The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
March 1970
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
In this issue:
Trade unions in the performing arts
Youth unemployment and
minimum wages
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603-A Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6727
Connecticut
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
George P. Shultz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
The Monthly Labor Review Is for sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
Subscription price per year —
$9 domestic; $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-In-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds for printing this publication
approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Herbert Blenstock
341 Ninth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: (212) 971-5401
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. Mueller
406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. McArdle
219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Jack Strickland
411 N. Akard Street, Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2378
V II
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
V III
March cover:
Detail of “ The V iolinist,"
a drawing by Saul Steinberg,
courtesy of the Fogg Art Museum,
Harvard University,
gift of Meta and Paul J. Sachs
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Mortori
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern
Thomas W. Gavett
3
Youth unemployment and minimum wages
New BLS study examines effects of past minimum wage
changes and the question of lower rates for teenagers
Charles L. Schultze
13
A data system for analyzing public programs
Detailed specifications for Federal data center are
proposed to guard against invasion of privacy
Michael H. Moskow 16
Trade unions in the performing arts
Casual nature of the labor market has led to
high degree of unionization
Paul M. Ryscavage 21
Impact of higher unemployment
Experience shows that decline in economic activity
affects blue-collar jobs first
Deborah P. Klein 26
Status of men missed in the census
Special Labor Force Report describes pilot use of new
technique for securing labor force data
Robert D. Moran 49
Research and the Wage and Hour Division
IRRA CONFERENCE PAPERS
Frederick H. Harbison
33
The campus revolt
Albert A. Blum
36
Union prospects and programs for the 1970's
Rudolph A. Oswald 40
W. Lee Hansen 43
J. A. Kershaw, A. M. Mood 46
Union bargaining goals in the 1970’s
Who benefits from higher education subsidies
Resource allocation in higher education
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Charles W. Ardolini
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
Impact of longshore strikes on the economy
54
Output per man-hour in selected industries
DEPARTMENTS
2
49
51
56
59
63
65
71
79
Labor month in review
Communication
Research summaries
Foreign labor briefs
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
MARCH 1970
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 3
Guidepost-mortem. The rationale for U.S. anti
inflation policy during the past year was set forth
in the first annual report of President Nixon’s
Council of Economic Advisers. Paul McCracken,
Hendrik Houthakker, and Herbert Stein reiterated
their conviction that U.S. anti-inflation policy
must be based on fiscal and monetary restraints,
not wage-price guideposts. Concerning guideposts,
the Council said flatly: “The results of our own
experience and numerous trials of such policies in
other countries over the preceding 20 years [do]
not justify confidence that such efforts would help
solve the inflation problem.”
As originally put forward in 1962, U.S. guideposts were to keep the wage and benefit rise in
line with the average long-term gain in output
per man-hour. Prices were to remain stable
ordinarily; but in a particular industry they could
rise if productivity rose less than the average and
they were to fall if productivity rose more than
the average. While the guideposts were voluntary,
the Government sought to encourage compliance
by exhortation (jawboning) and by using its
power as purchaser, regulator, and law-enforcer.
According to the McCracken Council, there is
doubt that the guideposts ever had a measurable
influence on inflation. The policy was applied
during “years of considerable slack in the economy,
relatively high unemployment, and stable or
declining farm prices”— market conditions that
favored price stability anyway. When inflationary
pressures increased after mid-1965, the guidepost
policy “clearly did not work,” the Council report
continues. “Labor and business were being asked
to act as if prices were not rising, when in fact
they were. As it became evident that steps
necessary to keep prices from rising were not
being taken, it also became more obviously
unrealistic and inequitable to make these requests
in specific cases. B y the fall of 1966, the policy was
widely recognized as unworkable, and was allowed
to fade away.”
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Disinflation prescription. The Council report em
phasizes fiscal and monetary restraint— not guideposts— as the core of 1969 anti-inflation policy. Its
prescription for the past year’s “disinflation,”
which is spelled out in detail in the report, may be
summarized as follows:
Fiscal and monetary restraints result in a
slowdown in the growth of purchases and sales.
Businessmen respond by cutting planned output,
allowing inventories to accumulate, or cutting
prices in an attempt to keep volume up. As real
output slows, productivity declines, cost per unit
of output increases, and profits per unit drop,
making employers more resistant to granting
wage increases. At the same time, a softening
labor market lessens workers’ insistence on large
wage increases. Sluggish market conditions en
courage businessmen to pursue temperate pricing
policies. The reduction in wage and price increases
tend to reinforce each other. The longer price
increases moderate, the weaker the expectation
of further inflation becomes. Business and labor
respond to waning inflation by making appropriate
price and wage adjustments, in preference to
accepting a lower volume of production and less
employment. With this change, the economy is
on the way to regaining full employment without
setting off another round of inflation.
The Council report warns that “inflations have
seldom ended without a temporary rise in unem
ployment. While we must direct our effort at
altering the historic pattern, we cannot ignore
the possibility that joblessness will rise in the
period immediately ahead.” The Council noted that
1970 began with a slowdown in demand, but with
prices still rising. The task of economic policy in
1970, said the Advisers, is to reduce the rise of
prices and revive the growth of output. Improved
manpower policies can help maintain high employ
ment by improving “ the adaptation of the labor
force to the pattern of the demand for labor.”
New BLS study
examines employment effects
of past minimum wage changes
and possible effects of a
lower rate for teenagers
THOMAS W. GAVETT
O v e r t h e p a s t 20 y e a r s , unemployment among
youths age 16-19 has been higher than that for
adults. Since 1948, teenage 1 unemployment rates
have varied from a low of 7.6 percent in the last
year of the Korean War (1953) to a high of 17.2
percent in 1963. B y contrast, the unemployment
rate for adults over age 24 ranged from a low of
2.3 percent in 1968 to 5.6 percent in 1958.
As might be expected, there is a similarity
between fluctuations in the unemployment rates
for teenagers and for adults, because general
business conditions affect the employment of all
groups within the population. Y et the unemploy
ment rate of teenagers has, in the 1960’s, increased
relative to the rate for adults.
Although, between the recession of the early
1960’s and the full employment of the last few
years, the unemployment rate for both adults
and teenagers has decreased, the relative decline
was much smaller for teenagers than for adults.
The adult rate dropped almost 5 percent in the
first 4 years of the decade to 2.5 percent in the
last 3 years; for teenagers, from about 16 percent
to 13 percent. Thus, from 1948 to 1962, the teen
age rate was 3 times the adult rate; but in the
last few years it was 5 times as high (table 1).
Many developments of the last 20 years
could have contributed to the persistently high
rates of unemployment for teenagers and the
increase relative to adults in the 1960’s. A sub
stantial growth in the size of the teenage popula
tion relative to adults—from about 9 percent
in the mid-1950’s to 13 percent in the last few
years— has compounded problems of job place
ment. The proportion of teenagers enrolled in
school has increased from 50 to 70 percent.
This is the summary chapter of Youth Unemployment
and Minimum Wages, a Bureau of Labor Statistics study
prepared under the direction of Thomas W. Gavett,
Assistant Commissioner for Wages and Industrial Rela
tions. The full study is being published as BLS Bulletin
1657.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Youth
unemployment
and minimum
wages
While school takes some teenagers out of the
labor market, an increasing proportion of those
enrolled in school are also in the labor market
seeking jobs—jobs that fit in with the require
ments of school attendance with respect to
location, hours, and so on.
The movement of families from farm to city
and the decline in farm employment has also
meant that a smaller proportion of teenagers
are employed in agriculture— a decrease from
18 percent in 1948 to 7 percent last year. Many
teenagers had been employed on family farms;
now they must compete in the urban labor market.
Potentially compounding all these developments
has been the effect of the military draft and its
attendant uncertainties.
Another development of major significance to
policymakers is the Federal minimum wage.
According to economic theory, a wage set higher
than the rate normally prevailing in the market
will mean that some workers will not be able to
find jobs. Probably those workers who are less
productive— either because they are untrained
or inexperienced or have inadequate tools to work
with-—will have special employment problems.
A legal minimum wage might, therefore, help
explain the unemployment problems of some
teenagers.
In 1950 the Federal minimum wage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ( f l s a ) was 75 cents an
hour. In the years following, the minimum was
raised until, at the end of 1969, it stood at $1.60
for most workers covered by the law.2 Of course,
prevailing market wages have been increasing
at the same time. Relative to average hourly
earnings, the minimum wage in 1968, as indicated
in chart 1, was not much different from its relative
level in 1950. (See table 2.)
Perhaps more significant have been the expan
sions of coverage under f l s a into the retail trade
and service sectors in the 1960’s. Trade and service
industries employ disproportionately large num3
4
bers of teenagers. Further, there are many low
wage sectors in those two industry divisions. In
1968, for example, average hourly earnings were
$2.16 in retail trade compared with $3.01 in manu
facturing and $2.85 for the private nonfarm
economy. (See chart 2.)
In examining past relationships between mini
mum wages and the high unemployment rates
of youth, certain general questions must be
investigated: (1) Have changes in the level of
minimum wages and coverage of minimum wage
laws contributed to the problem of youth unem
ployment? (2) Do employers avoid hiring teenagers
because the wage that must be paid them is not
low enough to offset the disadvantages of inexperi
ence or lack of maturity, or are other reasons
more important in inhibiting their employment?
(3) Do teenagers expect wages so high that mini
mum wage rates are irrelevant or are their expecta
tions high due to the minimum wage?
In addition to questions concerning past experi
ence, two others require examination: (4) Regard
less of whether or not the legal minimum wage has
significantly contributed to the problem of youth
unemployment, would a differential minimum
wage for youth reduce that problem in the future?
(5) Would any significant problems be caused by
a youth differential, such as reduced family
incomes or a shift in the incidence of unemploy
ment from teenagers to other groups?
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Table 1. Teenage unemployment rates and ratios
Unemployment rates, 16- to
19-year-olds
Ratio of unemployment rates,
16 to 19 years, to rate for 25
years and over
Total
Total
Year
1948_____________
1949_____________
1950_____________
1951_____________
1952_____________
1953_____________
1954_____________
1955_____________
1956_____________
1957_____________
1958___________
1959_____________
1960_____________
1961_____________
1962_____________
1963_____________
1964_____________
1965_____________
1966_____________
1967_____________
1968_____________
9.2
13.4
12.2
8.2
8.5
7.6
12.6
11.0
11.1
11.6
15.9
14.6
14.7
16.8
14.7
17.2
16.2
14.8
12.8
12.8
12.7
White
All others
8.9
13.0
11.8
7.8
8.3
7.5
12.1
10.4
10.1
10.6
14.4
13.1
13.5
15.3
13.3
15.5
14.8
13.4
11.2
11.0
11.0
11.2
16.9
15.3
11.0
10.5
8.8
16.6
15.6
18.1
19.1
27.4
26.1
24.3
27.7
25.3
30.3
27.3
26.5
25.4
26.2
24.9
3.17
2.79
2.77
2.93
3.54
3.17
2.68
3.06
3. 36
3.41
2.84
3. 32
3.27
3.11
3. 34
4. 00
4.26
4.63
4.92
4. 92
5.52
White
3.30
2.89
2.95
3. 00
3.77
3.41
2. 88
3.25
3. 48
3.42
2. 82
3.36
3.46
3.19
3. 50
4. 08
4.35
4. 62
4. 87
4. 58
5. 24
All others
2.49
2.35
1.96
2.44
2.33
2.26
1.91
2.08
2.66
2.98
2.63
3. 00
2. 89
2.66
2. 84
3.70
3.79
4. 49
5.18
5. 57
6.23
Note: For more detail, see chapter 1.
through a more extended period, 1948 to 1968,
used annual data.
These analyses concluded that it was not possible
to adequately separate out the effects of minimum
wage changes from other developments. A demon
strable relationship exists between minimum
wages and youth unemployment rates if other
variables are excluded from the analysis, but when
other variables such as population and school
Chart 1. Fluctuations in adult and teenage unemploy
ment rates, 1948-68
The evidence from time series
Studies of the relationship between minimum
wages and teenage unemployment rates completed
over the past several years have not arrived at a
uniform set of conclusions. The econometric
analysis undertaken for this report used several
approaches to analyze data. Basically, quarterly
data for 1954 through 1968 were examined for
different sex-color-age groups within the teenage
population. Variations in the proportion of teen
agers employed and the proportion unemployed
were compared with variations in the minimum
wage, controlling other relevant variables. These
variables included the adult unemployment rate,
the proportion of teenagers employed in agricul
ture, the relative size of the teenage population,
the school enrollment rate, and the relative size
of the Armed Forces. A similar analysis of the
employment experience of teenagers as a whole
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND MINIMUM WAGES
enrollment changes are taken into account, the
effect of changes in the minimum wage upon
teenage unemployment becomes obscure.
The study indicated that extensions of cover
age of the minimum wage had more of an effect
than changes in the relative level of the minimum
wage; that Federal manpower programs which
produce employment for teenagers may have offset,
to some degree, the disemployment effects of
minimum wage legislation; and that minimum
wage legislation may have had greater adverse
effects upon 16- and 17-year-old than upon 18and 19-year-old youths.
The analysis concluded on the cautious note
that, “While there are hints of adverse effects of
minimum wages in available data, no firm state
ments can be made about the magnitude of such
effects.”
Another survey undertaken for this report
differs significantly in approach from other
recent studies. I t traces the employment
experience of an identical group of young males,
15 to 25 years of age, during a time when the
Federal minimum wage was increased from $1.25
in 1966 to $1.40 in 1967 and coverage was ex
panded significantly. For the teenagers, as well as
Table 2. Proportion of earnings covered by the Federal
minimum wage
Basic mini mum wage
as a pe cent of
Year
1947
1948__________
1949 .............
1950
1951 . _____
1952 ........ .
1953__________
1954 ________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958
______
1959__________
1960__________
1961__________
1962 _________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967.....................
1968__________
Basic
minimum
wage
effective
at end
of year
$0.40
.75
1.00
1.15
1.25
1.40
1.60
Average
hourly
earnings,
private
nonfarm
35.4
32.7
31.4
56.2
51.7
49.3
46.6
45.5
43.4
53.2
52.9
51.3
49.5
47.8
49.1
51.8
51.9
53.0
51.0
48.8
53.8
55.6
Minimum
wages as a
percent of
average hour
ly earnings
Total
compensa weighted by
tion per
industry total
employment
man-hour,
and proportion
private
covered, pri
nonfarm
vate nonfarm
31.3
28.7
27.9
49.6
45.5
43.1
40.8
39.5
38.1
46.0
43.4
41.9
40.1
38.5
40.9
43.1
42.9
43.3
41.8
39.5
41.5
44.0
20.3
19.1
18.0
32.3
30.1
28.4
26.9
25.8
24.8
30.7
29.8
28.3
27.3
26.2
28.3
32.8
32.5
33.4
32.5
31.5
39.2
42.6
Minimum
wages as a
percent of
average hour
ly earnings
weighted by
industry teen
age employ
ment and
proportion of
total employ
ment covered,
private nonfarm
18.2
17.6
21.0
20.2
18.4
18.1
17.8
21.0
27.7
27.1
27.7
27.1
26.7
36.9
40.1
Note: For explanations, see table 1.6 In chapter 1. Dashes indicate data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 2. Coverage of minimum wage law and changes
in minimum rates as a percentage of average hourly
earnings, 1948-68
1948
52
56
60
64
1968
Year
for older groups, the analysis showed mixed
results.
Those teenagers already earning $1.40 or more
in 1966 were not directly affected by the new
minimum. If the minimum wage had any effects,
it would be expected to lead to more time unem
ployed or more time spent out of the labor force
by the low wage teenagers. Contrary to this ex
pectation, table 3 shows that the average number
of weeks low wage teenagers were unemployed not
only declined between 1966 and 1967 but declined
more than among high wage teenagers. On the
other hand, the average number of weeks spent
out of the labor force fell less among low wage than
high wage teenagers, a result that is in line with
expectations.
Looking at only those teenagers who were
employed during the 1966 survey week, a greater
proportion of low wage than high wage employees
were out of the labor force a year later. However,
the proportion of low wage employees who were
unemployed a year later is in one case ($1 to $1.39)
about the same and in another case (less than $1)
below the proportion of high wage employees who
were unemployed a year later.3
The analysis is, as the authors note, biased
against finding adverse employment effects because
the sample had “aged” 1 year between survey
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
6
periods, thus increasing the employability of the
group; further, the data tell nothing about youth
entering the labor force for the first time during
this period. There was some evidence of adverse
employment effects among 15- to 17-year-old
students who were Negroes and had limited labor
market information and among those students
employed as service workers. There was, however,
no evidence of a general tendency for the minimum
wage increase of 1967 to create relatively more
unemployment among low wage young workers.
As the analysis concludes, “If the minimum wage
increases did indeed create unemployment among
youth, the effect was not a pronounced one.”
The employers’ response
In the survey of employer hiring standards in
10 cities, included in chapter 4, the most fre
quently cited consideration affecting employer
decisions to employ teenagers under age 18 was
restrictions on employment of teenagers in haz
ardous occupations. Chapter 9, dealing with
experience under State minimum wage laws, also
stresses hazardous work restrictions as well as
restrictions on hours of work, the cumbersome
machinery of work certificates, union restrictions,
and problems of transportation as factors curbing
the employment of teenagers. The uncertainty
of the military draft was the reason most fre
quently cited by employers in weighing their
decision to hire 18- and 19-year-olds, a problem
underscored in the study of experience in local
public employment offices in 23 areas (chapter 5).
The belief that teenagers are unwilling to work
for low wages is not uncommon among employers
(see further discussion below). The extent to
which the legal authority to pay a wage lower
than the minimum would offset such problems is
uncertain.
About BLS Bulletin 1657
Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, to be
published this spring, will be available for purchase
from the Bureau’s regional offices or from the Super
intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Following is a list of chapters and of persons pri
marily responsible for preparing them:
1. Introduction reviews the changes in labor force
experience of youth and in the minimum wage in
the postwar period and provides the analytic frame
work for the study (Thomas W. Gavett).
2. Experience of the Past: The National Minimum
provides econometric analyses of relationships be
tween the employment and unemployment experience
of teenagers and changes in the minimum wage
(Hyman B. Kaitz).
3. Effects of Changes in the Federal Minimum
Wage on Employment of Young Men, 1966-67 traces
changes in the employment experience of young men
in a national sample during a time when the minimum
rate rose and coverage was expanded (Karl Egge,
Andrew I. Kohen, John R. Shea, Fred A. Zeller).
4. Survey of Hiring Requirements and Youth Em
ployment studies changes between 1966 and 1969, in
10 cities, in employer hiring standards and attitudes
toward hiring teenagers (Norman J. Samuels).
5. Employment Service Local Office Experience in
Serving Teenagers describes various obstacles en
countered by public employment offices in 23 areas
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in placing teenage workers (Irvin F . Wingeard).
6. Wage Expectations compares wages expected by
unemployed teenagers and wages actually earned by
employed teenagers (Harvey R. Hamel, Melvin
Goldberg, Thomas W. Gavett).
7. Teenage Earnings and Family Income analyzes
the importance of teenager earnings to family income
(Thomas W. Gavett).
8. Study of Full-Time Student and Learner Certifi
cation Program Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
reports the history and development of the certifica
tion program and analyze the results of a special
survey of the reasons why employers did not fully
use their authority to hire students and learners at
special below-minimum wage rates (Clara F . Schloss).
9. State Experience With Minimum Wage Diff
erential Rates for Youth and Their Effect on Youth
Employment describes experience under State mini
mum wage laws that have differential minimums for
youth (Juliet F . Kidney).
10. Youth Wage Rate Schemes in Western Europe
and Canada and Their Effect on Youth Unemployment
reviews the relevance to the United States of foreign
experience (John W. Piercey).
11. Youth Employment and Wages in Postwar
Japan reports on reasons for the high rates of overall
employment and intense demand for new school
graduates, along with low wages for youth (Solomon
B. Levine, Gerald G. Somers).
12. Summary and conclusions.
7
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND MINIMUM WAGES
full-time student certificates have the legal
authority to hire youth at 85 percent of the mini
mum wage. As reported in the study of utilization
of that authority (chapter 8), only 10 percent
used the certificate authority fully, and 55 percent
used less than half of their authorized man-hours.
Seventeen percent of the establishments holdingsuch certificates claimed they had not fully used
it because students were unsatisfactory workers
(table 4). Apparently for some employers at least
a 15-percent "discount” was not enough to offset
the poorer quality of student help.
All this does not mean that wages— and the
legal minimum wage in particular— are ever ir
relevant. Although local employment service
offices generally said minimum wages were not an
important reason for the difficulty in placing teen
agers in full-time jobs, minimum wages were
cited as a problem more frequently in the case of
16- to 17-year-olds (table 5). The minimum wage
was the second most common reason for employers
raising hiring standards between 1966 and 1969,
though such companies represented less than 5
percent of all employers in every city covered and
less than 1 percent in most cities. The relatively
tight labor market for adults in the last 3 years,
however, probably kept most employers from
raising their hiring standards. A minority of
employers covered in the survey of hiring stand
ards did consider the minimum wage an important
factor affecting their decision to hire teenagers
(table 6). Employers located in small towns cited
the minimum wage more frequently than em
ployers located in large cities and more frequently
with reference to 16- to 17-year-olds than 18- to 19-
Table 3. Change in labor force status, 1966-1967, men
15-19 years of age with work experience in 1966
Hourly rate of pay
(dollars) in 1966
Total
Total
Change
number
Change in mean number
with
in mean weeks employ
work
ed in
weeks
out of
experi
1966
unem
labor
ence in
ployed 1 force2 survey
1966
week
(thou (weeks) (weeks)
(thou
sands)
sands)
Disem
ploy
ment
rate
(into
unem
ploy
ment)3
(per
cent)
Disem
ploy
ment
rate
(out of
labor
force
(per
cent)
)4
Total or average3._ .
5,854
-1 .9
- '4 .1
3, 311
6.5
19.3
Less than $1.00__________
$1.00-1.39______________
$1.40 or more___________
688
1,941
1,591
-1 .3
-2 .3
-1 .0
- 4 .6
- 3 .9
-5 .5
492
1,210
1,165
5.3
6.5
6.4
20.3
21.7
16.1
1 Mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding the 1967
survey minus the mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding
the 1966 survey.
2 Mean number of weeks out of the labor force during the 12 months preceding the
1967 survey minus the mean number of weeks out of the labor force during the 12
months preceding the 1966 survey.
3 Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were unemployed
during the 1967 survey week.
Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were out of the
labor force during the 1967 survey week.
5 Total includes young men not classified by wage rate.
4
Note: For further discussion, see chapter 3.
Among the small number of establishments
which raised age or educational hiring require
ments between 1966 and 1969 in the 10-cities
survey of hiring standards, the reason most fre
quently cited by employers for doing so was higher
costs of training and hiring teenagers. Experience
under State laws and experience of the public
employment offices also indicate lack of education
and training to be an important reason for em
ployers not hiring teenagers for full-time jobs.
Dissatisfaction with teenagers’ absenteeism, un
reliability, and performance on the job is common.
In principle, the lower quality of teenage labor
could be offset, in the employer’s calculations, by
paying them a lower wage. However, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, establishments holding
Table 4. Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully utilizing full-time student certificates by
degree of utilization and reasons for less than full utilization of certificates
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968, to April 30,1969]
Reasons for not utilizing or not fully utilizing certificates
Degree of utilization
Total_________________
Less than 20 percent_________
20 percent to 49 percent.._
50 percent or more...............
Num
ber of
estab
lish
ments
with
certifi
cates
Num
ber of
estab
lish
ments
not
utilizing
or not
fully
utilizing
certifi
cates
4,615
1,484
1,085
2,046
Full
time
stu
dents
unsatis
factory
workers
Prefer
to hire
regular
workers
Com
pany
policy
to pay
m ini
mum
wages
Legal
restric
tions
Tempo
rary
opera
tional
prob
lems
Selfimposed
restric
tions
Delay
in
school
verifi
cation
stu
dent
status
Fully
staffed
Certifi
cate
restric
tions
4,163
2,168
799
881
868
788
600
504
396
356
332
223
120
39
1,484
1,085
1,594
564
641
963
321
198
280
425
212
244
339
211
318
199
236
353
243
151
206
282
98
124
111
114
171
189
82
85
49
78
205
136
50
37
80
36
4
14
12
13
Note: For further discussion, see chapter 8.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Full
time
stu
dents
unwill
ing to
work at
submini
mum
wages
Recordkeep
ing
Union
restric
tions
Other
reasons
8
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Table 5. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in
placing teenagers based on local office experience during
fiscal year 1969, average, all areas
[Rating Scale: Very im portant = 3; Important = 2; Unimportant, irrelevant, or not
true = 1]
Full-time jobs
Part-tim e jobs
Reason
Level of the minimum wage has caused
employers to seek older, more experi
enced workers for jobs_ __
2. Unwillingness of teenagers to accept
wages usually offered for jobs they are
qualified to take________
3. Uncertainty over the draft makes em
ployers reluctant to hire teenagers. _
4. Legal restrictions on hours of work,
hazardous work, or other working con
.
ditions for teenagers____
5. Hiring specifications of employers with
respect to education and experience
are so high that most teenagers are
excluded............... .. . .
6. Employers' hiring specifications with
respect to age exclude teenagers_____
7. Employer fear of higher cost of work
man's compensation and other insur
ance when teenagers are employed
8. Employers believe teenagers are not
reliable______
9. High labor turnover among teenagers
10. State laws require too much paper work,
such as work perm its_____
11. High cost of hiring and training teenagers
12. Union contract provisions
16-17
years
18-19
years
16-17
years
1.77
1.54
1.66
18-19
years
1.
1.52
1.79
2.10
1.64
1.87
1.32
2. 44
1.18
1.48
2.75
1.41
2.71
1.45
2.28
1.95
1.96
1.54
2. 44
1.56
2.23
1.47
2.19
1.59
2.09
1.48
2. 54
2.31
2.10
2.14
2.30
2.22
1.95
2. 01
1.85
1.65
1.63
1.07
1.58
1.40
1. 59
1.57
1.72
1.05
1.41
1.38
year-olds. Further, employers— as did the public
employment offices— cited the minimum wage as
an important factor more frequently in the case
of younger teenagers. A modest number of
establishments did apply for full-time student and
learner certificates under the f l s a , though less
than half the authorized time was actually used.
The evidence suggests, therefore, that some em
ployers would be willing to hire more teenagers at
lower wage rates. However, legal restrictions on the
employment of youth and apprehension over the
quality of teenagers as employees are probably
even more important impediments to the employ
ment of youth.
However, a 1967 survey of young men throughout
the Nation indicated that the average wage ex
pected by unemployed teenagers was less than the
average wage actually earned by those who were
employed (table 7). Further, large numbers of
teenagers, both unemployed and out of the labor
force, did indicate they would accept jobs at less
than the $1.40 legal minimum in 1967.
Findings from the Urban Employment Survey
( u e s ) , a survey of residents of selected poverty
areas of six large cities, suggest that average earn
ings expectations of currently unemployed teen
agers did not exceed average hourly earnings
actually received by employed teenagers. In the
July 1968-June 1969 survey period, the median
wage expected by unemployed teenage boys and
girls was less than the wage actually received by
those employed.
The reported proportion of unemployed young
men willing to accept employment in 1967 at
wages below the Federal minimum was less, how
ever, than the proportion of teenagers actually
employed at lower wages. The same was true of
teenagers, especially the males, in the Chicago and
New York poverty areas in 1968-69. These bits of
evidence lend some support to the supposition
that the unemployment of some teenagers can be
attributed to high wage expectations.
The average duration of unemployment for
teenagers is short. While this is partially attribut
able to their ability to withdraw from the labor
force, it suggests also that high wage or status ex
pectations of teenagers are not enduring.
Table 6. Percentage of establishments covered by FLSA
reporting the minimum wage as a factor in the decision
to hire teenagers, by city and age group
Expectations of youth
Under 18
18 and 19
City
Throughout the Nation, a commonplace belief
among employers and others is that young work
ers expect unduly high wages and are disinclined
to accept low status (frequently equated to low
wage) jobs. Close to 20 percent of the employers
holding full-time student certificates under f l s a
claimed they did not fully utilize the authority be
cause students were unwilling to work at submini
mum rates. Certainly there is much anecdotal
material on the alleged unreasonableness of
teenagers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Very
im por
tant
Impor
tant
Not
im por
tant
Very
im por
tant
Impor
tant
Atlanta_____________ .
Detroit_________________
Cleveland_____________
Baltimore_____________
Milwaukee____________
Los Angeles. _____ . . .
Battle Creek___________
Auburn_________________
Galveston_____________ .
El Paso_________________
14
16
10
10
11
8
23
20
19
31
21
24
17
20
16
14
23
28
24
25
65
60
73
70
73
78
54
52
57
44
9
11
9
9
8
6
13
13
13
25
18
18
16
18
11
11
19
31
20
28
73
71
75
73
81
83
67
56
67
47
Unweighted average:
6 large areas________
4 small areas________
11.5
23.2
18.7
25.0
69.8
51.8
8.7
16.0
15.3
24.5
76.0
59.3
Note:
For further discussion, see chapter 4.
Not
im por
tant
9
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND MINIMUM WAGES
Table 7. Rate of pay required to induce youth to accept
employment or to enter labor force, and hourly rate of
pay for those employed, by age and color, 1967
Age and 1967 labor
force status
Total
number
(thousands)
Less
than
$1.40
$1.40
to
$1.99
$2.00
to
$2.99
$3.00
or
more
Mean pay
required
or earned
Whites
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force____
Unemployed.................
Employed___________
Age 18-19:
Out of labor force____
Unemployed_________
Employed___________
808
400
1,968
51.1
43.0
47.5
44.5
50.9
37.9
3.9
4.8
9.9
0.5
.0
4.7
$1.32
1.35
1.95
196
141
1,493
13.8
18.0
25.2
57.2
46.1
33.6
23.0
29.7
30.9
6.0
6.2
10.3
1.69
1.76
1.93
All others
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force____
Unemployed_________
Employed___________
Age 18-19:
Unemployed_________
Employed___________
161
99
297
64.8
58.8
51.6
30.5
33.5
35.6
3.3
7.7
9.4
1.3
.0
3.4
$1.30
1.30
1.53
19
42
212
28.8
37.6
48. Ì
29.8
20.5
22.3
2.6
10.3
1.61
1.75
Note: For further discussion, see chapter 6. Dashes indicate data not available.
The available evidence indicates that teenagers
are knowledgeable about prevailing wage levels
and adjust their expectations according to differ
ences in levels between areas and overtime. There
is some evidence that unemployed teenagers are
disinclined to accept the lower wage jobs. Mini
mum wages may be a factor influencing these ex
pectations. These expectations contribute, at least
in the short run, to unemployment problems, but
do not appear to be a major obstacle to reducing
teenage unemployment.
A youth differential
Whether or not the minimum wage has been a
significant factor in causing youth unemployment,
the question of the effects of a youth differential is
a different issue. There has been only limited expe
rience with these differentials in the United States.
They currently exist in Federal minimum wage
legislation in the form of the certification programs
under f l s a and also in a variety of forms in State
laws. In other countries— in Western Europe,
Canada, and Japan (chapters 10 and 11)—youth
differentials exist by law, contract, or custom to a
much greater extent than in the United States.
The certification programs cover a limited num
ber of workers and establishments. Employer in
terest in the certification programs has increased
at times of minimum wage law changes, though
trend data on issuance of certificates do not neces
sarily measure usage. The study of these programs
points out that the authority to hire young work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ers at rates below the minimum does not auto
matically mean the opportunity will or can be
fully used by employers to increase employment of
youth; the modest abatement of rates provided in
those programs was, by itself, inadequate. The
full-time student certification rates were less mean
ingful in the South where wage levels are generally
low, the student rate thus providing a smaller
incentive to hire youth.
Differential rates in State minimum wage laws—
commonly 80 percent of the adult rate— have had
limited effects on unemployment rates. State laws
are not relevant where the Federal law applies if
the State minimum is below the Federal. In a num
ber of States, small establishments and certain
occupations where teenagers are employed are ex
empt from State law. Further, entry wage rates in
some areas are far above the State minimums.
Over 40 percent of the local employment service
offices believed employers would hire appreciably
more 16- and 17-year-old teenagers if it were pos
sible to pay less than the Federal minimum, but
only 26 percent of the offices believed this would
be true of 18- and 19-year-olds. About 90 percent
of those offices which believed it would make a
difference, thought the reduction in the minimum
wage that would be necessary would not exceed
40 cents.
The studies of the certification program, State
experience, and the survey of local employment
offices suggest that if a youth differential is to be
meaningful, it would need to be a fairly substan
tial differential— perhaps at least 20 percent below
the adult rate— and that the relationship of the
adult minimum to average wage levels could not be
far below the historic ratio.
The evidence from abroad indicates that low
wages for youth are an inducement to employers
to seek young workers eagerly. The relatively low
youth unemployment rates abroad (table 8) are
partially a reflection of the fact of low wages for
youth. In the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
and Japan, young workers start work at about onethird the adult rate. In the United States in 1967,
15- to 17-year-old boys received a wage which
averaged about 70 percent of the average wage
paid those 20 to 25 years old. Much of this differ
ence reflects a different mix of jobs and job status
in the two age groups.
One element of the Japanese experience— low
wages for youth— cannot be divorced from other
parts of Japanese institutions. For example, the
10
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Table 8. Unemployment rates and the youth-adult
unemployment ratio for selected countries
Adult unemploy
ment rate
Youth unemploy
ment rate
(15-19 years)
1960-64
1960-64
Countries
Germany (1961-67)..............
Canada (1962-66) 2 _______
Netherlands (1960)..........
United Kingdom (1961-67).
Sweden (1964-67)________
France (1960).......................
Belgium (1960).....................
Italy (1 9 6 1 -6 7 )..................
United States (1 9 6 0 -6 8 )...
Japan (1962)«......................
0.3
6.9
0.9
3 1.3
« 1.7
1.7
1.5
2.5
3.4
5.5
0.9
1967-68
1. 1
4.0
» 2 .0
2.2
3.5
3.6
0.3
14.7
1.4
« 0.9
«2.3
3.9
6.6
4.0
9.3
« 14.7
1.4
1967-68
1.1
Youth-adult
unemployment
ratio 1
1960-64
1967-68
1.0
1.8
1.0
9.7
2.4
2. 6
3 2.2
3 0.6
3 1. 1
5.5
11.4
3 12.7
« 1.4
2. 6
4.4
1.7
4.9
3.3
1.6
3.4
5.7
5.5
1 Ratio of youth unemployment rate to adult unemployment rate for adults 25 and
over.
2 Ostry, Sylvia, Unemployment in Canada, 1961, males only, ratio: youth-all ages.
3 Labor Ministry data from unemployment insurance records.
« Census data for April 1961.
5 Youth unemployment data relate to 16- to 19-year-olds.
6 Levine and Somers, Youth Employment and Wages in Postwar Japan.
Ratio: youth-all
ages.
nenko system with its virtual lifetime guarantee of
employment within the firm and high wages in
later years offsets low wages in youth.
Low wage rates for youth in Europe cannot be
separated from the extensive apprenticeship pro
grams in Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands.
These programs help to channel children from
school to work. Moreover, the nenko system in
Japan and the apprenticeship system in Europe
are undergoing change, or at least attack, with
possible ramifications for youth differentials in
those countries.
In the Soviet Union, young workers by law have
a shorter workday, a longer annual vacation, and
higher wage rates than adults doing the same type
of work— just the opposite of experience in western
Europe and Japan. The 16- and 17-year-old works
7 hours a day and 5 days a week; 15-year-old ap
prentices work 5 hours a day. The young worker
gets the same daily or monthly basic pay that an
adult gets for working 8 hours a day at the same
type of work. There have been reports in the Soviet
press that many managers of establishments have
been reluctant to hire young workers because of
the extra cost involved. To combat this practice
by employers, a joint party-government decree of
February 2, 1966, established quotas of jobs for
youth, the size of the quotas varying among
branches of the national economy.4
In the United States, the overwhelming propor
tion of teenagers belong to a part-time, part-year
labor force. Almost three-fourths of the teenagers
are enrolled in school. Experience in foreign coun
tries having institutions different from those in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the United States has a limited application to
American teenagers who are much less likely to be
looking for a “permanent” job.
The employment advantage of a youth differen
tial would be restricted by the fact that many
teenagers are available for only part-time employ
ment and have a limited geographic mobility. I t
would also be restricted by American wage-setting
institutions which emphasize a wage for a job, not
an age-wage relationship, and further limited by
legal restrictions on the employment of youth.
The effects of differential rates
The analysis of the relationship between teenage
earnings and family income (chapter 7) points out
that very few teenagers contribute a significant
share of family income. Since 73 percent of the
teenagers who worked in 1966 earned less than
$1,000 per year, their low earnings are more
affected by the number of hours of work they find
than by the wage rate. Wages paid teenagers are,
of course, not solely dependent on the minimum
wage.
Reports from abroad do not indicate that adult
employment has been affected adversely by lower
minimum rates for teenagers. However, the Euro
pean countries and Japan have had very low over
all levels of unemployment. Thus, experience
abroad does not provide a clear test of the effects
of introducing a system of youth differentials. Past
experience in the United States is no sure guide,
since differential rates for youth have been used
to only a limited extent.
Youth differentials are common in most State
laws with no apparent evidence of adverse effects.
State minimum wage levels are not, however, al
ways meaningful relative to prevailing wage levels.
About 40 percent of the local employment service
offices believed that a lower Federal minimum
wage for teenagers would have adverse effects on
employment of other groups; this was, however,
only an informed judgment. Available materials
do not permit any firm conclusions about adverse
effects of a youth differential minimum wage.
Conclusions
1. Increases in the level and coverage of the Fed
eral minimum wage may have contributed to the
employment problems of teenagers, but it is
difficult to disentangle such effects from numerous
other influences.
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND MINIMUM WAGES
Prior to the 1960’s, relatively few teenagers were
employed in establishments covered by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Prior to 1966, agriculture
(where teenagers are employed as family workers)
was totally exempt; domestic service still is. Serv
ices and trade were generally excluded from the
law prior to 1961, and even now small establish
ments are exempt. The longrun rise in the unem
ployment rate of teenagers relative to that of
adults— especially marked since 1962— appears to
have been associated with many factors. Com
pounding problems have been the increase in the
relative size of the teenage population, the in
crease in the proportion of youth enrolled in
school, and the shift of employment out of agri
culture. Although neither of the latter two factors
may explain much of the relative rise in teenage
unemployment, they do mean that one easy-access
labor market, namely, the family farm, is available
to a smaller proportion of youth and that the types
of employment sought by teenagers (outside school
hours) cover a restricted range of existing em
ployment opportunities. The increase in the num
ber of teenagers in school has, on the other hand,
taken some of them out of the labor force.
The magnitude of the employment effects of
minimum wage legislation probably has been
small, as the studies included in this report
underline, and, consequently, difficult to measure
precisely. I t should be kept in mind, however,
that (1) many teenagers have, until very recent
years, been employed in sectors of the economy
not covered by f l s a , ( 2 ) minimum wage levels
have not been markedly high relative to prevailing
wage levels, judging by historical ratios, and (3)
the importance of minimum wages, in the periods
between Congressional action, has been partially
offset by increases in money wages, tending to
make any disemployment effects a shortrun
phenomenon. Also, as the econometric study
included in this report points out, adverse employ
ment effects of the minimum wage may have been,
in recent years, offset by Federal manpower
programs.
The high unemployment rates of teenagers
have not brought about a drop in the relative
wage paid teenagers and, hence, an increase in
their employment opportunities. Certainly, a
legal minimum wage, on its face, means wages
are inflexible downward. Because minimum wages
have been periodically increased to maintain about
the same level of parity with average earnings,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
any tendency for the spread between lower and
higher rates to increase has been offset, except
in the shortrun.
Not all sectors of the economy have been
covered by f l s a ; other labor market institutions,
including union contracts, have also affected wage
levels and wage rigidity. Unlike Britain, France,
or Japan, American wage-setting institutions have
generally developed the practice of setting a wage
rate for a job regardless of who holds the job.
In other countries a young clerk, for example,
may receive less than an adult doing the same
work in the same company simply because he is
young, but this has not been the practice in the
United States. Rather, any wage differences
associated with age are usually attributable to
young people holding different types of jobs than
adults. Longevity or seniority increases are less
important than occupational wage differentials;
further, longevity increases are a function of
length of service on a particular job, not chrono
logical age per se. A company’s demand for workers
to do a particular job within the company is
limited. Except to the degree that almost all
persons holding a particular job in a company
are teenagers, the nature of American wage
setting institutions would reduce (but not elimi
nate) the possibility of a relative decline in wages
paid teenagers even if there were no minimum
wage legislation.
A cautionary note should be added. If the
minimum wage as a percent of average hourly
earnings was more than the 50-percent range
prevailing in the postwar period or if coverage
was extended to new areas, past experience would
not serve as an accurate guide to future employ
ment effects.
2.
Employer attitudes— as reflected in both
the survey of employers and the response of the
public employment offices— experience under the
certification programs, and experience in other
countries suggest that a substantial differential
between youth and adult rates would increase the
employment of teenagers. The incentive of a large
differential would help to overcome the appre
hensions employers have indicated over the quality
of teenagers as employees. The evidence indicates
the differential would especially affect the decisions
of employers to hire 16- and 17-year-old teenagers
and particularly employers located outside the large
urban centers. The effect of a youth differential
12
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
would depend on the size of the difference between
the youth and adult minimums, the relation of the
adult minimum to the current average hourly
earnings of rank-and-file workers, and the sim
plicity of the regulations. Even then, the effect of
the differential would be restricted by conditions
unique to the American scene.
If a youth differential were instituted in the
1970’s, it would be difficult to evaluate its effects
without better data, especially frequency distribu
tions of wages of workers in the American economy
along with demographic information on the work
ers. The effects of a youth differential must be
separated from other developments. During the
coming decade, the teenage population will in
crease 12 percent, compared with 40 percent in
the 1960’s. Assuming no major decline in economic
activity, this slower rate of growth, alone, should
help ease problems of absorbing teenagers into the
employed labor force.
□
----------FOO TNOTES---------1 Throughout the study, the terms “youth,” “teenagers,”
and “young people” have been used interchangeably.
Unless otherwise specified, the terms refer to 16- to 19year-olds.
2 See chart 2 and table 2 for some additional detail.
3 More sophisticated statements of tests and further
data can be found in chapter 3. If columns 2 and 3 of
table 3 are added, the expected adverse pattern
appears. This is not true, however, when data are con
trolled by school enrollment status. See table 3.6 in
chapter 3.
4 Sovetskie profsoyuzy [Soviet Trade Unions], No. 12
(June 1967), p. 47.
Resolving community disputes
A proposal by Theodore W. Kheel, published in the Monthly L abor Review
(January 1969), has led to the creation of two new organizations designed to
apply the techniques of collective bargaining to the resolution of community
conflicts.
The two new organizations, established under a grant from the Ford
Foundation, are:
The Board o f M ediation fo r Community Disputes. This board “will seek to
aid community groups resolve their differences with each other and with
public agencies. I t will help develop bargaining relationships and make avail
able techniques of conflict resolution to community groups which are divided
over issues of education, housing, welfare, poverty, model cities, and other
areas of public concern.”
The Center fo r Conflict Resolution. “The center will offer training courses
in community negotiations, mediation, and public employment dispute
settlement. I t will also sponsor research and case studies in the field of com
munity and racial conflict.”
The Center will operate under the auspices of the Institute for Collective
Bargaining and Group Relations.
Both the Board of Mediation and the Center for Conflict Resolution have
their headquarters in Automation House, 49 East 68th Street, New York,
N .Y . 10021.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Detailed specification of the powers,
functions, and responsibilities
of a Federal data center
might satisfy Congressional doubts
about invasion of privacy
CHARLES L. SCHULTZE
A data system
for measuring
and analyzing
public programs
it will obviously be necessary to isolate the effect
on output of demographic variance as opposed to
program input variance. Matching program file
data with demographic file data may be the only
way
to avoid expensive and repetitive special
From two points of view, information is grossly
surveys
for each program analysis.1
insufficient. First, while our existing data systems
2.
Longitudinal
data files. The difficulties of
(national income accounts, flow-of-funds, etc.)
using
either
cross-section
data or aggregative time
have performed well for macro policy decisions,
series,
particularly
for
isolating
specific inputthey are highly imperfect or completely useless
output
relationships,
are
too
well
known
to need
as a measure of performance and a means of
repetition
here.
In
some
cases,
particularly
for
setting goals in the micro areas of social programs
detailed
production
function
analysis,
longitudinal
(manpower training, education, health care, and
data will be absolutely essential. In other cases,
so on). Second, we have little knowledge of the
for
example in developing transition probabilities,
micro production functions connecting program
longitudinal
data can substantially improve esti
inputs with program outputs in most govern
mates
obtained
from a comparison of the status
mental social programs.
of successive cohorts.
Data requirements
3. M aking available to the analyst individual file
data, as opposed to summary classifications. The
These two objectives— measuring social per
treatment of data by statistical agencies and users
formance and analyzing social production func
is still primarily oriented to the precomputer days
tions—share certain common data requirements.
in which the primary objective was to publish
To pursue either of these objectives, three types
summary classifications. Use of summary classifi
of data needs will loom large:
cations as raw input into analytic models sharply
1.
Matching data on individuals (and institu
reduces the power of the analysis. I t reduces
tions) from different surveys and administrative
variance, massively increases collinearity prob
Hies. The data available from any one survey,
lems, and suppresses information.
including the census, will not alone be sufficient.
Given the capability of modern computers,
Social Security and Internal Revenue Service
publication of summary classification as the pri
data must be matched with each other and with
mary means of transmitting data to users repre
census data. Special surveys (on juvenile delin
sents a major waste of statistical information.
quency, for example, or on health status) must be
Users must be in a position to manipulate samples
matched with census and other demographic files.
of original data files.
Similarly, in analyzing micro production functions,
D e s pit e a flood of raw data about new programs,
the provision of meaningful information to deci
sionmakers has lagged abysmally behind their
needs.
Charles L. Schultze, formerly Director of the Bureau of
the Budget, is Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
and professor of economics at the University of Maryland.
This article is drawn from the paper, “ Governmental
and Public Data Needs,” presented to the annual meeting
of the American Economic Association, held in New York
City in December 1969.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The privacy problem
Organizing the Federal statistical effort to meet
these principal data needs of public policy analysis
runs headlong into the problem of privacy. Con
gressional concern about privacy has grown at
least as rapidly as professional concern over data
13
14
gaps. And, not surprisingly, the former has
prevailed.
In 1967 the House Appropriations Committee
dealing with the Census Bureau held up the
Bureau’s appropriations until it extracted a
promise from the latter not to enter social security
numbers on census records. And without social
security numbers, the difficulties of file matching
are enormously increased. This year, there was a
major attempt in the Congress to make all
responses to the 1970 census voluntary, except
for a few rudimentary pieces of demographic data.
The House has passed a bill requiring the census
to clear each of its 1980 census questions with
the Congress. Several years ago, an attempt to
move towards the establishment of a Federal data
center foundered on congressional hostility, princi
pally on account of fears about invasion of
privacy.2
This is not the occasion for an analysis of the
privacy problem or for a detailed justification of
a Federal data center.3 Several points are worth
making, however.
A perusal of congressional hearings on the pro
posed data center makes it clear that opponents
and proponents were talking at cross purposes.
Congressmen and witnesses concerned with in
vasion of privacy imagined some huge data
“dump” in which all survey and administrative
files (including security information and criminal
records) would be brought together and somehow
merged into a master tape, whose code could
some day be broken by unscrupulous users seeking
power or personal gain. B u t such a data “dump”
is neither needed nor intended. W hat is required
are some very limited and specific improvements
over the current system.
The proposal
First, a highly competent staff should be
established in a central statistical development
agency, whose function would be creative in
nature. Primarily, the agency would be responsible
for developing the systems described below. The
agency would operate under Census Bureau
confidentiality rules.
Second, careful reference and file documentation
standards should be developed for existing statis
tical agencies and the statistical files of adminis
trative agencies.
Third, matched sample files, providing high
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
demographic and social status information content,
should be developed. Dossier-type information
from legal and judicial files would be excluded.
Fourth, where sample characteristics were such
that individual file data could be made available
without the possibility of individual identification,
they should be. Where confidentiality made such
release impossible, computer techniques should
be developed allowing user computers to manipu
late the data file but to provide only “result”
measures to the users. That is, the systems would
not permit user computers to “output” file data.
With the development of on line communication
capability between remote computers, such tech
niques should be easily achievable.
Fifth, the central agency, with the cooperation
of users, should develop model files which could
then be manipulated by users. Joseph Pechman
at Brookings, for example, has a sample file of
100,000 tax returns which permits analysis im
possible from summary published data. To
calculate the impact of a specific change in the
tax laws, the computer simply recomputes the
tax liability of each unit in the sample. To estimate
the income elasticity of existing or proposed tax
systems, the analyst feeds in a series of income
and income distribution assumptions, and the
computer recomputes tax liabilities at alternative
income levels. Such models could be developed in
other areas and made available.
Sixth, the central agency should develop the
most effective techniques by which individual
analysts could supply to the data agency file data
collected from special surveys, have the data
matched with particular files, and receive back the
combined results, in appropriate summary form.
For certain kinds of information (for example,
juvenile delinquency or criminal records), the
system should insure that the resulting individual
matched files are never “outputted” and the core
memory is erased.
Seventh, the central development agency should
be given authority to seek special appropriations
with which to supplement the budgets of adminis
trative agencies— this to ensure that administra
tive files are collected and maintained in such a
way as to maximize their legitimate statistical
usefulness.
Concern over privacy is a salutary one. The
actual dangers to individual privacy from a
carefully conceived statistical data system, how
ever, are de minimis. Indeed, the irony is that the
15
ANALYZING PUBLIC PROGRAMS
confidentiality record of statistical agencies is
superb. I t is not they who collect “damaging”
information; or who leak derogatory information
collected by wiretap to national magazines.
Nevertheless, whatever the facts, it is clear that
no progress will be made toward the kind of data
system we need for public policy purposes until the
doubts of those who raise the privacy problem are
stilled. And here, I believe, the only way to do this
is to develop a carefully limited proposal for a data
development center. I t is clear that opposition to a
data center stems in part from the excessive
generality which has characterized prior proposals
for a data center. A detailed specification of the
powers, functions, and responsibilities of a data
development center must be worked out in
advance. Emphasis must be placed on the fact
that such a center would not be a data “dump,”
that it would deal primarily in sample populations,
that it would not maintain “derogatory” informa
tion of any kind, and that it would have
confidentiality standards of a census nature, which,
in turn, are much tighter than those used by most
administrative agencies. Perhaps, with such a
precisely detailed and limited approach, some
progress could be made towards developing the
kind of information systems needed for public
policymaking.
□
1 For a description of several attempts to match special
survey or administrative data with census files, see D. M.
Nitzberg and H. Sardy, “The Methodology of Computer
Linkage of Health and Vital Records,” E. S. Pollack,
“Use of Census Matching for Study of Psychiatric Ad
mission R ates,” and J. E. Simpson and M. D. Van Arsdol,
“The Matching of Census and Probation Department
Record Systems,” in Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, Social Statistics Section, 1965, pp. 100, 107,
and 116, respectively.
3
The three basic documents outlining the advantages of
a central Federal data center and outlining proposals for
such a center are the Ruggles report, the Dunn report, and
the Kaysen report. R. Ruggles, et al., “ Report of the
Committee on the Preservation and Use of Economic Data
to the Social Science Research Council” (New York Social
Science Research Council, 1965); E. Dunn, “ Review of
Proposal for a National Data Center,” a report prepared
for the Bureau of the Budget and reprinted in “The
Computer and Invasion of Privacy,” op. cit.; and C.
Kaysen, et al., “ Report of the Task Force on the Storage
of and Access to Government Statistics” (U.S. Bureau of
the Budget, 1966).
2 The Computer and Invasion of Privacy, Hearings Before
the Committee on Government Operations (U.S. House of
Representatives, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 1966).
Improving our economic data
. . . Our demands for economic data of high quality keep outrunning
the supply. The Federal Government is not alone in requiring better sta
tistics, since to an increasing extent businesses have been making use of eco
nomic data for planning their own operations. Indeed, never before have so
many businesses watched so closely the economic indicators that appear
each month or quarter. . . .
Accurate data are also needed in order to help analyze the past and find
relationships that have some degree of stability. Accomplishing this aim is
obviously only partly a question of statistics; the economy is, of course, more
than a mechanism. For example, swings in sentiment and attitudes in our
affluent economy have a powerful effect on the inclinations of consumers and
businesses to spend. Consumer behavior has been especially difficult to predict
in recent years, and may be more complex than had been thought previously.
Business decisionmaking is equally complex. Y et economic analysis is a
continuing search for patterns of regularity that can be helpful in forming
judgments about the economy. And the first requirement for this search is
reliable basic data.
—Economic Report o f the President, 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Trade unions
in the
performing
arts
T h e liv e performing arts are highly unionized.
Almost all the paid performers and supportive
personnel are members of at least 1 of the 23
different unions or branches with jurisdiction in
the performing arts (table 1). Most of the unions
are well-established organizations, having been
formed in the early 1900’s; all but five are affiliated
with the a f l — cio.
Causes of unionization
I t is not known what determines the degree of
unionization in an industry, but in the performing
arts several probable causes can be identified.
First, there is a history of exploitation by some
managers and booking agents. I t was not un
common 60 years ago for a producer to cancel a
performance during the rehearsal period or on the
opening night because of low ticket sales. In many
such cases performers were paid neither for re
hearsals nor for the loss of time in making them
selves available for the canceled performance.
These unfair practices frequently solidified the
employees and made clear the need for some type
of group action in countering the inherent power
of a manager or producer.
The casual nature of the labor market in the
performing arts is another reason for the high
degree of unionization. In the commercial theatre,
organizations are formed specifically to produce
a particular play and then disband as soon as the
play closes or the business associated with produc
tion is completed. Jobs tend to be of an ad hoc,
short-term nature, and performers as well as supMichael H. Moskow is* a Senior Staff Economist with
the Council of Economic Advisors, on leave from Temple
University. This article is drawn from a larger study,
Labor Relations in the Performing Arts: An Introductory
Survey, recently published by the Associated Councils of
the Arts. The ideas expressed are the personal views of the
author.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Casual nature of employment
in concert hall, on stage and screen,
has led to a
high degree of unionization
MICHAEL H. MOSKOW
portive personnel rarely work for the same
organization for an extended period of time.
The constant changing of jobs places employees
in a vulnerable position, and they may be forced
to compete for jobs on the basis of pay rates.
There is little incentive for an employer to pro
vide fringe benefits such as pensions and welfare
plans to temporary employees.1
Under such circumstances, the union is one of
the few stable forces in the industry, controlling
the labor market and offering employers a ready
pool of skilled workers. The employer finds it
easier to contact the supportive union when em
ployees are needed than to attempt hiring them
by other means. This in turn strengthens the
union, with the result that persons wishing to
work in the industry find it essential to join the
union. Interestingly enough, most unions in the
performing arts rarely try to organize new
members; instead, the potential members seek
out the union.
The unions of actors, musicians, and stagehands
all seem to have gained considerable strength
from the ad hoc nature of the industries in which
most of their original members worked. For
example, the founders of the American Federation
of Musicians (afm ) were all single-engagement
musicians who, by definition, had short-term
employment. Today the vast majority of members
of the musicians’ union still are single-engagement
musicians, working sporadically in dance bands
or small musical groups. The high degree of union
ization among such musicians probably has had
a “spill-over effect” on the orchestral musicians.
In the resident theatres, most actors have
worked or aspire to work on Broadway or offBroadway, where theatres are completely union
ized. The actors in resident theatres frequently
want to be represented by Actors’ Equity As
sociation; membership in the union is a sign of
achievement in the theatre world, and they want
17
TRADE UNIONS IN THE ARTS
Table 1.
Unions in the performing arts
Jurisdiction
Name of union
Membership in
1968 (in
round numbers)
Performer unions:
Associated Actors and Artistes of America (Four A's):
Actors’ Equity Association (E quity)..............................................
Actors, stage managers, chorus directors, and choreographers..................
14.000
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA).
Actors, singers, dancers, announcers, newscasters, sound effects artists,
disc jockeys, graphic artists, and supernumeraries for radio, recordings,
and five or taped television productions.
23.000
American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA)------- . -------------------
Singers, choristers, choreographers, dancers, stage directors, stage man
agers, and instrumentalists.
4,000
American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA)...................... . ...........
Cabaret, vaudeville, burlesque, and circus performers..................................
12,500
Hebrew Actors Union (HAU).................................................... . . .
Specialized actors......... ......................................................................................
200
Italian Actors Union (IA U )...................................... ......................
Specialized actors..................... ..........................................................................
Screen Actors Guild ( S A G ) ........................................... ........... .
Actors in motion pictures, filmed television productions, industrial films,
educational films, and governmental Films', also voices and dubbing.
Screen Extras Guild (SEG)..................................... .........................
Film extras....................................... ...................................................................
3,600
American Federation of Musicians (AFM ).............................. .............
Musicians, conductors, librarians, arrangers, copyists, and orchestrators.
283,150
90
21.000
Professional organizations >:
Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers (ATPAM)___
Press agents, house managers, and company managers...............................
600
Directors Guild of America (DGA)............................ ............... ......... .
Directors, assistant directors, associate directors, stage managers, and
production assistants in television and motion picture industries.
3,480
1,850
Dramatists Guild of America (DGA)..................................... ............ .
Composers, lyricists, and authors of any material used in live theatre—
Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers (SSD&C).............. ..
Stage directors and choreographers.............................................. ...................
United Scenic Artists (USA)...................................................................
Costume, lighting, and scenic designers..........................................................
850
Writers Guild of America (WGA)........................................................ .
Writers for television, radio, and motion pictures...........................................
4,180
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IA TSE)............................
Stagehands, carpenters, electricians, treasurers, ticket sellers, wardrobe
attendants, makeup artists, film editors, publicists, script supervisors,
studio mechanics, film cameramen, and laboratory technicians.
60,000
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IB E W )......................................
Broadcasting technicians and recording engineers.........................................
12,800
Local 399(Hollywood)................................ ....................... .................................
Studio transportation drivers.............................................................................
1,700
Local 817 (New York City)................................... ....... .......................................
Chauffeurs and helpers for motion pictures, theatre, television, and con
cert transports.
300
Engineers, mechanics, and helpers................................................................
3.600
380
Supportive unions:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (IB T ):
International Union of Operating Engineers (OE), Local 30...................................
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET)...........
Broadcasting technicians--------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------
8.600
Retail Clerks International Association (RCIA), Local 1115—C................................
Cloak room attendants................................................................. - ......... .........
Not available
Service Employees International Union, Local 9 (San Francisco) and Local 54
(New York City), Theatre, Amusement and Cultural Building Service Employ
ees (SEIU)
Ushers, ticket takers, special guards, doormen, porters, cleaners, matrons,
watchmen, elevators, programs distributors, and roundsmen.
Not available
1 Not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, except for the United Scenic Artists, which is an
affiliate of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; also union constitutions and personal interviews with union leaders.
their work in the resident theatres to be considered
“professional.”
A further reason for the high degree of union
ization in the live performing arts is the strategic
position of the performers and supportive per
sonnel. The product depends ultimately on the
people working on the production. A play cannot
be presented without actors or stagehands. This
characteristic of the industry gives the employees
tremendous bargaining power and enhances their
ability to force the employer to recognize and to
bargain with their union.
The performer unions also gain much in strength
when they have in their ranks star performers.
These “name” artists, who derive little benefit
from union membership since their salaries and
working conditions far exceed the minimum stand
ards negotiated by the union, have considerable
individual bargaining power. When they support
the union, they greatly enhance its position
vis-a-vis the employer and, even more important,
perform a leadership function in obtaining support
for the union from less well recognized performers.
I t is difficult to say why name performers join
and support unions, but the general social con
sciousness and the sense of family that exist in
the performing arts may be among the causes. It
is important to note, however, that the unions
3 7 4 - 7 4 4 O — 7(
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
18
have been able to adapt their structure and opera
tions to the unusual phenomenon of individual
bargaining.
Performer unions
In the performing arts, all performers except
symphony musicians are represented by the
Associated Actors and Artistes of America (a fl cio), or the “Four A’s” as it is commonly called.
This union has eight branches, which have some
similarities in structure but also important differ
ences. Total membership of the Four A’s branches
is approximately 65,000, although this is an
overstatement because of considerable overlap
among the branches. I t is quite common for a
performer to hold membership in several branches.
For example, an opera singer needs a membership
in the American Guild of Musical Artists (agma)
for his performances with an opera company,
in the American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists (aftra ) for live performances on
television, in the Screen Actors Guild (sag) for
film performances on television, and in the Actors’
Equity Association for performances in a theatrical
production. No accurate data are available on
the overlapping memberships of the branches,
and estimates of the total number of persons in
the Four A’s range from 25,000 to 50,000.2
For all practical purposes, the Four A’s is a
facade. I t has a one-room office and its staff
consists of only a part-time secretary. The unpaid
officers work on a part-time basis. The constitution
of the union requires its branches to request
permission from the Four A’s to strike, but in
practice this provision is a mere formality. The
Four A’s rarely has exerted significant influence
over the actions of the branches, which are almost
completely autonomous. Managers of performing
arts organizations conduct all bargaining and
day-to-day relations with representatives of the
branches, not with the Four A’s.
No branch of the Four A’s pays salaries to its
officers, who almost always work full time as
performers and can spare little time for the affairs
of the union. Each branch has a full-time, paid
executive secretary and staff. Equity and agma
have elected councils or boards that meet weekly
or every second week to make policy decisions.
Similar boards of aftra and sag meet once a
year, but local boards of these unions meet more
frequently.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
This type of structure is found in few unions
outside of the performing arts. One potential
advantage of frequent meetings of the elected
representatives is that the paid staff, hence the
union, is likely to represent the wishes of the
membership more faithfully. The frequency of
board meetings, however, may have an inhibiting
effect on the salaried staff members. The actions
of staff members are occasionally overruled, and
there is a danger that staff members will not
exercise strong leadership if they permit the
governing board to make decisions that should be
within the purview of the staff. In addition, the
staff must spend an enormous amount of time
preparing for the board meetings, a loss that
tends to limit their effectiveness in serving the
members.
Equity, the Guild of Musical Artists, Screen
Actors Guild, and Screen Extras Guild do not
have local affiliates; only aftra and the American
Guild of Variety Artists have locals. The other
branches of the Four A’s have regional offices,
although most decisions made within the branches
appear to be highly centralized, aftra is the
only branch that holds annual conventions; the
other branches have annual meetings open to the
entire membership.
The American Federation of Musicians, the
only performer union not in the Four A’s, has
jurisdiction over musicians and related profes
sionals, including all symphony and opera instru
mentalists. The 7,500 symphony orchestra
musicians constitute but a small fraction of the
union’s total membership.3 The structure of the
union contrasts markedly with that of the Four
A’s branches, afm locals are highly autonomous
and the international office exerts little influence
over their actions.
Several other organizations in the performing
arts are neither performer nor supportive unions.
For instance, the Association of Theatrical Press
Agents and Managers (atpam ) and the Society of
Stage Directors and Choreographers (ssd&c) en
roll persons who usually are not unionized.
Managerial employees are not protected by
Federal labor legislation, and it is questionable
whether directors and choreographers can be
classified as “employees” under the National
Labor Relations Act.
The Writers Guild of America has evolved from
a professional association to a union that bargains
for staff writers in television and movies. On the
19
TRADE UNIONS IN THE ARTS
other hand, the Dramatists Guild negotiated six
collective bargaining agreements for theatrical
dramatists from 1926 to 1955, but now refuses to
negotiate any changes in its minimum basic
agreement with the League of New York Theatres.
The Directors Guild bargains for directors and
assistant directors in television and movies but
calls itself a “collective bargaining organization”
instead of a union.
The United Scenic Artists, an affiliate of the
paperhangers’ union, represents scenic, costume,
and lighting designers, who frequently are con
sidered “independent contractors” instead of
employees. Scenic artists operate out of their own
shops rather than in the theatre, making models
for sets or drawing designs for costumes. Often
they work on two or three productions simul
taneously. As a result, there is some question as to
whether they are “employees” and thus subject to
protection of Federal labor legislation. If they are
not employees within the meaning of the nlra ,
the United Scenic Artists do not qualify as a
union. No one has yet challenged its status, and
currently it is operating as if it were a bona fide
labor union.
One distinfct characteristic can be identified
when studying unions of performers: their mem
bers exert more influence over collective bargaining
than is the case in most other unions. First, there
appears to be a higher incidence of membership
participation in negotiations as committee mem
bers and observers. Second, negotiating commit
tees, especially among musicians and actors, find
increasing difficulty in obtaining membership ap
proval of collective bargaining agreements.
There are different schools of thought on
whether this situation is desirable. Federal labor
legislation, particularly the Landrum-Griffin Act,
embodies the public policy of encouraging mem
bers to participate in the affairs of their unions
and requiring union leaders to be more responsive
to the wishes of their members. This premise, some
argue, justifies increased participation in negotia
tions and the higher incidence of contract rejec
tions by union members. The opponents of this
view contend that, although a certain amount of
membership participation is desirable, there must
be strong leadership in the union if collective
bargaining is to work effectively. Attendance of
union members at negotiating sessions is not in
itself harmful, but leadership at the bargaining
table should be provided by the professional union
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
leader. The increased incidence of refusal by union
members to ratify contracts negotiated by their
leaders is particularly harmful to collective bar
gaining because the negotiators are hampered in
finalizing an agreement and negotiations are
prolonged.
Regardless of whether this trend is desirable,
several reasons can be identified for its develop
ment in performer unions. First, the increased
participation seems to be inherent in the very
structure of the unions. The lack of full-time
officers in the Four A’s branches and the fact that
symphony musicians represent a small minority
of members in their union locals may cause mem
bers to desire a greater say in collective bargaining.
Second, this propensity results from the per
formers’ professional status. Professional em
ployees generally want to influence the decisions
affecting them, and this may be reflected in col
lective bargaining on their salaries and working
conditions. Third, the increased participation in
collective bargaining by members of performer
unions could be part of an overall movement to
greater participation in all unions.
Most of the unions and other employee organi
zations examined in this article engage in some
activities characteristic of professional associa
tions. For example, Equity has its own theatre
where actors can work on plays and receive assist
ance from other, experienced actors and directors.
The Society of Stage Directors and Choreogra
phers has weekly meetings to discuss improvements
and changes in the technical aspects of directing
and choreography. The American Federation of
Musicians sponsors an annual
“Congress of
Strings” in an attempt to increase the number of
string players and improve their training. Most
of the efforts of the “ talent” unions, however, are
devoted to protecting the interests of their
members.
Supportive unions
Six international unions with local affiliates
have jurisdiction over supportive employees in
the performing arts. Almost all the 60,000 members
of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees ( iatse ) work in the performing arts.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
and the Service Employees International Union
each have two local affiliates with members who
work almost exclusively in the performing arts.
20
The Operating Engineers, Retail Clerks, and
Electrical Workers enroll a small number of mem
bers who work mainly in the live performing arts,
in relatively large locals with heterogeneous
membership. In addition, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Na
tional Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians have a total of approximately 18,000
members who work mainly in radio and television.4
Most of the supportive unions represent
employees who work in a single type of job, so
that there is a multitude of unions in supportive
activities. A large majority of them were active
years before the National Labor Relations Act
was passed in 1935. There is a long history of rigid
jurisdictional lines among unions in major cities,
and in most cases these lines have been accepted
by employees and employers in the performing
arts. The following partial list of local unions in
New York City, divided by job categories, gives
some indication of the fragmentation of supportive
unions in the live performing arts:
Local 54, Cleaners and Porters, s e iu
Local 1, Stagehands, i a t s e
Local 751, Treasurers and Ticket Sellers, i a t s e
Local 764, Wardrobe Attendants, i a t s e
Local 798, Make-up Artists and Hair Stylists, ia t s e
Local 1111, Amusement Clerks, Retail Clerks Inter
national
Local 817, Theatre-Radio Field Equipment Stagemovers, Teamsters
The structure of supportive unions in the live
performing arts is similar to that of most unions
in other industries with paid officers and local
affiliates. The International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees is the largest of the supportive
unions and represents members in all the perform
ing arts. I t has approximately 1,000 locals through
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
out the United States, including 16 in New York
City and 23 in Los Angeles. The union represents
all supportive employees on Hollywood movie
sets and has separate locals for each category
including even nurses and teachers of child per
formers. The international office of the iatse
appears to exert more control over the actions
of its locals than does any other union in the per
forming arts. For example, the provision in its
constitution that no local may call a strike
without receiving permission from the inter
national office is vigorously enforced. The inter
national office has placed several locals in trustee
ship and has observers attending meetings of a
few of its other locals.
One thing should be noted in conclusion:
Unions in the performing arts represent a very
small portion of the country’s labor force, but
they are constantly in the public eye. They operate
in a highly visible sector of our economy, a fact
that frequently results in widespread publicity of
their actions.
□
----------FOOTNOTES---------1 The influence of the casual labor market on unioni
zation in the performing arts was discussed by James
W. Kuhn in “Structural Determinants of White-Collar
Organizing,” 1965 (unpublished).
2 David L. Cole, “ Is Merger Practicable?,” a report on
a study conducted for the Screen Actors Guild and the
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
published January 4, 1960.
3 Leon E . Lunden, Major Symphony Orchestra Labor
Relations (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Wisconsin, 1967), p. 127.
4 “ Television unions: a tide of rising expectations swell
up from the ranks,” Television Magazine, October 1967, pp.
30-31.
Impact of higher
A 1-percentage-point rise
in unemployment
would have greatest
effect on jobless rates
of men and blue-collar workers
unemployment
on major
PAUL M. RYSCAVAGE
labor force groups
How much would the jobless rates of major
groups of workers change if the national unem
ployment rate rises by a specified amount? This
question has particular interest today in view of
the possible effect of recent anti-inflationary
policies on unemployment. Drawing upon the
experience of the past, this article attempts to
make rough approximations of the differing impact
of an increase in the national unemployment rate
upon rates and levels of unemployment of major
age-sex-color and occupational groups.
When the total unemployment rate changes, the
amount of change that occurs in the jobless rates
for particular groups of workers differs for a
number of reasons. Differences in workers’ skill
levels, labor force attachment, and the degree of
labor force growth and demand for labor, among
others, contribute to the responsiveness of the
jobless rates for particular groups of workers to
changes in the total unemployment rate. By
analyzing past trends in the rates for selected labor
force groups and the total rate of unemployment,
it is possible to establish the average relationships
between them; moreover, such an analysis makes
it possible to estimate what rates of unemploy
ment selected labor force groups will experience if
the total rate of unemployment rises.
For this article, simple regression analysis was
used to quantify the relationships between unem
ployment rates for major labor force groups and
that for all workers, although it is acknowledged
that this technique has limitations. For example,
such an analysis excludes all other independent
variables (other than the total rate) which may
Paul M. Ryscavage is an economist in the Division of
Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
have relevance to the relationship. Nevertheless,
this technique, which has been employed before,1
has the benefit of simplifying the relationships so
that what is being analyzed is shown in a clear,
concise form.
Obviously, the impact of higher unemployment
would depend upon which sectors of the economy
are affected most by an economic slowdown, and
to what extent. Such factors could significantly
alter the kinds of workers who become unem
ployed. Judging from past experiences, however,
it is likely that the goods-producing industries
would bear the brunt of any economic slowdown.
These industries, which employ proportionally
large numbers of men and blue-collar workers,
accounted for much of the joblessness in past
recessions. Service-producing industries— which
provide the chief source of employment opportu
nities for women and teenagers— could be affected
later as the readjustment continued.
Major age-sex-color groups
To estimate average relationships, unemploy
ment rates for each major age-sex-color group 2
were regressed against the overall rate of unem
ployment. Regressions were developed using
monthly seasonally adjusted unemployment rates
for a 10-year period (1959-68) which provided a
broad range of jobless rates for both the component
groups and the Nation as a whole.
As seen in the following tabulation, the average
relationships suggest that when the total rate
changes by 1.0 percentage point, the teenage job
less rate would change, on average, by 1.4 percent
age points, the men’s rate by 1.2, and the women’s
rate by 0.8. On this basis, the teenage rate may be
considered more responsive to changes in the total
unemployment rate than rates for adult workers:
21
22
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Average change in
unemployment rates
(percentage points)
T o t a l r a t e ...............................................................................................
1 .0
M e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ....................................................................
1 .2
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ........... ........... ......................................
0 .8
T e e n a g e r s , 16 to 19 y e a r s . .......... ........... ........................................
W h i t e ........................
1 .4
0 .9
M e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r .....................................................................
1 .0
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r . ................................................... ..
0 .7
T e e n a g e r s , 16 to 19 y e a r s ................................................................
1 .5
N e g r o e s ..............................................................................................................
M e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ................................... ................................
1 .8
2 .6
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r .............................................................
1. 3
T e e n a g e r s , 16 to 19 y e a r s .................................... ....................... ..
0 .8
Comparison of the average relationships for
whites and Negroes indicates that the jobless rate
for Negroes is more responsive to changes in the
total rate than that for white workers. For white
workers, the relationships are similar to those for
the total, due to the whites’ numerically heavy
weight in the total jobless rates for all men,
women, and teenagers. For Negroes, on the other
hand, the computed relationships between their
rates and the overall rate were quite different from
those for whites. For a 1-percentage-point change
in the total rate, the Negro rate would change by
1.8 percentage points and the white by 0.9 per
centage point. The rate for Negro men would
change the most (2.6 percentage points) followed
by the rate for women (1.3) and teenagers (0.8).
The indicated low responsiveness of the Negro
teenage rate is suspect, however, due to the rela
tively low correlation between their rate and the
total unemployment rate. High jobless rates for
Negro teenagers have remained relatively stable
in recent years despite declines in the total rate.
The relationships for all the age-sex-color groups
are presented in chart 1.
The previous section has discussed the differen
tial impact of higher unemployment on major
groups’ rates in terms of percentage point changes.
However, percentage point changes do not indicate
the relative impact of changes in jobless rates,
Chart 1. Average relationships between unemployment rates for major age-sex-color groups and the total unemployment
rate
Group’s rate (percent)
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Total rate (percent)
T O T A L , A L L RACES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0 10.0
Total rate (percent)
WHITES
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Total rate (percent)
NEGROES
10.0
23
IMPACT OF HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT
Table 1. Average relationships between unemployment
rates for major age-sex-color groups and a total unemploy
ment rate of 3.7 and 4.7 percent
Total unemployment rate
Age-sex-color groups
3.7 percent
All workers, 16 years and over____
Men, 20 years and over_______
Women. 20 years and over____
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years_____
Whites_________________________
Men, 20 years and over_______
Women, 20 years and over____
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years_____
Negroes________________________
Men, 20 years and over_______
Women, 20 years and over____
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years_____
3.7
2.3
3.9
12.9
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.9
7.1
4.4
6.6
25.5
Percent
change in
rates
4.7 percent
4.7
3.5
4.6
14.3
4.2
3.1
4.2
12.4
8.9
7.0
7.9
26.2
27.0
52.2
17.9
10.9
27.3
47.6
23.5
13.8
25.4
59.1
19.7
2.7
since unemployment rates for the major age-sexcolor groups range widely in magnitude— from
2.0 percent for white men to 25.0 percent for
Negro teenagers in 1968. To illustrate: if two
different jobless rates change by 1.5 percentage
points when the total rate changes by 1.0 percent
age point, the lower of the two unemployment
rates would have a greater relative or percent
change than the higher rate.
Using a total unemployment rate of 3.7 percent,
which approximates fall 1969 levels, it is possible
to develop jobless rates for major age-sex-color
groups based on the average relationships. Similar
ly, rates for these groups can also be developed
when the total unemployment rate is 4.7 percent.
Assuming that the rise in the total jobless rate
occurs in about a year’s time, it is possible to
estimate the impact, in percent terms, on the
age-sex-color groups. Thus, if the total rate were
to rise from 3.7 to 4.7 percent, a 27-percent
increase, jobless rates for men, on average, would
rise by 52 percent, for women by 18 percent, and
for teenagers by 11 percent. (See table 1.) Rates
for white and Negro workers would rise propor
tionally, about the same as the total rate. I t is not
to be implied by this that unemployment rates are
projected to rise in the months ahead; this
exercise simply demonstrates the relative impact
of such a hypothetical change.
In previous years when the total rate of unem
ployment rose rapidly, the impact (in percent
terms) on the major age-sex-color groups appears
to be similar to that predicted on the basis of the
average relationships. (See table 2.) During the
recession periods of 1953-54,1957 -58 (not included
in the regressions) and 1960-61, for example, adult
workers, particularly men, experienced the greatest
increase in jobless rates. In percentage terms, the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rate for teenagers rose the least while those for both
whites and Negroes increased by the same percent.
Another dimension of the effect of a 1.0-percent
age-point rise in the total unemployment rate is
the impact on the unemployment levels for these
groups of workers. Estimates of the impact on
unemployment levels were made under the same
assumption— that the total unemployment rate
would rise from 3.7 to 4.7 percent in about a year’s
time.
Before estimating the levels of unemployment
that would be associated with these jobless rates
for these groups, however, it is necessary to esti
mate the size of the labor force for each component
group at a 4.7-percent total unemployment rate.3
As has been shown in several Bureau reports and
other studies, the growth of the civilian labor force
is affected, to a certain extent, by changes in the
overall unemployment rate.4 On the basis of longrange trends, normal labor force growth is esti
mated to be'about 1.5 million, given the present
size and composition of the population. If the rate
of unemployment were to rise from 3.7 to 4.7
percent in a year, it is estimated that the civilian
labor force would grow by only about 1 million
workers. Consequently, estimates of labor force
growth for each group of workers reflect this higher
rate of unemployment. The size of the Armed
Forces was assumed to be unchanged over the
period.
Fewer women and teenagers would enter the
labor force if the rate rose to 4.7 percent, thus
accounting for most of the slackening in labor
force growth. The number of women in the labor
force might increase by about 300,000, half as
much as normally expected, and the teenage labor
force might show little or no growth, although it
would normally have been expected to grow by
100,000. Labor force growth for men would in all
likelihood be unaffected. Labor force changes
among age-sex groups of whites and Negroes were
assumed to be consistent with the existing compo
sition of the labor force.
Table 2. Percent changes in unemployment rates for
major age-sex-color groups during periods when the total
unemployment rate rose rapidly
Age-sex-color group
All workers
. ___________________________
Adult men, 20 years and over_____ _______
Adult women 20 years and over
................
Teenagers 16 to 19 years. ...... ....................
Whites
.......
.....................
Negroes
- ___
... __
1953-54
1957-58
93.1
96.0
89.7
65.8
58.1
72.2
48.8
37.1
60.5
59.5
1960-61
21.8
21.3
23.5
14.3
20.0
21.6
24
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Table 3. Labor force status of major age-sex-color groups
at a total unemployment rate of 3.7 and 4.7 percent
[Labor force and unemployed persons in millions]
Total unemployment
rate of 3.7 percent
Total unemployment
rate of 4.7 percent
Age-sex-color groups
All workers, 16 years and o v e r ...
Men, 20 years and over_____
Women, 20 years and o v e r.. .
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years___
Whites_______________________
Men, 20 years and over_____
Women, 20 years and o v e r.. .
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years___
Negroes______________________
Men, 20 years and over_____
Women, 20 years and o v e r.. .
Teenagers, 16 to 19 years___
Civilian
labor
force
Unemployed
persons
Unemployment
rate
Civilian
labor
force
Unemployed
persons
81.1
46.5
27.6
7.0
71.9
41.9
23.9
6.1
9.0
4.6
3.6
.8
3.0
1.0
1.1
.9
2.4
.9
.8
.7
.6
.2
.2
.2
3.7
2.3
3.9
12.9
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.9
7.1
4.4
6.6
25.5
82.1
47.1
28.0
7.0
72.8
42.5
24.2
6.1
9.1
4.6
3.6
.8
3.9
1.6
1.3
1.0
3.1
1.3
1.0
.8
.8
.3
.3
.2
Unemployment
rate
4.7
3.5
4.6
14.3
4.2
3.1
4.2
12.4
8.9
7.0
7.9
26.2
Note: Totals may not add due to independent seasonal adjustment and rounding.
Applying the estimated unemployment rates for
each age-sex-color group to their estimated labor
forces a year later, provides some indication of the
impact of higher unemployment on these groups
of workers. Thus, if the total rate of unemployment
lose to 4.7 percent from 3.7 percent a year earlier,
total unemployment would reach a level of 3.9
million, an increase of about 900,000 unemployed
workers. As seen in table 3, men would account
for two-thirds (or 600,000) of this rise. Unemploy
ment for women would increase by 200,000, and
for teenagers, 100,000. Among both whites and
Negroes, most of the burden of higher unemploy
ment would fall upon men.
Occupational groups
The impact of higher unemployment on occu
pational groups can also be estimated. Average
relationships were calculated by regressing the
monthly seasonally adjusted jobless rates for each
individual occupational group against the total
rate for the period 1959 to 1968. These relation
ships are presented in the following tabulation:
A v era g e ch a n g e in
u n e m p lo y m e n t
ra tes
(p e rc e n ta g e p o in ts )
T o t a l . ...............................................................
W h ite -c o lla r w o r k e r s ............................................
P ro fe s s io n a l a n d t e c h n i c a l ...................
M a n a g e r s , o fficials, a n d p r o p r ie to rs .
C le r i c a l ................................................................
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
S a l e s . . ..................................................................
0.6
B lu e -c o lla r w o r k e r s ..............................................
1.7
1.3
1.7
C r a f t s m e n a n d f o r e m e n ..........................
O p e r a t i v e s .......................................................
N o n f a r m l a b o r e r s ............ ............................
2.6
S e r v ic e w o r k e r s .......................................................
0.9
F a r m w o r k e r s .................. ........................................
0.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
As the tabulation shows, the unemployment
rate for all blue-collar workers is more responsive
to changes in the national unemployment rate
than are the rates for white-collar or service
workers.
In percent terms, the differential impact of
increased unemployment upon these occupational
groups would be As follows: The jobless rate for
all blue-collar workers would rise, on average, by
41 percent; skilled workers would experience the
greatest change of all workers (52 percent); and
rates for white-collar and service workers would
rise by similar amounts (20 percent). (See table 4.)
Estimates can also be made to show how an
increase in the Nation’s unemployment rate would
affect occupational unemployment levels. These
estimates were made under the same assumption
that the total rate of unemployment would rise
from 3.7 percent to 4.7 percent in a year’s time.
Jobless rates for the occupational groups, when
the total rate is 4.7 percent, were estimated from
the relationships discussed earlier. To develop an
estimated labor force for each occupational group
the current occupational distribution 5 was applied
to the estimated civilian labor force 1 year later—
82.1 million. Applying the jobless rates for these
occupational groups to their respective labor force
levels results in estimated occupational unem
ployment levels, at a 4.7-percent unemployment
rate. (See table 5.)
If an increase in the total rate of unemployment
occurs, unemployment levels for blue-collar work
ers would rise numerically more than those for
other occupational groups. Approximately 600,000
of the 900,000 increase in total unemployment
would occur among blue-collar workers, with
craftsmen and operatives accounting for most of
Table 4. Average relationships between unemployment
rates for major occupational groups and total unemploy
ment rate when the total rate is 3.7 and 4.7 percent
Total unemployment rate
Percent
change
Occupational groups
3.7 percent
4.7 percent
All workers, 16 years and o v e r ...................
3.7
4.7
27.0
White-collar workers___________________
Professional and technical__________
Managers, officials, proprietors______
Clerical.......... ............... ...........................
Sales____ ________________________
Blue-collar workers____________________
Craftsmen and foremen_______ ____ _
Operatives._____ ________ ________
Nonfarm laborers____ _____________
Service w o rk e rs ..____ ________ ______
Farm workers--------- --------- -----------------------
2.0
1.3
0.9
2.9
2.9
4.2
2.5
4.4
7.3
4.5
2.3
2.4
1.5
1.2
3.5
3.5
5.9
3.8
6.1
9.9
5.4
2.5
20.0
15.4
33.3
20.7
20.7
40.5
52.0
38.6
35.6
20.0
8.7
IMPACT OF HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT
25
Table 5. Labor force status of major occupation groups
at a total unemployment rate of 3.7 and 4.7 percent
[Labor force and unemployed persons in millions]
Total unemployment
rate of 3.7 percent
Total unemployment
rate of 4.7 percent
Occupational groups
Civil
ian
labor
force
Unem
ployed
per
sons
Unem
ploy
ment
rate
Civil
ian
labor
force
Unem
ployed
per
sons
Unem
ploy
ment
rate
All workers, 16 years and o v e r ...
81.1
3.0
3.7
82.1
3.9
4.7
White-collar workers_________
Professional and te c h n ic a l...
Managers, officials, and
proprietors______________
Clerical___________________
Sales_____________________
Blue-collar w o rke rs.. ________
Craftsmen and foremen_____
Operatives________________
Nonfarm laborers__________
Service workers_______________
Farm workers_______________
Inexperienced workers_________
37.8
10.9
.8
.1
2.0
1.3
38.2
11.1
.9
.2
2.4
1.5
8.1
13.9
4.9
29.6
10.4
15.3
4.0
9.9
3.3
.4
.1
.4
.1
1.2
.3
.7
.3
.4
.1
.4
0.9
2.9
2.9
4.2
2.5
4.4
7.3
4.5
2.3
8.2
14.1
4.9
30.0
10.5
15.5
4.0
10.0
3.4
.5
.1
.5
.2
1.8
.4
.9
.4
.5
.1
.5
1.2
3.5
3.5
5.9
3.8
6.1
9.9
5.4
2.5
Note: Totals may not add due to independent seasonal adjustment and rounding.
the rise. White-collar and service workers would
each experience a 100,000 rise in the number of
unemployed, as would workers with no previous
work experience.
Q
the basic regression equation of any simple regression
analysis:
y=a+bx
The dependent variable y represents each group’s jobless
rate and x, the independent variable, the total rate of
unemployment. The regression coefficient, b, represents the
average amount of change that will occur in the individual
group’s jobless rate when the total rate of unemployment
changes by 1.0 percentage point. The total equation ex
presses the average relationship between a [specific] group’s
jobless rate and the total unemployment rate at various
levels.
Regression equations were developed for all major agesex-color groups and occupational groups and are presented
in the table below. All of the equations are based on
seasonally adjusted, monthly unemployment rates for the
period 1959 to 1968. The coefficient of determination (R 2)
measures how strong the average relationship is between
individual jobless rates and the total unemployment rate
and the amount of variation in individual rates which can
be associated with variation in the total rate. The standard
error of estimates (S) measures how much, on average,
the actual jobless rates deviate from those calculated from
the regression equation.
2 The major age-sex-color groups consist of men 20 years
and over; women 20 years and over; teenagers 16 to 19
years of age; white men, women, and teenagers; and Negro
men, women, and teenagers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S
0 .2 3
...
Y =
.9 4 9 + .7 8 7 X
.9 2
.2 3
Y =
7. 7 5 8 + 1 . 401x
.6 3
1 .0 7
.1 1
...
Y -
. 0 1 7 + . 884x
.9 9
A d u l t m e n (2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ) ___
...
Y = - l . 6 2 5 + 1 . 008x
.9 5
. 11
A d u l t w o m e n (2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ) . . .
...
Y =
. 8 1 4 + . 701x
.9 3
.2 0
T e e n a g e r s (16 to 19 y e a r s ) ___________
...
Y =
5. 5 1 7 + 1 . 466x
.6 7
1 .0 4
...
Y =
. 2 6 1 + 1 . 839x
.9 3
.5 0
...
Y = — 5 . 2 3 8 + 2 . 607x
.9 0
.8 9
N e g r o e s . . . ..................
A d u l t m e n (2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ) ___
A d u l t w o m e n (20 y e a r s a n d o v e r )
...
Y =
1 .8 7 8 + 1 . 279x
.7 4
.7 6
T e e n a g e r s (1 6 to 19 y e a r s ) . . .
...
Y =
2 2 .5 5 5 + . 784x
.0 7
2 .8 7
O ccu p atio n g ro u p s
4 See Sophia Cooper and Denis F. Johnston, “Labor
Force Projections for 1970-80,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 1965, pp. 129-140.
Regressing joblessness rates for selected labor force
groups against the total rate of unemployment provides
Ri
0 .9 6
...
W h ite -c o lla r w o r k e r s ........... .. ............
Technical note
Y = —2 . 0 2 0 + 1 . 171x
A d u l t w o m e n (2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ) . . .
3 The labor force and unemployment levels for the
component groups, when the total unemployment rate is
3.7 percent, approximate those of the third-quarter, 1969
(seasonally adjusted).
5 The labor force and unemployment levels for the
occupational groups, when the total unemployment rate
is 3.7 percent, approximate those of the third quarter, 1969
(seasonally adjusted).
...
T e e n a g e r s (ag e 16 to 19 y e a r s ) . . .
W h ite s ...................
1 See Joe W. McLeary, “ Unemployment: Who It Hits,”
The Monthly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta,
September 1969, pp. 114-117.
-----------------------------------------------
R e g re s s io n e q u a tio n
A d u l t m e n (2 0 y e a r s a n d o v e r ) ............
----------FOOTNOTES----------
R e g re s s io n res u lts
A g e-sex -color g r o u p s
...
Y =
. 5 3 7 + . 400x
.9 0
.1 4
P ro fe s s io n a l a n d t e c h n i c a l ____
...
Y =
. 3 3 3 + . 257x
.7 2
. 16
M a n a g e r s , o fficials, p r o p r ie to r s .
...
Y =
. 264x
.7 0
.1 7
C le r i c a l ................... ...........
...
Y -
. 9 2 4 + . 538x
.8 2
.2 5
S a le s __________ _________
...
Y -
. 6 5 1 + . 608x
.6 8
.4 2
B lu e -c o lla r w o r k e r s . _ .................
...
Y = —2 .2 1 1 + 1 . 721x
.9 6
.3 3
. . . Y = — 2. 2 9 9 + 1 . 305x
.9 3
.3 7
O p e r a ti v e s . ............................
. . . Y = - l . 8 3 7 + 1 . 697x
N o n f a r m l a b o r e r s ................... .................. . . . Y = —2. 3 6 8 + 2 . 613 x
S e r v ic e w o r k e r s .................................
... Y =
1 .2 2 5 + .8 8 6 X
F a r m w o r k e r s ............. .......................
... Y =
1 .4 1 6 + . 230x
.9 5
.4 1
.9 2
.7 8
.8 7
.3 4
.2 3
.4 2
C r a f ts m e n a n d fo r e m e n ...............
- .0 3 4 +
Unemployment rates for most labor force groups were
highly correlated with the total unemployment rate.
However, for Negro teenagers and farm workers, the low
R2 indicates that relationships were relatively weak.
Estimates of changes in unemployment rates for these
groups of workers, therefore, should be viewed with caution.
For all groups, the standard error of the estimate should be
considered in interpreting the estimated unemployment
rates.
Determining the
labor force status
of men missed
Special Labor Force Report
describes pilot use of a
new technique for securing
labor force data
in urban poverty areas
in the census
DEBORAH P. KLEIN
R e c e n t
attempts have been made to obtain
heretofore unavailable social and economic data
about men missed in the census— especially men
from minority groups between 20 and 50 years
of age who are estimated to have high rates of
undercount. The studies, which were conducted
in New Haven, Conn., Central Harlem in New
York, N .Y ., and Trenton, N .J., used a “casual
interview” technique. This approach consisted of
interviews in bars, poolrooms, restaurants, on
street corners, park benches, and similar
locations. This article discusses the results of the
new approach, which is one way to obtain more
extensive social and economic data for those
parts of the population that have been difficult
to fully enumerate in censuses.
Background: the undercount
I t is estimated that about 3 percent of the
population was missed in the 1960 census. All the
studies undertaken to estimate the number of
persons missed indicate that the undercount rate
(percent of persons missed) varies significantly by
race, age, and sex. The 1960 census enumerated
98 percent of white persons but only 90 percent of
persons of other races,1 according to Census
Bureau estimates.2 The total number of unenu
merated persons has been estimated to be 5.7
million, of whom 38 percent were members of races
other than white. Thus, while the number of
uncounted white persons is greater than the num
ber of uncounted persons of other races, the
proportion of white persons missed is considerably
smaller than the proportion of persons of other
races.
Deborah P. Klein is an economist in the Urban Employ
ment Studies Group of the Office of Manpower and
Employment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Completeness of coverage varies by age and sex,
as well as by race and ethnic group. Coverage is
proportionately better for children than adults,
and better for females than for males. A relatively
large number of persons over 65 years of age were
missed. The highest rates of undercount were found
among men 20-34 years old and 50—54 years.
Women’s undercount rates are lower than men’s
at every age below 50, and it is possible that age
misstatement accounts for part of the undercount
for women at the older ages.
The census data provide benchmarks for pre
paring monthly population estimates between cen
suses. These estimates are used to weight the data
from the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) which
provide monthly statistics on economic charac
teristics of the population. Thus, any undercount
in the decennial census is transmitted to the intercensal statistics and may affect the reliability of
the published labor force data.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics tried to quantify
the possible effect of the undercount on national
unemployment rates. Two different assumptions
about the labor force status of uncounted persons
were used to analyze population data that had
been adjusted for the estimated undercount.3
Under the “comparability” assumption, missed
persons were assigned the same labor force status
as counted persons in the same age-sex-color group.
Under the “poverty-neighborhood” assumption,
missed individuals were assigned the characteris
tics of persons living in urban poverty areas and
in the same age-sex-color cell.
Regardless of which assumption was used, the
resulting estimates of labor force size and employ
ment were substantially larger when account was
taken of the missed persons. Distributions by age,
sex, and color changed only slightly, but the levels
were higher than those indicated by the published
LABOR FORCE STATUS OF MEN MISSED IN CENSUS
figures. The national unemployment rate was not
appreciably different from the published one under
either assumption. I t would have required a very
high undercount rate, coupled with a grossly
higher unemployment rate among the uncounted
persons, for the national published unemployment
rate to have been significantly in error (table 1).
In some local areas, the undercount may con
stitute a greater proportion of the population than
it does in the Nation as a whole. In these areas,
including the estimated undercount might make a
significant difference in labor force data as well as
population data. I t has been suggested that
undercount rates are highest in crowded urban
poverty areas and sparsely populated rural areas.
Particular concern has been expressed about the
quality of the population and labor force estimates
for the Nation’s largest cities. At the city level we
do not know what percentage of the population is
missed and what the characteristics of these
missed people are. The demographic analysis which
is used to obtain national estimates has not been
done on a local level, primarily because adequate
birth, death, and migration rates are available only
on a national basis.
Bureau research on missed persons
The issue of severe unemployment in urban
poverty areas highlighted the fact that failure to
obtain information about all residents could sig
nificantly affect the labor force data for these areas.
Consequently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
designed a pilot research program to improve sta
tistics for urban poverty areas. This program,
which included among its aims the gathering of
more information about persons not counted in
household surveys in these areas, was conducted in
the spring of 1967. The undercount portion of the
program, which complemented the previous work
of the Census Bureau in this area, was concerned
with identifying the labor force characteristics of
men not enumerated in household surveys, such
as the decennial census or the c p s .
The basic procedures of the b l s undercount
study were to obtain a set of names and addresses
through some source other than a household sur
vey; to determine whether the individual would be
reported in a household survey; and then to com
pare the characteristics of those individuals re
ported by the household to the characteristics of
those who were not reported. One source used to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
obtain the names and addresses was “casual inter
views,” that is, interviews conducted in casual
settings such as bars, poolrooms, and on street
corners. A second source was lists obtained from
establishments, such as restaurants, laundries, and
hospitals, which often hire large numbers of lowpaid workers. Another aspect of the b l s research
project was to compare the effects of conducting
an undercount study in conjunction with a com
plete census count, and conducting such a study
without a complete population count.
The pilot program was conducted in two areas—
the Negro poverty areas of New Haven, Conn.,
and the Central Harlem area of New York, N .Y .
New Haven was selected because it was the site of
a pretest of the 1970 decennial census. The b l s
research project was timed to follow shortly after
this pretest. In New York (which had had no
recent census), two sources— employers’ lists and
casual interviews— were used to obtain names and
addresses. The target populations in both areas
were Negro men between the ages of 20 and 50
years, because the estimated rates of undercount
were highest for this group.4
In New Haven, where casual interviews were
the only source of names and addresses, the Census
Bureau was able to check the names and addresses
obtained from the casual interviews against the
listing obtained in the census pretest. Followup
interviews were conducted at households where the
names and addresses obtained in the casual inter
views could not be matched with records of that
census pretest. These interviews inquired about
the whereabouts of the individual in question. In
New York, the procedure called for a household
interview at every address obtained from either
Table 1. Effect on the unemployment rate of including
omitted persons under selected assumptions, by color
and sex, 1967
Unemployment rate
Color and sex
Official
estimate
Comparability
assumption
Poverty neighborhood
assumption
Omitted
persons
Adjusted
rates
Omitted
persons
Adjusted
rates
White:
Both sexes_________
Male______________
Female____________
3.4
2.7
4.6
3.4
3.1
3.7
3.4
2.8
4.6
5.1
4.9
5.7
3.4
2.8
4.6
Negro and other races:
Both sexes_________
Male______________
Female____________
7.4
6.0
9.1
6.0
4.9
7.4
7.2
5.9
9.0
6.9
6.5
8.1
7.3
6.2
9.0
Source: Monthly Labor Review, March 1969, tables on pages 10,11, and 12.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
28
the casual interview or the establishment lists. The
household interview was used to determine whether
the person would be listed in a household interview
such as the c p s , and to ascertain whether those
persons not listed as household members were part
of the undercount. This method revealed itself to
be considerably less effective than the method of
conducting such a study in conjunction with a
census count.
The New Haven study identified 39 cases of
persons missed in the census pretest. Obviously,
the number of cases was too small to permit
inferences about the characteristics of all un
counted Negro men in urban poverty areas. The
results, however, were significant in providing some
insight, albeit inconclusive, into the social and
economic characteristics of the undercount, and
into a method which would increase identification
of the uncounted persons. (Even fewer cases were
found in New York.5)
The primary finding of the study was that the
labor force status of the undercount group was
very much like the labor force status of their
neighbors who were counted. (See table 2.) Two
significant differences between the enumerated
group and the undercount group support the
hypothesis that men are missed in census counts
because they do not have family responsibilities
and, as a result, frequently shift their places of
residence. The differences were: (1) the undercounted group tended to have more casual
attachments to their places of residence; that is,
the proportion of those who had lived at their last
place of residence 1 year or less was nearly 4 times
higher for the undercount group than for the
enumerated group, and (2) a large proportion of
the undercount group had never been married. In
addition, the New Haven study suggested that
economic and social characteristics of under
counted Negro men in urban poverty areas could
be identified through the technique of obtaining
names and addresses through casual interviews
following a complete census of the area.
Trenton undercount study
A recent study in Trenton, N .J., employed the
casual interview technique used in the b l s New
Haven Undercount Project already described.
The study was undertaken by the Trenton Model
Cities Agency to gain additional information about
the situation of persons in poverty areas.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The primary finding of the Trenton study
substantiated the tentative conclusions of the New
Haven study— the labor force status of men who
are not counted in a census is similar to that of
men who are counted. (See table 3.)
The Trenton Model Cities Agency used a
slightly revised version of the questionnaire
designed by b l s for use in the New Haven study.
The schedule covered the areas of educational and
marital status, age, place of birth, residential
history, labor force status, occupation, earnings,
and hours worked.
Unlike the New Haven study, in the Trenton
study there was no followup probe at addresses
which were unmatched in the census record. In
New Haven, there had been a complete census
count, a series of casual interviews, a matching of
names, and then a followup household interview.
The address of each person who had not been
enumerated in the census pretest was visited and
the respondent was asked about the individual in
question. If the respondent acknowledged that the
individual did live at the address, then that person
was considered to be part of the undercount. The
Trenton study omitted this followup household
interview. The Census Bureau classified all persons
whose names could not be matched with enumera
tion lists and whose addresses were within the
enumeration district as persons missed in the
census pretest.
The Trenton survey was about twice as large
as the one in New Haven. Over 900 names and
Table 2. Comparison of selected characteristics of casual
interview respondents in New Haven
[Percent distribution]
Characteristics
Marital status:
M a rrie d ... ______
S e parated..........
Widowed or divorced.
Never married___ . .
Information not
available_________
Years at residence:
1 year or less_______
More than 1 year........
Information not
available .
Labor force status:
Employed
_______
Unemployed_____ . .
Unemployment ra te ..
Not in labor force___
Information not
available ________
Number of responses____
Persons
Total
persons
matched in
census records
in
casual
(men counted
in the census)
study
48
16
5
30
57
9
6
25
Persons not matched
in census records
Men found in
field followup
(undercount)
33
18
0
46
Men not found
in field
followup
40
23
4
32
2
2
3
1
21
70
12
75
46
51
27
68
9
12
3
5
77
13
14
8
77
12
13
7
78
11
13
8
78
11
12
8
3
3
3
3
507
249
39
219
Source: BLS Report 354, pp. 25-26.
LABOR FORCE STATUS OF MEN MISSED IN CENSUS
addresses were obtained from casual interviews in
Trenton. These names were divided into three
groups. The first group consisted of 283 names that
were matched with the census lists; that is, men
who were enumerated in the census. The second
group consisted of 290 names that could not be
matched with census lists but whose addresses were
within the city limits. This group was considered to
be part of the undercount. The third group (350
names) contained persons whose enumeration
status was unclear; they may or may not have
been enumerated. Included in this group were
schedules that could not be matched because of
problems in address classifications and schedules
which arrived past the deadline for Census Bureau
checking. There were about 150 additional sched
ules that could not be classified because their
addresses were outside Trenton city limits.
Duplicate schedules (which typically occurred
when more than one enumerator interviewed the
same individual) were also excluded from the
tabulations.
When the characteristics of the persons inter
viewed in a casual setting and counted in the
census were compared with the characteristics
of the persons interviewed in the same area and
not counted in the census, the general finding was
that the two groups were very similar in regard to
labor force status. The unemployment rate for
the missed individuals was almost identical to
that of their counted neighbors. Furthermore, the
unemployment rate for the men whose enumeration
status was not known (the men for whom no
census match could be made) was about the same
as the others. The rate of nonparticipation in the
labor force was somewhat larger for the under-
Table 3. Comparisons of labor force status of casual
interview respondents in Trenton
[Percent distribution]
Labor force status
Total men
in study
Men classi
fied as
enumerated
in the
census
pretest
Men classi
fied as
part of the
undercount
E m p lo y e d ..............................
Unemployed______________
Unemployment rate___
Not in labor force_________
Information not available___
83
9
10
6
1
86
9
10
4
1
79
9
10
9
2
Number of responses...........
923
283
290
Less than 1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Men who
could not
be
classified
85
10
10
5
<0
350
29
Table 4. Comparisons of selected characteristics of
casual interview respondents in Trenton
[Percent distribution]
Characteristics
Total
men in
study
Men
classified
as
enumerated
in the
census
pretest
Men
classified
as
part of
the
undercount
6
28
24
36
6
8
46
20
20
5
1
Men who
could not
be
classified
Age:
Less than 20 years________
2 0 -2 9 ..................... .............
30-39________________
40-49___________
50 or m o re .................. .........
Information not available___
6
38
24
26
5
1
(■)
5
40
28
23
3
(0
Marital status:
Married_____________ ____
Separated, widowed or
divorced..........................
Never m arried__________ .
Information not available___
44
58
35
39
18
34
4
13
26
3
21
41
3
21
34
6
Years at residence:
Less than 1______________
1 or 2____________________
3 or m o re ..____ _________
Information not available___
13
22
62
3
9
20
69
2
14
25
58
4
15
21
59
4
Number of responses....................
923
283
290
350
> Less than 1 percent.
count group than for the enumerated. However,
the rate was less than 10 percent for both groups.
Another characteristic in which the unenumerat
ed and the uncounted were similar was educational
attainment. Among the men interviewed in the
Trenton study, about 30 percent of each group
had not attended high school and about 65 percent
had not graduated from high school.
Despite the similarity of the two groups in terms
of labor force status and educational attainment,
there were some characteristics in which they
differed. The uncounted group was somewhat
younger, less likely to be married, and more mobile.
(See table 4.) The differences in age distribution,
of course, affected the other characteristics.
Furthermore, the mobility aspects could reason
ably be expected to affect enumeration. Young,
unmarried men are more likely to shift their living
arrangements, thus making it difficult to enu
merate them.
The Trenton study added another dimension to
the undercount question; it was possible to tabu
late the results by race and ethnic group. The
sample was approximately three-quarters Negro;
another fifth were persons with Spanish surnames
(primarily of Puerto Rican birth); the remainder
were other Caucasians, some Orientals, and a few
men of undetermined race. The Spanish surname
group was younger, and less likely to have ever
been married, than the Negro group. Most of the
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
30
men with Spanish surnames were born in Puerto
Rico; the Negroes were evenly divided between
those born in New Jersey and those born in a
southern State. The persons with Spanish sur
names were newer to the area than the Negroes.
In the Trenton study, the unemployment rate
for Puerto Ricans was significantly higher than
the rate for Negroes. The differential was main
tained for each of the classification groups,
although the extent of the differential varied. (See
table 5.)
Characteristics of the undercount
Both the Trenton and New Haven studies were
primarily methodological; that is, they were
designed to test the feasibility of using the casual
interview technique to collect data about persons
ordinarily missed in a census of an urban poverty
area. The data obtained from these surveys are not
sufficient to describe the characteristics of all men
living in urban poverty areas— counted or un
counted in a census— because the data were
limited to two areas and we do not know whether
the casual interview technique reaches a represent
ative sample of the local population. However,
some conclusions may be drawn about the relation
ships between the characteristics of counted and
uncounted persons in urban poverty areas.
The significant social relationships deal with the
ties of counted and uncounted men to a particular
family and residence. In both New Haven and
Trenton, the major difference between the group
of men who would have been enumerated in a
census and those who would not was in the
strength of these ties. (See tables 2 and 4.) For
example, in New Haven, only 33 percent of the
undercount were married, compared with 57
percent of the enumerated. In Trenton, the
Table 5.
percentages were 35 and 58, respectively. Length
of time at current residence is another variable
which may distinguish between the enumerated
and the unenumerated. In New Haven, 46 percent
of the undercount had lived at their current
residence 1 year or less, compared with 12
percent of the enumerated; in Trenton the rates
were 14 and 9 percent, respectively. While the
differences were greater in New Haven, they were
in the same direction as in the larger Trenton
study. The general finding seems to be that a
married man living with his wife at a stable
address is more likely to be reached in a household
survey than a single man who moves frequently.
The significant conclusion that can be drawn
from these studies is that the labor force status of
the uncounted is very similar to that of the counted
in the same urban poverty area. (See tables 2
and 3.) In New Haven, the unemployment rate
for the enumerated was quite close to that of the
uncounted; in the larger Trenton study, the rates
were virtually identical.
Equally important, from the standpoint of
evaluating published unemployment statistics, is
the implication that enumeration of all persons in
an urban poverty area would not significantly
change the unemployment rate for that area— and
perhaps this is true for other areas as well. If this
is true, it would provide greater credence to the
estimates of labor force size and employment pre
pared by Johnston and Wetzel and discussed
earlier. (See table 1 and discussion on page 26.) The
findings of the studies in Trenton and New Haven
provide evidence that could support either the
comparability assumption or the poverty neighbor
hood assumption. If similar studies were conducted
in nonpoverty areas, it might become apparent
which assumption is more valid.
Labor force status of casual interview respondents, by race or ethnic group, Trenton
[Percent distribution]
Men with Spanish surnames
Negro men
Classified as
enumerated
in the census
pretest
Labor force status
Total
Classified as
part of
the under
count
Unclassified
Classified as
enumerated
in the census
pretest
Total
Classified as
part of
the under
count
Unclassified
Employed
. . . ....................
Unemployed _ .
____ ______ ______
Unemployment ra te ...................... ...........
Not in labor force..........
..................................
Information not available__ __ . ..............
85
8
9
5
1
88
6
7
5
81
9
10
8
3
88
9
9
3
0
75
17
18
9
80
19
19
1
0
73
12
14
16
0
70
18
20
10
1
Number of responses_____________________
695
203
231
261
188
70
51
67
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
1
LABOR FORCE STATUS OF MEN MISSED IN CENSUS
Characteristics of the method
An evaluation of these studies indicates that
the technique of conducting casual interviews in
conjunction with a complete census count merits
serious consideration in any attempt to collect
data on missed persons. This data collection tech
nique produced, for the first time, information
about the economic characteristics of men missed
in a census.
There are several advantages to the casual inter
view technique. First, it can reach persons not
usually contacted in household surveys. Whether
the individual is missed because his entire house
hold is not located, because he does not maintain a
a stable relation with any one household, or
because his household chooses not to acknowledge
his presence, the casual technique offers a prospect
of reaching him. Thus, this technique is suitable
for identifying the characteristics of persons sub
ject to various types of undercount. Second, it can
be employed selectively; that is, it can be directed
to a specific group by the designation of the inter
view locations and instructions to the interviewers.
Furthermore, the questionnaire can be designed
specifically for the selected group. For example,
the choice of language and the approach of the
enumerators can be tailored to fit the target popu
lation. Third, the use of the casual interview
technique permits the enumerator to speak directly
to the desired respondent during the initial con
tact. In household and other random surveys, on
the other hand, the initial contact is often made
with the wife, roominghouse owner, or other per
son. When a follow up with the desired respondent
is not possible, the data that was obtained from
the secondary respondent is less reliable than data
from the desired respondent would have been.
Fourth, the casual nature of the questioning and
the relaxed atmosphere of the interview locations
may induce candid responses. There is some evi
dence that this technique can obtain information
of a kind not readily available from household
surveys. For example, the New Haven study
obtained information about illegal activities that
had not been available from regular household
surveys. Fifth, the technique is a relatively in
expensive method of obtaining a large number of
responses in a short period of time. The elimination
of callbacks to locate specific individuals resulted
in a lower cost per schedule than in household
interviews.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31
A major disadvantage of the casual interview
technique is that it does not provide a sample with
a scientifically delineated universe. This makes it
difficult to establish the representativeness of the
survey findings. This objection is partially blunted
when the survey is done in conjunction with a
complete census count. Under these circumstances,
the individuals reached were members of the
census universe, although not necessarily a random
sample of this group. Despite this objection, the
advantages of selectivity, direct access, candid
responses, and low expense appear to make this
technique a useful tool for determining the
characteristics of the undercount.
There is no set requirement for the type of
enumerator to use for casual interviews. In New
Haven, all of the interviewers were men experienced
in field work and familiar with the area of enumera
tion. In Trenton, the interviewers were young men
and women of various ages with some survey
experience. Both male and female enumerators
were successful. Although experience with using
nonindigenous interviewers in these situations is
limited, a strong case could be made for the use of
interviewers who are indigenous to the area.
Variation in the hours of enumeration served to
prevent labor force bias. I t appeared best to
interview during day and evening hours, and over
the weekend where that is possible.
The samples in both New Haven and Trenton
were not designed to be representative of the city
as a whole but rather of specific areas—minority
group poverty areas. The enumerators were
instructed to interview men from minority racial
or ethnic groups between the ages of 20 and 50.
This group was selected because of undercount
rates estimated to be very high. In New Haven,
the 500 men were primarily Negro; in Trenton the
900 men were primarily Negro and Puerto Rican.
The data indicate that in each city about 10
percent of the men had ages outside of the bound
aries set. However, this percentage was substan
tially lower than it would have been had there
been no attempt to restrict the sample.
In each city, the casual interviews were con
ducted in poor areas, and the sites were such places
as bars, restaurants, poolrooms, street corners, and
park benches. In New Haven, this was done to
increase the percentage of unemployed and
marginally employed men (working in low-skilled,
low-paying jobs) because it had been suggested
that these men constituted a disproportionate
32
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
share of the undercount, whose characteristics
were the focus of these studies. In Trenton, the
sections of the city where interviews were con
ducted yielded a similar sample of men.
Thus, any differences between the men in each
sample and the total population of their city would
reflect the method of sample selection and would
have no necessary correlation with the social and
economic distribution of the undercount or the
population of that city. However, the character
istics of the sample group are not atypical of other
samples that have been drawn from urban poverty
areas.6
The small sample size and the restricted nature
of the selection process have precluded the drawing
of any definitive conclusions about the characteris
tics of all persons not counted. We have no way of
knowing whether the characteristics of unenumer
ated men reached through the casual interview
technique are typical of the entire undercount.
There are two reasons for this uncertainty. First,
the characteristics of the undercount in other
geographic areas, economic strata, or age groups
may be very different from the characteristics of
the undercount in an urban poverty area. Second,
even within an urban poverty area, the technique
of casual interviews may not reach all of the
undercount. For example, there may be some men
who never go to bars or stand on street corners.
However, the quality of the findings that have
been made thus far suggests that additional
studies should be undertaken. The question now
is whether the insights thus far obtained from
studying the undercount among minority groups in
urban poverty areas would be supported in similar
or dissimilar studies of other groups in other areas.
Wider application of the method described above
may bring us closer to obtaining a better definition
of the characteristics of the undercount, better
understanding of the reasons for the undercount,
insight into techniques that might reduce the
extent of undercount, and a better appreciation of
published data that is affected by
the
undercount.
□
1 Refers to Negroes, Orientals, and American Indians.
Nationwide, Negroes make up about 92 percent of races
other than white, and a higher proportion in urban poverty
areas.
2 For sources of estimates and more detail, see Jacob S.
Siegel, “ Completeness of Coverage of the Nonwhite Popu
lation in the 1960 Census and Current Estimates, and
Some Implications,” in David M. Heer, ed., Social Statistics
and the City (Cambridge, Mass., Joint Center for Urban
Studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Harvard University, 1968). A summary of the methods
used to estimate the extent of the undercount will be found
in b l s Report 354, Pilot and Experimental Program of the
Urban Employment Survey. For a more detailed description,
see Jacob S. Siegel and Melvin Zelnik, “An Evaluation of
Coverage in the 1960 Census of Population by Techniques
of Demographic Analysis and by Composite Methods,”
1966 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American
Statistical Association; Leon Pritzker and N. D. Rothwell,
“Procedural Difficulties in Taking Past Censuses in Pre
dominantly Negro, Puerto Rican, and Mexican Areas,”
and Eli S. Marks and Joseph Waksberg, “Evaluation of
Coverage in the 1960 Census of Population through Caseby-Case Checking,” in David M. Heer, ed., op. cit.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 See Denis F. Johnston and James R. Wetzel, “Effect
of the Census Undercount on Labor Force Estimates,”
Monthly Labor Review, March 1969, pp. 3-13.
4 For a detailed description of this research, see
Report 354, cited in footnote 2.
bls
5 In New York only three cases of undercount were identi
fied. Because of this small number and because of the large
number of unlocated addresses, meaningful comparisons
between found and missed persons could not be made.
There was considerable difficulty in locating apartment
dwellers in the multiunit tenaments with poor or non
existent tenant identification typical of the poverty areas
in New York and other large cities.
6 Tables providing detailed data on the characteristics
of the respondents in the Trenton study are available from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and will be published in a
forthcoming Special Labor Force Report.
T he following excerpts are adapted from papers
presented to the Twenty-Second Annual Winter
Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research
Association, December 29-30, 1969, in New York
City. Additional irra papers will appear in the
April issue of the Review.
The full text of all papers will appear in the
forthcoming irra publication, Proceedings o f the
Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, available from
irra , Social Science Building, Madison, Wis.
53706.
THE CAMPUS REVOLT FROM AN
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE
FREDERICK H. HARBISON
T he current upsurge of student power on the
Nation’s campuses bears some striking resem
blances to the rise of union power in the mass
production industries 30 years ago. The initiation
of union-management relations in automobiles,
rubber, and “big steer’ was fraught with violence,
occupation of plants and buildings, emotional
charges and accusations, and gloomy speculation
about the survival of the American system of pri
vate enterprise. Many corporation executives
shook their heads in dismay and warned that big
industry would never be the same if unions were
to invade the sacred area of managerial preroga
tives. They were right; the large corporations were
changed by collective bargaining and the approach
of American industry to human relationships was
drastically altered. Industry survived the on
slaught of unions, apparently stronger, more
Frederick H. Harbison is professor of economics and
director, Industrial Relations Section, at Princeton Univer
sity. He served as president of the Industrial Relations
Research Association during 1969.
3 7 4 - 7 4 4 0 — 7 0 ---------- 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
resourceful, and certainly more socially responsible
than before.
Today, there are those who fear that the campus
militants will destroy the universities and that the
universities will never be the same. Again, they
may be right. B u t it is quite possible that univer
sities will be better institutions in the future as
they are forced to respond to the pressure of
growing student power.
I would not suggest that student-university
relations are exactly like union-management rela
tions. Students, presumably, are intellectual
transients in the universities, not committed as are
workers to corporations for their livelihood. Unlike
workers, students are consumers (of knowledge
and education) rather than producers. Universities
and corporations have different goals. The corpo
ration attempts to maximize profits by selling a
product or service; the university strives to
maximize the contribution to and extension of
knowledge. The subject matter for studentuniversity relations and union-management rela
tions is thus entirely different. The similarities lie
in power relations— in the organization and
management of protest, in the challenge to tradi
tional prerogatives, and to some degree in the
joint machinery for rulemaking. The workers in
the thirties and present-day students also share
the same suspicions about the integrity of the
institutions of which they are a part.
Foundation for revolt
A crisis of belief, a questioning of legitimacy,
resentment against authority, and feelings of
frustration by themselves do not generate rebel
lion. There must be catalysts—leaders and prime
movers— to organize protest and direct it against
specific targets.
In the thirties, the cio was the instrument of
revolt. I t fomented strikes, won union recognition,
and instituted collective bargaining with only a
handful of activist union members. Today, the
33
34
student rebellions on the campuses are managed
by very small groups of militants. Some are
genuine revolutionists; they would be happy to
destroy the universities as a first step in a grand
liquidation of the existing social and economic
system. Others would accept, but drastically re
form, the establishment. Their immediate common
objective, however, is to exert the maximum
possible pressure on what they call the power
structure in the universities.
In the thirties the mass production industries
were organized by men such as John L. Lewis,
W alter Reuther, Philip Murray, Sydney Hillman,
Clinton Golden, and others in the cio who, in
company with activists and some leftist militants
from the workers’ ranks, built the organizations
which successfully established the beachheads of
collective bargaining.
In contrast, today’s campus militants lay more
stress on what they are against, but have little to
say about what they are for. The leaders of the
Students for a Democratic Society, for example,
organize protest against Reserve Officers’ Train
ing Corps, against research contracts with the
Department of Defense, against the militaryindustrial complex, against the draft and
continuation of the Viet Nam war— and even
against the wages paid to painters’ helpers at
Harvard. They are not seeking recognition for the
purpose of bargaining but searching for issues
upon which to mobilize protest. In some respects,
therefore, s d s is like the old Knights of Labor. In
theory, the Knights stood for rebellion against a
powerful ownership establishment controlling ever
larger aggregations of power which were dominat
ing the political life of the Nation. The Knights
espoused many causes— cooperatives, agrarianism,
trade unionism— at the same time that they
wanted to do away with the wage system and
make every man his own capitalist. The s d s
likewise has a mixed bag of objectives and sincerely
held beliefs.
The cio leaders had no desire to overthrow in
dustry or even to change it drastically ; they sought
rather to wring from it concessions and to acquire
control over managerial decisions relating to
wages and conditions of employment. They
enjoyed the full support of the left, a generally
sympathetic public opinion, the active support of
the New Deal administration in Washington, and
much encouragement from various politicians. To
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
achieve their ends they resorted to protests,
strikes, sitdowns, occupation of plants, vilification
of big business and its leaders, and any other
means, fair or foul, to bring the captains of
industry to their knees. The cio was involved in
some very bloody struggles, because the corpora
tions, unlike the universities today, were tough,
powerful, ruthless, and eager to slug it out with
their challengers. Throughout the struggle to
establish collective bargaining, however, the cio
leadership, in organizing protest, always had a
clear idea of what they were for as well as what
they were against. They achieved their major
objective despite powerful, well-organized, and
well-heeled opposition.
The black student organizations, however, are
quite different from s d s , more closely resembling
trade unions. They admit only blacks to member
ship. Their ranks are united in a common aware
ness of discrimination and exploitation. They have
an almost made-to-order ideology and a solidly
based rationale for militancy. And above all they
are able to agree on fundamental objectives in
confronting the universities—more black teachers,
more black students, black studies programs, black
dormitories, and control over the discipline of
black students. Black militants seek to mobilize
and manage protest, but they are more willing to
negotiate and bargain with universities over terms
than the Students for a Democratic Society. They
are the most united and strongest of the militant
campus organizations, mainly because they are
craft-union-like in their strategy.
Power at the top
On the whole, however, the militant campus
organizations are weak in comparison with the
cio organizations in the thirties. They do not
have the sympathy and support of the public and
the government which was enjoyed by the cio.
B u t they have one very important compensating
advantage. The universities today are much easier
marks for confrontation than were the authori
tarian corporations of the thirties who could form
a united front and follow a consistent strategy
when dealing with unions.
The present-day university is a very different
kind of organization. I t is a structure with com
paratively little power at the top (the administra
tive-trustee level) because in theory at least major
IRRA PAPERS
decisions are made by the faculty. In the univer
sity, the principle of colleague authority rather
than executive authority is presumed to prevail.
However, faculty members, although cherishing
their academic prerogatives and privileges, are
more concerned with their individual rights.
When confronted by campus militants, there
fore, the university is not able to present a united
front until it builds a consensus. This is a difficult
and time-consuming process, and the militants can
always find among the faculty ranks some sym
pathetic, eager, and vocal allies. Thus, in attacking
the university establishment, the militants have
their agents within it.
An initial response to student activism has been
the establishment of joint machinery of all kinds
to '‘restructure” university decisionmaking proc
esses. Students are now serving on every conceiv
able kpid of joint committee at the department
and universitywide levels. They are being brought
in on everything from campus life and curriculum
reform to university real estate operations, fund
raising, and investment of endowment funds.
Joint machinery on campus
The objective of the new joint machinery on the
campuses is to achieve a better accommodation of
interests of students, faculty, administration, and
trustees. I t is also designed as a sort of lightning
rod to arrest campus revolts. In industry, the
company unions and later collective bargaining
have indeed grounded the forces of revolutionary
change. Unions and workers, through a process of
antagonistic cooperation, have become stalwart
defenders of the industrial establishment. The
crucial question is whether joint machinery can
handle power relations on the campus as well as it
did in industry.
In reality, the creation of joint machinery offers
no panacea for unrest on the campus; and it would
be foolish to assume that it will deactivate militant
student groups. Many militants may prefer to
operate as an outside protest organization to con
front the establishment with their “nonnegotiable
demands.” Black student militants, likewise, have
more to gain by direct action rather than partici
pation as a minority in university wide joint
machinery. Operating like trade unionists, they
have a bargaining advantage because the univer
sities are both reluctant and afraid to take stands
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
against them—reluctant because of conscience and
humanitarian concern, and afraid because they
might be labeled as “racist” by student groups
they want to attract to the campus.
The operation of the joint machinery in itself
also poses thorny issues. W hat constitutes student
participation? Does it assume consultation or co
determination or both? If in practice it involves
both, then what matters will be subject to co
determination, and in what areas will the faculty
and administration seek to retain unilateral au
thority? The issue of managerial rights vs. union
control lies at the core of collective bargaining
relationships. Similarly, the dividing line between
faculty and administration prerogatives vs. student
control over decisionmaking will be the basic issue
in university-student relations, no matter what
kind of joint machinery is established or how care
fully its constitution is drafted. An examination of
a few current issues may make this point clear.
The rules of conduct governing campus life is
an appropriate area for joint negotiation. For
example, the trustee-administration-faculty forces
will find it difficult to retain exclusive proprietor
ship over rulemaking on matters such as visiting
hours in dormitories, drinking, drug use, or formu
lation and administration of disciplinary proce
dures. Likewise, student groups will certainly
command a greater voice in determination of cur
riculum, grading systems, and examination pro
cedures. Faculty members appear willing to take
a lot of advice from the consumers of education
on such matters, and this may be tantamount, in
many cases, to codetermination.
Student participation in the selection, promo
tion, and tenure of faculty members, however, is
a different matter. Here faculties may welcome the
opinions, but certainly not the votes, of students.
Similarly, faculties may be expected to hold the
line on student participation in designation of
appropriate areas for research. For example, many
campus militants are indignant about war-related
research, and are pressing for termination of
research contracts with the Department of Defense.
Faculty members are likely to unite against any
student encroachment on their prerogatives with
respect to research. In a parallel situation in
collective bargaining, management flatly rejects
any attempt by the union to determine what
products a company shall produce or how to
produce them.
36
The development of Afro-American studies is,
perhaps, a special case. Many universities are quite
receptive to setting up such programs. Because of
the strength, cohesiveness, and bargaining power
of the black student groups, major concessions are
being made in some universities. Nevertheless, the
extension here of the areas of joint determination
may lead to the erosion of faculty prerogatives in
many other areas as well.
Another controversial area is admissions policy.
The black groups quite rightly want to alter
admission criteria to allow for entry of more blacks,
Puerto Ricans, and other minorities. (A similar
case in collective bargaining is hiring standards for
employees.) The blacks are in good position to
press their bargaining advantage. Most univer
sities are already giving preference in admission to
qualified blacks over equally qualified whites, and
a few have already gone even further to adjust
their qualification standards.
There is controversy over the extra-academic
policies of the university, such as holdings of real
estate in university neighborhoods, personnel
policy governing nonacademic employees, and
university investment practices. Students play the
role of moral crusaders rather than consumers of
education. University administrators, although
forced to listen to student demands, may be ex
pected to offer stiff resistance to formal codeter
mination in this area of decisionmaking which is
so vital to the financial support of the institution.
Accommodation will be difficult to achieve.
Finally, there is the issue of disciplinary action
against students who occupy buildings or in other
ways physically obstruct university activities. No
university can long survive if it continues to
surrender to coercion of this kind. As General
Motors discovered many years ago, a policy of
being “tough, but fair” on disciplinary matters is
essential for stable union-management relations.
Universities, likewise, will have to take a firm
stand on discipline to maintain their integrity in
the face of campus revolts, and this in the final
analysis will depend on whether the faculties will
have the backbone to present a united front.
This analysis has concentrated on the similarities
between student-university and employee-manage
ment relations. The similarities are mainly in power
relationships — organized labor vs. the corporation,
and organized student militants vs. the university
establishment.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
The relationships, whether characterized by
armed truce, working harmony, or mutual co
operation, can lead to greater consensus by
students, faculty, administration, and trustees on
the legitimacy and the mission of the university in
American life. Some temporary harm and even
permanent damage may result. B u t on balance,
the benefits ought to greatly outweigh the costs. □
UNION PROSPECTS AND
PROGRAMS FOR THE 1970’s
ALBERT A. BLUM
G e o r g e O r w e l l once wrote, “How right the
working classes are . . . to realize that the belly
comes before the soul, not in the scale of values
but in point of time.” Orwell was indeed perceptive
insofar as the American labor movement was
concerned. The a f l , during the first 50 years of
its existence, steadily rejected the intellectuals’
vague reforms and the Marxists’ millenium and
instead chose to seek more— more wages, shorter
hours, and better working conditions. B y doing so,
they firmly fixed the labor movement as a perma
nent and prominent part of the American land
scape while those unions that followed other pied
pipers disappeared from the scene. Moreover,
the a f l , inadvertently, helped alter the American
economic scene more than those unions which had
taken different routes. No matter what the afl
said about supporting the free enterprise system,
it was, through collective bargaining, altering the
system by preventing wages from being deter
mined in the market place, by restricting the law
of supply and demand as it affected workers, and
so forth. These restrictions on laissez ja ire eco
nomics readied America for the mixed economy of
the 1930’s and after.
In the 1930’s, the labor movement expanded its
definition of “more” to include support for a host
of social welfare legislation (still mainly concerned
with the belly). During that decade, it reached its
peak of effectiveness since labor’s goals and those
Albert A. Blum is professor, School of Labor and
Industrial Relations and James Madison College, Michigan
State University.
IRRA F’APERS
of non working class liberals coincided. They both
sought to help the poor and the unemployed— to
deal mainly with the issue of quantity. For one
brief shining moment, labor and liberals saw eyeto-eye and together pushed through the major
changes which we have labeled the New Deal.
B y the end of this period, both groups together
had forged certain basic changes in American life:
they had wounded laissez-jaire and replaced it
with a mixed economy; they had changed a group
of small, select trade unions into a mass, labor
movement; and they had destroyed the Marxist
dream of using the working class’s increasing
poverty as the motivating force for a revolution
by lessening poverty and misery among the
organized workers.
Labor’s genius was in recognizing that the belly
should come first, as Orwell wrote, not that it was
more important than the soul. I t is this changing
order of priorities which I believe is one of the
keys to labor’s prospects and goals in the 1970’s.
Will it continue to deal mainly with the problems
of the belly or those of quantity as it has up to
now, or will it shift some of its focus to the
problems of the soul or to those of quality? Will
it now be ready to deal more with qualitative
needs which are more difficult to determine than
hunger and more difficult to solve than unemploy
ment? “Hunger calls for food to eat,” comments a
French member of the New Left. “B u t what does
emptiness, boredom, dissatisfaction with life and
with the world call for?” 1
I t is not as if the discontent with the qualitative
aspects of American life is only felt by the New
Left. If this were so, it would be only a relatively
unimportant matter, for whatever the loud noises
from the New Left, it numbers only a few. And it
is not as if only intellectuals, ensconced in academic
communities, beat their breasts concerning labor’s
faults. Academics generally are not particularly
interested in the labor movement . . . N o t only
the New Left and intellectuals, whatever their
relative importance, are troubled by issues of
quality or soul, but also large numbers of others,
and one such group is organized labor.
B u t first, there are the liberals, once so sym
pathetic to organized labor, but no longer caring
very much about what happens to unions. They
could not care less when the plumbers in southern
California try to raise their hourly wages to
$11.61; they could not care less when a union
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
talks about the need to protect apprenticeship
programs while it is using them as an euphemism
for keeping segregation; and they could not care
less whether or not a union secures a shorter work
week—recognizing that this really often means
more pay, not more time off. These reformers care
about unions when labor takes a position on
foreign policy or on civil rights. They only become
sympathetic to unions when labor is trying to
organize the really disadvantaged, such as farm
workers or hospital employees. At other times,
these once loyal supporters of labor are either not
interested or hostile to organized labor. The reasons
for this loss of support are not the result of the
almost paranoid attacks upon intellectuals by a fl
leaders, but because the reformer is becoming
more concerned with style, soul, or quality and less
with what the union movement continues most
concerned— namely, quantity, or more.
The second group that talks about recognizing
the need for quality of life includes some segments
of management, and surely many of the intel
lectuals serving management. Rather than fear
ing the Nation’s intelligentsia, industrial execu
tives, unlike so many union officials, have used
it— and at times even listened to it. One of the
messages these intellectuals have carried is the
need for satisfaction at work— that the worker is
not only concerned with his belly but also is
concerned with other things. As a result, some
firms have become concerned that workers be
given some role in decisionmaking concerning the
job, that the work become more varied and
creative, and that the worker have more responsi
bility. As a result of the work of scholars and
propagandists for participative management, a
number of firms are looking over their work
situations and altering them. For this reason,
among others, unions have not been able to
organize some firms, and such workers as whitecollar employees.2
The third group increasingly concerned with
quality or style are the workers. Many signs
indicate the desire of workers for participation in
decisionmaking. They are rejecting negotiated
settlements. They have voted against their union
officials, causing increased turnover of union
officers, often for apparently no real ideological
reason. Both acts reflect at least the feeling that
the workers want to be heard— even just to have
the pleasure of saying “no.” The pressure on the
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
38
part of workers in local plants or of certain
categories of workers, such as skilled workers, to
have a voice in decisions affecting their future is
another manifestation of the push for participa
tion. There are the few black caucuses demanding
to be heard, and the increasing number of young
workers, tired of tales about the thirties, who
want to help decide their future in the seventies.
This worker discontent is not only over sub
stantive issues but often reflects a concern with
the style in which things are being handled— a
desire to have a voice. One misreads this protest
if one attempts to answer it by saying that since
unions have become more democratic, provide
more opportunities for change, and are more
decentralized, “dissent can be expressed construc
tively within the present framework.” 3 In the
ory, I agree, but people do not always act that
sagely. I t is like saying that blacks ought to
protest only through present channels since they
have made much progress. B u t it is because of the
progress, and it is because many of them do not
believe that they can secure what they want
through the “present framework,” that they pro
test outside of it. Similarly the workers, having
seen their quantitative needs becoming more
satisfied, may become more restless (as they have)
and may even look outside the unions for answers
to such questions as, “What does emptiness,
boredom, dissatisfaction with life and with the
world call for?” The dissatisfaction may cause
him to feel threatened and to think about voting
for law-and-order candidates or feel frustrated, as
many of our ethnic white groups in their urban
enclaves do and blame the blacks for it. “The
fundamental cause” of all this restlessness,
according to Archibald Cox, may, however, run
“ a good deal deeper. I t is part of the same ferment
that produces the civil rights movement, the
draft-card burnings, and the student demonstra-
Commenton “ Union prospects and programs”
Peter Henle, chief economist of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, was a discussant at the IR R A session on
trade union prospects. Here is a portion of his comments
on professor Blum’s paper.
Albert Blum is seriously concerned with the rising
discontent in American life, not just among college
students, but also among, he believes, union mem
bers and management officials, not just with the
Viet Nam war, but covering many different issues—
the dissatisfaction of individuals on the job, the
inadequacy of public services, the pollution of the
environment, “pervasive” poverty, urban blight,
and so forth.
These are very real issues. The question here can
be simply put: what is the role of the trade union in
meeting these issues? Blum thinks it hasn’t been
doing enough and suggests some additional actions
for it to undertake, both at the bargaining table and
on the outside.
In my view, Albert Blum loses sight of the central
role of the union. Even though he states specifically
that he doesn’t want or expect unions to abandon
their traditional role of asking for more, the tenor
of his paper as a whole implies a rather complete
redirection of union goals. The union is not in business
(and I use the word advisedly) to solve the problems
of society. It is in business to meet the needs of its
members. Time and time again union members have
shown that their support for the union is very directly
related to their needs on the jobs.
Let me illustrate this referring to Blum’s discussion
of discontent among union members. Mention is made
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of several manifestations of this unrest, including
the rejection of contracts recommended by union
leaders, the displacement of union officials at the
national and local level, the pressure for greater
participation in bargaining by local union groups or
categories of members such as skilled craftsmen, and
the activities of black caucuses in some bargaining
situations. These phenomena are far more common
now than a few years ago. But the dissatisfaction
appears to resolve around traditional issues of the
“ belly,” not the “soul.” Contracts are rejected be
cause members feel aggrieved that their economic
demands have not been met. Craftsmen insist upon
the right to approve contract terms affecting them
because they know that with this weapon they can
obtain a higher wage differential. Officials are voted
out of office because they haven’t paid sufficient
attention to the basic economic needs to the member
ship. The actions of the black separatist groups, too,
seem to be focused almost entirely on bread and butter
issues, especially employment and promotion oppor
tunities.
So the focus of union activity must remain the
needs of the workers on the job. But within this
framework unions seem to me to have moved already
a good distance from the “belly” to the “soul.”
Many of the issues which Oswald stressed, health,
leisure, child care, and housing for example, are
wrapped up more with quality than quantity. Blum
points to the need for a more thorough look at the
problem of job satisfaction. Here I think he is on
solid ground and the unions, particularly the A F L CIO, could do more.
39
IRRA PAPERS
tions in Berkeley. Today everybody wants more
of everything.” And Cox is right. The workers
not only want more money, but they want more
of everything.4
This does not mean that George Meany is not
correct when he declares that a union leader
cannot stop asking for more money. “If he does,”
Meany declared, “he isn’t going to be the head
of that union very long.” And another union
leader agrees: “I ’ve never felt as much pressure
from rank and file for more money.” 5
Obviously, no one expects a worker to be satis
fied with what he is making. The very fact that
he is making more will prompt increased demands,
not less. B u t why do these demands continue to
focus mainly on issues of quantity? I t is because
organized labor has rarely tried to satisfy other
needs of its members. Organized labor has left to
management the problem of increasing satisfac
tion at work. I t has left to society the problem of
increasing satisfactions outside o j work. Labor has
focused instead on the gut issues of money and
job security, the prerequisites but not the only
requisites of a good job. B u t unions in the 1970’s
must look to problems of quality.
W hat are the specific needs? Insofar as orga
nized labor’s demands in collective bargaining,
union leaders might begin by reading what
management spokesmen have been saying, and
some of them are doing, to make work more
meaningful. One start might be to stop hiring
only economists as staff employees (reflective of
the belly syndrome already mentioned), and hire
some sociologists, psychologists, and organiza
tional behavior types. A new type of staff em
ployee might be able to offer prounion advice to
counter antiunion advice management is securing
from its staff. Moreover, these staff members
might be able to develop or identify worker
demands so that the securing of job satisfaction
will be the result of real worker participation
through unions in collective bargaining, not as a
result of management largesse.
W hat might some of these demands be? The
right of the workers to have more discretionary
power over their jobs. Job rotation and job en
richment are some examples. Others can be
discovered at the workplace, just as new economic
demands have been discovered by unions which,
more importantly, have fought for and achieved a
voice in decisionmaking over the many matters
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
now included in a typical union agreement. This
indeed was a revolutionary change in American
industrial life; now it has to broaden this involve
ment so workers have the right to participate
with management in making a host of other
decisions involving, first limited, then broader,
aspects of production, planning, promotion, pro
ductivity, personnel, and priorities.6
Beyond these collectively bargained goals,
unions will have to deal with the frustrations of
the workers outside the job— urban blight, trans
portation bottlenecks, polluted air, excessive costs
of inadequate medical care, old age, troubled
schools, safety, status, leisure time alternatives,
race relations, pervasive poverty, and foreign
policy. The supposed failure of unions in not
having fought hard enough to solve these prob
lems has helped cause the split between liberals
and labor discussed earlier.
B u t as the union movement once expanded its
horizons from just the material well-being of its
members to the material well-being of the broader
society and helped change the nature of our
economic system (moving from collective bargain
ing to political action and thus wisely rejecting
the reverse order recommended by Marxists and
intellectuals), so, I would argue that once labor,
through collective bargaining, recognizes that
there is more to the job than money, and more
to time-off than just hours, then labor may well
expand its political horizons again.
□
----------FOOTNOTES----------
1 Andre Gorz, Strategy for Labor: A Radical Proposal
(Boston, Beacon Press, 1968), p. x. For a brief summary
of the point of view of Gorz and his associates, see Sidney
Aronowitz, “New Working Class, Old Labor Move
ment,” New Politics, Yol. VII, No. 3, pp. 58-67.
2 Arthur A. Thompson and Irwin Weinstock, “ Facing
the Crisis in Collective Bargaining,” M.S.XJ. Business
Topics, summer 1968, pp. 3 7 -44; Fred K. Foulkes,
Creating More Meaningful Work (American Management
Association, 1969), passim.
3 Peter Henle, “Some Reflections on Organized Labor
and the New Militants,” Monthly Labor Review, July
1969, pp. 20-25.
4 Cited in Foulkes, op. cit., p. 30.
5 New York Times, Dec. 1, 1969.
6 See Adolf F. Sturmthal, “ Workers’ Participation in
Management: A Review of United States Experience,”
in International Institute for Labor Studies, Bulletin 6,
June 1969, pp. 149-186; Foulkes, op. cit., pp. 32-32.
40
UNION BARGAINING GOALS
IN THE 1970’s
RUDOLPH A. OSWALD
M ore , more , and more will be the tone of
bargaining in the 1970’s. Wage and salary in
creases will be the predominant bargaining theme.
This will be particularly true of the early 1970’s,
as workers try to make up for their failure to
secure real gains in the late 1960’s.
However, it seems to me more fruitful to try to
envision the types of changes that will be made
in fringe benefits, rather than concentrating on
the rate of wage change or the proportion of
national income going to wage and salary pay
ments. I t is in the area of fringe benefits that
innovations will occur, and while nonwage items
will continue to represent less than half of total
compensation, they will grow at a more rapid
rate than wages.
Nonwage payments have grown from simple
vacation plans in the late 1800’s to a broad program
of benefits, including vacations, holidays, health
and life insurance, supplemental unemployment
benefits (sub ), severance pay plans, sick leave,
maternity leave, funeral leave, voting time, jury
duty pay, employee transfer rights, moving
allowances, reporting or call-in pay, and overtime.1
In addition, one should consider such public
social insurance programs as unemployment
insurance, workmen’s compensation, and old age,
survivors’, disability, and health insurance. These
public benefits were enacted in good part as a
result of labor’s legislative effort.
M any fringe benefits were originally initiated
by employers for the sole enjoyment of manage
ment personnel. Unions often got their ideas for
negotiating specific fringe benefits from a review
of management plans.
Growth and direction of benefits
The rates of economic growth and of technolog
ical change, the level of unemployment and the
general movement of the price level affect the
ability of unions to achieve their goals and to
Rudolph A. Oswald is an economist in the Department
of Research, A FL-C IO .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
determine the relative emphasis on specific
benefits.2 In periods of rapid economic growth,
more funds will be available for benefits leading to
an expansion of public social programs as well as
privately negotiated improvements. Periods of
rapid economic grdwth are also likely to be periods
of innovation and experimentation in developing
new benefit proposals.
Rapid technological change leads to an emphasis
on job security and related benefits. Similarly,
high levels of unemployment tend to make shorter
hours and job security programs more attractive.
If unemployment rises, unions will press for pro
grams to enhance job opportunities and protect
existing jobs and income.
Inflationary periods generally lead to greater
concern with wage than with nonwage payments.
However, during periods of rising prices, both
wages and benefits must be reviewed to ensure
that they provide the real benefit intended. In
distinction to the trend in the late 1950’s and the
1960’s, when many escalator clauses were cur
tailed or eliminated, I foresee not only the re
vitalization of such escalator clauses, but also
their expansion to areas outside of the wage area,
such as an escalator on pension payments, on long
term disability benefits, and the like. Numerous
precedents already exist.
Alternative methods
In discussing collective bargaining goals in the
benefit area, one must consider the following
alternatives: (1) a benefit may be secured by an
individual on his own; (2) it may be provided on a
group basis through an employment relationship;
(3) it may be purchased through some cooperative
group arrangement; or (4) it may be established
through a public program. In many European
countries, the emphasis has been upon govern
mental benefit programs. The Scandinavians
evolved a more comprehensive cooperative ap
proach. In the United States, the predominant
development was the private benefit program,
which augmented the basic public programs. The
question always is, what will be the pattern of the
future?
I think that there will be a continued expansion
of public programs, superseding some existing
private programs. A number of benefit programs
are already provided for the “poor” publicly, but
41
IRRA PAPERS
for the rest of the population these are private
benefit plans. For example, Medicaid establishes
a public program of health care for the “poor/’
paid for out of general revenue. However, for
workers who are part of the “nonpoor,” health
care is basically provided by group health plans
under collective bargaining or unilateral employer
programs. In a few cases, health care is a prepaid
group cooperative program, or occasionally still
an individually purchased benefit. In many Euro
pean countries, this is generally a broad-based
governmental program. I see no reason why the
same type of public health insurance should not be
extended in this country to all families, not ju st
the aged.
The unions, in addition to their bargaining
demands for health care, have long stressed the
need for national health insurance.3 The achieve
ment of such a social goal would have a tremendous
influence on the mix of bargaining table demands,
with private plans dovetailed to complement
public health programs.
Another public benefit that currently seems
restricted to the “poor” is provision of actual
housing. Today there are rent supplements or
public housing for the “poor.” While some union
housing programs exist, such as cooperative, lowincome, and retirement housing, the total number
of such dwelling units is still miniscule in relation
to the need. In order to overcome our massive
housing shortage caused by the need for substantial
influxes of new money, unions will demand that
pension, life insurance, profit-sharing, and similar
funds be used for expanded housing for those
employees in whose names these funds are held.
Unions in the future will be looking not only
toward the level of benefits that are provided by
these funds, but also toward the use of such funds
for social purposes. The accumulated reserves of
these funds are expected to more than double in
the next decade.
Jo b training and education are other areas that
combine a mixture of individual, employer-union,
and public programs. Massive outlays were made
in the 1960’s by the Federal Government to
enhance job training and educational opportuni
ties, indicating a shift in the 1960’s towards
Federal involvement in job training and education
that will be expanded in the 1970’s.
Child care centers are still in a rather embryonic
stage of development. Basically, individuals still
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
make their own arrangements. A few union con
tracts call for such child care centers, and the
Taft-Hartley Act was amended in 1969 to allow'
for the negotiation of trust arrangements for such
centers. Cooperative child care and nursery
schools have also developed in various parts of the
country. A beginning has been made in providing
public child care centers to allow “welfare
mothers with minor children to enter the labor
force. All four of these approaches are likely to
continue to grow in the decade ahead.
Another public benefit that is now being pro
vided for the “poor” is legal aid. The basic notion
of group legal services will expand so that workers
can receive necessary legal advice, aid, and rep
resentation.
One area that I ’ve neglected is that of profitsharing. I t exists by law in such countries as France
and Mexico. I t has flourished for years in such
companies as Sears and Lincoln Electric. However,
I foresee no broad expansion of this fringe benefit.
Unions have basically opposed such plans because
of their unfortunate experiences during the
1920’s and 1930’s. Employers have also generally
resisted such programs. There may well be ex
pansion of production-sharing programs such
as the Kaiser Steel formula and others.
Specific benefit improvements
Significant progress in negotiating benefit im
provements can be expected in three broad areas:
(1) those dealing with job and income security;
(2) those dealing with benefits that provide
savings through group purchase; and (3) those
yielding additional leisure.4
Job and income security programs vary from
annual wage guarantees to reductions in working
hours. In the years ahead, salaries will replace
wages for a number of jobs that are currently
considered hourly rated jobs. In other cases, the
distinction between salaried and nonsalaried
positions will blur, as hourly rated employees are
guaranteed a certain number of hours per year.
Such trends are already evident in the programs
negotiated by the Longshoremen in the Atlantic
and Gulf Ports, whose contracts provide up to
2,080 hours of pay or work per year. Another
approach, common in such basic industries as
steel, autos, aluminum, rubber, and glass, estab
lishes a type of annual guarantee through the
extension of sub plans.
42
Subcontracting limitations are another area
that will receive increasing attention in the 1970’s.
Restrictions will be sought on contracting out
jobs, either domestically or abroad, to workers
not enjoying equal pay and benefits. The develop
ment of conglomerate and international firms
highlight the urgency of this issue.
Unions will continue to press in a number of
areas for shorter hours of work to provide addi
tional job opportunities and increased leisure for
workers. For example, the trend toward longer
vacations of the last few decades will continue
during the 1970’s.
Holidays will take on a form of minivacations
under the Federal act providing five Monday
holidays in 1971. Besides these minivacations,
the number of holidays will also be expanded to
provide workers with time to attend to their own
personal needs— to perform their normal activities,
to vote, to register, and to deal with their elected
and appointed public representatives and officials.
The 8-hour day has already given way to the
7-hour day for millions of office and clerical
workers. Union bargaining will spread the 7-hour
day to workers in other occupations. Moreover,
unions will demand shorter workweeks, although
in some cases the shorter workday may be sacrificed
for shorter weekly hours. For example, the work
week may consist of four 9-hour or four 8-hour
days, or one of these schedules may be used only
during the summer months. The number of 4-day
weeks is already substantial, due to the rising
number of holidays.
The growth in fringe benefits will cause unions
to renew their demand for double-time pay for
overtime. As these benefit levels have risen as a
percent of total compensation over the last 30
years, the time and one-half payment has lost its
impact as a detriment to the scheduling of over
time. Unions will also try to write contract
provisions allowing workers to reject overtime, as
increasing recognition is given to individual needs
and desires. Women, in particular, are upset with
employer requirements to work overtime.
Significant progress can also be expected during
the 1970’s in negotiating fringe benefits that
provide savings through group purchase such as
insurance plans. Group insurance is presently
confined largely to life and health benefits, but
the dropping of legal barriers may soon permit
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
its application to auto and homeowners insurance
and other types of services. Unions in Ohio and
Wisconsin have already moved into the auto
insurance area, and this benefit now exists in a
handful of contracts. Homeowners insurance also
lends itself to the application of group insurance
principles.
Pension plans will provide survivor benefits as
well as increased benefits as living costs continue
to rise. In addition, portability and vesting will
be stressed so that workers will not lose their
benefits because of a change in jobs.
Occupational health and safety are matters of
growing concern to unions. To the extent that
new national legislation in this field does not
provide adequate protection against these
hazards, unions will have to win new safeguards
at the bargaining table.
Each contract will depend upon the unique
forces affecting that particular bargaining situa
tion. Union negotiators will be responsive to the
particular needs of their membership, which in
turn will depend on the workers’ age, length of
service, income, number of dependents, and the
level of pay and of benefits in their industry and
the recent changes in those levels. Thus, 10 years
from now some contracts will contain none of the
benefit programs listed here, but other contracts
will have incorporated many of them.
□
--------- FOO TNOTES---------1 Walter W. Kolodrubetz, “ Growth in EmployeeBenefit Plans, 1950-65,” Social Security Bulletin, April
1967, pp. 10-27.
2 For a survey of studies of the psychological factors
which influence fringe benefits, see Richard A. Lester,
“Benefits as a Preferred Form of Compensation,” The
Southern Economic Journal, April 1967, pp. 488-495.
These studies show that worker preference for compensa
tion in the form of fringe benefits has been increasing
during the past two decades.
3 The 1969 A FL-C IO convention reaffirmed its support
for a comprehensive national health insurance system.
AFL-CIO , “Collective Bargaining and Health,” Policy
Resolutions of the Eighth Constitutional Convention, Atlantic
City., N .J., October 2-8, 1969 (Washington, A FL-C IO ,
1970).
4 T. J. Gordon, A Study of Potential Changes in Em
ployee Benefits (Middletown, Conn., Institute for the
Future, 1969), 3 volumes.
43
IRRA PAPERS
WHO BENEFITS FROM
HIGHER EDUCATION SUBSIDIES
W. LEE HANSEN
Various proposals have been advanced in recent
years that would increase the resources available
for higher education. Among these proposals are
an expanded program of State or Federal institu
tional grants, income tax credits, contingent
repayment student loan programs, larger amounts
of conventional types of student financial aid, and
the like.1 While all of these proposals would
directly or indirectly increase the resources devoted
to higher education, they would provide these
resources in different ways, to different people, and
with varying effects.
To evaluate the desirability of these proposals
requires that we know how the present system of
financing higher education operates to promote the
objectives of economic efficiency and equity. This
paper explores one part of this much larger topic,
by providing new information on the equity or
income redistributive effects of higher education.
The emphases will be on the tax-supported systems
which provide substantial subsidies to young
people and the parents of young people enrolled
in public colleges and universities. The focus will
necessarily be on the State level, since the amounts
of these subsidies, who receives them, and who
pays for them, are largely the result of State rather
than Federal policy. Moreover, because the income
redistribution effects are likely to differ from State
to State, we examine the results for two different
States, California and Wisconsin. This requires
estimating the nature and magnitude of these
redistributive effects for Wisconsin, and then
comparing them with a similar study for Califor
nia. To keep the discussion within manageable
bounds, attention is confined to undergraduate
education.
We already possess some knowledge of the
redistributional effects of public higher education
from a recently completed study for California.2
First, taxpayers in general subsidize the families
W. Lee Hansen is professor of economics and of educa
tional policy studies, and research associate, Institute for
Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of young people enrolled in public institutions of
higher education. Second, larger subsidies go to
those families whose children are eligible for and
enroll in higher-cost, higher-prestige, institutions;
and these families on average have higher incomes
and are most able to pay. Third, higher income
families do not pay commensurately higher State
and local taxes in California. So, for higher income
families, the ratio of education subsidy to total
State and local taxes paid is higher. In summary,
the operation of the California higher education
system, works on the whole, to redistribute income
from poor and lower middle income families to
upper middle and higher income families.
These results hinge upon several key param
eters: The structure of the tax system which
provides funds for the support of higher education,
the family income distribution of students enrolled
in different schools, tuition charges, and the level
of full educational costs per student at different
schools. Because these parameters are likely to
vary from State to State, it is important to
replicate the California study so that the broader
pattern of income redistribution effects will emerge
more clearly. For example, in California admission
to different types of colleges depends upon high
school performance, with the standards being
highest at the University of California, lower at
the State colleges, and lowest at the junior
colleges. We also know that the subsidy received
by a student is greatest at the University, some
what smaller at the State colleges, and smallest
at the junior colleges. Admission standards give
rise to different types of student clientele at each
of the three systems, with, on average, the Uni
versity having the highest income students and
the junior colleges having the lowest income
students. Finally, we know that because of its
State income tax, California’s overall tax structure
is less regressive than that of most other States.
The Wisconsin system
We turn now to the estimation of the income
redistributive effects of State-supported higher
education in Wisconsin; unfortunately, data are
not available on the 2-year community colleges.
The value of the subsidy available to a Wisconsin
resident who is a student in a public institution in
Wisconsin is the difference between tuition and the
full costs of college education (the costs of college
44
are taken to include not only instructional costs,
but also operational and capital costs). Despite
differences in the apparent “quality” of the
University of Wisconsin system and the Wisconsin
State University system, the full institutional costs
in 1964-65 were approximately equal, at $1,200 per
academic year. Since tuition amounted to $300
at the University of Wisconsin and to $190 at
the Wisconsin State universities,3 net per-student
institutional costs-—or the per-student subsidies—
amounted to $900 and $1,010, respectively. The
effect of this tuition differential is to provide larger
net subsidies to Wisconsin State University
students and their families than to University of
Wisconsin students and their families.
The ability to pay of families and students
differs between the two systems, as indicated by
the median family income levels. Families of
University of Wisconsin students report median
incomes of $9,700 a year in 1964-65, considerably
higher than the $6,500 estimated family income of
students at the Wisconsin State universities.
Because Wisconsin’s State tax system is progres
sive over this income range, the tax contribution
differs considerably for the median families with
students in these two systems.
Information on the single-year subsidies, family
income levels, and State taxes can now be put
together to show, in table 1, the redistributive
effects of Wisconsin’s State-supported system of
higher education. I t is important to remember that
Wisconsin taxes go to defray the costs of a wide
array of State-provided services, including some
revenue-sharing with local communities. Hence,
the State taxes included here do not reflect the
taxpayer contribution to higher education alone;
unfortunately, there is no easy way to determine
what portion of a family’s taxes is used to provide
any particular service, such as higher education.
At the same time it is clear that taxes are generally
paid over many years while college subsidies are
received only while the student is in college.
Several interesting results emerge from these
data. First, families with children in college are
subsidized— at least temporarily—by families who
do not have children in college (this includes some
families with children of college age but not in
college). Second, the largest annual subsidies go
to students at the Wisconsin State universities,
as already noted. In addition, as a percentage of
family income these subsidies are even more favor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
able to students at the Wisconsin State univer
sities than to University of Wisconsin students.
Third, the absolute amounts of the net transfers
are higher for students at the State universities
than for the generally more affluent University
of Wisconsin students.
Comparison with California
To compare these results with those for Cali
fornia, several adjustments are necessary in the
California data. One requires that the junior
college system be excluded because, as of 1964-65,
Wisconsin had no comparable 2-year college
system. This adjustment necessitated another one,
the exclusion of local taxes which in California
provide substantial support for the junior college
system. Thus, our comparison is limited to the two
major systems in each State and to those fully
dependent upon State financing.
The contrasts between the two States are sharp,
as revealed by a comparison of tables 1 and 2.
The subsidies per student are substantially higher
in California, in part because of lower tuition
(essentially zero at that time) and in part because
of larger expenditures per student. Subsidies tend
to be proportional to family income of students in
the two California systems, but redistributive
(inversely related to family income) for students
in the two Wisconsin systems. Net transfers, which
reflect the structure of State taxes as well as
subsidies, are also proportional to family income
in California. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin the higher
level of taxes paid and wider differences in the
Table 1. Average higher education subsidies received,
by type of institution children attend, Wisconsin, 1964-65
Wisconsin families
Item
Total
Average family income_________
Average higher education
subsidy per year____________
Average State taxes paid_______
Net transfers
..............
Average subsidy as a percent of
family income______________
Average State taxes paid as a
percent of family income..........
With children at—
With no
children in
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
public higher University
State
of Wisconsin
education
universities
$6,500
$9,700
$6,500
240
0
240
-2 4 0
900
430
+470
1,010
270
+74 0
0
9.3
15.8
3.6
3.6
4.3
4.1
$6,800
Source: Based on unpublished information from University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin
State universities, State of Wisconsin Department of Administration, and State of
Wisconsin Department of Revenue.
45
IRRA PAPERS
Table 2. Average higher education subsidies received,
by type of institution children attend, California, 1964-65
California families
Item
Total
Average family income_________
Average higher education
subsidy per year
______
Average State taxes paid........ .. _.
Net transfers
_____
Average subsidy as a percent of
family income............... .............
Average State taxes paid as a
percent of family income_____
With children at—
With no
children in
California
California
public higher University of
California
State
education
Colleges
$8,000
$7,900
$12,000
$10,000
192
0
182
-1 8 2
1,700
350
+1 ,3 5 0
1,400
260
+ 1 ,1 4 0
0
14.2
14.0
2.4
2.9
2.6
2.4
Source: Adapted from W. Lee Hansen and Burton A. Weisbrod, “ Benefits, Costs,
and Finance of Public Higher Education” (Chicago, Markham, 1969), table IV-12,
p. 76.
family incomes of students combine to make net
transfers relatively more redistributive between
the two systems than are net transfers alone.
While the exclusion of 2-year colleges somewhat
limits the generality of the analysis for both
States, the California study shows that the redis
tributive effects are magnified when 2-year schools
are included.
Both Wisconsin and California end up providing
substantial subsidies to about one-half of their
recent high school graduates— those going to public
colleges, whether universities, 4-year colleges, or
2-year schools. Many of these students, however,
avail themselves of these subsidies for less than 4
years of college; in general, the higher the family
income, the more likely the student is to complete
college. No subsidy whatsoever goes to the other
half of the high school graduates who do not
attend public colleges— those who enroll in private
schools and those who do not attend college
at all.
The existence of this pattern of income redis
tribution has long been suspected even if not fully
documented. Paradoxically, the most common
justification, in the case of higher education, is that
it helps to achieve greater equality of opportunity :
the lower the tuition, the easier it is for students to
attend. B u t even with low or zero tuition, sizable
numbers of young people, particularly from lower
income families, have been unable to attend
State institutions.
Low tuition provides a large subsidy that is
given out indiscriminately to every enrolled
student, on the grounds that anyone enrolling is
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
deserving of a subsidy. B u t when public funds for
subsidies are limited, as they inevitably are, the
proper question is: Who needs them the most?
B y and large, the need is greater for qualified
students from lower income families.
Part of the justification for low tuition and the
income redistribution that it promotes hinges on
the external benefits that are presumed to result
from higher education. B u t this appealing argu
ment stems from a faith in, rather than firm
knowledge of, the existence of and possible magni
tude of these external benefits at the undergraduate
level. I myself am skeptical.
From another point of view, it may be argued
that, if a longer time period is considered, little
or not actual subsidization of college students
occurs. Because higher education leads to higher
incomes, it is argued, students will in later life
pay substantially more tax revenue to the State,
and its taxpayers, in effect repaying the value
of the subsidies received during their college years.
B u t for California, the present value of additional
State and local taxes expected to be paid falls
considerably short of the present value of the
subsidy received.4 For Wisconsin, also, the sub
sidies would be only partially offset by the addi
tional future tax payments to the State. The
combined effects of the additional taxable income
and the progressivity of the tax structure is not
great enough to produce a sufficient lifetime
increment to tax revenue. The difficulty in re
couping past public subsidies is compounded,
moreover, because considerable numbers of young
people who benefit from higher education sub
sidies migrate from the State and in this way
escape all or at least a part of the repayment via
taxes.
The equity of a system of restricted subsidies to
college-going young people has received little
attention. Such a system seems to assume im
plicitly that college going is the primary, if not
the sole, means of enhancing potential earning
power or the prospects for a satisfying, enriched
life. B u t at least roughly similar beneficial effects
seem likely to result from other types of educa
tion and training programs, among them private
technical training schools, conservatory programs,
apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and the like.
What the existing subsidy system does is to
encourage individuals to invest in higher educa
tion by making higher education relatively inex-
46
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
pensive. Meanwhile, young people who may recog
nize the inappropriateness of college to their own
vocational aspirations are discouraged from pursu
ing alternative programs because they must pay
the full (unsubsidized) costs of these programs.
Y et these young people and their parents, who on
average are less able to pay, continue to be taxed
to support the college training of others.
In the interests of promoting greater equality of
opportunity as well as widening the options open
to young people, eligibility for public subsidies
should be broadened to include other types of
education and training in addition to college.
Ample precedent exists in the G I Bill and man
power training programs for enlarging the range
of programs in which students can be subsidized.
If a broadened subsidy program is to be con
sidered, however, we must again confront the
question of financing, whether through additional
public funds or through a redistribution of the
subsidies now received by the college-going
population.
This paper attempts to indicate the nature of
the income redistribution effects of the public
financing of higher education. What seems clear
is that the redistributive effects, by and large,
favor the upper middle and upper income groups
at the expense of the lower middle and lower
income groups. Whether society wants to continue
to produce these redistributive effects when it
chooses among alternative ways to increase
financial resources for higher education remains
to be answered.
□
----------FOO TNO T E S ---------1 See Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Quality and Equality: New Levels of Federal Responsibility
for Higher Education (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1968),
and Toward a Long-Range Plan for Federal Financial
Support for Higher Education: A Report to the President
(Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, 1969).
2 W. Lee Hansen and Burton A. Weisbrod, Benefits,
Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education (Chicago,
Markham, 1969).
3 Actually, the “tuition” figures include both “tuition
and fees.” Since tuition (payment for instructional costs)
is less than total tuition and fees, the subsidies are slightly
understated. The impact of State scholarships, based
largely on financial need, cannot be estimated because of
the lack of adequate data.
4 Hansen and Weisbrod, op. cit., chs. 2 and 4.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
J. A. KERSHAW AND A. M. MOOD
H igher education may be regarded as a system.
I t consumes resources, such as money and man
power, and it produces a number of outputs, such
as educated people, occupational specialists, pro
fessional meetings, and research. There is a pro
duction function involved, and presumably, it is
possible to combine the inputs in different ways
to achieve desired combinations of outputs,
although that has not yet been demonstrated. I t
is, in this gross sense, like the General Motors
Corp. or the Bronx Zoo, unfortunately more like
the latter than the former.
What makes the system difficult to deal with,
among other things, is that its output is not easily
specifiable— and where we can agree on what the
output is, it is extremely difficult to quantify it.
The inputs are easier to handle, although there are
some tricky costing problems, and there is the
further complication that it is not always clear
whether some parts of the system are inputs or
outputs. There is also the problem of which
parts represent investment and which parts
consumption.
As part of its framework for surveying knowledge
about higher education, six major outputs have
been identified that are intended to cover, for
most practical purposes, the bulk of the output of
higher education. They are:
1.
Classification of youths. This refers to the
much-discussed sorting process carried out by
higher education, which determines who shall and
who shall not be permitted to enter higher educa
tion; of those who enter, what institutions they
may attend; having begun attendance, who may
continue, who may move to a higher ranking
institution, who must leave or move to a lower
ranking institution; having graduated, who may
attempt to obtain an advanced degree and who
may not; having made the attempt, who shall
and who shall not receive the advanced degree.
J. A. Kershaw is a program officer at the Ford Founda
tion. A. M. Mood is director of the Public Policy Research
Organization, University of California, Irvine.
IRRA PAPERS
This sorting process is a major determinant of
social structure; higher education tries to carry
it out by objective methods, by and large; but of
course subjective judgment pervades the whole
process, and there is no denying that youths from
favored families receive special consideration.
2. Occupational training. Most of undergraduate
education and essentially all of graduate educa
tion is occupational training. Even a purely
cultural survey course has an element of occupa
tional training if it requires homework, reports,
and examinations. A prime attraction of the
bachelor’s degree to employers is the evidence it
affords that the holder normally disciplines him
self to carry out tasks somewhat conscientiously
and on time, no matter how irrelevant they may
seem to be. T h a t’s why U.S. Steel does not mind
hiring someone who majored in Finnish Folklore.
3. Research. This refers to generation of new
knowledge (ideally) and not to large development
programs such as most of those funded by the
military and space agencies. Departmental re
search is part of this output, as is much of the
research funded by private foundations, National
Science Foundation, and the National Institutes
of Health. Research activities belong in this
category if society holds the university primarily
accountable for their quality; if a contracting
agency is held primarily accountable, then the
activity is a service and belongs in category 6
below.
4. Organization o f knowledge. Higher education
devotes a substantial portion of its resources each
year to reorganizing the total body of knowledge;
it is done mainly by the faculty, but students
contribute too. The reorganization is required by
research findings, by new insights into the inter
relations and structures of knowledge, and by
society’s changing value system which in turn
changes emphasis on different segments of the
body of knowledge. The reorganization takes place
when faculty members formulate their courses
each year, when new textbooks are written and
old ones revised, when meetings of professional
societies take place, when curricular material is
debated in the classroom, when journal articles
are written that do not deal primarily with new
research results, when courses are added and
dropped, and when students change their pattern
of demand for courses.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
5. General education. This is the output that
you read about in the first few pages of almost
any college catalogue, but then it usually falls by
the wayside as you move into the sorting process
and the occupational training. Some 4-year
colleges are seriously concerned about a general
education; that is, providing each student with a
reasonably sound model of how the world operates.
Every person has such a model, which to him
represents the real world and which forms the
basis of his decisions throughout life. If it is a
realistic representation, he will be a person of good
judgment; if not, he will be a person of poor
judgment.
A college student usually receives very little
help from the faculty with this extremely im
portant matter, except as bits and pieces of his
model happen to coincide with the conventional
academic disciplines. Mostly it is constructed
from his own experiences and amateur inferences;
their integration into a unified structure is left
entirely up to him. Except for those bits of
specialized curricular knowledge, he is not much
better off, at most colleges, than those who do
not go to college; he is a little better off because
students get help from each other in relating
formal course work to their models.
Another aspect of general education which is
particularly important to students today has to do
with social skills, interpersonal relations, social
responsibility, and so forth. Here also most
colleges have little to offer, but students do help
themselves to some degree.
In sum, there is a noticeable output of general
education provided by a few colleges, by a few
courses at many institutions, and primarily by
the students themselves.
6. Services. These are provided mainly by the
larger institutions. The institutions carry out
engineering and evaluation of weapons systems,
space systems, transportation systems, and the
like for Federal agencies. They operate agricul
tural experiment stations to serve farmers and
the agricultural industries; engineering experiment
stations serve the manufacturing and construction
industries. Tests of drugs and food additives
serve the pharmaceutical and food industries and
the population at large. Business research insti
tutes serve consumer-oriented industries and
small business by maintaining useful statistical
48
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
indexes and carrying out various kinds of surveys.
Local and State government are served by urban
planning studies, water supply studies, sanitary
engineering studies, air pollution studies, tax and
equalization studies, and so forth.
Institutions are reimbursed by the agency
receiving the service or they receive appropriated
funds for performing them as a result of influence
exerted by those benefiting from the service.
Thus there is no real allocation of resources
problem here; the institutions are mainly fulfilling
demands of the economy at the market price.
The services “cost” the institutions essentially
nothing (so far as society’s allocation of resources
to higher education is concerned) and they
receive the considerable benefit of keeping in
touch with a variety of current practical problems.
T his global characterization of outputs is far
beyond anything systems analysts are presently
trying to do in coming to grips with the resource
allocation process in higher education. I t is
global because the survey is intended not only to
discover what is known but to point up impor
tant areas where little or nothing is known and
substantial research needs to be done. We solicit
criticism of this set of outputs.
We have argued that this complex institution
of higher education can and must be analyzed as
a system, like other systems. I t has its peculiar
difficulties, and indeed it may be the most difficult
of all institutions to deal with in terms of formal
systematic analysis.
B u t progress is being made in a number of
places and there is little doubt that the supporters
of the system are going to demand that much
more progress be made as the required resources
devoted to the system become greater and greater
with the passage of time. I t is gratifying that
economists, operations analysts, systems analysts,
and behavioral scientists are beginning to apply
the tools of their trade to this difficult new area.
All of us will watch the results with great
interest.
□
Education and class
Educational credentials have become the new property in America. Our
Nation, which has attempted to make the transmission of real and personal
property difficult, has contrived to replace it with an inheritable set of values
concerning degrees and diplomas which will most certainly reinforce the
formidable class barriers that remain. . . .
Barriers against greater mobility are not made less imposing by public
policies that reinforce the access to formal education of middle- and upperincome youngsters through subsidy and subsidy-like arrangements. Today,
tax-supported and tax-assisted universities are full of nutant spirits from
families whose incomes are well above those of the average taxpayers. . . .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— Ivar Berg, Education and Jo b s : The Great Training Robbery
(New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970).
Communications
RESEARCH AND THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
ROBERT D. MORAN
To m a n y p e o p l e , the Wage and Hour Division
of the Department of Labor appears to be simply
an enforcement agency finding and correcting
minimum wage and overtime violations under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
I t is all of this— and much more.
One of the areas in which the Division is in
volved quite considerably is research and analysis.
Many of the Nation’s employed people today
are enjoying the protection of particular statutory
labor standards as the direct result of a need for
such protection first established by research con
ducted or commissioned by the Wage and Hour
Division. This research is a vital part of the
Division’s responsibilities, in addition to its pri
mary concern with wages, hours, and employment
rights of working people.
A brief outline of some of the major on-going
research and of projects planned by the Wage
and Hour Division will alert scholars and other
interested parties to studies that will be available
to them— and also to the Division’s interest in
encouraging research in the wage and hour field
by researchers outside the Department of Labor.
1. A special study is being completed on the
agricultural handling and processing industries.
This will provide data on how changes in the Fair
Labor Standards Act (flsa ) with regard to both
coverage and level of the minimum wage have
affected these industries. In a related area,
another special study will be conducted in 1970
on the relative position of hired farm workers
Robert D. Moran is Administrator of the Wage and
Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor.
3 7 4 - 7 4 4 0 — 7 0 ---------- 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
covered by the act and those who are not. Unlike
other recently covered workers, the minimum
wage level for hired farm workers is not scheduled
to increase above the present $1.30 an hour level.
The study of these workers’ economic situation
will provide a basis for any necessary legislative
recommendations as to expansion of coverage or
a higher minimum wage level.
2. General studies are made annually by the
Wage and Hour Division to assess the economic
and social effects of the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (under section 4(d) of the
f l s a ) and the Age Discrimination in Employ
ment Act (under section 13 of a d e a ) . These pro
vide the statistical and analytic bases for recom
mendations regarding legislative action that is
required, especially with regard to any general
changes in standards or coverage. This report is
submitted to the Congress each January.
3. Information and education programs are
continually reevaluated by the Wage and Hour
Division for effectiveness in order to ensure that
the people affected by the acts administered by
the Division receive materials that effectively
explain employee rights and employer responsi
bilities. As a part of this process, information is
obtained from persons who make complaints of
violations as to the source of their knowledge of
the law.
4. An exploratory study has been undertaken
to see if appropriate data can be developed on
the wage rates, hours of work, and working con
ditions of State and local government employees,
other than those in hospitals and educational
institutions. If data can be developed, surveys
will be initiated to provide a basis for making
recommendations relative to coverage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for such employees.
Employees of hospitals and educational institu
tions, which were brought under coverage of the
act in 1967 are the subject of a study (completed
in January 1970) to assess the effects of coverage
and changes in their minimum wage level.
49
50
5. Periodic analyses are made of the certifica
tion of certain employees (such as handicapped
workers, learners, apprentices, and full-time stu
dents) to work at special minimum wage rates
below the applicable minimum required under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and of the firms
holding these certificates. These analyses identify
trends in the demand for certification of various
kinds of workers, the need for enforcement action,
and of the possible need for changes in the ad
ministratively promulgated regulations governing
such certification, or in the act itself. A survey
of the use of two types of certificates has just
been completed in connection with an evaluation
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the relation
ship, if any, between the minimum wage level and
youth employment.
6. In conjunction with the Division’s regular en
forcement program, data are being gathered on the
characteristics of employees found to be paid less
than the applicable minimum wage under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. D ata are being sought on
employee characteristics such as age, sex, race,
whether or not the employee is the primary wage
earner of a household, and the number of the
employee’s dependents. These data will be used
both to evaluate legislative proposals and to
shape informational and enforcement programs
toward aiding families with the lowest incomes. A
broader study of the distribution of wage and
salary workers in the labor force by wage-rate
interval and by industry and geographic area has
been proposed to b l s as a joint project.
7. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, periodic
evaluations are made of the types of violations of
the child labor provisions, by geographic area and
age of the minor. Analysis is also made of the
factors affecting the likelihood of violations. These
analyses are used both to determine the level and
type of effort needed to obtain compliance and to
evaluate from an operational standpoint the
potential effects of changes in the hazardous
occupation orders issued by the Bureau of Labor
Standards.
8. A preliminary evaluation has been made of the
potential for improving compliance in large firms
through educational efforts. On an experimental
basis, contacts have been made with selected firms
to ascertain their problems and willingness to co
operate, particularly with regard to the equal pay
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Previous studies have shown that these are the
areas causing most compliance problems in large
firms.
9. Economic effects studies are being planned
by the Division on the earnings of tipped employees
in hotels and in eating and drinking places and of
the proportion that tips usually constitute of the
wages of these employees. The data will indicate
whether there is a need for changes in the special
provisions in the act dealing with tips.
10. Statistics on Wage and Hour investigation
activity and findings are tabulated periodically by
standard and act, geographic area, organizational
component, size of establishment investigated (in
terms of numbers of employees), and industry.
11. Monthly analyses are made of complaints
received from the public alleging violations of the
acts administered by the Division and of the
number of complaints requiring investigation in
inventory at the end of the month. Special
breakdowns are made by program area such as
equal pay, age discrimination, etc., as well as by
organizational component of the Wage and Hour
Division. These analyses identify trends in work
load by geographic area, making necessary staffing
readjustments possible at the earliest moment to
provide prompt service to the public.
12. D ata are gathered in support of investiga
tions that result in litigation. The economic
briefs prepared may cover the whole gamut of the
Wage and Hour Division’s responsibilities— from
what constitutes a valid job distinction for equal
pay purposes to what is the reasonable value of
food, lodging, and the like provided by an em
ployer in calculating the wages paid.
13. Biennial reviews are conducted by job
classification of the industries in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, covered
by the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that
the minimum wage level is raised as rapidly as
possible to the mainland standard without curtail
ing job opportunities in those areas. Economic
data are gathered and a report is prepared on each
industry prior to public hearings held by com
mittees appointed by the Secretary of Labor to set
such wage rates.
The interaction between research and enforce
ment in the Wage and Hour Division is truly a
two-way street.
□
IMPACT OF LONGSHORE STRIKES
ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
W hat w e r e the economic effects of recent na
tional emergency strikes? Is it possible to develop
an analysis system or method that will give policy
makers basic economic information to be used in
deciding which situations merit Federal concern
and involvement?
In 1969, a task force appointed by the Secretary
of Labor began to develop and test a system
designed to provide a dispassionate base against
which to measure the economic effects of disrup
tions. The following is a summary of the 193-page
task force report, Im pact o f Longshore Strikes on
the N ational Economy, released in January 1970.
The task force considered three recent national
emergency strikes of longshoremen in Atlantic and
Gulf Coast ports. These strikes (1962-63, 1965,
and 1968-69) were selected for analysis both be
cause they appear to be archetypal examples of
use of Taft-H artley Act emergency procedures and
because port stoppages have potentially pervasive
impact throughout the economy. The October 1,
1968 injunction represented the seventh consecu
tive use of the provisions in this industry.
The problem of determining the impact of a
strike is one of measuring deviations from the
“norm” caused by the stoppage. The measurement
involves an arbitrary determination of what is
normal, the time period over which the deviations
must be observed, and, most important, an
implicit assumption that any portion of the devia-
This excerpt is adapted from the U.S. Department of
Labor report, Impact of Longshore Strikes on the National
Economy, prepared under the direction of an intradepartmental committee headed by John P. Gould, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Labor for Economic Affairs.
The Transportation Task Force staff was directed by
Edgar I. Eaton.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion that cannot be attributed to some specific
element other than the strike is due to the strike.
In a dynamic world economy, trade flow patterns
are constantly changing, and attempts to attribute
the changes to a single cause, even a major cause,
are necessarily of questionable validity.
Summary of findings
The three strikes studied tied up East Coast and
Gulf ports for the periods December 23, 1962January 27, 1963; January 11-M arch 6, 1965;
and December 20, 1968, to various dates between
February 15 and April 13, 1969. In general, U.S.
foreign trade patterns during and after these
three periods failed to reveal any longrun effects
which could be directly attributed to the strikes.
The strikes had no visible impact on the economy
as a whole—industrial production, retail sales,
national income, or total employment.
None of the three strikes appears to have caused
any lasting unfavorable shifts in the basic trends
of either imports or exports. The general pattern
in all three strikes was: Some buildup in both
exports and imports in the month before the long
shore contract was due to expire and additional
buildup in the month before the Taft-Hartley
injunction expired; sharp drops in both exports
and imports during the months the ports were
closed; and then a significant recovery in the 2 or 3
months following the final settlement.
In both 1962-63 and 1965, U.S. exports in total
were considerably greater than U.S. imports, and
the absolute changes in exports were greater than
those for imports. In 1968-69, exports and imports
were much closer to being equal in total and the
absolute change in exports was relatively close
to the absolute change in imports. The U.S.
merchandise trade balance fluctuated around
zero before, during, and after the 1968-69 strike.
Our estimates of average daily net loss in the
51
52
U.S. trade balance attributable to the strike are
about $9-10 million a day in the 1962-63 and
1965 strikes and roughly $3-5 million a day in
the 1968-69 strike. The range of the estimated
average daily loss in the 1968-69 strike is fairly
large because the strike ended in different ports
on various dates between February 15 and April 13,
1969. The estimates of the total net loss in
the U.S. trade balance are: approximately $350
million in 1962-63: about $450-500 million in
1965; and roughly $250-300 million in 1968-69.
None of the total net losses appears large in com
parison with total U.S. foreign trade— $41 billion
in 1963, $49 billion in 1965, and $70 billion in
1969.
Several factors have contributed to the com
paratively small longrun impact of longshore
strikes. There is evidence in the data as well as
statements from companies deeply involved in
foreign trade that there is both activity in antici
pation of the strike and a great deal of makeup
after the ports reopen. Larger companies in
particular tend to spread their anticipatory or
defensive actions over a long period of time. The
extent of this offset depends on available capacity.
For example, the ports were operating near
capacity in 1969, making it difficult to clean up
the congestion after the strike. This was not so
in earlier years.
I t is worth noting that the 80-day “grace
period” which resulted from the invocation of
the Taft-H artley injunctions may have contrib
uted to the reduction of the strike impact by
providing a clear signal that anticipatory activity
was needed and by allowing an appreciable period
of time to engage in such activity. At the same
time, it is reasonable to expect that similar
behavior might occur in anticipation of a threat
ened strike if it were made clear in advance that
a Taft-H artley injunction would not be sought
immediately. Indeed, the evidence of anticipatory
buildup in September, the month proceeding
Taft-H artley injunctions, lends credibility to this
possibility. Moreover, our findings indicate that
there is typically as much or more buildup in
both imports and exports in the poststrike
recovery period as there is in the prestrike period.
There appears to be no evidence of a permanent
loss of export markets because of a strike. Any
permanent losses would presumably show up in
a slowdown in the rate of growth of either exports
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
or imports not directly traceable to other causes—
no such slowdown appears in the data, and ques
tioning of both major U.S. exporters and U.S.
embassies failed to develop examples of permanent
loss of customers or access to markets. This
relative stability of markets for goods moving in
foreign trade despite the loss of some sales during
the strike most likely reflects the high proportion
of finished manufactures in U.S. trade. At present,
over two-thirds of U.S. exports and almost 60
percent of imports are finished products, an
appreciable share of which are well insulated
against the effects of temporary breakdowns in
delivery schedules. These goods reflect unique
technological developments and patents, brand
name maintenance, or consumer acceptance.
The steady growth of the multinational com
pany with extensive international interplant
transfers also undoubtedly has an impact on the
stability of markets for finished goods. Because
their various plants and subsidiaries are, in effect,
captive markets, interruptions in the transporta
tion system, such as those caused by strikes, will
not generate changes in trade patterns for these
companies. M arket permanency, however, does
not exist for many commercial agricultural
products such as soybeans or wheat. These are
normally sold on a strictly competitive basis in
volving price and delivery schedules. Inability to
make delivery during strikes is reported to have
caused significant losses of specific sales by the
United States, but not any appreciable loss of
ability to repenetrate the market once delivery
again becomes possible.
Effects on domestic economy
W ith few exceptions, such as sugar cane and
parts for some foreign vehicles, the strikes did not
appear to generate shortages of materials or com
ponents in this country. Although waterborne
commerce through East and Gulf Coast ports
accounts for approximately half of total U.S.
trade, the gross declines in trade between Novem
ber and January, the height of the strike, were
only about 35 percent in 1963 and 1965 and 30
percent in 1969. This reflects the fact that some
commodities such as petroleum imports and coal
exports are not affected by a longshore strike. To
a minor degree, some shifting to air and alternate
ports occurred.
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
M ajor manufacturing firms with significant
export markets or reliance on imports indicate
that they were generally well prepared and in a
position to sit the" strike out. These companies
experienced some disruption of production and
delivery schedules and some loss of profits because
of strike-induced higher costs—use of alternate
routes or modes of transportation, increased in
ventory costs, temporarily redundant personnel,
loss of sales to better prepared competitors, and
so forth.
Although the national economic impact of a
prolonged strike appears to have been minimal,
the strikes have severe or even disastrous impacts
on some small immediate port neighborhoods and
businesses, and on many individuals. The halt in
port activity adversely affected small truckers,
importers and exporters whose livelihood depends
on a steady flow of merchandise, small retail
establishments featuring imported products, and
many port-supporting restaurants, bars, and so
forth. The extent that the strike may have
affected physical health or national safety
(security) is difficult to determine. However, the
impact on the movement of Department of De
fense cargo has been minimal, and requests for
special treatment based on health or security
needs were normally honored.
The most visible impact of a longshore strike is
on the oceangoing fleet and its workers. The
Maritime Administration estimates that failures
to sail cost U.S. merchant seamen about $21
million in potential wages, most of which cannot
be made up since there are no means, such as
overtime, to recover lost earnings. There have been
estimates that it costs around $6,000-$7,000 a day
to operate a vessel, even when it is tied up by a
strike. At the peak of the 1969 strike, 650 vessels
including 185 U.S. ships were tied up in ports. The
direct costs to the U.S. vessels were thus over $1
million a day. Some of the costs can be made up
when the strike ends by higher revenue from
greater ship utilization— cargo already waiting in
the ports for ships and faster turn-around times as
a result of cargo consolidations. Again, the extent
of this makeup depends on how near to capacity
the ports and shipping-related companies operate
under normal conditions.
Employment can also be affected by a strike. In
a full employment situation, however, there tends
to be a great deal of labor hoarding and, therefore,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
few layoffs. This was the case in the 1968-69
strike where the only significant layoffs took place
in the sugar refining industry whose stockpiles
were consumed before the strike ended. There
were also a few sporadic layoffs in individual com
panies because of particular material or component
shortages, or lack of business in service industries.
There is also a question as to whether the strike
has any effect on the earnings of longshoremen.
With the significant exception of the Port of New
York, longshoring is frequently only an incidental
occupation and, based on historical experience,
ample opportunities exist to make up any losses
by extended overtime work when the strike is
settled. Using Baltimore as an example, almost
40 percent of the 5,500 registered longshoremen
worked less than 100 hours in the year ending
September 30, 1968, and nearly 50 percent worked
less than 700 hours. Only 36 percent of the regis
tered men worked 1,300 hours or more. If 1,800
hours is considered a full year’s work (allowing for
vacations, holidays, etc.,) less than 20 percent of
the Baltimore longshoremen can be considered
as regular longshoremen. Except for New York, it
is clear that the bulk of longshoremen are casual
workers, and conversations with stevedoring com
panies, port authorities, and other experienced
people lead to the conclusion that they have ready
access to other full-time employment. The regular
workers are also in a strong position to be away
from the piers for a fairly long period at the end
of the contract year. Because longshoremen do not
work for a single employer, their pay is handled
through an employers’ group established for this
specific purpose. The group collects all fringe bene
fits from employers and then passes them on to the
individual or to the union depending upon the
particular benefit. In the case of vacation pay and
holiday pay, a regular worker with a history of
attachment to the port over the past several years
collects a check in December covering these bene
fits for the contract year which ended on the
previous September 30. This check is equal to
approximately 6 weeks of full-time activity. In
Baltimore it amounted to over $900. (He may also
collect a sizable sugar-handling premium at the
same time.) Even if the strike lasts beyond the
December bonus of the average regular longshore
men, most have basic skills in handling machinery,
and so forth, and are reported to have little trouble
getting temporary jobs.
□
54
OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR
IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES
CHARLES W. ARDOLINI
A lmost one - half of a group of 31 selected in
dustries experienced a decline in productivity
from 1966 to 1967, with the remainder experienc
ing gains significantly below their long-term trend
rate. This shortrun performance was in contrast
with the long term average annual increase
occurring in all of these industries during the
1957-67 period. The 1967 slowdown in productiv
ity may have been partially attributable to the
decline in capacity utilization, which is one of the
most important single influences on shortrun
productivity behavior.
According to the latest Bureau study of in
dustrial productivity, presented in Indexes o f
Output per M an-H our, Selected Industries, 1939
and 1 9 f7 -6 8 ( bls Bulletin 1652), the average
growth rates for these industries during the 195767 period varied widely. (See chart 1.) In the air
transportation industry, productivity increased
8.4 percent a year; footwear showed an average
rise of only 1 percent. In general, the gains were
higher than the all manufacturing average of 3.5
percent. Substantial gains (over 5 percent) were
recorded in air transportation, petroleum refining,
aluminum rolling and drawing, cigars, hosiery,
radio and television receiving sets, railroads, gas
and electric utilities, coal, malt liquors, tires and
tubes, and primary aluminum. For the most part,
these industries that experienced significant gains
from 1957 to 1967 had also been the leaders in
the previous decade. (See table 1.)
Changes in productivity are usually closely
associated with output movements. About half of
the selected industries with above average pro
ductivity gains also had above average output
increases. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes was the
Charles W. Ardolini is an economist in the Division of
Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Table 1.
Growth in output per all employee man-hour
Selected industries
1957-681
1947-57
Mining:
Iron mining
_
. ..
.
__
Copper mining
................................................
__
Coalmining
..
. ...
Bituminous coal and lignite
___ -- -
2 2.9
21.4
2 5.7
2 5.8
21.8
2 2.4
2 6.3
2 6.5
Manufacturing:
Canning and preserving
_____
F|nnr and othpr grain mill products__ _______
____
______ Beet sugar
Tandy and other confectionery products. .
Malt liquors
. . .
__
Tobacco products, total
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco...
Cigars
...................... - ...............
Hosiery
. . .
...................... ...
Papnr papprhoard and pulp m ills___ ___
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes
_ _ _ __
__ _________
Man-made fibers
__ ____ -- -- __
Petroleum refining
Tires and inner tubes
__
Footwear
..........................
Glass containers
................
.
.
Cement h y d r a u lic ......................
Concrete products
......................................
Steel
.. . -.
..................
Gray iron foundries
- __
Primary copper lead, and zinc ____
______ Primary aluminum
Aluminum rolling and drawing
Radio and television receiving sets
Motor vehicles and pquipment
3.3
3.9
3.0
3.7
5.9
3.6
1.6
6.8
6.8
4.7
2.8
4.0
7.2
5.9
1.0
2.1
4.8
2.5
2.6
2.4
2. 5
5.1
7.0
6.6
4.5
4.4
3.2
Other industries:
Railroads
_ __ ______ ___ _________
Air transportation
......................................
Gas and electric utilities
.
. . . .
6.4
3 8.4
4.2
3 10.1
7. 9
6. 5
2.8
2.3
2.6
0.8
4.4
2.9
3.3
5.0
2.4
2.5
1.0
5.2
5.6
2.1
3. 0
3.3
1 Rates for iron, copper, and coal mining, steel, railroads, motor vehicles and equip
ment, air transportation and gas and electric utilities based on 1957—68; beet sugar,
corrugated and solid fiber boxes, aluminum rolling and drawing and radio and television
sets based on 1958-67 rates; rates for other industries based on 1957-67.
2 Output per production worker man-hour.
s Output per employee.
Note: Based on least squares trends in logarithms of index numbers.
only industry with a relatively low productivity
increase and a high output increase, while flour
was the only industry with a decline in output and
an above average increase in productivity.
During the 1957-67 period, 14 of the 31 in
dustries experienced declining employment. E m
ployment levels are influenced by the combined
movements of productivity and output: as output
rises, employment will rise to the extent that it is
not offset by an increase in productivity. Only
three of the selected industries— air transportation,
radio and television receiving sets, and man-made
fibers— experienced significant employment gains
in this period. In each of these, a large increase
in output per man-hour was associated with an
even higher increase in output.
D
55
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Chart 1. Growth in output per man-hour in selected industries, 1957-67
Average annual percent change
A ir tra n sp o rta tio n
P etroleum re fin in g
Alum inum ro llin g and draw ing
C ig ars / H o siery
Radio and te le v is io n re c e iv in g sets
Cas and e le c tric u t ilit ie s
R ailroads
B itu m in ou s coal and lig n ite m ining
M a lt liq u o rs / T ire s and inner tubes /
T o ta l coal
P rim ary aluminum
Cement, h y d ra u lic
Paper, paperboard, and pulp
Motor v e h ic le s and equipm ent
Man-made fib e rs
F lo ur and other grain m ill products
Candy and other co n fe ctio n e ry
Canning and pre servin g
Iron m ining
B ee t sugar
Corrugated and s o lid fib e r boxes
Steel
P rim ary copper, lead and z in c /
Gray iron fou n drie s
Concrete products
G lass co nta in e rs
Copper m ining
C ig a re tte s , chew in g and sm o king tobacco
Footwear
1957
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1967
Foreign
Labor
Briefs
Canada
Substantial wage increases and an employerfinanced welfare program were the workers’
major gains in the settlement last fall of a 4-month
strike by the United Steelworkers against the
International Nickel Co. ( i n c o ) . 1 I t was one of the
longest and most serious work stoppages in Canada
in 1969, and the first authorized strike the com
pany had suffered since the union began to rep
resent its employees 7 years earlier.
The new contract, effective last November 15
and covering 17,200 hourly paid members of the
Steelworkers locals in Sudbury and Port Colborne,
Ontario, provided for a three-step increase in
wages and fringe benefits, totaling $1.255 2 an
hour over the contract period. An immediate in
crease of 43.8 cents raises the hourly base rate of
pay to $3 an hour, which for the first time exceeds
the $2.72 (U.S. currency) an hour paid to i n c o
employees in the United States.
in c o
officials have estimated that the resulting
cost to the company, including higher overtime
and holiday pay rates, will be $1.45 per hour, and
that the settlement amounts to a 35-percent in
crease in labor costs. Wages account for 30.3
percent of this increase.
Total wage increases over the 3-year period of
the i n c o agreement will be 93 cents an hour,
including a graduated cost-of-living bonus of 5
cents an hour during the third year if the consumer
price index rises 3 points or more beginning
October 5, 1970.
A welfare program fully paid by the employer
beginning with the third year of the contract term
is the major fringe benefit resulting from the
settlement. Now financed by i n c o and its em
ployees, the program includes a new prescription
drug insurance plan in addition to hospital
Prepared in the Office of the Chief Economist, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, on the basis of material available in early
January.
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
insurance, sickness and accident insurance, and
life insurance. Furthermore, beginning October 5,
1970, sickness and accident benefits will be in
creased from the present $65 a week for the first
year to $70 a week for the first 4 weeks of incapac
ity, and $80 a week for 48 additional weeks.
Other provisions include 9 paid holidays instead
of 8, sick leave up to 2 years depending on length
of service, instead of the previous maximum of
14 days; a vacation bonus of $30 a week for
employees who take their regular vacations in the
off-season period between November 1 and
April 30; and wage protection and retraining for
workers affected by technological change.
The i n c o settlement is expected to strengthen
the wage demands of other unions. Traditionally
in c o
has been the wage leader for all Canadian
mining companies and steel producers. Company
officials reportedly have resisted union demands,
which initially included a $2.12-an-hour pay raise,
partly “because other employers, such as the steel
companies, would be unable to meet such cost
increases.”
The Canadian Government has sought to limit
wage increases to a maximum of 5 percent annu
ally,3 and the settlement at i n c o may make it more
difficult to do that without resort to controls on
wages and prices. During the 12-month period
ending September 30, 1969, average wages nego
tiated under major collective agreements in
Canada increased by 6.6 percent.
As Canada normally accounts for over half the
total world nickel production, these strikes also
had international effects. Both the United States
and the United Kingdom instituted controls on
the export of nickel and nickel-bearing material.
In the United Kingdom, the nickel shortage led
to the cessation of some manufacturing operations.
Industry observers estimate Canadian refined
nickel production for 1969 to be down nearly a
third as a result of the strike, and shortages are
expected to continue into M ay 1970. Official
nickel prices of $1.03 a pound before the strike
increased to $1.28 after the strike (U.S. currency).
FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS
57
West Germany
Turkey
Wildcat strikes that had begun last September
and spread to coal mines, shipyards, and public
utilities 4 generated a wave of wage demands in
nearly all major sectors. Many employer groups,
even those not affected by wildcat strikes, have
agreed to reopen wage contracts prior to expira
tion dates and to negotiate pay increases.
In the steel mills and coal mines the unions were
bound by long term contracts. B u t in other indus
tries increases had been obtained earlier in the
year. In these industries unions requested and
obtained additional wage increases for the balance
of the contract term, which brought total wage
gains in the major industries to at least 14 percent
a year for 1968 and 1969. The increases were
comparable to those obtained in the steel settle
ments. Since contract expiration dates were left
virtually unchanged, the increases may be ex
pected to set a pattern for the 1970 round of wage
negotiations.
The following tabulation shows wage increases
effected recently in selected industries:
A recent amendment to Turkey’s Social Insur
ance Law No. 506 increased the rate of benefits
from 50 to 70 percent of insured income, and low
ered the retirement age from 55 to 50 for women
and from 60 to 55 for men. The rates of employer
and worker contributions remain the same, but
the base of the contributions has been raised from
the daily earnings range of $0.67—$11.11 to that
of $1.33-$13.33. The new law fixes old age pen
sions and survivors’ benefits at a minimum of $40
and a maximum of $400 per m onth; it also grants
increased medical benefits to the pensioners.
Percent o f increase
Number o f
workers
M e ta l m a n u f a c t u r i n g .......................... .
Negotiated in
1968-69
Total
8 .0
7 .0
1 5 .0
2 5 0 ,0 0 0
1 1 .0
7 .0
1 8 .0
H a r d c o a l .........................................................
2 5 0 ,0 0 0
1 1 .0
5 .5
1 6 .5
C h e m i c a l s ............................
6 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 .6
3 .5
1 4 .1
1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
8 .8
5 .9
1 4 .7
I r o n a n d s t e e l . . .........................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .. ............................................
3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
Since
wildcat
strikes
Unions in other major industries that have not
yet made any contract changes also are planning
to ask for higher wages. The Textile and Clothing
Workers, the Commerce, Banking, and Insurance
Workers, and the German Salaried Employees’
Union already have asked for benefits similar to
those obtained by other unions. In some instances
additional benefits have been negotiated by works
councils.
Management’s readiness to compromise so as
to prevent stoppages and walkouts has been
prompted by the labor market situation. In Octo
ber 1969, there was a ratio of one registered un
employed person to eight reported job vacancies.
The labor shortage is reflected further in the fact
that, generally, no disciplinary measures were
taken against the instigators of wildcat strikes
and, with few exceptions, strikers were fully or
partly compensated by employers for wage losses
because of the walkouts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Israel
Actions of the congress of Civil Service Union
held in Jerusalem December 16-18, 1969, may
have determined bargaining goals for other unions.
About 550 delegates representing 53,000 civil serv
ants took part in the meeting. The union is one of
the most important in Israel because it represents
workers in many spheres and occupations in
government service.
The outcome of the congress’ deliberations is
likely to be reflected in the forthcoming wage
negotiations,5 and its resolutions and demands may
well be followed by other unions, such as Local
Government Workers, Clerical Union, service
workers, and unions of other than production
workers.
Among the main resolutions adopted during the
2-day meeting were: A demand for a wage raise
similar to that granted to other workers, reflecting
the civil servants’ reaction to statements of some
public figures calling for wage increases mainly to
production workers; a call for greater administra
tive and budgetary economy within the
Histadrut— The General Federation of Labor in
Israel, representing all unions in the country; and
a call for “equal pay for equal work” to benefit
women. Voted was also a demand that the pre
vailing Civil Service Regulations be replaced with
regulations
negotiated
through
collective
bargaining.
Honduras
A recent collective bargaining agreement be
tween the Standard Fruit Co. and the union of
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
58
its employees in Honduras provided wage in
creases averaging about 12 percent, plus added
fringe benefits, and spelled out grievance proce
dures in considerable detail.
The basic wage for banana workers under the
new agreement is now 36% cents an hour compared
with the old rate of 31% cents, while wharf and
pineapple workers’ wages were raised 9 percent.
Some skilled workers received increases of over 20
percent. Most workers will participate in a new
incentive plan, which will pay them a special
annual bonus based on the company’s total
exports.
Fringe benefits include noncontributory group
life insurance, expansion of the company-operated
school system in farm areas from 3 to 6 years of
schooling, and improved medical benefits for
workers and dependents. The company agreed to
invest $300,000 annually in construction or repair
of company-owned housing, and to donate land
for a union housing project provided the union
can obtain adequate financing for the project.
The contract authorized joint studies by the com
pany and the union of the feasibility of construct
ing worker-owned homes in farm areas.
Q
--------- FOO TNO T E S ---------1 The INCO strike began July 10, 1969, and lasted till
November 14, when the members ratified the agreement.
Another strike, that of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers
at the Sudbury plant of the Falconbridge Mines, Ltd.,
begun August 21, 1969, came to an end November 22
when 3,200 strikers approved a new contract’s terms
similar to those of the INCO settlement.
2 Amounts stated in this item are in Canadian dollars,
unless otherwise indicated.
3 The 5-percent figure has never been formally stated
by the Government. However, it has been reported that
the Prices and Incomes Commission, formed in February
1969, has pressed for maximum annual increases of 2.5
percent in prices and 5 percent in wages. These figures were
allegedly stated in an unpublished report of September
1969.
4 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 63-65.
5 Wage negotiations in Israel are conducted by the
Histadrut in both public and private sectors.
Families without wage earners
Families with no wage earner made up only 8 percent of the total number
of families in 1967, but they accounted for 41 percent of the families with
incomes of less than $3,000, 45 percent of those with less than $2,000, and 43
percent of those with less than $1,000. . . .
The percentage of families with no wage earners is only slightly higher for
Negroes than for whites (10 percent vs. 8 percent). Such families accounted
for 26 percent of all Negro families with incomes under $3,000 in 1966— a
smaller percentage than that for whites (42 percent), since a much larger
fraction of the Negroes who are actively working earn low incomes. As pro
ductivity levels rise and job opportunities for Negroes expand, Negro families
with no wage earner will compose an increasing fraction of the total number
of poor families. As a result, productivity programs are of greater relative
importance to the Negro community than to the white community, but the
same absolute proportion of the Negro population will need other programs
if they are to have acceptable incomes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
—Lester C. Thurow, Poverty and Discrimination
(Washington, D .C., the Brookings Institution, 1969).
Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases
“ Asserting” the right to Federal strikes
Statutory provisions barring from Federal em
ployment any person who “asserts the right to
strike” or joins a U.S. workers’ union that “asserts”
this right are unconstitutional— they violate the
freedoms of expression and association guaranteed
by the First Amendment. Their language is not
ambiguous, it means no less than what it says;
and they cannot be made constitutionally valid
by means of semantics reducing their coverage to
a narrow band of employee conduct that may
legitimately be proscribed. The same is true of the
employee oath designed and used to implement
the measures.
This was the ruling of a three-member Federal
district court in a postal union’s challenge to the
Post Office Department’s enforcement of the law
(5 U.S.C., section 7311 (3) and (4); Public Law
89-554, 80 Stat. 631). The Postmaster General
was enjoined from requiring his employees to
swear the oath, and all such oaths taken previously
were invalidated {National Association o j Letter
Carriers v. Blount )b
Broadly, the suit was a union-Government
encounter before the bar over the issue of Federal
employees’ constitutional freedoms. The union’s,
and the court’s, repugnance to the potentially
oppressive features of the statute in question
prevailed over the Government’s efforts to save
the provisions by finding virtue in their alleged
ambiguity.
The measures offensive to the union (section
7311 (3) and (4)) read as follows:
An individual may not accept or hold a position in
the Government of the United States or the Govern
ment of the District of Columbia if he—
Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica
tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with the
Office of the Solicitor of labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to
strike against the Government of the United States
or the Government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees
[of the U.S. Government or the District of Columbia]
that he knows asserts the right to strike against
[either government].
The unions’ challenge did not center on the
proscription of strike as such but, instead, attacked
the broad scope of meaning of the word “assert”
as used in the subsections cited above. Hence, it
objected to the phrase “or asserts the right to
strike” in subsection (3) and to the entire sub
section (4), as well as to the oath’s prohibition
of such assertion.
Seeking dismissal of the case, the Government
argued, first, that the union had no standing—nor
a reason— to challenge the law since the law was
concerned with individual employees, and these
alone may take such action. The statute neither
required unions to take an oath nor contained
sanctions against them for asserting the right to
strike.
Second, the Government maintained, a com
plaint that the First Amendment freedoms are
in jeopardy may come only in response to the
Government’s action, an element missing in this
case; a mere statement that some postal employees
object to the oath does not establish a “justiciable
controversy.”
The court’s response to these contentions may be
revealing of the present-day climate of judicial
thought on matters of labor-management relations
in public service. Regarding the union’s stand to
bring action, the court said, “if [the union] openly
‘asserts’ the right to strike, its members may be
put at a hazard since the statute carries criminal
sanctions . . . and they could be barred from
Government employment because of [the union’s]
activities.” Furthermore, the courts have by now
recognized the standing of associations to defend
their members’ rights in some circumstances.
59
60
Nor did the court accept the Government’s
position that justifiable concern for the First
Amendment rights may arise only as a result of the
Government’s action affecting these rights. This
theory, dating back to the 1947 decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court in United Public Workers
v. Mitchell,2 had been displaced, the court said, by
the so-called “chilling effect” doctrine which as
sumes that “where freedoms of expression and
association are involved, the threat alone of loss of
job, criminal sanction, or other penalty may in
hibit, or ‘chill’ their exercise [of right] and thus
require court intervention to preserve them.”
The degree of chilling is not always sufficient
to deserve court relief. In the present case, how
ever, “the chilling effect may be quite pervasive
if ‘asserts’ is given its ordinary dictionary
meaning.” The oath not only is a condition of
employment and may frighten employees away
from the union, which they might want to join to
improve their lot; it might also inhibit them from
other activities protected by the First Amend
ment, including a legitimate legislative activity
aimed at legalizing strikes against the Govern
ment.
Thus, the theory of chilling effect must be
given full play in this case, the court held. And
the judgment better be rendered now, rather than
await an opportunity of a proper justiciable con
troversy.
In defending the merits of the law, the Govern
ment argued that the word “assert” referred to
‘overt conduct to incite others’ to strike, thus
narrowing the statute’s scope only to activity
which Congress may properly prohibit. The
Government had never thought the word to ban
advocacy of a “change in the law to legalize strikes
by Government employees.” The confusion, the
Government said, was attributable to an un
fortunate ‘idiomatic structure of the statute:’
“asserts the right to strike” should be “asserts
that there is (or ought to be) a right to strike.”
This ambiguity, the Government suggested, dis
appears when considered in the light of the state
ment of the law’s sponsor during the debate in
the House of Representatives: “assert” had been
substituted for “believe” so as to stress the nar
rowing of the coverage to incitement only.
An “ingenious but unacceptable argument,”
said the court, adding:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
It is absurd to think that the ordinary employee
will carefully parse the oath, grasp the suggested
semantic subtlety, and conclude that he may argue
for the right to strike with impunity. It is more
ridiculous still to imagine that he will resort to this
scrap of legislative history to resolve any ambiguity
he perceived. Nor can the Postmaster’s interpreta
tion, never publicized or embodied in regulations and
not binding on his successors, be relied upon to any
extent to remove the ambiguity.
The short of the matter is that the language of the
statute, reinforced by the identical phrasing of the
oath, is not ambiguous.
Since the statute provides for separability of
individual provisions, the court’s ruling in
validated only the contested portions of the law
(pertinent parts of section 7311).
Coordinated bargaining
“Coordinated bargaining” is not a well-defined
concept. At present it still is a rather indistinct
idea— a phrase conveying a variety of meaning.
B u t its basic reference is to a union’s bargaining
with an employer in the presence of delegates from
other unions of his employees. The process is
presumably calculated to produce separate but
essentially coordinated contracts for individual
unions.
In the fall of 1968, an attempt at such coordina
tion of bargaining came before the National
Labor Relations Board as the primary issue in a
refusal-to-bargain charge against the General
Electric Co. The Board then upheld the union’s
inclusion in its negotiating committee of observers
from other unions as being consistent with em
ployees’ statutory right to choose their own bar
gaining representatives.3 But a recent decision of
the Board clearly indicates that the concept is a
legally sanctioned one-way street: only employees
are entitled by law to demand coordinated bar
gaining. I t is an unlawful refusal to bargain for
an employer to insist that unions coordinate their
negotiating with him (F. W. Woolworth C o.)}
When two newly certified unions of employees
of a Woolworth store asked for separate negotia
tions, the manager insisted that representatives of
both unions attend all bargaining sessions. The
unions declined and filed refusal-to-bargain charges
under section 8(a)(5) of the Labor Management
Relations Act.
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS
The company maintained that it had not re
fused to bargain and was willing to conclude
separate agreements with the unions. B u t it
claimed that all its employees were functionally
interrelated and, therefore, participation of both
unions’ representatives in all bargaining sessions
was essential. Furthermore, the company said
“it [was asking] no more than was required of the
employer in the Board’s General Electric decision.”
(Board’s language.)
To the last argument, the Board replied:
“[The General Electric] decision noted . . . that
subject to certain limitations employees have a basic
right under section 7 of the act to select their own
bargaining representatives and the actual members of
their own bargaining teams. This right of selection
belongs to the employees, and it is only the employees
or their duly designated bargaining representatives
[who] may seek to exercise that right.”
B y insisting on joint bargaining sessions, the com
pany was “infringing upon a basic employee right
guaranteed by . . . the act.” And since the
employer’s demand did not involve the terms and
conditions of employment, its insistence was not
over a mandatory subject of bargaining and could
not be maintained justifiably till an impasse.
The seeming lack of consistency in the Board’s
attitude toward the idea of coordinated bargaining
in the two cases— the upholding of it in General
Electric and denying it in the present case—is
accompanied by a similarity of situations as viewed
in terms of employer interests. In both General
Electric and here, the employer’s objective plainly
was an advantageous position vis-a-vis the unions.
In the first instance, this purpose was obviously
served by refusal to engage in coordinated bargain
ing; in the second, by insistence on coordinated
bargaining. Indeed, in the present case, the com
pany had opposed creating two bargaining units
of its employees and had unsuccessfully requested
that a single, company wide unit be established.
As the Board found, the employer’s insistence on
joint bargaining sessions had stemmed from that
situation.
Labor laws and baseball
Enshrined in the hearts of the public as the favorite
American sport and a national pastime, pro
fessional baseball is also a nationwide business—
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
“an industry” whose impact on interstate com
merce is “sufficiently substantial” to preclude its
exemption from the processes of the National Labor
Relations Act. Such was the n l r b ’ s reminder to
the American League of Professional Baseball
Clubs when the latter objected to its umpires’
request for a representation election (American
League) .5
In defending its position, the League did not
dispute that it was in business, nor did it claim the
right to explicit exemption from the law. Instead,
it tried to persuade the Board not to assert juris
diction over it, in accordance with section 14(c) (1)
of the act,6 claiming that labor disputes in baseball,
due to the sport’s system of self-regulation, are not
likely to have sufficient impact on interstate com
merce to warrant such intervention. The League
further argued that Congress had sanctioned base
ball’s internal self-regulation, hence the application
of the National Labor Relations Act to the League
would be contrary to the national labor policy.
The Board did not accept the League’s conten
tions. To the assertion that Congress had sanc
tioned nonapplication of labor law to baseball, in
recognition of its self-regulation, the Board replied
emphatically, “We can find, neither in the statute
nor in its legislative history, any expression of
Congressional intent that disputes between em
ployers and employees in this industry should be
removed from the scheme of the [ n l r a ] . . . . No
where in Congress’ deliberations [in 1935, 1947, or
1959] is there any indication that [the] basic rights
[of free association, self-organization, and selection
of representatives] are not to be extended to em
ployees . . . in professional baseball or any other
professional sport.”
Turning to the area of Federal antitrust regula
tion for an example, the Board cited judicial
opinion as well as evidence of explicit Congres
sional concern with professional sports. True, the
Board said, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a
1922 decision 7 that baseball, though a business,
was not interstate in nature and, therefore, not
subject to antiturst laws. B u t the Court’s subse
quent decisions (including; Toolson and Radovich) 8
“appear to proceed on the assumption that base
ball, like the other major professional sports, is
now an industry in or affecting interstate com
merce, and that baseball’s current antitrust
62
exemption has been preserved merely as a matter
of judicial stare decisis.” In these later rulings, the
Court had clearly stated that Congress alone can
determine baseball’s antitrust status, thus imply
ing that the interstate commerce clause of the
Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate
the sport— in matters involving antitrust laws as
well as labor laws. Professional football and boxing
have been found to be in interstate commerce,
and legal authorities agree with that; there is no
reason why the Court would think baseball to be
an exception.
The n l r b agreed with the umpires that the
alleged self-regulation is controlled entirely by
employers and cannot prevent labor disputes.
“. . . [T]he final arbiter of internal disputes does
not appear to be a neutral third party, freely
chosen by both sides, but rather an individual ap
pointed solely by the . . . club owners themselves,”
the Board said. Moreover, self-regulation does not
extend to employees other than players, and it is
among the nonplayers that most of those requir
ing the Board’s intervention are likely to be found.
Other arguments of League were disposed in
short order: Baseball’s international aspect is not
unique— "many if not most of the industries sub
ject to the act have . . . international features” ;
the petitioning umpires’ association is a labor
organization within the meaning of the act; and
umpires are not supervisors— “the umpire merely
sees to it that the game is played in compliance
with the rules.”
Member Jenkins dissented: “ . . . [Professional
baseball’s unique and favored status had . . .
gained judicial approval, long before enactment of
the n l r a . I t is irrefutable . . . that Congress in 1935
harbored no intent to include the labor relations
of professional baseball within the reach of the
Board’s jurisdiction.” And subsequent legislative
history indicates no change in this attitude of
Congress, the dissent stated.
The inertia of the stare decisis adjudication,
however, stamped its mark on a court ruling re
garding baseball only a few days prior to the above
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
decision of the Board. A Federal district court in
New York City considered itself “bound” by the
1922 ruling of the Supreme Court that baseball
was not subject to Federal regulation as interstate
business, and dismissed a suit for damages brought
against the same baseball league under the anti
trust laws. (Salerno v. A m erican L ea gu e .9) Nor
did the district court grant the plaintiffs’ request
that the 1922 ruling be reevaluated because base
ball now is substantially interstate in nature.
Whereas the n l r b , above, believed that the
Supreme Court now thinks baseball to be subject
to regulation, and cited the 1953 decision in
Toolson as evidence, to the district court in New
York Toolson merely served the purpose of stress
ing that Congress alone can say the last word in
this matter.
□
----------FOO TNO T E S -----—
1 D .C .-D .C ., October 30, 1969.
2
330 U.S. 75 (1947).
3 General Electric Co., 173 N L R B No. 46; see Monthly
Labor Review, January 1969, pp. 73-74. In this case, the
company had refused to negotiate with a union’s bargaining
team that included— as nonvoting members—representa
tives of other unions of the company’s employees.
4 F. W. Woolworth Co. and Retail Clerks Union, 179
N L R B No. 129, November 26, 1969.
5 American League of Professional Baseball Clubs and
Association of National Baseball League Umpires, 180
N L R B No. 30, December 15, 1969.
6 Section 14(c)(1) of the N LRA reads in part: “ The
Board, in its discretion, may . . . decline to assert
jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or
category of employers, where, in the opinion of the Board,
the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not suffi
ciently substantial to warrant the exercise of its
jurisdiction. . . .”
7 Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League
of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
8 Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356
(1953); Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S.
236 (1957).
9 Salerno v. American League of Professional Baseball
Clubs (D.C., S .D .-N .Y ., December 10, 1969).
Major
Agreements
Expiring
Next Month
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in April was prepared in the
Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements
on file with the Bureau covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries except
government.
Number
of
workers
U nion 1
Industry
Company and location
Associated General Contractors of America, Detroit Chapter, Inc.; and
Builders’ Association of Metropolitan Detroit (Detroit, Mich.).
Associated General Contractors of the Central Ohio Chapter; and the Newark
Contractors Association, et al. (Ohio).
Associated General Contractors of America, Chattanooga Chapter (Tenn.,
Ala., and Ga.).
Associated General Contractors of America, Detroit Chapter, Inc.; and
Builders' Association of Metropolitan Detroit (Detroit, Mich.).
Associated M ilk Dealers, Inc. (Chicago, III., a r e a ) .. . .........................................
Avco Corp., Avco Lycoming Division (Stratford, Conn.)______ ____ _______
Construction
Laborers.. ........... ..............................
Construction
Laborers________________________
Bath Iron Works Corp. (Bath, M a in e ) ............................. .................................. .
Bickford’s, Inc. (New York and New Jersey)................................................. .......
Big G Discount Foods; Great Scott Food Markets, Inc. (Rhode Island, Massa
chusetts, and Connecticut).
Building Trades Employers’ Association (Cleveland, O hio)......................... .......
Building Trades Employers’ Association of Rochester, N.Y., Inc........................
Building Trades Employers’ Association; and the Steel and Iron Contractors’
Association (Ohio).
Building Trades Employers' Association, the Cleveland Chapter, Associated
General Contractors (Ohio).
Building Trades Employers’ Association of Rochester, N.Y., Inc., the Ex
cavating and Paving Division.
Building Trades Employers Association of Westchester and Putnam Counties,
N.Y., Inc.
Brown Co. (Berlin and Gorham, N.H.)................................................ ................. .
Carpenter Contractors' Association of Cleveland, Ohio, The Building Trades
Employers’ Association of Cleveland, Ohio, and Cleveland Chapter, Asso
ciated General Contractors of America, Inc. (Ohio).
Cartage Exchange of Chicago, Inc., Illinois Motor Truck Operators’ Associa
tion, Inc., and Central Motor Freight Association, Inc. (Chicago, III. and
vicinity).
Clay Sewer Pipe Cos.2 (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana)...... ....................... .............
Cleveland Plumbing Contractors’ Association (Cleveland, O hio).......................
Collins Radio Co. (Dallas, Tex ) . .......................................................................... ..
Consolidated Paper, Inc., and Consoweld Corp. (Wisconsin)........ .....................
Carpenters______
Construction
_ _
- -
6,000
____
2,300
.......... .
..
1 ,9 00
Cement Masons; Bricklayers_____________
1,000
Food products
Transportation equipment
Teamsters (In d .)_______________________
Auto Workers (In d .) __________ ___ . .
4 ,8 0 0
5 .1 00
Transportation equipment.................. ............
Retail trade
________
Retail trade
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers________
Hotel and Restaurant Employees_________
Meat Cutters___________________________
2.100
1,000
1,100
Construction
Construction
Construction
Operating Engineers____________________
Bricklayers___________________ _______
Iro n w o rk e rs __________
. . _______
3.000
2.700
Construction
.
_________________
1.000
2,000
Construction
Laborers______________________________
Construction
Laborers. . ___________________________
1,200
Construction
Carpenters_____________________ _____
2,400
Pa per
Pulp and Sulphite Workers______________
1 .70 0
Construction
C a rpe nte rs..____ _____________ _______
6,750
Trucking
Machinists_____________________________
3 ,0 0 0
Stone clay and glass products
Construction
Flectrical products
Paper
. ___________________
1.500
1 .50 0
3 ,3 0 0
3 ,1 0 0
Contracting Plasterers Association of Providence and vicinity (Providence,
R.I.).
Contracting Plasterers Association of Southern California, Inc., Orange
County Lathing and Plastering Contractors Association, Inc. (California).
Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Heavy and Highway Con
struction (Philadelphia, Pa.).
Contractors Association of Westchester County, Inc., Engineering Heavy and
Highway Construction Agreement (New York).
Crown Cork and Seal Co., Inc., Plant 1 (Philadelphia, P a .)________________
Construction
Brick and Clay Workers_________________
Plumbers and’ Pipefitters _______________
Electrical Workers (1U E)_________________
Pulp and Sulphite Workers; Papermakers
and
Paperworkers;
and
Electrical
Workers (IBEW).
Laborers______________________________
Construction
Laborers______________________________
2 .5 0 0
Construction
Laborers._____________________________
5 .0 0 0
1,000
Construction
Operating Engineers____________________
1 ,40 0
Fabricated metal products
Sheet Metal W orkers___________________
1.000
Del Monte Corp. (Salem, Oreg., and Vancouver, W a s h .).................................. .
Detroit Lumberman's Association (Detroit, M ich.)_______ ________________
Food products
Lumber
Teamsters (In d .)_______________________
Teamsters (In d .)__________________ ___
2, 1 0 0
Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc. (Albany, N.Y., area)_______
Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc. (Albany, Schenectady, and
Troy, N.Y.).
Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc., Dock Agreement (Albany,
Schenectady, and Troy, N.Y.).
Eastern Products Corp. (Baltim ore and Hagerstown, M d.)............. .....................
Electrical Contractors of Louisville, K y ...................................................................
Emhart Corp. (New Britain, Conn.).......................................... ................... ...........
Construction
Construction
Bricklayers____________________________
Laborers________________ - - - ----- - --
3 .2 0 0
Construction
Carpenters____________________________
2.200
Furniture
Construction
__________________
Fabricated metal products
Furniture Workers______________________
Electrical Workers (IBEW )------------------------Machinists ___________________________
1 ,6 00
Fafnir Bearing Co. (New Britain, Conn.)________________________________
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Interstate).................................................. .............
Machinery
Ruhher
Auto Workers (In d .)____________________
Rubber Workers________________________
4, 000
17, 000
General Building Contractors’ Association, Building and General Construction
(Philadelphia, Pa., and vicinity).
General Electric Co., Tube Department (Owensboro, Ky.)__________________
Goodrich, B. F. Co. (Interstate)........... ................. ................ ............................. .
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (In te rs ta te ).____ _________ _________ ______
Granite Manufacturers of Vermont................. ............................. ...................... ..
Greater Pittsburgh Dairy Industry Association (Pittsburgh, Pa.)........................
Construction
Laborers ___ . . ------------ -------------------
9, 000
Electrical products______________________
Ruhher
Ruhher
Stone clay and glass products
Food products
Allied Industrial Workers________________
Rubber Workers _ . . ___ . ----------Rubber Workers________________________
Granite C u tte rs __
____ ___________
Teamsters (In d .)_______________________
3,800
Continued on next page.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
63
1 .5 0 0
1,200
1 ,4 5 0
1,000
1 1,0 00
2 0 , 2 50
1,200
2,400
64
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Major agreements expiring next month— Continued
Number
Company and location
Industry
Union1
of
workers
Horn and Hardart Baking Co. (Philadelphia, Pa.)_____ _____________ _____
Restaurants____
Hotel and Restaurant Employees.
2.150
Illinois Association of Breweries and Chicago Beer Wholesalers Association
(Chicago, III., and vicinity).
Wholesale trade.
Teamsters (In d .)............................
1.500
Lumber and Mill Employers Association (California)...................... .....................
Lumber_______
Carpenters.
3.000
Mason Contractors’ Exchange of Southern California, Inc.................. .................
Merck & Co., Inc. (New Jersey and Pennsylvania)____________ ___________
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Pennsylvania)...................................... ...........................
Metropolitan Lithographers Association (New York and New Jersey)........ .......
Construction....................
Chemicals_____ ______
Utilities______________
Printing and publishing.
Bricklayers_______ _____________
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers.
Electrical Workers (IBEW )________
Typographical Union_______ ____
1,850
1.550
9,400
3,600
National Electrical Contractors Association of Detroit, Southeastern Michigan
Chapter (Detroit, Mich.).
National Electrical Contractors Association, Greater Cleveland Chapter
(Cleveland, Ohio).
New England Roadbuilders Association, Massachusetts Labor Relations
Division (Massachusetts).
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Milwaukee, Wis.)................................
Parke, Davis & Co. (Detroit and Rochester, M ic h .).............................................
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. (Chicago, III .) . ....................................................
Philco-Ford Corp., Radio and Television Workers (Willow Grove and Phila
delphia, Pa.).
Philco-Ford Corp., Radio and Television Workers (Philadelphia, Pa.)_..............
Public Service of Indiana, Inc. (Indiana)____________ ______ ________ ___
Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc., Apartment Buildings (Man
hattan, N.Y.).
Rex Chainbelt, Inc. (Milwaukee, Wis.)................................................................
1.000
Construction.
Electrical Workers (IBEW ).
Construction.
Electrical Workers (IBEW ).
1.500
Construction.
Teamsters ( In d .) ................
3.500
Insu ra n ce ...
Associated Unions ( In d .) ..
1.300
Chemicals.............
U tilitie s ..................
Electrical products.
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers.
Service Employees______________
Electrical Workers (IU E ).................
1,450
2, 050
Electrical products.
Utilities_________
Electrical Workers ( IU E ) ..
Electrical Workers (IBEW ).
3,200
1.550
1,100
20,000
Real estate.
Service Employees.
Machinery..
Steelworkers..........
1.300
Scientific Data Systems, Inc. (California)............................................................ .
Sheet Metal Employers’ Association and Cuyahoga County Sheet Metal
Contractors Association (Cleveland, Ohio).
Southwestern Michigan Contractors Association (Michigan)______ _________
Standard Brands, Inc. (Interstate).........................................................................
M achinery...
Construction.
Machinists_________
Sheet Metal Workers.
1,050
1 ,1 0 0
Construction..
Food products.
Laborers...............
Brewery Workers.
2.500
Trucking Companies 2 (Dallas, Tex.)................................ ............................. .........
Trucking_____
Union of Transportation Employees (In d .).
1.150
Underground Contractors Association; Illinois Valley Contractors Associa
tion; Excavators, Inc.; Illinois Road Builders Association; Chicago Outer
Belt Contractors Association; Illinois Truck and Equipment Contractors
Association;
and
Wreckers
Association,
Inc.
(Illinois).
Uniroyal, Inc. (Interstate)____ __________ _______ _____________________
Construction. .
Operating Engineers......... ........................... ..
4, 500
Rubber.
Rubber Workers.
Whitin Machine Works, Inc. (Whitinsville, Mass.).......... ............. ............... ........
Wisconsin Road Builders Association, Labor Relations Division (Wisconsin).
M achinery...
Construction-
1,2 00
2, 500
1,100
Woodward Iron Co., Lynchburg Foundry Co. Division (Lynchburg, Va.)_____
Primary metals.
Steelworkers____________ _____________
Teamsters (In d .); Laborers; and Operating
Engineers.
Steelworkers......................................................
Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, P a .)...................................................
Transit.............. .
Teamsters (In d .).
1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
! Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
1,000
22 , 000
1,500
Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
GE settlement
After a strike that lasted more than 3 months,
the General Electric Co., the International Union
of Electrical Workers (iu e ), and the United Elec
trical Workers (u e ) reached agreement on January
26. The iu e , representing 80,000 ge workers, and
the u e , representing 16,000, ratified the 40-month
contract. Four other unions among the 14 that
bargained with ge accepted similar terms. The
four unions were the Flint Glass Workers, the
Plumbers and Pipefitters, the Sheet Metal Work
ers, and the Firemen and Oilers. (The other unions
in the 147,000-worker coalition were the Auto
Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Teamsters, Steelworkers, American Fed
eration of Technical Employees, Allied Industrial
Workers, Carpenters, and the Machinists. These
unions remained on strike.)
The Machinists union labeled the settlement as
“inadequate” and recommended that its 14,000
members at ge reject the package. Unlike the
iu e and the u e , the Machinists and the other
unions involved bargain with the company on a
local basis.
The accord was expected to influence bargaining
between Westinghouse Electric Corp. and 9
unions for 80,000 workers. Contracts for some of
these unions had expired in November 1969, but
work continued under day-to-day extensions.
In recent years, Westinghouse settlements have
been patterned after those at g e .
The ge pacts provided for an immediate general
wage increase of 20 cents an hour, plus 5- to 25cent increases for skilled employees, and for 15cent general increases effective in February 1971
and April 1972. The escalator clause was revised
to provide cost-of-living increases of up to 8 cents
Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the
staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensa
tion, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information
from secondary sources available in January.
374-744 0 — 70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
an hour on October 26, 1970, October 25, 1971,
and October 30, 1972, calculated at 1 cent for each
0. 3-percent rise in the Consumer Price Index
during the year preceding each adjustment. Three
cents of the 8-cent maximum increase in October
1970 was put into effect immediately to compen
sate for the cost-of-living rise since October 26,
1969, when the previous 3-year contracts expired
and the walkout began. Under the previous con
tracts the workers received a total of 3.5 percent
in escalator increases.
The minimum pension rates for employees
retiring at age 65 was increased to $5-$7.50 a
month for each year of credited service, from a
flat $4.50, further increasing to $5.50-$7.50 on
January 1, 1971, $6-$7.50 on January 1, 1972, and
$6.50-$7.50 on January 1, 1973. Other pension
changes included adoption of a $125-a-month
supplement for some disability retirees, and im
provements in credits for service prior to January
1, 1961, and in the survivorship option.
The company agreed to assume the full cost of
insurance for employees effective January 1, 1971,
increasing the employee’s take-home pay by about
1 percent, to provide for 100 percent of hospital
room and board for up to 365 days, and to increase
the sickness and accident benefit rate to 60 percent
of normal straight-time earnings (from 50 percent)
and the maximum benefit to $150 a week (from
$100).
The vacation schedule was revised to provide
4 weeks after 15 years of service (instead of 20
years) and for a fifth week after 30 years, effective
January 1, 1971. Other contract terms included
adoption of a sick leave-personal business plan
providing for annual accrual ranging from 2 days
after 5 years of service to 5 days after 25 years
of service; and improvements in training programs,
Income Extension Aid for laid-off employees, and
paid funeral leave. The unions won a “uniform”
expiration for their contracts, although they did
not gain a union shop.
65
66
Mine turmoil
Joseph A. Yablonski, the 59-year-old challenger
in the December United Mine Workers presidential
election,1 was found shot to death, along with his
wife and daughter, on January 5 in their Clarks
ville, Pa., home.
The tragedy triggered a series of wildcat strikes
by supporters of Mr. Yablonski, following a meet
ing in Monongah, W. Va., at which his campaign
aides called for a nationwide coal strike “until
some arrests are made” in the murders. The
walkouts spread to include some 20,000 miners
at more than 30 large mines in southwestern
Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and northern West
Virginia. The murders proved to be discomfiting
for incumbent u m w President W. A. (Tony) Boyle;
Mr. Yablonski had accused him of being a “dic
tator” and an “embezzler of union funds” during
the election campaign. The challenger had also
urged the U .S. Department of Labor to investigate
the balloting. Mr. Boyle said that “as president
of the United Mine Workers, I offer the fullest
cooperation to the authorities of all facilities of
our organization to try to resolve the cause of
these deaths.”
The union offered a $50,000 reward for informa
tion leading to the arrest and conviction of the
person or persons responsible for the murders.
Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz announced
a “full-scale investigation,” explaining that the
union’s request removed any “legal impediments
to immediate investigation” of alleged election
irregularities under the Landrum-Griffin Act.
Before Mr. Yablonski’s death, Secretary Shultz
had taken the position that all internal appeal
remedies provided by the union’s constitution
must be exhausted before the Labor Department
could investigate.
On January 21, the Federal Bureau of Investi
gation announced the arrest of three Clevelandarea residents in connection with the Yablonski
murders. On January 29, the suspects were in
dicted by a Federal grand jury for plotting to kill
Mr. Yablonski.
Construction
After conflicts, demonstrations, and lengthy
negotiations,2 a job-training pact was signed
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
between Chicago’s building trade unions and
leaders of the city’s black community. The agree
ment, which was signed by 11 representatives of
various black organizations and representatives
of the Building Trades Council and the Building
Construction Employers’ Association, was ex
pected to bring 4,000 area Negroes into building
trades jobs. Under the pact, signed on January 12,
the construction industry would provide 1,000 jobs
immediately to qualified black journeymen. The
remaining jobs would be filled by placing 3,000
Negroes in apprentice or special accelerated on-thejob training. (Of these 3,000, 1,000 would start
on-the-job training as quickly as possible, another
thousand would begin journeyman training to full
rating as skilled workers, and the final thousand
were to be given special preapprentice training
to qualify them for basic construction skills.)
Union representatives also agreed to make black
representation in the 90,000-man Chicago area
skilled construction force “at least proportionate
to their percentage in the community at large”
within the next 5 years. Although at least one
third of Chicago’s population is black, the U.S.
Department of Labor estimates that only about
3 percent of Chicago’s skilled building trades
workers are members of minority groups.
Chicago Mayor Richard J . Dailey, after signing
the agreement, said it recognized “completely the
opportunity of all young men to participate in the
building industry.” The plan was to be adminis
tered by a committee consisting of two members
each from the contractors, the unions, and the
Coalition for United Community Action, repre
senting black organizations. Mayor Daley was
named as the seventh member. The Reverend
C. T . Vivian, chairman of the Coalition, praised
the plan, saying, “I t will open the seventies to
a myriad of possibilities for the black community.”
The Construction Industry Collective Bargaining
Commission, established by President Nixon last
September,3 has recommended that union mem
bers surrender their right to ratify labor agree
ments and give elected bargaining teams “binding
authority” to negotiate labor contracts. The
proposal was 1 of 9 approved by the 12-member
commission, which consists of four members each
from Government, contractors’ associations, and
building trades unions, and is headed by Secretary
67
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
of Labor Shultz. The recommendations were
designed to permit national officials of building
trades unions to impose tighter discipline over
local unions and the construction industry’s highly
decentralized bargaining procedure that has been
blamed for recent inflationary wage settlements.
Secretary of Labor Shultz and Secretary of
Commerce Maurice Stans have suggested that the
Government explore the possibility of using ‘ ‘Fed
eral financial incentives” to persuade building con
tractors to increase their wintertime construction.
The recommendation is contained in a congressionally ordered report on problems of seasonal
unemployment in the construction industry. The
report recommends that the concept of financial
incentives be examined by the Cabinet Committee
on Construction established by President Nixon
in September 1969.4 Subscribing to the view that
altering the tradition of concentrating construc
tion work in the warm-weather months could
serve as a damper on spiraling building costs, the
report stated that “much under-utilization of man
power resources continues to exist” in the con
struction industry and that “seasonality is a major
part of this under-utilization.” With regard to
financial incentives, the report said that an “ideal
incentive program” would encourage consideration
of the advantages of winter construction, aid in
offsetting the extra costs of winter work, and
discourage excess demand for labor during the
summer months.
The report’s other suggestions included the
development of “specialized weather data and
analysis” to alleviate the uncertainty of winter
weather’s effect on construction and the scheduling
of Government construction in winter months.
In December the a f l - cio Building and Con
struction Trades Department and the National
Participating Contractors Employers’ Associations
announced the reorganization of the National
Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Dis
putes. The parties disclosed that the Join t Board
was again processing jurisdictional disputes in the
construction industry, including requests for job
decisions. In October, the Board was reported to
be going out of business after 21 years of opera
tion.5
The Builders’ Association of Chicago and the
Carpenters have agreed to a $2.05 wage and benefit
package for the remaining 2 years of their 5-year
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
agreement, which expires M ay 31, 1972. The settle
ment, which covers 23,000 workers, is expected to
set a pattern for 1970 settlements for 53,000 other
construction workers in the Chicago area.
Transportation
In New York City, a New Year’s Day settle
ment between the Metropolitan Transit Author
ity ( m ta ) and two unions6 averted a citywide
subway and bus strike. The cost of the package
(reported at $120 million over the 2-year term)
led the Authority to raise fares to 30 cents, from
20 cents.
Increased take-home pay was a paramount
issue in the current round of negotiations. Wage
rates in the contract were boosted 8 percent on
January 1, 1970, and another 10 percent on
July 1, 1971. In addition, the mta will assume
employee pension contributions (currently about
5 percent of gross pay), making the plan non
contributory and fattening paychecks. The mta
will contribute an additional $100 a year per
employee for welfare benefits such as a dental,
optical, and prescription drug plan. Other terms
included 4 weeks’ vacation after 3 instead of 5
years of service, improved sick leave, and im
proved pensions for Manhattan and Bronx
Surface Transit Operating Authority employees.
About 15,000 mechanics and other ground
service employees were affected by a mid-January
settlement between Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
and the Machinists. The 3-year pact raised the
mechanics’ hourly rate to $5.65 by May 1, 1971,
from $4.14. The contract also provided for a maxi
mum of 21 cents in cost-of-living escalator
increases, compared with a maximum of 6 cents
under the previous agreement, for adoption of a
dental plan, and for improvements in other
supplementary benefits.
Apparel
About 80,000 dress workers in eight eastern
States 7 were affected by a mid-January settlement
between the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union and five jobbers’ and manufac
turers’ associations.8 The contract provided wage
increases of 10 percent effective February 15, 1970,
and 5 percent effective February 1 of both 1971
and 1972. The minimum rates for all crafts were
68
increased by at least the same percentages and
the union retained the right to seek an additional
wage increase during the contract term, depending
on the rise in the cost of living. An additional
paid holiday, the birthday of the Reverend
Martin Luther King, Jr., brought the total to
8y2; the employers agreed to pay an amount
equal to 2 percent of wages to finance a third week
of vacation pay and to increase their contribu
tions to the union’s National Retirement Fund to
5 percent of the payroll, from 4% percent. The
agreement was expected to influence contracts
to be negotiated in 1970 for an additional 100,000
members of the union in various lines of apparel.
Teachers
The drive to form a single national teachers’
organization advanced in January, when two
teachers’ unions in Los Angeles announced an
agreement to merge. Currently the Los Angeles
Association of Classroom Teachers, an affiliate
of the National Education Association ( n e a ),
represents 19,000 of the city’s 25,000 classroom
teachers, and the American Federation of Teachers
( a f t ) unit, local 1021, has 3,000 members. The
new union, the United Teachers-Los Angeles,
will be affiliated with both the n e a and the a f t
and members will be given the option of joining
either national organization. Robert Ransom,
president of the Los Angeles Association of Class
room Teachers, will become president of the
United Teachers and Larry Sibelman, head of
a f t local 1021, will be executive vice-president.
The merger agreement, which is subject to rati
fication by the members, is scheduled to go into
effect on February 1. In October 1969, the n e a
and a f t affiliates in Flint, Mich., effected a similar
merger, the first consolidation of units of the
two national organizations.9
Government
In early January, New York Governor Nelson
Rockefeller and the Civil Service Employees
Association reached agreement on a 2-year con
tract for 133,000 State employees. Salaries will be
increased 7.5 percent in the first year in two
steps— minimum increases of $500 effective April
1, 1970, and $250 effective October 1, 1970.
Effective April 1, 1971, the beginning of the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
second year, salaries will be further increased by
6.5 percent, with a minimum increase of $525.
Health insurance and retirement benefits were
also improved. More than 90 percent of State
workers were covered by the agreement, which
was subject to approval by union members and
the legislature. Negotiations were continuing with
the State, County and Municipal Employees
Union, which represents 7,600 employees.
The minimum wage for about 2.1 million
workers who were covered for the first time by
the 1966 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards
A ct of 1938 rose to $1.45 an hour, from $1.30,
effective February 1, 1970. These workers are
employed mainly by small retail and service
establishments, drycleaners, laundries, hotels,
motels, restaurants, schools, non-Federal hospitals
and nursing homes. On February 1, 1971, the
minimum wage for these employees will climb
to $1.60 an hour, matching the minimum already
in effect for more than 35 million other workers
in occupations that were subject to the law
prior to the 1966 amendments.
Federal District Judge John A. Field, Jr.,
has upheld the dismissal of 20 West Virginia State
Road Commission workers by Governor Arch A.
Moore, Jr. The 20 workers were among 3,307
strikers who lost their jobs in March 1969 after
they refused to return to work to deal with a
snowstorm. They had filed suit asking reinstate
ment of all the dismissed employees and $250,000
in damages. Judge Field held that the men’s
“misconduct” in refusing to return to work negated
their petition claiming that their rights to proce
dural due process had been abridged. He added
that although several Federal courts had upheld
the right of public employees to join unions,
none had sanctioned the right to strike or to engage
in collective bargaining.
The dispute began when some 4,000 employees
of the State Road Commission attempted to get
newly elected Governor Moore to recognize the
Laborers Union as their bargaining agent and to
grant them seniority and job security rights.
Under the State’s spoils system, the workers
would ordinarily have lost their jobs to Repub
licans, since the previous administrations (dating
back to 1960) were Democratic. The workers
struck on March 3 following Governor Moore’s
refusal to bargain; only 600 of the workers re
turned to work in response to the Governor’s
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
offer of amnesty to those who would resume work
and clear the roads.10
Pollution
The Nation’s increasing concern with pollution
seemed destined to become an issue in collective
bargaining as Auto Workers’ President Walter P.
Reuther told a press conference that the problem
had become so serious “that we feel obligated to
raise this matter at the bargaining table.” (The
u a w ’ s contracts with the “Big Three” auto makers
and several agricultural implement companies
expire in the fall of 1970.) The u a w leader did not
describe what form the union’s proposals on pol
lution control might take, and he conceded that
“every time we’ve tried to introduce something
that’s on the fringe of traditional bargaining
subjects, we’ve raised all kinds of problems.”
Nevertheless, he contended that “the situation
has worsened to the point where we have to raise
the issue,” maintaining that pollution is a proper
bargaining issue because it poses a threat to the
welfare of the union’s members.
White-collar salaries
Salaries for white-collar workers rose a record
amount during the year ending June 1969,
according to preliminary results of the ninth
annual National Survey of Professional, Adminisstrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay conducted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average
5.7-percent rise in selected occupations compared
with 5.4 percent for the year ending June 1968,
4.5 percent for the previous year, and an annual
average rate of 3.1 percent for the first six survey
periods. Salary gains during the year ending
June 1969 included 6.2 percent for engineers, 6.5
percent for chemists, and 7.2 percent for auditors.
Among the clerical occupations, gains were 5.3
percent for secretaries, 5.7 percent for typists,
and 4.7 percent for accounting clerks. In the past,
the survey results have been used to set salary
levels for Federal employees.
Stockbroker unrest
In response to recent cuts in their commission
rates 11 securities salesmen have shown increased
interest in the formation of unions to protect
their interests. In Detroit, salesmen in the local
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
branch of Goodbody & Co. formed the Society of
Associated Financial Executives and petitioned the
National Labor Relations Board for a representa
tion election. Salesmen in the Detroit branch
offices of two other brokerage firms also filed
petitions. Elsewhere, 400 members of the Chicago
Association of Investment Brokers held a heated
meeting during which some members suggested
affiliation with the Teamsters or the a f l - c io .
Another heated meeting occurred in New York
City, where members of the Association of Invest
ment Brokers ousted their president because of his
reluctance to speak out against the commission
cuts. The organization, a trade group which does
not act as a collective bargaining agent, includes
850 of the estimated 15,000 brokers in the area.
Another trade group, the American Association of
Securities Representatives, reported that its mem
bership had doubled to more than 1,000 during a
recent 2-week period.
1969 strike statistics
Strike idleness in 1969 declined when compared
to the preceding 2 years, although the past year’s
idleness was appreciably higher than the 1960-66
period. Idleness in 1969, a relatively light bar
gaining year, amounted to 0.23 percent of the
estimated working time,12 compared with 0.28 per
cent in 1968 and 0.25 percent in 1967. (Idleness in
the 1960-66 span ranged from 0.11 to 0.15 percent,
a long-term decline from the 1959 figure of 0.50
percent, which reflected the 116-day basic steel
strike that ended in January 1960.) The number
of stoppages beginning in 1969 reached an all-time
high of 5,600, compared to 5,045 in 1968 and 4,595
in 1967, but the walkouts involved only 2.5 million
in 1969, compared with 2.6 million in 1968 and
2.9 million in the prior year. Significant strikes
during 1969 included one by 49,000 Oil, Chemical,
and Atomic Workers against major petroleum
companies that lasted 158 days; a 24-day walkout
by 46,000 soft coal miners; and construction indus
try stoppages in several cities, including Kansas
City, Mo. (119 days and 37,000 workers), Houston,
Galveston, and Texas City, Tex. (79 days and
15.000 workers), Los Angeles, Calif. (38 days and
30.000 workers), and St. Louis, Mo. (84 days and
20.000 workers).
The most significant strike in 1969 was a walk
out against the General Electric Co. by 147,000
70
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
members of a 14-union coalition. The strike
against the Nation’s fourth largest manufacturing
firm, which began on October 26, was marked by
a nationwide boycott campaign against ge
Earnings Index
The Bureau’s index of average hourly earnings
(excluding overtime and the effect of interindustry
employment shifts) of production workers in manu
facturing rose 0.7 in October to 150.2. Data for prior
periods are shown below.
Index
(.1967-59=100)
October
___
141. 7
November .___
142. 6
December ___
143. 6
1968
Annual averages:
1967 _____________________________
1968 _____________________________
Statistical summaries
The following tabulation summarizes various
preliminary measures of compensation in 1969
and earlier years.
Index
(1957-59=100)
Jan u ary. _ ____ 144. 4
F e b ru a ry ._ ____ 144. 9
March
____ 145. 2
April.
___
146. 0
M ay______ ___
146. 6
June
___
146. 9
July
___
147. 8
August. _ ____ 148. 4
September ____ 149. 5
October
___
150. 2
1969
products. The settlement could presage not only
the package cost of subsequent settlements in
1970— a heavy bargaining year which began dur
ing a continuing inflationary period— but also the
success of the “coalition” approach to bargaining.
In addition, the strike provided another test of
ge ’s famed “Boulwarism” bargaining approach.13
A nnual rate o f increase
in percent
Type of measure
1969 1968 1967 1966
M a jo r c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g s e ttle m e n ts :
F i r s t - y e a r w a g e r a te a d j u s tm e n t L .......................
8 .2
7 .2
5 .6
4 .8
W ag e r a t e c h a n g e s o v e r life of c o n t r a c t 1______
7 .1
5 .2
5 .0
3 .9
W a g e s a n d b e n e f its c o m b in e d (e q u a l t im in g ) 2. _
W ag es a n d b e n e f its c o m b in e d ( ti m e w e ig h te d )
A g g r e g a te m e a s u r e s
:4
6 .0
5 .2
3 4 .0
6 .6
3 5 .5
3 4. 7
T o t a l c o m p e n s a tio n p e r m a n - h o u r , a ll e m p lo y e e s ,
p r i v a te n o n fa r m e c o n o m y .................... ..........................
A v erag e
h o u r ly e a r n in g s , p r o d u c tio n
s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s ,
131. 5
139. 5
7 .4
2_ 8. 2
p r i v a te
6 .3
8 .1
5 .5
6 .3
6 .9
7 .0
4 .5
4 .9
or non-
n o n fa r m
econ
o m y _________________ ___________ ____________________
1 C o v e r s s e tt l e m e n ts a f f e c tin g 1,0 0 0 w o r k e r s o r m o r e .
Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected
periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in Summary
of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings
Series, 1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969).
2 L i m i t e d to s e ttle m e n ts fo r 5,000 w o rk e rs o r m o r e . E q u a l tim in g a s s u m e s
a u n if o r m s p a c in g of w a g e a n d b e n e f it c h a n g e s o v e r th e life of th e c o n t r a c t ;
tim e w e ig h te d w eig h s e a c h c h a n g e b y th e tim e i t w ill b e in e f f e c t d u r in g th e
c o n tr a c t te rm .
3 R e v is e d .
4D a t a m e a s u r e c h a n g e s f r o m f o u r th q u a r t e r o f p r io r y e a r t o f o u r th q u a r t e r
of c u rre n t y e a r.
-FOOTNOTES1 See Monthly Labor Review, February 1970, p, 72.
2 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, pp. 73-74,
for earlier developments.
3 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, p. 72.
4 Ibid.
5 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, p. 68.
6 The Metropolitan Transit Authority, a State agency,
is the parent body for the New York City Transit Au
thority and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Authority. The unions are the Transport
Workers (33,000 workers) and the Amalgamated Transit
Union (1,850 workers).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7 New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
8 Affiliated Dress Manufacturers, Inc., National Dress
Manufacturers Association, Inc., Popular Priced Dress
Manufacturers Group, Inc., Popular Price Dress Con
tractors Association, Inc., and United Better Dress
Manufacturers Association, Inc.
9 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, p. 71.
10 See Monthly Labor Review, June 1969, p. 73.
11 See Monthly Labor Review, February 1970, p. 75.
12 Data for 1969 are preliminary.
13 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 71-72,
for a description of the strike.
Book
Reviews
and
Notes
Transformation of labor policy
A History o j the American Worker, 1933-1941:
Turbulent Years. By Irving Bernstein. Boston,
Mass., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970. 873 pp.
$12.95.
This is the second volume of a trilogy by Profes
sor Bernstein on American labor conditions and
unionization in the period between the two world
wars. The Lean Years (1961) covered both subjects
from 1920 to the depth of the depression in 1933.
The present volume deals only with the remark
able transformation of public policy on unioniza
tion and collective bargaining, and, partly in
consequence, the great upsurge in union organiza
tion, that occurred over the years 1933-41. A
third volume will consider working class conditions
during this latter period.
In Turbulent Years, Professor Bernstein has pro
duced an impressive contribution to labor history.
I t reflects an immense amount of research into
primary source materials, and undoubtedly will
serve for many years as a major reference to the
events of the period. Moreover, it is a pleasure to
read. The writing is simple yet vivid, and the nar
rative is interspersed with brief and frequently
pungent biographical sketches of the leading gov
ernment, business, and labor actors in the union
drama.
In the history of union organization and collec
tive bargaining, the 1930’s separate one era from
another. The large increase in union strength was
more than quantitative, for it reflected a change
in the skill composition of union membership,
decisive alteration in the structural characteristics
of the trade union movement, and the extension of
collective bargaining to many key sectors of the
economy. These developments were importantly
influenced by the emergence through legislation,
court decisions, and administrative actions of a
national labor policy that removed barriers to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
union growth and imposed upon employers the
duty to bargain with representative unions. In
the process, the essentially negative attitude of
the trade union movement toward government
and politics was profoundly altered. At the same
time, a substantial measure of continuity with the
past was preserved, notably in the concentration
of union effort on improvement in terms and con
ditions of employment at the work place through
that outstanding social invention, the written
collective bargaining agreement.
The leading labor events of the 1930’s are
familiar— section 7(a) of the National Industrial
Recovery Act and the immediate (1933) upsurge
of organization among the coal miners and garment
workers, and the efforts at organization among
workers in many other basic industries; the
development of labor policy under the n i r a ; the
labor eruptions in 1934 in Toledo (Auto-Lite),
Minneapolis (Teamsters), West Coast longshoring,
and the textile industry; the invalidation of the
by the Supreme Court; the passage of the
n ir a
National Labor Relations Act; the battle within
the a f l over the form of organization in the mass
production industries; the founding of the cio
and the split in the labor movement; the great
organizing campaigns in steel, automobiles, rub
ber, and other industries; the critical court
decisions on the n l r a ; the work during its
formative years of the National Labor Relations
Board; and the early and abortive attempts at
reunification of the labor movement.
All of this, and more, is in Professor Bernstein’s
book. He does a splendid job of evocation; the
issues, struggles, passions, and personalities of
these extraordinary years come alive. The great
but judicious use of detail serves to clarify rather
than obscure the underlying factors at work in
the transformation of national labor policy and
of the trade unions movement.
There undoubtedly will be disagreement with
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
72
some of Professor Bernstein’s interpretations and
appraisals of particular events and personalities;
this is a hazard*no historian can escape. Three
rather general reservations will be recorded here.
First, in the conflict over the form of organization
for the mass-production industries, craft union
leadership in the a f l inevitably emerges as the
villain of the piece. Now one can argue persuasively
that industrial unionism in such industries is
the most effective form of organization for the
workers concerned, and indeed for management
as well, and that in the circumstances of the
1930’s only industrial unionism could have over
come the fierce employer opposition to any form
of unionization. B u t it was not the only conceivable
form of viable organization— witness the British
automobile industry and, even in this country,
the special status that the u a w has been forced
to accord to the skilled trades.
Second, apart from the issue of structure, there
is a tendency generally to downgrade the role of
the a f l . For example, Professor Bernstein writes
that “Even a reluctant a f l came to recognize
this [the use of n l r b representation procedure] to
its advantage, gradually learning to organize the
worker rather than the employer” (p. 653, italics
supplied). If this statement means that histori
cally the a f l had sought to organize workers
from above, it flies in the face of half a century
of union struggle.
Third, and this is perhaps the most serious
criticism of a history of trade unionism during
the 1930’s, there is no detailed accounting for the
remarkable resurgence of the a f l during the
latter part of the period. Most readers will be
surprised to learn (on p. 774) that by 1941 the
a f l , despite the loss of a million members as a
result of the suspension of the cío unions in
1936, had about twice the membership of the
cío. To the best of my knowledge, a comprehen
sive analysis of a f l growth during this period
remains to be written.
These strictures are not intended to detract
from a first-rate performance, and Turbulent Years
is enthusiastically recommended as a major con
tribution to the history of the American trade
union movement.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— H . M . D outy
Senior Research Consultant
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Achieving effective social security
Social Security in International Perspective: Essays
in Honor o f Eveline M . Burns. Edited by
Shirley Jenkins. New York, Columbia Uni
versity School of Social Work, 1969, 255 pp.
$9, Columbia University Press, New York.
This timely reassessment of social security policy
in its broadest setting and in the light of the ex
perience of a number of countries has been designed
as a well-deserved tribute by her colleagues, co
workers, and former students to Dr. Eveline M.
Burns. For 35 years, Professor Burns taught at
Columbia where she not only acquainted several
generations of students with the principal social
problems of our time but also played a major role
in the design and development of programs aimed
at their solution.
The volume is particularly valuable to this
reviewer because it is cast in an international
framework. A perceptive introductory chapter by
Dr. Burns’ colleague, Professor Vera Shlakman,
is the only one devoted exclusively to the thought
and action of Dr. Burns herself which have been
based, Dr. Shlakman says, on “a persistent,
unsentimental, practical humanitarianism.”
Dr. Burns has recognized that to win accept
ance, American social programs must take account
of our peculiar American traditions regarding the
appropriate role of public and private action and
the State and Federal Governments. Y et she has
recognized that whatever compromises might have
to be made at early stages, fragmentation of
responsibility— all too characteristic of American
social programs— denies full, or even adequate,
benefits to those who are supposed to be helped.
She has emphasized that the United States,
probably more than any other country, has the
resources and the capacity to achieve a decent and
dignified social security system.
That we are a long way from that goal is evident
from the papers on social security and public
assistance by Ida Merriam and on health programs
by Herman Somers. These gaps stand out all the
more when our programs are contrasted with
those in other countries, as they are described in
the ensuing chapters on social security in five
countries— Canada, Denmark, Britain, France,
and India. Our grudging and all too slow recog
nition of the most urgent needs for decent incomes
and health care for all marks our social attitudes
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
73
as backward as compared with most other Western
industrialized countries. The chapters on foreign
experience make it abundantly clear that the
method of applying social security principles has
been as controversial abroad as in the United
States but acceptance of the principles themselves
has not been.
In a concluding chapter, Professor Alfred J.
Kahn, another of Dr. Burns’ associates, raises a
fundamental question which will have to be faced
more and more in the framing of social policy.
“Are we largely concerned with meeting the needs
of individuals or with accomplishing clear, urgent
public purposes? Fortunately these are not mutu
ally exclusive goals, and they are often achieved
by the same instrument.” They are not mutually
exclusive goals but unfortunately they are often
thought to be. Neat solutions tend to be preferred
to less tidy approaches aimed first and foremost at
meeting the requirements of individuals. This is a
danger which will have to be avoided if social
security programs are to give effective protections
to those who need them.
— B e r t S eid m a n
Director
Department of Social Security
A FL -C IO
East and West work values
The Ja p a n ese Employee. Edited by Robert J.
Ballon. Tokyo, Sophia University, 1969. 317
pp. $8, Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, Vt.
Sophia University, a Jesuit institution in Tokyo
with an international faculty, has issued a number
of useful studies of Japanese management and
industrial relations. A principal objective has been
to explain Japanese ways to American businessmen
and American ways to the Japanese. The most
recent volume continues this effort with a collec
tion of 12 essays, 5 by Japanese contributors, and
7 by non-Japanese. The subject matter ranges
from generalizations about national psychology to
detailed studies of labor costs. Father Ballon has
also compiled a handy statistical appendix.
Foreign observers tend to emphasize how dif
ferent Japan’s ways are from those of the West,
and how persistent their traditional practices. The
Japanese, for their part, like to think of themselves
as a part of the modern world and do not much
appreciate being the objects of anthropological
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
investigation. These clashing viewpoints were con
spicuous in an earlier collection of papers, entitled
“The Changing Patterns of Industrial Relations,”
which the Japan Institute of Labor issued in 1965.
In the present collection, the clash is less in
evidence. The non-Japanese contributors continue
to emphasize the persistent peculiarities, but their
Japanese colleagues seem inclined to concur. The
pattern of industrial relations, they agree, is not
changing very fast. Professor Sakurabayashi con
cludes, “The Japanese economic situation, like
any other, is changing, but the human relations
in Japanese industry as found in labor unions and
management alike seem to be its most conserva
tive components.”
Three of the persisting peculiarities are out
standing. One is the system of lifetime employ
ment, whereby the large firms employ young
people upon the completion of their education, not
to fill any particular vacancy, but to serve the
company in a variety of capacities during the
entire course of their working life. Second is the
complex wage system, based much more on the
education, seniority, and personal needs of the
worker than on the type, quality, and amount of
work performed. Third is the pattern of “enter
prise unionism”— collective bargaining takes place
at the company level, with little attempt being
made to establish nationwide pay standards for
an industry or an occupation.
In the last chapter, Professor Hirono turns the
tables and comments on the strange practices
which American businessmen have tried to import
into Japan. These, he finds, stem from such con
cepts as functionalism, “job-centricity,” speciali
zation, and, above all, individualism. Most Japa
nese employees are upset by these practices, but
a maverick minority, especially among ambitious
specialists, finds a more congenial atmosphere in
American firms. Some American companies have
insisted on following American practices in Japan,
while others have tried to combine the two sys
tems. Although the latter course sounds preferable
in theory, it is by no means easy, as the contribu
tors point out, to realize in practice, because of
the underlying differences in values and worker
motivation in the two countries.
— J a m e s D . H o o v er
Area Specialist
East Asia and Pacific
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
74
Community action analysis
Employment and Educational Services in the M obili
zation fo r Youth Experience. Edited by
Harold H. Weissman. New York, Association
Press, 1969. 224 pp. $2.95.
This is one of four volumes summarizing and
evaluating the experimental programs established
and conducted by the “Mobilization for Youth,,
project. This massive community-based delin
quency control program, on the lower East Side
of New York City, was funded directly by the
President’s Committee on Juvenile Delinquency
(headed by Robert F. Kennedy) and operated
between 1962 and 1968. The present volume is
a most valuable little book, well-written and lucid,
informative and suggestive.
The Editor’s Preface describes the accounts
in this and the companion volumes as “an intel
lectual history of a project which in all likelihood
represents a watershed in the development of
social welfare in America,” and conscious emphasis
is placed on the lessons learned, rather than on
exhaustive reporting or on the vindication of
agency performance. An introduction written
by Henry Heifetz, one of the coauthors (most of
them drawn from m f y ’ s Program Reporting
Department, and all staff members of the agency)
sets the stage with a colorful account of the
Lower E ast Side’s role, over the past 120 years,
as the habitat of successive immigrant groups
down to the wave of immigrants from Puerto
Rico in the 1960’s. A profile of the m f y area
proper is given, and its nature summed up as a
slum in the process of developing from being
only “a disorderly mechanism for human destruc
tion” into a more developed version wherein it
takes on the character of a minority neighborhood
while retaining the same destructive qualities.
A few statistical breakdowns of the population
served by m f y and information on sponsors,
funding agencies, directors, and participants in
the venture adroitly introduce to the reader
dramatis personae.
Part I of the book is devoted to “Employment
Opportunities,” Part I I to “Educational Oppor
tunities.” Each starts with an “overview” setting
out the tasks, the problems, the possible, often
conflicting or competing, approaches that could
be taken, and the choices made. Subsequent
chapters deal with the component programs in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
the two areas, the last in each area attempting
an appraisal of the outcome.
Although the beginning and ending chapters,
as well as several others, were authored or coau
thored by the editor, the two parts of the book
tell not only a different story, but they tell it
differently. Part I is matter-of-fact with the
problems of preparing, placing, and keeping
disadvantaged minority youngsters gainfully em
ployed. While it unveils no magic formula, it
relates many insights and practical findings
that either were put to use (the Neighborhood
Youth Corps) or constitute a case for needed
reforms, notably in the area of vocational educa
tion. (To some readers, including this reviewer,
these lessons may have even more far-reaching
implications, such as the need for a full-blown
national youth service.)
Part II, by contrast, not only relates a sad
story of abortive conflict leaving us hardly any
wiser (except in respect of what not to do), but—
perhaps imperceptibly to the writers— reveals a
certain ideological and doctrinaire bent that may
in part account for this failure.
Thus, from a future vantage point, the editor’s
notion of a “watershed” may pcssiby appear
justified in respect to the employment oppor
tunities programs; in the educational opportunities
programs, alas, it seems a long way off.
— G eorge F . R ohrlich
Professor of Political Economy
and Social Insurance
Temple University
Other recent publications
Economic development
Baer, Werner, The Development of the Brazilian Steel
Industry. Nashville, Tenn., Vanderbilt University
Press, 1969, 202 pp., bibliography. $10.
Canada, Economic Council, Sixth Annual Review—
Perspective 1975. Ottawa, 1969, 184 pp. $2.75, Queen’s
Printer, Ottawa.
Dobb, Maurice, An Essay on Economic Growth and Plan
ning. New York, Monthly Review Press, 1969, 119
pp. 2d ed. $5, cloth; $1.95, paperback.
Morgan, Theodore and George W. Betz, editors, Economic
Development: Readings in Theory and Practice. Bel
mont, Calif., Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1970,
436 pp.
75
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Pearson, Lester B., Chairman, Partners in Development:
Report of the Commission on International Development.
New York, Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1969, 399 pp.
$7.95.
Education and training
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “The Embattled
University,” (a symposium), Daedalus, Winter 1969,
entire issue.
Corson, John J., “Social Change and the University,”
Saturday Review, January 10, 1970, pp. 76, 78, 80.
Dunham, E. Alden, Colleges of the Forgotten Americans:
A Profile of State Colleges and Regional Universities.
New York, Carnegie Foundation for the Advance
ment of Teaching, 1969, 206 pp. $5.95, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York.
Gale, Laurence, Education and Development in Latin
America. With special reference to Colombia and some
comparison with Guyana, South America. New York,
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969, 178 pp.,
bibliography. (World Education Series.) $5.
Lippitt, Gordon L., “Future Trends Affecting the Training
and Development Profession,” Training and Develop
ment Journal, December 1969, pp. 7-10.
Marshall, Ray, “ Reflections on Upgrading,” Manpower,
U.S. Department of Labor, January 1970, pp. 3-7.
National Education Association, Estimates of School
Statistics, 1969-70. Washington, National Education
Association, 1969, 40 pp. (Research Report 1969R15.) $1.
Oberg, Winston, “Sensitivity Training and Management,”
M SU Business Topics, Michigan State University,
Autumn 1969, pp. 30-41.
Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, Trade
Union Programs for Training the Disadvantaged
Worker. Princeton, N .J., January 1970, 4 pp. 50 cents.
Scott, Loren C., “The Economic Effectiveness of On-theJob Training: The Experience of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in Oklahoma,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, January 1970, pp. 220-236.
Troxell, Mtargaret M., “ New Blood for Health Jobs,”
Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor, January 1970,
pp. 14-17.
U.S. Women’s Bureau, Trends in Educational Attainment
of Women. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
1969, 19 pp.
Health and safety
American Psychiatric Association, Insurance Coverage of
Mental Disorders. New York, 1969, 45 pp. (Reprinted
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
from American Journal of Psychiatry,
1969. )
November
California, State Division of Labor Statistics and Research,
California Work Injuries, 1968. San Francisco, 1969,
56 pp.
Canada Department of Labor, “Ergonomics: Man and
His Work,” Labor Gazette, December 1969, pp.
716-722.
Cowen, David L., M.D., “ Denver’s Neighborhood Health
Program,” Public Health Reports, U.S. Public Health
Service, December 1969, pp. 1027-1031.
Ginzberg, Eli and Miriam Ostow, Men, Money, and
Medicine. New York, Columbia University Press,
1970, 291 pp. $8.50.
Reed, Louis S., “Private Health Insurance, 1968: Enroll
ment, Coverage, and Financial Experience,” Social
Security Bulletin, December 1969, pp. 19-35.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Injuries in Atomic
Energy, 1967: A Survey of Privately Owned and
Operated Establishments. Washington, 1969, 16 pp.
(Report 359.)
Industrial relations
“Labor in Hawaii,” American Labor, December 1969,
pp. 41-46.
Carlton, Patrick W. and Harold I. Goodwin, editors,
The Collective Bargaining Dilemma: Negotiations in
Education. Worthington, Ohio, Charles A. Jones,
Publishing Co., 1969, 339 pp.
Cbrdova, Efr6n, “Collective Labor Relations in Latin
American Ports,” International Labor Review, October
1969, pp. 315-339.
Curtin, Edward R., “Collective Bargaining in 1970,”
Conference Board Record, January 1970, pp. 31-34.
Etelson, Jesse I., “N L R B Jurisdiction Over Secondary
Boycotts in the Public and Other ‘Exempt’ Sectors,”
Labor Law Journal, December 1969, pp. 771-776.
Foegen, J. H., “Endorsement of Labor Agreement—
Labor Relations Plus,” Personnel Journal, January
1970, pp. 25-28.
Hagglund, George and Duane Thompson, editors, Psycho
logical Testing and Industrial Relations. Iowa City,
University of Iowa, Center for Labor and Manage
ment, 1969, 48 pp. (Monograph Series, 14.)
Marx, Herbert L., Jr., editor, Collective Bargaining for
Public Employees. New York, W. W. Wilson Co.,
1969, 215 pp., bibliography. (Reference Shelf— Vol.
41, No. 5.) $3.50.
76
Oberer, Walter E., “The Future of Collective Bargaining
in Public Employment,” Labor Law Journal, Decem
ber 1969, pp. 777-786.
Pointer, Dennis Dale, Unionization, Collective Bargaining
and the Non-Profit Hospital. Iowa City, University of
Iowa, Center for Labor and Management, 1969, 58
pp., bibliography. (Monograph Series, 13.)
Stettner, Nora, Productivity Bargaining and Industrial
Change. New York, Pergamon Press (for Foundation
on Automation and Employment Ltd.), 1969, 185 pp.
Tracy, Estelle R., editor, Arbitration Cases in Public
Employment. New York, American Arbitration Asso
ciation, 1969, 366 pp.
Labor force
Bernstein, Irving, Turbulent Years: A History of the
American Worker, 1933-41•Boston, Houghton Mifflin,
Co., 1970, 873 pp. $12.95.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Thirlwall, A. P., “On the Costs and Benefits of Manpower
Policies [Great Britain],” Employment and Produc
tivity Gazette, H. M. Stationery Office, November
1969, pp. 1004-1008.
Zubrow, R. A. and others, Poverty and Jobs: A Study of
Employment, Unemployment, and Job Vacancies in the
Denver Labor Market. Washington, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Economic Development Administra
tion, 1969, 229 pp.
Labor organizations
Beeler, Duane and Harry Kurshenbaum, Roles of the Labor
Leader. Chicago, Roosevelt University, Labor Edu
cation Division, 1969, 131 pp. $1.95.
Blum, Albert A., editor, Teacher Unions and Associations:
A Comparative Study. Urbana, 111., University of
Illinois Press, 1969, 353 pp. $9.50.
Brown, Emily Clark, “Continuity and Change in the
Soviet Labor M arket,” Industrial and Labor Rela
tions Review, January 1970, pp. 171-190.
Great Britain, Department of Employment and Pro
ductivity, “Membership of Trade Unions in 1968
[Great Britain],” Employment and Productivity Gazette,
H. M. Stationery Office, November 1969, pp. 10211022 .
Darnell, Jerome C., “Another Look at the Trade-Off
Between Inflation and Unemployment,” Conference
Board Record, January 1970, pp. 17-23.
Sloane, Arthur A., “ Prospects for the Unionization of
White Collar Employees,” Personnel Journal, Decem
ber 1969, pp. 964-971.
Delehanty, John A., editor, Manpower Problems and
Policies: Full Employment and Opportunity for All.
Scranton, Pa., International Textbook Co., 1969, 412
pp., bibliography. $4.95, paperback.
Urrutia, Miguel, The Development of the Colombian Labor
Movement. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press,
1969, 297 pp., bibliography. $10.
Doeringer, Peter B., editor, Programs to Employ the
Disadvantaged. (Nine studies of manpower programs.)
Englewood Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall Inc., 1969, 261
pp.
Haskell, Mark A., The New Careers Concept: Potential for
Public Employment of the Poor. New York, Frederick
A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969, xxvii, 115 pp., bibliog
raphy. (Labor Economics and Urban Studies.) $10.
Kress, A. L., “Job Evaluation for White-Collar Workers in
Private Sector Employment in the United States,”
International Labor Review, October 1969, pp. 341-357.
Lipsky, David B., “Interplant Transfer and Terminated
Workers: A Case Study,” Industrial and Labor Re
lations Review, January 1970, pp. 191-206.
Machinery and Allied Products Institute, Equal Employ
ment Opportunity. Washington, 1969, 423 pp. (M API
Symposium.) $15.
Maurer, John G., Work Role Involvement of Industrial
Supervisors. East Lansing, Michigan State University,
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Division
of Research, 1969, 166 pp., bibliography. (MSU
Business Studies.) $6.50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unaffiliated Intrastate and
Single-Employer Unions, 1967. Washington, Super
intendent of Documents, November 1969, 21 pp.
(Bulletin 1640.) 35 cents.
Personnel management
Bishop, Maxine H., Dynamic Supervision: Problems and
Opportunities. New York, American Management
Association, Inc., 1969, 287 pp. $11.50; $7.75 to AMA
members.
Dun and Bradstreet, Inc., Business Library, Managing
Your Manpower. New York, Thomas Y . Crowell, Co.,
1969 (Apollo edition), 204 pp. $1.95.
Inskeep, Gordon C., “Statistically Guided Employee
Selection: An Approach to the Labor Turnover
Problem,” Personnel Journal, January 1970, pp.
15-24.
Porter, Lyman W. and others, “Effects of Task Factors on
Job Attitudes and Behavior (A Symposium),” Person
nel Psychology, Winter 1969, pp. 415-444.
Stansbury, William F., “ What Causes Clerical Turnover,’
Personnel Journal, December 1969, pp. 978—980, 991.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Sternhagen, Charles J., M.D., “ Medicine’s Role in Reduc
ing Absenteeism,” Personnel, American Management
Association, November-December 1969, pp. 28-35.
Prices and consumption economics
Haines, George H., Jr., Consumer Behavior: Learning Models
of Purchasing. New York, Free Press, 1969, 216 pp. $7.
Linden, Fabian, “Consumer Markets: Retail Roundup—
1969,” Conference Board Record, January 1970, pp.
2-4, 6.
Sturdivant, Frederick D., editor, The Ghetto Marketplace.
New York, Free Press, 1969, 316 pp., bibliography.
Productivity and technological change
Arnfield, R . V., editor, Technological Forecasting. Edin
burgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1969, 417 pp.
$14.50, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago.
Ferguson, C. E ., The Neoclassical Theory of Production and
Distribution. London, Cambridge University Press,
1969, 384 pp. $14.50, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Hetzler, Stanley A., Technological Growth and Social
Change—Achieving Modernization.
New
York?
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969, 302 pp. $7.50Sprague, Richard E ., Information Utilities. Englewood
Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969, 200 pp.,
bibliography. $8.50.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indexes of Output Per
Manpower: Gray Iron Foundries Industry, 1954-66.
Washington, Superintendent of Documents, 1969,
24 pp. (Bulletin 1636.) 35 cents.
Social security
77
Wages and hours
Mason, P. L., “Equal Pay for Male and Female Workers in
Australia,” Personnel Practice Bulletin, Australia
Department of Labor and National Service, Septem
ber 1969, pp. 171-183.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: The
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., Metropolitan Area, August
1969. Washington, Superintendent of Documents,
1969, 27 pp. (Bulletin 1660-7.) 35 cents. Other recent
bulletins in this series include the metropolitan areas
of Green Bay, Wis.; Chattanooga, Tenn.-G a.; Kansas
City, M o.-K ans.; Baltimore, Md.; Omaha, N e b rIowa; Syracuse, N .Y . (Bulletins 1660-8 through
1660-13.) Various pages and prices.
--------- , Industry Wage Survey: Contract Cleaning Services,
Ju ly 1968. Washington, Superintendent of Docu
ments, 1969, 48 pp. (Bulletin 1644.) 55 cents.
----------, Industry Wage Survey: Laundry and Cleaning
Services, April 1967 and April 1968. Washington,
Superintendent of Documents, 1969, 76 pp. (Bulletin
1645.) 75 cents.
----------, Wages and Related Benefits: Part II , Metropolitan
Areas, United States and Regional Summaries, 1967-68.
Washington, Superintendent of Documents, 1969, 127
pp. (Bulletin 1575-87.) $1.25.
Miscellaneous
Burger, Albert E ., “The Effects of Inflation, 1960-68,”
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, November
1969, pp. 25-36.
Burgess, Robert L. and Don Bushell, Jr., Behavioral
Sociology: The Experimental Analysis of Social Process.
New York, Columbia University Press, 1969, 418 pp.
$12.50.
Brown, J. Douglas, The Genesis of Social Security in
America. Princeton, N .J., Princeton University,
Industrial Relations Section, 1969, 18 pp.
Califano, Joseph A., Jr., The Student Revolution: A Global
Confrontation. New York, W. W. Norton & Co.,
1970, 96 pp. $3.95.
International Social Security Association, “ Round Table
on the Contribution of Social Security Schemes to
Public Health Programs,” International Social Security
Review, 1969, X X X I -N o . 3, pp. 307-404.
Canada Department of Labor, “[Canada] Labor Legisla
tion in 1968-69: Part 1, Labor Standards,” Labor
Gazette, December 1969, pp. 736-745.
President’s Commission on Income Maintenance Programs,
Poverty Amid Plenty: The American Paradox. Wash
ington, Superintendent of Documents, 1969, 155 pp.
$1.75.
Skolnik, Alfred M. and Sophie R. Dales, “Social Welfare
Expenditures, 1968-69,” Social Security Bulletin,
December 1969, pp. 3-18.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Coles, Robert and Maria Piers, Wages of Neglect. Chicago,
Quadrangle Books, 1969, 191 pp. $5.95.
Graham, Hugh Davis and Ted Robert Gurr, editors,
The History of Violence in America: Historical and
Comparative Perspectives. A report submitted to the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention
of Violence. New York, Frederick A. Praeger, Pub
lishers, 1969, xxxvi, 822 pp. $11.95.
78
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
International Labor Office, “The 53rd Session of the
International Labor Conference, June 1969,” Inter
national Labor Review, October 1969, pp. 295-314.
Margolis J. and H. Guitton, editors, Public Economics:
An Analysis of Public Production and Consumption
and Their Relations to the Private Sectors. (Proceedings
of a conference held by the International Economic
Association.) London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd.,
1969, 574 pp. $21, St. Martin’s Press, N .Y .
Jalée, Pierre, The Third World in World Economy. Trans
lated by Mary Klopper. New York, Monthly Review
Press, 1969, 207 pp. $6.50.
Morgan, Theodore and Nyle Spoelstra, editors, Economic
Interdependence in Southeast Asia. Madison, Wis.,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1969, 424 pp. $12.50.
Johnson, Harry G., editor, New Trade Strategy for the
World Economy. Buffalo, N. Y ., University of Toronto
Press, 1969, 344 pp. $7.95.
Musgrave, Richard A., Fiscal Systems. New Haven, Conn.,
Yale University Press, 1969, 397 pp., bibliography.
(Studies in Comparative Economics 10.) $10, cloth;
$2.95, paperback.
“Into the 1970s,”
pp. 7-13.
Economist,
December
27,
1969,
Josephson, Matthew and Hannah, Al Smith: Hero of the
Cities. (A political portrait drawing on the papers of
Frances Perkins.) Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1969, 505 pp., bibliography. $7.95.
Shabad, Theodore, Basic Industrial Resources of the
USSR. New York, Columbia University Press, 1969,
393 pp., bibliography. $20.
Kotz, Nick, Let Them Eat Promises: The Politics of Hunger
in America. Englewood Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1970, 272 pp. $6.95.
Slote, Alfred, Termination: The Closing at Baker Plant.
Indianapolis, Ind., Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1969,
340 pp. $7.50.
Lucas, Rex A., Men in Crisis: A Study of a Mine Disaster.
New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1969, 335 pp., bibliog
raphy. $10.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mountain-Plains Re
gional Office, Employment, Earnings, and Living Costs
in Kansas City. Kansas City, Mo., 1969, 60 pp.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Current
Labor
Statistics
Employment and unemployment— household data
1.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to d ate...................................................................................
80
2.
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages...............................................
80
3.
Full-and part-time status of civilian labor force........................................ ...............................................................
81
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly data............................................
81
5.
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.................
82
6. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment..................................................................................................
7 . Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted......................................................................................
8. Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted ..............................................................................................................
9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
10.
82
83
84
84
85
Unemployment insurance and employment services......................................................................................................
Nonagricultural employment— payroll data
Employment by industry, 1947 to date ..............................................................................................................................
Employment by State...................................................................................................................................
86
86
13. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group..........................................................................
14. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted............................................
88
11.
12.
87
Labor turnover rates
15.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date.................................................................................................................
89
16. Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group.............................................................................................
90
Hours and earnings— private nonagricultural payrolls
17. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date..................................................................................................
18. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group.............................................................................
91
92
19.
20.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted.........................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................
93
94
21.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................
95
. Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 dollars ..........................................................................................
96
2 2
Consumer prices
23.
24.
Consumer Price Index, general summary ..........................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected item s...............................................................................................................................
97
25.
Consumer Price Index, selected areas...............................................................................................................................
103
97
Wholesale prices
26. Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of com m odities....................................................................................
27. Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings..............................................................................................
28. Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing.................................................................................................................
104
106
107
29.
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product...............................................................................................................
108
30.
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries.........................................................................................
108
Labor-management disputes
31.
Work stoppages and tim e lo st..............................................................................................................................................
110
Productivity
32.
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, andunit labor costs................................................................
Schedule of release dates...................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.
1
79
1
Ill
1
80
1.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Civilian labor force
Total labor force
Year
Unemployed
Employed
Total non
institutional
population
Not in
labor force
Total
Percent of
population
Number
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Percent of
labor
force
1947 _____________ _____________
1948______ ____________________
103,418
104,527
60,941
62,080
58.9
59.4
59,350
60,621
57,039
58,344
7,891
7,629
49,148
50,713
2,311
2,276
3.9
3.8
42,477
42,447
1949________________ __________
1950___________________________
1951___________________________
1952...... ...............................................
1953___________________________
105,611
106,645
107,721
108,823
110,601
62,903
63,858
65,117
65,730
66, 560
59.6
59.9
60.4
60.4
60.2
61,286
62, 208
62,017
62,138
63,015
57,649
58,920
59,962
60,254
61,181
7,656
7,160
6,726
6,501
6,261
49,990
51,760
53,239
53,753
54,922
3,637
3,288
2,055
1,883
1,834
5.9
5.3
3.3
3.0
2.9
42,708
42,787
42,604
43,093
44,041
1954_.................... ......................... . . .
1955...................................... ...............
1956....................... ....................... ..
1957_______ ___________________
1958._____ ____________________
111,671
112,732
113,811
115,065
116,363
66,993
68, 072
69,409
69,729
70,275
60.0
60.4
61.0
60.6
60.4
63,643
65,023
66, 552
66,929
67,639
60,110
62,171
63,802
64,071
63,036
6,206
6,449
6,283
5,947
5,586
53,903
55,724
57,517
58,123
57,450
3,532
2,852
2,750
2,859
4,602
5.5
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.8
44,678
44,660
44,402
45,336
46,088
1959___________________________
1960___________________________
1961._____ ____________________
1962.________ _________________
1963___________________________
117,881
119,759
121,343
122,981
125,154
70,921
72,142
73,031
73,442
74,571
60.2
60.2
60.2
59.7
59.6
68,369
69,628
64,630
65,778
5,565
5,458
59,065
60,318
3.740
3,852
7 0 ,4 5 9
6 5 ,7 4 6
5 ,2 0 0
6 0 ,5 4 6
4 ,7 1 4
70,614
71,833
66,702
67,762
4,944
4,687
61,759
63,076
3,911
4,070
5.5
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7
46,960
47,617
48,312
49, 539
50, 583
1964____ _____________ _________
1965_____ _____________ _______
1966___________________________
1967___________________________
1968___________________________
1969___________________________
127,224
129,236
131,180
133,319
135, 562
137,841
75,830
77,178
78,893
80,793
82,272
84, 239
59.6
59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,733
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77, 902
4,523
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
64,782
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
51,394
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
2.
Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
[In thousands]
1966
1967
1968
1969
A n n u a l averag e
Characteristic
4 th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
1969
1968
W H IT E
71,942 71,466 71,285 70, 392 70,045 69,851 69,587 69,440 68,944 68,210 68,226 67,951
41,842 41,639 41,656 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175 40,972 40,673 40,607 40,373
23,949 23,684 23, 566 23,122 22,843 22, 741 22,565 22,632 22,276 21,775 21,709 21,638
5,762
5,910
5,940
5,633
5,696
5,847
5,875 5,792
6,151
5,829
6,143
6,036
71,778
41,772
23,838
6,168
69,975
41,317
22,820
5,838
.......................................................................................................... 70, 096 69, 575 69, 260 69,135 68, 267 67, 804 67,617 67,311 67, 032 66,576 65,888 65,970 65,747
Men, 20 years and over___ ____________ 41,091 40, 995 40,871 40, 926 40,677 40,553 40, 405 40, 376 40,300 40,101 39,772 39,775 39,524
Women, 20 years and over______________ 23,327 23,120 22,891 22,794 22,372 22,066 21,987 21,777 21,766 21,416 20, 963 20, 902 20,921
5, 302
5,059
5,153
5,293
5,225
5,158
4,966
5,678
5,498
5,415
5,218
5,185
Both sexes, 16-19 years________ _______
5,460
69,518
40,978
23,032
5,508
67,750
40, 503
22,052
5,195
________ _________________ 72,475
Men, 20 years and over............... .................. 41,956
Women, 20 years and over______________ 24,156
Both sexes, 16-19 years......... ...................
6,363
Civilian labor force
Employed
Unemployed................................................................................. ..........................
Men, 20 years and over_________________
Women, 20 years and over______________
Both sexes, 16-19 years____ ___________
Unemployment rate ......................................................................................
Men, 20 years and over................. ................
Women, 20 years and over____ _________
Both sexes, 16-19 years............................ .
2,379
865
829
685
2,367
847
829
691
2,206
768
793
645
2,150
730
772
648
2,125
746
750
629
2,241
820
777
644
2,234
830
754
650
2,276
854
788
634
2,408
875
866
667
2,368
871
860
637
2,322
901
812
609
2,256
832
807
617
2,204
849
717
638
2,260
794
806
660
2,225
814
768
643
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.2
3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5
3.0
1.8
3.3
10.7
3.0
1.8
3.2
10.8
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1
3.3
2.1
3.5
10.9
3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8
3.4
2.1
3.9
11.2
3.4
2.2
3.7
10.6
3.3
2.0
3.7
10.4
3.2
2.1
3.3
10.7
3.1
1.9
3.4
10.7
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
9,056
4,622
3,616
818
8,979
4,593
3,595
791
8,867
4,549
3,535
783
8,914
4,554
3,550
810
8,737
4, 513
3,468
756
8,700
4,517
3,414
769
8,828
4,562
3,467
799
8,762
4,543
3,433
786
8,733
4,496
3,444
793
8,632
4, 507
3,348
777
8,632
4,505
3,347
780
8,599
4,500
3,362
737
8,544
4,492
3,322
730
8,954
4,579
3,574
801
8,759
4,535
3,446
778
8,500
4,445
3,429
626
8,394
4,416
3,372
606
8,271
4,382
3,307
582
8,371
4,397
3,352
622
8,164
4,335
3,264
565
8,132
8,233
4 ,3 4 9 i 4,388
3,205
3,246
578
599
8,147
4,351
3,200
596
8,073
4,305
3,191
577
8,006
4,328
3,112
566
7,986
4,303
3,115
568
7,974
4,299
3,118
557
7,923
4,268
3,098
557
8,384
4,410
3,365
609
8,169
4, 356
3,229
584
556
177
187
192
585
177
223
185
596
167
228
201
543
157
198
188
573
178
204
191
568
168
209
191
595
174
221
200
615
192
233
190
660
191
253
216
626
179
236
211
646
202
232
212
625
201
244
180
621
224
224
173
570
169
209
192
590
179
217
194
6.1
3.8
5.2
23.5
6.5
3.9
6.2
23.4
6.7
3.7
6.4
25.7
6.1
3.4
5.6
23.2
6.6
3.9
5.9
25.3
6.5
3.7
6.1
24.8
6.7
3.8
6.4
25.0
7.0
4.2
6.8
24.2
7.6
4.2
7.3
27.2
7.3
4.0
7.0
27.2
7.5
4.5
6.9
27.2
7.3
4.5
7.3
24.4
7.3
5.0
6.7
23.7
6.4
3.7
5.8
24.0
6.7
3.9
6.3
24.9
NEGRO AND O THER
Civilian laborforce
.....................................................................................
Men, 20 years and over____ ___________
Women, 20 years and over______________
Both sexes, 16-19 years...............................
Employed
...........................................................................................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r ...............................
Women, 20 years and over---------- ------------Both sexes, 16-19 years________________
Unemployed..........................................................................................................
Men, 20 years and over__________ ____ _
Women, 20 years and over______________
Both sexes, 16-19 years............................ ..
Unemployment rate ...............................................................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r................ ................
Women, 20 years and over______________
Both sexes, 16-19 years............................ .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
3.
81
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted)
1969
1970
Annual average
Employment status
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
1968
68,869
69,204
69,296
69,491
70,350
73,713
73,514
72,365
67,818
67,921
67,799
67,700
67,233
69,700
68,332
64,155
65, 302
65,517
65, 594
66,206
68,854
68,471
67,011
64,346
64,244
63,778
63,588
63,126
65, 503
64,225
2,135
1,998
1,916
1,955
2,069
2,607
2,456
2,522
1,672
1,704
1,961
1,906
1,897
2,055
1,970
2, 579
3.7
1,904
2.8
1,864
2.7
1,942
2.8
2,075
2.9
2,251
3.1
2,587
3.5
2,831
3.9
1,799
2.7
1,973
2.9
2,060
3.0
2,206
3.3
2,211
3.3
2,142
3.1
2,138
3.1
Civilian labor force______________
11,850
12,212
12,131
12,019
10,634
8,803
9,283
9,991
11,745
11,699
11,467
11,404
11,000
11,032
10,405
Employed (voluntary parttim e)...........................................
11,023
11,488
11,284
11,122
9,751
8,185
8,688
9,422
11,245
11,130
10,781
10,687
10,335
10,343
9,726
Unemployed, looking for parttime work ...............................
Unemployment rate------------------
827
7.0
724
5.9
847
7.0
898
7.5
883
8.3
618
7.0
594
6.4
568
5.7
500
4.3
569
4.9
686
6.0
717
6.3
665
6.0
689
6.2
679
6.5
FULL TIME
Civilian labor force----------------------Employed:
Full-time schedules1______
Part-tim e for economic
reasons______ ____ ____
Unemployed, looking for fu ll
time w o r k .................................
Unemployment rate.....................
PART TIME
l Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the fu ll- and part-time employed categories.
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
Annual average
1969
1970
Employment status
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
Total labor force.............................
8 5 ,5 9 9
8 5 ,0 2 3
84, 872
85, 051
8 4 ,8 6 8
84,517
84,310
84, 028
83,652
83,950
83,883
83,674
83,233
84,239
82, 272
Civilian labor force.........................
Employed.............................
Agriculture.......................
Nonagriculture................
Unemployed........................
8 2 ,2 1 3
79, 041
3,426
7 5 ,6 1 5
3,172
81,583
78, 737
3,435
7 5 ,3 0 2
2,846
8 1 ,3 7 9
78, 528
3,434
75, 094
2 ,8 5 1
8 1 ,5 2 3
3,446
74, 999
3,078
8 1 ,3 2 5
7 8 ,1 9 4
3,498
74,696
3 ,13 1
80,987
78,142
3,614
74, 528
2,845
80, 789
77,9 31
3,561
74,370
2,858
80, 504
7 7, 741
3,683
74, 058
2,763
80,130
77,32 1
3,777
73,544
2 ,8 0 9
80,434
77, 589
3,661
73,928
2,845
80, 379
77,650
3, 710
73, 940
2,729
80,199
77, 524
3,836
73,688
2,675
79, 756
7 7, 081
3,717
73,364
2,675
8 0 ,7 3 3
77,902
3 ,6 0 6
74,296
2 ,8 3 1
78,737
75,920
3.817
72,103
2 .8 1 7
MEN 20 YEARS AND OVER
Total labor force..............................
49, 736
49, 534
49, 544
49,642
49,642
49,488
49,405
49, 334
49,290
49, 294
49,336
49, 259
49,155
49,406
48,834
Civilian labor force..........................
Employed.............................
Agriculture.......................
Nonagriculture................
Unemployed........................
4 6 ,8 2 6
4 5 ,6 7 4
2,473
4 3,2 01
1 ,1 52
4 6 ,5 7 8
45, 553
2, 499
43, 054
1 ,0 2 5
4 6,5 31
45,533
2,482
43, 051
998
46,599
4 5,5 11
2 ,5 7 5
4 2 ,9 3 6
1,088
46,586
4 5 ,4 6 5
2,593
42,872
46,338
45,335
2,646
42,689
1 ,0 0 3
46,236
45,303
2 676
42,627
933
46,194
45, 251
2,713
42,538
943
46,203
45,282
2 ,6 7 8
42,604
921
46, 255
45, 374
2, 701
42,673
881
46,203
45,323
2, 720
42,603
880
4 6 ,0 9 7
45,194
1,121
46,443
45, 485
2,670
42,815
958
42,508
903
46, 351
45,388
2 ,6 3 6
42, 752
963
45,852
44, 859
2,816
42, 043
993
WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Civilian labor force..........................
28, 073
2 7 ,8 7 5
2 7,6 71
2 7 ,7 6 7
2 7 ,6 3 4
27,664
27, 524
27,34 1
27,055
27,227
27,192
27,178
26,904
27,413
26,266
Employed.............................
Agriculture.......................
Nonagriculture...... .........
Unemployed........................
27, 060
586
2 6 ,4 7 4
1 ,01 3
2 6 ,8 9 7
585
2 6 ,3 1 2
978
2 6 ,6 6 3
555
2 6 ,1 0 8
1 ,0 08
2 6 ,6 9 9
554
2 6, 1 4 5
1 ,0 6 8
26, 543
535
26,008
1, 091
26 626
582
26, 044
1,038
26,512
547
25,965
1,012
26 322
610
25,712
1 ,0 1 9
2 6, 041
622
2 5 ,4 1 9
1 ,0 14
26,193
607
25, 586
1 ,0 3 4
26,216
626
25, 590
976
26,200
718
25,482
978
25,942
660
25, 282
962
26,397
593
25,804
1 ,0 1 5
25,281
606
24,675
985
BOTH SEXES, 10-19 YEARS
Civilian labor force......................... .
7,314
7,130
7,177
7 ,1 5 7
7,105
6,880
6,927
6,927
6 ,8 8 1
7,004
6,932
6,818
6,755
6,970
6,618
Employed............................
Agriculture......................
Nonagriculture...............
Unemployed........................
6,307
367
5,940
1 ,0 0 7
6,287
351
5 ,9 3 6
843
6,332
397
5,935
845
6,235
317
5 ,9 1 8
922
6,186
370
5 ,8 1 6
919
6 ,0 31
362
5,669
849
6,084
368
5,716
843
6,116
397
5,719
811
6,029
442
5,587
852
6,114
376
5,738
890
6,060
383
5,677
872
6, 001
5,945
371
5,574
810
6,117
377
5, 739
853
5,780
394
5,385
839
1968
TOTAL
3 7 4 -7 4 4 0 — 70
---- 6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
78,445
398
5,603
817
2,686
82
5.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
1969
1968
1967
Characteristic
4th
78,570
EMPLOYMENT (in thousands)
3d
2d
1st
4th
78, 090, 77, 550 77,418 76,409
White-collar workers___________ _____ _______ 37, 509 36,923
Professional and technical______________ 10,936 10,764
Managers, officials, and
8,141
7,970
proprietors________ _____ __________
Clerical workers_______ ________________ 13,655 13,478
Sales workers_________ ________________ 4,777
4,711
3d
2d
76,017
1st
75,898 75,392
36,677 36,264 35,906 35,732 35,419 35,140
10,740 10,638 10,473 10, 392 10, 295 10,142
7,993
13,281
4,663
7,841
13,171
4,614
7,897
7,827
7,661
12, 876 12, 823 12,816
4,660
4,690
4,647
Blue-collar workers,................................... ............... 28, 389 28,425 27,931 28,202 27,774
Craftsmen and foremen________________ 10,265 10,174 10,044 10,298 10,147
Operatives______________ ______ ____ 14,412 14,589 14,208 14,264 14,051
Nonfarm laborers______________________ 3,712
3,662
3,679
3,640
3,576
27,491
9,972
13,911
3,608
7,716
12,694
4,588
4th
3d
75,121
1966
2d
74,630 73,911
1st
73,862
Annual average
4th
1969
1968
73,648
77,902
75,92
34, 888 34,456
10, 067 9,952
33,943 33,635 33,693
9,761
9,734 9,605
36 845
IO! 769
35,55
10,32
7,633
7,630
12, 624 12,343
4,564
4,531
7,453
12,250
4,479
27,513 27,297 27,279
10,003 9,936
9,827
13,956 13,896 13,918
3,465
3,554
3,534
7,261
12,115
4,525
7,429
12,158
4,501
7,987
13j 397
4', 692
7,77
1? 80
4; 64
27,343 27,175 27,240
9, 790 9,853
9,918
13,999 13,787 13,822
3,554
3,535
3,500
26,963
9,700
13,831
3,432
28,237
10| 193
14,372
3,672
27 52
10 ' 01
13,95
3; 55
Service workers................................................. .........
9,589
9,493
9,467
9,558
9,411
9,385
9,395
9,337
9,330
9,277
9,276
9,418
9,405
9,528
9,38
Farmworkers........................................................... .
3,089
3,231
3,417
3,438
3,346
3,400
3,507
3,649
3,654
3,556
3,448
3,584
3,612
3,292
3,46
Unemployment rate
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.
White-collar workers................................... .. _..........
Professional and te c h n ica l..____ ________
Managers, officials, and
proprietors....... ............. ......... ..................
Clerical w o rke rs............................ ...............
Sales workers________ ________________
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.0
1.3
2.0
1.1
1.9
1.2
2.0
1.3
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.2
2.2
1.3
2.2
1.3
2.0
1.4
2.1
1.4
2.0
1.3
2.1
1.3
2
.9
3.2
2.8
1.0
3.2
3.0
.9
2.8
2.9
.9
2.9
2.9
1.0
2.8
2.8
1.1
2.9
2.6
.9
3.0
2.7
.9
3.1
3.0
1.0
3.4
3.2
.9
3.3
3.6
.9
2.8
2.9
.9
3.0
3.2
.8
3.0
2.4
.9
3.0
2.9
1.
3.
2.
Blue-collar workers..................................... ...............
Craftsmen and foremen________________
Operatives___________________________
Nonfarm laborers...........................................
4.3
2.2
5.0
6.9
4.0
2.2
4.4
7.2
3.8
2.1
4.3
6.5
3.7
2.1
4.1
6.4
3.8
2.2
4.3
6.7
4.2
2.4
4.5
7.4
4.0
2.4
4.3
7.0
4.4
2.5
4.8
7.7
4.5
2.5
5.1
7.8
4.5
2.3
5.1
7.6
4.6
2.8
5.0
8.0
4.2
2.3
4.7
7.2
4.1
2.8
4.2
7.5
3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7
4.
2.
4.
7.
Serviceworkers............................................................
3.9
4.5
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.
Farmworkers...............................................................
1.8
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.
6.
1.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1970
1969
Annual average
Reason for unemployment,
age, and sex
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
1968
Total, 16 years and over.....................
3,406
2,628
2,710
2,839
2,958
2,869
3,182
3,400
2,299
2,542
2,746
2,923
2,876
2,831
2,817
Lost last jo b ..........................
Left last jo b _____________
Reentered labor force_____
Never worked b efore..........
1,595
485
999
328
1,133
378
825
292
939
421
1,011
339
882
451
1,093
414
823
586
1,105
445
894
507
997
471
979
459
1,010
734
875
448
1,275
802
892
325
796
286
1,088
394
770
290
1,186
391
869
301
1,245
409
947
323
1,266
463
881
265
1,017
436
965
413
1,070
'431
909
407
Male, 20 years and over............ ........
1,456
1,052
909
906
914
888
945
905
810
901
1,048
1,134
1,142
963
993
Lost last job..........................
Left last jo b ...........................
Reentered labor force_____
Never worked before_____
997
197
230
32
693
150
188
20
524
141
226
18
458
141
267
40
440
209
235
30
469
192
200
24
534
170
195
46
427
183
262
33
438
148
204
19
575
145
164
17
686
139
203
19
707
167
232
28
721
179
212
29
556
164
216
27
599
167
205
22
Female, 20 years and over..................
1,086
840
994
1,097
1,202
1,119
987
1,058
867
967
964
1,061
1,031
1,015
985
Lost last job____ ________
Left last jo b _____ _______
Reentered labor force_____
Never worked before_____
418
177
437
54
303
138
354
46
309
183
457
45
314
209
501
72
288
237
596
81
310
196
549
64
307
184
434
62
336
172
480
69
344
107
377
39
374
159
399
35
353
144
414
52
394
153
457
57
385
168
438
41
335
171
455
55
341
167
422
55
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.................
864
736
807
836
842
865
1,250
1,437
623
674
734
729
703
853
839
Lost last job..........................
Left last jo b _____________
Reentered labor force_____
Never worked b e fo re ..........
180
111
331
241
137
90
283
226
106
97
328
276
110
101
324
301
95
140
274
334
115
119
248
383
138
105
380
627
112
93
533
699
110
70
214
228
139
90
207
238
147
107
252
229
145
89
257
238
160
116
232
195
126
101
294
331
130
97
281
330
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
7.
83
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
Annual average
1969
1970
A{e and sex
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
1968
TOTAL
16 years and oxer................................................
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
12.4
14.0
11.5
12.7
14.8
11.4
12.6
13.8
11.6
12.0
13.8
11.0
12.0
13.8
10.8
12.2
14.5
10.5
12.7
14.7
11.2
5.5
2.2
2.3
1.7
5.7
2.2
2.3
2.0
5.4
2.1
2.2
1.9
5.4
2.1
2.1
2.0
5.3
2.1
2.2
1.8
5.7
2.2
2.3
2.0
5.8
2.3
2.3
2.2
16 to 19 years.....................
16 and 17 years..........
18 and 19 years...........
13.8
17.2
11.6
11.8
13.7
10.2
11.8
14.3
9.2
12.9
16.5
10.4
12.9
16.1
10.6
12.3
15.8
9.8
12.2
14.6
10.3
11.7
13.5
10.1
20 to 24 years.....................
25 years and over...............
25 to 54 years..............
55 years and over___
6.1
2.4
2.5
2.0
5.8
2.2
2.3
2.1
5.8
2.2
2.1
1.9
6.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
6.5
2.4
2.5
2.2
5.4
2.3
2.3
2.0
5.8
2.3
2.3
2.0
5.4
2.2
2.3
2 .0
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
12.0
15.0
9.4
11.3
15.5
7.8
11.8
14.4
9.7
10.7
13.0
8.5
11.1
13.9
9.2
11.5
13.1
10.4
11.5
13.2
10.0
11.0
13.0
9.4
11.7
13.3
10.4
11.4
13.7
9.3
11.6
13.9
9.6
4.8
1.5
1.4
1.8
5.0
1.6
1.6
1.8
5.1
1.7
1.6
1.9
5.1
1.8
1.7
2.1
M 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.
12.6
14. 9
10.8
11. 0
13.1
9.3
11.7
13.7
8.9
11.8
14.4
9.6
6.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.5
1.8
1.7
2.2
5.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
6.3
1.9
1.8
2.2
6.4
1.8
1.8
2.0
4.5
1.7
1.6
2.0
5.3
1.7
1.7
1.9
4.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
4.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
4.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
4.6
1.6
1.5
1.8
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.9
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.7
4.8
12.3
14. 5
11.2
13.3
15.5
11.8
14.0
15.9
12.8
5.6
3.1
3.4
1.9
6.3
3.2
3.5
2.2
6.7
3.2
3.4
2.3
FEM A LE
16 years and over..................
16 to 19 years............
16 and 17 years.
18 and 19 years.
20 to 24 years___
25 years and over.
55 years and over.
15.2
20.3
12.4
12.8
14.7
11.2
11.9
15.0
9.6
14.2
19.2
11.3
14.2
17.7
12.0
13.6
16.2
12.0
12.7
14.8
11.0
13.0
14.3
11.9
14.0
14.2
14.1
14.3
17.1
12.6
14.0
14.9
13.3
13.2
15.1
12.9
6.2
3.0
3.3
1.7
6.1
3.0
3.3
1.9
6.5
3.1
3.4
2.0
6.5
3.4
3.6
2.5
6.6
3.4
3.7
2.5
6.3
3.3
3.6
2.1
6.3
3.2
3.5
2.3
6.0
3.3
3.6
2.3
6.4
3.1
3.4
1.9
6.7
3.2
3.5
2.5
6.4
3.0
3.4
2.0
6.2
3.1
3.3
2.4
A note on revised seasonal adjustment
The household data appearing in tables 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of this
issue have been revised to reflect new seasonal factors. The Bureau
recomputes seasonally adjusted labor force series at the beginning of
each year, incorporating data through December of the previous year.
In most cases, the changes are minimal. For a discussion of the seasonal
adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see
the February 1970 issue of Em ploym ent and E arnings.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84
8.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
1970
1969
Annual average
Selected categories
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
1968
3.9
2.5
3.6
13.8
3.6
6.3
1.8
3.4
.5
3.5
2.2
3.5
11.8
3.2
5.7
1.7
3.2
.5
3.5
2.1
3.6
11.8
3.2
6.2
1.5
3.1
.5
3.8
2.3
3.8
12.9
3.5
6.6
1.6
3.1
.4
3.8
2.4
3.9
12.9
3.5
6.7
1.7
3.3
.5
3.5
2.1
3.8
12.3
3.2
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
3.5
2.2
3.7
12.2
3.2
6.5
1.6
3.1
.5
3.4
2.0
3.7
11.7
3.0
6.8
1.5
3.1
.5
3.5
2.0
3.7
12.4
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
3.5
2.0
3.8
12.7
3.1
7.0
1.5
3.2
.5
3.4
1.9
3.6
12.6
3.1
6.1
1.4
3.0
.4
3.3
1.9
3.6
12.0
3.0
5.9
1.4
2.9
.4
3.4
2.0
2.6
12.0
3.0
6.2
1.4
3.0
.4
3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1
.5
2.5
4.2
2.4
3.9
2.4
4.0
2.2
4.3
2.2
4.3
2.1
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.1
3.8
2.0
3.8
2.1
3.8
2.1
3.7
2.2
3.7
2.1
3.7
2.1
3.9
2.2
4.0
White-collar workers____________
Professional and managerial____________ ____
Clerical workers__________
Sales workers____________
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.3
3.1
2.8
1.5
2.8
2.6
1.1
3.5
2.2
1.3
3.4
3.5
1.3
3.2
2.8
1.2
3.2
2.9
1.2
3.2
3.2
1.2
3.0
2.8
1.2
2.9
2.9
1.1
2.5
3.1
1.1
3.0
2.9
1.0
2.7
3.2
1.0
2.9
2.7
1.2
3.0
2.9
1.1
3.0
2.8
Blue-collar workers_____________
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives....... ......................
Nonfarm laborers________
4.6
2.3
5.1
8.5
4.3
2.3
5.0
7.4
4.2
2.1
4.9
6.9
4.2
2.4
4.9
6.5
4.4
2.6
4. 7
7.6
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.8
3.8
1.9
4.2
7.1
3.7
1.9
4.3
6.1
3.8
2.3
4.1
6.5
4.0
2.2
4.6
6.8
3.7
2.2
3.9
6.9
3.6
2.1
4.2
5.7
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.7
3.9
2.2
4.5
6.7
4.1
2.4
4.4
7.2
Service workers.................................
4.5
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.5
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.5
3.9
7.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
6.0
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
5.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.8
7.3
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.9
7.4
3.7
3.2
4.3
3.5
7.0
2.9
2.3
3.7
3.5
5.9
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
5.1
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5
5.7
3.1
2.9
3.4
3.5
6.0
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.4
6.1
3.1
2.8
3.5
3.3
5.6
2.9
2.5
3.6
3.4
5.6
3.2
2.8
3.8
3.5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7
2.9
4.3
2.4
3.9
2.4
3.9
2.9
4.2
2.0
4.5
2.0
4.3
2.0
4.1
1.9
4.2
2.4
4.1
2.3
4.2
2.3
3.9
1.9
4.0
2.0
3.9
2.2
4.1
2.0
4 .0
Total (all civilian workers)...........
Men, 20 years and over___
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs ...
White___________________
Negro and other__________
Married men____________
Full-time workers.................
Unemployed 15 weeks and
over i .............. ...................
State insured 2___________
Labor force time lo st3..........
OCCUPATION
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary w orkers*________
Construction.......... ...............
M anufacturing.....................
Durable goods_________
Nondurable goods............
Transportation and public
utilities_______________
Wholesale and retail trad e..
Finance and service industries.................. .................
3.1
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.4
Government wage and salary
workers.......... ...........................
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.8
Agricultural wage and salary
workers___________________
6.2
6.5
5.2
6.3
6.5
6.5
8.9
5.6
5.3
5.8
5.9
4.6
5.8
6.1
6.3
1 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
2 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
9.
3 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours,
* Includes mining, not shown separately.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Period
Annual average
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
Less than 5 weeks................... ..
5 to 14 weeks_____ __________
15 weeks and over___________
15 to 26 weeks— .............. . .
27 weeks and o v e r ..................
1,756
914
409
276
133
1,515
893
392
272
120
1,558
912
389
249
140
1,882
882
363
233
130
1,756
995
392
240
152
1,646
854
385
250
135
1,656
824
400
233
167
1,578
812
385
255
130
1,720
639
400
263
137
1,711
748
381
246
135
1,625
777
359
240
119
1,461
833
351
238
113
1,507
767
324
203
121
1,629
827
375
242
133
1,594
810
412
256
156
15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor f o r c e .. . .........
.6
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.5
.6
.6
.5
.5
.5
.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1968
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
10.
85
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1969
1968
Item
Dec.
Employment service:2
New applications for work__ _______________
Nonfarm placements
___________________
Oct.
Nov.
658
311
711
372
Aug.
Sept.
801
503
762
463
July
750
471
May
June
874
469
822
454
Apr.
850
437
Mar.
822
454
Feb.
745
397
Jan.
794
373
Dec.
849
392
608
360
Rate unemployment insurance programs:
710
709
1,105
613
655
731
890
745
756
|nitlal claims 3 4
________________________
1,240
1,161
866
1,363
insured unemployment5 (average weekly
852
1300
948
1,021
906
1,491
840
1,090
864
1,459
1,172
1,030
1,375
___________________
volume) 6
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.8
26
2.2
1.6
1.6
2.9
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.7
Rate of insured un employment7-- _ _______
3,626
3,123
4,998
3,104
3,519
3,496
4,496
5,159
3,156
3,054
5,547
3,896
4,692
Weeks of unemployment compensated_______
Average weekly benefit amount for total un$45. 30 $44.88 $45.14
$46.03
$46.71
$46.80
$46.16
$45. 34
$46. 47 $46. 25 $45.70 $46.16
_____________________ $47.42
employment
Total benefits paid _ ___________________ $214,260 $136,585 $139, 536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,966 $200,052 $226, 516 $234,199 $246,117 $170,340
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:3»
1 nitial claims
___________________
insured unemployment« (average weekly
volume)
..................................................
Weeks of unemployment compensated______
Total benefits paid
___________________
48
193
$9, 517
Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian em
ployees: » 1«
______________ ________
1nitial claims 3
Insured unemployment« (average weekly
volume)
_ ___________________
Weeks of unemployment compensated_______
Total henefits paid
___ _______ _________
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications n
________ ____ - .........
Insured unemployment (average weekly
volume)
............................ - ...................
of payments 12
.................... ...........
Average amount of benefit payment ^ ________
Total benefit paid14
.............................. .......
N um her
AII programs: '*
Insured unemployment16
39
30
26
29
26
20
22
24
27
32
29
37
148
$7,156
36
143
$6,946
30
114
$5,511
29
122
$5,847
35
155
$7,425
40
163
$7,794
43
169
$7,997
44
191
$9,046
38
151
$7,218
38
126
$6, 240
32
127
$6, 256
32
133
$6, 514
12
13
11
10
8
11
10
8
8
8
9
13
10
24
101
$4,748
22
75
$3, 465
18
76
$3,494
17
74
$3,163
18
77
$3,497
19
78
$3,597
18
69
$3,155
17
72
$3,318
20
88
$4,038
23
94
$4,265
24
97
$4,362
24
102
$4.595
22
95
$4,246
5
5
10
6
7
17
11
11
5
5
6
12
11
17
14
15
13
13
13
10
18
17
21
23
24
19
35
$96. 02
$3,241
28
$96. 28
$2, 513
36
$89. 31
$2,918
28
$93.64
$2,478
28
$94.12
$2,375
26
$91.74
$2,113
*25
$90. 69
$2,043
39
$75.65
$2, 804
41
$88.32
$3,386
46
$91.06
$4,056
47
$92.20
$4,251
54
$91.23
$4, 797
42
$87.90
$3, 590
1,464
1,105
929
902
1,015
1,088
911
970
1,162
1,384
1,550
1,584
1,252
1 Includes data for Puerto Rico.
2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
s Preliminary.
.
...
. . .
* Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
5 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
« Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
7 Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
J The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average
covered employment in a 12-month period.
» Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
i° Includes the Virgin Islands.
Excludes data on claims and payments made join tly with State programs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
27
12 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 required for subsequent
periods in the same year.
13 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
“ The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
15 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
w Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision.
86
11.
PAYROLL DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Employees1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Year
TOTAL
Mining
Contract
construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Transpor
tation and
public
utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Total
Retail
trade
Government
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
1947______
1948______
1949______
1950______
43, 881
44, 891
43,778
45, 222
955
994
930
901
1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333
15,545
15,582
14,441
15,241
4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034
8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386
2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518
6,595
6,783
6,778
6,868
1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919
5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382
5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026
1,892
i l 863
1,908
L92 8
3,582
3i 787
3,948
4; 098
1951.............
1952______
1953.............
1954.............
1955______
47,849
48, 825
50,232
49, 022
50,675
929
898
866
791
792
2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802
16,393
16,632
17, 549
16,314
16, 882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10, 535
2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796
7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740
1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335
5,576
5,730
5,867
6,002
6,274
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,305
2,302
2,420
2,188
2; 187
4,087
4; 188
4; 340
4; 563
4i 727
1956______
1957...........
1958______
1959 2..........
1960______
52,408
52, 894
51,363
53,313
54,234
822
828
751
732
712
2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2,885
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10, 886
10,750
11,127
11,391
2,884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004
7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388
2,429
2,477
2,519
2,594
2,669
6,536
6,749
6, 806
7,130
7,423
7,277
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5; 399
5; 648
5,850
6| 083
1 9 6 1 ...........
1962-..........
1963.............
1964.............
1965______
54, 042
55, 596
56,702
58,331
60,815
672
650
635
634
632
2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312
8,344
8,511
8,675
8,971
9,404
2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023
7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087
8,594
8,890
9,225
9, 596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6| 550
6; 868
7,248
7,696
1966______
1967______
1968______
63,955
65, 857
67,860
627
613
610
3,275
3,208
3,267
19,214
19,447
19,768
4,151
4,261
4,313
13,245
13,606
14,081
3,437
3,525
3,618
9,808
10,081
10,464
3,100
3,225
3, 383
9,551
10, 099
10, 592
10,792
11,398
11,846
2,564
2,719
2,737
8,227
8,679
9; 109
'
i
The industry series have been adjusted to March 1968 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to August 1969. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-69 (BLS Bulletin 1312—7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and 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
12.
Wholesale
trade
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more
than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants are excluded.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench
mark month.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State
[In thousands]
State
Dec. 1969
Nov. 1969
Dec. 1968
State
Dec. 1969
Nov. 1969
Dec. 1968
Alabama...........................
Alaska________ _____ _
Arizona........... .................
Arkansas________ ____
California........................ ..
995.5
82.0
540.9
532.5
7, 067.3
990.9
83.7
534.2
532.4
7,010.0
977.8
76.7
498.3
518.0
6,843. 5
Montana......................... ..
Nebraska..........................
Nevada.............................
New Hampshire...............
New Jersey......................
196.7
482.2
191.8
255.4
2, 581.6
196.9
481.1
193.2
254.2
2,577.5
195.2
471.8
181.7
252.7
2,535.2
Colorado >....................... ..
Connecticut___________
Delaware_______ ____ _
District of Columbia___
Florida...... ............... .......
725.9
1,201.2
211.8
683.4
2, 092. 2
723.6
1,187.7
' 212. 0
680.2
2,058. 5
702.0
1,186.7
210.6
681.4
2, 029.6
New Mexico.....................
New York____________
North C a ro lin a ..............
North Dakota_________
Ohio............................ ..
292.3
7, 226. 3
1,714.9
158.8
3,964.9
290.8
7,207.7
1,710.1
160.0
3,946.7
282.3
7,141.0
1,690.5
155.6
3,850. 2
Georgia........................... ..
Hawaii________ ______
Idaho................................
Illinois______________
In d ia n a .......... ............. ..
1, 520. 5
275.8
201.9
4,438. 0
1, 880.8
1,514.8
273.3
201.7
4,420. 4
1,879.2
1,475.4
260.0
196.1
4, 393.8
1,863.2
Oklahoma.........................
Oregon *............................
Pennsylvania....................
Rhode Island....................
South Carolina.................
765.8
709.2
4,361.0
347.0
801.3
759.7
712.5
4,349.1
343.7
794.2
744.3
690.2
4,323.4
350.6
788.8
Iowa...... .................
Kansas__________
Kentucky ......................
Louisiana........ ...............
Maine..............................
887.5
692.0
891.7
1, 075. 8
331.9
885.6
690.5
881.5
1,071.9
328.2
876.4
683.8
899.3
1, 068.1
' 327.8
South Dakota...................
Tennessee.....................
T e x a s ..._____ _______
Utah_________ ______ _
Verm ont..........................
172.1
1, 326. 7
3,667. 8
355.5
147.3
172.4
1,321.1
3,632.7
355.2
145.7
168.4
1,309.0
3, 547.0
344.5
141.7
Maryland................ .........
Massachusetts________
Michigan _________
Minnesota____________
Mississippi_________
Missouri...........................
1,316.7
2, 264. 4
3,120. 7
1,313.1
569.6
1,671.7
1, 307. 9
2, 247. 4
3,120. 0
1,315.3
567.4
1,664.4
1,267.7
2,250.7
3; 090. 8
1, 265. 8
562.3
1,659.1
Virginia >......... .................
Washington......................
West V irg in ia .............. .
Wisconsin____________
Wyoming...................... .
1,461.3
1,138.4
515.1
1, 539.1
105.9
1,453. 3
1,137.1
514.3
1, 529.2
106.1
1,429.4
1,124.2
515.7
1, 509.6
101.6
1 Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings.
PAYROLL DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
13.
87
Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[In thousands]
1969
1970
Annual average
Industry division and group
T O T A L ______________
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1968
69,630
71,608
71,227
71,198
70,814
70,607
70,347
70,980
69,929
69,462
68,894
68,403
68,196
67,860
1967
65,857
616
631
631
632
639
647
645
638
624
619
610
610
611
610
613
2,961
3,357
3, 530
3,623
3,663
3,707
3,681
3,601
3,404
3,255
3,077
2,999
3,024
3,267
3,208
Production workers2----------
19 810
14; 414
20, 063
14, 656
20,143
14,732
20, 339
14,918
20, 421
14,997
20,435
14,971
20,114
14,665
20,336
14,923
19,982
14,624
19,952
14,604
19,978
14,644
19,891
14,584
19,803
14,509
19,768
14,505
19,447
14,308
Durable goods---------------------Production workers2. . .
11,634
8| 400
11,793
8; 551
11,816
8, 570
11,991
8, 733
12,014
8,755
11,976
8,691
11,874
8, 600
12,036
8, 781
11,846
8,615
11,835
8,612
11,841
8,623
11,785
8,585
11,760
8,555
11,624
8,456
11,439
8,364
296.8
572.1
487.3
300.3
585.2
492.7
306.0
589.4
494.3
307.7
593.9
496.9
315.1
605.3
495.9
323.4
617.8
497.9
331.7
616.3
485.0
335.3
624.4
496.0
338.7
604.1
489.6
341.2
593.4
490.7
345.5
594.2
490.6
346.8
590.1
491.1
350.3
587.8
488.5
341.5
597.8
474.2
317.2
596.8
455.4
635.9
655.9
666.9
669.6
674.2
679.1
676.2
676.1
657.2
654.8
646.6
639.2
639.2
637.0
628.3
1,365.5 1,367.9
1,472.5 1,461.9
1,366.7
1,441.7
1,375.6
1,469.1
1,346.1
1,445.5
1,336.8
1,441.6
1,333.3
1,441.1
1,326.0
1,435.4
1,311.9
1,432.5
1,314.3
1,393.7
1,322.1
1,363.1
2,002.6 1,983.4
2.026.1 2,019.1
2,037.8 2,061.3
1,960.5
1,981.9
2,028.4
1,969.6
1,958.9
1,948.5
459.9
450.8
M I N I N G . . . . ............................................................
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N .....
M A N U F A C T U R IN G
Lumber and wood products.
Furniture and fixtures.........
Stone, clay, and glass
products.............................
Primary metal in d u strie s... 1,351.5
Fabricated metal products.. 1,459.3
Machinery, except
2, 024. 0
Electrical equipment............ 1,962. 0
Transportation equipm ent.. 1; 964. 4
Instruments and related
458.3
products.............................
1,359.7
1,472.3
1,357.0
1,470.9
1,355.9
1,468.0
2,021.7 2, 004. 2 2, 011.9
l i 979. 2 1,981.7 2, 094.9
2', 010. 2 2,015.2 2, 054. 8
2,009.7 1,999.3 2, 009. 3 2, 025.6 2. 000.9 2,007.0 2,005.2
2,083.1 2, 074. 2 2, 047. 7 2, 058. 7 2, 035. 8 2, 027. 7 2, 025.9
2,063.8 2, 023. 4 1,991.0 2, 053. 7 2,018.9 2,037. 3 2,057.8
470.1
469.4
469.2
469.8
475.7
470.9
474.1
470.3
469.6
469.3
467.1
465.0
422.6
445.3
460.7
467.7
458.9
455.8
437.5
447.6
439.2
435.3
431.0
422.7
421.1
434.6
428.4
8,176
6i 014
8,270
6,105
8,327
6,162
8, 348
6,185
8,407
6,242
8,459
6,280
8,240
6, 065
8,300
6,142
8,136
6, 009
8,117
5,992
8,137
6,021
8,106
5,999
8,043
5,954
8,144
6,049
8,008
5,944
Pood and kindred Droducts. 1,758.9
78.1
973.7
Textile m ill products---------Apparel and other textile
products............................. 1,388.0
1,788.3
81.9
983.0
1,833.6
85.0
984.4
1,860.4
91.3
982.3
1,920.2 1,932.0
93.9
90.0
984.7
988.1
1.827.6
71.9
980.7
1,785.3
72.1
1,000.9
1.725.3
71.3
984.7
1,710.8
71.6
988.4
1,706.7
75.6
992.1
1,710.9
79.3
990.8
1,720.3
83.1
987.5
1,780.8
83.8
990.6
1,786.3
86.5
958.5
1,412.7
1,423.4
1,428.6
1,427.3
1,433.3
1,375.8
1,440.1
1,419.1
1,411.2
1,426.5
1,414.7
1,397.1
1,407.9
1,397.5
723.2
Paper and allied products..
Printing and publishing------ 1,105.1
Chemicals and allied
p ro d u c ts ........................... 1,041.4
Petroleum and coal
189.2
products............. ...............
Rubber and plastics
580.9
products, nec...................
Leather and leather
337.5
products.............................
728.0
1,109.2
724.9
1,106.3
720.6
1,100.5
722.2
1,091.6
726.8
1,091.1
719.8
1,085.4
725.0
1,085.0
707.6
1,071.1
703.5
1,077.3
707.3
1,077.0
706.2
1,073.6
703.5
1,070.1
692.5
1,063.1
679.1
1,047.8
1,049.4
1,048.1
1,046.2
1,052.2 1,064.4
1,064.5
1,060.9
1, 045.1
1,046.9
1,043.2
1,036.9
1,030.9
1,026.1
1,001.4
190.2
192.0
192.7
192.9
196.0
196.3
193.7
188.9
187.8
183.9
166.3
124.8
187.0
183.2
586.1
588.2
587.2
585.8
586.2
576.1
586.2
577.0
575.7
575.8
574.9
572.3
557.1
516.4
341.2
341.1
338.3
336.2
351.0
341.4
350.3
345.5
343.8
348.5
352.2
352.9
355.5
350.9
Miscellaneous
manufacturing...................
Nondurable goods----------------------
Production w orkers2. . .
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC
U T I L I T I E S ____ _______________
4,467
4,497
4,506
4,502
4,529
4, 533
4,528
4,512
4,431
4,403
4,346
4,303
4,288
4,313
4,261
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E .
14,660
15,645
15,090
14,847
14,702
14,660
14,662
14,717
14,517
14,398
14,201
14,097
14,189
14,081
13,606
Retail trade....................................................
3 815
10; 845
3,871
11,774
3,849
11,241
3,834
11,013
3,806
10,896
3,821
10,839
3,818
10,844
3,793
10,924
3,709
10,808
3,688
10,710
3,678
10,523
3,666
10,431
3,671
10,518
3,618
10,464
3,525
10,081
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, AN D
R E A L E S T A T E ___________ ____
3, 585
3,608
3, 599
3, 591
3,597
3,642
3,629
3,585
3,534
3,517
3,490
3,467
3,448
3,383
3,225
11,222
11,230
11,255
11,183
11,253
11,266
11,243
11,131
11,044
10,913
10,792
10,693
10,592
10,099
743.5
825.9
1,021.8 1,023.0
829.2
1,036.0
763.0
1,042.2
727.4
1,031.1
691.7
714.6
1,025. 4 1,016.6
681.2
1,012.7
669.8
1,017.6
719.4
1,031.3
695.7
1,027.8
2,893.8 2,891.0
1,053.4
951.1
2, 889. 3 2,866.6 2,816.9
967.2 1,062.5 1,158.3
2, 804. 3 2, 789. 5 2,772.1
1,159.8 1,164.7 1,157.6
2,748.2
1,127.5
2,637.7
1,065.9
2,434.3
1,008.4
11,154
Hotels and other lodging
718.8
695. 8
690 8
719 9
places.................................
Personal services_________ 1,010.1 1,019.9 1,025.4 1,028.0
Medical and other health
2 952 6 2 947.6 2,935.7 2,913.7
Fdiicatinnal services............ l ’ 181. 1 l i 174.0 1,175. 5 1,155.4
S E R V IC E S ___ __________________
G OVERNM ENT
Federal 3
State and Local
________
.....................................
.......
12,377
2,710
9 667
12,585
12,498
12,409
12, 080
11,730
11,822
12,348
12,306
12,274
12,279
12,244
12,140
11,846
11,398
2,760
9,825
2,705
9, 793
2,715
9,694
2,733
9,347
2,804
8, 926
2,841
8,981
2,832
9,516
2,740
9,566
2,747
9, 527
2,737
9,542
2,739
9,505
2,735
9,405
2,737
9,109
3,719
8,679
* For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
repair, janitorial, and watchman 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.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
3 Beginning January 1969, Federal employment includes approximately 39,000
civilian technicians of the National Guard, who were transferred from State to
Federal status in accordance with Public Law 90-486.
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.
88
14.
PAYROLL DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
(In thousands]
1970
1969
Industry division and group
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
TOTAL...... .............................. - ........... ........... ........ . ..
70,649
70,656
70,635
70,651
70,390
70,500
70,247
70,300
70,013
69,789
69,710
69,487
69,199
MINING......................................................... ..................
631
635
632
631
631
631
629
622
622
624
626
628
626
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION...........................................
3,268
3,443
3,461
3,418
3,420
3,410
3,434
3,466
3,407
3,363
3,374
3,366
3,338
MANUFACTURING______________________________
Production workers3. . ................................ .........
20,010
14,595
20,013
14,592
20,004
14,588
20,156
14, 732
20,197
14, 772
20,334
14,922
20,164
14,772
20,198
14,811
20,118
14,740
20,111
14,739
20,122
14,771
20,061
14,731
19,999
M i 684
Durable goods.................... .........................................
Production w orkers3........ ......... ................. ..
Ordnance and accessories____________ ____ _
Lumber and wood products...... ................. .........
Furniture and fixtures.......... .................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
11,693
8,455
295
590
489
660
11,745
8,494
299
590
487
664
11,740
8,492
304
591
488
664
11,932
8,674
306
589
491
662
11,965
8, 701
314
595
492
660
12,081
8,823
325
598
493
659
11,912
8,668
332
600
491
658
11,931
8,687
337
607
496
662
11,874
8,630
342
610
496
656
11,868
8,634
343
604
496
658
11,881
8,654
346
608
494
664
11,839
8; 628
346
607
494
666
11,819
8| 606
349
606
490
664
Primary metal industries___________________
Fabricated metal products________ _____ ___
Machinery, except electrical________________
Electrical equipment_______ ______ ________
Transportation equipment__________________
Instruments and related products.......................
1,361
1,464
2,022
1,956
1,949
459
1,371
1,461
2,028
1,956
1,973
468
1,378
1,456
2,012
1,958
1,983
468
1,381
1,456
2,030
2,076
2, 030
469
1,378
1,468
2,020
2,075
2,054
469
1,361
1,465
2,005
2, 076
2,183
473
1,348
1,456
2, 007
2,070
2,032
471
1,347
1,456
2,010
2,063
2,035
473
1,333
1,453
1,999
2,058
2,009
474
1,326
1,450
1,999
2,046
2,029
472
1,332
1,451
1,993
2,036
2,042
470
1,330
i; 444
1,997
2,026
2,020
468
1,321
1,437
i; 98i
,013
2,045
466
2
Miscellaneous manufacturing________________
448
438
442
440
443
447
445
444
445
445
441
447
Nondurable goods___ __________________ _____
Production w orkers3........ ....... ............. .......
Food and kindred products____ ____________
Tobacco manufactures_____________________
Textile m ill products.._____ _______________
Apparel and other textile products___________
Paper and allied products_____ ____________
8,317
6,140
1,832
79
986
1,415
729
8,268
6,098
1 ,8 0 1 ,
75
983
1,414
725
8,264
6,096
1,808
78
979
1,409
722
8,224
6, 058
1,777
78
977
1,410
720
8,232
6,071
1,791
80
979
1,412
718
8,253
6,099
1,797
83
979
1,414
718
8,252
6,104
1,787
81
988
1,423
716
8,267
6,124
1,789
81
990
1,429
717
8,244
6,110
1,793
82
987
1,426
714
8,243
6,105
1,795
81
991
1,425
710
8,241
6,117
1,793
83
995
1,417
714
8,222
6,103
1,801
82
999
1,409
713
8,180
6,078
1,792
84
1,000
1,424
709
Printing and publishing____ _____ _________
Chemicals and allied products_________ ____
Petroleum and coal products.____ __________
Rubber and plastics products, nec___________
Leather and leather products.......................... .
1,111
1,051
194
581
339
1,103
1,055
193
580
339
1,103
1,053
193
581
338
1,099
1,050
191
583
339
1,093
1,051
189
583
336
1,089
1,052
190
586
345
1,084
1,054
191
585
343
1,083
1,055
191
584
348
1,075
1,046
190
581
350
1,078
1,044
190
579
350
1,078
1,045
187
579
350
1,077
1,044
170
577
350
1,076
i ; 040
128
573
354
448
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.................
4,535
4,488
4,484
4,480
4,480
4,484
4,483
4,467
4,444
4,439
4,399
4,373
4,353
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.................................
14,890
14,775
14,836
14,809
14,716
14,702
14,671
14,665
14,609
14,533
14,508
14,468
14,412
Wholesale trade.................... ........................ .............
Retail trade______ __________________________
3,846
11,044
3,833
10,942
3,815
11,021
3,807
11,002
3,787
10,929
3, 776
10, 926
3,773
10, 898
3,774
10,891
3,758
10,851
3,737
10,796
3,726
10,782
3,714
10,754
3,701
10,711
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE..................
3,629
3,622
3,613
3,595
3, 586
3,581
3,568
3,557
3,541
3,531
3,515
3,502
3,490
SERVICES................ ............... ........................... ............ 11,370
Hotels and other lodging places_______________
788
Personal services........ ............... ........................... ._
1,020
Medical and other health se rvic e s .........................
2,967
Educational services______________ ________ _ _ 1,142
11,290
746
1,015
2,956
1,125
11,264
742
1,021
2,936
1,118
11,244
740
1,025
2,917
1,113
11,150
721
1,026
2,897
1,092
11,120
704
1,026
2,874
1,094
11,067
706
1,030
2,861
1,099
11,066
724
1,026
2,850
1,102
11,065
730
1,025
2,831
1,120
11,044
741
1,024
2,813
1,119
11,034
745
1,026
2,795
1,117
10,967
733
1,027
2,778
1,112
10,900
'733
1,028
2,762
1,090
GOVERNMENT..............................................................
12,316
12,390
12,341
12,318
12,210
12,238
12,231
12,259
12,207
12,144
12,132
12,122
12,081
2,735
9,581
2,720
9,670
2,721
9,620
2,729
9, 589
2,749
9,461
2,752
9, 486
2,777
9,454
2,790
9,469
2,754
9,453
2,758
9,386
2,759
9,373
2,767
9,355
2,760
9,321
Federal3...................................................................
State and local_____ _________ ______________
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969,
and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
3 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 See footnote 3, table 13.
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
15.
LABOR TURNOVER
89
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
average
Total accessions
1959..........................................
1960.................................. .
1961_____________________
1962..................................... ..
1963.................... .....................
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.5
4.1
3.4
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.3
3.9
5.4
4.7
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.3
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.8
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.8
3.9
3.5
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.5
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.9
1964........ ........... ............... .
1965..........................................
1966_____ _______________
1967..........................................
1968_____ ____ __________
1969.......... ...............................
3.6
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
3.4
3.5
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.7
4.0
4.9
3.9
3.9
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.6
4.8
5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
4.4
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.7
5.6
4.8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9
4.0
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
4.9
3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.6
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.9
4.0
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.6
New hires
1 9 5 9 ......... ......... ...................
1960______ ________ _____
196 1 ..____ ______________
1962............ ................. ...........
1963............ .............................
2.0
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.3
3.7
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.5
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.5
2.6
1.9
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4
1964............ ................. ...........
1965............ .............................
196 6.......... ........... .................
1967............ ............. ...............
1968................................ .........
1969........... ........................... .
2.0
2.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.0
2.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.4
2.4
2.6
3.6
2.8
3.2
3.5
2.5
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.6
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4
2.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.4
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.5
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.5
4.8
2.8
3.5
4.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.8
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.6
3.1
3.8
3.3
3.5
Total separations
1959..........................................
I9 6 0 .........................................
1961.......... ...............................
1962..........................................
1963..........................................
3.7
3.6
4.7
3.9
4.0
3.1
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.6
4.2
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.4
4.0
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.5
4.7
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.9
1964_____________________
1965..........................................
1966_____________________
1967..........................................
1968.......... .............. ..............
1969........................ .................
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.5
3.3
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.4
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.4
3.5
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.5
3.6
3.6
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.6
3.5
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.5
4.4
4.3
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.3
4.3
5.1
5.8
5.3
6.0
6.2
5.1
5.6
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.6
4.2
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.9
5.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.6
Quits
1959.......................... ...............
1960.......................... ...............
1961..........................................
1962........................................ ..
1963........................................ ..
1.1
1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
.8
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
.9
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
.7
.9
.8
.8
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1964..........................................
1965..........................................
1966_________ ____ ______
1967................................ .........
1968.................. .................... ..
1969..........................................
1.2
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.5
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.4
1.3
1.7
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.6
1.5
1.7
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.7
1.4
1.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.6
1.5
1.8
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.7
4.0
2.7
3.5
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.4
1.7
2.2
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.9
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.5
Layoffs
1959.........................................
1960..........................................
1961___________________
1962.................................
1963............ ............... .............
2.1
1.8
3.2
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.4
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1964_______ _____________
1965..........................................
1966............................ ..........
1967......................................
1968.................... ...........
1969.......................... ..........
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
.9
1.4
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
.9
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Month-to-mpnth changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac
turing 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
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employ
ment 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.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.
90
16.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
LABOR TURNOVER
Labor turnover rates 1 in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Dec.
1969
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ....
Seasonally adjusted
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------Transportation equip
ment..................
Instruments and related
products.........................
Miscellaneous manu
facturing.................
Nondurable goods.
Food and kindred
products......... ...........
Tobacco m anufactures...
Textile m ill 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, n.e.c...............
Leather and leather
products____________
Nov.
1969
Total
New hires
Total
Major industry group
Dec.
1968
Dec.
1969
Nov.
1969
Dec.
1968
Nov.
1969
Dec.
1968
Dec.
1969
Nov.
1969
Layoffs
Dec.
1968
Dec.
1969
2.1
2.8
2.2
3.7
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.8
3.8
4.2
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
3.0
2.0
2.6
2.2
3.7
3.9
3.4
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.2
2.1
.6
.7
1.6
3 .5
3.9
2.3
.9
1.2
4.2
4.6
4.1
3.9
2. 5
2 .9
3. 6
4.1
3.5
3.4
4.8
4.6
5.4
5.6
5.1
4.2
2.5
2. 5
2.8
3.6
3.2
2.1
3. 0
2.4
4. 5
4.4
4.2
1.8
2.4
2.9
3 .3
1.8
2.2
1.7
2.8
3.0
2.6
1.2
3.5
2.7
4 .0
4.6
3.9
1.9
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.3
3.5
2.7
3.7
2.3
3 .0
1.1
1.5
2.9
4.6
3.6
4.4
3.0
4.7
2.6
3.2
1.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.4
1.6
Nov.
1969
Dec.
1968
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.1
2.0
.5
3.1
3. 4
2.8
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.6
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.1
.8
.5
.7
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.1
1.4
.5
1.3
1.0
.6
.4
.8
2.3
1.3
.6
3.1
4.1
3.4
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.1
2.5
2.7
1.9
1.9
2.5
2.8
2.9
1.5
1.7
1.8
4.3
4.1
3.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
2.4
1.8
1.4
2.2
2.6
2.3
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.6
2.7
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
.7
.7
.3
2.8
4.8
3.1
2.3
4.1
2.4
9.5
7.7
10.3
2.1
2.8
2.2
6.6
3.6
7.2
4.5
4. 7
4.2
1.9
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.7
2. 5
1.8
2.3
3. 2
2. 3
3.2
4.1
3.1
2 .4
3.1
2.3
4.1
5.9
3.3
5.6
4.2
4.5
4.1
5.8
3.2
3 .0
4.3
2.5
4.1
2.9
3.6
2.9
3.4
2.5
7. 2
6 .4
4.2
7.2
7.9
4.8
6.2
5.9
3 .8
3.3
4.2
3.1
2.0
2.9
1.9
5. 1
5. 2
5.2
2.5
2.7
3.3
3.3
2.1
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.1
3.2
3.0
3.5
3. 0
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.1
2.8
2. 6
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.8
3.1
2. 3
4. 0
3 .9
1.1
3.2
5.1
.9
3.2
3.4
.8
1.9
2.5
1.9
2. 5
2. 0
2.6
3.0
2. 9
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
.9
.9
.7
.5
.6
2.2
1.9
.9
1.0
.9
.6
.6
.4
.7
.7
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.1
2.4
2.1
2.1
.7
.9
1.2
.6
.8
3.6
4.3
3. 5
2. 9
3.6
2.8
4.6
5.1
4.1
2.3
2.7
2.1
1.3
1.2
1.0
4.5
5.5
3.9
3. 2
3.9
2.9
5.0
5.4
5. 7
2.5
3.2
2.5
1.6
1.3
2.3
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec.
1969
Quits
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary. For additional detail see Employ
ment and Earnings, table D-2.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
17.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
91
Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date
Averages
Year
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Averages
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Total private
Averages
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Manufacturing
Weekly
hours
Averages
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Durable goods
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Nondurable goods
1947......................................
1948_________ _______
1949__________ ______
1950................. ...................
$45. 58
49. 00
50.24
53.13
40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
$1,131
1.225
1.275
1.335
$49.17
53.12
53. 88
58.32
40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
$1,217
1.328
1.378
1.440
$51.76
56.36
57.25
62.43
40.5
40.4
39.4
41.1
$1,278
1.395
1.453
1. 519
$46.03
49. 50
50.38
53.48
40.2
39.6
38.9
39.7
$1,145
1.250
1.295
1.347
1951........................ .............
1952......................................
1953......................................
1954__________________
1955......................................
57. 86
60.65
63.76
64. 52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
63.34
67.16
70.47
70. 49
75.70
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.65
1.74
1.78
1.86
68.48
72.63
76.63
76.19
82.19
41.5
41.5
41.2
40.1
41.3
1.65
1.75
1.86
1.90
1.99
56.88
59.95
62.57
63.18
66.63
39.5
39.7
39.6
39.0
39.9
1.44
1.51
1.58
1.62
1.67
1956......................................
1957....................................
1 9 5 8 ............................... .
1959 2_..................................
I9 6 0 ....................................
70.74
73. 33
75.08
78.78
80. 67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
78.78
81.59
82.71
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.05
2.11
2.19
2.26
85. 28
88.26
89.27
96. 05
97.44
41.0
40.3
39.5
40.7
40.1
2. 08
2.19
2. 26
2.36
2.43
70.09
72. 52
74.11
78.61
80.36
39.6
39.2
38.8
39.7
39.2
1.77
1.85
1.91
1.98
2.05
1961.............. .................... ..
1962.....................................
1963.................... .................
1964_________ _________
1965......................................
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
95.06
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2. 22
2.28
2. 36
2.45
92. 34
96.56
99. 63
102.97
107. 53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2. 32
2. 39
2. 46
2. 53
2.61
100. 35
104.70
108. 09
112.19
117.18
40.3
40.9
41.1
41.4
42.0
2.49
2.56
2.63
2.71
2. 79
82.92
85.93
87.91
90.91
94.64
39.3
39.6
39.6
39.7
40.1
2.11
2.17
2.22
2.29
2.36
1966.....................................
1967.......... ...................... .
1968.............. .................. ..
98. 82
101.84
107. 73
38.6
38.0
37.8
2.56
2. 68
2.85
112. 34
114.90
122. 51
41.3
40.6
40.7
2.72
2. 83
3.01
122. 09
123.60
132.07
42.1
41.2
41.4
2.90
3.00
3.19
98.49
102. 03
109.05
40.2
39.7
39.8
2.45
2. 57
2.74
Mining
Contract construction
Wholesale and retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
1947......................................
1 9 4 8 ..................................
1949.......................... ...........
1950......................................
$59.94
65.56
62.33
67.16
40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
$1,469
1.664
1.717
1.772
$58.87
65.27
67. 56
69.68
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
$1,541
1.713
1.792
1.863
$38.07
40.80
42.93
44. 55
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5
$0.940
1.010
1.060
1.100
$43.21
45.48
47.63
50.52
37.9
37.9
37.8
37.7
$1,140
1.200
1.260
1.340
1951......................................
1952......................................
1953....................................
1954................ ................. .
1955......................................
74.11
77.59
83. 03
82.60
89. 54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2. 01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82. 86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
47.79
49. 20
51.35
53. 33
55.16
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54.67
57.08
59.57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.70
1956................................. ..
1957.....................................
1958.....................................
1959 2...................................
1960......................................
95.06
98.65
96. 08
103. 68
105. 44
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2. 33
2. 46
2.47
2. 56
2.61
96. 38
100. 27
103.78
108.41
113. 04
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2. 57
2.71
2. 82
2.93
3.08
57. 48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66. 01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
1961....................................
1962......................................
1963._______ __________
1964.._____ ___________
1965.............................. ..
106.92
110. 43
114. 40
117.74
123. 52
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2. 81
2.92
118. 08
122. 47
127.19
132. 06
138. 38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3. 55
3.70
67.41
69.91
72.01
74. 28
76. 53
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2. 03
77.12
80.94
84. 38
85.79
88.91
36.9
37.3
37.5
37.3
37.2
2.09
2.17
2.25
2.30
2.39
1966.............. ........... ...........
1967.................................. .
1968........................... .........
130. 24
135. 89
143.05
42.7
42.6
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
146.26
154.95
164. 56
37.6
37.7
37.4
3.89
4.11
4.40
79. 02
81.76
86.40
37.1
36.5
36.0
2.13
2.24
2.40
92.13
95. 46
101.75
37.3
37.0
37.0
2.47
2. 58
2.75
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction, and to nonsupervisory workers in wholesale and
related trade, finance, insurance, and real estate; transportation and public utilities
and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employ
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Transportation and public utilities, and serv
ices are included in total private but are not shown separately in this table.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C -l.
92
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
18. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
Industry division and group
Jan.
T O T A L P R IV A T E .
M I N I N G .........................................................
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N .
37.2
42.7
35.8
Annual average
1969
1970
Dec.
37.7
43.5
37.6
Nov.
37.5
43.4
37.1
Oct.
37.7
43.4
38.4
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan
1968
1967
38.0
38.2
38.1
38.0
37.7
37.5
37.6
37.2
37.5
37.8
38.0
43.5
43.7
43.1
42.5
43.5
43.6
42.2
42.5
42.9
42.7
42.6
39.3
39.2
38.8
38.5
38.2
37.6
37.2
36.6
36.7
37.4
37.7
40.9
3.7
40.7
3.6
40.5
3.5
40.7
3.5
40.0
3.3
40.4
3.6
40.7
3.6
40.6
3.4
40.0
3.1
40.9
3.6
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.7
41.0
4.0
40.6
3.7
40.5
3.5
40.5
3.1
41.6
3.8
41.2
3.7
41.4
3.9
41.7
4.2
41.1
3.8
40.9
3.6
41.5
3.9
41.4
3.7
41.2
3.6
41.4
3.7
40.8
3.6
41.1
3.7
41.4
3.8
41.2
3.5
Ordnance and accessories—
Lumber and wood products..
Furniture and fix tu re s ..........
Stone, clay, and glass
products..............................
40.6
39.0
39.2
40.6
40.4
40.8
40.7
39.9
40.3
40.3
40.4
40.6
40.6
40.4
40.7
40.2
40.2
40.8
39.8
39.7
39.7
40.8
40.7
40.8
40.6
40.7
40.4
40.5
40.2
40.1
40.6
40.7
40.4
40.1
40.0
39.7
40.4
39.6
40.0
41.5
40.6
40.6
41.7
40.2
40.4
40.9
42.1
42.0
42.2
42.6
42.6
41.9
42.4
42.4
41.9
41.7
41.3
41.1
41.8
41.6
Primary metal industries-----Fabricated metal products—
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
supplies...............................
Transportation equ ipm e nt...
Instruments and related
products...............................
41.0
40.9
42.1
41.5
41.9
43.1
41.4
41.6
42.2
41.7
41.7
42.4
42.1
42.1
42.7
41.8
41.7
42.0
41.6
41.2
41.8
42.0
42.0
42.6
41.9
41.7
42.6
42.1
41.4
42.6
42.0
41.6
43.0
41.5
40.8
42.4
41.8
41.4
42.4
41.6
41.7
42.1
41.1
41.5
42.6
40.2
40.0
40.8
42.2
40.5
41.5
40.4
41.9
40.7
42.3
40.3
40.5
39.8
41.6
40.7
41.6
40.5
41.3
40.3
41.0
40.6
41.2
39.7
41.0
40.3
41.5
40.3
42.2
40.2
41.4
38.8
41.3
41.1
40.9
41.2
40.7
40.5
41.0
40.7
40.5
40.7
39.7
40.5
40.5
41.3
39.1
39.5
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.1
38.4
39.2
39.0
39.1
39.1
37.7
38.7
3.93
39.4
39.2
3.0
40.0
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.7
3.5
40.0
3.7
39.9
3.5
39.8
3.4
39.9
3.4
39.7
3.3
39.4
3.2
39.7
3.2
38.9
3.0
39.4
3.3
39.8
3.3
39.7
3.1
39.9
38.2
40.2
41.0
37.0
41.3
41.0
37.4
41.1
40.7
38.4
40.9
41.8
38.9
41.0
41.4
37.5
41.0
41.2
37.7
40.7
40.9
39.9
41.4
40.6
37.6
40.9
40.1
35.8
40.4
40.3
35.6
40.9
40.0
36.2
39.9
40.3
36.2
40.4
40.8
37.8
41.2
40.9
38.6
40.9
35.5
36.0
35.8
35.8
35.8
36.3
35.9
36.3
36.1
35.9
36.3
35.2
35.7
36.1
36.0
43.2
38.6
41.7
42.6
43.0
38.6
41.7
42.9
43.0
38.4
41.7
43.6
43.0
38.4
41.8
42.5
43.0
38.3
41.9
43.3
42.9
38.1
41.9
43.2
43.0
38.3
41.7
42.7
42.1
37.7
41.5
41.7
42.9
37.9
41.6
41.3
42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5
42.8
38.4
41.6
42.7
41.4
38.1
M A N U F A C T U R I N G .........................................
Overtime hours...................
Durable Goods..................
Overtime hours.
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries..............................
Overtime hours.
Food and kindred products...
Tobacco manufactures............
Textile m ill products..............
Apparel and other textile
products............................. .
Paper and allied products----Printing and publishing--------Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics prod
ucts, n e e ............................
Leather and leather products.
42.6
37.8
41.4
42.3
43.3
39.0
42.1
41.7
42.9
38.4
42.0
42.7
43.0
38.4
41.7
42.7
40.9
37.8
41.4
38.3
41.1
37.4
41.3
37.0
41.5
36.8
41.0
37.1
40.8
37.4
41.3
37.8
41.2
37.3
41.0
36.5
41.1
37.3
40.3
35.7
41.3
37.7
41.5
38.3
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E .
35.1
35.6
35.2
35.3
35.7
36.6
36.5
35.9
35.4
35.3
35.4
35.3
35.5
36.0
36.5
40.3
34.2
40.5
35.3
40.3
35.2
40.1
34.5
40.0
33.9
40.0
33.8
40.0
33.9
39.9
33.8
40.0
34.0
40.1
34.7
40.3
35.3
37. 0
37. 0
37.1
37.1
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.2
37.0
37.0
Wholesale trade.
Retail trade.............
F I N A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L
E S T A T E .................................................................
40.2
33.4
40.5
34.1
40.2
33.6
40.3
33.7
36.8
37.0
37.2
37.1
iF o r comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail, see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
19.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
93
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1970
1969
Industry division and group
Jarr.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
TOTAL PRIVATE___ _____ ______________________
37.5
37.5
37.6
37.6
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.5
37.8
MINING___ _____ _____________________________
43.1
43.5
43.8
42.9
43.2
43.2
42.6
42.0
43.4
43.8
42.8
43.3
43.3
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION..........................................
37.3
38.1
38.2
37.5
38.1
37.9
37.5
37.6
38.1
38.0
37.9
38.0
38.2
MANUFACTURING _______ ____ ______ _________
Overtime hours........................... ...............
40.2
3.2
40.6
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.8
3.7
40.6
3.7
40.7
3.6
40.7
3.6
40.7
3.6
40.8
3.7
40.9
3.7
40.1
3.5
40.6
3.8
Durable Goods.._ ___ ______________________
Overtime hours......................... .................
40.7
3.2
41.2
3.6
41.1
3.5
41.2
3.7
41.5
3.9
41.3
3.8
41.2
3.8
41.3
3.9
41.4
3.8
41.4
3.8
41.5
3.9
40.9
3.8
41.3
3 .8
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__________ .
40.2
39.4
39.8
41.6
40.9
41.3
42.2
40.3
39.9
39.0
40.1
40.6
40. 0
42.2
41.5
41.6
42.6
40.2
41.5
40.9
40.4
40.3
39.9
42.0
41.6
41.4
42.2
40.1
40.6
40.9
40.1
40.0
39.9
41.7
42.2
41.4
42.4
40.2
41.3
40.7
40.4
40.1
40.1
42.1
42.2
41.5
42.7
40.5
41.8
41.0
40.4
39.8
40.3
42. 1
42.0
41.6
42.6
40.4
41.2
40.9
40.2
39.7
40. 1
41.7
41.5
41.6
42.2
40.3
42.3
40.9
40.9
40.2
40.7
41.9
41.7
41.8
42.5
40.6
41.6
40.9
40.6
40.3
10.9
42.1
41.7
41.6
42.6
40.6
41.1
40.8
40.9
40.2
40.9
42.0
41.8
41.8
42.6
40.9
41.5
40.8
40.8
40.9
40.7
42.3
41.9
41.9
42.7
40.7
41.6
40.7
40.3
40.8
40.1
42.2
41.6
41.2
42.3
39.7
41.6
39.7
40.0
40.0
40.6
41.8
41.7
41. 8
42.5
40.4
41.4
40.7
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries______
39.6
39.3
38.9
38.8
39.0
39.0
39.1
39.2
39.1
39.5
39.0
37.6
39.2
Nondurable Goods___________________________
Overtime hours______________________
39.6
3.3
39.8
3.3
39.6
3.3
39.5
3.3
39.7
3.3
39.6
3.4
39.7
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.9
3.4
39.1
3.2
39.8
3.6
Food and kindred products______________ .
Tobacco manufactures_________ ___________
Textile m ill products.......... ....................... ...........
Apparel and other textile products.......... ........ _
40.2
39.3
40.4
36.0
40.8
36.4
40.9
36.1
40.8
37.4
40.8
35.8
40.5
37.2
40.6
35.7
41.0
37.4
40.8
35.8
40.9
37.2
40.9
35.9
40.6
38.2
41.2
36.0
40.7
39.5
41.2
36.2
40.8
38.1
41.0
36.1
40.9
36.4
41.1
36.0
40.9
36.5
40.9
36.0
40.7
36.6
39.9
35.2
40.6
37.2
40.6
36.2
Paper and allied products............................... ..
Printing and publishing____________________
Chemicals and allied products............................
Petroleum and coal products______________
Rubber and plastics products, nec_________ _
Leather and leather products........................... ..
43.2
38.3
41.7
42.8
41.1
37.7
42.9
38.6
41.9
42.2
41.0
37.7
42.7
38.4
41.9
42.7
40.8
37.4
42.7
38.3
41.7
42.6
40.9
37.3
42.8
38.3
41.6
42.0
41.0
37.1
42.8
38.4
41.9
42.8
40.9
36.8
43.0
38.5
41.9
42.9
41.2
37.0
42.9
38.4
41.8
42.2
41.3
37.4
43.0
38.4
41.8
43.0
41.4
37.6
43.4
38.3
41.6
42.9
41.4
37.7
43.2
38.3
41.7
43.2
41.4
37.6
42.5
37.9
41.7
42.6
40.7
35.3
43.5
38.4
41.9
41.8
41.5
37.6
35.4
35.4
35.5
35.5
35.7
35.8
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.6
35.7
35.7
35.?
40.3
34.2
40.3
34.3
40.0
34.2
40.0
34.2
40.1
34.3
40.2
34.1
40.1
34.3
40.1
34.2
40.1
34.4
37.1
37.0
37.0
37.2
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.2
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE______ _____ _
Wholesale Trade_________ ____ ______________
Retail trade............. ........... ........................... ............
40.3
33.8
40.3
33.8
40.2
34.0
40.3
33.9
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE..................
36.8
36.9
37.2
37.1
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August, 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary,
94
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
20.
Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1969
1970
Annual average
Industry and division group
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1968
TOTAL PRIVATE_____ ________
$3.14
$3.12
$3.12
$3.11
$3.10
$3.05
$3.04
$3.03
$3. 01
$2.98
$2.97
$2.96
$2.94
$2.85
$2.68
MINING..........................................
3.69
3.70
3.70
3.68
3.63
3.59
3.58
3.55
3.57
3.55
3.52
3.52
3.50
3.35
3.19
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION........
5.03
5.00
4.96
4.95
4.91
4.79
4.74
4.71
4.71
4.64
4.62
4.56
4.58
4.40
4.11
MANUFACTURING.............. ...........
3.29
3.29
3.26
3.24
3.24
3.19
3.19
3.17
3.16
3.15
3.13
3.12
3.12
3.01
2.83
Durable Goods----- ----------------
3.48
3.49
3.45
3.44
3.44
3.39
3.37
3.36
3.35
3.33
3.32
3.31
3.31
3.19
3.00
3.57
3.53
3.55
3.50
3.49
3.46
3.44
3.45
3.42
3.41
3.38
3.38
3.36
3.27
3.18
2.71
2.62
2.68
2.60
2.64
2.58
2.65
2.56
2.61
2. 54
2.59
2.54
2.57
2.47
2.37
2.33
Ordnance and acces
sories___ _____________
Lumber and wood
products-----------------------Furniture and fixtures-------Stone, clay, and glass
products......... ...................
Primary metal indus
tries____ ____________
Fabricated metal
products.......... - ...............
Machinery, except
electrical----------------------Electrical equipment and
supplies.............................
Transportation equip
ment___________ ______
Instruments and related
products....................... — -
1967
2 83
2.70
2.83
2.70
2.84
2.70
2.82
2.68
2.83
2.68
2.78
2.64
2.74
2.62
3.27
3.28
3.28
3.26
3.25
3.21
3.18
3.17
3.17
3.14
3.10
3.06
3.05
2.99
2.82
3.86
3.87
3.85
3.85
3.87
3.84
3.79
3.76
3.75
3.74
3.71
3.69
3.70
3.55
3.34
3.28
3.26
3.26
3.16
2.98
3.52
3.51
3.48
3.36
3.19
3.44
3.43
3.40
3.39
3.39
3.33
3.32
3.33
3.31
3.29
3.69
3.72
3.67
3.67
3.63
3.57
3. 55
3.56
3.56
3.54
3.18
3.17
3.12
3.13
3.13
3.09
3.09
3.08
3.07
3. 05
3.04
3.04
3.04
2.93
2.77
3.93
3.91
3.86
3.83
3.84
3.82
3.83
3.86
3.69
3.44
3.16
3.14
3.15
3.13
3.11
3.10
3.10
3.08
2.98
2.85
4.02
3.23
4.05
3.26
3.98
3.24
3.96
3.95
3.22
3.20
Miscellaneous manufac
turing in d u s trie s ..-.........
2.78
2.76
2.71
2.68
2.67
2.64
2.64
2.65
2.64
2.62
2.61
2.61
2.60
2.50
2.35
Nondurable Goods-----------------
3.01
2.99
2.97
2.96
2.95
2.92
2.92
2.89
2.88
2.87
2.85
2.84
2.83
2.74
2.57
3.05
2.91
2.42
3.03
2.69
2.42
3.00
2.64
2.42
2.97
2.52
2.41
2.96
2.54
2.41
2.93
2.52
2. 39
2.97
2.77
2.35
2.94
2.79
2.31
2.95
2.74
2.30
2.94
2.68
2. 30
2.93
2.66
2.29
2.91
2.63
2.27
2.91
2.57
2.28
2.80
2.49
2.21
2.64
2.27
2.06
2.36
2.35
2.35
2. 34
2.35
2.31
2.29
2.30
2.29
2.28
2.29
2.27
2.28
2.21
2.03
3 34
3.82
3.33
3.81
3.32
3.78
3.31
3.77
3.31
3.75
3.28
3.70
3.26
3.68
3.22
3.68
3.19
3. 66
3.17
3.64
3.15
3.63
3.14
3.61
3.15
3.59
3.05
3.48
2.87
3.28
3.59
3.57
3.56
3.54
3.52
3.49
3.49
3.46
3.43
3.40
3.38
3.37
3.37
3.26
3.10
4.06
4.04
4.00
4.04
4. 00
4.03
4. 03
3.95
3.87
3.69
3.75
3.58
3. 05
3.04
3.02
3.00
3.01
3.02
2.92
2.74
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.34
2.33
2.32
2.23
2.07
2.52
2.51
2.51
2.49
2.40
2.24
Food and kindred
products______________
Textile m ill products............
Apparel and other tex
tile 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______________
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
Wholesale trade
Retail trade_______________
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE_____________
4.25
4.10
4.11
3.16
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.09
3.09
2.45
2.44
2.42
2.40
2.38
2.35
2.34
2.65
2.61
2.63
2.61
2.59
2.56
2.55
2.55
2.54
3.36
2.37
3.34
2.34
3.33
2.36
3.29
2.35
3.29
2.33
3.24
2. 30
3.23
2.30
3.24
2.30
3.20
2.29
3.18
2.27
3.16
2.26
3.16
2.26
3.12
2.24
3.05
2.16
2.88
2.01
3.01
2.97
2.98
2.94
2.93
2.92
2.91
2.93
2.90
2.88
2.89
2.90
2.87
2.75
2.58
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
21.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
95
Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1970
1969
Annual average
Industry division and group
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
TOTAL PRIVATE...........................
$116.81
$117.62
$117.00
$116.51
$115.82
MINING...................................... .
157.56
160.95
160.58
159.71
157.91
156. 88
154.30
150.88
155.30
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION..........
180.07
188.00
184. 02
190.08
192.96
187.77
183.91
181.34
MANUFACTURING...................
131.60
134. 56
132. 36
131.87
132.84
129.51
129.20
Durable goods..........................
140.94
145.18
142.14
142.42
143.45
139.33
Ordnance and
accessories.........................
Lumber and wood
products............. ...............
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products............. ........... _
144.94
143.32
144.49
141.05
141.69
110.37
105. 84
114.33
110.16
113.32
108.81
113.93
108. 81
114.33
109. 08
Primary metal in d u strie s...
Fabricated metal
products....... ................... .
Machinery, except
electrical........................ ..
Electrical equipment
and supplies.............. ........
Transportation
equipment............... .........
Instruments and related
products............................
Miscellaneous manufac
turing industries_______
Nondurable goods....................
Food and kindred
products........................ ...
Tobacco manufactures.........
Textile m ill 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, n e c_..............
Leather and leather
products....... ............. .. .
$117.25 $117.80
$115.14 $113.48
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1968
1967
$111.75 $111.67
$110.11
154.78
148.54
149.60
150.15
143.05
179.92
174.46
171.86
166.90
168.09
164.56
154.95
129.65
128.61
127.58
127.39
124.80
126.05
122.51
114.90
137.83
139.44
138.69
137.20
137.45
135.05
136.04
132.07
123.60
139.09
136.91
140.76
138.85
138.11
137.23
135.54
135.74
135.71
132.61
111.76
107.71
108.78
104. 01
110.30
106.90
109.08
105. 04
106.13
103.46
107.86
103.42
104.40
100. 84
102.56
101.60
104.34
100.28
95.27
94.13
$110.25 $107.73
$101.84
135.89
133.74
138.09
137. 76
137.57
138. 45
136.75
133.24
134.41
134.41
131. 57
129.27
126.38
125.36
124.98
117.31
158.26
160.61
159.39
160.55
162.93
160. 51
157.66
157.92
157.13
157.45
155.82
153.14
154.66
147.68
137.27
140.70
143.72
141.44
141.36
142.72
138. 86
136.78
139.86
138.03
136.21
136.45
133.01
134.96
131.77
123.67
155.35
160.33
154. 87
155.61
155. 00
149.94
148.39
151.66
151.66
150.80
151.36
148.82
147.55
141.46
135.89
127. 84
129.34
126.36
126.45
127. 39
124.53
122.98
125.36
124.34
122.92
123.42
120.69
122.51
118.08
111.35
160.80
170.91
165.17
165.92
167.09
159.17
162.66
160.58
158.18
157.44
157.38
157.03
160.19
155.72
142.42
125.32
134.64
133.16
131.70
131.84
128.61
127.17
129.15
127.39
125.96
126.17
123.07
124.74
120.69
117.71
108.70
109.02
106.50
105.32
104.66
103.22
101.38
103.88
102.96
102.44
102.05
98.40
100.62
98.25
92.59
117.99
119.60
118.21
117.51
118.00
116.51
116.22
115.31
114.34
113.08
113.15
110.48
111.50
109.05
102.03
123.73
98.81
98. 81
121.30
94.50
97. 99
122.36
104.43
95.65
120.25
111.32
95.63
119.77
103.02
94. 07
117.89
95.94
92.92
118.08
94.70
93.66
116.40
95.21
90.57
117.27
93.03
92.11
114.24
94.12
91.05
107.98
87.62
84.25
121.70
111.16
97.28
124.23
99.53
99.95
123.00
98. 74
99. 46
120.88
96.77
98. 57
83.78
84.60
84.13
83.77
84.13
83.85
82.21
83.49
82.67
81.85
83.13
79.90
81.40
79.78
73.08
142.28
144.40
144.19
148. 59
142.43
145.15
142.33
144. 77
142.99
144.75
141.04
142.82
140.18
141.31
138. 46
141.31
137.17
140.18
135.99
138.68
135.45
139.03
132.19
136.10
135.14
136.06
130 85
133.28
122.84
125.95
148.63
150.30
149. 52
147.62
146.78
145. 53
145. 53
144.63
143.72
142.46
140.95
139.86
140.19
136.27
128.96
179.78
170.97
175.50
173. 36
172.10
171.60
176.14
170. 00
174.50
174.10
168.67
161.38
152.40
159.38
152.87
129.24
129.58
128.64
129.27
129.90
126.69
126. 07
125.97
125.25
123.82
123.30
121.30
124.73
121.18
113.44
92.61
93.45
90.51
88.80
87. 58
87.19
87. 52
88. 83
87. 66
85.78
87.28
83.18
87.46
85.41
78.87
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
93.02
92.92
92. 58
92.13
92.46
93. 70
93. 08
91.55
89. 92
88.96
88.85
88.60
88.40
86.40
81.76
Wholesale trade____________
Retail trade...... ................... .
135.07
79.16
135.27
79. 79
133.87
79.30
132. 59
79.20
132. 59
79.69
131.22
81.19
130.17
80.96
129.92
79.35
128. 00
77.63
127.20
76.73
126.40
76.61
126.08
76.39
124.80
76.16
122.31
74.95
116.06
70.95
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE......................................
110.77
109. 89
110.86
109. 07
108.41
108.04
107.96
108.70
107.30
106. 85
107. 22
107.59
106.76
101.75
95.46
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
96
22.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural
payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date
Total private
Manufacturing
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with 3
dependents
Worker with no
dependents
Year and month
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Worker with no
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Worker with 3
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
1960..................
1961.
...........
1962.
...........
1963____ ____
1 9 6 4 ...............
$80.67
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84. 49
$65.95
67.08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
$63.62
64.38
66.00
66. 59
69.42
$72.96
74. 48
76.99
78. 56
82. 57
$70.77
71.48
73.05
73.63
76.38
$89. 72
92.34
96. 56
99. 63
102.97
$87.02
88.62
91.61
93.37
95.25
$72.57
74.60
77.86
79.82
84.40
$70.39
71.59
73.87
74.81
78. 08
$80.11
82.18
85.53
87. 58
92.18
$77.70
78.87
81.15
82.08
85.27
1965
1966
1967
1968
.............
....... ..
...........
_____
95. 06
98. 82
101.84
107.73
86. 50
87.37
87.57
88. 89
78.99
81.29
83.38
86.71
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
86. 30
88.66
90.86
95.28
78.53
78.39
78.13
78.61
107. 53
112.34
114.90
122. 51
97.84
99.33
98.80
101. 08
89.08
91.57
93.28
97.70
81.06
80.96
80.21
80.61
96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75
88.06
87.93
87. 07
88.08
1968:
December.
100. 38
89.23
88.29
71.37
97.22
78.59
127.82
103.33
101.17
81.79
110.65
89.45
110.25
110.11
111.67
111.75
113. 48
115.14
115. 82
116.51
117.80
117.25
117.00
117.25
88.84
88.37
88.91
88.41
89. 50
90.24
90.34
90. 53
91.11
90. 33
89.66
89.30
87.76
87.65
88. 80
88.86
90.13
91.35
91.85
92.35
93.30
92.89
92.71
92. 89
70.72
70.35
70.70
70.30
71.08
71.59
71.65
71.76
72.16
71.56
71.04
70.75
96. 68
96. 57
97.76
97.82
99.13
100. 40
100.92
101.45
102. 44
102. 01
101.82
102.01
77.90
77. 50
77.83
77.39
78.18
78. 68
78. 72
78.83
79.23
78. 59
78. 02
77.69
126. 05
124. 80
127.39
127. 58
128. 61
129. 65
129.20
129. 51
132. 84
131.87
132. 36
134. 89
101.57
100.16
101.43
100.93
101.43
101.61
100.78
100. 63
102.74
101.59
101.43
102.73
99.36
98. 44
100.34
100. 48
101.24
102. 00
101.67
101.90
104.34
103.63
103.99
105. 85
80. 06
79. 00
79.89
79.49
79.84
79.94
79.31
79.18
80.70
79. 84
79.69
80.62
108.78
107. 82
109.81
109.95
110.74
111.54
111.20
111.44
114.01
113.25
113.63
115.61
87.66
86. 53
87.43
86.99
87.33
87.41
86.74
86. 59
88.17
87.25
87.07
88.05
196 9 :
J a n u a ry ...
February..
March____
A p ril........ ..
May_____
June...........
J u ly ...........
August___
September.
O cto b e r...
November.
December.
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as
published in table 21 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, spend
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur
chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in ‘ ‘The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note
on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor
Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: Data for the most recent month are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
23.
97
Consumer Price Index—general summary
[The official name of the index is, “ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.” It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased
by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban placeshaving
populations of more than 2500.]
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
1969
1970
Annual average
Item and group
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
1968
All items_____________________
All items (1947-49= 100)___ ______
131.8
161.7
131.3
161.1
130.5
160.1
129.8
159.3
129.3
158.6
128.7
157.9
128.2
157.3
127.6
156.6
126.8
155.6
126.4
155.0
125.6
154.1
124.6
152.9
124.1
152.3
127.7
156.7
121.2
148.7
Food_______________________
Food at home____________
Food away from home____
130.7
126.6
150.6
129.9
125.8
149.9
128.1
123.8
149.0
127.2
122.9
148.1
127.5
123.6
146.7
127.4
123.6
145.8
126.7
123.0
144.8
125.5
121.8
143.7
123.7
119.8
142.8
123.2
119.3
142.2
122.4
118.5
141.3
121.9
118.1
140.7
122.0
118.3
140.3
125.5
121.5
144.6
119.3
115.9
136.3
Housing_____________________
Rent_____________ ___ . .
Homeownership______ _ _
131.1
121.3
146.8
130.5
121.0
145.4
129.8
120.5
144.5
129.2
120.1
143.6
128.6
119.7
142.6
127.8
119.3
141.3
127.0
118.8
140.0
126.3
118.5
138.7
125.8
118.1
138.0
125.3
117.8
137.1
124.4
117.5
135.7
123.3
117.2
133.6
122.7
116.9
132.7
126.7
118.8
139.4
119.1
115.1
127.0
Apparel and u pke ep... ______
T ranspo rtation ______________
Health and recreation_________
Medical care_____________
129.3
127.3
140.1
159.0
130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1
130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4
129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9
128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6
126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8
126.8
124.3
137.0
155.9
127.0
124.6
136.3
155.2
126.6
124.0
135.7
154.5
125.6
124.6
135.1
153.6
124.9
124.3
134.3
152.5
123.9
122.0
133.7
151.3
123.4
120.7
133.3
150.2
127.1
124.2
136.6
155.0
120.1
119.6
130.0
145.0
Special groups:
A ll items less s h e lte r..
A ll items less food . . .
___
All items less medical c a re ...
129.8
132.3
130.1
129.5
131.9
129.7
128.6
131.4
128.9
128.1
130.8
128.2
127.6
130.0
127.6
127.1
129.3
127.0
126.7
128.8
126.5
126.3
128.4
126.0
125.4
127.9
125.2
125.0
127.5
124.7
124.4
126.8
124.0
123.5
125.6
123.0
123.1
124.9
122.5
126.3
128.6
126.1
120.6
121.9
119.7
Commodities_____ . .
Nondurables_____ . .
_
D u ra b le s... _____ _____
Services_____ . _______ . .
123.7
127.8
113.7
149.6
123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3
122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2
122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5
121.7
125.8
111.6
146.0
121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0
121.0
124.7
111.9
144.0
120.5
124.1
111.7
143.3
119.6
123.0
111.3
142.7
119.3
122.5
111.4
142.0
118.7
121.8
111.1
140.9
117.8
121.1
109.7
139.7
117.4
121.0
108.6
139.0
120.5
124.1
111.6
143.7
115.3
118.4
107.5
134.3
Commodities less food_____
Nondurables less food____
Apparel commodities___
Apparel commodities
less footwear______
Nondurables less food
and apparel_________
Household durables______
Housefurnishings___
120.1
125.2
128.6
120.3
125.7
130.3
120.2
125.5
130.4
119.8
125.1
129.3
118.7
124.4
128.1
118.2
123.3
125.9
118.1
123.1
126.2
118.0
123.0
126.4
117.5
122.4
126.0
117.2
121.9
124.9
116.8
121.4
124.3
115.7
120.5
123.1
115.0
120.1
122.6
118.0
123.0
126.5
113.2
117.7
119.3
125.5
127.5
127.7
126.6
125.3
122.8
123.5
123.7
123.4
122.2
121.6
120.5
119.9
123.7
116.8
123.2
106.6
110.5
123.0
106.5
110.6
122.6
106.5
110.4
122.6
106.4
110.2
122.2
106.2
109.9
121.7
106.0
109.4
121.3
106.0
109.3
121.0
105.8
109.0
120.3
105.6
108.8
120.2
105.0
108.3
119.7
104.4
107.8
118.9
103.7
107.1
118.6
103. 3
106.6
121.0
105.5
109.0
116.8
101.4
104.7
Service less rent_____________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services___
Medical care services.. . . .
Other services___________
155.8
153.2
152.9
173.8
149.4
154.3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9
153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2
152.3
150.4
145.1
171.2
147.6
151.7
149.5
144.0
172.2
147.2
150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5
149.6
146.9
142.5
170.1
145.7
148.8
145.7
142.3
169.1
145.2
148.1
145.0
141.8
168.2
144.7
147.4
144.2
141.4
167.2
144.2
146.1
142.5
140.9
165.8
143.2
144.6
140.6
139.8
164.3
142.7
143.9
139.8
139.2
162.8
142.3
149.2
146.4
142.9
168.9
145.5
138.6
134.5
133.5
156.3
138.8
24.
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
Other
index
bases
Item or group
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
126.7
125.5
123.7
123.2
122.4
121.9
122.0
125.5
144.8
145.1
125.1
143.7
144.0
124.4
142.8
143.0
124.1
142.2
142.3
123.7
141.3
141.4
123.0
140.7
140.8
122.4
140.3
140.4
122.2
144.6
144.9
125.4
123.6
122.6
111.4
124.7
129.4
112.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
112.8
123.0
122.6
111.6
123.3
129.0
112.3
128.2
120.9
100.9
113.6
113.4
121.8
122.0
112.1
122.1
129.0
112.1
127.2
119.6
100.1
114.1
113.2
119.8
121.6
112.2
119.3
127.9
112.0
127.1
119.6
100.9
113.9
111.9
119.3
121.3
111.7
117.9
128.4
111.7
127.2
119.5
101.1
112.3
112.1
118.5
121.2
111.5
117.8
129.3
111.6
127.4
119.2
100.8
111.1
111.8
118.1
120.8
111.7
117.6
129.4
111.6
126.8
118.5
99.5
111.3
111.5
118.3
120.5
110.4
117.6
129.6
111.2
126.6
117.1
101.1
110.5
111. 1
121.5
122.4
111. 5
122.3
129.2
112.3
128.1
120.5
100.6
113.7
113.1
127.9
131.9
135.4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146.5
128.7
140.5
116.8
162.1
127.6
131.7
136.8
132.5
131.1
135.5
125.0
150.1
131.0
140.0
115.4
161.1
125.3
129.5
134.6
131.0
129.6
133.0
123.0
147.1
127.9
137.9
112.1
159.8
119.9
123.4
127.9
124.1
120.7
125.2
117.2
138.1
121.5
131.4
109.6
154.2
118.4
121.2
125.1
121.4
117.2
121.6
115.4
133.6
119.2
128.3
110.1
150.6
116.5
119.1
121.4
116.8
113.5
118.5
112.3
129.3
114.3
125.0
107.7
147.7
116.2
119.0
121.3
117.0
113.8
118.6
111.9
130.8
114.0
124.4
108.1
146.1
115.6
118.6
121.1
116.8
114.7
119.4
111. 5
132.5
113.1
124.0
106.4
145. 0
123.2
126.8
129.5
124. 4
121.7
126.4
118. 4
139.7
122.3
134.0
113.2
156. 4
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
FOOD-.............. .......... .........................................
130.7
129.9
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
Food away from home____________________
Restaurant meals.......................................
Snacks.................................... ...................
150.6
150.7
131.4
149.9
150.2
129.9
149.0
149.3
129.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
146.7
147.2
126.2
145.8
146.2
125.6
126.6
125.5
111.9
127.8
130.2
113.8
132.2
124.4
101.3
118.1
116.3
125.8
124.9
110.9
127.9
130.0
113.4
131.1
124.1
100.9
118.0
115.8
123.8
124.1
111.2
127.2
129.7
113.0
129.7
123.4
99.8
117.1
115.1
122.9
123.7
111.6
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
123.6
123.0
111.2
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.6
101.0
113.2
113.2
128.8
132.9
132.2
126.2
121.4
126.6
120.7
141.6
122.1
138.7
118.7
164.0
127.2
131.3
130.6
123.2
119.0
123.9
118.8
140.5
123.2
137.8
118.6
162.0
127.2
131.1
131.5
125.2
121.1
125.9
119.5
140.9
122.7
138.4
117.9
162.1
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
121.1
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
122.1
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8
Food at home______________________ _____
Cereals and bakery products___ ____________
F lo u r......................................................
Cracker meal_____________________
Corn flakes.... .........................................
Rice____ ________________________
Bread, w hite...........................................
Bread, whole wheat..............................
C ookies..................................................
Layer cake_______________________
Cinnamon ro lls ........................... ...........
Meats, poultry, and fish_____________ ____
Meats.......................................................
Beef and veal.......................... ...........
Steak, round...................................
Steak, sirloin______________ .
Steak, porterh ouse............. .........
Rump roast......................................
Rib roast...................... ...................
Chuck roast...................................
H a m b u rg e r...................................
Beef liv e r ........................................
Veal cutlets......................... ...........
374-744 0 - 7 0 -
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-7
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Annual
average
1969
1969
1970
98
24.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Other
A nnual
average
1969
1969
1970
Index or (roup
bases
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
6
136 9
143 7
14617
1.36 9
137 7
136.7
133.3
135.7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1
132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4
132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9
133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
121.8
135.5
135.6
130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7
129.0
136.4
141.9
143.6
114.2
130.9
126.8
126.1
134.8
139.7
137.2
114.2
124.8
124.1
118.8
122.4
129.8
130.0
111.1
121.5
118.4
117.5
122.0
128.1
127.4
108.0
121.1
117.3
116.4
121.0
126.6
125.7
113.1
118.3
114.3
116.6
121.9
127.8
125. 5
112.4
118.4
113.6
115.7
120.1
126.2
124. 5
114. 5
117.9
112.6
125.2
129.6
13b. 8
137.8
117.1
127.5
124.3
63
63
63
63
135 3
140 9
134 2
134 8
137.2
128.0
130.1
134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9
133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8
133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9
132.6
139.7
135.4
122.6
136.2
127.0
128.0
131.2
139.3
133.7
120.6
134.5
126.0
126.3
128.8
140.9
129.4
115.6
132.0
123.7
125.0
127.2
139.1
127.6
117.6
128.8
121.5
122.2
124.0
136.2
122.2
116.6
123.7
118.6
120.6
122.2
133.7
120.4
115.3
122.4
116.6
118.8
122.0
132.4
119.2
117.2
121.8
116.6
118.3
121.4
131.9
118.5
115.0
121.8
116.7
118.4
121.2
130.6
118.1
1lb. 4
121.5
116.8
117. 5
127.7
137.0
12 .4
120.0
129.3
122.1
123.7
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
99 5
99 4
110.1
114.4
97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3
99.1
99.5
110.8
110.0
98.2
98.6
112.0
107.2
102.0
103.8
113.8
105.9
101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7
100.4
103.1
109.4
101.8
97.3
99.2
107.6
101.1
93.3
94.7
104.4
98.7
95.3
97.9
106.7
93.4
94.2
95. 5
105.3
99.7
92.3
93.0
103.9
100.5
90.8
90.9
103.6
100. 4
96.9
98.1
108.4
102.8
137 0
125.4
145.2
120. 5
126.0
135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4
134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0
133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9
132.2
121.0
138.6
114.9
124.2
131.5
120.8
137.2
114.4
123.5
130.6
119.7
134.5
113.6
124.4
129.8
118.3
133.1
113.8
124.0
129.5
118.2
132.0
114.0
123.7
128.4
116.8
130.2
113.1
123.7
127.7
116. 5
128.6
112.4
123.5
127.7
115.6
128.3
113. 3
123.9
127.0
114. 5
128.1
112.4
123.6
130.6
119.3
134. b
114.4
124.2
128 4
126.1
132.7
127.4
126.4
127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0
126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3
125.8
122.8
130.1
124.3
123.8
125.5
122.8
129.4
124.8
124.1
125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1
124.4
121.7
128.0
122.9
123.9
124.0
121.3
127.6
122.3
124.0
123.6
120.7
127.3
121.7
123.8
122.9
120.5
126.8
121.5
122.9
123.0
120.7
127.0
121.4
122.4
122.8
120.3
126.7
121.1
121.8
122.7
120.5
126.4
120.3
121.7
124.5
121.8
128.4
123.0
123.5
Icecream ..............................................
Cheese, American process.............. ..
B u tte r.................................................
102.1
153.1
119.9
102.0
152.4
119.6
100.7
151.0
119.4
99.9
149.9
119.9
100.1
148.9
118.3
99.5
148.5
118.0
99.0
147.7
118.0
99.8
146.6
117.8
98.8
146.1
117.9
97.0
143.6
117.4
98.9
142. 5
117. 4
99.4
142.7
117. 6
99.4
142.1
117.8
99.5
146. 8
118.3
Fruits and vegetables.......... ......... .................
Fresh fruits and vegetables..................
Apples......................... .......................
Bananas .................................... ........
O ranges.............................. ...............
Orange juice, fresh............ ........... ..
130.9
141.9
134.0
94 5
121.5
90.5
132.1
144.1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5
127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8
124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0
126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1
130.2
141.0
190.5
97.4
132.7
92.0
132.3
145.0
192.9
97.7
127.9
91.4
130.8
142.4
185.3
94.5
125.4
91.8
130.0
140.9
171.4
96.3
126.2
91.2
127.9
137.6
167.4
91.7
126.4
91.7
127.6
137.2
164. /
91.4
126.9
90.2
124.7
132.3
160.1
94. 7
126.6
88. 0
127.0
136.4
156. U
92.9
127.1
87.4
128.4
138.1
162.5
95. 3
128.4
90.9
143.7
(i)
(i)
0)
142.0
( ')
(i)
(O
144.1
154.3
<l>
<‘>
184.0
144.0
O)
( ')
205.9
137.8
(O
( ')
194.6
147.4
( ')
116.1
156.6
188.3
0)
119.6
143.5
(O
126.8
159.9
137.3
O)
121.5
( ')
134.5
(*)
147.5
0)
134.3
( l)
0)
( ')
141.6
(O
O)
(0
143.1
<‘ >
( ')
( ')
155.1
154.4
131.9
131.9
144.3
140.5
141.6
188.7
139.2
142.0
136.4
( ')
173.4
146.6
140.1
133.2
(>)
150.6
127.1
137.6
134.2
«
145.9
129.6
144.5
139.0
(*)
135.6
128.3
159.0
152.2
<*>
138.3
139.6
165.2
141. 5
129.6
145.7
129.5
154.5
135.0
121.1
155.6
119.8
143.8
130.5
118.9
152.6
109.7
141.2
124.3
152.2
148.8
114.0
139.1
123.6
171. 5
149.7
113.0
136.4
128.2
( ')
153. 8
114.3
133.7
131.5
( ')
174.3
114.2
144.8
134.1
138.7
152.0
123.8
140.5
203.4
137.6
231.2
120.3
168.1
132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
121.8
177.5
131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7
115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
119.0
120.1
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2
130.2
122.5
124.2
146.4
117.2
116.3
151.8
123.0
126.8
165.6
118.8
131.0
139.2
124.6
120.2
180.7
111.1
158.0
134.3
161.1
149.3
188.0
109.6
173.8
113.2
161.9
166.1
163.7
113.4
118.7
110.6
145. 3
156. U
192.9
110.0
144. 3
111.6
171. 5
115.3
192.1
110.3
133.2
117.7
237.8
143.9
167.2
110.2
135.9
125.6
148.1
144. 4
172.4
114.8
138.1
117.1
105.3
106.0
103.0
96.4
117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4
116.8
105.4
106.9
102.6
97.2
116.6
105.6
107.6
102.2
98.2
116.9
106.6
108.2
101.8
99.4
116.7
106.3
108.8
101.0
100.0
116.4
107.1
108.6
100.4
100.4
116.3
106.3
108.9
99.9
101.0
116.3
106.0
109.0
99.1
103.7
115.9
106.5
109.4
99.6
102.1
115.8
106.6
110.1
99. 4
99.5
115.3
106.9
no. i
98.7
94. 8
115.3
107.2
110.9
98.4
92.6
116.3
106.4
108.7
100.5
98.9
95.1
113.9
122.4
126.7
123.1
110.8
94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
109.6
94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
108.0
93.8
112.8
122.9
124.8
124.3
106.7
93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
107.5
92.5
112.8
122.7
124.6
125.0
106.7
90.6
113.3
121.7
124. 5
124.7
105.4
92.3
112.7
121.0
124.1
124.9
104.9
92.5
113.4
121.1
123.8
125.4
103.2
92.3
113.1
121.3
123.6
124.6
101.1
91.4
113. 5
120.6
124.3
124.8
101.3
91.2
113.2
120.1
124.9
125.3
100.7
90.7
113.3
120.7
125.7
124.9
101.2
92.5
113.2
121.7
124.7
124.7
104.7
117.7
143.0
116.6
140.6
112.9
122.3
111.0
114.5
110.5
113.8
110.5
114.4
107.2
9b. b
106.6
92.5
107.1
97.4
109.0
109.8
108.5
108.5
109.4
116.2
109.8
119.8
109.9
112.1
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
105.6
102.5
126.2
105.0
102.6
124.8
103.7
102.5
123.9
102.7
102.8
123.0
102.2
102.3
123.6
102.4
102.3
123.6
103.1
102.4
123.5
103.5
103.4
123.3
102.8
103.2
122.7
102.6
102.9
122.3
103.0
102.6
122.8
102.3
102.3
123.5
102.6
101.6
123.2
103.0
102.6
123.4
Dec. 63
128.1
116.7
129.7
127.1
108.1
127.5
116.2
128.7
127.4
107.1
126.6
116.2
126.5
126.6
106.9
126.4
116.3
125.6
126.7
106.8
126.0
116.4
124.7
126.5
106.5
125.4
116.5
123.9
125.1
106.5
125.3
116.2
123.9
124.9
106.4
125.2
115.6
124.1
124.8
106.5
124.7
115.0
123.1
124.5
106.4
124.4
114.4
122.5
124.5
106.3
123.8
114.1
122.4
123.7
105.4
123.1
113.5
121 6
123.1
104.7
122.7
125.1
113.5
115.3
124.1
P I. 6
123. 0 125.1
103.7 1 106.1
'00D— Continued
Meats, poultry, and fish— Continued
Meats— Co ntinued
Pork
.......... .....................................
Chops................................... ...........
Loin roast.....................................
Pork sausage_________ ________
Ham, whole.....................................
Picnics..............................................
B a c o n ...........................................
Other meats.........................................
Lamb chops......... ...........................
Frankfurters...... ................. ...........
Ham, c a n n e d ................................
Salami sausage................... ...........
Liverw urst............. .........................
Poultry.....................................................
Frying chicken........................ ...........
Chicken breasts...................... ...........
Turkey.................................. ...............
Fish
_____________________
Shrimp, fro z e n ..................................
Fish, fresh or frozen.........................
Tuna, fish, canned.............................
Sardines, canned................ ...............
Dairy products....... .........................................
Miík, fresh, grocery....................... .......
Milk, fresh, d e liv e re d ..........................
Milk, fresh, skim . ................................
M ilk, evaporated....................................
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Grapefruit............................................
Grapes........ ................................... ..
Strawberries.............. .........................
W a te rm e lo n .....................................
Potatoes...............................................
Onions........ ....................... ....... .........
Asparagus...........................................
Cabbage......... ......................... ............
Carrots................................... .............
Celery...................................................
Cucumbers..........................................
Lettuce............... .................................
Peppers, green...................................
Spinach............ ...................................
Tomatoes--------------------------------- Processed fruits and vegetables..........................
Fruit cocktail, canned______________
Pears, canned____________________
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, c a n n e d ...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen.........
Lemonade concentrate, frozen.............
Beets, c a n n e d ............................... ..
Peas, green, canned...........................
Tomatoes, canned____________ ____
Dried beans......... ...................................
Broccoli, frozen......................................
Other food at homo...............................................
Eggs........ ....................................................
Fats and oils:
M a rg a rin e ...____ ___ _____ ______
Salad dressing, Italia n......................
Salad or cookTiig o il____ ____ _____
Sugar and sweets.......................................
Sugar.......................................................
Grape j e lly . . ........................................
Chocolate bar................ ......................
Syrup, chocolate flavored....................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
1
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
99
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Item or group
Other
index
bases
Annual
average
1969
1970
1969
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb .
Ja n .
Dec. 63
109.1
94.9
109.6
103.1
159.3
125.5
107.4
92.3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8
106.1
90.0
106.0
102.2
158.7
124.7
104.3
87.0
104.2
102.1
158.0
124.5
103.7
86.6
103.8
102.0
156.8
123.4
103.8
86.7
103.9
102.2
156.6
123.1
103.3
86.3
103.6
102.0
155.3
122.7
103.4
86.8
103.7
102.0
155.1
121.9
102.7
86.6
103.0
100.8
153.8
120.4
102.6
86.8
102.1
101.0
153.8
119.8
102.5
87.0
101.2
101.6
152.8
119.3
102.2
87.0
99.7
101.5
152.4
119.1
102.3
87.2
99.7
101.8
152.1
119.2
103.7
87.5
103.2
101.8
155.3
121.9
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
108.5
109.7
100.8
120.8
108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4
107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8
107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9
106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2
106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3
106.2
105.1
98.0
117.0
105.9
105.1
97.8
116.4
106.0
105.2
98.2
116.2
105.8
104.5
97.5
116.0
105.1
103.5
96.7
115.7
104.5
102.4
96.2
115.1
104.3
101.2
96.5
114.6
106.2
105.0
98.0
117.1
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
109.7
92.7
112.1
115.6
107.1
109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5
110.0
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0
109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
108.9
92.7
112.7
112.6
107.6
108.5
92.5
112.1
112.0
107.6
108.1
91.8
111.7
107.7
90.8
110.7
111.8
107.0
107.7
90.6
110.9
112.5
106.8
106.4
91.2
104.5
90.7
111.1
111.1
113.2
106.9
112.8
106.7
103.2
89.0
111.8
112.3
106.9
102.6
89.7
111.8
112.4
106.7
107.2
91.4
111.6
112.8
107.1
F O O D —Continued
Other food at home— Continued
Nonalcoholic beverages............................
Coffee, can and bag_______________
Coffee, instant____________________
Tea________________ ____________
Cola d rink_______________________
Carbonated fru it d rink_____________
Prepared and partially prepared foods..
Bean soup, canned________________
Chicken soup, canned_____________
Spaghetti, canned................ ............. ..
Mashed potatoes, instant......................
Potatoes, french fried, fro z e n ............
Baby foods, canned_______________
Sweet pickle relish _______________
Pretzels.._____ ____________ _____
July 61
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
111.0
107.4
H O U S I N G _____________ ______________________
131.1
130.5
129.8
129.2
128.6
127.8
127.0
126.3
125.8
125.3
124.4
123.3
122.7
126.7
Shelter_____ ______ ______________________
139.6
121.3
146.8
138.5
121.0
145.4
137.7
120.5
144.5
137.0
120.1
143.6
136.1
119.7
142.6
135.1
119.3
141.3
134.0
118.8
140.0
133.0
118.5
138.7
132.4
118.1
138.0
131.6
117.8
137.1
130.5
117.5
135.7
128.9
117.2
133.6
128.2
116.9
132.7
133.6
118.8
139.4
Rent_____________ ____ ____________
Homeownership....................... ................
Mortgage interest rate s.............. ........
Property taxes_____ ______________
Property insurance rates___________
Maintenance and repairs.....................
Dec. 63
139.9
133.0
152.5
146.4
139.6
132.0
153.3
145.8
139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9
138.8
130.5
150.7
144.5
138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8
137.1
129.9
150.3
142.4
135.8
128.7
149.6
141.5
134.9
128.2
147.4
140.8
134.3
128.3
146.9
139.6
133.5
128.1
146.0
138.4
129.5
127.7
146.1
137.4
126.1
126.4
146.0
135.4
125.4
126.1
145.7
134.3
134.4
129.0
148.7
140.7
Commodities................. .....................
Exterior house paint_____ ____ _
Interior house paint.......................
Dec. 63
116.1
119.3
114.1
115.9
119.1
114.3
116.0
118.7
113.6
116.2
118.0
113.8
116.7
117.6
113.1
117.2
116.5
113.1
117.5
115.7
112.3
117.8
115.6
112.2
117.5
115.9
111.6
117.0
116.2
111.7
115.9
115.5
111.6
113.9
114.6
111.2
112.1
114.0
109.9
116.1
116.5
112.4
Services_______________________
Repainting living and dining rooms.
Reshingling roofs_____________
Residing houses-----------------------Replacing sinks____ __________
Repairing furnaces.........................
Dec. 63
144.1
184.6
164.9
134.6
145.2
150.0
143.5
183.6
164.1
134.0
144.5
149.7
142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2
141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1
140.4
179.7
161.4
133.0
140.4
142.8
138.2
178.3
157.6
130.0
139.0
141.2
136.9
176.1
155.4
129.3
137.8
139.7
135.7
174.0
154.2
128.6
137.2
137.7
134.2
171.5
152.3
127.6
135.3
136.4
132.9
167.9
151.4
126.5
134.7
135.0
132.0
167,1
150.4
125.3
133.7
134.5
130.1
166.5
149.4
123.3
131.1
131.5
129.6
165.5
148.5
122.9
130.8
130.8
136.4
174.6
155.8
129.0
137.4
139.1
Fuel oil and c o a l. . . ..................................
Fuel oil, #2_________ ____ ________
Gas and ele ctricity................................ ..
G a s.........................................................
Electricity.................................... ...........
114.6
119.7
116.6
114.1
120.5
107.4
114.6
119.2
116.2
113.7
119.8
107.2
114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2
113.5
118.4
115.5
112.2
116.9
106.9
113.3
118.1
115.4
112.0
116.7
106.8
113.0
117.7
115.2
111.5
116.1
106.4
112.6
117.4
115.0
110.9
115.7
105.6
112.7
117.5
115.0
111.3
116.4
105.7
112.6.
117.5
114.9
111.2
116.4
105.5
112.6
117.4
114.8
111.2
116.5
105.4
112.2
117.2
114.5
110.6
116.2
104.5
111.8
116.9
114.3
110.2
116.1
104.0
111.7
116.7
114.0
110.2
116.0
104.0
112.9
117.8
115.1
111.5
116.8
105.8
Other utilities:
Residential telephone services........... ..
Residential water and sewerage_____
103.0
147.5
103.8
147.5
103.7
147.5
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
143.4
103.4
143.4
103.3
143.4
103.1
143.4
103.1
141.6
103.0
141.6
103.5
144. 4
Household furnishings and operation....................................
120.1
110.5
120.0
110.6
119.6
110.4
119.3
110.2
119.0
109.9
118.5
109.4
118.2
109.3
117.9
109.0
117.4
108.8
116.9
108.3
116.4
107.8
115.8
107.1
115.2
106.6
117.9
109.0
114.2
117.3
116.1
122.2
115.7
121.7
115.0
120.1
115.2
119.8
113.8
116.2
114.8
118.7
114.8
120.2
114.4
118.3
114.6
121.0
113.6
119.6
112.7
119.6
111.7
117.5
114.4
119.6
111.6
115.0
112.3
117.6
112.1
117.7
112.0
117.1
112.0
116.9
112.0
115.7
111.6
116.5
111.5
116.9
111.1
117.3
110.4
117.3
109.3
116.3
108.0
113.5
108.1
111.2
110.9
116.2
125.0
126.6
126.0
124.1
124.5
125.0
124.8
122.2
122.1
121.3
121.1
120.1
119.7
123.1
110.0
110.3
110.1
109.6
109.4
109.3
108.6
108.0
108.4
109.6
122.9
122.4
122.1
121.8
121.6
120.5
119.7
118.3
117.6
121.5
125.3
123.0
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Fuel and utilities.................................................... ..............................
Houselurnishings____________________
T e x tile s ............................ ........... .........
Sheets, percale or m u s lin ............. .
Curtains, tailored, polyester marquisette________________ ____
Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tu fte d ..
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/
acetate___________ __________
Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly
c o t to n .. . .........................................
Furniture and bedding_____________
Bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality___________________
Living room suites, good and inexpensive quality_______ _______
Lounge chairs, upholstered_______
Dining room suites______________
Sofas, upholstered..............................
Sofas, dual purpose...........................
Box s p r in g s . .. ..
C rib s l..................................................
Floor coverings___________ _______
Rugs, soft surface_______________
___
Rugs, hard surface________
Tile, vinyl...................................... ..
Appliances...............................................
Washing machines, electric, automatic________________ _______
Vacuum cleaners, canister type___
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
111.0
110.4
110.0
111.1
124.1
123.9
123.7
123.6
128.6
128.0
128.0
127.6
127.2
125.8
124.8
124.4
122.3
121.2
120.6
124.9
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
126.0
120.0
130.3
116.3
120.5
122.4
119.6
126.3
118.8
129.5
116.5
120.0
122.6
119.8
125.8
118.6
129.4
115.7
120.2
122.5
119.5
125.9
118.9
128.7
115.9
118.9
124.1
119.2
124.9
119.0
127.5
114.8
118.8
123.7
117.1
124.8
117.9
126.0
115.1
118.6
123.2
118.0
123.9
116.5
126.6
114.3
117.9
123.0
117.7
123.4
116.2
126.1
113.8
117.1
123.0
117.5
123.3
114.6
126.7
114.3
116.2
122.8
117.1
122.4
113.3
125.7
113.3
116.0
121.6
115.8
121.9
112.7
125.0
112.7
114.8
120.4
115.1
121.2
112.0
124.5
112.0
114.1
119.7
113.2
120.4
111.3
123.6
112.1
113.2
117.2
113.4
123.7
115.8
126.6
114.2
117.2
122.0
117.0
107.1
104.7
112.5
110.3
107.1
104.8
112.5
110.1
107.1
104.9
112.1
109.6
107.0
104.9
111.8
109.3
106.3
104.1
111.6
108.5
106.4
104.4
111.5
108.2
106.2
104.1
111.2
108.0
106.2
104.2
Dec. 63
106.8
104.0
113.2
110.3
106.2
104.4
110.3
107.7
106.1
104.4
110.0
107.2
106.1
104.5
110.0
106.8
105.8
104.0
110.0
107.3
106.5
104. 5
111.2
108.4
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
1 1 1 .1
108.0
86.5
86.4
86.3
86.2
86.0
86.0
85.9
85.8
85.6
85.6
85.4
85.4
85.5
85.8
91.8
81.8
91.5
81.4
91.2
81.4
90.9
81.5
91.0
81.3
90.8
82.1
90.5
82.0
90.5
81.8
90.2
81.4
90.1
81.2
89.9
81.1
90 0
81.1
90.0
81.2
90.6
81.5
100
24.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected Items—Continued
Index or (roup
Other
index
bases
HOUSING— Continued
Household furnishings and operation— Con.
Appliances— Continued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorfreezers, electric.............................
Ranges, free standing, gas or
electric....................................... ..
Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.
A ir conditioners, demountable____
Room heaters, electric, portable___
Garbage disposal units......................
Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware..................
Flatware, stainless steel...................
Table lamps, with shade..................
Sept.
Aug.
May
Apr.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
86.1
86.0
85.8
85.8
85.8
85.7
85.4
85.2
84.9
84.8
98.5
98.1
98.2
97.6
97.4
97.0
97.1
99.5
99.7
0)
103.9
99.5
99.5
0)
103.9
99.1
99.2
0
103.6
98.9
99.3
0
103.1
99.0
98.8
July
June
Jan.
99.0
Feb.
Jan.
84.7
84.7
84.6
85.3
97.1
96.5
96.6
97.7
98.8
0
98.0
102.8
98.4
0
97.5
103.2
98.6
0
97.7
103.0
99.4
99.5
98.8
103.9
Mar.
63
64
63
63
100.8
0
100.6
105.5
100.6
0
100.4
105.0
100.5
(0
99.8
105.0
99.8
( l)
99.6
104.7
99.6
0
0
104.3
99.7
99.8
0
103.9
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
136.2
119.2
118.3
135.6
119.0
118.7
135.2
119.6
118.3
134.8
119.6
117.8
134.3
119.8
116.0
133.5
119.6
115.4
133.6
119.5
115.3
132.7
118.9
114.0
132.5
118.1
113.6
132.2
118.1
113.0
132.0
117.0
112.4
131.8
117.0
111.3
130.9
118.2
109.6
133.3
118.7
114.6
108.1
129.8
121.9
107.1
131.0
120.3
106.2
130.0
121.2
106.8
129.0
121.2
107.4
128.6
120.7
107.4
128.0
119.1
106.4
127.2
119.5
106.5
128.1
119.8
106.1
127.1
118.0
105.7
127.0
117.7
105.6
127.5
116.8
105.3
127.6
116.5
105.3
127.0
116.1
106.3
128.2
118.9
Dec. 63
180.5
137.6
165.5
147.5
179.9
137.4
165.5
146.8
178.7
136.6
165.5
144.3
177.6
135.7
165.5
143.2
175.1
135.6
165.5
142.7
173.9
134.9
165.5
141.4
172.9
134.5
165.5
140.6
172.2
133.7
165.5
140.2
171.9
133.1
165.5
139.6
171.1
131.9
165.5
139.0
170.2
131.0
165.5
137.9
169.8
130.1
165.5
136.6
168.7
129.4
165.5
134.4
165.5
140.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
132.0
136.6
131.8
135.4
131.8
135.1
130.7
135.2
130.3
134.4
129.7
133.5
128.4
133.0
128.1
131.6
127.2
131.0
125.3
129.2
124.1
129.0
123.7
127.3
123.4
125.8
127.9
131.7
Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.
Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents____
Paper napkins.....................................
Toilet tissue........................................
Housekeeping services:
Domestic service, general house
w ork..................... ................. .........
Baby sitter service.........................
Postal charges...................... .............
Laundry, flatwork, finished service.
Licensed day care service, pre
schoolchild....................... ............
Washing machine repairs..................
A nnual
average
1969
1969
1970
Dec. 63
APPAREL AND UPKEEP..........................................
129.3
130.8
130.7
129.8
128.7
126.6
126.8
127.0
126.6
125.6
124.9
123.9
123.4
127.1
Men's and boys’...................................................
130.8
132.0
132.1
131.0
130.0
128.7
128.1
128.5
128.1
127.3
126.4
125.3
124.9
128.5
Men’s:
Topcoats, wool.......... .............................
Suits, year round w e ig h t......................
Suits, tropical weight............. ............... June 64
Jackets, lightw eight................. ............. Dec. 63
Slacks, wool or wool b le n d ..................
Slacks, cotton or manmade blend___
Trousers, work, cotton ....................... ..
143.7
154.2
(i)
125.5
130.0
117.6
116.0
147.4
158.2
0
125.7
131.2
117.6
117.2
148.5
158.2
0
125.6
131.7
117.1
117.0
145.9
156.4
(')
125.4
130.4
115.6
116.9
144.0
154.5
0
125.2
128.9
115.2
116.9
(>)
150.7
0
125.0
127.1
114.5
116.8
0
149.6
127.7
125.1
126.1
112.1
116.9
150.0
130.8
125.6
126.6
114.3
116.7
<
l)
0
150.1
130.0
125.3
126.3
114.3
116.5
(0
148.1
128.1
124.6
126.5
114.2
116.0
137.7
146.8
126.2
123.1
125.3
112.9
115.5
137.5
144.6
0
122.7
123.4
115.1
139.4
144.1
0
122.3
125.1
107.7
115.2
142.9
150.9
128.6
124.6
127.4
113.9
116.4
Shirts, work, cotton................................
Shirts, business, cotton................. .......
T-shirts, chiefly cotton.........................
Socks, cotton...........................................
Handkerchiefs, cotton........................... Dec. 63
124.4
122.5
132.4
120.9
113.8
124.2
122.3
131.9
120.9
113.8
124.7
122.2
131.8
120.4
113.3
124.2
122.2
131.5
121.1
112.9
123.2
121.8
130.6
121.6
112.7
123.3
121.6
130.6
121.6
112.4
123.1
121.5
130.1
121.1
112.3
123.4
121.7
129.4
120.5
112.3
122.6
121.3
128.8
119.4
111.5
122.2
120.5
129.0
118.9
111.6
121.8
120.4
129.2
118.1
111.4
121.1
120.1
128.7
117.5
110.9
120.7
120.5
127.9
116.6
109.9
122.9
121.3
130.0
119.8
114.2
127.8
128.9
130.1
116.1
130.3
127.1
130.3
115.9
131.0
127.9
130.3
115.2
126.4
126.9
129.0
113.5
122.5
127.4
128.9
(>)
(>)
127.4
128.4
<‘ )
0
127.2
127.9
(0
(0
127.0
126.6
0
0
126.0
126.1
0
0
125.2
125.6
108.7
0)
124.3
125.0
108.2
0
124.9
124.0
109.2
117.6
123.8
123.1
112.4
125.6
126.3
127.1
124.2
127.2
127.4
126.2
124.6
120.8
122.5
122.7
122.4
121.0
120.6
119.3
118.7
122.8
O
)
(')
0
121.8
122.2
0
130.7
122.4
0
0
135.0
122.7
0
0
134.4
123.4
0
0
124.4
123.2
123.1
0
104.4
0
121.2
119.9
118.3
0
121.9
134.4
129.3
129.3
123.6
147.3
0
150.6
149.6
147.7
0
150.5
147.3
148.8
0
148.5
146.4
148.4
0
0
144.2
146.3
0
0
142.5
143.7
128.0
0
141.3
150.2
141.0
147.2
147.9
110.8
Boys’ :
Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton
blend.............................. ......... ...........
Sport coats, wool or wool blend...........
Dungarees, cotton or cotton b le n d .. . .
Undershorts, cotton..............................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Women's and girls’.............................................
111.0
112.1
Women's:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool
blend....................................................
Skirts, wool or wool blend................... Sept. 61
Skirts, cotton or cotton blend............... Mar. 62
Blouses, cotton.......................................
Dresses, street, chiefly manmade
fib e r................. ................... ..............
Dresses, street, wool or wool blen d.. .
Dresses, street, cotton...........................
Housedresses, cotton.............................
124.9
135.6
0
126.9
136.2
144.6
0
127.6
139.9
145.3
(0
127.2
139.9
133.9
0
125.4
136.0
129.4
0)
122.7
155.9
144.2
0)
152.3
158.3
145.7
0
153.0
158.8
144.8
0
152.1
155.9
145.7
0
150.7
152.5
140.8
147.3
149.0
(')
136.6
150.0
147.6
0)
149.9
148.8
Slips, nylon.............................................
Panties, acetate...... ...............................
Girdles, manmade blend......... .............
Brassieres, co tto n .................................. Dec. 63
113.4
112.0
120.5
124.4
112.3
111.2
120.8
124.9
112.2
111.4
120.5
123.8
111.9
110.5
120.2
123.1
111.9
109.9
119.5
122.9
111.6
109.1
119.4
122.5
109.7
108.6
119.0
122.2
110.5
108.4
118.7
122.0
110.1
108.8
119.0
120.8
110.3
108.5
119.1
120.7
109.4
107.9
118.2
119.4
109.4
108.1
118.2
119.1
109.8
107.9
116.4
118.8
109.2
119.1
121.7
Hose, nylon, seamless............. .............
Anklets, cotton.......................................
Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton.............
Handbags, rayon faille or plastic.........
98.5
121.0
110.7
116.4
99.8
121.5
110.5
117.3
99.8
118.5
109.8
117.2
99.4
118.5
109.2
115.5
99.2
118.4
109.0
114.8
98.8
118.2
109.3
114.1
99.6
118.1
108.9
113.8
99.0
117.6
108.9
113.7
99.1
116.6
108.6
113.0
98.7
115.2
108.4
112.1
99.1
114.7
107.8
111.4
98.0
114.6
106.7
110.8
98.2
114.0
105. 7
109.7
99.1
117.2
108.6
113.6
118.1
117.4
125.6
123.2
124.4
123.4
121.7
124.0
120.8
0
0)
0
0
0
0
118.3
118.9
0)
0
0
0)
0
0
116.3
115.0
120.9
121.4
Girls’ :
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly
cotton...................................................
Skirts, wool or wool blend....................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
(2
)
(>
)
0
0
(2
)
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
101
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group
APPAREL AMD UPKEEP-Continued
Women's and girls'— Continued
Girls' Continued
Dresses, cotton_________________
Slacks, cotton_________________ ___
Slips, cotton blend________________
Handbags_____ _____ ____________
Other
index
bases
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Footwear_____ _______ ____ ______ ______
Men's:
Shoes, street, oxford.............................
Shoes, work, high___________ _____
1970
1969
A n nual
average
1969
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
129.8
128.4
108.0
113.7
133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2
136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7
137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1
136.9
0)
107.7
108.9
135.4
(>)
108.0
108.3
134.2
(0
108.1
108.2
133.9
(O
107.2
106.5
134.1
0)
107.0
108.5
134.1
<>)
107.0
108.8
133.5
0)
106.9
108.0
132.5
117.7
106.6
107.7
130.6
119.9
106.0
106.6
144.4
144.4
143.9
143.3
142.3
141.5
139.9
140.1
139.6
138.4
137.6
136.8
136.3
140.3
141.3
140.9
142.6
139.8
142.1
139.5
141.5
139.0
140.1
138.4
138.7
138.1
137.5
137.3
138.6
136.8
138.2
136.1
136.7
135.2
136.0
134.5
134.4
133.5
134.0
132.6
138.4
136.7
134.4
125.8
107.5
109.3
Women’s:
Shoes, street, pump_______________
Shoes, evening, pump____ ________
Shoes, casual, (jump_______________
Houseslippers, sc u ff.______ _______
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
151.8
124.2
134.2
128.0
152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5
152.5
122.9
133.4
127.1
152.0
122.9
132.0
126.6
150.8
122.3
129.6
126.4
149.9
121.8
128.9
125.4
147.3
121.0
126.8
123.9
147.9
120.0
128.2
124.0
148.0
119.1
127.1
123.9
147.2
118.0
125.5
123.4
145.9
117.9
123.3
123.0
144.9
117.4
122.5
122.7
144.0
117.1
121.5
122.1
148.6
120.3
127.7
124.7
Children’s:
Shoes, oxford_____________ _______
Sneakers, boys’ , oxford type________
Dress shoes, girls', strap___________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
144.3
119.6
136.6
144.3
119.5
136.4
143.3
119.3
135.7
142.3
119.1
134.6
141.4
118.9
134.1
140.7
118.1
133.1
140.2
116.9
130.6
139.8
116.2
131.9
139.4
115.8
130.7
138.2
115.8
129.1
137.6
115.7
127.6
137.1
115.7
127.7
137.2
115.5
127.0
140.1
117.2
131.5
104.0
123.3
104.0
123.5
104.1
123.1
103.8
123.5
103.9
123.2
104.0
123.2
103.5
122.1
103.2
123.2
102.7
120.5
102.3
119.3
101.7
118.1
101.9
115.8
101.3
115.0
103.0
120.9
133.8
112.0
126.8
127.0
124.6
133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7
132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6
132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7
132.0
111.3
123.4
126.5
123.1
131.7
130.5
111.0
111.0
123.2
125.4
121.3
123.0
125.2
121.1
130.2
110.4
122.5
125.1
120.4
129.8
110.3
122.1
123.5
120.1
129.9
108.4
122.2
122.7
120.1
129.4
108.4
121.9
121.8
119.6
129.1
107.9
121.3
121.3
119.6
128.3
107.8
120.7
120.1
120.7
130.8
110.1
122.9
124.5
121.3
Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze________________
Yard goods, cotton______ _____ _____
Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women's
dresses. ________________________
Automatic laundry service____________
Laundry, men’s shirts_______________
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment____
Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift___ . . .
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
TRANSPORTATION...........................................
127.3
126.4
125.6
125.7
123.6
124.2
124.3
124.6
124.0
124.6
124.3
122.0
120.7
124.2
Private__________ ______________
Automobiles, new________________
.
Automobiles, used___________
Gasoline, regular and premium_______
Motor oil, prem ium .______ __________
123.3
104.7
120.7
116.6
140.7
123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2
122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1
122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6
120.5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1
121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7
121.4
101.6
127.0
117.7
138.1
121.8
101.8
128.2
118.6
137.4
121.2
101.8
126.8
117.3
136.7
121.9
101.9
131.2
117.8
136.0
121.6
102.4
130.5
117.2
135.5
119.3
102.3
122.6
114.5
134.6
117.9
102.3
115.5
114.5
134.1
121.3
102.4
125.3
117.0
137.5
Tires, new, tu b e le ss.................... ...........
Auto repairs and maintenance................
Auto insurance rates___________
Auto registration____________________
118.2
139.2
173.4
140.3
118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2
118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2
117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2
117.0
135.2
163.2
134.2
116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2
116.3
133.8
159.0
134.2
115.5
133.3
158.7
134.2
115.6
132.9
158.1
134.2
115.7
132.3
157.2
134.2
114.8
132.0
156.1
133.5
114.9
131.1
155.7
130.7
115.0
130.3
154.7
131.0
116.2
133.8
160.2
133.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
165.1
183.3
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
151.1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
149.5
160.5
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
149.1
159.9
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
147.5
158.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
145.5
158.4
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8
144.8
157.3
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8
148.9
160.4
126.7
114.0
110.6
122.4
140.1
139.6
139.1
138.6
138.4
137.7
137.0
136.3
135.7
135.1
134.3
133.7
133.3
136.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
159.0
99.7
107.2
92.3
106.2
158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6
157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2
156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1
157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5
156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8
155.9
99.2
106.9
92.1
106.4
155.2
99.3
107.1
92.2
106.6
154.5
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.2
153.6
99.0
103.8
92.2
103.3
152.5
98.8
106.6
92.2
106.5
151.3
98.6
106.4
92.2
105.6
150.2
98.6
106.7
92.9
105.2
155.0
99.2
106.9
92.4
106.2
101.3
117.8
113.4
101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9
101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7
100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7
100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1
100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8
100.8
116.7
109.1
114.8
100.9
117.0
109.5
115.2
100.9
116.9
109.3
115.1
100.9
116.6
103.3
114.5
100.9
116.4
108.8
113.5
101.0
116.5
108.1
113.8
100.9
116.4
107.8
115.5
101.0
116.9
109.2
114.5
Public___ ______________ ______
Local transit fares___________
Taxicab fares_____________
Railroad fares, coach_____
Airplane fares, chiefly coach____ _
Bus fares, intercity................ .................
Dec. 63
HEALTH AND RECREATION_______ ____
Medical care_____________________
Drugs and prescriptions______________
Over-the-counter items ___________
Multiple vitamin concentrates... . .
Aspirin com pounds..____ _______
Liquid tonics....... ................... .........
Adhesive bandages, package...........
Cold tablets or capsules__________
Cough syrup_____ _____ _______
Prescriptions.. ................
Anti-infectives___________
Sedatives and hypnotics______
Ataractics____ ____
Anti-spamodics_______ ____
Cough preparations_____________
Cardiovascular and antihypertensives___________
Analgesics, internal___
Anti-obesity_____________ .
Hormones________________
Professional services:
Physicians’ fe e s..........
Family doctor, office v is it s .. ...........
Family doctor, house visits.
Obstetrical cases..
Pediatric care, office v is its ...
Psychiatrist, office visits....................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
60
60
60
89.3
62.8
110.6
90.0
101.5
89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3
89.0
62.8
109.-6
89.8
101.3
89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3
88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2
88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0
88.6
62.8
107.1
89.9
101.0
88.6
63.1
106.9
90.0
101.2
88.6
63.1
106.4
90.0
101.1
88.3
62.5
103.1
89.7
100.9
88.2
62.5
105.9
89.7
101.1
88.0
62.4
105.0
89.8
101.1
87.8
62.4
104.3
89.8
101.1
88.6
62.8
107.2
89.8
101.1
Mar. 60
112.7
112.0
111.7
111.4
111.1
110.8
110.2
109.7
109.3
108.5
106.7
106.4
105.1
109.4
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
67
67
67
98.3
104.3
104.8
93.6
98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2
98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9
97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3
97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9
97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9
97.1
102.9
102.9
93.8
97.0
102.8
102.6
93.9
96.9
103.0
102.6
94.9
96.9
103.0
102.4
94.7
96.5
102.4
102.8
94.3
95.9
102.1
102.1
94.7
95.4
101.8
101.9
94.9
97.1
102.8
103.1
94.3
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
160.7
163.1
167.9
155.9
146.5
133.0
160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6
159.0
161.0
166.2
154.9
145.5
132.6
158.3
160.6
165.9
153.9
144.2
131.7
158.0
160.3
165.6
153.2
144.1
131.7
156.8
156.0
158.7
158.3
163.9
163.8
152.8
150.1
142.8
140.9
130.9 1 129.3
155.5
157.6
163.4
149.4
140.3
129.6
154.3
155.8
162.9
148.6
140.2
129.2
153.3
154.9
162.4
147.4
139.9
126.6
152.6
154.1
161.5
146.5
139.6
125.5
151.1
152.0
158.8
145.9
139.0
125.2
149.7
151.0
157.6
144.1
134.7
123.7
155.4
157.2
163.3
150.2
141.4
129.1
111.0
102
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup
O th e r
in d e x
bases
1970
Annua
average
1969
Jan.
D ec.
N ov.
O c t.
1 2 6 .3
1 5 2 .3
1 2 5 .4
1 5 1 .6
1 2 5 .2
1 5 1 .3
1 2 4 .6
1 4 9 .3
1 2 4 .6
1 4 9 .1
1 4 8 .0
1 4 7 .6
1 4 7 .2
1 4 6 .9
D ec. 63
1 4 9 .8
1 4 6 .0
1 3 0 .6
1 4 8 .7
1 4 7 .0
1 3 0 .2
1 4 8 .3
1 4 6 .7
1 2 9 .7
1 4 8 .3
1 4 5 .9
1 2 9 .5
D ec. 63
1 3 4 .6
1 1 9 .6
1 3 3 .9
1 1 9 .5
1 3 3 .8
1 1 9 .4
D ec. 63
D e c. 6 3
2 7 1 .6
2 6 8 .0
2 6 1 .8
1 7 2 .8
1 2 4 .7
2 6 7 .9
2 6 4 .1
2 5 8 .7
1 7 0 .9
1 2 4 .7
D e c.
1 2 8 .5
1 1 2 .0
114. 1
1 2 3 .0
1 0 9 .2
1969
A ug.
Ju ly
Ju n e
M ay
A p r.
M a r.
F eb.
Jan.
1 2 4 .3
1 4 9 .0
1 2 4 .3
1 4 8 .1
1 2 4 .1
1 4 7 .8
1 2 3 .9
1 4 7 .3
1 2 3 .2
1 4 6 .5
1 2 3 .1
1 4 6 .4
1 2 2 .8
1 4 6 .3
1 2 1 .3
1 4 5 .5
1 2 3 .9
1 4 8 .2
1 4 6 .0
1 4 5 .5
1 4 4 .9
1 4 4 .2
1 4 3 .6
1 4 2 .9
1 4 0 .1
1 3 9 .4
1 3 8 .9
1 4 3 .9
1 4 7 .1
1 4 5 .3
1 2 8 .9
1 4 6 .4
1 4 4 .7
1 2 8 .8
1 4 5 .7
1 4 4 .5
1 2 8 .3
1 4 5 .1
1 4 3 .4
1 2 7 .7
1 4 4 .6
1 4 2 .6
1 2 7 .3
1 4 4 .0
1 4 1 .8
1 2 6 .5
1 4 1 .1
1 3 8 .9
1 2 4 .3
1 4 0 .2
1 3 8 .4
1 2 4 .1
1 3 9 .1
1 3 8 .3
1 2 4 .0
1 4 4 .9
1 4 3 .1
1 2 7 .4
1 3 2 .8
1 1 8 .5
1 3 2 .4
1 1 8 .5
1 3 2 .2
1 1 8 .6
1 3 1 .7
1 1 8 .0
1 3 1 .2
1 1 7 .9
1 3 0 .8
1 1 7 .6
1 2 9 .5
1 1 5 .6
1 2 8 .9
1 1 5 .4
1 2 8 .5
1 1 5 .1
1 2 7 .8
1 1 4 .3
1 3 1 .1
1 1 7 .4
2 6 5 .4
2 6 1 .7
2 5 6 .1
1 7 0 .6
1 2 4 .5
2 6 3 .8
2 6 0 .1
2 5 4 .7
1 7 0 .9
1 2 4 .8
2 6 1 .9
2 5 8 .4
2 5 2 .6
1 6 8 .7
1 2 4 .6
2 5 9 .9
25 .3
2 5 0 .8
1 6 7 .6
1 2 3 .2
2 5 6 .7
2 5 3 .0
2 4 7 .9
1 6 6 .4
1 2 2 .7
2 5 3 .8
2 5 0 .0
2 4 5 .5
1 6 5 .6
1 2 2 .3
2 5 2 .4
2 4 8 .4
2 4 4 .4
1 6 4 .8
1 2 2 .1
2 5 1 .4
2 4 7 .4
2 4 3 .5
1 6 3 .0
1 2 1 .8
2 4 9 .2
2 4 5 .1
2 4 1 .6
1 6 0 .4
1 2 1 .4
2 4 6 .2
2 4 2 .2
2 3 8 .4
1 5 8 .1
1 2 0 .3
2 4 3 .1
2 3 9 .0
2 3 5 .8
1 5 5 .1
1 1 9 .9
2 5 6 .0
2 5 2 .1
2 4 7 .5
1 6 5 .2
1 2 2 .7
1 2 8 .1
1 1 1 .6
1 1 4 .6
1 2 3 .4
1 0 9 .1
1 2 7 .8
1 1 1 .8
1 1 4 .7
1 2 4 .8
1 0 9 .7
1 2 7 .3
1 1 1 .6
1 1 4 .4
1 2 5 .1
1 1 0 .7
1 2 7 .3
1 1 1 .7
1 1 3 .8
1 2 6 .3
1 1 1 .1
1 2 6 .8
1 1 1 .4
1 1 3 .4
1 2 3 .3
1 1 1 .2
1 2 6 .6
1 1 1 .2
1 1 2 .9
1 2 5 .1
1 1 0 .4
1 2 6 .2
1 1 0 .9
1 1 3 .6
1 2 3 .6
1 0 9 .0
1 2 5 .8
1 1 0 .4
1 1 3 .2
1 2 3 .9
1 0 7 .7
1 2 5 .5
1 1 0 .4
1 1 4 .1
1 2 4 .2
1 0 7 .0
1 2 4 .8
1 0 9 .8
1 1 3 .9
1 2 3 .9
1 0 6 .4
1 2 4 .1
1 0 9 .2
1 1 3 .3
1 2 3 .5
1 0 5 .4
1 2 3 .7
1 0 8 .7
1 1 2 .8
1 2 2 .6
1 0 5 .1
1 2 6 .2
1 1 0 .7
1 1 3 .7
1 2 4 .1
1 0 8 .6
1 0 2 .1
1 2 8 .1
9 6 .0
1 1 3 .8
9 8 .6
1 0 1 .9
1 2 7 .6
9 4 .5
1 1 2 .5
9 8 .7
1 0 1 .6
1 2 7 .5
9 5 .0
1 1 1 .8
9 8 .6
1 0 2 .0
1 2 7 .2
9 5 .1
1 0 9 .2
9 8 .5
1 0 2 .1
1 2 6 .8
9 5 .3
1 0 8 .4
9 9 .2
1 0 2 .1
1 2 6 .6
9 5 .5
1 0 9 .3
9 9 .1
1 0 1 .4
1 2 6 .1
9 5 .0
1 0 9 .3
9 8 .8
1 0 2 .3
1 2 5 .0
9 4 .9
1 0 8 .7
9 9 .3
1 0 2 .3
1 2 4 .0
9 5 .4
1 0 7 .9
9 8 .4
1 0 1 .9
1 2 4 .4
9 5 .1
1 0 8 .0
9 7 .5
1 0 1 .9
1 2 3 .1
9 4 .9
1 0 7 .1
9 6 .6
1 0 2 .4
1 2 1 .4
9 3 .9
1 0 6 .8
9 6 .0
1 0 2 .6
1 2 0 .4
9 3 .9
1 0 6 .2
9 5 .4
1 0 2 .0
1 2 5 .0
9 4 .9
1 0 8 .8
9 8 .0
1 4 8 .9
1 5 8 .0
1 3 9 .2
1 2 5 .3
1 4 8 .5
1 5 7 .8
1 3 8 .8
1 2 5 .2
1 4 7 .5
1 5 6 .4
1 3 8 .0
1 2 4 .0
1 4 6 .7
1 5 5 .2
1 3 7 .7
1 2 3 .4
1 4 6 .5
1 5 4 .8
1 3 7 .5
1 2 3 .2
1 4 5 .8
1 5 4 .5
1 3 6 .6
1 2 1 .9
1 4 5 .5
1 5 4 .7
1 3 6 .0
1 2 1 .2
1 4 4 .9
1 5 3 .8
1 3 5 .6
1 2 0 .9
1 4 4 .7
1 5 3 .1
1 3 5 .7
1 2 1 .7
1 4 4 .2
1 5 2 .3
1 3 5 .4
1 2 1 .4
1 4 3 .2
1 5 1 .7
1 3 4 .2
1 2 0 .7
1 4 2 .5
1 5 0 .5
1 3 3 .9
1 2 0 .5
1 4 2 .1
1 5 0 .0
1 3 3 .5
1 2 0 .3
1 4 5 .2
1 5 3 .7
1 3 6 .1
1 2 2 .0
1 5 6 .8
1 0 7 .5
1 5 6 .3
1 0 7 .2
1 5 5 .3
1 0 7 .2
1 5 4 .9
1 0 7 .1
1 5 4 .6
1 0 7 .0
1 5 3 .6
1 0 6 .9
1 5 2 .8
1 0 6 .7
1 5 2 .3
1 0 6 .5
1 5 2 .1
1 0 6 .5
1 5 1 .7
1 0 6 .1
1 5 0 .1
1 0 5 .4
1 4 9 .7
1 0 5 .3
1 4 9 .0
1 0 5 .1
1 5 2 .7
1 0 6 .4
1 3 2 .7
9 9 .1
8 0 .2
1 1 6 .3
1 3 2 .3
9 9 .2
8 0 .3
1 1 6 .3
1 3 2 .0
9 9 .1
8 0 .2
1 1 5 .9
1 3 1 .6
9 9 .0
8 0 .0
1 1 5 .7
1 3 1 .2
9 8 .8
7 9 .7
1 1 5 .4
1 3 0 .7
9 8 .7
7 9 .8
1 1 5 .6
1 3 0 .4
9 8 .6
8 0 .0
1 1 5 .8
1 3 0 .2
9 8 .6
8 0 .1
1 1 5 .6
1 2 9 .6
9 8 .4
8 0 .1
1 1 5 .3
1 2 8 .7
9 7 .9
7 9 .8
1 1 4 .8
1 2 8 .4
9 7 .7
8 0 .1
1 1 4 .7
1 2 8 .4
9 7 .8
8 0 .3
1 1 4 .8
1 3 0 .5
9 8 .6
8 0 .1
1 1 5 .5
7 6 .5
S e p t.
H E A L T H A N D R E C R E A T I O N —Continued
Medical care— Continued
P r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s — C o n ti n u e d
P h y s ic ia n s ’ f e e s — C o n tin u e d
H e r n i o r r h a p h y , a d u l t _________________
T o n s i l le c t o m y a n d a d e n o i d e c t o m y . .
D e n t i s t s ’ f e e s .............. .......... .................. .............
F illin g s ,
a d u lt,
a m a lg a m ,
one
s u r f a c e ___________ ______ _________ E x t r a c t i o n s , a d u l t _____________________
D e n t u r e s , f u ll u p p e r _________ _______
O th e r p ro f e s s io n a l s e r v ic e s :
E x a m in a tio n , p re s c r ip tio n , a n d d is p e n s i n g o f e y e g l a s s e s . . . .................
R o u ti n e l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s _____________
H o s p ita l s e r v ic e c h a r g e s :
D a ily s e r v i c e c h a r g e s ___________________
S e m i p r i v a t e r o o m s __________ _______ _
P r i v a t e r o o m s _________________________
O p e r a t i n g ro o m c h a r g e s ________________
X - r a y , d i a g n o s t i c s e r i e s , u p p e r G .l —
D e c . 63
Personal care------------------------------------------------------T o i l e t g o o d s .......................................................... ..
T o o th p a s te , s ta n d a r d d e n tif r ic e ..
T o i l e t s o a p , h a r d m i ll e d ___________
H a n d l o t io n s , l i q u i d ................................
S h a v i n g c r e a m , a e r o s o l ___________
F a c e p o w d e r , p r e s s e d . . . .................
D e o d o r a n t s , c r e a m o r r o l l - o n _____
C l e a n s i n g t i s s u e s ........... .................. ..
H o m e p e r m a n e n t r e f i l ls ___________
P e r s o n a l c a r e s e r v i c e s ______ ___________
M e n ’s h a i r c u t s . ..........................................
B e a u t y s h o p s e r v i c e s ______ _______
W o m e n 's h a i r c u t s . . .................
S h a m p o o a n d w a v e s e ts ,
p l a i n ..................................................
P e r m a n e n t w a v e s , c o l d ______
63
D ec. 63
D ec. 63
Reading and recreation......................................................................
R e c r e a t i o n a l g o o d s ....................................... ..
T V s e t s , p o r t a b l e a n d c o n s o l e ____
T V r e p l a c e m e n t t u b e s ..........................
R a d io s ,
p o rta b le
and
ta b le
m o d e l . ..................................... ..................
D ec. 63
D e c. 6 3
1 3 3 .1
9 9 .1
8 0 .0
1 1 6 .6
7 6 .4
7 6 .5
7 6 .5
7 6 .6
7 6 .9
7 6 .5
7 6 .5
7 6 .6
7 6 .6
7 6 .5
7 6 .3
7 6 .3
7 6 .7
T a p e r e c o r d e r s , p o r t a b l e . . . ............
P h o n o g ra p h
re c o rd s,
s te re o p h o n i c . ................. .....................................
M o v ie c a m e r a s , S u p e r 8 , z o o m
l e n s ______ _________________________
F ilm , 3 5 m m , c o l o r _________________
B ic y c le , b o y s ’____ _______ __________
T r i c y c l e s ............................................ .............
D ec. 63
9 0 .0
9 0 .1
9 1 .2
9 1 .4
9 1 .5
9 1 .4
9 1 .5
9 1 .9
9 1 .7
9 1 .7
9 1 .2
9 1 .1
9 0 .6
9 1 .3
D ec.
63
9 8 .0
9 8 .0
9 8 .0
9 8 .1
9 7 .6
9 7 .7
9 7 .9
9 7 .5
9 7 .5
9 6 .6
9 6 .4
9 5 .9
9 5 .6
9 7 .2
D ec.
D ec.
D ec.
D ec.
63
63
63
63
8 2 .1
9 9 .1
1 1 0 .7
1 1 2 .0
8 2 .3
9 9 .1
1 1 0 .4
1 1 1 .6
8 3 .4
9 9 .1
1 1 0 .0
1 1 1 .4
8 3 .1
9 9 .4
1 0 9 .7
1 1 1 .9
8 3 .5
9 9 .6
1 0 9 .9
1 1 1 .6
8 3 .4
9 9 .2
1 0 9 .5
1 1 1 .2
8 3 .5
9 9 .1
1 0 9 .7
1 0 9 .4
8 4 .1
9 9 .0
1 0 9 .1
1 0 9 .2
8 5 .0
9 9 .0
109 0
1 0 8 .5
8 4 .9
9 8 .9
1 0 8 .6
1 0 7 .9
8 4 .8
9 8 .9
1 0 7 .8
1 0 7 .5
8 4 .5
9 8 .6
1 0 7 .3
1 0 7 .2
8 5 .0
9 8 .6
1 0 7 .2
1 0 7 .8
8 4 .0
9 9 .0
1 0 9 .0
1 0 9 .6
R e c r e a ti o n a l s e r v i c e s ___________ ______
I n d o o r m o v i e a d m i s s i o n s ........... ..
A d u l t . . ............................................ ..
C h i l d r e n 's .............................. .............
D ec. 63
1 3 3 .9
2 1 1 .7
2 0 7 .3
2 2 6 .9
1 3 3 .2
2 1 0 .3
2 0 5 .4
2 2 7 .1
1 3 2 .6
2 0 8 .3
2 0 3 .2
2 2 5 .4
1 3 2 .1
2 0 7 .0
2 0 1 .9
2 2 4 .5
1 3 1 .7
2 0 6 .5
2 0 1 .6
2 2 3 .2
1 3 1 .1
2 0 4 .2
1 9 8 .8
2 2 2 .1
1 3 0 .1
2 0 0 .2
1 9 4 .4
2 1 9 .6
1 2 9 .7
1 9 8 .3
1 9 2 .9
2 1 6 .7
1 2 9 .2
1 9 7 .4
1 9 2 .0
2 1 5 .6
1 2 8 .7
1 9 6 .3
1 9 1 .5
2 1 2 .5
1 2 7 .1
1 9 3 .2
1 8 8 .6
2 0 8 .6
1 2 6 .7
1 9 2 .6
1 8 8 .2
2 0 7 .4
1 2 6 .6
1 9 2 .6
1 8 7 .9
2 0 8 .5
1 2 9 .9
2 0 0 .6
1 9 5 .5
2 1 7 .6
D r iv e - i n m o v i e a d m i s s i o n s , a d u l t .
B o w in g f e e s , e v e n i n g _____________
G o lf g r e e n s f e e s . ......................................
TV r e p a ir s , p ic tu re tu b e re p l a c e m e n t ________ _______ _______
F ilm d e v e l o p i n g , b la c k a n d w h i t e .
D ec. 63
D ec. 63
D ec. 63
1 6 5 .6
1 1 5 .3
1 6 5 .5
1 1 3 .7
<>)
C)
1 6 5 .0
1 1 3 .6
(!)
1 6 4 .5
1 1 2 .1
1 3 5 .5
1 6 4 .1
1 1 0 .9
1 3 5 .9
1 6 3 .5
1 1 0 .3
1 3 5 .8
1 6 1 .9
1 1 0 .4
1 3 4 .7
1 6 0 .1
1 1 0 .6
1 3 4 .6
1 5 7 .0
1 1 0 .6
1 3 3 .8
1 5 6 .0
1 1 0 .8
1 3 0 .9
1 5 3 .1
1 1 0 .4
1 2 7 .3
1 5 3 .6
1 1 0 .1
1 2 5 .0
1 5 3 .9
1 0 9 .8
1 2 4 .8
1 5 9 .9
1 1 1 .1
1 3 1 .8
D ec. 63
1 0 0 .2
1 1 7 .4
1 0 0 .2
1 1 7 .7
1 0 0 .0
1 1 7 .9
1 0 1 .4
1 1 7 .9
1 0 1 .0
1 1 8 .3
1 0 1 .0
1 1 8 .4
1 0 1 .0
1 1 8 .9
1 0 2 .2
1 1 9 .2
1 0 2 .3
1 2 0 .0
1 0 3 .3
1 2 0 .5
1 0 2 .7
1 2 0 .2
1 0 2 .6
1 2 0 .0
1 0 2 .6
1 2 0 .1
1 0 1 .7
1 1 9 .1
R e a d in g a n d e d u c a tio n :
N e w s p a p e rs , s tr e e t s a le
and
d e l i v e r y ________________ _________ _
P ia n o l e s s o n s , b e g i n n e r .......................
D e c. 6 3
1 6 0 .2
1 2 7 .6
1 5 8 .2
1 2 7 .3
1 5 6 .7
1 2 6 .7
1 5 6 .4
1 2 6 .5
1 5 5 .9
1 2 6 .1
1 5 5 .8
1 2 3 .8
1 5 5 .2
1 2 2 .8
1 5 4 .3
1 2 2 .3
1 5 3 .7
1 2 2 .2
1 5 3 .2
1 2 2 .2
1 5 2 .7
1 2 1 .7
1 5 2 .3
1 2 1 .6
1 5 2 .1
1 2 1 .3
1 5 4 .7
1 2 3 .7
1 3 3 .9
1 5 4 .1
1 3 3 .5
1 5 3 .8
1 3 3 .1
1 5 3 .1
1 3 2 .2
1 5 1 .5
1 3 1 .3
1 5 0 .6
1 3 0 .1
1 4 8 .7
1 2 9 .1
1 4 6 .7
1 2 7 .9
1 4 4 .0
1 2 6 .9
1 4 2 .3
1 2 6 .6
1 4 2 .1
1 2 6 .1
1 4 1 .8
1 2 5 .8
1 4 1 .7
1 2 5 .6
1 4 1 .6
1 2 9 .0
1 4 6 .5
1 6 1 .8
1 5 4 .0
1 0 9 .0
1 6 1 .4
1 5 3 .5
1 1 0 .0
1 6 0 .7
1 5 2 .6
1 0 9 .9
1 5 8 .9
1 5 1 .0
1 0 9 .4
1 5 8 .0
1 5 0 .0
1 0 9 .6
1 5 5 .8
1 4 8 .1
1 0 8 .7
1 5 3 .7
1 4 6 .2
1 0 7 .1
1 5 0 .8
1 4 3 .4
1 0 6 .5
1 4 9 .3
1 4 1 .0
1 0 6 .1
1 4 9 .1
1 4 0 .9
1 0 6 .0
1 4 8 .7
1 4 0 .7
1 0 5 .9
1 4 8 .6
1 4 0 .5
1 0 5 .9
1 4 8 .5
1 4 0 .5
1 0 5 .6
1 5 3 .6
1 4 5 .7
1 0 7 .6
1 2 1 .0
1 1 6 .5
1 2 0 .6
1 1 6 .5
1 2 0 .4
1 1 6 .6
1 2 0 .0
1 1 6 .3
1 1 9 .1
1 1 6 .4
1 1 8 .2
1 1 5 .3
1 1 7 .7
1 1 4 .8
1 1 7 .4
1 1 4 .5
1 1 6 .8
1 1 4 .2
1 1 6 .5
1 1 3 .9
1 1 5 .9
1 1 3 .5
1 1 5 .6
1 1 3 .0
1 1 5 .3
1 1 2 .8
1 1 7 .8
1 1 4 .8
1 1 1 .2
1 1 6 .5
1 2 7 .1
1 1 1 .5
1 1 5 .2
1 2 5 .9
1 1 1 .4
1 1 4 .5
1 2 5 .6
1 1 1 .3
1 1 3 .6
1 2 5 .0
1 1 0 .4
1 1 2 .0
1 2 3 .0
1 1 0 .1
1 1 0 .6
1 2 2 .3
1 0 9 .8
1 1 0 .2
1 2 1 .8
1 0 9 .4
1 0 9 .5
1 2 1 .5
1 0 9 .2
1 0 8 .8
1 2 0 .5
1 0 9 .2
1 0 8 .6
1 1 9 .9
1 0 8 .9
1 0 8 .0
1 1 8 .9
1 0 8 .9
1 0 7 .8
1 1 8 .8
1 0 9 .0
1 0 7 .4
1 1 8 .1
1 0 9 .9
1 1 0 .5
1 2 1 .8
1 1 5 .9
1 1 5 .5
1 1 5 .2
1 1 4 .6
1 1 4 .0
1 1 3 .6
1 1 3 .1
1 1 2 .5
1 1 5 .2
1 0 8 .2
1 3 4 .5
1 0 7 .9
1 3 2 .9
1 0 7 .4
1 2 8 .2
1 0 6 .9
1 2 8 .3
1 0 8 .3
1 3 4 .7
Other goods and services___________ ____ _____
T o b a c c o p r o d u c t s _________ ______ _______
C ig a r e tte s , n o n f ilte r tip , r e g u la r
s i z e _______________________________
C i g a r e t t e s , f i l t e r t i p , k i n g s i z e ____
C ig a r s , d o m e s t i c , r e g u l a r s i z e ____
M a r. 59
A lc o h o lic b e v e r a g e s .................. .....................
B e e r _________________________________
W h is k e y ,
s p irit b le n d e d
and
s t r a i g h t b o u r b o n _______ ______
W in e , d e s s e r t a n d t a b l e ......................
B e e r , a w a y f r o m h o m e ____________
D e c. 6 3
D ec. 63
F in a n c i a l a n d m i s c e l l a n e o u s p e r s o n a l
ex p en ses:
F u n e r a l s e r v i c e s , a d u l t ____________
B a n k s e r v ic e c h a r g e s , c h e c k in g
a c c o u n t s ....................................................
L e g a l s e r v i c e s , s h o r t fo r m w i l l . . .
D ec. 63
1 1 7 .7
1 1 7 .4
1 1 7 .3
1 1 6 .9
1 1 6 .5
D ec. 63
D e c. 6 3
1 1 0 .2
1 4 2 .3
1 1 0 .3
1 4 1 .2
1 0 9 .9
1 3 9 .5
1 0 9 .1
1 3 9 .5
1 0 8 .3
1 3 8 .8
1 Priced only in season.
J Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 0 '. 4
1 3 7 .8
1 0 8 .2
1 3 5 .0
1 0 7 .8
1 3 0 .8
1 0 7 .5
1 2 9 .5
NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.
CONSUMER PRICES
103
Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
1970
Annual
avg.
1969
Area3
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1968
All items
U.S. city average3_________________ ____________________
131.8
131.3
130.5
129.8
128.7
128.2
127.6
126.8
126.4
125.6
124.6
124.1
121.2
Atlanta, Ga................................. ........................ .......................
Baltimore, Md_____________ _________. . ______ _______
Boston, Mass.................... ............... ........................... ...............
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)______________ _________
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind-------- -------------------------------Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky........ ..............................................
( 4)
( 4>
136.1
( 4)
129.1
(4)
129.9
131.9
(4)
( 4)
128.3
127.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
123.2
127.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
134.7
(4)
126.9
(4)
128.6
130.4
( 4)
( 4)
127.2
125.5
( 4>
( 4>
( 4)
121.2
126.1
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
132.1
( 4)
125.3
( 4)
126.1
127.9
(4)
<4>
124.6
124.6
(4)
<4)
(4)
120.2
123.6
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
129.8
( 4)
123.2
(4)
124.9
125.7
( 4)
( 4)
122.9
122.7
(4)
( 4>
(4)
117.3
121.9
(4)
(4)
(4)
127.9
(4)
121.4
«
119.6
120.9
124.7
114.8
118.5
118.9
Cleveland, O hio................................... ......................... .............
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)_________________ _______
Detroit, Mich____________________ ___________ _______
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100)..........................................
Houston, Tex____________________ ________ - ......... .........
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas............ ............. ....................... .........
(*)
( 4>
131.1
0)
130.9
(4)
( 4)
(4)
130.8
119.7
( 4)
133.2
129.5
123.7
129.8
(4>
(4)
(4)
(4)
( 4)
129.2
(4)
129.8
( 4)
(4)
(4)
128.6
118.1
(4)
131.4
127.3
121.2
128.5
( 4>
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
(4)
127.6
(4)
127.0
( 4)
(4>
<4)
127.3
116.6
(4)
130.4
125.3
119.4
126.4
(4)
<4>
(‘ >
( 4)
( 4)
125.7
( 4)
125.5
(4)
(4)
( 4)
125.1
115.6
(4)
128.1
123.1
116.8
123.4
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
(4)
( 4>
122.8
( 4)
123.2
(4)
119.6
113.0
119.8
111.9
119.3
123.5
Los Angeles-Long Beach, C a lif.................................. .............
Milwaukee, Wis__________________ _________ _________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_____ ____ _________________
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J___ __________ __________________
Pittsburgh, Pa............... ................. ......... ................. .................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.3. . .......................................... ...............
131.2
0)
132.8
137.0
132.9
129.4
130.7
131.1
( 4)
( 4)
136.0
132.2
(4)
(4)
130.0
127.0
(4)
134.6
131.7
(4)
(4)
130.1
( 4)
130.3
134.1
131.2
128.5
130.1
129.6
( 4)
<4>
133.5
131.0
( 4)
( 4)
128.9
123.9
( 4)
132.5
130.2
( 4)
( 4)
128.6
( 4)
128.0
132.1
129.2
127.7
128.4
127.9
( 4)
( 4)
131.6
128.2
( 4)
(‘ )
126.9
122.8
( 4)
130.8
127.5
( 4)
( 4)
126.9
<4)
125.1
130.5
127.6
126.0
127.9
126.6
( 4)
( 4)
129.6
127.0
( 4)
«
125.2
120.8
( 4)
128.3
126.0
( 4)
(4)
124.7
(4>
122.9
127.8
125.2
124.0
125.3
122.2
116.8
121.2
124.1
122.4
120.4
122.3
St. Louis, Mo.—1II________________ ___________ _______
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100)_____________________
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif......... ...........................................
Scranton, Pa.3. . ................ ............................................. ...........
Seattle, Wash............ ................................. ............. ...................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..........................................................
( 4>
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
130.7
( 4)
134.5
( 4)
<4)
<4)
(4)
117.0
(4)
127.3
130.0
132.0
( 4)
<4)
<4>
<4)
( 4)
( 4)
129.2
( 4)
132.8
(4)
<4)
(4)
( 4)
116.0
( 4)
130.5
129.5
130.8
( 4)
<4)
<4)
<4)
(4)
(4)
127.0
<4>
130.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
(0
114.4
( 4)
128.1
127.6
128.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
( 4)
( 4)
125.4
(4)
128.9
(4)
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
112.8
( 4)
126.2
125.9
126.3
( 4>
( ‘)
(4)
(4)
(4)
O)
121.5
109.4
124.3
122.8
122.3
122.0
129.3
Food
U.S.city average3.......... .................................................. .............
130.7
129.9
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
126.7
125.5
123.7
123.2
122.4
121.9
122.0
119.3
Atlanta, G a .. . .......... ................................................... ...............
Baltimore, Md....... ......................... ................... ......... ......... . .
Boston, M a s s ............................................................... .............
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100 ).......................... .....................
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind_________ ____ __________
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky_____________________ ______
129.0
134.9
134.3
125.4
132.8
127.2
128.4
134.1
133.1
125.1
131.3
126.6
126.9
132.3
131.6
122.8
129.4
125.1
126.5
131.5
131.2
121.9
128.3
124.1
126.7
131.8
131.4
121.8
130.2
123.6
126.3
130.8
131.8
122.5
130.5
123.2
124.4
130.1
130.2
122.4
129.0
123.3
122.8
127.9
129.5
121.2
127.5
121.9
121.2
126.2
127.8
118.9
125.3
120.7
121.8
126.3
127.5
118.2
124.4
120.2
120.7
125.3
126.3
117.4
123.9
119.1
120.0
124.1
126.0
117.2
123.0
118.8
119.7
124.8
125.1
117.5
124.0
118.7
117.2
121.3
122.7
114.6
120.4
116.3
Cleveland, Ohio.................................... ........................... ...........
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100). _______ _______________
Detroit, M ich________________________________________
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100)_____ ______ ________
Houston, Tex............. ....................................................... ...........
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas...........................................................
129.0
125.0
129.8
123.0
132.3
135.1
128.5
124.2
129.3
120.8
131.2
134.4
125.7
122.8
126.8
119.5
129.2
132.9
125.0
121.7
126.1
119.7
128.7
131.2
125.1
122.0
126.5
119.1
129.2
131.9
125.2
121.9
127.3
118.0
129.0
131.3
123.3
120.6
126.5
116.9
127.7
130.7
123.2
120.1
124.5
116.3
126.8
129.8
122.3
118.2
122.7
116.1
125.2
127.5
120.1
116.9
121.9
115.8
124.3
126.6
119.6
116.5
120.8
115.7
124.3
125.6
120.0
116.2
119.9
115.7
123.8
125.5
119.9
116.7
119.5
115.6
123.4
125.0
116.7
113.7
117.6
112.2
119.7
122.7
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif.................................. ...............
Milwaukee, V/is_________ _________ _____ ____ _______
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_________ ______ __________
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J______________ _______
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J............................ ..................... ...............
Pittsburgh, Pa........... ....................... ............. .............. .............
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.3..............................................
126.2
129.5
129.5
133.8
130.7
127.5
126.7
125.8
128.4
128.2
132.9
129.7
127.1
124.7
127.8
127.2
130.6
128.0
125.7
124.0
127.6
126.5
129.6
127.0
123.3
124.4
124.0
127.9
125.9
129.1
127.2
123.2
123.9
127.6
126.4
128.7
127.2
123.9
124.0
126.5
125.4
128.1
126.0
124.2
125.2
123.0
125.1
122.8
126.6
124.5
123.2
121.6
123.3
121.3
124.9
123.1
120.9
121.2
122.9
120.7
124.7
124.3
119.6
122.7
120.3
122.0
120.2
123.6
123.2
119.2
119.6
121.4
119.3
123.1
122.9
118.7
119.6
121.4
120.5
123.3
122.7
119.6
122.5
117.5
118.2
117.3
120.2
119.6
115.9
119.3
St. Louis, M o .- lll. .. .................................... .............. ...............
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100)_____________________
San Francisco-Oakland, C a lif........................................ .........
Scranton, Pa.
Seattle, Wash................ ............................................... ...............
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..........................................................
136.6
120.6
128.2
135.5
120.0
127.2
132.4
117.8
125.6
132.6
118.3
124.9
128.6
118.1
124.3
125.8
114.5
121.4
125.9
131.6
125. 8
131.3
125.0
129.1
123.2
127.6
122.3
126.3
125.2
113.8
120.2
121.6
121.5
126.0
125.8
113.4
120.1
125.2
130.5
126.9
116.4
122.7
123.4
123.6
128.3
126.4
115.3
122.3
127.6
133.5
131.2
118.6
124.9
127.5
126.2
132.5
129.8
118.7
125.9
127.8
134.8
133.5
119.1
126.2
131.9
126.2
131.2
123.5
111.3
118.4
118.4
118.8
121.3
1 See table 23. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
3 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
121.4
125.5
3 Average of 56 "c itie s " (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 196 )).
* A ll items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
1 Old series.
104
26.
WHOLESALE PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified!*
1970
1969
Annual
Commodity Group
Code
average
1968
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
M a r.
Feb.
Jan.
A L L C O M M O D I T I E S _____________ ___________
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
113.2
112.8
111.9
111.7
111.1
110.7
108.7
FARM PRODUCTS A N D PR O C ESS ED FO O D S
A N D F E E D S ______ _____________________
118.2
116.4
115.7
114.3
114.3
114.6
115.5
115.5
114.1
110.9
110.7
110.0
109.8
107.6
I N D U S T R IA L C O M M O D I T I E S ..................... ..................
115.1
114.6
114.2
113.8
113.2
112.8
112.4
112.2
112.2
112.1
112.0
111.4
110.9
109.0
112.5
116.6
85.9
117.3
94.8
65.3
140.5
152.2
107.7
116.3
111.7
112.4
82.9
120.2
86.9
65.7
138.3
155.8
105.1
113.1
111.1
125.3
81.7
116.6
86.3
66. 0
137.6
139.8
103.4
115.9
107.9
101.3
84.8
118.7
85.3
66.1
136.8
113.8
101.2
116.7
108.4
103.4
83.4
119.2
89.0
66.4
135.6
122.5
105.7
110.6
108.9
106.7
81.9
123.6
92.3
66.9
135.1
100.5
107.3
109.5
110.5
103.1
83.7
126.8
90.2
67.7
134.9
117.0
111.3
106.9
111.2
112.9
85.6
130.4
89.8
67.7
134.6
85.9
110.6
106.2
110.5
126.7
86.7
123.0
90.7
67.7
134.1
80.6
115.1
105.6
105.6
106.8
83.1
113.8
87.0
67.3
133.5
97.3
113.8
106.1
106.5
112.1
81.6
112.5
95.5
67.3
132.8
110.9
112.5
106.8
105.0
108.7
82.0
109.2
94.3
67.7
132.6
108.1
112.4
106.4
104.9
112.0
82.5
106.1
90.5
68.8
131.8
122.3
111.5
105.9
102.2
108.2
81.9
104.8
84.9
75.4
128.8
93.9
111.5
103.1
125.1
122.3
125.8
133.9
116.9
129.1
117.4
121.8
121.9
120.5
131.2
116.3
127.9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106.5
127.2
119.5
121.6
121.2
120.2
130.7
116.0
127.7
115.0
118.3
88.4
88.9
104.7
131.6
119.9
121.3
120.4
122.9
133.4
116.6
127.2
113.1
104.0
79.8
85.0
102.1
121.2
119.3
121.5
120.1
124.5
133.0
116.8
127.2
112.6
105.0
80.0
84.7
102.1
119.8
118.2
122.0
119.9
127.5
133.0
116.6
122.3
112.6
96.4
80.0
89.4
102.1
119.5
118.7
121.4
119.7
126.5
133.0
115.6
123.0
112.4
91.2
81.9
89.4
103.3
118.6
116.9
119.4
119.4
121.0
132.5
115.7
122.7
111.8
89.0
81.0
89.4
103.3
118.6
114.9
117.3
119.3
114.0
131.4
115.4
120.2
111.4
90.8
80.6
89.4
103.3
119.0
118.3
116.4
119.3
112.2
130.4
115.1
119.5
111.3
96.1
83.0
91.6
103.1
119.3
115.7
116.3
119.3
111.4
130.2
114.5
119.2
86.4
97.8
107.5
126.5
131.7
122.6
122.0
121.9
133.9
116.4
127.1
116.1
115.6
86.1
97.9
108.0
126.4
121.8
90.3
83.4
95.0
102.9
119.1
117.5
116.0
119.3
111.1
130.1
113.6
119.2
110.8
84.0
80.4
91.5
101.1
118.2
118.2
114.1
118.2
108.3
127.7
114.1
115.8
109.6
69.6
84.5
94.4
100.2
115.5
118.5
109.5
106.1
104.3
91.5
193.5
117.2
109.1
129.0
109.2
106.1
104.3
91.1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8
109.2
106.0
104.6
91.5
184.6
116.7
108.0
129.6
109.1
105.8
104.5
91.6
183.9
116.5
108.0
127.2
109.0
105.9
105.0
92.1
181.2
116.2
107.3
121.4
108.7
105.7
104.8
92.7
177.1
115.8
104.7
119.6
107.7
105.3
105.0
92.6
168.2
113.9
104.2
120.3
107.2
104.5
105.0
92.7
164.6
113.3
104.2
118.0
106.9
104.6
104.3
92.6
157.9
112.9
103.2
114.7
107.1
104.5
104.3
92.4
155.4
113.0
107.7
119.7
107.1
104.6
104.2
92.1
155.0
112.8
107.7
121.9
107.2
104.8
104.4
92.3
156.4
112.7
107.6
127.1
107.4
104.8
104.7
92.8
160.8
112.7
110.2
126.2
105.7
105.1
103.7
90.8
183.0
110.3
110.5
115.5
126.6
102.8
119.6
135.9
119.2
126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5
126.8
110.4
119.6
135.5
118.6
127.4
118.0
120.3
135.2
118.4
128.2
128.7
121.7
134.9
117.9
126.4
123.1
121.0
132.7
117.6
126.4
123.0
121.2
132.7
117.5
125.7
117.4
121.5
132.3
117.2
126.1
122.6
121.7
132.1
117.0
126.0
125.8
122.3
131.9
116.0
123.4
109.1
116.4
131.5
115.3
123.4
106.3
116.5
132.2
114.8
123.5
109.2
116.8
132.1
114.2
119.5
99.6
112.6
128.0
112.7
105.6
125.4
126.9
132.4
103.4
104.5
101.0
106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2
105.5
123.5
126.9
128.8
103.4
104.5
101.6
105.4
120.6
126.9
128.7
103.7
104.5
101.6
104.7
115.9
120.3
123.0
103.5
104.5
101.8
104.7
115.5
120.3
121.8
102.4
104.5
102.5
105.0
115.4
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.5
103.2
105.0
114.2
120.3
121.8
102.6
104.5
103.3
104.5
113.5
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.7
102.4
104.5
112.8
120.3
121.8
102.3
104.8
102.5
104.2
112.7
120.3
124.6
102.3
103.7
101.7
102.7
112.7
120.3
124.0
102.2
99.9
99.5
102.4
112.7
120.3
124.4
102.0
99.7
98.9
102.4
106.7
116.0
123.8
101.5
99.4
100.3
99.1
97.9
121.7
93.4
94.5
95.0
87.6
80.0
115.5
98.8
97.8
120.3
93.4
94.6
92.8
86.7
80.1
115.1
98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9
98.6
97.6
120.3
93.9
94.0
98.9
86.3
80.2
114.3
98.9
98.2
119.2
93.3
94.0
102.1
87.4
81.0
113.9
98.7
98.2
119.2
93.3
93.8
99.3
88.4
80.7
112.9
98.2
97.7
119.2
93.2
93.8
90.5
88.6
80.2
112.8
98.3
97.0
119.2
92.8
93.8
86.8
92.1
80.8
112.8
98.1
96.9
118.7
92.8
93.8
83.3
92.1
80.8
112.7
97.9
96.7
118.7
92.2
93.7
83.7
92.1
80.9
112.2
98.0
97.9
118.7
91.9
93.6
80.4
92.3
81.3
111.2
97.8
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
73.6
92.2
81.5
111.1
97.6
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
72.2
92.9
80.8
110.4
98.2
98.4
114.6
92.2
93.3
73.9
99.7
82.0
110.0
104.7
89.3
101.7
114.0
99 8
104.5
88.1
101.7
113.4
100.0
104.4
88.7
101.7
113.0
103.5
89.7
100.6
111.7
102.7
90.6
99.2
110.7
103.0
92.5
99.2
110.8
102.5
90.7
98.4
111.0
101.2
89.7
96.3
110.2
101.1
89.5
96.3
110.2
101.2
90.1
96.3
110.1
100.9
88.9
96.3
109.7
100.5
87.5
96.3
109.5
100.0
86.4
96.3
108.7
100.3
84.9
99.2
107.4
121.6
126.9
131.5
95.5
119.5
122.5
128.2
131.7
96.9
118.4
123.9
129.3
133.2
99.6
116.7
122.6
128.0
133.9
95.8
116.7
123.2
129.5
134.4
94.4
116.5
124.0
131.1
135.1
93.6
116.8
125.3
133.4
135.6
93.9
115.6
129.8
142.3
136.0
94.2
115.1
138.0
155.9
134.3
103.5
114.7
143.3
164.9
132.3
149.5
164.7
128.8
146.9
112.4
144.5
155.8
126.7
146.5
111.2
137. 8
147.9
124.8
135.0
119.3
127.2
118.5
103.1
106.7
FARM
PRO D U C TS , A N D PR O CESSED
AN D FEED S
FO O D S
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
Farm products__________ ______________________________
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9
P rocessed fo o d s and f e e d s . .
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7
Textile products and apparel.............................................................................
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products______________
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and p o w e r. .
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products..........................................
07
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21
Rubber and plastics products_____ _________________
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products............................................................................
Fresh and dried fru its and vegetables-------------Grains------------------------ ----------- ----------------------------------------Livestock..................... ........................... ............
Live p o u ltr y .. . ...................................... ............
Plant and animal fibers.....................................
Fluid m ilk .................................................... ........
Eggs.. ----------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds..................... ..........
Other farm products...................................... ..
----------------------------------------------
Cereal and bakery products....... ............... ..
Meats, poultry, and fish.............. .....................
Dairy products.............. ..................... .. ........... ..
Processed fruits and vegetables............ .............
Sugar and confectionery....................................
Beverages and beverage materials_________
Animal fats and o ils . . ......................................
Crude vegetable oils.................................. .......
Refined vegetable oils-------- -------- ----------------------Vegetable oil end products........................... ..
Miscellaneous processed foods........................
Manufactured animal feeds..............................
111.0
111.1
IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D I T I E S
Cotton products.................................................
Wool products_____________ ____________
Manmade fiber textile p ro d u c ts ....................
Silk yarns------------------------------------------------------ Apparel.................. .. .................. .........................
Textile housefurnishings.......... .. .....................
Miscellaneous textile products ..................................
Hides and skins.................................. ...............
Leather--------- --------- -- ---------------- ---------------------Footwear...................... ....................... .. ...................
Other leather and related products................
_________ ________
Coal___________________________________
Coke____ ______ ______________________
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 1 0 0 ) . .. .......................
Electric power (Jan. 1958 = 1 0 0 )................
Crude petroleum_____ __________________
Petroleum products, refined........................... ..
Industrial chemicals..........................................
Prepared paint....................... ...........................
Paint materials......... ......... ..................... .........
Drugs and pharmaceuticals_______________
Fats and oils, in e d ib le ....................................
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
Plastic resins and materials_______________
Other chemicals and allied products..............
Crude rubber_______ _______ _______ ___
Tires and tubes__________________ ______
Miscellaneous rubber products................... ..
Plastic construction prod ucts (Dec. 1969 = 100)
Lumber............................................ ...................
M illw ork_______________________________
P ly w o o d ...____ ___ ____ ______________
Other wood products (Dec. 1966=100)..........
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
111.0
112.6
111.0
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
26.
WHOLESALE PRICES
105
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957=100 unless otherwise specified]3
1969
1970
Coda
Annual
average
1968
Commodity Group
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued
111.1
109.5
109.3
109.0
108.8
108.7
108.4
108.3
108.1
108.0
107.4
106.8
106.2
105.2
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products...--------- ------------------Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build
ing paper and board_______ ____ ______
Wood pulp______________________ ____ - - Wastepaper................................................... ..
Paper...................................................................
Paperboard____________________________
Converted paper and paperboard products...
Building paper and board................ .................
111.8
103.7
107.5
120.3
96.0
111.9
93.4
110.1
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9
109.9
98.0
107.0
117.0
96.0
110.6
94.4
109.6
98.0
107.2
116.5
95.9
110.3
94.6
109.3
98.0
108.4
116.5
95.9
109.8
95.1
109.2
98.0
110.3
117.2
95.8
109.2
95.2
108.9
98.0
111.2
117.1
93.7
109.0
95.9
108.6
98.0
108.8
117.0
93.5
108.7
99.4
108.3
98.0
107.1
116.7
93.5
108.4
100.7
108.3
98.0
109.1
116.4
93.5
108.3
100.4
107.7
98.0
108.1
116.1
93.6
107.6
99.6
107.1
98.0
107.8
115.7
92.6
106.8
98.2
106.6
98.0
107.4
115.0
92.2
106.3
97.3
105.6
98.0
101.5
112.7
92.2
105.9
92.8
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products..--------------- -------------------Iron and steel__________________________
Steel m ill products--------- --------- -----------------Nonferrous metals.............................................
Metal containers______________ _________
Hardware______________________________
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittin g s ..............
Heating equipment ----------------------------------Fabricated structural metal products----------Miscellaneous metal products---------------------
124.9
114.6
115.5
152.8
120.6
124.2
122.8
99.7
114.0
124.9
123.8
113.9
116.4
150.1
120.6
123.0
122.8
99.7
113.7
124.5
122.9
113.7
116.4
146.4
120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4
122.4
113.7
116.4
144.8
120.6
122.2
120.8
98.7
113.4
124.4
121.7
113.2
115.5
143.5
120.3
121.0
120.2
98.0
112.8
124.2
120.4
112.7
115.4
139.5
119.7
120.6
119.4
97.7
112.6
123.2
118.7
111.1
113.6
136.1
119.7
120.5
119.4
97.7
112.0
121.3
117.9
110.3
112.8
135.5
119.7
119.9
117.9
97.2
111.0
120.7
117.5
109.9
112.7
134.2
119.7
119.9
117.1
97.0
110.8
120.5
116.5
108.9
111.9
132.4
119.7
119.9
116.6
96.8
110.2
120.4
115.8
108.8
111.7
129.9
119.4
119.1
116.6
96.6
109.6
120.4
115.2
108.0
110.7
128.9
119.4
119.0
116.1
96.3
109.4
120.4
114.4
107.5
110.4
127.2
117.0
118.5
115.8
96.1
109.3
119.6
112.4
105.5
108.5
125.3
116.0
116.9
114.1
94.9
107.6
116.1
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
122.5
136.7
140.2
138.6
126.1
121.9
136.4
139.8
138.0
124.8
121.0
135. 8
138.6
136.5
123.7
120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4
119.9
133.0
136.1
134.4
122.6
119.1
132.3
134.9
133.5
121.8
119.0
132.3
134.8
133.3
121.5
118.6
132.0
134.5
132.3
121.2
118.3
131.9
134.3
132.1
120.3
118.0
131.8
134.1
131.8
120.0
117.8
131.7
134.0
131.4
119.8
117.3
131.6
133.6
131.1
119.1
117.0
131.2
133.5
131.0
118.5
115.2
127.1
129.6
128.6
117.2
133.3
106.8
121.5
132.8
106.2
121.0
130.6
106.0
120.4
130.2
105.6
120.0
129.6
105.4
119.2
129.2
104.7
118.5
129.2
104.8
118.1
128.1
104.7
117.8
128.0
104.5
117.6
127.2
104.3
116.6
126.9
104.2
116.5
126.6
103.5
116.1
125.5
103.5
115.7
122.2
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment..-------------- ---------------------Agricultural machinery and equipment..........
Construction machinery and equipment........
Metalworking machinery and equipment----General purpose machinery and equipm ent..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 196 1-1 00)______________ ______ _
Electrical machinery and equipm ent...........
Miscellaneous machinery----------------------------
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables..................................
Household fu r n itu r e . .. ....................................
Commercial furniture.......................... .............
Floor coverings_______ ____________ ____
Household appliances___________ ________
Home electronic equipment........... .................
Other household durable goods___________
107.5
124.3
124.4
93.5
94.4
77.2
133.0
107.2
123.6
124.1
93.1
93.6
77.8
133.3
106.9
123.6
124.0
93.1
93.6
77.7
131.1
106.5
123.3
122.4
93.1
93.1
77.9
131.2
106.4
123.0
121.7
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.2
123.0
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.1
122.8
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.2
105.9
122.3
119.3
93.8
92.9
78.1
130.2
105.9
121.9
119.0
94.6
93.0
78.1
130.0
105.8
121.5
118.0
95.0
93.0
78.5
130.0
105.7
121.3
117.8
95.5
92.8
78.6
129.6
105.4
121.0
117.2
95.5
92.5
73.7
129.1
105.3
120.7
117.0
95.5
92.6
78.7
128.9
104.0
117.2
115.4
95.0
92.2
81.0
124.9
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products....................... ......... ........ 116.5
Flat glass................. ............... ........................... 118.4
Concrete ingredients....................................... .. 120.1
Concrete products.............. ................. ............. 115.9
Structural clay products exc. refractories___ 119.4
Refractories........... ................................... ......... 123.5
Asphalt roofing_____________ ____ ______ ,101. 8
Gypsum products................................... ........... 107.3
Glass containers.................................................. 120.9
Other nonmetallic minerals.................. ........... 111.0
114.5
117.8
116.7
114.2
118.5
120.9
101.2
104.3
116.1
110.6
113.9
116.2
116.7
113.6
118.5
117.2
94.0
109.8
116.1
110.6
113.8
116.2
116.6
113.5
117.8
117.2
96.7
105.9
116.1
110.6
113.5
116.2
116.5
113.2
117.5
117.2
96.7
106.1
116.1
109.6
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.4
117.0
117.0
96.7
103.2
116.1
109.2
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.3
116.9
113.6
100.9
104.9
116.1
109.0
112.8
115.2
115.9
111.6
116.9
113.6
100.2
108.7
116.1
109.0
112.6
114.6
115.6
111.6
116.8
113.6
97.9
108.7
116.1
109.0
112.3
113.4
115.6
111.3
116.7
113.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
109.0
111.9
112.3
115.5
111.2
116.0
112.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
107.6
111.2
110.8
113.8
110.8
115.9
112.6
99.6
106.2
116.1
107.6
110.6
109.9
112.2
110.7
115.8
112.6
96.8
106.2
116.1
107.2
108.1
109.5
109.2
108.1
113.1
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (Dec. 1968=100)................
Motor vehicles and equipment____________
Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)............
102.9
109.1
117.4
102.7
109.0
115.7
102.7
109.0
115.1
102.3
108.7
115.1
100.0
106.1
114.4
99.9
106.0
114.3
100.4
106.6
114.3
100.3
106.6
111.8
100.2
106.5
111.1
100.1
106.4
110.2
100.0
106.3
110.2
100.1
106.4
108.5
100.1
106.5
108.5
104.9
106.6
15
15-1
Miscellaneous products.................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni
tion _________________ ______ ________
Tobacco products....... .......................................
Notions.............................................. ....... .........
Photographic equipment and supplies............
Other miscellaneous products................ .........
117.4
117.0
117.0
116.7
116.4
115.9
115.5
115.1
112.8
112.7
112.5
112.5
112.5
111.8
114.1
124.0
107.2
115.7
115.1
112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9
112.8
124.0
107.2
115.0
114.9
112.3
123.8
106.7
114.9
114.8
112.1
123.8
106.7
113.9
114.3
111.8
123.5
106.7
111.4
114.2
111.2
123.4
102.0
111.4
114.1
110.9
123.2
102.0
112.6
112.6
110.7
117.0
102.0
112.4
111.7
110.8
116.9
100.8
112.1
111.7
110.5
116.7
100.7
112.0
111.4
110.1
116.7
100.7
112.7
111.2
110.2
116.6
100.7
112.7
111.2
108.3
115.2
103.4
113.6
110.9
09
09-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9
>As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre
viously published. See "Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes’ 1, January 1967 (final)
and February 1967 (fina l) for a description of the changes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103.0
114.0
112.1
97.5
105.5
108.4
105.0
2 As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49=
100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale
Price Index, see "BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies" (BLS Bulletin
1458, October 1966), Chapter 11.
106
27.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
WHOLESALE PRICES
Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]2
1969
1968
Commodity group
Annual
average
1968
Dec.3
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
All commodities— less farm products................_
All foods
_____________ -......
...................
Processed foods
115.4
123.3
122.8
115.0
123.1
122.1
114.7
119.8
121.8
114.1
120.1
121.6
113.8
119.9
121.9
113.6
120.7
122.5
113.3
119.9
122.0
112.9
119.0
119.9
112.5
115.4
117.0
112.3
115.7
116.2
111.8
115.0
115.8
111.3
115.5
115.4
110.5
113.8
114.0
109.4
112.2
113.3
Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber p ro d u c ts ___ ___________ ____ Hosiery
- ..................................
Underwear and nightwear______________
Refined petroleum products.......................
East Coast
........ .. ................ .........
Mid-Continent
..........
............
Gulf Coast
.........
.................
Pacific Coast ......................................
Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100)__________
101.0
92.7
115.9
102.2
103.4
103.9
100.7
92.5
99.1
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
102.5
99.8
92.5
98.4
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
98.7
101.4
92.3
97.4
101.3
92.7
115.6
101.8
103.4
98.0
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.3
92.7
115.6
102.5
103.4
103.9
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.0
92.7
115.6
103.2
103.4
98.8
104.8
94.9
97.0
100.8
92.7
114.5
103.3
103.4
103.9
103.2
93.6
98.7
100.6
92.7
114.3
102.4
103.4
101.0
102.4
93.6
97.4
100.9
92.7
114.2
102.5
103.4
103.2
101.8
93.6
97.6
100.8
92.7
114.3
101.7
103.4
106 9
99.5
91.0
98.4
101.0
92.4
114.2
99.5
103.4
101.1
96.8
91.0
95.8
101.5
92.5
114.3
98.9
103.4
101.8
95.2
90.9
95.8
101.6
93.2
113.6
99.0
103.4
97.1
97.3
90.9
96.4
100.6
92.5
112.6
100.3
104.9
99.6
99.8
91.8
95.3
Pharmaceutical preparations ___
Lumber and wood products excluding
m illwork and other wood products4___
Special metals and metal products5..........
Machinery and motive p r o d u c ts ..._____
Machinery and equipment, except elec
trical
____ ____________ . ...........
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking m achinery............................
Total tractors.......... .......................................
Industrial valves............. .......................... ..
Industrial fittings
....................................
Abrasive grinding wheels.............................
Construction m aterials................................
97.1
96.7
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.3
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.1
95.9
95.9
96.1
95.4
120.6
119.9
117.9
122.2
119.2
117.4
120.1
118.8
116.9
120.8
117.5
115.5
121.7
116.6
115.1
123.5
115.7
115.2
130.0
115.2
114.9
142.5
114.9
114.7
151.1
114.3
114.4
161.6
113.7
114.3
155.0
113.4
114.0
146.0
112.9
113.8
140.1
111.9
113.6
121.7
110.9
112.0
131.9
139.1
144.6
130.6
138.5
143.6
129.9
135.5
143.4
129.0
135.3
141.7
128.3
134.6
140.9
128.1
134.7
140.9
127.5
134.3
139.2
127.1
134.3
138.9
126.6
134.4
138.6
126.4
134.4
138.1
126.0
134.1
137.8
125.5
133.7
137.7
125.0
132.6
136.9
123.0
129.4
135.3
142.5
127.3
119.4
107.1
116.9
141.3
125.8
118.6
107.0
116.9
139.4
125.8
118.0
102.6
116.3
138.4
124.8
118.0
102.6
115.9
137.1
124.8
115.3
102.6
115.7
137.0
125.8
115.3
102.6
115.9
137.0
126.5
115.9
102.6
116.9
137.0
123.5
115.9
102.6
118.9
137.0
123.1
114.7
102.6
120.2
136.8
122.4
114.7
102.6
121.6
136.8
120.4
113.0
102.6
119.8
136.8
120.6
112.0
102.6
117.4
135.6
121.0
112.0
102.3
115.4
131.5
124.6
107.7
99.0
111.1
'See footnote 1, table 26.
2See footnote 2, table 26.
3 Current monthly indexes are not available for this issue.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Formerly titled "Lum ber and wood products, excluding m illw ork."
5 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
28.
107
Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing
[1957-59=100] J
Annual
averag e
1969
1970
Commodity group
1968
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
M ay
Apr.
M a r.
Feb .
Ja n .
A L L C O M M O D I T I E S .............. ..........................................
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
113.2
112.8
111.9
111.7
111.1
110.7
108.7
C R U D E M A T E R IA LS F O R F U R T H E R P R O C .............................................................................
E S S IN G
110.7
109.9
109.0
108.7
108.7
109.5
110.2
111.2
109.7
105.7
105.2
103.8
102.8
101.1
112.9
112.2
111.0
110.5
110.4
112.1
113.8
115.6
113.5
107.6
107.6
105.9
104.5
102.5
105.3
104.3
116.4
104.2
103.2
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.1
104.8
103.9
114.9
104.1
103.2
114.1
102.6
101.6
114.1
102.1
101.0
113.8
101.8
100.8
113.2
101.1
100.0
113.2
99.5
98.3
113.1
98.3
97.0
112.8
97.9
96.6
112.8
97.4
96.4
109.8
Manufacturing industries_________
Nonmanufacturing industries-------
122.2
119.6
125.8
121.5
118.8
125.0
121.1
118.6
124.5
119.9
117.8
122.8
118.1
116.7
120.1
117.2
115.6
119.4
117.1
115.5
119.3
116.8
115.3
118.7
116.4
115.0
118.2
116.2
114.9
117.8
115.8
114.7
117.4
115.4
114.2
117.1
115.7
114. 5
117.3
112.7
112.2
113.5
I N T E R M E D I A T E M A T E R I A L S , S U P P L IE S A N D
_________________
CO M PO N EN TS
.
114.4
113.5
113.1
112.8
112.4
111.9
111.4
111.4
111.4
111.4
111.4
110.7
110.1
108.0
factoring .
_______________
Materials for food m anufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufactu ring
____________
Materials for durable manufactur____________ ____
ing
Components for manufacturing-----
113.6
121.1
112.9
119.9
112.6
120.0
112.2
119.2
111.8
118.3
111.4
118.4
110.6
117.8
110.4
117.8
110.2
116.3
109.8
114.1
109.6
113.4
109.1
113.1
108.5
112.7
107.1
110.7
102.3
101.6
101.7
101.5
101.7
101.7
101.2
101.1
100.9
100.8
100.7
100.6
100.5
100.2
122.1
117.7
121.4
117.0
120.4
116.7
120.0
116.1
119.6
115.1
118.7
114.3
117.4
113.9
117.1
113.4
117.5
113.1
117.3
112.6
117.0
112.4
116.0
111.9
114.8
111. 5
111.7
110.5
Materials and Componentsfor Construction..
117.3
116.8
116.7
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.4
116.0
117.6
118.4
119.7
118.3
116.3
110.7
102.4
105.3
97.8
102.7
105.1
99.0
102.1
104.5
98.4
102.3
104.8
98.4
101.0
103.2
97.6
100.6
102.3
97.8
100.8
102.4
98.4
100.9
102.4
98.5
100.5
102.4
97.5
100.3
102.2
97.2
100.4
102.8
96.7
99.6
102.8
94.7
99.5
102.6
94.8
99.7
102.0
96.2
116.2
114.8
114.6
114.5
114.2
113.7
113.3
113.2
113.1
112.9
112.3
111.7
110.9
109.2
114.3
116.8
112.5
110.8
109.7
113.8
116.7
111.9
109.3
109.6
113.3
116.5
111.2
107.4
109.4
113.9
116.3
112.1
110.8
109.2
112.9
115.8
111.0
108.1
108.8
113.0
115.2
111.4
109.8
108.6
113.1
115. 0
111. 5
110.6
108.4
112.5
113.8
111.2
111.0
107.8
Foodstuffs and f eedstuffs
....................
Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing__________ _____ _
C o nstruction..... ....................... ........
Crudetuel
Materials
_________________ ____
and
Components for
Manu-
Processed fuelsand lubricants....................................
Manufacturing industries. ______
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
Containers
.................................................................
Manufacturing industries ______
Nonmanufacturing in d u s trie s ____
Manufactured animal feeds_____
Other supplies.............. .................
119.7
120.5
118.6
123.7
112.3
116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1
111.8
115.9
118.7
113.9
111.6
111.4
115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3
111.0
115.1
117.8
113.3
111.7
110.4
114.4
117.4
112.4
110.5
109.7
F I N I S H E D G O O D S (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)
...................................... ...................................................
118.8
118.0
117.6
116.5
116.0
115.7
115.9
115.4
114.7
113.8
113.7
113.3
113.2
111.3
117.3
126.4
131.6
125.3
114.2
107.4
116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2
116.2
123.9
131.0
122.5
113.8
107.1
115.1
121.2
114.2
122.4
113.6
106.9
114.7
121.6
116.9
122.4
113.3
105.3
114.4
121.2
112.4
122.8
113.0
105.2
114.8
122.3
114.9
123.7
112.6
105.6
114.2
121.3
111.3
123.1
112.2
105.5
113.5
120.1
116.0
120.9
111.4
105.4
112.3
116.9
111.4
117.9
111.5
105.4
112.2
117.1
117.4
116.9
111.2
105.3
111.7
116. 4
115.1
116. 5
110.7
105.1
111.8
116. 8
119. /
116.2
110. 4
105.1
109.9
113.4
109.1
114.2
109.4
103.9
122.9
128.0
118.0
122.3
127.5
117.4
121.5
126.2
117.0
120.8
125.8
116.1
119.9
125.0
115.0
119.3
124.4
114.4
119.3
124.4
114.5
118.7
123.5
114.2
118.5
123.2
113.9
118.1
122.7
113.7
118.0
122.6
113.7
117.8
122.3
113. 5
117.6
121.9
113.3
115.3
119.8
111. 1
Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and an
imal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco
...............
(3)
114.5
114.1
113.7
113.9
112.5
110.7
110.2
109.7
109.0
107.2
105.5
105.0
101.8
Intermediate materials supplies and components, excluding intermediate materials for
food m fg., and m fr.'d animal fe e d s ..........................
(*>
112.9
112.6
112.2
111.8
111.3
110.9
110.8
111.1
111.0
111.1
110.4
109.7
107.5
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods.................................................................. ...................................
0
111.5
111.3
111.1
110.3
110.1
110.0
109.7
109.2
109.2
109.0
108.7
108.4
107.4
Supplies
________ _________
Consumer Goods _______ ______________
_________________
Foods .
C rude.. ............................ ...........
Processed
.................. .......
Other nondurable goods..... ..............
Durable goods_______ _____ ____
Producer Finished Goods...................... ......................
Manufacturing industries..... ............
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
S P E C I A L G R O U P IN G S
1 See footnote 1, table 26.
2 See footnote 2, table 26.
2 Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see “ Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes,” January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).
108
29.
WHOLESALE PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product
11957- 59= 1001*
1970
1969
Commodity group
Annual
average
1968
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
All commodities.................................................
Total durable goods................. ...........
Total nondurable goods.......................
116.0
119.6
113.4
115.1
119.0
112.4
114.7
118.4
111.9
114.0
117.9
111.2
113.6
117.1
111.1
113.4
116.5
111.1
113.3
116.1
111.3
113.2
115.9
111.2
112.8
116.1
110.3
111.9
116.0
108.8
111.7
116.1
108.6
111.1
115.4
108.0
110.7
114.6
107.8
108.7
111.8
106.5
Total manufactures......................... ...................
Durable.________________ ______ _
N o ndurable..______ _____________
116.1
119.4
113.0
115.3
118.8
111.9
114.9
118.3
111.6
114.6
117.9
111.4
113.9
117.0
111.0
113.6
116.4
111.0
113.5
116.1
111.0
113.2
116.0
110.6
112.8
116.2
109.6
112.4
116.2
108.9
112.2
116.3
108.3
111.7
115.6
108.0
111.3
114.8
107.7
109.4
112.0
106.9
Total raw or slightly processed goods........... ........
Durable_________________________
Nondurable_____ ____ ______ ____
114.8
128.9
114.1
113.9
125.3
113.3
113.1
124.0
112.5
111.0
122.8
110.3
111.6
123.7
110.9
111.5
119.7
112.2
114.8
112.1
112.6
114.9
112.4
112.1
113.3
112.0
108.6
110.6
108.5
109.1
108.1
109.1
107.8
107.1
107.8
107.6
105.0
107.7
104.9
101.1
105.2
* See footnote 1, table 26.
NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with
1947, see "Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).
2See footnote 2, table 26.
30.
111.1
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated]
1963
SIC
Code
Industry
1969
1968
Dec.2
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Annual
aver
age
1968
Other
bases
MINING
m i
1211
1311
1421
Anthracite_____________________ ____
Bituminous coal__________
Crude petroleum and natural gas______
Crushed and broken stone____ _____
118.4
124.9
110.9
114.5
114.9
124.2
110.9
114.5
111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2
111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2
108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6
108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6
104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6
104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6
106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.5
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.4
111.3
99 9
107 2
106.0
109.5
1442
1475
14/6
1477
Construction sand and gravel___
Phosphate rock_______ _
Rock salt____________
Sulfur____ _______
... .. . _
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1
122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
173.7
118.6
147.4
100.8
173.7
116.6
147.4
100.8
171.6
2011
2013
2U1Ò
2021
2033
Meat slaughtering plants_______
Meat processing plants.. .
Poultry dressing plants____ .
Creamery butter________
Canned fruits and vegetables
12/66
12/66
114.0
121.3
105.7
106.3
109.8
113.5
118.5
103.3
105.1
109.7
113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
109.5
116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0
117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7
121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7
121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7
114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7
108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8
104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7
103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6
104.2
100.3
95.9
103.4
107.4
100.1
100.7
90.4
105.0
107.3
101.1
98.8
93.8
102.6
109.4
2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063
Fresh or frozen packaged fis h ...
Rice m illing_______
Biscuits, crackers and cookies...
Raw cane sugar___
._
Cane sugar refining________
Beet sugar_____ _________
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1
154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6
146.5
94.0
108.0
110.5
109.2
106.7
145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4
143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108.1
106.3
146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7
139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7
140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9
136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0
141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3
141.4
93.8
104.3
107.7
103.6
102.2
140.1
93 8
104.3
107.5
103.6
102. è
139.0
93.8
104.3
106.8
103.2
102.5
131.5
96.6
104.3
105.4
101.9
102.3
2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092
Chewing gum_____________
Malt liquors_____ . . . . .
M alt__
Wines and b ra n d y ...
Cottonseed oil m ills______________
Soybean oil m ills_________
106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99.4
88.6
106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95.8
88.0
106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91.5
91.0
106.1
107.1
96.8
115.5
97.0
85.7
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1
106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0
106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
95.0
83.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
94.5
82.2
106.0
104.6
96.8
115.2
108.9
86.9
2094
2096
2098
2111
2121
2131
Animal and marine fats and oils___
Shortening and cooking oils
Macaroniand noodle products
Cigarettes________ .
Cigars______
____ . . .
Chewing and smoking tobacco___
96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141.4
104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6
102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5
105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3
104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1
99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1
93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1
89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0
88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0
85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7
82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7
81.3
101.0
100.3
117.4
102.0
132.4
79.7
100.3
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4
79.0
100.5
100.3
115.8
101.6
130.7
2254
2311
2321
2322
2327
Knit underwear m ills______
Men s and boys’ suits and coats
Men’s dress shirts and nightwear
Men s and boys’ underwear
Men s and boys' separate trousers .
12/66
12/66
107.8
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9
107.7
142.2
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4
107.7
138.5
120.6
107.9
106.3
107.7
137.1
118.3
107.7
106.1
106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1
106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8
106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8
106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7
106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7
106.3
134.2
118.7
106.9
104.7
105.7
133.4
115.5
106.4
103.9
104.7
127.3
114.4
104.5
102.8
2328
2381
2426
2442
2515
Work clothing________
Fabric dress and work g lo v e s ..
Hardwood dimension and flooring
Wirebound boxes and crates
Mattresses and bedsprings
12/66
12/67
12/66
119.1
137.1
116.5
110.7
108.2
119.0
135. 4
116.6
108.7
119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5
118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5
117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5
117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3
117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3
116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2
116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108.2
116.5
130.1
116.5
106.3
106.7
115.1
128.4
114.7
105.6
104.3
114.3
127.5
106.6
104.6
103.7
2521
Wood office furniture
Sanitary paper products
Sanitary food containers..
12/66
12/66
139.2
115.3
101.3
138.9
115.3
101.2
137.6
113.9
100.6
135.9
113.5
100.4
134.3
113.1
100.4
134.3
112.3
100.1
134.3
111.5
100.7
133.4
111.1
100.6
132.2
111.1
111.1
100.6
100.4
131.7
110.2
100.7
131.1
108.0
100.8
131.1
108.0
100.5
128.0
107.1
101.5
MANUFACTURING
¿004
See footnotes a t end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
110. 0
132.8
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
30.
1963
SIC
Code
109
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries i—Continued
1968
1969
Other
bases
Industry
Annual
A ve ra g e
1968
Dec.2
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.8
95.6
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
94.5
95.8
96.0
94.7
95.7
96.0
95.3
95.2
96.1
85.0
90.6
117.1
97.8
120.4
118.3
85.0
90.6
117.3
97.3
120.5
117.2
85.4
91.2
117.3
97.3
121.2
117.4
88.3
92.7
117.4
97.5
122.3
117.6
88.5
92.6
117.5
98.1
121.5
118.2
88.7
93.1
117.4
98.8
121.7
117.5
99.2
93.3
117.5
98.8
122.1
113. b
99.2
93.3
116.9
98.0
122.2
115.4
99.2
93.3
115.0
98.0
122.8
112.0
99.4
93.9
114.8
97.1
116.7
111.5
99.4
93.7
114.1
95.1
116.7
110.5
99.6
94.1
114.1
94.7
117.0
109.7
100.3
94.8
114.6
95.1
116.1
111.0
102.0
98.4
113.8
96.3
112.7
110.4
M A N U F A C T U R IN G -C o n tin u e d
2822
2823
2824
Synthetic rubber............- ............. - ...........
Cellulosic man-made fibers---- ----------Organic fibers, noncellulosic------------------
2892
2911
3111
3121
Fertilizers
_ _
_________ —
Fertilizers, mixing only---------- ----------Explosives-------------------------- ----------- - - Petroleum refining
. . .
I eather tanning and finishing____ __
Industrial leather belting----------------------
3221
3241
3251
3255
3259
Glass containers
________________
Cement, hydraulic______ ____ ______ Brick and structural clay tile __________
Clay refractories_____ -------------Structural clay products, n.e.c---------------
116.1
114.9
125.1
126.2
116.4
116.1
114.9
125.1
122.2
116.4
116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.9
116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.1
116.1
114.8
123.5
122.0
115.0
116.1
114.8
123.5
117.8
114.4
116.1
114.8
123.4
117.8
114.8
116.1
114.8
123.2
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.8
123.0
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.7
121.5
116.7
115.3
116.1
111.7
121.5
116.7
115.1
116.1
108.5
121.4
116.7
115.0
110.3
105.9
121.2
116.7
114.1
108.4
105.7
117.8
116.0
114.3
3261
3262
3263
3271
3273
3275
3312
3315
Vitreous plumbing fixtures-------------------Vitreous china food utensils___ ______
Fine earthenware food utensils __ _ ___
Concrete block and brick__ ______ _
Ready mixed concrete--------- - - - --------Gypsum products---------- ---------------------Blast furnace and steel m ills .. - - - - - - Steel wire drawing, etc-------------------------
104.6
143.7
131.2
115.4
115.7
104.7
115.3
108.6
104.2
143.7
131.2
115.0
114.9
110.1
115.3
108.5
103.4
139.8
130.9
114.9
114.7
106.2
115.2
108.4
102.4
139.8
130.9
114.6
114.4
106.4
114.4
107.5
102.4
139.8
130.9
114.5
113.7
103.6
114.3
107.0
102.4
139.8
130.9
114. b
IliJ. b
105.2
112.5
106.4
100.9
137.2
127.0
113.7
112.7
108.9
111.8
106.3
100.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.6
108.9
111.7
105.9
99.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.3
106.5
110.8
105.1
99.8
134.3
123.3
114.5
112.0
106.5
110.6
105.1
99.7
134.3
123.3
113.4
111.8
106.5
109.5
105.1
99.5
134.3
123.3
112.9
111.7
106.5
109.3
104.5
99.1
134.3
123.3
111.7
110.3
106.5
107.7
103.7
98.2
130.8
123.1
110.8
108.6
105.8
107.6
101.5
3316
3317
3333
3334
3339
3351
3411
Cold finishing of steel shapes....... .........
Steel pipe and tube.......... .........................
Primary zinc................................................
Primary aluminum------------------------------Primary nonferrous metals, n.e.c______
Copper'rolling and drawing.......................
Metal cans....................................................
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
113.6
110.5
107.7
114.0
134.8
171.4
109.0
113.7
110.4
107.7
114.0
138.9
166.4
109.0
113.7
110.4
107.4
114.0
133.9
166.4
109.0
112.1
108.4
105.6
110.0
131.8
165.9
109.0
112.1
107.8
100.9
110.0
123.8
160.6
109.0
109.0
107.7
100.6
110.0
120.5
154. 5
108.9
109.0
107.3
100.5
109.0
120.1
152.3
108.9
108.7
107.3
100.4
109.0
120.1
151.7
108.9
107.5
107.2
97.1
109.0
120.3
147.8
108.9
107.4
105.7
96.9
109.0
119.5
144.6
108.9
107.4
105.6
96.9
109.0
119.8
142.8
108.8
107.2
104.8
97.2
106.1
122.3
142.8
106.3
107.0
104.7
93.9
105.4
119.4
134.3
106.2
104.6
103.6
93.9
104.0
122.3
140.3
105.6
3423
3431
3493
3496
3498
3519
Hand and edge tools...................................
Metal plumbing fixtures...........................Steel springs................................................
Collapsible tu b e s .......................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings......................
Internal combustion engines...................-
12/67
110.8
100.4
107.2
103.8
130.9
110.9
110.6
100.3
107.2
103.7
130.8
110.8
109.6
99.8
107.2
103.7
130.4
110.1
108.4
99.4
106.8
103.7
130.4
109.7
108.4
98.8
106.8
103.6
130.3
109.1
107.8
98.7
106.8
103.6
130.3
108.0
107.1
97.3
106.3
103.5
129.7
108.3
106.9
96.6
106.0
103.2
129.7
108.3
107.2
95.8
105.9
103.2
129.7
107.9
106.3
95.8
105.8
103.1
123.4
107.5
105.9
95.7
105.8
103.0
123.4
106.9
105.0
95.3
105.8
102.9
123.4
106.7
104.8
95.0
105.2
101.5
122.7
106.6
102.6
93.5
102.6
100.2
119.8
104.5
3533
3534
3537
3562
3572
Oil field machinery......... . .........................
Elevators and moving stairways_______
Industrial trucks and tra cto rs .................
Ball and roller bearings.............................
Typewriters..................................................
12/66
12/66
125.1
110.5
134.0
105.7
103.9
122.7
107.7
133.9
103.7
103.8
122.5
107.7
133.6
103.7
103.2
122.4
107.6
132.6
102.6
103.1
121.8
107.6
131.2
102.6
103.1
121.5
107.6
131.2
102.2
101.5
121.0
104.5
130.5
102.2
101.4
120.8
104.5
129.1
102.1
101.3
120.4
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.5
120.0
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.6
119.1
103.9
128.2
102.1
100.6
119.0
103.9
128.1
101.6
100.6
118.0
103.9
127.2
101.6
100.6
114.6
102.8
123.7
100.8
101.3
3576
3612
3613
3624
3635
3641
Scales Rod balances
Switchgear and switchboards....................
Carbon and graphite products..................
Household vacuum cleaners................... ..
Electric lam ps.............................................
12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
12/66
133.4
100.3
107.1
104.8
99.9
98.4
133.2
99.3
106.7
104.4
99.9
98.5
133.0
100.2
105.7
104.4
99.9
99.2
133.0
101.6
105.9
104.3
99.8
101.1
129.9
101.6
103.6
104.3
99.8
100.3
129.9
101.3
104.4
104.3
99.8
99.6
128.6
101.1
104.9
103.0
99.8
104.1
127.0
100.2
104.0
101.1
99.8
103.1
127.0
100.8
103.6
101.0
99.8
103.6
126.9
102.2
104.3
101.0
99.8
102.7
126.9
102.3
104.9
101.0
99.7
103.0
126.3
104.6
104.8
101.0
99.7
103.0
126.4
104.6
104.4
101.0
99.5
103.0
123.4
106.1
104.3
100.8
101.2
104.9
3652
3671
3672
3673
Phonograph records...................................
Electron tubes, receiving type____ ____
Cathode ray picture tubesl 1. ..................
Electron tubes, transm itting................... -
12/66
12/66
12/66
123.5
121.2
87.5
103.2
123.5
121.3
89.7
103.2
123.5
121.3
90.0
103.1
123.5
121.2
90.0
103.0
122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9
122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9
122.6
117.8
102.1
122.3
117.8
89.9
102.1
122.3
117.8
89.9
102.0
122.3
117.7
89.9
102.0
122.3
109.6
89.8
102.0
121.3
105.9
89.9
102.1
119.8
105.9
92.4
102.0
119.8
105.9
94.5
101.4
3674
3692
3693
3941
Semiconductors
........ .....................
Primary batteries, dry and wet.................
X-ray apparatus and tubes........................
Games and toys........................................
92.7
115.4
117.4
112.1
92.8
115.4
115.6
112.2
92.7
115.3
115.4
111.4
92.6
115.2
113.1
111.4
92.7
115.2
112.8
111.4
92.6
115.2
112.8
92.6
115.2
112.5
92.7
115.2
112.6
92.7
115.2
92.6
114.9
111.3
111.1
111.1
111.1
111.2
111.1
92.4
113.8
111.4
111.2
92.4
112.5
111.0
92.5
111.3
107.7
110.1
92.3
111.3
105.1
109.3
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
1958
12/66
12/66
12/66
1958
12/66
12/66
_ _____
12/66
12/67
12/66
* For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook ot Methods for Surveys and
Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also, "Industry and Sector Price indexes,”
in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.
2 Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At
the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 9 .9
111.1
110.3
made and nesessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay.
Indexes beginning with January 1970 w ill be published in a later report.
NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.
110
31.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MARCH 1970
LABOR MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Workers involved in stoppages
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect during
month
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect during
month
(thousands)
Man-days idle during month or year
Number
(thousands)
Percent of esti
mated working
time
1QAS
1946
1947
1948
1949
4,750
4j 985
3,693
3' 419
3,606
3,470
4,600
2,170
1,960
3,030
38,000
116,000
34,600
34,100
50,500
0.31
1.04
.30
.28
.44
1950
1QS1
1952
1953
1954
4,843
4; 737
5; 117
5,091
3,468
2,410
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
38,800
22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600
.33
.18
.48
.22
.18
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
4,320
3,825
3,673
3^ 694
,708
3
2,650
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
28,200
33,100
16,500
23,900
69, 000
.22
.24
.12
.18
.50
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
3,333
3,367
3i 614
3; 362
3; 655
1,320
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
19,100
16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900
.14
.11
.13
.11
.15
1965
1966
1967
1968
3,963
4! 405
4,595
5| 045
1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649
23,300
25,400
42,100
49,018
.15
.15
.25
.28
1967:
1968:
1969:
Janu ary........................
February___________
March.."— .........- .........
286
292
368
443
485
545
94.4
104.1
129.9
163.5
159.2
195.4
1,247.9
1,275.8
1,507.8
.09
.10
.10
April
__________
May
.............. .......
June...............................
462
528
472
638
769
759
397.6
277.8
211.8
438.8
584.9
405.0
2,544.8
4,406. 4
4,927.4
.19
.30
.33
Inly
_____
August_____ _______
September...... .............
389
392
415
682
689
681
664.6
91.3
372.8
865.5
233.1
473.6
4,328.7
2,859. 5
6,159.8
.32
.18
.45
October........... .............
November...................
December....................
449
360
182
727
653
445
178.8
277.1
74.4
458.7
559.5
209.5
7,105.6
3,213.2
2, 546. 5
.47
.22
.18
J a n u a ry .......................
February __________
M a rc h .I......... .............
314
357
381
483
569
618
187.8
275.0
174.5
275.7
451.3
368.7
2,668.5
4,104.1
3,682. 0
.18
.29
.26
A p r i l ______________
May
. __________
June........ ............. —
505
610
500
748
930
810
537.2
307.3
168.5
656.7
736.2
399.9
5,677.4
7,452.2
5,576.8
.38
.49
.40
July .............................
August_______ ______
September...................
520
466
448
880
821
738
202.0
153.8
169.8
465.1
359.6
349.0
4,611.9
4, 048.9
3, 081.1
.30
.26
.22
October.........................
November.............. ..
December......... ...........
434
327
183
741
617
408
279.0
129.9
64.1
414.5
306.1
189.2
3,991.7
2,430.5
1,692.5
.25
.17
.11
January2 ......................
February2 . ........... .
...................
M arch2
A p r il2
_______
May2
_________
June2 .........................
J u ly 2______ ____ ____
August2......... ...............
September2....... ...........
October2 ___________
November2............. ..
December2........ ...........
320
330
420
570
660
560
500
500
490
510
310
175
480
500
600
770
870
800
760
770
740
750
550
385
182
137
112
253
219
181
220
160
157
317
132
33
255
266
261
303
329
302
307
280
215
372
323
208
3,380
2,590
2,080
2,740
3,530
3,370
3,420
2, 890
1,830
2,850
4,050
3,490
.22
.19
.14
.18
.24
.22
.22
.19
.12
.17
.29
.25
i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a fu ll 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 establishments directly involved in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages,
2 Preliminary.
PRODUCTIVITY
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
32.
H l
Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[ Indexes 1957-59=100]
Output per
man-hour
Man-hours
Output
Compensation per
m an-hour1
Real compensation
per m an-hour3
Unit labor
costs
Year and quarter
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
1967’
1st quarter ..............................................
2d quarter
__ ____ ________________
3d quarter
..............................................
4th quarter __ _____ _______________
Annual average.............................................................
146.4
147.2
148.9
150.2
148.2
148.2
148.9
150.7
152.1
150.0
110.6
109.6
110.3
110.9
110.4
115.5
114.9
115.3
116.0
115.4
132.4
134.4
134.9
135.4
134.3
128.3
129.6
130.6
131.1
129.9
147.9
150.3
152.2
154.3
151.2
143.5
145.5
147.6
149.7
146.6
129.0
130.1
130.4
131.1
130.1
125.2
126.0
126.4
127.2
126.2
111.7
111.9
112.9
114.0
112.6
111.9
112.3
113.0
114.2
112.9
1«it quarter ............................ ................. .
_____________________
2d quarter
_______________________
3d quarter
4th quarter
................ ....... ................. Annual average............................................................
152.4
155.2
156.7
158.1
155.6
154.3
157.5
159.0
160.6
157.9
111.2
112.2
112.7
112.6
112.2
116.4
117.5
118.3
118.3
117.6
137.0
138.3
139.0
140.4
138.7
132.6
134.1
134.4
135.8
1 3 4 .r
158.5
160.8
163.7
167.8
162.7
153.6
155.7
158.1
162.0
157.4
133.3
133.7
134.5
136.3
134.4
129.2
129.4
129.8
131.5
130.0
115.7
116.3
117.8
119.6
117.4
115.9
116.1
117.6
119.4
117.3
1999:
159.1
159.9
160.8
160.6
160.1
161.5
162.3
163.1
163.4
162.6
113.7
114.6
115.0
114.3
114.4
119.6
120.7
121.4
121.0
120.6
139.9
139.5
139.8
140.5
139.9
135.0
134.5
134.4
135.0
134.8
170.5
172.7
175.8
179.3
174.6
164.4
166.5
169.1
172.1
168.0
136.7
136.2
136.8
137.5
136.8
131.8
131.3
131.5
132.0
131.7
121.8
123.8
125.8
127.7
124.8
121.8
123.8
125.8
127. 5
124.7
1st quarter ........... ...................................
2d quarter
.................... ...............
3d quarter
_ ____ ______
4th quarter
.............................................
Annual average.------ ----------------------------- ------------
Percent change over previous quarter at annual ra te 3
1967:
1st quarter....................................................
2d q u a rte r ........................- .........................
3d q u a rte r___________ ____ _________
4th quarter............ ........... - .........................
-1 .4
2.3
4.5
3.6
-2 .2
1.9
4.8
3.9
0.0
- 3 .7
2.9
2.1
- 0 .3
- 2 .1
1.7
2.4
- 1 .4
6.2
1.5
1.5
-1 .9
4.1
3.0
1.5
3.9
6.7
5.2
5.6
4.9
5. 5
5.8
5.9
3.2
3.7
0.9
2.1
4.1
2.6
1.6
2.3
5.3
0.5
3.6
4.1
6.9
1.4
2.7
4.4
1968:
1st quarter....................................................
2d quarter...... ............................... ...............
3d q u a rte r............................................... ..
4th quarter.............................. .....................
6.0
7.4
4.1
3.5
6.0
8.4
4.0
4.0
1.0
3.5
1.9
-0 .3
1.2
3.8
2.8
0.0
4.9
3.8
2.1
3.8
4.8
4.5
1.1
4.0
11.3
6.0
7.5
10.4
10.9
5.5
6.4
10.3
6.8
1.1
2.3
5.5
6.5
0.7
1.3
5.4
6.0
2.1
5.3
6.3
5.9
1.0
5.3
6.0
1969:
1st q u a r te r ........................................... .
2d quarter . . . . . .
. . ____ .
3d quarter____ _____ _______________
4th quarter_________________________
2.6
1.9
2.2
-0 .3
2.2
2.0
2.0
0.6
3.8
3.2
1.3
-2 .2
4.6
3.5
2.4
-1 .3
-1 .2
-1 .3
0.8
2.0
-2 .3
-1 .4
-0 .4
1.9
6.4
5.4
7.4
8.2
5.8
5.4
6.2
7.5
1.4
-1 .4
1.5
2.3
0.8
-1 .4
0.4
1.7
7.6
6.8
6.5
6.0
8.3
6.9
6.6
5.5
Percent change over previous year4
1968 :
3d quarter.......... ......... ....... ................. ..
4th q u a rte r.____ ___________________
5.3
5.3
5.6
5.6
2.1
1.5
2.6
1.9
3.1
3.7
2.9
3.6
7.6
8.8
7.2
8.3
3.1
3.9
2.7
3.4
4.4
4.9
4.1
4.5
1969:
1st quarter. _. __ ___ __ _ ________
2d quarter___ ______ _______________
3rd quarter_____________ __________ 4th quarter______________________ -
4.4
3.0
2.6
1.6
4.6
3.0
2.6
1.7
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.5
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.1
0.8
0.5
0.1
1.8
0.3
0.0
-0 .6
7.6
7.4
7.4
6.8
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.2 •
2.6
1.9
1.7
0.9
2.0
1.5
1.3
0.4
5.3
6.5
6.8
6.7
5.1
6.6
7.0
6.8
i Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple
mentary payments for the self-employed.
3 Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
3 Percent change computed from original data.
4 Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.
SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
NOTE: Data for 1967,1968, and first quarter 1969 have been revised to reflect new
benchmark information on output, employment and compensation.
Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, April 1970
Title
Wholesale Price Index, final
The employment situation
Consumer Price Index
Work stoppages
Factory labor turnover
Wholesale Price Index, preliminary
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
................ ........................... ....... .............
.............. - __________ ____ _____________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ___ ____ ___ ______
__ _
__
_
__ _ __
..............
__
__
__
________________ __ ................ ...
Date of press
release
April
April
April
April
April
April
6
7
23
24
29
29
Period
covered
March
March
March
March
February
April
MLR table
numbers
26-30
1-14
23-25
31
15-16
26-30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969. Bulletin 1630. 407 pp. $3.75.
Economic Stability
The Anatomy of Inflation. Report 373. 24 pp. Free from BLS regional offices.
Labor Organizations
Unaffiliated Intrastate and Single-Employer Unions, 1967. Bulletin 1640. 21 pp. 35 cents.
Productivity
Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes Industry, 1958-66.
Bulletin 1641. 19 pp. 35 cents.
Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour: Gray Iron Foundries Industry, 1954-66 Bulletin 1636.
24 pp. 35 cents.
Wages
Area Wage Surveys (Metropolitan areas):
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., August 1969. Bulletin 1660-7. 27 pp. 35 cents.
Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., September 1969. Bulletin 1660-10. 23 pp. 35 cents.
Baltimore, Md., August 1969. Bulletin 1660-11. 25 pp. 35 cents.
Omaha, Nebr.-lowa, September 1969. Bulletin 1660-12. 16 pp. 30 cents.
Syracuse, N.Y., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-13. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Sioux Falls, S. Dak., September 1969. Bulletin 1660-14. 11 pp. 25 cents.
Scranton, Pa., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-15. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Industry Wage Surveys:
Contract Cleaning Services, July 1968. Bulletin 1644. 48 pp. 55 cents.
Laundry and Cleaning Services, April 1967 and April 1968. Bulletin 1645. 76 pp. 75 cents.
Work Injuries
Work Injuries in Atomic Energy, 1967. Report 359. 16 pp. Free from BLS regional offices.
Send check or money order to any of the Bureau's regional offices, listed on the inside front
cover. Copies may also be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970
O — 3 7 4 -7 4 4
Boston
Philadelphia
Kansas City
Y o u r B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s R e g io n a l O ffic e
is e q u ip p e d to...
B H e l p y o u f i n d t h e in form ation you need a b o u t p r ic e s , e m p lo y m e n t ,
w a g e s , frin ge benefits, e a rn in g s , and o th e r c u r r e n t statistical series.
E x p l a i n w h a t t h e d a t a m e a n to y o u r r e g ion, y o u r i n d u s t r y ,
yo u r labor m arket.
H e lp you u se th e d a t a co rre c tly .
D e l i v e r t h e inform ation p ro m p tly .
For the address of your nearest Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Office, see the inside
front cover of this issue of the Monthly Labor Review.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Division of Public Documents
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Postage and fees paid
U.S. Government Printing Office
[fi rst classm Al LJ
@FedFRASER