The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
M
O
N
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
H
L
Y
-
L
A
B
O
R
In this issue:
International comparisons:
Overview
Labor market
U.S. Department of Labor
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Lois L. Orr, Acting Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review ( usps 987-800) is published
monthly by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics o f the U.S.
Department o f Labor. The Review welcomes articles on the
lab o r fo rce , la b o r-m an a g e m en t re la tio n s , b u sin ess
c o n d itio n s , in d u stry p ro d u c tiv ity , c o m p e n sa tio n ,
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 o f 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 o f Documents
G overnm ent P rin ting O ffice W ashington, dc 20402
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Subscription price per year— $45 domestic; $63 foreign.
Single copy— $13 domestic; $18.20 foreign. Make checks
payable to the Superintendent o f 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 o f Labor has determined that the publication of
this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public
business required by law o f this Department. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, dc, and at additional mailing
addresses.
U nless stated o th erw ise, a rticles ap p earin g in this
publication are in the public domain and may be reprinted
without express permission from the Editor-in-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.
P ostmaster :
Send address changes to Monthly Labor
Review, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, dc
20402-0001.
Cover designed by Melvin B. Moxley
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR
REVIEW
Volume 125, Number 6
June 2002
International Comparisons
Providing comparable international labor statistics
3
BLS adjusts foreign data to common concepts, thereby allowing
meaningful comparisons to be made among countries
Patricia Capdevielle and Mark K. Sherwood
Labor market performance
15
Over the 1960-2000 period, Canada and the United States were leaders
in job creation; Japan and Europe had much weaker employment gains
Constance Sorrentino and Joyanna Moy
Hourly compensation for production workers in manufacturing
36
Costs have grown more slowly in the United States
than in foreign countries over the 1975-2000 period
Chris Sparks, Theo Bikoi, and Lisa Moglia
Labor productivity in manufacturing
51
Growth was relatively slow over the entire last half century in the United States,
but accelerated after 1973, while slowing in other countries
Aaron E. Cobet and Gregory A. Wilson
Departments
Labor month in review
Précis
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
2
66
67
69
Editor-in-Chief: Deborah P. Klein • Executive Editor: Richard M. Devens • Managing Editor: Anna Huffman Hill • Editors: Brian
I. Baker, Richard Hamilton, Leslie Brown Joyner, Lawrence H. Leith • Editorial Assistant: Nicale McFadden • Book Reviews: Roger
A. Comer, Richard Hamilton • Design and Layout: Catherine D. Bowman, Edith W. Peters • Contributors: Bill Goodman, Solidelle
Fortier Wasser
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor Month in Review
The June Review
On an increasingly interconnected and
rapidly shrinking globe, the important
issue for policymakers is not simply how
well the economy is doing, but how well
is the economy doing relative to its
global partners and competitors. This
issue, led by Patricia Capdevielle and
Mark Sherwood’s summary of the need
for international comparisons and the
programmatic responses at the Bureau
o f Labor Statistics, is devoted to ways
to answer those questions.
Constance Sorrentino and Joyanna
Moy examine the similarities and dif
ferences among the U.S. labor market and
those in other countries. One important
difference they note between European
and North American labor markets is in
the duration of unemployment. A higher
proportion of the unemployed in Europe
are long-term unemployed at any stage
of the business cycle. “Thus,” say the
authors, “the burden of unemployment
tends to fall on a smaller portion of the
population in Europe, while in the United
States and Canada, a greater percentage
of the population experiences a spell of
unemployment over the course of a year.”
Chris Sparks, Theo Bikoi, and Lisa
Moglia examine the critical competitive
variable o f com pensation costs in
manufacturing across countries. They
conclude, “Over the past 25 years, the
U.S. competitive position with regard to
hourly com pensation costs has im
proved relative to competitors, especial
ly Japan and Europe, despite some
deterioration over the final 5 years of the
20th century.”
Aaron Cobet and Gregory Wilson
survey comparative productivity trends
in the manufacturing sector. Looked at
over the last half of the 20th century,
labor p ro d u ctiv ity in the factory
increased less in the United States and
C anada than in other industrial
countries. Most o f the difference can
be attributed to the 1950-73 period.
After 1973, growth in U.S. productivity
2 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
actually accelerated while there were
much slow er rates o f productivity
grow th in m ost other industrial
economies.
Katharine Abraham
receives Shiskin Award
Katharine G. Abraham, Professor o f
Survey M ethodology and A ffiliate
Professor of Economics with the Joint
Program for Survey Methodology at the
University of Maryland, and formerly
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is the recipient of the 2002
Julius Shiskin Award for Economic
Statistics.
Dr. Abraham has written extensively
on labor-market subjects including the
effects of job duration on wages, the
effects of advertising on job vacancies,
wages and the business cycle, and
comparisons among the United States,
European, and Japanese labor markets.
As Commissioner from 1993 through
2001, Dr. Abraham instituted improve
m ents in consum er, producer, and
international price statistics, and em
ployment and wage statistics. During
the public debate on the Consumer Price
Index, Dr. Abraham steered a careful
course of studying shortcomings and
making revisions based on objective
research. She expanded coverage of the
prices of services in the Producer Price
Index and instituted improvements in
the C urrent Em ployment Statistics
program, including the substitution of a
probability sample for the quota sample.
The Julius Shiskin Award was
established in 1979 by the Washington
Statistical Society and is now co
sponsored with the National Association
of Business Economists and the Business
and Economics Statistics Section of the
American Statistical Association. It is
given in recognition of unusually original
and im portant contributions in the
development of economic statistics or in
the use o f economic statistics in
interpreting the economy.
Jobless rate 35.9 percent for
dropouts
While more than 60 percent o f high
school graduates enrolled in college
between October 2000 and October
2001, slightly more than half a million
youths dropped out o f high school
during the same period. The unemploy
ment rate for these dropouts was 35.9
percent in October 2001— a full 15
percentage points higher than the rate
for recent high school graduates who
were not enrolled in college.
Just more than two-thirds o f young
white dropouts were in the labor force,
either working or looking for work, as
were about 70 percent o f Hispanic
dropouts. The unem ploym ent rate
among white dropouts was 32.4 percent,
about the same as the rate of 32.6 percent
for Hispanic dropouts. Not quite half of
black dropouts were in the labor force in
October 2001; just more than half of
those labor force participants had jobs.
Additional information is available from
“College Enrollment and Work Activity
of 2001 High School Graduates,” news
release USDL 02-288.
Eld erly b u d g e t g re a te s t
share on housing
Households headed by someone 75 or
older spent a higher share o f their
expenditures on housing than any other
age group in 1999. The 75-and-older group
spent 35.9 percent of expenditures on
housing, compared with 32.6 percent for
all households. Those under age 25
allocated the smallest share for housing,
at 30.3 percent of annual expenditures.
Households headed by a person aged 55
to 64 spent 30.7 percent of their budget on
housing. Find out more in “Housing
Expenditures,” Issues in Labor Statistics,
BLS Summary 02-02.
□
Providing Com parable Data
International comparisons
Providing com parable
international labor statistics
BLS adjusts foreign data to a common
conceptual framework, thereby aiding users in making
meaningful international comparisons
Patricia Capdevielle
and
Mark K. Sherwood
Patricia C a p d e v ie lle
Is a senior econom ist
in the Division of
Foreign Labor
Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and
Mark K. Sherwood is
C hief of the Division.
E-mail:
CapdeviellejD@bls.gov
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
he Bureau o f Labor Statistics (BLS)
produces many statistical series for the
United States which describe important
aspects o f U.S. economic performance. For
example, data show that over the last 40 years the
num ber o f em ployed persons has doubled.
Hourly com pensation costs for production
workers in the manufacturing sector have grown
from a little more than $6 per hour in 1975 to almost
$20 per hour in 2000. Over the last 50 years, labor
productivity in the manufacturing sector has
increased about 3 percent per year, resulting in
more than a quadrupling of the output produced
per hour of labor input.1
But, how does this compare with the rest of
the world? A comparison of U.S. performance
with that of other countries is of interest to many
data users from the academic, government,
business, and labor sectors.
Several difficulties arise in making these
comparisons, however. Foreign labor statistics are
not always easily accessible, and publications
containing the data may not be in English. The
foreign statistics may not be comparable to U.S.
data because of differences in concepts and
definitions, classification systems, and survey
methodology, and may be of uneven quality among
countries.
The BLS Division of Foreign Labor Statistics
provides a set of easily accessible labor statistics
T
adjusted for comparability to aid users in making
meaningful international com parisons. BLS
selects a conceptual framework for comparative
purposes; obtains foreign data and
docum entation from m any sources and
translates the m aterial into English when
necessary; analyzes sources and methods to
assess quality and comparability; and adjusts
statistical series where necessary and feasible
for greater comparability.
BLS publishes statistics adjusted for
comparability on labor force, employment and
unemployment; productivity and unit labor cost
trends in the manufacturing sector; and hourly
compensation costs for production workers in all
manufacturing and in component manufacturing
industries. In addition, statistics are published on
gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and per
employed person and on consumer price indexes
(CPIs), although these latter two series are not
adjusted for comparability. The measures produced
relate primarily, but not entirely, to the major
developed countries which are the most similar to
the United States.
The BLS program of international comparisons
is unique. Other national statistical agencies
publish some international comparisons, and
intern atio n al statistica l agencies publish
statistics collected within a common set o f
guidelines from a large number of countries. With
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
3
Providing C o m p a ra b le D ata
few exceptions, how ever, data are not adjusted for
comparability by these other agencies.
A summary listing of the major international statistical
agencies and their work is contained in an appendix to this
article. The bls Web site provides links to these agencies to
enable users to find data that are complementary to the bls
series. Links are also provided to sources of international
data for topics not covered by BLS.2
This article presents a historical perspective on BLS
international comparisons and provides a brief overview of
the current program. It also examines the the reasons why
foreign data must be adjusted for comparability and the
procedures used by BLS to adjust the data. Some examples of
differences between adjusted and unadjusted data series are
presented.
Background and current measures
As early as the turn of the last century, Carroll Wright, the
first Commissioner of what would become the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, sent staff to Europe and obtained the services of
experts to co llect inform ation for studies o f labor
developments abroad.3
Two reports, Sixth Annual Report o f the Commissioner o f
Labor, 1890, Cost o f Production: Iron, Steel, Coal, etc. and
Seventh Annual Report, 1891, Cost o f Production: The
Textiles and Glass [sic] were concerned chiefly with
aggregate and unit costs of production, employee earnings,
“efficiency” of labor, and cost of living in the United States.
The reports included sim ilar data from England and
Continental Europe, many of which were compiled in detail
directly from plant records.4
Several early b ulletins were published w ith an
international comparison content, including a 1898 bulletin
entitled Wages in the United States and Europe, 1870-1898,
and a 1902 bulletin on labor conditions in Mexico, a subject
of considerable current interest. The first volume of the
M onthly Labor Review in 1915 contained articles on
employment in various countries, the increase in wages in
Great Britain during 1915, and strikes and lockouts in various
countries.
The current BLS international comparisons program came
into being in the early 1960’s. Early work focused on statistics
adjusted for comparability on labor force, productivity and
unit labor costs, and hourly compensation costs, and also on
consumer price trends. Over time, other statistics were
published also, some o f which are no longer produced.5
Special studies have been produced as well on labor force
and productivity research topics.
All the foreign country data now used by BLS are obtained
from secondary sources—national statistical agencies,
supranational and international organizations, and private
4 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
agencies such as research institutes. BLS does not initiate
surveys or data collection abroad.
Labor fo rce.
A m ajor project to evaluate foreign
unemployment statistics and prepare data adjusted for
comparability was undertaken in response to a 1961 request
by the Com mittee to Appraise Em ployment and U n
employment Statistics (sometimes referred to as the Gordon
Committee). They were concerned that the reason for
apparent differences in unemployment rates among countries
was due to national differences in d efin itio n s and
methodologies. The initial study covered the United States,
Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Great
Britain and was published in the Gordon Committee report in
1962.6 The results were also summarized in two Monthly
Labor Review articles.7
Over time, the number of countries covered has increased
to 10 and the number of variables produced has increased
also.8 The labor force statistics adjusted for comparability
now include w orking-age population, labor force,
employment, unemployment, employment-population ratios,
labor force participation rates, unemployment rates, and
employment by economic sector. Some data are available by
sex and age. These statistics are updated and published
semi-annually. The series extends back to 1959 or 1960.
Monthly unemployment rates adjusted for comparability
are published each month for nine of the countries. These
data are supplemented with a compilation of unemployment
rates for additional European countries as published by
Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities.
Data from the program have been used to produce studies
on youth unemployment; labor force participation rates; and
employment by sector.9 Over the years, special studies were
prepared on additional topics in the labor force field. These
topics include unemployment compensation; the family; various
measures of underutilization; and explanations for the reported
relatively low unemployment in Mexico and Japan.10
Research continues on issues of comparability. In 2000, an
indepth study of the comparability of various available series
pertaining to unemployment rates was published and served
as the foundation for recent refinements made to the BLS
comparative series on unemployment rates.11
Productivity and unit labor costs. One of the first projects
undertaken in the productivity and unit labor costs area was
the development of international comparisons of levels of
labor productivity (output per hour) and unit labor costs in
the steel industry. The steel industry was selected because
of its rank among basic industries in terms of size, public
interest, and availability and comparability of data. Because
of the record levels of imports of steel products and the
volume of international trade in steel products, there was
considerable interest in the findings of such a study.
The first statistics produced were comparative trends only,
while work proceeded on comparative level data. Statistics
on comparative levels of labor productivity and unit labor
costs in the steel industry were published in 1968.12The study
covered the United States, France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom. Japan was added shortly thereafter. The level
estimates were updated with trend inducators through the
early 1980’s, but discontinued thereafter.
The comparison of productivity levels for the steel
industry was possible because the output data were available
in quantity terms, that is, tons of different steel products. In
most cases, when the output of each country’s sector of
interest is expressed in national currency units, estimating
comparative levels of productivity is not feasible because of
the problem of expressing the output of several countries in
a common currency.
Purchasing power parities (PPPs), which are the number
o f foreign currency units required to buy goods and services
in a foreign country equivalent to what can be bought with
one dollar in the United States are available to convert
aggregate GDPs of foreign countries into U.S dollars. (See
also the section on measures of GDP per capita and per
employed person.) PPPs are not available at an industry level.
Because of the problems associated with developing
comparative levels of productivity,13the b l s program for the
manufacturing sector has focused on comparative trends in
productivity and unit labor costs. Trends may be calculated
without converting data for all countries to a common
currency.
The current series on com parative trends in labor
productivity and unit labor costs in manufacturing has its
roots in two 1963 Monthly Labor Review articles on the role
o f labor costs in foreign trade and on concepts and methods
for international comparisons of unit labor costs.14 A 1964
article presented measures of unit labor cost trends for the
U nited States and seven foreign co u n trie s.15 Labor
productivity measures were included for four countries.
Indexes of manufacturing productivity and unit labor
costs now cover 14 countries or areas and are updated and
published annually.16 Indexes for component variables,
in cluding output, em ploym ent, hours w orked, and
compensation, as well as various supplementary measures,
also are published. The series extends back to 1950 for most
countries.
Over time, special studies were prepared to provide other
comparative productivity measures. Two studies were produced
on multifactor productivity, which includes capital services as
well as labor hours as inputs. A 1990 study evaluated alternative
measures of capital in Japanese manufacturing.17 A study of
multifactor productivity trends in France, Germany, and the
United States was published in 1995.18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Studies also were produced on labor productivity trends
for industries within the manufacturing sector at approx
imately the U.S. two-digit standard industrial classification
(SIC) level. They were released as three conference papers.19
GDPper capita andper employed person. A series on levels
of GDP per capita (a measure of standard of living) and GDP
per employed person (a measure of productivity levels for
the total economy) were initiated in the mid-1970s.20b l s was
one of the first organizations to construct these series using
Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs).21 This series covers 14
countries and provides annual measures back to 1960. It
is updated and published periodically. The underlying
d ata on GDP and p o p u la tio n are not ad ju ste d for
comparability; labor force data used are adjusted.
The b l s m ethod o f converting GDP to a common
cu rren cy by m eans o f PPPs was in tro d u c e d as an
alternative to a flawed method often used, converting
foreign data into U.S. dollars with market exchange rates.
C om parisons based upon exchange rates do not
necessarily reflect the relative purchasing power of different
currencies. At best, market exchange rates represent only the
relative prices o f goods and services that are traded
internationally, not the relative value of total domestic output
which includes goods and services not traded internationally.
Exchange rates are also affected by influences unrelated to
the relative values of goods and services, such as currency
traders’ views of the stability of foreign governments, relative
interest rates in different countries, and incentives for holding
assets in one currency versus another.
Hourly compensation costs fo r production workers in
manufacturing. The need for comparable measures of wages
and employer labor costs was the impetus for the de
velopment of the BLS hourly compensation costs series. The
more readily available average earnings statistics published
by many countries can be very m isleading. N ational
definitions of earnings differ considerably, earnings do not
include all items of labor compensation, and the omitted items
of compensation frequently represent a large proportion of
total compensation.
The problems in making meaningful comparisons of wages
among countries were noted in two studies published in the
1960s pertaining to U.S.-Japan wage comparisons. A joint
report of the Japanese Ministries of Labor and of International
Trade and Industry and the U.S. Department of Labor was
prepared in 1966.22The report was intended to provide both
countries with better information about labor standards,
employment conditions, wages, and other aspects of labor
policy in order to avoid misconceptions affecting trade
relations. In 1967, two Monthly Labor Review articles used
data from this report to discuss the similarities and contrasts
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
5
Providing C o m p a ra b le D ata
I Current program of international comparisons of labor statistics
Variables
included
Series
Labor force, employment,
unemployment and various
analytical measures
Labor force
Number of
countries
covered
10
9
Unemployment rates
Time frame
Annual since 1960
Monthly and quarterly
for recent periods
Manufacturing productivity
and unit labor costs
Output per hour, unit labor costs,
output, hours worked,
compensation, and several related
variables
14
Annual since 1950
Hourly compensation costs for
production workers in manufacturing
and 40 component industries
Hourly compensation,
components of compensation
29
Annual since 1975
Consumer Price Indexes
“All items” index
16
Annual since 1950
Changes from same period
in prior year for “all items” index
GDP per capita and per employed
person
Two primary series
plus underlying series
9
14
Monthly and quarterly
for recent periods
Annual since 1960
between the two countries’ wage systems.23 The articles
noted that both countries have well-developed statistical
systems and publish data regularly, but the data are not
comparable and careful attention must be given to the
differences when making international comparisons.
BLS computed measures of hourly compensation costs
covering production workers in manufacturing by adjusting
published earnings data for items o f compensation not
included in earnings. Hourly compensation costs are defined
by BLS to include pay for time worked, other direct pay
(including such items as seasonal bonuses and pay for
holidays and vacations) and employer social insurance
expenditures and other labor taxes (including such items as
retirement and disability, health insurance, pensions, and
unemployment insurance).
unpublished basis, for 32 countries or areas and 34
m anufacturing industries. Coverage now includes 29
countries or areas and 40 manufacturing industry groups.24
For total manufacturing, comparable data were developed
for two major subcomponents of hourly compensation—pay
for time worked and total direct pay—and for the structure of
com pensation. Also, hourly com pensation costs were
developed for selected groups o f countries or areas by
aggregating costs with weights representing importance to
the United States in world trade.
Hourly compensation costs for total manufacturing, and
supplem entary tables covering the com ponents o f
compensation, are updated and published annually. Data for
component manufacturing industry groups are updated and
published periodically. The series extends back to 1975.
BLS initially released data on an ad hoc basis in response
to requests for comparative compensation costs. By 1980,
the series had been formalized and made available, on an
Consumer price indexes (CPIs). Data were first published
in two 1960s articles which presented comparative consumer
6 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
price trends, including trends for m ajor com ponent
expenditure groups; summaries of factors affecting price
movements; and descriptions of countries’ index coverage
and methodologies.25 In addition, the consumer price indexes
were used to compute real wage trends as part of a program
examining comparative standards of living.26
BLS now compiles and publishes annual consumer price
indexes for 16 countries. In addition, monthly and quarterly
percent changes from the same period of the previous year
are published each month for nine countries.
The CPI series are not adjusted for comparability. Rather,
the data are national indexes as published by the foreign
countries. National differences exist, for example, with respect
to population coverage, frequency of market basket changes,
and treatment of homeowner costs.
The current program of international comparisons of labor
statistics is summarized in exhibit 1. Details about the current
program may be found on the BLS Web site.
Adjusting data for comparability
Following is a description of the types of adjustments BLS
makes in producing comparable statistics with some examples
of the impact of these adjustments.
Chart I.
Rate
Official national unemployment rates and
rates adjusted to U.S. concepts, 2000
12
Rate
12
I Official rate
□ Adjusted to U.S. concepts rate
10
10
Germany
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sweden
United Kingdom
Unemployment rates. The labor force is the sum of the
employed plus the unemployed; and the unemployment rate
is the ratio of the unemployed to the labor force. In the
United States, the unemployed are those who were without
work and available for work in the reference week, and actively
seeking work in the past 4 weeks. Those persons waiting to
be recalled from layoff need not be seeking work to be
classified as unemployed. The employed are those persons
who during the reference week did work for at least 1 hour as
paid employees, worked in their own business, profession,
or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid
workers in an enterprise operated by a family member. Those
temporarily absent from work but who had jobs or businesses
to return to are also counted as employed. In the United
States, data to measure the employed and the unemployed
are obtained from the Current Population Survey, a survey of
households selected to be representative o f the civilian
noninstitutional population.
Some of the countries included in the BLS comparative
unemployment rate series differ from the United States in terms
of the definitions of the employed and unemployed, as well as in
terms of the sources of data used to measure these variables.
BLS employs data from several sources, including data obtained
by special request from the central statistical offices of the
foreign countries, to adjust the official unemployment rates for
approximate comparability with U.S. concepts.
Although the United States and the foreign countries
covered follow the International Labour Organization’s (ILO)
guidelines on measuring employment and unemployment, there
is sufficient latitude in the guidelines to allow for differences in
the measurement of unemployment rates among countries. The
ILO guidelines define the unemployed as persons over a certain
age who are without work, available for work, and actively
seeking work. Although adhering to this broad standard,
countries vary in interpretation of “available for work,” “actively
seeking work,” and “over a certain age.” Further, the ILO offers
some more specific guidelines regarding the treatment of
students, persons on layoff, persons waiting to start a new job,
unpaid family workers, and the armed forces. Some countries
deviate from these specific guidelines.
The European Union (EU) and the United States diverge
while adhering to the ILO guidelines:
• unlike the United States, the European labor force
includes unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours
per week, the career military, and 15-year-olds;
• unlike the United States, European unemployed
includes passive jobseekers, person waiting to start a new
job who did not seek work in the previous 4 weeks, those
unavailable for work in the reference week, and 15-yearolds;
• unlike the United States, European unemployed
excludes persons on layoff; and
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
7
Providing C o m p a ra b le D ata
• even within Europe, EU member countries can vary from
the interpretation of the ILO standard adopted by the EU
when producing their own official unemployment rates.
An important example of the need for adjustment occurs
for Sweden, which deviates from the ILO guideline that
considers full-time students to be unemployed if they are
seeking work and available for work. In Sweden, such
students are excluded from the unemployed in the calculation
of the official unemployment rate.
Statistics Sweden regularly enumerates and publishes
statistics on full-time students seeking work and available
for work. These data are derived from its labor force survey.
Using the published estimates for those students, b l s adds
them to the Swedish unemployed and adds the adjusted
unemployed to the employed to derive the labor force. An
adjusted unemployment rate is then calculated as the
adjusted unemployed divided by the adjusted labor force.27
It is also necessary to adjust data when statistical
agencies derive official statistics from different types of data
sources. While most countries that BLS covers derive their
official unemployment rates from household surveys, the
United Kingdom and Germany derive them from ad
ministrative records of the registered unemployed obtained
from their employment offices. For the United Kingdom, the
official data are restricted to “claimant counts” that understate
the country’s unemployment relative to household survey
definitions. On the other hand, the German administrative
data overstate unemployment rates relative to household
surveys, because the administrative data include persons
who are looking for a better job but who would be considered
employed in a household survey.
The British Office of National Statistics supplies BLS with
unemployment and labor force data on ILO concepts derived
from the national continuous labor force survey, and b l s uses
these data instead of the official series based on registration
data. BLS subtracts the career military from the labor force
and then calculates the unemployment rate. For Germany,
BLS uses labor force survey data instead o f the official
registration-based data. BLS excludes the career military from
the labor force; no adjustments are made to the unemployed.
Unemployment rates based on U.S. concepts contrasted
with the official unemployment rates illustrate the distorted
picture one can get from comparing official statistics. (See
chart 1.) Adjusted unemployment rates are about 1 percent to
2 percent higher than the official rates for Sweden and the
United Kingdom, respectively, and about 2-1/2 percent lower
for Germany.
Early in the BLS program of labor force comparisons, more
adjustments were required then than now. Over time, there
has been a convergence of methods among countries leading
to more comparability among the official measures. In several
8
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
cases, the differences that remain are small; particularly, those
due to variations in the interpretations of the ILO guidelines
by the United States and the European Union.
D ifferences still exist, however, and require both
adjustment by b l s and continuous research to assess the
importance o f any remaining noncomparability due to
differences in concepts and methods. A study summarized in
a 2000 Monthly Labor Review article resulted in the recent
introduction of a new adjustment into the Canadian data in
the BLS comparative series.28
Hourly compensation costs fo r production workers in
m a n u facturing. This series on com parative hourly
compensation costs was developed by BLS as a substitute
for the more readily available average earnings series
published by many countries. National definitions of earnings
differ considerably and average earnings do not include all
items of labor compensation. National data may also differ in
terms of worker coverage, industrial classification, survey
coverage, and sample benchmarks. BLS computes hourly
compensation costs by adjusting published earnings for the
items o f compensation not included in earnings.29 The
statistics are also adjusted, where necessary and feasible, for
other differences in the national data sources.
The adjustments made to derive hourly compensation
costs can be illustrated with a summary of the method used
for Austria. Average hourly earnings are obtained for the
“total industry” sector; these earnings are adjusted by BLS
to remove the earnings of the heat and gas, construction,
and mining industries in order to yield an estimate for the
manufacturing sector.
Next, data from a survey of employers regarding ex
penditures on wages, salaries, employee benefits, and other
labor costs are used to derive ratios of components of additional
compensation to earnings. The additional compensation
includes pay for time not worked (for example, vacations),
bonuses, legally required and contractual and private social
insurance (for example, pensions and health insurance) and other
labor taxes. These ratios are estimated for other years using a
variety of indicators and are applied to average hourly earnings
to compute hourly compensation costs.
A comparison of the BLS hourly compensation costs with
earnings statistics for selected countries illustrates the
importance of adjusting the data for comparability. (See chart
2.) Here, the rankings within three pairs of countries or areas
(Singapore and Taiwan; Denmark and Germany; Austria and
the United Kingdom) are reversed depending upon whether
the measure is o f average hourly earnings or o f hourly
compensation costs.
Output per hour and unit labor costs in manufacturing. For
this comparative series, BLS does not adjust countries’
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
published productivity and unit labor costs. Rather, BLS
constructs measures with data obtained from countries’
national accounts and other sources. BLS chooses output on
as similar a conceptual basis as possible, adjusts countries’
output and labor input data to a sim ilar ind u strial
classification, adjusts compensation to an employer-cost
basis by adding other taxes, and develops a comparable
hours-worked series. Hours-worked data are constructed
rather than using more readily available labor input series
based upon the concept of number of employees or employed
persons. Hours worked is the concept of labor input employed
for all domestic measures of productivity produced by BLS.
BLS cannot adjust for all differences which may occur in
national accounts data, for example the use o f different
deflation procedures for the output of high-tech industries
or the scheme used to aggregate outputs from various
industries. The impact on comparability from these remaining
differences likely has increased with the explosion of growth
of the outputs of the high-tech sector, as well as the adoption
by many countries of new weighting schemes for aggregating
output. Because it is not feasible to adjust for all of these
differences, BLS has undertaken an assessment o f the
possible impact on its comparative productivity series from
these differences in methodology.
Recently, a detailed examination was carried out of the
differences in the underlying series used by BLS to construct
comparative measures of productivity growth in the United
States and Canada.30 The productivity gap that existed
between the two countries between 1988 and 1996 was
examined to determine if the gap might be due in large part to
different measurement procedures used by the two countries.
Differences due to industrial classification, concepts and
estimation of real value added output (including valuation of
prices, index aggregation formula, treatment of software, and
information technology deflation), and the estimation of
hours worked were explored.
The methods used by the two countries were found to be
quite similar. Although differences exist, some are offsetting
and overall they do not appear to substantially affect
measured productivity growth.
Among other countries in the BLS series, there are
substantive variations in methods of measuring output and
labor input, including the methods used to deflate the output
of high-tech industries. BLS is currently conducting a review
of sources and methods used in other countries.
Other contributions
BLS contributes to improving the comparability o f labor
statistics in other important ways. Experts from various BLS
programs participate in forums sponsored by various
international agencies, the purpose of which is to enhance
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
9
Providing C o m p a ra b le Data
comparability of statistics among countries.31 b l s also
provides technical assistance and training to foreign
statisticians to aid in developing their statistical systems.
These efforts help to achieve greater comparability of data
and to reduce the need for adjusting data for the purpose
of international comparisons.
□
Sorrentino, “Employment and unemployment in M exico’s labor
force,” November 1994, pp. 3-31; Gary Martin, “Employment and
unemployment in Mexico in the 1990s,” November 2000, pp. 3-18;
and Sara Elder and Constance Sorrentino, “Japan’s low unemployment:
a b l s update and revision,” October 1993, pp. 56-63.
N otes
12 International comparison o f unit labor cost in the iron and steel
industry, 1964: United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom,
Bulletin 1580 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1968).
1 See Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, Ten Countries,
1959—2001, Mar. 25, 2002, table 2. Also, see Chris Sparks, Theo
Bikoi, and Lisa M oglia, “A perspective on U.S. and foreign
compensation costs in manufacturing,” this issue, pp. 36-50, table 1;
and Aaron E. Cobet and Gregory A. Wilson, “Comparing 50 years of
labor productivity in U.S. and foreign manufacturing,” this issue, pp.
51-65, table 1. Available on the Internet at: http://www.bls.gov/fls/
h om e.htm
13 An approach to calculating levels of productivity has been used
by researchers at the International Comparisons of O utput and
Productivity project at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
They develop unit values for matched products by dividing producers’
sales denominated in a country’s currency with available data on
quantities shipped. Ratios of the unit values from two different countries
are then used to convert to a common currency. For an article based
on this approach, see Bart van Ark, “Manufacturing prices, productivity,
and labor costs in five economies,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1995,
pp. 56-72.
2 The Web site is:
http://stats.bls.gov/fls/home.htm
3 Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye, The First Hundred
Years o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2235 (U.S. Department
of Labor, September 1985), p. 39.
4 See William C. Shelton and John H. Chandler, “The role of labor
costs in foreign trade,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1963, pp. 48590 (footnote 1).
5 Series which are no longer published include: union membership
and industrial disputes; average hours worked and paid; average earnings
and real earnings indexes (now incorporated into the program of labor
productivity and unit labor costs); consumer price indexes for
component expenditure groups; wholesale or producer price indexes;
and U.S. Department of State indexes of living cost abroad and living
quarters allowances.
6 M easuring Employment and Unemployment, Report o f the
President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment
Statistics (U.S. Government Printing Office, W ashington, D C ),
September 1962.
7 See the following Monthly Labor Review articles: Robert J. Meyers
and John H. Chandler, “International comparisons of unemployment,”
August 1962, pp. 857-64; and Robert J. Meyers and John H. Chandler,
“Toward explaining international unemployment rates,” September
1962, pp. 969-74.
8 The expansion of this series has been directed by Constance
Sorrentino of the BLS Division of Foreign Labor Statistics.
9 See these articles in the Monthly Labor Review. Constance
Sorrentino, “Youth unemployment: an international perspective,”
July 1981, pp. 3-15; Constance Sorrentino, “International comparisons
of labor force participation, 1960-81,” February 1983, pp. 23-36;
and Todd M. Godbout, “Employment change and sectoral distribution
in 10 countries, 1970-90,” October 1993, pp. 3-20.
10 See the following Monthly Labor Review articles: Constance
Sorrentino, “Unemployment compensation in eight industrial
nations,” July 1976, pp. 18-24; Constance Sorrentino, “The changing
fam ily in international perspective,” March 1990, pp. 41 -5 8 ;
Constance Sorrentino, “ International unemployment indicators,
1983-93,” August 1995, pp. 3 1 -50; Susan Fleck and Constance
10
M o n th ly La b o r Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Jun e 2002
11 Constance Sorrentino, “International unemployment rates: how
comparable are they?” Monthly Labor Review, June 2000, pp. 3-20.
14 See these articles in the May 1963 M onthly Labor Review:
William C. Shelton and John H. Chandler, “The role of labor costs in
foreign trade,” pp. 485-90; and ’’International comparisons of unit
labor costs: concepts and methods,” pp. 538-47.
15 John H. Chandler and Patrick C. Jackman, “Unit labor costs in
eight countries since 1950,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1964, pp.
377-84.
16 The expansion of this program was carried out under the direction
of Arthur Neef, former Chief of the BLS Division of Foreign Labor
Statistics.
17 Edwin Dean, Masako Darrough, and Arthur Neef, “Alternative
Measures of Capital Inputs in Japanese Manufacturing,” in Charles R.
Hulten, ed., Productivity Growth in Japan and the United States,
N ational Bureau o f Economic Research (Chicago, U niversity of
Chicago Press), 1990.
18 Wolodar Lysko, “Manufacturing multifactor productivity in three
countriesf Monthly Labor Review, July 1995, pp. 39-55.
19 Arthur Neef and Edwin Dean, “Comparative Changes in Labor
Productivity and Unit Labor Costs by Manufacturing Industry: United
States and Western E urope,” paper presented at the American
Enterprise Institute Conference on Interindustry Differences in
Productivity Growth, Washington, DC., October 11-12, 1984; Arthur
Neef, “An International Comparison of Manufacturing Productivity
and Unit Labor Cost Trends,” paper presented at the Social Science
Research Council Conference on International Productivity and
Competitiveness, Palo Alto, California, October 28-30, 1988; and
Arthur Neef, “Comparative Changes in Labor Productivity: United
States and Western Europe,” paper presented at the Atlantic Economic
Conference, session on Recent Productivity Developments in Major
Nations, Williamsburg, Virginia, October 13, 1990.
20 This series was developed by Arthur Neef, former Chief of the
Division of Foreign Labor Statistics.
BLS
21 For a discussion of PPPs, see, for example, Michelle A. Vachris
and James Thomas, “ International price comparisons based on
purchasing power parity,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1999, pp.
3-12.
22 Wages in Japan and the United States: Report o f the Joint United
States-Japan Study (U.S. Department of Labor and Japan Ministry of
Labor and Ministry of International Trade and Industry), 1966.
23 Janet L. Norwood, “Wages in Japan and the United States,”
Monthly Labor Review, April 1967, pp. 25-28; and Janet L. Norwood,
“Composition of wages and supplements: U.S.-Japan comparisons,”
Monthly Labor Review, May 1967, pp. 30-34.
24 The development of this series from the ad-hoc request stage
through the major expansion to 30 countries was directed by Patricia
Capdevielle of the b l s Division of Foreign Labor Statistics.
25 Patricia Capdevielle, “Consumer Price Trends in 14 Industrially
Advanced Countries, 1958-67,” Labor Developments Abroad, August
1968, pp. 15-28; and Patricia Capdevielle “Consumer Price Trends
in 14 industrialized Countries, 1958 to June 1969,” Labor
Deveoppments Abroad, December 1969, pp. 12-27.
26 Articles were published on consumer expenditures and levels of
living from household expenditure surveys in nine countries from
1960 to 1965. Data were adjusted as much as possible to identical
household type and classification of consumer expenditures. See, for
example, Patricia Capdevielle, “Consumer Expenditures and Levels
of Consumption of Low Income and of High Income Wage and Salary
Workers Households in Nine Industrially Advanced Countries,” Labor
A ppendix: Labor statistics available from
The primary focus at BLS is to publish important labor
statistics, adjusted for comparability to U.S. concepts, for
major developed and developing countries, particularly if
adjusted statistics are not available elsewhere. BLS does not
cover all labor statistics series, nor does it attempt to cover
all the countries in the world.
On the other hand, the primary focus of international
statistical agencies is to publish statistics for as many countries
as possible, collected from national statistical offices within a
common set of guidelines. These agencies provide detailed
documentation of national sources and methods. But with few
exceptions, the statistics are not adjusted for comparability.
The international statistical agencies promote the
international comparability of labor statistics by means of
international recommendations on concepts and methods
and standard international classification systems. They also
publish technical manuals on measurement issues and
provide technical assistance and training.
The international (and supranational) agencies with labor
statistics programs are:
•
•
•
International Labour Office (ILO)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
Statistical Office of the European Communities
(Eurostat)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Developments Abroad, September 1969, pp. 23-34. Two other articles
relevant to standards of living were John H. Chandler, “Perspectives
on poverty 5: an international comparison,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 1969, pp. 55-62; and “Trends in Average Hourly and
Real Earnings of Wage Workers in Manufacturing, 10 Countries, 1958—
66,” Labor Developments Abroad, February 1968, pp. 10-17.
27 b l s also makes small adjustments to the Swedish statistics to add
persons age 65 and older into both the official measures o f the
employed and the unemployed and to subtract career military from
the employed.
28 Constance Sorrentino, “International unemployment rates: how
comparable are they?” Monthly Labor Review, June 2000, pp. 3-20.
29 The concept used in the b l s comparative series on hourly
compensation costs differs from the il o concept of labor costs. The
cost of recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services,
such as cafeterias and medical clinics, are included in the il o concept
of labor costs, but not in the b l s comparisons of hourly compensation
costs. These items are excluded by b l s because data are not available
for many countries.
30 Lucy P. Eldridge and Mark K. Sherwood, “A perspective on the
U.S.-Canada manufacturing productivity gap,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 2001, pp. 31-48.
31 The appendix provides a listing of major international agencies.
international organizations
Other international agencies which publish major labor
statistics series include:
•
•
•
United Nations ( u n )
World Bank
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
On the BLS foreign labor statistics Web site, links are
provided to these agencies for data complementary to the
labor statistics which BLS produce:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/availability.htm
Their publications include data for countries not covered by
BLS and additional data which supplement the BLS series.
Links are also provided to sources of international data
for topics not covered by BLS in a section entitled “People
are asking..
http://www.bls.gov/fls/peoplebox.htm
This section will be expanded on an ongoing basis.
International Labour Office (ILO)
Bureau of Statistics and Key Indicators of the Labour
Market (KlLM)Team
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/intro/
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/
kilm /
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
11
Providing C o m p a ra b le Data
The International Labor Office was founded in 1919 and
became the first specialized agency of the United Nations in
1946. The iLo’s mission is the promotion of social justice
and internationally recognized human and labor rights.
Almost every country in the world is a member. Among other
activities, the ilo supports a comprehensive labor statistics
program. The ilo collects labor statistics and publishes them
in seven major publications and databases:
Yearbook o f Labour Statistics. The Yearbook includes 31
tables covering economically active population, employ
ment, unemployment, hours of work, wages, labor cost,
consumer prices, occupational injuries, and strikes and
lockouts for more than 190 countries, areas, or territories.
The statistics are collected from member countries by means
of standardized questionnaires. Data published are carefully
documented regarding source, coverage, definitions, and
adherence to international standard classifications.
Bulletin o f Labour Statistics. The Bulletin includes series
av ailab le m onthly and quarterly on em ploym ent,
unemployment, hours of work, wages, and consumer prices.
Sources and Methods: Labour Statistics. This series of
annual Yearbook supplem ents provide the detailed
documentation of sources and methods for data published in
the Yearbook and Bulletin.
Statistics on occupational wages and hours o f work and on
fo o d prices, October Inquiry results. This publication
presents statistics for wages and hours of work for 159
occupations in 49 industry groups and prices for 93 food
items common throughout the world. Data are collected from
national statistical offices by means of a standardized
questionnaire.
K ey Indicators o f the Labour M arket. This annual
publication presents 20 labor market indicators covering
employment and unemployment, wages and labor costs, labor
productivity and unit labor costs, educational attainment,
and poverty and income distribution. The indicators are
carefully documented regarding definitions, sources, and
coverage.
D ata for the indicators are obtained from existing
compilations of other international or national statistical
agencies. The statistics are published in a variety of
traditional and electronic media, including the annual
publication, kilm on cd-rom, and KiLMnet on the Internet.
Economically Active Population 1950-2010. This is the
latest publication of periodic projections of the world labor force.
It is part of a United Nation interagency project to provide
demographic data coordinated and comparable in terms of dates.
12
M o n th ly L a bo r Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Jun e 2002
data sources, and estimation and projection methods. Data are
presented for all member countries by age and gender.
H ousehold Income and E xpenditure Statistics. This
publication is a periodic compendium of statistics from
household income and expenditure surveys. D ata are
published in standardized tables, along with documentation
of coverage and data sources for each country.
lLO-Comparable Annual Estimates o f Employment and
Unemployment. While most labor statistics published by
the ilo are presented in a common framework and carefully
documented, they are not adjusted for comparability. The
exception is a relatively new program of iLO-comparable
annual employment and unemployment estimates, which
presently covers 26 countries. The following series are
adjusted for conformity with ilo statistical guidelines:
working-age population, total and civilian labor force, labor
force participation rates, total and civilian employment and
employment by age and by economic sector, unemployment
by age, and unemployment rates, with selected data also
published by sex. Latest data were published in the second
quarter 2001 Bulletin o f Labour Statistics.
This online database contains the statistics
published in the Yearbook, Bulletin, October Inquiry, and
Economically Active Population publications. It is being
expanded to include population census data and the ilo C om parable A nnual E stim ates of E m ploym ent and
Unemployment.
labo rsta.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
Statistics and program directorates
http://www.oecd.org/std/
The oecd was first established to administer the Marshall
Plan for Europe after World War II. Later, the organization’s
mission was changed to coordinate economic policy among
industrial countries, and the United States and Canada became
members, oecd now has 30 member countries, including North
American countries, most European countries, Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, and Korea. The following are the oecd
publications which provide labor statistics:
Labour Force Statistics. This publication provides
comprehensive labor force statistics for the 30 member
countries: population, components of change in population,
by sex and age; total and civilian labor force, employment
and part-time employment, unemployment, unemployment
rate, and duration of unemployment by sex; and civilian
em ploym ent, em ployees, and professional status by
economic activity.
Statistics are presented in a common framework, and
national data sources and definitions summarized. Except for
standardized unemployment rates, data are not adjusted for
comparability.
Quarterly Labour Force Statistics. Quarterly statistics
covered are: total labor force, employment, unemployment,
unemployment rate, and employment by economic activity
for 22 member countries. The publication also includes data
on standardized unem ploym ent rates for 25 member
countries. (See below.)
Main Econom ic Indicators. This monthly statistical
publication provides a wide range of economic indicators
for the 30 member countries and about 10 nonmember
countries. Labor indicators included are employment,
unemployment, labor compensation, hours of work, job
vacancies, and time lost to labor disputes. Historical
statistics and additional indicators are available on CRROM and online.
Main Economic Indicators: Sources and Definitions. This
series o f publications contains summary descriptions of
sources, concepts and definitions, and methodologies for
series published in Main Economic Indicators. OECD also
publishes specialized methodological publications. Many
of these publications are available on the Internet.
OECD Employment Outlook. This annual report provides an
assessment of the latest labor market trends and short-term
forecasts, and examines in more depth selected labor market
developments or issues. It includes labor statistics to support
topics for analysis plus a regular statistical annex showing
key labor market data.
European Union (EU)
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/
The European Union evolved from the initial es
tablishment of the Council of Europe and the European Coal
and Steel Community with six member countries after World
War II. Today, it has 15 member states and is preparing for
the accession o f 13 eastern and southern European
countries. The e u is a “supranational organization” to which
member states delegate sovereignty to common institutions
representing the interests of the EU as a whole on questions
of joint interest.
Eurostat is responsible for collecting and publishing
statistics to meet the needs of the Commission o f the
European Union and the European Central Bank. Data are
collected by national statistical offices and transmitted to
Eurostat. Concepts and data collection methods are
sometimes dictated by the Commission; other times,
determined by consensus in series of Expert Working Groups.
Statistical series vary in their degree of comparability and
countries’ adherence to Eurostat guidelines. Statistics are
published in a series of general and detailed publications—
in collections called News Releases, Statistics in Focus,
Panorama o f the European Union, and Detailed Tables—
and maintained on an extensive database (New Cronos).
Many publications are available in electronic format.
Labor statistics collected include: harmonized labor force
survey, wage structure survey, labor cost survey, employee
earnings statistics, labor productivity indexes, and harmonized
consumer price indexes. Publications of labor statistics in the
Detailed Tables collection include the following: Labor force
survey results, Labour costs, Earnings in industry and services
— hours o f work in industry, Minimum wages— a comparative
study, and Net earnings o f employees in manufacturing industry
in the European Union.
Education in Focus: OECD Indicators. This report in
cludes statistics on labor force participation, unemployment,
and earnings by level of educational attainment.
United Nations (UN)
Taxing Wages. This annual report presents estimates of net
earnings, after income taxes, social security contributions,
and cash benefits for manufacturing production workers by
income level and family composition.
The United Nations was established in 1945 with the purpose
of maintaining international peace and security, cooperating in
solving international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian
problems and promoting human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Almost every country in the world is a member. The
United Nations and its specialized agencies have several
programs for the collection and publication of statistics. The
following publications include labor statistics:
Standardized Unemployment Rates. Unemployment rates
are computed for 25 countries according to standard ILOOECD guidelines and published in Labor Force Statistics.
Underlying unemployment and civilian labor force data are
not published, and no other labor force data are adjusted for
comparability.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Statistics Division
http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd
Statistical Yearbook. The Yearbook includes 85 tables
covering population and social statistics, economic activity,
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
13
Providing C o m p a ra b le D ata
and international economic relations for more than 235
countries, areas, or territories. Data are official statistics of
member countries, presented in a common framework, with
notes concerning differences from international norms. The
labor statistics included are employment by industry,
unemployment, wages in manufacturing, and consumer price
indexes, provided by the ILO.
M onthly Bulletin o f Statistics. The Bulletin includes
international economic indicators which are available monthly
or quarterly, including employment, unemployment, wages,
hours of work, and consumer price indexes provided by the ILO.
World Bank
Development Data Group
http://www.worldbank.org/data/
The World Bank is a lending institution whose aim is to
help integrate developing and transition countries with the
global economy, and to reduce poverty by promoting
economic growth. It has 181 member countries.
World Development Indicators. This annual report includes
85 sets of development indicators covering social progress and
quality of life, along with economic development, physical
infrastructure, government policy and performance, and the
condition of the environment. Indicators are based on statistics
provided by the ILO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization
(WHO), and the World Bank’s Development Research Group.
Time series are available on CD-ROM.
Labor market indicators include labor force structure,
employment by economic activity, unemployment, wages, hours
14 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
and productivity. Related social indicators cover population
dynamics, poverty and income or consumption distribution,
education, and health. The report includes summary analysis
and information about the data, along with the statistics.
International Monetary Fund (IM F)
Statistics Department
http://www.imf.org
http://dsbb.imf.org
The International Monetary Fund is an international
organization of 183 member countries. It was established to
promote international monetary cooperation, exchange
stability, and orderly exchange agreem ents; to foster
economic growth and high levels o f employment; and to
provide temporary financial assistance to countries to help
ease balance of payments adjustments.
International Financial Statistics. Major financial and
economic statistics are released in a monthly publication, a
yearbook, and time series on CD-ROM. Labor statistics included
are: labor force, employment, unemployment, and wages.
Dissemination Standards Bulletin Board. The Bulletin
Board includes the following: information about economic
and financial data series, concepts and definitions, coverage,
data collection methods, their quality and tim elines;
information about data dissemination practices; information
on data standards; and articles and other contributions
related to data quality issues. It was established to guide
countries in improving the quality of their economic, financial,
and socio-demographic statistics. The Bulletin Board is
posted on the IMF Web site.
Labor Market Performance
U.S. labor market performance
in international perspective
From 1960 to 2000, U.S. unemployment rates improved
from relatively high to the lowest among the G7 countries;
Canada and the United States were leaders in jo b creation,
while Japan and Europe had much weaker employment gains
Constance
Sorrentino
and
Joyanna Moy
C o n s ta n c e Sorrentino
Is a supervisory
econom ist in the
Division of Foreign
Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics; Jo yan n a
M oy is an econom ist
in the sam e division.
E-mail:
sorrentino_c@ bls.gov
or m oyJ@ bls.gov.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
or developed economies, monthly un
employment and employment changes are
considered the two most informative labor
market indicators, providing knowledge about
the current performance of the labor market and
the economy as a whole. International analyses
often focus on these two key indicators as well,
to compare the functioning o f labor markets
across countries. Researchers have attempted to
explain the reasons for international differences
and to glean lessons from the more “successful”
countries that may be applied toward bringing
down unemployment and stimulating job creation
in the less successful ones. In fact, the first BLS inter
national comparison of unemployment rates was
initiated at the request of a 1961 Presidential Com
mittee that was concerned about the apparently high
U.S. unemployment rate compared with rates in
Europe and Japan. The b l s program of comparative
labor force statistics evolved from that initial study
for the Committee,1and the data from that program
permit a long-term international perspective on
labor market outcomes.
Unemployment trends over the past 40 years
clearly show divergent paths taken by the United
States and Europe. From 1960 to 2000, the United
States moved from the position of being a country
with relatively high unemployment to a nation that
attained the lowest jobless rate among the G7 major
industrial countries (the United States, Canada,
Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and the United
Kingdom).2 By contrast, European unemployment
rates moved in the opposite direction, from low to
high, with the crossover occurring in the mid-
F
1980s. While Europe and the United States were
switching positions, Canada and Japan generally
maintained their places in the international array:
Canada’s jobless rate was frequently the highest,
and Japan’s was almost always the lowest, dur
ing the 40-year period.
In contrast to unemployment statistics, relative
em ploym ent trends were m ore consistent
throughout the period. The United States and
Canada generated the strongest job creation,
while Japan and Europe had much weaker em
ployment increases. The two North American
countries’ employment growth greatly surpassed
their population growth, while Europe’s and
Japan’s employment did not even keep pace with
more slowly rising populations. Canada’s job
creation success contravened its relatively high
unemployment rate over the four decades.3 The
United States had the best of both worlds: lower
unemployment rates and high job creation.
This article examines U.S. trends and levels
o f unemployment, employment, and related
statistics from 1960 to 2000, contrasting them
with corresponding trends and levels from the
other G7 countries. To facilitate comparisons, the
European members of the G7 are often treated
as a unit and referred to as “Europe (G4)” or
simply “Europe.”4 When numerical growth rates
and averages are given for Europe (G4), they are
simple arithmetic averages o f the respective
figures for France, Germany, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.
Most of the data presented are from the BLS
program of international labor force comparisons,
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
15
Labo r M arket P e rfo rm a n ce
About the data
Most of the data presented in this article are from the b l s program
of international labor force comparisons, in which the foreign data
are adjusted to U.S. concepts.1 In addition, comparative data
published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development ( o e c d ) are used to supplement the b l s data in order to
capture other important differences in labor market performance.
The o e c d data, however, do not cover the entire 40-year period
covered in the article; generally, o e c d data are limited to 1983 or
1984 onward. One tabulation in the article draws upon harmonized
unemployment rates produced by the Statistical Office o f the
European Comm unities (Eurostat). These data are closely
comparable to the unemployment rates in the b l s adjusted series.
bls
of Italian unemployment rates from 1960 to 1991 over those rates
shown as “adjusted to U.S. concepts” in the published b l s database. The
changes in the Italian questionnaires and definitions did not substantially
affect the employment figures; therefore, the employment series has
not been adjusted.
Another adjustment made for this article has to do with data on
Japanese men’s and women’s unemployment rates adjusted to U.S.
concepts. The b l s comparative database for Japan’s unemployment
rates by sex has not been updated for 1994 onward. Updates for 1994—
2000 are available from a study by a Japanese economist published in
the April Review,4 The data from that article have been used to complete
the series for Japanese unemployment rates by sex and will be added to
the bls comparative database in the next update.
data
oecd
Both national data and b l s adjustment methods have changed over the
years since 1960. Consequently, there are breaks in the historical continuity
of series for most countries. Some breaks are inconsequential, while others
represent a more significant discontinuity in the series that would seriously
affect estimates of growth rates or averages over periods of time. In order to
portray a more consistent long-term comparative picture, the Bureau
evaluated the various breaks and decided that adjustments should be made
to employment data for Germany and unemployment rates for Italy.
In the b l s comparative database, data for Germany refer to the
former West Germany through 1990 and to Germany (unified)
thereafter. Thus, there is a significant discontinuity between 1990 and
1991, when German employment increased by almost 10 million and
unemployment jumped by about a percentage point with the inclusion
of the people of the former East Germany. To estimate the
employment trends and employment-to-population ratios in this
article, the Bureau has calculated a hypothetical unified Germany
employment series back to I960.2
No adjustment is made, however, for the 1991 discontinuity in
German unemployment rates. There was no concept of un
employment under the former East Germany’s economic system;
therefore, there is no basis upon which to link an unemployment
series. Consequently, the reader should keep in mind that the upward
movement of German and, hence, Europe’s unemployment rates in
the 1990s is partly due to the absorption of the unemployment that
became measurable in the former East Germany after unification.3
For Italy, the statistics in the b l s comparative database contain
three significant breaks in series for unemployment rates, due to revised
questionnaires and definitions that materially affected the continuity
of the series. All of these revisions resulted in higher unemployment
estimates for Italy. For this article, the Bureau has estimated the effects
of the breaks and eliminated them, on the basis of links available for
1986, 1991, and 1992. The result is a substantial increase in estimates
data
Data compiled by the o e c d are used in this article to present in
formation on youth unemployment, the duration of unemployment,
employment-to-population ratios by age, and part-time and full-time
employment. The o e c d data are quite comparable to the corresponding
b l s data, although some adjustments for comparability that are made
by the Bureau are not made by the o e c d . There are some important
caveats, however, about the data on full-time and part-time employ
ment, mainly with respect to Japan:
Data collected by the o e c d on a standardized basis permit
comparisons of trends and levels of full-time and part-time work across
countries. The o e c d definition of part-time employment covers persons
usually working 30 or fewer hours per week in their main job. This
criterion is different from the U.S. definition, which covers persons
working fewer than 35 hours per week.
The most important caveat regarding data on full-time and parttime work is that the o e c d was not able to obtain an adjusted series
for Japan. Hence, Japan’s data in table 8 are not comparable to
those of the other countries, for two reasons: (1) the Japanese data
are based on “actual hours worked” rather than “usual hours worked,”
and (2) part-time employment in Japan is defined as working fewer
than 35 hours per week. Thus, the data for Japan are shown only for
tracking the broad trend in that country and should not be used to
compare levels with other countries.
Another caveat is that the U.S. data are for wage and salary workers
only, while the data for the other countries cover all employment. This
difference should not materially affect the comparisons, because paid
workers account for more than 90 percent of total U.S. employment.
Finally, the time-series data could not be adjusted to take account of the
unification of Germany; for that reason, the growth rates in table 8 were
calculated for the 1983-90 period for the former West Germany and for
the 1991-2000 period for unified Germany.
Notes to this box
1 The Bureau issues a semiannual compendium titled “Comparative Civilian
Labor Force Statistics, Ten Countries.” The latest edition, dated Mar. 25,2002, can
be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm. The compendium
is also available in printed form upon request from the authors.
2 The data for Germany were linked on the basis o f 1991 ratios of employment in
the former West Germany to employment in Germany (unified). Data were available
on both bases that year. In 1991, employment in the former West Germany accounted
for 77 percent o f total employment in Germany (unified).
3 Even excluding the former East Germany, German unemployment rates would
16 M onthly Labor R eview
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
still show increases in the 1990s, but they would be about a percentage point lower
than the figures shown for Germany in this article.
4 See Toshihiko Yamagami, “Underutilization o f labor resources in Japan and
the United States ,”Monthly Labor Review, April 2002, pp. 25-43; on the Internet
at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/04/art3full.pdf. For Japan, the Bureau
has long maintained series for men’s and women’s unemployment rates adjusted for
differences with U.S. concepts such that the differences tend to cancel out in the
overall unemployment rate. While these further adjustments are not made to the bls
series for the overall Japanese unemployment rate, they do have a significant impact on
the jobless rates for Japanese men and women, lowering the men’s rate and raising the
women’s rate.
but several series are from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and one is from the
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat).
The box on page 16 summarizes additional adjustments made
in the BLS database expressly for this article and presents
some caveats about comparability of the OECD data on full
time and part-time work.
The analysis begins with an investigation of overall com
parative labor market performance, focusing on unemployment
and employment trends over the past 40 years. This sets the
stage for a deeper investigation of the comparative un
employment experiences of men, women, and youths. Data on
the duration of unemployment illustrate a major difference in
the nature of joblessness in the United States, compared with
other countries. The article then turns to an analysis of
employment indicators, including the employment-topopulation ratio by age and sex, sectoral employment trends,
and trends in full-time and part-time jobs. Some other European
countries have diverged from the path set by the G4, and this
divergence is captured in a look at selected trends in other
European Union countries.
Numerous studies over the years, by both the Bureau and
other researchers, have attempted to explain the international
labor market differences described herein. A final section
summarizes the major findings of some of this literature.
Historical overview
Overall trends in unemployment and employment are described
for 1960-2000, including averages for three subperiods: 196073, 1973-90, and 1990-2000. Except for 1960, the first year
for which most of the BLS data are available, these periods are
broken at or near a business cycle peak for most countries and
correspond to those chosen for the analysis of manufacturing
productivity in another article in this issue of the Review.5 A
U.S. business cycle peak occurred in April 1960, with the cor
responding trough in February 1961. In 1973, the first “oil crisis”
plunged the industrial economies into recession in 1974-75,
when unemployment rose sharply, and 1990 preceded
substantial increases in unemployment in six of the seven
countries during 1991-92. Japan’s unemployment rate increases
came a little later, in 1993 and from then onward. With one
exception, employment was increasing and unemployment rates
were declining in all of the base years chosen for the analysis.
The exception was Japan in 2000, when employment moved
downward slightly and the unemployment rate remained stable.
Unemployment. Despite the disrupting influence of worldwide
cyclical movements and the particular economic ills that plagued
individual countries, the relative positions of the seven industrial
countries showed little change over the decades of the sixties
and seventies. Then the comparative picture began to change.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The first panel of chart 1 depicts the trends in unemployment
rates for the United States, Canada, Japan, and Europe (the
G4 nations) for 1960 through 2000. At the beginning of the
period and throughout the 1960s, unemployment was
comparatively high in both the United States and Canada and
very low in Japan and Europe.6
Although, over the 40-year period from 1960 to 2000, the
U.S. unemployment rate reached a low of 3.5 percent in 1969,
the figure was still significantly higher than that of Europe
and, especially, that of Japan the same year. In 1969, Japan’s
rate also had attained a 40-year low (1.1 percent), while
Germany’s rate (0.6 percent) was indicative of a severe labor
shortage. (Still, Germany’s rate had been lower by half earlier
in the decade, when that nation had to import millions of
Gastarbeiter—“guest workers”— to keep the wheels of
industry turning.7) Italy’s unemployment rate was above the
rate for the United States, while the French and British rates,
although not as low as Germany’s, were under the record low
U.S. rate.
Prior to the first “oil shock” in 1973, unemployment in the
United States had already risen in 1971-72 over the 1970
level, while rates remained fairly low in Japan and Europe.
In 1975, joblessness surged in all the G7 countries, with the
U.S. rate of 8.5 percent the highest in the group. The U.S.
rate proceeded to move downward sharply during the rest of
the 1970s, while jobless rates generally rose even further in
the other G7 countries.
The second “oil shock,” in 1979, and the recession that
followed in the early 1980s again resulted in substantial
increases in the unemployment rate in all of the countries
examined. This time, however, Canada’s rate moved higher
than the U.S. rate. As the U.S. rate subsequently moved
downward in the 1980s and European rates continued to rise,
the U.S. rate fell below the European (G4) average for the first
time. Even when European rates moved slowly downward in
the latter 1980s, the U.S. rate continued to be below the
European rate, a situation that has remained through the latest
year studied.
In the early 1990s, recessions resulted in rising unem
ployment in all of the countries examined, except for Japan.
Rates subsequently moved downward in the United States,
Canada, and Europe, but the European decline was slower.
By 2000, the average unemployment rate for Europe was the
highest among the G7 groups, and the U.S. rate was the
lowest. Japan’s rate began to rise significantly in 1993, and
by the end of the period, it had surpassed the U.S. rate for the
first time in the 40-year period studied.
Table 1 shows the average unemployment rate for the entire
period for each of the seven countries studied and for the three
subperiods. On average, for the entire 1960-2000 period, Japan
maintained the lowest jobless rates, 2.2 percent. The U.S.
average was nearly 3 times as high. Europe’s (G4) average was
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
17
Labo r M arket P erfo rm a n ce
Chart 1.
Unemployment rates and employment trends in G7 countries, 1960-2000
Percent
Percent
12
10
-
2
No t e : Trend line for Europe includes data for the former West Germany through 1990; thereafter, the data
refer to Germany (unified).
S o u r c e : Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Rate
Rate
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
S o u r c e : Bureau of Labor Statistics.
18 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
Table 1.
Average unemployment rates in G7 countries, selected periods, 1960-2000
[In percent]
C o u n try
United S ta te s ..........................
Canada ...................................
Japan ......................................
Europe (G 4 ):...........................
F ra n c e .................................
Germ any1 ............................
Italy2 ....................................
United K in g d o m ..................
1960-2000
1960-73
1973-90
1990-2000
6.0
7.3
2.2
6.1
6.6
4.2
7.3
6.4
4.9
5.1
1.3
2.6
2.0
.7
4.7
2.9
6.9
8.1
2.2
6.8
7.4
4.6
7.2
7.9
5.6
8.6
3.2
9.4
11.1
7.9
10.5
8.0
1 Former W est Germany through 1990; Germany (unified) thereafter.
2Adjusted for breaks in historical continuity of the series.
slightly below the U.S. figure, while Canada had the highest
average unemployment rate over the whole period, 7.3
percent.
The period 1960-73 was the time frame of lowest average
unemployment rates for all G7 countries during the 40 years
examined. In 1973-90, unemployment rose, on average, in all
of the countries, with the highest relative increases occurring in
Europe, where the average almost tripled compared with the
previous period’s figure. During the 1990-2000 period, the
United States had the distinction of being the only G7 country in
which the average unemployment rate was lower than it was in
1973-90. The increases in unemployment were greatest in the
European countries (with the exception of the United Kingdom,
where the rate was virtually unchanged) and moderate in Canada.
Japan’s average, although still the lowest of all the countries,
was much higher than it was in the 1973-90 period.
Employment. The second panel of chart 1 portrays em
ployment trends over the 40-year period studied. Overall, the
U.S. job creation rate of 1.8 percent per year was surpassed
only by Canada’s, which was half a percentage point greater.
By contrast, Japan and Europe had rather flat employment
performance. Unlike the trend lines for Japan and Europe,
recessionary downturns in employment are clearly evident in
the charted lines for the United States and Canada, with the
downturns or pauses always followed by a resumption of
strong employment growth.
The United States maintained its relatively high employment
growth rate during both 1960-73 and 1973-90, while the pace
tapered off in Canada and Japan in the latter period. (See table
2.) Europe’s very low rate of employment growth inched upward
in 1973-90. By the 1990s, annual rates of change in employment
turned downward in all countries except France. Employment
growth was virtually nil in Germany, and employment declined
slightly in Italy. Employment increases in France and the United
Kingdom outpaced the low European (G4) average.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source:
C o m p a ra tiv e Civilian L a b o r F o r c e Statistics, Ten C ou ntries, 1 9 5 9 -
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar.
www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm.
2001
25, 2002); on the Internet at http://
Although lower than the 2-percent growth rate of the previous
period, the U.S. annual employment growth rate of 1.3 percent
in 1990-2000 was 6 times the growth rate of Europe (G4), 4
times that of Japan, and almost the same as that of the perennial
employment growth leader, Canada.
The huge comparative difference between the United States
and Europe, a wider gap than in 1973-90, resulted in references
to “the great American job machine” and the “U.S. Employment
Miracle.”8The U.S. performance became the envy of most other
industrial countries, far different from the sentiments of the early
1960s, when the United States looked to European countries as
exemplars of effective labor markets.
The foregoing broad picture of historical unemployment and
employment trends sets the stage for a deeper investigation of
(1) unemployment and employment for major demographic
groups, (2) the duration of unemployment, and (3) the sectors
and types of jobs for which changes were occurring. The
investigation begins with unemployment indicators.
Additional unem ploym ent indicators
Chart 2 reveals differences across countries in the un
employment experience of men compared with women and
youths compared with adults. In addition, the chart highlights
large contrasts in the duration of unemployment. The BLS
database is supplemented by statistics from the OECD on youth
and adult unemployment rates and on the duration of
unemployment.
Men and women. Both North American countries moved
toward, and then achieved, equality in unemployment rates
for men and women. Japan and Europe appear to be moving
in that direction also, but have not yet achieved equality. (See
first panel of chart 2.)
In the United States, men had significantly lower un
employment rates than women every year from 1960 to 1981.
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
19
Labo r M arket P erfo rm a n ce
But men’s rates began increasing relative to those of women
in the 1970s and moved higher than women’s during the
1980s recession. Subsequently, the rates equalized for some
years, and then men’s rates again rose higher than women’s
when recession occurred in the early 1990s. Later in the
1990s, women’s and men’s jobless rates again equalized.
Canada had back-and-forth shifts in the relationship of men’s
to women’s unemployment, with men having higher rates in
the early 1960s and again in the 1990s, after some periods of
equalization in the intervening years. By contrast, Japanese
and European men had substantially lower jobless rates than
women had throughout the 40 years studied.
In Europe, the male-female gap in unemployment rates
remained remarkably stable over the 40 years, while Japan
achieved some narrowing of the sex differential in 1973-90
and a further narrowing in the 1990s. (See table 3.) The
United Kingdom had a different profile from the other
European (G4) countries: in all periods, British women had
notably lower unemployment rates than men, and the
differential widened in the 1990s.
Youths and adults. In most industrial countries, un
employment rates for young people historically have been
higher than those for their elders. Youth unemployment rates
are, of course, affected by the overall job situation in each
country. Therefore, ratios of youth (those under 25 years) to
adult (25 to 54 years) unemployment rates are compared in
table 4, with averages for two periods plotted in the second
panel of chart 2, based on OECD data for 1984-2000.9 (OECD
data for earlier years were not available for all the G7
countries.) Such ratios may be affected by the general level
o f unemployment to some extent, but they highlight the
relative problems of youths in the labor market.
The ratios shown in the chart are average ratios for the
1984-90 and 1990-2000 periods. There was little change
Table 2.
over the two periods, with the differentials between youths
and adults rising slightly in the United States and Canada,
declining somewhat in Europe (G4), and holding about steady
in Japan. Europe’s decline was due mainly to a sharp decrease
in the youth-adult ratio in Italy.
In the United States, young persons are 2 to almost 3 times
as likely as adults to be unemployed. This differential was
about the same as the overall averages for Europe and Japan
for 1984-2000. Canada’s youths experienced a much lower
gap in unemployment rates with adults. Within Europe, there
were sharp contrasts: Italian youths were 4 to 5 times as like
ly to be unemployed as their adult counterparts, while
German youths had jobless rates about the same as adults
throughout the period. (See table 4.)
Duration o f unemployment. Almost h alf o f E urope’s
unemployed remain jobless for a year or longer, while less
than 10 percent fall into that category in the United States.
(See bottom panel of chart 2, based on OECD data.) In 1983,
the United States, Canada, and Japan had about the same
proportion of long-duration unemployment, while Europe’s
was far higher. During the 1980s, the proportion declined
somewhat in the United States and Canada, rose in Japan,
and remained very high in Europe. All countries except
Japan showed a rising trend in the early 1990s. Japan’s longduration unemployment worsened in the last half o f the
decade, while the other G7 countries showed some small
improvement.
The data on duration of unemployment reveal an important
difference in the nature of unemployment in the United States
compared with Europe. The proportion of long-term unem
ployment in Europe remains persistently high even during and
after recoveries. In the United States, it is relatively low even
during downturns in the economy. Thus, the burden of
unemployment tends to fall on a smaller proportion of the
Employment growth rates in G7 countries, selected periods, 1960-2000
[Average annual rate of change]
Country
1960-2000
United S ta te s ......................................
Canada ...............................................
Japan ..................................................
Europe (G 4 ):.......................................
F ra n c e .............................................
Germ any1........................................
Ita ly .................................................
United K in g d o m ..............................
1.8
2.3
1.0
.3
.6
.2
.1
.4
1960-73
2.0
2.9
1.4
.3
1.0
.3
-.5
.3
1973-90
2.0
2.3
1.0
.5
.3
.3
.7
.5
1 Employment adjusted to Germany (unified) throughout the period.
2001
S ource:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm.
C o m p a ra tiv e C iv ilia n L a b o r F o r c e Statistics, Ten C o u n trie s, 1 9 5 9 -
20
M o nthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
1990-2000
1.3
1.4
.3
.3
.6
.1
-.1
.4
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 25, 2002); on the Internet at
Chart 2. Unemployment indicators by sex, age, and duration in G7 countries
Ratio
Ratio
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1992
1988
1996
2000
No t e : Data for Japan are from 1970 to 2000; data for Europe (G4) are from 1962 to 2000.
Percent
Percent
4
Average ratios of youth to adult
unemployment rates, 1984-2000
I 1984-90
3
3
1990-2000
2 h
2
1
1
0
United States
Japan
C anada
Europe (G4)
No t e : Youths are under 25 years; adults are 25 to 54 years.
Percent of total
unemployment
70
Persons unemployed 1 year or longer, as a
percent of total unemployment, 1983-2000
60
Percent of total
unemployment
70
60
Europe (G4)
50 -
50
- 40
40 -
- 30
Japan
20
10
United States
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000
Note : Trend line for Europe (G4) includes data for the former West Germany through 1990; thereafter, the
data refer to Germany (unified).
S o urce : Top panel, Bureau of Labor Statistics; middle and bottom panels, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Labor Force Statistics, 1980-2000.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
June
2002
21
Labo r M arket P e rfo rm a n ce
Table 3.
Annual average ratios of men’s to women’s
unemployment rates in G7 countries, selected
periods, 1960-2000
Country
1960-2000
United S t a te s ..........
C a n a d a ....................
Jap an1.....................
Europe (G 4 ):...........
F r a n c e .................
Germany2 ............
It a ly .....................
United Kin gd o m ....
0.9
1.0
.6
.8
.6
.8
.5
1.2
1960-73
0.8
1.1
.5
.8
.4
.8
.6
1.2
1973-90
1990-2000
0.9
.9
.6
.7
.6
.7
.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
.8
.9
.7
.8
.5
1.4
1Data begin with 1970.
2 Former W est Germany through 1990; Germany (unified) thereafter.
S ource :
C o m p a r a t iv e C iv ilia n L a b o r F o r c e S ta tistics, Ten C o u n tr ie s ,
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 25, 2002); on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/fls/hom e.htm .
1 9 5 9 -2 0 0 1
population in Europe, while in the United States and Canada, a
greater percentage of the population experiences a spell of
unemployment over the course of a year.
A d d itio n al e m p loym en t indicators
This section takes a more indepth look at employment by
examining employment-to-population ratios overall and by sex
and age. In addition, investigations of trends in employment in
agriculture and in goods-producing and service-producing
industries and analyses of trends in part-time and full-time jobs
reveal further important contrasts between the United States
and other countries.
Employment ratios. The employment-to-population ratio
(hereinafter, simply the employment ratio) indicates how a
country’s employment growth compares with the growth in its
working-age population. Employment growth surpassed
working-age population growth in the United States and Canada,
and employment ratios moved upward. (See chart 3.) Meanwhile,
employment did not keep up with working-age population
growth in Japan and Europe, and those countries’ ratios
generally moved downward. Cyclical fluctuations were greater
in employment ratio trends for the United States and Canada
than for Japan and Europe.
At the beginning of the period, employment ratios were lowest
in Canada and the United States, but by the end of the period,
the United States had the highest ratio, followed by Canada.
Japan began the period with the highest employment ratio by
far, but it fell below the ratios of the two North American
countries by the mid-1980s.
Employment ratios in Europe (G4) declined over the past 40
years and are now far below those of the other G7 countries.
Within the G4 nations, the drop was steepest in Italy. (See table
22
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
5.) The United Kingdom’s employment ratio was much closer to
that of the two North American countries than to Europe’s
average.
Employment ratios were rising for women and falling for men
over the long term. (See chart 4 and table 5.) Again, there were
greater fluctuations in the U.S. and Canadian ratios and milder
ones in the Japanese and European ratios.
The employment ratios for men were highest in Europe and
Japan in the 1960s and lowest in Canada and the United States.
By 2000, employment ratios for Japanese and U.S. men were
about equal, while the rate for European men dropped to the
lowest among men in any of the G7 groups. In the United States
and Canada, employment ratios for men rose slowly during most
of the expansionary years of the 1980s and 1990s, counter to the
historical downward trend, but the ratio for Japanese and
European men continued downward.
Employment ratios for women increased in every G7 group
except Japan, but the European (G4) increase was due mainly to
a large gain by British working women. Employment ratios
showed little increase in the other G4 members, and in Italy they
fell until around the mid-1980s, before rising again to reach their
1960 level by 2000. For Japanese women, the trend was one of
decline until the late 1970s and a leveling off thereafter.
In 1960, U.S. women had a much lower employment ratio than
Japanese women and a slightly lower ratio than European
women. By 2000, U.S. women had the highest employment ratio
of women in any of the G7 countries, with Canadian women
close behind. Canadian women recorded the strongest increases,
experiencing a near doubling in their employment ratio from 1960
to 2000.
Comparative employment ratios are greatly influenced by the
varying ratios for certain age groups. In particular, there is little
variation across countries in employment ratios for workers in
their prime working ages (25 to 54 years), but large variations in
employment ratios for youths (under 25 years) and older workers
(55 to 64 years). (See chart 5.) The basic similarities and
differences among the G7 countries appearing in chart 5 have
held since at least the early 1980s. (See table 6.)
The United States had the highest proportion of working
youths, a much higher rate than in Japan and Europe and slightly
higher than Canada’s rate. At the other end of the age spectrum,
Japan had the highest employment ratio for older workers, and
the United States was next in line. The U.S. ratio was 20
percentage points higher than the older worker ratio for Europe
and about 10 percentage points higher than the rate for Canada.
Employment ratios for the younger and older U.S. populations
grew from 1983 to 2000, while they declined or held steady
elsewhere, except for Canadian youths, whose employment rates
also moved upward.
In the United States and Canada, persons in the prime working
ages had substantial increases in employment ratios from 1983
to 2000, compared with their counterparts in Japan and Europe.
The small increases for prime-age workers, combined with the
declines in employment rates for younger or older workers,
explain the long-term downward trend in employment ratios
depicted in chart 3 for Japan and Europe. By contrast, the United
States and Canada saw increasing employment rates in all three
of the age groupings, although Canada’s older workers had only
a slight increase.
In the goods-producing industries, employment increases
occurred in the United States, Japan, and Canada. In Europe,
employment in this sector either declined (in France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom) or held steady (in Italy).
The service-producing industries were the engine of job
growth throughout the G7 countries. Employment growth in
the service-producing sector was stronger than it was in the
goods-producing sector in all seven countries, with the
strongest showing in the United States and Canada.
In 2000, the service-producing sector accounted for between
three-fifths and three-quarters of total employment in the
countries studied. Employment in goods-producing industries
made up one-fifth to one-third of total employment. In contrast,
employment in agriculture accounted for 5 percent or less of
total employment in all of the countries studied.10
Sectoral employment. Over the past 40 years, employment
trends in the three major economic sectors—agriculture, goodsproducing industries and service-producing industries—were
quite different both within and across countries. (See chart 6
and table 7.) The superior employment performances of the
United States and Canada stemmed mainly from their much
larger gains in service-sector employment, lower losses in
agriculture, and maintenance of some growth in the goodsproducing sector.
Employment in agriculture fell in all o f the countries
examined, but the losses were smaller in the two North American
countries. Japan and Europe (particularly France, Germany, and
Italy) experienced large percentage declines in agricultural em
ployment. These countries began the period with substantially
larger agricultural sectors than the others, which already had
suffered big losses from the agriculture sector earlier in the 20th
century.
Table 4.
Full-time and part-time employment. This section is based
upon an OECD standardized series on full-time and part-time
employment. (See box on page 16 for information about this
series and some caveats about the comparability of the
Japanese data in particular.)
Most U.S. employment growth since 1983 has been in full
time jobs. (See table 8.) The United States was the only G7
country with a declining proportion of part-time employment
during 1983-2000. In Europe, employment growth has been weak
Ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates in G7 countries, selected years, 1984-2000
—
Year
1984 ................
1985 ................
1986 ................
1987 ................
1988 ................
1989 ................
1990 ................
1991 ................
1992 ................
1993 ................
1994 ................
1995 ................
1996 ................
1997 ................
1998 ................
1999 ................
2000 ................
Averages:
1984-2000 ....
1984-90 ........
1990-2000 ....
Europe
(G4)
United
States
Canada
Japan
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.2
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.7
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.4
1 Former W est Germany through 1990; Germany (unified) thereafter.
N ote :
Youth are defined as persons under 25 years; adults are persons
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Germany'
Italy
United
Kingdom
3.7
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
5.4
6.4
5.6
5.2
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.9
2.5
1.1
1.3
1.1
4.4
5.1
3.9
2.0
1.8
2.1
France
aged 25 to 54 years.
S ource : L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s, 1 9 8 0 - 2 0 0 0 , P a r t III (Paris, Organization
for Econom ic Cooperation and Development, 2001).
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
23
Labo r M arket P e rfo rm a n ce
Chart 3.
Employment-to-population ratios in G7 countries, 1960-2000
Percent
Percent
S o urce : Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chart 4.
Employment-to-population ratios by sex in G7 countries, 1960-2000
Percent
Percent
S o u r c e : Bureau of Labor Statistics.
24
M o nthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
Table 5.
Employment-to-population ratios in G7 countries, 1960, 1973, 1990, 2000
[In percent]
Year and sex
United
States
Canada
Japan
Europe
(G4)
France
Germany'
Italy
United
Kingdom
62.0
58.5
55.1
52.8
54.0
45.8
43.9
42.9
60.6
60.3
59.6
59.8
85.1
78.3
68.2
61.7
79.5
69.3
60.0
56.5
85.0
79.1
70.3
67.5
42.6
41.2
43.1
44.6
31.0
24.5
29.2
30.5
38.9
43.4
49.8
52.6
Both sexes:
1960 ........................
1973 ........................
1990 ........................
2000 ........................
56.1
57.8
62.8
64.5
52.6
56.4
62.2
62.1
66.7
63.2
61.3
59.0
58.8
55.1
52.4
51.7
58.6
55.8
50.9
51.1
Men:
1960
1973
1990
2000
........................
........................
........................
........................
78.9
75.5
72.0
71.8
76.9
74.3
70.6
68.3
82.8
80.8
75.4
72.5
83.2
75.2
65.0
61.2
74.2
61.3
59.0
Women:
1960 ........................
1973 ........................
1990 ........................
2000 ........................
35.5
42.0
54.3
57.7
28.6
39.1
54.1
56.1
51.8
46.8
48.0
46.4
37.5
37.1
40.9
42.9
39.2
41.5
43.9
1 Employment ratios are adjusted to Germany (unified) throughout the
period.
N ote : Dash indicates data not available.
in general, but, in addition, the increases that did occur were
mainly in part-time employment. This appears also to be the
case in Japan.
In 2000, part-time employment constituted 12 percent to 13
percent of total employment in the United States and Italy, but
almost twice that proportion in the United Kingdom. Japan’s
proportion of part-time work appears to have been very high,
but the Japanese data are not closely comparable to those for
the other countries, being overstated to an unknown degree.
Chart 7 tracks the ratio of full-time to part-time employment
from 1983 to 2000. (Note that the jump in the trend line for Europe
(G4) in 1991 was due to the absorption of workers from the
former East Germany, who were predominantly full-time workers
in the Soviet system.) Europe began the period with the highest
ratio of full-time to part-time workers, but the trend was sharply
downward thereafter. The United States began the period with a
ratio considerably below Europe’s, but ended with the highest
ratio: full-time employment was 7 times as high as part-time
employment, while in Europe it was 5 times as high. In Canada,
the ratio was somewhat lower. Japan’s trend (not shown in the
chart) also was sharply downward.
Europe b e yo n d the G 4 countries
Several European countries that are not members of the G4 have
had labor market experiences somewhat different from those of
France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Table 9 shows
unemployment rates for other countries in the European Union.11
The data for all countries except Sweden are from harmonized
unemployment rates produced by Eurostat. The data for Sweden
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S o urce:
—
—
La b o r F o rce
S t a t is t i c s ,
1 9 8 0 -2 0 0 0 ,
P a r t III
(P a ris,
Organization for Econom ic Cooperation and Development, 2001).
are from the b l s comparisons program. Unemployment rates for
the entire period back to 1960 are available only for Sweden;
therefore, the table focuses on the more recent trends.
Sweden had an extraordinarily low unemployment rate in 1990,
and in the years back to 1960 the rate never rose above 3.5
percent on an annual basis. However, the Swedish jobless rate
surged to 9.3 percent in 1993 and then continued to climb to
about 10 percent in 1997 before abating. Over the period 19902000, Sweden’s average unemployment rate of 7.3 percent was
about 2 percentage points below the G4 average. Several of the
other non-G4 European countries had lower unemployment rates
than the G4 average for the 1990s, with Austria and the
Netherlands well below even the U.S. average rate of 5.6 percent
for the period. By contrast, Spain, with rates above 20 percent in
some years of the 1990s, greatly surpassed the European (G4)
average.
The Netherlands also provides an exception to the slow
employment growth of Europe (G4). Dutch employment grew
at about the same pace as that in the United States from 1973 to
2000,12 but the nature of Dutch job growth was quite different
from U.S. job growth: Dutch employment gains were virtually
all in part-time positions. In 1983, part-time jobs made up only
7 percent of all employment in the Netherlands; by 2000, the
proportion had rocketed to one-third of all Dutch employment,
the highest share among the European Union countries.
Perspectives on differences
The divergent experiences of labor markets in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and Japan have spawned a host of
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
25
Labor Market Perform ance
Chart 5. Employment-to-population ratios by age in G7 countries, 2000
Percent
100
Percent
100
—
Yc
90 . Youths
90
80 -
80
70 60
70
-
H 60
50 -
50
40 -
40
Il
30 -
30
20 -
20
10 -
10
0
0
—
United States
Canada
Japan
Europe (G4)
Percent
Percent
100
1uu
Prime-age workers
90
90
80
80
M M iM H
70
70
WÈÊêmêmmsmii
60
60
50
50
wÊIKBÊÊÊÊmSÊÊK
40
40
: ■
30
30
20
H 20
10
10
0
0
United States
Canada
Japan
Europe (G4)
Percent
100
90
Percent
100
Older Workers
90
80 -
80
70 -
H 70
60 -
60
50 -
50
40 -
40
30 -
: :
20 -
30
20
10 -
10
0
0
United States
Canada
Japan
Europe (G4)
NOTE: Youths are under 25 years, prime-age workers are 25 to 54 years, and older workers are 55 to 64 years.
SOURCE: E m ploym en t Outlook (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, June 2001), Statistical
Annex, Table C.
26
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Table 6.
Employment-to-population ratios by age and sex in G7 countries, 1983, 1990, and 2000
[In percent]
Both sexes
Men
Women
Country and age
group
1983
1990
2000
1983
1990
2000
1983
United States:
1 6 -2 4 ..............................
2 5 - 5 4 ..............................
5 5 - 6 4 ..............................
55.6
73.7
51.4
59.8
79.7
54.0
59.8
81.5
57.7
59.2
86.1
65.2
63.5
89.1
65.2
62.0
89.0
65.6
Canada:
15-24 ..............................
25 -54 ..............................
55-64 ..............................
53.6
71.9
47.9
61.1
78.0
46.3
56.3
79.9
48.4
54.3
84.6
66.4
62.3
86.4
60.3
J a p a n :................................
15-24 ..............................
25-54 ..............................
55-64 ..............................
42.2
76.6
61.3
42.2
79.6
62.9
42.7
78.6
62.7
41.9
95.2
95.2
Europe (G4):
1 5 - 2 4 ..............................
2 5 - 5 4 ..............................
55-64 ..............................
45.9
72.2
39.9
47.3
74.5
38.4
39.8
76.7
37.7
F ra n c e :.............................
15-24 ..............................
25-54 ..............................
55-64 ..............................
36.7
76.9
39.9
29.5
77.4
35.6
G erm any:1
15-24 .............................
25 -54 ..............................
55-64 ..............................
51.6
71.4
38.1
Italy:.................................
15-24 .............................
25-54 .............................
55-64 .............................
United Kingdom:
1 6 -2 4 ..............................
2 5 -5 4 ..............................
5 5 -6 4 ..............................
1990
2000
52.2
62.0
39.4
56.1
70.6
44.0
57.6
74.3
50.5
56.7
85.9
57.7
52.9
59.1
30.9
59.9
69.7
33.0
55.8
74.0
39.3
41.4
96.2
80.4
42.5
93.5
78.4
42.5
58.1
45.1
43.0
62.9
46.5
43.0
63.6
47.8
50.8
90.0
56.4
51.3
89.1
52.1
43.3
87.1
46.7
40.9
54.4
25.6
43.2
59.9
25.7
36.3
66.1
29.0
23.3
78.3
34.2
42.8
91.9
50.4
33.6
89.8
43.0
26.7
87.0
38.4
30.5
61.9
30.4
25.2
65.1
28.8
20.0
69.6
30.2
56.4
73.6
36.8
48.4
80.2
38.6
54.6
88.4
57.4
58.7
86.9
52.0
52.5
89.4
48.2
48.4
53.7
24.0
54.0
59.6
22.4
44.2
70.8
29.0
34.4
67.0
34.1
33.3
68.0
32.0
26.1
67.7
27.3
40.9
93.2
55.3
38.8
90.2
50.9
30.2
84.6
40.3
28.1
41.8
14.6
27.8
46.2
14.7
22.0
50.7
15.2
60.7
73.3
47.5
70.1
79.0
49.2
61.5
80.4
50.5
64.8
86.4
62.6
74.2
89.5
62.4
63.9
87.5
59.8
56.5
60.2
33.4
65.9
68.6
36.7
58.9
73.1
41.4
1 Former W est Germany in 1983 and 1990; Germany (unified) in 2000.
S ource:
E m p lo y m e n t O u t lo o k
(P a ris,O rg a n iza tio n for E c o n o m ic
studies, many of which have tried to determine the underlying
causes of these differences. Earlier studies sought to explain the
relatively high U.S. unemployment rates, while studies after the
mid-1980s attempted to explain the success of the U.S. labor
market compared with that in Europe, in terms o f both
unemployment rates and employment growth. Other research
delved into reasons underlying differences in youth un
employment rates, labor force participation rates, and sectoral
employment trends. A few studies looked beyond un
employment to international comparisons of broader measures
of underutilization, and bilateral (that is, two-country) studies
investigated the U.S.-Japan and the U.S.-Canadian un
employment gaps. Research on “labor market flexibility”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cooperation and Development, June 2001 and July 1997), Statistical Annex,
Table C.
examined the impact of various institutions and legislation on
comparative employment and unemployment. This section
begins with summaries of some BLS studies, almost all of them
published in the Review, and concludes with a brief discussion
of selected research by other individuals and organizations.
Myers and Chandler. In 1961, the President’s Committee to
Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics asked the
Bureau to prepare a study of definitional and other reasons for
the high unemployment rate in the United States, compared with
rates in other industrialized countries. In response, Robert J.
Myers and John H. Chandler presented one of the first analyses
of international unemployment differences to the Committee,
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
27
Labor Market Perform ance
Chart 6. Annual average employment growth rates by sector In G7 countries, 1960-2000
Percent
change
Percent
change
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
and summaries were published in the August and September
1962 Monthly Labor Review}* The September report was a
followup to their study in the August issue showing that
divergence in the statistical methods and definitions used in
compiling unemployment statistics was a relatively minor
influence in explaining differences in the 1960 unemployment
rates in the eight countries studied. In their September article,
Myers and Chandler investigated demographic, economic, legal,
and social factors that might have affected the comparative levels
of unemployment rates. Their study found no one factor to be
the “most important” in explaining the high U.S. rate.
Demographic factors and the composition of the workforce
did not go very far in providing a satisfactory general explanation
of the differences in unemployment rates among the countries
covered. Myers and Chandler concluded that the countries with
lower unemployment rates than the United States differed from
it in two main respects: (1) they experienced a considerably faster
rate of economic growth during the 1950s; and (2) as a result of
their own individual customs and traditional employment
relationships, their workers enjoyed somewhat more assurance
of job stability than did U.S. workers.
Bulletin on unemployment comparisons. In 1978,
Sorrentino updated Myers and Chandler’s analysis in a chapter
that was included in a comprehensive bulletin on unemployment
BLS
28
M onthly Labor R eview
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
comparisons.14 The study concluded that the following factors
together helped to explain the comparatively high U.S.
unemployment rates that prevailed during the 1960-78 period:
(1) the relatively rapid increase in the U.S. labor force, compared
with much slower growth or declining labor forces in Europe
and Japan; (2) a higher and still growing proportion of U.S.
youth in the workforce (a result o f the U.S. postwar baby
boom), which was significant because young persons tended
to have much higher unemployment rates than adults; (3) the
relatively small proportion of the U.S. labor force engaged in
agriculture and the large wage and salary component, together
exposing more people to the possibility of unemployment (by
contrast, some foreign countries still had relatively large
agricultural sectors, and most had a large proportion of small,
family-owned businesses, which shielded self-employed and
unpaid family workers from the threat of unemployment); (4)
cyclical flows of foreign workers, termed “guest workers,” to
and from certain European countries, which helped to dampen
unemployment increases during recessions; (5) widespread use
of short-time work compensation systems abroad, which allowed
employers to reduce hours instead of laying off workers; and (6)
higher turnover rates and greater worker mobility in the United
States, compared with strongerjob security in Europe and Japan,
causing higher levels of “frictional” unemployment in the United
States.
Sectoral employment trends. In 1971, Sorrentino analyzed
sectoral employment shifts in the major industrial countries over
the 1950-70 period, and this work was updated by Godbout in
1993 to cover the 1970-90 period.15 The articles explain that,
generally, with a nation’s economic development and progress
in industrialization, the distribution of the employed population
shifts from agriculture to industrial activities and, further, from
these sectors to service activities. The United States emerged as
the world’s first “service economy,” defined as an economy with
more than 50 percent of employment in service-producing
activities, shortly after World War II. With some lag, the other
industrial nations were found to be following that pattern of
sectoral development.
Table 7.
Country
Agriculture
United S ta te s ..............
Canada .......................
Japan ..........................
Europe (G4):.............
F ra n c e .....................
Germany1................
Italy........................
United K in g d o m ......
-1.2
-1.2
-3.5
-3.7
-3.8
-4.2
-4.3
-2.4
Goodsproducing
industries
Serviceproducing
industries
2.5
3.1
2.1
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.4
0.8
1.4
1.2
-.6
-.6
-.7
.0
-1.2
1 Employment adjusted to Germany (unified) throughout the period.
N ote : Agriculture encompasses forestry, hunting, and fishing. Goodsproducing industries are mining, manufacturing, and construction. Serviceproducing industries are transportation, communication, public utilities, trade,
finance, public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous
services.
Youth unemployment analysis. In 1981, Sorrentino prepared
an analysis of youth unemployment that was international in
scope and that covered the period 1960 to 1979.16 The study
looked at factors that helped to explain the international
disparities in youth unemployment. Among the characteristics
Sorrentino found to be associated with low youth unem
ployment in countries such as Germany and Japan were a
declining trend in the youth labor force, little labor force activity
by students, the widespread use of apprenticeship training, and
relatively more emphasis on setting out on one’s career path at
an early age. For those countries with relatively high youth
unemployment during the period—particularly the United States
and Canada—certain common factors also were singled out:
rapid increases in the youth labor force, a sizable student labor
force, and an emphasis on general education and extended
schooling, rather than on the structuring of the early work years
Table 8.
Annual average rate of change in employment
by sector in G7 countries,
1960-2000
S ource :
C o m p a r a t iv e C iv ilia n L a b o r F o r c e S ta tistics, Ten C o u n tr ie s ,
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 25, 2002); on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm.
1 9 5 9 -2 0 0 1
by such devices as apprenticeship. The study noted that the
comparative picture for youths was changing by the end of the
period analyzed.
Analysis o f participation rates. Overall trends in labor force
participation rates are sim ilar to trends shown by the
employment-to-population ratios discussed in this article. After
all, the two indicators are quite close in definition: the
participation rate is the labor force (employed plus unemployed)
as a percentage of the working-age population; the employment
Indicators of part-time and full-time employment in G7 countries, selected periods, 1983-2000
[in percent]
Annual rates of change
Part time employment as a
percent of total employment
United S ta te s ...........................
Canada ....................................
Japan1 ......................................
Europe (G 4 ):............................
F r a n c e ..................................
Germany2 ..............................
I t a ly ......................................
United K in gd o m ....................
Part time
Full time
Country
1983
1990
2000
1983-90
1991-2000
1983-90
1991-2000
15.4
16.8
16.1
12.3
9.7
13.4
7.8
18.4
13.8
17.0
19.2
13.6
12.2
13.4
8.8
20.1
12.8
18.1
23.1
16.8
14.2
17.6
12.2
23.0
2.8
2.4
.7
.7
-.9
1.6
.2
1.8
1.9
1.6
-.5
-.2
.5
-1.0
-.5
.1
0.9
2.6
3.9
2.5
2.8
1.7
2.0
3.4
0.4
1.6
1.6
3.0
2.6
4.3
3.6
1.6
1 Jap an’s data are not comparable to those for the other countries. (See
text.)
2 Former W est Germany in 1983 and 1990 and Germany (unified) in
1991 and 2000.
for persons declaring usual hours worked. Except for the United States, the
data relate to total employment. For the United States, the data relate to
wage and salary employment only.
Part-time employment is defined as employment of persons
usually working 30 or fewer hours per week in their main job. Data are only
Econom ic Cooperation and Development, 2001).
N ote :
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S ource :
L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s, 1 9 8 0 - 2 0 0 0
M onthly Labor Review
(Paris, Organization for
June
2002
29
Labo r M arket P e rfo rm a n ce
Chart 7.
Ratio of full-time to part-time employment in United States, Canada, and Europe (G4),
1983-2000
Ratio
Ratio
N ote : Trend line for Europe (G4) includes data for the former West Germany through 1990; thereafter, the data refer to
Germany (unified).
S ource : Labor Force Statistics, 1980-2000 (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2001).
ratio is employment as a percentage of the working-age
population.
A 1983 Review article by Sorrentino analyzed international
trends in labor force participation over the period from 1960 to
1981.17During that period, many of the comparative trends and
relationships discussed herein, such as the wide differences in
levels and trends of youths’ and women’s employment-topopulation ratios, had already been established. The study found
that the large international differences in youth activity rates
reflected variations in the propensity of youths to continue in
school or enter the labor market, or to combine school with work,
as in the United States.
The declining trend in men’s participation and employment
ratios was already evident in Sorrentino’s 1983 study and
was said to be largely attributable to the extension of years of
schooling and earlier retirement. Changes in the age structure
of the population also had some effect. These forces influenced
women’s activity rates as well, but in some countries—
particularly the United States—they were outweighed by
changing social attitudes toward the role of women, causing
many to look outside the home to find market-based work. A
greater availability of part-time jobs and the rise of the service
sector also were factors. Cross-country differences in women’s
participation rates were explained partly by differences in the
rate o f change in the industrial structure of the various
economies. The relative size and rate of increase of the service30
M o nthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
producing sector, a larger source of jobs for women than the
goods-producing sector, played a role in the international
differences.
Mobility o f the workforce. In another 1983 Review article,
former BLS Commissioner Janet L. Norwood discussed labor
market contrasts between the United States and Europe.18
Norwood noted that there was one area in particular in which
Europe and the United States diverged sharply: the nature of
their labor market dynamics. In the United States, most
people have relatively short spells o f unemployment,
interspersed with periods o f employment and o f (often
voluntary) separation from the labor force. By contrast,
Europeans have much lower levels of labor market flows.
These differences in labor market dynamics show up best in
comparative data on the duration of unemployment and on
job growth.
Norwood observed that U.S. workers tended to move into
and out of employment and unemployment frequently, whereas
European joblessness tended to reflect a much larger group of
long-term unemployed. She went on to explain the difference in
this way:
Certainly, differences in history and cultural
attitudes play an important role in mobility patterns.
European workers seem much more reluctant to
Table 9.
Unemployment rates in the European Union and selected member countries, civilian labor force basis,1
1990-2000
Year
European
Union2
1 9 9 0 ..........
1991 ..........
1 9 9 2 ..........
1993 ..........
1994 ..........
1 9 9 5 ..........
8.1
8.2
9.2
10.7
11.1
10.7
1 9 9 6 ..........
1 9 9 7 ..........
1998 ..........
1999 ..........
2 0 0 0 ..........
Average,
1990-2000..
Nether
lands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece3
Ireland
3.9
3.8
3.9
6.7
6.6
7.2
8.8
10.0
9.9
7.7
8.4
9.2
10.2
8.2
7.2
3.2
6.6
11.7
16.4
16.6
15.4
6.4
7.0
7.9
8.6
8.9
9.2
13.4
14.7
15.4
15.6
14.3
12.3
6.2
5.8
5.6
6.6
7.1
6.9
4.8
4.2
4.3
5.7
6.9
7.3
16.2
16.4
18.4
22.7
24.1
22.9
1.8
3.1
5.6
9.3
9.6
9.1
10.8
10.6
9.8
9.0
8.1
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.0
3.7
9.7
9.4
9.3
8.6
6.9
6.8
5.6
4.9
4.8
4.4
14.6
12.6
11.4
10.2
9.7
9.6
9.8
10.9
11.6
11.1
11.7
9.9
7.5
5.6
4.2
6.3
5.2
3.8
3.2
2.8
7.3
6.8
5.2
4.5
4.1
22.2
20.8
18.6
15.8
14.0
9.9
10.1
8.4
7.1
5.8
9.7
4.1
8.5
7.0
11.7
9.2
11.3
5.4
5.6
19.3
7.3
Austria
_
_
1 Excludes conscripts, but includes career military in private households.
2 Average for 15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For 1990, the figure excludes
Austria, Finland, and Sweden; for 1991 and 1992, the figures exclude Austria.
These three countries joined the European Union in January 1995. Data for
four countries covered in the bus international comparisons program— France,
G erm any (former W est G erm any prior to 1991), Italy, and the United
Kingdom— are not shown here. The b ls adjusted rates are about the same as
the European Union estimates. The European Union unemployment rates
change jobs voluntarily than their American
counterparts. There is also less of a tendency to
change residence in search of jobs. In the United
States, mobility is considered desirable, even
though the search for a better job may entail some
short-term unemployment. Americans are still
experiencing sharp shifts in regional economic
development and opportunity. In addition, young
Americans tend to do more job changing before
settling into more permanent careers than European
youth do.19
Broader measures o f underutilization. In 1993 and 1995,
Sorrentino published studies broadening the international
analysis o f unemployment to cover seven measures of
underutilization known then as U -l through U-7.20Both studies
found that Japan and Sweden, the countries almost always
having the lowest unemployment rates as conventionally
measured, experienced by far the largest increases when the
definition was expanded to include persons working part time
for economic reasons and discouraged workers. In times of
recession and recovery alike, the Japanese unemployment rate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
since 1991 include rates for Germany (unified); the 1990 figure includes the
rate for the former W est Germany.
3 Data refer to the spring of each year.
N ote :
Dash indicates data not available.
Statistical Office of the European Com m unities (Eurostat)
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (for Sweden only), May 3, 2002. This
table (excluding data for Sweden) is updated on a monthly basis by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and is made available on the Internet at: http://
www.bts.gov/fls/home.htm.
S ource :
consistently tripled when these additional measures were
incorporated.21
The 1995 study explained that understanding the effect of
Sweden’s pioneering programs for retraining and employing the
unemployed is important in gaining an appreciation of that
country’s labor market situation. Sweden’s very low un
employment rates during 1960-90 were partly explained by a
large expansion of those programs during recessions, shielding
many persons from unemployment. However, the programs were
unable to keep Swedish unemployment from rising to
unprecedented levels in the 1990s. If persons in labor market
programs were added to the already high number of jobless
individuals in 1993, Sweden’s conventional unemployment rate
of 9.3 percent would have risen to 14 percent.
In addition to the foregoing BLS studies, non-BLS aca
demicians, research institutes, and international organizations
have published numerous analyses of international differences
in labor markets. The material that follows presents but a small
sampling of this literature, beginning with some of the research
conducted by two international organizations: the OECD and the
International Labor Office (ilo). A few of the major studies in
the area of “labor market flexibility” are then discussed, and the
Monthly Labor Review
June
2002
31
Labo r M arket P e rfo rm a n ce
section ends with references to several bilateral studies. Many
of the publications or studies described contain citations to the
larger body of work in each subject area.
O E C D Employment Outlook.
Since 1983, the OECD has
published annual assessments of comparative labor market
developments and prospects in its Employment Outlook series.22
Each edition takes up special topics that enrich the reader’s
understanding of comparative trends and draws on a larger
published literature, citations to which can be found within. For
instance, chapter 2 of the 1999 edition explored the relationship
between employment protection legislation and labor market
performance, and chapter 4 of the 1996 edition analyzed youth
and the labor market over the 1980s and 1990s.
Analysis o f the smaller European countries. In 2000,
Peter Auer of the ILO presented a report entitled Employment
Revival in Europe23that investigated the labor market success
of Austria, Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands in the
1990s. The study argues that the relative labor market success
o f these four countries during that time, compared with the
G4 European countries, was attributable to three policy areas:
social dialogue, macroeconomic policy, and labor market
policy. According to Auer, social dialogue created a climate
of confidence among employers, unions, and the Government
that led to wage m oderation and to reform s in social
p ro tectio n system s. Wage m oderation was part o f a
stabilization-oriented macroeconomic policy that led to
low inflation and low interest rates. Labor market policy,
and social protection in general, created the necessary
environm ent for labor m arket adjustm ent, providing
income support, training, job creation, and, sometimes,
early retirement for the unemployed.
Global youth unemployment. Another ILO study, by Niall
O’Higgins, published in 2001, investigated youth unemployment
all over the world from a policy perspective.24 One aspect
examined was why some countries (such as Germany) have been
notably more successful than others in maintaining low levels
of youth unemployment. The role of education and training
systems, including apprenticeship, was found to be important
in facilitating the transition from school to work.
Labor marketflexibility studies. A key concept that emerged
in the debate over U.S.-European labor market differences over
at least the past 20 years is “labor market flexibility.” This concept
means different things to different analysts. In general, it refers
to (1) the greater responsiveness of wages and employment to
shifts in demand and supply and (2) the lesser amount of
regulation and institutional rigidity. The conventional wisdom
was that Europe’s high unemployment and lack of job growth
were attributable to its inflexible and regulated job markets; by
32
M onthly Labor R eview
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
contrast, the success of the U.S. job market was seen as a product
of its flexible nature.25 The evidence from research studies has
not converged to support a general proposition that all
inflexibilities matter, but some “rigidities” have been identified
as having a negative impact on a country’s employment and
unemployment performance.
The literature on labor market flexibility has evolved into a
rather large body of work. In his 1994 Review article, Brodsky
traced the historical evolution of the “labor market flexibility”
concept in the context of changing economic conditions.26Three
other studies not only review and evaluate much of the existing
literature, but also exemplify different perspectives on the
flexibility issue: editor Rebecca M. Blank’s work uses the
approach of comparing only two or three countries at a time (a
bilateral and a trilateral study, respectively) in terms of specific
types of social protection mechanisms, Stephen Nickell
investigates a wider range of countries and variables, and Robert
Bednarzik both covers a wide range of countries and adds
variables relating to product and capital markets.
Blank’s 1994 volume of mainly bi- and trilateral academic
studies provided evaluations of the impact of a broad set of
social protection m echanisms— not ju st labor market
policies—on labor market flexibility.27 In most cases, the
studies rejected the existence o f a substantial tradeoff
between various social protection mechanisms (such as
employment protection laws, health insurance, and child care
policies) and labor market flexibility.
In a 1997 article, Nickell analyzed the impact of various
measures of labor market flexibility on unemployment in 20
OECD countries during two periods: 1983-88 and 1989-94.28
He found that some “so-called rigidities” were associated with
high unemployment, and some were not. Rigidities that were
associated with high unemployment included a generous and
lengthy duration of unemployment benefits, combined with little
or no offsetting pressure on the unemployed to obtain work, and
high overall taxes on labor. In contrast, strict employment
protection legislation and generous levels of unemployment
benefits accompanied by pressure on the unemployed to take
jobs (for example, a fixed duration of benefits) were not
associated with high unemployment.
In a 2001 study for a Joint U.S.-European Union Seminar,
Bednarzik expanded upon N ickell’s model by adding
variables for the flexibility of product and capital markets
during the 1995-99 period in an examination of 24 OECD
countries.29 In Bednarzik’s model, capital market flexibility
(easier and greater access to capital) emerged as an important
factor in explaining divergent unemployment and job growth
patterns in different countries.
Japan- U. S. comparison. In the April 2002 issue of the Review,
Japanese economist Toshihiko Yamagami updated and
expanded upon U.S.-Japan comparisons, one aspect of the BLS
analysis of U -l through U-7 described earlier.30Using the new
b l s indicator framework known as U -l through U-6, introduced
in 1995, Yamagami focused on U-3 through U-6, the expanded
indicators. He covered the period from 1994 to 2000 and showed
that poor Japanese economic performance, coupled with the
strongly positive U.S. performance, served to change the
positions of the two countries relative to both unemployment
and broader underutilization rates. In a concluding section,
Yamagami presented his views on the deterioration of Japan’s
labor market in the 1990s and the viability of Japan’s well-known
long-term employment system.
Canada-U.S. comparisons. Statistics Canada has noted that
prior to 1981 the Canadian unemployment rate was, on average,
roughly the same as the U.S. rate. A sustained gap began to
open early in the 1980s, and the Canadian rate averaged 2
percentage points higher than the U.S. rate throughout the
decade. In the 1990s, the gap widened further, rising to about 4
percentage points. Statistics Canada concluded, “While many
explanations have been developed for the unemployment gap, a
definitive explanation has yet to emerge.”31
A set of studies available from the Canadian Centre for the
Study of Living Standards32 investigated Canada’s labor market
developments in the 1990s, focusing on structural aspects of
unemployment. Several of the studies looked for lessons for
Canada from the international experience. The major conclusion
of one of the international studies was as follows:
[Tjhere is no magic institutional bullet for un
employment reduction. Different countries have
achieved low unemployment using different
institutional arrangements. As Stanford points
out, both countries with unregulated (the United
States) and regulated labor markets (the
Netherlands) can achieve low unemployment,
although favorable demand conditions are
needed. In the United States, job insecurity in a
deregulated labor market has allowed the Federal
Reserve Board to pursue expansionaiy monetary
policy without inflation. In the Netherlands, unionemployer wage policies permitted expansionary
macroeconomic policies without excessive wage
increases.33
Marilyn E. Manser and Garnett Picot, in a 1999 study published
in the Review, compared the growth of self-employment in the
United States with that in Canada.34 The study found that selfemployment accounted for the majority of net employment
growth that took place in Canada in the 1990s, whereas it
accounted for effectively none of the net growth in the United
States over the same period. (U.S. job growth was concentrated
in wage and salary jobs.) During the 1980s, the role of selfemployment had been fairly similar in the two countries.35
THE s t u d ie s d is c u s s e d in t h is ARTICLE, written at varying
times over the past 40 years, propose numerous explanations
for cross-country differences in labor market outcomes. Clearly,
the outcomes during any period are influenced by a complex
variety of factors, including changing demographic trends,
institutional arrangements, and government policies, not only
those targeted directly at the labor market, but also fiscal and
monetary policies that affect the demand for labor. Other forces
outside the labor market, such as those associated with product
and capital markets, also affect the labor market. Furthermore,
unemployment by itself may not provide a complete picture of
cross-country labor underutilization in situations where workers
are more likely either to work shorter hours rather than be laid off
or to escape the labor market altogether because they become
discouraged. A comprehensive explanation that fits all countries
and all periods has, so far, eluded researchers. Perhaps the most
fruitful approach is one of bilateral comparisons, such as the
studies cited comparing the United States and Japan or the
United States and Canada.
□
Notes
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : Bruce Kim and Gary Martin of the Division of
Foreign Labor Statistics assisted the authors in preparing the data and
the charts for this article.
1 For the full b l s report, see Measuring Employment and Un
employment, Report o f the President 's Committee to Appraise Em
ploym ent and Unemployment Statistics (Washington, d c , U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1962). For articles summarizing
the b l s findings, see Robert J. Myers and John H. Chandler, “International
Comparisons of Unemployment,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1962,
pp. 857-64; and “Toward Explaining International Unemployment
Rates,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1962, pp. 969-74.
1 The Group of Seven (G7) was launched in 1975 at a summit of the
heads of State of six countries (the United States, France, Germany,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom). Canada was included in 1976.
Representatives of the G7 countries meet annually to discuss the
principal political and economic issues of the day. Because Russia has
taken part in the annual economic discussions since 1997, the group
is now often referred to as the G8.
3 Canada’s mixed performance can be explained by the fact that its
labor force (the sum of employment and unemployment) growth has
been very rapid, outpacing the country’s employment growth and
leading to proportionally more unemployment than employment.
This has kept unemployment rates high, even in the face of relatively
strong employment performance.
4 Then, for convenience, each G7 member— Europe, the United
States, Canada, and Japan—is called a group in this article, even though
the last three are actually single countries.
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
33
Labo r M arket P erfo rm a n ce
5 Aaron E. Cobet and Gregory A. Wilson, “Comparing 50 years of
labor productivity in U.S. and foreign manufacturing,” this issue, pp.
51-65. In 1973, cyclical peaks in real gross domestic product (gdp)
occurred in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom. France,
Germany, and Italy attained peaks the following year. Canada was the
only G7 country that had rising real gdp throughout the 1970s. Six of
the seven countries reached peaks in real output between 1990 and
1992. Japan was the only country covered to have uninterrupted real
gdp growth in the 1990s through 1997. The year 2000 saw realoutput growth in all seven countries.
6 For a detailed analysis of comparative unemployment and
employment trends in the 1960-77 period, see Constance Sorrentino,
International Comparisons o f Unemployment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, August 1978), chapter 2.
7 For a discussion of cyclical flows of “guest workers,” see Sorrentino,
International Comparisons o f Unemployment, pp. 51-52.
8 For example, see Alan B. Krueger and Jorn-Steffan Pishke,
“Observations and Conjectures on the U.S. Employment Miracle,”
Working Paper No. 390 (National Bureau of Economic Research, August
1997).
9 The b l s database contains a series on unemployment rates by age, but
it has not been maintained on a lengthy historical basis. The o e c d series
used in the table is judged to be comparable across countries and
corresponds quite closely to the b l s figures for 1997-2000.
10 Proportional distributions of employment by economic sector
can be found in table 7 of Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics,
Ten Countries, 1959-2001 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 25, 2002);
on the Internet at http://www.bIs.gov/fls/home.htm,
11 A table similar to table 9, covering the non-G4 European Union
countries, is updated each month by the Bureau. The table is on the
Internet at http://www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm.
12 See Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, table 2.
13 See note 1.
14 Sorrentino, International Comparisons o f Unemployment,
chapter 5.
15 Constance Sorrentino, “Comparing employment shifts in 10
industrialized countries,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1971, pp.
3-11; and Todd Godbout, “Employment change and sectoral dis
tribution in 10 countries, 1970-90,” Monthly Labor Review, October
1993, pp. 3-20.
16 Constance Sorrentino, Youth Unemployment: An International
Perspective, Bulletin 2098 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, September
1981). See also Constance Sorrentino, “Youth unemployment: an in
ternational perspective,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1981, pp. 3-15,
for a summary of the material in the bulletin.
17 Constance Sorrentino, “International comparisons of labor force
participation, 1960-81,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1983, pp.
25-36.
18 Janet L. Norwood, “Labor market contrasts: United States and
Europe,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1983, pp. 3-7.
19 Ibid., p. 7.
20 Constance Sorrentino, “International comparisons o f unem
ployment indicators, “Monthly Labor Review, March 1993, pp. 3 24; and “International unemployment indicators, 1983-93, Monthly
Labor Review, August 1995, pp. 31-50. The two articles are on the
34
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ju n e
2002
Internet at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1993/03/artlfull.pdf and
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/08/art4full.pdf, respectively.
21 For an earlier bls analysis, see Constance Sorrentino, “Japan’s low
unemployment: an indepth analysis,” Monthly Labor Review, March
1984, pp. 18-27.
22 For further information and an index of each edition of Em
ployment Outlook, visit the Internet site http://www.oecd.org/EN/
d o c u m e n ts/0 ,,E N -d o c u m e n ts-7 2 8 -n o d ir e c to r a te -n o -ll-n o 5 ,0 0 .html.
23 Peter Auer, Employment Revival in Europe (Geneva, International
Labor Office, 2000).
24 Niall O’Higgins, Youth Unemployment and Employment Policy:
A Global Perspective (Geneva, International Labor Office, 2001).
25 See, for instance, Melvin M. Brodsky, “Labor market flexibility:
a changing international perspective,” M onthly Labor Review,
November 1994, pp. 53-60, especially p. 54; and Stephen Nickell,
“Unemployment and Labor Market Rigidities: Europe versus North
America,” Journal o f Economic Perspectives, summer 1997, pp. 5574, especially p. 55.
26 Brodsky, “Labor market flexibility.”
27 Rececca M. Blank, ed., Social Protection versus Economic
Flexibility: Is There a Tradeoff! National Bureau o f Economic
Research Comparative Labor Market Series (Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1994).
28 Nickell, “Unemployment and Labor Market Rigidities.”
29 Robert Bednarzik, “The Importance of ‘Flexible’ Markets in
Explaining U.S. and European Job Growth and Unemployment
Differentials,” in Labor Market Flexibility: Proceedings o f a Joint
U.S. and European Union Seminar (U.S. Departm ent o f Labor,
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, September 2001). Free copies
are available from Robert Bednarzik by calling 202-693-4867 or emailing Bednarzik-Robert@dol.gov or by writing to the Bureau of
International Labor Affairs, Room S—5317, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20210.
30 Toshihiko Yamagami, “Underutilization of labor resources in Japan
and the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, April 2002, pp. 25-43;
on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/04/art3full.pdf,
31 Statistics Canada, “Canada-US Labour Market Comparison,” in
Labour Force Update, Autumn 1998, p. 3.
32 On the Internet at http://w w w .csls.ca. Click on “Special
Issue on Structural Unemployment.”
cpp
33 Andrew Sharpe and Timothy C. Sargent, “Structural Aspects of
Unemployment in Canada: Introduction and Overview,” Canadian Public
Policy, vol. xxvi, special supplement 1, 2000, p. S4. The study is based on
Jim Stanford, “Canadian Labour Market Developments in International
Context: Flexibility, Regulation and Demand,” Canadian Public Policy,
vol. xxvi, special supplement 1, 2000, pp. S27-S58. (See preceding note
for Internet site at which both studies can be found.)
34 Marilyn E. M anser and G arnett Picot, “The role o f selfemployment in U.S. and Canadian job growth,” Monthly Labor
Review, April 1999, pp. 10-25.
35 The authors cited the following two additional U.S.-Canada
comparative studies of net and gross job creation, job security, and job
stability over the past two decades: Marilyn E. Manser and Garnett Picot,
“Job Creation in Canada and the United States: What Do We Know and
Where Are the Data Gaps?” and Garnett Picot and Marilyn E. Manser,
“Job Stability in Canada and the United States: What We Know and the
Data Gaps,” both papers presented at the Voorburg Meetings on Service
Sector Statistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 1997.
Where are you publishing your research?
The Monthly Labor Review will consider for publication studies of 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.
We prefer (but do not require) submission in the form of an electronic file in Microsoft
Word, either on a diskette or as an attachment to e-mail. Please use separate files for the
text of the article; the tables; and charts. We also accept hard copies of manuscripts.
Potential articles should be mailed to: Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212, or by e-mail to mlr@bls.gov
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June
2002
35
Manufacturing Labor Costs
International comparisons
A perspective on U.S. and foreign
compensation costs in manufacturing
Despite the appreciation o f the dollar,
U.S. hourly compensation costs have grown more slowly
than costs in foreign countries over the 1975-2000 period
Chris Sparks,
Theo Bikoi,
and
Lisa Moglia
Chris Sparks is a
supervisory economist,
an d Theo Bikoi and
Lisa M oglia are
economists in the
Division of Foreign
Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Email:
Sparks_C@bls.gov
Bikoi_T@bls.gov
Moglia_L@bls.gov
36
n 2000, for the first time since 1989, average
hourly compensation costs for manufactur
ing production workers in the United States
rose above hourly compensation costs in Eu
rope in U.S. dollar terms. U.S. hourly compensa
tion costs remained well above cost levels in
Canada, Mexico, and a group of four newly in
dustrializing economies (n ie s ) in Asia—Hong
Kong, Korea (the Republic of Korea), Singapore,
and Taiwan. Costs in Japan, however, were 11
percent higher than costs in the United States in
2000. (See chart 1.)
With declining barriers to world trade and the
increasing importance of trade in many countries,
business and labor leaders, and other analysts
are concerned with the competitiveness of their
countries’ exports. Labor costs are a major factor
influencing the costs of goods produced by a
country relative to those of its trading partners,
and consequently its international competitive
ness.1 Reflecting the importance of these labor
costs, the European Commission and European
Council, for example, have called on member
states for moderation in both wage and nonwage
labor costs.2 Eurostat, the statistical office of
the European Union, notes that “labour costs
considerably influence the choices of political,
economic and social decisionmakers, as they ac
count for some two-thirds of the production
costs of goods and services. Moreover, knowl
edge of labour cost levels is an essential tool in
the strategic planning of investment, production,
I
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
employment policy or wage levels in collective
bargaining.”3
Over the past quarter-century, hourly com
pensation costs in the United States have tripled,
and costs in competitor economies have risen
nearly four-fold in U.S. dollar terms. These costs
reflect both comparative changes in costs in
terms of national currencies and exchange rate
changes. Major changes in the relative position
of countries’ hourly compensation costs over
this 25-year span are evident in the examination
of three periods, illustrated in chart 1. From 1975
to 1985, hourly compensation costs for a tradeweighted average of 28 foreign economies grew
at a slower rate than in the United States. This
was particularly true in the first half of the 1980s,
a period that saw strengthening o f the U.S. dol
lar and a widening gap between foreign and U.S.
costs. Between 1985 and 1995, however, foreign
costs grew at a much faster rate than U.S. costs,
with competitor costs nearly reaching U.S. lev
els in 1995, and costs in Europe and Japan sur
passing those in the United States. From 1995 to
2000, costs in the foreign economies fell on a
U.S. dollar basis, while U.S. costs continued to
rise, with the result that competitor costs are now
only three-quarters o f the U.S. level, and Euro
pean costs have fallen below the United States
once again. The latter two periods coincide with
the weakening of the dollar beginning in 1985 as
a result of the “Plaza Accord,” and the strength
ening of the dollar beginning in 1995.4 These
exchange rate changes have an important effect on the BLS
hourly compensation costs series because they are used to
convert foreign costs into U.S. dollars.
This article examines hourly compensation costs and the
component parts of compensation in 2000, as well as histori
cal trends over the past 25 years for the United States and
several foreign economies, with particular focus on the wid
ening gap between the U.S. and foreign costs in 1975—85, the
faster growth of foreign costs in 1985-95, and the slowdown
in foreign growth in 1995-2000.5 The article also analyzes
some of the underlying factors that drive changes in relative
hourly compensation costs, including compensation costs
on a national currency basis, the component parts of com
pensation, and exchange rates. Exchange rates are used to
convert national currency levels of compensation into com
pensation on a U.S. dollar basis, and changes in these under
lying factors are reflected in changes in hourly compensa
tion on a U.S. dollar basis. Exchange rate movements are
often volatile, and compensation costs on a U.S. dollar basis
can be dramatically affected by them over short periods of
time. Over the 25-year period studied, however, it was differ
ences in the rates o f compensation growth on a national cur
rency basis that had the larger effect on the U.S. competitive
position in many countries.
Hourly compensation costs are discussed for six countries
or groups: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Europe,
and the Asian n ie s . Canada, Mexico, and Japan are the coun
tries with the largest shares in U.S. trade. For ease of presen
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tation, Europe is discussed as a region.6 The Asian n ie s are
comprised of Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.
The BLS publishes comparative hourly compensation
costs for production workers in manufacturing for the United
States and 28 foreign economies.7 Hourly compensation
costs differ significantly from the more readily available aver
age hourly earnings statistics published in many countries.
Hourly compensation costs consist of pay for time worked;
pay for time not worked (such as vacation and holiday pay);
seasonal and irregular bonuses; pay in kind; employer ex
penditures for legally required social insurance programs and
contractual and private benefit plans; and other taxes on pay
rolls or employment.8 Average earnings do not include all
items of labor compensation; they are typically limited to pay
for time worked and the omitted items frequently represent a
large proportion of total compensation. Moreover, the por
tion of compensation not included in hourly earnings statis
tics varies widely among countries. In some countries, the
proportion of the omitted items of compensation may make
up as little as 20 percent of total compensation costs, while in
others nearly 50 percent of compensation may consist of the
omitted items. The broader measure of compensation ana
lyzed here therefore permits more meaningful cost compari
sons across countries.9
Compensation costs in U.S. dollars, 2000
Hourly compensation costs in the United States reached nearly
$20 in 2000, about $2 less than the hourly cost (when adjusted
M onthly Labor R eview
Ju n e 2002
37
M anufacturing Labor Costs
to U.S. dollars) in Japan but a little more than a dollar higher
than the trade-weighted average for Europe, and almost $4
higher than in Canada. Hourly compensation costs in the
four newly industrializing Asian economies were below $7.
Mexican hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars were well
below those of any economy studied. (See table 1.)
These levels of compensation costs can be broken down
into three basic components: pay for time worked, other direct
pay, and social insurance expenditures—contributing to an
understanding of the sources of differences in levels of hourly
compensation costs.
Pay fo r time worked includes basic time and piece rates, plus
overtime premiums, shift differentials, other premiums and
bonuses paid regularly each pay period, and cost-of-living
adjustments.
Other direct pay includes paid leave (vacations, holidays,
and other paid leave, except sick leave), seasonal or irregular
bonuses and other special payments, selected social allow
ances, and the cost of payments in kind.
Social insurance expenditures include employer expendi
tures for legally required insurance programs and contrac
tual and private benefit plans (retirement and disability pen
sions, health insurance, income guarantee insurance and sick
leave, life and accident insurance, occupational injury and
illness compensation, unemployment insurance, and family
allowances).
In this article, we refer to the combination of other direct pay
and social insurance as additional compensation. Analysis of
compensation structure after all adjustments (that is, the per
centage of compensation cost comprised of pay for time worked,
other direct pay, and social insurance) provides insight into
the composition of employer costs and yields information
about which items are most responsible for differences in to
tal compensation cost levels and trends among countries.
In 2000, compensation costs in Japan were higher than in
the United States, but pay for time worked in Japan was about
90 percent of what U.S. employers paid for time worked. (See
chart 2.) In Europe, hourly compensation costs were 93 per
cent of the U.S. level and well above the Canadian level (table
1), but pay for time worked in Europe was just 77 percent of
the U.S. level and less than pay for time worked in Canada.10
These situations are possible because the share of addi
tional compensation (other direct pay and social insurance) is
higher in Japan and Europe than in the United States. In
Japan, other direct pay was equal to 26 percent of total com
pensation in 2000, a much higher percentage than in the United
States, where other direct pay was only 7 percent of total
compensation. (See chart 3.) As a result, when bonuses and
leave time (vacation and holiday pay) are included, direct pay
(pay for time worked plus other direct pay) in Japan is higher
than in the United States. Within the b l s estimates of hourly
compensation costs, bonuses are an especially large part of
Japanese costs, equaling 15 percent of hourly compensation
costs, while in the United States bonuses are less than 1 per
cent of hourly compensation costs.
Other direct pay was also substantially more important in
Europe than in the United States, comprising 17 percent of
total compensation in 2000.11 According to BLS estimates of
components o f other direct pay, bonuses in most of Europe
were not as large as in Japan, but they were still considerably
higher than in the United States, typically about 5-10 percent
of total compensation. Another important component of other
direct pay, pay for time not worked, was higher in most Euro
pean countries than in the United States, averaging between
9-12 percent of total compensation in most European coun
tries, compared with about 6 percent in the United States.
The other major category of compensation costs is social
insurance. Social insurance made up a higher percentage of
costs in Europe than in the United States, Japan, and Canada
in 2000. (See chart 3.) The importance of social insurance
among European countries varies considerably. Social in
surance cost shares in some countries, such as Belgium,
France, Italy, and Sweden were near or above 30 percent. In
other European countries, however, including Denmark, Ire
land, and the United Kingdom, social insurance cost shares
were much lower than in the United States. In the Asian
Hourly compensation cos Is in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing, selected years 1975-2000
[United States = 100]
Country or area
1975
United S ta te s ................................................
(cost in U.S. d ollars)...................................
Canada.................................................
M e x ic o .................................................
Japan ............................................................
E u ro p e ......................................................
Asian n ie s ...........................................................
All 28 com petitors.........................................
100
($6.36)
94
23
47
80
8
60
38
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
1980
100
($9.87)
88
22
56
100
12
67
1985
1990
1995
2000
100
($13.01)
84
12
49
61
13
52
100
($14.91)
107
11
86
116
25
83
100
($17.19)
94
9
139
128
37
95
100
($19.86)
81
12
111
93
34
76
Chart 2.
Hourly pay for time worked in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing, 2000
U.S. dollars
U.S. dollars
$16
12
$16
-
U.S.
Canada
Japan
Europe
N ote: Separate data for pay for time worked and other direct pay are not available for Mexico and the Asian NiEs.
Chart 3.
Importance of other direct pay and social insurance expenditures for production workers
in manufacturing, 2000
Other direct pay
Social insurance expenditures
Percent of total hourly
compensation costs
Percent of total hourly
compensation costs
30
30
United States
Canada
Mexico
Japan
Europe
Asian NIEs
Note: Separate data for pay for time worked and other direct pay are not available for Mexico and the Asian NIEs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor R eview
Ju n e 2002
39
M anufacturing Labor Costs
NIES, social insurance cost shares were only 14.5 percent,
but they have been rising as a percentage of total compensa
tion costs over the last 25 years. Mexico’s share of social
insurance costs in hourly compensation was the lowest of
the countries compared.
The analysis of compensation structure illustrates the im
portance of looking at additional compensation costs. Using
only pay for time worked data as a means for comparison
would result in an inaccurate assessment of differences in
employer costs among countries. As noted above, costs for
pay for time worked are higher in the United States than in
Japan or Europe, but once items of additional compensation
are included, total compensation in Japan and several Euro
pean countries is significantly higher than the United States.
Compensation costs in U.S. dollars, 1975-2000
Growth over three periods. Between 1975 and 2000, hourly
compensation costs in the United States rose at an average
annual rate of 4.7 percent. This growth was considerably slower
than Japan’s rate of 8.3 percent and the 11.1-percent growth
rate of the Asian NlEs over the 25-year period. Europe’s growth
rate was more moderate but still rose at a rate higher than the
United States. Only in Canada and Mexico did rates grow at a
slower pace than in the United States. (See table 2.)
Compensation costs in the United States grew at about the
same rate as in Japan between 1975 and 1985, before slowing
considerably for the next 15 years. Only the Asian NIEs exhib
ited significantly faster growth in compensation costs than
did the United States over the 1975-85 period. During 1985—
95, costs in U.S. dollars in all the foreign economies except
Mexico grew at a rate significantly higher than in the United
States. Then, in 1995-2000, costs either declined or grew at
much slower rates than in the United States, again with Mexico
as the exception.
The years between 1985 and 2000 contained dramatic ex
amples of growth and decline in compensation costs. Growth
rates in Europe, Japan, and the Asian NIEs were in the double
digits for the 1985-95 period, much higher than the U.S. rate
of 2.8 percent. In 1995, however, things changed drastically.
|Q2^ e 9
Growth in hourly compensation costs for production
workers in manufacturing, U.S. dollars 1975-2000
| [Average annual percent change]
Country or area
United S ta te s..........
Canada....................
M e x ic o ....................
Japan ......................
E u ro p e ....................
Asian n ie s ..................
All 28 competitors ....
1975-2000 1975-1985 1985-1995
4.7
4.1
2.1
8.3
5.4
11.1
6.2
40
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.4
6.3
.8
7.8
4.8
12.8
6.5
2.8
3.9
-.5
14.2
10.4
14.8
9.1
June 2002
1995-2000
2.9
.1
10.3
-1.6
-2.8
1.2
.0
Costs in Europe and Japan actually fell during the 1995-2000
period. The Asian n i e s maintained a positive growth rate
during these last 5 years, but hourly compensation cost growth
slowed to well below that of the United States.
As in Europe, Japan, and the Asian n i e s , Canadian cost
growth also decelerated sharply after 1995, but it is notewor
thy that trends in Canada did not follow the same pattern as
these other economies. Canadian costs accelerated quickly in
the latter half of the 1980s, but did not grow at all from 1990
onward.
The pattern in Mexico was reversed from that of the other
foreign economies. Mexican compensation costs grew at the
slowest rate during 1975-85, and Mexico was the only
economy in which hourly compensation fell between 1985
and 1995. However, Mexican costs grew at the fastest rate by
far over the final 5 years of the comparison period.
Changes in relative position. The differences in growth rates
of the United States and foreign economies result in changes
in the relative position of a country’s hourly compensation
costs in U.S. dollars over time. Chart 4 shows the position of
each foreign economy over time relative to the United States.
The U.S. level is set to 100 in all years, and each foreign
economy’s level is expressed as a percentage of the U.S. level
in any given year.
Among the foreign economies, Canadian costs, at 94 per
cent of the U.S. level, were closest to the United States in
1975. Japanese costs were slightly less than half of U.S. costs,
while Mexican costs were about a quarter of the United States.
Costs in the Asian n i e s were only 8 percent of the U.S. level,
averaging a mere 52 cents per hour.
By 1985, U.S. hourly compensation costs per hour had
risen to $13.01, the highest compensation costs of all coun
tries studied. Canada was still the country closest to the
United States, but relative costs were now only 84 percent of
the U.S. level. After rising to the same level as the United
States in 1980, European costs declined 5 consecutive years
relative to the United States, and Japanese costs remained at
about one-half the U.S. level. Relative to the United States,
Mexican costs were sharply lower, and costs in the Asian
NlEs higher, with the result that costs in both these competi
tors were about 12 percent ofthe U.S. level in 1985.
The years between 1985 and 1995 illustrate dramatic
changes in hourly compensation costs for the U.S. competi
tors. After rising above U.S. costs for the first time in 1992,
Japanese costs peaked in 1995, 39 percent higher than the
United States. Similarly, costs in Europe increased to a level
in 1995 a little below Japan but significantly higher than the
United States.
With costs rising even faster than in Japan or Europe, the
Asian NlEs continued to close the gap with the United States
between 1985 and 1995. After several years in the early 1990s
Chart 4. Index of hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing,
Index
1975-2000
Index
U.S. = 100
when costs were higher in Canada than in the United States,
Canadian costs were once again lower than the United States
by 1995. Mexican costs had been steadily increasing relative
to the United States since 1986, but in 1995 Mexican costs
were back down to 9 percent of the U.S. level.
Costs in Europe relative to the United States declined ev
ery year during the 1995-2000 period, and by 2000 were below
the U.S. level. Japanese costs, which had been about $7
higher than the United States in 1995, fell 3 consecutive years
to a level below the United States in 1998. Following rapid
growth in costs in 1999 and 2000, however, Japan once again
became the economy with the highest compensation costs.
Costs in the Asian NlEs dropped 12.6 percent in 1998, and
these countries still had a lower cost level relative to the
United States in 2000 than in 1995. Although costs in Mexico
rose from 1995 to 2000, Mexico continued to have very low
costs in 2000, only about one-third the level of the Asian
NlEs, the competitor with the next lowest costs. Canadian
costs remained essentially flat after 1995, and, with U.S. costs
continuing to rise, were only 81 percent of the U.S. level in
2000.
Compensation in national currency
and exchange rates
Changes over time in compensation costs denominated in
U.S. dollars reflect the underlying national wage and benefit
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. = 100
trends measured in national currencies, as well as frequent
and sometimes sharp changes in currency exchange rates.
Between 1975 and 2000, both of these factors played an im
portant part in determining relative trends in compensation
costs on a U.S. dollar basis. In this section, trends in both
national currency compensation costs and exchange rates are
analyzed.
Exchange rate changes play a key role in the competitive
position of the United States. After that position deteriorated
somewhat between 1975 and 1985 due to the strength of the
U.S. dollar, a weakening dollar in 1985-95 helped improve the
U.S. competitive situation. The revival of a strong U.S. dollar
in the last 5 years of the 1990s corresponded with a decline in
U.S. competitiveness as reflected in hourly compensation
costs denominated in U.S. dollars.
While volatile fluctuations in exchange rates often over
shadow trends in compensation costs in national currency
over short time periods, differences in the compensation cost
trends in the United States and foreign countries have a sig
nificant impact on competitiveness over longer time periods.
Throughout those 25 years between 1975 and 2000, hourly
compensation costs denominated in national currencies grew
faster in most of the competitors than in the United States,
contributing to an improvement in the U.S. competitive stand
ing. (See table 3.)
Chart 5 illustrates the combination of the growth in hourly
compensation costs in national currency and growth in ex-
M onthly Labor R eview
Ju n e 2002
41
M anufacturing Labor Costs
Table 3.
Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for
production workers in manufacturing, average
annual percent changes, 1975-2000
[Average annual percent change]
Country or area
1975-2000 1975-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000
U.S
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National c u rre n cy......
Exchange rate...........
4.7
4.7
-
7.4
7.4
-
2.8
2.8
-
2.9
2.9
-
Canada
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National cu rre n cy......
Exchange rate1..........
4.1
5.7
-1.5
6.3
9.5
-2.9
3.9
4.0
-.1
.1
1.7
-1.6
Mexico
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National cu rre n cy ......
Exchange rate1..........
2.1
33.2
-23.3
.8
36.7
-26.1
-.5
35.2
-27.5
10.3
19.2
-7.5
Japan
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National cu rre n cy......
Exchange rate1..........
8.3
4.0
4.1
7.8
5.5
2.2
14.2
4.0
9.8
-1.6
1.2
-2.7
Europe
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National c u rre n cy......
Exchange rate1..........
5.4
6.8
-1 .3
4.8
10.5
-5.1
10.4
5.1
5.0
-2.8
3.1
-5.7
Asian nies
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National c u rre n cy......
Exchange rate1..........
11.1
11.9
-.7
12.8
15.5
-2.3
14.8
11.8
2.7
1.2
5.5
-4.0
All 28 competitors
U.S. dollar b a s is ........
National cu rre n cy......
Exchange rate1..........
6.2
9.7
-2.6
6.5
13.6
-5.2
9.1
8.6
1.1
.0
4.3
-4.0
Value of foreign currency relative to the U.S. dollar.
change rates (the value of the foreign currencies). When
both bars have values greater than zero, both the increase in
hourly compensation in national currency and the changes in
exchange rates are contributing to increase hourly compensa
tion costs on a U.S. dollar basis. When the exchange rate bar
is negative (for example, Europe in 1975-85), the change in the
exchange rate offsets the increase in national currency hourly
compensation, indicating that the change in hourly compen
sation on a U.S. dollar basis is somewhat less than the in
crease on a national currency basis.
Measured in national currency, hourly compensation costs
grew fastest in the 1975-85 period for the United States and
each ofthe foreign economies. Between 1985 and 1995, growth
was still strong, but since 1995 growth has slowed consider
ably in all the competitors while growing at about the same
rate in the United States. As an indication of the slowing of
growth on a national currency basis, the slowest rate of growth
during the 1975-85 period—5.5 percent in Japan—matched
the second fastest growth rate in 1995-2000.
While hourly compensation costs in the United States also
grew faster during the 1975-85 period than in later periods,
they were never as high as the growth rates of costs in na
42
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
tional currency in several foreign economies. Cost growth
decelerated faster and earlier in the United States than in the
other economies; between 1985 and 1995 costs in all competi
tors grew at rates faster than the United States. Between 1995
and 2000, however, U.S. growth rates remained the same while
compensation costs on a national currency basis continued
to moderate in the competitor countries. As a result, only
Mexico and the Asian NlEs had significantly higher growth
rates than the United States during this period.
The growth rates in national currency, as well as changes
in the exchange rates of foreign currencies relative to the U.S.,
had a major impact on the competitive positions of the United
States and the competitors. The severity and timing of the
impact followed a different pattern in each competitor.
In Europe, the trade-weighted growth of hourly compen
sation costs measured in national currency was about 2 per
centage points higher than growth in the United States over
the entire 25-year period. However, the slowdown in growth
of European costs over that time was much steeper than the
decline in the growth rate of U.S. costs. Between the 1975-85
and 1995-2000 periods, European cost growth rates fell about
7-1/2 percentage points, compared with a 4-1/2 percentage
point drop in U.S. growth during the same period. The years
1999 and 2000 are particularly significant in that the growth
rate of hourly compensation costs in national currency was
lower in Europe than in the United States for the first time
since this series began in 1975.
Additional compensation (other direct pay and social in
surance) increased at a faster rate than pay for time worked in
Europe over the 25-year period, as reflected in the increasing
share of total compensation costs accounted for by the addi
tional compensation components. The shares o f both in
creased as a percentage of total compensation costs through
1990, but since that time, the structure of compensation costs
in Europe has remained relatively stable. The following shows
other direct pay and social insurance as a percentage of total
compensation in Europe:
O th e r
d ir e c t p a y
1975 ..... ......... 15.8
1980..... ......... 16.5
1985 ..... ......... 17.2
1990..... ......... 17.6
1995 ..... ......... 17.3
2000..... ......... 17.0
S o c ia l
In su ra n ce
20.8
22.2
22.6
23.4
23.9
23.3
After appreciating moderately against the dollar between
1975 and 1980, the European currencies underwent two dis
tinct periods of change in the 1980s. (See chart 6.) The cur
rencies in Europe began to weaken against the dollar in 1981,
declining at a rate of 11.7 percent per year through 1985.
Chart 5. Hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing and exchange rates
■
Com pensation in national currency
Average annual
percent change
1975-85
1975-85
1975-85
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1985-95
1985-95
1985-95
□ Value of foreign currency relative to U.S. dollar
Average annual
percent change
1995-2000
1975-85
1995-2000
1975-85
1995-2000
1975-85
1985-95
1985-95
1985-95
M onthly Labor Review
1995-2000
1995-2000
1995-2000
Ju n e 2002
43
M anufacturing Labor Costs
Chart 6.
Exchange rate growth, 1975-2000 (value of foreign currency relative to U.S. dollar)
1975 = 100
1975 = 100
1975 = 100
1975 = 100
44
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Strong growth against the dollar between 1985 and 1990, how
ever, nearly offset the weak performance in the first half of the
decade. The net result was that, over the entire decade of the
1980s, exchange rates in Europe declined only slightly against
the dollar. In addition, the higher growth rate in national cur
rency costs relative to the United States over the decade,
combined with only a moderate decline in the value of the
European currencies, drove European costs 16 percent higher
than U.S. costs in 1990—a significant increase from 1980, when
U.S. and European costs were at the same level.
European exchange rates in 1995 were essentially unchanged
from their 1990 levels. European national currency costs, how
ever, were growing at a rate of 1-1/2 percentage points faster
than U.S. costs so that, by 1995, European hourly compensation
costs in U.S. dollars were 28 percent higher than U.S. costs.
European exchange rates reversed their course beginning
in 1996, declining against the dollar in each year between 1996
and 2000.12 With national currency growth rates slowing in
Europe to about the same rate of growth as in the United
States, the exchange rate changes brought European costs
relative to the United States down to a level lower than the
United States in 2000.
In Japan, growth in national currency compensation costs
was more moderate than in the other countries and areas con
sidered. Average growth during the 25-year period was 0.7
percentage points lower than U.S. growth. Costs grew at an
average of only 5.5 percent over the 1975-85 time period, the
lowest of any country, including the United States. This was
a remarkably low rate of growth considering that growth rates
for all economies were at their peaks during that period.
Japanese cost growth slowed in subsequent periods, and
only the United States had a lower growth rate over the 1985-95
period. Between 1995 and 2000, Japanese compensation costs
grew at the lowest rate of any of the competitors. In 1999 and
2000, Japanese costs actually declined on a national currency
basis while costs in the other competitors continued to grow.
The composition o f Japanese compensation has under
gone an important change in the past 25 years. Bonuses, which
make up a large portion of total compensation in Japan, have
been falling as a percentage of total compensation since 1975,
when they comprised 19.6 percent of compensation costs.
Since that time they have fallen 4.5 percentage points. The
following tabulation shows bonuses and social insurance as
a percentage of total compensation in Japan:
B o n u ses
1975 ...... ........ 19.6
1980 ...... ........ 18.6
1985 ...... ........ 17.6
1990...... ........ 18.3
1995 ...... ........ 16.7
2000...... ........ 15.1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S o c ia l
In su ran ce
9.9
11.4
12.6
13.5
14.7
16.0
In contrast to the relative decline in bonuses in Japan, the
share of social insurance expenditures rose steadily over the
last quarter-century. In 1975, social insurance expenditures
accounted for just about 10 percent of total compensation
costs, but since that time they have grown 6 percentage
points. Social insurance in Japan now has an importance as
high as Canada and several European countries.
With national currency costs growing at a moderate rate,
it was predominantly the increase in the value o f the yen
relative to the dollar that was responsible for Japan having
compensation costs higher than the United States in 2000.
(See chart 6.) Japan was the only foreign economy with a
currency that was stronger against the dollar in 2000 than in
1975, and the only currency that appreciated in both 1975-85
and 1985-95.
During 1985-95, the strength of the yen pushed Japanese
compensation costs well above costs in the Unites States.
However, the latter part of the 1990s saw a reversal in the
Japanese exchange rate trend, as the yen weakened for 3 con
secutive years. This downward trend lowered Japanese com
pensation costs to about the same level as U.S. costs in 1998.
(See chart 4.) But the yen rebounded strongly in 1999 and
2000, causing the rise of Japanese compensation costs above
U.S. costs once again.
Unlike Japan, growth in national currency compensation
costs was the major factor that determined the trend in com
pensation costs for the Asian nies relative to the United States
between 1975 and 1995. While costs in national currency
were growing at double-digit rates, exchange rates were nearly
the same in 1995 as in 1975. Thus, the sharp increase in com
pensation costs on a U.S. dollar basis in the nies through
1995 can be attributed nearly entirely to fast growth in na
tional currency compensation costs.
Those national currency growth rates followed the same
general slowing pattern in the Asian nies as in most of the
other foreign economies, but the deceleration took place from
a higher growth level. Despite compensation cost growth
rates that fell nearly 4 percentage points from the 1975-85
time period to the 1985-95 time period, growth still remained
in the double digits in the latter period. Costs then fell another
6 percentage points in the 1995-2000 period, but the rate of
growth was still higher than any other competitor except
Mexico.
Two factors in particular contributed to the fast pace of
hourly compensation cost growth in the nies. First, costs in
Korea grew faster than the other nies throughout the 1975—
2000 time period, growing at a rate of 17.7 percent, compared
to a trade-weighted average o f 9.7 percent for the other three
NIEs. Second, social insurance costs as a percentage of com
pensation costs have been increasing in the NIEs. After fall
ing to a low of 7.8 percent of compensation costs in 1987,
social insurance costs rose fairly consistently throughout
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
45
M anufacturing Labor Costs
the 1990s, and by 2000 made up 14.5 percent of compensa
tion costs.13 The following shows social insurance as a per
centage of total compensation for Asian nies:
1975
1980
1985
1987
1990
1995
2000
............. ............. 9.1
............. ............. 9.9
............. ............. 11.3
............. ............. 7.8
............. ............. 9.5
............. ............. 12.2
............. ............. 14.5
While exchange rate changes played a secondary role
during most o f the period studied, the Asian currency cri
sis in 1997-98 was a turning point in exchange rate trends
in the NlEs. With the exception o f Hong Kong, where the
currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the value of NlEs
currencies fell 25.7 percent during the crisis. Combined
with slower cost growth on a national currency basis,
costs in these countries dropped in 1997 and 1998, when
measured in U.S. dollars. (See chart 1.) In 1999 and 2000,
these costs recovered somewhat, but failed to reach their
pre-crisis levels.
Exchange rates played an important role in the competi
tive position o f Canada. The Canadian dollar steadily de
preciated from 1975 to 2000 and, compared with the other
competitors, fluctuations in the Canadian currency were
modest. On a national currency basis, social insurance in
Canada assumed a rising importance over the 25-year pe
riod, rising to 16.4 percent o f total compensation costs in
2000, up from 8.9 percent in 1975. Altogether, Canadian
national currency costs grew at a rate 1 percentage point
higher than the United States between 1975 and 2000, but
the cumulative effect of the declining Canadian dollar more
than offset the faster growth. As a result, Canadian com
pensation costs went to only 81 percent o f the U.S. level
in 2000, down from 94 percent of the U.S. level in 1975.
(See table 1).
In Mexico, national currency growth rates were sub
stantially higher than for the other competitors through
out the period studied, growing at more than 30 percent
per year between 1975 and 2000. However, the Mexican
peso was hard hit by adverse economic shocks that led to
several devaluations over the past quarter-century. In
1982, the peso was devalued coinciding with a debt crisis
that followed a severe recession and liquidity crisis. In
1986, the peso was further devalued in response to the
steep fall in the price of oil, Mexico’s main source of export
revenue. The latest major devaluation occurred in Decem
ber 1994, when the peso was permitted to float vis-à-vis
the dollar.14 These events severely impacted the Mexican
currency to the point where it was the weakest of any of
the competitors.
46
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Chart 7 illustrates the effect of these devaluations on the
value of the peso and Mexican hourly compensation costs.
Each of the three major devaluations resulted in a drop of
more than 40 percent in the value of the peso. As a result,
Mexican compensation costs as a percent of the U.S. level
(lower panel of chart 7) fell sharply in response to each of
these events. The impact of these events on Mexican com
pensation is overwhelming; since 1980 Mexican costs rela
tive to the United States have fallen only during the immedi
ate aftermath of the devaluations—2 years (1982 and 1986) in
which devaluations occurred, and 2 years (1983 and 1995)
that followed devaluation years. Otherwise, Mexican costs
have held steady or increased in the other 16 years. Never
theless, hourly compensation costs in Mexico have fallen to
only 12 percent of the U.S. level in 2000 from a high of 26
percent.
It is notable that hourly compensation cost growth on a
national currency basis increased sharply with the first two
major devaluations in 1982 and 1986, while the value of the
peso continued to fall at a fairly high rate in the years directly
following the devaluations. By contrast, during the last de
valuation in 1995, the growth rate of national currency com
pensation costs increased only moderately, but the weakness
in the peso abated much more quickly than following previ
ous devaluations—and compensation costs on a U.S. dollar
basis had returned to positive growth by the following year.
Conclusion
Over the past 25 years, the U.S. competitive position with
regard to hourly compensation costs has improved rela
tive to competitors, particularly Japan and Europe, despite
some deterioration over the final 5 years o f the 20th cen
tury. Future trends in this area will undoubtedly be closely
watched as governments, manufacturers, and worker bar
gaining associations examine proposals regarding wages,
additional compensation costs, worker pension plans, and
work time.
These trends in hourly compensation costs in U.S. dol
lar terms are often heavily influenced in the short-term by
exchange rate movements, but it is important to note that
over the past 25 years it was the difference in national
currency cost growth rates between the United States and
competitors—particularly Europe and the Asian NlEs—
that most affected the competitive position o f the United
States. For many years, growth in hourly compensation
costs in the United States was lower, on a national cur
rency basis, than most o f the competitors, contributing to
the improvement of the U.S. competitive position. This
trend recently changed, and national currency hourly com
pensation is now growing at slower rates in many o f the
competitors than in the United States.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
47
M anufacturing Labor Costs
Notes
1 See, for example, “Manufacturing costs, productivity, and competi
tiveness, 1979-93,” by Edwin R. Dean and Mark K. Sherwood, Monthly
Labor Review, October 1994, pp. 3-16, for a discussion of input costs,
product prices and competitiveness. The offsetting impact on product
prices due to productivity gains is discussed in “Labor Productivity in
U.S. and Foreign Manufacturing—a Half Century of Comparisons” on
p. xx.
r
income. Prices of goods and services vary greatly among countries, and
total compensation costs include not only payments made directly to
workers, but also employer payments to funds for the benefit of work
ers. Many of these payments to funds may benefit the workers only
indirectly (as is the case with employer payments for unemployment
insurance) or at some point in the future (for example, payments to
retirement funds). See the technical appendix on p. xx.
2 “Labor costs— annual update 2001,” European Industrial Relations
Observatory On-Line.
9 The hourly compensation cost measures used in this article differ
from the hourly compensation data in “Comparing 50 years of labor
productivity in U.S. and foreign manufacturing” on p. 51 of this issue.
Hourly compensation data in that article are calculated from national
accounts aggregate employee compensation data and estimates of
labor input. In addition, the hourly compensation data used in that
article relate to all employees or all employed persons. Only indexes
of hourly compensation are calculated; no level data are available.
Data in the current article are computed using establishment survey
data on average earnings and supplementary labor cost data from
periodic labor cost surveys and other data sources. These data relate
to production and related workers only. See the appendix on p. 63 of
this issue.
10 Separate data for pay for time worked are not available for Mexico
and the Asian NIEs.
11 Although the trade-weighted average of other direct pay as a percent
age of total compensation in Europe is 17 percent, the percentage of
other direct pay ranges from just under 10 percent in Ireland to 20
percent or more in Austria, Belgium, and Italy. More information
about compensation cost structure in individual European countries can
be found in the Supplementary Tables for BLS News Release “Interna
tional Comparisons o f Hourly Compensation Costs for Production
Workers in M anufacturing,” available on the Internet at h ttp ://
www.bls.gov/fls
12 On January 1, 1999, 11 European countries joined the European
Monetary Union (EMU): Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. At
the same time, currencies of EMU members were established at fixed
conversion rates to the euro, the official currency of the EMU. Ex
change rates between the national currencies of EMU countries and the
U.S. dollar are no longer reported; only the exchange rate between the
euro and the U.S. dollar is available.
13 The large drop in social insurance in 1987 was primarily the result of
a reduction of the rate of employer contributions to the Central Provi
dent Fund (a social security fund) in Singapore. The rate of employer
contribution was cut from 25 percent of monthly earnings to 10 per
cent of monthly earnings effective April 1, 1986.
3 “EU labour costs 1999,” Statistics in focus, Population and social
conditions, Theme 3, 3/2001.
4 The Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors of five coun
tries (France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) met on September 22, 1985, at the Plaza Hotel in New York, in
order to review economic developments and policies in their countries.
The results of their meeting were summarized in an agreement, known
as the “Plaza Accord.” In particular, they noted that the “appreciation
of the U.S. dollar” was among the factors that have “contributed to
large, potentially destabilizing external imbalances among major indus
trial countries” and that an “appreciation of the main nondollar cur
rencies against the dollar is desirable. They stand ready to cooperate
more closely to encourage this when to do so would be helpful.” For
further information, see the University of Toronto Library and the G8
Research Group at the University of Toronto on the Internet at http:/
/w w w .library.utoronto.ca/g7/finance/fm 850922.htm
5 The purpose of this article is to decompose the rather distinct speedups and slowdowns in hourly compensation growth rates for the 28
competitors as illustrated in chart 1. There was no attempt to select
time periods to eliminate possible cyclical factors.
6 Europe includes the 15 countries of the European Union, Norway, and
Switzerland. For the purposes of constructing a time series for hourly
compensation for Europe, data for Germany included in the tradeweighted averages for Europe relate to the former West Germany only.
Data for Germany are available only from 1993-2000; no data are
available for 1975-92. Approximately 90 percent of manufacturing
employment for Germany is in the former West Germany, and the level
of hourly compensation in Germany is approximately 4 percent lower
than in the former West Germany. Using data for Germany rather than
data for the former West Germany would lower the level of European
compensation costs by approximately 1 percent.
7 China is not included because the data needed to construct hourly
compensation cost estimates for production workers are not available.
Available earnings data are monthly earnings on an all-employee basis;
earnings data and hours worked for production workers in manufactur
ing are not available. In addition, comprehensive surveys on compo
nents of compensation not included in earnings are not available.
8 The international comparisons of compensation costs do not indicate
relative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their
14 The exchange rates used in this article are annual averages of daily
rates for the entire year. Because this devaluation occurred near the end
of 1994, its impact on the annual average of that year was minimized.
The lull impact of the devaluation is evident in the annual average for
1995, the first full year following the devaluation.
A ppendix: About the data
T h e data in th is article are hou rly c om p en sation co sts for production
w orkers in m anufacturing. T he total com p en sation m easures are
prepared b y the B ureau o f Labor S tatistics in order to a ssess interna
tio n a l d ifferen ces in em p loyer labor costs. C om p arison s based on
the m ore read ily a vailab le average earn in gs statistics p u b lish ed by
m any countries can b e very m islead in g. N ation al d efin itio n s o f aver
a ge earn in gs differ considerably; average earnings do n ot in clu d e all
48
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
item s o f labor com pensation; and the om itted item s o f com p en sa tio n
freq uently represent a large proportion o f total com p en sa tio n .
T he com p en sation m easures are com p u ted in n ational currency
un its and are con verted into U .S . dollars at p revailin g com m ercial
market currency exch ange rates. T he foreign currency exch an ge rates
u sed in the calcu lation s are the average d a ily exch a n g e rates for the
reference period. T h ey are appropriate m easu res for com p arin g
le v e ls o f em p lo y er labor costs. T h ey do n ot ind icate relative liv in g
standards o f w orkers or the purchasing p ow er o f their incom e. Prices
o f g o o d s and serv ices vary greatly am on g countries, and com m ercial
m arket ex ch a n g e rates are n ot reliable indicators o f relative differ
e n c es in prices.
Definitions
H ourly co m p en sa tio n c o sts in clu d e (1 ) hou rly direct pay and (2 )
em ployer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes. H ourly
direct p ay in clu d es all paym en ts m ade directly to the worker, before
payroll d ed u ctio n s o f any kind, c o n sistin g o f (a) pay for tim e w orked
(b a sic tim e and p ie ce rates p lu s overtim e prem ium s, sh ift d ifferen
tials, other prem iu m s and b o n u ses paid regularly each pay period,
and c o st-o f-liv in g adjustm ents); and (b) other direct pay (pay for
tim e n ot w orked— v acation s, h o lid ays, and other leave, ex cep t sick
lea v e— sea so n a l or irregular b o n u ses and other sp ecial paym ents,
selected so cia l a llo w a n ces, and the c o st o f paym ents in kind). S ocial
insu ran ce exp en d itu res and other labor taxes in clu d e (c ) em ployer
expenditures for leg a lly required insurance program s and contractual
and private b en efit p lan s (retirem ent and disab ility p en sio n s, health
insu ran ce, in co m e guarantee insurance and sick leave, life and a cci
dent insurance, occu p ation al injury and illn ess com pensation, un em
p lo y m en t insurance, and fam ily a llow an ces); and, for som e co u n
tries, (d ) other labor ta x es (other taxes on p ayrolls or em p loym en t—
or red u ction s to reflect su b sid ies— ev en i f they do n ot fin an ce pro
gram s that d irectly b en efit w orkers, b ecau se su ch taxes are regarded
as labor c o sts). For co n sisten cy, com p en sation is m easured on an
h ou rs-w ork ed b a sis for every country.
T h e b l s d efin itio n o f hou rly com p en sation c o sts is n ot the sam e
as the International Labour O ffice (ILO) d efinition o f total labor costs.
H ou rly co m p en sa tio n c o sts d o n ot in clu d e all item s o f labor costs.
T he c o sts o f recruitm ent, em p lo y ee training, and plant facilities and
serv ice— su ch as cafeterias and m ed ical clin ic s— are n ot inclu ded
b eca u se data are n ot a vailab le for m ost countries. T he labor costs
n ot in clu d ed acco u n t for n o m ore than 4 percent o f total labor costs
in any country for w h ich the data are availab le.
P rod u ction w orkers gen erally in clu d e th o se em p lo y ee s w h o are
en gaged in fabricating, assem bly, and related activities; material han
d lin g, w areh ou sin g, and shipping; m aintenance and repair; janitorial
and guard services; auxiliary production (for exam ple, pow erplants);
and other serv ices c lo s e ly related to the a b ove activities. W orking
su p ervisors are gen era lly inclu ded; app rentices and other trainees
are g enerally exclud ed .
clu d es annual tabu lation s o f em p loyer so cia l secu rity contrib ution
rates provided by the International S tu d ies S ta ff o f the U .S . S o cia l
Security A dm in istration, inform ation on contractual and leg isla ted
fringe b en efit ch an ges from i l o and national labor bu lletin s, and sta
tistical series on indirect labor costs. For other countries, adjust
m ent factors are ob tain ed from su rveys or cen su ses o f m anufactures
or from reports on frin ge-b en efit system s and so cia l security. For
the U n ited States, the adjustm ent factors are sp ecial ca lcu latio n s for
international com p arison s based on data from several su rveys.
T he statistics are also adjusted, w h ere n ecessary, to acco u n t for
m ajor differences in w orker coverage; differences in industrial cla ssi
fication system s; and ch an ges over tim e in su rvey co v erage, sam p le
benchm arks, or freq u en cy o f su rveys. N ev er th e less, so m e differ
e n ces in industrial coverage rem ain and— w ith the e x cep tio n o f the
U n ited States, Canada, and several other countries— the data ex clu d e
very sm all estab lish m en ts (le s s than 5 e m p lo y ee s in Japan and less
than 10 e m p lo y ees in m o st E uropean and so m e other countries).
For the U n ited States, the m eth od s used , as w e ll as the results, differ
som ew h at from th o se for other b l s series on U .S . com p en sa tio n
c o sts.
H ourly com p en sation co sts are con verted to U .S . dollars u sin g
the average daily exch a n g e rate for the reference period. T h e e x
change rates u sed are p revailing com m ercial market exch an ge rates as
p u b lish ed b y either the U .S . Federal R eserve B oard or the Interna
tional M onetary Fund.
For further d etails on su rvey sou rces and on sp ecial estim ation
procedures for som e countries b ecau se o f in com p lete data, see Inter
national C om p arison s o f H ourly C om p en sation C osts for P rod u c
tion W orkers in M anufacturing, 1995 (R eport 9 0 9 , B ureau o f Labor
Statistics, Septem ber 1996).
Trade-weighted measures
T he trade w eig h ts u sed to com p u te the average co m p en satio n co st
m easures for selected e co n o m ic groups are relative im portances d e
rived from the sum o f U .S . im ports o f m anufactured produ cts for
con su m p tion (cu sto m s valu e) and U .S . exports o f d o m estic m anu
factured products (free alon g sid e {f.a .s.} valu e) in 19 9 2 for each
country or area and each eco n o m ic group. T he tabulation sh o w s the
share o f total U .S . im ports and exports o f m anufactured produ cts in
1992:
Country or area
1992
trade
share
C ountry or area
Canada ..................
M exico..................
19.2
Australia..............
Hong Kong SAR1 ....
Israel .....................
Japan.....................
1.4
2.0
.8
15.8
Greece ....................
Ireland....................
Ita ly ........................
Luxembourg..........
Netherlands...........
N orw ay..................
2.3
.1
1.9
.3
K orea....................
New Zealand........
Singapore .............
Sri Lanka...............
Taiw an..................
3.4
.3
2.4
.1
4.4
Portugal..................
Spain......................
Sweden...................
Switzerland...........
United Kingdom ...
.2
.8
.8
1.0
4.4
1992
trade
sh are
Methods
Total co m p en sa tio n is com p u ted by adju sting each cou n try’s aver
ag e earn in gs series for item s o f direct pay n ot in clu d ed in earnings
and for em p lo y er exp en d itu res for leg a lly required insurance, c o n
tractual and private b en efit plans, and other labor taxes. For the
U n ited States and other countries that m easure earnings on an hourspaid b a sis, the fig u res are a lso adjusted in order to approxim ate
co m p en sa tio n per hour w orked.
E arnings statistics are obtained from su rveys o f em p loym en t,
hours, and earn in gs or from su rveys or c en su ses o f m anufactures.
A d ju stm en t factors are obtained from p eriod ic labor c o st sur
v e y s and interp olated or projected to n on su rvey years on the b asis
o f other inform ation for m ost countries. T he inform ation u sed in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.6
M onthly Labor R eview
.1
.6
Ju n e 2002
49
M anufacturing Labor Costs
ountry or area
A u s t r ia ...............
B e lg iu m ..............
D e n m a r k ............
F in la n d ...............
F r a n c e ................. .
G erm a n y 2 ......... .
1992
trade
sh are
.3
1.5
.3
.2
3.2
5.4
Econom ic grou p
28 foreign
e c o n o m ie s ......
OECD3 ........................
E u r o p e ...................
E uropean U n io n ..
A sian n i e s ..............
1992
trade
share
Labor costs versus labor income
80.8
71.1
2 3 .4
22.1
12.2
T he trade data u sed to com p u te the w eig h ts are U .S . B ureau o f
the C en su s statistics o f U .S . im ports and exports con verted to an
industrial c la ssifica tio n b asis from data in itially c o lle cte d under the
H arm on ized T a riff S ch ed u le co m m o d ity cla ssific a tio n system .
T he O rgan ization for E co n o m ic C oop eration and D ev elo p m en t
(OECD) g rou p in g a b o ve in clu d es the cou n tries in th is data set that
b e lo n g to the OECD: Canada, M ex ico , A ustralia, Japan, K orea, N e w
Z ealan d, and all E uropean countries. E urope as d efin ed for th is data
set co n sists o f A ustria, B elg iu m , D enm ark, Fin lan d, France, Ger
m any, G reece, Ireland, Italy, L uxem bourg, the N etherlan ds, N orw ay,
Portugal, Spain, Sw ed en , Sw itzerland, and the U n ited K in gdom . The
group lab eled “A sia n n i e s ” c o n sists o f the four n e w ly ind ustrializ
in g e c o n o m ie s o f H o n g K o n g s a r , K orea, S in gapore, and Taiwan.
T he trade w eig h ted m easures relate to all the cou n tries or areas
co v ered in the series. T rad e-w eigh ted data for G erm any relate to the
form er W est G erm any. E stim ates are com p u ted for m issin g country
data u sin g the average trend in other eco n o m ie s to estim ate the m iss
ing data.
T h e trad e-w eig h ted average rates o f ch an ge are com p u ted as the
trad e-w eigh ted arithm etic average o f the rates o f change for the in d i
vid u al cou n tries or areas; the trad e-w eigh ted average hou rly c o m
p en sa tio n c o sts in U .S . dollars are com puted as the trade-w eighted
arithm etic average o f co st lev e ls for the ind ividu al countries or areas.
R ates o f change d erived from the trade-w eighted average hourly com
p en sa tio n c o st le v e ls n eed n ot be the sam e as the trade-w eighted
average rates o f change.
Data limitations
B e ca u se co m p en sa tio n is partly estim ated, the statistics sh ou ld not
b e co n sid ered as p recise m easu res o f com p arative com p en sation
co sts. In addition, the figu res are su b ject to rev ision as the results o f
n e w labor c o st su rveys or other data u sed to estim ate com p en sation
c o sts b eco m e availab le.
T h e com parative lev e l figu res in th is article are averages for all
m anufacturing industries and are n ot n ecessarily representative o f all
co m p o n en t industries. In the U n ited States and so m e other cou n
M onthly Labor Review
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
tries, su ch as Japan, d ifferentials in hou rly com p en sation c o st le v e ls
by industry are quite w id e. In contrast, other cou n tries, su ch as
S w ed en , h ave narrow differentials.
T he hou rly com p en sation figu res in U .S . dollars p rovid e com para
tive m easures o f em p loyer labor costs; th ey do n ot p rovid e inter
country com p arison s o f the pu rchasin g p ow er o f w orker in co m es.
P rices o f g o o d s and serv ices vary greatly am on g cou n tries, and the
com m ercial m arket exch a n g e rates u sed to com pare em p lo y er labor
c o sts do n ot reliab ly ind icate relative d ifferen ces in prices. P urch as
in g p ow er parities— that is, the num ber o f foreign currency un its
required to buy g o o d s and services eq u ivalen t to w h at can b e pur
ch ased w ith on e unit o f U .S . or other b ase-cou n try currency— m ust
b e u sed for m eaningful international com parisons o f the relative pur
ch asin g p ow er o f w orker in com es.
T otal c o m p e n sa tio n c o n v erted to U .S . d o lla rs at p u rch a sin g
p ow er parities w o u ld p rovid e o n e m easure for com p arin g relative
real le v e ls o f labor in com e. It sh ou ld be noted, h ow ever, that total
com p en sation in clu d es em p loyer paym en ts to fu n d s for the b en efit
o f w orkers in add ition to p aym ents m ade d irectly to w orkers. (F or
a fe w countries, the com p en sation m easures a lso in clu d e ta x es or
su b sid ies on payrolls or em p loym en t e v en i f th ey d o n o t fin a n ce
program s w h ich d irectly b en efit w ork ers.) P aym en ts in to th ese
fu n d s p rovid e either deferred in co m e (for exam p le, p ay m en ts to
retirem ent fu n d s), a typ e o f insurance (for exam p le, p aym en ts to
u n em p loym en t or health b en efit fun ds), or current so cia l b en efits
(for exam p le, fam ily a llo w a n ces), and the relation sh ip b etw een em
p loyer paym ents and current or future w orker b en efits is indirect.
O n the other hand, ex clu d in g th ese p aym ents w o u ld understate the
total valu e o f in co m e d erived from w ork b ecau se th ey su bstitu te for
w orker sa v in g s or self-in su ran ce to cover item s su ch as retirem ent
and m ed ical costs.
Total com p en sation , b eca u se it takes accou n t o f em p lo y er p ay
m ents into fu n d s for the b en efit o f w orkers, is a broader in co m e
con cep t than either total direct earnings or direct sp en d ab le earnings.
A n ev en broader co n cep t w o u ld take accou n t o f all so c ia l b en efits
availab le to w orkers, in clu d in g th o se fin an ced ou t o f general rev
en u es as w e ll as th o se fin an ced through em p lo y m en t or p ayroll
taxes.
□
Footnotes to the A
ppendix
1 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.
2 Former West Germany.
3 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
U.S. and Foreign Labor Productivity
International comparisons
Comparing 50 years of labor productivity
in U.S. and foreign manufacturing
Although manufacturing labor productivity increased less
in the United States than in other G-7 countries over the last
50 years, the growth rate has accelerated in the United States
after 1973, while slowing down in the other countries
Aaron E. Cobet
and
Gregory A. Wilson
Aaron E, C o b e t an d
Gregory A. Wilson are
econom ists in the
Division of Foreign
Labor Statistics,
O ffice of Productivity
a n d Technology,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics, e-mail:
C o be t_A @ bls.go v
and
W ilson_G@ bls.gov.
W olodar Lysko, a
supervisory econom ist
in the sam e division,
also contributed to
this article.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
abor productivity in manufacturing has
been a topic of interest throughout recent
decades. Research was directed at different
issues at different times, depending on economic
developments. For example, after 1973, discussion
focused on whether there was a historical slow
down in productivity growth in the industrialized
countries.1 Currently, an issue has focused on
whether and how the introduction of information
technology is affecting manufacturing pro
ductivity.2In addition, the progressive globalization
of the world economy, increasing exposure of
individual countries to international trade and
capital movements, has heightened interest in
productivity, particularly in comparisons among
countries. For instance, analysts are examining the
relations among labor costs, productivity, prices,
and competition.3
The Bureau of Labor Statistics international
comparisons program began estimating and
com paring trends in m anufacturing labor
productivity and unit labor costs in 1973, making
comparisons back to 1950. These accumulated
data make it possible to now look at these trends
from the perspective of half a century.
Labor productivity in the U.S. manufacturing
sector grew continuously over the last half of
the 20th century, and this growth accelerated
during the 1990s. This is different from most of the
other countries in this article, for which productivity
L
increases slowed over time. The growth in U.S.
labor productivity was accompanied by relative
stability in manufacturing employment and hours
worked, in contrast to most other countries, where
manufacturing employment and hours declined.
Historically, increases in manufacturing hourly
compensation and in unit labor costs have been
m ore m oderate in the U nited States than
elsewhere, although, during the 1990s, other
countries have succeeded in reducing their
hourly com pensation and unit labor cost
increases to the U.S. rates or below.
In this article, labor productivity is measured as
the value of real manufacturing output produced
per hour o f labor input. Increases in labor
productivity reflect the joint effects o f many
influences, including capital investment, advances
in technology, and organizational efficiencies, as
well as improved skill levels of the workforce.
Unit labor costs are defined as the cost of
labor input required for the production of one
unit o f output. They are computed as labor
compensation in nominal terms divided by real
output. Changes in unit labor costs reflect the
net effect o f changes in hourly w orker
compensation and in labor productivity. Unit
labor costs rise when compensation per hour
rises faster than labor productivity. Conversely,
if labor productivity rises faster than hourly
compensation, unit labor costs decline.
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
51
U.S. an d Foreign Labor Productivity
This article discusses the trends in U.S. manufacturing
labor productivity and unit labor costs that have occurred
over the half-century 1950-2000, comparing and contrasting
these trends with those of the other G-7 countries (Canada,
Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom).4
Developments in the manufacturing sectors of five other
European countries, and of Korea and Taiwan, are also
summarized. The data analyzed are from the b l s data on
international comparisons, in which U.S. and foreign data are
produced according to comparable concepts, definitions, and
classifications.5
This article first presents an overview of the entire 1950-2000
period, showing the long-term similarities and differences
between the manufacturing sectors in the United States and
abroad, and contrasting developments during three subperiods:
1950-73; 1973-90; and 1990-2000. The discussion then focuses
on each of these three subperiods in turn, examining how
changes in labor productivity and labor inputs combined to
meet changing demand for output, and explains how changes in
manufacturing unit labor costs were in turn the outcome of
changes in labor productivity and in hourly compensation rates.
The analysis focuses on developments in the U.S. manufacturing
sector, contrasting them with developments in other countries.
In addition to the three main subperiods, the study also examines
developments over certain shorter time periods, whenever this
contributes to a better understanding of the underlying trends.
Sometimes, to facilitate comparisons for this analysis, the
European members of the G-7 are treated as a unit, and referred
to as “Europe G-4.” When numerical growth rates are given
for “Europe G-4,” these are simple arithmetic averages of the
respective growth rates for France, Germany, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.
C om p a ra tiv e growth varied over time
This study uses b l s com parative time series data for
manufacturing labor productivity and related measures.
These data are available beginning with 1950 for most of the
countries included in this study, with the most recent data
available for 2000.
The comparative productivity measures used in this study
employ a “value-added” concept of manufacturing output,
defined as the value of gross output less the value of all
intermediate purchases of goods and services. The valueadded data are produced by the statistical agencies of the
countries compared, as part of their national accounts. In its
system of official productivity measures for the United States,
b l s employs a measure of “sectoral” output, which equals
the value o f gross output less the value of intrasector sales
and transfers. In general, measures of “sectoral” output are
preferred for industry productivity measurement. Valueadded output is used in the present study because the data
52
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
are available and because the economies o f compared
countries differ in size and in the extent of vertical integration
of their industries.
Because the comparative value-added series for U.S.
manufacturing begin in 1977, for prior years we link the
sectoral output series for U.S. manufacturing to the valueadded output series at 1977, to create an analytic data set for
the 1950-2000 period. It is important to recognize that while
these two output series tend to have similar trends over
longer periods of time, their growth rates may diverge over
shorter time periods. This issue and other aspects of the
comparative productivity series and related measures are
described more fully in the appendix.
To compare and contrast the changes that have taken
place in the competitive position of the United States vis-àvis the other countries, the 1950-2000 interval has been
divided into three periods: the period before 1973; the period
between 1973 and 1990; and the most recent decade, 19902000. Local cyclical peaks in manufacturing output were
reached in 1973 in the United States, Germany, Japan, and the
United Kingdom. In Canada, France, and Italy manufacturing
output peaked the following year. In addition, 1973 was a
cyclical peak for U.S. labor productivity in manufacturing,
after many years of continuous productivity growth.
The year 1973 is also a convenient benchmark because
certain developments, which had important financial effects
on all industrial economies, occurred during that year. One
development was the end of the Bretton Woods system of
controlled exchange rates and the introduction of floating
exchange rates. Another development was the first of two
major oil price shocks o f the 1970s. The U.S. dollar
appreciated strongly against most currencies after the second
oil price shock in 1979. Then in 1985, as a result of the “Plaza
Accord,” the dollar began a decade of major weakness.6 One
consequence of the events of 1973 and 1979 was instability
in the foreign exchange markets, causing sudden shifts in
comparative production costs among countries. Another
consequence was that the industrial econom ies were
subjected to inflationary pressures, and manufacturing
productivity increases slowed in most countries.
Five o f the G-7 countries reached local peaks in
manufacturing output between 1989 and 1991. The U.S.
manufacturing output peaked in 1988, however the total
economy reached a cyclical peak in 1990. In 2000, the terminal
year of the comparative series, labor productivity reached its
highest level in all G-7 countries, and output reached its
highest level in all countries except Germany. Hours worked
were at the lowest levels in Germany, France, and the United
Kingdom. On foreign exchange markets, several years of
relative stability began after 1990, following the U.S. dollar
weakness in the second half o f the 1980s. (A separate
examination of the 1990s makes it possible to focus on the
trends that determine the current comparative position of the
U.S. manufacturing sector.)
Overview, 1950-2000
During the last half of the 20th century, labor productivity in
the manufacturing sector increased less in the United States
than in the other G-7 countries—Canada, Japan, and Europe
G-4 (France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom). (See
table 1; definitions o f the measures presented in table 1 and
in subsequent tables can be found in the appendix.) This
slower overall growth in U.S. productivity is largely
attributable to the pre-1973 period, when manufacturing
productivity rose considerably more in the other regions than
in the United States. (See chart 1, panel 1.) After 1973, growth
in U.S. productivity continued and even accelerated, whereas
productivity growth slowed in most other countries.
The pattern across time of U.S. productivity increases differed
from that of the other countries. The U.S. productivity growth
rate was relatively stable over the different time periods and
subperiods covered by this study, and reached its maximum in
the 1990s. The remaining G-7 countries, however, experienced
their highest rates of productivity increases during the pre-1973
period, followed by considerably lower rates of growth in
subsequent years. The one exception was the United Kingdom,
where productivity growth remained relatively stable over the
entire 50-year period.
All of the G-7 countries except the United States had thenlargest increases in manufacturing output during the 1950-73
period. As was the case in other countries, U.S. output growth
slowed after 1973, but then it grew faster after 1990, regaining
and even surpassing its pre-1973 growth rate. In the other
countries, the output growth rate continued to slow after 1990,
or made only a partial recovery. (See chart 1, panel 2.)
U.S. manufacturing employment, as well as average and
total hours worked, remained relatively stable during the last
half of the 20th century, compared with Japan and Europe G4. (See chart 1, panels 3 and 4.) Manufacturing employment
in the United States increased before 1973, then declined
slowly afterwards. This resulted in a small net gain in
employment and total hours between 1950 and 2000. As in
the United States, employment in Europe G-4 grew before
1973, but employment and hours fell much more steeply after
1973. A similar pattern developed in Japan, where manu
facturing employment grew rapidly before 1973, but then
stagnated and declined, falling rapidly after 1990. Canada
was the only G-7 country to experience growth in manu
facturing employment during each of the three periods.
Over the entire 1950-2000 period, U.S. manufacturing unit
labor costs increased less than those of most other countries,
measured in national currencies. The greatest differences,
however, occurred in the period after 1973 and before 1990.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(See chart 1, panel 6.) Before 1973, unit labor costs in U.S.
manufacturing increased at an annual rate which was within
2 percentage points of the growth rates in the other G-7
countries. But during the following period, 1973-90, U.S.
unit labor costs grew markedly more slowly than unit labor
costs in most other G-7 countries. The U.S. unit labor cost
increases during this period were particularly modest when
compared with unit labor cost increases in the average of
Europe G-4 countries, some of which were almost double the
U.S. rate. After 1990, unit labor cost growth slowed in all G-7
countries, and the difference between the U.S. increases and
those of the other G-7 countries was, again, comparatively
small.
Modest hourly compensation increases were the main
reason for the moderate growth in U.S. manufacturing unit
labor costs.7 Over the entire 1950-2000 interval, hourly
compensation increased in all countries and all periods
compared, however the U.S. increases were, on the whole,
more moderate (table 1). The U.S. average hourly com
pensation growth rate was markedly below the hourly
compensation growth rates in Japan and the Europe G-4
countries. Among the major competitor countries, some had
lower hourly compensation growth rates than the United
States, but only during certain subperiods. Overall, labor
productivity was less important, and hourly compensation
more important in limiting unit labor cost increases in U.S.
manufacturing than they were in the other countries.
Currency fluctuations played an im portant role in
determ ining com parative trends in unit labor costs
denominated in U.S. dollars during some periods, especially
after 1973, when the Bretton Woods system of controlled
exchange rates was replaced by floating exchange rates. The
effect on U.S. competitiveness was positive or negative,
depending on the period. Looking at trends in unit labor
costs denominated in U.S. dollars over the entire 50-year
period, one can see that the average U.S. increases were
smaller than, or the same as, unit labor cost increases in the
other countries (table 1).
Comparative trends of labor productivity and unit labor
costs from 1950 to 2000 are summarized in charts 2 and 3. In
these charts, indexes of manufacturing output per hour and
of dollar-denominated unit labor costs (with 1973 = 100, for
each of Europe G-4, Japan, and Canada) are divided by the
corresponding index for the United States. (Japanese data
begin with 1955.)
The slope of each line at a given year indicates the relative
growth rates of the underlying measure. When the slope is
rising, it means that the measure in the given country or
region is growing faster, or declining more slowly, than the
corresponding measure in the United States. The converse is
indicated by a falling slope. The magnitude of the difference
in growth rates is shown by the steepness of the slope.
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
53
U.S. and Foreign Labor Productivity
Table 1.
Average annual rates of change in manufacturing labor productivity and related measures, G-7 countries,
1950-2000
Unit labor costs
Average
hours
Output
per
hour
Output
United S ta te s ...............
C a n a d a .........................
Japan (1955-2000)......
Europe G -4 ...................
F r a n c e .....................
G e rm a n y ..................
I t a ly ..........................
2.9
3.0
6.3
4.3
4.8
4.7
4.5
3.3
3.9
7.1
3.6
3.8
4.0
5.0
0.4
.8
.8
-.7
-.9
-.7
.4
0.4
.9
1.2
-.2
-.5
.1
.6
-.1
-.4
-.5
-.5
-.8
-.2
United K in gd o m ........
3.2
1.7
-1.5
-1.1
United S t a t e s ...............
C a n ad a.........................
Japan (1 955-73)..........
Europe G -4 ...................
F r a n c e .....................
G e rm a n y ..................
Italy...........................
2.6
4.1
10.0
5.5
6.0
6.9
6.1
3.7
5.5
13.8
6.3
6.4
7.6
7.9
1.1
1.3
3.5
.7
.4
.7
1.7
United Kin g d o m ........
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.1
4.1
3.4
3.6
2.9
3.8
3.3
4.0
2.1
3.6
3.1
4.2
3.0
2.3
2.8
Period and country
Hourly
compensation
Exchange
rate
National
currency
U.S.
dollars
5.6
6.3
8.3
9.2
9.1
7.7
10.5
2.6
3.2
1.9
4.7
4.1
2.9
5.7
2.6
2.6
4.7
3.7
2.6
4.3
3.2
-.6
2.7
-.9
-1.4
1.4
-2.4
-.3
9.3
6.0
4.7
-1.2
1.2
1.6
4.0
1.2
.7
1.7
2.0
-.1
-.3
-.4
-.5
-.3
-1.0
-.3
5.3
6.1
12.6
9.4
10.1
9.8
9.7
2.6
1.9
2.4
3.7
3.9
2.7
3.4
2.6
2.3
4.1
3.8
2.8
4.8
3.7
.4
1.6
.2
-1.0
2.0
.3
-.2
.2
-.4
8.0
4.6
4.0
-.6
2.5
2.0
3.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
3.2
.3
-.3
-.1
-.2
-1.7
-2.1
-1.5
-.6
-2.9
-.3
.0
.1
-1.2
-1.4
-.6
-.4
-2.4
.0
-.1
-.3
-.6
-.7
-.8
-.2
-.5
7.1
8.8
7.4
11.9
11.3
6.8
15.4
13.8
4.1
6.5
3.2
8.2
7.4
3.9
11.2
10.2
4.1
5.5
7.1
6.9
6.1
6.9
6.5
8.2
-.9
3.7
-1.1
-1.2
2.9
-4.2
-1.9
3.8
3.3
1.0
1.1
2.0
.3
1.4
.7
-.2
1.2
-2.5
-1.9
-2.1
-2.6
-.9
-2.0
-.4
.9
-1.7
-1.7
-1.5
-2.5
-.7
-2.1
.2
.3
-.7
-.2
-.6
-.1
-.2
.1
3.7
2.9
2.4
4.3
3.3
4.5
4.5
5.0
-.2
.8
-1.2
1.2
-.8
1.5
2.2
2.1
-.2
-1.6
1.8
-1.9
-3.4
-1.2
-3.4
.5
-2.4
3.0
-3.1
-2.6
-2.7
-5.4
-1.6
Total hours Employment
Total, 1950-2000
0.0
1950-73
1973-90
United S t a te s ...............
C a n a d a .........................
Japan ...........................
Europe G -4 ...................
F r a n c e .....................
G erm an y ..................
I t a ly ..........................
United K in gd o m ........
1990-2000
United S ta te s ...............
C a n a d a .........................
Japan ...........................
Europe G -4 ...................
F r a n c e .....................
G erm an y ..................
I t a ly ..........................
United Kin g d o m ........
The 1950-73 period
Output, labor input, and labor productivity. All the G-7
countries recorded growth in manufacturing output, labor
productivity, and employment during the 1950-73 period. (See
table 1.) This was a period in which major productivity gains
were accompanied by output gains rather than reductions in
labor input. Indeed, all countries experienced employment
growth, and only the United Kingdom recorded a decline in
hours worked.
Between 1950 and 1973, manufacturing labor productivity
and output increased less in the United States than in Canada,
Japan, and the average of Europe G-4. In fact, the United
States was the only country that did not have its highest
output growth rates during the pre-1973 years. Japan
achieved growth in manufacturing productivity that averaged
10.0 percent per year and posted output gains of 13.8 percent
54 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
per year—by far its highest rates of productivity and output
growth among the periods compared. Similarly, Canada and
Europe G-4 experienced their highest rates of productivity
and output growth during this period.
During 1950-73, total manufacturing hours worked
increased in all the G-7 countries except the United Kingdom,
as a direct result of increased employment, because average
hours declined everywhere. The increases in manufacturing
employment ranged from a high of 4.0 percent per year in
Japan to a low of 0.2 percent per year in the United Kingdom.
Most countries also experienced their fastest declines in
average hours worked during this period, but average hours
worked in U.S. manufacturing declined less than elsewhere.
Employment in the United States and in Europe G-4 grew at
the same rate before 1973. However, this employment growth
was offset by bigger declines in average hours worked in
Europe G-4, so that total hours worked in Europe G-4
Chart 1. Productivity, unit labor costs, and related measures in manufacturing, G-7 countries,
1950-2000
Average
annual growth
rates (percent)
United
S tates'
Panel 1. Productivity
Canada
Average
annual growth
rates (percent)
France
Germany
Italy
panel 3 Tota|houfS
United
Japan
Kingdom
Average
annual growth
rates (percent)
United
C anada
S ta te s 1
Average
annual growth
rates (percent)
United
States
Panel 2. Output
France
Germany
Italy
United
Kingdom
Japan
Panel 4. Employment
C anada
France
Germany
Italy
United
Kingdom
Japan
1 The U.S. growth rates shown in panels are based on sectoral output for years prior to 1977, and on value- added output for
subsequent years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
55
U.S. an d Foreign Labor Productivity
increased less than those in the United States. In Canada and
Japan, however, total hours worked increased more, despite
declines in average hours, because manufacturing em
ployment grew more in these two countries than it did in the
United States. In Japan, for example, total hours grew at a
rate 3.5 percent per year, due to employment growth of 4
percent per year, which swamped a decline in average hours
of 0.4 percent per year.
Hourly compensation and unit labor costs. Before 1973,
the average rate of unit labor cost growth in the United States
was 2.6 percent per year, which was below the growth rates
of most of the other G-7 countries, expressed in their national
currencies. (See table 1.) Only Canada, Japan, and Germany
had unit labor cost increases similar to or lower than the rate
for the United States. However, the factors which resulted in
these relatively moderate unit labor cost increases differed
among these four countries. Modest hourly compensation
increases were the main reason for the moderate growth in
U.S. unit labor costs during this period. Before 1973, the
hourly compensation increase in U.S. manufacturing was the
lowest among the G-7 countries, at 5.3 percent per year. Only
Canada experienced hourly compensation increases roughly
close to the United States, whereas hourly compensation in
the European countries and in Japan grew much more. In
Japan and Germany, high hourly compensation growth rates
were offset by high productivity growth rates. Both hourly
compensation and productivity growth rates in these two
countries were considerably higher than the rates in the
United States. For example, Japan’s hourly compensation
growth before 1973 was more than twice the U.S. rate, but its
productivity gains were almost four times those o f the United
States. Unit labor costs increased more in the other European
countries, because those countries were unable to match
rising hourly compensation with adequate productivity gains.
Comparing unit labor cost trends during this period in
U.S. dollars, the United States was able to improve its
competitive position against all countries except Canada.
Athough Japan’s and Germany’s unit labor cost increases
(denominated in their national currencies) were similar to or
lower than the U.S. increases, their strong currency
appreciation raised their unit labor costs denominated in U.S.
dollars considerably, weakening their competitive positions.
Exchange rate movements had only a minor impact on the
unit labor costs of the other countries during this period.
The 1973-90 period
Output, labor input, and labor productivity. The period
following 1973 was characterized by inflationary pressures,
including large increases in hourly com pensation in
manufacturing, and by a slowdown in manufacturing output.
56
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Chart 2.
Manufacturing labor productivity in foreign countries relative to that in the United States,
1950-2000
Ratio: Competitors/United States
(1973 = 1.00)
1.4
1.2
0.8
-
0.6
- 0.4
0.2
C h a rt 3.
Manufacturing unit labor costs in foreign countries, relative to those in the United States,
1950-2000 (U.S. dollar basis)
Ratio: Competitors/United States
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(1973 = 1.00)
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
57
U.S. and Foreign Labor Productivity
Also during this period, manufacturing employment and hours
worked stopped growing and then declined in all regions.
After 1973, U.S. manufacturing productivity continued to
increase at roughly the same rate as in the earlier period, as
was the case in the United Kingdom. In comparison, the rate
o f productivity growth fell noticeably in the other G-7
countries during this period.8 Labor productivity grew by 2.8
percent per year on average in the United States over the
entire 1973-90 period, which was still below the cor
responding growth rates in Japan and Europe G-4 (table 1).
The German and Japanese productivity increases of the
1973-90 period were less than half of their pre-1973 average
annual growth rates.
M anufacturing output growth slowed in each o f the
regions compared, during the 1973-90 period. (See chart 1,
panel 2.) The U.S. output growth rate slowed by more than 1
percentage point, but Japan and Europe G-4 experienced
pronounced slowdowns in output growth after 1973. In
Japan, the manufacturing output growth rate declined by 10
percentage points and in Europe G-4 the output growth rate
fell by almost 5 percentage points. Among the Europe G-4
countries, Germany experienced the sharpest slowdown in
output growth— falling from 7.6 to 1.4 percent per year.
Furthermore, the output growth rate in Canada slowed by 3 1/2 percentage points.
The slowdown in manufacturing output among the G-7
countries was accompanied by declines in total hours worked
(table 1). In the United States, total hours worked in
manufacturing fell by 0.3 percent per year during the 1973-90
period, due to a slight fall in employment and no change in
average hours worked. In contrast, the decline in total hours
in Europe G-4 was due to decreases in employment and
declines in average hours worked. The average annual rates
o f decline o f employment among the Europe G-4 countries
ranged from 0.4 percent in Italy to 2.4 percent in the United
Kingdom. As a result, by 1990, manufacturing employment
was 7 percent below its 1973 level in Italy, and 33 percent
below the 1973 level in the United Kingdom. This fall in
employment was accompanied by a steady decline in average
hours worked, resulting in an average decline in total hours
worked in Europe G-4 of 1.7 percent per year between 1973
and 1990. Total hours worked also fell in Japan, even though
Japan was the only G-7 country to experience employment
growth during this period, because average hours worked
decreased more than employment increased. Total hours
worked in Canada also declined due to a fall in average hours
worked combined with stagnating employment.
Within the 1973-90 interval, three subperiods deserve
special attention: 1973-79,1979-85, and 1985-90. At the end
of the first subperiod, 1979, the United States, Canada, France,
and Germany, reached local cyclical peaks in manufacturing
output. Also in that year, the Iranian revolution erupted,
58
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
followed by a sharp increase in the price of crude oil — 126
percent. After 1979, the U.S. dollar strengthened against most
other currencies. The second subperiod, 1979-85, ended
with the “Plaza Accord,” which included an international
agreement to lower the value of the U.S. dollar. As a result,
most currencies strengthened against the dollar during the
third subperiod, 1985-90. Exchange rates are a major factor
in determining unit labor costs denominated in U.S. dollars,
and therefore directly affect the international competitiveness
of a country’s manufactures.
Output, hours, and productivity trends in manufacturing
varied among the three subperiods of the 1973-90 interval.
U.S. manufacturing output grew at approximately the same
rate in each of three subperiods examined, ranging between 2
percent and 3 percent per year. (See table 2.) In contrast, two
European countries experienced a drop in output during some
of the subperiods, reducing their overall output growth. In
the United Kingdom, output fell during the first two sub
periods (1973-79, 1979-85) before rebounding during the
third subperiod (1985-90). Output in France fell in the second
subperiod (1979-85).
The United States experienced moderate employment
growth during the first subperiod (1973-79) followed by
declines in employment during the second and third periods
(1979-85, 1985-90). Japan had the opposite experience, its
employment falling during the first subperiod followed by
employment growth during the second and third subperiods
(table 2). France and the United Kingdom experienced a drop
in employment in all three subperiods.
Hourly compensation and unit labor costs. During 197390, U.S. unit labor costs rose by 4.1 percent per year—faster
by more than a third from the preceding period—due to larger
hourly compensation increases that were not accompanied
by faster productivity growth. (See chart 1, panel 6.) Still, the
U.S. increase in unit labor costs was smaller than the increase
for most G-7 countries, when measured in national currency
units. The average annual increases in unit labor costs o f the
other G-7 countries more than doubled during this period, so
that the U.S. increases were noticeably smaller by comparison.
Only the two countries that had been able to reduce the rate
of their hourly compensation increases during this time
period— Germany and Japan—had smaller increases in
manufacturing unit labor costs (table 1).
In the 1973-90 period, which was marked by high inflation
following the first and second oil crises, hourly compensation
increases accelerated considerably in most countries.
N evertheless, the spurt in U.S. m anufacturing hourly
compensation increases was among the most moderate.
Most competitors experienced greater increases in hourly
compensation, especially Italy and the United Kingdom
(table 1). Only two countries, Germany and Japan, were able
Table 2.
Average annual rates of change in manufacturing labor productivity and related measures, G-7 countries,
selected periods, 1973-90
Unit labor costs
Period and country
Output
per
hour
Output
Total
hours
Employment
Average
hours
Hourly
compensation
National
currency
U.S.
dollars
Exchange
rate
1973-79
United S ta te s ............
C a n a d a .....
Japan .......
Europe G-4
France ...
Germany
It a ly ......
United K in g d o m ....
2.6
2.1
4.6
3.8
4.5
4.2
5.3
1.1
2.9
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.6
1.7
5.5
-.7
0.3
.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.8
-2.4
.2
-1.8
0.8
.5
-1.6
-.6
-.9
-1.6
1.4
-1.4
-0.4
-.3
-.4
-.9
-1.0
-.8
-1.1
-.5
9.7
12.4
12.8
16.6
15.8
9.2
22.0
19.4
6.9
10.0
7.8
12.4
10.9
4.8
15.9
18.1
6.9
7.2
11.8
11.9
11.6
11.4
9.2
15.3
-2.6
3.7
-.3
.7
6.3
-5.8
-2.4
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.1
3.5
4.4
2.2
1.9
4.7
-.1
-.4
.2
.9
-1.2
-1.2
-1.5
1.1
-3.2
-3.3
-1.9
-2.5
-5.3
-1.4
-1.3
1.2
-2.6
-2.3
-1.1
-2.3
-4.6
.2
-.2
.0
-.7
-1.0
-.8
-.1
-.8
7.2
9.1
4.7
11.7
12.8
6.0
15.9
12.2
3.6
5.5
1.1
8.2
9.5
3.8
12.0
7.5
3.6
2.8
-.3
-2.7
-3.3
-4.1
-2.5
-1.0
-2.5
-1.5
-10.0
-11.7
-7.6
-12.9
-7.9
2.4
.5
4.3
3.1
3.4
2.1
2.4
4.6
2.5
1.8
4.8
2.9
2.6
2.3
3.2
3.4
.0
1.3
.5
-.2
-.8
.2
.8
-1.2
-.1
1.2
.8
-.2
-.9
1.1
-.2
-.9
.1
.1
-.3
.0
.1
-.9
1.0
-.3
3.9
4.2
4.6
6.6
4.5
5.0
7.4
9.4
1.4
3.7
.3
3.3
1.0
2.8
4.8
4.5
1.4
7.0
10.8
13.5
11.6
15.9
15.1
11.4
3.2
10.5
9.9
10.5
12.7
9.8
6.6
1979-85
United S ta te s ............
C a n ad a.....
Japan .......
Europe G-4
France ...
Germany
It a ly ......
United K in g d o m ....
1985-90
United S ta te s ............
C a n ad a.....
Japan .......
Europe G-4
France ...
Germany
I t a ly ......
United K in g d o m ....
to resist this trend, and to lower their hourly compensation
growth rates. The hourly compensation growth rate in the
Japanese manufacturing sector declined by more than a third
from its pre-1973 growth rate. (See chart 1, panel 5.)
These high hourly compensation growth rates decelerated
markedly after 1979, however. Between 1973 and 1979,
manufacturing hourly compensation in the G-7 countries
increased by an average of 14.5 percent per year. This rate
first slowed to 9.7 percent per year between 1979 and 1985,
and then to 5.6 percent per year between 1985 and 1990 (table
2). In all three subperiods of the 1973-90 interval, U.S.
manufacturing hourly compensation increased less than
those of its major competitors, with the exception of Germany,
in the 1973-85 period, and Japan, in the 1979-85 period. For
all G-7 countries, the biggest increases in unit labor costs
occurred between 1973 and 1979 (table 2). By the third period,
1985-90, unit labor cost increases for most countries had
slowed down to rates lower than those in the 1950-73 period.
Wide currency exchange rate fluctuations between 1973
and 1990 had a significant impact on unit labor costs
denominated in U.S. dollars. The influence o f currency
fluctuations was especially important in the 1979-85 period,
when the U.S. dollar appreciated strongly against most
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
currencies, temporarily improving the competitive position
of foreign manufacturers. Changes in currency values also
had a major impact during the 1985-90 period, when the U.S.
dollar depreciated sharply, thus reversing the competitive
positions. Overall, after taking currency exchange rate
movements into account, U.S. unit labor costs increased less
than the unit labor costs in any other country during the
1973-90 period (table 1).
The 1990-2000 period
Output, labor input, and labor productivity. M anu
facturing labor productivity grew at a higher rate in the United
States than in Canada, Japan, and the average of Europe G-4,
during the 1990s (table 1). In fact, U.S. manufacturing
productivity attained its highest growth rates during the
1990s, increasing at an average annual rate o f 4.0 percent.
This differs from the remaining G-7 countries, in which the
highest productivity increases occurred before 1973. After
slowing during the 1973-90 period, labor productivity growth
made a partial recovery in Germany and France. However,
productivity growth continued to slow in Japan, Italy, and
the United Kingdom. (See chart 1, panel 1.) During the decade,
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
59
U.S. an d Foreign Labor Productivity
productivity growth was dominated by output increases in
the United States and in Canada, and by reduced hours in
Japan and in Europe G-4.
Manufacturing output also grew at a faster rate in the
United States than in other regions during the 1990s. The
U.S. output growth rate during the 1990s exceeded its pre1973 growth rate. Output growth also partially recovered
from the 1973-90 slowdown in Canada, France, and the United
Kingdom. In contrast, output growth slowed even further
during the 1990s in Japan, Germany, and Italy. (See chart 1,
panel 2.) This slowdown was especially dramatic in Japan,
where manufacturing output had achieved double-digit
growth rates in the years before 1973, but grew at only 1
percent per year after 1990. The rate of output increase was
larger in Canada during the 1990s than in Japan and Europe
G-4, even though Canadian productivity growth was lower.
This was largely due to an increase in total hours worked in
Canada, whereas total hours worked declined in Japan and
Europe G-4.
Both m anufacturing employment and average hours
worked declined in 4 of the 7 G-7 countries during the 1990s,
with the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom
being the exceptions (table 1). The net result was that total
hours worked fell in 6 o f the 7 G-7 countries. Only Canada
experienced an increase in total hours. The negligible
reduction in total hours worked in U.S. manufacturing was
smaller than the corresponding decline in the remaining G-7
countries.
This decline in manufacturing employment during the
1990s was a continuation of the decline which began after
1973. The United States, for example, experienced a drop in
employment of 0.4 percent per year in the 1990s, slightly faster
than the rate during the 1973—90 period. Japan recorded a
decline in employment during the 1990s of a similar magnitude
as the average for Europe G-4. Canada was the only G-7
country that did not experience a negative growth rate in
employment during any of the periods (1950-73, 1973-90,
and 1990-2000). (See chart 1, panel 4.)
It has been widely noted that U.S. productivity growth in the
manufacturing sector, and in the entire business sector as well,
increased more in the latter half of the 1990s than in the earlier
part of the decade. Therefore, for this analysis, the 1990s are
divided into two 5-year segments. The acceleration in
manufacturing productivity did not occur throughout the G-7
countries, however. (See table 3.) Only Japan and France
experienced a speed-up of productivity growth in the latter half
of the period, and those gains fell short of the 1.3 percentagepoint increase experienced by the United States. All of the
countries except Italy experienced increases in output growth
between the first and second half of the 1990s, but in all of these
foreign countries total hours worked grew more, or fell more
slowly, than they did in the earlier part of the period.
60
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Hourly compensation and unit labor costs. Unit labor cost
growth rates during the 1990s stand in marked contrast to the
previous periods studied, because they were by far the
lowest, and in some countries unit labor costs declined. This
was due prim arily to a general slowdown in hourly
compensation increases compared with previous periods,
although productivity increases also played a part.
The decline in U.S. unit labor costs during this period
followed a decline in the hourly compensation growth rate
by almost half, and a rise in the productivity growth rate by
more than a third from the previous period. Japan and France
were the only other countries to also achieve a decline in unit
labor costs (table 1). All other competitors experienced only
a deceleration in their unit labor cost increases. Although
they were able to restrict hourly compensation growth to low
levels, their productivity growth rates were lower still. (See
chart 1, panel 6.)
In the 1990s, hourly compensation growth in all G-7
countries was slower than that in any previous period in this
analysis. Hourly compensation increases in U.S. manu
facturing grew by 3.7 percent per year, and in Japan, Canada,
and France hourly compensation increased even less (table
1). The other countries experienced slightly larger increases
in hourly compensation.
Overall, during the 1990s the U.S. dollar strengthened against
the currencies of all the countries except Japan, especially after
1995. In the 1990-95 period, the U.S. dollar appreciated against
the currencies of half the countries, but after 1995, the U.S. dollar
appreciated against the currencies of all the countries. The result
was that unit labor costs in most countries, measured in U.S.
dollars, declined more than unit labor costs in the United States,
particularly after 1995 (table 3).
Other European countries
Comparable data are available for five non-G-7 European
countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and
Norway. The trends in manufacturing productivity and unit
labor costs in these countries over the 1950-2000 period were,
on the whole, similar to the corresponding trends in the
Europe G-4 countries. (See table 4.) The greatest differences
were in Norway.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands all
achieved their highest manufacturing productivity and
output growth rates during the pre-1973 years. However,
employment growth was offset by declines in average hours
to the point that total hours worked either remained stable or
declined in all four countries. Among the Europe G-4
countries, only the United Kingdom experienced a similar
decline in total hours during the 1950-73 period.
During the 1973-90 period, manufacturing productivity
and output growth slowed in each of the non-G-7 European
Table 3.
Average annual rates of change in manufacturing labor productivity and related measures, G-7 countries,
selected periods, 1990-2000
Unit labor costs
Period and country
Output
per
hour
Output
Total hours
Employment
Average
hours
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.6
4.1
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.0
.4
.6
1.1
-.7
1.5
.5
-0.1
-1.3
-2.8
-2.8
-2.9
-3.9
-1.9
-2.8
-0.6
-1.5
-1.6
-2.9
-2.7
-4.2
-1.8
-3.1
0.4
.3
-1.3
.1
-.2
.3
-.1
.3
4.6
.9
3.9
2.6
4.2
2.6
1.1
2.3
4.4
4.7
1.7
1.6
2.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
-.2
3.8
-2.1
-.9
-1.3
-1.3
.1
-1.3
-.1
3.4
-1.9
-.5
-.4
-.8
.3
-1.1
-.1
.4
-.1
-.4
-.9
-.5
-.2
-.2
Hourly
compensaton
Exchange
rate
National
currency
U.S.
dollars
3.5
3.7
3.7
5.4
3.7
6.5
6.0
5.4
0.2
.4
.4
1.8
-.4
3.0
2.4
2.0
0.2
-2.8
9.5
.7
1.3
5.6
-3.7
-.4
-3.2
9.1
-1.0
1.8
2.5
-6.0
-2.4
3.9
2.0
1.1
3.3
3.0
2.6
3.1
4.5
-.7
1.1
-2.6
.7
-1.2
-.1
1.9
2.2
-.7
-.5
-5.3
-4.3
-8.0
-7.6
-3.1
1.3
-1.6
-2.7
-5.0
-6.8
-7.5
-4.9
-.8
1990-1995
United S ta te s ............
C a n a d a ......................
Japan ........................
Europe G -4 ................
F r a n c e ...................
G erm an y................
I ta ly .......................
United K in g d o m ....
1995-2000
United S t a te s ............
C a n ad a......................
Japan ........................
Europe G -4 ................
F ra n c e ...................
G erm an y................
I ta ly .......................
United K in g d o m ....
countries. Employment, average hours, and total hours
worked declined in each country. Productivity gains in
Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden cor
responded to increases in output and declines in hours
worked. This was similar to what occurred in the Europe G-4
countries. Norway, in contrast, achieved a gain in manu
facturing productivity even though output declined; hours
worked declined at a faster rate than output.
During the 1990s, the growth rate of manufacturing labor
productivity in Sweden recovered to nearly its 1950-73 rate.
However, productivity growth continued to slow in Belgium,
the Netherlands, and Norway. Manufacturing employment
continued to decline. Only Norway experienced an overall
increase in employment and total hours worked during the
1990s. As was the case with Europe G-4, hourly compensation
increases slowed during this period, and unit labor costs went
up negligibly or declined in all the countries except Norway.
Korea and Taiwan
Trends of manufacturing productivity and unit labor costs for
Korea and Taiwan are examined for the 1985-2000 period,
because 1985 is the first year for which comparable data are
available for both of these economies. To follow the underlying
trends, this analysis divides the 1985-2000 interval into three
equal 5-year subperiods (1985-90,1990-95, and 1995-2000).
Manufacturing productivity. Over the final 15 years of the
20th century, manufacturing output and labor productivity in
both Korea and Taiwan increased considerably more than
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
those in the United States, Japan, or Europe G-4. This was
also true for each of the three subperiods. (Compare tables 5,
2, and 3.) Furthermore, during each subperiod, the respective
increases in Korea were greater than those in Taiwan.
Total hours worked in manufacturing declined in both
economies between 1985 and 2000 by approximately the same
proportion, but the timing o f these declines differed
somewhat. In Korea, employment increased until 1990, and
declined at an accelerating rate after that. After 1995,
manufacturing employment in Korea was falling more than 3
percent per year, which was more than the rate in Japan. In
Taiwan, employment declined slowly until 1995, then
increased after that. In both economies, average hours
worked dropped somewhat or remained unchanged. The
growth in employment in Taiwan after 1995 was sufficient to
produce a slight increase in total hours w orked. In
comparison, the rate o f decline in total hours in Korea
between 1995 and 2000 was greater than the declining rates
in any other country compared.
H ourly com pensation and unit labor costs. Hourly
compensation in manufacturing rose more in Korea and in
Taiwan than in either the United States, Japan, or Europe G-4
during 1985-2000. Again, this was true during each of the
three subperiods. Hourly compensation in Korean manu
facturing increased more than that in Taiwan during each
subperiod; the differences in the respective growth rates
being especially marked between 1990 and 1995, when hourly
compensation increases moderated in Taiwan, but continued
to accelerate in Korea. After 1995, the rate o f hourly
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
61
U.S. and Foreign Labor Productivity
Table 4.
Average annual rates of change in manufacturing labor productivity and related measures,
European non-G-7 countries, selected periods, 1950-2000
Period and country
Unit labor costs
Output
per
hour
Output
—
5.1
2.9
4.2
3.1
4.1
2.1
3.4
0.2
-.4
-.2
-.4
—
—
-.9
-.8
-.8
-.5
-.6
-.4
4.8
6.5
4.4
5.1
4.8
6.3
4.3
4.6
.0
-.3
-.1
-.5
1.2
.4
.6
.5
4.8
2.3
4.3
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.5
2.4
-.1
1.4
-2.6
-.8
-1.9
-2.2
-1.2
-2.2
-.4
-1.3
-1.6
-.9
3.3
—
3.1
.8
4.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.0
4.0
-1.3
—
-.9
.3
-.7
-1.4
-.9
-.8
.3
-1.6
Total hours
Employment
Average
hours
Hourly
compensation
Exchange
rate
National
currency
U.S
dollars
7.8
8.7
8.9
4.5
2.6
5.6
4.5
4.2
3.5
5.1
3.3
-0.3
.9
-.4
-1.1
-1.2
-.7
-.7
-.9
9.6
10.6
9.3
9.6
4.6
3.8
4.7
4.2
5.2
5.3
5.7
5.0
.6
1.4
.9
.8
-.4
-.4
-.6
-.7
-.3
8.6
9.3
6.4
10.4
10.9
3.6
6.8
2.0
8.1
8.1
4.5
6.6
4.6
7.5
6.1
.9
-.2
2.5
-.5
-1.8
.1
3.0
-.2
.7
.6
3.5
-.7
-2.9
-2.0
-2.1
.0
—4.9
-2.6
-2.6
-2.7
-3.4
-4.3
1950-2000
D e n m a rk .......................
N etherlands...................
N orw ay..........................
S w e d e n .........................
—
1950-73
Denm ark........................
N etherlands...................
N orw ay..........................
Sweden .........................
1973-90
B elg iu m .........................
Denm ark........................
N etherlands...................
N orw ay..........................
Sweden .........................
1990-2000
B elg iu m .........................
Denm ark........................
N etherlands...................
N orw ay..........................
Sweden .........................
—
—
-.1
.0
.9
3.7
4.3
4.1
N ote : Dash indicates data not available.
Table 5.
Average annual rates of change in manufacturing labor productivity and related measures,
Korea and Taiwan, selected periods, 1985-2000
Unit labor costs
Period and country
Output
per
hour
Output
Total hours
Employment
Average
hours
Hourly
compensation
National
currency
U.S.
dollars
Exchan
rate
1985-90
K o rea...........................
Taiw an.........................
8.2
7.9
12.2
7.0
3.7
-.8
5.4
-.5
-1.6
-.4
15.6
11.5
6.9
3.4
11.1
11.8
3.9
8.2
9.7
5.3
8.4
5.0
-1.2
-.3
-.9
-.3
-.2
.0
18.2
7.1
7.8
1.7
6.0
2.0
-1.7
.3
11.6
5.5
8.0
5.7
-3.2
.2
-3.1
.5
-.1
-.3
7.3
4.0
-3.9
-1.5
-11.0
-7.3
-3.3
1990-95
K o rea...........................
Taiw an.........................
1995-2000
K o rea...........................
Taiw an.........................
compensation increases declined in both economies, the
average annual increases in Taiwan being similar to the
increases in U.S. manufacturing.
Before 1995, the relatively large hourly compensation
increases in Korea and Taiwan caused their unit labor costs,
expressed in national currencies, to increase more than the
unit labor costs in the United States or Japan. This occurred
despite the higher productivity growth rates in Korea and
62 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
-4 .7
Taiwan. From 1985 to 1990, the competitive position of both
economies was further undermined by the appreciation of
their currencies against the U.S. dollar.
A fter 1995, the more m oderate growth in hourly
compensation, and continued productivity increases, led to
declines in unit labor costs in both economies, which were
further reduced by the depreciation o f both currencies
against the U.S. dollar.
n
Notes
1 Karin Wagner and Bart Van Ark, eds., International Productivity
D ifferences; M easurement and Explanations (Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, Elsevier Science B.V., 1996).
2 Paul Schreyer, “The C ontribution of Information and
Communication Technology to Output Growth: a Study of the G7
Countries,” o e c d , s t i Working Paper 2000/2 (March 2000).
3 Edwin R. Dean and Mark K. Sherwood, “Manufacturing costs,
productivity, and competitiveness, 1979-93,” Monthly Labor Review,
October 1994, pp. 3-16.
4 The Group of Seven (G-7) consists of the seven major market
economies. It was launched in 1975 at a summit of the heads of state
of six countries (United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom). Canada was included in 1976. Representatives of
the G-7 countries meet annually to discuss the principal political and
economic issues of the day. Because Russia has taken part in the
annual economic discussions since 1997, the group is now often
referred to as the G-8.
5 Average annual growth rates of the various measures, for selected
time periods, are shown on the accompanying tables and charts. The
complete historical index series of the measures can be found in b l s
Report 962, “International comparisons of labor productivity and unit
labor costs in manufacturing, 2000,” April 2002. b l s Report 962 is also
available at the b l s Division of Foreign Labor Statistics Web site at:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/home.htm. The U.S. m anufacturing
output index for years prior to 1977 is accessible through the b l s Web
site at: http://w w w .bls.gov/data/sa.htm
APPENDIX:
6 The Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors of five
countries (France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the
United States) met on September 22, 1985, at the Plaza Hotel in New
York, to review economic developm ents and policies in their
countries. The results of their meeting were summarized in an
agreement, known as the “Plaza Accord.” In particular, they noted
that the “appreciation of the U.S. dollar” was among the factors that
have “contributed to large, potentially destabilizing external
imbalances among major industrial countries” and that an “ap
preciation of the main nondollar currencies against the dollar is
desirable. They stand ready to cooperate more closely to encourage
this when to do so would be helpful.” For further information, access
the University of Toronto Library and the G8 Research Group at the
University of Toronto Web site at:
http://www/.library.utoronto.ca/g7/finance/fm850922.htm.
7 The measure of hourly compensation used in this study refers to
employer cost rather than to the net compensation of employees. In
addition to payments to employees, it includes legally required
contributions for social benefits. For this reason, and also because
differences in national inflation rates are not taken into account,
differences in hourly compensation growth do not necessarily reflect
changes in relative workers’ well-being.
8 As discussed earlier, the U.S. output series was derived by linking
at 1977 two output series based on two different concepts. The official
manufacturing labor productivity series for the United States, based
on sectoral output, shows an increase o f 2.6 percent per year for
1950-73 and 2.5 percent per year for 1973-90.
Measuring productivity and unit labor cost trends in manufacturing
T h e co m p a ra tiv e m ea su res o f labor p rod u ctiv ity and un it labor
c o sts d isc u sse d in th is article are b ased on u n d erlyin g data o btained
b y the B ureau o f L abor S ta tistics from the statistical a g e n c ie s o f
the cou n tries that are com pared, b l s attem pts, to the exten t p o ssib le,
to in su re that the data series u sed to ca lcu la te the m easu res h ave
co m p arab le d e fin itio n s, co v era g e, and reliability. W hen n ecessary,
d iffe re n t data se r ie s are c o m b in e d to arrive at a g g r eg a te s that
corresp o n d to the required d e fin itio n s and co v erage. H ow ever,
certain d ifferen ces rem ain, su ch as the w a y s cou n tries aggregate the
c o m p o n e n ts o f output, or in the m eth od s u sed to ca lcu late price
d efla to rs for in form ation te c h n o lo g y produ cts.
L abor p ro d u ctiv ity is d efin ed as real outp ut per hour w orked.
A lth o u g h the labor p ro d u ctiv ity m easure presented in this article
r e la te s o u tp u t to th e h o u r s w o r k e d o f p e r s o n s e m p lo y e d in
m anu factu rin g, it d o e s n ot m easure the s p e c ific con trib u tion s o f
labor as a sin g le fa cto r o f p rod u ction . Rather, it reflects the jo in t
e f fe c t s o f m a n y in flu e n c e s , in c lu d in g n e w te c h n o lo g y , cap ital
in v estm en t, ca p a city u tiliza tio n , en ergy u se, and m anagerial sk ills,
as w e ll as th e s k ills and efforts o f the w ork force.
U n it labor c o sts are d efin ed as the c o st o f labor input required to
p r o d u c e o n e u n it o f o u t p u t . T h e y are c o m p u t e d a s la b o r
co m p en sa tio n in n o m in al term s, d iv id ed by real output.
b l s con stru cts com parative trend in d ex es o f m anufacturing labor
p rod u ctivity, h o u rly co m p en sa tio n c o sts, and un it labor c o sts from
three b a sic aggregate m easures— output, total labor hours, and total
c o m p e n sa tio n . T h e h ou rs and c o m p e n sa tio n m ea su res refer to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
e m p lo y e e s o n ly (w a g e and salary earn ers) in B e lg iu m , D enm ark,
Italy, and T aiw an. For all other cou n tries, the m easu res refer to all
em p lo y ed p erson s, in c lu d in g e m p lo y ee s, s e lf-e m p lo y e d p erso n s,
and u n p aid fa m ily w o rk ers. F or all o f th e c o u n tr ies, th e term
“hou rs” refers to hou rs w orked.
In general, the m easu res relate to total m anu factu ring as d efin ed
by th e In ter n a tio n a l S tan d ard In d u stria l C la s s if ic a t io n ( isic).
H ow ev er, the m easu res for D enm ark in clu d e m in in g and e x clu d e
m anu factu ring han dicrafts from 1 9 6 0 to 19 6 6 .
T he co m p arison s in th is article m ake u se o f data m ade av a ila b le
to b l s as o f N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1 by th e sta tistic a l a g e n c ie s o f th e
in d ivid u al cou n tries. For so m e cou n tries, the data for th e m o st
r ec en t y e a rs are b a sed on th e E u ro p ea n S y s te m o f In teg ra ted
N a tio n a l A c co u n ts ( e s a 9 5 ) or on the U n ited N a tio n s S y stem o f
N a tio n a l A c co u n ts 1993 ( s n a 9 3 ). For other cou n tries, data w ere
c o m p ile d a cco rd in g to p r e v io u sly u sed sy stem s.
To obtain h istorical tim e series, b l s m ay lin k togeth er data series
w h ich w ere co m p ile d accord in g to d ifferen t a cco u n tin g sy stem s b y
the c o u n tr ies’ statistical a g e n c ie s.
Output. In th is article, m anu factu ring outp ut data for the U n ited
States from 1 9 7 7 forw ard are the g r o ss p rodu ct orig in a tin g (v a lu e
add ed ) m easu res prepared by the B ureau o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is
( b e a ) o f the U .S . D epartm en t o f C om m erce. U . S. g r o ss produ ct
o r ig in a tin g is a ch a in -ty p e a n n u a l-w e ig h ted s e r ie s .1 F or y ea rs
b e fo r e 1 9 7 7 , U .S . o u tp u t g r o w th is b a s e d o n g r o w th o f th e
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
63
U.S. and Foreign Labor Productivity
m a n u fa c tu r in g o u tp u t s e r ie s th a t b l s p u b lis h e s o n q u a rterly
m ea su res o f U .S . p ro d u ctiv ity and c o sts. T h e quarterly m easu res
are o n a secto ra l ou tp u t b a s is rather than a v a lu e -a d d e d b a sis.
S ectoral o utp ut is g r o ss outp ut le s s intra-sector sa les and transfers.2
T h ese tw o series are lin k ed at 1 9 7 7 . B e fo re lin k in g the tw o tim e
s e r ie s , th e ir m o v e m e n ts w e r e c o m p a r ed o v e r th e 1 9 7 7 - 2 0 0 0
interval. It w a s fo u n d that the tw o series h a v e sim ilar lon g-term
tren ds, and that their ann ual flu ctu a tio n s u su a lly are in th e sam e
d irectio n , but can differ su b stan tially in m agn itu d e.
A v a lu e -a d d e d c o n c e p t h a s b e e n u s e d for th e in tern ation al
c o m p a riso n s series b e c a u se the data are m ore read ily a v a ila b le in
th e c o u n tr ies’ n ation al acco u n ts, w h ereas sectoral outp ut w o u ld
req uire a c o m p le x estim a tio n proced ure. A lso , alth ou gh b l s has
d eterm in ed that sectoral ou tp u t is th e correct c o n c e p t for U .S .
m ea su res o f sin g le factor p ro d u ctiv ity (ou tp u t per hou r), there are
oth er c o n sid e r a tio n s that m ay m ake v a lu e add ed a better co n c ep t
for intern ation al co m p arison s, su ch as d ifferen ces a m on g cou n tries
in th e ex ten t o f vertical integration.
F or m o st co u n tries, th e ou tp u t m easu res are v a lu e ad d ed in
m an u factu rin g from the n ation al acco u n ts. H o w ev er, outp ut for
Japan prior to 1 9 7 0 and for th e N e th e rla n d s prior to 1 9 6 0 are
in d e x e s o f industrial p rod u ction . T h e m anu factu ring v a lu e-ad d ed
m ea su res for th e U n ited K in g d o m are e sse n tia lly id en tica l to their
in d ex e s o f industrial prod u ction .
E stim a tio n o f m an u factu rin g real outp ut u sin g m o v in g price
w e ig h ts is b e c o m in g prevalent. F or ex a m p le, the outp ut m easure
for m an u factu rin g in th e U n ited S tates is the ch a in -w eig h ted in d ex
o f real g ro ss p rod u ct origin atin g, b ased on an n u ally ch a n g in g price
w e ig h ts. H o w e v er , e v en w h en c h a in -w e ig h tin g is in trod u ced in a
country, m any earlier tim e p erio d s w ith in a h isto rica l real output
se r ie s m ay co n tin u e to b e estim ated u sin g fix e d price w e ig h ts, w ith
the w e ig h ts u p dated p erio d ica lly (for e xam p le, every 5 or 10 years).
M easu res o f real output m ay a lso differ am on g cou n tries b ecau se
o f d ifferen t ap p ro a ch es to estim a tin g the p rices o f h ig h -te c h n o lo g y
p rod u cts lik e com p u ters and, in gen eral, o f p rod u cts that un dergo
r a p id q u a l it y c h a n g e . P o s s i b l e m e a s u r e m e n t p r o b le m s in
co m p a ra tiv e e stim a tes o f m an u factu rin g p rod u ctivity, arisin g from
th e e f fe c t o f q u a lity -a d ju ste d p r ic e in d e x e s , as w e ll as o th er
m easurem ent issu e s w ere exam in ed for the case o f the U n ited States
and C an ada in a paper b y E ld rid ge and S h erw o o d .3 T h ey fou n d that
m easu rem en t d ifferen ces d o n ot ex p la in the d ifferen ces o b served in
m an u factu rin g p ro d u ctiv ity for th e se tw o cou n tries b etw een 1 9 8 8 —
9 8 . It is th e ca se, h o w ev er, that the U n ited S tates and C anada u se
sim ila r m e th o d o lo g ie s to estim a te p rice in d e x e s for com p u ters,
a lth o u g h the m ea su rem en ts o f other h ig h -tech p rod u cts vary.
T h e oth er co u n tries com p ared in th is article vary w id e ly in the
m eth o d s u sed to quality-ad ju st the price in d ex es o f h ig h -tech n o lo g y
produ cts, b l s is currently co n d u ctin g a r ev iew o f the m eth o d s u sed
in th e fo reig n co u n tries.
L abor input.
T he a ggregate hou rs w ork ed series u sed for F rance
(fro m 1 9 7 0 forw ard ), N o rw a y , S w e d e n , and C an ada are se r ie s
p u b lish ed w ith the n ational accou n ts. For the form er W est G erm any
after 1 9 5 9 and G erm an y from 1 9 9 1 , b l s u s e s a g g reg a te h ou rs
w ork ed , w h ich w ere d ev elo p ed b y a research institute o f the Germ an
M in istry o f L abor to u se w ith the n ation al a cco u n ts em p loym en t
fig u res. F or th e U n ite d K in g d o m from 1 9 9 2 , an in d ex o f total
m a n u fa ctu rin g h o u rs is u sed , d eriv ed from p u b lish e d quarterly
in d ic es o f m an u factu rin g hours. For other cou n tries, the U n ited
K in g d o m b efo re 1 9 9 2 , and th e form er W est G erm any b efo re 19 5 9 ,
b l s c o n s t r u c t s i t s o w n e s t i m a t e s o f a v e r a g e h o u r s , u s in g
e m p lo y m en t fig u res p u b lish ed w ith the n ation al a ccou n ts, or other
64 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
co m p reh en sive em p loym en t series, and estim ates o f average annual
hou rs w ork ed . For th is article, Italian e m p lo y m en t is b a sed o n a
n e w series o f the num ber o f e m p lo y ee s in m anufacturing, instead o f
on labor u n its, as in p rev io u s releases.
T he n e w estim a tes o f total hou rs w ork ed in th e m anu factu ring
secto r in K orea from 1 9 8 5 to 2 0 0 0 are b a sed o n an e m p lo y ed
p e r so n s’ series and an average annual hou rs w ork ed series. T h e data
are prepared b y th e K orean P rod u ctivity C enter ( k p c ) acco rd in g to
th e S y stem o f N a tio n a l A c co u n ts 1993 ( s n a 9 3 ). T h e resu ltin g
hours w ork ed series is the sam e that the K orean P rod u ctivity C enter
u s e s to c a lc u la t e m a n u fa c tu r in g p r o d u c t iv it y . T h e K o r e a n
P ro d u ctiv ity C enter p u b lish e s th e e m p lo y ed p erso n s series, th e
average hours series, and the aggregate hours series as in d ex es in the
K orean Q u arterly P rodu ctivity Review .
T h e n e w e s t i m a t e s o f a g g r e g a t e h o u r s w o r k e d in t h e
m anu factu ring secto r in T aiw an from 1973 to 2 0 0 0 are b ased o n the
num ber o f e m p lo y e e s and average annual h ou rs w o rk ed data from
th e m o n th ly “E m p lo y e e s ’ E a rn in gs S u r v e y ” c o n d u c te d b y th e
T aiw an D irectorate G en eral o f B u d g et A c co u n tin g and S ta tistics
( d g b a s ) . T h e su rvey c o v ers all esta b lish m en ts w ith tw o or m ore
e m p lo y e e s in th e e n tire territo ry o f T a iw a n . T h e r e s u lts are
p u b lish ed in th e T aiw an Yearbook o f E arnings a n d P rodu ctivity
Statistics.
Com pensation (labor cost). T h e co m p en sa tio n m easu res are from
n a t io n a l a c c o u n t s d a ta . C o m p e n s a t io n i n c lu d e s e m p lo y e r
expenditures for legally required insurance program s and contractual
and private b en efit p lan s, in ad d ition to all p aym en ts m ad e in cash
or in k in d directly to e m p lo y ee s. F or C anada, France, and S w ed en ,
b l s in c re a se s c o m p e n sa tio n to a c co u n t for ta x e s on p a y ro ll or
em p loym en t. F or the U n ited K in g d o m , c o m p en sa tio n is red u ced
b etw een 196 7 and 1991 to accou n t for su b sid ies. W h en data for the
se lf-em p lo y e d are n ot ava ila b le, total c o m p en sa tio n is estim a ted
by a ssu m in g th e sam e h o u rly c o m p e n sa tio n for s e lf-e m p lo y e d and
e m p lo y ees; in th is article, th is proced ure is u sed for the first tim e
to adju st K orean m anu factu ring c o m p en sa tio n to an a ll-p erso n s
basis.
D ata f o r Germ any. T h e G erm an F ed eral S tatistical O ffic e b eg a n
to p u blish eco n o m ic statistical series for u n ified G erm any b eg in n in g
w ith 1 9 9 1 , after th e re-u n ifica tio n o f G erm any. F or prior y ears,
o n ly data for the form er W est G erm any w ere a v a ila b le. In th is
article, the data series for G erm any are for the form er W est G erm any
for years b efore 1 9 9 1 , and for u n ifie d G erm any b e g in n in g w ith
1991. T h e se series are lin k ed at 1991.
Current indicators. T h e m easu res for recen t years m ay b e b a sed
o n current in d ic a to rs o f ou tp u t (su c h a s in d u stria l p r o d u ctio n
in d ex e s), em p lo y m en t, average hou rs, and h ou rly co m p en sa tio n
u n til n ation al acco u n ts and other statistics, n orm ally u sed for the
long-term m easures, b e co m e availab le.
L e v e l c o m p a riso n s.
T h e b l s m e a su r e s are lim ite d to tren d
c o m p a r is o n s , b l s d o e s n o t p r e p a r e l e v e l c o m p a r is o n s o f
m anu factu ring p rod u ctivity and u n it labor c o sts b e c a u se o f data
lim ita tio n s and te c h n ic a l p r o b le m s in co m p a r in g th e le v e ls o f
m an u factu rin g ou tp u t a m o n g co u n tries. E ach cou n try m ea su res
m a n u fa ctu rin g ou tp u t in its o w n cu rren cy u n its. To co m p a re
ou tp u ts am o n g co u n tries, a co m m o n u n it o f m easu re w o u ld b e
n eed ed . M arket e x ch a n g e rates are n ot su ita b le as a b a s is for
com p arin g outp ut le v e ls. W hat is n eed ed are p u rch asin g p o w er
parities, w h ich are the num ber o f fo reign currency u n its required to
b u y g o o d s and se r v ic es eq u iv a len t to w h at can b e b o u g h t w ith on e
un it o f U .S . currency.
P u rch a sin g p o w er p arities are ava ila b le for total g ro ss d o m estic
p rod u ct ( g d p ) from th e O rgan ization for E c o n o m ic C oop eration
and D e v e lo p m e n t ( o e c d ) . H o w ev er, th ese parities are d erived for
ex p en d itu res m ad e b y co n su m ers, b u sin e ss, and g overn m en t for
g o o d s and se r v ic e s— n o t for v a lu e add ed b y industry. T herefore,
th e p a r itie s fo r to ta l g d p are n o t su ita b le for e a ch c o m p o n e n t
industry, su ch as m an u factu ring.
E uropean exchange rates. O n Jan. 1 ,1 9 9 9 ,1 1 E uropean countries
jo in e d th e E uropean M on etary U n io n ( e m u ). G reece jo in e d on Jan.
1, 2 0 0 1 . C u rren cies o f E uropean M on etary U n io n m em b ers are
estab lish ed at fix ed co n v ersion rates to the euro, the o fficial currency
o f th e E u ro p ea n M o n etary U n io n . E x c h a n g e rates b e tw e en the
n ation al cu rren cies o f E uropean M on etary U n io n cou n tries and the
U .S . d ollar are n o lo n ger reported; o n ly the e x ch a n g e rate b etw een
the euro and the U .S . d ollar is availab le.
In this article, exchange rates for the year 200 0 , in national currencies
for B elgium , France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are calculated
by taking the number o f euros per U .S . dollar and then converting euros
into national currencies at fixed conversion rates.
leu ro equals:
4 0 .3 3 9 9
6 .5 5 9 5 7
1 .9 5 5 8 3
1 ,9 3 6 .2 7
2 .2 0 3 7 1
B elg ia n francs
F rench francs
G erm an m arks
Italian lire
N eth erlan d s g u ild ers
in 2 0 0 0 , 1 euro w a s equal to 0 .9 2 3 2 U .S . d ollars. T h e currency
e x ch a n g e rates cited in th is p u b lica tio n are annual a v erages o f daily
b u y in g rates in N e w York City.
N o tes to the a p p e n d ix
1 For more information on the U. S. measure, see Sherlene K.S.
Lum, Brian C. Moyer, and Robert E. Yuskavage, “Improved Estimates
of Gross Product by Industry for 1947-98,” Survey o f Current Business,
June 2000, pp. 24-38.
2 For information on sectoral output, see William Gullickson,“Meas
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
urement of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing,” Monthly Labor
Review, July 1995, pp. 13-28.
3
Lucy P. Eldridge and Mark K. Sherwood, “A perspective on the
U.S.-Canada manufacturing productivity gap,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 2001, pp. 31-48.
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
65
Pré c is
Nations and inequality
One especially important international
com parison is o f trends in wage
inequality. DaronAcemoglu, in National
Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper 8832, Cross-Country Inequality
Trends, suggests that in addition to
relative supply explanations for the
faster rise of inequality in the United
States and United Kingdom than in the
rest of Europe, there may have been a
d ifferen tial change in the relative
demand for skills.
Wage inequality and the return to
education have risen quite quickly in the
United States and Great Britain. The
traditional relative supply accounting
for this concludes that the relative
supply o f skill rose faster in continental
E urope and th at the wage setting
in stitu tio n s o f E uropean w orkers
resisted rises in wage inequality.
That wage compression is the starting
point for Acemoglu. Wage compression
forces firms to pay higher wages to
unskilled workers than they would
otherwise. This creates greater incentive
to adopt technologies that increase the
productivity o f those workers, thus
ra isin g relativ e dem and for th eir
serv ices. In contrast, technology
adoption in the United States is often
ch a rac te rized as “ sk ill-b ia sed ”—
oriented toward increasing the pro
ductivity o f the highly-paid, highlyskilled worker.
Factory life-cycles
There is considerable churn in em
ployment among and within establish
ments; this has been well documented.
Aubhik Khan, a senior economist at the
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
66
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
writing in the Bank’s Business Review,
examines some o f that literature and
touches on two possible explanations
for some of the patterns he finds.
One measure of job churning Khan
reports on is the excess of job creation
and destruction over the rates
necessary to produce the net change
produced in the period. Such “excess
job reallocation” varied both by size of
establishment and the establishment’s
age. In general, smaller plants had
higher rates of both job creation and job
loss than did larger plants and higher
measures of reallocation of employment
after backing out net growth. Similarly,
younger plants had higher rates of job
creation, destruction, and “excess
reallocation” than did older plants.
There are two explanations for these
patterns o f em ploym ent volatility,
according to Khan’s article. The first is
a credit and collateral story: Larger
plants have more collateral and thus
more access to credit to smooth out
demand fluctuations, at least in the short
term. The other is a learning story:
M anagers in younger (and usually
smaller) plants are more responsive to
new data on the profitability of the plant.
This may lead to sharp adjustments in
the early years of the plants life. As more
data are accumulated over time, the
influence of new pieces of evidence is
attenuated to some degree. Kahn
believes the two stories may be com
plementary explanations of employment
changes at the plant level.
Multiple jobholding
in C anada
In 2001, according to annual average
data from the Canadian Labour Force
Survey, about 5 percent of workers in
that country held more than one job
during the survey’s reference weeks.
(This estimate is quite similar to the
annual average multiple jobholding rate
produced for the United States by the
Current Population Survey in 2001.)
K atherine M arshall, w riting in the
Statistics Canada publication P er
sp ectives on L abour and Incom e,
reports that the share of Canadians that
experienced at least one spell of multiple
jobholding during the year was double
that, about 10 percent.
Using longitudinal data from the
Survey o f L abour and Incom e
Dynamics, Marshall also was able to
estimate durations of completed spells
of multiple jobholding and analyze the
characteristics of short-, medium-, and
long-term multiple jobholders in 1996.
The average first spell of “moonlighting”
was 8 months. Of the 1.1 million multiple
jobholders who completed a spell that
began in 1996, a little less than a third
started a second before 1999. The
median gap between such spells was 9
months.
The most striking dem ographic
dimension among multiple jobholders in
late-1990s Canada was the difference in
age between those who moonlit for
relatively short spells versus those who
had longer spells of multiple jobholding.
Short-term moonlighters tended to be
younger—median age 27 years—while
long-termers had a median age of 40
years. Marshall attributes this to dif
fering motivations for holding more than
one job: “Younger workers (under age 35)
were most likely to state [in the 1995
Survey of Work Arrangements] either
household expenses or debts as the main
reason for holding more than one job,
whereas older workers (45 and older) were
more likely to answer that they enjoyed
the work on the second job.”
□
Book Reviews
German-U.S. labor eco n o m ics
Labor, Business and Change in Ger
many and the United States. By
Kristen S. Wever, ed. Kalamazoo, Ml,
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employ
m ent R esearch, 2001, 177 pp.,
softcover.
This collection of articles explores the
feasibility of mutual learning ‘on the
ground’ between two nations compet
ing in a global market. It is the result of
a 2-year German-American project.
T he lead a rtic le by B att and
Darbishire on telecommunications fur
nishes an excellent lesson. They ar
gue, like new institutionalists, that fail
ure to place economics within a socio
political setting is a barrier to cross
national learning, thus giving overdue
consideration for values other than
those of the market. For example, they
demonstrate that, in order to protect
jobs, German work councils’ participa
tion in industry decisions slowed ad
aptation to the point o f never fully
im plementing new telecom m unica
tions technology. They contrast this
to the U.S. abandonment of the implicit
labor contract for which AT&T had
been the prototype. Consequently, in
lieu o f cost-cutting technology, Ger
man market strategy focused on rev
enue-enhancing, high-end products.
In both countries, technological evo
lution was challenging regulated mo
nopolies. In Germany, telecommunica
tions was an official state monopoly.
Prior to its breakup, AT&Thad functioned
as a quasi-official monopoly that subsi
dized local phone service through its
higher charges to business and long-dis
tance customers. No less a market deci
sion, local rates depended on political
goodwill. Innovations allowed MCI and
others to sell profitably, in the spread
between AT&T’s long-distance and lo
cal service, technologically advancing
long-distance service. The U.S. setting
required legal challenges to AT&T’s mo
nopoly, which were successful.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The new era of competition follow
ing the AT&T breakup had implications
for organized labor. The authors con
trast labor weakness as a social insti
tution in the United States with the
strong position of the aforementioned
German worker representatives by
pointing out the willingness o f the
Communications Workers of America
(CWA) to bargain on the effects only
of management decisions.
Consistently noting the welfare costs
of downsizing in their analysis, the au
thors assess the cost to post-breakup
at&t, in the loss of skilled workers to
the new industry and the lowered coop
eration o f those who remained. The
losses, consequently, involved substan
tial investment in hiring and retraining.
In another article, Finegold and
Keltner provide a full inventory of train
ing and educational resources for man
agement development in the United
States and Germany. They do not ad
dress the corporatist structure of Ger
man institutional constraints. In attrib
uting rigidity to the State, for example,
they might have discovered a more nuanced story in the fate of the adaptive
com prehensive university, the
Gesamthochschulen. The university
establishment opposed this State re
sponse to changing educational needs.
C asper’s substantive article de
scribes in telling detail the competitively
driven response of the U.S. and German
automobile manufacturers to the chal
lenge of Japanese just-in-time (JIT) in
ventory models. The problem was one
of apportioning the high-cost risks of
defective deliveries. Summaries cannot
do justice to the wealth of information
provided by Casper. German assemblers
faced a law intended to protect the
weaker small-business suppliers. They
needed creative legal solutions. Ameri
can manufacturers faced a lack of quali
fied plant employees whose counter
parts in Japan and Germany could in
spect deliveries. The solution forced
them to cooperate in developing a cross
industry quality control statistical stan
dard, which they found in a Defense De
partment model. In each case, the insti
tutions that served as instruments of ad
aptation were modified by their applica
tion to an economic challenge.
The chapter by the editor of the vol
ume, Kirsten Wever, together with
Fichter and Turner, sums up implications
for industrial relations in the two coun
tries. Competitive disadvantages o f a
higher average living standard on the
German “high road” are contrasted to
competitive advantages resulting from
a more widely dispersed income distri
bution on the American “low road.”
They foresee trouble along the high road
from the liberalizing effects of the EU on
the German economy, while they hope
for a more equitable solution in the
United States from a strengthening
union movement. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2001 report on union member
ship, however, gainsays their optimism.
The collection breaks new ground in
its integration of indepth research with
masterly theoretical argument. The
reader has the impression o f being
plunged into the midst of change while
being guided by a firm hand.
— Solidelle Fortier Wasser
New York region.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
E c o n o m ic e ffic ie n c y
Economic Efficiency in Law and Eco
nomics. By Richard O. Zerbe, Jr.
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub
lishing, Inc., 2001,328pp. $95/hardcover, $35/paperback.
Economic Efficiency in Law and Eco
nomics explains and defends Zerbe’s im
proved version of benefit-cost analysis,
which is used to assess the anticipated
economic effects of a change, such as
new legislation, a precedent-breaking
court ruling, or the breakup of a mo
nopoly. In both previous models and in
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
67
Book Reviews
Zerbe’s new “KHZ analysis,” predicted
gains and losses to parties are assessed
to determine whether a proposed change
will result in a net overall gain or loss to
society. If a net gain results, the eco
nomic system becomes more “efficient.”
Zerbe is well qualified to write such a
book. He is a professor of public affairs
at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public
Affairs and an adjunct professor at the
University of Washington Law School.
He has authored or co-authored related
articles and papers, as well as a textbook.
Zerbe improves on previous versions
of benefit-cost analysis by including the
costs of transactions (sales of assets)
that predictably will occur because of a
change. The recognition of transactions
costs is justifiable, as such costs are in
deed among the consequences of a
change in economic factors.
Zerbe also recognizes the fact that
people tend to value rights or posses
sions they already have more than rights
or assets they contemplate acquiring. A
purely commercial asset, defined as one
desired only for the income it can gener
ate, is an exception to the rule and is
valued equally whether one owns it or
not. Thus, in estimating the effects of a
transfer of a noncommercial asset, the
analyst should recognize that the asset’s
value to the old owner may differ from
its value to the new owner. The subjec
tive cost to the old owner in giving up
the asset may exceed the subjective gain
experienced by the new owner. Further
more, perceived ownership—whether
one believes one owns an asset or not—
as opposed to objective ownership is
relevant to how one values the property
or right. Zerbe makes a convincing ar
gument that perceived ownership should
be entailed in benefit-cost analysis.
Zerbe also emphasizes the “regard for
others” as part of his analysis. The pref
erences of the general public, as well as
68
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
those immediately affected by transac
tions, should serve as a basis of some of
the costs and benefits to be counted.
Through the “regard for others,” KHZ
analysis can entail societal demands for
justice and concern for future genera
tions. Zerbe does emphasize, however,
that k h z analysis is not an infallible
guide to the right course of action; in
stead, KHZ analysis is a tool to provide
information to be considered before a
decision is made.
Values to be counted in KHZ analysis
are in terms of the amounts that parties
would be willing to pay to acquire a right
or possession, and amounts that parties
would be willing to accept in exchange
for a right or possession. No other
means of quantification is apparently
available, yet a certain weakness of KHZ
analysis arises from that means of mea
suring benefits and losses. Specifically,
the wealth or poverty of a party can af
fect the party’s ability to buy, or willing
ness to sell, a possession or right. There
fore, the values used in k h z analysis
reflect the parties’ economic status as
well as their desire or need for the com
modity or right at issue. KHZ analysis,
then, tends to favor the more affluent.
This tendency is not much empha
sized by Zerbe. He does mention that
utility, as opposed to willingness to pay
or to accept payment, cannot be quanti
fied. Therefore, the problem is appar
ently impossible to solve, as monetary
amounts to be paid or received must be
the terms used in KHZ analysis. Just the
same, Zerbe might give greater empha
sis to an apparently serious shortcom
ing of KHZ analysis—that it tends to fa
vor those who have greater assets. The
“regard for others” as a factor in KHZ
analysis may prevent blatantly unjust de
terminations, but regard for others does
not completely nullify the more favor
able position of those who can more eas
ily pay a certain amount to acquire an
asset, gain a right, or change the law to
their advantage.
An additional criticism of KHZ analy
sis can be made. While transactions costs
are to be counted, “the costs of enact
ing a rule change are not to be included
in determining whether or not a new rule
is efficient.” Because such costs are, by
definition, costs, they logically ought to
be included. Zerbe defends his decision
to exclude such costs in a way that is
somewhat difficult to interpret and ap
parently not empirically tested.
After briefly reviewing the history of
benefit-cost analysis and revealing his
new form of it, Zerbe criticizes the theory
of market failure, arguing that KHZ analy
sis is a much superior concept. He then
goes on to apply KHZ analysis to issues
including abortion, theft, rape, and sla
very. He argues that societal changes—
such as changes in technology, institu
tions, or public sentiment—can make
previously efficient rules inefficient in
the sense that a more efficient set of
rules becomes possible. Finally, he
shows that the common law naturally
arises in a manner such that it fosters
economic efficiency. He illustrates his
claim by analyzing the historic issues of
dueling, cannibalism, and the 19th cen
tury Gold Rush.
Zerbe’s new book is high-powered
and potentially important. Its style, how
ever, is mostly dry and may be difficult
for the layman to follow, despite the juicy
illustrative topics. Economic Efficiency
in Law and Economics is recommended
for those who are particularly interested
in the topic of economic efficiency, ei
ther professionally or personally.
—Bill Goodman
Current Employment Statistics Division,
Bureau of Labor Statistics
C urrent Labor Statistics
Notes on labor statistics
70
Labor compensation and collective
bargaining data—continued
Comparative indicators
1. L abor m arket in d ic a to r s .................................................................
2. A n n u al and quarterly percen t ch a n g es in
com p en sa tio n , prices, and p r o d u c tiv ity ............................
3. A ltern ative m easu res o f w a g e s and
com p en sa tio n c h a n g e s ................................................................
82
83
83
Labor force data
4. E m p lo y m en t status o f the pop ulation,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
5. S e lec ted em p lo y m en t indicators,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
6. S e lec ted u n em p lo ym en t indicators,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
7. D u ration o f u n em p loym en t,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
8. U n em p lo y e d p erson s b y reason for u n em p loym en t,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
9. U n em p lo y m en t rates b y se x and age,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
10. U n em p lo y m en t rates by States,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
11. E m p lo y m en t o f w orkers b y States,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
12. E m p lo y m en t o f w orkers b y industry,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
13. A vera g e w e e k ly hou rs b y industry,
sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
14. A vera g e hou rly earn in gs by industry,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
15. A vera g e h ou rly earn in gs b y in d u str y ........................................
16. A v era g e w e e k ly earn in gs b y in d u str y ......................................
17. D iffu sio n in d ex e s o f em p loym en t change,
sea so n a lly a d ju s te d .....................................................................
18. E stab lish m en t siz e and em p loym en t covered under ui,
private o w n ersh ip , b y m ajor in d u str y ................................
19. A n n u al data estab lish m en t, em p loym en t, and w ages,
co v ered u n less u i and u c f e , b y o w n e r s h ip .......................
2 0. A n n u al data: E stab lish m en ts, em p loym en t,
and w a g e s co v ered under u i and u c f e , b y S t a t e .............
2 1 . A nnual data: E m ploym ent and average annual pay o f
Ui- and uCFE-covered w orkers, b y largest c o u n t ie s ........
2 2 . A n nu al data: E m p loym en t status o f the p o p u la tio n .........
2 3 . A n n u a l data: E m p loym en t le v e ls b y in d u str y ......................
24. A n nu al data: A verage hou rs and earnings lev el,
b y in d u s tr y ...................................................................................
110
I ll
112
113
Price data
84
32. C on su m er P rice Index: U .S . city average, b y expenditure
85
33. C on su m er P rice Index: U .S . city average and
86
lo ca l data, all i t e m s .........................................................................117
34. A n nu al data: C on su m er P rice Index, all item s
category and co m m od ity and service g r o u p s ................... 114
87
87
and m ajor g r o u p s ............................................................................ 118
35. P roducer P rice In d exes b y stage o f p r o c e s s in g ........................119
36. P roducer P rice In d exes for the net outp ut o f m ajor
industry g r o u p s ............................................................................... 120
37. A nnual data: P roducer P rice In d exes
88
b y stage o f p r o c e s s in g .................................................................. 121
38. U .S . export p rice in d ex es b y Standard International
89
Trade C la s s ific a tio n ...................................................................... 122
89
39. U .S . im port p rice in d ex es b y Standard International
Trade C la s s ific a tio n ...................................................................... 123
90
4 0 . U .S . export price in d ex es b y en d -u se c a te g o r y ....................... 124
41 . U .S . im port p rice in d ex es b y en d -u se c a t e g o r y .......................124
92
42 . U .S .in tem a tio n a l price in d ex es for selected
categories o f s e r v ic e s .....................................................................124
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
104
105
105
Labor compensation and collective
bargaining data
2 5 . E m p lo y m en t C o st Index, com p en sation ,
b y occu p a tio n and industry g r o u p ........................................ 106
2 6 . E m p lo y m en t C o st In dex, w a g e s and salaries,
b y o ccu p a tio n and industry g r o u p ........................................ 108
2 7 . E m p lo y m en t C o st Index, b en efits, private industry
w orkers, b y occu p ation and industry g r o u p .................... 109
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28 . E m p loym en t C ost In dex, private nonfarm w orkers,
b y bargaining status, region , and area s i z e ........................
29 . P articipants in b en efit plan s, m ed iu m and large f ir m s ......
30 . P articipants in b en efits plan s, sm all firm s
and g o v e r n m e n t..................................................................................
31. W ork stop p ages in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m o r e .............
Productivity data
43 . In d exes o f productivity, hou rly com p en sation ,
and unit co sts, data sea so n a lly a d j u s t e d .............................. 125
44 . A n nu al in d ex es o f m ultifactor p r o d u c tiv ity ............................. 126
45. A n nu al in d ex es o f productivity, h ou rly com p en sation ,
unit costs, and p r i c e s ................................................................... 127
46 . A n nu al in d ex es o f output per hour for selected
in d u str ies............................................................................................128
International comparisons data
47 . U n em p loym en t rates in n in e countries,
data sea so n a lly a d ju ste d .............................................................. 131
48. A n nu al data: E m p loym en t status o f the civ ilia n
w ork in g-age pop u lation , 10 c o u n tr ie s................................... 132
4 9 . A n nu al in d ex es o f p rodu ctivity and related m easures,
12 c o u n tr ie s .......................................................................................133
Injury and illness data
50. A n nu al data: O ccu p ation al injury and illn ess
in cid en ce r a t e s ................................................................................134
51. Fatal occu p ation al injuries b y even t
or e x p o su r e ........................................................................................... 136
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
69
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
This section o f the R eview presents the prin
cipal statistical series collected and calcu
lated by the B ureau o f L abor 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 o f tables are briefly
described; key definitions are given; notes
on the data are set forth; and sources o f addi
tional information are cited.
G eneral 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 o f such factors as cli
matic conditions, industry production sched
ules, opening and closing o f schools, holi
day buying periods, and vacation practices,
which might prevent short-term evaluation
o f the statistical series. Tables containing
data that have been adjusted are identified as
“ seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are es
tim ated on the basis o f past experience.
W hen new seasonal factors are computed
each year, revisions may affect seasonally
adjusted data for several preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1 -1 4 ,1 6 -1 7 ,4 3 , and 47. Seasonally adjusted
labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -9 were re
vised in the February 2002 issue o f the R e
view . Seasonally adjusted establishment sur
vey data shown in tables 1 ,1 2 -1 4 and 16-17
were revised in the July 2001 R eview and
reflect the experience through March 2001. A
brief explanation o f the seasonal adjustment
methodology appears in “Notes on the data.”
Revisions in the productivity data in table
49 are usually introduced in the September
issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and per
cent changes from m o nth-to-m onth and
quarter-to-quarter are published for num er
ous Consum er 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.
Adjustments for price changes. Some
data— such as the “real” earnings shown in
table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the ef
fect o f changes in price. These adjustments
are made by dividing current-dollar values
by the C onsum er Price Index or the appro
priate component o f the index, then multi
plying by 100. For example, given a current
hourly wage rate o f $3 and a current price
index number o f 150, where 1982 = 100, the
70
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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.
C om parisons o f Unemployment, BLS B ulle
tin 1979.
Detailed data on the occupational injury
and illness series are published in O ccu pa
Sources of information
tion al Injuries a n d Illnesses in the U nited
States, by Industry, a BLS annual bulletin.
Finally, the M on th ly L a b o r R eview car
Data that supplement the tables in this sec
tion are published by the Bureau in a variety
o f sources. Definitions o f each series and
notes on the data are contained in later sec
tions o f these Notes describing each set o f
data. For detailed descriptions o f each data
series, see BLS H andbook o f M ethods, Bul
letin 2490. Users also may wish to consult
M a jo r P rogram s o f the Bureau o f L a b o r S ta
tistics, 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 o f 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 B ureau’s
monthly publication, E m ploym ent an d E arn
ings. Historical unadjusted and seasonally
adjusted data from the household survey are
available on the Internet:
http://www. bis. gov/cps/
Historically comparable unadjusted and sea
sonally adjusted data from the establishment
survey also are available on the Internet:
http://www. bis. gov/ces/
Additional information on labor force data
for areas below the national level are pro
vided in the BLS annual report, G eographic
Profile o f Em ploym ent a n d Unemployment.
For a com prehensive discussion o f the
Employment Cost Index, see Em ploym ent
C ost Indexes a n d Levels, 1975—95, BLS B ul
letin 2466. The most recent data from the
Employee Benefits Survey appear in the fol
lowing Bureau o f Labor Statistics bulletins:
E m ployee B en efits in M edium a n d L a rg e
F irm s; E m ployee Benefits in Sm all P rivate
E stablishm ents; and E m ployee B enefits in
State a n d L o ca l Governments.
More detailed data on consum er and pro
ducer prices are published in the monthly
periodicals, The CPI D e ta ile d R e p o rt and
P rodu cer P rice Indexes. For an overview o f
the 1998 revision o f the C P I , see the Decem
ber 1996 issue o f th e M onthly L a b o r Review.
Additional data on international prices ap
pear in monthly news releases.
Listings o f industries for which produc
tivity indexes are available may be found on
the Internet:
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
For additional inform ation on interna
tional comparisons data, see International
June 2002
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 tim e
liness o f some series, prelim inary
figures are issued based on repre
sentative but incomplete returns,
r = revised. Generally, this revision
reflects the availability o f later
data, but also may reflect other ad
justments.
C o m p a r a t iv e Indicators
(Tables 1-3)
C om parative indicators tables provide an
overview and comparison o f major BLS sta
tistical series. Consequently, although many
o f the included series are available monthly,
all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include em
ployment measures from two major surveys
and information on rates o f 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
m ographic groups based on the C urrent
Population (“ household”) Survey are pre
sented, while measures o f employment and
average weekly hours by major industry sec
tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The
Employment Cost Index (com pensation), by
major sector and by bargaining status, is cho
sen from a variety o f BLS compensation and
wage measures because it provides a com
prehensive measure o f employer costs for
hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and
it is not affected by employment shifts among
occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation, prices,
and productivity are presented in table 2.
M easures o f rates o f change o f com pensa-
tio n and w a g e s fro m th e E m p lo y m e n t C o st
In d e x p ro g ra m are p r o v id e d for a ll c i v i l
ia n n o n fa r m w o r k e r s ( e x c l u d in g F ed era l
an d h o u s e h o ld w o r k e r s ) an d for all p rivate
n o n fa rm w o rk ers. M e a s u r e s o f c h a n g e s in
c o n s u m e r p r ice s fo r all urban c o n su m er s;
p r o d u c e r p r ic e s b y s ta g e o f p r o c e s s in g ;
o v e r a ll p r ice s b y sta g e o f p r o c e s s in g ; and
o v e ra ll e x p o r t and im p ort p rice in d e x e s are
g iv e n . M ea su r es o f p rod u ctiv ity (o u tp u t per
h o u r o f all p e r s o n s ) are p ro v id ed for m ajor
se c to r s.
Alternative measures of wage and com
pensation rates of change, w h ich reflect the
overall trend in labor c o sts, are su m m arized
in table 3. D ifferen ces in co n cep ts and scop e,
related to the sp ecific p u rp oses o f the series,
contribute to the variation in ch a n g es am on g
the ind ividu al m easures.
Notes on the data
D e fin itio n s o f ea ch series and notes on the
data are con tain ed in later sectio n s o f th ese
n o tes describ in g ea ch set o f data.
E m p lo y m e n t a n d
U n e m p lo y m e n t D a ta
(T ables 1; 4 - 2 4 )
Household survey data
Description of the series
E mployment data in th is se c tio n are o b
tained from the C urrent P opulation Survey,
a program o f personal in terview s con d u cted
m o n th ly by the B ureau o f the C en su s for the
B ureau o f Labor Statistics. T he sam p le c o n
sists o f about 6 0 ,0 0 0 h o u seh o ld s selected to
represent th e U .S . population 16 years o f age
and older. H o u seh o ld s are in terview ed on a
rotating b a sis, so that th ree-fou rth s o f the
sa m p le is th e sa m e for an y 2 c o n se c u tiv e
m onths.
Definitions
Employed persons inclu de (1 ) all th ose w h o
w o rk ed for pay a n y tim e during the w e ek
w h ich in clu d es the 12th day o f the m onth or
w h o w orked unpaid for 15 hours or m ore in
a fam ily-op erated enterp rise and (2 ) th ose
w h o w ere tem porarily absent from their regu
lar jo b s b e ca u se o f illn e ss, v acation , in d u s
trial d isp u te, or sim ilar reason s. A p erson
w ork in g at m ore than o n e jo b is counted on ly
in the jo b at w h ic h h e or sh e w ork ed the
greatest nu m ber o f hours.
Unemployed persons are th o se w h o did
n ot w ork during the su rvey w e e k , but w ere
a v ailab le for w ork e x ce p t for tem porary ill
n e ss and had look ed for jo b s w ith in the pre
c ed in g 4 w e ek s. P erso n s w h o did n ot look
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for w ork b eca u se th e y w ere on la y o ff are
a lso cou n ted am on g the u n em p loyed . The
unemployment rate rep resen ts th e n u m
ber u n em p loyed as a percen t o f the civilian
labor force.
The civilian labor force c o n sists o f all
e m p lo y e d or u n em p lo y e d p e r so n s in th e
civilian non institutional population. P erson s
not in the labor force are those not cla ssified
as e m p lo y ed or u n em p lo y e d . T h is grou p
in c lu d e s d isco u ra g ed w o rk ers, d efin ed as
p erson s w h o w an t and are available for a job
and w h o have looked for w ork som etim e in
the past 12 m on th s (or since the end o f their
last jo b i f th ey held o n e w ith in the past 12
m o n th s ), bu t are n o t c u r re n tly lo o k in g ,
b e c a u s e th e y b e lie v e th e r e are n o j o b s
available or there are n o n e for w h ich they
w o u ld q u a lify. T h e civilian noninstitu
tional population com p rises all persons 16
years o f a ge and older w h o are n ot inm ates
o f penal or m ental institution s, sanitarium s,
or h o m es for the aged , infirm , or needy. The
civilian labor force participation rate is the
proportion o f th e civ ilia n n o n in stitu tion al
p op u lation that is in the labor force. T he
employment-population ratio is e m p lo y
m en t as a p ercen t o f th e c iv ilia n n o n in
stitutional population.
Notes on the data
From tim e to tim e, and e sp e c ia lly after a
d ecen n ial c en su s, ad ju stm en ts are m ade in
th e C u rren t P op u la tio n S u rv ey fig u res to
c o rr ec t for e s tim a tin g errors d u rin g th e
in tercen sal years. T h ese adju stm ents a ffect
the com p arab ility o f h istorical data. A d e
scription o f th ese ad ju stm en ts and their e f
fe ct on the variou s data series appears in the
E x p la n a to r y N o t e s o f E m p lo y m en t a n d
Earnings.
Labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 9 are
se a so n a lly adju sted. S in ce January 1 9 8 0 ,
n ational labor force data h ave b een se a so n
a lly adjusted w ith a proced ure called X - l l
arima w h ic h w a s d e v e lo p ed at S ta tistics
C anada as an e x ten sio n o f the standard X 11 m eth od p rev io u sly u sed by bls . A d e
tailed d escrip tion o f th e proced ure appears
in th e X - l l a r im a S e a so n a l A d ju stm en t
M ethod, by E stela B e e D a g u m (S ta tistics
C anada, C a talogu e N o . 1 2 -5 6 4 E , January
19 8 3 ).
A t th e b eg in n in g o f ea ch calend ar year,
h istorical se a so n a lly adju sted data u su a lly
are revised , and projected season al adju st
m en t factors are calcu lated for u se during
the Jan u ary-Ju n e period. T he historical sea
so n a lly adju sted data u su a lly are revised for
o n ly th e m o st recen t 5 years. In July, n e w
season al adju stm ent factors, w h ic h in corp o
rate the ex p erien ce through Ju n e, are pro
d u ced for the J u ly -D e c e m b e r period, but no
r ev isio n s are m ade in the h istorical data.
For additional information o n n a
tion al h o u se h o ld su rv e y data, c o n ta c t th e
D iv is io n o f L abor F orce S tatistics: ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 3 7 8 .
Establishment survey data
Description of the series
Employment, hours, and earnings data
in th is se c tio n are c o m p ile d from payroll
records reported m o n th ly o n a v olu n tary ba
sis to th e B u reau o f L abor S tatistics and its
cooperating State a g en cies by about 3 0 0 ,0 0 0
esta b lish m e n ts rep resen tin g all in d u stries
e x ce p t agriculture. In d u stries are c la ssifie d
in accord an ce w ith the 1 9 8 7 S ta n d a rd In
du strial Classification (SIC) M anual. In m o st
in d u str ies, th e sa m p lin g p ro b a b ilities are
based on the size o f the estab lish m en t; m o st
large e sta b lish m e n ts are th e r efo r e in th e
sam p le. (A n esta b lish m en t is n ot n e c essa r
ily a firm ; it m ay be a branch plant, fo r e x
a m p le, or w a r e h o u s e .) S e lf-e m p lo y e d p er
s o n s and o th e r s n o t on a reg u la r c iv ilia n
p ayroll are o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f th e su r
v e y b e c a u se th e y are e x c lu d e d from e sta b
lish m e n t record s. T h is larg ely a c c o u n ts for
th e d iffe r e n c e in e m p lo y m e n t fig u r e s b e
tw e e n th e h o u s e h o ld and e s ta b lis h m e n t
su r v e y s .
Definitions
A n establishment is an eco n o m ic unit w h ich
produ ces g o o d s or serv ices (su ch as a fa c
tory or store) at a sin g le location and is e n
gaged in on e type o f e co n o m ic activity.
Employed persons are all p e r so n s w h o
r e c e iv e d p a y (in c lu d in g h o lid a y an d sic k
p a y ) fo r a n y part o f th e p a y ro ll p erio d in
c lu d in g th e 1 2 th d ay o f th e m o n th . P e r
so n s h o ld in g m ore th an o n e jo b (a b o u t 5
p e r ce n t o f all p e r so n s in th e lab or fo r c e )
are c o u n te d in e a ch e sta b lish m e n t w h ic h
rep orts th em .
Production workers in m an u factu rin g
in clu d e w ork in g su p ervisors and n on su p erv iso r y w ork ers c lo s e ly a sso cia te d w ith pro
d u ctio n o p era tio n s. T h o s e w o rk ers m e n
tion ed in tab les 1 1 - 1 6 in clu d e prod u ction
w orkers in m an u factu rin g and m in in g; c o n
s tr u c tio n w o r k e r s in c o n s t r u c t io n ; an d
n on su p ervisory w ork ers in th e fo llo w in g in
dustries: transportation and p u b lic u tilities;
w h o le sa le and retail trade; fin a n c e , in su r
a n c e , and real estate; and serv ices. T h ese
grou p s acco u n t for abou t fou r-fifth s o f the
total e m p lo y m e n t on p rivate n o n a g ric u ltural payrolls.
Earnings are the p aym en ts p rodu ction
or n on su p erv iso ry w ork ers receiv e during
the su rvey period , in clu d in g p rem iu m p ay
for o v ertim e or late-sh ift w ork but e x clu d -
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
J u n e 2002
71
Current Labor Statistics
in g irreg u la r b o n u s e s an d o th e r s p e c ia l
p a y m e n ts . Real earnings are e a r n in g s
adjusted to reflect the e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s in
co n su m er prices. T h e d eflator for th is series
is d erived from the C o n su m er P rice In d ex
fo r U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C le r ic a l
W orkers (CPi-W).
Hours r e p r e se n t th e a v e r a g e w e e k ly
hours o f production or n on su pervisory w ork
ers for w h ic h pay w a s received , and are d if
feren t fro m standard or sc h e d u le d hou rs.
Overtime hours represent the portion o f av
erage w e e k ly hou rs w h ic h w a s in e x c e ss o f
regular hou rs and for w h ic h overtim e prem i
u m s w ere paid.
T h e D iffusion Index r e p r e s e n ts th e
p ercen t o f in d u stries in w h ic h em p lo y m en t
w a s risin g o v er the in d icated period , p lu s
o n e -h a lf o f the in d u stries w ith u n ch an ged
em p lo y m en t; 5 0 percen t in d icates an eq u al
b a lan ce b e tw e en in d u stries w ith in creasin g
and decreasing em ploym en t. In line w ith B u
reau practice, data for the 1-, 3 -, and 6-m onth
sp an s are se a so n a lly adju sted, w h ile th ose
for the 1 2 -m o n th span are unadjusted. D ata
are cen tered w ith in the span. Table 17 pro
v id e s an in d ex o n private n on farm e m p lo y
m en t based on 3 5 6 in d u stries, and a m an u
fa ctu rin g in d e x b a sed on 1 3 9 in d u stries.
T h e se in d ex e s are u sefu l for m easu rin g the
d isp ersio n o f e c o n o m ic g ain s or lo s s e s and
are a lso e c o n o m ic ind icators.
B eg in n in g in June 1 9 9 6 , the bls u ses the
X-12- arima m eth o d o lo g y to se a so n a lly ad
ju st esta b lish m en t su rvey data. T h is p roce
dure, d ev elo p ed b y th e B u reau o f th e C e n
su s, con trols for the e ffe c t o f varyin g sur
v e y in tervals (a lso k n o w n as the 4 - versu s
5 -w e e k e ffe c t), th ereb y p rovid in g im p roved
m easurem ent o f over-the-m onth ch an ges and
F or additional information on data in
this series, call (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 3 9 2 (table 10 ) or
(2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 5 5 9 (table 11).
C o v e r e d e m p lo y m e n t a n d
w age d ata (ES-202)
u n d erlyin g e c o n o m ic trends. R e v isio n s o f
data, u su a lly for th e m o st recen t 5-year p e
riod, are m ade o n c e a year co in cid e n t w ith
the benchm ark revision s.
In th e e sta b lish m e n t su rvey, e stim a te s
for the m o st recen t 2 m on th s are based on
in co m p lete returns and are p u blished as pre
lim inary in th e tables ( 1 2 - 1 7 in the Review ).
W h en all returns h ave b een receiv ed , the e s
tim ates are revised and p u b lish ed as “ fin al”
(prior to an y ben ch m ark rev isio n s) in the
third m on th o f their appearance. T h u s, D e
cem b er data are p u b lish ed as prelim inary in
January and February and as final in M arch.
For the sam e rea so n s, quarterly esta b lish
m en t data (table 1) are prelim inary for the
first 2 m on th s o f p u blication and final in the
third m onth . T h u s, fourth-quarter data are
p u b lish e d as p relim in a ry in Jan u ary and
February and as final in M arch.
F ORadditional information on estab
lish m en t su rv ey data, co n tact th e D iv isio n
o f C u rren t E m p lo y m e n t S ta tistics: ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 5 5 5 .
Description of the series
E
m p l o y m e n t , w a g e , a n d e s t a b l is h m e n t d a ta
in th is s e c tio n are d e r iv e d from th e q u ar
te rly ta x rep orts su b m itted to S ta te e m
p lo y m e n t s e c u r ity a g e n c ie s b y p riv a te and
State and lo ca l g o v e rn m en t em p lo y er s su b
j e c t to S ta te u n e m p lo y m e n t in su r a n c e (u i)
la w s and from F ed era l, a g e n c ie s su b je ct to
th e U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n s a t i o n fo r
F ed era l E m p lo y e e s ( u c f e ) program . E a ch
quarter, S tate a g e n c ie s ed it and p r o c ess th e
data an d se n d th e in fo r m a tio n to th e B u
reau o f L ab or S ta tistic s.
T h e C o v e r e d E m p lo y m e n t an d W a g e s
d a ta , a ls o r e fe r r e d a s E S - 2 0 2 d a ta , are
th e m o s t c o m p le t e e n u m e r a tio n o f e m
p lo y m e n t a n d w a g e i n f o r m a t io n b y i n
d u s tr y at th e n a t io n a l, S ta te , m e t r o p o li
tan a r e a , a n d c o u n t y l e v e l s . T h e y h a v e
b ro a d e c o n o m ic s i g n i f i c a n c e in e v a lu a t
in g la b o r m a r k e t tr e n d s a n d m a jo r i n
d u s tr y d e v e lo p m e n t s .
Notes on the data
E sta b lish m en t su rv ey data are an n u ally ad
ju sted to c o m p r eh en siv e co u n ts o f e m p lo y
m en t (ca lled “ b en ch m ark s”). T h e latest ad
ju stm en t, w h ic h incorporated M arch 2 0 0 0
b en ch m a rk s, w a s m ade w ith th e release o f
M a y 2 0 0 1 data, p u b lish ed in the July 2 0 0 1
is s u e o f th e R eview . C o in c id e n t w ith th e
b enchm ark adju stm ent, historical season ally
adjusted data w ere revised to reflect updated
season al factors. U nadjusted data from A p ril
2 0 0 0 forw ard and sea so n a lly adjusted data
from January 1 9 9 7 forw ard are su bject to
rev isio n in future benchm arks.
In add ition to th e routine ben ch m ark re
v is io n s and updated sea so n a l factors intro
d u ced w ith th e relea se o f th e M a y 2 0 0 1
data, th e first estim a tes for the m in in g , c o n
struction, and m anufacturing industries w ere
p u b lish e d fro m a n e w p ro b a b ility -b a sed
sam p le d esig n . T he first estim a tes from the
n e w d e sig n , for th e w h o le sa le trade in d u s
try, w ere p u b lish ed w ith the M arch 1 9 9 9
b en ch m a rk r ev isio n s in Jun e 2 0 0 0 . E sti
m a tes from th e red esign ed su rv ey for the
rem a in in g in d u stry d iv isio n s w ill be ph ased
in w ith su b seq u e n t y e a r s ’ b en ch m ark re
lea ses in 2 0 0 2 and 2 0 0 3 . For additional in
form ation , se e the the June 2 0 0 1 issu e o f
E m ploym en t a n d Earnings.
R ev isio n s in State data (table 11) occurred
w ith the publication o f January 2 0 0 2 data.
72
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unem ploym ent d ata by
State
Definitions
Description of the series
In g e n e r a l, es -202 m o n th ly e m p lo y m e n t
d a ta r e p r e s e n t th e n u m b e r o f covered
D ata p resen ted in th is se c tio n are obtained
from th e L ocal A rea U n em p lo y m e n t S tatis
tics (laus ) program , w h ic h is co n d u cted in
coo p era tio n w ith State e m p lo y m en t se c u
rity a g e n c ie s.
M o n th ly e stim a te s o f th e labor fo r ce ,
em p loym en t, and u n em p loym en t for States
and su b-S tate areas are a key indicator o f lo
cal eco n o m ic con d ition s, and form th e basis
for d eterm ining the eligib ility o f an area for
b en efits under Federal eco n o m ic assistan ce
program s su ch as the Job Training Partner
ship A ct. Season ally adjusted u n em p loym en t
rates are presen ted in table 10. In sofar as
p ossib le, the co n cep ts and defin ition s under
lyin g th ese data are th o se used in the national
estim ates obtained from the cps.
Notes on the data
D ata refer to State o f residence. M onthly data
for all States and the D istrict o f C olum bia are
d e r iv e d u s in g sta n d a r d iz e d p r o c e d u r e s
established by bls . O n ce a year, estim ates are
revised to n e w population controls, usually
w ith publication o f January estim ates, and
benchm arked to annual average cps levels.
Ju n e 2002
workers w h o w o r k e d d u rin g , or r e c e iv e d
p ay fo r, th e p a y p eriod th a t in c lu d e d th e
1 2 th d a y o f th e m o n th . Covered private
industry employment in c lu d e s m o s t c o r
p orate o f f ic ia ls , e x e c u t iv e s , su p e r v is o r y
p e r so n n e l, p r o fe s s io n a ls , c le ric a l w o r k e rs,
w a g e earn ers, p ie c e w o rk ers, and part-tim e
w o r k e rs. It e x c lu d e s p ro p rieto rs, th e u n
in c o rp o ra te d s e lf - e m p lo y e d , u n p a id fa m
ily m e m b er s, and c erta in farm an d d o m e s
tic w o r k e rs.
C erta in ty p e s o f n o n p r o fit
em p lo y er s, su ch as r elig io u s o r g a n iza tio n s,
are g iv e n a c h o ic e o f c o v e r a g e or e x c lu s io n
in a n u m b er o f S ta te s. W ork ers in th e s e
o r g a n iz a tio n s are, th e r e fo r e , rep orted to a
lim ited d eg ree.
P e r s o n s o n p aid s ic k le a v e , p a id h o l i
d a y , p a id v a c a t io n , an d th e lik e , a re i n
c lu d e d . P e r s o n s o n th e p a y r o ll o f m o r e
th a n o n e fir m d u r in g t h e p e r io d a re
c o u n t e d b y e a c h u i- s u b j e c t e m p lo y e r i f
t h e y m e e t th e e m p l o y m e n t d e f i n i t i o n
n o te d earlier. T h e e m p lo y m e n t c o u n t e x
c lu d e s w o r k e r s w h o e a r n e d n o w a g e s
d u r in g th e e n tir e a p p lic a b le p a y p e r io d
b e c a u s e o f w o r k s t o p p a g e s , te m p o r a r y
State o f few er than 50 workers. A lso, w h en
p loym en t. A further d iv isio n by 5 2 y ield s
F ederal em ployment data are b a s e d
there are few er than 2 5 workers in all second
average w e ek ly w a g e s per e m p loyee. A nnual
o n r e p o r ts o f m o n t h ly e m p lo y m e n t an d
q u a r te r ly w a g e s s u b m itte d e a c h q u a rter
to S ta te a g e n c ie s fo r all F e d e r a l i n s t a lla
ary installations in a State, the secondary in
stallations m ay be com bined and reported with
pay data o n ly approxim ate annual earn in gs
b eca u se an ind ividu al m ay n ot be em p lo y ed
the major installation. Last, i f a Federal agency
has few er than five em p lo y ees in a State, the
a g en cy headquarters o ffice (region al o ffic e ,
by the sam e em p loyer all year or m ay w ork
l a y o f f s , i l l n e s s , or u n p a id v a c a t io n s .
t i o n s w it h e m p l o y e e s c o v e r e d b y th e
for Fed
eral Employees ( ucfe) program, except
for certain national security agencies,
which are omitted for security reasons.
U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n s a t i o n
for m ore than on e em p loyer at a tim e.
district o ffic e ) servin g each State m ay c o n
Average weekly or annual pay is a f
fected by the ratio o f full-tim e to part-tim e
solidate the em p loym en t and w a g e s data for
w orkers as w e ll as the n u m ber o f ind ividu als
that State w ith the data reported to the State
in h igh -p ayin g and lo w -p a y in g o ccu p a tio n s.
E m p lo y m en t for all Federal a g e n c ie s for any
g iv en m on th is based on the num ber o f per
in w h ich the headquarters is located. A s a
result o f th ese reporting rules, the num ber o f
W h en average pay lev e ls b etw een States and
industries are com pared , th ese factors should
so n s w h o w o rk ed during or received pay for
reporting units is alw ays larger than the nu m
ber o f em p loyers (or govern m en t a g e n c ie s)
be taken into consideration . For ex a m p le, in
but sm aller than the num ber o f actual estab
o f part-time w orkers w ill sh o w average w a g e
le v e ls app reciab ly le s s than th e w e e k ly pay
the pay period that inclu ded the 12th o f the
m onth.
A n establishment is an eco n o m ic unit,
du stries ch aracterized by h igh proportions
su ch as a farm , m in e, factory, or store, that
p ro d u ces g o o d s or p rovid es serv ices. It is
lish m en ts (or installation s).
D ata reported for the first quarter are tabu
la ted in to size c a te g o r ie s r a n g in g from
ty p ica lly at a sin g le p h y sica l lo ca tio n and
en g a g ed in o n e , or predom inantly o n e , type
o f e c o n o m ic a ctivity for w h ic h a sin g le in
w ork sites o f very sm all size to th o se w ith
1 ,0 0 0 em p lo y ees or m ore. T he size category
is determ ined by the estab lish m en t’s M arch
lev els o f regular full-tim e e m p lo y ees in th ese
industries. T he op p osite e ffe c t ch aracterizes
ind ustries w ith lo w proportions o f part-tim e
w ork ers, or in d u stries that typ ically sch ed
ule h eavy w eek en d and overtim e w ork. A ver
dustrial c la ssifica tio n m ay be applied. O cca
e m p lo y m en t lev el. It is im portant to n ote
age w age data also m ay be influenced b y work
sio n a lly , a sin g le ph ysical location e n c o m
p a sses tw o or m ore distin ct and sign ifican t
that each estab lish m en t o f a m u lti-estab lish
m en t firm is tabulated separately in to the
stop p ages, labor turnover rates, retroactive
p aym ents, season al factors, b on u s p aym ents,
activ ities. E a ch activ ity sh ould be reported
as a separate establishm ent i f separate records
appropriate size category. T he total em p lo y
and so on.
are kept and the variou s activities are c la ssi
fied under d ifferen t four-digit sic cod es.
m ent firm is not used in the size tabulation.
C overed em p loyers in m ost States report
Notes on the data
To insure the h igh est p ossib le quality o f data,
m en t lev e l o f th e reporting m u lti-estab lish
M o st em p lo y ers h a ve o n ly o n e estab lish
total wages paid during the calendar quarter,
m ent; thu s, the estab lish m en t is the predom i
regardless o f w h en the services w ere per
State em p lo y m en t secu rity a g e n c ie s v erify
n an t reporting u n it or statistical en tity for
reporting em p lo y m en t and w a g e s data. M ost
em p lo y ers, in clu d in g State and local g o v ern
form ed. A fe w State la w s, h ow ever, sp ec ify
that w a g e s be reported for, or based on the
period during w h ich services are perform ed
w ith em p loyers and update, i f n ecessary, the
industry, lo cation , and ow n ersh ip c la ssific a
tion o f all estab lish m en ts on a 3-year cy cle.
m en ts w h o operate m ore than o n e estab lish
rather than the period during w h ich com p en
sation is paid. U n der m ost State law s or regu
lations, w a g es include bon uses, stock options,
C h an ges in establishm ent classification co d es
resulting from the verification p rocess are in
troduced w ith the data reported for the first
quarter o f the year. C h a n g es resulting from
im proved em p loyer reporting a lso are intro
report. S o m e v ery sm all m ulti-estab lish m en t
the cash valu e o f m eals and lod gin g, tips and
other gratuities, and, in som e States, em ployer
contrib utions to certain deferred co m p en sa
tion plans su ch as 4 0 1 (k ) plans.
C overed em p loyer contrib utions for old-
em p lo y ers do n o t file a M u ltip le W orksite
R eport. W h en the total em p lo y m en t in an
e m p lo y e r ’s se c o n d a r y e sta b lish m e n ts (all
estab lish m en ts other than the largest) is 10
or fe w er , the em p lo y er gen erally w ill file a
consolidated report for all establishm ents. A lso ,
so m e em ployers either cannot or w ill not re
a g e , su r v iv o r s , and d isa b ility in su r a n c e
( o a s d i ) , health insu ran ce, u n em p loym en t in
surance, w orkers’ com p en sation , and private
p en sion and w elfare fu n d s are not reported
as w a g e s. E m p lo y ee con trib u tion s for the
sam e pu rp oses, h o w ev er, as w ell as m on ey
w ith h eld for in com e taxes, u n ion d u es, and
rable w ith earlier years.
T he 1 9 9 9 cou n ty data used to calculate
the 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 c h a n g e s w ere adjusted for
ch a n g es in industry and co u n ty classifica tio n
to m ake them com parable to data for 2 0 0 0 .
port at the establishm ent level and thus aggre
gate establishm ents into on e consolidated unit,
so forth, are reported e v en thou gh th ey are
dedu cted from the w o rk er’s g ross pay.
Wages of covered Federal workers rep
resen t the gross am oun t o f all payrolls for all
m en t in a State, file a M u ltip le W orksite R e
port ea ch quarter, in addition to their quar
terly ui report. T he M u ltip le W orksite R e
port is u sed to c o lle ct separate em p loym en t
and w a g e data for ea ch o f the em p lo y er’s e s
ta b lish m en ts, w h ich are not detailed on the ui
or p ossib ly several units, thou gh not at the
establishm ent level.
For the Federal G overnm ent, the reporting
unit is the
installation: a single location at
w h ich a departm ent, agency, or other govern
m ent body has civilian em ployees. Federal agen
cies fo llo w slightly different criteria than do
private em ployers w h en breaking d ow n their
reports by installation. T hey are permitted to
com bine as a single statewide unit: 1) all instal
lations w ith 10 or few er w orkers, and 2 ) all
installations that have a com bined total in the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pay periods en d in g w ith in the quarter. T his
in clu d es cash a llo w a n ces, the cash eq u iv a
len t o f any type o f rem uneration, severan ce
pay, w ith h old in g taxes, and retirem ent de
d u ction s. Federal e m p lo y ee rem u neration
gen erally cov ers the sam e types o f services
as for w orkers in private industry.
Average annual wages per em p loyee for
du ced in the first quarter. For th ese reason s,
so m e data, e sp ecia lly at m ore detailed g e o
graphic le v e ls, m ay n ot be strictly co m p a
A s a result, the adjusted 1 9 9 9 data differ to
so m e exten t from the data available o n the
Internet at:
http://www. bis. gov/ cew/home. htm.
C ou n ty d efin ition s are a ssign ed accord
ing to Federal In form ation P ro c essin g S tan
dards P u b lication s as issu ed by th e N a tio n a l
Institute o f Standards and T ech n ology. A rea s
sh o w n as co u n ties in clu d e th o se designated
as in d ep en d en t cities in so m e ju risd ictio n s
and, in A lask a, th o se areas d esign ated by the
C en su s B ureau w h ere cou n ties h ave not been
created. C ou n ty data also are p resented for
the N e w E nglan d States for com parative pur
any g iv en industry are com p u ted by divid
p o ses, ev en th ou gh tow n sh ip s are the m ore
ing total annual w a g es by annual average em
co m m o n d esign ation used in N e w E nglan d
M onthly Labo r Review
Ju n e 2002
73
Current Labor Statistics
(and N e w Jersey).
For additional in form ation on the c o v
ered em p lo y m en t and w a g e data, con tact the
D iv isio n o f A d m in istrative Statistics and L a
bor Turnover at (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 5 6 7 .
Compensation and
Wage Data
(T ables 1 -3 ; 2 5 - 3 1 )
Compensation and wage data are gathered
by the B u reau from b u sin ess estab lish m en ts,
State and local g o v ern m en ts, labor u n ion s,
co lle ctiv e bargaining agreem en ts on file w ith
the B u reau , and secondary sou rces.
la tio n .) T h e se fix ed w e ig h ts, a lso u sed to
d erive all o f th e in d u stry and o ccu p a tio n
series in d ex e s, en su re that ch a n g es in th ese
in d e x e s reflect o n ly ch a n g e s in c o m p e n sa
tio n , n ot em p lo y m en t sh ifts a m on g in d u s
tries or o ccu p a tio n s w ith d ifferen t le v e ls o f
w a g e s and com p en sation . For the bargaining
statu s, reg io n , and m etrop olitan /n on -m etrop olitan area series, h o w ev e r, em p lo y m en t
data b y in d u str y and o c c u p a tio n are n ot
availab le from the cen su s. In stead, the 1 9 8 0
em p lo y m en t w e ig h ts are reallocated w ith in
th ese series each quarter based on the cur
rent sam ple. T herefore, th ese in d exes are not
strictly com p arab le to th o se for the a ggre
g a te, industry, and o ccu p ation series.
Definitions
Em ploym ent C ost Index
Total compensation c o sts in clu d e w a g e s,
Description of the series
T he Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quar
terly m easu re o f the rate o f ch a n g e in c o m
p e n s a tio n p er h o u r w o rk ed and in c lu d e s
w a g e s, salaries, and em p loyer c o sts o f e m
p lo y e e b e n e f it s . It u s e s a f ix e d m a rk et
b ask et o f labor— sim ilar in c o n c ep t to the
C o n su m er P rice In d ex ’s fixed m arket basket
o f g o o d s and serv ices— to m easure ch an ge
o v er tim e in em p lo y er c o sts o f em p lo y in g
labor.
S tatistical series o n total co m p en sa tio n
costs, o n w a g es and salaries, and on benefit
co sts are available for private nonfarm w ork
ers exclu d in g proprietors, the self-em ployed,
and hou sehold workers. T he total com p en sa
tion co sts and w a g es and salaries series are
also available for State and local govern m en t
w orkers and for the civilian nonfarm econom y,
w h ich co n sists o f private industry and State
and local govern m en t workers com bined. Fed
eral w orkers are excluded.
T he E m p loym en t C ost Index probability
sam ple con sists o f about 4 ,4 0 0 private n on
farm establishm ents providing about 2 3 ,0 0 0
occupational observations and 1,0 0 0 State and
local g o v ern m en t estab lish m en ts providing
6 ,0 0 0 occu pational observations selected to
represent total em ploym en t in each sector. O n
average, each reporting unit provides w age and
com p en sation inform ation on five w ell-sp eci
fied occupations. Data are collected each quar
ter for the pay period including the 12th day
o f M arch, June, Septem ber, and Decem ber.
B eg in n in g w ith June 1 9 8 6 data, fixed e m
p lo y m en t w e ig h ts from the 1 9 8 0 C en su s o f
P o p u l a t i o n a re u s e d e a c h q u a r te r to
calcu late the civ ilia n and private in d ex es and
the in d ex for State and lo ca l g o vern m en ts.
(P r io r to J u n e 1 9 8 6 , th e e m p lo y m e n t
w e ig h ts are from the 1 9 7 0 C e n su s o f P o p u
74
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
salaries, and the em p lo y er ’s c o sts for e m
p loyee b en efits.
Wages and salaries co n sist o f earnings
before payroll d ed u ction s, in clu d in g produ c
tion b o n u ses, in cen tiv e earn in gs, c o m m is
sio n s, and co st-o f-liv in g adjustm ents.
Benefits in clu d e the c o st to em p loyers
for paid le a v e , su p p lem en ta l p ay (in c lu d
ing nonproduction b on u ses), insurance, retire
m ent and savings plans, and legally required
benefits (such as Social Security, workers’ com
pensation, and unem ploym ent insurance).
E xclu ded from w a g es and salaries and em
ployee benefits are su ch item s as paym ent-inkind, free room and board, and tips.
Notes on the data
T he E m p loym en t C ost In dex for ch a n g es in
w a g e s and salaries in the private nonfarm
e co n o m y w a s pu blished begin n in g in 1 9 7 5 .
C h a n g es in total com p en sation cost— w a g es
and salaries and b en efits co m b in ed — w ere
published b egin n in g in 1 9 8 0 . T he series o f
ch a n g es in w a g e s and salaries and for total
com p en sation in the State and local gov ern
m e n t se c to r and in th e c iv ilia n n o n fa rm
eco n o m y (exclud in g Federal em p loyees) w ere
pu blished b egin n in g in 1 9 8 1 . H istorical in
d ex es (June 1 9 8 1 = 1 0 0 ) are available on the
Internet:
http://www. bis. gov/ect/
F or additional information o n th e
E m p lo y m en t C o st In d ex, con tact th e O ffic e
o f C o m p en sa tio n L e v els and Trends: ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 1 9 9 .
Em ployee Benefits Survey
Description of the series
Employee benefits data are obtained from
the E m p lo y e e B e n e fits Su rvey, an annual
Ju n e 2002
su rv ey o f th e in c id en ce and p r o v isio n s o f
se le c te d b e n e fits p ro v id ed b y e m p lo y er s.
T h e su rvey c o lle c ts data from a sam p le o f
a p p r o x im a te ly 9 , 0 0 0 p r iv a te s e c to r and
State and local g o v ern m en t estab lish m en ts.
The data are presented as a percentage o f em
ployees w h o participate in a certain benefit, or
as an average benefit provision (for exam p le,
the average num ber o f paid holidays provided
to em p loyees per year). Selected data from the
survey are presented in table 2 5 for m edium
and large private establishm ents and in table
2 6 for sm all private establishm ents and State
and local governm ent.
T h e su rv e y c o v e r s paid le a v e b e n e fits
su ch as h olid ays and v acation s, and p ersonal,
fu n eral, ju ry duty, m ilitary, fa m ily , and sick
lea v e; sh ort-term d isab ility, lon g -term d is
ab ility, and life in su ran ce; m ed ica l, den tal,
and v isio n care plans; d efin ed b e n e fit and
d efin ed con trib u tion plans; flex ib le b e n e fits
plans; reim b u rsem en t a ccou n ts; and unpaid
fa m ily lea v e.
A ls o , d ata are ta b u la te d o n th e i n c i
d e n c e o f se v e r a l o th e r b e n e f it s , s u c h as
sev era n ce pay, ch ild -care a ssista n c e, w e ll
n e s s p r o g r a m s, an d e m p lo y e e a s s is ta n c e
program s.
Definitions
Employer-provided benefits are b e n e fits
that are fin an ced either w h o lly or partly by
the em ployer. T h ey m ay be sp on sored by a
u n ion or other third party, as lo n g as there is
so m e em p loyer fin an cin g. H o w e v e r , so m e
b en efits that are fu lly paid for by th e e m
p lo y ee a lso are in clu d ed . For ex a m p le, lo n g
term care insu ran ce and postretirem en t life
insu ran ce paid en tirely b y the e m p lo y ee are
inclu ded b ecau se the guarantee o f insurabil
ity and availab ility at group prem iu m rates
are con sid ered a benefit.
Participants are workers w h o are covered
by a benefit, whether or not they use that benefit.
I f th e b e n e fit plan is fin a n c e d w h o lly by
em ployers and requires em ployees to com plete
a m inim um length o f service for eligibility, the
workers are considered participants w hether or
not they have m et the requirem ent. I f w orkers
are required to contribute tow ards th e co st o f
a plan, th ey are con sid ered participants o n ly
i f th ey elect the plan and agree to m ake the
required contributions.
Defined benefit pension plans u se pre
determ ined form ulas to calculate a retirem ent
benefit ( i f any), and obligate the em ployer to
provide th ose benefits. B en efits are generally
based on salary, years o f service, or both.
Defined contribution plans g e n e ra lly
sp e c ify th e lev e l o f em p lo y er and e m p lo y e e
con trib u tion s to a plan, but n ot th e form u la
for d eterm in in g ev en tu a l b en efits. In stead,
in d ivid u al a c co u n ts are set up for partici
pan ts, and b e n e fits are based on am ou n ts
credited to th e se a cco u n ts.
Tax-deferred savings plans are a type o f
d e fin e d co n trib u tio n plan that a llo w par
ticipants to contribute a portion o f their sal
ary to an em ployer-sp onsored plan and defer
in com e taxes until withdrawal.
Flexible benefit plans a llo w em p lo y ees
to c h o o se a m o n g several b e n e fits, su ch as
life in su ra n ce, m ed ica l care, and v a cation
d a y s, and a m o n g sev eral le v e ls o f cov era g e
w ith in a g iv e n b en efit.
Notes on the data
S u rv ey s o f e m p lo y e e s in m ed iu m and large
esta b lish m en ts co n d u cted over the 1 9 7 9 - 8 6
p e r io d i n c lu d e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t s th a t
em p lo y ed at least 5 0 , 1 0 0 , or 2 5 0 w ork ers,
d e p e n d in g o n th e in d u str y (m o s t se r v ic e
in d u s t r ie s w e r e e x c l u d e d ) . T h e s u r v e y
c o n d u cted in 1 9 8 7 co v ered o n ly State and
lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts w ith 5 0 or m o re
em p lo y ee s. T h e su rv ey s co n d u cted in 1 9 8 8
a n d 1 9 8 9 i n c lu d e d m e d iu m a n d la r g e
esta b lish m en ts w ith 1 0 0 w ork ers or m ore in
p rivate in d u stries. A ll su r v e y s c o n d u c te d
o v e r t h e 1 9 7 9 - 8 9 p e r io d e x c l u d e d
esta b lish m en ts in A la sk a and H aw aii, as w ell
as part-tim e e m p lo y ee s.
B eg in n in g in 1 9 9 0 , surveys o f State and
lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t s an d s m a ll p r iv a te
e s t a b lis h m e n ts w e r e c o n d u c te d in e v e n num bered years, and surveys o f m edium and
large establishm ents w ere conducted in oddn u m b ered y ears. T h e sm all e sta b lish m en t
s u r v e y i n c lu d e s a ll p r iv a te n o n fa r m
establishm ents w ith few er than 100 workers,
w h ile the State and local govern m en t survey
in clu d es all g o v ern m en ts, regardless o f the
num ber o f workers. A ll three surveys include
full- and part-time w orkers, and workers in all
5 0 States and the District o f Colum bia.
F or additional information on th e
E m p lo y e e B e n e fits S u rvey, con tact the O f
fic e o f C o m p en sa tio n L e v e ls and T rends on
the Internet: http://www.bls.gov/ebs/
Work sto p p a g e s
Description of the series
D ata on w ork stop pages m easure the n u m
ber and duration o f m ajor strikes or lock ou ts
(in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m ore) occurring
during the m onth (or year), the num ber o f
w orkers in v o lv ed , and the am ou n t o f w ork
tim e lo st b eca u se o f stoppage. T h ese data are
presented in table 2 7 .
D a ta are larg ely from a variety o f p u b
lish ed sou rces and co v er o n ly estab lish m en ts
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
d irectly in v o lv e d in a stop p age. T h e y do
not m easu re the indirect or secon d ary e ffe c t
o f stop p ages on other esta b lish m en ts w h o se
e m p lo y e e s are idle o w in g to m aterial sh ort
a g e s or lack o f service.
Definitions
Number of stoppages:
T h e n u m b er o f
strik es and lo c k o u ts in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o r k
ers or m ore and la stin g a fu ll sh ift or longer.
Workers involved: T h e n u m b e r o f
w orkers directly in volved in the stoppage.
Number of days idle: T h e aggregate
n u m b er o f w o rk d a y s lo st b y w o rk ers in
v o lv ed in the stop pages.
Days of idleness as a percent of estimated
working time: A ggregate w orkdays lost as a
percent o f the aggregate num ber o f standard
w ork d ays in the period m u ltip lied b y total
em ploym en t in the period.
Notes on the data
T his series is not com parable w ith the on e
term inated in 1981 that covered strikes in
v o lv in g six w orkers or m ore.
F or additional information on w ork
stop p ages data, con tact the O ffic e o f C o m
p en sation and W orking C on dition s: ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 - 6 2 8 2 , or the Internet:
http:/www. bis. gov/cba/
Price Data
(Tables 2; 3 2 ^ 1 2 )
n e w u s e s w ere d ev elo p ed for th e CPI in re
cen t years, the n eed for a broader and m ore
rep resen tative in d ex b eca m e apparent. T he
all-urban con su m er in d ex (CPI-U), introduced
in 1 9 7 8 , is rep resentative o f th e 1 9 9 3 - 9 5
b u y in g h ab its o f ab ou t 87 p ercen t o f th e
n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n o f th e U n ite d
States at that tim e, com pared w ith 3 2 per
cen t rep resented in the CPI-W. In ad d ition to
w a g e earners and clerical w ork ers, the CPI-U
cov ers p ro fessio n a l, m anagerial, and te ch n i
cal w ork ers, th e se lf-em p lo y e d , sh ort-term
w ork ers, th e u n em p lo y ed , retirees, and o th
ers n ot in the labor force.
T he CPI is based on prices o f fo o d , clo th
in g, shelter, fu el, drugs, transportation fares,
d octors’ and d en tists’ fe e s, and other g o o d s
and services that p eop le b u y for d ay-to-d ay
liv in g . T h e q u a n tity and q u a lity o f th e se
item s are kept essen tially u n ch anged b etw een
m ajor revision s so that o n ly price ch a n g es
w ill be m easured. A ll ta x es d irectly a ss o c i
ated w ith the purchase and u se o f item s are
inclu ded in the index.
D ata collected from m ore than 2 3 ,0 0 0 re
tail estab lish m en ts and 5 ,8 0 0 h o u sin g units
in 87 urban areas across the country are used
to d evelop the “U .S . city average.” Separate
estim ates for 14 m ajor urban cen ters are pre
sen ted in table 3 3 . T h e areas listed are as
indicated in fo otn ote 1 to the table. T h e area
in d ex es m easu re o n ly the average c h a n g e in
prices for each area sin ce the base period, and
do n ot in d icate d iffe re n c es in th e le v e l o f
prices a m on g cities.
Notes on the data
P rice data are g a th e r ed b y th e B u r e a u
o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s fro m r eta il an d p ri
mary markets in the U n ited States. Price in
d exes are given in relation to a base period—
1982 = 100 for m any Producer Price Indexes,
1 9 8 2 - 8 4 = 100 for m any C onsum er Price In
dexes (un less otherw ise noted), and 1990 =
100 for International Price Indexes.
Consum er Price Indexes
Description of the series
T he Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a m ea
sure o f th e average c h a n g e in the prices paid
by urban co n su m ers for a fix ed m arket b as
ket o f g o o d s and services. T he CPI is c a lc u
lated m o n th ly for tw o p op u lation g rou p s,
o n e c o n s is tin g o n ly o f urban h o u se h o ld s
w h o s e prim ary sou rce o f in c o m e is d erived
from the em p lo y m en t o f w a g e earners and
clerical w ork ers, and the other c o n sistin g o f
all urban h ou seh old s. T he w a g e earner in d ex
(CPi-W) is a co n tin u ation o f the historic in
d e x that w a s introduced w e ll over a halfcen tu ry a go for u se in w a g e n egotiation s. A s
In January 1 9 8 3 , th e B u reau ch an g ed the
w a y in w h ic h h o m e o w n e r s h ip c o s t s are
m eaured for the CPI-U. A rental e q u iv a len ce
m eth o d rep laced th e a sset-p rice app roach
to h o m eo w n ersh ip c o sts for that series. In
January 1 9 8 5 , th e sam e c h a n g e w a s m ade in
the cpi-w . T h e central p u rp ose o f the ch a n g e
w a s to separate sh elter c o sts from th e in
v e stm en t co m p o n e n t o f h o m e-o w n ersh ip so
that th e in d ex w o u ld reflect o n ly the c o st o f
sh elter se r v ic e s p rovid ed b y o w n e r -o c c u
pied h o m e s. A n up dated cpi-U and cpi-w
w ere introduced w ith release o f th e January
1 9 8 7 and January 1 9 9 8 data.
F or additional information o n c o n
su m er p r ice s, c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f C o n
su m e r P r ic e s an d P r ic e I n d e x e s : ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -7 0 0 0 .
Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (PPI) measure av-
M onthly Labo r Review
Ju n e 2002
75
Current Labor Statistics
erage ch a n g es in prices received by d om estic
produ cers o f c o m m o d itie s in all sta g es o f
p ro cessin g . T he sam p le u sed for calcu latin g
th ese in d ex es currently con tain s about 3 ,2 0 0
co m m o d ities and about 8 0 ,0 0 0 qu otation s
per m o n th , selected to rep resent th e m o v e
m en t o f p rices o f all c o m m o d itie s p rodu ced
in th e m a n u fa ctu rin g ; a g ricu ltu re, forestry,
and fish in g ; m in in g ; and g as and electricity
an d p u b lic u tilitie s se c to r s. T h e sta g e -o fp r o c e s s i n g s t r u c t u r e o f ppi o r g a n i z e s
p r o d u cts b y c la s s o f b u y er an d d e g r e e o f
fa b r ica tio n (th a t is , fin is h e d g o o d s , in te r
m e d ia te g o o d s , an d cru d e m a ter ia ls). T h e
tra d itio n a l c o m m o d ity stru ctu re o f ppi o r
g a n iz e s p r o d u cts b y sim ila r ity o f en d u s e
or m a teria l c o m p o s itio n . T h e in d u stry and
p ro d u ct stru ctu re o f ppi o r g a n iz e s data in
a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e Stan d ard In d u strial
C la s s ific a tio n (SIC) an d th e p ro d u ct c o d e
e x te n s io n o f the s ic d ev elo p ed by the U .S .
B u rea u o f the C en su s.
To th e e x te n t p o s s ib le , p r ice s u s e d in
c a lc u la tin g P ro d u c er P r ic e I n d e x e s a p p ly
to th e first sig n ific a n t c o m m e r cia l tra n sa c
tio n in th e U n ite d S ta te s from th e p r o d u c
tio n or cen tra l m a rk etin g p o in t. P rice data
are g e n e r a lly c o lle c te d m o n th ly , p rim arily
b y m a il q u e s tio n n a ir e . M o s t p r ice s are o b
tained d irectly from p rod u cin g co m p a n ie s
o n a volu n ta ry and co n fid en tial basis. P rices
g e n e r a lly are rep o rted for th e T u e sd a y o f
th e w e e k c o n ta in in g th e 13 th d ay o f th e
m o n th .
S in ce January 1 9 9 2 , price changes for the
v a r io u s c o m m o d itie s h a v e b een a v eraged
to g e th e r w ith im p lic it q u a n tity w e ig h t s
representing their im portance in the total net
selling value o f all com m od ities as o f 1987.
T h e detailed data are aggregated to obtain
in d ex e s for sta g e-o f-p ro cessin g g rou p in gs,
co m m o d ity groupin gs, durability-of-product
groupin gs, and a num ber o f special com posite
groups. A ll P rod ucer P rice In d e x data are
su b ject to rev isio n 4 m o n th s after original
p u b lica tio n .
F or additional information o n p ro
d u ce r p r ic e s, c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f In
d u stria l P r ic e s an d P r ic e In d e x es: ( 2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -7 7 0 5 .
International Price Indexes
Description of the series
T he International Price Program produces
m o n th ly and q u arterly ex p o rt and im port
price in d ex e s for non m ilitary g o o d s and ser
v ic e s traded b etw een the U n ited States and
the rest o f the w orld. T he export price in d ex
provides a m easu re o f price ch a n g e for all
produ cts sold by U .S . resid en ts to foreign
76
M onthly Labo r Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
buyers. ( “R esid en ts” is defined as in the na
tional in co m e accou nts; it in clu d es corpora
tion s, b u sin esses, and in d ividu als, but d oes
n o t req u ire th e o r g a n iz a tio n s to be U .S .
o w n ed nor the individuals to h ave U .S . citi
z en sh ip .) T he im port price in d ex provides a
m easure o f price ch an ge for g o o d s purchased
from other cou n tries by U .S . residents.
The product un iverse for both the im port
and export in d ex es in clu d es raw m aterials,
agricultural products, sem ifin ish ed m an u fac
tures, and fin ish ed m anu factu res, inclu ding
both capital and con su m er good s. P rice data
for th ese item s are collected primarily by m ail
questionnaire. In nearly all c a ses, the data are
co llected directly from the exporter or im
porter, alth ou gh in a fe w c a ses, 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 im ports. For nearly all products,
the prices refer to transactions com pleted dur
ing the first w e ek o f the m onth. Survey re
spondents are asked to indicate all discoun ts,
allow an ces, and rebates applicable to the re
ported prices, so that the price used in the
calculation o f the ind exes is the actual price for
w h ich the product w as bought or sold.
In addition to general in d exes o f prices for
U .S . exports and im ports, in d ex es are also
p u blished for detailed product categories o f
exp orts and im ports. T h e se ca teg o ries are
d efin ed accord in g to the fiv e-d ig it lev e l o f
detail for the B ureau o f E co n o m ic A n a ly s is
E n d -u se C la ssification , the three-digit level
for th e Standard In d u strial C la ssific a tio n
(SITC), and the four-digit level o f detail for the
H a r m o n iz e d S y s te m . A g g r e g a t e im p o r t
in d ex es b y coun-try or region o f origin are
also available.
bls publishes indexes for selected catego
ries o f internationally traded services, calcu
lated on an international basis and on a balance-of-payments basis.
Notes on the data
T h e ex p o rt and im p ort p rice in d e x e s are
w eig h ted in d ex es o f the L asp eyres type. T he
trade w eig h ts currently used to com p u te both
in d ex es relate to 2 0 0 0 .
B ecau se a price index depends on the sam e
item s being priced from period to period, it is
n e c e s sa r y to r e c o g n iz e w h e n a p r o d u ct’s
sp ecification s or term s o f transaction have
been m odified. For this reason, the B u reau ’s
questionnaire requests detailed descriptions o f
the physical and functional characteristics o f
the products being priced, as w ell as inform a
tion on the num ber o f units bought or sold,
d iscou n ts, credit term s, packagin g, class o f
June 2002
buyer or seller, and so forth. W hen there are
ch an ges in either the specifications or term s o f
transaction o f a product, the dollar valu e o f
each ch an ge is deleted from the total price
change to obtain the “pure” change. O n ce this
value is determ ined, a linking procedure is em
ployed w h ich a llow s for the continued repric
ing o f the item.
F or additional information o n inter
national prices, con tact the D iv isio n o f Inter
national Prices: (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 7 1 5 5 .
Productivity Data
(T ables 2; 4 3 ^ 1 6 )
Business sector a n d major
sectors
Description of the series
T he produ ctivity m easu res relate real outp ut
to real input. A s su ch , th ey e n co m p a ss a fa m
ily o f m easu res w h ic h in clu d e sin g le-fa cto r
input m easures, su ch as output per hour, ou t
put per u n it o f labor in p u t, or ou tp u t per
unit o f capital input, as w e ll as m ea su res o f
m ultifactor produ ctivity (ou tp u t per unit o f
com b in ed labor and capital inp uts). T h e B u
reau in d exes sh o w the ch a n g e in outp ut rela
tive to c h a n g e s in the variou s inputs. T he
m easures cover the b u sin ess, non farm b u si
n ess, m anufacturing, and n on fin ancial corpo
rate sectors.
Corresponding in d exes o f hourly co m p en
sation, unit labor c o sts, un it n on labor pay
m en ts, and prices are also provided.
Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (lab or pro
d u ctivity) is the qu antity o f g o o d s and ser
v ice s produced per hour o f labor input. Out
put per unit of capital services (ca p ita l
p rod u ctivity) is th e q u an tity o f g o o d s and
se r v ic e s p rod u ced per u n it o f cap ital ser
v ic e s input. Multifactor productivity is the
quantity o f g ood s and services produced per
com bined inputs. For private b u sin ess and pri
vate nonfarm bu siness, inputs include labor
and capital units. For m anufacturing, inputs
inclu de labor, capital, energy, non -en ergy m a
terials, and purchased b u sin ess ser-vices.
Compensation per hour is total c o m
p en sation d ivid ed by h ou rs at w ork . Total
c o m p en sa tio n eq u a ls th e w a g e s and salaries
o f e m p lo y e e s p lu s e m p lo y e r s’ con trib u tio n s
for social insurance and private b en efit plan s,
p lu s an estim ate o f th e se p aym en ts for the
se lf-em p lo y e d (e x c e p t for n o n fin a n cia l cor-
p o ra tio n s in w h ic h th ere are n o s e lf-e m
p lo y e d ). Real compensation per hour is
c o m p e n s a t io n p er h o u r d e fla te d b y th e
ch a n g e in the C o n su m er P rice In d ex for A ll
U rban C on su m ers.
Unit labor costs are the labor com p en sa
tion costs expended in the production o f a unit
o f o u tp u t and are d erived by d iv id in g c o m
p en sa tio n b y outp ut. Unit nonlabor pay
m en ts i n c l u d e p r o f i t s , d e p r e c i a t io n ,
in terest, and in d irect ta x es per unit o f o u t
p u t. T h e y are c o m p u te d b y su b tr a c tin g
com p en sation o f all persons from current-dollar value o f output and dividing by output.
Unit nonlabor costs c o n ta in all th e
co m p o n e n ts o f u n it n on lab or p aym en ts e x
cep t u n it profits.
Unit profits in c lu d e co rp orate p rofits
w ith in v e n to r y v a lu a tio n and capital c o n
su m ption adju stm ents per unit o f output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at w o rk o f payroll w o rk ers, self-em p lo y ed
p erso n s, and unpaid fam ily w orkers.
Labor inputs are hou rs o f all p erson s ad
ju sted for th e e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s in th e ed u
ca tio n and e x p e rien ce o f the labor force.
Capital services are the flo w o f services
from the capital stock u sed in production. It
is d ev elo p ed from m ea su res o f the net stock
o f p h y sica l a ss e ts— e q u ip m en t, structures,
land , and in v e n to r ie s— w e ig h te d by rental
prices for ea ch type o f asset.
Combined units of labor and capital
inputs are derived by com bining ch an ges in
labor and capital input w ith w e ig h ts w h ich
rep resent ea ch c o m p o n e n t’s sh are o f total
cost. C om b in ed units o f labor, capital, energy,
m aterials, and purchased bu siness services are
similarly derived by com bining changes in each
input w ith w eigh ts that represent each input’s
share o f total costs. T he ind exes for each input
and for com bined units are based on changing
w eigh ts w h ich are averages o f the shares in the
current and p reced in g year (th e T ornquist
index-num ber formula).
Notes on the data
B u sin ess sector output is an annually-weighted
index constructed by exclud in g from real gross
d om estic product ( g d p ) the follow in g outputs:
general g o v ern m en t, nonprofit institution s,
paid em p lo y ees o f private h ou seh old s, and the
rental v a lu e o f o w n er-o ccu p ied d w ellin g s.
N on farm bu siness also exclu d es farming. Pri
vate bu sin ess and private nonfarm bu siness
further exclud e govern m en t enterprises. The
m ea su res are supplied by the U .S . D epart
m en t o f C o m m e rc e ’s B ureau o f E co n o m ic
A n a ly sis. A nnual estim ates o f m anufacturing
sectoral output are produced by the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics. Quarterly m anufacturing out
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
put ind exes from the Federal R eserve Board
are adjusted to these annual output m easures
by the b l s . C om pensation data are developed
from data o f the Bureau o f E con om ic A n alysis
and the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. H ours data
are developed from data o f the Bureau o f La
bor Statistics.
T h e p r o d u c tiv ity and a s s o c ia te d c o s t
m easures in tables 4 3 - 4 6 describe the rela
tion sh ip b etw een outp ut in real term s and
th e labor and capital inp uts in volved in its
production. T h ey sh o w the ch a n ges from p e
riod to period in the am ou n t o f g o o d s and
services produced per unit o f input.
A lthough these m easures relate output to
hours and capital services, they do not m ea
sure the contributions o f labor, capital, or any
other sp ecific factor o f production. Rather,
they reflect the joint effect o f m any influences,
including ch an ges in technology; shifts in the
com position o f the labor force; capital in vest
m ent; level o f output; changes in the utiliza
tion o f capacity, energy, material, and research
and developm ent; the organization o f produc
tion; managerial skill; and characteristics and
efforts o f the w ork force.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION o n th is
produ ctivity series, con tact the D iv isio n o f
P roductivity R esearch: ( 2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 0 6 .
Industry productivity
m easures
put adjusted for price change. For the rem ain
ing industries, output ind exes are derived from
data on the physical quantity o f production.
The labor input series consist o f the hours
o f all em ployees (production w ork ers and non
production workers), the hours o f all persons
(paid e m p lo y ee s, partners, proprietors, and
unpaid fam ily workers), or the num ber o f em
ployees, depending upon the industry.
Unit labor costs r e p r e se n t th e la b o r
com p en sa tio n c o sts per u n it o f ou tp u t pro
d u ced , and are d erived b y d iv id in g an in d ex
o f labor co m p en sa tio n by an in d ex o f o u t
put. Labor compensation in c lu d e s p a y
roll as w e ll as su p p lem en tal p a y m en ts, in
clu d in g both leg a lly required exp en d itu res
and p aym en ts for v o lu n tary program s.
Multifactor productivity is derived by
dividing an in d ex o f industry output by an
index o f the com bined inputs consu m ed in pro
du cin g that output. Combined inputs in
clu d e capital, labor, and in term ed iate pur
chases. The m easure o f capital input used
represents the flo w o f services from the capi
tal stock used in production. It is d evelop ed
from m easures o f the net stock o f physical
assets— equipm ent, structures, land, and in
ventories. The m easure o f intermediate pur
chases is a com bination o f purchased materi
als, services, fu els, and electricity.
Notes on the data
Description of the series
T h e b l s in d u s tr y p r o d u c t iv it y d ata
su pp lem en t the m easu res for th e b u sin e ss
e c o n o m y and m ajor se c to r s w ith an n u a l
m ea su res o f labor p rod u ctivity for selected
in d u stries at the three- and fou r-d igit lev e ls
o f th e S tan dard In d u stria l C la s s ific a tio n
sy stem . In ad d ition to labor prod u ctivity,
t h e in d u s t r y d a ta a ls o i n c lu d e a n n u a l
m ea su res o f co m p en sa tio n and u n it labor
c o sts for three-digit ind ustries and m easu res
o f m u ltifa cto r p ro d u ctiv ity for th ree-d igit
m a n u f a c t u r in g in d u s t r ie s a n d r a ilr o a d
transportation. T h e industry m easu res differ
in m eth o d o lo g y and data so u rces from the
p rod u ctivity m easu res for the m ajor sectors
b ecau se the industry m easures are d evelop ed
in d ep en d en tly o f the N a tio n a l In co m e and
P rod u ct A c co u n ts fram ew ork used for the
m ajor sector m easu res.
T he industry m easu res are co m p iled from
data produced by the B u reau o f Labor S tatis
tics and the B ureau o f the C en su s,w ith addi
tion al data su p p lied by oth er g o v e rn m en t
a g e n c ie s , trad e a s s o c i a t i o n s , a n d o th e r
sources.
F or m o st in d u s tr ie s , th e p r o d u c tiv ity
in d ex e s refer to th e outp ut per hou r o f all
e m p lo y ee s. For so m e trade and se r v ic es in
d u stries, in d ex e s o f ou tp u t per hou r o f all
p erson s (in clu d in g se lf-em p lo y e d ) are c o n
stru cted . F or s o m e tra n sp o rta tio n in d u s
tries, o n ly in d ex e s o f ou tp u t per e m p lo y ee
are prepared.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this se
ries, con tact the D iv isio n o f Industry P ro
du ctivity Studies: (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 1 8 .
International Com parisons
(Tables 4 7 ^ 1 9 )
Labor force and
u ne m p loym e n t
Definitions
Output per hour is derived by dividing an index
o f industry output by an index o f labor input.
For m ost industries, output ind exes are d e
rived from data on the value o f industry out
Description of the series
Tables 4 7 and 4 8 present com parative m eas-
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
J u n e 2002
77
Current Labor Statistics
ures o f the labor force, em p loym en t, and u n
e m p l o y m e n t - a p p r o x i m a t i n g U .S . c o n
cep ts— for the U n ited States, C anada, A u s
tralia, Japan, and several E uropean countries.
T h e u n e m p lo y m e n t s ta tis tic s (a n d , to a
lesse r e x ten t, e m p lo y m en t sta tistics) pu b
lish ed by other industrial cou n tries are not,
in m o st c a ses, com parable to U .S . u n em p loy
m en t statistics. T h erefore, the B u reau ad
ju sts the figu res for selected cou n tries, w h ere
n ecessa ry , for all k n o w n m ajor d efin ition al
d ifferen ces. A lth o u g h p recise com parability
m ay n ot be a ch iev ed , th ese adjusted figures
provide a better basis for international c o m
parisons than th e fig u res regularly published
by ea ch country. For further inform ation on
a d ju stm en ts and com p arab ility issu e s , see
C o n sta n ce Sorren tin o, “International u n em
p lo y m en t rates: h o w com parable are th ey?”
M on th ly L a b o r R eview , June 2 0 0 0 , pp. 3 -2 0 .
Definitions
For the principal U .S . definitions o f the labor
force, employment, and unemployment, see
the N o te s section on E m ploym ent and U n em
p loym ent Data: H o u seh old survey data.
Notes on the data
T h e adjusted statistics h ave been adapted to
the a ge at w h ic h co m p u lsory sch o o lin g ends
in ea ch country, rather than to the U .S . stan
dard o f 16 years o f age and older. T herefore,
th e adjusted statistics relate to the p op ula
tion aged 16 and older in France, S w ed en , and
the U n ited K in gdom ; 15 and older in A u stra
lia, Japan, G erm any, Italy from 19 9 3 onw ard,
and the N etherlands; and 14 and older in Italy
prior to 1 9 9 3 . A n e x cep tio n to th is rule is
that the C anadian statistics for 1 9 7 6 onw ard
are a d ju sted to c o v e r a g e s 16 and o ld er,
w h ereas the a ge at w h ich com p u lsory sch o o l
in g en d s rem a in s at 15. T h e in stitu tio n a l
p op ulation is inclu ded in the d enom inator o f
the labor fo rce participation rates and e m
p lo y m e n t-p o p u la tio n ratios for Japan and
G erm any; it is ex clu d ed for the U n ited States
and the other countries.
In the U .S . labor force survey, persons on
la y o ff w h o are a w aitin g recall to their jo b s
are cla ssified as u n em p loyed . E uropean and
Japan ese la y o ff practices are quite d ifferent
in nature from th o se in the U n ited States;
th erefore, strict application o f the U .S . d efi
nition has not been m ade on this point. For
further inform ation , see M on th ly L a b o r R e
v ie w , D ecem b er 1 9 8 1 , pp. 8 - 1 1 .
T he figu res for o n e or m ore recen t years
for France, G erm any, Italy, the N eth erlan d s,
and the U n ited K in g d om are calculated usin g
adju stm ent factors based on labor force sur
78
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
v e y s for earlier years and are con sid ered pre
lim inary. T he recent-year m easu res for th ese
cou n tries, therefore, are su bject to revision
w h en ev er data from m ore current labor force
su rveys b eco m e available.
T here are breaks in the data series for the
U nited States ( 1 9 9 0 ,1 9 9 4 ,1 9 9 7 ,1 9 9 8 ,1 9 9 9 ,
2 0 0 0 ), Canada (1 9 7 6 ) France (1 9 9 2 ), Ger
m any (1 9 9 1 ), Italy (1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 3 ), the N e th
erlands (1 9 8 8 ), and S w ed en (1 9 8 7 ).
For the U n ited States, the break in series
reflects a m ajor red esign o f the labor force
su rvey qu estion naire and co llection m eth od
o lo g y introduced in January 1 9 9 4 . R evised
population estim ates based on the 1 9 9 0 c en
su s, adjusted for the estim ated un dercount,
also w ere incorporated. In 1 9 9 6 , p reviou sly
published data for the 1 9 9 0 - 9 3 period w ere
r ev ise d to r e fle c t th e 1 9 9 0 c e n su s -b a se d
p o p u la tio n c o n tr o ls, ad ju sted for th e u n
dercount. In 1 9 9 7 , revised population c o n
trols w ere introduced into the h ou seh old sur
v e y . T h e r e fo r e , th e d ata are n o t str ictly
conparable w ith prior years. In 1 9 9 8 , n e w
co m p osite estim ation procedures and m inor
revision s in pop ulation con trols w ere intro
duced into the h o u seh old survey. T herefore,
the data are n ot strictly com parable w ith data
for 1 9 9 7 and earlier years. S ee the N o te s se c
tio n o n E m p lo y m e n t and U n e m p lo y m e n t
D ata o f this R eview .
b l s recen tly introduced a n e w adjusted
series for Canada. B eg in n in g w ith the data
for 1 9 7 6 , C anadian data are adjusted to m ore
c lo se ly approxim ate U .S . co n cep ts. A d ju st
m en ts are m ade to the u n em p loyed and labor
force to exclud e: (1 ) 15-year-olds; (2 ) pas
siv e job seek ers (p erson s o n ly reading n e w s
paper ads as their m eth od o f job search); (3 )
persons w aitin g to start a n e w job w h o did
not seek w ork in the past 4 w eek s; and (4 )
persons unavailab le for w ork du e to personal
or fa m ily resp on sib ilities. A n adjustm ent is
m ade to in clu d e full-tin e students look in g for
fu ll-tim e w ork . T h e im p act o f th e adju st
m ents w as to low er the annual average u n em
p loym en t rate by 0 .1 - 0 .4 p ercentage point
in the 1 9 8 0 s and 0 .4 - 1 .0 percentage point in
the 1990s.
For France, the 1 9 9 2 break reflects the
substitution o f standardized E uropean U n io n
Statistical O ffice ( e u r o s t a t ) u n em p loym en t
sta tistics for th e u n em p lo y m e n t data e sti
m ated according to the International Labor
O ffic e ( i l o ) d efin ition and pu blished in the
O rganization for E co n o m ic C ooperation and
D e v elo p m en t ( o e c d ) annual yearb ook and
quarterly update. T his ch an ge w a s m ade b e
cau se the e u r o s t a t data are m ore up-to-date
than the o e c d figures. A lso , sin ce 1 9 9 2 , the
e u r o s t a t d efin ition s are closer to the U .S .
d efin ition s than th ey w ere in prior years. T he
im pact o f this revision w a s to low er the u n
Ju n e 2002
em p loym en t rate by 0.1 percentage poin t in
1 9 9 2 and 1 9 9 3 , by 0 .4 percentage point in
1 9 9 4 , and 0 .5 percentage point in 1 9 9 5 .
For G erm any, the data for 1991 onw ard
refer to u n ified G erm any. D ata prior to 1991
relate to the form er W est G erm any. T he im
pact o f in clu d in g the form er E ast G erm any
w a s to increase the u n em p loym en t rate from
4 .3 to 5 .6 percent in 1991.
For Italy, the 1991 break reflects a revi
sion in the m eth od o f w eig h tin g sam p le data.
T he im pact w a s to in crease the u n em p lo y
m en t rate by app roxim ately 0 .3 percentage
point, from 6 .6 to 6 .9 percent in 19 9 1 .
In O ctob er 1 9 9 2 , the su rvey m eth o d o l
o g y w a s revised and the d efin ition o f u n em
p loym en t w a s ch an ged to in clu d e o n ly th o se
w h o w ere a ctively lo o k in g for a jo b w ith in
the 3 0 days preceding the su rvey and w h o
w e re a v a ila b le for w o rk . In a d d itio n , th e
lo w er age lim it for the labor force w a s raised
from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to th ese ch a n g es,
b l s ad ju sted Ita ly ’s p u b lish ed u n e m p lo y
m ent rate dow n w ard by ex clu d in g from the
u n e m p lo y e d th o s e p e r so n s w h o had n o t
a ctively sou gh t w ork in the past 3 0 d ays.)
T he break in the series also reflects the incor
poration o f the 1991 population c en su s re
sults. T he im pact o f th ese c h a n g es w a s to
raise Italy’s adjusted u n em p lo y m en t rate by
ap p roxim ately 1.2 p ercen tage p oin ts, from
8.3 to 9 .5 percent in fourth-quarter 1 9 9 2 .
T h ese c h a n g e s did n ot a ffec t em p lo y m en t
sign ifican tly, ex cep t in 1 9 9 3 . E stim a tes by
the Italian Statistical O ffic e ind icate that em
p lo y m e n t d e c lin e d b y ab ou t 3 p ercen t in
1 9 9 3 , rather than the nearly 4 percent indi
cated by the data sh o w n in table 4 4 . T his
d ifferen ce is attributable m ain ly to the in cor
poration o f the 1991 population benchm arks
in the 1 9 9 3 data. D ata for earlier years have
n ot been adjusted to incorp orate the 1991
c en su s results.
For the N eth erlan d s, a n e w su rvey q u es
tionnaire w a s introduced in 199 2 that allow ed
for a c lo ser ap p lication o f ILO g u id elin es.
e u r o s t a t has revised the D u tch series back
to 1 9 8 8 based on the 1 9 9 2 changes. T he 198 8
revised u n em p lo y m en t rate is 7 .6 percent;
the previou s estim ate for the sam e year w a s
9 .3 percent.
There have been tw o breaks in series in
th e S w ed ish labor force su rvey, in 1 9 8 7 and
199 3 . A d ju stm en ts h ave been m ad e for the
199 3 break back to 1 9 8 7 . In 1 9 8 7 , a n e w
q u estio n n a ir e w a s in tr o d u c e d . Q u e s tio n s
r eg a rd in g cu rren t a v a ila b ility w e r e a d d ed
and th e p eriod o f a c tiv e w o r k s e e k in g w a s
red u ced fro m 6 0 d a y s to 4 w e e k s . T h e se
c h a n g e s lo w e r e d S w e d e n ’s 1 9 8 7 u n e m
p lo y m e n t rate b y 0 .4 p e r c e n ta g e p o in t,
from 2 .3 to 1.9 p ercen t. In 1 9 9 3 , th e m e a
su re m en t p eriod for th e lab or fo r c e sur-
v e y w a s c h a n g e d to r ep resen t all 5 2 w e e k s
o f th e y e a r ra th er th a n o n e w e e k e a c h
m o n th an d a n e w a d ju stm e n t for p o p u la
tio n to ta ls w a s in tr o d u c e d . T h e im p a c t
w a s to r a ise th e u n e m p lo y m e n t rate b y
a p p r o x im a te ly 0 .5 p e r c e n ta g e p o in t, from
7 .6 to 8 .1 p e r ce n t. S ta tistic s S w e d e n re
v is e d its la b o r fo r c e su r v e y data for 1 9 8 7 9 2 to tak e in to a c c o u n t th e b reak in 1 9 9 3 .
T h e a d ju stm e n t raised th e S w e d is h u n e m
p lo y m e n t rate b y 0 .2 p e r c e n ta g e p o in t in
1 9 8 7 and g r a d u a lly ro se to 0 .5 p e r ce n ta g e
p o in t in 1 9 9 2 .
B eg in n in g w ith 1 9 8 7 , b l s has adjusted the
S w ed ish data to c la ssify stu dents w h o also
so u g h t w ork as u n em p loyed . T he im pact o f
this ch a n g e w a s to in crease the adjusted u n
em p lo y m en t rate by 0 .1 percentage poin t in
1 9 8 7 and by 1.8 percentage points in 1 9 9 4 ,
w h en u n em p lo y m en t w a s higher. In 1 9 9 8 ,
th e adju sted u n em p lo y m en t rate had risen
from 6 .5 to 8 .4 percent due to the adjustm ent
to in clu d e students.
T h e n et e f fe c t o f th e 1 9 8 7 and 1 9 9 3
ch a n g es and the b l s adjustm ent for students
seek in g w ork lo w ered S w e d e n ’s 198 7 u n em
p loym en t rate from 2 .3 to 2 .2 percent.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this se
ries, co n ta ct th e D iv isio n o f Foreign Labor
Statistics: ( 2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 5 4 .
M anufacturing productivity
a n d labor costs
Description of the series
Table 4 9 p resen ts com p arative in d ex e s o f
m anu factu ring labor p roductivity (outp ut per
hou r), output, total hours, com p en sation per
h o u r, and u n it labor c o sts for th e U n ited
S tates, C an ada, Japan, and n in e E uropean
countries. T h ese m easures are trend com pari
so n s— that is, series that m easure ch a n ges
ov er tim e— rather than lev e l com p arison s.
T here are greater tech n ical problem s in c o m
paring th e le v e ls o f m an u factu rin g outp ut
a m on g countries.
BLS co n stru cts the com parative ind exes
from three basic aggregate m easures— output,
total labor h o u rs, and total com p en sa tio n .
T h e hours and com p en sation m easures refer
to all em p lo y ed p erso n s (w a g e and salary
earners p lu s self-em p lo y ed p erson s and u n
paid fa m ily w ork ers) in the U n ited States,
C anada, Japan, France, G erm any, N orw ay,
and S w ed en , and to all em p lo y ee s (w a g e and
salary earners) in the other countries.
Definitions
Output, in gen eral, refers to valu e added in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
m anufacturing from the national accou nts o f
each country. H ow ev er, the output series
for Japan prior to 1 9 7 0 is an ind ex o f ind us
trial production, and the national accou n ts
m easures for the U n ited K in gdom are e sse n
tially identical to their in d ex es o f industrial
production.
The 1 9 7 7 -9 7 output data for the U nited
States are the gross product originating (value
added) m easures prepared by the B ureau o f
E con om ic A n alysis o f the U .S . D epartm ent o f
C om m erce. Com parable m anufacturing out
put data currently are not available prior to
1977.
U .S . gross product originating is a chaintype annual-w eighted series. (For m ore infor
m ation on the U .S . m easure, see Robert E.
Y u sk avage, “Im proved E stim ates o f G ross
P rod u ct by Industry, 1 9 5 9 - 9 4 ,” Survey o f
Current Business, A u gust 1996, pp. 1 3 3 -5 5 .)
The Japanese value added series is based upon
on e set o f fixed price w eigh ts for the years
1970th rou gh 1997. Output series for the other
foreign eco n o m ie s also em p loy fixed price
w eigh ts, but the w eigh ts are updated periodi
cally (for exam ple, every 5 or 10 years).
To preserve the com parability o f the U .S .
m easures w ith those for other econ om ies, BLS
u ses gross product originating in m an u fac
turing for the U n ited States for th ese c o m
parative m easures. T h e gross product origi
nating series differs from the m anufacturing
output series that b l s p u b lish es in its n e w s
releases on quarterly m easu res o f U .S . pro
d u ctivity and c o sts (and that un derlies the
m easures that appear in tables 4 3 and 4 5 in
this section ). T he quarterly m easures are on
a “ sectoral output” basis, rather than a valueadded basis. Sectoral outp ut is gross output
less intrasector transactions.
Total labor hours refers to hours w orked
in all countries. T he m easu res are d evelop ed
from statistics o f m anufacturing em ploym en t
and average hours. T he series used for France
(from 1 9 7 0 forw ard), N orw ay, and S w ed en
are official series pu blished w ith the national
accou nts. W here official total hours series are
n ot availab le, the m easu res are d ev elo p ed by
BLS usin g em ploym en t figures published w ith
the national accou n ts, or other com p reh en
siv e em p loym en t series, and estim ates o f an
nual hours w orked. For G erm any, b l s u ses
estim ates o f average hours w orked d evelop ed
by a research institute co n n ected to the M in
istry o f Labor for u se w ith the national ac
co u n ts e m p lo y m en t figu res. For the other
cou n tries, BLS constructs its o w n estim ates
o f average hours.
D enm ark has not published estim ates o f
average hours for 1 9 9 4 -9 7 ; therefore, the b l s
m easure o f labor input for D enm ark ends in
1993.
Total compensation (labor cost) inclu des
all paym ents in cash or in-kind m ade directly
to em p loyees plus em ployer expenditures for
legally required insurance program s and c o n
tractual and private benefit plans. T he m ea
sures are from the national accou nts o f each
country, except those for B elgiu m , w h ich are
d evelop ed by b l s usin g statistics on em p loy
m ent, average hours, and hourly com p en sa
tion. For Canada, France, and S w ed en , co m
pensation is increased to accou nt for other sig
nificant taxes on payroll or em ploym en t. For
the U nited K in gdom , com pensation is reduced
betw een 1967 and 1991 to account for em
p loym en t-related su b sid ies. S e lf-em p lo y e d
w orkers are included in the all-em ployed-person s m easures by assum ing that their hourly
com pensation is equal to the average for w a g e
and salary e m p lo y ees.
Notes on the data
In general, the m easu res relate to total m anu
facturing as d efined b y the International Stan
dard Industrial C lassification . H o w e v er , the
m easu res for F rance (for all years) and Italy
(b egin n in g 1 9 7 0 ) refer to m in in g and m an u
facturing less en ergy-related produ cts, and
the m easures for D enm ark include m ining and
exclud e m anufacturing handicrafts from 1 9 6 0
to 1966.
T h e m ea su res for recen t years m a y be
based on current indicators o f m anufacturing
o u tp u t (s u c h as in d u strial p ro d u ctio n in
d e x e s ), e m p lo y m e n t, a v e ra g e h o u rs, and
hourly com p en sation until national a cco u n ts
and other statistics u sed for the lon g-term
m easures b ecom e available.
F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on this se
ries, con tact the D iv isio n o f F oreign Labor
Statistics: (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 5 4 .
O ccu p atio nal Injury
and Illness Data
(Tables 5 0 - 5 1 )
Survey of O cc u p a tio n a l
Injuries a n d Illnesses
Description of the series
T he Survey o f O ccupational Injuries and Ill
n esses collects data from em ployers about their
w orkers’ job-related nonfatal injuries and ill
nesses. The inform ation that em ployers pro
vide is based on records that they maintain un
der the O ccupational Safety and H ealth A ct o f
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
J u n e 2002
79
Current Labor Statistics
1970. Self-em ployed individuals, farms with
few er than 11 em ployees, em ployers regulated
by other Federal safety and health law s, and
Federal, State, and local governm ent agencies
are excluded from the survey.
T h e su rv e y is a F ed eral-S tate c o o p era
tiv e program w ith an in d ep en d en t sam p le
selected for ea ch participating State. A strati
fied random sa m p le w ith a N e y m a n a llo ca
tio n is se lec ted to rep resen t all private in
d u stries in th e State. T h e su rv ey is stratified
b y Stan dard In d u strial C la s s ific a tio n and
siz e o f e m p lo y m en t.
Definitions
U n d er the O ccu p ation al S afety and H ealth
A ct, em p lo y ers m aintain records o f nonfatal
w ork-related injuries and illn e sses that in
v o lv e o n e or m ore o f the follow in g: lo ss o f
c o n sc io u sn ess, restriction o f w ork or m otion ,
transfer to another jo b , or m edical treatm ent
other than first aid.
Occupational injury is any injury such as
a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation that re
sults from a work-related even t or a single, in
stantaneous exposure in the w ork environment.
Occupational illness is an abnorm al co n
dition or disorder, other than on e resulting from
an occu pational injury, caused by exposu re to
factors a sso cia ted w ith em p loym en t. It in
clu d es acute and chronic illn esses or disease
w h ich m ay be cau sed by inhalation, absorp
tion, in gestion , or direct contact.
Lost workday injuries and illnesses are
c a se s that in v o lv e days a w ay from w ork , or
d ays o f restricted w o rk activity, or both.
Lost workdays in clu d e th e n u m b er o f
w o r k d a y s (c o n s e c u tiv e or n o t) o n w h ic h
th e e m p lo y e e w a s eith er a w a y from w ork
or at w o rk in so m e restricted cap a city , or
b o th , b e c a u se o f an o c cu p a tio n a l injury or
illn e s s , b l s m e a su r es o f the n u m b er and
in c id e n c e rate o f lo st w o rk d a y s w e re d is
co n tin u e d b e g in n in g w ith th e 1 9 9 3 survey.
T h e n u m b er o f da y s a w a y from w ork or
d a y s o f restricted w o r k a c tiv ity d o e s n ot
in c lu d e th e d ay o f injury or o n s e t o f illn e ss
or a n y d a y s o n w h ic h th e e m p lo y e e w o u ld
n o t h a v e w o rk ed , su ch as a F ed eral holiday,
e v e n th o u g h ab le to w ork.
Incidence rates are c o m p u te d as th e
n u m b e r o f in ju r ies a n d /o r illn e s s e s or lo st
w o rk d ays per 1 0 0 fu ll-tim e w orkers.
Notes on the data
T h e d efin itio n s o f o ccu p ation al injuries and
illn e sses are from R ecordkeepin g G uidelines
f o r O ccu pation al Injuries a n d Illnesses (U . S .
D ep artm en t o f Labor, B ureau o f Labor Sta
80
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tistics, Septem ber 1 9 8 6 ).
Estim ates are m ade for industries and em
ploym ent size classes for total recordable cases,
lost w ork d ay ca se s, days a w ay from w ork
cases, and nonfatal cases w ithout lost work
days. T hese data also are sh ow n separately for
injuries. Illness data are available for seven cat
egories: occupational skin diseases or disorders,
dust diseases o f the lun gs, respiratory condi
tions due to toxic agents, poisoning (system ic
effects o f toxic agents), disorders due to physi
cal agents (other than toxic materials), disor
ders associated w ith repeated trauma, and all
other occupational illnesses.
T he survey continues to m easure the num
ber o f n e w work-related illness cases w h ich
are recognized, diagnosed, and reported during
the year. S om e conditions, for exam ple, lon g
term latent illn esses caused by exposu re to
carcin ogen s, often are difficult to relate to the
w orkplace and are not adequately recognized
and reported. T h ese long-term latent illn esses
are believed to be understated in the su rvey’s
illness measure. In contrast, the overw helm ing
m ajority o f th e reported n e w illn e sses are
th o se w h ich are easier to directly relate to
w orkplace activity (for exam p le, contact der
m atitis and carpal tunnel syndrom e).
M ost o f the estim ates are in the form o f
incid en ce rates, defined as the num ber o f inju
ries and illn esses per 100 equivalen t full-tim e
workers. For this purpose, 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 em ployee
hours represent 100 em p loyee years (2 ,0 0 0
hours per em p loyee). Full detail on the avail
able m easures is presented in the annual bulle
tin , O c cu p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d Illnesses:
F o r a d d it io n a l in f o r m a t io n on o c c u
pational injuries and illn esses, contact the O f
fice o f O ccupational Safety, H ealth and W ork
ing C on dition s at ( 2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 1 8 0 , or a ccess
the Internet at:
http://www. bls. gov/iip/
Census of Fatal
O c c u p a tio n a l Injuries
T he C en su s o f Fatal O ccu p ation al Injuries
co m p iles a co m p lete roster o f fatal jo b -re
lated injuries, in clu d in g detailed data about
th e fa ta lly in ju red w o r k e rs and th e fa ta l
e v e n t s . T h e p rogram c o lle c t s an d c r o s s
c h e c k s fatality in fo rm a tio n from m u ltip le
so u rces, in clu d in g death certifica tes, State
and Federal w o rk ers’ co m p en sation reports,
O ccu p ation al S afety and H ealth A d m in istra
tion and M in e S a fety and H ealth A d m in is
tration record s, m ed ical ex a m in er and au
top sy reports, m edia a cco u n ts, State m otor
v e h icle fatality record s, and fo llo w -u p q u es
tion n aires to em p loyers.
In add ition to private w a g e and salary
w orkers, the self-em p loyed , fam ily m em b ers,
and F ed eral, S ta te, and lo ca l g o v e rn m en t
w orkers are covered b y the program . To be
inclu ded in the fatality c en su s, the d eced en t
m ust have been em p loyed (that is w ork in g
for pay, com p en sation , or profit) at the tim e
o f the ev en t, en gaged in a legal w ork activity,
or present at the site o f the incid en t as a re
quirem ent o f his or her job.
Counts, Rates, a n d Characteristics.
C om parable data for m ore than 4 0 States
and territories are availab le from the b l s O f
fice o f Safety, H ealth and W orking C on d i
tion s. M an y o f th ese States publish data on
State and local govern m en t em p loyees in ad
dition to private industry data.
M in in g and railroad data are furnish ed to
b l s by the M in e S afety and H ealth A d m in is
tration and the Federal Railroad A d m in istra
tion. D ata from th ese organizations are in
clu ded in both the national and State data
p u blished annually.
W ith the 1 9 9 2 survey, b l s b egan pu b
lish in g details on seriou s, non fatal in cid en ts
resultin g in days a w ay from w ork. In clud ed
are so m e m ajor characteristics o f the injured
and ill w orkers, su ch as occu pation, a ge, g en
der, race, and len gth o f service, as w ell as the
circu m stan ces o f their injuries and illn esses
(nature o f th e disab lin g co n d itio n , part o f
bod y a ffected , ev en t and exp osu re, and the
sou rce directly producing the con d ition ). In
gen eral, th ese data are available n ation w id e
for d etailed in d u stries and for in d ivid u al
States at m ore aggregated industry levels.
J u n e 2002
Definition
A fatal work injury is any intentional or un
intentional w ou n d or dam age to the body re
sulting in death from acute exposure to energy,
su ch as heat or electricity, or kinetic energy
from a crash, or from the absen ce o f such es
sentials as heat or o xy g en caused by a sp ecific
even t or incident or series o f even ts w ithin a
single w orkday or shift. Fatalities that occur
during a person’s com m u te to or from w ork
are exclud ed from the c en su s, as w ell as workr ela ted i ll n e s s e s , w h ic h c a n b e d if f ic u lt
to identify due to long laten cy periods.
Notes on the data
T w en ty -eig h t data e le m e n ts are c o lle c te d ,
co d ed , and tabulated in the fatality program ,
in clu d in g in form ation ab ou t th e fa ta lly in
jured w ork er, the fatal in cid en t, and th e m a
ch in ery or eq u ip m e n t in v o lv ed . S u m m ary
w ork er d em ograp h ic data and e v en t charac-
teristics are in clu d ed in a n ational n e w s re
lea se that is availa b le abou t 8 m o n th s after
th e end o f th e referen ce year. T he C en su s o f
Fatal O ccu p a tio n a l In juries w a s initiated in
1 9 9 2 as a jo in t F ed eral-S tate effort. M o st
States issu e sum m ary inform ation at the tim e
o f the national n e w s release.
F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n th e
C en su s o f Fatal O ccup ation al Injuries c o n
tact the b l s O ffic e o f S afety, H ea lth , and
W orking C on dition s at ( 2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 1 7 5 , or
the Internet at: http://www.bls.gov/iip/
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://www.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
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view
J u n e 2002
81
Current Labor Statistics:
Comparative Indicators
1. Labor market indicators
Selected indicators
2000
2000
2001
I
II
2001
III
IV
I
II
2002
III
IV
1
Employment data
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized
population (household survey):1
Employment-population ratio.........................................................
Unemployment rate........................................................................
Men................................................................................................
25 years and over......................................................................
Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:1
Total..................................................................................................
Goods-producing........................................................................
Manufacturing.........................................................................
Service-producing.......................................................................
67.2
64.5
4.0
3.9
9.7
2.8
4.1
8.9
3^2
131,759
111,079
25,709
18,469
106,050
66.9
63.8
4.8
4.8
11.4
3.6
4.7
9.7
3.7
132,212
111,339
25,121
17,698
107,090
67.3
64.6
4.0
3.9
9.7
2.8
4.2
9.5
3.1
130,984
110,456
25,704
18,504
105,280
67.3
64.6
4.0
3.9
9.7
2.8
4.1
9.0
3.2
131,854
110,917
25,711
18,510
106,143
67.0
64.3
4.1
3.9
9.8
2.8
4.2
8.5
3.3
131,927
111,293
25,732
18,487
106,195
67.1
64.4
4.0
4.0
9.6
2.9
4.0
8.4
3.0
132,264
111,669
25,704
18,378
106,560
67.2
64.4
4.2
4.2
10.6
3.1
4.1
8.7
3.3
132,559
111,886
25,621
18,188
106,938
66.9
63.9
4.5
4.6
11.2
3.4
4.3
9.2
3.4
132,483
111,702
25,310
17,882
107,173
66.8
63.6
4.8
4.9
11.5
3.7
4.8
10.0
3.7
132,358
111,385
24,991
17,556
107,367
66.9
63.1
5.6
5.7
12.7
4.4
5.5
10.6
4.4
131,502
110,480
14,590
17,174
106,912
66.5
62.8
5.6
5.7
12.9
4.5
5.5
11.0
4.4
131,202
110,111
24,225
16,874
106,978
Average hours:
Private sector................................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................................
Overtime...................................................................................
34.5
41.6
4.6
34.2
40.7
3.9
34.5
41.8
4.7
34.5
41.8
4.7
34.4
41.5
4.5
34.3
41.1
4.3
34.3
41.0
4.1
34.2
40.8
3.9
34.1
40.7
4.0
34.1
40.5
3.8
34.1
40.8
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.0
.9
.7
.7
1.3
1.4
.9
1.0
1.2
.9
.8
.8
1.0
1.1
Employment Cost Index2
Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household and Federal workers)....
Goods-producing3....................................................................
4.4
3.8
1.6
1.2
.9
.6
1.3
.9
.7
.8
1.2
Service-producing3...................................................................
State and local government workers...........................................
4.4
3.0
4.3
4.2
1.4
.6
1.2
.3
1.0
1.3
.7
.7
1.4
.9
1.0
.6
1.0
2.1
.8
.6
1.1
.6
Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
Union................................................................................................
Nonunion..........................................................................................
4.0
4.4
4.2
4.1
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
.5
.7
.7
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.0
.9
1.4
.7
1.1
1.1
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.
82
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
Selected measures
2000
II
I
2002
2001
2000
2001
IV
III
II
I
IV
III
I
Compensation data1'2
Employment Cost Index—compensation (wages,
salaries, benefits):
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.0
.9
0.7
.7
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.0
1.2
.9
0.8
.8
1.0
1.1
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.8
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
.6
.6
1.1
1,2
.9
1.0
1.0
.8
.7
.8
.9
.9
1.6
3.4
1.7
.7
.8
.2
1.3
1.0
.2
-.9
.7
3.5
4.3
1.2
4.0
31.1
-1 .8
-2.4
1.0
-.2
-8 .8
1.5
1.9
.1
1.8
9.0
1.8
1.3
.1
1.4
-6 .0
.6
.8
-7 .2
1.0
2.1
.4
.1
1.1
-.3
9.4
.9
1.2
-.1
.2
-3 .5
.8
1.0
-7.1
.6
-6 .6
- .3
- .3
-.1
-1 .0
-1 2 .0
-3 .2
-4 .3
.1
-3 .6
-1 2 .2
1.1
1.5
2.9
.9
8.0
3.4
3.3
1.8
1.8
-.1
.0
7.7
6.7
1.2
1.6
-.2
-.1
2.2
2.1
.7
1.1
2.6
.5
3.3
.9
5.4
5.5
11.2
8.3
8.4
5.6
3.0
2.3
.7
Employment Cost Index—w ages and salaries:
Price data1
C onsum er Price Index (All Urban Consumers): All Items......
Producer Price Index:
Productivity data3
Output per hour of all persons:
Nonfinancial coroorations4........................................................
2.8
3.1
1
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.
6.7
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
Four quarters ending
Quarterly average
2002
2001
Components
I
Average hourly com pensation:1
All persons, business sector............................................................. .
All persons, nonfarm business sector..............................................
II
III
IV
I
I
2002
2001
II
IV
III
I
5.1
4.9
5.2
4.7
3.3
3.7
2.3
2.3
2.9
2.8
7.6
7.3
6.6
6.5
5.8
5.5
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.4
1.3
1.4
.7
1.5
.9
.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
.6
1.2
.9
1.0
.9
2.1
.8
.8
1.4
.7
.6
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
.6
4.1
4.2
3.4
4.3
3.3
3.9
4.0
3.5
4.2
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.4
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.9
4.7
3.8
3.9
1.1
1.2
.6
1.2
.7
.9
1.0
1.1
.9
.5
1.0
.8
1.0
.8
1.9
.7
.8
1.6
.7
.5
.9
.9
.7
1.0
.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
4.4
3.4
3.4
Employment Cost Index—compensation:
Civilian nonfarm2..................................................................................
Private nonfarm.................................................................................
Union.................................................................................................
Nonunion..........................................................................................
State and local governm ents...........................................................
.
Employment Cost Index—w ages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2..................................................................................
Private nonfarm.................................................................................
Union.................................................................................................
Nonunion.........................................................................................
State and local governm ents..........................................................
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 2002
83
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]
Employment status
Annual average
2001
2002
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
211,864
141,815
66.9
135,073
211,348
141,734
67.1
135,424
211,525
141,445
66.9
135,235
211,725
141,468
66.8
135,003
211,921
141,651
66.8
135,106
212,135
141,380
66.6
134,408
212,357
142,068
66.9
135,004
212,581
142,280
66.9
134,615
212,767
142,279
66.9
134,253
212,927
141,390
66.8
134,055
213,089
141,390
66.4
133,468
142,211
134,319
63.0
134,319
142,005
133,894
62.8
133,433
142,570
133,976
62.8
133,433
63.8
6,742
4.8
70,050
64.1
6,310
4.5
69,614
63.9
6,210
4.4
70,080
63.8
6,465
4.6
70,257
63.8
6,545
4.6
70,270
63.4
6,972
4.9
70,755
63.6
7,064
5.0
70,289
63.3
7,665
5.4
70,301
63.1
8,026
5.6
70,488
63.0
8,259
5.8
70,613
62.6
7,922
5.6
71,699
63.0
7,891
5.5
70,995
62.5
8,111
5.7
71,243
62.5
8,594
6.0
71,243
92,580
70,930
76.6
68,580
93,659
71,590
76.4
68,587
93,410
71,541
76.6
68,720
93,541
71,468
76.3
68,698
93,616
71,429
76.3
68,535
93,708
71,500
76.3
68,610
93,810
71,523
76.2
68,388
93,917
71,805
76.5
68,696
94,015
71,940
76.5
68,486
94,077
71,935
76.5
68,204
94,161
71,988
76.5
68,276
94,228
71,534
75.9
67,818
94,262
71,718
76.1
68,157
94,315
71,723
76.4
68,013
94,315
72,098
76.7
68,193
74.1
2,252
73.2
2,102
73.6
2,105
73.4
2,168
73.2
2,057
73.2
2,035
72.9
2,129
83.1
2,138
72.8
2,132
72.5
2,082
72.5
2,141
72.0
2,207
72.3
2,185
72.1
2,084
72.2
2,213
66,328
2,350
3.3
66,485
3,003
4.2
66,615
2,821
3.9
66,530
2,770
3.9
66,478
2,894
4.1
66,575
2,890
4.0
66,259
3,135
4.4
66,558
3,109
4.3
66,354
3,454
4.8
66,122
3,731
5.2
66,135
3,712
5.2
65,611
3,716
5.2
65,973
3,560
5.0
65,929
3,710
5.2
65,980
3,905
5.4
population1......................... 101,078
Civilian labor force.............
61,565
Participation rate........
60.9
Employed.......................
59,352
Employment-pop58.7
ulation ratio2.............
818
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries.................. 58,535
Unemployed...................
2,212
Unemployment rate....
3.6
102,060
62,148
60.9
59,596
101,870
61,102
61.0
59,758
101,938
62,068
60.9
59,716
102,023
61,961
60.7
59,555
102,067
62,103
60.8
59,640
102,165
62,142
60.8
59,526
102,277
62,222
60.8
59,463
102,371
62,269
60.8
59,302
102,438
62,321
60.8
59,288
102,492
62,481
61.0
59,205
102,550
62,056
60.5
59,102
102,651
62,703
61.1
59,588
102,728
62,703
60.7
59,227
102,728
62,724
61.0
59,337
58.4
82
58.7
827
58.6
816
58.4
772
58.4
784
58.3
781
58.1
823
57.9
842
57.9
852
57.8
859
57.6
824
58.0
829
57.7
804
57.7
732
58,779
2,551
4.1
58,931
2,344
3.8
58,900
2,352
3.8
58,783
2,406
3.9
58,856
2,463
4.0
58,745
2,616
4.2
58,640
2,759
4.4
58,460
2,967
3.8
58,436
3,303
4.9
58,346
3,276
5.2
58,277
2,954
4.8
58,759
3,116
5.0
58,423
3,093
5.0
58,602
3,391
5.4
16,042
8,369
52.2
7,276
16,146
8,077
50.0
6,889
16,068
8,091
50.4
6,946
16,046
7,909
49.3
6,821
16,086
8,078
50.2
6,913
16,145
8,048
49.8
6,856
16,161
7,715
47.7
6,494
16,163
8,041
49.7
6,845
16,195
8,071
49.8
6,827
16,252
8,023
49.4
6,761
16,275
7,845
48.2
6,574
16,310
7,800
47.8
6,548
16,293
7,790
47.8
6,575
16,292
7,962
48.9
6,655
16,292
7,748
47.7
6,450
45.4
235
42.7
225
43.2
235
42.5
209
43.0
215
42.5
236
40.2
216
42.3
220
42.2
229
41.6
220
40.4
246
40.1
241
40.4
233
40.8
239
39.6
209
7,041
1,093
13.1
6,664
1,187
14.7
6,711
1,145
13.2
6,612
1,088
13.8
6,698
1,165
14.4
6,620
1,192
14.8
6,278
1,221
15.8
6,625
1,106
14.9
6,598
1,244
15.4
6,541
1,262
15.7
6,328
1,271
16.2
6,307
1,252
16.1
6,342
1,215
15.6
6,416
1,308
16.4
6,240
1,298
16.9
population1......................... 174,428
Civilian labor force............. 117,574
Participation rate.........
67.4
Employed....................... 113,475
Employment-pop65.1
ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
4,099
Unemployment rate....
3.5
175,888
118,144
67.2
113,220
175,533
118,014
67.3
113,434
175,653
117,714
67.0
113,185
175,789
117,854
67.0
113,037
175,924
117,986
67.1
113,237
176,069
117,813
66.9
112,703
176,220
118,274
67.1
113,147
176,372
118,506
67.2
112,878
176,500
118,566
67.2
112,652
176,607
118,403
67.0
112,388
176,713
117,759
66.6
111,876
176,783
118,472
67.0
112,632
176,866
118,159
66.8
111,941
176,866
118,661
67.1
111,941
64.4
4,923
4.2
64.6
4,640
3.9
64.4
4,541
3.9
64.4
4,728
4.0
64.3
4,810
4.1
64.0
5,073
4.3
64.2
5,127
4.3
64.0
5,628
4.7
63.8
5,914
5.0
63.6
6,015
5.1
63.3
5,883
5.0
63.7
5,840
4.9
63.3
5,873
5.0
63.3
6,236
5.3
25,218
16,603
65.8
15,334
25,559
16,719
65.4
15,270
25,472
16,678
65.5
15,304
25,501
16,644
65.3
15,311
25,533
16,739
65.6
15,330
25,565
16,685
65.3
15,337
25,604
16,720
65.3
15,210
25,644
16,827
65.6
15,339
25,686
16,748
65.2
15,144
25,720
16,687
64.9
15,040
25,752
16,833
65.4
15,122
25,785
16,769
65.0
15,119
25,813
16,747
64.9
15,131
25,839
16,758
64.9
14,969
25,839
16,941
65.5
15,045
60.8
1,269
7.6
59.7
1,450
8.7
60.1
1,374
8.2
60.0
1,333
8.0
60.0
1,409
8.4
60.0
1,348
8.1
59.4
1,510
9.0
59.8
1,488
8.8
59.0
1,604
9.6
58.5
1,647
9.9
58.7
1,711
10.2
58.6
1,650
9.8
58.6
1,616
9.6
57.9
1,789
10.7
58.2
1,896
11.2
2000
TOTAL
Civilian nonlnstitutlonal
population1......................... 209,699
Civilian labor force.............. 140,863
Participation rate.........
67.2
Employed....................... 135,208
Employment-pop64.5
ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
5,665
Unemployment rate....
4.0
Not in the labor force.......
68,836
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate........
Employed.......................
Employment-population ratio2.............
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries..................
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional
population1..........................
Civilian labor force..............
Participation rate.........
Employed.......................
Employment-population ratio2.............
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries..................
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
White
Civilian noninstitutional
Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate.........
Employed.......................
Employment-population ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
See footnotes at end of table.
84
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
4. Continued— Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]_________________
Annual iverage
Employment status
2001
2002
2000
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
22,393
15,368
68.6
14,492
23,122
15,751
68.1
14,714
22,957
15,730
68.5
14,738
23,021
15,656
68.0
14,684
23,090
15,602
67.6
14,574
23,157
15,753
68.0
14,776
23,222
15,788
68.0
14,771
23,288
15,811
67.9
14,785
23,351
15,956
68.3
14,824
23,417
15,932
68.0
14,751
23,478
16,013
68.2
14,753
23,542
15,988
67.9
14,700
23,604
16,011
67.8
14,867
23,664
15,908
67.2
14,877
23,664
16,156
68.1
14,963
64.7
876
5.7
63.6
1,037
6.6
64.2
992
6.3
63.8
972
6.2
63.1
1,028
6.6
63.8
977
6.2
63.6
1,017
6.4
63.5
1,026
6.5
63.5
1,132
7.1
63.0
1,181
7.4
62.8
1,260
7.9
62.4
1,288
8.1
63.0
1,143
7.1
62.3
1,165
7.3
62.3
1,279
7.9
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-pop
ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
Ttle P°Pulation figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment a s a percent of the civilian noninstltutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hlspanic-origln groups will not sum to totals
becausedata for the "other races" groups are not presented and Híspanles are included In
both the white and black population groups.
5. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
Selected categories
Annual iverage
2001
2002
2000
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
135,208
72,293
62,915
135,073
72,080
62,992
135,424
72,272
63,152
135,235
72,131
63,104
135,003
72,012
62,991
145,106
72,093
63,013
134,408
71,705
62,703
135,004
72,177
62,827
134,615
71,871
62,744
134,253
71,570
62,683
134,055
71,577
62,478
133,468
71,114
62,354
134,319
71,457
62,862
133,894
71,299
62,595
133,976
71,397
62,579
Characteristic
Employed, 16 years and over..
Men......................................
Women.................................
Married men, spouse
present...............................
43,368
43,243
43,459
43,633
43,357
43,264
43,143
43,099
42,983
42,861
42,772
42,823
43,275
43,317
43,167
33,708
33,613
33,699
33,692
33,466
33,571
33,685
33,604
33,227
33,330
33,209
33,174
33,703
33,552
33,446
8,387
8,364
2,179
8,335
2,513
1,558
8,328
8,274
8,256
8,331
8,458
8,396
8,417
8,320
8,266
2,034
1,233
38
1,884
1,233
27
1,899
1,220
44
1,957
1,208
34
1,803
1,193
32
1,798
‘152
23
1,852
1,239
29
1,882
1,278
24
1,898
1,290
26
1,865
1,276
12
1,879
1,313
27
1,917
1,311
49
1,930
1,293
21
1,825
1,264
29
1,896
1,216
34
123,128
19,053
104,076
890
103,186
8,674
101
123,235
19,127
104,108
803
103,305
8,594
101
123,406
18,928
104,478
809
103,669
8,597
99
123,530
19,068
10,442
795
103,667
8,540
111
123,069
18,934
104,135
760
103,375
8,720
102
123,204
18,999
104,205
790
103,415
8,568
98
122,685
19,150
103,535
814
102,721
8,503
111
123,186
19,290
103,896
804
103,092
8,556
101
122,710
19,223
103,487
867
102,620
8,505
95
122,507
19,172
103,335
790
102,545
8,507
77
122,196
19,183
103,013
736
102,277
8,524
92
122,145
19,047
103,098
725
102,373
8,213
97
122,770
19,286
103,485
709
102,775
8,257
86
122,545
19,218
103,327
677
102,650
8,200
89
122,366
19,811
103,019
791
102,228
8,234
103
3,190
3,672
3,277
3,388
3,649
3,571
3,389
4,148
4,329
4,206
4,267
3,973
4,228
3,997
4,151
1,927
2,355
2,188
2,205
2,276
2,174
2,115
2,796
2,983
2,796
2,809
2,549
2,755
2,721
2,690
944
1,007
895
921
1,008
1,011
952
1,064
1,108
1,121
1,161
1,089
1,120
1,021
1,131
18,722
18,707
18,698
18,634
18,482
18,812
19,011
18,798
18,644
18,587
18,540
18,201
18,395
18,530
18,793
3,045
3,529
3,120
3,231
3,556
3,425
32,346
4,015
4,222
4,017
4,119
3,781
3,998
3,848
4,009
1,835
2,266
2,011
2,101
2,215
2,111
2,025
2,704
2,898
2,679
2,717
2,448
2,615
2,605
2,515
924
989
883
899
990
993
927
1,045
1,082
1,096
1,138
1,068
1,089
1,001
1,122
18.165
18.177 I 18.166
18,097 I 18.066
18.283
18,485
18,232
18,065 I 18.007
1 Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
17,960
17.717
17.886
18.004
18,274
Married women, spouse
present...............................
Women who maintain
families...............................
Class of worker
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers.....
Self-employed workers........
Unpaid family workers........
Nonagrlcultural Industries:
Wage and salary workers.....
Government..........................
Private industries.................
Private households........
Other...............................
Self-employed workers......
Unpaid family workers........
Persons at work part time1
All Industries:
Part time for economic
reasons...............................
Slack work 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..............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
85
Current Labor Statistics:
6.
Labor Force Data
Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
Selected categories
2001
Annual average
2000
2001
2002
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Characteristic
Total, 16 years and over..............................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.....................
Men, 20 years and over...........................
Women, 20 years and over.....................
4.0
13.1
3.3
3.6
4.8
14.7
4.2
4.1
4.5
14.2
3.9
3.8
4.4
13.6
3.9
3.8
4.6
14.4
4.1
3.9
4.6
14.8
4.0
4.0
4.9
15.8
4.4
4.2
5.0
14.9
4.3
4.4
5.4
15.4
4.8
4.8
5.6
15.7
5.2
4.9
5.8
16.2
5.2
5.2
5.6
16.1
5.2
4.8
5.5
15.6
5.0
5.0
5.7
16.4
5.2
5.0
6.0
16.8
5.4
5.4
White, total................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................
Men, 16 to 19 years.........................
Women, 16 to 19 years...................
Men, 20 years and over.....................
Women, 20 years and over................
3.5
11.4
12.3
10.4
2.8
3.1
4.2
12.7
13.8
11.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
11.9
12.9
10.9
3.4
3.4
3.9
12.0
13.3
10.7
3.4
3.4
4.0
12.7
14.3
11.0
3.6
3.4
4.1
13.2
13.8
12.6
3.5
3.5
4.3
13.8
15.1
12.4
3.8
3.6
4.3
12.7
13.6
11.7
3.8
3.8
4.7
23.1
14.7
11.5
4.4
4.1
5.0
13.5
15.8
11.1
4.7
4.2
5.1
13.7
14.6
12.8
4.6
4.5
5.0
14.2
13.7
14.6
4.7
4.2
4.9
14.0
15.4
12.6
4.4
4.4
5.0
14.5
16.3
12.7
4.5
4.3
5.3
14.0
15.4
12.5
4.8
4.6
Black, total................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................
Men, 16 to 19 years.........................
Women, 16 to 19 years...................
Men, 20 years and over.....................
Women, 20 years and over................
7.6
24.7
26.4
23.0
7.0
6.3
8.7
29.0
30.5
27.5
8.0
7.0
8.2
30.5
33.5
27.7
8.1
5.9
8.0
25.7
20.6
21.5
7.6
6.4
8.4
28.0
29.1
25.7
7.8
6.7
8.1
26.6
28.1
25.2
7.9
6.2
9.0
30.1
31.4
28.7
8.8
7.0
8.8
28.5
30.8
26.1
7.8
7.7
9.6
30.2
31.2
29.1
8.2
8.5
9.9
32.1
31.6
32.6
8.7
8.4
10.2
33.4
32.0
34.8
9.1
8.7
9.8
30.7
32.1
29.0
8.9
8.4
9.6
27.9
30.0
25.6
8.7
8.5
10.7
31.0
36.9
44.7
10.1
9.0
11.2
35.4
37.3
33.5
9.3
10.2
Hispanic origin, total.............................
5.7
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.6
6.2
6.4
6.5
7.1
7.4
7.9
8.1
7.1
7.3
7.9
2.0
2.7
5.9
3.9
4.8
2.7
3.1
6.6
4.7
5.1
2.5
2.8
6.3
4.3
5.3
2.6
2.9
6.2
4.3
4.8
2.6
3.0
6.3
4.5
5.2
2.7
2.9
6.3
4.5
5.1
2.8
3.1
6.8
4.8
5.4
2.8
3.3
7.1
5.0
4.6
3.1
3.6
6.8
5.4
5.5
3.3
3.6
8.0
5.6
5.6
3.4
3.7
8.0
5.8
5.6
3.5
3.4
8.9
5.7
5.2
3.4
3.8
8.0
5.7
4.8
3.4
3.7
7.3
5.8
5.2
3.9
3.9
8.6
6.2
5.2
4.1
3.9
6.4
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.1
5.0
2.3
3.8
2.1
7.5
5.1
4.7
7.3
5.2
5.3
5.1
4.1
5.6
2.8
4.6
2.2
9.7
4.5
4.0
6.4
4.8
4.7
4.9
3.2
5.3
2.5
4.1
2.1
11.1
4.6
4.8
6.9
4.6
4.4
4.9
4.0
5.2
2.6
4.1
2.2
9.4
4.6
4.9
6.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
3.6
5.2
2.4
4.2
2.0
8.4
4.8
5.9
6.9
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
5.4
2.6
4.4
2.1
9.5
4.8
3.9
7.1
5.2
5.0
5.5
3.4
5.3
3.1
4.4
2.1
10.5
5.2
4.7
7.6
5.7
5.8
5.4
3.6
5.6
2.7
4.9
2.1
10.0
5.2
5.0
7.8
5.6
5.8
5.4
3.9
5.9
2.8
4.8
2.2
7.6
5.8
5.8
8.3
6.0
6.5
5.3
6.0
6.1
2.8
5.5
2.3
9.0
6.0
5.3
8.9
6.4
6.9
5.5
6.1
6.4
3.6
5.4
2.4
9.3
6.2
6.1
8.9
6.8
7.2
6.1
6.1
7.1
3.0
5.5
2.4
9.6
6.0
4.5
7.9
6.7
7.5
5.5
5.8
6.5
2.8
5.5
2.7
9.5
6.1
6.3
8.8
7.0
7.5
6.3
5.4
6.5
3.1
5.4
2.8
12.4
6.5
6.0
9.3
7.2
7.6
6.6
6.1
7.2
3.2
5.8
2.5
9.0
6.4
3.5
7.3
4.2
6.8
3.8
6.7
3.8
6.7
3.9
6.9
3.9
6.8
4.1
7.3
4.3
7.7
4.3
7.8
4.6
8.1
5.0
8.8
4.9
8.3
5.3
8.0
5.4
9.0
5.7
2.7
1.7
3.3
2.3
2.7
1.9
2.9
2.2
3.0
2.1
3.1
2.1
3.1
22.2
3.3
2.2
3.5
2.5
3.9
2.7
4.2
2.9
4.3
3.1
4.1
2.9
4.3
2.7
4.7
3.0
Married men, spouse present.............
Married women, spouse present........
Women who maintain families............
Full-time workers...................................
Part-time w orkers..................................
Industry
Nonagricultural w age and salary
workers.........................................................
Mining........................................................
Construction..............................................
Manufacturing...........................................
Durable goods......................................
Nondurable goods................................
Transportation and public utilities.........
W holesale and retail trade.....................
Finance, Insurance, and real esta te.....
Services.....................................................
Government workers...................................
Agricultural w age and salary workers.......
Educational attainment1
Less than a high school diploma................
High school graduates, no college.............
Som e college, less than a bachelor’s
degree...........................................................
College graduates.........................................
1 Data refer to persons 25 years and over.
86
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
7.
Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of
unemployment
Annual average
2000
2001
2001
2002
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
3,084
3,024
2,724
2,410
2,828
2,561
1,383
1,178
3,078
2,411
2,688
1,355
1,333
2,793
2,818
2,854
1,360
1,494
8.1
15.4
8.1
16.6
8.9
2,833
2,163
1,746
949
787
2,822
1,976
1,507
781
726
2,714
2,021
1,503
862
641
2,809
2,098
1,571
843
728
2,647
2,170
1,630
948
682
2,955
2,152
1,798
980
818
2,807
2,366
1,907
1,084
823
2,042
3,090
2,573
2,317
15 to 26 w eeks................................
27 w eeks and over.........................
2,543
1,803
1,309
665
644
906
1,110
1,115
2,978
2,586
2,546
1,418
1,127
Mean duration, in w eeks..................
Median duration, in w eeks...............
12.6
5.9
13.2
6.8
12.6
6.0
12.4
6.4
12.9
6.3
12.7
6.7
13.2
6.6
13.3
7.3
13.0
7.4
14.4
7.6
14.5
8.2
14.6
8.8
5 to 14 w eeks.....................................
8.
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Reason for
unemployment
Job losers1.......................................
On temporary layoff.....................
Not on temporary layoff...............
Job leavers......................................
Reentrants.......................................
New entrants....................................
Annual average
2000
2001
2001
2002
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
2,492
842
1,650
775
1,957
431
3,428
1,044
2,379
832
2,029
453
3,020
1,023
1,997
776
1,991
456
3,132
1,055
2,077
818
1,827
467
3,249
990
2,259
807
1,921
470
3,294
1,020
2,274
791
1,948
442
3,438
1,071
2,367
877
2,162
488
3,595
1,114
2,481
819
2,102
466
4,297
1,288
3,009
880
2,113
466
4,501
1,157
3,344
848
2,197
497
4,492
1,107
3,385
908
2,361
495
4,354
1,124
3,231
879
2,191
479
4,326
1,106
3,220
877
2,268
485
4,370
1,066
3,204
862
2,471
557
4,525
1,095
3,430
1,017
2,450
519
44.1
14.9
29.2
13.7
34.6
7.6
50.8
15.6
35.3
12.3
30.1
6.7
48.4
16.4
32.0
12.4
31.9
7.3
50.2
16.9
33.3
13.1
29.3
7.5
50.4
15.4
35.0
12.5
29.8
7.3
50.9
15.8
35.1
12.2
30.1
6.8
49.4
15.4
34.0
12.6
31.0
7.0
51.5
16.0
35.5
11.7
30.1
6.7
55.4
16.6
38.8
11.3
27.2
6.0
56.0
14.4
41.6
10.5
27.3
6.2
54.4
13.4
41.0
11.0
28.6
6.0
55.1
14.2
40.9
11.1
27.7
6.1
54.4
13.9
40.5
11.0
28.5
6.1
52.3
13.1
39.3
10.6
30.3
6.8
53.2
12.9
40.3
12.0
28.8
6.1
1.8
.6
1.4
.3
2.4
.6
1.4
.3
2.1
.5
1.4
.3
2.2
.6
1.3
.3
2.3
.6
1.4
.3
2.3
.6
1.4
.3
2.4
.6
1.5
.3
2.5
.6
1.5
.3
3.0
.6
1.5
.3
3.2
.6
1.5
.3
3.2
.6
1.7
.3
3.1
.6
1.5
.3
3.0
.6
1.6
.3
3.0
.6
1.7
.4
3.2
.7
1.7
.4
Percent of unemployed
Job losers1.......................................
On temporary layoff.....................
Not on temporary layoff................
Job leavers.......................................
Reentrants.......................................
New entrants....................................
Percent of civilian
labor force
Job losers1........................................
Job leavers.......................................
Reentrants........................................
New entrants....................................
1 Includes persons who completed temporary jobs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
87
Current Labor Statistics:
9.
Labor Force Data
Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Civilian workers]
Sex and age
Annual average
2000
88
2001
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
2002
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Total, 16 years and over...................
16 to 24 years.................................
16 to 19 years.............................
16 to 17 years..........................
18 to 19 years..........................
20 to 24 years.............................
25 years and over..........................
25 to 54 years..........................
55 years and over...................
4.0
9.3
13.1
15.4
11.5
7.1
3.0
3.1
2.6
4.8
10.6
14.7
17.1
13.2
8.3
3,7
3.8
3.0
4.5
10.3
14.2
16.7
12.6
8.2
3.4
3.4
2.7
4.4
10.0
13.8
15.8
12.5
7.9
3.4
3.5
2.6
4.6
10.4
14.4
16.5
13.0
8.2
3.5
3.6
2.8
4.6
10.2
14.8
19.0
12.4
7.7
3.5
3.7
2.9
4.9
11.3
15.8
18.6
14.4
8.9
3.8
3.9
3.1
5.0
10.8
14.9
16.6
13.9
8.6
3.8
3.9
3.2
5.4
11.5
15.4
17.4
14.2
9.3
4.2
4.4
3.4
5.6
11.7
15.7
17.5
14.8
9.5
4.4
4.6
3.5
5.8
11.9
16.2
18.8
14.8
9.6
4.5
4.7
4.0
5.6
11.9
16.1
17.0
15.2
9.7
4.4
4.7
3.5
5.5
11.6
15.6
16.5
14.7
9.5
4.5
4.6
3.8
5.7
12.5
16.4
16.5
15.1
10.3
4.5
4.7
3.5
6.0
12.3
16.8
19.4
15.1
10.0
4.9
5.0
4.0
Men, 16 years and over..................
16 to 24 years..............................
16 to 19 years...........................
16 to 17 years........................
18 to 19 years.......................
20 to 24 years...........................
25 years and over........................
25 to 54 years........................
55 years and over.................
3.9
9.7
14.0
16.8
12.2
7.3
2.8
2.9
2.7
4.8
11.4
15.9
18.8
14.1
8.9
3.6
3.7
3.3
4.6
10.9
15.1
18.7
12.9
8.6
3.4
3.5
2.9
4.5
11.0
15.4
17.9
13.9
8.7
3.3
3.4
2.9
4.7
11.6
15.8
18.5
14.2
9.3
3.4
3.5
3.0
4.7
10.7
15.6
19.1
13.4
8.1
3.6
3.6
3.1
5.1
12.3
17.4
21.9
15.0
9.5
3.8
3.9
3.3
5.0
1.5
16.0
18.7
14.5
9.1
3.7
3.8
3.3
5.5
12.4
17.2
20.3
15.1
9.8
4.2
4.3
3.7
5.9
13.0
17.7
20.4
16.2
10.5
4.5
4.6
4.1
5.8
12.8
17.2
20.0
15.6
10.5
4.5
4.5
4.2
5.8
12.5
16.3
17.6
15.1
10.6
4.5
4.7
3.8
5.6
12.4
16.8
19.6
15.4
10.2
4.4
4.5
4.1
5.9
13.7
18.5
20.8
16.7
11.1
4.5
4.7
3.6
6.1
13.0
18.1
19.6
17.2
10.3
4.8
4.9
4.3
Women, 16 years and over............
16 to 24 years..............................
16 to 19 years...........................
16 to 17 years........................
18 to 19 years........................
20 to 24 years...........................
25 years and over........................
25 to 54 years........................
4.1
8.9
12.1
14.0
10.8
7.0
3.2
3.3
4.7
9.7
13.4
15.3
12.2
7.5
3.7
3.8
4.3
9.7
13.2
14.5
12.2
7.8
3.3
3.4
4.3
8.8
12.1
13.8
11.0
7.0
3.4
3.6
4.4
9.2
13.0
14.4
11.8
7.0
3.5
3.7
4.6
9.7
14.0
18.8
11.3
7.3
3.5
3.7
4.8
10.3
14.1
15.4
13.7
8.2
3.8
3.9
5.0
10.1
13.6
14.3
13.3
8.1
4.0
4.0
5.3
10.5
13.6
14.5
13.3
8.7
4.2
4.4
5.4
10.3
13.7
14.5
13.3
8.3
4.4
4.7
5.8
11.0
15.1
17.6
14.0
8.7
4.6
4.8
5.4
11.3
15.8
16.4
15.2
8.7
4.3
4.6
5.5
10.7
14.3
13.6
13.9
8.7
4.6
4.7
5.5
11.2
14.3
15.3
13.4
9.4
4.4
4.6
6.0
11.6
15.4
19.2
12.9
9.6
5.0
5.1
55 years and over.................
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.8
3.7
3.0
3.5
3.4
3.7
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10. Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted
State
Mar.
2001
Feb.
Mar.
2002p
2002p
Alabama...
Alaska......
Arizona.....
Arkansas..
California..
5.0
6.3
4.1
4.9
4.8
5.5
5.7
6.0
4.9
6.2
6.0
6.3
5.9
5.2
6.5
Colorado...................
Connecticut...............
Delaware...................
District of ColumbiaFlorida........................
3.0
2.8
3.7
6.4
4.1
5.7
3.5
3.5
7.0
5.5
5.6
3.5
3.8
6.7
5.4
G eorgiaHawaii....
Idaho.....
Illinois....
Indiana...
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
3.9
4.5
4.7
5.5
5.8
5.1
Iowa..........
K ansas.....
Kentucky...
Louisiana..
Maine........
3.1
4.2
5.0
5.8
3.5
Maryland...........
M assachusetts..
Michigan...........
Minnesota.........
Mississippi.........
3.8
2.9
4.8
3.6
5.3
State
Mar.
Feb.
Mar.
2001
2002p
2002p
Missouri
4.5
4.6
3.0
4.7
3.1
4.8
4.4
3.4
6.1
4.0
5.2
46
3.6
5.8
4.1
North Carolina..............................................
North Dakota.................................................
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.9
2.7
5.2
6.2
59
6.3
2.9
5.6
6.1
59
6.6
3.1
4.6
4.6
5.5
6.1
4.9
Ohio...............................................................
Oklahoma......................................................
Oregon...........................................................
Pennsylvania................................................
Rhode Island.................................................
3.9
3.4
5.2
4.5
4.7
5.4
4.2
8.1
5.5
4.2
5.8
42
8.1
5.6
4.2
3.4
4.4
5.2
5.9
3.9
3.4
4.4
5.3
5.9
3.9
South Carolina..............................................
South Dakota................................................
T en n essee.....................................................
Texas.............................................................
Utah...............................................................
5.1
3.0
4.2
4.3
4.0
5.6
3.2
5.4
5.8
5.5
6.0
3.2
5.7
58
6.0
4.6
4.4
5.7
4.2
6.4
4.6
4.4
6.0
4.4
6.6
Vermont.........................................................
Virginia...........................................................
Washington...................................................
West Virginia.................................................
Wisconsin......................................................
Wyoming........................................................
3.3
2.8
5.9
5.0
4.4
3.7
3.5
4.1
7.0
5.6
5.8
3.6
3.9
42
6.8
59
5.7
3.9
Nebraska.......................................................
Nevada..........................................................
New Hampshire...........................................
New Jersey...................................................
New Mexico..................................................
p = preliminary
Dash indicates data not available.
11.
Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
State
Mar.
2001
Feb.
2002p
Mar. 2002
State
Mar.
2001
Feb.
2002p
Mar.
2002
Alabama...................
Alaska.......................
Arizona.....................
Arkansas..................
California..................
1,922.3
287.6
2,277.2
1,160.4
14,718.8
1,900.4
292.8
2,242.5
1,154.2
14,664.6
1,899.9
291.7
2,243.4
1,155.7
14,672.0
Missouri..........................................
Montana..........................................
Nebraska.........................................
Nevada............................................
New Hampshire.............................
2,749.8
392.4
909.2
1,056.5
630.0
2,699.2
394.5
909.2
1,060.5
626.9
2,691.1
393.2
911.8
1,066.3
626.5
Colorado..................
Connecticut..............
Delaware..................
District of Columbia.
Florida.......................
2,244.2
1,687.8
423.4
650.8
7,195.0
2,194.9
1,675.8
416.0
649.4
7,174.2
2,190.1
1,673.3
417.7
649.2
7,178.8
New Jersey .....................................
New Mexico....................................
New York........................................
4,027.7
757.4
8,678.5
3,932.5
330.0
4,016.7
762.6
8,547.9
3 880.6
330.7
4,014.6
763.0
8,541.3
3 882 3
330.5
Georgia....................
Hawaii.......................
Idaho.........................
Illinois........................
Indiana.....................
3,986.5
557.6
570.3
6,039.4
2,955.3
3,880.7
547.3
569.3
5,939.3
2,907.6
3,876.8
549.0
568.3
5,922.3
2,910.5
Oregon.............................................
Rhode Island..................................
5 595.1
1,508.3
1,611.2
5 718.2
480.2
5 543 5
1 510 4
1,577.6
5 658 3
479.7
5 534 9
1 518 6
1,575.7
5 650 8
480.3
Iowa...........................
Kansas.....................
Kentucky..................
Louisiana..................
Maine........................
1,472.4
1,355.2
1,818.9
1,924.7
609.2
1,464.4
1,358.7
1,828.0
1,929.0
609.0
1,461.3
1,362.1
1,823.0
1,932.6
609.0
South Carolina...............................
South Dakota..................................
T en n essee......................................
Texas...............................................
Utah..................................................
1,836.2
379.9
2,723.5
9,555.4
1,085.9
1,830.0
376.1
2,719.1
9,455.5
1,079.9
1,827.1
375.4
2,717.2
9,455.7
1,072.4
Maryland..................
Massachusetts........
Michigan...................
Minnesota.................
Mississippi................
2,468.8
3,355.7
4,616.1
2,696.9
1,137.2
2,456.3
3,305.7
4,557.2
2,659.3
1,131.2
2,456.5
3,305.6
4,562.6
2,659.9
1,133.1
Vermont...........................................
Virginia.............................................
Washington.....................................
West Virginia...................................
Wisconsin.......................................
Wyoming.........................................
300.4
3,551.1
2,716.6
739.7
2,841.4
244.2
296.5
3,493.8
2,659.4
736.8
2,813.8
248.0
296.1
3,497.4
2,651.6
736.8
2,813.8
248.9
North Dakota..................................
p = preliminary. Dash indicates data not available.
No te : Som e data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the data base.
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
89
Current Labor Statistics:
12.
Labor Force Data
Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
Industry
T O T A L .....................................
P R I V A T E S E C T O R ....................
G O O D S - P R O D U C I N G ....................
M in in g '...........................................
Metal mining...............................
Oil and gas extraction................
Nonmetallic minerals,
except fuels..............................
C o n s tr u c tio n ..................................
General building contractors.....
Heavy construction, except
building.....................................
Special trades contractors.........
M a n u fa c tu rin g ...............................
Production workers..............
D u ra b le g o o d s ............................,
Production workers..............
Lumber and wood products....
Furniture and fixtures...............
Stone, clay, and glass
products.................................
Primary metal industries..........
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
products................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
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 I C E - P R O D U C I N G .................
2002
2001
Annual average
2000
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
131,739
111,079
132,212
111,339
132,489
111,742
132,530
111,760
132,431
111,603
132,449
111,517
132,395
111,390
132,230
111,249
131,782
110,784
131,427
110,421
131,321
110,260
131,212
110,142
130,706
109,544
130,701
109,505
130,680
109,502
25,709
543
41
311
25,121
563
36
337
25,421
560
37
335
25,324
564
37
339
25,186
565
35
340
25,122
567
34
341
24,963
569
35
342
24,888
569
35
342
24,746
569
35
340
24,577
567
34
339
24,453
564
33
336
24,273
563
31
339
24,041
564
32
339
23,975
560
32
336
23,905
564
32
339
114
113
113
112
112
113
112
112
113
113
113
111
111
111
112
6,698
1,528
5,861
1,554
6,852
1,548
6,881
1,556
6,864
1,551
6,867
1,554
6,861
1,557
6,871
1,562
6,852
1,560
6,851
1,561
6,850
1,559
6,787
1,552
6,597
1,459
6,593
1,462
6,541
1,452
901
4,269
629
4,378
17,698
11,922
915
4,389
923
4,402
925
4,388
935
4,378
932
4,372
932
4,377
933
4,359
942
4,348
944
4,348
928
4,307
914
4,225
908
4,223
901
4,188
18,009
12,166
17,879
12,066
17,757
11,956
17,688
11,900
17,533
11,782
17,448
11,706
17,325
11,626
17,159
11,500
17,039
11,405
16,923
11,328
16,880
11,305
16,822
11,264
16,800
11,250
11,138
7,591
832
558
10,638
7,122
10,870
7,308
10,778
7,235
10,692
7,157
10,624
7,102
10,523
7,022
10,460
6,970
10,363
6,897
10,240
6,805
10,158
6,744
10,048
6,675
10,023
6,653
9,976
6,625
9,976
6,620
795
527
800
543
797
540
798
532
797
531
793
519
794
513
789
505
784
499
780
499
781
497
771
491
769
491
767
497
579
698
1,537
571
651
1,479
577
667
1,503
574
660
1,488
572
654
1,478
569
648
1,478
568
643
1,468
567
638
1,464
566
633
1,454
562
619
1,435
559
613
1,428
554
600
1,416
551
601
1,425
550
596
1,422
551
598
1,425
2,120
2,014
2,072
2,054
2,031
2,007
1,980
1,965
1,943
1,917
1,892
1,870
1,855
1,846
1,842
353
348
344
342
339
335
327
315
315
313
18,469
12,628
361
355
367
366
357
1,719
1,612
1,684
1,656
1,624
1,589
1,565
1,551
1,529
1,499
1,474
1,456
1,459
1,445
1,443
682
1,849
647
1,747
686
1,768
670
1,757
650
1,749
634
1,752
618
1,750
613
1,735
601
1,714
591
1,706
583
1,696
571
1,661
571
1,680
566
1,674
566
1,671
1,013
465
933
463
950
464
939
465
931
465
936
466
931
465
919
465
903
463
903
456
901
452
878
440
913
427
915
419
912
416
852
859
866
865
865
865
858
851
849
843
839
835
816
813
811
379
382
381
376
378
378
372
370
371
6,988
4,736
1,682
33
459
6,962
4,729
6,919
4,695
6,881
4,661
6,846
4,636
6,824
4,630
1,689
33
454
1,691
33
446
1,682
32
442
6,875
4,653
1,684
33
440
6,857
4,652
1,680
33
471
7,010
4,760
1,674
35
465
1,686
33
441
1,685
34
440
1,689
33
436
567
635
1,495
1,033
128
571
632
1,489
1,039
128
554
628
1,483
1,035
127
551
629
1,473
1,031
128
542
628
1,465
1,027
128
533
627
1,452
1,024
127
531
624
1,444
1,021
127
534
624
1,434
1,020
128
531
621
1,428
1,011
126
527
620
1,419
1,010
126
523
615
1,413
1,008
125
959
65
953
64
957
64
947
62
941
61
935
60
927
59
920
58
919
59
924
56
929
56
927
55
107,068
107,206
107,245
107,327
107,432
107,342
107,036
106,850
106,868
106,939
106,665
106,726
106,775
7,070
4,531
227
7,119
4,576
230
7,130
4,584
230
7,118
4,571
227
7,108
4,561
226
7,082
4,539
226
7,070
4,528
226
7,016
4,472
225
6,952
4,414
224
6,915
4,387
227
6,898
4,381
228
6,837
4,341
234
6,814
4,330
233
6,799
4,330
230
476
1,856
196
1,281
14
471
481
1,854
203
1,288
14
464
477
1,864
202
1,313
14
476
483
1,867
203
1,315
14
472
483
1,867
201
1,310
14
469
485
1,863
203
1,304
14
466
486
1,844
203
1,303
14
463
482
1,838
205
1,300
14
463
479
1,832
206
1,264
14
452
480
1,830
204
1,221
14
441
485
1,832
206
1,189
14
434
482
1,830
204
1,192
14
431
479
1,826
187
1,171
15
429
478
1,819
186
1,172
15
427
476
1,830
190
1,162
15
247
2,490
1,639
2,540
1,692
2,543
1,696
2,546
1,699
2,547
1,700
2,547
1,700
2,543
1,695
2,542
1,695
2,544
1,695
2,538
1,689
2,528
1,683
2,517
1,670
2,496
1,652
2,484
1,643
2,469
1,628
851
7,024
847
847
847
847
847
848
847
849
849
845
847
844
841
841
7,014
7,053
7,038
7,022
7,017
7,010
6,988
6,971
6,938
23,488
23,530
23,546
23,561
23,606
23,583
23,536
23,422
23,365
6,933
23,408
6,689
23,307
6,941
23,424
23,331
6,681
23,332
6,678
23,345
1,016
2,837
2,491
1,010
2,792
2,447
999
2,804
2,459
1,006
2,821
2,473
1,014
2,818
2,471
1,008
2,810
2,458
1,014
2,800
2,449
1,013
2,793
2,450
1,012
2,784
2,422
1,010
2,778
2,420
1,013
2,755
2,410
1,022
2,710
2,369
1,048
2,892
2,550
1,053
2,901
2,560
1,061
2,915
2,575
394
385
390
387
389
7,331
5,038
1,684
34
528
7,059
4,800
7,139
7,065
4,799
388
7,064
4,798
1,685
33
473
1,687
32
489
7,101
4,831
1,684
33
480
1,685
33
472
633
657
565
1,547
579
639
1,502
1,033
127
1,011
71
1,492
1,033
127
954
64
64
581
641
1,512
1,036
128
967
66
106,050
107,091
7,019
4,529
236
1,038
127
4,858
635
T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d p u b lic
u tilitie s.......................................
Railroad transportation............
Local and interurban
passenger transit...................
Trucking and warehousing......
Water transportation................
Transportation by air...............
Pipelines, except natural gas..
Transportation services..........
Communications and public
Communications......................
Electric, gas, and sanitary
W h o le s a le tra d e ............................
R etail tra d e ....................................
Building materials and garden
General merchandise stores....
Department stores..................
S ee footnotes at end of table.
90
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
12. Continued— Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]____________________________________________________
Industry
Annual average
2000
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........................
2001
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
2002
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
3,521
3,542
3,562
3,553
3,544
3,536
3,531
3,538
3,542
3,539
3,525
3,519
3,402
3,392
3,392
2,412
1,114
1,193
2,429
1,130
1,219
2,421
1,122
1,226
2,428
1,126
1,231
2,431
1,128
1,227
2,435
1,131
1,219
2,441
1,133
1,224
2,435
1,133
1,224
2,429
1,134
1,208
2,430
1,137
1,203
2,428
1,141
1,192
2,436
1,145
1,221
2,430
1,134
1,172
2,426
1,131
1,175
2,429
1,129
1,170
1,134
8,114
1,140
8,215
1,140
8,213
1,136
8,216
1,136
8,241
1,137
8,310
1,137
8,280
1,138
8,242
1,136
8,187
1,136
8,198
1,143
8,209
1,138
8,213
1,143
8,154
1,143
8,154
1,141
8,152
3,080
3,142
3,165
3,155
3,150
3,151
3,156
3,153
3,144
3,130
3,100
3,149
3,083
3,088
3,085
7,560
3,710
2,029
1,430
253
681
7,623
3,759
2,036
1,423
256
701
7,626
3,761
2,032
1,421
255
691
7,644
3,770
2,037
1,426
255
697
7,631
3,767
2,041
1,428
256
699
7,618
3,755
2,039
1,426
255
703
7,623
3,758
2,037
1,423
255
709
7,633
3,758
2,039
1,423
256
706
7,634
3,761
2,041
1,427
257
712
7,638
3,772
2,045
1,428
259
717
7,632
3,774
2,044
1,427
260
728
7,638
3,778
2,046
1,429
262
742
7,745
3,812
2,072
1,446
263
754
7,740
3,809
2,074
1,447
264
753
7,743
3,813
2,075
1,446
264
756
F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , a n d
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 r v ic e s 1.......................................
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
services...................................
748
763
780
776
766
755
755
755
750
751
744
742
726
722
723
251
2,346
1,589
259
2,355
1,596
258
2,356
1,596
260
2,358
1,598
261
2,356
1,598
258
2,357
1,599
257
2,357
1,598
258
2,362
1,601
258
2,361
1,602
259
2,356
1,597
258
2,352
1,594
259
2,351
1,594
260
2,376
1,593
260
2,375
1,591
259
2,374
1,591
757
1,504
759
1,510
760
1,509
760
1,516
758
1,508
758
1,506
759
1,508
761
1,513
759
1,512
759
1,510
758
1,506
757
1,509
783
1,557
784
1,556
785
1,556
40,460
832
1,914
1,251
9,858
994
3,887
3,487
41,023
801
1,912
1,275
9,627
1,001
3,531
3,142
40,993
824
1,944
1,267
9,729
1,009
3,600
3,202
41,078
834
1,935
1,277
9,702
1,013
3,590
3,198
41,085
833
1,920
1,279
9,666
1,008
3,556
3,161
41,046
834
1,922
1,281
9,592
998
3,517
3,127
41,129
837
1,912
1,284
9,588
997
3,521
3,113
41,134
838
1,913
1,284
9,581
997
3,488
3,106
40,995
841
1,862
1,281
9,467
995
3,378
3,005
40,889
840
1,852
1,271
9,356
996
3,282
2,913
40,957
846
1,845
1,294
9,346
992
3,252
2,894
40,992
843
1,854
1,295
9,317
982
3,237
2,881
40,901
868
1,811
1,282
9,207
1,018
3,070
2,758
40,963
872
1,811
1,289
9,237
1,021
3,107
2,795
41,025
857
1,796
1,286
9,312
1,027
3,175
2,857
2,095
2,193
2,199
2,200
2,205
2,202
2,194
2,200
2,201
2,189
2,189
2,186
2,208
2,198
2,190
1,248
366
594
1,302
362
592
1,300
364
601
1,309
363
587
1,303
361
602
1,312
360
595
1,307
362
589
1,306
363
586
1,298
362
582
1,305
360
584
1,304
359
580
1,308
358
589
1,262
379
574
1,260
377
572
1,261
377
574
1,728
1,771
1,764
1,787
1,768
1,772
1,777
1,766
1,781
1,762
1,777
1,772
1,649
1,635
1,611
Health services...........................
Offices and clinics of medical
doctors....................................
Nursing and personal care
facilities...................................
Hospitals...................................
Home health care services.....
Legal services.............................
Educational services..................
Social services............................
Child day care services...........
Residential care........................
Museums and botanical and
zoological gardens..................
Membership organizations........
Engineering and management
services....................................
Engineering and architectural
services...................................
Management and public
relations.................................
10,197
10,497
10,280
10,296
10,329
10,354
10,384
10,408
10,431
10,458
10,483
10,504
10,575
10,602
10,626
1,090
1,123
1,124
1,121
1,124
1,119
1,123
1,122
1,124
1,127
1,125
1,132
1,193
1,191
1,202
G o v e rn m e n t...................................
20,681
2,777
20,873
2,616
20,747
2,615
20,770
2,612
20,828
2,621
20,932
2,626
21,005
2,622
20,981
2,627
20,998
2,625
21,006
2,607
21,061
2,615
21,070
2,607
21,162
2,608
21,196
2,611
21,185
2,610
1,917
4,785
2,032
2,753
13,119
7,440
5,679
1,767
4,880
2,088
2,792
13,377
7,567
5,810
1,756
4,847
2,065
2,782
13,285
7,495
5,790
1,754
4,854
2,066
2,788
13,304
7,512
5,792
1,772
4,881
2,089
2,792
13,326
7,515
5,811
1,772
4,909
2,117
2,792
13,397
7,575
5,822
1,774
4,913
2,122
2,791
13,470
7,650
5,820
1,776
4,931
2,129
2,802
13,423
7,595
5,828
1,779
4,919
2,107
2,812
13,454
7,607
5,847
1,777
4,916
2,109
2,907
13,843
7,630
5,853
1,775
4,928
2,112
2,816
13,518
7,642
5,876
1,775
4,934
2,120
2,814
13,529
7,644
5,885
1,777
4,937
2,130
2,807
13,617
7,746
5,871
1,782
4,940
2,133
2,807
13,645
7,767
5,878
1,784
4,942
2,135
2,807
13,633
7,754
5,879
Federal........................................
Federal, except Postal
Service...................................
State............................................
Education..................................
Other State government..........
Local............................................
Education..................................
Other local government...........
1,924
1,979
1,967
1,973
1,981
1,983
1,990
1,992
1,993
2,000
2,002
2,007
2,041
2,046
2,044
1,795
3,990
643
1,010
2,325
2,903
712
806
1,822
4,095
650
1,026
2,420
305‘
749
843
1,816
4,062
646
1,021
2,388
3,023
743
835
1,814
4,071
645
1,027
2,431
3,039
745
842
1,821
4,086
648
1,027
2,426
3,056
756
845
1,823
4,098
647
1,026
2,432
3,048
760
847
1,825
4,114
653
1,028
2,452
3,076
765
848
1,830
4,124
655
1,030
2,446
3,085
756
851
1,834
4,135
655
1,030
2,436
3,096
757
854
1,837
4,149
657
1,030
2,439
3,100
755
855
1,842
4,158
659
1,031
2,457
33,105
757
853
1,848
4,167
663
1,030
2,472
3,122
756
860
1,875
4,184
642
1,054
2,485
3,155
722
899
1,879
4,193
643
1,056
2,489
3,162
723
902
1,883
4,199
634
1,059
2,501
3,167
725
904
106
2,475
110
2,498
109
2,489
110
2,496
111
2,501
111
2,493
111
2,503
112
2,509
112
2,505
110
2,505
110
2,506
110
2,504
109
2,471
109
2,470
109
2,477
3,419
3,525
3,517
3,512
3,529
3,540
3,544
3,533
3,538
3,543
3,541
3,542
3,629
3,631
3,636
1,017
1,060
1,053
1,057
1,059
1,064
1,067
1,067
1,069
1,065
1,063
1,064
1,044
1,044
1,041
1 Includes other Industries not shown separately.
p = preliminary.
N o t e : See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
91
Current Labor Statistics:
13.
Labor Force Data
Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted
Industry
2000
2001
34.5
P R I V A T E S E C T O R .....................................
34.2
2002
2001
Annual average
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p Apr.p
Apr.
May
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.0
34.1
34.0
34.1
34.1
33.6
34.2
34.2
34.2
40.5
40.3
40.2
40.0
40.0
40.1
39.9
40.4
40.5
40.4
G O O D S - P R O D U C I N G .....................................
41.0
40.3
40.6
40.5
40.4
M IN IN G ..............................................................
43.1
43.4
44.0
43.9
43.3
43.3
43.4
43.5
43.1
43.2
43.1
42.3
43.4
43.3
42.4
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ........................................
41.6
4.6
40.7
3.9
41.0
3.9
40.7
3.9
40.7
3.9
40.8
4.0
40.7
4.1
40.6
3.9
40.5
3.8
40.3
3.7
40.6
3.8
40.4
3.7
40.7
3.7
41.0
4.1
40.9
4.2
42.1
4.7
41.0
40.0
43.1
44.9
41.0
3.9
40.3
36.9
43.6
43.6
41.3
3.9
40.1
39.3
43.2
44.3
41.0
3.9
40.6
38.6
43.9
43.5
40.9
3.9
40.4
38.4
44.0
43.9
41.2
4.0
41.1
39.7
44.0
44.1
41.1
4.1
40.9
39.7
43.9
43.7
40.9
3.8
41.1
38.8
44.0
43.7
40.7
3.7
40.6
38.3
43.9
43.2
40.4
3.6
40.5
38.4
43.8
42.6
40.9
3.8
40.7
38.9
43.6
43.9
40.8
3.7
39.7
39.8
43.2
43.6
41.1
3.9
40.9
40.3
4.1
43.8
41.3
4.1
41.1
40.6
43.6
44.4
41.4
4.1
40.8
40.8
43.8
44.3
46.0
42.6
44.5
41.3
45.4
42.0
44.6
41.4
45.1
41.2
44.7
41.6
44.6
41.5
45.5
41.2
44/0
41.0
43.3
40.7
43.8
41.3
43.9
41.2
44.8
41.6
45.5
41.7
45.1
41.6
Industrial machinery and equipment...
Electronic and other electrical
equipment............................................
Transportation equipment....................
Motor vehicles and equipment..........
Instruments and related products.......
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............
42.2
40.7
41.3
40.7
40.4
40.8
40.2
40.3
40.4
39.9
40.1
40.4
40.1
40.5
40.6
41.1
43.4
44.4
41.3
39.0
39.4
41.9
42.7
40.6
37.9
39.8
42.4
43.3
41.0
38.2
39.1
42.4
43.6
41.0
37.9
39.3
41.9
43.0
40.8
38.4
38.9
42.2
43.0
40.8
38.4
39.1
42.8
44.6
40.4
38.2
39.1
41.5
42.3
41.1
37.6
39.0
41.3
41.9
40.7
37.5
38.8
41.3
42.2
40.3
37.1
39.3
41.8
43.1
40.5
37.8
38.5
42.3
43.5
40.4
37.1
38.9
42.3
43.7
40.4
38.4
39.4
42.4
43.9
40.6
38.8
39.5
42.6
44.4
40.4
38.8
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ......................................
40.8
4.4
41.7
41.2
37.8
42.5
40.3
4.0
41.1
40.0
37.3
41.7
40.5
3.9
41.3
40.3
38.0
42.0
40.3
4.0
41.1
40.3
37.8
41.6
40.4
3.9
41.2
40.4
37.5
41.7
40.3
4.0
40.9
39.7
37.7
41.9
40.1
4.1
41.1
39.8
36.9
41.2
40.2
4.1
41.0
39.8
36.9
41.6
40.2
4.1
41.1
39.7
36.8
41.5
40.0
3.9
40.8
39.5
36.9
41.3
40.2
4.0
40.9
40.0
37.3
41.5
40.0
3.8
40.7
39.9
36.6
41.4
40.2
3.9
41.0
40.9
36.7
41.5
40.4
4.2
41.4
41.4
37.4
41.5
40.3
4.3
41.2
41.5
37.1
41.6
38.3
42.5
38.1
42.3
38.2
42.6
38.0
42.4
38.0
42.2
38.2
42.7
38.0
42.1
38.1
42.2
38.0
42.3
37.8
42.0
37.9
41.9
37.3
41.9
37.4
41.9
37.5
42.0
37.2
41.8
41.4
37.5
41.7
36.4
40.8
36.6
40.6
35.9
40.7
36.2
40.6
35.7
40.5
36.4
40.8
36.3
40.5
36.0
40.7
36.6
41.2
37.5
40.9
37.5
40.9
37.2
41.1
37.3
41.6
37.5
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.8
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.7
32.2
32.7
32.8
32.7
P U B L I C U T IL IT I E S ....................................
38.6
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
37.8
37.8
37.6
37.8
38.8
38.0
37.4
38.2
38.2
38.3
W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ..................................
38.5
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.3
38.2
38.3
38.3
38.1
38.2
38.3
37.9
38.3
38.4
38.3
R E T A I L T R A D E ..............................................
28.9
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.7
28.6
28.6
28.7 I
28.7
28.8
28.9
28.0
29.0
29.1
29.0
Overtime hours.....................................
D u ra b le g o o d s ..............................................
Overtime hours....................................
Lumber and wood products.................
Furniture and fixtures............................
Stone, clay, and glass products..........
Primary metal industries.......................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..............................................
Fabricated metal products...................
Overtime hours....................................
Food and kindred products..................
Textile mill products..............................
Apparel and other textile products......
Paper and allied products....................
Printing and publishing.........................
Chemicals and allied products...........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................................
S E R V I C E - P R O D U C I N G ..................................
TR A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D
p = preliminary.
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
M onthly Labor Review
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
14.
Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Industry
Annual average
2002
2001
2000
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
$13.75
$14.33
$14.21
$14.24
$14.31
$14.34
$14.40
$14.45
$14.47
$14.54
$14.59
$14.67
$14.62
$14.65
$14.68
15.40
15.93
15.78
15.86
15.90
15.93
16.01
16.04
16.05
16.05
16.15
16.17
16.28
16.29
16.32
17.65
18.33
14.84
14.15
17.53
18.15
14.72
14.04
17.54
18.22
14.78
14.09
17.73
18.28
14.81
14.13
17.74
18.26
14.86
14.18
17.69
18.35
14.93
14.24
17.67
Construction...........................................
Manufacturing........................................
Excluding overtime.............................
17.24
17.88
14.38
13.62
18.36
14.96
14.28
17.73
18.38
14.97
14.31
17.85
18.46
15.05
14.38
17.80
18.58
15.10
14.41
17.96
18.47
15.16
14.49
17.66
18.68
15.16
14.46
17.72
18.74
15.19
14.45
17.63
18.83
15.19
14.43
S e r v ic e - p r o d u c in g ......................................
13.24
13.85
13.73
13.76
13.84
13.87
13.93
13.98
14.01
14.07
14.13
14.24
14.14
14.18
14.21
Transportation and public utilities.......
Wholesale trade.....................................
Retail trade.............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....
Services...................................................
16.22
15.20
9.46
15.07
13.91
16.89
15.80
9.82
15.84
14.61
16.74
15.74
9.74
15.64
14.48
16.76
15.70
9.79
15.74
14.49
16.91
15.86
9.83
15.86
14.54
16.88
15.84
9.84
15.91
14.61
16.95
15.81
9.87
15.99
14.71
17.02
15.95
9.87
16.01
14.76
17.09
15.89
9.91
16.05
14.81
17.23
15.91
9.98
16.07
14.87
17.23
16.04
9.99
16.16
14.94
17.39
16.07
10.05
16.13
15.07
17.16
16.19
9.92
16.08
15.04
17.26
16.23
9.95
16.14
15.08
17.26
16.11
9.97
16.18
15.13
7.86
8.00
7.94
7.93
7.95
8.00
8.03
8.02
8.06
8.11
8.16
8.21
8.14
8.13
8.10
P R I V A T E S E C T O R (in c u rre n t d o lla rs ) ..
P R I V A T E S E C T O R (in c o n s t a n t (1982)
d o lla r s ) ............................................................
p = preliminary. Dash indicates data not available.
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
93
Current Labor Statistics:
Labor Force Data
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Annual average
Industry
2001
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
Apr.p
PRIVATE SECTOR.....................................
$13.75
$14.33
$14.27
$14.22
$14.22
$14.27
$14.28
$14.51
$14.50
$14.56
$14.64
$14.67
$14.68
$14.69
$14.72
MINING..........................................................
17.24
17.65
17.60
17.49
17.59
17.67
17.53
17.67
17.70
17.79
17.90
17.96
17.83
17.82
17.85
CONSTRUCTION.........................................
17.88
18.33
18.07
18.17
18.21
18.32
18.43
18.50
18.55
18.51
18.65
18.47
18.50
18.60
######
MANUFACTURING....................................
14.38
14.84
14.74
14.75
14.79
14.84
14.89
15.01
14.97
15.07
15.19
15.16
15.16
15.17
15.22
D urable g o o d s ..........................................
Lumber and wood products.................
Furniture and fixtures............................
Stone, clay, and glass products..........
Primary metal industries......................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..............................................
Fabricated metal products...................
14.82
11.93
11.73
14.53
16.42
15.28
12.25
12.21
15.03
16.96
15.14
12.13
12.07
14.96
16 90
15.19
12.16
12.09
15.03
16.82
15.24
12.19
12.15
15.13
16.96
15.25
12.32
12.24
15.12
17.11
15.37
12.37
12.29
15.17
17.06
15.49
12.45
12.35
15.22
17.27
15.45
12.34
12.39
15.20
17.12
15.55
12.41
12.40
15.16
17.31
15.68
12.37
12.56
15.23
17.26
15.64
12.39
12.59
15.29
17.26
15.64
12.32
12.58
15.26
17.30
15.64
12.32
12.52
15.24
17.30
15.67
12.33
12.52
15.43
17.37
19.82
13.87
20.43
14.26
20.37
14.11
20.26
14.23
20.39
14.25
20.48
14.27
20.63
14.34
20.91
14.42
20.55
14.33
20.75
14.44
20.61
14.63
20.62
14.56
20.75
14.53
20.58
14.62
20.80
14.64
Industrial machinery and equipment...
Electronic and other electrical
equipment............................................
Transportation equipment....................
Motor vehicles and equipment..........
Instruments and related products.......
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............
15.55
15.91
15.74
15.79
15.82
15.90
15.96
16.05
16.09
16.15
16.33
16.34
16.31
16.30
16.33
13.80
18.45
18.79
14.43
11.63
14.53
19.01
19.36
14.87
12.19
14.39
18.77
19.13
14.80
12.04
14.38
18.83
19.18
14.75
12.10
14.51
18.90
19.25
14.81
12.07
14.59
18.80
19.04
14.98
12.12
14.72
19.08
19.39
15.00
12.23
14.84
19.31
19.68
15.06
12.37
14.78
19.37
19.82
15.00
12.27
14.87
19.51
19.96
15.03
12.46
15.01
19.65
20.19
15.16
12.67
14.88
19.54
20.03
15.15
12.61
14.88
19.65
20.08
15.22
12.51
14.92
19.58
20.09
15.26
12.59
14.91
19.65
20.24
15.27
12.53
N ondurable g o o d s ...................................
Food and kindred products..................
Tobacco products..................................
Textile mill products..............................
Apparel and other textile products......
Paper and allied products....................
13.69
12.50
21.57
11.16
9.30
16.25
14.17
12.88
22.28
11.35
9.47
16.86
14.12
12.79
22.59
11.30
9.44
16.74
14.07
12.83
23.01
11.29
9.39
16.72
14.11
12.86
23.17
11.32
9.45
16.90
14.23
12.93
23.63
11.37
9.40
16.99
14.17
12.87
21.90
11.39
9.44
16.87
14.31
12.95
21.70
11.40
9.56
17.12
14.28
12.91
21.71
11.34
9.49
17.11
14.37
13.11
22.32
11.43
9.58
17.13
14.45
13.21
22.21
11.52
9.47
17.17
14.46
13.16
21.91
11.64
9.77
17.07
14.45
13.09
22.16
11.61
9.78
17.04
14.48
13.14
23.02
11.65
9.90
17.14
14.55
13.23
23.40
11.68
9.92
17.32
Printing and publishing.........................
Chemicals and allied products............
Petroleum and coal products...............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................................
Leather and leather products...............
14.40
18.15
22.00
14.82
18.59
22.09
14.75
18.64
22.09
14.75
18.52
21.83
14.74
18.55
21.78
14.83
18.69
22.02
14.87
18.54
22.20
15.01
18.86
22.27
14.96
18.70
22.36
14.93
18.74
22.38
15.04
18.81
21.95
15.04
18.84
22.05
15.12
18.96
22.46
15.19
18.89
22.46
15.23
18.94
22.28
12.85
10.18
13.39
10.31
13.33
10.37
13.30
10.26
13.30
10.30
13.38
10.25
13.44
10.35
13.51
10.25
13.48
10.21
13.53
10.09
13.67
10.25
13.66
10.27
13.61
10.33
13.61
10.30
13.69
10.34
TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES..................................
16.22
16.89
16.78
16.70
16.83
16.89
16.97
17.07
17.09
17.23
17.26
17.39
17.44
17.40
17.48
WHOLESALE TRADE.................................
15.20
15.80
15.86
15.66
15.77
15.88
15.75
16.03
15.85
15.91
16.16
16.07
16.16
16.08
16.09
RETAIL TRADE...........................................
9.46
9.82
9.78
9.78
9.77
9.77
9.79
9.92
9.93
9.98
9.99
10.05
10.03
10.05
10.05
FINANCE, INSURANCE,
AND REAL ESTATE................................
15.07
15.84
15.81
15.74
15.75
15.85
15.84
16.05
15.96
16.04
16.21
16.13
16.20
16.24
16.29
SERVICES.....................................................
13.91
14.61
14.58
14.46
14.39
14.46
14.46
14.78
14.80
14.92
15.09
15.07
15.10
15.10
15.09
p = preliminary.
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
94
2002
2000
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Industry
Annual average
2002
2001
2000
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.p
$474.38
$490.09
$486.61
485.98
271.70
$484.90
487.01
269.39
$489.17
489.40
271.46
$493.74
490.43
275.22
$491.23
489.60
273.82
$497.69
492.75
275.88
$493.00
491.98
274.50
$495.04
495.81
276.10
$503.62
499.66
282.30
$492.91
492.91
275.83
$497.65
497.65
277.55
$497.99
497.99
276.20
A p r.p
P R IV A TE S E C T O R
v
9-> f n
Seasonally adjusted.................
Constant (1982) dollars.............
272.16
273.64
M IN IN G ..................................................
743.04
766.01
765.60
769.56
768.68
772.18
764.31
777.48
773.49
764.97
771.49
759.71
763.98
762 70
/'5 ö 8 4
C O N S T R U C T I O N ...............................
702.68
718.54
695.70
728.62
728.40
740.13
739.04
736.30
732.73
720.04
714.30
712.94
712.25
714.24
720 98
598.21
343.21
603.99
337.24
588.13
328.38
600.33
333.52
603.43
334.87
598.05
333.36
607.51
338.63
615.41
341.14
609.28
339.24
613.35
342.08
627.35
351.65
612.46
342.73
610.95
340.74
620.45
344.12
620 98
6 4 5 .6 0
4 9 9 .0 1
2 7 5 ,0 9
M A N U FA C TU R IN G
C onstant (1982) dollars..............
3 4 2 .3 3
D u ra b le g o o d s ....................................
623.92
626.48
607.11
624.31
626.36
617.63
633.24
639.74
631.91
636.00
652.29
638.11
636.14
644.37
Lumber and wood products......
Furniture and fixtures.................
Stone, clay, and glass
489.13
469.20
496.13
474.90
483.99
457.45
497.34
462.22
498.57
468.99
502.66
481.03
509.64
491.60
517.92
489.06
504.71
478.25
503.85
479.88
502.33
501.14
491.88
501.48
491.97
500.68
501.42
5 0 0 .6 0
507.06 505 64/79
626.24
737.26
655.31
739.46
638.79
730.08
665.83
731.67
670.26
744.54
669.82
742.57
676.58
743.82
686.42
766.79
674.88
737.87
668.56
747.79
664.03
768.07
660.53
752.54
659.23
749.09
661.42
764.66
911.72
590.86
909.14
588.94
920.72
567.22
899.54
589.12
919.59
589.95
919.55
582.22
920.10
595.11
959.77
598.43
900.09
590.40
908.85
594.93
902.72
617 39
905.22
599 87
906.78
598.22
921.98
608.19
607 56
656.21
657.54
628.03
644.23
640.71
640.77
640.00
648.42
648.43
649.23
669.53
660.14
655.66
660.15
6 5 6 .4 7
567.18
800.73
572.48
796.52
554.02
765.82
559.38
804.04
570.24
799.47
558.80
765.16
577.02
814.72
584.70
809.09
584.39
807.73
580.85
818.52
603.40
841.02
572.88
826.54
573.27
822.50
584 86
832.15
581 4 9
834.28
826.67
791.98
840.08
839.30
780.64
858.98
844.27
840.37
852.29
890.38
871.31
867.46
881.95
906 75
595.96
453.57
606.70
462.00
594.96
450.30
602.48
458.59
602.77
463.49
605.19
458.14
606.00
468.41
618.97
467.59
609.00
462.58
610.22
464.76
624.59
483.99
612.06
467.83
612.96
471.63
621.08
484.72
6 1 3 .8 5
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s .........................
558.55
571.05
559.15
564.21
568.63
582.42
576.91
589.99
576.56
583.54
5 8 3 .4 6
529.37
893.43
454.00
510.32
885.53
444.09
522.18
906.59
454.99
528.55
956.92
458.46
535.39
878.19
456.74
543.90
885.36
458.28
538.35
881.43
540.20
544.07
899.50
454.91
589.56
549.54
917.27
466 56
578.40
521.25
877.90
459.79
569.20
528.84
952.29
444.57
571.05
Food and kindred products.......
535.61
878.59
524.51
897.69
471 37
533.48
923.10
485.81
5 3 1 .8 5
351.54
690.63
353.23
703.06
346.45
688.01
355.88
690.54
357.21
701.35
349.68
708.48
350.22
695.04
350 85
722.46
348 28
715.20
354 46
717.75
365 31
726.29
357 58
706.70
363 58
701.17
378 18
711.31
3 7 2 99
551.52
771.38
932.80
564.64
786.36
943.24
554.60
790.34
965.33
556.08
783.40
910.31
557.17
782.81
934.36
563.54
790.59
953.47
568.03
778.68
954.60
577.89
797.78
955.38
571.47
791.01
936.88
573.31
794.58
935.48
577.54
799.43
906.54
560.99
789.40
917.28
565.49
787.90
927.82
574.18
791.49
911.88
5 6 9 .6 0
8 68.92
531.99
381.75
544.97
375.28
529.20
369.17
539.98
370.39
543.97
378.01
535.20
360.80
544.32
379.85
556.61
377.20
548.64
369.60
553.38
373.33
574.14
385.40
558.69
385.13
556.24
385.22
559.37
387.28
3 9 1 .8 9
P U B L I C U T IL IT I E S .........................
626.09
643.51
641.00
632.93
642.91
650.27
646.56
648.66
646.00
649.57
661.06
650.39
651.88
655.98
4 5 9 .0 0
W H O L E S A L E T R A D E .......................
585.20
603.56
607.44
598.59
603.99
611.38
603.23
620.36
603.89
607.76
623.78
609.05
616.08
612.65
6 1 6 .2 5
R E T A I L T R A D E ...................................
273.39
282.82
281.66
280.69
283.33
288.22
286.85
285.70
283.01
284.43
291.71
281.40
286.14
287.43
78 ,'.5 7
A N D R E A L E S T A T E .......................
547.04
547.99
580.23
565.78
570.15
581.70
571.82
589.04
571.37
577.44
594.91
579.07
586.44
586.26
586.44
S E R V I C E S .............................................
454.86
477.75
476.77
469.95
471.99
478.63
474.29
483.31
479.52
484.90
496.46
485.25
490.75
489.24
4 8 8 .9 2
Primary metal industries...........
Blast furnaces and basic
steel products.........................
Industrial machinery and
equipment...............................
Electronic and other electrical
Transportation equipment.........
Motor vehicles and
Instruments and related
products....................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing....
6 8 3 .5 5
7 6 7 .7 5
927.68
8 4 2 .9 9
4 7 8 .6 5
940 68
4 9 1 .7 3
Apparel and other textile
Paper and allied products.........
Printing and publishing..............
Chemicals and allied products..
Petroleum and coal products....
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products.......................
Leather and leather products....
'2 0 51
'2.5.48
362 6 6
TR A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D
FIN A N C E, IN S U R A N CE ,
p = preliminary.
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Dash indicates data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
95
Current Labor Statistics:
17.
Labor Force Data
Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
Timespan and year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug. Sept.
Oct.
Nov
Dec.
Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 industries
Over 1-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000...................................................
2001...................................................
2002...................................................
63.2
55.1
55.7
53.7
48.9
56.2
59.6
59.3
50.4
45.9
59.3
52.8
61.0
55.8
45.0
60.2
57.2
54.2
45.0
-
58.9
58.2
47.7
46.6
-
57.1
54.2
60.5
44.3
-
55.4
57.1
57.8
45.5
-
58.4
54.4
55.1
43.9
Over 3-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000...................................................
2001...................................................
2002...................................................
65.3
60.8
61.6
51.7
41.1
66.1
57.8
63.3
54.1
42.8
64.6
58.5
61.9
48.6
44.9
65.7
55.8
56.2
49.2
-
62.2
58.1
55.1
42.5
-
57.9
57.9
57.9
42.4
-
Over 6-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001..................................................
2002..................................................
70.4
59.8
63.5
52.0
37.8
67.4
59.8
60.6
50.6
-
65.0
58.2
62.6
48.6
-
62.5
60.3
63.7
45.3
-
63.6
56.7
61.5
44.1
-
Over 12-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001...................................................
2002...................................................
69.7
61.2
62.5
49.6
-
67.6
60.2
63.0
47.7
-
67.4
58.2
61.8
45.0
-
66.0
60.8
59.5
43.1
-
64.0
60.8
58.4
40.5
-
-
58.2
59.9
55.1
38.7
-
56.4
56.8
54.2
41.8
-
59.1
59.8
54.1
38.8
-
59.2
59.1
53.3
35.8
-
59.3
61.0
55.7
35.6
-
59.2
60.6
53.3
37.7
-
58.6
60.8
58.6
35.6
-
57.9
62.2
54.2
35.1
-
59.6
61.2
54.8
35.7
-
60.6
62.3
51.8
35.3
-
59.9
64.9
54.2
35.6
-
62.0
61.3
56.5
36.8
-
60.9
63.9
54.2
34.7
-
59.3
63.0
53.4
-
60.8
61.3
53.0
-
58.8
60.9
51.8
-
55.0
57.9
54.8
38.7
-
54.8
55.2
52.0
44.1
-
57.5
57.2
61.5
40.5
-
58.4
59.2
56.4
39.9
-
60.5
59.2
55.5
38.5
-
59.2
61.8
56.1
37.1
-
62.7
61.6
56.8
39.8
-
61.9
62.2
55.7
38.4
-
Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries
Over 1-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001..................................................
2002..................................................
57.4
46.9
44.9
37.9
39.0
51.5
44.5
56.6
32.4
40.4
53.7
43.0
55.5
41.5
47.1
53.3
42.3
46.7
31.3
-
43.8
50.4
41.2
29.4
-
48.2
39.3
54.8
33.1
-
38.2
51.5
53.7
39.0
-
51.5
39.3
38.6
27.6
-
41.9
45.2
34.6
36.0
-
41.5
46.3
41.5
29.4
-
41.2
53.3
43.8
25.7
-
43.4
46.7
44.1
29.4
-
Over 3-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001..................................................
2002..................................................
59.6
41.2
50.0
28.3
25.7
59.6
39.0
54.0
29.4
34.2
55.9
38.2
52.9
24.6
37.1
50.4
41.8
42.3
26.5
-
46.7
40.8
43.0
22.4
-
37.9
45.2
48.5
24.6
-
41.5
39.0
48.2
21.0
-
41.5
45.2
33.6
19.9
-
41.9
40.8
28.7
19.9
-
38.2
44.9
30.5
21.0
-
36.8
46.3
39.0
17.6
-
40.8
46.0
35.7
20.2
-
Over 6-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001..................................................
2002..................................................
63.2
36.0
51.5
26.8
20.2
54.4
38.2
44.5
25.4
-
50.4
37.5
48.5
19.9
-
40.4
41.2
55.1
20.6
-
44.5
36.8
43.8
20.2
-
40.1
39.7
34.9
15.1
-
37.5
43.0
33.5
13.2
-
36.4
41.5
34.6
14.0
-
34.9
46.0
30.1
11.8
-
40.1
40.4
29.4
14.7
-
37.1
46.3
25.0
18.8
-
34.2
51.5
27.9
18.8
-
Over 12-month span:
1998..................................................
1999..................................................
2000..................................................
2001..................................................
2002..................................................
54.8
38.6
46.3
19.1
-
52.2
34.6
45.2
16.5
-
51.8
32.4
41.2
14.7
-
46.7
36.0
37.9
16.2
-
40.4
37.9
33.8
15.1
-
40.1
39.0
31.3
12.1
-
38.2
40.1
31.3
12.9
-
37.5
40.4
31.3
12.5
-
36.4
44.5
27.6
12.5
-
34.6
46.0
25.4
-
35.7
44.9
24.3
-
34.2
44.5
21.3
-
Dash indicates data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment
increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged
employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance
between industries with inceasing and decreasing employment.
96
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are
preliminary. S ee the "Definitions" in this section. S ee "Notes on
the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
18.
Establishment size and employment covered under Ul, private ownership, by major industry division, first quarter 2000
S iz e o f e s t a b lis h m e n t s
In d u s try , e s ta b lis h m e n t s , a n d
e m p lo y m e n t
T o ta l
Few e r than
5 to »
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 t o 99
100 to 249
2 50 to 4 99
5 00 t o 999
5 w o rk e rs '
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
w o rk e rs
1,000 o r
m o re
w o rk e rs
T o ta l, a ll in d u s t r ie s 2
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
7,531,330
108,195,174
4,413,181
6,831,146
1,302,488
8,615,974
850,411
11,471,927
590,662
17,878,154
206,415
14,212,796
119,172
17,895,603
31,311
10,658,780
11,713
7,965,372
5,977
12,665,422
200,289
1,702,493
123,880
179,158
37,(546
248,989
22,736
302,599
11,179
326,510
2,875
196,681
1,473
216,628
370
126,181
106
69,476
24
36,271
27,284
524,514
14,102
22,082
4,323
28,959
3,728
51,183
3,202
97,241
1,023
69,762
591
89,714
214
74,836
76
52,916
25
37,821
747,563
6,310,456
477,549
703,310
126,844
831,405
76,253
1,024,819
46,543
1,389,870
13,242
898,785
5,748
846,893
1,053
347,400
272
182,357
59
85,617
405,838
18,433,795
147,029
251,154
67.3B5
453,337
61,150
842,691
61,487
1,922,360
30,568
2,144,676
24,264
3,739,308
8,646
2,977,743
3,598
2,446,323
1,711
3,656,143
315,413
6,678,516
174,645
272,380
49,173
325,334
36,475
498,572
30,720
945,800
12,952
895,012
7,913
1,190,459
2,127
726,615
892
618,630
516
1,205,714
664,094
6,947,770
400,335
621,924
110,0511
729,753
77,321
1,046,983
52,153
1,565,359
15,187
1,035,060
7,019
1,035,170
1,478
496,350
414
274,988
96
142,183
1,458,626
22,807,395
623,529
1,154,942
329,260
2,204,569
235,941
3,190,042
179,053
5,437,335
57,988
3,943,391
26,380
3,880,016
4,982
1,659,975
1,169
764,056
324
573,069
671,294
7,379,831
438,402
714,292
114,349
751,197
62,141
826,817
35,549
1,065,116
11,618
797,168
6,025
912,396
1,799
621,570
898
615,246
513
1,076,029
2,890,313
37,110,557
1,879,338
2,772,133
451,715
2,967,673
271,168
3,643,823
169,867
5,102,854
60,864
4,225,937
39,727
5,980,102
10,640
3,627,319
4,286
2,939,641
2,708
5,851,075
A g r ic u ltu r e , fo re s t ry , a n d f is h in g
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
M in in g
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
C o n s t r u c t io n
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
M a n u fa c t u rin g
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March .................................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March .................................
W h o le s a le tra d e
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March .................................
R e ta il tra d e
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d real e s ta te
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
S e r v ic e s
Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
1 Includes establishm ents that reported no workers in March 2000.
NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
2 Includes data for nonclassifiable establishments, not shown separately.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
97
Current Labor Statistics:
19.
Labor Force Data
Annual data: establishments, employment, and wages covered under Ul and UCFE by ownership
Year
A v e ra g e
e s ta b lis h m e n t s
A v e ra g e
T o ta l a n n u a l w a g e s
annual
(in t h o u s a n d s )
e m p lo y m e n t
A v e ra g e annual
A v e ra g e
w ages
w e e k ly
p e r e m p lo y e e
w age
T o t a l c o v e r e d (Ul a n d U C F E )
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1 9 9 6 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1 9 9 9 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
6,382,523
6,532,608
6,679,934
6,826,677
7,040,677
7,189,168
7,369,473
7,634,018
7,820,860
7,879,116
106,884,831
107,413,728
109,422,571
112,611,287
115,487,841
117,963,132
121,044,432
124,183,549
127,042,282
129,877,063
$2,626,972,030
2,781,676,477
2,884,472,282
3,033,676,678
3,215,921,236
3,414,514,808
3,674,031,718
3,967,072,423
4,235,579,204
4,587,708,584
$24,578
25,897
26,361
26,939
27,846
28,946
30,353
31,945
33,340
35,323
$473
498
507
518
536
557
584
614
641
679
$24,335
25,622
26,055
26,633
27,567
28,658
30,058
31,676
33,094
35,077
$468
493
501
512
530
551
578
609
636
675
$24,178
25,547
25,934
26,496
27,441
28,582
30,064
31,762
33,244
35,337
$465
491
499
510
528
550
578
611
639
680
$27,132
27,789
28,643
29,518
30,497
31,397
32,521
33,605
34,681
36,296
$522
534
551
568
586
604
625
646
667
698
$24,595
25,434
26,095
26,717
27,552
28,320
29,134
30,251
31,234
32,387
$473
489
502
514
530
545
560
582
601
623
$32,609
35,066
36,940
38,038
38,523
40,414
42,732
43,688
44,287
46,228
$627
674
710
731
741
777
822
840
852
889
Ul co v e re d
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1 9 9 6 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1999 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
6,336,151
6,485,473
6,632,221
6,778,300
6,990,594
7,137,644
7,317,363
7,586,767
7,771,198
7,828,861
103,755,832
104,288,324
106,351,431
109,588,189
112,539,795
115,081,246
118,233,942
121,400,660
124,255,714
127,005,574
$2,524,937,018
2,672,081,827
2,771,023,411
2,918,684,128
3,102,353,355
3,298,045,286
3,553,933,885
3,845,494,089
4,112,169,533
4,454,966,824
Private industry covered
1991 .......................................................
1992 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1996 .......................................................
1997 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1 9 9 9 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
6,162,684
6,308,719
6,454,381
6,596,158
6,803,454
6,946,858
7,121,182
7,381,518
7,560,567
7,622,274
89,007,096
89,349,803
91,202,971
94,146,344
96,894,844
99,268,446
102,175,161
105,082,368
107,619,457
110,015,333
$2,152,021,705
2,282,598,431
2,365,301,493
2,494,458,555
2,658,927,216
2,837,334,217
3,071,807,287
3,337,621,699
3,577,738,557
3,887,626,769
State government covered
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1 9 9 6 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1999 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
58,499
58,801
59,185
60,686
60,763
62,146
65,352
67,347
70,538
65,096
4,005,321
4,044,914
4,088,075
4,162,944
4,201,836
4,191,726
4,214,451
4,240,779
4,296,673
4,370,160
$108,672,127
112,405,340
117,095,062
122,879,977
128,143,491
131,605,800
137,057,432
142,512,445
149,011,194
158,618,365
Local government covered
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1996 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1999 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
114,936
117,923
118,626
121,425
126,342
128,640
130,829
137,902
140,093
141,491
10,742,558
10,892,697
11,059,500
11,278,080
11,442,238
11,621,074
11,844,330
12,077,513
12,339,584
12,620,081
$264,215,610
277,045,557
288,594,697
301,315,857
315,252,346
329,105,269
345,069,166
365,359,945
385,419,781
408,721,690
F e d e ra l G o v e r n m e n t c o v e r e d ( U C F E )
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1 9 9 6 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1 9 9 9 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................
46,372
47,136
47,714
48,377
50,083
51,524
52,110
47,252
49,661
50,256
NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
98
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
3,128,999
3,125,404
3,071,140
3,023,098
2,948,046
2,881,887
2,810,489
2,782,888
2,786,567
2,871,489
$102,035,012
109,594,650
113,448,871
114,992,550
113,567,881
116,469,523
120,097,833
121,578,334
123,409,672
132,741,760
20.
Annual data: establishments, employment, and wages covered under Ul and UCFE, by State
A v e ra g e
A v e ra g e an n u al
T o ta l a n n u a l w a g e s
e s ta b lis h m e n t s
e m p lo y m e n t
(in t h o u s a n d s )
S ta te
1999-
1999-
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999-
1999-
2000
2000
2000
ch an g e
change
change
A v e r a g e w e e k ly
w age
2000
change
Total United S tates ..........................................
7.879,116
58,256
129,877,063
2,834,781
$4,587,708,584
$352,129,380
$679
$38
A labam a..............................................................
A la s k a ..................................................................
A rizona................................................................
Arkansas .............................................................
California.............................................................
112,328
18,820
115,171
72,240
1,026,568
454
32
2,589
406
-33,271
1,877,963
275,607
2 220,712
1,130,891
14,867,006
6,911
6,674
70,174
17,750
472,932
54,538,027
9,685,341
72,417,033
29,761,939
612,318,313
1,970,401
532,709
6,772,271
1,520,062
71,430,084
558
676
627
506
792
18
22
40
18
69
Colorado .............................................................
C onnecticut.........................................................
D elaw are.............................................................
District of C olum bia...........................................
F lorida..................................................................
148,479
107,787
24,751
28,409
444,731
6,278
1,696
584
1,474
9,134
2,186,656
1,674,728
406,350
637,292
7,060,986
81,404
22,363
4,210
21,588
216,337
81,273,035
76,176,856
14,845,185
33,753,742
215,780.400
9.292,033
5,650,414
707,255
2,423,907
17,731,492
715
875
703
1,019
588
57
54
27
40
32
G e o rg ia ...............................................................
H aw aii..................................................................
Id a h o ....................................................................
Illinois...................................................................
In d ia n a ................................................................
225,040
34,027
45,399
322,324
152,846
6,628
1,564
1,128
2,721
-1,089
3,883,005
553,185
563,193
5,940,772
2,936,634
88,250
15,440
20,785
90,253
29,778
132,853,189
16,942,944
15,600,825
226,012,936
91,086.141
10,161,751
921,218
1,474,196
13,664,320
3,800,930
658
589
533
732
596
36
16
32
34
19
I o w a .....................................................................
K ansas .................................................................
K entucky.............................................................
Louisiana.............................................................
M a in e ...................................................................
97,091
80,477
107,740
118,216
44,865
2,479
1,036
2,403
1,549
956
1,443,394
11,313,742
1,762,949
1,869,219
590,818
12,412
14,945
31,482
21,317
17,005
40,312,331
38,571,763
50,774,667
52,131,235
16,344,365
1,743,623
2,164,568
2,669,580
1,838,194
916,386
537
565
554
536
532
19
26
20
13
15
M aryland.............................................................
M assa ch u setts...................................................
M ichigan..............................................................
Minnesota ...........................................................
M ississippi...........................................................
146,559
187,391
260,885
155,711
63,970
1,117
344
2,244
4,932
229
2,405,510
3,275,135
4,585,211
2,608,543
1,137,304
58,631
83,493
82,445
57,751
-1,880
87,548,876
145,184,150
169,702,272
92,377,120
28,665,889
6,606,334
16,396,342
8,726,750
6,959,859
879,567
700
852
712
681
485
37
76
24
37
16
M issouri...............................................................
M o n tan a..............................................................
N eb rask a.............................................................
N ev ad a.................................................................
New Hampshire .................................................
163,080
38,349
51,838
48,126
45,924
2,303
1,585
4
194
494
2,677,110
379,094
882,918
1,017,902
606,543
31,687
7,855
16,308
41,975
15,318
84,020,093
9,202,211
24,449,709
32,853,744
21,069,920
4,745,993
567,364
1,370,028
2,392,271
2,067,493
604
467
533
621
668
28
20
21
21
50
New J e r s e y .........................................................
New Mexico ........................................................
New York ............................................................
North C arolina....................................................
North D ak o ta......................................................
270,384
47,987
529,103
222,234
23,297
-15,337
693
4,797
7,270
240
3,877,572
717,243
8,471,416
3,862,782
309,223
85,195
16,339
178,874
58,413
3,263
169,355,641
19,722,105
384,241,451
120,007,446
7,632,602
13,725,235
1,311,285
34,472,229
7,922,007
365,713
840
529
872
597
475
51
24
61
30
18
Ohio .....................................................................
O klahom a............................................................
O re g o n .................................................................
P ennsylvania......................................................
Rhode Isla n d ......................................................
280,988
89,298
109,050
315,284
33,327
1,073
1,368
-1,296
13,267
621
5,513,217
1,452,166
1,608,069
5,558,076
467,602
62,090
29,357
32,067
98,602
10,766
179,218,763
39,191,626
52,703,467
189,058,210
15,250,760
8,080,924
2,464,854
4,049,166
10,557,733
1,011,495
625
519
630
654
627
21
23
36
25
28
South C aro lin a...................................................
South D a k o ta .....................................................
T ennessee ..........................................................
Texas ...................................................................
Utah .....................................................................
109,370
27,145
125,247
489,795
66,144
-1,993
437
-51
8,425
2,282
1,820,138
364,119
2,667,230
9,289,286
1,044,143
27,993
8,334
40,186
272,645
26,519
51,289,516
9,030,727
81,495,110
324,579,638
30,518,822
2,664,765
574,920
4,055,765
27,952,132
2,131,853
542
477
588
672
562
20
20
21
39
26
Vermont ..............................................................
Virginia ................................................................
W ashington.........................................................
W est Virginia......................................................
W isconsin............................................................
W yom ing.............................................................
23,870
192,745
221,150
46,830
145,871
20,861
805
3,212
9,010
21
977
238
296,462
3,427,954
2,706,462
686,622
2,736,054
230,857
8,473
100,832
62,732
6,014
44,603
5,892
8,571,976
120,567,926
100,381,521
18,461,154
83,980,263
6,195,607
624,326
10,689,950
5,904,038
752,890
4,294,806
425,897
556
676
713
517
590
516
25
41
26
17
21
23
Puerto Rico .........................................................
Virgin Islands .....................................................
52,371
3,255
202
32
1,026,175
42,349
23,785
1,411
19,306,364
1,173,955
709,126
104,996
362
533
5
31
NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
99
Current Labor Statistics:
Labor Force D ata
21.
Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for all workers
covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S. counties
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty 1
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
A v e ra g e an n u al pay
R anked by
p erce n t
change,
1999-20003
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
United States4 .................... 129,877,063
22.
-
35,323
5.9
Jefferson, A L .....................
Madison, A L.......................
Mobile, A L...........................
Montgomery, A L ................
Tuscaloosa, A L ..................
Anchorage, A K ..................
Maricopa, A Z .....................
Pima, A Z .............................
Pulaski, A R ........................
Sebastian, A R ....................
384,662
154,356
169,469
131,988
76,499
129,700
1,544,971
328,426
243,157
75,197
.6
1.7
-.1
.2
.8
2.0
3.6
3.1
.4
1.1
256
186
291
285
244
164
48
77
272
228
34,026
35,837
28,623
28,894
29,064
36,659
35,110
29,194
30,799
27,011
3.9
5.0
2.4
3.2
2.5
2.7
7.8
3.5
3.8
4.8
Washington, A R .................
Alameda, CA .....................
Contra Costa, CA .............
Fresno, CA ........................
Kern, C A .............................
Los Angeles, C A ................
Marin, C A ............................
Monterey, C A .....................
Orange, C A ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
80,045
696,242
336,691
322,759
238,250
4,098,154
111,645
164,646
1,394,414
107,182
3.3
3.0
3.1
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.1
2.5
3.6
8.9
61
84
78
169
153
187
154
118
49
3
26,408
45,091
42,318
26,162
28,572
39,651
42,600
29,962
39,247
33,386
3.8
9.8
3.7
4.8
5.7
4.9
8.5
5.1
4.8
5.3
Riverside, C A .....................
Sacram ento, C A ................
San Bernardino, C A ..........
San Diego, C A ...................
San Francisco, C A ............
San Joaquin, C A ................
San Luis Obispo, C A ........
S an Mateo, C A ..................
S anta Barbara, CA ...........
S anta Clara, C A .................
469,467
573,942
528,437
1,195,116
609,138
201,070
94,883
378,494
176,901
1,030,633
5.3
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.7
3.1
3.6
5.3
3.0
6.1
12
107
85
86
43
79
50
13
87
9
29,136
37,732
29,901
37,535
57,532
29,237
28,096
67,051
32,566
76.213
4.7
3.8
8.1
12.0
4.7
6.2
30.4
8.2
24.7
S anta Cruz, C A ..................
Solano, CA ........................
Sonoma, C A ......................
Stanislaus, C A ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, C A ........................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, C O .........................
Arapahoe, C O ....................
Boulder, C O ........................
101,833
117,217
190,946
160,948
132,986
287,611
84,565
144,806
284,236
179,719
3.3
3.7
3.1
1.7
3.6
3.4
1.5
3.6
3.9
8.2
62
44
80
188
51
57
201
52
38
4
35,819
31,670
35,715
28,201
23,750
37,069
33,438
33,428
46,254
45,564
15.5
8.4
11.3
4.4
4.6
9.1
3.3
4.8
7.8
13.9
Denver, C O .........................
El Paso, C O ........................
Jefferson, CO ....................
Larimer, C O ........................
Fairfield, C T ........................
Hartford, C T ........................
New Haven, C T .................
New London, C T ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC ................
469,137
237,739
210,519
119,155
427,557
501,562
367,343
123,039
281,920
637,292
3.2
3.4
2.6
5.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
.6
-.7
3.5
69
58
108
16
229
230
231
257
301
54
44,343
33,039
36,195
32,394
61,156
43,656
38,355
36,757
40,491
52,964
11.6
7.7
5.2
7.9
8.5
6.2
5.4
3.8
4.5
4.1
Alachua FL ........................
Brevard, F L .........................
Broward, F L .......................
Collier, F L ...........................
Duval, F L ............................
Escambia, F L .....................
Hillsborough, FL ................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, F L ......................
117,658
181,314
644,192
103,264
434,219
125,666
588,792
162,304
141,978
( 5)
2.5
3.3
3.3
6.9
4.1
1.0
2.5
4.4
( 5)
119
63
64
6
32
235
120
25
142
<5 )
26,155
32,101
33,234
29,962
32,777
26,709
31,707
28,148
29,249
<*)
3.9
7.2
6.5
6.9
4.6
4.5
4.8
6.4
4.1
( 5)
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, F L .................
Orange, F L .........................
Palm Beach, F L .................
Pinellas, F L .........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, F L ......................
Seminole, FL .....................
Volusia, F L ..........................
Bibb, G A .............................
83,319
980,394
611,469
481,395
436,390
183,222
( 5)
139,610
141,652
88,790
1.7
2.3
3.2
4.1
4.2
2.6
( 5)
4.6
1.4
-1.2
189
135
70
33
29
109
( 5)
23
207
308
24,953
33,333
31,123
35,233
31,263
27,881
(è)
30,835
25,079
29,299
3.3
3.9
4.6
7.3
5.4
3.5
<5 )
6.9
5.5
3.2
Chatham, G A .....................
Clayton, G A ........................
Cobb, G A ............................
122,785
116,368
301,183
1.3
-.6
1.3
214
296
215
29,650
36,774
38,792
1.9
6.7
5.4
S ee footnotes at end of table.
100
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
22
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21. Continued— Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
A v e ra g e a n n u a l pay
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty '
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
R anked by
p erce n t
change,
1999-20003
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
Dekalb, GA .........................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, G A .....................
Muscogee, G A ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, H I........................
Ada, ID ................................
310,659
754,368
281,654
98,315
106,260
407,935
177,741
-.6
2.7
4.1
-.1
-.6
2.6
6.5
297
103
34
292
298
110
8
38,614
47,060
39,051
27,744
28,592
31,874
34,460
4.9
8.5
6.0
3.7
3.6
2.8
10.0
Champaign, I L ...................
Cook, I L ..............................
Du Page, IL........................
Kane, I L ..............................
Lake,IL ...............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL ..........................
Madison, IL .........................
Peoria, IL ............................
Rock Island, IL ...................
90,429
2,687,795
582,352
193,410
310,689
87,258
84,324
94,550
102,801
80,273
2.8
1.3
1.7
2.9
3.1
1.9
.6
.4
.1
.8
96
216
190
91
81
170
258
273
287
245
29,183
42,898
42,570
32,173
42,620
32,007
34,254
28,974
31,387
33,525
4.2
5.8
3.6
.1
6.7
2.0
4.1
2.9
1.6
4.5
St. Clair, IL ..........................
Sangam on, I L ....................
Will, IL .................................
Winnebago, IL ...................
Allen, IN ..............................
Elkhart, IN ...........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN ..............................
Marion, IN ...........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
89,963
144,286
142,355
143,760
189,425
122,468
77,452
199,421
605,903
129,558
2.2
4.4
3.5
.5
.3
.6
3.0
-.6
1.6
.5
143
26
55
265
281
259
88
299
194
266
26,878
34,764
32,313
31,499
32,279
30,339
37,931
31,564
36,473
29,657
2.6
1.7
2.1
2.0
3.0
2.3
7.9
4.0
3.2
3.5
Tippecanoe, I N ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ...............
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ...............................
Scott, IA ..............................
Johnson, K S ......................
Sedgwick, KS ....................
Shaw nee, K S .....................
Wyandotte, K S ...................
Fayette, K Y ........................
77,377
109,904
121,968
263,940
87,113
287,797
249,846
100,223
79,746
172,031
1.1
.7
2.1
1.3
-.4
2.8
.0
2.4
1.8
1.8
232
251
155
217
295
97
289
130
177
178
31,083
29,569
34,097
33,666
29,067
37,247
32,696
29,375
34,592
30,713
4.0
3.2
4.9
2.5
3.9
6.7
2.9
3.2
2.9
3.8
Jefferson, K Y .....................
Caddo, LA...........................
Calcasieu, LA ....................
East Baton Rouge, L A ......
Jefferson, LA .....................
Lafayette, LA .....................
Orleans, LA........................
Cumberland, M E ................
Anne Arundel, MD ............
Baltimore, M D ....................
439,103
119,449
83,976
246,434
214,680
114,059
263,551
166,757
194,018
358,117
1.4
.3
.1
2.7
-.7
2.3
1.9
3.7
5.3
1.2
208
282
288
104
302
136
171
45
14
222
33,334
28,767
28,226
29,257
28,051
29,911
31,694
30,752
35,461
34,119
3.9
3.2
.9
1.6
2.1
5.5
1.3
1.1
7.3
4.7
Frederick, M D ....................
Howard, M D.......................
Montgomery, M D ...............
Prince Georges, M D .........
Baltimore City, M D............
Barnstable, M A ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA....................
Middlesex, M A ...................
77,323
128,678
447,314
303,262
386,411
88,589
221,539
305,382
204,303
846,931
4.9
3.2
5.0
3.3
.8
3.7
1.3
2.5
1.9
3.1
22
71
20
65
246
46
218
121
172
82
30,847
37,897
43,708
37,060
38,579
29,726
30,785
39,154
32,220
52,091
5.9
5.1
5.8
6.9
4.5
.0
4.6
8.8
4.8
11.8
Norfolk, M A ........................
Plymouth, M A ....................
Suffolk, M A ........................
Worcester, M A ...................
G enesee, M l......................
Ingham, M l..........................
Kalamazoo, M l...................
Kent, Ml ..............................
Macomb, M l.......................
Oakland, Ml .......................
325,018
166,482
608,285
321,131
165,297
174,315
118,342
347,707
337,504
768,629
2.4
1.3
3.3
2.5
-1.4
2.0
-.1
1.6
.3
1.0
131
219
66
122
313
165
293
195
283
236
43,368
33,931
56,699
37,657
36,324
34,963
32,675
33,996
40,904
44,500
10.4
6.3
11.6
10.8
1.4
5.6
2.3
2.6
3.5
4.2
Ottawa, M l..........................
Saginaw, M l.......................
Washtenaw, M l..................
Wayne, Ml ..........................
Anoka, M N .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, M N....................
Olmsted, M N ......................
118,711
95,474
195,624
866,282
108,989
153,364
874,693
82,670
1.8
-.8
.5
1.2
3.8
2.6
2.1
3.9
179
304
267
223
40
111
156
39
31,947
34,672
40,182
42,440
33,928
34,362
43,816
36,104
3.5
2.5
5.3
3.5
4.5
4.7
7.1
3.1
S ee footnotes at end of table.
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
101
Current Labor Statistics:
Labor Force D ata
21. Continued— Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty 1
2000
102
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
Ramsey, M N ___________
S t Louis, M N .....................
332,929
94,926
1.6
1.4
196
209
39,069
28,903
5.8
4.6
Steam s, M N........................
Harrison, M S ......................
Hinds, M S ...........................
Boone, MO ........................
Clay, M O .............................
Greene, M O .......................
Jackson, M O ......................
S t Charles, M O .................
S t Louis, M O .....................
S t Louis City, M O .............
76,292
89,745
136,949
75,785
84,159
142,508
393,761
95,799
646,858
250,878
3.1
.4
-1.2
2.8
.0
2.4
.4
3.2
.8
.4
83
274
309
98
290
132
275
72
247
276
27,584
25,442
30,578
27,361
32,207
26,971
36,056
29,515
38,145
38,612
4.2
4.8
4.6
3.1
6.4
Douglas, NE ......................
Lancaster, N E ....................
Clark, N V ............................
W ashoe, NV ......................
Hillsborough, NH ...............
Rockingham, NH ..............
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, N J ..........................
Burlington, N J ....................
Camden, N J .......................
330,128
146,433
697,575
189.102
193,796
129,494
140,141
448,513
180,165
199,768
2.1
1.8
5.3
3.2
2.7
4.1
-.2
.5
.8
-1.1
157
180
15
73
105
35
294
268
248
307
32,356
28,511
32,131
32,748
39,212
35,823
31,068
46,306
37,597
35,130
4.1
3.9
3.4
4.4
9.1
9.8
3.4
7.0
4.7
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, N J ...................
Hudson, N J ........................
Mercer, N J ..........................
Middlesex, N J ....................
Monmouth, N J ...................
Morris, NJ ...........................
O cean, N J ...........................
Passaic, N J ........................
S o m erset N J .....................
363,942
86,667
238,388
210,031
392,427
233,285
275,499
129,093
177,364
173,571
1.6
.7
3.4
3.3
.6
2.5
2.8
2.5
.6
4.1
197
252
59
67
260
123
99
124
261
36
44,653
32,055
47,427
44,658
46,487
39,695
60,487
30,447
37,759
54,781
3.5
2.8
10.2
Union, N J ............................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, N Y .........................
Bronx, N Y ...........................
Broome, N Y ........................
Dutchess, N Y .....................
Erie, N Y ..............................
Kings, N Y ............................
Monroe, NY .......................
N assau, N Y .......................
237,176
307,705
230,962
212,982
99,613
109,949
459,828
441,916
399,602
598,538
2.2
2.6
1.4
2.2
1.2
1.9
1.0
2.3
.9
1.6
144
112
210
145
224
173
237
137
242
198
45,282
30,184
35,795
32,850
29,658
36,065
31,489
30,760
35,423
40,023
New York, N Y ....................
Niagara, N Y .......................
Oneida, N Y ........................
Onondaga, N Y ...................
Orange, N Y ........................
Queens, N Y ........................
Richmond, NY ...................
Rockland, N Y .....................
Suffolk, N Y .........................
W estchester, N Y ................
2,382,175
78,186
110,684
252,476
119,571
480,676
88,245
106,361
578,401
405,440
3.2
.2
1.4
.7
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.4
2.3
2.3
74
286
211
253
199
220
174
212
138
139
72,572
31,112
27,300
32,499
29,357
34,986
32,149
37,264
37,862
47,066
10.3
3.7
3.4
3.4
4.6
4.4
Buncombe, N C ..................
Catawba, N C .....................
Cumberland, N C ................
Durham, N C ........................
Forsyth, NC .......................
Gaston, N C ........................
Guilford, N C .......................
Mecklenburg, N C ...............
New Hanover, N C ..............
Wake, N C ...........................
106,036
101,321
109,858
167,191
181,619
77,176
279,889
514,223
87,019
383,705
.5
2.6
1.2
2.9
1.8
-3.6
.6
3.8
.4
3.3
269
113
225
92
181
314
262
41
277
68
27,652
28,210
26,112
49,359
34,011
28,335
32,216
40,538
28,560
35,377
3.8
4.0
3.9
12.6
6.3
4.0
2.5
5.4
4.3
7.4
C ass, N D ............................
Butler, O H ...........................
Cuyahoga, O H ...................
Franklin, OH ......................
Hamilton, O H .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH ..........................
Lucas, O H ...........................
Mahoning, OH ...................
Montgomery, OH ...............
81,823
126,189
817,572
701,913
566,965
102,320
105,988
238,450
112,531
303,352
2.2
2.6
.9
2.2
.8
1.5
2.3
.6
-.6
.4
146
114
243
147
249
202
140
263
300
278
27,801
31,502
36,520
34,970
37,598
30,735
32,013
32,255
25,966
34,532
Stark, O H ............................
Sum m it O H .......................
175,535
266,001
1.7
.4
191
279
28,505
32,735
See footnotes at end of table.
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A v e ra g e a n n u a l p a y
R anked by
p erce n t
change,
1999-20003
June 2002
32
62
3.8
5.6
4.1
32
52
5.8
5.4
19.0
4.6
2.0
5.1
4.9
4.1
6.1
2.7
3.6
22
3.0
3.7
1.8
4.4
42
4.3
6.6
8.3
4.1
1.7
42
4.6
3.9
2.1
1.9
2.3
3.0
2.6
2.1
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21. Continued— Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty 1
2000
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, O K ...................
Tulsa, O K ............................
Clackamas, OR .................
Lane, OR ............................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR .................
Washington, OR ................
94,382
414,239
340,671
133,065
139,710
127,558
453,274
224,033
Allegheny, P A ....................
Berks, P A ............................
Bucks, P A ...........................
Chester, P A .......................
Cumberland, P A ................
Dauphin, PA ......................
Delaware, P A .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, P A ...............
Lancaster, P A ....................
711,068
168,068
244,317
216,777
123,998
172,465
212,540
131,700
98,383
218,280
Lehigh, P A .........................
Luzerne, P A .......................
Montgomery, P A ................
Northampton, P A ..............
Philadelphia, P A ................
Westmoreland, P A ............
York, PA .............................
Providence, R l ...................
Charleston, S C ..................
Greenville, SC ...................
171,175
143,066
481,011
87,846
668,793
134,436
167,757
290,809
182,793
233,062
Horry, S C ............................
Lexington, S C ....................
Richland, S C ......................
Spartanburg, S C ................
Minnehaha, S D ..................
Davidson, T N .....................
Hamilton, T N ......................
Knox, T N .............................
Rutherford, T N ...................
Shelby, T N ..........................
99,124
81,341
207,508
119,791
105,837
434,901
188,161
76,993
500,255
Bell, T X ...............................
Bexar, T X ............................
Brazoria, T X .......................
Cameron, T X .....................
Collin, T X ............................
Dallas, TX ...........................
Denton, TX ........................
El Paso, T X ........................
Fort Bend, T X ....................
Galveston, T X ....................
87,850
648,942
75,417
109,115
167,956
1,567,626
119,722
251,557
87,763
86,844
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, T X ........................
Jefferson, T X .....................
Lubbock, TX ......................
Mc Lennan, T X ..................
Montgomery, T X ................
Nueces, T X ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, T X ............................
Tarrant, TX ........................
1,840,442
163,443
120,815
115,422
98,076
76,865
142,309
75,572
83,353
703,025
Travis, TX ...........................
Williamson, T X ...................
Davis, U T ............................
Salt Lake, U T .....................
Utah, U T .............................
Weber, U T ..........................
Chittenden, V T ...................
Arlington, V A ......................
Chesterfield, V A .................
Fairfax, V A _____________
538,193
76,588
84,640
531,240
142,369
86,404
95,343
157,906
107,932
537,647
Henrico, VA .......................
Loudoun, V A ......................
Prince William, V A ............
Alexandria, V A ...................
C hesapeake, V A ...............
Newport News, VA ...........
Norfolk, VA ........................
165,617
87,265
78,209
91,818
81,294
93,607
145,197
2 0 2 ,6 8 8
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
-1.3
2.9
2.5
2 .2
1.1
2 .0
2.1
4.3
1.2
1 .8
2.5
2.5
-1.3
2.1
1.0
2.5
-.7
1.8
A v e ra g e a n n u a l pay
Ranked by
p erce n t
change,
1999-20003
2000
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
311
93
125
148
233
166
158
27
32,785
29,216
31,157
32,482
27,877
28,116
36,796
44,459
226
182
126
127
312
159
238
128
303
183
36,727
32,007
34,059
43,762
32,811
33,680
36,828
28,368
27,663
30,809
2.5
3.3
3.4
6.9
3.2
22.
5.5
167
149
141
89
203
239
150
192
2.5
2.7
6.5
3.1
4.5
1.3
3.3
4.0
4.8
4.0
1 .0
4.6
3.7
4.0
3.5
2.9
6 .2
13.4
1 .8
7.5
4.6
2 .6
115
35,274
27,855
43,810
30,767
39,700
27,992
30,926
33,410
27,680
31,281
1.7
193
168
264
270
75
204
184
60
129
240
22,883
27,505
29,627
30,596
28,212
34,863
30,574
30,090
31,132
34,357
5.4
3.5
4.1
3.4
3.7
5.4
4.0
4.1
3.6
2.5
160
151
25,193
29,923
34,367
21,553
40,509
44,381
29,298
25,069
35,801
29,518
4.1
52
3.3
2 .0
2 .2
2.3
3.0
1.5
1.0
2 .2
1.7
1.3
2 .0
.6
.5
3.2
1.5
1 .8
3.4
2.5
1 .0
2.1
2 .2
2 .8
5.4
5.9
4.2
3.7
1.5
2.4
- 1 .0
221
100
11
10
30
47
205
133
306
2 .8
101
7.1
5
234
175
241
1.1
1.9
1 .0
5.0
21
.8
.7
250
254
2 .8
102
3.5
56
5.1
9.5
3.2
2 .6
4.5
.4
5.1
4.1
2.1
6.7
2.4
11.9
4.3
5.1
2.1
1 .8
.3
17
2
76
116
24
280
18
37
161
7
134
1
28
19
162
185
284
41,869
21,671
31,277
26,297
27,034
32,119
28,187
26,552
29,509
35,438
2 .6
5.8
7.7
4.0
32
5.1
4.0
7.7
2.7
.8
6.3
2.1
9.7
4.7
2 .8
3.6
5.0
41,332
50,415
27,711
32,192
27,891
26,644
34,288
52,846
31,880
51,576
7.0
-4.5
72
5.0
5.0
2.5
42
7.1
3.5
10.3
36,138
54,141
28,986
42,101
26,069
30,261
32,179
5.8
3.6
5.5
6.1
42
5.4
4.9
S ee footnotes at end of table.
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
103
Current Labor Statistics:
Labor Force D ata
21. Continued— Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty 1
2000
A v e ra g e a n n u a l p a y
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
R anked by
p ercen t
change,
1999-20003
P e rc e n t
change,
1999-20002
Richmond, V A ....................
Roanoke City, V A .............
Virginia Beach, VA............
166,923
75,894
165,610
1.4
3.0
3.6
213
90
53
38,635
29,487
25,414
5.1
4.6
4.4
Clark, WA ...........................
King, W A .............................
Pierce, W A .........................
Snohomish, W A .................
Spokane, W A .....................
Thurston, W A .....................
Yakima, W A .......................
Kanawha, W V ....................
Brown, W l ...........................
Dane, W l.............................
113,910
1,162,290
241,654
209,557
188,843
84,277
94,233
112,920
142,359
274,353
1.5
2.7
4.2
206
106
31
310
94
3.0
4.2
3.6
7.9
6.9
3.7
3.1
2.9
5.5
Milwaukee, Wl ...................
Outagamie, W l...................
Racine, W l.........................
W aukesha, W l ...................
Winnebago, W l..................
528,837
94,364
79,160
222,877
90.256
.5
2.9
-.9
San Juan, PR ....................
327,187
1 .6
200
1.9
.7
176
255
163
117
32,163
47,459
29,854
35,091
29,760
31,745
23,237
30,156
31,538
32,817
1 .2
2 .2
271
95
305
227
152
34,744
30,769
32,536
35,767
33,622
5.2
2.7
3.8
42
21,312
3.5
- 1.2
2.9
2.1
2 .6
1 Includes areas not officially designated as
counties.
S ee Notes on Current Labor
Statistics.
3 Rankings
for
percent
change
in
employment are based on the 314 counties that
are comparable over the year.
6 .0
3.1
4.4
-.6
4 Totals for the United States do not include
d ata for Puerto Rico.
5
2 Percent changes were computed from
annual employment and pay data adjusted for
noneconomic county reclassifications.
S ee
Notes on Current Labor Statistics.
22.
2000
Data are not available for release.
Note: Data pertain to workers covered by
Unemployment
Insurance
(Ul)
and
Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs. The 315 U.S.
counties comprise 70.8 percent of the total
covered workers in the United States
Annual data: Employment status of the population
[Numbers in thousands]
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Civilian noninstitutional population...........
Civilian labor force....................................
Labor force participation rate...............
Employment status
192,805
128,105
66.4
194,838
129,200
66.3
196,814
131,056
198,584
132,304
200,591
133,943
6 6 .6
6 6 .6
6 6 .8
203,133
136,297
67.1
205,220
137,673
67.1
207,753
139,368
67.1
209,699
140,863
67.2
211,864
141,815
66.9
Employed.............................................
Employment-population ratio..........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries............
118,492
61.5
3,247
115,245
120,259
61.7
3,115
117,144
123,060
62.5
3,409
119,651
124,900
62.9
3,440
121,460
126,708
63.2
3,443
123,264
129,558
63.8
3,399
126,159
131,463
64.1
3,378
128,085
133,488
64.3
3,281
130,207
135,208
64.5
3,305
131,903
135,073
63.8
3,144
131,929
8,940
6.9
65,638
7,996
7,404
5.6
66,280
7,236
5.4
66,647
6,739
49
66,837
6 ,2 1 0
Not in the labor force................................
9,613
7.5
64,700
5,880
4.2
68,385
5,655
4.0
68,836
6,742
4.8
70,050
104
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
6.1
65,758
4.5
67,547
23. Annual data: Employment levels by industry
[In thousands]
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total employment............................................
Private sector................................................
Goods-producing......................................
Mining......................................................
Construction...........................................
Manufacturing.........................................
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
125,865
106,042
25,414
590
18,805
128,916
108,709
25,507
539
6,415
18,552
131,759
111,079
25,709
543
6,698
18,469
132,213
111,341
25,122
563
6,861
17,698
Service-producing.....................................
Transportation and public utilities........
Wholesale trade.....................................
Retail trade.............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....
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
100,451
6,611
6,800
22,295
7,389
37,533
103,409
6,834
6,911
22,848
7,555
39,055
106,050
7,019
7,024
23,307
7,560
40,460
107,092
7,070
7,014
23,488
7,624
41,024
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
19,823
20,206
2,669
4,709
12,829
20,681
2,777
4,785
13,119
20,873
2,616
4,880
13,377
Industry
Federal.................................................
Local.....................................................
6 ,0 2 0
2 ,6 8 6
4,612
12,525
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
24. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry________________________________ _____ _______________________
Industry
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
1999
2001
P riv a te s e c to r:
Average weekly hours..................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).........................
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
34.5
13.75
474.38
34.2
14.33
490.09
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
16.91
742.35
43.2
17.05
736.56
43.1
17.24
743.04
43.4
17.65
766.01
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
38.9
16.61
646.13
39.1
17.19
672.13
39.3
17.88
702.68
39.2
18.33
718.54
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
13.90
579.63
41.6
14.38
598.21
40.7
14.84
603.99
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
15.69
607.20
38.6
16.22
626.09
38.1
16.89
643.51
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
38.3
14.07
538.88
38.3
14.58
558.80
38.5
15.20
585.20
38.2
15.80
603.56
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
8.74
253.46
29.0
9.09
263.61
28.9
9.46
273.39
28.8
9.82
282.82
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
14.07
512.15
36.2
14.62
529.24
36.3
15.07
547.04
36.3
15.83
574.63
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
12.84
418.58
32.6
13.37
435.86
32.7
13.91
454.86
32.7
14.61
477.75
34.4
10.57
363.61
34.5
10.83
373.64
43.9
14.54
638.31
34.7
1 1 .1 2
M in in g :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
C o n s t r u c t io n :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
M a n u fa c t u rin g :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
W h o le s a le tra d e:
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
R e ta il tra d e :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d real e s ta te :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................
S e r v ic e s :
Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
105
Current Labor Statistics:
25.
Com pensation & Industrial Relations
Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
2000
2001
2002
Series
Mar.
Civilian workers2.................................................
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
12
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
146.5
148.0
149.5
150.6
152.5
153.8
155.6
156.8
158.4
1.0
3.9
148.4
146.7
150.5
148.6
142.7
146 0
149.9
148.3
151.9
150.1
144.1
147 1
151.5
150.0
153.7
151 8
145 6
148.5
152.5
151.3
154.4
153.2
156.0
154.3
158.9
157.5
160.5
158.5
1.0
.6
4.0
3.5
158.4
1.0
4.2
144.9
146.0
147.1
148.0
145.9
146.3
146.5
145.7
146.6
146.6
147.5
148.4
149.3
147.5
147.7
146.8
146.1
148.0
148.0
148.7
150.1
151.2
149.0
149.5
149 7
146.9
149.6
1.2
3.7
3.5
4.0
3.8
5.2
5.9
Excluding sales occupations..............................................
146.8
146.5
148.5
148.2
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w orkers..............................................................
Excluding sales occupations............................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations...........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
S ales occupations................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...
Blue-collar workers................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations.......
Machine operators, assem blers, and inspectors............
Transportation and material moving occupations...........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....
149.3
149.4
148.4
151.1
148.9
149.0
142.6
142.3
144.0
137.5
146.4
151.1
151.3
150.7
152.7
150.3
150.6
144.1
144.1
145.0
138.6
148.1
Service occupations...............................................................
143.9
Production and nonsupervisory occupations 4 ..................
145.3
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Construction..........................................................................
Manufacturing.......................................................................
White-collar occupations..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Durables.................................................................................
N ondurables..........................................................................
Service-producing....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations...................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations...........................................................
Transportation and public utilities......................................
Transportation.....................................................................
Public utilities......................................................................
Communications.............................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.............................
W holesale and retail trade..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Wholesale trade.................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Retail trade..........................................................................
General merchandise stores..........................................
Food stores.......................................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers................................................................
Professional specialty and technical...................................
Executive, adminltrative, and managerial..........................
Administrative support, Including clerical...........................
Blue-collar workers..................................................................
Service occupations.................................................................
154 6
156 6
168 6
157.7
156.7
169 6
152.8
155 3
166 8
168 8
146 5
148 ?
150.0
152.0
14Q 3
153.3
155.0
ifin n
162 0
156.9
148.8
149.3
151.1
152.4
150.7
151.3
152.2
152.6
155.4
155.4
154.6
155.6
153.3
153.3
156.4
158.1
156.7
158.2
154.4
154.6
157.6
159.0
158.3
160.0
156.3
156.6
159.1
160.2
160.5
162.3
150 6
150.7
151.3
153.0
154.3
152.5
153.2
151 7
148.3
150.7
150.6
152.6
151.9
154.0
153.8
156.0
155.2
157.2
156.5
158.7
1.0
3.9
4.0
149.9
149.8
150.9
150.9
153.0
153.0
154.5
154.4
155.9
156.0
157.2
160.9
158.9
159.0
1.1
1.1
3.9
3.9
152.6
152.9
152.2
154.4
151.2
152.3
145.5
145.8
146.0
139.9
149.4
153.6
154.1
153.7
155.3
151.4
153.4
146 4
146.7
146.8
141.1
150.4
155.7
156.5
156.3
157.3
152.3
156.1
157.4
158.1
157.5
159.4
154.5
157.7
149 3
149.7
149.1
143.9
153.4
158.7
159.6
159.2
160.2
155.0
159.5
161 n
151.8
150.4
145.6
154.9
160.1
160.9
160.3
161.8
156.7
160.8
161 9
152.5
151.5
146.3
156.5
161.9
162.8
161.5
164.4
157.7
162.8
16 6 fi
153.7
153.6
148.7
158.7
1.1
4.0
4.0
3.3
4.5
3.5
4.3
145.4
146.6
148.1
150.0
151.3
152.6
154.8
146.9
148.4
149.5
151.4
152.7
154.3
155.5
144.8
144.2
148.1
146.5
142.8
140.8
146.0
148.2
146.2
144.4
146.5
144.9
146.6
145.9
150.1
148.4
144.4
143.2
147.5
150.2
148.2
145.6
148.3
146.0
147.9
147.2
151.3
149.6
145.8
145.1
148.7
151.4
149.3
146.7
149.4
147.5
148.8
148.2
151.9
150.5
146.8
146.7
149.3
151.5
149.7
147.8
150.1
147.7
150.7
150.1
154.5
153.0
148.2
148.2
151.3
154.2
152.2
149.1
151.8
150.4
152.1
151.5
156.5
155.0
149.3
150.3
152.6
156.0
154.0
150.0
153.1
151.6
153.1
152.5
156.8
155.3
150.8
151.7
152.2
156.0
153.8
151.3
154.0
152.0
154.4
153.7
158.1
156.5
151.9
153.0
154.6
156.9
154.5
152.7
155.3
153.2
156.2
155.5
160.1
158.4
153.6
154.1
156.6
159.1
156.7
154.6
156.9
156.0
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
149.1
149.4
151.0
152.1
143.1
145.1
145.7
141.8
150.9
150.9
151.0
147.3
148.1
151.8
151.1
144.8
141.0
142.5
150.6
151.1
152.6
153.9
144.5
146.3
147.4
142.8
153.5
153.9
152.9
148.3
149.6
152.1
152.7
146.2
142.2
143.4
151.7
152.2
153.7
155.1
145.3
147.9
148.3
143.9
154.1
154.7
153.4
149.4
150.6
154.4
154.9
146.6
144.4
144.5
153.8
154.6
155.8
157.5
147.7
149.6
150.5
145.4
157.3
158.3
156.0
151.0
152.6
155.1
156.9
148.7
147.3
146.1
155.3
156.0
157.4
159.1
148.7
150.8
152.4
146.9
159.8
161.1
158.1
152.6
153.9
157.8
158.5
149.7
149.4
148.2
156.9
157.8
159.0
160.9
150.9
152.2
153.5
148.2
160.7
162.8
158.1
153.7
155.4
158.6
160.0
150.9
149.7
149.7
158.2
159.0
160.3
162.2
151.0
154.2
155.5
151.1
161.5
163.4
159.1
155.5
159.9
160.9
162.1
164.1
153.2
155.9
157.3
152.5
163.9
166.0
161.3
156.5
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-produclng......................................................................
Manufacturing.........................................................................
Service-producing....................................................................
Services...................................................................................
Health services.....................................................................
Hospitals..............................................................................
Public administration 3 .............................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................................
Private industry workers...........................................
S ee footnotes at end of table.
106
M o n th ly La b o r R eview
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
148 2
148.7
148.3
142.6
152.2
1.3
1.0
.8
1.4
1.4
162 2
-
159.5
160.6
153.2
150.9
151.7
.8
1.2
.7
1.6
.6
1.2
1.4
3.4
3.6
4.3
4.3
156.4
1.0
4.3
157.1
1.0
3.8
1.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.6
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.7
3.4
3.7
-
161.9
162.3
153.5
152.4
152.9
.8
1.4
1 .6
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
.7
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
.9
1.5
1 .6
1.4
.6
-
1.5
1.1
.2
1.0
.8
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
4.2
4.5
4.9
4.2
4.9
3.4
3.6
-
4.4
3.4
3.2
3.5
4.7
25. Continued— Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
2002
2001
2000
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
12
3
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
Finance, insurance, and real e sta te..................................
152.0
153.1
155.2
155.7
157.9
159.5
160.9
161,3
165.2
2.4
4.6
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance.............................................................................
Services.................................................................................
154.2
162.7
149.9
149.4
154.2
145.8
145.8
154.0
154.6
155.5
164.2
151.3
151.2
156.3
147.5
147.5
154.9
155.5
157.4
165.8
154.8
152.9
157.5
149.0
149.2
158.8
158.6
158.4
166.5
155.2
154.1
158.4
150.6
151.1
159.9
159.2
161.2
170.8
157.6
156.5
160.5
152.7
153.5
162.3
162.2
163.1
172.7
159.3
157.8
163.0
154.7
155.9
162.6
162.6
164.7
175.4
159.9
160.0
165.2
156.8
158.4
166.4
166.2
165.0
174.5
161.3
161.0
166.2
158.4
160.3
167.6
167.5
169.8
182.1
164.0
162.6
166.3
160.6
162.8
168.5
168.1
2.9
4.5
1.7
5.3
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Educational services.........................................................
Colleges and universities...............................................
6 .6
1.4
4.1
3.9
3.6
5.2
1.6
6.1
.5
.4
3.8
3.6
1.0
.1
Nonmanufacturing...............................................................
146.7
148.4
156.3
157.5
159.1
148.1
150.7
159.0
160.9
150.2
152.1
159.3
162.2
164.2
152.2
155.9
4.0
155.8
157.5
146.9
149.5
157.6
160.5
162.3
150.6
154.1
1.1
151.0
152.0
142.3
145.1
151.1
153.7
155.1
144.8
147.8
154.7
149.2
150.2
140.6
143.5
150.0
152.6
153.8
143.9
146.3
153.1
White-collar workers..........................................................
Excluding sales occupations.......................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations..........................................................
1.1
1.2
4.1
4.3
3.6
4.3
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s .........................................
145.5
145.9
147.8
148.9
150.3
151.2
154.3
155.2
156.1
.6
3.9
144.9
144.1
147.0
145.9
143.7
145.3
144.5
147.2
146.5
144.2
147.3
146.6
149.2
148.3
145.9
148.3
147.4
150.7
149.4
147.2
149.5
148.4
152.4
150.7
148.6
150.4
149.2
153.7
151.6
149.0
153.7
152.8
156.4
154.2
151.5
154.4
153.2
157.6
155.6
153.2
155.2
153.6
159.5
156.9
154.0
.5
.3
3.8
3.5
4.7
4.1
3.6
145.2
145.2
147.3
147.9
145.0
145.3
144.5
147.4
145.7
145.5
145.8
147.9
148.4
145.2
145.5
144.7
147.6
146.1
148.0
147.6
150.0
150.7
147.9
148.2
147.3
150.5
146.9
148.9
148.8
151.6
152.0
148.7
149.0
148.1
151.7
148.3
149.9
150.1
152.1
152.2
149.6
149.9
148.5
153.7
150.6
150.6
151.9
154.4
154.7
150.1
150.5
149.0
154.3
151.9
154.4
154.5
157.1
157.4
154.1
154.4
152.8
153.8
151.9
154.9
156.1
158.5
159.1
154.5
154.8
153.1
159.6
155.2
155.5
157.9
160.4
160.7
154.8
155.1
153.4
160.0
156.5
1.2
1.1
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.................................................................
Professional specialty and technical...................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial.........................
1.2
.8
.5
Workers, by industry division:
Services....................................................................................
5
Services excluding schools ................................................
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Schools.............................................................................
Elementary and secondary.........................................
Colleges and universities............................................
Public administration 3 .............................................................
1 Cost (cents per hour worked) m easured in the Employment Cost Index consists of
w ages, 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
.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
.2
.2
.2
.3
.8
3.7
5.2
5.5
5.6
3.5
3.5
3.3
4.1
3.9
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 This series has the sam e industry and occupational coverage a s the Hourly
Earnings index, which w as discontinued in January 1989.
5
Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
107
Current Labor Statistics:
26.
Com pensation & Industrial Relations
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
2000
2001
2002
Series
Mar.
C iv ilia n w o r k e r s 1...................................................
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
12
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
144.0
145.4
147.0
147.9
149.5
150.8
152.3
153.4
154.8
0.9
3.5
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.............................................................
Professional specialty and technical..................................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial..........................
Administrative support, including clerical...........................
Blue-collar w orkers..................................................................
Service occupations.........................................................
146.2
144.9
148.6
145.5
139.2
143.0
147.6
146.4
149.9
146.9
140.6
144.0
149.2
148.3
151.6
148.5
142.0
145.7
150.2
149.6
152.4
149.6
142.9
147.1
151.7
151.1
154.0
151.6
144.7
148.6
153.1
152.155.8
152,7
146.0
149.7
154.5
154.2
156.7
154.6
147.6
151.2
155.6
155.1
158.1
155.7
148.5
153.0
157.0
155.6
160.7
157.3
149.7
154.2
.9
.3
3.5
3.0
4.4
3.8
3.5
3.8
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing..........................................................
Manufacturing................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Services..................................................................................
Health services....................................................................
Hospitals...............................................................
Educational services...........................................................
141.3
142.9
145.0
146.6
143.8
142.6
145.3
143.0
144.4
146.3
147.9
145.3
143.8
145.6
144.3
145.7
148.0
149.9
146.7
145.6
148.9
145.3
146.5
148.9
151.0
148.3
147.3
149.6
147.0
148.5
150.5
152.6
149.8
148.8
150.5
147,6
150.0
151.7
153.6
151.8
151.2
151.0
149.5
150.7
153.4
156.2
153.7
15.5
154.6
150.5
151.7
154.5
157.1
155.5
155.5
155.1
151.8
153.1
155.9
158.1
157.3
157.2
155.3
Public administration 2 ........................................................
Nonmanufacturing.................................................................
142.5
144.2
142.9
145.5
144.6
147.2
146.1
148.1
147.6
149.7
148.7
149.7
150.3
152.6
151.6
153.8
152.5
155.0
.8
P riv a te in d u s t r y w o r k e r s ............................................................
Excluding sales occupations..............................................
143.9
143.5
145.4
145.1
146.8
146.5
147.7
147.6
149.4
149.5
150.9
150.8
152.1
152.2
153.3
153.3
154.7
154.9
1.0
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...............................................................
Excluding sales occupations............................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations...........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
S ales occupations................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...
Blue-collar workers................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations.......
Machine operators, assem blers, and Inspectors............
Transportation and material moving occupations...........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....
146.6
146.7
145.1
149.2
146.7
146.0
139.1
138.9
140.7
134.1
141.8
148.3
148.5
147.3
150.7
147.9
147.5
140.5
140.6
141.6
135.2
143.6
149.7
149.9
148.6
152.3
149.0
149.1
141.9
142.0
142.9
136.5
145.0
150.6
151.1
150.2
153.0
148.7
150.1
142.8
142.8
143.7
137.6
146.2
152.3
153.0
152.1
154.7
149.2
152.3
144.6
144.6
145.6
139.5
148.0
153.8
154.4
153.2
156.5
151.5
153.6
145.9
145.7
146.9
140.7
149.8
154.8
155.7
154.8
157.2
151.2
155.3
147.5
147.7
148.1
142.1
151.0
156.1
156.9
155.9
158.6
152.6
156.5
148.3
148,4
149.0
142.8
152.4
157.7
158.6
156.7
161.3
153.6
158.2
149.6
149.2
150.5
144.8
154.2
1.6
1.0
.8
.8
.9
.9
.9
.6
1.2
1.1
.1
.6
.9
1.0
1.1
.5
1.7
.7
1.1
.9
.5
1.0
1.4
1.2
3.3
3.1
3.6
3.6
5.0
5.6
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.0
4.3
2.9
3.9
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.8
4.2
Service occupations...............................................................
141.0
142.5
143.5
144.9
146.4
147.5
148.7
150.6
152.0
.9
3.8
Production and nonsupervisory occupations 3 ..................
142.1
143.7
145.0
146.0
147.7
149.0
150.3
151.5
152.7
.8
3.4
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations...................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations....................................................
Construction.........................................................................
Manufacturing.......................................................................
White-collar occupations...................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
D urables......................................................................
Nondurables......................................................................
141.3
140.5
145.0
143.2
139.0
136.0
142.9
145.8
143.7
140.8
143.0
142.7
143.0
142.1
146.8
144.9
140.5
138.0
144.4
147.7
145.6
142.0
144.7
143.9
144.3
143.4
147.9
146.0
142.0
139.4
145.7
148.7
146.6
143.4
146.1
145.0
145.2
144.6
148.7
147.2
143.1
140.7
146.5
149.2
147.5
144.6
147.3
145.4
147.0
146.3
150.5
148.9
144.7
142.1
148.5
151.1
149.9
146.4
149.0
147.5
148.6
147.8
152.3
150.5
146.1
143.9
150.0
152.7
150.5
147.8
150.5
149.0
149.5
148.7
152.6
150.8
147.4
145.1
150.7
152.8
150.5
149.1
151.5
149.3
150.5
149.7
153.6
151.7
148.4
146.3
151.7
153.3
151.0
150.3
151.7
153.9
151.7
150.9
155.0
152.9
149.6
147.0
153.1
154.9
152.3
151.7
153.9
151.9
.8
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.1
2.5
Service-producing..........................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations...................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations...........................................................
Transportation and public utilities......................................
Transportation.................................................................
Public utilities...............................................................
Communications...................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.............................
W holesale and retail trade.................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Wholesale trade.................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Retail trade.......................................................................
G eneral merchandise stores..........................................
Food stores.......................................................................
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
146.5
146.9
148.5
149.6
140.3
142.5
140.0
136.2
144.9
145.0
144.7
145.5
146.8
149.4
149.7
143.5
138.5
139.5
147.9
148.3
150.0
151.2
141.6
143.5
141.3
137.4
146.4
146.7
145.9
146.4
148.2
149.6
151.3
144.8
139.7
140.2
148.9
149.4
150.9
152.3
142.2
144.8
142.3
138.6
147.1
147.4
146.6
147.4
149.0
151.6
153.2
145.2
142.2
141.6
150.5
151.3
152.5
154.3
144.3
146.1
143.7
139.8
148.7
149.2
148.1
148.4
150.7
151.6
154.9
146.9
143.8
143.3
151.9
152.6
154.0
155.6
145.3
147.2
145.7
141.6
151.0
151.8
149.9
150.1
151.9
154.5
156.5
147.8
145.5
144.5
153.2
154.2
155.2
157.2
147.5
148.4
146.7
142.6
152.0
153.3
150.4
150.6
153.1
154.1
157.4
148.8
145.7
145.7
151.9
156.1
157.2
158.2
148.1
149.4
149.2
145.7
153.6
155.2
151.7
152.1
156.1
157.2
158.2
160.4
149.4
151.6
150.5
147.4
154.3
155.3
153.0
153.0
154.8
157.9
150.7
146.5
146.7
157.2
159.4
150.9
147.9
148.0
S ee footnotes at end of table.
108
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
_
_
.8
.9
.8
.8
.5
.9
1.0
.9
.9
.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
.9
.9
.9
1.2
.5
.1
.9
.6
1.6
.9
.1
1.0
.9
2.1
3.6
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.5
3.8
4.7
5.4
3.8
4.1
3.3
3.1
3.7
2.9
2.7
2.9
3.3
26. Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
Series
Mar.
June
2002
2001
2000
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Sept.
June
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
12
3
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
Finance, insurance, and real esta te ..................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance.............................................................................
Services..................................................................................
Business services...............................................................
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Educational services..........................................................
Colleges and universities................................................
148.7
150.2
162.0
145.5
147.4
152.0
143.5
141.8
148.9
148.9
149.5
151.5
163.3
146.6
149.1
154.1
145.3
143.3
149.6
149.4
151.7
153.3
165.0
150.7
150.6
155.3
146.6
144.9
153.4
152.5
151.7
154.1
165.7
150.8
151.8
156.0
148.1
146.8
154.3
152.9
153.9
156.6
169.4
152.4
153.8
158.2
149.8
148.5
155.4
154.1
154.6
157.6
170.8
153.3
155.0
160.8
151.8
151.0
156.1
155.0
155.8
159.1
173.2
153.6
157.1
162.8
153.6
153.3
159.6
158.4
156.0
159.1
171.7
155.0
158.2
163.7
155.4
155.4
160.5
159.6
160.3
164.5
181.2
157.1
159.5
164.0
157.3
157.1
161.2
159.9
Nonmanufacturing................................................................
White-collar workers..........................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations..........................................................
143.9
146.5
147.4
137.4
140.9
145.5
148.2
149.1
138.9
142.4
146.9
149.6
150.7
140.3
143.4
147.9
150.6
151.9
140.9
144.7
149.5
152.3
153.9
142.8
146.0
150.9
153.8
155.3
143.9
147.1
152.2
155.0
156.9
145.8
148.2
153.5
156.4
158.3
146.4
150.1
155.0
158.0
160.1
147.5
151.4
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ........................................
144.3
144.7
147.2
148.3
150.2
151.2
154.3
155.2
156.1
144.1
144.3
144.9
142.4
141.5
144.5
144.7
145.1
143.0
142.1
147.1
147.4
147.3
145.0
143.9
148.0
148.2
148.8
146.2
145.1
149.0
149.1
150.1
147.0
146.0
149.8
149.8
151.5
147.6
146.5
152.7
153.0
153.9
149.8
149.1
153.3
153.4
155.1
150.9
150.8
153.9
153.6
156.6
151.9
151.6
144.6
144.9
147.9
148.7
149.5
150.2
153.7
154.2
154.9
155.8
155.7
154.0
154.1
153.1
156.7
Workers, by occupational group.
White-collar workers.................................................................
Professional specialty and technical...................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial........................
Workers, by industry division:
4
Services excluding schools ................................................
Health services..................................................................
Elementary and secondary.........................................
Colleges and universities...........................................
144.3
145.3
145.3
144.5
144.7
144.5
144.9
146.7
147.7
147.7
148.0
148.1
147.9
148.3
144.8
145.7
145.6
144.8
144.9
144.6
145.6
147.9
149.3
149.2
148.7
148.9
148.5
149.5
149.1
149.9
149.5
149.5
149.7
149.0
151.4
153.2
154.2
154.2
153.6
153.8
152.8
156.5
150.7
151.9
151.8
150.0
150.2
149.5
151.8
2 .8
3.4
5.5
1.4
.8
.2
1 .2
1.1
.4
.2
4.2
5.0
7.0
3.1
3.7
3.7
5.0
5.8
3.7
3.8
.9
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.3
3.7
.5
3.4
.4
.7
.5
3.3
3.0
4.3
3.3
3.8
154.6
.3
3.4
156.7
157.8
157.7
154.2
154.3
153.4
156.8
1 .2
5.1
5.3
5.5
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
.8
.1
1 .0
1.3
1.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
2
3.3
.6
152.5
151.6
148.7
150.3
147.6
146.1
144.6
142.9
Public administration ............................................................
142.5
1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and
a This series has the sam e industry and occupational coverage a s the Hourly
State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
Earnings index, which w as discontinued in January 1989.
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
27.
Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
Series
Mar.
P riv a te in d u s t r y w o r k e r s ................................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.................................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing......................................................................
Service-producing.....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June
2002
2001
2000
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
12
3
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
153.8
155.7
157.5
158.6
161.5
163.2
165.2
166.7
169.3
1.6
4.8
156.3
150.0
158.5
151.6
160.4
153.1
161.5
154.1
165.2
155.7
167.4
156.7
169.5
158.3
171.2
159.2
173.5
162.2
1.3
1.9
5.0
4.2
152.3
154.0
152.3
154.0
154.2
156.0
153.9
156.1
155.7
157.9
154.9
158.1
156.2
159.4
154.8
159.7
158.5
162.6
157.1
162.9
159.6
164.6
157.9
164.9
160.8
167.1
158.5
167.4
162.6
168.4
160.4
168.6
165.8
170.7
163.7
171.1
2 .0
4.6
5.0
4.2
5.0
M onthly Labor Review
1.4
2.1
1.4
June 2002
109
Current Labor Statistics:
28.
Com pensation & Industrial Relations
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers by bargaining status, region, and area size
[June 1989 = 100]
2000
2001
2002
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
12
months
months
ended
ended
Mar. 2002
COMPENSATION
W orkers, by bargaining s ta tu s 1
Union................................................................
Goods-producing...............................................................
Service-producing........................................................
Manufacturing........................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................................
143.0
143.3
142.5
144.5
141.7
144.4
144.8
143.9
145.4
143.4
146.1
146.8
145.2
147.1
145.0
146.9
147.3
146.4
147.4
146.2
147.9
147.9
147.6
147.9
147.3
149.5
149.3
149.5
148.8
149.4
151.0
150.6
151.2
149.9
151.1
153.1
151.6
154.2
151.4
153.5
154.8
153.4
156.0
153.4
155.0
Nonunion...................................................................
Goods-producing..............................................................
Service-producing.............................................................
Manufacturing..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................................
147.4
145.4
148.0
146.5
147.4
149.1
147.2
149.6
148.2
149.1
150.6
148.4
151.2
149.2
150.7
151.6
149.3
152.3
149.9
151.8
153.8
151.6
154.4
152.4
153.9
155.3
153.1
155.9
153.7
155.4
156.7
154.0
157.5
154.4
157.0
157.8
155.3
158.6
155.5
158.2
159.6
157.2
160.3
157.6
159.9
146.3
145.0
148.9
147.0
147.6
146.7
150.7
148.8
149.3
147.6
152.2
150.8
150.3
148.6
153.3
151.8
151.6
151.1
154.8
154.3
153.7
152.3
156.0
156.0
155.2
153.5
157.4
157.6
156.3
154.6
158.6
159.4
158.3
156.2
161.1
160.4
146.9
146.0
148.6
147.7
150.1
148.8
151.0
150.3
153.1
152.1
154.6
153.7
156.0
154.8
157.4
155.6
159.1
157.5
Union...................................................................................
Goods-producing...............................................................
Service-producing.....................................................................
Manufacturing.....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................................................
137.2
137.2
137.6
138.8
136.4
138.5
138.4
138.9
139.7
137.8
140.0
140.2
140.1
141.4
139.2
141.2
141.3
141.5
142.6
140.4
142.1
142.4
142.2
143.9
141.1
143.7
144.2
143.7
145.5
142.7
145.1
145.3
145.4
146.7
144.3
147.4
146.3
148.9
148.0
147.1
148.4
147.2
150.0
149.0
148.1
Nonunion..................................................................................
Goods-producing........................................................................
Service-producing...........................................................
Manufacturing..............................................................
Nonmanufacturing.................................................................
145.1
142.9
145.8
144.4
145.0
146.7
144.7
147.3
146.1
146.6
148.1
145.8
148.7
147.2
148.0
149.0
146.8
149.6
148.0
148.9
150.8
148.8
151.4
150.1
150.7
152.2
150.3
152.7
151.6
152.0
153.4
151.1
154.1
152.2
153.3
154.4
152.1
155.1
153.1
154.4
155.9
153.5
156.7
154.7
155.9
142.3
143.0
145.3
144.7
143.7
144.6
147.1
146.3
145.3
145.3
148.6
148.2
146.0
146.3
149.6
149.2
147.3
148.3
150.9
151.3
149.2
149.3
152.3
152.9
150.6
150.2
153.6
154.3
151.7
151.2
154.7
156.0
153.5
152.5
157.1
156.4
144.1
142.2
145.7
143.7
147.1
144.7
148.0
146.0
149.8
147.4
151.2
148.8
152.4
149.7
153.7
150.5
155.1
151.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.1
4.7
3.7
5.7
3.7
5.2
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.4
3.9
W orkers, by reg io n 1
Northeast........................................................................
South.....................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...............................................
W est.................................................................
1.3
1.0
1 .6
.6
4.4
3.4
4.1
4.0
W orkers, by a rea siz e 1
Metropolitan are a s.....................................................................
Other a re a s .................................................................
1.1
1.2
3.9
3.6
WAGES AND SALARIES
W orkers, by bargaining s ta tu s 1
.7
.6
.7
.7
.7
1.0
.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.4
3.4
5.5
3.5
5.0
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.1
3.5
W orkers, by reg io n 1
Northeast..............................................................................
South...................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)................................................
W est...........................................................................
1.2
4.2
.9
2 .8
1 .6
4.1
3.4
.3
W orkers, by a rea siz e 1
Metropolitan are a s...........................................................
Other are a s.......................................................................
.9
.8
3.5
2.9
The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, s e e the Monthly Labor Review
Technical Note, "Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index," May 1982.
no
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
29. 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
1980
Scope of survey (in 000's)............
Number of employees (in 000’s):
With medical care.......................
With life insurance......................
With defined benefit plan...........
1982
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
20,496
17,936
20,412
2 0,201
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
9
25
76
25
9
26
73
26
10
11
10
8
27
72
26
99
9.8
23
3.6
99
26
71
26
84
3.3
97
9.2
30
67
28
80
3.3
92
9
29
-
80
3.3
89
9.1
81
3.7
89
9.3
22
21
21
22
20
100
29
72
26
85
3.2
96
9.4
24
3.3
98
3.1
97
3.3
96
3.1
97
3.3
96
3.5
95
69
33
16
68
67
37
26
65
60
53
58
56
37
18
Time-off plans
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.................
10
.
75
.
-
Paid personal leave.......................
Average days per year.................
Paid vacations.................................
Paid sick leave ' ..............................
Unpaid maternity leave..................
Unpaid paternity leave...................
Unpaid family le a v e .......................
99
99
10.1
1 0.0
20
24
3.8
99
67
100
62
88
3.2
99
1 0.0
25
3.7
67
10.2
68
26
83
3.0
91
9.4
-
-
-
-
70
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
84
93
97
97
95
90
92
83
82
77
76
-
-
8
70
18
76
79
28
75
80
28
81
80
30
86
62
46
62
66
58
82
42
78
73
56
85
78
63
43
$12.80
63
$41.40
44
$19.29
64
$60.07
47
$25.31
61
$31.55
76
$107.42
67
$33.92
78
$118.33
69
$39.14
80
$130.07
■■
-
Insurance plans
Participants in medical care plans................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care.......................................
Extended care facilities.............................
Physical exam............................................
Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage.........................................
Average monthly contribution............
Family coverage....................................
Average monthly contribution............
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..................................................
Participants in short-term disability plans ’........
97
26
27
-
-
46
51
-
-
36
$11.93
58
$35.93
$72.10
51
$26.60
69
$96.97
96
96
96
96
92
94
94
91
87
87
69
-
72
64
74
64
72
78
59
49
6
44
76
5
41
77
7
37
74
8
71
7
42
71
10
33
40
43
47
48
42
45
40
41
42
43
54
51
51
49
46
43
45
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53
55
84
84
82
76
63
63
59
56
52
50
55
98
63
97
47
54
56
64
98
35
57
62
59
98
26
55
62
62
97
64
63
61
48
52
96
4
58
51
52
95
22
55
98
7
56
54
52
95
53
45
58
97
52
45
-
-
-
60
45
48
48
49
55
57
-
-
-
33
36
41
44
43
54
55
_
_
_
2
5
12
12
12
9
23
10
5
36
52
38
5
13
32
7
66
6
Retirement plans
Participants in defined benefit pension plans...
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........
Participants in defined contribution plans..........
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements.....................................................
6
10
56
49
Other benefits
Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans...................
Reimbursement accounts 2...........
Premium conversion plans..
"T 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-disability 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
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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
NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
111
Current Labor Statistics:
Com pensation & Industrial Relations
30. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features
within plans, small private establishments and State and local governments, 1987,1990,1992, 1994, and 1996
Small private establishments
Item
1990
1992
1994
State and local governments
1996
1987
1990
1992
1994
Scope of survey (in 000's)...............................
Number of employees (in 000’s):
With medical care.........................................
With life insurance.........................................
With defined benefit plan..............................
32,466
34,360
35,910
39,816
10,321
12,972
12,466
12,907
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
Time-off plans
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...................................................
37
48
27
47
2.9
84
17
34
58
29
56
3.7
81
36
56
29
63
3.7
74
34
53
29
65
3.7
75
Average days per year1................................
Paid personal leave........................................
Average days per year.................................
Paid vacations.................................................
11
2.8
88
12
2.6
88
2.6
88
Paid sick leave2.............................................
47
53
50
Unpaid leave....................................................
Unpaid paternity leave...................................
Unpaid family leave........................................
17
_
“
18
7
-
47
8
9.5
8
9
37
49
26
50
3.0
82
9.2
_
_
_
11
10
_
50
3.1
82
51
3.0
80
7.5
13
7.6
14
3.0
86
10.9
38
2.7
72
13.6
39
2.9
67
14.2
38
2.9
67
11.5
38
3.0
50
97
95
95
94
48
57
30
“
51
33
-
59
44
-
93
66
64
93
93
90
87
_
_
82
79
36
87
84
47
84
81
55
-
_
_
62
3.7
73
66
_
-
Insurance plans
Participants in medical care plans...................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care..........................................
Extended care facilities.................................
Physical exam................................................
69
71
79
83
26
80
84
28
-
_
-
-
76
78
36
Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage.................................................
Average monthly contribution....................
Family coverage............................................
Average monthly contribution....................
42
$25.13
67
$109.34
47
$36.51
73
$150.54
52
$40.97
76
$159.63
52
$42.63
75
$181.53
35
$15.74
71
$71.89
38
$25.53
65
$117.59
43
$28.97
72
$139.23
47
$30.20
71
$149.70
64
64
61
62
85
88
89
87
79
77
67
67
74
64
13
55
45
46
46
22
31
27
28
30
14
21
22
21
15
93
90
87
91
47
92
92
90
33
88
89
92
89
92
87
13
99
49
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................................................
Participants in short-term disability plans 2......
Retirement plans
Participants in defined benefit pension plans..
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......
Participants in defined contribution plans.........
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements...................................................
78
76
19
25
2
20
19
23
20
1
1
6
26
26
-
-
-
20
22
15
_
1
1
1
1
2
29
54
95
7
58
49
50
95
4
54
46
31
33
34
38
9
9
9
9
17
24
23
28
28
45
45
24
1
8
2
3
19
4
14
12
5
5
5
31
5
50
5
64
-
-
_
53
44
100
18
16
100
8
10
100
10
Other benefits
Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans......................................
Reimbursement accounts3.............................
Premium conversion plans .............................
-I
1 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 sick leave.
112
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
7
Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey,
included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing perdisability 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. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of
flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately.
NOTE: D ash indicates data not available.
31. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Measure
Annual totals
2000
2000
Dec.
2001
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period..............................
In effect during period..........................
39
40
29
30
Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in thousands).....
In effect during period (in thousands).
394
397
102
Days idle:
Number (in thousands)........................
20,419
99
1,151
.00
2001
Jan.p
0
3
8.7
10.3
58.9
Feb.p
Mar.p
Apr.p
May13 Junep
1
2
1
1
3
4
4
5
2.0
1.2
1.2
7.8
9.0
19.4
20.7
23.4
4.7
9.0
33.4
230.5
201.6
73.2
4.7
37.1
3.6
7
8
22.1
Julyp
2
Aug.p Sept.p Oct.p
Nov.p
Dec.p
3
4
2
1
3
4
0
1
2
2
3.3
5.8
6.9
3.0
4.1
24.9
29.0
.0
1.6
6.0
6.0
62.1
71.5
55.7
316.4
11.2
3
5
3
2.2
55.0
.01
.01
.01
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2>
Cl
Cl
' 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 a s a percentage of the total time worked is found in " Total economy’ measures of strike idleness," Monthly Labor Review, October 1968, pp. 54-56.
2 Less than 0.005.
Percent of estimated workina time1....
.06
___ a ___ fl
___
___
p = preliminary.
NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
113
Current Labor Statistics:
Price D ata
32. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average,
by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
Series
2000
2001
2002
2001
Annual average
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
C O N S U M E R P R IC E INDEX
FO R A L L URBAN CO N SU M ERS
176.9
529.9
172.4
171.9
172.2
192.5
160.7
177.7
532.2
172.9
172.5
172.8
193.2
160.8
178.0
533.3
173.4
173.0
173.3
194.2
161.7
177.5
531.6
174.0
173.5
173.9
194.9
162.3
177.5
531.8
174.4
173.9
174.2
195.9
162.4
212.2
163.4
213.3
164.7
213.1
211.8
166.9
168.3
210.7
168.9
208.8
137.8
155.6
154.0
147.4
172.2
139.2
159.6
155.7
155.7
176.0
138.9
157.6
154.0
151.5
174.4
138.1
159.6
155.8
154.7
176.4
138.6
159.5
155.7
156.7
175.7
138.9
160.4
156.1
157.8
176.8
107.5
108.9
108.5
108.8
107.7
109.6
169.0
109.0
174.7
173.9
113.4
179.3
176.4
172.7
173.1
112.4
178.5
173.6
All items.......................................................................
All Items (1967- 100)................................................
Food and beverages.................................................
Food..........................................................................
Food at home.........................................................
Cereals and bakery products...............................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..............................
172.2
515.8
168.4
167.8
167.9
188.3
154.5
Dairy and related products1.................................
Fruits and vegetables..........................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials............................................................
Other foods at home............................................
Sugar and sweets..............................................
Fats and oils.......................................................
Other foods.........................................................
160.7
204.6
Other miscellaneous foods1,2.........................
Food away from home1..........................................
Other food away from home1,2...........................
Alcoholic beverages................................................
Housing......................................................................
Rent of primary residence...................................
Lodging away from home....................................
Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence3....
Tenants’ and household insurance1,2.................
Fuels and utilities................................................
Fuels...................................................................
169.6
193.4
183.9
117.5
198.7
212.1
169.4
170.8
213.5
140.0
161.0
156.1
158.5
177.6
139.2
160.2
156.6
158.5
176.2
139.9
160.9
156.4
159.5
177.0
179.1
174.1
113.8
179.7
109.5
174.7
114.3
180.0
108.9
175.1
115.3
180.4
177.6
201.4
192.3
124.0
206.3
178.0
202.4
193.1
125.2
207.3
108.9
175.6
115.4
180.8
176.7
202.4
194.7
114.5
209.0
106.6
152.7
138.0
112.6
204.9
105.5
149.7
135.1
134.4
141.6
129.1
131.9
128.2
127.0
106.8
151.3
136.8
131.9
143.8
128.9
129.8
129.1
122.3
107.0
155.7
141.6
129.6
149.4
129.2
126.3
125.8
117.5
106.6
154.8
140.5
123.8
148.6
129.2
111.6 112.1
131.4
124.9
156.1
152.1
130.6
124.4
159.2
155.3
127.3
158.3
154.0
124.5
121.3
154.4
149.9
126.3
121.9
153.3
148.8
129.3
122.9
155.5
151.2
101.8
101.4
142.3
159.1
146.8
146.0
104.4
182.5
209.3
271.4
246.6
277.3
245.8
335.1
105.0
101.1
100.8
141.2
158.3
125.6
124.9
105.1
183.4
216.1
100.5
140.3
158.0
121.9
130.6
123.8
153.3
149.1
129.2
123.0
154.3
150.0
100.8
101.3
142.1
158.7
124.7
124.0
104.8
183.5
121.8 120.0
122.1
210.6
142.7
159.7
133.6
132.8
104.2
181.9
208.3
102.5
272.8
247.6
278.8
246.5
338.3
104.9
101.5
105.2
270.8
245.7
276.8
245.6
333.6
105.0
101.7
104.1
104.0
141.7
158.9
142.0
141.3
104.4
182.7
216.3
272.5
248.1
278.3
246.5
336.6
104.8
101.3
104.4
112.5
279.9
324.0
93.6
118.5
295.9
341.1
93.3
116.1
290.8
334.1
93.3
116.4
290.7
335.0
92.9
92.8
98.5
92.3
99.3
92.3
99.0
25.9
21.3
Tobacco and smoking products............................
41.1
271.1
394.9
Personal care1.......................................................
Personal care products1.....................................
Personal care services1.....................................
165.6
153.7
178.1
Used cars and trucks1.......................................
Motor fuel..............................................................
Gasoline (all types)............................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment....................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair...............
Public transportation..............................................
Medical care..............................................................
Medical care commodities.....................................
Professional services...........................................
Hospital and related services.............................
2
.12
Education and communication2...............................
Education2.............................................................
Communication1,2.................................................
12
Information and information processing ' .......
12
Information and information processing
.1 4
101.0
177.4
204.2
Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel1.............................
Footwear...............................................................
Transportation...........................................................
Private transportation............................................
142.8
155.8
129.3
128.6
101.5
177.3
209.6
260.8
238.1
266.0
237.7
317.3
103.3
174.6
174.1
174.3
195.1
162.4
193.9
116.8
208.1
106.7
150.6
135.7
125.3
143.1
129.4
126.8
123.7
120.3
129.7
128.0
128.2
129.6
129.7
121.5
175.9
199.6
191.0
177.4
531.3
175.2
174.6
174.7
194.9
162.7
192.1
118.6
206.3
Gas (piped) and electricity...............................
Household furnishings and operations...............
Apparel......................................................................
Men's and boys' apparel......................................
Women's and girls' apparel.................................
122.8
111.8
178.1
175.4
199.2
190.2
177.7
532.2
175.3
174.9
175.2
195.2
163.5
178.3
534.0
177.3
200.7
191.6
123.7
205.7
200.6
106.2
150.2
135.4
129.3
142.4
129.1
127.3
125.7
119.3
New and used motor vehicles2............................
New vehicles......................................................
103.7
137.9
177.1
530.4
173.6
173.1
173.4
193.8
161.3
167.1
122.1
146.0
129.1
122.6 122.6
122.5
121.4
121.2
104.9
184.0
213.7
202.0
178.8
535.5
176.6
176.1
176.3
197.0
162.8
179.8
538.6
176.7
176.2
176.4
198.1
162.5
169.9
224.8
170.1
223.3
169.4
225.8
168.7
223.4
139.5
160.3
154.9
155.6
177.6
18.5
160.9
156.1
156.9
177.9
139.5
161.3
158.4
158.3
177.4
140.0
160.4
158.5
157.2
176.3
140.1
159.9
157.2
156.4
175.9
140.1
161.5
159.6
156.5
177.8
108.9
176.4
115.5
181.8
177.6
204.5
197.0
113.1
110.6
108.5
175.8
115.5
181.2
176.0
115.5
180.9
176.9
202.9
195.5
176.9
203.2
196.4
108.0
210.9
211.6 212.2 212.8
106.3
142.2
126.2
112.7
133.5
128.9
123.7
106.4
141.5
125.3
112.9
132.4
128.7
120.4
111.6
210.1
122.1
131.5
124.9
152.3
148.1
132.4
123.7
150.2
146.1
100.2 100.6
101.3
142.6
157.4
104.5
103.8
105.8
186.4
205.1
276.7
250.6
283.0
248.8
347.1
105.5
101.4
107.0
274.4
249.1
280.5
247.7
341.2
105.1
101.7
105.8
116.9
293.9
336.2
93.1
273.1
248.5
278.9
246.8
337.9
105.0
101.7
104.8
117.2
295.1
337.2
93.6
119.5
298.0
343.9
93.5
101.3
106.6
121.7
305.4
350.0
93.1
91.8
98.7
92.1
99.0
92.5
99.6
92.4
99.6
22.1
21.7
21.4
21.3
29.5
282.6
425.2
31.7
277.7
424.2
30.4
281.3
418.7
170.5
155.1
184.3
169.6
155.8
183.4
169.5
153.2
184.1
29.8
281.2
421.0
170.0
154.6
184.1
29.3
285.8
441.2
170.7
155.1
184.8
101.6
177.8
532.7
176.4
175.9
176.0
197.6
161.8
106.9
143.5
127.8
118.3
134.7
129.1
128.0
127.4
119.4
140.2
157.3
131.4
130.7
105.2
185.1
212.7
275.0
249.6
281.0
247.9
342.6
105.2
106.9
144.6
129.1
121.5
135.9
129.0
129.5
127.5
177.1
530.6
176.2
175.8
176.2
196.7
162.1
171.2
212.9
176.7
5292.0
175.2
174.7
174.7
195.3
162.0
170.8
214.4
141.0
157.8
116.3
115.6
105.5
186.0
209.1
275.9
250.2
282.0
248.4
344.8
105.3
101.3
107.1
122.2
108.0
107.8
108.0
177.0
115.8
182.6
177.1
116.3
182.5
179.1
207.0
198.2
121.9
177.2
116.9
182.9
178.5
206.1
197.7
119.3
106.8
140.0
123.7
112.3
130.6
128.6
123.5
106.8
140.2
123.8
112.8
179.5
207.5
198.5
122.1
213.3
107.2
140.3
123.8
115.1
130.6
128.9
128.8
125.6
114.8
109.7
115.3
130.7
128.7
128.2
125.2
121.3
128.5
125.0
117.1
148.6
144.4
127.2
119.5
148.4
144.1
129.9
123.5
150.5
146.3
198.9
124.5
153.7
149.6
101.6 101.0 100.1
99.6
140.7
152.1
107.7
107.1
106.5
188.5
207.9
282.0
254.1
288.9
251.9
359.4
99.3
140.4
152.8
121.4
106.8
189.0
209.7
283.2
254.8
290.2
252.5
362.4
106.1
102.9
106.6
106.5
102.9
106.2
122.8 120.8 122.0
120.6
148.5
144.3
143.5
157.2
96.1
95.4
105.8
186.4
204.8
277.3
251.6
283.5
248.9
348.3
105.3
142.7
155.6
97.9
97.2
106.2
187.1
205.8
279.6
252.6
286.2
250.6
353.1
105.7
101.2 102.1
106.9
107.2
122.0 122.6
141.2
153.9
98.2
97.6
106.1
188.0
207.3
281.0
253.7
287.7
251.4
356.4
105.9
102.9
107.3
122.2
120.8
307.2
351.5
93.6
122.3
304.7
352.0
93.3
294.7
352.2
93.4
303.0
353.2
93.4
123.2
314.4
353.9
93.1
123.3
314.2
354.1
92.0
123.3
314.4
354.1
91.2
92.0
99.2
92.5
99.9
92.2
99.6
92.3
99.6
92.2
100.3
92.0
100.3
90.8
99.1
90.0
98.2
20.7
20.3
20.2
20.0
19.8
19.4
19.0
18.8
18.6
27.8
283.3
424.6
171.2
154.7
185.2
26.7
287.8
444.0
26.4
285.6
429.9
25.8
289.2
446.7
25.3
286.4
431.7
172.3
155.4
185.9
172.6
155.4
186.8
172.6
155.4
186.4
23.8
290.2
449.3
173.7
155.5
186.4
23.1
288.5
433.4
174.1
155.1
187.3
22.9
292.9
461.4
171.9
155.5
185.5
24.6
287.2
432.8
173.2
155.2
186.3
Personal computers and peripheral
equipment1,2...........................................
See footnotes at end of table.
114
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
174.4
155.4
187.9
32. Continued—Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
Series
_________
Annual average
2000
2001
2001
Apr.
May
June
252.3
263.1
260.2
261.0
261.8
149.2
168.4
137.7
147.4
129.6
150 7
173.6
137.2
147.1
127.3
151 9
172.4
139.7
151.0
131.9
15? 9
172.9
140.8
153.5
129.8
159 1
162.5
125.4
195.3
163.4
124.6
203.4
167.0
125.4
201.9
201.3
196.1
229.9
208.9
201.9
238.0
207.4
173.0
165.7
167.3
139.2
149.1
162.9
158.2
202.9
188.9
124.6
178.6
181.3
144.9
129.5
2002
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
263.2
265.5
266.4
267.3
270.4
271.8
272.9
273.2
173.4
139.4
151.3
126.3
174.0
136.5
146.3
174.4
135.4
144.8
122.6 122.6
174.6
138.0
149.6
126.8
175.3
136.1
146.0
129.5
176.2
131.6
137.9
120.4
176.4
132.1
139.6
123.5
176.6
133.7
143.6
128.2
176.7
136.0
148.4
128.8
172.0
124.9
202.5
170.4
124.5
204.0
164.5
124.2
204.5
162.1
123.6
205.2
167.5
123.4
204.9
160.4
123.6
204.7
152.6
123.6
206.3
153.6
122.7
207.3
157.3
122.1
208.0
164.7
121.9
208.4
209.0
209.7
210.8
210.3
210.8
236.2
207.8
200.4
236.4
236.7
237.7
202.7
239.4
240.6
203.4
241.4
213.0
205.2
242.9
214.7
206.5
243.5
215.6
207.3
243.6
216.1
207.9
243.8
177.8
169 7
171.9
138.9
149.1
164.1
160.6
177.8
170 1
171.8
141.2
152.8
167.4
162.0
178.6
170 9
172.6
142.4
155.1
172.0
163.6
179.0
178.2
178.2
179.0
178.2
177.4
178.2
179.2
180.4
172.9
141.0
153.1
170.6
162.7
172.3
138.2
148.3
165.2
160.3
172.3
137.2
146.9
163.0
159.7
173.0
139.7
151.5
168.0
162.3
172.4
137.8
148.1
161.5
160.8
171.7
133.5
140.5
154.5
157.0
210.6
213.3
197.2
140.5
183.3
185.9
144.9
141.1
209.4
213.7
197.8
132.4
183.6
186.2
144.4
125.6
214.0
198.4
129.4
184.1
186.6
143.8
213.9
198.1
132.5
184.5
187.1
145.2
131.0
213.0
197.8
200.2 200.8
111.0 115.6
201.2
122.2
122.0
210.1 211.2 211.2
185.1
187.6
145.6
116.9
211.7
213.9
199.2
111.7
185.7
188.2
143.7
99.3
213.8
174.3
137.8
150.4
165.5
162.7
216 1
195.2
133.1
182.9
185.6
146.6
133.8
208.0
211.4
195.7
140.1
182.9
185.5
145.7
145.6
208.4
173.3
135.6
145.9
158.7
160.2
214 8
186.5
189.2
144.2
99.5
215.1
187.1
189.8
144.6
108.6
215.9
187.5
190.3
145.1
202.1
212.3
196.6
129.3
183.5
186.1
145.3
125.2
209.6
172.4
133.9
142.2
155.4
158.0
214.3
216.3
163.2
486.2
163.8
163.4
163.0
184.7
147.6
173.5
516.8
173.0
172.5
172.4
193.6
161.2
173.5
516.7
171.9
171.4
171.3
192.2
160.7
174.4
519.4
172.3
171.9
171.8
192.9
160.6
174.6
520.0
172.8
172.4
172.4
193.9
161.4
173.8
517.8
173.4
173.0
173.0
194.5
162.1
173.8
517.6
173.8
173.4
173.3
195.6
162.0
174.8
520.6
174.0
173.5
173.4
194.8
162.3
174.0
518.3
174.8
174.3
174.3
195.1
163.2
173.2
515.0
175.7
175.2
175.3
196.7
162.0
173.7
517.5
175.8
175.3
175.1
197.5
161.6
174.7
520.2
176.1
175.6
175.5
197.0
162.7
175.8
523.7
176.1
175.5
175.3
197.9
162.1
167.1
163.5
211.7
164.7
211.5
166.9
210.5
168.3
209.5
168.9
208.0
211.0 212.2
169.4
170.8
169.7
223.2
222.2
170.0
169.2
224.9
222.0
138.2
157.1
153.7
151.4
174.6
137.2
159.1
155.8
154.3
176.5
108.7
137.8
159.1
155.5
156.4
176.0
138.0
160.0
156.0
157.4
177.2
108.0
173.5
109.9
174.0
114.0
179.2
173.3
195.0
191.7
123.7
187.5
106.7
154.4
139.5
123.1
147.8
125.8
121.9
122.9
139.3
160.5
156.1
158.0
177.9
109.7
174.7
114.4
179.7
173.5
195.9
192.4
124.4
188.5
106.8
152.2
137.0
121.5
145.2
125.7
139.5
160.1
158.5
157.0
176.8
108.5
176.9
116.0
182.1
139.7
159.6
157.1
156.3
176.5
108.3
177.0
116.8
182.2
174.4
108.5
177.1
117.4
182.8
174.8
200.6
201.0
197.5
197.8
Commodity and service group:
Food and beverages.........................................
Commodities less food and beverages............
Nondurables less food and beverages...........
Apparel.........................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages,
and apparel.................................................
Durables...........................................................
Services................................................................
Rent of shelter3................................................
Transporatatlon services..................................
Other services..................................................
Special Indexes:
All items less food.............................................
All items less medical care...............................
Commodities less food.....................................
Nondurables less food......................................
Nondurables less food and apparel.................
Nondurables......................................................
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.....................................
200.1
202.0 202.6
202.8
122.1
121.6
C O N S U M E R P R IC E INDEX F O R U R B A N
W A G E EA R N ER S AN D C LER IC A L W O RK ERS
All items..................................................................
All items (1967- 100).............................................
Food and beverages..............................................
Food......................................................................
Food at home.....................................................
Cereals and bakery products...........................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs.........................
Dairy and related products1.............................
Fruits and vegetables.......................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials........................................................
Other foods at home.........................................
Sugar and sweets...........................................
Fats and oils...................................................
Other foods.....................................................
Other miscellaneous foods1,2......................
Food away from home1.......................................
Other food away from home1,2........................
Alcoholic beverages............................................
Housing..................................................................
Shelter.................................................................
Rent of primary residence................................
Lodqinq away from home2...............................
Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence3
159.4
201.8
210.8
133.2
152.8
152.2
147.9
168.8
104.6
165.0
105.1
168.8
160.0
181.6
177.1
138.4
159.1
155.6
155.4
176.3
109.1
173.8
113.6
178.8
172.1
194.5
191.5
118.4
187.6
106.4
149.5
134.2
129.2
141.5
125.8
126.1
125.8
117.3
130.9
123.1
153.6
150.8
101.9
122.2
175.7
101.6
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........................
128.7
113.0
91.7
120.4
124.7
130.1
131.2
121.3
130.3
126.2
143.4
140.7
100.4
108.4
172.7
112.0
177.6
171.0
192.9
189.6
121.2
185.7
105.8
148.8
133.6
133.9
140.4
126.0
130.5
128.3
124.7
133.2
125.2
155.8
153.2
102.4
173.1
112.5
178.0
171.7
193.5
190.4
119.9
186.3
106.9
150.8
135.7
131.5
142.9
125.7
128.5
129.2
120.2
132.0
124.5
159.2
156.6
102.0
112.8
178.4
173.0
194.4
191.0
123.2
187.0
107.2
155.2
140.5
129.2
148.5
125.9
125.2
126.3
115.6
128.6
122.1
157.9
155.1
101.7
121.6
121.6
110.2 110.1
126.2
121.4
153.4
150.4
101.4
128.3
122.0
152.5
149.5
101.0
138.4
159.8
156.2
158.1
176.5
109.2
175.0
115.6
180.1
173.2
196.0
193.3
116.8
189.2
106.8
150.1
134.7
125.3
142.2
126.0
125.6
123.7
118.3
131.1
123.0
155.1
152.3
100.7
139.2
160.4
156.2
159.1
177.3
138.8
161.0
158.5
158.0
177.9
109.5
175.6
115.7
180.5
172.5
196.6
194.0
114.8
190.0
107.0
144.0
127.9
121.4
135.0
125.5
128.3
127.3
109.3
176.4
115.8
181.4
173.4
198.7
196.3
113.2
192.3
106.4
140.8
124.2
113.0
131.4
125.0
119.6
120.2
133.5
124.9
151.4
148.6
101.1
173.9
199.8
197.0
119.4
192.9
106 8
139.4
122.7
112.4
129.7
124.9
122.4
121.0 122.2
108.5
126.7
117.7
147.5
144.6
101.3
113.8
128.4
119.3
147.1
144.2
100.3
168.7
139.4
161.0
153.4
156.2
178.2
122.2
122.0
193.3
106 9
139.6
193.9
122.8
112.7
129.8
124.9
126.9
125.2
119.7
131.7
122.8
149.2
146.4
99.7
139.6
122.7
114.7
129.6
125.1
127.9
125.8
120.9
131.7
124.4
152.7
149.8
99.5
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
115
Current Labor Statistics:
Price D ata
32. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
________________
Annual average
Series
2000
2001
2001
Apr.
May
June
July
2002
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
New vehicles.....................................................
143.9
143.2
143.8
143.4
142.7
142.3
141.4
141.3
142.1
143.8
144.7
143.8
142.3
141.8
141.5
Used cars and trucks1......................................
Motor fuel..............................................................
Gasoline (all types)...........................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment..................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair.............
Public transportation.............................................
157.1
159.8
160.9
160.2
160.0
159.3
159.0
158.2
158.7
158.3
158.1
156.5
154.8
153.0
152.6
129.5
128.8
100.9
178.8
203.4
124.9
124.2
104.0
185.1
204.9
134.0
133.3
103.5
183.4
202.7
147.4
146.7
103.6
184.1
203.5
142.1
141.1
103.6
184.4
209.5
124.9
124.2
104.3
185.0
209.5
122.0
121.3
104.1
185.6
207.7
132.4
131.7
104.4
186.7
207.0
116.2
115.5
104.7
187.5
203.7
104.4
103.8
105.0
187.8
200.4
96.3
95.7
104.9
187.9
200.1
98.2
97.6
105.3
188.6
201.0
98.5
97.9
105.3
189.5
202.5
108.0
107.5
105.7
189.9
203.0
121.7
121.2
106.0
190.5
204.5
Medical care...............................................................
Medical care commodities...................................
Medical care services...........................................
Professional services..........................................
Hospital and related services............................
259.9
233.6
265.9
239.6
313.2
271.8
242.7
278.5
248.7
333.8
269.9
241.0
276.5
247.8
329.1
270.4
241.7
277.0
248.0
330.6
271.5
243.2
278.0
248.7
332.0
272.0
243.6
278.5
249.0
333.5
273.4
244.1
280.2
249.9
337.0
273.9
244.6
280.7
250.1
338.3
274.9
245.2
281.7
250.5
340.5
275.6
245.6
282.6
250.9
342.7
276.2
246.7
283.0
251.0
343.6
278.5
247.6
285.7
252.8
348.2
280.9
249.0
288.4
254.0
354.3
281.9
249.6
289.6
254.6
357.1
10? 1
102.4
103.6
103.7
103.7
103.5
103.7
103.9
103.8
103.8
104.0
103.8
104 2
279.8
248.5
287.2
253.6
351.4
104 5
Video and audio1'2...........................................
100.7
100.9
101.2
101.1
100.7
101.1
101.0
100.6
100.6
100.7
100.5
101 4
10? ?
Education and communication2.............................
Education2.........................................................
Educational books and supplies......................
102.7
105.3
104.2
104.1
104.5
104.9
105.8
106.5
107.1
106.9
106.9
107.1
107.2
106.5
106.0
112.8
283.3
118.7
299.9
116.4
294.7
116.7
294.5
117.2
298.2
117.6
299.3
119.6
302.2
121.7
309.8
122.3
311.7
122.3
308.9
122.1
297.3
122.7
305.2
123.3
315.2
123.3
315.1
123.3
315.3
318.2
94.6
334.7
94.5
328.2
94.4
329.1
94.0
330.3
94.3
331.3
94.8
337.3
94.7
342.9
94.3
344.4
94.9
344.9
94.5
345.2
94.6
346.2
94.7
347.0
94 5
347.2
93 3
347.2
Q? fi
94.1
Recreation2......................................................
Tuition, other school fees, and child care......
Communication1,2.................................................
Information and information processing1'2....
93.8
99.2
93.6
93.6
94.2
93.8
93.9
94.0
93.7
92.6
91.7
98.8
99.2
94.0
99.7
94.0
98.7
93.8
99.4
93.4
Telephone services1,2....................................
Information and information processing
99.8
99.4
100.1
99.7
99.9
100.4
100.5
99.3
98.4
other than teleDhone services1,4...............
Personal com puters and peripheral
26.8
22.1
22.8
22.4
22.2
22.0
21.5
21.2
21.0
20.8
20.6
20.1
19.7
19.5
19.3
equipment1,2...........................................
Other goods and services........................................
Tobacco and smoking products..........................
40.5
29.1
31.1
29.9
29.4
28.7
27.4
26.6
26.1
25.5
25.0
24.3
23.5
22.8
22.5
276.5
395.2
289.5
426.1
288.2
424.8
286.8
419.8
287.9
421.6
293.8
441.9
290.0
425.6
295.5
444.7
292.4
430.9
297.3
448.3
293.3
432.9
294.0
433.5
298.3
450.7
295.2
434.1
301.7
462.7
Personal care1........................................................
165.5
170.3
169.4
169.3
169.9
170.6
170.9
171.4
171.9
172.3
172.3
172.7
173.2
173.7
173.9
Personal care products1....................................
154.2
155.7
156.0
153.8
155.4
155.9
155.5
156.1
156.1
156.3
156.0
156.2
178.6
251.9
184.9
262.8
183.9
260.0
184.7
260.7
184.8
261.6
185.4
263.2
185.9
264.9
186.1
265.6
186.5
266.8
156.0
187.1
155.9
Personal care services1.....................................
Miscellaneous personal services......................
Commodity and service group:
156.1
187.4
267.5
268.0
187.0
269.8
187.1
271.4
188.0
272.5
272.6
Commodities..............................................................
Food and beverages.............................................
Commodities less food and beverages..............
Nondurables less food and beverages.............
A pparel...............................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages,
149.8
167.7
139.0
149.1
128.3
151.4
173.0
138.7
149.0
126.1
152.8
171.9
141.2
153.1
130.5
153.9
172.3
142.6
156.2
128.5
153.0
172.8
141.1
153.6
125.2
151.2
173.4
138.0
148.2
121.9
150.5
173.8
136.9
146.5
121.6
152.5
174.0
139.8
152.0
125.6
151.2
174.8
137.4
147.4
128.3
150.1
174.5
135.9
144.2
127.2
148.4
174.6
133.4
139.4
123.0
148.3
175.7
132.7
138.9
119.6
148.6
175.8
133.1
140.7
122.4
149.8
176.1
134.7
144.8
126.9
151.7
176.1
137.5
150.5
127.9
165.3
125.8
166.3
125.3
170.5
126.0
176.3
125.5
174.1
125.2
167.3
124.8
164.8
124.3
171.4
124.1
162.7
124.3
158.2
124.8
153.1
124.9
154.2
124.1
155.4
123.1
159.4
122.3
168.1
122.1
and apparel.......................................................
Durables................................................................
188.7
S ervices.....................................................................
191.6
199.6
198.0
198.7
200.1
200.6
201.2
201.1
201.0
201.4
201.7
202.5
203.3
203.9
204.2
Rent of shelter3.................................................
Transporatation services.....................................
Other services...................................................
Special indexes:
180.5
192.9
225.9
187.3
199.1
233.7
185.8
197.2
231.9
186.3
197.6
232.2
187.2
198.9
232.6
187.8
199.5
233.6
188.7
199.8
235.1
188.7
200.1
235.9
189.3
200.9
236.8
189.9
202.3
237.2
190.4
202.6
237.3
191.4
203.4
238.3
192.5
204.7
239.0
193.2
205.6
238.8
193.7
206.2
283.9
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...........................................................
169.1
163.8
164.7
140.4
150.7
165.4
158.9
173.6
167.6
169.1
140.2
150.8
166.7
161.4
173.8
168.0
169.1
142.7
154.7
170.5
163.0
174.7
169.1
174.9
169.0
170.2
142.6
155.3
173.9
163.8
173.9
167.8
169.4
139.6
150.1
167.7
161.2
173.7
167.5
169.3
138.5
148.5
165.4
160.5
174.9
168.8
170.3
141.3
153.8
171.5
163.5
173.8
167.6
169.5
139.0
149.4
163.5
161.5
173.4
166.9
169.1
137.6
146.4
159.5
159.7
172.5
165.7
173.3
166.1
174.3
167.1
168.3
135.1
141.8
154.7
157.3
172.7
165.8
168.5
134.5
141.8
154.7
157.5
169.0
134.8
143.1
157.0
158.5
170.0
136.5
147.0
160.7
160.8
175.7
168.5
171.0
139.1
152.5
168.7
163.7
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........................................
180.1
185.4
124.8
175.1
177.1
145.4
129.7
198.7
188.5
187.0
187.8
189.6
189.9
191.6
132.9
179.2
181.3
147.3
134.2
204.4
192.3
140.6
179.2
181.2
146.4
146.6
204.8
193.6
140.3
179.5
181.4
145.6
141.5
205.7
194.2
131.3
179.8
181.7
145.4
125.0
206.3
190.1
194.7
128.6
180.1
181.9
144.6
122.1
207.3
189.9
194.6
132.6
180.7
182.6
146.0
132.1
207.6
189.0
194.4
121.2
181.3
183.2
146.3
116.7
208.3
189.3
194.8
114.8
181.8
183.8
146.9
105.5
209.0
190.1
193.1
128.7
179.8
181.7
146.1
125.3
206.0
195.0
110.0
181.5
183.5
145.6
97.5
209.4
190.5
197.0
114.7
182.9
184.9
145.0
108.7
212.1
197.4
121.6
183.4
185.5
145.8
121.9
212.6
170.0
144.1
157.6
175.9
164.8
189.2
189.8
195.7
110.5
181.6
183.6
144.4
99.2
210.4
1 Not seasonally adjusted.
2 Indexes on a December 1997 = 100 base.
4 Indexes on a December 1988 = 100 base.
Dash indicates data not available.
3 Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.
N0TE: lndex a PPlied t0 a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
116
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
196.5
109.8
182.5
184.4
144.8
99.5
211.5
190.7
33.
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]________________________________________________________
Pricing
sched
ule1
U.S. city average.................................................................
M
All Urban Consumers
2001
Nov.
177 4
Urban Wage Earners
Dec
176 7
Jan.
Feb.
177 1
177.8
2002
2001
2002
Mar.
178.8
Apr
179.9
Nov.
173.7
Dec.
172.9
Jan.
Feb.
173.2
173.7
Mar.
174.7
Apr.
175.8
Region and area size2
Northeast urban.........................................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000..............................................
M
185.0
184.2
184.9
186.1
187.0
187.8
181.8
181.0
181.4
182.3
183.1
184.2
M
186.1
185.4
186.2
187.8
188.6
189.3
181.9
181.1
181.6
182.8
183.6
184.5
Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.........................................
M
110.9
10.3
110.5
110.5
111.2
111.9
110.5
109.9
110.1
110.1
110.8
111.7
Midwest urban4...........................................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000..............................................
M
172.5
171.9
172.1
173.6
174.7
168.2
167.6
167.7
168.1
169.1
170.3
M
174.2
173.8
174.1
172.5
174.7
176.0
177.3
169.1
168.7
168.8
169.4
170.6
172.2
Size B/C—50,000 to 1.500.0003.........................................
Size D— Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000)...................
M
110.0
109.6
109.5
109.6
110.2
110.7
109.8
109.2
109.2
109.2
109.7
110.2
M
166.3
165.5
166.2
166.6
167.1
168.1
164.1
163.3
163.9
164.3
164.8
166.0
170.6
171.7
171.0
172.1
173.1
169.0
168.1
168.3
168.6
169.6
170.8
172.4
173.3
172.4
169.6
169.0
169.0
169.5
170.5
171.7
110.2
South urban................................................................................
M
171.0
170.3
Size A—More than 1,500,000..............................................
M
172.2
171.7
Size B/C—50,000 to 1.500.0003.........................................
Size D— Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000)...................
M
109.4
108.9
109.2
109.3
110.0
110.8
109.0
108.5
108.6
108.7
109.3
M
168.9
167.7
168.6
168.6
169.9
170.5
169.9
168.3
169.2
168.9
170.2
171.2
West urban.................................................................................
M
182.3
181.6
182.4
183.2
184.0
185.1
177.6
176.8
177.4
178.1
179.0
180.0
Size A—More than 1,500,000..............................................
M
112.0
111.6
111.9
185.4
186.2
187.2
177.7
176.9
177.7
178.6
179.5
180.5
Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500.0003.........................................
M
112.0
111.6
111.9
112.4
112.8
113.7
111.8
111.2
111.4
111.8
112.2
112.9
M
M
M
161.7
110.2
170.8
161.1
109.7
169.8
161.6
109.9
170.5
162.5
110.1
170.7
163.4
110.7
171.5
164.2
111.4
172.4
160.0
109.9
169.7
159.4
109.3
168.5
159.7
109.9
169.7
160.5
109.5
169.3
161.3
110.1
170.2
162.4
110.9
171.3
Chicago-G ary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI........................................
Los A ngeles-Riverside-O range County, CA.........................
M
M
177.4
178.1
177.9
177.1
177.9
178.9
178.7
180.1
179 8
181.1
180 9
182.2
171
9
171 7
171
170.7
169.7
171.5
172.8
173.8
174.8
New York, NY-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA..
M
187.8
187.3
188.5
189.9
191.1
191.8
183.3
182.8
183.5
185.6
Boston-Brockton-Nashua, MA-NH-ME-CT........................
1
192.7
-
192.9
-
194.7
-
191.9
-
191.8
184.7
_
193.2
186.6
_
Cleveland-Akron, OH................................................................
1
172.3
-
171.4
-
173.7
-
162.8
_
164.1
_
1
171.5
-
170.6
-
172.1
-
164.0
171.1
-
D allas-Ft Worth, TX..................................................................
-
170.0
-
171.4
-
Washinqton-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV7............................
Atlanta, GA..................................................................................
1
110.9
-
110.9
-
111.9
-
110.7
-
110.5
-
111.4
-
2
-
174.8
-
176.1
-
178.6
-
172,0
173.2
175.5
156.8
Size classes;
A5..............................................................................................
B/C3..........................................................................................
D...............................................................................................
Selected local areas3
fi
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml......................................................
2
-
-
176.2
-
179.0
-
167.9
170.5
_
_
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX...........................................
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL.........................................................
2
-
173.5
157.1
-
-
156.6
-
158.8
-
155.2
-
154.3
_
2
-
173.1
175.0
-
170.5
-
172.3
-
172.5
2
-
179.9
-
175.0
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-M D......
-
183.1
-
179.2
-
181.4
_
182.3
San Francisco-O akland-San Jose, CA.................................
2
2
-
190.6
186.1
193.0
188.8
-
186.5
181.1
-
186.8
182.5
_
188.8
-
-
183.6
Seattle-Tacom a-Brem erton, WA............................................
-
182.0
191.3
187.6
-
-
-
173.4
1 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other
goods and services priced a s indicated;
M—Every month.
1—January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2—
February, April, June, August, October, and December.
MO-KS; Milwaukee-Racine, Wl; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA;
Port-land-Salem, OR-WA; St Louis, MO-IL; San Diego, CA; Tam pa-St.
Petersburg-Clearwater, FL.
2 Regions defined as the four Census regions.
Dash indicates data not available.
' Indexes on a November 1996 = 100 base.
3 Indexes on a December 1996 = 100 base.
4 The "North Central” region has been renam ed the "Midwest" region by the C ensus
Bureau. It is com posed of the sam e geographic entities.
6 Indexes on a December 1986 = 100 base.
6 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;
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 m easurem ent 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.
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
117
Current Labor Statistics:
34.
Price Data
Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
[ 1982-84 =
100]
1992
Series
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Food and beverages:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Housing:
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
140.3
3.0
144.5
3.0
148.2
2.6
152.4
2.8
156.9
3.0
160.5
2.3
163.0
1.6
166.6
2.2
172.2
3.4
177.1
2.8
138.7
1.4
141.6
2.1
144.9
2.3
148.9
2.8
153.7
3.2
157.7
2.6
161.1
2.2
164.6
2.2
168.4
2.3
173.6
3.1
137.5
2.9
141.2
2.7
144.8
2.5
148.5
2.6
152.8
2.9
156.8
2.6
160.4
2.3
163.9
2.2
169.6
3.5
176.4
4.0
131.9
2.5
133.7
1.4
133.4
-.2
132.0
-1 .0
131.7
-.2
132.9
.9
133.0
.1
131.3
-1 .3
129.6
-1 .3
127.3
-1 .8
126.5
2.2
130.4
3.1
134.3
3.0
139.1
3.6
143.0
2.8
144.3
0.9
141.6
-1 .9
144.4
2.0
153.3
6.2
154.3
0.7
Percent change.............................................................
Apparel:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Transportation:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Medical care:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Other goods and services:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
190.1
7.4
201.4
5.9
211.0
4.8
220.5
4.5
228.2
3.5
234.6
2.8
242.1
3.2
250.6
3.5
260.8
4.1
272.8
4.6
183.3
6.8
192.9
5.2
198.5
2.9
206.9
4.2
215.4
4.1
224.8
4.4
237.7
5.7
258.3
8.7
271.1
5.0
282.6
4.2
C onsum er Price Index for Urban W age Earners
and Clerical Workers:
All items:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
138.2
2.9
142.1
2.8
145.6
2.5
149.8
2.9
154.1
2.9
157.6
2.3
159.7
1.3
163.2
2.2
168.9
3.5
173.5
2.7
118
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
35.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[ 1982 =
100]
Grouping
Annual average
2000
Finished goods.................................
Finished consumer goods.......................
Finished consumer foods......................
Finshed consumer goods
Nondurable goods less food................
Capital equipment...................................
2001
2001
2002
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
137.4
137.2
141.1
137.7
137.5
142.3
138.9
139.2
143.7
139.2
139.4
139.2
139.7
139.8
139.5
139.4
138.0
138.2
137.2
140.7
141.5
141.3
141.7
142.7
141.6
142.5
143.8
141.8
142.1
143.3
141.9
140.7
141.5
141.2
141.1
142.0
142.6
141.7
142.9
142.9
139.6
139.9
141.8
139.7
138.4
140.5
137.2
136.8
140.4
138.4
138.7
133.9
138.8
141.4
142.8
133 9
139.7
142 9
144.9
134.2
140.0
144.5
147.3
133 8
139.7
143 7
146 5
133 2
139.6
141 4
143 1
133 2
139.8
141 fi
143 5
133 n
139.5
14? 7
145 1
133 ?
139.4
139 n
139 ?
134 4
139.8
137 3
13fi fi
134
139.9
139.7
129.2
128 7
130 6
131.2
131.4
130.3
129.8
130.1
127.6
126.7
125.4
125.5
125.2
126.5
127.6
128.1
119.2
132.6
129.0
126.2
127.4
124.3
131.8
125.2
126.3
128.7
122.3
135.2
126.0
126.6
128.6
124.6
134.2
126.9
126.4
128.3
125.7
133.4
126.5
126.4
127.5
126.1
131.9
125.3
126.2
126.9
128.1
130.1
124.6
126.2
126.6
127.5
129.9
124.2
125.9
125.9
126.1
128.7
123.4
125.9
125.2
123.9
127.4
122.8
125.9
124.7
122.5
126.2
122.5
126.0
124.5
122.1
125.4
122.5
126.3
124.6
122.6
125.4
122.6
126.3
125.3
123.3
126.7
123.6
126.5
125.7
122.0
128.4
123.7
126.3
150.7
102.0
151.6
136.9
150 6
104.5
153.1
138.6
150 4
105.9
153.2
139.0
151 6
108.1
153.9
139.0
151 7
110.2
154.1
138.8
151
n
106.8
153.6
138.8
151
n
106.0
153.2
138.7
108.4
153.0
138.6
97.4
152.4
138.3
94.7
152.2
138.3
89.3
152.2
138.1
90.0
152.6
138.2
88.8
151.9
138.1
92.8
151.6
138.3
97.0
151.2
138.5
120.6
100.2
130.4
121.3
106.2
127.3
132.9
109.1
144.5
130.9
110.3
140.4
122.8
109.7
127.4
116.1
109.6
116.3
113.4
108.9
112.4
108.0
108.5
103.8
97.7
104.7
89.4
104.8
98.3
105.5
94.8
96.4
90.2
98.9
99.6
95.0
98.0
102.0
91.4
102.3
102.9
98.3
107.9
96.4
113.5
138.1
94.1
144.9
147.4
148.0
140.4
96.8
147.5
150.8
150.0
141.6
101.2
147.5
150.6
149.8
142.6
104.1
147.7
151.6
150.0
142.0
102.7
147.6
150.9
149.9
140.5
97.0
147.5
150.7
149.9
140.5
97.8
147.7
151.1
149.7
141.3
100.1
147.9
151.4
149.8
138.8
90.1
147.9
151.3
150.4
137.7
85.5
147.7
151.0
150.6
136.1
80.7
147.6
150.9
150.4
136.3
81.3
147.7
151.1
150.4
136.3
81.3
148.1
151.6
150.4
137.4
85.6
148.3
152.0
150.2
138.7
89.3
147.3
150.6
150.5
154.0
156.9
156.4
156.9
156.7
156.8
156.6
156.8
157.5
157.8
158.0
157.6
157.6
157.4
158.0
n
Intermediate materials,
Materials and components
tor manufacturing......................................
Materials for food manufacturing.............
Materials for nondurable manufacturing..
Materials for durable manufacturing........
Components for manufacturing...............
Materials and components
Processed fuels and lubricants..................
Containers....................................................
Supplies.......................................................
Crude materials for further
processing.....................................
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs............................
Crude nonfood materials.............................
Special groupings:
Finished goods, excluding foods................
Finished energy goods................................
Finished goods less energy........................
Finished consumer goods less energy......
Finished goods less food and energy.......
Finished consumer goods less food
and energy.................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food
and energy...............................................
169.8
175.1
174.0
175.4
175.5
175.5
175.3
175.6
175.8
176.4
176.4
176.4
176.2
176.2
176.2
Intermediate materials less foods
and feeds....................................................
Intermediate foods and feeds.....................
Intermediate energy goods.........................
Intermediate goods less energy.................
Intermediate materials less foods
and energy.................................................
130.1
111.7
101.7
135.0
130.5
115.9
104.1
135.1
131.6
114.0
105.5
136.0
132.1
114.9
107.6
136.1
132.3
116.3
109.7
135.9
131.0
117.1
106.3
135.3
130.4
119.4
105.6
134.9
130.7
118.7
107.9
134.7
128.2
117.3
97.1
134.2
127.3
115.5
94.3
133.7
126.0
114.3
89.0
133.4
126.1
113.6
89.6
133.3
125.9
113.6
88.4
133.3
127.1
114.4
92.4
133.8
128.4
113.7
96.6
134.1
136.6
136.4
137.4
137.5
137.2
136.5
136.0
135.8
135.3
134.9
134.6
134.6
134.6
135.1
135.5
Crude energy materials...............................
Crude materials less energy.......................
Crude nonfood materials less energy........
122.1
111.7
145.2
122.8
112.2
130.6
145.2
114.3
130.8
139.8
115.3
130.9
123.1
114.8
130.6
109.0
114.3
129.4
104.2
113.6
128.4
93.1
113.3
128.5
75.2
109.8
125.8
96.5
104.8
124.5
76.7
103.4
124.2
82.8
106.2
126.1
76.9
108.5
128.1
87.2
108.8
126.7
106.7
105.3
131.4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
119
Current Labor Statistics:
36.
Price Data
Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups
[D ecem ber 1984 = 100, un le ss otherw ise indicated]
Annual average
Industry
SIC
2000
-
10
12
13
14
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Total mining industries...........................
Oil and gas extraction (12/85 - 100)..............
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fuels...................................
Total manufacturing industries.................
Food and kindred products.............................
Tobacco manufactures...................................
Textile mill products.........................................
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar materials......
Lumber and wood products,
except furniture..............................................
Furniture and fixtures.......................................
Paper and allied products...............................
Printing, publishing, and allied industries.......
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum refining and related products........
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..
Leather and leather products..........................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products.....
Fabricated metal products,
except machinery and transportation
equipment.............................
Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies...............................
Transportation.................................................
Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, and optical
goods; watches and clocks...........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
industries (12/85 = 100)................................
2001
2001
2002
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
78.0
81.6
77.9
86.0
99.9
113.5
73.8
84.8
126.8
114.9
70.6
91.3
128.4
132.2
70.0
90.6
151.5
127.5
71.4
92.2
144.9
115.5
71.0
87 7
129.6
103.4
70 4
90 9
112.9
100.4
69 6
89 9
109.4
92.6
70 6
9? 5
98.3
78.8
70 4
9? 7
79.7
93.2
68 1
98.8
79.1
84.0
78.0
90.2
112.1
137.0
141.0
140.8
140.7
141.8
141.6
141.2
141.4
141.9
141.8
141.4
142.3
143.0
143.1
142.9
133.5
128.5
345.8
116.7
134.5
132.8
386.1
116.9
135.4
132.5
372.1
117.0
136.3
133.2
391.2
117.1
136.0
133.8
391.7
117.2
134.6
133.9
391.1
116.9
134.8
134.7
391.0
116.6
135.6
134.7
391.1
116.5
133.6
133.9
391.1
116.2
132.8
132.4
398.3
116.2
131.4
131.8
398.3
116.1
131.7
131.5
391.7
116.5
132.0
132.2
391.8
115.2
132.9
132.3
392.1
115.5
133.8
132.0
407.9
115.7
125.7
125.8
125.9
125.8
125.7
125.9
126.1
125.9
125.9
125.9
125.4
125.3
125.3
125.5
125.1
158.1
143.3
145.8
156.1
145.1
146.2
154.7
144.7
147.0
160.5
144.9
146.9
161.3
145.2
146.8
158.2
145.3
146.4
157.5
145.2
145.4
156.9
145.3
145.5
154.3
145.8
145.1
153.8
145.8
144.4
153.3
145.5
144.7
154.3
145.6
144.2
154.9
145.8
143.4
156.9
145.9
142.8
157.1
145.7
143.2
182.9
156.7
112.8
124.6
137.9
134.6
119.8
188.6
158.4
105.3
125.9
141.2
136.0
116.1
188.4
161.4
114.1
127.4
142.8
135.6
116.8
188.8
160.4
120.9
126.6
142.9
136.0
116.9
188.4
160.0
116.9
126.4
142.6
135.7
116.5
188.6
158.8
103.8
126.5
141.9
135.9
116.1
188.9
156.3
106.8
126.0
142.1
135.9
115 8
188.8
156.4
115.4
125.2
141.3
136.4
115.2
189.2
156.0
93.8
125.6
141.0
136.7
114 7
189.6
155.4
87.2
125.3
140.2
137.1
114.3
189.5
154.0
75.3
125.4
140.0
136.8
114.0
192.0
153.6
77.9
125.6
140.3
136.9
113.7
192.3
154.5
79.6
124.5
140.8
136.8
113.5
192.3
154.8
89.0
124.8
140.7
136.2
114.4
192.2
156.0
100.2
124.8
140.5
136.5
114.7
130.3
131.0
131.2
131.1
131.1
131.1
131.1
131.1
131.0
131.0
131.1
131.1
131.3
131.4
131.4
117.5
117.9
118.0
118.0
118.1
118.1
118 0
117 8
117 7
117 8
117.8
117.8
117.4
117.7
117.6
108.3
136.8
107.0
137.8
107.5
138.1
107.4
137.4
107.3
137.1
106.9
137.3
106.4
137.2
106.4
137.2
106.5
138.5
106.6
138.5
106.6
137.9
107.2
137.7
107.1
137.8
106.8
137.9
106.5
137.7
126.2
127.2
126.9
127.3
127.4
127.2
127.4
127.5
127.1
127.6
127.8
128.2
128.4
128.4
128.1
130.9
132.3
132.2
132.5
132.5
132.7
132.3
132.6
132.6
132.1
132.3
132.5
132.9
132.9
133.1
119.4
135.2
122.6
147.7
102.3
123.1
143.4
130.5
157.3
110.2
122.7
141.3
125.9
155.4
108.9
123.0
141.3
125.6
156.4
109.0
123.2
141.3
130.3
156.6
109.0
123.3
145.4
131.8
157.6
110.9
123.4
145.4
132.0
159.1
111.2
123.6
145.4
140.9
158.6
111.3
123.8
145.4
134.0
159.8
111.5
124.0
145.4
131.2
158.5
111.3
123.3
145.4
129.7
155.3
111.3
123.4
145.4
129.6
158.0
111.2
123.3
145.4
129.5
159.0
111.3
123.2
145.4
128.7
164.4
111.3
123.8
145.4
128.7
160.2
111.3
Service industries:
42
43
44
45
46
120
Motor freight transportation
and warehousing (06/93 = 100).....................
U.S. Postal Service (06/89 = 100)...................
Water transportation (12/92 = 100)..................
Transportation by air (12/92 = 100).................
Pipelines, except natural oas (12/92 - 100)....
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
37.
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
Index
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Finished goods
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
138.0
137.2
94.1
148.0
140.7
141.3
96.8
150.0
114.7
113.9
84.3
122.0
116.2
115.6
84.6
123.8
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
120.8
84.3
133.1
129.2
119.2
101.7
136.6
129.7
124.3
104.1
136.4
100.4
105.1
78.8
94.2
102.4
108.4
76.7
94.1
101.8
106.5
72.1
97.0
102.7
105.8
69.4
105.8
113.8
121.5
85.0
105.7
111.1
112.2
87.3
103.5
96.8
103.9
68.6
84.5
98.2
98.7
78.5
91.1
120.6
100.2
122.1
118.0
121.3
106.2
122.8
101.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components
Crude materials for further processing
O ther..................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Ju n e 2002
121
Current Labor Statistics:
38.
Price D ata
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
[2000 = 100]
SITC
2002
2001
Industry
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
100.9
99.2
105.2
99.7
101.2
97.8
107.2
100.6
102.7
93.1
108.4
110.5
100.0
91.3
106.0
102.4
100.3
93.2
105.4
102.5
100.6
92.0
105.2
103.7
87.1
89.8
89.7
77.7
84.5
82.7
86.3
89.1
88.7
77.4
82.0
81.4
87.1
90.9
88.0
77.2
84.0
81.3
87.1
91.6
88.1
75.8
85.3
84.9
86.9
89.4
87.6
73.9
86.6
87.0
87.7
92.0
87.2
74.1
86.2
87.3
89.7
93.8
87.3
77.1
86.8
91.7
103.3
108.8
103.6
93.4
108.9
88.4
88.3
108.9
80.9
82.4
108.8
74.6
87.1
109.5
80.1
84.3
109.7
76.5
89.8
110.8
83.6
99.7
111.4
95.8
94.1
100.8
99.0
90.0
96.9
98.7
93.8
101.1
99.1
88.6
97.2
99.0
93.8
100.9
99.0
89.2
95.9
98.6
93.6
100.9
98.9
88.5
95.8
98.7
92.8
100.9
98.8
86.5
95.8
97.6
92.2
101.1
97.5
85.4
95.9
98.1
92.3
100.8
97.1
85.8
95.7
97.6
93.2
100.5
97.6
87.6
95.8
98.0
94.7
100.3
97.5
89.9
95.1
97.5
99.1
100.5
98.4
101.0
98.2
101.0
97.3
100.6
96.6
100.5
96.7
100.9
97.3
100.4
97.2
100.4
96.7
100.8
97.4
101.1
97.4
100.8
98.0
95.1
100.8
97.0
95.1
101.0
93.0
95.6
101.1
90.2
95.1
101.1
86.9
95.2
101.4
81.8
95.2
102.1
83.1
95.3
101.7
85.3
94.1
101.4
85.9
92.5
102.1
85.1
93.1
101.9
86.5
100.4
102.3
100.3
100.3
102.3
100.3
100.2
102.4
99.6
100.0
102.8
99.5
100.0
103.0
99.5
99.7
103.1
100.6
99.7
104.1
100.5
99.6
104.0
100.5
99.3
104.6
100.7
99.3
104.4
100.8
99.5
104.6
101.1
99.5
104.6
101.4
101.3
97.7
101.3
96.9
101.3
95.9
101.8
95.6
101.8
94.8
101.9
94.8
101.8
94.6
101.9
94.2
101.7
92.9
102.1
92.5
102.0
92.9
102.2
93.1
102.2
92.5
Road vehicles....................................................................
99.8
98.7
100.2
99.7
98.7
100.2
99.8
98.3
100.2
99.8
97.8
100.3
98.7
97.7
100.2
98.5
97.6
100.2
98.0
95.9
100.3
98.0
95.9
100.2
97.7
95.9
100.3
97.9
94.8
100.1
97.5
94.6
100.2
97.5
94.7
100.3
97.8
94.8
100.3
87 Professional, scientific, and controlling
instrum ents and apparatus.............................................
100.6
100.8
100.9
100.8
100.8
100.9
101.0
100.9
100.9
100.8 I 101.1
101.2
101.1
Rev. 3
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Apr.
May
June
July
0 Food and live anim als.........................................................
Meat and meat preparations.............................................
01
Cereals and cereal preparations......................................
04
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry...........
05
101.9
105.2
104.2
99.8
101.2
106.2
104.3
97.4
101.1
106.1
102.6
98.6
101.8
105.7
102.2
101.7
102.6
106.4
104.5
102.4
103.3
107.8
106.4
100.8
102.7
107.8
103.9
102.1
2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels...........................
Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits..........................................
22
24
Cork and wood...................................................................
Pulp and waste paper.......................................................
25
Textile fibers and their waste...........................................
26
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap..................................
28
94.5
89.7
94.1
88.2
93.5
92.6
93.3
91.0
93.1
82.3
92.5
91.6
92.6
95.6
92.8
80.6
90.9
91.0
92.4
102.5
93.4
78.2
90.4
87.8
91.1
104.3
92.9
76.6
89.3
86.2
89.5
99.0
90.2
77.3
87.7
85.1
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...
104.8
106.4
102.7
106.8
106.6
106.1
103.2
106.9
101.8
96.7
106.8
93.7
97.5
107.9
95.2
5 Chem icals and related products, n.e.s............................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products..........................
54
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations.........
55
Plastics in primary form s..................................................
57
Plastics in nonprimary forms.............................................
58
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s...........................
59
98.1
99.6
99.8
96.1
97.6
99.3
96.9
99.5
99.7
94.9
97.0
98.9
96.2
99.5
99.7
93.9
97.4
99.1
94.9
100.2
99.1
91.2
98.0
98.7
6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by m aterials....
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s..............................................
62
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
64
and paperboard...............................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s........................
66
Nonferrous metals............................................................
68
99.9
99.7
99.7
99.8
99.5
99.8
98.1
100.3
101.6
98.0
100.4
100.0
100.5
102.3
100.3
32
33
7 Machinery and transport equipm ent................................
72
74
75
76
77
78
Nov.
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
Computer equipment and office machines.....................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and equipment.........................
122 M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
Apr.
39.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
[20 0 0 =
100]
SITC
Rev. 3
0
01
M e a t a n d m e a t p r e p a r a t io n s .............................................................
03
F is h a n d c r u s t a c e a n s , m o llu s k s , a n d o th e r
05
07
V e g e t a b le s , fru it, a n d n u ts , p r e p a r e d fr e s h o r d r y .............
a q u a t ic i n v e r t e b r a t e s ...........................................................................
2002
2001
Industry
Apr.
May
June
98 4
104.4
97 3
106.3
96 0
95 1
94 9
95 1
94 7
95 1
Q4 8
106.2
109.3
108.9
113.5
114.8
118.0
91.2
102.9
90.0
97.6
87.0
98.4
8 6 .8
1 0 1 .1
98.2
86.3
98.5
84.6
99.1
82.8
101.5
90.7
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
109.8
105.5
107.4
109.8
1 1 0 .1
82.9
99.3
82.3
106.8
82.0
98.1
80.4
104.0
79.7
104.9
78.8
83.3
88.5
103.2
102.5
102.3
108.1
C o f f e e , t e a , c o c o a , s p ic e s , a n d m a n u f a c t u r e s
89.6
87.4
85.8
81.2
78.8
80.1
77.3
77.2
78.5
77.5
100.6
1 0 2 .0
1 -2 n
102 7
102 6
103 0
102 Q
102.7
101 7
102.4
102 1
1 0 1 .0
101 7
102.4
102.4
102.4
1 0 2 .6
1 0 2 .6
103.1
103.2
95 0
98 1
102 8
96 4
95 8
Q6 6
104.9
92.4
95.5
94.9
1 2 2 .1
109.6
79.3
93.1
81.0
97.5
87.1
93.9
92.9
108.2
83.5
94.4
80.8
1 1 2 .2
C r u d e a n im a l a n d v e g e t a b le m a t e r ia ls , n .e .s .........................
94.7
98.3
96.5
86.5
89.8
93.1
91.7
77 7
91.2
96.0
3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related products.............
33
P e t r o le u m , p e tr o le u m p ro d u c ts , a n d r e la t e d m a t e r ia ls ...
34
G a s , n a t u r a l a n d m a n u f a c t u r e d ......................................................
90.2
85.8
119.0
93.1
90.0
113.7
90.4
89.3
97.4
94.4
84.4
82.8
85.6
85.8
8 6 .1
8 6 .8
80.9
77.8
72.3
73.0
65.7
65.0
63.0
75.9
5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s............................
52
In o r g a n ic c h e m ic a ls .................................................................................
53
D y in g , t a n n in g , a n d c o lo rin g m a t e r ia ls .......................................
54
M e d ic in a l a n d p h a r m a c e u t ic a l p r o d u c ts ....................................
55
E s s e n tia l o ils; p o lis h in g a n d c le a n in g p r e p a r a t io n s ............
57
P la s tic s in p r im a r y f o r m s ......................................................................
58
P la s tic s in n o n p r im a r y f o r m s .............................................................
59
C h e m ic a l m a t e r ia ls a n d p ro d u c ts , n .e .s ....................................
1 0 2 .2
1 0 1 .6
104.0
100.8
96.9
99.0
101.1
103.8
100.9
101.2
100.2
96.7
98.7
101.1
103.6
100.1
100.5
100.1
98.1
96.7
98.4
102.1
102.4
99.9
99.3
99.4
95.6
99.0
98.1
102.1
100.7
99.1
98.4
98.0
95.7
97.3
98.1
100.5
100.7
99.0
98.3
98.1
96.3
97.0
99.7
99.7
99.3
99.0
98.8
99.4
97.1
97.5
99.8
99.8
97.8
98.9
96.8
97.3
99.7
99.8
6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....
62
R u b b e r m a n u f a c t u r e s , n . e . s ..............................................................
64
P a p e r , p a p e r b o a r d , a n d a r tic le s o f p a p e r , p u lp ,
99.1
99.4
98.2
99.4
98.0
99.0
96.8
98.8
95.0
98.7
a n d p a p e r b o a r d ......................................................................................
104.7
99.6
99.6
100.1
103.7
99.7
96.1
100.0
102.7
99.4
95.3
100.1
101.7
99.3
91.0
99.3
98.7
99.5
98.5
99.2
98.5
99.1
98.8
94.1
98.3
93.9
t h e r e o f ..........................................................................................................
1
11
B e v e r a g e s .....................................................................................................
2
24
25
28
29
Apr.
C o r k a n d w o o d ...........................................................................................
M e t a llif e r o u s o r e s a n d m e t a l s c r a p ..............................................
66
68
69
M a n u f a c t u r e s o f m e t a ls , n .e .s ..........................................................
7
Machinery and transport equipm ent................................
72
74
M a c h in e r y s p e c ia liz e d fo r p a r tic u la r in d u s tr ie s .....................
N o n m e t a llic m in e r a l m a n u f a c t u r e s , n .e .s ..................................
N o n f e r r o u s m e t a ls ....................................................................................
77 3
92.8
83.8
105.1
76 8
91.6
93.4
78 0
92.6
98.6
106.6
78 1
77 2
74 Q
73 4
91.4
92.2
92.7
91.7
93.7
92.3
95.0
90.5
61.2
59.8
68.7
64.0
62.6
70.8
65.2
65.6
58.2
76.4
77.4
64.8
87.1
86.7
97.7
97.0
97.8
97.1
100.1
98.6
100.8
96.1
96.7
97.1
97.4
96.3
99.9
97.1
100.6
95.2
96.3
97.8
97.2
96.0
99.8
91.5
100.6
93.6
8 6 .0
99.2
98.6
97.5
97.6
97.1
97.0
100.1
99.8
100.9
97.8
94.8
98.7
93.8
98.5
92.4
97.8
92.0
97.9
92.4
97.3
92.3
97.6
92.2
97.6
92.6
97.9
99.9
99.1
83.4
99.3
99.3
99.3
82.2
99.3
98 6
97.5
78.7
99.7
97 6
96 1
97.5
73.8
99.0
95 0
97.2
76.4
99.0
03 7
03 4
02 5
97.2
73.7
99.5
97.0
77.2
98.5
96.9
76.9
98.5
96.9
79.2
98.5
98.2
98.5
98.1
98.6
98.0
99.1
98.0
99.2
97.9
99.0
97.7
98.7
97.4
98.5
97.2
98.5
97.1
98.5
97.2
98.6
98.2
93.6
98.0
92.1
97.8
91.7
98.0
90.0
98.7
89.1
98.1
89.0
97.8
88.8
98.1
88.6
97.5
88.2
97.5
88.1
97.6
88.2
96.4
98.6
95.7
96.9
1,001.0
95.1
97.0
100.2
94.8
96.8
100.1
94.8
97.0
100.2
1 0 1 .6
1 0 1 .1
97.3
98.5
95.6
96.4
98.9
91.4
1 0 1 .8
94.5
G e n e r a l in d u s tria l m a c h in e s a n d p a r ts , n .e .s .,
a n d m a c h in e p a r t s .................................................................................
75
76
T e le c o m m u n ic a t io n s a n d s o u n d re c o r d in g a n d
77
78
R o a d v e h ic le s ..............................................................................................
97.3
99.3
99.9
97.1
99.2
99.7
97.2
98.8
99.8
97.3
98.9
99.7
97.1
98.7
88.7
96.8
98.6
100.0
96.5
98.7
100.3
1 0 0 .2
96.3
97.0
100.3
85
F o o t w e a r .........................................................................................................
100.4
100.2
100.1
100.1
100.5
100.4
99.9
99.9
100.3
99.3
99.6
99.5
99.0
88
P h o to g r a p h ic a p p a r a t u s , e q u ip m e n t , a n d s u p p lie s ,
98.9
98.8
98.5
97.9
97.9
98.2
98.6
98.5
98.4
97.7
97.3
97.2
97.2
June 2002
123
C o m p u t e r e q u ip m e n t a n d o ffic e m a c h in e s ..............................
r e p r o d u c in g a p p a r a t u s a n d e q u ip m e n t ...................................
E le c tric a l m a c h in e r y a n d e q u ip m e n t ............................................
a n d o p tic a l o o o d s , n .e .s .....................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Current Labor Statistics:
40.
[2000
Price D ata
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category
=
100]
2001
Category
Apr.
May
2002
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
ALL COMMODITIES..........................................................
99.9
99.6
99.4
99.0
98.8
99.0
98.3
97.8
97.6
97.5
97.3
97.6
98.0
Foods, feeds, and beverages.......................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages.................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....
100.2
100.6
97.0
99.8
100.6
92.7
100.4
101.2
92.6
101.7
102.4
94.8
102.6
104.0
90.2
102.6
103.6
92.9
101.2
102.2
91.9
99.7
100.7
90.9
100.6
101.6
90.4
102.0
102.6
96.3
98.9
99.4
94.5
99.5
99.8
96.5
100.1
100.7
94.0
Industrial supplies and materials...................................
98.7
98.0
97.2
95.5
94.8
95.2
93.6
92.3
91.4
91.5
91.4
91.9
93.5
Agricultural industrial supplies and materials...........
101.7
102.1
99.3
98.5
97.2
96.8
93.8
92.1
93.3
92.3
92.9
93.8
94.4
Fuels and lubricants.....................................................
Nonagricultural supplies and materials,
excluding fuel and building materials......................
Selected building materials........................................ .
103.9
106.0
102.8
96.9
97.6
103.2
93.6
88.5
83.5
85.6
83.8
85.6
90.4
97.8
96.8
96.5
96.3
96.1
97.0
94.9
97.0
94.0
96.8
93.8
95.5
93.4
95.1
92.8
94.4
92.3
94.1
92.3
94.4
92.2
94.4
92.7
94.3
94.0
94.1
Capital goods...................................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment...........
Nonelectrical machinery.............................................
100.5
101.3
99.5
100.4
101.7
99.4
100.3
101.7
99.1
100.2
101.8
98.9
100.0
101.5
98.6
100.0
101.6
98.6
99.7
101.6
98.2
99.7
101.6
98.1
99.4
101.5
97.7
99.1
102.1
97.2
99.2
102.0
97.3
99.4
102.1
97.5
99.4
101.9
97.5
Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines.....................
100.5
100.5
100.4
100.5
100.5
100.4
100.5
100.4
100.5
100.7
100.8
100.9
100.9
Consumer goods, excluding automotive......................
Nondurables, manufactured.......................................
Durables, manufactured..............................................
99.5
98.9
100.1
99.4
98.9
99.9
99.4
99.0
100.0
99.5
98.9
100.2
99.5
98.9
100.2
99.7
99.1
100.4
99.7
99.0
100.6
99.8
99.1
100.5
99.9
99.1
100.5
99.5
98.2
100.6
99.1
98.2
99.9
99.1
98.2
99.6
98.9
98.2
99.0
Agricultural commodities.................................................
Nonagricultural commodities..........................................
100.8
99.8
100.8
99.5
100.9
99.3
101.8
98.8
102.8
98.5
102.5
98.6
100.7
98.1
99.2
97.7
100.2
97.3
100.9
97.2
98.3
97.2
98.8
97.5
99.6
97.8
Dec.
Jan.
41.
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
2000 = 100]
[
2001
Category
Apr.
2002
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
ALL COMMODITIES..........................................................
97.8
98.0
97.6
96.1
96.0
95.9
93.7
92.3
91.4
91.6
91.6
92.8
94.3
Foods, feeds, and beverages.......................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages.................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....
97.0
98.9
3.1
96.6
98.4
92.9
95.4
97.0
92.2
94.4
96.7
89.7
94.5
96.9
89.5
95.0
97.8
89.2
94.5
97.8
87.8
95.2
99.5
86.4
94.6
98.3
86.8
95.7
99.8
87.0
93.8
97.2
86.8
95.0
99.5
85.5
95.9
100.9
85.1
Industrial supplies and materials...................................
95.4
96.5
95.5
91.4
91.0
91.0
84.3
79.9
77.6
79.1
79.8
84.9
90.3
Fuels and lubricants.....................................................
Petroleum and petroleum products.......................
90.4
86.2
93.4
90.3
90.9
89.4
84.8
84.6
86.0
86.1
86.1
86.7
72.9
73.4
65.7
63.6
61.6
59.9
64.5
63.0
65.9
65.7
76.4
76.9
87.1
86.7
Paper and paper b ase stocks....................................
Materials associated with nondurable
supplies and materials...............................................
Selected building materials.........................................
Unfinished metals associated with durable goods...
Nonmetals associated with durable goods...............
104.6
102.2
100.0
98.0
95.1
93.9
93.1
92.3
90.7
90.0
88.8
88.0
87.0
102.2
93.9
96.9
101.2
101.4
100.1
94.2
100.9
100.3
111.1
93.6
100.6
98.6
103.0
91.4
100.1
98.0
102.9
87.4
100.2
97.9
103.7
87.1
100.4
98.0
99.9
85.1
99.9
96.7
96.1
82.1
98.9
96.2
92.9
82.1
99.0
96.3
93.1
83.2
98.4
96.0
96.1
83.8
97.7
95.9
100.7
83.8
97.2
97.4
101.0
86.2
97.6
Capital goods...................................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment...........
Nonelectrical machinery.............................................
98.0
101.6
97.1
97.8
101.8
96.9
97.7
101.8
96.7
97.3
101.6
96.2
97.1
101.3
96.0
96.8
101.4
95.6
96.7
101.4
95.4
96.5
101.2
95.3
96.2
100.6
94.9
95.7
97.3
94.8
95.4
96.7
94.5
95.2
95.5
94.4
95.2
95.3
94.5
Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines.....................
100.0
99.8
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.9
100.1
100.0
100.1
99.8
100.1
99.9
100.1
Consumer goods, excluding automotive......................
Nondurables, manufactured.......................................
Durables, manufactured..............................................
Nonmanufactured consumer goods..........................
99.5
100.1
99.1
98.2
99.5
100.0
99.0
99.6
99.3
99.8
98.9
99.2
99.2
100.0
98.6
97.6
99.2
100.0
98.6
97.4
99.1
99.6
98.7
97.9
98.9
99.6
98.4
95.8
98.8
99.6
98.3
95.7
98.7
99.7
98.0
96.4
98.7
99.8
97.8
95.8
98.4
99.7
97.4
95.7
98.2
99.2
97.3
96.1
98.1
99.1
97.3
95.8
42.
U.S. international price Indexes for selected categories of services
[2000 =
100]
2000
Category
Mar.
June
2001
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
2002
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Air freight (inbound)............................................................
Air freight (outbound)..........................................................
100.7
99.2
100.1
100.3
100.2
100.2
99.0
100.2
97.9
100.1
95.1
98.0
94.9
97.6
95.2
97.9
93.8
95.3
Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers)...................................
Air passenger fares (foreign carriers)..............................
Ocean liner freight (inbound)............................................
95.8
97.1
96.6
101.2
102.1
101.3
103.1
103.2
101.1
99.9
97.6
101.0
101.9
100.7
102.8
106.4
103.8
100.8
107.6
110.2
98.1
103.5
100.8
93.6
103.3
99.4
91.7
124
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
43.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
[1992 = 100]
Item
1999
2000
2001
2002
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
1
112.7
123.1
106.6
109.2
114.5
111.2
112.4
124.4
106.9
110.7
112.6
111.4
113.3
126.1
107.5
111.3
112.3
111.7
115.3
127.3
107.7
110.4
114.8
112.0
115.3
129.3
108.4
112.2
114.2
112.9
117.5
132.1
110.0
113.5
115.1
113.5
117.8
134.3
110.8
114.0
113.8
113.9
118.7
137.4
112.5
115.8
112.0
114.4
118.6
139.1
112.8
117.3
111.7
115.2
119.3
140.9
113.4
118.1
111.5
115.7
119.5
142.1
114.1
118.9
111.7
116.2
121.1
142.9
114.9
119.1
112.0
115.8
123.6
143.8
115.6
116.4
114.8
115.8
112.2
122.2
105.8
109.0
116.0
111.5
111.8
123.5
106.1
110.4
114.2
111.8
112.7
125.1
106.8
111.1
114.0
112.1
113.8
126.6
107.1
110.2
116.5
112.5
113.8
128.7
107.9
112.1
115.9
113.5
116.7
131.2
109.2
112.5
116.7
114.0
117.2
133.6
110.2
114.0
115.3
114.5
117.8
136.5
111.8
115.8
113.4
114.9
117.8
138.1
112.0
117.2
113.1
115.7
118.4
139.7
112.4
118.0
112.9
116.1
118.7
141.0
113.2
118.7
112.9
116.1
120.2
141.8
114.0
117.9
113.9
116.4
115.8
122.8
142.7
114.7
116.2
116.4
114.5
119.1
103.1
103.7
104.1
102.8
141.6
112.7
106.9
114.7
120.4
103.5
104.5
104.9
103.4
135.4
111.6
107.1
115.4
121.9
104.0
105.4
105.6
105.0
128.0
110.8
107.4
116.4
123.2
104.2
105.6
105.8
105.1
131.3
111.8
107.8
117.2
125.0
104.8
106.5
106.6
106.2
135.1
113.6
108.9
118.8
127.6
106.1
107.1
107.4
106.5
139.3
114.8
109.8
119.6
129.7
107.0
108.1
108.5
107.1
135.8
114.4
110.5
119.8
132.7
108.7
110.0
110.8
107.8
120.5
111.0
110.9
119.9
134.5
109.1
111.4
112.2
109.3
111.1
109.8
111.4
120.9
136.5
109.9
112.5
112.9
111.2
107.4
110.2
112.0
121.2
138.1
110.9
114.0
114.0
114.2
99.6
110.4
112.8
124.4
139.4
112.5
111.9
112.0
111.6
111.6
111.6
111.9
127.6
119.8
103.7
93.9
128.3
121.2
104.2
94.4
129.6
123.0
104.9
94.9
132.7
124.5
105.4
93.8
135.2
126.3
105.9
93.4
137.2
128.6
107.0
93.8
138.3 2‘138.3
131.9
135.9
108.8
111.3
95.4
97.6
138.3
137.9
111.8
99.7
138.1
140.0
112.6
101.3
139.0
141.2
113.4
101.5
140.4
142.0
114.2
101.2
Business
Output per hour of all persons.........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real compensation per hour............................................
Unit labor costs...................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator...........................................................
Nonfarm business
Output per hour of all persons..........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real compensation per hour.............................................
Unit labor costs........................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator........................................................
Nonfinancial corporations
Output per hour of all em ployees.....................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real com pensation per hour.............................................
Total unit costs.................................................................
Unit labor costs..........................................................
Unit nonlabor costs.......................................................
Unit profits............................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator...........................................................
_
_
_
_
-
Manufacturing
Output per hour of all persons..........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real compensation per hour.............................................
Unit labor costs.............................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
143.9
142.9
114.9
99.3
125
Current Labor Statistics:
44.
Productivity Data
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years
[1996 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
Item
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Private business
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.................................
45.6
110.4
65.2
27.5
63.0
111.1
80.0
42.0
75.8
101.5
88.3
59.4
90.2
99.3
95.3
83.6
91.3
96.1
94.4
82.6
94.8
97.7
96.6
85.7
95.4
98.5
97.1
88.5
96.6
100.3
98.1
92.8
97.3
99.7
98.4
95.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.0
100.5
101.1
105.2
104.8
100.1
102.6
110.6
104.8
100.1
102.6
110.6
54.0
24.9
42.3
41.3
61.0
37.8
52.4
56.7
71.9
58.6
67.3
74.7
89.4
84.2
87.7
90.8
88.3
86.0
87.5
95.0
89.3
87.7
97.0
91.8
89.8
91.1
96.8
95.6
92.6
94.6
96.3
98.0
96.0
97.3
97.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.7
104.7
104.0
101.5
106.4
110.4
107.7
104.7
106.4
110.4
107.7
104.7
48.7
120.1
69.1
27.2
64.9
118.3
82.6
41.9
77.3
105.7
90.5
59.6
90.3
100.0
95.6
83.5
91.4
96.6
94.7
82.5
94.8
97.9
96.6
85.5
95.3
98.8
97.1
88.4
96.5
100.3
98.1
92.6
97.5
99.9
98.6
95.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.7
100.2
100.9
105.1
104.5
99.8
102.4
110.6
104.5
99 8
102.4
110.6
50.1
22.6
39.3
40.5
59.3
35.5
50.7
54.8
70.7
56.4
65.9
73.1
89.2
83.5
87.3
90.3
88.0
85.4
87.1
94.7
89.0
87.3
88.4
96.8
91.8
89.5
91.0
96.5
95.4
92.3
94.4
96.3
97.8
95.9
97.2
97.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.8
104.9
104.2
101.5
106.6
110.8
108.0
104.7
106.6
110.8
108.0
104.7
41.8
124.3
72.7
38.5
54.2
116.5
84.4
56.5
70.1
100.9
86.6
75.3
92.8
101.6
99.3
97.3
95.0
97.5
98.3
95.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.9
101.1
100.4
103.3
105.0
104.0
102.6
108.7
109.0
105.0
105.0
113.4
112.8
104.5
106.1
116.9
117.1
105.6
109.8
123.5
124.3
106.5
113.2
130.7
124.3
106.5
113.2
130.7
92.0
30.9
51.3
38.2
28.2
52.9
104.2
48.5
85.4
44.8
48.8
67.0
107.5
74.7
92.5
75.0
73.7
87.0
104.8
95.8
99.9
92.5
92.5
98.0
100.4
97.9
100.1
93.6
92.1
97.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
102.2
103.7
105.7
103.0
102.9
103.6
104.5
107.3
111.3
105.1
106.0
104.0
108.0
109.5
112.8
110.0
107.9
103.7
111.9
107.0
120.4
108.9
110.2
105.5
116.9
103.9
120.4
114.2
112.5
105.2
122.8
109.2
127.2
116.8
115.5
105.2
122.8
109.2
127.2
116.8
115.5
88.8
Private nonfarm business
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.......................................
Manufacturing (1992 =100)
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.................................
126
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
45.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
[1992= 100]
Item
1960
1970
1980
1990
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Business
Output per hour of all persons..........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real compensation per hour............................................
Unit labor c osts....................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator..........................................................
48.8
13.7
60.0
28.0
25.2
27.0
67.0
23.5
78.9
35.1
31.6
33.9
80.4
54.2
89.4
67.4
61.5
65.2
95.2
90.7
96.5
95.3
93.9
94.8
100.5
102.5
99.9
101.9
102.5
102.2
101.9
104.5
99.7
102.6
106.4
104.0
102.6
106.7
99.3
104.1
109.4
106.0
105.4
110.1
99.7
104.5
113.3
107.7
107.8
113.5
100.6
105.3
117.1
109.7
110.8
119.6
104.6
108.0
115.1
110.6
113.8
125.1
107.1
109.9
115.1
111.8
116.9
132.8
110.1
113.6
113.9
113.7
119.6
141.2
114.2
118.1
111.8
115.8
51.9
14.3
62.8
27.5
24.6
26.5
68.9
23.7
79.5
34.4
31.3
33.3
82.0
54.6
90.0
66.5
60.5
64.3
95.3
90.5
96.3
95.0
93.6
94.5
100.5
102.2
99.6
101.7
103.0
102.2
101.8
104.3
99.5
102.5
106.9
104.1
102.8
106.6
99.2
103.7
110.4
106.1
105.4
109.8
99.4
104.2
113.5
107.6
107.5
113.1
100.2
105.2
118.0
109.8
110.4
119.0
104.0
107.7
116.3
110.8
113.2
124.2
106.4
109.7
116.8
112.3
116.2
132.0
109.4
113.6
115.4
114.2
118.8
140.1
113.3
117.9
113.3
116.2
55.4
15.6
68.3
26.8
28.1
23.3
50.2
30.2
28.8
70.4
25.3
84.7
34.8
35.9
31.9
44.4
35.1
35.6
81.1
56.4
93.1
68.4
69.6
65.1
68.8
66.0
68.4
95.4
90.8
96.7
95.9
95.2
98.0
94.3
97.1
95.8
100.7
102.0
99.5
101.0
101.3
100.2
113.2
103.5
102.1
103.1
104.2
99.4
101.1
101.0
101.3
131.7
109.0
103.7
104.2
106.2
98.8
102.0
101.9
102.2
139.0
111.6
105.1
107.5
109.0
98.7
101.2
101.4
100.6
152.2
113.8
105.5
108.4
110.3
97.8
101.5
101.8
100.9
156.9
115.2
106.2
112.3
115.9
101.3
102.6
103.2
101.2
148.9
113.4
106.6
116.2
121.1
103.7
103.7
104.2
102.5
147.6
114.0
107.4
119.9
128.3
106.4
106.7
107.0
105.6
131.0
112.1
108.7
121.6
137.1
110.9
112.4
112.8
111.6
107.4
110.5
112.0
41.8
14.9
65.2
35.6
26.8
30.2
54.2
23.7
79.5
43.8
29.3
34.9
70.1
55.6
91.7
79.3
80.2
79.8
92.8
90.8
96.6
97.8
99.7
99.0
101.9
102.7
100.2
100.8
100.9
100.9
105.0
105.6
100.8
100.7
102.8
102.0
109.0
107.9
100.4
99.0
106.9
103.9
112.8
109.3
99.0
96.9
109.9
104.9
117.1
111.4
98.8
95.1
109.6
104.0
124.3
117.3
102.6
94.4
104.4
100.5
129.6
122.0
104.5
94.1
105.5
101.1
137.5
130.7
108.8
95.1
139.0
140.2
113.4
100.9
-
-
June 2002
127
Nonfarm business
Output per hour of all persons..........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real com pensation per hour.............................................
Unit labor costs....................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator..........................................................
Nonfinancial corporations
Output per hour of all em ployees.....................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real compensation per hour.............................................
Total unit costs....................................................................
Unit labor costs..................................................................
Unit nonlabor costs...........................................................
Unit profits.............................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator...........................................................
Manufacturing
Output per hour of all persons..........................................
Compensation per hour.....................................................
Real com pensation per hour.............................................
Unit labor costs....................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.....................................................
Implicit price deflator...........................................................
_
_
Dash indicates data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
Current Labor Statistics:
46.
Productivity Data
Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries
[ 1987= 100]
Industry
SIC
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
102
104
122
131
142
102.7
122.3
118.7
97.0
102.2
100.5
127.4
122.4
97.9
99.8
115.2
141.6
133.0
102.1
105.0
118.1
159.8
141.2
105.9
103.6
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
158.5
176.6
125.2
112.6
118.3
187.6
188.0
127.5
110.2
110.0
197.5
194.9
134.5
105.0
122.6
239.9
207.0
142.5
101.9
Meat products....................................................
Dairy products...........................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables...............................
Grain mill products.....................................................
Bakery products...........................................................
201
202
203
204
205
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
101.2
111.8
107.6
108.4
96.4
102.3
116.4
109.1
115.4
97.3
97.4
116.0
109.2
108.0
95.6
102.5
119.3
110.7
118.2
99.1
102.3
119.3
117.8
126.2
100.9
101.8
112.7
120.4
129.3
106.4
102.9
113.5
123.5
127.5
107.6
Sugar and confectionery products...........................
Fats and oils...............................................................
B everages....................................................................
Miscellaneous food and kindred products...............
C igarettes.....................................................................
206
207
208
209
211
103.2
118.1
117.0
99.2
113.2
102.0
120.1
120.0
101.7
107.6
99.8
114.1
127.1
101.5
111.6
104.5
112.6
126.4
105.2
106.5
106.2
111.8
130.1
100.9
126.6
108.3
120.3
133.5
102.9
142.9
113.7
110.1
135.0
109.1
147.2
116.7
120.2
135.5
104.0
147.2
123.0
137.3
136.4
112.4
152.2
127.0
154.4
129.7
113.9
137.7
130.5
151.4
128.6
116.3
139.1
Broadwoven fabric mills, cotton................................
Broadwoven fabric mills, m anm ade.........................
Narrow fabric mills......................................................
Knitting mills................................................................
Textile finishing, except wool....................................
221
222
224
225
226
103.1
111.3
96.5
107.5
83.4
111.2
116.2
99.6
114.0
79.9
110.3
126.2
112.9
119.3
78.6
117.8
131.7
111.4
127.9
79.3
122.1
142.5
120.1
134.1
81.2
134.0
145.3
118.9
138.3
78.5
137.3
147.6
126.3
150.3
79.2
131.2
162.2
110.8
138.0
94.3
136.2
168.6
117.7
135.9
93.7
139.3
175.3
124.9
146.6
94.4
140.2
167.4
117.1
155.6
97.2
Carpets and rugs.....................................................
Yarn and thread mills.................................................
M iscellaneous textile goods.......................................
Men's and boys' furnishings.......................................
W omen's and misses' outerwear..............................
227
228
229
232
233
93.2
110.2
109.2
102.1
104.1
89.2
111.4
104.6
108.4
104.3
96.1
119.6
106.5
109.1
109.4
97.1
126.6
110.4
108.4
121.8
93.3
130.7
118.5
111.7
127.4
95.8
137.4
123.7
123.4
135.5
100.2
147.4
123.1
134.7
141.6
100.3
150.4
118.7
162.1
149.9
102.3
153.0
120.1
174.8
151.9
96.0
157.6
128.0
190.9
173.9
103.0
155.4
134.4
200.3
189.9
W omen's and children's undergarm ents.................
Hats, caps, and millinery............................................
M iscellaneous apparel and accessories.................
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products
Sawmills and planing mills.........................................
234
235
238
239
242
102.1
89.2
90.6
99.9
99.8
113.7
91.1
91.8
100.7
102.6
117.4
93.6
91.3
107.5
108.1
124.5
87.2
94.0
108.5
101.9
138.0
77.7
105.5
107.8
103.3
161.3
84.3
116.8
109.2
110.2
174.5
82.2
120.1
105.6
115.6
208.9
87.1
101.5
119.2
116.9
216.4
98.7
108.0
117.3
118.7
294.7
99.3
105.8
128.8
125.4
352.3
106.1
111.3
132.5
124.4
Millwork, plywood, and structural members............
Wood containers.........................................................
Wood buildings and mobile hom es...........................
Miscellaneous wood products....................................
Household furniture.....................................................
243
244
245
249
251
98.0
111.2
103.1
107.7
104.5
98.0
113.1
103.0
110.5
107.1
99.9
109.4
103.1
114.2
110.5
97.0
100.1
103.8
115.3
110.6
94.5
100.9
98.3
111.8
112.5
92.7
106.1
97.0
115.4
116.9
92.4
106.7
96.7
114.4
121.6
89.1
106.2
100.3
123.4
121.3
91.3
106.5
99.2
131.2
125.7
89.2
103.9
100.3
140.7
128.9
91.4
104.6
94.6
146.5
128.4
Office furniture.............................................................
Public building and related furniture........................
Partitions and fixtures.................................................
Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures.........................
Pulp mills.......................................................................
252
253
254
259
261
95.0
119.8
95.6
103.5
116.7
94.1
120.2
93.0
102.1
128.3
102.5
140.6
102.7
99.5
137.3
103.2
161.0
107.4
103.6
122.5
100.5
157.4
98.9
104.7
128.9
101.1
173.3
101.2
110.0
131.9
106.4
181.5
97.5
113.2
132.6
118.3
214.9
121.1
110.7
82.3
113.1
207.6
125.6
121.9
86.6
108.9
222.4
125.9
119.1
84.8
111.2
202.0
131.9
110.5
78.8
P aper mills....................................................................
Paperboard mills........................................................
Paperboard containers and boxes............................
Miscellaneous converted paper products................
N ew spapers.........................................................
262
263
265
267
271
102.3
100.6
101.3
101.4
90.6
99.2
101.4
103.4
105.3
85.8
103.3
104.4
105.2
105.5
81.5
102.4
108.4
107.9
107.9
79.4
110.2
114.9
108.4
110.6
79.9
118.6
119.5
105.1
113.3
79.0
111.6
118.0
106.3
113.6
77.4
112.0
126.7
109.7
119.5
79.0
114.8
127.8
113.5
123.0
83.6
126.2
134.9
111.9
126.0
86.0
133.5
135.3
112.9
128.3
88.3
Periodicals.................................................................
Books.........................................................
M iscellaneous publishing..........................................
Commercial printing....................................................
Manifold business forms.............................................
272
273
274
275
276
93.9
96.6
92.2
102.5
93.0
89.5
100.8
95.9
102.0
89.1
92.9
97.7
105.8
108.0
94.5
89.5
103.5
104.5
106.9
91.1
81.9
103.0
97.5
106.5
82.0
87.8
101.6
94.8
107.2
76.9
89.1
99.3
93.6
108.3
75.2
100.1
102.6
114.5
108.8
77.9
112.2
100.9
119.4
109.9
76.7
111.2
106.1
127.2
115.0
70.6
109.9
106.1
127.8
118.7
69.4
Greeting cards.............................................................
Blankbooks and bookbinding....................................
Printing trade services................................................
Industrial inorganic chemicals...................................
Plastics materials and synthetics.............................
277
278
279
281
282
100.6
99.4
99.3
106.8
100.9
92.7
96.1
100.6
109.7
100.0
96.7
103.6
112.0
109.7
107.5
91.4
98.7
115.3
105.6
112.0
89.0
105.4
111.0
102.3
125.3
92.5
108.7
116.7
109.3
128.3
90.8
114.5
126.2
110.1
125.3
92.2
114.2
123.3
116.8
135.4
104.1
116.5
126.7
145.8
142.2
109.3
123.8
121.5
148.5
148.6
105.1
126.2
119.6
141.3
151.0
Drugs....................................................................
S oaps, cleaners, and toilet goods............................
Paints and allied products.........................................
Industrial organic chemicals.......................................
Agricultural chemicals.................................................
283
284
285
286
287
103.8
103.8
106.3
101.4
104.7
104.5
105.3
104.3
95.8
99.5
99.5
104.4
102.9
94.6
99.5
99.7
108.7
108.8
92.2
103.8
104.6
111.2
116.7
99.9
105.0
108.7
118.6
118.0
98.6
108.5
112.5
120.9
125.6
99.0
110.0
112.4
126.4
126.4
111.3
119.8
104.3
122.7
126.8
105.7
118.0
105.6
114.8
122.7
120.6
104.6
106.2
124.8
124.6
127.8
112.0
Mining
Copper ores...............................................................
Gold and silver o res...................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining...........................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s ............................
Crushed and broken stone........................................
Manufacturing
S ee footnotes at end of table.
128
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
46. Continued - Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries
[1987=100]
2000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
96.1
106.6
94.1
90.6
102.4
101.8
111.3
100.4
101.5
107.8
107.1
120.1
108.0
104.2
116.5
105.7
123.8
104.9
96.3
124.1
107.8
132.3
111.2
87.4
131.1
110.1
142.0
113.1
87.1
138.8
120.3
149.2
123.1
96.5
149.1
120.8
155.8
124.7
98.5
144.1
123.3
170.2
123.4
86.5
142.1
125.6
180.2
126.1
82.9
145.9
96.1
109.0
105.7
101.1
84.5
92.4
109.9
108.3
94.4
83.6
97.8
115.2
114.4
104.2
92.7
99.7
123.1
116.7
105.2
97.7
102.7
119.1
120.8
113.0
97.6
104.6
121.5
121.0
117.1
99.6
107.4
121.0
124.7
126.1
101.5
113.5
125.3
¡29.9
121.4
107.6
112.7
132.3
133.8
110.9
114.0
110.6
136.9
140.9
132.6
129.4
115.4
144.7
145.4
146.2
140.4
322
323
324
325
326
104.8
92.6
112.4
109.6
98.7
102.3
97.7
108.3
109.8
95.9
108.9
101.5
115.1
111.4
99.5
108.7
106.2
119.9
106.8
100.3
112.9
105.9
125.6
114.0
108.5
115.7
106.1
124.3
112.6
109.4
121.4
122.0
128.7
119.6
119.4
128.3
125.1
133.1
111.9
124.2
135.2
122.0
134.1
114.8
127.4
139.3
130.2
138.6
123.5
122.0
135.8
137.2
136.9
124.8
121.2
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products.................
M iscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products.........
Blast furnace and basic steel products....................
Iron and steel foundries.............................................
Primary nonferrous metals.........................................
327
329
331
332
333
102.3
95.4
109.7
106.1
102.3
101.2
94.0
107.8
104.5
110.7
102.5
104.3
117.0
107.2
101.9
104.6
104.5
133.6
112.1
107.9
101.5
106.3
142.4
113.0
105.3
104.5
107.8
142.6
112.7
111.0
107.3
110.4
147.5
116.2
110.8
107.6
114.7
155.0
120.8
112.0
112.8
114.9
151.0
121.1
118.9
111.1
113.3
155.6
128.9
117.7
105.1
116.1
160.1
132.1
111.9
Nonferrous rolling and drawing.................................
Nonferrous foundries (castings)................................
Miscellaneous primary metal products....................
Metal cans and shipping containers.........................
Cutlery, handtools, and hardw are............................
335
336
339
341
342
92.7
104.0
113.7
117.6
97.3
91.0
103.6
109.1
122.9
96.8
96.0
103.6
114.5
127.8
100.1
98.3
108.5
111.3
132.3
104.0
101.2
112.1
134.5
140.9
109.2
99.2
117.8
152.2
144.2
111.3
104.0
122.3
149.6
155.2
118.2
111.3
127.0
136.2
160.3
114.6
115.7
131.5
140.0
163.8
115.7
121.4
129.8
149.0
157.9
121.9
118.0
129.7
154.3
159.5
125.4
Plumbing and heating, except electric.....................
Fabricated structural metal products........................
Metal forgings and stam pings....................................
Metal services, n.e.c...................................................
O rdnance and accessories, n.e.c.............................
343
344
346
347
348
102.6
98.8
95.6
104.7
82.1
102.0
100.0
92.9
99.4
81.5
98.4
103.9
103.7
111.6
88.6
102.0
104.8
108.7
120.6
84.6
109.1
107.7
108.5
123.0
83.6
109.2
105.8
109.3
127.7
87.6
118.6
106.5
113.6
128.4
87.5
127.3
111.9
120.2
124.4
93.7
130.5
112.7
125.9
127.3
96.6
125.7
112.8
128.3
126.1
91.0
132.2
112.8
129.8
135.7
92.8
Miscellaneous fabricated metal products................
Engines and turbines.................................................
Farm and garden machinery.....................................
Construction and related machinery........................
Metalworking machinery............................................
349
351
352
353
354
97.5
106.5
116.5
107.0
101.1
97.4
105.8
112.9
99.1
96.4
101.1
103.3
113.9
102.0
104.3
102.0
109.2
118.6
108.2
107.4
103.2
122.3
125.0
117.7
109.9
106.6
122.7
134.7
122.1
114.8
108.3
136.6
137.2
123.3
114.9
107.7
136.9
141.2
132.5
119.2
111.6
146.1
148.5
137.6
119.8
109.3
151.5
128.6
133.6
123.0
109.2
164.5
139.6
139.8
129.8
Special industry machinery........................................
General industrial machinery.....................................
Computer and office equipment................................
Refrigeration and service machinery.......................
Industrial machinery, n.e.c.........................................
355
356
357
358
359
107.5
101.5
138.1
103.6
107.3
108.3
101.6
149.6
100.7
109.0
106.0
101.6
195.7
104.9
117.0
113.6
104.8
258.6
108.6
118.5
121.2
106.7
328.6
110.7
127.4
132.3
109.0
469.4
112.7
138.8
134.0
109.4
681.3
114.7
141.4
131.7
110.0
960.2
115.0
129.3
124.5
111.2
1356.6
121.4
127.5
138.6
113.1
1862.5
124.0
135.8
172.2
118.7
2172.0
122.3
141.8
Electric distribution equipment.................................
Electrical industrial apparatus...................................
Household appliances................................................
Electric lighting and wiring equipment.....................
Communications equipment.....................................
361
362
363
364
366
106.3
107.7
105.8
99.9
123.8
106.5
107.1
106.5
97.5
129.1
119.6
117.1
115.0
105.7
154.9
122.2
132.9
123.4
107.8
163.1
131.8
134.9
131.4
113.4
186.4
143.0
150.8
127.3
113.7
200.7
143.9
154.3
127.4
116.9
229.5
142.8
164.2
142.9
121.8
275.4
147.5
162.3
150.2
129.2
284.5
148.9
158.3
149.5
132.4
371.9
155.4
157.0
162.4
134.8
448.8
Electronic components and accessories................
M iscellaneous electrical equipment & supplies...
Motor vehicles and equipment.................................
Aircraft and parts.........................................................
Ship and boat building and repairing.......................
367
369
371
372
373
133.4
90.6
102.4
98.9
103.7
154.7
98.6
96.6
108.2
96.3
189.3
101.3
104.2
112.3
102.7
217.9
108.2
106.2
115.2
105.9
274.0
110.5
108.8
109.5
103.8
401.5
114.1
106.7
107.8
98.1
515.0
123.1
107.2
113.1
99.3
613.4
128.3
116.3
114.7
105.5
768.6
135.3
125.2
140.1
102.5
1062.6
147.2
136.7
138.1
113.1
1440.1
156.0
127.1
132.2
121.6
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts...............................
Guided missiles, space vehicles, parts...................
S earch and navigation equipment............................
Measuring and controlling devices...........................
374
375
376
381
382
141.1
93.8
116.5
112.7
106.4
146.9
99.8
110.5
118.9
113.1
147.9
108.4
110.5
122.1
119.9
151.0
130.9
119.4
129.1
124.0
152.5
125.1
114.9
132.1
133.8
150.0
120.3
116.9
149.5
146.4
148.3
125.5
125.1
142.2
150.5
184.2
120.4
133.6
149.5
142.4
189.1
127.7
138.9
149.1
143.5
212.8
122.4
156.1
149.6
152.4
218.4
119.4
113.3
163.7
158.5
Medical instruments and supplies............................
Ophthalmic goods.......................................................
Photographic equipment & supplies........................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are.......................
Musical instruments....................................................
384
385
386
391
393
116.9
121.2
107.8
99.3
97.1
118.7
125.1
110.2
95.8
96.9
123.5
144.5
116.4
96.7
96.0
127.3
157.8
126.9
96.7
95.6
126.7
160.6
132.7
99.5
88.7
131.5
167.2
129.5
100.2
86.9
139.8
188.2
128.7
102.6
78.8
147.4
196.3
121.5
114.2
82.9
158.6
199.0
128.0
113.1
81.4
160.4
235.2
160.6
134.3
97.1
167.0
250.2
169.4
144.9
105.3
Industry
SIC
1990
Miscellaneous chemical products.............................
Petroleum refining........................................................
Asphalt paving and roofing materials.......................
M iscellaneous petroleum and coal products...........
Tires and inner tubes..................................................
289
291
295
299
301
97.3
109.2
98.0
94.8
103.0
Hose and belting and gaskets and packing............
Fabricated rubber products, n.e.c............................
Miscellaneous plastics products, n.e.c....................
Footwear, except rubber............................................
Flat g la ss.......................................................................
305
306
308
314
321
G lass and glassware, pressed or blown.................
Products of purchased glass.....................................
Cement, hydraulic........................................................
Structural clay products.............................................
Pottery and related products.....................................
1991
S ee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
June 2002
129
Current Labor Statistics:
Productivity Data
46. Continued - Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries
[1987=100]
Industry
SIC
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
394
395
396
399
108.1
118.2
105.3
106.5
109.7
116.8
106.7
109.2
104.9
111.3
110.8
109.5
114.2
111.6
115.8
107.7
109.7
129.9
129.0
106.1
113.6
135.2
143.7
108.1
119.9
144.1
142.2
112.8
125.7
127.5
118.0
109.4
131.6
132.5
131.2
108.5
126.6
123.4
130.8
114.9
140.4
124.9
145.3
115.9
4011
118.5
127.8
139.6
145.4
150.3
156.2
167.0
169.8
173.3
182.5
195.8
111.1
104.0
92.9
116.9
103.7
92.5
123.4
104.5
96.9
126.6
107.1
100.2
129.5
106.6
105.7
125.4
106.5
108.6
130.9
104.7
111.1
132.4
108.3
111.6
129.9
109.8
108.4
131.6
110.9
109.1
131.2
113.6
110.7
481
483
484
491,3(pts.)
492,3(pts.)
113.3
104.9
92.6
110.1
105.8
119.8
106.1
87.6
113.4
109.6
127.7
108.3
88.5
115.2
111.1
135.5
106.7
85.3
24.1
121.8
142.2
110.1
83.4
50.5
125.6
148.1
109.6
84.5
80.8
137.1
159.5
105.8
81.9
116.8
145.9
160.9
101.7
84.7
150.0
158.6
170.1
104.5
86.1
159.6
144.4
186.3
108.4
85.0
162.0
147.2
201.3
109.9
87.6
169.6
160.6
Lumber and other building materials dealers.........
Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores............................
Hardware stores...........................................................
Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores...
Department stores.......................................................
521
523
525
526
531
104.3
106.8
115.3
84.7
96.8
102.3
100.4
108.7
89.3
102.0
106.4
107.6
115.2
101.2
105.4
111.4
114.2
113.9
107.1
110.4
118.9
127.8
121.2
117.0
113.5
117.8
130.9
115.6
117.4
116.1
121.6
133.5
119.5
136.4
123.8
121.8
134.8
119.0
127.5
129.1
134.2
163.5
137.9
133.7
135.8
143.0
165.1
147.6
150.4
146.0
144.2
170.1
145.7
154.5
160.4
Variety stores...............................................................
Miscellaneous general merchandise stores............
Grocery stores.............................................................
Meat and fish (seafood) markets...............................
Retail bakeries.............................................................
533
539
541
542
546
154.6
118.6
96.6
98.9
91.2
159.0
124.8
96.3
90.8
96.7
173.9
140.4
96.5
99.2
96.5
191.9
164.3
96.0
97.7
86.5
197.9
164.8
95.4
95.7
85.3
212.4
167.4
93.9
94.4
83.0
240.4
167.7
92.1
86.4
75.9
260.1
170.4
91.7
90.8
67.6
271.2
185.9
92.2
95.7
68.1
315.0
199.6
95.3
97.4
83.1
330.9
224.3
96.1
110.0
88.4
New and used car dealers.........................................
Auto and home supply stores....................................
Gasoline service stations...........................................
Men's and boy's w ear stores.....................................
Women's clothing stores............................................
551
553
554
561
562
106.7
103.7
103.0
115.6
106.6
104.9
100.2
104.8
121.9
111.2
107.4
101.6
110.2
122.3
123.6
108.6
100.8
115.9
119.5
130.0
109.7
105.3
121.1
121.7
130.4
108.1
109.1
127.2
121.4
139.9
109.1
108.2
126.1
129.8
154.2
108.8
108.1
126.1
136.3
157.3
108.7
113.1
133.9
145.2
176.0
111.6
115.5
141.7
154.5
190.2
112.5
119.3
139.0
165.0
205.7
Family clothing stores.................................................
Shoe stores...................................................................
Furniture and homefurnishings stores.....................
Household appliance stores.......................................
Radio, television, computer, and music stores.......
565
566
571
572
573
107.8
107.9
104.6
104.6
120.8
111.5
107.8
105.4
107.2
129.3
118.6
115.5
113.9
116.1
139.3
121.5
117.3
113.3
118.7
153.8
127.7
130.7
114.7
122.4
178.2
141.8
139.2
117.4
139.6
198.1
146.9
151.9
123.6
142.2
206.6
150.2
148.4
124.2
155.2
216.8
153.1
145.0
127.3
184.2
258.3
155.9
152.9
134.5
186.4
309.1
160.4
160.2
141.1
209.3
359.4
Eating and drinking places.........................................
Drug and proprietary stores.......................................
Liquor stores.................................................................
Used merchandise stores...........................................
M iscellaneous shopping goods stores.....................
581
591
592
593
594
104.5
106.3
105.9
103.0
107.4
103.8
108.0
106.9
102.3
109.3
103.4
107.6
109.6
115.7
107.9
103.8
109.6
101.8
116.7
111.7
102.1
109.9
100.1
119.5
117.3
102.0
111.1
104.7
120.6
123.2
100.6
113.9
113.8
132.6
125.3
101.6
119.8
109.9
140.3
129.4
102.0
125.7
116.5
163.6
138.7
104.0
129.8
114.5
183.2
143.7
107.3
136.9
127.7
216.7
150.6
Nonstore retailers........................................................
Fuel d ealers.................................................................
Retail stores, n.e.c......................................................
596
598
599
111.1
84.6
114.5
112.5
85.3
104.0
126.5
84.3
112.5
132.2
91.9
118.1
149.0
99.0
125.8
152.5
111.4
127.0
173.5
112.5
140.2
186.8
109.1
147.8
208.3
105.8
157.4
220.6
115.2
162.5
263.2
117.3
168.1
Commercial banks......................................................
Hotels and motels........................................................
Laundry, cleaning, and garment services................
Photographic studios, portrait....................................
Beauty shops................................................................
602
701
721
722
723
107.7
96.2
102.3
98.2
97.5
110.1
99.3
99.9
92.1
95.8
111.0
108.0
99.3
95.8
100.9
118.5
106.5
99.9
101.8
97.0
121.7
109.9
105.0
108.3
101.1
126.4
110.5
106.6
116.2
104.8
129.7
110.0
109.8
110.7
107.6
133.0
108.2
109.0
114.1
108.5
132.6
108.2
116.0
121.6
110.5
135.9
109.9
120.8
107.7
113.4
143.2
114.1
123.6
112.0
114.5
Barber shops................................................................
Funeral services and crem atories............................
Automotive repair shops.............................................
Motion picture theaters...............................................
724
726
753
783
100.7
91.2
107.9
118.1
94.9
89.9
100.1
118.2
113.2
103.8
105.1
114.8
121.9
98.7
105.7
113.8
118.8
104.3
114.3
110.4
115.7
100.2
121.6
105.0
128.8
97.6
116.1
104.1
150.4
101.9
117.2
103.4
157.4
104.2
124.9
106.1
132.8
100.2
126.4
108.7
129.9
93.9
128.5
112.3
Toys and sporting goods...........................................
Pens, pencils, office, and art supplies....................
Costume jewelry and notions....................................
Miscellaneous manufactures....................................
Transportation
Railroad transportation...............................................
Trucking, except lo c a l1.............................................
4213
um teo states postal service ~....................................
431
Air transportation......................................................... 4512,13,22(pts.)
Utilities
Telephone communications.......................................
Radio and television broadcasting...........................
Cable and other pay TV services.............................
Electric utilities...........................................................
G as utilities...................................................................
Trade
Finance and services
« eters to output per employee.
Heters to output per tun-time equivalent employee year on tiscai Dasis.
130
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
n.e .c. = not elsewhere classified
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47.
Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average
Country
2000
2001
2000
I
II
2001
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
United S tates.........
4.0
4.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.6
C anada..................
Australia................
6.1
6.3
4.8
9.4
6.4
6.7
5.1
8.7
9.6
5.0
-
6.1
6.5
4.8
9.9
8.4
11.2
6.6
5.8
6.1
6.4
4.7
9.5
6.1
6.1
4.7
9.5
8.2
10.5
5.6
5.4
6.1
6.2
4.8
9.0
6.2
6.5
4.8
8.6
6.3
6.9
4.9
8.5
6.4
6.8
5.2
6.7
6.8
6.8
5.5
8.9
8.1
10.1
5.2
5.3
10.0
5.1
5.1
F rance1..................
G ermanv1.............
Italv1,2....................
Sw eden1................
United Kinndnm1..
8.3
10.7
5.8
5.5
8.3
10.9
6.0
5.5
-
-
9.7
5.0
5.0
-
9.5
5.0
5.1
-
9.3
5.1
-
1 Preliminary for 2000 for Japan, France, Germany (unified), Italy, dicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual
and Sweden and for 1999 onward for the United Kingdom.
figures. S ee "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in
2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.
series. For further qualifications and historical data, see
Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, Ten CounNOTE: Quarterly figures for France and Germany are tries, 1959-2000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 16,2001).
calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current
published data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise in- Dash indicates data not available.
M onthly Labor Review
June 2002
131
Current Labor Statistics:
48.
International Comparison
Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries
[N um bers in thousands]
Employment status and country
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
128,105
144,177
8,557
65,040
24,570
39,040
129,200
14,308
8,613
65,470
24,640
39,140
131,056
14,400
8,771
65,780
24,780
39,210
132,304
14,517
8,995
65,990
24,830
39,100
133,943
14,669
9,115
66,450
25,090
39,180
136,297
14,958
9,204
67,200
25,210
39,480
137,673
15,237
9,339
67,240
25,520
39,520
139,368
15,536
9,466
67,090
25,830
39,630
140,863
15,789
9,687
66,990
25,980
141,815
16,027
9,817
66,870
_
22,910
6,950
4,520
28,410
22,570
7,100
4,443
28,440
22,450
7,190
4,418
28,440
22,460
7,260
4,460
28,560
22,570
7,370
4,459
28,720
22,680
7,530
4,418
28,910
22,960
7,690
4,402
29,040
23,130
7,900
4,430
29,300
23,340
8,050
4,489
29,450
23,540
_
66.4
65.9
63.9
63.4
55 9
58.3
47.5
57.8
65.7
63.1
66.3
65.5
63.5
63.3
66.6
65.2
63.9
63.1
66.6
64.9
64.6
62.9
66.8
64.7
64.6
63.0
67.1
65.0
64.3
63.2
67.1
65.4
64.3
62.8
67.1
65.8
64.2
62.4
67.2
65.9
64.7
62.0
66.9
66.0
64.7
61.6
58.0
47.9
58.6
64.5
62.8
57.6
47.3
59
63.7
62.7
57.3
47.1
59.2
64.1
62.7
57.4
47.1
59.8
64
62.8
57.7
47.2
60.8
63.3
62.9
57.7
47.6
61.7
62.8
62.9
57.9
47.8
62.8
62.8
63.2
48.1
63.5
63.8
63.3
Civilian labor force
United States1.................................................................
Canada.........................................................................
Australia..........................................................................
Japan..........................................................................
France.............................................................................
Germany2.......................................................................
Italy..................................................................................
Netherlands.............................................................
Sweden...........................................................................
United Kingdom..............................................................
4,537
-
Participation rate3
United States 1.........................................................
Canada............................................................................
Australia..........................................................................
Japan..............................................................................
fiorm an t/ ^
Italy..................................................................................
Netherlands.....................................................................
Sweden...........................................................................
United Kinqdom...............................................................
_
_
_
64.2
-
Employed
United States1.................................................................
Canada............................................................................
Australia...........................................................................
Japan...............................................................................
France.............................................................................
O o rm o n w 2
Italy..................................................................................
Netherlands.....................................................................
Sweden............................................................................
United Kingdom...............................................................
118,492
12,672
7,660
63,620
22,020
36,420
21,230
6,560
4,265
25,530
120,259
12,770
7,699
63,810
21,740
36,030
20,270
6 630
4,028
25,450
123,060
13,027
7,942
63,860
21,720
35,890
19,940
6 670
3,992
25,720
124,900
13,271
8,256
63,890
21,910
35,900
19,820
fi 7fin
4,056
26,070
126,708
13,380
8,364
64,200
21,960
35,680
19,920
129,558
13,705
8,444
64,900
22,090
35,570
19,990
131,463
14,068
8,618
64,450
22,510
35,830
20,210
133,488
14,456
8,808
63,920
22,940
36,170
20,460
135,208
14,827
9,068
63,790
23,530
_
20,840
135,073
14,997
9,157
63,470
_
_
21,280
4,019
26,380
3,973
26,880
4,034
27,210
4,117
27,530
4,229
27,830
4,309
61.5
58.9
57.2
62.0
50 1
54.4
61.7
58.5
56.8
61.7
49 2
53.4
62.5
59.0
57.8
61.3
62.9
59.4
59.2
60.9
63.2
59.1
59.3
60.9
64.5
62.1
60.6
59.0
63.8
61.9
60.3
58.4
52.8
52.6
52.2
52.0
52.3
52.8
44.0
54.4
62.0
56.7
43.0
54.7
58.5
56.2
42.0
54.7
57.6
56.7
41.5
55.1
58.3
57.2
41.6
56.0
57.7
57.6
41.6
57.5
56.9
58.5
41.9
59.2
57.6
58.9
42.3
60.8
58.4
59.8
-
Employment-population ratio4
United States1.................................................................
Canada............................................................................
Australia...........................................................................
Japan...............................................................................
Germany2........................................................................
Italy..................................................................................
Netherlands.....................................................................
Sweden............................................................................
United Kinqdom...............................................................
63.8
59.7
59.0
61.0
64.1
60.4
59.3
60.2
64.3
61.3
59.8
59.4
-
42.9
61.6
60.1
59.8
_
_
61.0
_
Unemployed
Germany2........................................................................
9,613
1,505
897
1,420
2,550
2,620
8,940
1,539
314
1,660
2,900
3,110
7,996
1,373
829
1,920
3,060
3,320
Netherlands.....................................................................
Sweden............................................................................
United Kingdom..............................................................
1,680
390
255
2,880
2,300
470
415
2,980
United States1.................................................................
Canada............................................................................
Australia...........................................................................
Japan...............................................................................
France.............................................................................
2,510
520
426
2,720
7,404
1,246
739
2,100
2,920
3,200
2,640
500
404
2,490
7,236
1,289
739
2,250
3,130
3,500
2,650
470
440
2,340
6,739
1,252
751
2,300
3,120
3,910
2,690
400
445
2,030
6,210
1,169
760
2,790
3,020
3,690
5,880
1,080
658
3,170
2,890
3,460
5,655
962
611
3,200
2,450
2,750
310
368
1,830
2,670
270
313
1,770
2,500
240
260
1,620
-
6,742
1,031
661
3,400
_
-
2,270
_
228
-
Unemployment rate
Germany2........................................................................
7.5
10.6
10.5
2.2
10.4
6.7
6.9
10.8
10.6
2.5
11.8
7.9
6.1
9.5
9.4
2.9
12.3
8.5
5.6
8.6
8.2
3.2
11.8
8.2
5.4
8.8
8.2
3.4
12.5
8.9
4.9
8.4
8.3
3.4
12.4
9.9
4.5
7.7
7.7
4.1
11.8
9.3
4.2
7.0
7.0
4.7
11.2
8.7
4.0
6.1
6.3
4.8
9.4
-
4.8
6.4
6.7
5.1
8.7
-
Netherlands.....................................................................
Sweden............................................................................
United Kinadom..............................................................
7.3
5.6
5.6
10.1
10.2
6.6
9.3
10.5
11.2
7.2
9.6
9.6
11.8
6.2
9.1
8.7
11.7
6.4
9.9
8.1
11.9
5.3
10.1
7.0
12.0
4.0
8.4
6.3
11.5
3.4
7.1
6.0
10.7
3.0
5.8
5.5
9.6
United States1......................................................
Canada............................................................................
Australia...........................................................................
Japan...............................................................................
France.............................................................................
1 Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier
years. For 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 Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-2000, Mar. 16, 2001, on the
Internet at http://stats.bls.gov/flsdata.htm.
132
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
3 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population.
4 Employment as a percent of the working-age population.
NOTE: See Notes on the data for information on breaks in series for the
United States, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Dash indicates data are not available,
p = preliminary.
_
5.0
-
49. Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries
[1992 = 100]___________________________________________________________________________________________
Item and country
1960
1970
1980
1989
1990
1991
1994
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Output per hour
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Belgium...................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
France.....................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Sweden...................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
38.5
13.8
18.0
29.9
21.9
29.2
22.5
18.5
37,0
27.3
30.0
56.0
37.5
32.9
52.7
43.0
52.0
42.2
37.9
58.3
52.2
43.2
70.5
74.4
63.2
65.4
90.3
66.6
77.2
70.8
68.8
76.7
73.1
54.3
95.7
93.2
88.5
96.9
99.6
91.9
94.6
91.3
96.9
94.6
93.2
86.2
96.9
94.7
94.4
96.8
99.1
93.6
99.0
93.9
98.5
96.6
94.6
89.1
97.8
95.5
99.0
99.1
99.6
96.9
99.0
95.9
99.6
97.5
95.5
93.8
102.1
104.9
101.7
102.5
104.5
100.6
101.6
101.8
101.6
100.6
107.3
103.9
107.3
109.7
103.3
108.4
108.6
110.1
106.1
113.2
101.4
119.4
107.1
113.8
111.3
111.0
113.2
114.7
113.2
111.2
118.2
102.0
121.9
104.9
117.0
110.1
116.1
117.0
115.3
116.8
110.8
120.2
102.0
124.5
103.8
121.2
113.2
121.0
127.0
123.8
122.4
113.7
122.3
103.0
132.3
105.2
126.5
113.1
121.2
129.2
129.5
126.7
113.1
125.0
103.6
139.5
106.9
135.3
114.9
126.9
129.5
132.9
128.5
113.5
128.5
103.1
143.5
111.6
142.8
116.3
134.1
133.4
141.1
117.8
133.8
104.2
150.4
117.6
34.0
10.7
30.7
40.8
31.0
41.5
23.0
31.5
57.0
45.9
67.3
60.0
39.2
57.6
68.0
64.1
70.9
48.1
59.1
89.9
80.7
90.2
75.8
85.2
60.4
78.2
91.3
88.7
85.3
84.4
76.8
103.6
90.7
87.2
102.4
112.1
90.9
99.1
104.3
97.2
94.0
98.3
96.6
101.3
110.9
105.5
101.6
107.5
97.1
101.0
102.7
99.1
99.1
99.4
99.9
100.2
110.1
105.3
98.3
99.2
102.0
100.7
101.7
99.8
102.3
99.3
100.4
98.3
104.1
100.0
103.5
105.0
96.3
97.0
99.0
95.7
92.5
96.5
98.4
102.7
101.9
101.4
111.1
113.0
94.9
101.4
109.3
100.3
95.2
102.4
104.6
106.7
117.1
106.1
118.4
118.5
98.9
104.2
114.7
104.9
95.3
107.2
108.1
109.0
128.4
107.8
121.3
120.0
103.0
106.6
109.7
104.6
93.5
105.4
108.7
110.1
131.1
108.5
127.9
127.3
106.5
113.8
118.5
109.7
96.3
108.8
111.5
115.7
138.0
109.9
133.1
132.5
100.2
116.4
120.8
115.0
100.9
110.5
114.8
117.7
147.6
110.8
141.2
140.8
101.9
118.0
119.8
117.3
102.2
110.2
118.1
114.0
153.6
111.1
147.0
148.8
107.6
122.2
125.8
121.2
113.9
123.7
110.9
163.4
113.3
92.1
88.3
77.8
170.7
136.5
141.2
142.3
102.3
170.5
154.1
168.3
224.6
104.4
107.1
104.4
174.7
129.0
148.9
136.3
113.8
156.1
154.3
154.7
208.8
107.5
114.6
95.6
119.7
101.1
133.2
110.5
119.3
111.7
135.0
124.0
160.5
107.1
120.2
102.7
102.3
104.7
105.8
99.3
107.6
99.7
107.1
119.0
122.4
104.8
113.5
102.9
104.3
103.7
105.9
100.1
105.9
101.4
103.7
116.4
118.1
100.4
103.9
103.1
101.5
102.1
103.1
103.3
103.6
100.9
100.8
109.0
106.6
101.4
100.1
94.7
94.7
94.8
95.1
91.0
94.9
96.8
102.1
94.9
97.6
103.6
103.0
91.9
93.6
92.4
86.5
96.5
92.4
105.2
98.1
99.1
104.0
106.4
89.1
92.0
91.5
84.2
96.4
91.5
106.8
105.3
102.7
103.6
109.0
88.7
91.1
90.7
80.1
95.1
90.4
107.9
105.3
104.5
105.5
112.4
88.0
89.6
88.6
78.7
95.7
91.1
112.3
104.3
104.5
105.2
117.1
82.7
90.1
88.8
79.6
97.7
91.8
113.6
105.8
103.6
104.3
122.6
80.3
91.1
88.3
79.5
97.1
92.0
110.6
107.1
99.5
102.9
128.0
80.2
91.7
85.9
96.7
92.5
106.4
108.6
96.3
14.9
10.0
4.3
5.4
4.6
4.3
8.1
1.7
6.4
4.7
4.1
3.0
23.7
17.1
16.4
13.7
13.3
10.3
20.7
5.0
20.2
11.8
10.7
6.1
55.6
47.6
58.5
52.5
49.6
40.8
53.6
29.0
64.4
39.0
37.3
32.1
86.6
82.6
84.0
85.9
87.7
86.0
83.2
77.4
88.6
87.2
79.4
73.8
90.8
88.3
90.5
90.1
92.7
90.6
89.4
85.8
90.9
92.3
87.8
82.9
95.6
95.0
96.4
97.3
95.9
96.2
92.1
94.2
95.3
97.5
95.5
93.8
102.7
102.0
102.8
104.8
104.6
103.1
106.1
106.1
103.8
101.5
97.4
104.7
105.6
103.7
104.9
106.1
105.6
112.3
108.1
108.2
104.4
100.0
106.8
107.9
106.0
108.3
109.2
108.5
118.5
114.6
110.7
109.2
106.5
107.9
109.4
107.0
109.2
110.9
110.3
125.2
122.0
113.0
113.6
114.4
109.5
111.4
109.3
112.9
114.9
113.1
128.0
127.2
115.8
118.7
119.4
113.8
117.4
111.6
115.8
116.6
115.7
128.9
125.6
120.6
126.1
124.4
120.5
122.1
113.1
115.2
118.3
118.7
130.8
129.4
124.0
133.4
127.5
129.6
130.7
117.0
114.5
121.1
125.7
25.9
31.3
30.1
15.4
19.4
27.8
7.5
34.6
12.8
15.0
9.8
30.5
43.8
41.7
25.2
24.0
39.8
11.9
53.3
20.3
20.6
14.1
78.8
63.9
92.5
80.3
55.0
61.3
69.4
41.0
93.7
50.8
51.0
59.0
90.5
88.6
94.9
88.7
88.1
93.5
87.9
84.8
91.4
92.2
85.1
85.6
93.7
93.3
95.9
93.0
93.6
96.8
90.3
91.5
92.3
95.6
92.8
93.0
97.6
99.5
97.4
98.1
96.3
99.3
93.1
98.2
95.6
100.0
100.0
100.1
100.6
97.2
101.1
102.3
100.1
102.4
104.5
104.3
102.1
100.9
90.8
100.8
98.5
94.5
101.5
97.9
93.0
97.3
102.0
101.9
95.6
102.9
83.8
99.7
94.8
95.2
97.6
96.4
93.8
94.6
104.7
103.0
93.7
107.0
87.4
102.9
93.5
97.2
94.0
94.7
100.9
95.7
107.2
110.0
94.0
111.4
91.9
105.5
91.9
96.5
93.3
90.5
96.9
91.4
104.6
111.9
94.7
115.2
90.2
108.2
92.8
98.6
95.5
90.2
98.7
89.4
101.8
111.1
96.5
121.7
89.2
112.7
90.2
98.4
90.8
91.4
101.9
89.3
101.8
1114.0
96.6
129.5
88.8
116.1
91.5
100.6
85.4
90.8
100.2
89.1
101.8
113.4
97.9
134.5
86.9
114.5
32.2
11.0
19.4
13.5
20.9
10.4
15.0
16.1
11.2
16.9
15.6
35.3
15.5
27.0
20.3
23.1
17.1
23.3
25.9
17.6
23.1
19.1
78.8
66.1
51.8
88.3
58.9
76.7
59.6
59.0
82.9
63.9
70.2
77.7
90.5
90.4
87.1
72.3
72.6
77.6
73.0
76.1
75.8
82.9
76.8
79.4
93.7
95.6
83.8
89.5
91.3
94.0
87.3
94.1
89.1
95.0
91.3
93.9
97.6
104.9
91.7
92.3
90.8
93.1
87.5
97.5
89.9
95.7
96.3
100.1
100.6
91.0
115.4
95.1
93.2
95.7
98.6
81.6
96.6
88.3
67.8
85.7
98.5
83.6
125.9
94.2
88.3
92.8
98.2
77.9
92.4
90.7
63.2
86.5
94.8
83.8
131.7
105.2
101.1
100.5
114.1
77.9
102.7
105.0
71.3
92.0
93.5
86.1
109.6
98.4
105.0
99.0
111.3
87.9
98.1
107.1
79.8
93.2
91.9
84.2
97.7
81.2
88.6
82.8
94.1
80.9
85.3
101.0
68.8
100.3
92.8
80.4
92.4
79.9
88.9
80.2
90.3
78.8
85.5
100.2
65.3
105.8
90.2
80.0
101.2
77.6
88.0
76.8
86.6
77.3
82.1
103.1
62.5
106.3
91.5
81.8
100.4
66.8
74.8
66.4
86.6
66.6
72.1
94.8
55.2
98.3
June 2002
133
-
Output
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Belgium...................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
France.....................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Norway....................................................................
Sweden...................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
Total hours
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Belgium...................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
France.....................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Norway....................................................................
Sweden...................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
Compensation per hour
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan......................................................................
Belgium...................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Sweden...................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Belgium...................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis
United States..........................................................
Canada...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Belgium..................................................................
Denmark.................................................................
Germany.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................
Netherlands............................................................
Norway....................................................................
Sweden..................................................................
United Kingdom......................................................
133.6
131.0
140.1
130.7
134.7
NOTE: Data for Germany for years before 1992 are for the former West Germany. Data for 1992 onward are for unified Germany. Dash indicates data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
Current Labor Statistics:
Injury and Illness
50. Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,' United States
Industry and type of case2
1989 1
1990
1991
1992
1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4 1998 4 1999 4 2000 4
PRIVATE SECTOR5
T otal c a s e s ......................................................................................
74
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
3.0
-
8.1
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
5.0
10.0
4.7
9.7
4.3
8.7
3.9
8.4
4.1
7.9
3.9
7.3
3.4
7.1
3.6
7.3
4.1
204 7
6.8
3.9
6.3
3.9
6.2
3.9
5.4
3.2
5.9
3.7
4.9
2.9
4.4
2.7
4.7
3.0
13 0
6.1
148.1
13 1
5.8
161.9
12 2
5.5
-
11 ft
5.5
10 fi
4.9
99
4.5
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
134
6.4
137.6
12 0
5.5
132.0
12 2
5.4
142.7
11 5
5.1
10 9
5.1
9*8
4.4
90
4.0
ft 5
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13 8
6.5
147.1
13 8
6.3
144.6
12 8
6.0
160.1
12 1
5.4
165.8
11 1
5.1
10 2
5.0
99
4.8
90
4.3
8*7
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.7
-
-
Lost workday cases..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
14 6
6.9
144.9
14 7
6.9
153.1
13 5
6.3
151.3
13 8
6.1
168.3
12 8
5.8
Manufacturing
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
13.1
5.8
113.0
13.2
12.7
5.6
121.5
12.5
5.4
124.6
12.1
5.3
12.2
5.5
11.6
5.3
120.7
-
-
-
Durable goods:
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses ..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
14.1
6.0
116.5
14.2
6.0
123.3
13.6
5.7
122.9
13.4
5.5
126.7
13.1
5.4
13.5
5.7
12.8
5.6
11.6
5.1
-
-
-
18.4
9.4
177.5
18.1
8.8
172.5
16.8
8.3
172.0
16.3
7.6
165.8
15.9
7.6
15.7
7.7
-
16.1
7.2
16.9
7.8
15.9
7.2
14.8
6.6
128.4
Lost workday c ases.........................................................................
Lost workdays..................................................................................
8.6
4.0
78.7
88
4.1
84.0
84
3.9
86.5
89
3.9
93.8
85
3.8
8*4
3.8
-
10.9
5.7
100.9
11.6
5.9
1122
10.8
5.4
108 3
11.6
5.4
126.9
8.5
4.8
137.2
8.3
5.0
119 5
7.4
4.5
129 6
14 3
6.8
143.3
14.2
6.7
147.9
13.9
6.5
137.3
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing5
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................
Lost workday cases .........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
Mining
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................
Lost workday cases.........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
Construction
Lost workday ca ses..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
General building contractors:
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses ..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
Heavy construction, except bulldinq:
Lost workday cases ..........................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
Special trades contractors:
Lumber and wood products:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases.......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Stone, clay, and qlass products:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Primary metal industries:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday c ases .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Fabricated metal products:
T otal c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Industrial machinery and equipment:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases.......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Electronic and other electrical equipment:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Transportation equipment:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday c a ses .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Instruments and related products:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases .......................................................................
Lost workdays ................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturlnq industries:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses .......................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
134
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 2002
5.8
-
-
-
-
12 ft
5.8
5.0
4.8
4.7
4.1
4.4
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
4.9
10.3
4.8
9.7
4.7
9.2
4.6
9.0
4.5
-
-
-
11.3
5.1
10.7
5.0
10.1
4.8
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.9
7.0
14.2
6.8
13.5
6.5
13.2
6.8
13.0
6.7
12.1
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.6
6.5
15.0
7.0
13.9
6.4
12.2
5.4
12.0
5.8
11.4
5.7
11.5
5.9
11.2
5.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.2
6.5
12.3
5.7
12.4
6.0
11.8
5.7
11.8
6.0
10.7
5.4
10.4
5.5
-
-
-
16.5
7.2
15.0
6.8
15.0
7.2
14.0
7.0
12.9
6.3
12.6
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.5
7.4
149.8
15.4
7.3
160.5
14.8
6.8
156.0
13.6
6.1
152.2
13.8
6.3
-
-
18.7
8.1
168.3
19.0
8.1
180.2
17.7
7.4
169.1
17.5
7.1
175.5
17.0
7.3
16.8
7.2
-
-
18.5
7.9
147.6
18.7
7.9
155.7
17.4
7.1
146.6
16.8
6.6
144.0
16.2
6.7
16.4
6.7
15.8
6.9
14.4
6.2
14.2
6.4
13.9
6.5
12.6
6.0
11.9
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.1
4.8
86.8
12.0
4.7
88.9
11.2
4.4
86.6
11.1
4.2
87.7
11.1
4.2
11.6
4.4
11.2
4.4
9.9
4.0
10.0
4.1
9.5
4.0
8.5
3.7
8.2
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
3.5
8.3
3.6
7.6
3.3
6.8
3.1
6.6
3.1
5.9
2.8
5.7
2.8
5.7
2.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.6
7.9
16.3
7.0
15.4
6.6
14.6
6.6
13.7
6.4
13.7
6.3
-
-
-
-
9.1
3.9
77.5
9.1
3.8
79.4
8.6
3.7
83.0
8.4
3.6
81.2
17.7
6.8
138.6
17.8
6.9
153.7
18.3
7.0
166.1
18.7
7.1
186.6
18.5
7.1
-
19.6
7.8
5.6
2.5
55.4
5.9
2.7
57.8
6.0
2.7
64.4
5.9
2.7
65.3
5.6
2.5
5.9
2.7
5.3
2.4
5.1
2.3
4.8
2.3
4.0
1.9
4.0
1.8
4.5
2.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.1
5.1
97.6
11.3
5.1
113.1
11.3
5.1
104.0
10.7
5.0
108.2
10.0
4.6
9.9
4.5
9.1
4.3
9.5
4.4
8.9
4.2
8.1
3.9
8.4
4.0
7.2
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50.
Continued—Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,1United States
Industry and type of case2
Nondurable goods:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases........................................................................
Lost workdays.................................................................................
Food and kindred products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Tobacco products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Textile mill products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Apparel and other textile products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Paper and allied products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Printinq and publishinq:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Chemicals and allied products:
Total c a s e s .................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
Petroleum and coal products:
Total c a s e s .................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays.............................................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays.............................................................................
Leather and leather products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays..............................................................................
1989 1
1990
1992
1991
1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 19964 1997 4 1998*
1999 4
2000 4
11.6
5.5
107.8
11.7
5.6
116.9
11.5
5.5
119.7
11.3
5.3
121.8
10.7
5.0
-
10.5
5.1
-
9.9
4.9
-
9.2
4.6
-
8.8
4.4
-
8.2
4.3
-
7.8
4.2
-
-
18.5
9.3
174.7
20.0
9.9
202.6
19.5
9.9
207.2
18.8
9.5
211.9
17.6
8.9
-
17.1
9.2
-
16.3
8.7
-
15.0
8.0
-
14.5
8.0
-
13.6
7.5
-
12.7
7.3
-
12.4
7.3
-
8.7
3.4
64.2
7.7
3.2
62.3
6.4
2.8
52.0
6.0
2.4
42.9
5.8
2.3
-
5.3
2.4
-
5.6
2.6
-
6.7
2.8
-
5.9
2.7
-
6.4
3.4
-
5.5
2.2
-
6.2
3.1
-
10.3
4.2
81.4
9.6
4.0
85.1
10.1
4.4
88.3
9.9
4.2
87.1
9.7
4.1
-
8.7
4.0
-
8.2
4.1
-
7.8
3.6
-
6.7
3.1
-
7.4
3.4
-
6.4
3.2
-
6.0
3.2
-
8.6
3.8
80.5
8.8
3.9
92.1
9.2
4.2
99.9
9.5
4.0
104.6
9.0
3.8
-
8.9
3.9
-
8.2
3.6
-
7.4
3.3
-
7.0
3.1
-
6.2
2.6
-
5.8
2.8
-
6.1
3.0
-
12.7
5.8
132.9
12.1
5.5
124.8
11.2
5.0
122.7
11.0
5.0
125.9
9.9
4.6
-
9.6
4.5
-
8.5
4.2
-
7.9
3.8
-
7.3
3.7
-
7.1
3.7
-
7.0
3.7
-
6.5
3.4
-
6.9
3.3
63.8
6.9
3.3
69.8
6.7
3.2
74.5
7.3
3.2
74.8
6.9
3.1
-
6.7
3.0
-
6.4
3.0
-
6.0
2.8
-
5.7
2.7
-
5.4
2.8
-
5.0
2.6
-
5.1
2.6
-
7.0
3.2
63.4
6.5
3.1
61.6
6.4
3.1
62.4
6.0
2.8
64.2
5.9
2.7
-
5.7
2.8
-
5.5
2.7
-
4.8
2.4
-
4.8
2.3
-
4.2
2.1
-
4.4
2.3
-
4.2
2.2
-
6.6
3.3
68.1
6.6
3.1
77.3
6.2
2.9
68.2
5.9
2.8
71.2
5.2
2.5
-
4.7
2.3
-
4.8
2.4
-
4.6
2.5
-
4.3
2.2
-
3.9
1.8
-
4.1
1.8
-
3.7
1.9
-
16.2
8.0
147.2
16.2
7.8
151.3
15.1
7.2
150.9
14.5
6.8
153.3
13.9
6.5
-
14.0
6.7
-
12.9
6.5
-
12.3
6.3
-
11.9
5.8
-
11.2
5.8
-
10.1
5.5
-
10.7
5.8
-
13.6
6.5
130.4
12.1
5.9
152.3
12.5
5.9
140.8
12.1
5.4
128.5
12.1
5.5
-
12.0
5.3
-
11.4
4.8
-
10.7
4.5
-
10.6
4.3
-
9.8
4.5
-
10.3
5.0
-
9.0
4.3
-
9.2
5.3
121.5
9.6
5.5
134.1
9.3
5.4
140.0
9.1
5.1
144.0
9.5
5.4
-
9.3
5.5
-
9.1
5.2
-
8.7
5.1
-
8.2
4.8
-
7.3
4.3
-
7.3
4.4
-
4.3
-
8.0
3.6
63.5
7.9
3.5
65.6
7.6
3.4
72.0
8.4
3.5
80.1
8.1
3.4
-
7.9
3.4
-
7.5
3.2
-
6.8
2.9
-
6.7
3.0
-
6.5
2.8
-
6.1
2.7
-
-
7.7
4.0
71.9
7.4
3.7
71.5
7.2
3.7
79.2
7.6
3.6
82.4
7.8
3.7
-
7.7
3.8
-
7.5
3.6
-
6.6
3.4
-
6.5
3.2
-
6.5
3.3
-
6.3
3.3
-
5.8
-
8.1
3.4
60.0
8.1
3.4
63.2
7.7
3.3
69.1
8.7
3.4
79.2
8.2
3.3
-
7.9
3.3
-
7.5
3.0
-
6.9
2.8
-
6.8
2.9
-
6.5
2.7
-
6.1
2.5
-
-
2.0
.9
17.6
2.4
1.1
27.3
2.4
1.1
24.1
2.9
1.2
32.9
2.9
1.2
-
2.7
1.1
-
2.6
1.0
-
2.4
.9
-
2.2
.9
-
.7
.5
-
1.8
.8
-
1.9
.8
-
5.5
2.7
51.2
6.0
2.8
56.4
6.2
2.8
60.0
7.1
3.0
68.6
6.7
2.8
-
6.5
2.8
-
6.4
2.8
-
6.0
2.6
-
5.6
2.5
-
5.2
2.4
-
4.9
2.2
-
4.9
2.2
-
T ran sp o rtatio n a n d p u b lic utilities
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases........................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
W h o le s a le an d retail trade
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases.........................................................................
Lost workdays.................................................................................
Wholesale trade:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases.........................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
Retail trade:
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases........................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................................
F in a n c e , in su ra n ce , a nd real estate
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases........................................................................
Lost workdays.................................................................................
S e rv ic e s
Total c a s e s ....................................................................................
Lost workday cases.........................................................................
Lost workdays.................................................................................
’ 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, wheite:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N - number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays;
EH - total hours worked by all employees during 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.
6 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
Dash indicates data not available.
M o n th ly La b o r R e view
J u n e 2002
135
Current Labor Statistics:
Injury and Illness
51. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1994-2000
Fatalities
Event or exposure1
1994-98
19992
Average
Number
Noncollision incident.........................................................................
Falls............................................................................................................
O ther e v e n ts or e x p o s u re s 3.................................................................
1 Based on the 1992 BLS Occupational Injury and Illness
3
2000
Number
Percent
6,280
6,054
5,915
100
2,640
1,374
662
113
240
136
272
368
280
387
215
304
382
104
78
2,618
1,496
714
129
270
161
334
390
322
352
206
228
377
102
56
2,571
1,363
694
136
243
153
279
356
304
399
213
280
370
84
71
43
23
12
2
4
3
5
6
5
7
4
5
6
1
1
1,168
923
748
68
107
215
909
651
509
62
80
218
929
677
533
66
78
220
16
11
9
1
1
4
984
564
364
60
281
148
124
1,030
585
358
55
302
163
129
1,005
570
357
61
294
157
123
17
10
6
1
5
3
2
686
609
101
146
89
53
721
634
96
153
92
70
734
659
110
150
85
56
12
11
2
3
2
1
583
322
136
45
118
66
96
77
533
280
125
51
108
55
92
75
480
256
128
29
100
48
93
74
8
4
2
2
1
2
1
199
216
177
3
21
27
19
Includes the category "Bodily reaction and exertion."
Classification Structures.
2 The BLS news release issued August 17, 2000, reported a
total of 6,023 fatal work injuries for calendar year 1999. Since
then, an additional 31 job-related fatalities were identified,
NOTE: Totals for major categories may include sub
categories not shown separately. P ercentages may not add to
totals because of rounding. Dash indicates less than 0.5
bringing the total job-related fatality count for 1999 to 6,054.
percent.
136
M o n th ly La b o r R eview
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Jun e 2002
Obtaining information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
O ffice o r T opic
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Information services
I n te r n e t a d d r ess
http://www.bls.gov
http ://www. bis. go v/opub/
E -m ail
blsdata_staff@bls.gov
Employment and unemployment
Employment, hours, and earnings:
National
State and local
Labor force statistics:
National
Local
Ul-covered employment, wages
Occupational employment
Mass layoffs
Longitudinal data
http://www.bls.gov/ces/
http://www.bls.gov/sae/
cesinfo@bls.gov
data_sa@bls.gov
http ://w w w. bl s. go v/cps/
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http ://www. b 1s.go v/ce w/
http://www.bls.gov/oes/
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.bls.gov/nls/
cpsinfo@bls.gov
lausinfo@bls.gov
cewinfo@bls.gov
oesinfo@bls.gov
mlsinfo@bls.gov
nls info@bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
http ://www. bis.gov/ppi /
http://www.bls.gov/mxp/
http://www.bls.gov/cex/
cpi info@bls.gov
ppi-info@bls.gov
mxpinfo@bls.gov
cexinfo@bls.gov
http ://www. bis .go v/ncs/
http ://w ww. bl s.go v/ebs/
http://www.bls.gov/ect/
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
http://www.bls.gov/iif/
http ://stats .bls.gov/iif/
http ://www. b 1s.go v/cba/
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
oshstaff@bls.gov
cfoistaff@bls.gov
cbainfo@bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/mlp/
dprweb@bls.gov
dipsweb@bls.gov
dprweb@bls.gov
http ://www.bls.gov/emp/
http://www.bls.gov/oco/
oohinfo@bls.gov
oohinfo@bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/fls/
flshelp@bls.gov
http ://www. bis. gov/ro4/
http://www.bls.gov/rol/
http://www.bls.gov/ro5/
http://www.bls.gov/ro6/
http://www.bls.gov/ro7/
http ://www. bis. go v/ro2/
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/
http ://w w w. b 1s.go v/ro9/
BLSinfoAtlanta@bls.gov
BLSinfoBoston@bls.gov
BLSinfoChicago@bls.gov
BLSinfoDallas@bls.gov
BLSinfoKansasCity@bls.gov
BLSinfoNY@bls.gov
BLSinfoPhiladelphia@bls.gov
BLSinfoSF@bls.gov
Prices and living conditions
Consumer price indexes
Producer price indexes)
Import and export price indexes
Consumer expenditures
Compensation and working conditions
National Compensation Survey:
Employee benefits
Employment cost trends
Occupational compensation
Occupational illnesses, injuries
Fatal occupational injuries
Collective bargaining
Productivity
Labor
Industry
Multifactor
Projections
Employment
Occupation
International
Regional centers
Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Kansas City
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Other Federal statistical agencies
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
http://www.fedstats.gov/
U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R
P eriodicals
Bureau of La bo r Statistics
P ostag e and F e e s Paid
Postal S q u a re Building, Rm . 2850
U .S . D epartm ent of Labor
2 M a ssa ch u se tts A ve., N E
U S P S 987-800
W ashington, D C 20212-0001
Official B u sin e ss
Penalty for Private U se, $300
A d d re s s S e rv ice R eq u ested
\
M LR
FED
FEDRE442F
RESERVE
CAROL
PO
BOX
SAINT
ISSDUE003R
BANK
THAXTON
OF
ST
LIBRARY
1
LOUIS
UNIT
442
LOUIS
M0
63166
Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series
Series
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Employment situation
June 7
May
July 5
June
August 2
July
1; 4-24
U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes
June 12
May
July 10
June
August 7
July
38-42
Producer Price Indexes
June 13
May
July 11
June
August 8
July
2; 35-37
Consumer Price indexes
June 18
May
July 19
June
August 16
July
2; 32-34
Real earnings
June 18
May
July 19
June
August 16
July
14, 16
July 25
2nd quarter
Employment Cost Indexes
Productivity and costs
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MLR table
number
1-3; 25-28
August 9
2nd quarter
2;43-46
