CA; T h e­
atrical S tage E m p lo y ees, 2 5 ,0 0 0 w orkers

A sso cia tio n o f C abinet M anufacturers,
so u th ern C a lifo rn ia ; C arp en ters, 1 ,0 0 0
w orkers

Paper and allied products
G reat N orthern P aper C o., M illin o ck ,
me; Paperw orkers, 1 ,9 0 0 w orkers

Electrical and electronic equipment
A lle n - B r a d le y C o ., M ilw a u k e e , wi;
E lectrical W orkers ( ibew), 1 ,3 0 0 w orkers

Motor freight transportation
U nited Parcel Service, Interstate; Team ­
sters, 4 ,8 0 0 w orkers
United Parcel Service, Interstate; Team ­
sters, 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 w orkers

Water transportation
P a c ific M aritim e A s s o c ia tio n , Inter­
state; L on gsh orem en and W areh ou sem en ,
9 ,0 7 5 w orkers

Transportation, public utilities
G eneral T e le p h o n e C o., O hio; C o m ­
m un ication s W orkers, 1 ,8 0 0 w orkers

A sso cia tio n o f P rivate H osp ita ls, N e w
York, ny ; Service E m p loyees, 2 ,5 0 0 w ork­
ers

Public activity
Florida
A lach u a C ou n ty B oard o f E ducation
(teachers); Am erican Federation o f Teach­
ers, 1,500 w orkers

Kansas
T opeka U n ified School District (teach­
e r s ); N a t io n a l E d u c a tio n A s s o c ia t io n
(Ind.), 1,200 w orkers
W ich ita B oard o f E d u cation (tea ch ­
e r s ); N a t io n a l E d u c a tio n A s s o c ia t io n
(Ind.), 3 ,3 0 0 w orkers

Michigan
W a y n e S ta te U n iv e r s it y ( fa c u lt y );
U n iversity P rofessors (Ind.), 1 ,4 0 0 w o rk ­
ers
L a n s in g S c h o o l D istr ic t (tea c h e rs);
N a tio n a l E d u c a tio n A s s o c ia tio n (In d .),
1 ,5 0 0 w orkers

Texas
H ouston Metro Transit Authority (tran­
sit workers); Transit W orkers, 2 ,2 5 0 w ork­
ers

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

67

Developm ents
in industrial
relations

Railway emergency board
The White House announced its inten­
tion to appoint an emergency board to
hear a dispute between 12 railway
unions, representing some 320,000
workers, and the Nation’s railroads. A
deadlock was reached because of the
carriers’ proposal that their employees
share the cost of health care which, ac­
cording to an industry representative,
has been increasing 15-20 percent an­
nually. The carriers also proposed that
their workers pay a $ 100 deductible and
absorb $2,000 catastrophic (out-ofpocket) costs.
Contract negotiations in the railroad
industry are conducted under the Rail­
way Labor Act which provides a stepby-step process, including mediation
and voluntary (but binding) arbitration
to resolve labor disputes. Almost 2
years ago, the parties exchanged bar­
gaining proposals covering wages,
working conditions, and health and wel­
fare benefits. One year later, when no
progress had been made in negotiations,
the parties asked the National Media­
tion Board, the Federal agency that ad­
ministers labor relations in the railroad
industry, to mediate the dispute. Neither
bargaining nor mediation under the aus­
pices of the National Mediation Board
resulted in a settlement.
The emergency board will hear the
health care portion of the dispute and
make recommendations within 120
days after its appointment to resolve
these issues (instead of the usual 30 days
stipulated under the Railway Labor
Act). The parties do not have to accept
the emergency board’s recommenda“ D e v e lo p m e n ts in In dustrial R e la tio n s ” is p re­
pared b y M ic h a e l H . C im in i o f the D iv is io n o f
D e v e lo p m e n ts in L a b o r-M a n a g em en t R e la tio n s,
B u rea u o f L ab or S ta tistic s, and is la r g e ly b a se d o n
in fo rm a tio n from sec o n d a ry so u rces.

68

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tions as a basis to settle the dispute. If
one or both parties reject the board’s
report, there is an automatic 30-day
cooling-off period during which man­
agement can not lock out its workers or
unilaterally change the terms and con­
ditions of employment, nor can the
unions engage in a job action. Although
the unions have agreed to grant the
board “any reasonable request for an
extension of time,” September 15 has
tentatively been set as the date the board
will release its report.
Immediately after the emergency
board members make their recommen­
dations on the health issues, they will
mediate the wage and work rules part of
this dispute. The carriers are asking for
work-crew reductions, more flexibility
in assigning work, and rights to subcon­
tract out more work. The unions are
seeking semiannual 5-percent wage
increases, elimination of some sub­
contracting, and job protection in
“short-line” sales.

Cotton garment settlement
After a month of negotiations, an 18month agreement was reached between
the Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, covering about 15,000 workers
in production, distribution, and retail
operations, and the Cotton Garment Ne­
gotiation Group. The Group bargained
for 30 companies in the cotton garment
industry nationwide, including Arrow,
Hathaway, Manhattan, Jay Mar-Ruby,
and Cotier. The settlement, which in­
cludes wage and benefit improvements,
is expected to set the pattern for an
additional 27,000 workers at other com­
panies in the cotton garment industry.
The key issue in contract talks was the
companies’ proposal to shift health care
costs by requiring an employee copay­
ment of health insurance premiums.

Contracts in the industry are negotiated
industrywide by the national union.
The contract provides for a 20-centper-hour wage increase effective March
1, 1990, and 15 cents per hour effective
March 1, 1991. (Average hourly wage
under the previous contract was $6$6.15 per hour.) Employer pension con­
tributions were increased to 2.5 percent
of gross wages (was 2 percent). Besides
continuing the company-paid health
care plan under the jointly administered
health insurance fund, the pact provides
for improvements in health insurance,
including increased benefit levels for
doctors’ home and office visits, nonsurgical hospital visits, outpatient sub­
stance abuse therapy, and weekly
disability payments, along with new
coverage for well-baby care, prenatal
care, and outpatient psychotherapy. The
companies also agreed to increase their
contributions to the jointly administered
health benefit fund to 14.1 percent of
gross wages (was 13.6 percent). In ad­
dition, the settlement calls for the cre­
ation of two new committees: a separate
health and safety committee at each
company, with committee members
being paid for the time they spend in
committee meetings; and an industry­
wide labor-management committee
which will lobby for the adoption of a
national health insurance program.

No-strike contract at Armco Steel
Bargaining against a lockout deadline,
negotiators for the Armco Steel Co. L P
and the Armco Employees Independent
Federation reached a 4-year agreement,
retroactive to March 1, 1990, covering
4,300 production workers in Middletown, O H . The accord provides job se­
curity in exchange for a no-strike
agreement. Armco is the Nation’s fifth
largest steel company.

Under terms of the so-called “cus­
tomer assurance plan,” the union agreed
not to strike during the term of this
agreement and the succeeding contract,
guaranteeing Armco continuation of
production and easing their customers’
concerns about delivery. The pact re­
stores the no-strike provision that was
common in the steel industry, including
Armco, during the 1970’s and early
1980’s. As part of the contract, Armco
agreed to stop subcontracting certain
work such as sandblasting and some
refractory work and to use their floating
pool of reserve employees to perform
this work.
Other terms of the contract include a
75-cent-per-hour general wage increase
retroactive to March 1, 1990, 50 cents
on March 1, 1991, and 25 cents on
March 1, 1992; a $1 increase in incen­
tive pay over the term; extension of the
profit-sharing plan to hourly employ­
ees; establishment of a 401(k) plan; a
minimum monthly pension rate of
$1,000 after 30 years of credited ser­
vice; 5 additional vacation days; and
eligibility for a comprehensive medical
plan (HMO’s). In addition, an “inflation­
ary recognition program” was estab­
lished with payments contingent upon
both the company earning a profit in the
quarter (payments can be delayed until
the next profitable quarter) and an in­
crease in the Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W) at an annual rate of 4
percent or more. Under the program,
employees will receive quarterly lump­
sum payments equal to 1 percent of their
base pay if the CPI-W rises 4 percent a
year, and an additional 1 percent for
each additional full 1-percent rise over
the initial 4 percent.
In addition, the parties will partici­
pate in mutual gains training prior to
November 1993 in preparation for 1994
negotiations. This training will be con­
ducted by a third party selected by the
company and union negotiators and will
deal with how to conduct bargaining
sessions effectively. As part of a “winwin” approach to bargaining, the parties
will use mediation-arbitration to resolve
a bargaining impasse. Under “medarb,” a mediator will assist the parties in
reaching a bargaining settlement. Fail­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ing that, the mediator will arbitrate any
unresolved issues.

Airline update
Eastern Airlines pilots, represented by
the Air Line Pilots Association, ratified
an interim agreement with Eastern Air­
lines, retroactive to March 1,1990, that
calls for wage and benefit cuts. The
pact, according to the union, was not “a
product of negotiations,” but “a good
faith proposal made by the pilots to sta­
bilize the critical economic status of
Eastern Airlines.” The agreement cov­
ers about 900 pilots who did not join in
their union’s sympathy strike in support
of the Machinists union against the car­
rier or who returned to work before the
strike ended. The Machinists had struck
Eastern last March, and most of the pi­
lots had honored their picket lines. Al­
though the Air Line Pilots ended their
sympathy strike last November, no pi­
lots represented by that union have been
recalled to work.
The pilots contract had expired Au­
gust 31,1988, and the parties had begun
collective bargaining under the provi­
sions of the Railway Labor Act. Be­
cause the union struck Eastern in
support of the Machinists, the carrier
had to continue negotiating with the
union while keeping the pilots’ labor
contract in force.
According to the union, the agree­
ment “offers substantial and immediate
economic relief in all the areas sought
by Eastern management.” (Last March,
Eastern filed for protection under Chap­
ter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.) Under
terms of the agreement, negotiated
wages under the 1988 collective bar­
gaining agreement, averaging around
$72,000 a year, would be cut 25 percent,
while pay for new pilots would remain
at $27,500. Eastern’s contributions to
the pilots ’ retirement fund would also be
reduced. In addition, a copayment for
medical and dental coverage will be in­
troduced: pilots will pay $50 monthly
for one-dependent medical coverage
and $6 monthly for dental coverage.
Although neither Eastern nor the Air
Line Pilots fully embraced the agree­
ment, the pact is expected to benefit
both parties. Eastern hopes that the in­
terim pact, which is expected to save the

carrier $10 million, will help get its re­
organization plan approved by the
bankruptcy court. To the contrary, the
Air Line Pilots, which is the bargaining
representative for the pilots, including
replacements, wants to maintain an
agreement with labor-protection provi­
sions. (Labor-protection provisions are
the noneconomic part of the collective
bargaining contract that protects jobs in
case of a merger or transfer of assets.)
The interim pact expires July 1,
1990. The parties indicated that they
would continue bargaining under the
auspices of the National Mediation
Board to reach a permanent agreement.
Eastern said the accord could “facilitate
expedited mediation” and result in a
permanent pact containing further cost
savings. National Mediation Board
Chairman Joshua Javits is serving as a
“super-mediator” in the contract talks to
assist the parties in reaching a perma­
nent settlement.
Elsewhere in the airline industry, the
UAL Corp. board of directors accepted a
$4.4 billion buyout of the company by
United Air Lines’ three unions, the Air
Line Pilots Association, the Machinists,
and the Association of Flight Atten­
dants. The deal was put together by the
unions and Coniston Partners, a New
York investment group and United Air
Lines’ largest stockholder. If com­
pleted, the purchase would make the
airline the largest employee-owned
company in the United States. Air Line
Pilots Association members would own
37.86 percent of United Air Lines; Ma­
chinists members, 35.68 percent; non­
union employees, 14.26 percent; and
Association of Flight Attendants mem­
bers, 12.2 percent. The purchase appar­
ently hinges on obtaining financing and
selecting a new, acceptable manage­
ment team to run the company.
As part of the buyout, the unions
reportedly have agreed to 5-year con­
cessionary contracts with 6-year no­
strike pledges. The wage and benefits
concessions reportedly amount to $300
million in the first year and $2 billion
over 5 years.

Hawaii hotel accord
Ending a 21-day work stoppage, the
Hotel Employees and Restaurant EmMonthly Labor Review June 1990

69

Developments in Industrial Relations
ployees Union Local 5 and the Council
of Hawaii Hotels signed a 5-year agree­
ment, covering some 7,500 workers at
11 hotels in Hawaii. The two issues
creating a deadlock in negotiations were
wages and subcontracting.
The pact calls for a 4-percent general
wage increase for nontipped employees
retroactive to March 1, 1990, and nine
semiannual 3-percent increases begin­
ning on September 1,1990. Tipped em­
ployees receive 20 cents retroactive to
March 1, 1990, 15 cents on March 1,
1991, 15 cents on March 1, 1992, and
20 cents on March 1, 1994. Bell porter­
age employees receive the same wage
boosts on the same dates as the tipped
employees, except for a 10-cent-perhour wage increase instead of 15 cents
on March 1, 1992.
Prior to the application of any wage
increases, dining room stewards’ pay is
raised by 10 cents per hour, door
attendants’ by 50 cents, head banquet
porters’ by 47 cents, and housekeeping
working supervisors’ by 10 cents. These
pay raises put the Island employees on
pay parity with their counterparts on the
Mainland, particularly San Francisco,
CA. Under the contract, housekeepers’
pay increases from $7.62 an hour to
$10.29 over the term; bartenders’, from
$10.84 to $14.64; fry cooks’, $10.50 to
$14.20; and maintenance workers’,
$13.28 to $17.94.
Other terms included a 91-cent-perhour increase over the term (to $2.25) in
the hotels’ contributions to the health
welfare plan to maintain medical, den­
tal, drug, and vision care coverage; an
8-cent-per-hour increase in the em­
ployers’ contributions to the pension
fund; an immediate 25-cent-per-hour
training differential and an additional
25 cents on March 1, 1992; a tightening
in subcontracting language; a prohibi­
tion against lie detector tests and strip
searches for potential drug offenders

70 Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(the union also defeated the companies’
proposal to implement a drug-testing
program); 30-day unpaid paternal leave
to care for infants; the establishment of
a 401(k) plan; dual seniority upon pro­
motion to an on-call or part-time posi­
tion until the employee gets regular
status in the new position; and new ar­
rangements to help ensure the safety of
female housekeepers working on the
night crew.

Play ball
Ending a 32-day lockout, negotiators
for the major league baseball players
(Major League Baseball Players’ Asso­
ciation) and for the 26 baseball club
owners (Players Relations Committee)
reached a 4-year agreement covering
1,040 ballplayers. The 26 clubs have 24
roster positions for major league players
and 16 for minor league players covered
under the contract.
The owners’ original proposals in­
cluded a revenue-sharing plan in which
48 percent of revenues from ticket sales
and television and radio broadcast con­
tracts (which reportedly constitute 80
percent of the owners’ total revenues)
would go to the players; a pay-for-performance plan, in which players with
less than 6 years of experience would
get 1-year, nonguaranteed contracts
with their salaries determined by a sta­
tistical formula, while players with 6
years or more of experience would be
free agents; free agent restrictions,
under which teams over preset salary
levels would not be able to sign another
team’s free agents; continuation of the
current salary arbitration eligibility; and
a $90,000 minimum salary for major
league players.
The players’ original demands in­
cluded salary arbitration for 50 percent
of the most senior players with between

2-3 years of experience; $100,000$125,000 minimum salaries, plus costof-living increases; $57 million annual
contribution by the club owners to the
pension and benefit plan; a 25-man
major league roster; more liberalized
rules for free agents; continuation of the
existing pension and benefit formula
combining owners’ contributions with
revenues from television contracts cov­
ering the All-Star Game, the playoffs,
and the World Series; and automatic
penalties for, and future protection
from, collusion by the owners in the
signing of free agents.
The settlement came after the base­
ball owners abandoned proposals on
two thorny issues, revenue sharing and
minimum salaries, and a compromise
was reached on a third and even more
intractable issue, salary arbitration. The
contract provides for salary arbitration
for the top (based on service time) 17
percent of the players in the league (ap­
proximately 15 players) with between 2
and 3 years of service, provided they
were on the team’s roster for at least 86
days in the previous season. Minimum
salaries were increased to $100,000
(from $68,000) for major league play­
ers, and to $25,000 (from $22,700) for
minor league players. Other terms in­
clude a $55 million (was $39 million)
owners’ annual payment to the pension
and benefit fund; an increase in the
major league roster to 25 players effec­
tive in 1991 (currently 24); two new
expansion teams for the N ational
League; unspecified cost-of-living al­
lowances in 1992 and 1993; automatic
triple damages to players if intentional
collusion is proven against at least five
teams in the signing of free agent
ballplayers; and a reopener on major
issues after 3 years.
□

Book
reviews

Employee benefits in the 1990’s
Corporate Benefit Plans: International
and Domestic Perspectives. Edited
by Mary E. Brennan. Brookfield,
wi, International Foundation of Em­
ployee Benefit Plans, 1988. 192 pp.
$30.
During the 1980’s, American busi­
nesses began to realize that they were no
longer operating within the context of a
solely domestic economy. Corporations
were now playing on an international
field complete with new rules and new
boundaries. In the 1990’s, this may be­
come even more evident as American
corporations continue their attempts to
capture new markets.
The growth of the global market­
place has increased the number of de­
m ands p la c e d upon A m erican
businesses. New technologies and new
products will need to be developed. It
may also become necessary to alter the
benefit packages provided to employees
as the needs of these employees change.
The International Foundation of Em­
ployee Benefit Plans addressed the lat­
ter issue at their annual conference in
1988. The Foundation has now issued
Corporate Benefit Plans: International
and Domestic Perspectives, a compila­
tion of 12 papers that were presented at
the conference. These 12 papers explore
the international and domestic benefits
issues that will be among the most pre­
dominant as we approach the 21st cen­
tury.
In “International Benefit Perils of the
’90’s,” David J. D. McLeish outlines
what he sees as the major dilemmas that
will confront benefits managers in the
1990’s. McLeish is primarily address­
ing the issue of retirement benefits, but
his arguments present a proper starting
point from which to address the entire
benefits spectrum.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

McLeish believes that the major
problem with the present structure of
benefits is that they were designed to
match a social environment that no
longer exists. Social changes have
placed heavy burdens on the Social Se­
curity programs of many countries.
These changes include increases in the
life expectancy rate, the divorce rate, the
number of single parents, and the num­
ber of dual-income families. Workers
have also increased the frequency with
which they change jobs during their
worklife. These new factors have
caused many governments to look to the
private sector for help. As the cost of
providing benefits to their employees
has increased, the private sector is be­
ginning to echo many of the complaints
of the public sector. McLeish feels that
legislation is needed to ensure that all
members of society receive sufficient
income and benefits during retirement.
In her essay, “Incentives From an
International Perspective,” Heather
Bowker addresses the specific problems
that can occur when an American mul­
tinational corporation attempts to de­
velop incentive packages for its over­
seas operations. The major objectives of
incentive programs are similar in all
nations. These plans strive to reward ex­
ceptional performance, reduce fixed
costs, and motivate employees. How­
ever, this is where the similarities end.
As Bowker points out, American firms
cannot make the mistake of assuming
that employees of a foreign subsidiary
either want or need the same benefits as
their American counterparts.
Bowker suggests that multinational
corporations must recognize the cul­
tural, legal, and economic differences
that exist across national borders before
they attempt to implement an incentive
plan. It may not be possible just to trans­
port the plan that is currently in use in

the United States. For instance, a bonus
that surpasses base pay (like those often
awarded to top U.S. executives) would
be seen as embarrassing in many foreign
countries. Other foreigners are uncom­
fortable with individual performance
bonuses, preferring team incentives in­
stead. Large cash payments are also not
of much use in countries with high tax
brackets, where a significant bonus
often just disappears with the taxman.
Other perks, such as deferred compen­
sation or use of a company car, might be
more suitable. To prepare for these dif­
ficulties, Bowker recommends that ben­
efits m anagers use the “Six C ’s”:
concept building, consistency, clarity,
cultural sensitivity, continuous rein­
forcement, and constructive feedback.
Turning toward the domestic front,
Karen B. Greenbaum suggests that the
entire world of employee benefits could
be transformed through the use of inter­
active communication in the workplace.
Greenbaum explains this new proce­
dure in her paper on “Interactive Com­
munication Techniques.” The term
refers to the exchange of information
that takes place between the computer
and the employee. This technique al­
lows the user to set the pace of the
dialogue, to choose options, and to de­
cide how much depth he or she desires.
Interactive com m unication has
many possible applications that could
be used in the field of employee bene­
fits. It would allow the user to personal­
ize benefit information to suit his or her
needs. It ensures that the message that is
delivered is consistent. It allows a
steady stream of information about
changes in benefit offerings and cover­
age. Finally, it could eliminate undue
adm inistrative burdens. Employees
would be able to update their personal
records when necessary, change their
plan selections, and receive notice of the
Monthly Labor Review June 1990 71

Book Reviews
status of defined contribution and de­
fined benefit plans.
This book contains articles on many
other topics of interest, including care of
the elderly, a id s in the workplace, reg­
ulatory developments in Japan, and an
international overview of the escalating
cost of health care. As these issues con­
tinue to come to the forefront both po­
litically and economically, the search
for solutions will intensify.
—Michael Bucci
D iv isio n o f O ccu p ation al P ay and
E m p lo y ee B e n e fit L e v els
B ureau o f Labor S tatistics

Policies in the making
Child Care: Facing the Hard Choices.
By Alfred J. Kahn and Sheila B.
Kamerman. Dover, MA, Auburn
House Publishing Co., 1988, 273
pp. $26.
According to the authors of this timely
and insightful book, both of whom are
professors of social policy and planning
at Columbia University’s School of So­
cial Work, “the Federal Government has
largely and deliberately abdicated its
leadership role” regarding child care,
and “a Federal ‘presence’ has disap­
peared.” This was not an unreasonable
conclusion to reach after their examina­
tion of Federal policies and programs
until 1987. Few readers will dispute
their well-documented charges that
“Federal Government retreats and dis­
mantling in this field [had] left serious
shortages and leadership gaps.”
But what a remarkable difference a
few short years have made, with nearly
60 child-care bills now before the Con­
gress! While most of these proposals
originated in the Congress itself, from
both sides of the aisle, one of the bills
now being singled out for attention was
sent up to the Hill by the Chief Execu­
tive, consistent with his pledge to ad­
dress the child-care conundrum during
his campaign for office. What will fi­
nally emerge from this spate of legisla­
tive proposals is by no means clear, with
compromises between party leaders in
the Congress and the White House still
to be worked out. But the Federal Gov­
ernment obviously intends to resume a
72

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

leadership role, whether at its own ini­
tiative or as a necessary political re­
sponse to the pressures for action that
have rapidly mounted throughout the
country.
Kahn and Kamerman, who have long
been at the fore of the family advocacy
movement, did not write this book as a
self-help guide for perplexed parents.
Rather, they address it to “those public
officials, interested citizens, advocates,
and academics who frame the policy
debate and engage the choices.” And,
despite being outpaced in some respects
by the changing tide, this is a book
whose data and whose arguments have
lost very little currency.
Indeed, to understand what is now
taking place in our institutions of gov­
ernment and what fuels the still ongoing
debate about child-care policy, the kind
of detailed history of the 1981-86 pe­
riod the authors present should be re­
quired reading. The policy hallmarks of
this short but influential political era are
described in the authors’ words as “de­
centralization, privatization, and dereg­
ulation.” To some, perhaps a large,
extent, these principles are still apropos
today, although they might be consid­
ered less the established goals of gov­
ernment than three key considerations
that continue to frame and guide the
child-care debate.
Seemingly giving up on the Federal
Government as the force for change,
Kahn and Kamerman look mainly to
States and local communities for lead­
ership in developing new child-care
policies and program initiatives. A
number of these, unquestionably among
the more promising ones, are described
in some detail—perhaps more detail
than a casual reader will care to digest.
Three principal chapters, however, are
also devoted to the roles of schools,
employers, and family day-care provid­
ers, the last of which are both the major
suppliers of care for preschool children
and the cause of considerable concern
regarding the quality of that care and the
safety and health of their charges.
As in virtually every treatise on child
care, there are some equivocal state­
ments and interpretations. For example,
the authors argue that employers are
impelled to provide child-care assist­
ance not as an aid in recruiting and

retaining female workers but as a re­
sponse to felt “pressures from govern­
m ent, from the m edia, and from
child-care advocates to do something
more to respond to the child-care needs
of their employees.” Such pressures ob­
viously are being experienced as a call
for action. However, to dismiss impend­
ing if not already existing labor force
shortages as a major stimulus is to ig­
nore the realities of population and
labor force demographics and to give
short shrift to the acumen of employers
in recognizing and devising ways of
dealing with them.
But whatever more employers might
do, this reviewer agrees with the authors
that the shortages of affordable and
quality child care, which impose a par­
ticularly onerous burden on poor and
low-income families, are not going to be
corrected by any simple reliance on
market forces. It is not unreasonable to
expect that, in time, “child care should
evolve and become as much a part of the
social infrastructure as schools, librar­
ies, parks, highways, and transporta­
tion.” But for the present at least, it
remains to be seen how this Nation
might best fashion child-care arrange­
ments that artfully combine the efforts
and resources of the public and private
sectors in ways that meet the needs of
working parents while protecting and
promoting the interests of its next gen­
eration of citizens.
—Richard P. Shore
Bureau o f L ab or-M an agem en t
R ela tio n s
U .S . D epartm ent o f Labor

Applying the right principles
Personal Productivity: How to In­
crease Your Satisfaction in Living.
By John W. Kendrick and John B.
K endrick. A rm onk, NY, M .E.
Sharpe, Inc., 1988.194 pp., bibliog­
raphy. $35, cloth; $14.95, paper.
John W. Kendrick, who has distin­
guished him self over the decades
through his analyses of firm, industry,
and economywide productivity, turns
his attention in this excellent book to the
productivity of the individual. He and
his son, John B. Kendrick (an account

executive at an advertising agency),
provide a plan for raising personal pro­
ductivity both at work and in the use of
leisure time. Inspiring the Kendricks to
undertake this effort was the judgment
that most people currently realize “only
a fraction of the satisfaction they could
be getting from their lives.”
One of the major contributions of the
book is the authors’ index for measuring
changes in personal productivity. The
Kendricks’ measure has two compo­
nents— inflation-adjusted Full Personal
Income ("Full," because it includes such
items as the imputed value of unpaid
work) and a “Satisfaction Quotient” that
reflects changes in the degree of satis­
faction that the individual receives from
work, family, and recreation.
While the measure of personal pro­
ductivity is a most useful concept, I
disagree with the authors’ formula for
its calculation. According to the Kend­
ricks, if one’s income increased 1.8 per­
cent and his or her satisfaction rose 2.9
percent, then personal productivity
would have increased 4.7 percent. It
seems to me that if there are two com­
ponents of the productivity gauge, the
overall increase should be a weighted
average of the changes in the two ele­
ments—that is, somewhere between 1.8
percent and 2.9 percent. The authors
acknowledge that “it is not essential to
combine the indicators of the quantita­
tive and qualitative aspects of personalproductivity growth.” I believe that the
indicators should be combined, but I
disagree with the authors’ method of
combining them.
What advice does the book offer for
increasing one’s personal productivity?
Some of the suggestions are what one
might expect to find in any self-help
book. Thus, the Kendricks exhort the
reader to think positively, to exercise
regularly, to “give yourself pep talks,”
and, when possible, to simultaneously
do two things or more.
What is different in this book, how­
ever, and what makes it a valuable con­
tribution, are the authors’ ideas on how
to apply principles of economics in
order to increase one’s effectiveness
and satisfaction in life.
For example, the Kendricks urge the
reader to apply the principle of compar­
ative advantage both in the workplace

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and in the home. On the matter of choos­
ing a career, the authors advise: “People
who are below par in everything can still
benefit from choosing an activity in
which they have the least comparative
disadvantage.”
How should one decide how much
time to devote to work, and how much
to reserve for leisure? The authors offer
the answer of the microeconomist:
“work for pay up to the point at which
the additional income is worth no more
to you than is the additional nonmarket
time.” Because such reasoning under­
lies much economic behavior, the
Kendricks predict that the labor force
participation rates of individuals age 60
and older may rise in the future, as a
result of the tightening that has occurred
in Social Security retirem ent pro­
visions. It will be interesting to watch
for such a development, which would
represent a reversal of the long-term
historic trend toward earlier retirement.
The authors turn to microeconomics
again, in explaining how a consumer
should allocate expenditures in order to
maximize satisfaction: “b u y ... each of
the commodities you consume up to the
point at which the last dollar spent on
each (including the value of your time)
gives equal satisfaction.” Also, as some
items increase in price very rapidly,
“you should try to shift some of your
purchases away from those goods to­
ward substitutes whose prices are rising
less than the C P I, or are declining.” I was
appalled by the authors’ suggestion that
long-distance telephone calls are an ex­
penditure item on which people may
want to cut back. According to C PI data,
the cost of interstate calls has fallen
almost 30 percent in the past 5 years,
and so the authors’ satisfaction-maxi­
mizing principle implies that consumers
should increase their use of long-dis­
tance service. As a candidate for cut­
backs, long-distance calls would be a
poor choice.
Among the many useful suggestions
in the book are the setting of short- and
long-term goals, the use of daily “to-do”
lists, and the keeping of expenditure logs.
I recommend the book most heartily.
—Edward Steinberg
E co n o m ist,

AT&T

Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
D rabenstott, M ark and A lan D . Barkem a,
"U .S. A gricu ltu re Charts a N e w C ourse
for the 1990s," Economic Review, F ed ­
eral R eserv e B ank o f K ansas C ity, January-F ebruary 1990, pp. 3 2 —49.

Economic and social statistics
P o ts c h e r , B e n e d ik t M . and In g m a r R.
Prucha, On the Formulation o f Uniform

Laws o f Large Numbers: A Truncation
Approach. C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l
B u reau o f E c o n o m ic R esea rch , Inc.,
1 9 9 0 ,3 0 pp. (T ech n ical W ork in g Paper,
8 5 .) $ 2 , paper.

Health and safety
"International C om p arison o f H ealth Care
F in an cin g and D elivery: D ata and P er­
sp ectives," Health Care Financing Re­
view, 1989 Annual Supplement, p p .
1 -1 9 4 .
Jack son , Susan E. and others, "Study Indi­
c a te s S m o k in g C e s s a tio n Im p r o v e s
W ork p lace A b se n teeism Rate," Occu­
pational Safety and Health, D ecem b er
1990, pp. 1 3 -1 8 .

Industrial relations
C regan , C h ristin a and Stew art Johnston,
"An Industrial R elation s A p p roach to
the F ree R ider Problem : Y o u n g P eo p le
and Trade U n ion M em b ership in the
UK," British Journal o f Industrial Rela­
tions, M arch 1990, pp. 84—104.
L e w is, R o y , "Strike-Free D ea ls and P endu­
lum Arbitration," British Journal o f In­
dustrial Relations, M arch 1 9 9 0 , pp.
3 2 -5 6 .

Industry, government organization
B lan ch flow er, D avid G . and A n d rew J. O s­
w ald , What Makes a Young Entrepre­
neur ? C am bridge, ma , N atio n a l Bureau
o f E c o n o m ic R esearch , Inc., 1 9 9 0 , 2 9
pp. (W ork ing Paper S eries, 3 2 5 2 .) $2 ,
paper.

International economics
Forging Linkages:
Modifying Disability Benefit Programs
to Encourage Employment. (R eporting

B erk ow itz, M on roe, ed .,

on P rojects in B e lg iu m , France, N eth er­
la n d s, F ed eral R e p u b lic o f G erm a n y ,
Israel, and S w ed en .) N e w Y ork, R eh a­
b ilitation International, in coop eration
w ith the U .S . S o cia l S ecu rity A d m in is­
tration, 1 9 9 0 ,1 9 2 pp.

Adjustment to Interna­
tional Competition: Short-Run Rela­
tions o f Prices, Trade Flows, and Inputs

C aves, R ichard E .,

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

73

Book Reviews
in Canadian Manufacturing Industries.
O ttaw a, E c o n o m ic C ou n cil o f Canada,
1990, 71 pp., b ib liograph y. $ 6 .5 0 , C an­
ada and U n ite d States; $ 7 .8 0 , other
co u n tr ie s. A v a ila b le from C an ad ian
G overn m en t P u b lish in g C enter, S u p ply
and S erv ices Canada, O ttawa.

Macroeconomic Convergence: International
Transmission o f Growth and Technical
Progress. C am bridge, ma, N ational B u ­

H elliw e ll, John F. and A lan C hung,

reau o f E c o n o m ic R esearch , Inc., 1990,
5 0 pp. (W ork ing Paper S eries, 3 2 6 4 .)
$ 2.

Current
International Recommendations on
Labour Statistics, 1988 Edition. G e ­

International Labour O rganization,

n ev a , International L abour O rganiza­
tio n , 1 9 8 8 . A v a ila b le in the U n ite d
States from ilo P ub lication s C enter, A l­
bany, NY.
"H om ework," Conditions o f Work Di­
gest, V o l.8 , N o . 2, 1989, pp. 1 -2 3 9 .
A v a ila b le from ilo P ub lication s C enter,
A lb a n y , ny .

Partnerships For Profit:
Structuring and Managing Strategic A l­
liances. N e w Y o rk , T h e F ree P ress,

L e w is, Jordan D .,

1 9 9 0 , 3 3 6 pp. $ 2 7 .9 5 .

Labor and economic history
S lo m p , H ans, Labor Relations

in Europe: A
History o f Issues and Developments.
W estport, CT, G reen w ood P ress, Inc.,
1 990, 241 pp. (C ontributions in Labor
S tu d ies, 2 9 .) $ 4 5 .

Labor force
A m o tt, R ichard J., Arthur J. H o sio s, Joseph
E. S tig litz, Implicit Contracts, Labor
M obility, and Unemployment. R e ­
printed from The American Economic
Review, D ece m b er 1 988, pp. 1 0 4 6 -6 6 .
C am b ridge, ma , N a tio n a l B u reau o f
E c o n o m ic R esearch , Inc., 1989. (nber
Reprint, 1 3 5 5 .) $ 2 , paper.
B e e so n , Patricia and Edw ard M on tgom ery,

Take Charge:
A Strategic Guide fo r Blind Job Seekers.

R abby, R am i and D ian e Croft,

B o s to n , N a tio n a l B raille P ress, In c.,
1989, 3 5 0 pp. $ 1 9 .9 5 , paper, p lu s $4,
shipping; $ 1 9 .9 5 , braille ed ., p lus $4,
sh ipping.

Management, organization theory
Flexible Staffing
Arrangements and Employers’ ShortTerm Adjustm ent Strategies. C a m ­

A braham , K atharine G .,

bridge, ma , N ation al Bureau o f E c o n ­
o m ic R e s e a r c h , I n c ., 1 9 8 8 , 31 p p .
(W o r k in g P a p e r S e r ie s , 2 6 1 7 .) $ 2 ,
paper.

Managing in Developing
Countries: Strategic Analysis and Oper­
ating Techniques. N e w Y ork, T h e F ree

A u stin , Jam es E .,

P ress, 1990, 4 6 5 pp. $ 35.

Pay,
Performance, and Turnover o f Bank

Barro, Jason R. and R obert J. Barro,

ceos. C am bridge, ma , N ation al Bureau
o f E c o n o m ic R esearch , In c., 1990, 54
pp. (W ork ing Paper S eries, 3 2 6 2 .) $2,
paper.

A Force fo r Change: How
Leadership Differs from Management.

K otter, John P .,

N e w Y ork, T he F ree P ress, 1990, 180
pp., b ib liograph y. $ 2 2 .9 5 .

Forging the Productivity
Partnership. N e w Y ork, M c G ra w -H ill

S andy, W illia m ,

P u b lish in g C o., 1990, 2 2 4 pp.

Monetary and fiscal policy
H ig g in s, B ryon and D od d W . Sn od grass,
"M onetary P o lic y in 1989: B alan cin g
the R isks," Economic Review, Federal
R eserv e B ank o f K an sas C ity, Jan u aryFebruary 1990, pp. 5 - 1 8 .
P ech m an , Joseph A ., "The Future o f the
In com e Tax," The American Economic
Review, M arch 1990, pp. 1 -2 0 .
R o g o ff, K en n eth , "E q u ilibriu m P o litic a l
B u d g et C ycles," The American Eco­
nomic Review, M arch 1990, pp. 2 1 - 3 6 .

ma , N atio n a l Bureau o f E c o n o m ic R e­

T ab ellin i, G u id o and A lb erto A lesin a , "Vot­
in g on the B u d g et D eficit," The Ameri­
can Economic Review, M arch 1990 pp
3 7 -4 9 .

search , In c., 1 9 9 0 , 2 4 pp. (W ork ing
P aper S eries, 3 2 8 0 .) $2 , paper.

Prices and living conditions

The Effects o f Colleges and Universities
on Local Labor Markets. C am bridge,

E m p lo y m en t and Im m igration Canada, "The
L abour M arket Situation in February
1990," Labour Market Bulletin, M arch
1990, pp. 1 -8 .

74 forMonthly
Digitized
FRASERLabor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

In c., 1988, 41 pp. (W ork ing Paper S e ­
ries, 2 7 9 4 .) $ 2 , paper.

Product Innovations,
Price Indices and the (Mis)Measurement o f Economic Performance. C am ­

Trajtenberg, M an u el,

bridge, ma, N ation al Bureau o f E c o n ­
o m ic R e s e a r c h , I n c ., 1 9 9 0 , 3 0 pp.
(W o r k in g P a p e r S e r ie s , 3 2 6 1 .) $ 2 ,
paper.

Wages and compensation
H olzer, Harry J. and Edw ard B . M o n tg o m ­
e r y , Asymmetries and Rigidities in
Wage Adjustments by Firms. C a m ­
bridge, ma , N ation al Bureau o f E c o ­
n o m ic R esea rch , In c., 1 9 9 0 , 3 9 pp.
(W o r k in g P a p e r S e r ie s , 3 2 7 4 .) $ 2 ,
paper.
K atz, L aw ren ce F. and A n a L. R even g a ,

Changes in the Structure o f Wages: The
United States vs. Japan. R eprinted from
Journal o f the Japanese and Interna­
tional Economies, V o l. 3, N o . 4 , 1989,
pp. 5 2 2 - 5 3 . C am bridge, MA, N ational
B u reau o f E c o n o m ic R esearch , Inc.,
1990 (nber Reprint, 1 354.) $2, paper. ’

Workers’ Compensation
Insurance and the Duration o f Work­
place Injuries. C a m b rid g e , ma , N a ­

K rueger, A lan B .,

tional Bureau o f E c o n o m ic R esearch ,
In c., 1990, 32 pp. (W ork ing Paper S e ­
ries, 3 2 5 3 .) $ 2 , paper.
M a r t in , J a m e s

E . w ith

T hom as

D.

Two-Tier Compensation
Structures: Their Impact on Unions,
Employers, and Employees. K alam a­
H eetd erk s,

z o o , Ml, W . E. U p john Institute for E m ­
p lo y m e n t R e s e a r c h , 1 9 9 0 , 2 5 2 pp.
$ 2 2 .9 5 , cloth; $ 1 3 .9 5 , paper.

The Effects o f Mandat­
ing Benefits Packages. C am bridge, MA,

M itch ell, O liv ia S .,

N ational B ureau o f E c o n o m ic R esearch ,
In c., 1990, 34 pp. (W ork ing Paper S e ­
ries, 3 2 6 0 .) $ 2 , paper.

Welfare programs, social insurance
B o d ie, Z v i, "Pensions as R etirem ent In co m e
Insurance," Journal o f Economic Liter­
ature, M arch 1990, pp. 2 8 - 4 9 .

Worker training and development
Machinery o f Domi­
nance: Women, Men, and Technical
Know-How. B o sto n , N ortheastern U n i­

C o ck b u m , C ynthia,
M an k iw , N . G regory and D avid N . W eil,

The Baby Boom, The Baby Bust, and the
Housing Market. C am bridge, MA, N a ­
tional B ureau o f E c o n o m ic R esearch,

versity P ress, 1 9 9 0 ,2 8 2 pp. $ 1 2 .9 5 , pa­
perback ed.

Current
labor
statistics

ri

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

................................

76

.........................................................................

86

Comparative indicators
1.

L ab or m arket in d icators

2 7 . A v e r a g e s p e c if ie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e ad ju stm en ts,

.......................................................................

.........................................................................................................

situ a tio n s c o v er in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers or m o re

87
29.

3. A ltern a tiv e m e a su r es o f w a g e and c o m p e n s a tio n
changes

b a rg a in in g situ a tio n s c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers or m o re

87

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

E m p lo y m en t status o f th e total p o p u la tio n ,

data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 88
Employment status of the civilian population,
data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 89
Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted .. 90
Selected unemployment indicators,
data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 91
Unemployment rates by sex and age,
data seasonally adjusted .......................................
92
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment,
data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 92
Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted .......... 92
Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State .............. 93
Employment of workers, by State ..........................................93
Employment of workers, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 94
Average weekly hours, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted....................................................... 95
Average hourly earnings, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted....................................................... 96
Average hourly earnings, by industry .................................. 96
Average weekly earnings, by industry .................................. 97
Diffusion indexes of employment change,
data seasonally adjusted ..................................................... 98
Annual data: Employment status of
the noninstitutional population ........................................... 99
Annual data: Employment levels, by industry .................... 99
Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels,
by industry ........................................................................ 100

w ork ers, b y o c cu p a tio n and in d u stry group

category and commodity and service groups .....................
32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data,
all items ...................................................................................
33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major groups ...........................................................
34. Producer Price Indexes, bystage of processing .......................
35. Producer Price Indexes, bydurability of product ...................
36. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups .........................................................................
37. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of
processing ..............................
38. U.S. export price indexes, by Standard International
Trade Classification ................................................................
39. U.S. import price indexes, by Standard International
Trade Classification .........................
40. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category ......................
41. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category ......................
42. U.S. export price indexes, by Standard Industrial

Classification

107
110
Ill
112
112
113
113
114
115
116
116

..................................................................... 116

43. U.S. import price indexes, by Standard Industrial
Classification ........................................................................... 117

Productivity data
4 4 . In d e x e s o f p ro d u ctiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n sa tio n ,
and un it c o sts, data s e a s o n a lly ad ju sted

........................................

4 5 . A n n u a l in d e x e s o f m u ltifa cto r p ro d u ctiv ity

..................................

117
118

4 6 . A n n u a l in d e x e s o f p ro d u ctiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n sa tio n ,
.............................................................................

119

................

120

.......................................................................

122

4 8 . U n e m p lo y m e n t rates in n in e c o u n tries,

102

4 9 . A n n u a l data: E m p lo y m en t status o f c iv ilia n w o r k in g -a g e

.............................

103

5 0 . A n n u a l in d e x e s o f p ro d u ctiv ity and rela ted m ea su r es,

p o p u la tio n , 10 co u n tries
12 co u n tries

2 5 . E m p lo y m en t C o st In d ex , p rivate n on farm w ork ers,
................................

104

S p e c ifie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e ad ju stm en ts
.............................

.......................................................................

...............................................................................................

123
124

Injury and illness data
5 1 . A n n u a l data: O ccu p a tio n a l injury and illn e s s

from con tract settle m e n ts, and e ffe c tiv e w a g e adju stm en ts,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

106

3 1 . C o n su m er P rice Index: U .S . c ity a v era g e, b y exp en d itu re

101

2 4 . E m p lo y m en t C o st In d ex , b e n e fits, p rivate ind ustry

situ a tio n s c o v er in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m ore

106

Price data

data se a s o n a lly ad ju sted

................................................

b y b argain in g status, reg io n , and area s iz e

................

International comparisons data

...............................................

2 3 . E m p lo y m en t C o st I n d ex , w a g e s and salaries,

26.

..................................................

4 7 . A n n u a l p ro d u ctiv ity in d e x e s fo r se le c te d in d u stries

2 2 . E m p lo y m en t C o st In d ex , c o m p e n sa tio n ,

b y o c cu p a tio n and in d u stry grou p

106

S tate and lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t b a r g a in in g situ a tio n s

u n it c o sts, and p rices

Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data
b y o c cu p a tio n and ind ustry group

.............................

3 0 . W o rk sto p p a g es in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m o re

Labor force data
5.

105

S p e c ifie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e ad ju stm en ts,
c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m o re

4.

...

2 8 . A v e r a g e e ffe c tiv e w a g e ad ju stm en ts, b a rg a in in g

2 . A n n u a l and quarterly p ercen t c h a n g e s in c o m p e n s a tio n ,
p rices, and p ro d u ctiv ity

Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data—Continued

105

in c id e n c e rates

..........................................................................................

125

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

75

Notes on Current Labor Statistics
T h is se c tio n o f the Review p resen ts the
p rin cip a l sta tistica l se r ie s c o lle c te d and
ca lcu la ted by the B u reau o f L ab or S ta tis­
tics: se ries o n lab or fo rce; em p lo y m en t;
u n em p lo y m en t; c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g se t­
tlem en ts; co n su m er, p rod u cer, and in ter­
n a tio n a l p rices; p ro d u ctiv ity ; in tern ation al
co m p a riso n s; and injury and illn e s s sta tis­
tics. In the n o te s that f o llo w , the d ata in
ea ch grou p o f ta b le s are b r ie fly d escrib ed ;
k ey d e fin itio n s are g iv en ; n o te s o n the data
are set forth; and so u r c e s o f a d d itio n a l
in fo rm a tio n are cited .

o f ch an ges in price. T h ese adjustm ents are
m ade by d ivid in g current-dollar v alu es by
the C on su m er P rice In d ex or the appropriate
com p on en t o f the in d ex, then m u ltip lyin g by
100. For ex a m p le, g iv en a current hourly
w a g e rate o f $3 and a current price in d ex
num ber o f 150, w h ere 1977 = 100, the hourly
rate ex p ressed in 1977 d ollars is $2 ($ 3 /1 5 0
x 100 = $ 2 ). T he $ 2 (or any other resulting
v a lu es) are d escrib ed as “real,” “con stan t,”
or “ 1 9 7 7 ” dollars.

Additional information

Symbols
n .e.c.

=

not elsew h ere cla ssifie d ,

n .e.s.

=

not elsew h ere sp ecified .

p

=

p r e lim in a r y . T o in c r e a s e the
tim elin ess o f so m e series, pre­
lim inary figures are issu ed based
on representative but in com p lete
returns.

=

revised . G en erally, this revisio n
reflects the availab ility o f later
data but m ay a lso reflect other
adjustm ents.

r

General notes
T h e f o llo w in g n o te s a p p ly to se v era l ta­
b les in th is se ctio n :

Seasonal adjustment.

Certain m onth ly
and quarterly data are adjusted to elim in ate
the e ffe c t on the data o f such factors as
c lim a tic c o n d itio n s , in d u stry p ro d u ctio n
sch e d u les, o p en in g and c lo sin g o f sc h o o ls,
h o lid a y b u y in g p eriod s, and vacation prac­
tices, w h ich m ig h t p reven t short-term ev a l­
u a tio n o f th e s t a t is t ic a l s e r ie s . T a b le s
co n ta in in g data that h a v e b een adjusted are
id e n tifie d as “ se a so n a lly a d ju sted .” (A ll
other data are not sea so n a lly adjusted.) S ea­
son al e ffe c ts are estim ated on the b asis o f
p ast e x p erien ce. W h en n ew season al factors
are co m p u ted each year, rev isio n s m ay affect
sea so n a lly adjusted data for several preced ­
in g years.
S ea so n a lly adjusted data appear in tables
1 -3 , 4 - 1 0 , 1 3 -1 5 , 1 7 - 1 8 , 4 4 , and 4 8 . S ea­
so n a lly adjusted labor fo rce data in tables 1
and 4 - 1 0 w ere rev ised in the February 1990
issu e o f the Review and reflect the exp eri­
en c e through 1989. S ea so n a lly adjusted e s­
ta b lish m en t su rvey data sh o w n in tables
1 3 -1 5 and 1 7 -1 8 w ere rev ised in the July
1 9 8 9 Review and r e fle c t the e x p e r ie n c e
through M arch 1989. A b rief exp lan ation o f
the sea so n a l adjustm ent m eth o d o lo g y ap­
pears in “N o te s on the data.”
R e v isio n s in the prod u ctivity data in table
4 4 are u su a lly introduced in the S ep tem b er
issu e. S ea so n a lly adjusted in d ex es and per­
cen t ch a n g e s from m o n th -to -m o n th and
quarter-to-quarter are p u b lish ed for num er­
ou s C on su m er and Producer P rice Index se­
ries. H o w ev er, se a so n a lly adjusted in d exes
are not p u b lish ed for the U .S . average A llItem s cpi. O n ly se a so n a lly adjusted percent
ch a n g es are availa b le for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. S o m e
data— su ch as the “real” earnings sh ow n in
table 15— are adjusted to elim in ate the effe c t

76

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

D ata that su p p lem en t the ta b les in this
se c tio n are p u b lish e d by the B u reau in a
variety o f so u rc es. N e w s r e le a s e s p ro v id e
the la test sta tistica l in fo r m a tio n p u b lish e d
b y th e B u reau; the m ajor recu rrin g re­
l e a s e s are p u b lis h e d a c c o r d in g to th e
sc h e d u le a p p earin g on th e b ack c o v e r o f
th is iss u e . M ore in fo rm a tio n ab ou t labor
f o r c e , e m p lo y m e n t, and u n e m p lo y m e n t
d ata and the h o u se h o ld and e sta b lish m e n t
su r v e y s u n d erly in g th e data are a v a ila b le
in Employment and Earnings, a m o n th ly
p u b lic a tio n o f th e B u reau . M ore data from
th e h o u se h o ld su rv ey are p u b lish ed in the
data b o o k s — Revised Seasonally Adjusted
Labor Force Statistics, B u lle tin 2 3 0 6 , and

Labor Force Statistics Derived From the
Current Population Survey, B u lle tin 2 3 0 7 .
M ore data from the esta b lish m en t su rvey
appear in tw o data b o o k s— Employment,
Hours, and Earnings, United States, and

Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States
and Areas, and the su p p lem en ts to th ese
data b o o k s. M ore d eta ile d in form ation on
e m p lo y e e c o m p e n s a t io n and c o lle c t iv e
b argain in g se ttlem en ts is p u b lish ed in the
m o n th ly p erio d ica l, Current Wage Devel­
opments. M ore d etailed data o n co n su m er
and p rod u cer p rices are p u b lish ed in the
m o n th ly p e r io d ic a ls, The c p i Detailed R e­
port, and Producer Price Indexes. D eta iled
data on all o f the series in th is se c tio n are
p ro v id ed in the Handbook o f Labor Statis­
tics, w h ich is p u b lish ed b ien n ia lly b y the
B u reau, bls b u lletin s are iss u e d co v erin g
p ro d u ctiv ity , injury and illn e ss , and other
data in th is se ctio n . F in a lly , the Monthly
Labor Review carries a n a ly tica l articles on
annual and lo n g er term d e v e lo p m e n ts in
lab or fo rce, e m p lo y m en t, and u n e m p lo y ­
m ent; e m p lo y e e co m p en sa tio n and c o lle c ­
t i v e b a r g a in in g ; p r ic e s ; p r o d u c t iv it y ;
in tern ation al com p arison s; and injury and
illn e ss data.

Comparative Indicators
(T ab les 1 -3 )
C o m p arative in d ica to rs tab les p ro v id e an
o v e r v ie w and co m p a riso n o f m ajor bls
sta tistica l se ries. C o n se q u e n tly , alth o u g h
m an y o f the in clu d ed se ries are a v a ila b le
m o n th ly , all m ea su res in th e se co m p a ra ­
tiv e ta b le s are p resen ted quarterly and an­
n u ally.

Labor market indicators in clu d e em ­
p lo y m en t m easu res from tw o m ajor su rveys
and inform ation on rates o f ch an ge in co m ­
p en sation p rovid ed by the E m p loym en t C ost
Index (eci) program . T h e labor force partic­
ip ation rate, the em p loym en t-to-p op u latio n
ratio, and u n em p loym en t rates for m ajor d e­
m ograp hic groups b ased on the Current P op­
ulation (“h o u seh o ld ”) S u rvey are presented,
w h ile m easu res o f em p lo y m en t and average
w eek ly hours by m ajor industry sector are
g iv e n u sin g nonagricultural p ayroll data.
T h e E m p loym en t C ost Index (com p en sa ­
tion), by m ajor sector and by b argaining
status, is ch o se n from a variety o f bls c o m ­
p en sation and w a g e m easu res b ecau se it pro­
v id es a co m p reh en siv e m easure o f em p lo y er
c o sts for hiring labor, not ju st ou tlays for
w a g es, and it is not affected by em p loym en t
sh ifts am on g occu p ation s and industries.
D a t a o n changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity are presen ted in
table 2. M easu res o f rates o f ch an ge o f co m ­
p en sation and w a g es from the E m p loym en t
C ost Index program are p rovid ed for all c i­
vilian nonfarm w orkers (ex clu d in g Federal
and h ou seh old w orkers) and for all private
nonfarm w orkers. M easures o f ch an ges in:
con su m er p rices for all urban consum ers;
producer p rices by stage o f p rocessin g; and
overall export and im port p rice in d ex es are
g iv en . M easu res o f p rod u ctivity (output per

hour o f all p erson s) are provid ed for m ajor
sectors.

Alternative measures of wage and
compensation rates of change, w h ich re­
flect the o verall trend in labor c o sts, are
su m m arized in table 3. D iffer en ces in co n ­
cep ts and sc o p e, related to the sp ec ific pur­
p o ses o f the series, contribute to the variation
in ch a n g es am o n g the in d ivid u al m easu res.

Notes on the data
D e fin itio n s o f ea ch se ries and n o te s on the
data are co n ta in e d in later s e c tio n s o f th e se
n o te s d e sc r ib in g ea ch set o f data. F or d e ­
ta ile d d e sc r ip tio n s o f e a ch d ata se r ie s, se e
bls Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ), as w e ll
as the a d d itio n a l b u lle tin s , a rticles, and
o th er p u b lic a tio n s n o te d in the separate
se c tio n s o f the Review’s “C urrent L ab or
S ta tistics N o t e s .” U sers m ay a lso w ish to
c o n su lt Major Programs o f the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tis­
tic s, 1 9 9 0 ).

Employment
and Unemployment Data
(T a b les 1; 4—2 1 )

Household survey data

Description of the series
Employment data in th is se c tio n are o b ­
tain ed from the C urrent P o p u la tio n S u r­
v e y , a p ro g ra m o f p e r so n a l in te r v ie w s
co n d u cte d m o n th ly b y the B u reau o f the
C en su s for the B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistics.
T h e s a m p le c o n s i s t s o f a b o u t 6 0 ,0 0 0
h o u se h o ld s se le c te d to rep resen t the U .S .
p o p u la tio n 16 y ea rs o f a g e and o ld er.
H o u se h o ld s are in te r v ie w e d on a rotatin g
b a sis, so that th ree-fou rth s o f th e sa m p le
is the sa m e fo r any 2 c o n s e c u tiv e m o n th s.

Definitions
Employed persons

in clu d e (1 ) all c iv il­
ian s w h o w o rk ed for p ay any tim e during
the w e e k w h ic h in c lu d e s the 12th d ay o f
the m o n th or w h o w o rk ed u n p aid fo r 15
hours or m o re in a fa m ily -o p e r a te d en ter­
p rise and (2 ) th o se w h o w ere tem p orarily
a b sen t from their regu lar jo b s b e c a u se o f
i lln e s s , v a c a tio n , in d u stria l d isp u te , or
sim ila r rea so n s. M em b ers o f th e A rm ed
F o rces sta tio n e d in the U n ite d S ta tes are
a lso in clu d ed in the e m p lo y e d total. A
p erso n w o rk in g at m ore than o n e jo b is
co u n te d o n ly in the jo b at w h ic h he or sh e
w o rk ed the g rea test n u m b er o f h ours.
Unemployed persons are th o s e w h o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

did not w ork during the su rvey w eek , but
w ere availab le for w ork ex cep t for tem p o­
rary illn ess and had look ed for jo b s w ithin
the p reced in g 4 w eek s. P erson s w h o did not
lo o k for w ork b ecau se they w ere on la y o ff
or w aitin g to start n ew jo b s w ith in the n ext
3 0 d ays are a lso cou n ted am ong the u n em ­
p lo y ed . The overall unemployment rate
rep resen ts the n u m b er u n e m p lo y e d as a
p ercen t o f the lab or fo r c e , in c lu d in g the
resid en t A rm ed F o rces. The civilian un­
employment rate rep resen ts th e nu m b er
u n e m p lo y e d as a p ercen t o f the c iv ilia n
lab or fo rce.
T he labor force co n sists o f all em p lo y ed
or u n em p loyed civ ilia n s plus m em b ers o f the
A rm ed F orces stationed in the U n ited States.
P erson s not in the labor force are th ose not
c la ssifie d as em p lo y ed or u n em p loyed ; this
grou p in clu d es p erson s w h o are retired,
th ose en gaged in their o w n h ou sew ork , th ose
n ot w ork in g w h ile attending sc h o o l, th ose
unable to w ork b ecau se o f lon g-term illn ess,
t h o s e d is c o u r a g e d fro m s e e k in g w o rk
b eca u se o f personal or job-m ark et factors,
and th ose w h o are volu n tarily idle. T h e noninstitutional population com p rises all per­
so n s 16 years o f age and old er w h o are not
in m ates o f p en al or m ental in stitu tion s, san­
itarium s, or h o m es for the aged , infirm , or
n eed y, and m em b ers o f the A rm ed F orces
stationed in the U n ited States. T h e labor
force participation rate is the proportion o f
the non institu tion al p op u lation that is in the
labor force. The employment-population
ratio is total em p lo y m en t (in clu d in g the res­
id en t A rm ed F orces) as a percent o f the
non institu tion al p op u lation .

ally adjusted data for the p reviou s 5 years are
revised , and projected season al adjustm ent
factors are calcu lated for u se during the Janu ary-Ju n e period. In July, n ew season al ad­
ju s tm e n t fa c to r s, w h ic h in co rp o ra te the
ex p erien ce through June, are p roduced for
the J u ly -D e c e m b e r p eriod but no rev isio n s
are m ade in the h istorical data.

Additional sources of information
F or d eta ile d e x p la n a tio n s o f the data, se e
Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s , 1 9 8 8 ), and for
a d d itio n a l data, Handbook o f Labor Statis­
tics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta­
tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ). H isto rica l u n ad ju sted data
from 19 4 8 to 1987 are a v a ila b le in Labor

bls

Force Statistics Derived from the Current
Population Survey, B u lle tin 2 3 0 7 (B u reau
o f L ab or S ta tistics, 1 9 8 8 ). H isto rica l se a ­
s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta a p p ea r in Labor

Force Statistics Derived from the Current
Population Survey: A Databook, V o l. II, B u l­
letin 2 0 9 6 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982),
a n d Revised Seasonally Adjusted Labor
Force Statistics, 1978-87, B u lle tin 2 3 0 6
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988).
A co m p reh en siv e d iscu ssio n o f the d if­
feren ces b etw een h o u seh o ld and esta b lish ­
m ent data on em p lo y m en t appears in G loria
P. Green, “Com paring em ploym ent estim ates
fro m h o u s e h o ld an d p a y r o ll s u r v e y s ,”
Monthly Labor Review, D ecem b er 1 9 6 9 , pp.
9 -2 0 .

Establishment survey data

Description of the series
Notes on the data
F rom tim e to tim e, and e s p e c ia lly after a
d e c e n n ia l c e n s u s , ad ju stm en ts are m a d e in
th e C urrent P o p u la tio n S u rv ey fig u r es to
correct for e stim a tin g errors d uring the
in te rcen sa l y ea rs. T h e se ad ju stm en ts a f­
fe c t the co m p a ra b ility o f h isto rica l data. A
d esc rip tio n o f th e se ad ju stm en ts and their
e f fe c t o n the v a rio u s data se ries appear in
the E xp lan atory N o te s o f Employment and

Earnings.
Labor fo rce data in tables 1 and 4 - 1 0 are
sea so n a lly adjusted b ased on the exp erien ce
th rou gh D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 . S in c e January
1980, n ational labor force data h ave b een
sea so n a lly adjusted w ith a procedure called
X - l l A R I M A w h ic h w a s d e v e lo p e d at S ta ­
tistic s C an ad a as an e x te n sio n o f the sta n d ­
ard X - l l m eth od p reviou sly u sed by bls . A
d etailed d escrip tion o f the procedure appears
in th e X - l l A R I M A S ea so n a l A d justm en t
M eth od , by E stela B e e D agu m (S tatistics
Canada, C atalogue N o. 1 2 -5 6 4 E , February
1980).
A t the end o f each calendar year, sea so n ­

E mployment, hours , and earnings data
in th is se c tio n are c o m p ile d from p a y ro ll
record s rep orted m o n th ly on a v o lu n ta ry
b a sis to th e B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s and
its c o o p e r a tin g S tate a g e n c ie s b y m ore
than 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 e sta b lish m en ts rep resen tin g
all in d u stries e x c e p t agricu ltu re. In m o st
in d u stries, the sa m p lin g p ro b a b ilities are
b a sed on the s iz e o f th e esta b lish m en t;
m o st large esta b lish m e n ts are th erefo re in
the sa m p le. (A n e sta b lish m e n t is n o t n e c ­
e ssa r ily a firm ; it m ay b e a b ranch p lan t,
fo r e x a m p le , or w a r e h o u s e .) S e l f - e m ­
p lo y e d p erso n s and others n ot on a reg u la r
c iv ilia n p a y ro ll are o u tsid e the sc o p e o f the
su rv e y b e c a u se th e y are e x c lu d e d from
e s ta b lis h m e n t reco r d s. T h is la r g e ly a c­
c o u n ts fo r the d iffe r e n c e in e m p lo y m e n t
fig u r es b e tw e e n th e h o u se h o ld and esta b ­
lish m en t su rv e y s.

Definitions
A n establishment is an e c o n o m ic un it
w h ich p ro d u ces g o o d s or s e r v ic e s (su ch as

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

77

Current Labor Statistics
a fa cto ry or sto re) at a sin g le lo c a tio n and
is en g a g ed in o n e type o f e c o n o m ic activity.

Employed persons are all p ersons w h o
receiv ed pay (in clu d in g h olid ay and sick
pay) for any part o f the payroll p eriod in clu d ­
ing the 12th o f the m onth. P erson s h old in g
m ore than o n e jo b (about 5 percent o f all
p ersons in the labor force) are cou n ted in
each esta b lish m en t w h ich reports them .
Production workers in m anufacturing
in c lu d e w o r k in g s u p e r v is o r s and n on su p ervisory w orkers c lo s e ly associated w ith
production operations. T h ose w orkers m en ­
tioned in tables 12—17 in clu d e production
w orkers in m anufacturing and m ining; co n ­
struction w orkers in construction; and nonsu p ervisory w orkers in the fo llo w in g in­
dustries: transportation and p u b lic utilities;
w h o le sa le and retail trade; fin an ce, insur­
a n ce, and real estate; and serv ices. T h ese
groups accou n t for about fou r-fifth s o f the
total em p lo y m en t on private nonagricultural
p ayrolls.
Earnings are the p a y m e n ts p ro d u ctio n
or n o n su p erv iso ry w o rk ers r e c e iv e during
the su rv e y p erio d , in c lu d in g p rem iu m p ay
for o v e r tim e or la te -s h ift w ork but e x c lu d ­
in g irregular b o n u se s and o th er sp e c ia l
p a y m e n ts. Real earnings are ea rn in g s ad ­
ju s te d to reflect the e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s in
c o n su m e r p rices. T h e d efla to r fo r th is s e ­
ries is d eriv ed from the C o n su m er P rice
In d ex fo r U rban W a g e Earners and C le r i­
ca l W ork ers ( cpi- w ).
Hours

rep resen t the a v era g e w e e k ly
h o u rs o f p r o d u c tio n or n o n su p e r v is o r y
w orkers for w h ich pay w as receiv ed , and are
d ifferen t from standard or sch ed u led hours.
Overtime hours represent the portion o f
average w e e k ly hours w h ich w as in e x c e s s
o f regular hours and for w h ich overtim e
prem iu m s w ere paid.

The Diffusion Index represents the per­
cen t o f industries in w h ich em p lo y m en t w as
risin g o v er the in d icated period, p lu s on eh a lf o f the industries w ith un ch an ged em ­
p lo y m en t; 5 0 p ercen t in d icates an equal
b a lan ce b etw een industries w ith in creasing
and d ecrea sin g em p lo y m en t. In lin e w ith
Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6m onth spans are sea so n a lly adjusted, w h ile
th o se for the 12-m onth span are unadjusted.
D ata are cen tered w ith in th e span. T h e
M arch 1989 Review introduced an exp an d ed
in d ex on private nonagricultural em p lo y ­
m en t b ased on 3 4 9 industries, and a n ew
m anufacturing in d ex b ased on 141 indus­
tries. T h ese in d ex es are u sefu l for m easu rin g
the d isp ersio n o f eco n o m ic gain s or lo sse s
and are a lso eco n o m ic indicators.

Notes on the data
E sta b lish m e n t su r v e y data are an n u ally
ad ju sted to c o m p r e h e n siv e c o u n ts o f e m ­

78

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

p lo y m e n t (c a lle d “b en ch m a r k s”). T h e la t­
e s t ad ju stm en t, w h ic h in corp orated M arch
198 8 b en ch m a rk s, w a s m a d e w ith the re­
le a s e o f M ay 1 9 8 9 data, p u b lish e d in the
Ju ly 1 9 8 9 iss u e o f the Review. C o in cid en t
w ith the b en ch m ark ad ju stm en ts, se a so n a lly a d ju sted data w ere re v ise d to r e fle c t
the e x p e r ie n c e through M arch 1 9 8 9 . U n ­
ad ju sted data h a v e b een r e v ise d b ack to
A p ril 1987; se a so n a lly a d ju sted data b ack
to Jan u ary 1 9 8 4 . T h e s e r e v is io n s w ere
p u b lish e d in the Supplement to Employ­
ment and Earnings (B u reau o f L ab or S ta ­
tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ). U n a d ju sted data from A p ril
1 9 8 8 forw ard and se a so n a lly a d ju sted d ata
from January 1 9 8 5 forw ard are su b ject to
r e v is io n in future b en ch m ark s.
T h e bls also u ses t h e X -7 7 ARIMA m eth ­
o d o lo g y to sea so n a lly adjust estab lish m en t
su rvey data. B e g in n in g in June 1989, pro­
jected season al adjustm ent factors are ca lcu ­
la te d o n ly fo r the fir st 6 m o n th s after
b enchm arking, rather than for 12 m onths
(A p ril-M a rch ) as w as p rev io u sly d on e. A
se co n d set o f projected factors, w h ich in cor­
porate the ex p erien ce through Septem ber,
w ill be p rod u ced for the su b seq u en t period
and introduced w ith the p u b lication o f data
for O ctober. T h e ch an ge m akes the p ro ce­
dure u sed for the estab lish m en t su rvey data
m ore parallel to that u sed in adjusting the
h o u seh o ld su rvey data. R e v isio n s o f h istor­
ical data w ill con tin u e to be m ade o n ce a year
co in cid en t w ith the benchm ark rev isio n s.
In the estab lish m en t su rvey, estim ates for
the 2 m o st recent m onth s are b ased on in ­
co m p lete returns and are p u b lish ed as pre­
lim in a ry in th e ta b le s (1 3 to 18 in the
Review). W h en all returns h ave b een re­
c e iv e d , the estim ates are revised and p u b ­
lish ed as “fin a l” (prior to any benchm ark
rev isio n s) in the third m onth o f their appear­
ance. T hus, D ece m b er data are p u b lish ed as
prelim inary in January and February and as
final in M arch. For the sam e reason s, quar­
terly estab lish m en t data (table 1) are p relim ­
inary for the first 2 m onth s o f p u b lication and
final in the third m onth. T hus, fourth-quarter
data are p u b lish ed as p relim inary in January
and February and as fin al in M arch.

Additional sources of information
D e ta ile d n ation al data from the e s ta b lish ­
m en t su rv e y are p u b lish e d m o n th ly in the
BLS p e r io d ic a l, Employment and Earn­
ings. E arlier co m p a ra b le u n ad ju sted and
se a so n a lly ad ju sted data are p u b lish e d in

E m p lo y m e n t, H o u rs, a n d E a rn in g s,
United States, 1909-84, B u lle tin 1 3 1 2 - 1 2
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 5 ) and its
an n u al su p p lem en t. F or a d eta ile d d is c u s ­
sio n o f the m e th o d o lo g y o f the su rv e y , se e
BLS Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ). F or

ad d ition al data, se e Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, B u lle tin 2 3 4 0 (B u reau o f L abor
S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ).
A co m p reh en siv e d iscu ssio n o f the d if­
feren ces b etw een h o u seh o ld and esta b lish ­
m ent data on em p lo y m en t appears in G loria
P. Green, “Com paring em ploym ent estim ates
from household and payroll surveys,” Month­
ly Labor Review, D ece m b er 1969, pp. 9 - 2 0 .

Unemployment data by State

Description of the series
D ata p resen ted in th is se c tio n are o b ta in ed
from tw o m ajor so u r c e s— the C urrent P o p ­
u la tio n S u rv ey ( cps ) and th e L o c a l A rea
U n e m p lo y m e n t S ta tistic s (laus ) p rogram ,
w h ic h is c o n d u c te d in co o p e r a tio n w ith
S tate e m p lo y m e n t se cu rity a g e n c ie s .
M on th ly estim ates o f the labor force, em ­
p loym en t, and u n em p loym en t for S tates and
su b -S tate areas are a k ey indicator o f lo ca l
eco n o m ic con d ition s and form the b asis for
d eterm in in g the e lig ib ility o f an area for
b en efits under F ederal e c o n o m ic a ssista n ce
program s such as the Job T raining Partner­
ship A ct and the Public W orks and E conom ic
D ev elo p m en t A ct. In sofar as p o ssib le , the
co n cep ts and d efin ition s u n d erlyin g these
data are th ose u sed in the national estim a tes
ob tain ed from the cps.

Notes on the data
D ata refer to S tate o f r e s id e n c e . M o n th ly
data for 11 S ta te s— C a lifo rn ia , F lo rid a ,
I llin o is , M a ssa c h u se tts, M ic h ig a n , N e w
Y ork , N e w Jersey, N orth C arolin a, O h io ,
P e n n s y lv a n ia , and T e x a s— are o b ta in ed
d irectly from the cps , b e c a u se the siz e o f
the sa m p le is large en o u g h to m e e t bls
standards o f r e lia b ility . D ata for the re­
m a in in g 3 9 S ta tes and the D istrict o f C o ­
lu m b ia are d e r iv e d u s in g sta n d a r d iz e d
p r o c e d u r e s e s ta b lish e d b y bls . O n c e a
year, e stim a te s fo r the 11 S ta tes are re­
v ise d to n ew p o p u la tio n co n tr o ls, F or the
rem a in in g S tates and the D istrict o f C o ­
lu m b ia , data are b en ch m ark ed to annual
average cps le v e ls .

Additional sources of information
In form ation o n the c o n c e p ts, d e fin itio n s,
and te ch n ica l p ro ced u res u sed to d e v e lo p
lab or fo r c e data for S ta tes and su b -S ta te
areas as w e ll as a d d itio n a l data on su b S ta tes are p ro v id ed in the m o n th ly B u reau
o f L ab or S ta tis tic s p e r io d ic a l, Employ­
ment and Earnings, and the annual report,

Geographic Profile o f Employment and Un­
employment (B u reau o f Labor Statistics).
S e e a lso bls Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin
2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s , 1 9 8 8 ).

Compensation and Wage Data
(T a b les 1 -3 ; 2 2 - 3 0 )

Compensation and wage data are ga th ­
ered by th e B u reau from b u sin e s s esta b ­
lish m e n ts, S tate and lo c a l g o v ern m en ts,
la b o r u n io n s, c o lle c t iv e b argain in g a g r e e ­
m en ts on f ile w ith th e B u reau , and se c o n d ­

m etrop olitan /n on m etrop olitan area series,
h o w ev er, em p loym en t data by industry and
occu p ation are n ot availab le from the cen su s.
Instead, the 1980 em p lo y m en t w eig h ts are
reallocated w ithin th ese series each quarter
b a sed on the current sam p le. T h erefore,
th ese in d ex es are not strictly com p arab le to
th ose for the aggregate, industry, and o c c u ­
pation series.

ary so u rc es.

Definitions
Employment Cost Index

Description of the series
T h e Employment Cost Index ( eci) is a
quarterly m ea su re o f th e rate o f c h a n g e in
c o m p e n sa tio n p er h ou r w o rk ed and in ­
c lu d e s w a g e s , sa la r ie s, and e m p lo y e r c o s ts
o f e m p lo y e e b e n e fits . It u se s a fix e d m ar­
k et b a sk et o f lab or— sim ila r in c o n c e p t to
the C o n su m er P rice I n d e x ’s fix e d m ark et
b a sk et o f g o o d s and s e r v ic e s— to m easu re
c h a n g e o v e r tim e in e m p lo y e r c o s ts o f
e m p lo y in g lab or. T h e in d e x is n ot se a so n ­
a lly a d ju sted .
S tatistical series on total com p en sation
c o sts, on w a g es and salaries, and on b en efit
co sts are availa b le for private nonfarm w ork ­
ers e x c lu d in g p r o p r ie to r s, th e s e lf- e m ­
p lo y ed , and h o u seh o ld w orkers. T h e total
co m p en sa tio n co sts and w a g es and salaries
series are a lso availab le for State and lo ca l
g o v ern m en t w ork ers and for the civilian
nonfarm eco n o m y , w h ich co n sists o f private
industry and State and lo ca l govern m en t
w orkers co m b in ed . F ederal w orkers are e x ­
clu d ed .
T h e E m p lo y m en t C ost Index probability
sa m p le co n sists o f about 4 ,2 0 0 private non­
farm esta b lish m en ts p rovid in g about 2 2 ,0 0 0
occu p a tio n a l o b servation s and 8 0 0 State and
lo ca l g overn m en t estab lish m en ts p rovid in g
4 ,2 0 0 o ccu p ation al ob servation s selecte d to
represent total em p lo y m en t in each sector.
O n average, each reporting unit p rovid es
w a g e and co m p en sation inform ation on fiv e
w e ll-sp e c ifie d o ccu p a tio n s. D ata are c o l­
lected each quarter for the pay p eriod in clu d ­
in g the 12th day o f M arch, June, Septem ber,
and D ecem b er.
B e g in n in g w ith June 1986 data, fix ed
em p lo y m en t w eig h ts from the 19 8 0 C en sus
o f P opu lation are u sed each quarter to ca lcu l­
ate the civ ilia n and private in d ex es and the
in d ex for State and lo ca l govern m en ts. (Prior
to June 1986, the em p lo y m en t w eig h ts are
from the 19 7 0 C en su s o f P op u lation .) T h ese
fix e d w eig h ts, a lso used to d erive all o f the
industry and occu p ation series in d ex es, en ­
sure that ch a n g es in th ese in d ex es reflect
o n ly ch a n g es in com p en sation , not em p lo y ­
m en t sh ifts am ong industries or o ccu p ation s
w ith d ifferen t le v e ls o f w a g es and com p en ­
sation. For the b argaining status, region , and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Total compensation c o s ts

in c lu d e w a g e s ,
sa la r ie s, and th e e m p lo y e r ’s c o s ts for e m ­
p lo y e e b en efits.
Wages and salaries co n sist o f earnings
b efore payroll d ed u ction s, in clu d in g produc­
tion b on u ses, in cen tiv e earn in gs, c o m m is­
sio n s, and co s t-o f-liv in g adjustm ents.
Benefits in clu d e the co st to em p loyers
for paid lea v e, supplem ental pay (in clu d in g
nonproduction b o n u ses), insurance, retire­
m ent and sa vin gs plans, and leg a lly required
b en efits (su ch as S o cia l Secu rity, w o rk ers’
co m p en sa tio n , and u n em p lo y m en t insur­
ance).
E x clu d ed from w a g es and salaries and
em p lo y e e b en efits are su ch item s as paym en t-in -k in d , free room and board, and tips.

Notes on the data
T h e E m p lo y m e n t C o st In d ex for ch a n g e s
in w a g e s and sa la ries in the p rivate n o n ­
farm e c o n o m y w a s p u b lish ed b e g in n in g in
1 9 7 5 . C h a n g e s in to ta l c o m p e n s a t io n
c o s t — w a g e s an d s a la r ie s an d b e n e f its
c o m b in e d — w ere p u b lish ed b e g in n in g in
1 9 8 0 . T h e se ries o f ch a n g e s in w a g e s and
sa la ries and for total c o m p e n sa tio n in the
S tate and lo c a l g o v ern m en t se cto r and in
th e c iv ilia n n on farm e c o n o m y (e x c lu d in g
F ed eral e m p lo y e e s ) w ere p u b lish ed b e g in ­
n in g in 1 9 8 1 . H isto r ic a l in d e x e s (Jun e
1 9 8 1 = 1 0 0 ) o f the quarterly rates o f c h a n g e
are p resen ted in the M arch iss u e o f the bls
p e rio d ica l, Current Wage Developments.

Additional sources of information
F or a m ore d eta ile d d is c u s s io n o f the E m ­
p lo y m e n t C o s t In d ex, se e the bls Hand­
book o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f
L ab or S ta tistic s, 1988); Employment Cost
Indexes and Levels, 1 9 7 5 - 8 8 , B u lle tin
2 3 1 9 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1988);
and th e f o llo w in g Monthly Labor Review
articles: “ E stim a tio n p ro ced u res for the
E m p lo y m e n t C o st In d e x ,” M ay 1982; and
“In trod u cin g n ew w e ig h ts for the E m p lo y ­
m en t C o st I n d e x ,” June 1 9 8 5 .
D ata on the eci are a lso availab le in bls
quarterly press releases issu ed in the m onth
fo llo w in g the referen ce m onth s o f M arch,
June, Septem ber, and D ecem b er; and from

the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, B u lletin
2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 1989).

Collective bargaining settlements

Description of the series
Collective bargaining settlements data
p ro v id e sta tistica l m ea su res o f n eg o tia ted
a d ju s tm e n ts (in c r e a s e s , d e c r e a s e s , and
fr e e z e s ) in c o m p e n sa tio n (w a g e and b e n e ­
fit c o s ts ) and w a g e s a lo n e , quarterly for
p r iv a te in d u str y an d s e m ia n n u a lly fo r
S tate and lo c a l go v ern m en t. C o m p e n sa ­
tion m ea su res c o v e r all c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in ­
in g situ a tio n s in v o lv in g 5 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers or
m ore and w a g e m ea su res c o v e r a ll situ a ­
tio n s in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m o re.
T h e se data, c o v e r in g p rivate n o n a g ricu ltural in d u stries and S tate and lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m en ts, are ca lc u la te d u sin g in fo rm a tio n
o b ta in ed from b argain in g a g reem en ts on
f ile w ith th e B u reau , p arties to the a g ree­
m e n ts , and se c o n d a r y s o u r c e s, su ch as
n ew sp a p er a cco u n ts. T h e data are n o t se a ­
so n a lly ad ju sted.
S ettlem en t data are m easu red in term s o f
future sp ec ified adjustm ents: th o se that w ill
o ccu r w ithin 12 m onth s o f the contract e ffe c ­
tive date— first-year— and all adjustm ents
that w ill occu r o v er the life o f the contract
ex p ressed as an average annual rate. A djust­
m en ts are w orker w eig h ted . B o th first-year
and o v er-th e -life m easu res ex clu d e w a g e
ch an ges that m ay occu r under co s t-o f-liv in g
cla u ses that are triggered by future m o v e ­
m en ts in the C on su m er P rice Index.
Effective wage adjustments m ea su re
all a d ju stm en ts occu rrin g in the referen ce
p eriod , reg a rd less o f the se ttle m e n t date.
In c lu d e d are c h a n g e s fro m s e ttle m e n ts
reach ed d uring th e p erio d , c h a n g e s d e ­
ferred from con tracts n e g o tia ted in ea rlier
p erio d s, and c h a n g e s u n d er c o s t- o f- liv in g
a d ju stm en t c la u se s. E ach w a g e c h a n g e is
w ork er w e ig h te d . T h e c h a n g e s are p ro ­
rated o v e r a ll w ork ers u n d er a g reem en ts
d uring the referen ce p erio d y ie ld in g the
a v era g e ad ju stm en t.

Definitions
Wage rate changes

are c a lc u la te d b y d i­
v id in g n e w ly n e g o tia te d w a g e s b y the
a v er a g e str a ig h t-tim e h o u rly w a g e rate
p lu s sh ift p rem iu m at the tim e th e a g r e e ­
m en t is reach ed . Compensation changes
are c a lc u la te d b y d iv id in g th e c h a n g e in
the v a lu e o f the n e w ly n eg o tia te d w a g e
and b e n e fit p a c k a g e by e x is tin g a v era g e
h ou rly c o m p e n sa tio n , w h ich in c lu d e s the
c o s t o f p r e v io u sly n e g o tia te d b e n e fits , l e ­
g a lly req u ired s o c ia l in su ran ce p ro g ra m s,
and a v era g e h ou rly earn in gs.
Compensation changes are calcu lated

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

79

Current Labor Statistics
by p la cin g a v alu e on the b en efit portion o f
the settlem en ts at the tim e they are reached.
T he co st estim ates are b ased on the assu m p ­
tion that co n d itio n s ex istin g at the tim e o f
settlem en t (for ex a m p le, m eth od s o f fin an c­
in g p en sio n s or co m p o sitio n o f labor force)
w ill rem ain constant. T h e data, therefore, are
m easu res o f n eg o tia ted ch an ges and not o f
total ch a n g es o f em p lo y er cost.
Contract duration runs from the e ffe c ­
tiv e date o f the agreem ent to the expiration
date or first w a g e reop en in g date, if ap p lica­
b le. A v era g e annual p ercent ch an ges o ver
the contract term take accou n t o f the co m ­
p o u n din g o f s u c c e ss iv e ch an ges.

Notes on the data
C o m p a riso n s o f m ajor c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in ­
in g se ttle m e n ts fo r S ta te and lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m e n t w it h t h o s e fo r p r iv a t e in d u s tr y
sh o u ld n o te d iffe r e n c e s in o cc u p a tio n a l
m ix , b a rg a in in g p ra ctices, and se ttle m e n t
c h a r a c te r is tic s . P r o fe s sio n a l an d w h ite c o lla r e m p lo y e e s , for e x a m p le , m a k e up a
m u c h la rg er p ro p o rtio n o f the w ork ers
co v e r e d b y g o v e r n m e n t rather than by pri­
v a te in d u stry se ttlem en ts. L u m p -su m p a y ­
m e n ts a n d c o s t - o f - l i v i n g a d ju s tm e n ts
(cola ) c la u se s, o n the o th er h an d , are rare
in g o v ern m en t but c o m m o n in p rivate in ­
d u stry se ttle m e n ts. A ls o , S tate and lo c a l
g o v e r n m e n t b a r g a in in g fr e q u e n tly e x ­
c lu d e s item s su ch as p e n sio n b e n e fits and
h o lid a y s, that are p rescrib ed b y la w , w h ile
th e se item s are ty p ic a l b a rg a in in g iss u e s in
p riv a te in d ustry.

Additional sources of information
F or a m o re d eta ile d d is c u s s io n on the s e ­
ries, se e th e bls Handbook o f Methods,
B u lle tin 2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s,
1 9 8 8 ). C o m p r e h e n siv e data are p u b lish ed
in p ress r e le a s e s iss u e d quarterly (in January, A p ril, J u ly , and O cto b er) fo r p rivate
in d u stry, and se m ia n n u a lly (in F ebruary
and A u g u st) fo r S ta te and lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m en t. H isto rica l data and a d d itio n a l d e ­
ta iled ta b u la tio n s fo r the prior calen d ar
y ea r ap p ear in the A p ril iss u e o f th e bls
p e rio d ica l, Current Wage Developments.

Work stoppages
Description of the series
D ata on w ork sto p p a g e s m easu re the n u m ­
ber and duration o f m ajor strik es or lo c k ­
o u ts (in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m ore)
o ccu rrin g d uring th e m onth (or y ea r), the
n u m b e r o f w o r k e r s i n v o lv e d , an d the
am oun t o f tim e lo st b e c a u se o f sto p p a g e.
D ata are la rg ely from n ew sp ap er ac­
cou n ts and co v er o n ly estab lish m en ts di-

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized80for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

rectly in v o lv ed in a stop p age. T h ey d o not
m easure the indirect or secon dary e ffe c t o f
stop p ages on other estab lish m en ts w h o se
em p lo y e e s are id le o w in g to m aterial short­
a ges or lack o f service.

Definitions
Number of stoppages: T h e n u m b er o f
s t r ik e s a n d lo c k o u t s i n v o l v i n g 1 ,0 0 0
w ork ers or m ore and la stin g a fu ll sh ift or
lo n g er.
Workers involved: T h e n u m b e r o f
w orkers d irectly in v o lv ed in the stop p age.
Number of days idle: T he aggregate
num ber o f w ork d ays lo st by w orkers in ­
v o lv e d in the stop p ages.
Days of idleness as a percent of esti­
mated working time: A ggregate w ork d ays
lo st as a percent o f the aggregate num ber o f
standard w ork d ays in the period m ultip lied
b y total em p lo y m en t in the period.

Notes on the data
T h is se r ie s is n o t co m p a ra b le w ith the o n e
term in ated in 1981 that c o v e r e d strik es
in v o lv in g six w ork ers or m ore.

Additional sources of information
D ata fo r e a ch calen d ar y ea r are rep orted in
a bls p ress r e le a se iss u e d in the first quar­
ter o f the f o llo w in g year. M o n th ly and
h isto rica l data ap p ear in the bls p e r io d i­
c a l, Current Wage Developments. H isto r ­
ic a l d ata appear in the Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, B u lle tin 2 3 4 0 (B u reau o f L ab or
S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ).

Other compensation data
O ther bls data on p ay and b e n e fits , n ot
in clu d ed in th e C urrent L ab or S ta tistics
se c tio n o f the Monthly Labor Review, a p ­
p ear in and c o n s is t o f the fo llo w in g :
Industry Wage Surveys p rovid e data for
sp e c ific occu p a tion s se lecte d to represent an
in d ustry’s w a g e structure and the typ es o f
a ctiv ities p erform ed b y its w orkers. T he B u ­
reau c o lle c ts inform ation on w e e k ly w ork
sc h ed u les, sh ift op eration s and p ay d ifferen ­
tials, paid h olid ay and vacation p ractices,
and inform ation on the in cid en ce o f health,
insurance, and retirem ent plans. R eports are
issu ed throughout the year as the su rveys are
com p leted . Su m m aries o f the data and sp e­
cial a n a ly ses a lso appear in the Monthly

Labor Review.
Area Wage Surveys an n u ally p rovid e
data for se lecte d o f fic e , clerical, p ro fes­
sio n a l, tech n ical, m ain ten an ce, toolroom ,
p ow erplant, m aterial m ovem en t, and cu sto ­
dial occu p ation s co m m o n to a w id e variety
o f industries in the areas (labor m arkets)
su rveyed . R eports are issu ed throughout the

year as the su rveys are com p leted . S u m m a­
ries o f the data and sp ecial an alyses a lso
appear in the Review.

The National Survey o f Professional,
Adm inistrative, Technical, and Clerical
P n y p rovid es d etailed inform ation annually
on salary le v e ls and distributions for the
typ es o f jo b s m en tion ed in the su r v e y ’s title
in private em p loym en t. A lth ou gh the d efin i­
tion s o f the jo b s su rveyed reflect the duties
and resp o n sib ilities in private industry, they
are d esig n ed to m atch sp e c ific p ay grades o f
F ederal w h ite-co lla r em p lo y e e s under the
G eneral S ch ed u le p ay system . A cco r d in g ly ,
this survey p rovid es the le g a lly required in­
form ation for com p arin g the p ay o f salaried
em p lo y e e s in the F ederal civ il se rv ice w ith
p ay in private industry. (S e e F ederal Pay
C om parability A ct o f 1970, 5 u.S.c. 5 3 0 5 .)
D ata are p u b lish ed in a bls n ew s release
issu ed in the su m m er and in a b u lletin each
fall; sum m aries and an alytical articles also
appear in the Review.

Employee Benefits Survey p rovid es na­
tio n w id e inform ation on the in cid en ce and
characteristics o f e m p lo y e e b en efit p lans in
m ed iu m and large esta b lish m en ts in the
U n ited States, ex clu d in g A lask a and H aw aii.
D ata are p u b lish ed in an annual bls n ew s
release and b u lletin , as w e ll as in sp ecia l
articles appearing in the Review.

Price Data
(T ab les 2; 3 1 - 4 3 )

Price data are g ath ered b y the B u reau o f
L ab or S ta tistics from retail and prim ary
m arkets in the U n ite d S tates. P rice in d e x e s
are g iv e n in relation to a b a se p erio d ( 1 9 8 2
= 100 for m an y P rod u cer P rice In d e x e s or
1 9 8 2 - 8 4 = 100 for m an y C o n su m er P rice
In d e x e s, u n le ss o th e r w ise n o te d ).

Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
T h e Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a m e a ­
sure o f the a v era g e c h a n g e in the p rices
p aid b y urban c o n su m ers for a fix e d m ar­
k et b ask et o f g o o d s and se r v ic e s. T h e CPI
is c a lcu la ted m o n th ly for tw o p o p u la tio n
g r o u p s , o n e c o n s i s t i n g o n ly o f urban
h o u se h o ld s w h o s e p rim ary so u rc e o f in ­
c o m e is d eriv ed from the e m p lo y m e n t o f
w a g e earners and c le r ic a l w o rk ers, and the
o th er c o n sis tin g o f all urban h o u se h o ld s.
T h e w a g e earner in d ex ( cpi- w ) is a c o n tin ­
u ation o f the h isto ric in d ex that w a s in tro­
d u ced w e ll o v e r a h a lf-cen tu ry a g o for u se
in w a g e n e g o tia tio n s. A s n ew u se s w ere
d e v e lo p e d fo r the CPI in recen t y ea rs, the
n eed for a b road er and m o re rep resen ta tiv e
in d ex b ec a m e apparent. T h e all-u rb an co n -

su m er in d ex (CPI-U), in trod u ced in 1 9 7 8 ,
is rep resen ta tiv e o f the 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 b u y in g
h ab its o f ab ou t 8 0 p ercen t o f th e n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n o f the U n ite d S tates at
that tim e, co m p a red w ith 3 2 p ercen t rep re­
se n ted in th e cpi-W. In a d d itio n to w a g e
earn ers and c le r ic a l w o rk ers, th e cpi-U
c o v e r s p r o fe ss io n a l, m a n a g eria l, and te c h ­
n ica l w o rk ers, the se lf-e m p lo y e d , sh o rt­
term w o rk ers, the u n e m p lo y e d , retirees,
and o th ers n o t in the lab or fo rce.
T h e CPI is b ased on p rices o f fo o d , cloth ­
in g, shelter, fu el, drugs, transportation fares,
d o cto rs’ and d en tists’ fe e s, and other g o o d s
and serv ices that p eo p le buy for day-to-d ay
liv in g . T h e quantity and quality o f these
item s are kept essen tia lly u n changed b e ­
tw een m ajor rev isio n s so that o n ly p rice
ch a n g es w ill b e m easured. A ll taxes d irectly
a sso cia ted w ith the p urchase and u se o f
item s are in clu d ed in the in d ex.
D ata c o lle c te d from m ore than 2 1 ,0 0 0
retail esta b lish m en ts and 6 0 ,0 0 0 h ou sin g
units in 91 urban areas across the country are
u sed to d ev elo p the “U .S . city avera g e.”
Separate estim a tes for 27 m ajor urban cen ­
ters are presen ted in table 32. T h e areas listed
are as in d icated in fo o tn o te 1 to the table. T h e
area in d e x e s m ea su re o n ly th e a v era g e
ch a n g e in p rices for each area sin ce the b ase
period, and d o n ot in d icate d ifferen ces in the
le v e l o f prices am on g cities.

Notes on the data
In January 1 9 8 3 , the B u reau c h a n g e d the
w a y in w h ic h h o m e o w n e r sh ip c o s ts are
m ea su red fo r the cpi-U. A rental e q u iv a ­
le n c e m eth o d rep la ced the a sse t-p r ic e ap­
p ro a ch to h o m e o w n e r sh ip c o s ts for that
se ries. In January 1 9 8 5 , the sa m e ch a n g e
w a s m a d e in th e CPI-W. T h e cen tral pur­
p o se o f the c h a n g e w a s to sep arate sh elter
c o s ts from the in v e stm e n t c o m p o n e n t o f
h o m e o w n e r sh ip so that the in d ex w o u ld
re fle c t o n ly th e c o s t o f sh elter se r v ic e s
p ro v id ed b y o w n e r -o c c u p ie d h o m e s. A n
u p d ated cpi-U and CPi-w w ere in trod u ced
w ith r e le a se o f the January 198 7 data.

Additional sources of information
F or a d is c u s s io n o f the gen era l m eth o d for
c o m p u tin g the CPI, se e bls Handbook o f
Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f L ab or
S ta tistics, 1 9 8 8 ). T h e recen t ch a n g e in the
m ea su rem en t o f h o m e o w n e r sh ip c o s ts is
d isc u s se d in R o b ert G illin g h a m and W a l­
ter L a n e, “ C h a n g in g the treatm en t o f s h e l­
ter c o s t s fo r h o m e o w n e r s in th e CPI,”
Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9 - 1 4 .
A n o v erv iew o f the recently introduced re­
v ise d CPI, reflectin g 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 expenditure
patterns, is con tain ed in The Consumer Price
Index: 1987 Revision, R eport 7 3 6 (Bureau
o f Labor S tatistics, 1987).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A d d ition al d etailed CPI data and regular
an alyses o f con su m er price ch an ges are p ro­
v id ed in the CPI Detailed Report, a m onth ly
p u b lication o f the B ureau. H istorical data for
the overall CPI and for selecte d grou p in gs
m ay be foun d in the Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics, 1989).

Producer Price Indexes

Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (ppi)

m ea su re
a v era g e ch a n g e s in p rices r e c e iv e d b y d o ­
m e stic p rod u cers o f c o m m o d itie s in all
sta g e s o f p r o c e s sin g . T h e sa m p le u sed for
c a lc u la tin g th e se in d e x e s cu rren tly c o n ­
tain s ab ou t 3 ,1 0 0 c o m m o d itie s and ab ou t
7 5 ,0 0 0 q u o ta tio n s p er m on th , se le c te d to
rep resen t the m o v e m e n t o f p rices o f all
c o m m o d itie s p ro d u ced in the m an u factu r­
in g ; a g r ic u ltu r e , fo r e s tr y , and fis h in g ;
m in in g; and g as and e le c tr ic ity and p u b lic
u tilitie s se cto r s. T h e sta g e o f p r o c e s sin g
structure o f P rod u cer P rice In d e x e s o rg a ­
n iz e s p rod u cts b y c la s s o f b u y er and d e ­
gree o f fab rication (th at is, fin is h e d g o o d s,
in term ed ia te g o o d s , and cru d e m a teria ls).
T h e trad ition al c o m m o d ity structure o f ppi
o rg a n iz e s p rod u cts b y sim ila rity o f en d
u se or m aterial c o m p o sitio n . T h e in d ustry
and p rod u ct structure o f ppi o rg a n iz e s data
in a cco rd a n ce w ith the Standard In d u strial
C la ss ific a tio n (sic) and th e p rod u ct c o d e
e x te n sio n o f the Sic d e v e lo p e d by the U .S .
B u reau o f the C en su s.
T o the exten t p o ssib le , p rices u sed in
calcu latin g Producer P rice In d exes apply to
the first sign ifican t com m ercial transaction
in the U n ited States from the production or
central m arketing point. P rice data are g en ­
erally co lle c te d m on th ly, prim arily by m ail
questionnaire. M ost p rices are ob tain ed d i­
rectly from p rod u cin g com p an ies on a v o l­
u n ta r y a n d c o n f i d e n t i a l b a s i s . P r ic e s
gen erally are reported for the T u esd ay o f the
w e e k con tain in g the 13th day o f the m onth.
S in ce January 1987, p rice ch an ges for the
variou s co m m o d ities h ave b een averaged
togeth er w ith im p licit quantity w eig h ts rep­
resen tin g their im portance in the total net
se llin g valu e o f all co m m o d ities as o f 1982.
T h e d etailed data are aggregated to obtain
in d ex es for sta g e-o f-p ro cessin g grou p in gs,
co m m o d ity grou p in gs, durability-of-product grou p in gs, and a num ber o f sp ecial c o m ­
p o site groups. A ll Producer P rice In d ex data
are su b ject to revision 4 m onth s after origin al
pub lication .

Notes on the data
B e g in n in g w ith the January 1 9 8 6 iss u e ,
the Review is n o lo n g e r p resen tin g tab les

o f P rod u cer P rice In d e x e s for co m m o d ity
g ro u p in g s or sp e c ia l c o m p o site g ro u p s.
H o w e v e r , th e se data w ill c o n tin u e to b e
p resen ted in the B u r e a u ’s m o n th ly p u b li­
ca tio n , Producer Price Indexes.
T h e B ureau has co m p leted the first m ajor
stage o f its co m p reh en siv e overh au l o f the
theory, m eth od s, and procedures u sed to
c o n s t r u c t th e P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s .
C h an ges in clu d e the rep lacem en t o f ju d g e­
m en t sam p lin g w ith probability sam p lin g
tech n iqu es; ex p a n sio n to system a tic co v er­
age o f the net output o f virtually all indus­
tr ie s in th e m in in g an d m a n u fa c tu r in g
sectors; a shift from a co m m o d ity to an in­
dustry orientation; the ex c lu sio n o f im ports
from , and the in clu sio n o f exp orts in, the
su rvey universe; and the resp ecifica tio n o f
co m m o d ities priced to con form to B ureau o f
the C en su s d e fin itio n s. T h e se and other
ch an ges h ave b een p h ased in gradually sin ce
1978. T h e result is a sy stem o f in d ex es that
is easier to u se in con ju n ction w ith data on
w a g es, p rod u ctivity, and em p lo y m en t and
other series that are organ ized in term s o f the
Standard Industrial C la ssific a tio n and the
cen su s product cla ss d esign atio n s.

Additional sources of information
F or a d is c u s s io n o f th e m e th o d o lo g y for
c o m p u tin g P rod u cer P rice In d e x e s , se e BLS
Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5 (B u ­
reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ).
A d d ition al d etailed data and a n a ly ses o f
p rice ch a n g es are p rovid ed m onth ly in Pro­
ducer Price Indexes. S elected h istorical data
m ay b e foun d in the Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (Bureau o f Labor
S tatistics, 1989).

International Price Indexes

Description of the series
T h e bls International Price Program
p ro d u ces quarterly e x p o rt and im port p rice
in d e x e s for n o n m ilita ry g o o d s traded b e ­
tw e e n th e U n ite d S ta tes and the rest o f the
w orld . T h e e x p o rt p rice in d ex p r o v id e s a
m easu re o f p rice c h a n g e for a ll p ro d u cts
so ld b y U .S . resid en ts to fo r e ig n b u y ers.
(“R e s id e n ts ” is d e fin e d as in th e n a tio n a l
in c o m e accou n ts: it in c lu d e s co rp o ra tio n s,
b u s in e s s e s , and in d iv id u a ls b ut d o e s n ot
require th e o r g a n iz a tio n s to b e U .S . o w n e d
n or th e in d iv id u a ls to h a v e U .S . c itiz e n ­
sh ip .) T h e im port p rice in d ex p r o v id e s a
m ea su re o f p rice c h a n g e fo r g o o d s pur­
c h a se d from oth er co u n tr ies b y U .S . r e s i­
d en ts. W ith p u b lic a tio n o f an a ll-im p o rt
in d e x in F ebruary 198 3 and an a ll-e x p o r t
in d ex in F ebruary 1 9 8 4 , a ll U .S . m erch a n ­
d ise im p orts and ex p o rts n o w are rep re­
se n te d in th e s e in d e x e s . T h e r e feren ce

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

81

Current Labor Statistics
p eriod fo r the in d e x e s is 1 9 8 5 = 1 0 0 , u n less
o th e rw ise in d ica ted .
The product u n iverse for both the im port
and export in d ex es in clu d es raw m aterials,
agricultural products, sem ifin ish ed m anu­
factures, and fin ish ed m anufactures, in clu d ­
in g both capital and co n su m er g o o d s. Price
data for these item s are co lle c te d quarterly
by m ail qu estion n aire. In nearly all c a ses, the
data are co lle c te d d irectly from the exporter
or im porter, although in a fe w ca ses, p rices
are ob tain ed from other sou rces.
T o the ex ten t p o ssib le , the data gathered
refer to p rices at the U .S . border for exports
and at either the fo reig n border or the U .S .
border for im ports. For nearly all products,
the p rices refer to transactions com p leted
during the first 2 w eek s o f the third m onth o f
each calendar quarter— M arch, June, S ep ­
tem ber, and D ecem b er. S u rvey respondents
are ask ed to in d icate all d iscou n ts, a llo w ­
an ces, and rebates a p p licab le to the reported
p rices, so that the p rice u sed in the calcu la­
tion o f the in d ex es is the actual p rice for
w h ich the product w a s b ought or sold.
In addition to general in d ex es o f prices
for U .S . exp orts and im ports, in d ex es are
a lso p u b lish ed for d etailed product c a teg o ­
ries o f exp orts and im ports. T h ese categories
are d efin ed by the 4 - and 5 -d ig it le v e l o f
detail o f the Standard Industrial Trade C las­
sifica tio n S y stem (siTC). T he calcu lation o f
in d ex es by sitc categ o ry facilitates the c o m ­
p arison o f U .S . price trends and sector pro­
d u ction w ith sim ilar data for other countries.
D eta iled in d ex es are a lso com p uted and pub­
lish ed on a Standard Industrial C lassification
(sic -b a se d ) b a sis, as w e ll as by en d -u se class.

Notes on the data
T h e e x p o rt and im port p rice in d e x e s are
w e ig h te d in d e x e s o f th e L a sp ey res typ e.
P rice r ela tiv es are a ssig n e d eq u a l im p ort­
a n ce w ith in e a ch w e ig h t ca te g o r y and are
then aggregated to the sitc lev el. T h e valu es
a ss ig n e d to ea ch w e ig h t c a teg o ry are b ased
on trade v a lu e fig u r es c o m p ile d by the
B u reau o f the C en su s. T h e trade w e ig h ts
cu rren tly u sed to co m p u te b oth in d e x e s
relate to 1 9 8 5 .
B e ca u se a price in d ex d ep en d s on the
sam e item s b ein g priced from period to p e ­
riod, it is n ecessa ry to reco g n ize w h en a
p rod u ct’s sp ec ifica tio n s or term s o f transac­
tion h a v e b een m o d ified . For this reason, the
B u rea u ’s quarterly questionnaire requests
d etailed d escrip tio n s o f the p h ysical and
fu n ctio n a l ch aracteristics o f the products
b ein g p riced , as w e ll as inform ation on the
num ber o f units b ought or sold , d iscou n ts,
credit term s, p ack agin g, cla ss o f buyer or
seller, and so forth. W h en there are ch an ges
in either the sp ec ifica tio n s or term s o f trans­
action o f a product, the d ollar valu e o f each

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized82for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

ch an ge is d eleted from the total p rice ch an ge
to obtain the “pure” ch an ge. O n ce this valu e
is d eterm ined, a lin k in g procedure is em ­
p lo y ed w h ich a llo w s for the con tinu ed re­
p ricin g o f the item .
For the exp ort p rice in d ex es, the pre­
ferred p ricin g b asis is f.a.s. (free alo n g sid e
sh ip ) U .S . port o f exportation. W h en firm s
report export p rices f.o.b . (free on board),
p rod u ction p oin t inform ation is co llected
w h ich en ab les the B ureau to calcu late a sh ip ­
m en t co st to the port o f exportation. A n
attem pt is m ade to c o lle c t tw o p rices for
im ports. T h e first is the im port price f.o.b . at
the foreign port o f exp ortation , w h ich is
co n sisten t w ith the b asis for valu ation o f
im ports in the national accou n ts. T h e secon d
is the im port price c .i.f. (cost, insurance, and
freigh t) at the U .S . port o f im portation ,
w h ich a lso in clu d es the other co sts a ss o c i­
ated w ith bringing the product to the U .S .
border. It d o es not, h o w ev er, in clu d e duty
ch arges. For a g iv en product, o n ly o n e p rice
b asis series is u sed in the con stru ction o f an
index.
B e g in n in g in 1988, the Bureau has also
b een p u b lish in g a series o f in d ex es w h ich
represent the price o f U .S . exp orts and im ­
ports in foreign currency term s.

Additional sources of information
F or a d is c u s s io n o f the g en era l m eth o d o f
c o m p u tin g In tern a tio n a l P r ic e I n d e x e s ,
se e bls Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin
2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ).
A d d ition al d etailed data and an alyses o f
international price d evelop m en ts are p re­
sen ted in the B u reau ’s quarterly p u b lication ,
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in
occasional Monthly Labor Review articles pre­
pared by bls analysts. Selected historical data
m ay be found in the Handbook o f Labor Sta­
tistics, Bulletin 2 3 4 0 (Bureau o f Labor Statis­
tics, 1989). For further information on the
foreign currency indexes, see “bls publishes
average exchange rate and foreign currency
price in d exes,” Monthly Labor Review, D e ­
cem ber 1987, pp. 4 7 -4 9 .

Productivity Data
(T ab les 2; 4 4 - 4 7 )

Business sector and major sectors

Description of the series
T h e p r o d u c t iv it y m e a s u r e s r e la te real
p h y sic a l ou tp u t to real input. A s su ch , th ey
e n c o m p a ss a fa m ily o f m ea su res w h ich
in c lu d e s in g le -fa c to r input m ea su res, su ch
as ou tp u t p er u n it o f lab or in p ut (ou tp u t per
h ou r) or o u tp u t per unit o f ca p ita l in p u t, as

w e ll as m ea su res o f m u ltifa cto r p ro d u ctiv ­
ity (ou tp u t per u n it o f c o m b in e d lab or and
ca p ita l in p u ts). T h e B u reau in d e x e s sh o w
the ch a n g e in ou tp u t rela tiv e to c h a n g e s in
the v a rio u s in p uts. T h e m ea su res c o v e r the
b u sin e s s, n on farm b u sin e s s, m an u fa ctu r­
in g , and n o n fin a n cia l corp orate secto r s.
C orresp on d in g in d ex es o f hourly c o m ­
p en sation , unit labor c o sts, unit nonlabor
p aym en ts, and p rices are a lso provided.

Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (la b o r
p r o d u c tiv ity ) is the v a lu e o f g o o d s and
s e r v ic e s in co n sta n t p rices p ro d u ced per
hour o f lab or input. Output per unit of
capital services (cap ital p r o d u ctiv ity ) is
the v a lu e o f g o o d s and s e r v ic e s in co n sta n t
d ollars p rod u ced p er unit o f cap ital ser­
v ic e s input.
Multifactor productivity is the valu e o f
g o o d s and se rv ices in con stan t p rices pro­
d u ced per com b in ed unit o f labor and capital
in p u ts. C h a n g e s in this m easu re reflect
ch an ges in a num ber o f factors w h ich a ffect
the production p rocess, su ch as ch an g es in
tech n o lo g y , sh ifts in the co m p o sitio n o f the
labor force, ch an ges in cap acity u tilization ,
research and d evelop m en t, sk ill and effort o f
the w ork force, m anagem en t, and so forth.
C h an ges in the output per hour m easu res
reflect the im pact o f th ese factors as w e ll as
the substitution o f capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the w a g es
and salaries o f em p lo y e e s p lu s e m p lo y e r s’
con trib ution s for so c ia l insurance and pri­
vate b en efit plans, and the w a g es, salaries,
and supplem entary p aym en ts for the selfem p lo y ed (ex cep t for n on fin an cial corporat io n s in w h ic h th e r e are n o s e l f - e m ­
p lo y e d )— the sum d ivid ed by hours at work.
Real compensation per hour is co m p en sa ­
tion per hour d eflated by the ch an ge in C on ­
sum er P rice In d ex for A ll Urban C onsum ers.
Unit labor costs are the labor co m p en sa ­
tion co sts exp en d ed in the p rod u ction o f a
unit o f output and are d erived by d ivid in g
co m p en sa tio n b y output. Unit nonlabor
payments in clu d e p rofits, d ep reciation , in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit o f output.
T h ey are com p uted by subtracting co m p en ­
sation o f all p erson s from current-dollar
valu e o f output and d iv id in g by output. Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the com ponents o f
unit nonlabor paym ents except unit profits.
Unit profits in clu d e corporate profits
w ith in ven tory valu ation and capital co n ­
su m p tion adjustm ents per unit o f output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at w ork o f p ayroll w orkers, se lf-e m p lo y e d
p ersons, and unpaid fa m ily w orkers.
Capital services is the flo w o f se rv ices
from the capital stock u sed in production. It
is d ev elo p ed from m easu res o f the net stock

o f p h y sica l a ssets— eq u ip m en t, structures,
land, and in ven tories— w eig h ted by rental
p rices for each type o f asset.

Labor Statistics, B u lle tin 2 3 4 0 (B u reau o f

Combined units of labor and capital
inputs are d erived by com b in in g ch an ges in

Industry productivity measures

labor and capital input w ith w eig h ts w h ich
represent each c o m p o n e n t’s share o f total
output. T h e in d ex es for capital services and
co m b in ed units o f labor and capital are b ased
on ch a n g in g w eig h ts w h ich are averages o f
the shares in the current and p reced in g year
(the T o m q u ist in d ex-n u m b er form ula).

Description of the series

Notes on the data
T h e o u tp u t m ea su re fo r the business sec­
tor is eq u a l to co n sta n t-d o lla r g ro ss n a­
t io n a l p r o d u c t b ut e x c lu d e s th e ren tal
v a lu e o f o w n e r -o c c u p ie d d w e llin g s , the
r e st-o f-w o r ld secto r, the o u tp u t o f n o n ­
p ro fit in stitu tio n s, the ou tp u t o f p aid e m ­
p lo y e e s o f p riv a te h o u s e h o ld s , g e n e r a l
g o v e r n m e n t, and the sta tistica l d iscr ep ­
a n cy . O u tp u t o f the nonfarm business
sector is eq u a l to b u sin e s s se c to r ou tp u t
le s s fa rm in g . T h e m ea su res are d erived
from data su p p lied by th e B u reau o f E c o ­
n o m ic A n a ly s is , U .S . D ep artm en t o f C o m ­
m erce, and the F ed eral R e se r v e B oard.
Q uarterly m a n u fa ctu rin g ou tp u t in d e x e s
are ad ju sted b y the B u reau o f L ab or S ta­
tistic s to annual e stim a te s o f m a n u factu r­
in g o u tp u t ( g r o s s p r o d u c t o r ig in a tin g )
from the B u reau o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly sis .
C o m p en sa tio n and h ou rs data are d e v e l­
o p ed from data o f the B u reau o f L ab or
S ta tis tic s and th e B u reau o f E c o n o m ic
A n a ly sis .
T h e p ro d u ctiv ity and a sso cia ted co st
m easu res in tables 4 4 - 4 7 d escrib e the rela­
tion sh ip b etw een output in real term s and the
labor tim e and capital se rv ices in v o lv ed in
its production. T h ey sh ow the ch an ges from
period to period in the am ount o f g o o d s and
se r v ic e s p ro d u ced per unit o f input. A l­
thou gh th ese m easu res relate output to hours
and capital serv ices, they do not m easure the
con trib ution s o f labor, capital, or any other
sp e c ific factor o f production. Rather, they
reflect the jo in t e ffe c t o f m any in flu en ces,
in c lu d in g ch a n g e s in te c h n o lo g y ; ca p ita l
investm ent; le v e l o f output; u tilization o f
ca p a c ity , e n erg y , and m aterials; th e o rg a ­
n iza tio n o f p ro d u ction ; m a n a g eria l sk ill;
and the characteristics and efforts o f the
w ork force.

L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 9 ).

T h e bls in d ustry p ro d u ctiv ity data su p p le ­
m en t the m ea su res for the b u sin e s s e c o n ­
o m y a n d m a jo r s e c t o r s w it h a n n u a l
m e a su r e s o f la b o r p r o d u c tiv ity fo r s e ­
le c te d in d u stries at th e 3- and 4 -d ig it le v e ls
o f the Standard In d u strial C la ss ific a tio n
sy ste m . T h e in d ustry m ea su res d iffe r in
m e th o d o lo g y and d ata so u rc es from the
p ro d u ctiv ity m ea su res for th e m ajor s e c ­
tors b e c a u se the in d ustry m ea su res are d e ­
v e lo p e d in d e p e n d e n tly o f th e N a tio n a l
In c o m e and P rod uct A c c o u n ts fram ew ork
u sed for th e m ajor se cto r m ea su res.

Definitions
O utput per e m p lo y e e h ou r is d eriv ed by
d iv id in g an in d ex o f industry ou tp u t b y an
in d ex o f a g g reg a te hours o f all e m p lo y e e s.
O utput in d e x e s are b a sed o n q u a n tifia b le
u n its o f p rod u cts or s e r v ic e s, or b oth , c o m ­
b in ed w ith fix e d -p e r io d w e ig h ts. W h e n ­
ev e r p o ss ib le , p h y sic a l q u a n tities are u sed
as th e u n it o f m ea su rem en t fo r ou tp u t. If
q u an tity data are n ot a v a ila b le for a g iv e n
in d ustry, d ata o n the co n sta n t-d o lla r v a lu e
o f p ro d u ctio n are u sed .
T h e labor input series co n sist o f the hours
o f all em p lo y e e s (production and n onpro­
duction w ork ers), the hours o f all persons
(paid e m p lo y ees, partners, proprietors, and
unpaid fam ily w ork ers), or the num ber o f
em p lo y e e s, d ep en d ing upon the industry.

Notes on the data
T h e in d ustry m ea su res are c o m p ile d from
data p rod u ced b y the B u reau o f L ab or
S ta tistic s, th e D ep artm en ts o f C o m m er ce,
Interior, and A gricu ltu re, the F ed eral R e ­
se rv e B oard , regu latory a g e n c ie s , trade a s ­
so c ia tio n s, and o th er so u rc es.
For m ost industries, the prod u ctivity in­
d ex es refer to the output per hour o f all
em ployees. For som e transportation industries,
on ly indexes o f output per em p loyee are pre­
pared. For som e trade and service industries,
indexes o f output per hour o f all persons (in­
cluding self-em ployed) are constructed.

Additional sources of information

Additional sources of information

D e sc r ip tio n s o f m e th o d o lo g y u n d erly in g
the m ea su rem en t o f ou tp u t per hour and
m u ltifa cto r p ro d u ctiv ity are fou n d in the
BLS Handbook o f Methods, B u lle tin 2 2 8 5
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s , 1 9 8 8 ). H isto r­
ic a l d ata are p r o v id e d in Handbook o f

F or a c o m p le te listin g o f a v a ila b le in d u s­
try p ro d u ctiv ity in d e x e s and their c o m p o ­
n en ts, se e Productivity Measures fo r Se­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

lected Industries and Government Services,
B u lle tin 2 3 2 2 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistics,
1 9 8 9 ). F or a d d ition al in fo rm a tio n ab ou t

the m e th o d o lo g y fo r c o m p u tin g the in d u s­
try p r o d u c tiv ity m e a s u r e s , s e e th e BLS
Handbook o f Methods, B u l l e t i n 2 2 8 5
(B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 8 8 ), ch ap ter

1L_______ _________ _______________

International Comparisons
(T ab les 4 8 - 5 0 )

Labor force and unemployment
Description of the series
T a b le s 4 8 and 4 9 p resen t c o m p a r a tiv e
m ea su res o f the lab or fo r c e , e m p lo y m e n t,
and u n em p lo y m e n t— a p p ro x im a tin g U .S .
c o n c e p ts— fo r the U n ite d S ta tes, C anada,
A u stra lia , Japan, and se v e r a l E u rop ean
c o u n tr ie s. T h e u n e m p lo y m e n t sta tistic s
(and, to a le s se r e x te n t, e m p lo y m e n t sta tis­
tic s) p u b lish e d b y other in d ustrial c o u n ­
tries are n o t, in m o st c a s e s, co m p a ra b le to
U .S . u n e m p lo y m e n t sta tistics. T h er efo re ,
the B ureau ad ju sts the fig u r e s fo r se le c te d
co u n tr ies, w h ere n e c e s sa r y , for all k n o w n
m ajor d e fin itio n a l d iffe r e n c e s. A lth o u g h
p r ecise co m p a ra b ility m ay n ot be a c h ie v ­
ed, th e se adjusted fig u r es p ro v id e a b etter
b a sis for in tern ation al co m p a r iso n s than
the fig u r es regu larly p u b lish ed b y ea ch
cou n try.

Definitions
F or the p rin cip al U .S . d e fin itio n s o f the
labor force, employment, a n d unem­
ployment, se e the N o te s s e c tio n on E M ­
PLO YM EN T A N D U N EM PLO Y M EN T
D A T A : H o u se h o ld S u rv ey D ata.

Notes on the data
T h e ad ju sted sta tistic s h a v e b e e n adapted
to the a g e at w h ic h c o m p u lso r y sc h o o lin g
en d s in each cou n try, rather than to the
U .S . standard o f 16 y ears o f a g e and o v er.
T h erefo re, the adjusted sta tistics relate to
the p o p u la tio n a g e 16 and o v e r in F ran ce,
S w ed en , and from 1973 onw ard, the U n ited
K in g d o m ; 15 and o v e r in C anada, A u s ­
tralia, Japan, G erm an y, th e N eth erla n d s,
and prior to 1 9 7 3 , the U n ite d K in g d o m ;
and 14 and o v e r in Italy. T h e in stitu tio n a l
p o p u la tio n is in clu d ed in the d en o m in a to r
o f the lab or fo rce p a rticip a tio n rates and
em p lo y m e n t-p o p u la tio n ratios for Japan
and G erm any; it is e x c lu d e d for the U n ite d
S tates and the other co u n tr ies.
In the U .S . labor fo rce survey, persons on
la y o ff w h o are aw aiting recall to their jo b s
are c la ssifie d as u n em p loyed . European and
Japanese la y o ff practices are quite different
in nature from th ose in the U n ited States;

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

83

Current Labor Statistics
therefore, strict ap p lication o f the U .S . d efi­
nition has not b een m ade on this point. For
further inform ation, se e Monthly Labor Re­
view, D ecem b er 1981, pp. 8 - 1 1 .
T he figures for o n e or m ore recent years
for F rance, G erm any, Italy, the N eth erlan d s,
and the U n ited K in g d o m are ca lcu la ted
u sin g adjustm ent factors b ased on labor
fo rce su rveys for earlier years and are co n ­
sidered p relim inary. T h e recent-year m ea­
sures for these cou n tries are, therefore, su b ­
ject to revision w henever data from more cur­
rent labor fo rce su rveys b eco m e availab le.
There are breaks in the data series for
G erm any (1 9 8 3 and 1 9 8 7 ), Italy (1 9 8 6 ), the
N eth erlan d s (1 9 8 3 ), and S w ed en (1 9 8 7 ). For
both G erm any and the N eth erlan d s, the 1983
breaks reflect the rep lacem en t o f labor force
su rvey results tabulated by the n ational sta­
tistical o ffic e s w ith th o se tabulated by the
E uropean C om m u n ity S tatistical O ffice (EU­
ROSTAT). T h e D utch figu res for 1983 onw ard
a lso reflect the rep lacem en t o f m an-year em ­
p lo y m en t data w ith data from the D utch
S u rvey o f E m p lo y ed P ersons. T h e im pact o f
the ch a n g es w a s to lo w er the adjusted u n em ­
p lo y m e n t rate by 0 .3 p ercen tage p oin t for
G erm any and by about 2 p ercen tage points
for the N eth erlan d s. T he 1987 break for G er­
m any reflects the incorporation o f e m p lo y ­
m ent statistics b ased on the 1987 P opu lation
C en su s, w h ich ind icated that the le v e l o f
em p lo y m en t w as about 1 m illio n h igh er than
p rev io u sly estim ated. T he im pact o f this
ch a n g e w a s to lo w er the adjusted u n em p loy­
m ent rate by 0 .3 p ercen tage point. W hen
h istorical data benchm arked to the 1987 c en ­
sus b eco m e ava ila b le, bls w ill rev ise its
com p arative m easu res for G erm any.
F or Italy, the break in series reflects m ore
accurate enum eration o f tim e o f last job
search. T h is resulted in a sig n ifican t in crease
in the num ber o f p eo p le reported as seek in g
w ork in the last 3 0 d ays. T h e im pact w as to
in crease the Italian u n em p loym en t rates ap­
p roxim atin g U .S . co n cep ts by about 1 per­
cen ta g e point.
S w ed en introduced a n ew questionnaire.
Q u e stio n s reg a rd in g current a v a ila b ility
w ere added and the period o f active w ork ­
se ek in g w a s red u ced from 6 0 days to 4
w eek s. T h ese ch a n g es result in low erin g
S w e d e n ’s u n em p lo y m en t rate by 0 .5 per­
cen ta g e point.

Additional sources of information

H andbook o f Labor Statistics a n d are
a v a ila b le in sta tistica l su p p lem en ts to B u l­
letin 1 9 7 9 .

Occupational Injury and
Illness Data
(T ab le 5 1 )

Description of the series
T h e A n n u a l S u rv ey o f O ccu p a tio n a l In ju ­
ries and I lln e s se s is d e sig n e d to c o lle c t
data o n in ju ries and illn e s s e s b a sed on
record s w h ic h e m p lo y e r s in the f o llo w in g
in d u s tr ie s m a in ta in u n d er th e O c c u p a ­
tio n a l S a fe ty and H ealth A c t o f 1970: a g ­
ricu ltu re, fo restry , and fish in g ; o il and g as
ex tra ctio n ; co n stru ctio n ; m an u factu rin g;
tran sp ortation and p u b lic u tilities; w h o le ­
sa le and retail trade; fin a n c e , in su ran ce,
and real estate; and se r v ic e s. E x c lu d e d
from the su rv e y are s e lf-e m p lo y e d in d i­
v id u a ls, farm ers w ith fe w e r than 11 e m ­
p l o y e e s , e m p lo y e r s r e g u la te d b y o th e r
F ed eral sa fety and h ealth la w s, and F e d ­
eral, S tate, and lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c ie s .
B e ca u se the su rvey is a F ed era l-S ta te
coop erative program and the data m ust m eet
the n eed s o f p articipating State a g en cies, an
in d ep en d en t sam p le is se le c te d for each
State. T h e sam p le is se lecte d to represent all
private industries in the States and territo­
ries. T h e sam p le siz e for the su rvey is d ep en ­
dent upon (1 ) the characteristics for w h ich
estim ates are needed; (2) the industries for
w h ich estim ates are desired; (3) the charac­
teristics o f the pop u lation b ein g sam pled;
(4 ) the target reliab ility o f the estim ates; and
(5 ) the su rvey d esig n em p loyed .
W h ile there are m an y ch aracteristics
up on w h ich the sam p le d esig n co u ld be
b ased , the total recorded ca se in cid en ce rate
is u sed b ecau se it is on e o f the m ost im port­
ant characteristics and the least variable;
therefore, it requires the sm allest sam ple size.
T h e su rvey is b ased on stratified random
sam p lin g w ith a N eym an allocation and a
ratio estim ator. T h e characteristics u sed to
stratify the estab lish m en ts are the Standard
Industrial C la ssifica tio n ( s ic ) c o d e and siz e
o f em p loym en t.

Definitions

F or further in fo rm a tio n , se e

Recordable occupational injuries and
illnesses are: (1 ) o c c u p a tio n a l d ea th s, re­

1 9 7 9 (B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, 1 9 7 8 ),
A p p e n d ix B , and S u p p lem en ts to A p p e n ­
d ix B . T h e sta tistic s are a lso a n a ly zed p e ­
r io d ic a lly in the Monthly Labor Review.
A d d itio n a l h isto rica l data, g e n era lly b e ­
g in n in g w ith 1 9 5 9 , are p u b lish ed in the

g a rd less o f the tim e b e tw e e n injury and
d eath , or the len g th o f the illn e ss ; or 2)
n o n fa ta l o c c u p a t io n a l illn e s s e s ; or (3 )
n on fatal o cc u p a tio n a l in ju ries w h ic h in ­
v o lv e o n e or m ore o f the fo llo w in g : lo s s o f
c o n s c io u s n e s s , restrictio n o f w ork or m o ­
tio n , transfer to an oth er jo b , or m e d ica l

International
Comparisons o f Unemployment, B u lle tin

Digitized84for Monthly
FRASERLabor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

treatm en t (oth er than first aid ).
Occupational injury is any injury, such
as a cut, fracture, sprain, am putation, and so
forth, w h ich results from a w ork accid en t or
from exp osu re in v o lv in g a sin g le in cid en t in
the w ork environm ent.

Occupational illness is an ab n orm al
con d ition or disorder, other than o n e result­
in g from an occu p ation al injury, cau sed by
exp osu re to en viron m en tal factors a sso c i­
ated w ith em p loym en t. It in clu d es acute and
chronic illn e sse s or d isea se w h ich m ay be
cau sed by inhalation, absorption, in gestio n ,
or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are ca ses w h ich
in v o lv e days aw ay from w ork, or days o f
restricted w ork activity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving re­
stricted work activity are th ose ca ses w h ich
result in restricted w ork activity on ly.

Lost workdays away from work are the
num ber o f w ork d ays (c o n secu tiv e or not) on
w h ich the e m p lo y e e w o u ld h ave w ork ed but
co u ld not b eca u se o f occu p ation al injury or
illn ess.
Lost workdays—restricted work ac­
tivity are the num ber o f w ork d ays (c o n se c ­
u tive or not) on w h ich , b ecau se o f injury or
illn ess: (1 ) the em p lo y e e w as a ssig n ed to
another jo b on a tem porary basis; or (2 ) the
e m p lo y e e w ork ed at a perm anent jo b less
than fu ll tim e; or (3 ) the e m p lo y e e w orked
at a perm anently a ssig n ed jo b but co u ld not
perform all d u ties n orm ally con n ected w ith
it.

The number of days away from work
or days of restricted work activity d o es n ot
in clu d e the day o f injury or o n set o f illn ess
or any d ays on w h ich the e m p lo y e e w o u ld
not h ave w ork ed e v en thou gh able to w ork.
In cid en ce rates represent the num ber o f
injuries and/or illn e sse s or lo st w ork d ays per
100 fu ll-tim e w orkers.

Notes on the data
E stim a tes are m ad e for in d u stries and e m ­
p lo y m e n t - s iz e c la s s e s and for s e v e r ity
c l a s s i f ic a t i o n : f a t a lit ie s , lo s t w o r k d a y
c a s e s , and n o n fa ta l c a s e s w ith o u t lo s t
w o rk d a y s. L o st w ork d ay c a s e s are se p a ­
rated in to th o se w h ere the e m p lo y e e w o u ld
h a v e w o rk ed but c o u ld n ot and th o se in
w h ich w ork a c tiv ity w a s restricted . E s ti­
m ates o f the n u m b er o f c a s e s and the n u m ­
ber o f d a y s lo st are m ad e fo r b oth c a te ­
g o ries.
M ost o f the estim ates are in the form o f
in cid en ce rates, d efin ed as the num ber o f
injuries and illn e sse s, or lo st w ork d ays per
100 fu ll-tim e e m p lo y ees. For this p urpose,
2 0 0 ,0 0 0 e m p lo y e e hours represent 100 em ­
p lo y e e years (2 ,0 0 0 hours per e m p lo y e e ). A
fe w o f the availab le m easu res are in clu d ed
in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Full

detail is p resen ted in the annual b u lletin ,

and territories; th ese data are not co m p ile d

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the
United States, by Industry.

n ation ally.

C om parable data for in d ivid u al S tates are
availa b le from the bls O ffic e o f S afety,
H ealth, and W ork in g C on d ition s.
M in in g and railroad data are furnished to

BLS by the M in e S a fety and H ealth A d m in ­
istration and the F ederal R ailroad A d m in is­
tr a tio n , r e s p e c t iv e ly . D a ta fr o m th e s e
o rgan ization s tire in clu d ed in BLS and State
p u b lica tio n s. F ederal e m p lo y e e exp erien ce
is co m p ile d and p u b lish ed by the O ccu p a­
tional S a fety and H ealth A d m in istration .
D ata on State and lo ca l g overn m en t em p lo y ­
e e s are c o lle c te d by about h a lf o f the States


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Additional sources of information
T h e S u p p lem en ta ry D ata S y ste m p ro v id es
d e ta ile d in fo r m a tio n d e sc r ib in g v a rio u s
factors a ss o c ia te d w ith w o rk -rela ted in ju ­
ries and illn e s s e s . T h e se data are o b ta in ed
from in form ation rep orted b y employers to
S ta te w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a tio n a g e n c ie s .
T h e W ork Injury R ep ort p rogram e x a m ­
in e s se le c te d ty p e s o f a c cid en ts th rou gh an
e m p lo y e e su rvey w h ic h f o c u s e s o n the
c ir c u m s t a n c e s su r r o u n d in g th e in ju r y .
T h e s e data are n ot in clu d ed in the Hand­
book o f Labor Statistics but are a v a ila b le

from the BLS O ffic e o f S a fe ty , H ea lth , and
W o rk in g C o n d itio n s.
T h e d efin ition s o f occu p atio n a l injuries
and illn e sse s and lo st w ork d ays are from

Recordkeeping Requirements under the Oc­
cupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970.
For additional data, se e Occupational Inju­
ries and Illnesses in the United States, by
Industry, annual Bureau o f Labor S tatistics
bulletin; BLS Handbook o f Methods, B u lletin
2 2 8 5 (B u reau o f Labor S tatistics, 1988);

Handbook o f Labor Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0
(B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 1 98 9 ), pp. 4 1 1 14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor
Review; and annual U .S . D ep artm en t o f
L abor p ress releases.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

D

85

Current Labor Statistics:

Comparative Indicators

1. Labor market indicators
1988
Selected indicators

1988

1989

1990

1989
II

III

I

IV

II

III

I

IV

Employment data
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey):'
Labor force participation r a te ..............................................................
Employment-population ratio...............................................................
Unemployment rate ...............................................................................
M e n ........................................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..................................................................................
25 years and o v e r............................................................................
Women .................................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..................................................................................
25 years and o v e r............................................................................
Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o v e r.......................................

65.9
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.4
4.2
5.6
10.6
4.3
1.3

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.2
11.4
3.9
5.4
10.4
4.2
1.1

65.8
62.2
5.5
5.4
11.2
4.2
5.6
10.7
4.3
1.3

66.0
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.5
4.2
5.5
10.5
4.3
1.3

66.1
62.6
5.3
5.3
11.1
4.1
5.3
10.3
4.1
1.2

66.3
62.9
5.2
5.2
11.2
3.9
5.2
10.2
4.1
1.1

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.1
11.1
3.9
5.4
10.4
4.2
1.1

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.2
11.4
3.9
5.4
10.5
4.2
1.1

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.3
11.8
4.0
5.4
10.4
4.3
1.1

66.5
63.0
5.2
5.2
11.0
4.1
5.3
10.2
4.2
1.1

Total ............................................................................................................
Private sec to r.........................................................................................
Goods-producing....................................................................................
Manufacturing......................................................................................
Service-producing ..................................................................................

105,584
88,212
25,249
19,403
80,335

108,581
90,854
25,634
19,612
82,947

105,184
87,851
25,202
19,360
79,983

105,976
88,577
25,313
19,435
80,663

106,799
89,288
25,452
19,550
81,346

107,680
90,104
25,634
19,659
82,047

108,339
90,661
25,664
19,663
82,676

108,917
91,110
25,659
19,617
83,258

109,398
91,550
25,581
19,514
83,816

110,214
92,191
25,603
19,410
84,611

Average hours:
Private sector .........................................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................................
Overtim e...........................................................................................

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.0
3.8

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.8

34.7
41.0
3.8

34.6
40.7
3.7

34.6
40.7
3.7

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................................................

4.9
4.8
4.4
5.1
5.6

5.0
4.8
4.3
5.1
6.2

1.1
1.3
1.0
1.4
.3

1.4
.9
.6
1.2
2.8

1.0
1.0
.8
1.1
1.1

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.2

1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
.6

1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
3.3

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.4

Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
U nion.......................................................................................................
Nonunion ...............................................................................................

3.9
5.1

3.7
5.1

.9
1.4

.7
1.0

.5
1.1

.8
1.4

1.0
1.2

.9
1.4

.9
1.0

1.5
1.7

Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:'

Employment Cost Index

1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries.

8 6 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
1990

1989

1988
Selected measures

1989

1988

II

I

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

Compensation data 1, 2
Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm ...........................................................................
Private nonfarm ..........................................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries
Civilian nonfarm ...........................................................................
Private nonfarm ..........................................................................

4.9
4.8

5.0
4.8

1.1
1.3

1.4
.9

1.0
1.0

1.2
1.2

1.1
1.2

1.6
1.2

1.0
1.1

1.7
1.6

4.3
4.1

4.4
4.1

.9
1.2

1.4
.9

.9
1.0

1.1
1.0

.8
1.0

1.6
1.2

.8
.8

1.2
1.2

Price data1
Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All item s ......

4.4

4.6

1.3

1.5

.6

1.5

1.5

.7

.9

-100.0

Producer Price Index:
Finished goods.............................................................................
Finished consumer goods........................................................
Capital equipment .....................................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, components ......................
Crude materials............................................................................

4.0
4.0
3.6
5.6
3.1

4.9
5.3
3.8
2.3
7.1

1.3
1.4
.6
2.6
4.0

.8
1.0
.4
1.2
-1.2

1.3
1.1
1.8
.6
.6

1.9
2.2
.9
1.9
6.1

2.0
2.3
1.1
1.1
.9

-.6
-.8
.1
-.3
-1.7

1.6
1.5
1.6
-.4
1.9

1.4
1.7
.8
1.3

Productivity data3
Output per hour of all persons:
Business sec tor..........................................................................
Nonfarm business sector.........................................................
Nonfinancial corporations 4 ......................................................

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.

-.5
-1.0

.4
.5
-.6

1.5
2.4
3.0

1.6
1.1
.1

1.1
-1.3
-1.7

.2
1.9
-.4

3.1
3.3
1.3

-2.1
-1.6
.4

1.1
.9
.1

1.7
2.0
2.3

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

IV
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector.........................................................................
All persons, nonfarm business sector........................................................

1989

1988

IV

III

II

I

1990

1988

I

IV

1990

1989
II

I

III

IV

I

5.2
5.9

4.8
4.9

6.8
5.6

4.7
5.3

5.6
6.0

4.5
3.9

4.8
4.8

5.4
5.4

5.6
5.5

5.4
5.4

5.5
b.5

5.4
5.2

1.0
1.0
.5
1.1
1.1

1.2
1.2
.8
1.4
1.2

1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
.6

1.6
1.2
.9
1.4
3.3

1.0
1.1
.9
1.0
1.0

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.4

4.9
4.8
3.9
5.1
5.6

4.8
4.6
3.0
5.1
5.5

4.8
4.5
3.1
4.9
5.8

5.1
4.8
3.3
5.3
6.4

5.0
4.8
3.7
5.1
6.2

5.5
5.2
4.3
5.4
6.4

Nonunion.....................................................................................................
State and local governments.....................................................................

.9
1.0
.3
1.1
1.0

1.1
1.0
.7
1.3
.8

.8
1.0
.8
1.0
.5

1.6
1.2
.6
1.3
3.1

.8
.8
1.0
.8
.8

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2

4.3
4.1
2.2
4.5
4.9

4.4
4.2
2.5
4.8
4.7

4.3
4.1
2.6
4.6
5.0

4.5
4.3
2.4
4.9
5.5

4.4
4.1
3.1
4.5
5.3

4.4
4.2
3.4
4.4
5.6

Total effective wage adjustments3 .....................................................................
From current settlements..............................................................................
From prior settlem ents..................................................................................
From cost-of-living provision.........................................................................

.5
.1
.2
.2

.5
.1
.3
.1

1.0
.3
.5
.2

1.0
.4
.4
.2

.7
.4
.2
.1

.6
.2
.3
.1

2.6
.7
1.3
.6

2.7
.8
1.3
.6

2.8
.7
1.3
.8

3.0
.9
1.3
.8

3.2
1.2
1.3
.7

3.2
1.3
1.2
.7

Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3
First-year adjustments...................................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.................................................................

2.6
2.2

3.2
3.1

3.9
3.3

3.6
3.0

4.9
4.0

3.8
3.3

2.5
2.4

2.7
2.5

3.2
2.9

3.5
3.0

4.0
3.4

4.1
3.4

Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:4
First-year adjustment.....................................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.................................................................

3.5
2.1

3.2
3.1

5.1
3.4

3.9
2.7

5.3
4.3

4.6
3.5

3.1
2.5

3.3
2.6

3.8
3.0

4.0
2.8

4.5
3.4

4.6
3.4

Employment Cost Index-compensation:
Civilian nonfarm 2 ...........................................................................................
Private nonfarm ...........................................................................................
Nonunion....................................................................................................
State and local governments....................................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2 ............................................................................................
Private nonfarm ...........................................................................................

1 Seasonally adjusted.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.
3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

most recent data are preliminary.
4 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

87

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data

4. Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Employment status
1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

186,322
123,378
66.2
116,677

188,081
125,557
66.8
119,030

187,708
125,299
66.8
118,768

187,854
125,224
66.7
118,805

187,995
125,777
66.9
119,208

188,149
125,679
66.8
119,102

188,286
125,758
66.8
119,238

188,428
125,725
66.7
119,121

188,580
125,857
66.7
119,294

188,721
126,192
66.9
119,540

188,865
126,246
66.8
119,588

188,990
126,094
66.7
119,560

189,090
126,308
66.8
119,713

189,198
126,498
66.9
120,003

119,773

62.6
1,709
114,968
3,169
111,800
6,701
5.4
62,944

63.3
1,688
117,342
3,199
114,142
6,528
5.2
62,523

63.3
1,684
117,084
3,144
113,940
6,531
5.2
62,409

63.2
1,673
117,132
3,137
113,995
6,419
5.1
62,630

63.4
1,666
117,542
3,138
114,404
6,569
5.2
62,218

63.3
1,666
117,436
3,217
114,219
6,577
5.2
62,470

63.3
1,688
117,550
3,275
114,275
6,520
5.2
62,528

63.2
1,702
117,419
3,219
114,200
6,604
5.3
62,703

63.3
1,709
117,585
3,197
114,388
6,563
5.2
62,723

63.3
1,704
117,836
3,160
114,676
6,652
5.3
62,529

63.3
1,700
117,888
3,197
114,691
6,658
5.3
62,619

63.3
1,697
117,863
3,134
114,728
6,535
5.2
62,896

63.3
1,678
118,035
3,079
114,957
6,594
5.2
62,782

63.4
1,669
118,334
3,200
115,133
6,495
5.1
62,700

63.3
1,657
118,116
3,133
114,983
6,770
5.3
62,783

89,404
68,474
76.6
64,820

90,283
69,360
76.8
65,835

90,094
69,293
76.9
65,727

90,167
69,142
76.7
65,713

90,237
69,542
77.1
66,078

90,315
69,366
76.8
65,939

90,384
69,404
76.8
65,919

90,456
69,360
76.7
65,681

90,535
69,599
76.9
66,046

90,606
69,635
76.9
66,011

90,678
69,725
76.9
66,143

90,772
69,539
76.6
65,943

90,822
69,639
76.7
66,108

90,874
69,712
76.7
66,208

90,942
69,779
76.7
66,043

72.5
1,547
63,273
3,655
5.3

72.9
1,520
64,315
3,525
5.1

73.0
1,521
64,206
3,566
5.1

72.9
1,511
64,202
3,429
5.0

73.2
1,501
64,577
3,464
5.0

73.0
1,499
64,440
3,427
4.9

72.9
1,519
64,400
3,485
5.0

72.6
1,531
64,150
3,679
5.3

73.0
1,533
64,513
3,553
5.1

72.9
1,529
64,482
3,624
5.2

72.9
1,525
64,618
3,582
5.1

72.6
1,523
64,420
3,597
5.2

72.8
1,506
64,602
3,530
5.1

72.9
1,497
64,711
3,505
5.0

72.6
1,499
64,544
3,735
5.4

96,918
54,904
56.6
51,858

97,798
56,198
57.5
53,195

97,614
56,006
57.4
53,041

97,687
56,082
57.4
53,092

97,758
56,235
57.5
53,130

97,834
56,313
57.6
53,163

97,902
56,354
57.6
53,319

97,972
56,365
57.5
53,440

98,045
56,258
57.4
53,248

98,115
56,557
57.6
53,529

98,187
56,521
57.6
53,445

98,218
56,555
57.6
53,617

98,268
56,669
57.7
53,605

98,324
56,785
57.8
53,795

98,383
56,764
57.7
53,729

53.5
162
51,696
3,046
5.5

54.4
168
53,027
3,003
5.3

54.3
163
52,878
2,965
5.3

54.3
162
52,930
2,990
5.3

54.3
165
52,965
3,105
5.5

54.3
167
52,996
3,150
5.6

54.5
169
53,150
3,035
5.4

54.5
171
53,269
2,925
5.2

54.3
176
53,072
3,010
5.4

54.6
175
53,354
3,028
5.4

54.4
175
53,270
3,076
5.4

54.6
174
53,443
2,938
5.2

54.5
172
53,433
3,064
5.4

54.7
172
53,623
2,990
5.3

54.6
158
53,571
3,034
5.3

Apr.

TOTAL
Noninstitutional population \ 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 ..................
Total employed 2 ..........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian em ployed......................
Agriculture ...............................
Nonagricultural industries.....
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 ............
Not in labor force ...........................

189,326
126,543

66.8

Men, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population \ 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 ..................
Total employed 2 ..........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ......................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 ............

Women, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population ’ , 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 ..................
Total employed2 ...........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ......................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 .............

1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstltutlonal population.


88 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstltutlonal population.
5 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)
Annual average

1989

1990

Employment status
1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

184,613
121,669
65.9
114,968

186,393
123,869
66.5
117,342

186,024
123,615
66.5
117,084

186,181
123,551
66.4
117,132

186,329
124,111
66.6
117,542

186,483
124,013
66.5
117,436

186,598
124,070
66.5
117,550

62.3
6,701
5.5
62,944

63.0
6,528
5.3
62,523

62.9
6,531
5.3
62,409

62.9
6,419
5.2
62,630

63.1
6,569
5.3
62,218

63.0
6,577
5.3
62,470

80,553
62,768
77.9
59,781

81,619
63,704
78.1
60,837

81,413
63,638
78.2
60,716

81,524
63,535
77.9
60,774

81,592
63,874
78.3
61,072

74.2
2,271
57,510
2,987
4.8

74.5
2,307
58,530
2,867
4.5

74.6
2,270
58,446
2,922
4.6

74.5
2,295
58,479
2,761
4.3

89,532
50,870
56.8
48,383

90,550
52,212
57.7
49,745

90,318
52,009
57.6
49,560

54.0
625
47,757
2,487
4.9

54.9
642
49,103
2,467
4.7

14,527
8,031
55.3
6,805

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

186,726
124,023
66.4
117,419

186,871
124,148
66.4
117,585

187,017
124,488
66.6
117,836

187,165
124,546
66.5
117,888

187,293
124,397
66.4
117,863

187,412
124,630
66.5
118,035

187,529
124,829
66.6
118,334

187,669
124,886
66.5
118,116

63.0
6,520
5.3
62,528

62.9
6,604
5.3
62,703

62.9
6,563
5.3
62,723

63.0
6,652
5.3
62,529

63.0
6,658
5.3
62,619

62.9
6,535
5.3
62,896

63.0
6,594
5.3
62,782

63.1
6,495
5.2
62,700

62.9
6,770
5.4
62,783

81,679
63,736
78.0
60,915

81,754
63,717
77.9
60,861

81,790
63,771
78.0
60,729

81,905
63,918
78.0
61,026

81,968
63,967
78.0
61,033

82,055
64,071
78.1
61,154

82,168
63,958
77.8
60,976

82,248
64,101
77.9
61,172

82,378
64,183
77.9
61,270

82,487
64,251
77.9
61,138

74.9
2,279
58,793
2,802
4.4

74.6
2,329
58,586
2,821
4.4

74.4
2,340
58,521
2,856
4.5

74.2
2,330
58,399
3,042
4.8

74.5
2,304
58,722
2,892
4.5

74.5
2,292
58,741
2,934
4.6

74.5
2,293
58,861
2,917
4.6

74.2
2,269
58,706
2,983
4.7

74.4
2,254
58,918
2,929
4.6

74.4
2,268
59,002
2,913
4.5

74.1
2,258
58,879
3,113
4.8

90,432
52,120
57.6
49,649

90,526
52,219
57.7
49,687

90,607
52,385
57.8
49,817

90,684
52,352
57.7
49,875

90,771
52,358
57.7
49,984

90,860
52,281
57.5
49,796

90,952
52,541
57.8
50,043

91,042
52,586
57.8
50,048

91,091
52,686
57.8
50,255

91,157
52,814
57.9
50,287

91,237
52,800
57.9
50,344

91,330
52,954
58.0
50,427

54.9
638
48,922
2,449
4.7

54.9
633
49,016
2,471
4.7

54.9
622
49,065
2,532
4.8

55.0
639
49,178
2,568
4.9

55.0
642
49,233
2,477
4.7

55.1
660
49,324
2,374
4.5

54.8
641
49,155
2,485
4.8

55.0
624
49,419
2,498
4.8

55.0
618
49,430
2,538
4.8

55.2
594
49,661
2,431
4.6

55.2
582
49,704
2,527
4.8

55.2
648
49,696
2,456
4.7

55.2
669
49,758
2,526
4.8

14,223
7,954
55.9
6,759

14,293
7,968
55.7
6,808

14,224
7,896
55.5
6,709

14,211
8,018
56.4
6,783

14,196
7,892
55.6
6,704

14,160
8,001
56.5
6,814

14,166
7,894
55.7
6,706

14,107
7,949
56.3
6,763

14,097
7,980
56.6
6,760

14,067
7,889
56.1
6,686

14,034
7,752
55.2
6,631

14,008
7,715
55.1
6,577

13,914
7,846
56.4
6,720

13,852
7,681
55.4
6,551

46.8
273
6,532
1,226
15.3

47.5
250
6,510
1,194
15.0

47.6
236
6,572
1,160
14.6

47.2
209
6,500
1,187
15.0

47.7
237
6,546
1,235
15.4

47.2
249
6,455
1,188
15.1

48.1
293
6,521
1,187
14.8

47.3
229
6,477
1,188
15.0

47.9
252
6,511
1,186
14.9

48.0
244
6,516
1,220
15.3

47.5
286
6,400
1,203
15.2

47.3
270
6,361
1,121
14.5

47.0
243
6,334
1,138
14.8

48.3
285
6,435
1,126
14.4

47.3
206
6,345
1,130
14.7

158,194
104,756
66.2
99,812

159,338
106,355
66.7
101,584

159,098
106,208
66.8
101,400

159,200
106,152
66.7
101,432

159,297
106,474
66.8
101,683

159,400
106,384
66.7
101,546

159,470
106,485
66.8
101,684

159,549
106,393
66.7
101,579

159,644
106,618
66.8
101,862

159,736
106,834
66.9
101,991

159,832
106,896
66.9
102,032

159,938
106,884
66.8
102,074

160,007
107,080
66.9
102,117

160,076
107,061
66.9
102,206

160,170
107,133
66.9
102,027

63.1
4,944
4.7

63.8
4,770
4.5

63.7
4,808
4.5

63.7
4,720
4.4

63.8
4,791
4.5

63.7
4,838
4.5

63.8
4,801
4.5

63.7
4,814
4.5

63.8
4,756
4.5

63.8
4,843
4.5

63.8
4,864
4.6

63.8
4,811
4.5

63.8
4,962
4.6

63.8
4,856
4.5

63.7
5,106
4.8

20,692
13,205
63.8
11,658

21,021
13,497
64.2
11,953

20,956
13,336
63.6
11,872

20,986
13,454
64.1
11,962

21,012
13,569
64.6
11,969

21,038
13,548
64.4
12,063

21,060
13,476
64.0
11,961

21,085
13,518
64.1
11,938

21,108
13,507
64.0
11,923

21,136
13,576
64.2
11,954

21,164
13,522
63.9
11,920

21,163
13,510
63.8
11,978

21,188
13,437
63.4
12,030

21,211
13,581
64.0
12,148

21,228
13,570
63.9
12,161

56.3
1,547
11.7

56.9
1,544
11.4

56.7
1,464
11.0

57.0
1,492
11.1

57.0
1,600
11.8

57.3
1,485
11.0

56.8
1,515
11.2

56.6
1,580
11.7

56.5
1,584
11.7

56.6
1,622
11.9

56.3
1,602
11.8

56.6
1,532
11.3

56.8
1,407
10.5

57.3
1,433
10.6

57.3
1,409
10.4

TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Employed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ...............
Not in labor force ...........................

Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Em ployed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Agriculture..................................
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ................

Women, 20 years ond over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Em ployed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Agriculture..................................
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ................

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Employed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Agriculture..................................
Nonagricultural Industries........
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ................

White
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ...............

Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ...............
See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

89

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)
1990

1989

Annual average
Employment status
1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

13,325
8,982
67.4
8,250

13,791
9,323
67.6
8,573

13,690
9,288
67.8
8,531

13,731
9,359
68.2
8,619

13,772
9,289
67.4
8,543

13,813
9,403
68.1
8,579

13,853
9,361
67.6
8,541

13,894
9,342
67.2
8,564

13,936
9,339
67.0
8,595

13,977
9,424
67.4
8,672

14,019
9,495
67.7
8,691

14,080
9,440
67.0
8,769

14,119
9,400
66.6
8,666

14,159
9,565
67.6
8,831

14,198
9,618
67.7
8,850

61.9
732
8.2

62.2
750
8.0

62.3
757
8.2

62.8
740
7.9

62.0
746
8.0

62.1
824
8.8

61.7
820
8.8

61.6
778
8.3

61.7
744
8.0

62.0
752
8.0

62.0
804
8.5

62.3
671
7.1

61.4
734
7.8

62.4
734
7.7

62.3
768
8.0

Hispanic origin
CO
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor force..........................
Participation rate ....................
Employed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Unemployed..................................
Unemployment ra te ................

1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals

6.

because data for the “other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included
in both the white and black population groups.

Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(In thousands)
1990

1989

Annual average
Selected categories
Apr.

May

Feb.

Mar.

117,863
64,420
53,443
40,982

118,035
64,602
53,433
41,347

118,334
64,711
53,623
40,989

118,116
64,544
53,571
40,730

29,695
6,349

29,897
6,215

29,704
6,378

29,618
6,291

29,742
6,325

1,687
1,373
122

1,677
1,369
125

1,634
1,354
107

1,578
1,375
118

1,620
1,457
115

1,621
1,429
112

105,504
17,595
87,909
987
86,922
8,610
280

105,960
17,681
88,279
1,051
87,228
8,528
264

105,643
17,728
87,915
1,077
86,838
8,653
251

105,747
17,626
88,121
1,035
87,086
8,733
256

106,117
17,607
88,510
1,021
87,489
8,628
313

106,029
17,724
88,306
1,003
87,302
8,852
261

105,938
17,816
88,122
957
87,165
8,716
258

4,864
2,321
2,161
15,506

4,767
2,314
2,082
15,368

4,803
2,297
2,162
15,254

4,802
2,277
2,106
15,388

4,983
2,402
2,255
14,931

4,887
2,307
2,211
15,381

5,004
2,476
2,127
15,464

4,871
2,407
2,138
15,193

4,605
2,165
2,095
15,076

4,526
2,166
2,021
14,936

4,552
2,132
2,097
14,805

4,554
2,111
2,051
14,983

4,729
2,240
2,172
14,515

4,703
2,183
2,173
14,924

4,747
2,293
2,050
14,975

4,630
2,218
2,096
14,804

Nov.

Dec.

117,585
64,513
53,072
40,839

117,836
64,482
53,354
40,886

117,888
64,618
53,270
41,041

29,506
6,429

29,544
6,354

29,767
6,351

1,723
1,410
133

1,680
1,424
132

1,678
1,406
124

105,353
17,501
87,852
1,094
86,758
8,602
248

105,317
17,559
87,758
1,147
86,611
8,621
272

105,476
17,613
87,863
1,065
86,798
8,581
279

4,928
2,315
2,269
15,466

4,773
2,301
2,172
15,577

4,802
2,281
2,142
15,550

4,738
2,183
2,198
15,016

4,583
2,164
2,104
15,138

4,567
2,129
2,076
15,071

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

1988

1989

114,968
63,273
51,696
40,472

117,342
64,315
53,027
40,760

117,084
64,206
52,878
40,857

117,132
64,202
52,930
40,932

117,542
64,577
52,965
41,025

117,436
64,440
52,996
41,067

117,550
64,400
53,150
40,723

117,419
64,150
53,269
40,649

28,756
6,211

29,404
6,338

29,563
6,263

29,608
6,354

29,499
6,401

29,520
6,446

29,259
6,371

1,621
1,398
150

1,665
1,403
131

1,630
1,414
126

1,647
1,377
127

1,557
1,411
126

1,685
1,424
127

103,021
17,114
85,907
1,153
84,754
8,519
260

105,259
17,469
87,790
1,101
86,689
8,605
279

104,981
17,266
87,715
1,118
86,597
8,643
277

105,232
17,305
87,927
1,123
86,804
8,573
299

105,430
17,328
88,102
1,128
86,974
8,578
245

5,206
2,350
2,487
14,963

4,894
2,303
2,233
15,393

5,086
2,346
2,375
15,405

4,883
2,314
2,307
15,350

4,965
2,199
2,408
14,509

4,657
2,143
2,166
14,963

4,855
2,198
2,310
14,975

4,643
2,137
2,246
14,977

Oct.

Jan.

Apr.

CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and
ove r..................................................
M e n ...............................................
Women ........................................
Married men, spouse present ..
Married women, spouse
present.......................................
Women who maintain families .

MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary w orkers........
Self-employed workers.............
Unpaid family w orkers..............
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary w orkers........
Government .............................
Private industries.....................
Private households...............
Other ......................................
Self-employed workers.............
Unpaid family workers..............

PERSONS AT WORK
PART TIME1
All industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ..................................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .......................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ..................................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .......................

1 Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.

9 0 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

7.

Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(Unemployment rates)
Annual average

1989

1990

Selected categories
1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Total, all civilian workers..............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years...................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r ........................................
Women, 20 years and over...................................

5.5
15.3
4.8
4.9

5.3
15.0
4.5
4.7

5.3
14.6
4.6
4.7

5.2
15.0
4.3
4.7

5.3
15.4
4.4
4.8

5.3
15.1
4.4
4.9

5.3
14.8
4.5
4.7

5.3
15.0
4.8
4.5

5.3
14.9
4.5
4.8

5.3
15.3
4.6
4.8

5.3
15.2
4.6
4.8

5.3
14.5
4.7
4.6

5.3
14.8
4.6
4.8

5.2
14.4
4.5
4.7

5.4
14.7
4.8
4.8

White, to ta l...............................................................
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 o v e r................................

4.7
13.1
13.9
12.3
4.1
4.1

4.5
12.7
13.7
11.5
3.9
4.0

4.5
12.4
13.2
11.5
3.9
4.1

4.4
12.8
14.1
11.4
3.7
4.1

4.5
12.9
13.5
12.3
3.8
4.1

4.5
12.7
12.8
12.6
3.8
4.2

4.5
12.7
13.1
12.3
3.9
4.1

4.5
12.2
13.3
11.1
4.2
3.8

4.5
12.4
13.8
10.9
3.9
4.0

4.5
12.9
14.3
11.3
3.9
4.0

4.6
13.0
14.0
11.9
3.9
4.1

4.5
12.7
12.9
12.4
4.0
4.0

4.6
13.0
12.7
13.2
4.1
4.1

4.5
12.9
13.0
12.7
4.0
3.9

4.8
13.1
13.8
12.4
4.3
4.1

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 ove r................................

11.7
32.4
32.7
32.0
10.1
10.4

11.4
32.4
31.9
33.0
10.0
9.8

11.0
31.7
34.8
28.5
9.9
9.1

11.1
32.4
35.4
29.6
9.5
9.6

11.8
35.1
33.8
36.8
9.6
10.5

11.0
27.9
23.2
33.1
9.5
9.9

11.2
31.9
30.3
33.6
9.9
9.6

11.7
36.3
33.8
38.8
10.1
9.7

11.7
33.4
32.0
34.9
10.3
9.9

11.9
32.5
32.3
32.7
10.6
10.2

11.8
30.7
30.1
31.4
10.8
10.0

11.3
26.7
29.2
24.0
11.2
9.2

10.5
28.0
28.5
27.5
9.2
9.4

10.6
28.2
30.0
26.2
9.6
9.0

10.4
25.8
27.2
24.3
9.4
9.2

Hispanic origin, total................................................

8.2

8.0

8.2

7.9

8.0

8.8

8.8

8.3

8.0

8.0

8.5

7.1

7.8

7.7

8.0

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 lost' .............................................

3.3
3.9
8.1
5.2
7.6
1.3
6.3

3.0
3.7
8.1
4.9
7.3
1.1
5.9

3.2
4.0
7.8
5.0
7.2
1.1
6.0

2.9
3.8
8.2
4.9
6.9
1.1
6.0

2.9
3.8
7.9
4.9
7.7
1.0
6.0

3.0
3.8
8.5
5.0
7.2
1.2
6.0

3.1
3.9
8.0
4.9
7.1
1.1
6.0

3.3
3.8
7.7
5.0
7.3
1.1
6.0

3.0
3.9
7.8
4.9
7.1
1.1
5.9

3.1
3.8
8.2
5.0
7.4
1.1
5.9

3.0
3.9
8.1
5.0
7.5
1.1
6.0

3.4
3.7
7.5
5.0
7.0
1.1
6.0

3.0
3.8
7.5
4.9
7.4
1.1
5.9

3.2
3.6
8.4
4.9
7.2
1.1
5.9

3.3
3.5
7.5
5.1
7.1
1.1
6.2

5.5
7.9
10.6
5.3
5.0
5.7
3.9
6.2
4.5
2.8
10.6

5.3
5.8
10.0
5.1
4.8
5.5
3.9
6.0
4.4
2.7
9.6

5.3
5.8
9.8
5.0
4.7
5.3
3.9
5.9
4.6
2.7
9.8

5.2
4.6
9.5
4.9
4.6
5.5
4.0
5.6
4.6
2.9
9.9

5.3
3.9
10.0
5.1
4.6
5.8
4.1
6.0
4.3
2.9
10.4

5.4
5.8
10.3
5.1
4.7
5.6
4.1
6.1
4.4
2.8
8.9

5.4
6.4
10.2
5.2
4.9
5.7
3.7
6.0
4.4
2.7
9.0

5.4
8.4
10.1
5.2
4.9
5.5
4.5
5.9
4.5
2.8
7.8

5.3
4.8
9.3
5.4
5.2
5.6
3.9
5.9
4.3
2.7
9.8

5.4
6.2
9.8
5.4
5.4
5.3
3.6
6.4
4.3
2.7
12.1

5.4
4.4
9.8
5.6
5.4
5.9
3.4
6.3
4.2
2.6
9.7

5.5
6.8
9.3
5.9
5.8
5.9
4.3
6.2
4.3
2.4
9.2

5.5
4.8
8.9
5.9
5.5
6.4
4.0
6.0
4.4
2.5
9.3

5.5
5.9
10.0
5.5
5.3
5.9
3.4
6.2
4.5
2.3
10.1

5.7
4.6
10.6
5.9
5.7
6.3
4.3
6.2
4.5
2.1
11.0

CHARACTERISTIC

INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ....
Mining........................................................................
Construction.............................................................
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Durable goods.......................................................
Nondurable g oo ds................................................
Transportation and public utilities ........................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ....................................
Finance and service industries.............................
Government workers ....................................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers .......................

1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

91

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data

8.

Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(Civilian workers)
Annual
average

Sex and age

1988

1989

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

1990

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Total, 16 years and o v e r .........................................................................
16 to 24 yea rs........................................................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs .....................................................................................
16 to 17 years ..................................................................................
18 to 19 years ..................................................................................
20 to 24 y e a rs .....................................................................................
25 years and over..................................................................................
25 to 54 years ..................................................................................
55 years and o v e r............................................................................

5.5
11.0
15.3
17.4
13.8
8.7
4.3
4.5
3.1

5.3
10.9
15.0
17.2
13.6
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1

5.3
10.6
14.6
15.9
13.7
8.4
4.1
4.3
3.0

5.2
10.5
15.0
16.6
14.3
7.9
4.0
4.2
2.9

5.3
11.1
15.4
17.4
14.6
8.7
4.0
4.1
3.3

5.3
10.9
15.1
17.7
13.1
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1

5.3
11.0
14.8
17.5
12.8
8.8
4.0
4.1
3.1

5.3
11.1
15.0
17.2
14.2
8.8
4.1
4.3
3.0

5.3
11.1
14.9
16.9
13.5
8.9
4.1
4.2
3.0

5.3
11.3
15.3
17.4
13.8
9.0
4.1
4.2
3.2

5.3
11.2
15.2
18.1
13.4
8.9
4.1
4.3
3.2

5.3
10.6
14.5
14.8
14.2
8.5
4.2
4.3
3.4

5.3
10.7
14.8
16.8
13.0
8.4
4.2
4.3
3.4

5.2
10.5
14.4
16.9
12.9
8.3
4.1
4.3
3.3

5.4
11.2
14.7
17.4
13.0
9.3
4.2
4.4
3.3

Men, 16 years and o v e r....................................................................
16 to 24 years ..................................................................................
16 to 19 years................................................................................
16 to 17 years.............................................................................
18 to 19 years.............................................................................
20 to 24 years................................................................................
25 years and o v e r............................................................................
25 to 54 yea rs.............................................................................
55 years and over.......................................................................

5.5
11.4
16.0
18.2
14.6
8.9
4.2
4.4
3.3

5.2
11.4
15.9
18.6
14.2
8.8
3.9
4.1
3.2

5.3
10.8
15.6
17.5
14.3
8.2
4.1
4.3
3.2

5.1
10.9
16.3
18.7
15.1
8.0
3.8
3.9
3.0

5.1
11.4
15.9
19.5
13.7
8.9
3.7
3.8
3.1

5.0
10.9
14.7
17.8
12.1
8.9
3.8
3.9
3.1

5.1
11.5
15.1
17.7
13.1
9.4
3.8
3.8
3.3

5.4
11.9
15.7
19.5
13.7
9.8
4.1
4.1
3.5

5.2
11.7
15.9
18.5
14.2
9.3
3.9
4.0
3.2

5.3
12.0
16.7
19.0
15.1
9.4
4.0
4.1
3.5

5.3
11.8
16.1
19.6
13.8
9.5
3.9
4.0
3.6

5.3
11.2
15.1
14.2
15.6
8.9
4.2
4.3
3.6

5.2
10.9
14.9
16.5
13.7
8.6
4.1
4.2
3.5

5.1
10.9
14.7
16.9
13.6
8.8
4.0
4.2
3.4

5.5
11.8
15.4
18.1
13.8
9.8
4.2
4.4
3.5

Women, 16 years and o v e r.............................................................
16 to 24 yea rs.................................................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs ..............................................................................
16 to 17 years ...........................................................................
18 to 19 years ...........................................................................
20 to 24 years ..............................................................................
25 years and o ve r...........................................................................
25 to 54 years ...........................................................................
55 years and o v e r....................................................................

5.6
10.6
14.4
16.6
12.9
8.5
4.3
4.6
2.8

5.4
10.4
14.0
15.7
13.0
8.3
4.2
4.4
2.8

5.3
10.4
13.5
14.1
12.9
8.7
4.1
4.4
2.7

5.3
10.0
13.7
14.3
13.4
7.9
4.3
4.6
2.9

5.5
10.8
14.9
15.2
15.6
8.5
4.3
4.5
3.6

5.6
10.9
15.5
17.6
14.2
8.3
4.3
4.5
3.1

5.4
10.4
14.6
17.2
12.5
8.1
4.2
4.5
2.8

5.2
10.2
14.4
14.7
14.6
7.7
4.1
4.4
2.4

5.4
10.4
13.8
15.0
12.8
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.8

5.4
10.4
13.8
15.7
12.3
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.9

5.5
10.4
14.3
16.5
13.0
8.2
4.3
4.6
2.7

5.2
10.1
13.7
15.5
12.6
8.0
4.1
4.3
3.3

5.4
10.4
14.6
17.3
12.3
8.1
4.3
4.5
3.3

5.3
10.0
14.0
16.9
12.0
7.7
4.2
4.4
3.3

5.4
10.5
13.9
16.7
12.1
8.7
4.2
4.4
2.9

9.

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Reason for unemployment
1988
Job losers .......................................................................
On layoff.......................................................................
Other job losers..........................................................
Job leavers ....................................................................
Reentrants .....................................................................
New entrants .................................................................

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

3,092
851
2,241
983
1,809
816

2,983
850
2,133
1,024
1,843
677

2,932
833
2,099
985
1,882
692

2,798
805
1,993
1,103
1,853
696

2,820
813
2,007
1,021
1,993
726

2,916
829
2,087
1,016
1,901
723

2,964
865
2,099
1,031
1,772
643

2,932
852
2,080
1,034
1,920
648

2,979
780
2,199
994
1,890
685

3,092
969
2,123
1,049
1,845
695

3,097
957
2,140
1,055
1,853
686

3,183
1,033
2,150
1,016
1,730
640

3,103
964
2,139
1,006
1,805
680

3,038
941
2,097
1,014
1,859
644

3,147
999
2,148
1,179
1,780
617

46.1
12.7
33.4
14.7
27.0
12.2

45.7
13.0
32.7
15.7
28.2
10.4

45.2
12.8
32.3
15.2
29.0
10.7

43.4
12.5
30.9
17.1
28.7
10.8

43.0
12.4
30.6
15.6
30.4
11.1

44.5
12.6
31.8
15.5
29.0
11.0

46.2
13.5
32.7
16.1
27.6
10.0

44.9
13.0
31.8
15.8
29.4
9.9

45.5
11.9
33.6
15.2
28.9
10.5

46.3
14.5
31.8
15.7
27.6
10.4

46.3
14.3
32.0
15.8
27.7
10.3

48.5
15.7
32.7
15.5
26.3
9.7

47.1
14.6
32.4
15.3
27.4
10.3

46.3
14.4
32.0
15.5
28.4
9.8

46.8
14.9
31.9
17.5
26.5
9.2

2.5
.8
1.5
.7

2.4
.8
1.5
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.3
.9
1.5
.6

2.3
.8
1.6
.6

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.4
.8
1.4
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.5
.8
1.5
.6

2.5
.8
1.5
.6

2.6
.8
1.4
.5

2.5
.8
1.4
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.5

2.5
.9
1.4
.5

PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers....................................................................
On layoff...................................................................
Other job losers.......................................................
Job leavers..................................................................
Reentrants...................................................................
New entrants ..............................................................

PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers .......................................................................
Job leavers ....................................................................
Reentrants .....................................................................
New entrants .................................................................

10.

Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Weeks of unemployment
1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Less than 5 weeks ................................................ 3,084
5 to 14 weeks ........................................................ 2,007
15 weeks and o v e r................................................ 1,610
15 to 26 weeks ...................................................
801
27 weeks and o v e r............................................
809

3,174
1,978
1,375
730
646

3,113
2,006
1,391
667
724

3,070
1,993
1,331
711
620

3,279
2,006
1,295
684
611

3,156
1,965
1,461
838
623

3,125
2,002
1,338
759
579

3,169
2,030
1,359
769
590

3,166
1,995
1,378
743
635

3,258
1,991
1,422
765
657

3,302
2,013
1,362
730
632

3,119
2,012
1,430
777
653

3,159
2,079
1,369
731
638

3,194
2,044
1,333
702
631

3,204
2,175
1,386
697
688

11.9
4.8

12.6
5.4

11.9
5.3

11.2
5.4

11.9
5.4

11.4
5.0

11.5
5.0

11.7
5.0

11.6
4.8

11.5
4.8

12.1
5.1

11.7
5.4

12.0
5.1

12.1
5.0

Mean duration in w eeks.......................................
Median duration in w eeks....................................

13.5
5.9

9 2 Monthly Labor Review June 1990

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11.

Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted
Mar.
1989

Mar.
1990

Alabam a.............................................................
Alaska ................................................................
Arizona...............................................................
Arkansas............................................................
California............................................................

7.3
8.1
5.7
7.4
4.7

7.0
7.9
5.1
7.3
5.3

Colorado ............................................................
Connecticut .......................................................
Delaw are............................................................
District of Columbia..........................................
Florida................................................................

6.9
3.2
3.7
4.9
4.7

5.5
5.2
4.4
5.6
5.0

Georgia ..............................................................
Hawaii.................................................................
Idaho ..................................................................
Illinois.................................................................
Indiana ...............................................................

5.3
2.7
6.5
6.2
5.2

4.7
3.0
6.7
5.9
6.2

Io w a ....................................................................
Kansas ...............................................................
Kentucky............................................................
Louisiana............................................................
M aine..................................................................

4.5
4.2
7.5
8.0
4.3

4.8
4.0
6.3
6.8
5.8

Maryland ............................................................
Massachusetts..................................................
Michigan.............................................................
Minnesota..........................................................
Mississippi..........................................................
Missouri..............................................................

3.9
4.0
7.1
4.6
8.3
5.7

3.3
5.9
7.6
5.4
7.1
5.8

State

Mar.
1989

Mar.
1990

76
3.3

Pfl

54
2.9

49
5.3

3.3
74
47
34
4.8

4.9

36
5.1

5.8
65
6.4
4.2
4.0

5.9
54
5.7
5.3
8.2

South Carolina.................................................

4.6
44
51
64
6.0

4.3
40
51
57
5.2

Verm ont............................................................

3.7
4.2
66
88
5.3

fi 6
76
4.9

7.0

6.9

State

Ohio ..................................................................
O regon...............................................................
Pennsylvania....................................................

60

5.0
39

NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published
elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database.

12.

Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted

(In thousands)
State

Mar. 1989

Feb. 1990

Mar. 1990»

Alabam a.............................................................
Alaska ................................................................
Arizona...............................................................
Arkansas ............................................................
California............................................................

1,582.9
211.3
1,464.6
878.5
12,441.9

1,586.5
217.6
1,498.1
895.7
12,646.4

1,583.4
221.4
1,505.4
903.7
12,732.6

Colorado ............................................................
Connecticut .......................................................
Delaware............................................................
District of Columbia..........................................
Florida................................................................

1,467.6
1,668.6
338.4
676.4
5,290.2

1,477.1
1,659.7
343.9
683.5
5,447.4

1,483.8
1,668.2
345.8
688.6
5,502.9

Georgia ..............................................................
Hawaii.................................................................
Idaho ..................................................................
Illinois .................................................................
Indiana ...............................................................

2,906.3
501.5
352.4
5,138.3
2,434.6

2,992.5
516.8
373.2
5,160.0
2,463.7

3,002.2
518.1
375.7
5,168.8
2,477.1

Io w a ....................................................................
Kansas ...............................................................
Kentucky............................................................
Louisiana............................................................
M aine..................................................................

1,176.1
1,054.7
1,408.0
1,513.7
526.0

1,204.2
1,075.7
1,447.6
1,516.1
529.1

1,206.9
1,085.0
1,451.8
l ’518.2
529.5

Maryland ............................................................
Massachusetts..................................................
Michigan.............................................................
Minnesota..........................................................
Mississippi..........................................................
Missouri..............................................................
M ontana.............................................................

2,128.1
3,102.3
3,850.0
2,038.8
909.7
2,276.0
279.4

2,136.4
3,048.3
3,846.0
2,088.3
923.6
2,288.8
287.7

2,150.3
3,048.8
3^867.9
2,094.8
927.8
2,305.9
290.2

State

Mar. 1989

Feb. 1990

696 2
fi6P 1
526.0

713 1
506.0

506.4

3 675 1
555.0
8,195.5
3,034.2
253.8

3 664 3
561.7
8,210.5
3,087.0
258.4

565.6
8,261.1
3,094.6
259.9

O klahom a.........................................................
O regon..............................................................
Pennsylvania....................................................
Rhode Island....................................................

4 746 9
1il 51.3
1,176.4
5,072.9
457.3

4 790 2
T 156.6
1,210.0
5,081.1
454.0

1,165.8
1,225.0
5,106.4
455.5

South D akota...................................................

1 479 4
265.9

271.0

272.2

6 769 7
675.9

698.2

707.7

2,875.7
2 073 3

2,897.7
2 096 7

2,219.2

2,227.2

40.8

41.0

New M exico.....................................................
New Y o rk..........................................................
North Carolina ...........................................

Virginia..............................................................

Wisconsin.........................................................

261 2
2,808.9
1 987 1
606 3
2,179.1
183 8
822 4
43.3

Mar. 1990»

- Data not available.
» = preliminary
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

93

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
13.

Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted

(In thousands)
1990

1989

Annual average
Industry
1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.p

Apr.p

108,581
90,854

108,101
90,475

108,310
90,623

108,607
90,884

108,767
91,016

108,887
91,083

109,096
91,230

109,171
91,328

109,452
91,622

109,570
91,699

109,931
91,975

110,304
92,302

110,407
92,297

110,471
92,233

25,249
721
406

25,634
722
404

25,671
720
400

25,672
722
401

25,648
715
402

25,669
706
404

25,694
729
405

25,614
730
408

25,603
731
409

25,609
737
414

25,532
739
416

25,518
745
417

25,686
749
422

25,604
749
421

25,489
755
425

5,125
1,368

5,300
1,391

5,279
1,377

5,283
1,388

5,283
1,384

5,314
1,391

5,321
1,403

5,325
1,396

5,335
1,386

5,355
1,391

5,304
1,388

5,418
1,425

5,485
1,436

5,433
1,415

5,334
1,389

19,403
13,254

19,612
13,375

19,672
13,430

19,667
13,426

19,650
13,400

19,649
13,410

19,644
13,401

19,559
13,319

19,537
13,307

19,517
13,276

19,489
13,262

19,355
13,128

19,452
13,217

19,422
13,192

19,400
13,198

11,437
7,635

11,536
7,687

11,600
7,744

11,594
7,735

11,567
7,706

11,549
7,697

11,551
7,696

11,480
7,632

11,457
7,615

11,439
7,594

11,409
7,579

11,287
7,456

11,398
7,564

11,383
7,559

11,353
7,551

765
530
600
774

770
531
603
783

772
537
606
788

771
534
604
787

769
534
603
787

767
536
602
785

763
529
601
786

759
528
597
777

764
525
600
776

765
525
602
772

765
523
600
771

770
522
601
764

765
522
602
767

765
523
598
765

760
522
594
765

277
1,431

274
1,445

275
1,454

276
1,452

276
1,449

277
1,446

276
1,443

273
1,438

271
1,434

269
1,430

270
1,426

270
1,407

269
1,419

267
1,420

268
1,424

Machinery, except electrical.........
Electrical and electronic
equipment.......................................
Transportation equipment.............
Motor vehicles and equipment ....
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries........................................

2,082

2,146

2,144

2,150

2,151

2,154

2,152

2,147

2,139

2,146

2,145

2,143

2,140

2,133

2,121

2,070
2,051
857
749

2,038
2,054
856
777

2,058
2,073
875
777

2,050
2,076
876
778

2,041
2,062
861
779

2,040
2,046
844
781

2,034
2,068
873
782

2,023
2,038
843
780

2,018
2,031
833
779

2,012
2,020
824
778

1,992
2,022
825
774

1,989
1,920
726
776

1,991
2,021
825
776

1,990
2,022
824
775

1,984
2,017
821
776

386

391

391

392

392

392

393

393

391

389

391

395

395

392

390

Nondurable goods......................

7,967
5,619

8,076
5,688

8,072
5,686

8,073
5,691

8,083
5,694

8,100
5,713

8,093
5,705

8,079
5,687

8,080
5,692

8,078
5,682

8,080
5,683

8,068
5,672

8,054
5,653

8,039
5,633

8,047
5,647

Food and kindred products..........
Tobacco manufactures..................
Textile mill products.......................
Apparel and other textile
products..........................................
Paper and allied products ............

1,636
56
729

1,665
53
726

1,657
54
728

1,656
53
728

1,663
52
729

1,678
53
730

1,667
52
727

1,674
51
723

1,676
51
724

1,673
51
721

1,676
51
719

1,676
51
718

1,674
51
714

1,669
50
711

1,669
48
710

1,092
693

1,092
697

1,098
696

1,095
697

1,093
697

1,094
701

1,095
700

1,088
697

1,084
697

1,084
697

1,081
697

1,073
697

1,063
699

1,053
697

1,061
698

Printing and publishing...................
Chemicals and allied products.....
Petroleum and coal products.......
Rubber and misc. plastics
products...........................................
Leather and leather products ......

1,561
1,065
162

1,607
1,093
163

1,601
1,090
162

1,603
1,094
162

1,607
1,096
163

1,609
1,091
163

1,611
1,097
163

1,612
1,095
163

1,612
1,096
164

1,617
1,098
164

1,621
1,103
163

1,624
1,104
163

1,625
1,106
165

1,626
1,106
166

1,626
1,106
166

829
144

840
141

843
143

843
142

841
142

841
140

841
140

837
139

837
139

835
138

832
137

826
136

821
136

825
136

828
135

SERVICE-PRODUCING .................
Transportation and public
utilities.........................................

80,335

82,947

82,430

82,638

82,959

83,098

83,193

83,482

83,568

83,843

84,038

84,413

84,618

84,803

84,982

5,548
3,334

5,705
3,514

5,682
3,467

5,700
3,484

5,716
3,500

5,736
3,524

5,618
3,539

5,709
3,546

5,729
3,566

5,753
3,592

5,834
3,613

5,850
3,635

5,865
3,649

5,864
3,652

5,866
3,649

2,214

2,190

2,215

2,216

2,216

2,212

2,079

2,163

2,163

2,161

2,221

2,215

2,216

2,212

2,217

6,029
3,561
2,467

6,234
3,696
2,539

6,206
3,676
2,530

6,222
3,685
2,537

6,230
3,693
2,537

6,237
3,700
2,537

6,256
3,708
2,548

6,264
3,717
2,547

6,278
3,721
2,557

6,300
3,737
2,563

6,311
3,746
2,565

6,332
3,754
2,578

6,332
3,759
2,573

6,343
3,762
2,581

6,345
3,765
2,580

19,110
2,461
3,098

19,575
2,483
3,270

19,489
2,492
3,233

19,528
2,491
3,245

19,551
2,493
3,262

19,586
2,482
3,274

19,621
2,484
3,293

19,632
2,486
3,294

19,679
2,478
3,321

19,744
2,492
3,334

19,718
2,470
3,341

19,822
2,491
3,361

19,794
2,460
3,361

19,778
2,451
3,362

19,802
2,447
3,376

2,090
6,282

2,157
6,370

2,159
6,335

2,159
6,348

2,155
6,362

2,155
6,370

2,152
6,385

2,157
6,397

2,169
6,403

2,169
6,417

2,163
6,432

2,170
6,459

2,172
6,467

2,171
6,480

2,168
6,494

6,676
3,290
2,082
1,304

6,814
3,329
2,128
1,357

6,776
3,312
2,119
1,345

6,790
3,320
2,123
1,347

6,808
3,320
2,129
1,359

6,815
3,324
2,131
1,360

6,836
3,336
2,137
1,363

6,852
3,343
2,137
1,372

6,851
3,345
2,134
1,372

6,871
3,357
2,138
1,376

6,885
3,360
2,144
1,381

6,896
3,353
2,152
1,391

6,916
3,366
2,155
1,395

6,926
3,365
2,162
1,399

6,926
3,367
2,168
1,391

25,600
5,571
7,144

26,892
5,789
7,635

26,651
5,760
7,528

26,711
5,776
7,570

26,931
5,799
7,616

26,973
5,786
7,648

27,058
5,800
7,695

27,159
5,836
7,739

27,188
5,827
7,778

27,345
5,852
7,839

27,419
5,852
7,884

27,557
5,885
7,934

27,709
5,899
7,981

27,782
5,904
8,034

27,805
5,891
8,080

17,372
2,971
4,063
10,339

17,727
2,988
4,134
10,606

17,626
2,982
4,111
10,533

17,687
2,999
4,119
10,569

17,723
2,995
4,136
10,592

17,751
3,000
4,145
10,606

17,804
2,999
4,154
10,651

17,866
2,996
4,182
10,688

17,843
2,984
4,153
10,706

17,830
2,982
4,162
10,686

17,871
2,974
4,156
10,741

17,956
2,998
4,178
10,780

18,002
3,006
4,197
10,799

18,110
3,088
4,203
10,819

18,238
3,167
4,210
10,861

1988

TOTAL ...................................... 105,584
PRIVATE SECTOR ...................... 88,212
GOODS-PRODUCING ....................
Mining ...........................................
Oil and gas extraction ..................

Construction ................................
General building contractors.......

Manufacturing..............................
Production workers .......................

Durable goods............................
Production w orkers.......................
Lumber and wood products.........
Furniture and fixtures.....................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...
Primary metal industries ................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..........................................
Fabricated metal products............

Production workers.........................

Transportation.................................
Communication and public
utilities..............................................

Wholesale tra d e ..........................
Durable goods.................................
Nondurable goo ds..........................

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 e s ta te ......................................

Services........................................
Business services...........................
Health services...............................

Government .................................
Federal..............................................
S ta te ..................................................
Local..................................................

= preliminary
NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

p

9 4 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry,
monthly data seasonally adjusted

Industry

Annual
average
1988

1989

1989
Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

1990
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.p

Apr.p

PRIVATE SECTOR ..........................................

34.7

34.7

34.9

34.6

34.6

34.8

34.6

34.7

34.7

34.6

34.5

34.5

34.6

34.6

34.6

MANUFACTURING................................................

41.1
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.3
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.8

40.8
3.7

40.7
3.7

40.6
3.6

40.7
3.7

40.7
3.6

40.8
3.7

40.6
3.5

Overtime hours....................................................
Lumber and wood products...................................
Furniture and fixtures...............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
Primary metal industries .........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................

41.8
4.1
40.3
39.4
42.3
43.6
44.0
41.9

41.6
3.9
40.1
39.5
42.3
43.0
43.4
41.6

41.9
4.1
40.5
39.9
42.5
43.3
43.5
41.9

41.5
3.9
39.7
39.4
41.9
43.2
43.6
41.7

41.5
3.9
39.8
39.4
42.2
43.3
43.7
41.5

41.5
4.0
39.6
39.5
42.3
43.0
43.2
41.5

41.6
3.9
40.2
39.6
42.5
42.9
43.4
41.5

41.6
3.9
40.2
39.6
42.2
42.8
42.9
41.6

41.2
3.8
40.4
39.2
42.3
42.5
42.8
41.5

41.2
3.7
40.3
39.4
42.4
42.6
43.0
41.4

41.2
3.6
40.1
39.2
41.5
42.5
42.8
41.2

41.3
3.7
40.5
39.8
42.2
42.5
43.2
41.1

41.3
3.6
39.8
39.5
42.1
42.3
42.8
41.3

41.4
3.7
40.3
39.2
41.9
42.5
42.9
41.7

41.2
3.5
40.3
39.2
42.1
41.7
42.9
41.1

Machinery except electrical ...................................
Electrical and electronic equipment......................
Transportation equipment.......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment............................
Instruments and related products .........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.................................

42.6
41.0
42.7
43.5
41.5
39.2

42.4
40.8
42.4
43.1
41.2
39.4

42.7
41.0
42.8
43.3
41.5
39.8

42.5
40.7
42.5
42.8
41.1
39.6

42.5
40.7
42.5
42.7
41.3
39.4

42.4
40.6
42.6
42.6
41.4
39.3

42.2
40.9
42.7
43.0
41.1
39.4

42.3
41.1
42.8
43.4
41.0
39.2

42.0
40.9
41.2
42.9
41.1
39.3

42.1
40.8
40.9
42.3
41.0
39.7

42.0
40.5
41.9
42.2
40.9
39.3

42.1
40.8
41.4
40.8
41.0
39.4

42.2
41.1
41.5
41.2
41.0
39.5

42.0
41.1
42.1
42.2
41.1
39.4

41.7
40.9
42.0
41.4
41.4
39.1

Nondurable goods..............................................
Overtime hours....................................................
Food and kindred products....................................
Textile mill products.................................................
Apparel and other textile products........................
Paper and allied products......................................

40.1
3.7
40.3
41.1
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.7
40.7
41.0
37.0
43.3

40.4
3.8
40.7
41.7
37.6
43.4

40.2
3.7
40.5
41.4
37.1
43.3

40.3
3.6
40.7
41.4
37.1
43.3

40.2
3.8
41.0
41.2
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.6
40.8
41.0
37.0
43.5

40.2
3.7
41.0
40.6
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.7
40.8
40.7
36.9
43.4

40.1
3.6
40.8
40.5
36.8
43.4

39.9
3.6
40.6
40.2
36.3
43.1

40.0
3.6
40.5
40.5
36.7
43.3

39.9
3.5
40.5
40.2
36.6
43.0

39.9
3.5
40.6
40.0
36.2
43.2

39.7
3.4
40.4
39.7
36.0
43.1

Printing and publishing.............................................
Chemicals and allied products...............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.....
Leather and leather products ................................

38.0
42.3
41.7
37.5

37.8
42.4
41.5
37.9

37.9
42.6
41.6
38.3

37.7
42.1
41.5
37.4

37.8
42.5
41.5
37.9

37.6
42.5
41.4
37.7

37.7
42.4
41.5
38.1

37.9
42.5
41.5
38.1

37.8
42.4
41.4
37.7

37.9
42.3
41.2
37.5

37.6
42.7
40.8
37.2

37.8
42.7
40.9
37.4

37.8
42.3
41.1
38.0

37.8
42.4
41.2
37.8

37.5
42.6
40.9
37.1

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES....

39.3

39.4

40.1

39.5

39.4

39.4

39.0

39.3

39.3

39.1

39.3

39.1

39.3

39.4

39.7

Overtime hours....................................................

Durable goods.....................................................

WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................

37.4

37.4

38.3

37.9

38.0

38.1

38.0

38.1

38.1

38.1

38.0

38.0

38.1

38.1

38.2

RETAIL TRADE .....................................................

29.1

28.9

29.1

28.9

28.9

29.2

28.8

28.8

29.0

28.8

28.7

28.8

28.9

28.9

29.0

SERVICES .............................................................

32.6

32.6

32.8

32.5

32.5

32.8

32.6

32.7

32.8

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.7

32.7

p = preliminary
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark adjustment.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

95

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Annual
average

Industry

1990

1989

1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.P

Apr.P

$9.29

$9.66

$9.61

$9.60

$9.62

$9.69

$9.69

$9.74

$9.78

$9.78

$9.83

$9.83

$9.88

$9.92

$9.95

Construction............................................................... 13.01
Manufacturing ............................................................ 10.18
9.72
Excluding overtime .................................................
Transportation and public utilities .......................... 12.32
9.94
Wholesale trade.........................................................
6.31
Retail tra d e .................................................................
9.09
Finance, insurance, and real estate ......................
Services....................................................................... 8.91

13.37
10.47
10.01
12.57
10.38
6.54
9.57
9.39

13.33
10.40
9.92
12.52
10.36
6.51
9.54
9.32

13.32
10.42
9.97
12.54
10.28
6.49
9.45
9.33

13.32
10.45
9.99
12.54
10.33
6.52
9.53
9.34

13.42
10.48
10.01
12.61
10.44
6.54
9.68
9.46

13.37
10.52
10.05
12.57
10.39
6.57
9.57
9.43

13.39
10.55
10.08
12.67
10.47
6.58
9.66
9.49

13.44
10.55
10.08
12.68
10.54
6.61
9.77
9.58

13.52
10.57
10.11
12.61
10.54
6.61
9.67
9.54

13.60
10.61
10.15
12.71
10.59
6.65
9.79
9.62

13.34
10.55
10.10
12.79
10.57
6.69
9.75
9.62

13.43
10.65
10.21
12.82
10.62
6.71
9.78
9.65

13.47
10.72
10.27
12.85
10.65
6.74
9.82
9.70

13.39
10.76
10.37
12.86
10.75
6.75
9.92
9.78

4.84

4.80

4.80

4.77

4.77

4.79

4.80

4.81

4.81

4.79

4.80

4.74

4.74

4.75

PRIVATE SECTOR (In current dollars)1 ............

PRIVATE SECTOR (In constant (1977) dollars)1
1 Includes mining, not shown separately
- Data not available.
p = preliminary

-

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

19 90

1989

1988

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.p

Apr.P

PRIVATE SECTOR................................................ $9.29

$9.66

$9.62

$9.59

$9.58

$9.63

$9.61

$9.77

$9.81

$9.81

$9.84

$9.88

$9.91

$9.93

$9.97

MINING................................................................... 12.75

13.14

13.19

13.13

13.03

12.95

13.11

13.15

13.10

13.13

13.31

13.31

13.30

13.39

13.48

13.47

13.38

CONSTRUCTION................................................... 13.01

13.37

13.30

13.28

13.24

13.33

13.33

13.48

13.52

13.51

13.64

13.42

13.42

10.18

10.47

10.41

10.42

10.44

10.47

10.44

10.55

10.52

10.58

10.67

10.59

10.66

10.74

10.77
11.25
9.08
8.42
11.16
13.03
15.37
10.69

MANUFACTURING................................................

Lumber and wood products...................................
Furniture and fixtures...............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
Primary metal industries ..........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................

8.61
7.94
10.47
12.15
13.97
10.26

11.00
8.86
8.25
10.74
12.36
14.23
10.53

10.93
8.76
8.12
10.71
12.26
14.06
10.48

10.94
8.79
8.16
10.69
12.25
14.06
10.49

10.98
8.85
8.23
10.73
12.32
14.18
10.51

10.99
8.92
8.26
10.75
12.40
14.33
10.53

10.98
8.93
8.29
10.77
12.36
14.27
10.50

11.10
8.98
8.40
10.79
12.47
14.38
10.64

11.06
8.99
8.39
10.82
12.43
14.40
10.57

11.10
8.99
8.40
10.87
12.51
14.48
10.61

11.18
9.00
8.42
10.88
12.52
14.40
10.69

11.05
9.00
8.45
10.87
12.50
14.44
10.56

11.17
8.96
8.39
10.85
12.60
14.59
10.66

11.24
9.05
8.41
10.94
12.66
14.54
10.74

Machinery, except electrical ..................................
Electrical and electronic equipment......................
Transportation equipment.......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment............................
Instruments and related products .........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.................................

11.01
10.13
13.31
14.00
9.98
8.01

11.34
10.38
13.70
14.28
10.26
8.31

11.26
10.31
13.60
14.20
10.17
8.21

11.29
10.33
13.58
14.17
10.17
8.24

11.32
10.37
13.65
14.22
10.25
8.24

11.35
10.41
13.61
14.07
10.31
8.29

11.32
10.40
13.70
14.18
10.29
8.20

11.41
10.47
13.89
14.48
10.32
8.39

11.43
10.43
13.84
14.45
10.35
8.38

11.48
10.47
13.85
14.46
10.36
8.49

11.57
10.52
13.93
14.49
10.49
8.60

11.51
10.50
13.57
13.76
10.53
8.59

11.53
10.54
13.90
14.33
10.55
8.58

11.57
10.58
14.04
14.61
10.56
8.59

11.53
10.58
13.94
14.45
10.57
8.59

9.43
9.10
Food and kindred products....................................
Tobacco manufactures............................................ 14.68
7.37
Textile mill products.................................................
6.12
Apparel and other textile products........................
Paper and allied products...................................... 11.65

9.74
9.33
15.37
7.68
6.35
11.93

9.65
9.32
15.87
7.60
6.32
11.83

9.68
9.34
16.13
7.62
6.32
11.89

9.70
9.37
16.48
7.65
6.33
11.91

9.77
9.35
16.34
7.66
6.28
12.04

9.71
9.28
15.72
7.69
6.32
11.90

9.80
9.32
14.69
7.76
6.41
11.99

9.80
9.27
14.91
7.77
6.39
11.97

9.86
9.38
15.01
7.82
6.42
12.08

9.95
9.50
15.31
7.87
6.45
12.14

9.95
9.47
15.48
7.92
6.41
12.13

9.96
9.48
15.70
7.92
6.45
12.12

10.02
9.57
16.47
7.94
6.54
12.12

10.10
9.61
17.30
7.94
6.58
12.26

Printing and publishing............................................. 10.52
Chemicals and allied products............................... 12.67
Petroleum and coal products................................. 14.98
9.14
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.....
6.27
Leather and leather products................................

10.87
13.06
15.44
9.42
6.58

10.73
12.92
15.50
9.35
6.55

10.76
12.98
15.34
9.40
6.58

10.75
12.98
15.23
9.41
6.59

10.83
13.12
15.34
9.45
6.54

10.89
13.08
15.23
9.44
6.53

11.05
13.18
15.43
9.46
6.63

11.04
13.25
15.63
9.47
6.64

11.05
13.26
15.64
9.50
6.67

11.07
13.31
15.76
9.58
6.73

11.09
13.31
15.89
9.59
6.80

11.09
13.24
15.92
9.59
6.82

11.13
13.29
16.06
9.63
6.84

11.10
13.44
16.34
9.59
6.98

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 12.32

12.57

12.51

12.49

12.48

12.58

12.56

12.70

12.69

12.67

12.76

12.80

12.85

12.81

12.86

10.50

10.55

10.62

10.61

10.66

10.65

10.76

Durable goods ...................................................... 10.71

Nondurable go ods...............................................

WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................

9.94

10.38

10.36

10.28

10.31

10.40

10.35

10.47

RETAIL TRADE .....................................................

6.31

6.54

6.52

6.49

6.49

6.49

6.50

6.61

6.62

6.64

6.66

6.74

6.73

6.75

6.77

9.62

9.71

9.69

9.76

9.82

9.90

9.87

10.00

9.49

9.59

9.61

9.69

9.73

9.75

9.75

9.81

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE....

9.09

9.57

9.59

9.48

9.48

9.59

9.50

SERVICES .............................................................

8.91

9.39

9.34

9.30

9.26

9.33

9.29

= preliminary
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

p

6 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

17. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
1990

1989

Annual average
Industry
1988

PRIVATE SECTOR
Seasonally adjusted............................................
Constant (1977) dollars .......................................

1989

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.p

Apr.P

$322.36 $335.20 $334.78 $330.86 $333.38 $338.01 $335.39 $339.02 $341.39 $338.45 $341.45 $337.90 $339.91 $341.59 $343.97
335.39 332.16 332.85 337.21 335.27 337.98 339.37 338.39 339.14 339.14 341.85 343.23 344.27
167.81 166.52 167.39 164.53 165.37 167.08 165.79 167.00 167.43 165.66 166.89 163.47 163.73 163.68

MINING...................................................................

539.33

562.39

564.53

551.46

555.08

550.38

566.35

574.66

575.09

572.47

581.65

580.32

574.56

574.43

582.34

CONSTRUCTION...................................................

493.08

506.72

504.07

500.66

503.12

518.54

519.87

520.33

529.98

514.73

504.68

504.59

499.22

510.51

500.41

Current dollars.........................................................
Constant (1977) dollars..........................................

418.40
217.80

429.27
213.25

426.81
213.41

426.18
211.92

429.08
212.84

424.04
209.61

425.95
210.55

434.66
214.12

430.27
211.02

434.84
212.84

440.67
215.38

429.95
208.01

430.66
207.45

437.12
209.45

427.57

Durable g o o d s ......................................................
Lumber and wood products...................................
Furniture and fixtures...............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
Primary metal industries..........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................

447.68
346.98
312.84
442.88
529.74
614.68
429.89

457.60
355.29
325.88
454.30
531.48
617.58
438.05

455.78
354.78
319.12
456.25
529.63
613.02
437.02

454.01
352.48
318.24
453.26
527.98
613.02
435.34

457.87
357.54
324.26
457.10
533.46
622.50
438.27

449.49
352.34
320.49
456.88
528.24
619.06
428.57

453.47
360.77
329.94
460.96
525.30
613.61
432.60

462.87
362.79
336.84
459.65
534.96
619.78
443.69

457.88
364.99
334.76
464.18
527.03
612.00
439.71

460.65
360.50
334.32
461.98
535.43
622.64
443.50

468.44
361.80
339.33
450.43
539.61
622.08
450.05

455.26
359.10
332.93
448.93
532.50
623.81
435.07

457.97
352.13
326.37
444.85
532.98
622.99
438.13

465.34
362.91
327.99
455.10
539.32
623.77
446.78

453.38
365.02
322.49
469.84
542.05
659.37
426.53

Machinery, except electrical ..................................
Electrical and electronic equipment......................
Transportation equipment.......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment............................
Instruments and related products .........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.................................

469.03
415.33
568.34
609.00
414.17
313.99

480.82
423.50
580.88
615.47
422.71
327.41

478.55
419.62
584.80
620.54
420.02
325.12

477.57
417.33
579.87
613.56
414.94
324.66

482.23
423.10
581.49
611.46
423.33
324.66

475.57
416.40
566.18
582.50
420.65
319.99

472.04
423.28
572.66
589.89
419.83
321.44

482.64
430.32
594.49
628.43
423.12
329.73

480.06
427.63
571.59
621.35
425.39
332.69

486.75
431.36
573.39
620.33
428.90
341.30

497.51
436.58
593.42
621.62
438.48
344.00

485.72
430.50
563.16
561.41
432.78
336.73

485.41
430.03
576.85
590.40
432.55
336.34

487.10
432.72
595.30
623.85
435.07
338.45

468.12
420.03
565.96
589.56
428.09
327.28

Nondurable goods...............................................

378.14
366.73
584.26
302.91
226.44
503.28

391.55
379.73
593.28
314.88
234.95
516.57

386.97
372.80
604.65
313.12
234.47
509.87

387.20
377.34
637.14
313.94
233.84
512.46

390.91
381.36
660.85
318.24
236.74
514.51

390.80
382.42
619.29
311.00
230.48
516.52

391.31
382.34
586.36
317.60
234.47
514.08

396.90
386.78
592.01
318.16
237.17
523.96

394.94
381.00
599.38
317.79
237.07
520.70

398.34
386.46
585.39
319.84
238.18
527.90

401.98
391.40
583.31
319.52
236.72
532.95

396.01
381.64
582.05
318.38
233.32
525.23

394.42
377.30
591.89
316.01
234.78
517.52

397.79
382.80
639.04
316.01
236.75
519.95

393.90
380.56
655.67
306.48
228.98
518.60

399.76
535.94
665.11

410.89
553.74
683.99

405.59
549.10
686.65

402.42
546.46
673.43

402.05
551.65
679.26

405.04
553.66
679.56

411.64
550.67
665.55

423.22
560.15
685.09

418.42
560.48
704.91

421.01
564.88
699.11

422.87
576.32
715.50

415.88
568.34
699.16

416.98
558.73
698.89

421.83
563.50
713.06

411.81
572.54
733.67

381.14
235.13

390.93
249.38

388.03
247.59

390.10
247.41

391.46
255.03

385.56
247.21

388.93
250.75

392.59
252.60

393.01
251.66

394.25
250.13

397.57
253.72

394.15
252.96

393.19
254.39

396.76
255.13

383.60
251.98

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES.............................................................

484.18

495.26

497.90

490.86

494.21

500.68

494.86

500.38

499.99

495.40

501.47

496.64

501.15

502.15

507.97

WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................

378.71

395.48

395.75

389.61

392.81

398.32

394.34

398.91

402.15

401.96

405.68

401.06

402.95

403.64

409.96

MANUFACTURING

Food and kindred products....................................
Tobacco manufactures............................................
Textile mill products.................................................
Apparel and other textile products........................
Paper and allied products......................................
Printing and publishing.............................................
Chemicals and allied products...............................
Petroleum and coal products.................................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................................................
Leather and leather products ................................

“

RETAIL TRADE .....................................................

183.62

189.01

188.43

186.91

189.51

194.05

192.40

191.03

191.32

189.90

194.47

189.39

190.46

192.38

196.33

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ................................................................

326.33

343.56

348.12

337.49

339.38

348.12

340.10

343.43

350.53

345.93

348.43

350.57

354.42

351.37

362.00

SERVICES .............................................................

290.47

306.11

306.35

301.32

302.80

308.82

305.64

309.37

314.55

313.29

314.93

315.25

316.88

316.88

320.79

-

Data not available.
= preliminary
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

p


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

97

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
18.

Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted

(In percent)

Time span
and year

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Private nonagricultural payrolls, 349 industries

Over 1-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

60.7
68.3
58.5

63.5
60.5
57.9

63.0
61.0
51.6

62.8
58.2
49.9

61.3
55.6
"

67.2
59.7

Over 3-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

64.8
71.6
58.2

65.6
70.1
58.6

69.5
64.5
53.2

70.2
61.9

71.1
61.6

Over 6-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

69.9
75.1
56.3

70.2
69.5

71.5
68.2

73.9
66.0

Over 12-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

76.2
73.2
“

73.9
63.0

-

76.1
73.6

74.8
69.6

74.6
67.6

75.8
66.6
-

-

63.6
55.6
-

58.0
57.4
-

55.4
47.9
-

63.9
55.3
-

68.2
60.9
-

64.6
51.9
-

71.9
60.7
-

71.2
61.6
-

64.2
53.4

65.3
54.6

-

-

70.1
55.7
-

73.4
57.2
-

74.6
60.2
-

69.1
57.9
-

70.2
57.7
-

74.6
60.2

73.5
53.4

74.5
58.3

-

73.9
58.3
-

75.8
60.5
-

-

74.9
62.6
-

78.1
63.6
-

75.5
63.2
-

75.5
60.7
-

74.8
58.0
-

74.9

_

_

-

-

62.8
52.1
-

64.9
48.2
-

58.5
44.7
-

-

74.1

Manufacturing payrolls, 141 industries
Over 1-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

58.5
62.4
45.4

56.0
53.5
49.3

55.0
53.2
44.0

59.9
49.6
46.5

58.5
46.8

Over 3-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

63.1
67.4
42.2

61.0
63.8
41.1

62.4
55.7
44.3

64.9
51.8

Over 6-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

66.3
69.5
37.9

66.3
58.5

67.7
55.7

69.5
52.8

73.8
63.1

70.2
63.8

Over 12-month span:
1988 .............................................................................
1989 .............................................................................
1990 .............................................................................

-

70.9
57.1

“

- 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

98

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

71.6
53.5

61.7
48.6
"

59.6
49.6
-

51.1
45.4
-

49.3
34.8
-

67.4
49.3

67.0
48.6
-

64.5
47.9
-

58.2
34.0
-

62.1
41.8
-

66.7
41.5
-

71.3
46.5
-

70.9
41.1
-

66.7
48.9

66.0
40.1
-

70.9
41.8
-

68.8
34.4
-

69.9
37.9

“

64.2
39.0
-

71.6
40.8
-

74.1
44.0
-

72.0
49.6

69.9
42.9

70.9
43.3

69.1
42.2
-

71.6
37.9
-

70.2
36.9
-

_

69.9

67.0

-

-

-

-

_

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

1981

1982

1983

1987

1986

1985

1984

1988

1989

Noninstitutional population........................................

171,775

173,939

175,891

178,080

179,912

182,293

184,490

186,322

188,081

Labor force:
Total (number)............................... ........................
Percent of population............................................

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
66.2

125,557
66.8

Employed:
Total (num ber)..................................................
Percent of population .....................................
Resident Armed Forces...............................
Civilian

102,042
59.4
1,645

101,194
58.2
1,668

102,510
58.3
1,676

106,702
59.9
1,697

108,856
60.5
1,706

111,303
61.1
1,706

114,177
61.9
1,737

116,677
62.6
1,709

119,030
63.3
1,688

Agriculture.................................................
Nonagricultural industries.......................

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

117,342
3,199
114,142

Unemployed:
Total (number).................................................
Percent of labor fo rc e ...................................

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
6.1

6,701
5.4

6,528
5.2

Not in labor force (number) ...................................

61,460

62,067

62,665

62,839

62,744

62,752

62,888

62,944

62,523

20.

Annual data: Employment levels by industry

(Numbers in thousands)
Industry

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Total employment............................................................................
Private sector.................................................................................
Goods-producing........................................................................
Construction .........................................................................
Manufacturing........................................................................

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

102,200
85,190
24,708
717
4,967
19,024

105,584
88,212
25,249
721
5,125
19,403

108,581
90,854
25,634
722
5,300
19,612

Service-producing......................................................................
Transportation and public utilities......................................
Wholesale tra d e ....................................................................
Retail trade .............................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ..................................
Services...................................................................................

65,659
5,165
5,358
15,189
5,298
18,619

65,753
5,082
5,278
15,179
5,341
19,036

66,866
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
22,000

74,967
5,255
5,753
17,930
6,283
23,053

77,492
5,372
5,844
18,483
6,547
24,236

80,335
5,548
6,029
19,110
6,676
25,600

82,947
5,705
6,234
19,575
6,814
26,892

Government...........................................................................
Federal..............................................................................
S tate..................................................................................
Local .................................................................................

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

17,010
2,943
3,967
10,100

17,372
2,971
4,063
10,339

17,727
2,988
4,134
10,606


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE:

See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

99

C urrent Labor

Statistics: Employment Data

21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural
payrolls, by industry
Industry

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

35.2
7.25
255.20

34.8
7.68
267.26

35.0
8.02
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

34.7
9.29
322.36

34.7
9.66
335.20

43.7
10.04
438.75

42.7
10.77
459.88

42.5
11.28
479.40

43.3
11.63
503.58

43.4
11.98
519.93

42.2
12.46
525.81

42.4
12.54
531.70

42.3
12.75
539.33

42.8
13.14
562.39

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
12.71
480.44

37.9
13.01
493.08

37.9
13.37
506.72

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
10.18
418.40

41.0
10.47
429.27

39.4
9.70
382.18

39.0
10.32
402.48

39.0
10.79
420.81

39.4
11.12
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

39.4
12.57
495.26

38.5
7.56
291.06

38.3
8.09
309.85

38.5
8.55
329.18

38.5
8.89
342.27

38.4
9.16
351.74

38.3
9.35
358.11

38.1
9.60
365.76

38.1
9.94
378.71

38.1
10.38
395.48

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

29.2
6.12
178.70

29.1
6.31
183.62

28.9
6.54
189.01

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
9.09
326.33

35.9
9.57
343.56

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
7.90
256.75

32.5
8.18
265.85

32.5
8.49
275.93

32.6
8.91
290.47

32.6
9.39
306.11

Private sector:
Average weekly hours...................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars) .................................

Mining:
Average weekly hours ......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).......................

Construction:
Average weekly hours .........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

Manufacturing:
Average weekly hours ....................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................

Transportation and public utilities:
Average weekly hours .......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

Wholesale trade:
Average weekly hours .................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

Retail trade:
Average weekly hours ...............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Average weekly hours ...................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

Services:
Average weekly hours ............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................................

100

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

22.

Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group

(June 1989 = 100)
1990

1989

1988

Series
Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change
3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990

Civilian workers 2 ....................................................................

94.4

95.4

96.7

97.7

98.9

100.0

101.6

102.6

104.3

1.7

5.5

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .................................................................
Blue-collar workers....................................................................
Service occupations..................................................................

94.0
95.3
94.5

95.0
96.4
95.4

96.4
97.1
97.4

97.6
97.8
98.2

99.0
98.8
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.0
101.1
101.7

102.9
102.0
102.8

104.6
103.6
104.2

1.7
1.6
1.4

5.7
4.9
5.0

95.4
95.3
93.9
93.7
92.9
92.6
95.2
94.1

96.5
96.2
94.9
94.3
94.2
93.9
95.8
95.2

97.1
96.9
96.5
96.7
95.8
95.6
97.5
96.6

97.9
97.6
97.6
97.9
97.0
96.9
97.8
97.7

98.9
98.9
99.0
99.2
98.9
98.7
99.2
99.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.1
101.1
102.0
102.7
102.2
102.3
102.5
101.9

102.1
102.0
102.9
103.7
103.9
103.7
103.2
102.8

103.9
104.0
104.4
105.5
105.9
105.6
105.1
104.3

1.8
2.0
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.5

5.1
5.2
5.5
6.4
7.1
7.0
5.9
5.4

94.5
94.9

95.7
95.9

96.6
96.9

97.6
97.7

98.8
99.0

100.0
100.0

101.2
101.2

102.3
102.1

103.9
103.9

1.6
1.8

5.2
4.9

93.9
94.5
94.3
94.7
91.4

95.1
95.5
95.4
95.7
93.6

96.2
96.7
96.9
96.6
94.1

97.3
97.5
97.5
97.8
96.3

98.9
99.0
99.0
99.1
98.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.4
101.3
101.8
100.9
101.9

102.4
102.2
102.9
101.5
103.3

104.1
104.2
104.9
103.7
103.6

1.7
2.0
1.9
2.2
.3

5.3
5.3
6.0
4.6
5.4

94.4

95.3

96.6

97.3

98.9

100.0

101.2

102.3

104.2

1.9

5.4

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...... ...................................................... .

95.4
95.8
94.7
95.3
95.5
94.6

96.4
96.8
95.8
97.0
96.2
95.6

97.1
97.3
96.5
97.9
97.0
97.1

97.9
98.0
97.6
98.2
97.7
98.2

98.8
98.7
98.9
99.0
98.8
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.1
101.2
100.9
101.2
101.3
101.1

101.9
102.0
101.8
101.4
102.2
102.5

103.5
103.4
103.7
103.1
103.6
103.9

1.6
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4

4.8
4.8
4.9
4.1
4.9
4.7

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing......................................................................
Excluding sales occupations..............................................
Construction.............................................................................
Manufacturing...........................................................................
Durables ..................................................................................
Nondurables............................................................................

95.5
95.4
95.2
95.3
95.6
94.8

96.5
96.5
96.4
96.2
96.5
95.6

97.1
97.1
97.2
96.9
97.0
96.5

97.9
97.9
98.0
97.6
97.7
97.5

98.9
98.9
99.0
98.9
99.0
98.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.1
101.1
101.2
101.1
101.1
101.2

102.1
102.2
102.4
102.0
102.2
101.9

103.9
103.9
103.1
104.0
104.0
104.1

1.8
1.7
.7
2.0
1.8
2.2

5.1
5.1
4.1
5.2
5.1
5.4

Service-producing ....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations..............................................
Transportation and public utilities........................................
Transportation.........................................................................
Public utilities..........................................................................
Communications.................................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services ................................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ....................................................
Excluding sales occupations ...........................................
Wholesale tra d e ............ ......................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Retail tra d e ............................................................................
Food stores.......................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....................................
Excluding sales occupations..........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit agencies..................................................................
Insurance ...............................................................................
S ervice......................................................................................
Business services................................................................
Health services......................................................................
Hospitals................................................................................

93.8
94.3
95.8
95.3
96.4
-

95.1
95.4
96.8
96.9
96.7
95.8
94.7
96.3
92.8
-

97.3
97.5
97.5
97.3
97.7
97.6
96.1
98.4
96.2
-

98.8
98.9
98.7
98.8
98.8
98.9
98.5
99.1
98.3
-

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.3
101.2
100.7
100.5
101.0
101.6
102.6
101.1
100.4

-

-

102.3
102.1
101.2
100.8
101.7
102.6
104.5
101.6
101.4
-

103.8
103.9
103.0
102.8
103.2

94.0
93.0
94.5
91.5
-

96.2
96.7
97.5
97.6
97.3
96.8
95.6
97.3
92.9
-

-

1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
.9
1.0
.3
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.2
2.5

5.1
5.1
4.4
4.0
4.5
4.7
3.8
6.4
4.9
3.9
"
4.4
5.1

93.6
92.6
92.2

94.5
94.1
93.6

96.4
95.6
95.2

97.5
97.0
96.6

99.0
98.9
98.8

100.0
100.0
100.0

”
101.8
101.9
101.9

102.9
103.7
103.5

”
“
105.0
105.8
105.4

1.4
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.0
1.8

3.3
“
6.1
5.6
7.0
6.7

Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................

94.1

95.4

96.5

97.5

98.8

100.0

101.3

102.3

103.8

1.5

5.1

State and local government workers ..................................

94.2

94.5

97.1

98.2

99.4

100.0

103.3

104.3

105.8

1.4

6.4

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...............................................................
Blue-collar workers.................................................................

94.0
95.4

94.3
95.4

97.0
97.0

98.3
97.5

99.5
99.3

100.0
100.0

103.6
102.1

104.6
103.7

106.1
105.5

1.4
1.7

6.6
6.2

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing..........................................................................
Manufacturing .............................................................................
Service-producing........................................................................
Health services......................................................................
Hospitals..................................................................................
Public administration 3 .............................................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................................................

Private industry workers.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations.................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...............................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations..........
Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations
Sales occupations....... ..........................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
clerical...................................................................................

-

-

-

103.5
104.8
103.0
102.6

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

101

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & Industrial Relations

22. Continued— Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1989 =100)
1988

1989

Percent change

Series
Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990
Workers, by industry division:
Services......................................
Hospitals and other services4
Health services......................
Schools....................................
Elementary and secondary .
Public administration3 ................

93.8
94.7
94.0
93.4
93.5
95.2

94.0
94.8
94.4
93.7
93.8
95.8

97.0
96.5
96.5
97.2
97.4
97.5

1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.

23.

98.5
97.8
97.3
98.7
99.1
97.8

99.5
99.1
98.8
99.6
99.6
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.8
102.5
103.1
104.4
104.6
102.5

104.7
103.2
104.2
105.3
105.5
103.2

106.1
105.4
106.2
106.4
106.5
105.1

6.6

1.3

2.1
1.9
1.0
.9
1.8

6.4
7.5

6.8
6.9
5.9

Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
- Data not available.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

(June 1981 =10 0)
1988

1989

1990

Series
Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change
3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990

Civilian workers 1.................................

95.0

95.9

97.2

98.1

99.2

100.0

101.6

102.4

103.6

1.2

4.4

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .............................
Blue-collar workers....................................
Service occupations...................................

94.5
95.9
95.3

95.5
96.8
96.2

96.9
97.4
97.9

98.0
98.1
98.7

99.2
99.0
99.4

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.9
101.0
101.4

102.8
101.7
102.5

104.1
102.8
103.4

1.3
1.1
.9

49
38
4.0

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing....................................
Manufacturing .........................................
Service-producing.........................................
Services.................................................
Health services........................................
Hospitals.............................................
Public administration 2 ...........................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..................................................

96.0
96.0
94.5
94.4
92.9
92.9
95.8
94.6

96.9
96.8
95.4
94.9
94.4
94.3
96.4
95.6

97.4
97.3
97.0
97.2
96.1
96.0
98.1
97.1

98.1
98.1
98.0
98.3
97.4
97.3
98.4
98.0

99.0
99.0
99.2
99.4
99.0
98.9
99.4
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
100.9
101.8
102.5
102.0
102.2
102.1
101.8

101.9
101.9
102.7
103.3
103.5
103.5
102.8
102.6

103.1
103.3
103.8
104.8
105.3
105.0
104.3
103.7

1.2
14
1.1
1.5
1.7
14
15
1.1

4 1
43
4.6
5.4
6.4
6?
49
4.5

95.0
95.4

96.1
96.3

97.0
97.3

98.0
98.0

99.0
99.1

100.0
100.0

101.2
101.1

102.0
101.9

103.2
103.2

12
1.3

4*2
4.1

94.4
95.0
94.7

95.6
95.9
95.9

96.7
97.1
97.4

97.8
98.0
97.9

99.0
99.2
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.4
101.2
101.6

102.4
102.1
102.5

103.6
103 7
104.1

1.2
16
1.6

46
4.8

95.0
91.9

95.9
94.3

96.7
94.8

98.0
96.9

99.3
98.6

100.0
100.0

100.8
102.1

101.5
103.7

103.3
103.3

1.8
-.4

40
4.8

95.1

95.8

97.2

97.8

99.1

100.0

101.1

102.2

103.6

1.4

4.5

95.9

96.8

97.4

98.2

99.0

100.0

101.0

101.6

102.7

1.1

3.7

95.9
95.6
96.1

96.8
96.5
97.4

97.2
97.1
98.4

97.9
98.1
98.6

98.8
99.0
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.0
100.6
101.2

101.6
101.6
101.2

102.5
103.0
102.0

9
14
.8

3*7
2.7

96.3
95.5

96.9
96.4

97.6
97.7

98.3
98.7

99.1
99.4

100.0
100.0

101.1
100.9

102.0
102.3

103.0
103.1

1.0
.8

3*9
3.7

96.1
95.9
95.7

96.9
96.9
97.0

97.5
97.4
97.7

98.2
98.2
98.3

99.1
99.1
99.1

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.0
101.0
101.1

102.0
102.0
101.7

103.1
103.0
102.0

11
1.0
.3

3*9
2.9

Private industry workers.................................
Excluding sales occupations................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers..............................
Excluding sales occupations..........................
Professional specialty and technical occupations......
Executive, administrative, and managerial
occupations.....................................
Sales occupations...............................
Administrative support occupations, including
clerical...............................................
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..................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Construction ........................................
See footnotes at end of table.

102

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

23.Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1989=100)

Series
Mar.

Sept.

June

1990

1989

1988

Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change
3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990

Nondurables........................................................................
Service-producing..................................................................
Excluding sales occupations..........................................
Transportation and public utilities..................................
Public utilities.....................................................................
Communications............................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services...........................
Wholesale and retail trade...............................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Wholesale trade .............................................................
Excluding sales occupations ...................................
Retail trade......................................................................
Food stores..................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real esta te ..............................
Excluding sales occupations ...................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit agencies.............................................................
Insurance..........................................................................
Services...............................................................................
Business services............................................................
Health services................................................................

96.0
96.2
95.8

96.8
96.9
96.5

97.3
97.4
97.2

98.1
98.0
98.2

99.0
99.0
99.0

100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
100.7
101.1

101.9
101.9
101.8

103.3
103.2
103.6

1.4
1.3
1.8

4.3
4.2
4.6

94.3
94.9
97.0
97.1
97.0
-

96.7
97.1
98.7
99.0
98.3

97.8
98.0
98.6
98.7
98.7

99.1
99.2
99.5
99.4
99.5

1.1
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.2

4.2
4.2
3.1
2.9
3.5

97.9
98.4
96.4
98.3
98.5

99.1
99.4
99.0
99.2
99.1

101.4
101.2
100.7
100.6
101.1
“
“
101.6
101.1
102.8
101.7
101.0

103.3
103.4
102.6
102.3
103.0

97.2
97.5
96.1
97.7
97.7
92.9
92.9

96.3
96.3

98.3
98.3

100.6
100.6

103.3
102.6
104.6
103.2
102.7
”
101.8
101.8

4.2
3.2
5.7
4.0
3.6

92.9
92.9

102.7
101.9
105.2
102.5
101.6
“
101.3
101.3

.6
.7
-.6
.7
1.1

91.5
91.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
“
”
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.2
101.8
101.2
100.7
101.8

94.3
95.3
93.3
95.7
94.8

95.5
95.8
97.9
98.2
97.6
96.2
96.6
95.1
96.7
96.6

.5
.5

3.6
3.6

“

"

94.2

94.9

“
~
96.9

99.1
99.1
98.9
99.1

"
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

”
101.6

102.5
103.5
103.3
102.2

104.2
"
105.3
105.0
103.2

1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.0

5.1

101.9
101.9
101.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

“

Nonmanufacturing................................................................

92.7
92.5
94.5

94.4
94.0
95.8

96.0
95.6
96.9

“
97.8
97.3
96.9
97.8

State and local government workers.............................

95.0

95.2

97.7

98.7

99.5

100.0

103.1

103.9

105.1

1.2

5.6

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers............................................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................................

94.8
96.1

95.0
96.1

97.6
97.8

98.8
98.2

99.6
99.5

100.0
100.0

103.4
101.9

104.2
103.3

105.5
104.3

1.2
1.0

5.9
4.8

94.6
95.4
93.8
94.4
94.3
95.8

94.9
95.5
94.4
94.6
94.5
96.4

97.7
97.3
96.7
97.7
97.8
98.1

98.9
98.2
97.7
99.1
99.3
98.4

99.6
99.1
98.9
99.7
99.7
99.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.6
102.5
102.7
104.0
104.2
102.1

104.3
103.0
103.7
104.7
104.9
102.8

105.5
105.4
105.5
105.5
105.5
104.3

1.2
2.3
1.7
.8
.6
1.5

5.9
6.4
6.7
5.8
5.8
4.9

Workers, by industry division:
Hospitals and other services 3 .......................................
Health services................................................................
Elementary and secondary...........................................
Public administration 2 .........................................................

’ Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

24.

6.3
6.2
4.1

3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services,
- Data not available.

Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group

(June 1989 = 100)

Series
Mar.

June

1990

1989

1988

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change
3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990

Private industry w orkers..........

93.4

94.7

95.7

96.7

98.4

100.0

101.4

102.6

105.5

2.8

7.2

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .................
Blue-collar workers....................

92.8
94.2

94.0
95.7

95.0
96.5

96.2
97.4

98.3
98.6

100.0
100.0

101.4
101.4

102.6
102.6

105.6
105.2

2.9
2.5

7.4
6.7

Workers, by industry group:
Goods-producing.......................
Service-producing......................
Manufacturing ............................
Nonmanufacturing.....................

94.4
92.5
93.7
93.2

95.7
93.8
94.9
94.5

96.5
94.9
95.8
95.5

97.3
96.1
96.6
96.8

98.7
98.2
98.8
98.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.5
101.4
101.6
101.4

102.6
102.6
102.3
102.8

105.7
105.3
105.5
105.4

3.0
2.6
3.1
2.5

7.1
7.2
6.8
7.3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

103

Current Labor Statistics:
25.

Compensation & Industrial Relations

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

(June 1989 = 100)
1988

1989

1990

Series
Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change
3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Mar. 1990

COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ..............................................................................
Goods-producing.....................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing .............................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................................

96.1
96.2
95.9
95.5
96.6

97.0
97.1
96.9
96.4
97.5

97.7
97.7
97.6
97.0
98.3

98.2
98.4
97.9
97.8
98.5

99.0
98.9
99.1
99.0
98.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
100.9
100.8
100.8
100.8

101.8
101.9
101.7
102.0
101.6

103.3
103.3
103.2
103.6
103.0

1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.4

4.3
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.1

Nonunion.....................................................................
Goods-producing ........................................................................
Service-producing.......................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................

94.0
95.1
93.4
95.2
93.5

95.3
96.2
94.7
96.1
94.9

96.3
96.9
95.9
96.8
96.0

97.4
97.7
97.2
97.6
97.3

98.8
98.9
98.7
98.8
98.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.4
101.3
101.5
101.2
101.4

102.4
102.3
102.4
102.1
102.4

104.1
104.2
103.9
104.2
104.0

1.7
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.6

5.4
5.4
5.3
5.5
5.3

92.4
95.1
95.4
95.4

93.8
96.7
96.2
96.3

95.0
97.4
97.0
97.0

96.7
98.1
97.9
97.7

98.7
99.0
98.9
98.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
101.2
101.0
101.0

102.9
102.2
101.9
101.8

104.4
104.0
103.5
103.3

1.5
1.8
1.6
1.5

5.8
5.1
4.7
4.6

94.2
96.6

95.3
98.0

96.3
98.5

97.4
98.9

98.8
99.4

100.0
100.0

101.4
100.8

102.2
102.0

103.9
103.6

1.7
1.6

5.2
4.2

Union ....................................................................................
Goods-producing ...............................................................
Service-producing...................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................................................

96.8
96.5
97.1
96.4
97.0

97.5
97.2
97.8
97.0
97.9

98.2
97.8
98.8
97.5
98.8

98.5
98.4
98.8
98.3
98.8

99.2
99.0
99.6
99.0
99.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
100.6
100.7
100.5
100.7

101.6
101.6
101.7
101.7
101.5

102.6
102.3
102.9
102.6
102.5

1.0
.7
1.2
.9
1.0

3.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.1

Nonunion............................................................................
Goods-producing........................................................................
Service-producing.......................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................................................

94.5
95.8
93.8
95.8
94.0

95.6
96.8
95.1
96.7
95.3

96.6
97.3
96.3
97.2
96.4

97.7
98.1
97.6
98.0
97.7

99.0
99.1
98.9
98.9
99.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.3
101.1
101.4
101.0
101.4

102.1
102.1
102.2
102.0
102.3

103.4
103.5
103.4
103.6
103.3

1.3
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.0

4.4
4.4
4.6
4.8
4.3

92.7
95.7
95.9
95.9

94.0
97.2
96.5
96.7

95.1
97.9
97.4
97.7

96.9
98.4
98.2
98.2

98.7
99.2
99.1
99.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
101.2
100.8
100.8

102.9
102.1
101.6
101.4

104.0
103.5
102.6
102.5

1.1
1.4
1.0
1.1

5.4
4.3
3.5
3.4

94.7
96.8

95.7
98.4

96.7
98.7

97.8
98.9

99.0
99.6

100.0
100.0

101.3
100.7

102.1
101.9

103.3
103.0

1.2
1.1

4.3
3.4

Workers, by region 1
Northeast.....................................................................
South .......................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...............................................
W e s t...............................................................................

Workers, by area size 1
Metropolitan a re a s ..............................................................
Other are a s .....................................................................

WAGES AND SALARIES
Workers, by bargaining status 1

Workers, by region 1
Northeast...............................................................................
South ...........................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...............................................
W e s t.............................................................................................

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan a re a s .......................................................................
Other are a s .................................................................

1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the

104

Monthly Labor Review June 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review Technical
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.

Note,

“Estimation

procedures

for

the

26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private
industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)______________________________ _
Quarterly average

Annual average

1987

1990

1989

1988

Measure
1988
II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

lp

Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments,2 settlements
covering 5,000 workers or more:
3.0
2.6

3.1
2.5

3.1
2.4

3.4
3.2

3.5
2.1

3.2
3.1

5.1
3.4

3.9
2.7

5.3
4.3

4.6
3.5

2.2
2.1

2.5
2.4

2.6
2.2

2.7
2.8

2.6
2.2

3.2
3.1

3.9
3.3

3.6
3.0

4.9
4.0

3.8
3.3

3.1
.7

2.6
.7

.9
.3

.8
.2

.5
.1

.5
.1

1.0
.3

1.0
.4

.7
.4

.6
.2

1.8
.5

1.3
.6

.5
.1

.4
.2

.2
.2

.3
.1

.5
.2

.4
.2

.2
.1

.3
.1

Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000
workers or more:

Effective adjustments:

Deferred from settlements reached in earlier

1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in

compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
p = preliminary.

27. 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 p ercen t)____________________
Average for four quarters ending-

|p

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

II

1990

1989

1988

Measure

Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000
workers or more, all industries:
First year of contract....................................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract................................................................

3.0
2.3

3.1
2.5

3.1
2.5

3.3
2.6

3.8
3.0

4.0
2.8

4.5
3.4

4.6
3.4

2.4
2.4
2.4
2.0
1.5
2.5

2.5
2.4
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.8

2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.8

2.7
2.4
2.9
2.5
1.8
2.9

3.2
2.2
3.4
2.9
1.8
3.2

3.5
2.6
3.6
3.0
2.0
3.2

4.0
3.9
4.0
3.4
2.8
3.5

4.1
3.8
4.1
3.4
2.7
3.6

2.5
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.3
2.5

2.6
2.4
3.0
1.9
1.4
3.1

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.6

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.2
1.8
2.8

2.6
2.1
3.1
2.4
1.7
3.1

2.6
2.1
2.8
2.5
1.7
2.9

3.9
5.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0

3.9
4.8
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.3

2.3
2.2
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.6

2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
1.8
2.7

2.8
2.9
2.7
2.5
1.7
2.8

3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
1.7
3.0

3.5
3.0
3.5
3.2
2.5
3.3

3.8
3.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
3.3

4.0
3.2
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.7

4.1
3.2
4.3
3.4
2.4
3.7

2.6

2.8

Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All industries:
First year of contract.............................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses...........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract............................................... .........
Contracts with COLA clauses...........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .....................................................
Manufacturing:
First year of contract.............................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses...........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses...........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses....................................................
Nonmanufacturing:
First year of contract............................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses..........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses..........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Construction:
First year of contract............................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses..........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses..........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................

(1)

0
2.7

(1)

(’)
2.4

2.4
2.7

2.2
2.6

2.1
2.4

2.6
2.7

()

(1)

(1)

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.6
(1)

2.7

(2)
(2)

3.1

3.0

2.9
(2)
(2)

(2)

«

(2>
2.9

2.9
(A

l2\

\ )
(2)

(2)
(2)

(2)
(2)

1 None of the settlements included COLA provisions.
2 Data do not meet publication standards.
p = preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

105

Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
28. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1 000
workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment

1E88

1989

1990

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

lp

2.9
1.0
1.4
.5

2.6
.7
1.3
.6

2.7
.8
1.3
.6

2.8
.7
1.3
.8

3.0
.9
1.3
.8

3.2
1.2
1.3
.7

3.2
1.3
1.2
.7

3.5
2.9
3.0
2.5

3.3
3.1
3.0
2.7

3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9

3.8
3.5
3.2
3.2

4.0
3.7
3.4
3.8

4.0
4.2
3.4
3.3

4.0
4.1
3.4
3.3

For all workers:1
T o ta l.....................................................................................
From settlements reached in period ..........................
Deferred from settlements reached In earlier period
From cost-of-llving-adjustments clauses....................

For workers receiving changes:
T o ta l..............................................................................................
From settlements reached in period ....................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period........
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses..............................
1
p

Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
= preliminary.

29. 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

1989

4.9
4.8

5.4
5.3

5.1
4.9

4.9
5.1

5.1
5.3

5.1
5.1

4.9
2.7
2.2
(4)

4.7
2.3
2.4
(4)

5.1
2.5
2.6
(4)

Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract...................
Annual rate over life of contract

Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
First year of contract..........................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.........................................

Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment3 ....................................
From settlements reached in period..............................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods
From cost-of-living-adjustment clauses.........................
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

30.

compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
4 Less than 0.05 percent.

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annual totals
1988

1990

1989

Apr.

May

June

Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period.....................
In effect during period..................

40
43

51
52

6
10

8
14

Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
thousands)..................................
In effect during period (in
thousands)....................................

118.3

452.1

8.7

121.9

454.1

4,364.3 16,996.3

Days idle:
Number (in thousands).................
Percent of estimated working
time1 .................................

.02

.07

July

2

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb.p

6
12

6
13

12

5
13

56.1

45.7

203.0

14.5

68.9

8.0

5.0

4.5

45.2

95.2

88.8

239.8

108.7

171.1

169.1

104.1

20.3

770.2

1,337.1

1,273.8

3,761.4

1,922.3

3,220.9

2,343.7

376.0

311.9

.06

.15

.09

.14

.11

.02

.1

924.8

.04

Mynvimu.ai aim .............. cm cmpiuycca aie inuiuueu in me ioiai empioyea ana total
working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla­
nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found

Digitized106
for FRASER
Monthly Labor Review June 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Aug.

5
14

1
9

3
9

Mar.p

3
7

Apr.p

5
8

5
12

18.0

39.6

33.1

31.4

51.1

70.3

280.7

720.2

812.7

.1

.3

.3

in “‘Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1968
pp. 54-56.
p = preliminary.

31. 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)

_______________________________________
1990

1989

Annual
average
Series

Mar.

Apr.

128.0
383.3

128.7
385.5

128.9
386.2

130.0
130.4
131.0
136.9
126.8
125.8
153.7
121.3
122.5
123.5
112.4
128.3
130.3
126.2

130.9
131.3
132.1
137.4
126.7
126.9
157.9
121.9
122.9
123.4
113.3
128.9
131.0
126.9

131.2
131.5
131.9
137.6
127.9
126.8
153.9

131.0
131.3
131.1
138.9
128.2
125.2
149.0

122.2

122.2

123.0
124.2
113.1
129.6
131.8
127.8

123.6
124.3
112.4
129.9
132.5
128.2

124.9
135.6
140.1
135.5
137.2
140.9
141.0
134.0
119.5
122.2
115.8
108.4
101.2
88.7
107.0
128.2
111.7
105.5
123.6
117.6

125.9
136.3
142.0
135.8
143.6
141.1
141.2
134.1
120.4
123.7
116.0
110.8
104.5
113.1
107.5
129.3
112.1
106.1
123.2
117.9

126.1
136.6
143.5
136.0
149.3
141.0
141.1
134.5

126.8
137.8
144.8
136.5
152.7
142.2
142.4
134.8

126.8
138.0
144.7
137.0
150.7
142.5
142.7
134.4

120.8

121.2

121.2

124.6
115.9

125.6
115.4
109.4

103.1
95.4
108.3
130.0
112.8
106.9
123.5
118.4

124.8
116.4
109.9
102.3
91.5
107.9
130.7
112.8
106.9
123.4
118.7

122.1
120.4
121.1
121.3
117.2
116.6
123.5
130.8

119.2
117.1
118.8
116.4
115.3
114.7
122.8
131.3

116.7
114.3
116.3
112.0
112.7
113.1
125.1
132.4

120.4
118.3
117.0
117.7
124.3
114.5
130.6
132.9

125.4
123.7
119.3
126.8
127.6
116.9
132.7
133.8

126.7
125.0

115.0
113.7
120.6
120.5
120.1
87.2
87.0
126.7
138.2
102.1
146.0
131.3

115.2
113.9
121.9
121.8
119.7
85.8
85.5
126.9
139.0
102.3
146.9
131.7

117.2
115.9
122.4
122.3
118.9
91.4
90.6
127.3
140.3
101.9
148.7
134.2

117.1
115.6

116.8
115.1

117.3
115.5

122.2

121.6

121.1

121.9
117.4
90.6
90.2
127.6
140.8

121.3
116.6
89.3
89.1
128.8
140.7

102.1

102.0

142.9
130.1

114.5
113.3
118.5
118.6
119.7
88.9
88.8
126.7
137.1
101.9
144.8
130.6

149.3
136.7

149.2
139.1

120.7
116.2
91.2
91.0
129.4
140.8
101.9
149.4
140.3

150.7
152.1
150.4
147.5
162.7

151.7
153.3
151.3
148.0
164.3

152.7
154.1
152.3
148.6
166.C

153.E
155.C
153.6
149.C
167.E

154.4
156.0
154.1
149.9
167.£

155.9
156.9
155.7
151.1
169.9

157.5
158.6
157.2
152.3
171.6

158.7
159.9
158.5
153.2
173.0

159.8
161.3
159.4
154.1
173.7

126.S
119.E
136.1

127.3
120.0
136.7

127.8

128.4
121.2
137.E

128.6
121.:
138.,

129.1
121.6
138.E

129.9
122.3
139.8

130.4
122.5
140.5

130.9
123.1
141.0

131.4
123.5
141.6

147.C
167.5
124.8
122.5
126.
156.
155.
156. 5

148.7
168.8
125.6
123.8
127.3
158.1
156.6
158.4

151.1
168.E
126.'
124.'
128.
163.
163.
163. 7

151.
168.
127. 3
125.
129. 3
163. 5
163. 9
163. 7

152.E
171.i
127.
124.'
129.
164.
164.
164. 2

154.0
174.1
127.6
125.1
130.3
165.1
167.9
165.1

154.7
175.0
128.4
126.0
130.9
165.6
169.7
165.6

155.2
175.1
129.0
126.9
131.2
166.3
169.9
166.3

155.8
175.6
130.3
128.3
132.3
166.6
169.9
166.6

Sept.
S

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

124.0
371.3

123.1
368.8

123.8
370.8

124.1
371.7

124.4
372.7

124.6
373.1

124.9
125.1
124.2
132.4
121.3
115.6
138.0
119.1
119.4

118.6

124.0
124.2
123.5
130.4
120.6
114.1
138.0
119.0
117.9
121.6
111.8
125.2
126.2
122.3

124.7
124.9
124.4
131.5
120.7
113.8
142.7
118.9
118.1
121.6
111.5
125.2
126.7
123.1

124.9
125.0
124.3
132.1
121.4
113.6
140.2
119.2
119.2
121.6
111.6
125.5
127.1
123.5

125.4
125.5
124.8
133.3
121.6
114.1
140.1
119.7
120.1
121.6
112.3
125.9
127.8
124.0

125.6
125.8
124.9
134.1
122.3
114.5
138.8
119.7
120.6
121.7
111.2
126.7
128.1
124.5

Housing .............................................................
Shelter ............................................................
Renters’ costs (12/82 = 10 0 )..................
Rent, residential.......................................
Other renters’ costs ...............................
Homeowners’ costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ).........
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82 = 100)
Household insurance (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )....
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.............................

118.5
127.1
133.6
127.8
134.8
131.1
131.1
129.0
114.7
117.9
110.4
104.4
98.0
78.1
104.6
122.9
109.4
105.1
114.7
114.3

121.6
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

122.1
131.8
137.8
131.7
139.7
136.2
136.3
132.1
117.4
120.2
113.8
107.0
99.6
81.5
106.1
127.0
110.8
104.7
120.9
117.3

122.9
132.3
138.7
132.3
141.5
136.5
136.6
132.8
118.3
121.0
114.7
109.2
103.2
80.2
110.5
127.1
111.1
105.1
121.2
117.4

123.9
133.6
141.5
133.0
150.5
137.3
137.4
133.1
118.4
121.1
115.0
109.7
103.7
79.7
111.1
127.7
111.4
105.5
121.7
117.3

124.2
134.1
141.5
133.5
148.8
138.1
138.2
133.3
118.5
121.3
114.8
109.7
103.7
78.9
111.3
127.8
111.4
105.2
122.3
117.5

124.3
134.1
139.4
133.9
139.1
138.9
139.0
133.6
118.6
120.9
115.6
109.7
103.5
79.3

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.........................

115.4
113.7
113.4
114.9
116.4
109.9
116.0
123.7

120.4
118.6
117.8
119.5
125.4
114.9
121.7
129.9

117.8
115.8
115.9
114.8
123.9
114.0
121.6
130.0

115.0
112.9
114.7
109.6
117.9
113.4
122.5
129.4

115.0
112.8
114.7
109.5
116.7
112.6
124.1
129.5

120.0

4

120.9
119.3
117.2
121.5
123.6
115.3
121.5
128.9

Transportation ........................................................
Private transportation.........................................
New vehicles.....................................................
New cars.........................................................
Used c a rs ..........................................................
Motor fuel ..........................................................
Gasoline..........................................................
Maintenance and repair.................................
Other private transportation..........................
Other private transportation commodities
Other private transportation services.......
Public transportation..........................................

108.7
107.6
116.5
116.9
118.0
80.9
80.8
119.7
127.9
98.9
133.9
123.3

9
2
2
4
5
5
9
8
5
2
5

114.6
113.6
119.2
119.4
120.7
92.1
92.1
123.8
134.7
100.8
142.0
128.4

116.0
115.0
119.2
119.5
121.0
96.6
96.7
124.3
135.6
101.5
142.9
128.9

115.9
114.9
118.9
119.1
121.3
96.0
96.2
124.5
135.9
101.9
143.2
129.6

115.4
114.3
118.5
118.6
121.1
94.4
94.6
124.8
135.6
101.3
143.0
129.7

114.3
113.1
117.7
117.7
120.3
91.0
91.1
125.4
135.7
102.0
142.9
130.1

113.7
112.4
117.1
117.0
119.8
88.8
88.8
126.2
135.7

Medical c a r e ..........................................................
Medical care commodities...............................
Medical care services........................................
Professional services.....................................
Hospital and related services.......................

138.6
139.9
138.3
137.5
143.9

3
8
9
4
5

146.8
148.4
146.4
144.E
156.Ê

147.5
150.C
146.S
145.2
157.C

148.5
151.C
147.£
146.1
158.5

149.7
151.4
149.3
147.C
160.8

Entertainment..........................
Entertainment commodities
Entertainment services.......

120.3
115.0
127.7

5
8
.4

125.4
119.C
134.C

125.5
119.2
133.2

126.2
119.5
135.C

Other goods and services ...................................
Tobacco products................................... ...........
Personal c a re .......................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances.
Personal care services...................................
Personal and educational expenses................
School books and supplies............................
Personal and educational services..............

137.0
145.8
119.4
118.1
120.7
147.9
148.1
148.0

.7
.4
.0
.2
.8
.1
.0
.3

144.'
159.Î
124.
122.
125.
154.
155. 2
155.

145.'
161.
124.
122.
126.
155. 2
155. 2
155. 4

146..
164.
124.
122.
127. 3
155. 3
155. 5
156. 0

1988

1989

118.3
354.3

Food and beverages ........................
F oo d..................................................
Food at h o m e ..............................
Cereals and bakery products ..
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .
Dairy products...........................
Fruits and vegetables..............
Other foods at hom e...............
Sugar and sw eets..................
Fats and o ils...........................
Nonalcoholic beverages.......
Other prepared foods...........
Food away from home ..............
Alcoholic beverages......................

118.2
118.2
116.6

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

125.6
376.2

125.9
377.0

126.1
377.6

127.4
381.5

126.3
126.5
125.4
135.0
122.4
118.2
137.1
120.3
121.3
121.6
111.8
127.2
129.1
125.2

126.7
126.9
125.8
135.3
122.8
120.2
137.8
119.9
120.7
121.0
111.2
127.3
129.5
125.5

127.2
127.4
126.5
136.1
123.8
122.9
136.7
120.1
121.1
121.6
111.0
127.6
129.8
125.6

124.4
134.8
140.0
134.7
139.2
139.7
139.9
133.7
118.6
121.0
115.5
108.0
101.0
82.0
107.6
127.6
111.9
106.1
122.5
117.4

124.5
135.2
140.1
135.2
138.0
140.3
140.5
133.8
119.3
121.7
116.2
107.5
99.9
83.9
106.1
127.9
111.9
106.0
122.5
117.6

122.7
121.1
120.3
123.1
118.3
117.6
123.0
129.8

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS:
All item s.......................
All items (1967=100)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

122.1
114.3
108.4
128.1
113.1
114.0
113.1
107.5
118.0

121.2
111.3
125.5

121.8

4
4

126.1
125.0
134.6
122.9
116.1
136.6
119.7
120.8
121.3

111.0
126.7
128.8
124.8

111.0
128.1
111.7
105.7
122.3
117.5

118.2
117.7
119.0
118.0
114.1
124.5
129.7

102.0

110.2

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 107

101.2
89.6
106.8
130.9
112.8
106.6
123.9
119.1

121.0
127.9
130.0
118.6
132.8
134.8

C urrent

Labor Statistics: Price Data

31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for Ail 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)
Annual
averaae

Series

1988

All item s.....................
Commodities....................
Food and beverages...........
Commodities less food and beverages
Nondurables less food and beverages
Apparel commodities............
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
Durables............................
Services.......................
Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ....
Household services less rent of’ shelter (12/8 2 = 1 0 0 )
Transportation services..........
Medical care services.......
Other services ....................
Special indexes:
All items less food ....
All items less shelter............
All items less homeowners’ costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )
All items less medical c a re ......
Commodities less fo o d ........
Nondurables less food .......
Nondurables less food and apparel ...........................................
Nondurables...................
Services less rent of’ shelter (1 2/82= 100 )
Services less medical c a r e ........
Energy.........................
All items less energ y.........
All items less food and energy ........
Commodities less food and energy ...
Energy commodities ...................
Services less energy........

1989

1989
Apr.

May

8
5
7
105

111.6
111.2

103.2

111.C

111.6

113. 6
9

132.C
115 3
128.0
138.3

138.0
118.7

117.2

118.
135.

3
3

139.

118.3
115.9
119.5
117.0
107.7
105.8
104.0
128.3
124.3

123.4
115.8

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

124. 1
117. 2
124. 9
4
7
3
113. 7
112.

124. 4
117. 3
125. 4
111. 7
111.
112.
113.6
111.S

124. 3
116.
125.
111.
110.«
112.6
112.6
111.-:

125. 3
117.
125.
111.
112.'
118.«
112.C
111.:

125.
118.
126.:
113.(
113.«
121.1
112.4
112.1

125. 3
118.
126.
113.
113.
120.'
111.«
113.C

126.
118.,
127.,
112.(
112.C
117.1
112.C
113.:

127.'
119.
130.C
113.’
113.'
114.:
116.C
113.6

128. 0
120. 5
130. 3
114. 2
114.
118.
115.:
113.’

128. 7
121.
131. 2
114. 9
116.
123.
114.6
113.'

128.9
121.4
131.0
115.4
117.1
125.0
115.7
113.1

131.6
137
120.

132.6
138.6
120.6
135.6
149.C
140.4

133.1
139.C
120.7
13b./
150.4
141.5

133.<!
139.:
120.7
135.S
151.3
143.8

133.7
140.1
119.0
137.1
152.3
144.3

134.1
140.:
118.6
138.C
153.8
144.6

134.8
140.S
119.C
138.6
154.1
145.1

135.4
141.8
119.6
140.2
155.7
146.1

136.C
142.C
120.:
141.1
157.2
146.6

136.«
143.:
120.:
141.«
158.:
147.2

137.1
143.5
120.1
142.4
159.4
147.8

124.2
122.0
125.9
122.9
112.1
112.2
113.7
118.7
135.8
130.8
98.5
128.2
129.0
118.8
92.9
134.8

124.3
122.0
125.9
123.0
111.6
111.5
112.8
118.4
136.3
131.3
97.0
128.5
129.3
118.8
89.8
135.4

124.8
122.6
126.3
123.4
112.4
112.9
112.4
119.3
137.0
131.6
95.9
129.1
130.0
120.1
88.0
135.8

125.4
123.1
126.8
124.0
113.4
114.1
112.8
120.1
137.0
131.8
94.6
129.9
130.9
121.2
88.3
136.5

125.6
123.3
127.0
124.2
113.4
113.6
112.4
120.0
137.2
132.1
93.2
130.4
131.3
121.6
87.0
137.0

125.8
123.5
127.1
124.4
113.0
112.6
112.5
119.8
137.8
132.6
93.2
130.6
131.5
121.2
86.4
137.5

126.7
125.0
128.7
125.7
114.1
114.2
116.1
122.0
138.9
133.4
97.6
131.5
132.0
121.0
94.2
138.4

127.3
125.7
129.5
126.2
114.6
115.0
115.5
122.9
139.8
133.9
96.4
132.3
132.8
122.2
91.3
138.9

128.1
126.2
130.1
126.9
115.4
116.5
115.2
123.8
140.3
134.7
95.5
133.3
133.9
123.4
89.8
140.0

128.4
126.5
130.4
127.1
115.9
117.4
116.0
124.2
140.6
134.9
95.7
133.5
134.2
123.7
91.2
140.3

26.9

80.4
26.8

80.3
26.8

80.0
26.7

79.6
26.6

79.5
26.5

79.3
26.5

78.5
26.2

78.2
26.1

77.7
25.9

77.6
25.9

122.8
365.9

123.2
366.8

123.2
367.0

123.6
368.3

124.2
369.8

124.4
370.6

124.6
371.1

125.9
375.0

126.4
376.6

127.1
378.5

127.3
379.2

125.1
125.3
124.4
133.3
121.5
113.8
139.9
119.6
120.1
121.5
112.2
125.7
127.6
123.6

125.3
125.5
124.6
134.1
122.1
114.2
138.6
119.6
120.6
121.6
111.1
126.5
128.0
124.0

125.6
125.8
124.6
134.6
122.7
115.9
136.1
119.6
120.9
121.2
111.0
126.6
128.6
124.4

126.0
126.2
125.0
135.1
122.2
118.0
136.5
120.2
121.4
121.5
112.0
127.0
129.0
124.7

126.4
126.6
125.5
135.3
122.9
120.0
137.0
119.8
120.7
120.9
111.3
127.1
129.4
125.1

126.9
127.1
126.2
136.0
123.8
122.8
135.8
120.1
121.1
121.5
111.2
127.4
129.7
125.2

129.7
130.1
130.5
136.8
126.7
125.7
152.9
121.3
122.5
123.4
112.7
128.2
130.2
125.9

130.6
131.1
131.6
137.4
126.6
126.9
157.7
121.8
123.0
123.2
113.6
128.7
130.9
126.7

•130.9
131.2
131.5
137.6
127.8
126.8
153.3
122.2
123.1
124.0
113.4
129.5
131.7
127.4

130.7
130.9
130.6
138.8
128.1
125.1
147.9
122.1
123.7
124.1
112.7
129.7
132.3
128.0

122.1
130.5
125.7
132.5
153.7
125.2
125.2
121.8
118.2
121.2
113.2
109.4
103.4
79.6
110.8
127.9
110.8
104.8
122.0
117.4

122.4
131.0
125.9
133.0
152.0
125.8
125.9
122.0
117.9
121.3
112.5
109.5
103.5
78.8
111.0
128.0
110.8
104.6
122.6
117.6

122.5
131.1
124.6
133.4
140.9
126.6
126.7
122.4
118.0
120.7
113.3
109.5
103.3
79.2
110.7
128.3
111.0
105.0
122.6
117.6

122.5
131.8
125.1
134.2
140.4
127.3
127.4
122.5
118.1
120.9
113.4
107.6
100.6
81.8
107.2
127.8
111.2
105.3
122.7
117.5

122.7
132.3
125.3
134.6
139.1
127.8
128.0
122.5
118.9
121.7
114.0
107.2
99.5
83.6
105.8
128.2
111.2
105.2
122.7
117.7

123.1
132.6
125.4
135.0
137.6
128.3
128.5
122.7
119.0
122.4
113.6
108.0
100.7
88.1
106.7
128.4
111.1
104.7
123.8
117.8

123.9
133.2
126.6
135.3
144.1
128.5
128.6
122.8
120.0
124.1
113.8
110.2
103.8
112.7
107.2
129.6
111.5
105.3
123.5
118.1

124.1
133.4
127.5
135.4
149.8
128.5
128.6
123.1
120.7
125.0
114.3
109.8
102.5
95.2
107.9
130.4
112.1
106.1
123.8
118.7

124.7
134.5
128.4
136.0
153.2
129.6
129.7
123.3
120.8
125.1
114.3
109.6
101.8
91.3
107.5
131.0
112.1
105.9
123.9
119.0

139.6

123.S
125.3
122.4
111.7
111.3
118.2
135.1

124.7
121.7
112.5
112.8
111.7
118.4
133.4

125.:
122.C
113.2
113.5
113.6
119.3

1CO.U
122.6
112.8
113.1
113.8
119.0
129.9

129.0
119.6

127.9

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1 9 8 2 -8 4 = $ 1 .0 0 ...........
1 9 6 7 = $ 1 .0 0 .....................

1990

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS
AND CLERICAL WORKERS:
All item s.........................
All items (1967=100) ......
Food and beverages .....
F oo d............................
Food at h o m e .................
Cereals and bakery products.....
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ..
Dairy products....................
Fruits and vegetables........
Other foods at hom e...............
Sugar and sw eets...............
Fats and o ils .......................
Nonalcoholic beverages.....................................................
Other prepared foods...........
Food away from home ..........
Alcoholic beverages.......
Housing ..........................
Shelter ..........................
Renters’ costs ( 1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ).....
Rent, residential.........................
Other renters’ c o s ts ........
Homeowners’ costs (1 2/84= 100 )
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/8 4 = 1 0 0 )
Household insurance (1 2/84= 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.....

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for 108
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

122.2
114.1
127.6
113.0
113.9
107.7

132.4
121.2

119.0
119.5
121.1
111.4

lo i .0

13" ^
118.9
118.1
121.5
111.9

118.8
118.4
121.5
111.5

121.6

140.0
119.0
119.2
121.5
111.6
127.0

121.1
129.3
119.2
127.5
135.2
119.5
119.5
118.2
114.0
117.7
108.3
104.1
97.7
77.9
104.4
122.9
108.9
104.5
115.1
115.0

132.3
141.5
125.1
125.2
121.4
117.6
120.4
112.6
107.5
100.6
81.4
107.3
127.4
110.6
104.8
121.2
117.4

131.0
140.9
123.4
123.5
120.2
116.7
119.3
112.1
105.9
98.5
82.1
104.8
126.5
110.1
104.3
120.0
117.2

131.2
139.9
124.1
124.2
120.9
116.9
119.8
112.0
106.7
99.2
81.2
105.8
127.2
110.1
104.0
121.2
117.4

131.8
142.3
124.4
124.5
121.5
117.9
121.0
112.7
109.0
103.0
80.1
110.3
127.4
110.4
104.4
121.6
117.6

124.7
134.7
128.4
136.4
150.9
129.9
130.0
123.0
120.6
125.9
113.0
109.0
100.6
89.4
106.4
131.4
112.2
105.8
124.4
119.3

31. 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)

Aug.

116.9
115.0
115.0
113.5
126.7
114.1
119.8
129.0

114.4
112.3
113.7
108.7
121.9
113.9
120.7
128.6

114.5
112.4
113.9
108.9
120.4
113.1
122.4
128.7

119.3
117.6
116.9
118.1

116.0
115.2
118.7
118.9

115.4
114.6
118.3
118.4
120.9
94.5
94.7
124.8
133.7

114.2
113.3
117.6
117.6
91.0
91.2
125.4
133.7

117.1
116.9
119.6
89.0
89.0
126.2
133.6

101.0

101.6

101.6

141.0
128.3

140.8
129.1

148.8
149.9
148.6
146.4
157.3

150.1
150.3
150.0
147.3
159.7

124.9
119.5
133.6

125.5
119.7
134.6

147.4
164.2
124.8
123.3
126.6
157.3
156.9
157.7

144.4
159.2
123.9
122.7
125.2
154.3
154.1
154.6

145.2
160.7
124.7
122.9
126.7
154.6
154.1
154.9

146.3
163.8
124.4
122.4
126.9
155.3
154.5
155.7

122.6

121.8
116.4
123.7

122.5
117.1
124.4

122.8

111.8
112.1

112.6

112.2
112.6

May

117.9
116.1
116.1
115.5
122.5
114.7
120.5
128.6

120.0

119.4
117.7
116.9
118.1
128.3
115.0
119.8
128.9

108.3
107.5
116.2
116.6
117.9
80.9
80.8
119.8
125.8
98.6
131.7
122.5

113.9
113.0
119.0
119.1
120.3

116.0
115.3
119.0
119.3
120.9
96.7
96.9
124.4
133.5

141.0
128.2

114.5
113.7
118.9
119.2
120.5
92.3
92.3
123.9
132.7
100.4
139.8
127.1

140.7
127.5

96.1
96.3
124.6
133.9
101.5
141.2
128.2

Medical c a r e .................................
Medical care commodities......
Medical care services...............
Professional services.............
Hospital and related services

139.0
139.0
139.0
137.7
143.3

149.6
149.7
149.6
146.7
159.4

14T2
147.4
147.2
145.1
155.6

147.9
148.9
147.6
145.5
156.2

Entertainment.........................
Entertainment commodities
Entertainment services......

119.7
115.1
127.2

125.8
119.9
135.1

124.8
119.1
133.8

136.5
146.0
119.3
118.0
120.5
147.4
147.1
147.7

117.0

1989

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........................

114.9
113.4

Transportation .......................................................
Private transportation........................................
New vehicles....................................................
New cars........................................................
Used c a rs .........................................................
Motor fu e l........................................................ ■
Gasoline........................................................
Maintenance and repair.................................
Other private transportation..........................
Other private transportation commodities
Other private transportation services.......
Public transportation.........................................

Other goods and services ..................................
Tobacco products..............................................
Personal c a re ......................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances
Personal care services..................................
Personal and educational expenses...............
School books and supplies...........................
Personal and educational services.............

All ite m s ................................................................................
Commodities.....................................................................
Food and beverages.....................................................
Commodities less food and beverages.....................
Nondurables less food and beverages .................
Apparel commodities..............................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
Durables.......................................................................
Services...................................................................................
Rent of shelter ( 1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................
Household services less rent of shelter (1 2/84= 100 )
Transportation services.....................................................
Medical care services........................................................
Other services ...................................................................
Special indexes:
All items less fo o d ...................................................
All items less shelter...............................................
All items less homeowners’ costs (1 2/84= 100 )
All items less medical c a re ....................................
Commodities less fo o d ...........................................
Nondurables less food ...........................................
Nonduiables less food and apparel ....................
Nondurables..............................................................
Services less rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ........
Services less medical c a re ...................................
Energy.......................................................................
All items less energ y..............................................
All items less food and energy ............................
Commodities less food and energy.....................
Energy commodities...............................................
Services less energy...............................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84=$1.00
1967 = $ 1 .0 0 .....


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

114.5
118.6
110.4
114.9
123.0

111.0
117.9
106.8
104.6
113.4
102.9
108.9

88.6
88.6
124.9
133.7

101.1

116.3
124.6

111.2
110.9
116.1
110.9

110.8

118.4
116.4

120.2
126.7
115.2
119.6
128.1

101.1

111.6

113.4
117.7
113.9

110.5

110.6

118.4

121.1

116.9
124.6

115.0
114.0
110.7

116.8
115.8
122.4

116.6
115.5
122.3

116.2
114.9
121.7

116.6
115.4

120.0
126.9
132.2
119.2
130.7
134.2

122.2

121.8 121.2

121.2
120.6

140.6
129.1

121.7
119.5
85.9
85.6
126.9
136.8
101.9
144.7
130.1

118.7
91.7
91.0
127.3
138.1
101.4
146.5
132.9

117.2
90.7
90.4
127.9
138.5
101.7
146.9
135.4

116.4
89.4
89.2
129.0
138.3
101.5
146.8
137.4

116.0
91.3
91.2
129.6
138.4
101.4
146.9
138.4

151.1
150.9
151.1
147.8
161.6

152.1
152.2
152.1
148.4
163.3

153.0
153.1
153.0
149.0
164.7

154.2
154.2
154.2
149.6
166.5

154.7
154.8
154.7
150.2
166.8

156.1
155.7
156.2
151.5
168.4

157.6
157.4
157.7
152.6
170.1

158.8
158.6
158.8
153.5
171.3

159.8
160.0
159.7
154.3
172.1

126.1

126.5

127.0

120.1

120.1

120.6

135.7

136.4

137.1

127.7
121.3
137.6

127.9
121.4
138.0

128.4
121.7
138.7

129.1
122.3
139.6

129.5
122.4
140.4

130.0
123.0
140.9

130.6
123.4
141.6

147.5
167.3
124.6
122.8
126.8
155.7
154.7
156.1

148.8
168.5
125.4
123.8
127.1
157.3
155.6
157.8

150.8
168.0
125.7
124.1
127.5
161.8
161.7
162.1

151.4
168.6
126.3
124.6
128.2
162.5
162.8
162.7

151.5
168.5
126.8
125.1
128.7
162.5
162.8
162.8

152.7
171.8
126.9
124.7
129.4
163.1
162.9
163.4

153.9
173.8
127.3
124.9
130.1
164.2
166.9
164.3

154.6
174.8
128.1
126.0
130.5
164.8
168.5
164.8

155.1
174.8
128.7
126.8
130.8
165.6
168.7
165.7

155.7
175.3
130.0
128.2
132.1
166.0
168.6
166.1

123.2
116.8
125.1

123.2
116.4
125.3
110.9
110.8
112.4

123.6
116.9
125.6

124.2
117.7
126.0
112.5
113.2
120.5
112.3
110.6

124.4
117.8
126.4
112.5

124.6
117.8
126.9

126.4

112.6

112.1
111.6

119.8
111.7

116.6
111.7

111.6

112.0

125.9
119.5
129.7
113.3
113.4
114.0
115.7

112.2

112.0

127.1
120.5
130.9
114.2
115.4
122.8
114.5
111.6

127.3
120.8
130.7
114.8
116.5
124.2
115.5
111.4

132.6
126.7
109.3
136.3
153.0
142.9

132.9
127.1
108.8
137.1
154.2
143.2

133.4
127.5
109.3
137.8
154.7
143.8

134.2
128.0

134.8
128.2

139.4
156.2
144.7

135.6
129.3
110.6 110.7
140.2 140.7
157.7 158.8
145.31 145.9

135.8
129.5
110.3
141.1
159.7
146.6

123.6
122.3
117.1
122.7
112.9
113.6
112.7
119.8
123.2
130.6
94.2
128.5
129.1

123.8
122.5
117.3
122.9
112.9
113.1

124.0

124.9
124.2
118.8
124.4
113.7
113.9
115.8

125.3
124.8
119.4
124.9
114.0
114.5
115.3

121.8

122.6
125.7
132.7
96.0
130.8
130.8
91.4
137.8

126.1
125.3
119.9
125.5
114.6
115.8
114.9
123.4
126.1
133.4
94.9
131.6
131.8
122.0
89.8
138.8

126.4
125.5
120.2
125.7
115.2
116.9
115.8
123.8
126.3
133.6
95.4
131.9
132.2
122.3
91.4
139.1

79.1
26.6

78.7
26.4

78.5
26.4

111.6
111.7
112.3
113.9

110.6

120.1

112.6
110.1

112.1

127.4
94.8
125.8
126.3
118.4
91.6
131.9

112.9
113.6
113.8
119.1
120.7
128.0
97.4
126.2
126.6
118.5
95.6
132.4

82. 1
27. 6

81. 6
27. 4

81.4
27.3

81.6
27.4

120.2

119.9
87.3
87.2
126.8
136.0
101.7
143.8
129.7

122.3
121.3
116.1
121.5
112.5
113.0
114.0
118.8
121.9
128.9
98.9
126.4
126.8
118.2
94.9
132.9

85.5
28.7

125.8
124.2

120.2

122.0
121.1

121.9
114.7
80.9
127.0

124.4
122.8
118.3
125.7
129.9
117.4
130.5
133.2

114.8
113.8

121.3
120.4
115.2
120.5

121.0

119.3
117.3
116.2
116.4
127.1
115.0
127.0
132.2

114.6
113.7
120.5

122.0

120.1

116.1
114.0
115.8
111.3
116.8
113.8
123.2
131.7

114.3
113.3
118.4
118.4
119.5
89.1
89.0
126.7
134.9
101.5
142.5
129.4

116.7
115.2
110.4
115.8
107.2
105.3
103.7
111.5
115.6
123.3
88.6

118.0
121.7
129.0
93.9
126.7
127.3
118.6
88.2
133.4

118.5
116.6
118.0
115.5
119.3
115.4
121.5
130.6

113.5

132.0
125.9

111.2

121.4
119.8

117.0
122.4
130.0

131.5
125.4
110.9
134.8
150.0
139.1

112.4
111.7
118.1

120.5
119.6

118.0
121.9
129.0

130.6
124.2
110.5
134.8
148.6
138.6

1116
1113

122.0

114.5
122.5
128.8

129.7
123.7
108.3
134.4
147.6
137.9

115.8

Apr.

122.0

129.1
123.2
107.6
133.7
147.2
137.6

121.2

Mar.

120.5

130.8
124.8
109.1
134.8
149.6
139.6

121.2

Feb.

122.0
122.2

124.7
119.4
105.9
127.1
139.0
131.4

120.9
115.7

Jan.

Nov.

Sept.

July

June

Apr.

1988

112.8

1990

1989

Annual
average
Series

112.6

111.6
112.0
117.6
112.0
110.0
132.3
126.0

111.0

111.0

134.9
151.1
140.1

135.0
152.1
142.3

122.6

122.6

123.1

121.4
116.3
121.8
112.0
112.1
113.9
118.6
122.3
129.7
98.3
126.8
127.3
117.9
93.5
133.8

121.3
116.3

121.8

121.8

122.2
112.0

81.2
27.3

81.2
27.2

111.4
111.4
112.8
118.3
122.7
130.1
96.6
127.1
127.6
117.9
90.2
134.4

116.6

112.5
112.3
119.1
123.3
130.4
95.5
127.7
128.3
119.0
88.4
134.8

80.9
27.2

121.0

112.1

122.0

122.6
117.4
123.1

112.6

112.2
112.2

110.0

119.5
123.9
131.4
92.7
129.1
129.7

88.7
135.5

119.7
123.4
130.9
92.8
128.9
129.6
120.5
87.2
136.0

86.4
136.4

124.9
132.2
97.1
130.1
130.1
119.9
93.9
137.3

80.5
27.0

80.4
27.0

80.3
26.9

79.4
26.7

120.1

120.2

120.1
130.6
113.6
114.0
117.3
115.0

120.8

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

109

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)
All Urban Consumers
Pricing
sche­
dule2

Area1

U.S. city average .

1989

Urban Wage Earners

1990

1989

1990

Apr.

May

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

May

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

123.

123.Í

126.1

127.'

128.C

128."

128.6

121.1

122.Í

124.f

125.6

126.^

127.1

127.3

127.4

128.C

131.C

132.S

133.1

134.1

134.6

126.2

127.1

130.1

131.5

131.5

132.5

133.1

128.C

128.7

131.6

133.C

133.6

134.7

135.4

125.6

126.7

129.5

131.C

131.3

132.4

133.1

126.1

127.2

130.9

132.5

132.8

133.6

133.5

124.6

126.0

129.5

131.1

131.4

132.1

132.0

126.2
120.8

127.6
121.3

130.7
123.2

132.0
124.5

131.7
124.9

132.3
125.5

132.0
125.8

128.6
118.9

130.0
119.4

133.1
121.1

134.4
122.5

134.3
122.8

134.7
123.3

134.4
123.7

121.9

122.2

124.3

125.7

126.4

126.9

127.3

119.2

119.5

121.5

122.9

123.5

123.9

124.4

120.6

120.8

123.0

124.2

124.4

124.7

124.8

118.2

118.5

120.4

121.8

121.9

122.2

122.3

121.2

122.2

123.2

124.6

124.5

125.3

125.6

120.1

121.1

122.0

123.5

123.3

124.1

124.4

116.3
120.8

116.8
121.3

118.8
123.4

120.0
124.6

119.8
125.4

120.8
126.0

121.1
126.1

116.1
120.3

116.8
120.9

118.6
122.7

119.9
123.9

119.7
124.7

120.6
125.1

120 8
125.3

Region and area size3
Northeast urban..................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ...........................
Size B - 500,000 to
1,200,000 ...........................
Size C - 50,000 to
500.000 ..............................
North Central urban ...........
Size A - More than
1.200.000 ...........................
Size B - 360,000 to
1,200,000 ...........................
Size C - 50,000 to
360.000 ..............................
Size D - Nonmetro­
politan (less
than 50,0000 .....................
South urban...........................
Size A - More than
1.200.000 ............................
Size B - 450,000 to
1,200,000 ............................
Size C - 50,000 to
450.000 ...............................
Size D - Nonmetro­
politan (less
than 50,000) .......................
West urban............................
Size A - More than
1.250.000 ............................
Size C - 50,000 to
330.000 ..............................
Size classes:
A (1 2/86= 100 )
B ..........................
C .........................
D .........................
Selected local areas
Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN ...............
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, Anaheim, C A ......
New York, NYNortheastern N J ................
Philadelphia, PA -N J............
San FranciscoOakland, C A ........................
Baltimore, MD .................
Boston, MA .....................
Cleveland, O H .................
Miami, F L .........................
St. Louis, M O -IL..............
Washington, DC-MD-VA

121.4

122.0

124.0

125.1

126.1

126.7

126.8

120.6

121.3

123.0

124.1

125.0

125.5

125.6

122.2

122.4

125.1

126.0

126.9

127.3

127.4

120.1

120.5

122.7

123.6

124.4

124.7

124.8

119.4

120.0

122.0

123.3

123.9

124.3

124.6

120.0

120.6

122.5

123.8

124.3

124.7

125.0

119.4
123.8

120.4
124.5

121.4
126.8

123.5
127.8

124.3
128.8

125.0
129.6

125.3
129.6

120.2
122.6

121.3
123.3

122.1
125.3

124.4
126.3

125.0
127.2

125.6
127.9

126.0
128.0

125.3

126.2

128.3

129.5

130.6

131.5

131.5

122.7

123.5

125.4

126.6

127.6

128.3

128.4

122.1

122.5

125.3

125.4

125.8

126.0

126.2

121.5

121.9

124.4

124.6

125.0

125.2

125.5

111.8
122.6
121.6
119.6

112.4
123.1
122.4
120.3

114.4
125.9
124.5
122.0

115.7
126.9
125.6
123.6

116.3
127.6
125.8
123.8

117.1
128.1
126.3
124.8

117.4
128.1
126.5
125.0

111.7
121.2
122.0
119.9

112.3
121.8
122.8
120.7

114.2
124.3
124.7
122.4

115.5
125.4
125.9
124.0

116.1
126.0
126.1
124.1

116.7
126.5
126.5
125.0

117 1
126.4
126.7
125.2

123.6

123.9

126.5

128.1

129.2

129.5

130.4

119.8

120.1

122.8

124.4

125.4

125.6

126.5

127.2

128.3

130.6

132.1

133.6

134.5

134.2

124.0

125.0

127.0

128.5

129.8

130.5

130.2

129.5
126.7

130.2
127.9

133.3
129.9

135.1
131.2

135.3
132.2

136.6
133.6

137.3
134.3

127.5
126.7

128.2
127.9

131.3
130.0

133.0
131.0

133.1
132.2

134.5
133.8

135 0
134.4

125.4

126.3

127.4

128.5

129.2

130.0

130.7

124.8

125.7

126.6

127.6

128.2

129.0

129.8

-

124.1
130.5
122.8
120.9
121.5
127.1

“

127.9
136.0
125.0
124.6
125.1
132.0

-

129.3
136.3
127.4
125.1
127.2
133.8

_

_

_

128.6
136.5
121.5
123.4
126.5
132.9

-

“

120.5
124.4
115.5
121.8

-

-

122 2
123 9
118 6
120.1

“
“

Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X .
Detroit, M l ..................
Houston, T X ..............
Pittsburgh, PA ..........

118.7
121.7
113.2
119.2

'
---------

-----

m v ,irw K u i u a i i u i a u o u u a i r u e a

^ IV IO M ;, e x -

elusive 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.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized110
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

-

122.2
126.1
118.7
123.4

-

-

“

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

122.9
126.9
118.3
124.9

118.6
119.0
113.5
114.7

123.7
130.6
117.7
120.0
121.2
126.6

_
-

-

_
_
_
_
_

120.1
121.4
115.8
117.1

127.2
136.0
119.5
123.2
124.6
131.1

_
_
-

_

121.3
123.2
118.9
118.6

3 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.

33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
(1982-84 = 100)
Series
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
Index.................................................................
Percent change................................ ..............
Food and beverages:
Index.................................................................
Percent change...............................................
Housing:
Index................................. ................... .......
Percent change..............................................
Apparel and upkeep:
Index................................................................
Percent change..............................................
Transportation:
Index................................................................
Percent change......................«.....................
Medical care:
Index................................................................
Percent change..............................................
Entertainment:
Index................................................................
Percent change..............................................
Other goods and services:
Index................................. ...............................
Percent change..............................................
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers:
All items:
Index.......................................................................
Percent change.....................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1981

1982

1985

1983

1986

1987

1988

1989

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

124.0
4.8

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

124.9
5.7

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
3.8

123.0
3.8

95.3
4.8

97.8

100.2

102.1

105.0

2.5

1.9

2.8

105.9
.9

110.6
4.4

115.4
4.3

118.6

2.6

93.2

97.0
4.1

99.3
2.4

103.7
4.4

106.4

2.6

102.3
-3.9

105.4
3.0

108.7
3.1

114.1
5.0

82.9
10.7

92.5

100.6
8.8

106.8

6.2

113.5
6.3

122.0
7.5

130.1
6.6

138.6
6.5

149.3
7.7

90.1
7.8

96.0
6.5

100.1
4.3

103.8
3.7

107.9
3.9

111.6
3.4

115.3
3.3

120.3
4.3

126.5
5.2

82.6
9.8

91.1
10.3

101.1
11.0

107.9
6.7

114.5

6.1

121.4
6.0

128.5
5.8

137.0
6.6

147.7
7.8

91.4
10.3

96.9
6.0

99.8
3.0

103.3
3.5

106.9
3.5

108.6
1.6

112.5
3.6

117.0
4.0

122.6

12.2

11.6

2.8

4.8

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

111

Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982 = 100)
Annual average

1989

Grouping

Finished goods ....................................
Finished consumer goods ....................
Finished consumer foods...................
Finished consumer goods excluding
foods ....................................................
Nondurable goods less food .........
Durable g o o d s...................................
Capital equipment.................................. .

1988

1989

May

June

July

Aug.

108.0
106.2
112.6

113.6
112.1
118.7

114.2
113.2
119.1

114.3
113.1
118.6

114.1
112.8
119.0

113.4
111.9
118.7

103.1
97.3
113.8
114.3

108.9
103.8
117.6
118.8

110.3
106.0
117.1
118.3

110.4
106.0
117.5
118.8

109.8
105.3
116.9
118.7

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

113.6
112.2
118.5

114.9
113.3
119.5

114.9
113.2
120.1

115.4
113.9
121.1

117.5
116.6
123.6

117.4
116.3
124.4

117.0
115.8
124.1

117.0
115.6
123.2

108.5
103.5
117.0
119.0

109.1
104.5
116.7
118.9

110.3
104.8
120.0
120.5

109.9
104.3
119.6
120.8

110.4
105.0
119.7
120.8

113.2
109.1
119.4
121.1

112.4
107.9
119.3
121.4

111.7
107.1
119.2

111.9
107.4
119.2

121.8

122.1

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components.............................................

107.1

112.0

112.7

112.7

112.5

112.0

Materials and components for
manufacturing .............................................
Materials for food manufacturing..........
Materials for nondurable manufacturing
Materials for durable manufacturing.....
Components for manufacturing.............

112.4

112.3

112.0

111.9

113.4

112.5

112.4

112.8

113.2
106.0
112.9
118.7
112.3

118.1
112.7
118.5
123.6
116.4

118.9
112.5
120.3
125.0
116.1

118.4
112.4
119.5
123.6
118.4

118.1
113.3
118.6
122.7
116.6

117.7
113.3
117.4
122.1
116.9

117.7
113.7
116.9
122.6
117.0

117.9
113.1
117.0
123.1
117.2

117.7
115.4
116.7
121.9
117.3

117.4
115.5
116.6
120.3
117.4

117.6
115.5
116.5
120.2
118.0

1 1 7 .6

114.9
117.4
119.2
118.1

117.9
115.8
117.2

118.2
117.3
116.9

Materials and components for
construction................................
Processed fuels and lubricants .
Containers....................................
Supplies........................................

116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7

121.3
76.4
125.4
118.1

121.5
78.1
125.3
118.2

121.5
79.3
125.6
118.1

121.6
78.7
126.0
118.5

121.6
77.3
126.0
118.3

121.9
78.7
126.1
118.5

122.3
77.8
126.3
118.3

122.1
76.3
126.8
118.3

121.7
77.3
126.7
118.3

121.8
84.6
126.9
118.7

96.0
106.1
85.5

103.1
111.2
93.4

106.1
114.9
96.0

104.1
111.7
94.7

103.9
110.1
95.4

101.1
110.0
91.1

102.3
108.9
93.6

102.1
107.9
94.0

102.6
109.9
93.5

104.2
112.6
94.3

106.5
59.8
115.8
116.3
117.0

111.8
65.7
121.2
122.1
122.1

112.6
71.8
120.8
121.8
121.4

112.8
70.2
121.2
122.1
122.1

112.4
68.4
121.3
122.2
122.1

111.7
63.6
121.4
122.3
122.4

112.0
65.9
121.3
122.1
122.3

113.3
65.8
122.7
123.6
123.9

113.1
64.6
123.0
123.8
124,0

113.5
64.8
123.5
124.5
124.4

Crude materials for further processing .
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ........................
Crude nonfood m aterials..........................

120.1

121.0

118.4

118.5

79.1
127.4
118.5

122.3
77.7
127.6
118.7

123.1
77.9
128.2
118.9

106.7
113.6
97.6

106.9
114.4
97.6

105.6
115.2
95.0

114.8
90.5

115.5
72.8
124.5
125.8
124.7

115.0
69.0
125.1
126.4
125.2

114.7
66.9
125.1
126.3
125.3

114.9
67.2
125.0
126.0
125.6

122.0

102.6

Special groupings:
Finished goods, excluding foods..................
Finished energy goods ...................................
Finished goods less energ y...........................
Finished consumer goods less energy........
Finished goods less food and energ y.........
Finished consumer goods less food and
energy...............................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and
energy...............................................................

118.5

124.0

123.3

124.1

124.1

124.5

124.2

126.0

125.9

126.5

126.9

127.5

127.5

127.6

122.0

128.8

127.9

129.0

129.3

129.9

129.7

130.4

130.5

131.6

132.3

133.4

133.5

133.7

112.6
111.0

112.8
112.7
77.6

120.1

Intermediate materials less foods and
fe e d s ........................................................
Intermediate foods and fe e d s ...............
Intermediate energy goods ...................
Intermediate goods less energ y..........
Intermediate materials less foods and
energy......................................................

106.9
109.5
70.9
114.6

111.9
113.8
76.1
119.5

112.6
114.2
77.7
120.0

112.7
112.9
78.9
119.7

112.4
114.5
78.3
119.6

112.0
113.1
76.9
119.3

112.3
113.7
78.3
119.5

112.4
112.3
77.5
119.6

111.9
113.2
76.0
119.5

111.9
113.0
76.9
119.2

113.4
113.3
84.2
119.5

78.8
119.5

112.5
111.4
77.4
119.7

115.2

120.2

120.8

120.5

120.2

120.0

120.1

120.3

120.0

119.7

119.9

120.1

120.3

120.6

Crude energy materials.........................
Crude materials less energy ...............
Crude nonfood materials less energy .

67.7
112.6
133.0

75.9
117.7
137.9

78.3
121.0
140.3

77.5
118.0
137.9

78.9
116.2
135.5

73.5
116.4
136.6

76.1
115.9
137.7

76.6
115.1
137.6

76.9
115.8
134.3

78.5
117.1
132.0

82.4
117.9
132.1

82.5
118.3
131.3

78.7
119.7
134.3

120.2

72.6
137.4

35. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product
(1982=100)
Annual average

1989

Grouping
1988

1989

May

June

July

Aug.

Total durable goo ds.....................
Total nondurable goods..........................

114.7
101.1

119.0
107.1

118.9
108.6

119.0
108.2

118.8
108.1

119.0
106.7

Total manufactures..................................
Durable...................................................
Nondurable ....................................

109.1
114.1
104.1

114.3
118.3
110.2

115.0
118.1
111.6

114.9
118.3
111.3

114.7
118.2
110.9

Total raw or slightly processed goods ........
Durable...................................................
Nondurable....................................

95.9
148.0
93.4

101.3
151.6
98.9

103.3
157.5
100.8

102.6
151.5
100.3

102.7
146.0
100.6


2 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

1990
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

119.2
107.2

120.2
107.2

119.9
107.2

119.7
107.9

120.0
110.7

119.9
110.0

120.4
109.3

120.8
108.8

114.2
118.4
110.0

114.5
118.6
110.4

115.2
119.6
110.7

115.1
119.5
110.7

115.2
119.3
111.0

116.5
119.6
113.1

116.0
119.6
112.2

116.1
119.9
112.2

116 6
120.2
112.8

100.4
146.5
98.3

101.2
148.0
99.0

100.4
146.5
98.3

100.2
141.2
98.3

101.8
138.0
100.1

105.8
138.6
104.2

105.6
135.9
104.1

103.7
140.7
101.9

100 8
145.6
98.6

36.

Producer price indexes for the net output of major industry groups

(December 1984=100, unless otherwise indicated)

SIC

Industry

Anthracite mining (12/85 = 100) ...................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining
( 1 2 / 8 5 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................
Oil and gas extraction (1 2 /8 5 = 1 0 0 ) ..........
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fu e ls .................................
Total manufacturing industries....................
Food and kindred products...........................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products.......................................
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar
materials.........................................................
Lumber and wood products, except
Furniture and fixtures.....................................
Paper and allied products .............................

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

76.5
101.0
102.7

76.1
101.0
102.9

76.3
96.2
103.0

77.6
93.6
103.2

81.2
90.6
105.0

81.0
87.8
105.0

78.1
92.0
105.0

73.8
94.4
104.9

94.7
75.8

95.1
75.2

96.1
75.5

95.6
77.3

95.1
82.4

95.0
82.1

95.9
77.8

95.8
71.7

Sept.

May

June

July

Aug.

76.4
100.3
102.7

78.2
100.6
102.4

77.4
96.0
102.4

78.0
91.8
102.6

74.0
96.2
102.6

94.6
68.5

94.3
75.7

93.9
78.1

94.0
77.2

94.7
78.1

94.9
72.8

108.0

111.2

111.6

112.1

111.3

1.11.4

111.0

111.3

111.3

111.2

111.6

111.9

112.3

112.9

109.6
112.3
164.6
109.8

109.9
112.4
164.5
109.7

110.8
112.3
165.7
110.0

110.8
113.2
165.7
110.1

111.0
113.7
173.8
110.0

112.6
114.2
173.8
110.6

112.2
114.4
177.4
111.6

112.2
115.0
176.1
111.8

112.6
115.3
176.1
111.9

1988

1989

10
11

70.6
100.7
100.2

12
13
14

Total mining in d u stries..................................

1990

1989

Annual
average

20
21
22

104.4
107.1
141.8
106.8

109.6
112.2
161.4
109.3

110.1
112.2
155.1
108.8

110.1
112.1
163.5
109.4

109.9
112.5
164.4
109.5

23

107.2

110.2

109.6

109.8

110.4

110.7

110.9

111.1

111.3

111.6

112.1

112.3

112.4

112.7

116.8
116.6
121.1

118.1
117.0
121.7

117.3
117.0
121.7

116.1
117.2
121.6

116.1
117.6
121.7

116.9
118.0
121.6

117.4
118.1
121.5

119.3
118.4
122.0

24
25
26

109.2
111.4
113.7

115.3
115.6
120.8

115.4
115.2
121.1

115.9
115.5
121.2

117.1
115.7
120.9

116.7
116,3
121.1

27
28
29
30
31
32
33

118.2
113.0
67.7
106.7
113.4
105.8
113.0

124.7
119.6
75.7
110.2
118.0
107.9
118.8

124.2
120.9
82.9
110.5
117.4
107.9
119.8

124.6
120.6
80.4
110.4
117.3
108.1
118.9

124.9
119.4
77.7
110.4
117.8
108.2
118.2

125.4
119.0
73.0
110.3
118.6
108.2
118.0

125.8
118.7
75.6
110.4
119.4
108.3
118.6

126.0
118.7
77.4
110.3
119.5
108.3
118.8

126.3
118.7
75.9
110.3
119.4
108.5
118.0

126.4
118.6
76.0
110.5
120.2
108.6
116.6

128.0
118.7
87.4
110.8
120.7
109.0
116.1

128.6
119.6
80.3
110.7
121.4
109.3
115.1

129.0
119.9
78.6
110.9
121.9
109.5
116.2

129.1
120.1
80.0
111.2
121.9
110.0
116.6

34

107.4

112.6

112.5

112.5

112.8

113.0

113.3

113.6

113.8

113.9

114.1

114.4

114.6

114.9

35

106.4

110.7

110.2

110.3

110:9

111.3

111.5

111.8

112.1

112.2

112.7

113.2

113.3

113.5

36
37

104.6
107.8

107.1
112.1

106.8
111.6

107.1
111.8

107.6
111.1

107.6
111.3

107.7
110.7

107.8
115.0

107.8
114.6

107.8
114.6

108.5
114.4

108.4
114.5

108.6
114.4

108.8
114.3

38

107.0

110.8

110.6

110.9

111.0

111.2

111.5

111.9

112.1

112.4

113.5

113.5

113.8

114.2

39

107.5

111.8

111.5

111.7

112.0

112.4

112.5

112.7

112.8

113.1

113.6

114.2

114.6

114.5

46

94.8

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

94.4

95.5

95.5

95.5

95.5

Printing, publishing, and allied
Chemicals and allied products......................
Petroleum refining and related products....
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
Leather and leather products .......................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products ..
Primary metal industries ................................
Fabricated metal products, except
machinery and transportation
equipment......................................................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies.............................
Transportation equipment..............................
Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, optical goods;
watches, clocks.............................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
( 1 2 / 8 5 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................
Service industries:
Pipelines, except natural gas (12/86 = 100)

37.

Annua! data: Producer Price indexes, by stage of processing

(1982 = 100)
Index
Finished goods:
Total ............................................................................
Consumer goo ds..................................................
Capital equipment ................................................

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

96.1
96.6
94.6

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.3
102.8

103.7
103.3
105.2

104.7
103.8
107.5

103.2
101.4
109.7

105.4
103.6
111.7

108.0
106.2
114.3

113.6
112.1
118.8

1981

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components:
Total ............................................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing......................................................
Materials and components for construction ....
Processed fuels and lubricants .........................
Containers .............................................................
Supplies.................................................................

98.6

100.0

100.6

103.1

102.7

99.1

101.5

107.1

112.0

98.7
97.9
100.6
96.7
96.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.2
102.8
95.4
100.4
101.8

104.1
105.6
95.7
105.9
104.1

103.3
107.3
92.8
109.0
104.4

102.2
108.1
72.7
110.3
105.6

105.3
109.8
73.3
114.5
107.7

113.2
116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7

118.1
121.3
76.4
125.4
118.1

Crude materials for further processing:
T o ta l............................................................................
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ..................................
Nonfood materials except fuel ..........................
Fuel .........................................................................

103.0
103.9
101.8
84.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.3
101.8
100.7
105.1

103.5
104.7
102.2
105.1

95.8
94.8
96.9
102.7

87.7
93.2
81.6
92.2

93.7
96.2
87.9
84.1

96.0
106.1
85.5
82.1

103.1
111.2
93.4
85.3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 113

Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
38.

U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

(1985=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Category

1974
SITO

1987
Sept.

ALL COMMODITIES .................

1988
Dec.

Mar.

June

104 9

F o od..................................
Meat and meat preparations.............
Fish and crustaceans.............................
Grain and grain preparations...........................................................................
Vegetables and fruit...................
Animal feeds, excluding unmilled cereals....
Miscellaneous food products

03
04

131.1
67.8

138.5
77.4

105.5

22
23
24

95.1
102.8
141.7

33

Miscellaneous manufactured articles.
Furniture and parts.......................
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 114
for FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

113.2

112.4

112.4

112.9

118.7
137.0
175.9
108.5
109.9

114.2
130.3
174.0
102.0
110.3
157.0
104.9

117.6
132:9
169.1
108.4
108.8
154.1
107.0

115.5
128.2
158.9
106.4
113.6
144.0
108.0

110.4
119.4
137.1
101.5
113.9
139.5
107.7

108.2
117.0
132.3
101.0
110.3
129.0
108.5

107.3
125.5
131.6
98.3
114.4
121.2
109.5

117.2
117.6

117.6
117.9

120.4
120.8

120.1
120.4

122.6
122.9

109.6
105.3
146.0

115.6
104.5
150.2

166.8
143.0
106.1
149.6

140.8
156./
154.7
109.1
150.0
100.8
94.8
145.0

135.8
136.8
135.7
109.9
148.6
182.1
103.6
94.8
150.4

142.6
146.7
139.3
111.1
157.3
192.9
106.7
98.8
163.5

143.0
149.9
129.8
114.6
170.7
193.5
115.5
99.2
157.2

139.1
156.3
111.5
117.7
177.6
193.3
117.4
99.3
150.5

136.6
158.0
109.5
117.3
176.9
193.9
116.4
97.7
138.5

136.6
161.7
109.5
115.4
180.9
185.1
117.1
98.7
138.1

79.5
92.9
89.2

79.4
93.4
88.4

81.7
93.7
94.5

86.0
94.3
105.4

87.9
95.6
108.7

91.1
96.3
116.5

91.0
96.2
114.0

101.5
104.3

91.5
95.7
87.1

90.3
91.8
88.2

87.3
89.6
84.4

83.8
84.6
81.6

86.7
88.0
84.5

89.1
84.4
91.8

124.9
153.3
105.9
120.2
116.4
138.2
104.1

125.5
150.8
113.0
107.5
122.4
119.9
132.5
105.4

125.5
149.6
115.5
109.0
125.3
119.4
125.8
108.4

121.9
145.0
116.5
108.9
124.7
108.0
118.6
109.4

117.7
134.0
118.3
109.3
122.4
108.9
111.6
109.5

115.2
127.8
117.3
108.5
122.9
94.8
111.5
110.2

115.7
124.0
118.8
109.6
125.6
94.7
117.0
112.9

119.6
128.6
109.4
130.2
108.6
115.6
111.4
149.1
109.9

120.6
125.0
110.4
131.1
111.6
116.8
112.1
150.0
110.9

122.6
118.3
113.0
132.5
113.9
120.4
116.0
151.7
112.6

123.1
120.7
112.9
133.7
115.4
122.4
117.2
145.8
113.9

122.8
121.7
113.4
132.9
115.8
123.9
116.7
140.4
114.4

122.5
124.8
114.0
130.9
117.0
124.8
116.4
135.9
115.3

122.9
124.5
114.3
130.8
119.1
128.3
116.2
131.6
116.6

104.8
108.5
104.7
111.0
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

106.7
111.8
107.3
115.7
112.7
95.8
106.7
106.1
107.2

107.2
112.8
108.8
117.3
113.3
94.8
107.5
106.5
107.8

107.9
114.5
109.9
117.7
114.2
94.8
108.7
106.9
108.8

108.6
114.7
111.4
118.6
115.3
94.8
109.5
106.9
110.0

109.5
116.3
113.0
121.2
117.3
94.4
109.2
107.8
110.4

109.7

111.9

113.5

114.7

114.8

116.0

117.9

108.9
111.7

110.5
114.2

111.4
114.3

112.8
117.3

113.6
117.3

114.9
119.0

115.7
120.1

112.5

113.9

100.0

97.2

107.7
1JO. 1
53
54
55
56
57
58

105.5
102.2
107.3

108.5
105.4
108.4

109.3
111.2

116.4
97.1

6
61
62
64

120.1

66

110.4

1J ».0

110.3

111.3
143.5

69

Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and
commercial aircraft...............
Power generating machinery and equipm ent................................................
Machinery specialized for particular industries..............................................
Metalworking machinery.............
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s......................................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment .....................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment
Electrical machinery and equipment
Road vehicles and parts ............
Other transport equipment, excluding military and commercial
aviation...........................

113.3

42

Chemicals and related products....

Leather and fursklns..........................
Rubber manufactures ......................
Paper and paperboard products ............
Textiles................................
Non-metalllc mineral manufactures (9 /8 5 = 1 0 0 )
Iron and steel.....................
Nonferrous m etals....................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s...........

111.6

111.7
111.8

Fats and oils.........................

Intermediate manufactured products ....

Mar.

111.9

112.0
112.1

Fuels and related products........

Organic chemicals.........................
Dyeing, tanning, and coloring materials....................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (1 2/85= 100 )
Essential oils, polish, and cleaning preparations......
Fertilizers, manufactured ....................
Artificial resins, plastics and cellulose.......
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s.

Dec.

110.7

28

Animal oils and f a t s ............................
Fixed vegetable oils and fa ts ......................

Sept.

109.8

Raw hides and skins..................

Coal and coke .....................................
Crude petroleum and petroleum products....

June

103.4
131.0
145.0
87.2

Crude materials.......................

Pulp and waste paper...........
Textile fibers..............................
Crude minerals...........................
Metal ores and metal scrap............

Mar.

122.8
140.9
79.8

Beverages and tobacco ..........
12

71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

8

104.8
100.5
104.6
95.7
101.4
102.5

102.4
105.2
100.9
108.2
105.4
95.5
101.9

1990

Dec.

08
09

Tobacco and tobacco products....

1989

Sept.

103.2
107.0
102.1
109.3
106.7
95.8
102.8

104.0
108.4
103.6
110.8
108.1
95.7
104.6

105.4

115.5

118.2

119.5

121.3

122.7

88

99.0

97.9

97.6

100.1

99.4

99.9

98.5

99.2

99.4

101.0

100.6

89

105.9

105.8

105.4

106.5

106.5

108.7

110.2

110.1

110.4

111.4

112.0

39.

U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

(1985=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Category

1974
SITC

1990

1989

1988
June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

113.8
123.7

116.8
126.7

115.3
126.1

117.6
129.1

119.7
129.6

119.8
128.5

118.4
127.6

119.9
128.5

121.3
129.8

Bakery goods, pasta products, grain, and grain preparations.................
Fruits and vegetables...................................... ..................... - ................ *......
Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey.........................................................
Coffee, tea, cocoa...........................................................................................

0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

114.1
111.5
125.6
132.5
135.8
115.4
109.6
94.3

114.0
107.0
125.0
129.3
139.8
120.3
110.0
93.3

112.7
111.2
122.2
125.9
136.9
123.7
112.1
87.4

114.3
108.7
125.8
126.7
142.2
127.7
110.8
90.6

114.1
111.2
124.0
127.0
140.4
123.4
109.8
91.2

111.3
109.7
120.2
122.7
140.2
123.2
111.8
85.3

106.1
124.1
120.3
121.6
141.6
119.1
114.4
62.5

108.2
134.1
123.2
122.1
142.9
128.2
117.0
57.3

111.6
131.6
129.2
125.7
148.5
130.9
116.2
65.3

Beverages and to b a c c o ....................................................................................
Beverages............................................................... ..........................................

1
11

116.0
118.7

116.2
120.0

115.3
118.9

116.2
119.9

117.0
120.7

117.2
120.7

120.7
122.9

122.4
124.1

124.8
127.0

Crude m a te ria ls ...................................................................................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed).....................................

Crude fertilizers and crude m inerals............................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap..............................................................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s...............................................

2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

129.2
121.7
112.4
151.0
137.8
100.4
151.2
135.8

137.8
151.1
111.4
160.5
145.5
101.0
167.6
148.2

135.4
133.3
109.7
169.6
141.9
97.2
172.2
122.0

143.2
121.5
107.8
174.7
145.6
100.2
205.4
139.5

146.2
123.0
112.1
184.7
151.5
103.3
204.3
138.5

144.3
103.4
112.4
190.0
145.4
104.7
212.3
110.3

137.2
98.3
113.5
190.1
141.7
101.2
183.4
108.6

136.1
98.5
111.6
189.6
140.2
98.0
176.6
127.7

132.4
101.0
114.0
184.0
133.9
96.8
167.2
111.0

Fuels and related p ro d u cts.............................................................................
Crude petroleum and petroleum products....................................................

3
33

60.6
60.4

63.4
63.6

57.7
57.7

56.4
56.1

66.8
67.3

73.3
74.4

68.8
69.5

74.0
74.8

75.9
76.4

Fixed vegetable oils and fats (9 /8 7 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................

4
42

106.4
111.1

111.2
116.1

114.0
119.2

112.3
117.4

112.5
117.3

117.4
122.6

106.7
110.7

100.7
104.2

98.3
101.5

Chemicals and related p ro d u c ts ....................................................................
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

114.2
105.8
92.0
135.3
125.7
133.7
121.6
138.7

116.4
107.3
92.3
140.3
126.2
136.3
124.3
148.5

119.2
111.3
93.0
145.4
127.5
136.5
127.6
153.4

122.2
115.1
96.1
146.4
130.5
139.9
129.5
156.5

123.6
117.6
93.1
154.9
130.3
143.5
129.5
154.8

120.4
114.0
86.6
153.5
130.2
142.1
129.8
151.6

117.7
110.3
85.7
149.2
127.2
132.4
130.8
150.2

118.9
112.7
86.0
149.7
135.3
130.5
130.6
150.9

119.0
114.5
84.4
152.3
131.7
129.3
129.4
150.2

Intermediate manufactured p ro d u c ts ...........................................................
Leather and furskins .......................................................................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................................................................
Cork and wood manufactures.......................................................................
Paper and paperboard products...................................................................

Nonferrous m etals...........................................................................................
Metal manufactures........................................................................................

6
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69

124.4
131.8
106.0
133.8
117.2
120.0
137.4
120.0
132.7
121.1

132.2
137.0
107.7
138.2
118.3
120.6
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

135.0
134.9
111.1
134.1
119.9
120.5
141.9
130.7
169.1
130.7

137.3
134.6
111.7
136.9
120.6
120.5
147.5
132.6
172.8
132.4

136.1
133.8
112.2
139.8
120.8
122.1
149.5
133.6
158.6
132.6

135.3
133.9
113.7
140.8
119.7
121.7
151.7
133.7
150.7
133.2

134.0
133.4
114.0
140.5
118.8
122.8
153.1
130.9
144.1
133.8

134.0
141.
115.1
141.5
117.Ì
125.C
158.5
128.7
138.3
135.6

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.................................. ..............................................

7
7hyb
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

125.4
124.6
146.8
139.9
140.4
118.1
112.8
122.2
125.5

127.3
126.4
149.8
142.4
143.7
119.5
113.8
124.2
127.6

126.7
125.9
143.7
139.7
139.6
118.7
113.9
125.9
127.1

129.9
128.7
150.8
144.1
144.2
118.7
115.5
129.3
130.8

130.1
129.2
149.1
142.9
144.7
119.6
115.7
130.5
130.5

129.2
128.4
145.7
139.5
143.0
119.3
115.7
129.6
129.6

129.0
127.8
145.7
143.9
143.7
117.2
115.0
128.7
129.5

130.2
128.1
148.2
144.2
145.5
117.9
113.9
129.0
131.9

131.4
130.3
157.4
148.1
150.9
117.0
112.9
131.8
131.3

Miscellaneous manufactured a rticles............................................................
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

8
81
82
83
84
85

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

126.6
130.0
127.2
117.6
118.5
127.2

126.6
131.5
127.9
114.0
119.9
127.9

127.2
133.0
128.8
110.3
120.8
128.8

128.7
136.6
130.9
112.7
121.7
130.9

131.8
142.1
135.9
114.5
121.8
135.9

87

140.0

142.5

135.8

141.9

141.1

136.5

136.3

137.1

143.3

125.4
128.2

130.6
131.4

130.2
131.7

127.9
131.4

126.3
131.9

128.7
133.8

131.4
139.2

ALL COMMODITIES ...................................................................... .....................
ALL COMMODITIES, EXCLUDING FU E LS ..................................................
Food and live anim als........................................................................................
Meat and meat preparations..........................................................................
Dairy products and eggs ...............................................................................

Pulp and waste pap er.....................................................................................

Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s......................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

88
89

129.2
129.2

129.3
132.1

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

115

Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
40.

U.S. export price indexes by end-use category

(1985 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
1988

1989

Category
Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

1990
Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Foods, feeds, and beverages................................................................
Industrial supplies and materials......................................................................
Capital goods...............................................
Automotive ........................................................

98.5
114.2
103.4
104.3

110.1
118.3
104.3
104.8

124.5
118.7
104.9
106.5

117.4
118.6
105.7
107.7

120.8
120.7
106.7
108.1

117.2
120.9
107.4
108.6

110.3
119.5
108.2
109.4

108 2
118.7
108.8
110.7

107 3
118 8
109.9
111.1

Consumer goods .................................
Consumer nondurables, manufactured, except rugs ..........
Consumer durables, manufactured ...........................
Agricultural (9 /8 8 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................

110.1
107.4
110.4
101.1

110.6
108.7
110.4
110.9

111.3
109.3
110.7
120.6

112.9
110.0
112.6
114.0

115.3
111.4
115.4
117.7

115.6
111.5
115.4
116.1

116.5
1117
116.5
111.2

117 1
11? 7
1168
109.8

118 8
109.5

107.7

109.7

110.8

111.6

112.9

113.1

113.0

113.1

113.8

All exports, excluding agricultural (9 /8 8 = 1 0 0 ) ....................

41.

U.S. import price indexes by end-use category

(1985 = 100)
1988

1989

Category
Mar.
All imports, excluding petroleum (6 /8 8 = 1 0 0 ) ......................

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

1990
Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

123.2

126.2

125.4

128.3

129.0

128.0

127.1

128.0

129.3

Foods, feeds, and beverages......................................
Industrial supplies and m aterials..................................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excluding natural g a s ................
Industrial supplies and materials, excluding petroleum.......

113.7
92.7
60.3
119.6

113.7
97.8
63.5
126.4

112.7
95.2
57.5
126.4

114.2
96.4
56.2
129.6

113.8
102.1
67.2
131.2

111.7
104.2
74.1
129.4

107.1
100.6
69.1
126.9

109 0
102 7
74 6
126.2

103 1
78 ?
125.5

Capital goods, except automotive.................................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines .................................

128.6
123.7

131.0
125.8

129.0
126.0

132.3
129.2

132.4
129.1

131.0
128.2

130.6
128.2

131 5
130.0

134 8
129.9

Consumer goods except automotive...............................................
Nondurables, manufactured ...................................................
Durables, manufactured................................................

124.2
123.3
123.5

126.3
124.2
125.5

125.0
123.8
124.5

127.4
125.4
127.4

128.7
126.5
127.9

129.1
127.5
127.9

129.5
128.5
127.8

130 8
129.9
128.6

132 8
130.4

42.

U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1

(1985 = 100)
1988

1989

Industry group
Mar.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products...................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture.........
Furniture and fixtures..........................
Paper and allied products..............................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products...................
Primary metal products..................................
Machinery, except electrical .........................
Electrical machinery........................................
Transportation equipment..................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks
1 SIC-based classification.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized 11
for6 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

1990
Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

120.8
146.1
112.5
124.6
118.4

125.1
145.4
112.9
129.8
122.3

128.9
146.1
112.9
133.1
125.4

123.5
144.0
115.3
135.6
125.5

124.5
151.7
115.2
139.9
125.9

122.7
164.4
116.0
141.4
122.5

119.5
171.2
116.5
141.6
118.5

117.2
170.7
118.1
140.4
115.9

118.5
173.6
119.0
137.3
116.9

73.0
126.9
100.6
102.9
108.1
109.2

77.8
133.8
101.3
103.7
109.1
110.8

73.7
133.5
102.2
104.9
109.4
112.0

75.4
133.6
102.8
105.4
110.9
113.4

79.8
130.8
103.4
106.3
111.8
114.5

86.9
125.7
103.7
106.8
112.7
116.7

88.7
122.5
104.4
107.5
113.4
117.7

94.4
122.9
105.2
107.7
114.5
119.7

90.7
122.6
106.3
108.3
115.1
120.6

133 1

43.

U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1

(1985 = 100)

Mar.

Dec.

Sept.

June

Mar.

Dec.

Sept.

June

Mar.

1990

1989

1988
Industry group

Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products............................................................
Textile mill products........................................................................
Apparel and related products ........................................................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture.............................

114.0
127.4
116.6
119.5

114.4
128.9
115.8
120.3

115.0
127.0
117.0
118.6

115.4
127.8
117.5
117.0

114.9
139.0
118.9
120.5

114.0
139.8
120.3
122.2

114.8
137.5
121.2
123.3

115.9
138.8
122.1
122.1

118.8
141.3
122.3
124.2

Furniture and fixtures.......................................................................
Paper and allied products ..............................................................
Chemicals and allied products.......................................................
Petroleum refining and allied products.........................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.............................

122.2
119.1
116.8
114.5
117.2

124.0
121.3
121.3
119.2
119.0

124.8
123.8
123.5
110.8
117.7

128.0
125.2
130.6
111.6
122.6

126.3
127.4
130.7
121.3
122.3

126.1
128.2
130.0
139.1
123.1

128.7
127.3
123.9
128.0
124.2

128.6
126.6
123.7
134.9
125.2

130.3
124.6
123.7
138.9
125.4

Leather and leather products ........................................................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products..................................
Primary metal products...................................................................
Fabricated metal products..............................................................
Machinery, except electrical...........................................................

120.8
138.2
122.6
127.3
135.9

124.6
141.5
137.0
133.3
138.2

123.7
140.5
136.2
133.0
135.0

124.0
144.3
140.2
136.3
138.4

122.8
145.1
140.6
138.9
138.6

123.5
144.8
135.2
140.3
136.7

124.6
147.4
132.0
141.3
135.8

126.0
148.0
129.6
142.0
137.8

130.5
152.5
127.4
144.1
141.8

Electrical machinery and supplies.................................................
Transportation equipment...............................................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks..............................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities.................................

114.7
127.3
135.8
127.7

116.1
129.5
137.0
133.1

116.7
129.3
132.2
130.6

119.0
132.8
137.7
132.2

119.7
132.6
136.7
136.6

119.4
131.9
133.8
137.7

118.9
132.0
132.8
138.4

118.5
134.1
134.2
139.8

119.5
134.2
137.8
143.4

1 SIC - based classification.

44.

Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted

(1977 = 100)

___________________________________
Quarterly Indexes
Item

I

II

1990

1989

1988

1987

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

III

IV

111.7
191.8
101.6
171.6
168.9
170.7

112.5
195.1
102.5
173.5
167.2
171.3

113.2
196.4
102.3
173.5
168.9
171.9

112.6
199.1
102.6
176.9
168.8
174.1

113.4
201.9
102.8
178.0
171.8
175.8

113.5
204.5
103.0
180.2
173.7
177.9

113.8
206.9
102.8
181.9
174.7
179.4

114.2
210.4
103.0
184.1
176.3
181.4

114.7
212.8
103.5
185.6
176.5
182.4

114.8
215.7
103.9
187.9
175.8
183.7

114.6
218.1
103.0
190.2
178.5
186.1

109.5
190.5
101.0
173.9
170.3
172.6

110.2
193.8
101.8
175.8
168.7
173.4

111.0
195.0
101.5
175.7
170.3
173.8

110.5
197.5
101.8
178.7
169.8
175.6

111.5
200.2
101.9
179.6
172.1
177.0

112.0
203.0
102.3
181.3
176.3
179.6

111.6
205.5
102.1
184.1
174.6
180.8

111.9
208.3
102.0
186.1
176.5
182.8

112.6
211.0
102.6
187.4
177.6
184.0

112.7
214.1
103.1
189.9
177.3
185.6

112.5
216.2
102.1
192.2
179.0
187.7

113.5
189.5
99.5
172.1
167.0
187.2
122.0
164.4
166.1

114.6
190.9
99.4
171.9
166.6
187.8
127.0
166.5
166.5

114.7
193.1
99.5
173.6
168.4
188.9
129.1
168.0
168.2

115.1
195.5
99.5
175.2
169.9
191.0
127.5
168.8
169.5

114.9
197.8
99.6
177.5
172.1
193.3
131.6
171.7
172.0

114.5
200.2
99.5
180.4
174.9
196.9
119.6
169.8
173.1

114.5
202.8
99.3
182.9
177.1
200.1
116.6
170.9
175.0

115.3
205.5
99.9
184.6
178.1
203.9
113.5
172.2
176.1

115.2
208.5
100.4
187.3
181.0
205.7
106.1
170.8
177.5

“
"
“
“
“

Unit nonlabor payments............................................
Implicit price deflato r.................................................

113.0
186.9
99.1
170.8
165.3
186.9
129.3
166.7
165.8

Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per ho u r...................................
Unit labor co s ts ..........................................................

134.2
190.4
100.9
141.8

134.5
191.7
100.6
142.5

135.1
194.3
101.2
143.8

136.0
195.3
100.6
143.6

137.3
197.4
100.5
143.7

137.8
200.2
100.8
145.2

138.6
201.9
100.3
145.6

139.5
203.2
99.5
145.6

139.0
206.1
100.3
148.3

140.1
209.6
101.0
149.7

141.5
211.3
99.8
149.3

Business:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per hour ...................................
Unit nonlabor payments ............................................
Implicit price deflato r.................................................

Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.... ........................................
Real compensation per ho u r...................................
Unit nonlabor payments............................................
Implicit price deflator .................................................

Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all em ployees...........................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per h o u r...................................
Total unit costs...........................................................
Unit nonlabor costs.................................................

-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“

Data not available.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 117

Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data
45.

Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years

(1977 = 100)
Item

1960

1970

1973

1978

1980

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

Private business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Output per unit of capital services.......................
Multifactor productivity..........................................
O utput.......................................................
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

100.8
101.9
101.2
105.8

99.2
94.1
97.4
106.6

100.3
86.6
95.2
105.4

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

111.2
93.7
104.7
133.4

82.2
53.3
70.5
64.9

90.8
78.1
86.1
86.1

96.9
88.0
93.7
90.8

105.0
103.8
104.6
98.9

107.5
113.3
109.4
105.4

105.2
121.8
110.7
115.8

106.7
124.4
112.6
116.6

112.9
128.6
118.1
113.9

115.2
133.8
121.4
116.1

116.7
138.5
123.9
118.7

120.0
142.4
127.4
118.6

70.7
104.9
81.2
54.4

89.2
103.5
93.8
79.9

96.4
106.3
99.7
92.9

100.8
101.9
101.2
106.0

98.7
93.3
96.9
106.6

99.1
85.1
94.1
104.8

102.5
87.3
97.0
110.1

104.7
91.3
99.9
119.3

106.2
91.0
100.7
124.0

108.3
90.8
102.0
128.3

109.1
91.5
102.7
133.2

77.0
51.9
67.1
67.4

89.6
77.2
85.2
86.2

96.3
87.3
93.2
90.7

105.1
104.0
104.7
99.0

108.0
114.2
110.0
105.7

105.7
123.3
111.4
116.6

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

122.0
145.5
129.6
119.2

62.2
103.0
72.0
52.5

80.8
99.1
85.3
78.6

93.4
112.0
98.0
96.3

101.5
102.0
101.6
106.0

101.4
91.0
98.6
103.2

105.9
81.6
99.2
98.4

112.0
86.7
105.0
104.7

118.1
95.5
112.1
117.5

123.6
97.3
116.4
122.0

127.7
98.4
119.5
124.7

131.9
102.0
123.6
130.1

84.4
51.0
72.9
60.4

97.3
79.3
92.1
81.5

103.1
86.0
98.3
83.4

104.4
103.9
104.2
99.5

101.7
113.4
104.6
111.5

92.9
120.5
99.2
129.8

93.5
120.8
99.7
129.3

99.5
123.0
104.8
123.7

98.7
125.4
104.8
127.1

97.7
126.8
104.4
129.8

98.6
127.6
105.3
129.4

Private nonfarm business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Output per unit of capital services.......................
Multifactor productivity............................................
O utput...........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons............................................
Capital services .....................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input.........
Capital per hour of all persons................................

Manufacturing:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Output per unit of capital services.......................
Multifactor productivity.....................................
O utput..................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons................................................
Capital services ..................................................
Combined units of labor and capital inputs.......
Capital per hour of all persons................................

Digitized for
118FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

46.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years

(1977 = 100)
Item

1960

1970

1973

1978

1980

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

66.1
32.9
67.3
49.7
46.4
48.5

87.6
57.2
89.4
65.3
59.4
63.2

95.2
70.3
96.0
73.8
72.6
73.4

100.9
108.6
100.9
107.7
106.7
107.3

99.4
131.8
97.0
132.6
118.4
127.6

100.2
154.9
97.3
154.5
136.3
148.1

102.6
160.8
97.8
156.7
146.2
153.0

105.2
167.4
97.6
159.1
156.4
158.2

107.3
174.8
98.4
162.8
160.9
162.2

109.8
183.8
101.7
167.5
162.1
165.6

111.1
191.0
101.9
171.9
166.3
170.0

113.0
200.2
102.5
177.1
170.9
174.9

114.2
211.2
103.2
184.9
175.8
181.7

69.5
34.5
70.7
49.7
46.3
48.5

88.4
57.6
90.0
65.2
60.0
63.4

95.8
70.7
96.4
73.8
69.4
72.3

100.9
108.6
101.0
107.7
105.6
107.0

99.0
131.6
96.7
132.9
118.1
127.8

99.1
154.7
97.1
156.1
136.1
149.2

102.0
160.8
97.8
157.6
148.1
154.3

104.2
167.2
97.5
160.4
156.3
159.0

105.6
174.0
98.0
164.9
161.9
163.8

107.7
182.9
101.1
169.8
163.3
167.6

108.9
189.8
101.2
174.2
167.7
172.0

111.1
198.7
101.8
178.8
172.2
176.5

112.1
209.5
102.4
186.9
176.5
183.3

71.9
36.1
74.0
49.4
50.2
47.0
59.8
51.5
50.7

90.2
58.6
91.6
64.8
65.0
64.2
52.3
60.1
63.3

96.8
71.0
96.9
72.7
73.4
70.7
65.6
68.9
71.9

100.7
108.5
100.8
107.3
107.8
105.7
102.0
104.4
106.6

99.3
131.4
96.6
133.4
132.3
136.7
85.2
118.6
127.6

100.2
154.1
96.8
159.5
153.8
176.4
78.5
142.1
149.8

103.0
159.1
96.8
159.5
154.5
174.3
110.9
152.1
153.7

105.5
165.0
96.3
160.8
156.5
173.6
136.5
160.6
157.9

107.2
171.6
96.7
164.1
160.2
175.8
133.0
160.8
160.4

109.6
179.9
99.5
168.5
164.1
181.7
123.1
161.2
163.1

112.1
186.1
99.3
171.2
166.1
186.4
123.0
164.2
165.4

114.7
194.1
99.4
174.6
169.3
190.3
128.8
168.8
169.1

114.8
204.0
99.7
183.8
177.8
201.7
113.9
170.9
175.5

60.7
35.6
73.0
58.7
60.0
59.1

80.2
57.0
89.0
71.0
64.1
69.0

92.6
68.2
93.1
73.7
70.8
72.8

101.6
108.3
100.6
106.6
101.8
105.2

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6
97.6
121.0

106.6
158.7
99.6
148.8
113.7
138.6

112.2
162.7
99.0
145.1
128.3
140.2

118.2
168.1
98.1
142.3
138.5
141.2

123.5
176.3
99.3
142.7
130.3
139.1

128.2
184.3
101.9
143.8
135.2
141.3

132.9
189.2
100.9
142.3
137.6
141.0

136.0
196.0
100.4
144.1
-

138.7
204.3
99.9
147.3

"

“

Business:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per h o u r...................................
Unit labor c o s ts ..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments...........................................
Implicit price deflato r.................................................

Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per h o u r...................................
Unit labor co s ts ..........................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents...........................................
Implicit price deflator .................................................

Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all em ployees...........................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per ho u r...................................
Total unit costs...........................................................
Unit labor costs .......................................................
Unit nonlabor costs.................................................
Unit profits...................................................................
Unit nonlabor payments...........................................
Implicit price deflato r.................................................

Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons................................
Compensation per hour.............................................
Real compensation per ho u r...................................
Unit labor c o s ts ..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ...........................................
Implicit price deflator .................................................
-

Data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 119

Current Labor Statistics:
47.

Productivity Data

Annual productivity indexes for selected industries

(1977 = 100)
Industry

SIC

1970

1975

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Iron mining, crude o r e ...........................................
Iron mining, usable ore .........................................
Copper mining, crude o r e ....................................
Copper mining, recoverable m etal......................
Coal mining.............................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite m ining.................
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels.....................
Crushed and broken s to n e ...............................

1011
1011
1021
1021
111,121
121
14
142

99.9
111.1
84.8
85.5
141.5
142.3
89.7
83.1

112.7
117.8
87.2
77.2
105.3
105.2
90.6
91.4

124.7
123.2
99.5
91.6
112.5
112.6
96.5
101.3

132.8
130.6
102.0
97.7
122.3
122.7
94.7
96.7

100.9
98.2
106.4
116.2
119.4
120.0
89.3
94.1

139.0
138.6
129.9
130.9
136.5
136.9
98.2
103.9

173.3
171.7
140.3
155.4
151.7
152.3
105.5
105.8

187.9
187.9
164.2
193.1
154.3
154.6
107.5
104.5

200.3
197.8
195.4
228.9
167.7
168.2
108.4
104.9

254.5
250.4
197.0
211.2
181.3
182.4
115.3
121.3

258.8
248.2
206.9
229.9
200.7
201.9
114.0
120.1

Red meat products................................................
Meatpacking plants.............................................
Sausages and other prepared m eats..............
Poultry dressing and processing.........................
Fluid m ilk.................................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables.........................
Grain mill products.................................................
Flour and other grain mill products .................
Rice milling...........................................................
Bakery products.....................................................
Sugar .......................................................................
Raw and refined cane sugar............................
Beet sugar............................................................
Malt beverages.......................................................
Bottled and canned soft drinks...........................
Total tobacco products........................................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco....
Cigars....................................................................

2011,13
2011
2013
2016,17
2026
203
204
2041
2044
205
2061,62,63
2061,62
2063
2082
2086
2111,21,31
2111,31
2121

77.3
78.7
72.8
78.3
73.7
79.7
79.7
76.6
82.0
87.5
85.9
86.1
92.9
56.7
70.0
86.8
85.3
88.4

84.4
88.6
74.8
87.9
95.5
93.7
87.1
85.8
90.4
93.4
94.0
90.8
98.1
86.1
89.5
93.9
93.3
93.7

107.0
108.9
102.3
105.7
123.9
100.8
105.3
94.8
111.8
93.7
100.1
99.3
102.1
116.0
106.9
102.1
101.8
106.4

107.9
113.9
95.0
116.4
128.0
99.2
110.9
96.7
117.9
96.2
98.8
98.8
98.7
118.3
110.6
100.5
99.6
107.3

112.3
119.5
96.5
125.6
135.3
107.9
121.0
104.1
104.5
103.3
90.4
87.6
94.8
122.6
114.1
100.7
99.5
111.4

115.9
123.4
100.0
131.7
143.1
110.8
125.5
110.4
103.3
106.9
98.6
100.0
94.5
131.3
121.5
105.1
104.1
112.3

117.0
125.6
99.5
130.3
149.5
112.4
132.8
114.9
93.2
106.8
99.7
94.7
108.8
137.9
131.0
110.3
107.2
141.4

119.5
130.1
98.8
133.2
155.0
113.4
140.9
122.9
103.2
108.5
105.5
108.7
100.7
130.3
136.7
113.4
111.7
129.3

117.3
126.2
98.7
127.3
162.4
118.3
142.1
126.6
112.6
114.4
110.1
109.6
111.8
152.3
146.6
117.2
115.5
133.1

115.3
126.2
94.5
135.4
168.0
116.4
149.6
129.9
120.6
113.3
125.5
117.1
139.2
165.7
158.1
124.2
123.1
139.1

86.7
94.3
101.2
95.2
98.8
100.2
97.8
97.5
98.0
97.2
96.9
85.5
86.7
99.8
98.5
96.2
86.5

105.0
107.4
99.7
97.3
104.2
93.6
102.8
99.9
97.2
102.3
112.1
112.1
105.2
94.6
101.6
111.0
94.3

107.4
122.0
103.1
98.8
107.9
96.4
106.9
103.0
97.3
110.5
114.0
108.8
104.4
92.3
104.5
109.8
91.4

112.5
114.2
118.2
95.2
117.1
86.1
114.4
104.7
98.2
115.9
104.3
107.4
111.3
95.3
104.2
111.9
86.3

121.6
118.0
128.5
90.2
126.8
87.9
121.1
110.1
103.8
121.6
108.6
112.0
119.5
102.9
104.5
114.0
94.0

119.8
119.9
129.6
96.9
132.3
88.7
120.0
112.2
105.5
122.7
109.5
117.8
121.0
105.6
102.4
118.9
104.5

123.7
118.5
134.5
106.3
139.2
85.7
125.1
112.5
104.4
124.6
108.8
116.7
123.1
107.1
99.6
122.5
101.4

132.8
121.0
141.1
107.5
155.1
90.0
128.8
118.5
111.9
127.1
117.9
117.8
133.5
112.3
101.4
126.7
105.4

132.1
118.3
162.6
105.8
151.1
94.1
132.1
118.3
110.5
125.2
130.9
118.7
138.0
110.5
98.1
123.3
107.5

84.0
84.5
92.5
94.0
94.2

90.3
115.7
106.0
83.6
100.8

89.3
120.9
104.2
76.1
99.8

80.8
103.6
107.0
84.0
106.5

85.8
126.2
114.3
86.2
113.8

95.0
125.3
116.4
85.2
121.5

91.5
135.8
118.1
87.3
125.6

90.6
146.2
121.8
94.3
127.7

92.0
156.4
120.9
96.2
135.3

85.3
86.7
88.7

98.9
97.2
94.2

103.9
97.7
83.7

87.2
94.5
79.4

105.3
106.2
81.8

113.9
119.8
92.5

112.5
115.6
102.6

119.6
110.0
113.8

132.1
129.4
120.1

91.8
86.2
101.3
98.5
84.7
91.0
89.1
93.1
95.5
91.9
97.5

102.4
95.7
99.1
105.2
87.0
97.6
94.0
84.9
109.6
90.4
93.1

118.1
98.5
95.6
110.1
91.1
100.7
97.3
84.3
111.1
88.5
95.4

128.2
110.1
106.4
105.8
94.0
102.6
103.3
88.6
100.0
91.0
90.6

136.1
107.2
103.9
108.5
108.4
105.4
101.1
85.5
121.6
97.6
93.7

146.8
110.5
105.7
128.0
125.3
111.3
110.4
93.3
115.1
99.2
96.3

146.7
113.0
107.3
127.0
128.3
112.8
112.6
100.4
114.1
100.5
97.4

151.4
114.1
109.3
138.9
135.5
115.6
114.5
98.7
122.9
105.9
100.1

162.2
125.4
107.7
153.6
143.8
119.9
120.0
104.9
121.9
102.1
104.5

102.9
90.8
99.8
99.8
103.7
105.3
100.0
94.1
100.0
102.6
98.4
99.7
102.1
90.6
99.9

112.0
92.7
91.6
90.0
118.6
124.4
103.8
97.9
96.8
108.1
95.2
94.6
98.5
90.4
101.4

90.9
93.7
89.0
88.4
128.0
128.5
103.0
106.0
99.2
118.5
92.8
102.3
99.5
96.0
98.1

116.8
98.3
89.9
90.2
141.2
138.3
111.5
121.1
110.4
120.5
88.8
93.2
103.0
99.7
104.7

131.3
106.8
98.8
103.5
148.0
151.9
125.4
128.1
116.2
123.0
89.5
102.0
107.9
102.8
110.4

139.5
104.2
95.6
101.0
181.5
189.8
125.4
122.0
115.6
125.6
90.1
101.6
117.7
106.3
104.7

141.8
107.4
100.3
104.3
210.8
229.2
134.0
130.4
125.0
126.0
89.2
105.0
117.7
104.1
108.7

152.3
108.8
95.0
104.3
259.8
296.9
133.3
135.5
128.4
132.6
93.9
109.3
117.7
104.9
115.6

102.8
93.3

105.4
95.1

101.3
94.9

103.6
95.1

105.1
105.2

104.5
101.5

104.4
103.0

110.8
109.6

Cotton and synthetic broad woven fabrics.......
Hosiery ....................................................................
Nonwool yarn mills ................................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats........................
Sawmills and planing mills, general ...................
Millwork ...................................................................
Veneer and plywood.............................................
Household furniture ...............................................
Wood household furniture.................................
Upholstered household furniture......................
Mattresses and bedsprings...............................
Office furniture........................................................
Paper, paperboard, and pulp mills......................
Paper and plastic b a g s ........................................
Folding paperboard boxes...................................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes .......................
Industrial inorganic chemicals.............................
Industrial inorganic chemicals, not
elsewhere classified........................................
Synthetic fibers.......................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations...............................
Cosmetics and other toiletries ............................
Paints and allied products...................................
Industrial organic chemicals, not
elsewhere classified.............................................
Agricultural chemicals ..........................................
Petroleum refining..................................................

2211,21
2251,52
2281
2311
2421
2431
2435,36
251
2511,7
2512
2515
252
2611,21,31,61
2643
2651
2653
281
2819 pt.
2823,24
2834
2844
2851
2869
287
2911

_
65.5
84.3
75.1
90.0
95.9
83.2
82.2
83.5
84.4
67.7
78.2
77.5
75.8
77.4
73.1
-

-

53.8
74.8
65.9
74.9
65.5
-

73.8

Tires and inner tubes ...........................................
Miscellaneous plastic products...........................
Footw ear.................................................................
Glass containers....................................................
Hydraulic cement ...................................................
Structural clay products .......................................
Clay construction products..................................
Brick and structural clay t ile .............................
Clay refractories.....................................................
Concrete products .................................................
Ready-mixed concrete .........................................

3011
3079
314
3221
3241
325
3251,53,59
3251
3255
3271,72
3273

Steel ........................................................................
Gray iron foundries................................................
Steel foundries.......................................................
Steel foundries, not elsewhere classified ......
Primary copper, lead, and zinc ...........................
Primary cop per....................................................
Primary aluminum...................................................
Copper rolling and drawing .................................
Aluminum rolling and drawing .............................
Metal c a n s ..............................................................
Hand and edge tools.............................................
Heating equipment, except electric....................
Fabricated structural m etal..................................
Metal doors, sash, and trim .................................
Metal stampings.....................................................

331
3321
3324,25
3325
3331,32,33
3331
3334
3351
3353,54,55
3411
3423
3433
3441
3442
3465,66,69

102.2
82.1
86.4

93.3
97.0
107.5
107.7
85.3
83.0
96.2
76.8
87.5
87.0
93.9
80.4
97.4
89.3
93.2

Valves and pipe fittings........................................
Farm and garden machinery...............................

3494
352

93.6
75.7

92.4
97.7

See footnotes at end of table.


12 0 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

87.6
-

100.3
87.2
84.8
78.2
77.4
81.1
82.1
82.3
91.1
87.6
79.8
90.6
-

78.1
79.8
92.5
76.8
66.0
78.8
91.0
-

125.7

_
_
176.1
_
_

132.3
113.7

_

126.3
118.9
138.2
163.6
166.7
120.3
119.9
129.3
131.4
126.9
161.1
109.9
148.7

_
_
124.5
_
_

123.7
113.9
142.8

_

98.7
124.3

_
_

156.6
116.8
138.2

_
_
125.7
169.7
109.4
153.3
147.6

_

120.6
104.9

_
168.3
112.1
111.0

_

338.0
134.9
135.7
128.4
143.2

_
_
_
_
-

-

47. Continued—Annual productivity indexes for selected industries
(1977 = 100)
Industry

SIC

Construction machinery and equipm ent..........
Oilfield machinery and equipment.....................
Machine to o ls........................................................
Metal-cutting machine tools..............................
Metal-forming machine to o ls ............................
Pumps and compressors.....................................
Ball and roller bearings........................................
Refrigeration and heating equipment.................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, and valves.............
Transformers ..........................................................
Switchgear and switchboard apparatus............
Motors and generators.........................................
Major household appliances................................
Household cooking equipment.........................
Household refrigerators and freezers.............
Household laundry equipment..........................
Household appliances, not elsewhere
classified.............................................................
Electric lam ps......................................................
Lighting fixtures ...................................................
Radio and television receiving sets....................
Semiconductors and related devices.................
Motor vehicles and equipment............................
Instruments to measure electricity......................
Photographic equipment and supplies..............
Railroad transportation, revenue traffic.............
Railroad transportation, car-miles.......................
Class 1 bus carriers...............................................
Intercity trucking.....................................................
Intercity trucking, general freight ........................
Air transportation ...................................................
Petroleum pipelines...............................................
Telephone communications.................................
Gas and electric utilities.......................................
Electric utilities.....................................................
Gas utilities ..........................................................
Scrap and waste m aterials..................................

401 Class I
401 Class I
411,13,14 pts.
4213 pt.
4213 pt.
4511,4521 pt.
4612,13
4811
491,92,93
491,493 pt.
492,493 pt.
5093

Hardware stores.....................................................
Department stores.................................................
Variety stores .........................................................
Retail food stores ..................................................
Grocery stores.....................................................
Retail bakeries.....................................................
Franchised new car dealers................................
Auto and home supply stores.............................
Gasoline service stations.....................................
Apparel and accessory stores ............................
Men’s and boys’ clothing stores......................
Women’s ready-to-wear stores ........................
Family clothing stores........................................
Shoe stores..........................................................
Furniture, furnishings, and equipment
stores...................................................................
Furniture and home furnishings stores ..........
Appliance, radio, television, and music
stores ...................................................................
Household appliance stores ..........................
Radio, television, and music stores.............

5251
5311
5331
54
5411
546
5511
5531
5541
56
5611
5621
5651
5661

Eating and drinking places..................................
Drug and proprietary stores.................................
Liquor stores...........................................................
Commercial banking..............................................
Hotels, motels, and tourist courts.......................
Laundry and cleaning services ...........................
Beauty and barber shops ....................................
Beauty shops.......................................................
Automotive repair shops......................................
-

1970

1975

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

3531
3533
3541,42
3541
3542
3561,63
3562
3585
3592

83.4
86.4
91.7
89.5
98.5
85.8
85.5
88.4

93.9
107.9
103.0
102.9
104.0
91.4
97.5
89.9
100.1

97.4
104.0
98.8
100.6
93.5
100.2
95.4
93.8
90.3

96.1
104.7
96.5
98.9
89.4
102.4
94.3
99.4
91.7

88.9
98.4
88.0
89.2
85.0
95.9
83.3
100.1
92.0

88.2
91.8
83.0
81.1
87.6
100.2
86.3
100.9
99.6

102.6
87.5
93.6
93.3
93.7
106.1
94.4
105.5
110.3

104.1
79.9
96.7
96.4
96.6
106.8
92.1
103.7
114.0

107.1
73.2
97.7
97.6
97.1
108.3
95.6
101.5
111.1

100.8
75.6
110.8
112.4
105.9
115.4
103.6
107.9
118.8

101.6
72.0
106.0
95.1
127.4

3612
3613
3621
3631,32,33,39
3631
3632
3633

89.1
83.3
87.8
70.2
68.7
71.7
70.7

89.3
93.4
93.0
93.6
97.8
94.5
93.6

110.6
103.2
96.7
105.8
103.9
114.4
102.1

106.9
99.5
100.4
107.6
105.7
117.4
103.9

99.6
101.3
102.4
108.6
112.6
116.1
105.4

99.1
106.1
104.3
117.6
120.8
127.1
112.2

97.6
107.4
107.9
123.6
131.9
127.5
117.5

99.3
110.6
110.5
127.2
135.6
136.8
118.2

100.4
110.7
112.3
134.1
158.4
133.5
123.1

101.5
107.9
119.2
137.2
168.5
129.0
125.3

103.1
112.8
117.4
138.9
170.9
131.2
129.8

3639
3641
3645,46,47,48
3651
3674
371
3825
3861

70.4
88.3
78.1
70.6

88.8
96.4
89.2
90.1
56.0
87.7
95.9

100.4
106.9
88.7
133.6
171.6
93.1
111.9
104.8

94.7
108.4
91.0
163.9
197.9
96.9
119.2
103.0

103.7
124.8
96.3
196.1
211.5
109.6
121.8
123.5

109.8
131.9
102.2
236.9
229.2
115.7
133.7
122.2

110.0
126.9
107.1
249.8
206.4
121.2
130.4
127.9

113.1
131.1
113.9
278.1
215.6
121.7
122.2
133.8

120.1
144.5
109.9
257.7
292.2
129.1
132.2
138.7

117.7
150.4
109.8
258.5
318.2
133.8

-

99.1
103.2
93.3
116.9
149.4
90.8
108.4
108.2

89.5
98.3
97.0
89.2
88.4
87.6
95.7
85.9
94.7
92.9
101.4
-

107.3
107.9
100.9
107.7
107.5
106.2
93.0
118.1
96.2
94.0
102.1
108.2

111.5
107.6
90.7
116.3
117.2
104.9
86.0
124.4
94.4
93.0
98.1
104.8

115.8
110.1
98.8
108.0
107.8
114.9
89.2
129.1
89.3
89.5
89.0
103.0

141.9
128.9
95.4
130.7
136.0
126.7
94.3
145.1
88.4
90.9
81.1
123.5

152.9
137.7
90.9
135.1
137.6
131.7
104.5
143.0
91.6
94.4
83.6
122.2

161.7
138.9
87.4
130.2
131.7
136.3
104.9
149.8
90.9
93.5
82.1
127.9

178.1
148.2
86.8
134.5
140.9
137.9
107.0
161.3
90.6
95.8
74.1
133.8

206.4
167.5
90.6
138.9
144.9
146.1
104.9
165.9
93.5
100.7
71.6
138.7

226.5
179.4

74.6
81.3
82.7
76.5
75.2
95.3

97.8
89.7
122.5
98.8
98.6
93.1
95.0
89.9
85.3
105.0
102.3
106.5
109.5
95.1

111.6
103.8
107.8
100.3
100.1
102.5
99.6
106.7
105.1
117.9
107.1
117.9
123.7
110.3

107.5
109.9
118.8
97.1
97.9
97.9
98.1
109.2
106.7
123.9
116.4
127.8
132.4
114.2

109.2
112.4
113.0
95.5
97.9
90.6
100.4
107.2
111.8
126.4
116.6
142.0
140.7
110.2

111.4
119.5
121.5
95.2
98.6
88.4
109.4
118.9
122.5
132.9
119.5
151.3
149.2
107.9

121.1
126.6
126.8
95.6
100.1
78.9
110.4
118.4
129.1
140.9
125.1
158.3
145.8
110.9

124.6
129.2
118.5
95.8
98.4
69.8
109.7
124.7
134.3
146.3
131.4
162.8
138.5
118.7

137.4
135.3
101.1
93.7
96.3
73.6
110.7
125.6
143.9
153.5
135.0
176.4
136.0
127.5

140.3
138.5
97.2
92.7
93.8
78.9
107.4
134.1
139.8
142.3
134.0
166.1
128.8
119.9

150.6
141.7
93.8
91.8
92.1
76.9
111.8
136.6
141.5
141.2
133.7
162.8
128.0
118.2

57
571

80.1
79.3

91.9
90.1

107.4
98.0

112.6
101.2

109.2
97.6

118.4
104.1

129.4
113.1

133.5
108.7

144.4
115.5

146.8
113.0

154.4
111.0

572,73
572
573

81.2

94.8
89.5
98.0

124.0
109.9
131.5

132.4
114.9
140.5

128.7
102.0
142.4

143.4
111.8
159.5

158.5
139.2
165.9

180.0
154.6
190.2

198.9
177.2
206.5

211.9
172.1
226.7

243.2
177.2
269.5

58
5912
5921
602
7011
721
7231,41
7231
753

100.6
83.4

100.8
94.2
96.3
90.0
89.7
96.6
98.7
100.1
102.0

99.8
107.0
102.2
92.7
95.0
91.0
102.9
106.2
95.9

97.3
107.6
104.0
90.5
91.6
88.4
109.2
114.7
93.3

96.9
107.9
108.1
93.2
88.8
90.6
108.3
113.1
87.4

95.3
110.9
101.6
101.3
95.4
90.4
114.0
120.1
86.1

91.1
105.7
98.7
104.3
102.1
92.3
103.9
112.3
88.3

87.9
105.5
107.1
109.7
97.5
87.3
98.6
104.1
96.1

89.7
104.6
98.0
111.8
92.8
85.0
97.3
98.8
93.2

90.7
103.8
91.6
116.5
88.0
84.1
99.1
100.1
96.1

91.3
105.3
88.5

-

-

70.5
-

-

77.7
89.1
107.3
83.5
76.8
71.4
79.5
62.1
83.1
77.1
102.1
-

_
77.5
124.9
107.0
-

86.1
-

-

-

-

85.5
85.1
94.7
-

“

_
_

106.3
-

_
-

_
_
_

140.8
110.7
176.7
97.9
105.6
74.7
-

_
83.8
96.0
96.2
101.1

Data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

121

Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data
48. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
1988

Annual average

1989

1990

Country
1988

1989

IV

III

I

II

IV

III

I

Total labor force basis
United S tates........................................
Canada ...................................................
Australia .................................................
Japan ......................................................

5.4
7.7
7.2
2.5

France ....................................................
Germany.................................................
Italy 2 ...................................................
Sweden ..................................................
United Kingdom....................................

10.0
6.2
7.8
1.6
8.2

5.2
-

-

_
-

-

5.4
7.8
6.9
2.6

5.2
7.7
6.8
2.4

5.1
7.5
6.6
2.4

5.2
7.6
6.1
2.3

5.2
7.3
6.0
2.3

5.3
7.5
5.9
2.2

10.1
6.2
7.8
1.6
8.0

9.8
6.1
7.7
1.4
7.5

9.8
5.7
7.6
1.4
7.0

9.8
5.6
7.8
1.3
6.5

9.8
5.6
7.7
1.3
6.2

9.8
5.5
7.5
1.4
5.8

5.5
7.8
7.0
2.6

5.3
7.7
6.8
2.4

5.2
7.6
6.6
2.4

5.3
7.6
6.1
2.3

5.3
7.4
6.0
2.3

5.3
7.6
5.9
2.2

10.3
6.3
7.9
1.6
8.0

10.1
6.2
7.8
1.4
7.6

10.0
5.8
7.8
1.4
7.0

10.0
5.7
8.0
1.3
6.6

10.0
5.7
7.8
1.3
6.2

10.0
5.6
7.7
1.4
5.9

5.2
-

-

Civilian labor force basis
United S tates........................................
Canada ...................................................
Australia .................................................
Japan ......................................................

5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5

France ....................................................
Germany.................................................
Ita ly ',2 ....................................................
Sweden ..................................................
United Kingdom....................................

10.4
6.3
7.9
1.6
8.3

5.3
-

-

_
-

1 Quarterly rates are tor the first month of the quarter.
2 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.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for122
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

5.2
-

-

-

- 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.

49. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts,
10 countries
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status and country

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Labor force
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada .........................................................................
Australia........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
France...........................................................................
G erm any.......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden.........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

106,940
11,573
6,693
55,740
22,800
26,520
21,120
5,860
4,312
26,520

108,670
11,899
6,810
56,320
22,950
26,650
21,320
6,080
4,327
26,590

110,204
11,926
6,910
56,980
23,160
26,700
21,410
6,140
4,350
26,720

111,550
12,109
6,997
58,110
23,140
26,650
21,590
6,170
4,369
26,750

113,544
12,316
7,135
58,480
23,300
26,760
21,670
6,260
4,385
27,170

115,461
12,532
7,300
58,820
23,360
26,970
21,800
6,280
4,418
27,370

117,834
12,746
7,588
59,410
23,440
27,090
22,290
6,370
4,443
27,540

119,865
13,011
7,758
60,050
23,540
28,360
22,350
6,490
4,480
27,860

121,669
13,275
7,974
60,860
23,580
28,540
22,660
6,540
4,530
28,110

63.8
64.1
62.1
62.6
57.2
53.2
48.2
55.3
66.9
62.5

63.9
64.8
61.9
62.6
57.1
52.9
48.3
56.6
66.8
62.2

64.0
64.1
61.7
62.7
57.1
52.6
47.7
56.5
66.8
62.2

64.0
64.4
61.4
63.1
56.6
52.3
47.5
56.1
66.7
61.9

64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
52.4
47.3
56.2
66.6
62.5

64.8
65.3
61.6
62.3
56.3
52.6
47.2
55.7
66.9
62.6

65.3
65.7
62.8
62.1
56.1
52.6
47.8
55.9
67.0
62.6

65.6
66.2
63.0
61.9
55.8
55.0
47.9
56.3
67.3
63.0

65.9
66.7
63.3
61.9
55.6
55.2
48.4
56.2
67.8
63.3

99,303
10,708
6,284
54,600
21,330
25,750
20,200
5,510
4,226
24,670

100,397
11,001
6,416
55,060
21,200
25,560
20,280
5,540
4,219
23,800

99,526
10,618
6,415
55,620
21,240
25,140
20,250
5,510
4,213
23,720

100,834
10,675
6,300
56,550
21,170
24,750
20,320
5,410
4,218
23,610

105,005
10,932
6,494
56,870
20,980
24,790
20,390
5,490
4,249
23,990

107,150
11,221
6,697
57,260
20,920
24,960
20,490
5,640
4,293
24,310

109,597
11,531
6,974
57,740
20,950
25,230
20,610
5,730
4,326
24,460

112,440
11,861
7,129
58,320
21,010
26,550
20,590
5,840
4,396
25,010

114,968
12,244
7,398
59,310
21,140
26,730
20,870
5,920
4,458
25,780

59.2
59.3
58.3
61.3
53.5
51.7
46.1
52.0
65.6
58.1

59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
50.8
45.9
51.6
65.1
55.7

57.8
57.1
57.3
61.2
52.3
49.6
45.2
50.7
64.7
55.2

57.9
56.8
55.3
61.4
51.8
48.6
44.7
49.2
64.4
54.7

59.5
57.5
56.0
61.0
51.0
48.5
44.5
49.3
64.5
55.2

60.1
58.5
56.5
60.6
50.4
48.7
44.4
50.0
65.0
55.6

60.7
59.4
57.7
60.4
50.2
49.0
44.2
50.2
65.2
55.6

61.5
60.4
57.9
60.1
49.8
51.5
44.1
50.6
66.0
56.6

62.3
61.6
58.7
60.4
49.9
51.7
44.6
50.9
66.7
58.0

7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
920
350
86
1,850

8,273
898
394
1,260
1,750
1,090
1,040
540
108
2,790

10,678
1,308
495
1,360
1,920
1,560
1,160
630
137
3,000

10,717
1,434
697
1,560
1,970
1,900
1,270
760
151
3,140

8,539
1,384
641
1,610
2,320
1,970
1,280
770
136
3,180

8,312
1,311
603
1,560
2,440
2,010
1,310
640
125
3,060

8,237
1,215
613
1,670
2,490
1,860
1,680
640
117
3,080

7,425
1,150
629
1,730
2,530
1,800
1,760
650
84
2,850

6,701
1,031
576
1,550
2,440
1,810
1,790
620
72
2,330

7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
4.4
6.0
2.0
7.0

7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.6
4.1
4.9
8.9
2.5
10.5

9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.8
5.4
10.3
3.1
11.2

9.6
11.8
10.0
2.7
8.5
7.1
5.9
12.3

7.5
11.2
9.0
2.8
10.0
7.4
5.9
12.3
3.1
11.7

7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.4
7.5
6.0
10.2
2.8
11.2

7.0
9.5
8.1
2.8
10.6
6.9
7.5
10.0
2.6
11.2

6.2
8.8
8.1
2.9
10.8
6.4
7.9
10.0
1.9
10.2

5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5
10.4
6.3
7.9
9.5
1.6
8.3

Participation rate1
United S tates..............................................................
Canada .........................................................................
Australia........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
France ...........................................................................
Germ any.......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden.........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Employed
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Australia........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
France ...........................................................................
Germ any.......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Employment-population ratio2
United S tates ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Australia........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
France ...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Unemployed
United S ta te s ..............................................................
C a n a d a .................................................................. ......
Australia........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
France...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Unemployment rate
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada .........................................................................
Australia........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
France...........................................................................
Germ any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Sw eden.........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
- Data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-

11.7

NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series
for Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Monthly Labor Review June 1990 123

Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data
50.

Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries

(1977 = 100)
Item and country

1977

1978

1979

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

92.6
90.3
83.1
78.8
83.3
83.8
84.0
83.4
81.5
94.4
94.8
95.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.1
108.0
106.1
101.5
104.6
103.1
106.5
106.4
101.2
102.8
101.4

101.6
102.0
114.8
112.0
106.5
109.7
108.2
116.6
112.3
107.4
110.9
102.5

104.0
102.9
127.2
127.6
114.2
113.9
111.0
125.4
116.9
108.0
113.2
107.1

106.6
98.3
135.0
135.2
114.6
122.0
112.6
128.5
119.4
109.2
116.5
113.5

112.2
105.4
142.3
148.1
120.2
125.1
119.2
135.3
127.9
117.2
125.5
123.1

118.2
114.4
152.5
155.0
119.6
127.5
123.7
148.8
139.2
124.1
131.0
129.9

123.5
117.3
161.1
158.6
120.3
132.7
128.4
156.8
145.1
126.8
136.1
134.1

128.2
117.7
163.7
164.5
116.2
135.2
128.3
158.3
144.8
125.9
136.0
138.6

132.9
120.5
176.5
170.5
117.2
136.8
129.9
162.3
145.9
132.2
141.8
147.6

136.5
124.3
190.0
117.2
144.1
135.9
167.1
153.2

78.6
73.5
69.9
78.6
82.0
75.5
86.6
69.0
84.4
86.5
92.5
94.9

96.3
93.5
91.9
96.4
95.9
90.5
96.1
83.5
95.8
99.2
100.3
104.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.0
104.6
106.7
101.4
99.7
102.3
101.8
104.9
102.8
97.7
97.3
100.6

108.1
108.5
113.9
104.2
105.4
105.3
106.6
115.7
106.1
100.5
103.6
100.5

104.8
107.4
129.8
105.6
106.6
102.9
104.9
119.9
106.7
98.6
100.6
86.3

98.4
93.6
137.3
110.1
108.3
104.0
102.4
118.7
105.0
96.8
100.1
86.4

104.7
99.6
148.2
114.7
115.6
103.8
103.6
119.7
107.0
97.2
105.2
88.8

117.5
112.5
165.4
118.0
121.0
102.6
106.4
125.3
113.3
102.7
111.5
92.5

122.0
118.8
177.0
119.6
124.9
103.0
110.0
129.0
116.7
106.5
115.3
94.8

124.7
121.9
177.8
121.4
125.9
102.8
110.8
131.9
118.1
106.9
114.7
95.6

130.1
128.5
190.8
123.3
121.1
101.8
111.6
137.3
118.7
108.3
119.2
101.0

138.1
136.0
212.3

86.5
81.4
82.7
127.1
132.4
97.6
123.8
88.9
138.4
101.1
124.4
127.3

97.9
97.2
107.9
130.2
125.1
105.7
121.7
98.9
131.2
106.4
114.6
118.1

104.0
103.6
110.7
122.3
115.2
107.9
114.4
100.1
117.6
105.1
105.7
109.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

104.3
103.4
98.8
95.5
98.3
97.8
98.7
98.5
96.6
96.5
94.6
99.1

106.3
106.3
99.3
93.0
99.0
95.9
98.5
99.3
94.4
93.6
93.4
98.0

100.8
104.3
102.0
82.8
93.4
90.3
94.6
95.6
91.2
91.3
88.9
80.6

92.3
95.2
101.7
81.4
94.5
85.2
91.0
92.4
88.0
88.6
85.9
76.2

93.4
94.5
104.2
77.5
96.2
83.0
86.9
88.5
83.6
82.9
83.9
72.2

99.4
98.3
108.5
76.1
101.2
80.4
86.1
84.2
81.4
82.8
85.1
71.2

98.7
101.2
109.8
75.4
103.8
77.6
85.7
82.3
80.5
84.0
84.7
70.7

97.3
103.6
108.6
73.8
108.4
76.1
86.4
83.3
81.5
84.9
84.3
69.0

97.9
106.6
108.1
72.3
103.3
74.4
85.9
84.6
81.3
81.9
84.0
68.5

101.2
109.4
111.7
~
101.0
73.4
85.5
87.0
80.8
85.5
69.8

35.6
27.5
8.9
13.8
12.6
15.0
18.8
9.2
12.5
15.8
14.7
15.2

57.0
47.9
33.9
34.9
36.3
36.3
48.0
27.1
39.0
37.9
38.5
31.4

68.2
60.0
55.1
53.5
56.1
51.9
67.5
41.2
60.5
54.6
54.2
47.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

108.3
107.6
106.6
107.8
110.2
113.0
107.8
115.2
108.4
110.0
111.4
116.7

118.9
118.6
113.4
117.4
123.1
128.4
116.1
139.5
117.0
116.0
120.1
139.0

145.7
151.1
129.8
144.5
149.7
172.0
134.5
197.9
129.1
142.8
148.1
193.4

158.7
167.0
136.6
150.7
162.9
204.0
141.0
233.3
137.5
156.1
158.9
211.7

162.7
177.2
140.7
159.8
174.2
225.2
148.3
273.1
144.5
173.5
173.3
226.6

168.1
185.6
144.9
173.1
184.1
244.9
155.5
313.3
148.6
188.3
189.7
242.3

176.3
194.4
151.4
183.6
196.5
265.4
164.6
352.0
156.9
204.3
212.4
258.8

184.3
203.5
158.9
190.8
203.5
278.7
171.5
367.4
162.2
224.2
228.7
277.8

189.2
214.0
162.5
194.7
225.9
291.4
178.1
391.2
167.0
257.4
244.8
295.7

196.0
227.1
171.3
230.1
301.9
185.5
416.3
172.8
261.1
319.3

58.7
54.2
38.4
41.7
33.8
40.2
46.6
24.7
38.5
29.2
34.8
27.2

71.0
63.4
52.3
57.8
55.4
50.8
67.4
38.8
60.7
46.6
47.7
39.1

73.7
66.5
66.4
67.9
67.4
62.0
80.3
49.4
74.3
57.8
57.2
50.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.6
106.5
98.7
101.6
108.6
108.0
104.5
108.1
101.8
108.7
108.4
115.0

117.0
116.2
98.8
104.8
115.7
117.0
107.3
119.7
104.1
108.1
108.3
135.6

140.1
146.7
102.0
113.2
131.1
151.0
121.2
157.8
110.4
132.2
130.9
180.6

148.8
170.0
101.2
111.5
142.2
167.2
125.2
181.6
115.2
142.9
136.3
186.5

145.1
168.1
98.9
107.9
144.9
179.9
124.4
201.9
113.0
148.0
138.1
184.1

142.3
162.3
95.0
111.7
153.9
192.0
125.8
210.6
106.8
151.8
144.8
186.5

142.7
165.7
94.0
115.8
163.3
200.0
128.3
224.5
108.1
161.1
156.1
193.0

143.8
172.8
97.1
116.0
175.1
206.2
133.7
232.0
112.0
178.1
168.2
200.4

142.3
177.5
92.1
114.2
192.8
213.0
137.1
241.0
114.4
194.7
172.6
200.4

143.6
182.7
90.2
196.3
209.6
136.4
249.1
112.8

58.7
59.4
28.5
30.0
29.5
40.3
25.9
35.1
25.1
21.8
30.1
43.7

71.0
64.5
39.1
41.7
44.4
45.2
42.9
54.7
41.2
34.7
41.1
53.7

73.7
70.6
65.6
62.7
67.2
68.6
70.4
75.0
65.6
53.5
58.7
70.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.6
99.3
126.8
115.8
118.4
117.9
121.0
112.4
115.7
110.4
107.2
126.5

117.0
105.4
121.3
128.1
132.0
135.2
135.9
127.2
127.4
113.6
112.9
164.9

140.1
130.0
123.8
109.6
110.3
136.4
124.9
122.4
108.9
122.5
115.4
209.6

148.8
146.3
108.8
87.2
102.3
124.9
119.7
118.4
105.8
117.8
96.9
186.8

145.1
144.9
111.5
75.6
95.1
116.1
113.1
117.3
97.1
107.9
80.4
160.0

142.3
133.2
107.2
69.3
89.3
108.1
102.6
105.9
81.6
99.0
78.2
142.9

142.7
128.9
105.6
69.9
92.5
109.5
101.2
103.8
80.0
99.8
81.1
143.5

143.8
132.1
154.4
93.1
129.9
146.3
143.0
137.4
112.2
124.7
105.4
168.6

142.3
142.3
170.5
109.5
169.0
174.2
177.0
164.0
138.6
153.7
121.5
188.3

143.6
157.8
188.4

1960

1970

60.7
50.7
23.2
33.0
37.2
37.4
40.3
37.2
32.4
54.3
42.3
55.9

80.2
75.6
64.8
60.4
65.6
71.4
71.2
69.8
64.3
81.3
80.7
80.3

52.5
41.3
19.2
41.9
49.2
36.5
50.0
33.0
44.8
54.8
52.6
71.2

1973

Output per hour
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
Belgium.........................................................................
Denm ark.......................................................................
France...........................................................................
Germ any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Norway..........................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

145.0
154.9

Output
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
Belgium........................................................................
Denm ark......................................................................
France...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Norway..........................................................................
Sw eden.........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

118.4
105.7
116.3
145.3
123.8
124.0
108.2

Total hours
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada .........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
Belgium........................................................................
Denm ark......................................................................
France ...........................................................................
Germ any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Norway..........................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Compensation per hour
United S tates..............................................................
Canada .........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
Belgium.........................................................................
Denm ark......................................................................
France...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Norway.........................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................

Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ............................................................................
Belgium........................................................................
Denm ark......................................................................
France...........................................................................
Germ any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Norway..........................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................

180.0
206.2

Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
Belgium........................................................................
Denm ark......................................................................
France...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Italy................................................................................
Netherlands.................................................................
Nonway.........................................................................
Sw eden........................................................................
United Kingdom..........................................................
-

Data not available.


124 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

174.8
172.9
180.3
168.8
139.9
131.1
210.5

51.

Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States

Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2

Industry and type of case1
1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

PRIVATE SECTOR3

Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................

8.7
4.0
65.2

8.3
3.8
61.7

7.7
3.5
58.7

7.6
3.4
58.5

8.0
3.7
63.4

7.9
3.6
64.9

7.9
3.6
65.8

8.3
3.8
69.9

8.6
4.0
76.1

11.9
5.8
82.7

12.3
5.9
82.8

11.8
5.9
86.0

11.9
6.1
90.8

12.0
6.1
90.7

11.4
5.7
91.3

11.2
5.6
93.6

11.2
5.7
94.1

10.9
5.6
101.8

11.2
6.5
163.6

11.6
6.2
146.4

10.5
5.4
137.3

8.4
4.5
125.1

9.7
5.3
160.2

8.4
4.8
145.3

7.4
4.1
125.9

8.5
4.9
144.0

8.8
5.1
152.1

15.7
6.5
117.0

15.1
6.3
113.1

14.6
6.0
115.7

14.8
6.3
118.2

15.5
6.9
128.1

15.2
6.8
128.9

15.2
6.9
134.5

14.7
6.8
135.8

14.6
6.8
142.2

15.5
6.5
113.0

15.1
6.1
107.1

14.1
5.9
112.0

14.4
6.2
113.0

15.4
6.9
121.3

15.2
6.8
120.4

14.9
6.6
122.7

14.2
6.5
134.0

14.0
6.4
132.2

16.3
6.3
117.6

14.9
6.0
106.0

15.1
5.8
113.1

15.4
6.2
122.4

14.9
6.4
131.7

14.5
6.3
127.3

14.7
6.3
132.9

14.5
6.4
139.1

15.1
7.0
162.3

15.5
6.7
118.9

15.2
6.6
119.3

14.7
6.2
118.6

14.8
6.4
119.0

15.8
7.1
130.1

15.4
7.0
133.3

15.6
7.2
140.4

15.0
7.1
135.7

14.7
7.0
141.1

12.2
5.4
86.7

11.5
5.1
82.0

10.2
4.4
75.0

10.0
4.3
73.5

10.6
4.7
77.9

10.4
4.6
80.2

10.6
4.7
85.2

11.9
5.3
95.5

13.1
5.7
107.4

18.6
9.5
171.8

17.6
9.0
158.4

16.9
8.3
153.3

18.3
9.2
163.5

19.6
9.9
172.0

18.5
9.3
171.4

18.9
9.7
177.2

18.9
9.6
176.5

19.5
10.0
189.1

16.0
6.6
97.6

15.1
6.2
91.9

13.9
5.5
85.6

14.1
5.7
83.0

15.3
6.4
101.5

15.0
6.3
100.4

15.2
6.3
103.0

15.4
6.7
103.6

16.6
7.3
115.7

15.0
7.1
128.1

14.1
6.9
122.2

13.0
6.1
112.2

13.1
6.0
112.0

13.6
6.6
120.8

13.9
6.7
127.8

13.6
6.5
126.0

14.9
7.1
135.8

16.0
7.5
141.0

15.2
7.1
128.3

14.4
6.7
121.3

12.4
5.4
101.6

12.4
5.4
103.4

13.3
6.1
115.3

12.6
5.7
113.8

13.6
6.1
125.5

17.0
7.4
145.8

19.4
8.2
161.3

18.5
8.0
118.4

17.5
7.5
109.9

15.3
6.4
102.5

15.1
6.1
96.5

16.1
6.7
104.9

16.3
6.9
110.1

16.0
6.8
115.5

17.0
7.2
121.9

18.8
8.0
138.8

13.7
5.5
81.3

12.9
5.1
74.9

10.7
4.2
66.0

9.8
3.6
58.1

10.7
4.1
65.8

10.8
4.2
69.3

10.7
4.2
72.0

11.3
4.4
72.7

12.1
4.7
82.8

8.0
3.3
51.8

7.4
3.1
48.4

6.5
2.7
42.2

6.3
2.6
41.4

6.8
2.8
45.0

6.4
2.7
45.7

6.4
2.7
49.8

7.2
3.1
55.9

8.0
3.3
64.6

10.6
4.9
82.4

9.8
4.6
78.1

9.2
4.0
72.2

8.4
3.6
64.5

9.3
4.2
68.8

9.0
3.9
71.6

9.6
4.1
79.1

13.5
5.7
105.7

17.7
6.6
134.2

6.8
2.7
41.8

6.5
2.7
39.2

5.6
2.3
37.0

5.2
2.1
35.6

5.4
2.2
37.5

5.2
2.2
37.9

5.3
2.3
42.2

5.8
2.4
43.9

6.1
2.6
51.5

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

10.2
4.3
70.9

10.7
4.6
81.5

11.3
5.1
91.0

18.7
9.0
136.8

17.8
8.6
130.7

16.7
8.0
129.3

16.5
7.9
131.2

16.7
8.1
131.6

16.7
8.1
138.0

16.5
8.0
137.8

17.7
8.6
153.7

18.5
9.2
169.7

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3

Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Mining

Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
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............................................................................
Manufacturing

Total cases................................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Durable goods

Lumber and wood products:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total cases............................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Primary metal industries:
Total cases................................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Fabricated metal products:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Machinery, except electrical:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Electric and electronic equipment:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Transportation equipment:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................
Instruments and related products:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Nondurable goods

Food and kindred products:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases ....................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review June 1990

125

Current Labor Statistics: Injury & Illness Data
51. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States

Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2

Industry and type of case1
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.....................................

8.1

8.2

3.8
45.8

3.9
56.8

9.1
3.3
62.8

3.2
59.2

8.8

7.2
3.2
44.6
7.6

6.5
3.0
42.8
7.4

7.7
3.2
51.7

7.3
3.0
51.7

6.7
2.5
45.6

2.5
46.4

9.3
2.9
53.0

8.0

7.5
3.0
57.4

7.8
3.1
59.3

9.0
3.6
65.9

9.6
4.0
78.8

6.7

6.7
2.7
49.4

7.4
3.1
59.5

8.1

12.8

2.8

2.8

53.8

51.4

3.0
54.0

6.0

8.6

2.2

2.2

2.1

34.9

35.0

36.4

6.4
2.4
40.6

6.7
2.5
40.9

12.7
5.8
112.3

11.6

10.6

10.0

5.4
103.6

4.9
99.1

4.5
90.3

10.4
4.7
93.8

4.7
94.6

10.5
4.7
99.5

5.8
122.3

13.1
5.9
124.3

6.9
3.1
46.5

6.7
3.0
47.4

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

3.2
59.8

6.4

6.3

6.6
2.8

6.6

2.6

44.1
10.2

3.5
68.2

6.6

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

7.0
3.3
59.0

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

7.0
3.2
68.4

15.5
7.4
118.6

14.6
7.2
117.4

13.0
6.2

101.4

13.6
6.4
104.3

13.4
6.3
107.4

14.0

6.0

100.9

118.2

15.9
7.6
130.8

142.9

11.7
5.0
82.7

11.5
5.1
82.6

9.9
4.5
86.5

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

11.4
5.6
128.2

9.4
5.5
104.5

9.0
5.3

8.2

8.8

8.6

8.2

4.7
94.9

5.2
105.1

5.0
107.1

4.8

100.6

8.5
4.9
96.7

102.1

8.4
4.9
108.1

8.9
5.1
118.6

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

7.8
3.5
60.9

8.2

3.9
58.2

7.7
3.6
54.7

7.1
3.4
52.1

7.0
3.2
50.6

7.2
3.5
55.5

7.2
3.5
59.8

7.2
3.6
62.5

7.4
3.7
64.0

7.6
3.8
69.2

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

7.9
3.4
57.6

2.0
.8
12.2

1.9
.8
11.6

2.0
.9
13.2

2.0
.9
12.8

1.9
.9
13.6

2.0
.9
15.4

2.0

2.0

2.0

.9
17.1

.9
14.3

.9
17.2

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

45.4

5.3
2.5
43.0

5.5
2.7
45.8

47.7

12.7

10.0

6.6

16.3
8.1

Transportation and public utilities

Total cases.......................................................
Lost workday cases ...........................................
Lost workdays .................................................
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.............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate

Total cases.......................................................
Lost workday cases ............................................
Lost workdays....................................................
Services

Total cases..........
Lost workday cases
Lost workdays......
' Total cases include fatalities.
2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as:
(N/EH) X200,000, where:
N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for126
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

5.4
2.6

5.4
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.

BLS O ffers
D ata
D isk ettes
Available in Lotus 1-2-3 and ASCII file
formats and 51/4-inch and 31/2-inch size,
except as noted.
Diskettes offer economists, other social
scientists, researchers, managers, and
policymakers an-easy-to-use way to
access data on employment, expenditures, prices, productivity, injuries and illnesses, and wages, bls diskette users
need an IBM-compatible microcomputer
and should request that diskettes be formatted as either Lotus 1-2-3 or ASCII.
(The Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index diskettes are available
only in Lotus 1-2-3.)
Each diskette contains a brief description of the data series, any regular revisions, and typical uses for the statistics.
For general information on the diskette
program, or how to order, telephone
202-523-7827 or write:
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
441 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20212

Single
copy
Consumer Expenditure Survey:
1984 Integrated Data
1985 Integrated Data
1986 Integrated Data
1987 Integrated Data
1984-87 Integrated Data,
High-Density Diskette
1984-87 Integrated Data,
Four-Diskette Package
1986-87 Integrated Data by
Age-Income CrossTabulation
1986-87 Integrated Data by
CU Size-Income CrossTabulation
1986-87 Integrated Data by
Region-Income CrossTabulation
High-Density Diskette of the
three 1986-87 CrossTabulations
Three-Diskette Package of
1986-87 Cross-Tabulations
1986-87 Metropolitan
Statistical Areas
Consumer Price Index (available
in Lotus 1-2-3, 51/4-inch
diskette only)

Subscription

□ $38
□ $38
□ $38
□ $38
□ $60
□ $60

□ $38

□ $38

□ $38

□ $50
□ $50
□ $38

□ $38 □ $290

Single
copy
Employment Projections:
Historical Output Data
Historical Employment Data
Projections
Employment Cost Index
(available in 51/4-inch diskette
only)
Employment, Hours,
And Earnings: National
Foreign Labor Force Statistics
Labor Force: National
Local Area Unemployment
Statistics
Occupational Injury and Illness
Incidence Rates
Producer Price Index (available
In Lotus 1-2-3, 51/4-inch
diskette only)
Productivity:
Industry Labor and Multifactor Productivity and Federal,
State, and Local Government Productivity (two-diskette
package, available on 51/4inch diskette only)
Foreign Productivity and
Labor Cost Statistics
Major Sector Labor and
Multifactor Productivity
U.S. Export and Import
P rice Indexes

Subscription

□ $38
□ $38
□ $38

□ $38

□ $107

□ $38
□ $38
□ $38

□ $290
□ $61
□ $290

□ $38

□ $290

□ $38

□ $38

□ $290

□ $38
□ $38

□

□ $38

□ $198

□ $38

□ $107

O rd er F o rm

□ YES,

please send _____ diskette subscription(s) and/or

_____

single diskette(s) or diskette package(s) for a total

cost o f _____.
S iz e
Q ty .

3 Vi

5 » /4

L otu s
1 -2 -3

(C o m p a n y o r p erso n a l n a m e)
(A d d itio n a l a d d re ss/a tte n tio n lin e)
(S treet a d d ress)

A S C II

P r ic e
e a ch

T itle

(P le a se ty p e or print)

T otal

All orders must be prepaid:

EH Make

check or money order payable to
Bureau of Labor Statistics or charge to:

EH VISA EH MasterCard

Account

(C it y , S ta te, Z IP C o d e )

(

)____________________
Thank yo u f o r y o u r order!

(D a y tim e p h o n e in c lu d in g area c o d e )

Mail To: BLS Data Diskettes
Room 2115
441 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20212

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(C red it card e x p ir a tio n date)

(S ig n a tu re)

$61

New From BLS
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Each issue helps people planning
careers, guidance counselors, and others keep informed of changing
career opportunities. $2 ($5 per year).

SALES PUBLICATIONS
BLS Bulletins
Occupational Projections and Training Data, 1990 Edition. Bulletin
2351, 98 pp. (gpo Stock N o. 0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 3 0 5 3 -3 .) $5. Presents by
occupation projected employment growth, information on earnings,
susceptibility to unemployment, openings due to separations, and
the percent of workers on part-time schedules as well as occu­
pational comparisons.

Producer Price Indexes. This m onthly publication includes a
comprehensive report on price movements for the month, plus
regular tables and technical notes. $10 ($29 per year).

Other Publications
(Single copies available upon request while supplies last.)

Outlook 2000. Bulletin 2352. (gpo Stock N o. 0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 3 0 4 9 -5 .)
$7.50. Presents em ployment projections for the year 2000 under
three alternatives sets of assumptions. Provides estimates of overall
and sector econom ic growth and detailed industry and occupational
employment projections.

Area Wage Summaries
Clarksville—Hopkinsville, TN-KY, March 1990. 4 pp.

BLS Reports
Productivity:
A Selected, Annotated Bibliography, 1983-87.
Bulletin 2360, 160 pp. (gpo Stock N o. 0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 3 0 5 1 -7 .) $8.50.
Provides annotated references for more than 1,000 publications
dealing with concepts and methods; measurements of levels and
trends; the sources of productivity change; the relation of p ro d ­
uctivity to econom ic variables; and econom ic growth.

Area Wage Surveys. These bulletins cover office, professional,
technical, maintenance, custodial, and material movement jobs in
major metropolitan areas. The annual series is available by
subscription for $73 per year. Individual area bulletins are also
available separately.
Gainesville, Florida, Metropolitan Area, February 1990. Bulletin
3055-4, 42 pp. (gpo Stock N o. 8 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 0 3 3 2 -1 .) $2.25.
M inneapolis-St. Paul, M innesota-W isconsin, M etropolitan Area,
February 1990. Bulletin 3055-7, 40 pp. (gpo Stock N o.
8 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 0 3 3 5 -6 .) $2.25.
Newark, N ew Jersey, Metropolitan Area, February 1990. Bulletin
3 0 55-6, 53 pp. (gpo Stock N o. 8 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 0 3 3 4 -8 .) $2.75.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Area, February 1990.
Bulletin 3 0 5 5 -5 , 40 pp. ( gpo Stock N o. 8 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 0 3 3 3 -0 .)
$2.25.

International Comparisons of H ourly Compensation Costs for
Production Workers in Manufacturing, 1989. Report 787, 12 pp.
Presents highlights of comparative levels and trends in hourly
compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing in 21
countries or areas.
W orking Women: Where Have W e Been? Where A re W e Going?
Report 785, 4 pp .

BLS Summaries
Occupational Earnings and Wage Trends in Metropolitan Areas,
1989. Summary 9 0 -4 (N o. 3 of 3).
Consumer Expenditure Survey: Quarterly Data from the Interview
Survey. Report 784, 4 pp. Presents selected expenditure data from
the interview portion of the Consumer Expenditure Survey for
different kinds of families for the first quarter of 1989.
Employment in Perspective: M inority Workers, Fourth Quarter
1989. Report 783,3 pp. This issue discusses the moderate job growth
for minority workers in 1988 and 1989.
Employment in Perspective: W om en in the Labor Force, Fourth
Quarter 1989. Report 782, 3 pp. This issue addresses the fact that
the unemployment rate for women showed little change in 1989.

San Angelo, Texas, Metropolitan Area, March 1990.
Bulletin
3 0 55-8, 38 pp. (gpo Stock N o. 8 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 0 3 3 6 -4 ) $2.25.

To Order

Periodicals

Sales Publications. Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and GPO

CPI Detailed Report. This monthly publication provides a
comprehensive report on price movements for the month, plus
statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. $7 ($21 per year).
Current W age Developments. Each issue of this m onthly periodical
includes selected wage and benefit changes, work stoppages, and
statistics on compensation changes. $3 ($15 per year).
Employment and Earnings. This m onthly report covers employment
and unemployment developments, plus statistical tables on
national, State, and area employment, hours, and earnings. $8.50
($25 per year).


128 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June 1990

stock number from the Superintendent of Docum ents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box
2145, Chicago, IL 60690. Subscriptions, including microfiche
subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent of
Documents. A ll ch eck s—including those that,go to the Chicago
Regional O ffice—should be made payable to the Superintendent of
Documents.

Other Publications. Request from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room 2831A , 441 G Street, N.w.,
Washington, DC 20212, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Chicago Regional Office, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690.

BIB
The Society f o r te c h n ic a l C onm ninication
Washington. I X - C h a p te r

o t | X tO /c
S-

i*' lii ivhy piiM-nti-il in

W illiam M . Davis
fing Settlem ents
V 1988

Major Collect
In Pris

IL
r h e S ociety f o r Technical C om m unication
W ashington, D.C. C h a p te r

of
is h e r e b y p resen ted to

Monthly Labor Review Staff
for

Monthly Labor Review,
September, October, November 1988

The S ociety f o r T echnical C om m u n ication
W ashington, D.C. C h a p te r

^ te c n m c a lc o ^ ^
is hereby presented to
CJ

Monthly Labor Review Staff
for
Monthly Labor Review, August, September, October 1989


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Subm itted to the

1989-1990 Technical Communications Competition
.iUKUidjij
" h a p te r P r e s id e n t

iQi^-iyyo
Schedule of release dates for

b ls

statistical series
MLR table
num ber

Series

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

R elease
date

Period
covered

E m ploym ent situation

July 6

June

August 3

July

September 7

August

1; 4-21

P roducer Price Indexes

July 13

June

August 10

July

September 14

August

2 ;3 4 -3 7

C onsum er Price Index

July 18

June

August 16

July

September 18

August

2 ;3 1 -3 3

Real earnings

July 18

June

August 16

July

September 18

August

14-17

E m ploym ent C ost Index

July 24

2nd quarter

22-25

M ajor co llec tive bargaining settlem en ts

July 24

1st 6 months

26-29

U .S . Im port and Export Price Indexes

July 26

2nd quarter

August 23

July

August 6

2nd quarter

September 27

August

38-43

P roductivity and costs:

Nonfarm business and manufacturing
----------------------------- -----------------------------------Nonfinancial corporations


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2; 44-47
September 4

2nd quarter

2; 44-47