The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 1981
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A special section on
safety and health
■» 4»
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523 1327.
Subscription price per year
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485
> t*-r
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III
Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881 - 4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V Chicago: William £ Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI
Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767 -6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII
Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374 2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
March cover:
Philip Hays' painting for Images of Labor, a book of 32 original works
illustrating quotations from labor history, commissioned by District
1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, as part
of its Bread and Roses cultural program. The book, including works
by Milton Glaser, Judy Chicago, Jacob Lawrence, Alice Neel, and
Ralph Fasanella, will be published next month by The Pilgrim Press.
An exhibition of the 32 works of art opens next month at Gallery 1199
in New York City, prior to a 2-year national tour sponsored by
Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service. The National En
dowment for the Humanities provided major funding for the project.
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews,
Division of Audio-Visual Communication Services,
U S. Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X
San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
1
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
MARCH 1981
VOLUME 104, NUMBER 3
Library
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
SÄR 2 4 t98ì
Norman Bowers
3
Youth labor force activity: alternative surveys compared
Studies of youth labor force activity often yield apparently conflicting results;
survey variations may be an important factor, but questions still remain
A SPECIAL SECTION: JOB-RELATED INJURY AND ILLNESS
Judson MacLaury
18
The job safety law of 1970: its passage was perilous
The Occupational Safety and Health Act, designed to provide protection for
most American workers, cleared Congress only after an intense struggle
Harvey J. Hilaski
25
Understanding statistics on occupational illnesses
The data are better understood if one is aware of recordkeeping pecularities
and the problems of recognizing and reporting occupational illnesses
Norman Root
30
Injuries at work are fewer among older employees
Previous studies offer conflicting results in determining age groups more prone
to accidents; new data show young workers are hurt more, but often not as seriously
David P. McCaffrey
35
Work-related amputations by type and prevalence
Based on workers’ compensation cases, new supplement to annual BLS survey of
injuries yields an estimate of 21,000 cases in 1977, most involving the loss of a finger
Philip Workman
42
Using statistics to manage a State safety and health program
Estimates of occupational toll have proved important to Ohio’s program
of accident prevention; companies in need of services are identified
M. W. Elson, J. F. Burton, Jr.
45
Workers’ compensation insurance: recent trends in costs
Costs of insuring against work-related injuries and diseases have escalated
rapidly since 1972, with growing variation in premiums among States
LaVerne C. Tinsley
51
Workers’ compensation in 1980: major enactments
Broader coverage and levels of benefits received the most attention;
several States set new standards for measuring loss of hearing
r epo rts
Janet L. Norwood
Lawrence J. Fulco
Daniel E. Taylor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
58
60
66
68
Two Consumer Price Index issues: weighting and homeownership
Indexing Federal programs: the CPI and other indexes
Long nonfarm productivity slide ends during the third quarter
Absences from work among full-time employees
DEPARTMENTS
2
58
66
68
71
73
76
81
Labor month in review
Anatomy of price change
Productivity reports
Special labor force reports— summaries
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
RELEASE POLICY. The Office of
Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
announced adoption of Statistical Policy
Directive No. 3, governing compilation
and release of Federal economic in
dicator statistics produced by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and other Federal
agencies. The new directive, which
replaces and revises two earlier direc
tives, sets policy for timely compilation
and release of important economic in
formation and for preventing premature
release. Excerpts:
Prompt release. The shortest practicable
interval should exist between the date or
period to which the data refer and the
date when compilation is completed.
Prompt public release of the figures
should be made after compilation. The
goal is to accomplish compilation and
release to the public within 20 working
days or less for series that are issued
quarterly or more frequently.
Release schedule. Agencies should
schedule release dates for series that are
issued quarterly or more frequently that
can be met and that will also insure
prompt release of the series as specified
in this directive. The schedule of release
dates established by agencies will be
issued each month by the Office of
Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
and will appear in the Office’s publica
tion, Statistical Reporter.
Agencies should establish and main
tain one or two designated times of day
for the release of their principal
economic indicators. Each indicator
should be released consistently at one of
the designated times and changes to a
new designated release time should be
announced 30 days in advance.
Release procedure. Initial release of
principal economic indicators should be
made by the statistical agency in a press
release or other type of printed report. A
press release should be issued if it would
speed up the release of data. A news
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
conference may be scheduled to permit
discussion of important technical,
features of the data being released.
Except for authorized distribution of
principal economic indicators described
in this paragraph, there shall be no pro
vision of information or data estimates
to o fficial public release. The
President will receive pre-released infor
mation when available through the
Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers. Principal economic indicators
information should be made available to
principal economic policymakers at the
same time a press release is provided to
the press. The principal economic
policymakers who may receive the infor
mation are the Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers, the Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, the Director of the Of
fice of Management and Budget, the
Director of the Council on Wage and
Price Stability, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce,
and the Secretary of Labor.
Each statistical agency is responsible
for establishing procedures to assure
that there will be no premature release of
information or data estimates during the
period of time required for preparation
and duplication of materials used for the
public release. This includes the protec
tion of public use data banks which
should not receive data until officially
released. All employees of the Executive
Branch who receive pre-release distribu
tion of information and data estimates
as authorized above are responsible to
assure that there will be no release prior
to the public release. Employees of the
Executive Branch should also observe a
1-hour period after the release of data by
the statistical agency before making
public commentary, except for necessary
technical explanation by appropriate
staff of the issuing Department.
Preliminary estimates and revisions.
Decisions on the release of principal
economic indicators may require balanc
ing timeliness against accuracy and also
controlling frequency of revisions. It is
not intended that vital information im
portant for making current policy deci
sions be withheld merely to reduce fre
quency of revisions, nor that stringent
accuracy considerations result in delay
ing the issuance of important statistical
information.
In general, not more than two
estimates for a principal economic in
dicator should be issued within 60 days
after the end of the reference period.
Preliminary estimates for series that
represent principal aggregates should
not be issued until the agency is con
fident that the difference between
preliminary and final figures will be
small relative to average period-toperiod change.
Full text of the directive appears in the
Federal Register for January 14, 1981,
pages 3253-54.
□
Publications awards
The Monthly Labor Review’s special issue on immigration (October 1980)
has won an award of merit in the 1980 competition sponsored by the
Washington, D.C., chapter of the Society for Technical Communication.
More than 250 publications of Government agencies, associations, and cor
porations were entered in the contest.
Another b l s periodical, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, also received a
merit award in the competition, while the new b l s vocational counseling
publication, Exploring Careers, won an award of excellence and automatic
entry in the Society for Technical Communication’s international competition
this spring.
Youth labor force activity:
alternative surveys compared
Studies o f youth labor force activity
often yield apparently conflicting results;
variations in survey concepts, methodology,
and other factors may explain some of the
differences, but questions still remain
N
orman
Bow ers
It is generally perceived that a serious youth employ
ment problem exists in this country, especially among
young blacks. Quite often this assessment has been
based on data from the monthly Current Population
Survey (CPS), conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics by the Census Bureau.
The CPS uses a national probability sample composed
of rotating groups totaling approximately 65,000 house
holds per month. Census Bureau enumerators contact
the households in the sample each month and ask a se
ries of structured questions about the labor force status
of each member 16 years of age and over during the
preceding (or reference) week. The CPS comprises eight
independent panels or rotation groups. Each household
is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, dropped from
the sample for 8 months, interviewed again for 4
Norman Bowers is an economist in the Office of Current Employment
Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Robert Mclntire and Bernard
Altschuler of the same office provided portions of the data presented
in this article.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
months, and finally dropped entirely from the sample.
Any responsible household member may supply the CPS
labor force information for other eligible persons in the
household. And, except for the first and fifth rotation
groups, for which a personal visit is the predominant
form of data collection, telephone interviews are used
extensively. The overall sample size is approximately
135,000 persons, of which about 30,000 are youth age
16 to 24.
Over the past 15 years, additional data from three
longitudinal surveys of the labor force status and work
experience of youth have become available to analysts.
The three youth-specific surveys: the first National Lon
gitudinal Survey, which collected a wide range of data
beginning in 1966; the National Longitudinal Study of
the High School Class of 1972; and, finally, a new series
of National Longitudinal Surveys begun in 1979. As a
result of these surveys, particularly the 1966-based sur
vey, a large body of information on the employment
problems of young people has been developed.
While much of the longitudinal research has simply
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
confirmed analyses of data from the CPS, some differ
ences between survey measures of current labor force
status have also been noted. Among recent studies that
called attention to the apparent survey differences are
those of Michael Borus, Frank Mott, and Gilbert
Nestel; Richard Freeman and James Medoff; and Rob
ert Myer and David Wise.1Data from all three longitu
dinal surveys suggest that youth employment-popu
lation ratios are higher than the CPS indicates. Estimates
of the unemployment rates for men tend to be little dif
ferent between the 1966-based longitudinal survey and
the CPS; in the class of 1972 survey, estimated unem
ployment is lower than in the CPS; and unemployment
rates for the 1979-based longitudinal survey are much
higher than CPS estimates. These inter-survey discrepan
cies appear to be especially concentrated among youth
age 16 to 17, and among those whose major activity is
going to school.
Many researchers have suggested that any significant
differences between the CPS and the longitudinal studies
arise from the fact that the CPS gathers its information
from any responsible household member, while the oth
er surveys have relied on the self-response of the young
person. As we will see, this hypothesis may be some
what simplistic. In fact, wherever inter-survey variations
appear to be of some importance, they seem to be due
to factors other than, or in addition to, the identity of
the respondent.
measures are widely at odds with each other. Aggrega
tion of data into larger groups of individuals is one way
to offset this problem; for example, we might compare
employment-population ratios for those age 16 to 24
rather than for more narrowly defined age groups. How
ever, such aggregation frequently obscures the very
areas in which the survey differences are most pro
nounced.
Statistical significance cannot be considered the sole
item of interest in survey comparisons. Findings which
are not statistically significant might still be important
because they suggest a different set of hypotheses about
the youth labor market. However, this article touches
only briefly on the formidable issue of the substantive
nature of the survey differences.
To keep the following analysis manageable, discus
sion will be limited to employment-population ratios
and unemployment rates. We will not address the sub
ject of labor force participation (the ratio of the sum of
employment and unemployment to population) or the
numbers employed or unemployed. However, it should
be noted that because the longitudinal surveys estimate
a higher labor force participation than the CPS in all in
stances, even if there were no differences in unemploy
ment rates between surveys, the estimated number of
unemployed youth would still be substantially higher in
the longitudinal surveys. Analysts might justifiably at
tach importance to this fact.
Limitations of the comparisons
The class of 1972
A major purpose of this article is to uncover method
ological, design, or questionnaire differences among the
surveys which may account for the discrepancies in em
ployment and unemployment measures. But even if all
the inter-survey differences could be reconciled on meth
odological grounds, it does not necessarily follow that
any particular survey presents the most accurate picture
of youth employment. Further, given that one expects
some difference in results among surveys, it is important
to determine whether the discrepancies are statistically
significant. If differences among surveys are frequently
not statistically significant, one’s confidence in the accu
mulated body of data might be strengthened.
Comparing labor force estimates from alternative sur
veys is subject to additional important limitations. For
example, the longitudinal surveys were not designed
with the intent to test directly the validity of CPS esti
mates; it is only as a by-product of the surveys that the
issue has been raised. Furthermore, the statistical signifi
cance of differences among surveys is a function of the
magnitude of the differences and the standard errors of
the labor force measures. Because standard errors de
pend in part upon the size of the survey sample, it be
comes difficult to detect statistically significant differ
ences between relatively small samples unless the survey
The survey of 1972 high school graduates, supported
by the National Center for Education Statistics with
data collection and sample design by the Research Tri
angle Institute, is different in important respects from
other data sources on youth. The primary purpose of
the survey was to collect data on the educational and
vocational activities, aspirations, and attitudes of young
people after leaving high school.2 This purpose in itself
may introduce nontrivial methodological differences be
tween the class of 1972 survey and the CPS.
The class of 1972 survey was a stratified two-stage
probability sample; high schools were the first-stage
units and students, the second-stage units. The initial
design called for 1,200 sample schools— with an
oversampling of schools in areas with relatively high
concentrations of minorities and in low income areas—
and up to 18 randomly selected students per school
(plus five alternates). The base-year survey, which did
not collect labor force information, was conducted in
April and May of 1972, with an initial school
nonresponse rate of 17 percent. Nonresponding schools
were recontacted in 1973, resulting in students from
1,153 of the 1,200 sample schools being selected as po
tential sample members for the first follow-up survey.
The overall sample consisted of about 23,000 persons,
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
although the analysis presented here is based on a sub
set of that sample.
The first follow-up survey was conducted largely by a
mail questionnaire in late 1973 and early 1974. Subse
quent follow-up questionnaires were mailed to sample
members in October 1974 and October 1976. Each
questionnaire contained a series of questions about the
respondent’s labor force status; the 1973 and 1976 in
stallments also requested information on labor force ac
tivity in October 1972 and October 1975. The use of
mail data collection is an important methodological di
vergence from the CPS, which is based on interviews.
The first class of 1972 follow-up questionnaire (1973)
consisted of five major sections. Civilian work experi
ence information was elicited following a series of ques
tions probing respondents’ future expectations and
aspirations and past and current education and training
experience. The CPS, in contrast, is primarily concerned
with collecting data on current labor force status; only
a few basic demographic and income questions are
asked before determining labor force status. Again, such
variations in survey purpose and questionnaire design
alone may result in different responses to seemingly
equivalent questions.
A recent analysis has shown that the addition of sup
plemental questions to the main questionnaire of a sur
vey, and often-subtle differences in interview techniques
each had a rather significant impact on the results. For
example, analysis of data on crime victimization rates
from the National Crime Survey showed that the addi
tion of a series of attitudinal questions— opinions of po
lice, crime trends, and so forth— asked of respondents
before eliciting responses to victimization questions led
to significantly higher estimates of victimization rates
than if the supplemental questions had not been posed.3
According to the authors of this report, if the explana
tion for this result is that the additional questions stim
ulate both recall and the respondents’ desire to be
accommodating and responsive to what they perceive to
be the goal of the survey, incidents— both real and fab
ricated— may be reported that do not fall within the
survey reference period. This leads to an undesirable re
sponse bias. Obviously, survey analysts cannot ignore
the interaction of questions on respondents when ac
counting for differences in survey results.
All of the class of 1972 survey data were gathered
retrospectively and, in fact, the bulk of the data relating
to 1972 were collected between October 1973 and April
1974. This might lead one to suspect that respondents
would have some difficulty in remembering their 1972
activities after a year or more had elapsed. Although
the potential for recall error in the measure of labor
force activity for October 1972 seems obvious, the di
rection of the error is not clear a priori. However, con
siderable evidence from a CPS Methods Test conducted
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
between July 1966 and February 1967 indicated that re
call biases in labor force classification were “quite high,
and at an unacceptable level of quality,”4 and that they
generally resulted in higher estimates of employment
and lower estimates of unemployment. Moreover, test
results suggested that errors in labor force classification
due to recall problems were far more serious than any
errors due to nonself reporting.
In addition to procedural differences, there were also
important conceptual differences in the labor force ques
tions asked in the 1972-based survey and the CPS. First,
the class of 1972 questions were retrospective. Second,
the 1972 information referred to an entire month, the
CPS examines a reference week. And third, the class of
1972 job-search question did not ask about specific job
seeking activities or about availability for work, unlike
the CPS. Such differences might contribute to differing
results between the two studies.
The class of 1972 data for 1973 and 1974 were col
lected over a somewhat shorter period. The labor force
questions were also different in that they referred only
to the first week in October. Because of fewer recall
problems and the use of a specific reference week, one
might expect the labor force estimates for 1973 and
1974 to show less divergence from the CPS.
A comparison of CPS measures with the unweighted
counts from the 1972-based survey data for males not
in school or in the military appeared in a recent paper
by Robert Myer and David Wise. (See table 1.) For
1972, the class of 1972 data show both more employ
ment and less unemployment than the CPS, which is to
be expected, given possible recall problems and the
month-long reference period. Differences by race— espe
cially in employment-population ratios— are reasonably
similar. Moreover, the survey differences in 1972 are
Table 1. The labor force activity of male high school
graduates: a comparison of the National Longitudinal
Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the CPS by
race, October 1972-74
Year and survey
Category
1972
NLS72
CPS
1973
NLS72
CPS
1974
NLS72
CPS
White men
Labor force participation rate .
Employment-population ratio ..
Unemployment rate ...............
92.9
88.0
5.4
91.6
’ 81.5
111.0
94.6
91.4
3.5
192.2
186.8
5.9
96.9
91.6
7.9
96.0
186.6
9.8
Black and other men
Labor force participation rate .
Employment-population ratio ..
Unemployment rate ...............
90.2
78.4
13.0
88.0
68.0
22.7
92.8
86.0
7.3
94.0
78.3
16.7
96.5
84.0
15.5
94.7
80.5
15.0
1NLS72-CPS difference is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
N ote :
Data refer to those not currently enrolled in school and not in the military.
Class of 1972 data are from Robert H. Myer and David A. Wise, "High School
Preparation and Early Labor Market Experience,” paper presented at the National Bureau of
Economic Research Conference on Youth Joblessness, May 17 and 18,1979, table 1, p. 9.
CPS data for 1972 are from Employment o f High School Graduates and Dropouts, October
1972, Special Labor Force Report 155, (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1973). CPS data for
1973 and 1974 are based on unpublished tabulations from the October surveys.
S ource :
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
statistically significant only for the employment ratio
and unemployment rate of white males.5The survey dif
ferences are less— considerably so among black men—
in the subsequent 2 years. However, class of 1972 esti
mates of employment-population ratios are in all cases
qualitatively higher than in the CPS.
Myer and Wise, as well as others, have attributed the
discrepancy between the surveys to the fact that youth
responded for themselves in the class of 1972 survey,
whereas any responsible household member (typically
an adult) responds to CPS questions.6 The implication is
that substantially more accurate information is obtained
from self-respondents. However, there is very little evi
dence to support this proposition. The fact that the dif
ferences, at least for minorities, narrowed over time it
self raises questions about the relative importance of the
self-response hypothesis. And, previously cited results
from the 1966-67 CPS Methods Test also suggest that
errors in labor force classification due to respondent re
call problems might be far more serious than those
caused by nonself reporting.
More likely explanations for the discrepancies lie in
the important methodological and conceptual differ
ences between the two surveys: different sampling tech
niques; the long 1972-based survey mail questionnaire;
and the fact that class of 1972 observations for 1972 re
lied on retrospective questions which referred to an entire
month rather than a specific week. Comparisons of class
of 1972 measures of youth labor force activity with those
from the CPS may in fact be unwarranted; at the very
least, great caution is necessary given the large method
ological differences between the surveys, and the proba
ble effect of recall bias on 1972-based survey results.
The first National Longitudinal Survey
.Survey design. The 1966 National Longitudinal Survey
( n l s ) survey included roughly 5,000 individuals in each
of four age cohorts: young men 14 to 24 in 1966; young
women 14 to 24 in 1968; women 30 to 44 in 1967; and
men 45 to 59 in 1966. The original samples were drawn
by the Census Bureau in a multi-stage screening proce
dure, with blacks oversampled to ensure a sufficient
sample size for analysis. Personal interviews were con
ducted between 1966 and 1971, and telephone inter
views were generally used after 1971. The data
underlying the following analysis relate to 1966-73.
The standard set of CPS current labor force status
questions was used to determine whether individuals
were employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.
Like the class of 1972 study, however, the 1966 survey
was designed to obtain information about a much wider
range of subjects, including education and training,
goals, and knowledge of the world of work. Labor force
questions were asked following those on education, and
training and educational goals. Again, such design pe
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
culiarities may well affect respondents’ answers; in par
ticular, the earlier questions could increase recall of la
bor force experience, although to what degree is
uncertain.
In the 1966-based survey, each individual described
her or his own labor force status. As in the case of the
class of 1972-CPS discrepancies, it has been argued that
“a very substantial portion of the CPS-NLS differences in
the estimated probability that a teenage male is
employed seems to be explicable by the fact that the
CPS relies on proxy respondents while the NLS does
not.”7
However, other differences between the two surveys
should also be noted. First, the 1966-based survey—
properly weighted— was an unbiased sample of the
population only at the time of the first interview. Be
cause of attrition, the “best” comparisons with the CPS
may be for the first year that data were collected.8 Sec
ond, young people in the Armed Forces or institutional
ized at the time the NLS sample was drawn were
excluded from the sample forever, but this is not true of
the CPS. Third, the earliest NLS relied on personal inter
views, whereas telephone interviewing is used extensive
ly in the CPS. And finally, the interviewers for each
survey may have had varying experience and training.
Observed measurement differences. Table 2 presents
comparable measures of youth labor force activity from
the CPS and the first NLS. Both the NLS and CPS data are
weighted to national population counts.
The raw data in table 2 have been cited as evidence
that there is significantly higher work activity among all
youth, and that racial differences among men in the
probability of being employed are much smaller than
previously estimated in the CPS. Inter-survey variations
in male unemployment rates follow no clear pattern,
and in all but two instances the differences are not sta
tistically significant.9 The 1966-based unemployment
rates for women are usually higher than the CPS esti
mates, but rarely are the differences statistically signifi
cant. Because the discrepancies between unemployment
rates generally do not appear to be meaningful, subse
quent analysis concentrates on employment figures. (As
noted previously, however, because the NLS estimated
labor force participation rate is higher than that from
the CPS, the NLS estimated number unemployed also is
greater.)
Examination of the employment-population ratios in
table 2 confirms the fact that the 1966-based measures
are always higher than those calculated from the CPS.
In fact, over the entire set of years for which data for
men are available, the average differences are statistical
ly significant. The same is true for women, except for
whites 18 to 19 years of age and blacks age 20 to 24.
Some importance might well be attached to these dif-
Table 2.
1966-based NLS and CPS employment-population ratios and unemployment rates by race, sex, and age, 1966-73
Category
Employmentpopulation ratio
NLS
White men
16 to 17 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
18 to 19 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
20 to 24 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
Average .....................................................
Black and other men
16 to 17 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
Average .....................................................
18 to 19 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
20 to 24 years:
1966 .........................................................
1967 .........................................................
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
CPS
Unemployment rate
Category
NLS
CPS
48.4
45.6
47.0
137.6
'36.7
’ 37.1
18.6
18.7
18.6
'10.0
14.4
'12.2
64.1
62.8
64.6
61.2
63.1
'55.1
56.7
’ 55.7
56.8
'55.2
9.1
10.3
7.9
12.5
10.0
8.8
10.6
7.5
7.6
8.6
83.1
81.8
79.7
80.8
78.2
80.5
80.5
79.1
78.0
76.5
’ 76.7
75.0
'74.1
'76.4
3.1
3.2
3.4
4.6
7.4
8.0
5.2
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.5
8.8
9.3
6.0
43.0
40.6
41.7
'28.2
'26.2
'27.2
26.2
29.8
28.0
19.8
28.8
24.4
58.5
59.7
61.7
59.0
59.6
47.7
'47.0
'45.6
52.6
'48.4
20.9
19.4
13.5
16.9
17.8
16.5
21.7
20.3
19.0
19.4
89.9
84.8
84.5
78.1
75.1
75.3
80.6
82.3
'76.9
79.0
78.2
69.0
69.5
'75.2
3.5
7.8
3.7
8.7
14.6
13.2
9.1
7.3
10.3
6.7
7.7
15.0
13.0
10.1
1NLS-CPS difference is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
Data for men refer to November of each year. Data for women refer to February of
each year, except In 1969 when the data refer to January.
N ote :
S ource :
The 1966-based NLS data for men are from Richard Freeman and James Medoff,
ferences in employment ratio estimates between the two
surveys.
When the individual yearly observations are com
pared, only about one-half of the differences are statisti
cally significant at the 95-percent confidence level.10
Such results again suggest that analysts should be
cautious about drawing conclusions based on raw dif
ferences in labor force measures across surveys. Howev
er, the differences for both men and women in the
youngest age group are statistically significant and quite
large, a pattern we shall also see repeated in the
1979-based NLS.
Reporting accuracy. Could CPS nonself reporting be the
cause of NLS-CPS differences? Among white men and
black men, where data exist for all three age groups, the
survey differences appear to narrow by age: in 1966, the
differences ( n l s minus c p s ) among whites were 10.8
percentage points for ages 16 to 17, 9.0 points for ages
18 to 19, and 4.0 points for ages 20 to 24. For blacks,
the differences were 14.8, 10.8, and 7.6 points, respec
tively.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
White women
16 to 17 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
Average .....................................................
18 to 19 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
A verage.....................................................
20 to 24 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
1972 .........................................................
1973 .........................................................
A verage.....................................................
Black and other women
16 to 17 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
18 to 19 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
Average .....................................................
20 to 24 years:
1968 .........................................................
1969 .........................................................
1970 .........................................................
1971 .........................................................
1972 .........................................................
1973 .........................................................
Average.....................................................
Employmentpopulation ratio
Unemployment rate
NLS
CPS
NLS
CPS
31.6
36.3
34.0
'24.4
124.2
'24.3
22.0
19.7
20.8
14.2
'8.5
'11.5
47.0
49.2
45.8
50.2
48.1
46.0
43.9
41.1
45.2
45.2
13.5
11.5
17.9
14.8
14.5
10.3
8.8
'10.4
14.4
11.1
52.8
55.7
59.2
56.3
57.0
61.0
57.1
50.0
'51.6
'53.4
'51.9
'53.0
'56.2
'52.8
9.6
7.7
8.1
8.8
9.7
7.0
8.5
7.1
5.9
7.2
8.8
8.1
7.1
7.4
24.9
21.3
23.0
'12.3
'12.4
'12.3
26.7
40.4
33.7
32.5
33.6
31.7
44.3
42.2
38.6
34.5
39.7
34.4
'31.4
29.1
'21.6
'28.9
24.9
25.2
29.2
33.9
26.5
21.4
24.7
25.1
36.1
26.2
52.6
55.0
52.9
51.0
50.6
52.2
52.3
46.8
53.3
49.1
45.9
49.9
46.4
47.8
17.3
12.8
15.4
17.7
18.9
15.7
16.4
11.4
7.8
14.0
18.3
16.4
18.3
14.6
“ Why Does the Rate of Youth Labor Force Activity Differ Across Surveys?” in The Youth Un
employment Problem: It’s Nature, Causes, and Consequences, (Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, forthcoming). Data for women were provided by Michael Borus of the Center for Fluman
Resource Research, Ohio State University.
Why do the differences in survey observations narrow
by age, when CPS proxy respondents might be expected
to know less about the activities of their older sons as
they begin to break away from the family? It might be
argued that the probability of male self-response in the
CPS increases with age, but there is no evidence that this
is the case; indeed, the higher employment ratios of
older men imply a lower probability of self-response,
because they are less likely to be at home at the time of
the interview.11 Among black women the survey discrep
ancies also narrow by age. In 1968, for example, the dif
ferences were 12.6 percentage points, 9.9 points, and 5.8
points, respectively, for the three age groups. This is
consistent with the self-response hypothesis because the
likelihood of women responding for themselves in the
CPS is not only higher than that for men, but also great
er for older women, who are less likely to be in school,
than for women age 16 to 19. However, the fact that
there is no consistent reduction in the survey differences
by age among white women seems difficult to reconcile
with the self-response explanation.
Given that the survey differences seem to be especial7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
ly pronounced among those age 16 to 17, it is tempting
to hypothesize that their employment activity and job
seeking behavior is so casual, intermittent, and marginal
that their parents, who are likely to be the CPS respon
dents, may be unaware of it. In both the CPS and the
1966-based NLS, weekly hours worked by those age 16
to 17 are substantially lower than the hours worked by
older youth.
However, while the hypothesis that youth labor mar
ket activity is casual, and hence not likely to be known
to or considered important by a parent, may have some
relevance for job search data, it is more difficult to rec
oncile with the facts about youth employment. In both
the NLS and CPS, weekly hours worked averaged about
20 for men and 15 for women. While this is not an ex
tensive average workweek, one must wonder if parents
would be completely unaware of that level of employ
ment activity on the part of their children.12
The problem may not be lack of parental knowledge.
Instead, there could be honest differences between
youths’ and parents’ perceptions of what constitutes
employment. Adults, accustomed to the concept of a “9
to 5” job, may overlook the sporadic casual jobs held
by their children. However, such perceptions may not
be confined to adults; some young people may have
similar beliefs about what a real job is.
While there is currently no solid proof for either
proposition, it would be hazardous to neglect the possi
bility. Thus, the critical question does not simply in
volve self versus nonself reporting, but also the
perceptions held by proxy respondents about the activi
ties of their children; how these perceptions interact
with the wording and design of the labor force ques
tions; and the “correctness” of these perceptions in ac
curately accounting for labor market activity. Similar
questions must, of course, be raised concerning the
youths’ responses.
In the context of the hypothesis about lack of paren
tal knowledge, it is possible that the distribution of re
ported hours worked in the two surveys is such that a
large part of the difference might be found among those
with very few hours worked. Currently, however, there
is no evidence for or against this proposition. More de
tailed information is required concerning respondents’
interpretations of labor force questions and especially
about their perceptions of what it means to be “legiti
mately” employed. Again, the reasons for significant in
ter-survey differences may be substantially more com
plex than the simple self-response hypothesis suggests.
The “parental lack of knowledge” hypothesis should
most closely fit the data for those age 18 to 19, because
the CPS counts unmarried persons living away from
home while attending college as members of their par
ents’ households. The labor force data for these youth
are obtained from their parents who may simply be un
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
aware of their children’s labor force activity. However,
among 16- and 17-year-olds— where inter-survey differ
ences are more apparent— this should not be a factor,
these youth being less likely to attend school away from
home.
Diminishing differences. Within a few of the age groups,
the differences in male employment ratios between the
two surveys decline, often considerably, over time. For
example, among black men age 18 to 19, the differences
go from 12.7 to 6.4 percentage points between 1967 and
1969, and the difference in 1969 is not statistically sig
nificant. While it is hazardous to speak of trends in
these measures, this apparent narrowing of differences is
interesting. To provide robust support for the simple
self-response hypothesis as a major explanation for in
ter-survey differences, one would have to show that the
probability of self-response in the CPS increased for
young people (especially those age 18 to 19) over these
periods. Alternatively, one might argue that the knowl
edge of proxy respondents about young people’s labor
force activity had increased. There is no evidence for or
against either of these positions. The results may reflect
the well-known phenomenon of respondent conditioning
as a result of repeated NLS yearly interviews. But it
should be noted again that the 1966-based NLS is an un
biased sample of the population only in the first year,
and attrition and other problems make strong conclu
sions based on later estimates difficult.
The data for women reveal a somewhat different
story. Especially among whites, the survey discrepancies
do not decline over time; in fact, they show some ten
dency to increase moderately. This is not readily ex
plicable. There is no evidence that the probability of
self-response in the CPS declined for young white wom
en between 1968 and 1973. However, the secular in
crease in female employment since the late 1960’s might
be cited as indirect evidence of a decline in the proba
bility of self-response, employed women being less likely
to be at home when the CPS enumerator calls. Current
ly, there are no data available to support or reject this
possibility.
The narrowing of inter-survey differences is most ap
parent when youths are followed as they mature. If one
traces the NLS-CPS differences for 16- to 17-year-olds in
1967, 18- to 19-year-olds in 1969, and 20- to 24-yearolds in 1970 and 1971, the decline in the survey dif
ferences is more visible. Among black men, for example,
the differences range from 14.4 percentage points in
1967, to 6.4 points in 1969, and to 5.9 points in 1971.
And among white women, the discrepancies fall from
7.2 percentage points (1968), to 4.7 points (1970), and
finally to 4.0 points (1972).
This pattern is consistent with what little we under
stand about the conditioning effect of repeated inter-
views on people’s responses to questions, but a range of
alternative explanations exists. For example, it is possi
ble that, as youths mature, their employment experience
tends to be less marginal and less intermittent. Thus,
they have more activity to report, and other family
members know more about the activity or attach more
weight to it. A test of this hypothesis would require
very detailed information not only about the work expe
rience and job-seeking activities of youth, but also
about the objective knowledge and subjective percep
tions family members have about the labor market ac
tivity of their sons and daughters. If this “marginality”
hypothesis is valid, however, it does raise the question
of the importance of the survey differences. Would mea
suring a bit more marginal activity warrant a major
réévaluation of current analyses of youth employment
problems?
Better match with some CPS panels. We have seen that
some aspects of the data are difficult to reconcile with
the self-response hypothesis, and have presented other
explanations which, while plausible, are difficult to test.
One methodological factor which may have unduly
complicated the analysis is that, up to this point, the
CPS data have been based on the full rotation panel—
each household is in the sample 4 months, out for 8
months, and back in for 4 months.
Theoretically, each CPS rotation panel is a representa
tive sample of the population, and, therefore, should
have the same general labor force characteristics. The
fact that each monthly panel consistently yields different
labor force estimates— with the reported incidence of
employment and unemployment higher in the first and
fifth panels than in the others— has been attributed to
“rotation group bias,” a feature of all panel surveys.13
The causes of this “bias” are thought to be several, in
cluding the effects of respondent conditioning from re
peated monthly interviews, possible change in demo
graphic composition of the sample across rotation
groups,14 and the fact that the household respondent
may differ from month to month.
Because the NLS is based on yearly interviews, it may
be more appropriate to analyze inter-survey differences
using data from the CPS first- and fifth-month-in-sample
panels. Like the 1966-based NLS, labor force informa
tion from the CPS first and fifth rotation panels is
obtained primarily by personal visit, which controls for
another possible methodological difference between the
surveys. A disadvantage is that the sample sizes are re
duced considerably. And, of course, this does not neces
sarily imply that the first and fifth CPS panels yield the
most accurate labor force data.
Table 3 presents employment-population ratios and
unemployment rates for selected age groups from the
CPS first and fifth rotation groups. (Rotation group data
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by race are not available.) Especially among men age 18
to 19, the NLS-CPS employment differences narrowed
considerably.
In fact, the NLS-CPS differences in employment-popu
lation ratios among men are statistically significant only
twice in the first rotation panel and three times in the
fifth group. For men age 18 to 24, the average survey
differences in employment estimates using the first rota
tion panel are insignificant; for the fifth panel the aver
age differences are marginally significant only for men
age 20 to 24. However, among men age 16 to 17, the
employment ratio differences remain statistically signifi
cant. Unemployment rates are never much different.
Among women age 18 to 19, the employment-popula
tion estimates also tend to be somewhat higher in the
first and fifth rotation group compared to the full CPS.
And for this age group there are no significant differ
ences between the surveys. Among women age 20 to 24,
however, the survey differences in employment are not
reduced when one examines specific rotation groups.
Again, for women age 16 to 17, the survey discrepan
cies remain quite large and statistically significant.
Table 3. Employment-population ratios and
unemployment rates by sex and age: a comparison of the
1966-based NLS with the CPS first-month and fifth-month
panels, and the full CPS, 1967-73
Unemployment rate
Employment-population ratio
NLS
CPS
firstmonth
panel
CPS
fifthmonth
panel
Full
CPS
NLS
CPS
firstmonth
panel
CPS
fifthmonth
panel
44.9
134.3
38.1
’ 35.2
20.3
24.6
13.3
'11.1
62.3
64.2
60.9
62.5
57.0
60.3
61.3
59.5
52.9
50.9
60.3
54.8
’ 52.3
’ 54.3
56.3
’ 54.3
11.6
8.7
13.1
11.1
9.2
10.9
8.3
9.5
16.2
11.1
9.1
12.1
12.1
9.2
9.2
10.1
82.1
80.3
80.4
77.9
79.9
80.0
77.6
75.5
80.1
76.2
’ 73.1
76.4
80.2
’ 73.8
80.4
73.0
’ 70.9
’ 75.4
77.8
76.8
76.9
74.3
'73.5
'75.7
3.8
3.5
5.1
8.3
8.6
6.1
5.1
5.0
4.0
9.9
10.5
7.1
3.5
8.6
3.7
9.8
11.1
7.5
4.8
4.4
4.9
9.5
9.8
6.9
30.6
34.2
32.3
24.5
122.8
'23.7
24.3
’ 22.8
'23.5
’ 22.7
' 22.6
'22.6
22.6
22.0
22.2
29.9
18.3
25.0
17.9
17.6
18.0
15.9
'11.0
'13.4
46.6
48.2
44.8
48.0
46.9
43.6
40.6
47.3
46.5
44.4
45.5
44.8
45.5
43.0
44.7
44.4
42.2
43.6
41.9
43.0
15.1
13.4
19.4
17.2
16.3
17.9
13.8
18.0
14.9
16.2
10.9
12.6
'10.7
16.2
12.9
11.6
10.7
’ 12.0
16.4
’ 12.8
52.8
55.6
58.4
55.6
56.2
59.8
56.5
50.9
51.1
’ 52.5
50.0
51.4
153.3
'51.6
51.2
55.5
'51.2
’ 48.9
53.6
'54.5
52.6
49.6
51.8
’ 52.8
’ 51.1
'52.1
'54.8
152.2
10.6
8.4
9.0
10.0
10.9
8.1
9.5
10.0
9.8
8.4
12.7
11.9
11.0
10.7
7.7
8.2
9.1
11.5
7.8
10.8
9.2
7.6
6.1
8.1
10.0
9.1
8.5
8.3
Category
Men
16 to 17 years:
1967 .............
18 to 19 years:
1967 .............
1968 .............
1969 .............
Average .........
20 to 24 years:
1967 .............
1968 .............
1969 .............
1970 .............
1971 .............
A verage.........
Women
16 to 17 years:
1968 .............
1969 .............
Average .........
18 to 19 years:
1968 .............
1969 .............
1970 .............
1971 .............
Average .........
20 to 24 years:
1968 .............
1969 .............
1970 .............
1971 .............
1972 .............
1973 .............
A verage.........
Full
CPS
1NLS-CPS difference is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
: CPS data for men refer to November of each year. CPS data for women refer to
February of each year, except in 1969 when the data refer to January.
N ote
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
The largest “rotation group” effect for women is,
quite clearly, on estimates of unemployment. In fact,
the unemployment rates for the first-month panel are
not only quite a bit higher than those for the full CPS,
but are often greater than the NLS measures; none of the
NLS-CPS differences is statistically significant. On aver
age, the unemployment rate differences for women 16 to
19 are significant when comparisons are made between
the 1966-based NLS and the full CPS, but are not signifi
cant when comparisons are limited to the first and fifth
CPS panels.
The data in table 3, which reflect an attempt to con
trol for some of the methodological differences between
the surveys (except for the self-response difference), do
challenge strong conclusions about the relative impor
tance of self versus proxy response in the collection of
youth labor force data. A number of other factors of
equal or greater importance may be involved, including
the effects of rotation group bias on CPS measurements
of current labor force status.
Major activity affects comparisons. Table 4 shows data
for youth age 16 to 21 in 1967 or 1968 by their “major
activity,” race, and sex. These data suggest that the in
ter-survey variations in employment-population ratios
for young men are substantially dependent upon their
major activity. Even though the employment ratio dif
ferences are also statistically significant for men whose
major activity is “other,” the absolute magnitude of the
discrepancies is much less than among those in school.
Consistent with previous observations, unemployment
rates among the men are less likely to be statistically
different. The fact that measured unemployment is gen
erally higher than CPS estimates in the NLS “school”
group and lower in the “other” group is not readily ex
plicable. Again, it may be that parents do not know
about the job search activity of their children in school,
or do not think it relevant. Interestingly, the inter-sur
vey differences in female employment-population ratios
tend to be a little different regardless of major activity
classification.
From their analysis of the data for men, Richard
Freeman and James Medoff concluded that “much of
the differences between the surveys occur among those
who are going to school and those who have a more
marginal commitment to the work force.”15 Data from
table 4 appear to support this conclusion. CPS measures
also show that young men in school work substantially
fewer hours than others. In 1979, average hours worked
were 16.5 for those attending school, versus 35.5 for
those whose major activity was “other.” However, con
firmation that the labor force status of the very young
is marginal and therefore more difficult to measure pre
cisely in a monthly survey like the CPS which relies on a
household respondent would require more detailed in
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. 1966-based NLS and CPS employmentpopulation ratios, and unemployment rates of youth age
16 to 21 by race, sex, and major activity, 1967 or 1968
Category
Employment-popula
tion ratio
Unemployment rate
NLS
CPS
NLS
CPS
Men
Major activity:
School 1967 ........................................
Other 1967 ........................................
44.2
89.3
’ 31.7
'82.1
17.1 .
4.8
13.1
’ 10.2
White men
Major activity:
School 1967 ........................................
Other 1967 ........................................
46.2
89.0
’ 33.0
’ 83.8
15.4
3.9
11.9
'8.5
Black and other men
Major activity:
School 1967 ........................................
Other 1967 ........................................
37.0
83.1
’ 21.6
'73.1
31.7
9.9
25.2
'18.9
Women
Major activity:
School 1968 ........................................
Other 1968 ........................................
28.3
56.1
23.8
55.1
19.7
13.4
12.2
11.4
White women
Major activity:
School 1968 ........................................
Other 1968 ........................................
27.9
60.1
25.4
56.7
19.4
12.0
'10.9
10.3
Black and other women
Major activity:
School 1968 ........................................
Other 1968 ........................................
25.4
48.0
' 11.8
45.4
24.3
24.1
28.4
19.4
1NLS-CPS difference is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidencehlevel.
N ote :
Data refer to November for men and February for women.
This table was derived from data presented in Michael Borus and others,
"Counting Youth: A Comparison of Youth Labor Force Statistics in the Current Population
Survey and the National Longitudinal Survey," in Conference Report on Youth Unemploy
ment: Its Measurement and Meaning (U.S. Department of Labor, 1978), tables 3 and 4, and
unpublished data on the proportion of the NLS sample whose major activity is “ school’' and
“ other” provided by Gilbert Nestel of the Center for Human Resource Research at Ohio
State University.
S ource :
formation on the kinds of jobs the young men held,
their hours worked, and wages.
In fact, some might ask how parents may truly be
unaware that their sons are working 16 hours per week.
It is possible, of course, that the distribution of hours
worked is such that the inter-survey differences are
greatest among those youth who work very few hours
(less than 10, for example) at odd jobs, but we have no
direct information about this. If hours worked per week
are minimal, parents may honestly be unaware of their
sons’ activity or even less inclined to view it as “real”
work. However, testing such a proposition would be
very difficult.
Among women, the survey differences for employ
ment are much smaller than for men and are statistical
ly significant but once. According to Camilla Brooks
and Barbara Bailar, women have a much higher proba
bility of being interviewed for themselves in the CPS.
They also note, however, that “groups which are largely
responded for by proxies are . . . young men and wom
en in school.”16 Thus, support for the self versus proxy
response hypothesis is not so clear-cut. Unemployment
rates for white women whose major activity is school
are significantly higher in the 1966-based NLS. This ob-
servation is consistent with some versions of the self-re
sponse hypothesis which have as components the
knowledge and perceptions of parents concerning youth
job search, but once again there may be alternative ex
planations.
Table 5, which is taken from a paper by Freeman
and MedofF, compares the labor force activity of men
age 20 to 24 by family status, to test the contention
that a survey based on self-response will provide a more
accurate— or, at least, a different— measure of the ac
tivity of those who are probably most likely to be mar
ginally attached to the labor market. According to the
authors, if this hypothesis is true, differences between
the surveys should be greater among other household
members than among those who maintain families. The
data do not provide any solid evidence for these conjec
tures. None of the survey differences is statistically sig
nificant, although the raw differences are somewhat
larger for other household members.
A corollary hypothesis is that the labor force activity
of male “household heads” in the CPS is more likely to
be self-reported, which would presumably account for
the small measurement differences among men who
maintain families. There exists no direct evidence for or
against this explanation either. Indeed, the probability
of self-response by men who maintain families might be
less than for others; because they are more likely to be
working, such persons are often not at home when the
CPS enumerator calls. Of course, if the activity of other
household members is marginal, while that of “house
hold heads” is substantive, there may be a greater likeli
hood that the labor market activity of “heads” is
considered work by everyone in the family. This would
account for the somewhat smaller raw differences ob
served for those who maintain families, but again this
conjecture is not supported empirically, and goes con
siderably beyond the issue of who responds to a struc
tured set of labor force questions.
Tentative conclusions. This examination of the 1966based NLS and CPS leads to certain tentative con
clusions. First, focusing on raw differences between sur
veys is inadequate; in many instances the differences are
not statistically significant, especially when the more ap
propriate first and fifth CPS rotation panels are com
pared to the NLS data. However, because of small
sample sizes, the test for statistical significance must it
self be carefully interpreted. And the fact that the NLS
employment estimates are consistently higher than CPS
measures lends some weight to the survey differences.
Second, the largest inter-survey differences occur
among the very young and those whose major activity
is attending school. This may mean that the NLS mea
sures slightly more marginal labor force activity than
does the CPS. However, at the level of aggregation of
this analysis, this is but a tentative conjecture.
Third, while the self-response hypothesis of inter-sur
vey variations cannot be rejected out of hand, explana
tions for any real differences in the survey measures
appear to be much more complicated. In particular, we
must admit the possibility of differing perceptions be
tween parents and their children about what constitutes
“real” work and account for the interaction of these
perceptions with the content and interpretation of labor
force questions. Therefore, unless one is content with a
“proxy” explanation, it is necessary to look beyond the
identity of survey respondents for the reasons underly
ing inter-survey differences. Fourth, the discrepancies
between surveys do not appear to be of such substan
tive importance that they warrant a major reassessment
of the employment problems of youth, especially black
youth. Any conclusion to the contrary would necessi
tate a leap of faith from aggregate data to causal infer
ence— almost certainly an unwarranted jump. And fi
nally, there are differences between the surveys other
than type of respondent, such as overall questionnaire
design and length, which cannot be overlooked.
The newest
Table 5. The 1966-based NLS and CPS estimates of the
labor force activity of men age 20 to 24 by family status
Category
NLS
CPS
Men who maintain families
Labor force'participation r a te .............................
Employment-population r a tio .............................
Unemployment rate ..........................................
93.2
91.9
1.3
94.0
91.3
2.7
Other men
Labor force participation r a te .............................
Employment-population r a tio .............................
Unemployment rate . . , ...................................
73.0
68.3
4.7
68.5
63.0
5.5
N ote : Although the NLS sample was weighted for age in order to facilitate comparisons
with the CPS data, there is still a difference between the two sets of figures. Whereas both
sets of data refer to the survey week, the NLS data refer to the fall of 1968, and the CPS
data refer to March 1969.
S ource : Richard Freeman and James Medoff, “ Why .Does the Rate of Youth Labor
Force Activity Differ Across Surveys?" in The Youth Unemployment Problem: Its Nature,
Causes, and Consequences (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
n ls
Recently a new 5-year youth-specific longitudinal sur
vey was undertaken. The 1979-based n l s is a sample
study of about 12,700 youth (including a military sub
sample), bom in calendar years 1957 through 1964. The
sample design and data collection are conducted by the
National Opinion Research, Center at the University of
Chicago, and the questionnaire design and data analysis
are the responsibility of the Center for Human Re
source Research at Ohio State. This NLS sample repre
sents a basic cross-section of the Nation’s youth, aug
mented by independently drawn subsamples of black,
Hispanic, and non-black, non-Hispanic poor youth.
The information elicited ranges from current labor
force status (the usual CPS labor force questions) to edu
cational and work experience, earnings, family back11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
ground, aspirations and expectations, and so forth. As a
result, the questionnaire is quite long (22 sections in
all), and the current labor force status questions follow
those concerning family background, schooling, knowl
edge of and experience in the world of work, and oth
ers. All interviews are conducted directly with the
youth by personal visit. Thus, in many methodological
respects, the newest NLS is similar to the 1966-based
NLS.
Preliminary data for the first year of the study have
been released.17 But because analysis of the weighting
procedures and estimates of standard errors are still be
ing developed, the following discussion of inter-survey
variations is necessarily qualitative and brief, and does
not provide information about the statistical significance
of any differences.18
The great majority of 1979-based interviews occurred
between February and May 1979, with the modal
month— March— accounting for about 44 percent of
the contacts. Therefore, most of the tables presented
here compare results of the full CPS for March with NLS
data from interviews conducted between February and
May.
Employment. A quick perusal of the employment data
in tables 6 and 7 suggests the following: First, employ
ment-population ratios are always higher in the NLS
than in the CPS. Second, variations between the surveys
are slightly larger for men than for women. Third, in
ter-survey differences narrow considerably by age for all
groups. And finally, when youth are classified by major
activity, the differences occur almost entirely among
those whose major activity is attending school.
In many respects, these comparisons are similar to
those between the 1966-based NLS and the CPS. Howev
er, there are also some notable differences. For example,
among black men age 16 to 19, the magnitude of the in
ter-survey employment variation is somewhat less in
1979 (table 6) than in 1967 (table 2), especially for
those age 18 to 19 (12.7 percentage points in 1967 ver
sus 6.5 points in 1979). For white men and all men, the
magnitudes of the discrepancies are fairly similar be
tween the 2 years.
More perspective may be gleaned by comparing ta
bles 4 and 7. Except for white women, the employment
differences for the “major activity-school” group— the
area in which the most pronounced inter-survey discrep
ancies had existed— are considerably less in 1979. This
apparent narrowing of the differences raises disconcert
ing questions, in particular concerning the relative im
portance of the self-response hypothesis, because there
is no evidence that the probability of self-response in
the CPS has increased over time for these groups of
young people. More information than is currently avail
able would be required to address this issue.
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. The 1979-based NLS and CPS employmentpopulation ratios and unemployment rates for youth age
16 to 21 by race, sex, and age, March 1979
Category
Employmentpopulation ratio
Unemployment rate
NLS
CPS
NLS
CPS
Men
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
45.6
65.3
74.1
36.7
58.4
69.2
28.3
15.5
10.4
21.9
14.3
10.8
White men1
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
48.5
68.0
75.3
40.4
61.3
70.9
24.6
12.8
8.7
19.6
12.6
8.9
Black men2
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
27.4
47.4
62.8
16.5
40.9
58.2
53.8
34.6
23.4
43.5
27.0
23.2
Women
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
41.5
56.4
61.4
34.5
51.6
59.3
29.6
20.9
14.8
18.1
13.0
10.5
White women1
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
44.6
59.4
63.8
38.4
55.5
62.3
26.5
18.0
12.2
16.2
11.4
8.5
Black women2
16 to 17 y e a rs ........................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
20 to 21 y e a rs ........................................
21.6
38.1
45.9
14.5
30.9
43.1
54.9
40.3
32.5
37.1
26.0
24.2
1The NLS includes Hispanics and other races in the white category. The CPS includes
about 96 percent of Hispanics, but not other races, in the white category.
2The NLS excludes other races from the black category. The CPS Includes other races
and about 4 percent of Hispanics in the black category.
S ource : Michael Borus and others, “ Pathways to the Future: A Longitudinal Study of
Young Americans,” Preliminary Report: Youth and the Labor M arket— 1979 (U.S. Depart
ment of Labor, 1980), tables 2.2 and 2.6.
Unemployment. The 1979-based NLS unemployment
rates are higher— often considerably so— among young
men and for all the female age groups than in the CPS.
While the inter-survey differences for men age 18 to 21
are very small, NLS unemployment rates for those whose
major activity is school tend to be much larger than
CPS estimates. The rates for men whose major activity is
not school are similar, while there are still some dispari
ties for women.
These results differ substantially from the 1966-based
NLS-CPS comparisons, in which unemployment rates,
particularly among men, tended to be little different.
One appealing hypothesis for some of the 1979-based
NLS differences is that CPS data refer to March, whereas
the newest NLS includes information gathered between
February and May. In May, a large number of youth
begin looking for work, although the peak labor force
activity does not occur until July. It might be thought,
therefore, that this seasonal factor is responsible for
some of the results. However, this is not the case; a rel
atively small number of the 1979 NLS interviews were
conducted in May, and respondents counted as unem
ployed were not concentrated in this month.19 Why are
unemployment rate differences between the 1966-based
NLS and the CPS small and seldom significant, and the
1979 NLS-CPS differences very often quite large? Two sub
stantive hypotheses for this apparent anomaly come to
mind. First, many students might have been looking for
summer or post-graduation jobs during the 1979 NLS in
terview period (spring 1979). They would have met the
CPS job-search criterion for being classified as unem
ployed, but it is not clear whether they would have met
the second criterion, current availability for work.
The second hypothesis takes note of the fact that the
1966-based NLS comparisons with the CPS reflected the
more favorable job markets of the late 1960’s; during
that time it was easier to find a job, so that the relative
ly larger NLS labor force was “allocated” more to em
ployment than unemployment. But by 1979, secular
developments had made it more difficult to find accept
able employment; thus, the higher NLS labor force par
ticipation was more concentrated in unemployment.
Unfortunately, each of these hypotheses is difficult to
test in the absence of very detailed information on the
job search activity and other characteristics of unem
ployed youth. And finally, there are also a few method
ological differences between the two NLS surveys that
could produce the observed results; for example, differ
ent organizations were in charge of survey design and
data collection, and interviewers may not have had
comparable training.
Table 7. The 1979-based NLS and CPS employmentpopulation ratios and unemployment rates for youth age
16 to 21 by race, sex, and major activity, March 1979
Category
Employmentpopulation ratio
Unemployment rate
NLS
CPS
NLS
CPS
Men
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r.................................................
38.2
80.8
29.9
79.2
28.0
12.3
20.9
12.3
White men'
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r.................................................
40.7
83.2
32.9
81.7
23.7
10.5
18.5
10.6
Black men2
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r................................................
22.5
64.6
13.8
63.4
56.6
26.1
42.8
24.1
Women
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r................................................
36.3
65.4
30.4
64.9
31.3
16.3
17.0
11.6
White women1
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r.................................................
38.9
68.1
33.5
68.7
27.7
14.0
15.8
9.5
Black women2
Major activity:
S ch ool..............................................
O th e r................................................
21.7
47.0 v
14.0
44.0
54.1
33.7
30.0
26.4
1See footnote 1, table 6.
2 See footnote 2, table 6.
S ource : Michael Borus and others, “ Pathways to the Future: A Longitudinal Study of
Young Americans,” Preliminary Report: Youth and the Labor M arket— 1979 (U.S. Depart
ment of Labor, 1980), table 2.7.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CPS panels compared. As previously noted, NLS results
are probably most appropriately compared with firstmonth-in-sample CPS data to minimize problems of re
spondent conditioning and other factors contributing to
“rotation group bias.” Table 8 presents some limited
data for men and women age 16 to 19. As expected, the
CPS employment-population ratios for men are higher in
the first rotation group and 1979 NLS-CPS discrepancies
are considerably smaller than when comparisons are
made with the full CPS. Among women, however, the
first-month-in-sample employment comparisons result
in an increase in the inter-survey variations. Unemploy
ment rate differences tend to narrow substantially, par
ticularly for women, when comparisons are made with
the first rotation panel. By no means does this re
finement entirely account for the differences between
survey measures, but it is clear that rotation group bias
cannot be ignored when comparing data across surveys.
Participation questions may affect data. A slight portion
of the 1979 NLS-CPS unemployment rate discrepancies
may also result from an important inter-survey differ
ence in the labor force questions. The 1979-based NLS
asked the complete battery of labor force questions, in
cluding those intended to identify the reasons for per
sons’ nonparticipation in the labor force. The CPS first
rotation panel is not asked these questions; rather the
probing not-in-the-labor-force questions are posed only
to the fourth and eighth panels.
Evidence from the CPS indicates that it makes quite a
bit of difference whether the questions about current de
sire for work are asked in the first CPS interview or in
subsequent months.20 For example, between January
1967 and December 1969, the not-in-the-labor-force
questions were posed to the first and fifth month panels;
the “first month bias” during this time was substantial
ly higher than before or subsequently, especially for re
ported unemployment and part-time employment
among youth. Indeed, during the 1967-69 period, there
was an average 20-percent drop between the firstmonth-to-entire-sample ratio and the corresponding ra
tio for the second month. Since January 1970, the notin-the-labor-force questions have been asked only of the
fourth and eighth rotation groups.
Census Bureau research strongly supports the hy
pothesis that inclusion of these questions has a large ef
fect on reported unemployment by rotation group. Fol
lowing the January 1970 switch, the incidence of
unemployment for the first and fifth month in sample
fell relative to the other “months in sample,” and that
for the fourth and eighth months increased. That is, it
was found that persons in the latter panels were being
reported as unemployed who would have been classified
as not in the labor force had they not been asked about
current desire for a job and future job-search activity.
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
Two explanations for this phenomenon have been
advanced. First, the probing nature of the not-in-the-labor-force questions may elicit information that conflicts
with or is not obtained from the basic CPS questions,
and the enumerators consequently change the original
responses. And second, CPS household respondents may
be conditioned by the additional questions and provide
information for other family members differently than if
the not-in-the-labor-force questions had not been asked.
Thus, the 1979 NLS battery of labor force questions is
somewhat different from that faced by the CPS firstmonth group. It is unclear what effect these inter-survey
design variations might have on NLS estimates, especial
ly because that survey should not reflect any respondent
conditioning. However, by making certain very rough
assumptions, we may attempt to estimate their impact
on the CPS.
The tabulation below shows the observed 1979 annu
al average unemployment rate for the first rotation
group, and a recalculated 1979 unemployment rate
which is based on the 1968 “rotation group index.” (A
rotation group index is simply the value for one rota
tion group divided by the average value for all rotation
groups and multiplied by 100. A rotation group labor
force index of 110.0 means that a group’s labor force
was 10 percent greater than the average.) If it is as
sumed that any differences between the 1968 and 1979
rotation group indexes are due solely to the procedural
change for not-in-the-labor-force questions, the follow
ing is an estimate of what the 1979 CPS unemployment
rate would have been had the change not been imple
mented:
Average unemployment rate during
1979 for first-month CPS panel
Adjusted by 1968
Reported
rotation group indexes
Men:
16 to 17 years
18 to 19 years
19.6
14.3
21.0
15.7
Women:
16 to 17 y e a rs ..........
18 to 19 y e a rs ..........
23.3
16.2
24.3
17.2
In each case the unemployment rate calculated using
the 1968 indexes is higher by at least 1 percentage
point. Although this revision procedure is admittedly
crude and intended only for illustration, it does show
that the possibility of a slight bias in the 1979-based
NLS data because of the inclusion of the not-in-the-labor-force questions cannot be ruled out.
In summary, there are some similarities between the
1979 NLS-CPS comparisons and the disparities previously
noted between the 1966-based NLS and CPS surveys, but
there also appears to have been a shift in the magnitude
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 8. Employment-population ratios and
unemployment rates for youth age 16 to 19 by sex and
age: a comparison of the 1979-based NLS and the full CPS
with the CPS first-month panel and the weighted average
of the CPS first-month panel
Employment-population ratio
Category
Unemployment rate
Weighted
CPS
average
firstof CPS
NLS
month
first-month
panel
panel
Weighted
CPS
average
firstof CPS
month
first-month
panel
panel
NLS
Full
CPS
Men
16 to 17 years . . .
18 to 19 years . . .
45.6
65.3
36.7
58.4
39.3
59.6
41.8
61.6
28.3
15.5
21.9
14.3
23.4
17.0
21.2
15.0
Women
16 to 17 years . . .
18 to 19 years . . .
41.5
56.4
34.5
51.6
32.0
47.0
33.7
50.5
29.6
20.9
18.1
13.0
22.9
18.5
22.8
15.9
Full
CPS
N ote : The NLS data are based on interviews conducted between February and May
1979. About one-half of the interviews took place in March. Full CPS and CPS first-month
panel data relate to March. The weighted average of the CPS first-month panel relates to
the period February through May for the first-month-in-sample; the weights attached to each
month are based on the proportion of NLS interviews conducted in each month.
of the differences. In particular there was a slight reduc
tion in employment differences and a large increase in
unemployment differences between the two studies for
which no empirically verified explanation currently ex
ists. In the future, rigorous examination of the evidence
suggested above for the unemployment differences, rota
tion group bias problems, and interactions of questions
on respondents may reveal that the inter-survey differ
ences are slightly narrower than previously thought.
An overview of the findings
A number of findings from this comparative analysis
merit emphasis. First, all three longitudinal surveys re
veal higher estimates of labor force participation ratios
and employment-population ratios than does the CPS.
Second, with the important exception of the newest NLS,
unemployment rates are little different between studies.
Third, raw inter-survey differences are, in many in
stances, not statistically significant. (However, it should
be kept in mind that none of the other surveys was con
structed to test CPS youth labor force measures and that
because of the relatively small sample sizes large dis
crepancies must exist between survey measures for sta
tistical significance to be detected.) Fourth, comparisons
of the full CPS with other one-time or yearly surveys ig
nore the problem of rotation group bias, a factor which
certainly accounts for some of the inter-survey differ
ences. Fifth, the discrepancies, especially between the
CPS and the 1966 and 1979 NLS data, appear to be con
centrated among young teenagers and those whose ma
jor activity is attending school, perhaps because of the
marginal nature of their labor force activity. Again,
however, the evidence for this proposition is only sug
gestive. Sixth, the focus on self versus proxy response as
the cause of inter-survey variations probably obscures a
number of other important influences that may be pro-
ducing the differences.
Finally, there are important methodological varia
tions between the surveys that almost certainly account
for some of the discrepancies. The class of 1972 survey,
for example, was undoubtedly subject to serious recall
bias, and the differences between the CPS and the
1972-based study narrowed when the length of recall
was subsequently reduced. Other critical differences
among the surveys include questionnaire design, length,
and content. The interaction of these factors with re
spondents’ memory and desire to be accommodative
may simply produce an unwanted response bias rather
than “better” data, if analysis of results from other sur
veys is a reliable guide. And the fact that longitudinal
surveys are different in purpose from the CPS probably
contributes to even more subtle variations in the result
ing data.
In this context, it is important to reiterate the distinc
tion between the accuracy of a survey and the reconcili
ation of inter-survey differences. None of the surveys
analyzed in this article has any a priori claim to accura
cy. And, while we have resolved some aspects of the in
ter-study discrepancies on methodological and other
grounds, unexplained differences remain.
□
FOOTNOTES
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author thanks the following persons for
many helpful comments: Gregory Russell and Gary Shapiro of the
Census Bureau; Wesley Mellow of the Office of Research and Evalua
tion, Bureau of Labor Statistics; John Bregger and Deborah Klein of
the Office of Current Employment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statis
tics; Robert Lerman, formerly of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Policy Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor; and
Michael Borus of the Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio
State University. The views expressed in this article are the author’s
own, and do not necessarily represent those of any of the persons
named above.
1Michael Borus and others, “Counting Youth: A Comparison of
Youth Labor Force Statistics in the Current Population Survey and
the National Longitudinal Surveys,” in Conference Report on Youth
Unemployment: Its Measurement and Meaning (U.S. Department of
Labor, 1978), pp. 15-34; Michael Borus and others in “Pathways to
the Future: A Longitudinal Study of Young Americans,” Preliminary
Report: Youth and the Labor M arket-1979 (U.S. Department of Labor,
1980); Richard Freeman and James Medoff, “Why Does the Rate of
Youth Labor Force Activity Differ Across Surveys?” and Robert H.
Myer and David A. Wise, “High School Preparation and Early Labor
Market Experience,” in The Youth Unemployment Problem: Its Nature,
Causes, and Consequences (Chicago, University of Chicago Press,
forthcoming).
2The basic analysis of labor market data from the survey is found
in Robert H. Myer and David A. Wise, “High School Preparation.”
A complete discussion of the class of 1972 survey is contained in Jay
Levensohn and others, National Longitudinal Study Base Year, First,
Second, and Third Follow-up Data File Users Manual, Vol. 1 (Wash
ington, National Center for Education Statistics, 1978).
3See Christina O. Gibson and others, “Interaction of Survey Ques
tions as It Relates to Interviewer-Respondent Bias,” Proceedings o f the
Survey Research M ethods Section, American Statistical Association,
1978, pp. 251-56.
4 See Louis E. Williams, “Methods Test Phase III: First Report on
the Accuracy of Retrospective Interviewing and Effects of Nonself
Response on Labor Force Status,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, June
24, 1969, p. 4; Charles Jones and Robert Aquilino, “Methods Test
Phase III: Second Report . . . ,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, Jan.
29, 1970? and Robert Aquilino, “Methods Test Phase III: Third Re
port . . . ,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, Apr. 2, 1979.
5Information to calculate standard errors for the CPS data is con
tained in Em ploym ent o f High School Graduates and Dropouts, October
1972, Special Labor Force Report 155 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1973), table 2; Em ploym ent o f High School Graduates and Dropouts,
October 1973, Special Labor Force Report 168 (Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics, 1974), table 2; and Students, Graduates, and Dropouts in the
Labor Market, October 1974, Special Labor Force Report 180 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1975), table 2. Standard errors for the class of
1972 survey were calculated as follows:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
where cr equals the approximate standard error, P equals the unem
ployment rate or employment-population ratio, N equals the sample
size, and 1.16 is the estimated design effect resulting from decrease in
the efficiency of the 1972-based survey due to the clustering of the
sample. The sample size and labor force information is from Robert
H. Myer and David A. Wise, “High School Preparation.”
The hypothesis that the survey differences are statistically signifi
cant is tested according to the following formula:
DIFF
X :
,
VV + ^ 2
where DIFF equals the difference between the survey measures, and
cr is the approximate standard error. In this study, inter-survey differ
ences are considered statistically significant if X is greater than or
equal to 2, which roughly represents the 95-percent confidence inter
val.
6 In the CPS, about 20 percent of all the men and 55 percent of all
the women are self-respondents. Information on working men and
young people in school is largely derived from proxy respondents. See
Camilla Brooks and Barbara Bailar, “An Error Profile: Employment
as Measured by the Current Population Survey,” report prepared for
the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Subcommittee on
Nonsampling Errors, 1978.
7Freeman and Medoff, “Why Does,” p. 18.
8However, results of a recent study indicate that attrition from the
1966-based NLS sample may not be of substantial importance. See
Michael Borus and others, “Counting Youth,” pp. 18-19.
9It is difficult to assess any trends in the survey differences, save
perhaps among youth age 20 to 24, where, it should be noted, racial
differences in unemployment rates do not seem to differ across sur
veys.
10Information to calculate standard errors is contained in “CPS
Variances-New Standard Errors for Monthly Estimates of Levels, Per
centages and Participation Rates for the CPS Labor Force Data for
the 461 Area Design” (Bureau of the Census, 1977); and Career
Thresholds, Volume 3, Manpower Research Monograph 16, (U.S. De
partment of Labor, 1971), pp. 129-40. The formula to test the
hypothesis that the differences are statistically significant is:
DIFF
where DIFF equals the differences between the surveys, and cr is the
approximate standard error. (See footnote 5 for the interpretation of
X.) The base used to calculate the standard error in both surveys is
the CPS estimate of the civilian noninstitutional population.
" See Brooks and Bailar, “An Error Profile,” pp. 17-18.
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Youth Labor Force Activity
12 Note that we are concerned with current activity. Freeman and
Medoff note in “Why Does” that males in the NLS sample report
working more weeks over the past year than is reported for them by
their mothers. The problems with retrospective questions are well
known, and the authors’ regression results so inconclusive that this is
a very poor test of the objective knowledge of respondents.
13 See Brooks and Bailar, “An Error Profile,” pp. 61-65; The Cur
rent Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 40
(Bureau of the Census, 1978), pp. 82-85; and W. H. Williams and
C. L. Mallows, “Systematic Biases in Panel Surveys Due to Differen
tial Nonresponse,” Journal o f the American Statistical Association, Sep
tember 1970, pp. 1338-49.
14For instance, in the May 1978 CPS the first rotation group is 21.7
percent black and has a mean age of 35.66 years. For the eighth rota
tion group the comparable figures are 20.4 percent and 36.72 years.
15 Freeman and Medoff, “Why Does,” p. 16.
16Brooks and Bailar, “An Error Profile,” p. 17.
17 See Boras, “Pathways to the Future.” This report presents a
wealth of information about youth; included is an appendix that out
lines the sample design and weighting procedures.
18 Because the newest NLS oversampled young blacks and youth
from low income families, the employment and unemployment esti
mates may be more sensitive to the weighting procedure than is the
CPS, which is self-weighting. For example, as a result of this
oversampling, there is a group of youth with a higher probability of
not being in school and a higher probability of being unemployed.
Therefore, if the weights are not entirely appropriate, it could result in
a higher estimate of unemployment and labor force participation. Un
der the same scenario, estimates of employment would be lower. Until
this issue is resolved, some care must be used in interpreting the sig
nificance of the survey differences.
'’ Gilbert Nestel of the Center for Human Resource Research at
Ohio State University was kind enough to provide us with this infor
mation.
20 Evidence for the information in this paragraph can be found in:
Louis E. Williams, “Effect of Item 24 on Rotation Group Bias,”
Memo, Bureau of the Census, Aug. 17, 1970; Louis E. Williams, “The
Effect of Item 24 on Rotation Group Bias for Unemployment in the
CPS,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, Apr. 7, 1972; and Morton
Boisen, “Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Request for Additional Analysis
on the Effect of Item 24 on the Level of the Composite and
Noncomposite Estimate in CPS,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, June
18, 1975.
APPENDIX: Other measures of youth labor force activity
National crime survey
The NCS covers about 72,000 households which are
visited twice a year for 3 years, with new units replac
ing expired ones at the end of the period. About 10,000
households are interviewed by Census Bureau enumera
tors each month. The basic methodological differences
between the NCS and CPS are that the NCS is 90 to 95
percent self-response, and most NCS interviews are per
sonal visits rather than telephone contacts.
Although the NCS is chiefly a crime survey and does
not contain a complete battery of labor force questions,
certain questions are similar enough to those in the CPS
to facilitate a test of the self-response hypothesis. More
over, NCS labor force questions are asked before eliciting
information about crime victimization, eliminating one
previously cited source of response bias.
To minimize another methodological difference be
tween NCS and CPS, table A - l compares 1977 annual
average employment-population ratios and unemploy
ment rates only for the first-month-in-sample respon
dents.
The results, though not conclusive, raise additional
questions concerning the relative importance of self-re
sponse in the measurement of youth labor force activity.
The CPS estimates of employment-population ratios
tend to be slightly larger than those from the NCS, al
though the differences are usually not statistically signif
icant. In any case, the extent of the inter-survey
employment differences is less than when similar com
parisons are made between the CPS and the youth-specif
ic surveys. Interestingly, employment-population ratios
from the CPS are higher than NCS measures for men 16
to 19, but lower for those age 20 to 24. This pattern is
the exact reverse of the NLS-CPS relationship in which
the survey differences were found to narrow by age.
Also, subject to the analytical limitations imposed by
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
relatively small samples, variations in the employmentpopulation ratios are statistically significant in only 4
out of 12 observations, and in one-half of those, the CPS
yielded the higher ratio. Finally, the CPS-measured un
employment rate is always greater than that from the
NCS.
Even considering the different emphasis of each sur
vey and the abridged version of the NCS labor force
questions, one cannot simply dismiss the results of this
test of the self-response hypothesis— findings which
seem to contradict observations from the NLS-CPS com
parisons. If nothing else, the NCS-CPS comparisons
Table A-1. Employment-population ratios and
unemployment rates for youth age 16 to 24 by sex: a
comparison of the National Crime Survey 1977 average
for incoming respondents and the 1977 average CPS
first-month panels, weighted to population estimates
Employment-population ratio
Category
16 to
18 to
20 to
22 to
Total
17 y e a rs .............
19 y e a rs .............
21 y e a rs .............
24 y e a rs .............
Unemployment rate
NCS
firstmonth
panel
CPS
firstmonth
panel
Difference
NCS
firstmonth
panel
CPS
firstmonth
panel
Difference
38.9
56.5
66.6
68.9
40.5
57.8
63.8
71.1
1.6
1.3
1 -2.8
12.2
18.4
13.7
10.0
8.1
21.7
17.5
13.8
11.1
13.3
13.8
13.8
'3.0
42.6
61.6
75.1
80.5
44.7
63.2
69.9
80.6
2.1
2.1
1 -5 .2
.1
18.3
12.3
9.4
7.4
20.4
16.3
13.6
10.5
2.1
14.0
14.2
13.1
35.1
52.2
58.8
58.4
36.2
52.6
58.1
62.2
1.1
.4
-.7
'3.8
18.5
15.2
10.6
8.8
23.2
18.9
14.1
11.9
14.7
’ 3.7
'3.5
’ 3.1
Men
16 to
18 to
20 to
22 to
17 y e a rs .............
19 y e a rs .............
21 y e a rs .............
24 y e a rs .............
Women
16 to
18 to
20 to
22 to
17
19
21
24
y e a rs .............
y e a rs .............
y e a rs .............
y e a rs .............
1NCS-CPS difference is statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
should warn analysts against making hasty judgements
about the source— and possible significance— of differ
ences between any two surveys.
The Census Bureau has also performed some compar
isons of NCS labor force estimates with those from the
CPS. Results of these studies may be found in Martin
Boisen, “Comparison of NCS and CPS Labor Force
Data,” Memo, Bureau of the Census, Nov. 14, 1975;
John Bushery, “Update of Comparisons of NCS and CPS
Labor Force Data— Addendum 1,” Memo, Bureau of
the Census, Mar. 14, 1978; and Henry Woltman and
John Bushery, “NCS Labor Force Reinterview Study,”
Memo, Bureau of the Census, June 8, 1978.
Methods development survey
The MDS is a research project designed to test the po
tential impact of alternative data collection methods
and concepts on the CPS. Phase I of the study compared
alternative data collection procedures, including the use
of self versus proxy response. MDS data should be used
carefully, because the sample size for youth is particu
larly small and because there are some methodological
interactions— for example, between type of respondent,
contact (telephone or personal interview), and interview
er (same or different enumerator each month)— that are
not controlled. Also, the MDS is not a national proba
bility sample, but rather, during Phase I, was limited to
four areas of the country. However, there is no evidence
that these areas are atypical in terms of self versus
household response.
Results from Phase I were used to calculate employ
ment-population ratios for those age 16 to 21 by type of
respondent. (See table A -2 .) “Household respondent”
refers to the usual responsible person in the CPS, and
“self-response” to the individual reports of each eligible
household member. (For more detail, see Anthony Ro
man, “MDS Phase I Results for the 16-21 Age Group,”
Memo, Bureau of the Census, May 16, 1980; and Gary
Shapiro, “Effect of Survey Methodology on Teen-Age
Employment to Population Ratios,” Memo, Bureau of
the Census, June 1, 1980.)
MDS-CPS comparisons do not provide robust support
for the hypothesis that proxy response is a major cause
of differences in the measurement of youth employment
between surveys. Even among those age 16 to 17—
where previous comparisons suggested the most pro
nounced differences— the only clearcut support for the
hypothesis is found among men. Interestingly, it is
those age 20 to 21 who provide the best evidence for
the effect of self-response, but it is precisely these older
youth for which CPS-other survey differences have been
noticeably smaller. One possible reason for this finding
is that the MDS did not personally contact unmarried
college students who were living away from home but
were considered to be part of their parents’ households.
In short, the comparisons again suggest that other rea
sons discussed throughout the preceding article may be
much more important components of inter-survey varia
tion than self versus proxy response. In fact, self-re
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-2. MDS employment-population ratios by type of
respondent, sex, age, and race, cumulative figures from
June 1978 to September 1979
Estimated
Self respondent standard error of
the difference
Category
Household
respondent
Total
16 to 21 y e a rs .............................
16 to 19 years ........................
16 to 17 years ....................
18 to 19 years ....................
20 to 21 years ........................
55.7
52.2
40.5
63.9
63.9
54.5
48.5
39.8
58.3
69.1
1.4
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.6
Men
16 to 21 y e a rs .............................
16 to 19 years ........................
16 to 17 years ....................
18 to 19 years ....................
20 to 21 years ........................
57.9
54.0
40.0
69.3
68.5
61.7
54.0
46.5
63.1
80.5
2.0
2.4
3.3
3.3
3.4
Women
16 to 21 y e a rs .............................
16 to 19 years ........................
16 to 17 years ....................
18 to 19 years ....................
20 to 21 years ........................
53.7
50.4
41.1
58.9
60.5
47.7
43.4
33.0
54.1
58.3 '
2.0
2.4
3.3
3.3
3.5
White
16 to 21 y e a rs .............................
16 to 19 years ........................
16 to 17 years ....................
18 to 19 years ....................
20 to 21 years ........................
59.5
55.7
42.8
68.0
68.2
59.1
53.0
46.2
59.9
74.6
1.6
1.9
2.6
2.5
2.6
Black and other
16 to 21 y e a rs .............................
16 to 19 years ........................
16 to 17 years ....................
18 to 19 years ....................
20 to 21 years ........................
34.9
33.3
29.0
38.5
39.0
35.9
29.0
17.8
48.6
49.8
3.3
3.9
4.6
6.4
6.2
S ource : Anthony Roman, “ MDS Phase 1 Results for the 16-21 Age Group,” Memo,
Bureau of the Census, May 16,1980.
sponse in the MDS results in a smaller estimate of em
ployment-population ratios, except for men age 16 to 17
and minorities age 18 to 19, where self-response yields a
moderately higher figure.
In addition to the information previously analyzed,
youth-specific data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of
Income and Education (sie) were also compared with
CPS measures. Results of this comparison will not be
discussed here in detail, but it was found that CPS esti
mates of youth labor force activity were little different
from those in the SIE. (A complete description of the
SIE may be found in Household Money Income in 1975
by Housing Tenure and Residence for the United States,
Regions, Divisions, and States, Current Population Re
ports, Series P -60, No. 108 (Bureau of the Census,
1977)).
CPS data on the effect of rotation group bias on youth
labor force estimates were also examined. The results of
this study showed that youth are more likely to be
classified as employed or unemployed the first month
they are in the sample than in later months. It was also
found that youth exhibit rotation group patterns that
are not identical to those for adults.
A more complete discussion of the results of the SIECPS comparisons and the investigation of youth rotation
group bias is available from the author upon request.
17
The job safety law of 1970:
its passage was perilous
Just over a decade ago Congress enacted the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
to help protect the Nation ’s workers on the job,
following a 3-year legislative struggle
JUDSON M A C LA U R Y
On December 29, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed
into law the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and
Health Act, which gave the Federal Government the
authority to set and enforce safety and health standards
for most of the country’s workers.1This act was the re
sult of a hard-fought legislative battle which began in
1968 when President Lyndon Johnson unsuccessfully
sought a similar measure. However, the roots of govern
ment regulation of workplace hazards date back to the
late 19th century.
State factory laws
In the factories that sprang up after the Civil War,
chemicals, dusts, dangerous machines, and a confusing
jumble of belts, pulleys, and gears confronted inexperi
enced, often very young workers. The reports of State
labor bureaus in the 1870’s and 1880’s were full of trag
edies that too often struck the unwary or the unlucky.
The Massachusetts report of 1872 described some par
ticularly grisly accidents. These tragedies and the indus
trial accident statistics that State labor bureaus
collected, spurred social reformers and the budding la
bor movement to call for State factory safety and health
laws. In 1870, the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of
Labor urged legislation to deal with “the peril to health
from lack of ventilation.” In 1877, Massachusetts
passed the Nation’s first factory inspection law. It reJudson MacLaury is a historian in the U.S. Department of Labor.
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quired guarding of belts, shafts, and gears, protection
on elevators, and adequate fire exits.2 Its passage
prompted a flurry of State factory acts. By 1890, nine
States provided for factory inspectors, 13 required ma
chine guarding, and 21 made limited provision for
health hazards.
The labyrinth of State job safety and health legisla
tion covered a wide range of workplace hazards but was
badly flawed. There were too many holes in the piece
meal system and numerous hazards were left uncon
trolled. The laws had to be amended often to cover new
hazards. Many legislatures failed to provide adequate
funds for enforcement. Inspectors, who were often polit
ical appointees, were not always given the legal right to
enter workplaces. States with strong safety and health
laws tended to lose industry to those with less stringent
ones, which made States competitive and limited their
legislative efforts.
The Progressive Era and the growth of mass circula
tion newspapers and national magazines helped forge a
national movement for workers’ safety and health. In
1907, 362 coal miners were killed at Monongah, W.
Va., in the worst U.S. mine disaster. This widely publi
cized tragedy shocked the Nation and led to the cre
ation in 1910 of the U.S. Bureau of Mines to promote
mine safety.
That same year William B. Hard, a muckraking jour
nalist, published an article in Everybody's Magazine ti
tled, “Making Steel and Killing Men,” based on his
firsthand investigations of a Chicago mill.3 Hard
estimated that every year, out of a work force of 10,000
workers, 1,200 were killed or seriously injured. He
urged the steel industry to use its technical knowledge
to reduce this casualty rate. U.S. Steel, spurred by
mounting accident tolls, had already begun to collect
accident statistics. Safety programs in subsidiaries dated
back to the 1890’s. In 1908, U.S. Steel formed a safety
committee with instructions from the company presi
dent, Judge Elbert Gary, to cut the accident rate as
much as possible. A highly successful “safety first”
movement developed from this which spilled over to
other industries and led to the creation of the National
Safety Council in 1915.4
The “Pittsburgh Survey,” a detailed study of living
and working conditions in Allegheny County, Pa., done
in 1907-08, had a special impact on job safety and
health.5 One of the major topics of the investigation,
which was sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation,
was industrial accidents. The survey found that the in
jured workers and the survivors of those killed on the
job bore the economic brunt of accidents, even though
most were the employers’ fault. The authors of the sur
vey agreed that, for reasons of social equity, employers
should bear a substantial share of the economic burden,
giving them more incentive to eliminate the causes.
Workers’ compensation started
Years before the Pittsburgh Survey, the idea of com
pensating injured workers from an insurance fund to
which employers would contribute had gained a foot
hold in this country, though it was not at first promot
ed as a preventive measure. Prince Otto von Bismarck
had initiated the first workers’ compensation program
in Germany in 1884, and the idea soon spread through
out Europe. In the United States, a few States tried to
establish early compensation systems. Organized labor
successfully opposed the concept, precisely because it
was intended as a palliative, not a preventive measure.
In 1908, Congress passed, with President Theodore
Roosevelt’s support, a limited workers’ compensation
law for Federal employees. Encouraged by this example,
several States appointed study commissions. However,
until the Pittsburgh Survey, compensation was treated
mainly as a humanitarian measure.
The survey’s call for an economic incentive to
encourage accident prevention struck a responsive
chord. It quickly became a key part of the rationale for
workers’ compensation. This seemed to tip the scales.
Both labor and business rallied in support.6 In 1911,
Wisconsin became the first State to successfully estab
lish a workers’ compensation program. Within 1 year it
was joined by nine other States and by 1921 most
States had followed suit.
Ironically, it was as a preventive measure that work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ers’ compensation accomplished the least. The general
level of this type of insurance premium was already so
low that there was no real incentive for a company to
invest heavily in safety improvements to be eligible for
the slightly lower rates offered firms with good safety
records. Very few States included compensation for dis
ease, although much was already known about occupa
tional illness. Still, insurance company safety experts
helped improve their clients’ safety programs and the
establishment of compensation gave the safety move
ment a moral boost.7
An idea that developed alongside of workers’ com
pensation probably produced more significant long-run
results. If the States would create industrial commis
sions with authority to establish specific safety and
health regulations, it would not be necessary to go back
to the legislatures and amend the factory laws in order
to cover new hazards or change requirements. A work
ers’ compensation advocate, John R. Commons of the
University of Wisconsin, found this system in use in
Europe and urged its adoption in the United States.
Wisconsin, in another pioneering move, created the first
permanent State industrial commission which developed
and enforced safety and health regulations, after hearing
comments from labor, management, and others.8 This
idea was widely accepted and became a guide for future
State and Federal regulation of occupational safety and
health.
Early Federal action
The Federal Government was relatively inactive,
though not dormant, on safety and health until the era
of workers’ compensation. In 1790, the First Congress
passed an ineffective merchant seamen’s act which gave
the crew of a ship at sea the right to order the vessel
into the nearest port if a majority of the seamen plus
the first mate believed it was unseaworthy.9 In 1887,
Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission
partly because of the large numbers of railroad workers
killed or injured in train wrecks. In 1893, at the urging
of the commission and the railroad unions, Congress
passed the “coupler bill” which banned the notoriously
dangerous link-and-pin method of coupling cars.
Industrial disease studied. After the turn of the century,
the Federal Government quietly began investigation
into industrial diseases. In 1903, the U.S. Bureau of La
bor began publishing graphically detailed studies of
death and disease in the dusty trades, as well as other
safety and health topics. In 1910, the Bureau published
a study by a labor law advocate, John B. Andrews, on
the horrors of phosphorus necrosis (“phossy jaw”), a
disfiguring and sometimes fatal disease of the jawbone
suffered by workers in the white phosphorus match in
dustry.10 This shocking study jolted the Nation to de19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Job Safety Law of 1970
mand action. In 1912, Congress passed the Esch Act,
which placed a prohibitive tax on white phosphorus
matches. The Diamond Match Co. agreed to release its
patented substitute for general use.
By a lucky stroke, U.S. Commissioner of Labor
Charles Neill met Dr. Alice Hamilton (now considered
the founder of industrial medicine in America) at a
1910 European conference on occupational accidents
and diseases. Hamilton, at the time just beginning her
career, was in the midst of pioneering investigations
into the lead trades as director of the Illinois Occupa
tional Disease Commission. Neill invited her to work as
a special investigator for the Bureau of Labor. She ac
cepted and until 1921 traveled around the country visit
ing lead smelters, storage battery plants, and other
hazardous workplaces. In 1911, she published a study
of the white lead industry that was the first of a series
of Bureau of Labor reports known as the “Federal sur
vey.” Hamilton had a free hand but lacked authority to
enter plants other than by moral suasion. She found
many examples of foul conditions and gross neglect and
some “remarkable instances of wise and humane em
ployers.”11
Department of Labor formed. In 1913, Congress created
the Department of Labor and one of its main purposes
was “to improve working conditions.” A Senate resolu
tion specifically called on the newly appointed Secretary
of Labor, William B. Wilson, to report on industrial
diseases and accidents.12 Wilson, an ex-coal miner and
mine union official, needed no prodding. A “miner”
poet, Wilson described the horror of a mine disaster in
this excerpt from “The Explosion,” originally written in
1903:
Stalwart men were but as feathers
Driven with a cyclone’s fire.
Fast their flesh and sinews shriveled,13
Scorched and roasted with the fire.
Under Wilson, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (formerly
the U.S. Bureau of Labor) started compiling regular ac
cident statistics in the iron and steel industry and grad
ually included other industries. Wilson sought to
establish the principle that, instead of feeding men “into
the maw of unhealthy occupations . . . the thing to do
is to make the unhealthy occupations healthy.”14
Working Conditions Service created. The entry of the
United States into World War I precipitated a crisis in
health and safety and conditions in the hard-pressed
war production industries. To meet this challenge, Con
gress initiated the Working Conditions Service. The ser
vice inspected war production sites, advised companies
on reducing hazards, and helped States develop and en
force safety and health standards. When the war ended,
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the service was allowed to expire, but the Labor De
partment ordered its records saved for the time “when
public and legislative opinion again shall have become
focused upon the necessity for a constructive organiza
tion of this character.”15
Labor standards
Frances Perkins appointed. In 1933, President Franklin
D. Roosevelt selected Frances Perkins as Secretary of
Labor and first woman Cabinet member. She brought
to the Labor Department long experience in occupa
tional safety and health with the State of New York. To
help assure that workplaces would be “as safe as sci
ence and law can make them,” Perkins created a Bureau
of Labor Standards in 1934 as a rallying point for those
interested in job safety and health.16 This was the first
permanent Federal agency established primarily to pro
mote safety and health for the entire work force. The
Bureau helped State governments improve their admin
istration of job safety and health laws and raise the lev
el of their protective legislation.
Congress enacted three laws as part of Roosevelt’s
New Deal which augmented the Federal Government’s
role in protecting people on the job. The Social Security
Act of 1935 allowed the U.S. Public Health Service to
fund industrial health programs run by State health de
partments. This made the Public Health Service, which
had begun doing industrial health studies in 1914, the
national leader in this field. The Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, which set a minimum wage and banned
exploitative child labor, gave the Labor Department the
power to bar workers under age 18 from dangerous oc
cupations. The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of
1936 allowed the department to ban contract work
done under hazardous conditions.
Maritime rules. By the late 1950’s, the Federal-State
partnership which Frances Perkins had cultivated was
no longer adequate to deal with growing threats to
workers’ safety and health, so gradually the Federal
Government took a more prominent role. In 1958, Con
gress passed a seemingly minor amendment to the
Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation
Act. It gave the Labor Department authority to set
safety and health standards for the very small work
force covered under this law. In addition to protecting
workers in one of the Nation’s most hazardous indus
tries, the amendment closed “the last remaining ‘no
man’s land’ ” in safety enforcement. The Secretary of
Labor was authorized to seek penalties against willful
violators, but not against those who only carelessly
broke the rules. After holding public hearings, the de
partment began enforcing standards in 1960. Compli
ance was good, and the high accident rates declined
sharply.17
In December 1960, shortly after the congressionally
ordered maritime rules became effective, the department
issued on its own a set of mandatory safety and health
standards under the Walsh-Healey Act. The department
had previously issued most of these standards in a
“Green Book” of informal guidelines to aid Federal and
State inspectors. States had been encouraged to inspect
Federal contractors and enforce their own rules. Now
they were barred from applying their standards and had
to enforce the Federal rules instead. For the first time,
the Federal occupational safety and health requirements
were applied to the whole range of industry.18
The new rules were not popular. Because there had
been no hearings or prior announcement, labor and in
dustry were caught by surprise and miffed that they had
not been consulted. Business protested strongly to the
Labor Department against making the rules mandatory.
The National Safety Council deplored this “monumen
tal set of rigid regulations.”19 The department took the
criticisms to heart, and in October 1963 it announced
proposed revisions, with hearings held in March 1964.
Business opposition had been building up for 3 years
and reached a peak at the hearings.20 They ran for 2
weeks, and the transcript filled 1,347 typed pages. More
than 100 witnesses appeared, mostly from industry.
Business felt that the new rules were not only illegal,
but also technically deficient and would inhibit innova
tion. By substituting Federal for State regulations, the
Labor Department generally undermined State safety
programs, it was argued. Business also felt that the new
policy weakened its own long-established pattern of vol
untary safety efforts.
Coordination of programs. The powerful wave of criti
cism that climaxed at the 1964 hearings prodded the
Department of Labor into a serious examination of all
its safety programs in order to develop a more coordi
nated safety and health policy. A study by an outside
consultant found in the department a fragmented collec
tion of safety programs and laws. It recommended con
solidation of all these safety programs under a single
agency, which was done somewhat in 1966.21
A movement to protect the natural environment from
the ravages of mankind and technology began growing
while the Labor Department was seeking to improve
and expand its protection of workers’ safety and health.
Large-scale Federal air and water pollution control pro
grams were developed, helping to increase awareness
and concern about the occupational environment.
Spurred by this movement, in 1965 the Public Health
Service produced a report, “Protecting the Health of
Eighty Million Americans,” which outlined some of the
recently found technological dangers. It noted that a
new chemical entered the workplace every 20 minutes,
that evidence now showed a strong link between cancer
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and the workplace, and that old problems were far from
being eliminated. The report called for a major national
occupational health effort centered in the Public Health
Service.
The A FL-C IO urged President Lyndon Johnson to
support the report’s recommendations. On May 23,
1966, Johnson told a meeting of labor reporters that
“the time has . . . come to do something about the ef
fects of a workingman’s job on his health.” The Depart
ments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare
promptly set about to develop legislation for such a
program. A joint task force was then to combine both
departments’ ideas and submit a proposal to the Presi
dent. However, Labor and HEW could not agree on
which department would control a national program
and by late 1966 the task force was deadlocked.22
Mining tragedy breaks deadlock. In 1967, it was re
vealed that almost a hundred uranium miners, an ab
normally high number, had died of lung cancer since
the 1940’s. Up to a thousand more such deaths were
expected. In 1947, when large-scale uranium mining was
getting underway, the Atomic Energy Commission dis
covered that radiation levels in these mines were dan
gerously high. The Commission, in cooperation with the
Public Health Service, began a long-term health study
of the miners. A number of Federal agencies had limit
ed jurisdiction over uranium mines, but none had clear
responsibility for them, and there was very little en
forcement.
The lack of action took on tragic overtones with the
revelations of 1967, and public attention focused on the
Federal Radiation Council. Created in 1959 to advise
the President on protective measures to take against all
types of radiation hazards, the council was composed of
representatives from concerned agencies. In 1967, it had
just completed a study of the uranium mines and was
expected to recommend a standard shortly. However,
when the council met on May 4, 1967, it became
deadlocked between a standard that the Atomic Energy
Commission recommended and a tougher one preferred
by the Labor Department.23
The next day, Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, im
patient with inaction, announced a bold step. Pre
viously, Wirtz had been reluctant to act because he felt
that uranium mining was not properly a Department of
Labor area. However, without holding public hearings,
Wirtz adopted under the Walsh-Healey Act the stan
dard he had unsuccessfully advocated before the Feder
al Radiation Council.24
This move had a decisive impact on the shaping of a
national job safety and health program in 1967, as the
Departments of Labor and HEW promoted their com
peting proposals. The Bureau of the Budget accepted
the Department of Labor’s recommendations.25
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Job Safety Law of 1970
Johnson bill fails
In January 1968, President Johnson called on Con
gress to enact a job safety and health program virtually
identical to that developed by the Labor Department.
Johnson said it was “the shame of a modern industrial
nation” that each year more than 14,000 workers were
killed and 2.2 million injured on the job. Citing inade
quate standards, lagging research, poor enforcement of
laws, shortages of safety and health personnel, and a
patchwork of ineffective Federal laws, Johnson argued
that a comprehensive new law was needed.26
The Johnson proposal, quickly introduced as legisla
tion, gave the Secretary of Labor the responsibility of
setting and enforcing standards to protect 50 million
workers. The bill also had a general duty clause requir
ing employers to “furnish employment and place of em
ployment which are safe and healthful.” It gave
inspectors legal authority to enter workplaces without
management’s permission or prior notice. Violators
could be fined or jailed, and the Secretary could black
list transgressors who held government contracts. The
Labor Department would help interested States to de
velop their own programs in lieu of the Federal one.
The Department of HEW would provide the Labor De
partment with scientific material for new safety and
health standards.
Congressional committee hearings on the Johnson
proposal began in February 1968.27 Secretary of Labor
Wirtz, who led off the hearings, cited two casualty lists
facing America at that time: the military toll in Viet
nam— and the industrial toll at home. Wirtz claimed
that 3 of 4 teenagers entering the work force would
probably suffer one minor disabling injury or more dur
ing their worklife. He also displayed shocking photo
graphs of gory industrial accident scenes. Wirtz felt that
the main issue was “whether the Congress is going to
act to stop a carnage” which continues because people
“can’t see the blood on the food that they eat, on the
things that they buy, and on the services they get.”28
The proposal aroused opposite strong reactions. Or
ganized labor supported the bill. George Meany, AFLCIO president, headed a long list of union witnesses at
the congressional hearings. A noted occupational health
researcher, Irving R. Selikoff, of the Mt. Sinai School of
Medicine, and consumers’ advocate Ralph Nader added
their voices in support. However, industry, led by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, vehemently opposed the
broad powers which would be given to the Secretary of
Labor. Industry campaigned hard against a “crash pro
gram” that would undermine the rightful role of the
States.
Ironically, the Labor Department itself may have
hurt the bill’s chances. In March 1968, it published the
booklet, “On the Job Slaughter,” containing gory pho
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tographs similar to those Secretary Wirtz had displayed
when testifying. When industry found out that many of
the pictures were 20 to 30 years old, it accused the La
bor Department of deception.
The Johnson proposal failed in 1968. President John
son’s decision not to run for re-election, domestic
violence in the inner cities, demonstrations against the
Vietnam War— these and many other events diverted
congressional and national attention from dealing with
workers’ safety and health. The bill never came to a
vote in Congress.
Safety and health board proposed
By 1969, the idea of a general job safety and health
law had taken hold. Beginning in 1965, Congress
passed several laws protecting various groups of work
ers. The Service Contracts Act of 1965 and the Federal
Construction Safety and Health Act of 1969 provided
missing links in the protection of Government contrac
tor employees. The 1966 Metal and Non-metallic Mine
Safety Act protected noncoal miners. A mine explosion
in 1968 causing 78 deaths in Farmington, W. Va.,
spurred Congress to pass the Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969.
In this context of Federal action, President Richard
Nixon presented his version of a comprehensive job
safety and health program to Congress in August 1969.
After his inauguration, he had called on his Cabinet de
partments to sift through his campaign speeches for
election-year promises. They were to report to him on
what they were doing to meet these pledges. Under Sec
retary of Labor James D. Hodgson,29 who was particu
larly interested in workers’ safety and health, was
“delighted” to find that in a speech in Cincinnati, the
Presidential candidate had called for Federal action on
that problem. The White House asked Hodgson to pre
pare a bill, and he began work immediately, consulting
extensively with labor and management.30
The Nixon Administration’s proposal bypassed the
question of whether Labor or HEW should have control
and offered instead a five-person board that would set
and enforce job safety and health standards. The Labor
Department would be limited to inspecting workplaces
and HEW would do research. Nixon emphasized use of
existing efforts by private industry and State govern
ments. The main Federal concern would be with health
research and education and training, and only second
arily with direct regulation.31
r
Legislation embodying the Nixon proposal was intro
duced in Congress and for the second consecutive year
hearings began on a national job safety and health pro
gram. Hundreds of witnesses from labor, industry, gov
ernment, and the safety and health community gave
thousands of pages of oral and written testimony. In
addition to hearings in Washington, there were field
hearings around the country at which rank-and-file
workers in steel mills, automobile plants, and other in
dustries testified.32
Secretary of Labor George Shultz emphasized at the
hearings that the Nixon bill was part of a continuous
historical process. Secretary Shultz believed that a con
sensus had finally evolved on both the need for a Feder
al law and its general form. He exhorted Congress to
“work out our differences and get something done.”33
Labor opposes, business applauds
This turned out to be easier said than done. Demo
cratic Congressmen, and some Republicans, raised
strong objections to the bill. Many felt that, with two
departments already involved, a safety board would cre
ate administrative confusion. Labor union supporters
opposed any such board and wanted the programs
lodged in the Labor Department. The proposed enforce
ment scheme came under fire because it only penalized
willful, flagrant violators. Critics felt that this would
take away much of the deterrent effect, because employ
ers would be tempted to ignore Federal safety and
health standards until after they were inspected. Exemp
tions of small employers, a 3-year delay in the bill’s ef
fective date, and a reliance on “consensus” standards
devised by industry groups also drew Democratic oppo
sition.
Organized labor had enthusiastically backed the John
son bill, but it completely opposed the Nixon proposal.
It agreed with congressional critics that the Labor De
partment was the proper locus of authority over safety
and health. Unions felt that strong action was needed to
deal with the hazards of the workplace, especially
alarming new chemical dangers. As Anthony Mazzocchi
of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union put it:
“The mad rush of science has propelled us into a strange
and uncharted environment . . . . We grope in the dark
and we can light only a few candles.”34
Buried in the battle of witnesses for and against the
Nixon proposal were some thought-provoking com
ments by Irving SelikofF. He described the suffering of
construction workers who succumbed to asbestosis from
applying asbestos insulation in buildings. Refusing to
blame any one group, he asked rhetorically, “Who killed
Cock Robin?” Selikoff’s answer was: “No one . . . .
His has been an impersonal, technological death . . . .
We have all failed.”35
In a crucial switch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
which had led the fight against the Johnson proposal,
came out in favor of the Nixon bill. The National Asso
ciation of Manufacturers and other industry groups
added their support. The main reason for the chamber’s
switch was President Nixon’s proposal to put a special
safety and health board in charge of the Federal pro
gram, instead of giving the Labor Department that
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
duty, as the Johnson proposal would have done. Busi
ness also was impressed with the fact that the Adminis
tration had listened to industry’s views in drafting the
legislation. Behind the change of heart was acceptance
by business that, while the idea of Government regula
tion of conditions in the workplace was distasteful,
some kind of safety and health law was inevitable.
A seesaw battle
Early in 1969, two Democrats, Representative James
G. O’Hara of Michigan and Senator Harrison Williams,
Jr., of New Jersey had presented bills that were similar
to the Johnson proposal of 1968. Despite Republican ef
forts in 1970 to bottle up the bills in committee, they—
and not the Nixon bill— were introduced on the floors
of the House and Senate shortly before the congression
al elections. Opponents succeeded in delaying consider
ation of these labor-backed measures until after the
election, in hopes that it would prevent passage.
The strategy was partially successful. In the Senate,
the first to act in the post-election “lameduck” session,
Republicans offered an amendment substituting the
Nixon proposal for the Democratic measures and came
just two votes short of succeeding. With the division
this close, compromise seemed likely. Senator Jacob
Javits, New York Republican, offered an amendment
under which the Secretary of Labor would set safety
and health standards, and a separate commission would
oversee Labor Department enforcement, serving as a
kind of court of appeals for parties who disagreed with
the Secretary’s decisions. Senate Democrats and the
Nixon Administration supported the compromise and
the Senate passed it.
In the House, a grassroots effort which the Chamber
of Commerce waged against the Democratic proposal
during the election campaign drained off some support.
Republican William R. Steiger of Wisconsin offered an
Administration-backed bill to substitute for the O’Hara
bill introduced earlier in the year. In a major defeat for
labor, which had stoutly resisted any efforts at compro
mise, the Steiger amendment passed easily and a HouseSenate conference committee met to hammer out the
differences between the two bills.
However, the odds were now stacked in labor’s favor.
The conference committee members reflected the liberal
views of the Democratic House and Senate committee
chairmen who selected them. When the conferees met in
December, they adopted the more liberal Senate bill al
most unchanged. The only significant point on which
the Senate yielded was deletion of a provision allowing
the Secretary of Labor to close down a plant under
conditions of imminent danger. The Senate immediately
approved the measure and sent it on to the House.
When Secretary of Labor Hodgson announced that
President Nixon approved of the bill, Republican oppo23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Job Safety Law of 1970
nents in the House abandoned plans to fight the confer
ence committee version, and it passed easily.
ALL SIDES PRAISED the final bill. President Nixon
lauded it as a significant piece of social legislation. Al
though he disagreed with specific provisions, he believed
that it would help attain “the goal we all want to
achieve”— the protection of Americans on the job. The
Chamber of Commerce termed it “a substantial victo
ry” for those in industry seeking a fair yet effective law.
AFL-CIO President George Meany called it “a long step
. . . toward a safe and healthy workplace.”36
President Nixon signed the milestone Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 in a ceremony at the La
bor Department. George Meany and other labor figures,
leaders in the business community, and prominent
members of Congress were present. The ceremony end
ed the bitter 3-year legislative struggle on a note of har
mony and bipartisanship. It marked the culmination of
a historical movement that first found expression in the
Massachusetts factory act of 1877.
□
FOO TNOTES
1Employees protected by other Federal occupational safety and
health laws are excluded from coverage, as are State and local govern
ment employees, but participating States provide comparable cover
age. These States and territories are South Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, North Carolina, California, Minnesota, Maryland, Ten
nessee, Iowa, Kentucky, Alaska, Virgin Islands, Michigan, Vermont,
Hawaii, Nevada, Indiana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Virginia,
Puerto Rico, and Connecticut.
2Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Annual Report, 1872,
pp. 421-25; Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Annual R e
port, 1870, p. 197; and John R. Commons and John B. Andrews,
Principles o f Labor Legislation (New York, Harper and Brothers,
1916), pp. 327-28.
3William B. Hard, “Making Steel and Killing Men,” Everybody's
Magazine, November 1907.
4 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin, 428, “Proceedings of the
Industrial Accident Prevention Conference,” 1926, pp. 35-36; David
S. Beyer, “Safety Provisions in the United States Steel Corporation,”
in Crystal Eastman, ed., Work Accidents and the Law (New York,
Charities Publication Committee, 1910), pp. 244-45; David Brody,
Steelworkers in America, the Nonunion Era (New York, Harper and
Row, 1969), pp. 166-68.
5Eastman, Work Accidents and the Law.
6 Roy Lubove, “Workmen’s Compensation and the Prerogatives of
Voluntarism,” Labor History, Fall 1967. James Weinstein, “Big Busi
ness and the Origins of Workmen’s Compensation,” Labor History,
Spring 1967, pp. 162-70.
7Lubove, pp. 278-79; Robert Asher, “Radicalism and Reform:
Workmen’s Compensation in Minnesota, 1910-1930,” Labor History,
Winter 1973, p. 36; Herman M. and Anne R. Somers, Workmen's
Compensation: Prevention, Insurance, and Rehabilitation o f Occupation
al Disability (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1954), pp. 333-35.
8Commons and Andrews, Principles o f Labor, pp. 430-36; Gordon
M. Haferbecker, Wisconsin Labor Laws (Madison, University of Wis
consin Press, 1958), pp. 20-23.
4Henry W. Farnam, Chapters in the History o f Social Legislation in
the United States to 1860 (Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1938),
pp. 242-46.
10C. F. W. Doehring, “Factory Sanitation and Labor Protection,”
U.S. Bureau of Labor Bulletin 44, 1903; John B. Andrews, “Phospho
rus Poisoning in the Match Industry in the United States,” U.S. Bu
reau of Labor Bulletin 86, 1910.
" Alice Hamilton, Exploring the Dangerous Trades (Boston, Little,
Brown and Co., 1943), pp. 7, 121-29.
12S. Res. 68, 63d Cong., Congressional Record, Vol. 51, p. 11395.
13 New York H erald Tribune, Dec. 28, 1913.
14Letter, William B. Wilson to John B. Andrews, Nov. 13, 1914,
Secretary of Labor files, National Archives.
15U.S. Department of Labor, Annual Report, 1919, pp. 198-204.
16Frances Perkins, People at Work (New York, John Day Co.,
1934), p. 50; Arthur W. MacMahon and John D. Millett, Federal A d
ministrators (New York, Columbia University Press, 1939), p. 372.
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17Assistant Secretary of Labor, John J. Gilhooley, Mar. 20, 1958, in
U.S. Cong., Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hear
ings on “Amending Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compen
sation Act” (Washington, 1958), pp. 13-17; U.S. Department of
Labor, Annual Report, 1960, p. 192; U.S. Department of Labor,
“Maritime Safety Program, Five Year Report, 1960- 64.”
18U.S. Department of Labor, “Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act,
Basic Safety and Health Requirements,” Mar. 2, 1942 (Washington,
1943); Federal Register, Dec. 28, 1960, pp. 13809-25.
14Letters from Walter Reuther to Secretary of Labor Arthur Gold
berg, Dec. 21, 1961, John B. Olverson, Jan. 26, 1961, and G. C.
Stewart, Oct. 9, 1961, Secretary of Labor files, National Archives.
20 U.S. Department of Labor, Public Hearing on Proposed Revision
of Safety and Health Standards for Federal Supply Contracts,” Mar.
17-27, 1964, Department of Labor Library.
21 Thomas A. Chittenden, “A Study of Occupational Safety Respon
sibility of the Department of Labor” (Washington 1964), pp. 1, 2,
53-58; Secretary of Labor’s Order 12-66, July 19, 1966.
22 “White House, 1967 Legislation (Task Force on Occupational
Health and Safety),” folder, Secretary of Labor files, National Ar
chives.
23 Federal Radiation Council Meeting, May 4, 1967, Secretary of
Labor files, National Archives.
24 Department of Labor Press Releases, May 5, May 9, 1967, De
partmental Historian’s Office.
25 Letter, David Swankin to Assistant Secretary of Labor Esther Pe
terson, Nov. 3, 1967, Secretary of Labor files, National Archives.
26 Lyndon Johnson, “President’s Message to Congress on
Manpower and Occupational Safety and Health Programs,” Jan. 23,
1968, Weekly Compilation o f Presidential Documents, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp. 110-11.
27U.S. Cong., House Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings
on “Occupational Safety and Health” (Washington, 1968); U.S.
Cong., Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings on
“Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968” (Washington, 1968).
28 1968 Senate Hearings, p. 62.
24James D. Hodgson was Under Secretary while George P. Shultz
served as Secretary of Labor from 1969 to mid-1970. When Shultz
left, Hodgson was appointed Secretary and served until 1973.
“ James D. Hodgson, interview with author, June 12, 1979.
31 Richard Nixon, “Occupational Safety and Health Message to
Congress,” Aug. 6, 1969, Weekly Compilation o f Presidential Docu
ments, Vol. 5, No. 32.
32U.S. Cong., House Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings
on “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1969,” (Washington,
1970); U.S. Cong., Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
Hearings on “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970” (Wash
ington, 1970).
33 1969 House Hearings, pp. 312-413.
34 Ibid., pp. 1181, 1194.
35 1970 Senate Hearings, pp. 1078-79.
36 The New York Times, Dec. 18, 1970.
Understanding statistics
on occupational illnesses
The reliability, validity, and use of data
on work-related illnesses are better understood
if one is aware of the peculiarities
of the recordkeeping regulations and problems
of recognizing and reporting occupational diseases
H a r v e y J. H i l a s k i
Of major importance to the American worker was the
explicit declaration in the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 of congressional intent “ . . . to as
sure so far as possible every working man and woman
in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and
to preserve our human resources.” An important first
step in providing such an environment is developing
statistics which capture the incidence of illness and inju
ry in the United States. How well do the presently col
lected statistics do this? What obstacles does the
process of collecting good statistics face?
Under the act, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
been delegated responsibility for the collection, compila
tion, and analysis of occupational safety and health sta
tistics. Pursuant to that authority, the BLS, in cooper
ation and consultation with the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration ( o s h a ), the American Na
tional Standards Institute, Labor and Business Research
Advisory Committees, and a Federal interagency work
ing group, developed an occupational injury and illness
recordkeeping system. Final recordkeeping regulations
were adopted on July 2, 1971. Several modifications to
the regulations have been made, but the basic structure
has remained intact.
Before OSHA was established, the work-injury pro
gram of the BLS was based on the American National
Harvey J. Hilaski is an economist in the Office of Occupational Safety
and Health Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Standard Method of Measuring and Recording Work
Injury Experience, commonly referred to as the Z16.1
standard. This standard, for all practical purposes, was
limited to the measurement of work injuries; seldom
were occupational illnesses reported. It was believed
that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, with
equal emphasis on occupational health, would provide a
true and statistically confirmed picture of the incidence
of occupational illnesses and diseases. But, what has
emerged is a count of occupational illnesses and dis
eases which is superior to that of previous programs,
but which is viewed as a gross underestimate of actual
experience.
This article examines the concepts of the statistical
system which produces estimates of occupational
illnesses and diseases in the United States,1 discusses
some of the reasons for an undercount in those esti
mates, and evaluates the statistical system in its present
form.
Measurement peculiarities
Three Federal Government agencies manage record
keeping and reporting systems which measure occupa
tional illnesses in the private sector: the Bureau of La
bor Statistics and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, both of the U.S. Department of Labor,
and the Federal Railroad Administration of the Depart
ment of Transportation.2 The BLS, on behalf of OSHA,
administers a statistical program covering most of the
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Understanding Occupational Illness Statistics
pijvate sector economy. The exclusions are coal and
metal and nonmetal mining industries which are cov
ered by the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
and the railroads which are under the Federal Railroad
Administration’s jurisdiction. However, these establish
ments maintain data consistent with OSHA’s work inju
ry and illness definitions and concepts. Each year, Mine
Safety and Health Administration and the Federal Rail
road Administration injury and illness data are com
bined with the BLS data to provide a measure of health
and safety conditions in the total private sector.
Several aspects peculiar to the recordkeeping and re
porting of occupational illnesses under these systems
warrant discussion because of their impact on the reli
ability, validity, and use of the data. First, reporting by
employers under each system is governed by regulation.
The mandatory nature of reporting together with the
uniform definitions help ensure the reliability of the in
formation.3 However, nonsampling biases can occur and
problems unique to occupational illness statistics can
impose other serious difficulties, some of which are dis
cussed later. Second, whether an illness is occupational
and, therefore, recordable is determined by the employ
er or representative physician or nurse. Unless the
cause-effect relationship is direct and apparent, the ill
ness is not likely to be recorded. Third, the survey cov
ers a stated calendar year; hence, only new illnesses
occurring during that year are recordable. The OSHA
regulations require only that employers record illnesses
at the time of diagnosis. Occupational illnesses which
persist are not counted in subsequent years. The stan
dard measurement used for comparative trend evalua
tion is the incidence of occupational illnesses, expressed
as a rate per 100 workers. Prevalence of illnesses (the
proportion of employees occupationally ill, regardless of
when the condition arose), is not used in the reporting
or dissemination of the data. Fourth, seven categories of
illnesses are distinguished in employer reports: (1) skin
diseases or disorders; (2) dust diseases of the lungs; (3)
respiratory conditions due to toxic agents; (4) poison
ing; (5) disorders due to physical agents; (6) disorders
associated with repeated trauma; and (7) all other occu
pational illnesses. Incidence rates are developed by ma
jor industry division for each of these categories. Fifth,
employers are not required to report illnesses by age,
sex, race, or occupation, although employers have infor
mation on most of these variables. Sixth, regulations
specifically require that employers record “bodily harm
including adverse health effects resulting from a one
time exposure event” as an occupational injury and not
as an illness.
Incidence of illnesses understated
Is the measurement of occupational illnesses a num
bers game? A review of historical data lends perspective
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Occupational illnesses as a proportion of total
injuries and illnesses in the private sector, 1972-78
Total injuries and illnesses1
Year
19723 . . . .
1973 . . . .
1974 . . . .
19755 . . . .
19765 . . . .
19775 . . . .
19785 . . . .
Number (in
thousands)
5,657
6,079
5,916
4,992
5,164
5,460
5,799
Illnesses only1
Rate2
Number (in
thousands)
Rate2
10.9
11.0
10.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
211
201
4 200
164
168
162
144
.40
.40
4.40
.30
.30
.28
.20
Illnesses as a
percent of
total injuries
and illnesses
.037
.033
.034
.033
.033
.030
.025
’ Includes fatalities.
2The incidence rate represents the number of injuries and/or illnesses per 100 full-time
workers and is calculated as follows: (N/EH) x 200,000, where:
N = number of injuries and/or illnesses
EH = total hours worked by all employees
during the calendar year
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers
(working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per
year).
3 Excludes railroads and mine activities, except oil and gas extraction.
4 Excludes illness data for Mine Safety and Health Administration covered industries.
5 Excludes firms with fewer than 11 employees.
to this query. Throughout the 1972-78 period, the pro
portion of illnesses to total injuries and illnesses in the
private sector was relatively fixed at 3 percent. (See ta
ble 1.) Over the period, the number of illnesses declined
by nearly one-third, from 210,500 to 143,500, and the
overall incidence rate was halved. By comparison, the
total injury and illness rate dropped 15 percent. This
number and trend are contrary to the widespread belief
regarding actual conditions in the Nation’s workplaces.
The bottom line of this common but unsubstantiated
belief is that there are about 390,000 new illness cases
annually.4
Over the 1972-78 period, declines occurred in every
illness category, except “respiratory conditions due to
toxic agents.” (See table 2.) The largest decline (about
62 percent) was for “all other occupational illnesses.”
Throughout the period, “occupational skin diseases or
disorders” accounted for two-fifths or more of all occu
pational illnesses, indicating that illnesses likely to be
recorded are those that are highly visible, have little or
no latency, and are less controversial. Employers and
employee awareness of the toxicity of chemicals might
be inferred from the relatively steady increase in report
ed cases of “respiratory conditions due to toxic agents.”
Although the proportion of these cases nearly doubled
over the period, its relative ranking remained the same.
In sharp contrast to the much publicized and fre
quently quoted occupational illness death estimate of
100,000 annually,5 BLS data indicate that over the 1972—
78 period, deaths from occupational illnesses ranged
from 300 (in 1972, 1973, and 1976) to 700 in 1974. This
is plausible, considering the criteria for recording occu
pational illnesses and the types of nonfatal illnesses re
ported.
Table 2.
Occupational illnesses in the private sector, by category of illness, 1972-78
Number (in thousands)
Percent
Category of illness
Total illnesses1 ...................................
Occupational skin diseases or disorders . . . .
Dust diseases of the lu n g s .............................
Respiratory conditions due to toxic agents . . .
Poisoning .......................................................
Disorders due to physical agents ..................
Disorders associated with repeated trauma ..
All other occupational illnesses......................
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
2 210.5
86.5
1.4
10.2
6.4
30.1
23.8
52.1
200.5
89.2
1.5
11.5
6.7
27.5
23.6
40.5
3 200.4
89.4
1.7
12.7
7.4
27.1
24.6
37.4
4163.8
74.4
1.0
11.9
6.2
21.2
23.7
24.9
4167.9
71.6
1.2
13.1
6.1
24.2
23.0
28.8
4161.9
73.0
2.0
13.1
5.7
23.6
23.4
21.1
4143.5
65.9
1.6
13.6
5.6
16.7
20.2
19.9
100.0
41.1
0.7
4.8
3.0
14.3
11.3
24.8
100.0
44.5
0.7
5.7
3.3
13.7
11.8
20.2
100.0
44.6
0.8
6.3
3.7
13.5
12.3
18.7
100.0
45.6
0.6
7.3
3.8
13.0
14.5
15.2
100.0
42.6
0.7
7.8
3.6
14.4
13.7
17.2
100.0
45.1
1.2
8.1
3.5
14.6
14.5
13.0
100.0
45.9
1.1
9.5
3.9
11.6
14.1
13.9
1Includes fatalities. Because of rounding, components may not add to totals.
2 Excludes railroad and mine activities, except oil and gas extraction.
So vastly divergent are actual estimates of occu
pational illnesses obtained through direct survey of em
ployers from those based on other indirect estimating
methods that a review of the problems associated with
measuring occupational illnesses is warranted. Because
of the complexity of the issues involved, this review is
likely to create uncertainties about the validity of any
count of occupational illnesses; but, it should lend some
credence to the widespread assumption that the current
national statistics understate the incidence of occupa
tional illnesses.
Cause-effect relationship elusive
3 Excludes illness data for Mine Safety and Health Administration covered industries.
4 Excludes firms with fewer than 11 employees.
to carcinogenic agents in the work environment has
occurred, “the lack of histological or biological markers
of cancer of specific organs has made it difficult to dif
ferentiate occupational cancer from cancer from other
causes.”6 Harmful exposure can occur on and off the
job; while it would be ideal to be able to assign a factor
to the degree of influence of occupational and nonoc
cupational exposures, this is not yet possible. The cause
of occupational disease is further clouded by lack of
knowledge of “dose-response” relationships. The effects
of toxic substances are based primarily on animal tests,
the results of which are not easily extrapolated to hu
man populations. Epidemiological study can also aid in
establishing a hypothesis of the causes of occupational
diseases but cannot lead to direct cause-effect associa
tion.
Occupation can be related to disease in three basic
ways: as a cause; as a contributing factor; or as an ag
gravating factor. Except in very rare disease cases, such
as mesothelioma from asbestos exposure and angiosar
coma from exposure to vinyl chloride, a cause-effect re
lationship between the disease and the work environ
ment is not so uniquely evident. Generally, the
relationship of an illness to an occupation is elusive
because most occupational diseases are clinically indis
tinguishable from general, chronic-type diseases of
nonoccupational origin. Even when occupation is con
sidered to be contributory or aggravating, it is difficult
to determine the extent of job influence because, in
most cases, the causes of the disease cannot be fully
traced; a multiplicity of factors may be involved, includ
ing the age of the worker, diet and nutrition, smoking,
and general life style, to name a few.
There are numerous and complex issues surrounding
the identification and recognition of occupational dis
eases. A brief description of some of the major prob
lems can provide deeper insight into why current
occupational illness statistics are often assessed as
understating the true health and safety conditions of the
workplace.
Symptoms. The relationship between occupation and
disease is unlikely to be inferred from a study of a work
er’s symptoms. Although a worker may have one or
more symptoms that suggest an occupational relation
ship, there is a reluctance to declare the disease as occu
pational in origin for lack of solid evidence. On the
other hand, symptoms may point to a specific disease,
but the disease onset and the present condition of the
worker may be obscured by other factors, especially in
respiratory disease cases. It would be unrealistic to ex
pect employers to accept responsibility for a disease
condition which is also affected by the general environ
ment and nonwork-related factors, unless the evidence
overwhelmingly points to the work environment as the
source. Even in cases properly diagnosed as occupationally related, the employer may be reluctant or refuse to
accept liability, because the disease may have originated
in the past under a different employer. The time lags be
tween exposure, onset, and diagnosis will generally pres
ent serious problems regarding proper accountability.
Etiology. Determining the cause or causes of disease is
not always easy and is even more difficult when the dis
ease is suspected of originating in the work environ
ment. Even for cancer cases where undisputed exposure
Latency. The long latent periods of certain diseases
obscure the cause-effect relationship and also impede
timely recognition of the disease for recordkeeping pur
poses. For example, occupational cancer may be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Understanding Occupational Illness Statistics
detected only after the worker has left the hazardous
work environment or has retired; if after retirement, it
is unlikely to be attributed to a past occupation. Under
these circumstances, a legitimate occupational disease
case would not be included in the statistics because of
the restrictive recordability criteria.
The latent periods of disease have important implica
tions for conducting epidemiological studies of mor
bidity and mortality, the results of which may identify
populations at excess risk of specific diseases. Adequate
follow-up of retirees, living and deceased, is required to
avoid drawing false conclusions.
Diagnostic problems. Lack of medical expertise is a gen
uine obstacle to detection and recognition of occupa
tional disease. Most doctors engaged in the practice of
occupational medicine (particularly those outside the in
dustrial setting) are not sufficiently trained to qualify
for certification.
Presently about 15 universities and medical centers
offer programs in occupational medicine or occupation
al health nursing, or both. The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health has incorporated 12 in
stitutions into a special program of accelerated training
in occupational health and safety, called the Education
al Resource Centers Program.7These centers are located
throughout the United States and provide academic and
continuing educational programs in four core occupa
tional safety and health disciplines— occupational medi
cine, occupational health nursing, occupational safety,
and industrial hygiene. With the extensive worker and
establishment coverage under the act and the large po
tential for unhealthful exposure due to the thousands of
chemicals manufactured or in use in industry today,
quick remedy for the shortage of expertise should not
be expected.
Unfortunately, there are no reliable data on the num
ber of occupational doctors, but fragmentary evidence
suggests about 1,000 to 2,500. Occupational doctors
working in an industrial setting are in a unique position
to monitor the health of workers, if they have access to
pertinent records, including information on chemical sub
stances in use, measurement results of exposure levels,
and inplant laboratory analyses of industrial hygienists.
On the other hand, few doctors in private practice
have a background in occupational medicine and are
much less likely to be aware of the influence of a job on
a worker’s health. Even if private practitioners did have
such training, they may not know precisely what
unhealthful exposures their patients encounter in the
workplace. Also, the number of patients seeking treat
ment from an identical place of employment and with
the same symptoms may be too small for the doctor to
make an occupational connection. Finally, the doctor
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
relies on the patient’s account of the condition, and, as
a result, occupational relationship is likely to be over
looked.
Another factor limiting a doctor’s ability to identify
and recognize an occupational relationship of an illness
is use of rather standard diagnostic techniques when, in
fact, different techniques may be warranted. An estimat
ed 63,000 chemicals are believed to be in use in the
United States and about 1,000 new chemicals are added
each year, most without having been tested for their
health effects before manufacture or use.8Therefore, it is
not surprising that a lag in appropriate diagnostic tech
niques is existent and real. In addition, incomplete or
carelessly taken medical and job histories of ill workers
can lead to wrong impressions concerning the workers’
health status and origin of symptoms or disease.
Employee awareness. Lack of awareness among employ
ees regarding hazardous exposures inhibits their identi
fying and recognizing a disease as occupational. This is
especially true in cases where the doctor relies on the
patients’ account of the work environment. Failure to
mention possible influences of the workplace, for what
ever reason, would seldom induce an independent probe
on the doctor’s part. In injury cases, the treating doctor
is very likely to ask probing questions relating to the in
jury event; in the case of an illness, the same doctor is
likely to ask only questions related to the patient’s
symptoms. The importance of this factor depends to a
large extent on employer training of workers in general
safety and health matters, employer notification of
workers about the harmful properties of substances to
which they are exposed, and employer training of the
exposed group in the proper methods of handling and
use of those substances.
Susceptibility. Individuals vary as to their susceptibility
to disease. One worker may contract a disease at rela
tively low levels of exposure, while another worker may
not, even if exposed to high levels of the identical sub
stance. This confounds the cause-effect occupational re
lationship of diseases and indicates that even nonoccupational factors may operate in such cases.
Tolerance levels are based not only on the workers’
genetic makeup but also on physiological characteris
tics, age, sex, nutrition, and other factors. Because of
these influences, rates of absorption, distribution, me
tabolism, and excretion of toxic substances in the body
vary among individuals. Even in the same individual,
specific body organs are affected differently by toxins.
While susceptibility does not directly inhibit detection
and recognition of occupational disease, it has impor
tant implications for evaluating dose-response relation
ships, particularly in terms of health standards setting.
Multiple exposure. Cause-effect relationship is almost to
tally obscured when a worker is exposed to two or
more hazardous substances on the job. Toxicological
studies can determine probable effects of exposure to a
specific substance; however, there has been little assess
ment of the effect of multiple exposures.
The interaction of toxic chemicals can produce
unsuspected harmful effects. These synergistic and even
potentiating ill effects make it difficult to determine the
prime etiological agent. In fact, the chemical interaction
may produce a totally new kind of toxic agent which
requires special analysis for its debilitating effects.
Improvement needed
After considering the recordkeeping criteria and the
factors inhibiting detection and recognition of occupa
tional disease, one can better understand why the BLS
estimates of occupational illnesses are suspected of be
ing seriously understated. However, in this regard, three
points must be emphasized. (1) Other widely publicized
and quoted estimates of occupational diseases are not
based on rigorous statistical techniques and fall far
short of being accurate and valid descriptions of occu
pational illness incidence. (2) It cannot be stressed too
much that mere association of an occupation with the
illness of a worker is not causation; at most, it indicates
areas where further research may be warranted. There
fore, studies based on such sources as the Social Securi
ty Administration’s disability files or the National
Center for Health Statistics’ Health Interview Survey
cannot establish an unequivocal causal relationship of a
disability or impairment to occupation, even though the
disabled or impaired person’s occupation is identified in
the statistics. (3) In terms of the recording and report
1Occupational illness and disease are used interchangeably in this
article and include all incidents which meet the following definition:
“Any abnormal condition or disorder, other than one resulting from
an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environmental factors
associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or
diseases which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, ingestion, or
direct contact.”
2These agencies also collect occupational injury information for de
velopment of injury estimates covering the total private sector. How
ever, occupational injury occurrence is obvious both to the employee
and employer and the statistics resulting are not seriously questioned,
compared with occupational illness data. Hence, the focus of this arti
cle is on occupational illnesses. Omitted from discussion are illness
data covering Federal, State and local government workers.
3In terms of actual data collection, one major difference between
the three agencies is that the Mine Safety and Health Administration
and the Federal Railroad Administration cover the universe of em
ployers under their respective jurisdictions, while BLS uses a random
probability sample survey to collect data from Occupational Safety
and Health Administration covered employers.
4The 390,000 count first appeared in The President's Report on Oc
cupational Safety and H ealth— M ay 1972. Since then, it has repeated
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing of occupational illnesses, the statistics generated
through the BLS annual survey are a reliable measure of
real-world experience. However, in terms of statistical
validity, the data may be wanting because chronic and
long latent diseases, although not totally excluded, are
largely beyond the scope of the system. The current sys
tem captures only disease cases that are unequivocably
visible.
The problems associated with occupational disease
detection and recognition are largely exogenous to the
national occupational disease statistical program in ef
fect and cannot be solved by government alone. Im
provement of occupational disease statistics will require
the cooperation of all affected parties. Because of the
complexities involved in the occupational disease area,
including medico-legal, political, economic, and privacy
issues, expectations for a quick or easy solution are un
realistic as is a solution without some compromise
among the affected principals— employers, workers,
unions, government, and the medical profession.
To the extent that the annual survey excludes chronic
and long latent diseases of occupational origin, an
undercount does exist. There is as yet no reliable mea
sure of that undercount. The only other comprehensive
source of occupational disease statistics lies in State
workers’ compensation records. However, the same dif
ficulties in establishing an occupational link apply to
workers’ compensation cases.
Perhaps the more important aspect of the controversy
over occupational illness statistics concerns the useful
ness of the present data, given the fact that, within the
context of current regulations and procedures, they
inculpably constitute a weak measure of the “suspect
ed” total national experience.
□
ly been cited in numerous publications and at congressional hearings.
This estimate was based on a study of occupational diseases in Cali
fornia in 1970, through a manipulative process which was never fully
documented.
5The 100,000 occupational death figure also appeared in The Presi
dent's Report. According to the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, the data source for this figure was the 1951 Regis
trar General’s Occupational Mortality Report for England and Wales
in which excess deaths (observed versus expected) summed up over all
occupations yielded an occupational disease death ratio which was ap
plied to the U.S. workforce.
6Thomas F. Mancuso, Occupational Cancer and M edical Causality,
a paper presented at the 65th Annual Convention of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Sept.
10, 1979.
7Directory o f Academic Programs in Occupational Safety and Health,
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 1979, Publication No. 79-126.
‘ A Scientific Framework fo r Establishing a Consistent Federal Policy
on the Evaluation o f Substances as Potential H uman Carcinogens, Draft
Staff Discussion Paper, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Oct.
20, 1978.
29
Injuries at work are fewer
among older employees
Previous studies offer conflicting results
in determining the age groups more prone
to accidents on the job; but new data
show young workers are hurt more,
although often not as seriously
N
orman
R oot
There are several contradictory interpretations of the re
lationship between age and injuries at work.1 Some in
vestigators have found no significant differences in
incidence of injury among the various age groups. Oth
ers have found a higher accident rate for both younger
and older groups of workers compared with those in
the middle age groups. Two other researchers arrived at
an opposite conclusion— workers in the intermediate
groups, those age 28-47, had the highest accident rates.
Still others concluded that accident frequency declined
steadily with age for workers older than 25.2
These differing interpretations of the relationship be
tween work injury and age have been augmented by
equally contradictory reasoning. Older workers have
lower accident rates because they are experienced, ma
ture, and are mindful of workplace hazards; conversely,
older workers have higher accident rates because of
growing carelessness in the workplace— familiarity
breeds contempt— and declining reflexes, hearing, and
vision. On the other side, younger workers have higher
accident rates because they are reckless, green to
workplace hazards, and have the dangerous jobs; by
contrast, younger workers have lower accident rates be
cause of superior reflexes and less exposure to the more
dangerous jobs requiring greater experience.
Inability to collect uniform data about exposure and
Norman Root is a division chief in the Office of Occupational Safety
and Health Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
incidents on any homogeneous groups of workers, either
by industry or occupation, had been considered the
most important reason for the divergence of these
views.
Sources and summary of findings
Based on data collected in the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics Supplementary Data System ( s d s ), this article an
alyzes information from more than a million workers
compensation records from agencies in 30 States that
participated in the SDS program during 1977. It exam
ines the age distribution of injured workers relative to
their exposure by industry and occupation, and looks at
injury characteristics and costs associated with the age
of the injured worker.
Two categories of cases are used in the system: closed
and current. A closed case is one in which, by the end
of the reference year, all compensation and medical pay
ments due for the injury were awarded or received by
the worker, regardless of the year in which the accident
occurred or was reported. In a current case the injury
either occurred or was reported during the reference
year, depending upon the State. Most States submitted
current case data; a few, only closed case data; and
three States, Idaho, Montana, and Wisconsin, submitted
both kinds.
The data indicate that occupational injuries occur at
a lower rate to older workers than to younger ones. It
appears that the frequency of occupational injuries de-
dines steadily up to age 64 and then drops even more
sharply for workers age 65 and over. The data indicate
the positive effect of experience in avoiding injuries and
should encourage training for new workers, to reduce
the occurrence of injuries in the workplace.
However, older workers do get hurt, and although in
most instances their injuries generally reflect workplace
hazards common to all, there are some notable dif
ferences that apparently reflect physical declines consis
tent with increasing years. For example, declining bodi
ly coordination among older workers likely contributed
to increasing numbers of injuries from falls on working
surfaces. Moreover, a traumatic injury to an older
worker would more likely result in a fractured bone
than it would if the same blow were experienced by a
younger worker and would result in greater severity of
injury and higher cost.3
New methodology and data
The work injury ratios used in this article are based
on the percentages of work injuries and employment
within each universe: an industry or occupation. A ratio
of 1.0 indicates that the percentages of injuries and em
ployment are equal. Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate
that the percentage of injuries is greater than that of
employment, and ratios less than 1.0 indicate the oppo
site.
Relative comparisons are necessary, as opposed to
numerical estimates or rates, because of limitations in
age-specific industry and occupational employment
data, and because of differences in State workers’ com
pensation data. Employment data are from the 1977
Current Population Survey and may be overstated in
that they include workers not covered under some State
workers’ compensation systems.4 The injury data may
be understated in that a comparable universe of cases is
not reported in each State whose data are in this article.
The 26 States providing current case data accounted for
40 percent of national wage and salary employment
during 1977 and are geographically and industrially
fairly representative of the Nation.5
Despite the limitations, the data permit the first com
prehensive examination of age as it relates to injuries at
work.
Among employees age 16 and over in 1977, the larg
est proportion of work-related injuries, 30.3 percent, oc
curred to workers age 25-34, the same group with the
largest percentage of the total number of workers, 26.4
percent. Workers age 16-24 accounted for nearly the
same share of injuries, 29.7 percent, but only 23.7 per
cent of total employment. Of this group, workers age
20-24, comprised 6 of 10 employed and 7 of 10 in
jured. For age 35 and over, the proportions of injuries
for each age group were less than the proportions of
employment.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Based on age-specific ratios of work injury to em
ployment, work-injury rates apparently would be
highest for workers age 20-24 and lowest for those age
65 and over. (See table 1.)
The pattern is similar for all industry divisions except
finance; insurance; and real estate; and for services
where the percentages of injuries are less than those of
employment among workers age 25-34, but higher for
workers age 55-64. These are the only industries in
which the injury ratios are above 1.0 for this older age
group. (See table 2.)
The overall age and injury employment pattern, al
though similar for the occupational groups, has a few
notable differences. For the age group 16-24, the injury
to employment ratios did not exceed 1.0 among trans
port operatives, probably because of age and experience
requirements. The ratios for 16-24 year-olds also did
not exceed 1.0 among nonfarm laborers, farm laborers
and foremen, and service workers. This probably indi
cates that many of these jobs, particularly for young
workers, are frequently casual, part time, or in small es
tablishments, factors that are the basis for exemption
from workers’ compensation coverage in many States.
Age and length of service
The age of an injured worker is strongly correlated
with length of service. More than 40 percent of injuries
to workers under age 35 occurred among those in the
first year of employment.6
Other researchers have noted the same relationship in
studies of specific industries, occupations, or work activ
ities. For example, one study found that in accidents
arising from manual handling in the construction indus
try, “ . . . in 60 percent of the cases the incidents oc
curred during the first year of employment.”7
Workers under age 35 accounted for 60 percent of
the injuries and 50 percent of employment, and likely
accounted for the largest numbers of new entrants on
the job in any one year. Thus, high injury rates for this
Table 1.
Work-injury ratios by ag e1
Age
16-17 ...............................
18-19 ...............................
20-24 ...............................
16-24 ...............................
25-34 ...............................
35-44 ...............................
45-54 ...............................
55 - 64 ...............................
65+ ...................................
Percent
employment
distribution2
Percent work
injury distribution
Work
injury ratio3
3.2
5.3
15.2
23.7
26.4
18.7
17.6
11.4
2.2
1.9
6.8
21.0
29.7
30.3
16.7
13.6
8.8
0.9
.594
1.28
1.38
1.25
1.15
.89
.77
.77
.414
1Based on current cases in 26 States. Includes Illnesses.
2 Industry employment source CPS data, 1977.
3The ratio computation is column 2 divided by column 1.
4 Because of the relatively small magnitudes associated with one or both components in
these ratios, the relative errors for these age groups would be larger than those for the oth
er age groups.
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Fewer Injuries Among Older Workers
Table 2.
Ratios of work injury to employment percentages, by industry and age, 1977
Industry
Total all
years
Total
16-24
years
16-17
years
18-19
years
20-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65+
years
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.53
1.14
1.61
1.15
1.58
1.03
1.18
1.17
1.38
.59
.50
.39
.50
.38
.93
.67
1.33
.88
1.25
1.28
1.65
1.03
1.79
1.13
1.79
1.03
1.20
1.27
1.39
1.38
1.53
1.27
1.66
1.21
1.59
1.23
1.14
1.19
1.39
1.15
1.14
1.24
1.15
1.20
1.14
1.26
.93
.97
1.32
.89
.94
.88
.81
.99
.82
.96
.85
.89
.97
.77
.57
.77
.68
.84
.67
.81
.99
.96
.67
.77
.56
.73
.63
.67
.65
.83
1.14
1.13
.67
.41
.45
.40
.42
.40
.33
.37
.86
.52
.43
All nonfarm industries..................................................................................
Mining..........................................................................................................
Construction ...............................................................................................
Manufacturing .............................................................................................
Transportation.............................................................................................
Wholesale trade ........................................................................................
Retail tra d e .................................................................................................
Finance, et al .............................................................................................
Services ......................................................................................................
Public administration ..................................................................................
Source of employment data— BLS, CPS Base table 29B, December 1977.
group would not be unexpected. However, despite the
smaller likelihood of an older worker being a new em
ployee and smaller percentages of first year injuries for
such workers, the proportion of first year injuries is
higher than for any other year of service even for the
older workers; each succeeding year of service accounts
for a lower percentage of injuries.
versely, temporary disabilities were more prevalent
among younger workers. Fatality ratios were higher
than 1.0 for the 35-44, 55-64, and 65 and over age
groups, and below 1.0 for the others. Permanent dis
ability ratios were highest for workers age 35-64. How
ever, temporary disability and other ratios were higher
among younger workers.
Average indemnity compensation and medical pay
ment costs associated with occupational injuries in
creased with age. Indemnity compensation for workers
age 16-17 averaged $593 compared with $1,637 for
workers age 65 and over. Average medical payments
ranged from $318 to $609 for these respective age
groups. The increase in average costs according to age
explains why the total costs are greater for each age
group in the 25-54 range than for age 16-24, even
though the latter group accounts for a larger number of
cases than any of the next three age groups. Total costs
for injured workers age 55 and over are lower because
of the significantly fewer cases among these age groups.
The average cost patterns by extent of disability differ
from the total cost patterns. Costs by severity generally
peak in age group 45-54, and then decline somewhat in
the next two age groups. Generally, indemnity compen
sation is awarded on the basis of the number and age of
dependents, wage level of the injured worker, and ex
tent of disability. Teenagers and older workers are less
likely to have minor dependents, and so average
Severity and costs
The distribution of closed cases across age groups
was similar to that for all cases submitted to the work
ers’ compensation agencies.8 Work injury to employ
ment ratios were greater than 1.0 for workers age 18 to
34, and below 1.0 for all other ages as seen in the fol
lowing tabulation:
______________ Age group_____________
16-24 25-34 35- 44 45-54 55- 64 65+
All closed cases .
Fatalities . . . .
Permanent
disabilities . .
Temporary
disabilities . .
Other ...............
1.19
.77
1.05
.90
.94
1.06
.90
.86
.88
1.45
.50
2.95
.81
.90
1.09
1.15
1.24
.81
1.27
1.17
1.03
1.14
.89
.96
.86
.85
.85
.75
.45
.36
The distribution of cases, however, varied by severity.
The more severe cases, fatalities and permanent dis
abilities, accounted for larger proportions of the cases
among older workers than among younger ones. Con
Table 3.
Natures of injuries to workers, by age, in percent, 26 States, 1977
Age
group
Total
Amputation,
enuceation
Bum,
(heat,
chemical)
Contusion,
crushing,
bruise
T o ta l.........
16-17 . . .
18-19 . . .
20-24 . . .
25-34 . . .
35-44 . . .
45-54 . . .
55 - 64 , . .
6 5 + .........
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
.8
.6
.7
.8
.8
1.4
3.6
11.0
6.0
4.1
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.8
14.3
13.1
15.0
14.7
13.8
13.6
14.7
15.3
14.5
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cut,
laceration,
puncture
17.3
37.9
27.7
21.0
15.9
13.4
13.4
14.1
15.7
Fracture
Hernia,
rupture
7.8
6.0
6.6
6.6
7.0
7.8
9.4
11.3
15.6
1.3
.4
.8
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.9
2.6
Inflammation
1.1
.3
.7
.9
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.1
.5
Sprains,
strains
Multiple
injuries
Heart
attack
All
other
34.4
15.7
24.3
31.7
37.4
38.9
36.1
32.2
23.8
1.4
.9
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.9
0.3
17.8
13.7
16.6
18.0
18.6
18.4
17.0
16.6
18.4
.0
.0
.1
.3
.8
1.3
1.9
Table 4.
Source of injury to workers, by age, in percent, 26 States, 1977
Age
group
Total
Bodily
motion
Boxes,
barrens,
containers
Furniture,
fixtures
Hand
tools, not
powered
Hand
tools,
powered
Machines
Metal
items
Vehicles
Wood
items
Working
surfaces
Other
person
All
other
Total . . . .
16-17 ..
18-19 ..
20-24 . .
25-34 . .
35-44 . .
45-54 . .
55-64 . .
65+ . . . .
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.8
2.6
3.6
5.3
7.3
8.3
8.3
7.4
5.0
10.5
10.4
10.2
10.8
10.6
10.6
10.4
9.9
7.3
3.0
3.4
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.0
3.4
4.0
3.7
5.6
12.8
8.0
6.9
5.4
4.6
4.2
4.0
3.3
1.7
1.2
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
6.6
9.4
10.3
7.4
6.0
5.8
5.8
6.1
6.4
13.1
8.5
14.1
14.7
13.8
12.7
11.5
10.9
7.9
7.3
5.3
6.2
6.6
7.8
7.9
7.7
6.8
7.5
4.1
2.6
4.8
5.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.1
13.6
10.0
9.5
10.5
12.6
14.3
17.2
20.2
27.8
3.1
1.8
2.0
2.5
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.7
24.6
32.0
26.4
25.4
24.8
24.2
23.2
22.5
22.6
awards, particularly for fatalities and permanent dis
abilities, are lower for them than for age groups in the
20-54 year range.
Work-injury characteristics
Although the kinds of injuries generally occur in sim
ilar proportions to workers in all age groups, there are
some notable differences that apparently reflect: inexpe
rience, such as unfamiliarity with tools and equipment;
advancing years, such as decreasing coordination and
resiliency to trauma; or occupational restraints, such as
being too “green” for the highly technical jobs, or being
too old for the “heavy” ones.
Nature of injury. The most frequently occurring injuries
to all workers were: sprains and strains, cuts and lacer
ations, contusions and bruises, fractures, and burns.9
(See table 3.) These five categories accounted for more
than 75 percent of all injuries. The major difference
among age groups was that fractures, hernias, and heart
attacks were markedly more frequent for older workers
than for workers as a whole. For example, fractures
among workers age 55 and over accounted for 11 to 16
percent of all their injuries, but fractures to all workers
accounted for 8 percent of all injuries; The proportions
of hernias for workers age 45 and over ranged from 2
to 3 percent, but for all workers they represented only 1
percent. Conversely, cuts and laceration, and burns oc
curred consistently less frequently with increasing age,
perhaps reflecting experience as a factor in avoiding
them.
Table 5.
Part of body affected. Back injuries accounted for 1 of 5
injuries to all workers. Workers age 65 and over and
teenagers suffered back problems less frequently than all
other workers. The respective percentages of backs as a
proportion of all body parts injured were about 12 for
both teenagers and workers age 65 and over, and 24 for
workers age 35-44. These data probably primarily re
flect the previously mentioned restraint that teenagers
and older workers are less likely to have jobs requiring
heavy lifting. However, injuries to eyes and fingers were
more prevalent among younger workers than older
ones.
There appeared to be a consistent trend that with in
creasing age, injuries to legs and body systems became
more frequent. Legs as proportions of body parts in
volved in work injuries ranged from 8 percent among
teenage workers to 11 percent for workers age 65 and
over. For body systems, the proportions of injuries
ranged from 1 percent for teenage workers to 4 percent
for those age 65 and over.
Source of injury. As a proportion of all sources of inju
ry, working surfaces accounted for the largest percent
age among workers age 35 and over, and steadily
increased in frequency, from the 10 percent levels expe
rienced by teenage workers to 28 percent for older
workers. (See table 4.) Conversely, injuries associated
with nonpower hand tools were significantly higher for
younger workers. The frequency declined from 13 per
cent among 16-17 year-olds to 3 percent for workers
age 65 and older.
Types of injuries to workers, by age, in percent, 26 States, 1977
Age group
T o ta l...............
16-17 ...........
18-19 ...........
20-24 ...........
25-34 ...........
35-44 ...........
45-54 ...........
55-64 ...........
65+ ...............
Total
Struck
against
Struck by
Fall from
elevation
Fall on
same level
Caught in,
under,
between
Bodily
reaction
Over
exertion
Contact with
temperature
extremes
Motor
vehicle
accidents
All
other
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.9
20.2
14.3
11.8
10.3
9.5
9.8
9.9
9.4
20.6
25.1
25.8
23.9
20.6
18.3
17.4
17.2
17.4
6.2
4.0
4.6
5.5
6.2
6.5
7.1
7.4
9.1
9.8
8.6
7.2
7.1
8.6
10.2
13.0
16.2
22.8
7.5
9.3
11.2
9.0
6.8
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.9
2.6
3.7
5.4
7.4
8.4
8.4
7.7
5.1
21.8
8.8
15.6
20.9
23.5
24.6
22.5
20.7
13.9
2.8
9.7
4.8
3.0
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.6
2.1
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.6
11.4
10.6
11.4
11.8
11.8
11.4
10.7
10.5
10.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Fewer Injuries Among Older Workers
Type of accident. Being struck by and against, and
caught in, under, or between things accounted for more
than 50 percent of injuries to teenage workers, but the
percentage steadily declined for older workers. (See ta
ble 5.) Conversely, falls, particularly falls on the same
level, became an increasingly serious problem with ad
vancing age. For workers age 65 and over, falls pro
duced nearly one-third of injuries compared with about
13 percent for teenagers.
These age-specific patterns of injury characteristics
1The terms “injury” and “accident” also refer to illness and expo
sure. The single terms are used for brevity.
2These interpretations are taken from the summary of safety studies
in Human Factors and Safety, Information Sheet 15, International
Occupational Safety and Health Information Center (CIS), Interna
tional Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1967.
3See also the following studies: Remarques Sur Les Statistiques
Technologiques D ’Accidents De Travalleurs Salaries, Paris, France,
Annee 1966, and Max D. Kossoris, “Relation of Age to Industrial In
juries,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1940.
4 Employment data for industry and occupation are taken from the
Bureau’s Employment and Earnings reports. The industry and occu
pational employment series are not comparable, but are the most reli
able data available by age, on national employment. The occupational
employment series also contains significant numbers of workers not
covered by State workers’ compensation, such as self-employed work
ers and unpaid family workers. To this extent, relative occupational
employment ratios are overstated. The major factors that have a dif
ferential effect on the two series are detailed in Em ploym ent and Earn
ings, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1978), pp.
139-59.
5For a discussion of differences in State coverage and reporting re
quirements see Norman Root and David McCaffrey, “Providing more
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were similar across industry and occupational groups.
More data available
Additional data on extent of disability by indemnity
compensation and medical costs, part of body affected
by injury, distribution of employment and nature of in
jury by both age and industry, and ratios of work inju
ry to employment percentages by occupation and age
are available from the Bureau upon request. These data
will be presented in future reprints of this article.
□
information on work injuries and illnesses,” Monthly Labor Review,
April 1978, pp. 16-21. Data from these 26 jurisdictions were used for
the development of ratios and comparisons of injury characteristics:
Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dako
ta, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Wisconsin, and Wyo
ming.
6This can be length of time with the employer, the occupation, or
the job. More often this relates to time with the employer. See Nor
man Root and Michael Hoefer, “The first work injury data available
from new BLS study,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1979 pp. 7 6 80.
7P. M. Shepard, 1970, quoted by D. A. Stubbs and A. S.
Nicholson in “Manual Handling and Back Injuries in the Construc
tion Industry: An Investigation,” Journal o f Occupational Accidents,
Vol. 2, No. 3, August 1979, pp. 179-90.
8The 1977 cost and extent of disability data used in this analysis
are from 5 States providing closed case data in the SDS program: Ar
kansas, Delaware, Montana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
9Classification of the factors associated with work injuries is based
on the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z16.2, 1962
Standard Method of Recording Basic Facts Relating to the Nature
and Occurrence of Work Injuries.
Work-related amputations
by type and prevalence
Based on workers' compensation cases,
new supplement to annual BLS survey
of occupational injuries yields
a 1977 estimate of 21,000 cases,
most involving the loss of a finger
D
a v id
P.
M cCaffrey
Each year, American workers suffer disfiguring and of
ten seriously disabling amputations as a result of their
jobs. This study estimates that 21,000 such accidents
took place in 1977, and attempts to isolate the indus
tries, occupations, and situations in which they were
most likely to occur. Also included is a brief discussion
of the medical and income maintenance costs incurred
by State workers’ compensation systems in settling
claims of injured workers.
The data. This analysis is based on 1977 data from the
Supplementary Data System ( s d s ), which augments the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual survey of occupation
al injuries and illnesses.1 Each of the cases selected for
study represents an individual who suffered a work-re
lated “amputation” or “enucleation” (such as loss of an
eye); both of these types of injuries will be referred to
as “amputations” in subsequent discussion.
Two categories of cases are reported by participating
State workers’ compensation agencies in the SDS:
“closed” and “current.” A “closed” case is one for
which a worker had received all compensation and med
ical payments due for the injury by the end of the refer
ence year, regardless of the year in which the case
occurred or was reported.2 A “current” case, on the
David P. McCaffrey, currently assistant professor of public adminis
tration at the State University of New York at Albany, was formerly
with the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
other hand, either occurred or was reported during the
reference year, depending upon the State. For 1977,
most States submitted current case data, a few only
closed cases, and three States submitted both.
The minimum number of lost workdays required be
fore a case is reported varies by State. Some include all
reported cases, and other States include cases with 1 or
more lost workdays, 4 or more lost workdays, and so
forth. Consequently, interstate comparisons of SDS data
must be made very cautiously, and combinations of
State data used in this article should not be taken as a
census or reliable sample of a universe of similar cases.
Data are combined here, however, because the distribu
tions of cases among States do not vary greatly.
Number of amputations. There is no national survey of
the specific nature of occupational injuries (that is, the
number or frequency of amputations, sprains, fractures,
and so forth.3 However, by making certain assumptions,
we can make a reasonable estimate of a national total of
about 21,000 amputations in 1977. This procedure com
bines the “current case” SDS information and non-inju
ry-specific data from the Bureau’s annual survey of
occupational injuries and illnesses.4
The estimate of the national total of amputations in
1977 (At) is obtained by summing the number of “cur
rent case” amputations reported by 22 States for 1977
(An),5 dividing by the sum of lost workday cases report
ed for these States in the 1977 annual survey of occupa35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Work-Related Amputations
tional injuries and illnesses (LWCn), and multiplying by
the total number of lost workday cases for the country
that year (LWCt):
/
(Ai + A2 ......... a 22>______
^ (LWCj + LWC2 .......... LWC22)
\
)
Industry divisions and selected industries
X’0*1 \
866,623 J
2,203,600 = 21,311
for an estimate of about 21,000 amputations nationally.
The assumptions required to justify this computation
are that (1) all amputations entered in the SDS are re
ported as lost workday cases in the annual survey; (2)
the total industrial and labor force compositions of the
participating SDS States are representative of those of
nonparticipating States; and (3) the long minimum lost
workday periods before a case is submitted to the SDS
by some States will not screen out a significant number
of amputations. The last of the foregoing assumptions is
the weakest. Some amputations, particularly those af
fecting the first (distal) joint of a finger, may not result
in more than 2 or 3 lost workdays. These would not be
reported by a State submitting only cases involving 4 or
more lost workdays. For 1977, Colorado, Maryland,
and Wisconsin submitted cases involving 4 or more lost
workdays, Michigan reported cases involving 7 days or
more, and New Mexico and Tennessee submitted those
resulting in at least 8 lost workdays. Consequently, the
national estimate probably understates the number of
“minor” amputations. However, because so few States
use the longer minimum periods, the understatement
does not make the estimate implausible and, in the ab
sence of comparable information, certainly does not
make it valueless.
Amputations by industry. Table 1 presents the distribu
tion of amputations by industry division, and for select
ed 3-digit SIC coded industries. Manufacturing ac
counted for about 30 percent of employment, but
almost 60 percent of the amputations. The 3-digit man
ufacturing industries listed had 6.3 percent of the em
ployment, but 18.6 percent of the amputations. These
are the industries one associates with such injuries; they
have many cutting, sawing, and stamping activities. Ag
riculture, forestry, and fisheries, mining, and construc
tion also had relatively high proportions of
amputations.
Method for examining cross-tabulations. Tables 2, 4, 5
and 6 show the number of cases and adjusted
standardized residuals (asr ’s) for the source of injury
by industry, by part of body affected, by type of acci
dent, and for occupation by part of body affected. The
asr ’s are indicators of the table cells which have great
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment1
Amputations2
.6
.9
5.3
30.7
.5
.6
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
2.2
6.1
1.7
28.2
2.5
6.2
6.8
21.5
—
2.7
2.9
9.0
59.8
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.8
2.2
2.3
1.6
4.3
3.1
1.9
15.8
2.9
2.7
.7
5.8
.1
(LWCt ) = At
Thus,
(
y
Table 1. Percent distribution of work-related amputations
and employment by industry division and selected
industries, private sector, 23 States, 1977
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries ......................
Mining ..................................................................
Construction.........................................................
Manufacturing.......................................................
Meat products...................................................
Sawmills and planing m ills ...............................
Millwork, plywood, and structural members . . .
Miscellaneous plastics products ......................
Fabricated structural metal products...............
Metal forgings and stampings..........................
Miscellaneous fabricated metal products.........
Motor vehicles and equipment ........................
Transportation and public utilities ........................
Trucking, local and long distance ....................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ...................................
Grocery stores ................................................
Eating and drinking places ...............................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ....................
Services................................................................
Unidentified .........................................................
1Employment data were obtained from County Business Patterns, 1977 (Bureau of the
Census, 1979). Employment data for Maine were obtained from County Business Patterns
1976 (Bureau of the Census, 1978).
2 Injury data are from 1977 SDS records of 8,602 "current-case” amputations. States Ineluded are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
N ote :
Due to rounding, sums of industry division percentages may not equal 100.
er than expected numbers of amputations. The method
by which they are calculated is presented in the appen
dix to this article.
The advantage of the adjusted standardized residuals
is that, when the variables in the table are independent,
the ASR’s are approximately normally distributed with
mean equal to zero and standard deviation equal to l.6
Thus, there is only a 5-percent chance of an ASR value
greater than 1.96 or less than —1.96 occurring if the
observed frequency in a cell is only a random variation
from the expected value. If the value is greater than
1.96 or less than —1.96, we can assume that the num
ber of cases in the cell is significantly different from the
expected value, and that there is an unusually strong re
lationship between the two cross-classified variables.
Source of injury by industry. Table 2 presents the cross
classification of industry by source of injury. “Ma
chines” were the leading cause of injury in every divi
sion except mining and transportation and public
utilities, and were nearly as important as “metal items”
in mining. The adjusted standardized residuals indicate
that the machines category was heavily overrepresented
in manufacturing. Consequently, fewer such cases than
expected appear in other industries, although the abso
lute numbers are still quite high. Table 3, which shows
the source-of-injury distribution in more detail, indi
cates that a small group of machines accounted for
2,752 of the 4,645 machine accidents.
Other notable sources of injury in specific industries
were “metal items” and “hoisting apparatus” in mining
Table 2.
Source of injury by industry: numbers of cases and adjusted standardized residuals,11977
Industry
Boxes,
Buildings, Conveyors Electrical Hand tools, Hand tools,
containers structures
apparatus nonpowered
powered
Total cases .
Hoisting
apparatus
Machines
Mechanical
power
transmission
apparatus
Metal
items
Vehicles
Miscellaneous
or unknown
Total
cases
198
119
199
63
314
446
174
4,645
359
996
509
580
8,602
2
(1.49)
5
(1.01)
10
(2.04)
4
(1.79)
13
(1.59)
16
(1.17)
5
(.14)
95
(-4.11)
23
(4.41)
18
(-1.86)
23
(2.59)
19
(.87)
233
Mining ....................
2
(-1.61)
1
(-1.35)
13
(3.08)
4
(1.63)
18
(3.04)
7
(-1.73)
32
(12.28)
56
(-10.17)
19
(2.75)
57
(5.63)
11
(-1.03)
30
(3.36)
250
Construction...........
23
(1.32)
9
(-.54)
15
(-.71)
8
(1.04)
37
(1.78)
164
(21.11)
24
(2.25)
242
(-13.20)
19
(-2.49)
120
(3.62)
39
(-1.06)
71
(2.86)
771
Manufacturing . . . .
113
(-.81)
41
(-5.69)
134
(2.18)
29
(-2.25)
110
(-9.14)
164
(-10.21)
68
(-5.65)
3,269
(21.59)
207
(-.86)
572
(-1.65)
184
(-11.24)
257
(-7.90)
5,148
23
(6.97)
8
(2.28)
5
(-.50)
5
(2.21)
4
(-1.91)
4
(-2.77)
6
(.26)
35
(-13.66)
21
(3.05)
43
(2.32)
82
(17.40)
32
(3.45)
268
26
(-1.06)
34
(3.83)
16
(-3.05)
12
(.70)
95
(7.12)
50
(-2.75)
26
(-.33)
697
(-2.31)
36
(-3.08)
142
(-1.46)
111
(3.80)
118
(3.07)
1,363
1
(-.29)
4
(3.61)
0
(-1.18)
0
(-.66)
2
(-.08)
8
(2.97)
1
(-.16)
21
(-2.73)
5
(1.70)
7
(.12)
3
(-.24)
6
(1.10)
58
Service ..................
7
(-1.40)
17
(3.95)
6
(-1.72)
1
(-1.45)
35
(4.08)
33
(1.43)
11
(.27)
227
(-4.11)
28
(1.61)
36
(-3.19)
55
(4.91)
47
(2.40)
503
Unidentified ...........
1
(1.92)
0
(-.34)
0
(-.44)
0
( -2 4 )
0
(-.55)
0
(-.66)
1
(2.11)
3
(-.94)
1
(1.18)
1
(-.08)
1
(.79)
0
(-.76)
8
Agriculture, forestry,
and fisheries . . . .
Transportation and
public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail
trade ..................
Finance, insurance,
and real estate ..
1Adjusted standardized residual explained in text. It is the second of the two figures shown
for each combination of variables.
and construction; “powered hand tools” in construc
tion; and “vehicles” in transportation and public utili
ties, wholesale and retail trade, and services.
N ote :
Data are based on reports of current cases for 23 States,
discussed in detail in a later section.)
Part o f body
Source of injury by part of body affected. According to
data presented in table 4, 91 percent of the amputations
were of the finger(s), and 3 percent were of the toe(s).
Most finger amputations (56 percent) involved ma
chines. Toe amputations frequently involved metal
items, vehicles, and— absolutely, if not according to the
adjusted standardized residual— machines.
In addition to machines, conveyors and metal items
were a substantial cause of arm amputations. Convey
ors, vehicles, and boxes and containers were frequent
sources of leg amputations. Vehicles, besides being the
largest identified cause of leg amputations, produced
many amputations at the ankle and toe(s).
Using 1977 data from three “closed-case” States (Ar
kansas, Idaho, and North Carolina), the following tabu
lation indicates the differences in compensation and
medical costs for amputations of different parts of the
body. Finger and toe amputations together accounted
for 96.8 percent of the cases in these States, and 83.5
percent of the costs. Amputations and enucleations in
volving major extremities and the eyes were 2.7 percent
of the cases but 14.8 percent of the costs. (The relative
costs of amputations of different parts of the body are
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E y e .................................................
Arm ..............................................
Hand, wrist ..................................
Finger(s) .......................................
L e g .................................................
Ankle ............................................
T o e .................................................
Other or unclassified ....................
T o t a l ..................................
Percent of—
Cases
Cost
.2
.8
1.4
94.6
.2
.1
2.2
.5
100.0
.7
5.4
7.2
81.0
.9
.6
2.5
1.6
100.0
Source of injury by type of accident. Table 5 shows that
the overwhelming majority of amputations involved
workers being caught in, under, or between objects
(65.9 percent), striking against objects (15.9 percent),
and being struck by objects (15.0 percent). Workers be
ing caught in, under, or between machines, or striking
against parts of machines accounted for 4,358, or al
most 51 percent, of the cases; the adjusted standardized
residuals for the two cells (13.36 and 15.69, respective
ly) also indicate that machine cases were concentrated
in these particular accident types. Other significant
combinations were those involving workers being struck
by metal items and being caught in mechanical power
transmission apparatus and conveyors.
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Work-Related Amputations
Occupation by part of body affected. Among the major
occupational categories listed in table 6, “operatives, ex
cept transportation” incurred the largest number of am
putations— 2,918, or 34 percent of the cases. Certain
specific occupations within this general category had
particularly large numbers of such accidents. Assem
blers (209 cases), meat cutters and butchers (128 cases),
precision machine (such as drill press, grinder, lathe, or
milling machine) operators (193 cases), punch and
stamping press operatives (253 cases), and sawyers (171
cases) accounted for 954 of the category’s 2,918 ampu
tations. Not surprisingly, because they work closely
with machines and tools, these operatives suffered both
absolutely and relatively high numbers of finger ampu
tations.
The second highest incidence of injury was among
“craft and kindred workers;” 1,709 accidents— about
20 percent of the total— were reported for the category
as a whole. Within this group, mechanics and repairers
had 557 cases, with heavy equipment mechanics ac
counting for 195. Carpenters also had 262 cases. Al
though large, the number of finger amputations for
craftworkers was proportionate to that for all workers.
“Laborers, except farm” were the third largest group
(1,340 cases or about 15 percent) with especially numer
ous amputations of the toe and leg and at the ankle.
Table 3. Distribution of work-related amputations by
selected sources of injury, private sector, 23 States, 1977
Source
T o ta l...................................................
Boxes, containers..........................................
Reels, roles ..........................................
Containers, n.e.c.....................................
Buildings, structures .....................................
Doors, g a te s ..........................................
Conveyors.....................................................
Powered conveyors...............................
Electrical apparatus .....................................
Motors ...................................................
Hand tools, nonpowered...............................
Knives ...................................................
Ropes, chains........................................
Hand tools, powered.....................................
Saws .....................................................
Hand tools, powered, n.e.c.....................
Hoisting apparatus ........................................
Cranes, derricks ...................................
Jacks .....................................................
Machines.......................................................
Buffers, grinders, and similar machines .
Drilling, boring machines ......................
Planers, shapers, molders ....................
Presses (not printing).............................
Saws .....................................................
Shears, slitters, slicers..........................
Machines, n.e.c.......................................
Mechanical transmission apparatus .............
Chains, ropes, cables ..........................
Metal items ...................................................
Auto parts..............................................
Metal items, n.e.c....................................
Vehicles.........................................................
Highway vehicles, powered ..................
Forklifts, and similar vehicles ...............
Miscellaneous or unknown ..........................
n.e.c.= not elsewhere classified.
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number of
current cases
Percent of total
8,602
198
55
54
119
92
199
163
63
25
314
120
38
446
290
64
174
55
27
4,645
191
196
231
796
711
627
1,073
359
114
996
74
700
509
204
151
580
100.0
2.3
.6
.6
1.4
1.1
2.3
1.9
.7
.3
3.7
1.4
.4
5.2
3.4
.7
2.0
.6
.3
54.0
2.2
2.3
2.7
9.3
8.3
7.3
12.5
4.2
1.3
11.6
.9
8.1
5.9
2.4
1.8
6.7
Farm laborers showed the same pattern, although for a
much smaller number of cases. Transportation equip
ment operatives accounted for 282 cases (199 involving
truck drivers), with relatively large numbers of amputa
tions of the hand or wrist, toe, and leg.
The following tabulation shows that, in 1977, costs
for three “closed-case” States (Arkansas, Idaho, and
North Carolina) were distributed across these occupa
tional categories in about the same way as the percent
age of cases.
Occupational category
T o t a l ............................................
Professional and technical personnel . . .
M anagers.................................................
Salesworkers............................................
Clerical personnel ..................................
Craft and kindred workers ....................
Operatives, except transportation..........
Transportation equipment operatives . .
Laborers, except fa rm .............................
Farm lab o rers..........................................
Service w o rkers.......................................
Unidentified ............................................
Percent of—
Cases
Cost
100.0
.6
1.7
.3
1.0
26.1
45.8
2.8
17.9
1.1
1.8
1.0
100.0
.4
1.9
.1
.6
28.1
45.8
2.7
17.8
.8
1.1
.6
More about costs. Data on work-loss compensation and
medical costs are available for some States which pro
vide “closed-case” information. Such costs are, of
course, only a part of the total economic and social
price of work-related amputations. However, they are
the most easily measured component of that price, and
may give an indication of the overall relative severity of
different types of injuries.
The final compensable cost of an amputation to the
State is influenced by a variety of factors; the part of
the body involved, the time lost from work, the dura
tion of payments, the level of benefits provided by the
State, and occupational and personal characteristics of
the worker all enter into the eventual amount paid. This
means that single or bivariate (cell-type) tabulations of
cost data have certain limitations. While we can assess
the average costs of particular types of amputations
without knowing the years in which the cases occurred,
or the wages and ages of the injured workers, it would
be useful to estimate the cost of particular types of am
putations if all other factors were constant.
The SDS obtains only some of the relevant informa
tion. However, for three “closed-case” States (Arkansas,
Idaho, and North Carolina) in 1977 there were, among
other items, data on total compensation and medical
costs, the year in which the amputation occurred, the
part of the body affected, the extent of disability, and
the wages and age of the injured worker.
Accordingly, these data were subjected to an analysis
of variance in total cost due to year of occurrence, part
of body affected, extent of disability, and the weekly
wage and age of the worker. The part of body affected
Table 4.
Source of injury by part of body affected: numbers of cases and adjusted standardized residuals,' 1977
Boxes,
Buildings, Conveyors Electrical Hand tools, Hand tools,
containers structures
apparatus nonpowered powered
Part of body
Total cases
.
Hoisting
apparatus
Machines
Mechanical
power
transmission
apparatus
Metal
items
Vehicles
Miscellaneous
or unknown
Total
cases
198
119
199
63
314
446
174
4,645
359
996
509
580
8,602
0
(-.59)
0
(-.46)
0
(-.60)
0
(-.33)
1
(.62)
0
1
(1.28)
1
(-3.68)
0
(-.81)
5
(2.64)
0
(-.97)
7
(6.17)
15
( -9 1 )
Arm ........................
2
(-.10)
1
(-.26)
10
(5.44)
2
(1.61)
0
(-1.89)
1
(-1.80)
2
(.09)
41
(-1.93)
5
(.58)
11
(.08)
3
(-1.11)
15
(3.63)
93
Hand, w r is t.............
4
(.41)
1
(-.70)
3
(-.16)
0
(-1.03)
5
( -0 8 )
6
(-.52)
1
(-1.13)
88
(1.92)
7
(.45)
9
(-1.97)
10
(.57)
8
(-.53)
142
Finger......................
171
(-2.32)
110
(.54)
160
(-5.30)
58
(.29)
300
(2.85)
416
(1.71)
154
(-1.17)
4,411
(13.84)
340
(2.49)
866
(-4.79)
406
(-9.16)
438
(-13.53)
7,830
L e g ...........................
6
(2.17)
4
(2.00)
9
(4.05)
0
(-.92)
0
(-2.07)
1
(-2.06)
2
(-.18)
20
(-7.72)
3
(-.80)
10
(-.88)
23
(6.60)
34
(10.03)
112
Ankle ......................
3
(1.91)
0
(-.81)
3
(1.90)
0
(-.58)
0
(-1.32)
0
(-1.59)
3
(2.17)
5
(-5.88)
0
(-1.42)
13
(3.55)
11
(5.19)
8
(2.89)
46
Toe ........................
10
(1.79)
3
(.27)
11
(2.20)
1
(-.63)
4
(-1.77)
21
(2.29)
10
(2.23)
51
(-10.91)
3
(-2.40)
74
(8.96)
34
(5.17)
30
(3.32)
252
Other2 or unknown .
2
(-.37)
0
(-1.26)
3
(.26)
2
(1.32)
4
(-.04)
1
(-2.06)
1
(-.86)
28
(-6.20)
1
(-1.75)
8
(-1.48)
22
(6.20)
40
(12.31)
112
Eye ........................
1Adjusted standardized residual explained in text. It is the second of the two figures shown
for each combination of variables.
2 May include some cases involving previous categories which were not coded at sufficient
was clearly the largest determinant of case cost; that
factor had the highest F-value in each of the States. The
eventual cost of an amputation was also substantially
determined by its year of occurrence.
Virtually all of the amputations were classified into
two extent-of-disability codes— temporary disability
Table 5.
detail to be specifically identified.
N ote :
Data are based on reports of current cases for 23 States.
and permanent partial disability. Except in Idaho, the
extent of disability variable was not a strong explanato
ry factor for the variance in cost. Similarly, neither the
workers’ wages nor ages affected differences in case
costs once one controlled for the preceding factors, ex
cept for the effect of wages in North Carolina which,
Source of injury by type of accident: numbers of cases and adjusted standardized residuals,11977
Type of accident
Boxes,
Buildings, Conveyors Electrical Hand tools, Hand tools,
containers structures
apparatus nonpowered powered
Hoisting
apparatus
Machines
Mechanical
power
transmission
apparatus
Metal
items
Vehicles
Miscellaneous
or unknown
Total
cases
Total cases .
198
119
199
63
314
446
174
4,645
359
996
509
580
8,602
Struck against.........
21
(-2.06)
5
(-3.51)
3
(-5.62)
9
(-.35)
36
(-2.19)
141
(9.32)
3
(-5.17)
1,004
(15.69)
5
(-7.68)
68
(-8.33)
24
(-7.12)
49
(-5.08)
1,368
Struck by ...............
47
(3.48)
8
(-2.55)
6
(-4.79)
6
(-1.22)
173
(20.26)
164
(13.22)
36
(2.12)
250
(-27.08)
9
(-6.77)
350
(18.92)
87
(1.36)
155
(8.18)
1,291
Fall from elevation ..
0
(-.91)
1
(.75)
0
(-.91)
0
(-.51)
0
(-1.15)
0
(-1.39)
1
(.35)
2
(-5.74)
0
(-1.24)
1
(-1.62)
4
(1.38)
26
(15.97)
35
Fall same level . . . .
1
(-.10)
1
(.42)
0
(-1.07)
0
( -6 0 )
0
(-1.35)
0
(-1.62)
0
(-1.00)
8
(-5.20)
0
(-1.45)
2
(-1.61)
2
(-.52)
34
(17.76)
48
126
(-.68)
104
(4.98)
190
(8.90)
43
(.40)
86
(-14.67)
126
(-17.23)
134
(3.12)
3,354
(13.36)
344
(12.22)
558
(-6.99)
357
(2.08)
247
(-12.27)
5,669
1
(.01)
0
(-.78)
0
(-1.01)
0
( -5 6 )
15
(10.95)
11
(6.05)
0
(-.94)
6
(-5.28)
0
(-1.37)
6
(.49)
0
(-1.65)
4
(.67)
43
0
(-.86)
0
(-.66)
0
( -8 6 )
0
(-.48)
0
(-1.09)
0
(-1.30)
0
( -8 0 )
0
(-1.16)
0
(-2.02)
30
(21.48)
0
(-1.50)
31
(-5.68)
2
(-.43)
0
(-1.29)
0
(-1.68)
5
(4.52)
4
(-.13)
4
(-.87)
0
(-1.56)
20
(-8.06)
1
(-1.81)
11
(-.74)
5
(-.76)
65
(21.20)
117
Caught in, under, or
between .............
Rubbed, abraded . . .
Motor vehicle
accident .............
Miscellaneous.........
1Adjusted standardized residual explained in text. It is the second of the two figures shown
for each combination of variables.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N ote :
Data are based on reports of current cases for 23 States,
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Work-Related Amputations
ly. Toe and finger amputations, while numerous, were
the least expensive. And, temporary disabilities, which
presumably involve amputations with no lasting loss of
working effectiveness, were relatively infrequent and
much less expensive than permanent partial disabilities.
Generally, then, the part of body affected is the most
significant influence on cost in each State. However,
even for amputations involving the same parts of body,
the years in which the cases occurred and the extents of
disability also strongly affect how much cases eventually
cost by 1977. These several factors should be considered
when interpreting the relative costs of amputations
based on “closed-case” workers’ compensation data,
and indicate that single or bivariate tabulations of such
data should be used cautiously.
Detailed results of the analysis of variance and the
multiple classification analysis, upon which the preced
ing general observations are based, are available from
the author upon request.
according to the zero-order correlation coefficient, was
small but significant.
A “multiple classification analysis” of the effects of
selected categorical factors (year of occurrence, part of
body affected, and extent of disability) on final cost was
also conducted. This procedure involves adjusting the
average cost for a given category as it originally appears
in the data by controlling for the effects of all other
variables. For example, the average unadjusted cost for
a case occurring in Arkansas in 1976 was $3,480. Some
of the dollar difference between this and the averages
for other years is due to the fact that cases in 1976 in
volved a unique distribution of parts of body affected,
types of disabilities, and workers with different wages
and of different ages. By controlling for the effects of
these other factors, we can obtain an estimate of the av
erage adjusted cost of a case which occurred in 1976
which is not affected by such inter-year variations. If we
eliminate the influences of the unique combination of
factors in 1976, the average adjusted cost of an Arkan
sas case which occurred that year and was closed in
1977 becomes $3,535.
Results of the multiple classification analysis show
that, generally, the earlier a case occurred, the higher
the total cost by 1977. (The 1977 cases in Idaho and
1973 cases in North Carolina are exceptions.) While the
older cases could have been more serious, resulting in
longer payment periods and larger totals, the more se
vere recent cases may not have been closed by 1977.
When other factors were controlled, amputations of the
arm and wrist were generally found to be the most cost
Table 6.
T h e NEW Supplementary Data System can suggest in
vestigation of injury causation in unprecedented detail.
But the system itself is still in the developmental stages,
and many gaps and inconsistencies in reporting proce
dures among the participant States remain. As the sys
tem is expanded and refined, further analyses such as
the one presented in this article may help policymakers,
employers, and workers to determine and minimize
those specific combinations of circumstances most likely
to result in amputations and other job-related injuries.
Part of body affected by occupation: numbers of cases and adjusted standardized residuals,11977
Professional
Managerial,
and
except farm
technical
Part of body
Sales
Clerical
Craft and
kindred
workers
Operatives, Transportation Laborers,
equipment
except
except
transportation
operators
farm
Farmers
Farm
laborers
Service
Miscellaneous
or
unknown
Total
cases
67
200
35
89
1,709
2,918
282
1,340
3
138
391
1,430
8,602
Eye ........................
0
( -3 4 )
1
(1.12)
0
(-.25)
0
( -4 0 )
5
(1.31)
2
(-1.69)
0
(-.71)
5
(1.90)
0
( -0 7 )
0
( -4 9 )
2
(1.64)
0
(-1.73)
15
Arm ........................
1
(.33)
3
(.58)
1
(1.02)
0
( -9 9 )
12
(-1.69)
30
( -3 4 )
3
( -0 3 )
14
(-.14)
0
(-.18)
1
( -4 1 )
7
(1.39)
21
(1.55)
93
Hand, w r is t.............
1
(-.10)
1
(-1.29)
0
(-.77)
2
(.44)
16
(-2.59)
53
(.86)
10
(2.54)
14
(-1.89)
0
(-.22)
2
(-.19)
13
(2.66)
30
(1.45)
142
Fingers....................
61
(.01)
176
(-1.51)
29
(-1.69)
73
(-2.99)
1,573
(1.64)
2,733
(6.13)
225
(-6.71)
1,186
(-3.51)
1
(-3.50)
112
(-4.09)
333
(-4.15)
1,328
(2.67)
7,830
L e g ..........................
1
(.14)
2
( -3 8 )
1
(.81)
2
(.79)
20
(-.54)
20
(-3.61)
17
(7.12)
27
(2.51)
0
(-.20)
7
(3.94)
8
(1.33)
7
(-2.97)
112
Ankle ......................
0
(-.60)
4
(2.87)
1
(1.89)
2
(2.23)
1
(-3.02)
10
(-1.75)
1
( -4 2 )
12
(1.97)
0
( -1 3 )
3
(2.66)
2
( -0 6 )
10
(.93)
46
Toe ........................
1
(-.70)
8
(.91)
1
( -0 3 )
6
(2.14)
44
( -9 7 )
47
(-5.20)
15
(2.42)
71
(5.60)
2
(6.55)
9
(2.52)
16
(1.40)
32
(-1.70)
252
Other2 or unknown .
2
(1.22)
5
(1.51)
2
(2.31)
4
(2.67)
38
(3.75)
23
(-3.01)
11
(3.91)
11
(-1.69)
0
(-.20)
4
(1.67)
10
(2.24)
2
(-4.25)
112
Total cases
.
1Adjusted standardized residual explained in text. It is the second of the two figures shown
r each combination of variables.
2May include some cases involving p.evious categories which were not coded at sufficient
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
detail to be specifically identified.
N ote :
Data are based on reports of current cases by 23 States.
In some cases, SDS data also permit evaluation of the
medical and other compensable costs incurred by a
State in settling the claims of injured workers. Howev-
er, we can never measure the more important social
costs and individual losses resulting from accidents
which are too often preventable.
□
FOOTNOTES
1See Norman Root and David McCaffrey, “Providing more infor
mation on work injury and illness,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 16-21, for a complete discussion of the Supplementary
Data System.
2In some States, a “closed” case means a case for which, in the ref
erence year, the State decided the total benefits to be paid. States re
porting in this manner were excluded from the analysis.
3Because of the reporting burden that would be involved, the bls
annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses does not ask
firms to describe the specific physical characteristics of their employ
ees’ injuries or illnesses.
4 For a report on the survey, see Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
in the United States by Industry, 1977, Bulletin 2047 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1980).
5One State (New Jersey) did not provide a 1977 estimate of lost
workday cases for the annual survey. Consequently, New Jersey data
are not used in obtaining the ratio of amputations to lost workday
cases, although they are included in the other “current” case tables.
6 Brian S. Everitt, The Analysis o f Contingency Tables (New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1977), pp. 46-48; Shelby J. Haberman,
“The Analysis of Residuals in Cross-Classified Tables,” Biometrics,
March 1973, pp. 205-20.
APPENDIX: Construction of adjusted standardized residuals
As previously in d icated , ad ju sted stan d ard ized residu
als ( a s r ’s) are in d icators o f the cells in a cross-tab u la
tion w hich have greater than exp ected v a lu e s— values
w hich probably represent a stron g correlation betw een
the tw o crossed variables. ASR’s are co n stru cted as fo l
low s.
Chi-square (X2) values, which test whether the vari
ables in the table are independent, are obtained by the
formula:
i = 1 j = 1
where njj refers to the observed values in the cell, and
Ejj is the expected value in the cell. The expected value
Ejj is the estimated value of the cell if the variables are
independent. The larger the squared differences between
the observed and expected values are, the larger the chisquare value becomes, and the more likely it is that the
variables in the table are associated. Ey is obtained by
multiplying the cell’s marginals (the total frequencies in
the row Oh) and column (nj) in which the cell occurs)
and dividing by the total number of cases in the table
(N):
The adjusted standardized residuals indicate the most
marked differences between the observed and expected
values. Residuals refer to the differences between observed and expected values (n;j — Ejj). These absolute
differences, while useful, give an incomplete impression.
For example, consider a cell where we expect 1,000
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cases, but observe 1,200, and another cell where we ex
pect 100 but observe 300. In both cases the absolute re
sidual is 200, but in one cell the difference is 20 percent
for 1,000 cases and in the other, 200 percent for 100
cases. Safety workers undoubtedly would be interested
in the cell with 1,200 cases. But the cell with a 200-percent difference between the observed and expected val
ues tends to show a stronger positive relationship
between the cross-classified variables.
We can get a better perspective on the residuals by
obtaining standardized residuals (ejj), by dividing the re
siduals by the square root of the expected values:
fay - Ejj)
In the case above, the standardized residual for the
cell with 1,200 cases would be ( 1,200- 1,000)/ 1,000, or
6.32; and for the cell with 200 cases, (300-100)/ ^100,
or 20.00. The standardized residual of 20.00 supports
the reasonable conclusion that getting 300 cases where
100 are expected is more surprising than getting 1,200
where we expect 1,000.
The adjusted standardized residuals (djj) are obtained
by dividing the standardized residuals by an estimate of
their standard deviation, or square root of the variance
Vjj, where:
y
Vij =
(l - - Ü L H 1 - J ! L )
N
N
Therefore
dij =
41
Using statistics to manage
a State safety and health program
Occupational injuries and illnesses statistics
are important to Ohio's accident prevention program;
the data identify companies most in need o f services
and are the basis of safety seminars and training sessions,
which can lead to significant savings in insurance costs
P h ilip A. W o r k m a n
In 1977, the Ohio Industrial Commission’s Division of
Safety and Hygiene began a program to improve and
upgrade the delivery of industrial accident prevention
services to the employers and employees in the State.
The use of statistics was of major importance in the
4-year program. The division sought to improve acci
dent prevention services through more cost-effective
management, through the development of new pro
grams, and through the use of statistics to identify
those companies most in need of assistance.
First, the division modernized its data processing
equipment. Then it developed a systematic approach to
allocate its resources in a more effective manner. The
specific challenge was to determine a method that
would provide direction to its safety consultants.
Identifying ‘needy’ companies
In the past, most of the effort to allocate resources
occurred on a random basis. This method was ineffec
tive, as companies which did not need services were
contacted while those that did were overlooked. The so
lution, then, would be to identify those companies most
in need of services and to provide the consultant with
some background information about that company. The
consultant would then have a reason for calling on a
Philip A. Workman is Superintendent of the Ohio Industrial Commission’s
Division of Safety and Hygiene.
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
specific company and would be better informed about
the type of accidents that had occurred at that job site.
Traditionally, employers needing assistance were
identified through the use of “penalty-rating” criteria.
Employers were grouped, according to their industrial
operation, into 233 manual classifications. The expected
losses resulting from occupational illnesses or injuries
were determined for all employers in a particular group
ing. The loss expectancies established base rates for
each classification. A merit-rating provision allowed em
ployers premiums to be adjusted according to their loss
experience. If a company’s loss experience was greater
than average, the company could be assessed additional
premiums of up to 95 percent of the base rate
established for that classification. The firm then became
“penalty-rated.” Companies with good safety records
were allowed to reduce the premiums they pay.
There were several shortcomings with the use of the
penalty-rating criteria to identify employers. The first
was that penalty-rating was based on outdated accident
information. For example, the rating period for current
rates (established July 1, 1980) is based on the accident
experience of employers from 1975 through 1978.
Another shortcoming was that penalty-rating criteria
were oversensitive to small employers who had experi
enced a single severe and costly accident.
Perhaps the most significant shortcoming was that
merit-rated employers represented only 20 percent of
the total number of employers who pay into the State
insurance fund. Merit-rated employers, on the whole,
represent larger companies; we needed to identify com
panies not in the merit-rating system which needed our
assistance.
The formula adopted used information derived from
lost-work time claims and from payroll data that were
available from the employers. (Because of confidentiality
restrictions, Ohio’s employment security agency cannot
share employment figures for individual employers with
other State agencies.) The occupational injuries and
illnesses were coded according to specifications of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Supplementary Data System.
From this information the Service Direction System was
formed. This computerized system produces a list of
companies most likely to benefit from the services of the
division. The heart of the Service Direction System is
the Service Direction Indicator, which consists of a level
indicator and a trend indicator.
The level indicator attempts to identify companies
with an accident rate higher than the rate for the entire
industry. It is developed by dividing the number of ac
cidents for a company by its payroll. This ratio gives an
approximation of the company’s accident rate. The level
indicator, then, is the percentage deviation from the in
dustry standard which shows whether a company has a
better or worse than average accident rate.
The trend indicator is a year-to-year safety compari
son for an individual company. It has a frequency and a
severity component which shows whether a company’s
accident frequency or accident severity is getting better
or worse. The frequency component is the difference of
the ratio of injuries to payroll between two successive
years. The severity component is the year-to-year differ
ence of the ratio of workdays lost to payroll.
The Service Direction System is developed by com
bining the level and trend factors with different weights.
This is done for every company in Ohio, and the priori
ty list of companies in need of services is based on this
indicator.
Profiling accidents
When safety consultants receive the names of compa
nies to be visited, they also get a computer report pro
filing the accidents of those companies, with special
emphasis on problem areas. The consultant reviews the
accident profile with company officials and recommends
possible solutions.
One of the recommendations may be the presentation
of a “cost and statistical report”, a computer-produced
report showing how accidents have affected a company.
These reports, available to merit-rated employers only,
are confidential and are prepared only at the request of
a company’s management. They show how the compa
ny’s premiums are affected by its industrial accidents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
There are three parts to the report. The first part sum
marizes the types of accidents charged against that
company, along with the causes. The second part sum
marizes the current accidents filed against that company
that have not yet been adjudicated through the workers’
compensation system. And the third part is an analysis
of how those accidents have affected that company’s
premium.
The way in which one company’s premium was af
fected by its accident experience demonstrates the use
fulness of the “cost and statistical” report. The
company had a fiscal year payroll of slightly more than
$4 million. At the base rate, it would have paid $62,700
in premiums in the most recent year and approximately
$185,600 over the entire rating period, 1972-77. How
ever, the company had a worse than average loss experi
ence in FY 1977, and paid $80,800 in premiums.
Because of a long history of accidents, it paid more
than $288,000 in premiums during the rating period.
This represents penalties of $102,671. In contrast, if this
company had maintained an excellent safety record, it
could have paid as little as $71,000 in total premiums
for the entire 5-year period.
As illustrated, the cost and statistical report summa
rizes the cost information for the top management of a
company. Additional data in the report allow compa
nies to compare themselves to a range of possible pre
miums. The report has proven to be an extremely
effective tool.
Other uses
The accident statistics are used in a number of other
areas.
• Once a year, an article summarizing the lost work
time resulting from injuries is published in the Moni
tor, a division-produced safety magazine. The article
highlights significant aspects of industrial accidents
and diseases relating to the current year.
• Detailed statistical reports containing cross-tabu
lations of accidents and their causes are prepared for
41 industries, 233 manual classifications, and 88
counties. These reports are used to respond to re
quests for general statistical information.
• Statistics based on lost-time injuries and illnesses
have been used for topics within other division pro
grams. Quick reading pamphlets, based on these “lost
work-time” statistics have been prepared for various
trade meetings and training sessions.
• The statistics are also used at the All-Ohio Safety
Congress and Exhibit. Data for industrial classifica
tions, manual classifications, and counties are pro
grammed into a mini-computer for instant retrieval
by participants.
• Statistics are used to set priorities for the develop43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Using Statistics to Manage a Safety Program
ment of specific safety training programs. For exam
ple, a training module on lifting techniques was based
on the statistics that showed approximately 20 per
cent of all injuries involve the back.
Accident prevention services
The final thrust of the division’s program is to im
prove and upgrade the delivery of industrial accident
prevention services at the local level through decentral
ization. Decentralization is the relocation of the point at
which work assignments are made and the workflow is
monitored. The purpose of decentralization is to im
prove the timeliness of providing services at the local
level by eliminating the channeling of service requests
through the central office.
All of Ohio’s employers are eligible to receive free ac
cident prevention services. If a company is penalty-rated
and does not have a safety professional who can zero in
on safety problems, the division sponsors a safety direc
tor to establish a safety program for that company.
In addition, the division conducts workplace surveys
to ascertain that working conditions meet the minimum
safety requirement set by the Industrial Commission of
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ohio. These surveys are free and are consultative in na
ture.
Engineering services are provided to evaluate the safe
ty of machines, structures and systems. Consultation is
available on the design aspects for the safe operation of
machines and tools, ventilation, and noise control.
Industrial hygienists survey workplaces for air con
taminants and other health hazards, such as dusts,
fumes, mists, vapors, gases, and noise levels.
The division schedules basic education courses to
help workers identify and correct job hazards. The safe
ty training course covers 15 subjects in 12 2-hour ses
sions, and includes topics such as safety responsibility,
accident investigation techniques, and job safety analy
sis.
“Hazard Recognition” is a series of slide and tape
presentations covering 18 subjects in 25 2-hour sessions.
Topics include flammable liquids, electricity, noise,
trenching, ventilation, and tools.
Employers of handicapped workers can request from
the division safety mobility and accommodation studies
to ensure a safe working environment for handicapped
workers.
□
Workers’ compensation insurance:
recent trends in employer costs
Costs of insuring against work-related injuries
and diseases have escalated rapidly since 1972;
growing variation in premiums among States
over the same period may indicate unequal rates
of improvement in workers' compensation laws
M a r t in W. E lso n
and
Jo h n F. B u r t o n , J r .
The workers’ compensation program provides cash ben
efits, medical care, and rehabilitation services for per
sons who experience job-related injuries and diseases.
Because each State operates its own compensation pro
gram, the levels of protection for workers and the asso
ciated costs of the plan to employers differ considerably
among jurisdictions. Variations among jurisdictions in
the insurance arrangements available to employers may
also affect premiums: 32 States and the District of Co
lumbia allow employers to purchase insurance from pri
vate carriers; six States only allow purchase from a
State fund; and 12 States permit a choice between pri
vate carriers and State funds. In addition, all but four
States allow employers with sufficient financial ability
and satisfactory records for paying past claims to selfinsure. 1
The existence of interstate differences in the cost of
workers’ compensation insurance raises certain ques
tions with policy implications. Are the variations in pre
miums great enough to influence employers’ decisions to
locate their establishments? And, do recent trends in
premium levels indicate any reluctance by States to
boost program benefits and costs, for fear of losing em
ployers to lower cost jurisdictions?
As a first step toward answering such questions, this
article presents estimates of employers’ costs of insur
ance purchased from private carriers or State funds in
47 jurisdictions2 as of July 1, 1978. Historical informa
tion since 1950 is also provided for a smaller number of
jurisdictions. The following discussion is a condensed
Martin W. Elson is a law student at Case Western Reserve Universi
ty. John F. Burton, Jr. is a professor of industrial and labor relations
at Cornell University.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and updated version of a more comprehensive report3
that details the methodology used to derive the cost es
timates.
Measuring insurance costs
Employers’ costs of workers’ compensation insurance
may be measured in several ways. For purposes of this
study, three combinations of employers that account for
substantial percentages of national payroll were select
ed, and the costs of workers’ compensation insurance
for these groups of employers were determined for each
State. This procedure makes possible an estimate of the
differences in insurance costs which employers would
encounter by moving among the States.4
The first combination consists of 45 types of employ
ers for which workers’ compensation insurance rates are
available since 1950. This group includes 13 manufac
turing, seven contracting, and 25 other types of firms,
and accounts for almost 57 percent of the payroll cov
ered by workers’ compensation insurance.5 The second
combination represents 25 types of manufacturing em
ployers which comprise 10 percent of covered payroll;
rates for this groups are available since 1958. The third
combination, for which rates are only available since
1972, includes 30 manufacturing, 13 contracting, and 36
other types of employers; these 79 types of firms ac
count for 72 percent of covered payroll.6
Insurance rates for each type of employer may be
obtained from a State manual. These manual rates are
given in dollars per $100 of weekly earnings for each
employee. Table 1 shows the average July 1, 1978, man
ual rates for the three combinations of employers in 47
jurisdictions. As indicated, the average manual rate for
the 45 types of employers was $1,043 per $100 of pay45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 •
Workers’ Compensation Insurance
roll in Alabama, while the same group of employers in
Alaska had a mean rate of $2,149.
However, estimates of average manual rates provide
only a beginning toward accurate interstate compari
sons of workers’ compensation costs. For many employ
ers, the weekly premium is not simply the product of
the manual rate and the weekly payroll. Rather, their
insurance costs are influenced by premium discounts for
quantity purchases, dividends received from mutual
companies and participating stock companies, modifi
cations of the manual rate resulting from the employer’s
own accident experience, and other factors.
Table 1.
Consequently, the average employer in the 45 States
with private insurance carriers pays an adjusted manual
rate that is 18 percent less than the published manual
rate.7 In Ohio and West Virginia— States with State in
surance funds and no private carriers— manual rates
are reduced, on average, 7.5 percent and 31.4 percent
respectively to arrive at adjusted manual rates.8
The average adjusted manual rates for the three com
binations of employers as of July 1, 1978, are also
found in table 1. Although the average manual rate for
the 45 types of employers in Alabama was $1,043 per
$100 of payroll, the average adjusted manual rate for
Employers’ average weekly costs of workers’ compensation insurance in 47 jurisdictions, July 1, 1978
Manual rates (per $100 of payroll)
Adjusted manual rates (per $100 of payroll)
45 types
of employers
25 types
of
manufacturing
employers
79 types
of employers
45 types
of employers
25 types
of
manufacturing
employers
79 types
of employers
Alabama ......................
Alaska ..........................
Arizona ........................
Arkansas ......................
California......................
$1,043
2.149
3.055
1.576
2.604
$2,041
3.484
5.546
3.023
5.173
$1,295
2.524
3.686
1.903
3.238
$0,855
1.762
2.505
1.292
2.135
$1,674
2.857
4.548
2.479
4.241
$1,062
2.070
3.023
1.560
2.655
C olorado......................
Connecticut ..................
Delaware......................
District of Columbia . . .
Florida..........................
1.475
1.650
1.742
4.271
3.221
3.159
3.434
3.544
8.063
5.733
1.812
2.140
(’ )
5.098
3.764
1.210
1.353
1.428
3.502
2.641
2.590
2.816
2.906
6.612
4.701
G eorgia........................
H aw aii..........................
Idaho.............................
Illinois ...........................
Indiana...........................
1.313
2.508
1.569
1.685
.585
2.886
5.060
2.813
2.965
1.109
1.634
3.232
1.961
2.012
.713
1.077
2.057
1.287
1.382
.480
Iowa .............................
Kansas ........................
Kentucky......................
Louisiana......................
Maine ..........................
1.322
1.072
1.685
1.844
1.684
2.114
2.061
3.737
4.027
3.571
1.569
1.297
2.215
2.359
2.038
M aryland......................
Massachusetts.............
Michigan ......................
Minnesota ....................
Mississippi ....................
1.539
1.674
2.305
2.220
1.100
3.019
3.934
6.140
5.081
1.903
Missouri........................
Montana ......................
Nebraska......................
New Hampshire...........
New J e rs e y .................
.903
1.712
.865
1.422
2.057
New M exico.................
New York ....................
North Carolina .............
Ohio .............................
Oklahoma ....................
Net costs of insurance (per employee)
25 types
of
manufacturing
employers
79 types
of employers
$1.544
4.879
5.294
2.078
4.816
$3,022
7.910
9.610
3.986
9.567
$1,918
5.731
6.387
2.509
5.989
1.486
1.755
( 1)
4.181
3.086
2.554
2.768
2.922
8.199
4.793
5.469
5.762
5.944
15.480
8.531
3.137
3.590
(’ )
9.788
5.600
2.366
4.149
2.307
2.431
.910
1.340
2.650
1.608
1.649
.585
1.912
3.964
2.238
3.063
1.015
4.202
7.996
4.013
5.390
1.927
2.380
5.108
2.797
3.657
1.239
1.084
.879
1.382
1.512
1.380
1.734
1.690
3.064
3.302
2.929
1.286
1.064
1.816
1.934
1.671
2.190
1.659
2.781
2.909
2.581
3.502
3.190
6.166
6.354
5.476
2.599
2.008
3.655
3.721
3.125
1.861
2.166
3.040
2.800
1.336
1.262
1.373
1.890
1.821
.902
2.476
3.226
5.035
4.167
1.561
1.526
1.776
2.493
2.296
1.096
2.526
2.757
4.370
3.733
1.457
4.955
6.479
11.641
8.543
2.521
3.055
3.567
5.764
4.709
1.770
1.771
2.781
1.573
2.883
4.249
1.136
2.064
1.015
1.850
2.418
.740
1.404
.710
1.166
1.687
1.452
2.280
1.290
2.364
3.484
.932
1.692
.834
1.517
1.983
1.196
2.795
1.484
2.128
3.651
2.345
4.539
2.698
4.314
7.541
1.505
3.368
1.744
2.769
4.292
1.757
2.158
.649
1.664
1.763
3.827
4.678
1.314
2.904
4.320
2.165
2.639
.830
1.977
2.293
1.441
1.770
.532
1.550
1.446
3.138
3.836
1.077
2.697
3.542
1.775
2.164
.680
1.839
1.880
2.479
3.844
.899
3.352
2.654
5.400
8.332
1.820
5.834
6.503
3.054
4.701
1.149
3.979
3.451
Oregon ........................
Pennsylvania ...............
Rhode Island ...............
South C arolina.............
South Dakota...............
3.558
1.431
1.589
1.020
1.027
7.841
3.125
3.978
2.094
1.725
4.600
(’ )
2.002
1.286
1.222
2.918
1.173
1.303
.836
.842
6.430
2.563
3.262
1.717
1.414
3.772
(’ )
1.641
1.055
1.002
6.288
2.382
2.387
1.360
1.649
13.858
5.202
5.975
2.794
2.769
8.130
(’ )
3.007
1.716
1.962
Tennessee.............
Texas ..........................
Utah .............................
Vermont ......................
Virginia ........................
1.101
2.137
1.087
1.067
1.074
2.339
4.338
2.000
1.996
1.645
1.435
2.708
1.320
1.267
1.283
.903
1.753
.892
.875
.880
1.918
3.557
1.640
1.637
1.349
1.177
2.220
1.083
1.039
1.052
1.666
3.293
1.701
1.646
1.525
3.538
6.683
3.130
3.079
2.337
2.171
4.172
2.066
1.955
1.824
West Virginia ...............
Wisconsin ....................
.962
.917
1.914
1.852
( 1)
1.174
.660
.752
1.313
1.519
(’ )
.963
1.229
1.582
2.444
3.198
2.027
Jurisdiction
’ Data are not available.
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45 types
of employers
(’)
the group was $0,855, reflecting the 18-percent reduc
tion. Adjusted manual rates may be interpreted as the
cost of workers’ compensation insurance as a percentage
of payroll; thus, for the 45 types of Alabama employers,
premiums were the equivalent of 0.855 percent of pay
roll.
The average weekly insurance premium per worker
provides another measure of employers’ costs of work
ers’ compensation. The adjusted manual rate multiplied
by the State’s average weekly wage yields the approxi
mate net cost of insurance to policyholders.9 Again ac
cording to table 1, the average weekly net cost of
insurance as of July 1, 1978, for the 45 types of employ
ers in Alabama was $1,544 per employee.
Historical data
Information on employers’ costs of workers’ compen
sation insurance is available for the 45 types of
employers for selected years since 1950. Data for 20
States are available for 8 years between 1950 and 1978;
data for eight more States are available for 6 years be
tween 1958 and 1978; 42 jurisdictions have data for
1972, 1975, and 1978; and by 1978, 47 jurisdictions
may be compared.
The average adjusted manual rates for the 45-employ
er group are shown in table 2. As indicated, Alabama
employers expended, on average, the equivalent of 0.282
percent of payroll on workers’ compensation premiums
in 1950, compared with 0.855 percent in 1978. Table 3
presents the approximate net cost to the same group of
policyholders for several years between 1950 and 1978.
These results show, for example, that the employers in
Alabama expended a weekly average of $0,136 per
worker on premiums in 1950, and $1,544 in 1978.
The data in tables 2 and 3 are valuable for tracing
changes in workers’ compensation costs over time in a
particular State, but the volume of information makes it
difficult to comprehend general developments. Tables 4
and 5 provide a compact summary of these data, per
mitting evaluation of interstate trends.
Table 4, for example, illustrates the changes over time
in the average adjusted manual rates for the various
combinations of States. Each State’s observation was
weighted by the size of the State’s labor force in 1970
to provide results which are representative of the na
tional experience.
The mean adjusted manual rate in the 20 States was
the equivalent of 0.471 percent of payroll in 1950, 0.651
percent in 1972, and 1.185 percent in 1978. Of particu
lar interest is the rise in cost between 1972 and 1978,
which was more than double the 1950-72 increase. The
average employer in the 28- and 42-jurisdiction compar
isons also experienced large increases in premiums be
tween 1972 and 1978. Data for the latter combination
of jurisdictions indicate that the average employer spent
an amount equal to 1.461 percent of payroll on work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Average weekly adjusted manual rates per $100
of payroll for 45 types of employers in 47 jurisdictions,
selected years, 1950 to 1978
Alabama ...........
Alaska ...............
Arizona .............
Arkansas ...........
California...........
Colorado ...........
Connecticut . . . .
Delaw are...........
District of Columbia
F lorida...............
Georgia .............
Hawaii ...............
Ida h o ..................
Illinois..................
Indiana...............
Iowa ..................
Kansas ...............
Kentucky ...........
Louisiana...........
Maine..................
Maryland ...........
Massachusetts ..
Michigan.............
Minnesota .........
Mississippi .........
M issouri.............
Montana.............
Nebraska...........
New Hampshire .
New Jersey . . . .
New Mexico . . . .
New Y o rk ...........
North Carolina ..
Ohio ..................
Oklahoma .........
Oregon .............
Pennsylvania . . .
Rhode Island . ..
South Carolina . .
South Dakota . . .
Tennessee .........
Texas ...............
Utah ..................
Verm ont.............
Virginia...............
West Virginia . . .
Wisconsin...........
N ote :
1950
1954
1958
1962
1965
$0,282
$0,310
$0,348
$0,364
$0,437
.707
.858
.812
.762
.660
.838
1972
1975
1978
$0,479 $0,599 $0,855
1.762
.832
1.721
2.505
1.385
2.178
1.292
.915
1.038
1.102
1.406
2.135
1.183
.689
.649
.697
.578
.737
.654
.827
.736
1.404
1.210
1.353
1.428
3.502
2.641
.760
1.335
1.283
1.002
.417
1.077
2.057
1.287
1.382
.480
.662
.766
1.065
.519
.437
.358
.664
.497
.363
.581
.514
.410
.582
.609
.398
.667
.624
.430
.501
.960
.865
.657
.385
.390
.369
.394
.448
.558
.451
.575
.668
.415
.398
.340
.370
.337
.520
.981
1.084
.879
1.382
1.512
1.380
.501
.600
.661
.859
.450
.653
.758
.747
1.034
.694
.692
.988
.854
1.141
.715
.738
.980
.816
1.106
.914
.854
.751
1.009
1.171
1.238
1.240
.902
1.262
1.373
1.890
1.821
.902
.476
.416
.638
.727
.590
.572
.528
.644
.474
.586
.792
.437
.531
.911
.721
.527
.495
1.054
.845
.447
.560
1.039
.948
.529
.534
1.224
1.565
.789
.746
1.233
.740
1.404
.710
1.166
1.687
.463
.858
.838
.863
.945
.512
.473
.627
.492
.813
.474
.820
.787
.864
.420
.885
1.069
.973
.433
1.109
1.052
1.441
1.770
.532
1.550
1.446
.630
.355
.831
.567
.315
1.007
.396
.834
.690
.392
.386
.842
.696
.389
1.491
.387
.767
.609
.511
2.074
.776
.899
.590
.635
2.918
1.173
1.393
.836
.842
.664
.710
.392
.829
.658
.537
.524
.398
.930
.607
.400
.545
.457
.502
.524
.422
.505
.531
.595
.503
.514
.391
.766
.588
.539
.903
1.753
.892
.875
.880
.268
.523
.345
.556
.404
.603
.428
.505
.671
.581
.660
.752
Dashes indicate data not available.
ers’ compensation premiums in 1978.10
The average adjusted manual rate for any year obvi
ously reflects some State data which are higher than the
mean and some which are lower. For example, the
mean adjusted rate for the 20 States was 0.471 percent
of payroll in 1950, but the average employer in Ala
bama paid only 0.282 percent of payroll for workers’
compensation insurance while his or her counterpart in
Rhode Island paid 0.829 percent. A statistic providing
a convenient summary of the extent of variation among
the States around the mean cost is the standard devia
tion.11 The larger the standard deviation, the greater the
variation among the States in the percentage equivalent
of payroll expended on workers’ compensation insur
ance. The data in table 4 indicate that over time the
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 •
Workers’ Compensation Insurance
magnitude of such variation has increased.
Table 5 traces the net cost to policyholders for the 45
types of employers between 1950 and 1978. The average
employer in the 20 States spent $0,249 per week on
workers’ compensation premiums for each worker in
1950, $0,945 in 1972, and $2,468 in 1978. Again, the
sharp increase in costs after 1972 is evident from data
for each combination of jurisdictions. In 1978, the mean
weekly premium for employers in the 42 jurisdictions
was just over $3.09 per worker.12
Table 5 also shows the extent of variation among the
States around the net cost to policyholders. In 1950,
when the average cost was $0,249 per worker per week
Table 3. Average weekly net costs of insurance per
employee for 45 types of employers in 47 jurisdictions,
selected years, 1950 to 1978
Alabama .............
Alaska ..................
Arizona ...............
Arkansas .............
California.............
C olorado.............
Connecticut.........
Delaware.............
District of Columbia
Florida..................
G eorgia...............
H aw aii..................
Idaho....................
Illinois ..................
Indiana..................
Iowa ....................
Kansas ...............
Kentucky.............
Louisiana.............
Maine ..................
M aryland.............
Massachusetts . . .
Michigan .............
Minnesota ...........
Mississippi...........
1950
1954
1958
1962
1965
$0,136
$0,183
$0,242
$0,281
$0,369
.631
.858
1.296
.627
.669
.663
.353
.253
.261
.197
.548
.396
.363
.245
.409
.443
.326
.447
.588
.357
1972
1975
$0,611 $0,938
1.627
4.127
2.066
3.985
1.040
1.447
1.755
2.746
1978
$1.544
4.879
5.293
2.078
4.816
.968
1.008
.835
1.219
1.196
1.467
1.304
2.847
2.554
2.768
2.922
8.199
4.793
.561
.660
.422
.629
1.306
1.063
1.029
.576
1.169
2.229
1.933
1.925
.766
1.912
3.964
2.238
3.063
1.016
1.159
1.253
1.856
.205
.237
.299
.380
.518
.644
.767
.949
.195
.229
.230
.286
.286
.687
1.588
2.190
1.659
2.781
2.909
2.581
.266
.390
.271
.290
.507
.660
.370
.519
.469
.639
.888
.655
.620
.671
.800
1.073
.740
.724
.729
1.154
1.569
1.493
1.237
.856
1.750
2.037
2.480
2.203
1.261
2.526
2.757
4.370
3.733
1.457
.600
.335
.363
.759
.584
.468
.385
.993
.750
.435
.477
1.072
1.330
.782
.689
1.872
••• 1
2.695
1.430
1.179
2.312
1.196
2.795
1.484
2.128
3.651
.273
.382
Missouri...............
Montana .............
Nebraska.............
New Hampshire ..
New J e rs e y .........
.310
.303
.250
.414
.308
.339
New M exico.........
New York ...........
North Carolina . . .
Ohio ....................
Oklahoma ...........
.249
.565
.650
.722
.866
.167
.267
.291
.509
.335
.755
.354
.834
.957
1.326
.501
1.352
1.594
1.830
.634
2.077
1.673
2.479
3.844
.899
3.352
2.654
.541
.280
.586
.353
.233
.949
.346
.656
.500
.330
.369
.726
.553
.358
2.269
.554
.993
.700
.706
3.872
1.365
1.427
.832
1.077
6.288
2.382
2.387
1.360
1.649
.866
1.134
Oregon ...............
Pennsylvania . . . .
Rhode Island . . . .
South Carolina . . .
South Dakota . . . .
Tennessee ...........
Texas ..................
Utah ....................
Vermont .............
Virginia ...............
.404
.284
.274
.283
.192
West Virginia . . . .
Wisconsin ...........
N ote :
.555
.321
.250
.361
.270
.392
.365
.365
.396
.504
.511
.678
.684
.478
1.267
.963
.808
1.666
3.293
1.701
1.646
1.525
.200
.412
.279
.494
.358
.587
.563
.751
1.069
1.060
1.229
1.582
Dashes indicate data not available.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Means and standard deviations1of adjusted
manual rates for 45 types of employers in various
combinations of jurisdictions, selected years, 1950 to 1978
[Percent of total payroll]
20 jurisdictions2
Year
Mean
1950
1954
1958
1962
1965
1972
1975
1978
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
0.471
.512
.521
.599
.623
.651
.871
1.185
28 jurisdictions3
Standard
deviation
0.108
.145
.133
.150
.150
.171
.284
.446
Mean
0.587
.689
.760
.776
1.006
1.409
Standard
deviation
0.172
.212
.277
.276
.302
.488
42 jurisdictions4
Mean
0.774
.995
1.461
Standard
deviation
0.271
.328
.543
1Results are based on data in table 2. Weights are each jurisdiction’s total nonagricultural
employment from Employment and Earnings Statistics fo r States and Areas, 1939- 70, Bul
letin 1370-8, (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1971).
The weighted standard deviations were calculated using a formula provided by Cornell
University Professors Paul F. Velleman and Philip J. McCarthy, to whom we express our ap
preciation.
2The 20-jurisdiction combination consists of: Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont.
3The 28-jurisdiction combination includes the 20 States listed in footnote 2 plus California,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
"The 42-jurisdiction combination includes the 28 States in footnote 3 plus Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, New
York, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia.
N ote : Dashes indicate data not available.
in the 20 States, the standard deviation among the
States was $0,056. By 1978, however, the mean weekly
cost per worker was $2.468— up almost 10-fold since
1950— while the standard deviation ($1,113 in 1978)
had grown nearly 20-fold over the same period.
The adjusted manual rate is probably the most useful
and comprehensive measure of cost because, as pre
viously noted, it may be interpreted as the percentage
equivalent of payroll expended on workers’ compensa
tion insurance premiums. Chart 1 shows the trend in
the average adjusted manual rates for the 45 types of
employers in the 20 States for which there are compara
ble data since 1950.
The solid line in chart 1 tracks the weighted mean of
the rates for the eight observations (years) available.
The surrounding light area delineates the values of the
Table 5. Means and standard deviations1of net weekly
costs of insurance for 45 types of employers in various
combinations of jurisdictions, selected years, 1950 to 1978
20 jurisdictions
Year
1950
1954
1958
1962
1965
1972
1975
1978
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Mean
Standard
deviation
$0,249
.330
.399
.518
.590
.945
1.563
2.468
$0,056
.092
.104
.139
.154
.311
.610
1.113
28 jurisdictions
Mean
Standard
deviation
$0,472
.625
.760
1.160
1.848
3.000
$0,153
.215
.317
.461
.643
1.197
42 jurisdictions
Mean
Standard
deviation
$1,150
1.817
3.093
$0,454
689
1.328
1Results are based on data in table 3. See footnotes to table 4 for other information per
taining to this tabulation.
N ote : Dashes indicate data not available.
Chart 1. Means and standard deviations of adjusted manual rates for employers in 20 States,
selected years, 1950 to 1978
Adjusted manual rates (as percent of total payroll)
NOTE: Assuming a normal distribution, adjusted manual rates for approximately 95 percent of the States should fall within
+ 2 standard deviations of the mean.
adjusted manual rates that are within 2 standard devia
tions of the mean. This range (mean ± 2 standard devi
ations) is a useful statistical measure because, assuming
a normal distribution, approximately 95 percent of the
individual State averages will fall within the interval.
Chart 1 and tables 3 and 4 tell a consistent story: on
average, employers’ premiums for workers’ compensa
tion insurance have increased sharply since 1972, and at
the same time, cost differences among jurisdictions have
widened considerably.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M a n y fa c to r s outside the purview of this article in
fluence the level of and trend in workers’ compensation
insurance premiums, including the extent of litigation,
differing legal interpretations of statutory provisions,
the local cost of medical and rehabilitation services for
victims of job-related injuries and diseases, and the ap
proach used by the State to compensate permanent par
tial disabilities.13 However, recent increases in the
multistate premium averages may also be explained in
part by the States’ modifications of their programs in
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Workers Compensation Insurance
response to recommendations contained in the 1972 Re
port of the National Commission on State Workmen’s
Compensation Laws.14 Similarly, there are several possi
ble reasons for the growth of interstate variations in
costs, the most controversial being differences among
States in the extent of improvement in their laws since
1972.15
The National Commission unanimously advised that
Federal workers’ compensation standards be enacted in
1975 if States had not adopted its 19 essential recom
mendations by that time. An underlying rationale for
mandated standards was to reduce interstate differences
in employers’ insurance premiums. The Commission
considered these variations a likely impediment to State
reform of workers’ compensation programs; State legis
latures might perceive the higher costs of better insur
ance plans as an incentive for employers to locate in
other, lower cost jurisdictions. If the growth in inter
state cost differentials since 1972 is related to unequal
rates of improvement in State statutes,16 the case for
Federal minimum standards for workers’ compensation
is considerably strengthened.
□
FOO TNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors thank John Bickerman,
Robert Hutchens, and John Worrall for helpful comments as well as
other assistance.
' The enumerated insurance arrangements pertain to private sector
employers which are the focus of this article. These data are from C.
Arthur Williams, Jr., and Peter S. Barth, Compendium on Workmen's
Compensation (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1973). Be
cause information on self-insurers is limited, and such employers ac
count for a small percentage of benefit payments, these firms are
excluded from the analysis.
2 Programs in Nevada, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming
allowed insurance only through a State fund, and the insurance classi
fications were not comparable with those in the remaining 47 jurisdic
tions. Therefore, these States were excluded from the analysis.
1John F. Burton, Jr., “Workers’ Compensation Costs for Employ
ers,” Research Report o f the Interdepartmental Workers' Compensation
Task Force, Vol. 3 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1979),
pp. 9-3 2 . An errata sheet for this study is available from the author.
4 Some employers provide benefits in addition to workers’ compen
sation to their employees who are disabled by work-related injuries or
diseases. To the extent that these benefits are integrated with workers’
compensation benefits, the changes in total costs for work-related dis
ability benefits resulting from interstate movements by employers may
vary from the cost differences examined in this article. There are in
sufficient data to make an estimate of the interstate differences in the
costs of these additional benefits.
5In five States included in this study, employers’ liability for work
ers’ compensation premiums is limited to a maximum amount of an
employee’s weekly earnings (“covered pay”). In Massachusetts, for ex
ample, premiums are based on only the first $300 of weekly pay.
Thus, in some States, payroll covered by workers’ compensation in
surance is less than total payroll.
6Table 3 in Research Report o f the Task Force provides a detailed
description of each of the 79 types of employers and information on
the percent of payroll in 28 States accounted for by the various com
binations of employers. Examples of manufacturing employers are
bakeries, foundries, and furniture mills. Contracting employers include
firms doing plumbing, concrete work, and street construction. “Oth
er” establishments include retail stores, hospitals, and general employ
ers of sales and clerical workers.
The derivation of the 18-percent difference between manual rates
and adjusted manual rates is provided in Section D of Research R e
port o f the Task Force. The 18-percent figure is a national average
based on experience in 34 jurisdictions. The actual difference will vary
somewhat among States, depending on such factors as the relative im
portance of mutual companies, participating stock companies, and
nonparticipating stock companies.
8Section D of Research Report o f the Task Force explains the deri
vation of the percentages used to reduce manual rates in order to cal
culate adjusted manual rates in Ohio and West Virginia.
4As explained in Section F of Research Report o f the Task Force,
the net cost to policyholders in a State (or other jurisdiction) is calcu
lated by multiplying the product of the adjusted manual rate and the
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State’s index number (which measures the State’s earnings relative to
U.S. earnings in 1970) by the national average of weekly earnings for
workers covered by the unemployment insurance program. For 1976
(the latest year for which data were available when the tables for this
article were prepared), the latter figure was $203.88.
10The text indicates that in the 42 jurisdictions, the 45 types of em
ployers spent, on average, 1.461 percent of payroll on workers’ com
pensation premiums in 1978. This combination of jurisdictions and
employers was chosen to provide historically comparable data. For
the largest combination of employers (79) and jurisdictions (44)
shown in table 1, the average employer spent the equivalent of 1.843
percent of payroll on workers’ compensation premiums in 1978, based
on weighted observations.
The 1.843-percent figure is close to Daniel Price’s estimate that pre
mium costs nationally (including Federal and self-insurance, but ex
cluding programs financed by general revenue, such as the black lung
program) were 1.85 percent of payroll in 1978. Price’s estimate is in
cluded in “Workers’ Compensation: 1978 Program Update,” Social
Security Bulletin, October 1980, pp. 3-10.
For a comparison of the estimating procedures used by Price and
Burton, involving 1975 data, see Research Report o f the Task Force,
footnote 35.
11 For an elementary discussion of the standard deviation, see Dan
iel B. Suits, Statistics: An Introduction to Quantitative Economic R e
search (Chicago, Rand McNally and Co., 1963), pp. 38-52.
12 For the largest combination of employers (79) and jurisdictions
(44) shown in table 1, the average employer spent $3,915 per week
per worker on workers’ compensation insurance in 1978, based on
weighted observations.
13 For a discussion of some of these factors, see John F. Burton, Jr.,
The Significance and Causes o f the Interstate Variations in the Em ploy
ers' Costs o f Workmen's Compensation (Ph.D. diss., University of
Michigan, 1965). The results of a study of interstate cost differences
associated with various approaches to permanent partial disability
benefits may be found in John F. Burton, Jr. and Wayne Vroman, “A
Report on Permanent Partial Disabilities under Workers’ Compensa
tion,” Research Report o f the Interdepartm ental Workers' Compensation
Task Force, Vol. 6 (Washington, Government Printing Office, forth
coming).
14(Washington, Government Printing Office, 1972).
15 Laws in effect on January 1, 1980, in 52 jurisdictions (including
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) were on average in compli
ance with 12.03 of the 19 essential recommendations of the National
Commission, according to information provided in January 1980 by
the Division of State Workers’ Compensation Standards of the Em
ployment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The
range among the jurisdictions in 1980 was considerable, with Mon
tana, New Hampshire, and Ohio in compliance with at least 15.5 of
the essential recommendations, while Arkansas, Mississippi, and Ten
nessee were in compliance with 8.5 or fewer of the recommendations.
16The assumed relationship between cost increases and improve
ments in State laws from 1972 to 1978 are being examined in an
ongoing study by John F. Burton, Jr.
Workers’ compensation in 1980:
summary of major enactments
Broader coverage and levels of benefits received
the most attention among the 46 jurisdictions
which met during the year, although several States
did set new standards for measuring hearing loss
L a V e r n e C. T in sle y
All but six State legislatures convened in 1980, resulting
in enactment of 136 amendments to State workers’
compensation laws.1 Twenty-three jurisdictions carried
over legislation introduced from 1979 to the 1980 ses
sions. Most amendments either revised coverage or in
creased or supplemented weekly benefits.
Twenty-two jurisdictions amended their coverage
laws. California extended coverage to off-duty peace of
ficers and firefighters performing work-related duties
anywhere in the State. Colorado and Missouri broad
ened coverage to include sheriffs and deputy sheriffs and
Ohio extended coverage to jail inmates.
Domestic employees employed by an employer for
240 hours or more during a calendar quarter will be
covered in the District of Columbia next year. New Jer
sey now requires that domestic servants and household
employees be covered by homeowners’ policies.
Missouri adopted a provision that excludes from
mandatory coverage salaried corporate officers and pri
vate employment where the total gross annual payroll is
under $10,000 (except for the salaries of certain rela
tives). Sole proprietors and partners may elect coverage
for themselves in Minnesota, Vermont, and Virginia. In
New Mexico, employers with fewer than three employ
ees and who are generally exempt from occupational
disease coverage may also elect coverage.
By October 1980, 43 States and the District of Co
lumbia had increased maximum weekly benefits for tem
porary total disability, and 40 States had increased benLaVerne C. Tinsley is a workers’ compensation specialist in the
Division of State Workers’ Compensation Standards, Employment
Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
efits for total disability and death through automatic
adjustments of maximum benefit levels linked to each
State’s average weekly wage. (See table 1.)
The percentage of the State weekly wage on which
benefits are based was raised from 100 to 150 percent in
Nevada, from 60 to 100 percent in Kentucky, and from
72 to 75 percent in Kansas. The percentage of the
worker’s wage for determining weekly benefits was in
creased from 6 6 -2 /3 to 70 percent in New Jersey. Ef
fective in 1981, maximum weekly benefits in Missouri
will be based on a percentage of the State average week
ly wage rather than being a statutory amount. Maxi
mum benefits were also increased statutorily in five
other jurisdictions.
The aggregate amount of compensation for death was
increased from $55,000 to $75,000 in California. Chil
dren who are dependent and full-time students, in Mis
sissippi, are newly entitled to receive death benefits until
they are 23 years of age.
The burial allowance was increased from $1,500 to
$3,000 in Louisiana, and from $750 to $2,000 in New
Jersey.
Awards for disfigurement to the head, neck, hands,
or arms were increased from $2,000 to $4,000 in Mis
souri.
New standards were established for occupational
hearing loss compensation at frequencies ranging from
1,000 to 3,000 cycles per second in Illinois and New
Jersey, and from 500 to 3,000 cycles per second in
Iowa.
Louisiana enacted penalty provisions to prohibit em
ployers from refusing to hire an applicant or rehire an
employee solely because such person had previously
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Workers’ Compensation in 1980
filed a workers’ compensation claim.
References to “workmen’s compensation” were changed
to “workers’ compensation” in Kentucky, Missouri, New
Jersey, and Tennessee.
Other amendments pertaining to benefits, coverage,
medical care, rehabilitation, administration, and other
aspects of State systems are included in the following
State-by-State summary.
Alaska
Coverage was extended to public high school students in
work-study programs while they are working outside the
school.
A Workers’ Compensation Study Commission was estab
Table 1.
lished to review the workers’ compensation law and recom
mend changes to eliminate outdated and inadequate provi
sions, to provide fully for the rights of workers injured in the
State, and to minimize costs to employers.
Arizona
Definitions for “co-employee”, “heart-related or peri
vascular injury, illness or death”, “mental injury, illness or
condition”, and “weakness, disease or other condition of the
heart or perivascular system” were added to the act.
An amendment was added to the Arizona Constitution
which allows persons injured while engaged in manual or me
chanical labor, or in case of death, the dependents, the option
to accept benefits or retain the right to sue their employers.
The statute of limitations for claim filing changed so that a
Jurisdictions that changed maximum weekly temporary total disability benefits during 1980
Jurisdiction
Former maximum
New maximum
Alabam a.................................................................................
Alaska ....................................................................................
Arizona....................................................................................
Arkansas ...............................................................................
Colorado..................................................................................
Connecticut.............................................................................
$136.00
$654.30
$192.32
$112.00
$222.74
$261.00, plus $10 for each dependent under 18 years of age,
not to exceed 75 percent of employee's wage
$148.00
$650.00
$203.86
$126.00
$244.65
$285.00, plus $10 for each dependent under 18 years of age
not to exceed 75 percent of employee’s wage
Delaware ...............................................................................
District of Colum bia................................................................
F'orlaa ....................................................................................
Hawaii ....................................................................................
idano ......................................................................................
$164.71
$426.40
$195.00
$200.00
$115.80 to $173.70 according to number of dependents, plus 7
percent of State average weekly wage for each child up to 5
$175.28
$456.24
$211.00
$215.00
$121.20 to $181.80 according to number of dependents plus 7
percent of State average weekly wage for each child up to 5
Illinois......................................................................................
Indiana ....................................................................................
Io w a ........................................................................................
Kansas ....................................................................................
Kentucky.................................................................................
Louisiana ...............................................................................
M ain e ......................................................................................
Marylanc..................................................................................
Massachusetts .......................................................................
$353.19
$130.00
$352.00
$148.00
$131.00
$149.00
$306.23
$220.00
$227.31, plus $6 for each dependent; aggregate not to exceed
worker’s average weekly wage
$358.95
$140.00
$384.00
$170.00
$217.00
$164.00
$332.16
$241.00
$245.48, plus $6 for each dependent; aggregate not to exceed
worker’s average weekly wage
Michigan..................................................................................
Minnesota...............................................................................
Missouri ..................................................................................
M ontana..................................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................................
New Hampshire.......................................................................
New Jersey.............................................................................
New Mexico ...........................................................................
North Carolina.........................................................................
North Dakota...........................................................................
$156.00 to $185.00, according to number of dependents
$226.00
$125.00
$198.00
$ 2 2 8 .*
$195.00
$164.00
$186.38
$194.00
$196.00, plus $5 for each dependent child; aggregate not to exceed worker’s net wage
$171.00 to $200.00, according to number of dependents
$244.00
$150.00
$219.00
$245.09
$213.00
$185.00
$201.04
$210.00
$213.00, plus $5 for each dependent child; aggregate not to exceed worker’s net wage
O h io ........................................................................................
Oklahoma...............................................................................
O regon....................................................................................
Pennsylvania...........................................................................
Rhode Island...........................................................................
$241.00
$141.00
$241.70
$227.00
$199.00, plus $6 for each dependent; aggregate not to exceed
80 percent of worker's average weekly wage
$258.00
$155.00
$261.32
$242.00
$217.00, plus $6 for each dependent; aggregate not to exceed
80 percent of worker’s average weekly wage
South Carolina .......................................................................
Tennessee .............................................................................
Texas ......................................................................................
U ta h ........................................................................................
$185.00
$107.00
$119.00
$210.00, plus $5 for dependent spouse and each dependent
child up to 4, but not to exceed 100 percent of State average
weekly wage
$197.00
$119.00
$133.00
$230.00, plus $5 for dependent spouse and each dependent
child up to 4, but not to exceed 100 percent of State average
weekly wage
Vermont .................................................................................
Virginia....................................................................................
Washington.............................................................................
West Virginia...........................................................................
Wisconsin ...............................................................................
Wyoming..................................................................................
$192.00, plus $5 for each dependent under 21 years of age
$199.00
$186.88
$237.00
$218.00
$292.35
$208.00, plus $5 for each dependent under 21 years of age
$213.00
$221.72
$262.08
$233.00
$326.45
Note: Benefit increases are based on the applicable State’s average weekly or monthly
wage, and for the District of Columbia, the national average weekly wage. However, nine
states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, and
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tennessee) and Puerto Rico prescribe statutory amounts; six States (California, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota) and Puerto Rico are not listed because no in
creases for temporary total disability were legislated during 1980.
late claim can not be considered unless the claimant is deemed
incompetent or justifiably relied on a “material representa
tion” by the Industrial Commission, employer, or insurance
carrier.
The Second Injury Fund is now responsible for one-half of
the compensation award above a 50-percent reduced monthly
earning capacity for a second injury to a preexisting scheduled
injury.
The maximum amount used for computing the employee’s
average monthly wage was raised from $1,250 to $1,325.
Scheduled injuries will now be paid solely for fixed periods,
regardless of the claimant’s earning capacity, if compensation
has not been awarded for permanent partial disability.
The time for requesting a hearing was extended from 60 to
90 days.
California
Coverage was extended to off-duty peace officers or fire
fighters who are injured, killed, or disabled while engaged in
the performance of their duties anywhere in the State. Em
ployees of the San Luis Obispo County sheriff’s office disabled
in the line of duty are entitled to 1 year of disability leave, in
lieu of temporary disability benefits, if such leave is approved.
Employers must post in a conspicuous place at the
worksite, written notice of compensation coverage, including
names of persons responsible for claims adjustment.
The average weekly wage used for determining total disabil
ity payments was increased from $231 to $262.50. The total
maximum compensation for death was increased from $55,000
to $75,000, according to the number of dependents.
The Asbestos Workers’ Account was established in the
Uninsured Employer’s Fund to provide temporary disability
and medical benefits to asbestos workers suffering from asbestosis when the liable employer either cannot be located or fails
to provide benefits within 30 days of the disability.
The director of the Department of Industrial Relations is
authorized to adopt rules and regulations to implement the
statutory coverage provisions relating to uninsured employers.
Legal actions may now be taken against an uninsured employ
er.
The administrative director of the Division of Industrial
Accidents no longer has authority to change regulations re
garding the privacy of certain employee records.
All attorneys employed as referees by the Division of In
dustrial Accidents must now adhere to the California Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Delivery of notices in third party actions will be made by
personal service or certified mail, instead of by registered mail.
Claimants traveling to medical facilities for examination by
a physician will be reimbursed 21 cents for each mile traveled,
instead of the previous 14 cents.
Colorado
Municipalities can now elect coverage for unpaid appointed
or elected officials. Coverage was extended to deputy sheriffs
and persons who serve on posses.
Tax paid by insurers into the Major Medical Insurance
Fund was raised to 1.75 percent of the premiums received,
from 1.25 percent.
Connecticut
Interlocal risk management pools (established to insure
high-risk employers) now have authority to operate separate
pools to cover hypertension and heart disease risks.
Supplemental compensation for recipients on-the-rolls prior
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to October 1977 was changed from a one-time 25 percent in
crease to an annual cost-of-living increase.
Dependent children who are full-time students are eligible
for benefits until age 22 (previously, the limit was 18 years).
Claimants will now be reimbursed 15 cents for each mile
traveled to medical treatment facilities, instead of the previous
10 cents per mile.
The lung function test now applies to all foundry workers,
except those who are exempted for religious reasons.
District of Columbia
The city council passed, and the mayor signed, a bill
establishing the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation
Act of 1979, effective October 1, 1981. This action was taken
to simultaneously remove private employment in the District
of Columbia from the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and
Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and to transfer adminis
tration of the District of Columbia’s compensation law from
the U.S. Department of Labor to the District of Columbia.
However, the legality of the act is in doubt because on Sep
tember 26, 1980, D.C. Superior Court Judge John F. Doyle
ruled that the reform law passed by the D.C. city council vio
lated the home rule charter of the city. He concluded that the
city, therefore, had illegally legislated the Federal program out
of existence. The council appealed Judge Doyle’s decision in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on
November 12, 1980, requesting an expedited decision.
Under the new act, coverage will include only workers
employed in the District of Columbia and injured or killed as
a result of their employment. Domestic workers also will be
covered if they worked for the same employers at least 240
hours during a calendar quarter. Compensation for illness or
death resulting from a job-related disease is the responsibility
of the employer where the last known exposure occurred.
The same maximum will apply for both weekly disability
and death benefits; however, benefits to survivors will only be
allowed if death was caused by a job-related injury or illness.
Minimum compensation for total disability and death is 25
percent of the maximum weekly benefit amount, rather than
50 percent of the national average weekly wage as required by
the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Permanent partial disability awards can now be reviewed at
any time up to 3 years after either the date of the last com
pensation payment or the rejection of the claim. For those re
ceiving benefits for permanent total disability or death, a
supplementary benefit is provided of no more than 5 percent
of the maximum weekly benefit received the preceding year.
However, this provision does not become effective until the
average weekly wage in the District of Columbia exceeds
$396.78.
Compensation for total disability will be paid at 66-2/3
percent of the employee’s average weekly wage. In case of
death, compensation to all survivors is not to exceed that
amount. Eighty percent of the employee’s spendable earnings
will be considered as 66-2/3 percent of his or her average
weekly wage. Benefits for disability or death will be offset by
no more than 80 percent of disability compensation under the
Social Security Act or an employee benefit plan, subject to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The mayor will be required to appoint a panel of physicians
from which an injured employee must select an attending phy
sician.
Attorney fees will be limited to no more than 20 percent of
the actual benefit the attorney secured for the claimant.
The costs of administering the act will be met by assessing
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 •
Workers’ Compensation in 1980
insurance carriers and self-insured employers based on the
share of payments made by each to the total amount of all
payments during the preceding fiscal year.
Florida
General contractors are now liable for coverage for all em
ployees of a subcontractor, unless the subcontractor already
provides coverage.
The basis for computing temporary partial disability bene
fits was changed from a “monthly” to “weekly” rate.
An award must now be paid within 30 days, rather than
the previous 20 days.
The definition for “accident” now includes the acceleration
or exaggeration of a preexisting disability.
An employer must now provide at least two physicians
from which the employee must select one for treatment.
Changes in medical fee schedules will be determined annu
ally by a panel consisting of the Secretary of Labor and Em
ployment Security, the Insurance Commissioner, and the State
medical consultant of the Division of Workers’ Compensation.
Pharmacists were added to the list of health care providers,
making them subject to evaluation by the Division to deter
mine if their services are acceptable based on medically ac
cepted standards and the medical fee schedules.
Medical reports required from self-insurers must be filed
with the Division of Workers’ Compensation within 15 days,
instead of the previous 5 days.
An injured employee is no longer required to notify the Di
vision within 30 days of an injury.
Georgia
Group self-insurance will be allowed in the State next year.
A requirement was enacted for both public and private cor
porations to provide employee coverage.
Hawaii
Permanent total disability awards made before July 1, 1980,
are now to be increased annually.
A rehabilitation unit, in the Department of Labor and In
dustrial Relations, will refer to the director employees suspect
ed of having permanent disabilities and those who have
permanent disabilities and who can be physically or vocation
ally rehabilitated.
Enrollment in a rehabilitation program will not affect a dis
abled worker’s entitlement to temporary total disability
compensation, if the worker earns no wages during the enroll
ment period.
Labor organizations are exempted from third party liability
for injuries to its members on the basis of the organizations’
failure to furnish or enforce health or safety regulations.
Illinois
Real estate brokers, broker-salesworkers, salesworkers paid
solely by commission, and volunteers in recreational programs
and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs are now exclud
ed from workers’ compensation coverage.
The Department of Insurance must adopt rules that will
permit two or more employers with similar risks to group selfinsure.
Employers may now obtain life insurance policies to cover
liabilities for work-related death benefits.
Maximum weekly benefit levels for permanent partial dis
ability are frozen (at $269.21 or 100 percent of the State’s av
erage weekly wage) from January 1, 1981, through December
31, 1983.
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The definition of “average weekly wage” was redefined to
mean the actual earnings of the employee at the time of the
injury during the 52 weeks ending with the pay period imme
diately preceding the injury.
All time periods of compensation for fractures were re
duced: for skull and vertebrae fractures, from 60 to 6 weeks;
for each facial bone fracture, from 20 to 2 weeks; for each
transverse process, from 30 to 3 weeks; and for the loss of a
kidney, spleen, or lung, from 100 to 10 weeks.
New standards were established for compensation of occu
pational hearing loss at frequencies of 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000
cycles per second and a causation level of 90 decibels. Em
ployers are no longer responsible for cases of occupational
hearing loss before July 1, 1975, and the new standards do
not apply to hearing loss resulting from trauma or explosion.
Attorney fees are limited to 20 percent of the amount of
compensation recovered and paid, unless otherwise approved
by the Industrial Commission.
The Industrial Commission must publish a workers’ com
pensation handbook for employers and employees. The Direc
tor of Insurance is required to publish informational booklets
on workers’ compensation insurance rates and the rights and
obligations of employers and employees under the Workers’
Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts.
Indiana
Coverage was extended to participants in a township poor
relief program who are satisfying assistance requirements. A
wage rate was set as the basis for computing his or her work
ers’ compensation benefits.
Iowa
New standards require determining the severity of occupa
tional hearing loss based on using frequencies of 500, 1,000,
2,000, and 3,000 cycles to measure hearing levels. A maxi
mum of 175 weeks of compensation can be received for hear
ing loss but compensation will not be paid to an employee
who fails to use hearing protective devices.
Kansas
Self-insurance is now permitted for cities, counties, school
districts, vocational-technical schools, or community colleges.
A separate reserve fund was created to pay claims, judge
ments, and expenses of these entities.
The director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation,
now has authority to conduct hearings and determine all dis
putes on medical charges and interest due.
Kentucky
The maximum weekly benefit levels were increased to 100
percent (formerly 60 percent) of the State average weekly
wage for total disability; and, to 75 percent (formerly 60 per
cent) for permanent partial disability and death. All provi
sions for scheduled injuries were deleted. Payment for
permanent partial disability will be determined by multiplying
the weekly benefit for permanent partial disability by the per
centage of disability or the wage earning capacity, whichever
is greater, for a maximum period of 425 weeks.
The maximum period for vocational rehabilitation was ex
tended from 26 to 52 weeks. During rehabilitation, the per
centage for calculating the employee’s average weekly wage
will be raised from 66-2/3 percent to 80 percent times the
percentage of disability.
The definition of “injury” now includes any work-related
harmful change in the human organism, “arising out of and in
the course of employment.” Previously, communicable dis
eases were not included unless the risk of contacting such dis
ease increased by the nature of the employment.
The Pneumoconiosis Fund was abolished and all unfunded
liabilities transferred to the Special Fund.
The time limit for notifying the Board of Workers’ Com
pensation that a claim will be disputed was increased from 60
to 90 days.
A sum of $150,000 was appropriated from the General
Fund to finance a study of the State’s workers’ compensation
program. The study will review the National Council on
Compensation Insurance rating procedures, compare premium
levels in Kentucky with other jurisdictions, and analyze the
feasibility of a computer system and of a State Fund.
References to “workmen’s” were changed to “workers’ ”
throughout the Act.
Louisiana
Surviving parents are now entitled to a $20,000 lump-sum
payment in death cases where there are no other legal depen
dents.
Burial expenses were doubled from $1,500 to $3,000.
The statute of limitations for filing a claim for an occupa
tional disease was extended to 6 months from the time: (1) of
the initial manifestation; (2) of the disability resulting from
the disease; or, (3) that the employee knew or had reason to
suspect that the disease is occupationally related. For claims
arising from death due to an occupational disease, the filing
period was extended to 6 months from the date of death or
from the date the claimant has reason to believe that the
death resulted from an occupational disease.
Employers are now required to conspicuously post notices
regarding time limitations for filing occupational disease
claims; failure to comply will allow claims to be filed against
the employer for an additional 6 months.
Attorney fees were raised to 20 percent of the first $10,000
of an award (formerly $5,000) and 10 percent for any addi
tional amount.
Employers are prohibited from refusing to hire applicants
or discriminating against employees solely because they had
previously filed compensation claims. For such discrimination,
an employee is eligible for up to 1 year’s salary in addition to
a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Injured employees are now permitted to file petitions in the
District Court of the parish in which either the employee or
his or her dependents live.
Maine
A commissioner whose term has expired is now entitled to
$50 per day for time spent preparing decisions in cases where
all evidence was heard and no decision was made.
Maryland
Mandatory coverage was authorized for participants in the
State’s Workfare Program and for jurors serving on State ju
ries.
Minimum weekly compensation for temporary total disabili
ty was increased from $25 to $50.
The time in which an employee must notify the employer of
his or her occupational disease was extended from 30 days to
1 year after the employee knows he or she has a disease.
Massachusetts
Third party actions in industrial accident cases will only be
enforced 7 months after the injury and after compensation is
paid.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Interest on late payments of compensation awards was in
creased from 6 to 10 percent.
Minnesota
Coverage now includes certain volunteer workers whose ser
vices are accepted or contracted.
The following may elect coverage for certain employed
relatives: owners or partners of a business or farm, a family
farm corporation, and a closely-held corporation which had
fewer than 22,880 hours of payroll in the preceding year.
The definition of “family farm” now includes any farming
operation which pays or is obligated to pay less than $8,000
in wages to farm laborers; and, excludes from the definition of
“employee,” farmers and members of their families who ex
change work with other community farmers.
Supplementary benefits based on the statewide average
weekly wage for the preceding year will be adjusted annually
on October 1.
Payment of benefits was authorized for dependents of State,
county, or city medical care employees who die from tubercu
losis contacted by exposure to tuberculosis patients or con
taminated material in the course of employment. An employee
who contacts tuberculosis from work exposure is permitted to
select a physician or medical care facility for treatment.
Mississippi
Dependent children who are full-time students are now eli
gible for death benefits until age 23 (previously the limit was
18 years).
Missouri
Coverage was extended to sheriffs and deputy sheriffs.
Exempted from coverage are salaried corporate officers and
private industries with a total gross annual payroll of under
$10,000 in the preceding year; wages paid to certain relatives
are not included in calculating gross annual payroll.
Maximum weekly benefits for total disability and death
were raised from $125 to $150. On August 13, 1981, benefits
will change from a statutory amount to 66-2/3 percent of the
State average weekly wage. On January 1, 1981, maximum
weekly benefits for permanent partial disability will change to
66-2/3 percent of 60 percent of the State average weekly
wage.
Awards were increased from $2,000 to $4,000 for disfigure
ment to the head, neck, hands, or arms.
A worker is now eligible to receive compensation for the
first 3 days of an illness after a waiting period of 14 days, in
stead of the previous 4 weeks. The healing period for perma
nent partial disability was lengthened from 40 to 52 weeks.
A surviving husband is no longer required to prove
dependency for benefits.
The statute of limitations for filing a claim was increased
from 1 to 2 years and up to 3 years from date of injury if the
employer did not file a report of injury.
Interest on unpaid workers’ compensation benefits was
raised from 6 to 8 percent.
References to “workmen’s” were changed to “workers’ ”
throughout the act.
New Jersey
Coverage was extended to recipients under the General
Public Assistance Law.
All homeowner’s or comprehensive personal liability insur
ance policies must cover injuries to domestic servants and
household employees.
The percentage of the worker’s wage on which benefits are
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 •
Workers’ Compensation in 1980
based for disability and, in death cases, for a spouse with chil
dren was raised from 66-2/3 to 70 percent. Maximum weekly
benefits for disability and death were increased from 66-2/3
to 75 percent of the State average weekly wage. Minimum
weekly benefits for total disability and death were changed
from $15 to 20 percent of the State average weekly wage, and
from $10 to $35 for permanent partial disability.
Temporary disability benefits can now be received for 400
weeks, up from the previous 300 weeks. The number of weeks
of compensation for specified losses was extended as follows:
loss of a hand, from 230 to 245 weeks; loss of an arm, from
300 to 330 weeks; loss of a foot, from 200 to 230 weeks; and
loss of a leg from 275 to 315 weeks. In cases of non-scheduled
injury, where the disability is determined as a percentage of
permanent total disability, the maximum period of compensa
tion increased to 600 weeks from 550 weeks.
Standards for measuring occupational hearing loss were
established at frequencies of 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz. A
maximum of 200 weeks of compensation is authorized for to
tal loss of hearing and for partial disability for such periods as
are proportionate to the relation which the calculated percent
age loss bears to 100 percent hearing loss.
A special adjustment of benefits was established for em
ployees receiving benefits at a rate applicable before January
1, 1980. For fiscal year 1981, the adjustment rate is 35 per
cent; for fiscal 1982, 75 percent; and for fiscal 1983, 100 per
cent. These benefits will be offset by social security disability
payments, black lung payments, or an employer’s share of dis
ability pension payments.
The burial allowance was increased from $750 to $2,000.
Lump-sum awards are now permitted if approved by the
Division of Workers’ Compensation.
Either spouse is now a presumptive dependent for survivors
benefits; previously, only widows were specified in the law.
For occupational disease claims, the statute of limitations
will not begin to run until the claimant has actual knowledge
of the condition and its relation to work. Formerly, the stat
ute began when the claimant first had knowledge of the dis
ability.
By enactment, “workmen’s” was changed to “workers’ ”
throughout the law.
New Mexico
Employers who are generally exempt from provisions of the
Occupational Diseases Disablement Law must now file notices
of acceptance, rejection, or revocation of coverage with the
Superintendent of Insurance.
New York
Either alien spouse is now entitled to compensation bene
fits; previously, only widows were eligible.
In the event of the death of a corporation officer, the depen
dents are entitled to compensation from the Uninsured Em
ployers’ Fund.
The waiting period before compensation for occupational
hearing loss was shortened from 6 to 3 months after removal
from exposure to harmful noise. Removal from exposure may
be accomplished by the use of effective ear protection devices
provided by the employer.
An employee’s failure to file a claim for occupational hear
ing loss within the required 2-year period will not bar his or
her claim, if the claim is filed within 90 days after knowledge
that the loss of hearing is employment-related. An employee
disabled prior to October 1, 1980, will have 6 months from
such date to file a claim.
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Assets in Uninsured Employers’ Fund are now set at a
maximum of $600,000, formerly $300,000.
Full disclosure is required by the employer of all accidents
that occur in the business operation of the employer.
North Carolina
Confirmed cases of brown lung disease or byssinosis will be
compensable, regardless of the date of the employee’s last in
jurious exposure.
Ohio
Coverage was extended to jail inmates and probationers in
work relief programs.
Employers contributing to the Disabled Workers’ Relief
Fund will be assessed an additional 5 to 10 cents per $100 of
payroll.
The Marine Industry Fund was established to insure enrollees in the marine industry.
Oklahoma
Excluded from coverage is agricultural or horticultural em
ployment in which the employer had a gross annual payroll of
under $100,000 (previously $25,000) in the preceding year.
Also exempted are licensed real estate sales associates or bro
kers who are paid solely by commission, and farm employ
ments with annual payrolls in the preceding year of $100,000
(formerly $25,000).
Pennsylvania
The definition of “employee” was broadened to include any
paid firefighter who is a member of a volunteer fire company
during off-duty hours. Similarly, coverage was extended to all
members of volunteer ambulance corps, volunteer rescue
workers, and lifesaving squads.
Rhode Island
Effective the first fiscal year of 1981, coverage will be com
pulsory for employees of the city of Providence. Group self-in
surance is now allowed for hospitals with the approval of the
Director of Labor.
Legislation extended the existence of the Dr. John E.
Donley Rehabilitation Center, the State’s rehabilitation center,
until June 30, 1983.
South Carolina
In cases of permanent partial disability, prostheses will be
furnished as long as needed by the injured employee.
Employers must report all injuries that require medical or
surgical attention to the Industrial Commission within 10
days after knowledge of the injury. Employers who refuse or
neglect to submit the required forms, records, or reports will
be fined $50 (formerly $10) for each offense. Also, employers
who willfully refuse payment of compensation will receive
fines ranging from $100 to $1,000, or 30 days to 6 months
imprisonment, or both.
Information compiled by treatment facilities pertaining to
workers’ compensation claimants must be made available,
upon request, to employers, carriers, attorneys, or the Indus
trial Commission.
South Dakota
Coverage was extended to employees of the Game, Fish,
and Parks Department.
The time limit in which an employer must file an accident
report was shortened from 30 to 10 days.
Tennessee
Self-insurance is now permitted with the posting of accept
able negotiable securities or a bond worth at least $125,000,
and certified evidence of financial ability to pay all claims.
Maximum weekly benefits for disability and death were in
creased from $107 to $119; and the total maximum from
$42,800 to $47,600. A lump-sum payment of $10,000 will be
paid to a deceased employee’s estate, if there are no depen
dents.
A joint legislative committee was established to study the
State’s workers’ compensation system and make recommenda
tions to the 92nd General Assembly by February 1, 1981.
An enactment expanded the definition of “total disability”
from coal workers’ pneumoconiosis to include employees who
would be entitled to benefits under the Black' Lung Benefits
Act of 1972.
References to “workmen’s” were changed to “workers’ ”
throughout the law.
Vermont
The Military Department may elect coverage for employees
whose salaries are paid fully or partially with Federal funds.
Virginia
Sole proprietors and partners may now elect coverage for
themselves. The Secretary of Administration and Finance is
authorized to implement a workers’ compensation program
for State employees.
Payment of compensation in a lump sum in lieu of periodic
payments will be reduced by the disability retirement benefits
a disabled worker or the worker’s surviving dependents are
entitled to receive.
Employers are required to furnish medical care and pros
thetic appliances for loss of hearing injuries.
Reimbursement was authorized for employers who pay
compensation and medical and vocational rehabilitation ex
penses while awaiting an award decision from the Industrial
Commission.
A regional peer review committee will be established in
each health systems area to evaluate and determine the level,
quality, duration, and cost of health care services.
The Industrial Commission is authorized to order an in
junction against employers who fail to comply with the work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ers’ compensation law.
The Subcommittee of the House Committee on Labor and
Commerce was requested to continue its study of the factors
accounting for the accelerating increases in workers’ compen
sation premiums.
Washington
Under certain conditions, the State Fund can insure em
ployers as a group.
Costs of supplies and equipment are now included in the
coverage of vocational rehabilitation.
Wisconsin
Coverage was extended to State legislators on official travel
and to State legislators serving as committee members or as
members of other official bodies.
Maximum weekly benefits for permanent partial disability
were raised from $65 to $70. The death benefit payable to
parents when there are no wholly dependent survivors was in
creased to $5,000, from $2,000.
Interest was increased from 6 to 7 percent on late death
benefits payments.
It is now mandatory for the Department of Industry, Labor
and Human Relations to employ a specialist in physical, med
ical, and vocational rehabilitation.
Requests by employers for employees to submit to medical
examinations must not involve travel in excess of 100 miles
from the employee’s home.
Payments from the Work Injury Supplemental Benefit Fund
to an employee whose claim is barred by the statute of limita
tions will be supplemental to any payment under any Federal
insurance benefit program.
All workers’ compensation disability benefits will be reduced
if the employee is also receiving social security disability.
The statute of limitations for initiating a compensation ac
tion was extended from 10 to 12 years. A claim for occupa
tional deafness can not be filed until 14 days (formerly 2
months) after removal from the noisy employment.
□
--------- FOO TNOTE ---------' Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas
did not meet in 1980.
57
The A natom y of
Price Change
Two Consumer Price Index issues:
weighting and homeownership
J a n e t L. N o r w o o d
In general terms, the purpose of indexation is to adjust
Federal payments for changes in the cost of living. To
achieve this objective, an accurate index of living costs
is required. Since the Consumer Price Index is the ma
jor economic indicator designed to measure changes in
family purchasing power, it has been a natural choice as
the primary indexing mechanism. The CPI is a good
measure of the changes in purchasing power of the av
erage family represented in the index, but like any other
statistical measure, the CPI is not perfect. In recent
years, several questions concerning the methodology
used to construct the CPI have been widely discussed. It
is important that public policy decisions on indexation
reflect a full understanding of these issues.
The fixed market basket. The CPI is constructed by
obtaining the prices, each month, of a set of goods and
services purchased in the base period (currently 1972
and 1973). This market basket is based upon a survey
of consumers conducted during these years. BLS practice
has been to hold the weights for the mix of goods and
services purchased during the base period constant until
a major revision of the index occurs— about every 1012 years. The market basket is kept constant deliberate
ly in order to isolate price changes from changes which
may occur in living standards.
In recent years, as prices have continued to climb,
some people have argued that the CPI market basket
does not adequately represent current experience. They
contend that rational consumers shift their purchases in
response to changes in relative prices and suggest that
Commissioner of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood discussed the
Consumer Price Index before the Senate Appropriations Committee
on January 29. This report is drawn from her testimony.
Digitized for58
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
th e CPI m ig h t overestim ate th e co st o f m ain tain in g cur
rent livin g standards.
Historically, differences in weighting patterns have
not usually created large differences in price index mea
sures. BLS research suggests that between CPI revisions
in the past, the effect of consumption shifts on price
measurement has been no more than a tenth or so of an
index point per year. Of course, past experience on this
question may not be conclusive, especially in the most
recent years when inflation has been running at double
digit rates and large changes in certain prices (energy,
for example) have been experienced.
Another way to gain perspective on the effect of
weighting patterns on price index measurement is to ex
amine the Commerce Department’s Deflator for Person
al Consumption Expenditures, for this index is pub
lished in alternative versions with different weights. The
two most relevant versions of the PCE Deflator for 1980
differ by only 0.4 percentage points. That is, the PCE
Deflator using 1972 weights and the PCE Deflator using
1979 weights both record double-digit inflation during
1980, and give very similar measures of it— 10.9 and
10.5 percent, respectively (preliminary 1980 annual
data). Those are two price indexes that differ from each
other only in the weights.
There are many differences between the PCE Deflators
and the CPI, so comparisons of re-weighted PCE Defla
tors are only suggestive. However, the data I have seen
on this issue suggest that the effect of weighting dif
ferences on the CPI measurement is probably considera
bly less than what it has been speculated to be in some
parts of the press and academic circles.
But even if *comparison of indexes with alternative
weighting schemes indicates that use of a more current
market basket would not have had as large an impact
as some have suspected, it is important to recognize
that this result need not continue in the future. The BLS
for more than three decades has recognized the need for
a continuing consumer expenditure survey. I am pleased
that we were able to secure the resources required to
conduct such a survey and can report to you that field
collection of these data is now underway. In a few
years, w hen this survey has been fully set in place, BLS
w ill be able to m o n ito r th e degree to w h ich co n su m p -’
tion patterns are ch an gin g and to have at hand th e data
required for future revision s o f th e CPI w eigh ts.
The treatment of owner-occupied housing in the CPI. The
method for measurement of owner-occupied housing in
the index is a subject on which BLS has been working
for many years. BLS began public discussion of the issue
about 10 years ago. During the most recent revision of
the CPI, BLS staff did a series of detailed analyses of the
homeownership component and evaluated several alter
native methods of measurement.
The basic problem in designing the owner-occupied
housing component is to determine just what the index
should measure. The housing component of the official
CPI views a house both as an asset which can be resold
and as a home to live in which permits the owner to
consume housing services.
The present CPI homeownership component includes
the month-to-month changes in prices of five expendi
tures of owning a home. The weights for three of these
expenditures— property taxes, insurance, and mainte
nance and repairs— represent the average expenditures
by all people living in their own homes during the CPI
base period. Weights for two other expenditures—
house prices and contracted mortgage interest costs—
are based on the small group of families, roughly 6 per
cent of the total, who actually purchased a home in the
base period. The prices used for houses and mortgage
interest components of the index are current prices, and
these components of the index rise and fall each month
as house prices and mortgage interest rates change.
Because the weight for homeownership under this ap
proach is so large (about 23 percent of the entire index)
and because the index is so strongly affected by changes
in interest rates, a good deal of criticism of this compo
nent has been heard. To encourage public discussion,
BLS began publishing several experimental measures last
year. Each reflects a different conceptual theory from
the official index as well as alternative measurement
approaches. All of the experimental indexes would re
sult in a much smaller weight for the homeownership
component.
, The most widely discussed of these experimental al
ternatives is the “rental equivalence” (c P l-X l) index.
President Carter recommended in his FY 1982 budget
submission that Congress legislate the use of CPl-Xl for
indexation of Federal Government programs.
CPl-Xl differs from the official CPI because X l includes
as the homeownership component only the cost of con
suming the shelter services provided by a house. Unlike
the official CPI, it excludes the investment aspects of
homeownership. CPl-Xl is a rental equivalence measure,
but since a true rental equivalence sample— one made
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
up of housing units of the same types and in the same
locations as owned units— is not currently available
CPI-Xl uses the CPI rent component as the shelter mea
sure. The BLS believes that an improved rental equiva
lence index is a worthwhile objective and if resources
can be made available would like to do the testing re
quired to determine the appropriate design of a rent
sample which is more representative of the owner-occu
pied housing stock.
The CPI as an Aggregate Indexing Mechanism. The rate
of inflation can vary across households, and the average
may not represent the experience of the individual parts.
In particular, these differences among households may
be related to such characteristics as age and income lev
el. We do not know the extent of this variation or the
degree to which it is systematic. For this reason, it is
possible that use of an aggregate index for adjusting
payments could result in all households being equally
compensated for changes in living costs, whereas some
households actually gain while others lose.
Even if we assume that all households experience the
same change in average price level, it is possible that
their need for indexation will depend on what happens
to their income. The CPI measures the change in total
expenditure necessary to purchase a set of goods and
services. To the extent that the percentage of income
provided by indexed programs varies, the degree to
which households are insured against inflation by
indexation will also vary. In this case, the change in liv
ing standards as a result of inflation will depend on
how other income sources vary with inflation. Thus,
even in this very simplified case, living standards could
change substantially despite escalation of benefits by an
accurate index.
I have raised these last two issues because they relate
directly to recent suggestions that special indexes might
be designed to index payments to subgroups of the pop
ulation, such as the elderly. These issues are potentially
just as important in designing an effective indexation
program as those technical issues, like the treatment of
housing, which are important for all uses of the index.
We do not know whether an index for a particular
group of the population would produce results that are
very different from the CPI for All Urban Consumers. A
whole series of important issues would have to be clari
fied before any empirical testing could even be done.
For example, policymakers would have to determine the
exact definition of the group to be represented. And
even then, it is not sufficient to construct a new index
for a special group such as the elderly without consider
ing the complex interrelationships among the design
and accuracy of the index, the structure of the indexing
mechanism and the ultimate objective of the indexation
program.
□
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Anatomy of Price Change
Indexing Federal programs:
the CPI and other indexes
Conflicts between indexing Federal entitlement pro
grams and other policy objectives can be ameliorated
somewhat by technical changes such as adopting a dif
ferent cost-of-living index and altering the indexing ad
justment mechanism in some programs, at least during
periods of increasing inflation. Nevertheless, substantial
conflicts between indexing and other policy goals will
continue to arise in periods of rapid inflation and (or)
slow growth in productivity even after desirable techni
cal adjustments have been made. The likely continua
tion of these conflicts in the future requires a more
searching re-examination of the rationale for full index
ing of real benefits.
Choice of an index
The objective of indexing entitlement programs is to
ensure benefit increases commensurate with increases in
the cost of living. The Consumer Price Index1is typical
ly used for such purposes. However, the CPI has a num
ber of shortcomings as a measure of the cost of living.
Furthermore, as the data in table 1 indicate, the CPI has
increased more rapidly in recent years than an alterna
tive measure of consumers’ cost of living, the fixedweight, price index for personal consumption expendi
tures ( p c e ). While there is no presumption that the PCE
price index is precisely “right,” methodological prob
lems with the treatment of housing in the CPI suggest
that the PCE is on balance a better measure of the cost
of living. Furthermore, the differential behavior of the
two indexes in response to recent rising inflation calls
into question the wisdom of using the CPI as a cost-ofliving index.
The two indexes differ conceptually in a number of
ways. For example, the PCE price index counts only cur
rently produced goods while the CPI includes several im
portant used items, such as used cars. More important
is the difference in the treatment of housing; the CPI
treats housing as a purchased good, while the PCE price
index uses a rental equivalence approach. Despite these
conceptual differences, the two indexes increased at
roughly the same rate during the period of low inflation
from 1960 to 1972. As inflation rates rose, the CPI be
gan increasing more rapidly. From 1973 to 1976 the an
nual difference averaged 0.7 percentage points, and by
1979 had risen to over 2Vi percentage points. The in
This report is drawn from the Report on Indexing Federal Programs
submitted to Congress on January 15 by the Council of Economic
Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget. The 53-page re
port is for sale ($3.75) by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Digitized for60
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
crease in th e CPI has been ab ou t 10.5 percent greater
than th at o f th e PCE price in d ex during th e 1973 to
1980 period.
While these data are only suggestive, they do indicate
that the CPI may be systematically biased relative to a
“true” cost-of-living measure. Over a substantial period
of time, this would lead to a significant difference in the
level of indexed benefits. Using the CPI for indexing en
titlement programs therefore raises serious issues of eq
uity and the allocation of budgetary resources. More
over, even if over the long run the CPI yields the correct
answer “on average,” it can distort the timing of expend
iture flows and add to inflationary pressures precisely
when this is least desirable from the standpoint of stabi
lization policy.
The construction of the CPI has been the subject of
considerable scrutiny in recent years. Most attention
has been devoted to the CPI’s use of a fixed and some
what out-of-date market basket, its treatment of hous
ing and other durable goods, and its treatment of taxes.
Choice of a market basket
A true cost-of-living index would attempt to compare
the cost to the consumer of attaining a given level of
“satisfaction” in different periods, that is, under dif
ferent sets of prices. Since satisfaction cannot be meas
ured, it is necessary to approximate it with something
that can be measured. In the CPI and other fixed-weight
indexes, this is achieved by selecting a market basket of
goods and seeing how much it costs to purchase the
same basket of goods in subsequent months and years.
However, this procedure tends to overstate increases in
the cost of living and may do so significantly. This hap
pens because consumers, by purchasing less of those
goods that have become relatively more expensive and
more of those that have become relatively cheaper, can
and do achieve greater satisfaction than they would if
they spent the same amount of money on the original
basket of purchases.
To illustrate this point, imagine a consumer who ini
tially spends $2 on 1 pound of beef and 1 pound of
pork, both of which cost $1 dollar per pound. If the
price of pork then doubles but the price of beef remains
Table 1. Percent changes1in the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers and the fixed-weight Personal
Consumption Expenditures Index, 1960-80
Period
1960-1972 .....................................
1973-1976 .....................................
1977 ................................................
1978 ................................................
1979 ................................................
1 9 8 0 '................................................
1Annual rates, fourth quarter to fourth quarter.
2 Fourth quarter 1979 to third quarter 1980.
CPI-U
PCE price index
2.9
8.2
6.7
8.9
12.8
12.5
2.6
7.5
6.3
8.1
10.2
10.7
the same, the original basket of purchases would cost
$3.00 rather than $2.00. A fixed-weight index like the
CPI would register a 50 percent increase in the “cost of
living.” However, when this person consumes one
pound of beef and one pound of pork, additional
amounts of pork and beef are worth about the same to
him. (We know this because in the original period he
paid the same amount for the two meats.) Thus, al
though the consumer could spend his $3.00 on the orig
inal market basket, he could make himself even better
off by purchasing, for example, V\ pound less pork and
Vi pound more beef. That would mean that $3.00 is a
higher expenditure than would be necessary to achieve
his original level of satisfaction. In other words, this
fixed-weight price index would overstate the increase in
the consumer’s cost of living caused by the increase in
the price of pork.
An alternative choice of a market basket is the com
mon weighting procedure that uses the current period’s
expenditure weights to construct a price index. The
well-known “implicit price deflators” of the national in
come accounts, which are published by the Commerce
Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, are exam
ples of indexes that use this method of weighting. The
PCE implicit price deflator prices the current period’s
consumption both at current market prices and at baseyear prices. The ratio of actual consumption expendi
tures to the hypothetical cost of current purchases at
base period prices is the implicit price deflator for that
period. Because changes in the implicit price deflators
from one period to the next are affected by changes in
both the price and the composition of the market bas
ket, they are less useful measures of price changes than
are fixed-weight indexes.
As a measure of changes in the cost of living, the PCE
implicit price deflator has a disadvantage that is the
counterpart of that of fixed-weight indexes such as the
CPI or the PCE fixed-weight index. Just as these fixedweight indexes tend to overstate increases in the cost of
living by taking no account of the gains in satisfaction
possible through substitution, the implicit PCE deflator
tends to understate cost-of-living increases by assuming
that individuals give up no satisfaction as a result of
changing consumption patterns through substitution.
An extension of the previous example should make
this clear. Suppose that after the price of pork has dou
bled the consumer decides to purchase 2 pounds of beef
and no pork. The cost of the current period’s consump
tion ($2) is the same as it would have been at base peri
od prices, so the implicit price deflator for this con
sumer would register no increase. But the consumer is
almost certainly worse off than he was with the previ
ous set of prices. He could have afforded 2 pounds of
beef and no pork in the base period as well as in the
second period, but he chose instead to buy a pound of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
each. This suggests that the first period’s consumption
pattern was preferred to that of the second period, rath
er than equal to it, as implied by the unchanged de
flator.
Both a fixed-weight index with out-of-date weights
and an implicit deflator have shortcomings. There is an
alternative weighting procedure that is, in a sense, a
compromise between the fixed-weight index and the im
plicit deflator. This procedure uses fixed weights to
compare price levels between each two adjacent time
periods, but the weights reflect the first period’s con
sumption pattern in each case. Thus, between period
one and period two the index would be constructed us
ing the market basket for period one, between period
two and period three the market basket for period two
would be used, and so forth. Such an index, called a
“chain-weighted index,” has some attractive characteris
tics as a measure of the cost of living. Like the fixedweight index, it constructs a fixed-weight comparison of
price levels between each pair of adjacent time periods.
However, the weights change between periods to reflect
changing consumption patterns so that failure to con
sider substitution does not become a growing problem.
Unlike the case with implicit price deflators, period-toperiod changes in the index do not confound changes in
price with changes in the market basket for adjacent
time periods, though for longer time periods a similar
problem occurs as the market basket is allowed to
change. Because the chain-weighted index neither ig
nores substitution nor treats it as being costless, it is
not possible to identify a priori any bias in the chain in
dex as a measure of the cost of living.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. De
partment of Commerce calculates a chain-weighted
price index for personal consumption expenditures par
allel to its computation of the fixed-weight index and
the implicit price deflator. As table 2 indicates, the
chain-weighted index tends to show inflation higher
than the implicit deflator and lower than the fixedweight index.2 Changes in the market basket consumers
purchase are not likely to be a problem from month to
month, but over a period of years the effects may be
Table 2. Percent changes1in National Income Accounts
price measures for personal consumption expenditures,
1960-80
Period
1960-1972 .............
1973-1976 .............
1977 ........................
1978 ........................
1979 ........................
19802 ......................
Implicit
price
deflator
Chain-weighted
price
index
Fixed-weight
price
index
2.8
7.3
5.9
7.8
9.5
10.2
2.7
7.4
6.2
8.0
9.8
10.4
2.6
7.5
6.3
8.1
10.2
10.7
' Annual rates, fourth quarter to fourth quarter.
2 Fourth quarter 1979 to third quarter 1980.
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Anatomy of Price Change
substantial. This will especially be the case if the rela
tive price of an important commodity, such as gasoline
or heating oil, increases dramatically. Because the cur
rently available fixed-weight indexes (both the fixedweight PCE price index and the CPi) use a market basket
based on data from the early 1970’s— largely before the
huge run up in oil prices— this issue is of some concern.
The data in table 2 suggest that in the last 2 years a
fixed-weight index may have overstated the increase in
the cost of living by about 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points
per year. While not dramatic, this is not inconsequential
in terms of indexing entitlement programs.
There is no reason in principle why the CPI or some
variant of the CPI could not be constructed as a chainweighted index. But the CPI is a monthly index, and the
cost of revising the relevant market basket each month
would be exorbitant. A more feasible approach might
be to construct the CPI as an annual chain index, using
the fixed weights of the previous year’s market basket
for all months during each year.
A perhaps more straightforward alternative would be
simply to update the market basket on a more frequent
basis, although not yearly as in a chain index. Any such
development must await the availability of data from
the Continuing Survey of Consumer Expenditures. Prior
versions of the CPI have relied on data from surveys of
consumer expenditures about once per decade to deter
mine the base year market basket. Data for the market
basket currently used were gathered in a survey that
took place during 1972-74. The Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics has begun to collect data in a continuous survey
that will allow more frequent and regular revisions of
the market basket. Several years of data collection will
be necessary before sufficient data have been collected
to permit computation of revised expenditure weights,
although revisions more frequent than once a decade
will be possible soon thereafter.
Treatment of durables
Durable goods such as housing, automobiles, and
washing machines are purchased in one time period but
consumed over several periods. In principle, a cost-ofliving index should measure the cost in each period of a
fixed flow of services provided by these goods rather
than the cost of purchasing the durable good. For dura
bles that are rented or leased, such as rental housing or
leased cars, measurement of the cost of these services
can be made easily because the relevant prices are readi
ly observable. But for durables that are owned by indi
viduals and for which there are no market transactions,
the measurement of the cost of consumption services is
considerably more difficult. In the current version of the
CPI this issue is largely sidestepped by counting the cost
of purchase of the durable good in the market basket.
The following section examines this approach to mea
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
suring the cost of owner-occupied housing and discusses
alternative measures.
Housing in the CPI. The housing component is the most
criticized aspect of the CPI and even the Bureau of La
bor Statistics, the producer of the index, is on record as
being dissatisfied with the existing treatment of housing.
In fact, when the CPI was revised in 1977 BLS gave seri
ous consideration to changing the treatment of housing.
Table 3 compares increases in homeownership costs
in the CPI with increases in all other items. Over the
past 20 years the homeownership component has in
creased substantially more rapidly than other compo
nents of the CPI. Since the end of 1959 the homeown
ership component has risen 286 percent, compared with
a 167-percent rise for all other items and a 190-percent
rise for the CPI as a whole.
Furthermore, because it is heavily influenced by
changes in mortgage interest rates, the homeownership
component has been far more volatile than other major
components and therefore has been a major source of
volatility in the CPI. The precipitous decline in mortgage
interest rates that occurred in the middle of 1980 re
duced inflation in the homeownership component of the
CPI from a 25-percent annual rate in the first half of
1980 to 2 percent during the next four months. This re
sulted in a 6.4-percentage point reduction in the rate of
inflation as measured by the CPI, although the corre
sponding reduction for items other than the homeown
ership component was only 0.7 points.
Of course, the data in table 3 alone do not show that
the treatment of housing is flawed; in recent years ener
gy prices have also been highly volatile and have in
creased more rapidly than the CPI as a whole. However,
as discussed below, in the case of housing there are in
dependent reasons to believe that the current treatment
is inadequate and should be changed.
The homeownership component of the CPI consists of
five subcomponents, which are listed in table 4 along
with their relative importance in the index as a whole.
Homeownership is obviously quite important in the CPI,
accounting for nearly one-quarter of the index. The last
three items in table 4 are not particularly controversial;
Table 3. Percent changes1in selected components of
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,
1959-80
Period
1959-1976 .....................................
1977 ................................................
1978 ................................................
1979 ................................................
Dec. 1979-June 1980 ....................
June 1980-Oct. 1980 ......................
All
items
Homeownership
All other
items
4.1
6.8
9.0
13.3
14.8
8.4
5.0
9.2
12.4
19.8
25.3
2.0
3.9
6.1
8.0
11.3
11.4
10.7
' Annual rates, December to December unless otherwise noted.
Table 4. Relative importance of subcomponents of the
homeownership component of the Consumer Price Index,
December 1979
Subcomponent
Homeownership........................
Home purchase ...................................
Contracted mortgage interest cost . . . .
Maintenance and repairs......................
Property taxes .....................................
Property insurance...............................
All items CPI
Homeownership
component
.249
.104
.087
.036
.017
.006
1.000
.417
.347
.145
.068
.022
the problematic items are home purchase and mortgage
interest costs, which account for three quarters of total
homeownership costs.
Home purchase. As noted, the CPI treats durables as
though they are “consumed” upon purchase. Hence, the
cost of purchasing a home enters the CPI just as that of
any other item. As noted above, a cost-of-living index
should measure the cost of a fixed flow of “shelter ser
vices.” Unfortunately, however, house prices are a poor
measure of the cost of shelter because a house not only
provides shelter but also, as an asset, yields a return
like any other investment. Consequently, the movement
of house prices reflects not only the cost of shelter but
also the value of the investment. Just as the CPI ex
cludes, for example, changes in the prices of common
stock, changes in the value of a house should be distin
guished from changes in the cost of shelter; only the
latter, in principle, should be included in a measure of
the cost of living. The relevance of this issue is sug
gested by the steady decline in rent-to-value ratios dur
ing recent years as residential rents have increased
much less rapidly than house prices.
A part from this conceptual issue, there are also prob
lems of measurem ent in the home purchase component.
First, the weight for home purchase is very large. This
weight is based on the purchase price of homes bought
in the base period less the sales price of homes sold.
One reason for the large weight of housing in the index
is that the base period (1968-1973) was a fairly robust
one for housing, with strong housing construction. F u r
therm ore, the house price series used in the CPI is rather
weak. It is based on a sample of FHA-insured housing
that, as BLS states, “constitutes a small and unrepre
sentative segment of the m arket.” However, because the
criticism of the treatm ent of homeownership would ap
ply regardless of the quality of the house price series,
the problem s with the FHA series will not be addressed
here.
Mortgage interest costs. While the treatment of home
prices in the CPI is questionable, that of mortgage inter
est costs is even more troublesome. The treatment re
sults in an unreasonably large weight for mortgage
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
interest costs, which in turn magnifies the volatility of
the homeownership component.
In essence, the CPI assumes that part of the mortgage
is purchased along with the house. Those who obtain
mortgages are assumed, in effect, to make a “purchase”
equal to the sum of all interest payments that would be
due over the first half of the life of the mortgage, which
would include more than half of the interest payments.
This approach mixes investment and consumption char
acteristics of housing in a way that has little logical ap
peal. At the very least, this treatment of mortgages
seems to involve substantial overcounting. It should be
noted that this treatment is not accorded all durable
goods; for an appliance purchased on credit, no atten
tion is paid to the contracted interest cost.
The net effect of all this is that the CPI treatment sub
stantially overstates the importance of homeownership.
Homeownership currently accounts for about one-quar
ter of the CPI, nearly five times the importance of the
residential rent component. This alone suggests a prob
lem, because only about two-thirds of dwelling units are
owner-occupied. Further evidence is provided by the
fact that, in the national income accounts, homeown
ership is only about 2 Vi times as important as rental
housing, far below the factor of 5 in the CPI. In view of
the marked volatility of homeownership, its large
weight in the CPI has unfortunate consequences.
Alternative treatments of housing. The problems with the
present treatment of housing in the CPI have been recog
nized since the Stigler Commission Report on Price Sta
tistics in 1961. Thus, it is hardly surprising that BLS has
sought alternative measures. Two leading alternatives—
user cost and rental equivalence— have emerged from
the BLS analysis. Both these alternatives attempt to
measure what a homeowner would have to pay to ac
quire the shelter provided by the home he owns.
The user cost approach builds up the cost of shelter
services from its components. In effect, homeowners
must “pay” mortgage interest on the funds they have
borrowed, implicit interest on the original equity in the
house (an opportunity cost since these funds could have
been invested elsewhere), property taxes and insurance,
and maintenance and repairs. To obtain an indirect
measure of the shelter cost one would subtract from
these expenditures two offsets: capital gains (or losses),
net of depreciation, and savings on personal income tax
es due to the favorable tax treatment of owner-occupied
housing.
Besides the issue of taxes, there are two serious prob
lems in the construction of a user cost measure of
homeownership costs. First, it is not clear what interest
rate is appropriate for the calculation of the interest
forgone on home equity. The second difficulty concerns
the volatility of available measures of capital gains or
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Anatomy of Price Change
losses. This makes the user cost measure of the
homeownership component quite volatile, at least in the
experimental measures constructed by BLS. Thus, from
a practical point of view, the user cost approach does
not appear to lead to a useful alternative to the CPI.
There is, however, a conceptually related approach,
rental equivalence, that circumvents the most glaring
operational difficulties with user cost. The rental equiva
lence approach uses actual market data on rental trans
actions to estimate the implicit rent on owner-occupied
houses. Rental equivalence assumes that the implicit
“price” of the shelter services from an owned home can
be approximated by actual rents paid for a similar
house that is rented. BLS now publishes an experimental
CPI measure (X -l) based on this approach.
The rental equivalence approach is not without its
own practical shortcomings. To provide a good proxy
for the implicit rental cost of owned homes it is desir
able to have a sample of rental housing that reflects, as
closely as possible, the characteristics of owner-occupied
housing with respect to, for example, size of house and
the number and types of rooms. Critics of the rental
equivalence approach suggest that this matching may be
difficult to achieve, not so much because of house sizes
but because of more intangible characteristics such as
neighborhood quality. A related point is that market
rents may reflect costs that are irrelevant for owner-oc
cupied housing, such as a risk premium to compensate
landlords for possible mistreatment of property or the
average costs of turnover.
Although these are valid points in principle, they do
not invalidate the rental equivalence approach. Even if
many intangible characteristics remain unquantifiable,
this need not bias a rental index. Indeed, many of the
objections pertain to differences in rental levels between
different types of housing rather than rates of increase.
Furthermore, even if a fully representative rent sample
is not available, there are statistical techniques that may
be used to correct for the fact that owner-occupied
houses differ from rented houses.
Table 5 presents the movement of four homeowner
ship indexes: the current homeownership component in
the CPI, two experimental user cost indexes (X-2 and
X-3), and an experimental rental equivalence measure
(X-l). In table 5 the volatility of X-2 and X-3 is readily
apparent; they are even more volatile than the current
homeownership component. X -l, the rental equivalence
measure, displays substantially less volatility than either
the user cost or the current treatment of housing costs.
Table 6 presents measures of overall consum er price
inflation obtained by the use of the X -l homeownership
com ponent in com parison with the conventional CPI
and the PCE fixed-weight deflator. Table 6 shows the
CPI:X-1 has increased since 1966 at a substantially
slower rate than the conventional CPI. Second, the
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5. Percent changes1in alternative measurements
of homeownership
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................
..........................
...........................
...........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
CPI-U
component
Rental
equivalence
(X -1)
User
cost (X -2)
7.6
10.2
10.2
2.7
4.1
7.7
13.3
7.9
3.8
9.2
12.4
19.8
2.8
3.8
4.5
3.8
3.5
4.9
5.4
5.2
5.5
6.5
7.3
7.9
11.0
7.1
4.2
-12.1
2.4
23.0
16.9
2.8
-1.1
2.5
5.7
28.2
User
cost (X -3)
8.0
3.5
1.7
-8.9
3.2
18.9
12.9
3.4
1.9
0.4
-1.1
20.5
112 months ended in December.
CPI:X-1 and the PCE fixed-weight deflator give quite
similar results. (Given that the deflator uses the BLS rent
index, this similarity is perhaps not surprising.)
While the CPI based on X -l is a considerable im
provement over the current treatment of homeowner
ship costs, further refinements of the rental equivalence
approach could be undertaken. As now constructed, the
experimental X -l index is based on the CPI rent index
that measures actual rental costs for a typical rental
dwelling. That is, no correction is made for differences
in the characteristics of rented and owned dwellings— a
correction that is desirable in principle. The BLS staff
has done some research on this topic suggesting that
such an approach should eventually prove practicable.
Our review of this research suggests that the approach
used in X -l currently provides a representative cost-ofliving index. Hence, even as presently constituted, the
CPI based upon X -l offers a serviceable measure of the
cost of living.
Alternatives
At present, there are three main options for indexing
entitlement programs: the current CPI; one of the Per
sonal Consumption Expenditure price indexes from the
Table 6. Percent changes1in Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers, the same index with
homeownership component based upon rental
equivalence (X-1), and the Personal Consumption
Expenditures fixed-weight index, 1960-80
[In percent]
Period
1960-72 ...............
1973-76 ...............
1977 ......................
1978 ......................
1979 ......................
19802 ....................
CPI-U
CPI-U based
on X-1
PCE
fixed-weight
price Index
2.9
8.2
6.7
8.9
12.8
12.5
2.6
7.7
6.4
7.8
10.7
10.9
2.6
7.5
6.3
8.1
10.2
10.7
1Annual rates, fourth quarter to fourth quarter.
2 Fourth quarter 1979 to third quarter 1980.
National Income Accounts; or a modified version of the
which incorporates one of the alternative measures
of shelter costs.
The advantages of continuing to use the current CPI is
that it is very well known, has achieved a high level of
public acceptance, and is extensively used for private
contracts. However, the CPI has very serious shortcom
ings as a measure of the cost of living.
It would be possible to adopt one of the Personal
Consumption Expenditure price indexes for indexing en
titlement programs. It might be most acceptable to use
the fixed-weight or chain-weighted price index because
the Implicit Price Deflator tends to understate increases
in the cost of living. However, the consumption expen
diture indexes have several important drawbacks. First,
they were not designed to measure the cost of living or
even consumer prices, but rather to measure the cost of
The final alternative is to use a cost-of-living index
obtained by modifying the CPI to change the inappropri
ate treatment of housing. This would eliminate the ma
jor problem with the current CPI — its treatment of
housing— and would provide a sounder basis for index
ing entitlement programs. Over the longer run, further
improvements could be made. For example, when the
continuing Survey of Consumer Expenditures becomes
available, it would be possible to update the market
basket of this cost-of-living index on a more timely ba
sis. In short, the CPI based on X -l offers an index with
significant immediate advantages over the current CPI as
well as a framework for incorporating further improve
ments in measuring the cost of living.
□
' In this report, CPI refers to the Consumer Price Index for All Ur
ban Consumers (CPI-U), which covers approximately 80 percent of
urban consumers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W). It covers about 40 percent of urban consumers.
Because 1972 is the base year used, the fixed-weight index rises
less rapidly than the Implicit Price Deflator prior to 1972 and more
rapidly after 1972. In all periods, the increase in the chain-weighted
index is between those of the fixed-weight index and the Implicit Price
Deflator.
CPI
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
current p rod u ction for co n su m p tio n . In ad d ition , the
w eigh ts for th e fixed -w eigh t in d ex are ju st as ou td ated
as the CPI’s w eigh ts.
65
Productivity
Reports
Long nonfarm productivity slide
ends during the third quarter
The following tabulation shows the third-quarter
annualized rates of change in productivity, output, and
hours paid for by major sector.2
Sector
L a w r e n c e J. F u lco
Productivity advanced in the private business and non
farm business sectors in the third quarter of 1980.
These gains were immediately reflected in slower growth
of unit labor costs, which are important cost items to
most employers. Manufacturing productivity continued
to slip in the third quarter, although the declines in out
put and hours were much smaller than those during the
second quarter.
In the private business sector, productivity increased
1.5 percent in the third quarter. The third-quarter in
crease reflected a 1.1-percent increase in output and a
0.4-percent decline in hours of all persons. One quarter
earlier, productivity declined 1.9 percent as output fell
at a 11.5-percent annual rate, equaling the most severe
single-quarter output decline in the series, which oc
curred in the first quarter of 1975.
In the nonfarm business sector, productivity in
creased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with
a 3.0-percent decline one quarter earlier. This was the
largest gain in more than 3 years. In this sector, the pe
riod of no productivity growth began in the second
quarter of 1978*.
In the nonfinancial corporate sector, productivity ad
vanced 6.8 percent in the third quarter, as output in
creased at a 3.4-percent annual rate, while employeehours declined 3.2 percent. This substantial productivity
increase was the largest in 5 years.
In manufacturing, productivity declined 0.7 percent
in the third quarter, reflecting the drop in durable
goods. Nondurable productivity increased in the third
quarter. In the sector as a whole, output dropped 7.3
percent and hours of all persons declined 6.6 percent.
This was the fourth consecutive quarter of falling out
put and hours in manufacturing.
Lawrence J. Fulco is an economist in the Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Digitized for 66
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Private business.................
Nonfarm business ............
Nonfinancial corporations .
Manufacturing .................
Durables ...........................
Nondurables......................
Productivity
1.5
3.7
6.8
-0 .7
-3 .4
2.9
Output
Hours
1.1
2.9
3.4
-7 .3
-1 0 .9
-1 .9
-0 .4
- 0 .9
-3 .2
-6 .6
-7 .8
-4 .7
Compensation, labor cost, and profits
Hourly compensation rose 9.7 percent in the private
business sector in the third quarter of 1980, compared
with a 12.2-percent increase during the second quarter.
Compensation costs include wages and salaries as well
as fringe benefits—paid leave and health plans, and
employer-paid taxes—unemployment insurance, and
social security.
Because productivity rose somewhat in the third
quarter, the increase in unit labor cost was smaller than
the gain in hourly compensation in the private business
sector. The 8.1-percent gain in unit labor cost was sub
stantially smaller than the 14.4-percent rise which oc
curred in the second quarter when productivity de
clined.
During the 8-quarter period of no productivity
growth which was interrupted by the third quarter
gains in the nonfarm business sector, unit labor cost in
creased 22.9 percent. The increase reflected a 20.4-per
cent gain in hourly compensation coupled with a
2.0-percent decline in output per hour over the span.
Real hourly compensation—compensation per hour
adjusted by the seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price In
dex for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)—increased 2.4
percent in the private business sector in the third
quarter, the first increase in this series since the first
quarter of 1979.
In the nonfarm business sector, hourly compensation
increased 9.2 percent in the third quarter, and unit la
bor cost rose 5.3 percent. One quarter earlier, the gains
were 11.2 percent for hourly compensation and 14.6
percent for unit labor cost. Real hourly compensation
increased 2.0 percent, after showing no growth during
preceding 9 quarters.
Table 1. Components of the implicit price deflator for
nonfinancial corporations, 1967-79
[Indexes, 1977=100]
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Implicit
Price
Deflator
Unit
Labor
Cost
Unit
Nonlabor
Payments
Unit
Nonlabor
Cost
Unit
Profit
59.2
61.1
63.7
66.5
68.8
70.7
73.4
81.8
90.7
95.0
100.0
106.4
114.8
58.2
60.4
64.2
68.3
69.4
71.3
74.9
85.1
90.6
95.0
100.0
107.8
118.2
61.0
62.6
62.8
63.1
67.8
69.6
70.7
75.7
90.9
95.0
100.0
103.8
108.3
51.9
54.3
59.0
66.7
70.2
70.5
71.9
84.7
96.8
97.0
100.0
104.1
112.7
80.2
80.0
70.7
55.6
62.7
67.8
68.0
56.8
78.4
91.0
100.0
103.0
99.0
Hourly compensation in manufacturing increased
12.7 percent in the third quarter (5.2 percent after ad
justing for the rise in the CPl-u) and unit labor cost
went up 13.6 percent. One quarter earlier, these costs
rose 20.5 percent.
Hourly compensation outlays in nonfinancial corpora
tion increased 10.3 percent in the third quarter, and
unit labor cost rose 3.2 percent (annual rates). One
quarter earlier, hourly compensation increased 12.0 per
cent and unit labor cost rose 12.6 percent. Real hourly
compensation increased 3.0 percent in the third quarter.
Profits of nonfinancial corporations increased at a
34.7-percent annual rate in the third quarter, and profit
Table 2. Trends in hours in the private business sector,
third quarter 1980
Worker category
Percent
change
in hours
Category
Contribution
share
to trend
of hours
T o ta l.....................................................
-0.41
1.000
-0.41
Manufacturing .................................................
Durable .......................................................
Nondurable...................................................
Transportation, communication, and public
utilities .....................................................
Transportation ............................................
Communications..........................................
Public utilities ..............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ...............
Services ............. « . .......................................
Mining ..............................................................
Construction.....................................................
Wholesale tra d e ..............................................
Retail trade .....................................................
Farm employees ............................................
Farm unpaid family workers ..........................
Farm proprietors..............................................
Nonfarm proprietors ........................................
Nonfarm unpaid family w o rke rs ......................
Government enterprises .................................
-7.24
-9.07
-4.37
0.275
0.167
0.108
-1.99
-1.51
-0.47
-2.33
-7.01
1.84
7.60
2.56
4.59
-7.83
-4.64
-1.70
1.60
-5.42
37.49
16.50
9.36
6.74
-0.30
0.070
0.040
0.018
0.012
0.064
0.127
0.015
0.056
0.069
0.157
0.014
0.004
0.024
0.098
0.005
0.022
-0.16
-0.28
0.03
0.09
0.16
0.58
-0.12
-0.26
-0.12
0.25
-0.07
0.14
0.39
0.91
0.03
-0.01
-0.17
1A measure of how much of the total private business change results from the joint effect
of individual worker category movements.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
per unit of output rose 30.3 percent. Both profit series
had shown declines in each quarter of 1979. Unit profits
are quite volatile, but are only about 12 percent as large
as unit labor cost. Since 1967, profits have grown 76
percent (unit profits went up 11 percent) while compen
sation outlays increased more than three and one-half
times and unit labor cost increased 123 percent.
The implicit price deflator is influenced by changes in
unit labor cost, unit nonlabor payments, and unit pro
fits. Table 1 shows how these measures have interacted
to determine the change in prices in the nonfinancial
corporations since 1967. E>uring the third quarter of
1980, the deflator for the nonfinancial corporate sector
advanced 7.9 percent, compared with a 10.5-percent rise
during the second quarter.
Employment and hours
Hours paid for of all persons in the private business
sector declined 0.4 percent in the third quarter, re
flecting a 0.3-percent decline in employment and a 0.1percent reduction in the length of the average
workweek. This was the second consecutive drop in
employment, but the second-quarter drop was much
larger—5.4 percent. As can be seen in table 2, the largest
contribution to the decline in hours occurred in the
manufacturing sector, which accounts for 28 percent of
the private business sector.
In the nonfarm business sector, hours declined 0.9
percent in the third quarter, compared with a 9.4-per
cent decline during the second quarter. Employment
was down 0.4 percent, and average weekly hours off 0.5
percent. Nonfarm business employment stands at 76.8
million and 2.8 million others are engaged in the farm
sector.
In manufacturing, hours declined 6.6 percent in the
third quarter, compared with a 17.6-percent drop dur
ing the second quarter. Employment was off 6.6 percent
— to about 20.3 million— and average weekly hours in
creased 0.1 percent.
About 53.9 million employees work for nonfinancial
corporations. During the third quarter of 1980, hours
paid for of these employees declined at a 3.2-percent an
nual rate, reflecting a 2.7-percent decline in employment
and a 0.6-percent drop in average weekly hours.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES ---------1The longest period of declining productivity in the private business
sector began in the second quarter of 1973. Productivity growth re
sumed in the first quarter of 1975, 7 quarters later.
2More complete information may be found in tables 3 1 -3 4 of the
Current Labor Statistics section.
67
Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
Absences from work
among full-time employees
D
a n ie l
E. T a y l o r
American workers with full-time wage and salary jobs
lost about 95 million hours a week in May 1979 as a re
sult of illnesses, injuries, and miscellaneous personal
reasons. About one employee in 15 reported at least one
absence during the week; the total hours lost represent
ed about 3.4 percent of the hours usually worked.
In recent years, the overall level of absence has
shown no trend. (See table 1.) The percent of time lost
(inactivity rate) fluctuated narrowly between 3.3 and 3.5
percent from 1973 to 1979, while the percent of workers
absent (incidence rate) moved between 6.1 and 6.7 per
cent.' Both measures registered their lowest levels dur
ing the recession of 1974-75.
The data series reported here are based on in
formation collected once a year in May from the
Current Population Survey ( c p s ), a national sample sur
vey consisting of 56,000 households in 1979.2 Absences
are classified into two categories: those resulting from
workers’ illnesses or injuries and those resulting from
various personal reasons, including the sickness or
death of family members, civic or legal obligations
(such as jury duty and military reserve service), and
transportation problems. Absences resulting from vaca
tions, holidays, industrial disputes, or weather condi
tions are excluded. The universe consists of nonfarm
wage and salary workers who hold one job and usually
work full time (35 hours or more per week).3 Absence
rates are shown for men and women, by marital status
and by race, as well as by occupation, industry, and
union coverage.
Industry and occupation
Time lost from work was a substantially higher pro
portion of usual worktime in the goods-producing secDaniel E. Taylor is an economist in the Office of Current Employ
ment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Digitized for68
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tor than in the service-producing sector (3.9 versus 3.2
percent of the usual hours worked in May 1979). This
was largely because of a relatively high rate of absence
in manufacturing, which makes up more than threefourths of the goods-producing sector. (See table 2.)
Absences were even higher in mining, but this had
little effect on rates for the entire goods-producing sec
tor, as the number of mining workers is relatively small.
The proportion of time lost in the construction industry
was no higher than the average for all industries. With
in the service-producing sector, the proportion of time
lost differed widely by industry.
Absences of factory operatives resulting from illnesses
and injuries (shown in table 3) were a major factor in
the relatively high proportion of time lost in manufac
turing. Similarly, high rates for transportation equip
ment operatives and low rates for sales workers affected
rates in transportation and trade industries in which
these workers represented an important segment of the
workforce.4
Personal characteristics
Women lost 4.3 percent of their usual weekly hours
in May 1979; men lost 3.0 percent. The rates of inci
dence were 8.6 for women and 5.5 percent for men. Ab
sence rates by sex vary with age and family status. The
male-female difference in inactivity rates, for example, is
higher for persons age 25 to 44 years than for those in
their twenties, probably, in part, because family respon
sibilities increase absences for women, but not for men.
Rates tended to be higher for older workers of both
sexes, reflecting an increase in health-related problems.
Time lost by blacks tended to be higher than for
whites (5.2 percent versus 3.2 percent).5 Although nu
merous factors are involved, the differences are attribut
able, in part, to the greater concentration of blacks in
occupations which are characterized by high levels of
absence. Seven of 10 white workers, compared with 5 of
10 black workers, were in occupations with absence
rates below the average. The following tabulation shows
the proportion of time lost by race, sex, and marital
status in May 1979.
Table 1.
Rate of absence for nonfarm wage and salary workers who usually work full time, by reason, May 1973-79
[Numbers in thousands]
Number of workers
Inactivity rate
(Percent of time lost)
Incidence rate
(Percent of workers absent)
Hours
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
N ote :
Employed
Absent
Usually
worked
Lost
Total
Illness and
injury
Miscellaneous
reasons
Total
Illness and
injury
Miscellaneous
reasons
55,283
56,248
54,700
56,414
58,422
60,153
64,810
3,614
3,499
3,332
3,630
3,802
3,966
4,336
2,344,970
2,382,300
2,303,410
2,374,910
2,473,740
2,549,220
2,745,060
81,549
79,706
78,873
82,222
87,487
89,888
94,641
6.5
6.2
6.1
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
4.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.1
3.9
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.8
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
Because of rounding, individual items may not equal totals.
Table 2. Inactivity rate (percent of time lost) for nonfarm wage and salary workers who usually' work full time, by selected
industries, May 1979 and average May 1977-79
[Numbers in thousands]
Total
Illness anil injury
Miscellaneous reasons
Number of
workers
May 1979
1979
Average
1977 - 79
1979
Average
1977 - 79
1979
Average
1977 - 79
All industries1 .............................................................................................
Goods-producing industries1 ..................................................................................
M ining.................................................................................................................
Construction ......................................................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................................................
Durable goods1 .............................................................................................
Metal manufacturing ..................................................................................
Machines, except electrical .......................................................................
Transportation equipment .........................................................................
Nondurable goods1 ......................................................................................
Food ..........................................................................................................
Apparel ......................................................................................................
Printing........................................................................................................
Chemicals .................................................................................................
64,810
24,364
757
4,230
19,073
11,789
2,395
2,338
2,148
7,284
1,475
1,161
1,032
1,079
3.4
3.9
6.7
3.2
3.9
3.8
4.3
3.2
5.5
4.1
3.8
6.1
2.8
4.2
3.5
4.0
5.7
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.4
3.8
5.0
4.0
3.7
5.4
2.7
3.7
2.2
2.7
2.1
2.1
2.8
2.9
3.3
2.3
4.3
2.7
2.3
4.4
1.9
2.7
2.3
2.8
1.9
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.4
2.8
3.8
2.9
2.5
3.9
2.0
2.6
1.2
1.2
4.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
.9
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
.9
1.5
1.2
1.2
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.5
.7
1.1
Service-producing industries ' ...............................................................................
Transportation and public utilities.......................................................................
Transportation ...............................................................................................
Public utilities.................................................................................................
Trade .................................................................................................................
Wholesale ......................................................................................................
Retail..............................................................................................................
Eatng ........................................................................................................
O th e r..........................................................................................................
Finance, Insurance, and real estate ' ................................................................
Banking..........................................................................................................
Insurance........................................................................................................
Services ’ ..........................................................................................................
Business ........................................................................................................
Personal ........................................................................................................
Professional1 .................................................................................................
Medical ......................................................................................................
Educational.................................................................................................
Public administration..........................................................................................
Feaeral ..........................................................................................................
Postal ........................................................................................................
Other Federal.............................................................................................
S ta te ..............................................................................................................
L o ca l..............................................................................................................
40,447
4,996
2,658
2,339
10,951
3,028
7,923
1,685
6,238
4,057
1,771
1,394
16,111
1,320
1,398
12,240
4,499
5,243
4,232
2,000
572
1,428
751
1,481
3.2
4.0
5.5
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.5
3.6
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.3
2.3
3.4
3.4
4.3
3.1
4.1
4.4
4.0
4.5
4.8
3.4
3.2
4.3
5.3
3.0
2.6
2.3
2.8
3.7
2.6
2.7
2.3
3.2
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.3
4.2
2.9
3.5
3.6
4.3
3.2
3.6
3.3
2.0
2.3
2.9
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.6
1.8
2.4
2.4
3.1
2.2
2.8
2.1
2.0
2.6
3.1
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.3
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.8
1.7
2.3
2.3
3.6
1.8
2.4
2.2
1.2
1.7
2.5
.7
.8
.6
.8
1.5
.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.9
.9
2.3
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.6
2.2
.9
.9
.7
1.0
1.4
.9
1.3
.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.3
.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
Industry
’Total includes industries not shown separately.
N ote :
Total
Married,
spouse
present
Never
married
3.0
4.3
3.0
4.5
3.0
3.4
2.8
4.0
2.9
4.3
2.8
3.0
4.6
6.0
4.3
6.3
5.0
6.3
Total:
Men ............
Women . . . .
White:
Men ............
Women . . . .
Black:
Men ............
Women . . . .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Because of rounding, Individual items may not equal totals
As noted earlier, white women who were married had
higher absence rates than never-married women. In con
trast, rates among black women were the same for mar
ried and never-married women. This, in part, may be
because single black womein are more likely than their
white counterparts to have child-care responsibilities.6
Union status
Workers represented by unions generally reported
higher absences resulting from illnesses and injuries (but
not for miscellaneous personal reasons) than other
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries
Table 3. Inactivity rate (percent of time lost) for nonfarm wage and salary workers who usually work full time, by selected
occupations, May 1979 and average May 1977-79
[Numbers in thousands]
Occupation
All occupations ’ ........................................................................................
Professional and technical ’ ..................................................................................
Engineers ..........................................................................................................
Health workers .................................................................................................
Teachers............................................................................................................
Managers and administrators ...............................................................................
Saies workers ’ ......................................................................................................
W holesale..........................................................................................................
Retail .................................................................................................................
Clerical' .................................................................................................................
Bookkeeper ........................................................................................................
Secretary ..........................................................................................................
Craft and kindred workers1 ..................................................................................
Construction ......................................................................................................
Mechanics..........................................................................................................
Operatives, except transport1 ...............................................................................
Assemblers........................................................................................................
Welders ............................................................................................................
Transport equipment operatives1 .........................................................................
Truck d rive rs......................................................................................................
Nonfarm laborers...................................................................................................
Service workers1 ...................................................................................................
Cleaning ............................................................................................................
F o o d ...................................................................................................................
Protective ..........................................................................................................
Number of
workers
May 1979
64,810
10,886
1,323
1,646
2,767
7,515
3,182
703
1,280
12,124
1,100
2,886
10,033
2,711
2,755
9,003
1,175
660
2,697
1,595
3,103
6,266
1,524
1,717
1,023
’ Total includes occupations not shown separately.
Total (in percent)
Manufacturing
Trade
1979
Average
1977 - 79
3.4
2.5
2.3
2.9
3.1
1.9
2.3
.8
2.7
3.3
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.7
5.4
5.0
4.3
3.9
3.8
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.8
3.8
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
2.7
2.0
2.7
1.2
3.2
3.3
2.5
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.1
5.7
5.7
4.7
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.8
4.4
3.4
N ote :
workers. However, in some industry groups, nonunion
members lost about the same or larger proportions of
time because of illnesses and injuries than workers rep
resented by unions for May 1979, as shown in the fol
lowing tabulation:
Union
Nonunion
3.0
3.9
3.1
1.8
2.1
1.5
Illness and injury
Total
Miscellaneous reasons
1979
Average
1977 - 79
1979
Average
1977-79
2.2
1.3
.7
1.7
1.5
1.0
1.4
.5
2.2
2.2
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.0
3.7
3.9
3.7
2.3
2.4
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.0
2.8
2.3
1.4
1.3
2.2
1.3
1.2
1.7
.9
2.3
2.1
1.2
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.2
4.0
4.2
3.5
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.5
2.8
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.6
.9
.9
.4
.6
1.1
1.5
.9
.9
1.0
.7
1.8
1.1
.7
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
.8
1.0
.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.2
.9
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.6
.5
Because of rounding, individual items may not equal totals.
Finance, insurance, real estate
Educational services
Medical services
Federal public administration
.7
1.7
3.8
3.2
1.4
2.0
2.2
1.8
The generally higher rate of absence for workers repre
sented by a union may result in part from differences in
occupational mix as well as a higher proportion of the
union group being eligible for paid sick leave.
□
FOOTNOTES
The inactivity rate is defined as
Number of hours absent
Number of hours usually worked
X 100.
For example, the overall inactivity rate in May 1979 was calculated as
than the increase for all wage and salary workers on full-time sched
ules, and resulted from a repositioning of the question on usual hours
that reduced the nonresponse rate and from the allocation of certain
remaining nonresponses. The larger universe probably had a minimal
effect on rates of absence.
4 For a description of some of the environmental and personal fac
tors influencing absence and some company programs designed to re
duce absence from work, see Reducing Worker Absenteeism, pro
ceedings of a University of Michigan Workshop sponsored by the
The incidence rate is defined as
Graduate School of Business Administration and the Industrial De
Number of workers absent
velopment Division, Institute of Science and Technology, The Univer
X 100.
sity of Michigan, 1979.
Total employed
5Black workers lose more time and are absent more frequently than
For example, the overall incidence rate in May 1979 was calculated as
white workers, particularly for illnesses and injuries. In May of 1979,
the only year for which absence data are available by race, the inci
4,336,000 absent workers
X 100 = 6.7 percent.
dence rate for blacks was 9.6 percent versus 6.3 percent for whites
64,810,000 workers employed
(for illnesses and injuries the figures were 6.0 for blacks and 3.6 per
: The CPS is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the
cent for whites). These data seem to contradict other findings that
Bureau of the Census. Data derived from the survey underestimate
nonwhite workers are absent less frequently than white workers. See
Steven G. Allen, Absenteeism and the Labor Market, prepared under a
absences of workers on full-time schedules because information on ab
sence is available only for those who were at work fewer than 35
grant from the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. De
partment of Labor, p. 168.
hours. No information is available for workers on part-time schedules.
6Unpublished Bureau of Labor Statistics data on the marital and
3
The universe in the year en Jed May 1979 grew from 60.2 million
family status of workers, March 1980.
to 64.8 million or nearly 8 percent. This was substantially greater
94,641,000 hours
2,745,060,000
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
X 100 = 3.4 percent.
hours
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in April is based on contracts on file in the Bu
reau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers
or more.
E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a t i o n
U n io n 1
In d u stry
N um ber of
w orkers
.........................................
2 ,7 5 0
2 ,5 0 0
3 ,8 5 0
1,100
7 ,0 0 0
3 0 ,2 0 0
T e x tile s ................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
L a b o r e r s ................................................................
O p e r a tin g E n g i n e e r s ......................................
L a b o r e r s ................................................................
O p e r a tin g E n g in e e rs a n d L a b o r e r s . . .
O p e r a tin g E n g in e e rs ; B ric k la y e rs ;
P la s te re rs a n d C e m e n t M a s o n s;
C a r p e n te r s ; L a b o re rs ; a n d I r o n
W o rk e rs
T e x tile W o rk e rs U n i o n ................................
C a r p e n te r s .........................................................
B e rg e n -P a s s a ic B u ild in g C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n (N e w J e rs e y ) ......................
B o ise C a s c a d e C o r p . ( I n te rn a tio n a l F a lls , M in n .) ...................................................
B u c k e y e I n te r n a tio n a l, I n c ., B u c k e y e S tee l C a s tin g C o . D iv is io n
( C o lu m b u s , O h io )
B u ild e rs E x c h a n g e o f R o c h e s te r (N e w Y o r k ) ............................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
P a p e r ......................................................
P r im a r y m e ta ls ................................
C a r p e n te r s .........................................................
W o o d w o r k e r s ...................................................
S te e lw o rk e rs ......................................................
1,200
1,100
1,600
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
L a b o r e r s ................................................................
1,800
C a r r ie r C o r p ., B D P C o . D iv is io n (I n d ia n a p o lis , I n d . ) .............................................
C o lo r a d o B u ild in g C o n s tr u c tio n , I n d e p e n d e n t E m p lo y e rs ( C o lo r a d o ) 2 . . .
C o n s tr u c tio n C o n tr a c to r s C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 A g re e m e n ts ( M a r y la n d , D .C .,
a n d V irg in ia )
C o n s tr u c tio n I n d u s tr ie s o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s ......................................................................
C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f E a s te r n P e n n s y lv a n ia , 4 A g r e e m e n t s ...................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
S te e lw o rk e rs ......................................................
C a r p e n te r s .........................................................
L a b o r e r s ................................................................
1,000
1,600
10,500
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
1,000
6 ,4 0 0
C o n tr a c to r s o f E a s te r n P e n n s y lv a n ia a n d D e la w a r e 2 ............................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
O p e r a tin g E n g i n e e r s ......................................
P la s te r e r s a n d C e m e n t M a s o n s;
L a b o re rs ; C a r p e n te r s a n d T e a m s te rs
( In d .)
O p e r a tin g E n g i n e e r s ......................................
D a n ly M a c h in e C o r p . (C ic e ro , 111.) ..............................................................
D a y & Z im m e r m a n , I n c ., L o n e S ta r D iv is io n (T e x a r k a n a , T e x .) ...................
M a c h in e ry .........................................
O r d n a n c e ............................................
S te e lw o rk e rs ......................................................
C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs .........................................
1,400
1,050
E . I. d u P o n t d e N e m o u r s a n d C o ., T e x tile F ib e rs D e p a r tm e n t
(W a y n e s b o ro , V a .)
C h e m i c a l s ............................................
U n ite d W o rk e rs , In c . ( I n d . ) ......................
1,500
F e d d e r s C o r p ., N o r g e C o . D iv is io n ( H e r r in , 111.) ...................................................
F o o d F a ir S to re s , In c . o f M ia m i ( F lo r id a ) ...................................................................
F o o d to w n S u p e r m a r k e ts (N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y ) .........................................
F o u n d a tio n - M a r in e C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f N e w E n g la n d , In c.
( I n te r s t a te ) ..................................................................................................................................
E le c tric a l p r o d u c t s .........................
R e ta il tr a d e ......................................
R e ta il tr a d e ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
M a c h in is ts .........................................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o r k e r s .............
F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o r k e r s .............
O p e r a tin g E n g i n e e r s ......................................
1,200
1,500
3 ,000
1,000
G e n e ra l B u ild in g C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n (P h ila d e lp h ia , P a .) ..........................
G e n e ra l D y n a m ic s , C o n v a ir D iv is io n ( C a lifo rn ia a n d F l o r i d a ) .........................
G e n e ra l P o r tla n d , In c . ( I n te r s t a te ) ..................................................................................
G e n e ra l P u b lic U tilitie s C o r p ., M e tr o p o lita n E d is o n C o . ( P e n n s y lv a n ia ) . .
G r a n d U n io n C o ., W e s te rn D iv is io n (N e w J e r s e y ) ...................................................
G r a p h ic A r ts A s s o c ia tio n ( D is tr ic t o f C o l u m b i a ) ......................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
O r d n a n c e ............................................
S to n e , c la y , a n d g la ss p r o d u c ts
U tilitie s ................................................
R e ta il tr a d e ......................................
P r in tin g a n d p u b lis h in g .............
L a b o r e r s ................................................................
M a c h in is ts .........................................................
C e m e n t W o rk e rs ............................................
E le c tric a l W o rk e rs (IB E W ) ......................
F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o r k e r s .............
G r a p h ic A r t s ......................................................
8 ,0 0 0
3 ,5 0 0
1,000
1,600
1,850
1,800
Id e a l B asic I n d u s tr ie s , In c . ( I n te r s t a te ) .........................................................................
I n d u s tr ia l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f B a to n R o u g e a n d V ic in ity , In c .
( L o u is ia n a )
S to n e , c la y , a n d g la ss p r o d u c ts
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C e m e n t W o rk e rs .............................................
P lu m b e r s ............................................................
1,750
5 ,0 0 0
J e ffb o a t, In c . (Je ffe rs o n v ille , I n d . ) ......................................................................................
T r a n s p o r t a tio n e q u ip m e n t . . . .
T e a m s te r s ( I n d .)
1,250
L a d ie s H a n d b a g s & L e a th e r N o v e ltie s (N e w Y o r k , N .Y .) 2 ................................
L u m b e r & M ill E m p lo y e rs A s s o c ia tio n ( C a l i f o r n i a ) ................................................
L e a th e r ................................................
L u m b e r ................................................
L e a th e r , P la s tic a n d N o v e lty W o rk e rs .
C a r p e n te r s .........................................................
3 ,0 0 0
3 ,0 0 0
M e c h a n ic a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f C e n tr a l P e n n s y lv a n ia .........................
M e c h a n ic a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f E a s te r n P e n n s y lv a n ia , 2 A g re e m e n ts
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
P lu m b e r s
P lu m b e r s
1,000
4 ,2 0 0
H e a lth se rv ic e s
A ffilia te d H o s p ita ls o f S an F r a n c is c o (C a lifo rn ia ) ...................................................
A s s o c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tr a c to r s o f A m e ric a , In c .:
B a to n R o u g e C h a p t e r ( L o u is ia n a ) ...............................................................................
C o lo r a d o B u ild in g C h a p t e r ...............................................................................................
L a k e C h a r le s C h a p t e r ( L o u is ia n a ) ...............................................................................
M a s s a c h u s e tts C h a p te r , 2 A g re e m e n ts ......................................................................
M in n e s o ta C h a p te r , 8 A g r e e m e n t s ...............................................................................
C
C
C
C
C
A m e ric a n T h r e a d C o . (W illim a n tic , C o n n .) ................................................................
A s s o c ia te d C o n tr a c to r s o f N e w J e rs e y a n d 1 o th e r (N e w J e r s e y ) ...................
................................
o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
S erv ic e E m p lo y e e s
............................................
............................................................
............................................................
1,100
1,700
6 ,6 0 0
S ee fo o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
N um ber of
U n io n 1
In d u stry
E m p lo y e r an d lo c a tio n
w orkers
............................................
3 ,2 50
.........................................
1,000
F o o d p r o d u c t s ...................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
A llie d W o rk e rs ...............................................
E le c tric a l W o rk e rs (IB E W ) ......................
1,000
2 ,0 0 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
E le c tric a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W )
......................
1,700
L e a th e r
L e a th e r W o rk e rs
.............................................
2 ,7 5 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
L a b o r e r s a n d C a r p e n t e r s .............................
6 ,1 0 0
S to n e , c la y , a n d g la ss p r o d u c ts
B u ild in g a n d C o n s tr u c tio n T r a d e s
C o u n c il
1,300
P a n A m e ric a n W o rld A irw a y s , In c . ( I n te r s t a te ) 3 ......................................................
P a in tin g & D e c o r a tin g C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n , M in n e s o ta C h a p te r , In c .
( M in n e s o ta )
P a th m a r k & S h o p - R ite S u p e r m a r k e ts ( I n te r s t a te ) ...................................................
P lu m b in g H e a tin g & A ir C o n d itio n in g C o n tr a c to r s (P e n n s y lv a n ia ) .............
P u b lic S erv ic e C o . o f I n d ia n a , In c . ( I n d i a n a ) ................................................................
P u llm a n , I n c ., P u llm a n - S ta n d a r d ( I n te r s ta te ) ............................................................
A ir t r a n s p o r t a ti o n ..........................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
A ir L in e P i l o t s ...................................................
P a in te r s ................................................................
4 ,5 0 0
1,200
R e ta il t r a d e ..........................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
U tilitie s ................................................
T r a n s p o r t a tio n e q u ip m e n t . . . .
F o o d a n d C o m m e ric a l W o rk e rs .............
P l u m b e r s ...............................................................
E le c tric a l W o rk e rs (IB E W ) ......................
S te e lw o rk e rs ......................................................
1 0 ,750
1,200
2 ,1 0 0
8 ,800
S h eet M e ta l & A ir C o n d itio n in g C o n tr a c to r s N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n
( D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia , V irg in ia , a n d M a r y la n d )
S ta n d a r d O il C o . o f C a lifo rn ia , W e s te rn O p e r a tio n s (C a lifo rn ia ) ...................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
S h e e t M e ta l W o rk e rs
...................................
1,400
P e t r o l e u m .............................................
S e a fa re rs ................................................................
1,600
C h e m i c a l s .............................................
A to m ic W o rk e rs
C h e m i c a l s .............................................
C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs
N a tio n a l D is tille rs & C h e m ic a l C o rp . ( I n te r s t a te ) ...................................................
N a tio n a l E le c tric a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n , In c ., N a s s a u & S u ffo lk
C h a p t e r (N e w Y o rk )
N a tio n a l E le c tric a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n , P h ila d e lp h ia D iv is io n
P e n n -D e l-J e rs e y C h a p t e r ( I n te r s ta te )
N e w Y o rk I n d u s tr ia l C o u n c il o f th e N a tio n a l H a n d b a g A s s o c ia tio n
(N e w Y o rk , N .Y .)
N o r th T e x a s C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n , 2 A g re e m e n ts ( T e x a s ) .............................
O w e n s -C o rn in g F ib e r g la s C o rp . ( K a n s a s C ity , K a n s .)
M e rc k & C o ., I n c ., L o c a l S u p p le m e n ta l A g r e e m e n t ( N e w J e rs e y
a n d N e w Y o rk )
M o n s a n to C o ., J o h n F . Q u e e n y P la n t (S t. L o u is, M o . ) .........................................
.........................................
................................................
1,300
M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u f a c tu r in g . .
W e s t T e n n e s se e B a rg a in in g G r o u p , In c . (M e m p h is , T e n n .)
................................
1Affiliated with A FL-C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.)
2Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
C a r p e n te r s
.........................................................
inform ation from newspaper source.
1,500
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Chrysler cuts costs further to get additional loan
The financially troubled Chrysler Corp. again moved
close to bankruptcy before it qualified for an additional
$400 million in Federal loan guarantees. The Chrysler
Loan Guarantee Board approved the company’s surviv
al plan after unions, suppliers, and lenders acceded to
the board’s demands and accepted more severe cost
concessions than those in the original proposal. The
board then said that Chrysler had met its obligation to
submit an operating plan “for the 1980 fiscal year and
the next three fiscal years demonstrating the ability of
the corporation to continue as a going concern in the
automobile business, and after December 31, 1983, to
continue without additional guarantees or other Federal
assistance.” Last year, Chrysler received $800 million of
the $1.5 billion in loan guarantees permitted by the
Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979. (See
Monthly Labor Review, March 1980, p. 56.)
The United Auto Workers agreed to reduce by $622
million the wage and benefit improvements scheduled
under its existing 3-year contract, which expires in Sep
tember 1982. This was in addition to the $466 million
in reductions (from the General Motors Corp. and Ford
Motor Co. settlement pattern) the union had accepted
to help Chrysler win the earlier loan guarantee.
The latest concessions agreed to by the Auto Work
ers were elimination of the 3-percent deferred wage in
creases scheduled for March 1981 and 1982; elimination
of the $1.15 an hour cost-of-living allowance and the
provision for future quarterly adjustments in the allow
ance (employees would receive the scheduled March
1981 lump-sum payment for covered hours from De
cember 1980 through February 1981); elimination of
two scheduled increases in pensions and deferral of a
third increase; elimination of three paid personal holi
days, which would have become effective in the fourth
quarter of 1982; and elimination of a scheduled 5-minute increase in paid lunch periods for employees in
plants that operate 24 hours a day. The accord covered
64,000 active employees represented by the United
Auto Workers; 40,000 others were on layoff.
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Seven other unions, representing 4,000 employees
agreed to similar wage and benefit concessions. The
concessions by these unions, combined with those im
posed by the company for its nonunion employees, to
taled $161 million.
The unions also agreed 1o consider in the 1982 round
of contract bargaining “the company’s financial condi
tion, the necessity for the company to be economically
viable and the assumptions in the company’s operating
and financial plans.”
Auto Workers’ President Douglas A. Fraser de
scribed the settlement as the “worst . . . we’ve ever
made, and the only thing that is worse is the alternative
. . . no jobs for Chrysler workers.”
However, the unions did win a commitment from
Chrysler to negotiate a profit-sharing plan in the next
few months (“contingent on adequate levels of future
company performance”), access to company financial
records, more employee involvement in management
(Fraser presently is a company director), and certain
commitments regarding the ratio of supervisors to
workers and future plant closings.
Other aspects of the survival plan required (1)
Chrysler to cancel or postpone introduction of new
models, which was expected to cut expenditures $1.9
billion during the next 4 years; (2) lenders to accept
preferred stock in exchange for nearly half of Chrysler’s
$1.1 billion debt, with the balance subject to payment
at 30 cents on the dollar, if warranted by Chrysler’s fu
ture financial condition; and (3) suppliers to maintain
their January 1 price levels on sales to Chrysler and
give the company a 5-percent discount on purchases
during the first quarter. The discount was expected to
total $36 million, with Chrysler also required to press
the suppliers for another $36 million in discounts dur
ing the year.
Chrysler’s financial condition also was improved by
the State of Illinois’ decision to lend the company $20
million. One of the conditions of the loan was that
Chrysler could not reduce: its permanent work force in
Illinois by more than 40 percent during the loan term.
Since the beginning of 1980, Chrysler also has obtained
loans from some of the oi:her States where it has facili
ties, including Michigan ($150 million), Indiana ($32
million), and Delaware ($5 million). Other States were
still considering loan requests.
73
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Developments in Industrial Relations
Firestone cuts labor costs at two plants
The continuing financial problems of the rubber in
dustry were indicated by developments at Firestone Tire
and Rubber Co., as workers at Memphis, Tenn., and
Noblesville, Ind., plants agreed to company proposals
for labor cost concessions.
Firestone officials at the Memphis plant said the con
cessions were necessary because the plant, which makes
bias-ply tires, was operating at a loss. They forecast
that, without the changes, the facility would have lost
$7 million in 1981.
The settlement was worked out by a Joint LaborManagement Survival Committee. A major aspect
called for a “restructuring” of jobs by mid-1981. All
employees would be assured of their present pay level
and incentive workers (about 25 percent of the 1,450
employees) will actually have higher “earnings expec
tancy.” If the job evaluation for the nonincentive em
ployees results in a finding that a particular job should
be paid at a lower rate, affected employees would con
tinue to receive their current pay but would not receive
wage increases until the future increases total more than
the difference between the two pay rates. Maintenance
workers can now be required to perform certain func
tions outside their normal trade and are assured of
higher pay rates when they attain proficiency in the new
skills. Also, the plant will switch to a 7-day-a-week op
eration, with all weekend premium pay abolished and
all work under 40 hours a week compensated at
straight-time rates. The affected workers are represented
by Local 186 of the Rubber Workers.
The union concessions for Memphis workers were
embodied in a supplement to the master agreement be
tween the Rubber Workers and Firestone. Memphis
workers will receive the remaining quarterly cost-of-liv
ing adjustments and the April 1981 wage increase of 20
cents an hour provided in the master agreement, which
expires in April 1982.
About 650 workers are involved in the concessions at
Noblesville, which included a $ 1.40-an-hour wage cut; a
reduction in paid holidays (from 11 to 9 days a year); a
1 week reduction in vacation after 30 years of service
(to 5 weeks); a 10-cent-an-hour reduction in the night
shift differential; reversion to the hospital-medical-surgi
cal benefits that applied in 1976; termination of the SUB
plan; and a cut in sickness and accident benefits to $110
a week for up to 26 weeks (was $140 a week for up to
52 weeks).
The workers will receive a 30-cent-an-hour wage in
crease in January 1983 and automatic cost-of-living ad
justments in July 1984 and January 1985, calculated at
1 cent an hour for each 0.5-point movement in the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (1967=100). However, the two ad
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
justments are limited to a combined total increase of 35
cents.
The concessions for the Noblesville workers will con
tinue for the duration of the master contract the Rub
ber Workers will negotiate with Firestone in 1982. In
addition, the Noblesville workers will not receive any
wage and benefit improvements provided by that con
tract. Firestone officials said the concessions were neces
sary to bring labor costs into line with competitors. The
plant manufactures rubber shock absorbers, air suspen
sion systems, and other products and is the only
“nontire” plant covered by the master contract.
International Harvester announces pay freeze
International Harvester Co. moved to minimize labor
costs by announcing an “indefinite” freeze on the sala
ries of 30,000 nonunion office workers. Salaries of the
company’s 26 corporate officers were cut 20 percent.
Hourly paid workers, who are represented by the Unit
ed Auto Workers, were not affected by the freeze. The
company lost $400 million in the last fiscal year and of
ficials attributed the need for a salary freeze to high in
terest rates and reduced demand for its farm and
construction equipment.
U.S. soccer players get first contract
The North American Soccer League Players Associa
tion’s and the soccer league negotiated their first collec
tive bargaining agreement. The association began its
organizing efforts in the league about 3 years ago and
won representation rights for U.S. teams. However, ne
gotiations did not begin until the fall of 1980, after the
National Labor Relations Board ordered the league to
bargain. A union official said that the six Canadian soc
cer teams would sign a separate but identical contract.
Terms of the 3-year accord for the 500 U.S. and Ca
nadian players included minimum salaries of $18,000
for rookies, $19,200 for second-year players, and
$22,800 for third-year players; a guarantee of at least
the minimum salary for players dropped from the team
during the season; a guarantee that an injured player
will receive at least the minimum salary through the fol
lowing year, as well as a $25,000-payment if the injury
ends his career; provision for binding arbitration of dis
putes; and establishment of employer-financed jointly
administered insurance benefits for active players and
future retirees.
The parties also agreed to require each team to have
at least four North American players beginning in 1982;
the current minimum is two players. In addition, the
parties agreed to develop a “reserve league” of Ameri
can players.
The North American Soccer League Players Associa-
tion is a branch of the Federation of Professional Ath
letes chartered by the AFL-CIO in 1979.
Joy elected head of Utility Workers
James Joy, Jr., was elected president of the Utility
Workers, succeeding Valentine P. Murphy, who re
signed to assume the lighter duties of the executive vice
president post Joy had held since 1979. Joy will fill the
3 years remaining of the presidential term of office. He
also is a vice president of the New York State AFL-CIO,
and holds other posts in organized labor.
months. A company official said that the hourly work
force currently stood at 133,000 and that 50,000 work
ers were on layoff.
Ford denied any violation of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, saying that it had agreed to the terms of the settle
ment “to eliminate various longstanding areas of dis
agreement” between Ford and the commission and “to
avoid the possibility of prolonged litigation.” This was
the second largest out-of-court settlement in the com
mission’s history, exceeded only by a $29.4-million set
tlement with the General Electric Co. in 1978.
Firm to pay $5 million in 1956 plant closing
Two maritime unions merge
The 500-member American Radio Association
merged into the Masters, Mates, and Pilots union.
American Radio President William R. Steinberg became
a vice president of the Master, Mates, and Pilots and
will represent the new Communications and Electronics
Group on the union’s executive board.
In addition to welcoming the American Radio Asso
ciation, the executive board formally installed Masters,
Mates, and Pilots officers for a 2-year term, based on
the results of a mail referendum. The union, an affiliate
of the International Longshoremen’s Association, has
been headed by Robert J. Lowen since 1978.
Ford settles job discrimination case
A nationwide 7-year job discrimination action against
the Ford Motor Co. ended when the company and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached
an out-of-court settlement. The settlement calls for
Ford to pay a total of $13 million to some 14,000 wom
en and members of minority groups who were denied
jobs or promotions. The amount consists of $8 million
to be paid to unsuccessful applicants for hourly rated
jobs in the early 1970’s, $3.5 million to salaried minori
ty and female employees hired before 1975, and $1.5
million to women in hourly paid jobs hired prior to
1972. An additional $10 million will be used for up
ward mobility purposes.
Ford agreed to fill more than 20 percent of produc
tion supervisory jobs and more than 15 percent of
general supervisory jobs with minorities, and to hire
women for production jobs at an average yearly rate of
30 percent. However, the new hiring policy will not be
gin until either January 1, 1982, or shortly after the
number of hourly employees recalled from layoff brings
Ford’s hourly payroll to 170,000 for 2 consecutive
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
One of the longest labor-management disputes in
U.S. history ended when former employees of a
Darlington, S.C., textile plant approved a plan to
distribute $5 million among themselves and heirs of
workers who died after the plant closed in 1956. The
shutdown by the Deering Milliken Co. came shortly af
ter the Textile Workers Union of America won a repre
sentation election, leading to union charges that the
action had been taken to thwart organizing efforts. In
the following years, the case moved through a number
of appearances before the National Labor Relations
Board and the Federal courts, including two appeals to
the Supreme Court. The final determination was that
the company had engaged in unfair labor practices.
According to an official of the Amalgamated Cloth
ing and Textile Workers, the settlement provides for in
dividual payments ranging from $50 to $36,000. The
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers resulted
from the 1976 merger of the Textile Workers and the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers.
Agreement ends 3-week strike at Hershey
The first strike since 1953 against the Hershey Choc
olate Co. of Pennsylvania ended when members of the
Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers ratified a
3-year contract. The 3-week strike began when the pre
vious contract expired.
The new agreement covered 2,900 workers and pro
vided for wage increases of 55 cents an hour effective
immediately, 5 cents in May 1981, 5 percent in Novem
ber 1981, and 4 percent in November 1982, and for
continuation of the wage escalator clause. Benefit
changes included an immediate $25-a-month increase in
the normal pension for 215-year workers, bringing it to
$425, and a $25-increase in the third contract year. A
paid holiday also was added, bringing the total to 10. □
75
Book Reviews
The Post-Keynesian-neoclassicist split
A Guide to Post-Keynesian Economics. Edited by Alfred
S. Eichner. White Plains, N.Y., M. E. Sharpe, Inc.,
1979. 202 pp. $12.95.
The battlelines have been drawn, the encampments
have been put in place, skirmishes occur frequently, and
occasionally an (apparently) ineffectual pitched battle is
waged. The opponents are two of several factions that
form the confraternity of economic theorists. There are
the “neoclassicists” or successors to Walras and his dis
tinguished line of marginalists and the “Post-Keynes
ians whom Alfred S. Eichner defines as “members of
several dissident traditions within economics— that of
the American institutionalists and the continental
Marxists, as well as that of Keynes’ closest associates.”
The student of economics may see this as simply anoth
er instance of the continuing disagreement between the
“microeconomic” theorists (read marginalists) and the
“macroeconomic” theorists (read income theorists).
The Post-Keynesians are well aware that the neoclas
sicists have, in the form of marginal analysis and sup
ply-demand analysis, an explanatory theoretical eco
nomic paradigm. However, they appear to disregard or
discount its normative character, disagree with its em
phasis on the (relative) pricing mechanism and the re
sulting substitution effects, and maintain that it is out
of touch with reality. Eichner holds neoclassical theory
responsible for the “debacle over the problem of in
flation. Consequently, the Post-Keynesians are erecting
an alternative paradigm, one that is more realistic and
meaningful.
The general outline of this paradigm was summarized
in a “state of the arts” article. (Alfred S. Eichner and J.
A. Kregel, “An Essay on Post-Keynesian Theory: A
New Paradigm in Economics,” The Journal of Econom
ic Literature, December 1975, pp. 1293-1314.) Al
though aware that “establishment” views die hard,
Eichner was disappointed with the unenthusiastic recep
tion. In an attempt to reach a wider audience, he col
laborated with the editor of Challenge in publishing a
series of articles on various aspects of Post-Keynes
ianism.
The present volume includes 10 articles which were
published in various issues of Challenge. These articles
cover a wide variety of topics: macrodynamics, pricing,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
income distribution, tax incidence, production theory,
the Sraffian contribution, the labor market, monetary
factors, the international dimension, and natural re
sources. Each analysis presents the Post-Keynesian ex
planation, the neoclassical doctrine’s weaknesses, and
concludes with statements on policy. In the foreword,
Joan Robinson establishes and describes the theoretical
underpinnings of Post-Keynesianism. Her attacks on
the neoclassical position are centered on its equilibrium
tendencies and on the use of a national production
function. She states that the economy does not tend to
an equilibrium, and that the very heterogeneity of its
capital structure can only result in a “pseudo-produc
tion function” of dubious value. Eichner’s introductory
chapter is a useful historical summary of the recent par
allel developments of Post-Keynesianism and neoclassi
cal theory. The final chapter, also by Eichner, is a
recapitulation of the book’s virtues; policy implications
of Post-Keynesianism are also discussed. Unfortunately,
both optimism and pessimism are expressed and the
book ends on the nontheoretical note that our political
institutions are yet immature.
Of special interest are the chapters on “Pricing” and
“The Labor Market.” Regarding price theory, the PostKeynesians admit that their analysis is still in an em
bryonic state of development. Briefly, they dichotomize
the economy. One sector, that of small firms, is charac
terized by conditions approaching pure competition.
The other sector, that of oligopolistic industries, is char
acterized by a lack of price competition. In this latter
sector, firms simply mark up their prices to generate
sufficient profits for investment and labor costs. In any
event, relative prices are unimportant. An important
source of price competition is assumed nonexistent. Yet,
it is difficult to concur that there do not exist significant
and competitive price interrelationships between com
peting products, such as steel and aluminum, or be
tween competing industries, such as the U.S. auto
industry and foreign automobile manufacturers. For the
labor market, there is no price-clearing mechanism (in
the form of supply and demand). The demand for labor
is a function of institutional characteristics, the prevail
ing technology and pricing decisions of firms with mar
ket power. The demand is not related to the marginal
product of labor. The Post-Keynesians claim that
oligopolies are relatively insensitive to capital-labor ra
tios because firms’ cost curves are relatively constant
over varying output at a given point in time. However,
they appear to disregard the variability over time of
cost functions. Further, if the price of labor is relatively
inconsequential, they do not explain the continuous
shift into capital intensity regardless of demand require
ments.
The attempt by Post-Keynesians to introduce institu
tional factors as explanatory reasons is certainly
laudable, and, of course, not restricted to them. The fol
lowing is an interesting hypothesis. They contend that
the larger oligopolistic firms are characterized by high
capital to labor ratios, sophisticated technology, high
wages, a need for a relatively highly skilled labor force,
and considerable unionization. These firms make up the
“primary sector” which is characterized by relatively
low, or at least lower, unemployment rates. All other
firms contain the “secondary sector” characterized by
generally less skilled labor and relatively high, or at
least higher, unemployment rates. As an approximation,
this reviewer examined the 1975 relationship between
industry concentration and unemployment rates. (The
economy was divided into 17 industries, and for each
were noted: (a) the percent of the industry’s assets
accounted for by firms of asset-size of $250 million and
over, and (b) the industry’s unemployment rate.) The
resulting somewhat significant negative rank correlation
coefficient indicates that an inverse relationship between
industry concentration and unemployment (rates)
appears to exist. One can conclude that the PostKeynesians’ contention is not groundless and merits
confirmation (or refutation). Such an analysis should
also shed interesting light on the configuration of unem
ployment.
One may find this book controversial. One may be
moan the authors’ lavish use of the very marginalist
concepts they eschew. Yet, one cannot help but find it
thought-provoking.
— A r t h u r J. G a r t a g a n is
Office of Economic Growth
and Employment Projections
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Labor history in black and white
History of the Labor Movement in the United States: Vol.
V, The AFL in the Progressive Era, 1910-1915. By
Philip S. Foner. New York, International Publish
ers, 1980. 293 pp. $15, cloth; $4.95, paper.
In the 1940’s and 1950’s, one of the most popular
forms of entertainment was the western movie. The es
sence of these horse operas was the quintessential battle
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
between the forces of good and evil. The heroes were
identified by their white hats, the villains were starkly
contrasted in black 10-gallon chapeaus. Although based
on actual events (for example, The Gunfight at the
O.K. Corral), these tales of the Old West often project
ed a less than accurate picture. This book, by Philip
Foner, reminds me of those: old western movies.
To Foner, the rank-and-file union members, the radi
cal militants, and other assorted members of the prole
tariat wore the white hats, while employers, foremen,
government officials, and the more conservative labor
leaders— called “class collaborationists” — wore the
black ones. Quite often, the alleged villain deserved his
black hat status, but in too many instances the opposite
was true; the author apparently holds the awarding of
grey hats as heretical.
Foner recognized contributions made to the labor
movement by blacks, women, immigrants, and other
minorities long before it became popular to do so. Un
fortunately, his ideological bent— he makes no secret of
his Marxist sympathies— triumphs over historical ob
jectivity. This volume of The History of the Labor Move
ment in the United States is no exception and that is a
pity for it limits the usefulness of this otherwise fasci
nating study, the most comprehensive research on the
labor movement since Commons and Associates wrote
the History of Labour in the United States in 1918.
This volume is, like its ¡predecessors, not for general
reading. The slanted opinions of the author would
probably be undetected by the casual reader, and they
may even slip by the novice student of the labor move
ment. For example, Foner constantly blames the fail
ures, and near failures, of the American Federation of
Labor on its president, Samuel Gompers. The criticism
is progressively subtle and quite often without docu
mentation.
Chapter five provides a good illustration. The AFL
leader wanted to impress on President Woodrow Wil
son that organized labor would not support him, by en
dorsement or otherwise, unless the Administration
worked to exempt labor from the despised Sherman An
titrust Act of 1890— the act had commonly been used
by the judiciary against labor during work stoppages.
Foner commented that, “regardless of whether or not
Gompers would have carried out his threat to break
with the Wilson Administration there was not to be any
need for a fight” (p. 124). The subtle inference to Gom
pers’ strength of character may, at first, seem innocu
ous, but Foner continues hurling such barbs throughout
the book (pp. 44, 47, 63, 88, 90, 99, 102, and 136,
among others).
The AFL in the Time of Gompers, by Philip Taft— the
dean of labor historians— covers much of the same ma
terial as this fifth volume of the history of the labor
movement; however, by comparison, it seems alien.
77
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Book Renews
Gompers, in turn, would have to be two different peo
ple to accomodate both authors.
Another method which Foner utilizes to prove his
own conclusions is the omission of contradictory mate
rial. For example, he claims that President Theodore
Roosevelt made no gestures of good faith towards orga
nized labor (pp. 110-11). Specifically, he states: “ . . .
organized labor felt that Roosevelt was not really sym
pathetic to organized labor’s fundamental right to orga
nize.” He adds, “he (Roosevelt) had done nothing to
halt the use of injunctions in labor disputes . . . . ”
Jonathan Grossman’s article, “ The coal strike of
1902—turning point in U.S. policy” (Monthly Labor
Review, October 1975) states otherwise. Grossman com
ments that in ameliorating differences in the Anthracite
Coal Strike, Roosevelt’s efforts “marked the turn of the
U.S. Government from strikebreaker to peacemaker in
industrial disputes.” The public papers of Roosevelt,
edited by Elting Morison (vol. 6, pp. 338, 342, 346),
also illustrate that the President, while not always sym
pathetic to labor, was not always against it, as shown
by his opposition to the use of injunctions under the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
There are numerous errors in this book, another lega
cy from previous volumes. On page 120, for example,
Foner incorrectly states:
Agitation for a Department of Labor was begun soon after
the Civil War by William H. Silvus. The movement was
taken up by the Knights of Labor, and that effort led to the
establishment in 1888 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In “The origin of the U.S. Department of Labor,”
(Monthly Labor Review, March 1973), Jonathan
Grossman, correctly states that agitation by organized
labor for a Federal department led to the establishment
of a Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1884, followed by a
Department of Labor without Cabinet rank in 1888. On
page 96, Foner writes that in the “Danbury Hatters”
controversy, organized labor opposed the practices of
the “Lowe Co.” The correct spelling of that company is
“Loewe & Co.”
Such errors are, in light of the abundant resources at
Foner’s command, unnecessary and disappointing. He
has a virtual cornucopia of bibliographic material to
choose from, including public and private papers of
many key figures of the period, local and national news
papers and periodicals, standard and little utilized sec
ondary sources, and a host of unpublished dissertations.
Chapter 8 provides a good illustration of his abun
dant sources. This chapter deals with industrial warfare
in the coal fields of West Virginia, 1912-13. Foner uti
lizes the correspondence between Mary “Mother”
Jones, labor organizer and ubiquitous figure in many
mining disputes, and key government officials, including
the Secretary of Labor. He also cites several Socialist
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and labor publications— United Mine Workers Journal,
New York Call, International Socialist Review— as well
as the standard newspapers, The New York Tribune and
The New York Times. As an overall analysis, Foner re
fers to David Corbin’s award-winning article “Betrayal
in the West Virginia Coal Fields” (pp. 193-94).
With such fine sources, and considering the intensity
and indefatigability with which Foner works, it is a
shame the book is biased, for it is a fascinating study.
Foner whets the reader’s appetite with an opening ac
count of the trial of the McNamara Brothers in 1910; a
cause celebre amongst the ranks of organized labor and
a major controversy in the early part of the century. He
then devotes several chapters to an overall survey of la
bor in general, and the AFL, in particular, before con
centrating on more specific events in the last seven
chapters. Among these specific topics are: The Phila
delphia General Strike of 1910; Revolt of the Colorado
Miners, 1913-14, including a graphic account of the in
famous “Ludlow Massacre”; and The Shopmen’s Strike
on the Harriman Railroad System.
The expressive and captivating style, the abundant
documentation and the natural drama of the events
themselves should have made this book, and its com
panion books in the overall history, the bible of labor
history. Distortion of fact prevents that from happen
ing. Philip Foner should not have played “heroes and
villains” with such an important work.
— H e n r y P. G u z d a
Historian
U.S. Department of Labor
Publications received
Economic growth and development
Economic Council of Canada, A Climate o f Uncertainty: Sev
enteenth Annual Review. Hull, Quebec, Economic Council
of Canada, 1980, 169 pp. $8.75, Canada; $10.50, other
countries. Available from Canadian Government Publish
ing Center, Supply and Services, Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Rima, Ingrid H., Labor Markets, Wages and Employment.
New York, W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1981, 399 pp.
$14.95.
Sandler, Todd and John T. Tschirhart, “The Economic Theo
ry of Clubs: An Evaluative Survey,” Journal o f Economic
Literature, December 1980, pp. 1481-1521.
Stone, Richard, “Whittling Away at the Residual: Some
Thoughts on Denison’s Growth Accounting: A Review
Article,” Journal o f Economic Literature, December 1980,
pp. 39-43.
Industrial relations
Cunningham, Richard M., “Labor-Management Relations in
the Federal Sector: Democracy or Paternalism?” Labor
Law Journal, October 1980, pp. 636-44.
Edes, Nik B., “Compensation for Occupational Diseases,” La
bor Law Journal, October 1980, pp. 595-601.
Frank, Nancy K., “A Question of Equity: Workers’ ‘Right to
Refuse’ Under O S H A Compared to the Criminal Necessity
Defense,” Labor Law Journal, October 1980, pp. 617-26.
Kollins, Thomas K., How to Cost Your Labor Contract. Ar
lington, Va., Graphic Arts Union Employers of America,
1979, 88 pp.
Kumar, Pradeep, Professionalism in the Canadian P/IR Func
tion: Report o f a Survey o f Education, Training and Expe
rience of Personnel and Industrial Relations Practitioners.
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Queen’s University at Kings
ton, Industrial Relations Center, 1980, 68 pp. (Research
and Current Issues Series, 39.) $5, paper.
Lane, Marc J., Legal Handbook for Nonprofit Organizations.
New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Manage
ment Associations, 1980, 294 pp. $17.95.
Leap, Terry L., William H. Holley, Jr., Hubert S. Feild,
“Equal Employment Opportunity and Its Implications
for Personnel Practices in the 1980’s,” Labor Law Jour
nal, November 1980, pp. 669-82.
Levine, Marvin J., “The Status of State ‘Sunshine Bargaining’
Laws,” Labor Law Journal, November 1980, pp. 709-13.
Industry and government organization
States. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1980, 309 pp.,
bibliography. $27.50.
Jensen, Joan M., With These Hands: Women Working on the
Land. Old Westbury, N.Y., The Feminist Press, 1981,
295 pp. $6.95, paper.
Kessler-Harris, Alice, Women Have Always Worked: A Histori
cal Overview. Old Westbury, N.Y., The Feminist Press,
1981, 193 pp. $5.95, paper.
McNulty, Paul J., The Origins and Development of Labor Eco
nomics: A Chapter in the History of Social Thought. Cam
bridge, Mass., The M I T Press, 1980, 248 pp. $17.50.
Labor force
Jilek, T. S. and R. E. Temple-Smith, “Additional Workers —
Concepts, Measurement and Policy,” Australian Econom
ic Papers, June 1980, pp. 219-23.
Raelin, Joseph A., Building a Career: The Effect of Initial Job
Experiences and Related Work Attitudes on Later Employ
ment. Kalamazoo, Mich., The W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 1980, 178 pp. $7, cloth; $4.50,
paper.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Migration to Nonmetropolitan
Areas: Appraising the Trends and Reasons for Moving. By
Larry H. Long and Diana DeAre. Washington, U.S. De
partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 29 pp. $2,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
Waite, Linda J., “Working Wives and the Family Life Cycle,”
American Journal of Sociology, September 1980, pp. 27294.
Langford, Thomas W. and C. Vincent Manoogian, The Eco
nomic Impacts o f Proposed Regulations for Mandatory
Deposits on Beverage Containers in Illinois, R71-24 and
R75-14. Chicago, 111., Institute of Natural Resources,
Environmental Management Division, 1980, 239 pp., bib
liography.
Wilson, Kenneth L. and Alejandro Portes, “Immigrant En
claves: An Analysis of the Labor Market Experiences of
Cubans in Miami,” American Journal of Sociology, Sep
tember 1980, pp. 295-319.
Vogel, David, “A Funny Thing Happened to the Down-withBig-Business Movements,” Across the Board, December
Management and organization theory
1980, pp. 4 5 - 5 2 .
International economics
Crockett, Andrew D. and Owen J. Evans, “Demand for Mon
ey in Middle Eastern Countries,” International Monetary
Fund Staff Papers, September 1980, pp. 543-77.
Fiebig, D. G., “The Casual Relationship Between Money and
Income in Australia,” Austrailian Economic Papers, June
1980, pp. 78-90.
Ghosh, Sukesh K., “Unemployment and Optimum Balance of
Payments Deficit,” Australian Economic Papers, June
1980, pp. 203-10.
Keller, Peter M„ “Implications of Credit Policies for Output
and the Balance of Payments,” International Monetary
Fund Staff Papers, September 1980, pp. 451-77.
Khatkhate, Deena R. and Klaus-Walter Riechel, “Multipur
pose Banking: Its Nature, Scope, and Relevance for Less
Developed Countries,” International Monetary Fund Staff
Papers, September 1980, pp. 478-516.
Labor and economic history
Corbin, Richard H. and R. Donald Gamache, Creating Pro
fitable New Products and Markets. New York, a m a c o m ,
A division of American Management Associations, 1980,
53 pp., bibliography. $5, A M A members; $7.50, non
members.
Ellis, Daryl J. and Peter P. Pekar, Jr., Planning for
Nonplanners: Planning Basics for Managers. New York,
a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associa
tions, 1980, 152 pp. $12.95.
Frank, Michael R., The Effective EDP Manager. New York,
a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associa
tions, 1980, 197 pp. $17.95.
Freiman, David J., “Smart Marketing in a Time of Economic
Crisis, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Autumn
1980, pp. 21-34.
Gruenberg, Barry, “The Happy Worker: An Analysis of Edu
cational and Occupational Differences in Determinants of
Job Satisfaction,” American Journal of Sociology, Septem
ber 1980, pp. 247-71.
Wages and compensation
“Canada,” Current History, November 1980, pp. 113-38.
Margolick, David, “The Lonely World of Night Work,” For
tune, Dec. 15, 1980, pp. 108-14.
Greenwald, Maurine Weiner, Women, War, and Work: The
Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United
Rao, B. Bhaskara, “Inflationary and Efficiency Effects of Rel
ative Wage Distortions: The Australian Case,” Australian
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Book Reviews
Economic Papers, June 1980, pp. 68-77.
Ronen, Simcha, Flexible Working Hours: An Innovation in the
Quality of Work Life. New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1981, 353 pp. $18.95.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Drug
Manufacturing, September 1978. Washington, 1980, 43
pp. (Bulletin 2077.) $3.25, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Worker training and development
Beaumont, Andre G., Alva C. Cooper, Raymond H.
Stockard, A Model Career Counseling and Placement Pro
gram. 3d ed. Bethlehem, Pa., College Placement Services,
Inc., 1980, 376 pp. $12.50, paper.
Holder, Todd, “Job Finding and Career Planning: A Course
Outline,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp.
28-31.
Mangum, Garth and others, Job Market Futurity: Planning
and Managing Local Manpower Programs. Salt Lake City,
Utah, Olympus Publishing Co., 1979, 398 pp.
Martin, Gail M., “A Guide to Setting Up a Career Resource
Center,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp.
12-17.
---------“The Job Hunter’s Guide to the Library,” Occupation
al Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp. 6-11.
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mirengoff, William and others, The New ceta : Effect on Pub
lic Service Employment Programs Final Report. Washing
ton, The National Research Council, Assembly of
Behavioral and Social Sciences, Committee on Evaluation
of Employment and Training Programs, 1980, 185 pp.
Available from National Academy Press, Washington.
Rudney, Shirley, “Writers and Editors: Or Oh Ye Scribes and
Scholiasts,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980,
pp. 18-21.
Sexton, Robert F., Barriers to the Older Student: The Limits of
Federal Financial Aid Benefits. Washington, National In
stitute for Work and Learning, 1980, 27 pp.
Shaw, Lois B., A Profile of Women Potentially Eligible for the
Displaced Homemaker Program Under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1978. Columbus, The
Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science,
Center for Human Resource Research, 1979, 19 pp. 80
cents.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A Counselor's Guide to Occu
pational Information. Washington, 1980, 60 pp. (Bulletin
2042.) Stock No. 029-001-02490-8. $3.50, Superinten
dent of Documents, Washington 20402.
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Training
Requirements in OSHA Standards, Rev. ed. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, 1979, 62 pp. Single copy free. □
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
j
.....................................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
..........................................................................
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-79 ................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted .......................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Employment by industry, 1950-79 ........................................................................................................................................
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ...................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79 ..................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ..............................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ......................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ...................................................................... . . .
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date .....................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
83
83
84
85
86
87
87
87
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
93
94
95
96
96
97
98
99
99
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-79 .............................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class ................................................. . . .
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ...............................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
..............................................
100
Price data. Definitions and notes
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
31.
32.
33.
34.
82
........................................................................................
.......................................................
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
82
.......................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,1950-79 ............................................
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79 .............................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,seasonally adjusted ....................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . .
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes
........................................................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date ........................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargainingunits, 1975 to d a t e .......................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
101
107
108
109
110
112
112
112
115
115
116
116
117
118
118
119
119
81
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2 - 7 were revised in
the February 1981 issue of the Review to reflect the preceding year’s
experience. Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major
modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force
data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new proce
dure called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada
as an extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description
of the procedure appears in The X - l l AR1MA Seasonal Adjustment
M ethod by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No.
12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors
are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year,
rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for
the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be
made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables
11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the August 1980 issue using the
X -ll ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal fac
tors for productivity data in tables 33 and 34 are usually intro
duced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are
published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The Handbook o f Labor Statis
tics 1978, Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
Monthly Labor Review. More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in Em ploym ent and Earnings, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually— Em ploym ent and Earnings, United States and
Em ploym ent and Earnings, States and Areas. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the CPI
D etailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Employment situation..................................................................
Producer Price Index ..................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing ..................................................
Work stoppages..........................................................................
Major collective bargaining settlements (quarterly) ........................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manfacturing ........................................
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release
date
March 6
March 6
March 24
March 24
March 27
March 31
Period
covered
Release
date
February
February
February
February
February
February
April 3
April 3
April 23
April 23
April 29
April 29
April 27
March
March
March
March
March
March
1st quarter
1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
12-13
37
35-36
April 27
1st quarter
31-34
Period
covered
MLR table
number
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
Definitions
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are
1.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
Full-time workers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment
and Earnings.
Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 198(1.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-80
[Numbers in thousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total noninstitutional
population
Civilian labor force
Unemployed
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industrie;.
Number
Percent of
labor
force
Notin
labor force
1950
1955
1960
1964
1965
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
166,246
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
106,821
62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
64.3
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
104,719
87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
97,270
3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
3,310
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
93,960
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7,448
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
7.1
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
59,425
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status
Annual average
1980
1981
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623
166,246
106,821
164,143
104,719
97,270
3,310
93,960
7,448
7.1
59,425
165,101
106,289
163,020
104,208
97,708
3,287
94,421
6,500
6.2
58,812
165,298
106,357
163,211
104,271
97,817
3,329
94,488
6,454
6.2
58,940
165,506
106,261
163,416
104,171
97,628
3,337
94,291
6,543
6.3
59,245
165,693
106,519
163,601
104,427
97,225
3,262
93,963
7,202
6.9
59,174
165,886
107,148
163,799
105,060
97,116
3,352
93,764
7,944
7.6
58,739
166,105
106,683
164,013
104,591
96,780
3,232
93,548
7,811
7.5
59,422
166,391
107,119
164,293
105,020
96,999
3,267
93,732
8,021
7.6
59,273
166,578
107,059
164,464
104,945
97,003
3,210
93,793
7,942
7.6
59,519
166,789
107,101
164,667
104,980
97,180
3,399
93,781
7,800
7.4
59,687
167,005
107,288
164,884
105,167
97,206
3,319
93,887
7,961
7.6
59,717
167,201
107,404
165,082
105,285
97,339
3,340
93,999
7,946
7.5
59,797
167,396
107,191
165,272
105,067
97,282
3,394
93,888
7,785
7.4
60,205
167,585
2,125
165,460
105,543
97,696
3,403
94,294
7,847
7.4
59,917
68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807
69,607
55,234
51,972
2,355
49,617
3,261
5.9
14,373
69,047
54,892
52,263
2,401
49,862
2,629
4.8
14,155
69,140
55,017
52,436
2,418
50,018
2,581
4.7
14,123
69,238
54,966
52,230
2,386
49,844
2,736
5.0
14,272
69,329
55,127
51,935
2,334
49,601
3,192
5.8
14,202
69,428
55,440
51,871
2,337
49,494
3,569
6.4
13,988
69,532
55,182
51,624
2,301
49,323
3,558
6.4
14,350
69,664
55,344
51,714
2,306
49,408
3,630
6.6
14,320
69,756
55,403
51,791
2,301
49,490
3,612
6.5
14,353
69,864
55,475
51,823
2,389
49,434
3,652
6.6
14,389
69,987
55,495
51,963
2,351
49,612
3,532
6.4
14,492
70,095
55,539
52,007
2,372
49,635
3,532
6.4
14,556
70,198
55,470
52,045
2,331
49,714
3,425
6.2
14,728
70,320
55,443
52,091
2,378
49,713
3,352
6.0
14,877
76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949
78,295
40,243
37,696
575
37,120
2,547
6.3
38,052
77,656
39,852
37,538
543
36,995
2,314
5.8
37,804
77,766
39,871
37,560
568
36,992
2,311
5.8
37,895
77,876
39,845
37,550«
557
36,973
2,295
5.8
38,031
77,981
40,098
37,597
560
37,037
2,501
6.2
37,883
78,090
40,193
37,600
598
37,002
2,593
6.5
37,897
78,211
40,182
37,613
550
37,063
2,569
6.4
38,029
78,360
40,383
37,728
564
37,164
2,655
6.6
37,977
78,473
40,523
37,890
555
37,335
2,633
6.5
37,950
78,598
40,317
37,804
592
37,212
2,513
6.2
38,281
78,723
40,486
37,754
576
37,178
2,732
6.7
38,237
78,842
40,629
37,909
574
37,335
2,720
6.7
38,213
78,959
40,570
37,820
665
37,155
2,750
6.8
38,389
79,071
40,942
38,191
621
37,570
2,750
6.7
38,129
16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867
16,242
9,242
7,603
380
7,223
1,640
17.7
7,000
16,317
9,464
7,907
343
7,564
1,557
16.5
6,853
16,305
9,383
7,821
343
7,478
1,562
16.6
6,922
16,302
9,360
7,848
374
7,474
1,512
16.2
6,942
16,291
9,202
7,693
368
7,325
1,509
16.4
7,089
16,281
9,427
7,645
377
7,268
1,782
18.9
6,854
16,271
9,227
7,543
381
7,162
1,684
18.3
7,044
16,268
9,293
7,557
397
7,160
1,736
18.7
6,975
16,235
9,019
7,322
354
6,968
1,697
18.8
7,216
16,205
9,188
7,553
418
7,135
1,635
17.8
7,017
16,174
9,186
7,489
392
7,097
1,697
18.5
6,988
16,145
9,117
7,423
394
7,029
1,694
18.6
7,028
16,114
9,027
7,417
398
7,019
1,610
17.8
7,087
16,069
9,158
7,414
404
7,010
1,744
19.0
6,911
141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011
143,657
92,171
86,380
5,790
6.3
51,486
142,806
91,783
86,760
5,023
5.5
51,023
142,951 143,115
91,873 91,802
86,869 86,723
5,004
5,079
5.4
5.5
51,078 51,313
143,254
92,044
86,389
5,655
6.1
51,210
143,403
92,501
86,251
6,250
6.8
50,902
143,565
92,134
86,007
6,127
6.7
51,431
143,770 143,900
92,335 92,288
86,075 86,067
6,260
6,221
6.8
6.7
51,435 51,612
144,051
92,317
86,307
6,010
6.5
51,734
144,211
92,516
86,371
6,145
6.6
51,695
144,359 144,500
92,562 92,383
86,409 86,377
6,153
6,006
6.6
6.5
51,797 52,117
144,651
92,832
86,620
6,213
6.7
51,819
19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612
20,486
12,548
10,890
1,658
13.2
7,938
20,214
12,453
10,974
1,479
11.9
7,761
20,346
12,401
10,838
1,563
12.6
7,945
20,395
12,546
10,842
1,704
13.6
7,849
20,448
12,491
10,809
1,682
13.5
7,957
20,617
12,677
10,894
1,783
14.1
7,940
20,673
12,686
10,884
1,802
14.2
7,987
20,771
12,668
10,895
1,773
14.0
8,103
20,809
12,684
11,051
1,634
12.9
8,125
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population' ..........................
Total labor force ......................................
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ................................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture ..............................
Nonagricultural industries ........
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ..................................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Both sexes, 16 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employee ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Black and other
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
20,261
12,395
10,945
1,450
11.7
7,866
20,301
12,320
10,856
1,464
11.9
7,981
'As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20,523
12,661
10,902
1,759
13.9
7,862
20,564
12,630
10,902
1,728
13.7
7,934
20,723
12,706
10,922
1,784
14.0
8,017
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
Annual average
Selected categories
1981
1980
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724
97,270
55,988
41,283
38,302
23,097
97,708
56,458
41,250
38,714
23,104
97,817
56,631
41,186
38,827
23,150
97,628
56,489
41,139
38,706
23,171
97,225
56,054
41,171
38,373
23,094
97,116
55,914
41,202
38,197
23,145
96,780
55,597
41,183
38,220
23,131
96,999
55,678
41,321
38,049
23,118
97,003
55,589
41,414
37,987
23,126
97,180
55,754
41,426
38,027
23,027
97,206
55,881
41,325
38,142
22,993
97,339
55,897
ci1,442
38,167
23,065
97,282
55,920
41,362
38,231
23,063
97,696
56,012
41,684
38,182
23,352
49,342
15,050
50,809
15,613
60,307
15,353
50,447
15,423
50,336
15,408
50,465
15,528
50,627
15,540
50,836
15,682
51,023
15,717
51,307
15,751
51,074
15,540
51,101
15,780
51,148
15,863
51,065
15,810
51,594
15,965
10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703
10,919
6,172
18,105
30,800
12,529
10,346
3,468
4,456
12,958
2,704
10,638
6,383
17,933
31,770
12,806
10,691
3,591
4,682
12,968
2,648
10,953
6,179
17,892
31,669
12,722
10,648
3,557
4,742
13,005
2,745
10,765
6,132
18,031
31,568
12,740
10,556
3,551
4,721
12,982
2,718
10,773
6,048
18,116
31,120
12,713
10,450
3,495
4,462
13,009
2,682
10,877
6,072
18,138
30,800
12,551
10,379
3,458
4,412
12,947
2,730
10,901
6,046
18,207
30,443
12,357
10,233
3,429
4,424
12,941
2,625
10,999
6,130
18,177
30,276
12,403
10,189
3,354
4,330
13,017
2,694
11,109
6,140
18,307
30,232
12,346
10,147
3,478
4,261
12,928
2,620
11,007
6,316
18,211
30,436
12,490
10,202
3,434
4,310
12,943
2,757
10,979
6,277
18,065
30,521
12,485
10,210
3,443
4,383
12,891
2,735
11,016
6,155
18,114
30,550
12,424
10,247
3,429
4,450
12,888
2,729
11,009
6,175
18,071
30,373
12,337
10,194
3,402
4,440
12,982
2,804
11,363
6,265
18,001
30,338
12,306
10,331
3,322
4,380
12,946
2,737
1,413
1,580
304
1,384
1,628
297
1,421
1,563
294
1,411
1,636
293
1,429
1,612
295
1,377
1,602
287
1,396
1,642
292
1,369
1,606
278
1,360
1,631
295
1,282
1,640
280
1,417
1,688
309
1,363
1,640
325
1,417
1,612
324
1,411
1,655
305
1,465
1,615
284
86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455
86,706
15,624
71,081
1,166
69,915
6,850
404
87,377
15,457
71,920
1,159
70,761
6,751
390
87,192
15,539
71,653
1,181
70,472
6,841
400
87,110
15,605
71,505
1,140
70,365
6,807
385
86,789
15,635
71,154
1,151
70,003
6,804
363
86,722
15,720
71,002
1,197
69,805
6,698
406
86,370
15,817
70,553
1,204
69,349
6,728
445
86,432
15,718
70,714
1,230
69,484
6,801
426
86,490
15,531
70,959
1,196
69,763
6,881
403
86,395
15,575
70,820
1,125
69,695
6,977
416
86,587
15,597
70,990
1,144
69,846
7,005
417
86,643
15,651
70,992
1,148
69,844
5,943
405
86,513
15,653
70,860
1,110
69,750
6,973
396
87,125
15,738
71,387
1,197
70,190
6,839
422
88,133
72,647
3,281
1,325
1,956
12,205
88,325
72,022
3,965
1,669
2,296
12,338
89,109
72,963
3,549
1,562
1,987
12,597
88,830
72,937
3,454
1,415
2,039
12,439
88,505
72,618
3,470
1,481
1,989
12,417
88,041
71,986
3,803
1,680
2,123
12,252
87,974
71,501
4,276
1,998
2,278
12,197
87,994
71,454
3,969
1,734
2,235
12,571
87,431
70,825
4,086
1,794
2,292
12,520
88,195
71,526
4,143
1,709
2,434
12,526
88,246
71,929
4,183
1,701
2,482
12,134
88,488
72,071
4,220
1,685
2,535
12,197
83,694
72,265
4,176
1,620
2,556
12,253
88,468
72,131
4,218
1,647
2,571
12,119
89,499
72,807
4,474
1,698
2,776
12,218
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
Men ............................................................
W om er........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present ....................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers ......................................................
MAJOR INDUSTRYANDCLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
PERSONS AT WORK1
Nonagricultural industries ....................................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................
'Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
Selected categories
1981
1980
Annual average
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ............................
5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1
7.1
5.9
6.3
17.7
6.2
4.8
5.8
16.5
6.2
4.7
5.8
16.6
6.3
5.0
5.8
16.2
6.9
5.8
6.2
16.4
7.6
6.4
6.5
18.9
7.5
6.4
6.4
18.3
7.6
6.6
6.6
18.7
7.6
6.5
6.5
18.8
7.4
6.6
6.2
17.8
7.6
6.4
6.7
18.5
7.5
6.4
6.7
18.6
7.4
6.2
6.8
17.8
7.4
6.0
6.7
19.0
White, to ta l..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9
6.3
5.2
5.6
14.8
5.5
4.2
5.1
14.2
5.4
4.1
5.2
14.2
5.5
4.5
5.0
14.1
6.1
5.2
5.5
14.8
6.8
5.8
5.7
17.1
6.7
5.7
5.7
16.1
6.8
5.8
5.8
16.5
6.7
5.8
5.8
16.6
6.5
5.8
5.5
15.1
6.6
5.7
5.8
16.0
6.6
5.7
5.8
16.4
6.5
5.5
5.9
15.4
6.7
5.5
6.0
16.8
Black and other, total....................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5
13.2
11.4
11.1
35.8
11.9
9.7
10.1
34.4
11.7
9.5
9.3
36.9
11.9
9.5
10.5
33.7
12.6
10.8
11.1
31.8
13.6
11.7
11.6
35.3
13.5
12.2
10.9
34.8
13.9
12.5
11.3
35.9
13.7
12.5
10.9
37.6
14.1
13.2
10.6
37.8
14.2
12.1
12.3
37.4
14.0
12.0
12.2
36.6
14.0
11.6
12.3
37.5
12.9
10.5
11.0
36.5
Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost’ ..................................
2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
T:2
6.3
4.2
5.8
9.1
6.8
8.7
1.7
7.9
3.4
5.3
9.0
5.8
8.7
1.3
6.7
3.2
5.4
8.5
5.8
8.8
1.2
6.6
3.4
5.4
8.6
5.9
8.4
1.3
6.8
4.0
5.7
9.0
6.5
8.8
1.5
7.6
4.6
6.1
8.3
7.3
9.0
1.6
8.6
4.6
6.0
8.5
7.2
8.8
1.7
8.1
4.9
6.1
8.8
7.4
8.8
1.8
8.4
4.8
6.0
9.0
7.3
8.7
2.0
8.3
4.7
5.7
9.0
7.3
8.7
2.2
8.2
4.6
6.0
10.2
7.3
9.1
2.2
8.4
4.4
5.9
9.9
7.4
8.6
2.2
8.3
4.3
5.8
10.4
7.3
8.2
2.3
8.2
4.2
6.2
10.5
7.1
9.2
2.2
8.2
3.3
2.4
3.7
2.5
3.4
2.3
3.4
2.3
3.4
2.3
3.7
2.4
3.8
2.6
3.7
2.5
3.7
2.4
3.7
2.4
3.8
2.5
3.9
2.6
3.9
2.5
4.0
2.6
3.9
2.8
1.9
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
10.8
7.1
3.8
2.4
4.4
5.3
10.0
6.6
12.2
8.8
14.6
7.9
4.4
1.9
4.3
4.8
8.1
5.1
10.0
6.9
12.7
6.9
4.5
2.2
4.3
4.7
7.9
5.1
9.3
6.8
12.5
7.0
3.9
2.4
4.0
4.8
8.2
5.5
9.4
6.9
13.3
7.2
4.2
2.6
4.5
5.1
9.6
6.5
11.6
8.4
14.1
7.8
4.8
2.6
4.4
5.3
10.9
7.5
13.7
8.7
14.9
8.2
4.7
2.5
4.4
5.2
11.1
7.5
13.4
10.0
15.7
8.1
4.5
2.6
4.2
5.4
11.3
7.2
14.4
10.0
15.8
8.3
4.6
2.5
4.2
5.4
11.1
7.6
13.3
9.8
16.1
8.5
5.5
2.4
4.3
5.4
10.8
7.4
13.0
10.4
15.2
8.1
4.3
2.5
4.6
5.6
10.8
7.1
13.2
10.6
15.3
8.3
4.4
2.4
4.8
5.6
10.7
7.1
13.0
10.6
15.0
8.3
4.0
2.5
4.7
5.8
10.5
7.1
12.9
8.8
14.8
7.8
4.0
2.4
4.4
5.7
10.2
6.8
12.1
9.1
15.0
8.0
5.0
5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1
7.4
14.2
8.5
8.9
7.9
4.9
7.4
5.3
4.1
10.8
6.2
11.4
6.7
6.7
6.8
4.4
6.6
4.7
3.8
10.4
6.2
10.9
6.7
6.5
6.9
4.5
6.6
4.7
4.0
9.5
6.3
13.1
6.6
6.5
6.8
3.9
6.4
4.9
4.1
10.3
7.0
14.5
7.9
8.3
7.3
4.7
7.0
5.1
4.3
11.7
8.0
16.6
9.7
10.4
8.6
5.0
7.5
5.6
4.2
11.4
8.0
15.6
9.7
10.9
7.9
5.1
7.7
5.6
3.5
10.4
8.0
15.8
9.8
10.7
8.5
5.6
7.6
5.6
4.1
10.8
8.0
17.3
9.3
10.1
8.0
5.6
7.7
5.5
4.0
13.2
7.8
15.9
9.2
10.0
7.9
5.3
7.7
5.4
4.1
10.7
7.8
14.6
9.2
9.5
8.9
5.3
7.8
5.6
4.4
11.1
7.8
14.8
8.9
9.0
8.6
4.9
8.2
5.5
4.2
10.1
7.7
13.8
8.8
9.0
8.5
4.9
8.3
5.5
4.1
10.6
7.5
13.3
8.4
8.3
8.5
5.8
7.6
5.8
4.4
11.5
CHARACTERISTIC
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trade ............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................
1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
2 Includes mining, not shown separately.
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1980.
5.
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Sex and age
1981
1980
Annual average
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years ............................................
16 to 17 years ......................................
18 to 19 years ......................................
20 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and over........................................
25 to 54 years ......................................
55 years and over ..................................
5.8
16.1
18.1
14.6
9.0
3.9
4.1
3.0
7.1
17.7
20.0
16.1
11.5
5.0
5.4
3.3
6.2
16.5
19.0
14.3
10.2
4.3
4.5
3.4
6.2
16.6
18.8
15.2
9.9
4.2
4.6
2.8
6.3
16.2
17.7
15.1
9.9
4.4
4.8
2.8
6.9
16.4
19.0
14.5
11.3
5.0
5.3
3.3
7.6
18.9
21.2
17.4
12.5
5.3
5.6
3.4
7.5
18.3
20.0
17.6
12.1
5.4
5.8
3.3
7.6
18.7
20.5
17.4
12.1
5.5
5.9
3.4
7.6
18.8
22.1
16.5
12.0
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.4
17.8
20.1
16.0
12.0
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.6
18.5
20.9
16.7
12.3
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.5
18.6
21.4
16.5
12.1
5.4
5.9
3.3
7.4
17.8
19.9
16.4
11.7
5.3
5.8
3.5
7.4
19.0
21.0
17.5
11.9
5.3
5.7
3.5
Men, 16 years and over................................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over ..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
5.1
15.8
17.9
14.2
8.6
3.3
3.4
2.9
6.9
18.2
20.4
16.7
12.5
4.7
5.1
3.3
5.8
16.3
19.0
14.2
10.5
3.8
3.9
3.4
5.6
16.0
18.2
14.5
10.3
3.7
3.9
2.8
5.8
15.2
16.5
14.5
10.7
4.0
4.3
2.8
6.7
16.3
18.8
14.4
12.3
4.7
4.9
3.3
7.5
19.4
21.5
17.6
13.5
5.1
5.4
3.4
7.5
19.1
21.5
18.8
13.4
5.2
5.6
3.6
7.6
19.5
20.9
18.4
13.2
5.4
5.8
3.6
7.6
19.9
23.7
17.1
13.6
5.3
5.7
3.6
7.6
18.9
21.2
16.9
13.5
5.4
6.0
3.5
7.4
19.8
21.8
18.1
13.8
5.1
5.6
3.3
7.4
19.8
22.3
17.8
13.2
5.1
5.6
3.3
7.2
19.0
20.5
17.8
12.5
4.9
5.4
3.3
7.2
20.3
23.0
18.5
12.8
4.9
5.2
3.4
Women, 16 years and over ..........................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over ..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
6.8
16.4
18.3
15.0
9.6
4.8
5.2
3.2
7.4
17.2
19.5
15.6
10.3
5.5
5.9
3.2
6.9
16.6
19.1
14.5
9.8
4.9
5.3
3.3
6.9
17.4
19.4
16.1
9.4
5.0
5.4
2.9
6.9
17.2
19.2
15.8
9.0
5.1
5.5
2.9
7.2
16.5
19.3
14.8
10.1
5.4
5.8
3.3
7.6
18.3
20.9
17.2
11.3
5.5
6.0
3.3
7.4
17.3
18.3
16.3
10.6
5.5
6.0
2.9
7.7
17.7
20.1
16.2
10.9
5.7
6.1
3.1
7.6
17.6
20.2
15.9
10.2
5.7
6.2
3.1
7.2
16.6
18.8
15.1
10.2
5.4
5.9
3.3
7.7
17.0
19.8
15.1
10.6
5.9
6.4
3.4
7.7
17.2
20.3
15.1
10.8
5.8
6.2
3.4
7.7
16.5
19.3
14.8
10.8
5.9
6.3
3.9
7.7
17.5
18.7
16.4
10.8
5.8
6.3
3.6
6.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1981
Jan.
3,038
1,072
1,966
807
1,808
814
2,979
1,087
1,892
831
1,797
825
3,102
1,135
1,967
804
1,812
815
3,581
1,422
2,159
905
1,909
752
4,164
1,771
2,393
930
1,975
871
4,468
1,954
2,514
887
1,834
872
4,364
1,832
2,532
866
1,868
893
4,319
1,699
2,620
890
1,883
870
'■,387
1,744
2,643
855
1,844
862
4,240
1,692
2,548
870
2,013
880
4,229
1,453
2,776
897
1,896
390
4,226
1,470
2,756
813
1,869
868
3,847
1,258
2,590
907
2,039
1,000
100.0
47.0
16.6
30.4
12.5
28.0
12.6
100.0
46.3
16.9
29.4
12.9
27.9
12.8
100.0
47.5
17.4
30.1
12.3
27.7
12.5
100.0
50.1
19.9
30.2
12.7
26.7
10.5
100.0
52.4
22.3
30.1
11.7
24.9
11.0
100.0
55.4
24.2
31.2
11.0
22.8
10.8
100.0
54.6
22.9
31.7
10.8
23.4
11.2
100.0
54.2
21.3
32.9
11.2
23.6
10.9
100.0
55.2
21.9
33.3
10.8
23.2
10.8
100.0
53.0
21.1
31.8
10.9
25.2
11.0
100.0
53.5
18.4
35.1
11.3
24.0
11.2
100.0
54.3
18.9
35.4
10.5
24.0
11.2
100.0
49.4
16.1
33.2
11.6
26.2
12.8
2.9
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
.8
1.7
.8
3.0
.8
1.7
.8
3.4
.9
1.8
.7
4.0
.9
1.9
.8
4.3
.8
1.8
.8
4.2
.8
1.8
.9
4.1
.8
1.8
.8
4.2
.8
1.8
.8
4.0
.8
1.9
.8
4.0
.9
1.8
.8
4.0
.8
1.8
.8
3.6
.9
1.9
.9
1980
Reason for unemployment
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last job ......................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other job losers ..........................................................................
Left last jo b ........................................................................................
Reentered labor force ........................................................................
Seeking first jo b ..................................................................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed ..............................................................................
Job losers..........................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other job losers ..........................................................................
Job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants......................................................................................
UNEMPLOYEDAS APERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job osers ..........................................................................................
Job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants......................................................................................
7.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over ............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ......................................
Average (mean) duration, in weeks ......................
1981
1980
Annual average
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
2,869
1,892
1,202
684
518
10.9
3,208
2,411
1,829
1,028
802
11.9
3,163
1,994
1,319
776
543
10.6
3,049
2,134
1,299
794
505
10.7
3,005
2,207
1,391
796
595
11.0
3,258
2,373
1,599
931
668
11.2
3,714
2,589
1,686
980
706
10.6
3,281
2,812
1,777
1,024
753
11.7
3,317
2,649
1,935
1,093
842
11.8
3,255
2,533
2,150
1,239
911
12.5
3,042
2,586
2,295
1,366
929
13.0
3,186
2,500
2,292
1,256
1,036
13.3
3,108
2,524
2,329
1,213
1,116
13.6
3,115
2,217
2,378
1,231
1,147
13.5
3,259
2,264
2,358
1,079
1,279
14.4
NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
87
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.
L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
Labor turnover is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of June 1980 data, published in the August 1980 issue of the Re
view. Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through March 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through March 1980) and in Em ploym ent and Earnings, United
States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the Review. For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” Em ploym ent and Earnings, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” M onthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also
B L S Handbook o f M ethods fo r Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see Em ploym ent and Earnings,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
Employment by industry, 1950-79
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
Year
Total
Mining
Government
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
in st
ance,
and real
estate
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
1950 ..........................................................
45,197
901
2,364
15,241
4,034
9,386
2,635
6,751
1,883
5,357
6,026
1,928
4,098
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641
929
898
866
791
792
2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839
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
2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926
7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610
1,953
2,03)
2,111
2,20)
2,298
5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240
6,38!)
6,60!)
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956
1957
1958
1959'
1960
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
........................................................
..........................................................
52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189
822
828
751
732
712
3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926
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
3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143
7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248
2,38!)
2,431)
2,481
2,54!)
2,62!)
6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378
7,278
7,616
7,831)
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765
672
650
635
634
632
2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232
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
3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466
8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250
2,681)
2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977
7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036
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
1969
1970
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,050
3,180
3,337
3,511!
3,640
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,7841
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731
8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,771!
3,900
4,040
4,140
4.16Í
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,680
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
79,382
82,471
86,697
89,886
779
813
851
960
3,576
3,851
4,229
4,483
18,997
19,682
20,505
21,062
4,582
4,713
4,923
5,141
17,755
18,516
19,542
20,269
4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
13,209
13,808
14,573
15,066
4,271
4,46/
4,724
4,974
14,551
15,303
16,252
17,078
14,871
15,127
15,672
15,920
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
9.
Employment by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State
Dec. 1979
Nov. 1980
Dec. 1980»
State
Dec. 1979
Nov. 1980
Dec. 1980"
Alaska ..........................................................................
Anzona ........................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................
California......................................................................
1,378.2
163.6
1,010.7
757.8
9,886.9
1,348.2
171.3
1,016.5
755.0
9,824.2
1,352.4
167.8
1,021.0
755.4
9,874.0
Nebraska' ..............................................................
Nevada ..................................................................
New Hampshire ......................................................
New Jersey ............................................................
285 3
641.3
394.7
380.7
3,073.1
282.8
633.2
405.0
385.1
3,052.2
282.0
632.3
400.8
384.3
3,061.4
Florida..........................................................................
1,247.5
1,432.0
261.8
624.1
3,503.5
1.265.2
1.411.2
261.2
617.0
3,585.4
1,266.5
1,419.0
262.0
620.0
3,623.6
Ohio ......................................................................
471.5
7,271.6
2,422.7
248.1
4,534.3
470.1
7,216.0
2,447.1
249.7
4,453.9
470.5
7,223.0
2,450.0
247.6
4,445.5
Georgia ........................................................................
Hawaii..........................................................................
Idaho............................................................................
Illinois ..........................................................................
Indiana..........................................................................
2,147.3
407.4
338.9
4,866.6
2,219.9
2,162.3
405.1
335.6
4,798.2
2,244.6
2,168.7
407.9
331.5
4,796.5
2,239.4
Oklahoma ..............................................................
Oregon' ................................................................
Pennsylvania ..........................................................
Rhode Island ..........................................................
South Carolina........................................................
1,122.1
4,892.9
404.7
1,198.7
1,151.1
1,036.2
4,798.9
398.2
1,188.7
1,155.0
1,027.0
4,788.7
400.9
1,191.9
Kentucky ......................................................................
Maine ..........................................................................
1,145.4
968.1
1,262.5
1,525.8
418.7
1,100.8
956.3
1,219.6
1,576.2
417.8
1,097.6
956.8
1,215.6
1,581.6
415.9
Texas ....................................................................
Utah1 ....................................................................
Vermont..................................................................
242.8
1,810.6
5,754.9
558.0
202.7
235.7
1,773.9
5,919.5
564.8
202.9
234.7
1,773.5
5,934.3
5642
203.8
Maryland ......................................................................
Massachusetts..............................................................
Michigan ......................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................
Missouri........................................................................
1,717.5
2,658.9
3,626.3
1,807.4
850.3
2,014.0
1,706.7
2,694.8
3,534.9
1,790.2
831.9
1,985.7
1,715.2
2,696.9
Virginia....................................................................
Washington ............................................................
West Virginia ..........................................................
Wisconsin................................................................
Wyoming ................................................................
2,128.1
1,616.0
659.7
2,011.7
205.0
2,142.8
1,615.4
636.3
2,010.4
207.9
2,148.2
1,613.9
635.0
2,005.0
208.7
Virgin Islands ..........................................................
36.6
36.1
36.7
Connecticut ..................................................................
Delaware......................................................................
1,784.9
833.2
1,980.4
New York................................................................
North Carolina ........................................................
1Revised series; not strictly comparable with previously published data.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1981
1980
Annual average
industry division and group
TOTAL ........................................................
1978
1979
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
86,697
89,886
89,630
89,781
90,316
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
90,761
90,849
91,049
89,820
90,072
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.p
Jan.p
90,729
91,332
91,693
91,839
90,089
MINING ............................................................
851
960
982
987
996
1,006
1,024
1,049
1,030
1,029
1,035
1,039
1,055
1,062
1,065
CONSTRUCTION ..............................................
4,229
4,483
4,194
4,109
4,150
4,311
4,471
4,611
4,633
4,712
4,690
4,700
4,618
4,430
4,082
MANUFACTURING............................................
Production workers................................
20,505
14,734
21,062
15,085
20,777
14,738
20,730
14,678
20,793
14,727
20,533
14,466
20,250
14,172
20,201
14,093
19,754
13,657
20,044
13,947
20,269
14,182
20,302
14,204
20,368
14,260
20,332
14,215
20,164
14,076
Durable goods ..............................................
Production workers................................
12,274
8,805
12,772
9,120
12,600
8,885
12,599
8,869
12,647
8,909
12,414
8,672
12,150
8,409
12,065
8,307
11,774
8,025
11,827
8,075
12,028
8,281
12,100
8,343
12,195
8,430
12,195
8,421
12,123
8,358
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
754.7
494.1
698.2
1,214.9
1,672.6
2,325.5
2,006.1
2,002.8
653.1
451.5
766.1
499.3
709.7
1,250.2
1,723.7
2,481.6
2,124.3
2,082.8
688.9
445.6
717.4
498.0
678.2
1,207.2
1,696.8
2,538.5
2,162.9
1,975.8
697.7
427.7
718.9
494.6
674.7
1,205.1
1,699.4
2,536.5
2,157.7
1,983.1
700.5
428.8
716.9
494.1
679.0
1,203.7
1,703.8
2,539.9
2,167.7
2,005.6
703.6
432.9
678.4
488.7
675.5
1,193.8
1,671.4
2,523.5
2,156.2
1,891.1
702.2
433.0
654.8
469.1
668.1
1,149.8
1,619.8
2,509.3
2,120.2
1,835.1
699.4
424.6
668.0
460.8
666.2
1,112.9
1,598.6
2,486.1
2,102.2
1,847.0
702.9
420.1
666.8
438.1
656.0
1,055.5
1,538.4
2,440.2
2,066.5
1,810.2
698.3
404.0
683.0
454.6
663.2
1,059.6
1,567.6
2,417.8
2,080.7
1,785.4
697.8
417.6
689.2
466.6
667.4
1,081.8
1,594.5
2,449.6
2,103.5
1,857.9
695.5
422.2
686.9
470.3
665.5
1,093.1
1,604.6
2,456.7
2,119.3
1,885.7
695.9
422.1
682.8
473.8
667.2
1,111.9
1,615.6
2,475.2
2,134.9
1,912.2
700.6
421.2
676.5
476.4
655.1
1,120.9
1,615.3
2,501.7
2,144.4
1,891.9
704.0
408.8
666.4
472.0
638.6
1,116.6
1,604.2
2,505.2
2,142.7
1,872.4
703.2
401.9
Nondurable goods ........................................
Production workers................................
8,231
5,929
8,290
5,965
8,177
5,853
8,131
5,809
8,146
5,818
8,119
5,794
8,100
5,763
8,136
5,786
7,980
5,632
8,217
5,872
8,241
5,901
8,202
5,861
8.173
5,830
8,137
5,794
8,041
5,718
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ............................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
1,724.1
70.6
899.1
1,332.3
698.7
1,192.0
1,095.5
207.7
754.5
256.8
1,728.1
69.9
888.5
1,312.5
706.7
1,239.5
1,110.7
210.0
775.6
248.0
1,659.9
69.1
884.0
1,282.0
703.5
1,266.3
1,113.1
208.6
750.3
240.3
1,644.1
67.1
884.6
1,305.8
701.9
1,270.4
1,112.1
155.9
746.3
242.6
1,641.1
64.4
886.9
1,318.4
701.8
1,272.1
1,118.1
153.1
746.5
243.4
1,626.2
62.9
882.1
1,304.2
698.8
1,270.4
1,120.6
173.6
737.2
243.3
1,638.5
62.7
870.6
1,299.0
692.4
1,267.8
1,119.5
203.4
702.4
243.2
1,676.8
64.6
853.2
1,310.5
695.0
1,271.3
1,122.2
209.1
688.5
244.7
1,709.5
63.9
820.6
1,236.9
682.3
1,264.5
1,112.0
212.0
659.3
218.9
1,795.3
71.3
854.1
1,299.9
688.7
1,264.3
1,108.4
212.4
680.4
242.6
1,790.5
75.5
854.7
1,309.2
688.6
1,267.9
1,106.3
210.9
695.8
241.1
1,738.8
76.4
856.8
1,307.5
690.7
1,272.2
1,104.9
210.4
703.4
240.6
1,696.6
75.6
859.4
1,302.3
691.6
1,281.0
1,106.1
210.2
708.3
241.5
1,668.0
73.6
859.6
1,283.2
693.0
1,294.0
1,108.6
207.5
711.1
238.7
1,619.2
70.4
856.2
1,262.8
690.4
1,281.5
1,105.7
210.0
708.5
236.7
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . .
4,923
5,141
5,136
5,130
5,143
5,147
5,167
5,185
5,145
5,144
5,170
5,178
5,158
5,156
5,082
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE....................
19,542
20,269
20,325
20,155
20,226
20,373
20,497
20,562
20,506
20,579
20,692
20,708
20,937
21,314
20,550
WHOLESALE TRADE ........................................
4,969
5,204
5,241
5,250
5,269
5,265
5,263
5,287
5,278
5,284
5,291
5,313
5,313
5,315
5,273
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
14,573
15,066
15,084
14,905
14,957
15,108
15,234
15,275
15,228
15,295
15,401
15,395
15,624
15,999
15,277
5,232
5,194
5,204
5,215
5,227
5,223
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICES
GOVERNMENT ..................................................
Federal........................................................
State and local ............................................
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,724
4,974
5,052
5,061
5,085
5,104
5,137
5,201
5,229
16,252
17,078
17,135
17,317
17,478
17,636
17,747
17,846
17,973
17,966
17,915
17,949
17,951
17,962
17,779
16,556
2,963
13,593
16,394
2,995
13,399
15,550
2,949
12,601
15,366
2,862
12,504
15,764
2,754
13,010
16,252
2,774
13,478
16,391
2,776
13,615
16,356
2,789
13,567
16,144
2,772
13,372
15,672
2,753
12,919
15,920
2,773
13,147
16,029
2,763
13,266
16,292
2,803
13,489
16,445
2,869
13,576
16,651
3,103
13,548
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
1980
Industry division and group
1981
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.p
Jan.p
91,031
91,186
91,144
90,951
90,468
90,047
89,867
90,142
90,384
90,710
90,961
91,116
91,490
999
1,007
1,009
1,012
1,023
1,029
1,013
1,013
1,028
1,037
1,054
1,069
1,082
4,745
4,659
4,529
4,467
4,436
4,379
4,322
4,359
4,404
4,442
4,475
4,507
4,612
20,971
14,911
20,957
14,871
20,938
14,850
20,642
14,550
20,286
14,186
20,014
13,931
19,828
13,759
19,940
13,872
20,044
13,972
20,157
14,065
20,282
14,179
20,328
14,207
20,357
14,247
Durable goods..............................................................................
Production workers ................................................................
12,681
8,953
12,715
8,967
12,707
8,961
12,442
8,686
12,140
8,386
11,947
8,205
11,819
8,084
11,860
8,123
11,955
8,212
12,043
8,288
12,146
8,381
12,169
8,391
12,202
8,425
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................................................
Primary metal industries ................................................................
Fabricated metal products..............................................................
Machinery, except electrical ..........................................................
Electric and electronic equipment....................................................
Transportation equipment ..............................................................
Instruments and related products....................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..........................................................
743
497
705
1,215
1,707
2,532
2,169
1,970
699
444
745
495
705
1,214
1,711
2,529
2,168
2,006
702
440
737
494
700
1,209
1,711
2,530
2,176
2,006
705
439
689
491
680
1,193
1,678
2,518
2,167
1,885
703
438
654
472
663
1,144
1,620
2,517
2,127
1,819
700
424
648
461
647
1,096
1,584
2,476
2,094
1,831
696
414
650
449
641
1,049
1,551
2,448
2,079
1,839
698
415
662
456
648
1,059
1,569
2,437
2,083
1,840
697
409
674
464
655
1,074
1,587
2,452
2,091
1,851
697
410
677
466
656
1,096
1,595
2,469
2,107
1,873
697
407
683
469
661
1,119
1,606
2,475
2,120
1,901
701
411
685
472
661
1,129
1,609
2,489
2,136
1,871
703
414
691
472
665
1,124
1,614
2,498
2,149
1,867
705
417
Nondurable goods........................................................
Production workers ................................................................
8,290
5,958
8,242
5,904
8,231
5,889
8,200
5,864
8,146
5,800
8,067
5,726
8,009
5,675
8,080
5,749
8,089
5,760
8,114
5,777
8,136
5,798
8,159
5,816
8,155
5,822
Food and kindred products ............................................................
Tobacco manufactures ..................................................................
Textile mill products ......................................................................
Apparel and other textile products..................................................
Paper and allied products ..............................................................
Printing and publishing....................................................................
Chemicals and allied products........................................................
Petroleum and coal products..........................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products..........................................................
1,716
67
888
1,305
710
1,269
1,121
214
755
245
1,713
68
888
1,313
709
1,273
1,121
161
751
245
1,704
68
888
1,316
708
1,274
1,123
157
749
244
1,690
69
884
1,302
702
1,272
1,123
175
740
243
1,691
70
869
1,291
692
1,268
1,120
203
703
239
1,677
71
843
1,287
685
1,269
1,112
205
681
237
1,683
69
833
1,276
680
1,266
1,103
207
663
229
1,690
67
851
1,296
682
1,266
1,100
208
680
240
1,672
68
851
1,299
686
1,269
1,104
208
692
240
1,682
69
856
1,292
690
1,272
1,105
209
699
240
1,686
71
856
1,291
692
1,278
1,108
209
705
240
1,685
69
859
1,292
694
1,286
1,113
210
712
239
1,674
69
861
1,286
697
1,284
1,115
215
713
241
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ......................................
5,202
5,198
5,202
5,178
5,167
5,134
5,114
5,129
5,124
5,147
5,132
5,130
5,149
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ................................................
20,529
20,637
20,610
20,531
20,487
20,459
20,506
20,589
20,620
20,641
20,660
20,638
20,757
WHOLESALE TRADE....................................................................
5,278
5,302
5,301
5,286
5,268
5,245
5,247
5,263
5,280
5,292
5,297
5,299
5,310
RETAIL TRADE ..............................................................................
15,251
15,335
15,309
15,245
15,219
15,214
15,259
15,326
15,340
15,349
15,363
15,339
15,447
5,091
5,101
5,115
5,119
5,137
5,150
5,167
5,180
5,194
5,214
5,225
5,243
5,265
SERVICES..........................................................................
17,462
17,540
17,580
17,618
17,659
17,652
17,760
17,788
17,861
17,913
17,969
18,052
18,123
GOVERNMENT ..................................................
Federal ......................................................................
State and local..........................................................................
16,032
2,791
13,241
16,087
2,826
13,261
16,161
2,886
13,275
16,384
3,115
13,269
16,273
2,960
13,313
16,230
2,951
13,279
16,157
2,893
13,264
16,144
2,828
13,316
16,109
2,765
13,344
16,159
2,788
13,371
16,164
2,790
13,374
16,149
2,796
13,353
16,145
2,800
13,345
TOTAL ..................................................................................
MINING ....................................................................
CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................
MANUFACTURING......................................................................
Production workers ............................................................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ......................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
average
Jan.
Feb.
Apr.
Mar.
June
May
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
4.3
4.4
4.3
3.8
5.3
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.6
3.1
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.2
p2.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
2.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
2.5
3.5
3.9
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.5
"1.2
.9
.8
.9
1.4
1.0
.9
.9
1.7
.8
.7
.8
1.4
.6
.6
.7
1.1
.6
.5
.5
.9
.6
.5
.5
0.8
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2
5.1
5.3
5.7
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.5
p3.2
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.4
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.2
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
».9
1.5
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.0
.8
1.3
1.7
1.1
.8
1.1
1.4
1.1
.9
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.7
p1.7
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5
4.9
4.9
4.8
3.9
4.6
4.7
4.7
3.4
New hires
3.7
3.9
3.8
2.4
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.1
3.5
3.6
3.6
2.1
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
.9
.7
.7
1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
.7
.7
.9
1.1
.8
.7
.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
.8
.8
.8
1.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.7
4.7
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.8
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.5
Recalls
.8
.7
.7
1.2
Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.4
Quits
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.4
Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
13.
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.4
.9
.8
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
1.3
.8
.7
.9
2.2
.8
.7
.7
2.5
.9
.8
.9
2.3
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Layoffs
Quits
Total
Recalls
New hires
Total
Major industry group
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980 p
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980p
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980p
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980 p
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980 p
Dec.
1979
Nov.
1980
Dec.
1980 p
MANUFACTURING..................................
Seasonally adjusted..............
2.2
3.9
2.7
3.6
2.2
3.6
1.5
2.9
1.6
2.1
1.2
2.2
0.5
0.9
0.8
3.5
4.0
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.4
1.1
1.9
1.1
1.4
0.9
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.2
Durable goods..................................
Lumber and wood products..........
Furniture and fixtures ..................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..
Primary metal industries ..............
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except electrical..........
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment ............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing........
1.9
2.4
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.3
2.6
3.3
3.1
2.4
3.3
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.8
1.8
3.3
2.0
2.8
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9
1.6
2.0
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.2
.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
.7
1.5
1.7
1.4
2.4
2.2
1.4
.7
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
2.3
1.0
1.6
1.7
1.1
.5
1.0
.9
1.1
.5
.6
.6
.5
.9
.5
.3
.3
.6
.1
.5
.9
.8
.7
.8
2.3
1.0
.6
.6
1.3
.2
.8
.7
1.1
1.1
.8
1.4
.7
.5
.5
3.2
6.0
3.5
4.7
3.2
3.4
1.9
2.2
3.6
1.9
6.6
2.6
4.4
2.9
3.6
2.1
3.2
1.8
2.2
2.3
1.6
5.5
2.8
6.0
3.7
4.7
2.3
2.8
1.7
2.2
.9
1.8
1.6
1.1
.5
1.1
.7
.9
.5
.9
1.4
.8
1.7
1.4
.9
.4
1.0
.7
.8
.6
.8
1.5
.7
2.4
1.3
.7
.3
.7
.5
.7
1.6
3.3
1.2
3.0
2.0
1.6
.6
.7
2.4
1.5
4.5
1.1
1.9
.9
2.0
1.2
1.6
.6
.7
1.1
.4
3.1
1.4
2.8
1.7
3.2
1.5
1.6
.6
.8
Nondurable goods............................
Food and kindred products ..........
Tobacco manufacturers................
Textile mill products ....................
Apparel and other products..........
Paper and allied products ............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal products........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................
Leather and leather products........
2.6
3.4
4.7
2.4
3.1
1.7
2.7
1.1
1.2
3.0
3.9
3.1
2.7
4.0
2.0
2.8
1.2
1.5
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.4
.9
2.0
2.4
1.2
2.2
.8
1.3
1.5
1.8
.8
1.3
1.8
.4
1.4
.6
.6
.2
.1
3.7
6.0
5.4
3.1
5.1
2.4
2.6
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.9
.6
1.5
2.0
.7
1.4
.4
.5
1.1
1.5
.5
1.4
.5
.4
1.9
3.4
2.2
1.1
3.0
1.3
.7
.4
1.1
1.7
3.3
4.1
.8
2.4
1.2
.6
.4
.9
2.1
3.9
2.7
5.4
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.9
1.5
2.0
.6
1.6
1.8
.7
1.6
.5
.6
1.1
1.4
.4
1.5
.6
.5
.2
.1
4.0
6.2
3.3
3.4
5.4
2.6
2.8
1.3
2.1
3.8
6.0
1.4
1.5
.9
1.8
.8
1.1
.7
1.0
1.0
.3"
1.1
.5
.4
.2
.1
.9
1.5
2.0
3.1
1.7
2.5
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.3
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.0
2.1
.8
1.0
2.7
3.8
3.3
4.2
2.5
3.4
1.6
2.6
2.0
3.0
1.3
2.4
.8
1.0
.9
1.0
1.0
.9
4.5
6.0
3.3
5.8
3.4
7.2
1.6
2.4
1.4
2.4
1.0
1.8
2.1
2.8
1.2
2.7
1.7
4.6
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.5
2.7
1.1
1.6
.2
.9
1.4
5.5
.7
1.1
.2
3.6
1.0
3.4
.9
1.0
.5
1.0
14.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Total private
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Mining
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Construction
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
$50.24
53.13
39.4
39.8
$1.275
1.335
$62.33
67.16
36.3
37.9
$1.717
1.772
$67.56
69.68
37.7
37.4
$1.792
1.863
$53.88
58.32
39.1
40.5
$1.378
1.440
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
399
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
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
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959’ ................
1960 ..................
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
95.06
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88 26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
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
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4.11
4.41
479
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
1971..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................
1975 ..................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
361
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
1976
1977
1978
1979
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.6
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
273.90
301.20
332.88
365.50
42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.50
283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
..................
..................
..................
..................
Transportation and public
utilities
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
Wholesale and retail trade
Services
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
$42.93
44.55
40.5
40.5
$1.060
1.100
$47.63
50.52
37 8
37.7
$1.260
1 340
1951..................
1952 ..................
1953 ..................
1954 ..................
1955 ..................
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’ ................
1960 ..................
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
7012
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
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
76.91
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.97
2.04
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
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85
79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4
2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5,88
101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9
2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
256.71
278.90
302.80
325.98
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.17
133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
' Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1980
1981
Industry division and group
1978
1979
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.p
Jan.p
TOTAL PRIVATE..........................................
35.8
35.6
35.1
35.1
35.2
35.0
35.0
35.3
35.3
35.5
35.3
35.3
35.3
35.6
35.0
MINING..............................................................
43.4
43.0
43.4
43.2
43.4
42.8
42.7
43.2
41.9
43.1
43,5
43.5
43.5
44.0
43.4
CONSTRUCTION................................................
36.8
37.0
35.3
35.7
36.2
36.7
36.9
37.9
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.9
36.8
37.2
36.3
MANUFACTURING ............................................
Overtime hours......................................
40.4
3.6
40.2
3.3
39.8
3.0
39.8
2.9
39.8
3.0
39.4
2.7
39.3
2.5
39.4
2.5
38.8
2.4
39.3
2.7
39.7
3.0
39.8
2.9
40.2
3.1
40.9
3.3
399
2.9
Durable goods ..............................................
Overtime hours......................................
41.1
3.8
40.8
3.5
40.3
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.3
3.1
39.9
2.7
39.7
2.5
39.8
2.4
39.1
2.3
39.7
2.6
40.2
2.9
40.3
2.9
40.7
3.1
41.6
3.4
40.5
2.9
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
39.8
39.3
41.6
41,8
41.0
39.4
38.7
41.5
41.4
40.7
38.1
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.6
38.5
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.4
38.3
38.5
40.7
40.7
40.6
37.1
37.9
40.4
40.6
40.2
37.6
37.3
40.6
39.3
39.9
38.4
37.3
41.0
39.1
40.1
38.2
36.2
40.3
38.6
39.2
39.2
37.6
40.7
39.0
40.0
39.3
38.3
41.1
39.9
40.5
39.2
38.5
41.3
39.9
40.5
39.2
38.4
41.4
40.8
40.9
39.6
39.5
41.5
41.7
41.7
38.3
38.2
40.3
41.2
40.6
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
42.1
40.3
42.2
40.9
38.8
41.8
40.3
41.1
40.8
38.8
41.5
40.2
40.0
41.0
38.8
41.5
40.2
40.4
40.8
38.6
41.5
40.0
40.4
40.6
38.8
41.1
39.6
39.8
40.4
38.4
40.8
39.3
39.9
40.3
38.2
40.8
39.4
39.9
40.5
38.3
40.0
38.5
39.5
39.6
37.8
40.4
39.2
40.0
39.9
38.5
41.0
39.7
40.7
40.1
39.1
40.7
39.9
41.1
40.3
38.9
41.3
40.4
41.7
40.9
39.1
42.2
41.1
43.4
41.3
39.6
41.4
40.1
41.3
40.7
38.4
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours......................................
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.1
39.0
2.9
38.9
2.8
38.9
2.9
38.7
2.7
38.7
2.5
38.8
2.5
38.5
2.6
38.9
2.9
39.1
3.0
39.1
2.9
39.3
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.1
2.9
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.7
38.1
40.4
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.0
40.4
35.3
42.6
39.5
37.3
40.9
35.2
42.7
39.1
36.9
40.8
35.4
42.4
39.0
37.7
40.9
35.4
42.4
38.9
38.2
39.9
35.3
42.2
39.7
38.7
39.8
35.3
41.6
39.6
38.3
39.6
35.6
41.7
39.9
36.5
38.5
35.3
41.4
40.3
36.8
39.2
35.4
41.8
40.3
38.2
39.8
35.2
42.4
39.7
40.1
39.9
35.4
42.2
40.1
40.0
40.3
35.4
42.8
40.3
38.4
40.9
36.0
43.6
40.0
38.9
39.9
35.0
42.7
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
37.6
41.9
43.6
40.9
37.1
37.5
41.9
43.8
40.5
36.5
37.2
41.7
36.2
40.3
36.7
37.0
41.6
39.7
39.9
36.8
37.2
41.7
39.4
40.0
36.4
36.8
41.6
41.1
39.7
36.7
36.9
41.3
42.3
39.0
37.0
36.7
41.2
42.3
39.3
37.4
36.8
40.7
42.7
38.6
36.4
37.2
40.9
42.2
40.0
36.6
37.3
41.3
43.4
40.3
36.2
37.2
41.4
43.7
40.7
36.5
37.2
42.0
43.6
41.1
36.3
38.1
42.1
43.1
41.5
37.0
37.3
41.2
42.6
40.9
36.8
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
40.0
39.9
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.9
39.7
39.7
39.8
39.7
39.7
39.5
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................
32.9
32.6
31.9
31.9
32.0
31.8
31.9
32.3
32.5
32.7
32.1
32.1
32.0
32.5
31.7
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.8
38.8
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.5
38.2
38.2
38.4
38.5
38.7
38.6
38.9
38.5
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
31.0
30.6
29.8
29.8
29.9
29.7
29.9
30.4
30.7
30.9
30.1
30.0
30.0
30.5
29.6
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..........................................................
36.4
36.2
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.1
SERVICES..........................................................
32.8
32.7
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.4
32.3
32.8
33.1
33.1
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.3
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1981
1980
Industry division and group
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov
Dec."
Jan.p
TOTAL PRIVATE ..............................................
35.6
35.5
35.4
35.3
35.1
35.0
34.9
35.1
35.2
35.3
35.4
35.4
35.5
MINING ..................................................................
43.4
43.2
43.4
42.8
42.7
43.2
41.9
43.1
43.5
43.5
43.5
44.0
43.4
CONSTRUCTION ....................................................
37.3
37.1
36.6
36.7
36.8
37.1
36.8
36.5
37.4
37.0
37.2
37.2
38.4
MANUFACTURING
Overtime hours............................................
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.8
3.0
39.3
2.6
39.1
2.4
39.0
2.5
39.4
2.7
39.6
2.7
39.7
2.8
39.9
2.9
40.1
3.1
40.4
3.1
Durable goods
Overtime hours............................................
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.1
40.3
3.2
40.3
3.0
39.7
2.5
39.5
2.4
39.4
2.4
39.9
2.6
40.1
2.7
40.1
2.8
40.5
3.0
40.7
3.2
41.0
3.1
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
394
39.2
41.4
40.8
40.9
39.1
39.0
41.2
40.8
40.8
38.7
38.5
40.9
40.7
40.7
37.3
38.5
40.6
40.6
40.8
37.5
37.6
40.3
39.2
39.9
37.6
37.0
40.4
38.8
39.7
38.1
36.6
40.2
38.6
39.6
38.9
37.4
40.3
39.2
40.1
38.8
38.0
40.9
39.7
40.4
38.7
38.0
40.9
40.1
40.4
39.3
38.0
41.1
40.9
40.6
39.4
38.5
41.2
41.5
40.7
39.6
39.0
41.5
41.3
40.9
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
41.6
40.5
40.9
41.4
39.2
41.5
40.3
40.8
40.9
39.1
41.3
40.0
40.4
40.4
38.6
41.5
39.9
40.5
40.7
38.5
41.0
39.5
39.7
40.3
38.3
40.7
39.2
39.5
40.4
38.2
40.6
39.0
39.6
40.1
38.3
40.8
39.4
40.9
40.1
38.6
40.9
39.5
40.6
40.1
38.9
40.7
39.9
40.8
40.2
38.7
41.0
40.0
41.4
40.5
38.6
41.0
40.3
41.6
40.6
39.1
41.5
40.4
42.3
41.1
38.8
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours............................................
39.5
3.1
39.4
2.9
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
38.9
2.6
38.6
2.5
38.5
2.6
38.7
2.8
38.8
2.7
39.0
2.8
39.0
2.9
39.3
3.0
39.6
3.1
Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................
39.8
38.5
41.5
36.0
43.0
39.7
37.9
41.1
35.9
42.9
39.3
37.7
40.8
35.3
42.6
39.6
38.2
40.3
35.8
42.5
39.9
38.2
39.7
35.3
41.7
39.6
37.3
39.1
35.2
41.4
39.7
38.5
38.8
35.1
41.4
39.8
37.3
39.2
35.1
41.8
39.7
37.5
39.7
35.1
42.2
39.6
39.5
39.9
35.3
42.2
39.8
38.9
40.0
35.0
42.6
39.8
37.5
40.4
35.7
42.9
40.3
40.1
40.5
35.8
43.0
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................
37.8
42.0
36.9
40.7
37.2
37.4
41.9
40.7
40.0
37.2
37.2
41.8
39.7
39.9
36.9
37.2
41.5
41.1
40.1
37.3
37.1
41.3
42.5
39.3
36.7
36.8
41.1
42.3
39.2
36.7
36.9
40.8
42.2
39.0
36.1
37.1
41.0
42.2
40.2
36.5
36.9
41.3
42.7
40.1
36.2
37.1
41.4
43.1
40.4
36.5
36.8
41.7
43.2
40.8
36.2
37.4
41.7
43.0
40.8
36.7
37.9
41.5
43.4
41.3
37.3
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ..........
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.9
39.7
39.7
39.8
39.7
39.7
39.5
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.6
32.4
32.3
32.0
32.1
31.9
31.8
32.0
32.1
32.2
32.2
32.1
32.3
WHOLESALE TRADE ..............................................
38.9
38.8
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.0
38.0
38.2
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.7
38.8
RETAIL TRADE........................................................
30.6
30.4
3.0.3
30.0
30.1
30.0
29.8
30.1
30.1
30.2
30.2
30.0
30.3
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..............................................................
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.1
SERVICES ..............................................................
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
Industry division and group
1980
1981
1978
1979
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.»
Jan.P
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................................
$5.69
$6.16
$6.42
$6.46
$6.51
$6.53
$6.57
$6.61
$6.64
$6.68
$6.80
$6.86
MINING......................................................................
7.67
8.50
8.88
8.90
8.95
9.10
9.08
9.16
9.08
9.18
9.32
9.37
$6.93
$6.93
$7.03
9.51
9.57
9.77
CONSTRUCTION........................................................
8.66
9.27
9.49
9.61
9.68
9.69
9.77
9.81
9.91
10.05
10.19
10.25
10.25
10.35
10.44
MANUFACTURING ....................................................
6.17
6.69
6.96
7.00
7.06
7.09
7.13
7.20
7.29
7.30
7.42
7.49
7.59
7.69
7.73
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................
6.58
5.60
468
6.33
8.20
6.35
7.13
6.08
5.06
6.85
8.97
6.84
7.39
6.21
5.27
7.06
9.30
7.09
7.46
6.33
5.32
7.14
9.44
7.14
7.54
6.35
5.37
7.27
9.45
7.24
7.56
6.28
5.39
7.34
9.53
7.27
7.60
6.40
5.42
7.45
9.61
7.32
7.69
6.56
5.49
7.53
9.65
7.42
7.77
6.72
5.52
7.60
9.82
7.42
7.78
6.76
5.54
7.64
9.84
7.48
7.93
6.80
5.58
7.69
9.95
7.62
8.02
6.76
5.59
7.74
10.09
7.68
8.13
6.79
5.62
7.82
10.28
7.75
8.24
6.76
5.70
7.83
10.40
7.85
8.26
6.84
5.73
7.85
10.44
7.87
Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
6.78
5.82
7.91
5.71
4.69
7.32
6.32
8.54
6.17
5.03
7.66
6.67
8.81
6.57
5.28
7.69
6.71
8.86
6.59
5.30
7.76
6.78
9.04
6.63
5.34
7.81
6.79
9.04
6.63
5.37
7.91
6.78
9.06
6.72
5.40
7.97
6.87
9.24
6.80
5.42
8.05
6.96
9.34
6.86
5.46
8.07
7.02
9.35
6.86
5.46
8.28
7.14
9.56
6.92
5.51
8.36
7.20
9.77
6.95
5.55
8.44
7.29
9.89
7.02
5.60
8.54
7.39
10.10
7.12
5.72
8.58
7.45
10.02
7.16
5.81
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
5.53
5.80
6.13
4.30
3.94
6.52
6.00
6.27
6.65
4.66
4.23
7.13
6.28
6.61
7.08
4.90
4.44
7.49
6.27
6.64
7.36
4.90
4.45
7.52
6.30
6.68
7.57
4.92
4.49
7.55
6.36
6.75
7.79
4.91
4.46
7.63
6.42
6.82
7.64
4.90
4.45
7.65
6.48
6.84
7.97
4.93
4.51
7.79
6.60
6.89
8.06
5.06
4.50
7.97
6.62
6.90
7.74
5.19
4.60
7.99
6.69
6.93
7.42
5.24
4.70
8.06
6.72
6.95
7.56
5.26
4.73
8.09
6.80
7.09
7.74
5.30
4.75
8.18
6.86
7.12
8.05
5.32
4.82
8.28
6.93
7.21
8.51
5.35
4.91
8.26
6.51
7.02
8.63
5.52
3.89
6.95
7.60
9.36
5.96
4.22
7.24
7.97
9.46
6.25
4.45
7.29
8.01
9.37
6.25
4.47
7.34
8.05
9.29
6.27
4.51
7.34
8.12
9.83
6.30
4.52
7.44
8.17
10.07
6.34
4.53
7.46
8.24
10.22
6.39
4.54
7.53
8.35
10.25
6.48
4.54
7.63
8.39
10.22
6.57
4.59
7.73
8.46
10.33
6.63
4.61
7.75
8.52
10.39
6.70
4.64
7.79
8.59
10.52
6.79
4.68
7.86
8.67
10.38
6.88
4.72
7.91
8.67
11.13
6.89
4.81
Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products .. .
Leather and leather products ..........................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..............
7.57
8.17
8.55
8.58
8.62
8.71
8.72
8.75
8.90
8.95
9.04
9.20
9.28
9.31
9.34
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ............................
4.67
5.06
5.34
5.36
5.40
5.40
5.42
5.43
5.48
5.48
5.56
5.59
5.64
5.60
5.79
WHOLESALE TRADE..................................................
5.88
6.39
6.72
6.77
6.83
6.87
6.89
6.95
6.99
7.01
7.08
7.10
7.20
7.24
7.35
RETAIL TRADE ..........................................................
4.20
4.53
4.78
4.78
4.81
4.80
4.82
4.83
4.88
4.89
4.95
4.98
5.02
4.97
5.16
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..................................................................
4.89
5.27
5.53
5.60
5.68
5.68
5.70
5.77
5.77
5.82
5.87
5.91
6.01
6.00
6.12
SERVICES..................................................................
4.99
5.36
5.65
5.70
5.75
5.75
5.79
5.81
5.79
5.81
5.93
6.00
6.10
6.10
6.20
18.
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967=100]
1980
1981
Industry
Dec. 1980
to
Jan. 1981
Jan. 1980
to
Jan. 1981
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars) .
240.3
242.4
245.2
246.2
248.3
250.9
252.1
254.0
255.4
257.9
260.9
261.6
264.3
1.0
10.0
Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services ......................................
277.0
225.8
245.2
260.8
234.2
218.4
237.7
278.5
229.8
247.8
262.4
235.2
221.1
239.7
280.9
232.2
250.2
265.9
237.8
225.7
242.7
283.7
233.0
252.4
267.2
238.0
224.9
243.0
284.2
234.2
255.0
268.7
239.8
226.3
245.7
286.3
235.3
258.3
270.6
241.8
230.2
248.4
285.3
236.7
260.6
272.8
243.5
229.0
247.6
288.9
239.0
262.4
273.2
245.3
232.7
249.8
290.4
239.3
264.5
274.0
246.5
233.1
251.7
294.4
241.6
266.6
280.2
247.7
234.8
254.2
298.7
243.0
268.9
283.4
250.9
239.3
258.5
302.0
245.3
270.2
284.6
250.2
238.2
258.8
306.8
248.1
272.9
285.7
254.1
240.9
260.7
1.6
1.1
1.0
.4
1.6
1.1
.7
10.8
9.9
11.3
9.5
8.5
10.3
9.7
102.7
102.2
102.0
101.4
101.4
101.5
102.0
102.0
101.5
101.5
101.7
100.8
TOTAL PRIVATE (In constant dollars)
96
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1981
1980
Annual average
Industry division and group
1978
1979
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................
$203.70
$219.30
$225.34
$226.75
$229.15
MINING............................................................
332.88
365.50
385.39
384.48
388.43
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec."
Jan. p
$228.55 $229.95
$233.33
$234.39
$237.14
$240.04
$242.16
$244.63
$246.71
$246,05.
387.72
395.71
380.45
395.66
405.42
407.60
413.69
421.08
424.02
Apr.
389.48
May
CONSTRUCTION..............................................
318.69
342.99
335.00
343.08
350.42
355.62
360.51
371.80
373.61
374.87
386.20
388.48
377.20
385.02
378.97
MANUFACTURING
249.27
268.94
277.01
278.60
280.99
279.35
280.21
283.68
282.85
286.89
294.57
298.10
305.12
314.52
308.43
270.44
290.90
222.88 ■ 239.55
195.82
183.92
263.33
284.28
342.76
371.36
278.39
260.35
297.82
236.60
202.37
283.11
378.51
287.85
300.64
243.71
204.29
286.31
384.21
288.46
303.86
243.21
206.75
295.89
384.62
293.94
301.64
232.99
204.28
296.54
386.92
292.25
301.72
240.64
202.17
302.47
377.67
292.07
306.06
251.90
204.78
308.73
377.32
297.54
303.81
256.70
199.82
306.28
379.05
290.86
308.87
264.99
208.30
310.95
383.76
299.20
318.79
267.24
213.71
316.06
397.01
308.61
323.21
264.99
215.22
319.66
402.59
311.04
330.89
266.17
215.81
323.75
419.42
316.98
342.78
267.70
225.15
324.95
433.68
327.35
334.53
261.97
218.89
316.36
430.13
319.52
Machinery except electrical........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Transportation equipment ..........................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................
285.44
234.55
333.80
233.54
181.97
305.98
254.70
350.99
251.74
195.16
317.89
268.13
352.40
269.37
204.86
319.14
269.74
357.94
268.87
204.58
322.04
271.20
365.22
269.18
207.19
320.21
268.88
359.79
267.85
206.21
322.73
266.45
361.49
270.82
206.28
325.18
270.68
368.68
275.40
207.59
322.00
267.96
368.93
271.66
206.39
326.03
275.18
374.00
273.71
210.21
339.48
283.46
389.09
277.49
215.44
340.25
287.28
401.55
280.09
215.90
348.57
294.52
412.41
287.12
218.96
360.39
303.73
438.34
294.06
226.51
355.21
298.75
413.83
291.41
223.10
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ........................
Tobacco manufactures ..............................
Textile mill products ..................................
Apparel and other textile products..............
Paper and allied products ..........................
217.88
230.26
233.55
173.72
140.26
279.71
235.80
250.17
252.70
188.26
149.32
303.74
244.92
261.10
264.08
200.41
156.29
319.82
243.90
259.62
271.58
199.92
157.53
318.85
245.07
260.52
285.39
201.23
158.95
320.12
246.13
262.58
297.58
195.91
157.44
321.99
248.45
270.75
295.67
195.02
157.09
318.24
251.42
270.86
305.25
195.23
160.56
324.84
254.10
274.91
294.19
194.81
158.85
329.96
257.52
278.07
284.83
203.45
162.84
333.98
261.58
279.28
283.44
208.55
165.44
341.74
262.75
275.92
303 16
209.87
167.44
341.40
267.24
284.31
309.60
213.59
168.15
350.10
273.03
286.94
309.12
217.59
173.52
361.01
270.96
288.40
331.04
213.47
171.85
352.70
Printing and publishing................................
Chemicals and allied products....................
Petroleum and coal products......................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products......................
244.78
294.14
376.27
260.63
318.44
409.97
269.33
332.35
342.45
269.73
333.22
371.99
273.05
335.69
366.03
270.11
337.79
404.01
274.54
337.42
425.96
273.78
339.49
432.31
277.10
339.85
437.68
283.84
343.15
431.28
288.33
349.40
448.32
288.30
352.73
454.04
289.79
360.78
458.67
299.47
365.01
447.38
295.04
357.20
474.14
225.77
144.32
241.38
154.03
251.88
163.32
249.38
164.50
250.80
164.16
250.11
165.88
247.26
167.61
251.13
169.80
250.13
165.26
262.80
167.99
267.19
166.88
272.69
169.36
279.07
169 88
285.52
174.64
281.80
177.01
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
302.80
325.98
337.73
338.05
340.49
344.05
342.70
346.50
355.11
355.32
358.89
366.16
368.42
369.61
368.93
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
153.64
164.96
170.35
170.98
172.80
171.72
172.90
175.39
178.10
179.20
178.48
179.44
180.48
182.00
183.54
WHOLESALE TRADE
228.14
247.93
258.72
259.97
262.27
263.81
265.27
265.49
267.02
269.18
272.58
274.77
277.92
281.64
282.98
151.59
152.74
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products..........................
RETAIL TRADE
130.20
138.62
142.44
142.44
143.82
142.56
144.12
146.83
149.82
151.10
149.00
149.40
150.60
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
178.00
190.77
200.19
203.28
206.18
205.62
205.77
210.03
208.87
211.27
211.91
214.53
218.16
217.80
220.93
192.73
195.60
198.86
198.86
200.26
SERVICES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
163.67
175.27
183.63
185.25
186.88
186.30
187.02
190.57
191.65
192.31
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
1960 ..........................................
Gross average
weekly earnings
Manufacturing workers
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
$80.67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
101.01
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32
74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
88.88
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79 '
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
121.68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
102.90
104.13
104.30
100.73
143.30
155.19
165.39
177.55
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.56
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.35
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.27
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
1980: January............................
February..........................
March..............................
225.34
226.75
229.15
96.59
95.88
95.52
181.96
182.98
184.67
77.99
77.37
76.98
199.00
200.07
201.89
85.30
84.60
84.16
277.01
278.60
280.99
118.74
117.80
117.13
217.91
218.99
220.61
93.40
92.60
91.96
238.20
239.40
241.22
102.10
101.23
100.55
April ................................
May ................................
June ................................
228.55
229.95
233.33
94.21
93.82
94.16
184.25
185.23
187.59
75.95
75.57
75.70
201.43
202.49
205.06
83.03
82.62
82.75
279.35
280.21
283.68
115.15
114.32
114.48
219.49
220.08
222.43
90.47
89.79
89.76
239.97
240.63
243.26
98.92
98.18
98.17
July..................................
August ............................
September ......................
October............................
November........................
Decemberp ......................
1981: Januaryp ..........................
234.39
237.14
240.04
242.16
244.63
246.71
246.05
94.51
95.01
95.29
95.30
95.41
95.37
( ')
188.33
190.25
192.28
193.76
195.48
196.94
195.20
75.94
76.22
76.33
76.25
76.24
76.13
205.86
207.95
210.15
211.76
213.63
215.21
213.43
83.01
83.31
83.43
83.34
83.32
83.19
(’ )
282.85
286.89
294.57
298.10
305.12
314.52
308.43
114.05
114.94
116.94
117.32
119.00
121.58
(’ )
221.87
224.61
229.82
232.22
236.90
243.09
237.60
89.46
89.99
91.23
91.39
92.43
93.97
(’ )
242.63
245.69
251.52
254.20
259.52
266.40
260.36
97.83
98.43
99.85
100.04
101.22
102.98
( 1)
(’ >
'Not available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal-
98
Gross average
weekly earnings
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
eolation,'' Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969,
®-13
also Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1978 - 80, Employment and Earnings, March
1980, PP-10-11 ■
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA
U n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail
road Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
Definitions
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1980
1979
Item
All programs:
Insured unemployment......................
State unemployment insurance
program:'
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Rate of insured unemployment ..........
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen: 3
Initial claims' ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
3,047
3,740
Mar.
3,730
Apr.
3,652
May
June
Aug.
July
3,629
3,680
3,790
4,140
Sept.
3,911
3,961
Nov.
Oct.
3,661
Dec.
3,726
2,263
2,837
1,818
1,705
2,190
2,248
2,319
2,737
1,829
1,702
1,808
1,673
2,864
3.4
3,537
4.1
3,518
4.1
3,356
3.9
3,278
3.8
3,343
3.9
3,455
4.0
3,692
4.3
3,408
3.9
3,087
3.6
2,903
33
2,983
3.4
9,171
13,792
12,801
13,170
12,689
12,302
12,441
14,398
12,786
11,689
11,443
9,514
4,085
3,321
3.8
$102.00
$96.41
$99.88
$98.75
$99.68
$99.86
$92.32
$94.54
$98.39
$99.15
$99.52
$99.55
$843,869 $1,283,946 $1,229,877 $1,218,231 $1,232,173 $1,196,836 $1,213,595 $1,397,508 $1,249,782 $1,144,885 $1,125,416 $1,054,506
24
25
21
21
21
20
23
27
23
25
23
17
56
60
58
63
52
50
45
58
55
56
56
54
233
$23,093
299
$29,635
255
$25,308
249
$24,928
246
$24,518
220
$22,025
122
$11,761
331
$33,342
244
$24,560
245
$24,804
255
$25,880
216
$21,047
55
15
19
11
12
11
12
14
17
15
19
21
14
31
34
32
30
25
22
20
26
25
29
32
35
118
$11,047
150
$14,118
129
$12,226
123
$11,901
108
$10,323
88
$8,280
50
$4,665
124
$11,296
93
$8,707
105
$9,699
130
$11,917
118
$11,366
11
22
7
5
4
6
24
44
13
10
9
7
11
37
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment........................................
Total benefits paid ............................
19
41
40
80
39
71
30
68
27
62
23
54
27
55
44
66
39
86
40
89
38
84
38
70
39
83
$197.22
$8,085
$199.01
$14,967
$208.73
$14,573
$210.79
$13,884
$201.87
$13,002
$193.44
$9,953
$199.06
$10,140
$207.08
$13,320
$211.87
$17,336
$211.99
$18,809
$208.49
$17,739
$209.00
$14,269
$212.27
$18,046
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals..........
Nonfarm placements ........................
4,378
1,044
5,980
1,314
7,285
1,561
8,708
1,853
10,021
2,143
11,446
2,413
12,864
2,730
14,249
3,105
15,431
3,445
11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program tor Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Includes the Virgin islands. Exludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State pro
grams.
5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).
NOTE: Date for Puerto Rico included. Dashes Indicate data not available.
99
PRICE DATA
P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
100
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification M anual 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the Review, regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see Facts About the Revised Consumer Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the Handbook
o f Labor Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price
Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S Handbook o f Methods
fo r Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 7 -1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79
[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages
All items
Year
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Medical care
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
..................
..................
..................
..................
100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
61
69
63
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................
1975 ..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
65
32
39
93
120
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
3.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
95
96
84
94
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
1967
1968
1969
1970
1976
1977
1978
1979
23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wsige Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
19B0
1979
1980
1979
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
All items......................................................................................
229.9
247.8
249.4
251.7
253.9
256.2
258.4
230.0
248.0
249.6
251.9
254.1
256.4
258.7
Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation ..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................
235.5
243.6
172.2
227.7
250.7
193.4
204.0
248.3
265.1
176.2
251.0
266.6
206.6
213.5
252.0
265.8
178.6
252.7
268.4
208.0
214.5
254.2
267.7
182.2
254.7
270.6
209.8
220.6
255.5
271.1
183.9
256.1
272.8
210.9
221.5
257.4
273.8
184.8
259.0
274.5
211.2
222.8
259.3
276.9
183.9
261.1
275.8
212.0
224.6
235.7
243.6
171.4
228.3
251.7
192.3
203.0
249.1
265.1
175.4
251.9
267.1)
204.4
212.9
252.5
265.8
177.9
253.5
270.0
205.6
214.0
255.1
267.6
181.4
255.2
272.2
208.1
219.0
256.6
271.0
182.8
256.6
274.3
209.2
219.9
258.7
273.7
183.3
259.7
276.3
209.9
221.0
260.5
277.1
182.9
261.9
277.6
210.1
223.0
Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables ............................................................................
219.4
208.8
219.0
199.8
234.1
224.0
241.4
209.8
236.7
226.0
242.6
212.4
239.0
228.4
244.1
215.3
240.7
230.2
244.4
218.1
242.5
232.0
245.3
220.6
243.8
232.9
246.8
221.1
219.4
208.7
220.5
198.2
234.4
224.2
243.5
208.0
236.9
226.2
244.8
210.5
239.2
228.4
246.0
213.5
240.8
230.0
246.1
216.3
242.9
232.0
247.1
218.9
244.3
233.1
248.8
219.7
Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................
249.3
182.9
289.2
224.2
270.7
207.1
272.4
192.1
323.3
243.8
288.0
218.1
272.5
193.2
321.5
246.4
289.8
219.2
274.8
195.1
322.6
249.4
292.3
225.3
277.9
197.1
327.4
250.8
294.8
226.7
280.9
198.3
331.9
253.3
296.6
227.2
284.7
199.6
338.4
255.8
297.9
228.1
249.6
182.7
291.1
224.0
271.8
207.4
273.1
191.0
325.9
243.9
289.3
218.5
273.3
193.0
324.2
246.3
291.7
219.5
275.4
194.8
325.3
248.2
294.3
225.4
278.6
196.8
330.3
249.6
296.6
227.4
281.5
198.0
334.8
252.2
298.7
227.9
285.5
199.4
341.9
254.7
300.0
228.4
All items less food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical care............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selectod beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
226.4
221.7
207.2
215.2
240.1
228.2
261.6
245.3
227.5
263.2
313.7
223.6
218.1
192.6
340.0
247.6
245.1
236.8
222.2
236.6
270.3
245.9
287.6
268.9
238.5
269.2
370.4
238.3
233.1
202.0
404.8
269.1
246.3
239.0
224.2
237.8
270.9
248.3
287.4
268.7
243.5
274.5
370.7
240.0
234.3
204.3
404.2
269.0
248.6
241.5
226.6
239.3
271.3
250.2
289.8
271.0
246.2
278.8
370.1
242.5
236.9
207.2
401.7
271.3
250.9
243.0
228.3
239.6
271.1
251.0
293.2
274.2
247.3
276.8
368.0
245.1
239.7
209.4
399.1
274.9
253.2
244.5
230.0
240.5
272.1
252.4
296.4
277.2
249.2
278.9
366.1
247.7
242.4
211.2
400.2
278.6
255.5
245.9
231.0
242.0
274.7
254.1
300.7
281.2
251.1
276.2
370.4
249.7
244.5
211.7
404.9
282.4
226.4
222.0
207.1
216.7
241.5
229.0
262.1
245.5
227.5
265.2
317.0
223.0
217.3
191.4
341.5
248.0
245.3
237.1
222.4
2387
272.2
247.2
288.5
269.4
238.4
271.2
373.9
237.6
232.1
200.6
406.1
269.8
246.6
239.6
224.4
239.9
272.9
249.6
288.6
269.4
242.9
275.9
374.2
239.4
233.4
202.9
405.5
269.9
248.7
242.0
226.5
241.1
273.0
251.5
290.7
271.4
246.1
280.8
373.1
242.0
235.9
205.7
402.7
271.9
251.0
243.5
228.2
241.3
272.8
252.3
294.2
274.7
247.0
279.0
371.1
244.5
238.7
207.8
400.3
275.6
253.4
245.1
230.1
242.2
273.9
253.8
297.4
277.7
249.1
280.7
369.5
247.2
241.5
209.9
401.3
279.3
255.7
246.7
231.2
243.9
276.6
255.6
302.0
281.9
251.1
278.4
373.7
249.3
243.6
210.6
405.9
283.4
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 - $1 ....................
$0,435
$0,404
$0,401
$0,397
$0,394
$0,390
$0,387
$0,435
$0,403
$0,401
$0,397
$0,394
$0,390
$0,387
Special indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Dec.
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
1979
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES ....................................................................
235.5
248.3
252.0
254.2
255.5
257.4
259.3
235.7
249.1
252.5
255.1
256.6
258.7
260.5
Food ..................................................................................................
241.7
254.8
258.7
261.1
262.4
264.5
266.4
241.8
255.5
259.2
261.9
263.4
265.7
267.6
Food at home ......................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
White bread......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100) ............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100)..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ........................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ..
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........
238.7
231.6
122.9
123.8
122.8
122.2
122.4
207.4
123.3
123.1
120.3
117.8
116.2
121.5
251.5
247.8
135.0
132.9
135.5
136.2
129.8
218.4
129.4
129.2
127.9
127.1
125.5
129.5
256.3
249.2
136.3
133.6
137.6
136.8
130.4
217.9
129.7
130.0
129.8
128.7
124.6
131.4
258.9
250.3
137.1
133.3
138.5
138.4
130.9
219.6
130.9
129.2
129.5
129.9
124.2
131.6
260.0
253.7
137.5
133.2
139.3
138.9
133.1
222.7
132.5
133.4
132.5
131.0
126.4
133.4
262.1
255.8
138.7
132.9
141.1
140.5
134.3
224.9
133.1
134.6
133.4
133.1
125.6
135.3
263.9
258.5
140.8
133.5
143.8
143.1
135.4
226.3
134.1
135.4
135.3
134.9
126.9
135.9
238.3
232.3
123.8
125.1
122.9
123.9
122.7
206.6
126.0
122.3
120.1
119.6
116.3
123.4
251.1
248.0
135.5
132.8
135.5
137.9
129.8
217.5
132.3
128.1
127.3
128.3
125.7
130.0
255.6
249.6
136.8
133.9
137.7
138.4
130.5
217.2
133.3
128.9
129.4
130.1
124.7
131.6
258.6
251.1
137.8
134.1
138.6
140.2
131.2
219.3
134.3
128.1
129.7
131.7
124.5
132.0
259.7
254.3
138.5
133.8
139.3
141.6
133.3
222.6
135.8
132.1
132.6
132.5
126.5
134.1
262.0
256.8
139.7
133.6
141.5
142.7
134.7
225.2
137.0
134.1
133.1
134.5
125.7
136.1
263.9
259.5
142.3
134.4
145.0
145.8
135.7
226.6
137.9
135.1
134.2
136.1
126.5
136.4
124.8
131.5
131.4
132.1
135.3
136.2
137.5
121.4
129.6
129.2
129.9
130.9
132.4
134.0
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal................................................................
Ground beef other than canned ..................................
Chuck roast ..............................................................
Round roast ..............................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak ..............................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Pork chops ................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Other meats..................................................................
Frankfurters ..............................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100)................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100)........................
Poultry ............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken ..................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Fish and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)........
Eggs..........................................................................
235.5
239.8
242.3
262.2
271.2
268.1
238.1
247.5
250.8
150.2
205.0
193.6
187.8
102.5
256.5
218.9
112.6
243.0
239.3
134.4
121.5
140.0
176.2
175.2
112.3
116.9
312.6
117.1
120.2
185.9
236.7
243.4
243.3
267.9
266.6
277.7
243.2
253.2
270.2
155.9
200.3
186.3
193.1
92.1
249.2
208.6
115.1
239.1
229.1
135.1
120.6
137.2
187.9
193.6
120.9
117.0
330.1
129.2
123.7
154.2
245.4
251.0
251.1
273.1
272.9
279.8
248.8
258.0
274.1
159.0
212.0
201.5
199.9
98.4
262.5
217.0
123.1
247.8
245.8
138.5
123.7
140.4
197.5
205.3
127.8
120.3
331.8
131.2
123.6
178.3
251.8
257.7
257.8
277.5
276.8
287.7
248.0
260.7
280.9
161.8
222.7
220.1
206.2
102.2
277.9
225.1
128.6
254.9
256.1
143.5
125.7
143.8
205.2
214.0
134.0
122.9
335.8
133.2
124.8
179.9
252.6
259.0
258.7
275.8
275.8
284.4
250.6
258.9
270.7
161.0
225.8
224.7
207.8
105.5
282.4
232.5
127 6
259.4
260.9
146.5
127.8
146.1
209.1
216.7
134.7
128.7
336.6
133.9
124.8
175.3
254.9
260.7
261.1
277.9
277.1
291.7
251.2
263.8
271.8
161.8
228.6
229.5
208.5
107.9
283.5
237.7
128.4
261.8
262.6
148.4
129.7
146.1
204.1
208.7
131.8
128.0
343.0
136.0
127.5
185.2
255.7
259.9
260.0
275.3
276.1
288.5
245.7
260.2
267.6
160.4
229.1
231.9
208.7
107.8
285.6
238.4
127.6
262.8
264.0
149.1
129.9
146.6
202.7
206.9
131.6
126.6
346.9
136.4
129.6
206.6
235.1
239.2
241.8
263.7
273.0
274.2
240.5
246.2
253.5
149.9
205.6
195.8
189.1
100.9
258.3
219.1
112.7
239.5
238.7
130.8
119.4
141.7
173.9
169.8
111.8
117.4
309.1
116.5
118.5
186.6
236.1
242.8
242.8
269.6
268.7
285.3
246.2
253.6
274.2
155.2
200.7
189.1
193.3
90.5
252.0
207.6
114.9
236.5
231.5
131.4
118.8
138.2
186.0
189.1
120.8
116.6
326.4
127.3
122.5
153.5
244.3
249.8
250.0
274.1
275.6
287.9
248.2
256.4
278.8
157.6
212.0
205.6
198.5
96.3
263.6
219.1
122.7
244.1
245.9
134.5
121.5
140.8
195.1
199.9
128.1
119.1
327.3
129.3
121.8
177.1
251.2
257.1
257.2
279.1
279.9
295.4
249.0
261.4
282.2
161.2
222.8
223.0
205.0
100.7
280.0
225.9
128.5
251.5
254.3
141.2
123.5
145.0
203.3
209.6
134.1
122.0
333.4
131.0
124.5
178.4
251.8
258.1
258.1
277.4
278.9
294.0
251.1
257.9
272.8
160.3
225.8
226.0
207.3
103.5
283.2
235.2
127.9
255.8
260.3
143.6
125.5
146.5
205.4
210.5
133.5
127.1
333.8
131.2
124.6
174.4
254.2
259.9
260.3
279.1
280.4
301.9
249.9
261.8
274.9
160.3
228.5
232.3
204.8
106.0
285.9
242.2
128.8
259.0
262.6
145.7
127.5
147.7
201.4
203.5
131.6
126.5
340.0
133.5
127.0
185.7
255.0
259.2
259.3
276.8
281.0
296.0
246.6
257.6
269.7
159.2
228.8
234.1
206.8
105.7
287.2
242.6
127.4
259.4
2634
145.2
127.7
148.5
201.1
202.2
132.3
126.2
343.1
133.7
128 8
206.6
Dairy products ........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh whole milk............................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ....................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
216.9
122.7
201.2
122.0
122.5
214.0
122.6
122.6
117.9
228.6
127.7
209.4
126.9
131.4
226.9
130.0
134.6
127.5
2297
127.9
2098
127.1
132.5
231.2
130.4
137.0
128.3
230.6
128.0
209.7
127.7
133.6
236.2
132.3
135.7
128.9
232.7
129.1
211.3
129.1
134.9
238.9
133.4
138.0
129.0
235.4
130.4
213.3
130.5
136.9
241.5
135.9
139.1
130.6
238.0
131.9
216.2
131.4
138.2
241.0
137.0
141.4
132.4
217.4
122.6
200.9
122.2
123.3
216.6
122.7
124.3
118.3
229.2
128.0
209.8
127.5
131.9
229.7
130.1
135.5
127.7
229.9
128.0
209.7
127.6
132.9
233.7
130.9
136.1
128.8
230.9
128.2
209.8
128.3
134.1
238.8
132.7
135.4
129.3
233.1
129.1
211.0
129.5
135.8
242.5
133.8
139.1
129.4
235.9
130.4
213.0
131.0
137.9
244.4
136.2
140.9
131.9
238.8
132.2
216.5
131.9
139.2
244.1
137.4
143.2
133.1
Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables................................................
Fresh fruits....................................................................
Apples ......................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh vegetables ..........................................................
Potatoes ......................................................................
Lettuce......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................
230.2
230.1
234.9
221.8
225.2
256.7
121.1
225.7
207.0
227.5
227.9
128.0
253.9
265.8
282.7
316.6
232.6
273.9
147.5
250.1
310.5
205.9
209.2
137.1
258.4
273.0
302.3
340.8
234.0
297.1
158.5
245.6
327.1
213.1
205.4
126.2
257.4
269.6
286.3
295.2
238.0
296.5
150.8
253.9
313.2
265.9
214.2
127.1
254.2
262.3
272.9
242.2
233.4
312.9
145.4
252.4
295.6
249.1
237.3
129.7
253.3
258.3
258.6
213.5
235.7
316.6
134.9
258.0
293.0
273.5
192.2
139.6
255.6
262.0
251.8
218.8
244.1
299.3
128.6
271.5
297.7
255.3
206.1
156.3
228.3
228.5
233.3
220.2
222.0
249.5
121.6
224.2
199.6
231.3
224.8
128.1
253.0
265.2
282.3
318.7
228.7
261.5
148.7
249.8
3094
200.6
210.8
138.0
256.6
270.8
300.1
342.2
228.0
285.5
157.9
244.4
325.4
209.3
199.6
127.0
255.8
267.8
284.9
295.3
234.3
284.2
151.9
252.4
309.2
262.5
210.8
127.6
252.3
259.6
270.4
243.7
230.2
301.5
145.6
249.9
292.0
241.3
235.6
129.6
251.4
255.7
255.5
213.0
232.0
300.4
136.4
256.0
289.9
267.2
188.9
140.0
253.9.
260.2
248.6
216.9
239.2
287.0
129.2
270.9
298.0
253.8
204.5
156.2
Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100)..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
232.3
121.8
116.8
123.6
124.2
111.7
110.6
243.0
126.6
118.5
130.6
129.0
117.6
118.4
244.5
126.9
119.2
130.1
130.0
118.8
119.6
246.3
127.4
119.3
130.8
130.7
120.1
119.7
247.5
127.8
118.8
131.0
132.0
120.8
120.3
250.1
129.1
120.5
131.9
133.3
122.2
121.8
250.9
129.0
120.6
131.6
133.1
123.1
122.1
230.0
121.3
115.9
123.4
123.5
110.5
110.8
241.5
126.8
117.8
130.9
129.5
116.6
118.2
242.9
127.2
118.1
130.7
130.7
117.5
119.2
244.6
127.6
118.5
131.0
131.5
118.7
119.4
246.4
128.5
118.8
131.9
132.7
119.6
120.3
248.8
129.4
120.7
132.3
133.5
121.0
121.7
249.0
129.1
119.9
132.2
133.3
121.5
121.2
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)............
Other foods at home......................................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77-100) ....................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77-100)......................
Other sweets (12/77-100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77-100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77-100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 -100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77-100)............
Roastec coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77-100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77-100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77-100)..................................
Snacks (12/77-100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)............
Other condiments (12/77—100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77-100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
114.4
110.9
281.1
284.6
120.1
117.2
117.5
233.0
247.7
115.7
121.1
375.4
247.2
118.7
440.7
374.3
116.3
217.4
115.9
125.6
121.3
120.1
119.5
118.9
118.6
118.1
117.0
304.3
353.1
131.6
194.2
127.2
239.3
247.0
123.6
124.6
397.4
268.4
129.2
435.3
381.0
122.1
232.3
123.3
132.4
128.3
128.0
130.2
129.3
126.0
119.4
118.0
307.8
355.1
132.6
194.6
128.3
242.0
249.3
124.7
126.2
402.8
275.2
131.3
433.9
380.3
123.1
234.9
123.7
134.6
129.3
129.4
131.8
130.9
127.5
121.4
119.6
309.2
361.1
134.2
200.2
129.2
243.6
249.2
125.8
127.4
403.9
276.7
132.5
426.1
376.1
124.5
235.2
123.8
133.9
129.8
130.7
133.0
130.6
126.9
122.5
120.3
311.5
369.0
134.7
209.4
131.5
246.0
254.2
125.6
128.5
404.9
280.4
133.9
411.8
368.1
125.8
236.6
124.1
133.9
130.6
131.9
133.4
132.0
127.9
124.1
121.5
314.8
381.3
135.7
225.9
132.5
247.4
254.9
127.4
129.0
405.5
284.0
133.8
399.2
364.9
126.7
239.9
125.1
136.6
135.2
133.5
133.3
133.5
128.6
124.5
122.9
317.1
3863
136.9
230.3
133.7
251.9
253.6
139.6
129.1
405.2
285.2
134.8
389.7
356.5
127.5
242.4
127.2
137.6
138.6
134.2
133.5
133.8
130.3
113.0
109.1
279.9
284.1
119.9
117.6
116.6
233.7
247.8
115.8
121.5
372.3
243.4
116.4
435.3
372.9
115.5
217.2
116.3
123.9
122.2
119.0
120.2
118.7
118.6
117.0
115.6
303.7
354.6
137.0
194.5
126.5
240.6
246.6
124.0
126.0
396.2
265.6
127.4
432.3
379.2
121.1
232.1
123.5
131.3
123.5
127.3
131.6
123.9
125.4
118.1
116.4
307.4
356.6
133.2
195.1
126.9
242.4
251.5
124.8
125.7
403.0
274.7
128.8
430.4
379.7
122.3
234.2
124.2
131.7
129.9
127.8
133.4
130.2
126.8
119.6
117.9
309.1
361.8
134.7
199.7
127.7
244.6
251.8
125.8
127.4
403.6
274.9
130.2
423.1
374.8
123.8
235.6
124.7
131.6
130.4
129.5
135.0
131.1
127.2
120.9
118.5
311.7
369.8
135.4
209.5
129.2
247.0
256.6
125.5
128.7
405.8
279.6
131.8
409.3
366.3
125.3
236.9
124.9
131.9
131.0
132.2
135.3
131.7
128.2
121.8
120.3
315.7
383.9
136.8
225.9
131.9
248.2
256.9
128.0
128.8
407.8
283.6
133.2
395.5
364.0
126.2
240.4
125.6
133.5
136.1
132.8
136.5
133.8
128.9
122.8
121.0
317.8
388.9
137.4
231.4
133.1
252.6
254.6
139.9
129.1
407.4
284.0
133.5
386.2
358.1
127.7
242.8
128.0
134.8
140.1
133.4
136.3
133.5
130.2
Food away from home..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77-100) ............................................
253.4
123.3
123.4
121.4
267.8
130.0
130.1
129.3
269.5
131.2
130.7
130.0
271.4
132.1
131.9
130.4
273.1
132.9
132.4
131.8
275.3
134.3
133.4
132.5
277.7
135.7
134.4
133.7
255.1
124.0
124.2
122.5
271.2
131.1
132.0
131.6
272.8
131.8
132.8
132.3
274.9
132.9
133.8
133.3
277.4
134.4
135.1
133.9
279.5
135.7
136.1
134.5
281.8
137.3
136.7
135.6
Alcoholic beverages
178.0
187.2
188.7
189.6
190.4
190.9
191.6
178.7
183.2
190.6
191.7
192.5
192.8
193.7
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77-100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
Wine..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77-100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77-100)................................
116.0
122.1
177.8
189.2
130.8
135.2
199.1
212.6
106.9 - 109.6
122.5
116.8
123.1
190.1
136.9
213.9
111.2
123.5
123.6
190.8
137.6
214.7
111.7
124.5
124.0
191.7
137.7
215.4
112.5
125.1
124.4
192.0
138.9
215.2
112.9
125.3
124.9
192.9
138.9
217.6
112.7
125.8
117.0
177.6
132.0
204.0
106.4
115.2
123.6
183.7
135.6
217.4
103.6
122.9
124.6
191.1
137.8
218.1
111.1
123.6
125.1
191.9
138.5
219.8
111.2
124.8
125.6
192.0
139.0
224.2
111.6
125.3
125.9
192.2
139.8
224.0
112.0
125.5
126.5
192.9
140.2
227.2
112.1
126.2
HOUSING............................................................................................
243.6
265.1
265.8
267.7
271.1
273.8
276.9
243.6
265.1
265.8
267.6
271.0
273.7
277.1
Shelter................................................................................................
259.4
282.9
283.3
285.3
290.4
294.7
298.5
260.4
284.3
284.8
286.8
292.0
296.4
300.4
Rent, residential....................................................................................
182.9
192.1
193.2
195.1
197.1
198.3
199.6
182.7
191.8
193.0
194.8
196.8
198.0
199.4
Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77-100) ....................................................
244.9
258.4
115.1
265.7
283.8
123.1
267.5
286.4
122.2
268.9
287.0
124.7
268.8
286.0
125.4
268.3
284.2
126.5
267.7
282.6
126.9
244.4
256.9
115.5
265.5
282.3
123.3
267.3
285.1
122.7
268.6
285.6
125.2
268.8
284.9
126.0
268.4
283.3
126.8
267.3
281.0
127.2
Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................ ............
'Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77-100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77-100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77-100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77-100) ..........
286.9
239.9
348.3
323.1
186.0
435.3
178.3
268.3
290.4
216.6
315.4
253.9
399.6
355.5
188.3
512.2
199.0
287.6
312.1
230.3
315.4
258.1
393.6
355.9
190.3
501.8
192.0
288.5
312.4
232.7
317.6
261.5
393.5
359.8
191.2
500.9
188.9
291.6
315.9
234.9
323.8
265.5
404.7
362.0
192.0
518.1
192.6
292.8
317.0
236.3
329.4
267.3
416.9
364.5
192.8
536.7
198.0
294.2
318.6
237.1
334.2
267.2
429.4
365.8
194.5
555.5
205.1
296.8
321.5
239.1
288.7
240.2
351.6
324.5
187.4
436.1
178.4
268.9
292.8
215.8
317.9
254.3
4C5.0
357.2
1S0.0
514.6
1S9.6
265.1
3C9.0
231.3
318.1
258.6
398.8
357.9
192.0
504.2
192.5
287.7
312.1
233.2
320.2
262.1
398.9
362.9
193.0
503.6
189.5
290.3
315.6
233.9
326.7
266.4
410.8
365.3
193.8
521.2
193.0
290.4
315.1
235.0
332.3
268.2
423.1
367.8
194.7
539.7
198.4
291.1
315.9
235.6
337.5
268.0
436.0
369.0
196.4
558.7
205.5
294.2
320.3
236.2
121.6
115.4
133.4
119.1
134.4
120.1
135.6
122.2
136.9
122.4
137.4
122.3
139.2
123.2
120.3
118.1
132.2
119.3
133.1
120.4
132.7
121.8
133.1
122.5
134.7
122.0
134.9
122.9
114.7
114.3
121.1
120.1
122.7
122.1
123.2
122.7
123.8
123.3
124.2
123.7
124.8
124.2
114.5
112.3
125.9
172.5
126.6
123,9
126.1
125.2
126.6
125.9
124.6
126.4
124.9
126.3
Fuel and other utilities........................................................................
255.1
285.5
286.8
288.2
287.6
2857
289.9
255.7
266.1
287.4
288.7
288.0
2863
290.7
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 - 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................
311.8
488.0
507.3
126.0
270.8
224.7
332.6
360.8
560.4
585.1
140.4
314.3
267.4
371.8
362.5
561.5
586.1
140.8
316.1
268.3
375.2
364.5
561.5
585.4
142.1
318.4
269.2
380.2
362.8
558.7
581.5
143.1
317.1
265.3
384.6
358.7
567.0
589.8
145.7
310.5
258.7
379.0
364.7
585.3
610.0
148.4
313.9
262.3
381.5
311.8
489.0
508.1
126.6
270.7
224.9
331.1
360.3
561.9
585.6
142.1
3‘ 3.5
267.6
368.6
362.1
562.7
586.4
142.5
315.4
268.6
372.0
363.8
562.9
585.9
143.8
317.4
269.6
376.1
362.1
559.9
581.8
144.8
316.0
265.3
380.9
358.2
568.3
590.3
147.3
309.8
258.4
376.7
364.5
587.0
610.9
150.1
313.4
262.1
379.7
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Continued
Food — Continued
Food at home — Continued
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
HOUSING
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
161.9
134.3
103.2
98.4
101.5
247.2
165.9
136.3
105.4
101.6
99.5
261.3
166.5
136.5
105.4
101.9
99.9
263.5
167.1
137.0
106.0
102.1
100.1
264.5
167.8
137.5
106.6
102.1
100.1
266.2
169.0
138.7
108.3
101.7
100.6
267.0
170.6
140.3
110.5
101.8
100.9
267.8
161.8
134.2
103.2
98.4
101.3
247.3
165.9
136.1
105.2
101.6
99.3
262.4
166.4
136.4
105.2
101.9
99.7
264.5
167.1
136.9
105.9
102.1
100.0
265.5
167.8
137.4
106.5
102.1
99.9
267.3
169.1
138.7
108.3
101.8
100.5
268.0
170.7
140.3
110.6
101.8
100.7
268.7
Continued
Fuel and other utilities — Continued
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
Household furnishings and operations ................................................
195.8
206.2
207.2
209.2
210.1
211.0
211.6
193.9
203.5
204.5
206.0
206.8
208.1
209.0
Housefumishings ....................................................................................
Textile housefumishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezer............................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
166.9
178.6
108.3
114.6
182.8
118.3
108.2
108.1
117.1
137.5
105.3
103.6
107.8
157.9
156.7
113.6
109.9
174.7
188.2
114.6
120.2
192.8
125.4
112.2
110.7
126.6
140.5
105.8
104.4
108.2
163.7
163.6
119.6
112.6
175.2
189.1
114.1
121.9
192.6
125.8
111.3
111.6
125.7
141.4
106.6
105.0
109.1
164.6
164.4
120.2
113.3
177.3
194.1
118.4
123.6
195.7
127.9
112.7
114.1
127.5
142.0
107.0
105.0
109.8
165.5
164.8
120.9
114.2
177.9
195.9
119.5
124.9
195.2
127.4
113.8
113.0
127.0
142.3
107.1
104.7
110.3
166.0
165.8
121.5
114.2
178.1
192.4
117.3
122.7
196.5
128.6
114.2
113.3
127.9
142.6
107.4
105.1
110.6
166.2
166.1
122.0
114.2
178.3
193.2
117.2
123.8
197.0
129.2
115.3
113.1
127.8
142.4
107.2
105.2
110.1
165.9
166.5
123.4
113.1
165.9
177.3
107.2
114.4
182.7
116.0
111.6
109.2
115.9
136.9
104.8
102.2
108.0
157.1
159.0
112.8
108.2
172.9
188.7
114.8
121.0
189.7
122.6
111.7
111.3
123.0
140.1
105.0
102.7
108.0
163.8
166.4
118.7
112.1
173.5
189.6
114.7
122.4
189.9
123.6
110.4
112.3
122.5
140.6
105.2
103.3
107.9
164.5
168.0
120.1
112.0
175.0
192.5
117.7
122.7
192.0
124.5
111.1
115.1
123.6
141.2
105.7
103.2
108.8
165.2
169.1
120.0
112.5
175.6
195.1
119.5
124.1
192.5
124.6
113.0
114.4
123.6
141.2
105.6
103.2
108.7
165.3
169.4
120.2
112.5
176.4
195.7
122.6
121.2
193.9
125.5
113.6
115.6
124.6
141.4
106.1
103.8
109.1
165.2
169.2
120.2
112.4
176.9
196.6
122.7
122.4
194.4
125.7
114.7
115.2
124.7
142.0
106.1
103.7
109.2
166.3
170.9
121.4
112.8
108.6
111.6
111.8
111.8
112.4
113.0
112.0
108.1
112.8
111.4
111.8
112.1
112.6
113.9
111.4
113.0
113.8
121.3
115.1
121.7
117.0
123.0
116.2
124.1
115.5
124.6
114.3
124.8
108.3
111.8
111.3
119.7
112.6
120.5
113.4
121.6
113.0
122.2
112.1
123.2
111.5
123.1
111.7
110.1
120.8
119.0
121.7
119.8
123.0
120.6
123.3
121.6
124.3
121.4
124.6
121.7
107.4
107.3
114.7
116.6
115.3
117.1
116.8
118.2
118.2
119.4
119.0
119.2
118.4
118.8
117.2
110.3
126.4
115.9
125.8
117.1
128.2
117.2
130.0
117.9
130.6
118.4
130.8
118.7
115.2
112.5
124.0
118.7
125.1
119.6
126.3
120.3
126.3
120.9
127.4
122.3
127.6
122.3
Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
229.2
221.2
114.7
120.5
111.9
116.9
112.5
247.3
237.2
122.3
130.2
117.6
125.4
127.6
249.9
240.1
124.4
132.2
117.4
127.7
127.5
252.0
243.7
125.6
133.8
118.0
129.0
127.1
253.6
248.7
125.7
134.2
118.6
129.5
126.9
256.0
252.4
126.7
135.6
118.3
131.1
128.0
257.7
254.0
127.6
136.1
119.5
132.5
128.4
227.2
219.7
114.5
120.9
109.3
114.7
109.9
245.2
234.4
122.3
132.7
117.9
123.5
120.7
247.8
236.8
123.9
135.1
117.4
125.5
121.4
249.6
241.1
125.0
135.8
116.9
126.6
120.5
251.2
245.6
125.1
136.2
118.2
126.7
121.0
253.5
248.2
126.2
136.6
118.8
128.4
122.5
256.0
252.3
127.6
137.6
120.0
129.5
122.5
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................
258.3
257.3
270.4
257.3
271.6
257.3
273.3
257.3
274.5
257.3
276.1
257.3
277.1
257.3
257.5
257.2
268.1
257.3
269.0
253.7
270.2
257.3
271.0
257.3
272.5
257.3
273.8
257.3
121.2
113.4
131.0
118.7
131.3
119.4
132.8
119.8
133.3
120.3
134.6
120.7
134.4
121.4
122.3
113.4
129.7
117.8
129.7
118.3
130.3
118.7
130.2
119.2
131.4
119.7
131.8
120.6
APPAREL AND UPKEEP........................................................................
172.2
176.2
178.6
182.2
183.9
184.8
183.9
171.4
175.4
177.9
181.4
182.8
183.3
182.9
Apparel commodities............................................................................
166.1
168.5
171.0
174.9
176.4
177.2
176.0
165.7
168.0
170.7
174.4
175.6
176.0
175.3
Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men’s and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 - 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women's and girls' ..........................................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..,..........................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 - 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................
163.0
165.4
104.3
100.9
98.0
112.3
110.5
100.4
106.6
102.4
111.9
107.8
154.6
102.8
170.0
165.3
98.6
108.2
95.8
102.8
100.3
102.6
165.0
165.9
103.9
97.1
96.0
118.4
110.7
99.2
110.0
104.4
114.7
112.6
150.6
99.8
158.8
153.9
96.8
113.2
85.5
102.0
98.9
99.7
167.8
167.9
105.6
99.2
96.7
119.3
114.9
99.5
109.5
106.0
114.6
110.3
101.7
164.0
158.3
98.5
114.2
86.5
104.5
103.4
102.0
171.8
171.7
108.1
103.2
99.9
120.8
116.9
101.2
111.4
108.1
116.6
111.9
159.0
105.7
168.9
168.5
102.2
114.6
95.4
105.8
102.1
105.3
173.1
173.9
109.5
104.3
100.4
122.9
118.3
102.6
113.0
109.2
118.1
113.9
159.7
106.1
167.0
170.0
101.6
114.9
98.2
107.0
103.2
106.7
173.9
174.8
110.1
104.7
100.5
123.3
119.6
103.5
113.3
109.4
118.4
114.3
159.9
106.3
164.7
168.1
102.9
116.7
97.4
106.5
102.7
105.9
172.5
174.3
109.8
103.5
99.7
123.9
119.7
103.4
113.1
108.6
118.7
114.3
157.4
104.4
161.4
163.8
101.4
116.8
91.9
106.1
101.3
106.1
162.6
165.0
104.2
96.8
99.1
109.9
111.5
103.4
105.8
103.1
110.2
106.2
153.5
102.3
167.9
155.7
99.5
109.3
98.1
101.4
97.7
102.9
164.4
167.2
104.7
93.2
97.1
115.7
111.2
104.8
110.0
107.4
113.3
110.9
149.9
99.6
157.5
146.2
97.1
112.8
90.1
100.0
95.6
98.2
167.3
168.4
106.1
95.2
98.0
116.3
115.1
105.0
108.6
107.1
112.9
108.2
154.1
102.5
170.2
151.1
99.7
114.3
91.3
102.3
99.5
100.7
171.1
171.6
108.3
98.3
100.0
117.5
117.4
107.1
110.2
109.6
113.7
109.4
159.8
107.0
177.0
156.8
104.6
114.8
105.7
103.3
97.3
104.2
172.2
173.8
109.5
99.7
101.3
118.8
118.5
108.3
112.0
111.2
115.1
111.5
160.3
107.0
176.5
157.5
103.6
115.3
106.8
105.1
99.0
106.3
172.5
174.8
110.2
99.4
101.9
119.7
120.4
108.7
112.7
112.5
115.2
111.9
159.9
106.6
175.5
157.7
102.8
116.4
102.8
105.3
99.1
106.8
171.6
174.4
109.9
98.2
101.9
120.0
120.7
108.1
112.6
111.8
116.2
112.0
158.2
105.3
172.2
154.3
98.2
116.6
98.2
104.9
98.6
106.6
107.3
111.4
111.2
113.0
113.8
114.0
113.8
Tl
. 104.4
110.4
109.6
111.3
112.8
112.6
112.2
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
153.7
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
19110
1979
1980
1979
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Apparel commodities less footwear — Continued
Infants’ and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 - 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - 100) ........................................
227.1
180.9
102.4
123.1
243.0
205.5
109.3
142.8
243.9
209.9
110.2
146.5
242.4
210.5
110.9
146.8
244.1
211.8
111.9
147.5
248.9
213.7
110.3
149.9
250.1
213.3
110.6
149.5
230.5
182.9
100.8
126.2
249.2
200.3
108.3
139.4
252.6
204.1
110.0
142.0
248.3
204.4
110.7
142.0
249.2
204.1
112.0
141.1
254.0
204.0
110.2
141.8
255.4
204.4
110.0
142.3
Footwear..............................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ....................................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 - 100) ......................................................
Womens'(12/77 - 100)................................................................
184.3
117.3
115.8
113.8
189.5
121.1
123.5
113.8
190.3
121.3
122.8
115.4
193.2
123.6
123.3
117.7
196.1
124.7
125.8
119.6
196.5
125.4
126.2
119.4
196.6
124.6
126.6
120.0
183.8
119.4
114.7
111.8
189.3
123.2
123.1
111.3
190.0
123.4
123.9
111.7
193.3
124.9
124.6
115.1
195.6
125.8
126.9
116.3
196.4
126.7
127.4
116.5
196.7
126.0
127.8
117.5
Apparel services
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
216.6
127.1
117.0
234.4
137.7
126.3
235.4
138.3
126.9
237.3
140.0
126.9
240.0
141.1
129.2
241.9
142.4
130.0
243.4
143.5
130.5
213.4
126.6
113.7
232.5
137.5
124.7
233.7
138.4
125.0
234.5
139.1
125.1
238.1
140.9
127.4
239.9
141.6
129.1
242.2
143.2
129.9
261.1
228.3
251.9
253.5
255.2 • 256.6
259.7
261.9
251.5
252.7
254.1
255.5
258.6
260.8
APPAREL AND UPKEEP-Continued
Apparel commodities
Continued
TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................
227.7
251.0
252.7
254.7
256.1
259.0
Private................................................................................................
227.5
250.5
251.6
253.2
254.5
257.4
259.4
228.2
184.5
234.4
373.3
280.1
136.8
171.7
198.3
315.6
253.4
123.1
1800
203 4
377 8
269 7
131 3
181.9
206.4
377.1
272.2
132.4
182.3
214.6
373.9
273.9
133.0
182.0
222.7
371.7
276.6
134.6
184.5
230.8
371.7
278.9
135.9
184.6
234.4
374.4
280.6
136.7
134.0
131.6
132.7
231.0
203.6
138.8
130.6
182.1
127.6
240.6
252.5
159.4
115.8
146.9
105.3
124.3
132.7
121.8
119.3
119.6
208.4
186.4
119.3
120.6
165.7
122.4
216.3
235.2
126.5
109.2
144.0
104.2
118.3
122.2
129 9
127 2
1266
226 7
2001
135.5
128.4
178.9
125.7
236.0
248.7
149.1
114.7
146.5
104.6
123.3
134.6
131.5
128.4
127.5
226.8
2006
136.1
128.7
179.9
125.2
236.0
249.9
147.5
115.4
146.5
104.6
123.5
136.6
131.8
129.5
128.5
227.6
201.9
135.6
129.8
181.5
125.8
236.7
250.9
147.5
115.8
146.5
104.6
123.5
137.8
133.9
130.2
129.6
228.0
201.4
135.4
129.4
180.8
125.7
237.3
251.2
148.3
116.3
146.5
104.7
123.6
139.1
135.0
131.1
130.8
230.6
203.4
137.3
130.6
182.5
126.9
240.1
251.5
153.2
116.7
146.6
104.7
123.9
140.0
135.6
131.7
132.2
233.2
205.7
139.0
132.0
184.7
127.8
242.9
252.0
157.9
117.5
147.0
105.1
125.1
142.0
New cars ............................................................................................
Used cars ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 - 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 - 100)........................
T r e s ................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers’ license (12/77 - 100) ..........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 - 100) ..........................
171.7
198.2
313.9
252.6
123.3
179.2
203.4
376.7
269.0
131.8
181.1
206.4
375.9
271.1
133.0
181.7
214.6
373.0
273.8
133.8
181.9
222.7
370.5
276.0
135.0
184.3
230.8
370.5
278.4
136.1
120.6
119.2
119.2
207.5
185.6
118.1
120.3
163.8
124.4
215.3
235.3
127.2
108.5
144.1
104.5
117.5
117.6
128.1
127.3
126.4
224.5
197.7
136.3
126.6
174.9
126.6
233.8
249.1
149.7
113.3
146.4
104.9
122.6
126.8
129.0
128.4
127.3
224.7
198.3
136.3
127.0
175.9
126.2
233.9
250.2
148.2
114.0
146.5
104.9
122.8
128.3
130.9
129.4
128.7
226.0
200.9
137.5
128.8
178.8
127.3
234.9
251.3
148.6
114.5
146.5
104.9
122.8
129.8
132.7
130.0
129.8
226.5
200.9
136.5
128.9
179.2
126.9
235.6
251.5
149.9
114.6
146.5
104.9
122.9
130.0
133.6
131.0
131.3
228.8
203.1
137.8
130.3
181.7
127.3
237.9
251.9
154.4
115.0
146.6
105.0
123.2
130.7
Public..................................................................................................
223.0
250.5
261.5
271.0
273.6
277.0
280.1
219.1
24E.8
256.9
264.4
266.5
269.2
271.8
Airline fare............................................................................................
Intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Tax* fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fare..................................................................................
245.5
282.2
196.4
238.5
236.3
276.9
294.2
222.6
263.3
255.3
289.8
297.9
234.1
266.2
255.4
310.3
304.7
234.8
266.8
255.5
315.0
307.1
235.6
267.9
255.6
321.8
308.0
236.1
269.2
255.6
327.4
310.1
237.1
269.7
270.1
245.8
282.3
195.7
2439
236.6
275.5
293.9
221.8
269.2
255.4
287.9
2980
233.8
273.0
255.6
308.6
304.5
234.4
273.6
255.6
313.0
306.9
235.2
274.7
255.7
319.8
308.0
235.6
275.6
255.7
325.7
309.8
236.5
275.9
270.3
MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................................
250.7
266.6
268.4
270.6
272.8
274.5
275.8
251.7
267.8
270.0
272.2
274.3
276.3
277.6
Medical care commodities
159.2
169.1
170.2
171.3
172.5
173.8
175.1
159.9
169.7
170.8
171.8
173.0
174.1
175.6
Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 100)..................................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 - 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 - 100)................................................
146.4
114.6
118.4
111.4
155.6
121.2
125.5
115.4
156.4
120.5
126.1
116.0
157.5
122.4
126.3
116.9
158.5
124.1
127.1
117.3
159.6
124.6
128.9
118.3
160.7
124.7
130.2
119.1
147.4
116.8
118.3
112.3
150.6
122.3
124.7
117.6
157.4
121.6
125.4
118.2
158.5
123.4
125.4
118.9
159.5
125.1
126.2
119.3
160.2
125.6
127.7
119.9
161.5
126.4
128.6
120.2
123.8
117.8
135.5
124.5
138.2
125.2
138.9
125.6
139.6
126.3
140.4
126.7
142.3
126.9
123.1
118.2
134.8
123.1
137.0
127.6
138.1
128.1
138.8
128.7
139.6
128.3
141.7
129.6
112.1
119.3
119.9
120.5
120.4
121.2
122.4
113.7
120.9
121.2
121.8
122.1
122.3
123.1
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 - 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 - 100)........
114.6
110.9
177.9
113.1
121.7
118.7
189.1
119.1
122.6
119.9
190.4
119.9
123.3
120.5
191.2
120.8
124.4
121.0
193.5
121.3
125.3
121.2
195.8
121.5
126.2
120.8
198.1
122.5
115.1
110.5
178.5
114.2
122.0
112.8
193.1
113.0
122.9
118.4
191.6
119.9
123.6
119.0
192.4
121.2
124.4
119.6
194.0
121.8
125.5
120.2
195.8
123.0
126.5
120.4
198.0
123.7
Medical care services
270.7
288.0
289.8
292.3
294.8
296.6
297.9
271.8
283.3
291.7
294.3
296.6
298.7
300.0
261.7
280.3
248.6
128.5
238.3
256.5
2261
114.8
256.1
275.4
243.0
123.6
257.8
277.6
244.5
123.9
260.4
280.5
247.3
124.5
261.9
281.8
249.0
125.1
263.8
283.8
250.4
126.7
265.0
285.7
251.3
126.6
341.6
141.7
443.7
141.4
313.0
123.2
388.7
122.1
329.8
132.6
414.9
132.3
333.3
134.9
422.4
134.4
335.6
136.4
427.2
136.0
339.2
138.9
435.3
138.4
341.6
140.5
439.8
140.2
342.9
141.3
443.1
140.6
Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians’ services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 100)......................................
235.9
252.5
224.5
115.1
253.5
270.9
241.1
125.0
254.7
272.2
242.2
126.0
257.3
274.2
245.8
126.7
259.0
276.0
247.5
127.6
260.4
278.0
248.0
128.5
Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services..................................
312.8
123.8
389.4
122.9
329.7
133.4
418.2
132.8
332.3
135.4
424.0
135.1
334.7
137.1
428.4
137.0
338.0
139.3
435.8
139.0
340.5
141.1
441.0
140.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
105
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Dec.
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
1979
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
ENTERTAINMENT..............................................................................
193.4
206.6
208.0
209.8
210.9
211.2
212.0
192.3
204.4
205.6
208.1
209.2
209.9
210.1
Entertainment commodities
195.2
209.3
210.8
212.8
213.7
214.5
215.3
192.4
204.8
206.4
208.6
209.0
210.2
210.9
Reading materials (12/77 = 100)..........................................................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)............................
115.1
223.5
116.8
123.0
240.0
124.1
123.2
240.7
124.0
126.1
242.3
129.3
127.0
245.3
129.6
127.6
245.6
130.7
128.2
246.2
131.5
114.8
223.3
116.6
122.5
239.3
123.7
122.7
239.9
123.7
125.5
241.5
129.3
126.6
244.6
129.6
127.1
244.9
130.8
127.6
245.5
131.5
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Bicycles ........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
112.2
112.9
107.5
167.1
111.0
119.5
120.7
112.4
181.6
115.0
120.9
122.2
113.5
183.6
116.5
121.1
NA
113.8
184.7
117.2
121.8
NA
114.5
185.3
118.2
122.8
NA
114.7
185.7
119.9
122.9
NA
116.2
184.7
120.4
107.7
105.8
106.3
167.0
111.3
114.2
112.5
110.6
181.4
116.1
115.3
113.5
111.7
183.2
116.9
115.8
NA
112.1
184.9
117.4
116.3
NA
112.5
185.4
117.8
117.0
NA
112.2
185.8
119.1
117.8
NA
113.4
184.9
119.3
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ........................................
112.1
111.2
109.7
115.5
121.0
119.0
122.8
123.2
121.8
120.4
122.5
123.9
122.6
121.4
123.1
124.4
122.8
120.9
123.1
125.8
122.8
120.7
121.8
127.3
123.5
121.3
122.0
128.4
111.8
109.9
110.1
116.1
119.1
115.9
122.4
122.9
120.3
117.8
121.7
123.8
121.3
119.0
121.8
125.2
120.9
117.4
122.3
126.4
121.6
118.4
122.7
126.8
121.8
118.5
122.4
127.6
Entertainment services ......................................................................
191.1
203.1
204.3
206.1
207.2
206.9
207.8
193.0
204.8
205.2
208.4
210.6
210.5
209.7
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)....................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)..........................................
113.8
116.6
108.6
122.1
121.3
117.4
123.2
122.1
117.4
124.5
122.6
118.3
125.5
122.7
119.0
125.2
122.6
118.7
125.7
123.1
119.4
115.0
117.8
109.0
121.9
123.2
118.8
121.8
124.2
119.1
124.7
124.1
120.8
127.0
124.2
121.6
126.7
124.3
121.6
125.9
124.0
121.8
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES..........................................................
204.0
213.5
214.5
220.6
221.5
222.8
224.6
203.0
212.9
214.0
219.0
219.9
221.0
223.0
Tobacco products ..............................................................................
192.1
203.8
204.5
204.5
204.5
207.3
210.8
192.1
204.0
204.4
204.3
204.3
206.8
210.4
Cigarettes............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............
194.7
113.2
206.4
120.7
207.0
122.0
206.8
122.8
206.8
123.2
209.6
124.3
213.5
124.9
194.8
112.7
206.8
120.3
207.0
121.7
206.8
122.7
206.7
123.1
209.3
123.9
213.2
124.5
Personal care ....................................................................................
203.0
214.4
215.4
216.7
217.8
219.0
220.9
202.3
213.1
214.7
216.6
218.0
218.5
220.0
Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 = 100)..................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup Implements (12/77 = 100) ................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
195.8
113.0
117.3
207.9
121.4
124.0
209.0
121.7
125.2
210.3
121.8
125.3
211.8
124.5
126.0
212.4
124.5
127.2
215.2
125.2
128.4
194.5
112.4
114.7
206.6
120.5
122.0
208.8
122.5
123.6
210.4
123.6
124.0
212.1
123.6
125.3
212.7
123.2
125.9
214.3
125.3
125.4
113.0
112.1
119.1
119.4
119.6
119.9
121.3
120.8
121.3
120.8
120.8
122.2
122.6
124.8
112.1
113.1
117.9
120.4
118.5
121.5
119.7
122.1
121.1
123.6
121.0
125.3
121.4
126.8
Personal care services..........................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women....................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
210.0
212.1
116.8
220.9
222.1
123.9
221.7
222.5
124.8
223.1
224.5
124.8
223.8
225.2
125.3
225.5
227.5
125.6
226.8
228.7
126.4
210.2
212.0
117.1
219.8
221.0
123.0
220.7
222.0
123.4
222.9
225.0
123.9
224.0
225.6
125.0
224.4
226.1
125.2
225.8
227.5
126.0
Personal and educational expenses ..................................................
224.6
229.9
231.4
249.5
251.1
251.3
251.5
224.8
230.3
231.8
249.8
251.2
251.4
251.7
School books and supplies....................................................................
Personal and educational services..........................................................
Tuition and other school fees ..........................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)..................................................
202.5
229.9
118.1
117.3
120.9
117.3
207.2
235.5
118.7
118.0
120.9
129.5
207.7
237.1
119.4
118.7
122.0
130.7
221.0
256.2
131.6
130.7
134.4
130.5
221.9
257.8
132.2
131.5
134.4
132.4
221.9
258.1
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.0
222.1
258.2
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.4
206.0
229.7
118.2
117.3
120.7
116.3
210.9
235.4
118.8
118.0
120.7
127.4
211.5
237.1
119.5
118.7
121.8
128.5
224,8
256.1
131.8
130.7
134.3
129.7
225.6
257.5
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.0
225.6
257.8
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.6
225.8
258.1
132.4
131.5
134.3
132.2
309.7
302.1
223.5
282.2
371.5
342.3
249.1
300.1
370.7
338.3
251.9
300.8
367.9
338.6
254.8
303.6
365.5
346.4
254.9
304.7
365.5
355.3
253.1
306.4
368.3
364.5
255.8
308.4
311.4
301.6
223.0
283.4
372.5
342.6
248.4
297.5
371.8
338.7
251.2
299.7
368.7
339.0
253.6
302.3
366.6
346.7
253.5
302.4
366.7
355.6
251.6
303.5
369.4
3647
254.4
306.6
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products......................................
Insurance and finance ..........................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
106
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Category and group
Oct.
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
1980
1980
1980
1980
Aug.
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Size class C
(75,000 - 385,000)
Size class B
(385,000 -1.250 million)
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
Dec.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
129.1
129.5
131.2
112.0
138.0
125.1
118.3
117.2
130.5
131.0
131.8
116.2
139.4
126.3
120.0
121.2
132.8
132.8
135.2
114.8
141.9
128.0
120.7
122.7
134.8
131.0
139.7
113.1
143.5
124.4
121.1
120.0
137.2
133.7
141.9
116.2
145.3
127.2
122.7
124.0
139.8
135.8
144.6
116.8
149.4
129.3
123.2
127.5
138.3
133.4
148.4
113.9
140.3
125.0
118.9
123.3
141.2
134.7
151.0
124.6
142.8
129.1
120.1
127.8
143.8
137.7
153.7
124.8
146.5
130.1
120.4
130.3
134.1
130.4
138.7
115.0
141.4
125.2
124.4
118.3
135.6
131.5
139.9
118.6
143.1
126.9
125.2
122.0
137.8
132.8
142.0
120.3
146.5
130.7
126.7
124.4
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
130.4
131.0
127.4
131.8
132.3
128.8
133.7
134.3
131.6
136.1
138.5
132.8
138.3
140.5
135.4
140.8
143.2
138.3
136.9
138.6
140.4
139.9
142.3
143.4
142.1
144.1
146.7
135.1
137.3
132.5
136.6
139.1
134.0
138.1
140.7
137.3
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
136.8
131.5
145.4
109.0
141.0
127.8
122.4
118.6
140.8
133.1
151.9
112.1
143.2
129.1
124.5
122.6
143.3
135.0
155.3
110.8
146.4
130.5
125.1
124.2
134.7
129.8
139.4
112.9
141.3
128.8
118.6
124.4
137.6
130.8
143.7
118.2
143.0
129.6
121.1
128.4
140.0
132.9
146.0
118.8
146.8
131.4
121.3
130.3
132.9
131.8
135.3
112.0
141.6
129.1
122.7
118.8
135.1
133.7
137.9
115.3
142.9
130.6
124.3
122.5
136.6
135.1
139.1
114.8
146.2
132.4
124.0
123.9
131.7
133.9
131.5
113.6
140.4
133.7
116.9
122.9
134.6
135.8
135.3
115.5
142.2
133.3
121.1
128.4
136.2
139.1
135.9
116.2
145.4
134.6
120.8
129.8
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
134.5
135.9
140.3
138.1
140.4
144.9
139.9
142.3
148.4
132.4
133.4
138.4
135.0
136.8
141.8
136.5
138.0
145.6
131.9
131.9
134.5
133.9
134.0
137.1
135.2
135.3
138 9
129.8
128.0
134.8
132.6
131.2
137.7
133.4
130.9
140.6
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
134.8
132.3
138.2
116.7
143.5
125.4
119.5
122.3
136.7
134.6
139.8
119.9
145.0
126.8
120.2
126.4
139.0
136.8
143.1
120.0
146.8
127.9
120.4
128.1
135.4
131.3
140.5
114.1
142.0
127.5
124.0
121.3
138.1
133.0
143.5
116.4
144.5
130.9
125.3
126.8
140.9
135.4
146.7
117.3
147.9
132.1
127.9
128.8
133.7
132.8
137.1
109.4
141.1
128.8
122.0
121.6
136.1
134.8
139.7
111.8
143.0
132.7
125.0
124.7
138.6
137.2
142.5
114.1
145.7
133.7
127.5
126.7
131.9
132.4
132.4
105.6
140.4
133.9
130.5
125.1
134.1
134.5
133.7
110.5
142.2
140.2
132.4
128.2
136.5
136.9
137.5
108.9
144.8
140.7
130.7
129.9
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
133.1
133.5
137.1
135.4
135.8
138.4
137.2
137.3
141.5
132.7
133.3
139.5
135.2
136.1
142.6
137.5
138.3
146.1
131.9
131.5
136.4
134.1
133.8
139.2
136.3
135.9
142.3
131.3
130.9
132.7
133.4
133.0
135.0
135.6
135.0
138.0
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
135.5
130.5
139.2
116.4
142.8
130.6
120.8
122.8
137.7
132.7
141.6
117.9
144.9
133.0
122.3
126.2
140.7
134.3
146.0
117.9
146.7
134.3
123.8
127.7
136.8
133.1
140.9
119.5
142.4
129.0
125.9
125.7
139.5
135.0
144.7
121.5
144.3
130.7
125.7
128.1
141.4
136.5
146.7
123.8
146.6
133.1
125.0
129.0
134.2
129.5
137.2
108.5
143.6
132.2
125.2
120.2
136.3
131.7
139.4
111.2
145.9
133.3
126.9
122.3
138.4
132.7
142.1
112.0
148.5
134.5
126.3
125.2
135.4
132.9
135.6
126.3
143.5
134.1
131.5
124.5
136.9
135.6
136.2
129.1
145.9
134.9
131.2
128.1
139.8
137.3
140.6
129.0
148.0
136.6
133.5
130.4
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities................................................ ..................................................
Commodities less food and beverage ............................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
132.3
133.1
139.7
134.2
134.8
142.5
135.3
135.7
147.8
134.6
135.2
140.0
136.3
136.8
144.0
137.5
138.0
146.7
132.2
133.3
137.1
134.1
135.1
139.5
135.2
136.2
142.9
134.1
134.6
137.3
135.7
135.7
138.7
137.2
137.1
143.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
107
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area’
U.S. city average 2 ..............................................................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Me.......................................................................
Boston. Mass.......................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, Ohio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
Detroit, Mich........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houstor. Tex.......................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif...............................
Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J..........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................
1979
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
229.9
247.8
249.4
251.7
253.9
256.2
258.4
230.0
248.0
249.6
251.9
254.1
256.4
258.7
258.3
227.0
228.4
223.3
221.2
228.4
230.9
246.5
252.4
240.9
246.8
256.7
245.2
San Franclsco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va......................................................
230.2
250.1
259.9
253.9
258.5
253.7
248.7
238.9
239.8
244.1
259.5
246.0
250.7
259.9
262.1
249.6
241.8
243.1
247.2
266.4
255.5
247.9
256.3
244.7
247.0
249.2
'The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated
Area Is used for New York and Chicago.
269.7
236.1
274.8
259.1
258.7
232.2
215.5
246.0
232.4
229.9
259.0
247.3
234.8
222.4
250.5
262.0
224.6
229.7
235.5
247.0
259.1
245.4
251.5
238.4
243.2
245.3
2 Average of 85 cities.
257.7
252.0
247.3
251.2
241.5
246.9
248.3
251.6
248.7
258.9
236.5
263.6
258.4
265.5
237.0
272.1
257.2
262.2
135.6
267.5
256.6
242.6
249.5
257.6
244.2
249.5
251.1
260.6
247.2
252.3
262.9
260.7
254.2
275.1
252.6
254.6
251.8
258.9
266.7
268.2
276.7
261.4
233.5
269.4
253.0
254.9
255.4
252.7
267.7
251.4
229.0
252.8
245.2
264.2
262.9
134.9
263.2
250.6
240.7
252.2
245.9
265.7
254.9
249.5
261.7
270.9
253.8
229.5
265.6
249.3
250.1
134.7
255.9
262.6
253.6
238.2
254.4
257.4
252.1
260.3
257.4
249.2
253.2
244.5
265.8
261.9
253.8
279.1
251.9
258.1
249.2
227.8
233.2
233.3
133.9
262.1
255.5
243.1
256.9
252.4
271.8
251.0
260.3
266.5
269.5
271.9
264.3
234.6
272.3
254.8
252.6
133.1
258.4
250.1
240.8
252.7
245.0
269.9
255.1
247.2
253.7
220.7
232.0
252.4
249.7
250.8
240.9
246.5
264.6
264.9
266.6
255.1
230.1
268.6
250.8
247.3
133.6
251.6
234.0
222.9
239.6
226.7
224.8
258.4
248.8
255.0
244.4
261.6
233.2
214.8
248.7
233.7
228.0
236.5
250.2
236.8
232.5
234.1
223.7
229.2
108
1979
Dec.
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash...........................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif...................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
255.7
259.4
255.7
26.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
246.8
234.4
237.7
248.8
239.4
237.1
237.7
283.9
205.9.
192.1
239.5
235.8
231.8
225.9
230.4
260.4
200.1
203.4
229.1
239.7
232.1
221.2
231.2
268.6
202.6
205.7
230.5
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
280.1
266.2
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................
265.5
263.7
259.5
301.0
231.4
255.3
232.3
245.4
304.8
219.7
Commodity grouping
1981
1980
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
251.4
251.4
254.7
255.6
256.9
259.8
254.1
246.5
247.0
244.4
290.0
208.1
215.9
241.9
254.1
247.4
259.8
244.3
290.9
206.2
216.6
241.8
256.5
247.4
237.5
246.3
291.5
213.0
217.7
248.1
257.4
248.5
250.4
246.3
293.8
212.3
219.1
248.9
258.6
248.8
254.6
246.3
296.0
213.0
219.9
25Q.8
261.4
250.6
257.3
247.9
301.1
213.8
223.2
253.9
281.6
284.3
285.3
286.9
288.6
291.7
295.5
264.3
259.7
261.0
297.0
230.3
265.6
264.4
261.7
297.3
232.4
268.9
277.9
263.4
299.2
235.6
269.5
275.8
263.2
300.5
237.0
272.1
292.7
264.4
304.3
236.4
273.5
296.2
266.9
304.1
237.4
275.5
277.0
268.4
304.2
246.4
278.7
277.9
273.4
306.9
249.0
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
240.0
242.1
243.4
244.9
249.3
242.2
233.6
230.6
232.0
275.6
200.8
207.4
232.2
243.7
230.1
224.1
228.8
281.5
202.3
209.9
236.2
245.2
231.9
229.1
230.3
284.2
201.9
211.1
236.7
246.8
233.0
224.5
231.8
285.9
204.1
212.7
237.8
251.7
241.6
240.9
239.7
288.4
207.5
214.7
240.6
271.9
274.3
275.7
277.0
278.8
259.6
248.1
248.6
308.4
222.4
259.6
243.8
252.4
302.3
224.7
260.6
241.5
258.1
296.1
227.6
262.5
255.3
260.4
294.1
229.0
FINISHED GOODS
Finished goods....................................................................
Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ..................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable goods..........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment ........................................................
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
Materials and components for construction ....................
268.2
258.0
262.5
265.9
265.5
265.2
266.9
269.6
271.4
271.7
272.0
273.7
276.4
279.2
Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
502.7
425.3
570.7
450.0
385.4
508.0
471.1
399.2
534.5
489.8
411.2
557.9
496.6
415.2
566.7
498.2
420.9
565.9
502.0
425.4
569.6
514.2
431.0
586.1
517.4
436.0
588.4
519.5
440.8
588.9
515.9
440.2
583.3
519.8
442.4
588.5
538.7
456.8
610.9
551.4
468.8
624.2
Containers ..................................................................
254.5
244.8
245.7
247.4
253.2
254.4
256.2
257.0
257.4
257.9
259.6
259.6
261.1
264.7
254.9
239.5
262.8
251.8
262.1
257.3
242.2
265.1
252.2
264.9
321.3
244.5
231.8
251.1
229.2
253.5
230.9
220.6
236.3
221.9
236.9
237.3
222.8
244.8
222.2
247.5
239.4
225.5
246.6
218.8
250.7
239.7
229.0
245.4
205.2
253.0
240.0
230.5
245.0
207.5
251.9
241.2
232.8
245.7
205.1
253.4
245.3
234.2
251.1
225.2
254.7
247.7
235.4
254.1
234.7
255.8
250.3
236.1
257.6
246.8
256.9
252.1
237.3
259.8
250.8
258.6
254.9
238.4
263.5
259.6
260.8
Crude materials for further processing..................................
304.2
287.8
298.5
293.6
286.2
289.3
288.4
304.3
317.0
319.3
322.6
323.2
320.8
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................
259.1
243.6
253.1
246.5
235.8
243.0
243.0
263.4
276.8
276.6
279.0
277.3
271.6
270.6
425.2
428.7
Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
Feeds ..................................................................
Other supplies ......................................................
CRUDE MATERIALS
Nonfood materials........................................................
399.9
381.6
394.7
393.8
393.4
387.5
384.6
390.8
401.9
409.8
414.7
420.3
Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................
344.5
355.8
237.2
334.9
346.3
226.0
346.0
358.3
228.7
344.9
356.9
229.9
342.0
353.5
232.4
333.3
343.8
232.8
328.9
338.9
234.1
333.9
343.9
239.1
344.8
355.4
243.7
351.4
362.6
244.8
355.1
366.6
245.3
358.4
370.0
247.5
363.1
375.1
247.8
365.8
377.5
254.3
Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................
614.9
690.2
566.9
559.0
616.7
524.3
579.8
645.0
539.5
579.8
644.3
540.0
591.4
659.0
549.3
600.0
670.3
555.9
604.0
675.7
558.8
615.1
690.5
567.1
626.3
705.4
575.5
639.1
722.0
585.4
649.5
736.1
592.8
665.1
755.9
605.4
670.3
763.0
609.1
677.6
772.2
614.9
Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................
247.7
248.5
216.9
233.7
232.5
211.8
238.0
238.1
213.4
240.6
241.0
213.9
244.5
244.9
214.0
245.6
246.2
214.9
247.3
248.1
216.5
250.2
251.0
221.2
251.4
252.2
223.5
251.1
251.8
223.5
255.5
255.2
226.0
256.3
256.1
226.6
258.0
257.6
227.2
261.2
260.9
229.3
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................
281.3
265.8
268.1
255.0
273.4
259.3
276.3
260.3
278.3
261.1
278.8
262.3
280.6
263.9
282.9
265.9
285.0
268.7
285.8
269.5
286.6
271.7
288.1
273.3
292.5
275.1
296.6
278.1
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
252.2
228.3
239.3
235.3
229.5
239.7
242.0
251.4
263.7
265.9
278.8
283.9
268.3
269.0
Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy..........................................
480.3
256.7
398.5
246.9
411.4
257.7
411.1
251.5
409.8
241.3
402.7
243.7
401.2
241.6
406.9
258.9
418.5
271.4
425.1
272.8
433.2
275.2
438.3
274.7
442.1
270.4
447.5
268.8
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
1Data for August 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Not available.
r=revised.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Figures in this table may differ from hose previously reported because stage-of-processing
indexes from January 1976 through December 1980 have been revised to reflect 1972 input-output
relationships.
109
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.’
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
All commodities ........................................................................
All commodities (1957 - 59 = 100) ............................................
268.6
285.0
254.9
270.2
260.2
275.6
261.9
277.4
262.8
278.8
264.2
280.3
265.6
281.8
270.4
286.9
273.8
290.5
'274.6
'291.4
277.0
293.9
278.4
295.4
280.3
297.4
283.5
300.8
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities
244.6
274.5
231.9
260.6
237.0
265.9
234.9
268.6
229.3
271.3
233.8
271.9
234.3
273.5
246.6
276.2
255.1
278.2
'256.5
'278.8
258.8
281.2
260.1
282.7
256.5
286.1
257.3
289.9
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs. . ....................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
249.3
238.5
239.0
252.7
202.1
271.1
271.2
171.0
247.1
298.1
236.4
219.0
214.6
247.8
195.2
239.0
262.3
165.6
218.1
301.1
242.3
220.6
223.3
257.2
184.6
269.5
263.8
150.4
224.7
304.7
239.3
218.5
217.9
251.8
180.1
254.9
263.1
184.2
215.9
311.5
228.9
223.2
210.8
230.5
171.9
266.9
265.4
• 153.3
205.1
304.8
233.5
244.0
219.0
233.3
171.3
272.7
265.4
140.5
206.9
311.0
233.4
233.5
215.3
240.0
166.6
247.0
265.5
146.8
207.4
309.4
254.3
252.0
244.8
260.5
227.2
267.0
265.8
159.3
251.4
292.4
263.8
254.0
256.5
275.7
224.5
280.8
271.6
176.9
261.5
282.7
'267.0
'266.2
260.6
266.8
241.0
295.2
275.5
188.4
280.7
'292.0
263.4
240.4
269.2
263.0
222.9
278.5
280.9
175.2
284.4
282.9
264.9
246.4
270.9
254.8
221.0
287.2
284.7
194.0
298.3
296.6
265.3
244.7
265.2
251.4
218.9
294.1
290.5
217.5
310.2
296.0
264.4
257.7
277.7
244.3
213.1
284.1
288.4
185.7
311.8
296.1
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................
241.0
235.9
243.0
230.7
228.9
321.2
232.4
226.8
227.2
226.9
228.5
225.4
239.6
221.0
222.9
235.0
224.0
225.1
225.4
219.7
233.1
229.9
239.6
220.8
223.3
287.5
224.8
226.4
223.5
219.8
231.6
231.8
239.2
223.0
223.7
264.1
225.9
222.6
224.7
216.6
228.6
232.4
226.0
227.5
224.6
275.0
227.9
214.5
225.1
205.0
233.1
234.7
224.5
228.5
225.4
327.8
231.2
212.0
223.7
207.2
233.9
233.2
226.6
229.5
227.2
325.4
234.3
212.8
223.4
205.0
241.5
234.7
248.5
230.1
229.8
313.5
234.6
226.9
223.5
223.9
249.4
235.8
259.9
232.6
230.7
347.1
237.1
240.2
224.0
232.4
249.8
'238.3
'257.8
'233.7
'231.3
341.4
'236.1
'238.3
'226.8
'243.4
255.4
241.3
255.8
238.4
234.5
399.9
236.7
231.1
230.6
247.2
256.5
245.4
250.8
240.6
235.2
403.4
238.1
237.9
235.0
254.9
250.8
248.5
248.0
242.7
237.1
334.6
238.1
234.3
240.5
247.3
252.4
250.8
248.8
245.2
237.4
338.6
240.4
230.4
244.2
247.9
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
1980
1979
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparei....................................................................................
Textile housefumishlngs............................................................
183.4
134.8
122.2
137.7
115.7
172.2
208.3
175.2
127.0
114.6
132.7
110.5
165.5
199.0
176.5
127.2
118.0
132.3
111.1
166.8
199.7
179.3
129.1
119.3
136.8
113.2
168.0
201.3
181.2
130.4
122.1
137.0
114.5
170.0
201.6
182.0
133.2
124.2
136.5
115.3
170.2
202.6
183.0
134.5
122.8
134.8
115.8
172.7
202.7
184.7
136.0
122.4
135.7
116.6
174.4
210.7
185.6
137.5
123.2
137.5
116.8
175.1
211.0
'186.6
'139.5
'124.3
'141.0
'117.0
'175.0
'212.9
187.8
140.9
124.2
142.5
118.2
175.5
218.0
189.3
141.4
124.9
144.3
119.0
176.0
218.0
190.2
141.5
127.6
143.3
120.0
177.0
218.5
192.4
147.3
129.2
142.8
121.5
178.6
223.9
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Hides and skins........................................................................
Leather....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................
248.6
370.9
311.6
233.2
218.1
255.7
468.8
347.6
229.1
213.1
250.9
404.8
340.3
228.0
214.8
246.8
348.7
311.0
231.8
217.8
243.5
328.6
297.6
231.9
216.2
240.7
289.7
290.4
231.9
217.4
240.9
315.7
284.4
231.9
215.9
245.1
356.6
292.2
232.7
217.5
251.3
3984
314.2
233.7
218.7
247.8
'356.1
'298.1
'235.5
'218.8
247.3
381.5
272.5
236.8
221.9
255.5
409.1
317.3
237.7
222.6
256.6
392.8
332.4
237.1
223.5
258.5
377.8
332.6
238.6
230.7
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
Coal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels' ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum 2 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined3 ....................................................
573.4
467.5
430.6
160.4
321.6
551.7
674.4
5080
459.3
430.6
677.5
290.5
513.6
583.3
532.7
459.6
430.6
716.6
299.3
515.1
620.4
553.5
461.7
430.6
716.6
305.5
522.8
659.0
566.6
465.2
430.6
730.1
310.1
533.9
678.0
572.1
466.5
430.6
745.1
316.5
540.1
680.9
576.5
466.6
430.6
749.2
326.0
549.0
681.7
585.5
467.5
430.6
762.1
331.1
551.4
693.9
590.6
468.7
430.6
772.6
333.6
566.8
697.6
'593.5
'471.3
430.6
'786.2
'338.3
'571.3
' 696.4
592.5
471.0
430.6
801.1
337.6
579.6
689.6
597.6
475.7
430.6
826.5
332.0
580.7
696.8
611.7
475.7
430.6
841.8
337.9
596.0
716.3
625.9
477.5
430.6
857.9
341.7
615.2
736.0
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals4 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products..........................................
260.2
323.8
235.4
273.8
174.4
297.9
256.9
279.4
224.6
246.0
302.9
223.3
259.9
166.5
325.6
241.9
270.4
209.4
248.7
307.9
223.3
263.4
167.6
302.2
248.0
272.1
211.3
252.8
313.3
228.7
267.5
168.9
299.9
256.1
274.5
215.0
259.8
322.1
231.5
272.1
172.6
298.2
258.5
287.6
223.1
262.5
328.5
238.8
273.9
172.8
294.7
258.5
288.4
224.8
262.8
329.5
238.8
275.0
174.4
255.8
257.6
287.6
226.9
263.3
328.7
238.8
277.2
175.7
260.0
258.7
285.7
228.5
264.4
330.0
238.8
278.4
176.1
307.6
260.0
281.5
229.0
'263.4
'327.5
'239.3
278.9
'176.8
304.5
'260.6
'276.5
'229.1
264.6
329.0
239.6
279.5
178.3
302.0
260.0
276.7
231.3
266.9
333.4
241.7
279.5
181.1
308.2
260.4
277.1
232.6
267.9
334.6
241.7
280.9
181.8
316.0
262.8
274.4
234.2
273.6
342.8
243.3
283.1
184.7
310.6
265.8
275.2
244.1
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................
217.3
237.7
263.9
236.6
227.6
120.9
207.8
226.1
252.7
225.1
215.9
116.3
210.7
231.5
263.9
231.6
217.8
116.7
212.7
231.5
255.8
231.6
220.6
119.0
214.1
233.4
264.7
231.8
222.1
119.7
215.0
234.7
263.9
233.2
224.0
119.9
217.3
236.8
264.1
235.6
226.4
121.4
218.8
239.0
263.4
238.0
229.3
122.0
220.5
240.2
264.3
238.0
232.0
123.2
'222.0
'242.6
'267.3
'242.1
'232.1
'123.7
222.7
245.4
270.7
244.7
234.8
123.0
223.0
245.8
270.0
244.7
236.1
123.1
223.5
245.9
267.5
244.7
237.1
123.6
224.9
246.9
278.0
240.5
241.1
124.7
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
MiHwo'k ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................
288.8
325.6
260.5
246.6
239.1
290.0
336.3
254.1
238.2
242.2
294.7
341.4
258.0
243.4
243.4
294.9
340.6
262.2
240.0
243.1
275.6
310.1
257.5
219.8
241.7
272.1
301.4
251.8
230.6
240.7
279.8
313.0
253.0
241.7
238.7
289.2
327.2
255.9
252.8
236.9
296.1
333.7
260.3
266.0
236.2
'292.2
'328.0
264.5
'252.6
236.8
288.7
319.2
265.4
253.1
236.7
293.4
325.0
270.0
256.6
236.6
299.4
333.0
273.3
263.5
236.2
296.6
331.6
273.6
251.1
238.5
See footnotes at end of table.
110
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
1981
1980
Commodity group and subgroup
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.1
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES - Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................
249.3
250.7
381.1
208.5
256.9
235.0
238.6
206.0
237.4
239.2
356.6
222.9
245.5
221.8
227.7
186.2
239.2
240.8
356.4
223.4
247.2
223.7
229.5
191.7
242.6
244.1
356.8
224.9
250.3
227.4
233.0
198.7
247.8
249.4
385.6
242.5
253.5
232.1
236.7
201.3
249.2
250.6
385.6
226.1
256.1
235.5
237.6
206.8
251.1
252.4
3877
206.6
257.9
238.9
239.8
208.9
251.7
252.9
388.3
194.0
258.2
237.1
241.2
211.8
2E2.4
253.8
388.3
193.8
258.6
258.4
242.3
210.3
'252.8
254.1
r 388.2
192.5
r 258.7
r 239.5
r 242.7
'210.2
254.4
255.8
392.1
192.8
262.5
241.0
243.4
212.1
255.5
256.7
392.6
191.7
264.4
243.2
243.8
215.6
257.4
258.6
392.6
190.8
269.8
241.1
245.2
219.1
262.0
261.0
392.6
191.5
271.0
251.0
247.0
219.1
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 mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware ................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................
286.2
305.1
302.7
304.2
298 6
240.1
246.6
206.2
270.4
250.2
284.6
297.4
293.6
326.3
283.3
228.2
232.8
199.5
258.9
240.6
288.9
300.3
294.2
337.7
284.4
230.4
236.7
202.6
259.7
241.6
286.8
301.8
295.5
321.4
288.5
231.5
242.4
202.6
265.1
244.2
284.4
307.2
304.1
298.3
304.1
237.3
243.8
204.2
269 1
246.1
281.8
304.8
305.5
289.7
302.7
238.4
247.5
204.0
269.9
246.7
281.9
303.4
305.8
288.8
302.7
240.5
248.6
205.0
270.1
250.4
282.5
300.6
301.0
292.6
303.0
242.6
249.7
296.2
272.2
251.1
285.1
302.6
301.0
298.4
303.2
2r.3.3
25.0.4
208.0
273.0
253.2
'287.3
'304.5
301.0
'302.2
303.2
'245.9
'250.6
208.8
'274.1
'255.0
290.4
310.4
307.5
303.9
304.4
245.8
250.6
210.0
276.2
257.1
290.7
312.5
309.5
301.0
303.3
247.9
251.8
211.2
277.6
257.7
290.7
316.0
313.4
294.4
303.3
249.6
254.4
212.6
279.2
258.4
293.6
322.8
322.7
290.6
311.4
252.5
255.5
215.4
283.0
261.3
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................
239.6
258.1
289.2
274.3
264.3
275.9
201.7
229.8
227.6
248.4
276.0
258.9
251.0
260.6
190.6
220.3
230.2
249.9
278.3
261.8
253.3
263.2
194.3
221.1
232.5
252.0
279.5
264.1
256.7
265.5
196.5
223.2
236.4
254.4
284.2
270.2
261.1
271.9
198.9
227.2
237.6
256.4
285.9
272.9
262.8
273.0
199.9
227.3
239.2
257.1
287.6
275.4
264.8
274.3
201.6
228.2
241.5
258.6
291.5
278.0
266.1
276.7
203.7
231.1
242.6
269.9
293.4
278.8
267.0
277.1
205.0
232.1
'244.7
'263.9
'295.7
280.2
'270.0
'283.0
206.0
'233.6
246.4
262.8
298.4
282.2
271.9
286.2
207.0
236.1
247.7
266.1
299.7
283.7
273.2
287.9
207.4
238.1
249.5
269.5
301.1
285.6
275.2
291.2
208.9
239.2
252.7
273.5
304.9
289.3
278.2
295.3
211.9
241.8
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture ..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................
187.3
204.2
235.9
163.0
173.8
91.0
277.7
183.4
197.4
226.9
159.0
166.5
91.0
287.4
185.6
198.5
231.4
158.5
168.9
91.2
295.3
185.7
198.9
232.8
160.8
169.9
91.3
288.3
184.4
200.3
233.6
162.2
171.1
91.4
267.3
185.4
203.0
233.9
161.9
173.2
92.0
265.6
186.5
204.0
235.5
162.1
175.5
91.8
266.5
188.0
206.5
237.2
163.2
175.8
91.7
271.5
168.9
208.0
237.3
163.8
176.3
01.3
275.9
'189.5
'208.5
'237.8
163.9
'177.2
'91.6
'276.2
189.1
207.7
241.2
164.5
176.6
88.9
277.8
190.4
209.1
241.5
165.7
177.2
91.1
278.4
192.3
210.4
242.4
170.2
178.2
91.0
285.1
193.2
211.3
246.1
172.3
181.0
91.0
278.3
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................
282.8
196.5
273.4
273.9
231.5
264.9
396.7
256.3
292.7
394.0
268.4
191.0
265.0
265.4
229.6
248.5
356.6
255.4
274.3
351.8
274.0
191.0
266.6
266.7
231.0
251.1
372.5
262.2
274.3
381.7
276.5
191.4
267.5
269.1
231.4
253.9
388.8
267.6
274.3
387.0
283.7
195.3
271.7
272.9
235.0
261.7
408.9
264.0
294.3
399.6
284.0
195.3
272.4
275.2
230.0
264.4
401.1
256.5
294.3
400.7
283.4
193.6
273.2
275.8
230.1
265.8
400.9
257.1
294.3
394.8
284.8
194.3
275.9
275.9
230.1
268.7
413.8
253.1
294.3
396.9
266.0
109.5
2/8.6
276.0
229.7
270.6
411.2
251.8
294.3
397.1
'286.8
199.7
'278.9
'277.3
'230.1
'270.6
'407.9
251.8
294.6
400.7
287.8
200.7
277.8
276.9
233.4
274.1
408,4
249.5
305.0
400.6
288.4
203.1
278.5
277.6
233.6
274.1
396.9
253.3
306.5
402.0
290.7
203.0
278.7
277.8
234.1
274.1
394.5
252.7
311.5
415.7
296.3
203.9
287.5
285.6
240.0
283.5
404.1
259.6
311.5
417.9
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 - 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................
206.6
208.7
313.0
198.7
200.7
297.5
198.2
200.1
299.3
198.8
200.7
302.1
203.2
205.4
309.9
202.5
204.5
310.5
203.1
205.2
312.2
206.2
208.6
316.4
298.8
211.7
318.0
'204.4
'205.6
'320.0
215.8
217.8
323.3
216.0
218.0
323.6
224.1
225.9
323.6
226.4
228.5
327.8
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9
Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 - 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................
258.7
198.4
245.5
217.2
203.0
149,9
363.3
242.9
190.9
236.6
203.1
165.9
144.7
351.6
262.9
193.5
237.2
203.2
218.6
146.8
378.3
256.1
194.5
237.3
207.2
219.1
147.1
351.3
252.8
195.4
238.1
216.8
212.3
149.4
340.9
251.7
196.0
247.7
217.0
199.6
150.4
340.2
258.0
197.5
248.1
217.0
201.7
150.6
360.2
261.7
200.2
248.2
221.7
201.6
151.2
370.9
250.1
201.3
248.2
223.8
200.9
151.4
364.6
'265.1
'202.3
'248.2
223.9
'200.9
'151.7
'381.9
265.0
202.0
248.9
224.0
201.2
152.0
381.0
263.8
202.8
253.9
224.1
207.1
152.0
368.2
265.4
205.6
254.2
225.0
207.0
152.4
371.5
263.0
207.8
254.3
227.0
207.3
152.3
359.5
1Data for September 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.
\
111
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept’
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
All commodities — less farm products........................
All foods .........................................................................
Processed fo o d s ............................................................
Industrial commodities less fu e ls .....................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ) ...........
Hosiery.............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ...................................
Pharmaceutical preparations............................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products.....................................................
Special metals and metal products .................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................................
Copper and copper products ..........................................
Machinery and motive products........................................
269.4
244.5
246.6
243.4
124.4
123.3
185.5
255.7
231.2
233.3
234.7
118.9
119.2
175.3
260.9
235.8
238.6
238.0
119.3
119.4
177.4
262.9
234.8
236.9
238.9
121.3
120.3
182.1
264.8
231.9
234.1
240.5
122.2
121.1
182.4
265.9
237.3
239.0
240.6
122.9
121.5
182.8
267.5
237.7
239.9
242.0
123.7
122.2
187.1
270.9
245.9
247.3
243.9
125.5
123.5
188.3
273.8
254.1
255.7
245.6
126.0
125.9
189.3
'274.3
'254.3
'254.9
'246.0
'126.6
'126.4
'189.5
277.3
258.3
261.2
248.8
127.9
126.4
189.9
278.7
259.3
261.4
249.8
128.5
126.7
190.5
280.7
253.9
255.1
252.2
129.6
126.7
190.9
284.2
255.1
256.4
255.0
131.8
129.2
199.5
250.7
167.1
236.3
159.2
239.2
160.3
243.2
161.7
250.0
165.6
252.8
165.9
253.8
167.6
254.2
168.1
254.7
168.4
'254.0
168.8
255.3
170.8
257.3
173.7
258.2
174.6
264.2
177.1
303.8
258.3
258.2
222.1
230.1
308.6
253.7
247.2
227.7
219.7
313.9
256.0
248.4
260.7
220.9
312.2
255.1
252.0
240.9
222.5
284.7
255.8
255.9
222.0
226.7
282.0
254.0
256.8
212.2
227.1
293.5
254.4
258.6
208.5
228.3
306.9
256.2
259.9
214.5
231.0
315.5
259.0
261.2
220.4
232.9
'307.4
'257.8
'262.6
214.1
'232.1
301.4
264.6
264.2
216.9
238.1
306.5
265.0
265.2
216.9
239.0
314.2
268.4
266.3
210.9
243.8
309.2
271.3
270.0
207.8
246.7
Machinery and equipment, except electrical....................
Agricultural machinery, including tra c to rs ........................
Metalworking machinery...................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100)
Total tractors....................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts ...........
Farm and garden tractors less parts ...............................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts . . . .
Industrial valves................................................................
Industrial fittings................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels ................................................
Construction materials .....................................................
261.8
266.2
299.5
225.6
286.5
260.2
268.0
265.0
287.1
291.8
249.1
256.1
281.9
213.1
273.0
250.0
256.0
256.4
271.0
276.8
239.0
259.3
251.1
257.2
284.4
215.4
275.1
251.5
257.5
257.3
273.5
280.4
244.0
262.6
253.5
260.0
287.5
216.7
276.6
254.1
261.5
258.9
280.0
282.8
244.0
265 1
258.2
261.9
293.6
223.8
280.8
256.2
263.7
260.7
287.8
289.9
261.4
262.3
259.6
263.9
296.8
226.9
282.9
258.0
264.7
263.6
288.4
291.5
261.3
261.8
261.2
264.7
299.7
228.5
284.0
258.7
264.8
265.0
290.1
295.9
261.3
264.2
263.7
266.3
303.3
228.7
288.3
260.8
267.2
265.9
291.1
296.1
261.5
267.0
264.6
268.1
304.5
229.3
291.1
262.2
270.3
266.6
291.3
296.1
261.5
269.6
'270.2
' 272.9
306.5
230.0
'295.8
'266.5
'277.3
'269.7
'292.4
'296.1
261.3
'269.3
269.4
271.1
309.4
231.7
296.4
264.9
276.3
267.0
291.8
298.4
268.4
269.4
271.3
275.4
311.4
232.4
296.8
268.8
276.9
274.5
293.7
298.6
273.0
271.8
273.3
279.1
314.4
230.9
299.4
272.2
280.8
277.9
296.3
298.6
273.8
273.9
276.6
283.3
318.9
235.0
304.8
276.3
283.6
283.3
297.9
298.6
NA
276.7
Commodity grouping
266.3
1980
1981
1Data for September 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept ’
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Total durable g o o d s.......................................................
Total nondurable goods ................................................
251.2
282.3
243.8
263.2
247.1
270.2
247.0
273.4
247.7
274.4
247.1
277.6
248.7
278.8
251.2
285.6
253.1
290.3
'253.7
'291.2
257.2
292.7
257.8
294.8
260.8
295.8
261.9
300.7
Total manufactures .......................................................
Durable....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................
261.4
250.5
272.9
248.4
242.9
253.9
253.2
245.7
260.8
255.2
245.6
265.2
257.0
246.7
267.9
258.3
246.7
270.7
259.8
248.5
271.7
263.0
251.0
275.9
265.7
252.7
279.5
' 265.8
'253.1
'279.5
268.8
256.5
281.8
270.1
257.1
283.9
271.9
260.2
284.2
276.4
261.5
292.5
Totaf raw or slightly processed goods ..........................
Durable....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................
305.4
278.0
306.4
287.6
282.8
286.9
295.9
305.3
294.2
295.4
303.4
293.8
290.4
286.0
289.8
292.7
262.2
294.0
293.8
249.9
296.1
307.7
255.2
310.6
315.7
265.8
318.4
'319.9
'274.9
'322.2
319.5
282.7
321.1
321.8
285.9
323.3
324.3
284.1
326.2
318.6
275.7
320.7
Commodity grouping
1980
1981
1Data for September 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept’
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
152.9
331.2
466.8
640.2
252.0
136.0
142.0
308.3
459.2
582.7
238.8
136.6
147.3
335.4
459.6
598.0
243.2
136.6
152.6
330.0
461.7
600.6
243.9
136.6
152.6
337.5
464.6
612.5
248.6
136.6
152.6
337.5
466.0
619.6
249.3
136.6
152.6
322.9
466.0
631.5
250.0
136.6
155.8
331.2
466.9
638.0
254.8
136.6
155.8
329.1
467.9
656.7
255.8
136.6
155.8
335.4
'470.3
'667.6
'258.5
136.6
155.8
338.7
470.0
680.6
261.4
137.2
155.8
343.7
474.5
690.6
263.5
132.1
155.8
325.0
474.3
705.5
263.4
133.7
155.8
297.9
475.8
722.9
269.0
137.1
244.3
219.9
191.9
258.5
240.8
211.9
186.1
241.8
240.1
207.8
178.2
242.8
238.9
209.4
173.5
243.4
225.6
197.9
164.5
252.7
227.2
193.3
164.7
253.7
230.0
190.9
164.2
255.7
249.1
213.7
214.2
256.3
265.3
233.0
212.1
268.5
257.1
'240.0
226.0
265.8
257.9
246.4
211.3
273.2
251.3
249.0
205.9
273.3
248.9
246.8
201.8
274.8
245.8
235.3
201.9
273.7
1980
1981
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 - 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ..................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meatpacking plants........................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnote at end of table.
Digitized for112
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.1
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
1981
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING - Continued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 100) ..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) ..............
Canned fruits and vegetables........................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 =100) ............................................
Rice milling..................................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ..........................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................................
205.0
193.3
221.7
160.2
189.1
243.4
124.3
414.1
349.6
290.7
195.4
180.9
213.4
157.6
181.7
217.5
122.0
260.5
224.6
262.3
192.9
181.5
213.6
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.6
374.9
293.2
262.3
195.7
1850
214.7
156.4
181.6
258.0
121.5
276.0
305.7
281.9
201.9
191.3
216.3
157.5
175.0
260.4
116.5
320.2
296.6
282.0
201.9
192.1
217.3
156.4
182.3
254.5
116.9
456.1
339.9
282.0
202.5
195.2
219.9
156.3
180.8
236.0
116.2
402.4
348.0
282.0
203.4
195.2
222.9
157.7
188.6
225.3
122.2
381.8
342.3
282.4
206.8
195.5
223.4
159.6
193.1
219.9
126.6
484.0
365.5
282.4
r 208.0
196.1
r 224.3
159.9
196.1
225.9
'129.6
458.9
r 384.5
302.4
215.5
199.5
228.5
162.6
201.5
237.2
129.5
588.2
429.4
322.4
216.8
199.8
231.8
168.7
205.1
265.8
133.6
563.8
476.2
322.9
217.9
207.5
232.8
170.5
199.5
287.2
134.2
402.9
389.6
322.9
217.8
210.1
233.7
172.9
203.4
289.6
132.9
418.0
375.6
323.0
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills......................................................
Soybean oil m ills..........................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................................
Malt ............................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ......................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100)......................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ................................................
Cigarettes....................................................................
192.9
244.2
290.1
249.9
123.0
174.0
367.1
269.3
233.8
254.6
182.4
235.1
298.1
244.1
118.6
160.9
389.7
281.3
227.7
245.8
184.4
230.4
292.6
244.1
118.7
164.0
385.5
273.9
227.7
245.9
170.4
222.3
297.4
244.1
118.7
165.7
391.6
274.0
227.7
246.0
154.7
211.9
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
370.5
273.9
230.5
246.3
150.4
212.9
262.9
244.1
118.9
173.1
360.0
273.9
230.5
257.3
155.1
208.6
238.9
244.1
120.5
175.3
361.2
283.1
230.5
257.4
191.3
37.4
274.5
244.1
121.0
175.9
363.7
274.5
230.5
257.4
215.1
256.9
297.4
244.1
127.7
177.5
365.2
274.7
230.5
257.4
232.9
r 275.2
307.0
244.1
127.7
178.6
r 355.0263.9
239.3
1257.4
218.7
278.5
311.0
267.4
127.9
180.0
354.3
257.0
243.6
257.6
231.7
290.5
317.2
267.4
128.5
183.1
353.8
252.5
243.6
263.4
228.0
270.2
310.8
267.4
129.2
183.4
354.4
248.5
243.6
263.5
221.2
272.0
310.8
286.1
129.2
187.0
3754
238.2
243.6
263.5
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
Cigars ........................................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ............................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ....................................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ................
157.7
278.2
215.6
124.5
106.4
190.0
104.5
135.1
113.6
151.2
260.9
204.4
118.1
103.3
1825
99.3
128.7
110.3
154.2
265.1
206.9
118.3
103.3
184.1
100.4
129.6
109.4
154.4
267.3
209.5
122.7
104.3
186.5
103 4
131.9
110.4
155.3
279.2
211.3
123.0
105.0
186.8
104.0
132.4
110.7
155.3
278.6
212.9
122.4
105.4
187.1
104.4
134.5
111.8
159.8
278.6
212.9
121.2
105.4
190.4
105.0
134.6
112.1
159.9
279.5
217.7
123.0
105.4
192.6
105.4
137.2
113.8
159.9
279.7
219.0
124.9
108.8
192.9
105.7
137.3
114.1
r 159.9
r 279.7
'221.9
'127.7
108.8
'194.1
' 105.8
'136.9
'115.3
161.0
290.1
223.0
129.9
108.9
194.1
106.4
139.0
117.3
161.3
290.2
223.9
132.5
109.0
194.6
106.8
139.3
117.9
162.4
294.0
224.8
132.0
109.0
195.0
107.2
140.1
120.4
163.6
294.2
227.2
131.5
109.1
205.5
107.9
142.4
121.6
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and rugs................................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 - 100) ..........................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ......................
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)............................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats....................................
Men’s and boys’ shirts and nightwear ............................
Men’s and boys’ underwear..........................................
Men’s and boys' neckwear (12/75 = 100) ....................
Men’s and boys' separate trousers................................
138.1
203.5
114.8
139.1
123.6
212.5
204.1
208.0
112.6
174.5
134.7
188.0
110.1
128.7
115.0
209.0
197.7
199.8
112.4
164.2
134.5
197.8
110.6
129.2
117.2
208.1
196.2
202.0
112.4
174.2
137.0
199.5
112.0
130.0
118.5
208.3
199.3
204.0
112.4
174.3
137.3
203.7
114.8
134.6
123.6
209.7
204.0
204.2
112.4
174.9
137.1
204.5
118.1
143.0
123.8
210.9
203.7
204.3
112.4
174.9
137.4
202.8
115.8
142.9
125.0
211.6
205.1
208.5
112.4
175.1
137.7
202.9
115.0
143.0
125.0
214.9
206.5
211.1
112.4
175.3
138.3
204.3
115.8
143.1
125.0
214.9
206.7
211.2
112.4
175.3
138.3
'206.2
'117.2
143.1
125.0
214.9
'207.7
212.8
112.4
175.3
139.0
207.8
115.8
143.8
127.1
215.9
206.9
212.8
112.4
175.3
140.3
209.9
116.0
143.9
129.2
215.9
207.5
212.8
112.4
175.3
145.3
215.2
118.4
143.9
129.3
216.1
208.4
212.8
115.4
180.3
148.1
217.0
121.5
144.1
129.3
218.1
203.1
224.8
115.4
180.4
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men’s and boys’ work clothing ......................................
Women’s and misses' blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women’s and misses' dresses (12/77 = 100)................
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) ........
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves........................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100)......................
240.4
110.0
114.7
154.5
126.6
109.8
268.6
124.0
122.4
227.5
225.1
107.1
112.9
149.4
119.7
105.3
257.7
122.1
114.3
234.8
233.6
106.6
113.8
150.0
122.9
105.3
261.7
122.8
114.3
239.5
235.4
106.7
113.8
153.1
124.9
105.5
265.0
123.4
122.3
239.1
241.2
107.6
113.9
153.1
125.4
106.3
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.8
241.8
107.6
113.9
153.2
125.4
105.6
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.4
242.6
107.8
114.0
155.0
126.6
108.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
218.1
244.8
111.4
114.0
155.4
127.8
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
228.9
244.1
112.6
115.4
156.9
129.0
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
234.2
'243.9
112.6
115.4
155.4
'129.0
'112.2
271.1
'123.9
122.3
'229.0
243.9
112.8
116.3
156.0
129.4
112.3
271.1
125.6
122.3
222.1
243.9
112.8
116.3
157.1
129.5
114.8
272.1
125.6
131.0
226.8
244.3
114.0
116.3
158.7
129.5
117.0
272.1
126.6
131.0
233.5
241.6
114.8
116.4
166.1
132.1
117.1
284.9
127.4
131.0
232.4
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100)................
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..........................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)........................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Wood household furniture (12/71 =100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 1 0 0 )..............
Mattresses and bedsprings............................................
Wood office furniture....................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................................
144.6
155.8
160.1
150.0
161.1
183.6
162.6
179.0
235.3
240.8
138.5
158.2
169.8
144.8
136.9
177.5
155.9
169.9
226.2
225.2
143.7
158.2
167.0
146.9
150.7
178.2
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.1
139.8
158.3
166.3
147.2
158.9
178.9
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.5
121.9
158.2
164.6
149.5
161.9
180.0
160.9
172.8
233.9
243.8
130.3
152.1
162.8
150.5
167.3
182.2
161.1
176.0
233.9
243.9
140.5
152.1
159.7
150.7
171.7
183.5
162.5
176.0
234.0
243.9
150.4
152.1
157.1
151.3
168.7
185.1
166.1
180.8
235.5
244.5
160.7
152.2
156.0
151.4
169.4
186.4
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.5
'149.6
155.5
154.9
'151.8
'163.7
'187.7
'166.2
' 186.4
'235.5
'244.4
149.2
158 9
154.6
152.1
158.6
187.0
164.9
186.3
240.3
248.3
152.3
157.0
154.7
152.1
161.6
188.6
165.8
186.4
239.6
249.0
158.2
157.1
154.1
152.4
164.7
189.8
167.6
186.4
240.8
249.1
149.8
157.1
153.8
152.4
162.7
191.2
166.9
186.2
244.0
249.1
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)....................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..................................
Sanitary paper products................................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..............................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 - 100)....................
Synthetic rubber ..........................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic............................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) ............................
145.6
139.1
322.3
216.4
151.0
249.3
143.1
255.5
132.6
124.1
139.0
131.3
295.8
202.6
143.2
220.4
138.5
240.9
124.1
114.3
139.8
132.3
303.9
204.8
143.2
226.5
139.7
244.2
124.7
119.8
142.5
134.6
311.7
208.9
143.3
233.7
140.8
244.7
126.9
122.1
145.0
137.9
316.7
212.9
146.6
241.2
146.4
256.8
128.5
123.6
145.8
139.5
319.3
215.5
148.7
246.5
147.3
259.3
131.7
124.5
146.2
141.2
321.2
217.2
150.6
250.0
146.9
259.6
132.8
123.4
146.4
140.3
327.4
218.2
155.2
251.9
146.1
259.8
133.4
122.6
146.7
141.1
331.1
220.3
155.2
257.3
144.4
260.5
134.9
123.7
'146.7
'141.7
'331.1
'222.3
155.2
'257.2
'141.5
'260.1
'137.1
'127.2
148.5
142.5
333.6
223.4
155.5
262.8
141.8
259.9
138.6
130.3
149.5
143.7
335.6
223.4
155.5
272.3
142.0
259.3
139.3
130.0
151.0
142.8
339.2
226.5
159.4
267.8
141.1
261.5
139.6
131.8
152.0
148.3
339.2
233.2
157.7
282.5
142.7
2746
144.8
135.1
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ....................................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..................................................
Explosives ..................................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ..................................
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)....................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ....................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) ............................
237.1
246.6
269.7
248.5
171.5
173.3
202.9
229.2
233.2
253.6
213.9
150.0
156.1
193.0
233.2
239.8
255.2
228.4
161.5
162.7
198.7
235.0
242.5
260.2
242.3
167.9
169.9
198.8
237.2
245.2
271.4
250.5
172.7
178.2
199.1
236.3
248.5
272.8
253.0
172.7
174.8
200.1
235.7
249.0
273.7
253.3
172.6
175.0
202.2
234.8
249.8
273.8
255.9
174.7
180.9
204.1
240.6
249.3
273.4
256.9
175.1
179.8
204.1
'240.8
'250.2
'273.3
'256.4
'176.0
'178.3
'207.4
239.2
249.3
273.4
254.5
176.5
178.5
209.5
239.2
251.7
272.8
256.1
176.5
173.5
209.5
244.9
251.8
282.7
261.2
181.5
172.5
209.7
247.5
255.9
288.7
268.1
182.1
176.5
206.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
113
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1979
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.1
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
1981
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 100) ...................., ...........................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 = 100)....................................
House slippers (12/75 = 100)........................................................
Men’s footwear, except athletic (12/75 = 100)................................
Women’s footwear, except athletic..................................................
Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Flat glass (12/71 =100) ..............................................................
Glass containers............................................................................
178.0
184.0
121.5
147.1
149.6
159.9
213.5
137.9
161.3
292.6
173.5
179.7
116.6
164.3
143.5
160.3
205.6
131.9
157.6
274.3
173.6
180.0
117.0
160.8
145.4
157.9
206.3
131.9
157.6
274.3
173.6
184.9
119.1
146.7
145.4
158.5
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.3
173.7
185.9
120.3
140.8
145.4
158.5
213.8
132.1
160.8
294.2
173.7
186.5
120.5
137.9
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.8
160.8
294.2
173.8
186.5
122.2
134.6
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.9
158.9
294.2
181.8
186.5
122.7
137.7
151.1
158.5
214.2
140.9
159.5
294.2
181.9
185.9
123.9
147.9
151.1
159.5
214.3
140.0
162.6
294.2
r 182.0
r 185.9
r 124.4
'140.0
'151.1
' 161.5
215.2
140.9
162.8
'294.2
182.7
182.0
123.7
129.1
154.9
161.7
217.1
140.9
163.8
304.9
183.1
182.0
123.8
149.3
159.7
162.4
217.1
140.9
166.4
306.4
183.0
184.7
124.2
156.6
154.9
162.4
217.2
140.9
166.3
311.4
183.2
188.3
125.1
157.0
NA
164.7
217.9
149.5
167.1
311.4
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
Cement, hydraulic........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ............................
Clay refractories............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c..........................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures ..............................................................
Vitreous china food utensils............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................................
Concrete block and brick................................................................
309.8
277.3
122.5
274.1
202.8
234.8
317.3
295.4
152.6
257.3
305.7
268.3
130.4
255.1
196.3
219.2
308.2
294.3
150.1
249.5
305.9
270.4
130.4
259.4
198.1
224.6
308.2
294.3
150.1
250.6
306.3
271.9
130.4
263.7
196.4
226.7
308.2
294.3
150.1
252.3
312.6
276.4
130.4
273.9
203.1
227.6
313.4
295.1
151.4
259.3
313.8
278.5
117.6
275.6
204.1
236.1
313.4
293.9
151.5
259.4
313.8
278.5
117.6
275.9
204.4
235.8
318.6
294.7
152.7
259.4
313.3
278.5
117.6
279.2
204.7
237.2
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5
313.1
277.6
117.6
279.5
205.0
240.4
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5
'312.3
278.5
117.6
'279.7
'204.8
241.1
318.7
'296.4
'153.3
'260.5
309.0
282.6
120.1
281.6
205.3
241.5
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.3
307.6
283.0
120.1
282.1
205.4
242.6
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.4
307.6
283.8
120.1
282.1
205.6
245.0
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.4
319.2
287.5
127.1
293.1
209.9
244.7
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.1
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete....................................................................
Lime (12/75 = 100) ......................................................................
Gypsum products ..........................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 = 100) ..................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes ....................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100)..................................................
279.9
157.8
256.7
212.6
161.2
310.4
117.7
283.9
291.0
282.0
270.8
149.5
255.9
199.4
152.6
302.4
117.8
274.1
280.5
273.7
272.6
153.5
262.8
203.3
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.1
281.0
276.9
275.5
155.6
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.2
277.2
278.8
157.1
264.6
212.0
157.4
312.0
118.7
285.9
286.8
279.8
281.5
157.3
257.0
211.8
159.7
313.3
118.6
288.1
286.9
280.5
282.5
157.7
257.5
213.5
161.2
313.5
118.7
288.2
290.4
282.5
282.6
159.6
253.5
215.2
162.8
308.6
117.1
282.2
292.4
283.0
282.6
160.2
252.3
215.7
164.9
308.5
117.1
282.3
292.6
283.2
'283.6
158.8
252.2
'217.1
'164.8
'308.6
117.2
282.3
292.6
'283.3
282.8
160.9
250.0
218.8
167.9
314.8
117.3
288.1
294.3
288.2
282.8
161.0
253.7
220.2
167.6
316.6
117.3
288.5
302.4
288.6
283.3
162.0
253.1
220.6
167.6
320.0
117.3
293.0
308.5
289.2
294.0
165.8
259.9
222.7
172.4
328.7
119.9
302.8
315.0
291.9
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary z in c..................................................................................
Primary aluminum..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing ............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 = 100)..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 = 100)....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Meta cans....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100) ....................................
Metal sanitary ware........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ............................................
269.9
298.3
227.6
158.2
167.7
146.2
291.6
182.0
248.3
137.0
266.1
267.0
231.0
153.2
158.8
140.7
276.6
173.1
237.8
132.4
272.4
267.0
253.1
153.5
158.9
141.0
277.3
174.6
242.1
132.4
279.6
267.8
238.6
155.5
160.9
141.1
279.9
176.4
243.1
132.7
274.3
276.0
227.4
157.8
167.7
143.8
295.1
178.0
245.5
133.5
268.2
287.0
222.8
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.5
249.7
133.8
268.6
290.1
220.2
157.8
167.7
146.7
294.9
181.9
249.9
137.8
255.9
312.1
222.8
158.2
168.3
147.4
295.6
183.5
250.9
137.8
255.9
312.2
226.2
157.6
168.4
147.6
295.9
185.4
251.4
139.8
'264.0
'313.0
220.2
157.6
'168.2
'147.5
296.1
'185.8
'251.4
'140.1
269.9
327.6
222.2
161.4
173.1
150.5
297.9
186.6
251.5
140.5
279.3
329.9
223.1
163.3
176.3
151.3
297.2
186.9
252.1
141.2
287.5
329.4
223.1
165.1
176.4
151.2
297.4
190.2
253.7
141.5
289.4
333.9
221.9
169.3
176.8
155.5
302.1
195.0
255.9
143.3
3482,
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ..........................................
Steel springs, except wire ..............................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 1 0 0 )............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings ............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.....................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 = 100) ..........................................
Mining machinery (12/72 = 100)....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100) ..........................
146.8
230.2
229.7
315.5
274.9
140.9
258.3
337.7
239.2
279.6
143.2
226.1
216.9
301.7
260.5
134.6
245.8
314.2
225.6
266.1
143.2
226.6
219.6
301.8
261.8
135.7
247.1
316.2
226.1
268.1
142.6
228.6
223.1
303.5
266.1
136.3
247.8
318.9
229.1
269.4
141.7
229.2
229.4
313.0
270.6
138.6
256.0
329.8
232.6
274.3
141.4
229.2
229.9
313.1
271.6
139.5
257.3
333.1
234.1
275.1
144.6
230.3
231.8
313.8
271.7
140.3
258.2
337.4
242.8
279.2
145.1
230.3
232.5
317.2
276.8
141.8
259.4
342.6
244.2
284.3
147.3
230.8
232.7
317.2
278.6
142.7
262.0
345.7
243.8
285.3
'145.3
'231.9
'233.3
319.9
' 283.2
'143.8
'264.1
'347.3
246.4
'285.6
150.6
232.8
234.7
325.0
283.8
145.1
265.2
350.8
248.3
287.1
151.1
232.9
235.6
329.9
287.1
145.8
267.9
357.8
248.4
287.9
161.3
233.9
237.6
329.9
288.5
146.7
269.6
360.9
249.5
292.5
158.2
238.2
239.0
335.7
293.0
148.9
271.9
366.5
250.3
298.1
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 = 100)........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 = 100)........................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 = 100)..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory ......................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 = 100)..............................
Transformers ................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 = 100)..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 = 100)..................................
132.0
216.6
212.6
212.7
156.5
185.0
209.7
133.0
1209
162.0
126.3
202.6
201.2
204.2
147.5
172.9
201.3
128.7
117.0
154.0
126.6
205.2
201.6
205.8
147.8
176.6
203.3
129.3
118.5
156.6
127.4
207.0
205.1
206.6
148.6
177.5
206.0
129.4
118.6
158.3
129.0
213.4
212.3
207.5
152.6
180.5
207.0
129.7
119.3
160.3
131.2
213.6
212.1
208.2
153.0
181.5
209.2
133.1
119.4
161.7
131.1
217.0
213.7
208.6
153.5
182.9
211.0
134.7
122.0
162.3
133.5
221.7
215.9
215.4
158.6
186.0
212.1
134.9
122.2
161.2
134.5
222.1
216.0
226.2
159.3
190.6
212.1
134.4
122.2
163.6
'135.3
'222.3
'216.0
'226.2
'160.1
'190.7
'211.7
'134.7
'123.3
165.5
136.3
223.7
217.4
217.1
164.7
194.0
213.8
134.7
122.8
166.1
136.4
224.5
218.1
217.7
165.0
192.8
214.2
134.9
123.7
166.6
137.6
226.0
221.9
218.0
167.4
193.4
215.5
137.1
123.8
167.3
141.7
231.1
222.9
219.8
168.7
195.2
218.3
140.1
126.2
169.7
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum cleaners ..........................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)....................................................
Electric lamps................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Electron tubes receiving type..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..............................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 = 100) ..............................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 = 100)..................................................
152.2
128.9
260.1
220.3
139.3
139.9
251.8
90.6
162.6
134.1
146.1
122.6
248.5
212.9
133.4
133.0
229.1
86.8
147.7
127.4
149.7
129.2
252.4
215.2
134.3
133.2
229.4
88.5
149.1
128.8
151.3
129.2
251.8
215.3
136.2
134.6
229.7
89,3
151.3
131.8
148.6
129.2
252.3
217.4
138.0
139.4
254.0
90.4
157.0
131.9
149.3
129.2
251.3
218.2
138.5
140.2
254.7
91.2
160.7
133.0
155.8
129.2
258.1
220.4
139.2
140.7
255.2
92.0
160.5
135.2
158.4
130.0
266.3
220.3
139.2
140.7
255.5
92.1
168.6
135.3
158.5
130.0
268.1
220.7
140.4
140.9
255.6
91.8
172.6
136.3
'158.6
'130.0
'269.2
'220.9
'142.3
'143.2
255.7
'92.0
'174.0
136.9
152.2
129.7
268.9
223.8
142.3
143.4
264.6
91.7
170.0
137.7
152.2
129.7
269.3
225.0
143.4
144.5
264.8
91.1
170.1
137.7
152.5
129.7
266.2
231.2
145.0
144.9
272.7
91.1
170.1
137.8
152.6
129.7
265.9
235.3
145.6
146.3
284.3
90.6
170.3
138.1
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 = 100).............................................
Primary batteries, dry and w e t........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100)..................................
Dolls (12/75 = 100)......................................................................
Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ..............................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Burial caskets (6/76 = 100) ..........................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)....................................
148.2
176.5
136.6
126.8
204.5
132.9
131.2
143.7
145.1
174.2
132.7
122.7
198.7
126.2
128.3
138.6
146.4
176.5
131.6
125.4
203.8
128.2
128.3
138.7
146.7
176.6
131.8
125.6
204.0
128.3
128.3
138.7
146.5
176.8
135.5
127.7
205.0
131.5
128.4
143.2
146.8
176.4
134.5
128.4
205.3
133.3
130.3
143.3
148.7
176.4
134.6
128.4
205.9
136.4
132.2
143.3
148.9
176.4
137.3
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.1
149.1
176.7
137.9
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.6
'149.6
176.8
'131.4
'128.4
'206.6
'135.0
132.9
146.6
150.0
176.9
144.0
126.6
204.7
135.0
132.9
146.6
150.0
176.9
144.1
126.6
205.2
135.0
132.9
146.6
150.1
176.9
143.6
126.6
205.4
135.0
135.0
146.6
152.6
179.0
145.0
129.0
210.4
133.1
135.0
148.6
’ Data for September 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
114
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
r=revised,
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the Review, tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” Monthly Labor
Review, October 1976, pages 40-42.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1950-80
[1967 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
50.3
20.0
50.4
39.8
43.5
41.0
58.2
26.3
59.6
45.2
47.8
46.1
65.1
33.9
69.4
52.1
50.8
51.7
78.2
41.7
80.0
53.3
57.8
54.8
86.1
58.2
90.8
67.6
63.4
66.2
94.8
71.3
97.3
75.2
75.6
75.3
92.7
78.0
95.9
84.2
78.9
82.4
94.8
85.5
96.3
90.2
90.7
90.4
97.9
92.9
98.8
94.8
94.4
94.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.4
100.7
108.6
105.1
107.4
99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9
99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
118.3
127.6
56.2
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.8
40.2
62.7
28.3
63.9
45.1
47.9
46.0
68.2
35.6
73.0
52.3
50.5
51.7
80.4
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.2
54.9
86.7
58.6
91.5
67.6
64.0
66.4
95.3
71.7
97.7
75.2
71.9
74.1
93.1
78.4
96.4
84.3
76.1
81.6
95.0
86.0
96.8
90.5
88.9
89.9
981
93.0
99.0
94.8
94.0
94.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.5
100.7
108.7
103.6
107.0
99.0
118.8
99.2
120.0
108.5
116.2
98.5
130.4
95.9
132.4
117.6
127.5
( 1)
(’ )
( ')
<1)
(’ )
(' )
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
( )
(’ )
66.3
36 3
74.2
54.7
54.6
54.7
79.9
43.0
82.6
53.8
60.8
56.2
85.4
58.3
91.0
68.3
63.1
66.5
94.5
70.8
96.5
74.9
70.7
73.4
91.3
77.6
95.4
85.1
75.7
81.8
94.4
85.5
96.3
90.6
90.9
90.7
97.4
92.5
98.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.8
106.4
100.2
118.5
99.0
118.2
108.3
114.8
n
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
( ')
51.5
21.5
54.1
41.7
55.8
45.6
58.8
28.8
65.2
49.0
60.0
52.1
62.5
36.7
75.1
58.7
62.5
59.8
77.1
42.9
82.3
55.6
69.9
59.6
82.2
57.6
89.9
70.1
64.9
68.6
93.1
69.1
94.2
74.1
71.6
73.4
88.5
76.4
93.9
86.3
70.5
81.9
93.0
85.5
96.3
91.9
86.1
90.3
97.1
92.4
98.3
95.1
94.3
94.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.0
106.5
101.3
118.7
99.1
117.2
103.1
113.2
101.3
131.2
96.5
129.5
120.8
127.1
1
1980
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
115
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-80
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
0.9
7.4
1.4
6.4
0.7
4.5
3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4.4
3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4
2.7
8.0
1.7
5.2
5.9
5.4
-2.3
9.4
-1.4
11.9
4.4
9.4
2.3
9.6
0.4
7.2
15.0
9.7
3.3
8.6
2.7
5.1
4.1
4.7
2.1
7.7
1.2
5.5
5.9
5.6
-0.2
8.4
0.7
8.6
5.1
7.4
-0.4
9.9
-1.2
10.4
5.5
8.8
-0.3
10.0
-3.1
10.4
6.6
9.2
2.5
6.0
2.4
3.5
3.2
3.4
2.2
7.1
1.9
4.8
4.4
4.7
0.3
7.0
1.0
6.6
1.1
4.8
3.3
6.6
2.2
3.1
7.4
4.5
3.7
6.7
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.0
2.5
7.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
3.7
-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
5.9
10.1
2.1
9.6
0.4
7.4
16.7
10.3
3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1
2.0
7.6
1.0
5.5
6.4
5.8
-0.2
8.5
0.7
8.7
3.6
7.0
-0.8
9.6
-1.5
10.4
4.8
8.6
-0.5
9.8
-3.3
10.3
8.4
9.7
2.1
5.7
2.1
3.5
3.1
' 3.4
1.9
6.8
1.6
4.8
4.2
4.6
0.4
6.8
0.8
6.3
0.5
4.4
4.8
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5
3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
7.7
1.4
4.9
1.5
3.8
-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4
3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9
3.2
8.2
2.3
4.9
4.6
4.8
2.7
8.1
1.5
5.3
5.2
5.2
0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.8
6.4
-0.2
9.5
-1.6
9.7
4.4
7.9
( ')
( ')
(’ )
( ')
( ')
( 1)
V)
n
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
-0.1
6.8
0.8
6.9
-2.5
4.2
5.2
6.1
1.8
0.8
9.5
3.1
4.8
5.4
2.0
0.6
1.9
1.0
2.7
7.2
0.9
4.4
-1.1
2.8
-5.0
10.6
-0.3
16.4
-1.6
11.5
5.1
11.9
2.5
6.5
22.0
10.2
4.4
8.0
2.1
3.5
9.6
5.1
3.0
8.3
1.7
5.1
6.0
5.4
0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.0
6.5
0.9
9.7
-1.4
8.7
0.1
6.3
10.5
-2.7
10.5
17.1
12.2
1950-80
0.0
1960-80
n
(’ )
(’ )
<1)
( ')
( ')
2.5
5.6
2.0
3.1
4.6
4.5
2.4
6.7
1.5
4.1
8.4
7.6
1Not available.
33.
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1967=100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
r = revised.
116
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Annual
average
1978
1979
1980
1979
1980
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9
99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
118.3
127.6
99.9
107.1
100.5
107.3
104.8
106.4
100.0
109.4
100.5
109.4
106.7
108.5
99.9
111.9
100.5
112.1
109.1
111.1
99.7
115.0
100.5
115.4
109.6
113.4
99.6
118.0
100.1
118.5
110.4
115.8
99.2
120.5
99.0
121.4
111.5
118.1
99.0
123.0
97.9
124.2
112.3
120.2
99.3
126.0
96.5
127.0
115.3
123.0
98.8
129.7
96.2
131.3
116.0
126.1
99.2
132.8
96.8
133.9
119.8
129.1
98.7
135.5
95.9
137.3
122.7
132.4
99.0
118.8
99.2
120.0
108.5
116.2
98.5
130.4
95.9
132.4
117.6
127.5
99.9
107.2
100.6
107.3
103.2
105.9
99.9
109.4
100.5
109.5
105.1
108.0
99.8
111.9
100.5
112.2
107.0
110.5
99.5
114.9
100.4
115.4
107.1
112.6
99.1
117.6
99.8
118.7
107.7
115.1
98.7
119.9
98.6
121.5
109.3
117.4
98.6
122.7
97.7
124.4
110.2
119.7
98.6
125.6
96.2
127.4
114.0
122.9
97.9
129.0
95.7
131.8
115.2
126.3
98.8
131.9
96.1
133.5
119.2
128.8
98.5
135.0
95.6
137.0
122.2
132.1
100.2
118.5
99.0
116.8
118.2
112.7
99.0
114.8
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
100.4
109.2
100.2
107.6
108.7
104.4
105.9
107.4
100.5
111.5
100.1
109.6
111.0
106.0
108.9
109.6
100.5
114.4
100.0
112.2
113.8
107.8
105.6
111.5
100.5
117.4
99.6
115.3
116.8
111.2
100.7
13.7
100.2
119.8
98.4
118.2
119.5
114.6
97.5
115.9
99.6
122.3
97.4
121.3
122.8
117.2
92.2
118.1
100.0
125.3
96.0
124.2
125.4
120.9
95.5
121.0
99.8
128.9
95.6
129.2
129.1
129.3
83.4
124.1
101.5
132.1
96.3
131.1
130.2
133.8
89.1
126.4
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
(’ )
( 1)
(’ >
n
100.8
107.1
100.5
105.4
106.2
103.0
105.5
105.4
<1)
( ')
101.3
118.7
99.1
117.2
101.3
131.2
96.5
129.5
100.2
106.9
100.3
106.7
101.1
109.1
100.2
107.9
101.3
111.5
100.1
110.1
100.8
114.5
100.1
113.7
101.7
118.5
100.5
116.6
101.4
119.7
98.4
118.1
101.5
122.0
97.2
120.2
101.5
125.0
95.7
123.2
100.4
129.6
96.1
129.1
100.2
133.5
97.3
133.2
102.8
136.8
96.8
133.1
n
1Not available
n
34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1967 = 100]
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor co st............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor co st............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t............................................
r = revised.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I11979
to
III 1979
III 1979
to
IV 1979
IV 1979
to
I 1980
1 1980
to
II 1980
II 1980
to
III 1980
III 1980
to
IV 1980
III 1978
to
III 1979
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
1 1979
to
I 1980
I11979
to
II 1980
III 1979
to
III 1980
IV 1979
to
IV 1980
-1.5
8.5
-4.4
10.1
4.2
8.2
-1.1
8.6
-4.4
9.8
2.6
7.4
1.3
10.4
-5.6
9.0
11.3
9.7
-1.9
12.2
-1.3
14.4
2.6
10.5
1.5
9.7
2.4
8.1
13.6
9.8
-1.9
8.5
-3.4
10.6
10.1
10.4
-0.7
10.1
-1.5
10.9
4.6
8.8
-0.9
9.9
-2.5
10.9
2.9
8.2
-0.4
9.6
-4.0
10.0
5.2
8.4
-0.8
9.9
-3.9
10.8
5.1
9.0
0.0
10.2
-2.3
10.3
7.4
9.4
-0.3
10.2
-2.0
10.5
9.3
10.1
-1.4
8.1
-4.7
9.7
5.9
8.5
-0.3
9.6
-3.5
9.9
3.3
7.8
0.0
9.9
-6.0
9.9
14.6
11.3
-3.0
11.2
-2.2
14.6
4.2
11.3
3.7
9.2
2.0
5.3
14.9
8.2
-1.1
9.6
-2.3
10.9
10.2
10.7
-1.2
9.6
-1.9
10.9
4.0
8.7
-1.1
9.6
-2.7
10.9
3.0
8.3
-0.9
9.4
-4.2
10.4
6.4
9.1
-1.2
9.7
-4.1
11.0
6.9
9.7
0.1
10.0
-2.5
9.9
9.1
9.6
-0.1
10.0
-2.2
10.1
10.9
10.4
-1.1
8.2
-4.6
10.3
9.5
12.8
-12.0
7.9
-2.5
8.9
-4.1
11.0
11.6
9.3
-20.2
7.8
1.4
10.1
-5.8
9.8
8.6
13.5
15.3
10.3
-0.5
12.0
-1.5
17.0
12.6
30.6
-41.9
10.5
6.8
10.3
3.0
6.2
3.2
14.7
30.3
7.9
( 1)
( ')
(’ )
<’ )
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
-0.2
9.7
-1.8
9.9
9.9
9.8
-7.9
7.9
-0.9
9.7
-2.7
10.7
10.7
10.6
-15.4
7.8
-0.5
9.5
-4.1
10.6
10.1
12.2
-9.5
8.5
-0.7
9.8'
-4.0
12.0
10.5
16.3
-17.2
9.1
1.3
10.3
-2.2
11.0
8.9
16.8
-8.6
9.1
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
( ')
(’ )
( ')
-1.2
3.9
-8.4
5.2
0.6
8.1
-4.8
7.5
0.0
10.1
-5.9
10.1
-4.1
15.5
1.6
20.5
-0.7
12.7
5.2
13.6
10.6
10.1
-1.9
-0.4
0.3
9.7
-1.8
9.4
0.2
9.4
-2.9
9.3
-0.7
9.1
-4.4
8.4
-1.2
9.3
-4.4
-10.7
-1.1
11.6
-1.1
12.8
1.3
12.1
-0.3
10.7
1Not available.
117
LABOR-M ANAGEM ENT DATA
M a j o r c o l l e c t iv e b a r g a i n i n g d a t a are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi
tional detail is published in Current Wage Developments, a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.
the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
Definitions
Work stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes combined apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date
[In percent]
Annual average
Quarterly average
Sector and measure
1979
1976
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
1977
1978
1979
1980 p
1980p
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
10.4
7.0
2.8
5.3
10.5
7.8
9.0
6.1
8.5
6.0
8.6
6.4
10.1
6.8
11.6
7.3
8.3
5.9
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
9.5
7.1
5.7
6.6
8.9
7.2
6.8
5.1
6.3
5.3
7.8
6.3
8.7
6.8
10.7
7.4
8.4
6.5
Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
7.3
5.4
8.7
7.7
9.7
8.1
6.3
4.7
5.6
4.2
7.0
5.6
6.6
4.9
8.7
5.5
7.6
5.7
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
9.6
6.6
3.2
5.6
8.5
5.8
9.4
6.5
7.8
7.4
9.1
7.1
10.4
8.6
9.4
5.8
8.9
7.4
Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
13.6
11.5
9.7
8.2
8.7
8.3
9.7
8.5
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.3
12.7
10.3
15.7
13.3
14.3
12.0
Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
Digitized for 118
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36.
Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Average quarterly changes
Average annual changes
Sector and measure
1979
1978
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980 p
Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries ..............
Change resulting from —
Current settlement.............................. ..................
Prior settlement....................................................
Escalator provision ..............................................
8.1
3.2
3.2
1.6
8.0
8.2
9.1
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.1
Manufacturing ............................................................
Nonmanufacturing ......................................................
8.5
7.7
8.4
7.6
8.6
7.9
9.6
8.8
1980 p
IV
1
II
III
IV
1
II
III
IV
9.3
1.4
1.4
2.6
3.3
1.6
1.5
3.2
3.4
1.2
3.6
3.1
2.6
.4
.5
.5
.2
.6
.6
1.1
1.0
.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
.5
.4
.7
.4
.5
.6
1.1
1.2
.8
1.6
1.1
.7
.5
.3
.5
9.7
9.0
1.9
1.1
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.8
3.2
3.4
2.4
1.0
1.9
1.3
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.7
1.6
1.0
NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.
37.
Work stoppages, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Dsiys idle
Number
housands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
........................................................................................
..........................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2170
1 960
3,030
2,410
34,600
34,100
50,500
38,800
.30
.28
.44
.33
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3 468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600
28,200
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
3 825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333
1 900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
33,100
16,500
23,900
69,000
19,100
.24
.12
.18
.50
.14
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900
23,300
.11
.13
.11
.15
.15
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716
1,960
2,870
2 649
2,481
3,305
25,400
42,100
49,018
42,869
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2 778
1 746
47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
5 648
5,506
4,230
4,827
2 420
2,040
1 623
1 727
37,859
35,822
36,922
34,754
.19
.17
.17
.15
149
45
2,424
.13
304
332
326
357
388
385
414
374
420
347
169 6
77 4
98.4
98 1
116.2
173 1
241.1
79 8
125.7
89.6
51 9
17.5
3,222
3,131
3,230
2,579
2,099
2,441
3,954
3,079
3,407
2,195
1,110
617
.17
.19
.16
.14
.10
.13
.21
.15
.20
.11
.06
.03
J u ly ............................................................................
201
66
pr=preliminary revised.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
119
How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
Order from (and m ake checks payable to) Su
perintendent o f Documents, Washington, D.C.
20402. For foreign subscriptions, add 25 percent.
Monthly Labor Review. The oldest and most
authoritative government research journal in
economics and the social sciences. Current
statistics, analysis, developments in industrial
relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18
a year, single copy, $2.50.
Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera, $22 a year, single copy
$2.75.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular
periodical designed to help high school stu
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy
$1.75.
Current Wage Developments. A monthly re
port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$13 a year, single copy $2.25.
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com
prehensive monthly report on price move
ments of both farm and industrial commodi
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17
a year, single copy $2.25.
CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical
featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $15 a year, single
copy $2.25.
PRESS RELEASES
The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail
able to news media through press releases is
sued in Washington. Many of the releases
also are available to the public upon request.
Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing
ton, D.C. 20212.
Regional. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional
offices publishes reports and press releases
dealing with regional data. Single copies
available free from the issuing regional office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
About 140 bulletins and handbooks published each year are fo r sale by regional
offices o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics (see inside fron t cover) and by the Su
perintendent o f Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. Orders can be charged to
a deposit account number or checks can be made payable to the Superintendent
o f Documents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted; include card number
and expiration date. Among the bulletins and handbooks currently in print:
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1980-81 Edition. Bulletin 2075. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 cloth cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics 1979. Bulletin 2070, December 1980.
A 490-page volume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series.
$9.50.
Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS Measures of Compensation. Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the
various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the
manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2052. Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 2020
published in 1979.) $4.75.
Exploring Careers. Bulletin 2001. A new career guidance resource
designed for junior high school students but useful for older students as
well. Includes occupational narratives, evaluative questions, suggested ac
tivities, career games, and photographs. $10.
Profile of the Teenage Worker. Bulletin 2039. Focuses on the labor mar
ket experience of 16- to 19-year-olds. Based on data from the Current
Population Survey, the bulletin reviews past trends and explores the
problems of youth unemployment and the transition from school to
work. $3.25.
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2037. A graphic il
lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations
and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and
manufacturing industries. $3.50.
REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS
Single copies available free from the B L S regional offices or from the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department o f Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
Major Programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Report 552. A sum
mary of the Bureau’s principal programs, including data available,
sources, uses, and publications.
Employment in Perspective: Working Women. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on women in the labor force.
Employment in Perspective: Minority Workers. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on blacks and persons of Hispanic
origin in the labor force.
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1979. Report
619. Latest report in a series presenting geographic labor force data from
the Current Population Survey. Provides 1979 annual average demo
graphic and economic characteristics of the labor force for States and
similar data for 30 large smsa’ s and 11 large cities.
The New
Handbook of
Labor Statistics
Bulletin 2070
Makes available in
one 490-page volume
historical data (through
1979 in most cases)
on the major statistical
series produced by the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
Contains 190 tables
with data on:
Labor force
characteristics
I
Employment and
unemployment
Features regrouped
tables placing together
data collected from the
same survey or source
Hours and earnings
Provides technical notes
for each major group
of tables
Wage and benefit
changes
Includes related series
from other government
agencies and foreign
countries
Productivity and
unit labor costs
Prices and
living conditions
Unions and
industrial relations
Occupational injuries
and illnesses
Foreign labor statistics
General economic data
The B L S regional office nearest you will expedite your order.
You may also send your order directly to:
1603 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Mass. 02203
Superintendent of Docum ents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Suite 540
1371 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York, N,Y. 10036
9th Floor
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, III. 60604
P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Room 221
555 Griffin Sq. Bldg.
Dallas, Tex. 75202
911 Walnut St.
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Box 36017
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Make checks payable to
the Superintendent of Documents
Please send---------------------- copies of H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s ,
Bulletin 2070, G PO Stock No. 029-001 -02194-1, at $9.50 per copy.
Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Street address
City, state, ZIP
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER