The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
*1•'.«'V U.S. D epartm ent of L abor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bureau o f Labor Statistics WiRSlDâBfi L^ ilH 1 i li i »- LLl l Jobless workers Flexible schedules 1 u III U.S. Department of Labor Alexis M. Herman, Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics Katharine G. Abraham, Commissioner The Monthly Labor Review (usps 987-800) is published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Review welcomes articles on the labor force, labor-management relations, business conditions, industry productivity, compensation, occupational safety and health, demographic trends, and other economic developments. Papers should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. Potential articles, as well as communications on editorial matters, should be submitted to: Editor-in-Chief Monthly Labor Review Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, dc 20212 Telephone: (202)691-5900 E-mail: mlr@bls.gov Inquiries on subscriptions and circulation, including address changes, should be sent to: Superintendent of Documents Government Printing Office Washington, dc 20402 Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Subscription price per year—$31 domestic; $38.75 foreign. Single copy—$10 domestic; $12.50 foreign. Make checks payable to the Superintendent of Documents. 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. 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. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, dc, and at additional mailing addresses. Unless stated otherwise, articles appearing in this publication are in the public domain and may be reprinted without express permission from the Editorin-Chief. Please cite the specific issue of the Monthly Labor Review as the source. Information is available to sensory impaired individuals upon request: Voice phone: (202) 691-5200 Federal Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339. Send address changes to Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, dc 20402-0001. Regional Offices and Commissioners Denis McSweeney R egion 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont JFK Federal Building SuiteE-310 B oston, MA 02203 Phone: Fax: (617) 565-2327 (617) 565-4182 Region II John Wieting New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Room 808 201 Varick Street New York, NY 10014-4811 Phone: Fax: Alan Paisner Region III Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia 170 S. Independence Mall West Suite 610 East Philadelphia, PA 19106-3305 Phone: Fax: (215) 597-3282 (215) 861-5720 Janet Rankin Region IV Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi (212) 337-2400 (212) 337-2532 North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Suite 7T50 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. A tlanta, GA 30303 Phone: Fax: (404)331-3415 (404)331-3445 Peter Hebein Region V Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin 9th Floor Federal Office Building 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 6 0 6 0 4 -1 5 9 5 Phone: Fax: (312) 353-1880 (312) 353-1886 Region VI Robert A. Gaddie Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Room 221 Federal Building 525 Griffin Street D allas, TX 75202-5028 Phone: Fax: Region VII R egion VIII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming (214) 767-6970 (214) 767-3720 Stanley W. Suchman (Acting) 1100 Main Street Suite 600 K ansas City, MO 64105-2112 Phone: Fax: (816) 426-2481 (816) 426-6537 Postmaster: Region IX Region X Stanley P. Stephenson Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington 71 Stevenson Street P.O. Box 3766 San Francisco, CA 94119-3766 Cover designed by Keith Tapscott American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Phone: Fax: (415) 975-4350 (415) 975-4371 r' i > MONTHLY LABOR Volume 123, Number 6 June 2000 Articles International unemployment rates: how comparable are they? 3 Adjusted to U.S. concepts, the Canadian rate is reduced 1 percentage point; the effect is smaller on European rates Constance Sorrentino Why are many jobless workersnot applying for benefits? 21 More than half do not apply because they believe they are not eligible for benefits or because they are optimistic about finding a job Stephen A. Wandner and Andrew Stettner Flexible schedules and shift work 33 Flexible work hours are gaining in prominence, as more than a quarter of all workers can vary their work schedules Thomas M. Beers Departments Labor month in review Précis Book reviews Current labor statistics 2 41 42 43 Editor-in-Chief: Deborah P. Klein • Executive Editor: Richard M. Devens • Managing Editor: Anna Huffman Hill • Editors: Brian I. Baker, Bonita L. B oles, Richard Hamilton, L eslie Brown Joyner, Lawrence H. Leith • Book R eviews: Roger A. Comer, Ernestine Patterson Leary • D esign and Layout: Catherine D. Bowman, Edith W. Peters • Contributors: M ichael Wald https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The June Review Making comparisons is the medium of exchange of economic analysis. Is the rate of inflation higher today than it was yesterday? Are wages higher for whitecollar or blue-collar occupations? Is un employment more or less of a problem in one area compared to another? In the case of unemployment, com parisons across areas of a single Nation, such as the United States, are facilitated by the existence of a common set of con cepts and definitions of employment and unemployment and by a consistent sys tem of estimating data that conform to those definitions. In the case of interna tional comparisons o f unemployment, in contrast, the first step must be to care fully study the concepts, definitions, and methods used to calculate the data. Every country’s statistical service may have a different analytical focus, and, as Constance Sorrentino points out in the lead article, “No single definition can possibly satisfy all analytical purposes.” Sorrentino’s article goes on to harm o nize, to the extent possible, the unem ployment statistics o f a wide range of industrialized economies. At the end of the exercise, her summary of the data still indicates th at recen t unem ploym ent rates in the United States are lower than those in Europe and Canada, whether looked at using U.S., Canadian, or Euro pean concepts and definitions. Stephen A. W andner and A ndrew Stettner investigate the decline in the unem ploym ent insurance recipiency rate— the number of persons receiving unem ploym ent insurance benefits di vided by the number of persons counted as unemployed in the Current Popula tion Survey. From rates averaging 49 percent in the 1950s, recipiency fell to 28.5 percent in 1984 before stabilizing in the low-to-mid 30-percent range in the early 1990s. Wandner and Stettner find that more than half of all unemployed workers do not file for unemployment 2 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benefits, either because they think they are not eligible or because they are opti mistic about quickly finding new work. Thomas M. Beers analyzes the most recent data on flexible schedules and working shifts other than a “regular” day shift. As of 1997, just over a quarter of all full-time workers reported some degree of flexibility in their work schedules. This represents a more-than-doubling of the share of workers reporting flexible sched uling in 1985. The proportion of workers working on alternative shifts, conversely, changed very little over the 12-year pe riod, remaining at about 1 worker in 6. Half of students are in labor force More than half of A m erica’s 16- to 24year-olds were enrolled in school in Oc tober 1999. About 9 million were in high school and 9.4 million were in college. Overall, the labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-olds enrolled in col lege was 58.5 percent. A m ong high school students, 41.2 percent were in the labor force. The labor force participation rate among all youths attending school was 50.1 percent. Find additional infor mation in “College Enrollment and Work Activity of 1999 High School Graduates,” news release u s d l 00-136. Productivity up in most industries In 1998, labor productivity, as measured by output per hour, increased in 80 per cent o f the service-producing and m in ing industries analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O utput growth was recorded by 82 percent of the indus tries, while hours of labor grew in 54 percent of the industries. N early half o f the industries registering productiv ity growth also posted declines in unit labor costs. In 1997, the m ost recent year for which output data are available for manu facturing, output per hour increased in 74 percent of that sector’s industries. Output rose in 77 percent of manufac turing industries, while hours of labor input rose in 63 percent. Unit labor costs declined in 58 of the 120 industries cov ered in the manufacturing sector. Additional information is available from “Productivity and Costs: ServiceProducing and Mining Industries, 198798” news release u s d l 00-156, and “Pro ductivity and Costs: Manufacturing In dustries, 1987-97,” news release u s d l 00-155. Pay and benefits in 1999 In March 1999, employer costs for ben efits for civilian workers averaged $5.58 per hour worked. Wages and salaries were $14.72 and accounted for 72.5 per cent of compensation costs. Benefits accounted for the remaining 27.5 percent. Legally required benefits, such as Social Security and unemployment in surance, averaged $1.65 per hour, 8.1 per cent of total compensation. Such ben efits were the largest nonwage compen sation cost. Paid leave, with an average cost of $1.34 per hour worked, was the next largest and accounted for 6.6 per cent of total compensation. Following leave were insurance ($1.29 or 6.4 per cent), retirement and savings benefits (76 cents or 3.7 percent), and supple mental pay (51 cents or 2.5 percent). Get m ore inform ation on com pensation costs from Employer Costs fo r Em ployee Compensation, 1986-99, B ulletin 2526. BLS □ We are interested in your feedback on this column. Write to: Executive Editor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212, or e-mail MLR@bls.gov International Unem ploym ent Rates International unemployment rates: how comparable are they? Adjusted to U.S. concepts, the Canadian unemployment rate is reduced hy 1 percentage point; effects o f adjustments on European unemployment rates are smaller Constance Sorrentino Constance Sorrentino is an economist in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis omparative unemployment rates are u sed fre q u e n tly in in te rn a tio n a l analyses of labor markets and are cited often in the press. In the United States, the comparative levels are considered to be an important measure of U.S. economic perform ance relative to that of other developed coun tries. Comparative unemployment rates also provide a springboard for investigating the economic, institutional, and social factors that influence cross-country differences in job lessness. The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( b l s , the Bureau) has adjusted foreign unemployment rates to U.S. concepts since the early 1960s. Three other organizations— the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( o e c d ), the International Labor Office ( il o ), and the Statistical Office of the European Commu nities (Eurostat)— also adjust national data on unemployment to a common conceptual ba sis. The resulting “standardized” or “harmo nized” rates are intended to provide a better basis for international comparison than the na tional figures on unemployment offer. The standardized rates, as currently pub lished by the three organizations that make comparisons outside of Europe ( b l s , o e c d , and il o ), all show a similar result: a significant gap in unemployment rates between the United States, on the one hand, and Canada and Eu rope, on the other. In 1998, for example, when C the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent, Canada’s rate was 8.3 percent, and the rate for the European Union was even higher, at 9.9 percent.1 It is of interest to find out how much of this gap is attributable to measurement dif ferences that may not have been accounted for. If the gap is due mainly to conceptual dif ferences, then there is no reason to study why some countries appear to be doing better than others at keeping unemployment low.2 All of the comparative programs have noted that some differences remain for which adjust ments are not made, either because they are believed to be too small to matter or because there is no basis upon which to make regular adjustments. Recent evidence, however, sug gests that it might be useful to revisit this is sue. For example, in 1998, a Statistics Canada study used unpublished tabulations to reveal surprisingly significant differences between U.S. and Canadian measures of unemployment, owing to different implementations of similar concepts. In particular, although both coun tries require a person to be available for work and to have conducted a job search in order for that person to be classified as unemployed, the requirements are interpreted in different ways. The main difference, in terms of impact, is the treatment of so-called passive jobseekers— per sons who conduct their search for work merely by reading newspaper ads. Such individuals are included in the unemployed in Canada, but are Monthly Labor Review June 2000 3 International Unemployment Rates excluded therefrom in the United States. The impact of this differ ence inched upward from a very small level in the 1980s to a significant level in the 1990s. The overall impact of making all the adjustments was to lower the Canadian unemployment rate by a little less than 1 percentage point. Although this did not mean that the Canadian unemployment rate fell below the U.S. rate, it reduced the differential between the respective rates by onefifth. The b l s comparisons program covers Australia, Canada, Japan, and six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.3 The result of the Canadian study has inspired this article’s investigation of the comparisons of the United States with Europe. A later phase of the project will extend the work to Japan and Australia.4 The investigation begins with a discussion of the labor force definitions recommended by the il o and the varying interpretations o f these guidelines in the U.S., Canadian, and European labor force surveys. M easurement differences are sorted out and classified according to the direction of their impact. The size of the impact of these differences is then assessed, on the basis of the Canadian study and published and unpublished data for the European Union countries pro vided by Eurostat. Next, adjustments of U.S. unemployment rates to Euro pean and Canadian concepts are presented to see if this re verse comparison arrives at different results. Then, limitations of the study are discussed, and the article concludes by set ting out and evaluating some implications of the results for the b l s comparative series. Although some references are made to the other three in ternational comparisons programs, the article focuses on the b l s program. All four programs, which now yield virtually the same results, are described in the appendix. The no definition and its interpretations Unemployment, like most social phenomena, can be defined in different ways. No single definition can satisfy all analyti cal purposes.5 However, in the interests of international com parability, the il o provides national statistical offices with recommendations on the definition and measurement of un employment.6 These guidelines have become the standards for many countries; consequently, definitions used in labor force surveys are now broadly similar in outline and spirit if not in all of their details. The il o guidelines are the result of meetings of experts and discussions at periodic international conferences of labor stat isticians attended by delegates representing national govern ments, em ployer’s organizations, and labor unions. Compro mises are made among the various constituencies, as well as among countries at different levels of development. Some times the guidelines must be deliberately vague or provide options in order to achieve consensus. The guidelines cer 4 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tainly facilitate cross-country comparisons, because they serve to draw countries toward a common conceptual framework. The o e c d has worked toward making the guidelines more spe cific in order to enhance comparisons among its member coun tries,7 and Eurostat’s Community Labor Force Surveys have helped to establish common interpretations within the E uro pean Union. According to the latest il o guidelines, the unemployed are persons over a certain specified age who are without work, available for work, and actively seeking work. Virtually all coun tries agree that an unemployed person should be without any work at all; that is, employment takes precedence over unem ployment. They also agree that unemployed persons should be available for work and actively seeking work. However, countries have chosen to implement these latter two criteria differently, which causes certain incompatibilities in the m eas urement of unemployment internationally. Further, in a num ber of other areas, the il o definition has been either inter preted differently or not followed at all, particularly in regard to the treatment of students, persons on layoff, persons wait ing to start a new job, and unpaid family workers. Lower age limits and the treatment of the Armed Forces also differ. The varying interpretations of unemployment and the labor force (the sum of the employed and the unemployed) derive from different national circumstances and needs. Countries generally have very good reasons for their own interpretations of, or de viations from, the il o definitions. But these differences, of course, create problems for international comparisons. The il o recom mends that those countries which choose to deviate from the guidelines collect data that permit one to convert from the national to the international standards. Some countries do this; others do not. Exhibit 1 compiles the latest il o guidelines, U.S. and Cana dian concepts, and the Eurostat interpretation of the il o guide lines used in European Union labor force surveys. The U.S. concepts are those of the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) from 1994 onward, Canada’s concepts are those of the Labor Force Survey from 1997 onward, and the Eurostat concepts are those of the Community Labor Force Survey from 1992 onward. In this article, for the European countries, it is more convenient to present adjustments based on the Eurostat data rather than the data from the national labor force surveys.8 Sweden’s national concepts, however, will be referenced with regard to that country’s treatment of students. The Bureau adjusts the Swedish national data on this point in its unem ployment comparisons program, as do Eurostat and the other comparative programs. The il o states that population censuses and sample sur veys of households or individuals (often called labor force surveys) constitute a comprehensive means of collecting data on the labor force. Establishment surveys and administrative records may also serve as sources for obtaining more precise, more frequent, and more detailed statistics on particular com- Exhibit 1. Synopsis of coverage and concepts of unemployment in labor force surveys, International Labor Office ( ilo), United States, C anada, and Eurostat ilo standard (1982 onward) Item Frequency of survey United States (1994 onward) Canada (1997 onward) Eurostat (1992 onward) At least biannualy Monthly Monthly Annual, in spring1 Unspecified Included Households Excluded Households Excluded Households or persons Excluded Included Included Included Excluded Scope of survey: Households or persons Institutional population Collective households (hotels, motels, and so forth) Special exclusions None None Yukon and Northwest Territories; Indian reserves Persons doing compulsory military service are excluded from the population of private households and regarded as members of collective households, even if, during the reference week, they are present in the private household to which they belong. Unspecified Total 16 years and older Civilian 15 years and older Civilian 15 years and older Includes career military2 Employed Not in labor force; potentially unemployed Employed Employed Reference period for job search Search only by reading newspaper ads Specified recent period Excluded 4 weeks Excluded 4 weeks Included 4 weeks Included Waiting to start new job No search required Search required Search optional No search required No search required; job must start in 4 weeks No search required No search required Temporarily laid off Labor force denominator: Age limits Civilian or total Treatment of unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week Unemployment Job search: Availability criterion: Search required Yes Yes Yes Yes When Availability question asked Unspecified Yes During reference week Yes During reference week Yes Within 2 weeks of interview Yes Exceptions Unspecified Temporary illness and waiting to start new job Temporary illness, personal or family responsibilities, vacation, awaiting new job None Treatment of those temporarily laid off Employed if formal job attachment; unemployed if no attachment and available for work; job search requirement is optional in such cases. Unemployed if expecting to Unemployed if expecting be recalled to job in 6 to be recalled within 1 months or employer gives year and available for recall date. Must be work; no search available for work, but no required. job search required. Unemployed if actively looking for for work in the last 4 weeks and if available to start work in 2 weeks; otherwise classified as inactive. (See text for “zero hours” case.) Treatment of full-time students seeking full-time work and available for work Unemployed Unemployed Not in labor force Unemployed Treatment of unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week and available for work and seeking work Employed Unemployed Employed Employed 1 A new eu regulation calls for labor force surveys on a continuous basis, with quarterly results. 2 If residing in private households. Source: Prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the following docu- ments: ilo Resolution Concerning Economically Active Population, Employ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment, Unemployment, and Underemployment (on the Internet at http:// www.ilo.org/public/120stat/res/ecacpop.htm); “Explanatory Notes on House hold Data,” Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, published monthly); “Notes on the Survey,” The Labour Force (Statistics Canada, published monthly); and The European Union Labour Force Survey: Methods and Defini tions (Eurostat, 1996). Monthly Labor Review June 2000 5 International Unemployment Rates ponents of the labor force. Although not explicitly stated by the il o , it is well recognized that labor force surveys are the desirable source for international comparisons of unemploy ment. In most countries, such surveys cover the entire noninstitutional population of working age and broadly follow the il o standard definitions. Administrative data on employment office registrations are not suitable for international compari sons, because they do not cover all persons who may be un employed and because administrative regulations differ greatly across countries.9 Therefore, exhibit 1 focuses on labor force survey sources of unemployment statistics. A number of differences in frequency and scope of labor force surveys are apparent. Frequency. The il o recommends that countries collect and compile statistics on the labor force at least twice a year. The U.S. and Canadian surveys are conducted monthly, while the Eurostat survey is taken annually, each spring. A new European Union (E U ) regulation calls for labor force surveys on a “continuous” basis, with quarterly results. Currently, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom conduct quarterly surveys, Sweden’s is monthly, and France and Germany conduct their surveys only in the spring of each year. France will begin continuous surveys next year, while Germany has not yet announced plans for more frequent surveys. Annual estimates of unemployment and the labor force for France and Germany are constructed by Eurostat and the national authorities on the basis of other indicators, such as employment office registrations and establishment surveys, that are available more frequently. Scope. Exhibit 1 indicates that there are also some differences in the scope of the various surveys with regard to whether house holds or persons are surveyed and whether collective house holds are covered. Canada excludes the Yukon and Northwest Territories, as well as Indian reserves, from its survey. The labor force denominator for calculating the unemploy ment rate also may differ in its composition, in several ways. Lower age limits. The il o advises that lower age limits should be established for the labor force, but it does not say what those limits should be. The United States has chosen to use an age limit of 16 years, while Canada and the EU countries cover persons 15 years and older. Armed Forces. The il o recommends including all members of the Armed Forces, whether career military or draftees (con scripts), as paid employees and, hence, in the labor force. The United States and Canada exclude all the Armed Forces and present their data on a civilian labor force basis, while Eurostat includes career military personnel residing in private house holds. From 1983 to 1993, the Bureau published U.S. unem 6 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ployment rates on both a civilian and a total labor force basis. Unpaid family workers. Unpaid family workers are to be counted among those in the labor force (employed), with no cutoff on the number of hours worked, according to the il o . By contrast, the United States includes only those unpaid family workers who worked 15 or more hours in the reference week. Canada and the European Union follow the il o definition. Exhibit 1 also shows a number of differences in the defini tion of unemployment. Active job search. The reference period for demonstrating that one is actively undertaking a job search is now 4 weeks for all the surveys. But the meaning of “active job search” may differ across countries. The il o says that unemployed persons should be actively seeking work and that their job search activities should be tested. The il o lists the following activities that can qualify a person as actively undertaking a job search: • Registering at an employment exchange • Applying to employers • Checking work sites • Placing or answering newspaper ads • Seeking assistance of friends or relatives • Looking for land, building, or machinery to establish one’s own enterprise • Applying for a business-related license •Etc. Note that there is no listing for “reading newspaper ads” or “studying newspaper ads”; the il o clearly refers to “placing or answering ads.” But “reading or studying ads” could enter the list under “Etc.” In the U.S. c p s , conducting an objectively measurable job search is a necessary condition for being classified as unem ployed, except for those on temporary layoff. The c p s makes a distinction between search methods that are “active” and “pas sive” and excludes those who use passive methods alone from the count of the unemployed. Only methods that could result in a job offer without further action on the part of the jobseeker are considered “active.” These methods include answering or placing newspaper ads, visiting employment offices or busi nesses, calling to inquire about a position, sending job appli cations, and asking friends and family members for job leads. No such active/passive distinction is made in Canada and Europe, where activities aimed at gathering information about job opportunities are also considered legitimate job search methods, particularly when such activities are reported in the wake of a declaration of interest in finding work. Therefore, persons available for work whose only search method was looking at want ads in the newspaper10 are counted as unem- ployed in Europe and Canada, but not in the United States.11 Waiting to start a new job. According to the il o , persons waiting to start a new job should be classified as unemployed without being required to have searched for a job during the previous 4 weeks. This definition is followed by Canada and Eurostat. Prior to 1994, the United States also subscribed to the il o definition. Since 1994, the U.S. c p s requires that such persons engage in an active job search in the previous 4 weeks in order to be counted as unemployed. Layoffs, il o guidelines recommend classifying persons on layoff as employed if they have a strong attachment to their job (as determined by national circumstances and evidenced by payment of salary or the existence of a recall date, for ex ample). If they are only weakly or not at all attached to their job, they are to be counted as unemployed. The il o standards allow the job search to be optional in such cases, but require that the person be available to work. Countries have made divergent decisions on these points. Eurostat says that per sons on layoff should be seeking work and be available for work in order to be classified as unemployed; otherwise, they are counted as not in the labor force. In addition, Eurostat enumerates as employed a group of persons who could be considered similar to persons on layoff in other countries: persons who are classified as employed, but who are not at work due to “slack work for technical or economic reasons.” These persons are so classified because they have a formal job attachment. The United States and Canada count persons on layoff as unemployed and do not require them to be searching for a job. Since 1994 in the United States, persons on layoff must expect to be recalled to the job in 6 months, or the employer must have given them a recall date. Canada requires that persons on layoff have a recall date within a year in order to be classi fied as unemployed. Current availability. The il o definition says that the unem ployed should be available for work in the reference period, but no particular reference period is specified, and no excep tions are noted. The United States and Canada interpret “cur rent availability” to mean “availability to take up work in the reference week.” Eurostat, by contrast, allows availability to extend to within 2 weeks after the time of the interview.12 Canada makes exceptions to the availability criterion to allow persons who are temporarily unavailable because of illness, personal or family responsibilities, or vacations to be counted as unem ployed. The only exceptions allowed by the U.S. c p s are for persons who respond that they are not available due to tempo rary illness or because they are waiting to start a new job. The more restrictive interpretation of current availability by the United States is related to the fact that many students are in the labor force. The strict application of the criterion serves https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to count students only when they are truly available for work and not looking for a job to take up after the school term ends. This consideration may not be as important in countries with out a large student workforce, and it perhaps helps to explain the wider window of availability allowed by Eurostat. Canada, which also has a large student workforce, contends with the issue in a different way, discussed next. Students. The il o definition says that students who satisfy all the criteria for classification as unemployed should be clas sified as such. They should not be treated as a special group. Canada and Sweden, however, treat students differently from other labor force groups. In the official national statistics of Canada, full-time students seeking full-time work are omitted from the ranks of the unemployed on the grounds that they could not be currently available, even if they respond that they are. In Sweden, full-time students seeking work (whether full or part time) are excluded from the unemployed. In the United States, it is not uncommon for full-time students to hold either full-time or part-time jobs; consequently, those who are seeking work are classified as unemployed if they also respond that they are currently available for work. Canada and Sweden both have their reasons for not count ing students as unemployed. In Canada, the labor market be havior of full-time students indicates that there is a peak of searching for full-time work in the spring and that the students do not tend to start the jobs until the school year is over, despite what they say about their availability. Therefore, most are not regarded as a current supply of full-time labor. Their omission overcompensates to some extent, because some would indeed take full-time work while attending school full time.13 Sweden’s government made a decision in 1986 that full time students should be excluded even if they fulfill the three il o criteria of being without work, seeking work, and being available for work.14 Many of these students are enrolled in educational programs to increase their employability. Eurostat follows the il o guidelines with regard to students: the harmonized unemployment rate for Sweden is adjusted to include students who seek jobs. Likewise, the Bureau already makes this adjustment, which is a large one. (See BLS section in the appendix.) Unpaidfamily workers. Because unpaid family workers work ing fewer than 15 hours per week are excluded from the c p s employment count, they are asked the questions that deter mine whether they are or are not counted as unemployed. If they are available for and actively seeking work, they are clas sified as unemployed. According to the elo , Canadian, and European definitions, they cannot be unemployed, because they are classified as employed. (Because the number of un paid family workers is already small, and the number unem ployed would be even smaller, this difference is ignored in the sections that present adjustments of unemployment to U.S Monthly Labor Review June 2000 7 International Unemployment Rates concepts. The only accommodation made is to subtract all unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week from the denominator of the rate calculation.) Exhibit 2. • Differences in concepts The CPS data are on a civilian labor force basis; the recommends a total labor force basis (including all Armed Forces personnel). il o Differences in labor force and unemployment concepts among the United States and other countries derive from three situa tions: (1) The U.S. c p s does not follow the il o definitions on a number of points on which other countries do follow the guide lines (see exhibit 2); (2) conversely, some countries diverge from the il o definitions on elements for which the c p s is in accord with the il o ; and (3) in instances where the il o guide lines are vague or optional, countries have chosen different interpretations. The differences across countries can be summarized ac cording to the direction of their impact on the U.S. unemploy ment rate: (1) differences causing U.S. rates to be understated in international comparisons; and (2) differences causing U.S. rates to be overstated in international comparisons. Concepts of “Europe” refer to the concepts of Eurostat rather than to national concepts, except for the references to students in Sweden. • The CPS excludes unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week from the labor force (although some may be included in the unemployed if they are actively seeking work and are available for work); the i l o recommends including all unpaid family workers in the labor force. • The CPS classifies all persons on layoff (who have a recall date or who expect to be recalled within 6 months) as unemployed; the ILO recommends that a distinction be made between those persons laid off, but who have a strong attachment to their job, and those laid off and who have a weak attachment to thenjob; those with a strong attachment (as evidenced by a recall date) should be counted as employed. • The CPS requires those waiting to start a new job to search for work in order to be classified as unem ployed; the i l o recommends that such persons be exempt from any requirement to search for work. Differences causing U.S. rates to be understated. The follow ing differences make up this category: • The U.S. lower age limit is 16 years. Canada and Eurostat use a lower limit of 15 years. Youths aged 15 tend to have higher-than-average unemployment rates. classified as em ployed (because they have a strong attachm ent to their job) or m ust be actively seeking work (because they have a weak attachm ent to their job) in order to be counted as unem ployed. Those with a weak attachm ent to their job and who are not seeking work are classified as not in the labor force. • “Passive jobseekers” (persons reading or studying help-wanted ads in newspapers as their sole means of searching for a job) are not included in the U.S. unem ployed; they are included in Canada and Europe. • • The criteria counting a person as currently available for work are broader in Canada and Europe than in the United States. • In the United States, since 1994, persons waiting to start a new job are required to conduct a job search; no search activity is required for such persons in Canada or Europe. In the United States, students who are available for work and who are seeking a job are classified as unem ployed. In Canada, full-time students who are available for work and who are seeking full-time work are classi fied as not in the labor force. In Sweden, full-time stu dents who are available for work and who are seeking (either full-time or part-time) work are omitted from the labor force. This cat • In the United States, only family workers who worked 15 or more hours per week are included in the labor force denominator. All unpaid family workers are included in the denominator in Europe and Canada. • All persons on tem porary layoff are counted as unem ployed in the U nited States and C anada, with no re quirem ent that the person conduct a job search. In Europe, persons on tem porary layoff either m ust be • The career military are not included in the labor force denominator in the United States or Canada. EU sur veys include the career military residing in private house holds. Differences causing U.S. rates to be overstated. egory comprises the following differences: 8 U.S. divergence from no guidelines Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Adjustments made for comparability During the 1960s and 1970s, the Bureau made numerous ad justm ents to foreign data to render them more comparable to U.S. data.15 The need for large adjustments diminished con siderably during the 1980s and 1990s as more countries began to conduct regular labor force surveys that generally followed the il o recommendations. Nowadays, labor force surveys have become the norm for measuring unemployment, probing ques tions have been added, and search and availability tests have been included and applied to all potentially unemployed per sons. These improvements, however, often have not been implemented in exactly the same way, as described in the fore going section. Currently, the Bureau makes adjustments for only a few of the differences that remain. Foreign data are adjusted to a civil ian labor force basis by excluding military personnel from the labor force for countries where they are included. Unpaid fam ily workers working fewer than 15 hours per week are also excluded. These adjustments are usually facilitated by pub lished national data. The numbers of unpaid family workers were fairly large in some countries in the 1960s, but they have tapered off to the point that they are now so small that adjust ments are generally negligible or nil. The only adjustment to unemployment made by the Bureau is to add students seeking a job to the Swedish unemployed, based on data published by Statistics Sweden. (Note that Eurostat also makes this adjust ment for Sweden.) Heretofore, the Bureau has accepted foreign data on unem ployment as comparable to U.S. concepts if availability and job search tests were applied. The Bureau did not investigate or adjust for any differences in how these requirements were implemented. The b l s Handbook o f Methods and semiannual and monthly releases of comparative unemployment rates alert data users to the fact that, on certain points where countries apply different concepts or methods of implementation, no adjustments are made. Thus, no adjustments are currently made on a number of disparities, on the grounds that (1) the adjust ments would make very little, if any, difference, (2) the informa tion needed is not readily available in published form, or (3) the adjustments should not be made. The Bureau does not make any adjustments to omit the passive jobseekers in the Canadian and European unemploy ment figures. The reason is twofold: first, such data have not been available on a regular and consistent basis, and second, the Canadian data remain unpublished. Neither are adjustments made for the differences in the implementation of the currentavailability criterion, for lack of specific data on this point. By contrast, data on persons waiting to begin a new job are gen erally available, but adjustments are not made because the numbers are thought to be very small. The “waiting” status is usually a classification that is based on information volun teered in surveys, rather than information elicited with a spe https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cific question, which would be likely to yield higher numbers. Also, some persons waiting to start a new job may have sought work in the previous 4 weeks and would therefore be properly classified as unemployed. The b l s comparisons program has long taken the position that other countries’ lower age limits should not be standard ized to the U.S. age limit of 16, but that they should be adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each coun try. Accordingly, data for Canada, Germany, Italy, and the Neth erlands are left reflecting age 15 or older, whereas data for France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are adjusted, if nec essary, to age 16 or older. It could be argued, however, that all of the foreign data should be adjusted to the U.S. age limit of 16 years of age or older, for stricter comparability with the U.S. definition. The b l s program does not adjust for differences in the treat ment of layoffs, on the grounds that American and European layoffs are fundamentally different situations that should re main under national definitions. This position, explained in detail in a 1981 article,16 is reassessed here in view of the change in the b l s definition of temporary layoffs in 1994. Since that time, an expectation of recall or a recall date given by the em ployer is required for being classified as laid off in the United States. This change raises the possibility that adjustments should be made to the European data to include persons on layoff (the “zero hours” group mentioned earlier) in the unem ployed on the grounds that they are not working at all and are likely to have a recall date or expectation of recall, as is the case with U.S. layoffs. On the other hand, it could also be argued that Europeans in such circumstances are more likely to be called back to their jobs than their U.S. counterparts and should not be included in the unemployed. At any rate, an adjustment will be included in this article to illustrate the impact of that group. The sections which follow show that reasonable estimates are feasible for many of the differences that are not currently accounted for. The availability of previously unpublished data for Canada, as well as for the European Union countries via Eurostat, allows for the quantification of many of the differ ences. The adjustments can be made for a long historical span of years for Canada, but are confined to just a single year, 1998, for the European countries. Further work is needed to see if reasonable adjustments can be made back in time for these countries. Adjustments back to 1994 appear to be feasible. It will be shown that many of the adjustments are indeed small and have to be taken out to at least two decimal places to be visible. In addition, the adjustments both add and subtract categories and, to some degree, cancel out. Canadian unemployment rates Even though both the United States and Canada subscribe to most of the standard concepts established by the il o and ask Monthly Labor Review June 2000 9 International Unemployment Rates very similar questions in their labor force surveys, a Statistics Canada analysis reveals that differences remain that affect the comparability of the respective unemployment rates. Statistics Canada published an article in 1998 that identified the follow ing differences between Canadian and U.S. concepts:17 • • • • • 15-year-olds are included in the labor force in Canada, but are excluded therefrom in the United States. Reading newspaper ads qualifies as a job search in Canada, but not in the United States. In Canada, persons waiting to start a new job are counted as unemployed without having to search for a job; in the United States, a job search has been required for these persons since 1994. Those unavailable for work due to personal or family responsibilities or vacations are included in the unem ployed in Canada, but not in the United States. Full-time students seeking full-time work who are avail able for work are excluded from the unemployed in Canada, but included in the United States. Statistics Canada identified a few other differences, but considered them too small to matter: • Canada excludes the Yukon and Northwest Territories and Indians on reservations from the scope of its survey. • With regard to layoffs, Canada requires that the person have a recall date within a year in order to be classified as unemployed without having to undertake a job search. The United States puts no time limit on the recall date.18 • Unpaid family workers are counted in the Canadian labor force, with no lower limit on their weekly hours worked. The United States requires that they work at least 15 hours to be counted in the labor force. The Canadian article presented an adjustment of the Cana dian unemployment rate to U.S. concepts. The data used in mak ing the adjustment were from unpublished tabulations by Statis tics Canada from the Canadian labor force survey for the period 1976 to 1997. A later article updated the adjustments to 1998.19 Table 1 shows the Statistics Canada analysis. The table indicates that the unemployment rate gap between Canada and the United States was reduced from 4.3 percentage points to 3.5 percentage points in 1997. In 1998, the gap declined from 3.8 percentage points to 3.0 percentage points. The fig ures are given in the following tabulation: Official Canadian rate................ Official U.S. rate........................ Adjusted Canadian ra te ............. 1997 1998 9.2 4.9 8.4 8.3 4.5 7.5 Of interest is the fact that the impact of the differences has grown over time. In 1976-81, the adjustments had virtually no 10 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis impact. During the rest of the 1980s, the impact grew from 0.3 percentage point to 0.4 percentage point. From 1990 to 1998, the impact of the differences rose from 0.4 percentage point to between 0.7 and 0.9 percentage point. There was a slight impact (0.1 to 0.2 percentage point) from the combined effect of the removal of 15-year-olds, persons waiting to start a new job, and persons unavailable because of personal or family responsibilities or vacations. A significant impact in recent years (0.7 percentage point to 0.8 percentage point) was due to the removal of passive jobseekers. On the other hand, the inclusion of full-time students seeking full time work increased the Canadian unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage point, partly offsetting the other differences that decreased the rate. A Statistics Canada analysis of job searches notes that the unemployed changed their approach to looking for work over the past two decades.20 Unemployed jobseekers were making greater use of job advertisements and personal networks and less use of formal institutions such as public employment agencies and unions. The growth in reading ads as the only method of search was most evident among the long-term un employed, and the incidence of long-term unemployment in creased in Canada over the period. Among the reasons cited is that reading of help-wanted ads becomes more common as other methods of search are exhausted and as the jobseeker approaches “burnout.” European unemployment rates Table 2 presents adjustments of e u unemployment rates to U.S. concepts for spring 1998. The adjustments are shown for the European Union as a whole, as well as for the six member countries that are included in the b l s comparisons series. To summarize, greater comparability is achieved by applying the following two measures: • Removing from the labor force 15 year-olds, unpaid fam ily workers working fewer than 15 hours per week, ca reer military personnel, and those omitted from the un employed. (See next.) • Removing from the unemployed 15 year-olds, passive jobseekers, persons waiting to start a new job, and those not available for work in the reference week and adding an adjustment for layoffs and for double-counting the removed groups. Another way to organize the adjustments shown in table 2 is by the direction of their impact on the unemployment rate. Eurostat rates are adjusted upward by • including among the unemployed those persons on tem porary layoff who are not seeking work, • excluding career military from the denominator, and Table 1. The Canadian unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1976-98 M o dificatio n to C a n a d ia n ra te d u e to— U nem p loym en t rate Then a d d itio n of— Then re m o v a l of— Y ear O fficial R em oval of United 15 -yea r- Passive States olds job search C an ad ia n Total m odifications O fficial Future starts beginning 1994 Those unnavailable Full-time b e c a u s e of students looking personal or fam ily for fu ll-tim e responsibilities or vacations work to C a n a d ia n unem ploym ent O fficial M odified gap gap rate 1976 1977 1978 1979 .............. .............. .............. .............. 7.2 8.1 8.4 7.5 7.7 7.1 6.1 5.8 -0.1 .0 -.1 -.1 -0.2 -.2 -.2 -.2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 -0.1 .0 .0 .0 0.2 .2 .2 .2 -0.1 -.1 -.2 -.2 -0.5 1.0 2.3 1.7 -0.6 .9 2.1 1.5 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 7.5 7.6 11.0 11.9 11.3 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 -.1 -.1 -.1 .0 -.1 -.2 -.3 -.4 -.5 -.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 -.2 -.2 -.3 -.3 -.4 .4 .0 1.3 2.3 3.8 .2 -.2 1.0 2.0 3.4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 10.5 9.6 8.9 7.8 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2 5.5 5.3 .0 -.1 -.1 -.1 .0 -.5 -.5 -.5 -.5 -.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 -.1 -.1 -.1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 -.4 -.4 -.4 -.4 -.4 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.8 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 8.1 10.4 11.3 11.2 10.4 5.6 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.1 .0 -.1 -.1 .0 -.1 -.5 -.6 -.7 -.8 -.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 -.2 -.1 .0 .0 .0 -.1 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 -.4 -.5 -.5 -.5 -.8 2.5 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.3 2.1 3.1 3.3 3.8 3.5 1995 1996 1997 1998 .............. .............. .............. .............. 9.5 9.7 9.2 8.3 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.5 .0 -.1 -.1 -.1 -.8 -.8 -.7 -.6 -.2 -.2 -.2 -.3 -.1 -.1 .0 .0 .3 .3 .3 .2 -.8 -.9 -.8 -.8 3.9 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.0 S ource: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Update, autumn 1998, p. 35, and summer 1999, p. 32. These data do not reflect recent revisions to incorporate 1996 census results and a new method of estimation. Thus, the figures • excluding unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours from the denominator. Eurostat rates are adjusted downward by excluding from the unemployed • passive jobseekers, • those who were not currently available for work in the reference week, • 15-year-olds, and • persons waiting to start a new job who did not seek work. The rationale behind the upward adjustments is as follows. Layoffs. According to Eurostat, persons on temporary layoff and seeking work constitute a negligible group, accounting for about 0.2 percent of total EU unemployment.21 Thus, this small group is already counted as unemployed. As mentioned earlier, some persons reported as employed are working “zero hours” in the reference week for technical or economic rea sons and could be considered laid off in the U.S. sense of the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis differ slightly from the revised rates shown in table A-1 of the appendix, Note: Components may not add to total modifications column due to rounding. term. W hether they should be classified as unemployed for comparisons is debatable; an adjustment will be made here to illustrate the impact. Eurostat publishes the number of persons absent from work during the reference week due to economic and technical rea sons. The figures indicate that the e u unemployment rate would be increased by only 0.1 percentage point by including these persons among the unemployed. Military personnel and unpaid family workers. Together, the exclusion of the career military and unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week would result in an up ward adjustment of less than 0.1 percentage point. The total upward adjustment, from these two sources and those work ing “zero hours” in the reference week for technical or eco nomic reasons, rounds to 0.2 percentage point. The reasoning behind the downward adjustments is as follows. Passive jobseekers. In the Eurostat labor force surveys through 1997, the reporting on methods of job search was Monthly Labor Review June 2000 11 International Unemployment Rates fairly limited and restricted to the main method used. Begin ning in 1998, Eurostat asked for all methods used from a list of 12. The results indicate that in the e u countries, 46 percent of the unemployed studied advertisements as at least one of their methods of job search, but that only 2.15 percent of the unem ployed used this search method exclusively. The results for selected countries are given in the following tabulation, which lists the percent of total unemployment engaged in each of the two activities shown: Studied ads Studied ads only 73.14 37.53 31.07 0 4.00 85.98 0.15 .44 5.43 0 0 2.51 France ....................... Germany................... Italy.......................... Netherlands.............. Sweden..................... United Kingdom....... had, by far, the largest proportion (5 percent) who used that method exclusively. In France and Germany, significant pro portions of the unemployed studied ads, but very few used the method as their only way of looking for work. The zero figures for the Netherlands and Sweden warrant some explanation. The Netherlands survey continues to col lect data on the main method of search only. The preceding tabulation indicates that no unemployed person studied ads as his or her main method of searching for a job; hence, none used the method exclusively either. Only about 10 percent of the Dutch unemployed replied that they inserted or answered help-wanted ads as their main method of job search. This per centage indicates that use of the help wanted ads is low in the Netherlands. As regards Sweden, only a very small proportion of persons studied ads as one of their methods of search, and none used it as their only method. Thus, no adjustment ap pears to be needed for these two countries on the passivesearch issue. National data from a few countries help to corroborate the 1998 results from Eurostat. Special tabulations by the U.K. Office for National Statistics for 1997 report that one-third of Clearly, there is a wide range in both categories within the European Union. The United Kingdom had, by far, the largest proportion (86 percent) of the unemployed who used reading advertisements as a method of searching for a job, and Italy Table 2. Adjustment of European Union data to U.S. concepts, spring 1998, all 15 eu countries and six selected eu countries [Numbers in thousands] All 15 United Kingdom Item Source eu countries France G erm any Italy Netherlands Sweden Reported labor force.......................... Less 15-year-olds.......................... Less unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week....................................... Less career military........................ Less other adjustments to unemployment (net)1................... Adjusted civilian labor fo rce ............. Eurostat Eurostat 169,408 220 25,568 9 39,393 24 22,915 58 7,742 72 4,333 28,661 Eurostat Eurostat 362 436 35 129 228 29 4 19 33 8 15 58 Eurostat Eurostat 1,029 167,361 226 25,298 152 38,860 242 22,582 13 7,605 11 4,299 105 28,498 Eurostat Eurostat Eurostat 17,330 57 373 3,099 2 5 3,856 2 17 2,849 21 155 340 19 387 _ _ 1,778 _ Eurostat2 430 185 75 59 10 5 36 Estimate3 Estimate4 Eurostat 347 121 177 16,421 62 25 15 2,886 77 17 7 3,709 57 29 56 2,642 7 4 308 8 1 9 385 36 12 34 1,707 10.2 9.8 12.1 11.4 9.8 9.5 12.4 11.7 4.4 4.0 8.9 8.9 6.2 6.0 .96 (5) .94 12.1 .98 9.8 .94 12.5 .92 4.4 1.00 9.0 .97 6.2 (5) 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00 Reported unemployment................... Less 15-year-olds.......................... Less passive jobseekers.............. Less those waiting to start a new jo b ...................................... Less those not available for work in reference w eek......................... Plus double-count adjustment....... Plus layoffs.................................... Adjusted unemployment................... Unemployment rate (in percent): Reported......................................... Adjusted to U.S. concepts............ Ratio of adjusted rate to reported ra te ......................... Current bls adjusted rates............ Ratio of adjusted rate to reported ra te ......................... - 1Net sum of passive jobseekers, those waiting to start a new job, those not available for work in the reference week, and double-count adjustments. Persons on layoff are already counted in the labor force and are deemed employed. 2 Estimated as half of those reported as waiting to start a new job, in order to eliminate those seeking work from the adjustment. 3 Estimated as 2 percent of the unemployed. 12 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ _ _ _ _ 45 4 Estimated as 10 percent of the sum of the subtracted categories. 5 Not applicable: the Bureau does not adjust data for all 15 eu countries. N ote : Dash indicates negligible or nil. Eurostat, Labour Force Survey Principal Results 1998, Theme 3, November 1999; unpublished results provided by Eurostat; and bls adjust ments. S ources: the unemployed said that their main method of job search was reading newspaper ads.22 Most persons, however, used more than one job search method, and the average was four to five methods. All of the other methods listed qualify as “active” in the U.S. sense of the term. Studying advertisements was the sole method of search for only 7 percent of those for whom it was the main method. Overall, 2.4 percent of the unemployed were in this “only passive search” category. This is about the same proportion yielded by the 1998 Eurostat data. Further corroboration from national data appears in an o e c d paper on methods of job search. The paper established that persons using only passive methods amounted to 0.1 percent of the unemployed in France and 1 percent in Norway.23 At the cur rent time, national statistics for other e u countries are not avail able on the passive-search issue. In table 2, the reported spring 1998 Eurostat data on the percentage of persons studying newspaper ads as their sole method of search is used to make the adjustment to exclude passive jobseekers. Overall, this adjustment eliminates about 0.2 percentage point from the unemployment rate for the Euro pean Union. The magnitude of the adjustment is highest for Italy, where 0.6 percentage point is subtracted from the unem ployment rate. For the United Kingdom, 0.2 percentage point is subtracted. For all the other e u countries examined in this article, the impact of removing the passive jobseekers is prac tically nil. Availability. The number of unemployed persons who were not currently available for work in the reference week is diffi cult to estimate. Some indication of the order of magnitude is available from the Danish labor force survey, which collects information according to the period the person can start work ing (within 1 week, within 2 weeks, within 1 month, and so forth). For 1998, Statistics Denmark reported that 96 percent of the unemployed said that they would be available to work within a week rather than within the 2 weeks allowed for being classified as unemployed.24 O f course, “within a week” over laps with, but goes beyond, “the reference week.” Therefore, the figure obtained is not precisely the figure needed. In addi tion, under U.S. concepts, those temporarily ill or waiting to start a new job should be considered unemployed even though they are not currently available for work. A reasonable esti mate, used in table 2, is that the impact is 2 percent of the unemployed, resulting in a reduction of almost 0.2 percentage point in the e u unemployment rate. This estimate is about the same magnitude as the estimated impact of expanding the availability window in the United States, discussed in a later section.25 15-year-olds. Unpublished Eurostat data indicate that the unemployment rate of 15-year-olds is high— about 25 percent— but that the numbers of unemployed 15-year-olds are so small that the overall e u unemployment rate is reduced by only 0.02 percentage point. The 1998 Netherlands rate, however, is more https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis visibly affected: the jobless rate declines by 0.2 percentage point, from 4.4 to 4.2 percent, with the elimination of 15-yearolds from the rolls of the unemployed. Waiting to start a new job. In the Eurostat survey, the num ber of persons waiting to start a new job amounts to 5.5 per cent of total unemployment in 1998. There is no information as to how many were seeking work, however, because this group is not asked the question on job search. Assuming that half of these persons should be excluded from the unemployed under U.S. concepts because they were not actively seeking work in the past 4 weeks, the estimated reduction in the e u unemploy ment rate would be about 0.2 percentage point. For France, the adjustment on this point has a much larger impact. The re ported unemployment rate of 12.1 percent is reduced to 11.5 percent when this group is subtracted. Possibly, the reason for the relatively large number of such persons in France is that the French survey asks a question directly about this issue rather than relying on volunteered information. Double-counting. Overall, the reductions in the e u unem ployment rate total 0.6 percentage point (rounded). This fig ure is then adjusted slightly by adding back an estimated 10 percent of the sum of the downward adjustments to the unem ployed, to take into account the possibility of double-counting among the groups that were eliminated. (For example, a 15-yearold may also be a passive jobseeker.) This further adjustment does not change the overall reduction of 0.6 percentage point. Overall adjustment. On balance, the overall adjustment for the European Union is 0.4 percentage point downward (up by 0.2, down by 0.6). Thus, the spring 1998 e u unemployment rate of 10.2 is reduced to 9.8. Extrapolating from this result, the annual average e u unemployment rate of 9.9 percent in 1998 is reduced to 9.5 percent. Europe’s 5.5-percentage-point gap with the United States, obtained by using the current standardized rate in 1998, is re duced to 5.1 percentage points, explaining less than 10 percent of the total gap. A large differential between the U.S. and Europe remains unaccounted for by the measurement differences. The overall small reduction in the EU unemployment rate masks somewhat larger adjustments for particular countries. Table 2 indicates that France’s unemployment rate falls from 12.1 percent to 11.4 percent with the additional adjustments, mainly due to the adjustment to exclude persons waiting to start a new job. The rate for the Netherlands declines from 4.4 percent to 4.0 percent, chiefly due to the exclusion of 15-yearolds. For Italy, the downward adjustm ent for passive job searches is the main reason for the reduction of the rate from 12.4 percent to 11.7 percent. For Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the adjustments have a negligible impact. The next-to-last line of table 2 also shows what the Eurostat Monthly Labor Review June 2000 13 International Unemployment Rates rates would be if only the adjustments the Bureau currently makes were applied.26 The figures are virtually the same as the reported rates, because the current b l s adjustments are so small; they simply subtract the number of unpaid family work ers working fewer than 15 hours and the number of career military from the labor force. No adjustments are made in the Eurostat unemployed. sons who are unavailable for work in the reference week be cause of personal or family responsibilities was only nil to 0.1 percentage point. An assumption of an increase of 0.1 per centage point in the U.S. rate for greater comparability with Europe on the availability criterion thus seems reasonable. 15-year-olds. These young persons are enumerated by the but are not included in the U.S. labor force. Unpublished b l s data indicate that including 15-year-olds would raise the unemployment rate by 0.08 percentage point. cps, U.S. rates under European concepts Another way of looking at the comparison is to adjust U.S. rates to European concepts. This is important in assessing the comparative programs of the o e c d and the il o , which do not currently adjust the unemployment data for the United States, presenting them as comparable with data from the other o e c d countries. The following adjustments should be made to U.S. data for greater comparability with Eurostat concepts: Waiting to start a new job. Unpublished b l s data show that the impact of adding to the unemployed persons waiting to start a new job who are not seeking work would be even smaller than adding 15-year-olds (0.05 percentage point). Overall, the upward adjustments total 0.4 percentage point. Because the groups are mutually exclusive, there is no need to enter an adjustment for double-counting. Adjust U.S. rates upward by • including passive jobseekers, • loosening the current-availability requirement, • • including 15-year-olds, and removing the search requirement for persons waiting to start a new job. Adjust U.S. rates downward by • excluding persons on temporary layoff, • including all career military in the denominator, and • including unpaid family workers who worked fewer than 15 hours per week in the denominator. The upward adjustments are rooted in the following con siderations. Passive jobseekers. An unpublished b l s analysis (based on 1997 data) indicates that if passive jobseekers who were with out work and available for work had been included in the un employed, they would have composed about 3.4 percent of total U.S. unemployment.27 Their inclusion would have in creased the unemployment rate only marginally, by about 0.15 percentage point. Availability. According to unpublished b l s tabulations, if all persons who would have met the unemployment criteria except for the fact that they were not available for work during the reference week were added to the U.S. unemployed, the rate would rise by 0.3 percentage point. The figure for those who would be available within the 2-week Eurostat time frame is likely to be lower. Persons who are temporarily ill or waiting to start a new job are classified as unemployed by the c p s if they are not currently available for work. In addition, the Cana dian adjustment to remove from among the unemployed per 14 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The downward adjustments are based on the following points. Layoffs. The number of persons on temporary layoff in the United States in 1998 made up 14 percent of total U.S. unemploy ment. Most likely, some of the Americans on layoff would be classified as employed by Eurostat because they have a recall date or an expectation of recall and they are not seeking work, bls tabulations indicate that approximately 40 percent of those clas sified as laid off said that they had been looking for work in the previous 4 weeks. (It is not known how many were actively seek ing work and how many were passively seeking work, because no further inquiries were made into their job search.) Assuming that the entire 40 percent were actively seeking work (and there fore should continue to be counted as unemployed), the adjust ment removes 60 percent of those on layoff from the U.S. unem ployed, lowering the U.S. rate by 0.38 percentage point. Unpaid family workers and military personnel. The num ber of unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours is so small as to have no impact, but including the Armed Forces in the denominator would lower the U.S. rate slightly, by 0.04 percentage point. Overall, the downward adjustments total 0.4 percentage point, which is identical in magnitude to the upward adjust ments. Thus, the U.S. unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in 1998 remains unchanged when e u concepts are applied. Table 3 summarizes the adjustments of the spring 1998 Eu ropean unemployment rate to U.S. concepts (derived from table 2) and the adjustment of the annual average 1998 U.S. rate to European concepts, in terms of percentage points. The outcome of the two modes of adjustment is given in the following tabulation: Table 3. Fraction-of-a-percentage-point impact of two modes of adjustment, 1998 Item Spring European unem ploym ent rate to U.S. c o n c e p ts Annual a v e ra g e U.S. unem ploym ent rate to European co nce pts Passive jobseekers............................. Availability criterion............................. 15-year-olds........................................ Waiting to start a new jo b .................... Double-count adjustment.................... -0.198 -.184 -.020 -.228 +.064 +0.146 +.100 +.080 +.055 - Subtotal............................................... -.6 +.4 Layoffs................................................ Unpaid family workers......................... Military................................................. +.104 +.022 +.026 -.378 -.040 Subtotal............................................... +.2 -.4 Total adjustment.................................. -.4 0 N ote : Dash indicates category not applicable. S ources : bls Column 1 calculated from table 2, column 2 from unpublished data. U n em p lo ym en t ra te EU concepts........................ U.S. concepts.................... eu 10.2 9.8 U.S. 4.5 4.5 U.S. rates under Canadian concepts The following adjustments are made to fit the 1998 U.S. unem ployment rate to Canadian concepts: F ra c tio n o f a p e r c e n ta g e p o in t Passive jobseekers................................ 15-year-olds......................................... Waiting to start new j o b ....................... Availability criterion............................. Students................................................ +0.146 +0.080 +0.055 +0.050 -0.100 Net adjustment..................................... +0.2 The first three adjustments are the same as the previously discussed adjustments of the U.S. rate to European concepts. The adjustment for the difference in availability criterion is different, however. Including among the unemployed persons unavailable for work for personal or family reasons would raise the U.S. rate by an estimated 0.05 percentage point— half the magnitude, in terms of percentage points, of the availability adjustment applied to European countries when one is adjust ing their data to U.S. concepts. An additional adjustment is needed to fit the U.S. treatment of students to Canadian concepts. This adjustment subtracts from the U.S. unemployed full-time students aged 16 to 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis years who are seeking full-time work. The adjustment is based on unpublished data from the c p s that include “doesn’t mat ter” responses to the question whether the student is seeking full- or part-time work. Statistics Canada does not use this response category, but advised the Bureau that if it did, then such persons would be classified together with students seek ing full-time work. This adjustment results in a decrease of 0.1 percentage point in the U.S. unemployment rate. On balance, all of the aforesaid adjustments raise the U.S. unemployment rate by 0.2 percentage point. The 1998 Canada-U.S. compari sons yield the following results: Unemployment rate, U.S. concepts............. Unemployment rate, Canadian concepts..... Canada U n ite d S ta tes 7.5 8.3 4.5 4.7 Applying U.S. concepts indicates that the gap between the Canadian and American unemployment rates is 3.0 percentage points. Under Canadian concepts, the gap is 3.6 percentage points. The latter is closer to the gap (3.8 percentage points) based on the unadjusted rates for each country. Limitations of the analysis The analysis presented in this article has several limitations. First, in the case of Europe, the adjustments presented here are based upon only 1 year: 1998. The Canadian study shows that the impact of adjustments can change over time. Further, U.S., Canadian, and Eurostat definitions have changed over the years, and such changes would have to be taken into account in a historical analysis. For example, prior to 1994, the U.S. treatment of persons waiting to start a new job was identical to that of Canada and Eurostat, and adjustments would not need to be made for that factor in those years. Another limitation is that some of the data needed to make the adjustments are not available in precisely the form required. Unpublished tabulations fill a number of the gaps, but some estimation is still involved regarding such factors as the im pact of including or excluding passive jobseekers among the unemployed, differences in the current-availability criteria, and the treatment of layoffs. Questions remain as to whether some of the adjustments should be made at all. For instance, should adjustments be made to add student jobseekers in with the unemployed for Canada and Sweden when statistical offices in those countries have omitted them on the grounds that their availability is uncertain? Are U.S. and European layoffs so fundamentally different that adjustments should not be made on their ac count? Are the adjustments to the U.S. age limit of 16 years justified for all countries? Unmentioned thus far in the analysis for lack of any factual basis for adjustment are nonconceptual differences that could Monthly Labor Review June 2000 15 International Unemployment Rates have an impact on the comparisons, but for which the direc tion of bias, if any, is unknown. Among these are such ele ments as the frequency and scope of surveys, the wording and ordering of questions, proxy responses, and the survey’s sample design and mode of data collection. National experi ences with changes in these matters tell us that they can have an influence on unemployment figures.28 Further, hidden or illegal activities may not be captured in labor force surveys to the same degree across countries. Clearly, any total account ing of country differences would have to consider all sources, but this would, equally clearly, be beyond the scope of statis tical inference. Data users should be cognizant of this realm of nonconceptual differences. Finally, the article does not cover two countries in the b ls comparisons: Japan and Australia. In one b l s study, adjustments for Japan covering the period 1984-92 tended to cancel out and leave the official Japanese rate virtually unchanged under U.S. concepts.29 But this work needs to be updated to the late 1990s to see if the results have changed. Neither Japan nor Australia includes passive jobseekers in the unemployed. T h e c u r r e n t l y p u b l is h e d f o r e ig n u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e s ad justed to U.S. concepts are imperfect, but further adjustments can be made to bring them conceptually closer together. These additional adjustments, however, do not change the main out come of the current b l s comparisons. The analysis presented in this article indicates that the U.S. unemployment rate in the late 1990s really was lower than the European and Canadian unemployment rates, whether looked at from U.S., Canadian, or European concepts. At some point, rates could converge to a greater extent, and then the small adjustments discussed here would matter in ranking countries by unemployment rate, especially for Canada vis-à-vis the United States. With that possibility in mind, later this year the Bureau plans to incorporate the ad justments to the Canadian unemployment rates from 1976 onward into its comparative series. Statistics Canada has agreed to supply all the data needed on an ongoing basis. The Bureau also is considering further adjustments to the e u countries’ data. However, these adjustments are more dif ficult to make, and they also seem less necessary, given their smaller impact. Yet the effects on the French, Italian, and Dutch unemployment rates are probably significant enough to war rant adjustments. Further study is needed to see if adjust ments are feasible, at least for 1994 onward, for the European countries in the b l s comparisons program. □ Notes This article was first presented as a paper in October 1999 at a conference on “Understanding Unem ploym ent and Working Time: A Cross-Country Com parative Study” in B ellagio, Italy. The conference was organized by Barry Bluestone o f Northeastern Univer sity in B oston and A ntonio Lettieri o f the Center for International Social Studies in Rom e, under grants from the Ford and R ockefeller Foundations. The article has benefited greatly from the author’s asso ciation with the project. Members o f country teams supplied informa tion and comments on many aspects o f the work. In April 2000, the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the oecd Working Party on Em ployment and Unem ploym ent Statistics in Paris. Com m ents from representatives o f international organizations and national statistical offices at that m eeting have also informed the work. The author is grateful to the follow ing individuals whose comments enriched the article: Georges Lemaitre, oecd; Eivind Hoffmann and Sophia Lawrence, ilo ; Ana Franco, Eurostat; Sharon Cohany, Gary Martin, Joyanna Moy, Anne Polivka, and Philip Rones, Bureau o f Labor Statis tics; and John E. Bregger, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, retired. Ana Franco and her colleagues at Eurostat supplied unpublished data from the European Union labor force surveys; Anne P olivka o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics provided unpublished data from the U.S. Cur rent Population Survey. Without their aid, the adjustments presented in the article could not have been made. Any errors that remain are the sole responsibility o f the author. A cknowledgments: 1 The bls comparisons program does not adjust rates for Canada or the European Union. Canada’s 8.3-percent rate is that country’s official figure, and the 9.9-percent rate quoted for the European Union is based upon the oecd Standardized Unemployment Rates program, derived from Eurostat figures. Note also that the oecd does not adjust the U.S. unem ployment rate for comparability with eu concepts. 2 Explaining the non-measurement-related reasons for cross-coun 16 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis try differences in unem ploym ent is one o f the main purposes o f the project titled “Understanding U nem ploym ent and Working Time: A Cross-Country Comparative Study,” being conducted under grants from the Ford and R ockefeller Foundations. See the acknowledgm ents for more inform ation. 3 See tables 43 and 44 in the “Current Labor Statistics” section o f this issue o f the R e v ie w . See also table 1 in the appendix to this article. 4 Earlier work has already been done on Japan, but it will need to be updated because of revisions made to U.S. definitions in 1994. For that earlier work, see Sara Elder and Constance Sorrentino, “Japan’s low unemployment: a bls update and revision,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , Oc tober 1993, pp. 5 6 -6 3 . 5 The recognition o f the diversity in the uses o f unem ploym ent data led Julius Shiskin, former Com missioner o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, to formulate and introduce the range o f labor market m eas ures u—1 through u -7 in 1976. (See Julius Shiskin, “Em ployment and unem ploym ent: the doughnut or the h ole?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , February 1976, pp. 3 -1 0 .) International com parisons based on u -1 through u -7 were published in C onstance Sorrentino, “International unem ploym ent indicators, 1 9 8 3 -9 3 ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , August 1995, pp. 3 1 -5 0 . In October 1995, the Bureau introduced a revised set o f alternative measures in John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen, “ bls introduces new range o f alternative unemployment measures,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1995, pp. 19-26. 6 The latest ilo international definitions o f unem ploym ent were adopted in October 1982 at the Thirteenth International Conference o f Labor Statisticians meeting in Geneva. The definitions represented an update and clarification o f standards set in 1954. For the text o f the 1982 resolution, see the ilo Web site at h t t p : //w w w .ilo .o r g /p u b lic / e n g lis h /1 2 0 s ta t/r e s /e c a c p o p .h tm . 7 The oecd W orking Party on Em ploym ent and Unem ploym ent Statistics has been influential in harmonizing the interpretation of the ilo guidelines among its member countries. In 1983, for example, the Work ing Party recommended that oecd countries fix the job search reference period at 4 weeks. At that time, countries were using reference periods varying from 1 week to 60 days. Since 1983, 4 weeks has become the common job search period in most oecd countries, eliminating an impor tant source o f incompatibility in unemployment statistics. 8 bls adjustment procedures are based upon data from the national labor force surveys o f Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Eurostat data are used directly for France and Germany. 9 Despite the preference for labor force survey data in international comparisons, administrative data may be used as a com ponent in the generation o f monthly comparative unemployment rates. For countries that carry out only quarterly or annual surveys, comparative monthly rates are produced from the monthly administrative data on registered unemploym ent, adjusted by information from the labor force surveys. This is the method currently used by the Bureau and Eurostat for France and Germany, for example. 10 Reading job ads on the Internet is becoming a popular method of searching for jobs in many countries. In the U.S. survey, such persons would be treated in the same way as persons reading newspaper ads and would not be counted as unemployed, unless they took a more active step, such as submitting a job application. 11 The relevant Eurostat search category is “studied advertisements in newspapers,” whereas Canada’s questionnaire uses “looked at job ads.” 12 Eurostat states in its definitions that “currently available” should mean “available to start work within 2 weeks o f the reference period.” Further elaboration in explanatory notes reveals that this m eans “2 weeks from the day o f the interview.” (See Th e E u r o p e a n U n io n L a b o u r F o r c e S u r v e y : M e th o d s a n d D e f in it io n s (Eurostat, 1996), pp. 13, 69.) 13 Information based on communication with Statistics Canada. (See also “The ur gap— small differences in measurement may matter,” L a b o u r F o r c e U p d a te vol. 2, no. 4 (Statistics Canada, autumn 1998), p. 33.) 14 Information based on communication with Statistics Sweden. 15 The earlier adjustments were described in detail in I n te r n a tio n a l C o m p a r is o n s o f U n e m p lo y m e n t, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, August 1978). 16 See Joyanna M oy and Constance Sorrentino, “Unem ploym ent, labor force trends, and layoff practices in 10 countries,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1981, pp. 3 -1 3 (esp. pp. 8 -11), for a discussion o f why the Bureau does not make adjustments for temporary layoffs in other countries. A ppendix: 17 “The ur gap,” pp. 3 1 -3 5 . 18 U.S. definitions specify that, in order to be classified as unem ployed, the person on layoff must expect to be recalled to the job in 6 months or the employer must have given the person a recall date. There is no time restriction on the latter. 19 “Supplem entary M easures o f U n em p loym en t,” L a b o u r F o r c e U p d a te , vol. 3, no. 3 (Statistics Canada, summer 1999), p. 32. 20 Lee Grenon, “Looking for Work,” in P e r s p e c tiv e s o n L a b o u r a n d I n c o m e (Journal o f Statistics Canada), autumn 1998, pp. 2 2 -2 5 . 21 L a b o u r F o r c e S u r v e y : M e t h o d s a n d D e f i n i t i o n s , 1 9 9 2 S e r i e s (Eurostat, June 1992). 22 “Job Search Statistics: The U.K. Perspective” (no author listed), paper presented at the July 6 -7 , 1998, m eeting o f the Paris Group on Labour and Compensation, London. 23 Andrew Clark, “Methods of Jobsearch by the Unemployed in oecd Countries,” paper presented at the 17th meeting of the Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Paris, April 22 and 23, 1999. 24 Communication from Statistics Denmark. 25 The estimated impact o f expanding the current availability w in dow in the United States is 0.1 percentage point, or 2 percent o f the unem ployed. 26 The figures are hypothetical for Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, because the bls adjustment procedure is not based on the Eurostat data for these countries. Instead, the procedure uses the various national labor force surveys. For France, Germany, and the Netherlands, the procedure uses the Eurostat data in combination with oecd data. 27 Phil R ones, “Com parison o f the Labor Market O utcom es o f Active and Passive Job Search,” paper presented at the July 6 -7 , 1998, meeting o f the Paris Group, London; see especially table 1. However, it was difficult to identify all passive jobseekers, because there are many paths through the cps questionnaire and some passive jobseekers would not have been presented with the question on current availability and hence would not have been included in the tabulation. 28 For a discussion and assessment o f the impact of the revised 1994 U .S. questionnaire, see Anne E. Polivka and Stephen M. M iller, “The cps after the R ed esign: R efo cu sin g the E con om ic L e n s,” in John Haltiwanger, Marilyn E. Manser, and Robert Topel (eds.), L a b o r S ta t is tic s M e a s u r e m e n t I s s u e s , National Bureau o f Economic Research, Stud ies in Incom e and Wealth, vol. 60 (C hicago, U niversity o f C hicago Press, 1998), pp. 2 4 9 -8 9 . 29 Elder and Sorrentino, “Japan’s low unemploym ent.” The four programs compiling international comparisons of unem ploym ent Comparisons of unemployment rates across countries “approxi mating U.S. concepts” were first made on a regular basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( b l s , the Bureau) in the early 1960s. During the late 1970s, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( o ec d ) entered the field, with its Standardized Unemployment Rates ( su r s ) program; the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) began a monthly comparative series in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the International Labor Office ( ilo ) initiated a program of annual iLO-Comparable Unem ployment Rates. All of these programs make adjustments in na tional data to a common conceptual base. The b l s program adjusts such data to U.S. concepts, while the other three comparative pro grams adjust their data to ilo concepts, with some variations in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis interpretation. Exhibit A -l (page 20) presents a synopsis of the four series. Rates based on the standardized data published by these four organizations used to be quite different for some countries; in recent years, however, the rates have converged to the point that they are virtually identical.1 In late 1996, the oecd accepted the Eurostat figures for the eu countries in its surs series. The iLO-Comparable series is meant to conform with the su r s , although the methodology has not been fully implemented.2 The one remaining significant dif ference among the three series was removed in October 1999 when the Bureau modified its comparative series for Germany to cover unified Germany. Previously, the Bureau had maintained its series for the former West Germany only. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 17 International Unemployment Rates ) Eurostat’s survey uses common definitions that are applied across the eu countries. Like the Bureau, the oecd and the ilo adjust national data for some, but not all, of the conceptual differences. All four agencies adjust the Swedish data by adding the students who are seeking work to the unemployed. Like the Bureau, the oecd and the ilo do not adjust for the different treatments of current availability and active job search, oec d ’s surs are on a “civilian labor force” basis, but some career military remain in the figures for the eu countries. The oecd makes no adjustment to exclude them. The ilo adjusts national data, where relevant, to include all unpaid family workers and all the Armed Forces (resident and stationed abroad) in the labor force, unless the numbers are very small. The latest tabulations of standardized bls and oecd rates are shown in tables A -l and A-2. Because the oecd surs are currently identical to the Eurostat figures for the eu countries, there is no need to show a separate Eurostat tabulation. The data from the il o Comparable series are not shown either, because, in theory, those data correspond to the oecd su r s . There are some small differences, however, in virtue of the il o ’s inclusion of all the Armed Forces in the labor force denominator. None of these organizations claim that perfect comparability has been achieved; nevertheless, they assert that, for international com parisons, their adjusted series form a better basis for analysis than the unadjusted national data available from each country. Table A -L The bls series is the longest in existence, but has the smallest cover age of countries among the comparative programs. Currently, 10 developed countries are included in the series. (See table A -l, which excludes one of the countries, the Netherlands, for which data are compiled only on an annual basis.) Companion variables, such as employment ratios and participation rates, are published in a semian nual compendium of labor force statistics.3 The bls series is expressed as “approximating U.S. concepts,” indi cating some inexactitude in the figures. In its H an d b o o k o f M eth o d s, the Bureau acknowledges that there are differences for which no adjust ments are made, most of which are very small in impact, but that the differences in interpretation of what constitutes a job search for qualifi cation for being classified as unemployed may be more significant.4 The bls adjustment process works on national labor force sur veys for Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. All of these countries have either monthly or quarterly labor force surveys. For France, Germany, and the Netherlands, the bls adjustments proceed from data published by Eurostat and the o ec d , rather than from the national data. It is more convenient to work from the international data for these countries for several reasons. For instance, France and Germany conduct only annual surveys, whereas the international organizations provide monthly Unemployment rates in nine countries, civilian labor force basis, approximating U.S. concepts, seasonally adjusted, 1990-2000 Y ear a n d qu a rte r or month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Bureau of Labor Statistics United States Canada Australia Japan France G e rm a n y ' Italy2 Sw eden United Kingdom ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5.6 6.8 7.5 6.9 36.1 5.6 5.4 4.9 8.1 10.3 11.2 11.4 10.4 9.4 9.6 9.1 6.9 9.6 10.8 10.9 9.7 8.5 8.6 8.6 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.4 9.1 9.6 310.4 11.8 12.3 11.8 12.5 12.4 5.0 35.6 6.7 7.9 8.5 8.2 8.9 9.9 7.0 36.9 7.3 310.2 11.2 11.8 11.7 11.9 1.8 3.1 5.6 9.3 9.6 9.1 9.9 10.1 6.9 8.8 10.1 10.5 9.7 8.7 8.2 7.0 1998 ................................ I .................................... II ................................... I l l .................................. IV .................................. 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.1 7.7 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.3 4.5 11.8 12.0 11.7 11.7 11.5 9.3 9.8 9.5 9.1 8.9 12.0 11.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 8.4 8.8 8.7 8.5 7.6 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 1999 ................................ I .................................... II ................................... I l l .................................. IV .................................. 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.1 7.0 P4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7 P11.1 11.3 11.2 11.0 10.6 P8.7 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 11.5 11.9 11.6 11.6 11.1 7.1 7.2 6.9 7.0 7.1 P6.1 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 October..................... November.................. December.................. 4.1 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.0 4.7 4.6 4.7 10.8 10.6 10.4 8.8 8.7 8.5 11.1 - 7.1 7.2 7.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 2000 I .................................... January..................... February.................... M arch......................... 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.9 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.0 10.0 10.3 10.0 9.8 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 11.3 11.3 - 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 1Unified Germany for 1991 onward. Prior to 1991, datea relate to the former West Germany. 2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. 3 Break in series. See notes in “Current labor statistics,” pp. 50-51, this issue. S ource : 18 Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 5, 2000. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ — N ote : Quarterly and monthly figures for France and Germany are cal culated by applying annual adjustment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. For further qualifications and historical data, see “Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, 10 Coun tries, 1959-1999,” April 17, 2000. p= preliminary. Dash indicates data not available. Table A-2. standardized unemployment rates, May 2000 release o ecd [Percent of civilian labor force unemployed] Q u arterly d a ta (seasonally adjusted) Country 1997 1998 1999 1999 Third quarter Fourth quarter 2000, first quarter Total oecd 1 ......... Canada ................ United States...... 7.4 9.1 4.9 7.1 8.3 4.5 6.8 7.6 4.2 6.8 7.6 4.2 6.6 7.0 4.1 Japan ................... Australia.............. New Zealand........ 3.4 8.5 6.7 4.1 8.0 7.4 4.7 7.2 6.8 4.7 7.1 6.8 4.7 6.7 6.3 4.8 6.7 Austria................. Belgium................ Czech Republic .... Denmark.............. Finland................. France................. Germany.............. Hungary............... Ireland................. Ita ly ..................... 4.4 9.4 4.8 5.6 12.6 12.3 9.9 8.9 9.9 11.7 4.5 9.5 6.5 5.2 11.4 11.8 9.4 8.0 7.6 11.9 3.7 9.0 8.8 5.2 10.2 11.3 8.7 7.1 5.8 11.4 3.6 9.0 9.0 5.1 10.0 11.2 8.7 7.1 5.7 11.2 3.6 8.8 9.2 4.9 10.1 10.8 8.7 7.0 5.3 11.1 3.5 4.9 10.4 10.4 8.4 5.0 - Luxembourg......... Netherlands......... Norway ................ Poland................. Portugal............... Spain.................... Sweden ................ Switzerland.......... United Kingdom .... 2.7 5.2 4.1 11.2 6.8 20.8 9.9 4.2 7.0 2.7 4.0 3.3 10.6 5.2 18.8 3.5 6.3 2.3 3.3 3.2 4.5 15.9 7.2 6.1 2.3 3.3 3.3 4.4 15.6 7.1 6.0 2.2 2.8 3.7 4.2 15.2 6.8 5.9 2.2 4.2 15.0 6.5 - Fifteen eu countries............ 10.6 9.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.8 8.3 6.6 6.8 4.1 - 8.6 ' Only the countries listed are Included. N ote : The standardized unemployment rates for the European Union (eu ) member countries are from Eurostat. The oecd Is responsible for the calculation of the standardized unemployment rates for the non-Eu countries. The latter have been adjusted when necessary and as far as the data allow, to bring them as close as possible to ilo (and Eurostat) guidelines for interna tional comparisons of labor force statistics. The standardized rates are, therefore, more comparable between countries than the unemployment rates published in national sources. Dash indicates data not available. S ource: oecd News Release, Standardised Unemployment Rates, May 12, 2000. estimates of unemployment under ilo concepts. And although the Netherlands conducts quarterly surveys, the national definitions diverge substantially from ilo concepts. The Bureau currently makes no adjustments to the Canadian data, and few adjustments are made to the data for the five eu countries covered in its program. The only adjustment the Bureau makes to unemployment figures is a rather large increase in the Swedish unemployed to add students seeking work and available for work, who are not counted as unemployed in Sweden. In 1998, when the national Swedish unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, the Bureau raised it to 8.4 percent for comparability with U.S. con cepts. (Eurostat makes a similar adjustment for Sweden.) Eurostat The eu labor force survey covers the 15 member countries.5 The survey is a joint effort by member states to coordinate their national surveys, which must also serve their own requirements. Many of the variables of a full labor force survey are published. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The survey questionnaires are not harmonized, and the wording and ordering of the questions differ. The Eurostat labor force survey is, in effect, a retabulation of the data from national surveys under Eurostat concepts. Generally, questions are added to the national survey instru ments so that Eurostat concepts can be obtained. Despite close coordi nation, inevitably some differences in the surveys remain from country to country. It is difficult for an outsider to assess the degree of compa rability achieved by Eurostat, which has not publicly documented the adjustments made to the national statistics. Eurostat states: Perfect comparability among 15 countries is difficult to achieve, even were it to be by means of a single direct survey, i.e. a survey carried out at the same time, using the same questionnaire and a single method of recording. Nevertheless, the degree of comparability of the eu labor force survey re sults is considerably higher than that of any other existing set of statistics on employment and unemployment available for Member States.6 Because of its unique ability to harmonize the eu country statistics, Eurostat is in a better position than the Bureau, the o ec d , or the ilo to claim that its adjusted unemployment rates are closely compa rable with each other. Also, the Bureau, the o ec d , and the ilo must contend with comparing the Eurostat data with data from countries that are outside the European Union. OECD SURS cover 24 of the organization’s 29 member countries, in cluding several Eastern European countries in transition. (See table A-2.) A full array of comparative variables is not yet part of the surs program. Only breakdowns of unemployment by sex are pub lished. The surs are presented as rates that “are more comparable be tween countries than the unemployment rates published in national sources.”7 The oecd notes that the Eurostat rates it adopted in 1996 are “based on slightly different data and methodology compared to the former standardized rates that were calculated by the o ec d .” 8 Currently, the oecd makes no adjustments to the U.S. or the Cana dian unemployment rate. oecd surs In its surs press releases, oecd states that data for non-EU coun tries “have been adjusted when necessary, and as far as [they] allow, to bring them as close as possible to ilo (and Eurostat) guidelines for international comparisons of labour force statistics.” ILO-Comparable series The ILO-Comparable series is unique in its coverage of both devel oped and developing countries. Currently, 32 countries are in the database, but data are published for only 24.9 The ilo claims that its data are consistent with the ilo guidelines for the measurement of employment and unemployment, “except where adjustments are negligible and therefore can be disregarded.”10 The program depends on national statistical offices to supply the data needed for adjustments. The ilo states, The impact of adjustments which appear necessary is looked at together with the total effect on the direction of the result ing labor force estimates and unemployment rates. Adjust ments are only recommended when it is clear that the factors they address are important; not where their impact is mar ginal, or tends to cancel out in combination with one or more other factor(s). Monthly Labor Review June 2000 19 International Unemployment Rates Exhibit A -1. Four standardized series on unemployment Category ILO Eurostat OECD BLS ILO-Comparable Unemployment Rates Name of series Unemployment Rates Approximating U.S. Concepts Standardized Unemployment Harmonized Unemployment Rates Rates ( s u r s ) First published Early 1960s Early 1980s Late 1980s Late 1980s Beginning year of data 1959 1974; 1982 for eu countries 1982 1981 Periodicity Annual, quarterly, and monthly Annual, quarterly, and monthly Annual, quarterly, and monthly Annual only Conceptual basis U.S. concepts General ilo concepts; Eurostat interpretation for eu Own interpretation of ilo concepts ILO concepts; accepts oecd SURS Labor force basis Civilian Civilian, but eu countries use Eurostat basis Civilian, but includes career military living in private households Total, including all members of Armed Forces, both regular and temporary Number of countries 10 24 15 32 in database, 24 published Other variables Age-sex unemployment rates, participation rates, employment ratios, employment by sector Unemployment rate by sex All variables of a full labor force survey Age-sex unemploy ment rates, participation rates, employment by sector Web site http ://sta ts.bls.gov/fls data.htm http ://w ww.oecd.org/news_ and events/new-num bers/ http://europa.eu.int/en/ http \ll laborsta.ilo.org home.htm (click on press releases for latest) The decision to adjust or not is agreed upon together with the national statistical offices. One of the premises of the iLO-Comparable program is that its data conform with the o e c d ’s s u r s . The program was designed that way to avoid the dissemination of dissimilar “comparable” statistics for the same countries. Since the autumn of 1996, how ever, when the o ec d adopted the Eurostat methodology and rates, the il o and o ec d figures have begun to diverge. The main diver gence is that the ilo continues to include the Armed Forces in the denominator of the unemployment rate calculation. The two or ganizations were to renew their collaboration in order to resolve the differences. Notes to the appendix__________________ 1 Differences are generally on the order o f 0.1 to 0.2 percentage point and are due to whether the Armed Forces are included or e x cluded and to technical factors, such as the m ethod o f interpolation and updating. and the United Kingdom. 6 T h e E u r o p e a n U n io n L a b o u r F o r c e S u r v e y : M e th o d s a n d D e f in i tio n s (Eurostat, 1996), pp. 11-12. 7 See note, table A -2. 2 See Sophia Lawrence, “iLO-Comparable annual employment and unemployment estimates (1999),” ilo B u lle tin o f L a b o u r S ta tis tic s , 19993, pp. XII-X III. 3 The compendium is available at the Web site noted in exhibit A-1. 4 H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2490 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, April 1997), pp. 1 12-13. 5 Austria, Belgium , Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, 20 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 “Standardized Unem ploym ent R ates,” oecd Q u a r te r ly L a b o u r F o r c e S ta t is tic s , second quarter 1999, p. 134. 9 The 24 countries for w hich data are published are Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong K ong (C hina), Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, the Republic o f Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, N orw ay, the P h ilip p in es, P olan d , P ortugal, R om an ia, S in gap ore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. 10 ilo B u lle tin , p. XI. Why are many jobless workers not applying for benefits? More than half o f those meeting the official definition o f unemployment do not fd e fo r unemployment insurance benefits— either because they think they are not eligible or because they are optimistic about finding a job Stephen A. Wandner and Andrew Stettner Stephen A. Wandner is an economist at the Employment and Training Administration ( eta), U.S. Department of Labor. Andrew Stettner formerly worked for eta as a research analyst. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis he proportion of unemployed individuals rates “have raised particular concern, in large receiving unemployment insurance (U l) part because they threaten the primary functions has dropped steadily over the past 40 of the ui system.”2 On the microeconomic level, years. Recipiency rates— the number of persons the decline in recipiency means that the UI receiving unemployment insurance benefits (from system is serving fewer workers as a temporary administrative data) divided by the total number wage replacement system. The decline in reci of unemployed persons (from Current Population piency also has an impact on the macroeco Survey data)— have provided a consistent mea nomic function of unemployment insurance. If sure of the ui program’s scope. Recipiency rates the recipiency rate does not increase substan averaged 49 percent in the 1950s, 42 percent in tially during a recession, the economy does not the 1960s, 40 percent in the 1970s, and 33 get a countercyclical infusion of consumer percent in the 1980s. The rate reached a low spending in response to an increase in total UI point of 28.5 percent in 1984, and since then it payments. The structure of the Extended Benefits pro has stayed above 30 percent, reaching a recent high of 35.1 percent in 1996.1 (See table 1.) This gram highlights the impact of the decline in trend has raised concerns among policymakers recipiency on the macroeconomic function of UI that the ui program has become less responsive benefits. The insured unemployment rate (IUR)— to U.S. workers. One explanation for the drop in the total number of continued unemployment recipiency rates is that fewer unemployed work insurance claims divided by the total number of ers are filing for ui benefits. Unemployed work employed covered by unemployment insurance— ers cannot receive benefits if they do not apply. is the statutory trigger used by the Extended However, very little is known about these Benefits program, which provides benefits be “nonfilers,” because they do not enter into the yond the normal 26-week maximum benefit dura tion period during times of economic downturn.3 UI system. This article reports on the results of two recent supplements to the Current Popula The long-term decline in ui recipiency rates tion Survey (CPS) that were designed to measure hampers the effectiveness of the Extended Bene the magnitude of nonfiling and to determine the fits program because the trigger rate is less likely reasons that many unemployed persons do not to cross the legal threshold during a recession. seek benefits. The supplements were jointly Understanding why individuals do not file for sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics benefits may inform current policy discussions about reforming the Extended Benefits program (BLS) and the Employment and Training Admin of the ui system. istration (ETA) of the Department of Labor. While a fair amount of research has been In its Report and Recommendations, the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compen published about the decline in recipiency rates, sation reported that declines in ui recipiency research on why individuals choose not to file Monthly Labor Review June 2000 21 Unemployment and Benefits Table 1. Unemployment insurance recipiency rates, 1968-98 Previous research [Numbers in thousands] Unem ploym ent Total Insured rate unem ploym ent unemployment Year R ecipiency rate 1968 .... 1969 .... 3.6 3.5 2,817 2,832 1,079 1,065 38.3 37.6 1970 .... 1971 .... 1972 .... 1973 .... 1974 .... 4.9 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.6 4,093 5,016 4,882 4,365 5,156 1,762 2,102 1,800 1,578 2,202 43.0 41.9 36.9 36.2 42.7 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .... .... .... .... .... 8.5 7.7 7.1 6.1 5.8 7,929 7,406 6,991 6,202 6,137 3,900 2,922 2,584 2,302 2,372 49.2 39.5 37.0 37.1 38.7 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .... .... .... .... .... 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 7,637 8,273 10,678 10,717 8,539 3,305 2,989 3,998 3,347 2,434 43.3 36.1 37.4 31.2 28.5 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 .... .... .... .... .... 7.2 7.0 6.2 5.5 5.3 8,312 8,237 7,425 6,701 6,528 2,561 2,607 2,265 2,048 2,114 30.8 31.6 30.5 30.6 32.4 1990 .... 1991 .... 1992 .... 1993 .... 1994.... 5.6 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.1 7,047 8,628 9,613 8,940 7,996 2,478 3,291 3,190 2,694 2,608 35.2 38.1 33.2 30.1 32.6 1995 1996 1997 1998 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.5 7,404 7,236 6,739 6,210 2,518 2,540 2,267 2,164 34.0 35.1 33.6 34.8 6.3 6,990 2,487 35.6 .... .... .... .... Average, 19689 8 ..... S ource : Data for insured unemployment from the Employment and Train ing Administration (eta); all other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). for benefits is quite limited. The two CPS supplements exam ined here were conducted in an effort to fill this gap in the research. This article is the first published report on the second supplement, conducted in 1993; the earlier survey was analyzed by Wayne Vroman in 1991.4 This article summarizes the results of both supplements and indicates the extent and limitations of our knowledge on nonfiling. In short, the survey confirms that nonfiling is a major policy issue: millions of unemployed workers know about the ui program but still do not apply. The results of this study support the notion that tighter ui eligibility standards played a large part in the decline of ui recipiency— most nonfilers do not apply for benefits because they think they are ineli gible. In addition, optimistic job expectations were found to be the second most common reason for nonfiling. Finally, the results indicate that reason for unemployment, age of unemployed workers, and duration of unemployment all in 22 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fluence the decision whether to apply for benefits. June 2000 In a study published in 1995, Daniel P. McMurrer and Amy Chasinov survey the major reasons for the long-term decline in ui recipiency.5 They conclude that, over the long term, crucial characteristics of the U.S. labor force have changed. For example, many workers have migrated to the Southeast and Mountain regions of the country, where UI recipiency rates are lower than the national average; UI recipiency rates vary dramatically from State to State, ranging from a high of 59.3 percent in Rhode Island to a low of 19.2 percent in Virginia in 1997. Also, employment has declined in industries in which ui recipiency rates are higher (such as in manufac turing, mining and construction), applying downward pres sure on the overall rates. In addition, unions play a key role in providing information about ui benefits, and as unioniza tion has dropped, so has UI recipiency. Over the longterm, the U.S. labor force has become younger, and it comprises more women and fewer heads of households— all factors contributing to lower recipiency rates. In 1991, Rebecca M. Blank and David E. Card analyzed the UI eligibility and recipiency behavior of unemployed indi viduals, using microdata from the Current Population Survey and the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics ( p s i d ).6 They matched the p s i d data on ui receipts, annual earnings, weeks and hours worked in the previous year, and reason for un employment (with State-specific eligibility requirements). For example, reported earnings and hours are used to estimate whether workers would qualify under their State’s earnings and hours regulations. With this procedure, the authors deve loped rough estimates of the fraction of ui-eligible employ ment for 1977-87; the estimates are rough because the data fail to accurately measure all monetary and nonmonetary criteria.7 Using this method, these analysts found that the fraction of unemployed workers eligible for UI benefits remained constant over the 1977-87 period— 41.7 percent in 1977 and 41.5 percent in 1987. Over the same period, however, the fraction of unemployed individuals receiving benefits dropped from 31.2 percent in 1977 to 27.3 percent in 1987. Blank and Card conclude that the “take-up rate”—the proportion of eligible unemployed workers who file for and receive benefits— has declined. They estimate that the take-up rate declined from almost 75 percent in the 1977-82 period to 67 percent in the 1982-87 period. Furthermore, Blank and Card found that the take-up rate varies from 48 percent in the Mountain Region to 85 percent in the Mid-Atlantic Region, leading them to conclude that regional shifts in unemployment may account for as much as half of the national decline in the take-up rate and the recipiency rate. Much of the variation in take-up rates, however, is left unexplained by the study. To the extent that their algorithm is correct, Blank and Card’s results highlight the nonfiling issue. Only nonfiling can decrease the take-up rate, because nonfiling is the only reason eligible workers do not receive benefits. Blank and Card test their eligibility algorithm by comparing their results with supplemental questions about unemployment insurance from the psid . In 69 percent of cases, self-reported Ul eligibility matched Blank and Card’s imputed eligibility, indi cating that the estimates are reasonably accurate. Of eligible nonrecipients of benefits, Blank and Card report that onethird do not file because they do not want the hassle of “government red tape,” one-third did not need the money or expected to have another job soon, and one-tenth simply chose not to apply. Gary Burtless and Daniel H. Saks performed an early analysis of the decline in ui recipiency, using data from the Ul administrative files and from the CPS.8 They concluded that the long-term decline in Ul benefits was due in large part to the increasing number of women and young people that entered the labor market in the 1970s, because young people and women historically are less likely than men to receive benefits. The authors assert that eligibility restrictions and deterred filing were responsible for the accelerated decline in recipiency rates during the early 1980s. Important eligibility and related restrictions include the taxation of Ul benefits, the implementation of a “waiting week,” and stricter enforcement of work search and other nonmonetary eligibility require ments. Burtless and Saks predicted that Ul recipiency would remain below historical levels for the foreseeable future. In another study (1988), Walter Corson and Walter Nicholson made quantitative estimates of the impact of different factors on the decline in ui recipiency rates, using State- and national-level data.9 Their analysis focused on the sharp drop in ui recipiency rates in the early 1980s. They estimate that changes in State policy— specifically, tighter monetary eligibility requirements, decreased income cutoff (by counting pension and social security income), and tougher nonmon etary eligibility requirements— account for about 40 percent of this decline in ui recipiency. Corson and Nicholson estimate that Federal policy changes— namely, the taxation of benefits— account for 11 to 16 percent of the decline. In addition, changes in the geographic distribution and industry experience of unem ployed workers account for 5 to 20 percent of the decline. Background on the supplements Previous research has come to the consensus that the de cline in ui recipiency can be attributed, at least in part, to eligibility restrictions and changes in the characteristics of the unemployed population, such as union status, place of residence, age, and gender. While these studies indicate the importance of nonfiling, they provide only crude explanations https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of why unemployed individuals choose not to file for bene fits. To further understand nonfiling, the Employment and Train ing Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics col laborated on two supplements to the Current Population Survey. The first supplement was conducted in late 1989 and early 1990, and the second was conducted in 1993. The CPS, a monthly survey of about 50,000 households, provides stan dard measures of unemployment for the Nation and its regions. To find out more information about particular labor market issues, special supplements periodically are added to the CPS.10 Both supplements asked questions about whether experi enced unemployed persons filed for ui benefits and whether they received ui benefits; if they did not apply, they were asked their reasons for not filing. Adding these questions to the labor market queries in the basic CPS makes it possible to combine information about benefit application and recipiency with a rich array of employment and demographic variables, including reason for unemployment, age, gender, and marital status.11 The second CPS supplement represented an effort to extend the scope and accuracy of the earlier survey. The first supplement (1989-90) The first CPS supplement on nonfiling, reported on by Wayne Vroman in 1991, consisted of seven questions posed to approximately 3,000 households, each of which included at least one unemployed individual.12 The selected households were rotating out of the CPS in May, August, and November 1989, and February 1990. The first three questions were yes/ no questions that asked whether the person had applied and/ or received Ul benefits. The next three questions asked appro priate respondents (1) why they had not received ui benefits, (2) why they did not apply for ui benefits, and (3) why they did not think they were eligible for ui benefits. The answers from the supplement were cross-tabulated with other important factors that influence benefit applica tion and receipt: reason for unemployment, duration of unemployment, gender, and age. In terms of reason for unemployment, one-half of the unemployed were job losers who either had been laid off or had lost their job for some other involuntary reason. The other half were classified either as job leavers (those who had left thenlast job voluntarily and thus were unlikely to be eligible for benefits) or as “reentrants” into the labor force (those who had not worked recently but who currently were actively seeking employment). Only about one-third (34 percent) of the unemployed in the sample reported applying for benefits. As expected, job losers (who are the most likely to be eligible for unemploy ment benefits) were the most likely to apply for benefits; job losers were about 5 times more likely than job leavers to apply for ui benefits (53 percent versus 11 percent). Appli- Monthly Labor Review June 2000 23 Unemployment and Benefits cation rates also rose with duration of unemployment. Those who had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more were 3 times more likely to have applied for benefits than those unem ployed for only 1 or 2 weeks. Age also is related to the application rate for benefits: men aged 16 to 19 years seldom applied for benefits (3 percent), while nearly half (48 percent) of those aged 25 and older did. Also, men were more likely than women to apply for benefits (38 percent versus 28 percent). Vroman’s analysis states that the difference prob ably relates to the greater incidence of job losing among unemployed men than among unemployed women.13 (See table 2.) Only about a quarter of the experienced unemployed reported receiving ui benefits. Even among job losers aged 25 years and older (the group most likely to be eligible for UI benefits), less than half received benefits.14 As expected, reentrants and job leavers were among the least likely to have received benefits. Interestingly, only about three-quarters of all those who applied reported actually receiving benefits. Clearly, some of the unemployed who applied for benefits were found to be ineligible, or else they had found a job before they received any benefits. The main purpose of the 1989-90 survey was to ascertain the major reasons that so many (66 percent) unemployed individuals do not file for benefits. First, more than half (53 Table 2. Unemployment insurance application and recipiency rates by age, sex, and reasons for and duration of unemployment, 1989-90 [In percent] C haracteristic A p p lica tio n Rate R ecipien cy Rate Total unemployed.......................... 34.0 24.0 53.0 11.0 14.0 39.0 6.0 20.0 Men, 16 years and older............ Men, 16 to 19 years................ Men, 20 to 24 years................ Men, 25 years and o ld e r......... 38.0 3.0 24.0 48.0 28.0 1.0 14.0 36.0 Women, 16 years and older....... Women, 16 to 19 years........... Women, 20 to 24 years........... Women, 25 years and o ld e r.... 28.0 8.0 17.0 36.0 20.0 3.0 11.0 26.0 18.0 29.0 38.0 43.0 53.0 5.0 16.0 32.0 37.0 42.0 Reason for unem plo ym ent: Job losers................................... Job leavers................................. Reentrants.................................. G ender an d age: Duration of unem ploym ent: 1 to 2 weeks............................... 3 to 4 weeks............................... 5 to 10 weeks............................. 11 to 26 weeks........................... 27 weeks or m ore....................... S ource: Wayne Vroman, The Decline in Unemployment Insurance Claims Activity in the 1980s, Unemployment Insurance Occasional Papers 91-2 (U.S. Department of Labor, January 1991). 24 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 percent) of nonfilers surveyed in the first supplement stated that they did not apply because they thought they were not eligible for benefits. Other than this reason, the results of the 1989-90 supplement demonstrate that several plausible “com mon-sense” reasons do not have a great impact on the decision to file for benefits. For example, only about 3 percent of the unemployed did not apply for benefits be cause they thought it was “too much of a hassle.” Contrary to the belief that their might be a “welfare stigma” associated with UI benefits, less than 3 percent of nonfilers responded that they did not apply because they felt ui was “too much like charity.” Also, the unemployed do not appear to be igno rant of ui benefits: less than 3 percent responded that they did not apply for ui benefits because they did not know about them. (See table 3.) A substantial number of nonfilers (14 percent) surveyed in 1989 and 1990 stated that they did not apply because they expected to have a job soon. The fact that a substantial por tion of nonfilers expect to have another job is particularly noteworthy. If the rate of job turnover among the unemployed changes over time, this may partly explain changes in the ui recipiency rate. Vroman speculates that as the economy be comes more fluid and individuals change jobs more frequently, recipiency rates will remain low.15 However, from the first supplement it was not clear whether these nonfilers expected to be called back to their former jobs, whether they had new jobs lined up, or whether they were just optimistic about thenjob prospects. Despite these important results, the 1989-90 survey pro vided a somewhat incomplete explanation of why individuals did not apply for ui benefits. For example, 20 percent of responses to the questions about reason for nonfiling were classified as “other” or “don’t know.”16 Given that explaining nonfiling was the central purpose of the survey, this level of uncertainty was disappointing. The four main response cat egories provided by the survey did not account for the experiences of 1 out of 5 of the nonfilers surveyed in 1989— 90. Administrative data containing wage records would be the best data source for determining the monetary eligibility of nonfilers. Wage records and other information relating to nonmonetary eligibility criteria from State regulations would enable researchers to determine the true eligibility of nonfilers. In the absence of this hard data, both surveys collected selfreported reasons for ui ineligibility. The 1989-90 survey provided four possible responses to the question “Why are you ineligible for benefits?”: “didn’t work enough,” “no recent job,” “quit last job,” and “fired from last job.” All other responses were classified as “other.” Slightly more than half of nonfilers (50.5 percent) responded that they were ineligible because they did not work enough. (This does not mean that these workers are “truly” monetarily ineligible be- Table 3. Percent distributions of reasons for nonfiling by duration of and reason for unemployment, 1989-90 [Numbers in thousands] Reason for U n e m p loym en t Duration of u n em p lo ym en t (in w eeks) Total nonfilers Reason N u m b e r of Percent persons distribution Total............................. Didn’t think eligible........ Have another jo b .......... Plan to file ..................... Didn’t know about ui...... Too much hassle........... Too much like charity.... Previously exhausted.... O ther............................. Don’t know..................... No answer..................... 3,670 1,938 514 62 98 103 90 64 397 321 83 100.0 52.8 14.0 1.7 2.6 2.8 2.5 1.7 10.8 8.7 2.3 1 to 2 w ee ks 3 to 4 w ee ks 100.0 47.5 23.0 3.7 1.1 2.2 1.6 1.5 10.0 6.6 2.9 100.0 51.5 12.2 1.9 4.5 3.7 2.3 1.0 12.1 9.5 1.3 5 to 10 w ee ks 11 to 26 w ee ks 27 w ee ks or m ore 100.0 53.0 10.5 .2 2.5 2.3 3.6 1.9 12.8 10.5 2.8 100.0 62.2 8.0 .7 3.3 2.8 3.5 1.7 6.3 9.8 1.8 100.0 58.4 8.9 .0 1.5 3.7 .7 4.8 11.9 7.4 2.2 Job losers 100.0 45.0 18.8 4.0 3.1 4.7 2.4 3.2 9.0 7.5 2.4 Job lea vers 100.0 53.1 17.6 .4 2.4 1.5 3.5 .1 10.0 9.3 2.2 Reentrants 100.0 59.9 7.1 .4 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.5 13.1 9.5 2.1 S ource : Wayne Vroman, The Decline in Unemployment Insurance Claims Activity in the 1980s, Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 91-2 (U.S. Department of Labor, January 1991). cause not all unemployed workers know the earnings require ments of the States where they worked.) Among the different reasons for unemployment, job losers were the most likely (75 percent) to think that they did not work enough. Not surpris ingly, more than 3 in 5 (62 percent) job leavers indicated that they thought they were ineligible because they had quit their last job. The “other” category accounted for 12 percent of the total responses. (See table 4.) To recap, the two principal findings of the 1989-90 supple ment were that perceived ineligibility and optimism about find ing a job were the most common reasons respondents gave for nonfiling. In addition, the supplement provided data show ing that ignorance of the Ul system and the feeling that there was too much stigma or hassle involved in applying for benefits accounted for only a very small proportion of nonfilers. Still, from the list of possible responses, 20 percent of nonfilers answered either “don’t know” or “other” when asked why they had not filed, leaving room for improvement in the follow up supplement, conducted in 1993. The second supplement (1993) The first supplement did not include in its list of possible choices several important reasons that individuals failed to file for or to receive Ul benefits, including several important nonmonetary criteria that are now being more vigorously enforced in many States.17 The first supplement also did not determine whether nonfilers who expected to have a job actually had a job in hand, whether they expected to be called back to work, or whether they simply were confident that they would find a job. Thus, eta sponsored a second supplement, which was conducted byBLSin 1993. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Design o f the 1993 supplement. On the basis of lessons learned from the first supplement, designers of the 1993 supplement reformulated and refined the questionnaire, hop ing to get improved results the second time around. In particular, several of the questions included additional re sponse categories designed to obtain more specific informa tion about why respondents had not filed for ui benefits. The new structure also allowed for a more complete explana tion of nonmonetary and monetary reasons for ineligibility and the job expectations of nonfilers. Like its predecessor, the 1993 supplement was administered in 4 nonconsecutive months; in this case, the months chosen were February, June, August and November, with a total sample of about 4,500 respondents. The supplemental ques tions were administered to experienced unemployed in dividuals— persons who had previously worked for 2 weeks or more on either a full-time or a part-time job.18 As in the earlier supplement, unemployed respondents were asked if they had applied for and/or received Ul benefits; it also included follow-up questions to determine reasons for non filing and ineligibility. In addition to the survey, the initial research plan called for matching administrative wage files to the CPS data. Such a match would enable researchers to determine the conso nance between “perceived” (survey) and “true” (adminis trative) eligibility. The research attempted to match these sources by asking CPS respondents to volunteer their Social Security number, which could be used to access the State administrative Ul wage files. Economic context o f the 1993 supplement. Table 5 gives some overall perspective on the unemployment situation in 1993. The group studied—the experienced unemployed— Monthly Labor Review June 2000 25 Unemployment and Benefits were more likely to be male, more likely to be job losers, and also were older than the total unemployed population. Be cause the sample population was more experienced in the labor market than the total unemployed population, the recipiency rate among the sample (35 percent) was higher than that among the total unemployed population (30 per cent). The second supplement was conducted while the eco nomy was just beginning to recover from the 1990-91 recession: monthly unemployment averaged close to 9 mil lion, and the unemployment rate stayed close to 7 percent throughout the year. In contrast, when the earlier supplement was conducted, the number of unemployed persons totaled 7 million, and the unemployment rate hovered around 6 percent. Because recessions increase layoffs, a higher pro portion of the unemployed in 1993 were job losers than in 1990— 60 percent versus 52.3 percent. Results of the 1993 supplement Tables 6 and 7 display application and recipiency rates, respectively, by gender, reason for unemployment, and dura tion of unemployment in 1993. Less than half (46 percent) of the experienced unemployed applied for benefits, compared Table 4. with one-third in 1990. Two facts help explain the increase in ui application rates: a greater proportion of the unemployed were job losers in 1993, and the economic prospects facing unemployed individuals were less favorable in 1993 than in 1990. Accordingly, recipiency rates also significantly in creased from 1990 to 1993. For example, one-third of experi enced unemployed persons received benefits in 1993, com pared with one-fourth in 1990. Like in 1990, job losers (63 percent) in 1993 were more likely to apply for benefits than were either job leavers (25 percent) or reentrants into the labor market (18 percent).19 Job leavers and reentrants were the least likely to receive benefits (13 percent and 11 percent, respectively). The duration of unemployment had the same expected impact on application rates as in the earlier supplement: The longer individuals are unemployed, the more likely they are to need benefits and to apply for them. More than half of those unemployed for 27 weeks or more received benefits in 1993, compared with 17 percent of those who were unemployed for 3 or 4 weeks. Age was also strongly correlated with nonfiling. For example, only 6 percent of unemployed individuals aged 16 to 19 applied for benefits, compared with 56 percent of those Self-reported reasons given for perceived ineligibility by reason for unemployment, 1989-90 [Numbers in thousands] Total Job losers Job leavers Reentrants Reason Number Total............................... Didn’t work enough........... Quit last jo b ....................... No recent jo b .................... Fired from last jo b ............. O ther................................. No answer.......................... N ote : 1,938 980 627 66 20 231 15 Percent Number 100.0 50.5 32.3 3.4 1.0 11.9 .1 589 442 34 11 14 85 2 Percent totals may not sum to exactly 100 percent due to rounding. Wayne Vroman, The Decline in Unemployment Insurance Claims S ource : Table 5. Percent 100.0 75.0 1.9 2.3 2.4 14.4 3.4 Number Number Percent 506 158 313 0 0 29 6 100.0 31.2 61.8 .0 .0 5.7 1.2 Percent 844 380 281 54 6 117 7 100.0 45.0 33.2 6.3 .1 13.8 0.8 Activity in the 1980s, Unemployment Insurance Occasional Papers 91-2 (U-S. Department of Labor, January 1991). Experienced unemployed persons by age, sex, and reasons for and duration of unemployment, 1993 [Numbers in thousands] Duration of un em p lo ym en t (in w eeks) A g e a n d sex 0 to 2 weeks Total, 16 years and older............ Men, 16 years and o ld e r......... 16 to 19 years................... 20 to 24 years................... 25 years and o ld e r............ Women, 16 years and o ld e r.... 16 to 19 years.................... 20 to 24 years.................... 25 years and o ld e r............ 26 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Reason for U ne m p loym en t Total 7,843 4,446 380 709 3,358 3,396 326 544 2,528 June 2000 1,219 630 98 132 400 589 74 104 412 3 to 4 w ee ks 1,444 773 119 175 478 671 91 110 470 5 to 10 w ee ks 1,587 857 85 148 624 730 87 162 481 11 to 26 weeks 27 w ee ks or m ore Job losers Job lea vers 1,790 1,033 52 141 839 757 45 108 603 1,803 1,154 26 112 1,016 649 28 60 561 4,713 3,006 119 385 2,502 1,707 80 201 1,425 947 526 72 103 351 421 59 81 281 Reentrants 2,183 915 189 220 505 1,268 187 262 820 Table 6. Percent of unemployed persons filing for benefits (application rate) by age, sex, and reasons for and duration of unemployment, 1993 W om en Men Duration of unem ploym ent Total, 16 years a n d older Total....................................... 0 to 2 w eeks....................... 3 to 4 w eeks....................... 5 to 10 weeks...................... 11 to 26 weeks.................... 27 weeks and over............. 16 years a n d older 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 years a n d older 16 years a n d older 16 to 19 years 45.6 23.5 29.2 45.4 57.8 61.7 50.6 25.3 34.1 50.3 64.1 63.5 6.6 7.3 9.4 4.3 (2) (2) 35.2 26.8 19.1 34.3 46.7 56.9 58.8 29.3 45.7 60.4 71.0 65.6 39.0 21.6 23.6 39.6 49.1 58.3 6.1 (2) 0.0 8.6 (2) (2) 25.9 13.3 15.8 31.8 35.4 (2) 46.1 27.0 30.0 47.8 54.4 63.2 Job losers.............................. 0 to 2 w eeks....................... 3 to 4 w eeks....................... 5 to 10 weeks..................... 11 to 26 weeks.................... 27 weeks and over............. 62.7 39.5 47.7 65.7 69.0 73.1 64.0 39.8 50.5 67.7 71.1 72.2 16.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 53.4 46.8 38.1 (2) 56.3 (2) 67.9 39.1 58.0 73.7 74.8 72.4 60.4 39.1 42.8 62.6 65.3 74.8 15.3 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 52.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 64.1 43.0 47.5 65.3 68.1 77.5 Job leavers............................ 0 to 2 w eeks....................... 3 to 4 w eeks....................... 5 to 10 weeks..................... 11 to 26 weeks.................... 27 weeks and over............. 24.9 6.6 20.4 12.4 44.3 45.2 27.5 7.6 22.7 10.6 47.2 55.3 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 10.1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 37.4 (2) 32.9 (2) 60.2 (2) 21.7 5.5 17.4 15.1 41.1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 6.8 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 30.5 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Reentrants1............................ 0 to 2 w eeks....................... 3 to 4 w eeks....................... 5 to 10 weeks..................... 11 to 26 weeks.................... 27 weeks and over............. 17.5 9.1 9.8 21.4 25.5 26.7 19.7 2.6 8.1 25.7 37.6 27.1 1.2 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 15.1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 28.6 5.1 14.7 35.5 51.6 30.5 16.0 12.9 10.9 18.4 16.9 26.3 4.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 11.4 (2) (2) 11.2 (2) (2) 20.2 15.2 15.0 25.6 20.5 28.9 1 A small number of reentrants actually were experienced part-time workers classified as new entrants in the 1993 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000. Table 7. 20 to 24 years 25 years a n d o ld er cps . Percent of unemployed persons receiving benefits (recipiency rate) by age, sex, and reasons for and duration of unemployment, 1993 Duration of unem ploym ent Total, 16 years a n d older Total.................................. 0 to 2 w eeks................. 3 to 4 w eeks................. 5 to 10 weeks................ 11 to 26 weeks.............. 27 weeks and over........ 35.1 6.5 16.6 35.7 49.4 54.7 Job Losers....................... 0 to 2 w eeks................. 3 to 4 w eeks................. 5 to 10 weeks................ 11 to 26 weeks.............. 27 weeks and over........ Men 16 years a n d older W om en 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 years a n d older 16 years a n d older 38.8 5.3 19.1 42.3 53.2 55.0 0.8 .0 .0 3.7 (2) (2) 22.3 10.4 7.9 22.3 33.9 44.0 46.6 4.9 27.9 52.4 59.7 54.2 30.3 7.8 13.7 27.9 44.3 58.3 50.6 9.9 27.7 54.9 61.8 67.5 51.1 7.5 27.3 60.0 62.2 65.6 2.6 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 36.4 18.1 18.3 (2) 45.2 (2) 55.6 5.2 33.6 66.7 66.1 66.1 Job Leavers...................... 0 to 2 w eeks................. 3 to 4 w eeks................. 5 to 10 weeks................ 11 to 26 weeks.............. 27 weeks and over........ 13.4 1.9 9.2 1.3 26.5 32.2 15.3 3.2 14.4 1.8 23.5 37.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 3.6 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Reentrants1....................... 0 to 2 weeks............... 3 to 4 weeks............... 5 to 10 weeks............. 11 to 26 weeks........... 27 weeks and over...... 11.2 3.9 5.8 14.1 18.0 17.4 12.2 1.5 5.4 17.7 24.3 13.9 .0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 6.3 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 years a n d older 2.9 (2) 0.0 1.8 (2) (2) 18.0 3.2 5.0 22.0 31.4 (2) 36.5 10.4 18.4 34.5 49.1 58.8 49.8 13.9 28.3 47.2 61.0 71.3 9.7 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 37.3 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 53.9 16.9 33.0 51.0 63.9 73.7 21.9 (2) 22.4 (2) 30.0 (2) 11.0 0.6 2.1 0.7 29.8 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 5.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 14.9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 19.4 3.0 13.3 25.3 37.5 16.1 10.4 5.3 6.1 11.7 13.5 21.5 .8 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 7.1 (2) (2) 5.9 (2) (2) 13.6 6.4 9.6 17.1 16.0 24.0 1A small number of reentrants actually were experienced part-time workers classified as new entrants in the 1993 CPS. 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 27 Unemployment and Benefits aged 25 years or older. Among unemployed persons aged 20 to 24, 30 percent applied for benefits. Younger unemployed individuals are less likely to be eligible for benefits because they work and earn less than older adults, and they may be more likely to leave their jobs for reasons that disqualify them from receiving ui benefits. Reasons for unemployment. As in 1990, not all individuals who filed for benefits in 1993 received them; the number of applicants exceeded beneficiaries by more than 800,000 indi viduals. These results are very similar to the 1989-90 supple ment: about 3 in 4 ui applicants reported receiving benefits in 1993. The discrepancy between filing for and receiving benefits is greatest among job leavers. A little more than half (54 percent) of job-leaving applicants received benefits in 1993, compared with 84 percent of job losers.20 Many job leavers apply for benefits and then are ruled ineligible, probably because they do not realize that their reason for unemployment disqualifies them. Reasons for nonfiling. The 1993 supplement was designed primarily to improve our knowledge of the reasons for nonfiling. Table 8 shows the population estimates and per centages for answers to the question “Why didn’t you file for benefits?” As in 1990, the most common reason for nonfiling in 1993 was perceived ineligibility— either because the respon dents thought they had not worked enough hours or because they had voluntarily left their previous jobs. Optimistic job expectations were the second most common reason for nonfiling. In an effort to reduce some of the uncertainty in the earlier supplement, six additional possible response cate gories were added in 1993 to answer the question “Why didn’t you file for benefits?” The additional responses related mostly to nonmonetary reasons for nonfiling and included the following: “didn’t need the money,” “wasn’t able to work,” “wasn’t actively seeking work,” “wasn’t available for work,” “unable to report to unemployment office,” and “refused to accept suitable work.” With the additional possible answers, only 13 percent of responses in 1993 were classified as “other” or “don’t know”— a reduction in uncertainty from the 1989-90 survey of more than 30 percent. The number of respondents who indicated “don’t know ” as the reason they did not file was reduced by half— from 321,000 (8.7 percent) in 1990 to 155,000 (3.8 percent) in 1993. No single response was responsible for the reduction in uncertainty; of the new options, “was not able to work” was the most common response, but it only accounted for about 2 per cent o f the total responses. Ineligibility. 28 It was hoped that a more complete picture of Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 ineligibility among nonfilers could be constructed from the data gathered in the 1993 supplement. The first effort to accomplish this goal attempted to match the survey data with State administrative wage data, but several obstacles arose. First, the matching was attempted in just six States, and only about one-third of the sample respondents lived in one of these States. Further, about half of those surveyed refused or gave no response to the Social Security number request. With such limited data, the match was determined to be inef fective and too costly to complete. Thus, the 1993 survey did not determine whether those individuals who believed they were ineligible were, in fact, ineligible. Like the earlier survey, the 1993 supplement relies on self-reported data for informa tion on eligibility. Based on their experience in 1989-90, the designers of the 1993 CPS supplement expected a large response rate of “didn't think eligible” to the question “Why didn’t you file for benefits?” As a result, they included an additional question about the reasons for ineligibility in the 1993 survey to allow those answering “didn’t think eligible” to refine their re sponses. Some of the possible responses to the follow-up question— for example, that they had voluntarily left thenprevious jobs, or that they were not actively seeking work— repeated the responses to the earlier question. For this reason, table 10 consolidates tables 8 and 9 and divides the responses into three categories: reasons for ineligibility, job expectations, and “other.” The consolidated reasons given for ineligibility were little different in 1993 than those given in the earlier supplement. In both surveys, about half (51 percent in 1989-90 and 50 percent in 1993) thought they were ineligible because they had not worked or earned enough. Also, both surveys showed that nearly 30 percent of respondents said they were ineligible because they had voluntarily left their last job (28 percent in 1993 and 29 percent in 1989-90). Thus, monetary ineligibility appears to have had a greater impact on nonfiling than nonmonetary ineligibility, with many workers reporting that they had not worked or earned enough to meet the UI eligibility requirements. The 1993 survey provided additional response categories to the probe question asking why individuals did not think they were eligible. Several of the new response options— “was not able to work,” “was not actively seeking work,” “was not available for work,” and “refused to accept suitable work”—relate to stricter nonmonetary continuing eligibility requirements imposed by State ui programs in the 1970s and 1980s. Overall, more than 6 percent of nonfilers gave these nonmonetary reasons for their ineligibility. At least from this analysis, then, these nonmonetary reasons had a small but measurable impact on discouraging workers from filing for benefits. Regarding other aspects of ineligibility, both surveys yielded Table 8. Main reasons given for nonfiling by reason for unemployment, 1993 [Numbers in thousands] Jo b losers Total R eentrants1 Job leavers Reason N um ber Total nonfilers.................................................... Didn’t think eligible................................................ Didn’t work or earn enough.................................... Voluntarily left last jo b ........................................... Expects to have a job s o o n .................................. Expects to be recalled from the last employer..... Didn’t need the money........................................... Too much work or hassle....................................... Didn’t know about Ul or how to apply................... Was not able to work............................................. Too much like charity or welfare............................ Plans to file for unemployment compensation s o o n ..................................................................... Used up or exhausted all benefits......................... Discharged for misconduct.................................... Was not available to w o rk..................................... Was not actively seeking work.............................. Unable or failed to report to unemployment o ffic e .................................................................... Refused to accept suitable work........................... O ther...................................................................... Don’t know............................................................. No answer............................................................. Percent Num ber Percent Num ber Percent N um ber Percent 4,064 1,368 680 481 306 123 77 73 73 62 45 100.0 33.7 16.7 11.8 7.5 3.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.1 1,639 562 252 39 167 105 17 49 21 2 29 40.3 34.3 15.4 2.4 10.2 6.4 1.0 3.0 1.3 .1 1.8 690 212 65 213 68 (2) 18 13 4 11 8 17.0 30.7 9.4 30.9 9.9 .0 2.6 1.9 .6 1.6 1.2 1,736 594 362 228 71 18 41 11 47 21 8 42.7 34.2 20.9 13.1 4.1 1.0 2.4 .6 2.7 1.2 .5 40 39 34 34 32 1.0 1.0 .8 .8 .8 38 31 26 2 8 2.3 1.9 1.6 .1 .5 0 1 (2) (2) 5 .0 .1 .0 .0 .7 2 7 8 32 19 .1 .4 .5 1.8 1.1 28 2 353 155 59 .7 .0 8.7 3.8 1.5 9 (2) 137 82 30 .5 .0 8.4 5.0 1.8 (2) (2) 36 22 12 .0 .0 5.2 3.2 1.7 20 (2) 179 50 17 1.2 .0 10.3 2.9 1.0 ' A small number of reentrants actually were experienced part-time workers classified as new entrants in the 1993 cps . 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000. Table 9. Self-reported reasons for Ul ineligibility by reasons for unemployment, 1993 [N u m b e r s in th o u s a n d s ] Total Job Losers R een tran ts 1 Job Leavers Reason Number Percent Num ber Percent Total ineligible..................................... 2,673 100.0 896 100.0 Number Percent 506 100.0 Number 1,258 Percent 100.0 Didn’t work or earn enough...................... 1,325 49.6 571 63.7 123 24.3 631 50.2 Voluntarily left last jo b .............................. 754 28.2 76 8.5 328 64.8 351 27.9 Was not able to work................................ 89 3.3 23 2.6 11 2.2 41 3.3 Was not available to w o rk ........................ 55 2.1 6 .7 na (2) 49 3.9 Was not actively seeking work................ 48 1.8 15 1.7 5 1.0 28 2.2 Discharged for msconduct........................ 44 1.6 36 4.0 (2) (2) 8 .6 Labor dispute............................................ 8 .3 5 .6 3 .6 (2) (2) Refused to accept suitable w ork............. 2 .1 2 .2 (2) (2) (2) (2) Didn’t think eligible for benefits, but no other information available................ 348 13.0 162 18.1 36 7.1 150 11.9 1 A small number of reentrants actually were experienced part-time workers classified as new entrants in the 1993 cps . 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 29 Unemployment and Benefits Table 10. Consolidated responses: reasons for nonfiling by reason for unemployment [Numbers in thousands] Total Job losers Reentrants ' Job leavers Reason Total Nonfilers....................................... All Ineligible reasons consolidated.......... Didn’t work or earn enough.................. Voluntarily left last jo b ......................... Didn’t think eligible or qualified, but no further Information available......... Was not able to w o rk........................... Was not available to w o rk................... Was not actively seeking w o rk........... Discharged for misconduct.................. Labor dispute other than a lockout..... Refused to accept suitable work......... All job expectations reasons consolidated........................................... Expects to have a job soon................ Expects to be recalled from the last employer............................................. All other reasons consolidated............... Didn’t need the m oney......................... Didn’t know about UI or how to apply... Too much work or hassle...................... Unable or failed to report to unemployment office.......................... Too much like charity or welfare.......... Plans to file for unemployment compensation s o o n ............................ Used up or exhausted all benefits...... Other.................................................... Don’t know............................................ No answer............................................ Num ber Percent 4,064 2,673 1,325 754 100.0 65.8 32.6 18.6 1,637 911 571 76 100.0 55.6 34.8 4.6 690 506 123 328 100.0 17.0 36.3 20.2 1,736 1,258 631 351 100.0 72.5 36.3 20.2 348 89 55 48 44 8 2 8.6 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.1 .2 .0 162 38 6 15 36 5 2 9.9 1.4 .4 .9 2.2 .3 .1 36 11 (2) 5 0 3 (2) 8.6 2.4 (2) 1.6 (2) .0 (2) 150 41 49 28 8 (2) (2) 8.6 2.4 2.8 1.6 .5 (2) (2) 429 306 10.6 7.5 272 167 16.6 10.2 68 68 9.9 9.9 90 71 5.1 4.1 Num ber Percent Num ber Percent N um ber Percent 123 3.0 105 6.4 454 17 21 49 27.7 1.0 1.3 3.0 (2) 16.5 2.6 0.6 1.9 1.0 23.6 1.9 1.8 1.8 (2) 114 18 4 13 18 961 77 73 73 390 41 47 11 22.4 2.4 2.7 .6 47 45 1.2 1.1 20 29 1.2 1.8 (2) 8 (2) 1.2 27 8 1.6 .5 40 39 353 155 59 1.0 1.0 8.7 3.8 1.5 38 31 137 82 30 2.3 1.9 8.4 5.0 1.8 (2) 1 36 22 12 (2) .1 5.2 3.2 1.7 2 7 179 50 17 .1 .4 10.3 2.9 1.0 1A small number of reentrants actually were experienced part-time workers classified as new entrants in the 1993 CPS. 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000. roughly similar results: In terms of self-reported information, the main reasons given for ineligibility are nearly identical, although the surveys were conducted at two very different points in the business cycle. In both surveys, some individuals believe they are ineligible but do not indicate why. In 1993, 13 percent of ineligible nonfilers were not able to give a reason why they thought they were ineligible for benefits. As expected, the reasons for ineligibility varied by reason for unemployment. Job losers were the most likely to believe they were ineligible because they had not worked enough. Nearly two-thirds of ineligible job losers indicated this reason, and very few job losers indicated they were ineligible because they had voluntarily left their last jobs. On the other hand, job leavers were the most likely to believe that they were ineligible because they had voluntarily left their last jobs. About twothirds gave this response, and only a quarter said they were ineligible because they had not worked enough. Job expectations. In both surveys, the second most com mon reason for nonfiling was job expectations. In the earlier 30 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 survey, about 14 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had not applied for ui benefits because they “have another job.” It is important to understand the source of these job expectations. The 1993 survey aimed to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the job expectations of non filers. (Due to the size limitation of the CPS supplement, e t a could not add an additional question to probe job expecta tions of nonfilers. Such a question could have addressed the strength of these job expectations.) The key issue examined is whether individuals expect to be called back to work and therefore are not bothering to apply for ui benefits, or whether they simply are confident that they are going to find a job with a new employer soon. The 1993 survey found that of the total estimated 429,000 individuals who did not apply for ui benefits because they expected to have another job in 1993 (10.6 percent of all nonfilers), most of them (71 percent) expected to find a new job rather than to be called back to their former employer (29 percent). As Vroman argued in his 1991 study, job turnover—moving from one employer to another— seems to be an important reason for nonfiling. Job losers are the most likely to expect to be recalled by their old employer-6.4 percent of nonfiling unemployed job losers in 1993 did not apply for ui benefits because they expected to be recalled by their last employer. Intuitively, one might expect this percentage to be higher because job losers have been laid off. However, recall that expectations are not a major explanatory factor for nonfiling among job losers. Only 10 percent of nonfiling job leavers do not file be cause they expect to have a job soon, compared with 17 percent of nonfiling job losers. For job leavers, nearly all of their job expectations relate to new opportunities. Finally, reentrants were the least likely to be influenced by future job expectations, with only 5 percent of nonfiling reentrants identifying job expectations as their reason for nonfiling. w eakens both the macroeconomic and microeconomic functions of the ui benefits system. If unemployed persons do not file for benefits, the ui system cannot help stabilize the economy or act as a wage replacement system for workers looking for jobs that suit their skills and ex perience. The two CPS supplements discussed in this article greatly expanded our knowledge of the crucial issue of nonfiling. The magnitude of nonfiling remains large and varies with economic conditions. Between 55 and 65 percent (depending on the business cycle) of experienced unemployed workers do not file for benefits. Most of these nonfilers either left their jobs voluntarily or are reentering the labor market and thus are likely to be ineligible for benefits. However, a N o n filin g substantial proportion of workers who were laid oif from their jobs— the most likely group of unemployed workers to be eligible for benefits— also chose not to file for ui benefits. This research effort was able to explain most of the rea sons for nonfiling. Due to refinements in the questionnaire, the 1993 survey was able to explain 87 percent of all nonfiling behavior, compared with 80 percent in the earlier survey. The inability to complete a planned data match between adminis trative wage data and the survey respondents left some ques tions unanswered. Further research is needed to examine ad ministrative monetary eligibility for nonfilers to check the accu racy of the perceptions of unemployed workers. In addition, such research could gauge the effect that the level of benefits and the benefit-replacement ratio have on nonfiling. The 1993 survey points out how difficult it is to test the accuracy of perceptions of monetary eligibility because of the difficulty of matching data sets with the surprisingly small samples of matches. Despite this limitation, it would be useful to conduct further nonfiler surveys to account for changes that have occurred since 1993, particularly with the introduction of new reasons for unemployment included in the revised CPS, and with the likelihood of reduced motivation for nonfiling resulting from the introduction of telephone filing for ui benefits. Still, these two surveys provide a base of knowl edge for policy discussion about ui recipiency rates and point toward ineligibility and job expectations as the major determinants of nonfiling. □ Notes 1 For consistency, recipiency rates are defined in this article in the same way that they are in Wayne Vroman, The D e c lin e in U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e C la im s A c t iv it y in th e 1 9 8 0 s , Unemployment Insurance Occa sional Paper 9 1 -2 (U.S. Department o f Labor, January 1991). Thus, the recipiency rate is aggregate insured unemployment divided by total unem ployment. This is a different measure than the insured unemployment rate ( iur ), which equals continued claims (for regular program unemploy ment benefits) divided by total covered employment. (See note 3.) 2 Advisory Council on Unem ploym ent Com pensation, R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n s (U.S. Department o f Labor, February 1994). 3 The Insured U n em p loym en t Rate ( iu r ) is differen t from the “recipiency rate” referred to in this paper, iur is the percentage o f cov ered workers that are claiming ui insurance benefits. Over the years, the number o f covered workers has increased (the denominator of the iur ), which has depressed the iu r . The recipiency rate is a “purer” measure of the coverage o f the unemployed: it refers to the ratio o f unemployed insured individuals to the total number o f unemployed individuals. 4 The Bureau o f Labor Statistics produced a report on the 1993 survey, “Unemployment Insurance Recipients” on July 16, 1997. Wayne Vroman analyzed the 1 9 8 9 -9 0 survey in T h e D e c li n e in U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a n c e C la im s A c tiv it y in th e 1 9 8 0 s , Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 9 1 -2 1 , (U.S. Department o f Labor, 1991). 5 Daniel P. McMurrer and Amy Chasanov, “Trends in unemployment insurance benefits,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1995, pp. 30-39. 6 Rebecca M. Blank and David E. Card, “Recent Trends in Insured and Uninsured Unemployment: Is There an Explanation?,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , November 1991, pp. 1157-89. 7 Blank and Card remark on two major limitations o f their estimates. First, the March Supplement to the cps measures earnings in the previous calendar year, while ui eligibility is determined by the 4 quarters preceding the initial claim. Thus, Blank and Card do not have accurate data for those individuals who began their unemployment spell in the same calendar year as the survey. Second, the imputation m isses several important elements of eligibility, including job search requirements or workers fired for cause. 8 Gary Burtless and Daniel H. Saks, “The Decline in Insured Unem ployment during the 1980s” (Brookings Institution, March 1984). 9 Walter Corson and Walter Nicholson, A n E x a m in a tio n o f th e D e c lin in g u i C la im s D u r in g th e 1 9 8 0 s , Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 8 8 -3 , September 1988. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 31 Unemployment and Benefits 10 In the C P S , part o f the sample is changed each month. Each monthly sample is divided into eight representative subsamples or “rotation groups.” A given rotation group is interviewed for a total o f 8 months, divided into two equal periods. Households are in the sample for 4 consecutive months, out o f the sample for the follow ing 8 consecutive months, and finally back in the sample for 4 consecutive months. In each monthly sample, one o f the eight rotation groups is in the first month o f enumeration, another rotation group is in the second month, and so on. Households in their fourth and eighth consecutive months are part o f the “outgoing rotation groups.” When supplements are administered, households in the outgoing rotation groups are eligible for the supplemental questions. For more information on the c p s , see b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2490 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, April 1997), pp. 4-14. 11 The d ecision to conduct the first o f the nonfiler studies flow ed from Secretary Ann M cLaughlin’s seminar on unemployment insurance on June 27, 1988, which dealt with the issue o f why so few unemployed individuals were then collecting ui benefits. The seminar presented the study by Corson and Nicholson (see note 9); during discussion, the issue o f the extent o f nonfiling was raised by business and labor representa tives, who ultimately recommended a survey o f nonfilers. Then-Com m issioner o f Labor Statistics Janet N orwood, who was attending the seminar as a member of the public, agreed to conduct the survey. See U.S. Department o f Labor, T h e S e c r e t a r y ’s S e m in a r o n U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e , Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 89-1 (U.S. D e partment o f Labor, 1989), pp. 5 4 -5 5 . 12 Wayne Vroman, T h e D e c li n e in U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e C la im s A c t i v i t y in th e 1 9 8 0 s , Unem ploym ent Insurance O ccasional Paper 9 1 21, (U .S. Department o f Labor, January 1991). 32 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. Table 2 summarizes tables 3 and 3A from the study by Vroman; com plete cross-tabulations from the 1989-90 supplement can be found there. 15 Ibid. 16 “I don’t know” response rate may be higher because o f a weakness in the research design. The Bureau of the Census surveys households (not individuals) for the cps , and thus the person answering the supple mental questions may not be the actual unemployed individual residing in the house. 17 See Christopher J. O ’Leary and Stephen A. Wandner, U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e in th e U n ite d S ta t e s : A n a ly s i s o f P o l i c y I s s u e s (W. E. Upjohn Institute for Em ployment Research, K alamazoo 676. mi, 1997), p. 18 There w as a m inor problem w ith the d efin itio n o f “e x p e r i enced unem ployed.” U nem ployed individuals who responded “never worked full tim e 2 w eek s or m ore” (as op p osed to never w orked) w ere in clu d ed in the u n iverse for su p p lem en tal q u estio n s. T hus, som e o f the ca ses are c la s s ifie d as n ew entrants b ased on their reason for u n em p loym en t. 19 Most o f the persons classified as reentrants are new entrants into the labor market. A small number were experienced part-time workers who could be classified as “new entrants” in the C P S in 1993. 20 This is the ratio o f column 1 in table 7 to column 1 in table 6. Flexible Schedules Flexible schedules and shift work: replacing the ‘9-to-5’ workday? Flexible work hours have gained in prominence , as more than a quarter o f all workers can now vary their schedules; however; there has been little change in the proportion who work a shift other than a regular daytime shift Thomas M. Beers Thomas M. Beers is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis raditionally, much of the American labor force has worked in a structured environ ment, with the work schedule following a set pattern— what many people have termed the “9-to-5” workday. Recent studies show that em ployers are beginning to recognize that many w orkers prefer schedules that allow greater flexibility in choosing the times they begin and end their workday. Consequently, increasing num bers and proportions of full-tim e workers in the U nited States are able to opt for flexible work hours, allow ing w orkers to vary the ac tual times they arrive and leave the work place. For some w orkers, however, the nature of their jobs requires that they w ork a schedule other than a regular day shift, w hat may be termed an “alternative shift.”1 Examples of such alter native shift w orkers are police officers, em er gency room p h y sician s, and assem bly-line w orkers at a factory. In contrast to the increasing proportion of workers with flexible work schedules, the inci dence o f shift work has not changed since the m id-1980s. If not for the sizable job gains in service occupations, the overall proportion of workers on shift work would have edged down in recent years. Recent data on flexible work hours and shift work are from information collected in the May 1997 supplement to the Current Population Sur T vey (C P S ).2 This article uses that supplement to examine both the incidence and trends in flexible work hours and alternative shift work and, also, the relationship between the jobs in which people work and the prevalence of these digressions from the more traditional “9-to-5” workday. Flexible work schedules In 1997, more than 25 m illion workers, or 27.6 percent of all full-tim e wage and salary w ork ers varied their work hours to some degree. Note that flexible schedule arrangem ents for many w orkers are probably inform al, as indi cated by data from the Bureau o f Labor Statis tics Em ployee Benefits Survey (E B S ), in which em ployers p rovide in fo rm atio n ab o u t em ployee access to various types of w ork-related benefits. The latest ebs data, from 1994-97, show that less than 6 percent of employees have fo r mal flexible work schedule arrangements.3 CPS data show that the proportion of w ork ers on flexible work schedules— either form al or inform al— has m ore than doubled since 1985, when such data were first c o lle c te d .4 The increase in flexible w ork schedules since then has been w idespread across dem ographic groups. The follow ing tabulation shows the percent of w orkers, by age and race and H is panic origin, who work flexible schedules: Monthly Labor Review June 2000 33 Flexible Schedules 1985 1991 1997 Total, 16 years and o ld er..... 12.4 M e n ............................... .. 13.1 W o m en .......................... ..11.3 Hispanic o rig in ............ .. 8.9 15.1 15.5 14.5 10.6 27.6 28.7 26.2 18.4 Race and Hispanic origin: W h ite............................. .. 12.8 B lack.............................. .. 9.1 Hispanic o rig in ............ ...8.9 15.5 12.1 10.6 28.7 20.1 18.4 Although there has been relatively little difference in the pro portions of men and women with flexible schedules during the 1985-97 period, whites have been more likely than blacks or Hispanics to have flexible work schedules. (See table 1.) Occupations. To some degree, these differences reflect the varying occupational distributions of each of the worker groups. Generally, jobs with higher frequencies of flexible hours are those in which work can be conducted efficiently, regardless of the w orkers’ start and end times. For instance, flexible work hours are most common among workers in ex ecutive, administrative, and managerial occupations, and for those in sales occupations— 42.4 percent and 41.0 percent, respectively. (See table 2.) The incidence of flexible work hours is lower for groups of workers in occupations in which the nature of the work dictates that it begin and end at set times, for example, nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, and certain m anufacturing operations. As stated, the unique occupational distributions of the various demographic groups affect the overall proportion of workers on flexible work schedules within these respective groups. For example, as can be seen above, flexible work hours are considerably more prevalent among whites than either blacks or Hispanics. At first glance, this is not surpris ing because whites are most likely to be in managerial and professional specialty occupations, in which flexible hours are most common. Furthermore, blacks and Hispanics are highly represented in the category of operators, fabricators, and laborers. Because of the nature of the work, historically, this category is one that fails to lend itself to the practice of flexible schedules. Because flexible schedules appear to be closely associ ated with particular occupations, it is worth investigating whether the recent increases in the proportion of workers with flexible work schedules reflect an increase in employ ment in occupations with high occurrences of flexible work schedules or an increase in the availability of flexible work hours across occupations. A shift-share analysis was ap plied to determine the portion of the increase that was due to changes in occupational employment and the portion that was due simply to an increased incidence of flexible work hours. Less than 3 percentage points of the total increase were a result of shifts in occupational em ploym ent. This suggests, therefore, that the majority of the increase was spurred by the increased incidence of flexible work sched ules within occupations; indeed, this phenomenon occurred in nearly every occupational category. Race. In order to estimate how much of the difference in the rate of flexible work schedules between blacks and whites is accounted for by differences in occupations, a standardiza tion was performed. This process showed that if blacks had the same occupational distribution as whites (at the most detailed level of occupational classification), then the rate of black workers on flexible work schedules would have been 20.5 percent, instead of 20.1 percent; the difference between the rates for whites and blacks would have been 7.9 percent age points instead of 8.6 percentage points. A similar analy sis was performed in which the white rates of flexible work by occupation were applied to the black occupational distribu tion. Results show that, in each job category, if blacks were as likely as whites to be able to vary hours, then the overall black rate would rise to 24.4 percent, or 4.3 percentage points higher. This would have reduced the overall difference be tween blacks and whites to 4.3 percentage points. While even at the detailed level there may be differences in jobs held by blacks and whites, these findings suggest that fac tors other than occupational employment contribute to the disparity in access to flexible schedules. A brief description of flexible work arrangem ents There are several types o f form al flexible work arrange m ents. One type is a “ gliding schedule” that requires a specified num ber of hours o f work each day but allows em ployees to vary the tim e of their arrival and departure, usually around an established set o f m andatory “core hours.” O ther types of flexible work arrangements include variable-day and variable-w eek schedules that usually require a specified num ber of hours per pay period. These types o f w ork schedules frequently are grouped under the um brella term “flexitim e.” U nder these plans, em ploy ees are perm itted to choose the num ber of hours they 34 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis wish to work each day or each week. Credit or com pensa tory tim e arrangem ents allow em ployees who accum u late overtim e hours to apply those hours to future time off from work, rather than receiving the overtim e rate for those hours. The presence of one or m ore of these ar rangem ents in the w orkplace does not necessarily ex clude the others; many can be used in conjunction with other flexible work arrangements. (For more information, see A tefah Sadri M cC am pbell, “ B en efits A chieved Through A lternative Work Schedules,” Human Resource Planning, 1996, Voi. 19.3.) T a b le 1. Flexible schedules of full-time wage and salary workers by selected characteristics, May 1997 All workers Men With flexible schedules C haracteristic W om en With flexible schedules Total Total With flexib le schedules Total Num ber Percent 90,549 1,640 88,909 8,462 25,208 26,755 19,596 7,778 1,110 10,102 71,559 8,888 25,031 339 24,692 1,923 7,161 7,781 5,355 2,129 344 2,262 20,296 2,473 27.6 20.7 27.8 22.7 28.4 29.1 27.3 27.4 31.0 22.4 28.4 27.8 52,073 1,050 51,023 4,968 14,721 15,434 10,806 4,431 662 6,018 40,961 5,094 14,952 177 14,774 1,111 4,231 4,730 3,118 1,334 251 1,288 12,078 1,585 28.7 16.9 29.0 22.4 28.7 30.6 28.9 30.1 38.0 21.4 29.5 31.1 75,683 10,884 9,635 21,698 2,191 1,769 28.7 20.1 18.4 44,495 5,323 6,283 13,186 1,068 1,147 21,721 53,369 15,459 5,523 15,358 4,150 25.4 28.8 26.8 12,746 32,756 6,571 55,251 35,298 19,852 15,446 14,824 10,208 5,542 4,666 26.8 28.9 27.9 30.2 31,266 20,807 10,820 9,986 Num ber Percent Num ber Percent 38,476 590 37,886 3,494 10,486 11,321 8,790 3,347 448 4,084 30,598 3,794 10,079 161 9,918 812 2,931 3,051 2,237 796 93 973 8,218 888 26.2 27.4 26.2 23.2 27.9 26.9 25.4 23.8 20.7 23.8 26.9 23.4 29.6 20.1 18.3 31,188 5,561 3,352 8,512 1,123 622 27.3 20.2 18.5 3,180 10,077 1,695 24.9 30.8 25.8 8,975 20,613 8,888 2,343 5,281 2,456 26.1 25.6 27.6 8,596 6,356 3,211 3,146 27.5 30.5 29.7 31.5 23,985 14,491 9,032 5,459 6,228 3,851 2,331 1,520 26.0 26.6 25.8 27.8 Age Total 16 years and o ld e r........... 16 to 19 years.......................... 20 years and older.................. 20 to 24 years....................... 25 to 34 years....................... 35 to 44 years....................... 45 to 54 years....................... 55 to 64 years....................... 65 years and older............... 16 to 24 years......................... 25 to 54 years......................... 55 years and o ld e r................. R ace a n d Hispanic origin White.......................................... Black.......................................... Hispanic origin ........................... M arital status Never married............................. Married, spouse present........... Other marital status.................. P resence a n d a g e of ch ildren Without own children under 18.... With own children under 1 8 ....... With own children 6 to 1 7 ....... With own children under 6 ...... N ote : Data relate to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers who were at work during the survey reference week and exclude all self-employed persons, regardless of whether or not their businesses were incorporated. Data reflect revised population controls used in the Current Population Survey effective with the January 1997 estimates. Industry. To a lesser degree, the prevalence of flexible work Shift w ork schedules also varied by industry. These schedules were more common among private sector employees than among those in the public sector (28.8 percent versus 21.7 percent) in 1997. In the public sector, Federal government employees (34.5 percent) were more likely than their counterparts in State government (29.4percent) or local government (13.1 percent) to have a flexible schedule. The rate for local government workers reflects the fact that local governments provide ser vices that are often rigidly scheduled. More than half of those employed in local governments work in the field of education, in which the nature of the work for most employ ees prohibits flexibility (only 7.6 percent of workers in educa tion, the largest component of local government employment, could vary work hours). Within private industry, the propor tion of workers with flexible schedules was higher in serviceproducing industries (31.7 percent) than in goods-producing industries (23.3 percent), reflecting the more rigid work hours in manufacturing, construction, and mining. Although most workers report usually working between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., more than 15 million, or 16.8 per cent of all full-time wage and salary workers, worked alterna tive shifts. The most prevalent alternative shifts were the evening shift (accounting for 4.6 percent of all full-time wage and salary workers), for which work hours typically fall be tween 2 p.m. and midnight, and irregular shifts (3.9 percent) for which employers schedule shifts to fit the needs of the business for a particular time. Other shifts worked included night shifts (3.5 percent) for which work hours fall between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., and rotating shifts (2.9 percent) that change periodically from days to evenings or nights. (See table 3.) As with flexible work schedules, the nature of the work is a major determinant of whether the worker is scheduled on an alternative shift. Hence, shift work is highly prevalent within certain occupations and industries and almost entirely ab sent from others. Alternative shifts were most common among https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 35 Flexible Schedules T a b le 2. Flexible schedules of full-time wage and salary workers by occupation and industry, May 1997 [Numbers in thousands] Total Total Total Num ber With flexible schedules With flexible schedules With flexible schedules O c c u p a tio n a n d Industry W om en Men All workers Num ber Percent Num ber Percent Percent Occupation Managerial and professional specialty............ Executive, administrative, and managerial.... Professional specialty.................................... Mathematical and computer scientists......... Natural scientists.......................................... Teachers, college and university.................. 27,384 13,469 13,915 1,308 507 494 10,651 5,705 4,947 772 327 320 38.9 42.4 35.5 59.0 64.5 64.7 13,882 7,213 6,668 887 353 330 6,407 3,251 3,156 549 240 224 46.2 45.1 47.3 61.9 68.0 68.0 13,502 6,255 7,247 421 154 164 4,245 2,454 1,791 223 87 95 31.4 39.2 24.7 53.0 56.2 58.2 Technical, sales, and administrative support... Technicians and related support.................... Sales occupations.......................................... Sales workers, retail and personal services.. Administrative support, including clerical ...... 25,779 3,376 9,001 3,165 13,402 7,828 1,040 3,687 951 3,101 30.4 30.8 41.0 30.0 23.1 9,992 1,724 5,106 1,428 3,162 3,613 611 2,315 464 687 36.2 35.4 45.3 32.5 21.7 15,787 1,651 3,895 1,737 10,240 4,215 429 1,372 487 2,414 26.7 26.0 35.2 28.0 23.6 Service occupations........................................ Private household........................................... Protective service.......................................... Service, except private household and protective............................................... Food service.................................................. Health service............................................... Cleaning and building service........................ Personal service............................................ 9,313 308 1,891 1,906 125 314 20.5 40.5 16.6 4,754 21 1,619 831 16 254 17.5 1 15.7 4,559 287 272 1,075 109 60 23.6 37.8 22.2 8,855 2,777 1,466 2,000 871 1,934 630 258 326 254 21.8 22.7 17.6 16.3 29.1 4,665 1,441 205 1,252 216 986 263 26 208 63 21.1 18.3 12.9 16.6 29.0 4,190 1,336 1,261 749 655 947 366 232 117 191 22.6 27.4 18.4 15.7 29.2 Precision production, craft, and repair............ Mechanics and repairers................................ Construction trades........................................ Other precision production, craft, and repair.. Operators, fabricators, and laborers............. Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors..................................................... Transportation and material m oving............... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers.................................................. 11,519 3,863 4,069 3,587 14,812 2,023 708 718 596 2,156 17.6 18.3 17.7 16.6 14.6 10,506 3,672 3,996 2,839 11,388 1,861 658 707 497 1,815 17.7 17.9 17.7 17.5 15.9 1,013 192 74 748 3,424 162 50 12 99 342 16.0 26.3 6,813 4,351 702 961 10.3 22.1 4,359 4,064 521 914 12.0 22.5 2,454 287 181 47 7.4 16.3 3,648 494 13.5 2,965 379 12.8 683 114 16.7 Farming, forestry, and fishing.......................... 1,742 466 26.8 1,552 426 27.4 190 41 21.6 Private sector.................................................. Goods-producing industries............................ Agriculture..................................................... Mining............................................................ Construction.................................................. Manufacturing................................................ Durable goods............................................... Nondurable goods.......................................... 75,612 25,925 1,492 541 5,389 18,503 11,179 7,324 21,795 6,033 448 122 1,218 4,245 2,572 1,673 28.8 23.3 30.0 22.6 22.6 22.9 23.0 22.8 45,023 19,458 1,265 473 4,974 12,747 8,148 4,599 13,284 4,640 373 106 1,086 3,074 1,944 1,131 29.5 23.8 29.5 22.4 21.8 24.1 23.9 24.6 30,589 6,466 227 68 415 5,756 3,031 2,725 8,511 1,393 74 16 132 1,170 629 542 27.8 21.5 32.8 1 Service producing industries............................ Transportation and public utilities.................. Wholesale trade.............................................. Retail trad e ..................................................... Eating and drinking places............................ Finance, insurance, and real estate.............. Services......................................................... Private households........................................ Business, automobile, and repair................. Personal, except private household............. Entertainment and recreation........................ Professional services.................................... Forestry and fisheries................................... 49,687 6,088 3,969 12,111 3,135 5,857 21,662 391 5,060 1,627 1,051 13,497 36 15,763 1,669 1,281 3,745 987 2,096 6,971 148 1,607 522 397 4,286 11 31.7 27.4 32.3 30.9 31.5 35.8 32.2 37.7 31.8 32.1 37.8 31.8 1 25,565 4,518 2,854 6,812 1,758 2,288 9,094 42 3,319 749 619 4,336 29 8,644 1,215 979 1,988 497 1,028 3,434 27 1,118 227 231 1,820 11 33.8 26.9 34.3 29.2 28.2 44.9 37.8 24,122 1,570 1,115 5,299 1,377 3,569 12,568 350 1,740 878 432 9,161 7 7,118 454 302 1,757 490 1,068 3,537 120 489 295 167 2,465 - 29.5 28.9 27.1 33.2 35.6 29.9 28.1 34.4 28.1 33.7 38.5 26.9 - 21.7 34.5 29.4 13.1 7,050 1,621 1,856 3,573 1,668 535 606 527 23.7 33.0 32.7 14.8 7,887 1,208 2,270 4,410 1,568 442 608 519 19.9 36.6 26.8 11.8 13.3 10.0 Industry 14,937 3,236 Government..................................................... 977 2,828 Federal............................................................ 1,214 4,125 State............................................................... 1,046 7,983 Local................................................................ 1 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. N ote : Data relate to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers who were at work during the survey reference week and exclude all self-employed persons, regardless of whether or not their businesses were 36 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 33.7 30.3 37.3 42.0 1 31.8 20.3 20.7 19.9 incorporated. Data reflect revised population controls used in the Current Population Survey effective with the January 1997 estimates. Dashes represent zero. T a b le 3. Shift usually worked by full-time wage and salary workers by selected characteristics, May 1997 [Percent distribution] A lte rn ativ e shift workers Total workers (in thousands) Regular da ytim e schedule Total Evening shift N ight shift Rotating shift Split shift Total 16 years and o ld e r.................. 16 to 19 years................................ 20 years and o ld e r......................... 20 to 24 years.............................. 25 to 34 years.............................. 35 to 44 years.............................. 45 to 54 years.............................. 55 to 64 years.............................. 65 years and older....................... 16 to 24 years................................ 25 to 54 years................................ 55 years and o ld e r......................... 90,549 1,640 88,909 8,462 25,208 26,755 19,596 7,778 1,110 10,102 71,559 8,888 82.9 66.4 83.2 75.7 82.8 84.0 85.2 84.8 83.8 74.2 83.9 84.7 16.8 32.9 16.5 23.7 16.7 15.8 14.6 15.0 16.2 25.2 15.8 15.1 4.6 12.5 4.5 7.6 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 8.4 4.2 3.8 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.3 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 5.3 3.3 2.6 2.9 4.0 2.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.0 3.4 2.9 2.4 0.4 .9 .4 .3 .4 .4 .3 .6 .3 .4 .4 .6 3.9 8.8 3.8 6.3 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.3 4.7 6.7 3.6 3.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 .9 1.3 1.4 1.4 2.1 3.3 1.0 1.4 2.2 Men................................................. Women............................................ 52,073 38,476 80.5 86.1 19.1 13.7 5.0 4.1 4.0 2.8 3.5 2.2 .4 .3 4.4 3.1 1.7 1.0 75,683 10,884 9,635 83.6 78.5 83.6 16.1 20.9 16.0 4.3 6.5 5.4 3.2 5.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 2.1 .4 .4 .3 3.9 4.0 3.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 Men: Never married................................. Married, spouse present................ Other marital status........................ 12,746 32,756 6,571 77.1 82.5 77.3 21.9 17.3 22.1 7.0 3.9 6.6 4.4 3.6 5.1 3.2 3.6 3.6 .4 .4 .5 5.9 3.9 4.2 1.1 1.9 2.0 Without own children under 1 8 ...... With own children under 1 8 ........... With own children 6 to 17............ With own children under 6 ........... 31,266 20,807 10,820 9,986 79.8 81.6 82.8 80.3 19.6 18.3 17.1 19.7 5.5 4.2 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.5 .4 .5 .3 .6 4.6 4.1 3.8 4.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 Women: Never married.................................. Married, spouse present................ Other marital status........................ 8,975 20,613 8,888 79.8 89.2 85.4 19.8 10.7 14.5 6.2 3.1 4.5 4.0 2.3 2.9 3.2 1.8 2.0 .2 .3 .3 4.6 2.3 3.6 1.3 .9 1.1 Without own children under 1 8 ...... With own children under 1 8 ........... With own children 6 to 17............ With own children under 6 ........... 23,985 14,491 9,032 5,459 85.0 87.9 88.4 87.1 14.7 12.0 11.4 12.9 4.6 3.4 2.7 4.5 2.6 3.2 3.4 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.6 .3 .4 .4 .3 3.6 2.4 2.3 2.6 1.2 .8 .7 1.0 C haracteristic Em ployera rra n g ed irregular schedules O th er shifts A g e a n d sex R a c e a n d Hispanic origin White................................................. Black................................................. Hispanic origin .................................. M a rital status a n d p re s e n c e a n d a g e of ch ildren N ote : Data relate to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers who were at work during the survey reference week and exclude all self-employed persons, regardless of whether or not their businesses were occupations that provide services that are needed at all hours— such as protective service (55.1 percent) and food service (42.0 percent)— and among those employed as operators, fabricators and laborers (27.0 percent). (See table 4.) In con trast, teachers, construction workers, and executives and ad ministrators were among the least likely to work an alterna tive shift. Similarly, the incidence o f shift work was much greater among industries providing services used at all hours of the day as opposed to “9-to-5” industries. For instance, about 47.2 percent of the total labor force employed in eating and drinking places worked an alternative shift, as did 35.9 per cent in transportation, and 25.8 percent in hospitals. Con versely, shift work was much less common in industries such https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis incorporated. Data reflect revised population controls used in the Current Population Survey effective with the January 1997 estimates, as finance, insurance, real estate, construction, and agricul ture— industries in w hich m ost w ork is done during the daytime. Some goods-producing industries operate on extended production schedules and therefore had high proportions of workers on alternative shifts. In many of these industries, it is more costly to shut down the production process at the end of the day and restart the next morning than it is to sim ply operate on extended, and in some cases, around-the-clock production cycles.4 Among industries with a high frequency of shift work were paper products (33.3 percent), automo biles (31.3 percent), and mining (24.8 percent). Shift work occurred less frequently in the public sector than in the private sector, and varied little across Federal, Monthly Labor Review June 2000 37 Flexible Schedules T a b le 4 . Shift usually worked by full-time wage and salary workers by occupation and industry, May 1997 [Percent distribution] A lte rn ativ e shift workers O c c u p a tio n a n d Industry Total workers (in thousands) Regular da ytim e schedule Total Evening shift N ight shift Rotating shift Split shift Em ployera rra ng ed irregular schedules O ther shifts O c c u p a tio n 27,384 90.4 9.4 1.7 1.3 1.7 0.3 2.9 1.6 13,469 13,915 1,308 507 494 91.7 89.1 94.9 94.0 86.1 8.1 10.7 4.6 6.0 13.9 1.4 2.0 .2 .9 .6 .7 1.7 .3 1.0 .5 1.7 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .4 2.9 2.7 3.0 1.8 1.5 4.0 1.3 1.9 1.6 2.5 4.9 25,779 3,376 9,001 86.2 80.4 81.4 13.5 19.2 18.4 3.5 5.6 3.6 2.1 3.8 1.1 2.6 3.7 4.4 .3 .2 .3 3.8 4.2 7.0 1.1 1.5 1.9 3,165 13,402 70.9 91.0 28.5 8.8 6.7 3.0 1.7 2.3 7.3 1.0 .6 .2 10.6 1.6 1.5 .6 9,313 308 1,891 62.1 83.2 44.4 37.1 16.8 55.1 10.8 1.4 11.3 6.5 .8 13.2 5.4 .7 16.3 1.0 1.5 .9 6.3 8.2 7.9 2.2 4.3 5.6 8,855 2,777 1,466 2,000 871 71.4 57.3 69.5 72.2 73.2 28.0 42.0 30.1 27.1 26.4 11.0 17.1 10.8 14.9 5.1 5.3 5.0 9.4 7.3 5 3.3 6.2 3.3 1.2 4.7 1.0 1.8 .6 .6 .8 5.9 10.4 4.6 2.2 6.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 .7 4.5 Precision production, craft, and repair....... Mechanics and repairers........................... Construction trades................................... Other precision production, craft, and repair................................................ Operators, fabricators, and laborers........ Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors............................................... Transportation and material m oving.......... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers............................................ 11,519 3,863 4,069 86.2 85.3 95.3 13.4 14.2 4.4 4.1 4.2 .6 4.0 4.7 .9 2.4 2.7 .8 .2 3 - 2.1 1.6 1.8 .6 .6 .3 3,587 14,812 77.0 72.5 22.8 27.0 7.9 7.7 6.7 7.4 4.0 4.3 .2 .5 3.0 5.4 1.0 1.7 6,813 4,351 73.4 69.2 26.2 30.4 10.1 4.6 8.4 4.1 4.6 4.7 .2 .9 2.0 12.3 .7 3.9 3,648 74.8 24.6 7.0 9.3 3.4 .3 3.7 .8 Farming, forestry, and fishing.................... 1,742 93.8 5.9 - - - .6 4.1 .8 Private sector............................................. Goods-producing industries....................... Agriculture................................................ Mining....................................................... Construction............................................. Manufacturing........................................... Durable goods.......................................... Nondurable goods..................................... 75,612 25,925 1,492 541 5,389 18,503 11,179 7,324 82.3 84.1 93.1 74.6 95.9 80.2 83.0 76.0 17.4 15.6 6.7 25.4 3.7 19.4 16.8 23.5 4.7 5.1 .3 4.8 .4 6.9 6.9 6.9 3.5 4.5 .3 2.3 .2 6.2 5 7.9 2.9 2.6 .7 12.5 .3 3.2 2.3 4.5 .4 .2 .5 .2 .1 .3 .2 .3 4.3 2.1 4.1 5 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.4 1.4 .9 .8 .5 .6 1 .7 1.5 Service producing industries...................... Transportation and public utilities............. Wholesale trade......................................... Retail trad e ................................................ Eating and drinking places....................... Finance, insurance, and real estate......... Services.................................................... Private households................................... Business, automobile, and repair............ Personal, except private household........ Entertainment and recreation.................. Professional services............................... Forestry and fisheries.............................. 49,687 6,088 3,969 12,111 3,135 5,857 21,662 391 5,060 1,627 1,051 13,497 36 81.3 73.8 89.7 71.1 51.9 94.8 83.9 78.9 86.0 74.9 63.9 86.0 18.3 25.8 10.1 28.4 47.2 5.1 15.6 21.1 13.3 24.3 35.1 13.7 4.5 4.2 2.3 7.5 16.3 1.0 4.3 1.9 4.0 7.7 9.7 3.6 3.0 3.3 2.6 3.6 5.4 .7 3.3 2.2 3.6 4.1 2.8 3.3 3.1 4.5 1.1 5.9 8.7 .5 2.1 2.3 1.5 3.4 4.4 2.0 .5 .6 .1 .8 2.0 .0 .5 1.1 .2 .4 1.4 .6 5.4 10.3 2.7 8.8 12.6 1.5 3.7 10.2 2.7 6.6 13.8 2.7 1.7 2.8 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 3.4 1.3 2.2 3.1 1.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Government................................................ Federal....................................................... State.......................................................... Local.......................................................... 14,937 2,828 4,125 7,983 86.1 85.4 86.1 86.4 13.8 14.4 13.7 13.6 4.2 4.3 4.7 3.9 3.2 5.3 3.1 2.4 3.0 1.8 2.6 3.5 .3 .2 .3 .3 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.5 Managerial and professional specialty....... Executive, administrative, and managerial.............................................. Professional specialty............................... Mathematical and computer scientists.... Natural scientists..................................... Teachers, college and university............. Technical, sales, and administrative support................................................... Technicians and related support............... Sales occupations..................................... Sales workers, retail and personal services................................................. Administrative support, including clerical .. Service occupations................................... Private household...................................... Protective service..................................... Service, except private household and protective......................................... Food service............................................. Health service.......................................... Cleaning and building service.................. Personal service....................................... Industry ' Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. N ote : Data relate to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers who were at work during the survey reference week and exclude all 38 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis self-employed persons, regardless of whether or not their businesses were incorporated. Data reflect revised population controls used in the Current Population Survey effective with the January 1997 estimates. Dashes repre sent zero. T a b le 5. Shift usually worked on principal job by usual full-time wage and salary workers, by reason for working shift, May 1997 [Numbers in thousands] Shift w o rk e d Reason for w orking shift Total Evening shift N ight shift Total shift workers............................................................. Better child care arrangements...................................... Better p a y ....................................................................... Better arrangements for care of family members.......... Allows time for school.................................................... Easier commute, less traffic.......................................... Could not get any other jo b ............................................ Mandated by employer to meet transportation/ pollution program requirements.................................... Nature of the jo b ............................................................ Other reasons................................................................ Not reporting reasons..................................................... Split shift Employer a rra n g ed irregular shift O th er shift 15,183 633 920 423 435 109 866 4,192 279 350 114 201 51 383 3,156 257 330 214 62 27 237 2,649 31 81 17 56 4 75 350 3 14 5 11 2 12 3,523 35 105 38 86 12 138 1,313 28 41 34 19 13 20 1,967 7,767 1,912 151 397 1,710 661 46 326 1,084 581 37 561 1,610 195 19 55 204 41 3 524 2,354 224 7 103 805 211 38 N ote : Data relate to the sole or principal job of full-time wage and salary workers who were at work during the survey reference week and exclude all self-employed persons, regardless of whether or not their businesses were State, and local governments. Within local government, how ever, the incidence of shift work varies widely by function. Nearly half of the local government employees injustice, pub lic order, and safety functions worked alternative shifts; but only 4.5 percent of those employed in educational services worked an alternative shift. The CPS supplement included a question intended to de rive w orkers’ main reason for working an alternative shift; the results support the notion that the occurrence of shift work is highly correlated with particular industries and occupations.5 More than half of all full-time employees who worked an al ternative shift did so because it was the “nature of the job.” It is also apparent that very few of these workers chose to work one of these shifts for the purpose of obtaining greater monetary compensation or to alleviate nonwork conflicts. Only 6.1 percent of all alternative shiftworkers reported work ing a shift for better pay. About 4.1 percent worked an alter native shift for better childcare arrangements; and only a small fraction did so for an easier commute (0.7 percent) or because it allowed time for school (2.9 percent). Roughly 13.0 percent reported that they were on one of these shifts specifically because alternative shifts were mandated by their employer to meet transportation demand, management, or pollution abatement program requirements. A small percentage of shiftworkers (5.7 percent) worked an alternative shift because they were unable to find another job. (See table 5.) As is the case with differences in flexible work schedules among workers, a portion of the differences among demo graphic groups in the incidence of shift work can be traced to the occupational distributions of the groups. As indicated in table 2 for example, men were more likely than women to work https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Rotating shift incorporated. Data reflect revised population controls used in the Current Population Survey effective with the January 1997 estimates, on an alternative shift: 19.1 percent versus 13.7 percent, re spectively; a difference of 5.4 percentage points. A stan dardization analysis shows that if women had the same oc cupational distribution as men, then the overall proportion of women on alternative shifts would be 16.3 percent, reduc ing the difference between men and women to 2.8 percentage points. If the rates of alternative shift work by occupation for men are applied to the occupational distribution of women, then the difference in shift work rates falls to 1.5 percentage points. Thus, shift work is more common among men for two reasons: first, men are more likely then women to choose occu pations in which shift work is common; and, on the same job, men are typically more likely than women to work an alternative shift. Among other major groups, workers who had never been married were employed on one of these shifts more often than married workers (21.0 percent versus 14.8 percent, re spectively), and a greater proportion of blacks (20.9 percent) worked alternative shifts than either whites (16.1 percent) or Hispanics (16.0 percent). Another shift-share analysis shows that only a small proportion of the disparity in alternative shift work between blacks and whites can be explained by different occupational groupings; on the same jobs, it is usu ally the case that more blacks than whites work an alternative shift. In addition, the incidence of alternative shift work var ied to some degree by age: nearly one-third of employed teenagers worked an alternative shift. This is not surprising as daytime school commitments prevent many teenagers from working during normal business hours. The prevalence of shift work declines with age to a low of 14.6 percent for work ers aged 45 to 54 years. (See table 3.) Monthly Labor Review June 2000 39 Flexible Schedules In general, the proportion o f workers on alternative shifts has changed very little for all of the m ajor demographic groups over the last 12 years. The following tabulation shows the percent working alternative shifts, 1985-97: 1985 1991 1997 Total, 16 years and older.. .. 15.9 M e n ............................... .. 17.8 W o m en ......................... .. 13.0 17.8 20.1 14.6 16.8 19.1 13.7 Race and Hispanic origin: W h ite............................. .. 15.3 Black.............................. .. 19.9 Hispanic o rig in ............ .. 15.5 17.1 23.3 19.1 16.1 20.9 16.0 Part-time workers. Alternative shift work was much more common among workers who usually worked part time than among full-time workers. O f the 20.3 million part-time wage and salary workers, roughly 7.3 million, or 36.0 percent, usu ally worked an alternative shift on their primary job. The m a jority of these workers usually worked an evening shift or an irregularly scheduled shift. In many cases, part-timers are students, parents, or persons with other daytime commitments that conflict with a regular “9-to-5” schedule.6Another explana tion for the high rates of shift work among part-timers is that a sizable proportion of businesses maintain operating hours that extend past the traditional 8-hour day; part-time workers are needed to fill this gap. While the proportion of full-time wage and salary workers who worked alternative shifts was unchanged between May 1991 and May 1997, the propor tion of part-timers on alternative shifts fell from 45.6 percent to 36.0 percent over the period. “9-to-5” w o r k d a y does not appear to be in jeopardy of fading from its prominence in U.S. workplaces; yet the data do suggest that the rigidity of those hours continues to re lax. In May 1997, about one-fourth of all full-time wage and salary workers could vary the times they began or ended work, nearly double the proportion in May 1985. In contrast, the proportions w orking alternative shifts— som ething other than a regular daytim e shift— have not increased over the period. Clearly, the prevalence of both flexible work schedules and alternative shifts is linked to the nature of the work in volved in a particular job or industry. However, this explains only a portion of the variation in the frequency of these types of work schedules across demographic groups. Even w ithin the m ost detailed occupational groupings, sizable differences rem ain, in both the rates of alternative shift work and flexible work hours among the various dem o graphic groups, differences that the available data do not com pletely explain. □ T he Notes 1 Throughout this article the two terms “alternative sh ift” and “shift work” refer to all work schedules that do not conform to the regular daytime schedule, for which work hours typically fall between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. 2 The source o f the data used in this article is the M ay 1997 supplem ent to the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey o f about 50,000 households, conducted by the Bureau o f the Census for the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The em ploym ent estimates for the period under study have been affected by a number o f factors. O fficial data for 1990 and later years incorporate 1990 ce n s u s -b a s e d p o p u la tio n c o n tro ls, ad ju sted for the estim a ted undercount, whereas prior data are based on 1980 census-based popu lation controls, for which no such adjustment has been made. In addition, data for January 1994 and forward are not strictly com parable with data for earlier years because o f the introduction o f a major redesign o f the CPS questionnaire and collection m eth o d o lo g y . For additional inform ation on the red esign , see "R evi sio n s in the Current Population Survey E ffectiv e January 1994," in the February 1994 issu e o f the BLS periodical E m p l o y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . 40 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, E m p lo y e e B e n e f its S u rv e y , Bulle tins 2517 (1999); 2507 (1999); and 2477 (1996). 4 The actual wording o f the question on flexible work schedules was altered on the most recent May supplement to the Survey. Spe cifica lly , the word "flexitim e" w as rem oved in the descrip tion o f flexible work hours. 4 Earl F. M ellor, “Shift work and flexitim e: how prevalent are they?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , Novem ber 1986, pp. 14—20. 5 Those who responded that they work a schedule other than a regular daytime schedule were asked, “What is the main reason why you work this type o f shift?” 6 Data from the Current P opu lation Survey sh ow that am ong workers who usually work part time, roughly 55.9 percent work part time due to one o f the follow ing reasons: 1) childcare problems; 2) other fam ily or personal obligations; 3) attending school or training. These data are 1997 annual averages and appear in table 20 o f the January 1998 issue o f the BLS periodical E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . P arad ig m for the new econom y Are we seeing a sea change in the way the U.S. economy operates at the dawn of this new century? W. M ichael Cox and R ichard A im , in an essay p u b lished in the 1999 Annual Report of the Federal R eserve Bank o f D allas, p r e s e n t th e ir c a s e fo r a “ N ew Economy.” In this economy, they argue, the old guiding tenets that form erly served as buttresses against such ele m ents as inflation or unem ploym ent find th em selv es resh ap ed into new rules, new principles. Specifically, traditional econom ic theories that have held sway for the past half-century now fail to explain the radical econom ic changes of the 1990s. Indeed, say Cox and Aim, dur in g th e p a s t tw o d e c a d e s , a new econom y has em erged from a spurt of invention and innovation, led by the m icroprocessor. This tiny creation, leading our way into the 21st century, is a sym bol of the paradigm atic shift s ig n a lin g an e c o n o m ic e ra w h ere “know ledge is m ore im portant to eco nomic success than m oney or m achin ery. M odern tools facilitate the appli cation o f brainpow er, not m uscle or m achine power, o pening all secto rs o f th e e c o n o m y to p r o d u c tiv ity g a in s .. . . The m ost fair-reaching im p lic a tio n o f the N ew E conom y c e n ters on the tra d e -o ff b etw een grow th and in fla tio n .” The in v e n tio n o f the m ic ro p ro cessing chip and its attendant devices have made possible such disparate ad vances as telecommuting, laparoscopic surgery, and structures equipped with synthetic “nervous system s,” to name ju st three. The A m erican w orkforce, w hile m ost o f its m em bers continue to com m ute in real tim e, contains an in creasingly sizable cohort which com m utes in virtual time: W orking from a hom e com plete with the requisite m o https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dem , f a x , and com puting connections becom es easier and cheaper than slog ging in to the job. The authors write: “R oughly 20 m illion A m ericans now telecom m ute, working at least one day per m onth from home during normal b u sin e ss h o u rs. S tu d ies show th at te le c o m m u tin g sa v e s b u s in e s s e s roughly $10,000 annually for a worker earn in g $44,000— a savings in lost w ork tim e and em p lo y ee re te n tio n c o sts, p lu s gains in w orker p ro d u c tiv ity .” The in v e n tio n o f the m ic ro c h ip also h as en h an ced su rg ic a l p ro c e dures. The use o f the lap aroscope— now au g m ented w ith a tiny dig ital cam era, fiber-optic cables, and video m o n ito r— o ften allow s su rgeons to p erfo rm surgery through sm all in c i sions to the body. T hus, the m ore in vasiv e and dan g ero u sly rad ical c u t tin g o f the older su rg ical tech n iq u es is av o id ed, leading to faster re c o v ery tim es and sh o rter h o sp ital stays. M oreover, “the 85 percent reduction in lost work time isn ’t the only savings. The procedure itself costs roughly 10 percent less in hospital and physician fees.” Turning from the m icroscopic to a scale m uch grander, we see the same m icro ch ip tech n o lo g y em ployed in “ sm art structures,” which are then em bedded in the N ation’s largest infra structures. M onitoring the health of large pieces of the economic infrastruc ture— bridges, dam s, buildings, tun nels, and so forth— is a never-ending task. The mode of doing so in the past involved periodically drilling holes in each one to analyze its core sample, “a labor-intensive proposition,” accord ing to Cox and Aim. “But by equipping them with a fiber-optic ‘nervous-sys te m ,’ data can be collected continu ously on structure strain, tem perature, vibration, m agnetic fields, cracks, and road-salt corrosion and penetration.” With this type of constant m onitoring, the preventive nature of repair and m aintenance becom es sim pler, and m ore cost-effective than ever before. Obviously, safety, too, is im proved. In the realm of com m erce, technol ogy continues to virtually revolution ize the economy. W ho today has not heard of “e-com m erce”? W hile it re mains to be seen how new virtual m ar ketplaces will ultim ately affect trade and society overall, the authors p re dict that by 2003, the cyberspace m ar ketplace will am ount to $1.7 trillion, up by an order of m agnitude from its nascent figure of $151 billion in 1999. Further, they note that “consum er pur chases get m ost of the attention, but four-fifths o f e-com m erce involves b u sin ess-to -b u sin ess tra n sa c tio n s.” At the m ost fundam ental level, “elec tronic commerce alters the econom y’s cost structure by intensifying com pe tition. The idea of rivalry among sell ers driving dow n prices has a long pedigree in econom ics, dating back at least as far as Adam Smith.” They point out that precedent exists for technol ogy as an agent in prom oting com pe tition. The canals and railroads of the 19th century and the air transport and interstate highw ays of the 20th cen tury certainly resulted in “expanded cus tomer bases” and decreased costs of bringing goods and services to market. Cox and Aim conclude the essay by stating their b elief that the new econom ic paradigm “has brought us the b est of all w orlds— in novative products, new jobs, high profits, soar ing stocks. A nd low inflation.” Only time will tell whether this shift in eco nom ic thinking w ill p revail or if it is m e re ly a te c h n o lo g ic a l b lip on h isto ry ’s radar screen. □ We are interested in your feedback on this column. Write to: Executive Editor, M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212, or e-mail MLR@bls.gov Monthly Labor Review June 2000 41 Book Reviews A more secure future Securing Prosperity: The American La bor Market: How It Has Changed and What to Do About It. By Paul O sterm an . P rin c e to n U n iv ersity Press, 1999,222 pp. $24.95. As the longest peacetime economic ex pansion continues, economists generally concede that all workers are not sharing equally in this new prosperity. Certain participants in the “new economy” seem to be benefiting, while others find their incomes stagnating. Record stock prices have not been matched by increases in wage rates and higher company earnings have not automatically translated into higher workers’ salaries. These discrep ancies are the subject o f Paul Osterman’s book, Securing Prosperity. The role o f institutions plays a major com ponent in the book. His analysis and problem resolutions are tinted by his faith in the importance and predomi nance of institutions as a major player in labor markets, including big business, big governm ent, and big labor. Both problem s and solutions are defined within the context o f institutions. In O sterm an’s view, each of these institu tions is partially responsible for prob lems in the current labor m arket and each have a role in the solution to those p ro b lem s. In stitu tio n s beco m e the counterw eight to the vagaries of the marketplace. In general, Osterman defines three main problems in today’s labor market: increasing incom e discrepancies be tween economic “winners” and “losers”, greater job insecurity among workers, and a deficit of quality jobs. The book begins by discussing how the Ameri can economy has changed since World War II. W hile acknowledging that not all firms approached labor in the same 42 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis manner, he feels that business and labor had a web of mutual obligations that defined the job m arket of the 1950s through the 1970s. The collapse of this web then becom es the fundam ental cause of current problems. While the web collapsed for several reasons, the result was a loosening of the tie that bound workers to their employers. Com panies gained new advantages over w orkers as pow er shifted from the worker to their employer. Demonstrating the results of this col lapse by citing a variety of statistical evidence, including several BLS sur veys, Osterman argues that many work ers are suffering from these looser at tachments between employees and their employers. While acknowledging that changes in the workplace have benefited some workers, he rejects the notion that the changes have resulted in a “winw in” proposition for em ployees and firms. In general, he feels that new inter mediaries must be created to replace the collapsed web of obligations shared be tween firms and their workers. Having defined deteriorating labor market conditions for workers, he then devoted the rest of the book to discuss ing needed changes in labor policy. These new policies would be designed to build what he describes as “stronger labor market institutions.” Osterman ad mits that past institutions such as Fed eral job training and the U.S. Employ ment Service have had a mixed record of results, yet he continues to have faith that institutional reform is the corner stone to redressing shortcomings in the present labor market. The new intermediaries would sup port a more mobile workforce and redress the balance of power between firms and their employees. Both government and non-government bodies may potentially house these new intermediaries. For ex- June 2000 ample, he envisions a new type of worker association. The hybrid associations would more closely resemble current professional associations than current labor unions but would include repre senting workers with employers, and would include a broad range of profes sional and craft employees. Osterman’s faith in institutions is im pressive, but it is unclear whether the majority of American workers share this belief. Declining union membership and general sentiment against “big govern ment” begs the question whether work ers see government and labor institu tions as the solution to their problems. Osterman himself admits that the current political climate precludes the opportu nity for direct action at the national level, and it is doubtful if the constituency ex ists to form new labor policies. Thus, his call to action may go unheeded for the present. In fact, only one in stitu tion, the courts, seems too be the present solu tion of choice for workers’ grievances against their employers. The loosening of ties between workers and their em ployers outlined in the book may have inadvertently given workers a greater propensity to seek redress through the administrative law and court system, rather than depend on changes in na tional policies. Ironically, in the end, business itself may turn to the political system for institutional relief, much as they did when the workers’ compensa tion system was instituted to offset nu merous legal actions from individual employees. In this context, the book may serve as a better guide to future corpo rate action than for the workers it seeks to serve. — Michael Wald Atlanta Regional Office Bureau of Labor Statistics mm mmw Current Labor Statistics Notes on labor statistics ................... 44 Comparative indicators 1. Labor market indicators................................................... 54 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity...................... 55 3. Alternative measures of wages and compensation changes.................................................. 55 Labor force data 4. Employment status of the population, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 5. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 6. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 7. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 9. Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 10. Unemployment rates by States, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 11. Employment of workers by States, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 12. Employment of workers by industry, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 13. Average weekly hours by industry, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 14. Average hourly earnings by industry, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 15. Average hourly earnings by industry............................... 16. Average weekly earnings by industry.............................. 17. Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted...................................................... 18. Annual data: Employment status of the population....... 19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry................. 20. Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry.................................... 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 26. Participants in benefits plans, small firms and government............................................................ 74 27. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m ore.......... 75 Price data 28. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity and service groups............... 76 29. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data, all items....................................................... 79 30. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups.......................................................... 80 31. Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing................ 81 32. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups............................................................ 82 33. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing.................................................. 82 34. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification..................................................... 83 35. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification..................................................... 84 36. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category................ 85 37. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category............... 86 38. U.S.international price indexes for selected categories of services.................................................... 86 61 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 67 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data 21. Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group............................... 22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group............................... 23. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers, by occupation and industry group................ 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area siz e ................... 25. Participants in benefit plans, medium and large firms..... Labor compensation and collective bargaining data—continued 68 Productivity data 39. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted...................... 87 40. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity..................... 88 41. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices................................................... 89 42. Annual indexes of output per hour for selected industries...................................................................... 90 International comparisons data 43. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted............................................... 93 44. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, 10 countries.......................... 94 45. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, 12 countries.................................................................. 95 70 Injury and illness data 71 46. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence rates.............................................................. 96 47. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure....................................................................... 98 72 73 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 43 Notes on Current Labor Statistics This section of the R e v ie w presents the prin cipal statistical series collected and calcu lated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force; employment; unem ployment; labor compensation; consumer, producer, and international prices; produc tivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each group of tables are briefly described; key definitions are given; notes on the data are set forth; and sources of addi tional information are cited. G e n e ra l notes The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as cli matic conditions, industry production sched ules, opening and closing of schools, holi day buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term evaluation of the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are es timated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables 1-14,16-17,39, and 43. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4—9 were re vised in the February 2000 issue of the R e v ie w . Seasonally adjusted establishment sur vey data shown in tables 1, 12-14 and 1617 were revised in the July 1999 R e v ie w and reflect the experience through March 1999. A brief explanation of the seasonal adjust ment methodology appears in “Notes on the data.” Revisions in the productivity data in table 45 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and per cent changes from month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter are published for numer ous Consumer and Producer Price Index se ries. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S. average AllItems CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustm ents for price changes. Some data—such as the “real” earnings shown in table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the ef fect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current-dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appro priate component of the index, then multi plying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price 44 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis index number of 150, where 1982 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1982 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1982” dollars. Sources of inform ation Data that supplement the tables in this sec tion are published by the Bureau in a variety of sources. Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sec tions of these Notes describing each set of data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bul letin 2490. Users also may wish to consult M a jo r P ro g ra m s o f th e B u reau o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s, Report 919. News releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule appear ing on the back cover of this issue. More information about labor force, em ployment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys under lying the data are available in the Bureau’s monthly publication, E m p lo ym en t a n d E a rn in gs. Historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data from the household survey are available on the Internet: http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm Historically comparable unadjusted and sea sonally adjusted data from the establishment survey also are available on the Internet: http://stats.bls.gov/ceshome.htm Additional information on labor force data for areas below the national level are pro vided in the BLS annual report, G e o g ra p h ic P ro file o f E m p lo y m en t a n d U n em p lo ym en t. For a comprehensive discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see E m p lo y m en t C o s t In d ex es a n d L ev els, 1 9 7 5 - 9 5 , BLS Bul letin 2466. The most recent data from the Employee Benefits Survey appear in the fol lowing Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletins: E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in M e d iu m a n d L a rg e F irm s; E m p lo y e e B en efits in S m a ll P r iv a te E sta b lis h m e n ts; and E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in S ta te a n d L o c a l G o vern m en ts. More detailed data on consumer and pro ducer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, T he CPI D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P ro d u c e r P r ic e In d ex es. For an overview of the 1998 revision of the C PI , see the Decem ber 1996 issue of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e view . Additional data on international prices ap pear in monthly news releases. Listings of industries for which produc tivity indexes are available may be found on the Internet: http://stats.bls.gov/iprhome.htm For additional information on interna June 2000 tional comparisons data, see I n te rn a tio n a l C o m p a riso n s o f U n em p lo ym en t, BLS Bulle tin 1979. Detailed data on the occupational injury and illness series are published in O c c u p a tio n a l In ju rie s a n d Illn e sse s in th e U n ite d S ta tes, b y In du stry, a BLS annual bulletin. Finally, the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w car ries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employ ment, and unemployment; employee com pensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified, n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified. p = preliminary. To increase the time liness of some series, preliminary figures are issued based on repre sentative but incomplete returns, r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of later data, but also may reflect other ad justments. C om parative Indicators (Tables 1-3) Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of major BLS sta tistical series. Consequently, although many of the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor m arket indicators include em ployment measures from two major surveys and information on rates of change in com pensation provided by the Employment Cost Index (ECl) program. The labor force partici pation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for major de mographic groups based on the Current Population (“household”) Survey are pre sented, while measures of employment and average weekly hours by major industry sec tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is cho sen from a variety of b l s compensation and wage measures because it provides a com prehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among occupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are presented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensa tion and wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civil ian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; overall prices by stage of processing; and overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures o f wage and com pensation rates o f change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual measures. Notes on the data Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections of these notes describing each set of data. Employment and Unemploym ent Data (Tables 1; 4-20) Household survey data Description of the series E mployment data in this section are ob tained from the Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample con sists of about 50,000 households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. Definitions Employed persons include (1) all those who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regu lar jobs because of illness, vacation, indus trial dispute, or similar reasons. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary ill ness and had looked for jobs within the pre https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff are also counted among the unemployed. The unem ployment rate represents the number unem ployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed persons in the civilian noninstitutional population. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed. This group includes discouraged workers, defined as persons who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but are not currently looking, because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify. The civilian n on in stitu tional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy. The civilian labor force participation rate is the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is employ ment as a percent of the civilian nonin stitutional population. Revisions in the household survey Data beginning in 2000 are not strictly comparable with data for 1999 and earlier years because of the introduction of re vised population controls. Additional in formation appears in the February 2000 issue of E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s. F or additional information on na tional household survey data, contact the Division of Labor Force Statistics: (202) 691-6378. Establishment survey data Description of the series E mployment, hours , and earnings data in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary ba sis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by about 390,000 establishments representing all in dustries except agriculture. Industries are classified in accordance with the 1987 S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la s s ific a tio n (SIC) M a n u a l. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a, decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the intercensal years. These adjustments affect the comparability of historical data. A de scription of these adjustments and their ef fect on the various data series appears in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s. Labor force data in tables 1 and 4-9 are seasonally adjusted. Since January 1980, national labor force data have been season ally adjusted with a procedure called X-11 arima which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X11 method previously used by bls . A de tailed description of the procedure appears in the X -ll a r i m a S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d , by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, January 1983). At the beginning of each calendar year, historical seasonally adjusted data usually are revised, and projected seasonal adjust ment factors are calculated for use during the January-June period. The historical sea sonally adjusted data usually are revised for only the most recent 5 years. In July, new seasonal adjustment factors, which incorpo rate the experience through June, are pro duced for the July-December period, but no revisions are made in the historical data. In most industries, the sampling probabili ties are based on the size of the establish ment; most large establishments are there fore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Self-em ployed persons and others not on a regu lar civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and estab lishment surveys. Definitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a fac tory or store) at a single location and is en gaged in one type of economic activity. Em ployed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period in cluding the 12th day of the month. Per sons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production w orkers in manufacturing include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with pro duction operations. Those workers men tioned in tables 11-16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; Monthly Labor Review June 2000 45 Current Labor Statistics construction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in the following in dustries: transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups ac count for about four-fifths of the total employ ment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but exclud ing irregular bonuses and other special payments. R eal ea r n in g s are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPi-W). H ou rs represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory work ers for which pay was received, and are dif ferent from standard or scheduled hours. Overtim e hours represent the portion of av erage weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premi ums were paid. The Diffusion Index represents the per cent of industries in which employment was rising over the indicated period, plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment; 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing em ployment. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are season ally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data are centered within the span. Table 17 provides an index on pri vate nonfarm employment based on 356 in dustries, and a manufacturing index based on 139 industries. These indexes are useful for measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and are also economic indicators. Notes on the data Establishment survey data are annually ad justed to comprehensive counts of employ ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad justment, which incorporated March 1998 benchmarks, was made with the release of May 1999 data, published in the July 1999 issue of the R e v ie w . Coincident with the benchmark adjustment, historical seasonally adjusted data were revised to reflect updated seasonal factors and refinement in the sea sonal adjustment procedures. Unadjusted data from April 1998 forward and season ally adjusted data from January 1995 forward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. Revisions in State data (table 11) occurred with the publication of January 2000 data. Beginning in June 1996, the bls uses the X-12 arima methodology to seasonally ad just establishment survey data. This proce dure, developed by the Bureau of the Cen sus, controls for the effect of varying survey 46 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis intervals (also known as the 4- versus 5-week effect), thereby providing improved mea surement of over-the-month changes and un derlying economic trends. Revisions of data, usually for the most recent 5-year period, are made once a year coincident with the bench mark revisions. In the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months are based on in complete returns and are published as pre liminary in the tables (12-17 in the R e view ). When all returns have been received, the es timates are revised and published as “final” (prior to any benchmark revisions) in the third month of their appearance. Thus, De cember data are published as preliminary in January and February and as final in March. For the same reasons, quarterly establish ment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months of publication and final in the third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are published as preliminary in January and Feb ruary and as final in March. A comprehensive discussion of the differ ences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria R Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” M on th ly L a b o r R eview , December 1969, pp. 9-20. For additional information on estab lishment survey data, contact the Division of Monthly Industry Employment Statistics: (202) 691-6555. Unemployment data by State Description of the series Data presented in this section are obtained from the Local Area Unemployment Statis tics (LAUS) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employment security agencies. Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of lo cal economic conditions, and form the basis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Training Partner ship Act. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates are presented in table 10. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions under lying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the cps. Notes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for all States and the District of Columbia are derived using standardized procedures established by bls. Once a year, estimates are revised to new population controls, usually with publication of January estimates, and benchmarked to annual average cps levels. June 2000 For additional information on data in this series, call (202) 691-6392 (table 10) or (202) 691-6559 (table 11). Compensation and W age Data (Tables 1-3; 21-27) Compensation and wage data are gathered by the Bureau from business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. Employment Cost Index Description of the series The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quar terly measure of the rate of change in com pensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and employer costs of em ployee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of labor—similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket of goods and services—to measure change over time in employer costs of employing labor. Statistical series on total compensation costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit costs are available for private nonfarm work ers excluding proprietors, the self-employed, and household workers. The total compensa tion costs and wages and salaries series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local government workers combined. Fed eral workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 4,400 private non farm establishments providing about 23,000 occupational observations and 1,000 State and local government establishments provid ing 6,000 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on five well-specified occupations. Data are col lected each quarter for the pay period includ ing the 12th day of March, June, September, and December. Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the 1980 Census of Population are used each quarter to calculate the civilian and private indexes and the index for State and local govern ments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of Popu lation.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in compensa- tion, not employment shifts among indus tries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargain ing status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the cur rent sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggre gate, industry, and occupation series. Definitions Total com pensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s costs for em ployee benefits. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, including produc tion bonuses, incentive earnings, commis sions, and cost-of-living adjustments. Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (includ ing nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retire ment and savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as Social Security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and em ployee benefits are such items as payment-in kind, free room and board, and tips. Notes on the data The Employment Cost Index for changes in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm economy was published beginning in 1975. Changes in total compensation cost—wages and salaries and benefits combined—were published beginning in 1980. The series of changes in wages and salaries and for total compensation in the State and local govern ment sector and in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees) were published beginning in 1981. Histori cal indexes (June 1981=100) are available on the Internet: http ://stats .bis .gov/ec thome.htm F or additional information on the Employment Cost Index, contact the Office of Compensation Levels and Trends: (202) 691-6199. Employee Benefits Survey Description of the series Em ployee benefits data are obtained from the Employee Benefits Survey, an annual survey of the incidence and provisions of selected benefits provided by employers. The survey collects data from a sample of approximately 9,000 private sector and State and local government establishments. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data are presented as a percentage of employ ees who participate in a certain benefit, or as an average benefit provision (for example, the average number of paid holidays provided to employees per year). Selected data from the survey are presented in table 25 for medium and large private establishments and in table 26 for small private establishments and State and local government. The survey covers paid leave benefits such as holidays and vacations, and personal, funeral, jury duty, military, family, and sick leave; short-term disability, long-term dis ability, and life insurance; medical, dental, and vision care plans; defined benefit and defined contribution plans; flexible benefits plans; reimbursement accounts; and unpaid family leave. Also, data are tabulated on the inci dence of several other benefits, such as severance pay, child-care assistance, well ness programs, and employee assistance programs. Definitions Em ployer-provided benefits are benefits that are financed either wholly or partly by the employer. They may be sponsored by a union or other third party, as long as there is some employer financing. However, some benefits that are fully paid for by the em ployee also are included. For example, long term care insurance and postretirement life insurance paid entirely by the employee are included because the guarantee of insurabil ity and availability at group premium rates are considered a benefit. Participants are workers who are covered by a benefit, whether or not they use that benefit If the benefit plan is financed wholly by employers and requires employees to complete a minimum length of service for eligibility, the workers are considered participants whether or not they have met the requirement. If workers are required to contribute towards the cost of a plan, they are considered participants only if they elect the plan and agree to make the required contributions. Defined benefit pension plans use prede termined formulas to calculate a retirement benefit (if any), and obligate the employer to provide those benefits. Benefits are generally based on salary, years of service, or both. D efined contribution plans generally specify the level of employer and employee contributions to a plan, but not the formula for determining eventual benefits. Instead, individual accounts are set up for partici pants, and benefits are based on amounts credited to these accounts. Tax-deferred savings plans are a type of defined contribution plan that allow par ticipants to contribute a portion of their salary to an employer-sponsored plan and defer in come taxes until withdrawal. Flexible benefit plans allow employees to choose among several benefits, such as life insurance, medical care, and vacation days, and among several levels of coverage within a given benefit. Notes on the data Surveys of employees in medium and large establishments conducted over the 1979-86 period included establishm ents that employed at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, depending on the industry (most service industries were excluded). The survey conducted in 1987 covered only State and local governments with 50 or more employees. The surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 included medium and large establishments with 100 workers or more in private industries. All surveys conducted over the 1979-89 period excluded establishments in Alaska and Hawaii, as well as part-time employees. Beginning in 1990, surveys of State and local governments and small private establishments were conducted in evennumbered years, and surveys of medium and large establishments were conducted in oddnumbered years. The small establishment survey includes all private nonfarm establishments with fewer than 100 workers, while the State and local government survey includes all governments, regardless of the number of workers. All three surveys include full- and part-time workers, and workers in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. F or additional information on the Employee Benefits Survey, contact the Of fice of Compensation Levels and Trends on the Internet: http://stats.bls.gov/ebshom e.htm Work stoppages Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the num ber and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of work time lost because of stoppage. These data are presented in table 27. Data are largely from a variety of pub lished sources and cover only establish ments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect of stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack of service. Definitions The number of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 work- N um ber o f stoppages: Monthly Labor Review June 2000 47 Current Labor Statistics ers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. W orkers in volved : The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. N um ber o f days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by workers involved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. Notes on the data This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in volving six workers or more. F or additional information on work stoppages data, contact the Office of Com pensation and Working Conditions: (202) 691-6282, or the Internet: http ://sta ts.bls.gov/cbahome.htm ployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices of food, cloth ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these items are kept essentially unchanged be tween major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 23,000 re tail establishments and 5,800 housing units in 87 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate estimates for 14 major urban centers are pre sented in table 29. The areas listed are as in dicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level of prices among cities. Price Data Notes on the data (Tables 2; 28-38) In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are meaured for the CPI-U. A rental equivalence method replaced the asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the cpi-W. The central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of home-owner ship so that the index would reflect only the cost of shelter services provided by owneroccupied homes. An updated cpi-u and cpiw were introduced with release of the Janu ary 1987 and January 1998 data. F or additional information on con sumer prices, contact the Division of Con sumer Prices and Price Indexes: (202) 691-7000. P rice data are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and pri mary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base pe riod— 1982 = 100 for many Producer Price Indexes, 1982-84 = 100 for many Con sumer Price Indexes (unless otherwise noted), and 1990 = 100 for International Price Indexes. Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consum er Price Index (CPI) is a mea sure of the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market bas ket of goods and services. The cpi is calcu lated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only of urban households whose primary source of income is derived from the employment of wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting of all ur ban households. The wage earner index (CPIW) is a continuation of the historic index that was introduced well over a half-century ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the cpi in recent years, the need for a broader and more representa tive index became apparent. The all-urban consumer index (CPI-U), introduced in 1978, is representative of the 1993-95 buying hab its of about 87 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, compared with 32 percent represented in the CPI-W. In addition to wage earners and cleri cal workers, the CPi-u covers professional, managerial, and technical workers, the selfemployed, short-term workers, the unem 48 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Producer Price Indexes Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (PPI) measure av erage changes in prices received by domes tic producers of commodities in all stages of processing. The sample used for calcu lating these indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 80,000 quo tations per month, selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities pro duced in the manufacturing; agriculture, for estry, and fishing; mining; and gas and elec tricity and public utilities sectors. The stageof-processing structure of PPI organizes products by class of buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, interme diate goods, and crude materials). The tra ditional commodity structure of ppi orga nizes products by similarity of end use or June 2000 material composition. The industry and product structure of ppi organizes data in accordance with the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and the product code ex tension of the sic developed by the U.S. Bu reau of the Census. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial trans action in the United States from the pro duction or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, pri marily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are obtained directly from producing com panies on a voluntary and confidential ba sis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. Since January 1992, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1987. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number of special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. F or additional information on pro ducer prices, contact the Division of In dustrial Prices and Price Indexes: (202) 691-7705. International Price Indexes Description of the series The International Price Program produces monthly and quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U.S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Resi dents” is defined as in the national income accounts; it includes corporations, busi nesses, and individuals, but does not require the organizations to be U.S. owned nor the individuals to have U.S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased from other countries by U.S. residents. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufac tures, and finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected primarily by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, although in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first week of the month. Survey respon dents are asked to indicate all discounts, al lowances, and rebates applicable to the re ported prices, so that the price used in the cal culation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and imports. These categories are defined according to the five-digit level of detail for the Bureau of Economic Analysis End-use Classification (SiTC), and the four digit level of detail for the Harmonized System. Aggregate import indexes by coun try or region of origin are also available. publishes indexes for selected catego ries of internationally traded services, calcu lated on an international basis and on a balance-of-payments basis. bls Notes on the data The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of die Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each harmonized group and are then aggregated to the higher level. The values as signed to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled by the Bureau of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1990. Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s speci fications or terms of transaction have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s ques tionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the physical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold, dis counts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of trans action of a product, the dollar value of each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is em ployed which allows for the continued repric ing of the item. For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valua tion of imports in the national accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f.(costs, insur https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ance, and freight) at the U.S. port of importa tion, which also includes the other costs as sociated with bringing the product to the U.S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. For a given product, only one price basis series is used in the construction of an index. F or additional information on inter national prices, contact the Division of In ternational Prices: (202) 691-7155. Productivity Data (Tables 2; 39-42) Business sector and major sectors Description of the series The productivity measures relate real output to real input. As such, they encompass a fam ily of measures which include single-factor input measures, such as output per hour, out put per unit of labor input, or output per unit of capital input, as well as measures of mul tifactor productivity (output per unit of com bined labor and capital inputs). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The mea sures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes of hourly com pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Definitions Output per hour o f all persons (labor pro ductivity) is the quantity of goods and ser vices produced per hour of labor input. Out put per unit o f capital services (capital pro ductivity) is the quantity of goods and ser vices produced per unit of capital services input. M ultifactor productivity is the quan tity of goods and services produced per com bined inputs. For private business and pri vate nonfarm business, inputs include labor and capital units. For manufacturing, in puts include labor, capital, energy, non-en ergy materials, and purchased business ser vices. Compensation per hour is total compen sation divided by hours at work. Total com pensation equals the wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, plus an estimate of these payments for the self-employed (except for nonfinancial cor porations in which there are no self-em ployed). Real com pensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor compen sation costs expended in the production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensation by output. U nit nonlabor p aym ents include profits, depreciation, interest, and indirect taxes per unit of out put. They are computed by subtracting com pensation of all persons from current-dollar value of output and dividing by output. U nit n onlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments ex cept unit profits. U nit profits include corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital con sumption adjustments per unit of output. Hours o f all persons are the total hours at work of payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers. Labor inputs are hours of all persons ad justed for the effects of changes in the edu cation and experience of the labor force. Capital services are the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock of physical assets—equipment, structures, land, and inventories—weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Combined units o f labor and capital inputs are derived by combining changes in labor and capital input with weights which represent each component’s share of total cost. Combined units of labor, capital, energy, materials, and purchased business services are similarly derived by combining changes in each input with weights that represent each input’s share of total costs. The indexes for each input and for combined units are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data Business sector output is an annually-weighted index constructed by excluding from real gross domestic product ( gdp ) the following outputs: general government, nonprofit institutions, paid employees of private households, and the rental value of owner-occupied dwellings. Nonfarm business also excludes farming. Pri vate business and private nonfarm business further exclude government enterprises. The measures are supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analy sis. Annual estimates of manufacturing sectoral output are produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly manufacturing output in dexes from the Federal Reserve Board are ad justed to these annual output measures by the BLS. Compensation data are developed from data of the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hours data are developed from data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The productivity and associated cost mea- Monthly Labor Review June 2000 49 Current Labor Statistics sures in tables 39-42 describe the relation ship between output in real terms and the la bor and capital inputs involved in its pro duction. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and ser vices produced per unit of input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not mea sure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in technology; shifts in the composition of the labor force; capital invest ment; level of output; changes in the utiliza tion of capacity, energy, material, and research and development; the organization of produc tion; managerial skill; and characteristics and efforts of the work force. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this productivity series, contact the Division of Productivity Research: (202) 691-5606. indexes refer to the output per hour of all employees. For some transportation indus tries, only indexes of output per employee are prepared. For some trade and service industries, indexes of output per hour of all persons (including self-employed) are constructed. FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this se ries, contact the Division of Industry Produc tivity Studies: (202) 691-5618. Industry productivity measures Tables 43 and 44 present comparative meas ures of the labor force, employment, and un employment—approximating U.S. con cepts—for the United States, Canada, Aus tralia, Japan, and several European countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statistics) published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable to U.S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where neces sary, for all known major definitional differ ences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these adjusted figures pro vide a better basis for international compari sons than the figures regularly published by each country. Description of the series The BLS industry productivity data supplement the measures for the business economy and major sectors with annual measures of labor productivity for selected industries at the three- and four-digit levels of the Standard Industrial Classification system. The industry measures differ in methodology and data sources from the productivity measures for the major sectors because the industry measures are developed indepen dently of the National Income and Product Accounts framework used for the major sector measures. International Comparisons (Tables 43-45) Labor force and unemployment Description of the series Definitions Definitions Output per hour is derived by dividing an in dex of industry output by an index of labor input. For most industries, output indexes are derived from data on the value of industry out put adjusted for price change. For the remain ing industries, output indexes are derived from data on the physical quantity of production. The labor input series consist of the hours of all employees (production and nonproduc tion workers), the hours of all persons (paid employees, partners, proprietors, and unpaid family workers), or the number of employees, depending upon the industry. For the principal U.S. definitions of the la bor force, employment, and unemployment, see the Notes section on Employment and Unemployment Data: Household survey data. Notes on the data The industry measures are compiled from data produced by the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics, the Departments of Commerce, Inte rior, and Agriculture, the Federal Reserve Board, regulatory agencies, trade associa tions, and other sources. For most industries, the productivity 50 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Notes on the data The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U.S. stan dard of 16 years of age and older. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the popula tion aged 16 and older in France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; 15 and older in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Italy from 1993 onward, and the Netherlands; and 14 and older in Italy prior to 1993. The insti tutional population is included in the de nominator of the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Germany; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries. June 2000 In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their jobs are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite different in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application of the U.S. defi nition has not been made on this point. For further information, see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1981, pp. 8-11. The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated us ing adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries, therefore, are subject to re vision whenever data from more current la bor force surveys become available. There are breaks in the data series for the United States (1990, 1994, 1997, 1998), France (1992), Italy (1991,1993), the Neth erlands (1988), and Sweden (1987). For the United States, the break in series reflects a major redesign of the labor force survey questionnaire and collection method ology introduced in January 1994. Revised population estimates based on the 1990 cen sus, adjusted for the estimated undercount, also were incorporated. In 1996, previously published data for the 1990-93 period were revised to reflect the 1990 census-based population controls, adjusted for the un dercount. In 1997, revised population con trols were introduced into the household sur vey. Therefore, the data are not strictly conparable with prior years. In 1998, new composite estimation procedures and minor revisions in population controls were intro duced into the household survey. Therefore, the data are not strictly comparable with data for 1997 and earlier years. See the Notes sec tion on Employment and Unemployment Data of this R e view . For France, the 1992 break reflects the substitution of standardized European Union Statistical Office (eurostat) unemployment statistics for the unemployment data esti mated according to the International Labor Office (ilo) definition and published in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) annual yearbook and quarterly update. This change was made be cause the eurostat data are more up-to-date than the OECD figures. Also, since 1992, the eurostat definitions are closer to the U.S. definitions than they were in prior years. The impact of this revision was to lower the un employment rate by 0.1 percentage point in 1992 and 1993, by 0.4 percentage point in 1994, and 0.5 percentage point in 1995. For Italy, the 1991 break reflects a revi sion in the method of weighting sample data. The impact was to increase the unemploy ment rate by approximately 0.3 percentage point, from 6.6 to 6.9 percent in 1991. In October 1992, the survey methodology was revised and the definition of unemploy ment was changed to include only those who were actively looking for a job within the 30 days preceding the survey and who were available for work. In addition, the lower age limit for the labor force was raised from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to these changes, bls ad justed Italy’s published unemployment rate downward by excluding from the unem ployed those persons who had not actively sought work in the past 30 days.) The break in the series also reflects the in corporation of the 1991 population census results. The impact of these changes was to raise Italy’s adjusted unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points, from 8.3 to 9.5 percent in fourth-quarter 1992. These changes did not affect employment significantly, except in 1993. Estimates by the Italian Statistical Office indicate that em ployment declined by about 3 percent in 1993, rather than the nearly 4 percent indi cated by the data shown in table 44. This dif ference is attributable mainly to the incorpo ration of the 1991 population benchmarks in the 1993 data. Data for earlier years have not been adjusted to incorporate the 1991 cen sus results. For the Netherlands, a new survey ques tionnaire was introduced in 1992 that al lowed for a closer application of ILO guide lines. EUROSTAT has revised the Dutch series back to 1988 based on the 1992 changes. The 1988 revised unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent; the previous estimate for the same year was 9.3 percent. There have been two breaks in series in the Swedish labor force survey, in 1987 and 1993. Adjustments have been made for the 1993 break back to 1987. In 1987, a new questionnaire was introduced. Questions re garding current availability were added and the period of active workseeking was reduced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These changes low ered Sweden’s 1987 unemployment rate by 0.4 percentage point, from 2.3 to 1.9 percent. In 1993, the measurement period for the la bor force survey was changed to represent all 52 weeks of the year rather than one week each month and a new adjustment for popu lation totals was introduced. The impact was to raise the unemployment rate by approxi mately 0.5 percentage point, from 7.6 to 8.1 percent. Statistics Sweden revised its labor force survey data for 1987-92 to take into account the break in 1993. The adjustment raised the Swedish unemployment rate by 0.2 percentage point in 1987 and gradually rose to 0.5 percentage point in 1992. Beginning with 1987, bls has adjusted the Swedish data to classify students who also sought work as unemployed. The impact of this change was to increase the adjusted unemployment rate by 0.1 percentage point https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 1987 and by 1.8 percentage points in 1994, when unemployment was higher. In 1998, the adjusted unemployment rate had risen from 6.5 to 8.4 percent due to the adjustment to include students. The net effect of the 1987 and 1993 changes and the bls adjustment for students seeking work lowered Sweden’s 1987 unem ployment rate from 2.3 to 2.2 percent. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION on this se ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics: (202) 691-5654. Manufacturing productivity and labor costs Description of the series Table 45 presents comparative indexes of manufacturing labor productivity (output per hour), output, total hours, compensation per hour, and unit labor costs for the United States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are trend compari sons—that is, series that measure changes over time—rather than level comparisons. There are greater technical problems in com paring the levels of manufacturing output among countries. bls constructs the comparative indexes from three basic aggregate measures—out put, total labor hours, and total compensa tion. The hours and compensation measures refer to all employed persons (wage and sal ary earners plus self-employed persons and unpaid family workers) in the United States, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, and to all employees (wage and salary earners) in the other countries. Definitions Output, in general, refers to value added in manufacturing from the national accounts of each country. However, the output series for Japan prior to 1970 is an index of industrial production, and the national accounts mea sures for the United Kingdom are essentially identical to their indexes of industrial pro duction. The 1977-97 output data for the United States are the gross product originating (value added) measures prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Comparable manufacturing output data currently are not available prior to 1977. U.S. gross product originating is a chaintype annual-weighted series. (For more in formation on the U.S. measure, see Robert E. Yuskavage, “Improved Estimates of Gross Product by Industry, 1959-94,” S u rv ey o f C u rren t B u sin ess, August 1996, pp. 133-55.) The Japanese value added series is based upon one set of fixed price weights for the years 1970 through 1997. Output series for the other foreign economies also employ fixed price weights, but the weights are up dated periodically (for example, every 5 or 10 years). To preserve the comparability of the U.S. measures with those for other economies, bls uses gross product originating in manufac turing for the United States for these com parative measures. The gross product origi nating series differs from the manufacturing output series that bls publishes in its news releases on quarterly measures of U.S. pro ductivity and costs (and that underlies the measures that appear in tables 39 and 41 in this section). The quarterly measures are on a “sectoral output” basis, rather than a valueadded basis. Sectoral output is gross output less intrasector transactions. Total labor hours refers to hours worked in all countries. The measures are developed from statistics of manufacturing employment and average hours. The series used for France (from 1970 forward), Norway, and Sweden are official series published with the national accounts. Where official total hours series are not available, the measures are developed by bls using employment figures published with the national accounts, or other comprehen sive employment series, and estimates of annual hours worked. For Germany, bls uses estimates of average hours worked developed by a research institute connected to the Min istry of Labor for use with the national ac counts employment figures. For the other countries, bls constructs its own estimates of average hours. Denmark has not published estimates of average hours for 1994-97; therefore, the bls measure of labor input for Denmark ends in 1993. Total compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or in-kind made directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally required insurance programs and con tractual and private benefit plans. The mea sures are from the national accounts of each country, except those for Belgium, which are developed by bls using statistics on employ ment, average hours, and hourly compensa tion. For Canada, France, and Sweden, com pensation is increased to account for other sig nificant taxes on payroll or employment. For the United Kingdom, compensation is reduced between 1967 and 1991 to account for em ployment-related subsidies. Self-employed workers are included in the all-employed-persons measures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. Notes on the data In general, the measures relate to total manu facturing as defined by the International Stan- Monthly Labor Review June 2000 51 Current Labor Statistics dard Industrial Classification. However, the measures for France (for all years) and Italy (beginning 1970) refer to mining and manu facturing less energy-related products, and the measures for Denmark include mining and exclude manufacturing handicrafts from 1960 to 1966. The measures for recent years may be based on current indicators of manufactur ing output (such as industrial production in dexes), employment, average hours, and hourly compensation until national accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become available. For additional information on this se ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics: (202) 691-5654. O ccupational Injury an d Illness Data (Tables 46-47) Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Notes on the data Description of the series The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Ill nesses collects data from employers about thenworkers ’ job-related nonfatal injuries and ill nesses. The information that employers provide is based on records that they maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Self-employed individuals, farms with fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local government agencies are excluded from the survey. The survey is a Federal-State coopera tive program with an independent sample selected for each participating State. A stratified random sample with a Neyman al location is selected to represent all private industries in the State. The survey is strati fied by Standard Industrial Classification and size of employment. Definitions Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers maintain records of nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses that in volve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment other than first aid. Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation that re sults from a work-related event or a single, in stantaneous exposure in the work environment. 52 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Occupational illness is an abnormal con dition or disorder, other than one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by expo sure to factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorp tion, ingestion, or direct contact. Lost workday injuries and illnesses are cases that involve days away from work, or days of restricted work activity, or both. Lost w orkdays include the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which the employee was either away from work or at work in some restricted capacity, or both, be cause of an occupational injury or illness, bls measures of the number and incidence rate of lost workdays were discontinued beginning with the 1993 survey. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days on which the em ployee would not have worked, such as a Fed eral holiday, even though able to work. In cid en ce rates are computed as the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost work days per 100 full-time workers. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses are from R e co rd k ee p in g G u id e lin es f o r O c cu p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d Illn e sse s (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Sta tistics, September 1986). Estimates are made for industries and em ployment size classes for total recordable cases, lost workday cases, days away from work cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. These data also are shown separately for inju ries. Illness data are available for seven catego ries: occupational skin diseases or disorders, dust diseases of the lungs, respiratory condi tions due to toxic agents, poisoning (systemic effects of toxic agents), disorders due to physi cal agents (other than toxic materials), disor ders associated with repeated trauma, and all other occupational illnesses. The survey continues to measure the num ber of new work-related illness cases which are recognized, diagnosed, and reported dur ing the year. Some conditions, for example, long-term latent illnesses caused by exposure to carcinogens, often are difficult to relate to the workplace and are not adequately recog nized and reported. These long-term latent ill nesses are believed to be understated in the survey’s illness measure. In contrast, the over whelming majority of the reported new ill nesses are those which are easier to directly relate to workplace activity (for example, con tact dermatitis and carpal tunnel syndrome). Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number of in juries and illnesses per 100 equivalent full time workers. For this purpose, 200,000 em June 2000 ployee hours represent 100 employee years (2,000 hours per employee). Full detail on the available measures is presented in the annual bulletin, O ccu p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d Illn esses: C ounts, R ates, a n d C h a ra cteristics. Comparable data for more than 40 States and territories are available from the bls Of fice of Safety, Health and Working Condi tions. Many of these States publish data on State and local government employees in ad dition to private industry data. Mining and railroad data are furnished to BLS by the Mine Safety and Health Adminis tration and the Federal Railroad Administra tion. Data from these organizations are in cluded in both the national and State data published annually. With the 1992 survey, bls began publish ing details on serious, nonfatal incidents re sulting in days away from work. Included are some major characteristics of the injured and ill workers, such as occupation, age, gender, race, and length of service, as well as the cir cumstances of their injuries and illnesses (na ture of the disabling condition, part of body affected, event and exposure, and the source directly producing the condition). In general, these data are available nationwide for de tailed industries and for individual States at more aggregated industry levels. F or additional information on occu pational injuries and illnesses, contact the Office of Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions at (202) 691-6180, or access the Internet at: http ://www.bls.gov/oshhome.htm Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries compiles a complete roster of fatal job-re lated injuries, including detailed data about the fatally injured workers and the fatal events. The program collects and cross checks fatality information from multiple sources, including death certificates, State and Federal workers’ compensation reports, Occupational Safety and Health Administra tion and Mine Safety and Health Adminis tration records, medical examiner and au topsy reports, media accounts, State motor vehicle fatality records, and follow-up ques tionnaires to employers. In addition to private wage and salary workers, the self-employed, family mem bers, and Federal, State, and local govern ment workers are covered by the program. To be included in the fatality census, the decedent must have been employed (that is working for pay, compensation, or profit) at the time of the event, engaged in a legal work activity, or present at the site of the incident as a requirement of his or her job. Definition related illnesses, which can be difficult to identify due to long latency periods. A fatal work injury is any intentional or unin tentional wound or damage to the body result ing in death from acute exposure to energy, such as heat or electricity, or kinetic energy from a crash, or from the absence of such es sentials as heat or oxygen caused by a specific event or incident or series of events within a single workday or shift. Fatalities that occur during a person’s commute to or from work are excluded from the census, as well as work- Notes on the data Twenty-eight data elements are collected, coded, and tabulated in the fatality program, including information about the fatally in jured worker, the fatal incident, and the ma chinery or equipment involved. Summary worker demographic data and event charac teristics are included in a national news re lease that is available about 8 months after the end of the reference year. The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries was initiated in 1992 as a joint Federal-State effort. Most States issue summary information at the time of the national news release. F or additional information on the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries con tact the bls Office of Safety, Health, and Working Conditions at (202) 691-6175, or the Internet at: http ://www.bls.gov/oshhome.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics Internet The Bureau of Labor Statistics World Wide Web site on the Internet contains a range of data on consumer and producer prices, employment and unemployment, occupational com pensation, employee benefits, workplace injuries and illnesses, and productivity. The homepage can be accessed using any Web browser: http://stats.bls.gov Also, some data can be accessed through anonymous https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ftp or Gopher at stats.bls.gov Monthly Labor Review June 2000 53 Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators Selected indicators 1998 1998 1999 I II 1999 III IV I II 2000 III IV I E m p lo y m e n t d a ta Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey):1 Labor force participation rate..................................................... Employment-population ratio..................................................... Unemployment rate................................................................... Men......................................................................................... 16 to 24 years....................................................................... 25 years and over................................................................. 67.1 64.1 4.5 4.4 11.1 3.2 4.6 9.8 3.6 67.1 64.3 4.2 4.1 10.3 3.0 4.3 9.5 3.3 67.2 64.0 4.7 4.6 11.4 3.3 4.8 10.0 3.8 67.0 64.1 4.4 4.3 10.7 3.1 4.6 9.7 3.6 67.1 64.1 4.4 4.3 10.6 3.1 4.6 9.4 3.6 67.0 64.0 4.5 4.5 11.5 3.2 4.5 9.9 3.5 64.3 4.3 4.2 10.4 67.2 67.1 64.2 4.3 4.2 10.4 3.0 4.4 3.0 4.4 67.0 64.2 4.2 4.1 10.0 3.0 4.4 9.8 3.4 9.2 3.4 9.5 3.3 67 0 64.3 4.1 4.0 10.4 2.9 42 9.4 3.1 67 5 64.7 4.1 4.0 97 29 42 9.6 3.2 Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:1 Total........................................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................... Manufacturing.................................................................... Service-producing.................................................................. 125,865 106,042 25,414 128,786 108,616 25,482 18,805 100,451 18,543 103,304 124,748 105,070 25,346 18,872 125,486 105,726 25,427 18,871 99,403 100,059 126,180 106,321 25,408 126,967 107,016 25,469 18,765 100,772 18,716 101,498 127,800 107,741 25,488 18,632 102,312 128,430 108,319 25,454 18,543 102,976 129,073 108,874 25,459 18,516 103,614 129,783 109,507 25,524 18,482 104,259 130,626 110,195 25,680 18,481 104,946 Average hours: Private sector.......................................................................... Manufacturing........................................................................ Overtime............................................................................. 34.7 34.6 41.7 4.6 34.5 41.7 4.6 42.0 4.8 34.6 41.7 4.6 34.6 41.7 4.6 34.6 41.7 4.5 34.5 41.6 4.5 34.5 41.7 4.6 34.5 41.8 4.6 34.5 41.7 4.7 34.5 41.7 4.6 Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household and Federal workers).... Private industry workers.......................................................... 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 .8 .9 .8 .9 1.2 1.1 .6 .6 .4 .4 1.0 1.1 1.1 .9 .9 .9 1.3 1.5 Goods-producing3............................................................... 2.8 3.4 .7 .8 .7 .5 .8 .7 .9 1.0 1.6 Service-producing13.............................................................. State and local government workers........................................ 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.4 1.0 .6 .8 .3 1.3 1.5 .6 .6 .3 .5 1.3 .4 .9 1.5 .8 1.0 1.4 .6 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): Union......................................................................................... Nonunion.................................................................................... 3.0 3.5 2.7 3.6 .4 1.0 1.0 .8 1.1 1.1 .5 .6 .4 .5 .7 1.2 .9 .9 .7 1.0 1.3 1.5 E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x 2 1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Annual changes are December-to-December changes. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. 3 Goods-produclng industries Include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries. 54 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity Selected m easures 1998 1998 1999 I II 1999 III IV I II 2000 III IV I Compensation data1'2 Employment Cost Index—compensation (wages. salaries, benefits): Civilian nonfarm.................................................................. 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.3 Private nonfarm.............................................................. 3.5 3.4 .9 .9 1.1 .6 .4 1.1 .9 .9 1.5 Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm................................................................ 3.7 3.5 .9 .7 1.3 .7 .5 1.0 1.1 .8 1.1 Private nonfarm.............................................................. 3.9 3.5 1.1 .9 1.3 .6 .5 1.2 .9 .9 1.2 1.6 2.7 .6 .5 .4 .2 .7 .7 1.0 .2 1.7 .0 2.9 -.8 .5 3.8 -1.0 .8 -.1 0 .4 2 .0 o 1.2 .0 18 1.5 22 .1 -2 1.6 20 Price data1 Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers): All Items..... Producer Price Index: Finished goods.................................................................... Capital equipment............................................................. .0 .3 .0 -.5 -.4 .9 -.1 -.4 -.4 1.2 .1 Intermediate materials, supplies, and components............. -3.3 3.7 -1.4 .2 -.5 -1.6 -.2 1.9 .1 2.0 Crude materials.................................................................... -16.7 15.3 -8.8 -1.8 -5.6 -2.5 -.1 1.9 9.4 10.2 -3.5 9.5 Productivity data3 Output per hour of all persons: Business sector.................................................................... 2.9 3.2 4.8 .7 3.5 4.3 2.9 .8 4.7 6.6 1.8 Nonfarm business sector...................................................... 2.8 3.0 4.7 1.0 3.2 4.1 2.7 .5 5.0 6.9 2.4 Nonfinancial corporations4................................................... 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.9 5.9 3.1 4.1 3.4 4.0 5.1 3.6 ' Annual changes are December-to-December changes. 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. cent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly indexes. The data are seasonally adjusted, 4 Output per hour of all employees. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. Quarterly per- 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Q uarterly average Com ponents 1998 IV Four quartern ending— 1999 I II III IV 2000 1998 I IV 1999 I II 2000 III IV 1 Average hourly compensation:1 All persons, business sector........................................................ All persons, nonfarm business sector.......................................... 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.2 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.6 3.3 3.8 3.5 4.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.3 .6 .6 .5 .6 .6 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 1.0 1.1 .7 1.2 .4 1.1 .9 .9 .9 1.5 .9 9 3.4 35 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2 33 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.2 2.9 3.4 34 2.7 3.6 3.4 4.3 4.6 .7 1.0 1.0 1.3 15 1.3 1.5 .6 3.6 4.7 3.6 .7 .6 .5 .7 .7 .5 .5 .4 .5 .4 1.0 1.2 .8 1.2 .4 1.1 .9 .7 .9 1.9 .8 .9 .6 .9 .9 1.1 1.2 .5 1.3 .6 3.7 3.9 3.3 4.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.5 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 2.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.2 2.7 4.4 3.8 Employment Cost Index—compensation: Civilian nonfarm4.......................................................................... Union........................................................................................ Nonunion................................................................................... State and local governments..................................................... Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm4.......................................................................... Private nonfarm.......................................................................... Union........................................................................................ Nonunion.................................................................................. State and local governments..................................................... 1 Seasonally adjusted. "Quarterly average" is percent change from a quarter ago, at an annual rate. 2 Excludes Federal and household workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 55 Current Labor Statistics: 4. Labor Force Data Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] 2000 1999 A n n u a l a v e ra g e E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s 1999 A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. 207,753 139,368 67.1 133,488 207,236 139,086 67.1 133,054 207,427 139,013 67.0 133,190 207,632 139,332 67.1 133,398 207,828 139,336 67.0 133,399 208,038 139,372 67.0 133,530 208,265 139,475 67.0 133,650 208,483 139,697 67.0 133,940 208,666 139,834 67.0 134,098 208,832 140,108 67.1 134,420 208,782 140,910 67.5 135,221 208,907 141,165 67.6 135,362 209,053 140,867 67.4 135,159 209,216 141,230 67.5 135,706 64.3 5,880 4.2 68,385 64.2 6,032 4.3 68,150 64.2 5,823 4.2 68,414 64.2 5,934 4.3 68,300 64.2 5,937 4.3 68,492 64.2 5,842 4.2 68,666 64.2 5,825 4.2 68,790 64.2 5,757 4.1 68,786 64.3 5,736 4.1 68,832 64.4 5,688 4.1 68,724 64.8 5,689 4.0 67,872 64.8 5,804 4.1 67,742 64.7 5,708 4.1 68,187 64.9 5,524 3.9 67,986 90,790 69,715 76.8 67,135 91,555 70,194 76.7 67,761 91,302 69,992 76.7 67,562 91,368 69,978 76.6 67,470 91,487 70,116 76.6 67,645 91,561 70,167 76.6 67,703 91,692 70,240 76.6 67,768 91,793 70,328 76.6 67,943 91,896 70,339 76.5 67,898 91,986 70,388 76.5 68,037 92,052 70,529 76.6 68,197 92,057 70,917 77.0 68,585 92,092 71,120 77.2 68,691 92,145 70,822 76.9 68,480 92,303 70,761 76.7 68,481 73.9 2,350 74.0 2,244 74.0 2,305 73.8 2,224 73.9 2,246 73.9 2,256 73.9 2,237 74.0 2,189 73.9 2,206 74.0 2,262 74.1 2,227 74.5 2,303 74.6 2,309 74.3 2,232 74.2 2,213 64,785 2,580 3.7 65,517 2,433 3.5 65,257 2,430 3.5 65,246 2,508 3.6 65,399 2,471 3.5 65,447 2,464 3.5 65,531 2,472 3.5 65,754 2,385 3.4 65,692 2,441 3.5 65,775 2,351 3.3 65,970 2,332 3.3 66,282 2,332 3.3 66,382 2,429 3.4 66,249 2,342 3.3 66,269 2,280 3.2 98,786 59,702 60.4 57,278 100,158 60,840 60.7 58,555 99,923 60,765 60.8 58,336 100,008 60,708 60.7 58,483 100,131 60,988 60.9 58,647 100,203 60,852 60.7 58,477 100,285 60,904 60.7 58,648 100,385 60,860 60.6 58,630 100,458 60,955 60.7 58,800 100,573 61,052 60.7 58,838 100,666 61,154 60.7 58,958 100,579 61,576 61.2 59,280 100,666 61,575 61.2 59,398 100,713 61,671 61.2 59,422 100,809 61,920 61.4 59,757 58.0 768 58.5 803 58.4 803 58.5 820 58.6 851 58.4 798 58.5 780 58.4 778 58.5 800 58.5 768 58.6 791 58.9 826 59.0 871 59.0 894 59.3 899 56,510 2,424 4.1 57,752 2,285 3.8 57,533 2,429 4.0 57,663 2,225 3.7 57,796 2,341 3.8 57,679 2,375 3.9 57,868 2,256 3.7 57,852 2,230 3.7 58,000 2,155 3.5 58,070 2,214 3.6 58,167 2,196 3.6 58,454 2,297 3.7 58,526 2,178 3.5 58,528 2,249 3.6 58,858 2,163 3.5 15,644 8,256 52.8 7,051 16,040 8,333 52.0 7,172 16,011 8,329 52.0 7,156 16,051 8,327 51.9 7,237 16,014 8,228 51.4 7,106 16,065 8,317 51.8 7,219 16,061 8,228 51.2 7,114 16,086 8,287 51.5 7,077 16,129 8,403 52.1 7,242 16,107 8,394 52.1 7,223 16,114 8,425 52.3 7,265 16,147 8,416 52.1 7,356 16,149 8,470 52.4 7,273 16,196 8,374 51.7 7,257 16,104 8,549 53.1 7,467 45.1 261 44.7 234 44.7 233 45.1 246 44.4 233 44.9 224 44.3 217 44.0 212 44.9 232 44.8 280 45.1 261 45.6 242 45.0 228 44.8 233 46.4 243 6,790 1,205 14.6 6,938 1,162 13.9 6,923 1,173 14.1 6,991 1,090 13.1 6,873 1,122 13.6 6,995 1,098 13.2 6,897 1,114 13.5 6,865 1,210 14.6 7,010 1,161 13.8 6,943 1,171 14.0 7,004 1,160 13.8 7,114 1,060 12.6 7,046 1,197 14.1 7,024 1,117 13.3 7,224 1,082 12.7 171,478 115,415 67.3 110,931 173,085 116,509 67.3 112,235 172,730 116,344 67.4 111,886 172,859 116,193 67.2 111,898 172,999 116,518 67.4 112,115 173,133 116,492 67.3 112,193 173,275 116,619 67.3 112,308 173,432 116,495 67.2 112,303 173,585 116,654 67.2 112,548 173,709 116,703 67.2 112,611 173,821 117,008 67.3 112,951 173,812 117,716 67.7 113,704 173,886 117,821 67.8 113,634 173,983 117,832 67.7 113,630 174,092 117,988 67.8 113,915 64.7 4,484 3.9 64.8 4,273 3.7 64.8 4,458 3.8 64.7 4,295 3.7 64.8 4,403 3.8 64.8 4,299 3.7 64.8 4,311 3.7 64.8 4,192 3.6 64.8 4,106 3.5 64.8 4,092 3.5 65.0 4,057 3.5 65.4 4,011 3.4 65.3 4,187 3.6 65.3 4,202 3.6 65.4 4,073 3.5 24,373 15,982 65.6 14,556 24,855 16,365 65.8 15,056 24,765 16,288 65.8 15,011 24,798 16,290 65.7 15,053 24,833 16,308 65.7 15,069 24,867 16,366 65.8 14,962 24,904 16,321 65.5 15,047 24,946 16,474 66.0 15,114 24,985 16,489 66.0 15,124 25,019 16,508 66.0 15,187 25,051 16,513 65.9 15,204 25,047 16,622 66.4 15,254 25,076 16,785 66.9 15,471 25,105 16,572 66.0 15,356 25,135 16,636 66.2 15,444 59.7 1,426 8.9 60.6 1,309 8.0 60.6 1,277 7.8 60.7 1,237 7.6 60.7 1,239 7.6 60.2 1,404 8.6 60.4 1,274 7.8 60.6 1,360 8.3 60.5 1,365 8.3 60.7 1,321 8.0 60.7 1,309 7.9 60.9 1,368 8.2 61.7 1,314 7.8 61.2 1,216 7.3 61.4 1,191 7.2 1998 TO TAL Civilian noninstitutional population1....................... 205,220 Civilian labor force............ 137,673 Participation rate....... 67.1 Employed..................... 131,463 Employment-pop64.1 ulation ratio2........... Unemployed................. 6,210 Unemployment rate.... 4.5 Not in the labor force....... 67,547 M e n , 2 0 y e a rs a n d o v e r Civilian noninstitutional population1....................... Civilian labor force............ Participation rate........ Employed..................... Employment-pop)Agriculture................. Nonagricultural industries................ Unemployed................. Unemployment rate.... W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs a n d o v e r Civilian noninstitutional Civilian labor force............ Employment-popAgriculture................. Nonagricultural industries................ Unemployed................. Unemployment rate.... B o th s e x e s , 1 6 to 1 9 y e a rs Civilian noninstitutional Civilian labor force........... Participation rate....... Employed..................... Employment-population ratio2........... Agriculture................. Nonagricultural industries............... Unemployed................. Unemployment rate... W h ite Civilian noninstitutional Employment-popUnemployed................. Unemployment rate... B la c k Civilian noninstitutional Employment-popUnemployed................ Unemployment rate... See footnotes at end of table. 56 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 1999 4. Continued—Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Employment status 2000 1999 Annual average 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 21,070 14,317 67.9 13,291 21,650 14,665 67.7 13,720 21,483 14,535 67.7 13,541 21,548 21,618 14,624 67.6 13,655 21,684 14,617 67.4 13,696 21,752 14,710 67.6 13,759 21,820 14,766 67.7 13,795 21,881 14,809 67.7 13,879 21,947 14,887 67.8 13,979 22,008 14,984 68.1 14,095 22,047 14,555 67.5 13,574 15,251 69.2 14,395 22,108 15,249 69.0 14,382 22,166 15,313 69.1 14,355 22,231 15,355 69.1 14,524 63.1 1,026 7.2 63.4 945 6.4 63.0 994 6.8 63.0 981 6.7 63.2 969 6.6 63.2 921 6.3 63.3 951 6.5 63.2 971 6.6 63.4 930 6.3 63.7 908 6.1 64.0 889 5.9 65.3 856 5.6 65.1 868 5.7 64.8 958 6.3 65.3 831 5.4 H is p a n ic o rig in Civilian noninstitutional Civilian labor force............ Employment-popUnemployed................. Unemployment rate.... 1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. data for the "other races" groups are not presented and Híspanles are Included in both the 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hlspanic-orlgin groups will not sum to totals because white and black population groups. 5. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted [In thousands] Selected categories 2000 1999 Annual average 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Employed, 16 years and over.. Men................................... Women.............................. 131,463 70,693 60,771 133,488 71,446 62,042 133,054 71,208 61,846 133,190 71,207 61,983 133,398 71,330 62,068 133,399 71,437 61,962 133,530 71,436 62,094 133,650 71,630 62,020 133,940 71,623 62,317 134,098 71,732 62,366 134,420 71,927 62,493 135,221 72,358 62,863 135,362 72,473 62,889 135,159 72,313 62,846 135,706 72,307 63,399 Married men, spouse present............................. 42,923 43,254 43,210 42,997 43,279 43,350 43,368 43,367 43,206 43,273 43,283 43,951 43,535 43,297 43,272 Married women, spouse present............................. 32,872 33,450 33,284 33,442 33,758 33,387 33,504 33,275 33,521 33,635 33,762 34,166 33,882 33,780 33,877 Women who maintain families............................. 7,904 8,229 8,081 8,081 8,028 8,272 8,335 8,312 8,398 8,526 8,375 8,362 8,220 8,082 8,307 2,000 1,341 38 1,944 1,297 40 1,930 1,399 33 1,930 1,330 36 1,923 1,341 39 1,939 1,292 45 1,908 1,266 46 1,930 1,198 40 1,936 1,267 42 2,049 1,216 41 2,018 1,211 36 2,024 1,320 38 2,025 1,344 51 2,043 1,292 42 2,054 1,272 43 119,019 18,383 100,637 962 99,674 8,962 103 121,323 18,903 102,420 933 101,487 8,790 95 120,925 18,778 102,147 935 101,212 8,801 65 121,311 18,771 102,540 914 101,626 8,726 61 121,006 19,007 101,999 983 101,016 8,840 88 121,188 19,032 102,156 944 101,212 8,820 77 121,150 19,114 102,036 873 101,163 9,000 93 121,583 19,080 102,503 1,035 101,468 8,791 100 121,654 18,817 102,837 939 101,898 8,833 101 121,965 18,902 103,063 944 102,119 8,686 108 122,426 18,959 103,467 948 102,519 8,662 98 122,823 19,013 103,810 952 102,858 8,802 92 123,166 19,394 103,772 1,016 102,756 8,793 74 123,169 19,598 103,571 998 102,573 8,704 107 123,623 19,280 104,343 1,019 103,324 8,750 103 3,665 3,357 3,403 3,399 3,377 3,316 3,279 3,283 3,179 3,274 3,320 3,219 3,139 3,124 3,124 2,095 1,968 1,937 1,950 2,048 1,974 1,904 1,922 1,928 1,930 1,951 1,893 1,807 1,820 1,844 1,258 1,079 1,117 1,116 1,045 1,050 1,057 1,073 993 1,032 1,025 1,012 1,023 953 1,016 C h a r a c te r is tic C la s s o f w o r k e r «yricuuure: Wage and salary workers.... Self-employed workers....... Unpaid family workers........ Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers.... Private industries................ Private households....... Other............................ Self-employed workers...... Unpaid family workers....... P e rs o n s a t w o r k p a rt tim e 1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons............................ Slack work or business conditions.................... Could only find part-time work............................ Part time for noneconomic reasons........................... Nonagricultural Industries: Part time for economic reasons........................... Slack work or business conditions..................... Could only find part-time work............................ Part time for noneconomic reasons........................... 18,530 18,758 18,752 18,692 18,716 18,983 19,230 18,801 18,799 18,651 18,618 18,889 19,031 18,770 18,474 3,501 3,189 3,225 3,229 3,209 3,142 3,127 3,112 2,983 3,105 3,157 3,066 2,985 3,003 3,021 1,997 1,861 1,845 1,845 1,902 1,850 1,813 1,806 1,807 1,815 1,843 1,801 1,705 1,766 1,782 1,228 1,056 1,087 1,089 1,031 1,034 1,041 1,063 964 1,013 1,018 966 1,005 922 989 17,954 18,197 18,159 18,138 18,106 18,466 18,652 18,273 18,249 18,083 18,061 18,347 18,406 18,184 17,943 1 Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 57 Current Labor Statistics: 6. Labor Force Data Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted [Unemployment rates] Annual average 2000 1999 Selected categories 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Characteristic Total, all workers........................................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.................... Men, 20 years and over........................ Women, 20 years and over................... 4.5 14.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 13.9 3.5 3.8 4.3 14.1 3.5 4.0 4.2 13.1 3.6 3.7 4.3 13.6 3.5 3.8 4.3 13.2 3.5 3.9 4.2 13.5 3.5 3.7 4.2 14.6 3.4 3.7 4.1 13.8 3.5 3.5 4.1 14.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 13.8 3.3 3.6 4.0 12.6 3.3 3.7 4.1 14.1 3.4 3.5 4.1 13.3 3.3 3.6 3.9 12.7 3.2 3.5 White, total............................................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............... Men, 16 to 19 years...................... Women, 16 to 19 years................. Men, 20 years and over................... Women, 20 years and over.............. 3.9 12.6 14.1 10.9 3.2 3.4 3.7 12.0 12.6 11.3 3.0 3.3 3.8 12.1 12.6 11.6 3.0 3.6 3.7 11.4 12.2 10.6 3.1 3.3 3.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 11.4 11.7 11.1 3.1 3.3 3.7 11.7 12.3 11.0 3.2 3.2 3.6 12.3 12.7 11.9 2.9 3.2 3.5 11.8 11.9 11.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 12.0 12.8 11.2 2.8 3.1 3.5 12.2 13.3 10.9 2.8 3.0 3.4 10.8 12.4 9.1 2.8 3.1 3.6 12.5 14.4 10.4 2.9 3.1 3.6 11.7 11.3 12.1 2.9 3.2 3.5 11.6 13.0 10.0 2.8 3.1 Men, 16 to 19 years...................... Women, 16 to 19 years................. Men, 20 years and over................... Women, 20 years and over.............. 8.9 27.6 30.1 25.3 7.4 7.9 8.0 27.9 30.9 25.1 6.7 6.8 7.8 27.8 32.0 23.8 6.3 6.9 7.6 25.2 27.9 22.5 6.6 6.5 7.6 24.8 28.8 21.2 6.4 6.7 8.6 26.9 30.7 23.4 7.2 7.7 7.8 28.1 29.6 26.7 6.3 6.9 8.3 30.8 30.3 31.4 7.1 6.7 8.3 30.8 35.3 26.1 7.7 6.1 8.0 28.4 31.0 25.9 7.0 6.6 7.9 25.3 27.5 23.0 7.0 6.7 8.2 23.9 24.0 23.8 7.4 7.2 7.8 24.3 22.3 26.6 7.1 6.5 7.3 25.1 21.3 28.9 6.4 6.1 7.2 22.2 22.0 22.4 6.6 5.8 Hispanic origin, total.......................... 7.2 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.7 6.3 5.4 Married men, spouse present............ Married women, spouse present....... Women who maintain families........... Full-time workers............................... Part-time workers................................ 2.4 2.9 7.2 4.3 5.3 2.2 2.7 6.4 4.1 5.0 2.3 2.9 7.1 4.2 5.0 2.3 2.6 6.0 4.0 5.2 2.2 2.7 6.5 4.0 5.3 2.3 2.8 6.4 4.1 4.9 2.3 2.7 6.3 4.1 4.6 2.2 2.6 6.4 4.0 5.0 2.2 2.5 6.0 4.0 4.7 2.1 2.5 6.0 3.9 4.9 2.2 2.5 6.2 3.9 4.9 2.0 2.6 6.2 3.9 4.6 2.1 2.6 6.1 3.9 4.9 2.0 2.7 6.8 3.8 5.1 1.8 2.6 6.3 3.8 4.6 4.6 3.2 7.5 3.9 3.4 4.7 3.4 5.5 2.5 4.5 2.3 8.3 4.3 5.7 7.0 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.0 5.2 2.3 4.1 2.2 8.9 4.4 8.4 7.3 3.4 3.2 3.9 2.9 5.4 3.2 4.1 2.4 9.5 4.3 5.9 7.2 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.2 5.3 2.2 4.0 2.5 10.1 4.4 4.8 7.3 3.7 3.5 4.0 2.9 5.3 2.4 4.2 2.3 9.3 4.4 6.0 6.9 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.4 5.2 2.4 4.4 2.2 9.0 4.2 4.2 7.6 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.0 4.8 2.4 4.0 2.1 9.6 4.3 6.7 6.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 2.8 5.2 2.3 4.1 2.0 5.7 4.2 5.0 6.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.1 4.9 2.3 4.0 2.1 7.7 4.2 4.6 5.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 5.3 2.3 3.9 2.0 8.3 4.1 4.1 6.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.0 5.2 2.1 3.8 2.1 7.1 4.2 2.6 6.4 3.2 2.8 3.9 3.7 5.1 2.5 4.2 2.1 5.0 4.2 4.0 7.5 3.3 3.0 3.8 3.2 5.3 2.9 3.7 2.2 6.5 4.3 2.5 6.9 3.9 3.0 5.2 3.1 5.4 2.4 4.0 1.7 5.6 4.0 2.8 5.2 4.0 3.9 4.1 2.9 4.9 2.6 3.7 1.7 8.4 7.1 4.0 6.7 3.5 6.8 3.6 6.8 3.6 6.8 3.8 6.8 3.6 7.0 3.5 6.8 3.5 6.6 3.3 6.5 3.3 6.0 3.5 6.6 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.9 3.4 6.1 3.4 3.0 1.8 2.8 1.8 2.9 2.0 2.8 1.8 2.6 2.0 3.0 1.8 3.1 1.6 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.6 1.5 Industry Nonagricultural wage and salary Construction......................................... Manufacturing....................................... Nondurable goods............................ Transportation and public utilities........ Wholesale and retail trade................... Finance, insurance, and real estate.... Services................................................ Agricultural wage and salary workers...... Educational attainment1 Less than a high school diploma.............. High school graduates, no college........... Some college, less than a bachelor's College graduates.................................... 1 Data refer to persons 25 years and over. 58 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Reason for unem ploym ent Job losers1 ..................................... On temporary layoff.................... Not on temporary layoff............... Job leavers..................................... New entrants................................... 1998 1999 2,822 2,622 848 1,774 783 2,005 469 866 1,957 734 2,132 520 2000 1999 A nnual average June Apr. May 2,695 843 1,852 810 2,039 473 2,678 837 1,841 781 2,034 440 2,670 876 1,794 831 2,038 359 Sept. July Aug. 2,670 847 1,823 768 2,003 459 2,629 893 1,736 793 1,942 481 2,573 869 1,704 758 1,967 504 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 2,518 802 1,716 778 1,958 511 2,493 851 1,642 821 1,935 485 2,401 795 1,606 825 2,036 453 2,477 739 1,739 776 2,043 393 2,616 838 1,778 759 1,975 387 2,541 781 1,759 824 1,979 434 2,306 703 1,602 883 1,961 408 Percent of unemployed Not on temporary layoff.............. Job leavers...................................... New entrants................................... 13.9 31.5 1 1 .8 34.3 8.4 45.3 14.4 30.9 13.0 33.9 7.8 45.0 44.3 43.7 43.5 42.0 43.5 45.6 44.0 41.9 15.3 29.7 13.6 33.2 15.0 29.4 13.1 33.9 8.7 13.9 29.8 13.5 34.0 8.9 14.8 28.6 14.3 33.7 8.5 13.9 28.1 14.4 35.6 7.9 13.0 30.6 13.6 35.9 6.9 14.6 31.0 13.2 34.4 6.7 13.5 30.5 14.3 34.3 7.5 29.1 15.1 35.6 7.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8 1.7 1 .8 1.9 1 .8 1 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 1.4 .3 1.4 .3 1.4 .4 1.4 .3 1.5 .3 1.4 .3 .5 1.4 .3 .6 1.5 .3 .5 1.4 .4 1.4 .3 1.4 .3 44.8 45.1 45.3 14.0 30.8 13.5 33.9 7.9 14.1 31.0 13.2 34.3 7.4 14.9 30.4 14.1 34.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 .6 .6 .6 1.4 .3 1.5 .3 1.5 .3 44.6 14.4 30.2 13.3 34.1 45.5 8 .0 6 .1 8 .2 1 2 .8 Percent of civilian labor force 2 .1 Job leavers..................................... Reentrants...................................... New entrants................................... 1 .5 1.5 .4 Includes persons who completed temporary jobs. 9. Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted [Civilian workers] Sex and age 1998 Total, 16 years and over................. 16 to 24 years.............................. 16 to 19 years.......................... 16 to 17 years........................ 18 to 19 years....................... 4.5 10.4 14.6 17.2 1 2 .8 7.9 3.4 3.5 2.7 4.4 14.1 16.6 12.4 7.5 3.3 3.3 2.9 2 .8 2 .8 4.6 9.8 12.9 15.1 11.5 7.8 3.6 3.8 4.3 9.5 13.2 15.5 4.6 9.5 13.4 14.8 1 1 .6 1 2 .1 8 .1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 .8 4.3 1 0 .0 3.2 3.3 16.2 19.1 14.1 55 years and over............... 4.2 9.9 13.9 16.3 12.4 7.5 3.1 3.2 Apr. 4.1 10.3 14.7 17.0 13.1 7.7 3.0 3.0 1 1 .1 Women, 16 years and over........... 16 to 24 years........................... 16 to 19 years........................ 16 to 17 years..................... 18 to 19 years..................... 1999 2 .6 7.2 3.3 3.4 2 .8 2000 1999 Annual average 4.1 10.5 14.8 18.3 1 2 .6 7.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 7.1 3.6 3.7 3.1 May June 4.2 9.6 13.1 16.1 4.3 9.8 13.6 16.3 1 1 .2 1 1 .8 7.5 3.2 3.2 2.7 7.6 3.2 3.3 3.0 4.2 4.1 10.5 14.3 16.8 12.7 8.3 3.0 3.0 2.7 1 0 .2 13.9 17.6 11.5 8 .0 3.1 3.1 2 .8 4.2 8.9 1 2 .2 14.5 10.9 6.9 3.3 3.4 2 .6 4.4 9.1 13.0 15.7 10.9 6 .8 3.5 3.5 3.3 July Aug. 4.3 9.7 13.2 15.4 11.7 7.6 3.2 3.3 2.9 4.2 9.6 13.5 15.9 4.1 13.8 16.1 4.1 9.9 13.9 16.2 1 2 .2 1 2 .6 8 .1 7.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 1 0 .2 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.4 9.1 1 2 .1 7.3 3.2 3.2 2.7 14.7 4.3 9.3 13.2 15.6 1 1 .2 1 1 .6 1 2 .6 7.1 3.5 3.6 2.9 7.0 3.3 3.4 2.4 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 4.2 4.1 4.1 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 14.6 16.1 13.8 7.2 3.1 3.2 13.9 15.9 12.4 7.7 3.0 3.1 2.7 14.0 16.5 12.3 7.7 3.0 3.1 2 .6 7.4 3.0 3.0 2.7 4.0 9.9 14.6 16.6 13.2 7.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 4.1 10.4 14.2 15.5 13.2 4.0 4.0 1 0 .2 1 0 .6 15.2 17.7 13.5 7.8 4.3 2 .6 1 0 .0 14.7 15.6 14.5 7.2 3.2 3.4 2 .1 4.1 9.8 13.8 16.5 1 2 .1 Jan. 4.0 9.3 1 2 .6 14.0 11.4 7.4 3.0 3.1 2 .8 3.9 9.7 14.0 14.3 13.7 7.2 8 .2 14.9 16.9 13.6 7.5 2.9 3.0 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2.9 2 .8 2 .6 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.5 4.2 9.6 13.4 16.3 11.4 7.2 3.1 3.2 2.5 4.2 9.8 13.0 16.1 4.1 8.9 4.2 8.9 1 0 .8 7.9 3.1 3.3 2 .6 Feb. 14.1 15.9 1 2 .8 1 2 .1 1 0 .0 7.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 4.1 10.3 15.5 17.3 13.9 7.3 2.9 2.9 3.8 9.2 12.4 15.1 10.5 7.4 2 .8 2 .8 4.1 9.6 1 0 .2 1 2 .2 1 1 .1 1 2 .6 15.1 10.5 7.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 13.7 8.9 7.6 3.2 3.3 3.1 14.3 Monthly Labor Review Mar. 4.1 9.7 13.3 15.3 4.1 1 1 .6 7.8 3.0 3.0 3.3 2 .8 2 .8 4.3 14.4 15.4 13.7 7.7 3.2 3.3 2.7 June 2000 Apr. 3.9 9.3 12.7 14.6 11.4 7.2 2.9 3.0 2.4 3.8 9.6 13.6 15.8 12.4 7.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 4.0 8.9 1 1 .6 13.3 10.4 7.2 3.0 3.2 2 .0 59 Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data 10. Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted Mar. Feb. Mar. 999 2000 2000p State Alabama... Alaska..... Arizona.... Arkansas.. California.. 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.8 3.9 4.7 4.6 Colorado................. Connecticut............. Delaware................. District of Columbia.. Florida..................... 3.0 3.3 3.6 6.7 3.9 2 .8 2.5 3.5 5.5 3.7 2.7 2.3 3.2 5.7 3.7 Georgia............ Hawaii.............. Idaho................ Illinois............... Indiana............. 4.2 3.4 4.7 4.4 4.3 3.2 3.4 4.7 4.1 4.4 3.2 Iowa.................. Kansas............. Kentucky.......... Louisiana......... Maine............... 2.7 2.9 4.7 5.5 4.2 2 .2 2 .1 3.3 4.2 4.8 3.4 3.2 3.8 5.2 3.5 Maryland.......... MassachusettsMichigan.......... Minnesota........ Mississippi....... . 3.8 3.1 3.9 2.9 5.2 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.0 2.4 6 .6 6 .0 5.6 4.1 3.0 6 .0 3.9 4.7 4.9 2 .6 5.6 State Missouri................................................... Montana.................................................... Nebraska.................................................. New Jersey............................................... North Dakota............................................. Mar. Feb. Mar. 1999 2000 2000p 3.6 5.4 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.8 2.7 3.7 2.9 4.8 2.4 3.8 2 .6 2 .1 4.7 5.6 5.2 3.1 3.7 4.1 5.5 4.7 3.4 3.1 3.7 54 4.6 3.4 2.9 4.2 3.8 3.9 3.1 4.7 3.9 3.7 2 .6 Oregon...................................................... 6 .0 Rhode Island............................................ 4.5 4.0 4.3 2.9 4.9 4.2 3.8 South Carolina.......................................... South Dakota............................................ Tennessee................................................ Texas........................................................ Utah......................................................... 4.4 3.1 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.1 2.4 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.2 2.7 4.8 6.9 3.1 5.0 2 .8 Virginia...................................................... Washington............................................... 2 .8 2.7 West Virginia............................................. 5.5 Wisconsin................................................. Wyoming................................................... 3.7 2 .1 3.5 4.6 2 .8 2.4 2.7 4.5 5.1 3.1 4.0 2.7 4.7 5.7 2 .8 4.2 p = preliminary 11. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] State Mar. Feb. Mar. 1999 2000 2000p S ta te Alabama...................................... Alaska.......................................... Arizona........................................ Arkansas...................................... California..................................... 1,916.0 276.0 2,128.5 1,136.6 13,855.5 1,946.9 278.7 2,222.5 1,162.3 14,252.5 1,947.9 279.8 2,226.6 1,163.4 14,268.1 Missouri...................................... Montana...................................... Nebraska..................................... Colorado...................................... Connecticut................................. Delaware..................................... District of Columbia..................... Florida.......................................... 2,106.9 1,665.1 410.1 614.9 6,795.9 2,182.1 1,686.8 419.6 621.2 7,061.0 2,189.9 1,692.6 421.2 619.8 7,086.5 New Jersey................................. Georgia....................................... Hawaii.......................................... Idaho........................................... Illinois........................................... Indiana......................................... 3,838.3 529.5 532.9 5,943.4 2,951.8 3,974.1 537.2 551.5 5,985.5 2,986.4 3,997.3 539.6 555.2 6,001.1 2,988.1 Oregon......................................... Pennsylvania.............................. Rhode Island............................... Kansas......................................... Kentucky..................................... Louisiana..................................... Maine........................................... 1,464.4 1,324.7 1,781.4 1,896.0 582.7 1,481.2 1,339.6 1,825.9 1,905.1 597.7 1,485.2 1,343.1 1,827.9 1,909.7 599.0 South Carolina............................ South Dakota.............................. Tennessee.................................. Texas.......................................... Utah............................................ Maryland..................................... Massachusetts............................. Michigan...................................... Minnesota.................................... Mississippi................................... 2,367.5 3,214.2 4,515.5 2,592.1 1,148.9 2,424.6 3,273.9 4,548.0 2,648.2 1,158.9 2,433.9 3,275.1 4,554.1 2,649.2 1,159.9 North Dakota.............................. Virginia........................................ Washington................................. West Virginia............................... Wisconsin.................................... Wyoming..................................... M a r. Feb. M a r. 1999 2000 2000p 2 ,7 1 1 .5 2 ,7 3 8 .4 2 ,7 4 6 .1 3 7 9 .9 3 8 6 .2 3 8 9 .8 8 8 6 .6 8 9 3 .5 8 9 5 .1 9 7 0 .6 1 ,0 0 8 .7 1 ,0 1 2 .4 6 0 1 .4 6 1 2 .4 6 1 2 .2 3 ,8 4 6 .4 3 ,9 0 2 .0 3 ,9 1 2 .3 7 2 6 .2 7 3 7 .2 7 4 0 .5 8 3 9 9 .6 8 5 6 6 .2 8 5 7 8 .7 3 ,8 5 3 .4 3 ,8 9 6 .6 3 ,9 1 2 .3 3 2 1 .2 3 2 4 .4 3 2 5 .0 5 ,5 2 9 .6 5 ,5 9 3 .0 5 ,5 9 5 .0 1 ,4 5 6 .0 1 4 8 0 .5 1 482 1 1 ,5 6 6 .4 1 ,5 9 2 .7 1 ,5 8 7 .2 5 ,5 6 6 .4 5 ,6 0 8 .8 5 ,6 2 6 .0 4 6 1 .8 4 6 8 .8 4 6 8 .6 1 ,8 1 9 .4 1 ,8 6 2 .2 1 ,8 6 6 .1 3 6 9 .7 3 7 8 .8 3 8 0 .8 2 ,6 6 6 .0 2 ,6 9 7 .8 2 ,7 1 6 .7 9 ,1 2 5 .9 9 ,3 0 6 .5 9 ,3 5 1 .5 1 ,0 4 1 .1 1 ,0 6 5 .6 1 0 6 7 .4 2 8 9 .4 2 9 4 .6 2 9 5 .9 3 ,3 9 0 .1 3 ,4 5 8 .4 3 ,4 6 1 .0 2 ,6 3 5 .3 2 ,6 5 8 .7 2 ,6 7 8 .9 7 2 4 .7 7 2 9 .1 7 3 4 .4 2 ,7 6 6 .1 2 ,8 0 1 .0 2 ,8 1 1 .1 2 3 2 .2 2 3 6 .1 2 3 5 .8 p= preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the data base. 60 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 12. E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rke rs on n o n fa rm pa yrolls b y industry, m o n th ly d a t a se a s o n a lly a d ju s te d [In thousands] A n n u a l a v e ra g e 1999 2000 In d u s tr y T O T A L ....................................... P R IV A T E S E C T O R ..................... G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G ..................... M in in g ............................................ Metal mining.......................... Oil and gas extraction............. Nonmetalllc minerals, 1998 1999 A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M a r .p A p r .p 125,826 106,007 128,615 108 455 128,134 108 035 128,162 108 085 128,443 108 338 128,816 108 663 128,945 129,048 129,332 129,589 129,898 130,292 130,319 130,777 131,117 25,347 590 50 339 25,240 535 49 293 25 288 538 49 294 25 199 25 180 25 247 531 49 287 526 48 285 528 48 285 524 47 285 527 48 287 528 48 289 527 49 288 529 48 291 530 49 292 532 48 296 536 48 301 540 48 305 109 109 109 109 109 110 109 109 109 5,985 1,372 6,273 1,434 6,277 1,428 6,239 1,427 6,258 1,430 6,270 1,432 6,246 1,426 6,293 1,440 6,314 1,445 6,369 1,450 6,393 1,454 6,504 1,474 6,484 1,480 6,574 1,492 6,519 1,482 838 3,744 862 3,978 874 3,975 857 3,996 1R3fifi 12,617 861 4,008 1 R3fiR 12,608 881 4,123 903 4,179 889 4,148 18 473 12,696 852 3,968 18 378 12,622 900 4,130 18,432 12,662 857 3,981 18 449 12,691 878 4,061 18,772 12,930 857 3,971 18 398 12,623 870 4,049 Production workers........... 854 3,958 18 429 12,662 12,613 12,613 12,627 12,617 12,602 12,612 Production workers........... 11 170 7,643 7,511 7,519 7,504 7,487 7,549 7,513 7,496 7,489 7,487 7,485 7,505 7,507 7,501 7,509 813 530 826 540 824 536 824 537 824 538 826 546 826 543 827 544 829 546 829 544 828 543 827 543 830 545 827 545 826 546 563 712 1,501 569 690 1,489 570 691 1,489 569 689 1,487 568 687 1,485 571 692 1,493 568 568 685 1,487 571 1,491 574 687 1,493 577 689 1,496 575 1,489 574 687 1,489 577 1,484 569 685 1,486 1,501 2,203 2,129 2,132 2,129 2,128 2,131 2 ,1 2 2 2,117 2,116 2,118 2 ,1 2 0 2,115 2,118 2 ,1 1 1 2 ,1 1 2 379 360 361 362 364 360 359 358 358 358 359 357 356 352 350 1,704 1,661 1,658 1,658 1,657 1,667 1,662 1,662 1,665 1,661 1,664 1,671 1,679 1,677 1,685 660 1,884 639 1,855 635 1,864 635 1,853 637 1,849 639 1,863 641 1,859 640 1,848 643 1,838 643 1,834 645 1,831 647 1,841 652 1,828 652 1,835 656 1,832 990 524 1 ,0 0 0 996 503 996 498 998 491 1,014 488 1 ,0 1 2 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 1 1 ,0 1 0 471 467 464 463 1,014 447 1,009 460 1 ,0 1 0 483 1,006 476 1 ,00 1 490 839 842 839 837 840 836 833 830 833 833 830 829 831 832 389 391 392 390 389 390 7,407 5,126 7,401 5,128 7,403 5,122 7,393 5,110 7,384 5,101 7,385 5,103 C o n s tru c tio n ................................... General building contractors.... Heavy construction, except building............................... Special trades contractors....... Lumber and wood products.... Stone, clay, and glass products............................ Primary metal industries........ Fabricated metal products..... Industrial machinery and equipment......................... Computer and office equipment....................... Electronic and other electrical equipment......................... Electronic components and accessories...................... Transportation equipment...... Motor vehicles and equipment......................... Aircraft and parts................ Instruments and related 868 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries........................... 688 686 686 688 456 393 387 387 386 387 386 387 388 7,602 5,287 7,446 5,151 7,480 5,177 7,458 5,158 7,436 5,136 7,434 5,142 7,403 5,109 7,407 5,121 388 7,404 5,119 1 ,6 8 6 1,685 39 562 1,689 38 567 1 ,6 8 8 1,681 39 559 1,680 38 551 1 ,6 8 6 36 557 1,679 38 553 1 ,6 8 6 38 563 1,680 39 560 1 ,6 6 6 41 598 39 553 38 551 1,689 38 549 1,680 38 550 1,679 35 549 1,684 38 548 763 675 1,565 1,043 140 684 659 1,553 1,035 137 698 662 1,555 1,038 139 691 661 1,551 1,036 138 686 679 659 1,554 1,032 138 672 658 1,553 1,030 136 669 657 1,552 1,033 137 666 659 1,552 1,033 137 655 1,552 1,033 136 663 655 1,549 1,033 136 662 655 1,547 1,030 135 657 654 1,550 1,034 136 657 653 1,551 1,034 136 657 652 1,551 1,033 136 655 651 1,552 1,034 135 1,009 83 1,019 74 1,018 74 1,016 74 1 ,0 2 1 1 ,0 2 2 1 ,0 2 1 1 ,0 2 2 100,480 103,375 1,019 75 102,846 102,963 6,600 4,276 231 6,792 4,425 230 6,750 4,397 234 468 1,745 180 1,183 14 455 482 1,813 181 1,237 13 469 483 1,800 180 2,324 1,469 2,366 1,522 W h o le s a le tra d e ............................. 855 6,831 845 7,004 R etail tra d e ....................................... 22,296 Building materials and garden supplies............................... General merchandise stores.... Department stores................. 948 2,730 2,426 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ...................... Production workers............ Food and kindred products.... Tobacco products................. Textile mill products.............. Apparel and other textile products............................ Paper and allied products...... Printing and publishing.......... Chemicals and allied products. Petroleum and coal products... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products................. Leather and leather products... S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G .................. 72 73 1,017 72 103,263 103,569 103,797 6,758 4,402 233 6,781 4,423 233 6,799 4,438 230 14 466 480 1,802 180 1,226 13 468 483 1,810 181 1,234 13 469 2,353 1,508 2,356 1,513 2,358 1,513 845 71 1,026 71 1,025 71 1,024 70 1 ,0 2 2 72 70 1,019 69 103,862 104,134 104,332 104,615 104,882 104,937 105,306 105,686 6,813 4,445 226 6,831 4,455 227 6,841 4,458 227 6,862 4,474 226 6,897 4,501 227 6,902 4,507 226 6,898 4,499 226 6,914 4,512 6,937 4,539 223 483 1,817 182 1,240 13 473 488 1,817 182 1,246 13 473 486 1,825 182 1,250 13 472 486 1,828 182 1,251 13 471 487 1,839 180 1,257 13 472 487 1,845 182 1,273 13 474 491 1,849 181 1,277 13 470 490 1,841 185 1,271 13 473 489 1,848 185 1,280 13 475 495 1,858 187 1,283 13 480 2,361 1,519 2,368 1,525 2,376 1,533 2,383 1,541 2,388 1,546 2,396 1,553 2,395 1,552 2,399 1,561 2,402 1,565 2,398 1,562 T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s .......................................... Transportation........................ Railroad transportation.......... Local and interurban passenger transit................ Trucking and warehousing..... Water transportation.............. Transportation by air............. Pipelines, except natural gas... Transportation services........ Communications and public utilities................................. Communications................... Electric, gas, and sanitary services............................. 1 ,2 2 0 843 6,977 845 842 843 6,993 7,012 7,031 843 7,041 842 7,064 22,787 6,965 22,724 22,748 22,796 22,903 2 2 ,8 8 8 22,862 22,891 987 2,775 2,472 982 2,799 2,499 979 2,784 2,486 982 2,782 2,482 986 2,778 2,476 988 2,774 2,468 992 2,762 2,460 2,756 2,455 1 ,0 0 1 222 842 843 843 836 7,088 7,108 838 7,121 837 7,070 22,902 7,142 7,145 22,973 23,018 23,016 23,041 23,160 1,004 2,753 2,450 1,007 2,793 2,479 1 ,0 1 2 2,798 2,477 1,017 2,775 2,470 1,030 2,766 2,461 2,766 2,463 1 ,0 2 2 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 61 Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data 12. C o n tin u e d — E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rke rs o n n o n fa rm pa yrolls b y industry, m o n th ly d a t a s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d [In thousands] 1998 Food stores............................ Automotive dealers and service stations.................... New and used car dealers..... Apparel and accessory stores... Furniture and home furnishings stores.................................. Eating and drinking places....... Miscellaneous retail establishments..................... 1999 2000 1999 A n n u a l a v e ra g e A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M a r .p A p r .p 3,482 3,483 3,492 3,487 3,479 3,478 3,484 3,478 3,481 3,480 3,482 3,481 3,484 3,478 3,498 2,341 1,048 1,143 2,406 1,081 1,180 2,399 1,074 1,163 2,400 1,077 1,172 2,403 1,080 1,178 2,407 1,085 1,192 2,409 1,089 1,191 2,415 1,091 1,189 2,420 1,092 2,432 1,097 1,177 2,445 1 ,2 0 0 2,424 1,096 1,198 2,442 1,103 1,193 2,454 1,108 1,195 2,455 1,109 1,204 1,026 7,760 1,085 7,904 1,081 7,863 1,084 7,880 1,091 7,911 1,090 7,989 1,094 7,960 1,097 7,932 1,099 7,925 1,095 7,943 1 ,1 0 2 1 ,1 0 2 7,986 7,987 1,107 7,980 1,115 7,981 1,119 8,061 2,867 2,968 2,945 2,962 2,970 2,983 2,988 2,997 3,009 3,005 2,994 3,015 3,018 3,022 3,035 7,407 3,593 2,042 1,468 258 658 7,632 3,706 2,047 1,465 256 714 7,611 3,697 2,050 1,467 257 716 7,621 3,706 2,047 1,465 256 720 7,636 3,709 2,045 1,463 256 721 7,647 3,715 2,044 1,462 256 721 7,650 3,716 2,046 1,464 255 719 7,653 3,715 2,047 1,466 255 713 7,668 3,719 2,047 1,464 254 711 7,675 3,723 2,044 1,460 254 711 7,685 3,727 2,040 1,458 252 713 7,685 3,726 2,040 1,458 251 708 7,698 3,732 2,038 1,457 250 708 7,689 3,726 2,034 1,456 247 701 7,696 3,732 2,036 1,455 247 699 645 679 668 672 676 682 685 686 1 ,1 0 0 1,178 F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , and real e s ta te ...................................... Finance................................. Depository institutions............ Commercial banks............... Savings institutions.............. Nondepository institutions...... Security and commodity brokers............................... Holding and other investment offices................................ Insurance............................... Insurance carriers................. Insurance agents, brokers, and service......................... Real estate............................. S e rv ic e s ' ......................................... Agricultural services................ Hotels and other lodging places Personal services................... Business services................... Services to buildings............. Personnel supply services...... Help supply services............ Computer and data processing services............. Auto repair services and parking.......................... Miscellaneous repair services... Motion pictures....................... Amusement and recreation Health services....................... Offices and clinics of medical doctors.............................. Nursing and personal care facilities............................. Hospitals............................. Home health care services..... Residential care................... Museums and botanical and zoological gardens............... Membership organizations...... Engineering and management 691 697 702 705 712 717 725 270 2,414 1,641 271 2,411 1,636 272 2,416 1,639 273 2,406 1,632 274 2,412 1,636 274 2,410 1,633 272 2,412 1,634 248 2,344 1,598 266 2,402 1,635 263 2,395 1,631 267 2,399 1,635 267 2,402 1,638 268 2,404 1,635 266 2,407 1,636 269 2,410 1,637 746 1,471 767 1,525 764 1,519 764 1,516 764 1,525 769 1,528 771 1,527 773 1,528 773 1,535 775 1,541 777 1,542 774 1,553 776 1,554 777 1,553 778 1,552 37,526 706 1,776 1,195 8,584 950 3,230 2,872 39,000 759 1,799 1,206 9,123 988 3,405 3,017 38,697 755 1,791 1,204 9,010 978 3,350 2,975 38,782 751 1,786 1,189 9,047 979 3,366 2,986 38,952 757 1,797 39,205 757 1,813 1,207 9,186 998 3,418 3,024 39,257 763 1,811 39,433 766 1,806 9,088 984 3,387 3,000 39,055 760 1,807 1,207 9,148 992 3,422 3,025 39,657 765 1,807 1,225 9,392 3,513 3,108 39,804 788 1,800 1,231 9,416 999 3,505 3,100 39,822 782 1,805 1,228 9,424 1,003 3,523 3,119 39,980 799 1,822 1,234 9,482 1,008 3,556 3,148 40,101 798 1,835 1,235 9,537 1,004 3,613 3,194 1,599 1,781 1,749 1,765 1,781 1,794 1,144 382 573 1,185 397 600 1,178 396 587 1,182 398 604 1,184 395 611 1,185 395 609 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,2 1 0 1 ,2 1 0 9,204 3,440 3,032 9,303 1,003 3,490 3,099 39,554 774 1,812 1,214 9,336 1,003 3,501 3,097 1,806 1,814 1,823 1,829 1,842 1,852 1,859 1 ,8 6 8 1,876 1,185 396 608 1,190 398 608 1,196 400 612 1,197 400 613 1,198 405 609 1 ,2 0 2 1 ,2 0 2 1,196 407 608 1,196 407 617 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 403 616 406 609 1,601 1,696 1 ,6 6 8 1,675 1,695 1,694 1,712 1,713 1,730 1,734 1,725 1,759 1,762 1,763 1,778 9,846 9,973 9,951 9,954 9,964 9,975 9,993 9,999 10,009 10,026 10,038 10,057 10,059 10,071 10,078 1,803 1,865 1,856 1,860 1,864 1 ,8 6 8 1,874 1,876 1,880 1,885 1 ,8 8 6 1,895 1,898 1,907 1,912 1,762 3,926 672 973 2,177 2,644 605 747 1,755 3,970 655 1,755 3,966 653 999 2,265 2,760 629 775 1,755 3,969 653 1,754 3,968 655 1 ,0 0 2 1 ,0 0 0 2,278 2,763 632 781 1,756 3,977 657 1,007 2,289 2,803 631 788 1,756 3,978 658 1,009 2,288 2,817 634 792 2,298 2,840 646 796 1,759 3,985 659 1,015 2,304 2,850 650 801 1,760 3,992 658 1,017 2,297 2,872 657 803 1,762 3,989 656 1,014 2,298 2,876 655 807 1,763 3,990 653 1,014 2,321 2,889 660 810 1,763 3,987 654 2,272 2,778 633 777 1,755 3,973 658 1,004 2,288 2,799 631 785 1,756 3,978 658 2,270 2,782 632 781 1,753 3,966 656 998 2,254 2,755 628 772 93 2,361 94 2,402 94 2,392 93 2,394 94 2,409 94 2,403 95 2,409 94 2,408 95 2,409 96 2,411 95 2,418 96 2,420 95 2,420 96 2,422 98 2,420 3,185 3,420 3,370 3,391 3,411 3,441 3,458 3,464 3,487 3,496 3,515 3,532 3,544 3,558 3,561 959 964 973 976 977 980 1 ,0 0 2 1 ,0 1 2 1 ,0 1 0 2,332 2,900 659 816 Engineering and architectural 944 905 939 940 942 948 948 948 954 Management and public Federal, except Postal Service............................. State..................................... Other local government........ 1 1,034 1,158 1,133 1,143 1,153 1,165 1,178 1,180 1,193 1,196 1,213 1,218 1,225 1,226 19,819 20,099 20,077 2 ,6 8 8 2 ,6 6 6 20,105 2,664 20,153 2,656 2 0 ,2 1 0 2 ,6 8 6 20,160 2,669 2,651 20,218 2,654 20,237 2,643 20,269 2,648 20,315 2,645 20,365 2,665 20,382 2,702 20,540 2,818 20,647 2,887 1,819 4,612 1,916 2,695 12,521 7,082 5,440 1,796 4,695 1,953 2,743 12,796 7,265 5,531 1,809 4,688 1,955 2,733 12,723 7,206 5,517 1,788 4,677 1,941 2,736 12,734 7,225 5,509 1,789 4,675 1,934 2,741 12,766 7,239 5,527 1,779 4,682 1,947 2,735 12,815 7,268 5,547 1,779 4,706 1,965 2,741 12,853 7,308 5,545 1,785 4,717 1,965 2,752 12,847 7,295 5,552 1,780 4,722 1,960 2,762 12,872 7,305 5,567 1,780 4,729 1,967 2,762 12,892 7,318 5,574 1,780 4,730 1,969 2,761 12,940 7,351 5,589 1,799 4,727 1,967 2,760 12,973 7,365 5,608 1,836 4,725 1,962 2,763 12,955 7,347 5,608 1,953 4,733 1,967 2,766 12,989 7,365 5,624 2 ,0 2 2 Includes other Industries not shown separately. p= preliminary. NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 62 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 1 ,2 2 0 4,739 1,969 2,770 13,021 7,398 5,623 13. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted Annual average 1999 2000 Industry 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Apr.p 34.6 34.5 34.4 34.4 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.6 34.5 34.5 G O O D S - P R O D U C IN G ........................................ 41.0 41.0 40.9 41.0 41.2 41.2 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.3 40.9 41.1 41.3 41.2 41.4 M IN IN G .................................................................... 43.9 43.8 43.8 44.1 44.0 45.1 44.2 44.3 44.1 44.2 44.2 44.9 44.7 44.7 45.0 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ............................................. 41.7 4.6 41.7 4.6 41.6 43 41.7 46 41.7 47 41.9 47 41.8 47 41.8 41.8 41.7 41.6 41.7 41.8 41.7 42.1 D u r a b le g o o d s .................................................. 42.3 4.8 41.1 40.6 43.5 44.2 42.2 4.8 41.2 40.3 43.4 44.2 42.1 43 41.2 40 4 43.1 44.0 42.2 47 41.2 40 4 43.4 44.3 42.3 48 41.1 40 4 43.4 44.3 42.5 42.4 42.2 42.1 42.3 42.4 42.3 42.7 4 .9 41.1 41.3 42.4 4*9 41.1 42.3 4 .9 41.1 41.1 40.9 41.1 41.0 40.8 40.9 40 6 40 3 43.6 44.5 43.6 44.4 43.6 44.4 43.4 44.3 43.9 44.3 43.3 44.4 43.6 44.5 43.5 44.5 43.3 44.4 43.4 44.8 44.6 42.3 44.8 42.2 44.5 41 8 44.8 42 1 45.2 4? 1 45.2 4? 3 45.1 45.0 45.0 45.3 45.5 45.1 45.5 45.0 44.7 4? 4 4P 3 P R IV A T E S E C T O R .......................................... Lumber and wood products................ Stone, clay, and glass products.......... Primary metal industries.................... Blast furnaces and basic steel products......................................... 34.6 Industrial machinery and equipment.... Electronic and other electrical equipment....................................... Transportation equipment................... Motor vehicles and equipment.......... Instruments and related products....... Miscellaneous manufacturing............. 42.8 42.2 41.9 42.1 42.0 42.4 42.4 42.4 42.4 42.2 42.2 42.5 42.4 42.4 42.9 41.4 43.4 43.5 41.3 39.9 41.4 43.8 45.0 41.5 39.9 41.1 44.0 45.1 41.6 39.6 41.5 43.5 44.4 41.6 40.2 41.5 44.2 45.4 41.5 40.0 41.7 44.4 46.0 41.7 40.1 41.7 44.0 45.2 41.6 40.1 41.6 44.0 45.2 41.6 40.0 41.6 43.9 45.3 41.5 39.8 41.4 43.5 44.7 41.5 39.6 41.2 43.3 44.4 41.6 39.9 41.4 43.7 45.1 41.2 39.4 41.6 44.1 45.1 41.2 39.5 41.9 43.8 44.7 41.1 39.4 42.3 44.3 45.5 41.5 39.8 40 9 4.3 41.7 41.0 37.3 43.4 40 9 4.4 41.8 40.9 37.4 43.5 40 9 0 10 8 Overtime hours................................. Food and kindred products................. Textile mill products........................... Apparel and other textile products...... Paper and allied products................... 4.2 41.9 41.0 37.5 43.6 4.4 41.8 41.0 37.8 43.5 4.5 41.8 40.6 37.7 43.5 4.5 42.0 41.3 37.5 43.5 4.4 41.6 40.9 37.3 43.7 4.4 41.7 40.8 37.5 43.5 4.5 42.0 41.3 37.5 43.5 4.4 41.9 41.2 37.3 43.5 4.5 41.6 41.2 37.4 43.2 4.4 41.6 40.9 37.6 43.3 4.5 41.5 41.8 37.8 43.5 4.3 41.5 41.5 37.7 43.2 4.6 41.9 41.8 38.1 43.6 Printing and publishing....................... Chemicals and allied products............ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products............................... Leather and leather products.............. 38.3 43.2 38.2 43.0 38.1 43.0 38.3 43.0 38.3 43.0 38.4 43.1 38.3 43.3 38.3 43.2 38.4 43.1 38.3 43.1 38.2 43.1 38.3 43.0 38.3 42.8 38.1 42.5 38.6 42.9 41.7 37.6 41.7 37.7 41.5 38.1 41.9 38.4 41.8 37.9 41.7 37.9 41.6 38.2 41.7 37.2 41.5 37.5 41.5 37.6 41.3 36.8 41.7 37.5 41.5 38.1 41.3 38.0 42.1 38.7 S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ....................................... 32.9 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.9 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.9 32.8 32.9 32.9 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S ........................................ 39.5 38.7 39.0 38.8 38.9 38.7 38.9 38.6 38.5 38.2 38.5 38.4 38.3 38.3 38.6 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ....................................... 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.4 38.5 38.8 R E T A IL T R A D E .................................................... 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.0 28.8 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.2 29.0 29.1 29.0 p= preliminary. Note: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 14. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1999 2000 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.P a_ a. < P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c u rre n t d o lla rs ).. $ 12.78 $ 13.24 $13.14 $13.18 $13.24 $13.28 $13.29 $13.35 $13.39 $13.40 $13.44 $13.49 $13.54 $13.58 $13.64 G o o d s -p r o d u c in g ......................................... 14.34 14.82 14.67 14.75 14.85 14.90 14.90 14.93 14.97 14.99 15.03 15.10 15.17 15.21 15.28 Mining.............................................. Construction..................................... Manufacturing.................................. Excluding overtime........................ 16.90 16.59 13.49 12.79 17.04 17.13 13.91 13.18 16.87 16.97 13.79 13.09 17.05 17.08 13.85 13.13 16.96 17.16 13.95 13.20 17.23 17.18 14.02 13.26 17.12 17.15 14.03 13.28 17.09 17.21 14.04 13.29 17.09 17.27 14.07 13.33 16.93 17.31 14.06 13.32 17.01 17.42 14.09 13.35 17.01 17.44 14.15 13.42 17.04 17.55 14.21 13.45 17.14 17.62 14.22 13.48 17.21 17.72 14.30 13.51 S e r v ic e -p r o d u c in g ........................................ 12.27 12.74 12.65 1 2 .6 8 12.73 12.77 12.79 12.85 12.89 12.90 12.95 12.98 13.03 13.07 13.13 Transportation and public utilities...... Wholesale trade............................... Retail trade...................................... Finance, Insurance, and real estate.... Services........................................... 15.31 14.06 8.73 14.06 12.85 15.67 14.59 9.08 14.61 13.38 15.60 14.44 9.03 14.58 13.28 15.65 14.48 9.04 14.60 13.33 15.65 14.56 9.06 14.62 13.38 15.70 14.61 9.10 14.68 13.42 15.70 14.63 9.13 14.63 13.44 15.76 14.74 9.15 14.70 13.49 15.76 14.80 9.18 14.72 13.55 15.81 14.81 9.20 14.73 13.55 15.94 14.88 9.26 14.75 13.60 15.87 14.99 9.26 14.88 13.64 15.98 14.94 9.31 14.85 13.69 16.04 15.01 9.34 14.94 13.73 16.11 15.00 9.39 14.98 13.79 7.75 7.86 7.83 7.85 7.89 7.88 7.87 7.86 7.87 7.86 7.87 7.88 7.87 7.84 - P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c o n s ta n t (1 9 8 2 ) d o lla r s )............................................................... - Data not available. p= preliminary. NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 63 Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry 2000 1999 Annual average Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M ar.p CL 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. $12.78 $13.24 $13.16 $13.19 $13.14 $13.15 $13.20 $13.38 $13.41 $13.43 $13.47 $13.58 $13.58 $13.60 $13.71 Q. P R IV A T E S E C T O R ............................................. Sept. < Industry M I N I N G ...................................................................... 16.90 17.04 16.93 17.00 16.93 17.12 17.01 17.10 17.00 16.95 17.13 17.24 17.13 17.17 17.22 C O N S T R U C T I O N ................................................. 16.59 17.13 16.85 17.02 17.08 17.22 17.26 17.41 17.49 17.37 17.42 17.34 17.37 17.48 17.60 M A N U F A C T U R I N G ............................................. 13.49 13.91 13.80 13.85 13.91 13.92 13.95 14.11 14.04 14.08 14.21 14.19 14.19 14.22 14.30 D u r a b le g o o d s ................................................... 13.98 14.27 11.37 11.14 13.75 15.62 14.34 11.42 11.14 13.87 15.75 14.40 11.45 11.16 13.94 15.91 14.38 11.52 11.24 14.00 16.03 14.47 11.53 11.28 13.97 15.99 14.63 11.55 11.33 14.12 16.20 14.55 11.59 11.33 14.02 16.02 14.58 11.59 11.35 14.07 16.14 14.73 11.63 11.46 14.00 16.19 14.72 10.90 13.60 15.49 14.40 11.46 11.23 13.90 15.85 11.46 13.98 16.22 14.73 11.62 11.50 14.00 16.30 14.76 11.62 11.57 14.06 16.36 14.83 11.72 11.61 14.23 16.55 1 1 .6 6 Lumber and wood products................ Furniture and fixtures......................... Stone, clay, and glass products......... Primary metal industries..................... Blast furnaces and basic steel products.......................................... Fabricated metal products................. 1 1 .1 0 18.43 13.06 18.87 13.46 18.59 13.36 18.79 13.45 19.05 13.46 19.12 13.45 18.99 13.50 19.05 13.61 18.96 13.50 19.18 13.57 19.16 13.70 19.23 13.69 19.40 13.65 19.59 13.67 19.86 13.69 Industrial machinery and equipment... Electronic and other electrical equipment........................................ Transportation equipment.................. Motor vehicles and equipment......... Instruments and related products...... Miscellaneous manufacturing............ 14.47 15.01 14.85 14.95 14.99 15.07 15.13 15.23 15.18 15.21 15.36 15.39 15.40 15.42 15.44 13.09 17.53 17.86 13.81 10.89 13.45 18.10 18.48 14.17 11.33 13.31 17.88 18.31 14.07 11.25 13.38 17.98 18.40 14.10 11.25 13.40 18.20 18.68 14.13 11.30 13.49 17.94 18.23 14.25 11.32 13.51 18.23 18.61 14.28 11.34 13.62 18.56 19.04 14.30 11.46 13.58 18.47 18.93 14.36 11.47 13.59 18.46 18.87 14.34 11.43 13.70 18.78 19.29 14.40 11.57 13.74 18.64 19.07 14.38 11.54 13.70 18.65 19.10 14.41 11.55 13.68 18.77 19.23 14.42 11.57 13.78 18.87 19.38 14.47 11.63 12.76 11.80 18.55 10.39 8.52 15.51 13.17 13.09 12.07 19.99 13.11 13.18 12.08 20.99 10.72 13.33 1 2 .2 0 15.98 17.77 10.72 8.99 16.12 17.96 10.80 8.98 16.12 13.41 12.29 17.97 10.84 9.03 16.15 13.39 12.24 17.16 10.84 9.02 16.05 13.37 12.24 17.40 10.85 9.02 16.02 13.40 12.29 18.83 15.97 13.35 12.19 18.88 10.78 9.01 16.27 1 2 .1 0 8.83 15.83 13.22 12.15 21.15 10.71 8.83 16.05 13.27 20.63 10.69 8.81 15.91 13.15 12.16 20.79 10.76 8.89 15.98 9.05 16.04 13.49 12.42 19.05 10.93 9.04 16.19 13.45 17.12 20.92 13.83 17.47 21.46 13.73 17.27 21.49 13.74 17.39 21.05 13.73 17.35 21.14 13.80 17.49 21.35 13.82 17.51 21.29 13.97 17.78 21.62 13.97 17.72 14.11 17.79 21.83 14.10 17.81 2 1 .6 8 14.01 17.75 21.83 2 1 .6 8 14.13 17.78 22.08 14.19 17.75 22.27 14.21 17.96 21.94 11.87 9.32 12.31 9.69 12.23 9.59 1 2 .2 1 9.59 12.25 9.57 12.35 9.61 12.32 9.77 12.46 9.86 12.37 9.83 12.41 9.84 12.51 9.92 12.55 9.99 12.51 9.86 12.52 9.91 12.63 10.05 P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S ......................................... 15.31 15.67 15.57 15.55 15.56 15.66 15.67 15.78 15.76 15.87 15.94 15.95 16.02 16.01 16.14 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ...................................... 14.06 14.59 14.48 14.53 14.44 14.55 14.65 14.73 14.78 14.82 14.91 15.06 14.95 14.94 15.13 R E T A IL T R A D E .................................................... 8.73 9.08 9.03 9.03 9.02 9.02 9.04 9.18 9.20 9.21 9.25 9.33 9.34 9.36 9.42 A N D R E A L E S T A T E ..................................... 14.06 14.61 14.61 14.72 14.50 14.53 14.61 14.63 14.68 14.73 14.75 14.97 14.92 14.96 15.15 S E R V I C E S .............................................................. 12.85 13.38 13.32 13.34 13.23 13.20 13.25 13.48 13.54 13.60 13.69 13.81 13.80 13.81 13.89 N o n d u r a b l e g o o d s .......................................... Food and kindred products................ Textile mill products........................... Apparel and other textile products..... Paper and allied products.................. Chemicals and allied products........... Petroleum and coal products............. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.............................. Leather and leather products............. 1 2 .1 0 19.07 10.71 8 .8 6 1 0 .6 8 1 2 .1 1 8 .8 8 1 0 .8 6 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , p = preliminary. NOTE: bee "Notes on the data" tor a description ot the most recent oencnmarK revision. 64 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry Industry Annual average 1999 2000 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.p Apr.p $442.19 $456.78 271.25 $456.37 453.39 271.65 $454.64 456.78 270.62 $456.31 458.16 270.81 $463.32 458.51 274.15 $458.93 459.24 269.96 $463.99 461.96 272.45 $463.34 462.30 271.91 $466.06 463.68 273.51 $467.15 466.75 273.51 $464.44 467.13 270.50 $465.12 468.51 268.35 $474.37 471.94 268.32 $451.39 452.02 268.84 P R IV A T E S E C T O R Seasonally adjusted............... Constant (1982) dollars............ - M IN IN G ...................................................... 741.91 746.35 733.07 751.40 748.31 765.26 756.95 759.24 758.20 757.67 760.57 763.73 757.15 753.76 769.73 C O N S T R U C T IO N .................................. 643.69 668.07 650.41 668.89 679.78 687.08 690.40 672.03 699.60 6 8 6 .1 2 674.15 664.12 670.48 678.22 688.16 562.53 341.34 580.05 344.45 574.08 341.92 577.55 343.78 581.44 346.10 573.50 340.36 583.11 345.04 588.39 346.11 589.68 346.26 594.18 348.70 603.93 354.42 590.30 345.61 588.89 342.98 590.13 340.72 596.31 Constant (1982) dollars............ goods............................ 591.35 607.68 602.19 606.58 610.56 598.21 612.08 615.92 618.38 622.57 634.86 621.18 620.13 622.87 628.79 Lumber and wood products..... Furniture and fixtures............... Stone, clay, and glass products............................... Primary metal industries.......... Blast furnaces and basic steel products...................... Fabricated metal products....... Industrial machinery and equipment........................... Electronic and other electrical 456.21 442.54 472.15 452.57 468.44 447.83 472.79 443.37 476.32 449.75 473.47 451.85 480.80 459.10 472.40 457.73 479.83 458.87 479.83 458.54 480.32 471.01 474.56 459.55 469.45 457.70 469.45 462.80 480.52 465.56 591.60 684.66 603.26 700.57 594.00 688.84 607.51 699.30 611.97 706.40 613.20 698.91 616.08 705.16 621.28 717.66 616.88 709.69 620.49 721.46 606.20 733.41 592.75 723.41 593.60 723.72 597.55 724.75 613.31 734.82 821.98 552.44 845.38 568.01 829.11 562.46 843.67 566.25 861.06 569.36 854.66 558.18 852.65 571.05 855.35 568.90 851.30 572.40 868.85 579.44 881.36 591.84 871.12 579.09 878.82 576.03 879.59 575.51 891.71 580.46 619.32 633.42 626.67 630.89 631.08 628.42 635.46 635.09 642.11 646.43 663.55 654.08 652.96 655.35 656.20 541.93 760.80 556.83 792.78 547.04 790.30 551.26 789.32 556.10 802.62 551.74 757.07 562.02 796.65 562.51 816.64 567.64 814.53 572.14 814.09 580.88 843.22 571.58 814.57 567.18 820.60 570.46 824.00 576.00 832.17 776.91 831.60 834.94 831.68 848.07 780.24 831.87 866.32 857.53 852.92 891.20 856.24 859.50 865.35 881.79 570.35 434.51 588.06 452.07 583.91 448.88 583.74 451.13 586.40 450.87 584.25 444.88 591.19 453.60 587.73 454.96 594.50 461.09 600.85 459.49 612.00 467.43 595.33 451.21 595.13 453.92 594.10 457.02 596.16 459.39 M A N U F A C T U R IN G D u r a b le Transportation equipment........ Motor vehicles and equipment.......................... Instruments and related products............................... Miscellaneous manufacturing... 521.88 538.65 532.76 536.20 539.15 538.05 540.38 547.35 548.05 551.86 557.86 544.97 542.82 544.04 550.39 Food and kindred products...... Tobacco products.................... Textile mill products................. Apparel and other textile products............................... Paper and allied products........ 492.06 710.47 425.99 505.78 764.71 438.04 497.28 767.62 436.81 503.78 821.07 437.22 505.86 833.68 441.16 507.87 854.46 434.83 506.15 841.70 440.59 513.20 753.31 438.75 513.04 753.45 444.88 518.50 775.87 449.28 521.10 794.27 453.11 505.51 670.96 443.36 500.62 683.82 448.11 502.66 732.49 449.60 509.22 754.38 454.69 317.80 673.13 331.36 694.70 332.01 690.19 333.02 688.90 338.71 695.13 326.71 690.15 333.00 693.53 331.57 712.63 338.92 706.06 337.65 707.67 343.14 713.83 335.54 696.57 339.15 341.19 6 8 8 .8 6 6 8 8 .1 2 341.71 697.79 Printing and publishing............ Chemicals and allied products.. Petroleum and coal products.... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.................... Leather and leather products.... 515.14 739.58 912.11 528.31 751.21 924.93 523.11 737.43 917.62 522.12 744.29 896.73 520.37 746.05 909.02 525.78 746.82 924.46 530.69 754.68 906.95 539.24 769.87 931.82 539.24 763.73 936.58 543.59 770.35 938.69 548.88 779.20 940.87 534.39 764.05 938.74 535.53 757.43 958.27 540.64 754.38 977.65 544.24 766.89 952.20 494.98 350.43 513.33 365.31 511.21 363.46 511.60 367.30 513.28 367.49 506.35 359.41 510.05 377.12 517.09 367.78 514.59 370.59 519.98 373.92 529.17 371.01 519.57 368.63 516.66 369.75 517.08 374.60 526.67 383.91 604.75 606.43 601.00 603.34 606.84 609.17 617.40 607.53 605.18 607.82 612.10 609.29 610.36 608.38 624.62 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S ........................... W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ......................... 539.90 560.26 554.58 560.86 554.50 558.72 566.96 564.16 570.51 569.09 574.04 579.81 571.09 570.71 588.56 R E T A IL T R A D E ...................................... 253.17 263.32 259.16 262.77 265.19 268.80 270.30 264.38 264.96 264.33 271.03 265.91 266.19 267.70 273.18 A N D R E A L E S T A T E ........................ 511.78 528.88 524.50 535.81 520.55 525.99 539.11 526.68 529.95 530.28 533.95 549.40 538.61 537.06 556.01 S E R V IC E S ................................................ 418.91 436.19 431.57 436.22 431.30 432.96 439.90 435.40 442.76 444.72 446.29 451.59 449.88 448.83 456.98 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , p= preliminary. note : bee "Notes on tne data" tor a description ot tne most recent benchmark revision, uasn indicates data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 65 Current Labor Statistics: 17. Labor Force Data Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted [In percent] Tim espan and year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov Dec. Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 industries Over 1-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ 56.2 63.8 54.4 57.7 Over 3-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ 63.8 66.7 60.7 60.5 Over 6 -month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ Over 12-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 61.0 57.9 58.3 54.1 61.9 58.8 52.1 57.2 62.8 60.5 58.8 55.3 58.8 55.9 51.5 56.3 57.9 57.0 60.7 58.0 57.6 61.0 55.8 50.0 59.4 54.6 55.1 65.4 52.9 57.2 63.6 59.1 57.9 62.1 58.6 57.7 - - - - - - - "I 63.6 55.9 61.5 67.7 64.5 59.6 60.3 67.3 63.9 54.6 62.6 61.4 56.3 61.7 58.7 56.2 61.4 60.0 56.2 58.4 59.0 67.3 57.6 57.4 69.9 57.6 59.6 70.8 59.0 60.8 71.2 60.4 60.5 - - - - - - - - -| 67.4 70.6 61.1 64.3 68.3 66.9 58.8 65.6 65.9 57.3 67.0 62.4 59.0 65.6 62.6 55.2 64.9 61.1 57.4 66.3 58.0 56.9 68.4 59.8 61.5 69.7 60.0 61.0 71.3 60.8 59.7 71.3 60.8 62.9 71.9 58.0 64.2 - - - - - - - - - - -| 69.0 70.4 60.1 67.3 68.3 57.3 68.3 67.1 57.0 69.7 64.0 57.6 69.5 62.1 58.7 70.1 61.7 59.0 70.1 61.8 58.8 70.4 63.8 57.9 70.5 59.8 61.9 69.7 59.0 62.5 69.8 59.3 - 71.3 58.6 - 53.6 42.1 42.8 61.2 39.9 50.7 - 62.2 36.3 48.9 - - 55.4 45.0 49.3 - 6 6 .2 6 6 .2 Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries Over 1-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ 50.0 58.6 40.3 51.1 52.9 51.8 42.4 49.3 53.6 50.4 39.6 45.0 56.1 50.4 44.6 52.5 52.2 40.6 36.3 53.2 46.8 45.3 51.1 40.3 57.2 - - - 55.4 45.3 38.5 - Over 3-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ 51.8 59.4 37.4 49.6 51.4 57.9 31.7 49.6 57.6 51.8 37.1 48.2 56.8 44.2 30.2 54.3 41.7 33.8 51.8 34.9 43.9 53.6 37.4 43.2 55.4 37.1 44.6 59.7 38.1 38.5 68.3 34.2 46.4 65.8 35.6 50.0 64.4 35.3 50.4 - - - - - - - - - Over 6 -month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 2 0 0 0 ........................................................ 54.7 59.7 33.1 52.5 54.0 49.3 29.1 51.4 48.2 28.1 54.3 36.7 36.0 52.5 36.7 30.9 52.2 36.7 34.5 55.4 28.4 36.3 61.2 31.3 44.6 61.5 33.5 45.7 64.7 35.3 41.4 32.7 47.8 65.1 28.1 50.7 - - - - - - - - - - - Over 12-month span: 1997........................................................ 1998........................................................ 1999........................................................ 54.7 54.0 32.7 52.5 49.3 25.9 54.0 46.0 28.4 54.0 40.6 29.5 55.4 35.6 29.9 56.8 33.8 31.7 57.2 30.9 34.9 57.9 32.0 32.7 58.3 26.6 40.3 56.5 26.6 40.6 55.4 25.5 57.2 26.3 - - - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent ot industries with employment increasing plus one-halt of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and 18. 6 6 .2 decreasing 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. Annual data: Employment status of the population [Numbers in thousands] E m ploym ent status 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Civilian noninstitutional population.......... 190,925 192,805 194,838 196,814 198,584 200,591 203,133 205,220 207,753 Civilian labor force................................ 126,346 128,105 129,200 131,056 132,304 133,943 136,297 Labor force participation rate............. 66.2 66.4 66.3 66.6 66.6 66.8 67.1 137,673 67.1 139,368 67.1 Employed......................................... 117,718 118,492 124,900 126,708 129,558 62.5 62.9 63.2 3,269 61.5 3,247 3,409 3,440 3,443 63.8 3,399 131,463 64.1 133,488 61.7 120,259 61.7 123,060 Employment-population ratio......... Agriculture................................... 3,378 3,281 119,651 121,460 123,264 126,159 128,085 130,207 5,880 66 64.3 Nonagricultural industries........... 114,499 115,245 3,115 117,144 Unemployed.................................... 8,628 9,613 8,940 7,996 7,404 6.8 6,210 7.5 6.9 6.1 5.6 7,236 5.4 6,739 Unemployment rate....................... 4.9 4.5 4.2 Not in the labor force............................ 64,578 64,700 65,638 65,758 66,280 66,647 66,837 67,547 68,385 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry [In thousands] Industry Total employment........................................ Private sector............................................ Goods-producing................................... Mining................................................. Construction....................................... Manufacturing..................................... Service-producing................................. Transportation and public utilities....... Wholesale trade................................. Retail trade......................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate.... Federal............................................ State................................................ Local................................................ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 108,249 89,847 23,745 689 4,650 18,406 108,601 89,956 23,231 635 4,492 18,104 110,713 91,872 23,352 610 4,668 18,075 114,163 95,036 23,908 601 4,986 18,321 117,191 97,885 24,265 581 5,160 18,524 119,608 100,189 24,493 580 5,418 18,495 122,690 103,133 24,962 596 5,691 18,675 125,826 106,007 25,347 590 5,985 18,772 128,615 108,455 25,240 535 6,273 18,432 84,504 5,755 6,081 19,284 6,646 28,336 85,370 5,718 5,997 19,356 6,602 29,052 87,361 5,811 5,981 19,773 6,757 30,197 90,256 5,984 6,162 20,507 6,896 31,579 92,925 6,132 6,378 21,187 6,806 33,117 95,115 6,253 6,482 21,597 6,911 34,454 97,727 6,408 6,648 21,966 7,109 36,040 100,480 6,600 6,831 22,296 7,407 37,526 103,375 6,792 7,004 22,787 7,632 39,000 18,402 2,966 4,355 11,081 18,645 2,969 4 408 11,267 18 841 2,915 4 488 11,438 19 128 2,870 4,576 11,682 19,305 2,822 4,635 11,849 19 419 2,757 4 606 12,056 19 557 2,699 4 582 12,276 19 819 2 ,6 8 6 4 612 12,521 161 2,669 4 695 12,796 20 NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 20. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm payrolls, by industry Industry 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Private sector: Average weekly hours.............................................. Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)...................... 34.3 10.32 353.98 34.4 10.57 363.61 34.5 10.83 373.64 44.4 14.19 630.04 43.9 14.54 638.31 38.1 14.00 533.40 34.7 385.86 34.5 11.43 394.34 34.4 11.82 406.61 34.6 12.28 424.89 34.6 12.78 442.19 34.5 13.24 456.78 44.3 14.60 646.78 44.8 14.88 666.62 44.7 15.30 683.91 45.3 15.62 707.59 45.4 16.15 733.21 43.9 16.90 741.91 43.8 17.04 746.35 38.0 14.15 537.70 38.5 14.38 553.63 38.9 14.73 573.00 38.9 15.09 587.00 39.0 15.47 603.33 39.0 16.04 625.56 38.8 16.59 643.69 39.0 17.13 668.07 40.7 11.18 455.03 41.0 11.46 469.86 41.4 11.74 486.04 42.0 12.07 506.94 41.6 12.37 514.59 41.6 12.77 531.23 42.0 13.17 553.14 41.7 13.49 562.53 41.7 13.91 580.05 38.1 13.20 502.92 38.3 13.43 514.37 39.3 13.55 532.52 39.7 13.78 547.07 39.4 14.13 556.72 39.6 14.45 572.22 39.7 14.92 592.32 39.5 15.31 604.75 38.7 15.67 606.43 38.1 11.15 424.82 38.2 11.39 435.10 38.2 11.74 448.47 38.4 12.06 463.10 38.3 12.43 476.07 38.3 12.87 492.92 38.4 13.45 516.48 38.4 14.06 539.90 38.4 14.59 560.26 28.6 6.94 198.48 28.8 7.12 205.06 28.8 7.29 209.95 28.9 7.49 216.46 28.8 7.69 221.47 28.8 7.99 230.11 28.9 8.33 240.74 29.0 8.73 253.17 29.0 9.08 263.32 35.7 10.39 370.92 35.8 10.82 387.36 35.8 11.35 406.33 35.8 11.83 423.51 35.9 12.32 442.29 35.9 12.80 459.52 36.1 13.34 481.57 36.4 14.06 511.78 36.2 14.61 528.88 32.4 10.23 331.45 32.5 10.54 342.55 32.5 10.78 350.35 32.5 11.04 358.80 32.4 11.39 369.04 32.4 11.79 382.00 32.6 12.28 400.33 32.6 12.85 418.91 32.6 13.38 436.19 1 1 .1 2 M ining: Average weekly hours............................................ Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... C o n stru ctio n : Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... M an u factu rin g : Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d pu b lic utilities: Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... W h o le s a le trade: Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... R e tail trade: Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... F in an ce , in su ran ce , an d real estate: Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... S ervices: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Average weekly hours........................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................... Monthly Labor Review June 2000 67 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 21. Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group [June 1989 = 100] 1998 1999 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 12 months months ended ended Mar. 2000 Civilian workers2................................................................. 136.3 137.4 139.0 139.8 140.4 141.8 143.3 144.6 146.5 137.7 137.5 139.1 138.0 133.2 136.9 138.7 138.3 139.7 139.3 134.3 137.9 140.6 140.0 141.7 140.4 135.3 139.4 141.4 141.0 141.8 141.3 136.1 140.0 141.9 141.3 143.5 142.5 137.1 141.3 143.3 142.2 145.4 143.4 138.3 142.4 145.0 143.9 147.3 144.7 139.5 143.1 146.3 145.3 148.6 146.1 140.6 144.8 148.4 146.7 150.5 148.6 142.7 146.0 135.1 136.4 136.8 138.3 138.0 137.1 137.5 136.4 136.2 136.3 137.2 137.7 139.0 138.5 138.2 137.7 137.4 137.3 137.2 138.2 139.6 140.8 139.1 139.4 140.2 138.9 139.0 137.9 138.9 140.4 141.7 139.1 140.2 141.0 139.9 139.9 139.0 139.9 140.9 142.3 140.5 141.3 141.3 140.8 140.5 140.0 140.9 142.4 143.2 141.4 142.2 141.7 141.5 141.9 141.2 142.1 144.0 145.1 142.7 143.4 144.6 142.4 143.4 142.5 143.6 145.3 146.5 144.3 145.0 145.8 144.4 144.7 144.9 146.0 147.1 148.0 145.9 146.3 146.5 145.7 146.6 .9 .5 .9 1.3 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.3 136.3 136.4 137.5 137.5 139.0 138.8 139.8 139.4 140.4 140.5 142.0 141.9 143.3 143.2 144.6 144.5 146.8 146.5 1.5 1.4 4.6 4.3 138.1 138.8 138.8 139.4 135.3 138.2 133.1 132.9 133.6 129.3 137.0 139.4 139.9 140.1 140.0 137.3 139.6 134.3 134.4 134.7 129.9 137.6 141.1 141.3 141.6 141.9 140.4 140.6 135.2 135.4 135.7 130.7 138.5 142.0 141.9 142.6 141.8 142.6 141.4 135.9 136.1 136.8 130.7 139.2 142.4 143.0 142.9 143.7 139.6 142.6 136.9 137.2 137.3 131.6 141.0 144.1 144.5 144.1 145.8 142.6 143.7 138.2 138.4 138.4 133.6 142.3 145.6 146.0 145.2 147.7 144.1 145.0 139.4 139.6 139.9 134.4 143.2 146.9 147.3 146.7 149.1 145.3 146.2 140.5 140.6 141.4 135.2 144.4 149.3 149.4 148.4 151.1 148.9 149.0 142.6 142.3 144.0 137.5 146.4 1 .6 4.8 4.5 3.8 5.1 6.7 4.5 4.2 3.7 4.9 4.5 3.8 1.3 4.3 1.4 4.6 3.8 4.9 4.3 4.1 3.3 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers........................................................ Professional specialty and technical............................... Executive, adminitrative, and managerial....................... Administrative support, including clerical........................ Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Service occupations......................................................... 1 .0 1.3 1.7 1.5 .8 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................. Manufacturing................................................................ Service-producing............................................................ Services......................................................................... Health services............................................................ Hospitals.................................................................... Educational services.................................................... Public administration3 ..................................................... Nonmanufacturing........................................................... P r iv a te in d u s tr y w o r k e r s ................................................................... Excluding sales occupations........................................ 1.7 1.7 1 .2 1 .0 1.1 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers....................................................... Excluding sales occupations...................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations......... Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations.. Sales occupations........................................................ Administrative support occupations, including clerical... Precision production, craft, and repair occupations...... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors........... Transportation and material moving occupations......... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers.... Service occupations....................................................... Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................ Construction................................................................ Manufacturing.............................................................. Blue-collar occupations.............................................. Service-producing.......................................................... Transportation........................................................... Public utilities............................................................. Wholesale trade......................................................... Food stores............................................................. 68 Monthly Labor Review 1 .2 1.3 2.5 1.9 1.5 1 .2 1 .8 1.7 1.4 135.3 136.0 137.3 138.0 139.5 140.6 141.0 142.6 143.9 .9 3.2 135.3 136.6 138.0 139.0 139.3 140.8 141.9 143.1 145.3 1.5 4.3 135.1 134.5 137.7 136.3 133.5 130.6 136.4 138.2 136.5 135.0 136.5 135.9 136.2 135.6 138.8 137.4 134.6 132.7 137.2 139.1 137.3 135.9 137.4 136.7 137.1 136.5 139.7 138.3 135.5 133.4 138.2 140.1 138.3 136.8 138.5 137.6 137.8 137.2 140.2 138.8 136.3 134.3 138.9 140.5 138.7 137.7 139.2 138.2 138.9 138.3 141.7 140.4 137.1 135.6 139.9 141.8 140.1 138.5 139.9 139.6 139.9 139.3 142.7 141.3 138.3 136.9 140.9 143.0 141.3 139.4 141.0 140.4 141.1 140.5 143.9 142.5 139.4 137.9 142.1 144.3 142.5 140.5 142.3 141.5 142.5 141.8 145.5 143.9 140.7 138.7 143.6 145.8 143.8 142.1 144.0 142.8 144.8 144.2 148.1 146.5 142.8 140.8 146.0 148.2 146.2 144.4 146.5 144.9 1 .6 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.7 3.8 136.7 137.4 138.0 139.5 132.1 135.0 135.8 134.0 137.9 136.6 139.6 134.7 135.5 137.7 137.0 133.1 131.2 131.3 137.8 138.5 139.3 140.6 133.2 135.8 137.1 134.9 139.7 139.2 140.3 135.8 136.3 138.6 138.2 134.4 133.0 132.9 139.6 140.0 141.2 142.2 134.3 137.0 138.5 136.7 140.7 140.5 141.0 137.6 138.1 140.8 140.0 135.9 133.2 133.7 140.5 140.6 142.2 142.8 134.8 137.8 139.3 137.3 141.9 141.7 142.1 138.2 138.8 142.8 141.2 135.6 134.0 132.7 140.9 141.7 142.3 143.8 136.2 139.3 139.7 136.8 143.4 143.3 143.4 138.9 139.9 142.7 142.4 136.8 135.0 134.3 142.8 143.3 144.3 145.5 137.8 140.5 140.9 138.1 144.6 144.9 144.2 141.1 141.9 144.6 144.0 139.1 135.6 135.7 144.1 144.6 145.8 147.0 139.1 140.8 141.8 138.7 145.7 146.1 145.1 142.2 142.8 146.3 145.8 140.0 137.2 137.0 145.3 145.9 147.0 148.3 139.8 142.4 142.3 139.5 146.1 146.0 146.1 143.5 144.3 148.5 147.4 140.7 138.3 138.1 147.4 147.7 149.3 150.3 141.8 143.6 143.9 140.4 148.6 148.4 148.9 145.6 146.4 150.0 149.6 143.2 139.7 140.1 1.4 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.4 June 2000 1.7 1 .8 1 .8 1.5 1.5 1.7 1 .6 1.7 1 .6 1.7 1.5 1.1 4.6 4.2 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.1 3.0 .6 2 .6 1.7 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.8 4.6 5.1 5.1 4.7 3.5 4.3 1 .2 1 .6 1.3 1.4 .8 1 .6 1.9 1.5 1.5 1 .0 1.5 1 .8 1 .0 1.4 21. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group [June 1989 = 100] 1998 1999 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Percent change 3 12 m onths m onths ended ended Mar. Mar. 2000 Finance, insurance, and real estate............................... 136.7 138.4 141.0 142.5 141.5 145.8 147.6 148.3 152.0 2.5 7.4 Excluding sales occupations..................................... Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies. Insurance...................................................................... Services.......................................................................... 141.3 145.3 138.9 140.3 140.7 138.7 138.2 143.9 144.8 143.2 148.4 141.9 141.8 143.5 139.0 139.1 147.0 147.8 143.3 146.7 141.7 142.7 145.9 139.0 139.9 147.7 148.5 145.6 148.8 141.7 143.5 147.5 140.5 141.2 148.3 149.2 148.8 155.4 144.0 144.6 148.7 141.4 142.1 148.7 149.6 151.0 159.3 144.5 146.1 150 7 142.6 143.0 152.2 152.6 151.6 159.8 145.8 147.6 151 9 144.2 144.6 153.0 153.3 154.2 162.7 149.9 149.4 154 2 145.8 145.8 154.0 154.6 1.7 Health services............................................................. Hospitals.................................................................... Educational services.................................................... Colleges and universities........................................... 140.2 143.3 137.4 139.3 139.5 138.2 136.7 143.4 144.3 5.9 9.3 5.8 4.1 45 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.6 Nonmanufacturing.......................................................... 136.0 137.2 138.9 139.7 140.3 142.0 143.4 144.5 146.7 1.5 4.6 White-collar workers..................................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................... Blue-collar occupations................................................ Service occupations..................................................... 137.9 139.3 131.0 134.9 139.2 140.5 132.4 135.7 141.1 142.0 133.4 136.9 142.0 142.7 134.0 137.7 142.3 143.7 135.2 139.2 144.1 145.3 136.8 140.4 145.6 146.8 138.0 140.7 146.9 148.1 138.7 142.3 149.2 150.2 140.6 143.5 1 .6 1.4 1.4 .8 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.1 S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ............................................. 136.5 136.9 139.0 139.8 140.5 141.0 143.1 144.6 145.5 .6 3.6 136.1 135.6 137.5 136.9 135.0 136.2 135.6 137.9 137.2 135.2 138.4 137.7 140.4 139.5 136.8 139.3 138.5 141.6 140.3 137.8 139.8 138.8 142.6 141.4 138.8 140.2 139.3 142.8 141.3 139.5 142.6 142.0 144.5 143.0 140.9 144.0 143.2 146.1 145.0 142.5 144.9 144.1 147.0 145.9 143.7 .6 3.6 3.8 3.1 3.2 3.5 Services............................................................................ 136.5 136.6 139.0 139.7 140.0 140.5 143.2 144.5 145.2 .5 3.7 Services excluding schools5 ........................................... Health services............................................................. Hospitals.................................................................... Educational services.................................................... Schools...................................................................... Elementary and secondary..................................... Colleges and universities........................................ 136.1 136.2 138.7 138.8 139.6 140.3 142.6 143.8 145.2 1 .0 4.0 137.9 138.4 136.3 136.6 136.1 137.9 138.0 138.4 136.5 136.7 136.2 138.1 140.3 140.7 138.8 139.1 138.8 140.4 140.7 141.2 139.6 139.9 139.3 141.5 141.2 141.7 139.9 140.2 139.6 141.7 142.0 142.7 140.3 140.6 140.0 142.1 144.2 144.8 143.1 143.5 142.9 144.8 145.8 146.3 144.4 144.7 144.1 146.5 147.3 147.9 145.0 145.3 144.5 147.4 1 .0 .6 4.3 4.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.0 Public administration3 ........................................................ 136.4 137.4 138.9 139.9 140.8 141.5 142.4 144.4 145.7 .9 3.5 1 .8 2 .8 1 .2 15 1 .1 .8 .7 .8 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers........................................................... Professional specialty and technical................................ Executive, administrative, and managerial...................... Administrative support, including clerical........................ Blue-collar workers............................................................ .6 .6 .6 .8 Workers, by industry division: Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits. ' Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 1 .1 .4 .4 .3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989. 5 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 69 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1989 = 100] 1998 1999 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 12 months months ended ended Mar. 2000 Civilian workers1................................................................. 134.0 135.0 136.8 137.7 138.4 139.8 141.3 142.5 144.0 1.1 4.0 White-collar workers......................................................... Professional specialty and technical............................... Executive, adminltratlve, and managerial....................... Administrative support, including clerical........................ Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Service occupations......................................................... 135.6 135.8 137.4 135.0 130.4 133.7 136.7 136.6 138.3 136.2 131.4 134.5 138.8 138.5 140.5 137.5 132.6 136.1 139.7 139.4 140.3 138.6 133.3 137.0 140.1 140.1 141.6 140.0 134.5 138.3 141.6 141.0 143.8 140.9 135.8 139.4 143.3 142.6 145.9 142.3 137.0 140.1 144.6 144.0 147.2 143.5 137.9 141.7 146.2 144.9 148.6 145.5 139.2 143.0 1.1 4.4 3.4 4.9 3.9 3.5 3.4 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................. Manufacturing................................................................ Service-producing............................................................ Services......................................................................... Health services............................................................ Hospitals.................................................................... Educational services.................................................... 132.0 133.7 134.8 136.9 136.2 134.2 136.3 133.3 134.6 135.7 137.6 136.5 135.1 136.5 134.4 136.0 137.8 139.6 137.6 136.4 139.1 135.2 136.8 138.7 140.5 137.6 137.1 140.0 136.3 137.9 139.2 141.5 138.8 138.1 140.2 137.4 139.0 140.7 142.3 139.7 138.8 140.6 138.6 140.2 142.3 144.1 140.9 140.1 143.7 139.7 141.5 143.5 145.5 142.5 141.6 144.7 141.3 142.9 145.0 146.6 143.8 142.6 145.3 132.7 134.0 133.2 135.1 134.8 137.0 135.9 137.8 136.9 138.4 137.8 139.9 139.5 141.5 141.5 142.6 142.5 144.2 1.1 133.7 133.7 134.9 134.8 136.6 136.3 137.4 136.9 138.1 138.2 139.7 139.6 141.0 140.8 142.2 142.0 143.9 143.5 1.1 White-collar workers...................................................... Excluding sales occupations...................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations......... Executive, adminitrative, 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.... 135.7 136.3 135.9 137.8 133.1 135.3 130.2 129.8 131.6 125.9 133.2 137.0 137.5 137.1 138.7 135.2 136.7 131.3 131.2 132.7 126.4 133.7 139.0 139.1 138.7 140.9 138.8 137.9 132.4 132.3 133.8 127.6 135.1 139.9 139.7 139.7 140.5 141.3 138.9 133.2 133.0 134.9 127.8 135.8 140.3 141.0 140.7 141.9 137.3 140.4 134.3 134.3 135.7 129.1 137.3 142.1 142.5 141.8 144.3 140.5 141.4 135.6 135.6 136.7 131.0 138.3 143.5 143.9 142.6 146.4 142.1 142.7 136.8 136.7 138.3 131.9 139.4 144.8 145.2 144.1 147.6 143.3 143.8 137.7 137.5 139.5 132.7 140.4 146.6 146.7 145.1 149.2 146.7 146.0 139.1 138.9 140.7 134.1 141.8 1 .0 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.3 Service occupations....................................................... 132.1 133.0 134.4 135.3 136.7 137.8 138.0 139.6 141.0 1 .0 3.1 Production and nonsupervisory occupations3 ............... 132.3 133.6 135.2 136.4 136.8 138.2 139.3 140.4 142.1 1 .2 3.9 132.0 131.3 135.0 133.3 130.1 126.0 133.7 135.6 133.8 132.3 133.4 134.2 133.2 132.5 136.3 134.6 131.3 128.1 134.6 136.8 135.0 133.1 134.5 134.9 134.3 133.6 137.4 135.7 132.3 128.5 136.0 138.3 136.3 134.3 135.9 136.0 135.2 134.4 138.2 136.4 133.3 129.3 136.8 139.0 137.1 135.3 136.9 136.8 136.3 135.5 139.4 137.8 134.3 130.7 137.9 140.1 138.3 136.3 137.9 138.0 137.3 136.6 140.5 138.8 135.4 131.9 139.0 141.4 139.6 137.2 139.1 138.7 138.5 137.8 141.7 140.1 136.6 133.0 140.2 142.7 140.8 138.4 140.4 139.7 139.7 138.9 143.0 141.3 137.6 133.6 141.5 144.0 142.0 139.7 141.8 140.9 141.3 140.5 145.0 143.2 139.0 136.0 142.9 145.8 143.7 140.8 143.0 142.7 1.1 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.4 134.4 135.2 135.7 137.3 130.2 132.1 132.1 130.1 134.5 134.4 134.7 133.3 134.7 136.2 136.5 131.9 129.4 129.0 135.6 136.2 137.0 138.4 131.1 133.0 132.8 130.4 135.7 135.8 135.6 134.6 135.6 137.1 137.8 133.3 131.5 130.5 137.6 137.9 139.2 140.2 132.4 134.2 134.3 132.4 136.5 136.7 136.3 136.6 137.6 139.3 139.6 135.2 132.2 131.7 138.4 138.5 140.1 140.7 132.9 135.2 135.1 132.9 137.8 138.0 137.4 137.0 138.2 141.3 140.8 134.8 133.0 130.5 138.9 139.8 140.3 142.0 134.4 136.7 135.4 132.3 139.2 139.4 138.9 137.7 139.5 140.7 141.9 136.2 133.7 131.8 140.8 141.4 142.3 143.7 135.9 137.8 136.8 133.7 140.6 141.1 140.0 139.6 141.1 142.3 143.0 138.3 134.3 132.8 142.1 142.6 143.8 145.1 137.0 138.0 137.5 134.4 141.5 141.9 140.9 140.7 141.8 144.3 144.8 138.9 135.6 133.9 143.3 143.8 145.0 146.4 137.8 139.6 137.9 134.9 141.8 142.2 141.3 142.0 143.3 146.5 146.4 139.6 136.7 134.9 145.0 145.3 146.9 147.8 139.1 141.1 138.5 134.9 143.2 143.4 143.0 143.8 145.2 147.4 147.9 142.1 137.8 136.7 1 .2 Workers, by occupational group: Public administration^..................................................... Nonmanufacturing........................................................... P r iv a te in d u s tr y w o r k e r s .................................................................. Excluding sales occupations........................................ .6 1 .0 1.4 .9 .9 1.1 1 .0 1 .0 .8 .9 .7 .4 .7 1 .2 3.7 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.8 Workers, by occupational group: Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................ White-collar occupations............................................ Excluding sales occupations................................... Construction................................................................ Manufacturing.............................................................. Nondurables................................................................ Service-producing........................................................... Excluding sales occupations................................... Transportation........................................................... Public utilities............................................................ Retail trade................................................................ Food stores............................................................. See footnotes at end of table. 70 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 1 .2 1 .0 .7 1.1 2.4 1.5 1 .0 1 .0 .9 1.1 1 .2 1.4 1.3 1 .0 1 .8 1 .0 1.3 1 .2 .8 .8 1.3 4.5 4.0 3.1 5.1 6 .8 .4 4.4 3.9 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.2 2.3 .0 2 .0 1 .0 1.3 1 .0 .9 1.1 1 .0 .8 1 .2 1.3 1.3 .6 1 .0 1 .8 .8 1.3 2.9 2.9 3.0 4.4 4.1 4.8 4.2 4.3 3.1 3.7 22. Continued—Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1989 = 100] 1998 1999 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 12 m onths m onths ended ended Mar. 2000 Health services............................................................. Hospitals.................................................................... Educational services.................................................... Colleges and universities........................................... 132.6 135.9 140.9 133.1 137.2 137.6 136.2 133.6 139.1 139.1 134.8 137.5 143.2 134.8 138.3 139.2 136.5 134.7 139.6 139.7 138.1 139.7 147.0 138.7 140.0 141.8 137.5 135.8 142.8 142.8 139.8 139.6 144.4 138.5 140.8 144.1 137.4 136.5 143.5 143.6 137.2 141.0 146.1 137.4 142.2 145.4 138.7 137.6 143.9 144.1 142.4 144.8 154.5 139.8 143.2 146.3 139.6 138.3 144.2 144.4 144.5 147.5 159.2 140.2 144.5 148.5 140.6 139.3 147.5 147.2 145.2 148.0 159.6 141.5 146.0 149.8 142.2 140.9 148.2 147.9 148.7 150.2 162.0 145.5 147.4 152.0 143.5 141.8 148.9 148.9 Nonmanufacturing.......................................................... White-collar workers..................................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................... Blue-collar occupations................................................ Service occupations..................................................... 133.4 135.5 136.9 128.2 132.0 134.7 136.8 138.1 129.5 132.9 136.5 138.9 139.8 130.5 134.1 137.4 139.8 140.3 131.1 135.1 137.9 140.1 141.6 132.4 136.5 139.7 142.0 143.2 134.0 137.7 141.0 143.5 144.6 135.1 137.9 142.1 144.7 145.9 135.8 139.5 143.9 146.5 147.4 137.4 140.9 1 .0 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.2 S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ............................................. 135.1 135.4 137.6 138.5 139.0 139.6 142.2 143.5 144.3 .6 3.8 135.2 135.6 135.6 133.3 133.5 137.6 137.9 138.0 135.4 135.1 138.5 138.7 139.3 136.5 136.0 138.9 138.9 140.1 137.4 136.9 139.3 139.4 140.5 137.5 137.6 142.1 142.5 142.7 139.6 139.4 143.4 143.6 144.3 141.7 140.7 144.1 144.3 144.9 142.4 141.5 .5 .5 .4 5 Blue-collar workers............................................................ 135.0 135.5 135.1 133.0 133.1 .6 3.7 3.9 3.4 36 3.4 Workers, by industry division: Services............................................................................ 135.7 135.9 138.4 139.2 139.5 139.9 142.9 144.0 144.6 .4 3.7 135.5 136.5 136.5 135.8 136.0 136.1 135.5 137.8 138.7 138.6 138.4 138.5 138.7 137.7 138.2 139.2 139.1 139.3 139.5 139.3 139.6 139.0 139.7 139.7 139.5 139.6 139.5 139.6 139.6 140.4 140.6 139.8 140.0 139.9 139.8 142.1 142.8 142.8 142.9 143.1 143.1 142.6 143.2 144.2 144.1 144.0 144.2 144.1 144.4 144.3 145.3 145.3 144.5 144.7 144.5 144.9 .8 Schools...................................................................... Elementary and secondary..................................... Colleges and universities........................................ 135.4 136.3 136.3 135.7 135.8 136.0 135.2 .3 .3 .3 3.8 4.0 4.0 36 3.7 3.6 3.8 Public administration4 ........................................................ 132.7 133.2 134.8 135.9 136.9 137.8 139.5 141.5 142.5 .7 4.1 Finance, insurance, and real estate............................... Excluding sales occupations..................................... Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies. Insurance...................................................................... Services.......................................................................... 2.4 1.5 1.5 8.4 6.5 10.9 5.9 3.7 45 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.3 2 .8 1 .0 15 .9 .6 .5 .7 1.3 1 .2 1 .0 1 .2 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers........................................................... Professional specialty and technical................................ Executive, administrative, and managerial...................... Services excluding schools4 ........................................... Health services............................................................. Hospitals.................................................................... Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 3 3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 23. .8 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989. 1 2 .8 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group [June 1989 = 100] 1998 1999 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 12 m onths m onths ended ended Mar. 2000 P rivate in d u s try w o rk e rs .................................................................. 142.6 143.7 144.5 145.2 145.8 147.3 148.6 150.2 153.8 2.4 5.5 144.7 139.1 145.6 140.4 146.6 141.0 147.4 141.6 147.9 142.2 149.4 143.6 151.0 144.8 152.5 146.2 156.3 150.0 2.5 5.7 5.5 141.5 142.7 141.7 142.7 142.5 143.8 142.4 143.9 143.0 144.9 142.6 145.0 143.2 145.7 142.7 145.8 144.3 146.1 143.6 146.3 145.2 147.9 144.5 148.0 146.3 149.4 145.7 149.4 148.2 150.7 147.8 150.7 152.3 154.0 152.3 154.0 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers........................................................... Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing................................................................ Service-producing.............................................................. Manufacturing..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing............................................................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review 2 .6 2 .2 5.6 5.4 3.0 6 .1 2 .2 5.3 2 .8 June 2000 71 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers by bargaining status, region, and area size [June 1989 = 100] 1999 1998 2000 Series Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. Percent change 3 12 m onths m onths ended ended Mar. 2000 C O M P E N S A T IO N W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s ta t u s ' Union....................................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing............................................................... Manufacturing...................................................................... Nonmanufacturing............................................................... Nonunion................................................................................. Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing................................................................ Manufacturing...................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. 134.0 132.7 135.3 133.6 133.9 135.3 134.3 136.2 134.6 135.3 136.8 135.6 138.0 136.0 136.9 137.5 136.5 138.5 136.9 137.4 138.0 136.8 139.2 137.0 138.1 139.0 138.2 139.7 138.1 139.2 140.2 139.2 141.0 139.1 140.3 141.2 140.8 141.4 141.0 140.8 143.0 143.3 142.5 144.5 141.7 147.4 145.4 148.0 146.5 147.4 1.3 2.5 3.6 4.8 2.4 5.5 .6 2 .6 1.5 4.7 4.1 4.9 4.1 4.8 1 .8 .8 136.7 135.9 136.7 137.2 136.3 137.8 136.9 138.0 138.0 137.5 139.3 137.7 139.7 138.9 139.1 140.1 138.3 140.6 139.4 140.0 140.8 139.7 141.1 140.7 140.6 142.5 140.5 143.0 141.7 142.4 143.8 141.8 144.4 143.0 143.8 145.2 143.1 145.7 144.4 145.1 136.0 135.5 138.3 135.2 137.0 136.4 139.6 136.6 138.7 137.6 140.9 138.5 139.5 138.1 141.4 140.0 140.5 139.1 141.7 140.3 141.5 140.7 143.6 142.1 143.2 141.8 145.0 143.3 144.3 143.0 146.3 144.7 146.3 145.0 148.9 147.0 1 .6 4.1 4.2 5.1 4.8 136.4 135.9 137.5 137.1 139.1 138.2 139.8 139.4 140.4 140.5 142.0 141.8 143.3 143.1 144.7 143.6 146.9 146.0 1.5 1.7 4.6 3.9 129.6 127.9 131.8 129.6 129.6 130.7 129.4 132.2 130.4 130.8 132.4 131.0 134.1 132.2 132.4 133.1 131.7 134.8 133.0 133.1 133.6 132.3 135.4 133.6 133.7 134.7 133.8 135.8 134.7 134.6 135.7 134.9 136.8 135.8 135.6 136.5 136.1 137.2 137.5 135.9 137.2 137.2 137.6 138.8 136.4 .5 2.7 3.7 134.5 133.6 134.6 135.1 134.0 135.7 134.7 135.9 136.2 135.3 137.4 135.7 137.9 137.3 137.1 138.3 136.5 138.8 138.2 138.0 139.0 137.8 139.3 139.4 138.6 140.7 138.8 141.3 140.5 140.5 142.0 140.0 142.6 141.7 141.8 143.3 141.1 143.9 142.9 143.0 145.1 142.9 145.8 144.4 145.0 132.6 134.0 134.7 132.9 133.8 134.9 136.0 134.5 135.4 136.5 137.5 136.7 136.4 136.7 138.0 138.4 137.1 137.9 138.9 138.2 138.2 139.4 141.0 140.2 139.9 140.2 142.4 141.3 140.9 141.5 143.6 142.6 142.3 143.0 145.3 144.7 1.5 133.8 132.5 135.1 133.4 136.9 134.7 137.7 136.0 138.3 137.1 139.9 138.4 141.2 139.8 142.5 140.2 144.1 142.2 1.4 1 .6 1 .6 1.5 1 .6 W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n ' Northeast................................................................................ South...................................................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central).......................................... 1.4 1.4 1 .8 W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e ' Metropolitan areas.................................................................. W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s t a t u s ' Union....................................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing............................................................... Nonunion................................................................................. Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing............................................................... .8 .3 .9 .4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1 .0 1.4 1 .6 3.9 2 .0 4.4 3.7 4.7 3.6 4.6 W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n ' Northeast............................................................................... South...................................................................................... 1 .0 1.1 1 .2 3.8 3.7 4.6 4.7 W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e ' Other areas............................................................................ 1 4.2 3.7 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the Monthly Labor Review Technical Note, "Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index," May 1982. 72 1.1 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 25. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features within plans, medium and large private establishments, selected years, 1980-97 Item Number of employees (in 000's): With medical care................................................. With life insurance................................................ 1982 1980 1984 1986 1988 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 21,352 21,043 21,013 21,303 31,059 32,428 31,163 28,728 33,374 38,409 20,711 20,498 17,936 20,412 17,676 20,383 20,172 17,231 20,238 20,451 16,190 27,953 28,574 19,567 29,834 30,482 20,430 25,865 29,293 18,386 23,519 26,175 16,015 25,546 29,078 17,417 29,340 33,495 19,202 10 9 25 76 25 9 26 73 26 10 11 10 8 27 72 26 26 71 26 84 3.3 97 9.2 30 67 28 80 3.3 92 9 29 - 29 72 26 85 3.2 96 9.4 24 3.3 98 80 3.3 89 9.1 81 3.7 89 9.3 2 0 ,2 0 1 Time-off plans Participants with: Paid lunch time....................................................... Average minutes per day..................................... Paid rest time......................................................... Average minutes per day..................................... 75 - 88 Average days per occurrence.............................. Paid holidays.......................................................... average uays per year......................................... 1 0 .1 1 0 .0 Paid personal leave................................................ 20 100 24 3.8 99 99 9.8 23 3.6 99 62 67 67 Paid vacations........................................................ Unpaid family leave.............................................. Insurance plans Participants in medical care plans............................ Percent of participants with coverage for: Home health care................................................. 99 _ 99 _ 3.2 99 1 0 .0 25 3.7 100 70 _ 62 _ 46 62 26 46 27 51 - 22 20 3.1 97 3.3 96 3.5 68 67 37 26 65 60 53 58 56 84 93 37 18 95 83 82 77 76 66 8 76 79 28 75 80 28 81 80 30 86 70 18 82 42 78 73 56 85 78 63 43 $12.80 63 $41.40 44 $19.29 64 $60.07 47 $25.31 - 36 $11.93 58 $35.93 $72.10 51 $26.60 69 $96.97 61 $31.55 76 $107.42 67 $33.92 78 $118.33 69 $39.14 80 $130.07 96 96 96 96 92 94 94 91 87 87 69 74 64 72 78 59 49 44 76 5 41 77 7 37 74 8 71 7 42 71 10 - 72 64 40 43 47 48 42 45 40 41 42 43 54 51 51 49 46 43 45 44 - - - _ - - _ _ 53 55 Participants in denned benefit pension plans........... 84 84 82 76 63 63 59 56 52 50 Percent of participants with: Normal retirement prior to age 65........................ Early retirement available..................................... Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years............... Terminal earnings formula................................... Benefit coordinated with Social Security............... 55 98 53 45 58 97 52 45 63 97 47 54 56 64 98 35 57 62 59 98 26 55 62 62 97 52 95 52 96 52 95 22 64 63 55 98 7 56 54 - - - 60 45 48 48 36 41 44 Participants in short-term disability plans 1............... 58 - 21 3.3 96 92 Participants in life insurance plans........................... Percent of participants with: Accidental death and dismemberment insurance............................................................ Survivor income benefits...................................... Retiree protection available................................... Participants in long-term disability insurance plans.................................................... Participants in sickness and accident insurance plans..................................................... 97 21 3.1 97 90 Percent of participants with employee contribution required for: Self coverage...................................................... Average monthly contribution............................. Family coverage.................................................. Mverayü mommy oomriuuuun............................. 97 _ 22 95 Extended care facilities......................................... 97 69 33 16 1 0 .2 68 26 83 3.0 91 9.4 - - 66 6 6 33 _ _ R e tir e m e n t p la n s Participants in defined contribution plans................. Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings arrangements........................................................ - - - 33 - - - 2 6 4 10 61 48 58 51 56 49 49 55 57 43 54 55 13 32 7 O th e r b e n e f it s Employees eligible for: Flexible benefits plans........................................... Premium conversion plans..................................... _ _ _ The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously sickness and accident insurance) were changed for the 1995 survey. Paid sick leave now includes only plans that specify either a maximum number of days per year or unlimited days. Shortterms disability now includes all insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans available on a per-disabiiity basis, as well as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey, included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-disability bene 1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 5 9 10 12 12 12 23 36 52 38 5 fits at less than full pay. Prior to 1995, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans, which specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan premiums with pretax dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately. 2 No t e : Dash indicates data not available. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 73 Current Labor Statistics: 26 . Price Data P e rc e n t o f fu ll-tim e e m p lo y e e s p a rtic ip a tin g in e m p lo y e r -p ro v id e d b e n e fit plans, a n d in s e le c te d fe a tu re s within plans, sm all p riv a te e s tab lish m en ts a n d S tate a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts , 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, a n d 1996 S m a ll p r iv a t e e s t a b lis h m e n t s S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t s It e m 1990 1992 1994 1987 1996 1992 1990 1994 Scope of survey (in 000's)..................................... 32,466 34,360 35,910 39,816 10,321 12,972 12,466 12,907 Number of employees (in 000's): With medical care.............................................. With life insurance............................................. With defined benefit plan.................................... 22,402 20,778 6,493 24,396 21,990 7,559 23,536 21,955 5,480 25,599 24,635 5,883 9,599 8,773 9,599 12,064 11,415 11,675 11,219 11,095 10,845 11,192 11,194 11,708 8 9 37 49 26 50 3.0 82 50 3.1 82 51 3.0 80 17 34 58 29 56 3.7 81 10 37 48 27 47 2.9 84 36 56 29 63 3.7 74 62 3.7 73 9.5 9.2 11 12 7.5 13 2 .8 2 .6 2 .6 7.6 14 3.0 88 88 88 86 13.6 39 2.9 67 47 53 50 50 10.9 38 2.7 72 97 34 53 29 65 3.7 75 14.2 38 2.9 67 95 95 94 17 _ _ 48 51 33 - _ 47 57 30 - 59 44 - 18 7 - - 93 69 71 66 64 93 93 90 87 79 83 26 80 84 28 - - 76 78 36 82 79 36 87 84 47 84 81 55 42 $25.13 67 $109.34 47 $36.51 73 $150.54 52 $40.97 76 35 $15.74 71 $71.89 38 $25.53 65 $117.59 43 $28.97 72 $139.23 47 $30.20 71 $159.63 52 $42.63 75 $181.53 $149.70 64 64 61 62 85 88 89 87 78 76 79 77 67 67 74 64 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 19 25 20 13 55 45 46 46 19 23 20 22 31 27 28 30 6 26 26 14 21 22 21 T im e -o ff plan s Participants with: Paid lunch time................................................... Average minutes per day................................... Paid rest time..................................................... Average minutes per day................................... Paid funeral leave.............................................. Average days per occurrence............................ Paid holidays...................................................... Average days per year’..................................... Paid personal leave............................................. Average days per year...................................... Paid vacations.................................................... Unpaid leave...................................................... Unpaid paternity leave........................................ Unpaid family leave............................................. 8 11 11.5 38 3.0 66 In s u ra n c e plan s Participants in medical care plans.......................... Percent of participants with coverage for: Home health care............................................. Extended care facilities...................................... Percent of participants with employee contribution required for: Average monthly contribution........................... Family coverage............................................... Average monthly contribution........................... Percent of participants with: Accidental death and dismemberment insurance........................................................ Retiree protection available................................. Participants in long-term disability Participants in sickness and accident 29 Participants in short-term disability plans2.............. R e tire m e n t plan s Participants in aetinea oenetit pension plans.......... Percent of participants with: Normal retirement prior to age 65....................... Early retirement available.................................. Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years.............. Participants in defined contribution plans............... Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings 20 22 15 15 93 90 87 91 54 95 50 95 - 47 92 53 92 90 33 89 92 89 100 100 100 7 4 58 49 54 46 44 18 8 10 92 87 13 99 49 31 33 34 38 9 9 9 9 17 24 23 28 28 45 45 24 88 16 10 O th e r b e n efits Employees eligible for: Reimbursement accounts3.................................. Premium conversion plans ................................ 1 2 8 14 _ _ Methods used to calculate the average number of paid holidays were revised in 1994 to count partial days more precisely. Average holidays for 1994 are not comparable with those reported in 1990 and 1992. 2 The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously sickness and accident insurance) were changed for the 1996 survey. Paid sick leave now includes only plans that specify either a maximum number of days per year or unlimited days. Short-term disability now includes all insured, selfinsured, and State-mandated plans available on a per-disability basis, as well as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as 1 74 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 3 4 5 19 12 5 5 31 5 50 5 64 - _ - - _ 7 sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey, included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-disability benefits at less than full pay. 3 Prior to 1996, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans, which specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan premiums with pretax dollars. Aiso, reimbursement accounts that were part of flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately. No t e : Dash indicates data not available. 27. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more 2000 1999 Annual totals 1997 Number of stoppages: Beginning in period........................... Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands).... In effect during period (in thousands). 1998 Jan.p Feb.p Mar.p Apr.p May15 Junep Aug.p Sept.p July’’ a. _ O O Measure Nov.p Dec.p Jan.p 29 34 34 34 1 2 0 1 3 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 5 5 2 3 6 6 6 3 5 2 2 1 1 339 351 387 387 1.4 4.1 .0 9.2 10.3 4.4 12.4 4,497 5,116 129.0 104.1 1 0 1 .2 256.8 (2) (2) 8 .0 2 .2 1.7 1 1 .0 19.1 .0 2 .0 .0 .0 2 2 .0 2 1 .6 16.3 15.4 34.5 1 0 .1 5.0 3.0 3.0 314.8 309.4 266.4 118.8 176.2 67.1 63.6 63.0 60.0 (2) (2) (2) <2> 9.6 Days idle: Percent of estimated working time1.... .0 1 .0 2 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .01 (2) .0 1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time; private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in " 'Total economy1 measures of strike idleness," Monthly Labor Review, October 1968, pp. 54-56. 1 Less than 0.005. H= preliminary. 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 75 Current Labor Statistics: 28 . Price Data C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r Price In d e x e s for All U rban C onsum ers a n d for U rban W a g e Earners a n d C le ric a l Workers: U.S. c ity a v e r a g e , b y e x p e n d itu re c a te g o r y a n d c o m m o d ity or s e rv ic e g ro u p [1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] A n n u a l a v e ra g e 1999 2000 S e r ie s 1998 Miscellaneous personal services.................. Commodity and service group: Commodities.................................................. Food and beverages..................................... Commodities less food and beverages........... Nondurables less food and beverages.......... Apparel................................................... 1999 A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. 234.7 243.0 241.4 242.1 242.4 242.9 243.9 244.6 245.6 246.0 246.6 247.6 248.9 249.4 250.9 141.9 161.1 130.5 132.6 133.0 144.4 164.6 132.5 137.5 131.3 144.6 163.9 133.2 138.6 135.2 144.5 164.2 132.8 138.2 134.2 143.9 164.1 131.9 136.6 130.9 143.9 164.2 131.9 136.7 127.3 144.5 164.7 132.5 138.0 127.5 145.8 165.1 134.3 141.0 131.8 146.4 165.5 134.9 141.9 134.6 146.2 165.7 134.6 141.3 133.6 146.1 165.9 134.4 140.9 130.1 146.2 166.6 134.0 140.5 126.8 147.4 166.8 135.7 143.9 129.2 149.2 167.1 138.4 148.5 132.5 149.3 167.2 138.4 148.5 133.3 137.4 127.6 184.2 146.0 126.0 188.8 145.7 126.1 187.8 145.6 125.8 187.9 144.8 125.7 146.8 125.6 148.8 125.4 151.2 125.7 151.2 125.9 152.1 125.9 153.1 125.7 162.3 125.6 189.5 189.9 190.1 190.2 190.5 191.4 157.2 125.3 192.2 162.7 125.6 188.6 150.7 126.0 190.5 193.1 193.3 Rent of shelter3 ........................................... Transporatatlon services.............................. Other services............................................. Special indexes: 189.6 187.9 216.9 195.0 190.7 223.1 194.3 191.0 221.7 194.2 190.4 221.9 194.9 189.3 195.7 191.0 2 2 2 .2 2 2 2 .6 196.1 190.2 223.9 196.1 189.9 224.5 196.3 191.9 225.1 196.3 192.7 226.0 196.3 192.8 226.5 197.6 193.0 227.4 198.5 193.7 227.4 199.7 195.0 227.8 199.8 195.2 228.0 All items less food........................................ All Items less shelter..................................... Commodities less food................................. Nondurables less food.................................. Nondurables less food and apparel................ Nondurables............................................... 163.4 157.2 158.6 132.0 134.6 139.2 146.9 167.0 160.2 162.0 134.0 139.4 147.5 151.2 166.7 159.9 161.6 134.6 140.4 147.0 151.4 166.6 159.9 161.6 134.3 140.1 147.0 151.4 166.7 159.7 161.6 133.4 138.6 146.3 150.5 167.2 160.1 162.0 133.4 138.7 148.2 150.6 167.7 160.6 162.5 134.0 139.9 150.0 151.5 168.5 161.6 163.2 135.8 142.8 152.3 153.2 168.8 162.0 163.6 136.3 143.7 152.3 154.0 168.8 162.1 163.6 136.1 143.1 151.9 153.7 168.8 162.1 163.6 135.9 142.8 153.2 153.6 169.2 162.3 164.0 135.6 142.4 154.2 153.7 170.3 163.3 164.9 137.2 145.7 158.0 155.6 171.9 164.8 166.3 139.9 150.1 163.0 158.1 172.0 164.9 166 4 139.9 150.1 162.7 158.2 Services less rent of shelter3 ........................ Services less medical care services............... Energy........................................................ Ail items less energy.................................... All items less food and energy..................... Commodities less food and energy............ Energy commodities............................... Services less energy................................ 191.8 178.4 102.9 170.9 173.4 143.2 92.1 190.6 195.8 182.7 106.6 174.4 177.0 144.1 194.5 181.8 105.0 174.2 176.8 144.9 99.9 195.0 194.7 181.8 105.6 174.1 176.6 144.5 100.3 195.0 195.6 182.6 106.8 174.0 176.6 143.7 98.3 195.3 196.5 183.4 108.7 174.3 176.9 143.2 101.3 196.1 196.9 183.8 111.3 174.5 177.1 143.0 106.3 196.5 197.3 183.9 113.2 175.1 177.7 144.6 109.1 196.6 197.4 184.1 197.9 184.3 198.0 184.3 2 0 0 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .2 175.7 178.3 145.3 109.1 197.2 175.8 178.4 145.0 108.7 197.5 175.7 178.2 144.2 199.2 185.8 116.7 176.8 179.4 144.2 199.9 186.7 1 1 1 .6 198.6 185.1 112.5 176.2 178.7 143.6 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .8 1 2 0 .6 197.7 198.7 All Items.......................................................... All items (1967-100)....................................... Food and beverages........................................ 159.7 475.6 160.4 160.0 160.0 180.9 147.0 163.2 486.2 163.8 163.4 163.0 184.7 147.6 162.7 484.7 162.8 484.9 162.8 485.0 163.0 162.6 162.2 184.5 146.3 163.3 162.9 162.6 184.8 146.1 163.3 162.8 162.5 185.5 146.9 163.3 486.3 163.4 163.0 162.5 186.1 146.8 163.8 487.8 163.9 163.5 162.9 184.8 148.2 164.7 490.5 164.3 163.9 163.5 185.0 148.9 165.0 491.5 164.7 164.4 164.0 185.0 148.8 165.1 491.7 164.9 164.5 164.0 184.5 150.1 165.1 491.8 165.2 164.7 164.2 185.7 149.4 Dairy and related products1......................... Fruits and vegetables.................................. Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials................................................. Other foods at home.................................... Sugar and sweets..................................... Fats and oils............................................. Other foods............................................... 150.4 197.0 159.4 155.7 201.7 155.8 205.3 155.7 201.9 155.3 156.0 158.4 164.0 2 0 1 .0 2 0 1 .2 2 0 1 .6 2 0 1 .0 164.6 199.8 161.9 2 0 1 .8 131.8 150.2 150.1 146.5 165.4 133.2 152.8 152.2 147.9 168.8 133.2 153.0 151.7 148.6 169.0 133.1 152.6 152.8 147.0 168.5 133.2 152.8 152.0 147.2 169.0 133.1 153.0 152.0 147.8 169.2 133.2 153.5 152.6 148.3 169.7 133.0 153.3 153.3 148.1 169.2 133.4 152.9 153.2 148.6 168.5 Other miscellaneous foods12 ................... Food away from home1.................................. Other food away from home1,2.................... Alcoholic beverages...................................... Housing.......................................................... Shelter......................................................... Rent of primary residence............................ 1 0 2 .6 104.6 165.0 105.1 168.8 160.0 181.6 177.1 105.2 164.4 104.1 167.8 104.7 104.4 164.4 104.5 168.7 104.4 160.2 181.5 103.9 164.9 105.3 169.1 160.7 182.0 161.0 182.4 105.1 165.8 106.2 169.8 161.3 182.6 176.8 113.8 175.4 177.1 116.7 175.7 177.5 116.8 176.1 102.3 130.2 114.7 87.8 1 0 2 .2 Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel............................................ Durables.................................................... Services........................................................ 1 0 0 .0 195.7 199.5 177.7 180.4 145.3 131.7 200.5 186.9 120.7 178.0 180.7 145.9 128.4 200.7 165.5 492.9 165.9 165.4 165.1 185.5 149.8 166.4 495.6 166.1 165.6 165.1 185.8 150.8 167.8 499.7 166.4 165.9 165.3 185.9 152.0 167.9 500.1 166.5 166.0 165.4 186.9 152.5 2 0 2 .8 159.9 207.0 160.4 201.7 158.7 200.5 160.2 200.5 132.7 152.3 152.0 144.9 168.8 133.5 152.7 152.3 144.7 169.4 136.0 153.7 154.8 146.8 169.8 137.6 153.8 154.3 145.2 170.5 137.8 154.5 154.5 145.7 171.6 136.7 153.4 152.3 144.5 170.7 103.8 166.1 106.6 169.5 161.0 182.8 103.4 161.1 183.1 105.2 166.8 106.9 171.0 161.1 183.3 103.9 167.1 107.4 171.6 161.8 184.1 106.7 167.9 107.8 172.8 163.2 185.6 104.7 168.1 108.3 172.9 163.3 185.8 178.0 113.8 176.5 178.4 113.1 176.8 179.3 108.4 177.4 179.9 105.7 177.8 180.3 178.2 106.2 167.6 107.8 172.2 162.7 184.8 180.7 114.5 178.6 181.2 119.9 178.8 181.4 118.7 179.1 102.3 131.4 115.9 89.3 123.7 124.7 126.4 127.2 116.0 102.5 132.6 117.2 93.9 124.9 124.8 130.5 130.3 123.3 102.4 130.1 114.4 97.7 121.5 124.5 133.1 134.0 126.0 102.3 129.8 114.0 100.7 120.9 124.2 132.3 133.3 124.4 102.4 129.2 113.5 106.0 119.8 124.2 129.0 131.6 119.8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .8 129.5 113.6 114.0 119.4 124.5 125.9 129.3 114.2 132.0 116.3 144.5 131.2 115.4 129.6 1 2 0.1 1 2 0 .2 124.6 127.9 129.9 118.0 125.3 131.0 131.5 123.5 103.3 131.1 115.2 123.0 120.5 125.6 131.8 131.5 124.3 134.3 126 9 146.9 144.2 134.8 1P4 ? 147.6 145.0 134.9 12? 3 147.7 145.1 134.7 1 ?? 6 149.1 146.4 135.7 134.1 152.9 150.1 152.2 149.5 101.5 101.5 1 0 1 .2 100.7 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .2 1 2 2 .2 C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X FO R URB A N W A G E E A R N E R S A N D C L E R IC A L W O R K ER S 161.1 1 0 1 .6 164.6 156.7 176.6 175.7 176.0 114.5 174.8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .6 128.4 113.3 90.3 125.5 109.7 125.0 131.6 131.4 123.9 128.7 113.0 91.7 120.4 124.7 130.1 131.2 121.3 Transportation................................................ Private transportation.................................... 126.7 128 7 140.5 138.0 130.3 126 2 143.4 140.7 New and used motor vehicles2 .................... 100.3 100.4 Lodqinq away from home2 ........................... Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3 Tenants' and household insurance1,2............ Fuels and utilities...................................... Fuels....................................................... Fuel oil and other fuels............................ Gas (piped) and electricity....................... Household furnishings and operations.......... Apparel......................................................... Men's and boys' apparel............................. Infants' and toddlers' apparel1..................... 76 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 171.7 109.0 171.1 159.1 180.8 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .2 June 2000 164.5 104.2 168.5 159.2 180.9 176.4 1 1 2 .0 175.1 100.9 126.3 165.5 105.8 169.2 88 .1 8 8 .0 116.9 125.2 133.7 133.6 126.5 117.9 124.8 133.0 134.0 125.5 124.8 129.6 131.6 1 2 0 .6 131.1 115.7 87.6 123.6 124.9 126.4 128.6 114.4 129.3 129 5 142.9 140.1 99.7 128.9 127 9 143.1 140.3 128.0 125,8 142.4 139.9 128.4 125 8 143.7 140.9 129.6 131.4 145.0 142.4 146.0 143.6 134.1 126 6 146.6 143.9 99.8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0.1 1 0 0 .2 100.7 1 0 1 .2 1 1 0 .6 1 2 2 .6 166.5 106.8 170.4 1 1 0 .8 28 . C o n tin u e d — C o n su m er Price In d e x e s for All U rban C onsum ers a n d for U rban W a g e Earners a n d C le ric a l Workers: U.S. c ity a v e r a g e , b y e x p e n d itu re c a te g o r y a n d c o m m o d ity or se rv ic e g ro u p [1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] 1999 A n n u a l a v e ra g e 2000 S e r ie s 1998 1999 A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec, Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. 234.7 243.0 241.4 242.1 242.4 242.9 243.9 244.6 245.6 246.0 246.6 247.6 248.9 249.4 250.9 Commodity and service group: Commodities.................................................. Food and beverages..................................... Commodities less food and beverages........... Nondurables less food and beverages.......... Apparel................................................... 141.9 161.1 130.5 132.6 133.0 144.4 164.6 132.5 137.5 131.3 144.6 163.9 133.2 138.6 135.2 144.5 164.2 132.8 138.2 134.2 143.9 164.1 131.9 136.6 130.9 143.9 164.2 131.9 136.7 127.3 144.5 164.7 132.5 138.0 127.5 145.8 165.1 134.3 141.0 131.8 146.4 165.5 134.9 141.9 134.6 146.2 165.7 134.6 141.3 133.6 146.1 165.9 134.4 140.9 130.1 146.2 166.6 134.0 140.5 126.8 147.4 166.8 135.7 143.9 129.2 149.2 167.1 138.4 148.5 132.5 149.3 167.2 138.4 148.5 133.3 Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel............................................. Durables.................................................... Services........................................................ 137.4 127.6 184.2 146.0 126.0 188.8 145.7 126.1 187.8 145.6 125.8 187.9 144.8 125.7 146.8 125.6 148.8 125.4 151.2 125.7 150.7 126.0 152.1 125.9 189.9 190.1 190.5 190.5 157.2 125.3 192.2 162.3 125.6 189.5 153.1 125.7 191.4 162.7 125.6 188.6 151.2 125.9 190.2 193.1 193.3 Rent of shelter3 ........................................... Transporatation services.............................. Other services............................................. Special indexes: 189.6 187.9 216.9 195.0 190.7 223.1 194.3 191.0 221.7 194.2 190.4 221.9 194.9 189.3 195.7 191.0 2 2 2 .2 2 2 2 .6 196.1 190.2 223.9 196.1 189.9 224.5 196.3 191.9 225.1 196.3 192.7 226.0 196.3 192.8 226.5 197.6 193.0 227.4 198.5 193.7 227.4 199.7 195.0 227.8 199.8 195.2 228.0 All items less food........................................ All Items less shelter..................................... All Items less medical care........................... Commodities less food................................. Nondurables less food.................................. Nondurables less food and apparel................ Nondurables............................................... 163.4 157.2 158.6 132.0 134.6 139.2 146.9 167.0 160.2 162.0 134.0 139.4 147.5 151.2 166.7 159.9 161.6 134.6 140.4 147.0 151.4 166.6 159.9 161.6 134.3 140.1 147.0 151.4 166.7 159.7 161.6 133.4 138.6 146.3 150.5 167.2 160.1 162.0 133.4 138.7 148.2 150.6 167.7 160.6 162.5 134.0 139.9 150.0 151.5 168.5 161.6 163.2 135.8 142.8 152.3 153.2 168.8 162.0 163.6 136.3 143.7 152.3 154.0 168.8 162.1 163.6 136.1 143.1 151.9 153.7 168.8 162.1 163.6 135.9 142.8 153.2 153.6 169.2 162.3 164.0 135.6 142.4 154.2 153.7 170.3 163.3 164.9 137.2 145.7 158.0 155.6 171.9 164.8 166.3 139.9 150.1 163.0 158.1 172.0 164.9 166.4 139.9 150.1 162.7 158.2 Services less rent of shelter3 ......................... Services less medical care services............... Energy........................................................ All items less energy.................................... All items less food and energy..................... Commodities less food and energy............ Energy commodities............................... Services less energy................................. 191.8 178.4 102.9 170.9 173.4 143.2 92.1 190.6 195.8 182.7 106.6 174.4 177.0 144.1 194.7 181.8 105.6 174.1 176.6 144.5 100.3 195.0 195.6 182.6 106.8 174.0 176.6 143.7 98.3 195.3 196.5 183.4 108.7 174.3 176.9 143.2 101.3 196.1 196.9 183.8 111.3 174.5 177.1 143.0 106.3 196.5 197.3 183.9 113.2 175.1 177.7 144.6 109.1 196.6 197.4 184.1 197.9 184.3 198.0 184.3 2 0 0 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .2 175.7 178.3 145.3 109.1 197.2 175.8 178.4 145.0 108.7 197.5 175.7 178.2 144.2 199.2 185.8 116.7 176.8 179.4 144.2 199.9 186.7 1 1 1 .6 198.6 185.1 112.5 176.2 178.7 143.6 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .8 1 2 0 .6 195.7 194.5 181.8 105.0 174.2 176.8 144.9 99.9 195.0 197.7 198.7 All items.......................................................... All items (1967= 100)....................................... 159.7 475.6 163.2 486.2 162.7 484.7 162.8 484.9 162.8 485.0 163.3 486.3 163.8 487.8 164.7 490.5 165.1 491.7 165.1 491.8 Food and beverages........................................ Food............................................................. Food at home............................................... Cereals and bakery products........................ Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs....................... 160.4 160.0 160.0 180.9 147.0 163.8 163.4 163.0 184.7 147.6 163.0 162.6 162.2 184.5 146.3 163.3 162.9 162.6 184.8 146.1 163.3 162.8 162.5 185.5 146.9 163.4 163.0 162.5 186.1 146.8 163.9 163.5 162.9 184.8 148.2 164.3 163.9 163.5 185.0 148.9 165.0 491.5 164.7 164.4 164.0 185.0 148.8 164.9 164.5 164.0 184.5 150.1 Dairy and related products1 .......................... Fruits and vegetables.................................. Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials................................................. Other foods at home.................................... Sugar and sweets..................................... Fats and oils............................................. Other foods.............................................. 150.4 197.0 159.4 155.7 201.7 155.8 205.3 155.7 201.9 155.3 156.0 158.4 164.0 2 0 1 .8 2 0 1 .0 2 0 1 .2 2 0 1 .6 2 0 1 .0 164.6 199.8 131.8 150.2 150.1 146.5 165.4 133.2 152.8 152.2 147.9 168.8 133.2 153.0 151.7 148.6 169.0 133.1 152.6 152.8 147.0 168.5 133.2 152.8 152.0 147.2 169.0 133.1 153.0 152.0 147.8 169.2 133.2 153.5 152.6 148.3 169.7 133.0 153.3 153.3 148.1 169.2 133.4 152.9 153.2 148.6 168.5 1 0 2 .6 104.6 165.0 105.1 168.8 160.0 181.6 105.2 164.4 104.1 167.8 159.1 180.8 104.4 164.4 104.5 168.7 160.2 181.5 103.9 164.9 105.3 169.1 160.7 182.0 104.4 165.5 105.8 169.2 161.0 182.4 105.1 165.8 106.2 169.8 161.3 182.6 177.1 104.7 164.5 104.2 168.5 159.2 180.9 176.4 176.8 113.8 175.4 177.1 116.7 175.7 177.5 116.8 176.1 102.3 130.2 114.7 87.8 1 0 2 .2 102.3 131.4 115.9 89.3 123.7 124.7 126.4 127.2 116.0 Miscellaneous personal services.. 1 0 0 .0 199.5 177.7 180.4 145.3 131.7 200.5 186.9 120.7 178.0 180.7 145.9 128.4 200.7 165.5 492.9 166.4 495.6 167.8 499.7 167.9 500.1 165.2 164.7 164.2 185.7 149.4 165.9 165.4 165.1 185.5 149.8 166.1 165.6 165.1 185.8 150.8 166.4 165.9 165.3 185.9 152.0 166.5 166.0 165.4 186.9 152.5 161.9 2 0 2 .8 159.9 207.0 160.4 201.7 158.7 200.5 160.2 200.5 132.7 152.3 152.0 144.9 168.8 133.5 152.7 152.3 144.7 169.4 136.0 153.7 154.8 146.8 169.8 137.6 153.8 154.3 145.2 170.5 137.8 154.5 154.5 145.7 171.6 136.7 153.4 152.3 144.5 170.7 103.8 166.1 106.6 169.5 161.0 182.8 103.4 166.5 106.8 170.4 161.1 183.1 105.2 166.8 106.9 171.0 161.1 183.3 103.9 167.1 107.4 171.6 161.8 184.1 106.2 167.6 107.8 172.2 162.7 184.8 106.7 167.9 107.8 172.8 163.2 185.6 104.7 168.1 108.3 172.9 163.3 185.8 178.0 113.8 176.5 178.4 113.1 176.8 179.3 108.4 177.4 179.9 105.7 177.8 180.3 1 1 0 .8 180.7 114.5 178.6 181.2 119.9 178.8 181.4 118.7 179.1 102.5 132.6 117.2 93.9 124.9 124.8 130.5 130.3 123.3 131.4 125.1 146.0 143.6 100.7 102.4 130.1 114.4 97.7 121.5 124.5 133.1 134.0 126.0 134.1 126.6 146.6 143.9 102.3 129.8 114.0 100.7 120.9 124.2 132.3 133.3 124.4 102.4 129.2 113.5 106.0 119.8 124.2 129.0 131.6 119.8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .8 129.5 113.6 114.0 119.4 124.5 125.9 129.3 114.2 132.0 116.3 144.5 131.2 115.4 129.6 1 2 0.1 1 2 0 .2 124.6 127.9 129.9 118.0 125.3 131.0 131.5 123.5 134.3 126.9 146.9 144.2 134.8 124.2 147.6 145.0 134.9 122.3 147.7 145.1 134.7 149.1 146.4 135.7 124.7 152.9 150.1 103.3 131.1 115.2 123.0 120.5 125.6 131.8 131.5 124.3 134.1 127.1 152.2 149.5 1 0 1 .2 101.5 101.5 1 0 1 .2 100.7 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .2 1 2 2 .2 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS Other miscellaneous foods1,2................... Food away from home1.................................. Other food away from home1 2 .................... Alcoholic beverages...................................... Housing.......................................................... Shelter......................................................... Rent of primary residence............................ Lodging away from home2 ........................... Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3 Tenants' and household insurance1,2............ Fuels and utilities....................................... Fuels....................................................... Fuel oil and other fuels............................ Gas (piped) and electricity........................ Household furnishings and operations.......... Apparel.......................................................... Men's and boys' apparel.............................. Women's and girls' apparel.......................... Infants' and toddlers' apparel1...................... Footwear................................................... . Transportation................................................. Private transportation.................................... New and used motor vehicles2 ..................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 161.1 1 0 1 .6 164.6 156.7 176.6 171.7 109.0 171.1 175.7 176.0 114.5 174.8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .6 128.4 113.3 90.3 128.7 113.0 91.7 120.4 124.7 130.1 131.2 121.3 125.5 109.7 8 8 .1 8 8 .0 116.9 125.2 133.7 133.6 126.5 117.9 124.8 133.0 134.0 125.5 1 2 2 .6 1 2 0 .6 131.1 115.7 87.6 123.6 124.9 126.4 128.6 114.4 130.3 126.2 143.4 140.7 100.4 129.3 129.5 142.9 140.1 99.7 128.9 127.9 143.1 140.3 99.8 128.0 125.8 142.4 139.9 128.4 125.8 143.7 140.9 129.6 124.4 145.0 142.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0.1 1 0 0 .2 1 2 0 .8 125.0 131.6 131.4 123.9 126.7 128.7 140.5 138.0 100.3 1 2 2 .2 1 1 2 .0 175.1 100.9 126.3 1 1 0 .6 124.8 129.6 131.6 178.2 Monthly Labor Review 1 2 2 .6 June 2000 77 Current Labor Statistics: 28. Price Data C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x e s fo r A ll U rb a n C o n s u m e rs a n d fo r U rb a n W a g e E arners a n d C le r ic a l W orkers: U.S. c ity a v e r a g e , b y e x p e n d it u r e c a t e g o r y a n d c o m m o d ity o r s e rv ic e g r o u p [1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] Annual average 1999 2000 Series 1998 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. New vehicles............................................... 144.6 144.0 144.5 144.0 143.6 143.2 142.6 142.8 143.5 144.3 144.7 144.5 144.2 144.5 Used cars and trucks1 ................................. Motor fuel...................................................... Gasoline (all types)...................................... Motor vehicle parts and equipment................ Motor vehicle maintenance and repair........... Public transportation........................................ 152.0 153.3 149.6 150.9 152.2 153.7 155.2 157.0 157.7 157.3 156.3 155.3 154.4 154.4 155.4 92.2 91.7 100.5 168.2 187.1 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 101.3 1 0 2 .6 1 1 0 .0 1 0 0 .8 1 1 0 .0 112.3 111.7 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .2 175.1 197.0 175.2 196.0 112.9 112.3 100.3 176.1 194.8 118.6 117.9 100.5 176.6 198.8 132.0 131.2 100.9 177.2 203.4 128.5 127.8 99.5 173.5 195.7 109.4 99.8 174.7 196.3 109.5 108.9 173.3 193.1 100.3 99.6 172.3 196.4 107.8 107.3 99.6 173.5 192.5 1 1 0 .6 1 0 0 .2 99.2 98.7 99.6 173.1 189.0 177.4 202.9 Medical care...................................................... Medical care commodities............................... Medical care services...................................... Professional services..................................... Hospital and related services........................ 241.4 218.6 246.6 223.7 283.6 249.7 226.8 254.9 230.8 295.5 248.2 225.7 253.3 229.7 292.3 248.7 225.7 253.8 230.2 293.0 251.0 228.4 256.0 231.7 297.3 251.4 229.0 256.4 231.0 293.6 250.3 227.8 255.3 231.4 295.3 232.0 298.2 251.9 229.1 257.0 232.5 298.9 252.5 229.5 257.6 233.1 299.8 253.2 230.2 258.4 233.4 302.1 254.5 230.7 259.9 234.8 304.1 256.2 231.0 261.9 236.7 306.4 257.3 231.8 263.1 238.0 307.5 258.0 232.4 263.8 238.6 308.7 1 0 1 .1 1 0 0 .0 99.7 172.7 193.9 249.4 226.6 254.5 1 0 2 .1 99.9 174.3 190.7 100.9 101.3 101.4 101.5 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .6 101.5 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .1 100.5 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .6 100.5 100.4 100.7 99.8 100.4 101.5 100.9 100.7 100.7 1 0 0 .8 101.5 1 0 2 .1 253.1 107.2 264.1 105.7 263.9 105.9 264.3 106.0 264.8 106.3 265.0 107.7 267.2 288.5 99.1 302.8 96.9 298.3 97.0 298.7 96.5 299.2 96.4 300.2 96.3 99.0 100.7 96.5 96.7 96.2 96.0 1 0 0 .2 1 0 0 .0 99.8 99.9 other than telephone services1,4 ............. Personal computers and peripheral 41.2 31.6 33.0 31.8 equipment1,2 ..................................... Other goods and services.................................. Tobacco and smoking products....................... 77.9 236.1 274.8 53.1 261.9 356.2 55.9 259.5 350.5 156.8 161.3 149.3 152.5 171.7 Recreation2 ...................................................... Video and audio1,2 ......................................... Education and communication2 ......................... Education2 ..................................................... Educational books and supplies................... Tuition, other school fees, and child care..... Communication1,2 .......................................... Information and information processing1,2 .... Telephone services1,2 .............................. Information and information processing Personal care products1............................... Miscellaneous personal services................... Commodity and service group: Commodities.................................................... Commodities less food and beverages............ Nondurables less food and beverages........... Apparel...................................................... Nonauraoies less tooo, beverages, Durables....................................................... 144.7 1 0 0 .6 101.4 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .0 1 0 0 .2 100.4 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 103.0 102.5 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .1 110.5 276.6 110.9 281.3 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .1 280.0 279.9 311.7 97.1 312.7 95.7 312.8 95.3 313.4 94.8 96.7 95.3 94.8 94.4 99.6 99.1 98.8 28.9 28.6 28.2 27.6 45.7 44.5 271.7 383.6 43.6 273.3 387.8 42.0 278.0 404.9 163.9 164.3 164.6 153.2 154.1 176.6 249.4 153.9 176.6 250.4 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .2 99.9 99.9 99.8 1 0 2 .1 102.3 102.5 102.5 109.5 269.9 109.7 271.8 109.4 256.5 109.4 256.9 304.1 96.5 309.5 96.2 310.0 96.3 310.4 96.9 310.4 97.0 96.0 96.1 95.8 95.9 96.6 96.6 99.7 99.9 99.7 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .8 100.9 30.8 31.1 30.8 30.3 29.9 29.3 29.3 55.1 258.8 345.9 54.0 258.7 343.5 52.5 262.0 356.6 50.6 260.7 350.6 49.4 267.3 374.4 48.1 267.9 374.0 46.9 267.4 370.4 46.9 267.3 369.7 269.3 375.7 160.4 160.8 161.3 161.3 161.6 161.9 162.6 163.0 163.1 163.5 151.7 151.6 171.4 152.7 153.7 172.4 154.1 154.0 174.4 244.5 173.2 245.5 245.9 153.1 174.7 246.7 153.4 171.8 243.2 153.1 172.2 243.8 175.3 247.6 176.1 248.9 1 0 1 .1 243.1 170.6 241.7 242.3 153.3 171.2 242.6 141.8 160.4 130.6 132.1 131.6 144.7 163.8 133.2 138.1 130.1 144.7 163.0 133.6 139.1 133.7 144.6 163.3 133.4 138.8 133.0 144.0 163.3 132.5 137.0 129.6 144.2 163.4 132.7 137.5 126.4 144.8 163.9 133.4 138.8 126.4 146.3 164.3 135.4 142.1 130.5 146.8 164.7 165.9 142.9 133.1 146.6 164.9 135.6 142.2 132.3 146.6 165.2 135.4 142.0 129.0 146.6 165.9 135.1 141.7 125.9 147.8 166.1 136.8 145.1 127.9 149.8 166.4 139.6 150.2 131.0 149.9 166.5 139.6 150.2 131.8 137.0 127.3 147.2 126.0 146.7 125.8 146.6 125.6 145.7 125.6 148.1 125.7 150.2 125.7 153.2 126.1 153.1 126.3 152.5 126.4 153.9 126.3 155.0 126.0 159.3 125.6 165.7 125.8 165.2 126.0 166.3 234.0 Services........................................................... 181.0 185.3 184.2 184.4 185.2 185.9 186.3 186.6 186.7 187.1 187.2 187.9 188.5 189.2 189.4 Rent of shelter3 .............................................. Transporatation services................................ 170.1 185.4 213.7 174.9 187.9 219.6 174.1 187.9 218.1 174.2 187.5 218.4 174.7 186.7 218.8 175.3 188.0 219.2 175.6 187.4 220.3 175.8 187.3 220.9 176.1 189.0 2 2 1 .6 176.3 189.8 222.3 176.5 189.9 222.9 177.3 190.2 223.8 178.0 190.8 223.7 178.7 191.8 224.0 178.9 192.0 224.2 159.5 155.0 155.8 132.0 134.1 138.7 146.5 163.1 158.1 159.2 134.6 140.0 148.4 151.3 162.6 157.7 158.8 135.0 140.8 147.9 151.4 162.6 157.7 158.8 134.8 140.6 147.9 151.4 162.7 157.6 158.8 133.9 138.9 147.0 150.5 163.2 158.0 159.2 134.2 139.4 149.3 150.8 163.7 158.6 159.7 134.8 140.7 151.2 151.7 164.7 159.7 160.7 136.7 143.8 154.0 153.6 165.0 160.1 161.0 137.2 144.6 153.8 154.3 165.1 160.1 161.1 137.0 144.0 153.4 154.0 165.1 160.1 161.1 136.8 143.8 154.7 154.0 165.4 160.3 161.4 136.5 143.6 155.8 154.2 166.4 161.3 162.3 138.2 146.8 159.8 156.0 168.0 162.8 163.6 141.0 151.7 165.7 158.8 168.2 163.0 163.8 141.0 151.7 165.3 158.9 170.7 174.1 172.7 173.0 177.7 181.1 1 1 2 .1 172.5 174.5 144.6 1 0 0 .2 1 0 0 .6 191.8 191.9 172.6 174.7 145.4 109.1 194.4 183.1 122.9 174.1 176.2 145.6 132.0 196.9 183.3 1 1 1 .0 176.9 182.4 116.7 173.3 175.3 144.6 120.4 196.2 177.4 180.8 111.4 172.4 174.5 145.7 109.4 194.0 175.9 181.2 176.4 178.6 105.2 170.7 172.8 144.5 175.5 180.7 113.1 171.8 173.9 145.0 109.7 193.4 175.8 178.4 104.5 170.7 172.9 144.8 175.0 180.4 175.4 179.5 106.1 171.1 173.1 144.3 100.3 192.6 174.0 179.4 106.2 170.6 172.7 143.8 98.6 192.2 174.7 175.4 Special indexes: All items less shelter...................................... Commodities less food................................... Nondurables................................................. Services less rent of shelter3 .......................... Services less medical care services............... Energy.......................................................... Commodities less food and energy............ Services less energy.................................. 2 Not seasonally adjusted. Indexes on a December 1997 = 100 base. 3 Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base. 1 1 0 2 .1 167.6 169.6 142.7 92.3 187.7 78 Monthly Labor Review 1 0 1 .8 192.8 1 1 1 .1 171.1 173.1 143.3 106.8 193.2 1 1 2 .1 194.7 181.9 112.5 172.8 174.8 144.1 113.1 195.5 Indexes on a December 1988 = 100 base. - Data not available. 4 NOTE: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 180.1 108.4 170.9 172.9 143.5 June 2000 Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date. 1 2 1 .0 174.5 176.7 146.4 128.3 197.1 29. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items [1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] All Urban Consumers Pricing Area sched ule1 U.S. city average......................................................... M Region and area size2 Northeast urban................................................................. Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................ 1999 Mar. Apr. 165.0 166.2 M 171.9 M 172.8 Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.................................... M Midwest urban4 .................................................................. Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................ Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.................................... Size D—Non metropolitan (less than 50,000)................. Urban W age Earners 2000 Dec. Jan. Feb. 1999 Mar. Apr. Mar. Apr. 2000 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 168.3 168.7 169.7 171.1 171.2 161.4 162.7 165.1 165.5 166.4 167.8 167.9 172.8 175.5 176.1 177.4 178.3 178.4 168.5 169.5 172.6 173.0 174.3 175.1 175.3 173.6 176.3 176.9 178.3 179.2 179.1 168.3 169.3 172.4 172.8 174.1 174.9 175.0 103.2 103.9 105.4 105.8 106.7 107.2 107.4 1 0 2 .8 103.5 105.2 105.5 106.3 106.8 107.0 M 161.0 162.2 164.4 164.8 165.8 167.0 166.9 156.9 158.2 160.7 161.2 162.1 163.4 163.2 M 162.4 163.6 165.5 166.1 167.2 168.3 168.2 157.5 158.8 161.1 161.6 162.7 163.8 163.6 M 103.0 103.7 105.3 105.5 106.0 106.8 106.8 1 0 2 .6 103.5 105.3 105.5 106.1 106.9 106.9 M 155.7 156.4 158.9 159.0 159.8 161.5 161.3 153.4 154.4 157.3 157.6 158.3 160.0 159.9 South urban...................................................................... M 160.6 161.5 163.6 164.0 164.7 166.4 166.6 158.4 159.4 162.0 162.2 163.0 164.6 164.9 Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................ M 159.7 160.5 163.0 163.5 164.1 165.9 166.1 156.9 157.9 160.9 161.2 161.8 163.4 163.7 Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.................................... Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000).................. M 103.3 103.9 105.2 105.3 105.9 106.9 107.1 1 0 2 .8 103.5 105.0 105.1 105.7 106.7 106.9 M 161.5 162.6 163.5 164.4 165.1 166.8 166.7 161.5 162.7 164.6 165.1 165.8 167.6 167.6 West urban........................................................................ M 167.3 169.0 170.5 171.0 171.9 173.4 173.7 163.2 164.9 166.4 166.7 167.4 169.1 169.4 Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................ M 168.2 170.0 171.7 172.3 173.3 174.9 175.1 162.3 164.2 165.8 166.3 167.1 168.7 169.0 Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.................................... M 104.1 105.1 105.7 105.7 106.2 107.1 107.2 104.0 105.0 105.5 105.5 105.9 106.8 107.1 M M M 149.5 103.3 161.1 150.5 104.1 162 1 152.5 105.3 163.7 153.0 105.5 164 3 154.0 106.1 164.9 155.2 106.9 166 7 155.2 107.1 166.7 147.7 102.9 159.8 148.9 103.7 160.9 151.2 105.2 163.1 151.6 105.3 163.5 152.5 105.9 164.1 153.6 106.8 165.9 153.7 106.9 166.0 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL—IN—Wl................................... Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA...................... M M 167.0 165.0 167.6 166.6 169.2 167.3 170.1 167.9 171.3 169.2 172.0 170.6 171.7 170.6 161.1 158.3 161.7 160.1 163.7 160.9 164.5 161.2 165.6 162.4 166.4 163.9 166.1 163.9 Size classes: A5 ................................................................................... B/C3 ............................................................................... D.................................................................................... Selected local areas6 New York, NY-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.. M 175.5 176.0 178.6 179.2 180.4 181.4 181.2 170.8 171.3 174.3 174.6 176.6 1 174.8 - - 180.2 - 182.7 - 172.3 - - 178.6 175.8 - 176.6 Boston-Brockton-Nashua, MA-NH-ME-CT..................... 181.1 - Cleveland-Akron, OH........................................................ 1 161.2 - - 164.4 - 166.8 - 152.9 - - 156.8 - 159.2 - Dallas-Ft Worth, TX.......................................................... 1 156.4 - - 160.4 - 163.1 - 155.8 - - 160.3 - 162.9 - Washinqton-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV7 ......................... 1 103.2 - - 105.3 - 107.0 - 1 0 2 .8 - - 105.3 - 106.9 - Atlanta, GA........................................................................ 2 - 164.0 167.0 - 167.4 - 169.8 - 160.9 164.6 - 164.9 - 167.2 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml................................................ 2 - 164.1 165.6 - 167.2 - 168.1 - 158.7 160.4 - 162.0 - 162.8 - 150.5 163.5 - 151.3 164.5 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX..................................... 2 - - 152.7 - 146.6 - 150.3 164.8 152.1 2 148.3 161.7 - Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL.................................................. - 165.9 - 166.9 - 159.1 149.2 162.7 - - Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD..... 2 - 171.1 172.9 - 174.7 - 175.7 - 170.6 172.8 - 174.5 2 - 172.2 174.5 - 176.5 - - 168.8 170.9 - 172.5 Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA....................................... 2 - 172.2 174.4 - 176.0 - 178.6 177.7 - 175.7 San Frandsco-Oakland-San Jose, CA............................. - 167.8 170.1 - 171.5 - 173.2 ' 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. 2 3 Regions defined as the four Census regions. Indexes on a December 1996 = 100 base. The "North Central" region has been renamed the "Midwest" region by the Census Bureau. It is composed of the same geographic entities. 4 5 Indexes on a December 1986 = 100 base. In addition, the following metropolitan areas are published semiannually and appear in tables 34 and 39 of the January and July issues of the CPI Detailed Report: Anchorage, AK; Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN; Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City, 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 174.8 MO-KS; Milwaukee-Racine, Wl; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland-Salem, OR-WA; St Louis, MO-IL; San Diego, CA; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL. Indexes on a November 1996 = 100 base. - Data not available. 7 NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local index has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in their escalator clauses. Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 79 Current Labor Statistics: 30. Price Data Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups [1982-84= 100] Series 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: 136.2 4.2 140.3 3.0 144.5 3.0 148.2 156.9 3.0 160.5 2.3 163.0 136.8 3.6 138.7 1.4 141.6 144.9 2.3 148.9 153.7 3.2 157.7 161.1 2 .6 2 .2 133.6 4.0 137.5 2.9 141.2 2.7 144.8 2.5 148.5 152.8 2.9 156.8 128.7 3.7 131.9 2.5 133.7 1.4 133.4 132.0 - 1 .0 131.7 123.8 2.7 126.5 130.4 3.1 134.3 3.0 139.1 3.6 143.0 177.0 8.7 190.1 7.4 201.4 5.9 2 1 1 .0 4.8 220.5 4.5 171.6 7.9 183.3 192.9 5.2 198.5 2.9 134.3 4.1 138.2 2.9 142.1 145.6 2.5 2 .6 152.4 2 .8 1 .6 166.6 2 .2 Food and beverages: 2 .1 2 .8 164.6 2 .2 Housing: 160.4 2.3 163.9 132.9 .9 133.0 131.3 -1.3 144.3 0.9 141.6 -1.9 144.4 228.2 3.5 234.6 242.1 3.2 250.6 3.5 206.9 4.2 215.4 4.1 224.8 4.4 237.7 5.7 258.3 8.7 149.8 2.9 154.1 2.9 157.6 2.3 159.7 1.3 163.2 2 .6 2 .6 2 .2 Apparel: -.2 -.2 .1 Transportation: 2 .2 2 .8 2 .0 Medical care: 2 .8 Other goods and services: 6 .8 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: All items: 80 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 2 .8 2 .2 31. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1982 = 100] Grouping Annual average 1998 1999 1999 Apr. May June July Aug. 2000 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 130 7 128.9 134.3 133 0 132.0 135.1 131 9 130.4 133.4 13? 4 131.2 134.5 13? 7 131.7 135.1 13? 9 132.1 134.6 133 7 133.2 135.9 134.6 136.7 134.5 135.8 134.3 135.4 134.3 135.6 133.9 135.0 135.6 135.9 137.0 135.9 136.9 137.1 126.4 132.9 137.6 130.5 127.9 133.0 137.6 129 0 125.7 133.1 137.8 129.6 126.6 132.8 137.6 130 0 127.5 132.3 137.2 130 8 128.9 131.7 137.0 131 9 130.4 131.6 136.9 133 5 132.8 131.2 136.7 133 7 131.5 134.9 138.5 133 8 131.6 134.6 138.3 133 R 131.7 134.4 138.3 133 3 131.4 134.1 138.4 134.3 134.0 138.4 137.0 134.0 138.5 136.0 133.9 138.7 supplies, and com po nents........................ 123.0 123.2 121.6 122.2 123.0 123.9 124.6 125.3 125.0 125.2 125.4 125.9 126.8 127.9 128.0 Materials and components for manufacturing................................... Materials for food manufacturing............ Materials for nondurable manufacturing.. Materials for durable manufacturing....... Components for manufacturing............... 126.1 123.2 126.7 128.0 125.9 124.6 123.8 119.6 123.3 124.3 125.6 124.1 125.4 125.9 121.1 122.0 122.2 123.8 124.8 125.7 124.6 119.0 124.8 126.1 125.6 125.0 124.9 125.1 125.7 123.2 118.1 122.7 123.2 125.7 125.5 126.2 125.6 126.5 126.2 125.7 127.7 126.5 125.7 125.9 120.9 127.8 126.7 125.7 125.9 118.2 128.2 127.2 125.8 126.4 117.6 128.6 128.6 125.9 126.8 117.8 129.6 129.4 125.7 127.4 118.1 131.3 129.5 125.7 128.0 119.6 132.1 129.8 125.9 146.8 81.1 140.8 134.8 148.9 84.6 142.5 134.2 148.0 80.6 140.4 133 8 148.5 82.5 141.6 133.7 149 5 84 9 142.2 133.9 150 5 87 6 142.1 133.9 150 4 90 0 143.6 134.2 149 6 9? 5 145.7 134.4 149 1 89 3 146.3 134.8 149 4 90 ? 146.5 135.0 149 8 90 fi 146.5 135.1 147.2 135.2 147.3 135.5 148.3 136.0 151.8 136.2 96.8 103.9 88.4 98.2 98.7 94.3 91.1 95.4 84.8 97.4 99.6 92.3 97.4 99.5 92.5 97.9 96.2 95.5 103.1 107.3 100.1 100.1 108.3 109.2 99.5 111.9 103.5 96.9 104.3 105.8 96.5 108.3 111.2 101.5 104.0 98.8 103.8 97.6 116.5 113.3 101.3 117.5 103.5 111.5 132.3 78.8 143.0 145.2 146.1 131.3 75.9 142 3 144.2 145.8 131.6 77.5 142 5 144.6 145.6 131.8 78.6 142 6 144.8 145.5 132.3 80.7 142 3 144.5 145.3 133.0 83.5 14? 5 144.9 145.2 134.0 85.8 134.7 83.5 134.7 83.6 134.6 83.6 134.5 83.8 135.9 87.4 137.2 92.0 136.8 90.1 Finished consumer goods less energy..... Finished goods less food and energy....... 129.5 75.1 141.1 142.5 143.7 145.8 145.7 146.6 147.5 146.3 147.4 146.4 147.4 145.8 147.0 146.6 147.5 146.7 147.6 147.2 147.7 Finished consumer goods less food and energy............................................. 147.7 151.7 151.2 151.0 151.0 150.9 150.7 151.7 153.6 153.4 153.4 152.8 153.6 153.6 153.7 Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy........................................... 159.1 166.3 165.2 165.2 165.7 165.9 165.7 167.9 168.1 168.2 168.2 167.3 169.0 169.0 169.2 and feeds............................................... Intermediate foods and feeds................... Intermediate energy goods...................... Intermediate goods less energy................ 123.4 116.2 80.8 132.4 123.9 122.9 109.8 82.2 131.1 123.7 125.4 110.9 89.6 132.3 126.8 109.3 91.2 133.5 127.7 110.3 94.5 133.8 128.9 110.8 111.8 89.9 133.0 126.2 109.7 90.3 133.0 128.8 92.1 132.5 125.7 112.4 89.0 132.9 126.0 84.6 131.5 124.7 109.1 87.2 131.9 126.0 84.6 131.7 122.3 109.0 80.3 130.7 97.8 134.4 96.0 134.9 Intermediate materials less foods and energy............................................. 133.5 133.1 132.1 132.5 132.9 133.4 133.7 133.9 134.2 134.4 134.6 135.1 135.4 136.0 136.5 68.6 78.5 107.9 135.2 68.1 77.1 107.6 131.4 77.1 107.7 132.2 80.4 105.8 134.2 87.3 109.4 136.8 95.4 110.0 88.7 109.8 141.7 98.9 110.5 142.6 87.9 109.5 146.0 110.2 102.2 103.9 129.1 103.4 114.1 151.1 96.3 115.2 149.0 Finished consumer goods....................... Finished consumer foods...................... Finshed consumer goods Nondurable goods less food............... Durable goods................................... Capital equipment................................ 122.2 Interm ediate m aterials, 120.8 120.0 Materials and components Containers................................................ Crude m aterials for further p rocessin g....................................................... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs......................... Crude nonfood materials.......................... 110.6 Special groupings: Finished goods, excluding foods............... Finished energy goods............................. Intermediate materials less foods Crude energy materials............................ Crude materials less energy.................... Crude nonfood materials less energy....... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 113.6 142.1 111.1 110.2 111.8 139.1 111.6 92.0 149.8 Monthly Labor Review 111.4 151.0 June 2000 81 Current Labor Statistics: 32. Price Data Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups [December 1984 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] A n n u a l a v e ra g e 2000 1999 In d u s t r y S IC 1998 _ 10 12 13 14 _ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1999 A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. T o ta l m in in g in d u s tr ie s ............................................. 70.8 78.0 68.9 76.5 76.3 78.7 84.7 91.5 87.7 95.1 86.7 89.5 97.3 100.1 94.9 Metal mining................................................. Coal mining (12/85 - 100)............................ Oil and gas extraction (12/85 - 100)............. Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels................................. 73.2 89.5 68.3 70.3 87.3 78.5 69.8 89.9 65.7 69.7 87.8 76.3 67.3 68.8 73.4 86.0 91.2 86.1 101.6 72.6 85.4 90.4 73.9 85.3 94.2 75.5 84.6 104.5 73.6 85.8 108.6 73.4 84.4 76.2 86.9 79.6 70.4 85.9 96.9 76.3 88.2 69.3 86.9 87.6 101.8 132.2 134.0 133.8 133.8 134.2 134.2 134.2 134.3 134.4 134.4 134.4 135.0 135.0 135.2 136.0 126.2 126.3 243.1 118.6 128.3 126.3 325.7 116.3 127.4 124.3 316.0 116.4 127.7 125.3 316.1 116.4 127.8 126.0 316.2 116.3 128.3 125.9 316.1 115.9 129.0 126.8 316.5 116.0 129.7 127.5 344.5 115.9 130.2 127.5 344.4 116.1 130.3 127.1 344.5 115.9 130.5 126.7 345.0 116.1 130.8 126.7 329.4 116.2 132.0 127.3 348.6 116.3 133.0 127.5 347.3 116.0 132.8 128.2 347.2 116.1 124.8 125.3 125.3 125.3 125.1 125.1 125.5 125.6 125.6 125.4 125.3 125.2 125.3 125.3 125.6 157.0 139.7 136.2 161.8 141.3 136.4 160.2 140.7 134.2 161.9 140.9 134.8 165.2 141.1 135.8 168.5 141.3 136.3 166.9 141.6 137.3 163.1 141.8 138.7 160.0 142.0 139.9 159.6 142.0 140.2 160.6 142.1 140.4 161.4 142.4 141.0 161.9 142.4 141.5 162.0 142.8 143.5 161.8 143.0 145.8 T o ta l m a n u fa c t u r in g in d u s tr ie s ............................ 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........................................... Furniture and fixtures.................................... Paper and allied products............................. 27 Printing, publishing, and allied industries...... 174.0 177.6 177.1 177.2 177.2 177.4 177.7 178.1 178.6 179.1 179.2 180.4 180.6 181.2 181.3 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Chemicals and allied products...................... Petroleum refining and related products........ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products. Leather and leather products........................ Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products..... Primary metal industries............................... Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation transportation equipment........................... 148.7 66.3 149.7 76.8 148.2 75.4 136.5 132.6 115.8 136.0 132.5 114.9 136.7 132.7 115.4 152.8 87.0 122.9 137.0 133.6 117.1 153.0 89.5 123.3 137.0 133.7 117.1 152.9 91.8 123.4 137.0 133.5 117.4 153.6 94.0 123.5 137.5 134.4 118.6 154.1 103.7 123.7 137.5 134.5 119.1 154.8 137.1 129.3 120.9 150.0 85.3 122.5 136.7 133.1 115.7 151.0 90.2 122.2 149.0 74.2 121.9 136.5 132.7 115.0 149.9 79.6 122.1 147.7 73.7 121.7 136.1 132.1 114.7 124.0 137.5 134.7 119.8 155.5 107.8 124.1 137.4 134.7 120.5 128.7 129.1 128.9 128.9 129.1 129.1 129.1 129.2 129.4 129.6 129.7 129.9 130.1 130.4 130.4 117.1 117.1 117.0 117.1 117.3 117.4 117.4 37 38 39 122.1 122.8 136.9 133.2 116.4 112.2 117.7 117.3 117.5 117.5 117.5 117.3 117.2 117.1 110.4 133.6 109.5 134.5 109.7 134.5 109.7 134.1 109.5 133.6 109.5 133.0 109.5 132.9 109.2 132.6 109.1 136.7 109.1 136.2 108.9 136.2 108.7 136.3 108.8 135.9 108.5 136.1 108.7 136.3 126.0 125.7 126.4 125.9 125.3 125.1 125.0 124.9 125.2 125.3 125.6 126.0 126.0 125.9 126.1 129.7 130.3 130.4 130.5 130.5 130.5 130.1 130.0 130.4 130.2 130.5 130.7 131.0 130.9 131.1 Motor freight transportation and warehousing (06/93 - 100)................... 111.6 Water transportation (12/92 = 100)................ Transportation by air (12/92 = 100)................ Pipelines, except natural qas (12/92 = 100).... 132.3 105.6 124.5 99.2 114.8 135.3 113.0 130.8 98.3 114.2 135.4 106.0 129.6 98.4 114.3 135.4 114.4 130.0 98.5 114.6 135.2 116.8 130.9 98.6 114.8 135.2 117.4 131.4 98.2 115.1 135.2 117.2 131.7 98.2 115.8 135.2 117.3 131.8 98.3 115.5 135.2 116.7 133.1 98.3 115.5 135.2 116.7 133.4 98.2 115.8 135.2 116.1 134.2 98.2 116.5 135.2 116.4 141.0 116.8 135.2 117.5 136.8 101.9 118.1 135.2 117.2 138.4 101.9 118.2 135.2 118.5 142.5 101.9 35 36 121.6 Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment, and supplies............................. Measuring and controlling instruments; photographic, medical, and optical goods; watches and clocks......................... Miscellaneous manufacturing industries industries (12/85 = 100).............................. S e r v ic e in d u s tr ie s : 42 43 44 45 46 33. 102.1 Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1982 = 100] In d e x 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 F in is h e d g o o d s 121.7 124.1 78.1 131.1 123.2 123.3 77.8 134.2 124.7 125.7 78.0 135.8 125.5 126.8 77.0 137.1 127.9 129.0 78.1 140.0 131.3 133.6 83.2 142.0 131.8 134.5 83.4 142.4 130.7 134.3 75.1 143.7 133.0 135.1 78.8 146.1 114.4 115.3 85.1 121.4 114.7 113.9 84.3 118.5 118.5 83.0 127.1 124.9 119.5 84.1 135.2 125.7 125.3 89.8 134.0 125.6 123.2 89.0 134.2 123.0 123.2 80.8 133.5 123.2 122.0 116.2 115.6 84.6 123.8 101.2 100.4 105.1 78.8 94.2 102.4 108.4 76.7 94.1 101.8 102.7 105.8 69.4 105.8 113.8 121.5 85.0 105.7 111.1 112.2 96.8 103.9 87.3 103.5 68.6 98.2 98.7 78.5 91.1 In te rm e d ia te m a terials, s u p p lie s , an d c o m p o n e n ts 120.8 84.3 133.1 C ru d e m a te ria ls fo r fu rth e r p ro ce ssin g 105.5 80.4 97.5 82 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 106.5 72.1 97.0 84.5 34. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification [1995 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] 2000 1999 SITC In d u s try Rev. 3 A p r. 0 Food and live a n im a ls ................................................................. 8 8 .2 01 04 05 Meat and meat preparations......................................... Cereals and cereal preparations................................... Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry.......... 88.9 76.7 94.8 2 Crude m aterials, inedible, exc ept fu e ls ............................... 21 Hides, skins, and furskins, raw...................................... Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits...................................... Cork and wood.............................................................. 74.1 78.9 80.4 81.8 61.9 69.8 93.5 22 24 25 26 27 28 3 32 33 6 8 .6 Coal, coke, and briquettes............................................ Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials.... 4 5 C h em ica ls and related products, n .e .s ................................ 54 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products......................... 55 Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations........ 57 Plastics in primary forms (12/92 = 100)......................... Plastics in nonprimary forms (12/92 - 100).................... 58 59 Chemical materials and products, n.e.s......................... M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. 89.2 89.9 76.2 97.6 89.2 91.5 75.9 98.5 87.4 94.2 70.9 99.8 87.6 97.3 73.3 97.8 8 6 .6 74.6 79.0 79.5 81.7 62.9 70.1 93.5 70.6 74.9 79.0 79.2 82.0 74.7 80.3 72.8 82.9 71.5 65.2 93.6 72.3 76.5 83.4 80.1 83.0 73.5 65.1 93.0 73.0 77.7 86.5 85.0 82.8 75.2 64.4 93.3 73.5 6 6 .0 6 8 .6 93.5 70.7 97.5 72.7 94.3 O c t. Nov. Dec. Feb. M a r. A p r. 71.0 90.9 86.9 98.0 74.1 89.0 87.1 99.4 74.4 78.9 90.5 79.6 85.0 80.9 62.5 94.1 78.4 80.0 91.1 80.5 86.4 84.3 61.2 94.3 80.0 82.2 89.5 84.8 86.5 88.3 65.7 94.0 80.7 83.2 87.7 93.5 80.9 84.2 85.5 88.3 87.4 93.8 68.9 93.0 80.4 86.4 97.4 69.5 96.6 86.3 97.7 70.1 94.3 85.6 100.9 68.5 91.2 78.1 82.3 83.5 77.1 64.5 93.1 75.1 77.8 87.8 78.1 83.8 78.7 63.4 93.8 77.3 8 8 .6 Jan. 86.3 1 0 0 .1 8 8 .6 8 6 .0 87.2 90.0 6 8 .6 87.8 1 0 2 .1 74.0 90.6 99 6 98.3 103.3 100.7 98.4 105.3 1 0 2 .0 98.3 107.6 109.0 98.2 119.8 113.8 98.3 126.4 115.3 97.6 128.6 119.5 97.6 131.3 121.4 97.6 133.4 126.6 97.5 140.1 129.5 96.1 143.6 138.5 96.1 159.6 152.1 96.1 179.2 137.2 94.7 152.0 82.8 81.9 76.6 76.8 77.1 78.8 81.9 79.0 78.0 75.8 74.3 70.8 71.6 91.6 100.3 101.9 89.7 97.4 99.4 91.8 99.9 92.3 99.8 93.3 99.8 102.3 94.4 97.9 98.9 93.3 99.8 103.5 94.9 97.8 98.8 93.6 100.3 103.4 95.0 98.0 99.1 93.8 94.2 100.4 103.3 94.8 98.6 99.9 94.4 100.4 103.0 95.6 100.5 99.6 90.4 90.7 91.2 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .6 101.4 85.5 96.1 99.9 1 0 1 .8 101.9 88.4 97.2 99.6 8 6 .6 96.3 99.5 1 0 1 .8 90.6 97.4 99.3 1 0 2 .1 92.1 97.6 99.2 1 0 0 .2 103.4 94.8 97.8 99.2 95.6 1 0 0 .0 103.2 97.5 1 0 0 .6 99.3 6 M anufactured goo ds classified chiefly by m aterials..... 96.5 96.6 96.8 97.1 97.3 97.5 97.8 98.0 98.3 98.3 99.0 99.7 99.9 62 64 Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.......................................... Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp, and paperboard........................................................... Nonmetalllc mineral manufactures, n.e.s....................... Nonferrous metals......................................................... 105.9 105.9 105.5 105.6 105.8 106.9 108.2 108.2 108.5 104.7 103.7 103.6 103.7 81.9 106.6 84.3 82.9 106.3 84.7 83.4 106.3 85.0 84.4 106.3 85.3 85.4 106.3 87.0 86.3 106.1 87.2 106.0 90.2 87.6 106.0 90.7 87.2 105.8 92.3 87.6 105.8 93.4 87.8 106.0 98.8 88.4 106.2 101.9 89.1 106.4 100.3 66 68 7 M achinery and tra nsport e q u ip m e n t.................................... 71 72 74 General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s., 75 76 Computer equipment and office machines.................... Telecommunications and sound recording and 77 78 Road vehicles............................................................... 8 8 .0 98.0 97.8 97.6 97.4 97.5 97.2 97.4 97.3 97.3 97.4 109.6 105.9 109.5 105.9 109.6 106.1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .8 105.8 105.8 105.9 106.0 106.1 104.7 106.2 106.3 106.1 111.9 106.2 107.3 72.7 107.2 72.2 107.3 71.6 107.5 71.0 107.5 71.0 107.6 70.2 107.7 70.5 107.7 70.4 107.9 70.2 107.5 70.1 107.6 68.7 108.0 68.7 108.2 68.5 97.3 89.6 96.9 102.5 97.0 87.7 102.4 96.9 87.5 102.3 96.9 87.6 102.4 96.6 87.4 103.1 96.6 87.3 103.1 96.7 86.7 103.1 96.4 86.4 103.5 97.0 1 0 2 .2 97.1 89.0 102.3 103.6 96.8 86.3 104.0 96.7 86.4 103.9 105.2 105.4 105.2 105.4 105.4 105.4 105.5 105.6 105.3 105.2 105.4 105.7 105.8 8 8 .6 97.3 97.3 97.2 8 6 .6 87 P rofessional, scientific, and controlling instru m e nts and a p p a ra tu s ................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 83 Current Labor Statistics: 35. Productivity Data U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification [1995 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] 1999 S IT C 2000 In d u s t r y R ev. 3 A p r. June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. 0 F o o d a n d liv e a n im a ls ..................................................................... 94.5 94.9 93.3 92.6 92.0 91.5 91.0 92.4 94.7 93.7 93.6 93.5 94.3 01 Meat and meat preparations......................................... Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic invertebrates.................................................. Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry.......... Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures thereof........................................................................ 94.5 93.7 94.5 94.3 96.7 99.4 98.4 97.7 98.4 97.8 98.2 99.1 1 0 0 .2 106.0 104.9 106.0 108.1 104.3 103.2 104.2 103.5 103.8 103.1 107.5 97.2 106.8 103.6 107.9 109.7 112.7 1 0 1 .6 105.0 96.5 106.8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .1 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .6 70.6 67.2 61.0 61.1 03 05 07 1 69.5 68.4 69.4 64.3 63.2 61.4 62.0 110 6 110.4 110.4 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .2 112 2 111 5 111 5 112 0 107.2 107.2 107.2 107.6 107.7 109.1 108.5 108.5 108.7 107.9 108.2 108.5 88.5 90.3 93.1 92.7 91.7 90.8 90.3 92.2 93.6 94.7 94.3 93.8 113.6 57.3 89.5 108.6 118.3 58.1 90.9 107.8 122.3 60.6 91.9 101.7 131.9 61.4 91.9 121.7 116.7 63.9 98.4 114.9 118.7 117.7 70 5 101.4 1 0 2 .8 128.9 61.1 93.8 105.0 1 1 1 .1 118.6 72 4 104.0 111.9 117.6 75 1 101.7 110.5 86.3 84.9 99.3 93.1 91.1 92.7 91.3 106.5 105.3 103.8 123.1 117.1 115.9 134.1 126.5 125.7 142.2 165 6 166.8 170 4 147 8 146.4 171 3 90.6 86.4 90.6 96.2 91.7 93.7 75.8 98.0 92.8 91.7 95.6 92.7 93.4 74.0 98.0 90.6 86.7 91.9 96.2 92.4 93.6 75.6 97.4 93.4 89.8 87.9 97.3 89.4 93 9 80 3 11 Beverages.................................................................... 2 C r u d e m a te r ia ls , in e d ib le , e x c e p t fu e ls ................................. 24 25 28 29 Cork and wood............................................................. 3 33 34 M in e r a l fu e ls , lu b r ic a n ts , a n d re la te d p r o d u c ts ................ 5 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 C h e m ic a ls a n d r e la te d p ro d u c ts , n .e .s .................................. Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................ 90.6 86.9 92.6 96.1 93.1 92.5 73.5 98.5 6 M a n u fa c tu r e d g o o d s c la s s ifie d c h ie fly b y m a te r ia ls ..... 91.7 91.8 92.0 62 64 Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.......................................... Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp, 94.2 94.7 94.3 69 Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s....................... Nonferrous metals........................................................ Manufactures of metals, n.e.s....................................... 85.1 100.9 85.7 95.9 85.2 66 85.8 96.4 83.7 100.9 87.7 96.1 7 M a c h in e r y a n d t r a n s p o r t e q u ip m e n t....................................... 90.6 90.6 98.1 68 72 74 75 76 Metalliferous ores and metal scrap............................... Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s................. Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials... Inorganic chemicals...................................................... Dying, tanning, and coloring materials.......................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products........................ Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations........ 8 6 .1 1 1 2 .1 6 6 .0 94.3 6 6 .0 64.7 111 7 66 8 68 2 1 1 2 .1 98.0 106.5 99.0 111.9 1 2 1 .1 117.0 72 0 105.7 124.3 128.0 127.4 141.1 134.7 132.6 161 5 141 2 141.4 150.2 145.2 146.1 147 8 165 7 167.9 161 4 92.1 87.7 91.4 97.8 92.3 93 9 79.4 98.4 92.0 89.7 97.3 90.2 94 0 79.7 99.5 92.2 88.3 88.9 98.2 89.6 93.7 79.3 92.7 89.0 89.3 98.2 89.6 93 0 79 0 108.7 90.4 91.3 8 6 .2 8 6 .6 90.5 96.3 91.8 93.1 76.1 98.1 90.2 97.0 92.3 93 8 77.9 98.1 91.8 87.2 90.6 97.4 91.8 93.8 78.9 98.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .6 91.9 92.4 92.6 93.3 93.9 93.9 94.5 95.5 97.9 97.6 94.4 94.5 95.0 94.9 94.4 94.4 92.7 92.8 92.3 92.4 83.6 87.6 95.8 83.5 100.9 89.9 95.6 90.3 89.9 97.8 97.6 97.9 63.7 97.7 63.6 87.9 83.5 90.6 8 6 .8 8 8 .8 88.4 97.3 89.7 93 9 80 4 1 0 0 .0 84.4 87.4 8 6 .2 8 6 .6 86.9 87.1 1 0 1 .2 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .2 1 0 0 .8 100.9 91.1 95.8 94.8 95.6 95.4 95.9 95.6 95.9 98.9 95.7 104.4 96.1 114.8 96.1 1 1 0 .1 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.8 89.7 89.8 89.8 89.7 89.6 97.3 97.2 97.6 97.8 98.2 97 8 97 7 97 9 97 3 97 1 97.6 63.1 97.3 62.0 97 3 61.8 97.4 61.6 97 3 61.4 97 3 61.4 97 0 61.7 97 0 61 5 96 7 61 4 97 0 61.0 96 9 60.5 87 6 82.7 102.3 87 3 81.9 102.4 87.0 82 1 102 4 87.1 82 5 102 2 82.6 102.4 85 9 82.2 102.4 85 6 82 1 102 3 85 2 82 4 102 4 85 2 82 2 1 0 2 .0 87.8 83.3 102.3 102 6 84 9 82 2 102 7 84 6 82 5 102 7 1 0 1 .2 100.5 100.7 100.7 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 100.9 100.7 100.5 91.4 91.4 91.3 91.2 91.1 91.4 92.2 92.5 92.5 92.2 91.7 91.8 91.7 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 83.7 8 8 .0 1 0 1 .1 8 8 .8 96.3 General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s., Telecommunications and sound recording and 77 78 85 Footwear...................................................................... 88 Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies, and optical goods, n.e.s............................................. - Data not available. 84 M ay Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 8 6 .0 36. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category [1995 = 100] 2000 1999 C ategory Apr. A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ................................................................ May June Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 94.5 94.5 94.4 94.7 94.8 95.1 95.3 95.2 95.4 95.8 96.3 96.2 8 8 .2 89.0 88.9 87.9 86.9 99.5 87.6 86.7 98.2 87.4 86.4 99.7 86.7 85.6 99.2 8 6 .0 87.2 87.4 8 8 .1 84.9 99.5 86.3 85.4 98.3 8 6 .0 8 6 .2 100.9 101.4 1 0 0 .6 94.5 8 6 .8 8 6 .8 114.2 113.1 86.7 85.0 106.8 8 6 .8 87.2 87.5 88.3 89.0 89.5 90.4 91.1 91.7 92.1 93.6 95.2 79.6 79.5 78.4 76.2 76.3 76.6 77.5 76.6 76.7 75.2 76.9 77.7 78.0 115.9 120.4 122.7 131.3 143.6 127.5 Foods, feeds, and beverages..................................... Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages............... Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products..... 86.4 108.5 Industrial supplies and materials................................ Agricultural industrial supplies and materials.......... 87.0 106.1 110.5 1 1 1 .8 114.4 8 6 .0 8 6 .6 8 8 .0 87.0 88.4 87.5 87.4 88.3 87.8 89.1 87.7 89.3 87.8 8 8 .6 89.7 89.2 90.4 89.5 91.0 90.1 91.8 90.4 96.2 98.2 92.6 96.2 98.0 92.6 96.1 98.3 92.4 96.2 98.3 92.4 96.3 98.4 92.5 96.0 98.5 92.1 96.1 98.3 92.1 96.0 98.8 91.9 96.0 98.7 91.9 96.1 98.7 91.9 103.2 103.2 103.2 103.3 104.0 103.9 103.8 103.9 103.8 104.2 104.2 1 0 2 .0 101.9 1 0 2 .0 101.9 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .2 102.4 102.5 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .1 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .1 102.4 1 0 2 .8 1 0 2 .6 102.4 102.5 102.3 102.3 100.4 100.3 100.5 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .8 100.7 1 0 0 .8 102.5 100.9 102.4 102.9 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .0 101.4 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .2 84.9 95.5 85.2 95.5 85.0 95.6 83.1 95.7 84.7 95.8 84.6 95.9 84.5 96.3 83.7 96.6 83.1 96.6 83.2 96.8 84.0 97.2 84.4 97.6 85.1 97.5 Fuels and lubricants................................................. Nonagricultural supplies and materials, excluding fuel and building materials.................... Selected building materials...................................... 97.8 98.4 99.8 85.3 87.5 85.7 87.5 Capital goods............................................................. Electric and electrical generating equipment.......... Nonelectrical machinery......................................... 97.0 99.1 93.5 96.7 98.9 93.2 96.5 99.0 92.9 Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines................... 102.9 103.0 Consumer goods, excluding automotive................... 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .8 1 0 2 .0 Durables, manufactured......................................... Agricultural commodities............................................ Nonagricultural commodities..................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July 94.4 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 85 Current Labor Statistics: 37. Price Data U.S. import price indexes by end-use category [1995 = 100] 2000 1999 C ategory Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan. Dec. Feb. Mar. Apr. ALL COMMODITIES..................................................... 91.9 92.5 92.4 93.3 94.3 95.2 95.4 96.2 96.8 97.2 99.2 99.3 97.8 Foods, feeds, and beverages.................................... Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages................ Nonagrlcultural (fish, beverages) food products..... 94.0 89.1 106.5 94.8 90.3 106.5 93.7 89.3 105.2 92.8 92.3 87.6 104.9 91.6 106.3 93.0 87.2 108.2 94.8 89.8 107.7 93.6 88.4 107.2 93.3 87.6 108.1 92.9 86.5 109.7 93.7 86.7 105.4 92.5 87.7 105.0 1 1 2 .1 Industrial supplies and materials................................ 89.0 91.5 91.8 96.1 99.9 103.1 104.3 106.9 109.4 1 1 1 .0 118.6 119.8 114.1 Fuels and lubricants................................................ 86.7 84.6 93.4 90.8 93.2 91.2 105.4 103.5 116.7 115.6 126.0 125.2 128.1 127.3 134.3 132.5 140.7 140.9 144.2 145.8 164.7 167.5 163.9 166.4 147.0 146.7 Paper and paper base stocks................................. Materials associated with nondurable supplies and materials.......................................... Selected building materials...................................... Unfinished metals associated with durable goods.. Nonmetals associated with durable goods............. 77.5 77.7 77.0 77.0 76.9 78.4 78.5 81.8 81.2 82.1 82.8 83.1 85.6 87.4 108.3 86.7 87.3 87.3 110.5 87.3 87.3 87.4 114.2 88.3 87.0 87.0 87.7 113.4 89.7 87.3 89.1 94.8 87.4 89.2 110.5 97.4 87.2 90.4 87.7 86.7 86.9 118.9 89.0 86.7 83.3 92.5 80.2 83.0 92.3 79.9 82.6 91.5 79.5 81.9 91.1 78.7 81.9 91.2 78.7 81.7 91.8 78.3 101.5 1 0 1 .8 101.7 1 0 1 .8 97.6 100.5 94.5 98.8 97.5 100.4 94.4 98.0 Capital goods................................. ........................... Electric and electrical generating equipment.......... Consumer aoods, excluding automotive................... 97.7 1 0 0 .8 Durables, manufactured......................................... Nonmanufactured consumer goods........................ 38. 94.4 98.9 8 8 .0 1 2 0 .6 97.4 1 0 0 .2 94.3 98.3 8 6 .1 88.3 8 8 .8 93.0 87.5 108.3 94.4 87.5 82.0 91.6 78.8 81.9 91.7 78.6 81.8 91.8 78.5 81.7 91.1 78.4 101.9 101.9 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .0 97.4 100.3 94.1 99.1 97.7 97.5 100.5 94.1 97.6 100.7 94.2 98.8 1 0 0 .8 94.2 99.9 1 1 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 1 1 .1 97.5 1 0 0 .6 94.1 99.8 1 1 0 .1 1 1 2 .1 100.3 106.9 87.6 91.2 111.9 104.2 87.8 81.6 91.8 78.2 81.3 92.1 77.9 81.2 92.2 77.7 1 0 2 .1 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .2 102.3 97.5 100.4 94.1 101.5 97.4 100.4 93.8 97.1 100.3 93.5 1 0 0 .2 1 0 2 .0 1 0 0 .1 U.S. international price Indexes for selected categories of services [1990 = 100, unless otherwise indicated] 1999 1998 C ategory June Sept. Dec. Air freight (inbound) (9/90 = 100).................................. Air freight (outbound) (9/92 = 100)................................ 83.4 96.0 81.8 95.8 87.4 95.2 Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers)............................... Air passenger fares (foreign carriers)........................... Ocean liner freight (inbound)........................................ 107.8 102.4 103.2 107.3 104.0 105.0 103.1 86 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 Mar. June 2000 Sept. Dec. Mar. 92.8 87.9 92.7 90.7 91.7 112.3 106.3 133.7 114.2 108.6 148.0 106.8 107.3 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .6 139.4 136.3 8 8 .0 8 6 .2 92.7 1 0 1 .1 104.5 98.9 104.2 1 0 2 .6 88.9 91.7 89.7 8 8 .0 97.1 93.4 100.4 39. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted [1992 = 100] Q uarterly indexes Ite m 1997 1 II 1998 III IV I II 1999 III IV I II 2000 III IV I B u sin ess Output per hour of all persons...................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 106.2 112.5 107.0 113.2 107.9 114.6 101.4 106.1 116.2 109.8 108.3 116.5 102.5 107.6 114.3 109.6 117.9 103.6 107.6 114.4 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .1 108.0 115.9 1 0 0 .2 1 0 0 .6 105.9 114.6 109.1 105.8 116.0 109.6 106.0 106.8 112.9 100.3 105.7 116.7 109.7 107.7 114.1 100.9 106.0 117.1 111.7 113.3 109.8 119.5 104.6 108.9 112.7 110.3 110.7 121.3 105.8 109.6 109.2 117.3 103.1 107.4 115.9 110.5 112 4 115.1 101.3 101.5 102.4 99.1 156.1 113.6 106.1 113.4 116.4 102.3 101.5 1 2 2 .2 123.2 117.4 103.2 95.3 111.9 106.7 109.7 112.7 124.3 107.5 110.3 112.9 125.8 108.0 111.4 114.2 127.2 108.5 111.4 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 110.5 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .0 111.3 111.5 116.1 128.2 108.6 110.5 114.4 111.9 109.5 118.9 104.1 108.6 114.2 110.4 120.7 105.3 109.4 113.2 111.5 1 1 2 .2 1 2 2 .1 123.3 106.7 109.9 113.2 112.4 124.8 107.1 113.7 126.2 107.7 115.6 127.4 107.9 116.3 128.7 108.0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .8 114.5 118.1 103.4 101.9 103.1 98.7 150.8 106.0 116.2 119.9 104.6 101.9 103.2 98.4 153.8 112.5 106.3 124.5 119.2 104.3 95.7 127.0 121.3 105.8 95.5 1 2 2 .8 116.6 129.4 108.6 1 1 1 .0 115.2 112.5 N o n fa rm b u s in e s s Output per hour of all persons....................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 1 1 2 .1 99.9 105.8 115.0 109.1 1 1 0 .0 1 0 2 .0 107.3 115.4 110.3 106.1 109.5 112.7 110.7 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .6 112.3 111.5 113.0 111.7 115.8 116.9 112.9 119.3 124.2 106.6 102.7 104.1 98.9 150.2 106.7 120.4 125.6 107.1 103.0 104.2 99.8 146.5 111.7 106.7 126.7 107.3 102.9 103.9 100.5 150.2 113.2 107.0 123.0 127.7 107.2 102.9 103.8 100.5 155.3 114.5 107.4 132.8 125.1 107.5 94.2 134.3 126.9 108.3 94.5 137.7 128.3 108.7 93.1 140.2 129.4 108.6 92.3 1 1 2 .2 N o n fin a n c ia l co rp o ra tio n s Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Total unit costs.............................................................. Unit labor costs............................................................ Unit nonlabor costs...................................................... Unit profits...................................................................... Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 109.4 1 1 0 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .0 99.1 101.3 101.7 99.5 101.4 1 0 0 .2 1 0 1 .8 101.4 99.7 161.8 115.6 106.1 1 0 0 .1 156.3 114.4 105.9 100.3 156.9 114.7 106.1 1 0 1 .0 1 0 2 .6 98.6 154.1 112.7 106.0 1 1 2 .0 117.1 121.3 105.4 102.5 103.6 99.4 147.1 1 1 1 .6 106.3 118.3 122.7 106.2 102.3 103.8 98.4 151.3 111.9 106.5 1 1 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 M a n u fa c tu rin g Output per hour of all persons....................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. 116.8 111.7 99.5 95.7 118.3 112.5 1 0 0 .0 95.1 120.9 113.6 100.5 94.0 115.7 1 0 1 .8 94.6 128.9 1 2 2 .1 106.1 94.8 131.1 123.4 106.8 94.1 - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 87 Current Labor Statistics: 40. International Comparisons Data Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years [1992 = 100] Item 1960 1970 1980 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 P rivate b u s in e s s Productivity: Output per hour of all persons.................................... Output per unit of capital services.............................. Multifactor productivity................................................ Output............................................................................ Inputs: Labor input.................................................................. Capital services........................................................... Combined units of labor and capital input.................. Capital per hour of all persons...................................... 50.8 117.3 70.7 34.0 70.1 117.1 86.5 51.6 83.8 107.3 95.3 72.6 66.9 29.0 48.1 43.3 73.7 44.1 59.7 59.9 67.7 76.2 78.1 102.4 94.2 97.8 92.0 54.3 126.1 74.9 33.7 72.2 124.1 89.4 51.8 85.6 111.4 97.6 73.1 95.9 104.6 100.5 98.1 62.1 26.7 45.0 43.0 71.7 41.8 58.0 58.2 85.4 65.6 74.9 76.8 102.4 93.9 97.7 91.7 1 0 2 .6 96.3 99.0 93.8 98.2 98.6 98.1 1 0 2 .2 42.1 125.6 72.9 38.7 54.5 116.3 84.2 56.8 70.4 101.5 87.3 75.7 90.7 103.5 100.4 97.1 93.0 101.3 99.8 97.5 95.1 97.3 98.6 95.5 1 0 2 .2 92.0 30.9 51.5 39.1 27.3 53.1 104.2 48.8 85.4 46.0 47.4 67.4 107.5 74.6 92.5 74.5 71.9 86.7 107.1 93.8 96.8 88.3 88.9 96.7 104.8 96.3 99.9 91.3 91.8 97.7 100.4 98.2 8 6 .6 95.5 103.8 1 0 0 .0 97.8 99.6 98.6 96.7 98.6 98.1 96.9 1 0 2 .6 1 0 0 .2 96.5 99.0 94.1 98.3 98.7 98.1 96.3 96.9 98.8 98.4 97.0 96.1 1 0 2 .1 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .6 1 0 1 .0 100.7 102.3 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .6 101.9 100.7 102.7 107.0 1 1 0 .0 102.7 106.4 104.6 106.3 98.3 108.9 108.0 109.3 99.2 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .6 99.4 103.7 102.3 102.4 114.7 105.2 1 0 2 .6 103.1 1 2 0 .1 1 1 2 .1 114.1 117.1 116.5 101.4 1 0 2 .6 1 1 0 .6 1 1 2 .2 P riv a te n o n fa rm b u s in e s s Productivity: Output per hour of all persons.................................... Output per unit of capital services.............................. Multifactor productivity................................................. Output............................................................................ Inputs: Labor input.................................................................. Capital services........................................................... Combined units of labor and capital input.................. Capital per hour of all persons...................................... 1 0 2 .6 99.8 98.8 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .6 1 0 1 .2 103.7 104.9 1 0 0 .8 1 0 2 .1 1 0 1 .8 1 0 2 .1 1 0 2 .1 1 0 0 .1 100.5 107.1 1 0 0 .8 110.4 102.3 115.0 1 2 0 .2 106.5 104.8 106.5 98.5 109.0 108.4 109.5 99.4 109.4 106.8 108.4 113.8 113.8 107.0 110.7 118.0 - 103.6 105.3 105.2 104.4 109.1 101.4 101.7 103.7 103.0 104.3 102.3 103.6 103.6 107.3 104.4 107.8 104.5 104.0 106.6 109.5 101.4 103.7 110.3 107.0 105.4 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 - 105.0 106.6 - 103.0 102.9 102.9 99.3 110.9 102.7 112.4 114.6 117.7 117.0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .8 1 1 2 .6 M an u fa c tu rin g Productivity: Output per hour of all persons.................................... Output per unit of capital services.............................. Multifactor productivity................................................ Output............................................................................ Inputs: Hours of all persons..................................................... Capital services........................................................... Energy......................................................................... Nonenergy materials................................................... Purchased business services...................................... Combined units of all factor inputs............................. - Data not available. 88 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 1 0 0 .1 93.1 91.9 96.9 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .2 - 41. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years [1992 = 100] Item 1960 1970 1980 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 B u s in e s s Output per hour of all persons....................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 48.0 13.6 59.9 28.4 25.5 27.3 23.5 79.0 35.6 32.0 34.3 62.1 65.9 93.3 85.7 95.8 91.9 92.5 92.1 94.5 90.6 96.4 95.9 94.6 95.4 95.9 94.9 97.4 99.0 97.4 98.4 51.2 14.3 62.8 27.9 24.9 26.8 23.7 79.7 34.9 31.7 33.7 81.3 54.7 90.3 67.2 61.1 65.0 93.5 85.8 95.8 91.7 91.9 91.8 94.6 90.5 96.3 95.7 94.2 95.1 96.1 94.9 97.4 98.8 97.5 98.3 28.9 29.7 26.8 53.2 33.2 30.9 66.3 25.3 85.1 37.4 38.2 35.4 47.1 38.3 38.2 76.9 56.6 93.6 72.5 73.7 69.4 72.6 70.2 72.5 93.8 87.0 97.2 93.6 92.7 95.9 99.0 96.6 94.1 94.9 91.4 97.2 97.1 96.4 99.0 95.5 98.1 97.0 96.9 95.5 98.0 99 8 98.6 102.9 94.0 100.7 99.3 42.1 14.9 65.4 35.3 26.7 30.1 54.4 23.7 79.7 43.6 29.4 34.9 70.4 55.6 91.8 78.9 79.9 79.5 90.7 93.0 90.8 96.6 97.6 99.6 98.8 95.1 95.6 98.0 100.4 98.9 99.5 6 6 .2 79.8 54.3 89.7 6 8 .1 1 0 0 .1 102.4 99.9 102.3 102.9 102.5 101.4 104.5 99.7 103.0 106.9 104.4 1 0 2 .2 105.2 106.7 99.1 104.4 109.8 106.4 1 1 0 .1 107.5 114.2 99.6 104.7 113.5 107.9 106.2 115.1 109.5 105.2 109.8 99.3 104.4 113.8 107.8 107.2 113.8 100.7 106.1 115.9 109.7 1 1 0 .2 108.4 109.0 98.6 100.4 100.5 111.7 113.0 116.2 119.0 103.9 101.3 102.4 98.4 150.4 1 0 1 .1 110.5 120.3 105.1 108.8 112.7 110.3 114.0 126.3 108.1 1 1 0 .8 1 1 2 .2 111.3 N o n fa rm b u s in e s s Output per hour of all persons....................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 6 8 .0 101.4 104.3 99.5 102.9 107.4 104.5 102.4 106.5 98.9 104.0 99.5 100.3 104.3 104.3 99.5 105.6 106.2 98.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 99.6 112.5 102.7 101.3 1 0 0 .2 1 0 2 .6 100.5 100.9 137.5 109.8 103.7 105.3 105.6 109.4 107.9 1 0 0 .2 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .2 100.5 100.3 102.9 101.9 98.6 107.2 103.9 1 0 0 .1 1 0 2 .1 99.6 1 0 2 .1 103.4 1 0 2 .6 1 1 0 .8 106.5 119.7 104.5 108.6 113.9 110.5 113.5 125.4 107.2 110.5 113.4 111.5 N o n fin a n c ia l c o rp o ra tio n s Output per hour of all employees................................. Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs............................................................ Unit nonlabor costs...................................................... Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 52.6 15.6 6 8 .6 101.5 1 0 2 .1 130.5 107.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 1 0 1 .1 104.7 99.4 157.1 113.4 105.3 113.8 109.3 98.9 96.0 119.6 113.4 100.4 94.8 1 0 0 .1 151.5 1 1 2 .6 - - _ - 1 1 1 .0 _ 105.3 - 125.3 119.4 104.3 95.3 133.3 125.3 107.2 94.0 M an u fa c tu rin g Output per hour of all persons....................................... Compensation per hour................................................ Real compensation per hour......................................... Unit labor costs.............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments................................................ Implicit price deflator..................................................... 8 6 .6 96.8 95.5 95.2 95.3 1 0 2 .2 102.7 1 0 1 .1 100.9 1 1 0 .2 - - - 104.7 - - - - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 89 Current Labor Statistics: 42. Productivity Data Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit sic industries [1987= 100] In d u s tr y S IC 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 M in i n g Copper ores........................................................... Gold and silver ores............................................... Bituminous coal and lignite mining......................... Crude petroleum and natural gas........................... Crushed and broken stone..................................... 122 109.2 101.5 111.7 131 142 101.3 102 104 1 0 1 .0 106.6 113.3 117.3 98.0 98.7 102.7 122.3 118.7 97.0 115.2 141.6 133.0 1 0 2 .2 100.5 127.4 122.4 97.9 99.8 105.0 118.1 159.8 141.2 105.9 103.6 99.2 107.7 97.8 107.6 96.1 97.1 107.3 95.6 105.4 92.7 99.6 108.3 99.2 104.9 90.6 104.6 111.4 100.5 107.8 93.8 104.3 109.6 106.8 109.2 94.4 1 0 1 .8 103.2 118.1 117.7 99.3 1132 1 0 2 .0 104.5 106.2 1 1 2 .6 1 1 1 .8 120.5 99.8 114.1 127.6 130.8 103 1 111.3 96 5 107.5 83.4 122 1 1 0 2 .1 126.0 160.8 148.1 112.4 108.7 117.2 144.2 155.9 119.4 105.4 116.5 138.3 168.0 123.9 107.2 118.9 159.0 176.6 125.2 114.0 117.5 186.3 187.3 128.7 111.9 1 0 1 .2 102.3 116.4 109.1 115.4 97.3 97.4 116.0 109.2 108.0 95.6 103.2 119.5 - 1 1 1 .8 - 118.7 99.3 - 108.3 120.3 134.3 103 1 142 9 113.8 117.1 _ 1 1 0 .1 1 2 0 .0 - 135.7 109 2 147 2 136.3 103 9 147 2 - 137 3 147 6 126 3 150 5 79.2 130 9 161 9 107 7 150 2 94.0 1 0 0 .2 147.4 123 1 97.4 134.7 100.3 155.5 117 9 130.3 152.4 M a n u f a c t u r in g Meat products......................................................... Dairy products......................................................... Preserved fruits and vegetables............................. Grain mill products.................................................. Bakery products..................................................... Sugar and confectionery products......................... Fats and oils........................................................... Beverages............................................................... 201 1 0 0 .1 202 203 204 205 108.4 97.0 101.3 96.8 206 207 208 209 99.5 108.9 106.0 107.0 211 1 0 1 .2 116.4 112.7 99.3 109 0 221 99 6 99.2 108.4 96.3 90.3 99 8 106.3 92.7 108.0 88.7 98.6 105.1 97.8 104.2 109.1 97.7 109.2 93.9 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .1 1 0 2 .1 222 Textile finishing, except wool.................................. Carpets and rugs.................................................... Yarn and thread mills.............................................. 224 225 226 227 228 229 231 232 1 0 1 .6 Miscellaneous apparel and accessories................ Miscellaneous fabricated textile products.............. 233 234 235 238 239 101.4 105.4 99.0 101.3 96.6 96.8 94.6 96.4 88.4 95.7 Sawmills and planing mills..................................... Millwork, plywood, and structural members........... Wood containers.................................................... Wood buildings and mobile homes........................ 241 242 243 244 245 93.7 100.7 98.8 103.1 97.8 89.4 99.6 97.1 108.8 98.8 249 251 252 253 254 95.9 99.4 94.3 109.6 95.7 102.4 259 261 262 263 265 103.6 99 6 103.9 105.5 99.7 101.9 107.4 103.6 101.9 101.5 103.5 116.7 102 3 267 271 272 273 274 1 0 1 .1 1 0 1 .6 101.4 90 6 93 9 96.6 92.2 Men's and boys' suits and coats............................. Men’s and boys' furnishings................................... Women's and misses' outerwear............................ Women's and children’s undergarments................ Miscellaneous wood products................................. Household furniture................................................ Public building and related furniture....................... Partitions and fixtures............................................. Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures....................... Paperboard mills.................................................... Paperboard containers and boxes......................... Miscellaneous converted paper products.............. Periodicals.............................................................. Books...................................................................... Miscellaneous publishing........................................ Manifold business forms........................................ Industrial inorganic chemicals........................ ....... Plastics materials and synthetics.......................... Drugs...................................................................... Soaps, cleaners, and toilet goods......................... Paints and allied products...................................... 275 276 277 278 279 281 282 283 284 285 See footnotes at end of table. 90 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 1 0 2 .1 96.9 97 9 99.1 96.7 100 0 98.7 1 0 2 .0 97 5 113.7 92.4 95 2 98 3 94.1 89.0 101 1 95.6 99.9 89.7 109 1 94.2 94.3 105.7 98.8 104.3 99.7 1 0 1 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 2 .0 1 0 0 .6 101.4 103.3 1 0 0 .1 93.2 1 1 0 .2 104.1 1 0 2 .1 89.2 90.6 99.9 86.3 99.8 98.0 1 1 1 .2 103.1 107.7 104.5 95 0 119.8 95.6 1 0 0 .6 101.3 10? 5 93.0 100 6 99 4 99 3 106.8 100.9 103.8 103.8 106.3 1 2 0 .1 1 1 1 .8 107.6 108.4 96.4 101 6 101 6 107 6 111 6 127.0 105 3 106 5 1112 116.2 99 6 114.1 79.9 110 3 126 2 112 9 119.5 78.6 117 8 131 7 1114 128 1 79.3 120 1 134 3 81.2 134 0 145 3 118 9 138 6 78.5 89.2 111.4 104.6 90.2 108.4 96.1 119.6 106.5 89.0 109.1 97.1 126.6 110.4 97.4 108.4 93.3 130.7 118.5 97.7 111.7 95.8 137.4 123.7 92.5 123.4 104.3 113.6 91.1 91.8 100.7 109.4 117.4 93.6 91.3 107.5 1 2 1 .8 127.4 138.0 77.7 105.5 107.8 8 6 .0 96 2 108.1 99.9 109.4 103.1 1 0 2 .6 98.0 113.1 103.0 110.5 107.1 94 1 1 2 0 .2 93.0 1 0 2 .1 128.3 99.2 101.4 103.4 105.3 85 8 89 5 1 0 0 .8 95.9 102 0 89.1 92.7 96 1 142 5 103.8 87 8 103.3 94.5 100.9 98.3 115.3 1 1 1 .8 88 6 101.9 97.0 1 0 0 .1 135.5 161.3 84.3 116.8 109.2 141.6 174.5 82 2 1 2 0 .1 105.6 151.5 196.3 83 5 105.2 117.0 _ - - _ - - 85 4 115.6 92.4 106.7 96.7 71 9 117.5 89.9 106.6 1 0 1 .1 - 115.4 116.9 114.4 123.1 _ 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .8 - 101 1 106 4 181.5 97.5 117 9 186.5 121.4 _ 86 0 1 1 0 .2 92.7 106.1 97.0 - - 103 2 161.0 107.4 100 99.5 137 3 103.3 104.4 105.2 103.6 122 5 102 4 108.4 107.9 104.7 128 9 110 2 131 9 118 6 114.9 108.4 119.5 105.1 118.0 106.3 124.2 _ 1 1 0 .1 - 105.5 81 5 92 9 97.7 105.8 107.9 79 4 89 5 103.5 104.5 1 1 0 .6 113.3 79 0 87 8 121.7 79 0 94.8 113.6 77 4 89 1 99.3 93.6 108 0 94.5 96 7 103 6 106 9 91.1 91 4 98 7 115 3 106 5 82.0 89 0 105 4 107 2 76.9 92 5 108 7 116 7 108 3 75.2 90 8 114 5 126 2 109 2 105.6 102.3 125.3 104.9 1 1 0 .1 125.3 116.1 133.8 - 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .6 - 120.9 125.6 130.4 127.2 - 1 1 2 .0 109.7 109.7 107.5 99.5 104.4 102.9 104.5 105.3 104.3 126 6 - 114.2 110.5 102 5 140.6 102.7 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 124.5 87.2 94.0 108.5 101 0 - 1 1 0 .6 1 1 2 .0 99.9 108.7 108.8 112.5 5 157.4 98.9 79 9 81 9 103.0 97.5 111 0 1 1 1 .2 116.7 173.3 1 0 1 .2 1 1 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 109.3 128.3 108.7 118.6 118.0 113.2 132 6 111 6 1 0 2 .2 - _ 104 4 107 0 _ 100 1 1 0 2 .2 _ 114.5 - 78.9 92 2 _ 124 2 - 42. Continued-Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit sic industries [1987 = 100] Industry SIC Industrial organic chemicals................................... Agricultural chemicals............................................. Miscellaneous chemical products........................... Petroleum refining.................................................. 286 287 289 291 295 109.9 103.7 95.4 105.3 98 3 110.4 104.3 95.2 109.6 95.3 101.4 104.7 97.3 109.2 98 0 95.8 99.5 96.1 106.6 94 1 111.3 mo 4 1 2 0 .1 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products.......... Tires and inner tubes.............................................. Hose and belting and gaskets and packing........... Fabricated rubber products, n.e.c......................... Miscellaneous plastics products, n.e.c.................. 299 301 305 306 308 98.4 102.9 103.7 104.2 100.5 101.9 103.8 96.3 105.5 1 0 1 .8 94.8 103.0 96 1 109.0 105.7 90.6 102.4 92 4 109.9 108.2 101.5 107.8 97 8 115.2 114.4 104.2 116.5 99 7 123.1 116.7 Footwear, except rubber........................................ Luggage................................................................. Handbags and personal leather goods.................. Flat glass................................................................ Glass and glassware, pressed or blown................ 314 316 317 321 322 101 3 93 7 98.5 91 9 101 1 101 1 94 4 100 2 108 ? 89 8 1 1 1 .2 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .2 106 2 96.5 84 5 104.8 104 ? 90 7 113 0 104 8 93.1 90 7 9? 7 108.9 97.8 97 7 108.7 Products of purchased glass.................................. Cement, hydraulic................................................... Structural clay products........................................... Pottery and related products.................................. Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products................ 323 324 325 326 327 95.9 103.2 98.8 99.6 103.1 97.1 102.4 92.6 112.4 109.6 98.6 102.3 97.7 108.3 109.8 95.8 1 0 1 .2 101.5 115.1 111.4 99.5 102.5 Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products.......... Blast furnace and basic steel products.................. Iron and steel foundries.......................................... Primary nonferrous metals..................................... Nonferrous rolling and drawing.............................. 329 331 332 333 335 103.0 95.5 108.0 105.4 106.1 93.6 95.4 109.6 106.1 102.3 92.7 94.0 107.8 104.5 110.7 91.0 Nonferrous foundries (castings)............................. Miscellaneous primary metal products................... Metal cans and shipping containers....................... Cutlery, handtools, and hardware........................... Plumbing and heating, except electric................... 336 339 341 342 343 1 0 2 .6 106.6 106.5 97.8 103.7 105.1 105.0 108.5 101.7 101.5 104.0 113.7 117.6 97.3 103.6 109.1 122.9 96.8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .0 98.4 1 0 2 .0 Fabricated structural metal products...................... Screw machine products, bolts, etc........................ Metal forgings and stampings................................. Metal services, n.e.c............................................... Ordnance and accessories, n.e.c........................... 344 345 346 347 348 100.4 98.5 101.5 108.3 97.7 96.9 96.1 99.8 102.4 89.8 98.8 96.1 95.6 104.7 82.1 1 0 0 .0 103.9 102.3 103.7 104.8 104.4 108.7 1 1 1 .6 1 2 0 .6 8 8 .6 84.6 Miscellaneous fabricated metal products............... Engines and turbines.............................................. Farm and garden machinery.................................. Construction and related machinery....................... Metalworking machinery......................................... 349 351 352 353 354 101.4 106.8 106.3 106.5 95.9 110.7 110.7 108.3 103.5 97.5 106.5 116.5 107.0 1 0 1 .1 1 0 2 .0 103.3 113.9 1 0 1 .1 97.4 105.8 112.9 99.1 96.4 109.2 118.6 108.2 107.4 Special industry machinery.................................... General industrial machinery.................................. Refrigeration and service machinery...................... Industrial machinery, n.e.c...................................... Electric distribution equipment................................ 355 356 358 359 361 104.6 105.9 108.3 101.5 106.0 107.1 105.0 107.5 101.5 103.6 107.3 106.3 108.3 106.0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .6 100.7 109.0 106.5 104.9 117.0 119.6 Electrical industrial apparatus................................. Household appliances............................................. Electric lighting and wiring equipment................... . Communications equipment................................... Miscellaneous electrical equipment & supplies...... 362 363 364 366 369 104.6 103.0 101.9 110.5 107.4 104.7 107.7 105.8 99.9 121.4 90.6 107.1 106.5 97.5 124.5 98.6 Motor vehicles and equipment................................ Aircraft and parts.................................................... Ship and boat building and repairing...................... Railroad equipment................................................ Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts............................. Guided missiles, space vehicles, parts.................. 371 372 373 374 375 376 103.2 102.4 98.9 103.7 141.1 93.8 116.5 Search and navigation equipment......................... Measuring and controlling devices......................... Medical Instruments and supplies........................... Ophthalmic goods................................................... Photographic equipment & supplies....................... 381 382 384 385 386 112.7 107.0 116.9 1988 1 0 0 .8 1 1 2 .6 104.0 107.8 95.5 1 0 1 .0 1 0 2 .1 106.5 105.4 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .6 99.4 113.5 92.6 104.1 104.8 103.9 105.2 1 1 2 .6 105.6 1989 90.1 1 1 0 .2 1 0 0 .2 107.2 99.6 103.3 98.2 97.6 135.3 94.6 1 1 0 .6 105.8 1 0 2 .1 107.9 123.3 113.0 1990 1991 98.7 82 6 102.3 1992 94.6 99.5 1993 92.2 103.8 107.1 1994 1995 99.9 105.0 105.7 123.8 104 9 98.6 108.5 107.8 132.3 96.3 124.1 10? 7 119.1 120.7 1996 112.9 120.4 1 1 0 .1 1 2 0 .2 - 142.0 149.2 - 87.4 131.1 104 fi 87.1 138.8 m7 4 97.2 148.5 - 121.5 120.9 1 2 1 .0 124.7 125.4 130.1 - 8 6 .8 81.8 83.2 109.7 _ 112.9 115.7 121.4 128.2 - 106.2 119.9 106.8 100.3 104.6 105.9 125.6 114.0 108.4 101.5 106.1 124.3 1 2 2 .0 125.3 133.1 116.1 116.1 109.2 104.3 117.1 107.2 101.9 96.0 104.5 133.5 106.3 142.4 113.0 105.3 103.6 114.5 127.8 108.5 111.3 132.3 104.0 1 0 0 .1 ms n 1 1 2 .1 107.9 98.3 9? 3 109.3 104.5 128.7 119.6 119.3 107.3 107.8 142.7 112.7 110.4 155.1 116.2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .8 1 0 1 .2 99.2 104.0 112.7 160.9 121.7 116.0 112.3 1 1 2 .1 134.5 140.9 109.2 109.1 117.8 152.2 144.2 111.3 109.2 122.3 149.6 155.2 118.2 118.6 126.4 140.9 160.8 113.1 127.2 107.7 107.2 108.5 123.0 83.6 105.8 109.7 109.3 127.7 87.6 103.2 122.3 125.0 117.7 109.9 106.6 122.7 134.7 1 1 2 .6 106.5 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .2 151.3 113.6 128.4 87.5 1 2 0 .2 114.8 108.3 136.6 137.2 123.3 114.9 106.2 134.2 141.0 131.8 118.6 1 2 2 .2 106.7 110.7 127.4 131.8 132.3 109.0 112.7 138.8 143.0 134.0 109.4 114.7 141.4 143.9 117.1 115.0 105.7 146.7 101.3 132.9 123.4 107.8 150.3 108.2 134.9 131.4 113.4 166.0 110.5 150.8 127.3 113.7 170.9 114.1 154.3 127.4 116.9 190.3 123.1 96.6 108.2 96.3 146.9 99.8 110.5 104.2 112.4 102.7 147.9 108.4 110.5 106.2 115.2 106.2 151.0 130.9 1 2 2 .1 1 2 1 .2 118.9 113.9 118.7 125.1 107.8 1 1 0 .2 97.9 92.9 99.4 81.5 1998 1 1 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 99.0 1997 1 0 2 .0 104.3 1 2 1 .0 123.5 144.5 116.4 113.6 104.8 108.6 118.5 1 2 1 .2 1 2 2 .1 106.7 107.8 98.0 150.0 120.3 1 2 2 .1 108.8 109.6 103.8 152.5 125.1 118.9 129.1 125.2 127.3 157.8 126.9 132.1 135.0 126.7 160.6 132.7 123.5 100.5 _ . - - - _ . . - 130.1 1 1 0 .1 114.8 129.7 143.9 163.9 138.1 121.4 2 2 1 .0 124.6 _ - _ _ - . 116.5 114.0 104.3 183.2 120.5 126.6 - 1 2 1 .0 107.2 113.0 99.2 148.3 125.5 129.4 149.5 147.8 131.5 167.2 129.5 142.2 151.9 139.8 188.2 128.7 148.9 144.3 146.3 2 0 2 .6 _ . - 1 2 1 .6 - - See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 91 Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data 42. Continued-Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries [1987 = 100] Industry SIC 1988 Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware...................... Musical Instruments................................................ Toys and sporting goods........................................ Pens, pencils, office, and art supplies.................... Costume jewelry and notions.................................. Miscellaneous manufactures.................................. 391 393 394 395 396 399 1 0 0 .1 Trucking, except local1 ........................................... U.S. postal service '£ ............................................... Air transportation ' .................................................. 1989 1990 1991 1996 1997 123.4 126.6 129.5 125.4 130.9 132.4 130.1 104.5 107.1 106.6 106.5 104.7 108.3 109.5 92.9 92.5 96.9 1 0 0 .2 105.7 108.6 1 1 1 .6 1 1 1 .1 108.5 113.3 104.9 92.5 127.7 108.3 88.3 115.2 135.5 106.7 86.7 142.2 171.2 1 0 0 .8 1 1 1 .1 1 2 1 .8 159.5 105.8 84.4 150.5 158.6 1 0 1 .1 85.6 126.8 125.6 148.1 109.6 86.7 135.0 137.1 160.9 1 1 0 .1 87.6 146.5 145.9 157.2 153.4 143.8 109.3 1 1 1 .1 99.9 99.7 104.0 4512,13,22 (pts.) 99.5 95.8 481 483 484 491.3 (pt.) 492.3 (pt.) 106.2 103.1 1 1 1 .6 1 0 2 .6 86.9 113.6 135.2 143.7 108.1 78.8 119.9 144.1 142.2 1 1 2 .8 117.2 83.9 139.6 127.7 119.1 109.3 _ 103.7 105.2 431 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .6 1 0 0 .2 1998 116.9 4213 1 0 2 .0 96.7 95.6 114.2 1995 115.8 107.7 95.8 96.9 109.7 116.8 106.7 109.2 104.8 108.3 1994 109.5 1 0 2 .1 99.3 97.1 108.1 118.2 105.3 106.5 96.7 96.0 104.9 111.3 1993 99.5 88.7 109.7 129.9 129.0 106.1 102.9 96.1 106.0 112.9 93.8 100.9 1 0 1 .8 1992 - - Transportation Utilities Radio and television broadcasting.......................... Gas utilities.............................................................. 1 0 2 .0 104.9 108.3 1 1 1 .2 105.8 119.8 106.1 87.5 113.4 109.6 99.1 101.7 115.2 103.4 97.0 103.6 106.0 110.5 83.9 94.2 101.3 99.4 102.5 88.5 98.2 105.4 106.5 107.2 100.4 100.9 110.5 114.7 105.8 106.6 105.7 118.3 130.2 112.7 116.6 108.6 117.6 135.3 108.5 117.2 110.9 121.7 140.2 1 1 2 .1 1 1 1 .2 136.6 118.4 128.1 123.5 133.0 166.0 125.3 136.1 129.4 124.4 109.8 95.4 97.6 83.3 151.2 116.4 94.6 96.8 89.7 154.2 167.7 136.1 93.3 95.8 94.0 184.7 159.7 92.8 93.7 86.5 190.1 160.9 92.5 91.1 87.2 203.2 163.9 91.2 89.1 8 6 .8 229.2 164.9 89.4 81.1 81.7 247.6 168.2 89.2 84.7 75.4 262.5 189.9 90.2 89.9 65.0 106.1 102.7 104.1 99.0 104.3 119.2 103.0 106.5 108.7 1 1 2 .2 107.6 98.7 115.2 115.5 118.4 107.1 105.7 126.3 117.5 128.5 108.2 104.6 125.1 125.7 142.3 107.8 104.2 125.0 132.2 145.8 108.0 107.0 130.6 145.5 154.8 111.7 111.5 89.1 108.4 113.9 114.5 113.2 92.9 107.6 117.0 120.4 126.3 100.4 108.8 133.8 134.5 138.7 142.1 143.5 118.1 119.4 155.5 145.6 136.4 131.0 1 2 1 .2 138.8 146.9 127.1 118.6 141.8 137.8 102.5 103.6 108.4 110.4 204.6 99.5 109.6 215.1 100.5 115.4 108.9 138.0 258.9 165.5 115.8 139.5 123.7 177.2 113.4 147.3 131.5 193.5 133.0 107.9 108.0 133.7 107.5 133.0 108.8 113.5 153.4 108.4 149 0 101.3 115.2 99.8 153 0 107.0 106.2 99.7 107.7 1 1 0 .1 1 2 0 .6 8 8 .0 Trade Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores......................... Hardware stores..................................................... Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores.... Variety stores.......................................................... Miscellaneous general merchandise stores........... 521 523 525 526 531 1 0 1 .0 1 0 2 .8 108.6 106.7 99.2 533 539 541 542 546 101.9 551 553 554 561 562 103.4 103.2 103.0 106.0 97.8 102.5 105.2 109.6 99.5 1 0 2 .6 Family clothing stores............................................. Shoe stores............................................................. Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores......... Furniture and homefurnishings stores................... Household appliance stores................................... 565 566 569 571 572 1 0 2 .0 102.7 96.3 98.6 98.5 104.9 107.2 95.2 100.9 103.5 104.5 106.1 1 0 2 .8 106.4 105.1 78.8 101.5 105.2 Radio, television, computer, and music stores...... Eating and drinking places...................................... Drug and proprietary stores................................... Liquor stores.......................................................... Used merchandise stores....................................... 573 581 591 592 593 119.6 104.0 103.6 105.2 100.3 128.3 103.1 104.7 105.9 98.6 Miscellaneous shopping goods stores................... Retail stores, n.e.c.................................................. 594 596 598 599 100.7 105.6 95.6 105.9 104.2 108.8 84.4 113.7 105.0 109.3 85.3 103.2 Finance and services Commercial banks.................................................. Hotels and motels................................................... Laundry, cleaning, and garment services............... Photographic studios, portrait................................. Beauty shops.......................................................... 602 701 721 722 723 1 0 2 .8 107.7 96.1 1 1 0 .1 Funeral services and crematories......................... Automotive repair shops........................................ Motion picture theaters.................. 1...................... 724 726 753 783 108.8 102.5 105.7 107.1 Meat and fish (seafood) markets............................ New and used car dealers...................................... Auto and home supply stores................................. Gasoline service stations........................................ Men's and boys' wear stores.................................. 2 1 0 0 .8 98.9 99.0 89.8 1 0 1 .6 118.6 114.6 1 0 2 .8 1 0 2 .2 101.9 98.2 105.3 102.5 97.6 97.2 1 0 0 .1 95.1 1 0 1 .1 104.9 104.2 1 1 0 .8 92.0 103.1 113.7 101.5 8 8 .6 1 0 1 .8 104.8 95.0 99.7 94.9 99.6 1 0 1 .8 1 1 1 .6 1 0 0 .2 97.9 108.1 114.3 90.9 106.9 115.8 96.6 96.8 1 2 1 .8 93.7 88.4 94.7 99.1 99.2 92.8 94.8 94.1 89.5 98.7 116.0 1 0 0 .0 109.7 118.2 177.0 105.4 100.7 1 1 2 .1 105.7 99.1 115.4 196.7 100.9 106.9 103.7 117.3 106.5 127.5 92.7 117.3 111.9 143.3 100.7 125.0 117.8 146.1 114.2 126.2 118.5 106.2 98.9 105.9 95.7 121.7 109.6 104.0 117.4 99.8 126.4 107.8 98.3 97.7 99.6 105.5 129.3 103.5 129.7 109.7 108.7 126.6 106.3 1 1 2 .1 1 2 0 .8 103.2 103.3 98.2 104.0 109.8 117.7 103.8 112.3 106.5 114.6 99.7 119.5 101.4 127.6 97.1 114.1 100.5 102.7 1 2 2 .1 84.4 1 1 1 .6 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .8 n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified June 2000 1 1 2 .0 1 0 1 .1 - Data not available. Monthly Labor Review 1 2 2 .1 152.7 Refers to ouput per full-time equivalent employee year on fiscal basis. 92 120.4 117.9 119.3 1 0 2 .8 Refers to output per employee. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 0 2 .6 1 1 0 .1 1 1 2 .8 129.8 1 2 0 .0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 1 .6 184.5 1 0 1 .1 117.7 113.9 158.4 1 1 2 .0 157.6 1 2 1 .2 101.3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted C ountry Annual average 1997 1998 I IV 1999 1998 1997 IV III II II I III United States..................................... 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 Canada.............................................. Australia............................................. Japan................................................ 9.2 8.3 8 .6 8.4 8.3 8 .0 8 .0 8 .1 8 .0 8 .1 3.4 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.3 7.7 4.4 7.8 7.4 4.7 8 .0 8 .6 8.9 8.3 3.5 7.4 4.8 7.6 7.2 4.8 France................................................ 12.4 11.7 12.3 1 2 .0 11.7 11.7 11.5 11.3 1 1 .2 1 1 .1 9.9 9.4 9.9 9.5 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 12.3 12.3 8.4 6.3 12.3 1 2 .2 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.3 9.1 8 .8 8 .6 6.4 6.3 8.5 6.3 7.7 6.3 7.4 6.3 Italy1 .................................................. 1 0 .1 United Kinadom................................. 7.0 1 0 .0 6 .6 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. - Data not available. 1 NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current published 1 2 .1 7.0 6 .1 7.1 5.9 data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. See "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in series. For further qualifications and historical data, see Com parative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1 9 5 9 -1 9 9 8 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oct. 22,1999). Monthly Labor Review June 2000 93 Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data 44. Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries [Numbers in thousands] E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s a n d c o u n tr y 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 C iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e United States'.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia................................................................... Japan....................................................................... France..................................................................... Germany-................................................................. Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. Sweden.................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ 123,869 14,151 8,228 61,920 24,170 125,840 14,329 8,444 63,050 24,300 126,346 14,408 8,490 64,280 24,490 128,105 14,482 8,562 65,040 24,550 129,200 14,663 8,619 65,470 24,650 131,056 14,832 8,776 65,780 24,760 132,304 14,928 9,001 65,990 24,820 133,943 15,145 9,127 66,450 25,080 136,297 15,354 9,221 67,200 25,140 137,673 15,632 9,347 67,240 25,390 28,840 22,530 6,430 4,552 28,580 29,410 22,670 6,640 4,597 28,730 39,120 22,940 6,750 4,591 28,610 39,040 22,910 6,950 4,520 28,410 39,130 22,760 7,090 4,443 28,310 39,210 22,640 7,190 4,418 28,280 39,050 22,700 7,270 4,460 28,480 39,180 22,820 7,370 4,459 28,620 39,450 22,850 7,530 4,418 28,760 39,430 23,000 7,720 4,402 28,870 P a rtic ip a tio n rate3 66.2 66.5 67.5 64.0 62.2 56.1 66.5 67.3 64.6 62.6 56.0 66.4 65.9 63.9 63.4 55.8 66.3 65.5 63.6 63.3 55.6 66.6 66.6 66.8 66.7 64.1 63.2 56.0 65.3 63.9 63.1 55.5 64.8 64.6 62.9 55.2 64.9 64.6 63.0 55.4 67.1 64.8 64.3 63.2 55.2 67.1 65.1 64.4 62.8 55.6 55.2 47.3 54.7 67.3 64.0 55.3 47.2 56.1 67.4 64.1 58.9 47.7 56.5 67.0 63.7 58.3 47.5 57.8 65.7 63.1 58.0 48.1 58.5 64.5 62.8 57.6 47.5 59.0 63.7 62.5 57.2 47.5 59.3 64.1 62.7 57.4 47.7 59.8 64.0 62.7 57.6 47.7 60.7 63.4 62.8 57.6 47.8 62.0 63.1 62.7 United States.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia.................................................................. Japan....................................................................... 117,342 13,086 7,720 60,500 21,850 118,793 13,165 7,859 61,710 118,492 12,842 7,637 63,620 21,990 120,259 13,015 7,680 63,810 21,740 123,060 13,292 7,921 63,860 21,710 124,900 13,506 8,235 63,890 21,890 126,708 13,676 8,344 64,200 21,950 129,558 13,941 8,429 64,900 22,100 117,718 12,916 7,676 62,920 22,140 22,010 131,463 14,326 8,597 64,450 22,410 Germany-................................................................. 27,200 20,770 5,980 4,480 26,510 27,950 21,080 6,230 4,513 26,740 36,910 21,360 6,350 4,447 26,090 36,420 21,230 6,560 4,265 25,530 36,020 20,430 6,620 4,028 25,340 35,900 20,080 6,670 3,992 25,550 35,850 19,980 6,760 4,056 26,000 35,680 20,060 6,900 4,019 26,280 35,540 20,050 7,130 3,973 26,740 35,720 20,170 7,410 4,034 27,050 United States'.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia.................................................................. Japan...................................................................... German/-................................................................. Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. Sweden................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ E m p lo y e d Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. Sweden................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ E m p lo y m e n t-p o p u la tio n ra tio 4 United States'.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia.................................................................. Japan...................................................................... France..................................................................... Germany“-................................................................. Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. Sweden................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ 63.0 62.4 60.1 60.8 50.7 62.8 61.9 60.1 61.3 50.9 61.7 59.8 57.9 61.8 50.6 61.5 58.4 57.0 62.0 49.9 52.0 43.6 50.9 52.6 43.9 52.6 66.2 66.1 59.3 59.6 55.5 44.5 53.2 64.9 58.0 54.4 44.0 54.5 62.0 56.7 61.7 58.2 56.6 61.7 49.0 53.4 43.1 54.7 58.5 56.2 62.5 58.5 57.7 61.3 48.7 62.9 58.6 59.1 60.9 48.7 63.2 58.6 59.1 60.9 48.5 63.8 58.9 58.8 61.0 48.3 64.1 59.7 59.2 60.2 49.1 52.8 42.1 54.7 57.6 56.5 52.5 41.8 55.1 58.3 57.2 52.2 41.9 55.9 57.6 57.6 51.9 41.8 57.5 57.0 58.3 52.2 41.9 59.5 57.8 58.8 6,528 1,065 508 1,420 2,320 7,047 1,164 585 1,340 2,210 8,628 1,492 814 1,360 2,350 9,613 1,640 925 1,420 2,560 8,940 1,649 939 1,660 2,910 7,996 1,541 856 1,920 3,050 1,640 1,760 450 72 2,070 1,460 1,590 410 84 1,990 2,210 2,620 1,680 390 255 2,880 3,110 2,330 470 415 2,970 3,320 2,560 520 426 2,730 U n e m p lo y e d United States'.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia.................................................................. Japan...................................................................... Germany“-................................................................ Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. United Kingdom........................................................ 1,580 400 144 2,520 7,404 1,422 766 2,920 7,236 1,469 783 2,250 3,130 6,739 1,414 791 2,300 3,120 3,200 2,720 510 404 2,480 3,500 2,760 470 440 2,340 3,910 2,800 400 445 2,100 2,020 6,210 1,305 750 2,790 2,980 3,710 2,840 310 368 1,820 U n e m p lo y m e n t rate United States'.......................................................... Canada.................................................................... Australia.................................................................. Japan...................................................................... Germany“-................................................................ Italy.......................................................................... Netherlands.............................................................. Sweden................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ 5.3 7.5 5.6 8.1 6.8 7.5 11.3 6.9 11.2 6.9 10.4 9.6 2.3 9.6 2.1 2.1 10.8 2.2 9.1 9.6 10.4 11.8 5.7 7.8 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.6 6.9 5.9 3.1 6.7 7.3 5.6 5.6 7.9 8.8 10.1 6.2 1.6 6.2 1.8 7.2 6.9 1Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For 10.9 2.5 10.2 6.6 9.3 10.5 6.1 10.4 9.7 2.9 12.3 8.5 11.3 7.2 9.6 9.7 5.6 9.5 8.5 3.2 11.8 8.2 12.0 7.0 9.1 8.7 5.4 9.7 4.9 9.2 8.6 8.6 3.4 12.5 3.4 124 4.1 11 7 8.9 9.9 12.3 5.3 9.4 12.3 4.0 8.4 6.3 12.1 6.4 9.9 8.2 3 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population, 4 Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 10.1 7.0 4.5 8.3 8.0 additional Information, see the box note under "Employment and Unemployment Data" in the notes to this section. 2 Data from 1991 onward refer to unified Germany. See Comparative Civilian Labor No t e : See "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in series for the United States, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Dash indicates Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-1998, October 22, 1999, on the Internet at data not available. h ttp ://s ta ts .b ls .g o v /fls d a ta .h tm . 94 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 45. A nn ual indexes of m anu facturing productivity a n d re la te d m easures, 12 countries [1992 = 100] Ite m a n d c o u n tr y 1960 1970 1980 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 O utput per hour United States........................................................... Canada..................................................................... Denmark................................................................... Italy............................................................................ United Kingdom....................................................... 71.9 75.3 94.4 91.3 98.0 91.1 97.1 92.4 97.8 95.3 98.3 95.1 102.1 102.5 65.4 90.3 66.7 77.2 64.1 69.2 76.7 74.0 56.1 88.9 90.6 92.0 94.1 96.9 99.6 96.8 99.1 99.6 104.5 85.1 91.6 93.3 86.7 93.7 89.4 92.5 95.2 79.4 82.3 86.2 88.3 70.9 44.7 77.3 85.4 59.9 78.2 91.3 88.7 85.3 78.4 97.9 103.2 78.4 88.8 99.3 87.2 88.0 88.2 104.5 109.3 84.6 93.3 100.8 92.2 90.9 94.5 104.0 110.8 90.2 99.1 104.3 97.2 94.0 98.1 81.7 90.3 91.8 87.2 107.7 94.4 110.2 101.4 92.1 84.1 76.3 170.7 136.5 142.1 142.3 109.0 170.6 154.0 168.3 217.3 104.4 102.1 102.3 174.7 129.0 148.7 136.3 121.2 156.2 154.3 154.7 202.1 107.5 113.5 93.8 119.7 101.1 133.1 110.5 122.4 111.8 135.0 124.0 155.3 103.8 113.0 96.6 100.0 109.6 106.6 99.9 103.6 97.7 118.6 119.5 118.9 14.9 10.4 4.3 5.4 4.6 4.3 8.1 1.6 6.4 4.7 4.1 3.1 23.7 17.8 16.5 13.7 13.3 10.3 20.7 4.7 20.2 11.8 10.8 6.3 55.6 47.7 58.6 52.5 49.6 40.8 53.6 28.2 64.4 39.0 37.4 33.2 25.5 30.9 30.1 15.4 19.5 27.8 8.0 34.4 12.9 14.9 9.8 30.0 43.3 41.7 25.2 24.0 39.8 12.7 52.9 20.4 20.5 14.1 31.8 10.9 19.4 13.5 21.1 10.4 16.0 16.0 11.3 16.8 15.6 34.7 15.3 27.0 20.3 23.0 17.1 24.9 25.7 17.8 23.0 19.2 - - 40.7 14.0 18.0 29.9 21.8 29.2 19.6 18.6 36.7 27.6 31.2 59.2 38.0 32.9 52.7 43.1 52.0 36.8 38.1 57.8 52.8 44.7 34.2 10.7 30.7 40.8 31.0 41.5 21.4 31.7 56.5 46.5 67.7 60.5 38.8 57.6 68.0 64.1 108.3 106.2 114.9 108.9 117.3 107.3 122.1 111.0 127.9 111.7 102.9 105.6 109.3 110.3 113.4 113.6 92.2 104.0 106.8 104.8 103.2 104.0 105.1 102.5 106.6 96.3 101.0 102.7 99.1 99.1 99.6 98.7 98.8 101.4 100.7 101.7 99.8 102.8 99.2 103.5 105.1 96.0 97.0 99.0 95.7 91.8 96.4 112.2 113.2 95.4 101.4 109.3 100.3 93.5 102.2 119.6 118.8 100.6 104.2 114.7 104.8 93.7 107.2 121.6 120.2 106.7 104.2 117.8 104.5 92.5 106.7 128.8 128.0 111.1 109.0 120.3 110.2 95.8 110.4 135.0 133.0 103.6 111.8 126.5 114.6 100.7 112.5 111.6 105.4 110.6 105.3 103.6 100.0 101.3 101.4 115.7 106.1 130.1 107.8 132.9 108.2 140.3 146.4 109.6 110.0 106.6 120.0 99.8 101.5 107.2 105.5 99.3 108.9 99.0 114.3 121.4 123.2 107.1 119.9 100.8 102.3 104.7 105.8 99.3 109.7 99.8 107.1 119.0 122.3 104.8 111.9 100.9 104.3 103.7 105.9 100.1 107.7 101.5 103.7 116.4 119.2 100.4 103.8 102.0 101.5 102.1 103.0 100.9 104.2 101.0 100.8 109.0 108.5 101.4 102.6 95.6 94.7 94.8 95.1 91.3 93.6 96.9 102.1 94.9 97.5 103.6 106.6 93.7 93.6 104.0 109.1 92.0 92.0 103.7 112.0 92.2 90.8 105.5 115.4 91.5 89.5 105.6 119.0 86.1 91.2 - - - _ _ 92.4 86.7 96.7 92.4 105.2 99.6 99.4 91.6 84.3 98.0 91.6 106.9 106.3 102.9 91.0 80.4 96.7 90.5 107.9 106.0 104.8 89.5 78.6 97.4 90.8 111.1 105.0 105.4 89.9 79.3 99.0 91.2 111.9 107.3 104.7 80.7 75.3 77.9 79.7 80.1 78.6 76.0 66.7 87.8 78.5 67.3 64.8 84.0 77.8 79.2 81.1 82.9 81.6 79.1 69.3 87.7 83.3 71.7 67.7 86.6 82.5 84.2 85.9 87.7 86.0 83.2 75.9 88.5 87.2 79.4 72.9 90.8 89.5 90.7 90.1 92.7 90.6 89.4 84.4 90.8 92.3 87.6 80.9 95.6 94.7 95.9 97.3 95.9 96.2 95.1 93.6 95.2 97.5 95.4 90.5 102.7 99.6 104.6 104.8 104.6 102.8 105.9 107.5 103.7 101.5 98.0 104.3 105.6 100.4 106.7 106.1 107.9 103.6 109.5 109.2 109.3 102.8 110.9 112.0 113.4 106.7 113.9 115.2 119.4 110.8 115.8 116.0 - - _ _ _ 105.0 111.7 107.8 108.2 104.4 101.1 106.5 107.6 117.7 112.8 110.6 109.2 106.2 107.4 109.5 123.7 120.9 113.2 113.6 113.4 108.2 112.3 126.6 125.9 115.8 119.1 118.3 111.4 113.9 127.6 124.8 118.3 126.4 121.5 117.8 77.2 63.3 91.7 80.3 55.0 61.2 69.4 44.0 93.0 50.8 50.6 59.1 85.5 82.5 96.0 89.7 88.4 96.2 86.3 78.3 95.9 84.1 74.7 81.6 85.7 85.5 93.4 88.1 88.2 93.4 86.5 79.9 93.6 90.4 79.0 82.2 89.2 89.2 94.0 88.7 88.1 93.6 87.9 84.9 91.1 92.2 84.7 84.6 92.8 93.9 95.0 93.0 93.6 96.8 90.3 91.3 92.1 95.6 92.3 91.6 97.2 99.6 96.5 98.1 96.3 99.3 93.3 98.4 95.5 100.0 100.4 98.2 100.6 97.2 104.1 102.3 100.1 102.2 105.3 104.4 102.3 100.9 91.8 100.3 97.6 94.5 104.9 97.9 93.0 96.8 103.6 102.1 96.0 102.9 87.0 99.7 93.9 95.2 100.1 96.4 93.8 94.1 105.9 103.2 94.0 107.1 86.8 102.5 93.2 95.8 95.8 97.6 92.7 95.3 107.5 109.6 94.6 111.4 90.4 104.8 92.9 96.2 93.8 94.6 95.9 91.2 103.9 111.1 92.2 116.9 88.5 107.1 93.4 99.2 96.2 94.7 94.0 89.4 100.4 109.8 92.5 121.4 89.0 112.1 77.2 65.4 51.3 88.3 58.9 76.7 59.6 63.3 82.3 63.9 69.6 77.8 85.5 75.2 84.2 77.2 77.9 84.7 74.9 74.4 83.2 77.5 68.5 75.7 85.7 83.9 92.4 77.0 79.0 82.9 76.9 75.6 83.2 86.1 75.0 82.9 89.2 91.0 86.3 72.3 72.6 77.7 73.0 76.2 75.5 82.9 76.4 78.5 92.8 97.2 83.1 89.5 91.3 94.1 87.3 93.8 88.9 95.0 90.8 92.5 97.2 105.0 90.9 92.3 90.8 93.1 87.8 97.6 89.8 95.7 96.6 98.2 100.6 91.1 118.8 95.1 93.2 95.5 99.4 81.8 96.8 88.3 68.6 85.3 97.6 83.6 130.1 94.2 88.3 92.4 99.8 78.1 92.8 90.7 65.7 86.5 93.9 83.8 135.1 105.2 101.1 99.9 115.5 78.0 103.0 105.0 70.8 91.6 93.2 84.9 111.7 101.4 96.5 98.6 111.6 87.5 98.6 107.1 78.5 95.6 92.9 83.9 98.3 84.9 87.6 82.6 93.5 80.3 83.0 102.5 67.5 99.3 93.4 80.8 93.1 83.8 84.7 80.2 89.1 77.9 82.0 99.9 65.2 105.2 O utput United States............................................................ Canada..................................................................... Japan....................................................................... Belgium.................................................................... Denmark................................................................... France...................................................................... Germany.................................................................. Italy............................................................................ Sweden..................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ Total hours United States............................................................ Canada..................................................................... Japan........................................................................ Belgium.................................................................... Denmark................................................................... France....................................................................... Germany................................................................... Italy............................................................................ Netherlands.............................................................. Norway..................................................................... Sweden..................................................................... United Kingdom....................................................... Com pensation per hour United States........................................................... Canada...................................................................... Japan........................................................................ Belgium..................................................................... Denmark................................................................... France...................................................................... Germany................................................................... Italy............................................................................ Netherlands.............................................................. Norway..................................................................... Sweden..................................................................... United Kingdom....................................................... Unit labor costs: National currency basis United States............................................................ Canada..................................................................... Japan......................................................................... Belgium..................................................................... Denmark................................................................... France...................................................................... Germany................................................................... Italy............................................................................ Netherlands.............................................................. Nonway...................................................................... Sweden..................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis United States............................................................ Canada..................................................................... Japan......................................................................... Belgium..................................................................... Denmark................................................................... France...................................................................... Germany................................................................... Italy............................................................................ Netherlands.............................................................. Norway...................................................................... Sweden..................................................................... United Kingdom........................................................ - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review June 2000 95 Current Labor Statistics: 46. Injury and Illness Data O c c u p a tio n a l injury a n d illness rates b y in dustry,1 U nited States I n c id e n c e r a t e s p e r 1 0 0 f u l l - t im e w o r k e r s 3 in d u s tr y a n d ty p e o f c a s e 1987 1988 1989 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4 1998 4 8.5 3.8 8.4 8.1 6.7 3.6 7.4 3.4 7.1 3.8 3.3 3.1 10.0 4.7 9.7 8.7 8.4 7.9 4.3 3.9 4.1 3.9 5.9 3.7 4.9 9.5 4.4 8.8 8.5 3.7 8.4 P R IV A T E S E C T O R 5 8.3 3.8 69.9 8.6 4.0 76.1 8.6 4.0 78.7 8.8 4.1 84.0 8.4 3.9 86.5 8.9 3.9 93.8 A g ric u ltu re , fo re s try, a n d fis h in g 5 Lost workday cases.............................................................................. 11.2 10.9 5.7 94.1 5.6 101.8 8.5 4.9 8.8 8.5 5.1 4.8 144.0 152.1 137.2 14.7 14.6 14.3 6.8 6.8 142.2 10.9 5.7 11.6 10.8 5.4 11.6 5.4 108.3 126.9 8.3 7.4 5.0 4.5 7.3 4.1 119.5 129.6 204.7 14.2 6.7 13.0 6.8 143.3 147.9 6.1 148.1 100.9 5.9 112.2 11.2 5.0 M in in g 6.8 6.3 6.2 5.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.2 13.1 12.2 11.8 10.6 9.9 5.8 161.9 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.5 9.8 4.4 4.0 2.9 C o n s tru c tio n 135.8 4.0 General building contractors: 14.0 6.4 13.9 13.4 12.0 12.2 11.5 10.9 6.5 6.5 6.4 5.5 5.4 5.1 5.1 134.0 132.2 137.3 137.6 132.0 142.7 14.5 6.4 15.1 7.0 13.8 13.8 12.8 10.2 9.9 9.0 8.7 8.2 6.3 6.0 12.1 5.4 11.1 6.5 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.1 139.1 162.3 147.1 144.6 160.1 165.8 15.0 7.1 135.7 14.7 14.6 6.9 144.9 14.7 13.5 13.8 12.8 12.5 11.1 10.4 7.0 141.1 6.9 153.1 6.3 151.3 6.1 168.3 5.8 5.8 5.0 4.8 10.0 4.7 9.1 4.1 13.1 5.7 107.4 13.1 13.2 12.7 12.2 5.6 5.3 5.5 11.6 5.3 10.6 4.9 10.3 4.8 9.7 5.8 120.7 12.5 5.4 12.1 5.8 113.0 121.5 124.6 12.5 5.4 14.2 14.1 14.2 13.5 5.7 11.6 5.6 5.1 11.3 5.1 10.7 6.0 13.1 5.4 12.8 6.0 13.6 5.7 13.4 5.9 96.8 111.1 116.5 123.3 122.9 126.7 18.9 9.6 19.5 10.0 18.4 9.4 18.1 8.8 16.8 16.3 7.6 15.9 15.7 14.9 7.6 7.7 7.0 14.2 6.8 13.5 6.5 13.2 8.3 176.5 189.1 177.5 172.5 172.0 165.8 16.6 16.1 7.2 16.9 15.9 7.2 14.6 15.0 12.2 5.4 11.4 7.0 13.9 6.4 12.0 6.5 5.8 5.7 13.6 6.1 152.2 13.8 6.3 13.2 12.3 5.7 12.4 6.0 11.8 5.7 11.8 6.0 17.0 16.8 7.3 7.2 16.5 7.2 15.0 6.8 15.0 7.2 14.0 7.0 14.2 9.0 3.9 Heavy construction, except building: Special trades contractors: M a n u fa c tu rin g 11.9 5.3 95.5 4.7 Durable goods: 5.5 5.0 Lumber and wood products: 6.8 Furniture and fixtures: 15.4 6.7 103.6 7.3 115.7 7.8 14.8 6.6 128.4 Stone, clay, and glass products: 14.9 7.1 149.8 17.0 7.4 19.4 18.7 19.0 8.2 8.1 17.5 7.1 161.3 168.3 8.1 180.2 17.7 7.4 145.8 169.1 175.5 17.0 7.2 18.8 18.5 7.9 18.7 17.4 16.8 16.2 16.4 15.8 14.4 14.2 13.9 7.1 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.5 147.6 7.9 155.7 146.6 144.0 9.9 4.0 10.0 4 1 9.5 4.0 135.8 15.5 7.4 15.4 16.0 7.5 141.0 7.3 160.5 14.8 6.8 156.0 6.5 Primary metal industries: Fabricated metal products: 121.9 8.0 138.8 11.3 4.4 12.1 4.7 12.1 12.0 11.2 11.1 11.1 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.2 11.6 4.4 11.2 4.4 72.7 82.8 86.8 88.9 86.6 4.2 87.7 9.1 3.8 79.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 8.3 7.6 6.8 6.6 5.9 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.8 83.0 3.6 81.2 18.3 7.0 18.7 7.1 18.5 7.1 19.6 7.8 18.6 7.9 16.3 15.4 7.0 6.6 14.6 6.6 166.1 186.6 5.6 5.9 2.7 5.3 2.4 5.1 2.3 4.8 2.5 2.3 4.0 1.9 10.0 4.6 9.9 4.5 9.1 4.3 9.5 4.4 8.9 4.2 8.1 3.9 Industrial machinery and equipment: Electronic and other electrical equipment: 7.2 8.0 9.1 3.1 55.9 3.3 64.6 3.9 77.5 13.5 5.7 17.7 17.7 6.8 105.7 6.6 134.2 138.6 17.8 6.9 153.7 5.8 2.4 43.9 6.1 2.6 51.5 5.6 2.5 55.4 57.8 6.0 2.7 64.4 5.9 2.7 65.3 10.7 11.3 5.1 11.1 5.1 11.3 5.1 11.3 5.1 10.7 4.6 81.5 91.0 97.6 113.1 104.0 Transportation equipment: Instruments and related products: 5.9 2.7 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: See footnotes at end of table. 96 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 5.0 108.2 46. C o n tin u e d — O c c u p a tio n a l injury a n d illness rates b y industry,' U nited States I n c id e n c e r a t e s p e r 1 0 0 f u l l - t im e w o r k e r s 3 industry ana type ot case 1987 1988 1989 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4 1998 4 Nondurable goods: Total cases.......................................................................... Lost workday cases............................................................... Lost workdays....................................................................... Food and kindred products: Total cases........................................................................ Lost workday cases............................................................. Lost workdays.................................................................... 8.6 153.7 Tobacco products: Total cases........................................................................ Lost workday cases............................................................. Lost workdays.................................................................... 8.6 9.3 8.7 7.7 6.4 6.0 5.8 5.3 2.5 46.4 2.9 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 53.0 64.2 62.3 52.0 42.9 - - - - 9.0 9.6 10.3 9.6 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.7 8.2 7.8 6.7 3.6 65.9 4.0 78.8 4.2 81.4 4.0 85.1 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.6 3.1 6.7 3.4 88.3 87.1 - - - - - - 9.2 9.5 9.0 8.9 8.2 7.4 7.0 6.2 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.6 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..................................................................... 11.1 11.4 11.6 11.7 11.5 11.3 10.7 10.5 9.9 9.2 5.1 93.5 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.6 101.7 107.8 116.9 5.5 119.7 121.8 - - - 18.5 9.2 18.5 20.0 17.6 17.1 9.9 19.5 9.9 18.8 9.3 174.7 8.9 9.2 202.6 207.2 9.5 211.9 - - 17.7 169.7 4.3 - 8.8 4.4 - 8.2 16.3 8.7 15.0 14.5 13.6 8.0 8.0 7.5 - - - - 5.6 6.7 2.6 2.8 5.9 2.7 - 3.1 - - 6.4 7.4 8.1 8.6 3.1 3.5 68.2 3.8 80.5 8.8 3.9 92.1 99.9 104.6 - - - - - - 13.1 12.7 12.1 11.2 11.0 9.9 9.6 8.5 7.9 5.9 124.3 5.8 132.9 5.5 124.8 5.0 122.7 5.0 125.9 4.6 - 4.5 - 4.2 - 3.8 - 7.3 3.7 - 3.7 - 6.6 3.2 6.9 6.9 6.7 3.2 7.3 3.2 74.8 6.9 3.1 - 6.7 6.4 5.4 3.0 3.0 - 6.0 2.8 - 5.7 3.3 69.8 2.7 - 2.8 - 5.9 2.7 5.7 - 4.8 2.4 - 4.8 - 5.5 2.7 - 2.3 - 4.2 2.1 - 4.3 2.2 - 3.9 1.8 - 59.5 12.8 5.8 122.3 6.7 3.1 55.1 59.8 3.3 63.8 74.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.0 3.1 58.8 3.3 59.0 3.2 63.4 3.1 61.6 3.1 62.4 2.8 64.2 7.3 7.0 3.2 3.1 65.9 - 2.8 6.6 6.6 6.2 5.9 5.2 4.7 3.1 2.9 2.8 71.2 2.5 2.3 4.8 2.4 4.6 7.1 68.4 3.3 68.1 77.3 68.2 - - - 2.5 - 15.9 7.6 16.3 16.2 16.2 14.5 13.9 14.0 12.9 12.3 11.9 11.2 8.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 6.7 130.8 142.9 8.0 147.2 15.1 7.2 151.3 150.9 153.3 - - 6.5 - 6.3 - 5.8 - 5.8 - 12.4 11.4 13.6 12.1 12.5 10.7 10.6 6.5 130.4 5.9 152.3 5.9 140.8 5.5 12.0 5.3 11.4 5.6 128.2 12.1 5.4 12.1 5.8 114.5 4.8 4.5 128.5 - - - - 4.3 - 9.8 4.5 - 8.4 8.9 5.1 118.6 9.2 9.6 5.5 134.1 9.3 5.4 9.1 5.1 144.0 9.5 5.4 9.3 5.3 121.5 5.5 9.1 5.2 5.1 - - - - 8.2 4.8 - 7.3 4.3 - 8.4 3.5 65.6 8.1 3.4 7.9 3.4 56.1 8.0 3.6 63.5 7.9 3.5 60.9 - - 7.5 3.2 - 6.8 2.9 - 6.7 3.0 - 6.5 2.8 - 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 6.6 3.4 71.5 79.2 7.8 3.7 - - - - 6.5 3.2 - 6.5 4.0 71.9 7.6 3.6 82.4 7.5 3.8 69.2 7.2 3.7 7.7 3.7 7.9 3.4 8.1 3.4 8.1 3.4 7.7 8.7 8.2 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 7.5 3.0 6.9 2.8 52.9 57.6 60.0 63.2 69.1 3.4 79.2 - - - - 6.8 2.9 - 6.5 2.7 - 2.0 .9 14.3 2.0 .9 17.2 2.0 .9 17.6 2.4 1.1 2.4 1.1 2.9 2.9 1.2 2.7 1.1 2.6 1.0 2.4 27.3 24.1 1.2 32.9 - - - .9 - 2.2 0.9 - 1.9 0.7 - 5.4 5.5 2.7 6.0 2.8 56.4 6.2 2.8 7.1 6.7 3.0 2.8 6.5 2.8 2.8 6.0 2.6 5.6 2.5 5.2 2.4 60.0 68.6 - - - - - - T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d p u b lic utilities Total cases.......................................................................... Lost workday cases................................................................ Lost workdays....................................................................... 4.9 108.1 140.0 8.7 W h o le s ale a n d 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....................................................................... 7.7 3.4 64.0 7.8 7.8 7.6 3.4 72.0 3.5 80.1 3.3 - F in a n c e , in su ra n c e, a n d real e state Total cases.......................................................................... Lost workday cases................................................................ Lost workdays....................................................................... S ervices Total cases.......................................................................... Lost workday cases................................................................ Lost workdays....................................................................... 5.5 2.7 45.8 2.6 47.7 1 Data for 1989 and subsequent years are based on the Standard Industrial Class ification Manual, 1987 Edition. For this reason, they are not strictly comparable with data for the years 1985-88, which were based on the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement. 2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only nonfatal injuries and illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and nonfatal incidents. To better address fatalities, a basic element of workplace safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. 3 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as (N/EH) X 200,000, where: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 51.2 6.4 N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays; EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year; and 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). 4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estimates will not be generated. As of 1992, BLS began generating percent distributions and the median number of days away from work by industry and for groups of workers sustaining similar work disabilities. 5 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. - Data not available. Monthly Labor Review June 2000 97 Current Labor Statistics: 47. Injury and Illness Data Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1993-98 Fatalities Event or ex pos ure1 19 9 3 -9 7 19972 Average Num ber 6,026 100 2,611 1,334 652 109 234 132 249 360 267 388 214 315 373 106 83 2,605 1,393 640 103 230 142 282 387 298 377 216 261 367 109 93 2,630 1,431 701 118 271 142 306 373 300 384 216 223 413 44 24 112 2 1,241 995 810 75 1 ,1 1 1 2 5 6 5 6 4 4 7 1 16 215 860 708 73 79 216 1,005 573 369 65 290 153 124 1,035 579 384 54 320 189 118 941 517 317 58 266 129 140 16 9 5 668 716 653 116 154 87 44 702 623 12 572 334 153 46 104 48 87 75 9 80 554 298 138 40 123 59 90 72 199 196 205 3 70 101 26 3 2 4 960 709 569 61 79 223 120 Based on the 1992 BLS Occupational Injury and Illness 12 60 586 320 128 43 1 Percent 6,238 591 94 139 83 52 O t h e r e v e n t s o r e x p o s u r e s 3............................................................................ Num ber 6,335 110 F a lls ................................................................................................................................. 1998 21 12 9 1 1 4 1 4 2 2 10 111 2 156 97 51 2 3 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 16 Includes the category "Bodily reaction and exertion." Classification Structures. 2 The BLS news release issued August 12, 1998, reported a total of 6,218 fatal work injuries for calendar year 1997. Since then, an additional 2 0 job-related fatalities were identified, bringing the total job-related fatality count for 1997 to 6,238. 98 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis June 2000 NOTE: Totals for major categories may include sub categories not shown separately. Percentages may not add to totals because of rounding. Dash indicates less than 0.5 percent. Need information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics? You can get it now on the WEB. Here are the Bureau’s addresses. Bureau of Labor S ta tistic s............................................... http://stats.bls.gov Division of Information S ervices................................... http://stats.bls.gov/opbinfo.htm BLS Regional O ffices...................................................... http://stats.bls.gov/regnhome.htm Em ploym ent and Unemployment: Employment, hours, and earnings by industry N a tio n a l..................................................................... State and a re a ............................................................ National labor force statistics..................................... Region, State, and metropolitan area labor force d a ta .......................................................... Longitudinal re se a rc h .................................................. Covered employment and w a g e s............................... Occupational employment sta tistic s.......................... Mass layoff statistics.................................................... http://stats .bis .gov/ceshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/790home.htm http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/lauhome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/nlshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/cewhome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/lauhome.htm Prices and Living Conditions: Consumer price indexes.............................................. http://stats.bls.gov/cpihome.htm Producer price in d e x e s................................................ http://stats.bls.gov/ppihome.htm Consumer Expenditure S u rv e y .................................. http://stats.bls.gov/csxhome.htm Compensation and Working Conditions: National Compensation S u rv e y ................................. Collective bargaining................................................... Employment cost trends.............................................. Employee Benefits S urvey.......................................... Occupational Compensation S urvey......................... Safety and health ........................................................... http:// stats.bls.gov/comhome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/cbahome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/ecthome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/ebshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/ocshome.htm http://stats.bls.gov/oshhome.htm Productivity: Quarterly labor pro ductivity....................................... http://stats.bls.gov/lprhome.htm Industry p ro d u ctiv ity ................................................... http://stats.bls.gov/iprhome.htm Multifactor productivity.............................................. http://stats.bls.gov/mprhome.htm Em ploym ent P ro jec tio n s ..................................... http://stats.bls.gov/emphome.htm International data: Foreign labor statistics................................................. http://stats.bls.gov/flshome.htm U.S. import and export price in d e x e s....................... http://stats.bls.gov/ipphome.htm https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Where are you publishing your research? The Monthly Labor Review welcomes articles on the labor force, labor-management relations, business conditions, industry productivity, compensation, occupational safety and health, demographic t and other economic developments. Papers sh factual, and analytical, not polemical in tone. Potential articles, as well as comments on material published in the Review, should be submitted to: Editor-in-Chief Monthly Labor Review Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, DC 20212 Telephone: (202) 606-5900 E-mail: mlr@bls.gov Need moxe research, facts, and analysis? Subscribe to Monthly Labor Review today I U n it e d S ta t e s G o v e r n m e n t IN F O R M A T IO N Credit card orders are welcome! Order Processing Code: Fax your orders (202) 512-2250 *5338 Phone your orders (202) 512-1800 □ YES, please send_______subscriptions to: Monthly Labor Review (MLR) at $31 each ($38.75 foreign) per year. The total cost of my order is $ __________ . F o r p r iv a c y p r o t e c t io n , c h e c k t h e b o x b e lo w : □ Price includes regular shipping & handling and is subject to change. Do not make my name available to other mailers C h e c k m e th o d o f p a y m e n t: Name or title (Please type or print ) Company name Room, floor, suite □ Check payable to: Superintendent of Documents K2 □ GPO Deposit Account Street address / City code+4 ' State Zip Daytime phone including area code Purchase order number (optional) Mail to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Im p o rta n t: P le a s e in c lu d e th is c o m p le te d o r d e r fo rm w ith y o u r re m itta n c e . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis □ VISA □ MasterCard □ Discover (expiration date) — — — T hank y o u fo r y o u r o rder! — Authorizing signature 12/99 Klein Award winners The Lawrence R. Klein Award trustees selected the authors of four articles published in the Monthly Labor Review in 1999 as winners of the 2000 Klein Award. The winners were: • Edwin R. Dean for “The accuracy of the 1999 issue; bls productivity m easures,” in the February • Lucy R Eldridge for “How price indexes affect BLS productivity measures” in the February 1999 issue; • William Gullickson and Michael J. Harper for “Possible measurement bias in aggre gate productivity growth,” in the February 1999 issue; and • Philip N. Cohen and Suzanne M. Bianchi for “Marriage, children, and women’s em ployment: what do we know?” in the December 1999 issue. The majority of the February 1999 Review was devoted to issues in productivity m ea surement. Edwin Dean sets the stage, discussing the Bureau of Labor Statistics efforts to enhance the reliability of its productivity measures, facilitate analysis of economic perfor mance, and provide useful information to the public. He concludes that despite the sus tained efforts of improvement, “ [t]he BLS clearly recognizes...there is room for further improvement.” Lucy P. Eldridge examines the relationship between consumer price indexes and pro ductivity statistics, gauging the relative importance of each of the various indexes used. She finds that price indexes play a significant role in measuring real output and productiv ity (they are used in calculating about 56 percent of the measured output of the business sector); therefore, potential bias in the price indexes, as well as a lack of price indexes, will affect the accuracy of measured growth in output and productivity. William Gullickson and Michael J. Harper lay the groundwork for understanding the potential biases that specific “hard-to-measure” industries may impart to aggregate pro ductivity measures. They ask: “What if productivity growth in certain industries was actu ally zero rather than a negative number?” They reason that negative productivity growth over a long period is not likely, so answering this question draws a conservative picture of the potential impact of some forms of measurement bias. Even this conservative experi ment indicates that negative productivity growth in five specific industries is significant enough to lower the business sector productivity trend noticeably. Philip N. Cohen and Suzanne M. Bianchi examine the implications of marriage and family to labor market decisions. They conclude that marriage in itself has relatively little effect on wom en’s labor supply, and that children exert less downward pressure on supply than was the case in the late 1970s. The effect of having pre-school-age children on annual hours is substantial, however. O rigin o f th e Award. The Klein Award was established by Lawrence R. Klein, Editorin-Chief of the Monthly Labor Review from 1946 until his retirement in 1968. Instead of accepting a retirement gift, Klein donated it and matched the amount collected to initiate the award. Until his death earlier this year, he contributed regularly to the fund, as have others. The purpose of the award is to encourage Review articles that exhibit originality of ideas or method of analysis, adhere to principles of scientific inquiry, and are well written. The two annual awards— one to a Bureau of Labor Statistics author and one to an author outside the Bureau— carry cash prizes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building, Rm.2850 2 Massachusetts Awe., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 Periodicals Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor USPS 987-800 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 Address Service Requested MLR FE DE R 4 4 2 F I S SD UE 00 1R 1 FE DE RA L R E S E RV E BANK OF STLOU CAROL T H AX TO N L I B R A R Y UNIT PO BOX 442 S A IN T LOUIS MO 63166 Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series MLR table number Series Release date Period covered Release date Period covered Release date Period covered Employment situation June 2 May July 7 June August 4 July Productivity and costs June 6 1st quarter August 8 2nd quarter U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes June 8 May July 13 June August 10 July 34-38 Producer Price Indexes June 9 May July 14 June August 11 July 2; 31-33 Consumer Price indexes June 14 May July 18 June August 16 July 2; 28-30 Real earnings June 14 May July 18 June August 16 July 14, 16 July 27 2nd quarter Employment Cost indexes https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1; 4-20 2; 39-42 1-3; 21-24
