Full text of Monthly Labor Review : March 1968, Vol. 91, No. 3

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

Monthly
Labor
Review
March 1968 Vol.91 No.

3

L


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

, i

A Special
Issue on

SR

LABOR
INn ?
nm
1n J j

SOUTH

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

W. Willard Wirtz , Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
A r thur M . R oss , Commissioner of Labor Statistics
R obert J. M y e r s , Deputy Commissioner

Regional Offices and Directors
NEW ENGLAND REG IO N
W endell D . MacD onald

1603-A Federal Building
Government Center
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: 223-6727 (Area Code 617)
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Massachusetts Vermont

M IDDLE A TLANTIC REGION
H er b e r t B ienstock

341 Ninth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: 971-5401 (Area Code 212)
Delaware
New York
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
District of Columbia

N O R TH C E N T R A L REGION
T homas J. M cA rdle
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, HI. 60604
Phone: 353-7226 (Area Code 312)
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Nebraska
Iowa
North Dakota
Kansas
South Dakota
Minnesota
Wisconsin

EAST C E N T R A L REGION
J ohn W. L ehman

1240 East 9th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44199
Phone: 522-3842 (Area Code 216)
Kentucky
Ohio
Michigan
West Virginia

W ESTERN REG IO N
SO U TH ER N REG IO N
B runswick A. B agdon

1371 Peachtree Street NE.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: 526-5416 (Area Code 404)
Alabama
North Carolina
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Florida
South Carolina
Georgia
Tennessee
Louisiana
Texas
Mississippi
Virginia

Max D . K ossoris

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: 556-3178 (Area Code 415)
Alaska
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
California
Oregon
Colorado
Utah
Hawaii
Washington
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana

The M o n th ly L abor R eview is for sale by the regional offices listed above and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Subscription price per year— $7.50 domestic; $9.00
foreign. Single copy 75 cents; this issue $1. Correspondence regarding subscriptions should be addressed to the
Superintendent of Documents.
Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, M o n th ly L abor R eview , Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212. Phone 961-2327 (Area code 202).


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

Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October SI , .

Monthly Labor Review
UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

•

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

L a w r en c e R. K l e in , Editor-in-Chief

J ack F. S trickland, Executive Editor


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

CONTENTS

Labor in the South
hi

v

Preface
Contributors to This Issue
An Introduction

1 When Southern Labor Comes of Age
Industries and Occupations
7
12
16
24
30

Migration and the Labor Force: Prospects
Farm Labor and Public Policy
Employment and Economic Growth: Southeast
Employment and Economic Growth: Southwest
Manned Space Flight and Employment
Training and Retaining Manpower

39
44
49
55

Changing Elementary and Secondary Education
A Determined Effort to Improve Higher Education
Education to Serve Occupational Ends
Manpower Programs and Regional Development
The Worker and the Man

65
74
82
90

The Development of Organized Labor
Wage Differentials: Forces and Counterforces
Discrimination, Integration, and Job Equality
Income and Levels of Living
Contents continued on following page.

March 1968 • Voi. 91 • No. 3

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

CONTENTS—Continued
The Growing South
99

A Review Essay

The Regular Departments
105
107
109
111
112
114
121
131

Foreign Labor Briefs
Research in Progress
Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
Chronology of Recent Labor Events
Major Agreements Expiring in April
Developments in Industrial Relations
Book Reviews and Notes
Current Labor Statistics

Preface

1946, the Monthly Labor Review published a specialized issue on Labor in
the South, the first planned effort in the history of the publication to concentrate on
a single subject in a single number of the magazine.
It was a modest collection of seven articles, but the timing was propitious. The
then separate AFL and CIO were publicizing Southern organization drives; the needs
of the just-ended World War II had begun an economic change in the South; and some
of the exigencies of the war had planted the seeds of the integration and the civil rights
movements of the sixties.
The contents of that 1946 effort, with one notable exception, were available
data refashioned to emphasize the South in the fields of employment, income, prices,
and wage differentials. They comprised a useful body of facts, but the articles generally
avoided discussion of emerging social and economic problems. I t is difficult to find
mention of discrimination or integration. Statistics by race were limited to Census
population tables, and the word Negro appears only six times in the seven articles.
One measure of the change that has taken place in the temper and social tolerances
of the country since 1946 is the almost matter-of-fact discussion of integration and
discrimination in this issue of the Monthly Labor Review. An exceptionally good piece
of additional evidence of the overall advance of the South is the roster of authors for the
volume. Fourteen of the authors have affiliations with Southern colleges or other
institutions. All of them command respect as authorities in their fields.
When we discussed their respective assignments for the special issue, we asked
them to fit their articles into a general scheme that would reveal the revolutionary social
and economic changes that have taken place in the South during the past two decades;
they were enjoined, however, to dwell on the present and speculate on the future, and
to avoid the encyclopedic approach. Their definitions of the South vary a bit, but where
possible the authors were to emphasize interstate rather than interregional comparisons.
It took better than a year to plan the articles and to produce them in their published
form. After all of their efforts and the many drafts, and after enduring unreasonable
editorial finicality, to offer the authors our profound thanks somehow sounds inadequate.
Many people assisted with the issue in many ways, but there are several, in addition
to the authors, who deserve special mention. Dr. Frank T. de Vyver, Vice Provost of
Duke University, participated in the early planning. A subcommittee of the Monthly
Labor Review Planning Advisory Committee gave special assistance: Clara F. Schloss,
Assistant Administrator for Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions; Mary S.
Bedell of the Office of Research, Manpower Administration, a former Executive Editor
of the Review; and Hyman L. Lewis, Chief, Division of Economic Studies, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Phyllis Groom, of the Office of Publications, BLS, served as general
coordinating editor.
—L.R.K.
I n O ctober


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

m

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

Contributors to This Issue
V e r n o n M . B r ig g s ,

Jr.

Assistant Professor of Economics, The University of Texas, Austin

H . M . D outy
Senior Research Consultant, Bureau of Labor Statistics

W in f r e d L . G odw in
Director, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta

H . M . H a m lin
Special Consultant, Center for Occupational Education, North Carolina State University at Raleigh

M ary

A. H olman
Associate Professor of Economics, The George Washington University, and Consultant, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration

E. W a lto n J o nes
Field Director of Coastal Plains Regional Commission and Associate Professor of Economics,
North Carolina State University at Raleigh

R onald M . K o n k el
Program Analyst, Office of Manned Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

H e l e n H . L am ale
Chief, Division of Living Condition Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics

T hom as

J. L a n a h a n , Jr.

Senior Economist, Division of Living Condition Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics

E. E. L ie b h a f s k y
Professor of Economics, University of Houston

R ay M a rsh a ll
A lum ni Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Kentucky,
Lexington

R a l p h M c G il l
Publisher, The Atlanta Constitution

F. S m ith

R obert

Associate Professor of Economics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

W il l ia m

J. S t o b e r

Associate Professor of Economics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

R u pe r t B . V ance
Kenan Professor of Sociology, Institute for Research in Social Science, The University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill

E m ory

F. V ia
Associate Professor of Labor Education, The School for Workers, The University of Wisconsin,
Madison

J a m es W . W h itlo c k


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

Associate Director, Division of Surveys and Field Services, George Peabody College fo r Teachers,
Nashville

v

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

An Introduction

When Southern Labor Comes of Age
R upert B. V ance

I t is becom ing increasingly difficult to write about
the South in any new and pertinent fashion. Labor
and its status in the region, however, remains a
topic of perennial controversy and permanent in­
terest. This is not the first time that the Monthly
Labor Review has featured the topic nor is it likely
to be the last. The editor has assembled contribu­
tions of such worth that I was greatly pleased
when he asked me to provide a brief introduction.
My function, as I see it, is to make certain informal
comments of my own and to indicate how the con­
tributed articles tie in with each other.
The contrast between South Italy and the South­
ern United States serves to point a moral. In the
remarkable resurgence of Italy after World War
I I it is noted that economic development in North
Italy has pulled further away from the underde­
veloped South, increasing a differential that was
already stultifying.1 In the United States it can
hardly be maintained that the highly developed
regions, the Northeast and the Midwest, have
failed to maintain their rapid pace. The point is
that for recent decades, in an economy in which
communities have to move fast just to stand still,
both the Southeast and the Southwest have
mounted and sustained more rapid growth rates
than the remainder of the country. It is from these
trend lines that the Review can project the coming
of age of Southern labor.
The one adequate measure of labor’s economic
status and a region’s productive power appears to
be personal income per capita. Here it should be
permissible to cite a pertinent calculation in addi­
tion to those furnished in the Review. Professor
Howard G. Schaller of the University of Indiana
has calculated that per capita income in the South,
as a percentage of per capita income in the rest of


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

the Nation, rose from 46 percent in 1929 to 51 per­
cent in 1940 to 69 percent in 1963—a gain of 23
percentage points in 34 years.
Projecting these trends to 1975, Professor Schal­
ler was able to estimate a per capita income of
$2,422 (in 1963 dollars) in the South, thus reach­
ing 79 percent of the national figure. At the rate
at which the South has been changing since World
War II, Schaller estimated that it would require
a half century for the region to overtake the rest
of the country in the matter of income per person.2
It is against this background of change that this
issue of the Review is written.
Industrialization and Change
No Nation, and no regional component, escapes
its history however much it may hope to over­
come it in time. The South has been called a his­
tory without a country of its own. In no sector
has The Burden of Southern History, in C. Vann
Woodward’s title, been heavier than in the region’s
labor experience. The South, the one major section
of a democratic country that lacked a free labor
system as late as 1865, was not rescued from its
problem by emancipation. The Negro freedman
found precarious refuge in an inefficient system
of share tenancy based on cotton, where he was
joined by poor whites, and together they built up
an immense labor reserve that has not been liqui­
dated to our own day. Our contributors cite this
unskilled labor reserve in agriculture both as a
1 Lloyd Saville, “Sectional Development in Italy and the
United States,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1956, pp. 39—
53.
2 Howard G. Schaller, “Changes in the Southern Economy,”
Manpower Resources and Human Resources Adjustment (Raleigh,
N.C., The Agricultural Policy Institute, May 1965, Series 15, pp.
1-14).

1

2

source of Southern differentials and as a man­
power resource inviting further development.
It is not surprising to find that Southern lead­
ers have opposed the imposition of national stand­
ards in the Federal minimum wage laws and in the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 before the South’s eco­
nomic development is completed. Competent
economists, such as Marshall R. Coldberg, have
sometimes supported this view.3Joseph J. Spengler
has pointed out that the South may require an in­
crease in the number of rural growth points at
which to locate new manufacturing in order to
take advantage of lower living costs.4H. M. Douty.
however, is able to point to a wide range of wage
differentials which should appeal to mobile indus­
tries for some time to come.
In the wake of the South’s search for quick
industrialization in the 1920’s came a repu­
tation of being biased against labor. A recent
historian, George Tindall, has given pertinent ex­
hibits of the period. A steel executive extolled the
South as “the greatest, best, and cheapest labor
market in the United States.” “Strikes unknown,”
a chamber of commerce proclaimed. “Under no
more than reasonably fair treatment of its help,”
a Kiwanis Club of North Carolina explained,
“every factory or branch of industry is certain
to be able to secure adequate, satisfactory, and
contented labor.” 6
Broadus Mitchell, historian of The South's In­
dustrial Revolution, wrote: “The workers are
being offered on the auction block pretty much as
their black predecessors were and their qualities
are enlarged upon with the same salesman’s gusto.
Native whites! Anglo Saxons of the true blood!
All English speaking! Harmoniously satisfied
with little! They know nothing of foreign-born
radicalism! Come down and gobble them u p !” 6
“In booster rhetoric,” summed up George Tindall,
“the patient docility of the Saxon churl become
almost indistinguishable from that attributed to
the African.” 7
Labor unionism grew feebly before the 1930’s.
The hostility of Southern men of business toward
unions conformed to their philosophy of quick
development and was cherished as though it were
a magnet to attract migrating capital and indus­
try. F. Ray Marshall shows the extent of the
Southern differential in union organization. Cer­
tain Southern firms and certain segments of in­
dustry, it is reported, have found a most effective

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

way to ward off union organization. They pay the
national wage scale and meet union standards
with the obvious pitch: “What need have you to
organize and pay union dues?”
The higher that Southern development goes in
technology, skills, and participation in national
corporate enterprise, the greater will be the im­
portance and the amount of union organization.
So true is this that those who carry on the old
fight against unionization will become suspect as
reactionaries who aline themselves against prog­
ress. The South, however, remains more hospitable
to craft unions than to the new industrial unions.
An Era of Development
Our contributors rightfully have avoided limit­
ing themselves to a review of history, preferring to
examine the South as it is today and comment on
its future. All share the conclusion that, whatever
its national role, the South no longer represents
an underdeveloped economy. If one had to date the
crossover, it might well be placed in the census
decade between 1910 and 1920. As late as 1920
slightly over 50 percent of the region’s labor
force worked in agriculture (the textbook case for
underdevelopment). By 1960 it was 10 percent;
today it is much less.
Basis for Development
The South’s older complaints emphasized its
position as a colonial economy, subject to exploi­
tation by national corporate interests. The new
analysis emphasizes its access to capital and points
out the extent to which the South has benefited as a
component region in the world’s richest economy.
W. W. Rostow, studying international economic
development, holds that underdeveloped countries,
subject to the thrust of initial capitalization, in­
dustrialization, and expanding markets, reach a
take-off stage after which economic growth is
3 Marshall R. Coldberg, “Southern Economic Development,
Some Research Accomplishments and Gaps” in Edgar T. Thomp­
son, ed. Perspective on the South: Agenda for Research (Durham,
N.C., Duke University Press, 1967), p. 18.
4 Joseph J. Spengler, “Southern Economic Trends and Pros­
pects,” in J. C. McKenney and E. T. Thompson, eds., The South
in Continuity and Change (Durham, N.C., Duke University Press,
1965), p. 127.
5 George B. Tindall, The Emergence of the New South, 19131945 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1967),
pp. 317-318.
6 Broadus Mitchell, “Flesh Pots in the South,” Virginian
Quarterly Review, Fall 1927, p. 169.
1 Op. cit., p. 318.

3

SOUTHERN LABOR COMES OF AGE

self-sustaining.8 Articles in this issue by William
Stober and Robert F. Smith indicate that the
Mason-Dixon line no longer constitutes an iron
curtain against the affluent society. Changes in
industries and occupations in the Southeast and
Southwest, they are able to show, resemble each
other yet exhibit regional differences. Whether
the two regions will move into Rostow’s stage of
high mass consumption in the 50 years assigned
remains dependent on the state of agriculture.
Pertinent here is the changing status of farm
labor as discussed by Walton Jones.
As the South secures the capital resources re­
quired to develop its natural resources it encoun­
ters a basic fact of life and labor, the problem
of its human resources. Today U.S. manpower
is in short supply while 3 million Americans
remained unemployed as of January 1968. In
growing Southern cities, as throughout the Na­
tion, help-wanted ads ask for teachers, engineers,
doctors, policemen, pilots, toolmakers, physicists,
journalists, middle-management executives, ma­
chinists, computer programmers, and mechanics—
in brief, jobs that are critical and for which skills
are necessary.
E. E. Liebhafsky is able to present the demo­
graphic projections of the Southern labor force in
terms of its numbers by age, sex, race, rural-urban
residence, and migration. That Negro men are
underemployed while Negro women are overem­
ployed tells us something about tradition and her­
itage, Southern and Negro. Since human resources
depend on institutional resources for their highest
development, James Whitlock and Winfred God­
win are able to show how far the South has gone
in providing secondary and higher education and
how far the region needs to go. The influence of
present manpower programs on the projected fu­
ture of Southern labor is assessed by Professor
Vernon Briggs. All show the familiar differentials
against the South; all suggest that these differen­
tials demand a differential rate of growth in favor
of the region. They suggest that the region may
find this rate difficult to maintain unless full equal­
ization is achieved in expenditures for education
and manpower development.
As much as the region has done to improve
higher education, its universities are rarely rated
8W. W. Kostow, The Process of Economic Growth (New York,
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1956), passim.


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

above second class levels. Not a single Nobel Prize
winner has done his work at a Southern univer­
sity and none teach there now. To staff its business
and universities with talent of the highest rank,
the South must send many of its sons outside to
win scientific, engineering, and doctorate degrees,
and then try to lure them back. In a field closer
to skilled labor, however, the South is now setting
the pace in vocational education. In public occupa­
tional education, as Herbert M. Hamlin prefers
to call it, the 13 Southern States now have 281 area
schools in operation to provide technical training
for persons past high school age. As Hamlin shows,
along with the region’s community junior colleges
this trend represents two important movements:
(1) the attempt to attract industry by providing
it with trained employees and (2) a laudable en­
deavor to improve the earning power of its native
white and Negro workers.
Special national projects like Oak Ridge, the
Savannah River Project, and military installa­
tions, have forced increased manpower demands
on the South in terms of both quantity and
quality. A fresh and enlightening account of the
impact of manned space flight installations on
Southern communities has been prepared espe­
cially for this issue by Mary A. Holman and Ron­
ald M. Konkel. The way these programs have up­
graded skills, changed local mores, and improved
facilities in such communities as Huntsville, Ala.,
Brevard County, Fla., and Hancock County, Miss.,
is nothing short of astounding. That they are ca­
pable of shocking certain communities out of the
age of the “Southern Cracker” is literal truth. That
the communities themselves rise to their respon­
sibilities is equally amazing.
Southern Labor
When one comes to consider the status of the
worker and his job, the South conventionally re­
mains the home of nonunion labor, the differential
wage, racial discrimination, and the lower stand­
ard of living. While Ray Marshall is able to show
that the South has about 14 percent of its nonagricultural workers organized, as compared with
30 percent elsewhere in the country, there are some
industries in which the region has a good union
record. No one can predict, but the gap between
the North and South should continue to narrow
as national corporations move South bringing their
union contracts with them. The South will have

4
to increase union membership to 3 million to reach
the national proportion by 1972 and an increase of
1,455,000 will be needed to maintain its 1964 pro­
portion of 14 percent organized.
Southern promoters, it appears, have always
cherished Southern wage differentials as an im­
portant part of their sales talk. H. M. Douty, how­
ever, is able to show that earnings in the South
exceed those in the rest of the country in at least
three groups: pulp and paper, industrial chemicals,
and synthetic fibers. In eight others, wages reach
at least 90 percent of the national rates, including
textile and hosiery. Increasing diversification, bet­
ter industry mix, needed investments in education
and training, and greater capitalization will bring
the region nearer to equal pay for equal work. But
as Mr. Douty points out, wage structures change
slowly and no drastic reversals can be expected
without lower birth rates and further liquidation
of the agricultural labor reserve.
Emory F. Via writes that Negroes feel that job
discrimination in the South is pervasive and racial.
I t is true that more Negroes hold new and better
jobs but they get a disproportionate share of low
status jobs and unemployment. While improve­
ment is planned and demanded in the region’s new
Human Relations Councils, it appears too soon to
project improved trends.
Any resume of the South’s condition will point
out that with 28 percent of the U.S. population, the
South draws 22 percent of the Nation’s personal


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

income. One fourth to 30 percent of all Southern
families and individuals can be classified as poor
compared with 15 percent of families in other parts
of the Nation. Helen H. Lamale and Thomas J.
Lanahan feel that these conditions, too, will alter
but that changes in income and standards of living
will be slow. The most beneficial change in terms
of statistical average would come from improve­
ment in the Negro’s employment and occupations.
Along with the economy, scholarship about the
South, as this issue makes clear, is achieving ma­
turity. Shortly after the editor laid plans for this
specialized issue of the Monthly Labor Review,
1967 saw the appearance of two definitive studies
of Southern labor: The Twentieth Century Fund’s
The Advancing South: Manpower Prospects and
Problems and F. Ray Marshall’s Labor in the
South. I t is eminently fitting that the present issue
should contain contributions from authors in­
volved in both while the books themselves are re­
viewed by one of the country’s leading journalists,
Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution. Wheth­
er one casts his glance forward or backward, he
must conclude that the region is going in the right
direction and at a fairly brisk pace. That it may
be a half century or more before inequalities are
resolved, if ever, is one of the considerations that
make regional analysis important. When Southern
labor comes of age, the term New South will also
reach maturity. If and when, the term should be
retired and moved to the storage files of history.

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

Industries
and
Occupations

From Past to Future
Cotton is no longer king, but the legacy
of its long and harsh reign lingers on. The
present employment structure and the
region’s past and future growth prospects
bear the wnmistakdble imprint of early
and heavy specialization in the production
of cotton and tobacco.

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

Migration
and
the Labor
Force:
Prospects
E . E . L iebhafsky

T he a b ility o f th e Sou th to train and
retain its skilled w orkers w ill decide its
econom ic fu tu re.
of the South as the economically leastdeveloped region of the United States is attribut­
able, in large measure, to the fact that the nature
of its social organization prevents development
of well-educated skilled workers in adequate
numbers. The forms of this social organization—
the economic, social, and political institutions that
exert a dominant influence on the growth of
the region’s economy—are in turn the products
of the “manner in which the values, aspirations,
and beliefs of Southerners interact with the exist­
ing complement of natural resources and market
demands.” 1 In that interaction, the South2 ex­
perienced a great transition from a rural-agricul­
tural to an urban-industrial economy and lost
large numbers of its residents through migration.
Whether the South will continue to lose large
numbers of workers depends upon the ability of
the region to enlarge opportunities through im­
provement of its social and political institutions,
as well as through industrial expansion. I t will
also depend upon the ability of the South to up­
grade the quality of its human resources through
education and to produce and retain the skilled
workers, technicians, and able managers essential
T h e status


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

to the development of a diversified urban-indus­
trial economy in which capital-intensive indus­
tries account for an increasing proportion of
employment.
Of primary importance to the South’s economic
growth will be its ability to retain its educated and
trained white and Negro workers. Any tendency
to underuse their talents would deter that growth.
Persistence of significant racial inequality in em­
ployment, widening of occupational inequality
between Negro and white workers with the same
levels of education, and the resultant outmigration
of Negroes would prevent the Southern economy
from expanding as it might. This article shows
that whether the South will have an adequate
labor force in 1975 depends primarily upon the
rate of migration from the region. I t presents
three projections of the Southern labor force, each
of which is based upon a different assumption of
future net interstate migration:
Projection 1915-1 assumes that rates of net migra­
tion for each age-sex-color group for each State dur­
ing the 1960-75 period will be the same as in the 195060 period.
Projection 1915-11 assumes that the migration
rates for the 1950-60 period will decline to zero by
1980 so that, after 1980, there will be no further re­
distribution of population through net interstate mi­
gration.
Projection 1915-III assumes th at there will be no
net interstate migration during the entire projection
period. This projection, therefore, shows the South’s
survivors on the projection date of the population
enumerated in the 1960 Census.

It should be noted that these are illustrative
projections. None is a forecast, for no judgment is
made with respect to which of the three projec­
tions is the probable or most likely figure.3 The
1 James G. Maddox and others, The Advancing South: Man­
power Prospects and Problems (New York, Twentieth Century
Fund, 1967), p. 7.
2 For the purposes of this article, the South is defined as in­
cluding the following 13 S tates: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Okla­
homa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In pre­
paring this article, I depended heavily upon my participation in
the research underlying The Advancing South: Manpower Pros­
pects and Problems, and upon the exchange of ideas, during the
course of that study, with James G. Maddox, Vivian W. Hender­
son, and Herbert M. Hamlin. I am indebted, also, to Roger D.
Little who assisted me in the preparation of this article.
3 Consistent with the approach of the Bureau of the Census,
which prepared the projections, no attempt is made here to pre­
dict the future. See Conrad Taueber, “The Census Bureau Pro­
jections of the Size, and the Age and Sex Composition of the
Population of the United States in 1975,” in Donald J. Bogue, ed.,
Applications of Demography: The Population Situation in the
United States in 1975 (Oxford, Ohio, Scripps Foundation for
Research in Population Problems, 1957), pp. 53—58.

7

8

effect of net migration on the Southern labor force
is shown in table 1.
I f no net interstate migration occurs (1975I I I ) , the 1975 Southern labor force will consist
of about 24.2 million workers. Continuation of the
1950-60 migration rates (1975-1) will mean the
labor force will grow to only 28.2 million; if net
migration were to drop to zero by 1980 (1975-11),
about 23.8 million persons would be working or
looking for work in the South in 1975.4 The chart
shows the projected 1975 data in terms of the
actual 1960 labor force figures.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
Projected 1975 Southern Labor Force A ccording to
Three Assumptions on M ig ratio n as a Percent of
1960 Labor Force

PERCENT
150

140

130

PERCENT
120

110

NON W HITE

110

120

130

140

150

WHITE
i

1

1

□

____
1

11

Using Education
MIGRATION ASSUMPTIONS:

The absence of net interstate migration (1975n i ) would result in a Southern labor force con­
sisting of the smallest number of whites and the
largest number of Negroes. Continuation of the
1950-60 migration trends would result in a loss
of about 1.3 million Negro workers and a gain
of 250,000 white workers, compared with what
would occur in the absence of migration. I f net
interstate migration were to drop to zero by 1980,
however, the South in 1975 would have 153,000
more white workers and 414,000 more Negro
workers than if the 1950—60 migration trenids
continued.6
Rising levels of educational attainment and
continuation of the, South’s population shift to
urban areas are expected to cause the total labor
force participation rates of both whites and Ne­
groes to be higher in 1975 than they were in 1960.
(See table 2.) The rates for white and Negro men
are expected to decline, while the rates for women
of both races are expected to rise. A larger propor­
tion of white than of Negro men age 14 6 and over
is expected to engage in economic activity, but
the labor force participation rate for Negro women
is expected to continue to exceed the rate for white
women.
Among workers 14 to 24 years of age, the rate
for white men will remain virtually unchanged,
while that for Negro men will increase. Rates for
all women in this age group will rise, but a larger
rise is expected for white than for Negro women
as new opportunities for employment in whitecollar jobs appear in urban areas.
White men in the prime working ages of 25
to 54 are expected to continue their high partici­
pation rates, while Negro men in this age group

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

I

MIGRATION RATES DURING 1960-75 WILL BE THE SAME

AS DURING 1950-60 .
n - MIGRATION RATES FOR 1950-60 WILL DECLINE TO ZERO BY 1980.

m NO MIGRATION DURING 1960 75.

are expected to increase their rate by almost 2.5
percentage points, using their improved education
and training in responding to more favorable
employment opportunities. Negro women between
25 and 54 years of age are expected to increase
their rate to 63 percent from 54 percent, while
the rate for white women in this age group will
increase to 49 percent from 39 percent. Increased
urbanization, higher levels of educational attain­
ment, expansion of employment opportunities in
white-collar jobs and in service-producing indus­
tries—along with decreased discrimination against
Negroes in the South—underlie these projected
increases. The upward movement of the rates for
Negro men and women in the prime working ages
can be expected to increase the incomes of Negro
families and permit them greater participation in
the mainstream of Southern economic life.
* The latter estimate may itself be too low, inasmuch as there
was a reversal from net outmigration to net inmigration in the
period 1955-60. The Bureau of the Census has published revised
population projections which take this change into account. (See
Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25,
No. 375, October.)
5 Projection 1975—11 would be expected to produce a larger
Southern Negro labor force than 1975—1, because, with the excep­
tion of Florida, all Southern States experienced a net outmigra­
tion of Negroes between 1950 and 1960. The larger number of
white Southern workers in 1975—11 than in 1975-1 is attributable
to the high rate of white migration into Florida between 1950
and 1960. Thus, the South’s gain of 153,000 white workers, under
the 1975-1 projection, would occur almost wholly in one State.
6 Beginning with 1967, the lower age limit for inclusion of per­
sons in the labor force statistics was revised from 14 years to 16
years. The use of data reflecting age 14 and over does not alter the
conclusions in this article since those in ages 14 and 15 constitute
a relatively small part of the labor force.

9

MIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE

Larger numbers of older workers, Negro and
white, are expected to become eligible for retire­
ment benefits in 1975. At the same time, however,
some of them—particularly those urban residents
with minimal education obtained in rural schools—
will withdraw from the labor force, discouraged
by inability to find work. Both of these factors will
contribute to the projected decline in the participa­
tion rates of older men. In contrast, white and Ne­
gro women will participate in the labor force at
higher rates in 1975 than they did in 1960, as they
find more jobs for which they are qualified.
Labor Force Withdrawal

the prospects for the future labor force of the
South. As the Southern economy has come to re­
semble that of the Nation, it has responded with
increasing sensitivity to changes in the national
level of economic activity. James G. Maddox con­
tends that the South “makes its greatest gains in
employment, in improving the occupational status
of its workers, and in raising per capita incomes
during period of national full employment. . . . ” 7
Maintenance of full employment in the Nation’s
economy will result in increased labor force par­
ticipation of Southern Negro men in the 14- to 24
and the 55-and-over age groups who, in the face of
continual failure to find jobs, tend to become dis­
couraged and to withdraw from the labor force.

The level of employment in the national econo­
my is one of the major factors that will determine
T able

1.

W

o r k in g A g e
T hree

7 Maddox, op. cit., p. 206.

P o p u l a t io n a n d L a b o r F o r c e , 1950 a n d 1960, a n d P r o j e c t i o n s f o r 1975, A c c o r d in g
M i g r a t i o n A s s u m p t io n s , B y A g e , S e x , a n d C o l o r , f o r t h e S o u t h 1

to

Labor force

Population
Age, sex, and color
1950
14 years and older:
Both sexes, total_______
White___________ ______
Nonwhite.... ......................_.
Men, total......................
White : ...................................
Nonwhite................. ............
Women, total__________
White__ 1..............................
Nonwhite..............................

1960

1975-1

1975-11

1975-III

1950

1960

1975-1

1975-11

1975-III

29,501
23,134
6,367
14,434
11,406
3,028
15,067
11, 728
3,339

33,610
27,126
6,484
16,321
13,263
3,058
17,289
13,863
3,426

42,485
35,299
7,186
20,165
16,876
3,289
22,320
18,424
3,896

43,237
35,349
7,888
20, 641
16,981
3, 660
22, 596
18,368
4,228

43,597
34,297
9,300
21,110
16,688
4,422
22,488
17, 609
4,879

15,435
11,916
3, 519
11,341
9,000
2,341
4,094
2,916
1,178

18,022
14, 529
3,493
12,257
10,135
2,122
5,765
4,394
1,371

23,221
19,270
3,951
14, 607
12,348
2,259
8, 614
6,922
1,692

23, 788
19,423
4,365
15, Oil
12,482
2,529
8, 777
6,941
1,836

24,243
19, 014
5,229
15,393
12,294
3,099
8,850
6,720
2,130

Men, total........................ _
W h ite!................................
Nonwhite_______________
Women, total................. .
White.............................. ......
Nonwhite____ _____ ____

7,492
5,696
1,796
3,726
2,870
856
3, 766
2,826
940

8,033
6,254
1,779
4,080
3,198
882
3,953
3,056
897

11,235
8,820
2,415
5, 660
4,491
1,169
5,575
4,329
1,246

11,665
8,967
2,698
5,887
4, 575
1,312
5, 777
4,391
1,386

12,165
8,976
3,189
6,161
4,583
1,578
6,004
4,393
1,611

3,282
2,490
792
2,303
1,761
542
979
729
250

3,382
2,703
679
2,285
1,840
445
1,098
864
234

5,141
4,116
1,025
3,234
2, 579
655
1,907
1,537
370

5,308
4,173
1,135
3,341
2,613
728
1,967
1,560
407

5,493
4,153
1,340
3,465
2,594
871
2,028
1, 559
469

25 to 54 years:
Both sexes, total_______
W hite._____ ___________
Nonwhite.............. ...............
Men, to tal_____________
White........... .......................
Nonwhite_______________
Women, total.....................
White................ ...................
Nonwhite..........................

16,201
12, 780
3,421
7,902
6,297
1,605
8,299
6,483
1,816

17, 684
14,425
3,259
8,583
7,080
1,503
9,102
7,345
1,757

20,085
16,985
3,100
9, 553
8,163
1,390
10, 532
8,822
1,710

20,580
17,100
3,480
9,876
8,274
1,602
10,704
8,826
1,878

20,911
16, 596
4,315
10,283
8,224
2, 059
10, 628
8,372
2,256

9,980
7,733
2,247
7,282
5,842
1,440
2,698
1,891
807

11,833
9, 566
2,267
8,002
6,674
1,328
3,831
2,892
939

14,256
11,921
2,335
8,956
7,691
1,265
5,300
4,230
1,070

14, 697
12,072
2,625
9,280
7,826
1,454
5,417
4,246
1,171

15,087
11,833
3,254
9, 623
7,759
1,864
5,464
4,074
1,390

55 years and older:
Both sexes, to tal_______
White....................................
N onw hite.--.........................
Men, to tal_______ _____
W h i t e : ...............................
N onwhite............................
Women, total__________
White____ _____________
N onwhite.______ _______

5,808
4, 658
1,150
2,805
2,238
567
3,003
2,420
583

7,892
6,447
1,445
3,658
2,986
672
4,234
3,462
772

11,165
9,494
1,671
4,951
4,221
730
6,214
5,273
941

10,993
9,283
1,710
4,877
4,131
746
6,115
5,151
964

10,521
8,725
1,796
4, 666
3,881
785
5,856
4,844
1,012

2,172
1,692
480
1,756
1,397
359
416
295
121

2,806
2,259
547
1,969
1,620
349
837
639
198

3,824
3,233
591
2,417
2,078
339
1,407
1,155
252

3,783
3,178
605
2,390
2,043
347
1,393
1,135
258

3,663
3,028
635
2ij 305
1,941
364
1,358
1,087
271

14 to 24 years:
Both sexes, total_______
White_____ ____________

1 For definition of the South, see text footnote 2.
N ote: Because of rounding, the sum of figures m ay not equal totals.
Soubce: Population and labor force data for 1950 and 1960 are from the
decennial censuses. Population projections for 1975 were prepared by the
Bureau of the Census and are consistent with the Bureau’s Series III pro­
jection of total population (Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 251,
“ Interim Revised Projections of the Population of the United States: 1960


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

to 1980,” July 6, 1962). The Series III projection assumes that by 1965-70,
fertility will decline from the 1955-57 level to that of 1949-51 and will remain
at that level until 1980.
. .
.
The participation rates employed in the 3 projections of 1975 labor force
are consistent with the 1965 and 1970 labor force participation rates, projected
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and published in the 1963 Manpower Report
of the President.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

10
T

able

2.

L abor F

orce

P

a r t ic ip a t io n

R ates

in

t h e S o u t h ,1
and C olor

1950

and

1960,

and

P r o je c t io n s

1975,

to

by

Se x ,

A ge,
Both sexes

Age and color
1950

Men
1975

1960

1950

Women

1960

1975

1950

1960

1975

14 years and older:
Total.................. ......
White....... ...... .............
Nonwhite..... ........ ......

52.3
51.5
55.3

53.6
53.6
53.9

54.4
54.4
54.5

78.6
78.9
77.3

75.1
76.4
69.4

71.7
72.6
67.7

27.2
24.9
35.3

33.3
31.7
40.0

38.3
37.4
42.8

14 to 24 years:
T o ta l........................
White............................
Nonwhite.....................

43.8
43.7
44.1

42.1
43.2
38.2

45.7
46.6
42.7

61.8
61.4
63.3

56.0
57.5
50.5

56.9
57.3
55.7

26.0
25.8
26.6

27.8
28.3
26.1

34.2
35.5
30.1

25 to 54 years:
T otaL ___________
White............................
Nonwhite.....................

61.6
60.5
65.7

66.9
66.3
69.6

71.6
70.8
75.6

92.1
92.8
89.7

93.2
94.3
88.4

94.2
94.6
90.8

32.5
29.2
44.4

42.1
39.4
53.5

50.6
48.5
62.6

55 years and older:
Total.........................
White............................
Nonwhite....... .............

37.4
36.3
41.8

35.5
35.0
37.8

34.1
33.9
35.3

62.6
62.4
63.4

53.8
54.3
51.8

48.7
49.3
46.4

13.9
20.7

19.8
18.4
25.6

21.9
26.7

1 For definition of the South, see text footnote 2.
Source : The 1950 and 1960 labor force participation rates were computed
from the decennial censuses. The projected 1975 participation rates were
based on trends th at prevailed between 1950 and 1960; extrapolation to 1975
o f the projected participation rates to 1970 published in the 1963 Manpower
Report of the President; and evaluation of the influence during the next few

“Labor force disappearance” 8—evidenced by lower
labor force participation rates for Negro men than
for white men—is a phenomenon which has
emerged only since the mid-1940’s 9 and, in the
South, is related to the shift of job opportunities
from rural areas to urban centers. Causes underly­
ing Negroes’ discouragement and withdrawal from
the labor force are not likely to disappear in the
South by 1975, and the participation rates of Ne­
gro men in all age groups are expected to remain
below the relevant rates of whites. The upward
projection of the rates for Negro men under 55
years of age, however, reflects the probability that
racial inequality in employment will diminish in
the South.
The continuing transition of the South from a
rural-agricultural to an urban-industrial economy
is accompanied by the growth of economic oppor­
tunity, changes in rural attitudes, rising educa­
tional attainment, and a decrease in the influence
of tradition as an impediment to the employment
of women. All of these factors will tend to in­
crease labor force participation, while other fac­
tors will tend to reduce it. Among the latter are
more rigid enforcement of compulsory school at­
tendance and child labor laws, appearance of bar­
riers to the employment of older men, and rising
educational requirements for newly created jobs.
Young boys moving to urban areas face work
opportunities more limited than those available
in unpaid family labor in rural areas. Older men,
who tend to do farm work as long as they are

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

1 2 .2

2 2 .6

years of such factors as continuing urbanization, increasing educational attain­
ments and opportunities, declines in employment discrimination, and avail­
ability of j obs in a national economy in which the national unemployment
rate is assumed to be 4 percent.

physically able, find age a barrier to employment
in urban areas, to being rehired for urban jobs
from which they have been laid off, or to re­
training for new occupations.
In the urban South, rising levels of educational
attainment qualify more women for work outside
the home, while educational deficiencies cause
older men to withdraw from the labor force.
Growth of employment in white-collar occupations
offers to women with the requisite education the
opportunity to reenter the job market after their
children reach school age, but it closes the employ­
ment opportunity door to older men with defi­
cient training. And the cultural and legal forces
which lengthen school attendance cause young
people to stay in school longer to qualify for jobs.
Urban Development
Attractions offered by the urban-industrial so­
ciety, compared with those offered by agriculture,
have caused many Southerners to abandon “the
good life” on the farm during the past two dec­
ades. Writing in the late 1940’s, two students of
the Southern economy stressed its rural character,
indicating that less than 35 percent of the region’s
population was classified as urban.10 While the
8 Manpower Report of the President and Report on Manpower
Requirements, Resources, Utilization, and Training (U.S. De­
partment of Labor, March 1965) p. 31.
9 Seymour L. Wolfbein, Employment and Unemployment in the
United States (Chicago, Science Research Associates, Inc., 1964),
p. 133.
10 Calvin B. Hoover and B. U. Ratchford, Economic Resources
and Policies in the South (New York, Macmillan Co., 1951), p. 27.

11

MIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE

urban proportion of the South’s population lagged
about 50 years behind that of the Nation in 1940,
however, the lag had been reduced to 40 years
in 1950 and to less than 20 years in I960.11
In fact, between 1940 and 1960, the total popu­
lation of Southern cities with 100,000 inhabitants
or more rose from 5.6 million to 10.3 million—an
increase of 83 percent, compared with 26 percent
in the Nation as a whole and 16 percent in all other
parts of the country combined.12 Increases in the
population of the South’s large cities ranged from
less than 1,000 in Knoxville, 2,000 in Chattanooga,
and 4,000 in Nashville to more than 500,000 in
Houston. This growth of Southern cities caused
the proportion of the South’s white population in
urban areas to increase from 35 to 58 percent, and
that of its Negro population in urban areas to rise
from 34 to 56 percent.13
Continued urbanization of the South between
now and 1975 is clearly to be expected, as growing
cities attract rural inhabitants leaving farms and
seeking better economic opportunity. As the edu­
cational attainment of these new urban residents
rises, they will find it increasingly easier to qual­
ify for the new jobs generated by urban growth.
Education, therefore, accompanied by equality in
employment opportunity regardless of race, will
contribute to the ability of the region to use ef­
fectively the services of its future labor force.
That the South lags behind the rest of the Na­
tion in educational attainment is evident from the
data below. The meager investment in human re­
sources has left the South with a much smaller
proportion of well-educated persons than the rest
of the Nation and with the most poorly educated
Negroes in the United States.
Percent of persons 25 years old and over with education of—
Less than 5 years of
elementary school

4 years of high
school or more

Region
White
Nonwhite
White
Nonwhite
United States.
6.7
23.5
43.1
21.3
South......................
10.5
33.5
39.6
13.8
All other regions__
5.5
14.0
44.2
28.4
Source : Census of Population: 1960, Series PC{1)C (U.S. B ureau of the
Census), table 47.

The number of high school and college grad­
uates will have increased dramatically in the South
by 1975, as will the number of persons who have
u Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1962 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census), table 840.
12 Ibid., table 14.
13 Maddox, op. cit., p. 221.

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0

-

68-2


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

benefited from vocational and technical training.
If the region’s Negroes do not share these oppor­
tunities equally with whites, the South will not
fully avail itself of the opportunities it will have
for economic development. Such equal sharing in
education is not anticipated; yet there is no doubt
that the region will continue to engage in a con­
certed effort to improve the educational attain­
ment of its labor force.
The lag of the South behind the rest of the Na­
tion in education will not have been eliminated
by 1975. Negro members of the Southern labor
force—improved as their educational attainment
may be by 1975—will not have achieved levels of
education approaching those of white persons in
the South or any other region or of Negroes in rest
of the Nation. Nevertheless, the Negro-white
gap in educational attainment is certain to narrow
as continued progress is made toward breaking the
cycle of undereducation which has characterized
Southern Negro families for so long.
Thus, it is clear that the South’s future economic
development is closely related to the extent to
which it develops its human resources through ed­
ucation and training and to the degree of effi­
ciency in utilizing Negro and white members of
its future labor force.
Attainable Goals
The South’s goal is to maintain the trend of
providing jobs to assure the relatively full employ­
ment of the region’s labor force. Its success in
meeting that challenge will depend upon the level
of economic activity in the Nation as a whole.
Another goal, and one which the South has
taken steps to meet, is the need to provide all
Southern workers with opportunities for educa­
tion, training, and skill development. The avail­
ability of these opportunities to Negroes and
whites, along with complete elimination of dis­
criminatory employment practices, will eventually
permit Southern workers to increase their mobil­
ity, as they qualify for new occupations that de­
velop in an urban society.
Whether or not the South attains these goals
will largely be determined by the rate workers
move out of, or into, the region. This will be the
factor determining whether the South has 23.2
million, 23.8 million, or 24.2 million persons work­
ing or seeking work in the region in 1975.

Farm
Labor
and
Public
Policy
E . W alton Jones

T he

excess o f

farm

labor h as been

lessened, bu t th e problem s till plagu es
the econom y.
T he f a r m l a b o r s i t u a t i o n has changed markedly
in recent years, but the old basic problem—the
excess of labor—has not been solved, although it
has become somewhat less acute.1 There is a dan­
ger that the changes that have taken place, par­
ticularly the improvement in earnings and gen­
eral reduction in unemployment of farm workers,
might conceal the fact that oversupply of labor
continues to plague the agricultural economy.
The persistence of the problem is evidenced by
the continuance of low returns to farm labor.
Wages for hired farm workers (without room and
board) increased more than 20 percent between
1960 and 1966 in the United States as a whole, but
they were still only $1.36 an hour in July 1967
compared with $2.88 average in manufacturing.
The difference is greater in the South than in the
Nation as a whole; the rates for farm and manu­
facturing workers in July 1967 were $1.03 and
$2.35, respectively.2
The low return to farm labor is ample evidence
of the existence of excess labor in farming. When
and if the supply relative to demand in the farm
sector is more nearly in balance with the relation12

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

ship in the nonfarm sector, the returns to labor
will be more comparable. The extent of unemploy­
ment and, more, important, underemployment in­
dicates further the magnitude of excess labor in
farming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimated, using 1960 census data, that 18 percent
of all employed rural residents could be classified
as underemployed. The rate of underemployment
for rural farm residents was estimated at 37 per­
cent for women and for men.3
Another indication of excess labor in rural
areas is the migration of labor to rural nonfarm
employment and to the cities. The U.S. Depart­
ment of Agriculture estimates that in 1966 only
6 percent of the total population, or about 11.6
million persons, were living on farms. This rep­
resents a loss of 767,000 from 1965. Between 1960
and 1966 the average loss of farm population was
804,000, or 5.9 percent, a rate that shows an in­
crease in off-farm migration during the 1960’s. The
rate per year during the 1950’s was only 5.3 per­
cent, although the actual loss of farm population
during this period was greater than in the 1960’s.
Generally, for the population as a whole, the pro­
portion or men remaining on farms is greater in
the older age groups. (See table.)
Migration from farms in the South during the
1960’s is expected to exceed that of other regions
by a considerable proportion. Migration of white
men from Southern farms during the decade of the
1960’s has been estimated at about 43 percent.
About 63 percent of nonwhite men are expected
to migrate from Southern farms to nonagricultural areas during the same period. This compares
with an expected migration of less than 40 per­
cent of all men in the United States, as shown
in the following tabulation:
1A tighter market for hired farm workers is the most
significant recent development in the farm labor situation. It
has resulted from several factors associated with the overall
economy, primarily its high level of employment— or conversely,
a low level of unemployment. Farm labor is very responsive
to increased employment opportunities in the nonfarm sector
of the economy. See C. E. Bishop, “Economic Aspects of Changes
in the Farm Labor Force,” in Labor Mobility and Population
in Agriculture (Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1961),
chapter 4. It is also responsive to the effective operation of present
manpower programs, which provide better training opportunities
to workers and assist them in finding and adapting to nonfarm
jobs, particularly where there is a “spillover” of industrial ac­
tivities into rural areas. Third, the reduction of foreign labor
supplies and the recent extension of minimum wage legislation to
farm labor have also had an effect on the supply of farm labor.
2 Farm Labor Bulletin, July 1967, p. 7.
8 The People Left Behind (Washington, National Advisory Com­
mission on Rural Poverty, 1967), chapter 4, p. 25.

13

FARM LABOR AND PUBLIC POLICY

tobacco production were adopted in their State,
about half their total farm workers would be
displaced.
The problem of excess labor and depressed
earnings in farming is almost inevitable, since it
is part and parcel of the economic development
process. Technological development to increase
agricultural productivity is essential, not only to
supply food and fibers to the Nation, but also to
provide manpower for nonfarm industries. This
process usually generates an excess of labor which
results in depressed earnings before it is drained
off to nonagricultural industries.
The continuing excess of manpower in agricul­
ture is a principal cause of rural poverty. Peo­
ple are dammed up in rural communities with
little opportunity in farming and inadequate
means of achieving productive employment in the
nonfarm economy. About 41 percent of all poor
families, as measured by the Social Security Ad­
ministration poverty lines, live in rural America.
A large proportion of the country’s rural poor live
in the South and Southwest. The parts of the
South that have been hardest hit by poverty in­
clude Appalachia, the Atlantic Coastal Plains, and
the Ozarks. The Black Belt of the Old South and
the U.S.-Mexican border areas are suffering from
extreme poverty conditions.
A comprehensive policy for farm labor is long
overdue. Programs designed to speed up and ra­
tionalize migration from the farm to the nonfarm

Percent of implied off-farm migration by 1970
(.Age in 1960)
Area
U n ited States____
N ortheast____________
N orth Central________
West................ ..................
South—white_________
South—nonw hite______

6 years 5 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 84 85 to 44 49 to 65
and over years years years years
years
39.7
59.0
73.7
23.0
15.7
11.7
32.8
52.5
54.5
11.6
13.0
16.3
32.1
56.1
62.1
9.1
9.7
7.7
39.6
59.2
71.1
16.4
13.5
21. 2
42.8
60.0
82.5
37.1
21.4
9.6
63.0
68.3
94.7
57.0
30.9
28.0

Source : C. E . Bishop and G. S. Tolley, “Manpower in Farming and
Related Occupations,” Education for a Changing World of Work (U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963).

There is no indication of any drastic slowdown
in the movement of farm labor out of farming in
the South. Although the South has lagged behind
other regions in mechanizing agriculture, the rate
of substitution of capital for labor has accelerated
in recent years. According to the 1964 Census of
Agriculture, the number of tractors on Southern
farms increased from 872,340 in 1950 to 1,490,131
in 1964—an increase of 71 percent compared with
52 percent for the United States as a whole during
the same period.
The South is still behind much of the Nation in
the mechanization of agricultural production,
partly because of problems associated with full
mechanization in the production of fruits and
vegetables, and partly because tobacco production
has long resisted full mechanization. In the years
ahead, rapid mechanization of tobacco produc­
tion could create major adjustment problems. Uni­
versity economists in North Carolina, for exam­
ple, have estimated that if known technology in
M

ale

F arm W

orkers

E

x pected

to

R

e m a in

on

F

a r m s in

1970, U n i t e d S t a t e s

and

R

e g io n s

1

Number of rural farm males expected to survive and remain on farms in 1970
(In thousands)
United States

Age in 1960

Surviv­
ing
in 1970
All ages... -5 to 14 years_____
15 to 24 years____
25 to 34 years_____
35 to 44 years_____
45 to 65 years_____

5,130
1,542
985
.566
750
1,287

Remain­
ing
on farm

Surviv­
ing

Remain­
ing

Surviv­
ing

Remain­
ing

3,095

348

234

2,070

1,407

47
29
38
46
74

610
367
241
319
.533

268
139
219
288
493

631
259
436
629
1,140

99
66
43
54
86

1Regions are: Northeast—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Ham p­
shire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Pennsylvania;
North Central—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin;
West—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; South—
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
N orth Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,


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

South-N onwhite

South-W hite

West

N orth Central

Northeast

Surviv­
ing

Remain­
ing

Remain­
ing

Surviv­
ing

Remain­
ing

472

284

1,691

967

549

203

142
83
55
74
118

58
24
46
64
92

470
338
178
248
457

188
59
112

221

70

Surviv­
ing

414

Vest Virginia, M aryland, and Delaware.
S ource : C. E. Bishop and G. S. Tolley, “ Manpower in Fmming and
telated Occupations,” Education f™ “ c!\ffn 9™QWort d of iVorfc (U.b.
iepartment of H ealth, Education, and Welfare ,1963). The esDmateswere
alculated according to a method developed by G. S. Tolley
Hjort,
escribed in “ Age Mobility and Southern Farmer Skill—Looking
ir Area Development,” Journal of Farm Economics, 1963, pp. 3i w.

14
sector of the economy with a consideration of
the trend toward urbanization are urgently needed.
An important overall objective of a farm labor
policy should be to improve the conditions of
those workers who remain in farming and to pro­
vide assistance to those people who move out.
On the Move
The most distressing aspect of this country’s
farm labor policy—if there is such—is that it fails
to prevent irrational, haphazard movement of
people from farms in search of better employment
opportunities. A recent study by Hathaway and
Perkins 4 showed that the average gains in income
after leaving farm employment were low, and al­
most half of those who took nonfarm jobs in a
given year earned less in their first year of non­
farm employment than they had in farming. Many
suffered losses in income through retirement from
farming.
Various complex schemes have been offered for
bringing order out of chaos in the movement of
farm labor to nonfarm employment. But the task
need not be so complicated. Basically, a larger per­
centage of young people could be trained in indus­
trial skills and directed to nonfarm employment.
It has been estimated that, nationally, only about
1 farm youth in 5 will have an opportunity to be­
come an operator of a farm large enough to pro­
vide a gross annual income of $10,000; in the South,
the proportion is less than 1 to 10.5
Thousands of adult farm workers and small
farm operators who are either unemployed or
underemployed need to be identified, apprised of
alternative jobs, trained, and given assistance in
obtaining and adjusting to a new job. There are
already many programs concerned with these
4
Dale E. Hathaway, Michigan State University, and Brian B.
Perkins, University of Guelph, unpublished manuscript.
BE. Walton Jones, “Farm Youth Face the Future,” Agricultural
Policy Review, Raleigh, North Carolina State University, Agri­
cultural Policy Institute, vol. 4, No. 4, 1964, pp. 15-16.
8 The U.S. Department of Labor has conducted demonstration
mobility projects in 14 States. Through September 1965, 1,336
workers were relocated to areas with nonfarm job opportunities.
These^ test projects show that supportive services, such as assist­
ance in getting housing, are probably as important as financial
assistance. There are indications that the returns to investments
m mobility assistance can be very high if administered effectively.
For further discussion of these projects, see “Moving Workers to
Where the Jobs Are,” in Employment Service Review, June 1967
pp. 38-40.
’


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

problems, including those operated by the Office of
Economic Opportunity, the U.S. Department of
Labor, and State employment security agencies.
However, the fragmentation of effort and absence
of clear-cut objectives permit these projects to
serve but a minority of those who need to be
served.6
I t is clear that a function of systematic, solicit­
ous assistance needs to be built into the programs
of the public employment services. This function
should be backed up by sufficient supportive serv­
ices, including balanced institutional and on-thejob training, and followup assistance in adjusting
to the job and adapting to a new community in
instances where relocation is involved.
New Economic Areas
It is not enough merely to help farm labor move
from the farm or out of rural areas. To the ex­
tent possible, jobs must be brought within reach
of the people. There are many who will not or
cannot make the adjustments necessary to move
into existing metropolitan areas. Many need parttime work to supplement their seasonal employ­
ment in farming.
The desirability of bringing about a balance
between the economic growth of rural and urban
areas should also be recognized. Dispersion of eco­
nomic activity should take place where it can be
attained. Industrial movements need rationaliz­
ing as well as labor movements. Many industries
are now recognizing that the diseconomies of
overagglomeration at a certain advanced stage of
development outweigh the economies at an earlier
stage.
The traditional rural-urban dichotomy which
is rapidly breaking down needs to be replaced by
functional types of economic areas. The area
would need to be sufficiently large to acquire and
sustain a full range of public services—education,
transportation, police and fire protection, water
and sewage, health care and other facilities—
which would provide adequate support to any in­
dustries locating in the area. Full participation by
industry in the creation of such economic areas
could significantly increase employment opportu­
nities for farm labor without severely disrupting
the lives of people and communities.

FARM LABOR AND PUBLIO POLICY

Labor Legislation
Farm labor has long been exempt from pro­
tective legislation extended to other sectors of the.
economy. There is no justification for not apply­
ing the minimum wage laws, Federal and State,
to the entire hired farm labor force, nor is there
any excuse for exempting farm workers from un­
employment insurance.
Minimum Wages. The greatest effect of minimum
wage legislation on farm labor would certainly be
in the South. Wages in most other regions of the
country are high enough that they would hardly
be affected by the agricultural minimum wage
rate, unless it were raised to equal that in the nonfarm sector. Since minimum wage laws present
a moral rather than economic issue, there is no
basis for discriminatory extension of them among
industries of sectors of the economy.
Overtime Pay. At present, there is no provision
for overtime pay to cover farm workers. Farming
is different from other industries in that it de­
pends so much on the uncontrollable factor of
weather. Laws requiring overtime pay for extra
hours of work during the course of a single day
could prove difficult. I t may be possible, however,
to require additional pay for work in excess of a
certain number of hours worked during the week.
The Government must accept the consequences
of minimum wages and increased farm labor costs
resulting from public policy. I t is a fact of life
that increased farm labor costs will speed up the
rate of substitution of capital for labor. In many
sections of the South, this, coupled with continuing
technological developments, will throw more peo­


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

15

ple out of the farm economy than can be absorbed
by the private nonfarm sector. This is particularly
true because a high proportion of the Southern
farm labor force has a very low level of education
and lacks other attributes necessary to function
effectively in the nonfarm sector of the economy.
This means that the Government must act as an
employer of last resort, to take up the slack cre­
ated as a result of institutional interference in the
normal functioning of the labor market. Many
worthy projects could be undertaken in rural
America (developing public recreation areas, road
improvements, etc.) to effectively use labor pushed
out of farming. The Federal Government should
work closely with State and local governments in
creating this type of employment.
The basic problem associated with farm labor in
the South is still excess supply. In summary, a posi­
tive and comprehensive farm labor policy is needed
and it should include: (1) an effective outreach
function by the public employment service to iden­
tify unemployed and underemployed farm work­
ers, coupled with a range of services sufficient to
assist them in making the adjustment to nonfarm
employment and, if necessary, to urban living;
(2) an effective counseling and training program
for farm youth; (3) a positive program for cre­
ating public services and developing the infra­
structure in rural areas; (4) extension of mini­
mum wage and other protective labor legislation
to all farm workers; and (5) public service em­
ployment for all who leave the farm but can find
no employment in the private nonfarm economy.
Farm labor has waited long enough for equal
treatment with workers in the nonfarm sector.
This country can afford it, and the decision is
overdue.

Employment
and
Economic
Growth:
Southeast
W illiam J. Stober

Since W orld W ar I I th e occupational
stru ctu re o f th e Sou th has become in ­
crea sin gly in d u strial.
C o t t o n - i s nto l o n g e r k i n g , but the legacy of its
long and harsh reign lingers on. The present em­
ployment structure of the Southeast and the re­
gion’s past and future growth prospects bear the
unmistakable imprint of its early and heavy spe­
cialization in the production of cotton and
tobacco.1
Generalizations regarding the entire 10-State
area are hazardous and, in some cases, quite un­
warranted. Florida, for example, does not fit the
mold at all. Not only have intrarégional differences
been important, but substantial intrastate shifts
in employment have taken place as well. Thus, the
growth of the industrial Piedmont Crescent in the
Carolinas and Georgia has been accompanied by
the decline of their coastal and mountain counties.
Moreover, such intrarégional and intrastate varia­
tions may be expected to persist and perhaps even
widen in the future.
The Southeast has undergone a marked trans­
formation since 1940. World W ar I I provided a
stimulus to the change that was already taking
place, and the transition of the Southeast has con­
tinued at a fast pace throughout the postwar

16

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

period. In capsule form, the story has been one
of rapidly declining employment in agriculture
which, for the region as a whole, has been more
than offset by expansion in nonagricultural em­
ployment; in the Southeast, however, the expan­
sion was not sufficient to compensate for the com­
bined effects of natural population increase and
declining agricultural employment. Consequently,
a net migration from the Southeast has meant a
decline in the region’s share of total U.S. employ­
ment from nearly 19 percent in 1940 to 17.5 per­
cent in 1960. The Southeast, therefore, must be
classed as a slow growth region, at least in volume
terms, when compared with the rest of the Nation.
In terms of economic welfare, the Southeast has
fared somewhat better. The shift out of low-in­
come industries and occupations has raised per
capita incomes relative to the national average.
However, the States of the Southeast still rank
at, or near, the bottom of the scale. As Spengler
has put it, “this improvement merely reduced the
margin of the South’s inferiority; it did not move
Southern incomes up in the national income
structure.” 2
Two broad sets of forces have shaped the trans­
formation of the Southeast: (1) forces emanating
from the national economy, or what Perloff has
labeled “national change initiating forces;” 3 and
(2), forces that alter the Southeast’s competitive
advantage vis-a-vis other regions. These categories
provide a frame of reference for examining both
the growth of total employment and changes in
its structure.
National change-initiating forces operate on
either the demand or supply for the outputs of
various industries. Population growth and growth
in per capita incomes provide a stimulus to over­
all employment growth, but they affect the
demand for the outputs of industry in varying
degree. I t is well established that as per capita
incomes rise, the demand for food and fibers rises
relatively less, and the demand for consumer
1 In this paper, the Southeast is defined to include 10 S tates:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
2 Joseph J. Spengler, “Southern Economic Trends and Pros­
pects,” in John C. McKinney and Edgar T. Thompson, eds., The
South in Continuity and Change (Durham, N.C., Duke University
Press, 1965), p. 109.
3 Harvey S. Perloff with Vera W. Dodds, How a Region Crows:
Area Development in the U.S. Economy (New York, Committee
for Economic Development, 1963), pp. 21-23.

17

SOUTHEAST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH

durables more. Specialization in slow-growth
industries has been a retarding factor in the devel­
opment of the Southeast. On the supply side, in­
creases in labor productivity are not evenly spread
throughout industries, so that output per worker
has expanded much more rapidly in some indus­
tries than in others. In agriculture, for example,
the Southeast’s principal industry in 1940, a slow
growth in demand has combined with a rapid in­
crease in labor productivity to cause substantial
reductions in manpower requirements.
Regional growth in total employment and
changes in its structure are also affected by forces
that alter the region’s competitive advantage for
various industries. In some industries, such as
agriculture, the competitive position of the South­
east has deteriorated markedly. But generally, the
Southeast has improved its competitive position
within the nonagricultural sectors of the econ­
omy—a factor that has in large part compensated
for the adverse effects of the region’s heavy spe­
cialization in slow-growth industries.
On the Farm
Overspecialization in agriculture (chart 1) has
been the principal cause of the decline in the
Southeast’s share of the Nation’s employment.
Only West Virginia and Florida were relatively
unspecialized in agriculture in 1940.
Further, specialization in the slow-growth sec­
tors within agriculture and, more important, the
deterioration in the Southeast’s competitive posi­
tion in agriculture led to a greater decline in agri­
cultural employment regionally than nationally
between 1940 and 1960. Bishop sums up the situa­
tion this way:
. . . the competitive position of the agriculture of
the South was weakened through changes in tech­
nology which increased the productivity of other
regions relative to the South, by government policies

4C. B. Bishop, “Southern Agriculture in a Commercial Bra,”
McKinney and Thompson, op. cit., p. 253.
5 These percentages are based upon agricultural employment
estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Farm Labor)
and include farm proprietors and unpaid family workers. Al­
though these data provide an index of change in agricultural em­
ployment, they are not comparable with nonagricultural employ­
ment data.
6 Figures for nonagricultural employment are obtained from
Employment and Earnings Statistics for States and Areas, 19391966 (BLS Bulletin 1370—4, 1967). They include only wage
and salary workers and thus exclude the self-employed.


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

and programs which encouraged the development of
new regions of production for the major commodi­
ties of the South, by government payments based
upon the size of farm, by the development of new
products which offer strong competition for some of
the commodities produced in the South, and by the
growth of competition from foreign producers.4

The rapid decline in agricultural employment
coupled with increases in nonagricultural employ­
ment has reduced the Southeast’s relative over­
specialization, but in 1960 agriculture still ac­
counted for a disproportionately large share of
the region’s total employment. Indeed, in four
States and for quite different reasons, relative
specialization in agriculture increased between
1940 and 1960.
Acceleration of the Decline
Both the national and regional decline in agri­
cultural employment has continued at an acceler­
ated pace during the 1960’s. Between 1960 and
1966, employment in agriculture fell by 27 per­
cent in the United States and by 28 percent in
the Southeast.5 Again, however, there is consider­
able variation in the experience of individual
States within the region. The number of agricul­
tural employees in Florida, for example, rose by
16 percent, while South Carolina’s farm employ­
ment fell by 50 percent.
The precipitous decline in agricultural employ­
ment has had a substantial effect upon the growth
of nonagricultural employment. To be sure, many
of the Southeast’s rural migrants left the region,
but many more were able to find nonagricultural
employment within the Southeast. Indeed, as in­
dicated in table 1, nonagricultural employment
grew by 70 percent in the Southeast between 1947
and 1966, compared with a national growth of only
45 percent. This raised the Southeast’s share of
the Nation’s nonagricultural employment from 14
percent in 1947 to over 16 percent in 1966.6 More­
over, in each of the major industry groups except
mining, the gains were well in excess of the na­
tional average.
The growth rates for the entire Southeast mask
considerable interstate variations. Again, Florida
stands out. At the other extreme, West Virginia
experienced a decline in nonagricultural employ­
ment. Although rates of growth for the remaining
States vary from 51 percent (Kentucky) to 78 per-

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

18

Chart 1. Agricultural Employment as a Percent of Total Employment, Southeast and United
States, 1940 and 1960
PERCENT CHANGE

COEFFICIENTS OF
SPECIALIZATION y

PERCENT
30

STATE
20

10

3.1

3.2

Mississippi

2.1

1.8

South Carolina

2.1

1.5

Alabama

2.0

2.2

Kentucky

1.8

1.3

Georgia

1.8

1.6

SOUTHEAST

1.8

1.9

North Carolina

1.8

1.6

Tennessee

1.3

1.1

Virginia

1.0

1.0

UNITED STATES

1940-60
50

40

60
-

66.0

-64.0

_____ 1
-71.2

.......... J

1
__________

....

1

-57.6
-

68.1

q

_____________
i
i

-59.4

1

-49.6

1

-58.0
-55.3
I

I 1940

-49.6

I II960
0.93

0.97

Florida

-6.4

0.82

0.67

West Virginia

-70.4

1 Coefficients were obtained by dividing a State’s (or the region’s) percent
of total employment in agriculture by that of the Nation. A coefficient in
excess of unity for a given State means simply that a larger proportion of

total employment was engaged in agriculture in that State than in the
Nation as a whole.

cent (Mississippi), each State experienced a rate
of growth in excess of the national average.
The growth of manufacturing has played a
crucial role in the postwar transformation of the
Southeast because of its multiplier effect on em­
ployment in other sectors as well as within manu­
facturing itself. For example, the high rate of in­
crease in contract construction employment in the
Southeast is in part directly attributable to the ex­
pansion of manufacturing plant and facilities, and
in part to such factors as rising per capita incomes
and intrarégional shifts in population which, in
turn, are in no small measure a consequence of
growth of manufacturing. Added manufacturing
payrolls have, of course, affected employment in
trade and finance and have stimulated the demand

for services, both private and governmental. Fur­
ther, the regional expansion of manufacturing has
enhanced the competitive position of the South­
east for some of the secondary manufacturing in­
dustries. A case in point is the concentration of
the synthetic fibers subsector of the chemicals in­
dustry in the Southeast, close to its major market,
the textile industry.
Florida again provides an important exception
to this general pattern of growth. The flood of mi­
gration to Florida led to a rapid development of
the tertiary industries—services, trade, and fi­
nance. An expanding regional market provided a
stimulus for the development of consumer goods
industries. Thus, the usual direction of causation—
from manufacturing to trade and services—is re-


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

Source: Census of Population: 1940 and 1960 (TJ.S. Bureau of the Census).

19

SOUTHEAST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH

35.8

58.8

Source : Computed from Employment and Earnings Statistics for States
and Areas, 1939-1968 (BLS Bulletin 1370-4,1967).

versed in the growth experience of Florida.7 For
the remainder of the Southeast, however, growth in
manufacturing employment appears to provide the
key to an understanding of the growth in non­
agricultural employment.
In view of the Southeast’s 1947 concentration in
the slow-growth sectors of manufacturing, the
rapid growth of manufacturing employment is
quite remarkable. (Textiles and lumber and wood
products, the region’s two largest manufacturing
industries in 1947, accounted for nearly 48 percent
of manufacturing employment in the Southeast;
national employment in both industries decreased
during the postwar period.) The growth of manu­
facturing employment in the Southeast has been
attributable to substantial competitive gains which
have more than compensated for the adverse effects
of the structure of manufacturing employment.
Manufacturing employment increased in most of
the two-digit manufacturing sectors, with regional
declines being registered only in lumber and wood
products, textiles, and tobacco. In the latter two
industry groups, regional employment declines
were proportionately less than the national de7 See Harvey S. Perloff, Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Eric E. Lampard,
and Richard F. Muth, Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth
(Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960), pp. 475-477.
8 Victor R. Fuchs, Changes in the Location of Manufacturing
Since 1929 (New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1962), p.
205.


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

T able

2.

m ent,

Structure
So u th ea st

o f N o n a g r ic u l t u r a l
a n d U n it e d S t a t e s ,

E

m plo y ­

1966

Industry group as a percent of total for area

Government

Government

Services

Finance, real estate,
and insurance
61.4

Services

16.4

Finance, insurance,
and real estate

37.0 -4 .5 -21.8

67.0 110.9

62.4 223.7 75.9 101.8
59.5 88.2 81.2 114.4
72.6 138.2 119.0 92.2

Trade

-5 .3 -63.4

72.6 179.8

Transportation and
public utilities

47.1
17.4
-1 .2
8.2

Manufacturing

54.4
54.6
66.8
43.0

Contract
construction

3.3 123.6

68.4
54.5 115.5
65.8 -47.8 62.4
66.4 -36.8 122.1

70.7

Trade

-0 .7 47.6 75.9 89.7 98.2
14.2 77.1 162.6 100.1 114.9
-9 .5 63.5 133.5 99.2 110.8
68.7 148.9 294.9 197.1 199.2
22.1 74.1 166.8 80.8 126.2
-9 .0 67.1 123.2 84.2 96.6
11.1 65.0 175.0 98.0 90.3

Mining

65.5 22.7
112.3 55.9
129.6 30.5
150.9 188.6
96.9 54.9
134.4 59.2
109.4 80.4

Transportation and
public utilities

-34.2
-47.3
-74.8
96.3
46.3
-55.6
35.7

Manufacturing

45.5
70.4
52.2
167.8
74.2
51.0
78.3

1947-66

crease, thus improving the competitive position of
the Southeast. Approximately 24 percent of the
total increase in manufacturing employment took
place in the apparel and related products industry
group, which added 191,200 manufacturing jobs in
the Southeast between 1947 and 1968.
The Southeast’s postwar growth has resulted in
a diversification of employment in manufacturing.
Thus, textile employment as a percentage of the
region’s manufacturing employment fell from
roughly 31 percent in 1947 to 20 percent in 1966.
Apparel and related products has replaced lumber
and wood products as the region’s second most im­
portant manufacturing industry group. But de­
spite gains during the postwar period, slow-growth
industries still dominate; only 40 percent of the
Southeast’s manufacturing employment is in the
rapidly growing durable goods industries, com­
pared with 59 percent of that of the Nation.
Much of the early growth of manufacturing in
the Southeast was concentrated in the low-wage
and labor-intensive industries that moved South
to take advantage of the cheap labor released by
the agricultural sector. Fuchs concludes that, for
the period 1929-54, “the abundant supply of un­
skilled labor has been the principal factor under­
lying the comparative gains.” 8 This trend is still
apparent during the period 1947-66. Thus, de­
clining employment in agriculture has provided

Total

United States..
Southeast____
Alabama___
Florida.........
Georgia........
Kentucky__
Mississippi..
North
C a ro lin a South
Carolina—
Tennessee.. .
Virginia........
West
Virginia__

Contract construction

Area

U n it e d S t a t e s ,

Mining

and th e

N o n a g r ic u l t u r a l
G ro up, So utheast

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

1.0
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.5
3.7
1.1

5.1
6.3
5.9
7.9
5.4
6.3
6.0

29.9
30.8
31.5
16.1
32.3
27.6
31.9

6.5
6.0
5.5
6.8
6.6
6.9
5.2

20.7
20.4
18.6
26.5
20.9
20.2
18.8

4.8
4.3
4.0
5.9
4.7
3.9
3.4

15.0
13.0
13.2
17.2
11.3
13.1
11.6

17.0
18.0
20.3
19.0
18.3
18.3
22.0

100.0

0.2

6.0

42.3

5.2

17.9

3.7

10.9

13.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0.2
0.6
1.1
9.6

6.6
5.4
7.3
5.0

42.7
35.9
26.4
26.9

4.1
5.0
6.9
8.3

16.4
19.5
20.7
17.7

3.4
4.0
4.4
2.9

10.1
12.9
13.7
11.8

16.4
16.7
19.5
17.8

Area

1

a b l e 1.
P e r c e n t a g e I n c r e a se in
E m p l o y m e n t , b y M a jo r I n d u s t r y

Total nonagricultural
employment

T

United S tates..
Southeast_____
Alabama____
Florida..........
Georgia_____
Kentucky___
Mississippi__
North Carolina.............
South Carolina_______
Tennessee___
Virginia........ .
West Virginia.

Source : Computed from Employment and Earnings Statistics for States and
Areas, 1989-1966 (BLS Bulletin 1370-4,1967).

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

20

the major stimulus for the growth of manufac­
turing employment, and hence nonagricultural
employment generally, in the Southeast.
The 1966 nonagricultural employment structures
of the United States, the Southeast, and each State
in the Southeast are indicated in table 2. Perhaps
the most striking feature is the similarity between
the pattern of the Southeast and that of the United
States. The gross breakdown, however, masks im­
portant intrasector variations; for example, the
high degree of concentration in personal services
within the services sector in the Southeast as com­
pared with the Nation as a whole. Interstate varia­
tions in employment profiles are much wider than
the deviations between the region as a whole and
the United States as indicated, for example, by the
respective figures for Florida and North Carolina.
Occupations
The industrial structure and growth in the
Southeast is reflected in the region’s changing
occupational makeup. A comparison of the data for
1940 and 1960 (table 3) indicates that the general
effect of changes in these two decades has been
to reduce the discrepancy between the occupational
profiles of the Southeast and the United States.
Two exceptions should be noted, however: less
than proportionate declines in private household
workers and also in nonfarm laborers (chart 2)
have meant that the Southeast has increased its
over concentration in these two groups.
Intrarégional differences are obscured by the
regional totals. The relative lack of professional,
technical, and kindred workers, for example, is
greatest in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Mississippi.
The relative surplus of operatives and kindred
workers is also greatest in the Carolinas—largely
as a result of the predominance of the textile indus­
try. Florida, on the other hand, has a deficiency of
workers in this group.
The contrast between occupational profiles of
the Southeast and the rest of the United States
shows up particularly in the relative importance
of private household workers. While the total num­
ber of persons reporting occupations in the South­
east was only 17.5 percent of the national total,
private household workers accounted for 31 per­
cent of the group’s national total. Further, the


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

proportion of the total labor force employed in
private households varied substantially within the
Southeast, being generally higher for the States
of the Deep South than for the Border States. In
Mississippi, for example, 7 percent of those re­
porting occupations were employed in private
households whereas the figure for Kentucky was
only 3 percent. Tradition and a lack of alterna­
tives for unskilled Negroes largely explain these
differences.
The Southeast has made progress in eliminating
its underrepresentation in the higher occupational
strata, but in 1960, a considerable gap remained
between the Southeast and the rest of the Nation.
The growth in manufacturing, concentrated as it
has been in labor-intensive industries with a high
proportion of unskilled and at best semiskilled
labor, has not been conducive to closing this gap.
The occupational structure of employment as well
as its industrial composition indicates that a sur­
plus of unskilled labor has served as an incubus to
industrial development. Further, the Southeast’s
occupational structure undoubtedly is affected by
the high proportion of nonwhites in the labor
force, who, because of inferior education or more
overt forms of discrimination, are heavily under­
represented in the more desirable occupations.
The legacy of the past continues to be apparent,
particularly in the trade and services sectors, as in
many areas of the region the Negro laborer per­
forms the manual tasks and his white coworker
T able 3.

O c cupational S t r u c t u r e of E m ploym ent ,
S o u t h e a st , 1940 a nd 1960
Employment by major
occupational group—
Occupation

All persons reporting occupation__
Professional, technical, and kindred
workers___ _____ ________________
Farmers and farm managers_________ .
Managers, officials, and proprietors other
than farm_______________ _______
Clerical and kindred workers____ ______
Salesworkers____ _______________ ____
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers.
Operatives and kindred workers
Private household workers____________
Service workers (except private household).
Farm laborers and foremen____________
Laborers (excluding farm and mine)____

As a percentage As a percentage
of total report­
of the same
group in U.S.
ing occupation
1940

1960

1940

1960

100.0

100.0

18.6

17.5

5.5
20.1

9.6
5.9

13.0
32.8

14.4
25.6

5.9
5.4
4.8
8.0
16.6
7.0
5.0
13.7
7.9

8.4
11.7
7.1
13.0
20.8
5.0
8.1
4.2
6.1

13.5
10.4
13.1
12.9
17.3
28.2
13.2
36.4
20.9

16. 7
13. 6
16.7
16.1
18.9
31.3
16.0
31.6
21.1

Source : Computed from Census of Population, 1940and 1960 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census).

21

SOUTHEAST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH
Chart 2. Percent Change in Employment by O ccupa­
tion, Southeast and United States, 1940-1960

PERCENT CHANGE

OCCUPATION

50

0

+50

+100

+150

+200

Total Reporting
Occupation
Professional,
Technical, and
Kindred Workers
Farmers and
Farm Managers
Managers, Officials,
and Proprietors
other than Farm
Clerical and
Kindred Workers
Sales Workers
Craftsmen, Foremen,
and
Kindred Workers
Operatives and
Kindred Workers
Private Household
Workers
Service Workers
(Except
Private Household)
Farm Laborers
and Foremen
Laborers (Excluding
Farm and Mine)

handles the money. This suggests that, in part, the
heavy concentration of employment in the lower
occupational strata may represent underemploy­
ment of both white and nonwhite workers, dic­
tated by a deep-rooted tradition that is only slowly
changing.
The Future of the Southeast
The Southeast has undergone a marked change
during the postwar period, but most of the old
problems remain. True, its economy has become
much more diversified, not only with respect to
» America’s Industrial and Occupational Manpower Require­
ments, 196^—76, Appendix Volume II, Technology and the Ameri­
can Economy, The Report of the Commission, Studies Prepared
for the Rational Commission on Technology, Automation, and
Economic Progress (Washington, 1966). Observations regarding
changes in national manpower requirements are based upon the
estimates contained in this volume.


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

the distribution of employment among the major
industrial sectors but within them as well. How­
ever, the region still remains relatively special­
ized in the Nation’s slow-growth industries. Crude
calculations based upon the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics’ estimates of manpower requirements for
1975 indicate that if the Southeast does no better
than maintain its relative share of employment in
each of the major industry groups, total employ­
ment in the Southeast will fall to 16.8 percent of
the Nation’s total.9 Further, this gross breakdown
underemphasizes the plight of the Southeast by
failing to take into account the adverse business
mix within sectors. In short, to grow at the same
rate as the rest of the Nation, the Southeast must
continue to make substantial comparative gains.
Two quite different sets of forces have been op­
erative in the transformation of the Southeastern
economy: first, a net outmigration of population
and second, a rate of growth of nonagricultural
employment well in excess of the national average.
Both migration and increasing nonagricultural
employment may be expected to continue into the
future. The crucial question concerns the relative
magnitude of the two forces. If nonagricultural
employment grows rapidly enough, the net loss
of workers through migration may give way to a
net gain. If, on the other hand, nonagricultural
employment fails to grow sufficiently to offset de­
clining agricultural employment and to provide
employment opportunities for an increasing popu­
lation, migration to other regions must bear the
brunt of the adjustment process. The relative
strength of these forces also has important impli­
cations for the industrial and occupational struc­
ture of employment.
The complete dominance of agriculture belongs
to the past; the transition of the Southeast from
an agrarian to an industrial economy has been
virtually accomplished. Yet, when compared with
the rest of the Nation, the Southeast remains overspecialized in agriculture. Furthermore, small
farms, limited agricultural capital, and, as a con­
sequence, low farm incomes lead to the prediction
that the region’s agricultural employment will
continue to decline at a more rapid rate than that
of the rest of the Nation. There are strong reasons,
however, for believing that the effect of declining
agricultural employment will not be as severe as

22

in the past. Perhaps the strongest is that agri­
culture is not nearly as important as it was, and
that there are simply not enough agricultural
workers left for an exodus of the magnitude seen
in the past. But, more than this, important
changes within the agricultural sector (such as
increases in the relative importance of dairy prod­
ucts, livestock, and poultry products) have re­
duced the Southeast’s dependence on cotton and
tobacco. Urbanization, population growth, and
increasing nonagricultural employment will, by
increasing the regional market, tend to ameliorate
the effects of technological change on agricultural
employment and lessen the decline in total em­
ployment, although requiring readjustment with­
in the agricultural sector itself. In summary, while
the Southeast cannot look to agriculture for future
growth, the adverse effects of declining agricul­
tural employment will be diminished.
Competitive Gains
Thus, if the Southeast is to maintain its present
share of the Nation’s total employment, nonagri­
cultural employment must continue to grow more
rapidly regionally than nationally. This will re­
quire competitive gains more than sufficient to off­
set the adverse effects of the concentration in the
slow-growth sectors of nonagricultural employ­
ment. For most of the Southeast, this requires con­
tinued gains in manufacturing.
The prospects for continued rapid gains in man­
ufacturing employment are clouded by conflicting
tendencies. There are some encouraging signs.
First, concentration in the slow-growth sectors of
manufacturing has decreased, so that a high rate
of growth in manufacturing employment does not
require competitive gains of quite the magnitude
of the 1947-66 period. Second, employment in the
industries that now dominate the Southeast is
expected to grow more rapidly than in the earlier
period. Employment in lumber and wood prod­
ucts, although expected to decline, is not expected
to decline as rapidly as it did during the 1947-66
period. While textile employment declined by
about 27 percent nationally from 1947 to 1966,
employment in the textile industry is expected to
remain approximately the same during the next
decade. Finally, in apparel and related products,
furniture and fixtures, and paper and allied prod­
ucts, all important sources of manufacturing em­

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

ployment in the Southeast, the forecast is that
employment will grow more rapidly in the decade
ahead.
Regional growth tends to become self-sustain­
ing. Industrial development leads to important
external economies that further enhance a region’s
comparative advantage- The growth of regional
markets, both final and intermediate, strengthens
a region’s competitive position with respect to
market-oriented industries. Thus, growth in man­
ufacturing employment in the Southeast has
broadened the regional market for intermediate
products. Population growth, but more important,
urbanization and rising per capita incomes, have
increased the market for end products. Further,
urbanization, which has come late, and rising per
capita income provide a particularly strong
stimulus to the growth of the underdeveloped
services sector. The development of urban centers
such as Atlanta provide points around which in­
dustrial activities tend to cluster. The employment
growth of urban centers will continue to cause a
redistribution of population and employment
within the region; those States with large urban
centers, for example, Georgia, may be expected to
fare better than States such as Mississippi, which
lack large metropolitan areas.
Some signs are not so encouraging. First, the
growth process itself, by raising incomes and re­
ducing the region’s labor surplus, weakens the
most important of the Southeast’s comparative
advantages—a large supply of unskilled labor
willing to accept employment at comparatively
low wages. Second, technological change tends to
reduce the demand for unskilled relative to skilled
labor within most sectors of industry. Both of
these factors will retard the growth of nonagri­
cultural employment in the Southeast.
If the region’s major employment gains con­
tinue to be concentrated in the low-wage and
labor-intensive industries, the relative underrep­
resentation of the Southeast in the more desirable
occupations will not only continue but perhaps,
within the nonagricultural sector, even increase.
Moreover, although per capita incomes will con­
tinue to rise, the resulting structure of employ­
ment would imply permanently lower per capita
incomes in the Southeast than in the rest of the
Nation. A continued narrowing of income dif­
ferentials, therefore, as well as differentials be­
tween the regional and national employment

SOUTHEAST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH

structures, calls for competitive gains in the more
capital-intensive industries with higher skill re­
quirements. Here, the record of the Southeast has
not been impressive. In view of the increasing
educational requirements for employment in these
industries, the prospect for competitive gains is
not bright.
Government policy, at all three levels, will con­
tinue to play a crucial role in the future develop­
ment of the Southeast. At the Federal level, the
volume and composition of defense expenditures
is important: the Army’s Redstone Arsenal at
Huntsville, Ala., and the missile launching com­
plex at Cape Kennedy are two examples. Public
works, manpower training, and programs aimed
at alleviating poverty will probably continue to
benefit the Southeast more than any other major
region.
At the State and local levels, much can be done
to improve the competitive position of the South­
east. Improvements in education aimed at up­
grading the quality of the labor force and policies
designed to provide a climate conducive to in10 See, for example, Benjamin Bridges, Jr., “State and Local In­
ducements for Industry,” National Tax Journal, March 1965 and
June 1965, pts. I and II, pp. 1-14 and 175-192.

dustrial growth are cases in point. There has been
much debate over the effectiveness of State and
local financial inducements to industrial develop­
ment ; the consensus seems to be that such induce­
ments, if effective at all, at best influence the loca­
tion of industry within a region rather than among
regions.10 Projects on the State level, such as the
Research Triangle of North Carolina, provide the
facilities necessary to attract research-oriented in­
dustries. This would appear to have more promise
than direct financial subsidies, often granted at
the expense of much needed improvements in com­
munity facilities.
In this sketchy treatment of the future, impor­
tant intraregional differences have been largely
ignored. To summarize, the outlook is for a con­
tinued change in the region’s economy, with the
industrial and occupational structure of employ­
ment becoming, at least superficially, more like
that of the rest of the Nation. But more of the
same will not be sufficient to close the gap between
the Southeast and the rest of the Nation. The
outlook for a sufficiently rapid rate of growth in
nonagricultural employment, and of the type
needed to close the gap, is not bright, but it is a
good deal less bleak than in 1947.

Labor is a perishable resource. Each idle day represents a wasted asset that
never again can be retrieved. Every unproductive hour is gone forever. Unlike
corn, wheat, or cotton, man-hours cannot be warehoused, fumigated occasion­
ally, and kept indefinitely. To stop the waste of idleness, labor must be trained
and must be employed.


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

—“Poverty and Profits,” Harvard Business
Review, September-October 1964.

Employment
and
Economic
Growth:
Southwest
R obert F. Sm ith

The Southwest has been a rapidly growing re­
gion in many respects,4 including levels of em­
ployment. (See table 1.) Between 1947 and 1964
total employment increased about one-quarter
faster in the Southwest than it did in the Nation
as a whole.5 Employment in Southwestern agri­
culture, however, dropped by almost half while
the national decline was less than 40 percent. On
the other hand, nonagricultural employment grew
by about a third in the country and by more than
half in the Southwest.
Employment will probably continue to increase
more rapidly in the Southwest than in the rest
of the country during the next several years, as
indicated below.6
Projected, rate of increase in the
labor force
United States___________ ..............
Arkansas...................................... ______
Louisiana___________________ ..............
Texas........ .............................. ...... ______
Oklahoma..... ................. ...

A rea em ploym ent reflects a m ixtu re o f
econom ic progress and decay w ith pov­
erty a ll too com m on.
is often described as the land of
the biggest and the best. From gigantic and highly
profitable farms, plantations, and ranches to space
exploration centers, offshore oil fields, and the
Astrodome, the Southwest reflects the real accom­
plishments of modern technology. But the South­
west is also known as part of the dust bowl from
which thousands fled, and in which subsistence
farming and poverty are still all too common. In
1966, 39 percent of the families in the Southwest­
ern States1 had annual incomes of less than $3,000
(compared with IT percent for the Nation as a
whole2), and the per capita income of $2,404 in
the Southwest was only 81.8 percent of the na­
tional average.3 The pattern of employment in
the Southwest reflects this mixture of economic
progress and stagnation.
Employment in the highly skilled and technical
fields has increased greatly, but many people are
working in low-productivity (and low-wage) jobs.
This article describes the present industrial and
occupational distributions of workers in the
Southwest and discusses probable future shifts in
employment in these States.
T h e S o u th w est

24

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

1960-70
22.0
26.1
25.9
25.2
19.0

1970-80
18.1
16.3
24.4
20.8
14.1

The causes of the national changes in employ­
ment shown in table 1 are summarized briefly
below for each of the broad industry groups, so
that comparisons can be made between the Nation
as a whole and the Southwest. Regional totals will
be used in this discussion of the Southwest, but it
should be remembered that Texas has by far the
largest absolute share in the region’s economy.
Almost 58 percent of total employment in the
Southwest is in Texas (table 2).
Nationally, agricultural employment declined
about 40 percent between 1947 and 1964 and is ex1 The Southwest is defined here as including Arkansas, Louisi­
ana, Oklahoma, and Texas, the area comprising the U.S. Bureau
of the Census’ West South Central region.
2 Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 51 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1967).
3 The proportions for each of the four States were : Arkansas—
68.5 percent; Louisiana— 70.0 percent; Oklahoma— 83.6 percent;
and Texas— 85.4 percent. See Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1967 (U.S. Bureau of the Census), p. 327.
4 For a discussion of the past and prospects for the future eco­
nomic development of the Southwest, see Stephen L. McDonald,
“Some Factors in the Recent Economic Development of the
Southwest,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, March 1965,
pp. 329-339.
5 The 1947—64 period was chosen to coincide with the period
covered in America’s Industrial and Occupational Manpower
Requirements, 196^-75, a study made by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the National Commission on Technology, Auto­
mation, and Economic Progress. See Technology and the American
Economy, Appendix Vol. 1 (Washington, 1966). Employment esti­
mates for 1975 were taken from this volume.
6 See “Labor Force Projections by State, 1970 and 1980,”
Monthly Labor Review, October 1966, pp. 1098—1104.

25

SOUTHWEST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH
T a b l e 1. C h a n g e s i n E m p l o y m e n t b y I n d u s t r y ,
S o u t h w e s t 1947—64, a n d U n it e d S t a t e s 1947—64
a n d P r o j e c t e d t o 1975
Employment
in the South­
west as percent
South­ of U.S. total
west

Estimated percentage
change—
Industry

United States

1947-64 1964-75 1947-64

1947

1964

18.9

27

24.7

8.4

8.5

Agricultural........................... ...... -39.8
32.5
Nonagricultural1____________
Mining__________________ -33.7
54.2
Contract construction_____
11.0
Manufacturing___________
Transportation and public
utilities________________ -5 .3
35.4
Trade____ ________ ____
Finance, insurance, and
69.0
real estate..___ ________
69.7
Services_________________
75.3
Government______ ______

-21
30
-2
37
14

-47.8
53.7
28.6
53.1
46.1

14.7
7.0
16.7
10.2
4.0

12.8
8.1
32.5
10.1
5.3

12
33

3.0
48.8

8.8
8.4

9.5
9.2

26
43
54

130.9
74.8
85.7

5.8
7.5
8.6

7.6
7.7
9.2

Total employment i_____

i The data for nonagricultural employment pertain to wage and salary
workers, excluding proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers,
and domestic servants. Total employment is all agricultural workers plus
nonagricultural wage and salary workers. This series is used to achieve
comparability between State and national data.
Source : Employment and Earnings Statistics for the States and Areas,
1939-66 (BLS Bulletin 1370-4, 1967); Employment and Earnings Statistics for
the United States, 1909-66 (BLS Bulletin 1312-4, 1966); America’s Industrial
and Occupational Manpower Requirements, 1961^-15 (Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics, 1966), and Agricultural Statistics, 1966 (U.S. Department of Agriculture).

pected to drop another fifth by 1975. The major
factors responsible for this decrease include the use
of power equipment, the adoption of improved
farming techniques generally, and the growth in
the size of the average farm.
The relative decline in agricultural employment
has been substantially greater in the Southwest
than in the Nation as a whole, about 48 percent
from 1947 to 1964. As a result, the Southwest’s
proportion of total employment in agriculture
dropped from about 15 percent in 1947 to about 13
percent in 1964. In 1966 it was at about the 1964
level. The concentration of agricultural produc­
tion in larger, more efficient units will continue in
the Southwest as in the rest of the Nation, but the
peak of farm outmigration has already been
reached. The region’s future rate of decline in agri­
cultural employment will probably be only slightly
higher than the national rate.
Despite substantial productivity gains, employ­
ment in the mining industries dropped by more
than one-third during the 1947-64 period. This
overall loss, however, was primarily due to the
decline in employment in coal mining; there were
increases in employment during this period in the
7 Minerals Yearbook (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966), voi. 1, p. 10.


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

crude petroleum and natural gas industry, and in
mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals.
Technological developments are expected to re­
sult in continuing rapid productivity changes, so
that even with a considerable increase in output,
manpower requirements will differ only slightly
by 1975.
Employment in mining industries in the South­
west increased to over 205,000 in 1964 from about
160,000 in 1947. Over 41 percent of the total value
of mineral production in the United States7 and
almost 33 percent of the total employment in min­
ing is accounted for by the four Southwestern
States. In addition to oil and natural gas, this
area also produces significant amounts of natural
gas liquids, cement, bauxite, stone, sulphur, and
sand and gravel. Since the mining output of these
States is concentrated in the expanding sectors
of the overall industry, it is probable that mining
employment in this region will continue to run
counter to the national trend, although rates of in­
crease in employment will not be as high as they
have been in recent years.
Between 1947 and 1964, employment in contract
construction grew by more than half in the Nation
and in the Southwest. Because construction activ­
ity is likely to continue its rapid expansion, man­
power requirements in this industry are expected
T a b l e 2.

E m ploym ent b y I n d u st r y , S o u t h w e st e r n
S ta tes and U n it e d S t a tes , 1966
[Numbers in thousands]

Industry

United
States

Southwest
Total

Arkan­ Louisi­
sas
ana

Okla­
homa

Texas

Total employm e n t1___ ____ 69,078

5,890

614

1,070

801

3,405

Agricultural_____ ____ 5,214
N o n a g r ic u ltu ra l....... 63,864
Percent..... .................. .
100.0

663
5,227
100.0

127
487
100.0

107
963
100.0

120
681
100.0

309
3,096
100.0

1.0

3.9

1.0

5.3

6.2

3.5

5.1
29.9

6.9
20.1

6.8
30.5

9.2
17.3

5.1
16.6

6.6
20.0

6.5
20.7

7.7
23.2

6.4
19.9

9.3
22.2

7.0
22.4

7.6
24.2

4.8
15.0
17.0

4.8
14.2
19.1

3.8
12.9
18.8

4.5
13.3
18.7

4.8
13.4
24.4

5.1
14.9
18.1

Mining_________
Contract construction........
Manufacturing__
Transportation
and public
utilities_______
Trade............. ......
Finance, insur­
ance, and real
estate________
Services________
Government.........

1 See footnote 1 , table 1.
N ote: Because of rounding, columns may not add to 100 percent.
Source: Employment and Earnings Statistics for States and Areas, 1939-66
(BLS Bulletin 1370-4, 1967); Farm Labor (U.S. Department of Agriculture),
January 1967.

26
to rise more than one-third from 1964 to 1975. The
factors that will stimulate this change include
higher income levels, population shifts to urban
areas and from the cities to the suburbs, higher
government expenditures for highways and
schools, and industrial and commercial expansion.
They will be as strong in the Southwest as in the
Nation as a whole.
Variations by Industry
Employment in manufacturing industries in­
creased four times as fast in the Southwest as it
did in the country as a whole between 1947 and
1964. The greater rate of increase, however, reflects
the very low level of manufacturing activity in the
Southwest in 1947 more than it does a dramatic
shift in employment to that region. In 1964, manu­
facturing employment in the Southwest accounted
for less than 6 percent of the national total.
The manufacturing industries represent a wide
range of activities, and employment changes have
varied considerably in these industries. Nationally,
changes in employment between 1947 and 1964
ranged from an increase of more than 800 percent
in ordnance and accessories to a decrease of 31
percent in textile mill products. In manufacturing
industries that are particularly important to the
Southwest, employment was up 21 percent in fur­
niture and fixtures and 35 percent in chemicals and
allied products, but down in lumber and wood
products (29 percent), petroleum refining (17 per­
cent) , and food products (3 percent).
Manpower requirements in the United States
in manufacturing are expected to increase moder­
ately during the next several years, considerably
faster than in the past 20 years, but at a somewhat
lower rate of change than that expected for total
employment. In the Southwest, these requirements
will probably continue to rise at a rate much higher
than the national. This is partly because of the
relatively greater concentration of industries in
the Southwest that are expanding nationally
(chemicals and furniture, for example), and also
because employment that is declining nationally
in certain industries will expand with the more
rapid rise in population in most sections of the
Southwest.
I t should also be noted that forecasts of employ­
ment requirements are not the same things as


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

forecasts of employment opportunities. An inter­
esting paradox between requirements and oppor­
tunities can be seen in one of the manufacturing
industries that is especially important in the South­
west—petroleum refining. During the latter part
of the 1950’s and early 1960’s there were substantial
declines in employment in this industry. Adjust­
ment was made through layoffs, the adoption of
early retirement programs, and curtailment of
hiring. The result has been that the average age
of workers in many refineries is as high as 45-50
years. Thus, although the level of employment may
change only slightly during the next several years,
the number of job opportunities will increase con­
siderably. These jobs, however, will require in­
creasing levels of education, knowledge, and skill.
The 5-percent nationwide employment decline
between 1947 and 1964 in transportation and pub­
lic utilities reflects the net effect of wide variations
in employment trends among the industries in this
division. Large employment increases occurred in
motor freight and air transportation, and large
declines in railroad and pipeline transportation.
Manpower requirements in these industries are ex­
pected to increase moderately (12 percent) be­
tween 1964 and 1975, with a slightly higher rate in
the transportation sectors. Although the output
of the communications and public utilities indus­
tries is expected to rise substantially, little change
in employment is expected as a result of produc­
tivity gains.
The regional employment change in transporta­
tion and public utilities between 1947 and 1964 ran
counter to the national trend and showed an in­
crease of 3 percent. The difference, however, was
almost exclusively limited to the first half of the
period, during which employment in the region
increased rapidly while the national level declined
slightly. Between 1960 and 1964 employment in
these industries remained fairly constant in the
Nation and the region. It is probable that future
employment increases in the Southwest will ap­
proximately reflect the national rate of increase.
The very large increase over the period in out­
put and employment in trade, finance, insurance,
and real estate, all types of services, and govern­
ment is now a familiar story. As a result of a
growing population, rising income levels, and
urbanization there have been increasing demands
for services that add to comfort and enjoyment or

27

SOUTHWEST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH

protect lives and property. The employment gains
in the industries catering to these demands have
been, and will continue to be, large.
The employment increase in the service indus­
tries during the 1947-64 period was substantially
greater in the Southwest than in the Nation as a
whole, as a result of a more rapid population in­
crease and a more rapid shift from rural to urban
areas. The regional rates of increase will prob­
ably continue to be greater than the national rates
but not as much greater as they have been in the
past.
The result of the rapid development of the
Southwest in recent years can be seen in table 2,
showing the employment structures for each of the
Southwestern States and the United States in 1966.
The most notable differences between the South­
west and the Nation are in agriculture, mining, and
manufacturing. As a result of very large increases
in Southwestern nonagricultural industries other
than mining and manufacturing, the region’s rela­
tive employment in these industries is now close to
the national pattern. There is, of course, con­
siderable variation among the four States. The
percentages of nonagricultural employment in
mining and manufacturing are approximately the
same for Arkansas and the United States, while
Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma each has a sub­
stantially higher proportion in mining and a sub­
stantially lower proportion in manufacturing.
Hope in Skill Upgrading
There were considerable shifts in the distribu­
tion of employment by occupational groups in the
Southwest and the United States between 1940
and 1960, and further shifts may be anticipated.
(See table 3.) The rather large proportions of
workers in the unskilled and agricultural cate­
gories that existed in the Southwest in 1940 had
been reduced considerably by 1960, while the re­
gion’s white-collar workers increased during the
period from 28 to 42 percent of the total employ­
ment. (The corresponding proportions for the Na­
tion as a whole were 33 and 43 percent.)
The manpower challenge facing all sections of
the country is reflected in the third column of
table 3. There is an indication that employment
in the lowest skill occupations—farm workers and

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0

-

68-3


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

T a b l e 3. P e r c e n t D ist r ib u t io n of E m ploy m en t , by
O c cu pa tio n al G r o u p , S o u th w est 1940 and 1960,
U n it e d S t a tes 1940, 1960, and P rojected 1975
United States
Occupational group
1940

1975
(esti­
1960 mat­
ed)

Southwest

1940

All persons reporting occupation___ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Professional, technical, and kindred
8.0
workers 1................ ................... ..............
Nonfarm managers, officials, and proprie­
tors 1---------------- ---------- ------- ----------- 8.1
Clerical and kindred workers 1__________ 9.8
Sales workers 1............. ........... ........ ............ 6.9
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers. 11.6
Operatives and kindred workers................. 18.1
4.7
Private household workers_____________
Other service workers................................... 7.2
Nonfarm laborers......................... ................ 7.0
11.5
Fanners and farm managers____ ______
Farm laborers and forem en........................ 7.0

1960

100.0

6.8

11.0

8.1
8.8 10.4
15.1 16.5
6.6
7.5
6.5
6.1
8.4
14.2 12.8
19.4 16.7 10.7
2.8 ) l4 .1 J 6.2
1 6.2
8.9
4.2 12.9
5.1
4.1 } 3.9 J20.9
2.4
1 6.9

10.0
13.4
7.5
13.5
16.4
4.2
9.2
6.1
5.2
3.5

11.8

14.9

i White-collar occupations.
N ote : Because of rounding, columns m ay not add to 100 percent.
S ource : Census of Population ldJfl: Vol.
Characteristics of Population,
Pt. 1 (Summary and Alabama), and 1960: Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Popula­
tion (Summary) (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

nonfarm laborers—is decreasing absolutely as well
as relatively, and the estimated nationwide em­
ployment in these occupations is far below ear­
lier levels. On the other hand, it appears, employ­
ment in occupations requiring greater skills has
increased rapidly since 1940 to accommodate the
needs of modem industry. In addition, traditional
low-skill work in farming is expected to give way
to operations based on much higher industrial
skill, as farming methods become more highly
mechanized and technical.
Although the skill level of workers in the South­
west has risen rapidly in recent decades, there is
Still a relative concentration of employment in
lower skilled jobs. (See table 4.) The rate of em­
ployment of professional and technical workers
and skilled workers (craftsmen) was as high as
the national rate only in Oklahoma, and only this
State had relatively less employment in the oc­
cupational categories of nonfarm laborers and pri­
vate household workers than did the Nation. In
Louisiana, the proportion of workers in private
households was more than double the national
rate. While the occupational distribution—like the
industrial distribution—of employment is influ­
enced by the resources and industries in each par­
ticular State, this general picture suggests that
meeting the Southwestern States’ manpower needs
of the future will be difficult and will proceed at
a slower pace.

28
The employment problems of minority groups
in particular represent a serious barrier to the
continued rapid economic growth of the region.
The four States have approximately 14 percent
of the Nation’s non white population. There are
large numbers of Negroes, Mexican Americans,
and Indians in the Southwest, and it is the em­
ployment patterns of these groups that largely
account for the relatively high concentration of
employment in the lower skilled jobs mentioned
above.
The economic position of the Indians8 is worse
than that of any other American minority group.
They have a shorter life expectancy, higher rates
of unemployment, lower levels of educational
attainment, and lower incomes. The problems of
Negro workers—low income, low skill and edu­
cation, high unemployment, discrimination in
employment—are too well known and too complex
to be examined in detail here.9
But in Texas the largest minority group is
not the nonwhite—it is the Mexican American.10
Like the Negroes, the Mexican Americans are
heavily concentrated in the lower skilled job
categories, although they have been somewhat
more successful in getting jobs in the craftsman
(skilled) and clerical categories. Consequently,
their income levels are generally higher and un­
employment rates lower than those of Negroes.
On the other hand, Mexican Americans do no
better than Negroes in penetrating the high-income
professional categories.11
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that edu­
cational attainment levels of Mexican Americans
8 S tatistical Abstract of the United States, 1967 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census), p. 28. Almost 75,000 of the Nation’s 524,000
Indians live in the Southwest (over 64,000 in Oklahoma).
9 For a discussion of economic conditions of Negro workers,
Negro employment and public policy, and prospects for the future,
see Ray Marshall, The Negro Worker (New York, Random House,
Inc., 1967), especially chapters 6—8.
10 In 1960 there were in Texas 1,417,810 Mexican Americans
and 1,204,846 nonwhites (14.8 and 12.6 percent, respectively, of
the total population). See Harley L. Browning and S. Dale
McLemore, A Statistical Profile of thé Spanish-Surname Popular
tion of Texas (Austin, University of Texas, Bureau of Business
Research, 1964).
11 Paul Bullock, “Employment Problems of the Mexican Ameri­
can,” Industrial Relations (Berkeley, University of California,
Institute of Industrial Relations), May 1964, p. 43.
12 Census of Population: 1960, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the
Population, Pt. 45, Texas (U.S. Bureau of the Census) ; and
Census of Population: 1960, Persons of Spanish Surname,
final report P C (2)-1B (U.S. Bureau of the Census).
18
For a comparison of pay levels in several Southwestern cities,
see “Wage Differentials : Forces and Counterforces,” pp. 74—81,
this issue.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

are often lower than the Negroes’. In Texas, the
median number of years of school completed by
persons 14 and over in 1960 was 8.7 for Negroes
and 6.1 for Mexican Americans (compared with
10.4 for all categories).12 This difference is at­
tributable to cultural factors, migrant work, and
unenforced school attendance laws, factors which
make the education of Mexican Americans ex­
tremely difficult. Thus, although Mexican Ameri­
cans do not face rigid discrimination barriers to
the same extent Negroes do, as these barriers are
removed their relative position may suffer because
their inferior educational backgrounds may pre­
vent them from taking advantage of improved job
opportunities.
The Future
Not all changes in the Southwest’s employment
can be quantified, and the broad industrial and
occupational groups conceal a great deal of im­
portant detail. There is too much diversity among
the Southwestern States (and areas within them)
in many respects, and there are too many sub­
groups of employment classifications to consider
all of the implications of the data presented here.
The basic problem is to raise the educational at­
tainment and skill levels of the labor force, partic­
ularly among minority groups, to meet the needs
of modern industry.
Wages and salaries are typically lower in the
Southwest than in other parts of the Nation,13
but more important, many of the low-productivity
T a b l e 4. P e r c e n t D ist r ib u t io n of E m ploym ent b y
O ccu pa tio n al G r o u p , S o u t h w e st e r n S t a t e s , 1960
Occupational group

Arkan­
sas

All workers reporting occupa­
tion:
N u m b er.............................. 543,947
P e rc e n t........................ ...... 100. 0
Professional, technical, and kindred
workers......................................... .
Farmers and farm m anagers...........
Nonfarm managers, officials, and pro­
prietors...............................................
Clerical and kindred w orkers...........
Sales workers......................................
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers_______________________
Operatives and kindred workers........
Private household workers..................
Other service workers__ __________
Farm laborers and foremen................
Nonfarm laborers...............................

Louisi­
ana

Okla­
homa

Texas

965,165 745,890
1Ò0.0
1Ó0.0

3,152, 683
100.0

8.5
9.2

10.7
3.4

12.0
6.8

11.3
4.6

9.2
9.4
6.8

9.5
12.4
6.8

10.2
14.4
8.0

10.2
14.1
7.7

11.8
20.6
4.6
8.2
5.0
6.8

12.9
17.1
6.4
9.8
3.0
7.9

14.5
14.7
2.5
9.6
2.5
4.7

13.7
15.9
3.9
9.2
3.7
5.7

S ource : Census of Population: 1960, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population,
P t. 1 (Summary) (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

29

SOUTHEAST EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH

jobs common in the Southwest simply do not exist
in most sections of the country. This is particularly
true of domestic service. Even moderate-income,
families in most areas of the Southwest often
employ a Negro or Mexican-American maid, at
least on a part-time basis, and wages of $5 per
day are common. While the automat is a wellknown institution in New York City and else­
where, and self-service is taken for granted, a
customer of a cafeteria in the Southwest is likely
to find a Negro whose sole job is to carry his
tray from the serving line to the table.
Underemployment of this type is due largely
to historical and social factors—discrimination
toward minority groups, and inadequate educa­
tional systems. The resulting overconcentration

in labor-intensive jobs is a serious barrier to the,
continued rapid economic development of the
region. The slower development, in turn, may per­
petuate the continued overconcentration in laborintensive jobs.
With respect to economic development in gen­
eral and expansion of employment in particular,
the past performance and the prospects for most
of the Southwest are much better than for most
areas of the whole South. But substantial, stubborn
impediments to continued improvement remain.
Various forms of inducement to attract industry
(which each of the Southwestern States is using in
varying degrees) are at best a small part of the
answer. A greater need is to reduce the barriers to
the necessary upgrading of the labor force.

Perhaps no migratory movement in American history has made its effect
felt more quickly than the one touched off by the mechanization of Southern
agriculture. In a scant 50 years, the Negro population—once composed pri­
marily of sharecroppers, tenant farmers, farm laborers, and their families—
has become more urban than the white population. The 1960 Census was the
first to register this fact: 73.2 percent of Negroes were then found to be living
in cities, compared with 69.5 percent of white persons. To state it another way,
the Census of Agriculture indicates that in 1920 about 29 percent of all
American farmers were Negroes and that, by 1959, the figure had fallen to
16 percent.


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

—“Negro-White Differences in Geographic Mobility,”
Social Security Bulletin, May 1967.

Manned
Space
Flight
and
Employment
M ary A . H olm an and
R onald M. K onkel

Econom ic and social changes have fo l­
low ed in the w ake o f th e M anned Space
F lig h t Program .
T he
of any large Government program
generates changes that permeate the economic and
social structure of communities and of the Nation.
The Manned Space Flight (MSF) program is no
exception. People, firms, and communities have all
made adjustments in response to the national goal
of a manned landing on the moon by 1970, and
there can be little doubt that further adjustments
will be required. During the early phase of the pro­
gram, combined civil service and contractor em­
ployment increased at a rate of about 8,000 a
month, reaching a peak of 300,000 in early 1966.
Since that time, attrition has reduced employment
by about 5,000 a month. The reversal of the em­
ployment trend well before the lunar landing re­
sults from the long leadtime needed to develop
and produce complex space hardware.
a d v e n t

30

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

The effect of space employment has been most
pronounced in the South. No other region gained
as much from the 1961 decision to proceed with the
Apollo Program. Since that year, three National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
installations, with a combined civil service and
contractor work force of 27,000, have been built
in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. In Alabama
and Florida, existing Federal installations have
been expanded, with a 39,000 increase in total em­
ployment . The combined increase—a total of
66,000—in the five States bordering the Gulf of
Mexico represented about 5 percent of the area’s
increase in total nonagricultural employment dur­
ing the period. Excluding the more rapidly grow­
ing States of Florida and Texas, space employment
accounts for slightly more than 7 percent of total
employment growth in Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi since 1961.
The economic significance of the Manned Space
Flight program has not been uniform among the
communities surrounding the space flight centers.
The employment effect can be put in terms of
a spectrum; at one end is employment at the Mis­
sissippi Test Facility, where NASA civil service
and contractor employment constituted over half
of total employment in Hancock County in 1966;
at the other end of the spectrum is Houston, Tex.,
where space employment made up less than 2 per­
cent of total employment. Hidden behind the per­
centages is the program’s more diverse role in the
economies of these communities. Because of the
program, high rates of employment growth have
been sustained in Brevard County, Fla., and in
Huntsville, Ala. After decades of almost no
growth, employment in Hancock County, Miss.,
doubled in 5 years after NASA established its
test facility. In New Orleans, space employment
is small when compared with total employment,
but it is important enough to have reversed a 5year employment slump. In contrast, the opening
of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, in
addition to providing an essential location for the
NASA purposes, has probably been more a point
of civic pride than a quantifiable increment in the
city’s dynamic economy. But even in Houston, the
program brought in a new kind of research and
development complex.

SPACE FLIGHT AND EMPLOYMENT

31

Florida and Alabama. Before World War II, the
economy of Brevard County was dominated by
minor agricultural activities—raising citrus, cat­
tle, fishing, and truck crops—and that of Hunts­
ville, Ala., was primarily dependent upon agri­
culture and a depressed textile industry. Since that
time, the economies of these areas have become
dependent on the Federal Government. During
the 1950’s the Department of Defense was the main
source of employment growth. The Banana River
Naval Air Station, which was reactivated in 1947,
and became Patrick Air Force Base in 1950, is now
serving as headquarters for the 15,000-acre missile
launch area known as the Cape Kennedy Air Force
Station. In 1949, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps
entered the missile era when it reactivated the Red­
stone Arsenal in Huntsville as a center for rocket
research and development. (See table 1.)
In terms of employment, the results of the De­
partment of Defense’s activities in these areas can
be seen in table 2. During the 1950’s, the average
annual rate of employment growth doubled in
Huntsville and rose by 20 percent each year in
Brevard County. There is little doubt that the
MSF program was responsible for most of the
employment growth in these areas since 1960. The
employment buildup (civil service and contractor)
between 1960 and 1966 amounted to 20,000 at the
John F. Kennedy Space Center and to about 18,600 at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
T

able
1.
T otal
South,

E

M a n n ed Spa ce
m plo y m en t
in

F l ig h t E m p l o y m e n t
Selected A reas of

and
the

1966

Location

Kennedy Space Center, Brevard Countv.
F la............
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Ala_________
Mississippi Test Facility, Hancock County,
Miss_________
Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Tex
Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans,
La___________

Total
employ­
ment

MSF
employ­
ment 1

MSF
employ­
ment as
a per­
centage
of t otal
employ­
ment

2 96, 400

20,000

20.7

580,700

23,900

29.6

4 8, 300
3 614, 000

4,740
11, 400

57.1
1.9

3358, 600

10,800

3.0

4Includes civil service and contractor employment. National Aeronautics
and Space Admimstration, Office of Manned Space Flight.
_A fk-^J^ed from data provided by the Florida State Employment Service
a a t t a University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
! U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Commission fr°m d a ta provlded by the Mississippi S ta te Employment


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

T a b l e 2. C o n t r i b u t i o n o f F e d e r a l l y G e n e r a t e d
E m p l o y m e n t t o G r o w t h i n H u n t s v i l l e , A l a ., a n d i n
B r e v a r d C o u n t y , F l a ., 196 0 -6 6

Change in Employment

Increase in total employment 1960 to 1966_______
Increase in MSF employment 1960 to 1966_______
Increase in DOD employment 1960 to 1966______
Actual average annual rate of growth:
1940’s......................
I950’s____________
_____
1960-06____________ ____ _____ ” 11111” ” ':
Average annual rate of growth l960to 1966 without:
MSF direct2____________________________
MSF direct and induced.......... ............. ............
DOD and MSF direct and induced_________

Brevard
County,
Fla.

Huntsville,
Ala.

54,100
20, 000
1,100

38, 600
1 18, 600
1,700

4.0
20.0
15.0

4.6
9.2
11.5

10.4
3.5
2.7

6.7
2.8
1.8

1 Excludes 5,300 transferred from DOD.
2 Includes a small number working on unmanned NASA projects.
Source : 1940, 1950, and 1960, Growth Patterns in Employment by County,
ldJfi-1950 and 1960-1960 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business
Economics, vol. 5, Southeast, 1966); 1966, Florida State Employment Service
and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

at Huntsville. As table 2 also shows, the change in
defense employment was relatively small during
this period.
The structure of employment in these areas has
undergone a fundamental change since 1950. In
Brevard County, employment in the manufactur­
ing sector rose by 1966 from about 5 to about 17
percent of the labor force in 1966. In Huntsville,
employment shifted away from agriculture and
also away from textile manufacturing. Some of the
growing manufacturing industries in Brevard
County and Huntsville were ordnance, instru­
ments, fabricated metals, industrial controls, com­
munication equipment, and electronic components.
All of these industries, of course, manufacture
components and hardware for defense and for
aerospace programs. Manufacturing employment
in these industries is not likely to be maintained
without sales to the Federal Government. Soaring
employment gains in the service industries com­
plemented the increase in employment in the Gov­
ernment and manufacturing sectors of the two
economies.
Table 2 presents the results of an estimate of
what employment growth rates in Brevard Coun­
ty and in Huntsville might have been in the ab­
sence of defense and NASA activities. For ex­
ample, without the direct employment buildup on
the Manned Space Flight Program, the average
annual rate of employment growth in Huntsville
between 1960 and 1966 would have been about onehalf of the actual rate.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

32
Simple employment multipliers were derived
to estimate the indirect or induced change in em­
ployment in the service industries. The coefficient
for the multiplier was 2.22 for Brevard County
and 1.66 for Huntsville. The service industries, in
general, have grown less rapidly in Alabama than
in Florida. Including induced employment, almost
80 percent of employment growth in Huntsville
between 1960 and 1966 resulted from the employ­
ment buildup on the MSF program. Total defense
and space employment accounts for nearly all em­
ployment growth in these areas since 1960.
Mississippi. NASA’s Mississippi Test Facility
occupies about 13,000 acres in Hancock County in
the southwestern part of the State. To provide an
acoustical buffer zone, the Government obtained
easements from owners of an additional 125,000
acres that extend into Pearl River County. His­
torically the lumber and wood manufacturing in­
dustries have dominated the economic life of this
part of Mississippi, but the importance and pros­
perity of these industries decreased during the last
few decades. This is reflected in data from the Mis­
sissippi Employment Security Commission show­
ing that the rate of unemployment in Hancock
County in 1960 was almost 16 percent; the rate
in Pearl River County that year was about 8
percent. The tabulation below shows the stationary
nature of the economies in the period preceding
NASA. Although employment growth was low
during the 1940’s, it practically stopped during the
next decade.
Contribution of MSF-generated
employment to growth in
Hancock and Pearl River
Counties, Miss., 1960 to 1966
Increase in total employment..........................
Increase in MSF employment_____________
Actual average annual rate of growth:
1940’s.................................... .......................
1950’s................................................
1960-66...... ............. - ........ -.........................

5,000
4,740
2.1
6.5

The direct increase in employment resulting
from the establishment of the Mississippi Test Fa­
cility occurred only in Hancock County. There em­
ployment more than doubled between 1960 and
1966, whereas it grew by only about 10 percent in
Pearl River County between 1960 and 1966. Al­
though there has been an influx of a relatively


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

large number of skilled people into the area, an
important result of the Mississippi Test Facility
operation has been to reduce underemployment
and to absorb unemployed workers. Almost onehalf of those employed at the facility were re­
cruited from the indigenous population.
Texas and Louisiana. Unlike the economic cli­
mates in areas with the other NASA facilities in
the South, the new space establishments in Texas
and Louisiana were set up in large metropolitan
economies that had growth momentum of their
own. In both Houston and New Orleans, space
employment comprises a small percentage of total
employment. Because of differences in the pat­
terns of growth in the two cities, however, the effect
of space employment in New Orleans has been
considerably larger than that in Houston.
Houston, as is well known, is one of the fastest
growing cities in the country. By 1960 it had be­
come the Nation’s seventh largest metropolitan
area. Although much of the impetus for economic
growth has come from the expansion of the petro­
leum, natural gas, and petrochemical industries,
the development of Houston’s economy has a
broad base, including such expanding ancillary ac­
tivities as manufacturing of heavy machinery,
pipeline transportation, and finance.
The Manned Spacecraft Center, established in
1961, is almost midway between downtown
Houston and Galveston. By June 1966, it had
about 11,400 workers, approximately 40 percent of
whom had been hired locally. The percentage of
local hires, however, was not uniform by occupa­
tion. For example, almost all technical and cler­
ical staff personnel were hired in the areas,
as compared with only 10 percent of the
6,000 scientists, engineers, and administrative
professionals.
0.6 Although less than 2 percent of all wage and
salary employees in Houston were included in the
space work force in 1966, this proportion ac­
counted for about 8 percent of the city’s employ­
ment increase between 1960 and 1966. The aggre­
gate effect of the Manned Spacecraft Center has
been a significant, but not dominant, source of
economic expansion in Houston. Assuming all
other factors unchanged, the rate of employment
growth would not have been much lower without

SPACE FLIGHT AND EMPLOYMENT

the MSF program. Rather, the rate of employ­
ment growth between 1960 and 1966 without the
employment buildup at the Center would have
been 3.4 instead of 4.2 percent. This estimate is
based on an employment multiplier of 2.45 com­
puted for the Houston metropolitan area.
The Michoud Assembly Facility of New Or­
leans was acquired from the Department of De­
fense and reopened by NASA in March 1962. The
buildup of space employment at Michoud was
accompanied by a burst of economic growth in
New Orleans, representing a significant departure
from long-term patterns. During the decades of
the 1940’s and 1950’s, the rate of employment
growth in New Orleans was below the national
average and substantially below that of the rap­
idly expanding Southeast. Growth in New Orleans
lagged far behind such fast growing population
centers in the South as Atlanta, Dallas, and
Houston. As measured by employment, the econ­
omy of New Orleans had been in a slump for
nearly 5 years before the reopening of the
Michoud Facility. Unlike the rest of the Nation,
which had recovered from the 1957-58 recession
by 1959, total employment in New Orleans did
not regain its 1957 peak of about 292,000 until
1963. Between 1957 and 1961, the unemployment
rate in New Orleans rose steadily from 2.7 to 6.2
percent.
By 1966 employment at Michoud totaled about
11,000. Because it is contractor-operated, most of
its work force were employees of either Boeing Co.
T a b le 3.
m ent

to

C o n t r ib u t io n of M SF- G e n e r a t e d E mploy ­
G rowth in H ouston and N ew O r l e a n s ,

1 960-66
Employment

Increase in total employment__
_____
Increase in MSF employment_________________

Houston

New
Orleans

135,100
11, 400

i 59, 800
10, 800

Actual average annual rate of growth:
1940’s_____________
1950’s_ _________________
1960-66_____________________ ______

4.6
3.7
4.2

2.8
1.8
3.1

Average annual rate of growth 1960-66 without:
MSF direct
___ ________
MSF direct and induced__________________

3.9
3.4

2.6
1.9

1 Excludes 11,000 increase resulting from revision of New Orleans Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area in 1964.
Source: 1940,1950, and 1960, Growth Patterns in Employment by County,
1940-1960 and 1950-1960 (U.S. Departm ent of Commerce, Office of Business
Economics, vol. 5—Southeast, and vol. 6—Southwest, 1966); 1966, Employ­
ment and Earnings Statistics for States and Areas, 1939-66 (BLS Bulletin
1370-4, 1967).


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

or Chrysler Corp. Table 3 indicates that Michoud
employment between 1960 and 1966 made up al­
most a fifth of New Orleans’ total increase; and
that the MSF program accounted for about 40
percent of this increase and almost all of the in­
crease in the growth rate. The estimate is based
on an employment multiplier of 2.27 computed for
the city.
It is clear that space employment significantly
altered the growth performance of the New Or­
leans economy during the early 1960’s. One need
only note that of the 30 largest metropolitan areas
in the Nation, New Orleans was among the 10 fast­
est growing areas in terms of employment growth
between 1961 and 1966.
Social Effects
The opening of new employment opportunities
on a large scale has inevitably had far-reaching
effects on the social and economic structure of the
communities in which space employment is con­
centrated. The effect of the large inmigration of
population and rising incomes that accompanied
the employment buildup on Federal programs is
most conspicuous in Huntsville and in Brevard
County. Although the largest percentage of total
employment engaged on space projects is in Han­
cock County, the geographic isolation of the Mis­
sissippi Test Facility has caused a wider disper­
sion in the secondary effects of Federal employ­
ment. Many working at the facility commute from
New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, and other com­
munities on the Gulf Coast. Table 4 presents data
indicating the magnitude of some of the social
changes in Brevard County and Huntsville caused
by the program.
Population growth in these areas since 1950 re­
flects increased employment opportunities created
by the Federal Government. Between 1940 and
1950, the population of Brevard County grew at
an average annual rate of about 3.5 percent, that
of Huntsville, at the rate of about 2.3 percent. The
more than threefold increase in the populations of
these areas during the next decade largely resulted
from defense requirements. With the advent of
NASA and its Manned Space Flight Program,
population continued to expand rapidly. Although
average growth rates fell slightly, these areas

34
again witnessed a doubling of population during
the first half of the 1960’s.
Expanding Educational Facilities
An increase in the school-age population is part
of a large inmigration of people. In both Brevard
County and Huntsville, school enrollment in 1965
was more than twice the 1960 level. Public school
systems receive a fee for each student whose parent
is employed by a contractor of the Federal Gov­
ernment or is employed in the civil service. In this
way, the Government assumes part of the expense
for support and maintenance of local schools. By
1966, students whose parents had federally related
employment numbered slightly more than half of
the total school enrollment in Brevard County.
During the same year, the Federal Government
contributed about 21 percent of the operating
funds for the county’s public school system. The
large increases in school enrollment required major
expansion of school facilities and faculties. Be­
cause of rapid school construction programs, the
schools in both Brevard County and Huntsville
have been able to maintain the average number of
students per classroom at about 30 since 1960. The
student-to-teacher ratio has also been kept at
about 30.
Changes in the field of education have not been
limited to the primary and secondary levels. For
example, enrollment at the Huntsville branch of
the University of Alabama rose from 174 in 1950 to
2,400 in 1966. A new public junior college was es­
tablished in the Huntsville area in 1964; by the
fall of 1966, its enrollment totaled 1,200.
Direct and indirect employment and income gen­
erated by the Government project have helped to
change the structure of wages and to raise per
capita personal income in Southern communities.
In December 1966, the average annual salary of
civil service personnel employed at the Marshall
Space Flight Center was $10,850. At the same time,
the average annual salary paid by NASA’s prime
contractors in Huntsville was about $10,000; that
paid by construction contractors, about $7,000; and
that paid by maintenance support contractors,
about $6,600. As shown in table 5, per capita per­
sonal income in Madison County, Ala., rose by 34
percent between 1960 and 1964, compared with


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

the national increase of 14 percent during the same
period. By 1964, per capita personal income in
Madison County was only $500 less than the na­
tional average; the difference was about $750 in
1950. Per capita personal income in Brevard
County in 1950 also was significantly less than that
for the Nation, as well as Florida. By 1964 the
reverse was true. Per capita income totaled $3,400
in Brevard County, compared with $2,300 in Flor­
ida and $2,600 for the whole country. Undoubtedly
this change reflects the wages paid by the Federal
Government and by NASA and DOD contractors,
as well as the secondary increases in income in the
service industries as a result of the expenditure of
federally generated income.
A pronounced change in the process of urbaniza­
tion of the areas discussed here, as reflected by
housing, is the rapid increase in the number of
apartment units. In 1960, building permits issued
in Huntsville for the construction of multidwelling
units comprised about 6 percent of all residential
building permits; in 1964, permits for such units
amounted to 35 percent of the total. In Brevard
County, Fla., permits for multidwelling units rose
from slightly less than 3 percent to about half of
all permits issued between 1960 and 1964.
By generating larger incomes, DOD in the 1950’s
and NASA in the 1960’s had an effect on the service
industries that is reflected in data on the growth
T a ble 4. S elec ted I ndicators of E conomic and S ocial
C ha n g e in B reva r d C o u n t y , F la ., a nd H u n t s v il l e ,
A l a ., 1 950-65
Indicator

Brevard County, Fla.
1950

1960

1965

Huntsville, Ala.
1950

1960

1965

Population 1_________ 23, 700 111, 400 224, 500 16, 400 72, 400 143, 700
Public school enroll32,154
48,189 2,749 15, 328
m e n t2_____________ 3,913 20, 254
1,010
568
96
651
1, 519
117
Number of classrooms 2.
Residential building
3
5,
066
1,436
605
2,614 5 6, 933
permits 3___________ (9
Personal per capita ins
$2,054
$772 $1, 537
come 6_______ _____ $1, 019 $2, 319 s $3, 435
Retail sales (In thousands) 7_____ _____ $21, 200 $125, 400 8$291, 300 $34, 200 $111, 300 8$207, 800
1 1950 and 1960, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1965, Brevard County, Florida
Planning Department; and Madison County, Ala., Chamber of Commerce.
2 Academic years, Brevard County School System and Office of H unts­
ville City Schools.
s Construction Statistics, 1889 to 1964 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1966).
4 Data not available.
s D ata are for 1964.
6 University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research; and
University of Alabama, Bureau of Business Research. The Huntsville data
are for Madison County.
7 Sales Management, Inc., Survey of Buying Power, June issues for the
years 1950, 1960, 1965.
s D ata are for 1965.

35

SPACE FLIGHT AND EMPLOYMENT

of retail sales between 1950 and 1965. In Brevard
County retail sales more than doubled between
1950 and 1955, increasing at an average annual
rate of 18 percent. With a substantially larger base
in 1960, retail sales in Brevard County again more
than doubled between 1960 and 1965, and the
growth continued at the high average annual rate
of 18 percent. Retail sales grew at only slightly
lower rates in Huntsville during comparable
periods.
As indicated above, employment on the Manned
Space Flight Program began to decline in early
1966. Of the areas surrounding the space centers in
the South, only Huntsville and New Orleans have
been affected by the employment cutback that re­
sulted from the completion of the Apollo Pro­
gram’s development phase. NASA employment at
the Kennedy Center is actually expanding in prep­
aration for the forthcoming launch phase of the
program.
During 1966, employment on the MSF program
dropped by about 12 percent in Huntsville. The
entire decrease resulted from a decline in contrac­
tor employment. The MSF contractor workforce
totaled 20,000 in 1965 compared with 16,700 in
1966. Recently, the Marshall Space Flight Center
reduced its civil service personnel by attrition and
by laying off 700 employees. Economic growth in
Huntsville, as measured by employment, has begun
to dampen. Neglecting minor seasonal fluctuations,
total wage and salary employment in Huntsville
declined in mid-1966 for the first time in about a
decade, in sharp contrast with employment growth
that averaged 13 percent per annum between 1960
and 1965.
Space employment in New Orleans began to de­
cline in 1964, with most of the early reductions
being in the construction workforce. By the end
of 1966, MSF employment was 31 percent below
the 1964 peak level of 13,400. Since 1966, hardware
and support contractors have reduced the number
of their employees on the space program. The de­
crease in employment at Michoud has had some

1 See T h e Space P rogram in th e Post-Apollo P eriod (President’s
Science Advisory Committee, February 1967) ; and Abraham
Hyatt, “Beyond Apollo,” In te rn a tio n a l Science and T echnology,
March 1967, pp. 39-39.
2 It is not clear from the Report of the President’s Science
Advisory Committee (p. 47) whether the three alternatives are
NASA-wide funding levels or applicable only to the Manned Space
Flight Program.


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

effect in moderating the city’s employment growth.
Between June 1966 and June 1967, total wage and
salary employment in New Orleans increased by
less than one-half of 1 percent, compared with 5.9
percent in 1965 and 3.0 percent in 1966.
The Future
It is often pointed out that decisions on the space
objectives for the decade of the 1970’s should not
be delayed since termination of the basic Apollo
Program is less than 3 years away.1I t is impossible
to predict what future programs will be. Here
selected for discussion are four possible funding
levels for the space program between fiscal 1967
and fiscal 1972. The alternatives are presented in
the tabulation below. Three of them (B, C, and D)
were selected by a panel of experts, the President’s
Science Advisory Committee, to illustrate the pos­
sible scope of future spending for the exploration
of space.2 The other is based on procurement pat­
terns for the MSF program since fiscal 1966.
Manned, space flight program funding
alternatives for fiscal year 1972
D
B
C
A
$7.0
$5.8
$3.5
$1.8
Current dollars (billions)-----------$5.8
$4.8
$2.9
$1.5
1967 constant dollars (billions) 1___
322
267
161
83
Employment (thousands)2--------1 Discounted at 3.6 percent per annum.
2 Estimated from a value added per man-year cost rate of $18,000.

The first line shows the alternatives in current
dollars. Possibility A assumes that spending for
the Manned Space Flight Program will continue
to decrease from the fiscal 1968 level of $3.2 bil­
lion by about $345 million a year through 1972.
This is the average decrease between fiscal 1966
and 1968. The second line shows the alternatives
discounted at 3.6 percent for price increases. The
factor is the actual average annual increase in the
implicit price deflator for Federal purchases be­
tween 1964 and 1966. If available, an index of
Federal research and development purchases
would probably give a factor for inflation in ex­
cess of 3.6 percent. The estimate of employment
generated by the future space program is based
on the constant dollar funding levels. Funding
levels A and B would result in an MSF workforce
of about 50 percent below that of June 1967. Al­
ternative C would tend to stabilize the workforce
at its current level, whereas D would raise MSF
employment slightly above the peak reached in
1966.

36

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T a b l e 5.
C apacity

E stim ate of E m ploym ent A bso r ptio n
L ocalities S u r r o u n d in g M S F C e n t e r s

of

Locality

Brevard County, Fla____ _
Hancock and Pearl River Coun­
ties, Miss.
Huntsville, Ala______________
Houston, Tex__ __________
New Orleans, L a___________

MSF research
and develop­
ment
personnel

MSF staff
personnel

Indirect
employ­
ment

Poor.
Poor.

Poor. _
Excellent__

Poor.
Excellent.
Fair.

If funding levels A and B materialize, the com­
munities surrounding the MSF installations will
have to adjust to sharply contracting employment
in the basic sectors of their economies. This as­
sumes, among other things, that there, would be
no offset employment, and approximately the same
regional distribution of MSF employment in 1972
as that in 1966.3 Possibility C would tend to sta­
bilize basic employment, and possibility D would
provide for some—but not much—employment
growth.
The two main economic costs, or problems of
economic readjustment, that would result from
a substantial contraction of the MSF program
are those associated with community dislocation,
and those pertaining to reemployment of dis­
placed workers. Both kinds of costs can be small
if the communities surrounding the MSF installa­
tions can absorb displaced workers in jobs com­
mensurate with existing levels of skill. The ability
of these economies to absorb displaced employees
varies by geographic area and also by the skill
characteristic of workers who would probably
separate from the space, program. Table 5 ap­
praises the reemployment opportunities by loca­
tion for MSF employees who would be directly
and indirectly affected were the space program cut
back sharply. The three main factors that will
affect the ability of these areas to absorb the dis­
placed MSF workforce will be the size of employ­
ment displacement in relation to the area’s total
employment, the occupations affected, and the
growth potential of the area’s employment.
The current outlook for reemployment in the
areas surrounding the Marshall Space Flight
Center, the Kennedy Space Center, and the Mis­
sissippi Test Facility is unfavorable. In each of
these areas, the expansion of the MSF program has
been the predominant growth influence during the


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

past 5 years; MSF employment accounts for a
large proportion of total employment; and non­
defense and nonspace manufacturing has been
declining in relative importance. In none of the
areas can employment growth in other sectors of
the economy be automatically expected to cushion
much of the effect of declining MSF employment.
MSF employment in Houston and New Orleans
is small in comparison with total employment. Re­
employment prospects for research and develop­
ment personnel, however, would be poor in these
areas. Local science-based firms are mainly in the
petroleum and the chemical industries. Laid-off
workers with general clerical and technical skills
should be easily absorbed into Houston’s diver­
sified and dynamic economy. Rates of unemploy­
ment could rise in New Orleans, however, unless
a high rate of employment growth from nonspace
sources materialized by 1972.
If the Nation commits itself to follow-on space
programs under funding levels C and D, the pro­
grams would absorb those separating from the
Apollo Program. These funding levels imply em­
ployment stability. This is true even for alterna­
tive D because inflation would tend to erode the
amount of employment generated in the future.
Using the conservative factor for inflation, em­
ployment under alternative D would only be 22,000
greater than the MSF employment peak.
The rapid economic growth of Huntsville, Bre­
vard County, and Hancock County during the past
5 years resulted largely from the employment
buildup of the Manned Space Flight Program. To
a lesser extent the same is true for New Orleans;
it is not true for Houston. Unless nonspace em­
ployment opportunities in basic industries grow
at a more rapid rate, these areas cannot maintain
the same high rates of economic growth that they
enjoyed during the buildup of the MSF program.
To insure continued and stable economic
growth, it might be well for community leaders in
Huntsville, Brevard County, and Hancock County
to encourage a permanent shift in the base of their
economies away from growth that is spurred solely
by the Federal Government.
3
The antiballistic missile program of the Department of De­
fense might generate offset employment in the future. There is,
however, no assurance that these communities will share in
possible employment generated by that program.

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

Training and
Retaining Manpower
Human Resources, the Most Valu­
able the Region Has to Offer, Are
Being Trained for the Future
The education lag in the South is not new;
its causes are rooted deep in the history
of the region. What is new is the South’s
conscious and determined effort in recent
years to overcome the past.

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

Changing
Elementary
and
Secondary
Education
Jam es W. W hitlock

Problem s o f finance and prevalence o f
sm all schools are d etrim en tal to S ou th­
ern education.
A v i t a l f o r c e for change in American public
schools has been the increasing recognition by the
public that each child and youth should be assured
of an equally adequate opportunity to obtain an
education commensurate with his needs and abili­
ties. In 1968 the goal of equal adequacy of educa­
tional opportunity requires an improved educa­
tional program in many public schools throughout
the Nation. There is considerable evidence that
this is especially applicable to public schools in
the region comprising the 11 Southern States of
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In broad terms
this article will discuss two aspects of equal ade­
quacy of education: The funding of local school
districts and the problems inherent in maintaining
a system of small schools.
Evidence of this need for improvement can be
seen in comparative data on the educational attain­
ment of the population. The median number of
school years completed by persons 25 years and
older in the Nation in 1960 was 10.6 years.1 In the
Southern States, median school years completed

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

by this age group ranged from a high of 10.9
years in Florida to a low of 8.7 years in South
Carolina. Ten of the 11 States were below the na­
tional median, however. The rate of illiteracy in
the region was high and the number of youths
failing preinduction and induction mental tests
was above the national average.
The reasons for inadequacies in Southern pub­
lic school programs are undoubtedly varied. Two
reasons, however, appear to be especially signifi­
cant : The schools have not had and do not have the
financial resources necessary for quality educa­
tion, and the available resources have been and are
being dissipated through inefficient school organi­
zation and through the continued operation of
many aspects of segregated schools. While lack of
adequate data classifying schools as Negro or
white prevents any statistical comparison of
quality differences between the two, observation
reveals the greater inadequacies of Negro schools
in many areas.
Educational improvement requires adequate
financial support. When communities spend more
money on their schools they generally employ
more and better qualified teachers while providing
better facilities, materials, and other aids to teach­
ing. All things being equal, more money provides
broader educational opportunities.
In each of the 11 States in the region in 1966-67,
the per pupil expenditure for current operating
costs was less than the national average of $565 2
and ranked well below most of the other States.
(See chart.)
Two factors account for this low level of finan­
cial support for public education: Meager finan­
cial resources in Southern States, and the relatively
weak effort exerted by citizens in most of the re­
gion in support of education. The ability to pro­
vide financial resources for public education may
be measured by the amount of personal income per
child of school age. Using this criterion, each
State in the region ranks well below the 1965 na­
tional average of $10,644. The range was from
$9,895 per child in Florida to $5,559 per child in
Mississippi.3
1 By 1966 it had increased to 12.0 years. Comparable figures
for the individual States are not available. However, according
to the Census Bureau, the median number of school years com­
pleted by persons 25 and over in 1966 was 10.8 for the South
which was defined to include the 11 States already indicated
plus Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Texas,
and West Virginia.
2 Financial Status of the Public Schools, 1967 (Washington,
National Education Association, 1967), p. 39.
3 Rankings of the States, 1967 (Washington, National Educa­
tion Association, 1967), p. 36.

39

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

40
A common method of determining the extent
of fiscal efforts that go into the support of all
public services is to calculate the ratio of State
and local general revenue to personal income. For
the country as a whole in 1965, total general reve­
nue was 11.9 percent of total personal income. But
in the region, only Mississippi (13.2 percent) and
Florida (12.6 percent) were above this average,
while Virginia was at the bottom of the scale with
a 9.9 percent effort.4
Overdependence on State revenues by local
school districts can seriously impair the quality of
education in those districts. In such cases, schools
are at the mercy of the political direction of the
State.
Approximately 40 percent of all revenue re­
ceipts for public schools in the United States in
1966-67 came from State sources. Yet of the 11
Southern States, only Virginia (39 percent) was
below the national average. Alabama led the list
with a 64-percent dependency rate while North
Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Tennessee each provided at least
50 percent of revenues to local school districts.5
The chief source of local government revenue
is the property tax. Per capita tax revenue of local
governments in the United States in 1964-65 was
$114, representing 4.3 percent of total personal in­
come, nationwide. Florida came closest to this
average by collecting $84 (3.6 percent), while
Alabama was lowest, collecting $25 per person (1.6
percent.6 These relatively low rates help explain
the small role local governments in the South play
in public school financing.
Another problem is educating officials and the
public about the need for a reasonable local tax
effort to upgrade schools from what is already
available. In 1966-67, the median school expendi­
ture by school district in the United States was
1.2 percent of the property value in the district.
Median expenditures in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ala­
bama, and Mississippi, however, averaged only
.5 percent.7
The foregoing discussion should not be inter­
preted to mean that if the Southern States only
would make the necessary financial effort the prob­
lem of providing good schools would be solved.
A number of the States simply do not have the
necessary resources. Thus we cannot and will not


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

Per Pupil Expenditure for Current O perating Costs in
11 Southern States and the United States, 1 966-67

DOLLARS
600

N ote : The number at the top of each bar designates that State’s rank
among the 50 States.

have good schools throughout the South until the
Federal Government provides substantial financial
support for the public schools.
School Organization
Southern public schools have less financial re­
sources per pupil than are necessary. Further, they
dissipate the effectiveness of these resources
through the operation of an excessive number of
inefficient small schools. This is disappointing,
since school districts in the South are formally
segments of larger administrative units which
have had the capacity of reorganizing their schools
had they so desired. But, because of strong local
pressure, school reorganization has not been gen­
erally desired by local boards, and the, State edu­
cation agencies have exerted little leadership in
* Ibid., p. 42.
s Ibid., pp. 45-47.
« Ibid., p. 44.
7
See “Cost of Education Index 1966—67,” School Management,
January 1967, p. 129.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

encouraging this development beyond the elimina­
tion of the one-room elementary schools. The vari­
ous State educational agencies also tend to encour­
age the operation of small schools by making
special allowances for them in the distribution of
State funds.
As recently as 1962-63, approximately twothirds of the public high schools in the region
enrolled fewer than 500 pupils, while more than
one-third enrolled fewer than 250 pupils. Only 1
high school in 10 enrolled as many as 1,000
pupils.8 Complete data on the size of elementary
schools are not available, yet there is sufficient
support for the conclusion that elementary schools
are no more efficiently organized than are high
schools. For example, in 1965-66 Tennessee oper­
ated 92 one-teacher and 206 two-teacher elemen­
tary schools. Virginia operated 55 one-teacher and
101 two-teacher elementary schools, and 362
elementary schools with less than one teacher per
grade. Alabama operated 60 one-teacher elemen­
tary schools, 134 two-teacher schools, and a total
of 488 elementary schools in which there were
fewer teachers than one per grade.9
Inadequate School Programs
The prevalence of small high and small elemen­
tary schools constitutes a serious obstacle to qual­
ity education in Southern secondary schools. While
size in itself is not a criterion of school adequacy,
it is the one element common to numerous meas­
ures of quality. For example, the college prepara­
tion of high school teachers correlates positively
with the size of the school in which they teach.
The larger the school, the better chance a pupil
has to be instructed by a teacher with an advanced
degree and the less chance to be instructed by a
teacher without a college degree. As high school
enrollments increase, the percent of pupils taught
8 High Schools in the South: A Fact Book (Nashville, Tenn.,
George Peabody College for Teachers, 1966), p. 35.
9 Annual statistical reports of State superintendents for respec­
tive States for 1965-66.
19 Ibid., p. 54.
11 Ibid., p. 71.
19 Ibid., p. 70.
13 See pp. 49-54.
14 James W. Whitlock and Billy J. Williams, Jo ts and Training
for Southern Youth (Nashville, Tenn., George Peabody College for
Teachers, 1963), p. 33.

15 Ibid., p. 34.


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

41
by certified teachers also increases.10 The scope of
high school curricular offerings, as measured in
terms of subject areas and courses offered, bears
a positive relationship to the size of the school.11
Primarily because of the restricting influence
of small high schools, the majority of Southern
high school youth attend schools which offer an
inadequate program of courses. In the 11 States,
13 percent of the pupils in grades 9-12 attend
schools which give no instruction in a foreign
language, 57 percent have no opportunity to take
art, 14 percent are denied a music course, 38 per­
cent are enrolled in scho ols which do not teach
industrial arts, and 59 percent are in schools which
offer no courses in trade and industrial education.
However, the opportunities vary within and
among the States. For example, 48 percent of the
high school pupils in Mississippi attend schools
offering fewer than four course units in science,
compared with only 5 percent of the high school
pupils in Virginia. Approximately 41 percent of
the Missisisppi high school pupils attend schools
which offer no foreign language, compared with
less than 1 percent of the pupils in North
Carolina.12
Much of the present day curricula offered in
many of the Southern high schools is not related
to the new industrial needs of the South.13 Em­
p lo y m e n t o p p o r t u n it ie s in a g r ic u ltu r e , for e x a m ­
ple, are declining steadily in each of the Southern
States. Despite this, the number of students
trained in vocational agriculture continues to
increase.14
The general status of public vocational educa­
tion in the South has been one of substantial
growth in types of programs and total number
of youth involved. With the exception of agricul­
ture, these developments seem to be in keeping with
current trends. However, the State and regional
figures of progress obscure the weaknesses in pro­
grams in many schools and communities. Many of
these programs are not oriented toward employ­
ment opportunities or employer preferences for
training by the high schools in specific job skills.
Many job opportunities exist in the clerical and
sales fields, in manual work, and the broad serv­
ice area for which few high schools are training
their graduates and for which employers do not
provide on-the-job training.15

42
Enrollment in vocational education in Southern
high schools is not sufficient to satisfy either the
needs of people or the projected needs of the labor
force of the South. High school programs are
not keeping pace with the increasing numbers of
young people, their concentration in urban cen­
ters, or their special difficulties in entering the
labor force. These shortcomings of the occupa­
tional education program in most Southern high
schools reflect generally insufficient concern for
all youth and especially Negro youth.
The scope of the vocational curriculum varied
between Southern white high schools and Negro
high schools in 1963. Since school integration is
as yet largely token in vast areas of the region,
one must conclude that opportunities still vary
b e tw e e n t h e r a ces. A t a b u la t io n o f th e p r o g r a m s in
394 accredited high schools in the region in 1963
showed that 66 different vocational subjects were
offered by the 312 white high schools and 37 dif­
ferent subjects in the 82 Negro high schools. Only
two vocational education subjects—typing and
home economics—were offered by more than 50
percent of the Negro high schools.16
The great majority of students in Southern high
schools are studying what is essentially a college
preparatory curriculum, while less than 20 per­
cent of them will graduate from college. The other
80 percent or more, whose futures are also closely
tied to the world of work, need studies related to
their goals.
The implications are clear: The quality of the
school program in the South can be improved, and
much of the improvement is dependent upon over­
coming the inequalities of educational opportunity
perpetuated by small schools. Varied actions in­
volving the cooperative efforts of local citizens,
local boards of education, State education agen­
cies, and State legislatures are indicated.
The Southern States are confronted by a com­
mon dilemma. Each desires to encourage the im­
provement of public school programs through
democratic processes and local self-determination.
On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that
local option and voluntary action will not accom­
plish the task. The problem is aggravated by the
increasingly complex handicaps which inadequate
schools saddle upon children and youth.
MIbid., p. 24.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

However, a State wishing to maintain its system
of free public education can no longer indulge in
the leisurely process of evolution through local
school autonomy. I t is time for each Southern
State to revise its educational policy, establish cri­
teria for what it considers to be adequate educa­
tional opportunities for children and youth, and
compel—by statute or regulation—appropriate
reorganization so that every school conforms to
standards of quality. In other words, the State
must look to its own needs. I t is impelled by self­
protection to demand a level of adequacy or qual­
ity in education throughout the State wherever
public schools are operated.
The Southern States cannot justify their pres­
ent practice of taxing the more affluent localities
t o s u p p o r t e q u a l o p p o r t u n it ie s e ls e w h e r e u n le s s

they set up safeguards to guarantee efficiency,
economy, and adequacy in less favored localities.
State Action Programs
A prerequisite to adopting sound educational
programs in many areas of the South is school
system reorganization. Adequate school systems
have to be created before adequate school centers
can be established. There must be enough children
to permit the organization of efficient, economical,
and adequate schools. To accomplish this, it will
be necessary in many instances to combine school
systems in two or more excessively small or
sparsely settled counties.
State leadership is the key to achieving desir­
able reorganization. Such cannot be achieved by
the process of local self-determination. I t is not
reasonable to expect local groups to vote them­
selves out of existence. The constitutions and stat­
utes of the States should be amended to authorize
and direct the board of education in each State
to define uniform criteria—where these don’t al­
ready exist—of a satisfactory school system and
to administer school system reorganization under
statutory mandates.
One must not conclude that adequate school
centers will necessarily follow sound school system
reorganization. Local resistance to the consolida­
tion of small schools into larger ones is even
stronger than opposition to school system
consolidation.

43

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Southern States generally support schools
which they will not accredit. Also significant is the
tendency for standards to become goals and satis­
factions and eventually to become ceilings. Stand­
ards developed by the States should express desir­
able practice rather than minimum practice. State
policy should encourage the better school systems
to aim for higher goals, while at the same time
whipping up the laggards and protecting those
who are doing their best. To accomplish these
objectives, States should consider sharing incen­
tive financial support with school systems for the
desirable level of quality. Enrichment funds
should be provided by the State for the unavoid­
able isolated conditions which produce substand­
ard situations. The State must then have the
courage to withhold financial support from other
substandard schools instead of being a party to
their preservation.
The inequalities of educational opportunity
within and among the Southern States are due in
part to inequalities in teacher qualifications. For
example, the percentage of high school teachers
with at least a master’s degree ranges from ap­
proximately 31 percent in Alabama to 19 percent
in Virginia.17 The national average is approxi­
mately 32 percent. The effect of school size on
teacher qualifications is not conclusive. Small
schools tend to be in the rural areas, and teachers
generally prefer an urban residence over a rural
one. This preference places many Southern school
systems at a disadvantage in competing for the
services of qualified personnel. Another factor in
teacher recruitment is salary. The estimated aver­
age salary of all classroom teachers in public
schools in the Nation in 1966-67 was $6,821. The
range in average teacher salaries among the 11
Southern States was from $6,430 in Florida to
$4,650 in Mississippi.
Special incentives may be required, therefore,
to encourage teachers to seek employment in the
w High Schools in the South:

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0

-

68-4


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

A Fact Book., op. cit., p. 39.

South and particularly in rural schools. Not only
must the general teacher salary schedules be im­
proved, but local school systems may find it nec­
essary to establish salary differentials for teachers
in areas where other incentives to teach are lack­
ing. In rural areas it may be necessary to build
apartments or provide transportation allowances.
New Techniques
Necessarily some small elementary and high
schools wil remain in most of the Southern States
even with reorganization. To improve these small
schools, State and local education agencies should
consider experimenting with administrative tech­
niques which promise improvement in the instruc­
tional program. These techniques include the use
of stored knowledge which can be transmitted elec­
tronically, the use of teacher assistance, sharing of
services among small schools, and sharing of
pupils.
Segregation of the races has been a contributing
factor to the perpetuation of many small schools
in the Southern region. I t has contributed also to
inefficient expenditure of the inadequate financial
resources available to public education. Where the
pupil population of either race has been too small
for efficient school center organization, in many
instances the integration of the schools will make
adequate school centers feasible.
As school integration occurs, local school sys­
tems will have more opportunities under present
school system structures to create school centers
which meet the criteria of program adequacy.
These opportunities, combined with realistic
school system reorganization, increased financial
support for education, and the willingness of con­
cerned citizens to place the welfare of children
and youth ahead of special interests, should assure
substantial improvements in public education in
the South.

A Determined
Effort
to Improve
Higher
Education
W infred L. Godwin

D esp ite lack o f financial and academ ic
resources, high er education m oves ahead
to an era o f unparalleled grow th.
H i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in the South is not all cut from
the same cloth; it is a patchwork of good and bad,
bright and dull, rich and poor. Undoubtedly, there
are many States in other parts of the Nation which
would treasure State universities matching the
caliber of those in North Carolina and Texas, or
a junior college system equaling that in Florida.
And yet, as a region, the South is far behind all
other regions in both the quantity and quality of
higher education.
Statistical measurements reflect the South’s lag :
a smaller proportion of the college-age population
is attending college; fewer dollars are spent per
student; faculty salaries are lower; and research
dollars are scarcer, to name a few.
This imbalance is not new; its causes are rooted
deep in the history of the region. What is new is
the South’s conscious and determined effort in re­
cent years to overcome the past and catapult its
educational system into the forefront of American
academe. This effort began in the years following
World War II, as the Nation and the South en­
tered an era of unprecedented technological, eco­
nomic, and educational expansion. In the interven44


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

ing years, Southern higher education has made
demonstrable, in some ways remarkable, progress.
Not the least of this progress has been the rapid
and continuing acceleration of responsible politi­
cal interest in providing adequate financial sup­
port for the growth and improvement of public
systems of higher education. A recent manifesta­
tion of this trend came in Georgia last winter,
when the 1967 legislature appropriated vastly in­
creased budgets for State universities, including,
for the first time, funds earmarked specifically for
the improvement of quality in existing programs
at the university level.
Despite considerable progress, the South has had
neither the financial nor the academic strength to
overtake other regions. Taking into account its
historic handicap, the South has accomplished a
near miracle by managing, generally, to hold its
own. Aütid those absolute gains which have been
recorded are of direct and lasting benefit to the
region and its people.
As mid-century approached, the Southern
States1shared with each other the need to improve
the quality of college instruction, to build new
curricula more responsive to a changing economy,
and to concentrate increased resources on graduate
and professional education. They shared with the
entire Nation the need to expand post-high school
educational opportunities of all kinds to meet the
rising demand for additional training.
There were three approaches to the problems the
South faced in higher education. It could choose
among (1) devoting its resources to improving the
quality of higher education, (2) expanding its net­
work of institutions to provide college opportuni­
ties for an ever larger share of its population, or
(3) attempting to provide both simultaneously.
The only possible decision in political terms was
the last.
In 1950, not quite 19 percent of the region’s col­
lege-age population was attending college, in con­
trast to 27 percent nationwide. The South ac­
counted for one-third of the Nation’s college-age
population, but only one-fourth of its college stu­
dents. By 1965 Southern college enrollment had
1
The South here is defined as a region comprising the 15member States of the Southern Regional Education Board:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mary­
land, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

45

EFFORT TO IMPROVE HIGHER EDUCATION

more than doubled its 1950 figure, but the region
still accounted for only one-fourth of the national
enrollment, and the percent of the college-age pop­
ulation attending college continued to lag—35 per­
cent in the region against 47 percent in the Nation.
Southern public junior college enrollments in 1950
came to about one-fifth of the national total. They
increased by 335 percent in 15 years, but the re­
gional share of the national total remained ap­
proximately the same.
Statistics which serve as indicators of quality
reveal a checkered pattern of accomplishment. In
1950 Southern institutions awarded 25 percent of
the Nation’s bachelor’s and first professional de­
grees, 18 percent of its master’s degrees, and 7
percent of its doctorates. The corresponding figures
in 1964 were 26 percent, 19 percent, and 17 percent,
The striking increase in doctoral degrees and pro­
grams is cited frequently as tangible evidence of
the region’s concern with, and progress in, build­
ing academic strength. I t is insufficient growth,
however, to assure the South of an adequate supply
of Ph. D.’s for college teaching and for industry
and government.
There was considerable imbalance in the fieldby-field distribution of first professional degrees
awarded by Southern institutions in 1950. The per­
cent of degrees awarded in agriculture and home
economics was disproportionately high, approach­
ing 40 percent of the national total. On the other
hand, the Southern share of degrees was disturb­
ingly low in such fields as nursing, social work,
veterinary medicine, dentistry, forestry, and engi­
neering. By 1964 significant progress had been
made; the South’s proportion of degrees awarded
in agriculture and home economics was more
nearly in line with the region’s share of the popu­
lation, and substantial percent gains had been re­
corded in the fields of forestry, dentistry, nursing,
and social work.
Instructional expenditures per student in the
South were 6 percent below the national level in
1950, and 12 years later the gap had grown to
nearly 11 percent. Expenditures for organized re­
search in the region climbed significantly in dollar
amounts between 1950 and 1962, but as a percent
of the national total these expenditures remained
about the same.
Sizable development grants to Southern institu­
tions have been made by both Federal and private
agencies. Recent grants from the National Science

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

Foundation and the Ford Foundation to “emerg­
ing centers of excellence” in the South totaled $62
million.
Although recent percent increases in faculty
salaries have been higher in the South than else­
where, the American Association of University
Professors calculated in 1966 that, at its then-cur­
rent rate of improvement, the South would require
25 years to eliminate the regional salary differen­
tial in public universities, more than 35 years in
public liberal arts institutions, and more than 70
years in church-related universities.
Current Issues
The South faces the same problems, issues, and
challenges of higher education as the rest of the
Nation. While student activism is far less frequent
and intense on Southern campuses, and faculty
unionism practically nonexistent, many educators
recognize that the roles of students and faculty
members must be redefined. Student protests are
occurring in the South, although fewer and gen­
erally less noisy than in other parts of the Nation,
and they will increase in number and intensity
as Southern universities grow in importance eco­
nomically and politically and as the student bodies
become more sophisticated.
At some institutions, admission standards are
being reexamined with an eye to assembling fresh­
man classes that reflect the diversity of American
society. Curricula are being reviewed and revised,
with increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary,
problem-centered courses of study. Established
universities are experimenting with internal
clusters and small college arrangements to take
the edge off the large, impersonal campus; new
universities are being planned in such manner as
to avoid this pitfall from the outset.
This partial listing of current issues and prob­
lems in Southern higher education indicates that
the region faces challenges which arise from social
and economic conditions common to the 15 States.
Chief among these chronic conditions are, first,
the lag in economic development and, second, the
historic politics of race. Higher education has been
directly and profoundly affected by each.
Both public and private institutions feel the
pinch of limited financial resources. They must
struggle for appropriations and gifts in a region
which falls nearly 20 percent below the national

46
level in per capita income. Although it claims
about one-third of the Nation’s population, the
South accounts for less than one-fourth of the total
personal income, so that even though its effort (as
measured by State support of higher education as
a percent of personal income) exceeds the national
level, the dollar amounts are significantly lower.
For higher educational operations in 1966-67,
State appropriations per college-age youth were
$228 in the South and $277 in the Nation. Even in
the Northeast, with its private college orienta­
tion, the per youth State appropriation was $241.
Comparable figures for the Midwest and West
were $307 and $391, respectively.
The high and rising cost of higher education is,
of course, a national problem, but in the South
its effects are more severe than in other, more afflu­
ent areas. Some States are seeking relief from in­
creasing appropriations of tax money by passing
a greater share of the cost on to the students
through hikes in tuition or fees. The 1967 State
legislatures in Florida, Oklahoma, and Tennessee
voted to substantially increase costs to students at
State-supported universities and colleges. Unless
student financial aid programs expand correspond­
ingly, this trend in raising tuition could result in
a narrowing of higher educational opportunity on
the least valid basis of all—the economic means of
the student.
Such a development would only heighten the
inequalities which plague the poverty-stricken Ne­
groes of the South. Despite the seemingly endless
migration of rural Southern Negroes to the black
ghettos of Northern cities, more than half of the
Nation’s Negro population resides in the South.
Most, to use the popular euphemism, are educa­
tionally disadvantaged.
However great the South’s lag behind the Na­
tion in higher education, the difference between the
Southern Negro and his white contemporary is far
greater. In 1966, for example, 43 percent of the
region’s white college-age population was enrolled
in college, compared with 17 percent of the South­
ern Negro college-age population. Even this slight
proportion for Negroes represented a dramatic in­
crease from 1950, when only 8 percent of the col­
lege-age Negroes were attending college. At that
time, all Negro students in the South were en­
rolled in colleges serving Negroes exclusively. To­
day, all of the Southern States have desegregated
to some degree, and four—Florida, Kentucky,
Oklahoma, and Texas—have significant numbers

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

of Negroes enrolled in previously all white colleges
and universities. But more than 80 percent of the
region’s Negro students are still enrolled in tradi­
tionally Negro institutions. This is one of many
reasons that, in the quickening drive to provide
equal higher educational opportunities for Ne­
groes, there is a growing conviction in the South
that these colleges and universities must be
strengthened and become partners in a single sys­
tem providing high quality education and train­
ing for all students.
Because it involves wide and deep changes in
social attitudes, the South’s concern with provid­
ing equal education for Negroes has been slow in
coming, and now that it has started, it is pro­
gressing slowly. The impetus appears to spring
from pragmatic considerations as well as demo­
cratic ideals. It is a simple and demonstrable truth
that a sizable body of undereducated, untrained,
and unemployed citizens mars the economy, and
jars the stability, of any community or State.
There are many ties that bind the South’s eco­
nomic and racial problems together. In higher edu­
cation alone, the combination is formidable. To tap
the human resources which are being largely
wasted, a vast expansion of post-high school edu­
cational opportunities, both in kind and in num­
ber, would be necessary. I t would require financial
resources of stunning magnitude, so stunning, in
fact, that if the region were fully united in deter­
mination to solve this problem, its economy prob­
ably could not provide adequate support without
major assistance from Federal and private sources.
Vocation and Occupation
For the many Negroes and whites caught up in
the poverty cycle, the need for occupational edu­
cation and training assumes almost overriding im­
portance. The only hope these people have is to
acquire marketable skills which lead to gainful
employment. But the massive offering of occupa­
tional training programs raises some basic ques­
tions about the directions in which higher educa­
tion should move: What should be the purpose of
higher education; what are the roles to be played
by various types of institutions; and how much
coordination of State systems of universities, col­
leges, and junior colleges should there be ?
Preparation for employment obviously is a legit­
imate function of higher education. But if it is
permitted to become the primary purpose, the tra-

EFFORT TO IMPROVE HIGHER EDUCATION

ditional functions of higher education—the stimu­
lation of intellectual growth, the liberation of the
mind, the fulfillment of individual potential, the
advancement of knowledge—may be lost. States,
therefore, find themselves in the position of having
to provide massive job training beyond the high
school level, while they attempt to preserve and
improve higher education in the more traditional
sense.
Another question raised by the growing need for
occupational education is whether going to college
is being oversold. The massive influx of students
has forced Southern States to devote a major share
of their financial resources to keeping ahead in the
numbers game. Undoubtedly, many college stu­
dents are enrolled because the bachelor’s degree is
rapidly replacing the high school diploma as a
means of “getting ahead,” or because going to col­
lege is “the thing to do.”
Education as an Investment
There is a touch of irony in the fact that higher
education has contributed to its own dilemma by
trumpeting the correlation of individual pros­
perity to educational levels, and of economic
growth to educational resources. This concept of
education as an investment in the development of
human capital has been documented by economists
and used by educators as a means of winning ever
greater public financial support for education. Un­
fortunately, it appears that they may be in danger
of overselling their product and attracting to col­
lege great numbers of students whose own needs
might better be served through other kinds of edu­
cational programs. What clearly must be achieved
is some sort of balance in the Structure of higher
education, with vocational, technical, professional,
and academic programs assigned to appropriate
institutions. The community junior college move­
ment, in the South as elsewhere, is providing at
least a partial answer in those States which have
attempted to deal with this problem. Most of the
Southern States are developing systems of junior
colleges which are responsive to community needs
for low cost post-high school education. But the
major problem in these systems appears to be
development of occupational training suited to
both individual and community requirements.
The need for balance in higher education ex­
tends to other areas. Obviously, in the use of finan­

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

47
cial resources, some balance is necessary between
the rush to serve burgeoning enrollments and the
need to build peaks of excellence in graduate edu­
cation. Assigning suitable roles to institutions, de­
fining the scope of their programs and the levels
of their offerings, setting admission standards, de­
termining how heavy the financial burden on stu­
dents should be, and assessing the State’s proper
posture in relation to private institutions—all of
these problems require a balanced approach and a
series of judgments.
Increasingly, the South is relying on State plan­
ning and coordinating boards to achieve balance
and make judgments. At 1967 legislative sessions,
Tennessee created such a board and South Caro­
lina bestowed new authority on what had been an
advisory board. Now, only three Southern States—
Alabama, Louisiana, and West Virginia—have
failed to move in this direction. The effectiveness
of the existing boards varies from State to State,
as does the degree of authority they hold. But the
South has a potentially great asset in that 12 of its
15 States are committed to statewide planning
and coordination of public higher education pro­
grams and institutions, with the avowed aim of
providing the most economical, the most efficient,
and the best higher education possible.
I f the coordinating boards are to be effective,
the current trend toward an increasing number of
highly qualified professional staff members will
need to be continued. The staff must be capable of
guiding not only the board members, who are gen­
erally lay citizens, but the political and educa­
tional leadership of their respective States. The
quality of the professional staff is crucial if the
boards are to keep their attention on the long-range
goals of higher education in the midst of immedi­
ate pressures from various sources.
As a coordinating board attempts to insure a
balanced higher educational structure within its
State, it must come to grips with a number of
knotty problems. For instance, in many Southern
States, “regional universities” have been created,
most of them evolving from teachers colleges into
State colleges, and then into State universities.
Nationwide, from 1950 to 1965, 45 State colleges
were renamed State universities, and one-third of
these changes occurred in the South. The major
unresolved question, in many cases, is what direc­
tions these institutions should take. If it is clear
from experience that most Southern States can-

48
not build, or sustain more than one or two all-pur­
pose universities with emphasis on excellence in
research and instruction at the graduate level,
then it becomes essential to determine the most
effective ways in which these new regional uni­
versities can contribute to the system of which they
are a part. It may be that they should emphasize
the development of excellent teaching at the un­
dergraduate level through innovations in both
instruction and curriculum.
Another problem which demands thorough ex­
amination is the relationship between the public
and private sectors of higher education. In recent
years, the growth of public institutions has far
outstripped the growth of private ones, and this
trend appears certain to continue. In fact, the
growing financial crisis in private higher educa­
tion places the time-honored role of these institu­
tions in jeopardy.
Public higher education has been dominant in
the South for some time, but private institutions,
such as Duke and Vanderbilt, contribute greatly
to the quality of instruction and research. In
broader terms, private institutions add to the
pluralistic nature of American higher education,
and this pluralism is generally considered one of
the system’s greatest strengths.
Considerable speculation has centered on the
possibility that, if private higher education is to
survive as a major force in the American system, it
may require additional support from State and
Federal sources. Such speculation immediately
raises profound questions : If increased public sup­
port is deemed necessary, what form should it
take ? How much public aid can a private institu­
tion accept and still maintain its independence?
Should public assistance be limited to specialized
areas in which a particular private institution
excels? How much, if any, authority should the
State have in the planning for private institutions
which it helps to support ?
While higher education in the South is con­
fronted by problems and issues, the overall out­
look is for an era of unparalleled growth and im­
provement. The basic, diversified structure is there.
Centers of excellence are being developed at nu­
merous institutions with the assistance of grants
from the Federal Government (the University of
Texas ranks 13th nationally in receipt of Federal
funds). Many institutions are taking advantage of


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

their rapidly expanding enrollments to broaden
and enrich curricula, improve faculty, and inau­
gurate new instructional techniques.
Furthermore, despite its lag behind national
levels, the Southern economy is growing and pros­
pering, and this factor is crucial to higher
education for two reasons: it supplies a stronger
financial base for the support of State colleges and
universities; and it creates a healthy demand for
excellence in education and training.
In addition, much of its higher educational
structure is new—the junior colleges, many State
colleges, the regional universities—so that the
South has the rare opportunity to meet new chal­
lenges, to do some meaningful pioneering in such
areas as the education of the disadvantaged, the
development of flexible curricula tailored to in­
dividual abilities and needs, more sensible means
of evaluating student progress, and the organiza­
tion of knowledge into more suitable units for
study.
A Forward View
Chief among the challenges is the need to up­
grade the higher educational opportunities for
Negroes. Several projects are under way on vari­
ous aspects of this problem, and the Southern Re­
gional Education Board last summer took the lead
in calling for a massive, regionwide effort to
strengthen the traditionally Negro colleges, to in­
crease the number and kinds of post-high school
education available to Negroes, to develop single
statewide systems of higher education which will
supplant the unequal dual systems of the past.
The Board is establishing a Regional Institute for
Higher Educational Opportunity which will pro­
vide various types of assistance to States, educa­
tional agencies, and institutions as they confront
this demanding and complex task.
If the South succeeds in meeting this challenge,
if its economy continues to prosper, and if state­
wide planning and coordination of higher educa­
tion are effective, the time may come when the
lag is history and the South stands equal to the
rest of the Nation in educational excellence. For
the moment, there is hope in knowing that the
long-slumbering South is wide awake, that it rec­
ognizes it is not Number One, and that it is trying
harder.

Education
to

Serve
Occupational
Ends

H erbert M. H am lin

V ocational education, diverse in content
and essen tia l to econom ic grow th, has
taken a g ia n t step.
I n t h e d e c a d e o f t h e s i x t i e s the South set the
pace in occupational education in the public
schools.1 By 1963 all of the Southern States had
established or authorized State systems of area
schools to provide occupational education, usually
for youth who have left the regular schools and
adults of all ages. The area schools are being sup­
plemented by others, each drawing from several
local schools, to provide vocational education for
high school students. The new area schools for
vocational and technical education have evoked
a tremendous response. I t is not unusual to double
or triple the space provided after the first few
years of operation.
Two motives seem to have sparked the recent
developments: (1) Recognition of the value of
providing trained employees as an attraction to
new business and industry, and (2) the desire to
increase the opportunities and improve the earn­
ing power of large segments of the population,
white and Negro.
I t is the apparent aim of the Southern States2
to grant appropriate occupational education to
everyone needing it, regardless of sex, race, socio­
economic situation, or any other consideration.


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

Mississippi expects to reach this goal within 2 to
4 years. Surveys to determine the needs for voca­
tional education of the various segments of the
population are common; Texas has recently com­
pleted 240 regional or community surveys.
There will be generalizations about the South
in this article, but it is well to remember that there
is not, and probably never was, a “solid South.”
Differences among and within States are as great
as they are anywhere. Any generalization about
them has its important exceptions.
The 13 Southern States have 281 area schools in
operation, and 41 authorized. They are designed to
provide vocational and technical education pri­
marily to persons past high school age. Of these,
237 are vocational schools or technical institutes,
63 are community or junior colleges, 2 are senior
colleges, and 20 are branches of technical institutes
or community colleges. This article will attempt to
show that the South is heading toward the devel­
opment of an orderly occupational educational
structure.
The South’s system of public education has de­
veloped largely in this century. Only North Caro­
lina had a State system of public education before
the Civil War. The development of State systems
was delayed by the war and reconstruction. During
the last of the 19th century the South lacked funds
to provide more than a primitive system of public
education. The greatest developments have oc­
curred since 1940. From 1940 to 1966, the number
of professional staff in the public schools rose from
31.8 to 45.1 per 1,000 students, and their average
salary increased from $826 to $5,517. Expenditure
per pupil increased from $50 in 1940 to $440 in
1965.
Historically, vocational education meant train­
ing for the simpler occupations for which Negroes
were believed to be adapted. Booker T. Washing­
ton supported this kind of vocational education for
Negroes. Upper-class whites were largely commit­
ted to a tradition of liberal education, stronger in
the South than elsewhere, and other whites fol­
lowed their lead. I t is only in recent years that the
1 Education designed to contribute to occupational choice, com­
petence, and advancement. It includes vocational, technical, and
professional education, occupational guidance, and the basic
and general education which serves occupational ends. This
article is confined to education for nonprofessional occupations.
2 The South is defined to include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Okla­
homa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

49

50
white population has recognized the value of vo­
cational education. Exceptions are those in the
rural communities who have been enthusiastic
patrons of programs in agriculture and homemak­
ing. As in the past, the Negro leadership objects to
the low level of the jobs for which Negroes may
receive training.
Currently there is desperate need for bringing
to Negroes information about the new occupa­
tional opportunities that are opening to them,
wherever these may be in the country, and the edu­
cation and training required to qualify for these
occupations. It has been found that large numbers
of Negroes are not only unacquainted with these
opportunities, but are timid about attempting to
qualify for them and reluctant to enter the pre­
dominantly white schools they would have to at­
tend to qualify.
Urbanization and Reapportionment
The South has been predominantly rural with
rural traditions and rural control of State govern­
ments. The growth of cities and industrialization
and the reapportionment of legislatures is begin­
ning to make a significant difference.
In contrast with many Northern States, there is
a large amount of State funding and State control
in the management of public education in the
region. School districts are much larger than the
average for the Nation; Florida and Louisiana
have only 63 districts each. State systems of area
schools are universal in the South. With public
education thus organized, the South can do much
in occupational education that cannot be at­
tempted in some sections of the country.
Research and development in vocational educa­
tion, long lacking in the South, is now flourishing
because of the stimulus of the Vocational Educa­
tion Act of 1963 and the encouragement of busi­
nessmen and industrialists who want vocational
education developed but demand facts to guide
their decisions about it. The two centers for re­
search, development, and training in vocational
education established with funds under the 1963 act
are at North Carolina State University and Ohio
State University. Twelve of the 13 Southern States
now have Research Coordinating Units devoted to
producing and disseminating research regarding
vocational education, also funded in part under the
1963 act. State surveys to determine the need for

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

vocational education and to aid in planning its
further development have recently been made in
the Southern States.
Public vocational and technical education for
post-high school students and adults is conducted
exclusively, or almost entirely, in special voca­
tional schools or technical institutes in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Okla­
homa, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In Missis­
sippi it is available only in junior colleges. Com­
munity colleges and vocational-technical schools
provide it in Florida, North Carolina, and Vir­
ginia. State systems are undergoing change. Some
States are combining their vocational schools and
junior colleges in one system; some are continuing
separate systems; and Florida is adding voca­
tional-technical schools to supplement its longestablished system of junior colleges. In North
Carolina, the development of a community college
system featuring vocational education antedated
similar development in the other Southern States.
The first industrial education center there was
opened in 1959. Its present community college sys­
tem includes 50 institutions: 13 community col­
leges, 20 technical institutes, and IT extension
units. During the past 4 years the enrollment has
grown to 28,250 full-time student equivalents from
4,341. The number of individuals partaking of
some occupational education in 1966-6T was 166,033. About half this number were enrolled in basic
education under the Economic Opportunity Act.
Many of these students use this education to pre­
pare for enrollment in vocational programs.
Seventy percent of those enrolled in 1966-67 in
the community college system were in programs of
vocational or adult education. Eighty-five percent
of the population of the State is now within 30
miles of a community college or a branch provid­
ing vocational education.
The programs available to older youth and
adults in public area schools run the gamut from
courses in air conditioning, data processing, and
practical nursing to textile science and welding.
Each is a 1- or 2-year program, and while not
all programs are available in every school, they
are open to everyone in the State.
Georgia has an investment of more than $50
million in buildings and other facilities of its area
vocational-technical schools. In 1963-67, Kentucky
spent $22 million for facilities, Mississippi almost
$17 million, and Oklahoma $7 million. In the

EDUCATION TO SERVE OCCUPATIONAL ENDS

1965-67 period, Florida received $16 million for
area-school construction. The new technical insti­
tute at Nashville, Tenn., will cost $2 million, when
completed, and Kentucky’s new area schools $500,000 to $1,500,000 each.
Most area schools for older youth and adults
serve all who have temporarily or permanently dis­
continued full-time schooling, as well as those
who attend full time. A statewide survey in Geor­
gia in 1965-66 revealed that the average age of
full-time students enrolled in area schools was 19.
Ninety-five percent of the enrollees were between
ages 18 and 21. Approximately 90 percent were
high school graduates; 20 percent had attended
college.
Adults attending part time frequently account
for two to three times the enrollment of full-time
students. Delmar Junior College at Corpus
Christi, Tex., has conducted as many as 80 adult
classes in distributive education simultaneously.
Typical schools operate 11 months of each year
from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the largest attendance
after 4 p.m.
Placement has not been a problem; one that does
arise is that workers with some training are so
much in demand that many students leave for em­
ployment before they have completed their pro­
grams. Some of these continue in evening or week­
end classes.
In a statewide study Georgia discovered that
all of the 1967 graduates of its area schools had
found employment, 61 percent of them immedi­
ately after graduation. Seventy-one percent were
in the occupations for which they had been trained,
10 percent in related fields. Their weekly earnings
in the first year after graduation were distributed
Weekly earnings
of
graduates
Under $50....................................................................... — ............. -........
8
$51 to $69...................................................................... ..............................
36
$70 to $100...... ............................................................................................
38
$101 to $150........... .................................................................................. —
16
Over $150............................................................................. .......................
2

Their distribution by fields in which employed
was as follows:
Skilled trades and service occupations....................... .............................. 1,349
Office occupations____________________________________________1,122
Technical occupations..................... ................................-..........- ..........— 477
Health occupations.................. .................................. .............................. 334

The traditional programs in agriculture and
home economics have been modernized in the
South as rapidly as in any part of the country. The


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

51
South has pioneered in preparing for off-farm
occupations requiring some knowledge and com­
petence in agriculture. Home economics has been
diversified to give more attention to home manage­
ment, family relationships, family finance, child
care, and nutrition; it is far different from the
cooking and sewing courses of former days.
Some business education has long been a part
of the curriculum of almost every Southern high
school. As a result of the 1963 Vocational Educa­
tion Act, business education has been broadened
and modernized. Course offerings have been ex­
panded from the standard typing and stenography
courses to include business office practices, busi­
ness machine operation, and data processing. In
addition, teachers Whose qualifications include of­
fice experience, teaching experience, and specified
certification are being actively recruited and hired.
Equipment for business education is being mark­
edly improved.
There has been a spotted development of dis­
tributive education in the South. Florida, Texas,
and Virginia have had the largest programs. In
1963-64, 60 percent of the enrollment in the South
was in these States. Considering that a third or
more of the labor force of the South is employed
in distributive occupations, the neglect of this field
is hard to explain.
During the past few years there has been a grow­
ing awareness of the health occupations. Training
programs for registered and practical nurses, den­
tal and medical assistants, hospital technicians,
and others are being introduced rapidly.
Only the larger high schools have been able to
provide very much specialized trade and indus­
trial education. The smaller high schools have
been confined largely to diversified “cooperative
programs” combining work in a variety of occu­
pations with school study. The area schools were
often established to provide trade and industrial
education because the high schools were limited
in their vocational course offerings.
Technicians are increasingly in demand and the
Southern area schools are developing sophisticated
technical programs.
Education for the public service occupations has
lagged in the South as it has elsewhere, but pro­
grams to train policemen, firemen, highway per­
sonnel, and other public employees are now
common.

52
Area Schools
Small high schools in the South have long been
handicapped in providing occupational educa­
tion. Because of the South’s predominantly rural
character, agriculture and homemaking have been
the most common vocational subjects. Both have
become highly developed. The local schools have
served great numbers of adults, as well as high
school students in these fields.
A 1966 study reported by the George Peabody
College for Teachers showed that most high schools
with fewer than 1,000 students were offering some
courses in agriculture, business, and home econom­
ics but that very few provided courses in distribu­
tive education, industrial arts, or trade and indus­
trial education.3 Eighty-nine percent of the high
schools had enrollments under 1,000, but only 67
percent of the pupils were in these schools.
Area schools offering vocational courses to sup­
plement those in the local high schools have begun
to develop during the past few years. At least 66
of these schools are operating in Alabama, Arkan­
sas, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vir­
ginia. At least 108 others are being planned in
these six States and in Mississippi. Kentucky will
soon blanket the State with schools of this type;
22 are in operation and 10 more are being planned.
The Kentucky area schools for high school stu­
dents are branches of the area schools for older
youth and adults. Classes are held in the affiliated
high schools.
Lack of adequate vocational counseling has been
a glaring weakness of Southern high schools as it
has been of high schools everywhere. Efforts to im­
prove this type of counseling are underway. Super­
visors of vocational guidance have been added in
most State departments of education. They work
with school counselors and vocational teachers in
providing occupational information and discover­
ing vocational aptitudes. Data regarding occupa­
tional prospects are increasingly available to
youth and adults. North Carolina introduced a
course, “Introduction to Vocations,” in the ninth
grade in 1968-64 with 2,410 students; in 1967-68
the enrollment was 15,712. Counselors are avail­
able in nearly all area schools. They work with
s High Schools in the South: A Fact Book (Nashville, George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1966), pp. 65-67.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

students in the high schools and area schools as
well as with out-of-school youth and adults.
Another weakness, shared by schools all over the
country, has been the failure to furnish appro­
priate occupational education, including occupa­
tional guidance, below high school. Nonvocational
courses in agriculture, business, home economics,
and industrial arts are occasionally offered in
junior high schools. Georgia, having already of­
fered industrial arts in the, junior high schools,
is extending it into the fifth and sixth grades.
The role of the elementary schools in providing
occupational information and preparing for spe­
cialized vocational education has yet to be defined.
Certainly good elementary school education is
required for specialized training and for occupa­
tional competence.
Integrated curriculum planning between high
schools and area schools is not yet as good as it
should be, although efforts to improve it are under­
way. The aim expressed by some is to lead the
high schools to prepare students as consciously
for further study as full-time or part-time stu­
dents in area schools as they now prepare students
for college. In some Florida counties, where the
high schools and the junior colleges are under the
same administration, much progress has been
made.
The Student Body
Generally in the South the number of adults
enrolled part time in vocational-technical pro­
grams exceeds the enrollment of full-time stu­
dents. There are great variations from State to
State, from school to school, and among the, vari­
ous vocational programs.
Although most students are under 25 years of
age, a considerable number are older. Usually,
adults attending part time are employed. Train­
ing of the unemployed is mostly through the Man­
power Training and Development program, fre­
quently conducted in cooperation with the schools.
Georgia has conducted successful programs for
the chronically unemployed.
The possible accomplishments of vocational ed­
ucation in the public schools of the South are con­
ditioned by the general situation in these schools.
The dropout rate has been high in Southern
schools, and the number leaving school before
completing the eighth grade has been large. The

53

EDUCATION TO SERVE OCCUPATIONAL ENDS

situation has changed rapidly in recent years. The
median years of schooling of Southern youth is
now only 1 year less than the median for the rest
of the country. There remains a large adult popu­
lation with limited formal education and an ac­
quired antipathy toward school, but the number
of dropouts who return to school and the progress
they make are impressive. Studies in Louisiana
have shown adults progressing at the rate of one
grade for each 100 to 200 hours of instruction, at
a cost about one-tenth that of advancing a child
through one grade.
The glamour of college attracts many students
better suited to vocational-technical programs in
the area schools. The percentage of high school
graduates going to college continues to climb,
while the drop-out rate in college remains high.
(There is no material difference between the South
and the rest of the country in this respect.)
Although the South is rapidly increasing its
expenditure for education, it is still unable to
match the national expenditure per student. Two
factors keep the financing of Southern schools
burdensome. Eighty percent of the school-age
children in the South are in public schools; in the
balance of the Nation the figure is 70 percent.
The number of Negroes in formerly white schools
is still small.
Since 1917, Federal funds for vocational educa­
tion and the standards which have accompanied
them have played an important part in upgrading
Southern schools and in introducing vocational
education into them. Now that Federal aid to edu­
cation has been broadened and increased, it can be
expected that the schools of the South will be
among those benefiting most from this assistance.
Labor is not as well organized in the South as
in some other parts of the country and has less
effect upon occupational education. Apprentice­
ship supplies a very limited number of skilled
workers for a few occupations, but apprenticeship
programs in cooperation with the schools are
thriving in a few cities. More potent influences
come from agriculture, business, and industry.
Large installations such as Lockheed’s at Mari­
etta, Honeywell’s at St. Petersburg, the industrial
complex at Houston, and the enterprises at Hunts­
ville and Cape Canaveral have a widespread in­


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

fluence upon the development of vocational and
technical education.
Quality of Education
Evidence regarding the quality of Southern
vocational and technical education is hard to come
by. Improvement in quality can be inferred from
the increasing funds available for hiring person­
nel and for better buildings and equipment. There
are still shortages of funds, buildings, and equip­
ment, but the variable most influencing quality of
instruction is the personnel for teaching and ad­
ministration.
In agriculture and home economics there are
well-developed programs in the colleges for the
preparation of teachers but a shortage of recruits
for teaching. Retraining of the older teachers for
their modern responsibilities is a problem in these
fields.
The other fields (distributive education, educa­
tion for the health occupations, and industrial and
technical education) must depend largely upon
recruits from sources other than the colleges. A
large number of teachers have been secured from
business, industry, and the Armed Forces. College
programs for prospective teachers in the newer
fields are being established. A nationally acclaimed
program for preparing technical instructors has
been underway for several years at Oklahoma
State University.
Many new and specialized positions have been
created in the area schools. Because these schools
have developed rapidly over the country, there is
a shortage of administrators, supervisors, per­
sonnel workers, and others in top-level positions.
Qualified Negro teachers are in short supply, par­
ticularly in technical education. Few Negroes have
had an opportunity to secure the experience in
technical occupations required for teaching.
Salaries in the area schools are often above those
paid high school teachers in the same States.
Teachers in area schools are commonly employed
at salaries of $7,000 to $10,000, with opportunity
for advancement and with fringe benefits.
One of the best assurances that quality will be
improved is the close link between the vocational
programs and the industries employing the grad­
uates. Oklahoma is developing a computerized

54
system for following up indefinitely the graduates
of its vocational programs. Several other States
are tightening their followup arrangements.
Questions and Trends
The trends and the present situation in public
vocational education in the South can be docu­
mented, but the best suggestion that can be made
about the future is that of Dr. Kenneth Boulding
who says that we should “plan for surprise” in
education.4 The trends and tendencies are diverse.
The forces affecting public vocational education
are multiple.
Will the public assign more responsibility for
occupational education to the public schools, to
other government agencies, to private vocational
and technical schools, or to business and industry ?
What will be the future role in occupational
education of the elementary schools, the junior
high schools, the senior high schools, the area
schools, the colleges, and the programs of adult
education? Will changes in the nature of jobs be
so rapid that specialized preparation will be post4
Edgar L. Morphet and Charles O. Ryan, eds., Prospective
Changes in Society i>y 1980 (Denver, 1966), p. 211.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

poned until an individual is near to employment
or employed ? I f this is done, what will be required
to fill the vacuum in occupational education cre­
ated in the secondary schools?
Facing these dilemmas, we must also ask
whether society will continue to favor storing its
young people in the high schools and colleges with­
out work experience until they are old enough to
assume jobs or will decide that some mixture of
work and education will better mature them.
The South shares these decisions with the Na­
tion. The present indication is that it will deal
with them thoughtfully. The leadership of the
South is committed to vocational education. I t will
try to provide the best vocational education pos­
sible, an education adapted to present and prospec­
tive needs.
What is happening in the South is of great sig­
nificance to the rest of the country, which receives
thousands of migrants from the South each year.
I t is clear that many who migrate from the South
in the future will be better educated, better trained,
and more skilled than those of the past have been.
It is also evident that the South will be using
larger numbers of its own youth, once they are
educated and trained, and that the rate of migra­
tion will be slowed.

Manpower
Programs
and
Regional
Development
V ernon M. B rig g s, Jr.

F ed erally a ssisted m anpow er program s
help to fu lfill th e need fo r trained and
skilled labor.
m i l i t a r y e n g a g e m e n t s , one can seldom select
the most conducive setting in which to seek a
total victory. So it is with the federally assisted
manpower training effort. Its overall destiny re­
sides in its ability to master the challenges pre­
sented by the South.1 For it is now clear that
many of this Nation’s pressing urban problems
are rural South in origin. Ralph McGill succinctly
stated the issue with these words :

In

We have 16 million really poor persons living in
our cities. Not all, but most of them are Negroes.
Most of them have migrated across the past three or
four decades out of a Southern agricultural area that
needed them less and less. They are not prepared
educationally, vocationally, or psychologically to
move from the separated environment of the rural
South to the city slum.2

The exodus has been to cities in the South and
to those in the North and the West. The vast
dimensions of this movement place paramount im­
portance on preparation of the migrants as well
as on improvement of the employment status of
those who remain behind. Potential ramifications
of the present training effort transcend the bound­


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

aries of the South itself—the entire Nation has a
stake in the outcome.
The influence of manpower programs is neces­
sarily affected by the backdrop against which these
new undertakings operate.
The population of most Southern States is still
largely rural. In 1960, the Bureau of the Census
has reported, over 60 percent of the population of
two Southern States lived in rural areas; in three
States the figure was over 50 percent; in five, 40
percent; in one, 30 percent, and in the remaining
two States, more than 25 percent of the popula­
tion was rural. The national average was 30 per­
cent.3 In late 1967, the President’s National
Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty described
the economic status of this population with the
terse statement: “Most of the rural South is one
vast poverty area.” 4 Many of the Nation’s most
acute poverty pockets are in the region—much of
Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta area, the Ozark
Plateau, the South Texas border area, the Black
Belt of the Old South, and the Piedmont Plateau.
Although most of the rural population do not
live on farms, agriculture remains a dominating
industry in many of these States. The prevalance
of underemployment is closely associated with a
rural population and agricultural employment.5
Indeed, it is underemployment combined with the
failure to develop the latent talents of its human
resources that explains the economic deprivation
in much of the South.
Rural areas generally do not place a high pri­
ority on the quality of education. In this era,
education is the vehicle to both vertical and hori­
zontal job mobility, and public education in the
South is inferior by any standard that one might
wish to apply.6 Unless there are drastic changes
in the education effort of the South, there can be
1 In this paper, the South is used to include the 11 States of
the Confederacy plus Kentucky.
2 Ralph McGill, “A Man’s Due : Opportunity To Earn A Living,”
The Washington Evening Star (August 15, 1967).
3 Food and Fiber for the Future (Washington, National Ad­
visory Commission on Food and Fiber, 1967), p. 211.
4 The People L eft Behind (Washington, President’s National
Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, 1967), p. X.
5 Ibid., pp. IX -XII.
«Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, U.S. De­
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966). See also,
Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, “Resources for Southern
Manpower Development,” (1965), ch. II; and Food and Fiber
for the Future, op. cdt., pp. 210-212.

55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

56

programs that require the uniform payment to
trainees of wages equal to the Federal minimum
wage have created equity problems in many local
communities. Similarly, there are instances in
which training allowances in some programs have
exceeded the wages that graduates can earn upon
completion of the programs.7
Finally, of course, there is the heritage of denial
of equal employment opportunity. The race issue

little prospect for meaningful results from the
training programs. Without adequate education,
training can only be for the most menial and lowskilled occupations—precisely the type of work
which the South needs least.
Another feature of the region is its low wage
structure. Partly attributable to the dominance of
agriculture, partly to the lack of union organiza­
tion, and partly to the existence of many marginal
enterprises, the fact remains that wages are low
relative to those of other regions. Accordingly,
T a ble 1.

C harac ter istic s

of

7
See, for example, “Job Training in El Paso Succumbs to
Federal Wage Law,” Wall Street Journal, April 5, 1967, p. 5.

M D T A - I n st itu tio n a l T r a in e e s

S o u t h e r n S tates

in

by

C a l e n d a r Y e a r , 196 3 -6 6

C haracteristics (in percent)
S ta te a n d y e a r

N um ber
of
tra in e e s

C olor

Sex

E d u c a tio n (in y ea rs)

A ge
H e a d of
fam ily

M ale

F e m a le

W hite

N on­
w h ite

U nder
22

8 or less

O v er
44

9 to 11

12 or
m o re

A la b a m a :

1963___________________
1964.............. ......................
1966.............................. ..
1966.................................... .

800
3,100
2,500
2,400

35.2
48.8
48.3
56.5

64.8
51.2
51.7
43.5

83.0
69.5
71.8
40.6

17.0
30.5
28.2
59.4

41.3
32.0
36.1
40. 7

7.5
9.1
6.0
7.8

38.4
51.9
50.1
51.6

13.4
11.8
10.7
18.4

2 7 .2
26. 9
32.8
35.9

59.3
61.3
56.4
45. 7

A rk a n sa s:

1963___________________
1964................................... ..
1965...............................
1966......................................

700
500
1,000
1,200

66.2
54.0
42.0
50.3

33.8
46.0
58.0
49.7

78.8
88.5
62.8
71.2

21.2
11.5
37.2
28.8

37.9
45.5
57.4
43.2

8.9
7.0
5.0
11.1

58.6
44.4
28.9
47.0

21.4
8.3
13.7
15.1

21.5
23. 4
32.4
27.8

57.1
68.3
5 3 .9
57.1

F lo rid a :

1963....................................
1964.....................................
1965....................... ..............
1966......................................

900
3,000
3,800
3,500

41.7
62.2
49.9
49.6

58.3
37.8
50.1
50.4

81.9
71.9
60.3
48.9

18.1
38.1
39.7
51.1

21.8
55.8
38.8
37.6

19.0
10.8
11.8
11.2

62.0
41.1
58.4
65.6

7.3
17.0
14.0
16.5

29.3
39.1
37.4
36.3

63.4
43.9
48. 6
47.2

G eorgia:

1963......................................
1964......................................
1965.....................................
1966.......................... ...........

400
1,400
2,500
2,000

80.8
59.1
39.7
48.3

19.2
40.9
60.3
51.7

79.6
58.5
45.7
44.6

20.4
41.5
54.3
55.4

34.6
42.9
38.3
30.8

12
6.9
8 .7
8 .6

60.7
55.1
58.3
61.2

11.1
13.1
17.7
13.6

31.6
34.8
34.8
37.8

57.2
52.1
47.5
48.7

K e n tu c k y :

1963........ .............................
1964.....................................
1965......................................
1966....................................

1,600
5,500
3,100
3,500

55.9
64.5
48.7
63.8

44.1
35.5
51.3
36.2

88.0
91.5
76.6
92.2

12.0
8.5
23.4
7.8

39.1
38.2
62.7
60.4

5.4
9.0
4 .7
6.0

57.0
65.7
35.2
42.1

18.1
26.3
20.3
27.3

24.8
24.0
34.8
22.6

57.1
49.7
44.9
50.0

1Qfi4
1965......................................
1966......................................

1,700
2,400

63.1
47.1

36.9
52.9

59.6
50.6

40.4
49.4

43.4
59.3

3.1
15.0

56. 1
43.4

13.7
14.1

28.6
28.7

57.7
57.2

1964.....................................
1965...................................
1966.....................................

500
1,100
4,100

89.1
92.9
74.3

10.9
7.1
25.7

59.8
67.9
49.7

40.2
32.1
50.3

35.9
28.6
29.7

5.4
13.7
10.9

77.4
76.0
74.3

18.0
33.3
23.8

34.4
32.1
37.8

47.6
217
38.4

N o r th C aro lin a:

1963__ _______________
1964....... .............................
1965.....................................
1 9 6 6 ..................................

1,000
800
1,500
1,900

63.9
64.0
77.5
69.8

36.1
36.0
22.5
30.2

84.9
76.7
49.0
50.4

15.1
23.3
51.0
49.6

34.6
42.0
38.2
37.0

5.0
7.5
9.4
8.2

45.9
45.4
56.0
53.9

16.2
15.1
29.1
2 2 .0

30.4
26.0
2 6 .2
35.8

53.4
58.9
44.7
42.2

S o u th C aro lin a:

1 9 6 3 ...................................
1964 .................................
1965......................................
1966......................................

300
3,700
2,500
2,400

71.2
54.9
56.4
42.8

28.8
45.1
43.6
57.2

62.9
42.9
40.7
38.9

37.1
57.1
59.3
61.1

29.1
19.8
35.3
28.8

6.3
21.0
15.7
116

66.8
72.0
62.4
54.6

19.9
55.4
41. 4
38.0

3 4 .3
26.8
30.0
32.1

45.8
17.9
28.6
29.9

T en n essee:

1963_______
1964......................................
1965......................................
1966......................................

1,200
2,600
3,000
5,300

89.0
72.2
66.6
67.6

11.0
27.8
33.4
32.4

91.6
69.9
52.1
58.7

8.4
30.1
47.9
41.3

29.7
510
50.4
36.1

10.7
6.6
9 .4
11.2

75.8
49.5
52.3
62.1

22.2
23.5
30.0
27.3

28.3
31.2
315
31.0

59.5
45.4
¿5. 5
41.7

T ex as:

1963___ .
1964......................................
1965.....................................
1966......................................

2,500
3,100
3,400
8,100

72.5
66.3
60.0
61.9

27.5
33.7
40.0
38.1

83.0
76.8
67.3
67.1

17.0
23.2
32.7
32.9

42.6
44.6
58.5
50.7

4.3
5.1
2 .7
3.8

55.1
61.2
46.4
48.9

6.1
17.1
17.5
15.7

19.6
27.1
30.3
314

74.3
55. 8
52. 2
49.9

V irg in ia:

1963......................................
1964......................................
1965......................................
1966......................................

900
2,000
2,000
1,700

48.3
67.0
60. 9
51. 9

51.7
33.0
39.1
48.1

67.4
63.4
70.2
76.9

12.6
36.6
29.8
23.1

23.5
63.3
35.3
31.2

12.6
4 .6
10.3
13.1

57.6
33.0
59. 6
67.7

16.4
36.4
32.3
33.9

28.2
26.0
30.5
27.7

55.5
37. 7
37. 2
38. 4


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

MANPOWER AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

is always present in any matter of importance.
Closely allied with the race question is the perva­
sive apprehension of many Southerners toward the
activities of the Federal Government. All of the
manpower programs involve F ederal funds, legis­
lation, and guidelines. Moreover, since most of
these new programs rely extensively upon local
institutions for recruitment, guidance, counseling,
and placement, the degree of local enthusiasm for
the conduct of these functions spells the difference
between accomplishment or failure. Too often the
union of federally conceived projects and their im­
plied goal to help Negroes has coalesced local op­
position to manpower programs. In some instances,
individual programs have been vetoed by State
governors ; in more cases, the threat of a veto has
affected the character of a program ; 8 and at other
times, available programs are not used.
Yet, despite these obstacles, the South has par­
taken of the available manpower programs. The
real issue for national concern is the degree of
participation.
MDTA
In terms of Federal appropriations, the institu­
tional (i.e., classroom) and on-the-job (OJT)
training provided under the Manpower Develop­
ment and Training Act (MDTA) constitute the
major flank of the new manpower training assault.
The 12 Southern States have accounted for the fol­
lowing proportion of total enrollees in the pro­
gram :9
Institutional
Year
Percent
1963..........................
17
1964.......................
26
1965............................
19
1966...............................
24

Number
10,157
26,300
26,200
38,500

in these classes since the program was launched.
Table 2 provides similar information for OJT.
I t is apparent that there is considerable varia­
tion among the States. I t is only in terms of total
numbers that a generalization can be made :
Namely, the effort to date has been grossly inade­
quate relative to the need. Only a fraction of those
who require assistance are being reached.
The trends in enrollee characteristics in the
South generally conform to the national patterns
over these years. During the early years, institu­
tional training was emphasized. Lately, O JT has
been stressed, along with inclusion of the dis­
advantaged : The Negroes, those over 44 years old,
unemployed family heads, and those with little
education.
Neighborhood Youth Corps
In the South, generally, the Neighborhood
Youth Corps (NYC) has experienced a, growing
acceptance. Table 3 shows the number of enrollees
by State. Detailed data on characteristics by State
are unavailable.
During the early history of the program, the
requirement that the NYC trainees receive the
Federal minimum wage ($1.25 at the time) was a
major obstacle to its introduction in the South. In
some communities, it remains a roadblock. Yet the
increasing participation rate indicates that the
problem is receding. But again, participation has
varied widely among the States in any given year
and within a State over time.

OJT
Percent
Number
.........................................
.........................................
38
12,200
37
24,900

Table 1 indicates the degree of State-by-State
participation in the institutional phase of the pro­
gram, and the trends in characteristics of enrollees
8
For most programs where It is an issue, a governor’s veto can
be overridden after a 30-day delay. So the veto itself is not
really the problem. Rather it is the fact that State institutions—
such as the employment service or local school systems, to say
nothing of local employers— assume such a vital role in the
outcome of any given program that it is better to play the game
their way than to try to flout the establishment.
•The figures are calculated from U.S. Department of Labor
data.


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

57

Job Corps
In most Southern States, the Job Corps has not
fared well. That is to say, very few Job Corps cen­
ters are to be found in the 12 States. P art of the
explanation is that establishment of such a center
can be vetoed by the governor. The scarcity of
centers, however, does not mean that Southern
youth are denied access to the Job Corps. Rather,
it means that to participate they typically must
travel further from their home State. Hence, the
burden is placed on other regions to accommodate
many Southern youths, and these youths must
make a much more difficult adjustment than other
corpsmen. Current Job Corps regulations stipu­
late that participants be placed in the center near-

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

58
T a ble 2.

C har ac ter istic s

of

M DTA-OJT T r a in e e s

S o u t h e r n S ta tes

in

by

C a l e n d a r Y ear

Characteristics (in percent)
State and year

Number
of
trainees

Color

Sex
Male

Female

Age

Non­
white

White

Under
22

Over
44

Head of
family

Education (in years)—
8 or less

9 to 11

12 or
more

Alabama:

1966......................-........

1,100

80.0

20.0

85.3

14.7

29.5

10.4

65.1

9.6

24.6

65.8

Arkansas:

1965.............................1966________________

700
1,300

74.8
36.4

25.2
63.6

79.7
90.2

20.3
9.8

20.0
30.4

6.7
9.1

58.5
38.9

17.1
24.7

23.7
39.5

59.2
35.8

Florida:

1965____ _______ ____
1966.................................

400
2,800

57.0
59.5

43.0
40.5

68.0
78.8

32.0
21.2

39.2
29.9

14.0
12.4

38.7
50.7

23.0
16.7

44.3
31.1

32.7
49.3

Georgia:

1964._____ __________
1965.......... ...................
1966...............................

500
1,000
1,600

74.0
85.7
66.7

26.0
14.3
33.3

43.8
63.1
75.5

56.2
36.9
24.5

38.6
38.8
30.6

7.6
7.8
4.5

53.7
54.9
50.3

33.7
20.5
11.6

36.3
32.9
27.7

30.0
46.6
60.7

Kentucky:

1964________________
1965________________
1966___________ _____

300
300
1,400

66.2
22.9
67.2

33.8
77.1
32.8

97.9
99.3
92.4

2.1
.7
7.6

35.1
11.2
34.8

9.0
10.2
6.0

49.8
34.2
56.0

34.3
48.2
19.8

35.3
26.6
21.4

30.4
25.1
58.8

Louisiana:

1965................................
1966.................................

1,500
1,700

65.3
85.6

34.7
14.4

64.0
68.0

36.0
32.0

29.1
30.8

11.8
7.3

51.7
63.7

17.3
18.4

25.3
29.8

57.4
51.8

Mississippi:

1964________________
1965.. _____________
1966________________

500
1,400
800

98.7
76.7
99.1

1.3
23.3
.9

82.8
85.9
79.0

17.2
14.1
21.0

37.3
52.2
50.8

.9
1.7
2.8

64.9
46.4
54.4

8.6
4.0
10.3

11.3
22.1
27.0

80.0
73.9
62.7

North Carolina: 1964________________
1965________ ______
1966________________

400
1,300
1,900

41.5
45.4
50.2

58.5
54.6
49.8

49.4
74.3
78.6

50.6
25.7
21.4

16.7
24.8
37.8

26.1
17.1
9.8

57.4
46.4
34.9

24.2
19.3
19.2

30.6
31.4
34.0

45.2
49.3
46.8

Tennessee:

1963
1964________________
1965________________
1966________________

400
1,900
3,700

68.5
84.3
89.2

31.5
15.7
10.8

81.1
96.3
78.8

18.9
3.7
21.2

17.2
30.0
22.3

22.7
11.4
12.6

70.6
67.1
74.4

21.5
30.0
24.7

34.4
22.4
24.1

44.0
47.6
51.2

Texas:

1964___________ ____
1965________________
1966_______________

500
1,000
2,300

88.3
66.8
78.7

11.7
33.2
21.2

85.1
87.9
77.4

14.9
12.1
22.6

35.0
35.9
28.6

3.3
5.9
6.3

64.5
56.9
60.1

12.4
7.4
7.2

26.9
29.1
18.9

60.8
63.5
73.9

Virginia:

1965________________
1966________________

300
500

64.5
60.0

35.5
40.0

58.5
76.3

41.5
23.7

28.0
29.0

10.7
9.2

50.5
53.7

31.7
28.6

31.7
33.5

35.6
37.9

est their homes. For most Southern youths, this
still means placement far away.
Of the 10 men’s urban training centers, 2 are in
the South (1 in Texas and 1 in Kentucky). Of the
16 women’s training centers, only 1 is in the South
(in Texas). In 1967, the women’s centers were re­
quired by law to account for 23 percent of all
trainees. Neither of the special Job Corps centers
is in the South. Job Corps Conservation Centers
(which in 1967 were required by law to account
for 40 percent of all trainees) number 97; only
11 are in the South (2 in Arkansas, 4 in Kentucky,
3 in North Carolina, 1 in Texas, and 1 in Vir­
ginia) . There are no centers in Louisiana, Missis­
sippi, Alabama, or Georgia.10
Yet youths from the South are more than pro­
portionally represented in the Job Corps. (See
chart.) Table 3 indicates the number referred to
the Job Corps by the employment service in each
Southern State. (Although there are others, the
State employment service is by far the major


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

source of referrals to this program.) As can be
seen, the South’s participation rate is phenome­
nally high, accounting for 34 percent and 50 per­
cent of the total referrals in 1965 and 1966, respec­
tively. The large number from Texas is part of the
explanation for the high figure for the region.
Yet, Texas aside, the totals are still proportionally
larger than those of other regions. There is no
verifiable explanation for this high participation
rate.11
10 Since this article was written, a number of urban training
and Job Corps Conservation centers have been closed or have been
scheduled for closing in 1968. The South still has a disproportion­
ately low share of the centers, however.
11 There is an undocumented contention for this high J ob Corps
figure which is currently under investigation. Namely, it is
claimed that the employment service in the South has been more
than willing to refer Negroes to the Job Corps since the trainees
are usually forced to leave the State and the region to participate.
Conversely, the argument continues, the Neighborhood Youth
Q0rp S— which affords opportunities in the local community
has been used for white youths. Unfortunately, detailed statistics
on enrollee characteristics that might prove or disprove these
assertions are unavailable for either of these programs.

MANPOWER AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Work Experience and Training
In 1962, the Social Security Act was amended
to include a program known as Community Work
and Training (CWT). The Federal Government
contributed 50 percent of the administrative costs
and 75 percent of the social service costs. The new
program was targeted to supply training and work
experience for recipients of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children with Unemployed Parents
(AFDC-UP) so that they could achieve economic
independence. The only Southern State to partici­
pate was Kentucky, which did so briefly in 1964.
Title Y of the Economic Opportunity Act
(EOA) passed in late 1964 instituted a program
known as Work Experience and Training (W ET ).
With the Federal Government providing 100 per­
cent of the funds, the program was aimed at the
same beneficiaries as the earlier CWT program.
Southern Participation in Federally Sponsored Youth
Training Programs
ONLY A FEW OF THE JOB CORPS TRAINING CENTERS ARE LOCATED
IN THE SOUTH:
NATIONAL

PERCENT LOCATED IN SOUTH
0
5
10
15
20
25

10 MEN'S URBAN CENTERS

|

16 WOMEN’S CENTERS

2 SPECIAL CENTERS
97 CONSERVATION CENTERS

'

59
Under these more favorable financing arrange­
ments, all States but Alabama participated to
varying degrees. Kentucky, for example, received
16 percent of all the funds made available under
this section in its first 2% years of operations.12
As can be seen from table 3, the South accounted
for 20 percent of those participating under Title
V of EOA through March 1967. Although exact
enrollment figures are unavailable, the figures in
table 3 do approximate the order of magnitude.
The rate of participation by State shows extensive
differences, with Kentucky and Arkansas together
accounting for over half the total slots in the re­
gion. Because these States have limited job oppor­
tunities, there has been considerable debate over
the appropriateness of training in Title V pro­
grams. One viewpoint suggests that the programs
have been a subtle form of income maintenance.13
As for the near future, both the Title V and the
CWT programs are being phased out. The 1967
amendments to the Social Security Act have cre­
ated a new program—the Work Incentive Pro­
gram—for AFDC families. The new program be­
gins April 1,1968, and by July 1,1969, it will have
completely replaced the forerunner programs. Be­
cause of the difficulties in adjusting State legisla­
tion and in obtaining State matching funds (20
percent), it is not expected that any Southern
State will be able to participate in the immediate
future.

I

Special Programs
ALTHOUGH YOUNG SOUTHERNERS MAKE UP AN INCREASING PROPOR­
TION OF YOUTH IN FEDERAL TRAINING PROGRAMS:

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE REFERRALS TO JOB CORPS

NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS ENROLLEES

1965

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0 - 6 8 - 5

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

1966

In addition to the more familiar programs just
discussed, there are several programs designed
for the special needs of disadvantaged groups.
Specifically, they are known as Special Impact
(or Kennedy-Javits), New Careers (or Scheuer),
12 In fact, during the program’s first year, Kentucky received
25 percent of the total funds appropriated under Title V. As
a result of Kentucky’s domination of the program, the Economic
Opportunity Act was amended in 1966 to restrict the amount of
funds annually appropriated under the title to any one State to
12.5 percent of the available funds.
13 For a detailed discussion of this point, see Sar Levitan’s
“Work Experience and Training” in Examination of the War on
Poverty, Staff and Consultant Reports to the Subcommittee on
Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of Senate Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, August 1967, Volume I, pp. 59-86;
also see a rebuttal to this position in the testimony of Lisle C.
Carter, Jr., in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Employment,
Manpower, and P overty of Senate Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, July 1967, pt. 10, pp. 3055-3103.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

60
T a b l e 3. P a rtic ipatio n in S elec ted M a npo w er
T r a in in g P rogram s , U n ited S tates a n d S o u th er n
S tates
Neighborhood
Youth Corps

Job Corps

State
1965

1966

Title V
(EOA) i
Cumular
tive
through
March
1967

1965

1966

United S tates...

173,861

156,260

48,767

57,181

203,854

South: Number.........
Percent........ .

48,284
27

57,909
37

16,691
34

28,719
50

41,662
20

Alabama___ ____
Arkansas...............
Florida_________
Georgia_________
Kentucky..............
Louisiana...............
Mississippi______
North Carolina__
South Carolina___
Tennessee_______
Texas___________
Virginia_________

6
25,008
2,428
2,923
1,228
2,807
1,262
1,753
10
4,085
5,650
1,124

952
9,312
2,773
11,116
1,878
11,717
5,734
3,042
3,048
3,429
3,805
1,053

1,345
1,263
1,577
999
1,967
1,295
1,081
(2)
852
1,329
3,180
1,803

2,360
1,394
3,483
2,452
1,411
2,378
2,712

undertaking—which is not really a training pro­
gram but rather an administrative project—is ex­
pected to be expanded markedly in the near future.
I t is anticipated that many of the 63 cities par­
ticipating in the Model City Program will receive
a CEP contract. I f so, as many as 15 Southern
cities will benefit.18
Assessment

(»)

1,519
2,391
6,569
2,050

6,525
2,051
2,460
16,910
3,800
4,445
947
820
2,024
1,440
240

1 These data were compiled from the Welfare Administration, U.S. Depart­
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
2 Recruiting not done by the State Employment Service.

and Operation Mainstream (or Nelson) pro­
grams 14 and stem from 1965 and 1966 amendments
to the Economic Opportunity Act. All three un­
dertakings are limited in scope and in funds. To
date, the effect of these programs for the South
rests primarily in the fact that they are partially
involved in the Department of Labor’s Concen­
trated Employment Program (CEP).
Under the CEP arrangement, six manpower
training programs are packaged together.15 The
package is offered to a locality in the form of a
single contract from the Department of Labor.
As of October 1967, 20 cities and two rural areas
had been designated for CEP. Five of the cities
are in the South (Atlanta, Birmingham, Houston,
New Orleans, and San Antonio) together with
one rural area, the Mississippi Delta. The CEP
14
Respectively, these programs are designed to provide (1) work
experience and training for indigenous adults and youths in
selected neighborhoods plagued hy high unemployment rates;
(2) employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults in
subprofessional, urban community improvement projects; and
(3) employment opportunities for unemployed adults in conser­
vation and beautification projects in small towns and rural areas.
“ The six programs are MDTA-institutional, MDTA-OJT,
Neighborhood Youth Corps, New Careers, Special Impact, and
Operation Mainstream.
“ The 15 Model Cities in the South are: Huntsville (Ala.),
Texarkana (Ark.), Miami and Tampa (Fla.), Atlanta and Gaines­
ville (Ga.), Pikesville (Ky.), Charlotte (N.C.), Nashville and
Smithville (Tenn.), Eagle Pass, San Antonio, Texarkana, and
Waco (Tex.), and Norfolk (Va.).


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

As is characteristic of this region, diversity is
the rule. The use of manpower programs in South­
ern States is no exception. In some instances, the
South is among the leaders—e.g., Title Y programs
in Kentucky and Job Corps enrollment in Texas;
in other cases, it contains the laggards—e.g., Ala­
bama is the only State without a Title Y program.
In between, the States of the South sweep the
spectrum.
There is no doubt that federally sponsored pro­
grams have had an effect. Despite occasional verbal
assaults, the South has been willing to partake of
the offerings. The cynic might say that this par­
ticipation proves that prejudice and distrust can
be mollified by the presence of dollars. In a more
reasoned opinion, one might conclude that the ac­
ceptance is indicative of a new day. I t is even more
likely, however, that the explanation lies in terms
of enlightened self-interest. The region is sustain­
ing a rapid growth in its urban communities as
well as a major change in its occupational struc­
ture due to industrial diversification. For the first
time, the South needs educated and skilled work­
ers to meet the needs of its expanding private busi­
nesses and burgeoning defense industries. Its one­
time asset—cheap and unskilled labor—has become
an albatross.
The alternatives are twofold: Upgrade its work
force or encourage (by inaction or by program
limitations) an exodus of its unskilled workers
and an influx of talent from the rest of the Nation.
Indications are that both courses are being pur­
sued. Federally assisted manpower programs have
helped the South to improve the employability of
some of its citizens. Yet it is the level of operation
and not the presence per se of these programs that
is significant.
Although participation rates of the South are
useful in showing what is happening and in indi-

MANPOWER AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

eating some of the qualms of local officials
about Federal money, they are largely irrelevant.
In terms of the proportion of its population who
are Negroes, who live in poverty (both Negro and
white), who have little education, who are under­
employed, the South has no dearth of opportunity.
To be meaningful, these programs must be sub­
stantially enlarged. The South needs a larger slice
of a bigger pie. In addition, experiments should
be initiated to establish training programs in rural
areas for urban jobs. If the Southern States are
incapable or unwilling to assume such responsi­
bility, thought might be given to direct Federal
sponsorship and administration. The evidence is

61

that many of the disadvantaged are leaving the
rural areas, and hence it is both more humane and
more economic to prepare the migrants before they
begin their treks than to have them go totally
unprepared.
Manpower policies alone can only soften the
effect of the urbanization, industrialization, and
migration problems of the South. But as a part
of the constellation of program efforts—which in­
clude the new policies in the education and welfare
fields as well as the continued reliance upon fiscal
policy and the enforcement of equal employment
opportunity legislation—they appear as a meteor
of hope on the horizon.

These influences [such as educational quality and especially discrimination]
also prevent proportionate gains in income from immediately following
improvements in the educational attainment of a disadvantaged ethnic group.
Many members of minority groups are forced to endure a frustrating waiting
period until they are able to obtain incomes which are appropriate to their
education. This lag between income and education can be understood in part
to be a result of the fact that in our society the flow of causation is frequently
from income to education rather than in the reverse direction. In spite of this,
minority persons may be able to match the majority in education, but they
will not obtain comparable incomes if they do not have access to income
opportunities which are available to similarly educated members of the
majority population.


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

—Walter Fogel.

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

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

The Worker
and the Man

Unions, Integration, and Income
Motivate Development
Although the South is not likely to become
as well organized as the rest of the coun­
try in the foreseeable future, there is
obviously considerable slack for union
growth. The gap between the South and
the rest of the Nation will continue to
narrow. And since membership growth in
the South is far from saturated, unions
will continue to increase their membership
and thus will have strong bases from
which to grow rapidly during times which
are conducive to rapid growth.

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

The
Development
of
Organized
Labor
R ay M arshall

U n ion m em bership is in creasin g fa ste r
in th e S ou th th an elsew h ere but has fa r
to go to reach n a tio n a l rates.
T h e earliest labor organization 's in the South
were “mechanics’ societies” formed in the major
cities during the eighteenth century, but the ear­
liest trade union that has come to my attention is
the New Orleans Typographical Society, formed
in 1810.1 Typographical societies were organized
in most of the major cities of the South before the
Civil War, but were disrupted then. Building
trades also organized quite early and laiter affili­
ated with their respective national organizations.
The railroad operating brotherhoods entered the
South during the 1860’s and 1870’s and, along with
the nonoperating and shopcraft unions, grew
rapidly during the next two decades.
Southern longshoremen also organized during
this period, especially the screwmen, who stowed
cotton and tobacco aboard ships with jackscrews.
The screwmen were in a strategic position because
cotton and tobacco were the South’s main exports
and had to be carefully packed in order to be
profitable.
Except for some unsuccessful efforts to orga­
nize textile workers, about the only industrial
union active in the South at an early date was the


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

United Mine Workers. Southern miners had
formed local unions before the UMW was orga­
nized, but they affiliated during the 1890’s.
Patterns of union growth in the South resem­
bled those of the rest of the country. Union growth
has fluctuated with the business cycle, and unions
have grown rapidly during periods of ferment
like the late 1880’s and the early 1890’s, World
Wars I and II, and the mid-1930’s, but have de­
clined during open-shop periods like the 1920’s and
early 1930’s.
Most industrial unions either entered the South
for the first time or established their present bases
during the New Deal period. The most success­
ful was the United Mine Workers, which by 1935
had almost completely organized the Southern
coal fields. Tobacco, clothing, rubber, oil, auto­
mobile, and steel unions also revitalized or ex­
panded their Southern bases during this time, and
efforts were even made by the Southern Tenant
Farmers Union to establish collective bargain­
ing among the region’s sharecroppers. The great­
est growth of Southern union membership came
during World W ar II. In spite of these wartime
gains, however, there were many unorganized
workers in the South when the war ended and
many Southern States had countered increased
union activity with antiunion legislation.
Both the American Federation of Labor and
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, there­
fore, sought to counteract antiunion laws, hold
their wartime gains, and organize the South’s
unorganized workers through campaigns launched
in 1946. The CIO spent much more money but
did not gain nearly as many members as the AFL.
In 1948, the CIO convention raised dues to fi­
nance its campaign; prior to this, it had unsuc­
cessfully attempted to collect the necessary funds
from its international unions. The CIO claimed
450,000 Southern workers by 1948, but appar­
ently lost many members by 1953, when its cam­
paign was officially terminated.
The AFL campaign, on the other hand, ended
after 1 year and produced about 500,000 new
members for the federation, only 250,000 of whom
were in established locals. Fewer money problems
plagued the AFL, because it financed its campaign
from a defense fund set up to pay strike benefits
to its members in directly affiliated locals. The
1
This article relies primarily on the author’s Labor in the
8outh (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1967).

65

66

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

AFL also had a better established structure in
the South through which to operate.
Much fanfare accompanied these campaigns,
and while the antiunion opposition it stimulated
hurt the CIO more than the AFL, it was the main
reason for the termination of the federation’s
campaign in 1947. Unions continued organizing
in the South after these general drives, but they
concentrated on particular industries and areas.
In spite of the attention given to organizing,
labor organizations suffered a number of impor­
tant reverses in the South after World War II.
These were not restricted to the weaker unions but
extended also to such union strongholds as con­
struction, where unions failed to organize some of
the South’s leading contractors, and railroads,
where the unions apparently have suffered an
important defeat in the 1963 Florida East Coast
strike. The CIO Food, Tobacco, and Agricultural
Workers succeeded in organizing R. J. Reynolds,
but was defeated in a strike in 1946. Subsequent
attempts to organize Reynolds have failed.
The textile unions also suffered a series of post­
war defeats in the South, the most important of
which was the 1958 strike by Textile Workers
Union of America (TWUA) against the HarrietHenderson Mills in Henderson, N\C. The union
was further weakened by internal dissension and
a weakening of existing locals during the 1950’s.
The textile unions likewise have been unsuccessful
in gaining bargaining rights at Burlington,
Stevens, Cannon, and Deering, Millikin plants.

the greatest relative gains in the South were made
by the Teamsters, whose membership increased
from 33,400 in 1953 to 104,092 in 1964. However,
the Paper Makers, Letter Carriers, Post Office
Clerks, Electrical Workers, Ladies’ Garment
Workers, Pulp Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
and Mine Workers made some significant relative
gains, although the latter lost in mining opera­
tions while gaining in other industries through its
catch-all District 50. The Textile Workers Union
of America suffered the greatest relative losses—
they declined from 36,400 to 13,000 members.

Membership Patterns
Although union membership has increased faster
in the South than elsewhere since 1939, it has not
increased as fast as a proportion of nonagricultural employment. (See table 1.) In the South as
in the rest of the United States, the proportion of
nonagricultural employees who were organized
increased between 1939 and 1953 (table 2), but
declined between 1953 and 1964.
A comparison of membership figures for various
international unions indicates that in recent years

Industry
Primary m etals___________________________
Products of petroleum and coal....................... .
Transportation equipment_________________
Paper and allied products__________________
Tobacco manufacturers .
.....
Lumber and wood products...... ..........................

Collective Bargaining Coverage
That labor in the South is less well organized
than that of the rest of the country is almost a
truism. However, current regional data, particu­
larly industry data, are hard to come by. In 1962,
according to a BLS study,241 percent of Southern
manufacturing labor was employed in plants in
which a majority of the workers were covered by
union contracts, compared with 62 to 71 percent
in other regions. An even earlier study3 did pro­
duce some industry data that observations and dis­
cussions with union and management groups ver­
ify as still true today. While each industry is likely
to be better organized in the Northeast than the
South,4 there were important exceptions:
Percent of workers in
establishments with
majority of workers
under collective bargain­
ing agreement
North- United
South
east
States
95
88
88
89
88
85
86
73
86
79
73
75
72
27
63
23
43
27

The other industries in the BLS study for which
figures are available for both the South and the
Northeast had the following relative percentage
coverages :

South
Stone, clay, and glass................ . .........._...............
65
2
Arnold Strasser, “Factory Workers Under Bargaining Agree­ Machinery (except electrical)................................
63
ments,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1965, pp. 164-167.
62
Chemical and allied products........................ ......
8 H. M. Douty, “Collective Bargaining Coverage in Factory Em­
Printing, publish i ng, and allied industries____
61
ployment, 1958,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1960, pp. 345-349.
54
Fabricated metal pr oducts______________ ___
4
The definition of South used by BBS includes Delaware, the Food and kindred products_________________
41
District of Columbia, Maryland, and West Virginia, in addition to
35
Instrum ents and related products___________
those States included in our definition. The BBS definition, there­
32
Leather and leather products________________
fore, probably gives a higher proportion of workers organized in
30
Apparel__________________________________
each industry than would be given if our definition of the South
Furniture and fixtures___________________ _ . . . ■ 28
14
were used.
Textile mill products______________________


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

North- United
east
States
78
84
67
67
66
68
66
65
75
71
67
74
52
51
50
47
60
70
50
50
28
51

67

DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZED LABOR
T

able

1.

U

n io n

M

e m b e r s h ip a n d

P ercent

of

N

o n a g r ic u l t u r a l
a n d 1964

W

orkers

O r g a n i z e d , S o u t h e r n S t a t e s , 1939,

1953,

Union members
(thousands)

Percent of
nonagricultural
employment organized

Percent change

State
1939
United States, other than Smith.............

1964

1953

1939-53

1953-64

1939

1953

1964

5,891

14,616

15,227

148.1

6.1

21.5

34.1

627

1,788

1,961

185.2

9.7

10.7

17.2

29.5
14.4

111
71
64
68
85
44
36
38
26
25
13
34
12

375
187
168
156
155
136
136
136
84
68
50
87
50

370
184
151
179
187
201
150
147
89
112
53
86
52

237.8
163.4
162.5
129.4
82.4
209.1
277.8
257.9
223.1
172.0
284.6
155.9
316.7

- 1 .3
- 3 .3
-17.3
14.7
20.6
47.9
10.5
8.2
6.2
64.9
6.0
-8 .0
4.6

10.3
15.3
16.1
12.8
22.5
11.3
7.0
9.6
4.2
12.7
6.5
10.4
4.0

16.8
22.5
24.7
17.3
25.0
16.3
14.3
19.5
8.3
21.5
14.7
16.1
9.4

13.3
17.6
18.0
15.5
25.7
13.1
12.7
17.1
6.7
26.2
11.6
13.7
7.9

Source : Nonagricultural employment figures from Employment and Earnings, July 1958 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United
States. Union membership figures from Leo Troy, Distribution of Union

Membership Among the States, 1939 and 1953 (National Bureau of Economic
Research, Occasional Paper 56,1957); 1964 figures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As these figures indicate, a smaller proportion of
Southern workers were covered by agreements in
those industries in which the region’s employment
is concentrated. For example, in 1958, about 55
percent of the South’s manufacturing workers
were in the food, instruments, leather, apparel,
furniture, lumber, and textile industries, all of
which had a coverage of less than 50 percent; na­
tionwide, only about 29 percent were in these in­
dustries, all of which (except textiles and lumber)
had over 50 percent coverage in other regions.
Thus, the fact that most industries are more highly
unionized in the rest of the United States pro­
vides evidence that industrial composition is not
the only factor accounting for the low degree of
unionization in the South. Indeed, there is a sig­
nificant negative correlation between the propor­
tion of the Nation’s total employment in an in­
dustry which is concentrated in the South and the
degree of contract coverage in the South.

between 1953 and 1964 were Arkansas and Florida,
the two States that had the greatest relative
growth in manufacturing employment.5 Member­
ship losses in Alabama and Tennessee undoubtedly
reflect declining employment in coal mining.
Since the Southern textile industry is now orga­
nized less than 10 percent (compared with per­
haps 20 percent in 1948 and 10 percent in 1958),
the concentration of employment in this industry
in North Carolina and South Carolina makes
union membership relatively low in those States.6
Alabama, however, with a high percentage of non­
agricultural employment organized, also had a
high degree of textile employment, while Missis­
sippi, Louisiana, and Texas, with relatively low
percentages of nonagricultural employment union­
ized, also have low ratios of textile to total employ­
ment. One may conclude, therefore, that although
textile employment is a significant explanation for
low degrees of union organization, other factors
are also at work.
There are a number of reasons for the high cor­
relation between branch plants and union orga-

Union Strength and Weakness
There is evidence that of all the influences on
union growth in the South, the most significant
are economic. Legal and social forces seem to have
only marginal effects. There are no significant
correlations between union membership and the
extent of prounion or antiunion legislation.
Union membership changes within the various
Southern States can be explained in part by
changes in industry composition. The two States
with the greatest relative changes in membership

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

5
Manufacturing employment increased by 85 percent in Florida
and 51 percent in Arkansas, 49 percent in Mississippi, 24 percent
in Tennessee, 22 percent in North Carolina, 22 percent in South
Carolina, 19 percent in Texas, 19 percent in Kentucky, 19 percent
in Virginia, IT percent in Georgia, 14 percent in Oklahoma, and
10 percent in Alabama. In Louisiana manufacturing employment
declined by 7 percent.
« The textile industry accounted for the following rounded pro­
portions of manufacturing employment in 1962 : South Carolina,
52 percent; North Carolina, 48 percent; Georgia, 28 percent;
Alabama, 16 percent; Virginia, 13 percent; Tennessee, 10 percent;
Mississippi, 4 percent; Arkansas, 2 percent; Kentucky, 2 percent;
Texas, 1 percent; the United States, 5 percent; and the South,
20 percent.

68
T a b l e 2.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
S o u th e r n
n a tio n a l

M e m b e r sh ip
U n io n s , 1939

in S elec ted
and 1953

Item
Building trades unions:
Carpenters and Joiners............ .................................
Electrical Workers.._____ ___ ____ ____________
Hod Carriers and Common Laborers___________
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers..
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers_________
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry_______ ____ ___________
Transportation and related unions:
International Association of Machinists_________
Maintenance of Way Employees_______________
Railway Carmen________ ___________________
Railway and Steamship Clerks_______ ____ ____
Railway Trainmen__________________________
Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen............
Food and tobacco workers:
Tobacco Workers............................................ ...........

I n ter ­

1939

1953

36,500
16,100
16,000
5.900
8.900

119, 200
74,000
54,800
23,500
31,100

5,600

42, 400

16.300
17, 600
13,200
27,900
25.300
16,700

85, 500
41, 600
29, 600
68,900
39, 200
33, 400

14,900

27,600

nization. Many branches are covered by company­
wide collective bargaining agreements; unions
have strong motivation to organize nonunion
branches in firms where they have contracts; and
companywide bargaining often is convenient for
companies and unions. This helps explain the high
degree of unionization of the steel, auto, farm
equipment, pulp and paper, telephone, and truck­
ing industries in the South. In these cases, union
organization in the region is relatively easy, and
the Southern employees usually have a high at­
tachment to the union (the national agreement
provides wages and other benefits which are likely
to be much higher than those prevailing in the
local communities).
The relative ease with which branches may be
organized also helps explain the high correlation
between union growth and the establishment of
new firms in the South. Many of the market-andraw-material-oriented firms which have located in
the South since 1939 are branches of firms in other
parts of the country.
Unions in the South also have been impeded by
the tendency for industry to locate in nonmetro­
politan areas, as shown in table 3.
Most of the unions which are well organized in
the South have strongly organized bases outside
the region in cities such as Detroit (automobiles),
Akron (rubber), Pittsburgh (steel), or New York
(garments). The exceptions are the unions in con­
struction, printing, coal mining, and local marketoriented industries. Concentrated industries are
likely to be well organized because the costs of
organizing them are low, the unions have a strong
motive to organize these areas, and there are estab­
lished patterns of union activity that make orga­
nizing feasible.


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

The abundance of low-income agricultural
workers has been an important obstacle to union
growth in the region. These workers have fre­
quently been willing to break strikes in order to
escape their poor conditions in agriculture. Once
having obtained a job in industry, they are likely
to be relatively satisfied with it—removing that
element of discontent which is usually a prereq­
uisite to union organization. In addition, these
workers are likely to have the traditional individ­
ualistic values of rural people, which cause them
to have little interest in or sympathy for unions.
Industrial Organization
Since the 1930’s, there has been a direct relation­
ship between market concentration and union
membership.7 Oligopolistic firms usually have
been relatively large, making them more easily
unionized,8 other things equal, than the same num­
ber of workers scattered in many smaller firms.
Moreover, the higher ratios of concentration in
these industries arise from the technical or capital
requirements for entry and not from labor cost
considerations. With some control over prices,
oligopolistic firms can pass wage increases on to
consumers.
In this kind of market, there is more room for
bargaining over wages than in more highly com­
petitive industries, allowing unions to demonstrate
their ability to gain benefits for those whom they
represent.
Such a concerted attack was necessary for the
relatively successful unionization of coal mining.
Since there were many producers in the industry,
the Mine Workers had much more difficulty orga­
nizing and staying organized than the Auto Work­
ers or Steelworkers. Because of the concen­
tration of the South’s employment in competitive
industries, employers often vigorously oppose
unions in order to maintain their position vis-a-vis
other employers. In order to organize individual
firms in a competitive industry, the union must
TMartin Segal, “Unionism and Wage Movements,” Southern
Economic Journal, October 1961, pp. 174—181.
8 Frederic Meyers, “The Growth of Collective Bargaining in
Texas— A Newly Industrialized Area,” IRRA Annual Proceedings,
December 28-29, 1956, p. 286, and “Factors Influencing the Pat­
terns of Growth and Change of Collective Bargaining of Newly
Industrialized Area,” unpublished paper presented at the 1954
annual meeting of the Southern Economic Association. See also
H. Ellsworth Steele and Sherwood C. McIntyre, “Company Struc­
ture and Unionization,” The Journal of the Alabama Academy o]
Science, January 1959, p. 38.

69

DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZED LABOR

ordinarily have some advantage to offset this com­
petitive disadvantage.
A significant change occurred during the 1930’s.
Before the New Deal, oligopolistic firms had suffi­
cient strength to resist unions. But because of the
prolabor sentiment of the 1930’s and 1940’s, ex­
pressed in the New Deal legislation and the War
Labor Board (WLB), most of these firms were
organized by the end of World War II. The large
employer might be induced to deal with the union
because of a conviction that collective bargaining
has positive benefits to the company and to the
society, a conviction more prevalent now than it
was during the 1920’s. Large firms also are strong
enough to protect themselves in collective bar­
gaining.
Industrial Development and the Law
The common assumption that legislation has
had a significant effect on the growth of unions
is essentially correct, but it greatly oversimplifies
the influence of laws on union growth. The evi­
dence suggests that legislation has been a much
less important cause of union growth than eco­
nomic factors influencing the union’s ability to
force the employer to sign collective bargaining
contracts. The only significant exception to this
generalization was during World War I I when
the W ar Labor Board, unlike the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB), had the power
to translate representation elections into contracts.
But this unusual power has not been used in
peacetime. The textile industry affords an example
of the NLRB’s inability to aid union organization
in the face of strong employer opposition. With
the aid of the WLB and a tight labor market,
unions organized about 20 percent of the Southern
textile industry. Since the war, however, em­
ployers not only have been able to resist the ex­
pansion of unionism, but also to reduce the unions’
strength in firms organized during the war. The
NLRB has been unable to prevent employers from
engaging in a variety of antiunion activities. For
example, although the Board found the Deering,
Millikin Co. guilty of closing its Darlington, S.C.,
plant to avoid dealing with the union, lengthy
9 Frederic Meyers, The “Right to Work” in Practice (New York,
The Fund for the Republic, 1959), p. 11.


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

T a b l e 3. P r oduction W or k er s in M etr opo l it a n
A r e a s 1 a n d M a n u f a c t u r in g E m ploym ent in A ll
S ta nd a rd M etr opo l it a n S tatistic al A r e a s ,2 by
R e g io n , S e l ec ted Y e a r s
[In percent]

Region

Production workers
in large
metropolitan areas 1—
1954

All regions other
South AtlanEast South
West South
Oentra.1 8

58.7
65.4
29.3

1958
61.4
70.1
25.3

1962
58.8

Manufacturing employ­
ment located in all
metropolitan areas—
1954
85.9

1958

1962

82.6

80.4

68.3
23.3

90.2
51.3

88.5
50.6

87.0
53.8
41.5

11.0

10.5

10.2

40.7

41.1

48.1

43.5

39.7

74.5

68.6

68.5

35.0

34.8

32.8

62.9

63.2

61.9

1 Metropolitan areas with over 40,000 industrial employees.
2 A standard metropolitan area is a county or group of contiguous counties
which contains at least 1 central city of 50,000 inhabitants or more.
3 Southern figures include upward bias due to cities on State line. For
example, all Cincinnati production workers are included in East South
Central manufacturing employment in large metropolitan areas, while only
Kentucky production workers are included in East South Central total of
production workers.
4 Includes Virginia, N orth Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
5 Includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.
6 Includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Source : U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Manufactures, 1958,
Vol. I ll, Area Statistics, tables 5 and 6, 1961; and Annual Survey of Manu­
facturing, 1969,1964.

appeals in the Federal courts have thus far pre­
vented execution of the Board’s orders. The Dar­
lington case began in 1956, and the workers had
not been rehired 11 years later.
Union representatives cite numerous cases to
illustrate the detrimental effects of Taft-Hartley
on union growth in the South. There are many
cases where unions have won NLRB election vic­
tories but were defeated because of their inability
to obtain contracts. The law only provides formal
recognition of underlying realities; the real rea­
son strikes are lost is the employer’s ability to
continue to operate during strikes.
I t is not easy to determine the precise effects of
right-to-work laws on union organizing; but their
main effect is probably to reveal the extent of the
unions’ political power. I t cannot be demonstrated
that they have had a significant influence on union
membership.® Perhaps the main adverse effect of
antiunion laws is causing labor organizations to
dissipate union resources in attempting to prevent
the passage of these laws or in defending them­
selves in court cases. Licensing and other nuisance
legislation—often unconstitutional—is used by
some municipalities in the South to harass unions
and require them to dissipate their resources in
legal action.

70
Perhaps the most important factors which in­
fluence a union’s ability to grow (besides its ability
to produce tangible results for its members) are
its motives, financial strength, structure, and the
public image that it projects. A union’s financial
strength is likely to be particularly important in
the South, where the dispersion of workers and
opposition to unions are likely to make organizing
very expensive. A union’s financial strength ob­
viously also influences its ability to win strikes and
stay organized.
The Race Problem
Although the race problem created some dif­
ficulties for unions during the 1950’s, equalitarian
racial positions have not significantly hurt or­
ganizing in the South. Indeed, it can probably be
demonstrated that a forthright equalitarian racial
position will cause the unions to gain more than
they lose. For example, a Georgia Teamsters’ of­
ficial whose local grew from 1,500 to 9,000 mem­
bers between 1952 and 1964 listed as the three main
reasons for the Teamsters’ rapid growth in the
South: “First, we have plenty of free advertising
. . . Second, . . . our union does not equivocate or
pussyfoot on the race question. On the job and at
the hall all members are union brothers . . . Third,
we work harder than most unions.” 10
The basic factors influencing collective bargain­
ing are economic. I f an election is close, the race
issue might be important, but workers who have
become convinced that it is to their advantage to
join unions will probably pay relatively little at­
tention to racial questions.11 The unions which
have lost membership in the South for racial rea­
sons were organizations, such as the American
Federation of Teachers and the State federations
of labor, which were not collective bargaining or­
ganizations in the region when the losses occurred.
Although the influence of racial conflict on white
workers’ withdrawal from or refusal to join unions
probably has been exaggerated, racial prejudice
has weakened unions in the South in other ways.
Many of the Southern building trades and railroad
unions have not organized their jurisdictions as
fully as they might have because of their refusal
to accept Negro members, and some industrial
unions have alienated Negro members by failure
to push for job integration. Surprisingly, al­
though there has been considerable criticism of


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

discriminating unions by Negro leaders, few
unions seem to have lost Negro members for this
reason and most unions apparently find Negroes
more organizable than whites.
There has also been considerable friction within
the labor movement in the South because of pres­
sures being brought by the Federal Government,
through the Government contract committees, the
NLRB, and the operation of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, to eliminate discrimination and segrega­
tion. A number of firms in the petroleum refining,
pulp and paper, rubber, automobile, aircraft, to­
bacco, and other industries in the South desegre­
gated jobs during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Because
job integration violates prevailing racial views of
Southern workers and threatens their seniority,
there have been vigorous protests, but apparently
few cases where white workers have been unhappy
enough to quit good jobs.
The Unions
Unions also have undoubtedly influenced the
South’s economy. There is little doubt that in the
automobile, agricultural implement, pulp and
paper, and coal mining industries the narrowing
of the North-South wage differential through col­
lective bargaining has caused Southern wages to
rise to levels they would not have reached had they
been determined entirely by local conditions. Sim­
ilarly, construction, railroad, and transportation
unions have used their strategic locations to raise
wages. Even in industries such as textiles, where
unions are much weaker, the threat of unioniza­
tion undoubtedly has caused employers to advance
wages. In the more highly organized industries, a
wage-leveling process undoubtedly has raised the
pay levels of lower paid workers. Moreover, col­
lective bargaining clearly has improved the South­
ern worker’s control of working conditions through
the introduction of written contracts with griev­
ance procedures and seniority. These provisions
have been particularly important for Negroes and
other workers whose economic power was not
sufficient to give them job protection.
10 Tony Zivalick, “The Process of Unionization in the South,”
Industrial Relations Research Association Spring Meeting,
May 4-5, 1964, p. 472.
“ For further discussion, see F. Ray Marshall, “Union Racial
Problems in the South,” Industrial Relations, May 1962, pp.
117-128.

DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZED LABOR
Chart 1. Factory Workers Under Bargaining
Agreem ents, by Region,1 1958 and 1962

71
and improvements in workmen’s compensation
and safety legislation, as well as legislative
measures providing for unemployment insurance,
minimum wages, progressive taxation, and nondiscrimination. Unions cannot be termed a sig­
nificant political force in the South generally, but
their influence is very important in some States—
for example, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisi­
ana—and is becoming more important in all
others.
The Future

1 Standard census bureau regions.
Source : Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Although union growth has been caused by a
complex set of economic, political, and social
forces associated with industrialization, unions
have tended to reshape Southern institutions in
ways designed to benefit their members specifically
and workers in general. The magnitude of the
change obviously is indeterminate, but there can
be little question of its direction.
Union Influence
While unions probably reflect their environ­
ments more than they change them, there is little
question that labor organizations have influenced
Southern political, social, and economic institu­
tions. Unions as a whole did very little to change
race relations in the South before World War II,
but in the social ferment of the 1950’s and 1960’s,
the AFL-CIO, the State federations, and some
national industrial unions openly supported the
more moderate civil rights leaders.
The unions also have challenged the conserva­
tive domination of Southern politics and have pro­
vided significant, and sometimes decisive, support
for liberal political candidates throughout the
region. They also have supported enactment of

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

Since we have argued that union growth in the
South will be determined primarily by the chang­
ing patterns of industry, some of the expected
changes in employment must now be noted. They
are generally favorable for the continued growth
of unions, particularly in the Southwest.12 The
composition of manufacturing employment is be­
coming increasingly diversified as the region in­
dustrializes. A smaller percentage of Southern
employment is concentrated in the older textile,
tobacco, lumber and wood products, and petroleum
refining industries, and a larger percentage in
newer, better organized industries. The main ex­
ceptions to these trends are the apparel and other
finished textile products industries, which are in­
creasing rapidly in the South and are not very
well organized (although better organized than
textile mill products), and coal mining, petroleum
refining, and tobacco, which are older, relatively
well-organized industries whose employment is
declining.
Of the White-collar groups which are expected
to grow most rapidly between 1962 and 1972 (chart
2), the most likely to be organized are clerical and
sales groups. Government white-collar workers
also are likely to continue to organize. The increas­
ing political power of unions in the South should
be beneficial to unions among State, county, and
municipal workers. Employment is increasing
among these government workers, but most South­
ern States discourage collective bargaining among
their employees. The growth of Federal Govern­
ment activities in the South also will be beneficial
12
'Nation’s Manpower Revolution: Relating to the Training and
Utilization of the Manpower Resources of the Nation (U.S. Senate,
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Em­
ployment and Manpower, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 1963), Pt. 1,
pp. 68-69.

72

to unions, especially to those associated with the
space and defense industries.
There are other trends which favor union
growth:
1. The migration of workers out of agriculture
and out of the South will help unions by reducing
the supply of labor, and mechanization of farm work
and improvements in the farm worker’s income will
reduce the tendency for farm workers to cross picket
lines. I t is doubtful, however, that collective bargain­
ing will prove of much value to the South’s agri­
cultural workers. Other alternatives, including
cooperatives, have a greater chance of success than
collective bargaining, because these workers are too
easily replaced during strikes and are in very weak
bargaining positions.
2. The prevailing ideology of the South is being
changed by industrialization and will become increas­
ingly compatible with collective bargaining.
3. The unions’ political power probably will grow
because of increasing cooperation between unions and
Negroes (whose political power can be expected to
increase greatly in the future), reapportionment in
favor of urban areas (where most Negroes and most
union members are located), and the growth of a twoparty system in the South.
4. In all probability, the attitudes of Southern
workers toward unions will also change as the region
industrializes and their agricultural backgrounds re­
cede into history. The prospects are that workers will
turn increasingly to unions to represent their political
and economic interests.
5. There are pressures within the labor movement
which should cause an increase in membership in the
South. The motive to organize will be the growing in­
dustrialization of the South, and the consequent ne­
cessity to protect union conditions elsewhere. Juris­
dictional disputes, however, will continue to be one
of the most serious internal weaknesses from the
standpoint of union growth.
6. Although the trend is very slow, there is in­
creasing unionization of important white-collar
workers, particularly among government employees,
and this trend should be accelerated by the unions’
growing power.

The trends which will make it more difficult for
unions to organize include: The tendency for
plants to locate in smaller communities; the dis­
persion of workers’ homes from nearby the plant
gates, making it more difficult for union organizers
to contact them; and rising living standards and
changed patterns of living which make the worker
“more responsive to family, community, and neigh­
borhood influences.” 13 Other obstacles to organiz­
ing are implicit in rising educational levels, which


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
Chart 2. Projected Change in Employment in the
South, by O ccupational Group, 1 9 6 2 -7 2
MILLIONS
OF WORKERS
4

OCCUPATIONAL
GROUP

N ote : Projections are from the National Planning Association.

make workers “more questioning of both manage­
ments and unions,” 14requiring the latter to change
their organizing techniques ; technological changes
which increase employment in nonunion areas and
increase management’s ability to operate during
strikes ; and management’s growing sophistication
in avoiding unions when it wishes to. Further­
more, although there is growing concentration of
employment within particular firms, there is a
trend toward smaller plants within those firms.
What are the prospects? No one knows the an­
swer, and it is hazardous to guess. The most im­
portant determinants of union membership are
likely to be those dramatic and unpredictable
events, like wars, that could cause general increases
in union membership throughout the region. Pro­
jections of membership trends relative to indus­
tries suggests that although union membership in
the South probably will continue to increase both
absolutely and relative to the rest of the country,
unions will have great difficulty bringing their
membership up to the proportion of nonagriculi3
John T. Dunlop, “The American Industrial Relations System
in 1975,” in Jack Stieber, ed., U.8. Industrial Relations: The
Next Twenty Years (East Lansing, Michigan State University
Press, 1958), p. 27.
mIbid.

DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZED LABOR

tural employment (30 percent in 1964) outside the
region. To do this by 1972 would require an increase
in Southern membership of 3 million over the 1962
membership. Merely to hold its 1964 proportion
of 14 percent of the nonagricultural work force,
the South would have to show a net increase of
1,455,000 between 1962 and 1972. This would obvi­
ously require Southern unions to organize consid­
erably more workers than the 16,000 average
yearly net increase registered between 1953 and
1964.

73
Although the South is not likely to be as well
organized as the rest of the United States in the
foreseeable future, there is obviously considerable
room for union growth. The gap between the
South and the rest of the Nation will continue to
narrow. And since membership growth potentiali­
ties in the South are far from being exhausted,
unions will continue gradually to increase their
membership and thus will create stronger bases
from which to grow rapidly during favorable
times.

But as the goal must be to reach not only a rapid but also a steady growth
of the economy, it becomes important to be careful in choosing the policy
means. . . . [It is] important that there be public investment in education,
training, and retraining of workers right from the start. Otherwise scarcity of
personnel with high levels of education and training will soon set a ceiling
to the rise in production . . . As low quality of part of the labor supply is
intertwined with poverty in a vicious circle, there are reasons to take vigorous
measures, also from the very start, to reduce poverty.
All this implies public expenditures which in the first place will improve
the lot of the poor in America. The reason why such a redistributional
economic policy will be of a general economic interest and not only benefit
the poor themselves is, of course, that their unemployment and their low
productivity when they are working is the main unutilized and underutilized
resource in America. The majority of Americans now living in comfortable
circumstances should as a result of this policy become better and not worse off
than now. To get this dynamic thought understood and widely accepted is a
major task for all efforts to public enlightenment in America.


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

—Gunnar Myrdal.

Wage
Differentials:
Forces
and
Counterforces
H. M. D ou ty

I t is u n lik ely th a t Southern w age differ­
en tia ls w ill disappear in th e near fu tu r e
d esp ite a grow in g in d u stria l society.
in wages between the South and
the remainder of the country have been studied
systematically for approximately 40 years, begin­
ning with Heer and most recently by Fuchs.1 This
persistent attention to the subject attests to its
practical importance for such matters as plant lo­
cation, collective bargaining, and labor force mi­
gration, and its significance for a variety of prob­
lems in economic theory.

D iffe r e n t ia l s

The Pattern of Differentials
The level of wages and salaries is substantially
lower in the South2 than in the remainder of the
country. There is no general measure of the extent
of this differential from direct survey data. How­
ever, Fuchs has made a comprehensive estimate
for 1959, based on careful analysis of a small sam­
ple (0.1 percent) of individuals from the 1960
Population Census. He concludes that average
hourly earnings for all nonagricultural employed
persons, including the self-employed, were about
20 percent lower in the South than in the rest of
74

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

the Nation.3 This figure appears to be a reasonable
approximation of the general gross differential;
that is, the differential uncorrected for regional
differences in industry-mix, labor force composi­
tion, and other wage-related variables.
Table 1 draws together summary data for pro­
duction or nonsupervisory workers from recent
BLS wage surveys for several broad industry sec­
tors and for a variety of specific manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing industries. The data for
manufacturing are shown in the accompanying
chart. The average differentials shown for the
broad divisions of manufacturing, retail trade,
and wholesale trade—21 percent, 22 percent, and
21 percent, respectively—are in line with Fuchs’
estimate for all nonagricultural employments. For
specific industries, the size of the differential varies
widely, and illustrates the diversity in southern
wage differentials noted two decades ago in stu­
dies by Ober and Glasser4 and by Lester.5
Among the 26 manufacturing industries repre­
sented in table 1, the Southern wage level ranged
from 38.6 percent below that of the rest of the
country in meatpacking to more than 9 percent
above in synthetic fibers. Hourly earnings in the
South in industrial chemicals and in pulp, paper,
and paperboard were above outside levels. The
differential was less than 10 percent in cigars,
cotton textiles, synthetic textiles, wool textiles,
hosiery, work clothing, and pressed or blown glass
and glassware. In a variety of other manufactur­
ing industries, most of which are not heavily
represented in the South, the differential ranged
from about 13 percent (paperboard containers and
boxes) to more than 30 percent (motor vehicle
parts).
Among the nonmanufacturing industries in
table 1, differentials in the level of hourly earnings
were widest—more than 30 percent—in such serv1 See Clarence Heer, Income and Wages in the South (Chapel
Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 1930), and Victor
R. Fuchs, Differentials in Hourly Earnings by Region and City
Size, 1959 (New York, National Bureau of Economic Research,
1967). Occasional Paper 101. An excerpt from this paper ap­
peared in Monthly Labor Review, January 1967, pp. 22—26.
2 Unless otherwise stated, the term “South” conforms to the
following Census divisions: South Atlantic, East South Central,
and West South Central.
3 Fuchs, op. cit., table 2, p. 7.
4 Harry Ober and Carrie Glasser, “Regional Wage Differ­
entials,” in Labor in the South (BLS Bulletin 898, 1947), pp.
56-69.
5 Richard A. Lester, “Diversity in North-South Wage Differ­
entials and in Wage Rates Within the South,” Southern Eco­
nomic Journal, January 1946, pp. 238-262.

75

WAGE DIFFERENTIALS: FORCES AND COUNTERFORCES

ous and where more than 90 percent of industry
employment is in the South, the Southern wage
level is obviously controlling. It would be surpris­
ing if wages in the small segment of the industry
outside the region were markedly higher. In sev­
eral capital-intensive industries, wages in the
South stand above levels elsewhere. In the case
of industrial chemicals, for example, this appears
to reflect the dominance of large, modern, highly
efficient, unionized establishments along the Gulf
Coast. In a few industries in which output is ac­
counted for by a small number of multiestablish­
ment companies, regional wage rate differentials
have been largely eliminated through collective
bargaining. Basic steel and the automobile assem-

ice industries as laundries, restaurants, and hotels.
For specific retail trade industries, the differential
ranged from 11 percent in department stores to
about 26 percent in food stores. In electric and gas
utilities, the general differential was about 15 per­
cent; in bituminous coal, 5 percent; in building
construction as measured by union scales, 18 per­
cent; and in hospitals (except Federal), 24
percent.
On an industry basis, there clearly is no uni­
formity in the size of the relative wage differential
between the South and the rest of the country. In
part, the explanation of the size of the differential
is specific to each industry. In some cases, such as
cotton textiles, where product competition is vigor­

Straight-Time Average Hourly Earnings, South as Percent of Remainder of United States, A ll
Manufacturing and Selected Manufacturing Industries
Industry Averages Outside South=100
70

80

PERCENT
90

110

100

Synthetic Fibers
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Industrial Chemicals

n

Cigars
Synthetic Textiles
Hosiery
Cotton Textiles
Wool Textiles
Glass and Glassware
Work Clothing
Paperboard Container and Boxes
Men’s and Boys’ Shirts and Nightwear
Textile Dyeing and Finishing
Men's and Boys’ Suits and Coats
Leather Tanning
Machinery
Iron and Steel Foundries
All Manufacturing
Paints and Varnishes
Candy
Fertilizer
Nonferrous Foundries
Wood Household Furniture (Except Upholstered)
Fabricated Structural Steel
Structural Clay Products j
Motor Vehicle Parts
Meat Packing

S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Industry Wage Surveys, various dates, 1962 66.
2 8 8 -7 4 4 0

-

68-6


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

76
bly industries, which are not represented in table
1, are prime examples. Wage differentials are com­
paratively wide in many other industries. In
meatpacking, the most extreme example shown in
table 1, the Southern industry, as compared with
the industry elsewhere, is composed predomi­
nantly of single rather than multiestablishment
companies, of small rather than large plants, and
of nonunion rather than union firms. These and
other characteristics clearly help to explain its
wage position.
Wage Differentials and Labor Supply
Some portion of the general wage differential
between the South and the remainder of the coun­
try reflects a difference in industry composition.
Among the major industry sectors, this factor is
probably most significant for manufacturing.6
However, it by no means explains the whole of the
wage differential in manufacturing, as the data
in table 1 for specific industries show. For indus­
try sectors such as retail trade or services, which
tend roughly to be distributed in proportion to
population, the significance of differences in in­
dustry composition is even less.
More important than differences in industry
composition, and indeed helping to explain these
differences, is the fact that for many years the
South has been a region of relative labor surplus.
A Bureau study published 20 years ago noted that
“the most striking aspect of the labor supply situa­
tion in the South is that the region not only pro­
vides labor for its own factories and farms, but
also contributes substantially to the labor supply
of other regions of the Nation.” 7 The region con­
tinued to be a net exporter of population through
the 1950’s. Between 1950 and 1960, for example, the
net outward movement of population amounted to
approximately 1.4 million persons.8 The omission
of Florida, which had an enormous influx of pop­
ulation, raises net migration from the remainder
of the region to 3.0 million. I t is a striking fact
that population in the South, despite relatively
high birth rates, has grown less rapidly than in
the rest of the country during every decade since
1900, except for the depression decade of the
1930’s. During the first half of the 1960’s, this pat­
tern of population growth and migration was at
least temporarily interrupted.9 Despite a large


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

movement of population from rural to urban areas
within the region, the South continues to be less
urbanized than the remainder of the United States.
The relative labor surplus has been largely at
the unskilled and semiskilled level; it has exerted,
despite migration, heavy and continuous pressure
on job opportunities within the region. This has
led to a striking characteristic of the Southern
wage structure. Wage differentials based on skill
tend to be greater within the South than in the re­
mainder of the country; this means, of course, that
interregional differentials tend to vary inversely
by occupational skill level. This tendency was
clearly noted in Heer’s pioneering study. Using
BLS occupational wage survey data, he observed
that
. . . the difference in hourly earnings between the
South and the rest of the country is apparently at a
maximum in the case of common labor and shows
a tendency to become progressively less with each
advance in grade of skill. In the case of one or two
highly skilled occupations it disappears entirely.
This tendency is not particularly pronounced as re­
gards industries in which differences in grades of
skill are slight and in which advancement from one
occupation to another is comparatively easy. I t is
strikingly evident, however, in industries in which
there are broad differences in skill between various
occupational groups and in which passage from one
group to another is difficult.10

The persistence of this tendency can be abun­
dantly illustrated from recent wage surveys on
both a labor market and a specific industry basis.
Table 2 shows indexes of pay levels in 1965-66 for
three occupational groups in 23 Southern metro­
politan areas. The indexes show the relationship
of wage levels in the Southern areas to levels for
the same occupational groups in all 221 metropol­
itan areas in the country.

9
See Factory Workers’ Earnings, May 1958 (BLS Bulletin
No. 1252, 1959), p. 4.
7 BLS Bulletin 898, op. cit., p. 16.
8 Conrad Taeuber, “Some Recent Population Trends in the
South,” a paper delivered before the Conference on Area Devel­
opment, Athens, Ga., January 8, 1962. Data on migration include
movement of persons in the armed forces.
9 For the first half of the 1960’s, population increase in the
South is estimated to have been relatively greater than for the
remainder of the United States— 9.3 percent as against 7.5
percent. During the same period, the region experienced net
inmigration, even if Florida is omitted from the calculations.
See Estim ates of the Population of States: July 1, 1965, Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 348 (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1966).
10 Heer, op. ott., p. 35.

77

WAGE DIFFERENTIALS : FORCES AND COUNTERFOROES
T a b le 1.

S traight - tim e A v erage H ourly E a r n in g s 1 of P roduction or N o n su p e r v iso r y E m ployees , S o u t h 2
and R e m a in d e r of U n ited S ta tes , S elected I n d u s t r ie s , V a r io u s D a t e s , 196 2 -6 6
Average hourly earnings
Industry

South2

Rem ainder of
U nited States

Earnings in
South 2 as percent
of earnings in
remainder of
United States

Percent of employm ent in the
South 2

Survey reference
date

Manufacturing

$1.93
1.81
1. 51
1.52
1.74
1.72
1.83
1. 54
1.83
1.84
1.38
1.40
1. 51
2.44
1.94
3.12
2.47
2.10
1. 67
1.79
2.17
1.63
2.09
1.96
2.03
2.36
1.82

$2.44
2.95
1.93
1. 55
1.86
1.80
1.96
1.63
2.14
2.20
1.60
1. 53
1.99
2.31
2.24
2.99
2.26
2.66
2.18
2.19
2.36
2.34
2.58
2.56
2.75
2.90
2.66

79.1
61.4
78.2
98.1
93.5
95.6
93.4
94.5
85.5
83.6
86.3
91.5
75.9
105.6
86.6
1013
109.3
78.9
76.6
81.7
91.9
69.7
81.0
76.6
73.8
81.4
68.4

22.1
22.8
13.7
42.1
96.2
714
45.6
87.6
57.8
21.6
68.4
75.9
57.7
31.6
20.6
41.0
90.3
.17. 3
517
14.3
25.0
36.4
16.5
6.2
35.1
11.4
8.6

3.24
2.42
1.54
1.42
1.69
1. 61
1. 51
1.78
1.60
1.14
1.28
1.84
.80
.85
1.14
1. 25
1. 51
.90
3.89

3.40
2.84
1.97
1.79
2.16
2.16
2.05
2.23
1.80
1.39
1.70
2.32
1.27
1. 31
1.59
1.73
1.98
1. 32
4.75

95.3
85.2
78.2
79.3
78.2
715
73.7
79.8
88.9
82.0
75.3
79.3
63.0
64.9
71.7
72.3
76.3
68.2
81.9

63.2
26.5
28.2
25.3
30.3
32.1
25.8
29.0
25.3
31.5
32.8
27.1
27.9
30.3
36.1
29.5
25.0
21.8
30.6

March 1964
Nov. 1963
Sept. 1965
Apr-.May 1964
Sept. 1965
Sept. 1965
Nov. 1966
Sept.-Oct. 1964
Winter 1965-66
Oct. 1963
Apr.-June 1964
May-June 1964
May-June 1965
Jan. 1962
Nov. 1964
Nov. 1965
Feb.-Apr. 1966
Nov. 1965
Mar.-Apr. 1966
Mar. 1963
May 1964
July-Aug. 1964
Nov. 1962
June-July 1965
Oct.-Nov. 1964
Mid-1966
Apr. 1963

N onmanufacturing

Building materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers----Furniture, home furnishings, and household appliance stores.

Jan. 1967
July 1962
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
June 1965
March 1964
June 1963
June 1963
Mid-1966
Apr. 1966
Mid-1966
Apr. 1965
July 1966

1 Excludes p re m iu m pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays,
and late shifts, w ith two exceptions. In nursing homes and related facilities
and motion picture theaters, shift premium, if any, was included in the
earnings data.
2 Conforms to following Census divisions: South Atlantic, East South
Central, West South Central.
3 Southern data relate to the Southeast region only.

4 Earnings data relate only to cash wages paid by employer.
6
Wage data are union scales. Percentage of employment in South relates
to total employment in contract construction for 1966.
Source : Bureau of Labor Statistics., Industry Wage Surveys. Special tab ­
ulations were made where survey data were not shown for South, as here
defined, and remainder of country.

In the three Southern metropolitan areas with a
population of 1 million inhabitants or more, the
level of pay for office clerical workers, who typ­
ically require at least a high school education, was
only 2 percent below the national level in Atlanta
and Houston and 7 percent below in Dallas. For
skilled plant maintenance jobs, the Houston level
was 1 percent, Atlanta 5 percent, and Dallas 9 per­
cent below the national level. In sharp contrast,

average wages for unskilled plant jobs were 22 to
23 percent below the national level in the three
large Southern metropolitan areas. In general, the
same pattern holds for the smaller metropolitan
areas,11 but with a tendency, particularly in the
very smallest areas, for interregional differentials
to widen for each occupational group.
For the most part, data for specific industries
support this general picture. Several examples
must suffice. In hospitals (except Federal) in 1966,
the average weekly salaries of general duty nurses
in the South were about 12 percent below the aver­
age for the remainder of the country. For hospital

n Two areas—(Beaumont—Port Arthur and Louisville— depart
from the pattern. The nature of industry composition in these
areas—for example, chemicals and petroleum refining in Beau­
mont—Port Arthur—helps to explain this divergence.


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

78
kitchen helpers, an unskilled job, the differential
was 30 percent.12 In the manufacture of fertilizer,
skilled maintenance mechanics in the South in
1966 averaged about 10 percent less than simi­
lar workers elsewhere; the differential for ma­
terial handling laborers, however, was about 25
percent.13 For union workers in the building
trades, the level of union rates in 1966 for journey­
men was about 16 percent lower in the South than
in the remainder of the country, as compared with
34 percent for helpers and laborers.14
Some Explanatory Variables
The labor supply situation in the South relative
to the rest of the country provides a powerful clue
to the persistence of a general differential in wages.
Galloway, after testing for various explanations
of the differential, concludes that “it has been
established that the capital-labor ratio of the
South is less than that of the North. This is a con­
firmation of what is sometimes known as the ‘ex­
cess’ labor supply hypothesis, although, as has
been noted, the use of the term ‘excess’ merely re­
flects a relative lack of capital goods and a rela­
tive abundance of labor.” 15He rejects several other
explanations, including monopsonistic exploita­
tion.
But the structure of wage differentials is a most
complex phenomenon, and there is probably no
single explanation for a general differential be­
tween broad regions of a country. BLS studies for
specific industries have abundantly demonstrated
that wages by occupation within a region tend to
vary by such characteristics as size of establish­
ment, size of community, collective bargaining
status, and method of wage payment. These fac­
tors tend to be interrelated, and the influence of
each on pay levels is most difficult to measure.
Broad interregional comparisons (or, for that mat­
ter, comparisons among States or metropolitan
areas within a region) are further complicated by
differences in industry composition and labor mar­
ket characteristics.
As an alternative to standardization for regional
differences in industry or occupational mix, Fuchs,
working with a sample of employed persons from
the 1960 Census, standardized hourly earnings for
regional differences in labor “quality” or composi­
tion, as reflected by color, age, sex, and education,


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

and for differences in city size. He concludes that
differences in labor force composition between the
South and the remainder of the country, as meas­
ured by the four characteristics listed, account for
about one-third of the gross differential in hourly
earnings. Regional differences in industry location
in terms of city size account for an additional onethird, and about one-third remains unexplained.
The results of a related regression analysis suggest
that the unexplained difference can be attributed to
extent of unionization.16
These are interesting results and provide a most
useful corrective to the tendency to consider only
the gross regional wage differential. They place
relative wage values on important factors that
serve to differentiate Southern industry from in­
dustry elsewhere. They should provoke additional
research. They do not, of course, go to the dynamics
of the Southern wage differential for comparable
work, and the reasons for its persistence over a
long period. Questions arise also with respect to
the variables analyzed, and to others, such as dif­
ferences in living costs, that might be considered.
Changes in the Southern Differential
Over the past 60 years, there apparently has been
little change in the general differential in wages
between the South and the remainder of the coun­
try. However, short-term changes have occurred.
Bloch, using occupational wage data, analyzed re­
gional differentials in manufacturing for 1907,
1919,1931-32, and 1945-46.17 The Southern differ­
ential in 1945^6 was about the same as in 1907.
Within this 40-year period, there was little change
13 Computed from Industry Wage Survey: Hospitals, July
1966 (BLS Bulletin 1553, 1967), table 3, pp. 15-16.
18 Computed from Industry Wage Survey: Fertilizer Manu­
facturing, Marchr-April 1966 (BLS Bulletin 1531, 1967), table 5,
p. 11. The New England and Mountain regions are not repre­
sented, but these are very minor fertilizer-producing areas and
their inclusion would not appreciably affect the results.
14 Computed from average union scales by region shown in
Union Wages and Hours: Building Trades, July 1, 1966 (BLS
Bulletin 1547, 1967), table 11, p. 15. Regional union membership
data were used as weights.
16
Lowell E. Galloway, “The North-South Wage Differential,”
Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1963, pp. 264-272.
16 Fuchs, op. cit., especially sections 2, 4, 6 and 7. Fuchs is able
to present differentials by sex, color, and education that add
appreciably to our knowledge.
17 Joseph W. Bloch, “Regional Wage Differentials: 1907-46,”
Monthly Labor Review, April 1948, pp. 371-377. Bloch’s indexes
for all occupations for regions outside the South can be readily
combined into single indexes through use of production worker
employment weights from Censuses of Manufactures for 1909,
1919, 1929 and 1947.

WAGE DIFFERENTIALS : FORCES AND COUNTERFORCES
T a b le 2. R e l a tiv e P ay L ev e l s i n S elected S ou th e r n
M etr o po lita n A r e a s , by O c cupational G r o u p , A ll
I n d u s t r ie s ,1 1 965-1966
(P ay

levels

for each

o c c u p a tio n a l g roup in
c o m b in ed = 100)

221 m e tro p o lita n

areas

O ccu p atio n al group

Area

Skilled
maintenance

Office
clerical

Unskilled
plant

Areas with 1,000,000 inhabitants
or more:
Atlanta....... ..........................
D allas................................
Houston.............. ..................

98
93
98

95
91
99

78
78
77

112
92
89
87
92
89
96
88
92
93

103
99

96
80
75
81
79
71
99
76
72
72

Areas with 250,000 but less than
1,000,000 inhabitants:
Beaumont-Port A rthur___
Birmingham____ ____ ____
Chattanooga.........................
Fort Worth......... ..................
Jacksonville...... ............. ......
Louisville_______________
Memphis________________
M iami._____ ___________
New Orleans_________ . . .
Norfolk-Portsmouth and
Newport News-Hampton.
Richmond__ I ___________

86
95
87
103
92
87
97

94
90
96
83

91
95

80
79
78
64

83
86

72

66
67

83
85
86
98

83

70
68
67
77

Areas with less than 250,000
inhabitants:
Greenville_______________
Little Rock-North Little
Rock_______________ .
Savannah_______________

98

1 M an u factu rin g , p u b lic u tilitie s , w holesale tra d e , re ta il tra d e , fin an ce,
a n d selected services.

Source : Wages and, Related Benefits, Part II: Metropolitan Areas, United
States and Regional Summaries, 1965-66 (B L S B u lle tin 1465-86, 1967),
ta b le 1, p p . 66-67.

in 1919 as compared with 1907, but the Southern
wage position deteriorated appreciably between
1919 and 1931-32. The most reasonable explana­
tion is that wage reductions during the recession
following World W ar I or in the early years of the
great depression of the 1930’s were relatively
larger in the South than elsewhere. By 1945^6,
the relative wage position of 1919 had been re­
stored. Minimum wage provisions in NRA codes
of fair competition and minimum rates under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had heavier
effect on wages in the South than elsewhere.18
Probably of greater importance was the full em18
H. M. Douty, “Recovery and the Southern Wage Differential,”
Southern Economic Journal, January 1938, pp. 314-321; and
“Some Effects of Wage Orders Under the Fair Labor Standards
Act,” American Labor Legislation Review, December 1942, pp.
171-175.
18 Victor R. Fuchs and Richard Perlman, “Recent Trends in
Southern Wage Differentials,” Review of Economics and S tatis­
tics, August 1960, pp. 292-300.
30 Wages and Related Benefits, P art II: Metropolitan Areas,
United States and Regional Summaries, 1965—66 (BLS Bulletin
1465-86, 1967), table 3, p. 74.


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

79

ployment of the war years, a wartime wage stabili­
zation policy that made special provision for the
adjustment of “substandard” wages, and an up­
surge of union organization.
Using Census of Manufactures data, Fuchs and
Perlman constructed various measures of average
wages for two Southern regions relative to the
national level for three periods: 1929, 1947, and
1954.19 Their general conclusion is that the South
improved its relative positive between 1929 and
1947, the interval including World War II, but
that there was comparatively little change between
1947 and 1954.
For the period since 1954, several types of data
on the movement of wages suggest that the gross
differential remains little changed. Thus, between
1954 and 1966, average hourly earnings in the
South in manufacturing, as measured by BLS
data, increased by 53.5 percent, as compared with
an increase of 52.2 percent for the United States
as a whole. For the shorter period 1960-66, the
average salaries of office clerical workers for a
broad spectrum of industries increased by 21.3 per­
cent in Southern metropolitan areas; the increase
for all metropolitan areas was 19.7 percent. For
skilled maintenance occupations, increases in the
South and the United States were practically
identical (19.8 percent and 19.7 percent, respec­
tively) , and for unskilled plant occupations virtu­
ally so (20.7 percent and 21.0 percent, respec­
tively) .20
The Long-Term Outlook
In a competitive system, interregional move­
ments of resources should tend to eliminate differ­
ential returns to labor for similar work. Even in
a static economy, the required resource movements
would not be instantaneous. An initial position
of severe disequilibrium, such as existed between
the South and the remainder of the country after
the Civil War, presents a time dimension of for­
midable proportions for its correction. The per­
sistence of a sizable Southern wage differential
over many decades suggests the existence, in ad­
dition to the usual obstacles to resource mobility,
of dynamic forces inhibiting its removal.
Labor and capital movements between the South
and the rest of the country have been in the an­
ticipated directions. Net population migration, as
shown earlier in this article, has been substantial,

80

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

although the movement was reversed during the
first half of the 1960’s.21At the same time, industry
has been growing more rapidly in the South than
elsewhere. The postwar record of industrial
growth in the South, as shown in table 3 in terms
of nonagricultural employment, is impressive. For
all industry sectors combined, employment in the
South rose by 75 percent between 1947 and 1966,
as compared with a 38-percent gain elsewhere in
the Nation. In manufacturing, the increase was
fully 62 percent in the South, but only about 15
percent elsewhere. In all other industry divisions,
the relative increase in employment was substan­
tially greater (or, in the case of mining, the de­
crease was less) in the South than in the remainder
of the country.
An analysis of postwar changes in the pattern
of nonfarm employment suggests that differences
in industrial composition between the South and
the remainder of the country were reduced during
this period.22 In the critical manufacturing sector,
the dramatic postwar growth in the South was
largely outside of the historic Southern indus­
tries—textiles, tobacco, lumber, and furniture. In
fact, employment in these four industries as a
group declined between 1947 and 1966. Employ­
ment in apparel manufacture, a labor-intensive
industry, grew very substantially, but there was
also significant expansion in chemicals, paper, fabT a b l e 3. N o n a g r ic u ltur a l P ayroll E m ploym ent *
S ou th 1 a nd R e m a in d e r of U n ited S t a t e s , by
M ajor I n d u str y D iv is io n , 194 7 -6 6
Employment
(in thousands)
Industry division

Total________
Manufacturing__
Mining.
Contract construetion___________ .
Transportation and
public utilities____
Wholesale and retail
trade_________
Finance, insurance,
and real estate____
Services and miscellaneous________
Government______

South 1

Percentage
change 1947-66

Remainder of
United States

South i

Remain­
der of
States

1947

1966

1947

1966

8,695

15, 225

35,186

48, 639

75.1

38.2

2, 558
313

4,146
292

12,987
642

14,935
336

62.1
-6 .7

15.0
-47.7

498

1,002

1,484

2,279

101.2

53.6

869

996

3,297

3,141

14.6

-4 .7

1,883

3,264

7,072

956

73.3

40.8

264

688

1, 490

2,398

160.6

60.9

1,016
1, 294

2,043
2,794

4,034
4,180

7,539
8,056

101.1
115.9

86.9
92.7

1 South includes 13 States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ken­
tucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina.
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Source : Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, and
cooperating State agencies.


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

ricated metal products, electrical and nonelectrical
machinery, and transportation equipment. Al­
though the industrial base of the South broadened
considerably during the postwar period, its com­
position continues to differ appreciably from that
in the remainder of the country.
Offsetting Factors
Apparently the combined effect of postwar net
migration and capital inflow, the latter reflected
in a relatively rapid growth in Southern nonagri­
cultural employment, was to leave the wage differ­
ential between the South and elsewhere at ap­
proximately its relative level at the end of World
War II. There was, in a sense, a stalemate. Forces
calculated to reduce the differential were offset by
contrary forces. In particular, labor force migra­
tion to higher paying areas has been offset by a
higher natural rate of population increase in the
South and by a heavy flow of largely unskilled
labor out of an increasingly mechanized agricul­
ture into urban employments.
It is unlikely that the Southern wage differen­
tial, however measured, will disappear in the near
future. There will be no sudden alteration in the
nature of the Southern labor market. BLS pro­
jections to 1980 suggest that the labor force in the
South, allowing for migration, will grow at a more
rapid rate than in the remainder of the country.
In the South, the estimated increase is 25.4 per­
cent between 1960 and 1970 and 19.3 percent for
the 1970-1980 period ; the corresponding percent­
ages for the remainder of the country are 20.6
and 17.5.23 Thus, the projected Southern rate will
21 Actually, for the South as here defined, there was net inmigration during the latter half of the 1950’s but this reflected
a heavy movement of population to Florida. If Florida is omitted,
the net total population loss for the remainder of the South
through migration was about 600,000 persons, and the loss for
the decade as a whole, as shown earlier, was very substantial
even with Florida included. The first half of the 1960’s is a
somewhat different story and perhaps significant. In terms of
civilian population, the South gained about 732,000 persons
through migration. If Florida is omitted, the gain for the rest of
the region was 208,000. This is small but positive. Aside from
Florida, States gaining population through inmigration included
Maryland, Virginia, Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas ; States ex­
periencing net outmigration included West Virginia, South Caro­
lina, Kentucky, and Mississippi.
w See also Lowell D. Ashby, “The Geographic Redistribution of
Employment: An Examination of the Elements of Change,”
Survey of Current Business, October 1964, pp. 13-20.
23 Computed from Denis F. Johnston and George R. Methee,
“Labor Force Projections by State, 1970 and 1980,” Monthly
Labor Review, October 1966, pp. 1096-1104, 114»-1175.

WAGE DIFFERENTIALS: FORCES AND COUNTERFOROES

move closer to the rate elsewhere during the 1970’s.
As the South becomes increasingly urban, demo­
graphic factors should become less powerful in the
perpetuation of wage differentials.
Other changes will occur. The relative growth
of capital should continue. As shown earlier, the
Southern industrial base has widened and thus
presents a broader platform for growth than in
the past. Although the region will continue to
attract industries that are labor-intensive, and for
which most jobs require short training periods,
increasing diversification should occur. Collective
bargaining, although by no means absent in the
South, will probably become more important as
a labor market institution. The contemporary
emphasis on education and training—investment
in people, which is one form of capital growth—
should result in improvements in the quality of
the labor force. Although this will affect both races,
it should particularly assist in better utilization
24 J. R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages (New York, Macmillan Co.,
1932), p. 74.


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

81

of the Negro segment of the labor force. Federal
minimum wage standards, now that employee
coverage has become more nearly universal, may
have greater long-term effect on regional wage
relationships than in the past.
These are some of the factors that underlie a
reasonably optimistic view of an eventual closing
of the wage gap between the South and other parts
of the country for similar work. However, a
wage differential—more precisely, a structure of
differentials—has existed for a long time, and the
corrective forces work slowly.
Even if wage differentials for similar work are
eliminated, regional differences in industry mix
will tend to produce a lower average wage in the
South than elsewhere. Moreover, even with perfect
mobility of resources, some differences in regional
wage levels for comparable work might continue
to exist. They might be due, as Hicks has observed,
to regional differences in living costs, to the in­
direct attractions, such as climate, of living in one
locality rather than another, or to differences in
efficiency.24

Discrimination,
Integration,
and
Job
Equality
E m ory F. V ia

Job in teg ra tio n w ill w ork w here labor,
m anagem ent, and governm ent cooperate
to m ake it work.
J a c k s o n worked in Natchez; he was a
family man, civil rights and union activist, rubber
worker, Negro. Jackson recently had been pro­
moted to a “white” job. On February 27, 1967,
when he started his car, a bomb exploded, killing
him.
In Spartanburg, a Negro man shouted to a
white personnel director: “Why do they have to be
able to write? Those jobs are low level, you don’t
need to know anything, not even to read and
write.” The response: “In our plant we communi­
cate in writing, bulletin boards, signs, and so
forth.” The setting was a meeting sponsored by
the State Advisory Committee to the Civil Rights
Commission on job opportunities in the Piedmont
in December 1967.
In Arkansas, more than 15 Negro workers filed
suit against their employer and their union, alleg­
ing they had been discriminated against in promo­
tions and training. Individually, they had served
the company from 15 years upward. Behind the
guarded legalisms of company and union denials
lay an ominous reality—technological changes
W

h a k l e s t

82


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

were reducing job opportunities for all, but espe­
cially for those without skills.
In a Georgia city, a craft union that had never
had Negro members locally, and very few else­
where, admitted three Negroes. Another craft,
that had a national reputation for excluding
Negroes from apprenticeship, had accepted its
first black applicant.
In a number of Southern cities—Memphis, A t­
lanta, Richmond, Birmingham, and smaller ones
as well—Negroes are working at jobs held only
by whites in the past. There is no special friction.
In a few cases, nearly complete integration of em­
ployment and facilities has been a fact for many
years.
These incidents are but a suggestive cross sec­
tion of employment desegregation experiences in
the South which hardly do justice to the diversity
encountered, much less to the complexity of prob­
lems which arise. These experiences speak of con­
frontation and learning, frustration and despair,
resistance and violence, need and tragedy, prog­
ress and hope. But a total view can only give
Negro workers cause to lament the slow pace of
change. The speed of change, of course, is tied
inextricably to the perspective of the observer.
I t is not surprising, then, that white and Negro
Southerners usually disagree as to how rapidly
their society is accommodating to demands for
abandoning old ways. This disagreement is an
added element of tension in the efforts to secure
fully open employment opportunities.
Racial and regional occupational data show im­
provement in the position of Negroes. Neverthe­
less, the proportion of Negroes in better occupa­
tions is quite small. In any event, data showing
Negroes in higher status positions are not in them­
selves indicators of job desegregation, in that they
include substantial numbers who work in com­
pletely segregated situations. Data summarized
in table 1 support the contention that Negroes do
in fact hold new and better jobs, at the same time
that they iterate the disproportion of Whites in
most types of employment. (Interestingly, table 2
shows that the region’s cities, compared with
others, are not at the bottom of every category;
however, the proportion of Negroes in the popula­
tion may account for this.)
Metropolitan area figures suggest that job op­
portunities for minorities are greater in large ur-

DISCRIMINATION, INTEGRATION, AND JOB EQUALITY
T a ble 1.

N egro -W h ite E m ploym ent

in

83

10 I n d u st r y G r o u ps

in

the

S o uth ,1 1966

Negro

Industry group

Textiles_______________________________
Transportation________________________
Apparel and related products........................
Chemical and petroleum products.................
Food and kindred products............................
Electronics..................................... ........ ..........
Transportation equipment______ ______ _
Medical services______________ ____ _____
Paper and allied products____________ ___
Furniture and fixtures2...................................

White

Number of Number of
White-collar workers
Skilled workers
Whiteestablish­ employees
collar,
ments
(in thou­ As percent
as percent
of all
As percent As percent As percent As percent
reporting
sands)
of all
employees
of all
of all
of all
of all
white
white-collar
Negro
skilled
Negro
workers
workers
workers
workers
workers
1,432
2,161
1,050
1,063
1,653
387
317
464
435
430

587
349
308
299
250
230
213
158
133
115

8.9
15.6
9.0
9.3
23.2
4.1
6.9
26.7
12.5
17.6

0.7
.7
1.7
.7
2.3
1.0
1.0
8.9
.6
1.2

1.0
1.4
1.5
2.9
3.0
5.6
3.2
18.9
1.0
.7

2.3
3.4
7.3
2.1
13.8
2.3
6.5
13.3
3.2
8.4

4.2
4.8
13.2
5.5
5.6
4.3
17.0
.8
5.6
10.0

14.4
35.5
8.4
39.5
37.8
24.2
34.9
56.4
23.8
12.2

Skilled,
as percent
of all
white
workers

17.4
25.8
16.7
26.7
10.7
7.6
27.6
1.7
23.8
23.2

1 Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
2 Louisiana is not included in the “furniture and fixture” data.

Source : Data assembled by Dr. Carl Akins for the Southern Regional
Council, Inc., from information, reported January 1966 to the Joint Re­
porting Committee (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office
of Federal Contract Compliance, and the Plans for Progress) and made
available through the Office of Research and Reports of EEOC.

ban areas. In the textile industry in Atlanta, for
example, Negroes made up 12.9 percent of the total
employment1 as against 8.6 percent in the Caro­
linas.2 But population proportions may be a factor
here. In white-collar employment, the difference
was between 1.9 percent for Atlanta and 0.6 per­
cent for the Carolinas. In the craftsmen category,
the Carolinas (2.3 percent) edged out Atlanta
(2.1 percent). These figures, for an industry group,
on percentages of Negroes in given job classes give
a more accurate picture of job desegregation than
do occupational group data.

Reliable surveys of worker attitudes toward job
equality are difficult to come by, although there is
a wealth of anecdotal material and the experience
of particular places of work that can be reviewed.
Clearly, however, the stereotype of white workers
resisting job desegregation is inaccurate. There are
numerous situations where Negroes and whites
work amicably together, and there are repeated
instances of on-the-job mutual help. Negro and
white workers can have confidence in each other
as craftsmen and fellow workers and personal re­
spect for one another. I t is senseless to deny the
presence of resistance to job claims by Negroes,
but it is a mistake to focus exclusively on such
responses.
Among Negro workers, four major responses
to the possibility of job opportunities can be de­
lineated, although these are not entirely discrete.
First, there are activists with fairly specific, im­
mediate demands to make. This group includes
doctrinaires, bargainers, and those who seek to en­
force the law. Those in the second group know that
there are new rights in effect but are vague as to
their content and sporadic in efforts to claim them.
A third group is deeply cynical about whether or
not the social system will produce for them. They
are likely to be overtly antiwhite and antisystem.
The fourth group is composed of those who are
simply without hope; their “responses” are largely
dormant. Changed conditions (the facts of eco­
nomic life, organizational influences, leadership)
might lead to their joining any of the preceding
three groups.

Worker Attitudes
Because white-black perceptions of each other
are crucial to the formulation of policy, what
should be obvious perhaps needs notation: whites
and Negroes perceive the plight of Negroes quite
differently. In general, Negroes feel that discrim­
ination is pervasive and racial. Whites are inclined
to think that discrimination is not very severe, and
that it is not racial, but results from the failure of
Negroes to meet standards—that is, from personal
failings of low motivation, irresponsibility, or lack
of ability. Prejudice being what it is, these criti­
cisms frequently are not limited to individuals but
are put forth as group characteristics.
1 Nine City M inority Croup Employment Profile (Washington,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1967), p. 5.
2 Phyllis A. Wallace and Maria P. Beckles, 1966 Employment
Survey in the Textile Industry of the Oarolinas (Washington,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1966).


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

84
Confronted with Negroes coming into new jobs,
whites may respond in perhaps several ways (here,
too, the categories are not discrete) : (a) I t’s all
right by me ; (b) “they” have to work, too ; (c) it’s
the law or company policy; (d) Negroes should
not get favored treatment (a general response with
special meaning where there are competing
rights) ; (e) “my” job will become less desirable
(which may distinguish between the proximity of
Negroes in the workplace and their occupying the
same status) ; and (f ) resistance. Except in the last
case these reactions imply that job desegregation
would be accepted, although in some instances in­
dividual whites in category (e) might seek em­
ployment elsewhere.
These reactions suggest that in most employ­
ment situations job integration can be made to
work. Southern experience to date confirms this
is so but points dramatically to the need for a firm
management stand in implementing nondiscriminatory policies. The degree of job desegregation in
the apparel industry, more recently in textiles, in
auto and farm-implement manufacturing, in aero­
space, and in the tobacco industry attest over­
whelmingly that job desegregation can take place
peacefully. None of these industries as a whole,
and few individual plants, are fully integrated.
However, with the exception of the problem of re­
solving competing job rights, the process of de­
segregation has been peaceful when management
was firm. A few years ago, there were disruptive
incidents over job integration in the Memphis in­
stallation of International Harvester, an early
equal opportunity employer; even with such inci­
dents a cleat, enforced management policy, backed
by the union, led to job desegregation.8The amount
of difficulty experienced at Harvester does not
compare with the more recent troubles in Bogalusa
where another firm’s uncertain policies and the
union’s negativism contributed to the unrest and
violence that erupted among workers and in the
community.4
There is little doubt that in the South, as in the
the rest of the Nation, there are two crucial effec­
tive forces in job desegregation. One is a strong
Government posture on job rights which prods
companies to act and provides them with protec­
tive coloring in facing possible hostility from the
community or work force. The second is a clear-cut,
firmly adhered-to management policy of employ-


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able 2.

N egro E mployment by J ob Class
Cities ,1 1966

City

A tlanta...............
New Orleans___
Chicago_______
Cleveland_____
Kansas City___
Los Angeles____
New Y o rk .........
San Francisco__
Washington,
D .C ..................

in

N ine

Negro employment as per­
cent of—
Total
Percent
reported
of Negro
employment
Blue-collar
white-collar
(In
T otal White- employment
employees
thousands)
em­ collar
classified as
ploy­ em ­
low-paid 2
ment ploy­ Crafts­ Others
ment men
221
146
1,305
382
206
1,036
1,466
409

15.2
20.1
13.5
11.2
8.9
6. 9
10.0
8.0

2.3
3.0
4.7
3.2
2.1
2.8
5.7
3.0

R4
10.2
7.1
5.0
5.3
4.1
5.8
4.5

33.8
44.8
24.7
21.5
17.6
14.5
22.3
17.7

83. 0
61. 0
79. 6
64.3
69.0
64.1
76.5
72.4

265

22.0

8.4

10.7

51.9

67.2

1 The data are by Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and from re­
porting employers only.
2 As classified without definition by EEOC. (See source.)
Soubce : Nine City Minority Group Employment Profile. (Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research and Reports, August 6,
1967).

ment equality, which will carry the day with em­
ployees in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Social Structures
New definitions of discrimination have come
with the realization that many parts of the social
system contribute to the unequal placement of peo­
ple in jobs. Educational attainment is simply a
case in point. Conversely, without job equality, the
individual’s efforts to overcome other social dis­
criminations are made doubly difficult.
In the area of job desegregation, employer per­
sonnel practices are only one part of the problem.
Educational opportunity, training programs, in­
dustrial development and job creation, job place­
ment services, urban and regional planning, zoning
ordinances, transportation systems, technological
advances, changing occupational structures, and
worker mobility are among those factors relevant
to the discussion. Workers without the requisite
skills cannot hold jobs requiring these skills, no
matter how “equal” the opportunity to be hired.
Workers who cannot get to suburban industrial
parks, cannot move from rural to urban areas, or
cannot move to another region are blocked from
a John Hope II, “Negro Employment In Three Southern Plants
of International Harvester Company,” Selected Studies of Negro
Employment in the South (Washington, National Planning Asso­
ciation, Committee of the South, 1955).
4 vera Rony, “Bogalusa: The Economics of Tragedy,” Dissent,
May-June 1966, pp. 234-242.

DISCRIMINATION, INTEGRATION, AND JOB EQUALITY

jobs so located. Workers who do not know where
to apply for work or how to use socially provided
services for finding jobs, or who are treated un­
fairly by those services, will not find jobs. And the
story goes on.
The Federal Example
The pattern of employment of Negroes in the
Federal Government is similar to that in the pri­
vate sector, although there has been improvement.
Overwhelmingly, Negroes are in the lower grades;
in the lowest grades the proportion of Negroes
exceeds their proportion in the population at
large. In the higher grades the drop-off is severe.
In Georgia, in 1966, 16.6 percent of Federal
employees were Negroes (for other States, see
table 3), but of the general schedule (white-collar,
GS-1 through -18) employees only 4.7 percent
were Negro. Negroes constituted only 3 percent and
1.1 percent of the positions in GS-5 to -8 and
GS-9 to -11, respectively.
Negroes held 30.5 percent of the 21,283 wage
board (blue-collar) jobs, but half the Negro work­
ers were below the $4,500 level and all but 73 were
under $6,500. Although 25 percent of postal field
service employees were Negro, they were heavily
concentrated in grades PFS-1 to -4. Only 187
Negroes were above grade PFS-4, compared with
a total employment in such grades of 2,148. NeT a b le 3.

N egro F e d e r a l E m p l o y m e n t 1 in 11
e r n S t a t e s , b y P ay C a teg o r y , 1966

S outh ­

Negroes as percent ofState

Alabama _________
Arkansas_________
Florida___________
Georgia___________
Louisiana_____
Mississipi_________
North C arolina___
South Carolina____
Tennessee_________
Texas____________
Virginia__________

Reported
Federal
Federal
employ­
All
GS-1 Wage Postal employ­
ment 1 employ­ through Board Field
ment
ees
GS-18
Service
in
SMSA 2
57,489
14,432
54,069
66,637
23,595
16,886
29,903
23,851
37,576
131, 657
102,735

11.6
9.8
8.4
16.6
19.0
10.7
14.9
16.7
13.1
8.4
21.4

5.9
5.0
2.2
4.7
7.5
3.2
7.2
4.2
5.6
3.8
10.9

20.6
28.9
18.4
30.5
31.6
34.2
33.2
32.5
21.1
12.8
39.9

13.7
4.6
8.5
25.5
29.5
5.0
10.1
8.2
14.9
12.7
21.2

19.4
14.7
9.8
21.2
28.0
12.9
19.4
22.7
27.2
20.3
27.9

1 Data derived by Civil Service Commission from employee self-identi­
fication reports to the employing agency. Reported employment ranged,
by States, between 88.7 and 97.3 percent of actual total employment.
2 Federal employment for largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
m each State except in N orth Carolina, where Greensboro-High Point was
used because Charlotte was unreported.
^ udy °f Minority Group Employment in the Federal Government’
1966 (TJ.S. Civil Service Commission, 1967).


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

85

groes held 11.2 percent of the PFS-5 to -8 jobs,
but only 8 of 353 PFS-9 to -11 jobs and none of
the 203 jobs above PFS-11.
Most (66 percent) of the improvement from
1965 to 1966 in the number, and much of the im­
provement in the quality, of jobs held by Negroes
in Georgia occurred in the Atlanta area.5
The States differ in certain particulars of Fed­
eral employment. These differences seem to relate
to the character of the Government installations,
to the date when programs were established, and
to social and political factors within the States.
The general trend is for the greatest gains to be
in the urban centers. (See table 3.)
State and Local Programs
Certain Southern State and municipal efforts,
together with management-sponsored job desegre­
gation programs, hold a degree of promise though
it is difficult to generalize. A frequent impetus to
their formation is an interest in economic develop­
ment. An important secondary consideration, and
in public programs it can be of first rank, is a
response to changing political realities. Some pro­
grams have been basically public relations efforts
to assuage demands, others have focused on token
hiring, and a few have made serious attempts to
bring about general desegregation in the employ­
ment situation involved.
Two Southern States, Florida and Texas, and
several municipalities have adopted measures for­
bidding discrimination in employment by public
agencies. Experience to date is too limited to war­
rant an evaluation. The important point for now
is that government units in the South have of­
ficially recognized the problem. And in Tennessee,
an active drive to bring Negroes into State em­
ployment was undertaken through the governor’s
office.
Some State agencies significantly affect minor­
ity employment though it is not their primary
interest. Until recently, State employment services
in the South have not been vigorous in efforts to
place Negroes, even when special programs have
5
The data in thia section are taken or computed from Study of
Minority Group Employment in the Federal Government, 1966
(U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1967). Comparing 1985 to 1066
presents difficulties because the method of identifying Negro em­
ployees was changed in 1088*

86

been available to them to promote the employment
of minority group members. On the other hand,
some current efforts are encouraging. For example,
in Charlotte, N.C. full-time job interviewers were
located in neighborhood centers for an extended
trial period; coming out of this experiment has
been a program of regular weekly counseling serv­
ices in the centers. Because of the location, a pri­
marily Negro clientele is reached. Other States
have had similar projects as well as other spe­
cialized programs likely to make efforts to reach
all workers more realistic. These activities mark
a substantial change from the recent past when
some employment offices had not yet eliminated
such basic discrimination as segregated seating
facilities.
A Growing Awareness
New policies and programs encouraged by the
Department of Labor have melded with local pres­
sures and a developing awareness of the dimen­
sions of their responsibilities by State and local
employment officials to bring the above changes
about. More needs to be done. However, it seems
likely that the elimination of discrimination in
industry and government, when coupled with the
wide variety of recruitment, placement, and train­
ing projects which have involved the employment
services, will lead to those services coming more
fully into their own as effective manpower
agencies.
The South Carolina Technical Education Com­
mittee (TEC), with a broad mandate for job de­
velopment and training, is another case of a State
agency indirectly affecting job equality. Although
its higher training programs seem to have few
Negroes in them, at least one local center makes
a concerted effort to recruit Negro trainees. Sev­
eral South Carolina agencies, including the Em­
ployment Security Commission, the vocational
schools, and TEC, have combined to offer a wide
range of job training through Manpower Develop­
ment and Training Assistance programs. I t is un­
certain whether Negroes will benefit by these ef­
forts to the same degree as whites. Even if there
is less overt discrimination, Negroes remain at a
disadvantage because they have less education, are
outside the mainstream of information, and do
not know whether to believe that new opportuni­
ties are available.

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

There are a number of management-backed pro­
grams which could have a salutary effect on Negro
employment opportunities. Nationally, the pro­
gram receiving the greatest attention is Plans for
Progress, which operates with Federal encourage­
ment. It and other efforts have utility insofar as
they encourage more positive thinking about em­
ployment desegregation, provide advice and re­
sources to local managements, and focus attention
on achieving results. Through Plans for Progress
urging, Merit Employment Councils are orga­
nized to lend emphasis to equal opportunity pro­
grams on the local level. Except where such efforts
are self-deluding, they can offer a potentially use­
ful forum for exchange of ideas and mutual en­
couragement. Their practical impact in the South
to date, however, seems to be quite small..
Managements, of course, vary considerably in
their efforts to introduce Negroes into new jobs.
The variations arise from the extent of pressures
for change, managerial perceptiveness and inter­
est, and the rate of job turnover or expansion.
Some companies are satisfied if they hire Negroes
in the lowest jobs, others settle for a current policy
of fair treatment if and when a Negro seeks em­
ployment. Still others attempt to upgrade Negroes
already in the work force or seek to put Negroes
in supervisory positions. The latter has been done
in a limited number of situations where Negroes
supervise racially mixed work groups.
In South Carolina, a synthetic-textile manufac­
turer sought Negro clerical workers. Finding that
the local high school business course graduates
were ill equipped to meet its standards, the com­
pany arranged for an extended training program
outside the State for 15 young Negro women, all
of whom were offered employment with the com­
pany. Special efforts of this sort undoubtedly will
have to be repeated many times over if the linger­
ing effects of past discrimination are to be re­
duced.6
Private organizations of many hues have long
been in the forefront of efforts to improve employ­
ment opportunities for Negroes. With the advent
of new Federal manpower and antidiscrimination
legislation, however, the role of the private agency
has changed. Some are continuing attempts to get
voluntary job desegregation, especially in situa­
tions where the law does not apply. Other agencies
6
This section in no way pretends to be a survey of all pro­
grams. There are many others which may be more effective than
those mentioned.

DISCRIMINATION, INTEGRATION, AND JOB EQUALITY

such as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund respond to the need for assist­
ance in processing claims and litigation on behalf
of complainants trying to exercise their new
rights. Organizations like Operation Breadbasket
have sought change through local pressures, while
others such as the Urban League tie in with train­
ing and placement programs. As in any social
movement, these private groups can often achieve
breakthroughs which would not otherwise occur:
experience is gained, new avenues developed, and
the application of law refined. The total number
of new placements, however, remains, necessarily,
small.
Two programs demonstrate a different role for
voluntary organizations. In South Carolina six
agencies are cooperating to alter patterns in tex­
tile employment with efforts geared to new
programs under the auspices of the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission and the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance.7 These agencies
hope to assist in developing affirmative action by
employers and to motivate and recruit Negro
workers. A longer run objective of the project is
to strengthen community groups to the point
where they can monitor public programs to insure
that those institutions—local, State, and Federal—
which should assume responsibility, do so. A proj­
ect director is working in selected c o u n tie s where
textile employment and Negro population are rela­
tively high. Information about job rights and
openings is distributed among Negroes in the com­
munity. Personal contact is made by indigenous
leaders, with community organization support
coming from the director and cooperating local
groups. The six agency representatives form an
executive committee to oversee field operations and
to cooperate with and encourage Federal agency
programs wherever appropriate.
In the second program, several agencies are try­
ing to increase interest in skilled trades training
for Negroes in the Atlanta area.8 One result has
been a federally assisted project operated by the
Urban League in cooperation with building trades
unions to motivate, recruit, and provide preap­
prentice training for Negro youths. Although
there had been no open confrontation between civil
rights groups and the unions, formal complaints,
litigation, or local pressure were always possibili­
ties. Undoubtedly, this approach, already tested
elsewhere, with Labor Department interest and

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

87

recent pronouncements from the Building and
Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO)
about its interest in minority employment, will
receive increased attention in other situations.
Mexican Americans
In the South, persons with Spanish surnames
are found primarily in Florida and Texas. They,
too, suffer from employment discrimination. In
general, the patterns of employment are similar
to those found for Negroes—a disproportionate
concentration in lower paid jobs, with relatively
few job holders in better positions. However, Mex­
ican Americans, as a rule, are not nearly so unfa­
vorably situated as are Negroes. (See table 4.)
An important recent study, indeed, indicates
that Mexican Americans surpass Negroes in in­
come and job status even when their education
is less.9But this position relative to Negroes should
not block recognition of the disadvantaged posi­
tion Mexican Americans hold vis-a-vis Anglos.10
In the study just mentioned it is estimated that
Mexican-American income, where educational at­
tainment is similar, is only 60 to 80 percent of
Anglo income.11 Also, it should not be forgotten
that Mexican Americans share with Negroes many
of the most onerous, and least remunerative, jobs
in the land, including migrant farm work. As in
the case of Negro employment, educational attain-

7 The agencies are the Southern office of the National Urban
League, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the
Southern office of the AEL-CIO’s Civil Rights Department, the
Southern Rural Action Project, Penn Community Services, and
the Southern Regional Council. The organization they have
formed is Textile Employment Advancement for Minorities
(TEAM).
8 Representatives from the NAACP, the Urban League, the
American Friends Service Committee, the Atlanta and Georgia
Councils on Human Relations, Operation Breadbasket, the AFLCIO Civil Rights Department’s Southern office, and the Southern
Regional Council along with individual faculty members from
Clark and Morehouse Colleges took part in the deliberations.
Regional staff from the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
the EEOC, though not a party to policy determinations, played a
constructive role in discussions.
9 Walter Fogel, Mexican Americans in Southwest Labor Markets
(preliminary and subject to revision), Mexican-American Study
Project (Los Angeles, Graduate School of Business Administra­
tion, University of California, 1967), Advance Report No. 10,
pp. 171-176. Fogel recognizes the difficulty in comparing quality
of education. His study covered Arizona, California, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas.
“ There is no precise definition for this term as used in the
Southwest. Generally, all white, English-speaking persons are
included.
“ Ibid., p. 191.

88

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T a b l e 4. N egro a n d S p a n is h -S tjrname W o r k e r s ,
I n d u st r y G r o u p , in S elec ted S t a t e s ,1 1966
Negro workers as a
percent of—
Industry group

by

Spanish-surname
workers as a percent
of—

All WhiteAU Whitework­ collar Skilled work­ collar Skilled
work­ workers
ers work­ workers ers
ers
ers

Textiles2________________
Transportation__________
Apparel _______________
Chemical and petroleum
products3_____________
Food and kindred
products _____________
Electronics______________
Medical services__________
Paper and allied products..
Furniture and fixtures____

8.5'
12.2
6.9

0.7
.6
2.2

3.1
3.4
2.5

16.1
8.0
30.2

4.4
4.7
12.9

37.2
7.5
311

6.2

.5

1.2

2.0

.7

1.2

15.6
3.9
22.2
10.1
10.1

1.7
.7
9.1
.4
.3

9.7
1.5
11.2
3.1
2.9

16.0
2.2
10.1
2.6
22.4

5.3
.8
7.3
.7
3.3

12.0
2.5
9.8
1.6
21.6

1 Except as indicated, the States are Florida and Texas.
2 Includes Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.
3 Includes Texas only.
Source : See table 1.

ment is part of the cause of low job status for
Mexican Americans. However, their concentration
in lower job classes and their inequitable position
relative to similarly situated Anglos tend to
confirm that they suffer from job discrimination.
The Role of Unions
Unions deservedly receive special attention in
any discussion of job integration, not because of
the frequently publicized shortcomings of some,
but because of the special place unions occupy in
economic and social life. In the South, union sig­
nificance arises from their identification with par­
ticular jobs and from their being almost the only
organized voice of workers. Unions have been
predominantly white, but their actions have been
modified and affected by Negro members, as well
as by the national policies of the labor movement.
Union activity has been of special significance
to minority job claims in three ways. First, in some
construction trades, Negroes have been excluded
from all or better employment. A variety of legal
u In most situations unions are not a party to hiring.
Ray Marshall, The Negro and Organized Labor (New York,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 145 and 185; Vera Rony, op.
dt., pp. 234-242. The tobacco case has been before the President’s
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and its successor,
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, for several years. For
a discussion of the intricades of seniority problems, see Peter
B. Doeringer, “Promotion Systems and Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity,” Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual W inter Meeting
(San Francisco, Industrial Relations Research Association,
1966), pp. 278—289; “Title VII, Seniority Discrimination, and
the Incumbent Negro,” Harvard Lem Review, April 1967, pp.
1260—1283); James E. Youngdahl, “Equality v. Seniority,” Trial,
February-March 1967, pp. 24, 27.


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

approaches are bearing fruit in remedying this
matter. In a number of cases craft unions have
joined with other groups, such as in the Atlanta
project mentioned earlier, to place their own
houses in order. Second, the contractual relation
with management prescribes conditions of job
placement and advancement.12Although these pre­
scriptions can operate to the benefit of Negro em­
ployees, the reverse may be, and often has been,
the case. The dual seniority system is a well-pub­
licized case in point. Such a system typically re­
stricts Negroes to one, or few, entry job classes or
departments; promotion from those jobs is simi­
larly limited. Whites, theoretically, may move to
all other jobs in the plant or to a wide range of
jobs in a diversified department. Discriminatory
seniority systems have existed in the steel industry
in Atlanta and Birmingham, in the tobacco indus­
try of North Carolina and Virginia, in the petro­
chemical industry of Louisiana and Texas, in the
paper industry in Louisiana, and elsewhere. Many
of the issues raised are now being resolved, but the
process has been a slow one. Third, the unions’
work in the field of racial relations generally may
also affect jobs because of its impact on member,
management, and community attitudes.
The Slow Pace of Change
The availability of jobs is a key to Negro eco­
nomic opportunity. There need to be enough jobs
and, to some realistic degree, they must match
current manpower resources. But this kind of eco­
nomic improvement cannot be directly equated
with job desegregation. Moreover, important as
economic expansion is to poor whites and Negroes,
it is a serious mistake to think that the relative
position of Negroes can be improved only through
that means. Much can be done under existing eco­
nomic conditions and legislation. Indeed, if it is
not done, economic expansion may mean for Ne­
groes little more than it has in the past—the
chance to occupy new jobs, but still at the bottom
of the economic ladder.
The current statistics of employment desegrega­
tion in the South are not encouraging. There are
signs of hope in that some Southerners are mov­
ing toward acceptance of change. There are inci­
dents of decency and expressed desires for a better
society.

DISCRIMINATION, INTEGRATION, AND JOB EQUALITY

But workers, Negro or white, have little op­
portunity to think through the life-situations in
which they are cast. That so little is done to build
understanding of each other and of an equal
society is a great tragedy. That it can be done is
attested by the positive response to numerous
union educational activities. And there is a record
of constructive acts by organized Southern work­
ers, which challenge prevailing stereotypes. Who
would have believed that an Alabama local labor
council would endorse the Federal guidelines for
school desegregation ? Or that in Arkansas delta
towns, white workers would meet with Negro ac­
tivists to have a look at each other, air complaints,
and talk of common problems, this too under union
auspices ?
The Federal Government plays a crucial role in
the South. Within the Federal establishment, and
agencies to which it gives succor, changes are also
needed to achieve employment fairness. The in­
stitutional problem of reorienting executors of old
policies and professionally pulling them away
from prejudice must be attacked both widely and
in depth.
The failure of individual officials to understand
their new role, or to break away from personal
prejudice, arises again and again. In recent years
an official responsible for reviewing Federal con­
tractors to secure compliance with equal oppor­
tunity requirements needed an assistant. Ironi­
cally, his consideration of a Negro candidate was
cut short by his decision that it was not an oppor­
tune time to hire a Negro. At least as late as 1966,
13 The EEOC’s capability to require action is not direct, and a
Congressional decision to provide it with cease-and-desist powers
would fill a demonstrated need.
14 For example, testing and unrealistic employment qualifi­
cations.
“ The Justice Department has not been mentioned, yet it car­
ries serious responsibilities under Title VII to prosecute cases
where there is a pattern or practice of discrimination. Present
indications are that the Department will handle more employ­
ment cases. NLRB decisions also have affected Negro job rights,
and where there is a bargaining relation, the Board’s cease-anddesist power could be a major factor In untangling discriminatory
practices. See Michael I. Sovern, Legal Restraints on Racial Dis­
crimination in Employment (New York, Twentieth Century Fund,
1966), and Rubberworkers Local No. 12 v. NLRB, 88 Sup. Ct. 53
(1967) where the Supreme Court, by denying certiorari, in effect
confirmed the NLRB (150 NLRB No. 18, 1964) and Circuit Court
(368 F2d. 12, 1966) decisions finding as an unfair labor practice,
subject to remedy, a local union’s refusal to handle grievances of
Negro members relating to discriminatory seniority provisions
and plant facilities.


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

89

a regional director of the Bureau of Apprentice­
ship and Training accepted as proof of compli­
ance with nondiscriminatory policies a statement
that a joint apprenticeship committee said it was
in compliance. Such responses by officials are all
too pervasive; they not only block constructive ac­
tion but encourage laggardness in others.
Of the conscious forces at work on the problem,
the most important are Federal agencies with re­
sponsibility for equal employment opportunity.
Their powers could be greater but, exercised, they
are not picayune. Both the EEOC and the OFCC
are able to collect data, investigate, offer technical
assistance, and require action.13 They are also able
to focus public attention on problems which need
a new airing.14All of these things, and many more,
are being done to some degree. If on occasion there
is a failure of energy or a lack of focus, it is per­
haps of less consequence than that budgets and
staff do not match the size of the problem.15
Thus, tools are at hand for making sizable gains
in employment desegregation. The social climate
is reasonably ripe for such actions. As a growing
political force in the region, Negroes will influence
State and local governments to use their powers to
improve employment opportunities. Management
and unions will continue to move with greater alac­
rity and more broadly if Government pressure is
steady and incisive. Qualification standards for
employment should be made more rational, and
an even greater variety and number of training
programs used.
The outlook for those employed is far from
dismal, it could be bright. For those unemployed,
the problem is more serious.
For even the current slow pace of change to con­
tinue, and certainly if it is to be accelerated, econo­
mic and manpower development programs must
not be inhibited by racial barriers. Workers must
be treated as human resources and national stand­
ards must be enforced both as to equality of op­
portunity and in preparing potential workers to
take advantage of that opportunity. The task will
not be done without significant political support—
moral, administrative, budgetary—which has not
yet been manifested. Southern leaders, as they
gain more insight into the essentials of economic
development, may yet provide the balance for such
support.

Income
and
Levels
of
Living
H elen H. L am ale and
T hom as J. L anahan, Jr.

Incom e and levels o f livin g, w h ile low er
th an th e r est o f th e country, have good
grow th poten tial.
T o d a y , t h e S o u t h is our poorest and least
developed major region, despite the important
role it played in the early settlement and economic
development of the country. The South has about
28 percent of the ILS. population, and 24 percent
of the land area, but only 22 percent of the Na­
tion’s personal income.1 In 1966, per capita income
in the South was $2,345, compared with $3,201 in
the rest of the country. (See table 1.) The rela­
tively low current income and levels of living in
the South are the end-products of the economic,
social, and geographic influences which have af­
fected the development of the region.
The present economy of the South developed
from a plantation system which was quite differ­
ent from the farm system of the North. The plan­
tation system influenced the traditions and
institutions of the South, and shaped the general
economic structure and growth of the region. The
South remained dependent on the land for a
longer time than the rest of the country. Conse­
quently, it was much slower in shifting toward
industrialization and urbanization and in adopt­
ing urban living patterns—all of which contribute
to higher income and living levels.

90


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

The dominance of the plantation system, which
required large amounts of low-cost labor inputs,
laid the groundwork for the long-term economic
restrictions on Negro workers, gave small towns
greater political and economic power, slowed
urbanization, retarded skill development in the
labor force, and discouraged capital investment in
the region.2
However, in recent years, the economy of the
South has been growing faster than that of the
country as a whole. Although, the region’s younger
population, smaller proportion of population in
the labor force, and much lower degree of urbani­
zation and industrialization have contributed to
its lower levels of income and consumption in the
past, these factors are likely to contribute to its
greater potential for improvement in the future
now that changes leading to greater industriali­
zation and higher incomes are well underway. The
gap in income between the South and the re­
mainder of the country is gradually being
narrowed.
The South has made its most rapid economic
gains during periods of generally good national
economic conditions. Until World War II, the per
capita income level in the South was considerably
below the remainder of the country. During and
immediately after that war, per capita income in
the South increased from around 60 percent of the
U.S. average in 1940 to 72 percent by 1948. In the
postwar period, there were some adjustments, but
the South’s relative income position increased
moderately. During the expansion of the 1960’s,
per capita income in the South gained on the U.S.
average again; by 1966, it was $2,345, or 79 percent.
Despite these gains in the South’s economic posi­
tion since 1940, a greater proportion of persons in
1 In this article, unless otherwise noted, the South includes the
11 States of the Confederacy (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Geor­
gia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ten­
nessee, Texas, and Virginia), plus Oklahoma and Kentucky. In
some cases, the Bureau of the Census definition, which includes
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and West Virginia,
was used.
2 For a discussion of the effect of the South’s tradition and
past institutions on current economic position, s e e : William H.
Nicholls, Southern Tradition and Regional Progress (Chapel Hill,
University of North Carolina Press, 1960) ; James G. Maddox,
et al., The Advancing South, Manpower Prospects and Problems
(New York, Twentieth Century Fund, 196-7), pp. 3-17; and
Clarence H. Danhof, “Four Decades of Thought on the South’s
Economic Problems,” in Melvin L. Greenhut and W. Tate Whit­
man, eds., Essays in Southern Economic Development (Chapel
Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1964), pp. 7-66.

91

INCOME AND LEVELS OF LIVING

the South than in the rest of the country are poor.
According to recent estimates of the Social Secu­
rity Administration, about 25 percent of Southern
families were classified as “poor” in 1966, com­
pared with 15 percent in the rest of the country.
As indicated below, the much larger proportion
of poor people in the South is caused principally
by the higher proportion of poor non whites there.
The proportions of whites who were poor was not
very different. Of course, in the South, as in the
rest of the country, there were more white than
nonwhite families that are poor—3.0 and 1.6 mil­
lion, respectively; and in the rest of the country,
5A and .9 million, respectively.3
Percent who were poor
U n ite d S ta te s ..........................
S o u th .................................
O th e r th a n S o u th ..........

Total

White

Nonwhite

17.8
24.7
14.9

15.3
19.4
13.8

38.6
50.8
27.6

Variations in Income. Income in the South
varies widely among its States. Although all of the
Southern States have per capita incomes below the
average ($2,963 in 1966), they range from Missis­
sippi, with $1,777, to Florida and Virginia with
$2,614 and $2,605, respectively.4 (See chart.) These
variations in income reflect the rather large dif­
ferences in degree of urbanization, extent of in­
dustrialization, population change, and economic
growth in the South.
Failure to recognize wide variations in average
family income by occupational group has given
rise to some misconceptions with respect to differ­
ences between white and Negro families. Discus­
sions of these differences often emphasize the wider
spread between Negro and white family income in
the South than is the case elsewhere in the country.
While this is true on the average for all Negro and
white families, it is not always true for white and
Negro families headed by persons in specific occu­
pational classes.
Except for unskilled workers and the self-em­
ployed, income variation by race in the South
within an occupational group may not be very dif8Mollie Orshansky, “Who Was Poor in 1966,” Research and
Statistics Note (U.S. Social Security Administration, 1967),
Publication No. 23, tables 5 and 6. (Here, the term “family”
refers to the Bureau of the Census’ definition of families and un­
related individuals.)
4Robert B. Bretzfelder, “Personal Income Advance Slows in
Nearly All Regions in Early 1967,” Survey of Current Business,
August 1967, p. 30.

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0 - 6 8 - 7

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

T

a b l e 1.
Sta tes,

P e r C a p it a P e r s o n a l I n c o m e F o r U n i t e d
S o u t h a n d R e m a in d e r o f U n it e d S t a t e s ,

194 0 -6 6
Per capita personal income
Year

Per capita personal
income as percent of
United States

United South2 Remainder of South2 Remainder of
States1
United States1
United S tates1
1940...............
1941__________
1942____ ______
1943__________
1944__________
1945__________
1946__________
1947__________
1948__________
1949.......... ..........
1950__________
1951.......... ........
1952.....................
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959__________
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966 3. ___ _____

$595
719
909
1,102
1,194
1,234
1, 249
1,316
1, 430
1,384
1, 496
1, 652
1,733
1, 804
1,785
1, 876
1,975
2,045
2,068
2,161
2, 215
2,264
2,368
2,455
2,586
2, 760
2, 963

$357
447
607
759
861
895
884
929
1, 027
1, 023
1,087
1, 209
1, 284
1,339
1, 336
1, 416
1, 493
1, 539
1, 585
1, 660
1, 685
1,740
1, 814
1, 899
2, 015
2,164
2,345

$688
827
1,031
1,242
1,329
1,368
1,391
1, 464
1, 582
1, 520
1, 652
1, 823
1,905
1, 979
1, 951
2,047
2,154
2,235
2,249
2,348
2,414
2,461
2, 578
2,665
2,803
2,987
3, 201

60.0
62.2
66.8
68.9
72.1
72.5
70.8
70.6
71.8
73.9
72.7
73.2
74.1
74.2
74.8
75.5
75.6
75.3
76.6
76.8
76.1
76.9
76.6
77.4
77.9
78.4
79.1

115.6
115.0
113.4
112.7
111.3
110.9
111.4
111.2
110.6
109.8
110.4
110.4
109.9
109.7
109.3
109.1
109.1
109.3
108.8
108.7
109.0
108.7
108.9
108.6
108.4
108.2
108.0

1 In c lu d e s A la sk a a n d H a w a ii from 1960-66.
2 In c lu d e s A la b a m a , A rk a n sa s, F lo rid a , G eorgia, K e n tu c k y , L o u isian a,
M ississippi, N o r th C aro lin a, O k lah o m a, S o u th C aro lin a, T e n n essee , T ex as,
a n d V irg in ia
3 P r e lim in a ry .

S ource : D e riv e d from d a ta in Survey of Current Business, A u g u st 1967,
p p . 30-31 a n d Personal Income by States Since 1929, p p . 140-145, 1956, U .S .
D e p a r tm e n t of C o m m erce, Office of B u sin ess E co n o m ics.

ferent from that in other regions. (See table 2.)
However, a smaller proportion of Negroes are in
the skilled, clerical, managerial, and professional
occupations in the South than in other parts of the
country. If this situation were improved by better
education, training, and employment opportu­
nities, it would contribute to raising the level of
incomes in the South.
Rising Incomes. Part of the increase in Southern
per capita income in the 1940’s and 1950’s resulted
from a large net outmigration of workers, particu­
larly of young, generally unskilled Negro men. Be­
cause there were relatively fewer people left to
share in the increased total income, per capita
income rose faster in the South than elsewhere.
The increase in per capita income caused by this
outmigration was tempered to some extent by the
higher proportion of children and youths among
the South’s population, which tended to hold down
per capita income.
Despite the significance of the large outmigra­
tion in raising per capita income, the inmigration

92

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

of skilled labor, the introduction of new capital,
and other changes within the South during and
immediately following World War I I affected
per capita income more. In this period, large
amounts of Federal funds were introduced into
the South through increases in military and warplant payrolls and the construction and operation
of military bases and new manufacturing plants.
Agricultural income became less important. Much
of the new capital introduced into the South as a
result of wartime expansion remained, and skilled
labor entered the region in greater numbers.
As a result of these wartime and postwar de­
velopments in the South, there were major shifts
from farm to nonfarm occupations, from rural to
urban residences, and from small places to larger
cities—all of which contribute to higher levels of
income and consumption.
During the 1960’s, Southern per capita income
has increased at a greater rate than that in the
remainder of the country. Most of this gain was

due to real economic growth, since there was an
overall relative increase in Southern population.
Also in the 1960’s, further progress was made in
the South in removing economic restrictions on
Negroes, improving both education and the eco­
nomic climate for investments, and speeding in­
dustrialization. Income from labor and a more
industralized business segment increased. Agri­
cultural operations with more long-term growth
potential gained at the expense of cotton and
tobacco.
In manufacturing, some of the labor-intensive
industries lost ground. More heavy industry and
more capital-intensive businesses, both of which
had important secondary effects on their support­
ing industries entered the region and expanded. In
general, the South improved its industry-mix
from World W ar I I on, which resulted in in­
creased employment in higher wage industries
and encouraged better than average economic
growth. These developments, along with the gen-

Per Capita Personal Income by Region and by State in the South, 1966

source:

D e r iv e d from Survey of Current Business, A u g u st 1967, V ol. 47, N o . 8, p p . 30-31.


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

INCOME AND LEVELS OF LIVING
T a b l e 2.

93

F am ily I ncome A fter T a x e s

by

O ccupation and R ace
U n it s , 1960-61

of

H ead

and by

R e g io n ,1 U r b a n C o n su m e r

Occupation of head

Race and region

All
consumer
units

Selfemployed

Salaried,
professional and
managerial

Clerical
and
sales

Wage earner
Skilled

Semi­
skilled

Unskilled

Armed
Forces

Retired

Other
not
working

Average income after personal taxes
White
U n ite d S ta te s ___________
S o u th _______________________ .
N o r th e a s t___________ _______
N o r th C e n tra l_______________ _
W est_______________
______

$6,169
5,653
6,479
6,095
6,439

$8,620
7,840
9, 785
8,037
8,705

$8,678
8,027
9,385
8,486
8,766

$6,053
5, 706
6,453
5,993
6,006

$6,631
5,824
6,890
6,740
6,917

$5,764
5,039
5,868
5,964
6,198

$4,694
4,057
5,241
4,368
4,781

$6,385
6,783
5,072
5, 741
6,796

$3,375
3,064
3,733
3,160
3,463

$3,261
3,487
3,472
2,859
3,098

3,840
3,200
4,440
4,391
4,431

5,317
3,983
5,490
7,863
8,142

6,567
5,896
6,415
6,905
7,817

5,212
5,015
5,330
5,333
5,137

5,119
4,436
5,473
5,598
5,334

4,805
4,065
5,597
5,233
5,015

3,492
2,934
4 222
4,803
4,174

5,109
5,472

1,970
1,864
1,999
2,251
1,792

1,967
1,670
2,140
2,252
2,063

58.4
60.8
53.5
71.2
51.7

60.3
47.9
61.6
78.8
66.6

N egro
U n ite d S ta te s ___________
S o u th _________________________
N o r th e a s t___ _________________
N o r th C e n tra l____________ _ .
W est________ ________ ________

5,213
4,775

Income of Negro consumer units as percent of white
United States.
South____________
Northeast..... ...........
North Central____
West_____________

62.2
56.6
68.5
72.0
68.8

61.7
50.8
56.1
97.8
93.5

75.7
73.5
68.4
81.4
89.2

86.1
87.9
82.6
89.0
85.5

77.2
76.2
79.4
83.1
77.1

83.4
80.7
95.4
87.7
80.9

714
72.3
80.6
93.5
87.3

80.0
80.7
90.8
70.3

1 As defined by the Bureau of the Census.
S o u r c e : Derived from Consumer Expenditures and Income: Cross Classi­

fications of Family Characteristics (Supplement 2 to BLS Reports 237-34
through 38, 1965).

erally healthy U.S. economy of the period, have
resulted in the relative increases in personal in­
come per capita during the 1960’s.5

the rest of the country. (See table 3.) The average
cost level of all major consumption groups, except
transportation, was substantially lower in the
South. However, the lower costs resulted preponderately from the lower cost of the basic consump­
tion groups (food, shelter, fuel, and clothing).6
Further evidence of lower living costs in the
South is provided by the costs of the U.S. Depart­
ment of Agriculture’s nutritionally adequate food
plans at three levels of living that have also been
consistently lower in the South than in the rest of
the country.7 The lower than average food costs
result from the greater use of lower priced, but
still nutritionally adequate, foods in Southern
diets.
Since the less costly shelter, fuel, and clothing
requirements result from the South’s milder cli­
mate, and its lower food costs from long-estab­
lished food preferences, it is reasonable to expect
that living costs will continue to be lower in the
South than in the other regions. In addition, living
costs are generally lower in smaller cities, which
in turn are more important in the South than in
the remainder of the country.

Comparative Living Costs
The same amount of income buys more in the
South than in the rest of the country. This is a
fact that should neither be ignored nor exagger­
ated in appraising Southern incomes and levels of
living. Although there are no generally applicable
measures of regional differences in living costs,
there is considerable evidence that living costs in
the South are significantly lower than in other re­
gions, and that these differences are apt to persist.
The cost of the same moderate standard of living
for a four-person urban family in autumn 1966
was about 13 percent lower in the South than in
BFor discussion of post-World War II Southern income trends
see: Maddox, et al., op. cit., pp. 35-51: Frank A. Hanna, “In­
come in the South Since 1929,” in Greenhut and Whitman, op.
cit., pp. 239-292 : and Stephen L. McDonald, “On the South’s
Recent Economic Development,” Southern Economic Journal,
July 1961, pp. 30—40.
6Based on City Worker’s Family Budget for a Moderate Living
Standard, Autumn 1966 (BLS Bulletin 1570-1, 1967).
7“Cost of Food at Home,” Family Economics Review, March
1967, pp. 10-12.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

94

families elsewhere in the country.9 (See table 4.)
The lower living costs in the South, mentioned
earlier, might offset as much as one-half of this
disparity in incomes and consumption levels, but
undoubtedly substantial differences remain, espe­
cially for the more disadvantaged groups in the
South.
The proportion of total spending allocated to
basic consumption items (food, shelter, fuel, and
clothing) is another good indicator of relative
levels of living. The less a family has to spend
for these basic needs, the more is available for im­
proving its general level of consumption.
At the same income level, Southern urban fam­
ilies spent consistently less than other urban fam­
ilies for basic items of consumption, leaving more
funds available for discretionary spending and
higher levels of living. This supports the idea that
the cost of basic consumption is lower in the South,
enabling Southern families to achieve higher levels
of living with a given income, compared with
families in other parts of the United States.
When expenditure patterns for the South are
compared with the U.S. average by occupational
group, as they are in table 5, the population in
the South again shows that less of its total spend-

Levels of Living
Trends and variations in income levels are good
indicators of trends and variations in levels of liv­
ing and in consumption levels among regions and
among different groups within a region.8 Thus,
it follows from its income level, the overall level
of living in the South is considerably lower, but
rising faster, than that in the rest of the country.
However, among the Southern population there
are greater concentrations of Negro families and
farm families, both groups with relatively low
average incomes and, consequently, low levels of
living.
Despite the narrowing of the income gap since
1940, Southern urban-family income after taxes
averaged about 19 percent less than that for the
urban family in the rest of the Nation in 1960-61,
and Southern urban families spent, on the average,
IT percent less for current consumption than urban
8In this article, no attempt has been made to evaluate the
effect of the availability and quality of services such as education,
roads, utilities, police and fire protection, and similar services on
the South’s level of living.
9“Family” as used here is synonymous with “consumer unit.”
It includes persons living alone, as well as families of two or
more persons.
T a b l e 3.

D ist r ib u t io n of th e C ost of th e C ity W o r k er ’s F amily B u d g e t for a M oderate L iv in g S ta n d a r d ,
U r b a n U n ited S t a tes , S o u th ,1 and R em a in d e r of U n ited S tates , A u t u m n 1 9 6 6 2
C ost of family consumption2
Area and region

Total
cost of
budge t 3

Basic groups of consumption
Total

T ota 1

Pood

Shelter
and fu e l4

Clothing

All
o ther

Dollar costs
United States......................
South........... ........................_.........
Remainder of United States___

$9,191
8,213
9,421

$7,329
6,609
7,498

$4,632
3, 987
4,785

$2,143
1,969
2,183

$1,733
1,328
1,830

$756
690
772

$2 697
2 622
2 713

Metropolitan areas_______
South...................._.......................
Remainder of U nited States___

9,376
8,491
9,506

7,474
6,841
7,567

4,748
4,145
4,838

2,173
2,002
2,198

1,808
1,437
1, 864

767
706
776

2 726
2 696
2 729

Outside metropolitan areas.
S o u th ................ ............... ............
Remainder of United States___

8,366
7,855
8,794

6,681
6, 310
6,991

4,116
3,784
9,398

2,005
1,925
2, 072

1,402
1,188
1,583

709
671
743

2, 56 5
2, 5 26
2, 593

23.6
20.1
24.4

10.3
10.4
10.3

36.8
39. 7
36.2

Percentage distributions
United States_______
South........... ..........................
Remainder of United States.
1 A s defined b y th e B u re a u of th e C en su s b u t a d ju ste d to e xclude th e B a lt
m o re a n d W ashington, D .C . SM SA ’s.

2 Cost for family consisting of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not en
W e i outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy.
Lost of family consumption plus gifts and contributions, life insurant
taxes- 10nal exPenses’ soc' al security and disability payments, and persons


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

100.0
100.0
100.0

63.2
60.3
63.8

29.2
29.8
29.1

4Weighted average of contract rent and homeowner costs, plus cost of heat
ing fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment, and household insurance.
S o u r c e : Derived from data in City Worker’s Family Budget fo r a Moderate
Living Standard, Autumn 1966 (BLS Bulletin 1570-1, October 1967).

95

INCOME AND LEVELS OF LIVING
T a b le 4.

A v e r a g e E x p e n d it u r e s

fo r

B a s ic a n d O t h e r I t e m s o f F a m il y C o n s u m p t i o n
U r b a n C o n s u m e r U n i t s , 1960-61

I ncom e

by

R

and

e g io n ,

M o n ey in co m e a fte r taxes

Item

Total

Under
$1,000

$1,0001,999

$2,0002,999

$3,0003,999

$4,0004,999

$5,0005,999

$6,0007,499

$7,5009,999

$10,00014,999

16.3
13.5
17.2

14.9
10.4
16.3

7.7
4.9
8.5

2.4
1.4
2.7

$15,000
and over

Percentage distribution of consumer units
United States___ ______________
South i................... .....................................
Remainder of United States....................

100.0
100.0
100.0

2.4
3.8
2.0

8.7
13.0
7.4

9.9
14.3
8.6

11.4
14.4
10.4

13.2
13.0
13.2

13.1
11.4
13.6

Expenditures for current consumption
Total:
United States ____ ________________
South 1_________________________
Remainder of United S tates.......... ........
Basic items of consumption:2
United States............................................South 1........... ......................... .............
Remainder of United S ta te s..................
Other goods and services:
United S tates_________ ______ ______
South 1_________________________
Remainder of United States__________

$5,390
4, 676
5,616

$1,307
1,151
1,398

$1, 770
1,644
1,836

$2,675
2, 630
2,699

$3,716
3,846
3, 662

$4,501
4,384
4,537

$5,240
5,324
5,225

$6,229
6,090
6,268

$7,534
7,441
7,565

$9,744
10,134
9,697

$14,745
15,760
14, 638

2,861
2,378
3,006

842
721
909

1,148
1,020
1,215

1,628
1,517
1,683

2,063
2,026
2,078

2,440
2,276
2,488

2,815
2,684
2,848

3,274
3,005
3,337

3,911
3, 682
3,955

4,830
4, 636
4,863

6,962
6,610
7,017

2,529
2,298
2,610

465
430
489

622
624
621

1,047
1,113
1,016

1,653
1,820
1,584

2,061
2,108
2,048

2,425
2,640
2,377

2,955
3,085
2,931

3,623
3,759
3,610

4,914
5,498
4,834

7,783
9,150
7,621

100.0
51.9
48.1
100.0
49.5
50.5
100.0
52.3
47.7

100.0
49.6
50.4
100.0
45.7
54.3
100.0
50.1
49.9

100.0
47.2
52.8
100.0
41.9
58.1
100.0
47.9
52.1

Percent of current consumption expenditures
United States, total_____ ______
Basic items of consumption 2 _________
Other goods and services____________
South, to ta l1__________________
Basic items of consumption 2.................. .
Other goods and services___ __________
Remainder of United States, total.
Pasic items of consumption 2 .... ........... .
Other goods and services________ ____

100.0
53.1
46.9
100.0
50.8
49.1
100.0
53.5
46.5

100.0
64.4
35.6
100.0
62.6
37.4
100.0
65.0
35.0

100.0
64.9
35.2
100.0
62.0
38.0
100.0
66.2
33.8

100.0
60.9
39.1
100.0
57.7
42.3
100.0
62.4
37.6

1 See footnote 1, ta b le 3.
2 B asic ite m s in c lu d e food, sh elter, fuel, lig h t, refrigeration, a n d clo th in g .

ing went for basic consumption. This differential
was much more pronounced for white than for
Negro families, reflecting the higher incomes of
whites and the wider variety of options that may
be open to them.
Other than the fact that in the South families
do not have to spend as much on basic consump­
tion, the spending patterns in the South by degree
of urbanization, for people in the same income
class (or occupational group), are substantially
the same as those of similar people elsewhere in the
country. The current differences in average levels
of living are due to the greater concentration of
Southern families in the lower incomes, especially
for rural families and Negro families.
There are signs in the 1960’s that Southern
households, with their increased relative incomes,
are closing the living-level gap. Southerners own
fewer consumer durables proportionately than
households in the rest of the country, but in the

10 How American Buying Habits Change (U.S. Department of
Labor, 1959), pp. 217-242,

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

100.0
55.5
44.5
100.0
52.7
47.3
100.0
56.7
43.3

100.0
54.2
45.8
100.0
51.9
48.1
100.0
54.8
45.2

100.0
53.7
46.3
100.0
50.4
49.6
100.0
54.5
45.5

100.0
52.6
47.4
100.0
49.3
50.7
100.0
53.2
46.8

Source : Based on special tab u latio n of d ata from Survey of Consumer

Expenditures, 1960-61.

1960’s their rate of purchase of many such items
was higher, relative to the U.S. average, as shown
in the following Bureau of the Census data:
Bate of purchase (U.S. average—100)
W ashing m a c h in e _________
C lo th es d ry e r_____________
R efrig erato r______________
A ir co n d itio n e r___________
T e le v i s i o n - .............................
A u to m o b ile s______________
N e w h o u ses_______________

1960

1961

1962

1963 1961,

1965 1966

107.4
72.4
111. 6
207.7
92.4
97.8
144.4

111.7
70.4
115.1
187.0
102.1
105.8
121.4

102.8
62.1
116.7
148.3
98.6
103.9
121.4

1 07.2 105.4
71.9
82.5
114.7 111. 9
170. 6 156.4
103.1
97.2
104.6 102.9
131.3 127.8

113.0 107.2
79.1
85. 7
116.7 106. 8
162.2 148. 0
100.0 101. 9
104.9 101. 9
112.5 142. 9

Source : B ased o n C en su s of P o p u la tio n S o u th e rn R eg io n . “ S pecial
R e p o rt o n H o u se h o ld O w n e rsh ip a n d P u rc h a se s of A u to m o b iles a n d Selected
H o u se h o ld D u ra b le s, 1960-67—C o n su m e r B u y in g In d ic a to rs ,” Current
Population Reports, P -6 5 , N o . 18, A u g u st 1967.

The higher rate of such purchase is no doubt clos­
ing, to some extent the South’s consumer goods
inventory gap with the rest of the Nation.
Outlook
The expectation of a steadily rising standard
of living has long been an important feature of
American society and a strong motivation for pur­
suing the higher incomes and consumption levels
so essential to the Nation’s economic growth.10

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

96
T a ble 5.

P e r c en t

of T otal C u r r e n t C o n su m ptio n E x p e n d it u r e s for B asic C o n sum ptio n
by O c cupation and R ace of H ea d , U r b a n C o n sum er U n it s , 1960-61

G oods

and

S er v ic e s 1

Occupation of head
Race and region

All con­
sumer
units

Wage earner

Armed
Forces

Retired

54.9
54.0

50.2
51.1

56.2
52.3

57. 5
53.9

55.2
54.1

57.9
58.2

45.9
42.0

63.7
61.0

70.0
63. 4

53.6
51.0

55.8
56.2

49.8
50.8

56.6
53.2

59.4
56.1

Self-em­
ployed

Salaried, pro­
fessional and
managerial

Clerical
and
sales

52.7
50.3

52.6
50.4

50.4
48.4

53.5
50.4

51.7
50. 2

53.2
50.2

57.3
57.3

56.2
58.2

50.3
52.1

57.2
57.0

54.8
58.2

53.1
51.2

52.8
51.0

50. 5
48.5

53.8
50.7

51.7
50.8

Skilled

Semi­
skilled

Unskilled

Other
not
working

White

United S ta te s........................ .......................
South 2......................................... ....................
N egro

United S tates.._______________________
South 2.............................................................
A ll consumer units

United States___________________ ____ _
South 2_______________________________
1 See fo o tnote 2, ta b le 4.
2 See fo o tnote 1, ta b le 2.

Southern workers, like workers elsewhere, expect
a rising standard of living, and, if recent trends
continue, they are likely to improve their incomes
and levels of living at a faster rate than the rest
of the country.
To do this the South must continue to attract
investment in plant and equipment at a greater
rate than the rest of the country,11 especially in
growth industries, while maintaining a moderate
gain in its other industries. Its agriculture must
become more productive and its rate of urbaniza­
tion continue to increase faster than in other re­
gions. With these conditions met and with the
ISTation’s economy maintaining a steady growth,
the South should continue to gain on the U.S. aver­
age income position in the 1970’s. All of these
forces currently indicate continued economic im­
provement in the South. It should be recognized,
however, that as the South approaches average
U.S. levels of income and consumption, it will lose
some of its advantage over other parts of the coun11

Maddox, et. al., op. cit., pp. 48-51.


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

Source : C o n s u m e r E x p e n d i t u r e s a n d I n c o m e (B L S R e p o rts 237-36 a n d
237-38, 1964) a n d , C o n s u m e r E x p e n d i t u r e a n d I n c o m e : C r o s s C la s s if ic a t io n s o f
F a m i l y C h a r a c te r is tic s (S u p p le m e n t 2 to B L S R e p o rts 237-36 a n d 237-38,
1965).

try in the competition for investment funds and
new industries.
Much of this continued gain will depend on
changes in Southern social customs and institu­
tions. Removal of social and economic barriers
facing Negroes must continue along with definite
efforts to promote their economic opportunities.
Otherwise their relatively low incomes will con­
tinue to be a drag on the overall level of income.
Such a social order would provide more effective
training and use of current and future workers
required for increased productivity and economic
growth.
Since less income is required in the South to
achieve the same standard of living as in other
parts of the Nation, the South can narrow the gap
in levels of living faster than it narrows the in­
come gap. Pressures on prices, resulting from the
expected higher incomes of the South in the 1970’s,
and increased urbanization, might cut back some
of this relative living-cost advantage, but many of
these advantages will persist, particularly climate
and degree of urbanization.

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

The Growing South

Despite its Many Problems, the
Base for Growth Exists and is
Good
The Southerner reading these 'boohs will
be impressed with the clarity and coher­
ence in the presentation of the historical
developments—the reasons why the South
became and remained agricultural and
why, after the Civil War, it endured so
much trauma of violence and corrosive
poverty in all things of the spirit.

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

A
Review
Essay
R alph M cG ill

C om plem entary stu d ies reflect the social
change th a t is sw eeping aw ay th e w orst
o f Southern inequities.
T h e som etim es m ela n c h o ly , but always chal­
lenging, story that marches through the pages of
two recent books on the South is an enthralling,
enlightening one.1 The books complement one an­
other in a most happy, extraordinary manner.
It has been one of the common attitudes of
the Southerner to be defensive and unreasonably
sensitive, not merely to criticism, but to factual re­
citals of his history—military, social, and eco­
nomic. He likes to believe that he and his region
are somehow different; that neither is appreciated
or understood. But this stain of bitter myrrh in
his mind has created a psychological attitude
somewhat akin to that of the parents of a crippled
child who are, understandably, the more fiercely
protective of that child and extremely sensitive
about any comment or discussion, however well
meant, on the child’s welfare.
Even now, as the 20th century draws on toward
its end, veteran Southern senators and congress­
men, many with the records of distinguished serv­
ice to their country, are angrily opposing Federal
legislation designed to improve the quality of edu­
cation because the bills at issue are “not fair to the
South” and do not recognize its “peculiar prob­
lems.” That the South’s long delay in development
is in the main due to lack of education for all its


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

children, more especially the Negro child, does not
matter. What matters is that none tread on the
toes of the South’s “customs.” For largely the
same reasons, the same Congress will show a heavy
majority of Southern senators and congressmen in
various antilabor stances.
Professor Maddox and his staff—all Southerners
but one—have produced a book which is earnestly
recommended to boards of corporations who may
be considering plant investment in the region.
The South (the 11 States of the Old Confederacy
plus Kentucky and Oklahoma) is increasing its
real per capita income at a rate faster than the
rest of the Nation. (It had, and has, a larger gap
to close.) Its share of the Nation’s investment in
plant and equipment is also growing.
The collaborating economist-authors carefully,
but nonetheless courageously, offer a projection of
the South’s likely growth rate at least through
1975. They are, with a few reservations, optimistic.
Much depends on what the South does with
its inferior schools and its racial problem. Great
progress has been made. Much of it has been re­
luctantly permitted. There still is considerable re­
sistance. And, candor demands, some States and
counties have made token, or fingers-crossed,
pledges to carry out congressional civil rights
legislation. They drag feet and hide evasions by
various means.
Professor Maddox and his associates urgently
advise that the symbolic chains that remain on
the legs of the South’s economy be eliminated with
nondeliberate speed. Until the chains are removed
the economy will limp.
Capital Reward
It is precisely here that the more thoughtful
boards of corporations investigating investment
in the South can protect and enhance their own
opportunities. They can—and in this reviewer’s
opinion, have a national responsibility to do so—
select for investment location those areas which
honestly have eliminated, or are sincerely elimi­
nating, all the old ugliness and violence of dis­
crimination from their communities.
1 James Q. Maddox, E. E. Liebhafsky, Vivian W. Hender­
son, Herbert M. Hamlin, The Advancing South: Manpoicer Pros­
pects and Problems (New York, Twentieth Century Fund, Inc.,
1967), $6.50; F. Ray Marshall, Labor in the South (Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University Press, 1967), $8.
99

100

To assist with capital investment a community
that still retains a Klan-type mentality and that
does not honestly and earnestly offer equal edu­
cational advantages to all children and to its young
men and women cannot be a profitable longrun
policy.
The Southerner reading this book will be im­
pressed with the clarity and coherence in the
presentation of the historical developments—the
reason why the South became and remained agri­
cultural and why, after the Civil War, it endured
so much trauma of violence and corrosive poverty
in all things of the spirit.
It is a scholarly summation. (If there is one
omission it is that of a few paragraphs on the
effect of the Hayes-Tilden election machinations
and the effect of the reestablishment of States
rights over the race problem. But the omission is
not really important.)
The Pace of Progress
The central theme of the book is the South’s
progress, especially since 1940, and what must be
done if the pace is to continue. (The writer recalls
talking with the president of a large retail com­
pany in Atlanta who said, in 1945, that his new
expansion, covering about a city block, was the
first large construction ever built in the State with­
out going outside Atlanta sources for financing.)
In 1938, President Roosevelt’s committee on the
economic condition of the South reported it to be
the Nation’s number one economic problem. Many
conditions have been corrected. But in 1967, the
findings are that the greatest problem is “a large,
unskilled, poorly educated agricultural work force
that is no longer needed to till the land and is in­
sufficiently trained to meet the requirements of the
expanding manufacturing and service-producing
industries.”
In 1938, the region was not really competing
with other geographic divisions. Today it is. The
authors assert that the South’s “greatest handicaps
in competition with other regions for rapidgrowth, high-wage industries are the shortage of
a trained work force and the remnants of values
and traditions that attach too little importance to
developing the full potentials of the region’s hu­
man resources.” The truth of this conclusion is
every day made abundantly clear.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

The South must increase its per-capita pro­
ductivity, these economists say, in order to acceler­
ate its economic growth.
Giving maximum priority to the development of
the region’s human resources, they believe, will
provide the means; that is, to make quality edu­
cation available to all with “greatly expanded pub­
lic expenditures for education by State and local
governments, and Federal aid and Federal action
on a much more massive scale than at present.”
The study stresses that intense effort must be
devoted to the disadvantaged and underprivileged,
both Negro and white; the Federal Government
should establish and run a regionwide system of
racially integrated training and child-care cen­
ters for preschool children available to all with­
out cost; at the adult level, local, State, and
Federal agencies must find new and better ways
to expand opportunities for the many rural and
urban citizens the region failed to educate and
train in the past.
Some of the South’s cities have had, and will
have more, protest violence. The slums, with their
quota of untrained and uneducated men and
women, were once mute indictments. Today they
are militant and vocal.
It will be a great pity if this book is not widely
read by all Southern business, professional, and
educational people in particular. In its inclusion
of projections to 1975, it is, I believe, the best book
on the Southern region since Howard Odom’s
historic Southern Regions, published in 1936.
I t will be even more sad if Southern politicians,
newspaper publishers, and editors do not read it.
Too many of these people, along with a distressing
number of the clergy, have helped perpetuate the
more fatuous and false myths of the South and the
nonexistent virtues of segregation, disfranchise­
ment, and injustices that have kept the South’s
social and economic progress and its mind, as well,
in repression.
Professor Marshall’s history of labor in the
South follows naturally as a second reading, inso­
far as a historical perspective of the South is con­
cerned. His views on attitudes toward labor, the
use of the “church” as a barrier to labor’s efforts
to attain the right to bargain collectively, the often
solid front of the church, the press, and the “re­
spectable” community against labor are best
understood after reading the Maddox book.

A REVIEW ESSAY

Unique History
But one must hasten to say that Labor in the
South also stands alone. I t is a history, but the
first of its kind. Strangely enough, no comprehen­
sive chronicle of the Southern labor movement had
been written until Professor Marshall did this.
This reviewer knew the able Bill Mitch, who in
the 1930’s worked at organizing Alabama coal
miners and, later, steelworkers throughout the
South; Steve Nance, highly esteemed and re­
spected, who worked at textile organization in the
turbulent 1930’s; Miss Lucy Randolph Mason, the
legendary Virginia aristocrat of historic lineage,
who was my good friend and who was, incredibly,
a successful CIO organizer and trouble shooter;
and many others who came and went in those days
of depression and hope. As a boy I recall seeing the
National Guard called out to the Tennessee coal
fields and hearing the talk of farmers who, in
winters when crops were laid by, would work in
the mines.
They and many others who pioneered before
them and those who came after are in this remark­
ably interesting book, which manages to be a story
of human beings while recording a labor move­
ment in a unique region.
Professor Marshall quotes economist John T.
Dunlop as having demonstrated that “features
that are ordinarily regarded as distinctive to a na­
tional system do not enter equally into each indus­
trial relations system within its borders.” He then
demonstrates that the American South is suffi­
ciently unique to provide a significant comparison
with the rest of the country. There is no question­
ing his success in so doing.
The South’s individual characteristics are being
dissolved by industrialization. Its pattern moves
closer to that of the Nation. But it is not yet there,
and from a historical viewpoint, the region re­
mains unique.
Social Sanctification
Introduction of manufacturing came to the
South more abruptly than elsewhere. Industriali­
zation came on the heels of the humiliation of the
reconstruction. Broadus Mitchell, an economic his­
torian, in 1921 wrote the Rise of Cotton Mills in
the South. He said of these industrialists that


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

101

“their tools were only such as were offered by de­
termination in the midst of poverty. These things
gave to the whole movement a social sanction, I
might almost say social sanctification, which was
largely lacking elsewhere. An added element to
this end was the fact that the industry, particu­
larly the cotton factories, furnished bread and
meat to the hordes of poor whites who waited to
be reclaimed after the destitution which slavery
had entailed upon them.”
This, I believe, is a paragraph most necessary
to one’s reading of the Marshall book. There was
a “sanctification” quality to the mills. In fact, a
feature of religion in the South was that the vari­
ous sect religions, by a sort of osmosis, took the
South’s mores of prejudice, custom, traditions,
and attitudes into the body of religion. I t became,
therefore, “religious” to support segregation in
the years before the Civil War and to give God’s
endorsement to segregation and white supremacy
after the end of slavery.
Hence, it was not at all unusual for evangelical
preachers to go off into the most extravagant, hyp­
notic denunciations of labor organizers. This
reviewer recalls hearing CIO organizers denounced
as representing the anti-Christ—John L. Lewis.
Some manufacturers provided a church and a
“mill-paid” preacher. Foremen seemed always to
be deacons or elders. Others, whenever an organ­
izer was reported near, would summon one of the
fiery-mouthed, pulpit-pounding tent evangelists.
He would set up for business and nightly flay the
evil men who would lure good Christian men and
women into the sinful snares set by the devil’s
serving. Many of the stately churches in cities also
were sounding boards of opposition.
County sheriffs and, indeed, the official power
structure usually could be counted on to help ride
the organizer out of town on a rail or, more po­
litely, put him in a car, give him a good beating
or scare, and deposit him beyond the county line.
There were other factors in the uniqueness of
the South. Presence of a huge number of unskilled
and uneducated Negroes—“the last hired and the
first fired”—fended to hold down wages and to
make the jobholder fearful of replacement. Those
were years when much of the labor was un­
skilled or semiskilled. Automation was not a prob­
lem. The race question and white supremacy put
economic or bread-and-buter issues in second place.

102

Despite the coming of cotton mills, saw mills,
turpentining, and other plants to the South, the
region historically has been underindustrialized.
Today, although much progress has been made
and a real industrial boom is indicated if the South
responds to the need for improved education and
an end to its racial tensions, the region is still
below the national average in industrial capacity.
Violence and Discrimination
Professor Marshall organized his book well. The
labor history of each industry is given adequate
treatment. We also get a look at development and
problems of unions before 1928. These were primi­
tive years. One finds in them the stories of strikes
against plants for hiring Negroes and the develop­
ment of patterns of discrimination. Low costs had
begun early to bring New England textile mills
to the cotton South. Strikes against Negro workers
soon made the new mills “lily white,” save in the
positions of janitors, sweepers, and cleaners.
There was considerable violence in the long
years of efforts by textile workers to unionize.
From Louisiana up to North Carolina, where the
Gastonia story, involving charges of Communist
activity, made national headlines, violence made
news across a decade or more. The names of some


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

of the mill towns where violence occurred in the
1920’s and earlier have reappeared in the news of
racial violence during the past 4 years.
The 1930’s, with the passage of the Wagner Act
and other labor legislation, and the coming of the
CIO, are thoroughly and accurately discussed and
analyzed. The excitement of those days comes
through. Those were the years when some mills
had barricades of cotton bales before them, and on
their roofs they had riflemen and, in some in­
stances, machinegunners who had learned those
weapons in the First World War.
In the concluding chapter, “Future of the
Unions,” Profesor Marshall says that trends are
favorable for continued growth of unions in the
South, particularly the Southwest. He believes
that increased in Negro voter registration in the
South will provide a favorable influence.
Growth, however, may not be easy. The South,
he says, will have to increase its union member­
ships by 1,455,000 between 1962 and 1912, just to
hold its proportion of 14 percent of the nonagricultural work force. Meanwhile, the bluecollar
worker force decreases. In the South the whitecollar service employees are even less drawn to
union affiliation than in other regions. Nonetheless,
concludes Mr. Marshall, the base for growth exists
and is good.

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

The Regular
Departments

F o reig n L a b o r B r ie fs
R esea rch in P ro g re ss
S ig n ific a n t D ecision s in L a b o r C ases
M a jo r A g re e m e n ts E x p irin g in A p r il
C h ro n o lo g y o f R e c e n t L a b o r E v e n ts
D e v e lo p m e n ts in I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s
B o o k R e v iew s a n d N o te s
C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s

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

Foreign Labor Briefs*

As t h e y e a r t u r n e d , wage parity for automobile
workers in the United States and Canada con­
tinued to sustain a lively debate among our neigh­
bors to the north.
Canada— W age P a r ity
Written into the 1967 agreement between Chrys­
ler and the United Automobile Workers and fore­
seen for the rest of the industry, wage parity for
workers in the automobile industries of the United
States and Canada is a subject of major concern to
Canadian labor and management. The Canadian
press, reflecting management viewpoints, generally
considers such parity as inflationary, a likely cause
of transfer of Canadian operations to places south
of the border, and another example of U.S. inter­
ference in Canada’s economic life. But organized
Canadian labor does not share this view. It be­
lieves that productivity in many industries, in­
cluding automobile manufacturing, is as high in
Canada as in the United States, and that in some
of them—e.g., steel manufacturing and lumber­
ing—it is even higher in Canada. A recent official
Canadian study of productivity trends in the two
countries indicated that over the last 5 years, Ca­
nadian productivity ran ahead of U.S. perform­
ance and that this trend is continuing.
West Germany—L abor-M an agem en t D em an ds
Trade unions in the textile industry have joined
employers in demanding that the Government take
action to halt the industry’s decline. During 1967,
employment, normally about 1 million, decreased
by 102,000.
Unions and management are in agreement that
they have done everything possible to modernize
the industry and to effect a rise in labor produc­
tivity, with the result that between 1958 and 1964
productivity in textiles was considerably higher in
West Germany than in Belgium, France, or the
Netherlands. Nevertheless, they admit, the West


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

German textile industry continues to ail, not only
because of excessive imports from low-cost and
State-trading countries, especially Japan and
Eastern Europe, but also because textile industries
of other Common Market countries enjoy com­
petitive advantages in the form of Government
assistance and favorable tax systems. Both agree
that plans for curbs on imports, tax relief, and
other alleviatory measures will be presented to the
Government early in 1968.
United Kingdom—D ra in o f T a le n t
Concern over the exodus of high-level man­
power from Britain, especially to the United
States, was highlighted in a document entitled
Brain Drain, prepared for the British Government
by a special committee. The study revealed that
emigration of British scientists and engineers to
the United States almost doubled—from 3,200 in
1961 to 6,200 in 1966—but the full impact of the
loss in creative, managerial, and technical talent
may not be felt until 10 or 20 years from now. The
committee urged the Government and industry to
raise the status of talented young Britons by pro­
viding better pay and challenging opportunities
for them—rewards they find so irresistible in the
United States.
Some relief for Britain is apparently in sight
as an incidental result of recent amendments to the
U.S. immigration laws. These are expected to re­
duce the flow of British talent into the United
States beginning next July.
Rumania—G overn m en t a n d L abor
The Grand National Assembly of Rumania cre­
ated a Ministry of Labor to centralize the work of
the various Government agencies relating to labor,
including recruitment and assignment of workers,
regulation of wages, promotion of workers’ health
and safety, administration of social security, and
supervision of labor-management relations. In an­
other law, the Assembly designated the Chairman
of the Council of the General Union of Trade
Unions as a member of the Council of Ministers.
*Prepared in the Office of Foreign Labor and Trade, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, on the basis of information available in early
January.
105

106
Singapore— U n e m p lo y m e n t
The Finance Minister sounded a warning in his
annual budget speech that while the economy has
experienced a “sturdy growth” and is currently in a
“healthy condition,” its future prospects “give no
cause for complacency.” He stressed the rising rate
of unemployment, which now ranges between 7
and 9 percent of the labor force, and prospective
cutbacks in employment resulting from the reduc­
tion in the size of the British military base. This
reduction, to be completed by 1971, will add 3,400
each year to the 30,000 to 50,000 already listed as
unemployed.
According to the Finance Minister’s calcula­
tions, the economy must generate 43,000 jobs each
year if it is to provide employment for the 25,000
new entrants into the labor force, those currently
unemployed, and those who will lose their jobs
because of the reductions in the British base. Only
a fraction of this requirement is being met at pres­
ent. The Government hopes that the manufactur­
ing, construction, and tourist industries will
provide the required jobs.
Ghana—M a n p o w er B o a rd
Dissatisfaction with the rate at which Africans
are attaining managerial positions in the private
sector, along with other factors, led the Govern­
ment to establish a National Manpower Board to
advise the Government on the development of
manpower resources. The Board will include rep­
resentatives from both the private and public sec­
tors. In addition, according to the Commissioner
for Economic Affairs, the Government will direct
future scholarship awards toward the training of
high-level manpower for private firms.
A N e w I n s titu te . By agreement between the Gov­

ernment of Ghana and the United Nations Devel­
opment Program (UNDP), a Management Devel­
opment and Productivity Institute will absorb and
replace the National Productivity Center estab­
lished in 1964. The Government and the UNDP
will jointly spend about $1.5 million on the Insti­
tute’s staff and equipment during the next 5 years.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) and
Ghana’s Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare
will be the implementing agencies. George Hartley,
a Ghanaian graduate of the Harvard School of


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Business and former instructor of the University
of Ghana who directed the Productivity Center,
will also head the Institute. Three ILO technicians
are now staff members at the Institute, and three
more will be added as its activities expand.
Venezuela—A g r ic u ltu r a l T ra in in g
Several foreign-owned oil companies in Vene­
zuela have jointly established the “Centro Caribo,”
an agricultural training school to be located in the
State of Sucre. Courses will include animal hus­
bandry, dairy farming, fruit and vegetable cul­
tivation, conservation practices, and machinery
operation and maintenance. Students will also re­
ceive training in cooperative management, bookkeeping, and rural arts and crafts.
The idea for the school was developed by the
oil companies in an effort to meet their responsi­
bilities under the youth apprenticeship law, which
requires companies to train youths up to age 18
in numbers equal to at least 3 percent of their work
force. Inasmuch as the oil industry’s labor force
is decreasing (it dropped from 44,000 in 1950 to
29,000 in 1966) and there is little need to train
workers in the petroleum field, the oil companies
will be contributing through “Centro Caribo” to
the training of Venezuelan youth for other im­
portant fields. Since 47 percent of Venezuela’s
population is under 14 years of age, high priority
is given by the Government and industry to pro­
viding youths with vocational skills.
Uruguay—H o u rs a n d E m p lo y m e n t
The late President Oscar Gestido signed a de­
cree on December 1 voiding many of the decrees
and laws restricting the hours that business estab­
lishments may stay open to the public. In effect,
the decree provides commercial establishments, es­
pecially those catering to the tourist trade, with
carte blanche as to business hours. The anticipated
effect is an increase in the hiring of personnel to
man the establishments during the longer busi­
ness hours. Resort to this regulation, unusual for
a Latin American country, seems to denote eco­
nomic difficulties in Uruguay. Its significance may
transcend that country’s boundaries if it indicates
a trend to meet economic problems with austerity
measures.

Research in Progress
This month's sampling of significant research
centers on projects affecting workers in the South,
and particularly on those who are migrating—
from the farm to the city or from the South to the
North and West. Queries on any of these items
should he addressed to the sponsoring Government
agency.
Mexican-American Migrants
Michigan State University’s Rural Manpower
Center will study the process by which MexicanAmerican migrant farm workers drop out of the
migrant stream and settle in Northern communi­
ties, and what kind of occupational adjustment
they are able to make. The migrant stream origi­
nates in Texas and leads into Michigan and other
North Central States. The study, which will in­
clude interviews with 700 farm workers and 100
community leaders in “dropout” areas, is expected
to be completed by the summer of 1968.
Negro Teenage Unemployment
Scheduled for completion in the fall of 1968, a
study by the North Carolina State University and
the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical
College aims at finding the root causes of Negro
teenage unemployment in rural communities.
Basis for the investigation will be interviews in
two adjacent rural counties in North Carolina of
a sample of 256 teenage high school graduates or
dropouts. Objects of the interviews will be the
youth’s job-hunting techniques, knowledge of the
job market, employment experience, aspiration,
self-image, family background, education, and
training. A sample of employers and school offi­
cials will also be queried and their responses used
to evaluate job opportunities, community atti­
tudes, and the adequacy of educational and train­
ing facilities available to Negro youth in the area.
Southern Migrants in Cleveland
The Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., is
studying occupational adjustment of low-income

migrants to Cleveland from the South and com­
paring their experience with those of long-term
residents. The three-phase study will first analyze
information obtained from interviewing 500 fami­
lies; the Project Peace Skill Center then will con­
duct an experimental counseling and training pro­
gram; and last, occupational adjustment will be
assessed. A report on the first phase is scheduled
for mid-1968.
Further information on the three preceding
items may be obtained from the Manpower Ad­
ministration’s Office of Manpower Research.
Spanish Americans in the Southwest
Fred H. Schmidt of the University of Cali­
fornia is analyzing the employment patterns of
Spanish-sumame Americans in the five States
of the Southwest (Arizona, California, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas) under contract with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The
report will distinguish problem areas in terms of
identifiable employment patterns and make recom­
mendations with respect to priorities among pos­
sible action programs by local, State, and Federal
governmental bodies.
Negro Labor and Poverty
A study being undertaken for the Office of
Economic Opportunity by the Harvard University
Department of Economics will investigate the
dual themes of poverty and equal employment op­
portunities by examining the determinants of the
demands and supplies of Negro labor of different
skills and traits and the determinants of wage
differentials. The study will also identify the fac­
tors that allow some Negroes to escape from pov­
erty but prevent others from doing so. Data being
used is from the OEO’s Survey of Economic Op­
portunity and the records of the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission.
Moving from Country to City
The Institute of Human Sciences of Boston Col­
lege, under contract with the Office of Economic
Opportunity, is studying migration and the effect
of the rural to urban transition on functional
achievement in a Negro population, through depth
interviews with 507 women heads of households in
mainly Negro areas of Boston. The major thesis
of the study is that in addition to low educational
107

2 88 -74 4 0

-

68-8


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

108

achievement and poor occupational preparation of
rural Negroes, two other background factors work
to retard occupational attainment and social
mobility in the city: The experience of growing up
in a rural, preindustrial community and the proc­
ess of migration itself.
Pilot Projects
Under the Experimental and Demonstration
authority of the Manpower Development and
Training Act and in the Neighborhood Youth
Corps program, the Manpower Administration of
the Department of Labor has financed a limited
number of short-term pilot projects in the South.
These are intended to determine the feasibility
and desirability of new approaches to manpower
development and employment problems. A brief
summary of some of these follows.
The National Urban League is operating remedial
programs in Macon, Ga., Columbia, S.C., Jacksonville, Fla.,
Birmingham, Ala., Memphis, Tenn., and Hattiesburg, Miss.,
to enable high school graduates to overcome test require­
ments and other barriers to employment in labor-short
skilled, technical, and professional jobs.
At St. Mary’s Dominican College, dialect remediation
was combined with secretarial training to show that
regional dialect, as an employment barrier to young
minority group women, could be overcome.
Project REACH of Loyola University is developing
employment services for underemployed and unemployed
persons in four rural parishes of Louisiana. In a similar
effort, the Neighborhood Centers Association, on behalf
of the human resources development program of the Texas
Employment Service, is attempting to find and aid resi­
dents of low-income neighborhoods (largely Spanish
American and Negro) to make use of training and em­
ployment opportunities.
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University devised
mobile Community Employment Clinics for 20 rural
counties in north Florida to help local residents become
aware of training and employment opportunities available
in the area. Selected individuals, who were qualified for


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
conventional programs, were brought to Tallahassee for
on-campus training.
In Jacksonville, Fla., the Chamber of Commerce is
exploring the feasibility of using its influence to serve as
liaison agent for businesses, community leaders, and
public agencies to intensify efforts to employ the dis­
advantaged. In Houston, Tex., the Crescent Foundation
informs employers of the potential for on-the-job training
and helps them design training plans.

Relocation to Urban Centers
Four mobility projects are operating under pri­
vate contract in Alabama, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Mississippi, and in Virginia, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Georgia, and Missis­
sippi, the State employment services are operating
like projects. All are part of an interregional
mobility operation dealing largely with the Ap­
palachian region, shifting unemployed and under­
employed workers from rural areas to urban in­
dustrial centers. Relocation grants and, sometimes,
additional loans to cover moving and other ex­
penses are provided along with supportive services
to help relocated workers become acclimated to
urban living and adjust to industrial work habits.
Further information is available from the Office
of Special Manpower Programs, Manpower Ad­
ministration.
Evaluating Manpower Programs
The Rand Corporation is applying system anal­
ysis techniques to manpower programs of interest
to the Office of Economic Opportunity, with a
view toward developing a rational and compre­
hensive basis for evaluating current and proposed
programs and providing guidance for the design
of future programs. Techniques range from the
detailed scrutiny of one program to the develop­
ment of broad models of poverty.

Significant Decisions
in Labor Cases*
Disclosure and Reporting
Effect of Intervening Election. In reversing the
lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held1
that when the Secretary of Labor proves the exist­
ence of irregularities under the Labor-Manage­
ment Reporting and Disclosure A ct2 that may
have affected the outcome of a challenged election,
his remedial action is not rendered moot by the
fact that the union has conducted another un­
supervised election.
A member of a local union was disqualified as a
candidate for the local’s presidency because he had
attended only IT of the 24 regular monthly meet­
ings, or less than the 75 percent required for eligi­
bility under the bylaws. His complaint invoked
an investigation by the Secretary of Labor. A dis­
trict court held the meeting requirement to be an
unreasonable restriction upon the eligibility of
union members to be candidates for office, in viola­
tion of section 401 (e) of the act, but dismissed the
suit for lack of proof that the violation may have
affected the outcome of the election. While the ap­
peal by the Secretary was pending, the local held
its next regular biennial election.
The court of appeals held that the Secretary’s
challenge to the first election was mooted by the
second election, and vacated the district court’s
judgment by directing dismissal of the case.
Justice Brennan pointed to Congress’ stress on
supervised elections as a safeguard against electing
“beneficiaries of violations of the act” and said,
“Congress chose the alternative of a supervised
election as the remedy for a section 401 violation
in the belief that the protective presence of a
neutral Secretary of Labor would best prevent the
unfairness in the first election from infecting, di­
rectly or indirectly, the remedial election. The
choice also reflects a conclusion that union mem­
bers made aware of unlawful practices could not
adequately protect their own interests through an
unsupervised election.”


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

In a companion case3 decided the same day,
the Court held that the Secretary of Labor could
maintain an action under section 4024 of the act in
challenging a union’s general election, even though
the complaining union member protested only the
run-off election. The decision upholds the statu­
tory grant of broad investigative powers to the
Secretary.
His complaint is not limited to the allegations
made in the initial complaint of the union mem­
ber, the Justice said; the act permits him to include
in his complaint any section 401 violation he had
discovered which the union had a fair opportunity
to consider and redress in connection with a mem­
ber’s initial complaint.
Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Vacation and Holiday Pay. In a single-sentence
per curiam decision,5 the U.S. Supreme Court held
that, under the reemployment provisions of the
Universal Military Training and Service Act,6 a
returning serviceman was entitled to vacation and
holiday pay as if he had been continuously em­
ployed while in the Armed Forces. In its opinion,
the Court relied upon a previous ruling7 regard­
ing loss of seniority rights under the act.
Before the employee left for a tour of active
duty in the Armed Forces, he had worked for the
*Prepared in the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
Solicitor. The cases covered in this article represent a selection
of the significant decisions believed to be of special interest. No
attempt has been made to reflect all recent judicial and adminis­
trative developments in the field of labor law or to indicate the
effect of particular decisions in jurisdictions in which contrary
results may be reached based upon local statutory provisions,
the existence of local precedents, or a different approach by the
courts to the issue presented.
1W irtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers (U.S. Sup. Ct.,
January 15, 1968).
2Section 401, which sets forth procedures for the election of
union officials. (29 U.S.C. 481(e).)
3W irtz v. Local Union 125, Laborers’ International Union
(U.S. Sup. Ct., January 15, 1968).
4Section 402 provides that an employee, acting through the
Secretary of Labor, may challenge a union election (29 U.S.C.
482).
5Eager v. Magma Cooper Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct., December 11,
1 9 6 7 ).

6The law (section 9 ( c ) ) provides that a person who is restored
to his position after military service is considered to have been
on furlough or leave of absence during the service. He is “restored
without loss of seniority” and “shall be entitled to participate
in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant
to established rules and practices” relating to such absences in
effect when the person entered the military service. (50 U.S.C.
App. 459(c) (1).)
7Accardi v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 383 U.S. 225 (1966) ;
see Monthly Labor Review, April 1966, pp. 417-418.
109

110

company for 6 days short of 1 year. After reem­
ployment, he sought vacation pay for the time
worked before the military service plus pay for
holidays that occurred following his return. He
claimed that under the UMTSA he should be
treated as having been on leave or furlough while
in the service and, therefore, entitled to these pay­
ments as provided by the union contract covering
his employment.
The court of appeals concluded that there were
two categories of rights under the act—those per­
taining to “seniority, status, and pay,” and those
concerning “insurance and other benefits.” The
employee’s situation, the court held, fell into the
latter category and, as such, was governed by the
employer’s practices with reference to leave and
furlough in effect at the time the employee was in­
ducted. Since the practice was that no benefits
were paid unless the employee was actually work­
ing at the specified time, the claim was denied.
The Supreme Court reversed, citing Accardi.
That decision dealt with the determination of se­
niority rights where separation allowances were
determined by the length of service with a rail­
road, and held that the returning serviceman was
to be treated as if he had been employed at his
position with the company during the time he was
in the Armed Forces. Apparently, the Court was
of the opinion that the holiday and vacation pay
fell into the “seniority,” rather than the “other
benefits,” category.
Justice Douglas, joined by Justices Harlan and
Stewart, dissented on the ground that receiving
holiday and vacation pay depended not on the
employee’s seniority but on whether he had com­
plied with the bargaining agreement requirements.
The dissenters believed the “other benefits” clause
governed this situation.
Civil Rights Act—Title VII
Discriminatory Seniority System. A Federal
district court held 8 that an employer’s use of a
departmental seniority system based on once
racially discriminatory assignment practices vio­
lated the equal opportunity provisions of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
For many years the employer’s workers had
been divided into racially segregated departments.
At the beginning of 1966, the employer began to


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

hire and assign employees on a nondiscriminatory
basis, thereby opening to newly hired Negro work­
ers the more desirable jobs in the previously allwhite departments. The Negro workers hired be­
fore the change of policy had only limited job
opportunities available in the previously all-Negro
departments to which they had been assigned on
the basis of race. Transfer from previously allNegro departments was limited by the department
seniority provisions applicable to promotion, pref­
erential day shifts, layoffs, and interdepartmental
transfer. Negro employees had a; limited right to
transfer to previously all-white departments, but
by doing so lost all departmental seniority. Since
promotion opportunities within a department were
based upon the employee’s length of service in that
department rather than in the plant, employees
who lost departmental seniority by transferring
from “Negro” departments to “white” ones had
less opportunity for promotion in those depart­
ments than was available to white employees with
less plant seniority.
Two Negro employees who had unsuccessfully
sought promotions for which they were qualified
filed a class action against the employer and the
union which represented all of the plant’s em­
ployees,9 seeking to enjoin the use of departmental
seniority as a discriminatory ban to advancement.
The court held that while the company was not
presently discriminating in assignment of em­
ployees, its seniority system limited the promo­
tional opportunities of employees previously as­
signed on a discriminatory basis. Although the
Civil Rights Act was not intended to alter a bona
fide seniority system, it said, a system based on
previous discriminatory practices was not bona
fide; the act did not allow the employer to main­
tain differences in employee opportunity which
were the result of discrimination before the law
went into effect. The court stated that depart­
mental seniority was not itself unlawful and, in
fact, served many useful purposes for the em­
ployer; but it enjoined its use as a means of perpe­
tuating the inequities of the prior discriminatory
system.
8 Douglas Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc. (D.C., B.D.—Va. Janu­
ary 4, 1968). Regarding the right to sue under the act, involved in
this case, see Monthly Labor Review, July 1967, p. 54.
9 The departmental seniority provisions were part of the collec­
tive bargaining agreement between the company and the union.

Chronology of
Recent Labor Events

January 1, 1968
agreements covering 36,000 workers were con­
cluded between New York City employers (New York
City Transit Authority, the Manhattan and Bronx Sur­
face Transit Authority, and five privately-owned bus
lines) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and
the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). The settlement
was ratified by ATU members on January 8 and by TWU
members on January 19. ( See pp. 114-115, this issue. )

T wo-yeak

January 2
T he Social Security A mendments of 1967 were signed
by President Lyndon B. Johnson, to be effective January
1. The law increases benefits by at least 13 percent, with
the minimum rising to $55 a month from $44, effective
February 1968. On January 1, the payroll base went to
$7,800 from $6,600. Payroll taxes will rise from 4.4 per­
cent to 4.8 percent in 1969 and, by steps, to 5.9 percent
in 1987. Other provisions modified or improved benefits
to the elderly and the disabled. Rules governing the use
of Federal funds for aid to families with dependent
children were also amended. ( See p. 119, this issue. )

January 4

January 15
T he Supreme Court ruled th at under provision of the

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, once
a union election is adjudged unlawful, the Secretary of
Labor has the right to insist on the conduct of another
election under his supervision, even though the union may
have held a second election before the first was declared
unlawful. The case was W irtz v. Local 153, Glass B ottle
Blowers Association. In a companion case, W irtz v. Local
125, Laborers International Union of North America, the
Court ruled that the Secretary of Labor can investigate
the conduct of an original election as well as the runoff,
even though a complaint by a member deals only with the
latter. ( See p. 109, this issue.)

January 18
Kaiser Steel Corp. and the United Steelworkers at the
Fontana, Calif., plant agreed to extend the Long Range
Sharing Plan till October 1, 1971. The plan was revised
(retroactive to October 1, 1967) so that former incentive
employees will be permitted to return to that system.
Further, the company will meet the cost-of-wage increases
negotiated by the rest of the industry out of its own funds,
rather than deducting part of the employees’ share of
gains for that purpose. ( See p. 117, this issue.)

January 24
T he Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce
named a three-man panel to attempt to settle the copper
industry strike which began July 15, 1967. On January 25,
about 1,800 Steelworkers ratified a 42-month agreement
with White Pine Copper Co.—the first agreement involving
a struck producer of copper, and calling for about $1 an
hour in additional wages and benefits. (See pp. 118-119,
this issue.)

I n Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc., a District Court in
Richmond, Va., held that under the Civil Rights Act of
1964 a company was obligated to revise its seniority and
promotion system in order to remove the consequences
of past discrimination. Personnel from one department
had been required to forego their seniority if they trans­
ferred to other departments. This, in effect, limited the
promotional opportunity of workers in the previously allNegro préfabrication department. ( See p. 110, this issue. )

January 26

An agreement for 11,500 maintenance workers was con­
cluded between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Trans­
port Workers Union providing a wage increase of 6 per­
cent less 9 cents retroactive to January 1, 1967, and a 5percent raise on July 1, 1968. The agreement was ratified
by the TWU President’s Council on January 11 and by the
membership a week later. (See p. 115, this issue.)

F our railroads (the Great Northern, Northern Pacific,
Burlington, and Spokane, Portland, & Seattle), whose
merger was approved November 30 by the Interstate Com­
merce Commission, reached agreement with the Brother­
hood of Maintenance of Way Employees assuring lifetime
jobs, earnings, and other benefits for 10,000 workers. (See
p. 116 this issue.)


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

I n the first such action involving a single county, the
National Education Association imposed national sanc­
tions against Jackson County, W. Va. These sanctions will
be removed if a levy is approved allowing $545,000 in pay
raises, school maintenance, transportation, and textbooks
in a special election to be held March 12, 1968. No tax
levy or bond proposal has been approved since 1950.

111

Major Agreements Expiring in April 1968
E ditor’s Note.— This is a listin g o f collective bargaining a g re e m e n ts
en din g du ring the m o n th , a n d includes a lm o s t all a g re e m e n ts 1
covering 1,000 workers or more.

Copies o f Wage Calendar 1968, covering the entire year, are
available upon request, to th e S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o cum ents,
G o vernm ent P rinting Office, W ashington, D.C., 20402, or to any
o f the Bureau’s regional offices.

Company and location

A m e ric a n B osch A n n a C o rp . (S pringfield, M ass.)_______________________
A m e ric a n C a n C o., M a ra th o n D iv is io n (G re e n B a y , W is .)______________

Industry

T ra n s p o rta tio n
e q u ip m e n t.
P a p e r . . ____ ______

A m e ric a n C a n C o., M a ra th o n D iv is io n (W isconsin a n d M ic h ig a n )_______

P a p e r ____________

A m e ric a n C a n C o., G lass o p eratio n s (N ew Jersey , I n d ia n a , a n d M innesota)

S to n e, clay , a n d
glass p ro d u c ts.
A m u s e m e n ts _____
C o n s tru c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n ........ ..

A sso ciatio n of M o tio n P ic tu re P ro d u c e rs, In c . (C a lifo rn ia )______________
A sso ciated B u ild in g C o n tra c to rs of T o led o , In c . (T oledo, O hio a re a )____
A sso ciated B u ild in g C o n tra c to rs of T o ledo, In c . (T oledo, O hio a re a )____
A sso ciated G en eral C o n tra c to rs (S o u th e rn C a lifo rn ia )___________________
A sso ciated G en eral C o n tra c to rs a n d 1 o th e r assn. (M ich ig an )____________
A sso ciated G e n eral C o n tra c to rs (N ew O rleans, L a . a n d v ic in ity )________
A sso ciate d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs (N o rth e rn a n d C e n tra l C a lifo rn ia )............
A sso ciate d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs a n d o th e r asso ciatio n s (O regon a n d S.W.
W a sh in g to n ).
A sso ciate d G e n eral C o n tra c to rs , D e tro it C h a p te r (D e tro it, M ic h .)_______
A sso ciate d G en eral C o n tra c to rs , M ich ig an C h a p te r (M ich ig an )__________
A sso ciate d G en eral C o n tra c to rs a n d 3 o th e r asso ciatio n s (M ich ig an )_____
A sso ciate d G en eral C o n tra c to rs (F lo rid a )________________________________
A sso ciate d G en eral C o n tra c to rs, m illw rig h ts ( F lo r id a ) __________________
A sso ciate d P ro d u c e rs a n d P ack e rs, In c . (W a sh in g to n )___________________
B a rre G ra n ite A ssn. (V erm o n t)_____________ ________ ____ ______________
B e n d ix C o rp . (In te rs ta te ) _______________________________________________
B u ild in g C o n tra c to rs A ssn. (In d ia n a p o lis, I n d .) _________________________
B u ild in g Service L eague, C om m ercial A g re e m e n t (N ew Y o rk , N . Y . j ____
B u ild in g T ra d e s E m p lo y e rs A ssn. (W estchester a n d P u tn a m C o u n tie s ,
N .Y .) .
B u ild in g T ra d e s E m p lo y e rs A ssn . (W estchester a n d P u tn a m C o u n tie s,
N .Y .) .
B ro w n C o., a n d B ro w n N e w H a m p s h ire , In c . (N ew H a m p s h ire )..............

Number
of
workers

Union 2

E le c tric a l W orkers ( I U E ) ______________________

1,700

P a p e rm a k e rs a n d P a p e rw o rk e rs;
S u lp h ite W orkers.

1,100

P u lp

and

Papermakers and Paperworkers; Pulp and
S u lp h ite W orkers.
G lass B o ttle B lo w ers__________________________

2,800
1, 500
1,600

C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____

M u sician s______________________________________
C a rp e n te rs _____________________________________
L a b o re rs _______________________________________
T e a m s te rs ( I n d .) _______________________________
L a b o re rs _______________________________________
B u ild in g a n d C o n s tru c tio n T ra d e s C o u n c il of
G re a te r N e w O rlean s.
T e a m s te rs ( I n d .) _______________________________
C a rp e n te rs _____________________________________

C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
C o n s tr u c tio n _____
F o o d p r o d u c ts ____

O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs .
O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs .
C a r p e n te r s ..________
C a r p e n te r s ..............
C a rp e n te rs __________
T e a m s te rs ( I n d . ) . „ . .

S to n e, c lay , an d
glass p ro d u c ts.
T r a n s p o rta tio n
e q u ip m e n t.
C o n s tru c tio n _____
M iscellaneous
b u sin ess services.
C o n s tru c tio n _____

G ra n ite C u tte r s .

1,000

A u to W o rk ers__

13.000

1,000

1.400
7.000
6.000

15.000
7.000
12.000

1,500
4.000
12,000
2,100
2.000

2.850

C a rp e n te rs __________________
B u ild in g Service E m p lo y e e s.

1.850
9.000

L a b o re rs ____________________

3.000

C o n s tr u c tio n ..........

B ric k la y e rs ________________

2.000

P a p e r ______ _____

P u lp a n d S u lp h ite W o rk ers.

1, 650

C elanese C o rp . of A m e ric a (A m celle, M d .)__ ____ _______________ _______
C h a rm in P a p e r P ro d u c ts Co. (G re e n B a y , W is.)________________ _______ _

C h em ica ls________
P a p e r . . . ...................

2, 500
1.150

C hicago B a k e ry E m p lo y e rs C o u n cil (Illin o is a n d I n d ia n a ) .............
C la rk E q u ip m e n t C o. (B a ttle C reek, M ic h .) ...........................
C la rk E q u ip m e n t C o. (B u c h a n a n , M ic h .)....... ...........................................

2, 700
1.400
2.150

A llied I n d u s tr ia l W o rk ers.

2,100

C le v e la n d E le c tric I llu m in a tin g C o. (C le v elan d , O h io ).....................................
C o n so lid a te d P a p e rs In c ., a n d C onsow eld C o rp . (W isconsin)_____ _______

F o o d p ro d u c ts ____
M a c h in e ry ________
T ra n s p o r ta tio n
e q u ip m e n t.
T r a n s p o r ta tio n
e q u ip m e n t.
U til iti e s ....................
P a p e r ..........................

T e x tile W orkers U n io n ........................ ............. .........
P a p e rm a k e rs a n d P ap e rw o rk e rs; P u lp a n d S u l­
p h ite W orkers.
A m e ric a n B a k e ry W o rk ers................................. ........
A llied I n d u s tr ia l W orkers______________ ______
A u to W o rk ers....... ............... ................. .........................

U til ity W o rk ers......... ....................... .......................... ..
P a p e rm a k e rs a n d P a p e rw o rk e rs; P u lp a n d S u l­
p h ite W orkers; E le c tric a l W orkers (IB E W ).

2,200

D a y to n T ire a n d R u b b e r C o. (D a y to n , O h io ) ....................................
D e tr o it M ason C o n tra c to rs A ssn . (D e tro it, M ich, a re a )________________ I ..
D e tr o it M ason C o n tra c to rs A ssn . (D e tro it, M ich. a r e a ) . . ............................ .

R u b b e r ___________
C o n s tru c tio n _____
C o n s tru c tio n ............

R u b b e r W o rk ers.
B ric k la y e rs _____
L a b o r e r s ..............

1,250
4,000

E le c tric S torage B a tte r y Co. (In te rs ta te ) .................. .......................................... .

E le c tric a l p ro d u cts.

A u to W o rk ers......... ........... ........................... ................

1,300

F is c h e r & P o rte r C o., A llo y S teel C a s tin g C o., a n d W a rm in ster F ib erg lass
C o. (W arm in ster a n d S o u th h a m p to n , P a .) ....... .............

C o n tro llin g in s tr u ­
m e n ts .

In d e p e n d e n t
(In d .).

1, 500

G e n eral and_ S u b -C o n tra c to rs ’ A ssociations (E a s te rn P e n n s y lv a n ia )______
G e n eral B u ild in g C o n tra c to rs A ssn ., In c . (E a s te rn P e n n s y lv a n ia a n d
D e la w a re ).
G e n eral T e le p h o n e C o. of O h io ___________
G re a t L a k e s F a b ric a to rs a n d E re c to rs A ssn." ( E a s te r n 'M id iig a n j” ZZZZZ!

C o n s tru c tio n ............
C o n s tru c tio n ______

L a b o re rs ..... ...................
O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs .

3,600
2,500

C o m m u n ic a tio n ___
C o n s tru c tio n ______

C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk ers.
O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs _____

2, 500
1,800

H u s s m a n R efrig erato r Co. (S t. L o u is, M o.).................... ...................................... .

M a c h in e ry ________

C a rp e n te rs a n d 8 o th e r A F L - C I O u n io n s .

1,350

R e ta il C le rk s ___
C a rp e n te rs .............
T e a m s te rs ( I n d .) .
R e ta il C le rk s ___

1,000

C la rk E q u ip m e n t Co. (Jackson, M i c h , ) . . . .............................................................

s S 00(^ S to re A g reem e n t (M innesota a n d W isconsin)_________________
G en eral C o n tra c tin g A g reem e n t (F lo rid a a n d G eo rg ia)____________
r « ! i ce C re a m C o m p a n ies (N ew Y o rk a n d N e w J e rs e y )................ ............. .
i- A In d e p e n d e n t S u p er M ark ets, G ro cery D iv is io n (M issouri)__________

112


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

R e ta il t r a d e . ..........
C o n s tru c tio n ______
F o o d p ro d u c ts ____
R e ta il tr a d e ______

U n io n

2,900

1,200

of

R o ta m e te r

W orkers

1,800
2,000

3,000

Major Agreements Expiring in April 1968—Continued

Company and location

I-A 3 M aster Food and Liquor Agreement (California)_______
I - A 3 M etal Trade Companies (California)_________________
I - A 3 Packinghouse Agreement (Chicage. 111. and vicinity)----I -A 3 Western States Longhaul Common Carriers (Interstate)..
Illinois Assn, of Breweries and Wholesalers (Chicago, 111. area).
Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Traffic Department (Chicago, 111.)
Inland Container Corp. (Interstate)___________________ _

Industry

Retail trade____
Fabricated metal
products.
Food pro d u cts...
Trucking_______
Food products__
CommunicationPaper_________

Number
of
workers

Union 2

Retail Clerks________________
Machinists__________________

3.500
2.500

Teamsters (Ind.)_____________
Machinists______ ____________
Teamsters (Ind.)_____________
Communications Workers_____
Papermakers and Paperworkers

3, 000
1, 800
3, 400
1,250

1, 000

Lakey Foundry Corp. (Muskegon, M ich.)__________________
Lathing Contractors of Southern California (Los Angeles, Calif.)
Leviton Manufacturing Co. (Warwick, R. I.)________________
Lufkin Foundry and Machine Co. (Lufkin, Tex.)____ ________

Prim ary metals____ Auto Workers____________
Construction______
Electrical products.. Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Boilermakers; M achinists. _.
Transportation
equipment.

1,300

Mason Contractors Assn, and 2 other associations (Detroit, M ich.)-------McCall Corp. (Dayton, Ohio)_____________________________________

C onstruction........... B ricklayers...........................
Printing and pub­
Bookbinders____ _________
lishing.
Utilities__________ Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Insurance carriers. . . Insurance Workers......... ......

2,500
1,800

1, 000

1,700
1, 500

1.400
8, 500

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Pennsylvania)___________________________
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsyl­
vania) .
Minneapolis Automobile Dealers Assn. (Minneapolis, M inn.)--------------- Automobile services. Teamsters (Ind.)______________
Minneapolis Hotels and Motels (Minneapolis, M inn, area)------------------ H otels___________ Hotel and Restaurant Employees.
Minneapolis-Moline, Inc. (Minneapolis, M inn.)____________________ M achinery________ Auto Workers__ _____________

1.400
2, 500
1,100

National Electrical Contractors Assn. (Detroit, M ich.)------Northwestern M utual Life Insurance Co. (Milwaukee, Wis.)

Construction______ Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Insurance carriers__ Associated Unions (In d .)...

3, 000
1,500

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Blown Plastic Division (Interstate)■_

Miscellaneous
plastic products.

Glass Bottle Blowers.

1,450

Parke, Davis & Co. (Detroit and Rochester, M ich.)_________________
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. (Chicago, 111.)____________ _________
Printing Industries of M etropolitan New York, Printers League Section,
2 agreements 4 (New York, N.Y.).

Chemicals______
Utilities________
Printing and pub­
lishing.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers.
Building Service Employees______
P rinting Pressmen__. . . . ________

2,200

1, 500

5, 000

Rock Hill Printing and Finishing Co. (Rock Hill, S.C.)

Textiles.

Textile Workers Union.

2, 600

Schifili Lace and Embroidery Manufacturers Assn. (New Jersey)----------Southwestern Michigan Contractors Assn. (Michigan)_________ _______
St. Louis Restaurant Owners Assn, and independent companies (St.
Louis, Mo.).
Standard Oil of California, Standard Stations (Interstate)_____________

Apparel____
Construction.
Restaurants..

United Textile Workers____________________
Carpenters_______________________________
Hotel and Restaurant Employees.......................

2.500
1.500
3,200

Retail trade..

Store Fixture and Architectural Institute (Los Angeles, Calif.)

Fabricated metal
products.
Furniture______

Western States Service Station Employees
Union (Ind.).
Auto Workers_____________________________

5,400

Standard Screw Co. (Bellwood, 111.)______________________

Carpenters; Painters and Paperhangers-----------

1.500

Union Carbide Corp., Y-12 Plant (Oak Ridge, T en n .)...---Union Carbide Corp., Nuclear Division (Oak Ridge, Tenn.)

Chemicals.
Chemicals.

Atomic Trades and Labor Council.
Atomic Trades and Labor Council.

2,550
1, 250

Walworth Co. (Interstate)______________

Fabricated metal
products.
Utilities_______
Furniture______
Primary m etals..

Steelworkers____

1,350

Utility Workers__
Furniture Workers.
Steelworkers_____

1,250

West Penn Power Co. (Pennsylvania)___
Williams Furniture Corp. (Sumter, S.C.)..
A lan Wood Steel Co. (Conshohocken, Pa.)
1 Excludes government, airlines, and railroads.
2 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent
(Ind.).


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

1,050

1,100

2,600

3 Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
4 Information is from newspaper account of settlement.

113

Developments in
Industrial Relations*

a r g a i n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s in late December and
January were highlighted by settlements in trans­
portation. A New York City subway and bus
strike was averted when New Year’s Day settle­
ments covered nearly 36,000 employees of the New
York City Transit Authority, the Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, and
five privately owned buslines. The agreements sub­
stantially improved pensions, a primary issue in
the bargaining. Among railroad settlements dur­
ing the period was a 2-year agreement reached
December 29 for 144,000 Railway Clerks employed
by the Nation’s Class I railroads. An agreement
in early January covered 15,000 Transport Work­
ers employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The upward trend of all measures of strike
activity continued in 1967, as strike levels exceeded
1966 totals. (Measures of strike activity in 1966
were the highest since 1959, when the Steelworkers
struck major steel producers.) In 1967, 4,475 stop­
pages began,1 an increase of only 2 percent over
the 4,405 that began in 1966. A rise in the number
of workers involved and in the duration of strikes,
however, led to a 60-percent increase in the per­
centages of total estimated worktime lost because
of strikes to .30 from .19 percent. In 1967 mandays idle as a result of strikes totaled 41 million,
compared with 25.4 million the previous year.
Among 1967 disputes causing the most idleness
were the nationwide copper strike, the Auto
Workers’ strike against the Ford Motor Co., a
rubber industry stoppage, a nationwide trucking
tieup in Teamsters, and the strike of six shopcraft
unions against the Nation’s major railroads.

B

Transportation and Utilities
A transit strike was averted on New Year’s Day
when the New York City Transit Authority
(NYCTA), the Manhattan and Bronx Surface
Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), and
114


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

five privately owned buslines2 settled on 2-year
contracts with the Transport Workers (TWU)
and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).
The NYCTA agreement covered 29,650 employ­
ees—about 1,700 are represented by the ATU and
almost 28,000 by the TWU. Improved pensions
were a major part of the settlement. Effective on
July 1,1968, NYCTA employees can retire at age
50 with 20 years of service at a guarantee of half
pay for the last year of work.3 After July 1, 1968,
for each year of credited service in excess of 20, an
employee is to receive an additional pension of 2%
percent of the average of the last 5 years of final
pay. Of the 2% percent, the NYCTA would guar­
antee iy 2 percentage points, and the employee
would receive the actuarial equivalent of the other
1 percent based on the amount of his contributions
to the pension fund. Previously, normal pensions
based on the average of the last 5 years of final
pay were provided at age 55 with 25 years of serv­
ice. The NYCTA guaranteed 1 percent of pay per
year of service and the employee was credited with
the actuarial equivalent of his contribution over
time. Wages were increased by 5 percent in Janu­
ary with an additional increase of 6 percent on
July 1, 1969. The effect of the first wage increase
on the employees’ take-home pay, however, was
expected to be lessened on July 1, 1968—the effec­
tive date of pension improvements. Under the con­
tributory pension plan, the employees’ contribu­
tions would rise to pay for the improved benefits.
Other terms included full medical care and hos­
pitalization for retirees (previously, the NYCTA
paid $4.62 a month for such benefits), $50,000 life
insurance for assault while on duty, and numerous
improvements in work rules.
The MABSTOA agreement covered about 5,300
employees represented by the TWU, and again,
pensions were the major issue. Effective on July 1,
1968, MABSTOA employees can retire at age 60
with 15 years of service. The benefit is computed
at the rate of iy 2 percent of final pay for the last
year of work for each year of credited service.
*Prepared in the Division of Wage Economics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, on the basis of published material available in late
January.
1 1967 figures are preliminary.
2
Avenue “B ” and East Broadway Transit Co., Inc., Jamaica
Buses, Inc., Queens Transit Corp., Steinway Transit Corp., and
Triboro Coach Corp.
8Gross earnings including overtime.

115

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Previously, MABSTOA employees could retire at
age 65 with 25 years of service (at 1 percent of
the last 5 years of final pay for each year of cred­
ited service). The MABSTOA pension plan is
noncontributory.
Wage increases were the same as in the NYCTA
settlement. Other terms included a 10th paid holi­
day, 2 weeks of paid vacation after 1 instead of 2
years, 4 instead of 3 weeks of vacation after 5
years, and a fifth week after 25 years (the previous
maximum was 4 weeks after 15 years), and an ad­
ditional 1-cent-an-hour MABSTOA contribution
to the health and welfare fund (previously $25.82
a month).
The agreement with the five private lines cov­
ered about 1,000 workers represented by the TWTJ
and provided wage increases of 18 cents an hour
retroactive to December 1, 1967, 10 cents on Jan­
uary 1,1969, 8 cents on June 30,1969, and 24 cents
on the next day, July 1, 1969.4 Effective July 1,
1968, both the buslines and employees will each
contribute $4.80 a week to the pension fund instead
of the previous $2 each a week, and $5.80 a week
on July 1, 1969. Employees can retire at age 62
with 25 years of service, with the pension benefit
computed at $5 a month for each year of credited
service. Previously, the employees received $75 or
$100 a month at age 65 with 25 years of service.
All five buslines were provided 9 paid holidays
(all buslines had given 9 except Queens Transit
Corps., which provided 8). Other terms included
the establishment of $50,000 life insurance for
assault while on duty and improved funeral leave.
A settlement affecting 144,000 workers was
reached December 29,1967, by the Nation’s Class I
railroads and the Railway Clerks. The 2-year con­
tract provided the following increases:
Effective date

January 1, 1968...___ ___________ _____ -.................
July 1, 1968................
January 1,1969_________________________________
July 1, 1969................................... ...... ..............................

Percent increase

2J^
3M
2
3

In addition, the carriers agreed to set aside 5
cents an hour, beginning not later than July 1,
1968, to adjust wage inequities. Other terms in­
cluded 2 weeks of paid vacation after 2 instead of
3 years of service.
In early January, the Transport Workers agreed
with the Pennsylvania Railroad on a contract for
11,500 employees. The pact provided a 6-percent


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

wage increase retroactive to January 1, 1967, and
a 5-percent increase on July 1,1968. The 6-percent
increase included a 9-cent deferred wage increase
already put into effect on January 1, 1967, under
provisions of the 1965 settlement. Other terms
included a 5-cent-an-hour inequity adjustment to
mechanics effective April 1 and October 1 of both
1967 and 1968, and 3 weeks of paid vacation
after 10 instead of 15 years of service. These terms
were similar to those announced by a 1967 Presi­
dential arbitration panel and subsequently put
into effect for shopcraft employees of Class I rail­
roads represented by six unions.5
On January 5, the Train Dispatchers settled on
an 18-month agreement with Class I railroads.
The pact, covering 3,000 workers, provided a 6percent wage increase retroactive to January 1,
1967, and a 4.3-percent increase effective January
1, 1968. I t also provided 3 weeks of paid vacation
after 10 instead of 15 years of service.
The Nation’s railroads in mid-January reached
agreement with 30 unions on a uniform health and
welfare plan to replace five separate plans cover­
ing individual unions or groups of unions. The
railroad will continue to pay the full cost of cover­
age. On March 1,1968, the carriers will pay $30.50
a month into the health and welfare fund, from
which they will deduct 26 cents for administrative
expenses; an additional $3.40 a month will be
drawn from a special reserve account bringing the
total monthly premium received by the Travelers
Insurance Co. to $33.64. In the past carrier pay­
ments ranged from $25.72 to $27.90 a month.
At the same time, the unions proposed forma­
tion of a joint labor-management committee to
“build a new era of harmony and cooperation.” A
union spokesman offered five policies that the com­
mittee could pursue: Faster negotiation of con­
tracts ; better implementation of contracts; faster
handling of grievances; advertising of confidence
in employees (this referred to allegations on the
part of unions that the carriers’ “featherbedding”
campaign several years ago hurt the unions’ im­
age) ; and greater cooperation in programs of
mutual benefits, such as safety.
4Driver® for the Avenue “B” and East Broadway; Transit Co.,
Inc., received an additional 6% cents an hour to equalize their
wage rates with drivers on the other four buslines.
6The Machinists, Sheet Metal Workers, Firemen and Oilers,
Boilermakers, Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Railway Carmen.

116
On December 29, the six shopcraft unions8
signed a job protection agreement with four west­
ern railroads and their subsidiaries7 contingent
on a merger of the Great Northern Pacific and
Burlington Lines, Inc., into a single system, Cov­
ering about 10,000 employees, the pact provided
“lifetime jobs for the employees involved.” The
new company would, however, be permitted to lay
off workers with less than 5 years of seniority in
the event of a specified reduction in revenue. Five
other unions8 had signed similar agreements with
the carriers, and an additional seven9 were still
negotiating.
Retired members of the National Maritime
Union are to pay annual service fees of $20 to $100
a year as a result of a resolution approved in De­
cember by the union’s employed members. The re­
solution stated that the fee represented “a fair
share” of the cost of services the pensioners receive
from the union “through its negotiating, supervis­
ing, and servicing” of the pension plan and that
“the burden of the cost of the pension services has
fallen solely on the active seamen and has not been
shared by the pensioners.” The U.S. Department of
Labor investigated the legality of the service fee
arrangement and found no violation; the New
York State Department of Banking was still in­
vestigating. The 45,000-member union had 7,500
members on pension in January, an increase of
2,000 over a year earlier.
Ratification of a 2-year agreement between the
Jersey Central Power and Light Co. and the Elec­
trical Workers (IBEW) was announced on De­
cember 19. Wages were increased 5.4 percent, retro­
active to November 1, 1967, for 2,600 line, clerical,
and stenographic employees, and a provision was
included for bargaining on wages in October 1968.
Trade and Services
Chicago Teamsters Local 705 in early January
negotiated two contracts, one for 6,000 employees
of the 3,500 filling stations comprising the Gasoline
Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago and
the other for 1,100 employees of 130 carwash com­
panies. Both 3-year agreements provided 15-cent
annual wage increases, but the service station con­
tract also established hospital-medical insurance to
be financed by a $5-a-week employer contribution,
and the carwash contract included a guarantee of
32 hours of work a week.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Members of Teamster Local 138 on January 14
ratified a 2-year contract with wholesale and retail
grocers in southern New York State, ending a
6-day strike. The 2-year contract provided wage
increases totaling $15 a week and $4.50 in supple­
mentary benefits. Prior to the settlement, drivers
earned $115.70 a week and helpers and warehouse­
men earned $112.10.
The Mountain States Employers Council, repre­
senting six food chains, and Retail Clerks Local 7
negotiated a 3-year contract in early December for
3,000 clerks and about 350 “caddy-boys” (carry­
out) in 115 stores in the Denver, Colo., area. Clerks
received wage increases of 32 cents an hour over the
term while caddy-boys, who were paid $1.40 an
hour under the previous contract, received a total
of 30 cents an hour. Other provisions included
premium pay for Sunday work, a seventh paid
holiday, and, for the clerks, a 3-cent-an-hour in­
crease in the employers’ pension contribution and a
3-cent increase in health and welfare contributions.
Bamberger’s of New Jersey and Retail Clerks
Local 21 on January 8 announced agreement on a
contract for 2,500 retail workers in Newark and
Morristown. The 3-year pact, negotiated under a
reopening provision of a contract that was not
scheduled to expire until January 1969, provided
wage increases totaling 30 cents an hour, an in­
crease in the major medical benefit to $15,000, and
improved pensions, including a $17.50 increase in
minimum monthly benefits, bringing it to $105.
About 800 New York City office and warehouse
employees were affected by a December settlement
between the Associated Lerner Stores of America
and the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Union. Highlighting the settlement was a clause
guaranteeing that workers on the payroll for 4
months prior to August 1,1967, would not be laid
off when Lerner moves to its new facility and that
workers whose jobs are eliminated after the move
would be retrained on company time and at com6 The Boilermakers and Blacksmiths, Railway Carmen, Machin­
ists, Electrical Workers (IBEW), Firemen and Oilers, and
Sheet Metal Workers.
7 Great Northern Railway Co., Northern Pacific Railway Co.,
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Co., and Spokane,
Portland & Seattle Railway Co.
e The Locomotive Engineers (Ind.), Firemen and Enginemen,
Railway Clerks, Trainmen, and Train Dispatchers.
9 Maintenance of Way Employees, Signalmen, Hotel and Res­
taurant Employees, Conductors and Brakemen (Ind.),, Yardmasters, Switchmen, and Transportation-Communication Em­
ployees.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

pany expense. Other terms of the 3-year contract
included 53 cents in wage increases and adoption
of a cost-of-living wage escalation clause.
Three employer associations 10 in St. Louis, Mo.
reached agreement with the Laundry Workers in
mid-December on a 3-year contract for 2,000
workers. Terms of the settlement, valued at 60
cents, included a reduction in the workweek to 40
hours, from 44, improved vacations, and establish­
ment of a pension plan.
Presbyterian-St. Luke’s in December became
the first hospital to reach agreement with HELP
(Hospital Employees Labor Program), an or­
ganization established by Teamsters Local 743 and
Building Service Employees Local 73 to unionize
employees in private hospitals in Chicago. About
1.000 employees were affected out of a total of
SjOOO.11 The contract included a no-strike clause. It
provided wage increases ranging from 45 cents to
$1 (averaging 65 cents) over its 3-year term, and
set the minimum hourly rate at $1.75 effective Feb­
ruary 1, 1968, increasing to $1.90 on November 1,
1968, and to $2 on November 1, 1969. The agree­
ment also provided for 3 weeks of paid vacation
after 1 year of service and 4 weeks after 10 years,
for pension and hospital-medical insurance benefits
financed by the hospital, and for arbitration of un­
resolved grievances. A spokesman for the hospital
said that the settlement was expected to increase
costs about $10 per patient day during the first
year. (Presbyterian-St. Luke’s employs about four
workers per patient day.)
As a result of a December settlement between the
Illinois Nurses Association and Cook County,
1.000 nurses will receive salary increases of at least
5 percent, with those in the lowest four classifica­
tions receiving an additional 5 percent. The four
classifications are staff nurses, with a new starting
monthly salary of $600, assistant head nurses
($620), head nurses ($641), and supervisors
($672). In addition, two steps were added to the
six-step pay plan for all classifications.
In New York City, two private hospitals on
December 31 announced they were raising salaries
for nurses. At St. Luke’s Hospital the raise was to
$7,200 a year, and at Beth Israel Hospital to
10 St. Louis Dry Cleaners Exchange, Associated Laundry Own­
ers of St. Louis, and Certified Rug Cleaners of St. Louis.
11 The contract covered housekeeping, dietary, laundry, and
maintenance employees, nurses’ aides, messengers, orderlies, as­
sistant unit managers, and elevator operators.
12 See Monthly Labor Review, May 1966, p. 539.


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

117
$7,000, both from $6,600. After the announcement,
the New York State Nurses Association asserted
that there had been a “gentlemen’s agreement”
among some of the city’s private hospitals to hold
their nurses’ salaries to $200 above the salary rate
in the municipal hospitals, where nurses currently
earn $6,400. An official in the city’s Hospital De­
partment said that the St. Luke’s and Beth Israel
increases indicated a break from the asserted
agreement. The Greater New York City Hospital
Association, composed of some of the private hos­
pitals, said that the hospitals did confer on all
common problems but denied collusion.
Metalworking
Two Steelworker locals on January 17 ratified
a revision of Kaiser Steel Corporation’s Long
Range Sharing Plan, assuring the Plan’s continu­
ance to October 1, 1971. The changes were worked
out by a tripartite committee after the union had
served notice of termination of the original plan,
reportedly because of declines in cash payments to
workers. Payments averaged 50 cents an hour in
1963, the plan’s first year, but dropped to 24 cents
in the second year and 18 cents in the third. The
average rose to 33 cents in 1967 as a result of 1966
revisions in the Plan.12
Prior to the 1968 revision, part of the employees’
32.5-percent share of cost savings resulting from
increases in productivity was used to finance wage
increases and benefit improvements matching
those negotiated at the other major steel com­
panies. The 1968 change provided that wage and
benefit costs would be deducted from cost reduc­
tions and 32.5 percent of the balance distributed,
resulting in larger cash payments to the workers.
The other major change permits workers who
gave up incentive pay in order to participate in the
Plan to return to incentive pay. In addition, if in­
centive workers earn more money, nonincentive
workers will be permitted to change to that
system.
Kaiser’s basic agreement with the Steelworkers,
which expires August 1, 1968, or 60 days after the
date the union settles with the other major pro­
ducers, provides for the automatic adoption of all
wage and benefit changes gained at the other
companies.
A 7-week strike by 5,500 Auto Workers against
the Detroit Tooling Association (51 shops) ended

118
on January 10 with ratification of a 40-month con­
tract. The agreement provided a 95-cent-an-hour
increase in four steps, for 4,500 skilled workers,
including 50 cents retroactive to November 1.
(This compared with the estimated 80 cents gained
by skilled workers at the Big Three automobile
companies.) The remaining employees gained 45
cents over the term. The agreement also included
minimum 3-cent and maximum 8-cent-an-hour
cost-of-living increases in both the second and
third years, a one-time $50 “settlement payment,”
and 3 more holidays, bringing the total to 11.
The Automobile Workers in December nego­
tiated a 3-year contract with Leeds & Northrup
Co., the first since the union defeated the incum­
bent Leeds & Northrup Employees Union in a
September representation election. The agree­
ment covered 2,200 employees, excluding profes­
sionals, at plants in Philadelphia and North
Wales, Pa. Provisions included an 11-cent-an-hour
general wage increase for hourly employees, an
additional 4 to 24 cents to skilled hourly employees,
and a $1.50- to $7.50-a-week increase to salaried
employees, retroactive to October 12,3-percent gen­
eral raise plus cost-of-living adjustments worth 3
to 5 cents an hour, in both the second and third
years, and an additional paid holiday, bringing the
total to 10. Leeds & Northrup makes control equip­
ment for industry.
In Dayton, Ohio, a November settlement be­
tween the Airtemp Division of Chrysler Corp. and
the Electrical Workers (IUE) covered 3,800 pro­
duction and maintenance employees. Terms of the
3-year contract, which was similar to the Auto
Workers settlement with Chrysler,13 included an
immediate 20-cent-an-hour wage increase (50
cents to skilled trades), 3 percent increases in the
second and third years, and improvements in SUB,
pension, and insurance benefits.
Other M anufacturing
Local 734 of the Teamsters reached agreement
December 20 on a contract with the Bakery Em­
ployers Labor Council in Chicago, ending a 2-week
strike by 1,000 delivery truck drivers against four
major bakeries.14 The pact provided a $23-a-week
wage increase over its 3-year term, an eighth paid
holiday, and jury duty pay. The four firms pro­
duce about 70 percent of the bakery goods in the
area.

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

A January settlement between the Allied Print­
ing Employers Association in Philadelphia, and
Bookbinders Local 2 resulted in $6-a-week an­
nual wage increases for journeymen and $4.25 a
week for other classifications. At termination of
the 3-year contract, which covered 1,500 workers,
the 550 journeymen will be earning $149.66 a week.
Other benefits included shift differentials, a fourth
week of vacation after 15 years of service and a $3
increase in the employer contribution for health
and welfare benefits.
Mining
A new settlement in the 6 ^ -month strike in
the copper industry came in late January, when the
White Pine Copper Co., a subsidiary of the Cop­
per Range Co., and the Steelworkers agreed on a
42-month contract for 1,800 workers. White Pine
produces about 7 percent of the Nation’s copper.
Terms of the settlement, which ended a strike that
began September 1, 1967, included an immediate
15-cent-an-hour general wage increase, another 15
cents in 1969, and 16 cents in 1970. Basic monthly
pensions were raised to $5 per year of service, from
$2. In addition, work-turn differentials and in­
surance were improved. James Boyd, president of
the parent Copper Range Company, said that the
pact, retroactive to the September 1 expiration date
of the prior agreement, also provided for revisions
designed to increase productivity and improve
operations.
As with the October settlement at Pima Mining
Co.,15 industry officials differed widely on whether
the White Pine settlement might lead to a settle­
ment at the major producers, where 25 unions rep­
resenting 50,000 workers have been on strike since
July 1. Some observers said that the settlement
was not significant because White Pine operations
are in a single location, whereas the issue of com­
panywide, multilocation bargaining was a chief
point of dispute at the major producers. In addi­
tion, they pointed out that White Pine is a shaft
operation, while the other firms operate open-pit
mines, and that White Pine’s ore is more valuable
because it contains more silver. Others said that
13 See Monthly Labor Review, January 1968, p. 69.
14 Continental Bakeries, Interstate Bakeries Corp., New Process
Baking Co., and Ward Baking Co.
16 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1967, p. 58, for terms
of the Pima settlement, which covered 650 workers represented
by the Steelworkers and four other unions.

119

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

the White Pine package was large enough to be
the basis for a settlement at the other firms.
Less than a day after the settlement, the Admin­
istration appointed a factfinding board to seek an
end to the copper dispute. The factfinders named
by Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz and Secre­
tary of Commerce Alexander Trowbridge were
George W. Taylor, Professor of Industry at the
University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of
Finance and Commerce; Monsignor George Hig­
gins of the National Catholic Welfare Confer­
ence; and George Reedy, former White House
press secretary.
A mid-December settlement between St. Joseph
Lead Co. and the Steelworkers for 400 employees
in the company’s zinc mines at Balmat, N.Y., pro­
vided changes valued at 50.25 cents over the 2-year
term of the agreement.
In an eifort to attract new employees and to
offset the rising cost of living, the Homestake
Mining Co. announced it was advancing the effec­
tive date of one of the deferred wage increases
provided by its contract with Local 7044 of the
Steelworkers for 1,400 gold miners in Lead, S.D.
As a result, the workers received a 10-cent increase
effective December 1,1967 (rather than the 5 cents
previously scheduled for that date) and 5 cents
effective December 1, 1968. The November 1967
action was approved by the local union, with
which the company has a 3-year contract expiring
December 1, 1969.
Government
On January 6, the Chicago Board of Educa­
tion and the Chicago Federation of Teachers, an
affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT), reached agreement on a contract covering
23,200 public school teachers. The pact provided
an immediate wage increase of $40 a month ($480
a year) and an additional $60 in September 1968,
bringing the minimum starting salary to $7,350
and the maximum for teachers with master’s de­
grees to $13,850.
In Gary, Ind., a contract covering 2,100 public
school teachers was ratified in January by members
of the Gary Federation of Teachers, also an AFT
affiliate. Salaries were increased an average of
7 percent, bringing the minimum starting salary
to $6,500. The contract also improved working
conditions for teachers and established the union
as the teachers’ sole bargaining agent.

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

Other Developments
On January 2, President Lyndon B. Johnson
signed the Social Security Amendments of 1967,
which provided an increase in benefits of at least
13 percent for 24 million current beneficiaries.
Under the new schedule, the minimum monthly
benefit for a retired worker was increased to $55
from $44 and to $82.50 from $66 for a couple.
Maximum benefits were increased to $218 from
$168 for an individual and to $323 from $252 for
a couple. The increases will be effective in stages,
with the new maximums to be reached in 2006.
The amendment also provided for a larger pay­
roll deduction. The 4.4 percent social security tax
(paid by both the employee and his employer)
will be applied against the first $7,800 of annual
earnings instead of the first $6,600 and the rate
will increase in steps until it reaches 5.9 percent
in 1987. The tax under the previous law would
have been 5.65 percent on $6,600 in that year.
The Chrysler Corp. became the second major
company to “adopt” a predominantly Negro high
school in the area of Detroit’s July 1967 riots. In
October, Michigan Bell Telephone Co. had
adopted a high school.16 Under the plan, Chrysler
will assist the school in adapting courses such as
physics, chemistry, and drafting to the needs of
the automobile industry and thus open additional
jobs to students. After the riot, the major automo­
bile producers and other firms in Detroit lowered
hiring standards, hired hard-core unemployed, and
made special efforts to keep them on the job.
A program to recruit high school students from
poverty areas for apprenticeships in the building
trades was started in New York City in January.
The project, financed by the U.S. Department of
Labor and the Ford Foundation, was called the
Joint Apprenticeship Program of the Workers
Defense League and the A. Philip Randolph Edu­
cation Fund. I t was to provide 5 to 6 weeks of
tutoring for apprenticeship examinations and to
aid applicants in finding temporary jobs until they
could be assigned to an apprenticeship.
Ernest Green, director of the program, said
recruitment must be done in high school because
11 or 12 years of education is needed to begin an
apprenticeship in the building trades. As an ex­
ample of the results that can be obtained, he said
that of 380 competitors for 60 recent apprentice­
ships in Sheetmetal Workers Local 28, 32 were
16See Monthly Labor Review, December 1967, p. 59.

120

Negroes and Puerto Ricans tutored under the pro­
gram, including 18 who were successful.
Mr. Green also said that the program’s 1968 goal
was to double the 175 placements in 1967 as it
spreads to Newark, Buffalo, Cleveland, and other
cities.
In a late December letter to the union’s execu­
tive board, Retail Clerks’ President James A. Suffridge announced that he would not seek reelection
as head of the 500,000-member union. The 58-yearold leader endorsed his executive assistant, Vice
President James T. Housewright, 46, for election
to the post he had held since 1944. Mr. Suffridge
also informed the board that he would continue
his duties until expiration of his term on Septem­
ber 1,1968, and hoped then to serve as board chair­
man for 4 years and president emeritus for life,17
under provisions of the union’s constitution. As
president emeritus, he would receive a supple­
mental annuity of $20,000 a year, in addition to
his retirement income. In early January, John T.
Hatletsky, an international vice president of the
union based in Los Angeles, announced that he
would run for the $75,000-a-year presidency in an
election referendum set for June 1968. At that
time, members of the Retail Clerks will vote for a
president, 10 international vice presidents, and a
secretary-treasurer.

17 As president emeritus, he would remain a vice president of
the AFL-CIO and a member of its 29-member executive council.
18See Monthly Labor R eview , November 1964, p. 1312.
19Of 71 employees discharged, 1 could not be located and
another had died.
20See Monthly Labor Review, April 1966, p. 419.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Another union change, on December 15, saw
Hugh D. Bannister elected to the presidency of the
independent Association of Western Pulp and
Paper Workers (A W PPW ). He replaced William
R. Perrin as head of the 21,000-member union
which was formed in 1964 when Mr. Perrin led a
successful revolt against the United Papermakers
and Paperworkers and the Pulp and Sulphite
Workers Union.18
In late December, J. P. Stevens & Co. mailed
letters to 69 employees inviting them to return to
jobs from which they were discharged in 1963 and
1964 during organizing drives by the Textile
Workers (TWUA).19 The company’s action fol­
lowed a decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court
of Appeals upholding a March 1966 NLRB order
to reinstate the workers 20 and Supreme Court re­
fusal to review an appeal by the company of the
lower court’s ruling. The NLRB ruling specified
that in addition to being reinstated the discharged
employees were to receive back wages plus 6-per­
cent interest. The Board had also directed Stevens
to mail copies of its order to all its 43 plants in
North and South Carolina and have the order
posted and read aloud to employees. (The appeals
court limited the order to 20 plants where unfair
labor practices were found.) The company was
also ordered to permit union access to all bulletin
boards for 1 year. Later, on December 28, the
Second Circuit Court upheld another NLRB rul­
ing ordering Stevens to rehire an additional 18
employees discharged in 1967—17 for joining the
Textile Workers and 1 for testifying at an NLRB
hearing.

Book Reviews
and Notes

Growing in Cycles
Income and Employment in the Southeast: A
Study in Cyclical Behavior. By L. Bandolph
McGee. Lexington, Ky., University of Ken­
tucky Press, 1967. 143 pp. $6.50.
This very short book studies the little-researched
effect the business cycle has had on one region of
the country. The Southeast as discussed here is
the Census South minus Delaware, Maryland,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington, D.C. The tim­
ing, duration, and amplitude of the four cycles
occurring on a national level from 1945 to 1961 are
compared with what happened in the Southeast
during those years. The indicators of business
activity used were 4 income and 15 employment
series. All of the regional series were constructed
from data available by State.
Most of the findings of this study appeared as
an article in The Southern Economic Journal for
April 1965. The book provides two additional
pieces of information. First, the dates of individ­
ual cycle peaks and troughs are listed in the book
but not in the article. The second, and more impor­
tant, is that the measures of duration and ampli­
tude are shown separately for each cycle instead
of only their averages over all of the cycles. The
latter permits the reader to see how the duration
and amplitude of any one cycle differed between
the region and the Nation.
The cyclical timing and duration of the four in­
come series are very similar between the Southeast
and the Nation. The regional income data suggest
that the area was more sensitive to cyclical changes
than the Nation was, particularly in the agricul­
tural sector income series.
Nonagricultural employment is studied in the
aggregate and in its component (subindustry)
parts. The data on subindustries offer the oppor­
tunity of detailed comparisons both of regional-


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

national and interindustry cyclical behavior. In
the aggregate series, although timing and dura­
tion of the four cycles in the region are very
similar to the Nation, there is a small consistent
edge for the Southeast to experience a larger ex­
pansion and smaller contraction amplitude, giving
a slight net effect of larger cyclical instability in
the Southeast than in the Nation as a whole.
Southern agricultural employment decreases
less during the expansion phase of the cycle and
more rapidly during the contraction phase than
does national employment, providing a net effect
of noticeably larger cyclical instability for the
region.
Besides presenting the reader with data, the
author discusses the importance of studying cycli­
cal behavior to understand regional economic
growth. Also, he tests the effect upon Southeastern
nonagricultural employment cyclical behavior if
the subindustry structure within the region had
been the same as in the Nation. His tentative sug­
gestion is that the cyclical behavior of the non­
agricultural employment series fits the pattern
predicted for a “growth” region. In 3 of the 4 tests
of the effects of the subindustry mix upon cyclical
stability, the Southeast’s present nonagricultural
industry mix is more conducive to cyclical stabil­
ity than its national counterpart.
— E t h e l B. J ones
Department of Economics
University of Georgia

Wine, Workers, and Song
Delano: The Story of the California Grape Strike.
By John Gregory Dunne. New York, Farrar,
Straus & Giroux, 1967. 176 pp. $4.95.
Over two years ago in California an enduring
strike began, joined reluctantly at first by an or­
ganization of farm workers that proclaimed it was
a social movement, not a union. This book is about
that strike. I t is an honest, largely ordinary ac­
count of an extraordinary situation; it concludes
with some quite unordinary observations, and
therein lies its value.
There must be few who have not heard of the
strike in the vineyards at Delano or of its leader,
Cesar Chavez, whose new presence at the recent
AFL-CIO convention comforted all those who be121

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

122

lieve the labor movement has yet unfulfilled mis­
sions. There must be even fewer who do not grieve
over the plight of the hired farm worker—to whom
work is still toil, but nonetheless unrewarding.
John Dunne did not go to Delano to write a
hand-wringing report. He went as a good reporter
to talk to everyone in that riven town who would
talk to him. His purpose was to learn why this
strike has become a cause celebre. Why has it
pricked at the conscience of so many clergymen,
attracted experienced cadres from the civil rights
movement, and enlisted large numbers of campus
cynics into its service? Why, on the other hand,
is the strike resisted as though it was class warfare
incarnate threatening the entire social order of the
great Central Valley of California? Mr. Dunne
answers these questions, but he left Delano still
asking the question that is foremost to partisans
and observers alike: To what end is the strike
going ?
With apparent regret, the author drapes a sense
of tragic foreboding around this open question.
Will the United Farm Workers Organizing Com­
mittee be snuffed out into the nothingness that has
been the fate of all earlier efforts to organize farm
workers? Will what started as a social movement
of an underclass singing “Nosotros Venceremos”
(“We Shall Overcome”) be dissipated by being
forced into a trade for the ritualized forms of
organized labor ? And that spectre on the horizon,
mechanization, does it mean win or lose that the
strikers are destined only to become more refugees
of society to join the ethnic and racial underclass
in the city?
Mr. Dunne concludes that despite the heroic
efforts of these workers, it will be a long time be­
fore “Nosotros Venceremos” becomes reality in the
great Central Valley.
—F

red

H.

S

c h m id t

Institute of Industrial Relations
University of California at Los Angeles

Crafty Work
Organizational Intelligence. By Harold L. Wilensky. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1967. 226
pp. $5.95.
With considerable skill, the author has under­
taken the critical question: “How do organiza­
tions utilize intelligence?” Intelligence is defined


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

by the author as
. . the problem of gathering,
processing, interpreting, and communicating the
technical and political information needed in the
decisionmaking process.” Included in intelligence
then are espionage, political judgment, and scien­
tific knowledge.
The author provides a fascinating account of
some of the monumental blunders in recent years:
The failures of military strategy (bombing in
World W ar I I and Vietnam) ; political failures
(Dominican Republic) ; and espionage (Pearl
Harbor). Also included are discussions on the
“great Salad Oil Swindle,” the Depression of the
thirties and, anticlimactically, the Edsel. One
conspicuous success is recounted and that is the
functioning of the Council of Economic Advisers.
A further example of failure in the decision­
making process came in 1956, with the approval
to build an Interstate Highway System. Of this
decision, Professor Wilensky says, “Described as
‘old fashioned’ were plans to rebuild rapid transit
facilities: ignored was the unwritten law that
added roads demanded added parking space and
the two together merely invite a new overflow of
automobiles.” However, not noted by the author
is the fact that those people who would have bene­
fited most from rapid transit systems and better
land use were in the low-income groups and
largely unrepresented in the political process.
Political pluralism is depended upon to rectify
possible social evil, but pluralism coincident with
great differentials in the distribution of power
leads to unequal reward distribution.
Professor Wilensky points to labor-management
relations as a successful model of pluralism. The
contending powers are knowledgeable and skillful.
However, the decisions resulting from negotiations
between these parties is in part formed by factors
beyond their control. For example, in the United
States we find the employment situation tolerable
if the unemployment rates goes as high as 7 per­
cent, whereas such a rate in West European coun­
tries would result in mass strikes, political
upheaval, and fallen governments. The prevailing
assumptions of a society with its resulting “phrasemaking” is an indicator of the power of consensus
opinion.
On the successful side, the author maintains that
changing values had very little to do with the
CEA’s ability to plan effectively. “. . . Roosevelt

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

in 1938 and Kennedy in 1962 were alike; the cru­
cial difference for economic success was the su­
perior economic knowledge available to the latter.”
This explanation is a bit simple. In 1938, Keynes
was known, but not accepted. Hitler, for whatever
reasons, used deficit spending to reinvigorate the
German economy. The point, then, that this re­
viewer would like to make is that values have
changed; and it is to the value system that we must
look for the major use or misuse of intelligence in
any society or subsociety.
It is precisely the values and ideologies of a
society that supply the observer with insight to the
blindness as well as to the special acuities of that
society. On this point, the author draws a poor
parallel between “Stalinist terror,” that prohibited
teaching in quantum mechanics, Mendelian-based
genetics, and mathematical economics, with “labor
movements and labor parties.” The murder and
exile of thousands of brilliant scientists and artists
by Stalin is no more to be equated with American
unions’ incapacity to use all the knowledge at their
command than General Motors’ political conserva­
tism is to be equated with fascism.
Professor Wilensky provides a schema for ana­
lyzing organizational failures that, while valuable,
palls in the light of one of his conclusions: “The
competent organization of the intelligence function
cannot substitute for political judgment and ad­
ministrative leadership.” I t is hoped that the au­
thor will use his skills to further the inquiry into
the reasons for the political errors leading to stra­
tegic bombing, Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, depres­
sions, and the rest of the dismaying picture.
— B il l G oode
Leadership Study Center
United Auto Workers

Looking Forward
The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation
for the Next 33 Years. By Herman Kahn and
Anthony J. Wiener. New York, Macmillan
Co., 1967. 431 pp. $9.95.
This book is simply what the subtitle says—“A
Framework for Speculation.” I t is not, the authors
concede, an exhaustive set of conjectures, nor is it
an effort to predict every aspect of the future. I t
is nevertheless a valuable contribution to the ex­
panding literature about change. It is clear to
many people that we have been passing through a

2 8 8 -7 4 4 0 - 6 8 - 9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

123
period of rapid innovation. The revolutionary
changes of the past quarter of a century differ from
earlier periods, primarily because the rate and
tempo are greater, and because changes have been
taking place simultaneously in many fields. Thus,
we refer almost casually to the research revolu­
tion, to the revolution in technology as it has been
influenced by automation and the computer, to the
dramatic alterations in skill requirements of our
economy, with the result that the “bright future”
jobs which are expanding rapidly call for more
training and education than the less exciting and
often “dead end” jobs of yesterday. We take for
granted the revolution in transportation and the
jet age and the revolution in communications. We
refer to this as an affluent society, and with little
difficulty we project the average family income
of $7,400 and calculate that it will double in less
than 20 years and reach perhaps $25,000 (at 1966
prices) by the year 2000. Even if these projections
are substantially overstated, it becomes clear that
we are living in a period of dramatic and often
traumatic change.
Moreover, the future no longer is unknown—
quite the contrary. I t may be seen and outlined,
and we know it will be radically different from the
present or the past. Since we can “see” the future,
we are in a better position to plan our function in
the present, to accommodate change, and thus
enrich the future.
Consequently, scholars have been “looking for­
ward.” I t is not a new preoccupation. In 1888, E d­
ward Bellamy wrote Looking Backward: 2000—
1887, which sold a million copies. This utopian
romance pictured a world in 2000 A. D. and pro­
vided a vivid description of the imagined society.
Only 33 years in advance, the American Acade­
my of Arts and Sciences established the Commis­
sion on the Year 2000. Daedalus, the Journal of
the Academy, in the summer of 1967 carried the
summary of the Commission’s work, including a
chapter by Daniel Bell entitled, “The Year 2000:
the Trajectory of an Idea,” and sections on specific
areas of change.
The table of contents of the volume by Kahn
and Wiener runs 12 pages. The book discusses the
need for speculation and the methodology of pro­
jections. I t outlines, in considerable detail, “the
basic long term multifold trend,” and discusses
“increasingly sensate cultures: empirical, this-

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

124
worldly, secular, humanistic, pragmatic, utilitar­
ian, contractural, epicurean or hedonistic, and the
like.” Its chapters deal with science and tech­
nology, with computers, automation, information
processing, with lasers, holography, and the bio­
logical manipulation of man; population projec­
tions and economic projections for the United
States and the world, including the population
growth rates and the GNP per capita in 10 major
countries, as well as labor force size, weekly hours,
gross earnings, and a host of similar data in tables,
figures, and prose. There are long chapters on the
postindustrial society, on international politics,
the possibility of nuclear war, on “21st Century
nightmares,” as well as on the international sys­
tem “in the very long run.” Finally, there is a chap­
ter on policy research and social change, with an
interesting outline on ways to go wrong.
Hardly a book for an evening’s reading and
certainly not to be taken on a vacation, it is never­
theless an exciting volume. The authors are com­
petent scholars who are aware that we are not in
a position to predict the wave of the future. The
volume draws heavily upon dozens of publications
and articles which deal with war and peace, eco­
nomics and sociology, social organization, and po­
litical affairs. The closer we approach the year
2000 the more likely we are to see descriptions of
the new society. There is not enough in these pages,
however, to indicate whether there is any basis for
referring to the future as the Great Society. It is
clear, however, that it is a drastically different so­
ciety from the one to which we have been accus­
tomed.
— W il l ia m H

aber

Dean College of Literature, Science and tlie Arts
University of Michigan

Growing Nine Ways
Why Growth Rates Differ: Postwar Experience
in Nine Western Countries. By Edward F.
Denison. Washington, Brookings Institution,
1967. 494 pp. $12.50.
I t is widely known that 1950-62 growth rates in
continental Western Europe exceeded those of the
United States, which in turn exceeded those of the
United Kingdom. In this book, the author at­
tempts to measure the contributions of some 20
quantifiable factors to the varied growth perform­
ances of the nine countries in the 12-year period

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

and two subperiods, 1950-55 and 1955-62. Some
attention is also paid to the question of differences
in absolute levels of income. Dr. Denison’s meth­
ods, used in his earlier study of growth in the
United States, are extended (with small modifi­
cations) to the United Kingdom, France, Ger­
many, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and the
Netherlands. The United States is, of course, in­
cluded, with the data modified and updated.
With respect to factor inputs, the author sepa­
rately considers employment, hours of work, agesex composition of the labor force, education of
the labor force, four different categories of capital
goods (of which nonresidential structures and
equipment are the most important), and land.
As in all such studies, a large fraction of the
growth rate is not explained by factor inputs.
Only for the United States does the fraction so
explained exceed one-half, while in Western Eu­
rope that fraction is about one-third. The esti­
mated share of growth attributed to output per
unit of input ranges from 53 percent in the United
Kingdom to 74 percent in France. This is, of
course, after adjusting the labor input for changes
in education and the other labor force attributes
previously mentioned.
It is perhaps Dr. Denison’s major finding that
Western Europe’s rate of growth in national in­
come exceeded that of the United States largely
because of the greater shift of workers out of agri­
culture and other low-productivity employment in
Western Europe, and because of economies of scale
available there. These elements, as he measures
them, contribute more than one-half of the ob­
served differences in growth rates.
These and other findings lead Dr. Denison to
conclude that Europe has not grown faster than
the United States because of policy actions taken
(which actions the United States could emulate)
but rather that Europe had more opportunities for
large gains of a kind which had already been
achieved in the United States. Only with respect
to capital formation did the United States do
significantly less well than Europe (especially in
the 1958-62 period). The generally lower invest­
ment-income ratios characteristic of the United
States, however, must be viewed in the light of
higher relative prices of capital goods in Europe.
Those who were troubled by Dr. Denison’s
methodology in the earlier study will continue to

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

be troubled. Some of the most important growth
sources, as measured, rest on the shakiest or most
arbitrary procedures in extracting inferences from
available, but far from ideal, data. This is par­
ticularly true in the case of estimates of gains from
economies of scale.
The analysis of differences in absolute levels of
income for 1960, which the author undertakes with
great courage, is somewhat less satisfactory. In
examining the number of percentage points by
which Western European income per person
employed falls below that of the United States,
and in measuring separately the number of
percentage points attributable to each source of
difference, Dr. Denison appears to actually make
a mathematical error. If, to use his example on
page 173, Belgium and the United States were
similar in all respects except that Belgian capital
per worker was 66.9 percent of the U.S. figure,
then Belgian income per worker would be lower
than U.S. income per worker by 33.1 (percent)
times 10.2 (percent), or 3.4 percent (the 10.2
percent representing the share of the relevant kind
of capital in U.S. income). This procedure gives
good approximations over small ranges, but pro­
duces rather large errors over the range of
input quantities in the study, with virtually any
production function.
These and some other less important criti­
cisms should not detract from the enormity of Dr.
Denison’s achievement. He has exhibited great
ingenuity and persistence in uncovering and in­
terpreting data. He has brought together more
material relevant to comparative growth studies
than has ever before been put into a modest (for
this task) 494 pages. He has made advances in
quantitative knowledge of growth sources which
are likely to remain unsurpassed for a long time.
— J o h n O . B la ck bu rn
Department of Economics
Duke University

English Lesson
Oases and Materials on Labour Lam. By K. W.
Wedderbum. New York, Cambridge Univer­
sity Press, 1967.778 pp. $15.50.
In compiling the first case book on British labor
law, Professor Wedderburn has made a most use­
ful addition to a field replete with treatises. The


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

125
case book is, of course, primarily a tool for the
classroom but, for an American reader, this collec­
tion has a value quite other than that of teaching
the fundamentals of British law. It reminds us that
our labor law is not the only labor law, that our
solutions are not the only solutions, and that other
systems can and do exist.
Labor law in Britain, and in Professor Wedderbum’s book, is not limited to those collective re­
lations between unions, employers, and employees
that tend to be the sole subject matter of the Amer­
ican labor law course. The treatment of injury at
work emphasizes the absence of this subject from
our own labor law case books, and yet few can
argue that the worker’s health and safety are not
as important to him as his paycheck. Perhaps it
is just an accident of federalism that safety has
been left to the States and thus excluded from our
Federally oriented labor law and merely a quirk
of constitutional history that workmen’s compen­
sation became an exclusive remedy.
The British have retained not only the common
law negligence action against the employer but
also an action for breach of the statutory require­
ments in their comprehensive safety codes, on top
of their workmen’s compensation statute. I t would
be interesting to explore whether the multiplicity
of remedies has lowered the quotient of accidents
there.
Problems of unemployment are also usually
lacking in domestic treatments of labor law. Ma­
terials on the labor dispute qualification for un­
employment benefits in Britain are interesting
in their similarity to our own provisions but “re­
dundancy” payments are a new invention inde­
pendent of traditional concepts of unemployment
insurance. These payments are essentially for ioss
of the property right which an employee acquires
in his job and not for the period of unemploy­
ment. I t is a severance payment financed jointly
by the employer and government, based on age
and length of service.
The core of the book, of course, is the treatment
of “Collective Bargaining and the Law” and “The
Law of Industrial Conflict.” These chapters will
be hard for an American reader to follow because
they are based on premises so different from the
ones we are familiar with. The student of British
labor law would be wise to turn first to Professor
Wedderbum’s text, The Worker and the Law,

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

126

because the pressure of space has prohibited him
from including introductory notes to his case­
book material.
The variety of topics covered has unfortunately
also led to editing down some of the materials to
the extent that some of the flavor of the original
decisions has been lost. But it is only fair to state
that the editor of a British case book faces peculiar
difficulties. The House of Lords does not have “an
opinion” in a case. Instead, there are a series of
“speeches” by the lordships and no two lawyers
will ever agree on what extracts from these, usu­
ally excursive, speeches give a fair view of the case.
This may be all to the good as it will teach the
students to go back to the source. For the Ameri­
can reader to whom the originals are difficult of
access, this collection provides an invaluable refer­
ence book.
— R obert G u t t m a n
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor

Public Information
Questions and Answers on Public Employee Ne­
gotiation. By W. D. Heisel and J. D. Hallihan. Chicago, 111., Public Personnel Associa­
tion, 1967. 214 pp. $8.95.
This book is intended as a ready reference work
for public administrators who expect to face the
responsibility of recognizing and negotiating with
organized public employees. I t is not, nor does it
claim to be, a scholarly work. The study’s principal
purpose is to acquaint the unfamiliar public ad­
ministrator with the more important decisions he
must make if a viable labor-management relation­
ship is to be developed. The book fills its intended
purpose well.
In well-organized chapters, the book progresses
from the establishment of the relationship through
a discussion on negotiations, procedures for nego­
tiation, resolution of impasses, and the writing of
the agreement, to the day-to-day living with the
union’s presence.
Each chapter underscores the potential points
of labor-management disagreement and tries to
explain what particular course or solution is likely
to result in the most advantageous position for the


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

agency. This does not mean the book has an anti­
union bias, for in fact the book urges management
to accept the union’s need for security. However,
since the volume’s purpose is to instruct the ad­
ministrator on how best to represent his agency,
the agency’s position receives primary emphasis.
By using the question and answer format, the
authors are able to focus on definite questions and
eliminate much of the inessential detail of text
material. Aside from being concise, this format
has the additional virtue of providing concrete,
practical answers to real life problems and situa­
tions.
In determining what questions to ask and in
developing their solutions, the authors have relied
on important private industry collective bargain­
ing experiences as well as on the record of public
service collective bargaining. Since public nego­
tiations show definite signs of being patterned
after their industrial counterpart, this synthesized
record of the two sectors should become a useful
instructional tool.
Much of what the authors have to say will be
old hat to the experienced private-industry nego­
tiator, but to the uninitiated public administrator
the book will prove a source of valuable, practical
counsel.
— R onald W . G lass
Division of Industrial and Labor Relations
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Summaries of Recent Books
Race and the News Media. Edited by Paul L.
Fisher and Ralph L. Lowenstein. New York,
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. 158
pp. $4.95.
Each year since 1958, the Freedom of Informa­
tion Center of the University of Missouri has
brought together newsmen and others “to discuss
a current problem greatly in need of perspective.”
In this 3-day conference, participants analyzed
the way things have been handled in the past and
offered some practical guidelines to ensure fairer
and more responsible handling by the news media
of this issue. The conclusion was that progress has
been made between the white press and Negro
America, but there is still room for improvement.

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

127

The Middle-Glass Negro in the White Man’s
World. By Eli Ginzberg. New York, Colum­
bia University Press, 1967. 182 pp. $6.75.
The concept of middle class is here defined as “a
reflection of parental occupations which custom­
arily provide incomes above the poverty level.”
The young men interviewed for this study were
divided into three groups: high school seniors, col­
lege sophomores, and college seniors living in A t­
lanta and New York. The occupational range of the
parents was from lower middle-class service work­
ers to upper middle-class professionals—family
circumstances which permit the children some
scope of educational and occupational choice.
These youths’ goals were conditioned by their back­
ground and education rather than their race, and
the racial element appeared to be a less crucial
factor in job choice.

and wage increases: that system was the wageprice guideposts. The evolution of this concept and
the attempts by the government to limit wage in­
creases during various collective negotiations are
included in Mr. Sheahan’s book. The first 4 years
of the guideposts’ existence were characterized by
greater stability of wages and prices, but “it is
impossible to prove or disprove the hypothesis that
the guideposts were ail important factor in this
achievement.” Similar experience in other coun­
tries, types of inflation, and questions of equity are
discussed and although the author does not see the
guideposts as a sufficient solution, he does find
them “a promising move in a direction that yielded
some gain and created some new problems.”

Industry and Vocational-Technical Education.
By Samuel M. Burt. New York, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1967. 520 pp. $12.50.
Based on interviews and the author’s personal
experience, this book attempts to demonstrate the
need for industry participation and involvement
in vocational and technical education programs.
The basic problem, according to the author, is
“for educators to arrange for cooperation with in­
dustry in helping schools provide the meaningful
educational and training experiences needed by
young people and adults to become productive and
knowledgeable citizens.” The book includes casestudy reports on staff interviews made in 32 U.S.
schools between February 1965 and March 1966.
The three parts of the book are “An Overview and
Rationale for Industry-Education Cooperation;”
“How Industry-Education Cooperation Takes
Place;” and “Legislation and Organization.” Ex­
cept for the introductions, each chapter is followed
by a summary and conclusion.

Education and Training

The Wage-Price Guideposts. By John Sheahan.
Washington, Brookings Institution, 1967.
219 pp., bibliography, $6.75.
In the late 1950’s, rising prices and balance of
payments difficulties caused problems for the econ­
omy. When the Kennedy Administration took
office in 1961, it was determined to raise produc­
tion and employment. Therefore, it needed to use
some means other than deflation to restrain price


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

Other Recent Publications
Employment Effects of Retraining the Unemployed. ByRichard J. Solie. (In Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Ithaca, N.T., January 1968, pp. 210-225.
$1.75.)
Estimates of School Statistics, 1967-68. Washington, Na­
tional Education Association, Research Division,
1967. 36 pp. (Research Report 1967-R19.) $1.
Antipoverty in South Carolina: Administrative ToolingUp Under the Economic Opportunity Act. By W.
Hardy Wickwar, Columbia, S.C., University of South
Carolina, 1967. 87 pp.
Educational Retardation Among Children of Migratory
Agricultural Workers. By Frank A. Fasick. (In Rural
Sociology, Madison, Wis., December 1967, pp. 339413.)
More Dollars and More Diplomas. By Edmund K. Faltermayer. (In Fortune, Chicago, January 1968, pp. 140141, 222, et seq. $1.50.)
Vocational Education. By Roger Gregoire. Paris, Organi­
zation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
1967. 138 pp. $3.20. Distributed in United States by
OECD Publications Center, Washington.
TOP Project: [A Job Placement Program for the Mentally
Retarded]. Administered by the Michigan Depart­
ment of Mental Health. Washington, U.S. Department
of Labor, Office of Management Policy, Evaluation,
and Research, 1967. 179 pp.
CLASP Experiment: Improving Employability of UI
Claimants. By Edward M. Caine. (In Unemployment

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

128
Insurance Review, U.S. Department of Labor, Bu­
reau of Employment Security, Unemployment Insur­
ance Service, Washington, December 1967, pp. 1-3.
30 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.)
A New Business for Business: Reclaiming Human Re­
sources. By Gilbert Burck. (In Fortune, Chicago,
January 1968, pp. 159-161, 198 et seq. $1.50.)
Discrimination and Apprentice Regulation in the Busi­
ness Trades. By Richard L. Rowan. (In The Journal
of Business, Chicago, October 1967, pp. 435-447. $2.75.)
Opportunities in Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
By S. Paul Shackleton. New York, Universal Pub­
lishing and Distributing Corporation, Vocational
Guidance Manuals, 1967.128 pp., bibliography.
Prospects of Engineering Graduates, 1967. New York,
Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers
Joint Council, 1967. 35 pp. $1.50.
Nursing. By Rita Hoffman. New York, Alumnae Advisory
Center, Inc., 1967. 6 pp. (“College and Careers” series
No. 301; reprinted from Mademoiselle.) 25 cents.
The Lahor Market Framework of Joh Development:
Some Problems and Prospects. By R. A. Nixon. New
York, New York University, Graduate School of Social
Work, Center for the Study of Unemployed Youth,
1967. 60 pp.
The Development and Utilization of Human Resources—
A Guide for Research. By Jacob J. Kaufman, Grant
N. Farr, John C. Shearer. University Park, Pennsyl­
vania State University, Institute for Research on
Human Resources, 1967. 91 pp. $1.

Health and Safety
Race, Status, and Medical Care. By Leon S. Robertson,
John Rosa, Joel J. Alpert, and Margaret C. Heagarty.
(In Phylon, Atlanta, Ga., Winter 1967, pp. 353-360.
$ 1.)

Occupational Health of Construction Workers in Cali­
fornia. Berkeley, California Department of Public
Health, Bureau of Occupational Health, 1967. 66 pp.
Single copies free.

Industrial Relations
Binding Arbitration in Public Employment Labor Dis­
putes. By Daniel P. Sullivan (In Cincinnati Law Re­
view, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, Fall
1967, pp. 666-679. $1.50.)
Strikes and Strike Penalties in Public Employment. By
Andrew W. J. Thomson. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Univer­
sity, New York State School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, 1967. 17 pp. (Public Employee Relations
Reports 2.) 25 cents.
Collective Bargaining for Public Employees: An Analy­
sis of Statutory Provisions. By Samuel P. Sears, Jr.
(In Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law
Review, Boston, Mass., W inter 1967, pp. 273-292.)


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

Strikes by Public Employees. By A. H. Raskin. (In The
Atlantic Monthly, Boston, Mass., January 1968, pp.
46-51. 75 cents.)
Collective Bargaining in Transition: 2, Restoring the Bal­
ance. By Guy Farmer. New York, Industrial Rela­
tions Counselors, Inc., 1967. 43 pp. (IRC Research
Monograph 29.) $2.50.
Crucial Issues in Industrial Relations in Singapore. By
W. Ellison Chalmers. Singapore, Donald Moore Press
Ltd., 1967. 312 pp.
Present and Future Labor Relations Problems in the Meat
Packing Industry. By Harold W. Davey. (In Labor
Law Journal, Chicago, December 1967, pp. 739-751.
$1.35.)
Labor Relations in the Asian Countries. Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Industrial
Relations. Tokyo, The Japan Institute of Labor, 1967,
331 pp.
Viable Farmer-Worker Relationships: A Study of Se­
lected Cases in New York State in 1966. By Leonard
P. Adams, R. Brian How, Olaf F. Larson. Ithaca,
N.Y., Cornell University, 1967. 70 pp.
Collective Bargaining Settlements in New York State,
1966. By Sidney Rosenthal. New York, State Depart­
ment of Labor, Division of Research and Statistics,
1967. 26 pp. (Publication B-159.)
Employer Motivation Under Section 8(A) (3) of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Act. By Dennis M. Kelly. (In
Notre Dame Lawyer, Notre Dame, Ind., December
1967, pp. 203-213. $2.)
Wage Negotiation and Bargaining Power. By Pao Lun
Cheng. (In Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
Ithaca, N.Y., January 1968, pp. 163-182. $1.75.)
Fidelity, Fines and Fair Practice. By William C. Owen.
(In Labor Law Journal, Chicago, December 1967,
pp. 707-718. $1.35.)
Transportation Strikes: A Proposal for Corrective Leg­
islation. By A. Sydney Herlong, Jr. (In Fordham Law
Review, New York, December 1967, pp. 175-190. $2.)

Labor Force
The Geographic Mobility of Labor. By John B. Lansing
and Eva Mueller. Ann Arbor, Mich., University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Re­
search Center, 1967. 421 pp. $10.
Labor Mobility: Adaption of Foreign Workers to In­
dustrial Work and Urban Life. By R. Descloitres.
Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 1967. 173 pp. $3. Distributed in United
States by OECD Publications Center, Washington.

129

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Unemployment and Reem ploym ent Success: An Analysis
of the Studebaker Shutdown. By J. John Palen and
Frank J. Fahey. (In Industrial and Labor Relations

Review, Ithaca, N.T., January 1968, pp. 234-250.
$1.75.)
M igrant Labor: A Form of Interm itten t Social Organi­
zation. By William H. Friedland and Dorothy Nelkin.
(In ILR Research, Cornell University, New York

State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Ithaca, N.Y., November 1967, pp. 3-14.)
Surplus Agricultural Labor and the Development of a
Dual Economy, By Dale W. Jorgenson. (In Oxford

Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, London,
November 1967, pp. 288-312. 40s.)
Federal and Nonfederal Em ployees: A Comparative So­
cial-Occupational Analysis. By Milton C. Cummings,
Jr. (In Public Administration Review, Washington,

December 1967, pp. 393-402. $4.50.)

60 Years of NALGO. By Alec Spoor.
London, National Association of Local Government
Officers, 1967. 625 pp. $10, Heinemann, London.

White-Collar Union:

The AFGE and the AFSCM E: Labor's Hope fo r the
F u tu re f By H arry A. Donoian. (In Labor Law Jour­

nal, Chicago, December 1967, pp. 727-738. $1.35.)
The Case Against the Unions. By Thomas O’Hanlon.
(In Fortune, Chicago, January 1968, pp. 170-173, 188,

et seq. $1.50.)

Personnel Management
The Use of Tests in Promotions Under Seniority Pro­
visions. By Aubrey L. Coleman, Jr. (In Vanderbilt

Law Review, Nashville, Tenn., December 1967, pp.
100-124. $2.)
Gray Areas in Black and W hite Testing. By Richard S.
Barrett. (In Harvard Business Review, Boston,

January-February 1968, pp. 92-95. $2.)

Historical E stim ates of the Canadian Labor Force. By

Readings in Group Development fo r Managers and
Trainers. Edited by Howard Baumgartel, Warren G.

Frank T. Denton and Sylvia Ostry. Ottawa, Dominion
Bureau of Statistics, 1967. 49 pp. 75 cents, Queen’s
Printer, Ottawa.

Bennis, Nitish R. De. New York, Asia Publishing
House, 1967. 595 pp. $9, Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc.,
New York.

Changes in Nonw hite Em ployment, 1960-66. By Joel T.
Campbell and Leon H. Belcher. (In Phylon, Augusta,

Manual of Em ploym ent Practices in Japan. Tokyo, The

Ga., Winter 1967, pp. 325-337 $1.)
Electronics. London, Ministry of Labor, 1967. 72 pp.

(Manpower Studies, 5.) 6s. 3d., H.M. Stationery Of­
fice, London.
Occupational Changes, 1951-18. London. Ministry of Labor,

1967. 34 pp. (Manpower Studies, 6.) 2s. 6d., H.M. Sta­
tionery Office, London.
The Economic Rationale of Occupational Choice. By Ar­
thur Carol and Samuel Parry. (In Industrial and

Labor Relations Review, Ithaca, N.Y., January 1968,
pp. 183-196. $1.75.)
H um an Resources for Industrial Development: Some
Aspects of Policy and Planning. Geneva, International

Labor Office, 1967. 237 pp. (Studies and Reports, New
Series, 71.) $2.50. Distributed in United States by
Washington Branch of ILO.
Manpower Planning in the Context of Perspective Eco­
nomic Planning in Pakistan. By A. S. Bhalla. (In In­

ternational Labor Review, Geneva, November 1967,
pp. 468-496. 60 cents. Distributed in United States by
Washington Branch of ILO.)

Labor Organizations

American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, 1967.
Looseleaf. Glossary, bibliography.
Economy in Respect of Em ploym ent Under Legislation
and Other National Standards. Geneva, International

Labor Office, 1967. 135 pp. $1.50. Distributed in United
States by Washington Branch of ILO.

Prices and Consumption Economics
Expenditures fo r Food A w ay from Home. By Corinne
LeBovit. (In Family Economics Review, U.S. Depart­

ment of Agriculture, Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, December 1967, pp. 10-12.)
Household Use of Convenience Foods. By Gordon E.
Bivens. (In Family Economics Review, U.S. Depart­

ment of Agriculture, Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, December 1967, pp. 6-8.)

Productivity and Technological Change
Technological Change and Industrial Relations in the
Synthetic Chemical In d u stry: A Sociological Perspec­
tive. By Hideaki Okamoto. (In Japan Labor Bulletin,

Japan Institute of Labor, Tokyo, December 1967, pp.
4-8.)
Stim ulating P roductivity:

Trade Union Structure and Government. By John Hughes.

London, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and
Employers’ Associations, 1967, 5s., H.M. Stationery
Office, London.


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

Choices, Problems and Shares.

By George P. Shultz and Robert B. McKersie. Chicago,
University of Chicago, Industrial Relations Center,
1967. 18 pp. (Reprint Series, 128; from British Jour­
nal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1.)

130

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Trade Unions and Technological Change. A Research Re­

port Submitted to the 1966 Congress of Landorganisationen I Sverige (The Swedish Confederation of Trade
Unions). Edited and translated by S. D. Anderman.
London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967. 258 pp.
$8.50, Humanities Press, New York.

Review, Ithaca, N.Y., January 1968, pp. 197-209.
$1.75.)
Compensation in Union and Nonunion Plants, 1960-1965.
By Vernon T. Clover. (In Industrial and Labor Rela­

tions Review, Ithaca, N.Y., January 1968, pp. 226-233.
$1.75.)

Social Security
Federal Wage Policy. By H. M. Douty. (In Labor Law
Social W elfare Expenditures, 1929-67. By Ida C. Merriam.
(In Social Security Bulletin, U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Ad­
ministration, Washington, December 1967, pp. 3-13.
25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.)

Journal, Chicago, December 1967, pp. 719-726. $1.35.)
Industry Wage Survey— Cigar M anufacturing, March
1967. By Charles E. Scott, Jr. Washington, U.S. De­

The Coming of the W elfare State. By Gertrude Williams

partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1967.
25 pp. (Bulletin 1581.) 25 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.

(Professor Lady Williams). London, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., 1967. 117 pp. (Twentieth Century His­
tories.) 25s.

Wage Chronology— North Am erican Aviation, Inc.,
1941-67. By M. David Ermann. Washington, U.S. De­

Identifying The Disabled: Concepts and Methods in the
M easurement of Disability. By Lawrence D. Haber.
(In Social Security Bulletin. U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Ad­
ministration, Washington, December 1967, pp. 17-34.
25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.)
The Social Security Sector and Its Financing in Develop­
ing Countries. By Franco Reviglio. (In International

Monetary Fund Staff Papers, Washington, November
1967, pp. 500-537. $2.50.)

Wages and R elated Benefits— P art 1: 85 Metropolitan
Areas, 1966-67. Washington, U.S. Department of La­

bor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1967. 96 pp. (Bulletin
1530-87.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
Wage D eterm ination : In stitu tio n a l Aspects. By Jean
Mouly. (In International Labor Review, Geneva, No­

vember 1967, pp. 497-526. 60 cents. Distributed in
United States by Washington Branch of ILO.)

Urban Affairs
Black Power and Urban Unrest:

partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1967.
28 pp. (Bulletin 1564). 25 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.

Creative Possibilities.

By Nathan Wright, Jr. New York, Hawthorn Books,
Inc., 1967. 200 pp. $1.95, paperbound.

Prem ium Paym ents fo r Overtime Under the F air Labor
Standards Act. Washington, U.S. Department of

Labor, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divi­
sions, 1967. 222 pp.

The Deeper Sham e of the Cities. By Max Ways. (In For­

tune, Chicago, January 1968, pp. 132-135, 205, et seq.
$1.50.)
System s Engineering Invades the City. By Lawrence
Lessing. (In Fortune, Chicago, January 1968, pp. 154-

Miscellaneous
F irst Annual Digest of Legal Interpretations, Ju ly 2,1965,
Through Ju ly 1, 1966. Washington, U.S. Equal Em­

ployment Opportunity Commission, 1967. 49 pp.

157, 217, et seq. $1.50.)
Urban Ecology: The New Challenge. By Arthur A. Atkisson, Jr. (In Archives of Environmental Health, Chi­

Negro Population Concentration and Negro Status. By
Norval D. Glenn. (In The Journal of Negro Education,

Washington, Fall 1967, pp. 353-361. $1.75.)

cago, January 1968, pp. 123-137. $1.25.)
The New Negro Mood. By Roger Beardwood. (In Fortune,
Functional Economic Areas and Consolidated Urban R e­
gions of the United States. By Karl A. Fox. (In Items,

Social Science Research Council, New York, Decem­
ber 1967, pp. 45-49.)

Chicago, January 1968, pp. 146-151, et seq. $1.50.)
Beyond E quality: Labor and the Radical Republicans,
1862-1872. By David Montgomery. New York, Alfred

A. Knopf, Inc., 1967, 508 pp. $10.

Wages and Hours
Deviations From Wage-Fringe Standards. By David H.
Greenberg. (In Industrial and Labor Relations


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

From Slavery to Freedom: A H istory of Negro Am eri­
cans. By John Hope Franklin. New York, Alfred A.

Knopf, Inc., 1967. xliii, 686 pp. $10.75.

Current Labor Statistics
TABLES
A.— Labor
i\»—
132
132
133
133
134
134
135
139
143
144
145

A -l.
A-2.
A-3.
A-4.
A-5.
A-6.
A-7.
A-8.
A-9.
A-10.
A - ll.
A-12.
A-13.

Force and Employment

Summary employment and unemployment estimates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
Seasonally adjusted rates of unemployment
Rates of unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
Employed persons, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
Unemployed persons, by duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force, not seasonally adjusted
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted 1
Total employment and unemployment rates, by occupation, seasonally adjusted 1
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry
Production or nonsupervisor y workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry division and selected groups, seasonally adjusted
Production workers in manufacturing industries, by major industry group, seasonally adjusted
Unemployment insurance and employment service program operations

B.—
146

B -l.

C.
—Earnings and Hours
c.—
149
162

C -l.
C-2.

162
163

C-3.
C-4.

164 C-5.
166 C-6.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers, by industry
Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagri­
cultural payrolls in current and 1957-59 dollars
Average weekly hours, seasonally adjusted, of production workers in selected industries
Average hourly earnings excluding overtime of production workers in manufacturing, by major industry
group
Average weekly overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by industry
Indexes of aggregate weekly man-hours and payrolls in industrial and construction activities

D .—
. — Consumer and W holesale Prices
167

D -l.

168 D-2.
169
170
172
173

D-3.
D-4.
D-5.
D-6.

Consumer Price Index'—U.S. city average for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items,
groups, subgroups, and special groups of items
Consumer Price Index—U.S. city average for urban wage earners and clerical workers, selected groups,
subgroups, and special groups of items, seasonally adjusted
Consumer Price Index—U.S. and selected areas for urban wage earners and clerical workers
Indexes of wholesale prices, by group and subgroup of commodities
Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings .
Indexes of wholesale prices, by stage of processing and durability of product

E.—
174

E -l.

1 Tables A-7 and A-8 appear quarterly in the February, May, August, and November issues of the Review.
N o t e : With the exceptions noted, the statistical series here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are described in B L S Handbook of Methods for Surveys

and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458, 1966).


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

131

132

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAROH 1968

A.—Labor Force and Employment
T able

A -l. Summary employment and unemployment estimates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1968

1967

1966

Annual
average

Employment status, age, and sex
Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

81,386
77,923
76,167
4,003
71,164
2,756

81,942
78,473
75, 577
4,216
71,361
2,896

81,459
77,989
75, 005
3,839
71,166
2,984

81,535
78,072
74, 735
3,718
71,017
3,337

81,263
77,807
74, 638
3,697
70,941
3,169

81,057
77, 598
74,664
3,956
70,708
2,934

80,944
77,495
74,478
3,847
70,631
3,017

80, 658
77,214
74,169
3,739
70,430
3,045

79,958
76, 502
73, 550
3,728
69,822
2,952

80,263
76,814
73,939
3,843
70,096
2,875

80,112
76, 676
73,822
3,858
69,964
2,854

80,339
76,921
74,063
3,876
70,187
2,858

80,319
76,933
74,094
3,990
70,104
2,839

80,059 80,793
76, 669 77,347
73,796 74,372
3,968 3,844
69,828 70,528
2,873 2,975

78,893
75,770
72,895
3,979
68,915
2,875

48,538
45, 770
44, 740
2,931
41,809
1,030

48, 555
45,783
44, 775
2,951
41,824
1,008

48,350
45, 578
44, 506
2,834
41, 672
1,072

48,365
45, 598
44,460
2,793
41,667
1,138

48,269
45, 506
44,468
2,798
41,670
1,038

48,295
45,489
44,421
2,819
41,602
1,068

48,270
45,430
44,346
2,799
41, 547
1,084

48,191
45,309
44,174
2,744
41,430
1,135

47,988
45,089
43,989
2,778
41,211
1,100

48,003
45,109
44,052
2,830
41,222
1,057

47,944
45,070
44,025
2,810
41,215
1,045

48,040
45,181
44,176
2,857
41,319
1,005

48,010
45,168
44,143
2,861
41,282
1,025

47,815
44,960
43,876
2,862
41,014
1,084

48,184
45,353
44,294
2,821
41,473
1,060

47,437
44, 787
43,667
2,894
40,773
1,119

25,810 26,348 26,068 26,063 25,918 25, 572 25, 529 25,230 24,926 25,082 24,945 25,064 25,144 25,075 25,475
24,802 25,273 25, 036 24,811 24,640 24, 577 24,436 24,168 23,900 24, 061 23,924 24,052 24,067 24,099 24,397
683
825
625
614
575
517
699
584
572
615
626
631
688
707
619
24,119 24,448 24,411 24,236 24,123 23,878 23,822 23,584 23,328 23,446 23,298 23,421 23,379 23,392 23, 778
1,008 1,075 1,032 1,252 1,278
995 1,093 1,062 1,026 1,021 1,021 1,012 1,077
976 1,078

24,427
23, 507
675
22,832
919

Dec.

1966

1967

T otal

Total labor force____ ___________
Civilian labor force_______ .. ...
Employed_______ .. . ______
Agriculture_________________
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed_________________
Me n , 20 Y ears and O ver

Total labor force_______________
Civilian labor force_____________
Employed____ _______________
Agriculture_________________
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed_____ _______ ____
Wom en , 20 Y ears and Over

Civilian labor force______________
Employed___________________
Agriculture_________________
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed..................................
B oth Se x e s , 16-19 Y ears

Civilian labor force______________ 6,343
Employed___ ____ __________ 5,625
389
Agriculture________________
Nonagricultural industries___ 5,236
718
Unem ployed.................................

T able

6,342
5, 529
440
5,089
813

6,343
5,463
380
5,083
880

A-2.

6,411
5,464
350
5,114
947

6,383
5,530
382
5,148
853

6,537
5, 666
438
5,228
871

6, 536
5,696
434
5,262
840

6,675
5,827
411
5,416
848

6,487
5, 661
378
5,283
826

6,623
5,826
398
5,428
797

6,661
5,873
422
5,451
788

6,676
5,835
388
5,447
841

6,621
5,884
441
5,443
737

6, 564
5,821
399
5,422
743

6, 519
5,682
405
5,277
838

Seasonally adjusted rates of unemployment

1968

1967

Annual
average

1966

Selected unemployment rates
Jan.
Total (all civilian workers)_______
Men, 20 years and over_________
Women, 20 years and over______
Both sexes, 16-19 years_________
White workers_____ ___________
Nonwhite workers...... ...................
Married men................................... ..
Full-time workers_______________
Blue-collar workers______________
Experienced wage and salary
workers____ _________________
Labor force time lost >_.....................

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

3.5
2.3
3.9
11.3
3.2
6.4
1.6
3.3
4.3

3.7
2.2
4.1
12.8
3.3
6.9
1.7
3.3
4.3

3.8
2.4
4.0
13.9
3.4
7.3
1.7
3.5
4.4

4.3
2.5
4.8
14.8
3.7
■8.8
1.9
3.8
4.9

4.1
2.3
4.9
13.4
3.6
8.0
1.8
3.6
4.6

3.8
2.3
3.9
13.3
3.4
6.8
1.9
3.6
4.4

3.9
2.4
4.3
12.9
3.5
7.3
1.8
3.6
4.6

3.9
2.5
4.2
12.7
3.5
7.7
1.9
3.6
4.6

3.9
2.4
4.1
12.7
3.4
7.7
1.9
3.5
4.6

3.3
4.0

3.5
4.1

3.7
4.2

4.1
4.7

3.9
4.6

3.6
4.3

3.7
4.2

3.7
4.4

3.6
3.8

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1967

3.7
2.3
4.1
12.0
3.3
7.2
1.9
3.4
4.6

3.7
2.3
4.1
11.8
3.2
7.4
1.8
3.3
4.2

3.7
2.2
4.0
12.6
3.3
7.2
1.7
3.2
4.2

3.7
2.3
4.3
11.1
3.3
6.7
1.7
3.2
4.2

3.7
2.4
3.9
11.3
3.3
7.6
1.8
3.3
4.2

3.8
2.3
4.2
12.9
3.4
7.4
1.8
3.5
4.4

3.8
2.5
3.8
12.7
3.3
7.3
1.9
3.4
4.3

3.4
4.0

3.5
4.1

3.4
4.1

3.5
4.1

3.5
4.1

3.6
4.2

3.5
4.2

May Apr.

1Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.

In accordance with regular practice at the beginning of each year, the seasonally adjusted labor force series
have been slightly revised, due to the application of new seasonal factors which incorporate 1967 data. The
revisions did not affect the total unemployment rates published in 1967 by more than 0.1 percentage point. The
new seasonal factors and the updated major seasonally adjusted series appear in the February issue of
Employment and E arnings an d M o n th ly R e p o rt on th e Labor Force.


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

6, 557
5, 721
410
5,310
836

1966

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

T able A-3.

133

Rates of unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
1966

1967

1968

Annual
average

Age and sex
Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1967

1966

T otal

16 years and over.. _____________

3.5

3.7

3.8

4.3

4.1

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.8

3.8

16 to 19 years_________________
16 and 17 years______________
18 and 19 years______________
20 to 24 years__________ _____
25 years and over.......... ........... .
25 to 54 years..............................
55 years and over.......................

11.3
13.4
9.9
5.6
2.5
2.5
2.5

12.8
14.7
11.3
5.8
2.5
2.5
2.5

13.9
15.9
11.9
5.5
2.6
2.7
2.5

14.8
16.4
13.6
6.4
2.9
3.0
2.5

13.4
15.5
12.1
6.7
2.7
2.8
2.3

13.3
14.9
12.2
5.5
2.5
2.6
2.5

12.9
14.6
11.6
6.1
2.6
2.7
2.3

12.7
13.9
11.6
5.7
2.7
2.8
2.3

12.7
13.9
12.3
5.2
2.7
2.7
2.6

12.0
14.0
10.9
5.3
2.6
2.7
2.5

11.8
13.6
10.6
5.5
2.6
2.6
2.5

12.6
16.2
10.7
5.2
2.5
2.6
2.3

11.1
13.1
9.7
5.5
2.6
2.6
2.9

11.3
13.9
10.9
5.7
2.6
2.5
2.6

12.9
14.7
11.5
5.7
2.6
2.7
2.5

12.7
14.8
11.3
5.3
2.6
2.6
2.6

2.9
11.7
13.1
10.3
4.6
1.9
1.9
2.5

2.9
12.0
14.2
10.0
4.8
1.9
1.7
2.7

3.2
13.6
15.8
11.6
5.3
2.0
1.9
2.7

3.4
14.8
17.6
12.3
5.4
2.1
2.0
2.4

3.0
12.1
13.9
10.5
4.9
1.9
1.9
2.0

3.1
12.2
14.8
10.2
4.9
2.0
1.9
2.4

3.1
12.0
14.8
9.8
4.9
2.7
1.9
2.4

3.3
12.5
14.0
10.9
4.9
2.1
2.0
2.6

3.2
12.3
14.4
11.5
4.8
2.1
2.0
2.6

3.1
12.0
15.0
10.3
4.1
2.1
2.0
2.6

3.0
10.9
12.4
9.6
4.3
2.1
2.0
2.4

3.0
12.1
14.2
10.1
3.7
2.0
1.9
2.2

2.9
11.1
13.7
8.9
4.3
2.0
1.9
2.7

3.1
11.2
13.6
10.7
5.2
2.1
1.9
2.6

3.1
12.3
14.5
10.5
4.6
2.0
1.9
2.5

3.2
11.7
13.7
10.2
4.6
2.2
2.1
2.7

4.6
10.9
13.8
9.4
6.9
3.4
3.6
2.6

5.0
13.7
15.5
12.6
6.9
3.5
4.0
2.2

4.9
13.6
15.9
12.1
5.8
3.7
4.2
2.2

5.8
14.8
14.5
14.9
7.7
4.3
4.8
2.6

5.9
15.4
18.0
13.9
9.0
4.1
4.4
2.8

5.0
14.7
15.0
14.4
6.2
3.5
3.8
2.6

5.3
13.9
14.3
13.4
7.5
3.7
4.1
2.3

5.1
12.9
13.7
12.4
6.8
3.7
4.4
1.8

5.1
13.3
13.0
13.2
5.6
3.6
4.0
2.6

4.9
12.1
12.5
11.5
6.7
3.6
3.9
2.4

5.0
13.0
15.5
11.6
6.9
3.6
3.9
2.7

5.0
13.2
19.0
11.4
7.2
3.5
3.8
2.3

5.0
11.2
12.1
10.7
7.1
3.8
4.0
3.3

4.7
11.5
14.3
11.2
6.3
3.4
3.6
2.8

5.2
13.5
14.7
12.8
7.0
3.7
4.1
2.5

4.8
14.1
16.6
12.6
6.3
3.3
3.6
2.4

M a le

16 years and o v e r ..___ ________
16 to 19 years___ _______ _____
16 and 17 years____ ____ _____
18 and 19 years_______ _ ____
20 to 24 years....................... ..........
25 years and over_____________
25 to 54 years__________ ____ _
55 years and over..... ............. .
F em ale

16 years and over_______________
_ ___
16 to 19 years.. _ ___
16 and 17 years______________
18 and 19 years..
20 to 24 years_________________
25 years and over.. _____________
25 to 54 years_________________
55 years and over. -----------------

T able A-4.

Employed persons, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1966

1967

1968

Annual
average

Age and sex
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1967

1966

75,577
5,529
2,346
3,222
8,720
61,337
47, 544
13,802

75,005
5,463
2,296
3,167
8,726
60,835
47,068
13, 731

74,735
5,464
2,314
3,135
8, 562
60,701
46,899
13, 723

74,658
5,530
2, 267
3,233
8,555
60,602
46,785
13,682

74,664
5,666
2,338
3,317
8,602
60,378
46, 760
13,611

74,478
5,696
2,320
3,367
8,606
60,145
46, 528
13, 552

74,169
5,827
2,358
3,454
8,536
59,771
46,161
13,589

73, 550
5,661
2,232
3,391
8,415
59,482
46,158
13,280

73,939
5,826
2,343
3,469
8,384
59,894
46,327
13,388

73,822
5,873
2,467
3,468
8,335
59,603
46,400
13,289

74,063
5,835
2,383
3,482
8,341
59,881
46, 508
13,434

74,094
5,884
2,391
3,501
8,216
59,970
46,610
13,468,

73,796
5,821
2,400
3,484
8,156
59,819
46,445
13,401

74,372
5,682
2,333
3,349
8,499
60,192
46,645
13, 546

72,895
5,721
2,269
3,452
7,963
59,212
45,944
13,268

47, 790 47,885 47, 553 47,532 47,603 47,630 47,537 47,419 47,147 47,256 47,339 47,417 47,437 47, 111 47,479
16 to 19 years_________________ 3,050 3,110 3,047 3,072 3,135 3,209 3,191 3,245 3,158 3,204 3,314 3,241 3,294 3,235 3,186
1,414 1,457 1,421 1,407 1,416 1,428 1,396 1,404 1,347 1,362 1,512 1,435 1,456 1,452 1,417
16 and 17 years_____ _____
18 and 19 years______________ 1,661 1,681 1,634 1,661 1,715 1,769 1,785 1,830 1,782 1,829 1,848 1,839 1,852 1,817 1,769
4,843 4,826 4,815 4,832 4,860 4,879 4,871 4,857 4, 751 4,760 4, 749 4,792 4,702 4,622 4,809
25 years and over____ ________ 39,891 39,945 39,723 39,625 39,608 39,558 39,476 39,317 39,190 39,481 39,287 39,379 39,433 39,244 39,485
31,031 31,015 30,806 30,678 30, 700 30,668 30,614 30,434 30,432 30, 538 30, 623 30, 623 30, 703 30,498 3U, 653
55 years and over. __________ 8,901 8,944 8,913 8,912 8,896 8,876 8,851 8,847 8,756 8,733 8,704 8,772 8,768 8,757 8,832

46,919
3,252
1,380
1,862
4,599
39,069
30,378
8,691

Jan.
T otal
years and over... ____ . . . __ 75,167
5,625
__ _ 2,319
16 and 17 years___ ____
3,328
18 and 19 years.. . . . _____
___ . 8,682
20 to 24 years_______
25 years and over_____________ 60,847
47,365
55 years and over....................... 13,604
Male

F emale

years and over. ....... ___ _ __ 27,377 27,692 27,452 27,203 27,035 27,034 26,941 26, 750 26, 403 26,683 26,483 26,646 26,657 26,685 26,893
16 to 19 years. _______ _____ 2,575 2,419 2,416 2,392 2,395 2,457 2,505 2,582 2,503 2,622 2,559 2,594 2,590 2,586 2,496
917
948
935
948
955
954
885
981
924
910
875
907
851
889
905
16 and 17 years. ___ _ _____

1,667 1,541 1,533 1,474 1,518 1,548 1,582 1,624 1,609 1,640 1,620 1,643 1,649 1,667 1, 580
3,839 3,894 3,911 3,730 3,695 3,723 3,735 3,679 3,664 3, 624 3,586 3, 549 3,514 3, 534 3,690
25 years and over. ____________ 20,956 21,392 21,112 21,076 20,994 20,820 20,669 20,454 20,292 20,413 20,316 20,502 20, 537 20, 575 20,707
25 to 54 years________________ 16,334 16, 529 16,262 16,221 16,085 16,092 15,914 15,727 15, 726 15,789 15,777 15,885 15,907 15,947 15,994
55 years and over_____________ 4,703 4,858 4,818 4,811 4,786 4,735 4,701 4,742 4, 524 4,655 4,585 4,662 4,700 4, ö44 4,714


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

25,976
2,469

879
1,590
3,364
20,143
15,566
4, 577

134

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

A-5. Unemployed persons, by duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1968

1967

1966

D uration of unemployment
Jan.
Less than 5 weeks. _____ . . . . . . 1,360
5 to 14 weeks___________________
840
15 weeks and over________ . . . _
488
15 to 26 weeks____________ . . .
302
27 weeks and over___________ .
186
15 weeks and over as a percent of
civilian labor force__ ________
.6

T able

Annual
average

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1967

1966

1,418
968
445
259
186

1,609
930
485
307
178

1,789
1,105
475
305
170

1,783
937
440
277
163

1,572
934
445
234
211

1,662
895
436
266
170

1,713
909
441
291
150

1,704
871
433
291
142

1,618
871
434
250
184

1,628
833
436
256
180

1,606
789
447
257
190

1,496
794
476
276
200

1,582
763
472
258
214

1,635
893
449
271
177

1,535
804
536
295
241

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.7

A-6. Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force, not seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1968

Full- and part-time
employment status

January

Annual
average

1967

December

November

October

September

August

66,293

67,135

67,170

67,309

67,950

61,984

63,122

63,063

63, 267

63,747

1,878

2,000

2,072

1,934

2,431
3.7

2,013
3.0

2,034
3.0

10,054

10, 923

10,943

9,411

10, 216

10,083

643
6.4

707
6.5

860
7.9

July

June

May

April

March

1966

71,134

71,058

70,195

65,538

65,640

65,425

66,943

66,145

66, 264

65,909

64,688

61,978

61,447

60,916

62,734

61,144

2,117

2,486

2,499

2,507

1,573

2,079

2,209

1,894

2,209

2,108
3.1

2,086
3.1

2,384
3.4

2,650
3.7

3,000
4.3

1,987
3.0

2,114
3.2

2,300
3.5

2,315
3.5

2,792
4.2

10,823

9, 576

7,978

8,413

8,825

10,557

10,471

10,088

8,830

8,310

9,433

8,279

7,735

655
6.5

560
6.2

575
6.9

1965

F ull T im e

Civilian labor force_____
Employed:
Full-time schedules 1.
P art time for
economic reasons...
Unemployed, looking
for full-time work___
Unemployment rate........
P art T ime

Civilian labor force... . . .
Employed (voluntary
part tim e)..
....
Unemployed, looking
for part-time work__
Unemployment rate...... .

9,980
843
7.8

8,767
809

7,421

8.4

557
7.0

7,813
600
7.1

8,197
628
7.1

10,086
471
4.5

9,920
551
5.3

1 Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the full- and part-time employed categories.


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

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
T able

A-9.

135

Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[In th o u san d s]

1968

1967

A nnual
av e ra g e

In d u s tr y
J a n .2

D e c .2 N o v .

O ct.

S ep t.

A ug.

J u ly

Ju n e

M ay

A p r.

M a r.

F eb.

Jan.

1966

66, 111 67, 962 67,470 66,914 66, 672 66,408 66,129 66, 514 65, 594 65, 215 64,843 64,491 64,531 63,982
583
598
609
600
620
601
636
633
618
614
607
606
611
625
64.5
64. 7 65 S
66.7
90 4 90 fi
70.5
26.9
27.1
28.2
28.4
27.6
28! 5
28! 8
27! 9
27! 1 ¿7! 2 26.9
26.1
26.3
11.3
11. C 11. c
11.2
13 8 33 0 33 0
144.4 144.5 143. 6 143.9 142.7 140 0 142 4 140 2
138.0 137.7 136.1 137.1 135.8 133.2 135.4 133.2 13Ï! 8 I 32! 9 133.8 134.1 129.9
270. C 267.9 266. 6 270.8 278.5 277 5 273 fi
147.4 147.5 147.5 151.2 154.4 154.5 152! 4 148! 6 148! 8 148.7 148.5 148.6 152.4
122.6 120.4 119.1 119.6 123.8 123 C 121 2 119 3
119.3 123.1 125. 4 127.3 128.5 127. 6 120 0
41.7
44.3
43.0
41 3
44.6
44.1
43 2
43.6
38.1
42.6
43.2
40.4
41.9
42.7
42.2
39 ! 1
37! 3 34! 5 33! 5 34.2 39.1
Contract construction___ .
2, 871 3,195 3, 378 3,463 3,513 3,594 3,548 3,407 3,227 3,106 2,922 2,863 2,947 3,292
G en eral b u ild in g c o n tra c to rs ____________ ______ 1, 030.9 1, 068. 6 1,080. 7 1,091.3 1,119.4 1,095. 9 1, 057.1 1,005.9 979.1 942.4 931.3 962.9 1, 047. 3
599.0 697.9 748. 7 774 1 7Q3
H e a v y co n stru c tio n co n tracto rs .
782.8
267.4 341.6 380.1 403.5 414.3 405.3 38o! 2 335.6 286.4 224.8 211.7 216.2 326.8
H ig h w a y a n d stre e t c o n s tru c tio n _____
331.6 356.3 368. 6 370. 6 379 2 377. 5
H e a v y c o n stru c tio n , nec .
347.1
1, 565.5 1, 611.9 1, 634.0 1 647 8
S p ecial tra d e co n tracto rs
1, 668. 8
375.1 382.4 ' 384.7 ’ 384. 6 387 7 383.2 372 0
P lu m b in g , h ea tin g , air c o n d itio n in g , .
122.8 134.9 143.8 148. 7 155 5 152.0
P a in tin g , p ap e rh a n g in g , decorating"
266.9 271.3 272.5 272.9 275 n 273.3
E le c tric a l w o rk _
216.8 220.8 228.1 231.0 241 9 241.6
116.5 121.2 121.3 122.7 125.8 122.4 ns! 0 112.6 110.8 102.9
R oofing a n d sh eet m é ta l w o rk ___
98.8 106.2 112.2
19, 310 19, 497 19, 553 19,388 19,443 19,435 19,156 19,382 19,133 19,181 19,263 19,297 19,333 19,186
Manufacturing_____
11, 365 11,419 11,430 11,223 11, 249 11, 266 11,213 11,383 11,282 11,298 11,359 11,389 11] 413 11, 256
D u ra b le goods______
7,945 8, 078 8,123 8,165 8,194 8,169 7,943 7,999 7,851 7; 883 7! 904 7! 908 7; 920 7; 930
N o n d u ra b le g oods. .
T o ta l em p lo y e e s_____________ __

M in in g __ __________
___
_ _
M e ta l m in in g _ ______________
Iro n o res____________________
C o p p er ores_________ . .
C oal m in in g ________________
B itu m in o u s coal a n d lig n ite m in in g ___
O il a n d gas ex tractio n
C ru d e p e tro le u m a n d n a tu ra l gas fields.
O il a n d gas field serv ices. .
N o n m e ta llic m in erals, except fuels .
C ru s h e d a n d b ro k en s to n e ___ .
S a n d a n d g ra v e l_____ _
...............

1965
60,832
632
83.8
25.9
131.8
156.6

40.0
3,186
994.0
648.5
324.4
324.1

233.7
110.2
18,062
10! 406
7! 656

D u r a b le g oods

O rd n an ce a n d ac c e sso rie s.................
309.2 305.6 304.6 310.3 299.0 296.1 291.0 288.7 285.1 285.8 285.3 283.2 279.2 256.0 225.8
A m m u n itio n , except for sm all a rm s ___
236.0 234.1 232.0 227.9 225.2 222.9 219.4 215.9 213.1 214.1 213.2 211.5 207.9 192.6 173.0
S ig h tin g a n d fire control e q u ip m e n t___
17.3
16.5
17.1
16.0
16.8
16.4
15.7
15.5
15.3
15.0
14.6
14.3
13.4
12.2
O th e r o rd n an ce a n d accessories. ..
54.2
55.5
56.1
56.3
55.6
57.0
56.8
57.1
56.5
56.4
57.1
57.1
57.0
50.0
40.7
L u m b e r a n d w ood p ro d u c ts ____
569.6 586.4 594.3 599.6 603.2 611.8 610.1 613.5 584. 8 579.6 577.6 576.8 577.1 612.6 606.9
Logging cam ps A logging c o n tracto rs _ _
76.0
80.4
84.9
91.4
86.3
87.8
89.0
91.9
78.0
74.0
76.4
74.0
77.0
81.3
84.2
S aw m ills a n d p la n in g m ills __________
222. 5 228.5 232.3 233.8 234.3 236.8 237.5 239.1 233.4 231.6 231.4 230.8 230.4 244.9 249.4
M illw o rk , plyw ood, A re la te d p ro d u c ts.
159.8 163.8 163.4 165.5 166.9 170.4 166.9 166.9 160.4 159.7 157.3 154.9 155.2 171.3 164.7
W ooden c o n ta in e rs ____ . . .
35.0
33.7
34.7
36.5
34.8
34.8
35.6
37.1
36.3
35.8
35.9
35.9
36.1
35. 5 34.4
M iscellaneous w ood p ro d u c ts _________
79.0
77.6
78.7
79.2
77.8
79.4
80.0
78.5
76.7
78.5
78.4
79.0
78.8
74.2
79.6
F u r n itu re a n d fixtures .
465.0 467.6 463.9 461.3 456.8 456.2 442.5 451.6 448.3 451.0 455.8 459.4 462.4 461.7 430.7
H o u seh o ld f u r n itu r e ________ _
330.3 331.8 329.8 324.6 318.9 318.6 307.5 313.9 313.2 316.7 319.8 323.3 324.8 328.1 309.2
Office fu rn itu re .
37.6
36.4
37.2
35.8
37 2 37 0
P a rtitio n s a n d fixtures
47.3
47.4
48.1
48.8
48. 9 49 8
O th er fu rn itu re a n d fix tu re s _____
50.2
50.9
50.4
50.3
51.4
51.8
50.8
53.1
5l! 4
50 ! 1
5l! 3
5L3
52.0
5l! 6
47! 8
S to n e, clay, a n d glass p ro d u c ts ..............
616.2 630.8 637.1 635.8 639.8 646.9 643.9 641.9 628.4 624.5 617.7 612.6 616.5 644.6 628.3
F la t g lass_________ .
31.6
28.4
30.1
32.1
30.3
27.7
G lass a n d glassw are, pressed or blo w n _ 123.3 125.1 123.7 123.6 123.6 123.5 123.3 124.5 122 ! 0 122.2
122.1
121.6 122.3 122 ! 6 115.4
35.5
36.5
36.6
36.9
C e m e n t, h y d ra u lic ____ .
37. 6 38 0
S tru c tu ra l clay p r o d u c t s .. .
61.2
64.1
65.0
65.3
67.7
65.8
67.6
68.3
66! 6
65.4
64.1
63! 0
63! Í
70.3
69.7
41.9
42.0
41.1
41.8
P o tte ry a n d re la te d p ro d u c ts ____
41.9
41.8
41.4
41.7
42.0
42.5
42.2
43.4
42.3
43.3
C o n cre te, g y p su m , a n d p la ste r p rodu c ts ___________
166.9 174.6 180.1 182.0 184.2 186.0 185.4 181.2 175.5 171.8 165.2 162.1 164.1 178.9 177.8
O th e r sto n e A n o n m e tallic m in eral
p ro d u c ts __________ _
133.5 134.2 135.0 134.8 136.0 137.5 137.2 136.7 134.1 133.7 134.1 134.0 133.7 135.7 130.0
P r im a ry m e ta l in d u s trie s ___________
1,274.9 1,275.2 1, 269.8 ,, 251.3 1,266.3 1,288.6 1,297.0 1,319.9 1,310.2 1,314.1 1,330.9 1,338. 2 1,348. 2 1,345.4 1,301.0
B la st fu rn ace a n d basic steel p ro d u c ts ..
629.5 630.8 624.9 617.0 623.9 632.7 635.3 634.6 628.5 630.1 636.0 635.6 639.6 651.3 657.3
I r o n a n d steel fo u n d rie s_____
222.0 220. 5 220. 7 208.9 214.6 224.7 212.5 228.8 227.4 227.8 232.3 237.2 241.4 238.5 227.0
N o n ferro u s m e ta ls _____
66.2
66.2
66.4
67.1
68.0
81.9
80.9
69.8
81.1
81.2
80.7
78.1
73.9
80.6
82.3
N o n ferro u s rolling a n d draw in g
196.3 197.1 198.5 200.9 201.3 200.4 207.6 210.4 211.2 212.1 215.5 217.4 218.6 215.0 196.5
N o nferrous fo u n d rie s ...
90.3
90.7
89.7
87.8
88.5
89.2
90.5
89.2
89.4
90.5
81.5
91.5
93.0
92.7
87.5
M iscellaneous p rim a ry m e ta l p ro d u c ts .
69.9
70.6
69.6
69.6
70.0
72.1
71.8
73.7
73.0
74.4
74.6
64.8
73.6
75.0
71.8
F a b ric a te d m e tal p ro d u c ts. .
1,363.7 1,374.5 1, 366.1 1, 344.1 1, 342. 5 1,356.3 1, 340. 9 1,369.1 1,345. 6 1,346.7 1,350. 2 1,358. 5 1,364. 6 1,349.1 1, 269. 0
M e ta l ca n s______
67.0
67.3
65.2
65.6
66.6
68.1
61.0
68.7
66.5
64.8
68.2
66.0
64.9
63.7
62.9
C u tle ry , h a n d tools, a n d h a rd w a re ___
160.4 165.2 164.0 163.5 161.5 156.9 153.6 159.2 156.2 157.1 158.4 162.0 163.4 161.3 155.1
P lu m b in g a n d h ea tin g , except e le c tric ..
79.6
80.2
79.4
79.8
79.1
78.5
80.2
79.1
77.3
77.2
79.9
77.7
76.3
77.3
78.1
F a b ric a te d s tru c tu ra l m e ta l p ro d u c ts . .
393.5 398.6 400.6 402.7 403.8 406.8 406.9 407.7 396.8 395.9 391.3 393. 0 394.4 397.7 375.1
S crew m a ch in e p ro d u c ts, b o lts, e tc ___
112.6 113.1 111. 1 110.8
111 3 112.1 111.4 113.3 112.7 113.6 115.2 115.3 115.0 107.9
97.8
M e ta l sta m p in g s ___
246.1 244. 4 240.0 216.8 216.3 229.4 221.4 236.6 234.9 233.4 235.9 239.9 243.2 235.9 220.9
M e ta l services, nec
86. 7
84.4
85.5
86.6
85.9
85.6
84.2
84.1
85.0
77.3
85.9
85.2
85.5
85.2
86.1
M ise, fab ricate d w ire p ro d u c ts .
67.0
67.5
67.0
66.8
66.1
65.9
66.2
65.7
66.3
66.0
61.9
67.2
68.4
68.6
68.5
M ise, fab ric a te d m e ta l p ro d u c ts ___
153.1 152.7 152.1 151.5 151.9 152.4 151.8 152.9 151.1 152.0 152.7 153.3 153.9 150.2 139.9
M ach in ery , except electrical____
1,963.1 1,936.5 1, 960. 0 1,917.4 1, 959. 6 1,969.6 1.973.4 1, 988.1 1, 977. 6 1,988. 7 1,994.0 1,988.4 1,985.8 1,911.1 1,735.3
E n g in e s a n d tu rb in e s ___
106. 8 106.2 106.4 105.2 103.5 104.9 103.4 104.5 103.1 104.3 105.1 104.6 104.9
91.1
99.1
F a rm m a c h in e ry ...... ......... . _
118. 7 140.4 138.8 140.9 143.7 146.8 152.0 154.3 157.4 158.8 156.7 154.6 148.0 135.7
C o n s tru c tio n a n d re la te d m a c h in e ry __
272.2 273.0 271.7 244.4 274.0 274.3 276.7 278.1 275.8 277.9 279.3 279.3 280.6 277.8 256.2
M etal w o rk in g m a c h in e ry ____
344. 7 340.9 344.2 341.0 342.2 344.3 346.2 349.5 348.1 350.8 351.6 350.8 349.7 335.5 304.2
Special in d u s try m a c h in e ry . _
198.5 198.6 198.5 198.8 200.5 202.7 203.5 205.7 204.8 208.3 208.7 209.0 209.3 205.5 193.3
G en eral in d u s tria l m a ch in ery
291.9 292.2 290. 7 289.7 292.7 294.2 292. 4 296.0 292.1 293.7 290.4 291.2 294.8 284.7 261.0
Office a n d co m p u tin g m a c h in e s ...
241.1 239.8 242.2 235.9 241.2 241.5 237.8 234.3 234.3 231.5 233.6 232.4 230.8 217.1 190.5
Service in d u s try m a c h in e s ____
133.4 133.2 131.9 129.0 129.6 130.2 133.2 134.5 133.3 132.4 132.6 131.3 130.6 126.2 114.1
M iscellaneous m a c h in e ry , except electr i c a l...........
234.3 233.9 234.0 234.6 235.0 233.8 233.4 233.5 231.8 232.4 233.9 233.1 230.5 217.3 189.3
See footnotes a t e n d of ta b le.


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

136

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T able A-9.

Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In th o u san d s]
1968

1967

A nnual
average

In d u s tr y
J a n .2

D e c .2 N o v .

O ct.

S ep t.

A ug.

J u ly

Ju n e

M ay

A p r.

M a r.

F eb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Manufacturing—Continued
D u r a b l e g o o d s — C o n tin u e d

E le c tric a l e q u ip m e n t a n d s u p p lie s ..

1,935.5 1,942. 5 1,940.3 1,919.4 1,897.3 1,907.5 1,871.5 1, 868.1 1,885.0 1,902.9 1,933.4 1,954.7 1,962.0 1,896. 4 1, 659.2
201.4 202.0 200.3 198.2 199.7 200.4
199.7 200.7 198.0 198.6 197.0 196.6 194.3 189.8 170.0
215.4 216.3
216.3 215.6 217.9 220.6 218.6 221.0 220.3 221.6 224.6 226.0 226.6 214.3 192.3
186.9 187.8 186.4
169.8 177.9 174.4 174.8 178.3 181.6 184.5 181.3 165.3
183.5 168.9 174.8
193.8 194.5 193.7 191.4 191.3 191.1
188.4 192.3 191.9 193.4 192.1 194.3 196.7 193.1 173.0
147.7 152.5 156.9
134.8 138.5 154.1 162.7 170.2 159.8 133.4
156.9 154.2 148.6 138.2 117.9
514.3 514.3 514.8
509.7 503.4 503.9 502.5 499.0 497.0 497.1 494.6 491.7 478.7 465.5 416.8
354.8 354.2 352.6 353.8 351.8 351.5 342.4 344.4 354.9 365.3 378.0 385.8 393.2 381.5 307.1
M isc. electrical e q u ip m e n t & s u p p lie s.
120.9
119.3 110.3 110.1
116.6 111.9
114.9 113.7 113.6 114.7 116.0 117.8 111.3 101.4
T r a n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t______________ 1,998.4 2,014.0 1,986.3 1,885. 7 1,882.2 1,834.6 1,866. 4 1,952. 6 1,938.1 1,927. 6 1,941.2 1,947. 7 1,951.4 1,911.5 1,740.6
M o to r vehicles a n d e q u ip m e n t________
871.8 849.4 758.8 759.3 717.2 749.9 829.8 826.9 813.3 837.2 845.4 854.7 859.2 842.7
A irc ra ft a n d p a r t s ____________________
848.8 849.3 843.4 836.9 833.0 823.4 824.1 820.3 812.5 812.8 810.1 805.2 805.2 750.5 624.2
S h ip a n d b o a t b u ild in g a n d re p a irin g .
171.5 170.3 169.0 167.9 167.0 165.8 161.4 172.5 174.6 176.4 171.1 175.6 174.6 176.4 160.2
R a ilro a d e q u ip m e n t_________________
51.9
fi2 1
50 6
fio 7
51.7
55.2
57.4
57.1
52.2
58 1
59.1
59.3
O th e r tr a n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t_____
70.9
72.6
73.0
70.7
72.6
71.5
72.9
67.0
66.0
63.5
60.8
54.8
63.8
57Ì3
457.9 458.8 457.4 455.0 455.3 457.9 454. 8 456.0 451.0 453.2 453.8 452.8 451.2 433.1 389.0
E n g in e e rin g & scientific in s tru m e n ts .
87.5
87. 5
87 2
88 1
85 9
85 7
85 3
87.7
88 1
108.4
109.0 108.0 106.5 106.5 107.6 108.2 107.6 107.5 108.6 109.4 109.7 110.5 108.5
99.4
O p tic a l a n d o p h th a lm ic g o o d s___
51.0
50.7
50.8
50.2
50.2
49.9
50.5
50.5
50.8
51.0
50.8
50.3
50.8
49.1
45.5
O p h th a lm ic g o o d s_____________
31.5
31. 3
31 fi
31 7
31 9
32 1
31.5
31.2
31 1
M edical in s tru m e n ts a n d su p p lie s.
66.3
66.0
66.4
65.4
65.8
64.8
65.2
66.0
65.5
65.2
64.4
64.0
56.4
65.5
61.6
P h o to g ra p h ic e q u ip m e n t a n d supp
103.8 103.5 103.5 103.7 105.3 104.1 102.9 101.0 101.6 101.6 101.6 101.2
84.1
96.8
W atch es, clocks, a n d w a tc h c a s e s ..
41.1
41.7
40.9
42.0
40.6
40.9
40.9
41.3
41.7
41.0
41.3
40.5
31.9
37.0
411.8 427.5 449.7 452.4 447.4 440.6 421.3 433.5 428.1
424.2 419.3 417.0 414.5 434.5 419.5
Je w e lry , silv e rw a re , a n d p la te d w a re .
50.6
52.4
50.8
51.4
52.3
51.5
47.6
51.0
51.4
51.5
51.0
50.8
51.9
49.2
45.7
T o y s a n d sp o rtin g goods____________
111.8 130.7 132.5 128.7
124.5 116.4 117.5 114.5 109.5 103.4 100.4
98.2 117.9 116.7
34.4
34.4
34.2
34.2
34.6
35.1
34.9
34.9
34.3
35.0
34.8
34.6
34.6
33.3
C o stu m e .je w e lry a n d n o tio n s ___
60.0
60.4
58.0
55.7
60.3
58.2
57.7
60.5
57.4
57.5
58.2
57.5
56.4
58.9
O th e r m a n u fa c tu rin g in d u s trie s ..
168.9 171.0 172.2 173.2 172.7 170.7 167.0 171.3 170.0 170.8 172.1 172.6 173.4 174.0 167.4
0 7 fi
M u sical in s tru m e n ts a n d p a r t s .
26.4
2fi 4
26.4
25 0
24.4
24. 6
25 4
25 7
2fi 8
27 3
25. 7
E le c tric a l in d u s tria l a p p a ra tu s ________
H o u se h o ld a p p lia n c e s ......................
E le c tric lig h tin g a n d w irin g e q u ip m e n t.
R a d io a n d T V rece iv in g e q u ip m e n t___
C o m m u n ic a tio n e q u ip m e n t___________

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

Food and kindred products__________ 1,721.0 1,770.1 1,811.8 1,871.6 1,917.0 1,880.6 1,830.8 1,792.9 1,731.8 1, 713.8 1,713.0 1,708.3 1, 725. 4 1, 778.9 1, 756.7
Meat products____________________
325.6 336.1 336.0 334.6 334.5 337.6 334.3 329.3 321.4 318.0 321.4 322.3 325.1 323.8 318.4
Dairy products___________________
259.6 262.5 264.5 266.8 272.5 280.4 281.6 280.2 273.5 271.4 268.8 267.4 268.0 277.5 285.8
Canned, cured, and frozen foods____
244.5 276.5 334.6 387.9 335.7 294.5 264.9 241.0 236.1 232.9 228.4 233.4 275.7 260.2
Grain mill products_______________
127.5 127.4 127.2 129.5 130.5 133.0 132.9 132.1
128.2 126.5 127.2 126.4 126.7 127.8 126.9
Bakery products__________________
291.0 291.6 292.4 294.1 294.0 296.2 295.7 295.0 288.9 286.4 287.7 286.7 285.8 284.4 287.4
Sugar________________ ____ ______
3fi 2
44 5
43 3
29.6
28.4
29.8
27 5
29 1
32 4
39 fi
.Sfi fi
47.0
31.0
30. 6
Confectionery and related products...
79.6
73.7
78.7
85.9
82.9
85.3
75.1
77.2
74.6
74.3
78.9
80.0
80.7
77.2
84.7
Beverages...............................................
228.3 231.4 234.9 237.7 238.6 244.0 245.3 242.7 232.1 230.3 225.9 223.0 223.9 229.3 221.5
Misc. foods and kindred products___
143.6 146.8 147.4 146.3 145.1
144.5 144.4 143.0 142.3 143.3 142.8 142.8 143.5 144.1
143.2
Tobacco manufactures_______________
82.9
77.3
98.4 100.3
96.4
90.5
93.9
76.2
74.9
75.3
77.0
81.5
88.6
83.9
86.8
Cigarettes________________ ____ ___
39 fi
41. 2
40 1
39 8
3 9 fi
39 fi
38 fi
41.3
41.0
41.2
40 8
41.1
Cigars___________________________
21 7
21.2
21.8
21 7
21 2
21 fi
24 2
21.0
21.8
Textile mill products___________ ____
950.4 961.6 962.3 960.9 957.3 955.4 933.5 957.0 941.0 944.1 948.1 945.2 950.8 961.5 925.6
Weaving mills, cotton______________
236.8 238.9 237.7 236.5 236.2 232.9 234.7 237.8 235.9 236.4 238.1 237.2 240.0 237.2 229.2
Weaving mills, synthetics............. ......
95.4
92.7
96.1
96.6
95.3
92.4
96.8
95.0
94.4
94.4
95.2
95.9
96.8
97.0
95.8
Weaving and finishing mills, wool___
44.8
44.8
44.9
44.3
45.0
44.8
45.9
45.5
44.5
44.9
44.8
44.5
44.2
45.4
44.6
30.0
Narrow fabric m ills..............................
31.6
31.9
31.7
31.6
32.0
29.4
31.9
32.3
31.4
31.7
31.6
31.8
31.9
32.1
Knitting mills____________________
219. C 225.2 231.3 232.9 231.6 233.9 225.9 232.9 227.5 226.1 224.9 220.9 219.9 234.4 229.1
Textile finishing, except wool_______
79.6
81.0
81.0
81.4
80.8
80.6
76.9
81.7
77.3
79.9
80.3
80.3
80.8
80.0
79.6
43.2
43. 4
Floor covering mills_______________
47.6
46.0
48.2
47.2
46.7
43 2
43 2
43 8
43 fi
44 3
44 3
41. 4
Yarn and thread mills_____________
116.1 116.5 115.3 114.3 113.0 112.9 111.0 113.9
112.3 112.6 113.5 114.3 115.8 115.9 109.2
71.6
76.7
Miscellaneous textile goods_________
76.8
77.0
77.3
72.6
73.6
73.9
74.9
76.2
76.5
77.2
77.2
77.8
77.2
Apparel and other textile products____ 1,365.4 1,394.2 1,403.3 1,401.7 1,398.0 1,405.5 1,338.9 1,395.4 1,382. 2 1,376.2 1,396.3 1,407.5 1,392. 4 1,398.8 1,354.2
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats_____ - 118.1 121.1 119.6 118.9 120.6 121.1 116.6 123.9 123.1 121.1 122.8 122.9 123.3 122.9 119.3
Men’s and boys’ furnishings ________
361.1 364.4 364.8 366.3 366.5 370.5 357.2 369.8 365.7 366.0 366.9 367.7 369.1 370.6 351.9
Women’s and misses’ outerwear_____
423.5 430.3 433.8 432.2 426.7 430.1 409.2 424.6 423.0 421.0 431.6 436.6 423.7 423.5 417.1
Women’s and children’s undergar­
m ents______________________ '..
116.7 121.5 123.2 122.6 122.9 122.4 118.2 122.4 123.1 124.1 125.1 126.0 124.9 125.2 120.8
Hats, caps, and millinery________
25. S
24.6
22. 6
29.1
24.2
23.9
22. 6
27. 7
29. 3
28. 9
28. 0
23.9
23.3
23. 8
Children’s outerwear____________
78.2
80.2
78.4
76.5
78.5
77.4
79.1
75.2
78.0
80.5
76.6
76.6
81.7
79.9
74.6
Fur goods and miscellaneous apparel
82.7
76.3
84.1
83.9
74.6
75.8
79.5
83.5
79. 0
76. 6
77. 5
77. 0
77. 4
81 1
Misc. fabricated textile products__
169.4 177.3 178.5 176.8 176.3 174.6 160.7 170.2 168.2 166.4 167.4 167.0 167.6 169.0 161.4
Paper and allied products__________
684.8 691.9 690.3
687.6 688.5 694.6 689.4 693.6 674.2 675.6 676.8 674.3 674.3 667.5 639.1
Paper and pulp mills____________
219.4 222.1 224.5 223.5 223.9 215.6 216.9 216.2 215.8 215.3 215.2 211.9
218.3 219.8 219.4
Paperboard mills________________
75.0
68.1
74.3
74.2
71.8
73.6
73.5
74.0
73.3
72.8
75.1
73.6
73.6
73.9
73.9
Misc. converted paper products___
180.3
182.3
181. £ 180.7 180.2 181.7 179.4 180.3 176.0 177.0 176.7 175.3 174.6 171.7 159.6
Paperboard containers and boxes__ - 212.6 215. £ 215.7 214.7 212.7 213.4 212.2 214.3 209. C 208.1 210.0 209.2 210.2 208.8 199. 6
Printing and publishing___________
1,066.1 1,077. a 1,071.8 1,068.4 1,066.1 1,067.9 1,066.0 1, 067.3 1, 059. 3 1, 060.8 1, 060.4 1, 052.9 1,047.3 1,021.8 979.4
Newspapers_____ ______________
362.7 365. £ 362.6 362.5 362.9 363.7 364.3 365.7 363.4 361.7 361.0 359.1 357.5 353.1 345.4
76.2
Periodicals_____________________
75. 4
74 9
74 7
69.7
76 6
75.8
73 7
73. 5
71. 7
76 7
75. 5
74 4
74 1
Books.___ ______ _____________
96.7
94 7
97. 2
97 1
97 0
97 5
81.3
93 4
93. 5
94 4
89.3
93 2
97 4
96 2
Commercial printing____________
340.8 345.9 344.3 342.1 339.3 335.9 334.4 335.3 332.5 334.7 335.8 331.8 331.5 322.8 309.3
59.0
51.2
Blankbooks and bookbinding_____
58.4
55.2
56.0
56.2
55.8
54.9
56.2
56.1
56.6
57.6
56.9
56.7
56.7
Other publishing & printing indus­
tries______________________
136.4
136.3
130.0
122.5
_ 138.3 139.2 139.0 138.5 137.1
136.7 135.3 135.3 135.4 135.9 134.6

See footnotes at end of table.


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

137

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
T able

A-9.

Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1967

1968

A nnual
averag e

In d u s tr y
Jan. 2

D e c .2 N o v .

O ct.

S ep t.

A ug.

M a r.

F eb.

Jan.

1966

1965

976.3
307.1
203.1
131.6
109.8
67.4
57.1
100.2
183.0
149.4
33.6
521.4
109.2
181.7
230.5
357.8
30.7
234.7
92.4

973.9
306.5
205.3
131.7
110.2
66.9
54.5
98.8
182.5
149.1
33.4
526.8
109.4
185.2
232.2
357.5
31.0
235.4
91.1

957.9
301.5
205.4
126.9
109.7
67.6
54.7
92.1
186.0
149.6
36.4
509.8
107.2
178.7
223.9
363.5
31.7
240.6
91.2

907.8
290.1
193.7
118.1
105.6
66.3
53.2
80.8
182.9
148.1
34.8
470.8
101.8
171.6
197.5
352.9
31.6
234.5
86.8

38.4

38.6

36.3

4,183 4,151
699.4 718.5
608.0 624.9
276.6 268.7
82.2
82.0
111.7 108.7
42.1
41.8
998.9 1, 007. 5
87.0
84.5
272.9 246.9
246.6 221.9
18.2
18.8
341.2 335.1
950.1 927.0
793.6 773.4
33.0
33.3
114.2 112.2
625.7 628.2
257.1 256.7
149.8 152.2
176.3 177.4
41.9
42.5

4,036
735.3
640.1
268.8
82.5
109.5
41.8
963.5
82.0
229.0
205.9
19.5
315.4
880.8
735.2
31.8
106.9
623.4
253.0
153.6
176.5
40.4

J u ly

June

M ay

A p r.

999.0
312.6
203.7
137.3
114.1
70.8
51.9
108.6
194.5
155.9
38.6
471.7
79.8
161.5
230.4
342.3
29.7
223.3
89.3

993.6
311.9
202. 3
135.6
113.0
70.2
55.2
105.4
192.3
154.0
38.3
478.7
79.3
164.5
234.9
351.7
30.7
228.1
92.9

985.3
307.7
200.1
134.2
110.7
68.4
61.2
103.0
187.4
150.9
36.5
469.1
77.5
162.3
229.3
345.6
30.1
226.1
89.4

988.6
308.5
201.8
133.3
110.7
68.0
64.4
101.9
185.9
150.4
35.5
517.0
109.2
177.6
130.2
346.1
30.1
226.1
89.9

980.1
307.7
199.4
132.2
111.1
67.8
61.0
100.9
182.8
149.0
33.8
518.4
109.6
178.3
230.5
351.4
30.4
229.6
91.4

36.0

37.9

35.9

36.7

37.8

39.1

4,174 4,191
695.3 693.4
603.6 602.0
275.4 276.8
82.2
80.7
111.0 111.7
42.5
41.8
959.6 1, 000.1
80.5
83.9
285.2 281.1
257.5 253.9
18.1
18.1
352.6 335.8
959.4 958.1
802.2 800.7
33.5
33.7
114.2 114.7
628.0 627.2
257.8 257.4
150.1 150.1
176.9 176.8
43.2
42.9

4,175
695.7
603.6
276.2
82.1
111.7
41.5
994.1
86.3
276.4
250.0
18.1
334.2
953.9
796.9
33.6
114.3
625.9
257.1
149.8
176.5
42.5

Manufacturing—C o n tin u e d
N o n d u r a b l e g o o d s —C o n tin u e d

C h em icals a n d allied p r o d u c ts ........... ......... 1, 000.1 1, 002.3
309.3 308.9
I n d u s tria l c h e m ic a ls ..__________ . . . .
210.2 209.2
P la stic s m a te ria ls a n d s y n th e tic s ............
137.6 139.0
D ru g s --------------------------------------- -------113.9 114.8
S oap, cleaners, a n d to ile t goods-----------68.5
68.7
.
P a in ts a n d allie d p r o d u c ts _________
53.5
107.0 108.4
O th e r chem ical p r o d u c ts ............ .... .......
188.2 189.5
P e tro le u m a n d coal p ro d u c ts ____________
153.6 153.5
P e tro le u m refin in g _________ _________
36.0
34.6
O th er p e tro le u m a n d coal p ro d u c ts ........
535.3 539.8
R u b b e r a n d p la stic s p ro d u c ts, n e c ______
111.5 112.2
T ires a n d in n e r t u b e s ..____________ ..
182.1 183.2
O th er ru b b e r p r o d u c ts -------- _ --------241.7 244.4
M iscellaneous p la stics p ro d u c ts _______
L e a th e r a n d le a th e r p ro d u c ts ____________ 350.8 357.1
31.4
31.0
L e a th e r ta n n in g a n d fin ish in g _________
229.6 232.2
F o o tw e a r, except r u b b e r ______________
93.9
89.8
O th er le a th e r p r o d u c ts _________ _____
H a n d b a g s a n d p erso n al le a th e r
38.4

Transportation and public utilities----------L ocal a n d in te ru rb a n passenger t r a n s i t ...
I n te r c ity h ig h w a y tr a n s p o r ta tio n ...........

P ip e lin e tra n s p o rta tio n _____ __________
O th e r tra n s p o rta tio n a n d serv ic es_______
T e lep h o n e c o m m u n ic a tio n ____________
T e le g ra p h c o m m u n ic a tio n ____________
R ad io a n d te lev isio n b ro a d c a stin g -----E lectric, gas, a n d s a n ita ry serv ic es_____
E le c tric co m p an ies a n d s y s te m s ---------C o m b in a tio n co m p an ies a n d s y s te m s ..
W a te r, s te a m , & s a n ita ry s y s te m s ------

Wholesale and retail trade..

4,228

997.3
307.0
207.4
137.8
115.4
68.6
53.1
108.0
191.6
154.4
37.2
539.8
111.6
181.6
246.6
356.4
30.8
229.3
96.3

996.6
307.8
205.4
137.3
117.1
68.8
53.2
107.0
193.2
154.7
38.5
533.5
109.6
181.2
242.7
351.4
30.6
225.8
95.0

40.0

39.1

995.9 1,003.5
307.6 312.0
205.5 205.4
137.2 138.0
117.3 117.1
71.0
69.3
51.9
52.5
106.5 108.1
194.2 195.2
155.4 156.2
39.0
38.8
531.1 522.1
109.4 106. 5
181.4 177.2
240.3 238.4
349.6 354.0
30.5
30.6
225.4 230.1
93.4
93.6
38.3

38.4

4,294 4,304 4,281 4,317 4,330 4,335 4,304 4,250
674.0 675.2 679.3 690.2 702.4 706.5 706.9 697.2
583.3 586.6 590.7 600.1 612.7 616. 5 616.6 606.7
280.6 278.2 276.2 275.9 255.6 256.4 269.1 277.3
82.7
81.0
81.2
82.2
82.2
82.8
82.8
82.0
113.5 112.2 110.5 109.5 108.3 108.1
108.5 110.1
44.5
45.1
42.8
42.5
45.1
44.2
43.2
42.9
1, 057.4 1, 063. 5 1,050.4 1, 059.3 1,055. 4 1,061.8 1,041.5 1,022.8
89.9
89.6
88.3
86. 0
95.2
97.1
84.3
93.2
307.1 304.6 302.6 300.6 300.8 297.2 293.3 289.0
275.8 273.9 272.4 270.7 270.7 268.0 264.4 260.6
19.3
18.9
18.1
18.1
19.3
18.2
18.2
19.1
348.5 357.2 349.4 352.1 357.6 352.9 356.4 353.6
967.2 966.7 964.9 971.3 983.2 984.0 973.3 962.5
803.5 804.8 803.2 808.3 821.1 821.9 812.5 803.4
33.9
33.3
34.1
32.7
32.8
34.1
34.0
32.7
120.8 119.2 119.0 119.9 118.5 118.4 117.2 115.7
641.2 640.3 640.3 648.5 655.9 656. 5 644.2 629.4
262.5 262.6 262.5 265.6 266.0 269.3 263.8 257.6
152.3 152.2 152.5 154.5 158. 2 158.0 155. 4 150. 6
181.5 180.5 180.5 182.9 185.1 183.1
179.7 177.4
46. 6
45.5
46.1
44.9
45.0
44.8
45.3
43.8

13,709 14,726 14,104 13,808 13,689 13, 622 13,629 13,675
W holesale tr a d e ______ _____ ___________
3, 570 3,632 3,631 3,599 3, 586 3, 608 3, 587 3,562
M o to r v ehicles, & a u to m o tiv e eq u ip m e n t_______________________________
279.8 279.1 269.1 269.3 274.7 274.1 271.9
D ru g s, chem icals, a n d allie d p r o d u c ts ..
218.4 218.7 217.0 215.8 216.5 215.4 213.5
D ry goods a n d a p p a re l____
____
151.6 153.4 153.0 152.5 153.7 151.9 149.9
G roceries a n d re la te d p ro d u c ts ____ . . .
531.4 532. 6 531. 6 518.2 520.5 516.3 520.5
E le c tric a l goods____ _______ _________
291.2 287.6 285.0 284.9 289.3 290.6 288.4
H a rd w a re , p lu m b in g , & h e a tin g eq u ip m e n t____________ . . . . _ _______ .
159.2 158.8 157.4 158.1 158.9 157.8 157.5
M a c h in e ry , e q u ip m e n t, a n d s u p p lie s ...
677.4 675.0 673.4 679.5 677.0 677.1 666.8
M iscellan eo u s w holesalers_____________
1,217.9 1,215.2 1, 208.2 1, 208. 2 1, 218.1 1,213.9 1,208.1
R e ta il tr a d e _____________________________ 10,139 11,094 10, 473 10,209 10,103 10,014 10,042 10,113
R e ta il general m e rc h a n d is e ......... ..............
2, 621.9 2, 253.5 2,061.7 1, 991. 6 1,938.1 1,943. 7 1,958. 2
D e p a rtm e n t s to re s ____________________
1, 709.9 1, 455. 0 1,310.0 1, 257. 5 1, 225. 7 1,236 1 1,246. 8
112.5
M a il o rd er h o u ses_____________________
155. 7 150.4 129.9 119.8 114.4 112.1
V a rie ty s to re s _________________________
423.2 358.2 339.1 331.9 317. 6 316. 4 320.5
F o o d s to re s _____________________________
1, 652.4 1, 599.8 1, 605. 5 1, 582.0 1 562.3 1,568. 5 1,576. 0
G rocery, m e a t, a n d v eg e tab le sto re s ___
1,457. 6 1,412.0 1,421.1 1, 399. 6 1, 383.9 1,389.1 1,392.9
A p p arel a n d accessory s to re s ____ . . . . .
835.6 719.9 690.4 680.1 655.0 656.3 682.3
M e n ’s & b o y s’ c lo th in g & fu rn is h in g s ..
147.8 120.3 113.9 112.3 111.0 111.4 114.9
W o m e n ’s read y -to -w e ar sto re s _________
297.9 262.0 252.3 245.7 238. 7 239.3 246.2
F a m ily clo th in g s to re s __ ______ . .
110. 6 114.5
152.9 122.9 113.6 112.4 109.1
Shoe s to re s ___________________________
156.3 139.7 137.7 139.0 130.2 129.5 135.6
431.9
F u r n itu re a n d hom e fu rn ish in g s s to r e s ...
454.0 442.1 433.8
428.8 429.4 431.1
F u r n itu r e a n d hom e fu rn is h in g s .............
291.0 283.8 278.5 277.1 276.3 275. 5 275.2
2,191.
7
E a tin g a n d d rin k in g p la c e s _____ _____ _
2,198. 4 2,205. 5 2, 226.8
2,172.3 2,182. 7 2,187. 2
O th er re ta il t r a d e ________ .
______
3,357.8 3, 274. 8 3,230.1 3, 225. 6 3, 231. 8 3,238. 3 3,238.4
543.3
B u ild in g m a te ria ls a n d farm e q u ip m e n t.
553. 3 554.6 549.5
539.0 539.4 541.2
A u to m o tiv e dealers & service s ta tio n s ..
1, 554.4 1, 542. 7 1, 529. 7 1,539.4 1, 542.1 1, 548. 2 1, 533. 3
748.7
M o to r v ehicle d ea lers.
748.3 750.8 747.0
752.0 747.6 745.4
O th er a u to m o tiv e
&
accessory
207.3
d e a le rs .. ___ . ___ . _ ___ . _ _
210.7 211.6 208.5
213.4 209.1 206.2
583.4 583. 1 585.8 577.8
G asoline service s ta tio n s ____________
589.0 586.0 578.1
1,142.9
1,136. 4 1,135. 5 1,155.6
M iscellaneous re ta il s to re s ____ _______
1, 264. 4 1,192. 7 1,159. 2
431. 7 431. 6 440.3
D ru g stores a n d p ro p rie to ry s to r e s .. .
472.3 449.5 442.2 437.1
96.2
99.4
95.2
95.8
F a rm a n d g ard en s u p p ly s to re s _____
97.7
98.3
99.1
F u el a n d ice d e a le rs ... _____________
116.6 113.7 108.0 104.7 102.8 102.9 104.8

See footnotes at end of table.


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

13,503 13,412 13,332 13, 218 13,334 13,211 12,716
3, 503 3,499 3, 486 3,479 3,491 3,438 3,312
265.2
211.8
147.7
506.0
285.1

265.4
211.7
147.9
503.0
285.4

264.5
211.4
149.0
501.5
283.5

264.9
209.9
147.3
499.7
281.8

263.4
210.4
147.0
505.7
279.2

261.1
206.9
142.8
511.6
272.0

255.3
198.0
139.4
510.7
256.0

155.6
657.6
1,188.5
10,000
1,942.0
1, 229. 6
112.7
323.0
1,581.4
1,397.2
675.8
111.4
247.7
112.1
134.1
425.6
272.1
2,183. 4
3,191.8
529.6
1, 510. 0
740.1

155.2
653.6
1,188. 2
9,913
1,922.1
1,219. 2
113.7
320.7
1,577.1
1,397. 0
667.7
110.8
244.8
110.6
132.8
427.1
272.3
2,150.4
3,168.3
524.8
1, 504.3
740.5

155.2
641.0
1,188. 7
9,846
1,924.1
1,217.5
115.3
323.8
1, 576. 7
1,395.1
682.7
111.8
245.3
112.9
140.0
427. 5
273.3
2,097. 7
3,137. 2
513.4
1,486. 7
739.6

154.5
639.9
1,183. 0
9, 739
1,886.9
1,197.7
118.8
310.2
1, 576. 9
1,395.7
650.4
110.9
235.1
110.8
125.9
427.5
272.9
2, 064. 7
3,132.4
509.2
1,481.0
739.7

154.8
643.7
1,182. 2
9,843
1, 984. 2
1,266.3
130.7
319.8
1,571.0
1,395.9
676.8
118.1
244.1
116.8
129.3
426.9
273.4
2, 045.8
3,138. 0
511.8
1,487.8
741.7

154.5
623.8
1,165. 0
9,773
1,968.8
1, 250. 6
124.9
319.9
1,538. 3
1,365.2
665. 5
111.2
246.6
109.6
129.3
421.8
272. 0
2, 063.8
3,115.3
539.9
1,470. 0
737.8

150.1
579.4
1,122.3
9,404
1,873.4
1,173.0
119.5
312.7
1,468.6
1, 296.1
640. 2
104.9
237.7
104.4
123.9
409. 6
265. 0
1,987.9
3, 023. 7
539.3
1,424.2
723. 0

204.9 201.7 195.7 192.6 195.4 193.3 179.3
565.0 562.1 551. 4 548.7 550.7 538.9 521.9
1,152.2 1,139. 2 1,137.1 1,142. 2 1,138.4 1,105. 4 1, 060.3
437.4 437.2 436.7 440.5 442.5 420.1 401. 0
95. 0
95. 7
97.2
94.7
102.0 105.2 100.9
104.5 107.6 113.5 115.9 116.5 109.0 108. 5

138

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T able

A-9.

Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.
Finance, insurance, and real estate______
Banking, _________________________
Credit agencies other than banks______
Savings and loan associations________
Personal credit institutions._________
Security, commodity brokers, & services.
Insurance carriers___________________
Life insurance_________ __________
Accident and health insurance... .
Fire, marine, and casualty insurance...
Insurance agents, brokers, and service__
Real estate_________ ____ ___________
Operative builders________ . . . ___
Other finance, insurance, & real e state...

3,271

_________

—

3,283
877.2
349.5
104.4
187.3
166.4
971.9
510.3
77.0
344.3
256. 2
579.5
41.7
81.9

Oct.

Sept.

3,274 3,267
874.4 871.5
346. 6 346.1
100.4 100.9
185.6 185.0
165.2 162.0
967.4 963.8
507.3 506.9
76.5
75.5
343.3 341.5
255. 7 253.7
581.9 588.4
42.9
42.3
82.4
81.8

3, 274
872.1
347.3
100.2
187.1
160.0
965.1
507.9
75.3
342.0
253.1
593.8
42.2
82.1

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

3,305
882.0
348.4
100.7
187.5
160.6
971.8
510.0
76.2
345.4
255.8
603.3
43.3
83.1

3,289
877.6
349.5
101.2
187.9
158.0
962.3
503.4
75.6
343.4
254.4
605.0
42.0
81.9

3,253
865.6
345.9
98.9
187.5
153.1
952.6
500.9
74. 0
338.7
252.0
601.4
41.1
82.1

3,202
851.1
341.6
97.0
185.6
149.2
943.0
497.5
72. 3
334.9
247.0
588.5
38.8
81.6

3,181
848.0
340.4
96.7
184.9
147.9
939.2
496.3
71. 8
333.0
246.2
578.2
37.3
81.5

Mar.
3,157
846.3
339.3
95.8
185.2
146.3
936.1
494.4
71. 3
332.4
245.1
562.6
35.6
81.3

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

3,133
843.6
337.0
94.9
184.2
143.8
931.4
491.8
69.7
331.6
244.2
552.8
33.6
80.2

3,114
838.2
336.0
95.8
182.6
141.8
923.2
489.5
67.1
328. 1
241.1
552.6
33.4
80.6

3,102
823.1
335.0
96.3
180.0
140.7
909.8
486.6
60.1
322.2
239.2
573.2
41.0
80.8

3,023
792.0
326.9
97.1
171.8
129.0
893.4
481.2
54.2
315.8
232.8
568.9
45.8
79.6

Services__
10,160 10,240 10,246 10,230 10,212 10,262 10,265 10,196 10,057 9,963 9,817 9,725 9,643 9,545 9,087
Hotels and other lodging places___ ___
646.3 654.1 664.7 681.5 718. 5 817.4 8Í7. 3 733.5 687.8 671.9 647. 0 635.9 625.3 684.6 659.1
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels____
596.9 606.4 619.7 643.5 681.7 683.3 656.2 621.6 611.0 590.8 580.5 570.1 610.1 584. 2
Personal services...
_____________ 1,015.5 1,028.0 1, 032.1 1,032.3 1,028.3 1, 026.1 1,030.5 1, 030. 5 1, 022.1 1, 020. 7 1,016.2 1,010.5 1, 010.1 1,012.9 985.4
Laundries and drycleaning plants..
549.0 552.8 554.4 554.8 557.0 563.6 564.0 556.5 556.0 552.8 548.9 550.5 559.1 548.4
Miscellaneous business services________
1, 370. 7 1, 360.8 1,355. 5 1,351.1 1,352.1 1,340. 3 1,331.6 1, 306. 4 1,300.3 1,284.1 1,271.8 1, 268. 6 1, 220. 2 1,109.1
Advertising___ . . . _________
113.1 112.8 112. 2 112.6 112.8 113.5 113.1 112.9 112.5 112.9 112.1 111.5 111.9 112.5
Credit reporting and collection______
71.1
71.9
70.3
71.9
70.1
69.1
68.3
68.4
65.7
70.6
71.0
70.9
69.6
68.5
Motion pictures_____________________
174.6 182.0 185.0 194.5 203.9 202.9 196.8 190.5 183.4 173.9 178.2 180.3 190.2 185.1
Motion picture filming A distributing.
53.2
52.0
52.8
55.4
48.5
53.8
56.8
53.5
49.3
47.3
47.3
55.2
54.0
52.8
Motion picture theaters and services...
122. 6 128.2 132.2 141.3 147.1 147.5 143.3 141.2 136.1 126.6 125.4 125.1 136.2 136.6
Medical and other health services______ 2, 534.9 2, 531.2 2, 520.3 2, 497.7 2, 485. 4 2,485. 6 2,476. 4 2,453. 5 2,400. 5 2,383. 5 2,367.1 2,343.3 2,312.1 2, 206.5 2, 079. 5
Hospitals_______ ____ ____________
1, 590.8 1, 584. 5 1, 575. 7 1,566. 4 1,572.3 1, 569. 5 1,549.7 1,525.3 1,516.1 1,506.6 1, 493.3 1,475.5 1,418.5 1,356.5
207.9 206.7 204.8 204.2 209.0 208.1 203.8 195.1 195.0 194.7 194.2 193.5 190.3 181.5
Legal services____________ __ ________
Educational services_________________ 1,137. 7 1,144. 7 1,144. 6 1,124.3 1,028.2 914.0 928.6 1, 000. 4 1, 068. 5 1, 066.1 1, 065.4 1, 057.0 1, 046. 9 968.1 924.6
Elementary and secondary schools___
367.2 365.5 358.0 340.4 295.2 296.6 335.3 346.9 346.4 345.8 345.1 344.5 325.9 315.6
Colleges and universities.
_____
694.6 696.9 685.5 611.0 546.0 557.6 588.7 614.9 642.9 643.4 636.1 626.1 570.8 544.3
Miscellaneous services.. ___ _____
520.4 517.8 514.9 518.7 526.5 523.3 515. 8 498. 7 500. 6 501. 4 500. 7 496. 2 488.5 449. 0
Engineering and architectural services.
279.6 279.1 278.2 279.6 286.0 284.7 282.7 272.8 270.5 269.8 268.0 266.5 264.9 242.4
74.4
75.2
75.4
75.0
68.2
Nonprofit research agencies________ _
74.7
74.9
73.4
73.4
73.5
73.6
73.6
74.6
73.7
Government.........
Federal Governm ent4__ .
Executive_______ . . . .
1lepartment of Defense__________ ...
Post Office Department . . .
Other agencies__________
Legislative____ ___
Judicial____________
State and local governm ents__________
State government_____
State education_____ __
Other State government.
Local government..
Local education____ _
Other local government________

11,979 12,129 12,011 11,876 11,615 11,240 11,271 11,664 11,604 11,584 11,554 11,474 11,366 10,871 10,091
2, 679 2, 814 2,709 2,707 2, 707 2, 784 2,798 2, 766 2,690 2,683 2, 669 2,652 2,643 2,564 2,378
2, 779.9 2, 675.2 2,673.5 2, 673.0 2, 749.3 2,763. 4 2, 731. 8 2, 657. 2 2,650. 3 2, 635. 7 2, 619. 7 2, 609.3 2,531.9 2,346. 7
1, 097.3 1,103.9 1,104. 6 1,104.7 1,135. 5 1,144.1 1,135.3 1,103. 0 1,100.4 1, 098.1 1, 092. 7 1, 084.3 1, 023. 6 938.5
829.1 708.8 ' 702. 7 701.4 715. 2 713. 7 714.4 697.8 696.9 693.1 689.4 697.2 680.9 614.2
853. 5 862.5 866.2 866.9 898. 6 905. 6 882.1 856.4 853.0 844.5 837. 6 827.8 827.3 793.9
25.4
26.0
27.0
26.5
26.4
27.6
28.1
26.9
26.7
27.5
28. 5 28. 5
27.4
27.5
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.2
6. 4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
9, 300 9,315 9, 302 9,169 8,908 8,456 8,473 8,898 8,914 8,901 8,885 8,822 8, 723 8,307 7,714
2, 408. 2 2,418.1 2,379. 4 2, 293.7 2,255. 7 2,265.0 2,347. 5 2,342. 0 2,340.8 2,333. 4 2,313.4 2,289.8 2,161. 9 1,995.9
980.9 996.8 959. 2 820.3 751.8 767. 7 877. 2 920. 0 922.5 918.8 905.8 891.2 782.6 679.1
1, 427.3 1,421.3 1,420. 2 1, 473.4 1,503.9 1,497.3 1,470.3 1, 422. 0 1,418. 3 1,414.6 l, 407. 6 1,398. 6 1,379. 3 1,316.8
6, 906. 9 6, 884.1 6[ 789.3 6, 613.9 6,200. 5 6,208. 2 6,550. 2 6, 572.4 6,560. 0 6,551.1 6, 508.1 6,433. 0 6,145. 0 5,717.6
4,017.9 3, 999. 4 3,918. 3 3, 697.6 3,196. 9 3,208. 3 3, 627. 0 3, 762. 2 3,771.4 3, 775.1 3, 747.8 3, 693.7 3, 419.1 3,119.9
2, 889.0 2,884. 7 2,871.0 2,916.3 3, 003. 6 2,999. 9 2,923. 2 2,810. 2 2,788. 6 2, 776. 0 2,760.3 2, 739.3 2, 726. 0 2,597. 7

1Beginning with the October 1967 issue, figures differ from those previously
published. The industry series have been adjusted to March 1966 bench­
marks (comprehensive counts of employment). For comparable back data,
see Employment and Earnings Statistics for the United States, 1909-67 (BLS
Bulletin 1312-5). Statistics from April 1966 forward are subject to further
revision when new benchmarks become available.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all fulland part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked
during, or received pay for any part of the pay period which includes the 12th
of the month. Therefore, persons who worked in more than 1 establishment
during the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, selfemployed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are
excluded.


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

2 Preliminary.
3 Beginning January 1965, data relate to railroads with operating revenues
of $5,000,000 or more.
4 Data relate to civilian employees who worked on, or received pay for
the last day of the month.
5 State and local government data exclude, as nominal employees, elected
officials of small local units and paid volunteer firemen.
S o u r c e : U .S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all
series except those for the Federal Government, which is prepared by the
U .S . Civil Service Commission, and that for Class I railroads, which is pre­
pared by the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission.

139

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

T able

A-10.

Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[ I n th o u s a n d s ]

Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

Total private______________ ___________ 44,827 46,437 46,090 45,688 45,696 45, 785
Mining_______________________

438

Crude petroleum and natural gas fields
Oil and gas field services____________

Contract construction___

2,360

Heavy construction contractors________
Highway and street construction __
Heavy construction, nec. _
Plumbing, heating, air conditioning__
Masonry, stonework, and plastering, .

455
49.4
22.2
5.9
124.8
119.2
183.5
79.0
104.5
97.7
34.9

457
49.5
22.4
5.5
125.4
119.3
180.2
78.6
101.6
101.5
36.3

459
50.2
23.0
5.6
124.6
118.5
179.9
79.1
100.8
103.9
37.1

464
51.4
23.5
5.6
124.9
118.8
182.0
81.5
100.5
105.3
37.6

473
54.5
23.8
7.9
123.9
117.9
188.4
83.6
104.8
106.5
37.9

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

45.4 45, 545 44, 782 44,440 44,136 43,895 44, 079 44,234 42,309
490
74.6
23.8
26.9
121.6
115.5
188.6
84.4
104.2
105.3
37.3

488
74.9
24.2
27.0
123.5
117.3
185.4
83.4
102.0
104.2
36.6

476
73.1
23.3
26.5
121.8
115.6
180.5
80.2
100.3
100.3
36.5

472
72.4
22.6
26.6
120.6
114.3
181.8
80.5
101.3
96.8
34.9

465
72.5
22.6
26.6
121.8
115.4
179.0
80.4
98.6
91.3
32.0

465
72.2
22.6
26.5
123.2
116.5
180.1
80.4
99.7
89.0
30.7

471
71.1
21.8
26.3
123.5
116.9
185.7
80.6
105.1
90.3
31.2

485
71.8
22.1
26.1
119.7
112.7
194.1
84.5
109.6
99.8
35.3

494
69.8
22.0
24.7
123.7
115.2
201.8
88.4
113.4
99.1
34.9

2,691 2,872 2,958 3,005 3,081 3,033 2,893 2,724 2,603 2,425 2,369 2,451 2,799 2,710
879.4 916. 6 932.1 940.6 968.7 945.9 907.3 859.4 832.4 796.2 784.8 817.5 902.0 852.7
510.3 607.0 657.0 680.6 698.4 686.6 647.3 583.4 522.9 447.3 428.4 440.3 581.2 560.1
231.2 304.3 342.9 365.0 375.5 366.1 340.5 296.9 249.1 188.6 176.3 180.6 290.2 289.2
279.1 302.7 314.1 315.6 322.9 320.5 306.8 286.5 273.8 258.7 252.1 259.7 291.1 270.9
1,301.1 1, 347.9 1,369. 2 1,383.9 1, 413.8 1,400.4 1,338.8 1,281.0 1,248.1 1,181.2 1,155.5 1,193. 0 1,315.2 1,297.2
302.5 310.9 312.4 313.4 314.5 310.5 298.7 287.1 286.1 285.9 288.6 294.5 302.5 298.0
95.0
96.5 125. 5 128.4
107. 5 119.6 128.6 133.7 140.4 136.9 129.4 121.6 112.3 101.0
213.5 217.5 219.3 220.2 221.7 219.4 211.5 202.8 201.0 196.8 197.4 201.2 201.2 187.6
195.0 198.8 205.9 208.4 219.5 218.3 211.1 204.0 196.2 186.1 174.8 178.6 213.6 217.6
89.6
84.6
90.9
77.9
99.3 100.3 103.3 100.0
89.0
82.0
95.9
90.8
99.2
95.0

Manufacturing.,
14,163 14,351 14,406 14,249 14,290 14,261 13,996 14,249 14,059 14,104 14,200 14,252 14,304 14,273 13,434
Durable goods_____________________ 8, 290 8,354 8,360 8,163 8,182 8,193 8,141 8,332 8,261 8,271 8,340 8,380 8,417 8,349 7,715
Nondurable goods. _ _______________ 5, 873 5,997 6,046 6,086 6,108 6, 068 5,855 5,917 5,798 5,833 5,860 5,872 5,887 5,925 5,719
D u r a b le g oods

Ordnance and accessories_____________
Ammunition, except for small arm s__
Sighting and fire control equipment__
Other ordnance and accessories______
Lumber and wood products__ ____ ____
Sawmills and planing mills_________
Millwork, plywood, <k related products___________ ____ ____ _____
Wooden containers______ ___
Miscellaneous wood products.. .
Furniture and fixtures____
Household furniture__
Office furniture_____
__
P a rtitio n s a n d fix tu re s.

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

160.6
115.3
7.5
37.8
507.5
207.3

159.2
112.9
6.8
39.5
515.5
211.1

157.6
110.6
7.4
39.6
521.2
212.8

155.1
107.3
7.3
40.5
524.8
213.1

153.1
105.7
7.0
40.4
533.2
215.6

149.1
102.5
6.8
39.8
531.0
216.5

148.0
100.6
6.7
40.7
534.2
217.7

145.6
98.4
6.7
40.5
507.4
212.2

145.6
98.5
6.6
40.5
502.5
209.9

145.6
98.0
6.4
41.2
501.5
209.9

144.4
96.9
6.2
41.3
500.3
209.2

141.2
94.1
6.0
41.1
501.2
209.1

121.8
80.9
5. 6
35.3
535. 0
223.4

96.1
64. 0
4.9
27.2
532. 4
228. 0

132. 7 136.4
30.0
30.9
05.2
66.8
383.3 386.1
279. 7 281.1
29. 5
35. 5
39.2
40.0
488.3 503.2
25.2
107.3 109.1
27.1
50.1
52.8
35.3

136.1
31.1
66.4
381.9
279.1
28.3
35.2
39.3
508.4
24.6
107.9
27.8
53.7
35.3

138.7
31.0
66.9
380.3
274.7
29.1
35.7
40.8
506.5
21.1
107.7
28.0
54.2
35.0

139.9
31.2
67.2
376.2
269.7
29.1
36.3
41.1
509.8
20.4
107.5
28.9
54.6
35.3

143.3
32.0
67.5
374.6
268.6
28.8
37.1
40.1
516.5
22.8
107.5
29.4
56.2
35.2

139.6
32.8
65.4
361.8
257.9
27.8
36.4
39.7
513.8
23.1
107.1
28.3
56.5
34.4

140.0
33.3
66.1
371.3
264.7
27.7
36.7
42.2
512.4
22.8
107.9
29.1
56.9
35.2

134.2
32.6
64.6
369.0
264.5
28.4
35.3
40.8
499.0
23.4
105.8
28.1
55.2
34.6

133.4
32.1
66.9
370.5
267.4
28.6
35.5
39.0
495.3
23.9
105.9
28.0
54.2
35.1

131.4
32.3
67.5
375.4
270.9
29.0
35.5
40.0
489.6
25.2
105.8
26.9
52.6
35.6

128.8 129.2
32.4
32.3
67.0
67.3
378.9 381.4
274.2 275.5
29.3
29.2
35.4
36.1
40. 1 40.5
483.8 489.1
25. 5
24.7
105.4 106.1
25.9
26.7
51.8
51.3
35. 5
35.7

143.9
31.9
88.2
382. 6
280.3
27.2
35. 0
40.1
517. 5
25. 9
107.0
29. 2
59.4
36.8

138.8
31. 0
63. 5
öb /. 4
264. 6
23.6
32. 4
36.8
504. 6
26.1
100.7
29.4
59.0
36. 9

163.5
116.9
38.9
492.3
201.9

Other furniture and fixtures.... .......
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Flat glass_____________ __________
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown.
Cement, hydraulic____ ___________
Structural clay products____________
Pottery and related products________
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products___________________ ________ 126.4 134.5 139.1 140.7 142.6 144.3 143.8 140.1 134.3 130.9 125.2 122.4 124.4 137.8 137.2
Other stone & nonmetallic mineral
y/. 7
99.8 100.1 102.5
99.5 100.2
99.9
products________________________
99.2 100.3 101.2 100.9 101.7 103.0 102.8 102.5
Primary metal industries_____________ 1,011.8 1,017.5 1,011.9 993.0 1, 005.8 1,027. 6 1,036.3 1,061.0 1, 054. 6 1, 058. 2 1,073.4 1, 084. 9 1, 093. 7 1, 095.7 1,062. 0
Blast furnace and basic steel products.. 502. 7 505.1 498.8 490.5 497.0 506.4 509.6 509.6 505.5 507.1 511.2 514.4 517.4 530. 4 538.4
Iron and steel foundries_____________ 186.9 185.8 186.2 174.6 179.8 189.7 177.4 193.6 192.4 192.6 197.0 201.8 205.9 203.8 194. 6
57.4
60.3
62.5
62.6
62.6
49.4
62.4
62.8
62.3
Nonferrous m etals_________________
63.1
48.0
47.9
50.7
47.8
48.7
Nonferrous rolling and draw ing... __
143.0 147.6 148.9 151.2 151.2 149.9 156.9 160.6 161.5 162.3 165.7 167.9 169.0 166. 6 151.1
68.3
76.3
78.2
77.8
76.9
74.2
74.5
73.0
75.2
72.1
Nonferrous foundries_______________
75.2
74.9
73.8
75.7
72.8
52.2
60.4
60. 7 58.3
55.4
60.0
59.3
59.2
58.7
57.2
Miscellaneous primary metal products.
56.0
55.5
55.2
57.1
55.2
Fabricated metal products__ ____ ___ 1,052.1 1, 065.5 1,057.8 1,035.8 1,034.1 1,046.0 1,029.9 1, 060.1 1, 039. 5 1, 039. 6 1, 044. 7 1, 053. 5 1, 060.3 1, 050.2 982.7
51. 2
55. 0
53. 3
54.1
56.8
55.2
57.0
56.5
58.5
58.4
Metal cans_____
59.0
57.5
55.3
57.1
55.8
5
Cutlery, hand tools, and hardware___
127.0 131.9 130.8 130.2 128.3 123.6 119.6 125.6 123.0 123.7 124.9 128.4 129.8 127.9 122.
60.
0
60.4
58.
2
57.5
57.1
58.3
56.6
57.5
57.4
58.7
Plumbing and heating, except electric.
57.8
53.9
59.3
58.5
58.6
Fabricated structural metal products. . 282.1 286.8 288.4 290.6 291.5 293.7 293.5 295.5 285.4 284.7 281. 2 282.9 284. 6 289. 4
77.
4
85.8
92.2
92.4
92.3
88.0
89.6
90.6
90.0
88.0
90.0
Screw machine products, bolts, e t c ....
88.6
89.0
88.1
87.8
Metal stampings___________ ______
200.8 200.2 196.5 173.2 172.8 185.3 176.6 191.8 190.8 188.7 191.2 195.4 198.3 192. 5 180.5
64. 8
71. 6 71. 7
71.7
72.1
72.1
70.3
71.1
70.5
71.9
71.9
Metal services, nec . ..
70.2
71.8
72.8
72.6
50.1
55. 6 53. 9
55,5
52.9
55.3
54.0
53.2
52.5
52.9
52.7
Misc. fabricated wire products___
53.4
54.3
53.8
53.7
113.
V
116.
7
116.0
113.4
115.0
113.4
113.0
113.7
114.9
113.4
Misc. fabricated metal products___
113.6 113.7 113.6 113.3
Machinery, except electrical___________ 1,360.6 1,334. 4 1,356.3 1,316.2 1,358.0 1,364.2 1,365.2 1. 386. 0 1,381.2 1,391.9 1, 399.2 1,397.1 1, 398.3 1,344.8 1,214.8
68.5
72.9
72.5
70.8
72.4
73.1
72.1
70.1
72.3
72.1
Engines and turbines_______________
73.4
72.2
73.3
73.7
99.0
Farm machinery__________________
83.7 101.6 99.8 101.5 103.5 106.8 112.1 114.5 117.4 118.9 117.3 115. 4 109.6 175.6
190.3
190.3
188.8
182.4
188.3
185.7
187.1
184.8
186.8
182.7
Construction and related machinery__ 179.4 180.3 179.9 154.8
Metal working machinery___ ______ 259. 9 255. 6 258.9 255.4 256.9 258.1 259.9 264.3 263.3 266.2 267.9 267.2 266.3 254.7 133.7
Special industry machinery__________ 134.0 134.1 133.9 134.1 135.5 136.6 137. 1 139.9 140.0 142.7 143.1 143.7 144.1 142.2
General industrial machinery________ 193. 2 193.4 192. 1 191.1 193.5 194.2 192. 1 196.8 193.6 195.3 192.0 193.7 198.1 191. 5 112.2
Office and computing machines______
139. 9 139. 6 142. 5 136.1 142.8 143.2 139.8 135.9 135.9 134.4 137.4 137.0 136.8 128.3
88.4
92.2
92.7
93.9
90.4
94.4
93.8
95.2
92.9
90.6
89.7
Service industry machines__________
92.1
93.0
93.2
Misc. machinery, except electrical____ i 181.7 181.4 181.9 183.0 184.2 183.2 181.7 182.7 181.7 182.6 184.6 184.2 182.2 171.4 147.5
See footnotes at end of table.

2 8 8 - 7 4 4 0 - 68 - 10


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

140

MONTHLY LABOR. REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued

T a b l e A-10.

[In thousands]
1968

1967

A n n u a l
a v e ra g e

In d u s try
J a n .2

D e c .2

N o v.

O c t.

S e p t.

A ug.

J u ly

June

M a y

Apr.

M a r.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Manufacturing—Continued
D u r a b le go o d s— C o n tin u e d
E l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t a n d s u p p l i e s _________
E le c tr ic te s t &

d is t r ib u t in g e q u ip m e n t-

E l e c t r i c a l i n d u s t r i a l a p p a r a t u s ___________
H o u s e h o l d a p p l i a n c e s _______________________
E le c tr ic lig h t in g a n d w ir in g e q u ip m e n tR a d i o a n d T V r e c e i v i n g e q u i p m e n t ____
C o m m u n i c a t i o n e q u i p m e n t _______________
E le c t r o n ic c o m p o n e n ts a n d a c c e s s o r ie s .
M is e , e l e c t r ic a l e q u i p m e n t & s u p p l ie s . - ,
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n e q u i p m e n t _______ ........................
M o t o r v e h i c l e s a n d e q u i p m e n t ___________
A i r c r a f t a n d p a r t s ____________________________
S h ip a n d b o a t b u ild in g
R a ilr o a d e q u ip m e n t . .

a n d r e p a ir in g ..
_____________________

O t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e q u i p m e n t _________
I n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e la te d p r o d u c ts . .
E n g in e e r in g & s c ie n t if ic in s t r u m e n t s . . .

&

M e c h a n ic a l m e a s u r in g
c o n tro l d e v i c e s ___________________________________________
O p t ic a l a n d o p h t h a lm ic g o o d s .
_________
O p h t h a l m i c g o o d s _____________ . . .
_
M e d i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s a n d s u p p l i e s _______
P h o to g r a p h ic e q u ip m e n t a n d s u p p lie s .
W a t c h e s , c l o c k s , a n d w a t c h c a s e s . . ............
M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s . .
J e w e lr y , s ilv e r w a r e , a n d p la t e d w a r e . . .
T o y s a n d s p o r t i n g g o o d s ___________________
P e n s , p e n c ils , o ffic e a n d a r t s u p p lie s .
.
C o s tu m e je w e lr y a n d n o tio n s
. . ...
O t h e r m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s __________

A.

M u s i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s a n d p a r t s _________

1,306.3 1,313.9 1,311.1 1,294.2 1,272.9 1,283.8 1,247.1 1, 247.2 1, 267.4 1,285.2 1, 317, 2 1,339.4 1,352.3 1,316.8 1,140.5
137.9 138.6 137.3 135.5 136. 7 136.7 136.9 138.6 136. 7 137.5 139 3 135. 2 134.2 130.6 115.6
150.3 151.3 150.7 150.1 152.5 155.2 153.5 155.9 155.6 156.6 159.6 161.3 382.4 152.6 134.9
149.8 150.3 149.4 146.6 131.4 137.9 130.7 139.6 136. 6 136.4 139. 8 142.6 145.7 142.8 129.7
147.9 148.5 148.1 146.5 146.1 146.0 143.4 147.2 147.0 148.7 147,3 149.6
150.8 134.6
114.3 118.9 123.4 123.5 120.4 115.0 104.7
84.6 100.6 103.4 118.0 125.6 134.1 127.1 105.7
256.6 257.7 256.8 253.2 248.3 249.0 247.3 247.4 248.1 248.3 247.9 246.9 235. 7 234.5 209.2
255.0 254.6 253.2 255.5 254.0 253.9 245.2 245.5 255.3 267. 0 280.0 288,3 296.2 292.4 232.6
RR 4
94.0
83 3
K5 4
92 2
R7 6 R7 9
1,423.8 1,442.1 1,412.5 1,313.0 1,304! 5 1,258. 6 1, 293. 6 1,383.0 1, 374. i 1, 360! 8 1,375. 7 1,382! 2 1.38&8 1,361.0 1, 24o! 7
688.5 665. 5 5 7 2 5
640 7
5 fi2 fi
643 5
512.4 516.5 509.2 505.3 499.1 490.9 493.5 492! 6 490. 5 489! 5 488.9 4819 484.6 444.7 356.3
140.0 138.8 137.8 137.3 136.8 136.4 131.2 141.7 143. 4 145.4 140- 6 144.2 143.9 146.8 134.3
39.9
38 Q
45 2
44 6
4-4 3
40 3
58.4
RR 2 ÏÀ 1
61 1
60 6
59 7 5 9 0
287.3 287.6 286.6 284.1 284. 4 285.5 282.6 286! 1 284.4 28s! 8 288! 0 287! 2 287! 5 276.6 248.1
45.7
45 6 45.3
45 2 45.6
45.2
45.6
45.1
45.0
44.5
44,5
41.7
45.5
36.8
69.4
70.0
69.0
67.9
6 8 .8
72.2
69.0
70.4
71.0
71.1
68.7
71.0
67.8
65.1
6 8 .8
35.9
36.3
36.0
35.5
35 8 35.9
36.2
35.5
36.2
36.5
35.0
36.1
32.5
35.7
35.0
23.7
23 8
45.0
45.1
44.7
4 1 4
45.1
44.5
4 4 .4
44.8
44.8
44.3
43.9
42,7
39.0
44.2
43.5
56.9
56.7
57.3
56.7
56.3
57.2
57.3
55.9
57.5
56.7
48.9
56.7
56.7
____
34.0
34.6
33.5
33.6
33.4
34.5
33.8
34.0
34.0
30.2
25.8
34.5
33. 4 33.5
321.0 335.1 358.8 361.4 356.8 -349.8 330.5 342.8 338.3 334.7 8Y. 0 327.9 325.4 346.8 335.5
38.4
40.1
40.6
39.4
39.4
39.8
39.7
39.8
39.4
38,4
39.9
39.1
36.0
39.4
36.0
91.0 110.2
97 3 Q.d 7
79, R
24.5
25.0
40 0
48.1
47' 6 47 3 47 n
49 8
129.4 131.4 133.2 134.3 133.8 13Ï! 7 127.7 132.7 131.3 132! 1 133! 7 134! 3 134.9 133! 2 13l!l
21.1
21.2
19.4
20.2
21.2
20.5 21.8 22.4 22.3 22.5 20.5
19.2
20.9
20.5

N o n d u r a b le go o d s
F o o d a n d k in d r e d

p r o d u c t s __________________

M e a t p r o d u c t s ____________________ . . . .
D a i r y p r o d u c t s ________________________________
C a n n e d , c u r e d , a n d f r o z e n f o o d s _______
G r a i n m i l l p r o d u c t s ___________ _
B a k e r y p r o d u c t s ______________________________
S u g a r _____________________________________ . . .
C o n f e c t i o n e r y a n d r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s _____
.
B e v e r a g e s _______________________
M is e , fo o d s a n d k i n d r e d

p r o d u c t s _______

T o b a c c o m a n u f a c t u r e s ____ ______
C i g a r e t t e s ____________________
C ig a r s ..
__________________ .
T e x t i l e m i l l p r o d u c t s ______

.

.

W e a v i n g m i l l s , c o t t o n _______
W e a v in g m ills , s y n t h e t ic s . _

_______

W e a v i n g a n d f i n i s h i n g m i l l s , w o o l _______
N a r r o w fa b r ic m ills . .
K n i t t i n g m i l l s ............................... ............. .....................
T e x t ile f in is h in g , e x c e p t w o o l.
_____________
F lo o r c o v e r in g m ills
Y a r n a n d t h r e a d m i l l s ______
M i s c e l l a n e o u s t e x t i l e g o o d s _______
A p p a r e l a n d o t h e r t e x t i l e p r o d u c t s ________
M e n ’ s a n d b o y s ’ s u i t s a n d c o a t s _________
M e n ’ s a n d b o y s ’ f u r n i s h i n g s ______________
W o m e n ’ s a n d m is s e s ’ o u t e r w e a r
W o m e n ’s
and
c h ild r e n ’s
m e n t s _______
.

u n d e rg a r-

P a p e r a n d a llie d p r o d u c t s . .
P a p e r a n d p u l p m i l l s __________________
P a p e r b o a r d m i l l s ___
paper

108.3
20.7
67.9
73.5

107.5

108.0

107.6

103.6

107.6

108.1

109.4

110.5

109. 9

1 1 0 .6
?i 9

67! 9
74.0

68! 0

70.1
65.1

73! 0

7 l! 6

73.8

69.7
72.5

69! 9

6 6 .8

6 6 .8

69.3
67.2

72! 6
67.3

70! 9
65.4

71.8
68.9

144.2
529.7
170.1
57.6

152.0
537.7
172.4
58.0

153.3
536.8
172.2
57.7

151.4
534.7
172.3
57.1

150.7
534.2
174.6
57.5

148.9
540.3
176.9
58.6

132.8
169.2

134.8
172.5
677.2
182.0
26.6
54.3
271.0
45.8
97.5

134.3
172.6
675.5
181.1
26.3
54.0
270.2
46.0
97.9

133.6
171.7
672.3
180.6

132.6
169. 5
671.6
181.0

268.0
45.9
97.7

265! 6
46.4
97.0

6 6 .8

F u r g o o d s a n d m is c e lla n e o u s a p p a r e l . . .
M is c e lla n e o u s f a b r ic a t e d t e x t ile p r o d u c t s _________ .

c o n v e rte d

106.8
21.5
66.3
70.9

1 0 2 .0

H a ts , c a p s , a n d m illin e r y
C h i l d r e n ’ s o u t e r w e a r ________

M is c e lla n e o u s
u c t s _______

1,130.9 1,175.8 1,215.4 1,270.8 1,310. 5 1,265.6 1,216. 7 1,183.8 1,132.4 1,114.8 1,116.3 1,113.2 1,131. 8 1,180.9 1,159.1
260.4 271.0 270.9 269.8 268.9 ' 271.1 268.5 263.4 256.3 252.4 256.4 256.7 260.2 258.7 252.9
119. 0 119.9 121 3
201.2 232.6
197' 9
288.6 247.9
89.0
88.9
88.9
92! 0 94.3 94.3 93! 6 90.1 88! 7 89! 2 88! 4 89.2 89! 6 89! 1
90.6
171.2 171.1 171.1 172.4 172.9 173.9 173.3 172.6 167.6 165.1 166.1 165.3 164.7 165.0 166.5
37.7
40. 0
22.8
21.2
64.5
70.7
71.3
59.9
62.5
98.0
60.4
60.0
62.8
64.7
66.0
6 6 .1
69.9
65.1
59.0
117.5 119.4 122.5 124.8 123.4 125. 4 127. 0 126.6 119.3 117.8 114.8 112.4 113. 5 118.4 113.8
92.8
95.9
96.8
94.1
94.1
92.2
92.9
92.9
93.4
94.1
93.8
95.9
92.9
93. 2 92.1
71.0
81.3
85.2
62.9
76.2
71.5
83.7
64.1
63.3
65.0
69.5
74.8
87.1
78.1
65.1
33.9
33.9
32.7
32.0
32.1
34.3
33.8
32.9
32.8
32.6
32.6
33.8
34.4
34.0
2 0 .1
19 3
20.1
19.6
842.4 852.7 853.4 852.5 849.4 847.0 826. 6 849.2 835.0 837. 5 841.7 839.7 844.7 857.1 826.7
216.7 218.6 217.7 216.5 216.4 212.9 214.9 218.2 216.6 217. 0 218.7 218.2 220.4 218.0 210.5
86.6
87.4
87.1
87.5
83.4
86.4
87.2
86.1
84.8
84.8
85.6
8 6 .6
8 6 .0
83. 5 85.5
38.8
38.8
38.2
38.3
39.6
39.9
38.9
39.8
38.9
38.9
38.6
38.5
38.5
38.9
38.7
28.2
28.5
28.4
27.9
26.2
28.4
28.8
28.2
28.2
28.3
28.3
28.5
28.5
28.2
26.5
194.6 200.1 205.7 207.4 206.2 208.6 201. 0 207.5 202.6 201.0 199.9 195.9 195.2 209.8 205.8
68.9
68.3
68.3
65.4
6 8 .0
68.7
67.1
67.7
67.3
68.3
64.8
67.5
67.6
68.2
66.9
38.6
35 fi 3 4 0
38.2
107.4 107.8 106.7 105.6 104.5 104.2 102.5 105.3 103.6 103.9 104.8 105.8 107.2 107! 7 101.2
63.4
64.0
63.1
60.2
63.4
63.8
63.4
63.8
60.6
61.6
62.9
63.1
63.0
57 9 60.1
1,206.0 1,233.2 1,242.3 1,240.4 1,237.2 1.245.2 1,183.0 1,235. 0 1,223. 6 1,218.8 1,239. 5 1,250.7 1,235.2 1,243. 0 1,205. 6
103.8 106. 6 105.5 105.1 106.5 ' 107.1 103.1 109.8 108.9 107.5 108.8 109.3 109.9 109.7 107.0
323.2 326.3 327.0 329.1 329.4 333.4 321.0 333.1 329.5 329.4 331.1 332.0 333.1 334.9 319.3
377.5 382.8 386.1 383.9 378.9 382.9 363.1 376.8 376,3 374.8 385.7 390.2 378.0 378.7 373. 6

6 6 8 .6

N e w s p a p e r s ____
P e r i o d i c a l s _______
B o o k s _____

179.5

C o m m e r c ia l p r i n t in g . .

266.3
44.9
97.1

B la n k b o o k s a n d b o o k b in d in g . .
O th e r p u b lis h in g A p r i n t in g in d u s tr ie s .


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

106.6
25 9

70.2
6 6 .1

136.9
497.7
168.2

175.6
57.7

144.8
539.5
176.7
58.7

142.3
521.6
169.0
57. 5

141.0
522.5
170.1
57. 5

142.1
524.1
169.8
57. 7

141.8
522.2
169.7
57.6

142.0
522.7
169.2
57.7

143.5
519.0
170.0
5 6 .4

5 4 .1

134.3
170.5
672.0
180.3

132.0
169.0
670.9
180.8

133.0
171.1
673 1
182.6

129.1
166.0
670.1
182.7

129.9
165.0
671.7
181.4

129.7
166.9
672.4
181.2

128.7
166.2
667.3
179.8

128.2
167.6
663.0
178.8

125.8
166.8
649.5
178.4

262.9
48.7
96.4

261.2
48.3
96.7

262.1
47.7
96.7

260.8
46.8
95.4

262.5
46.8
95.2

263.3
46.9
95.1

260.1
46.4
96.0

259.6
46.1
94.9

55 3
253.4
45.3
91.7

116.8
158.6
620.6
175.4
25. 3
50.1
241.9
41.7
86.3

135.8
5 3 4 .3

p ro d -

P a p e r b o a r d c o n t a i n e r s a n d b o x e s ____
P r in t in g a n d p u b lis h in g .

See footnotes at end of table.

69.1

1 1 1 .1

25 7
55 Q

25. 4

141

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

T able A-10.

Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods— Continued
Chemicals and allied products_________
Industrial chemicals_______________
Plastics materials and synthetics-------Drugs____________________________
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods---------Paints and allied products__________
Agricultural chemicals_____________
Other chemical products-----------------Petroleum and coal products__________
Petroleum refining_________________
Other petroleum and coal products---Rubber and plastics products, nec-------Tires and inner tubes______________
Other rubber products_____________
Miscellaneous plastics products______
Leather and leather products_________
Leather tanning and finishing----------Footwear, except rubber________ ___
Other leather products_____________
Handbags and personal leather
goods__________ -_____________
Transportation and public utilities:
Local and interurban passenger transit:
Local and suburban transportation__
Intercity highway transportation-----Trucking and warehousing__________
Public warehousing______
Pipe line transportation__
__
Communication______________
Telephone communication____ _____
Telegraph communications *________
Radio and television broadcasting----Electric, gas, and sanitary services____
Electric companies and systems_____
(ias companies and systems------------Combination companies and systems
Water, steam, A sanitary systems__

590. 7
170.9
139.3
70.3
68.4
37.2
70.9
117.0
92.7
24.3
413.4
77.9
143.3
192.2
303.6
27.5
201.4
74.7

592.9
170.3
138.4
72.2
68.9
37.3
33.9
71.9
118.4
93.0
25.4
418.7
78.8
144.5
195.4
309.2
27.1
203.0
79.1

589.7
168.6
137.0
71.1
70.6
37.4
33.3
71. 7
120.3
93.6
26.7
418.9
78.2
143.1
197.6
308.3
26.8
200.5
81.0

589.8
170.6
134.8
71.1
71. 9
37.4
33.4
70. 6
121.7
93.8
27.9
413.1
76.4
142.8
193.9
303.2
26.6
197.1
79.5

33.2

34.5

33.6

78.6
39.1
958.4
83.3
15.0
762.2
638.9
23.4
96.4
554.0
223.9
130.7
160.0
39.4

78.5
38.8
965.3
85.6
15.1
761.3
640.3
22.3
95.3
552. 6
223.9
130.4
158.9
39.4

77.8
39.3
952.7
82.0
15.1
760.0
639.0
22.3
95.3
553.1
223.9
130.7
159.1
39.4

578.4 572.3 546.1
172.9 170. 5 166.7
134. 6 136.4 130.8
61.6
66. 7
68. 6
66. 5 67. 0 64.8
37.1
36.8
37.7
35. 6 35. ö 34.7
50.5
63.4
58.7
113.4 115.8 112.9
88.7
90. 6 90.1
24.3
25.7
22.8
410.9 397.2 365.9
72.7
76.0
77.8
147.3 141.7 135.7
157.5
179.
6
185.8
310.4 318.4 310.0
27.0
27. 6 27.5
207.3 213.4 208.8
73.8
77.3
76.1

587.2 590.2
169.4 171.9
134.4 133.4
71.4
71.0
71.4
72.0
39.5
37.8
32.1
32.8
70.9
69.4
122.5 122.2
93.8
94.2
28.4
28.3
409.6 401.1
76.0
73.2
142.1 137.9
191.5 190.0
301.9 306.1
26.9
26.6
197.0 201.4
77.8
78.3

587.3
173.0
131.9
71.0
68.5
39.2
32.2
71.5
121.8
93.9
27.9
353.5
47.8
123.1
182.6
295.4
25.8
195.7
73.9

586.9
174.0
130.9
70.8
68.3
38.8
35.3
68.8
120.8
93.2
27.6
360.5
47.5
125.6
187.4
304.0
26.7
200.1
77.2

584.8
172.5
129.9
70.1
66.3
37.5
41.7
66.8
117.2
91.4
25.8
351.5
45.5
124.3
181.7
298.5
26.1
198.4
74.0

589.6
173.9
131.0
69.6
66.6
37.0
45.2
66.3
116.2
91.3
24.9
399.5
77.2
139.3
183.0
299.1
26.2
198.3
74.6

581.2
173.0
128. 5
68.7
67.0
37.1
42.0
64.9
113.6
90.2
23.4
401.3
77.6
140.2
183.5
304.6
26.4
201.9
76.3

580.0
173.1
132.7
68. 5
66. 0
36.9
38.1
64.7
113.9
90.8
23.1
405.2
77.5
143.7
184.0
310.0
26.7
206.4
76.9

32.8

32.9

30.5

32.5

30.4

31.3

32.5

33.9

33.2

33.6

31.4

78.3
40.9
961.1
78.4
15.7
765.4
642.5
22.8
96.7
561.1
226.8
132.6
161.6
40.1

76.8
41.5
957.8
78.6
16.2
777.5
655.5
23.0
95.6
568.4
227.2
136.3
163.7
41.2

77.0
41.4
964.1
77.4
16.2
778.8
656.2
23.3
96.1
569.0
230.2
136.4
161.7
40.7

78.0
40.6
946.0
73.8
16.0
769.2
647.7
23.2
95.1
556.9
224.9
133.9
158.1
40.0

77.9
39.5
924.7
75.0
15.1
758.1
638.7
23.1
93.2
543.1
219.0
129.4
156.2
38.5

76.4
38.8
862.4
69.6
15.1
756.3
638.0
23.0
92.1
541.7
219.2
129.0
155.7
37.8

77.9
38.2
905.4
72.9
15.1
755.9
637.2
22.9
92.7
540.9
219.0
128.9
155.6
37.4

77.8
37.8
900.5
75.2
15.1
752.1
634.3
22.9
91.8
539.8
218.5
128.9
155.5
36.9

78.0
38.7
905.6
76.2
15.2
748.9
631.3
22.8
91.7
540.1
218.6
129.1
155.5
36.9

77.5
38.3
918.5
74.1
15.8
732.5
616. 5
22.8
90.5
544.9
218.4
131.7
158.2
36.6

78.1
38.5
878.4
72.0
16.3
698.1
587.2
22.2

86.7
542.4
214.6
134.5
158.1
35.2

Wholesale and retail trade___ ________ 12,160 13,179 12,572 12,285 12,177 12,124 12,132 12,184 12,019 11,937 11,858 11,750 11,874 11,786 11,358
Wholesale trade_____________________ 2,990 3,052 3,057 3,024 3, 018 3,044 3,024 3,004 2,947 2,948 2,940 2,935 2,947 2,911 2,814
Motor vehicles & automotive equip­
220.7 218.8 214.3
m ent___________________ _______
232.2 232.5 221.8 223.1 229.7 229.3 227.3 221.6 221.7 221.2 221.6
164.0
1/ 1.1
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products..
180.9 181.0 179.2 178.6 179.6 178.5 176.7 175.4 175.6 175.2 173.5 173.8 116.
0 112.9
120.1
119.7
120.4
121.6
123.1
121.5
119.3
124.8
Dry goods and apparel_____________
123.6
123.2
121.4
123.3
450.2
449.1
435.7
441.7
437.0
Groceries and related products---------463.6 466.2 464.4 451.9 454.7 450.7 454.7 441.0 437.7
Electrical goods___________________
236.5 235.1 232. 5 232.5 236.9 238.2 235.6 232.2 232.7 232.5 231. 6 229.7 224. 0 213.1
Hardware, plumbing A heating equip­
131.4 131.2 127.8
ment___________________ _______
134.9 134.4 132.9 134.2 135.1 134.1 133.9 131.8 131.6 131.7 131.1 545.8
5/0.1 490.8
542. 6
Machinery, equipment, and supplies...
569.8 567.3 565.0 573.1 572.0 571.7 566.6 556.2 554.5 543.2 996.4
986. 6 954.0
994.9
1,
001.
4
1,
000.
7
999.5
1,017.7
1,023.2
1,027.2
Miscellaneous wholesalers__________
1,021.8
1.023.0
1,015. 4 1, 016.8
8,544
8,876
8,927
8,815
8,918
Retail trade________________________
9,170 10,127 9, 515 '9,261 9,159 9,080 9,108 9,180 9,072 8,989
1,825. 8 1,810.7 L, 719. 6
Retail general merchandise...................
2,449. 6 2, 088.1 1,898.9 1,830.2 1,780.1 1,786. 7 1,800.9 1, 782.8 1, 763.1 1,765. 0 1,728.4 1,164.
L
,
077. 6
1,149.
6
4
1,
095.
6
1,115.8
Department stores. _______ ..
1, 598.1 L 348.8 li 206.0 1,154.7 1,125.0 1,135.1 1,145.6 1,127. 7 1,117.6
11/. 3 112.3
Mail order houses.. .. ____
147.8 142.6 ' 122.1 ' 112.0 106.6 104.2 104.8 105.0 105.9 107.5 111.4 123.0 299.
292.1
3
299.3
289.9
Variety stores_____
____ ___
400.5 336.7 318.1 310.7 297.7 296.7 300.6 302.9 300.3 303.3
1,428.9 L, 364. 3
Food stores______________ ... . ..
1, 532. 1 1,481.6 1,487.0 1,464.4 1,445.7 1,451.5 1, 459. 2 1,466. 7 1,463. 6 1,462. 0 1,462. 8 1,458.1 1,267.1
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
1,350.0 1,306.3 li 315.0 li 294.2 1,279.5 1,284.1 1,288.2 1,294.2 1,295.4 1,291.7 1,293. 2 1,294.4 598.9 1,201.7
577.1
607.6
613.4
582.1
598.1
613.0
606.9
587.9
610.1
586.7
Apparel and accessory stores________
619.6
649.3
' 763.8
Men’s A boys’ clothing A furnish­
94.6
99.4 106.8 100.7
99.6
99.2
99.9
99.6
99.9 103.2
ings—
135.8 108.2 101.7 100.4
223. 5 215.6
Women’s ready-to-wear stores__
272. 7 237.1 227.5 221.2 214.9 215.5 222.2 223.6 220.4 221.5 211.6 220.6
101. 6 97.2
Family clothing stores_____________
144.3 114.3 105.3 104.0 100.8 102.4 106.3 104.0 102.2 104.9 102.8 108.0 112.
6 108.2
Shoe stores_____________________
138.9 123.2 120.8 122.5 113.8 112.9 118.6 117.4 116.3 123.7 109.5 112. 5
0 362.3
399. 6 388.6 380.6 378.8 375.9 376.7 377.2 373.0 375. i 375.5 376.1 376.1 371.
Furniture and home furnishings stores.
239.
0 234.2
240.
5
239.4
Furniture and home furnishings___
255.9 248.9 243.9 242.4 242.0 241.5 241. 5 238.2 238. 6 239.7
1,926. 6 1,852.9
Eating and drinking places_______ ...
2,030.8 2,039. 6 2,046.5 2, 050. 4 2,056.3 2,062.3 2, 083. 2 2, 039. 2,006. 6 1,958.1 1,926. 3 1,907.7 2,
2 , 668. 0
739.
2
2,751.9
2,
739.
3
Other retail trade__________________
2,951. 2, 867. 6 2,828.2 2,824.8 2,834.8 2,842.7 2,846.9 2,803. 2,782.4 2,743.8
Building materials and farm equip­
464.9
464.5
435.5
431.9
437.6
466.3 477.1 477.6 472.4 453.2 448.5
462.8 462.6
m ent___ __________ _________...
636.3 632.4 630.7 634. ü 634.4 637.1 633.9 627.5 628.7 627.3 628.1 631. 6 631.1 623.5
Motor vehicle dealers___________
Other automotive A accessory
167.6 155.8
179.7 177.2 178.3 181.6 182.8 179.8 176.2 172.9 167.4 165. C 168. C 382.
dealers______________________
184.
7 366.3
398.9 398.7 402.8 405.7
408.3 402.1 396.8 392.0 391.' 401.3 398.
430.
Drug stores and proprietory stores. _
95.6
101. 6| 102. 2 94.8
99.
93.2
90.1
90.
93.3
90.2
88.3
88.3
101.'
98.9
Fuel and ice dealers_____________
See footnotes a t end of table.


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

142

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

A-10.

Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1968

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.
Finance, insurance, and real estate 4_____
Banking___________________________
Credit agencies other than banks_______
Savings and loan associations________
Security, commodity brokers & services.
Insurance carriers____________________
Life insurance_______________ _____
Accident and health insurance_________
Fire, marine, and casualty insurance___
Services:
Hotels and other lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels..........
Personal services:
Laundries and drycleaning plants____
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming & distributing.

2,589

2,607
730.2
276.3
81.3
145.9
680.8
295. 7
66. 7
285.0

Oct.

2,602
728.1
274.0
80.4
144.8
679.3
294. 6
66.3
285. 0

2,598
726.1
273.5
80.7
142.2
675.6
293.5
65. 6
283.7

Sept.
2,605
726.4
275.2
80.3
140.3
677.6
294.3
65.5
284.9

Aug.

July

June

2,640
736.3
276.7
80.8
141.2
685.3
296.8
66. 5
288.9

2,624
732.0
277.9
81.2
139.0
676.5
290.4
66.1
287.1

2,589 2,544
720.1 7Ó6.8
274.1 271.3
79. 1 77.4
134.0 130.2
668.1 660.9
288.0 286.1
64.7
63.3
283.3 279.9

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

2,527
7Ó4.1
269.9
77.1
129.0
659.5
286.8
62.8
278.6

2,507
702.7
268.8
76.3
127.7
656.9
285.0
62.2
278.5

2,487
700.5
266.8
75.5
125.5
654.5
283.7
60.9
278.4

2,472
696.6
266.2
76. 6
123.4
647.8
282.8
58.3
274.9

2, 478
686 4
267.1
77 8
128 8
640 7
282.9
fil Q
271.7

2 42fi
662 6
262 4

269! 2

554.5

563.9

576.5

599.0

635.9

637.7

613.3

580.5

570.0

549.7

540.9

531.9

571.1

546.8

498.6

501.5

503.1

503.8

505.7

511.9

511.7

504.8

503.7

499.9

496.8

498.0

505.2

492.0

32.1

33.1

31.9

32.1

34.0

34.4

33.8

31.3

29.8

31.0

31.6

34.0

33.5

30.4

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table A-9.
For mining and manufacturing, data refer to production and related
workers; for contract construction, to construction workers; and for all other
industries, to nonsupervisory workers. Transportation and public utilities,
and services are included in total private but are not shown separately in this
table.
P r o d u c t i o n a n d r e l a t e d w o r k e r s include working foremen and all nonsuper­
visory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating,
processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing,
warehousing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial, and watchmen
services, product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use
(e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated
with the above production operations.

C o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k e r s include working foremen, journeymen, mechanics
apprentices, laborers, etc., engaged in new work, alterations, demolition!
repair, and maintenance, etc., at the site of construction or working in shop
or yards at jobs (such as precutting and preassembling) ordinarily performed
by members of the construction trades.
N o n s u p e r v i s o r y w o r k e r s include employees (not above the working super­
visory level) such as office and clerical workers, repairmen, salespersons,
operators, drivers, attendants, service employees, linemen, laborers, janitors,
watchmen, and similar occupational levels, and other employees whose
services are closely associated with those of the employees listed.
2 Preliminary.
3 Data relate to nonsupervisory employees except messengers.
4 Nonoffice salesmen excluded from nonsupervisory count for all series in
this division.

CAUTION
The series on employment, hours, earnings, and labor turnover in nonagricultural establishments
have been adjusted to March 1966 benchmarks and are not comparable with those published in the
Monthly Labor Review prior to the October 1967 issue, nor with those for periods after April 1965
appearing in the H a n d b o o k o f Labor S ta tis t ic s , 1967. (See footnote 1, table A-9, and “BLS Estab­
lishment Employment Estimates Revised to March 1966 Benchmark Levels” appearing in the Sep­
tember 1967 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d Earnings a n d M o n th ly R e p o rt on the Labor Force.)
Moreover, when the figures are again adjusted to new benchmarks, the data presented in this issue
should not be compared with those in later issues which reflect the adjustments. Comparable historical
data appear in E m p l o y m e n t a n d Earnings S ta tis tic s for the U n ited S ta te s , 1909-67 (BLS
Bulletin 1312-5).
Beginning with the October 1967 issue of the Monthly LaJor Review, industry titles have been
changed, as necessary, to conform to the Bureau of the Budget’s Standard list of short SIC titles—
definitions are unchanged.


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

112 Q
624 n
282 Q

143

A.—LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

T able A - l l.

Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry division and selected groups,
seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]

Industry division and group

1967

1968
Ia n .2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Total employees__________________________ ____ _____ 67,146 67,110 66,918 66,243 66,055 66,190 65,939 65,903 65, 639 65, 653 65, 749 65, 692 65, 564
Mining___________________________________________

596

599

597

597

601

606

623

619

617

620

624

624

625

3,187

3,192

3, 276

3,313

3, 352

3,311

Contract construction....................................... ..................... 3,226 3,346 3,289 3,236 3,238 3,223 3,231
Manufacturing_____________________________________ 19,533 19,490 19,422 19,169 19,142 19,318 19,169 19,285 19, 238 19,331 19,445 19, 507 19, 558
Durable goods___________________________________ 11,458 11,400 11,364 11,143 11,149 11,351 11,218 11, 285 11,283 11,322 11, 434 11, 482 11, 507
277
283
288
286
286
292
290
305
Ordnance and accessories________________________
303
300
297
307
299
607
603
592
602
584
590
585
Lumber and wood products______________________
585
598
593
592
585
599
466
465
459
452
453
455
447
451
Furniture and fixtures.. _ _______________________
466
458
455
451
469
642
640
624
628
638
625
626
642
626
Stone, clay, and glass products____________________
634
622
641
628
Primary metal industries________________________ 1,288 1,290 1,289 1,267 1,262 1,281 1,280 1,295 1,299 1,305 1,332 1,348 1,362
1,374
1,372
1,364
1,354
Fabricated metal products_______________________ 1,374 1,370 1,354 1,332 1,331 1,356 1,350 1,357 1,348
Machinery, except electrical______________________ 1,965 1,939 1,980 1,932 1,966 1,976 1,969 1,972 1,972 1,979 1,984 1,984 1,988
Electrical equipment and supplies_________________ 1,932 1,924 1,919 1,896 1,882 1,916 1,889 1,872 1,904 1,916 1,947 1,959 1,958
Transportation equipm ent. _____________________ 1,984 1,976 1,951 1,862 1,873 1,980 1,896 1,947 1,927 1,916 1,932 1,938 1,938
453
454
456
456
455
454
454
457
455
452
456
Instruments and related products_________________
454
459
442
436
434
433
430
432
430
433
427
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries____________
428
425
426
440
Nondurable goods________________________________
Food and kindred products______________________
Tobacco manufactures___________________________
Textile mill products____________________________
Apparel and other textile products. ______________
Paper and allied products________________________
Printing and publishing_________________________
Chemicals and allied products_____________ ______
Petroleum and coal products_____________________
Rubber and plastics products, nec_________________
Leather and leather products___ ________ _________

8,075 8,090
1,791 1,786
87
84
963
964
1,386 1,400
691
691
1,071 1,071
1,009 1,008
192
193
535
535
353
355

Transportation and public utilities______ ____ ________ 4,288

4,290

8,058
1,785
89
957
1,389
687
1,069
1,002
193
533
354

8,026
1,783
82
954
1,384
685
1,065
1,001
192
529
351

7,993
1,777
81
950
1,377
682
1,064
993
191
529
349

7,967
1,751
85
946
1,381
687
1,067
992
190
521
347

7,951
1,790
89
940
1,376
689
1,066
989
191
479
342

8,000
1,806
87
948
1,396
688
1,066
990
189
479
351

7,955
1,797
86
941
1,395
679
1,064
982
187
472
352

8, 009
1,800
86
945
1,390
680
1,063
984
187
520
354

8, Oil
1,803
84
952
1,384
684
1,065
981
186
521
351

8, 025
1,798
85
954
1,401
681
1,056
984
187
523
356

8, 051
1,795
89
963
1,414
680
1,053
983
187
527
360

4,287

4,251

4,262

4,283

4, 292

4, 266

4,267

4, 212

4, 246

4,247

4,242

Wholesale and retail trade___________________________ 13,896 13,864 13,900 13,776 13,719 13, 664 13, 647 13, 648 13, 609 13, 572 13, 557 13, 541 13, 515
Wholesale trade_____________________________ _____ 3,592 3,592 3,602 3,567 3, 565 3,569 3, 555 3, 555 3, 549 3,545 3, 535 3, 521 3, 512
Retail trade_____________________________________ 10,304 10,272 10,298 10,209 10,154 10,095 10,092 10, 093 10, 060 10, 027 10, 022 10, 020 10, 003
Finance, insurance, and real estate . ...
. . . . . . 3,311 3.303 3,290 3,270 3,264 3,253 3,234 3,227 3,205 3,194 3,179 3,165 3,152
Services___ _______ _________________ .. ...... ....... . 10,367 10,333 10,297 10,199 10,161 10,130 10,074 10,035 9, 987 9, 973 9,946 9,883 9,840
.. . . 11,929 11,885 11,836 11,745 11,668 11,713 11, 669 11, 636 11, 524 11,475 11,439 11,373 11,321
Government_________________
Federal____________________________________ _____ 2,703 2,708 2,698 2, 712 2,715 2,746 2, 759 2,747 2, 698 2, 688 2,685 2, 673 2, 667
State and local___________________________________ 9,226 9,177 9,138 9,033 8,953 8,967 8,910 8,889 8,826 8,787 8,754 8,700 8, 654
1 For coverage of the series, see footnote 1, table A-9.
2 Preliminary.


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

N o t e : The seasonal adjustment method used is described in appendix A,
B L S Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458,1966).

144

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T able A-12.

Production workers in manufacturing industries, by major industry group, seasonally
adjusted 1
Revised series; see box, p. 100

[In thousands]
1968

Major industry group

1967

Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.
Manufacturing. _________ _ .
Durablegoods .
. . ____________
Ordnance and accessories... . . . .
Lumber and wood products__ .
Furniture and fixtures_______ ___ _ . . .
Stone, clay, and glass products____
_____
Primary metal industries. ____________
Fabricated metal products.. _
Machinery, except electrical._______
Electrical equipment and supplies___ ..
Transportation equipm ent.. . . . . _
Instruments and related products..
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries___
Nondurable goods..
_____
Food and kindred products______
Tobacco manufactures____
...
Textile mill products... ____
Apparel and other textile products.. _ .
Paper and allied products. .
Printing and publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal p ro d u cts___
Rubber and plastics products, nec _
Leather and leather products...

.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

14,363 14,331 14,278 14,034 14,003 14,191 14,056 14,170 14,147 14,233 14,358 14,436 14,506
8,371 8,328 8,294 8,083 8,091 8,299 8,170 8,240 8,254 8,286 8,407 8,459 8,502
162
159
157
154
155
149
151
147
147
146
157
143
140
520
519
515
508
509
512
514
513
507
525
524
508
530
387
384
377
369
374
370
371
375
374
366
379
384
385
511
514
505
494
497
500
498
495
499
509
498
509
512
1,023 1,032 1,031 1,009 1,003 1,024 1,023 1,037 1,042 1,049 1,073 1,091 1,106
1,059 1,060 1,045 1,024 1,023 1,048 1,041 1,048 1,041 1,046 1,059 1,065 1,068
1,361 1,333 1,372 1,329 1,365 1,375 1,368 1,372 1,373 1,380 1,388 1,392 1,398
1,302 1,295 1,289 1,270 1,260 1,290 1,265 1,251 1,284 1,298 1,332 1,345 1,348
1,410 1,405 1,380 1,289 1,297 1,410 1,326 1,377 1,361 1,347 1,363 1,371 1,373
288
287
285
285
281
285
285
287
289
283
289
288
289
348
340
338
336
337
339
340
342
343
344
335
347
353
5,992
1,196
72
853
1,224
535
674
598
121
413
306

1 For definition of production workers, see footnote 1, table A-10.
2 Preliminary.


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

Oct.

6,003
1,190
74
855
1,237
536
672
598
120
414
307

5,984
1,188
77
848
1,231
533
673
595
121
412
306

5.951
1,185
70
847
1,223
531
669
594
121
408
303

5,912
1.175
69
842
1,218
527
669
585
120
407
300

5,892
1,148
72
839
1,223
534
673
585
118
401
299

5,886
1,185
76
834
1,220
536
674
585
119
362
295

5,930
1,201
75
841
1,239
535
673
583
119
362
302

5,893
1,196
74
835
1,235
525
672
580
117
354
305

5,947
1,195
73
838
1,232
526
673
583
118
402
307

5,951
1,200
72
845
1,226
531
674
580
116
403
304

5,977
1,197
73
848
1,243
529
670
585
117
406
309

6,004
1,196
77
856
1,254
527
668
585
117
411
313

N o t e : The seasonal adjustment method used is described in appendix A,
B L S Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1468,1966).

A.—LABOR

FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

T able A-13.

145

Unemployment insurance and employment service program operations 1
[All items except average benefit amounts are in thousands]
1967

1966

Item

Employment service:3
New applications for work.
Nonfarm placements.........

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

680
380

800
460

844
540

820
558

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

881
552

967
487

Apr.

M ay

1,335
537

974
507

Mar.

859
476

Feb.

887
460

Jan.

853
407

Dec.

966
440

721
420

State unemployment insurance programs:
1,087
1,346
1,005
1,061
848
1,280
1,218
803
872
798
910
663
1,149
Initial claims 51.......................... - ........ —
Insured unem ploym ent5 (average weekly
1,532
1,582
1,558
1,254
1,184
1,142
1,360
1,019
894
1,059
889
1,259
997
volum e)6.......................................- .........
3.4
3.3
2.4
2.9
3.3
2.4
2.7
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.6
Rate of insured unem ploym ent7----------6,323
5,398
5,615
4,663
4,977
3,971
4,071
3,808
4, 351
3,139
3,186
3,954
3,414
Weeks of unemployment com pensated...
Average weekly benefit amount for total
$41.85 $41.19 $40. 70 $40.10 $41.08 $40.10 $39.99 $40.99 $41.81 $42.07 $41.97 $41.73 $41.39
unemployment— ............ ....................
Total benefits paid....... ............................. $159,153 $134,877 $122,145 $122, 614 $172,807 $147,307 $156,083 $183,645 $200, 588 $257,488 $219,480 $224,787 $157,566
Unemployment compensation for ex-service­
men: 8 8
Initial claim s83...................................... .
Insured unemployment « (average weekly
volume).................................... ................
Weeks of unemployment compensated...
Total benefits paid.............. -....................
Unemployment compensation for Federal
civilian employees:8 î0
Initial claims 8............................................
Insured unem ploym ent8(average weekly
volume)--------- ---------- ------------------Weeks of unemployment com pensated...
Total benefits paid---------------------------Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications 11............................... .............
Insured unemployment (average weekly
volume)----------------- ------ -..........-........
Number of payments 12----------------------Average amount of benefit paym ent18—
Total benefits paid 14-------- ------- --------All programs: 18
Insured unemployment A

22

25

20

18

22

17

14

14

16

15

19

17

24
75
$3,126

19
82
$3,471

19
81
$3,404

21
85
$3, 576

24
101
$4,199

25
93
$3,878

25
96
$3,963

21
72
$2,973

33
109
$4,576

26
93
$3,960

22
82
$3,502

22
88
$3, 715

25
106
$4,443

10

10

11

9

9

12

9

9

8

8

9

15

10

19
87
$3,581

20
67
$2, 752

18
81
$3,370

18
78
$3,237

19
81
$3,354

22
103
$4,192

24
91
$3,728

23
87
$3,581

20
75
$3,045

23
87
$3,634

21
85
$3,526

20
76
$3,164

18
73
$3,043

39

54

56

15

12

21

15

3

4

5

6

11

7

23
87
$54. 21
$4,389

23
90
$47.63
$4,097

21
93
$45. 67
$4,176

21
46
$66. 68
$2,910

18
45
$74. 31
$3,181

17
32
$73. 45
$2,069

14
36
$73.44
$2,478

17
42
$71.29
$2,812

20
44
$74.1C
$3, 013

23
57
$77.16
$4,233

24
53
$75. 54
$3, 784

25
48
$72.95
$3,499

19
40
$76.70
$2,858

1,067

952

955

1,122

1,246

1,070

1,196

1,422

1,602

1,654

1,631

1,313

1,338

■

1 Includes data for Puerto Rico beginning January 1961 when the Common­
wealth’s program became part of the Federal-State UI system.
2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
8 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting
periods of unemployment. Excludes transitions claims under State programs.
4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
•' Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unem­
ployment.
8 Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the
program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
' The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of
the average covered employment in a 12-month period.
8 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
8 Includes the Virgin Islands.
18 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.


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

21

11 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning
of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is re­
quired for subsequent periods in the same year.
>2 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not ad­
justed for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
14Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments,
is Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the
State, Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act.
S o u r c e : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security for
all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.

146

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

B.—Labor Turnover
T able

B -l.

Labor turnover rates, by major industry group 1
[Per 100 employees]
1967

1966

Major industry group
Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Annual
average

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1966

4.3

2.9

5.0

4.3

2.7

4.1

1965

Accessions: Total
Manufacturing___________________ _ . .
Seasonally adjusted______ . . .

2.8
4-4

3.7
4.5

4.7
4.7

5.3
4.3

5.4
4.3

4.6
4.2

5.9
4.6

4.6
40

3.9
Jt 2

3.9

3.6
13

Durable goods______________________
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products______
Furniture and f i x t u r e s ____ _______
Stone, clay, and glass products_______
Primary metal industries......... ...... . . _
i abricated metal products.......... ......
Machinery, except electrical______ . . .
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment_______ _ _
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

2.6
2.8
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.4
3.1
2.0
2.3
2.9
1.9
2.9

3.5
3.5
4.9
4.8
3.4
2.9
4.5
2.6
3.2
3.8
2.5
4. 6

4.4
4.0
6.5
6.5
4.2
3.3
5.1
3.2
4.2
4.6
3.3
6.3

4.7
4.1
7.7
7.1
4.7
3.2
5.5
3.3
4.3
5.4
3.4
7.7

4.8
4.3
6.5
7.7
5.1
3.3
5.7
3.0
4.5
5.7
3.5
7.4

4.1
3.5
6.0
6.7
4.7
2.9
5.0
2.9
3.8
4.1
3.0
6.3

5.5
5.0
9.2
6.4
6.9
4.6
6.1
4.3
4.7
5.5
4.9
7.2

3.7
2.8
7.0
4.5
5.0
2.6
4.5
2.7
2.9
3.7
2.9
6.0

3.7
2.7
6.5
4.9
4.7
2.7
4.4
2.9
3.0
3.9
3.0
5.8

3.4

N ondurable goods__ . . . . . . . . . .
Foods and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures____ ____ ..
Textile mill products _________ . . .
Apparel and other textile products...
Paper and allied products_________ _
Printing and publishing__________ __
Chemicals and allied products ___ ..
Petroleum and coal products_____ . . .
Rubber and plastics products, nec___
Leather and leather products________

3.0
3.8
11.8
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.4
1.6
1.1
2.7
4.5

3.9
4.9
7.0
4.4
4.6
3.0
3.0
1.9
1.4
4.1
5.7

5.2
7.3
7.2
5.4
5.6
3.9
3.7
2.6
2.3
5.3
6.4

6.0
9.5
7.4
5.6
6.2
4.3
4.3
2.9
3.1
5.6
6.5

6.2
9.7
15.0
6.0
6.8
4.1
3.7
2.4
2.8
6.1
6.2

5.5
7.7
9.6
5.3
6.8
3.6
3.4
2.6
2.3
5.7
7.7

6.5
9.5
5.9
5.7
6.2
6.1
5.1
4.5
4.6
7.1
6.4

4.3
3.1
8.3
5.3
5.4
3.2
5.1
3.0
3.3
4.9
2.9
6.3
5.1
7.0
5.4
5.4
5.9
3.9
3.6
2.8
2.7
5.3
5.7

4.3
5.6
2.9
4.8
5.1
3.3
3.1
2.5
2.6
4.3
5.0

2.3
1.2

2.5
1.4

2.7
1.5

3.0
1.6

2.9
2.1

2.8
1.7

6.5
1.7

4.0
1.6

4.7
1.8

N onmanufacturing:
Metal mining___________ . ________
Coal mining......................................... ......

J( 1

4.1

3.8
6.4
5.3
3.7
3.2
4.7
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.5
6.2
4.5
5.0
3.7
4.7
6.3
3.4
3.7
2.4
1.5
4.6
7.0

2.2
3.6
3.4
2.3
2.3
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
3.0
3.1
4.1
7.0
2.9
3.4
2.5
2.7
1.8
1.1
3.2
4.1

4.8
3.8
6.7
6. 6
4.5
3.7
5.3
3.9
4.7
5.3
3.8
6.9

4.2
5.1
2.8
4.7
5.0
3.3
3.5
2.7
2.0
4.3
4.8

2.9
5.4
4.5
3.7
2.6
4.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.9
5.1
3.8
4.3
3.2
4.1
5.0
2.9
3.3
2.4
1.6
4.1
4.7

5.2
6.9
6.4
5.1
6.1
4.0
3.8
2.9
2.1
5.5
6.3

2.9
6.0
5.5
4.0
2.9
4.6
3.3
3.9
4.7
3.2
6.3
4.6
6.1
6.1
4.3
5.8
3.2
3.2
2.4
1.8
4.4
5.4

3.4
1.4

3.0
1.5

4.6
2.3

3.0
1.4

3.5
1.7

3.2
1.7

Accessions: New hires
Manufacturing.......... .............................. ......
Seasonally adjusted____

1.9
3.3

2.7
3.3

3.7
3.5

4.1
3.3

4.0
3.1

3.3
3.0

4.5
3.2

32

3.3

2.8
3 1

2.8
32

34

3.6

3.6

2.1

3.8

3.1

Durable goods_________ . . _____
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products. . ____
Furniture and fixtures__________ ..
Stone, clay, and glass products______
Primary metal industries_________
Fabricated metal products__________
Machinery, except electrical________
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment__________
Industries and related products______
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

1.9
2.4
3.0
3.0
1.9
1.5
2.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
2.1

2.6
2.9
4.3
4.2
2.7
1.8
3.3
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.1
3.8

3.4
3.5
5.8
5.6
3.4
2.1
4.1
2.4
3.2
3.2
2.8
5.5

3.7
3.4
6.6
6.2
3.8
2.3
4.5
2.5
3.2
3.6
2.8
6.7

3.5
3.5
5.7
6.3
4.0
2.3
4.5
2.3
3.0
3.6
3.0
6.2

2.0
2.5
5.4
2.2
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.3
.9
2.1
3.5

2.9
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.4
1.5
1.2
3.4
4.4

4.0
5.5
5.1
4.3
4.0
3.4
3.2
2.2
2.0
4.5
5.0

4.7
7.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
3.8
3.6
2.4
2.8
4.8
4.8

4.7
7.4
11.1
4.7
4.6
3.6
3.1
1.9
2.6
5.0
4.7

4.1
4.3
7.8
5.3
5.4
3.1
4.9
3.4
3.3
3.7
4.2
5.6
5.1
7.4
3.8
4.6
4.2
5.1
4.2
3.7
3.9
6.0
4.9

3.0
2.6
6.5
4.3
4.0
1.9
3.8
2.4
2.1
2.7
2.4
4.7
3.7
5.1
2.8
4.2
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.2
2.4
4.0
3.9

2.6
2.3
5.5
3.8
3.3
1.5
3.3
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.4
4.1
3.2
4.0
1.9
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.1
2.0
3.3
3.1

2.7
2.2
4.8
4.2
2.9
1.7
3.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.6
4.0
3.1
3.4
1.7
3.5
3.5
2.8
2.8
2.1
1.5
3.3
3.2

2.5
2.5
3.9
3.8
2.2
1.7
3.1
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.6
3.8
2.8
2.9
2.3
3.1
3.4
2.4
2.7
1.9
1.3
3.2
3.3

2.9
3.1
4.2
4.5
2.3
2.0
3.5
3.0
2.8
2.1
3.0
3.9
3.2
3.4
2.6
3.5
4.0
2.8
3.0
1.9
1.1
3.5
4.8

2.1
1.8
2.9
3.0
1.6
1.5
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.5
2.3
2.8
3.4
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.4
.9
2.6
3.1

3.8
3.2
5.7
5.9
3.5
2.7
4.3
3.3
3.8
3.4
3.4
5.5

Nondurable goods____
Food and kindred products________ _
Tobacco m anufacturing.................. ._
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 plastics products, nec___
Leather and leather products_____. . .

2.9
2.9
5.3
5.1
3.6
1.7
3.4
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.6
4.2
3.9
5.9
5.1
3.7
3.9
3.0
2.8
2.1
2.1
4.0
4.6

4.0
5.0
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.5
3.2
2.4
1.7
4.6
4.8

3.0
1.8
4.7
4.6
2.7
2.0
3.5
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.6
4.5
3.2
4.1
3.3
3.3
3.7
2.5
2.6
1.9
1.4
3.4
3.9

1.8
.6

1.7
1.0

2.0
.8

2.2
1.0

2.1
1.3

2.1
1.1

5.1
1.2

2.7
1.1

2.4
1.1

2.3
.9

2.1
1.0

2.7
1.2

2.0
1.0

2.5
1.1

2.2
.9

N onmanufacturing:
Metal mining__________
Coal mining........... .........

.

See footnotes at end of table.


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

2.7

3.0

B.—LABOR TURNOVER

B -l.

T able

147
Labor turnover rates, by major industry group 1—Continued
[Per 100 employees]
1967

1966

Major industry group
Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Annual
average

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1966

4.6

1965

Separations: Total
Manufacturing_______
Seasonally adjusted.

__________

3.8
4.0

4.0
4.8

4.7
4.5

6.2
4.7

5.3
4.8

4.8
4-4

4.3
4.8

4.3
4.7

4.5
4.6

4.2
4.4

4.1

6.2

4.0
4.9

4.6

4.6

4.2

Durable goods____ ______
___
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products___
___
Furniture and fixtures____ _ _______
Stone, clay, and glass products_______
Primary metal industries____ ___
Fabricated metal products- . . . . ___
Machinery, except electrical__ _____
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment_____ __
Instruments and related products..__
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries—. . . . . . . . ...... ............

3.4
2.0
5.3
3.9
4.4
2.4
3.5
2.2
3.0
3.3
2.3

3.6
2.3
5.9
5.0
4.2
2.6
4.2
2.7
3.2
3.7
2.5

4.2
3.1
6.7
5.5
4.4
3.5
5.2
3.2
3.8
4.3
3.5

5.7
4.5
9.4
7.6
6.3
5.0
6.7
4.5
5.0
5.6
4.5

4.9
3.6
8.2
7.0
5.5
3.9
5.8
3.8
4.3
5.1
3.7

4.7
2.8
5.9
5.8
4.3
3.1
5.2
3.4
3.3
8.1
2.7

4.1
2.9
5.9
5.6
4.6
3.2
5.3
3.5
3.4
4.3
3.0

3.9
2.8
6.5
5.8
4.2
3.1
4.5
3.1
3.7
3.8
2.9

4.1
3.3
6.4
5.8
4.2
3.3
4.8
3.3
4.3
4.1
2.9

4.4
3.0
6.8
6.4
4.5
3.6
5.0
3.5
4.8
4.3
3.0

3.9
2.4
5.3
5.2
4.2
3.0
4.9
2.8
4.0
4.5
2.7

4.4
2.6
6.3
6.2
5.2
3.6
4.9
3.1
4.2
5.1
2.9

3.9
1.7
6.4
4.9
4.8
2.9
4.3
2.5
3.2
3.8
2.4

4.4
2.6
7.1
6.3
4.6
3.2
5.1
3.4
3.8
4.9
3.1

3.8
2.5
6.0
5.1
3.9
3.0
4.2
2.8
3.1
4.3
2.7

11.6

7.1

6.7

7.8

6.4

6.0

5.3

5.4

5.1

5.4

5.0

5.7

12.2

6.9

5.9

Nondurable goods____
_____ ___
Food and kindred products___ . ___
Tobacco manufactures____ _ _______
Textile mill products___ _ ________
Apparel and other textile products____
Paper and allied products____ . . . ___
Printing and publishing_________ ___
Chemicals and allied products..............
Petroleum and coal products_____ ___
Rubber and plastics products, nec____
Leather and leather products________

4.3
6.7
4.5
3.8
5.3
2.9
2.7
1.9
1.9
3.6
5.7

4.6
7.3
9.1
4.4
5.2
3.2
3.0
2.0
1.9
4.2
5.1

5.3
8.6
5.9
4.9
5.7
3.8
3.5
2.4
2.5
4.9
5.4

7.0
10.4
4.6
6.2
6.8
6.3
5.1
4.3
4.4
6.8
7.7

5.8
7.6
7.7
6.2
6.5
4.8
4.2
3.1
2.7
6.2
6.9

5.0
6.1
3.8
5.4
7.4
3.5
3.2
2.2
1.8
5.3
8.1

4.5
5.4
3.6
4.8
5.9
3.5
3.6
2.7
1.8
5.0
5.0

4.5
5.6
4.2
4.8
5.8
3.5
3.3
2.5
1.9
5.0
5.7

4.6
5.6
4.8
5.0
6.2
3.6
3.1
2.3
1.8
4.9
6.1

4.7
5.5
7.7
5.2
6.4
3.5
3.3
2.4
1.7
5.1
6.2

4.1
5.0
7.2
4.6
5.0
3.0
3.0
2.1
1.5
5.1
5.6

4.8
6.0
8.1
5.2
5.7
3.5
3.5
2.4
2.0
5.3
6.2

4.6
7.1
6.0
4.2
5.5
3.0
3.0
2.1
1.8
4.2
6.4

5.0
6.8
6.0
5.1
6.1
3.8
3.4
2.5
2.1
5.0
6.4

4.4
6.1
6.4
4.1
5.8
3.1
3.1
2.2
1.9
4.2
5.3

N onmanufacturing:
Metal mining__________________ ___
Coalm ining_____ _ . . . ___ ___

3.4
1.4

3.9
1.5

3.8
1.5

6.8
2.1

3.9
2.1

3.1
1.9

3.1
1.6

3.5
1.9

4.0
2.2

3.5
2.1

2.9
1.6

3.8
2.3

3.3
1.4

3.5
1.8

3.1
1.9

Separations: Quits
Manufacturing_________ . . . ____ . ___
Durable goods___________ ____ ______
Ordnance and accessories_______ ___
Lumber and wood products_________
Furniture and fixtures. . ____ ___
Stone, clay, and glass products_______
Primary metal industries.. ____ ___
Fabricated metal products. . . . -----Machinery, except electrical_____ ____
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment...
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries__________ _____ _______

Apparel and other textile products____

Petroleum and coal products...
Rubber and plastics" products, nec____
N onmanufacturing:
Metal mining___
Coal mining“ . . . . . .

_ ________

See footnotes at end of table.


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

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.8

2 .4

2.1
2.5

1.7
2.7

1.9

2.2

1.9
2.5

2.6

2. 4

2.1
1.6
4.1
3.3
2.4
1.4
2.4
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8

2.0
1.4
4.5
3.5
2.2
1.3
2.4
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6

2.0
1.6
4.1
3.7
2.0
1.3
2.4
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.6

2.0
1.5
3.7
3.8
1.9
1.3
2.4
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.7

1.7
1.3
2.9
3.1
1.6
1.1
2.1
1.5
1.8
1.4
1.6

1.9
1.2
3.1
3.5
1.8
1.4
2.3
1.7
2.0
1.5
1.7

1.5
.9
2.6
2.7
1.4
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.3

2.4
1.5
4. 5

5.0
3.5
2.1
3.6
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.4

1.8
1.5
3.8
3.4
2.2
1.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

5.6

4.3

2.8

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.5

2.7

2.6

4.6
6.4
3.2
4.6
4.1
4. 7
3. 6
2.9
2.6
4.6
5.3

3. 7
4. 5
3.1
4. 6
3.9
3. 2
2.8
1.9
1. 5
4.1
4.8

2.5
3.0
1.6
3.2
3.0
1.9
1.9
1.1
.8
2.6
3.6

2.6
2.9
1.7
3.3
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.3
.9
3.1
3.3

2.5
2.8
1.7
3.4
3.0
2.1
2.0
1.3
.9
2.9
3.4

2.4
2.5
1.6
3.4
2.8
2.1
1.9
1.2
.7
2.7
3.3

2.4
2.5
1.7
3.3
2.8
2.1
2.0
1.2
.7
2.7
3.2

2.1
2.2
1.7
2.8
2.5
1.7
1.8
1.0
.7
2.4
3.0

2.4
2.5
1.9
3.1
2.9
2.0
2.0
1.1
.7
2.5
3.6

1.9
2.2
1.6
2.3
2.1
1.6
1.6
.9
.6
2.0
2.9

4.3
2.4
1.7
2.8
1.9
2.3
1.9
2.0
3.6
2.8
3.2
1.9
3.5
3.3
2.4
2.2
1.4
.9
3.1
4.1

1.7
1.1
3.4
3.1
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.4

5.5
.9

2.8
1.0

1.7
.8

2.0
.5

2.0
.6

1.9
.6

1.9
.7

1.4
.7

1.7
.6

1.1
.6

2.0
.7

2 4

2.2

4.0
2.3

3.2
2.3

1.3
.9
2.4
2.3
1.5
.9
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.2

1.7
1.2
3.3
3.0
1.9
1.2
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.4

2.2
1.7
4.4
3.7
2.4
1.4
2.6
1.6
2.1
1.8
2.3

3.6
2.8
7.0
5.4
4.2
2.8
4.2
2.8
3.3
2.9
3.2

2.9
2.2

2.0

2.8

3.6

1. 7
2.1
2.3
2.0
1.8
1. 4
1.4
.9
.7
1.6
2. 5

2. 2
2. 7
1.8
2.8
2.4
1. 7
1. 7
.9
.8
2.3
3.2

2.8
3. 7
2.8
3.4
3.0
2.3
2.1
1.2
1.0
2.8
3.8

1.2
.4

1. 3
.6

1.7
.6

1.9

2.4

2.1

1.5
2. 4

5. 4

2.1

2.3

2.6
2.1
2.4
1.5
2.5
2.6
1. <
1.7
1.0
.7
2.1
3. (
1.7
.e

148

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

Labor turnover rates, by major industry group 1— Continued

T able B - l.

[Per 100 employees]
1967

1966

M ajor in d u s try g roup
D ec.2

N ov.

O ct.

S ept.

A ug.

J u ly

Ju n e

M ay

A p r.

M ar.

F eb.

Jan.

A nnual
average

D ec.

1966

1965

1.2

1.4

S ep aratio n s: L ay o ffs
M a n u fa c tu rin g . _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _
S e a s o n a l l y a d j u s t e d ____ _
_______ .
D u ra b le goods___ ______ ___
_ ___
O rd n an ce a n d accessories_________
L u m b e r a n d w ood p ro d u c ts ________ .
F u r n itu r e a n d fix tu re s _______________
S to n e, clay, a n d glass p ro d u c ts ________
P r im a r y m e ta l in d u s trie s ______
___
F a b ric a te d m e ta l p r o d u c t s . .....................
M ach in ery, except electrical______ ___
E lectrical e q u ip m e n t a n d s u p p lie s ____
T r a n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t______ ______
In s tr u m e n ts a n d re la te d p ro d u c ts _____
M iscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g in d u s..........
.......
trie s ........................... ...
N o n d u ra b le goods_____________ ________
F o o d a n d k in d re d p ro d u c ts ......................
T o b acco m a n u fa c tu re s .
. . _ ______
___
T e x tile m ill p ro d u c ts _____ . . .
A p p a re l a n d o th e r te x tile p ro d u c ts ____
P a p e r a n d allied p r o d u c t s _____ _____
P rin tin g a n d p u b lish in g ___
_. ____
C h em icals a n d allied p ro d u c ts __
P e tro le u m a n d coal p ro d u c ts __________
R u b b e r a n d p lastics p ro d u c ts, n e c _____
L e a th e r a n d le a th e r p ro d u c ts ......... .........
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g :
M etal m in in g __ _______
C o a lm in in g __ ________

__ _ ____
... .

.

1.6

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.9

1.3

1.5

1.8

l.S

l.S

1. 1

1.6

1.1
M

1.5

1.2

1.1
M

1.3

1.1

1.5

1.7

1.6

n

1.8

1.4
.7
2.1
.9
2.1
.7
.9
.5
.9
1.7
.5

1.0
.5
1.6
.9
1.5
.6
1.1
.6
.7
1.4
.4

1 1
.7
1.2
.6
1.1
1.2
1.5
.8
.7
1.6
.5

1.1
.7
1.1
.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
.8
.7
1.8
.6

1.0
.6
1.8
.8
.9
.9
1.0
.8
.8
1.8
.6

2.0
.6
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.0
2.1
1.1
1.0
5.8
.7

1.1
.4
.8
1.2
1.2
.9
1.8
.9
.7
1.7
.4

1.0
.6
.9
1.2
1.2
.9
1.0
.6
1.1
1.4
.6

1.2
.9
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
.7
1.4
1.8
.7

1.5
.8
2.1
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.6
.8
1.9
1.9
.5

1.4
.5
1.6
1.1
1.7
1.0
1.9
.5
1.2
2 .4
.5

1.5
.5
2.3
1.5
2.6
1.0
1.6
.5
1.2
2.7
.5

1.5
.2
3.1
1.2
2.7
1.0
1.5
.5
.7
1.9
.4

1.1
.4
1.6
.8
1.3
.6
1.2
.5
.5
2.1
.4

1.2
.8
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.4
.6
.8
2.2
.6

8.9

3.2

1.7

1.0

1.0

2.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.6

2.0

8 .6

2.1

2.3

1.9
3.9
1.5
1.0
3.0

1.7
3.8
6.4
.8
2.1
.6

1.7
4.1
2.2
.6
2.0

1.5
3.0
.5
.7
1.9

1.2
2.3
3 .6
.6
1.6
.6

1.8
2.4
1.5
1.5
3.5

1.2
1.7
1.1
.6
2.3

1.3
2.0
2.0
.6
2.1

1.4
2.3
2.5
.7
2.6

1.3
2.1
4.9
.9
1.7

1.6
2.7
5.6
1.2
1.9

.4

.5

.5

.7

.7
.7
.3

.6

.7

.5
.5

.4

.5
.4

.8
.6

1.6
2.9
4.4
.8
2.4
.8
.9

.8

.7
.9
.7

1.4
2.8
3.5
.7
2.1

.7

2.1
4.2
3 .6
1.2
2.8

.8
.6

1.5
2.3
5.2
.9
2.8
.6
.6
.6

.7

1.0
1.5

1.1
1.9

1.3
2.0

1.7
1.7

1.5
1.7

.8
1.3
2.7

.6
.6
.9
1.4

.6
1.2
1.5

.5
.7

.7

L0
1.2

.6

.7
.5

1.1
.8

.7

.9

1.0

.8

.7
.9

.7
.8

.7

.5
.8

.7
.8

.6

.5

1.2
2.2

.8
1.0

.8
.8
.8

1.0
.9
1.3

1.3
.6

1.7

1.3

.5

.3

.6

.4

.7

.7

.5

.7

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, see footnote 1, table A-9.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not
comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau’s employment series
for the following reasons: (1) the labor turnover series measures changes


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

.7
.5

.7

.6

.3

1.2

1.5
3.6

.9
.3
.5

.7
.6

.3
.8

.7
.6

.7

.5

.5

.6

.7

during the calendar month, while the employment series measures changes
from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel
changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence
of such stoppages.
2 Preliminary.

149

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

C.—Earnings and Hours
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 D ec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

July

Aug.

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

$99.41
134. 51
137.05
137. 67
142. 35
148.45
150. 78
129.63
135. 71
125. 27
124. 65
122.89
147. 23
139. 32
139. 48
131. 60
146.28
155.86
164. 74

$99. 56
132. 09
137.60
139.40
143. 55
145. 39
147.68
127. 75
131. 78
123. 52
119. 03
115.84
146. 83
139. 26
138.90
126. 86
147.75
154.64
164. 35

$99. 30
131.14
136.00
136. 31
142. 46
146.10
148.40
126. 42
133. 42
121.26
116. 72
110.16
143.60
135.84
139.26
127.40
147. 45
150. 73
162. 26

$99.70
134.09
136. 00
138. 65
142.79
153. 38
155. 77
127. 50
135. 62
120.96
119. 30
115.14
149.14
141. 21
142. 56
130. 28
150. 88
157.14
166. 53

$98. 69
130. 66
133. 77
138.09
140. 07
145.95
148.44
122. 69
128.11
118.63
123. 39
123. 45
145. 89
136. 49
145.14
142. 80
147.97
153. 22
161. 44

$95. 06
123. 52
127.30
129.24
136. 71
137. 51
140.26
116.18
123. 62
110. 31
117. 45
116. 58
138. 38
128.16
137.90
136. 36
140. 00
145. 39
152.47

140. 54 140. 54
184. 89 184.78
141. 45 138. 58
122.88 118.72

138.80
181. 45
127. 00
116. 29

140.70
185.81
138.43
125.25

139. 59
179. 79
138. 75
123. 50

134. 61
170. 28
133. 21
117. 30

Average weekly earnings
Total private_________________ ____ ___ $103.40 $103.90 $103. 63 $103.25 $104. 06 $103.45 $103.18 $101.88 $100. 06
Mining..... ........... ..............................- ........... 138.18 137. 80 139. 32 139. 00 139. 32 138. 24 139. 43 136. 53 134. 09
134.97 137.19 136. 54 136. 86 135. 20 136. 40 137. 48 135. 98
Metal mining-------------------- ----- ------136.01 141. 79 137. 94 142. 80 139. 86 139. 73 134.40 134. 37
Iron ores. ------------------------------------128.15 125. 83 127.98 127. 75 131. 24 140. 71 145. 08 142. 35
Copper ores----------------------------------155.29 153. 55 149.17 150. 69 151. 74 156.15 154. 01 148. 37
Coal mining------------------------------------157.66 155.91 151.13 152. 66 153. 71 157.00 156. 38 151. 07
Bituminous coal and lignite m ining---133. 65 134.16 134. 54 132. 99 131.15 133. 67 127. 56 127. 75
Oil and gas extraction............ ....................
136.35 136. 68 136. 68 137. 42 133.32 138. 69 133. 25 132. 51
Crude petroleum and natural gas fields.
131. 27 131.87 133. 02 129. 79 129. 44 129. 60 122.82 124. 24
Oil and gas field services------------------125. 55 132.99 135. 66 137. 12 136. 30 133.17 131.96 128. 03
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels-------122.03 131. 97 134. 04 136. 29 135.32 132.96 131.04 127.84
Crushed and broken stone---------------Contract construction__________________ 148.86 154. 40 161.24 160.40 162. 60 159.08 157.90 153. 56 149. 54
148. 01 152. 56 149. 29 151. 03 148.08 146.17 142. 03 141.12
General building contractors__________
142. 50 159.22 162. 05 166. 80 164.16 161.30 154.14 144. 32
Heavy construction contractors-----------129.22
153. 61 159. 59 167. 01 164. 72 163.10 151.87 139. 88
Highway and street construction_____
153. 63 165.15 165. 57 165. 97 163.86 159.80 156. 62 148. 52
Heavy construction, nec____________
166. 21 168. 28 163. 94 164.00 160. 39 157.81
162.90
167.93
Special trade contractors______________
175.83 177.12 176. 73 178. 15 172.38 170. 77 167. 52 165. 46
Plumbing, heating, air conditioning—
Painting, paperhanging, and decorat­
147.05 150. 65 150.94 152. 94 149.97 150. 47 146. 65 145. 40
ing— ----- --------------------------------195.22 198. 79 197. 79 195. 61 189. 73 192. 23 188. 46 187. 50
Electrical work____________________
142.23 151.87 149.99 153. 72 148. 61 149. 03 147. 74 144. 01
Masonry, stonework, and plastering---127.68
137.11 135. 59 140. 82 136. 44 136.82 132.75 127. 53
Roofing and sheet metal work----------Average weekly hours
Total private_________________________
M ining...------------------------------------------Metal mining_______________________
Iron ores---------------------------- -----Copper ores_______________________
Coal mining________________________
Bituminous coal and lignite mining__
Oil and gas extraction------------------------Crude petroleum and natural gas fields.
Oil and gas field services____________
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels-------Crushed and broken stone-----Contract construction___________
General building contractors_____
Heavy construction contractors-----------Highway and street construction_____
Heavy construction, nec____________
Special trade contractors______________
Plumbing, heating, air conditioning__
Painting, paperhanging, and decorat-

37.6
42.0

34.7

—

Electrical work____________________
Masonry, stonework, and plastering__
Roofing and sheet metal work...... ........

43.4
41.4
45.0
46.4
48.0
38.7
37.1
42.9
44.2
41.4
37.7
38.9

38.3
42.8
42.3
41.1
43.7
41.4
41.7
42.1
40.5
43.4
46.3
48.0
38.2
36.7
42.0
42.9
41.0
37.3
38.6

37.9
42.3
42.1
41.6
43.4
40.1
40.5
42.3
40.4
43.9
45.4
47.0
37.2
36.0
40.2
40.9
39.5
36.7
38.3

37.8
42.3
42.3
42.1
43.4
39.8
40.1
42.5
41.0
43.8
45.0
46.2
36.9
36.0
39.4
40.0
38.8
36.5
38.4

38.0
41.8
42.6
42.5
43.9
39.4
39.7
42.3
40.3
43.8
43.6
44.9
36.8
35.8
39.8
40.4
39.4
36.3
38.4

37.9
41.5
42.5
42.2
43.7
39.7
40.0
42.0
40.8
43.0
42. 6
43.2
35.9
35.1
38.9
39.2
38.7
35.3
38.0

38.2
42.3
42.5
42.4
43.8
40.9
41.1
42.5
41.6
43.2
43.7
44.8
37.1
36.3
39.6
39.6
39.6
36.8
39.0

38.7
42.7
42.2
42.1
43.5
40.3
40.6
42.6
40.8
44.1
45.7
47.3
37.6
36.3
41.0
42.0
40.1
37.1
38.9

38.8
42.3
41.6
40.9
43.4
39.9
40.2
42.4
40.8
43.6
45.7
47.2
37.4
36.1
40.8
41.7
40.0
36.9
38.6

36.7
39.8
35.4
36.1

36.3
39.1
35.6
35.4

35.9
38.9
34.7
34.1

35.4
38.6
34.5
33.3

35.4
38.9
33.8
32.0

34.7
38.2
30.9
31.6

35.0
39.2
33.6
33.4

35.7
39.0
34.6
34.4

35.8
38.7
34.6
34.5

$2.62
3.16
3. 23
3.28
3.27
3.69
3. 72
3. 02
3.27
2.86 2. 82
2.73
2.77
2. 66 2. 58
3.99
3.99
3.89
3.87
3.49
3.54
3.14
3.29
3.77
3. 75
4. 26
4.27
4. 28
4.29

$2.62
3.16
3.20
3. 23
3. 26
3.68
3.71
3. 01
3.27
2.82
2. 74
2. 55
4.00
3.87
3.58
3. 25
3.81
4. 27
4. 27

$2. 61
3.17
3.20
3.27
3. 26
3. 75
3. 79
3.00
3.26
2.80
2.73
2. 57
4.02
3.89
3.60
3.29
3.81
4.27
4.27

$2. 55
3.06
3.17
3.28
3.22
3.62
3.65

3.14
2.69
2.70
2. 61
3.88
3.76
3. 54
3.40
3.69
4.13
4.15

$2. 45
2.92
3.06
3.16
3.15
3. 46
3.49
2.74
3. 03
2. 53
2. 57
2.47
3.70
3. 55
3.38
3. 27
3. 50
3.94
3.95

3. 97
4.75
4.10
3.71

4.00
4.75
4.11
3.68

4.02
4. 74
4.12
3.75

3.91
4. 61
4. 01
3. 59

3. 76
4.40
3.85
3. 40

38.2
42.4
40.9
40.6
40.3
41.3
41.6
42.7
40.7
44.2
43.9
44.7
36.5
36.1
37.6
36.4
38.6
36.2
38.9

38.1
43.0
41.7
42.2
40.2
41.5
41.8
43.0
40.8
44.7
45.7
47.3
38.3
37.3
41.9
42.2
41.6
37.4
39.1

38.1
42.9
41.5
41.3
40.5
40.1
40.3
43.4
40.8
45.4
46.3
47.7
38.1
36.5
42.2
42.9
41.6
37.1
39.1

38.4
43.0
41.6
42.5
40.3
40.4
40.6
42.9
40.9
44.6
46.8
48. 5
38.9
37.2
43.1
44.3
41. 7
37.9
39.5

38.6
43.2
41.6
42.0
41.4
40.9
41.1
43.0
40.4
45.1
47.0
48.5
38.8
37.3
43.2
44.4
41.8
37.6
39.0

38.5
43.3
42.1
42.6
42.9

34.6
39.2
33.0
32.0

35.7
39.6
35.4
34.8

35.6
39.4
34.8
34.5

36.5
39.2
36.0
36.2

36.4
39.2
35.3
36.0

Average hourly earnings
Total private_________________________
Mining..--------- ---------------------- -----------Metal mining_______________________
Iron ores--------- ------------Copper ores---------- --------------------Coal mining------------------------------------Bituminous coal and lignite mining__
Oil and gas extraction___________ _____
Crude petroleum and natural gas fields.
Oil and gas field services____________
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels__ . ..
Crushed and broken stone_______
Contract construction_____________
General building contractors___
Heavy construction contractors________
Highway and street construction_____
Heavy construction, nec____________
Special trade contractors______________
Plumbing, heating, air conditioning__
Painting, paperhanging, and decorat­
ing----------------------- -------------------Electrical work____________________
Masonry, stonework, and plastering__
Roofing and sheet metal work_______
See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2.75
3.29

$2. 72
3.25
3.30
3.35
3.18
3. 76
3.79
3.13
3.35
2.97
2.86

4.29

2.73
4. 23
4.10
3.79
3. 55
3.98
4. 50
4. 52
4.25
4.98
4.31
3. 99

$2.72 $2. 71
3.24
3.24
3.29
3.29
3.36
3.34
3.13
3.16
3. 70 3.72
3.73
3.75
3.12
3.10
3.35
3.35
2.95
2.93
2.91
2.93
2. 79 2.81
4.21
4.21
4.09
4.09
3.80
3.84
3. 64 3. 72
3. 97 3.98
4. 49 4.48
4. 53 4. 52
4.22
5.02

4. 29
3.94

4.24
5.02
4.31
3.93

71 $2.68 $2.68 $2. 66 $2.64
3.22
3.20
3.19
3.17
3. 24
3.25
3.24
3. 23
3. 29
3. 25
3.28
3.33
3. 27
3. 23
3. 36
3. 17 3.17
3.28
3. 32 3.28
3. 71
3. 73
3. 72 3. 70
3. 74
3. 76
3. 75 3.73
3.08
3.02
3.03
3. 10 3.05
3.35
3. 36 3.30
3.28
3. 29
2.87
2.88
2.83
2. 91
2.83
2.90
2.87
2.82
2 . 93
2.85
2. 77 2. 73
2.79
2. 72
81
4.10
4.08
4.02
4.02
18
3.94
4. 06
3.97
3.87
3. 92
3. 80 3.76
3. 87
3.67
3.59
3.71
3.69
3.54
3. 42
3. 77
3.86
3.92
3. 98
3.76
3. 82
4.35
4.36
4. 44
4.30
4.30
4. 42
4.39
4. 34 4. 32
4. 51

$2.63
3.18
3.24
3.27
3.28
3.73
3. 76
3. 05
3. 31

4.10
4.83
4. 21
3.79

3.97
4. 79
4.10
3.69

$ 2.

4.19
4.99
4. 27
3. 89

4.12
4.84
4. 21
3. 79

4.04
4.82
4.15
3. 75

4. 05
4.82
4.15
3. 74

2.88

150

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing___________
Durable goods-..........
Nondurable goods___

$118. 08 $119. 60 $117. 50 $116. 28 $116.57 $114. 77 $113.65 $114.49 $113. 52 $112. 56 $112. 44 $111. 88 $113. 42 $112. 34 $107. 53
128.86 129. 89 126. 07 125. 44 126. 05 123. 30 122. 40 123. It 122. 8Ç 121.18 121.36 120. 77 122.84 122.09 117.18
103. 74 105. 60 105. 06 104.14 104. 66 102. 80 102. 03 101. 63 100. 73 100. 22 100.08 99.18 99.65 98.49 94.44

Ordnance and accessories___________
Ammunition, except for small arms.
Sighting and fire control equipment.
Other ordnance and accessories____
Lumber and wood products__________
Sawmills and planing mills_________
Millwork, plywood, & related products.
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________
Furniture and fixtures_____ _ .
Household furniture _
Office furniture______
Partitions and fixtures___ .
Other furniture and fixtures___

138.36 140. 01
137. 78 140.10
135. 09
140.94 140. 08

139. 35
141. 37
123.84
136.96

137.43
137.19
132.26
138.14

138.65
138.93
135.38
137.92

135.11
135. 29
133. 25
133. 46

134.05
134. 64
137.15
131.99

132. 25
131. 46
134. 96
133. 56

134. 08
133. 72
135. 98
133. 73

132.48
131. 46
140. 51
133. 22

133. 54
134. 55
137.60
130. 20

133.22
134. 23
137. 70
129.58

136. 63
135. 71
139. 43
138.03

95. 50 97. 44 99.96 99.55 99. 72 96.88 96.64 97. 27 95.18 94.77 93.09 91.08 90.80
89.63 92. 46 93.43 93.61 94. 48 93. 61 91.37 91.98 89.02 88. 84 88.22 86.24 85. 75
105. 56 106. 55 106. 30 106.30 106. 55 106. 4C 103. 68 103. 63 102. 41 103. 41 101.09 99.70 99.38
81.78 83.44 83. 64 83.03 83.62 81.80 80.60 81.60 80. 36 79. 56 77. 76 76.00 75.44
93. 66 93. 71 93.48 93. 48 91.76 90.85 91.88 90. 20 89. 35 88.56 86.83 86.88
94.96 99.84 97.34 97.82 97.41 95.06 92.40 93.09 91. 25 90.46 90. 74 90.12 90.63
89. 72 95.08 92.43 92. 89 92. 03 88.88 85.89 86.76 84. 41 84.24 84.71 83.89 83. 95
111. 87 112.98 112.14 114. 44 110. 56 113.01 108. 94 110.12 110.24 109. 82 110. 51 114. 01
—
120. 01 117. 05 118.37 120.80 121.82
114. 74 118. 28 116. 69 113. 65 113.12 113. 55 114.95
100. 69 106. 50 101. 45 101. 96 102 97 100. 60 98. 57 101. 09 100. 45 99.14 97.68 97.10 95. 75

134.94
134. 55
130.83
135. 25

131.15
135. 66
127.08
121.93

91.80

88. 75
82. 42
96.93
72.92
84.67

86. 07

99. 70
75. 53
87.34

91. 72 88.19
85.49 83.21
112. 32 104. 06
115.92 112.86
97.90 92.18

Average weekly hours
Manufacturing_____ ______________
Durable goods_____________
Nondurable goods_____________

40.3
41.3
39.0

41.1
41.9
40.0

40.8
41.2
40.1

40.8
41.4
39.9

40.9
41.6
40.1

40.7
41.1
40.0

40.3
40.8
39.7

40.6
41.2
39.7

40.4
41.1
39.5

40.2
40.8
39.3

40.3
41.0
39.4

40.1
40.8
39.2

40.8
41.5
39.7

41.3
42.1
40.2

41.2
42.0
40.1

Ordnance and accessories___________
Ammunition, except for small arms.
Sighting and fire control equipmento th er ordnance and accessories____

41.8
41. 5

42.3
42.2
39. 5
43.1

42.1
42.2
37.3
42.8

41.9
41.7
39.6
42.9

42.4
42.1
41.4
43.1

41.7
41.5
41.0
42.1

41.5
41.3
42.2
41.9

41.2
40.7
41.4
42.4

41.9
41.4
42.1
43.0

41.4
40.7
43.1
42.7

41.6
41.4
42.6
42.0

41.5
41.3
42.5
41.8

42.3
41.5
42.9
44.1

42.3
41.4
41.8
44.2

41.0
42.0
40.6
41.9

Lumber and wood products__________
Sawmills and planing mills_____ ____
Millwork, plywood, & related products.
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________

39.3
38.8
40. 6
39.7

40.1
40.2
41.3
40.9
40.9

40.8
40.8
41.2
40.6
41.1

40.8
40.7
41.2
40.5
41.0

40.7
40.9
41.3
40.2
41.0

40.2
40.7
41.4
40.1
40.6

40.1
39.9
40.5
40.3
40.2

40.7
40.7
40.8
40.8
41.2

40.5
40.1
40.8
41.0
41.0

40.5
40.2
41.2
40.8
40.8

40.3
40.1
40.6
40.5
41.0

39.6
39.2
40.2
40.0
40.2

40.0
39.7
40.4
41.0
40.6

40.8
40.6
41.2
41.5
41.2

40.9
40.6
41.6
41.2
41.3

Furniture and fixtures______
Household furniture___
Office furniture__________
Partitions and fixtures____
Other furniture and fixtures.

39.9
39. 7

41.6
41.7
41.9
41.1
41.6

40.9
40.9
42.0
40. 5
40.1

41.1
41.1
42.0
41.1
40.3

41.1
40.9
42.7
41.8
40.7

40.8
40.4
42.2
42. 3
41.4

40.0
39.4
43.3
40.4
40.9

40.3
39.8
41.9
41.5
41.6

39.5
38.9
41.4
40.8
41.0

39.5
39.0
41.6
40.3
40.8

39.8
39.4
41.6
40.4
40.7

39.7
39.2
41.7
40.7
40.8

40.1
39.6
42.7
41.2
40.4

41.5
41.1
43.2
42.0
42.2

41.6
41.4
42.3
41.8
41.9

43.1

39.8

Average hourly earnings
Manufacturing_________
Durable goods____
Nondurable goods..
Ordnance and accessories___________
Ammunition, except for small arms.
Sighting and fire control equipment.
Other ordnance and accessories____
Lumber and wood products___________
Sawmills and planing m ills..............
Millwork, plywood, & related products.
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________
Furniture and fixtures______
Household furniture__
Office furniture__________
Partitions and fixtures____
Other furniture and fixtures.

See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2. 93
3.12
2. 66

$2.91
3.10
2. 64

$2.88
3.06
2. 62

$2.85
3.03
2.61

$2.85
3.03
2. 61

$2.82
3.00
2.57

$2.82
3.00
2.57

$2.82
2.99
2. 56

$2.81
2.99
2. 55

$2.80
2.97
2. 55

$2.79
2. 96
2. 54

$2. 79
2.96
2. 53

$2.78
2.96
2. 51

$2.72
2. 90
2. 45

$2. 61
2. 79
2. 36

3.31
3. 32

3.31
3.32
3. 42
3.25

3.31
3. 35
3.32
3.20

3.28
3.29
3.34
3. 22

3.27
3.30
3.27
3.20

3.24
3. 26
3. 25
3.17

3.23
3.26
3.25
3.15

3. 21
3. 23
3. 26
3.15

3.20
3. 23
3. 23
3.11

3. 20
3. 23
3. 26
3.12

3.21
3. 25
3. 23
3.10

3.21
3.25
3.24
3.10

3.23
3.27
3.25
3.13

3.19
3.25
3.13
3. 06

3.13
3. 23
3.13
2.91

2. 43
2.31
2. 60
2. 06

2.43
2. 30
2. 58
2. 04
2.29

2.45
2.29
2. 58
2. 06
2. 28

2.44
2. 30
2. 58
2. 05
2. 28

2.45
2. 31
2.58
2.08
2. 28

2.41
2. 30
2.57
2.04
2. 26

2. 41
2.29
2. 56

2. 35

2. 34

2.31

2. 30

2. 51
1.96
2. 20

2. 51
1.95
2.19

2.49
1.92
2.16

2.48
1.90
2.16

2.27
2.16
2. 46
1.84
2.14

2.25

2.00
2. 26

2. 39
2. 26
2. 54
2. 00
2. 23

2.42
1.82

2.17
2.03
2. 33
1.77
2. 05

2.38
2. 26

2.40
2. 28
2. 67
2.92
2. 56

2. 38
2. 26
2.69
2.89
2. 53

2.38
2. 26
2. 67

2.37
2.25

2. 33

2.89
2. 53

2.31
2.18
2.60
2. 85
2. 43

2. 31
2.17
2. 66

2. 43

2.31
2.18
2,61
2.84
2.41

2.29
2.16
2.65
2.82
2.43

2.28
2.15
2.64
2. 80
2. 40

2.27
2.14
2. 65
2. 79
2.38

2.60
2.76
2. 32

2. 46
2. 70
2. 20

3. 27

—

2. 53

2.88
2.53

2.20
2.68 2. 62
2.88

2.22 2.21 2. 20 2.20

2.86
2. 45

2.12

2.12
2.21 2.12
2.12 2.08 2. 01
2.26

2.67
2. 79
2. 37

151

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Stone, clay, and glass products------------- $116. 58 $119.94 $122.38 $121.25 $121.11 $119.99 $118.01 $117.46 $116. 62 $115.23 $113. 70 $112.19 $113.71 $114.24 $110.04
160. 93 162.69 157.56 154. 76 151. 79 147.33 152. 46 149. 56 150. 33 149. 24 150.28 152. 64 153. 36 149. 60
Glassand glassware, pressed or blow n.. 115. 20 118. 49 118.20 116.52 114.29 113. 20 114.45 113.93 113.93 113. 24 115. 34 112. 59 114. 26 111.93 106. 25
134. 56 143. 05 137. 78 136.95 131. 61 132.07 130. 70 130. 41 132.70 129.02 128. 70 130. 79 132. 61 124. 42
Structural clay products. - ------- --------- 99. 25 100. 44 102. 59 101. 76 102.01 100. 45 100.04 100.45 99. 72 99. 55 97. 77 96. 07 95.92 97.00 94.02
107. 60 107.20 103.88 103. 62 102.83 99. 46 102. 57 102. 31 103. 22 101. 26 100. 22 101.12 98.85 95.12
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products..... ......................... ....................... 113.26 120.13 128.18 129.34 132.24 130.87 127.80 124. 60 121.05 116. 57 113.40 111.38 112.44 117. 65 113.08
Other stone & nonmetallic mineral
products________________________ 120. 01 122. 47 122. 06 120.35 120. 51 119.81 117. 67 117.99 117. 71 116.60 114.93 113.65 115. 36 115. 64 110. 62
Prim ary metal industries-------------------Blast furnace and basic steel products . .
Iron and steel foundries-------------------Nonferrous metals
. . . . . ----------Nonferrous rolling and drawing--------Nonferrous foundries----------------------Miscellaneous primary metal products.

142. 76
151. 06
130.15
137. 76
137. 57
122.91
153. 55

142. 69
148.92
134. 30
138. 65
138. 35
125.14
152. 64

141. 25
148.19
130. 41
138. 98
136. 53
121. 80
150. 72

137.90
142.88
128. 96
138.13
135.15
120.69
145.20

138.58
145.89
127. 51
138. 22
134.93
120.07
146.20

137. 50
144. 00
128. 54
135.98
131. 46
120. 66
146. 62

136.27
143.47
125. 44
133. 54
132.51
117.41
143.15

136.12
141. 55
128. 74
134. 20
132. 71
119.95
143.85

134. 64
141. 20
125.86
131.88
130.09
120. 95
144.14

133. 57
139. 35
123.11
132. 51
130. 40
117. 68
142. 27

135.38
142. 31
124. 73
131.15
131. 24
117. 27
147.70

134.97
140. 80
125.44
130. 21
133. 65
119. 25
148.12

138. 69
144.02
129. 20
132. 60
136. 66
121. 30
150.66

138. 09
144. 73
128. 57
129. 98
136. 27
120. 56
150. 25

133.88
140.90
125. 72
124. 44
130.07
113.97
143. 52

41.2
42.4
41.4
41.0
39.8
39.5

42.0
42.6
41.0
41.7
41.1
39.7

42.0
42. 5
40.4
41.2
41.6
39.8
44.0

Average weekly hours
Stone, clay, and glass products-------------

40.2

Glassand glassware, pressed or blow n..

40.0

Structural clay products.------- ----------

39.7

Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products—....... .............................................
Other stone & nonmetallic mineral
products................. ........................ .

39.6

Primary metal industries-------------------Blast furnace and basic steel products..
Iron and steel foundries_____________
Nonferrous metals--------------------------Nonferrous rolling and drawing---------Nonferrous foundries________ _____
Miscellaneous primary metal products.

41.1
41.5
41.5
40.8
42.0
42.2
40.7
42.3

41.5
42.8
41.0
40.9
40.5
40.3

42.2
43.5
40.9
42.7
41.2
40.3

42.1
42.7
40.6
41.5
41.2
39.8

42.2
42.4
40.1
41.5
41.3
39.7

42.1
41.7
40.0
41.0
41.0
39.4

41.7
40.7
40.3
41.4
41.0
38.4

41.8
42.0
40.4
41.1
41.0
39.3

41.5
41.2
40.4
41.4
40.7
39.5

41.3
41.3
40.3
41.6
40.8
39.7

40.9
41.0
40 9
40.7
40.4
39.4

40.5
41.4
40.5
40.6
39.7
39.3

42.3

44.2

44.6

45.6

45.6

45.0

44.5

43.7

42.7

42.0

41.1

41.8

43.9

40.9

40.3

41.2

41.9

41.9

40.6
39.7
40.9
42.2
42.2
40.3
41.0

40.9
40.2
41.3
41.9
42.2
40.3
42.2

40.9
40.0
41.4
41.6
42.7
40.7
42.2

41.9
40.8
42.5
42.5
43.8
41.4
42.8

42.1
41.0
43.0
42.2
44.1
42.3
43.3

42.1
41.2
43.5
41.9
43. 5
41.9
43.1

$2.76
3. 6C
2.76
3. If
2.41
2. 56

$2.72
3.60
2. 73
3. IS
2.36
2.49

$2.62
3. 52
2.63
3.02
2. 26
2. 39

41.8
41.6
40.8
42.1
42.4
43.1
41.3
42. 4

41.8
41.3
40.6
41.4
42.5
42.8
40.6
42.1

41.5
40.8
39.8
41.6
42.5
42.5
40.5
40.9

41.7
41.0
40.3
41.4
42.4
42.7
40.7
41.3

41.6
40.8
40.0
41.6
42.1
42.0
40.9
41.3

41.0
40.8
40.3
41.4
41.6
42.2
39.8
40.9

41.4
41.0
40.1
41.8
42.2
42.4
40.8
41.1

41.3
40.8
40.0
41.4
42.0
42.1
41.0
41.3

41.2

Average hourly earnings
Stone, clay, and glass products________

$2.90

$2.89
3. 76
2.89
3.29
2. 48
2. 67

$2.90
3. 74
2.89
3.35
2.49
2. 66

$2.88
3. 69
2.87
3.32
2.47
2. 61

$2.87
3.65
2.85
3.3C
2.47
2. 61

$2.85
3. 64
2.83
3. 21
2.45
2. 61

$2.83
3.62
2.84
3.19
2.44
2.5E

$2.81
3.62
2. 82
3.12
2. 45
2. 61

$2.81
3.62
2.82
3.15
2.45
2. 5E

$2.79
3. 6f
2.81
3. It
2.44
2.6C

$2.78
3. 61
2.82
3.17
2. 42
2.57

$2.77
3.62
2.78
3.17
2.42
2. 55

Glass"and glassware, pressed or blown..

2.88

Structural clay products-------- --------

2. 50

Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products— ................. .............................
Other stone & nonmetallic mineral
products................................................

2. 86

2. 84

2. 9C

2.90

2.9C

2.87

2.84

2.8C

2. 77

2.72

2.70

2.71

2.69

2.68

2. 57

2.92

2. 93

2.92

2.90

2.89

2.88

2.87

2.85

2.85

2.83

2.81

2.82

2.80

2.76

2. 64

Prim ary metal industries______ ____
Blast furnace and basic steel products..
Iron and steel foundries. . . . . . ______
Nonferrous m etals.. _____ _____ ___
Nonferrous rolling and drawing______
Nonferrous foundries—. ........................
Miscellaneous primary metal products.

3.44
3.64
3.19
3.28
3. 26
3.02
3.63

3.43
3. 65
3.19
3. 27
3.21
3.03
3.60

3. 42
3. 65
3.15
3. 27
3.19
3. 00
3.58

3.38
3.59
3.10
3.25
3.18
2.98
3.55

3.38
3.62
3.08
3. 26
3.16
2.95
3.54

3. 37
3.60
3. Of
3.22
3.12
2.95
3.55

3.34
3.56
3.02
3.21
3.14
2.95
3.50

3. 32
3.52
3.02
3.18
3.12
2.91
3.50

3.30
3. 52
3. Of
3. If
3.09
2. 95
3.49

3.29
3. 51
3.01
3.14
3.09
2.92
3.47

3. 31
3.54
3.02
3.13
3.11
2.91
3.50

3.30
3.52
3.03
3.13
3.13
2.93
3. 51

3. 31
3.53
3.04
3.12
3.12
2.93
3.52

3.28
3. 53
2. 99
3.08
3.09
2.85
3.47

3.18
2.42
2.89
2.97
2.99
2.72
3. 33

See footnotes at end of table.


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

152

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1688

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Fabricated metal products____________ $127.
Metal cans................ ............................... 155.
Cutlery, hand tools, and hardware___ 118.
Plumbing and heating, except electric— 113.
Fabricated structural metal products.. 122.
Screw machine products, bolts, etc___ 130.
Metal stampings___________________
Metal services, n e e .................................
Misc. fabricated wire products_______
Misc. fabricated metal products.............

$128. 52 $124. 92 $124.38 $126. 00 $123. 55 $121. 66 $122.84 $123.26 $121. 54 $120. 72 $120.83 $122.89 $121. 69 $116.20
154. 80 148. 58 144.48 148. 58 147. 50 150. 75 147.84 147.94 143.38 142.86 137.12 137.85 140. 40 137. 49
121. 01 120. 18 121.01 122.01 117. 96 113.20 114. 62 116.16 115.30 115. 46 114. 74 116. 60 114. 54 111.64
116. 93 116. 40 116.97 117.01 113.93 111.72 113.81 111.56 110.88 109.14 108.31 109.02 110.16 105.06
124. 42 124. 61 124.80 126. 42 124.15 121.84 122.43 122.13 121.25 122.13 121.42 123.31 120.83
114.26
130. 90 132. 11 128. 70 128.87 125.67 123. 52 125.83 125.24 125. 27 128.33 129.95 131.26 128.13
144.82 132. 02 132.19 136. 21 133.12 133. 63 134. 72 136.31 131.02 125.02 127.08 131.25 133. 61 120.73
129.03
110. 43 108. 81 108.00 109. 20 109.20 106.80 109.06 108. 26 107.98 108.39 106.92 108.21 107.26 100. 43
115.92 114. 54 112.19 112. 20 110.16 108.94 111.25 110.03 108. 54 109.75 108.27 111. 10 110.88 104.92
124.86 122. 84 122.25 123. 02 119.72 118.15 118.20 119. 77 119.07 120.35 118.78 121.51 119. 43 113.84
Machinery, except electrical___________ 137. 67 139.53 137. 05 135.46 136.10 132.82 133. 24 134.09 134.30 134.82 136.20 135.88 137.03 134.90 127. 58
Engines and turbines______________ 148. 45 150. 59 144. 61 144. 67 148. 75 141.86 139. 26 140.15 141.93 142.27 146.20 143.72 143.48 142.95 133. 44
Farm machinery............ ...............
124. 03 124. 82 124.43 126.40 125.06 123.80 126.32 128.30 130.38 135.14 136.21 136. 40 129.89 121.72
Construction and related m achinery... 137. 34 138. 74 136. 18 131.87 133.02 130. 82 129. 56 129. 78 130. 73
131.57 130.83 131.35 133.92 126.39
Metal working machinery___________ 155. 05 156. 20 155. 49 153.47 153.28 150. 33 151.80 153. 53 154. 35 130.52
156.07 156.29 156. 52 157. 42 153.72 144.37
Special industry machinery_________
132. 25 130. 48 128.71 128. 29 124.80 125.10 126.90 126. 78 128.14 128.01 127.41 129. 65 127.16 120.22
General industrial machinery_______ 136. 27 136. 73 134. 92 133. 76 133.14 132.40 132. 09 132.93 133. 88 132.29 133. 65 131. 66 136. 47 135.21 126.56
Office and computing machines______ 134. 62 135. 58 133. 04 131.46 132. 72 129.90 130.10 129. 78 128.34 130.20 130.51 129. 58 131.75
131.33 127.20
Service industry machines......... ......... . 119.89 124. 31 121. 36 119.95 121.84 117. 62 119.19 117.96 118.24 115.83 117.83 116.52 115.26 117.18
Misc. machinery, except electrical____ 136. 20 136. 28 133. 73 133.61 132. 62 130. 42 129. 08 130.90 129. 60 129.17 129.47 130.80 133.20 128.91 112.19
121.21

Average weekly hours
Fabricated metal products_____ _____
Metal cans..................... .................. ........
Cutlery, hand tools, and hardware.......
Plumbing and heating, except electric..
Fabricated structural metal products..
Screw machine products, bolts, etc___
Metal stampings.... ................................
Metal services, nec......... ...................
Misc. fabricated wire products..............
Misc. fabricated metal products______
Machinery, except electrical______ ____ _
Engines and turbines______________
Farm machinery....... . ............................
Construction and related m achinery.. .
Metal working machinery___________
Special industry machinery_________
General industrial machinery________
Office and computing machines............
Service industry machines...........
Misc. machinery, except electrical____

41.5
45. 0
40.4
39.4
40. 7
42.8
40.1
40. 4
41.3
42.1
41.7
42.0
43.8
41.8
42.2
39.7
43.1

42.0
45.0
41.3
40.6
41.2
43.2
43.1
40.9
41. 4
41.9

41.5
43. 7
41.3
40.7
41.4
43.6
41. 0
40.6
41.2
41.5

41.6
43.0
41.3
40.9
41.6
42.9
42.1
40.3
40.5
41.3

42.0
43.7
41.5
41.2
42.0
43.1
42.7
40.9
40.8
41.7

41.6
43.9
41.1
40.4
41.8
42.6
41.6
40.9
40.5
41.0

41.1
44.6
40.0
39.9
41.3
42.3
41.5
40.0
40.2
40.6

41.5
44.0
40.5
40.5
41.5
42.8
42.1
41.0
40.9
40.9

41.5
43.9
40.9
39.7
41.4
42.6
42.2
40.7
40.6
41.3

41.2
42.8
40.6
39.6
41.1
42.9
41.2
40.9
40.5
41.2

41.2
42.9
40.8
39.4
41.4
43.8
40.2
40.9
40.8
41.5

41.1
41.3
40.4
39.1
41.3
44.2
40.6
40.5
40.4
41.1

41.8
41.9
41.2
39.5
41.8
44.8
41.8
41.3
41.3
41.9

42.4
43.2
41.5
40.5
42.1
44.8
43.1
41.9
42.0
42.2

42.1
43.1
41.5
40.1
41.7
43.9
43.3
41.5
41.8
41.7

42.8
42.3
40.4
42.3
44.5
42.8
42.2
42.5
41.3
43.4

42.3
41.2
39.5
41.9
44.3
42.5
41.9
42.1
41.0
43.0

42.2
41.1
39.5
41.6
44.1
42.2
41.8
42.0
40.8
43.1

42.4
42.5
40.0
41.7
44.3
42.2
42.0
42.0
41.3
43.2

41.9
41.0
39.7
41.4
43.7
41.6
41.9
41.5
40.7
42.9

41.9
40.6
39.3
41.0
44.0
41.7
41.8
41.3
41.1
42.6

42.3
41.1
40.1
41.2
44.5
42.3
42.2
41.2
41.1
43.2

42.5
41.5
40.6
41.5
45.0
42.4
42.5
41.4
41.2
43.2

42.8
41.6
41.0
41.7
45.5
43.0
42.4
42.0
40.5
43.2

43.1
42.5
42.1
41.9
45.7
43.1
42.7
42.1
41.2
43.3

43.0
41.9
42.3
41.8
45.9
42.9
42.2
41.8
40.6
43.6

43.5
42.2
42.1
42.1
46.3
43.8
43.6
42.5
40.3
44.4

43.8
42.8
41.9
43.2
46.3
44.0
43.9
42.5
41.7
44.3

43.1
41.7
41.4
42.7
45.4
43.4
42.9
42.4
41.4
43.6

$2.94
3.32
2.84
2.77
2.94
2.94
3.13
2.64

$2.94
3.29
2.83
2.76
2.95
2.93
3.14
2.62
2.69
2.90

$2.87
3.25
2. 76
2. 72
2.87
3.10
2.56
2.64
2.83

2.86

$2.76
3.19
2.69
2.62
2. 74
2. 75
2.98
2. 42
2.51
2.73

3.16
3.43
3.22
3.13
3. 41
2.97
3.12
3.10
2.87
3.00

3.15
3. 40
3.24
3.12
3.40
2.96
3.13
3.10

3.08
3.34
3.10
3.10
3.32
2.89
3.08
3.09
2.81
2.91

2.96
3.20
2.94
2.96
3.18
2.77
2.95
3.00
2.71
2. 78

Average hourly earnings
Fabricated metal products....... ........
Metal cans________ ____________ ’ ’’
Cutlery, hand tools, and hardware__
Plumbing and heating, except electric..
Fabricated structural metal products

Screw machine products, bolts, etc___

Metal stampings......... ...................
Metal services, nec. _____ _____
Misc. fabricated wire products__
Misc. fabricated metal products______

Machinery, except electrical___________
Engines and turbines.... ..................
Farm m achinery..........
Construction and related machinery
Metal working machinery___________
Special industry m achinery.. _
General industrial machinery_______ "
Office and computing machines
Service industry machines____
Misc. machinery, except electrical____
See footnotes a t end of table.


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

$3.08
3. 45
2. 94
2.89
3. 02
3. 05
2. 71
2.80
2.98
3. 27
3. 56
3. 27
3. 54
3. 26
3.19
3.02
3.16

$3.06
3.44
2.93

2.88

3. 02
3. 03
3. 36
2. 70
2. 80
2.98

3. 26
3. 56
3. 07
3. 28
3.51
3.09
3. 24
3.19
3. 01
3.14

$3. 01
3. 40
2.91
2. 86
3. 01
3.03
3. 22

$2.99
3.36
2.93

2.78
2. 96

3. 24
3. 51
3.16
3. 25
3.51
3. 07
3. 22
3.16
2.96
3.11

2.77
2.96

$3.00
3. 40
2.94
2. 84
3.01
2.99
3.19
2.67
2. 75
2.95

$2.97
3.36
2.87
2.82
2.97
2.95
3.20
2.67
2.72
2.92

$2.96
3.38
2.83
2.80
2.95
2.92
3.22
2. 67
2. 71
2.91

$2.96
3.36
2.83
2.81
2.95
2.94
3.20
2. 66
2.72
2.89

$2.97
3.37
2.84
2.81
2.95
2.94
3.23
2. 66
2.71
2.90

$2.95
3.35
2.84
2.80
2.95
2.92
3.18
2.64
2.89

$2.93
3.33
2.83
2.77
2.95
2.93
3.11
2.65
2.69
2.90

3.21
3.52
3.15
3.17
3.48
3.05
3.20
3.13
2. 94
3.10

3.21
3. 50
3.16
3.19
3.46
3. 04
3.17
3.16
2.95
3. 07

3.17
3.46
3.15
3.16
3.44
3.00
3.16
3.13
2.89
3.04

3.18
3.43
3.15
3.16
3. 45
3.00
3.16
3.15
2. 90
3. 03

3.17
3. 41
3.15
3.15
3.45
3.00
3.15
3.15
2.87
3.03

3.16
3.42
3.16
3.15
3. 43
2.99
3.15
3.10
2.87
3.00

3.15
3.42
3.18
3.13
3.43
2.98
3.12
3.10

3.16
3.44
3.21
3.14
3.42
2.97
3.13
3.10

2.99

2.99

2.86

3.00
3.00
3.14

2.68 2.68

2.68

2.86 2.86

2.68
2.89

2.86

3.00

153

0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l.

Gross hours

an d

earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing-—Continued
Durable floods—Continued
Electrical equipment and supplies........... $116. 06 $117. 67 $115.87 $114.09 $112.31 $111.76 $111.32 $111.88 $110.12 $108. 35 $108.93 $107.98 $109. 35 $109.18 $105.78
Electric test & distributing equipment— 123.93 129. 02 125.10 123.26 122. 01 119.19 119.14 119. 48 119.19 119. 36 120.10 118.82 118. 43 117.46 113.02
Electrical industrial apparatus.............. 120. 29 120.95 119.84 119.54 118. 73 117.05 118.73 116. 76 116.93 117. 62 117. 26 116. 85 118. 85 118. 72 113.70
Household appliances............................. 126. 28 127.62 130. 09 126.38 120.95 120. 30 121. 50 119. 39 118. 70 111.93 115.15 114. 76 115. 63 118.82 114. 54
Electric lighting and wiring equipment. 108.11 110. 84 106. 00 104.28 104. 28 104. 66 102.05 104. 26 104.00 100. 74 102. 56 100.10 103. 97 102. 41 99. 55
94. 77 96. 47 95.99 98.49 96. 32 95.68 93.17 92.20 91.37 86. 76 89. 21 90.82 92. 97 94. 33 91. 54
Radio and TV receiving equipment—
Communication equipment................... 129. 88 131. 04 128. 44 127.82 126. 38 125. 36 124.12 126. 48 124. 03 123. 62 124.12 123.82 124. 56 120.93 116. 47
Electronic components and accessories.. 96.58 98. 55 97. 76 96.38 95.11 94.62 94.38 93.60 92.19 91.48 91.42 90. 56 91.41 92.11 89.28
129. 79 123. 73 120. 54 119. 36 119. 99 120.00 118.80 117. 91 116.13 116.82 115.94 121.18 119. 89 115. 36
Mise. Electrical equipment & supplies..
Transportation equipment.....................— 156. 02 156.17
167. 03
Motor vehicles and equipment..............
Aircraft and parts................................... 150. 88 154.15
Ship and boat building and repairing.. 131. 38 137. 57
137.11
Railroad equipm ent...... .........................
101. 66
Other transportation equipment...........

141. 35
138.93
151. 01
135. 53
137.89
103. 42

146.86
152.15
148.75
136. 61
135. 72
107. 74

147. 48
155.88
147.90
134. 39
130. 81
105.63

143. 52
148.16
146. 70
131.34
133. 23
105. 06

140. 29
144. 23
144. 67
127. 26
137. 54

102.00

141.17
145.14
144. 24
130.90
135. 32
106. 50

141.78
144.96
145. 09
133.09
138. 23
102.97

137. 30
135.76
145.18
132.93
139. 09
98.60

136. 49
133.86
145. 09
132. 60
136. 00
98.89

136. 21
135. 63
143. 06
127. 59
139.19
94. 75

141.02
143. 50
144. 24
133. 63
141. 66
93. 07

141.86
147. 23
143. 32
130. 41
137.09
95. 52

137.71
147. 63
131.88
121. 50
129. 44
93.09

Average weekly hours
Electrical equipment and supplies........ .
Electric test & distributing equipment.
Electrical industrial apparatus.............
Household appliances------------ ------ Electric lighting and wiring equipment.
Radio and TV receiving equipment__
Communication equipm ent.............
Electronic components and accessories.
Misc. electrical equipment & supplies..
Transportation equipment........................
Motor vehicles and equipm ent............
Aircraft and parts............... ......... .........
Ship and boat building and repairing ..
Railroad equipm ent...............................
Other transportation equipment...........

40.3
40.9
40.5
41.0
39.6
39.0
41.1
39.1

41.0
42.3
41.0
41.3
40.9
39.7
41.6
39.9
41.6

40.8
41.7
40.9
42.1
40.0
39.5
41.3
39.9
40. 7

40.6
41.5
40.8
41.3
39.8
40.2
41.1
39.5
41.0

40.4
41.5
40.8
41.0
39.8
39.8
40.9
39.3
40.6

40.2
41.1
40.5
40.1
40.1
39.7
40.7
39.1
40. 4

39.9
40.8
40.8
40.5
39.4
38.5
40.3
39.0
40.0

40.1
41.2
40.4
40.2
40.1
38.1
41.2
39.0
40.0

39.9
41.1
40.6
40.1
40.0
37.6
40.8
38.9
39.7

39.4
41.3
40.7
38.2
39.2
36.0
40.8
38.6
39.5

39.9
41.7
41.0
39.3
39.6
37.8
41.1
38.9
39.6

39.7
41.4
41.0
39.3
38.8
38.0
41.0
38.7
39.3

40.5
41.7
41.7
39.6
40.3
38.9
41.8
39.4
40.8

41.2
42.1
42.4
41.4
40.8
39.8
41.7
40.4
41.2

41.0
41.4
41.8
41.2
40.8
39.8
41.3
40.4
41.2

43.1

43.5
44.9
43.3
40.7
39.4
39.1

40.5
38.7
42.9
40.7
40.2
40.4

42.2
42.5
42.5
40.9
39.8
41.6

42.5
43.3
42.5
40.6
38.7
41.1

41. 6
41.5
42.4
39.8
39.3
41.2

40.9
40.4
42.3
38.8
40.1
40.0

41.4
41.0
42.3
40.4
39.8
41.6

41.7
41.3
42.8
40.7
40.3
40.7

40.5
38.9
42.7
40.9
40.2
39.6

40.5
38.8
42.8
40.8
40.0
39.4

40.3
39.2
42.2
39.5
40.7
37.9

41.6
41.0
42.8
41.5
41.3
38.3

42.6
42.8
43.3
41.4
40.8
39.8

42.9
44.2
42.0
40. 5
40.2
40.3

$2. 73

2.93
2. 59
2. 36
3. 02
2. 35
2.95

$2.72
2.87
2.85
2.92
2. 58
2. 39
3.02
2. 34
2.95

$2. 70
2.84
2.85
2.92
2. 58
2. 39
2.98
2.32
2.97

$2. 65
2.79
2.80
2.87
2. 51
2.37
2.90
2.28
2.91

$2.58
2.73
2. 72
2.78
2.44
2.30
2.82
2. 21
2.80

3. 37
3.45
3. 39
3. 25
3. 40
2. 51

3. 38
3. 46
3. 39
3. 23
3. 42
2. 50

3.39
3. 50
3. 37
3. 22
3.43
2. 43

3. 33
3.44
3. 31
S. lô
3. 36
2.40

3.21
3. 34
3.14
3. 00
3. 22
2. 31

42.5
39.1

Average hourly earnings
Electrical equipment and supplies.......... $2.88
Electric test & distributing equipment— 3.03
2. 97
Electrical industrial apparatus_______
3.08
Household appliances- ..........................
2. 73
Electric lighting and wiring equipment .
2. 43
Radio and TV receiving equipment__
3.16
Communication equipm ent..................
2. 47
Electronic components and accessories.
Misc. electrical equipment & supplies..

$2.87
3.05
2. 95
3.09
2. 71
2. 43
3.15
2.47
3.12

$2.84
3. 00
2.93
3.09
2. 65
2. 43
3.11
2.45
3. 04

$2.81
2.97
2.93
3.06
2.62
2.45
3.11
2.44
2.94

$2. 78
2.94
2.91
2.95
2.62
2.42
3.09
2.42
2.94

$2. 78
2.90
2.89
3.00
2. 61
2. 41
3. 08
2. 42
2. 97

$2.79
2.92
2.91
3.00
2. 59
2. 42
3.08
2. 42
3.00

$2.79
2.90
2.89
2.97
2.60
2.42
3.07
2.40
2. 97

$2.76
2. 90

2.96
2.60
2.43
3.04
2. 37
2.97

$2. 75
2.89
2. 89
2. 93
2.57
2.41
3. 03
2. 37
2.94

3.62

3. 59
3. 72
3. 56
3. 38
3.48
2. 60

3. 49
3. 59
3. 52
3. 33
3. 43
2. 56

3.48
3.58
3. 50
3.34
3.41
2.59

3. 47
3.60
3.48
3.31
3.38
2.57

3. 45
3. 57
3. 46
3.30
3. 39
2. 55

3.43
3. 57
3. 42
3.28
3.43
2. 55

3.41
3.54
3. 41
3.24
3.40
2. 56

3.40
3. 51
3. 39
3. 27
3. 43
2.53

3. 39
3.49
3.40
3.25
3. 46
2.49

Transportation equipment........................
Motor vehicles and equipment..............
Aircraft and parts....................................
Ship and boat building and repairing. .
Railroad equipm ent................................
Other transportation equipment...........
See fo o tn o tes a t end of table.


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

3. 55
3. 36

2.88

2.88
2. 86

154

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2

Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Instruments and related products........
Engineering & scientific instrum ents...
Mechanical measuring & control de­
vices......... .......................... ..............
Optical and ophthalmic goods______
Ophthalmic goods................ .............
Medical instruments and supplies____
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches, clocks, and watchcases_____

$118.73 $120. 77 $119.36 $118. 53 $118. 53 $117.14 $116.28 $117.01 $115.90 $115. 77 $115. 51 $114.11 $115. 65 $114.93 $108.47
141.05 138.24 137.60 137.82 134. 41 136. 00 137.90 137.14 138.85 137. 85 133.65 133.30 133.18 125.33
115.95 118.08 116.40
105. 57 108.68 109.34
96.04 97.36
100.19 101. 71 100.35
144.66 142.80
96. 56 95.11

115.18
109.08
96.38
100.75
142.04
94.89

115. 75 112.16 110. 25
108. 53 108.09 107. 04
95.68 95.20 94.96
100.90 99.05 98.46
141. 28 141.53 140.10
94.83 94.00 93.53

110.92 113.24 111.20 112. 72 110.92 116.06 115.78 109.03
107.94 105.82 105. 67 104.86 103.68 105.22 103. 66 99.30
94.80 94.09 94.09 93.06 92.59 93.20 92.84 89.40
98.40 98. 74 98.33 97.44 97.69 96.64 95.24 90.63
141.67 137.48 135.98 137. 49 136. 53 136.21 134.54 128.14
93.06 90.87 91.77 91.43 90.23 92.06 91.39 87.85

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries. _ 94.92 96.47 94.56 93.53 92. 66 92.04 90.79 92.20 91.57 91.57 92.20 90.17 91.87 88.80
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are... 106.93 112. 34 112.19 110.42 108.94 106.23 103. 22 104.26 105.30 105.18 104. 52 100.47 103.38 102.26
Toys, and sporting goods.____ ______
84,15 83.13 83.56 83.13 82. 71 81.96 83.10 82.11 82. 71 83.10 81.79 82.53 78.80
Pens, pencils, office and art supplies___
93.20 92.00 90.91 90.46 91.64 90.16 90.68 90.06 89.33 89.04 87.58 88.31 86.65
Costume jewelry and n o tio n s..............
86.63 85.28 84. 67 83.64 83.64 81.75 85.36 84.07 84.46 83. 42 81.32 82.47 81.39
Other manufacturing industries______ 103.48 104.12 102. 40 100.44 99.65 98.36 96. 47 97.86 96.97 96.58 97.71 96.08 97.66 95.68
Musical instruments and parts...........
107.83 J 103.97 102.26 102. 51 100.84 99. 79 98.39 96.75 99.15 99.43 98.89 100.85 100.53

85.39
95.53
76.44
82.82
77.62
92.46
97.75

Average weekly hours
Instruments and related products............
Engineering & scientific instrum ents...
Mechanical measuring & control de­
vices....... ........... ............................ .
Optical and ophthalmic goods...............
Ophthalmic goods.... .................. ........
Medical instruments and supplies........
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches, clocks, and watchcases..........
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are...
Toys and sporting goods......................
Pens, pencils, office and art supplies__
Costume jewelry and notions...............
Other manufacturing industries______
Musical instruments and parts_____

40.8

41.5
43.4

41.3
42.8

41.3
42.6

41.3
42.8

41.1
42.4

40.8
42.5

41.2
43.5

41.1
43.4

41.2
43.8

41.4
43.9

40.9
42.7

41.6
43.0

42.1
43.1

41.4
41.5

40.4
39.1

41.0
40.4
39.2
40.2
42.8
40.4

40.7
40.8
39.9
40.3
42.5
40.3

40.7
40.7
39.5
40.3
42.4
40.9

40.9
40.8
39.7
40.2
42.3
40.7

40.2
41.1
40.0
40.1
42.5
40.0

39.8
40.7
39.9
39.7
42.2
39.8

39.9
41.2
40.0
40.0
42.8
39.6

40.3
40.7
39.7
40.3
42.3
39.0

40.0
40.8
39.7
40.3
42.1
39.9

40.4
40.8
39.6
40.1
42.7
40.1

39.9
40.5
39.4
40.2
42.4
39.4

41.6
41.1
40.0
40.1
42.7
40.2

42.1
41.8
40.9
40.7
43.4
40.8

41.3
41.9
41.2
40.1
43.0
40.3

39.7
41.3
38.6
40.0
39.2
40.2
41.0

39.9
41.4
39.4
40.0
39.3
40.0
40.3

39.8
41.2
39.6
39.7
39.2
39.7
40.1

39.6
40.8
39.4
39.5
38.9
39.7
40.2

39.5
40.7
39.2
39.5
38.9
39.5
39.7

38.8
39.7
38.3
39.2
38.2
38.9
39.6

39.4
40.1
39.2
39.6
39.7
39.3
39.2

39.3
40.5
39.1
39.5
39.1
39.1
38.7

39.3
40.3
39.2
39.7
39.1
39.1
39.5

39.4
40.2
39.2
39.4
38.8
39.4
39.3

38.7
39.4
38.4
39.1
38.0
38.9
39.4

39.6
40.7
39.3
39.6
38.9
39.7
40.5

40.0
41.4
39.4
40.3
39.7
40.2
41.2

39.9
41.0
39.2
40.4
39.6
40.2
40.9

39.6
38.9
39.9

39.8

Average hourly earnings
Instruments and related products............
Engineering & scientific instruments. _.
Mechanical measuring & control de­
vices....... ...............................................
Optical and ophthalmic goods................
Ophthalmic goods______ _________
Medical instruments and supplies____
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches, clocks, and watchcases_____
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are...
Toys and sporting goods................ ........
Pens, pencils, office and art supplies__
Costume jewelry and notions..............
Other manufacturing industries. ...........
Musical instruments and p a rts..........
See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2.91

$2.91
3. 25

$2.89
3.23

$2.87
3.23

$2.87
3.22

$2.85
3.17

$2.85
3.20

$2.84
3.17

$2.82
3.16

$2.81
3.17

$2.79
3.14

$2. 79
3.13

$2.78
3.10

$2. 73
3.09

$2.62
3.02

2.88 2.86 2.83 2.83
2.68 2.68 2. 66

2.44

2.68

2.43
2.72
2.18
2.33

2.60

2.59
2.63

2.87
2. 70
2.53

___

2. 69
2.45
2.53
3.38
2.39

2.21

2. 44
2.49
3.36
2.36

2.44
2. 50
3.35
2.32

2. 41
2.51
3.34
2.33

2.79
2.63
2.38
2.47
3.33
2.35

2. 77
2.63
2.38
2. 48
3.32
2.35

2.78
2.62
2.37
2.46
3.31
2.35

2.81
2.60
2.37
2.45
3.25
2.33

2.78
2.59
2.37
2.44
3.23
2.30

2.79
2.57
2.35
2.43
3.22
2.28

2.78
2.56
2.35
2.43
3.22
2.29

2.79
2.56
2.33
2.41
3.19
2.29

2.75
2.48
2.27
2.34
3.10
2.24

2.64
2.37
2.17
2.26
2.98
2.18

2.37
2. 71

2. 35

2.34

2.33

2.34
2.60

2.33

2.33

2.34

2.30
2.17
2. 56
2.58

2.29
2.16
2.53
2.55

2.29
2.15
2.51
2. 55

2.32
2.15
2.49
2.54

2.34
2.60
2.14
2.30
2.14
2.48
2.52

2.29
2.15
2.49
2.51

2.28
2.15
2. 48
2.50

2.25
2.16
2. 47
2.51

2.26
2.15
2.48
2.53

2.33
2. 55
2.13
2.24
2.14
2.47
2.51

2.22
2.47
2.10 2.00
2.23
2.15
2.12 2.05

2.14
2.33
1.95
2.05
1.96
2.30
2.39

2.68 2.67
2.11 2.11 2.11 2.61
2.11

2. 61 2.60
2.60
2.12 2.10 2.11 2.12

2.32
2.54

2.46
2.49

2.38
2. 44

155

C —EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1967

1968

1966

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred p ro d u cts.....................
Meat products.... .................. .................
Dairy products......... ............. ................
Canned, cured, and frozen foods..........
Grain mill products----------- -----------Bakery products_________ _________
Sugar................................ .............. ........
Confectionery and related products__
Beverages___________________ _____
Misc. foods and kindred products____

$109.34 $110.70 $109. 47 $107.98 $109. 67 $107.94 $108.62 $108. 50 $107.18 $105.86 $106.52 $105.18 $106.08 $103.82
115. 60 119.68 119.14 116.06 120.13 115. 51 116.06 115.09 113.83 113.96 112.16 110.76 115.64 109. 74
116.47 115.35 115.35 114.66 115. 60 114.01 116.15 114.38 111.57 110. 62 110.62 110.88 110.46 109.13
83.70 82.43 87.19 92.21 85. 53 82.84 83.76 84.52 82.06 84.26 83.11 82.60 83.35
126. 54 128.82 127.18 127.42 127. 70 126. 67 126.40 120.50 120.39 118.53 120.01 119.14 122.30 118.61
106.79 108.95 110.16 109.87 109.48 108. 00 110.16 108. 68 107.07 104. 28 104. 67 104. 67 103. 49 104.38
118.28 117.12 108.39 122.14 126.48 124.53 122.06 124. 64 126.59 127.30 115. 53 110.68 114. 78
89.01 91.31 91.37 92.06 94.48 94. 76 92.34 92.86 91.94 87.85 91.66 90.45 88.80 87.34
128.96 126.17 124.12 125.87 125.93 127.44 127.26 123.42 123.93 122.91 119.20 117.89 119. 60
109.98 109.72 110.33 108.78 108.16 107.68 108.26 107. 78 106. 50 105.16 105. 59 104.17 103.91 102.12

$99.87
107.27
105.08
78.99
113.40
101.40
110.33
83.53
114.09
98.79

82.08 83.16 84.97
98.19 103.95 105.45
64.78 64.98 65.84

79.21
97.27
63.95

85.41 83.42 86.05 86.33 87. 75 91.44 94.41 90.30 91.33 87.52
108.14 101.94 105. 64 105.36 109.69 113.24 113.98 107.48 110.25 105.71
72 54 73.10 72.25 72.29 68.82 63.89 68.81 68.08 66.97 64.80

Tobacco manufactures______ ____ ____
Cigarettes------------------- ----------------Cigars.................. ........... ......................

86.54

Textile mill products------ -----------------Weaving mills, cotton......... ................ .
Weaving mills, synthetics__________
Weaving and finishing mills, wool----Narrow fabric m ills..............................
Knitting mills____________________
Textile finishing, except wool_______
Floor covering m ills .........................
Yarn and thread m ills......... ............ .
Miscellaneous textile goods_________

87.31 89.88
89.87 91.59
92.87 94.83
93.02 94.35
83.13 87.15
76.91 78.17
96.18 102.10
96 36
82.40 85.2Ó
100.62

89.03
90.52
93.74
92.82
86.11
79.59
100.51
96.12
82.96
100.42

88.19
90.52
92.66
93.93
84.25
77.80
98.04
96.12
82.17
99.92

86.73
88.62
91.38
93. 72
83.23
77.41
96.90
95.03
80.54
99.96

83.84
83. 42
86.31
93.09
82. 42
76. 64
91.10
93. 72
76.92
95.76

81.41
81.40
84.46
91.81
80.80
74.69
88.94
90.09
74.64
93.07

82.82
83.42
83.43
91.16
81.81
74.88
94.81
88.19
75.39
94.62

82. 22
84.03
84.25
90.10
81.40
73.72
94.38
87.15
74. 24
92.43

81.20
84.23
83.43
87.99
79.40
72.75
93.94
83.43
72.93
92.89

81.20
84.64
82.62
86.73
78.21
72.56
92.43
82.42
72.91
91.88

80.60
85.04
82.62
86.11
77.82
71.80
90.91
79.39
72.73
90.98

81.61
86.28
83.84
87.57
80.15
70. 68
90.27
82.01
74.37
93.44

82.12
85.54
87.03
87.54
80.26
71.60
91.58
83.36
77. 59
93.95

78.17
80.28
83.90
83.69
75.99
68.29
85.85
81.51
73.70
88.83

Average weekly hours
41.0
41.7
42.1
37.2
45.2
40.5
44.3
39.7
41.2
42.2

41.0
42.1
42.1
37.3
45.1
40.8
43.7
39.9
40.7
42.6

40.9
41.6
42.0
39.1
46.0
40.1
38.3
40.2
40.3
42.0

41.7
42.6
42.5
40.8
46.1
40.4
39.4
40.9
41.0
41.6

41.2
41.7
42.7
38.7
46.4
40.3
40.8
41.2
41.7
41.9

41.3
41.9
43.5
38.0
46.3
40.8
40.3
39.8
42.2
41.8

41.1
41.4
43.0
37.9
44.3
40.4
39.5
40.2
42.0
42.1

40.6
40.8
42.1
37.9
44.1
40.1
41.0
39.8
40.6
41.6

40.1
40.7
41.9
36.8
43.1
39.5
41.1
38.7
40.9
41.4

40.5
40.2
41.9
38.3
43.8
39.8
41.6
40.2
40.7
41.9

40.3
39.7
42.0
38.3
43.8
39.8
39.7
40.2
40.0
41.5

40.8
41.3
42.0
38.6
44.8
39.5
40.1
40.0
40.1
41.9

41.2
41.1
42.3
39.5
45.1
40.3
42.2
39.7
41.1
42.2

41.1
41.1
42.2
39.3
45.0
40.4
42.6
39.4
40.6
42.4

37.3

38.3
38.9
39.0

38.8
36.8
39.3

40.4
38.0
39.7

39.6
37.9
39.5

39.0
39.6
37.4

38.1
40.3
35.3

39.5
41.0
37.6

38.1
38.8
37.2

38.7
39.8
37.0

37.4
38.3
35.8

36.0
36.1
35.4

37.8
38.5
35.9

38.8
39.2
37.2

37.9
37.7
37.4

40.8
41.8
42.6
41.9
39.4
37.7
42.0

42.0
42.6
43.5
42.5
41.7
38.7
44.2
44.2
42.6
43.0

41.8
42.1
43.2
42.0
41.2
39.4
43.7
44.5
41.9
43.1

41.6
42.3
42.9
42.5
40.7
38.9
43.0
44.5
41.5
42.7

41.3
41.8
42.5
42.6
40.6
38.9
42.5
44.2
41.3
42.9

41.1
41.5
42.1
43.5
40.8
39.1
41.6
44.0
40.7
42.0

40.3
40.7
41.4
42.9
40.4
38.5
40.8
42.9
39.7
41.0

40.8
41.5
41.1
42.8
40.7
38.6
42.9
42.4
40.1
41.5

40.5
41.6
41.3
42.5
40.7
38.0
42.9
41.9
39.7
40.9

40.2
41.7
41.1
41.9
40.1
37.5
42.7
40.5
39.0
41.1

40.2
41.9
40.7
41.3
39.5
37.4
42.4
40.4
39.2
41.2

40.1
42.1
40.7
41.2
39.5
37.2
41.7
49.3
39.1
40.8

40.6
42.5
41.3
41.7
41.1
37.2
41.6
40.4
40.2
41.9

41.9
43.2
43.3
42.7
41.8
38.7
43.2
42.1
42.4
42.9

41.8
42.7
43.7
42.7
41.3
38.8
42.5
42.9
42.6
42.3

Food and kindred products.................... .
Meat products____________________
Dairy products__________ ________
Canned, cured, and frozen foods_____
Grain mill products........ ........... ...........
Bakery products......... ........................
Sugar.___ __________________ ____
Confectionery and related products...
Beverages____ ______ ____________
Misc. foods and kindred products____

40.2
40.0
42.2

Tobacco m anufactures-......... .................
Cigarettes-........................................... .
Cigars________ __________________
Textile mill products......................... ......
Weaving mills, cotton______________
Weaving mills, synthetics..___ _____
Weaving and finishing mills, wool.......
Narrow fabrics mills................... .........
Knitting m ills...................... .............. .
Textile finishing, except wool_______
Floor covering m ills............. ................
Yarn and thread mills______ ____ _
Miscellaneous textile goods_________

44.4
39.7
38.2
40.4
41.5

41.2

Average hourly earnings
$2.70
2.87
2.74
2.25
2.85
2.69
2.67
2.30
3.13
2.60

$2.67
2.83
2.74
2.21
2.82
2.70
2.68
2.29
3.10
2.59

$2.64
2.79
2.73
2.23
2.77
2.74
2.83
2.29
3.08
2.59

$2. 63
2.82
2.72
2.26
2. 77
2. 71
3.10
2.31
3. 07
2.60

$2.62
2.77
2.67
2.21
2.73
2.68
3.10
2.30
3.02
2.57

$2.63
2.77
2.67
2.18
2.73
2.70
3.09
2.32
3.02
2.59

$2.64
2.78
2.66
2.21
2. 72
2.69
3.09
2.31
3.03
2.56

$2. 64
2.79
2.65
2.23
2.73
2.67
3.04
2.31
3.04
2.56

$2.64
2.80
2.64
2.23
2.75
2. 64
3.08
2.27
3.03
2.54

$2.63
2.79
2.64
2.20
2.74
2.63
3.06
2.28
3.02
2.52

$2.61
2.79
2.64
2.17
2.72
2.63
2.91
2.25
2.98
2.51

$2.60
2.80
2.63
2.14
2.73
2.62
2.76
2.22
2.94
2.48

$2. 52
2.67
2.58
2.11
2.63
2.59
2.72
2.20
2.91
2.42

$2.43
2.61
2.49

2.32

2.23
2.78
1.86

2.15
2.77
1.86

2.13
2.78
1.82

2.18
2.78
1.83

2.25
2. 77
1.84

2.40
2.81
1.81

2.39
2.78
1.83

2.37
2.77
1.83

2.36
2.77
1.81

2.34
2.76
1.81

2.28
2.72
1.83

2.20
2.70
1.81

2.19
2.69
1.77

2.09
2.58
1.71

2.14
2.15
2.18
2.22
2.11
2.04
2.29

2.14
2.15
2.18
2.22
2.09
2.02
2.31
2.18
2.00
2.34

2.13
2.15
2.17
2.21
2.09
2.02
2.30
2.16
1.98
2.33

2.12
2.14
2.16
2.21
2.07
2.00
2.28
2.16
1.98
2.34

2.10
2.12
2.15
2. 20
2.05
1.99
2.28
2.15
1.95
2.33

2.04
2.01
2.05
2.14
2.02
1.96
2.19
2.13
1.89
2.28

2.02
2.00
2.04
2.14
2.00
1.94
2.18
2.10
1.88
2.27

2.03
2.01
2.03
2.13
2.01
1.94
2.21
2.08
1.88
2.28

2.03
2. 02
2.04
2.12
2. 00
1.94
2.20
2.08
1.87
2. 26

2. 02
2. 02
2.03
2.10
1.98
1.94
2. 20
2.06
1.87
2.26

2.02
2.02
2.03
2.10
1.98
1.94
2.18
2.04
1.86
2.23

2.01
2. 02
2.03
2.09
1.97
1.93
2.18
2.02
1.86
2.23

2. 01
2.03
2.03
2.10
1.95
1.90
2.17
2.03
1.85
2.23

1.96
1.98
2.01
2.05
1.92
1.85
2.12
1.98
1.83
2.19

1.87

Food and kindred products___ ______
Meat products__________________ _
Dairy products________ __________
Canned, cured, and frozen foods_____
Grain mill products. ______________
Bakery products_____ ________ ____
Sugar.__________________________
Confectionery and related products.. .
Beverages................................... ............
Misc. foods and kindred products____

$2.72
2.89
2.76

Tobacco manufactures..............................
Cigarettes..................... ........ ........ ........
Cigars............................ ........................
Textile mill products........ ........... ...........
Weaving mills, co tto n ......... ...... ..........
Weaving mills, synthetics_____ _____
Weaving and finishing mills, wool___
Narrow fabric m ills____ __________
Knitting m ills....................... ...............
Textile finishing, except wool_______
Floor covering m ills_________ _____
Yarn and thread mills..........................
Miscellaneous textile goods.......... ........
See footnotes a t end of table.

2 8 8 - 7 4 4 0 - 68 - 11

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

2.85
2.69
2.33
3.12
2.65

2.00

2.01

2.52
2.51
2.59
2.12

2.81
2.33

1.88

1.92
1.96
1.84
1.76
2.02

1.90
1.73

2.10

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

156
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1967

1968

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods—Continued
Apparel and other textile products_____ $72.24 $74.88 $74. 93 $73. 75 $74. 73 $74.05 $72.16 $72.52 $71.80 $72.16 $71.80 $71.04 $70.40 $68.80 $66. 61
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats___. . .
89.30 93.07 91.72 89.06 90.40 87.97 85.18 88.67 88.22 87. 75 87.00 85.70 88.09 85.79 81.86
Men’s and boys’ furnishings---- ------- 62.81 65.51 65.68 64.40 64.40 64.18 63.49 63. 66 62.78 62.97 62.80 63.15 61.42 59.15 57.90
Women’s and misses’ outerwear -------- 74.68 75.94 76.73 75. 71 77.40 77.97 76.81 74.58 74.43 75.99 75. 77 74. 21 72.08 71.34 68.68
Women’s and children’s undergarments- 65. 55 68.24 69. 56 68.82 68.82 67.52 65.88 65.88 65. 70 65. 51 65.70 64.98 63.89 63.10 60.19
72.92 74.46 73.19 73.54 75.65 74.98 72. 62 68.75 69. 58 71.75 75.90 74.16 71.18 70. 08
66.47 67.26 66.69 66.88 66.36 66.74 67.49 66.01 65.08 64.40 65.14 64. 62 62.99 60.79
82.54 85.19 82.35 82.66 79.35 77.96 77.83 78.12 76.96 75.75 75.18 74.57 74.70 71.18
MiscT fabricated textile products-----81.11 84.24 81.41 80.85 82.64 82.43 75.11 78.00 78.83 76.84 77.25 75.85 77.29 76.02 74.11
127.44
145. 72
150.48
110. 66
114.09

125.99
142.88
147.35
109.82
114.21

125. 85
142. 65
147.93
108.47
114. 90

125.85
143.09
147.03
108.47
114.48

124. 41
141. 44
144.38
108.32
112.41

123.69
141.96
144.13
107.38
110.12

122.41
139. 67
141.88
106.30
110.88

120.28
137.64
136.22
104.86
108.47

119. 00
136.40
137.28
103.38
107.01

119.71
136.89
139.78
105.22
107.38

119.14
136. 75
137.90
104. 55
105.41

119.84
137.20
138.08
106.08
107. 07

119.35
135.30
138. 62
104.16
108.63

114.22
128.16
132.14
99.42
104.23

125.29 129. 75
. . . . 126.34 135. 79
140. 97
115.63
Commercial p rin tin g .. . .
128.02 132.10
Blankbooks and bookbinding____ . . . 97.64 99.07
Other publishing & printing ind
. 130.38 131.67

127. 64
133. 96
134.64
112. 71
130.32
99.07
130.81

127. 25
130.68
142. 71
111.46
130. 99
98.05
127. 92

128.21
132.13
143. 42
111.72
133.00
98.94
127.92

126.28
129.24
139. 47
114.21
130. 41
96.89
128.15

124.91
128. 52
138.23
111.84
128.58
94. 75
125.68

124.86
129.95
133.12
112.16
128.58
96.64
125.68

124.86
129.60
130. 42
115.65
127.59
98.16
126.34

124.03
127.44
130. 02
114. 26
127.47
97. 78
125.18

125.06
126.71
130.87
115. 51
129.17
96.75
127. 71

123.33
125. 65
129.81
113.71
126.75
93.99
128.43

123.97
124.95
129 63
115.09
127. 26
96.36
128.64

122. 61
125. 24
130 65
114. 53
126. 56
95.16
124.94

118.12
119.85
126. 23
110.68
120.96
91.57
120.90

36.2
37.9
36.9
34.1
37.0
36.5
35.4
37.2
38.4

35.8
36.8
36.8
33.5
36.8
35.7
35.1
36. 6
38.5

36.1
37.2
36.8
33.8
37.0
35.7
35.2
36.9
38.8

36.3
36.5
37.1
34.5
37.1
36.9
35.3
36.4
38.7

35.9
36.4
36.7
34.6
36.2
36.4
35.5
35.6
37.0

35.9
37.1
36.8
33.9
36.2
35.6
35.9
35.7
37.5

35.9
37.7
36.5
34.3
35.9
34.9
35.3
36.0
37.9

35.9
37.5
36.4
34.7
35.8
35.5
34.8
36.3
37.3

35.9
37.5
36.3
34.6
36.1
35.0
35. 0
35.9
37.5

35.7
37.1
36.5
34.2
35.9
35.8
35.4
35.8
37.0

36.1
38.3
37.0
34.0
36.3
36.0
36.1
36.2
37.7

36.4
38.3
37.2
34.3
36.9
36.5
36.2
36.8
38.2

36.4
37.9
37.6
34.0
36.7
36.5
36.4
36.5
38.4

Paper and allied products_____________
Paper and pulp mills . . . __ . . . -----Paperboard mills---- ----------------------Mise, converted paper products______
Paperboard containers and boxes_____

124.91
144.30
147. 72
108. 68
110.84

Printing and publishing— _ _
Newspapers___ ___________

Average weekly hours
Apparel and other textile products___ .
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats______
Men’s and boys’ furnishings ____ ..
Women’s and misses’ outerwear. . . ..
Women’s and children’s undergarments

36.7

36.0
38.3
36.6
33.6
36.3
36.1
34.8
36.2
39.0

Paper and allied products _____ ___
Paper and pulp mills_______________
Paperboard m ills.. . . . ____________
Mise, converted paper products______
Paperboard containers and boxes __

42.2
44.4
44.9
40.4
40.6

43.2
44.7
45.6
41.6
42.1

43.0
44.1
45.2
41.6
42.3

43.1
44.3
45.1
41.4
42.4

43.1
44.3
45.1
41.4
42.4

42.9
44.2
44.7
41.5
42.1

42.8
44.5
44.9
41.3
41.4

42.8
44.2
44.9
41.2
42.0

42.5
44.4
43.8
40.8
41.4

42.2
44.0
44.0
40.7
41.0

42.6
44.3
44.8
41.1
41.3

42.4
44.4
44.2
41.0
40.7

42.8
44.4
44.4
41.6
41.5

43.4
44.8
45.3
42.0
42.6

43.1
44.5
45.1
41.6
42.2

Printing and publishing.
_
Newspapers... ____________ . . . . . .
Periodicals.. ______ . . . .
Books. . _____ _______ __________
____
Commercial printing______
Blankbooks and bookbinding. _. _
Other publishing & printing ind____

37.4
34.9

38.5
36.8
41.1
39.6
39.2
38.4
38.5

38.1
36.5
38. 8
38.6
38.9
38.4
38.7

38.1
35.9
40.2
38.7
39.1
38.3
38.3

38.5
36.4
40.4
39.2
39.7
38.8
38.3

38.5
36.1
40 9
40. 5
39.4
38.6
38.6

38.2
36.0
40.3
39.8
39.2
37.9
38.2

38.3
36.3
39 5
40 2
39.2
38.5
38.2

38.3
36.2
38 7
41. 6
38.9
38.8
38.4

38.4
36.0
39 4
41.4
39.1
38.8
38.4

38.6
36.1
39 3
41.7
39.5
38.7
38.7

38.3
35.9
39.1
41. 2
39.0
37.9
38.8

38.5
35.7
39.4
41.4
39.4
38.7
39.1

38.8
36.3
40. 2
41.8
39.8
39.0
38.8

38.6
36.1
40.2
41.3
39.4
38.8
39.0

$2.01
2.34
1.73
2.19
1.83
1 96
1 R7
2 12
2. 06

$2.00
2.32
1.73
2.19
1.82
2 05
1 R4
2 11
2.06

$1.99
2.31
1.73
2.17
1.81
2.12
1.84
2.10
2.05

$1.95
2.30
1.66
2.12
1.76
2.06
1 79
2.06
2.05

$1.89
2.24
1.59
2.08
1.71
1.95
1.74
2.03
1.99

$1.83
2.16
1.54
2.02
1.64
1.92
1.67
1.95
1.93

2.82
3.10
3.12
2.54
2. 61

2.81
3.09
3.12
2. 56
2.60

2.81
3.08
3.12
2. 55
2.59

2.80
3.09
3.11
2. 55
2.58

2.75
3.02
3.06
2.48
2.55

2.65
2.88
2.93
2.39
2.47

3. 22
3.50
3 32
2 76
3.25
2.48
3.31

3.22
3.50
3. 29
2 78
3.23
2.49
3.29

3.16
3.45
3.25
2.74
3.18
2.44
3.22

3.06
3.32
3.14
2.68
3.07
2.36
3.10

Mise, fabricated textile products'.

34.4
36.6
34.7
32.9
34.5

38.1
37.7
37.9

Average hourly earnings
Apparel and other textile products_____
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats...
Men’s and boys’ furnishings___ . .
Women’s and misses’ o u te rw e a r..___
Women’s and children’s undergarments.
Hats, caps, and millinery. _______ ..
Children’s outerwear . . I _________ _
Fur goods and miscellaneous apparel...
Mise, fabricated textile p ro d u c ts'___

$2.10
2.44
1.81
2. 27
1.90

2.21

$2.08
2.43
1.79
2.26
1.88
2.02
1.91
2.28
2.16

Paper and allied products _. ___
Paper and pulp mills. _ _____ _ . . .
Paperboard mills. . . . .
_ ._ _
Mise, converted paper products _
Paperboard containers and boxes

2.96
3.25
3.29
2.69
2.73

2. 95
3.26
3.30
2.66
2. 71

2.93
3.24
3.26
2.64
2. 70

2.92
3.22
3.28
2.62
2. 71

2.92
3.23
3.26
2.62
2.70

Printing and publishing___ __
Newspapers___ . . .
Periodicals.. . ____ ____
Books_________
Commercial printing _____
Blankbooks and bookbinding___
Other publishing & printing ind. .

3.35
3.62

3.37
3. 69
3.43
2 92
3.37
2.58
3.42

3.35
3. 67
3 47
2 92
3.35
2.58
3.38

3.34
3.64

3.33
3.63

See fo otnotes a t end of table.


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

.

3.36
2.59
3.44

$2.07
2.42
1.78
2.25
1.88
2.04
1. 90
2. 29
2.12

$2.06
2.42
1.75
2. 26
1.87
2.05
1.90
2. 25
2.10

$2.07
2.43
1.75
2.29
1.86
2.06
1.90
2. 24
2.13

3.35
2. 56
3.34

$2.04 $2.01 $2.02 $2.00
2.41
2.34
2.34
2.39
1.73
1.72
1.73
1.73
2.22
2.20
2.17
2.26
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.83
2 05
2 06
2 04
1 97
1*RR 1 RR 1 RR 1 R7
2 1R 2 19 2 1R 2 17
2.03
2.13
2.08
2.08
2.90
3.20
3.23
2.61
2.67

2.89
3.19
3.21
2.60
2.66

2.86
3.16
3.16
2.58
2.64

3.28
3.58

3. 27
3. 57

3. 26
3.58

a 55

3 41

a 4a

3.35
2. 55
3.34

3.31
2. 51
3.32

3.28
2.50
3.29

3.28
2.51
3.29

2.83
3.10
3.11
2.57
2. 62
3. 26
3.58

3.23
3.54

3.24
3.51

a a7

a an

a aa

3.28
2.53
3.29

3. 26
2.52
3.26

2 77
3. 27
2.50
3.30

157

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods—Continued
Chemicals and allied products. ____. . .
Industrial chemicals__
. . ...
Plastics materials and synthetics... ..
Drugs___ . . . .
... ..
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods______
Paints and allied products__________
Other chemical products... .
Petroleum and coal products___ . . . . . .
Other petroleum and coal products___

$130. 70 $132.51 $132.40 $130. 73 $130. 31 $129.17 $129.48 $128. 65 $127.10 $127.49 $126.88 $125. 25 $126.16 $125.16 $121.09
146.16 148. 47 148.47 147.35 146. 23 143.59 145. 74 143. 72 142.12 142.80 142. 04 140.19 141.20 140.86 136. 08
129.90 133.34 134.28 130. 62 129.27 130.62 129.89 128.63 126. 46 125.33 125.33 123.19 123.07 125.08 120.70
122.10 121.47 119.77 117. 68 116. 69 115.54 114.86 114.97 115.26 118.08 118.24 117.96 117.55 113. 02 107.04
123.32 125.45 123. 73 124. 03 124.64 123.53 125. 26 124.34 125.05 123.32 122. 61 122.10 122. 29 119.94 113.15
122. 51 122.59 122.18 122.89 124.38 122. 25 121.18 122. 47 120. 60 117.91 117. 50 115. 66 116.81 118.01 113.15
109.62 111.09 109. 56 110.83 108.00 110.08 107.19 105. 40 112.70 109.31 105. 40 107.75 105.27 100.69
126.48 126.79 129.13 124.64 126. 05 123.07 123.30 123.37 121.13 122.43 121.84 119.95 120.30 119.97 116.48
153.91 150.12 156.52 155.23 155. 52 153.79 156.67 152.72 153.58 153.15 150.94 147.97 144.90 144. 58 138.42
156. 08 162.78 159. 56 159.18 157.88 163. 07 159. 47 161.41 161.36 159.38 156.19 151.94 151. 56 145. 05
124.38 126.95 133.06 138. 77 143. 35 138.87 134.98 131. 24 126. 58 123. 41 117.04 114. 90 116.05 120. 22 115.90

Rubber and plastics products, nec___ .. 117.14 119. 55 120.12 119.99 119. 71 116.89 105. 73 109.03 107.57 110.30 110.16 109.35 112.19 112.14 109. 62
Tires and inner tubes..
___. . .
171.44 178.42 184.79 187. 70 184.94 177. 25 145.89 164.94 162. 50 154. 45 154. 76 154.03 161.62 163.39 158.06
Other rubber products . . ___ ..
112.59 114.81 114. 68 113.99 114. 54 112.47 104. 54 107.30 105.18 106. 66 106. 52 105.73 108. 09 107. 74 103.82
Miscellaneous plastics products_______ 98.49 99.55 98.01 97.44 98.16 96.76 95. 75 96.29 94.94 94. 71 94. 54 93.43 94.37 94.39 92. 77
Leather and leather products______
Leather tanning and finishing__ .
Footwear, except rubber__ . .
___
Other leather products... . .
Handbags and personal leather goods. .

81.49
79.63
75.56

83.28 82.92 80.43 80. 26 80.11 79. 75 79.28 77.04 75.19 75.65 76.13 77.20 74.88
111. 24 108.94 109. 88 108. 39 105.99 103. 22 107.45 107. 57 104.66 103. 20 101. 65 102. 66 101.75
81.54 80.75 77.52 77. 93 77.97 77. 42 76.20 74.00 71.64 72. 44 73.68 75.08 71.81
78.11 79.17 77. 75 76.76 77.00 77.14 76.73 74. 57 73. 77 75.35 73. 80 74.86 73.15
76.78 78.60 75.80 74.45 73.50 74. 47 72.89 70.79 70.40 70.36 70. 59 71.05 69.38

71.82
97.99
68.80
70.49
67.86

Average weekly hours
41.8
42.3
42.6
40.9
40.6
41.0
42.0
41.3

41.9
42.3
42.9
40.6
40.7
41.0
42.4
42.2

41.5
42.1
42.0
40.3
40.8
41.1
42.3
41.0

41.5
41.9
41.7
40.1
41.0
41.6
42.3
41.6

41.4
41.5
42.0
40.4
40.5
41.3
41.7
41.3

41.5
42.0
41.9
40.3
40.8
41.5
42.5
41.1

41.5
41.9
41.9
40.2
40.9
41.8
42.2
41.4

41.4
41.8
41.6
40.3
41.0
41.3
42.5
41.2

41.8
42.0
41.5
41.0
40.7
40.8
46.0
41.5

41.6
41.9
41.5
41.2
40.6
40.8
44.8
41.3

41.2
41.6
41.2
41.1
40.7
40.3
42.5
40.8

41.5
41.9
41.3
41.1
40.9
40.7
43.1
41.2

42.0
42.3
42.4
40.8
41.5
41.7
43.5
41.8

41.9
42.0
42. 5
40.7
40.7
41. 6
43.4
41.9

41.6

41.7
41.4
42.6

43.0
42.5
44.5

43.0
42.1
45.8

43.2
42.0
47.0

43.2
42.1
46.6

43.4
42.8
45.6

42.9
42.3
45.1

42.9
42.7
43.8

42.9
42.8
43.3

42.4
42.5
41.8

41.8
42.1
40.6

41.4
41.4
41.3

42.4
42.1
43.4

42.2
41.8
43.9

41.1
44.3
40.5
40.2

41.8
45.4
41.3
40.8

42.0
46.9
41.4
40.5

42.1
47.4
41.3
40.6

42.3
47.3
41.5
40.9

42.2
46.4
41.5
41.0

40.2
40.3
39.9
40.4

41.3
44.7
40.8
40.8

40.9
44.4
40.3
40.4

40.7
42.2
40.4
40.3

40.8
42.4
40.5
40.4

40.5
42.2
40.2
40.1

41.4
43.8
41.1
40. 5

42.0
44.4
41. 6
41. 4

42.0
44. 4
41.2
41. 6

37.9

39.1
41.2
39.2
38.1
38.2

39.3
40.8
39.2
39.0
39.3

38.3
41.0
38.0
38.3
37.9

38.4
40.9
38.2
38.0
37.6

38.7
40.3
38.6
38.5
37.5

38.9
39.7
39.1
38.0
37.8

38.3
40.7
38.1
37.8
37.0

37.4
40.9
37.0
37.1
36.3

36.5
40.1
36.0
36.7
36.1

36.9
40.0
36.4
37.3
35.9

37.5
39.4
37.4
36.9
36.2

38.6
40.1
38.7
38.0
37.2

38.6
40. 7
38.4
38.3
37.5

38.2
41.0
37.8
38.1
37.7

$3.05
3.40
3. 02
2.88
3.03
2.89
2. 45
2.95

$3.05
3.39
3.02
2.87
3.02
2.88
2. 44
2.95

$3.04
3.37
2.99
2.87
3.00
2.87
2. 48
2. 94

$3.04
3.37
2.98
2.86
2.99
2.87
2. 50
2.92

$2.98

$2.89

3.41

Chemicals and allied products___ .
Industrial chemicals__
.. . . . .
Plastics materials and synthetics_____
Drugs______ ________ ______ . .
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods______
Paints and allied products_______ . . .
Agricultural chemicals__ . . .
Other chemical products____ _ . . . _

41.1
42.0
41.5
40.7
39.4
40.7

Petroleum and coal products...
Petroleum refining.
Other petroleum and coal products.......

42.4

Rubber and plastics products, nec__
Tires and inner tu b e s... . . . _ . . . ---Other rubber products... . ___
Miscellaneous plastics products_______
Leather and leather products___ ____ .
Leather tanning and finishing...
Footwear, except rubber...
Other leather products.. . .
..
Handbags and personal leather goods..

40.8

38.1
36.5

Average hourly earnings
Chemicals and allied products____
Industrial chemicals__ _
-------Plastics materials and synthetics..
Drugs____ _ ___________ ____ . .
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods.. ..
Paints and allied products__
Agricultural chemicals______________
Other chemical products _______ .

$3.18
3.48
3.13
3.00
3.13
3. 01
3.10

$3.15
3.50
3.11
2.92
3.04
2.99
2.59
3.04

$3.14
3.49
3.10
2.91
3.04
2.99
2.62
3. 03

$3.12
3.46
3.11
2.86
3.05
2.96
2.59
2.98

$3.12
3. 47
3.10
2. 85
3.07
2.92
2. 59
3.00

$3.10
3.43
3.07
2.86
3.04
2.93
2.54
2.98

$3.07
3. 40
3.04
2.86
3.05
2.92
2.48
2.94

2.87

2.99

3.64
3.83
2.99

3. 61
3. 79
3.03

3.60
3. 79
3. 05

3.56
3.75
2.98

3.61
3.81
2.96

3. 56
3.77
2.91

3.58
3.78
2.89

3.57
3. 77
2.85

3. 56
3.75
2.80

3.54
3.71
2.83

3.50
3. 67
2.81

2.85
3.87
2. 78
2.45

2.86
3.93
2.78
2.44

2.86
3.94
2.77
2.42

2.85
3.96
2. 76
2.40

2.83
3.91
2. 76
2.40

2.77
3.82
2.71
2.36

2.63
3. 62
2.62
2.37

2.64
3.69
2.63
2.36

2.63
3.66
2.61
2.35

2.71
3. 66
2.64
2.35

2.70
3. 65
2.63
2.34

2.70
«5. 65
2.63
2.33

2.71

2.67

2.63

2. j 9

2.15

2.13
2.70
2.08
2.05
2.01

2.11
2.67
2.06
2.03
2.00

2.10
2.68
2.04
2.03
2.00

2.09
2. 65
2.04
2.02
1.98

2.07
2.63
2.02
2.0(
1.96

2.05
2.6C
1.98
2. OS
1.97

2.07
2.64
2.00
2.0c
1.97

2.06
2. 65
2.00
2. 01
1.95

2.06
2. 61
1.99
2.01
1.95

2.05
2. 58
1.99
2.02
1.96

2.03
2. 58
1.97
2.00
1.95

2.00
2. 56
1.94

1.94
2. 50
1.87

1.91

1.85

3.63

Rubber and plastics products, nec_____
Tires and inner tu b e s ... .
Other rubber products. .
Miscellaneous plastics products______
Leather and leather products..___ ____
Leather tanning and finishing... . . . ..
Footwear, except ru b ber..
... . _
Other leather products. . . . .
Handbags and personal leather goods..


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

$3.16
3.51
3.13
2.95
3.04
2.98
2.62
3.06

3.60
3.77
2.98

Petroleum and coal products_________
Petroleum refining..
. .
Other petroleum and coal products___

See footnotes at end of table.

$3.17
3. 51
3.13
2.97
3.09
2.99
2.61
3.07

2.09
2.07

3.28

2.77
2. 61

1.88
z. oy

158

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Transportation and public utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Class I railroads 3___________ _____
Local and suburban transportation___
Intercity highway transportation____
Trucking and warehousing....................
Public warehousing______________
Pipe line transportation_____________
Communication________ ___________
Telephone communication_________
Telegraph communication 4________
Radio and television broadcasting__
Electric, gas, and sanitary services___
Electric companies and systems____
Gas companies and systems___ ____
Combination companies and systems
Water, steam, & sanitary systems___

$117. 45 $120. 84 $120.41 $117. 32
145. 53 148. 47 146. 78 150. 42
143. 06 142. 64 143.40 144. 75
105. 63 105.17 102.47 103. 86
162.93 163. 38 162.33 162.15
120.87 120. 08 120.99 121.39
114.65 113. 87 115.13 115.13
133. 45 133. 45 134. 39 135. 33
160. 34 157.98 157. 21 160.00
146. 37 146. 72 146.43 144. 42
150. 06 148.16 148. 21 146. 62
135.14 136.03 136. 95 135.11
157. 54 158.67 159. 56 155. 50
117.55 121. 25 116.12 115.14

$141. 68 $134.55 $140.92 $140.68 $135.34 $138. 53 $143. 77 $137.49 $135. 65 $130. 80
120.40 119.13 117.32 117. 73 114.11 113. 70 112.88 112. 74 112.36 108. 20
157.18 153.72 150.34 146.03 144. 57 136.12 142.43 145. 29 144. 95 133. 72
142. 52 141.53 141.34 136. 27 121.86 135.11 134. 60 132.80 135.15 130. 48
102. 62 102.62 101. 66 99.15 101.81 97.71 98. 40 97. 61 96. 80 93. 50
156.11 160.19 155. 77 159. 08 166. 53 155.80 157.38 161. 66 151. 29 145. 85
118.29 120.20 119. 59 117. 69 117.90 117. 00 120.10 118. 01 118. 55 114. 62
111. 93 114.05 113.87 112. 03 112. 22 111.36 114. 62 112. 97 113. 27 109. 08
135. 02 135.96 135.14 133. 90 128. 23 128.35 131. 07 128. 35 128. 01 122. 55
155. 99 157.20 154.81 154.45 154.01 153. 65 154. 42 152. 05 151. 24 147. 63
141. 25 142.35 142.00 140. 49 140. 83 139. 59 141.86 139.18 136. 95 131. 24
144.84 146.72 145. 95 144. 07 143. 59 143. 24 143. 87 141.52 139. 70 133. 31
129.65 130.97 128. 88 129. 43 129. 20 128. 02 128. 52 129. 78 125. 77 120. 83
153. 04 152.99 153. 77 151. 89 152. 94 151.37 156.14 150. 75 149. 70 143. 79
113.24 114.62 113. 52 113.12 113. 27 111.91 113.42 112. 06 110. 42 105. 16
Average weekly hours

Transportation and public utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Class I railroads 3.................................
Local and suburban transportation___
Intercity highway transportation____
Trucking and warehousing_____ _____
Public warehousing._____ ________
Pipeline transportation_____________
C ommunication__________ ______ _
Telephone communication________
Telegraph communication 4________
Radio and television broadcasting__
Electric, gas, and sanitary services___
Electric companies and systems____
Gas companies and system s..............
Combination companies and systems
Water, steam, & sanitary systems___

41.5
41.7
42.2
41.1
42.1
39.5
39.4
42.5
39.3
41.7
41.8
41.2
41.9
41.1

42.7
42.3
42.2
41.9
42.0
39.5
39.4
42.5
39.2
41.8
41.5
41.6
42.2
42.1

42.7
42.3
42.3
40.5
41.2
39.8
39.7
42.8
39.4
41.6
41.4
41.5
42.1
40.6

41.9
43.1
42.7
40.1
41.9
39.8
39.7
43.1
39.9
41.5
41.3
41.7
41.8
40.4

44.0
43.0
44.4
42.8
40.4
41.3
39.3
39.0
43.0
40.1
41.3
41.5
40.9
41.7
40.3

41.4
42.7
43.3
42.5
40.4
41.5
39.8
39.6
43.3
40.0
41.5
41.8
40.8
41.8
40.5

43.9
42.2
43.2
42.7
40.5
41.1
39.6
39.4
42.9
39.9
41.4
41.7
40.4
41.9
40.4

44.1
42.5
42.7
41.8
39.5
41.0
39.1
38.9
43.9
39.5
41.2
41.4
40.7
41.5
40.4

41.9
41.8
42.9
38.2
40.4
42.7
39.3
39.1
42.6
39.9
41.3
41.5
40.5
41.9
40.6

43.7
41.8
41.0
41.7
39.4
41.0
39.0
38.8
42.5
39.6
41.3
41.4
40.9
41.7
40.4

44.1
41.5
42.9
41.8
40.0
41.2
39.9
39.8
43.4
39.8
41.6
41.7
40.8
42.2
40.8

43.1
41.6
43.5
41.5
40.5
42.1
39.6
39.5
42.5
39.7
41.3
41.5
41.2
41.3
40.6

43.9
42.4
44.6
42.5
40.5
41.0
40.6
40.6
43.1
39.8
41.5
41.7
41.1
41.7
41.2

43.6
42.1
43.7
42.5
40.3
41.2
40.5
40.4
43.0
39.9
41.4
41.4
41.1
41.8
41.4

$3.23
2.73
3. 37
3.19
2.52
3. 90
3.00
2.87
3.01
3. 86
3. 41
3. 46
3.19
3.65
2. 79

$3.17
2. 72
3.32
3.24
2.48
3. 80
3.00
2.87
3. 02
3.88
3.38
3.46
3.13
3.63
2. 77

$3. 26
2. 72
3.32
3. 22
2.46
3.82
3. 01

$3.19
2. 71
3.34
3.20
2.41
3. 84
2. 98

$3.09
2.65
3. 25
3.18
2.39
3.69
2.92
2. 79
2. 97
3.80
3. 30
3.35
3.06
3.59

$3.00
2. 57
3. 06
3. 07
2.32
3. 54
2.83
2. 70
2. 85
3. 70
3.17
3. 22
2.94
3. 44
2.54

Average hourly earnings
Transportation and public utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Class I railroads 3______ _________
Local and suburban transportation__
Intercity highway transportation____
Trucking and warehousing..... ...............
Public warehousing______________
Pipeline transportation_____________
C ommunication____ ____ ___________
Telephone communication_________
Telegraph communication 4________
Radio and television broadcasting__
Electric, gas, and sanitary services___
Electric companies and systems____
Gas companies and systems_______
Combination companies and systems
Water, steam, & sanitary systems___

See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2.83
3.49
3.39
2.57
3. 87
3.06
2.91
3.14
4.08
3.51
3. 59
3. 28
3. 76
2.86

$2. 83
3.51
3.38
2. 51
3. 89
3. 04
2.89
3.14
4.03
3.51
3. 57
3. 27
3. 76
2.88

$2.82
3.47
3.39
2.53
3.94
3.04
2.90
3.14
3.99
3. 52
3. 58
3.30
3.79
2. 86

$2. 80
3.49
3. 39
2. 59
3. 87
3.05
2.90
3.14
4.01
3.48
3. 55
3. 24
3. 72
2.85

$3. 22
2.80
3. 54
3.33
2.54
3. 78
3. 01
2. 87
3.14
3.89
3. 42
3.49
3.17
3.67
2.81

$3.25
2.79
3.55
3.33
2.54
3.86
3.02
2.88
3.14
3.93
3.43
3.51
3.21
3.66
2.83

$3.21
2. 78
3.48
3.31
2. 51
3. 79
3. 02
2.89
3.15
3.88
3.43
3.50
3.19
3.67
2.81

$3.19
2.77
3.42
3. 26
2.51
3.88
3. 01
2.88

3.05
3. 91
3. 41
3.48
3.18
3. 66
2.80

2. 88

3. 02
3.88
3.41
3. 45
3.15
3. 70
2.78

2. 86

3.02
3. 83
3.37
3.41
3.15
3.65
2. 76

2.68

c.—e a r n in g s
T able

159

and h ours

C -l.

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade______________ $83.65 $83.08 $82. 67 $82.90 $83.45 $84.15 $84.15 $82.80
Wholesale trade______________________ 119.10 119.88 118.48 118. 08 118.08 116.64 117.62 116. 64
Motor vehicles & automotive equip­
ment ___________________________
110.39 112.14 107.64 106.30 108.00 107.23 107.38
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products._
122.49 121.97 122.89 121.79 120.40 120.99 117.90
Dry goods and apparel--------------------117.09 116.35 115.90 115.06 114.13 114.90 112. 48
Groceries and related products_______
111.66 110.43 109.21 111.38 110.27 111.76 108.79
Electrical goods____________ ____ ___
137. 78 130. 94 129.90 130.10 126.07 129.86 129.63
Hardware, plumbing & heating equip­
m en t-__________________________
115. 54 114.97 114. 62 114.33 110.70 111.78 111. 10
Machinery, equipment, and supplies...
131. 54 132.28 131. 78 131. 87 129.34 129.02 129.51
Miscellaneous wholesalers___________
118.21 116. 72 116. 32 116.22 114.91 115.89 114.80
Retail trade---------------- . ------------------- 72.11 72.22 71.34 71. 55 71.66 72.96 72.96 71.56
Retail general merchandise__________
65. 57 63.56 64.48 65.01 66.05 65.86 64.35
Department stores____ __________
68. 34 66. 36 68.48 68. 76 69.47 69.89 68.31
Mail order houses____ ____________
83.92 74. 76 74. 55 77.54 77.47 77.17 76.38
Variety stores— ................ -................
52.32 50.33 49.53 50.18 51.68 51.51 49.57
Food stores_______________________
75.14 74.81 74.58 75.60 77.48 77.70 75.70
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
76.13 76. 26 76.03 76.84 78.98 79.20 76.83
Apparel and accessory stores________
64.90 62.66 62.08 62.53 63.17 63.65 62.59
Men’s & boys’ clothing & furnishings.
75.30 74. 52 74.68 73.96 75.40 76.46 76. 47
Women’s ready-to-wear stores______
58.08 56.25 56.56 56.82 57.25 58.10 56. 72
Family clothing stores........— ..........63.54 61.48 60. 72 61.43 61.57 61.90 60.78
Shoe stores___________ _________
67.16 64.07 63. 45 64.27 64.70 64.35 62.51

$81.09 $80.73 $80.59 $80. 22 $80.30 $79.02 $76.53
115. 66 115. 26 114. 74 114.05 114.09 111.38 106. 49
106.97
117.51
112.05
106. 92
129.20

107. 23
118.59
112. 48
106. 25
129.20

105.32
117.51
111.81
105. 73
132.98

104.65
118. 50
110. 58
105. 59
130.85

105. 41
117. 89
109.53
105. 26
132. 98

104.08
114.17
107.26
102.09
126.98

100.14
109.08
103.19
97.00
122.84

110.02 109.34 108.27 108.14 108.68 107.30 101.91
128.30 127.80 126. 27 125.05 124. 24 121.66 115.23
113.43 113.83 113.60 112.92 113.08 110.95 107.20
69.80 69. 80 69.30 69.10 69.15 68.57 66.61
62.99 62.34 61.88 61.18 61.05 60.94 59.15
66.65 65.81 65.04 64. 52 64.92 64. 55 62.98
75.26 74.48 75.39 72.24 69.42 71.51 71.00
48.00 48.16 48.34 47.70 46.35 46.19 44.10
73.14 72.37 72.49 72.27 72.27 72. 21 70.66
73.80 73. 25 73. 47 73. 47 73.15 73.22 71.69
60.80 60.86 60.03 60.03 60.35 58.89 57.46
73.01 73.22 71.99 72.91 75.15 71.96 69.84
56.00 55.53 55. 21 55.01 55.38 52.97 51.46
60.35 60.40 59. 52 58.06 57.22 58.21 56.28
59.69 58.98 57.83 58.53 59.03 58.40 56.64

Average weekly hours
Wholesale and retail trade__ ____ _______
Wholesale trade______________ _______
Motor vehicles & automotive equip­
m en t___________________________
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products..
Dry goods and apparel_____________
Groceries and related products_______
Electrical goods_____________ . . _____
Hardware, plumbing & Jheating equip­
m en t__ <_______________________
Machinery, equipment, and supplies.-.
Miscellaneous wholesalers___________
Retail trade___ ____ _________________
Retail general merchandise...................
Department stores____ ____ ______
Mail order houses________________
Variety stores____________________
Food stores_______________________
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
Apparel and accessory stores________
Men’s & boys’ clothing & furnishings.
Women’s ready-to-wear stores______
Family clothing stores____________
Shoe stores______________________

35.9
40.1

34.5

36.6
40.5

36.1
40.3

36.2
40.3

36.6
40.3

37.4
40.5

37.4
40.7

36.8
40.5

36.2
40.3

36.2
40.3

36.3
40.4

36.3
40.3

36.5
40.6

37.1
40.8

37.7
40.8

41.5
39.9
38.9
40.9
43.6

42.0
39.6
38.4
40.6
41.7

41.4
39.9
38.0
40.6
41.5

41.2
39.8
38.1
41.1
41.7

41.7
40.0
38.3
41.3
41.2

41.4
39.8
38.3
41.7
42.3

41.3
39.3
38.0
40.9
42.5

41.3
39.3
37.6
40.5
42.5

41.4
39.4
38.0
40.4
42.5

41.3
39.7
37.9
40.2
43.6

41.2
39.9
38.0
40.3
42.9

41.5
40.1
37.9
40.8
43.6

41.8
40.2
37.9
41.0
42.9

41.9
40.4
37.8
41.1
42.8

40.4
40.6
39.8
35.4
33.8
33.5
39.4
32.1
33.1
33.1
33.8
36.2
33.0
33.8
32.6

40.2
40.7
39.7
34.8
32.1
31.6
35.6
30.5
33.1
33.3
32.3
34.5
31.6
32.7
31.1

40.5
40.8
39.7
34.9
32.4
32.3
35.0
30.2
33.0
33.2
32.0
34.1
31.6
32.3
30.8

40.4
40.7
39.8
35.3
33.0
32.9
35.9
30.6
33.6
33.7
32.4
34.4
32.1
32.5
31.2

40.4
40.8
39.9
36.3
33.7
33.4
35.7
31.9
34.9
35.1
33.6
35.4
32.9
33.1
33.7

40.5
40.7
40.1
36.3
33.6
33.6
35.4
31.6
35.0
35.2
33.5
35.4
33.2
33.1
33.0

40.4
40.6
40.0
35.6
33.0
33.0
35.2
30.6
34.1
34.3
32.6
34.6
32.6
32.5
31.1

40.3
40.6
39.8
34.9
32.3
32. 2
35.5
30.0
32.8
32.8
32.0
33.8
32.0
32.1
30.3

40.2
40.7
39.8
34.9
32.3
32.1
35.3
30.1
32.6
32.7
32.2
33.9
32.1
32.3
30.4

40.1
40.6
40.0
35.0
32.4
32. 2
35.9
30.4
32.8
32.8
32.1
33.8
32.1
32.0
30.6

40.2
40.6
39.9
34.9
32.2
32.1
34.4
30.0
32.7
32.8
32.1
33.6
31.8
31.9
31.3

40.4
40.6
40.1
35.1
32.3
32.3
33.7
30.1
33.0
33.1
32.1
33.7
32.2
31.1
31.4

40.8
41.1
40.2
35.9
33.3
33.1
35.4
31.0
33.9
33.9
32.9
35.1
32.7
32.7
31.4

40.6
41.3
40.3
36.6
33.8
33.5
36.6
31.5
34.3
34.3
33.6
36.0
33.2
33.3
32.0

Average hourly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade______________
Wholesale trade_____________________
Motor vehicles & automotive equip­
ment ___________________________
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products..
Dry goods and apparel_____________
Groceries and related products_______
Electrical goods____________________
Hardware, plumbing & heating equip­
ment ___________________________
Machinery, equipment, and supplies. ..
Miscellaneous wholesalers___________
Retail trad e________________________
Retail general merchandise__________
Department stores_______________
Mail order houses____________ ____
Variety stores____________________
Food stores______ _____ ___________
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
Apparel and accessory stores_________
Men’s & boys’ clothing & furnishings.
Women’s ready-to-wear stores______
Family clothing stores____________
Shoe stores______________________

See footnotes at end of table.


2 8 8 - 7 4 4 0 - 68 - 12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$2.33
2.97

2.09

$2.27
2.96

$2.29
2.94

$2.29
2. 93

$2.28
2. 93

$2.25
2.88

$2.25
2.89

$2.25
2.88

$2.24
2.87

$2.23
2.86

$2.22
2.84

$2.21
2.83

$2.20
2.81

$2.13
2.73

$2.03
2.61

2.66
3. 07
3.01
2.73
3.16

2.67
3.08
3. 03
2. 72
3.14

2.60
3.08
3.05
2.69
3.13

2.58
3. 06
3.02
2. 71
3.12

2.59
3.01
2.98
2.67
3.06

2.59
3.04
3.00
2.68
3.07

2.60
3.00
2.96
2.66
3.05

2. 59
2.99
2.98
2.64
3.04

2.59
3.01
2.96
2.63
3.04

2.55
2.96
2.95
2.63
3. 05

2. 54
2.97
2.91
2. 62
3. 05

2. 54
2.94
2.89
2.58
3.05

2.49
2.84
2.83
2.49
2.96

2.39
2.70
2.73
2.36
2.87

2.86
3. 24
2. 97
2.04
1.94
2.04
2.13
1.63
2.27
2.30
1.92
2.08
1.76
1.88
2.06

2.86
3. 25
2.94
2. 05
1.98
2.10
2.10
1.65
2.26
2.29
1.94
2.16
1.78
1.88
2.06

2.83
3.23
2.93
2. 05
1.99
2.12
2.13
1.64
2.26
2.29
1.94
2.19
1. 79
1.88
2.06

2.83
3.24
2.92
2.03
1.97
2.09
2.16
1.64
2. 25
2.28
1.93
2.15
1.77
1. 89
2. 06

2.74
3.17
2.88
2.01
1.96
2.08
2.17
1.62
2.22
2.25
1.88
2.13
1.74
1.86
1.92

2.76
3.17
2.89
2.01
1.96
2.08
2.18
1.63
2.22
2.25
1.90
2.16
1.75
1.87
1.95

2. 75
3.19
2.87
2.01
1.95
2.07
2.17
1.62
2.22
2.24
1.92
2. 21
1.74
1.87
2.01

2.73
3.16
2.85
2.00
1.95
2.07
2.12
1.60
2.23
2. 25
1.90
2.16
1.75
1.88
1.97

2.72
3.14
2.86
2.00
1.93
2.05
2.11
1.60
2.22
2. 24
1.89
2.16
1.73
1.87
1.94

2. 70
3.11
2.84
1.98
1.91
2.02
2.10
1.59
2. 21
2.24
1.87
2.13
1.72
1.86
1.89

2.69
3.08
2.83
1.98
1.90
2. 01
2.10
1.59
2. 21
2.24
1.87
2.17
1.73
1.82
1.87

2.69
3.06
2.82
1.97
1.89
2. 01
2.06
1.54
2.19
2. 21
1.88
2.23
1.72
1.84
1.88

2.63
2.96
2. 76
1.91
1.83
1.95
2.02
1.49
2.13
2.16
1.79
2.05
1.62
1.78
1.86

2.51
2.79
2.66
1.82
1.75
1.88
1.94
1.40
2.06
2.09
1.71
1.94
1.55
1.69
1.77

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

160
T able

C -l.

Gross hours and èarnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade—Continued
Retail trade—Continued

$99. 01 $94. 98 $94.08 $95. 20 $94. 53 $95.16 $93. 27 $91. 30 $90.92 $90 68 $89 54 $91 33 $90 46
98. 75 94.85 93.94 95.31 93. 36 93.60 92. 58 90.48 90 09 89 01 89 24 89 62 89 27
51.13 49.86 50.16 50 28 51. 70 51.21 50 Ofi 49. 32 48 84 48. 80 48. 22 48 62 47 60
89. 44 89.15 88. 76 88. 65 89. 65 90. 27 88 93 87. 02 87 25 86. 07 85.67 86.33 85.63

Building materials and farm equip-

86 58
83.23

96. 64 97.06 97.29 98 05 97. 48 97.06 96. 41 94. 39 93. 56 92 51 92 OS 92.1C 91 54 88 41
113.55 113. 70 112.44 111. 45 113.10 115.48 114. 48 111. 57 110.99 108 45 107. 02 108 12 108 97 105 75
97.20 96.08 95.44 95.67 95.91 95.04 94.61 92. 44 92. 66 92.44 91.37 90. 48 89.38 85. 70
66.59 65. 66 65.13 65.96 67.94 67. 55 65. 43 63. 22 63 22 62 75 62 89 62 79 63 14 61 60
111. 30 113. 05 106.45 104.55 100.85 103.22 102. 50 101. 71 105. 32 104. 49 111. 71 107 43 101 28 96 05

Other automotive & accessory dealers.

Finance, insurance, and real estate_______ $100. 27

Fire, marine, and casualty insurance ..

99.16
88. 06
91.99
90.90
156. 67
104. 62
106.14
89. 67
106. 78

98. 42
87.08
90.88
90.04
153.20
104. 25
105. 41
88. 81
106. 03

98.69
87. 56
91.61
91.63
151. 55
103. 79
104. 68
88.93
106. 22

97.31
86. 35
90. 51
90.28
149.97
103. 04
103 94
89.17
105. 46

96.83
86 44
90 24
89. 78
149. 65
10 ’. 67
103 94
88.70
104.60

97.20
86. 30
90 62
92.12
154.22
103. 04
104 03
89! 92
104.71

96.20
85. 47
88 40
88. 56
152. 76
102. 77
103 66
88 45
104.43

96.20
85. 47
88 64
89. 28
149. 71
102. 49
103 66
89’ 30
103.88

95.83
85. 93
89 25
90. 38
148. 58
102. 58
103 OQ
89 67
104.63

95. 35
84 82
88 50
88. 30
143. 64
102 12
102 4Q
90 65
103.60

94.98
85 19
88 60
89. 89
138. 76
102 67
102 4Q
90! 27
104. 71

94. 61 92.50 88. 91
85 04 82 21 79 24
89 44 85 96 84 29
91. 96 87. 05 84. 67
137. 63 138. 38 127. 43
100 74 99 32 95 86
100 08 99 19 95 27
90 27 89 41 85. 38
103. 57 101.68 97.92

Average weekly hours
Furniture and home furnishings stores.

Building materials and farm equipm ent_________________________
Other automotive & accessory dealers.
Fuel and ice dealers!_____________
Finance, insurance, and real estate... ____
Banking__ ___ __________________
Credit rgencies other than banks_______
Savings and loan associations________
Security, commodity brokers & services..
Insurance carriers. _________________
Life insurance
. ________________
Accident and health insurance. . __
Fire, marine, and casualty insurance...

37.0

39.3
39.5
33.2
39.4

38.3
38.4
32.8
39.1

38.4
38.5
33.0
39.1

38.7
38.9
33 3
39.4

38.9
38.9
34. 7
40.2

39.0
39.0
34.6
40.3

38.7
38. 9
33. 6
39. 7

38.2
38. 5
33 1
39. 2

38.2
38. 5
33. 0
39.3

38.1
38. 2
33 2
39.3

38.1
38. 3
33.1
39.3

38.7
38. 8
33. 3
39. 6

39.5
39. 5
34. 0
40.2

39.9
39.9
35. 2
40.8

41.3
41.9
43.2
34.5
42.0

41.3
41.8
42.7
33.5
42.5

41.4
41.8
42.8
33.4
41.1

41.9
41.9
42.9
34.0
41.0

42.2
42.2
43.4
35.2
40.5

42.2
42.3
43.2
35.0
40.8

42.1
42.4
43.2
33. 9
41.0

41.4
42.1
42.6
33.1
40.2

41.4
42.2
42.9
33.1
41.3

41.3
42.2
43.4
33.2
41.3

40.9
42.3
43.1
33.1
43.3

41.3
42,4
43.5
33.4
42.8

41.8
42.9
43.6
34.5
42.2

42.1
43.7
43.5
35.4
42.5

37.0
37.0
37.7
37.1
38.4
37.1
36.6
36.9
37.6

37.0
36.9
37.4
36.9
38.3
37.1
36.6
36.7
37.6

37.1
37.1
37.7
37.4
37. 7
37.2
36.6
36.9
37.8

37.0
36.9
37.4
37.0
37.4
37.2
36.6
37.0
37.8

37.1
37.1
37.6
37.1
37.6
37.2
36.6
36.5
37.9

37.1
37.2
37.6
37.6
37.8
37.2
36. 5
36.7
37.8

37.0
37.0
37.3
36.9
38.0
37.1
36. 5
36.7
37.7

37.0
37.0
37.4
37.2
37.9
37.0
36.5
36.9
37.5

37.0
37.2
37.5
37. 5
38.0
36.9
36.3
36.9
37.5

37.1
37.2
37.5
37.1
37.8
37.0
36.7
37.0
37.4

37.1
37.2
37.7
37.3
37.3
37.2
36.7
37.3
37.8

37.1
37.3
37.9
38.0
36.8
36.9
36.0
37.3
37.8

37.3
37.2
37.7
37.2
37.3
37.2
36.6
37.1
37.8

37.2
37.2
37.8
37.3
37.7
37.3
36.5
36.8
381

Average hourly earnings
Furniture and home furnishings stores .
Furniture and home furnishings
Eating and drinking places 5. __ .. ...
Other retail trade ..." . . . .
Building materials and farm equipm ent_________________________
Motor vehicle dealers__ ______ .
Other automotive & accessory dealers.
Drug stores and proprietary stores
Fuel and ice dealers! ____________
Finance, insurance, and real estate_______
Banking. ___ _ . . .
Credit agencies other than banks.
Security, commodity brokers & services.
Insurance carriers. .
Life insurance_______
Accident and health insurance_______
Fire, marine, and casualty insurance ..

See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2. 71

$2.52
2.50
1.54
2. 27

$2.48
2. 47
1. 52
2.28

$2. 45
2.44
1.52
2.27

$2.46
2. 45
1.51
2.25

$2.43
2.40
1.49
2.23

$2.44
2.40
1.48
2.24

$2.41
2.38
1.49
2.24

$2.39
2.35
1.49
2. 22

$2.38
2.34
1.48
2.22

$2.38
2.33
1.47
2.19

$2.35
2. 33
1.46
2.18

$2. 36
2. 31
1. 46
2.18

$2.29
2.26
1.40
2.13

$2. 21
2.17
1.30
2. 04

2. 34
2. 71
2.25
1.93
2.65

2. 35
2. 72
2.25
1.96
2.66

2.35
2.69
2.23
1.95
2.59

2. 34
2.66
2.23
1.94
2.55

2.31
2. 68
2.21
1.93
2.49

2.30
2.73
2.20
1.93
2. 53

2.29
2. 70
2.19
1.93
2.50

2.28
2. 65
2.17
1.91
2. 53

2.26
2. 63
2.16
1.91
2.55

2.24
2. 57
2.13
1.89
2.53

2. 25
2. 53
2.12
1.90
2.58

2. 23
2. 55
2.08
1.88
2. 51

2.19
2. 54
2.05
1.83
2. 40

2.10
2.42
1.97
1.74
2.26

2.68
2.38
2.44
2.45
4.08
2.82
2.90
2.43
2.84

2. 66
2. 36
2.43
2. 44
4.00
2.81
2.88
2. 42
2.82

2.66
2.36
2.43
2.45
4.02
2.79
2.86
2.41
2.81

2.63
2.34
2.42
2.44
4. 01
2. 77
2.84
2. 41
2.79

2.61
2.33
2.40
2.42
3.98
2.76
2.84
2.43
2.76

2.62
2. 32
2.41
2. 45
4.08
2.77
2.85
2. 45
2.77

2.60
2. 31
2.37
2. 40
4.02
2. 77
2.84
2.41
2. 77

2.60
2. 31
2. 37
2.40
3.95
2.77
2. 84
2.42
2. 77

2.59
2. 31
2.38
2. 41
3.91
2.78
2. 84
2. 43
2.79

2.57
2.28
2. 36
2.38
3.80
2.76
2. 82
2. 45
2. 77

2. 56
2.29
2. 35
2. 41
3. 72
2. 76
2.82
2. 42
2.77

2. 55
2.28
2. 36
2.42
3.74
2. 73
2. 78
2. 42
2. 74

2.48
2. 21
2.28
2.34
3.71
2.67
2.71
2.41
2.69

2.39
2.13
2.23
2. 27
3.38
2. 57
2. 61
2. 32
2. 57

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l.

161

Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Average weekly earnings
Services:
Hotels and other lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels 6___
Personal services:
Laundries and drycleaning plants____
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming & distributing. __

$57.83 $56.76 $57. 04 $56. 68 $57.22 $56.92 $56.36 $56.42 $55.85 $56.15 $56.00 $55.05 $53.34 $51.54
65.86

65.67

66.20

65. 63

65.25

65.42

65.77

64. 53

64.13

63.24

62.02

62.79

61.12

58.98

159.19 161.58 160. 74 159. 56 163.18 163.96 162.38 155.16 154. 77 150.91 160.24 162.89 157. 77 148.08
Average weekly hours

Services:
Hotels and other lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels 3___
Personal services:
Laundries and drycleaning plants____
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming & distributing.

35.7

35.7

36.1

36.1

37.4

37.2

36.6

36.4

36.5

36.7

36.6

36.7

37.3

37.9

37.0

37.1

37.4

37.5

37.5

37.6

37.8

37.3

37.5

37.2

36.7

37.6

38.2

38.8

40.2

40.7

40.9

40.6

41.0

41.3

40.8

40.3

40.2

39.3

41.3

42.2

41.3

39.7

$1.36

Average hourly earnings
Services:
Hotels and other lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and m otels5___
Personal services:
Laundries and drycleaning plants____
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming & distributing..

$1.62

$1.59

1.78

1.77

3.96

3.97

$1.58 - $1. 57

$1.53

$1.53

$1.54

$1.55

$1.53

$1.53

$1.53

$1.50

$1.43

1.77

1. 75

1.74

1.74

1.74

1.73

1.71

1.70

1.69

1.67

1.60

1.52

3.93

3. 93

3.98

3.97

3.98

3.85

3.85

3.84

3.88

3.86

3.82

3.73

1For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967 see footnote 1, table A-9. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table
A-10.
2Preliminary.
3Based upon monthly data summarized in the M-300 report by the Inter­
state Commerce Commission, which relate to all employees who received
pay during the month, except executives, officials, and staff assistants (ICC
Group I). Beginning January 1965, data relate to railroads with operating
revenues of $5,000,000 or more.


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

4Data relate to nonsupervisory employees except messengers.
5Money payments only, tips not included.
6Data for nonoffice salesmen excluded from all series in this division.
So u r c e : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all
series except that for Class I railroads. (See footnote 3.)

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

162
T able

C-2.

Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on
private nonagricultural payrolls in current and 1957-59 dollars 1
1966

1967

Annual
average

Item
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1966

1965

Total private
Gross average weekly earnings:
Current dollars, ____________________ $103.90 $103. 63 $103.25 $104.06 $103.45 $103.18 $101.88 $100. 06 $99.41 $99. 56 $99.30 $99. 70 $99.97 $98. 69 $95. 06
87.90 87. 97 87.87 88.86 88.49 88.57 87.83 86.56 86.22 86. 57 86.50 86.92 87.16 87. 26 86.50
1957-59 dollars______________________
Spendable average weekly earnings:
Worker with no dependents:
84.95 84.74 84.45 85.07 84. 61 84.40 83.42 82.04 81.54 81.66 81.46 81. 76 82.17 81.19 78.99
Current d o llars..--------------------------1957-59 dollars_____________________ 71.87 71.94 71.87 72. 65 72.38 72. 45 71.91 70.97 70.72 71. 01 70.96 71.28 71.64 71.79 71.87
Worker with 3 dependents:
Current dollars. __________________ 92.50 92.29 91.99 92.63 92.15 91.93 90.90 89.45 88.93 89.05 88.84 89.16 89.58 88. 55 86.30
1957-59 dollars_____________________ 78. 26 78.34 78. 29 79.10 78.83 78.91 78.36 77.38 77.13 77.43 77.39 77.73 78.10 78.29 78.53
Manufacturing
Gross average weekly earnings:
Current dollars______________________ 119. 60 117. 50 116.28 116. 57 114. 77 113.65 114.49 113.52 112. 56 112.44 111.88 113.42 114.40 112.34 107. 53
1957-59 dollars______________________ 101.18 99. 75 98.96 99. 55 98.18 97. 55 98. 70 98.20 97.62 97. 77 97.46 98.88 99. 74 99.33 97.84
Spendable average weekly earnings:
Worker with no dependents:
Current dollars
.
. . . . ____ _ 96. 85 95.26 94.33 94.55 93.19 92. 34 92.97 92.24 91.51 91.42 91.00 92.16 93.13 91 57 89.08
1957-59 dollars.------------------------------- 81.94 80.87 80. 28 80.74 79. 72 79. 26 80.15 79. 79 79.37 79.50 79.27 80.35 81.19 80.96 81.06
Worker with 3 dependents:
Current dollars____________________ 105. 04 103. 35 102. 37 102. 61 101.16 100. 27 100.93 100.16 99. 40 99.30 98.86 100.08 101. 09 99.45 96.78
1957-59 dollars_____________________ 88.87 87.73 87.12 87.63 86.54 86.07 87.01 86.64 86.21 86.35 86.11 87.25 88.13 87.93 88.06
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, see footnote 1, table A-9. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table
A-10.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly
earnings as published in table C -l less the estimated amount of the workers’
Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax
liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as
well as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been com­

T able

puted for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with no dependents and
(2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes
in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
2 Preliminary.
N o t e : These series are described in “The Calculation and Uses of Spend­
able Earnings Series,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1966, pp. 406-410.

C-3. Average weekly hours, seasonally adjusted, of production workers in selected industries 1
1967

1968
Industry division and group

Mining------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

42.4

43.5

42.3

42.8

42.8

43.2

42.3

July

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

May

Apr.

42.2

42.0

42.7

42.4

42.2

42.6

37.4

36.4

37.4

37.4

37.6

38.2

June

_________

35.7

37.3

39.4

37.1

38.3

37.5

37.5

M anufacturing_____________________ _____________

40.5

40.8

40.8

40.7

40.8

40.7

40.4

40.3

40.3

40.5

40.4

40.3

41.0

Durable goods ____ ________________ ___ ____
Ordnance and a c c e s s o r i e s _. . . . ------Lumber and wood products.. ----------------------- . .
Furniture and fixtures__ ___________ _ _______ .
Stone, clay, and glass products.. _
Prim ary metal industries___ .. . . . ___ _ _ _ _
Fabricated metal products___ . . .
______ _
Machinery, except electrical______________________
Electrical equipment and supplies...
______
Transportation e q u ip m e n t..__ _ ______________
Instruments and related products.._ . . . . .
_ ...
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries... . . . _____

41.5
41.5
39.7
40.5
40.9
41.4
41.9
42.1
40.5
43.1
41.0
39.3

41.5
41.7
40.4
40.7
41.6
41.6
41.6
42.4
40.4
42.6
41.2
39.4

41.2
41.9
41.2
40.5
42.1
41.6
41.4
42.4
40.6
39.8
41.1
39.6

41.3
41.7
40.5
40.4
41.8
41.3
41.4
42.3
40.5
41.5
41.1
39.4

41.6
42.4
40.5
40.7
42.0
41.0
41.8
42.7
40.2
42.7
41.2
39.5

41.3
41.9
39.7
40.2
41.6
41.0
41.5
42.2
40.4
42.5
41.2
39.4

41.0
41.8
39.9
40.2
41.3
40.9
41.3
42.1
40.3
41.4
41.0
39.2

40.9
41.2
40.1
40.3
41.3
40.6
41.2
42.0
40.0
41.2
41.0
39.4

41.0
42.0
40.1
40.1
41.1
40.6
41.3
42.3
39.9
41.7
41.1
39.5

41.0
41.6
40.6
40.3
41.3
40.2
41.5
42.8
39.6
40.9
41.5
39.7

41.1
41.9
40.7
40.2
41.5
40.8
41.5
42.9
40.0
40.7
41.5
39.2

41.0
41.7
40.3
40.2
41.5
40.9
41.4
43.0
49.7
40.7
40.9
38.7

41.7
42.0
40.4
40.7
41.9
41.8
42.2
43. 5
40.7
41.6
41.8
40.0

Nondurable goods
.
. . . ______ _____ ___
Food and kindred products____
....
Tobacco manufactures_________ _______ . . . .
Textile mill products__ _ _____________ ______ _
Apparel and other textile products__
_ _ . . . ___
Paper and allied products... _______ . ..
Printing and publishing. _________ _________
Chemicals and allied products___
. . . . .........
Petroleum and coal products.. . . _________ .
Rubber and plastics products, nee. _ _______ ___
Leather and leather products..
. . . _____

39.3
40.5
38.1
41.1
34.9
42.6
37.7
41.4
43.0
41.2
37.6

39.8
40.7
36.8
41.7
36.2
43.0
38.0
41.7
42.0
41.3
38.4

40.1
40.8
38.8
41.5
36.3
42.8
38.2
41.9
43.1
41.8
39.5

39.7
40.7
39.0
41.3
35.8
42.8
38.0
41.5
43.0
41.9
38.7

39.9
41.0
38.0
41.4
36.3
42.8
38.3
41.5
42.4
41.9
38.9

39.7
40.8
38.9
41.0
35.8
42.6
38.3
41.5
43.1
42.0
38.3

39.6
40.6
38.4
40.6
35.9
42.7
38.3
41.5
42.8
40.6
38.4

39.5
41.0
39.0
40.4
35.7
42.6
38.3
41.3
42.6
41.2
37.9

39.5
40.6
38.3
40.5
35.9
42.5
38.3
41.2
42.6
40.9
37.7

39.8
40.8
39.4
40.8
36.2
42.5
38.6
41.5
42.6
41.1
37.7

39.5
41.1
38.2
40.2
35.5
42.8
38.5
41.6
43.0
41.0
37.0

39.5
41.0
38.2
40.2
¿5.6
42.8
38.6
41.4
42.6
40.9
37.1

40.0
41.1
38.7
40.9
36.6
43.2
38.8
41.8
42.0
41.5
38.3

36.2
40.2
34.9

36.3
40.2
35.1

36.5
40.3
35.2

36.3
40.3
35.1

36.7
40.3
35.4

36.7
40.5
35.5

36.7
40.5
35.4

36.7
40.5
35.4

36.3
40.3
35.2

36.4
40.4
35.1

36.6
40.5
35.3

36.6
40. 5
35.3

35.5

Contract construction _

...

Wholesale and retail trade. __
Wholesale trade______ . . .
Retail trad e.. . .
.....

_ _

______ ________
. . . . . . ______

1 For employees covered, see footnote 1, table A-10.
2 Preliminary.


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

36.8
40.7

N o t e : The seasonal adjustment method used is described in appendix A.
B L S Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458, 1966).

163

0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C-4.

Average hourly earnings excluding overtime of production workers in manufacturing, by
major industry group 1
Annual
average

1967

1968
Major industry group
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.2 Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

$2.82

$2.79

$2.76

$2. 74

$2.73

$2. 71

$2.71

$2.71

$2. 70

$2. 70

$2.69

$2.68

$2.67

$2.59

$2.51

Durable goods......................................... .
Ordnance and accessories......................
Lumber and wood products_________
Furniture and fixtures______________
Stone, clay, and glass products.......... .
Primary metal industries.......................
Fabricated metal products....................
Machinery, except electrical..... .............
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment................
Instruments and related products.........
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

2.99

2.96
3.16
2.33
2.30
2.75
3.30
2.92
3.10
2.77
3.38
2.81
2.35

2.93
3.15
2.34
2.28
2.76
3.29
2.89
3.09
2.74
3.34
2.78
2.29

2.90
3.13
2. 33
2.28
2.73
3.25
2.86
3.06
2.72
3. 31
2. 77
2. 27

2. 89
3.11
2.32
2. 28
2.71
3.25
2.86
3.05
2. 69
3. 29
2. 76
2.26

2.88
3.10
2.30
2.24
2.70
3.25
2.84
3.03
2. 70
3.28
2. 75
2. 26

2.88
3.10
2.30
2.23
2.69
3.22
2.84
3.03
2.71
3.28
2.75
2.28

2.88
3.09
2.29
2.23
2.68
3.20
2.83
3.02
2. 71
3.27
2. 74
2.27

2.87
3.07
2.25
2.24
2.68
3.19
2.84
3.01
2.69
3. 27
2. 73
2.26

2.86
3.08
2.24
2.22
2.67
3.18
2.83
3.00
2. 67
3.26
2.71
2.26

2.85
3.08
2.21
2.21
2.66
3.18
2.81
2.99
2.65
3.26
2.69
2.27

2.84
3.08
2.21
2.19
2.66
3.16
2.81
2.98
2. 64
3.25
2.69
2.26

2.84
3.08
2.18
2.18
2.65
3.16
2.80
2.98
2.61
3.26
2.67
2.25

2.76
3.05
2.15
2.11
2.59
3.13
2.73
2.90
2.54
3.15
2.61
2.14

2.67
3.03
2.07
2.03
2. 49
3.04
2.64
2.81
2.49
3.04
2.53
2.07

Nondurable goods.............................
Food and kindred products..........
Tobacco manufactures__________
Textile mill products.......................
Apparel and other textile products.
Paper and allied products.............
Printing and publishing________
Chemicals and allied products___
Petroleum and coal products____
Rubber and plastics products, nec.
Leather and leather products____

2.56

2.54
2.57
2.19
2.03
2.05
2.78
(3)
3.06
3.48
2.72
2.07

2.52
2.54
2.10
2.03
2.03
2.77
(3)
3.05
3.49
2.71
2.05

2.50
2.51
2.07
2.02
2. 02
2. 75
(3)
3.04
3.44
2. 70
2.04

2. 50
2. 50
2.12
2.00
2.03
2. 75
(2)
3.03
3. 43
2.68
2.04

2.47
2. 49
2.20
1.95
2.00
2.74
(3)
3. 01
3.41
2.63
2.02

2.47
2.50
2.33
1.94
1.98
2.73
(3)
3. 01
3. 45
2. 52
2.00

2. 46
2.51
2.32
1.94
1.98
2.70
(3)
2.99
3.42
2.52
2.02

2.46
2.52
2.32
1.94
1.97
2.68
(3)
2.97
3.44
2.52
2.02

2.46
2.53
2.31
1.94
1.97
2.67
(3)
2.94
3.43
2. 61
2.02

2.45
2.51
2.30
1.94
1.97
2.66
(3)
2.94
3.43
2.60
2.01

2.44
2.50
2.25
1.93
1.96
2. 66
(3)
2.94
3.41
2.59
1.98

2.42
2.48
2.17
1.93
1.91
2.65
(3)
2.94
3.38
2.59
1.95

2.35
2.40
2.15
1.87
1.85
2.59
(3)
2.87
3.29
2.54
1.89

2.27
2.33
2.06
1.78
1.80
2.50
(3)
2.79
3.18
2.49
1.84

Manufacturing

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, see footnote 1, table A-9. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table
A-10. Average hourly earnings excluding overtime are derived by assuming
that overtime hours are paid for at the rate of time and one-half.


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

2 Preliminary.
3 Not available because average overtime rates are significantly above time
and one-half. Inclusion of data for the group in the nondurable goods total
has little effect.

164
T able

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

C-5.

Average weekly overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by industry 1
1968

1967

Annual
average

Industry
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.
Manufacturing________________
Durable g o o d s . ___ ____________
Nondurable goods........... ..............

3.2
3.5
2.9

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

3.6
3. 9
3.3

3.4
3.5
3.3

3.5
3.7
3.4

3.7
3.9
3.6

3.4
3.5
3.3

3.2
3.3
3.1

3.3
3.4
3.1

3.2
3.3
3.0

3.1
3.2
2.9

3.2
3.4
3.0

3.2
3.4
2.9

3.4
3.7
3.0

3.9
4.3
3.4

3.6
3.9
3.2

4.0
3.9
3.4
4.2
3.5
3.7
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.0
3.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
1.9
3.3
2.4
5.3

4.1
4.3
2.4
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.3
3.4
3.5
2.8
3.4
4.4
4.7
4.5
2.2
3.6
2.3
6.3

4.0
4.0
3.3
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.5
3.2
4.5
4.4
4.4
2.7
3.6
2.4
6.8

4.4
4.2
3.4
4.9
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.4
4.2
4.3
3.6
4.9
4.0
4.3
2.5
3.9
2.4
7.8

3.8
3.6
3.7
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.0
3.0
3.6
3.1
2.9
.3.0
4.6
3.8
4.6
2.3
4.2
2.4
3.6
2.2
7.5

3.5
3.4
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.5
2.6
2.2
4.1
3.3
3.5
4.5
2.8
4.5
2.6
3.6
1.9
7.1

3.2
2.9
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.6
2.9
2.5
3.2
4.0
3.7
4.3
3.1
4.3
2.4
3.6
2.0
6.8

3.4
3.1
3.9
4.2
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.8
2.4
2.1
3.1
3.3
3.4
4.1
2.8
4.4
2.2
3.3
2.1
6.2

3.2
2.7
4.9
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.5
2.5
2.2
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.9
3.2
3.7
2.5
3.3
2.3
5.7

3.4
3.2
4.3
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.4
2.6
2.4
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.7
3.2
4.0
2.2
3.0
2.2
5.1

3.6
3.4
4.6
3.7
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
2.7
2.4
4.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.1
3.7
2.0
2.6
2.2
4.9

4.0
3.3
4.5
5.4
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.5
2.8
2.6
4.4
2.7
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.3
4.6

3.9
3.2
3.4
5.4
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.2
2.8
3.6
2.5
6.3

3.0
3.1
1.6
2.9
3.8
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
4.2
4.1
4.0
2.2
3.6
2.2
6.2

3.6
3.4
2.3
4.7
4.6
4.8
4.0
4.4
4.0
5.7
3.3
2.8
3.3
5.1
5.1
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.4
4.4
2.7
3.7
6.1
4.5
4.1
3.4
2.7
5.5
2.8

3.6
33
2.4
4.1
4.7
4.3
3.6
3.8
3.6
4.9
3.2
2.8
3.3
5.6
3.3
3.8
3.7
3.4
4.1
3.7
1.9
3.4
5.9
4.0
3.6
3.0
3.0
5.3
2.7

3.4
3.1
2.0
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.5
3.9
3.9
4.3
3.6
3.0
3.7
5.0
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.3
4.2
4.2
2.3
3.4
5.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.1
5.3
2.8

3.8
3.3
2.3
4.4
4.6
4.2
3.5
4.0
4.2
4.9
3.8
3.2
4.1
5.3
5.0
4.0
3.6
3.6
4.2
4.7
2.5
3.5
5.9
4.0
3.9
2.9
3.5
5.3
2.7

3.6
3.0
1.9
4.2
4.6
3.7
3.4
4.3
3.8
4.7
3.3
2.6
3.9
4.8
4.2
4.0
3.3
3.2
4.0
4.0
2.3
3.4
5.7
3.6
3.9
3.1
2.6
5.4
2.4

3.4
3.0
2.2
3.8
3.7
4.0
2.9
4.1
3.6
5.3
2.4
2.3
3.5
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.2
3.0
4.0
3.6
2.1
3.3
6.0
3.7
3.7
2.6
3.2
5.2
2.2

3.4
3.1
1.9
4.6
4.1
4.2
3.4
4.5
3.8
4.7
2.7
2.7
3.7
5.0
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
4.2
3.7
2.6
3.1
6.4
4.2
4.1
2.3
3.1
5.5
2.4

3.3
2.8
1.8
3.7
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.7
5.0
2.8
2.1
3.6
4.9
4.5
3.8
3.2
3.3
4.3
4.1
3.1
3.2
6.5
4.3
4.2
2.3
3.1
5.3
2.2

3.3
2.8
1.8
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.0
4.2
3.5
4.9
2.8
2.0
3.4
5.0
3.8
3.8
3.2
3.1
4.5
4.0
3.4
3.2
7.0
4.8
4.2
2.8
2.5
5.3
2.1

3.2
3.3
2.3
4.0
3.9
4.7
3.2
5.2
3.7
4.1
3.1
2.2
3.5
5.9
3.4
4.2
3.6
3.6
4.8
5.1
4.1
3.4
7.3
5.0
4.5
3.2
3.0
5.5
2.4

3.0
3.4
2.2
4.4
3.8
5.2
3.6
5.3
3.7
3.5
3.1
2.0
3.6
6.5
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.6
5.0
4.7
4.5
3.6
7.6
5.2
4.6
3.2
2.9
6.0
2.5

3.1
3.7
2.4
4.9
4.1
5.3
4.3
5.4
3.9
3.2
3.2
2.1
3.8
6.7
3.9
4.4
3.9
3.7
5.2
4.5
4.2
3.6
7.7
5.4
5.1
3.6
2.5
6.4
2.8

4.1
4.0
2.7
5.3
3.9
6.0
4.7
5.9
4.5
4.4
3.5
2.7
4.1
6.9
5.3
4.9
4.3
4.2
5.5
5.4
3.8
4.9
7.8
5.6
5.5
4.0
3.4
6.3
3.3

3.5
3.8
2.8
5.5
3.5
5.1
3.9
5.2
4.0
4.5
3.4
2.3
3.6
5.4
5.3
4.3
3.8
3.5
4.6
4.1
2.9
4.2
6.7
4.8
4.4
3.4
2.9
5.4
2.8

3.6
2.9
3.1
2.8
1.7
3.1
2.1
3.6
5.3
6.2
5.2
3.4
2.0
2.1
3.1
4.6

3.4
2.9
3.7
2.4
2.1
2.9
1.9
2.5
3.7
3.2
4.8
3.2
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.2

3.3
2.8
3.2
2.4
2.7
3.0
2.3
2.9
4.2
4.6
4.3
3.5
1.6
3.8
3.1
4.2

3.4
3.0
3.1
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.0
2.8
4.7
5.3
4.8
3.2
1.8
3.9
3.1
4.0

2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.5
1.7
2.6
4.2
4.4
4.7
3.0
1.9
3.9
2.7
3.6

3.0
2.7
2.9
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.8
2.2
3.9
3.7
4.4
3.4
2.0
3.2
2.9
4.1

2.9
2.7
2.5
2.1
1.6
2.7
1.9
2.3
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.4
2.2
3.7
3.0
4.7

2.9
2.8
2.2
2.1
1.0
2.6
1.7
1.9
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.5
2.3
3.2
3.0
4.5

3.1
3.1
1.7
2.1
.5
2.5
1.7
1.8
3.1
2.2
4.2
3.6
2.1
2.8
3.0
4.9

3.6
3.3
1.8
2.2
1.3
2.9
1.9
2.2
2.9
1.7
4.4
3.6
2.3
2.3
3.2
4.9

3.4
3.5
1.8
2.3
1.2
3.1
2.3
2.0
3.1
2.2
4.4
3.2
3.6
1.8
3.1
4.3

3.5
3.7
1.9
2.7
1.7
3.2
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.9
4.4
3.9
3.7
1.6
3.3
4.1

3.8
4.4
3.4
3.0
2.8
3.3
3.0
3.3
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.0
3.3
2.7
3.7
4.3

3.0
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.4
3.2
4.8
6.2
3.3
3.4
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.4

3.1
2.4
1.6
2.4
3.7
2.0
2.7
4.1
2.5
2.0
2.4
2.6
3.4

2.9
2.2
1.7
2.4
3.5
2.2
2.9
4.7
2.8
2.0
2.7
2.6
2.6

3.0
2.3
1.8
2.3
3.6
2.4
2.9
4.1
3.0
1.9
2.7
2.8
2.5

3.1
2.8
2.1
2.4
3.6
2.3
2.8
4.2
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.0

2.5
2.7
1.9
2.2
3.3
1.8
2.6
3.4
2.8
1.8
2.5
2.3
1.5

2.5
2.6
2.0
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.9
1.4

2.4
2.9
2.1
2.4
3.5
1.8
2.4
3.2
2.5
1.7
2.6
2.3
1.7 1

2.7
2.6
1.9
2.4
3.4
1.6
2.4
3.6
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.2
1.7

2.3
2.8
2.1
2.3
3.7
1.6
2.4
3.6
2.4
1.9
2.4
2.1
1.6

2.9
2.9
2.1
2.2
4.0
2.3
2.6
3.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.4

2.6
3.0
2.3
2.3
4.1
2.2
2.5
3.1
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.2 1

3.4
3.0
2.2
2.2
4.0
2.5
2.5
3.4
2.3
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.3

4.1
3.2
2.7
2.7
4.6
2.6
3.0
4.3
2.7
2.5
2.9
2.9
3.2

2.9
2.8
2.4
2.1
4.1
2.4
2.7
3.6
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.0

Durable goods
Ordnance and accessories______________ _____
Ammunition, except for small arms.......... ........
Sighting and fire control equipment_________
Other ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products______________ _
Sawmills and planing mills________________
Millwork, plywood, & related products_______
Wooden containers______________ ____ ____
Miscellaneous wood products_______________
Furniture and fixtures______________________
Household furniture______________________
Office furniture__________________________
Partitions and fixtures_____________ _______
Other furniture and fixtures__________ _____
Stone, clay, and glass products_______________
Flat glass________________________ _____ _
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown_______
Cement, hydraulic_______________________
Structural clay products.... ............................ .
Pottery and related products_______________
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products_______
Other stone & nonmetallic mineral
products______________________________
Primary metal industries______________ _____
Blast furnace and basic steel products_______
Iron and steel foundries_______________ ____
Nonferrous metals____________________ ___
Nonferrous rolling and drawing.........................
Nonferrous foundries_______________ ____ _
Miscellaneous primary metal products. _____
Fabricated metal products___________ ______ _
Metal cans_______________________________
Cutlery, handtools, and hardware___ ____ _
Plumbing and heating, except e lectric.._____
Fabricated structural metal products............
Screw machine products, bolts, etc__________
Metal stampings__________________ ______ _
Metal services, nec_______ ____ ____________
Miscellaneous fabricated wire products_______
Miscellaneous fabricated metal products........
Machinery, except electrical__________________
Engines and turbines________ _____ ________
Farm machinery_________________________
Construction and related machinery________
Metal working machinery__________________
Special industry machinery____ ___________
General industrial machinery______________
Office and computing machines.........................
Service industry machines__ ____ __________
Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical_____
Electrical equipment and supplies____________
Electrical test & distributing equip­
m ent__________________________________
Electrical industrial apparatus_____________
Household appliances_____________________
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_______
Radio and TV receiving equipment_________
Communication equipment________________
Electronic components and accessories_______
Mise, electrical equipment & supplies...............
Transportation equipment______ ____________
Motor vehicles and equipment______________
Aircraft and parts________________________
Ship and boat building and repairing_______
Railroad equipm ent______________________
Other transportation equipment____________
Instruments and related products____________
Engineering & scientific instrum ents________
Mechanical measuring & control de­
vices__________________________________
Optical and ophthalmic goods_______ ____ _
Ophthalmic goods__________________ ’ ___
Medical instruments and supplies___________
Photographic equipment and supplies_______
Watches, clocks, and watchcases___________
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries_______
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware________
Toys and sporting goods_________ _____ ___
Pens, pencils, office and art supplies_________
Costume Jewelry and notions______________
Other manufacturing industries..........
Musical instruments and parts......... ..............
See footnotes a t end of table.


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

165

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C-5.

Average weekly overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by
industry 1—Continued
Annual
average

1967

1968
Industry

_____
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Nondurable goods
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts .....-------------------Meat products___________________________
Dairy products------- ------- ----------------- ------Canned, cured, and frozen foods...... ............ .
Grain mill products. ..........................................
Bakery products--------------------------------------Sugar-------- ----------------------------- ------------ Confectionery and related products..................
Beverages________________________ ______
Misc. foods and kindred products----------------Tobacco manufacturers_______ ______________
Cigarettes----------------------------------------------Cigars__________________________________
Textile mill products-----------------------------------Weaving mills, cotton_____________________
Weaving mills, synthetics............... ............... .
Weaving and finishing mills, wool___________
Narrow fabric mills----------------------------------Knitting m ills____________________— ........
Textile finishing, except wool---------------------Floor covering m ills.............................................
Yarn and thread mills------- -----------------------Miscellaneous textile goods.----- ------------------Apparel and other textile products.____ ______
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats............... ..........
Men’s and boys’ furnishings............... ................
Women’s and misses’ outerwear_____________
Women’s and children’s undergarments..........
Hats, caps, and millinery__________ _______
Children’s outerwear---------- ----------- ----------Fur goods and miscellaneous apparel.................
Misc. fabricated textile products.......... ..............
Paper and allied products......................... ......... .
Paper and pulp mills____ _________________
Paperboard mills_________ _____— ..............
Misc. converted paper products.... .....................
Paperboard containers and boxes.____ ______
Printing and publishing............................... ..........
Newspapers----------- ------- ------ ------- -------- Periodicals__ _______ ____________________
Books................. ......................... ........ ..................
Commercial printing______________ ____ _
Blankbooks and bookbinding---------------------Other publishing & printing in d ................ ......
Chemicals and allied products_______________
Industrial chem icals.____ ________________
Plastics materials and synthetics--------------- D ru g s..-------------------------- ----------------------Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods_____________
Paints and allied products------- ------- ----------Agricultural chemicals______ _____ _ ______
Other chemicals products....................................
Petroleum and coal products..... ........ ......... ..........
Petroleum refining...............................................
Other petroleum and coal products__________
Rubber and plastics products, n e e ............... ......
Tires and inner tubes..........................................
Other rubber products______ _____ ______ _
Miscellaneous plastics products........ .............. .
Leather and leather products________________
Leather tanning and finishing______________
Footwear, except rubber_____________ _____
Other leather products_______________ ____ Handbags and personal leather goods. ...........

3.9
4.9
3.7
2.1
6.6
3.5
34
2.7
3.5
48
1.7
1.3
15
44
48
52
44
35
24
6.0
60
48
48
13
17
11
12
7
*7
13
27
S2
64
76
37
44
33
33
39
26
36
2K
31
30
32
3.0
27
28
2.3
3.5
2.9
2.7
2.2
4.5
4.2
7.4
3.3
3.6
2.3
4.2
2.1
2.1
2.3

3.9
4.7
3.7
2.3
6.6
4.0
4.2
2.9
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.2
1.9
4.3
4.6
5.0
4.2
3.5
2.7
5.6
6.4
4.4
4.7
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.6
.9
1.0
1.9
2.3
5.0
5.9
7.2
3.6
4.6
3.1
3.1
3.4
2.1
3.4
2.3
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
4.1
3.4
3.7
3.1
5.9
4.5
8.4
3.6
3.7
2.2
3.8
1.9
2.6
3.0

4.1
4.8
3.8
3.2
7.8
3.6
4.0
3.0
3.2
4.7
2.5
1.9
2.1
4.2
4.6
4.9
4.6
3.7
2.6
5.6
6.0
4.2
4.8
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
.8
1.0
1.7
2.4
5.3
6.0
7.4
3.8
5.1
3.1
2.7
4.7
2.1
3.7
2.4
2.9
3.0
3.4
2.7
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.8
3.1
4.3
3.2
7.8
4.7
9.2
3.8
3.6
2.1
4.0
1.8
2.2
2.2

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, see footnote 1, table A-9. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table
A-10.
These series cover premium overtime hours of production and related
workers during the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Over­
time hours are those paid for at premium rates because (1) they exceeded


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

4.7
5.5
4.1
4.3
7.7
3.9
4.3
3.7
3.5
4.8
2.3
1.5
2.5
4.1
4.3
4.8
4.7
3.0
2.7
5.3
5.9
4.1
5.0
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.7
2.9
5.5
6.5
7.4
3.9
5.1
3.4
2.9
5.2
2.4
4.1
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
2.7
2.4
3.3
3.6
4.0
3.3
4.3
3.0
8.7
4.9
8.9
4.1
3.9
2.0
3.9
1.7
2.1
2.2

4.2
4.6
4.2
3.4
7.9
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.9
4.5
1.7
1.8
1.0
3.9
4.2
4.3
5.0
3.1
2.7
4.3
6.0
3.6
4.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.4
2.5
5.0
6.0
7.2
3.5
4.5
3.1
2.5
4.4
3.5
3.5
2.6
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.8
2.5
8.1
4.5
7.6
3.9
3.7
2.1
3.3
2.0
2.0
1.9

4.3
4.7
4.7
3.2
7.6
3.9
4.0
2.8
4.4
4.5
2.4
3.9
.6
3.3
3.5
3.6
4.9
2.7
2.2
3.8
5.0
2.9
3.4
1.2
.8
.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.6
5.1
6.5
7.0
3.7
4.2
3.0
2.4
4.2
3.2
3.3
2.0
2.9
3.0
3.3
2.8
2.3
3.1
2.9
3.7
3.0
4.0
3.0
7.3
3.2
4.6
2.8
3.2
1.8
3.0
1.6
1.9
1.8

4.2
4.4
4.7
3.2
6.1
3.8
3.6
2.8
4.9
4.8
2.2
3.3
1.1
3.5
3.9
3.2
4.5
3.0
2.3
5.5
4.9
3.4
3.7
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.7
4.9
5.9
7.1
3.5
4.2
3.0
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.1
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.1
2.7
3.2
3.6
3.4
3.7
2.8
6.8
3.9
6.7
3.3
3.7
1.8
3.8
1.5
1.9
1.6

3.9
4.2
4.0
3.0
6.0
3.8
3.5
2.7
3.7
4.5
1.7
2.2
1.1
3.5
4.1
3.6
4.4
3.1
2.1
5.2
4.3
3.3
3.6
1.2
1.6
.9
1.2
1.0
.8
1.1
1.1
1.8
4.6
5.8
6.1
3.3
3.8
3.1
3.0
3.0
4.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.7
3.1
4.8
2.8
3.5
2.9
5.4
3.5
6.6
2.6
3.3
1.6
3.8
1.3
1.5
1.4

3.6
4.0
3.9
2.3
5.7
3.0
3.6
2.2
3.8
4.1
1.8
2.5
.9
3.4
4.4
3.4
3.9
2.8
1.9
5.0
3.3
3.0
3.6
1.2
1.4
.9
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.5
4.6
5.8
6.6
3.2
3.7
3.2
2.6
3.5
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.4
8.2
3.2
3.5
3.0
5.5
3.2
4.3
2.8
3.0
1.4
3.5
1.2
1.4
1.3

3.6
3.7
3.7
2.7
6.0
3.1
3.7
2.8
3.6
4.4
1.3
1.8
.9
3.3
4.4
3.2
3.5
2.8
1.9
4.7
3.3
2.8
3.5
1.3
1.5
.9
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.7
4.8
6.0
6.9
3.6
3.8
3.4
2.6
3.8
4.9
3.8
2.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.4
2.6
2.9
2.5
6.6
3.0
3.1
2.8
4.2
3.4
4.2
3.0
3.4
1.7
3.1
1.5
1.7
1.7

3.6
3.7
3.8
2.8
5.8
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
4.3
.9
1.0
.7
3.3
4.6
3.2
3.6
2.9
1.8
4.6
2.9
2.8
3.6
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.5
4.8
6.1
6.8
3.7
3.8
3.0
2.1
3.4
4.3
3.4
2.3
3.3
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.9
2.9
2.1
4.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.6
3.4
4.2
3.0
3.3
1.8
3.2
1.7
1.6
1.7

3.8
4.8
3.4
2.9
7.0
2.9
3.0
2.6
3.0
4.2
1.1
1.1
.6
3.5
4.6
3.5
4.0
3.5
1.8
4.4
3.5
3.3
4.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.5
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.9
4.0
3.1
2.0
3.7
4.5
3.5
2.8
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.3
3.2
2.7
2.1
4. 6
2.8
2.7
2.5
3.7
3.9
6.1
3.3
3.3
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.7
1.6

4.0
4.3
3.7
3.1
6.8
3.5
3.9
2.7
3.8
4.4
1.4
1.7
1.1
4.4
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.1
2.5
5.3
4.5
4.8
4.9
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.1
5.5
6.3
7.5
4.1
4.9
3.5
2.8
4.2
4.9
3.9
2.9
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.2
2.8
3.3
3.0
5.2
3.3
3.2
2.5
5.4
4.4
6.2
3.8
4.1
2.1
3. 5
1.9
2.3
2.2

3.8
4.2
3.6
2.9
6.6
3.3
4.0
2.4
3.3
4.3
1.1
.8
1.3
4.2
4.8
5.3
4.4
3.6
2.5
4.6
5.1
4.7
4.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.1
5.1
6.0
7.0
3.5
4. 5
3.1
2.4
3.8
4.2
3.4
2. 5
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.7
4.9
3.0
2.8
2.1
5.5
4.1
6.1
3.3
4.0
1.8
3.3
1. 6
2. 0
1.9

either the straight-time workday or workweek or (2) they occurred on week
ends or holidays or outside regularly scheduled hours. Hours for which
only shift differential, hazard, incentive, or other similar types of premiums
were paid are excluded.
2 Preliminary.

166

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T a b l e C -6 .

In d e x e s o f a g g re g a te w e e k ly m a n -h o u rs a n d p a y ro lls in in d u stria l a n d c o n str u c tio n
a c tiv itie s 1
[1957-59 = 100]
1968

1967

Annual
average

Activity
Jan.2 Dec.2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

Man-hours
Total________ _______ ____ ___________
Mining______________________________
Contract construction_________________
M anufacturing_______________________
Durable goods_________ _________ __
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products_________
Furniture and fix tu re s..________ . . .
Stone, clay, and glass products______
Prim ary metal industries___________
Fabricated metal products__________
Machinery, except electrical_________
Electrical equipment and supplies___
Transportation equipment. ________
Instruments and related products____
Misc. manufacturing industries______

108. 7
73. 1
89. 2
114. 0
120. 8
192. 2
86. 3
122. 9
100. 4
106. 3
123. 5
135. 3
141. 5
123. 5
128. 3
102. 0

114.5
76.6
106.8
117.8
123.6
191.1
90.8
129.3
106.8
107.2
126.7
134.6
144.9
126.3
130.8
108.7

116.0
78.0
119.8
117.2
121.7
188.7
93.9
125.6
109.8
105.8
124.4
135.4
143.7
115.2
129.7
116.9

115.4
78.2
122.6
115.9
119.3
185.9
94.8
125.7
109.0
102.6
122.1
131.0
141.2
111.5
128.6
117.4

116.8
79.1
127.1
116.8
120.0
184.8
95.2
124.3
110.1
104.6
123.1
135.9
138.3
111.6
128.8
115.4

116.5
81.1
130.1
115.7
118.9
179.5
95.7
123.0
111.2
106.3
123.2
134.9
138.7
105.4
128.5
112.7

113.8
84.3
127.8
112.7
117.3
174.1
95.0
116.3
109.7
107.3
120.0
134.9
133.8
106.5
126.4
104.6

114.8
83.0
120.2
115.4
121.0
171.5
97.1
120.5
109.6
110.2
124.8
138.2
134.6
115.0
129.1
110.4

111.7
80.0
110.4
113.5
119.9
171.6
91.6
117.3
106.0
109.1
122.3
138.5
136.1
115.3
128.0
108.6

110.5
79.2
104.7
113.2
119.1
169.5
90.8
117.7
104.5
108.7
121.3
140.4
136.4
111.0
129.4
107.5

110.2
77.1
97.1
114.3
120.6
170.4
90.1
120.1
102.5
111.3
122.0
142.2
141.4
112.1
130.6
106.0

109.4
76.7
92.5
114.1
120.5
168.6
88.4
121.1
100.1
112.5
122.5
141.6
143.2
112.1
128.7
103.7

112.3
79.1
99.1
116.4
123.4
168.1
89.4
123.1
103.0
116.0
125.6
143.5
147.3
116.0
131.0
105.2

115.9
82.2
114.7
117.8
124.2
144.9
97.4
127.7
111.2
116.9
126.1
139.0
145.8
116.7
127.7
113.4

109.3
83.0
110.5
110.4
114.3
113.3
97.0
119.5
108.3
113.3
117.2
123.6
125.7
107.1
112.7
109.4

Nondurable goods___________________
Food and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures................... .......
Textile mill products_______________
Apparel and other textile products___
Paper and allied products___ _______
Printing and publishing____________
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum and coal products. ......... .
Rubber and plastics products, nec___
Leather and leather products______ ...

105. 3
89. 9
80. 6
101. 5
108. 7
114. 1
114. 8
117. 0
81. 9
149. 3
94. 1

110.4
95.5
94.9
105.7
116.3
118.5
119.9
119.3
81.5
154.1
98.9

111.4
98.8
100.7
105.4
118.1
117.9
118.4
119.1
85.3
154.7
99.1

111.6
103.0
107.2
104.7
116.6
117.5
117.7
117.9
86.3
152.9
95.1

112.7
108.2
101.0
103.7
117.1
117.5
118.8
117.4
87.3
152.4
94.8

111.6
103.4
92.8
102.8
118.5
118.4
118.9
117.6
87.1
148.7
97.0

106.8
99.6
75.7
98.4
111.3
116.6
117.9
117.3
87.4
125.0
94.0

108.0
96.2
77.1
102.2
116.2
118.0
118.6
117.4
85.7
130.9
95.2

105.2
91.0
73.0
100.0
115.3
113.1
118.0
116.7
83.1
126.3
91.3

105.4
88.6
74.6
99.5
114.7
112.7
118.5
118.7
82.3
143.1
89.4

106.1
89.5
74.2
99.9
116.6
114.0
119.3
116.6
79.5
144.1
92.0

105.7
88.8
76.2
99.4
117.1
112.9
117.4
115.2
78.6
144.5
95.0

107.3
91.4
87.8
101.3
116.9
114.1
117.2
115.5
77.5
149.4
98.2

109.5
96.2
84.6
106.0
118.7
115.0
115.8
115.9
81.0
146.8
100.6

105.3
94.4
86.4
102.0
115.1
109.6
110.0
110.2
78.7
135.2
96.9

101.8
157.3
150.9

101.0
147.9
149.9

97.7
137.2
151.1

97.1
131.3
150.4

100.4
141.0
153.1

100.8
157.6
151.4

97.1
144.6
136.6

Payrolls
M ining.. . . .
Contract construction..
M anufacturing... . . .

96.6
135.5
158. 3

100.0
160.2
162.4

101.4
178.5
159.5

101.5
182.8
156.5

' For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to October
1967, see footnote 1, table A-9.
F o r m ining and m anufacturing, d ata refer to production and related


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

102.8
188.3
157.6

104.1
188.9
154.5

103.9
184.7
150.5

106.2
171. l|
153.8

workers and for contract construction, to construction workers, as defined
in footnote 1, table A-10.
2 Preliminary.

167

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES

D.—Consumer and Wholesale Prices
T able

D -l.

Consumer Price Index1—U .S . city average for urban wage earners and clerical workers,
all items, groups, subgroups, and special groups of items
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average

1967

1968
Group
Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1967

1966

All item s............. ...........
All items (1947-49=100).

118.6
145.5

118.2
145.0

117.8
144.5

117.5
144.2

117.1
143.7

116.9
143.4

116.5
142.9

116.0
142.3

115. 6
141.8

115.3
141.5

115.0
141.1

114.8
140.9

114.7
140.7

116.3
142.7

113.1
138.8

Food------------------------ ----------Food at home---------------------Cereals and bakery products.
Meats, poultry, and fish-----Dairy products-----------------Fruits and vegetables______
Other foods at home 2. .........
Food away from home-----------

117.0
113.8
118.3
111.6
118.5
124.1
101.9
132.9

116.2
112.9
118.4
111.2
118.1
119.6
102.2
132.4

115.6
112.3
118.4
111.4
117.8
116.7
101.5
132.0

115.7
112.6
118.2
112.3
117.9
115.3
102.3
131.4

115.9
112.9
118.4
113.4
117.3
115.6
102.4
130.8

116.6
113.9
118.4
113.1
116.6
122.7
102.6
130.3

116.0
113.3
118.2
112.3
116.4
124.4
100.2
129.7

115.1
112.3
118.3
111.6
116.3
119.9
100.0
129.1

113.9
110.9
118.8
108.5
115.9
116.4
100.7
128.7

113.7
110.8
118.5
109.0
115.7
114.2
101.4
128.3

114.2
111.5
118.6
110.0
115.7
115.2
102.3
127.7

114.2
111.7
118.5
110.7
116.1
114.2
102.5
127.4

114.7
112.3
118.8
110.3
116.4
115.3
104.9
127.0

115.2
112.3
118.5
111.2
116.7
117.5
101.9
129.6

114.2
112.6
115.8
114.1
111.8
117.6
103.9
123.2

Housing------ -------------------- ----------Shelter 3__________________________
Rent___________________________
Homeownership 4------------------------Fuel and utilities 5. ------- ----------------Fuel oil and coal-------------------------Gas and electricity----------------------Household furnishings and operation 6_

116.4
120.2
113.7
122.9
109.5
113.7
108.9
110.6

116.0
119.9
113.5
122.6
109.3
113.1
108.7
109.7

115.5
119.4
113.2
121.9
109.3
112.7
109.0
109.3

115.3
119.0
113.0
121.5
109.4
112.5
108.9
109.1

115.0
118.7
112.8
121.1
109.4
112.3
108.9
108.8

114.7
118.4
112.6
120.8
109.1
111.7
108.5
108.3

114.3
117.9
112.4
120.2
108.9
111.4
108.3
108.2

114.1
117.7
112.2
119.9
108.6
110.5
108.2
108.1

113.9
117.5
112.1
119.7
108.7
110.8
108.3
107.9

113.6
116.9
111.9
119.0
108.8

113.3
116.6
111.8
118.6
108.7

113.3
116.8
111 7
118.9
108.7

108.4
107.7

108.3
107.3

108.3
107.0

113.1
116.5
111.4
118.7
108.6
110.5
108.3
106.7

114.3
117.9
112.4
120.2
109.0
111.6
108.5
108.2

111.1
114.1
110.4
115.7
107.7
108.3
108.1
105.0

Apparel and upkeep 7.
M en’s and boys’__
Women’s and girls’.
Footwear-------------

115.9
116.3
111.4
128.1

116.8
116.8
113.6
127.9

116.6
116.6
113.5
127.6

116.0
116.1
112.7
127.1

115.1
115.5
126.4

113.8
114.5
108.8
126.0

113.7
113.9
109.2
125.4

113.9
114.1
109.7
125.4

113.8
114.0
109.6
125.2

113.0
113.5
108.4
124.9

112.6
112.7
108.2
124.2

111.9
111.8
107.3
123.4

111.3
111.6
106.4
122.9

114.0 | 109.6
114.3 110.3
109.9 105.1
125.5 119.6

T ransp o rtatio n .

118.7
116.6
135.5

117.9
115.8
134.9

118.3
116.2
134.6

117.7
115.7
133.0

116.8
114.8
133.0

116.4
114.4
132.8

116.2
114.1
132.7

115.7 , 115.5
113.7 113.6
132.2 130.9

115.1
113.2
130.6

114.2
112.2
130.5

113.8
111.8
130.0

113.4
111.4
129.8

115.9
113.9
132.1

112.7
111.0
125.8

Health and recreation------Medical care__________
Personal care--------------Reading and recreatio'n..
Other goods and services 1

127.1
141.2
117.6
122.7
121.9

126.6
140.4
117.2
122.2
121.4

126.2
139.7
116.9
122.0
121.0

125.5
139.0
116.5
121.4
120.3

124.9
138.5
116.4
120.5
119.7

124.2
137.5
116.1
120.0
118.8

123.6
136.9
115.5
119.8
117.8

123.2
136.3
115.3
119.7
116.9

122.8
135.7
115.0
119.6
116.7

122.6
135.1
114.9
119.4
116.6

122.2
134.6
114.4
118.9
116.4

121.8
133.6
114.1
118.6
116.3

121.4
132.9
113.8
118.5
116.2

123.8
136.7
115.5
120.1
118.2

119.0
127.7
112.2
117.1
114.9

Special groups:
All items less shelter..........
All items less food----------All items less medical care.

118.2
119.3
117.3

117.7
118.9
116.8

117.5
118.7
116.5

117.1
118.2
116.2

116.7
117.7
115.8

116.5
117.1
115.6

116.1
116.8
115.2

115.6
116.5
114.8

115.1
116.3
114.4

114.8
115.9
114.1

114.6
115.4
113.8

114.3
115.2
113.7

114.2
114.8
113.6

115.9
116.8
115.0

112.9
113.0
112.3

Commodities__
Nondurables
Durables 10___
Services 1112____

113.2
116.0
106.3
130.8

112.9
115.6
106.1
130.1

112.6
115.3
106.0
129.6

112.4
115.1
105.7
129.1

112.0
114.9
104.8
128.7

111.9
114.8
104.7
128.2

111.5
114.3
104.4
127.7

111.0

113.8
104.1
127.4

110.5
113.2
103.9
127.0

110.2
113.0
103.4
126.6

110.0
112.9
102.9
126.3

109.9
112.7
102.8
125.9

109.9
112.7
102.7
125.5

111.2
114.0
104.3
127.7

109.2
111.8
102.7
122.3

Commodities less food _______________
Non durables less food_______ _____ _
Apparel commodities________ ____ Apparel commodities less footwear.
Nondurables less food and apparel___
New cars_________________________
Used cars_________________________
Household durables 13______________
Housefurnishings______ ___________

111.2
115.1
114.8
112.2
115.3
101.0
125.8
99.6
102.6

111.1

111. 1
115.2
115.7
113.4
114.8
101.4
125.6
98.8
101.8

110.6
114.5
115.1
112.7
114.2
101.1
126.0
98.7
101.5

110.0
114.1
114.1
111.7
114.1
96.1
126.2
98.4
101.2

109.4
113.2
112.7
110.0
113.4
96.9
125.2
98.2
100.8

109.1
112.8
112.6
110.0
113.0
97.0
124.8
98.1
100.8

108.9
112.7
112.8
110.3
112.7
96.8
122.4
98.0
100.7

108.7
112.7
112.7
110.2
112.6
96.9
121.4
98.1
100.6

108.4
112.4
111.9
109.4
112.7
97.0
118.8
98.0
100.6

107.8
111.8
111.5
109.0
112.0
97.2
115.9
97.8
100.3

107.6
111.5
110.7
108.2
111.9
97.3
114.0
97.7
100.0

107.3

115.2
115.9
113.5
114.7
101.3
124.8
99.1
102.1

110.1
107.6
111.6
97.6
113.0
97.6
99.7

109.2
113.1
113.0
110.5
113.1
98.1
121.5
98.2
100.8

106.5
109.7
108.5
106.3
110.3
97.2
117.8
96.8
98.8

Services less r e n t11_________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services.......
Medical care services______
Other services 14___ ____ _

134.6
129.9
131.5
151.4
134.8

133.8
129.1
130.4
150.4
134.3

133.2
128.6
130.0
149.6
133.9

132.7
128.4
129.2
148.7
133.1

132.3
128.1
128.9
148.0
132.4

131.7
127.5
128.8
146.7
131.9

131.2
127.0
128.3
146.0
131.6

130.8
126.7
128.1
145.2
131.3

130.4
126.5
127.7
144.4
130.8

130.0
126.0
127.6
143.6
130.3

129.5
125.6
127.4
142.9
129.7

129.2
125.5
127.2
141.6
129.4

128.8
125.1
126.9
140.6
129.1

131.1
127.0
128.4
145.6
131.5

125.0
121.5
124.3
133.9
126.5

Private...........
Public______

111.1

1 The C P I measures the average change in prices of goods and services
purchased by urban wage-earner and clerical-worker families. Beginning
January 1964, the index structure was revised to reflect buying patterns of
wage earners and clerical workers in the 1960’s. The indexes shown here are
based on expenditures of all urban wage-earner and clerical-worker consumers,
including single workers living alone, as well as families of two or more
persons.
2 Includes eggs, fats and oils, sugar and sweets, nonalcoholic beverages, and
prepared and partially prepared foods.
3 Also includes hotel and motel room rates not shown separately.
4 Includes home purchase, mortgage interest, taxes, insurance, and main­
tenance and repairs.
5 Also includes telephone, water, and sewerage service not shown separately.
6 Includes housefurnishings and housekeeping supplies and services.
7 Includes dry cleaning and laundry of apparel, infants’ wear, sewing
materials, jewelry, and miscellaneous apparel, not shown separately.
8Includes tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and funeral, legal, and bank
service charges.
»Includes foods, paint, furnace filters, shrubbery, fuel oil, coal, household
textiles, housekeeping supplies, apparel, gasoline and motor oil, drugs and


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

111.0

111.1

111.1

111.0

pharm aceuticals, toilet goods, nondurable recreational goods, new spapers,
magazines, books, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages.
10 Includes home purchase, which was classified under services prior to
1964, building materials, furniture and bedding, floor coverings, household
appliances, dinnerw are, tablew are, cleaning equipm ent, power tools, lam ps,
Venetian blinds, hardw are, automobiles, tires, radios, television sets, tape
recorders, durable toys, and sports equipm ent.
11 Excludes home purchase costs which were classified under this heading
prior to 1964.
>2 Includes rent, mortgage interest, taxes and insurance on real property,
home m aintenance and repair services, gas, electricity, telephone, w ater,
sewerage service, household help, postage, lau n d ry and dry cleaning, furni­
ture and apparel repair a nd upkeep, m oving, auto repairs, auto insurance,
registration and license fees, parking and garage ren t, local tran sit, taxicab,
airplane, train, and bus fares, professional medical services, hospital services,
health insurance, barber and beauty shop services, movies, fees for sports,
television repairs, and funeral, bank, and legal services.

'3 Does not include auto parts, durable toys, and sports equipment.
14 Includes the services components of apparel, personal care, reading and
recreation, and other goods and services.

168

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

T able D-2. Consumer Price Index 1—U.S. city average for urban wage earners and clerical workers,
selected groups, subgroups, and special groups of items, seasonally adjusted 2
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
Group

F o o d ...____________ ____
Food at home__________
Meats, poultry, and fish.
Dairy products_______
Fruits and vegetables__
Other foods at home___

1968

1967

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

117.2
114.1
111.9
117.9
127.0

116.5
113.4

116.1
112.9
111.3
117.0

115.8
112.7

115.6
112.5

115.8
112.9

115. 0

115.3

112.0
112.2

112.6

113.9
110.9

114.3

116.3

114.0
111.4
110.4
115.9
114 4
102.3

114.9
112.5
110.4
115.8
118.5
104.4

111.8

111.2

111.1

120.6

117. 0
116. 0

113.1
117.4
115.1
101.6

114.5
111.5
110.3
116. 6
113.5
101.7

109.5
113.9

109.3
113.7

108.8
112.4

108.8
112.4

108.7
110.3

108. 4 108. 7
109. 4 108. 9

108.2
108.3

112.1

110.0

111.6

110.4
115. 6
114.7

101.1

117.4
123.4
101.3

Fuel and utilities 3
Fuel oil and coal

109.1

109.0

109.1

111.8

109.4

111.2

112.1

112.8

109.5
113.8

Apparel and upkeep 4.
Men’s and boys’ . . .
Women’s and girls’.
Footwear________

116.6
116.8
112.5
128.4

116.2
116.1
127.5

115.9
115.7
112.3
127.2

115.4
115.6
111.5
126.8

114.9
115.3
110.7
126.5

114.3
115.0
109.6
126.3

114.2
114.4
109.7
125.8

113.9
114.2
109.8
125.3

113.7
114.0
109.6
125.2

113.1
113.6
108.7
124.8

112.9
113.2
108.6
124.3

107.9
123.5

111.9
111.9
107.5
123.0

Transportation.
Private..........

118.5
116.8

117.7
115.6

117.8
115.6

117.3
115.4

117.0
115.1

116.3
114.3

116.0
113.9

115.9
113.8

115.6
113.7

115.3
113.4

114.5
112. 7

114.3
112. 2

113.2
111.3

113.3
116. 2
106.4

112.8

115.6
105.9

112.5
115.4
105.6

112.3
115.0
105.5

112.0

114.7
105.1

114.6
104.9

111.8

111. 3
113.7
104.4

111.1

113.9
104.1

113.4
103.9

110.6

110.3
113.1
103.4

113.0
103.0

110.1

110.0

110.1

111.4
115.3
115.5
113.0
100.4
128.9

110.8

110. 7

110.4
114.2
114.3
111.9

110. 1

108.9

108.8

108.4
112.5

102.0

109.6
113.4
113.2
110.6
98.2
123.3

1Ò9. 2
113.0
113.2

102.8

114. 0
113. 9
111. 4
97. 9
125. 1
101. 2

101.1

108.0
112.0
111.9
109.4
97.1
117.9
100.2

107.9
111.8
111.3
108.9
96.9
117.2
100.2

107.4
111.1
110.8
108.4
96.9
115.1
100.0

Special groups:
Commodities .

N ondurables _

Durables 5__

Commodities less food ______________
Nondurables less food______________
Apparel commodities._____ ______
Apparel commodities less footwear.
New cars_________________________
Used cars___ _____________________
Housefurnishings____ ____ _________

121.1

100.9

112.6

114.9
115.1
112.6

100.3
124.3

114. 7
114. 8
112. 4
99. 8
124. 7
101. 7

1 See footnote 1, table D -l.
2 Beginning January 1966, seasonally adjusted national indexes were com­
puted for selected groups, subgroups, and special groups where there is a
significant seasonal pattern of price change. Previously published indexes
for the year 1965 have been adjusted. No seasonally adjusted indexes will be
shown for any of the individual metropolitan areas for which separate indexes
are published. Previously, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made
available only seasonal factors, rather than seasonally adjusted indexes le.g.,
Department of Labor Bulletin 1366, Seasonal Factors, Consumer Price Index:
Selected Series). The factors currently used were derived by the BLS

Errata: Table D -3.

117.3
120.5
101.1

100.4

124.8
101.5

117.1
119.7
101.3

116.6
102.5

101. 1

110.6

98.0
123.1
100.9

112.8

112.9
110.4
97.2
120.9
100.6

112.8
112.6
110.2

97.1
121.9
100.5

112.1

101.9

112.1

109.6
96.8
119.4
100.4

102.8

112.3
112.2

112.7
103.0

112.9
102.7

Seasonal Factor Method using data for 1956-66. These factors will be up­
dated at the end of each calendar year. A detailed description of the BLS
Seasonal Factor Method is provided in appendix A, B L S Handbook of Meth­
ods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458, 1966).
3 See footnote 5, table D -l.
4 See footnote 7, table D -l.
5 See footnote 10, table D -l.

Honolulu Consumer Price Index Corrected Indexes 1964-66

These indexes have been recaluclated to correct errors resulting from inappropriate application of
standard procedures for estimating price changes for some fresh fruits and vegetables which are not
available in adequate supplies in Honolulu. The sample of items has been revised to be more representa­
tive of Honolulu consumption and a more appropriate estimating technique has been adopted.
1964
All items
Average______
January______
February_________
March_____ _____
A pril____________
May_____________
June........................ ..........
Ju ly _____________________
August ____________
September.. . ________
October__________
November_________
December___________

100.2
1100.5
____

99.6
i 100. 2
4 101.0.

1 Indicates that the error was not large enough to change the originally published indexes.


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

1965
Food
100.7
4 99.8
i 100. 3
4 100. 5
100.5
100.5
100.3
100.6
101.0
100.-7
101.2
101.4
101.8

All items
102.0
4101. 5
101.4
102.1
103.7

1966
Food
102.8
102.2
102.9
102.8
102.1
101.3
102.7
103.0
102.5
102.6
103.1
103.8
105.1

All items
104.9
104.1
104.4
105.5
106.5

Food
106.3
105.4
105.7
105.5
105.8
105.7
105.6
105.8
106.0
106.8
107.7
108.1
107.4

169

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T a ble

D-3.

Consumer Price Index—U.S. and selected areas for urban wage earners and clerical
workers 1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average

1967

1968

194719=100

Area 2
Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Fob.

Jan.

1966

1965

Jan.
1968

All items
118.6

118.2

Atlanta, Ga
( 4)
Baltimore, M d—
-- -------- --(4)
---- 121.7
Boston, Mass— -- Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)___
(4)
Chicago, Ul.-Northwestern Ind----- 115.9
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky--------( 4)

116.8
117.4
(4)
(4)
115.8
116.0

U.S. city average3---------------------

(")
Cleveland, Ohio______
-- -- --(4)
Dallas T p y CNriv 1003—100)
(4)
(4)
116.6 116.4
Detroit, Mich—
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100). (4) 5109.7
Houston, Tex.-----------------— 116.7
( 4)
120.2
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas.. . . . — ( 4)
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif----Milwaukee, Wis________ ____ _ Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn--------NewYork,N.Y.-Northeastern N .J.
Philadelphia, P a.-N .J______ ___
Pittsburgh, P a _____________ ___
Portland, Oreg.-Wash. -----------St. Louis, M o.-Ill______ — ----San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)..
San Franciseo-Oakland,'Calif..- .
Scranton, Pa--------------- ------- —
Seattle, Wash _____ ____ ___
Washington, D .C .-M d.-V a___

120.5
( 4)

119.3
120.9
119.6
117.5
119.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

119.9
( 4)
( 4)

120.8
118.7

117.8

117.5

( 4)

( 4)

(4)
(4)
111.2
115.5

(4)
120.8
(4)
115.1

( 4)

( 4)

114.7
109.1
116.0
(4)
( 4)
( 4)

120.0
114. 5
( 4)

120.3
118.6

( 4)

118.4
120.2
118.3
115.5
119.4

118.9

( 4)

106.5

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

119.6
119.2
117.8

115.6

115.3

115.0

114.8

114.7

(4)
(4)
(4)
109.5
112.6

(4)
(4)
118.8
(4)
112.2

(4)
(4)
(4)
108.5
112.2

(4)
118.6
(4)
111.8

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

114.0
114.8
(4)
(4)
112.3
111.6

( 4)

(4)
110.4
114.5

114.8
115. 7
(4)
(4)
112.9
113.1

( 4)

( 4)

(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
115.0 114.7
<4) 5107. 5
114.3
( 4)
117.4
( 4)

111.8
107.5
114.5
(4)

(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
114.6 114.3
(4) 5106. 6
113.6
( 4)
117.9
( 4)

111.5
107.0
113.5
(4)

117.5

116.9
112.2

115.4

115.7
111.4

( 4)

118.3
113.6

( 4)

( 4)

116.0

(4)
(4)
119.9
(4)
113.7

119.1

118.9

( 4)

(4)

116.5

(4)

113.2
108.9
115.3
(4)

( 4)

( 4)

116.9

115.6
117.6
(4)
(4)
115.0
114.7

(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
115.5 115.3
(4) 5108.4
115.6
( 4)
120.1
( 4)

( 4)

121.3
(4)

117.1

(4)

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

115.6
119.1
116.7
115.0
118.2

117.7

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

119.7
117.9

( 4)

120.4

( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

119.4
117.4

105.9
118.7
118.2
117.3

( 4)

( 4)

117.3
( 4)
( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

116.3
( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

114.2
118 2
115.8
114.2
117.4

116.5

( 4)

( 4)

118.7
116.6

( 4)

118.4
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

118.4
116.0

104.1
117.1
116.8
115.7

( 4)
( 4)

118.2
115.5

( 4)
( 4)

( 4)

118.0
115.3

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

115.5

( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

117.1

( 4)

115.8
( 4)

113.4
117.5
115.0
114.0
117.1

103.7
( 4)

(4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

( 4)

116.3
115.9
115.1

109.9

145.5

108.1
109.6
113.2
103.5
107.6
107.2

(4)
(4)
150.8
146.1
(4)

109.7 106.9
(4)
105.0 101. 4
(4)
113.3 111.1 106.4
(4) 5104.9 5102.0
113.0 111.5 108.5
116.3 113.3
( 4)

( 4)
( 4)

(4)

113.1
111.5
113.4
117 0
107.0
110.7
110.3

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

114.7
110.6
112.2
116.0
113.7
113.0
115.3

112.5
108.2
109.5
112.2
110.6
110.2

113.5
102.1
115 6
114.9
114.1
113.3

109.9
100.1
112.7

(4)
143.8
143.8
( 4)

150.3
( 4)

147.6
145.7
146.9
144.8
148.4

111.8

( 4)

(4)

111.0

( 4)

111.0
109.6

( 4)
( 4)

Food
U.S. city average 3 ----------------- . 117.0

116.2

115.6

115.7

115.9

116.6

116.0

115.1

113.9

113.7

114.2

114.2

114.7

114.2

108.8

Atlanta, Ga____________________ 115.0
Baltimore, M d .. _____ . . . . . . _. 117.7
120.8
111.6
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963=100)...
Chicago, Ul.-Northwestern In d ---- 117.7
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.......... 113.2

114.3
116.9
119. 9
110.8
116.5
112.3

114.1
116.7
119. 7
109.9
116.4
112.0

115.0
117.6
120. 5
109.9
116.7
112.2

115.1
118.1
121.3
110.4
116.6
112.4

115.4
118.3
121. 1
111.3
117.7
114.4

114.4
117.6
120.1
111.1
116.4
115.2

114.3
115.5
119.0
110.6
114.5
113.7

113.6
114.9
118.3
108.9
113.9
111.9

112.9
114.8
117.7
108.9
113.1
111.3

113.6
114.9
118.4
109.4
114.1
111.4

113.5
115.2
118.2
109.3
114.7
111.2

114.1
115.3
119.0
109.7
114.1
111.5

112.9
115.9
117.0
108.8
114.6
111.8

107.4
109.3
112.5
104.1
108.8
106.2

—

—

113.1 112.2 112. 5 112.1 112.4 113.0 112.2 111.5 109.9 109.6 110.3 110.0 110.9 110 9 104.8
111 2 110.7 110. 0 110 2 110.0 110.8 110.2 109.4 108.4 107.9 108.9 109.8 110.5 110.0 103.9
115.5 115.4 114. 7 114.7 114.5 116.3 115.1 113.5 113.0 112.6 113.2 112.7 113.0 112.2 105.0
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963=100). 110.5 5109.6 5109.8 5110.0 «109.2 5108.7 5108.5 5107. 9 5107.4 5107.0 5107. 5 5107.1 5107.4 5106.3 5102.8
116. 7 116.1 115.9 116.1 116.2 116.1 115.9 115.0 114.2 115.5 115.7 116.0 116.6 115.4 109.2
120.0 119.5 118.9 118. 6 118.5 119.1 118.4 117.8 116.1 116.0 116.6 117.2 118.0 117.2 111.3
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif... . 116.2
115. 8
114.8
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn____
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J. 117.3
Philadelphia, P a .-N .J.. . . . . . . .. 116.8
113.4
116. 7

117.1
115.2
114.1
116.6
115.4
111.4

115.7
114. 7
113. 5
116.0
115.1
111. 7

115.2
115.2
113.4
116.1
115.3
111.8
115.2

115.1
114.9
113.1
116.2
116.5
112.0

114.6
116.5
114.3
117.2
115.9
113.1

114.3
113.1
116.5
114.7
112.9
115.9

112.3
115.5
114.5
111.6

121. 4

120.7

119.2

119.7

118.8

116.1

114. 4

115.2
116.8

115.2
117.8

120.0
109 1
116. 4
116.0
115.2
118.0

119.9

115! 4

119.0
108 fi
115. 7

115.4
116.3

114.4
115.7

Washington, D .C .-M d.-V a..

117! 2

116! 2

117.3
. . . | 117.4

116.6
116.7

115.1
114. 7
115.8
116.0

1 See footnote 1, table D -l. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in
prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in
another.
2 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban
portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960
Census of Population; except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used
for New York and Chicago.


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

113.6

112.4
113.5
111.8
114.3
113.3
109.1

112.4

112.5

112.2
114.4
113.0
109.5
114.1

112.5
114.9
113.1
109.7

117.4
106. 2

117.2

118.1

113.0

113.2

113.6
114.4

113.1
114.8

113.3
115.3

112.8
112.0

112.8
112.8
112.5
115.0
113.6
110.2
116.0

113.7

118.5
105.9
113.3

119.3

113.5
114.7

114.0
114.7

113.0
115. 5
113.7
111.3
115.7
114.4

112.1 112.6

113.3
114.0
112.4
115.1
113.1
111.8
114.7

110.7
107.7
107.1
109.8
107.2
107.5
109.5

117.8
106.5
114.2
112 8
114.1
114.0

111.5
102.7
110.2
107.7
110.3
108.4

__________
__________

3 Average of 56 “cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban
places) beginning January 1966.
4 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3
months on a rotating cycle for other areas.
3 Corrected index.

170

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968
T able

D-4.

Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]2
1968

1967

Annual
average

Commodity group
Jan.
All com m odities...______ ____________ ________ . .
Farm products and processed foods and feeds.
. _
Farm products _____________ _______________ . . .
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables_________ . . ..
Grains_______________________________
Livestock________________________
Live poultry___________________________________
Plant and animal fibers____________________ . .
Fluid milk_______________________ ___ _ _
Eggs---------------------------------------------------------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds__________ ...
Other farm products______________ . . .
Processed foods and feeds___________________ ...
Cereal and bakery products____________ . _
Meats, poultry, and fish____________________ . . .
Dairy products________________________ . _
Processed fruits and vegetables___________________
Sugar and confectionery............. ................................
Beverages and beverage materials__________ . . . .
Animal fats and oils_______________ . . .
Crude vegetable oils............... _. . ___
Refined vegetable oils_____________ . .
Vegetable oil end products__________________ _ .
Miscellaneous processed foods__
Manufactured animal feeds. ____________ . . _ . .
All commodities except farm products___ _ .
Industrial commodities____________ _ . .
Textile products and apparel_______
_.
Cotton products. ___________ .
Wool products.___ __________ _
Manmade fiber textile products.
Silk yarns___________ . . . . .
Apparel_____________
_.
Textile housefurnishings___________ _
Miscellaneous textile products_________
Hides, skins, leather, and related products..
Hides and skins__
Leather_________
Footwear. _____
Other leather and related products..
Fuels and related products, arid power.. _ .
Coal_________
C oke___
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958=100)_____ _ .
Electric power (Jan. 1958=100)___ ________ _____
Crude petroleum . _
Petroleum products, refined___
Chemicals and allied products..
Industrial chemicals..
Prepared paint___ ____
Paint materials_____ _
Drugs and pharmaceuticals_____ . ..
Fats and oils, inedible..
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products
Plastic resins and materials.
Other chemicals and allied products___
Rubber and rubber products
Crude rubber___
Tires and tubes.
Miscellaneous rubber products_____
Lumber and wood products
Lum ber______
Millwork. .
Plywood_______
Other wood products (Dec. 1966=100)
See footnotes at end of table.


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

Dee. Nov.

Oct. Sept. Aug.

107.2 106.8 106.2 106.1 106.2 106.1
105.3 104. f 103.4 104.1 105.5 105.2
99. C 98.9 : 96.4 97.1 98.4 99.2
108.1 105.0 102.9 91.6 92.2 96.6
85.0 85.4¡ 81.3 86.6 85.6 86.1
98.7 97.6 96.2 101.8 103.5 106.5
78.2 68.2 ! 65.6 73. Í 72.6 77.3
79.4 80.8 ¡ 74.9 72.4 72.4 71.4
124.0 124.3 123.6 123.5 123.7 120. S
73.8 90.9 80.7 76. i 93.1 82.1
112.9 112.7 109.9 108.5 109. C 111.6
101.7 101. Í 100.6 97.4 97.7 99.5
112.4 111.5 110.9 111.7 112.7 112.1
117.1 116.9 117. C 116.8 116.6 116.8
105.5 103.2 102.2 104.7 108.6 107.4
123.8 124.1 123. C 123. C 122.8 122.1
113.7 113.1 112. C 109.3 107.9 107.1
113.4 112.7 113.9 113. S 113.8 113.8
107.9 107.7 107.4 107.3 106.7 106.6
70.4 73.5 70.8 76.3 79.6 83.0
85.5 83.9 82.7 83.3 87. S 89.8
89.4 87.0 87.5 88.1 91.3 91.9
100.2 100.2 101.5 101.8 102.0 101 0
114.1 113.7 113.1 112.6 112.5 112.1
120.2 119.6 118.8 120.6 121.5 119.6
107.7 107.3 107.2 107.1 106.8
0)
107.8 107.4 107.1 106.8 106.5 106.3
104.3 103.8 103.0 102.2 102.0 101.7
105.2 104.2 101.2 99.1 99.2 98.8
102.3 102.2 102.2 102.8 102.7 102.9
89.3 88.6 88. 1 86.9 86.3 85.9
196.8 189.7 183.9 179. 5 175.7 172.6
108.3 108.1 108.0 107.5 107.4 107.3
110.6 109.8 107.3 107.4 106.8 105.3
112.4 114.0 114.5 115.9 115.6 116.0
116.5 116.0 115.4 114.8 114.4 114.4
87.3 89.7 90.4 86.8 93.2 86.8
108.6 109.1 106.5 104.7 105.3 109.2
125.6 124.3 123.7 123.6 121.8 121.2
112.2 111.5 111.9 111.9 111.8 112.5
101.8 102.6 102.8 103.0 104.5 104.7
105.0 104.9 104.8 103.8 104.1 103.0
112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0
130.0 133.1 132.8 132.7 132.6 132.0
101.0 100.9 100.9 100.8 100.7 100.5
99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0
98.8 99.9 100.4 101.0 103.9 104.6
98.2 98.4 98.2 98.2 97.9 98.0
98.5 98.3 98.3 98.3 97.1 97.1
113.2 112.2 109.9 109.9 109.9 108.8
91.5 91.3 91.4 91.0 90.6 90.7
92.9 93.8 93.7 93.6 93.5 93.6
76.4 77.2 77.9 78.5 77.1 77.2
99.5 102.2 101.7 101.6 101.2 101.8
86.6 86.6 86.3 86.1 87.7 89.5
108.6 108.5 108.6 108.8 108.7 108.7
99.5 99.2 99.1 98.8 98.2 97.8
83.6 83.7 83.8 84.2 83.9 84.8
98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7
106.5 105.9 105.6 104.8 103.7 102.3
108.6 107.6 106.7 107.3 108.7 106.1
114.0 111.8 110.9 111.2 112.0 109.0
113.9 113.7 113.5 113.4 113.1 112.6
89.8 90.2 87.8 90.2 95.7 90.9i
101.9 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.3 101.61

July June May Apr.

Mar. Feb.

106.5
107.3
102.8
107.9
92.6
107.4
91.9
70.9
121.3
86.0
117.1
99.7
113.1
116.9
109.9
122.0
107.0
113.7
106.4
77.4
86.8
88.3
101.3
113.1
123.2
106.8
106.0
101.5
98.9
103.3
85.5
168.4
107.1
105.3
117.1
115.2
93.4
109.5
121.4
112.9
103.9
103.0
112.0
131.8
100.6
98.4
103.3
98.3
97.2
108.8
90.9
94.1
77.1
103.5
90.0
108.7
95.8
85.7
94.0
101.6
105.3
108.3
112.1
89.4
102.0

105.7
104.6
99.6
98.4
99.9
97.4
90.8
70.3
119.0
90.8
120.5
99.5
110.6
117.5
101.7
120.7
104.2
112.5
105.6
89.6
94.2
96.9
101.8
112.0
124.8
106.3
106.0
101.8
101.3
104.0
86.9
164.1
106.0
105.1
120.8
116.9
98.9
114.6
121.7
114.4
103.7
102.2
112.0
134.6
100.6
98.3
102.4
98.5
97.0
108.8
90.8
94.4
81.5
105.9
90.3
107.8
95.9
86.5
94.9
100.9
103.6
106.0
111.2
87.7
102.0

106.3 105.8
106.8 105.0
102.4 100.7
114.3 104.4
96.1 98.0
104.9 102.6
85.7 85.6
70.9 69.9
121.3 120.9
76. C 74.5
116.6 117.8
100.2 99.9
112.6 110.7
117.2 117.4
108.3 103.8
122.2 120.8
106.5 105.1
112.7 112.0
106.3 106.0
82.4 89.8
91.7 93.9
93.5 96. 6
101.6 101.6
112.6 112.4
122.4 118.7
106.7 106.4
106.0 106.0
101.6 101.6
99.7 100.3
103.2 103.1
85.8 86.3
167.0 167.0
106.7 106.3
105.3 105. 5
118.0 118.5
115.6 115.2
95.8 87.2
110.2 110.9
121.5 121.4
113.3 114.3
104.0 104.4
102.4 102.6
112.0 112.0
134.3 135.0
100.5 100.-6
98.3 98.3
103.1 103.7
98.5 98.8
97.2 97.5
108.8 108.8
91.0 91.0
94.1 94.1
79.5 82.9
105.1 105.2
90.3 90. 7
108.5 108.7
95.8 95.8
86.2 85.9
94.0 94.0
101.5 101. 5
104.7 104.2
108.0 107.0
111.7 111.7
87.6 87.5
102.0 102.0

105.3
103.4
97.6
99.6
98.3
94.0
89.0
69.9
119.1
77.0
118.4
99.2
110.0
117.2
100.6
120.1
104.3
111.8
105.9
91.5
93.8
96.8
101.6
112.9
122.9
106.2
106.0
101.8
100.8
102.9
86.8
164.5
106.2
105.2
119.4
115.7
88.3
112.9
121.5
114.5
103.3
102.7
112.0
134.8
100.6
98.3
101.7
98.8
97.6
108.8
91.2
94.0
85.3
105.2
90.4
108.6
95.9
86.5
94.0
101.5
104.1
106.6
111.6
87.9
102.0

106.0
105.7
101.0
104.5
95.8
99.5
97.1
70.2
122.9
84.0
120.3
100.5
111.7
117.3
104.7
121.2
104.3
112.6
105.9
92.0
94.1
96.7
103.5
111.5
125.9
106.5
106.0
102.0
101.8
104.7
87.1
164.1
105.9
105.3
121.0
118.0
107.8
116.3
121.6
114.6
103.4
102.3
112.0
134.5
100.6
98.2
101.9
98.5
96.9
108.7
90.8
94.2
89.1
105.4
90.5
107.6
95.8
87.1
94.9
100.4
103.6
105.4
111.1
89.2
102.0

Jan.

1966

1965

106.2
107.0
102.6
101.8
100.7
101.4
88.1
70.8
123.4
100.0
123.5
99.6
112.8
117.6
105.4
121.8
105.9
113.0
105.8
94.9
94.1
93.0
106.3
112.6
132.1
106.5
105.8
102.0
102.5
104.7
87.1
166.1
105.7
105.3
120.5
117.9
110.1
116.9
120.9
114.5
102.6
102.3
112.0
134.6
100.6
98.2
100.3
98.4
96.6
108.7
90.6
94.7
92.3
104.2
90.3
107.4
95.6
87.6
94.9
99.7
102.6
104.5
110.3
87.3
102.0

105.9
108.9
105.6
102.5
97.3
110.0
91.4
82.3
117.6
107.9
122.9
101.5
113.0
115.4
110.2
118.5
104.8
110.5
105.8
113.1
107.2
108. 7
104.6
114.0
126.6
105.8
104.7
102.1
102.5
106.0
89.5
153.6
105.0
104.4
122.6
119.7
140.8
121.1
118.2
114.4
101.3
98.6
109.8
129.3
100.3
97.5
99.5
97.8
95.7
106.8
90.1
94.5
102.8
102.8
89.0
106.6
94.8
89.2
93.3
98.8
105.6
108.5
110.0
92.8

102. 5
102.1
98.4
101.8
89.6
100. 5
87.2
91.1
103.5
93.5
112.9
97.6
106. 7
109.0
101.0
108.5
102.1
109.0
105.7
113.4
100.9
97. 0
101.2
113.6
116.3
102.9
102.5
101.8
100.2
104.3
95.0
134.3
103.7
103.1
123.0
109.2
111.2
108.1
110.7
106.1
98.9
96.5
107.3
124.1
100.8
96.8
95.9
97.4
95.0
105.4
89.8
94.4
112.7
101.8
88.4
105.3
92.9
90.0
90.0
97.1
101.1
101.9
107.7
92.3

171

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T a b le

D-4.

Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957-59=100, u n less o th erw ise s p e c ifie d ]2

1967

1968

Annual
average

Commodity group
Jan.

Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug.

Industrial Commodities—Continued
Pulp, paper, and allied products---------------- --- ------------- 105.2 104.8
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper
and board-............... - ............. - ------ --------------------- 105.8 105.3
98.0 98.0
Wastepaper------------------------------ ------------------------ 76.9 78.1
Paper.................... —..................... ................................... 111.2 111.2
Paperboard------------ -------------------- -— -------- ------- 97.3 97.3
Converted paper and paperboard products-------------- 106.7 105.8
92.1 92.1
111.7 111.0
105.5 104.7
Steel mill products--------------------------------------------- 107.7 107.0
125.1 123.7
112.9 112.9
116.3 116.1
110.7 110.6
Heating equipment-------------------------------------------- 93.1 93.4
Fabricated structural metal products— ---------------- 106.2 106.1
114.7 114.4
Machinery and equipment----------------------------------------- 113.9 113.2
125.8
124.9
Agricultural machinery and equipment. --------------Construction machinery and equipment----------------- 127.2 126.3
126.1
125.8
Metalworking machinery and equipment--------- ------General purpose machinery and equipment------------- 115.4 115.2
Special industry machinery and equipment (Jan.
1961=100)------------------------------------------------------ 120.1 118.3
Electrical machinery and equipment------------------ —- 102.7 102.3
112.0 110.8
103.0 102.1
115.2 114.3
113.4 112.6
95.3 95.2
91.1 90.9
Home electronic equipment. .
.
- --------- 81.7 81.8
123.4 119.5
106. C 105.3
Flat glass_____________________________________ 107. C 107.5
Concrete ingredients------------------------------ ------------ 107.8 106.5
Concrete products--------------------------------7...... .......... 106.5 105.8
Structural clay products excluding refractories---------- 111.8 111.6
106.8 106. C
Asphalt roofing--------------- ------ ---------------------------- 99.6 99.3
Gypsum products______________ _______________ 103.9 103.9
102.9 101.1
Other nonmetallic minerals---------------------------------- 103.0 102.3
104.3
105.4
Miscellaneous products_____________________________ 111. C
106.7
Tobacco products_______________ _______________ 114.8
102.2
113.6
Photographic equipment and supplies.
Other miscellaneous products------------------------------- 109.9

104.0
104.8
110.7
106.4
114.8
102. :
113.6
109.2

Mar. Feb. Jan.

1966

104.6 104.3 104.1 104.0 104.1 103.9 103.9 103.9 103.6 103.3 103.1 102.6

1965

99.9

105.1
98.0
76.5
111.2
97.3
105.5
92.0
110.5
104.3
106.8
122.7
112.9
115.7
110.2
93.3
105.9
114.1
112.6
123.8
125.3
125.4
114.7

104.8
98.0
76.6
111.2
97.3
104.9
92.1
109.8
103.9
106.5
120.7
111.7
115.4
110.2
92.9
105.7
114.1
112.2
122.3
124.3
124.6
114.4

104.6
98.0
75.4
110.9
97.3
104.8
91.4
109.6
104.0
106.3
119.4
111.7
115.3
110.2
92.7
105.6
114.1
111.9
122.2
122.4
124.4
114.0

104.5
98.0
74.6
110.9
97.3
104.6
91.3
109.2
103.5
105.7
118.9
111.7
115.2
110.1
92.5
105.5
114.2
111.8
122.0
122.4
124.4
113.6

104.6
98.0
76.2
110.9
97.3
104.7
91.5
109.0
103.4
105.7
118.6
111.7
113.8
110.0
92.6
105.1
113.8
111.6
121.9
122.1
123.9
113.2

104.3
98.0
76.7
109.6
97.3
104.9
91.5
108.9
103.3
105.7
118.7
111. 7
113.0
110.8
92.5
104.9
113.7
111.6
121.8
121.9
123.6
113.1

104.3
98.0
77.5
109.5
97.3
104.9
91.7
108.9
103.2
105.7
118.9
111.7
112.9
110.7
92.0
105.1
113.7
111.6
121.8
121.9
123.6
113.2

104.3
98.0
79.1
109.3
97.3
104.9
92.2
109.1
103.2
105.6
120.0
111.5
112.8
110.5
92.0
104.9
113.6
111.6
121.8
121.8
122.9
113.0

104.0
98.0
79.7
108.5
97.3
104.7
92.3
109.4
103.3
105.6
121.1
111.5
112.4
110.5
92.2
104.8
113.7
111.5
121.9
121.5
122.6
113.0

103.7
98.0
83.2
108.5
97.3
104.0
92.4
109.6
103.2
105.6
122.3
111.5
112.0
110.5
92.3
104.8
113.6
111.2
121.7
121.4
122.2
113.0

103.5
98.0
83.9
108.5
97.3
103.7
92.4
109.4
103.0
105.4
121.8
111.5
111.9
110.5
92.6
104.8
113.6
111.1
121.5
121.3
121.9
112.8

103.0
98.0
105.0
107.3
97.1
102.3
92.6
108.3
102.3
104.7
120.9
110.0
109.6
108.4
92.5
103.9
111.6
108.2
118.5
118.9
118.8
109.7

100.2
98.1
99.4
104.1
96.4
99.3
92.7
105.7
101.4
103.3
115.2
107.6
106.0
103.1
91.7
101.2
109.4
105.0
115.1
115.3
113.6
105.1

118.3
101.6
110.4
102.0
114.3
112.3
94.9
90.8
82.2
118.9
105.1
107. C
106.4
105.6
111.1
106. C
99.4
103.9
101.1
102.0

118.2
101.5
109.9
101.7
113.4
112.0
94.8
90.5
82.1
118.9
104.9
107. C
106.3
105. £
110.7
104. £
95.1
103. £
101. 1
101.9

116.7
101.5
109.7
101.2
113.0
112.0
93.4
90.3
81.6
118.2
104.7
106. £
106.1
105. £
110.7
104.9
95.1
100.7
101. 1
101.7

116.7
101.6
109.4
101.0
112.8
111.9
92.6
90.1
81.8
117.9
104.5
106. £
106. C
105.8
110.4
104.9
91.8
100.7
101.1
101.8

116.3
101.7
109.1
100.9
112.6
111.9
92.9
90.1
81.8
116.6
104.2
104. 5
106.0
105. 8
109.9
104.9
91.6
100.7
101.1
102.2

116.1
101.8
109.1
100.8
112.4
111.9
93.1
90.0
82.0
115.9
103.9
103.3
105.9
105.7
109.7
104.9
88.3
100.9
101. C
102.2

116.1
101.9
108.9
100.8
112.4
111.9
93.1
89.7
82.9
115.8
103.8
103.3
105.9
105.2
109.7
104.9
88.3
102.3
101.0
102.1

115.8
102.3
108.8
100.6
112.4
109.3
93.1
89.8
83.3
115.7
103.9
103.3
106.0
104.6
109.4
104.9
94.8
102.3
101.0
102.0

115.4
102.2
108.8
100.6
112.4
109.3
93.8
89.8
83.3
115.2
103.8
103.3
105.8
104.5
109.3
104.9
94.8
102.3
101.0
101.8

115.1
101.8
108.7
100.4
112.0
109.3
93.9
89.7
83.5
114.8
103.7
103.3
105.6
104.4
109.3
104.8
94.8
103.5
101.0
101.1

114.8
101.9
108.5
100.4
111.9
108.7
94.1
89.6
83.6
114.8
103.6
103.3
105.8
103.9
109.3
104.8
95.7
103.5
101.0
101.1

111.8
99.0
106.5
99.1
109.1
105.7
97.0
89.1
83.6
111.6
102.6
100.7
103.9
103.0
108.4
103.7
96.0
102.4
99.9
101.7

108.0
96.8
105.2
98.0
106.2
103.7
97.7
89.2
85.2
108.9
101.7
100.9
103.2
101.5
106.6
103.0
92.8
104.0
98.1
101.3

104.0
104.8
110.6
106.3
114.8
102. 1
113.6
108.9

103.7
104.5
110.5
106.3
114.3
100.3
113.6
108.7

101.5
102.9
110.2
106.1
114.8
100.8
111.6
108.7

101.3
102.9
110. c
105.8
114.8
100.8
111.3
108.5

101.3
102.9
109.7
105.6
114.8
100.8
110.1
108.3

101.4
102.9
109.6
105.3
114.8
100.8
110.1
108.0

101.6
102.9
108.0
105.3
110.3
100.8
110.1
107.4

101.6
102.7
108.0
105.2
110.3
100.8
110.2
107.4

101.6
102.7
107.7
104.0
110.3
100.8
110.1
107.3

101.6
102.7
108.0
105.3
110.3
100.8
110.3
107.2

101.6
102.7
107.9
105.2
110.3
100.8
110.1
107.2

100.8
101.2
106.8
104.1
109.6
100.5
108.9
105.3

100.7
100.9
104.8
102.7
106.2
99.1
109.2
103.8

1 A s of J a n u a ry 1967, th e indexes in c o rp o ra te d a revised w eig h tin g s tru c tu re
reflecting 1963 v alu es of s h ip m e n ts . C h an g e s also w ere m a d e in th e classi­
fication stru c tu re , a n d title s a n d com position of som e indexes w ere ch a n g ed .
T itle s a n d indexes in th is ta b le conform w ith th e revised classification s tru c ­
tu re , a n d m a y differ from d a ta p re v io u sly p u b lish e d . See W h o l e s a l e P r i c e s
a n d P r i c e I n d e x e s , J a n u a ry 1967 (final) a n d F e b ru a ry 1967 (final) for a d escrip ­
tio n of th e changes.


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

July June May Apr.

2 A s of J a n u a ry 1962, th e indexes w ere c o n v e rted from th e form er b ase of
1947^49=100 to th e n ew b ase of 1957-59=100. T e c h n ic a l d e ta ils a n d ea rlier
d a ta on th e 1957-59 base fu rn ish ed u p o n re q u e s t to th e B u re a u .
3 N o t av a ilab le.
N o t e : F o r a d e sc rip tio n of th e general m e th o d of c o m p u tin g th e m o n th ly
W holesale P rice In d ex , see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e t h o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S t u d i e s
(B L S B u lle tin 1458, O ctober 1966), C h a p te r 11.

172

M O N T H L Y L A B O R R E V IE W , M A R C H 1968

T

able

D 5. Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings 1
[1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 , u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c i f ie d ] 2

1968

1967

Annual
average

C o m m o d ity g ro u p
Jan.

All commodities—less farm products__________________
All foods__________________________________________
Processed foods____________________________________
Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products
Hosiery__________________________________________
Underwear and nightwear___________________________
Refined petroleum products_________________________
East Coast, refined_____________________________
Mid-Continent, refined__________________________
Gulf Coast, refined_____________________________
Pacific Coast, refined___________________________
Midwest, refined (Jan. 1961=100)__________________
Pharmaceutical preparations_________________________
Lumber and wood products excluding millwork and other
wood products A___ _____________________________
Special metals and metal products4___________________
Machinery and motive products___ ___________________
Machinery and equipment, except electrical____________
Agricultural machinery, including tractors_____________
Metalworking machinery____________________________
Total tractors________________________ _____________
Industrial valves__________________________________
Industrial fittings___ ______________________________
Abrasive grinding wheels___________________________
Construction materials_____________________________

D ec.

107.7
109.1

1 0 7 .3
1 0 8 .0

110.2

1 0 9 .6
9 7 .6
9 1 .8

S e p t.

1 0 7 .2

1 0 7 .1

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

1 0 9 .3
1 1 1 .6
9 6 .1

9 1 .6

9 1 .6

1 0 9 .9
1 0 0 .4

1 0 9 .9
1 0 1 .0

1 0 9 .9
1 0 3 .9

1 0 4 .3

1 0 4 .3

1 0 4 .3

1 0 0 .9

1 0 0 .9

1 0 3 .0

99.2
91.3
95.2
95.8

1 0 0 .8
9 1 .3

9 7 .9
1 0 2 .3

9 5 .0

9 1 .3
9 6 .3

1 0 7 .0
9 1 .3
9 8 .8

9 5 .7

9 5 .6

106.9
109.7i

1 0 5 .6
1 0 9 .4

1 1 0 .4 ;

1 1 0 .1

120.0

1 1 9 .6

127.2 1 2 5 . 9
133.31 1 3 3 . 2
128.6 1 2 6 . 7
122.81 1 2 2 . 8
105.6 1 0 3 . 0
9 8 .2

106.7

F o r m e r ly t i t l e d “ L u m b e r a n d w o o d p r o d u c ts , e x c lu d in g m il l w o r k . ”


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

O c t.

99.1
91.9
109.9
99.9,
104.3

1 S ee fo o tn o te 1, ta b le D - 4 .
2 See fo o tn o te 2 , ta b le D - 4 .

3

N o v.

9 4 .6
1 0 6 .2

1 0 6 .5

M a y

1 0 6 .8
1 0 8 .8

1 0 6 .8
1 1 0 .7

111.1

112.0

9 5 .6

9 5 .5
9 1 .3 Ì
1 0 9 .7

10 6 . 7| 1 0 6 .4
1 1 0 .3
1 0 7 .8
1 1 1 .4
1 0 9 .6
9 5 .9 !
9 6 .3
9 1 .3
9 1 .7
1 0 9 .7
1 0 8 .7

9 1 .6
1 0 9 .7
1 0 4 .6
1 0 4 .3
1 0 3 .0
1 0 8 .6
9 2 .2

1 0 3 .3

1 0 3 .1

1 0 4 .3
1 0 3 .0

101. 6 ;

1 0 7 .0
9 2 .2

1 0 3 .0

1 0 3 .7
1 0 1 .6
1 0 3 .0

Jan.

1966

1965

1 0 6 .2
1 0 6 .4
1 0 8 .2

1 0 6 .3

1 0 6 .5
1 0 8 .5
1 0 9 .9

1 0 6 .5

1 0 5 .8

1 0 9 .5
1 1 0 .6
9 7 .5

1 1 0 .7
1 1 1 .5
9 8 .5

1 0 2 .9
1 0 4 .5
1 0 5 .1

1 0 1 .9

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

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

1 0 1 .6
1 0 0 .9
1 0 4 .1

9 9 .9
9 8 .7
1 0 2 .5

9 7 .5

9 5 .9
9 5 .3

9 8 .6
1 0 2 .2

9 7 .6
9 5 .1

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

1 0 2 .4
1 0 1 .6
1 0 3 .0
1 0 4 .1

9 5 .2

9 5 .6
9 4 .0

9 5 .5

9 5 .6

9 6 .1

9 6 .1

9 6 .2

9 5 .9

1 0 2 .6
1 0 7 .5
1 0 8 .5

1 0 8 .6

1 0 5 .1

1 0 4 .1

1 0 3 .4

1 0 7 .5
1 0 8 .5

1 0 7 .4
1 0 8 .4

1 0 7 .3
1 0 8 .4

1 1 8 .3
1 2 4 .1

1 1 8 .2

1 1 7 .8

1 1 7 .6

1 1 7 .6

1 2 3 .9

1 2 3 .9

1 2 3 .8

1 3 1 .5
1 2 3 .7
1 2 2 .8
1 0 1 .5
9 4 .6
1 0 6 .3

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

1 3 0 .6
1 2 3 .4

1 3 0 .4
1 2 3 .3
1 2 1 .5

1 2 3 .7
1 3 0 .5
1 2 3 .3

9 4 .6
1 0 5 .3

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

102.6
94. 6
1 0 4 .6

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

1 0 8 .8
9 7 .0
9 1 .6
1 0 7 .7

1 0 1 .6

1 0 7 .2
9 5 .6

1 0 7 .8

1 0 7 .3

1 0 3 .0
1 0 2 .5

1 0 7 .0
9 2 .1
9 5 .2

1 0 8 .6

1 0 6 .2

Feb.

9 5 .2

1 0 8 .8

1 3 1 .7
1 2 5 .4
1 2 2 .8
1 0 3 .0
9 4 .6

M a r.

9 8 .8

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

A p r.

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

9 5 .6

9 5 .6

9 4 .8

9 0 .7

9 0 .6

9 4 .7
9 6 .4

9 3 .4

9 2 .7

9 6 .3

9 6 .9

9 2 .7
9 6 .8

9 1 .7
9 6 .5

1 0 2 .5

1 0 1 .9

1 0 7 .6

1 0 7 .7
1 0 8 .4

1 0 8 .5
1 1 7 .3

9 7 .3
9 1 .6
1 0 7 .5

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

1 1 7 .2

1 1 7 .0

1 2 3 .7

1 2 3 .8

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

1 2 9 .2
1 2 3 .1

1 2 3 .7
1 2 8 .4
1 2 3 .1

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

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

1 0 0 .7

1 0 5 .1

9 9 .8

1 0 6 .7

1 0 4 .7

1 0 6 .0
1 1 4 .0

1 0 3 .7
1 1 0 .1

1 2 3 .4

1 2 0 .3

1 1 6 .6

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

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

1 1 7 .4
1 1 6 .8
1 0 5 .7
9 0 .8
9 4 .2
1 0 0 .8

1 0 7 .8
1 0 8 .2
1 1 6 .8

1 0 1 .7
9 4 .7
1 0 4 .1

4 M e ta ls a n d m e t a l p r o d u c ts , a g r ic u lt u r a l m a c h in e r y a n d e q u ip m e n t , a n d
m o t o r v e h ic le s a n d e q u i p m e n t .

173

D .— C O N S U M E R A N D W H O L E S A L E P R IC E S

T a ble

D-6.

Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by stage of processing and durability of product
[1957-59=100] 2
1967

1968

Annual average

Commodity group
Jan.
All commodities------------------------------------------------

Dec. Nov.

Oct

Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1966

1965

107.2 106.8 106.2 106.1 106. 2 106.1 106.5 106.3 105.8 105.3 105.7 106.0 106.2

105.9

102.5

105.3
107.2
101.9

98.9
98.3
99.8

Stage of processing
Crude materials for further processing--------------------Crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs—
- ---- -- -Crude nonfood materials except fuel-----------------Crude nonfood materials, except fuel, for
manufacturing. -----------------------------Crude nonfood materials, except fuel, for

Crude fuel for nonmanufacturing---------------Intermediate materials, supplies, and components----Intermediate materials and components for manufacturing_________________________________
Intermediate materials for food manufacturing.
Intermediate materials for nondurable m anu­
--------facturing..
..
------Intermediate materials for durable manu­
facturing_____________________________
Components for m anufacturing.. .
Materials and components for construction-------Processed fuels and lubricants------------------------Processed fuels and lubricants for manufac-

99.1
99.1
98.2

98.6
98.3
98.4

96.5
96.1
95.9

97.9
99 1
94.2

98.5 99.5 101.7 101.4 100.6
99.9 101.4 104. 7 104.2 103.1
94.3 94.5 94. 6 95.1 94.7

97.4

97.6

95.0

93.1

93.3

93.5

93. 7

94.2

93.7

93.6

94.9

95.8

96.3

101.8

99.5

106.1
111.0
110.7
111.5

106.0
110.3
110.0
110.8

105.9
110.2
109.9
110.7

105.7
109.8
109.5
110.3

105.7
110.3
110.1
110.7

105.6
110.2
109.9
110.6

105.0
109.4
109.3
109.6

104.7
109.3
109.2
109.6

104.7
109.4
109.3
109.7

103.9
106.4
106.3
106.6

103.2
103.3
103.2
103.5

106.7 106.3 105.9 105.7 105.7 105.4 105.4 105.4 105.3 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.6
106.0 105.6 105.2 104.8 104.7 104.5 104.4 104.4 104.4 104.6 104.6 104.8 104.7
108.7 108.1 108.0 108.6 110.0 109.9 110.2 110.2 109.1 108.1 108.7 109.0 110.1

104.8

102.2

104.0
111.3

102.0
106.6

107.8
111.4
111.0
111.9

106.9
111.5
111.2
112.0

106.8
111.3
111.0
111.9

106.6
110.9
110.7
111.3

98.0 99.7 100.8 101.9
99.2 101.3 102.7 104.2
94.6 95.7 96. 5 97.0

99.8

99.8

99.3

98.8

98.4

98.4

98.4

98.6

98.9

99.1

99.1

99.3

99.3

99.5

98.7

110.2
109.4
107.4
100.0

109.3
109.1
106.8
101.0

108.8
108.6
106.3
101.1

108.4
108.1
106.2
101.3

108.2
108.0
106.3
102.2

107.7
107.9
105.5
102.4

107.5
107. 5
105.2
102. 1

107.4
107.5
104.9
102.7

107.4
107.6
104.8
103.2

107.7
107-9
104.9
102.5

107.7
107.9
104.8
102.7

107.9
107.6
104.7
102.5

107.6
107.5
104.4
102.3

106.6
104.9
104.1
101.4

104.6
101.3
101.4
99.5

102.9 103.5 103.7 103.6 103.7 103.7 103.6

102.7 103.1 103.1 103.0 103.0 102.8
95. 7 97.6 98.0 98.5 100.9 101.5
108.4 107.3 107.3 106.6 106.6 106.4
Supplies___________________________________ 112.1 111.5 111.1 111.3 111.2 110.8
Supplies for manufacturing------------------------ 112.2 111.5 111. 1 110.9 110.8 110.7
Supplies for nonmanufacturing-----. . . 111.4 110.8 110.3 110.7 110.6 110.0
112.9 112.5 111.5 113.2 114.2 112.2
Other supplies------------------ ---------------- 107.0 106.4 106.1 105.9 105.3 105.4
Finished goods (goods to users, including raw foods
108.3
and fuels)----------------- ------ ---------------------------- - 109.7 109.3 108.9 108.6 108.7 107.2
108.2 107.9 107.5 107.2 107.6
109.6
108.8
109.1
110.5
110.1
110.6
103.2 105.7 102.7 96.3 100.3 98.3
111.9 110.9 110.3 111.0 112.4 111.7
108.0 108.0 107.9 107.8 108.0 108.0
103.5 103. C 103. C 102.8 101.4 101.2
114.0 113.4 113. C 112.6 111.6 111.4
118.1 117.3 117.1 116.7 115.9 115.8
Producer finished goods for nonmanufacturing- 110.0 109.5 109.0 108.6 107.5 107.2
Processed fuels and lubricants for nonmanu­
facturing............ —------- -------------------------

102.5

101.0

100.8
106.4
111. 5
110. 6
111. 1
115.9
105. 3

101.5
106.5
111.3
110.6
110.9
115.2
105.3

102.3
106.6
110.4
110.4
109.7
111.6
105.2

100.6
106-6
111.4
110-4
111.1
115.9
105-2

101.1
106.4
111.8
110.1
111.7
117.8
105.3

100.6
106.0
111.6
109.7
111.7
118.8
104.8

100.3
105.9
112.9
109.5
113.6
124.9
104.5

99.4
104.9
110. 7
108.9
110.7
119.5
103.4

97.1
102.1
106.0
106.1
105.4
109.7
100.9

108.7
107.7
111.5
104. 6
112. 7
107.4
101. 1
111.2
115.4
107.2

108.4
107.4
110.9
104.4
112.1
107.2
101.0
111.2
115.3
107.1

107.6
106.4
108.5
99.9
110.0
106.9
101.3
111.1
115.2
107.2

107.0
105-7
106.9
97-8
108.6
106-4
101.3
110-8
114-7
107-0

107.2
106.0
107.9
100.5
109.2
106.4
101.3
110.7
114.5
107.0

107.6
106.5
109.3
103.1
110.4
106.3
101.3
110.6
114.3
106.9

107.7
106.6
110.3
106.0
111.0
105.8
101.3
110.5
114.0
106.8

106.9
106.4
111.2
106.5
112.0
104.8
100.2
108.0
111.3
104.6

103.6
102.8
104.5
100.2
105.2
102.8
99.6
105.4
108.0
102.9

107.6
105. 6
106.8
107.9
105.8
104.5
99.4
104.8

107.5
105.4
106.6
107.7
105.6
104.4
99.6
104.7

107.5
104.6
106.3
107.7
105.0
103.1
99.9
103.3

107.6
103.7
106.2
107.8
104.6
101.0
99. 2
101.1

107.6
104.2
106.3
107.7
104.8
102.5
102.0
102.4

107.6
104.7
106.4
107.7
105.1
103.6
103.4
103.6

107.4
105.2
106.4
107.5
105.3
104.7
104.1
104.7

106.0
105.6
105.7
106.0
105.3
106. 5
109. 0
106.4

103.7
101.5
102.8
103.7
101.9
100.7
104.7
ICO. 5

Durability of product
110.2
105.0
108.1
110.3
105.9
102.8
106.5
Durable raw or slightly processed goods..
Nondurable raw or slightly processed goods. . 102.5

Total durable goods____________________________
Total nondurable goods_________________________

1 See footnote 1, table D-4.
2 See footnote 2, table D-4.


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

109.5
104.8
107.6
109.6
105.6
102.7
105.6
102.6

109.1
104. C
107.2
109.3
105.2
100.9
103.6
100.7

108.7
104.2
107.1
109.0
105.3
101.2
100.5
101.2

108.2
104.8
107.1
108.4
105.8
101.9
100.7
102.0

107.9
104.8
106.8
108.1
105.6
102.3
100.3
102.4

N ote : For description of the series by stage of processing, see Wholesale
Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final);
and by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see Wholesale
Prices and Price Indexes, 1957 (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).

174

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1968

E.—Work Stoppages
T able

E -l.

Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Number of stoppages

Month and year

Beginning in
month or year

Workers involved in stoppages

In effect dur­
ing month

Beginning in
month or year

In effect dur­
ing month

Man-days idle during month
or year

Number

Percent of
estimated
working time

1945 .
______________________________________
1946 .
_________________________________________
1947 .
_______________________________________
1948 .
_________________________________________
1949 _____________________________________________
1950 _ _________________________________________
1951
______________________________________
1952
_______________________________________
1953. . __________________________________________
1954
___ _____ ____ __________________ . . .
1955 . _________________________________________
1956 _____________________________________________
1957______________________________________________
1958 _____________________________________________
1959 .
_________________________________________
1960 .
_______________________________________
1961________ ________
- - - --___
1962:_____________________________________________
1963 _____________________________________________
1964________ _____________________________________
1965______________________________________________
1966 ____________________________________________

4,750
4,985
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
3,825
3,673
3j 694
3,708
3,333
3,367
3^ 614
3,362
3,655
3’, 963
4,405

1965: January____________________________________
February____________________________________
March_______________________
__________
April........ — - ...............- ..................................- ...........
M ay____ _ _ _ _ _ _ --------------------June-------------------------------------- -------------------July________________________________________
August------ ---------- -------------------------------------September____________________
___
___
October___
_ _________ _____ _______
N o v e m b e r.---- ------------- . . . ._ . . ----------December____________________ _
-------

244
208
329
390
450
425
416
388
345
321
289
158

404
393
511
603
669
677
702
685
631
570
505
371

98,800
45,100
180.000
141,000
127,000
268,000
156,000
109.000
155, 000
101,000
140, 000
24,300

183,000
149,000
274,000
194,000
201.000
354,000
334,000
229,000
250,000
209,000
192,000
75,800

1, 740, 000
1,440.000
1,770,000
1,840. 000
1,850, 000
2, 590, 000
3,670 000
2,230,000
2,110,000
1, 770,000
1,380,000
907,000

.18
.15
.16
.17
.19
.23
.34
.20
.20
.16
.13
.08

1966: January_____________________________________
February________________________________ ____
March_______________________________________
April________________________________________
May________________________________________
Ju n e .. _____________________________________
Ju ly ________________________________________
August______________________________________
September___ _______________________________
October _____________________________________
November___________________________________
December____________________________________

238
252
336
403
494
499
448
442
422
410
288
173

389
421
536
614
720
759
704
718
676
651
533
389

113,000
101,000
217,000
227,000
240,000
161,000
286,000
117,000
132,000
191,000
126.000
49,000

140,000
138,000
265,000
392,000
340,000
265,000
347,000
310,000
226,000
255,000
234,000
158,000

1,090,000
928,000
1,410,000
2, 600,000
2,870,000
2,220,000
3,100,000
3,370,000
1,780,000
2,190,000
2,150,000
1,670,000

.10
.09
.12
.24
.26
.19
.29
.27
.16
.19
.19
.15

1967: January 2____________ _________ _______ _____
F eb ru ary 2. .
... .
______
March 2____________________ ______________ _
.
--------------- _ _ __
A pril2____
May 2_______________________________________
June 2__ __ __ _____ ____ ___ ._ ___ ___ _
July 2. ______________________________________
August 2_____________________________________
Septem ber2___________ _______________________
October 2_________________________ _______
November 2____________ _________
December 2 ___________ _ _ _ ............ . _____

275
325
430
440
535
430
375
385
405
405
300
190

440
465
575
600
695
670
630
655
670
645
530
400

98.000
106,000
141,000
409,000
255,000
177,000
804, 000
86, 000
375,000
158, 000
197, 000
64, 700

190,000
151,000
202,000
443,000
402,000
350,000
1,010.000
231.000
484,000
440, 000
388, 000
194,000

1,270,000
1,280,000
1,490,000
2,170,000
3,900,000
4,360,000
4,710,000
2,840.000
6, 320,000
6, 510,000
3,060, 000
2,610,000

.11
.12
.12
.20
.33
.36
.43
.22
.57
.54
.26
.24

1 The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or
more and lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved
and man-days idle cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in estab­
lishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect


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

3,470,000
4,600,000
2,170,000
i; 960.000
3,030,000
2,410,000
2,220,000
3,540.000
21400.000
l ’530, 000
2,650, 000
1, 900, 000
l ’390. 000
2, 060. 000
l ' 880,000
1,320,000
1 450,000
L 230.000
' 941,000
1,640,000
1,550', 000
i, 960,000

Ifi 500 000
23 QOO’ O00

23 300* OOO

or secondary effect on other establishments or industries whose employees
are made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
2 Preliminary.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 96 8 -0 -2 8 8 -7 4 4

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

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