The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR William E. Brock, Secretary Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics R egion I— B o ston: 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, DC 20212. Phone: (202)523-1327. Subscription price per year— $24 domestic; $30 foreign. Single copy— $4, domestic; $5 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 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 April 30, 1987. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC and at additional mailing addresses. Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center Boston, ma 02203 Phone: (617)223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont R egion II— New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212)944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands R egion III— P hiladelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Phone: (215)596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV— A tlanta: pa 19101 Donald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, NE.. Atlanta, GA 30367 Phone: (404)347-4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V— C hicago: Lois L. Orr 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, il 60604 Phone: (312)353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI— Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214)767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and VIII— Kansas C ity: Kenneth Lee (A c tin g ) 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 R egions IX and X— San F rancisco: 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415)556-4678 March cover: A detail from “ In a barber shop,” an oil painting by Elias Bolotowsky, photograph courtesy National Musuem of American Art, Washington, D.C. Cover design by Richard L. Mathews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington Sam M. Hirabayashi MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW MARCH 1986 VOLUME 109, NUMBER 3 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor A SPECIAL SECTION ON PRODUCTIVITY Edwin Dean and others 3 Productivity and labor cost trends in manufacturing, 12 countries Output per hour in manufacturing increased in the U.S and 11 other nations in 1984; U.S. unit labor costs also rose relative to foreign costs on a dollar-adjusted basis Arthur S. Herman 11 Productivity continued to increase in many industries during 1984 Among industries with large increases in output'per employee hour were steel, coal and iron mining, transportation, and utilities; changes were mixed in trade and services Leo Sveikauskas 16 The contribution of R&D to productivity growth A BLS study suggests that R&D directly contributed between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually to the postwar growth of productivity in the nonfarm business sector Horst Brand, Ziaul Z. Ahmed 21 Beauty and barber shops: the trend of labor productivity Output per hour rose at an annual rate of 0.8 percent between 1972 and 1984, in line with the productivity trend for other personal service industries E. S. Persigehl, J. G. Olsen 27 Productivity in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry The overall rate of output per hour increased slowly between 1967 and 1983, reflecting a rise in employee hours; moderate advancement is expected to continue REPORTS Steven Deutsch https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 35 International experiences with technological change DEPARTMENTS 2 Labor month in review 32 35 41 43 45 49 Research summaries Foreign labor developments Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Labor M onth In Review IMMIGRATION EFFECTS. In its report for 1986, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, drawing on various studies, reported on the impact of immigration on the labor market. Here are excerpts: No displacement. Studies that take a broad view of the labor market have found no significant evidence of unemployment among native-born workers attributable to immigration. Any direct effects of immigration on domestic employment have either been too small to measure or have been quick ly dissipated. Although existing studies may not be conclusive, the evidence currently available does not suggest that nativeborn American workers experience significant labor market difficulties in areas that have attracted immigrants. Several studies, moreover, have shown that the presence of immigrants in labor markets is associated with increased job opportunities overall, including job op portunities for native-born minority groups. Some studies of the effects of im migration on wage levels have revealed evidence of adverse wage effects. For ex ample, one study concluded that real wages were 8 to 10 percent lower on average in cities near the Mexican border. Several studies found a reduc tion in the wages of unskilled workers in areas with high concentrations of un skilled immigrant workers. Other studies, however, have shown that greater concentrations of aliens in labor markets are associated with higher earnings of native-born workers. In creased wages have been found both for broad groups of workers and also for native-born minority groups with whom immigrants might compete directly for jobs. The experience of the Los Angeles 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor market in adjusting to a growing concentration of unskilled immigrant labor is instructive. One study estimated that more than a million foreign-born persons settled in Los Angeles County between 1970 and 1983. During the early 1980’s, the foreign-born in Los Angeles County represented close to a third of the total population. Job growth in the area was strong, and the new immigrants were quickly absorbed into the labor market. New immigrant workers ac counted for some 70 percent of the new growth in employment in the 1970s. This study also showed that the unemploy ment rate in Los Angeles, which had ex ceeded the national average in 1970, fell below the average by the early 1980s. These results were not, of course, the consequence of international migration alone, but they suggest a smooth labor market adjustment to the inflow of migrants. Illegal aliens. Although aliens who are eligible to hold jobs in the United States are clearly distinct from those who are not, researchers have not been able to isolate separate economic effects of il legal alien workers. Illegal aliens have a higher proportion of males than legal aliens, are younger, and are less likely to bring family members with them. Illegal migrants are likely to remain in the United States for shorter periods of time than legal migrants. Illegal migrants also tend to have lower levels of education and to work in jobs requiring lower skill levels. Illegal aliens may have less incentive to invest in schooling or other activities that are specifically useful in the U.S. labor market. Nevertheless, a recent study of ap prehended illegal aliens in Chicago showed that they use market oppor tunities to improve their economic status. The subjects of the study were able to benefit from a competitive labor market, with opportunities for skill im provement and upward job mobility. These illegal aliens were apparently able to work their way up from entry-level jobs. Only 16 percent of those in the Chicago study had wage rates below the Federal minimum of $3.35 per hour, and some of these were in sectors not covered by the minimum wage. The average hourly wage of these illegal aliens at the time of their apprehension, in 1983, was $4.50. Entrepreneurs. Many immigrants are en trepreneurs. One study found that foreign-born males are significantly more likely to be self-employed than native-born males with similar skills. Self-employed workers, both foreignand native-born, had higher annual in comes than salaried workers. Returns on capital owned by self-employed workers may partially explain these differences in incomes. Self-employment also provides greater potential for high work effort. The self-employed work more hours per week than do wage-and-salary workers. One reason for the successful absorp tion of immigrants into the U.S. labor market is that overall migrant inflows have been low relative to the size of the population, to labor force growth, and to domestic migration. International migrant flows, moreover, historically respond to labor market demands. Before legal restrictions were imposed, immigration increased when the demand for labor was relatively high and decreased when labor demand was relatively low. The full report of the Council of Economic Advisers appears in the Economic Report o f the President, available from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Price: $8.50. □ Productivity and labor costs trends in manufacturing, 12 countries Output and output per hour in manufacturing rose in the United States and 11 other countries in 1984; U.S. unit labor costs increased 7 percent, relative to the costs of foreign competitors, after adjustment for the dollar's appreciation Edwin D ean , Harry B oissevain , Thomas and James Manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per hour, rose in 1984 in the United States and 11 other indus trial countries studied. The United States had a substantial increase of 5 percent, but this was exceeded by five of the other countries— Japan, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Belgium, West Germany,1 and the United King dom about matched the U.S. gain; Canada, Denmark, and Norway had smaller increases. Manufacturing output grew in all 12 countries in 1984, for the first time since 1973. The U.S. and Japanese output growth rates of more than 11 percent were the largest, and the French increase of 2 percent was the lowest. Productiv ity rose in the United States, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Norway and Sweden because output rose at a greater rate Edwin Dean, formerly an economist in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, is now chief of the Bureau’s Division o f Productivity Research. Harry Boissevain and James Thomas are economists in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis than hours.2 The productivity increases for the other coun tries resulted from a combination of output gains coupled with decreased hours. Unit labor costs, which reflect changes in productivity and hourly compensation, fell in the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands; and rose in the other European countries. However, unit labor costs measured in U.S. dollars were again significantly influenced by changes in currency exchange rates, as they have been since 1980. The dollar remained stable with the Japanese yen, but appre ciated 5 percent against the Canadian dollar and 7 to 14 per cent against the European currencies. Consequently, unit labor costs fell in each of the 11 foreign countries when measured in U.S. dollars, with the falloffs ranging from 3 to 15 percent— compared with a 1-percent decline in the United States. Since 1980, U.S. manufacturing unit labor costs have risen at a 7-percent average annual rate relative to a tradeweighted average for the 11 rival industrial countries, re3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Manufacturing Productivity, 12 Countries versing the gains in comparative unit labor costs that U.S. manufacturers experienced during most of the 1970’s. All of the 1980-84 relative increase, however, resulted from the appreciation of the U.S. dollar. Measured on a national currency basis, U.S. unit labor costs decreased at a 1-percent average annual rate relative to the trade-weighted average for the other 11 countries. Along with the rapid rise in U.S. relative unit labor costs in this period, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit increased fourfold. This article examines 1984 developments in manufactur ing labor productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs in the United States and 11 countries, and compares unit labor cost trends measured in U.S. dollars prior to 1980 with the trends of the last 4 years. The indexes for 1984 are preliminary, while those for other recent years reflect some revised underlying statistics for most countries.3 The U.S. figures reflect the recent comprehensive bench mark revision of the U.S. national accounts, including the shift in the base period for the calculation of constant dollar estimates from 1972 to 1982. The effect is to reduce U.S. manufacturing output growth, and productivity, by about two-tenths of a percentage point in the pre-1973 period, but to have virtually no overall effect on the post-1973 period. Japan also rebenchmarked its national accounts, from 1975 to 1980, resulting in about a 1.5-percentage point reduction in output and productivity growth rates since 1973. In addi tion, a new average hours series has been introduced for Germany,4 as well as new output series for the Netherlands5 and the United Kingdom6 since the previous Monthly Labor Review article in 1984.7 The new series for Germany affects the year-to-year movements in output per hour and hourly compensation, but has no effect on the unit labor cost measures. in the United States, Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and 1 to 4 percent in Canada, Denmark, and Norway. Productivity researchers have found that a marked slow down in manufacturing productivity growth occurred in most developed countries beginning about 1973. All 12 countries studied here had slower productivity gains in the 1973-84 period than in the 1960-73 period. Another study reports that this slowdown in total manu facturing productivity was reflected in specific manufactur ing industries in the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom— after 1973, productivity growth de clined in each of 13 manufacturing industry groups, in these four countries, with only one exception.9 For all but three of the 12 countries— Belgium, Denmark, and Norway— the 1984 increases in total manufacturing productivity were much larger than the average trend for the 1973-84 period. Moreover, the United States, the Nether lands, and the United Kingdom had 1984 gains that ex ceeded their average rates of increase over the 1960-73 period. Output. In all 12 countries, output gains influenced the 1984 productivity increases. (See table 2.) Output (gross product originating in manufacturing at constant prices) rose most rapidly in the three non-European countries, with growth between 8 and 12 percent. The percentage increases were the largest since 1973 for Canada and Japan, and since the 1950’s for the United States. The European countries output increases exceeded their performance of the previous year. Denmark, the Nether lands, and Sweden had strong gains of between 5 and 7 percent; Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom grew by 4 percent; and Belgium, France, and Norway had more modest expansions of less than 3 percent. Output gains were the largest since 1976 for the Netherlands, and since 1973 or 1974 for Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Although the British output increase was larger than in recent years, the level of output was still 12 percent below that of 1973. Canada, Italy, and Norway were the only other Productivity trends As noted earlier, 1984 manufacturing productivity8 in creased for all the countries studied. (See table 1.) The Netherlands had the largest gain— more than 10 percent— followed by Japan, France, Italy, and Sweden, with gains of about 6 to 7 percent. Output per hour rose about 5 percent Table 1. Annual percent changes in manufacturing productivity, 12 countries, 1960-84 Year Output per hour: 1960-84 .................................................................... 1960-73 .................................................................... 1973-84 .................................................................... 1973-80 .................................................................... 1981.................................................................... 1982 .................................................................... 1983 .................................................................... 1984 .................................................................... United United Canada Japan France Germany Italy Belgium Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden States Kingdom 2.4 2.8 2.1 1.7 2.2 2.2 6.6 4.9 3.4 4.5 10.6 1.6 5.9 5.7 6.7 4.6 4.9 5.9 3.4 2.0 2.0 5.9 3.7 4.9 3.9 3.9 - 2.8 6.4 3.7 6.1 6.1 5.4 7.0 4.2 5.7 8.3 1A trade-weighted average of the 11 foreign countries. See description of weights in text. 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5.5 6.9 3.8 3.5 4.4 2.3 2.1 1.6 6.1 3.5 3.5 1.2 6.2 2.0 4.6 6.6 4.5 7.3 4.7 2.4 7.1 7.0 6.2 6.4 6.9 4.7 5.6 6.4 3.5 4.5 1.6 6.8 -.7 3.5 4.6 .8 6.6 7.6 4.6 5.2 2.7 2.4 5.3 10.5 4.7 3.6 4.5 2.3 6.6 2.8 2.0 2.2 .4 2.7 5.6 .4 3.0 7.7 5.7 2.0 Eleven foreign countries (w eighted )1 5.5 6.9 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.8 5.7 5.5 No t e : Rates of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Index numbers for the underlying data series are available from the authors. Table 2. Annual percent changes in manufacturing output, 12 countries, 1960-84 Year United United Belgium Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden Canada Japan France Germany Italy Kingdom States Output: 1960-84 ........................................................................................ 1960-73 ............................................................................... 1973-84 ........................................................................................ 3.0 4.4 4.1 6.3 1.8 1.1 1973-80 ........................................................................................ 1981 ........................................................................................ 1982 ................................................................................. 1983 ................................................................................. 1984 ........................................................................................ 2.5 2.3 1.6 - 6.1 1.0 No t e : 7.3 11.7 -11.4 5.5 8.2 8.9 12.9 5.9 4.7 4.5 5.8 5.0 7.3 3.3 5.2 4.8 1.1 6.8 2.0 1.2 2.3 3.0 -1 .5 2.0 3.4 -.9 -2.4 -2.4 3.8 3.0 - .7 .1 -1.5 -2.4 8.0 1.3 1.0 11.4 2.1 3.9 - 1.1 - 6.0 .2 2.9 3.9 2.8 4.5 6.5 3.7 5.2 4.0 6.4 2.7 4.8 1.6 2.1 1.2 -.1 1.6 2.2 -.2 -3 .2 1.6 .1 -.2 - 1.2 3.0 1.5 - 1.1 -1.5 .3 5.2 - 1.2 2.5 -3 .3 -.5 5.1 1.8 1.6 3.6 5.7 -.2 5.0 .3 6.8 Rales of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of the Index numbers. Index numbers for the underlying data series are available from the authors. countries in which manufacturing output had not yet recov ered to previous peak levels. Employment and hours In the three non-European countries and Denmark, total hours of input in manufacturing rose between 4 and 7 per cent in 1984, with the United States recording the largest gain. (See table 3.) Total hours rose modestly in Norway and Sweden and fell in the remaining 6 countries; except for France, the declines in total hours were smaller than in the previous year. All of the European countries have experienced long-term declines in aggregate hours over the 1973-84 period, rang ing from an annual average rate of about 1.5 percent in Denmark and Italy to around 4 percent in Belgium and the United Kingdom. In Japan, Canada, and the United States, there has been little overall change in total hours over the 1973-84 period. The 1984 expansions in aggregate hours in the United States and Japan were the result of substantial increases in employment and small percentage increases in average hours. In Canada, a large increase in employment was ac companied by a slight drop in average hours. The 1984 employment increases in the United States, Canada, and Japan were the largest since 1973. Nonetheless, the levels of manufacturing employment in the United States and Canada in 1984 were between 5 and 8 percent below the peaks of the late 1970’s, while in Japan, 1984 was about 1 percent below the previous peak reached in 1974. Among the European countries, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the three Scandina vian countries all recorded either a rise or a lower rate of decrease in 1984 employment, compared with 1983. These countries also had higher rates of employment growth or smaller rates of decline in 1984 than they experienced, on average, during the 1973-84 period. In contrast, employ ment in France and Italy declined at a more rapid rate in 1984 than the average for the 1973-84 period. The long-term trend in manufacturing employment has been downward in the European countries. Most countries had employment peaks in the 1960’s or 1970’s that were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis more than 15 percent above 1984 levels. The contrast, in this respect, to the three non-European countries is marked, and essentially unaltered by the favorable employment de velopments in 1984 in seven of the nine European countries. In most of the European countries, the 1984 changes in aggregate hours took place mainly as a result of changes in employment rather than in average hours per employee. Changes in average hours had substantial effects on aggre gate hours only in Belgium and the Netherlands, where average hours declined by 2 to 3 percent. The declines in Belgium and the Netherlands occurred as employers, unions, and government took measures, begin ning in 1982 and continuing through 1984, to reduce aver age hours worked, hoping that this would retard the rapid rate of decline in employment. A key element in these efforts has been a reduction in average hours through reorga nization of work time negotiated at the company, industry, and sectoral levels. The negotiations in both countries pro duced a variety of reorganization schemes, but the most common provided for reduced annual hours by granting additional days of vacation or free shifts. The Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics reported that by the end of 1984, hours reductions had affected 63 percent of firms and 86 percent of employees in Dutch manufacturing. In both countries— despite the concerted efforts of government and collective bargaining agents— employment continued to fall in 1984, but the rate of decline was substantially less than in the preceeding 2 years.10 Over the 1973-84 period, average hours per employee declined in nine of the countries studied. In the remaining three countries— the United States, Japan, and Denmark— average hours were essentially unchanged. Only two coun tries, Belgium and the Netherlands, had 1984 reductions in average hours that exceeded the long-term trend. Hourly compensation For all countries, hourly compensation costs— which in clude wages and salaries, supplements, and employer pay ments for social security and other employee benefit pro grams—rose at a lower rate in 1984 than the average for the years since 1973. (See table 4.) Canada had the lowest rise, 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Manufacturing Productivity, 12 Countries less than 2 percent, followed by Japan, the United States, and Germany, each with less than 4 percent increases. Bel gium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom recorded increases of 5 to 9 percent. Italy and Sweden had the highest rates, about 10 to 11 percent. The Netherlands and Sweden were the only countries to show a markedly more rapid rise in hourly compensation in 1984 than in 1983. For Sweden, 1984 was the second con secutive year of progressively larger increases. In Denmark, the 1984 compensation increase was the lowest since the 1950’s, which may be attributed, in part, to the fact that in late 1982 the government imposed a 2-year freeze on pay indexation and restricted local-level collective bargaining.11 the 1973—84 trend in 9 countries. Therefore, it is not surpris ing that the 1984 performance in unit labor costs was favor able, compared to 1973-84 trends, because unit labor costs represent the ratio of hourly compensation to output per hour. In U.S. dollars. Because labor costs are a principal com ponent of the costs of manufactured goods, unit labor costs play a major role in conjunction with the exchange rates among currencies in determining the relative prices of goods offered for sale on the world market. During 1984, changes in currency exchange rates had a significant effect on relative changes in unit labor costs measured in U.S. dollars. The U.S. dollar appreciated rela tive to the currencies of 10 of the countries studied and remained unchanged relative to the Japanese yen. In each year of the 1980-84 period, the dollar appreciated strongly relative to each of the European countries’ currencies. It appreciated much more moderately relative to the Canadian dollar in 3 of the years. The dollar rose relative to the yen only in 1982. However, as of 1984, the yen had not regained its 1980 currency exchange value. In 1984, unit labor costs measured in U.S. dollars fell in the 11 foreign countries. The decreases were 15 percent for the Netherlands; 10 to 11 percent for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom; 6 to 8 percent for Canada, Denmark, and Norway; and less than 4 percent for Japan and Sweden. The 1984 changes were more damaging Unit labor costs Productivity increases in 1984 more than offset the rises in hourly compensation costs in the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands; consequently, unit labor costs fell 1 to 4 percent. This marked the third consec utive year in which unit labor costs fell in Japan and the second consecutive year of declines for the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands. Unit labor costs rose be tween 2 and 5 percent in the other countries. Italy had one of the largest increases (4 percent), but this represented a sharp deceleration from Italy’s 1983 increase (14 percent). As noted earlier, the 1984 increases in hourly compensa tion were below the 1973-84 trend rates in all 12 countries, and the 1984 increases in output per hour were well above Table 3. Annual percent changes in manufacturing employment and hours, 12 countries, 1960-84 Year Aggregate hours: 1960-84 .................................................................. 1960-73 ................................................................ 1973-84 ............................................................................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 ............................................................................... ................................................................................. ......................................................................... ....................................................................... ......................................................................... Employment: 1960-84 .................................................................... 1960-73 ............................................................................. 1973-84 ........................................................................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 .............................................................. ............................................................................. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ...................................................................... Average hours: 1960-84 .............................................................. 1960-73 ......................................................................... 1973-84 ............................................................................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 No t e : ............................................................................... ................................................................................. ................................................................................. ........................................................................................ ............................................................................... United Canada Japan France Germany Italy United Belgium Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden States Kingdom 0.6 1.6 - .2 0.7 1.7 - .5 0.5 - 0.6 2.1 .0 - .6 -.1 - 2 .5 - 2.1 - 1 .4 .7 .3 - 1.0 - 8.8 - 1.1 - 1.8 - 4 .4 - 5 .6 - 2.8 - 3 .4 - 1 .9 - 3 .6 - 4 .0 - 4 .8 -.7 - .6 - 8.1 .6 6.5 .6 1.5 -.1 .8 -.5 - 6 .7 - 1 .7 5.1 -.1 .1 -.1 -.1 .0 - 1 .5 2.4 1.3 -.8 4.4 1.0 .8 -.3 2.5 4.1 1.2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .2 1.1 -1 .5 - .6 - 0.6 -2 .4 - 1 .3 - 3 .8 - 2 .5 -.5 - 4 .4 - 1.8 - 1.1 - 1 .3 -2 .4 - 1.1 - 3 .2 - 2 .3 - 4 .3 - 4 .3 - 4 .7 - 2 .7 - 2 .3 -1 1 .5 -4 .1 -4 .1 -.7 - 4 .5 - 7 .6 - 1.6 - 4 .9 - 2.6 - 2.2 - 4 .7 2.4 - 3 .4 - 2.6 - 3 .9 -4 .8 - 4 .7 - 2.1 - 1 .5 - 2 .9 - 6 .4 .5 - 2 .4 - 3 .7 - 3 .4 - 2 .3 .7 1.4 - .7 - 1.6 - 1.2 .5 - 3 .5 - 1 .4 .3 - 3 .3 - 1 .7 - 10.4 - 5 .2 - 5 .0 - 1.6 -.1 1.9 3.0 - .2 - .2 - 1 .5 .3 - 1 .5 - 1.2 1.4 - 1.1 - 3 .3 - 1 .4 - 2.2 -3.0 - 1.2 - 2 .4 - 3 .7 -4 .1 - 1.0 - .8 -.9 -.9 -.7 - 1.4 - 1 .5 -.7 - .2 - 4 .3 - 1.2 -.3 - .6 - .8 - 2 .4 - 2.1 - 1 .5 1.4 .6 .2 - 7 .8 - 1.8 4.4 -.1 -.3 -.7 -.9 - .2 1.9 2.9 -.4 .2 -.3 .1 - .6 - .2 .6 1.2 - 1.1 - 1.1 1.0 -.1 Rates of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Index numbers for the underlying data series are available from the authors. 6 .6 -.5 - 1.0 - .8 - 1.2 -.5 .3 .1 - 1 .9 - 2.2 - 3 .2 - 4 .0 - .6 .0 4.8 -.7 - 0.8 .2 - 1.8 - 1.5 - 2 .5 1.1 .0 1.2 - 1.2 - 2 .7 - 1 .3 -.5 - .2 - 1 .5 - 3 .6 - 5 .4 - 3 .8 - 2 .7 -.9 - 1 .7 - 3 .5 - 2 .4 - 3 .2 - 4 .5 - 4 .8 - 2.0 -.4 - 1 .4 - 2.8 - 6 .4 -.9 -3 .1 -4 .1 - 2.6 -.7 -.7 -.4 - 1 .3 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1 .4 - .8 - .2 - 1.1 - 1.1 -.5 - 1.1 - 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.0 - .6 - 1.2 1.2 -.9 - 2 .3 2.3 - 2 .3 - 1 .7 - .6 - 1.2 2.6 .2 - 1.0 - 1 .7 - 1 .5 .6 .6 - .6 -.3 - 2.8 -.1 -.1 .0 1.1 - .6 .9 .9 .2 - .2 - .2 5.1 0.0 - .6 .2 .7 .3 .9 Table 4. Annual percent changes in hourly compensation and unit labor costs in manufacturing, 12 countries, 1960-84 Year United States Hourly compensation: 1960-84 .......................... 1960-73 .......................... 1973-84 .......................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 16.8 12.3 19.3 8.9 7.0 5.0 5.7 3.7 19.9 23.1 20.4 16.7 10.8 19.4 13.5 9.3 7.5 7.2 4.6 3.7 4.2 10.7 5.1 15.0 11.0 9.5 9.6 8.5 3.6 3.7 11.7 16.0 10.3 7.3 1.4 10.7 7.6 5.2 3.0 2.9 15.7 15.4 17.9 4.7 5.6 1.8 4.9 3.6 6.7 2.2 6.6 9.2 2.2 9.8 4.5 3.7 6.2 9.5 13.7 13.5 - .8 10.2 11.1 11.2 - 2.8 - 1.2 7.6 - 2.2 - 2 .3 - 3 .9 4.8 4.8 3.3 -.4 2.6 - .8 4.9 1.9 6.3 7.5 5.0 4.5 5.7 2.4 4.3 8.1 6.1 Unit labor costs in U.S. dollars: 1960-84 .......................... 1960-73 .......................... 1973-84 .......................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 9.7 9.8 7.7 8.2 4.7 2.2 6.6 .8 7.6 7.3 6.4 10.9 6.2 10.2 1.0 - 2.8 - 1.2 - 7 .0 United Kingdom 12.7 9.5 14.9 13.6 14.5 7.6 7.3 Italy France 9.2 6.4 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... Germany Japan 7.2 5.0 8.9 Unit labor costs: 1960-84 .......................... 1960-73 .......................... 1973-84 .......................... 1973-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 Canada 9.5 6.1 - 12.1 2.5 - 3 .8 12.1 8.4 2.6 11.3 -1 3 .8 - 8.1 -7 .1 -1 0 .5 8.6 Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden Eleven foreign countries (w eighted )1 12.3 10.7 10.7 12.8 11.8 11.0 12.0 12.6 8.2 11.6 11.8 12.1 9.8 11.3 10.3 11.5 10.5 10.4 4.5 6.9 4.9 5.6 12.8 11.6 11.1 13.5 10.9 7.3 9.1 12.8 11.6 8.8 6.8 7.0 10.1 4.6 7.7 5.1 6.8 6.2 3.5 8.5 3.3 7.0 12.9 12.9 11.1 10.1 5.0 7.7 9.3 11.1 8.1 8.2 6.4 5.5 9.8 4.1 13.4 4.8 3.4 4.3 6.8 5.1 7.3 5.0 4.7 3.4 15.9 18.9 18.1 14.0 3.9 17.9 6.9 4.6 6.2 8.0 5.0 10.7 11.1 8.6 3.9 .3 1.8 11.2 .2 1.2 1.7 4.3 -.4 - 4 .4 6.4 5.2 5.0 10.4 4.2 1.3 4.1 7.9 5.8 2.4 8.3 8.5 4.5 4.6 7.0 5.4 4.8 7.0 6.1 6.6 7.3 2.6 4.5 5.0 6.0 8.8 6.0 6.4 4.3 9.2 1.6 2.6 2.9 5.9 2.8 11.3 -1 8 .0 -1 8 .9 - 9 .3 - 9 .9 9.7 -1 4 .5 - 7 .3 - 4 .7 - 7 .6 10.6 12.7 - 4 .4 - 5 .4 - 7 .0 - 6.1 11.2 4.4 11.3 -1 5 .6 -4 .1 - 5 .3 - 11.0 13.6 16.0 Belgium 9.5 -1 0 .7 -.7 1.6 - 10.1 16.1 - 6 .9 - 9 .7 -13.1 - 9 .7 -1 8 .8 - 2 .9 6.8 -1 5 .0 8.8 - 7 .9 -1 6 .0 -1 7 .0 - 3 .4 1.0 - .8 6.7 4.0 5.3 10.3 - 3 .3 - 5 .4 - 3 .3 - 7 .9 1A trade-weighted average of the 11 foreign countries. See description of weights in text. No t e : Rates of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Index numbers for the underlying data series are available from the authors. to the competitive position of the United States than the shifts of the previous year. In 1983, when U.S. unit labor costs decreased by about 3 percent, they decreased by larger proportions in eight countries, but increased in three coun tries, including Canada and Japan, two of the most impor tant trading partners of the United States. The appreciation of the dollar after 1980 has had a dra matic effect on U.S. unit labor costs relative to other coun tries. The following tabulation shows the average annual percentage change between 1980 and 1984 in unit labor costs measured in national currencies and in U.S. dollars: National currency U.S. dollars United States .................. Canada ............................ Japan .............................. Italy ................................ Norway .......................... Denmark ........................ Germany ........................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2.1 6.4 -1 .0 14.0 6.7 6.5 1.7 3.9 -2 .7 -4 .1 -5 .8 -8 .1 -8 .2 France ............................ Netherlands .................... United Kingdom ............ Sweden............................ Belgium .......................... ............ 8.3 .........................6 ............ 3.3 ............ 4.5 ............ 1.6 -9 .5 -9 .9 -10.2 -12.3 -14.2 2.1 Expressed in national currencies, seven countries had greater increases in unit labor costs than the United States. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Taking into account the appreciation of the dollar after 1980, only one country, Canada, experienced a greater increase. Relative productivity and labor cost trends Following is a discussion of changes in the trends of each country’s manufacturing productivity and labor costs relative to a trade-weighted average for its major interna tional competitors.12 The indexes were constructed by tak ing ratios of each country’s indexes to weighted geometric averages of the corresponding indexes for the other 11 coun tries. The weights used to combine the other 11 countries’ indexes into an average “competitors” index reflect the rel ative importance of each country as a manufacturing trade competitor as of 1980. Prior to this article, 1975 trade weights were used. The most significant change affecting U.S. “competitors” indexes was an increase in the relative weight given to Japan, from 17 to more than 27 percent. The weights for Canada and the United Kingdom rose about 1 percent each; the weights for all other countries fell. Annual percent changes in the ratio of each country’s productivity and labor cost indexes to the trade-weighted averages of the 11 rival nations’ indexes were calculated for 1960 to 1984. (See table 5.) These percent changes indicate the annual movements in each country’s productivity and labor costs relative to its competitors’ productivity and costs. 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Manufacturing Productivity, 12 Countries Relative productivity changes. The United States has ex perienced a long-term relative decline in productivity, com pared with the trade-weighted average of the other coun tries— amounting to 4.0 percent per year in the 1960-73 period and 1.7 percent per year in the 1973-84 period. Norway and the United Kingdom were the only other coun tries to experience significant relative declines. Japan had by far the most rapid increases in relative productivity growth in both periods— 6.0 percent in the 1960-73 period and 3 percent per year since 1973— followed by the Nether lands in the earlier period (1.5 percent) and by Belgium in the latter (2.5 percent). The relatively poor performance of the U.S. manufacturing sector reflects, in part, a “catchingup” by other countries. While the United States has had a long-term relative de cline in productivity, U.S. productivity growth since 1981 has equalled the trade-weighted average of the 11 foreign countries. This reflects the large U.S. productivity increase of 1983 followed by the further substantial increase of 1984. Relative compensation. The largest 1984 relative in creases in manufacturing hourly compensation, relative to changes in competitor countries, took place in France, Italy, and Sweden. The largest relative decreases were in the three non-European countries and Germany. In the years since 1973, the largest decreases occurred in Germany, at an annual rate of more than 3 percent, and in the United States, Japan and the Netherlands, at 2- to 3-percent annual rates. Italy (at 8 percent), the United Kingdom (at 5 percent), and France (at 3 percent) recorded the largest increases. Relative unit labor costs. In 1984, the largest increases in relative unit labor costs, measured in national currencies, were recorded by Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Swe den, and the United Kingdom. The largest relative decreases were in Japan and the Netherlands. The United States, with a relative decrease of 0.4 percent, occupied an intermediate position. The 1984 decrease in relative U.S. unit labor costs, matched the trend for the period since 1973. After adjustment for relative changes in foreign exchange rates, U.S. unit labor costs rose 7 percent in 1984 relative to competitors, far exceeding the 0.4-percent rise of the previous year. The 1984 U.S. increase also far exceeded the increases recorded by Japan and the three Scandinavian countries, the only other countries to have increases in rela tive unit labor costs in U.S. dollars. The Netherlands and Tabte 5. Relative annual percent changes in output per hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs in manufacturinq, 1 2. countries. Qfiii—fta U n ite d S ta te s O utput per hour: 1 9 6 0 -8 4 ...................................... 1 9 6 0 -7 3 ....................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 4 ...................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ....................................... Hourly com pensation: 1 9 6 0 -8 4 ...................................... 1 9 6 0 -7 3 ...................................... 19 7 3 -8 4 ...................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 C a nada 0.1 .6 - 3 .0 - 3 .9 - 1.7 - .9 - 2.1 - 1.2 - .6 - .3 - .5 - 5 .4 .8 .1 - .5 - 1.4 - 4 .4 - 4 .9 - 2.0 - .2 1.4 .6 ....................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... - 3 .0 - 1.8 - .3 - 3 .1 - .9 1.6 2.8 - 2.6 Unit labor costs in national currency: 1 9 6 0 -8 4 ....................................... 1 9 6 0 -7 3 ....................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 4 ...................................... - 1.4 - 1.1 - .3 .5 - .8 2.4 ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... .................................... - .9 - .6 .4 - 3 .8 - .4 1.5 Unit labor costs in U.S. dollars: 1 9 6 0 -8 4 .................................... 1 9 6 0 -7 3 .................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 4 ....................................... 1 9 7 3 -8 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 9 7 3 -8 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 N ote: .................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... 1.2 5.6 Japan F ra n c e G e rm a n y https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U n ite d K in g d o m N o rw a y S w eden 1.3 .5 3.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 2.1 .2 - 1.2 3.6 6.5 .9 - .4 3.4 - 2 .4 - .2 - 4 .4 2.6 2.6 - 4.7 - 5 .0 - 5 .6 - 2.6 - 2.8 6.9 11.5 10.4 9.0 5.0 6.8 .4 1.7 .2 .6 .4 - .6 - 2.1 4.7 1.7 7.7 3.8 .7 6.4 - 1.3 - .1 - 3 .0 .4 1.4 - 10 13 1.2 14 - .2 - 3 .5 1.2 1.1 7.2 11.3 9.5 - .6 - 1.4 - 1.2 2.5 - 2 .4 - 3 .4 - 5 .9 - 1.0 1.5 - 1.0 .7 3.1 3.1 3.7 - 3 .3 - 5.2 - 1.1 - 2.1 -5 .1 1.2 20 28 4 0 4.0 - .6 .3 - 3 .3 - .3 .5 - 2 .3 .4 20 16 - 1.9 17 14 .2 - 8.1 - 14.7 - 3 .7 - .4 - 1.4 - 6.0 - .4 3.1 - 2.2 - .9 - 3 .0 - 3 .7 - 3 .0 - 2.0 - .8 1.0 3.8 8.6 4.2 2.5 - 0 .4 - .3 - .5 0.5 .9 .1 - .3 .8 .0 .2 - 1.5 - 3 .2 1.3 5.2 7.7 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.3 2.0 0.8 .9 2.5 .5 1.5 15 .1 .8 -2 .5 3.2 1.5 2.5 3.7 1.3 1.2 - 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.2 - .8 - 1.0 - 3.7 - 2 .4 - 4 .2 2.4 - .8 5.0 .6 .8 1.3 1.9 - .6 .0 .1 .1 .2 2.5 .1 -4 .0 7.4 2.7 - 1.3 - 3 .9 - 3 .8 - 6 .9 - 2 .3 - 3 .8 1.4 3.3 5.1 5.8 2.3 - 4 .8 - 3 .6 - 3 .6 - 3 .3 - 1.6 - 1.9 - 1.7 1.3 - .4 - .8 1.6 1.6 .1 - 1.3 - 1.2 - 2.2 - .6 2.3 - .5 - .1 .5 - 1.5 4.4 - 2 .4 10.9 - 1.9 7.0 7.8 4.5 - 4.1 - .2 9.4 -1 1 .9 7.8 .5 - 4 .8 - 3 .0 - 2.2 - 1.9 .5 - 8 .4 2.3 .4 - 3 .0 - 1.4 - .9 5.6 8.3 - 1.4 5.6 .3 - 5 .8 - 9.1 - 2 .3 .4 7.2 N e th e rla n d s 3.2 .9 3.5 - .7 1.9 .7 - 5.0 12.2 D e n m a rk 0.6 .3 - 1.1 2.4 6.2 B e lg iu m 4.5 5.9 3.0 .6 2.2 .1 1.6 Rates of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of a ratio of 2 index numbers. 8 Ita ly 12.1 12.6 3.7 .3 1.3 - 4 .7 - .4 - .7 .6 - .8 - .7 - .5 5.2 5 2 7 - 2 .7 - 2.0 - 6.0 - 1.8 - 2 .5 - .2 - .5 - 9.4 4.0 - .7 - 6 .7 - 13 - 1.5 - 1.1 - o 1 7 - 1.3 - 2.5 - 3 - 4 -3 .1 - 12 - 26 •j - .7 19 .8 1 1 .1 - 1 - 9 9 3 5 .7 .4 3 1 - -J 4 16 4.3 - 2. 3.4 11 14 4 3 2 5 10 1.6 - U5 - 9 3.5 - 5 - 2 .3 1 7 - 11 5 - 12 2 5.5 The ratio is the index of the reference country divided by a trade-weiqhted average index for the other 11 countries. Chart 1. Average annual percentage changes in relative unit labor costs in manufacturing, seven countries, 1980-84 -6 ■ 4 - 2 Percent 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 United States Canada Japan France Germany Italy United Kingdom NOTE: Average annual percentages changes are computed from the least squares trend of the logarithms of a ratio of two index numbers. The ratio is the index of the reference country divided by a trade-weighted average index for the other 11 countries. Canada recorded the largest decreases in relative unit labor costs in U.S. dollars, at 7 and 4 percent. During the 1980-84 period of rapid appreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to most foreign currencies, the United States experienced a 1-percent per year decrease in relative unit labor costs in national currency terms, but a 7-percent per year increase after adjustment for the relative change in the foreign exchange value of the dollar. Chart 1 shows the effect of adjusting relative unit labor cost changes for relative changes in foreign exchange rates over the 1980-84 period for the seven largest countries (United States, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom). Japan was the only country other than the United States to experience a much larger increase in relative unit labor costs after adjustment for changes in the exchange rate— a 4-percent per year decrease in relative unit costs before adjustment and a 1-percent per year in crease after. Japan and the United States were the only two countries to record large average annual appreciations of their currencies relative to trade-weighted averages of the currencies of their competitors. (Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands registered small increases.) The relative appre ciations were 9 percent for the United States and 5 percent for Japan. The difference between the United States’ annual average https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis increase of 7 percent in relative unit labor costs in U.S. dollars and the 1-percent increase for Japan was due partly to the greater currency appreciation experienced by the United States over the 1980-84 period. It was also due partly to the greater decrease in relative unit labor costs in national currency recorded for Japan, about 4 percent annu ally, compared with 1 percent for the United States. The average Japanese decrease of about 4 percent per year in relative unit labor costs in national currency units was due to a 1.4-percent increase in productivity and a 3-percent decrease in hourly compensation. The U.S. decrease of 1 percent per year in relative unit labor costs was the net result of a 1.5-percent decrease in compensation and a small decrease in relative productivity. The effect of relative exchange rate changes on relative U.S. unit labor costs in 1980-84 contrasts sharply with the U.S. experience in 1973-80. In the earlier period, a gradual relative depreciation of the dollar converted a 1-percent average annual decline in relative unit labor costs, in na tional currency units, into an average annual decrease of 2.5 percent. As the dollar appreciated from 1980 to 1984, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit steadily increased, from $25 bil lion in 1980 to $36 billion in 1982 and $108 billion in 1984. This deficit is computed for all U.S. trading partners, not just the 11 partners examined in this study. □ 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Manufacturing Productivity, 12 Countries FOOTNOTES 1 The Federal Republic, including West Berlin. 2 The data relate to all employed persons, including the self-employed, in the United States and Canada, and to all wage and salary employees in the other countries. Hours refer to hours paid in the United States; hours worked in the other countries. Compensation comprises all payments made by employers directly to their employees (before deductions) and employer contributions to legally required insurance programs and to contractual and private welfare plans for the benefit o f employees. Labor costs include, in addition to compensa tion, employer expenditures for recruitment and training; the cost of cafe terias, medical facilities, and other plant facilities and services; and taxes (other than social security taxes, which are part o f compensation) levied on payrolls or employment rolls. Annual data are not available for total labor costs. Labor costs, as measured in the data series used for this article, approximate more closely the concept of compensation. However, com pensation has been adjusted to include all significant changes in taxes that are regarded as labor costs. For the United States and Canada, compensa tion o f self-employed workers is measured by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. 3 This article includes revised statistics which have not yet been incorpo rated in table 47, “Current Labor Statistics,” this issue. 4 The new average hours series for Germany, 1960-83, is computed by the German Institut fuer Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung (Nuremberg) and refers to average hours worked by all manufacturing wage and salary employees. It is consistent with and used with the national accounts figures on the number o f manufacturing employees to derive aggregate hours. The previous hours series was the product o f the number of employees, from the national accounts, and average annual hours per wage worker only, from a monthly industrial survey conducted by the German Federal Statistical Office. The industrial survey data were used for the preliminary 1984 figure. 5 The new output series for the years beginning with 1969 is value added from the Netherlands national accounts. The figures include petroleum refining from 1977, but exclude petroleum refining over the 1969-77 period. The series previously used for these years was the index o f indus trial production for manufacturing prepared by the Central Bureau of Statis tics. This measure was used because the previous national accounts figures for manufacturing included natural gas and petroleum extraction. 6 The new output series for the United Kingdom, for the years beginning with 1976, is the index of output in manufacturing at constant factor cost, with separate manufacturing industries combined using weights propor tional to the distribution of net output in 1980, that is published with the national accounts. The series previously used for these years was the 1975-based index of manufacturing production; this series is still used for the years before 1976. The 1980-based series, unlike the earlier one, excludes the refining o f oil and the processing of other energy-related materials from the definition of manufacturing and includes extraction of non-fuel minerals. This corresponds with the European Community defini tion of manufacturing. The employment and compensation series begin ning 1976 have also been replaced with series consistent with this revised definition of manufacturing. 7 Donato Alvarez and Brian Cooper, “Productivity trends in manufactur ing in the U .S. and 11 other countries,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1984, pp. 5 2-58. 8 Although the labor productivity measure relates output to the hours of persons employed in manufacturing, it does not measure the specific con tributions of labor as a single factor of production. Rather, it reflects the joint effects of many influences, including new technology, capital invest ment, the level o f output, capacity utilization, energy use, and managerial effectiveness, as well as the skills and efforts o f the work force. 9 The exception was the paper and printing industry in France. Arthur N eef and Edwin Dean, “Comparative Changes in Labor Productivity and Unit Labor Costs by Manufacturing Industry: United States and Western Europe,” presented at a conference on Interindustry Differences in Produc tivity Growth, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D .C ., October 1984. This paper also examines the possible role o f industry-specific events in determining the post-1973 slowdown. See also Irving Kravis and Robert Lipsey, “The Diffusion of Economic Growth in the World Economy, 1 9 50-80,” in John W. Kendrick, ed., International Comparisons of Pro ductivity and Causes of the Slowdown (Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1984). 10 Incomes Data Services Ltd., IDS International Report (London), May 1983, June 1983, March 1984, October 1984, and July 23, 1985. 11 Incomes Data Services Ltd., IDS International Report (London), Oc tober 1984. 12 The trade weights were adapted from weights developed by the Inter national Monetary Fund ( im f ) . The original i m f weights cover 17 countries; the 11 foreign countries covered by this article account for 94 percent o f the U .S. competitors’ total trade weight. For more information about the rela tive indexes of manufacturing productivity and costs, see Patricia Capdevielle, Donato Alvarez, and Brian Cooper, “International trends in productivity and labor costs,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1982, pp. 3 -1 4 . The weights are available from the authors, as are the relative indexes for each country and the underlying “own country” and “competitor countries” indexes used to compute the relative indexes. In dexes of trade-weighted exchange rates are also available from the authors. Publications Awards The Monthly Labor Review was one of five Bureau of Labor Statistics publications honored in the annual competition sponsored by the Washing ton chapter of the Society for Technical Communication. The competition was open to publications produced in 1985 by trade associations, private research and educational institutions, corporations, and government agen cies. Contest criteria included audience definition, writing, editing, and graphics. In addition to the Review, BLS publications honored were The First Hundred Years o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Trends in Manufacturing: A Chartbook, New from BLS, and the Occupational Outlook Quarterly. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Productivity continued to increase in many industries during 1984 Among industries with large increases in output per employee hour were steel, coal and iron mining, and several transportation and utilities industries; changes were mixed in trade and service A rthur S. Herman Productivity, as measured by output per employee hour, grew in 1984 in about three quarters of the industries for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly publishes data. Productivity increases were large in many industries. In a significant number, these gains followed major produc tivity growth in 1983. The expansion in industry productiv ity is consistent with the situation in the nonfarm business sector of the economy in which output per hour increased 1.6 percent between 1983 and 1984, after gaining 3.4 per cent in 1982-83. Table 1 shows productivity trends in in dustries measured by the Bureau and includes new measures introduced for additional industries: barbfer and beauty shops; metal doors, sash and trim; metal stampings; and oilfield machinery.1 Changes in manufacturing Among important manufacturing industries, productivity in the steel industry grew 13.0 percent in 1984. This large gain was in addition to the record productivity advance of 28.5 percent in 1983. Steel output increased more than 13 percent in 1984, due in part to continued demand from Arthur S. Herman is an economist in the Office of Productivity and Tech nology, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis such key markets as motor vehicles, appliances, and con struction. Employee hours rose only slightly and employ ment continued to decline, as the industry continued restruc turing and the closing of inefficient facilities. The motor vehicles industry had an above average productivity gain of 4.6 percent, in addition to an unusually large gain in the previous year (13.1 percent). Output in this industry was up more than 21 percent in 1984, as demand for all types of motor vehicles expanded, while hours increased almost 16 percent. Other important manufacturing industries with large gains included steel foundries with a productivity increase of more than 11 percent, while gray iron foundries attained an in crease of more than 9 percent in 1984. Output in these industries rose in 1984 as demand from the automobile, construction, and railroad industries expanded. The tire in dustry posted an 11.3-percent productivity gain in 1984, following a 6.2-percent gain in 1983. Output grew by 14.3 percent in 1984 as demand was up for both original equipment and replacement tires, while hours rose only slightly. In petroleum refining, productivity moved up 10.9 percent in 1984, after gaining 3.0 percent in 1983. Refinery output increased for the first time since 1978, while hours declined, as small refineries contined to close. 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity Among Industries, 1984 Other significant manufacturing industries with large pro ductivity gains included malt beverages (10.5 percent), metal cans and primary aluminum (both 10.1 percent), and household cooking equipment (9.7 percent). A few manufacturing industries registered productivity declines in 1984. These included pharmaceutical prepara tions ( - 5 .2 percent), hardwood veneer and plywood (—4.8 percent), structural clay products ( - 3 .9 percent), and fold ing paperboard boxes ( - 2 .6 percent). Although output was up in all of these industries, except for pharmaceuticals where it fell slightly, employee hours rose even more, re sulting in the productivity falloff. Mining All of the mining industries experienced productivity gains in 1984. Coal mining, the largest mining industry, posted a gain of 10.1 percent in 1984, on top of a 14.2percent rise in 1983. Coal output was up 14.4 percent in 1984 in anticipation of a strike which did not occur, while hours rose 3.9 percent. Productivity in iron mining (usable ore) increased 25.3 percent, compared with a 41.1-percent gain the previous year. Output was up 36.9 percent in 1984 as demand increased from the steel industry, while hours rose 9.3 percent. Copper mining (recoverable metal) had a productivity gain of 17.6 percent, after a 12.7-percent increase in 1983. Output was up only 5.1 percent in 1984, because of low copper prices, while hours dropped 10.6 percent, as only the most efficient mines were operating. The nonmetallic minerals industry registered a pro ductivity gain of 1.9 percent. Output grew 8.7 percent in this industry, owing to the expansion of construction ac tivity, while hours were up 6.6 percent. Transportation and utilities Most transportation and utility industries also recorded 1984 productivity gains. In railroads (revenue traffic), pro ductivity was up 7.5 percent following a 22.5-percent rise in 1983. Railroad output grew 9.2 percent in 1984 as ship ments of coal, motor vehicles, construction materials, and chemicals were up significantly, while hours increased 1.5 percent. Productivity grew 3.3 percent in air transporta tion, compared with a 9.9-percent gain in the previous year. Air traffic increased significantly in 1984, resulting in a 7.9-percent gain in output. In petroleum pipelines, produc tivity grew 11.1 percent, as output rose and hours continued to fall. Electric utility productivity was up 3.5 percent, as output increased 5.3 percent, and hours were up 1.8 percent. The gas utilities industry registered its first productivity gain since 1979 (3.2 percent), with output increasing 2.5 per cent, and hours dropping 0.7 percent. Trade and services Productivity changes were mixed among trade and ser vice industries. The hotel and motel industry registered the highest gain, at 7.7 percent. Output was up 15.2 percent in 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis this industry owing to the continuation of the business re covery, as well as a strong summer vacation period, while employee hours grew 7.0 percent. Apparel and accessory stores also registered a good productivity increase, up 6.0 percent. Output increased 9.6 percent in 1984, as favor able economic and credit conditions aided clothing sales, while hours rose 3.4 percent. In laundries and cleaning services, productivity grew 3.3 percent, based on a gain in output of 8.2 percent and an increase in hours of 4.8 per cent. Productivity gains were recorded in drugstores (1.8 percent) and gasoline stations (0.4 percent). However, there were productivity declines in several of the service industries. The beauty and barber shop industry had a sub stantial 8.4-percent decline. Productivity also fell 2.1 per cent in eating and drinking places. While output in the restaurant industry was up 3.8 percent in 1984, hours in creased even more, resulting in the productivity falloff. Productivity dropped 1.0 percent in retail food stores. New car dealers had a small productivity decline of 0.1 percent. Output was up significantly at 10.8 percent. However, hours rose slightly more, resulting in the productivity decline. Trends among industries Almost all of the industries studied recorded average an nual gains in productivity over the long term (1947-84 for many of the industries). A few industries experienced long term declines, however. These included metal stampings, metal forming machine tools, farm machinery, and bus carriers. Over the most recent 5-year period (1979-84), most of the industries registered a growth in productivity. Slightly more than one-fourth had productivity declines. In addition, almost two-thirds of the industries recorded lower rates of productivity growth from 1979-84 than in the preceding long-term period. The falloff in productivity growth in a majority of the industries is in line with the trend in the nonfarm business sector of the economy, where productivity grew at an annual rate of 1.0 percent from 1979 to 1984, compared with a 2.2-percent rate for 1947-79. Gains, 1979-84. The highest rate of productivity increase over the 5-year period was recorded by the radio and televi sion sets industry (14.5 percent per year). Productivity growth in this highly competitive industry was aided by widespread use of automatic production techniques and equipment and the closing of less efficient plants. Copper mining (recoverable metal) had the second highest rate of productivity gain, at 10.5 percent. However, this reflected both an output decline and a very sharp decline in hours. More advanced mining methods were introduced and less efficient mines were shut down in an effort to compete with low-priced foreign ore, resulting in the productivity gain. The wet com milling industry had the third highest rate of gain at 9.7 percent. Here output rose, while employee hours Table 1. [1 9 7 7 = Indexes of output per employee hour in selected industries, 1979-84, and percent changes, 1983-84 and 1979-84 100 ] Industry sic C o d e 1 1980 1981 1982 1983 19842 122.7 124.7 122.8 123.2 99.5 91.6 112.5 132.8 130.6 100.9 98.2 106.4 116.2 119.2 139.0 138.6 129.9 130.9 136.1 136.9 98.1 103.9 175.2 173.6 140.3 153.9 149.9 151.1 1979 Percent change, 1983-84 Average annual percent change, 1979-84 Mining 1011 1011 1021 1021 111,21 121 14 142 Iron mining, crude ore ............................................................................................................................ Iron mining, usable ore .......................................................................................................................... Copper mining, crude ore ..................................................................................................................... Copper mining, recoverable metal ......................................................................................................... Coal m ining............................................................................................................................................. Bituminous coal and lignite m ining......................................................................................................... Nonmetallic minerals, except f u e ls ......................................................................................................... Crushed and broken stone..................................................................................................................... 109.1 98.2 99.4 99.6 102.7 106.9 112.6 96.5 101.3 102.0 97.7 122.2 122.7 94.7 96.7 120.0 107.9 113.9 95.0 131.6 99.2 100.7 110.9 99.1 96.7 109.3 112.3 119.5 96.5 140.0 107.9 108.6 89.3 94.1 5.4 26.0 25.3 5.3 8.0 6.2 17.6 10.5 7.7 7.9 - 0 .4 10.1 10.4 100.0 1.9 2.6 106.6 0.1 Manufacturing 2011,13 2043 Red meat products ................................................................................................................................ Meatpacking plants ................................................................................................................................ Sausages and other prepared m e a ts .................................................................................................... Fluid milk ............................................................................................................................................... Preserved fruits and vegetables............................................................................................................. Canned fruits and vegetables................................................................................................................. Grain mill products ................................................................................................................................ Flour, including flour mixes and other grains.......................................................................................... Flour and other grain mill products......................................................................................................... Cereal breakfast foods............................................................................................................................ 2044 2046 2047,48 205 2061,62,63 2061,62 2063 2082 2086 Rice milling ............................................................................................................................................. Wet corn milling....................................................................................................................................... Prepared feeds for animals and fowls .................................................................................................. Bakery products .................................................................................................................................... Sugar ...................................................................................................................................................... Raw and refined cane sugar ................................................................................................................. Beet sugar ............................................................................................................................................. Malt beverages ....................................................................................................................................... Bottled and canned soft drinks............................................................................................................... 2111,21,31 2111,31 Total, tobacco......................................................................................................................................... Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco ............................................................................................ 2011 2013 2026 203 2033 204 2041,45 2041 2121 2251,52 2281 2421 2431 2434 2435,36 2435 2436 Hosiery................................................................................................................................................... Nonwool yarn mills ................................................................................................................................ Sawmills and planing mills, general ....................................................................................................... Millwork................................................................................................................................................... Wood kitchen cabinets............................................................................................................................ Veneer and plywood .............................................................................................................................. Hardwood, veneer and plywood............................................................................................................. Softwood, veneer and plywood ............................................................................................................. 251 2511,17 2512 2514 2515 252 2521 2522 2611,21,31,61 2643 2651 2653 Household furniture................................................................................................................................ Wood household furniture ..................................................................................................................... Upholstered household furniture ........................................................................................................... Metal household furniture ..................................................................................................................... Mattresses and bedsprings ................................................................................................................... Office furniture......................................................................................................................................... Wood office furniture.............................................................................................................................. Metal office furniture .............................................................................................................................. Paper, paperboard and pulp m ills........................................................................................................... Paper and plastic bags .......................................................................................................................... Folding paperboard b o x e s ..................................................................................................................... Corrugated and solid fiber board boxes ................................................................................................ 2823,24 2834 2841 2844 2851 2911 301 3079 314 3221 3241 325 3251,53,59 101.7 104.6 95.0 117.3 98.9 101.9 101.0 107.0 108.9 102.3 126.5 100.8 101.4 95.1 97.3 107.3 105.3 98.1 94.8 105.9 96.3 105.7 111.8 121.0 101.2 95.0 103.1 101.5 104.6 109.9 105.6 105.0 93.7 100.1 99.3 102.1 116.0 109.8 102.1 102.1 101.8 102.4 101.4 107.9 103.8 98.3 92.2 92.1 94.5 97.8 93.4 102.8 104.1 102.7 99.9 97.3 102.3 93.6 137.5 110.7 96.2 98.8 98.8 98.7 118.3 114.3 100.5 99.6 107.3 122.0 103.1 107.9 96.4 94.8 106.9 100.3 104.5 105.4 98.0 104.3 106.9 113.9 105.2 94.6 101.3 111.0 109.8 Synthetic fibers ....................................................................................................................................... Pharmaceutical preparations ................................................................................................................. Soaps and detergents ............................................................................................................................ Cosmetics and other toiletries ............................................................................................................... Paints and allied products ..................................................................................................................... Petroleum refining.................................................................................................................................. Tires and inner tubes.............................................................................................................................. Miscellaneous plastics products............................................................................................................. Footwear................................................................................................................................................. Glass containers.................................................................................................................................... Hydraulic cement.................................................................................................................................... 115.0 105.3 104.8 94.0 104.8 94.9 107.3 94.8 115.7 106.0 109.6 83.6 102.4 96.0 94.2 102.4 95.7 99.1 105.2 87.0 120.9 104.2 107.4 76.1 99.8 83.7 118.1 98.5 95.6 Structural clay products.......................................................................................................................... Clay construction products...................................................................................................................... 95.9 91.6 97.6 94.0 102.8 112.1 107.2 112.1 110.8 109.2 100.2 100.8 112.3 104.1 115.0 104.5 138.8 124.9 103.2 90.4 87.6 94.8 122.6 118.3 100.7 99.5 111.4 114.2 118.2 115.1 86.1 96.1 114.4 101.4 111.8 122.1 103.0 97.4 110.5 98.7 114.0 108.8 92.9 114.0 104.4 92.3 104.4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 101.5 101.7 105.1 90.2 106.4 107.4 99.7 104.2 93.6 98.2 117.9 121.0 110.1 91.1 100.7 97.3 104.7 98.3 115.9 107.5 104.3 107.4 90.3 116.6 111.3 95.3 104.2 111.9 103.6 107.0 100.9 84.0 106.5 79.4 128.2 110.1 106.3 105.8 94.0 102.6 103.3 116.2 124.0 99.8 147.1 110.4 112.2 125.3 118.8 111.5 118.7 101.5 156.6 126.9 106.6 98.6 100.0 94.6 131.3 127.0 105.1 104.1 112.3 118.0 127.9 125.0 86.3 93.5 120.3 107.2 127.9 115.1 123.4 98.3 - 0 .9 - 0 .5 - 1 .5 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 2.6 “ “ “ “ “ 3.7 0.3 5.7 2.9 2.6 5.9 6.0 3.7 2.9 (3) (3) 112.5 0.9 (3) (3) “ “ 0.4 “ 9.7 “ 6.5 “ 3.3 -0 .1 - 0 .6 0.9 5.3 5.3 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 105.2 99.1 117.4 145.1 138.0 (3) (3) (3) 6.7 - 0 .9 24.1 10.5 8.7 106.1 105.1 114.8 123.4 1.0 1.0 2.2 4.6 5.2 0.5 134.6 125.6 0.8 0.6 2.4 2.6 6.4 5.4 “ -2 .1 “ 0.1 5.1 0.9 7.2 (3) (3) 120.3 (3) (3) 102.1 131.3 - 4 .8 2.7 115.2 4.8 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 120.2 120.0 102.2 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 123.9 3.2 (3) (3) 105.1 114.0 102.4 116.9 -2 .6 2.5 125.7 114.4 98.2 125.4 108.4 -0 .2 -5 .2 1.5 (3) (3) 126.6 90.7 151.5 (3) “ -2.1 “ -1 .7 109.9 104.1 121.4 108.4 108.3 110.6 92.9 86.0 116.5 81.8 136.1 107.1 103.9 108.5 108.4 104.0 100.4 5 (3) (3) 8.7 10.9 11.3 (3) (3) 115.6 123.2 -2 .0 6.5 13.7 101.8 99.9 97.1 -3 .9 - 3.3 2.7 “ 0.6 “ 4.2 “ 5.2 “ 0.3 “ 0.2 “ -5.3 “ 3.1 3.7 “ 0.9 (5) 1.6 1.2 4.2 -2 .0 7.9 “ 3.9 0.9 1.9 5.7 1.2 1.6 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity Among Industries, 1984 Table 1. Continued— Indexes of output per employee hour in selected industries, 1979-84, and percent changes, 1983-84 and 1979-84 [1977 = 100] sic Code1 3251 3253 3255 3271,72 3273 331 3321 3324,25 3331,32,33 3331 3334 3351 3353,54,55 3411 19842 85.4 84.9 84.3 88.6 84.9 82.4 119.8 125.9 128.1 125.5 (3) 110.2 109.6 111.1 100.0 119.9 110.2 92.7 90.4 88.5 92.4 9 6.7 (3 ) Average annual percent change, 1979-84 Percent change, 1983-84 - - 0.4 “ 3.1 2.9 (3) - 8.1 0.5 (3) 4 1.1 99.9 93.1 95.4 90.6 95.7 (3) (3) 106.9 102.9 112.0 90.9 116.8 132.0 13.0 96.8 90.8 92.7 93.7 98.9 108.0 9.2 100.6 99.8 91.6 89.0 90.6 100.9 11.4 106.5 103.7 118.6 128.0 141.8 152.6 7.6 - 4 1.1 3.6 2.4 - 0.9 8.4 113.3 105.3 124.4 128.5 138.3 156.9 13.4 7.3 99.7 100.0 103.8 103.0 111.5 122.8 10.1 4 .0 98.1 94.1 97.9 106.0 121.1 127.5 5.3 6.3 100.3 100.0 96.8 99.2 110.4 110.6 0.2 2 .3 103.6 102.6 108.1 112.2 121.2 133.5 10.1 103.9 98.4 95.2 92.8 90.5 (3) (3) 4 102.1 102.1 98.5 98.4 103.3 (3 ) (3) 4 92.8 90.6 90.4 96.0 98.9 (3) (3) 5.3 - 3.3 0.1 4 1.9 102.3 99.9 101.4 98.1 104.0 (3 ) (3) 4 0.1 102.9 101.6 105.0 106.7 121.5 (3) (3) 4 3.9 101.5 98.1 98.0 89.3 88.6 (3 ) (3) 105.3 102.8 105.4 101.3 104.6 (3) (3) 90.2 90.1 93.5 89.5 89.6 (3 ) (3) 98.2 94.3 93.2 82.0 89.0 (3) (3) 93.3 95.1 94.9 95.0 98.7 3.9 98.3 91.3 94.1 92.6 92.1 95.4 3.6 113.5 106.5 101.0 106.9 108.7 115.0 5.8 100.3 97.4 96.1 88.9 95.3 103.0 8.1 105.6 104.0 104.7 98.4 100.7 ( 3) (3) 102.0 98.8 96.5 88.1 86.8 86.9 0.1 103.0 100.6 98.9 89.4 85.0 85.9 1.1 99.2 9 3.5 8 9.4 85.0 91.6 89.7 100.8 99.2 102.0 89.1 85.4 (3) 101.8 - - 102.9 100.2 102.4 95.5 (3) (3) 97.7 101.7 92.7 99.6 (3 ) (3) 105.8 95.4 94.3 83.3 87.2 89.0 2.1 106.0 105.5 106.8 101.7 106.1 (3 ) (3) 101.4 93.8 99.4 100.1 101.2 (3) (3) 108.4 110.6 106.9 99.6 100.7 101.4 0.7 102.8 103.2 99.5 101.3 105.0 (3) (3) 99.6 100.1 102.3 109.3 107.5 107.4 0.1 0.4 ( 5) - 4 2.1 101.2 3.6 0.5 (3) - - 4 1.5 3.6 4.2 1.7 - 0 .7 4 - 3.5 CO 0 I Radio and television receiving sets - - Motor vehicles and equipment............. Instruments to measure electricity------ 1983 CO 0 I 3645,46,47,48 3651 371 3825 1982 111.6 100.5 Pumps and compressors..................... Pumps and pumping equipment........... Ball and roller bearings ........................ Air and gas compressors...................... Refrigeration and heating equipment - Transformers......................................... Switchgear and switchboard apparatus Motors and generators.......................... Major household appliances ............... Household cooking equipment.............. Household refrigerators and freezers - Household laundry equipment............. Household appliances, n.e .c ................ Electric la m p s ....................................... Lighting fixtures..................................... 1981 I 3631,32,33,39 3631 3632 3633 3639 3641 Metal cans ........................................... Hand and edge to o ls ............................ Fabricated structural metal.................... Metal doors, sash, and t r im .................. Metal stampings — - ........................ Automotive stampings.......................... Metal stampings, n.e.c. ........................ Valves and pipe fittin g s ........................ Fabricated pipe and fittings .................. Internal combustion engines, n.e.c. - - Farm and garden machinery ............... Farm machinery ................................... Lawn and garden equipm ent............... Construction machinery and equipment Oilfield machinery and equipment -----Machine to o ls ....................................... Metal-cutting machine to o ls .................. Metal-forming machine tools ................ Machine tool accessories...................... 1980 CO 3561,63 3561 3562 3563 3585 3612 3613 3621 Brick and structural clay tile - Ceramic wall and floor tile - - Clay refractories .................... Concrete products.................. Ready-mixed concrete........... S te e l....................................... Gray iron foundries............... . Steel foundries ...................... . Primary copper, lead, and zinc • Primary co p p e r........................ Primary aluminum................... Copper rolling and drawing - - ■ Aluminum rolling and drawing - 1979 CO C\J CO Ö Ö CO I 1 1 3423 3441 3442 3465,66,69 3465 3469 3494 3598 3519 352 3523 3524 3531 3533 3541,42 3541 3542 3545 Industry 4 0.6 4 - 1.9 0.2 0.1 1.9 108.7 105.8 107.6 108.6 116.2 122.2 5.2 2.5 108.9 103.9 105.7 112.6 115.6 126.8 9.7 3 .3 5.8 3.8 112.3 114.4 117.4 116.1 128.4 135.9 108.1 102.1 103.9 105.4 112.0 111.6 - 0.4 1.3 2.6 0.6 102.6 99.1 100.4 94.7 103.2 105.9 105.2 103.2 106.9 108.4 124.7 132.0 5.9 5.0 97.6 3.1 0 .6 4 14.5 94.6 93.3 88.7 91.0 94.7 118.5 116.9 133.6 163.9 196.7 97.8 (3 ) (3) 90.8 93.1 96.9 109.6 114.6 4.6 4.1 108.4 111.9 118.8 120.2 (3 ) ( 3) 4 4 .7 Other 5541 56 Gasoline service stations7 .................. Apparel and accessory stores7 ......... 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 104.7 107.3 111.5 115.8 141.9 152.6 7.5 8.2 102.9 107.9 107.6 110.1 128.9 137.7 6.8 5.9 98.3 100.8 90.9 90.0 84.8 ( 3) (3) 98.6 94.3 98.7 93.3 101.0 (3) (3) 96.6 87.9 92.5 86.8 92.5 ( 3) (3) 113.1 106.2 104.9 114.7 126.0 130.1 3 .3 I Railroad transportation-revenue traffic Railroad transportation-car miles — Class I bus carriers............................ Intercity trucking6 ................................. Intercity trucking-general freight6 -----Air transportation6 ............................... Petroleum pipelines............................ Telephone communications................ Gas and electric utilities...................... Electric utilities ................................... Gas utilities......................................... Retail food stores7 .............................. Franchised new car dealers............... P 401 401 4111,31,414 4213 PT 4213 PT 4511,4521 PT 4612,13 4811 491,92,93 491.493 PT 492.493 PT 54 5511 4 0.4 4 - 1.0 3.8 101.7 93.0 86.0 89.2 93.9 104.3 11 .1 0.5 110.8 118.1 124.4 129.1 146.0 (3) (3 ) 4 6.6 97.6 96.2 94.4 89.3 88.1 91.2 3.5 95.4 94.0 93.0 89.5 90.9 94.1 3.5 103.4 102.1 98.1 89.0 81.1 8 3.7 97.3 99.7 96.8 95.2 96.9 95.9 94.6 99.5 96.6 97.4 106.2 106.1 0.1 2 .2 106.9 104.3 105.8 110.7 118.5 119.0 0.4 2.8 114.4 120.1 127.1 130.9 138.1 146.4 6.0 4.9 3.2 - 1.0 - 1.9 0.6 5.1 0.5 Table 1. Continued— Indexes of output per employee hour in selected industries, 1979-84, and percent changes, 1983-84 and 1979-84 Industry sic C o d e 1 5611 5621 5651 5661 58 5912 602 7011 721 723,724 723 Men's and boys' clothing stores7 ......................................................................................................... Women’s ready-to-wear stores7 ........................................................................................................... Family clothing stores7 ............................................................................................ - ......................... Shoe stores7 ......................................................................................................................................... Eating and drinking places7 .................................................................................................................. Drug and proprietary stores7 ................................................................................................................ Commercial banking ............................................................................................................................ Hotels, motels, and tourist courts7 ....................................................................................................... Laundry and cleaning services7 ........................................................................................................... Beauty and barber shops7 .................................................................................................................... Beauty shops7 ....................................................................................................................................... 1As defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, published by the Office of Management and Budget. Preliminary data. Not available. Percent change, 1979-83. Rate of change is less than 0.05 percent. Output per employee. Output per hour of all persons. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19842 108.2 120.7 107.7 106.4 125.5 115.6 139.0 131.4 113.0 96.5 106.2 90.5 96.2 115.7 158.2 139.6 108.9 95.9 106.1 93.2 94.5 90.4 108.3 113.1 120.2 169.0 149.3 109.9 96.4 107.9 102.7 95.5 90.3 114.1 127.0 184.1 155.0 116.3 94.4 109.8 (3) 102.9 93.3 104.5 111.7 112.2 99.1 103.1 99.3 102.4 97.6 107.4 108.0 122.6 109.3 99.2 106.0 92.7 98.6 90.7 102.9 106.2 88.2 109.2 114.7 120.0 Percent change, 1983-84 Average annual percent change, 1979-84 5.7 8.9 3.8 5.8 -2 .1 3.4 9.4 7.3 0.5 - 1 .0 (3) 7.7 3.3 - 8 .4 - 6 .9 - 0 .3 - 0 .6 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.1 40.7 Although the output per employee-hour measures relate output to the hours of all employees engaged in each industry, they do not measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or any other single factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effects of many influences, including new technology, capital investment, the level of output, capacity utilization, energy use, and managerial skills, as well as the skills and efforts of the work force. Some of these measures use a labor input series that is based on hours paid, and some use a labor input series that is based on plant hours. No t e : n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified. fell. Demand continued strong for high fructose com syrup, a key product of this industry, which is used as a sweetener, especially by soft drink manufacturers. The industry has made substantial capital investment in highly automated plants, allowing for output expansion at the same time as employment was being reduced. Other industries with high rates of gain from 1979 to 1984 include: women’s clothing stores (9.4 percent), primary copper, lead and zinc (8.4 percent), railroad transportation (revenue traffic) (8.2 per cent), tires (7.9 percent), coal mining (7.7 percent), family clothing stores (7.3 percent), and softwood veneer and ply wood (7.2 percent). productivity. The industry with the second largest falloff was gas utilities, registering an average annual decline of 5.1 percent from 1979 to 1984. Output fell at a rate of 3.8 percent owing to a drop in average use per customer, while the number of customers increased, leading to growth in employee hours at a rate of 1.4 percent. Among other indus tries with substantial declines were: Machine tool acces sories (—4.3 percent, 1979-83), bus carriers (—4.0 per cent), machine tools (-3.6 percent), metal stampings (-3.6 percent, 1979-83), ball and roller bearings (-3.5 per cent), as well as internal combustion engines and hand and edge tools (both —3.3 percent, 1979-83). □ Declines, 1979-84. Among the industries with declines, the wood office furniture industry had the greatest falloff in output per hour, dropping at a rate of 5.3 percent from 1979 to 1983. (The 1984 data are not as yet available.) Output decreased at a 4.1-percent rate, while employee hours grew at a 1.3-percent rate. This industry was severely affected by the two recessions which occurred within this period and suffered sharp drops in output and associated declines in ------ F O O T N O T E ------- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 For a detailed report on these industries, see Brian L. Friedman and Arthur S. Herman, “Productivity growth low in the oilfield machinery industry,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1985, pp. 34-38; Horst Brand and Ziaul Z. Ahmed, “Beauty and barber shops: the trend of labor productivity,” pp. 21-26), this issue; and Elmer S. Persigehl and John G. Olsen, “Productivity in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry,” pp. 2 7 -3 1 , this issue. An article on the metal stampings industry will appear in a forthcoming issue of the R e v ie w . 15 The contribution of R&D to productivity growth Results of a BLS study suggest that the direct contribution of research and development to postwar productivity growth was between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually in the nonfarm business sector; R&D had no substantial effect on the post-1973 productivity slowdown L e o S v e ik a u s k a s Many observers believe that research and development (R& D) conducted in U.S. industry is an important ingredient in the Nation’s productivity improvement.1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics has recently conducted work aimed at estab lishing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth.2 The study proceeded along much the same lines as prior BLS analysis of the contribution of the physical capital stock to productivity.3 This work calculated real annual investment in research and development and estimated the R&D stock to determine the annual and long-term productivity effects of research spending in the private nonfarm business sector. This article summarizes the main conclusions which have emerged from that analysis. Between 1948 and 1982, U.S. multifactor productivity growth— the increase in output beyond the contribution of labor and capital inputs— was 1.2 percent per year. How ever, the long-term productivity trend for the postwar period reflects very different developments during two distinct sub periods. Multifactor productivity increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent from 1948 to 1973, but then decreased by 0.2 percent per year through 1982. The results reported below indicate that the R&D stock contributed 0.1-0.2 perLeo Sveikauskas is an economist in the Division of Productivity Research, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cent annually to 1948-82 productivity growth, but had no substantial effect on the 1973-82 productivity slowdown. Research and development provides both direct produc tivity benefits to industries conducting research, such as computer or aircraft manufacturers, and indirect benefits to industries further along the chain of production, as occurs when banks take advantage of new computer technology or commercial airlines realize gains from the purchase of better aircraft. This study deals only with the direct productivity benefits accruing to industries actually conducting the re search. The reader should realize that, on balance, the indi rect benefits gained as new technology spreads to other parts of the economy are likely to be greater than the direct con tribution of research. Future Bureau work will attempt to determine the magnitude of these indirect effects. Main elements of the analysis At least eight distinct issues have to be considered in developing an estimate of the R&D stock and determining its influence on productivity growth. The following discussion summarizes the decisions that the Bureau reached on each of these matters. In several instances, economic understanding is at present not sufficient to support a definite judgment concerning the proper treatment of an issue. In these cases, an assumption which appears reasonable in light of prior analysis was selected for use in the “preferred” model. How ever, sensitivity analyses also examined the effect of other plausible assumptions on conclusions about the relationship between r &d and productivity growth. Defining the R&D stock. The first and main issue is deter mination of the components of research that should be in cluded in the R&D stock, which establishes the central framework for the study. BLS measures of productivity in the major economic sectors rely upon data published in the national income accounts. Therefore, the components of research that should properly be included in the R&D stock are those that directly affect productivity growth as mea sured within the context of the national income accounts. Most analyses of R&D indicate that only privately financed research directly affects typical measures of productivity.4 However, there is also some evidence that governmentfinanced research conducted in industry affects measured productivity, although less strongly.5 In view of this information, the preferred measure of the R&D stock selected for this study includes only privately financed research conducted in industry and the relatively small, privately financed projects conducted in colleges and universities or nonprofit institutions, which are assumed to be similar in nature. However, the sensitivity analyses dis cussed below also consider an alternative measure that in cludes government-financed research conducted in industry, weighted at 20 cents on the dollar. The Bureau’s definition of the R&D stock includes both product and process research, and both basic and applied research, although separate accounts are kept for the latter two categories to permit differential treatment of lag and depreciation issues. The R&D stock is here limited to re search conducted by U.S. industry. Detailed specification of the influence of foreign research on the U.S. economy re mains an important topic for future empirical investigation. Locating appropriate data. Once the relevant definition of R&D was decided, it was necessary to obtain data on annual expenditures for the categories of research included. Annual publications of the National Science Foundation provide the necessary information from 1953 onwards.6 Nestor Terleckyj has prepared similar consistent annual data on private R&D expenditures for the years 1921-52.7 The alternative measure of the research stock, which includes government-financed research conducted in industry, relies on data developed by David Blank and George Stigler.8 Converting to constant dollars. The third step in the anal ysis requires selection of an appropriate R&D deflator to convert annual research spending into constant-dollar terms. The National Science Foundation uses the GNP deflator for this purpose, although it is widely recognized that this series provides only a very rough approximation. Zvi Griliches has suggested an alternative deflator that weights the output https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis price deflator for nonfinancial corporations at 0.51 and the unit compensation index for the same sector at 0.49.9 The BLS study adopts the Griliches deflator, suitably modified to adjust research expenditures occurring before 1958, the first year for which nonfinancial corporations data are available. Determining the appropriate lag time. Once real annual research expenditures are estimated, the lag between the time research is conducted and the time it affects productiv ity must be considered. On the basis of a review of the relevant literature, a 2-year lag was selected for applied research and a 5-year lag was chosen for basic research. One-year and 3-year lags for applied research were exam ined in the sensitivity analyses. Treating depreciation. A fifth crucial issue is whether the stock depreciates over time, in the sense of contributing less to output. If so, what is the time path and pattern of this depreciation? The literature contains a broad range of con clusions on this topic, from some which suggest that R&D investments do not depreciate at all to others which indicate rapid depreciation of research expenditures.10 For this study, a depreciation pattern known as 0.1 geo metric decay, which implies that 10 percent of the research stock depreciates each year, was selected as the preferred choice for applied research. Basic research was assumed not to depreciate. The sensitivity analyses also examine the effects of alternatively assuming zero or 0.2 geometric decay for applied research. As the discussion of the findings shows, the choice of a rate of depreciation has a substantial impact on conclusions concerning the effect of R&D on pro ductivity growth. Unfortunately, not much is definitively known about depreciation of the R&D stock. R&D Calculating the R&D stock. The research stock was calcu lated using standard perpetual inventory methods which de termine each year’s net change in the stock by allowing for new investment and for depreciation. Deciding on a rate of return. The seventh matter to be considered is the appropriate rate of return to apply to the research stock to determine its contribution to productivity growth. On the basis of a broad range of empirical studies, a 30-percent real rate of return was selected for use in the preferred measure.11 On the basis of a review of the relevant literature, it was assumed that there has been no decline in the rate of return over time.12 However, the sensitivity analyses also examined the impact on productivity growth if there has been a substantial decline in the rate of return to R&D over time. Determining the impact of R & D . In the final step, informa tion on the R&D stock and its assumed rate of return was combined to estimate the impact of research on productiv ity. This was determined by calculating the research share of 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • R&D Contribution to Productivity Growth output in the private nonfarm business sector and multiply ing this share by the growth rate of the research stock. Such a procedure is standard in analyzing the contribution of inputs to economic growth. In these calculations, the research stock is first multiplied by the assumed real rate of return (.30) to determine annualreal research income. Research income is then divided by real output in the private nonfarm business sector to obtain the research share in the sector. Finally, the research share is multiplied by the annual percentage increase in the R&D stock to determine the contribution to productivity growth.13 Empirical results Table 1 presents the preferred estimates of the impact of on productivity growth. All results are for the private nonfarm business sector for the 1948-82 period. Column 1 shows the R&D stock of the sector in 1972 dollars. Over the 1948-82 period, the research stock grew at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent. From 1948 to 1973, growth was 7.8 percent a year, but the pace slowed consid erably— to 4.3 percent— during the 1973-82 period. Estimates of year-to-year change in column 2 also indi cate that the growth of the R&D stock slowed substantially in the 1970’s. By that time, however, the research share of sector income (column 5) was considerably greater than it had been in the immediate postwar years because of the consistent substantial growth in the R&D stock. The weight of research in the economy was therefore greater in recent years, and each percentage-point increase in the R&D stock made more of a contribution to output growth. Conse quently, the overall contribution of r & d held up better in the 1970’s than the slowing growth rate of the research stock itself would suggest. Estimates for the subperiods 1948-73 and 1973-82 indi cate that R&D had no substantial impact on the post-1973 productivity slowdown. From 1948 to 1982, R&D contrib uted 0.14 percent a year to multifactor productivity growth. Subperiod rates were essentially the same: 0.14 percent from 1948 to 1973, and 0.13 percent from 1973 to 1982.14 The annual productivity contributions shown in column 6 provide a more detailed view of the impact of R&D on productivity. The annual productivity contribution ranged between 0.16 and 0.18 in the 1960’s, but declined to about 0.11 to 0.12 in the late 1970’s. However, by the early 1980’s, the productivity contribution of R&D had essentially returned to the magnitudes reached in the 1960’s. R&D Other major sectors. The analysis so far has concentrated on the impact of the research stock in the nonfarm business sector. It is difficult to obtain a reliable time series for direct private research investment in the farm sector, and that sector is therefore not examined here. The heavy expendi tures by Federal and State governments on agriculture can probably best be viewed as indirect research provided to the farm sector by other industries, and therefore are also not 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Central variables and results from analysis of the effects of research and development on productivity growth, private nonfarm business sector, 1948-82 [In billions of 1972 dollars, unless otherwise indicated] R&D stock Year Level (1) (4) R&D share of total output3 (in percent) (5) R&D contribution to productivity growth4 (in percent) (6) $364.5 357.5 $4.0 4.4 1.2 0.10 392.2 418.0 432.2 451.0 442.0 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 .09 .05 .07 .07 1.3 .10 6.7 7.4 1.4 1.4 9.6 479.1 492.7 498.6 488.9 528.2 .15 .14 .13 .19 .17 Annual growth rate (in percent) (2) Output of private nonfarm business1 Real R&D income2 (3) 1948.. . 1 9 4 9 ... $13.5 14.6 1 9 5 0 ... 1 9 5 1 ... 1 9 5 2 ... 1 9 5 3 ... 1 9 5 4 ... 15.8 16.5 17.5 18.5 8.0 4.6 6.1 20.1 1 9 5 5 ... 1 9 5 6 ... 1 9 5 7 ... 1 9 5 8 ... 1 9 5 9 ... 22.4 24.6 26.7 29.9 32.8 11.4 9.9 8.9 1 9 6 0 ... 1 9 6 1 ... 1962. . . 1963. .. 1 9 6 4 ... 35.6 38.6 41.9 45.1 48.4 8.4 8.5 8.5 7.7 7.3 535.5 545.2 577.3 602.8 641.2 1 9 6 5 ... 1 9 6 6 ... 1 9 6 7 ... 1 9 6 8 ... 1 9 6 9 ... 51.9 55.5 59.5 63.9 68.7 7.1 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.4 685.8 726.5 741.9 782.2 805.0 20.6 1 9 7 0 ... 1 9 7 1 ... 1 9 7 2 ... 1973. . . 1974. . . 73.6 78.7 83.3 87.4 91.5 7.1 7.0 5.8 4.9 4.7 796.6 819.9 877.7 938.1 917.9 23.6 25.0 26.2 27.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 1975.. . 1976. . . 1977.. . 1 9 7 8 ... 1979.. . 96.2 5.0 4.6 3.5 3.8 3.8 896.3 957.9 1023.3 1081.7 1105.0 28.8 30.2 31.2 32.4 33.6 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 .15 .14 4.1 4.4 4.8 1088.7 1112.3 1083.4 35.0 36.5 38.3 3.1 3.3 3.4 .12 1 9 8 0 ... 1 9 8 1 ... 1 9 8 2 ... 100.6 104.1 108.0 112.1 116.7 121.8 127.7 8.8 5.7 8.3 11.8 6.0 8.0 9.0 9.8 10.7 11.6 12.6 13.5 14.5 15.6 16.6 17.9 19.2 22.1 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.3 .16 .17 .17 .16 .16 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 .16 .15 .17 .17 .18 2.7 .18 .19 .16 .13 .13 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.9 .11 .11 .11 .14 .16 1 Constant-dollar output of the sector. All calculations were conducted prior to the January 1985 GNP revisions. 2 Column (1) x 0.30, under the assumption of a 30-percent rate of return on the research stock. 3Column (4) divided by column (3). 4To illustrate the methodology adopted to generate these estimates, the 1948-49 growth in the research stock, .088 (or 8.8 percent), is multiplied by the research share, .012 (or 1.2 percent), to determine the productivity contribution, which is .0010, or 0.10 percentage points. Text footnote 13 describes the actual method used, which tends to result in slightly lower contributions. considered in this report. In addition, it is difficult to establish a reliable basis on which to divide nonfarm business research between its man ufacturing and nonmanufacturing components. Tentative estimates suggest that research and development may have contributed as much as 0.41 percent per year to 1948-82 productivity growth in manufacturing, but only 0.01 percent to direct productivity growth in the nonmanufacturing sec tor. These very different effects of the direct impact of research arise because an extremely large proportion of di rect research spending takes place in manufacturing. Sensitivity analyses The preferred results summarized above are based on a 2-year lag between applied research and its effect on produc tivity, 0.1 geometric depreciation, use of the Griliches de flator to convert research expenditures into real terms, inclu sion of only privately financed research, and a constant rate of return to the research stock over time. But, as indicated earlier, these assumptions are subject to some uncertainty because much remains to be known about the economics of R&D. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how other plausible assumptions affect the central conclusions concerning the influence of R&D. The first line of table 2 lists the productivity impacts with the preferred assumptions. These figures provide the base-case frame work, which is used as the standard of reference for exam ining the effects of using alternative assumptions in the model. Changes in the lag before applied research influences production have little effect on long-term productivity growth. If a 1-year lag is adopted, the R&D impact is slightly greater (line 2), essentially because the research stock is then somewhat larger. However, there is no substantial change in the effect of R&D on productivity. If a 3-year lag is assumed instead (line 3), there is no change at all in the implied influence of R&D on productivity growth. In contrast, changes in the assumed rate of depreciation have a major impact on the implied influence of R&D. If there is zero depreciation, the research stock increases more rapidly and is larger at every given time, both of which suggest that R&D contributes more to productivity. With zero depreciation (line 4), research contributes 0.33 percent to 1948-82 productivity growth; the 1948-73 contribution of 0.31 percent increases to 0.40 percent in 1973-82 as the r & d stock continues to grow. Table 2. The effect of alternative assumptions on the im plied influence of the research and development stock on productivity growth, 1948-82 and two subperiods Alternative assumption R&D contribution to productivity growth1 (in percent) 1948-82 1948-73 1973-82 1) Preferred estim ate............................................. 0.14 0.14 0.13 2) 1-year lag for applied research.......................... .15 .15 .14 3) 3-year lag for applied research.......................... .14 .14 .13 4) Zero depreciation of applied research............... .33 .31 .40 5) 6) 0.2 geometric depreciation of applied research . .09 .10 .08 GNP deflator used to deflate research expenditures ................................................. .14 .14 .14 7) Two-tenths of Federally funded research conducted in industry counted in the research stock .............................................................. .16 .17 .13 8) The real rate of return to research declines over time2 .............................................................. .13 .14 .10 1 See footnote 4, table 1. 2 Assumes a linear decline from 30 percent in 1967 to 20 percent in 1982. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Conversely, if 0.2 geometric decay is assumed for ap plied research (line 5), the R&D stock grows more slowly and is smaller, so that R&D contributes only 0.09 percent to 1948-82 productivity growth, 0.10 percent in 1948-73 and 0.08 percent in 1973-82. These amounts are moderately less than in the preferred case. Because the depreciation of r & d has important implications for the role of the research stock in productivity growth, further study of this issue would be highly useful. If the GNP deflator is used instead of the Griliches deflator (line 6), the original results are not greatly changed. How ever, if two-tenths of the Federal expenditures for research conducted in industry are included (line 7), the 1948-82 productivity contribution is 0.16 percent, reflecting the greater research stock. In addition, R&D plays a greater role in the productivity slowdown, with its contribution declin ing from 0.17 percent in 1948-73 to 0.13 percent in 1973— 82. This reflects the fact that the growth of Federally fi nanced research conducted in industry slowed more during the 1970’s than did privately financed research spending. Nevertheless, even if the Federal funds are included, the implied R&D effects on productivity growth (and the produc tivity slowdown) are not very great. Finally, line 8 presents the case in which the rate of return declines linearly from 30 percent in 1967 to 20 percent in 1982. The productivity contribution of R&D is slightly lower for 1948-82 as well as for 1973-82. However, once again the contribution to the productivity slowdown is less than one-tenth of a percentage point. In summary, the preferred estimates of the impact of R&D on productivity growth are fairly robust with respect to changes in the central assumptions used in constructing them. The exception is the rate of depreciation: under the zero depreciation assumption, the effect of R&D on produc tivity is substantially greater.15 c o n c l u s i o n s drawn here must be qualified because they deal only with the direct return to research and develop ment. The indirect effects of research are likely to be greater, but because they take longer to appear, the slow down in research spending in the late 1960’s and the 1970’s is probably not yet fully reflected in productivity measures. The Bureau of Labor Statistics plans further study of the indirect effects of r &d . More generally, although R&D has received much atten tion, it represents only a portion of the many social and individual activities relevant to technical progress. Manage rial and organizational quality, the integration of the indus trial relations system with effective technological change, and technological achievements by individual inventors or entrepreneurs all are important facets of technical change. These aspects of innovation are also likely to have had a substantial impact on productivity growth but are, regret tably, extremely difficult to quantify on a comprehensive national basis. □ The 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • R&D Contribution to Productivity Growth --------- F O O T N O T E S --------- 1 A National Academy o f Sciences report which suggested improve ments in the Nation’s productivity statistics paid substantial attention to the role o f research and development in productivity growth. See Measurement and Interpretation of Productivity (Washington, National Academy o f Sci ences, 1979). John W. Kendrick and Elliot S. Grossman find research and development to be the most important factor affecting interindustry differ ences in productivity growth. See Productivity in the United States: Trends and Cycles (Baltimore, m d , The Johns Hopkins Press, 1980). See also Zvi Griliches, “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Develop ment to Productivity Growth,” Bell Journal o f Economics, Spring 1979, pp. 9 2 -1 1 6 . 2 Recent b ls work on this topic is summarized in Research and Develop ment and Productivity Growth (Bureau of Labor Statistics, forthcoming). 3 The Bureau s work on the influence of physical capital on productivity is summarized in Jerome A. Mark and William H. Waldorf, “Multifactor productivity: a new b ls measure,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1983, pp. 3 -1 5 . A detailed discussion o f the effect of capital on productiv ity is contained in Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-1981, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, September 1983). 4 William N. Leonard, “Research and Development in Industrial Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, March 1971, pp. 232-56; and Nestor E. Terleckyj, “Research and Development and U .S. Industrial Pro ductivity in the 1970’s,” in Devendrá Sahel, ed., The Transfer and Utiliza tion of Technical Knowledge (Lexington, m a , Lexington Books, 1982), pp. 6 3 -9 9 . 5 David M. Levy, and Nestor E. Terleckyj, “Effects of Government Research and Development on Private R and D Investment and Productiv ity: A Macroeconomic Analysis,” Bell Journal of Economics, August 1983, pp. 551-61; Zvi Griliches, “Returns to Research and Development Expenditures in the Private Sector,” in John W. Kendrick and Beatrice N. Vaccara, ed s., New Developments in Productivity Measurement and Anal ysis (Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, 1980), pp. 419-54; and Zvi Griliches, “Productivity, R and D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970’s,” Discussion Paper 1124 (Cambridge, m a . Harvard Institute o f Economic Research, 1985). 6 National Science Foundation, Research and Development in Industry, various issues; and National Science Foundation, National Patterns of Science and Technology Resources, various issues. 7 Nestor E. Terleckyj, “R and D as a Source of Growth of Productivity and Income,” Working Paper (Washington, National Planning Associa tion, May 18, 1982). 8 David B. Blank and George J. Stigler, The Demand and Supply of Scientific Personnel (New York, National Bureau of Economic Research 1967). 9 Zvi Griliches, “Comment (on Mansfield),” in Zvi Griliches, e d ., R and D, Patents and Productivity (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp. 148-49. 10 Ariel Pakes and Mark Schankerman, “The Rate o f Obsolescence of Patents, Research Gestation Lags and the Private Rate o f Return to Re search Resources,” in Griliches, ed., R and D, Patents and Productivity, pp. 73-88; Terleckyj, “Research and Development and U .S. Industrial Productivity in the 1970’s”; and Zvi Griliches and Frank Lichtenberg, “Research and Development and Productivity at the Industry Level: Is There Still a Relationship?” in Griliches, ed., R and D, Patents and Pro ductivity, pp. 4 6 5 -9 6 . 11 There are two types o f studies which provide evidence on the rate of return to research and development: regression studies o f industry or firm productivity growth and studies o f returns to specific representative r & d projects. Regression evidence is subject to many well-known qualifica tions, such as omission o f relevant variables. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that the studies of the returns to specific research projects sug gest conclusions broadly comparable with the evidence from the regression analysis o f productivity. The consistency between these two different strands o f evidence greatly increases the confidence which can be placed in the implied relationship between r & d and productivity growth. 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Important regression studies include Zvi Griliches, “Research Expendi tures and Growth Accounting,” in B.R. Williams, ed., S c ie n c e a n d T e c h n o lo g y in E c o n o m ic G r o w th (New York, Macmillian C o., 1973), pp. 5 9 95, Nestor E. Terleckyj, E ffe c t o f R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e lo p m e n t o n th e P r o d u c tiv ity G r o w th o f I n d u s tr ie s : A n E x p lo r a to r y S tu d y (Washington, National Planning Association, 1976); Zvi Griliches, “Returns to Research and Development Expenditures in the Private Sector”; Leo A. Sveikauskas, “Technology Inputs and Multifactor Productivity Growth,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , May 1981, pp. 275-82; Frederic M. Scherer, “Interindustry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , November 1982, pp. 627-34; and Zvi Griliches and Frank Lichtenberg, “Interindustry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth: A Reexamination,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , May 1984, pp. 324-29. The most important studies of the returns to representative projects are Edwin Mansfield, John Rapoport and others, “Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , May 1977, pp. 221-40; and J. G. Tewksbury and others, “Measuring the Societal Impact of Innovations,” S c ie n c e , Aug. 8, 1980, pp. 6 5 8 -6 2 , including the further references cited there. Many regression studies of the impact o f research and development on productivity growth measure the increase in the research stock as observed research spending. If research investments depreciate, these regression studies may substantially underestimate the true return to research. In this context, the Mansfield case-study evidence was especially helpful in ensur ing that the return to research selected for the present study is realistic. 12 Studies which find no substantial change in the rate of return to r & d over time includes Zvi Griliches and Frank Lichtenberg, “Interindustry Technology Flows”; Kim Clark and Zvi Griliches, “Productivity Growth and R and D at the Business Level: Results from the p im s Data Base,” in Griliches, ed., R a n d D , P a te n ts a n d P r o d u c tiv ity , pp. 393-416; and Griliches, “Productivity, R and D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970’s .” A somewhat earlier study presents evidence indicating the rate o f return to research may have declined and considers some o f the reasons why such a declining return is plausible. See Edwin Mansfield, “How Research Pays O ff in Productivity,” epri J o u r n a l, October 1979, pp. 2 5-28. 13 The share o f research and development in any year can be calculated by multiplying the research stock times the assumed real rate o f return (.30) to obtain implied real research income, and dividing the result by real output. The research share indicated for each year in table 1 is obtained by calculating S t- j , the research share for the first year of any binary compari son, and S t , the corresponding research share in the second year. The share used, S t , is then calculated as Sf_; + S t) / 2 . 0 , or the average share for the two years in question. The contribution to productivity growth is then obtained from S t (lo g R , — lo g R t ^ j ) , where R , and R t- j are the values of the research stock in the two years under consideration. The logarithmic form here indicates that growth rates are measured in continuous rather than discrete terms. Appendix a o f the forthcoming b ls Bulletin R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e lo p m e n t a n d P r o d u c tiv ity G r o w th provides more complete informa tion on the procedures used here. The bulletin also includes a more detailed discussion of the various ways in which economists have examined the impact of r & d and the many complex issues which must be addressed in developing quantitative mea sures. Current understanding in this area leaves several important matters unresolved. In particular, the possibility of quality improvement in the r & d sector and the interactions between basic and applied research deserve further attention. 14 The average annual productivity contribution for each of the periods considered was calculated as the geometric mean of the relevant annual contributions listed in column 6 o f table 1. 15 However, with the zero depreciation assumption, the contribution of increases about one-tenth of a percentage point from 1948-73 to 1973-82; r & d not only does not contribute to the productivity slowdown, but is a positive force which tends to offset some o f the slowdown occurring for other reasons. r&d Beauty and barber shops: the trend of labor productivity Output per hour of persons employed in these shops rose at an annual rate of 0.8 percent between 1972 and 1984 , in line with the productivity trend for other personal service industries H o r st B r a n d and Z ia u l Z . A hm ed Output per hour of persons employed in the beauty and barber shop industries rose at an average annual rate of 0.8 percent between 1972 and 1984.1 Other industries with a high personal service component show roughly compara ble trend rates, including the hotel and motel industry. Output of beauty and barber shops remained virtually unchanged between 1972 and 1984, while hours dipped 0.6 percent a year. (See table 1.) The comparative weakness in output and hours was linked to sharp contractions in the number of barber shops. Beauty shops recorded some gains in output and a small long-term rise in hours.2 The output-per-hour trend rates for the two industries combined, as well as for beauty shops separately, mask pronounced year-to-year fluctuations. These, in part, re flected short-term volatility in the productivity mainly of beauty shops. Such volatility has probably been linked with lags in the adjustment of labor inputs to output changes— accounting for a relatively tight supply of labor in relation to output in “good” years, and for excess supply in “o ff’ years. In beauty shops, productivity fluctuated between a rise of 8 percent (in 1984) and a drop of 6 percent (in 1976). The gains were associated with output rising more than Horst Brand And Ziaul Z. Ahmed are economists in the Division of Indus try Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hours (or with hours declining)— except in 1981 when pro ductivity increased because of a decline in output that was less than a decline in hours. Losses were all linked with a decrease in output accompanied by additional hours. A change in the productivity trend in the two industries occurred after 1976. Between 1972 and 1976, output per hour fell in both industries; in beauty shops, it decreased at an average annual rate of nearly 4 percent. Subsequently, it rose 2.4 percent a year. The productivity drop during the 1972-76 period was to some extent associated with a strong increase in the service capacity of beauty shops, as indicated by expanding self-employment— accompanied by a change in hair styling fashions that reduced certain styling service requirements. The productivity rise after 1976 was linked with declining self-employment, and with fashion changes that called for more styling services. Demand and output Beauty shops render up to 12 distinct types of services; barber shops up to eight. Workers in both industries mainly cut hair; many establishments confine their service to hair cutting. In addition to haircuts, full-service beauty shops offer permanents, coloring, conditioning, and manicures; a few offer pedicures. A limited number of shops also perform facials and other cosmetical skin treatments. They also fit 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity in Beauty and Barber Shops and service wigs. Their patrons often include men. The range of barber shop services is generally narrower, al though styling and shampooing of men’s hair have increased somewhat in importance. Women are also served. Service output of beauty shops did not display a notably strong long-term trend, rising at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent between 1972 and 1984. Service output of bar ber shops declined at a rate of 4.8 percent a year during that period. The decline in barber shop output was somewhat erratic. The long-term uptrend in beauty shop service output obscures a rather sharp falloff between 1972 and 1976 that was subsequently reversed. Until 1976, beauty shop service output dipped 3.3 percent a year; thereafter it rose 2.6 per cent a year. Neither the output of total consumer services nor of the consumer service industries for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics computes pertinent measures so strongly reversed trend during the decade (average annual rates, in percent):3 1972-84 1972-76 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 1.4 -4 .8 3.9 2.7 -2 .8 -3 .3 -4 .5 3.0 3.1 -6 .6 2.6 -5 .6 3.5 2.2 -1 .9 3.7 Year Pro duc tivity 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ........................................... ........................................... .................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... Average annual percent change: 1972-84 .................................... 1979-84 .................................... All person hours Pro duc tivity Out put 94.4 96.1 93.8 94.4 96.8 100.0 105.0 100.7 101.4 98.7 95.0 108.6 106.8 101.5 97.6 94.4 100.0 100.0 111.7 106.2 108.4 107.2 105.1 103.6 119.4 119.7 101.4 100.4 100.9 91.6 91.9 99.5 107.2 103.6 107.4 102.9 109.2 108.3 114.1 104.5 105.3 105.6 103.6 99.9 97.8 109.8 108.5 98.3 100.7 91.5 90.3 96.2 103.8 0.9 1.5 1.4 2.3 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.8 -0 .6 0.3 110.1 106.2 106.2 Out put 103.9 102.1 99.6 100.1 94.5 94.3 91.3 100.0 100.0 104.7 108.0 106.2 114.7 113.1 120.0 0.8 0.5 All person hours 103.4 106.0 100.1 98.9 99.4 100.0 101.6 5.2 Among reasons is that beauty shops are subject to changes in hair styling fashions, and these were quite far-reaching during the 1970’s. Such changes have often shifted some elements of hair care from beauty and barber shops to the home (do-it-yourself), and vice versa. Trade publications data and interviews with industry rep resentatives confirm that the mix of services offered by beauty shops changed significantly between 1972 and 1984, as styles changed. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, long hair became popular and required more attention by hair stylists than the fashions that followed. Bouffant hairdos, which entail much back-combing (“teasing”) and setting, hence additional labor, were still popular.4 After about 1972, shorter hair and the “natural look,” requiring less styling and setting, came to be preferred, somewhat dimin ishing the need for professional styling.5 Women now tended to visit beauty shops chiefly for trimming of their hair, often washing it themselves. This reduced the time needed for such services as shampooing and setting of the hair.6 Hair coloring, which had been popular during the early 1970’s, declined in relative importance as the “natural look” gained favor. The demand for “wash and wear” permanenting rose strongly throughout the 1970’s, because it permitted minimum maintenance of hair style and lessened visits to beauty shops.7 Moreover, longer hair among men came into fashion, and men who preferred to have their hair professionally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Beauty and barber shops2 Beauty shops1 1Standard Industrial Code 723. 2 SIC 723 and 724 combined. All consumer services........ 22 [1977=100] 1976-84 All services, except government .................... Beauty shops ...................... Barber shops ...................... . . . Hotels, motels .................... Eating and drinking............ Laundry and drycleaning . . . . . Table 1. Productivity and related variables in the beauty and barber shop industries 1972-84 groomed increasingly visited beauty shops.8 “Unisex” salons, usually featuring limited services common to the hair styling needs of both sexes (hair cut, permanent wave, and shampoo), spread. The expansion of unisex salons, with their emphasis on walk-in, no-wait service (no appoint ments), represented a basic marketing shift; and has been a factor in the persistent decline in the number of barber shops.9 The change in fashions and the resultant shift in the ser vices performed by beauty and barber shops apparently did not much affect labor requirements. The proportion of labor costs in beauty salons’ total operating costs averaged around 60 percent throughout the period. While permanenting gained and hair coloring lost in relative importance, the two together have evidently accounted for roughly one half of the work performed in beauty shops. The relative impor tance of shampooing, conditioning, and trimming of hair seems to have changed little over the period.10 The range of barber shop services generally remained narrow, with hair cuts outranking their other services. However, hair styling has increasingly added to the quality of barbers’ hair cutting service.11 The fashion changes that occurred in the early 1970’s loosened the traditional relation between beauty shop ser vices, household incomes, and changes in the age composi tion of the female population.12 The age distribution of employed women age 35 to 54 changed little, and this group, according to an industry survey, has the greatest probability of visiting beauty shops and the highest fre quency in doing so. The proportion of employed women in this age group declined from 38 percent in 1972 to 34 percent in 1977, then rose to 37 percent in 1984.13 Over all, employment of women rose at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent between 1972 and 1984, and median income (in current dollars) of women working full time increased at an estimated rate of 8 percent a year. The rise in women’s employment and income proved paradoxical. It often meant that less time was available for visits to beauty shops, and more hair care was performed at home. Moreover, many women apparently preferred unisex salons, offering no-frills service. However, women could afford to patronize fullservice salons more frequently.14 In general, according to the survey, the frequency of beauty salon visits rises with income. Yet, pressure of time may reduce the services re quested or desired by the client. Despite the increase in the output of beauty shops since the mid-1970’s, constant-dollar receipts of both beauty and barber shops declined steadily as a proportion of total per sonal consumption expenditures for services, falling from 1.2 percent in 1972 to 0.7 percent in 1982. Employment and industry structure Employment in beauty and barber shops, including pay roll as well as self-employment, totaled 692,000 persons in 1984. It did not, on balance, change significantly over the 1972-84 span. Hours declined at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent, partly reflecting a continual shift to part-time schedules. Annual employment and hours data for barbershops are of but limited validity.15 However, pertinent data collected by the Bureau of the Census for census years show that the number of barber shops declined 25 percent between 1972 and 1977. The number of paid employees dropped 17 per cent over that period, with a further 25-percent decrease indicated for the 1977-83 span. Self-employment, as indi cated by the number of proprietorships and partnerships, dropped by just over one-third between 1972 and 1983.16 Census data show that the great majority of barber shops do not employ wage or salary workers. The one-sixth which do account for close to one-half of receipts. Of barber shops with payrolls, one-fifth employs half of the payroll em ployees in the industry. Most of the others engage one or two paid workers, with the owner or owners also working. Employment in beauty shops, which totaled about 591,400 persons in 1984, rose at a rate of 1.1 percent a year over the 12-year period. It increased even in years of declin ing service output, except in 1981 when it dropped sharply, and in 1974 when it remained unchanged from the previous year. Hours responded somewhat more closely to move ments in output, rising at a rate of 0.5 percent between 1972 and 1984. For 1982, the BLS estimates that nonsupervisory beauty shop workers averaged 29.6 hours per week, reflect ing a high part-time component, and that part-time sched ules accounted for 39 percent of employed workers.17 This represents a far higher proportion than for employed work ers generally, of whom only 13 percent were on voluntary part time (in 1984); or for service workers (other than in private households), of whom 18 percent worked part time. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis While two-fifths of all beauty shops employ wage or salary workers, they account for four-fifths of the industry’s total receipts. On average, beauty shops with payrolls em ploy four workers. However, 60 percent of the payroll em ployees work in only 30 percent of all beauty shops, averag ing eight workers per shop. In addition, the owner or owners also perform beauty services (industry sources believe 90 percent do so). Self-employment in barber shops dropped much more sharply over the 1972-83 period (35 percent) than payroll employment (25 percent); and it rose a bit more in beauty shops (15 percent) than payroll employment (14 percent). It was mainly the small beauty shop with one or two paid employees whose numbers dwindled. It is of interest to note that self-employment in beauty shops attained a peak in 1980 that was 19 percent above the previous high, reached in 1972. But in 1983, self-employment was 4 percent below the 1980 mark. The leveling off in beauty shops’ payroll employment was much more moderate. While total employment (all persons) in beauty and bar ber shops combined did not change significantly between 1972 and 1984, employment in industries with a large per sonal service component generally rose rapidly. In general, in industries that may be defined as consumer-oriented ser vices with a high personal-service component, employment increased at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent between 1972 and 1984, or by 53 percent.18 Both barbers and hair stylists— often referred to as cos metologists— are skilled workers, and are required to obtain up to 1,800 hours of training in most States, as well as to be licensed. While hourly earnings do not compare favorably with the average for private nonfarm industries or for service industries generally, comparisons are not entirely valid be cause beauty and barber shop workers receive tips, and are generally paid on a commission basis.19 However, there is a large reserve pool of licensed but inactive hair stylists, estimated by industry observers at several times the number actually working. The potential competition tends to constrain pay increases. Efficiency and tools of the trade No official data on the capital expenditures of the beauty and barber shop industries are available. However, the Bu reau of the Census reports the value of shipments by manu facturers of barber and beauty chairs, other furniture, and equipment (including hair clippers) for the two industries. The value of such shipments amounted to $47.5 million in 1982; this represented a decline from both 1977 and 1972 when the pertinent figures are adjusted for price changes. Beauty and barber shop personnel, of course, use many kinds of tools manufactured in a broad variety of industries, so that the above figure for the heavier types of equipment understates the two industries’ total equipment outlays. Trade sources indicate beauty shop expenditures of $46.4 million in 1982 for appliances, such as hand dryers, 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity in Beauty and Barber Shops and for such durable sundries as shears and scissors.21 That would suggest total equipment expenditures of close to $100 million in 1982 by the two industries. (No reliable estimate for outlays for structures and structural fixtures can be offered.) Barbers and hair stylists use a variety of powered and unpowered handtools, often in conjunction with small elec trical appliances (such as heat lamps), as well as shampoos, tints, and conditioning solutions in performing their work. There have been and continue to be improvements in both the equipment they use and the solutions they apply. These improvements, however, are designed primarily to facilitate adaptation to changing hair styles, rather than to reduce labor requirements per patron served for the same hair style or category of service. The use of cordless, rechargeable clippers and trimmers allows the operator greater freedom of movement. It is de batable whether these devices have lessened unit labor re quirements. Industry observers in the barbering trade, where the electric clipper was introduced long ago, doubt that this device has significantly reduced the time needed for men’s or boys’ haircuts, although it is much less laborious to use than the unpowered clipper, which it replaced. Similarly, shampoo machines, introduced in barber shops 15 to 20 years ago with the expectation that they would save time, do not significantly lessen the time needed for the average haircut, although the machines may make the service more agreeable to the customer.22 Electric blowers have tended to replace dryers. They are easier to manipulate in conjunction with blow drying or styling. Blowing is thought to be less quick than heat drying but conforms more readily with so-called “wash-and-wear” hair styling and the “casual” hair styles in fashion among both women and men. More than a decade ago, formalized hair-setting practices required operators to use setting lo tion, pins or rollers, and dryers. The practice, and the fash ion that gave rise to it, are no longer popular, thereby reduc ing labor requirements. However, some establishments (and patrons) continue to prefer the more formalized hair styling practices and dryers.23 Combs made of better plastics are now more pliable and run more easily through the hair, and last longer. Brushes are now easier on the scalp, more specialized to type of hairdo, and also last longer. Shears are shorter to give the operator greater control in trimming hair; they also are made of better metals, require less frequent sharpening, and pro duce a cleaner cut. Easier to use curling irons have also been introduced.24 Industry observers generally agree that these developments have not significantly reduced unit labor re quirements, although operator effort has been eased by them.25 This also holds generally for the solutions applied in washing, setting, conditioning, and tinting of hair. Thus, shampoos clean the hair, but they also tend to dry it out. Additives have been developed which inhibit this drying 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis process. Permanent wave solutions and tints are more gentle and do less damage to the hair’s molecular structure.26 Tints are now manufactured in the form of creams rather than liquids, which tends to improve the hair’s appearance. But the hair stylist must still divide the hair every 16th of an inch for proper tinting to reach the roots. The improved tint has not materially shortened the time required for the work.27 Permanent-wave solutions have been developed that time permanents automatically and permit the hair stylist to re move the curling rods without testing the curl for proper setting. In principle, this shortens labor requirements for this particular service. However, because of the variance in hair texture, the stylist may be reluctant to follow the man ufacturer’s instructions to the letter. She or he may be guided by, but not entirely rely upon, the automatic setting prescribed by the manufacturer. The stylist will generally be less concerned with saving time than with the quality of the service rendered to the patron, although in busy beauty shops there may be conflicting pressures. Technological changes occurred during the decades prior to the period studied here that led to the expansion of the beauty shop industry and the contraction of barber shops.28 Thus, the advent of the permanent-wave machine in the 1920’s shifted women’s hairstyling from the home to the market. The “cold wave,” a chemical means of curling hair in conjunction with curlers, accelerated the shift in the late 1940’s and 1950’s. By contrast, the invention of the safety razor, and its diffusion when its price dropped after the patent had expired, shifted shaving from the barber shop to the home; the electric razor, widely marketed first during the 1930’s, completed the shift. Thereafter, the work of barber shops was by and large confined to hair cutting. Beauty shops have almost always been under competitive pressure from hairstyling products for home use, but generally they have been able to overcome this pressure by improving quality of service and of the service environment. Outlook It appears likely that the basic skills of hair stylists and barbers will continue to resist, as they have in the past, the kinds of technological change that incorporate them in me chanical devices. Industry observers do not foresee techno logical innovations on the scale of the permanenting ma chine, discussed earlier, which fed the expansion of the beauty shop industry prior to the 1972-84 period. Industry observers also believe that hair styling and barbering, being highly personalized services, should not be surrounded by impersonal technologies and “gadgetry.” Hand-held tools of the beauty and barber trades will probably continue to be come better adapted to hair styling and trimming tasks, and the chemical applications required for setting, conditioning, and coloring of hair should continue to become more ser viceable.29 But it is not clear that they will be more laborsaving than tools currently in use. Certain organizational (or structural) changes in both in dustries have occurred (and should continue to occur), which tend to standardize operational practices and set mod els of managerial efficiency. Thus, as of 1983, 19 firms listed by the U.S. Department of Commerce franchised (or operated) more than 2,000 beauty and barber shops. In addition, training services were offered as part of exclusive product-sales franchises to more than 5,000 shops.30 Consulting services are now available to assist in setting up and equipping salons. They offer a variety of services, such as architectural and interior design, advertising pro grams, and managerial and financial advice.31 Salon man agement systems have been widely accepted by the larger shops. Their originators provide computer software and ad vice in its use. The business and financial side of salon management may thus increasingly come to be handled by outside firms under contract with the salon owner. In turn, performance standards of employees more in line with oper ating costs may be more readily formulated and may im prove operational efficiency in both industries, as the stand ards diffuse.32 □ -FOOTNOTES1 The two industries for which productivity is discussed here have been designated as sic 723 (beauty shops) and sic 724 (barber shops) in the Office o f Management and Budget’s Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972. Beauty shops are primarily engaged in beauty services; barber shops are primarily engaged in furnishing barber and men’s hair styling services. Combination beauty and barber shops are classified as sic 723. Beauty schools and barber schools are included in the respective industries. A separate productivity measure for barber shops has not been published because o f the limited reliability of employment data. Average annual rates of change are based on the linear least squares trends o f the logarithms of the index numbers. The measures of productiv ity will be updated and included in the annual b ls bulletin, Productivity Measures for Selected Industries. 2 For an earlier study of productivity in beauty and barber shops, see Jean Alexander Wilburn, “A Contrast in Productivity Trends Within Personal Services: The Beauty and Barber Shop Industries,” in Victor R. Fuchs and Jean Alexander Wilburn, Productivity Differences Within the Service Sec tor (New York, National Bureau o f Economic Research, 1967). pp. 5 5 109. The study covered the 1939-63 period, but used census-year rather than annual data. The Wilburn study and b ls findings compare average annual rates o f change, in percent, for 1939—63 and 1972-82 as follows: Barber Shops 1939-63 1972-84 Current dollar receipts . . . P r ic e .................................... Real output......................... Em ploym ent....................... Real output per person . .. 5.7 5.2 0.5 - 0 .1 0.6 1.5 7.0 -4 .8 -3 .5 - 1 .3 Beauty Shops 1939-63 1972-84 7.8 3.8 4.0 2.5 1.5 9.3 7.5 1.4 1.1 0.2 3 The rates o f change are derived from constant-dollar personal con sumption expenditures for services published by the Office of Business Economics, U .S. Department o f Commerce. The figures for consumer services are derived from constant-dollar personal consumption expendi tures for services, Office of Business Economics, U .S. Department of Commerce. Also see footnote 18. 4 Modern Beauty Shop, February 1972, p. 45 5 Modern Beauty Shop , January 1973, p. 40 ff. 6 Industry information. According to an advertisement by the Wella Corporation (Modern Beauty Shop , February 1974, p. 84), “no fuss, wash and wear” hair styling was becoming popular. There was also a demand for changeable styling and associated paraphernalia, such as hot combs and hot rollers. Because o f a greater chance of hair becoming damaged, a trend toward conditioning of hair developed to regain and retain its normal appearance and protect it from damage. 7 Information from National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Associa tion, St. Louis, MO. 8 Information from the Beauty and Barber Supply Institutes, Englewood, n j . See also The Wall Street Journal , May 1978, p. 40. 9 Beauty and Barber Supply Institute. 10 See the annual surveys of the professional salon market in Modern Salon and its predecessor publication, Modern Beauty Shop Magazine . The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis market surveys show beauty shop suppliers’ purchases from manufactur ers, by product classification. The publisher confirms that the surveys are indicative of the volume of beauty shop services to which the product classification pertains. The proportions (in percent) of distributor purchases of key products (here excluding cosmetics, of which a large part is sold at retail by beauty shops, as well as furniture and equipment) changed as follows over the 1972-82 period: T o ta l...................................................... Permanents........................................... Hair c o lo r ............................................. Shampoo ............................................. C onditioners......................................... Hair goods and accessories.............. Held-held electrical appliances . . . . 1972 1976 1982 100 17 35 15 13 11 10 100 20 28 18 16 3 15 100 34 22 18 17 1 9 11 In a recent pricing sample of the Consumer Price Index, styling fig ured in one-third of all haircuts performed in barber shops. 12 See Amelia Bassin, “The Consumer Revolt— What’s In It For You?” M o d e r n B e a u ty S h o p , January 1973, p. 40 ff. 13 1 9 8 3 S a lo n C lie n t S u r v e y , conducted by Vance Research Services, Lincolnshire, i l . Data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 14 See the “ 1983 Salon Client Survey,” M o d e r n S a l o n , September 1983, p. 92. 15 See footnote 1. 16 Internal Revenue Service, S ta tis tic s o f I n c o m e , P a r tn e r s h ip R e tu rn s a n d S o le P r o p r ie to r s h ip R e t u r n s , various years. 17 O c c u p a tio n a l P r o je c tio n s a n d T ra in in g D a t a , Bulletin 2206 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984), pp. 5 2-53. 18 Consumer-oriented service industries with a high personal service component (other than government services) are here defined as including the following industries: hotels and motels (sic 70); personal services (sic 72); motion pictures (sic 78); amusement and recreation services (sic 79); health services (sic 80); educational services (sic 82); social services (sic 83); and membership organizations (sic 86). 19 For the salon owner profile, published annually in M o d e r n S a l o n , see August 1984 issue, p. 82 ff. 20 Licensing surveys by A m e r ic a n H a ir d r e s s e r estimated the number of licensed hair stylists to exceed the number actually working by a factor of 5 in 1973-74 and 1975-76. 21 F a c ts a n d F ig u r e s , 23rd Annual Survey of the Professional Salon Market, 1982. 22 Information from Beauty and Barber Supply Institute. See also the advertisement for Oster Corp., and Wahl Clipper Corp., in various issues of M o d e r n B e a u ty S h o p and M o d e r n S a l o n . 23 Information from National Beauty and Barber Manufacturers Associ ation. See also advertisements of Styling Research Co. in M o d e r n S a l o n , November 1982, and Duhl, Duck Inc., M o d e r n S a lo n , April 1984. 24 I b id . See also advertisements for shears, switch blades, and razors, for example, by Jatai International, Los Angeles, CA, in M o d e r n S a lo n , September 1984. 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity in Beauty and Barber Shops 25 Apparently none o f the pertinent advertisements have claimed that labor time savings would result from the use of the products advertised. Industry observers, however, say that the use o f better service-adapted styling tools is considerably less tiring than the use of more conventional tools— considering that the stylist stands behind the chair a good part of the day and moves her or his arms in a distal position. 26 Industry sources. See also footnote 7. “Permanenting, coloring, bleaching and tinting can all take their toll on the quality o f hair,” advertise ments by the Wella Corp., M o d e r n B e a u ty S h o p , February 1974, p. 84. 27 National Beauty and Barber Manufacturers Association. 28 See Wilburn, “A Contrast in Productivity Trends,” p. 61 ff. APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations Indexes of output per hour of all persons measure the change in the relation between the output of an industry and the hours expended on that output. An index of output per hour is derived by dividing an index of output by an index of hours. The preferred output index for personal service industries would be obtained from data on the quantities of services provided by the industry. The quantity of each type of ser vice provided would be weighted (multiplied) by the time required to provide one unit of each type of service in some specified base period. Thus, services that require more labor time would be given more importance in the output index than services that require less. Such data, however, are not available for the beauty and barber shop industries. Real output of these industries was estimated by removing the effects of changing prices from the current-dollar value of industry receipts. Because an adjustment for price changes usually lowers the dollar value, such a series is referred to as a deflated value mea sure. The deflator used here is the Consumer Price Index for beauty shops and for barber shops. These two CPI’s price a total of 25 types of service and 51 specific services, as well 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 29 Information from National Beauty and Barber Manufacturing Associ ation, National Hair Dressers and Cosmetologists Association, and PeopleMedia, Reading, p a . 30 Andrew Kostecka, F r a n c h is e O p p o r tu n itie s H a n d b o o k (U .S. Depart ment o f Commerce, September 1983), pp. 3 2-37. 31 See, for example, T h e R a y Ion R e s o u r c e (Reading, p a , Ray Ion Show rooms). See also S a lo n T o d a y , various issues. Information from Cutco Industries, Jericho, n y ., and other industry sources. 32 See, for example, T h e C o m p u te r iz e d S a lo n M a n a g e m e n t S y s te m (Cincinatti, o h , The Mikal Corp., 1985). The annual “Facts and Figures” articles in M o d e r n S a lo n also tend to standardize business operations in the industry. as certain additional pricing factors. The more important the service, the greater the probability of its being priced. The index of hours for beauty and barber shops is for all persons— that is, the index represents hours for paid em ployees, as well as for partners and proprietors. As in all of the output-per-hour measures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hours and employment are considered ho mogeneous and additive. Adequate information for weight ing the various types of labor separately are not available. The indexes of output per hour do not measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or any other single factor. Rather, they reflect many interrelated influences such as changes in technology, capital investment, design and layout of workplaces, skill and effort of the work force, and managerial ability. The output measure is derived from data on annual re ceipts published by the Bureau of the Census. The allpersons-hour measures are derived from data on employ ment and hours originated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and supplemented by data reported by the Internal Revenue Service, and from special tabulations compiled for the Bu reau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Productivity in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry The overall rate of output per hour increased slowly from 1967 to 1983, reflecting low output growth and an increase in employee hours; moderate advancement is expected to continue E l m e r S . P e r s ig e h l and Jo h n G . O l s e n From 1967 to 1983, output per hour in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry1 increased at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. In comparison, the rate of productivity growth for all manufacturing industries during this period was 2.4 percent. The slow productivity rise reflected a rela tively low output growth of 1.5 percent per year and an increase in employee hours of 0.6 percent per year. (See table 1.) The industry’s demand is dependent upon residen tial and nonresidential building construction, where wide seasonal and cyclical fluctuations have been common. The productivity growth experienced in this industry has been aided by gradual improvements in equipment design and the increased application of easier-to-use aluminum materials. Year-to-year changes in industry output and productivity have generally shown similar movements. Large increases in output have been associated with above average gains in productivity. For example, in 1971, output increased 11.3 percent and productivity jumped 11.3 percent. Similarly, output advanced 11.4 and 24.7 percent in 1976 and 1977, while productivity gained 4.0 and 7.6 percent. In 4 of the 6 years that output declined, productivity also fell. Despite declines in output during 1975 and 1982, productivity ad vanced as manufacturers were able to adjust their work force hours to meet demand changes. Elmer S. Persigehl and John G. Olsen are economists in the Division of Industry Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Subperiod productivity trends In the metal doors, sash, and trim industry, productivity growth can be divided into two distinct periods: 1967-72 and 1972-83. From 1967 to 1972, productivity grew at a rate of 2.4 percent per year based on a gain in output at a 3.8-percent rate and an increase in hours at a 1.4-percent rate. This growth, however, reflected a slight decrease dur ing 1967-70, with a substantial growth in 1970-72 of 6.5 percent per year. Following the economic recession of 1970, industry output grew strongly in 1971 and 1972. Between 1972 and 1983, productivity increased at the low rate of 0.5 percent per year, reflecting an annual output growth of 1.2 percent and an increase in hours of 0.7 percent per year. This slow growth resulted from a balancing off of diverse movements. From 1972 to 1974, productivity fell at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent, but from 1975 to 1977 it rose to a rate of 5.8 percent as a result of an average increase in output of almost 18 percent per year. From 1977 to 1981, productivity again declined at a rate of 2.4 percent per year, largely as a result of the economic recession in 1980. But it rebounded in 1982 and 1983, increasing at an annual rate of 4.6 percent. Output Establishments in this industry manufacture metal and metal covered doors and sash, window and door frames, screens, molding, and trim. In 1983, more than two-fifths of the industry’s output consisted of doors, including garage 27 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity in Metal Doors, Sash, Trim doors, and around one-third of window units and related items. The industry’s output depends closely on building construction markets. More than four-fifths of the output was used in building construction.2 Approximately twofifths of output was used in new residential housing, includ ing additions and alterations. One-sixth was used in new nonresidential buildings, which include educational and commercial buildings. Additionally, almost one-quarter of output was used in maintenance and repair construction on existing buildings. In spite of several economic downturns, overall output of the metal doors, sash, and trim industry increased an aver age of 1.5 percent per year between 1967 and 1983. In comparison, over the same period, all manufacturing output increased an average of 2.3 percent per year. The industry’s output generally paralleled the trend for new building construction.3 Between 1967 and 1972, for example, the industry’s output grew at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent. In comparison, the deflated value of new building construction put in place increased 3.6 percent annually over this period. From 1972 to 1975, the industry’s output fell 10.6 percent per year as the market for new buildings experienced an 11.0-percent annual decline. Since the mid-1970’s, this pattern has changed some what. To offset market fluctuations in new building con struction, manufacturers have produced more of their output for the replacement market. In 1973, new construction ac counted for about 52 percent of the value of total industry revenues.4 By 1983, this market had fallen to about 40 percent of revenues. The replacement market comprised about 59 percent of revenues in 1983, rising from 46 percent in 1973. This trend is expected to continue. Metal doors. One factor affecting the demand for industry output has been the wider use of metal doors. In single family housing construction, homebuilders are installing more metal than wooden doors in projects costing less than $100,000.5 According to the Architectural Aluminum Man ufacturers Association (A A M A ) , aluminum doors accounted for more than three-fourths of all residential patio doors used in 1982. The introduction of more energy efficient metal door units along with increased consumer demand for secu rity and fire safety, also has contributed to a shift in the type of entry door in new construction from wood to metal. Demand for garage doors, particularly by the metal build ings industry, has grown substantially in the past 20 years. Before 1966, only 5 percent of all overhead garage doors were manufactured out of metal.6 Technological advances such as the development of prepainted doors, which have eliminated the need for on-site painting, and new insulating core materials, along with improved economies of scale, which have lowered average unit costs, have led to in creased demand for metal doors. By 1980, about 90 percent of the doors installed on steel buildings were made of galva nized steel. 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Aluminum windows. Another factor contributing to the growth of industry output has been the increasing penetra tion of the new housing market by manufacturers of alu minum windows. In 1967, aluminum and, to a small extent, steel windows accounted for about 55 percent of all new residential window installations, with wood making up the other 45 percent.7 Except for 2 years in the mid-1970’s when aluminum window prices rose relative to wooden ones, the industry’s share of the window market has grown steadily to approximately 70 percent of the total in 1980. Demand for metal windows varies from region to region and by type of building. Aluminum windows are more pop ular in the South and parts of the West, while wood win dows are more popular in the Northeast and North Central parts of the United States. Among residential units, the use of aluminum windows is more prevalent in attached single family houses and apartments than in detached single family homes. Between 1977 and 1983, about 71 percent of new private housing starts occurred in the South and West re gions. During this period, townhouses and apartments also increased their share of the new housing market. As a result, manufacturers of aluminum windows increased their share of new residential construction. Storm windows and doors. The vast majority of storm windows and doors are made of aluminum. According to AAMA statistics, aluminum units comprised almost 95 per cent of all storm windows and doors shipped from 1970 to 1983. Beginning in the mid-1970’s, shipments increased substantially because of rising heating and cooling costs and energy tax credit incentives. Several years of high installa tion rates reduced the number of homes containing only single glazed windows that were available for storm window Table 1. Productivity and related indexes for metal doors, sash, and trim, 1967-83 [1 9 7 7 = 100] Year Output per employee-hour Output All employee hours Employees 1967 ........................... 1968 ........................... 1969 ........................... 81.7 85.6 83.7 81.0 81.7 81.9 99.1 95.4 97.9 97.1 94.8 96.4 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... 82.1 91.4 93.1 92.0 87.2 79.5 88.5 100.9 98.2 88.6 96.8 96.8 108.4 106.7 101.6 94.7 95.7 107.4 105.8 101.2 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... 89.3 92.9 100.0 94.8 92.8 72.0 80.2 100.0 102.9 103.4 80.6 86.3 100.0 108.6 111.4 81.6 85.7 100.0 108.5 111.4 1980 1981 1982 1983 ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... 90.6 90.4 96.0 98.9 96.3 100.1 96.6 104.1 106.3 110.7 100.6 105.3 107.0 109.1 100.8 107.1 Average annual rates of change (in percent) 1967-83 ..................... 1978-83 ..................... 0.9 0.9 1.5 -0 .3 0.6 - 1.2 0.7 - 1.0 and door applications. This temporary market saturation along with a fall in new housing starts contributed to a total decline in product shipments of 53 percent from 1978 to 1982. Insulated doors and windows. Since the mid-1970’s, much progress has been made in the energy efficiency of door, window, and wall design. According to the Insulated Steel Door Institute, advancements in weatherstrip systems and improvements in insulating technologies for door sec tions has led to a reduction in heat loss of more than 40 percent. In glass areas of buildings, the best improve ment has been achieved by using double glazed insulating glass. In many cases, heat loss through glass areas has been cut in half. The use of better seals and coated glass also has improved the energy efficiency of windows. These product improvements along with home energy conservation incen tive programs contributed to an increase in the replacement and retrofitting of existing doors and windows with more energy efficient units. Replacement and remodeling activity has helped to sustain the industry’s output by offsetting the impact of declining new building construction. Employment Total employment in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry grew at a rate of 0.7 percent per year between 1967 and 1983. In comparison, all manufacturing industries showed no average annual change in employment over the same period. Employment growth for the industry was un even, however, rising from 63,900 in 1967 to 70,700 in 1972, declining to 53,700 in 1975, again rising to a peak of 73,300 in 1979, and then declining again to 66,300 in 1982. The proportion of production workers fell from 75.0 percent in 1967 to 73.8 percent in 1983. The majority of jobs in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry consisted of stamping, blanking, and forming of metals. Almost 50 percent of the production workers were engaged in these three operations.8 Other main types of work in this industry consist of galvanizing iron and steel, painting, lacquering, or enameling. About 15 percent of the employees worked in these finishing occupations. About 11 percent worked in a tool and die shop. Eleven percent worked in plate or structural fabrication. About 9 percent worked in a machine shop. The remaining 8.5 percent of production workers were engaged in electroplating, heat treating, or worked in the pattern shop. Female employees constitute an increasing proportion of the workers in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry, rising from an 18-percent share of the work force in 1967 to almost 27 percent of all industry employees in 1983.9 Dur ing the period, average weekly hours of production workers declined 1 hour, from 40.6 hours in 1967 to 39.6 in 1983. Capital expenditures Increases in capital expenditures are important and fre quently contribute to advances in output per hour. During https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the 1967-83 period, the annual rate of growth in new capital expenditures per employee averaged 9.2 percent in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry. In comparison, the average for all manufacturing establishments was 10.0 per cent. Although the growth rate was close to the average, the level of capital expenditures per employee in this industry was less than half the level for all manufacturing industries. In 1983, the industry spent about $1,350 per employee for new capital expenditures, compared with more than $3,500 for all manufacturing. During 1983, the metal doors, sash, and trim industry allocated around 70 percent of capital expenditures to the purchase of new machinery and equip ment. In comparison, the average for all manufacturing during 1981 (most recent year for which data is available) was more than 80 percent. The remainder was expended on new structures and plant additions. Size of establishments In 1982, the Bureau of the Census reported a total of 1,738 establishments in the metal doors, sash, and trim industry. A small percentage of these accounted for the majority of industry shipments. Nearly 10 percent of the industry’s establishments averaged more than 100 em ployees and generated approximately 57 percent of the in dustry’s value of shipments. In contrast, more than onequarter of the establishments reported four or fewer employees and accounted for only 1 percent of shipments. The number of metal window manufacturers has in creased substantially during the past 20 years. Currently, about 750 companies make prime metal windows, and 175 firms manufacture metal storm windows.10 Although some large firms manufacture metal windows and doors in several establishments, most producers are small, one-plant compa nies that serve local or regional markets. Metal windows usually are manufactured in a variety of custom-ordered sizes. To be responsive to special orders, manufacturers of windows generally are located near their market outlets. In 1977, the majority of metal window frames and sash produced was shipped less than 200 miles from the manufacturers’ plants to their customers. Technology Technological change in this industry during recent years has primarily consisted of modifications and improvements in existing methods and equipment. The manufacture of aluminum framing members for win dow and curtain walls essentially consists of the remelting, extruding, annodizing, and fabricating of aluminum to spec ified dimensions. Aluminum scrap is remelted in an alu minum cast house to produce aluminum billets. To produce extruded shapes, a hydraulically operated ram forces a hot (but not molten) aluminum billet through openings in a precision-made die. The result is a fine grained extrusion conforming to the configurations and dimensions of the die. In this process, it is possible to form an infinite variety of uniform products. 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Productivity in Metal Doors, Sash, Trim Anodizing is a protective treatment used to improve the corrosive and abrasive resistance of aluminum. This treat ment does not apply a coating but converts a thin layer of aluminum on the surface to an oxide that is extremely hard. In recent years, anodizing processes have been developed that result in anodic films in amber shades, ranging from light to dark. In many cases, amber colored finishes have been used in architectural work in place of clear anodizing. Anodic films developed with these processes are much harder, denser, and longer lasting than former clear anodiz ing finishes. Another recent modification at one plant re placed a one-step, 19 bath anodizing process with a twostep, 18-20 bath process. The two-step process which uses better controls has improved the quality of the aluminum oxide coating, and reduced energy and labor requirements for this operation. The anodized aluminum extrusions are fitted and assem bled in the factory to modular or custom sizes. The joints in aluminum windows and frames are either welded or fas tened mechanically. Mortise and tenon joints, that is, joints between members at right angles to each other, are commonly used. The clip, epoxy, and stake (CES) method is often used when joints are fastened together mechanically. The clip, a type of comer fastener, is placed into the joint with epoxy. Then a machine mechanically drives the ex truded sections together. Although not widely diffused in the industry, the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM ) system have been introduced into the operations of some plants. This technology uses computers to assist in developing designs for products to be manufactured. It is most feasible for large plants which have a sizable volume of fabricating work, generally destined for the commercial building sector. The CAD/CAM system has improved design analysis and cut unit labor requirements for skilled drafters through its greater sophistication, accuracy, and operation speed. A recent equipment improvement has been the introduc tion of programmable controllers into new machines that perform complex operations. These electrical testing devices that replace limit switches allow the source of elec trical problems to be more easily located, thereby reducing machine downtime. Another equipment improvement has been the development of drilling machines that drill holes of different configurations. Compared with previously used equipment, these machines reduce set up time, and thus, lower unit labor requirements. Outlook As indicated earlier, short-term changes in productivity generally reflect changes in output and output in this indus try is directly related to trends in residential and nonresidential building construction. According to macroeconomic projections by the U.S. Department of Commerce, building construction should continue to grow during the next 5 years. Private nonresidential construction is expected to increase in quantity and value put in place. The number of residential units built is expected to level off. Because of increases in the average size per unit, however, the value of residential construction put in place is expected to grow slightly. Based on these projections, the demand for the metal doors, sash, and trim industry’s products should also rise during the next 5 years. This projection, along with the experience over the 1967-83 period, suggests that produc tivity should continue to advance moderately. Wider adop tion of recent innovations, particularly among large manu facturers, should also contribute to the growth of labor productivity. □ ■FOOTNOTES1 The metal doors, sash, and trim industry is classified as sic 3442 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 and its 1977 supplement, issued by the U .S. Office o f Management and Budget. This industry includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing ferrous and nonferrous metal and metal covered doors and sash, window and door frames, and screens, molding, and trim. 2 The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy 1977, Vol ume 1, The Use and Make of Commodities by Industries 1977 (U.S. Department o f Commerce, 1984), pp. 17-35. 5 “Sales Power of Doors and W indows,” Professional Builder, June 1980, p. 122. 6 “Metal Builders and the Overhead Door Industry,” Metal Building Review, October 1984, pp. 24, 64, and 65. 7 See Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association, Architectural Aluminum Industry Statistical Review 1980 , 1981, p. 20. 8 Computed from survey material in the 1977 Census of Manufactures, Vol. I, Table 3, “Selected Metal Working Operations by Industry,” pp. 10-27. 3 This output measure includes the value of new private residential build ings, new private nonresidential buildings, and new public buildings put in place, in constant 1977 dollars. See Construction Review , International Trade Administration, July-August, 1983, pp. 9 -1 5 . 9 See Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-79, Bulletin 1312-11 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, July 1979); and Supplement to Em ployment and Earnings, United States, 1909-78 (Bureau of Labor Statis tics, July 1985). 4 “Prospects Good for Metal Doors, Windows, Study Says,” Metal 10 “Market Trends in the U .S. Window Industry,” Construction Review, International Trade Administration, January-February 1984, p. 3. Building News , May 1984, p. 41. 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations The productivity indexes in this study measure the change over time in industry output per unit of labor input. They do not measure the specific contribution of labor, but reflect the influence of many factors such as technology, capital invest ment, and managerial skills, as well as the skill and effort of the work force. The output index is based on value of shipments data adjusted for inventory change, published by the Bureau of the Census. Detailed data from the Census of Manufactures for 1967, 1972, 1977, and 1982 were used to derive bench mark indexes, to which the annual indexes for intervening years, based on the Annual Survey of Manufactures, were adjusted. The value of shipments of the various product classes were adjusted for price changes by appropriate Pro ducer Price Indexes to derive a real output measure. These, in turn, were combined with employee hour weights to derive the overall output measure. Employment and em ployee hour indexes were derived from census data. Em ployees and employee hours are considered homogeneous and additive, and thus do not reflect changes in the qualita tive aspects of labor, such as skill and experience of persons constituting the aggregate. Data on the quantities of goods produced by the metal doors, sash, and trim industry are not complete. Real out https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis put, therefore, was estimated on the basis of a deflated value technique. That is, changes in the price levels of the current dollar value of production were removed by means of appro priate price indexes. Because an adjustment for changing price levels usually lowers the dollar value, such a series is referred to as a deflated value measure. In an industry such as the metal doors, sash, and trim industry, where the raw material may differ from one product to the next, this tech nique may result in some bias in the measure. However, the bias is minimal. To combine segments of the output measure, employee hour weights relating to the individual segments were used. This technique was used at various levels of subaggregation for the variety of products manufactured by this industry. These procedures result in a final output index that is con ceptually close to the preferred output measure. Indexes of output per employee-hour relate total output to one input of labor time. The indexes do not measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, and any other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint effects of such factors as changes in technology, capital investment, capacity uti lization, shop design and layout, skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-management relations. Verifying basic skills Employers report in survey after survey that what they are seeking in young empoyees is, first, the basic skills needed to learn on the job, and, second, the dependability and world-of-work skills to show up on time and follow instructions. Vocational skills are less frequently required, although important for some jobs such as secretarial work. Employers do not usually give academic or other tests, and have little basis forjudging the depend ability of those with limited work experience, so they judge on the basis of academic credentials and other considerations such a vouching by acquain tances or relatives, best bets based on previous experiences with similar individuals, or prejudice. Employment and training programs recruit and serve those unable to secure jobs in the private sector. Unless these enrollees attain academic credentials recognized by employers, or are sorted so that those who prove to be dependable and trainable are identified, participants who are disadvantaged at entry will be equally disadvantaged at exit. — N a t io n a l C o u n c il on E m p l o y m e n t P o l ic y I n v e s t i n g in A m e r i c a ’s F u t u r e : A P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t b y th e N a tio n a l C o u n c il o n E m p lo y m e n t P o lic y (Washington, National Council on Employment Policy, 1984), pp. 24-25. 31 Research Summaries Minimum wage stability affects shirt and nightwear industry pay Absence of change in the Federal minimum wage during the May 1981-84 survey period helps to explain the relatively modest wage gains of production and related workers in the men’s and boy’s shirts and nightwear manufacturing indus try. Straight-time earnings averaged $4.68 an hour in May 1984, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.1 This was 11 percent above the $4.23 recorded in a similar survey conducted in May 1981— an increase aver aging 3.4 percent a year.2 By comparison, wages and salaries in all nondurable goods manufacturing as reported by the Bureau’s Employment Cost Index rose 17.1 percent, or 5.4 percent a year, during the 3 years ending in the second quarter of 1984. In establishments employing about half of the industry’s production workers in May 1984, pay was linked to the minimum wage by a policy of adjusting wage rates for all jobs to reflect changes in the statutory minimum. (See table 1.) A more moderate rate of inflation between May 1981 and May 1984 also helps to explain the shirt industry’s pace of wage increases. The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) rose 13.5 percent, or 4.3 percent a year, at a time when one-fifth of the shirt workers were under collective bargaining agreements pro viding for cost-of-living wage adjustments. Workers in the Southeast, who accounted for seventenths of the production work force, averaged $4.62 an hour in May 1984. Among the other five regions studied sepa rately,3 average hourly earnings were highest in New Eng land ($5.43) and lowest in the Southwest ($4.17). Hourly earnings of more than 64,000 workers covered by the study ranged from the minimum wage of $3.35 to $9 and over. The middle 50 percent of the workers earned between $3.68 and $5.42 an hour. About 14 percent of the workers earned within 5 cents of the Federal minimum wage, down from 22 percent in 1981. Among the 23 occupational classifications selected to represent the shirtmaking process, average hourly earnings ranged from $7.49 for sewing-machine adjusters to $4.03 for thread trimmers. Machine cutters ($6.18) and markers 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ($5.57) were the only other jobs studied separately with hourly averages over $5.50. Sewing-machine operators, by far the largest occupational group studied, with nearly 37,000 workers, averaged $4.59 an hour. Averages for the other jobs with more than 2,000 workers were $4.66 for combination final inspectors and thread trimmers, $4.62 for garment folders, and $4.48 for finish pressers. Occupational pay levels varied widely by region. While pay levels typically exceeded the national averages by 15 to 25 percent in New England and by 5 to 15 percent in the Border States and Middle Atlantic States, occupational av erages in the Southeast and Pacific generally fell slightly below the national levels, and those in the Southwest were usually 10 to 20 percent below. Regional pay patterns, how ever, were not consistent among individual jobs. For exam ple, shipping clerks in the Border States averaged 48 percent more than those in the Southwest, but clicker-machine oper ators (who cut or stamp small pieces of various shapes from material or cardboard) in the latter region averaged 9 percent more than those in the Border States. Occupational pay levels were generally higher in metro politan than in nonmetropolitan areas, in plants with at least 250 employees than in smaller establishments, in union plants than in nonunion plants, and in establishments pri marily making dress shirts than in those principally making sport shirts. Extensive use of incentive pay plans, notably piece rate systems, contributed to wide ranges of rates within an occu pation and area. Incentive earnings vary according to work experience, effort, work flow, and other factors which the worker may or may not control. Workers paid under incen tive systems, four-fifths of the production workers, usually averaged from 10 to 15 percent more than time-rated work ers in the same occupation. Incentive workers accounted for virtually all of the sewing-machine operators and were also predominant among the other sewing and finishing occupa tions. Workers paid on a time-rated basis, however, were predominant among sewing-machine adjusters, janitors, shipping clerks, and work distributors. Virtually all production workers were in establishments with formal provisions for paid holidays and vacations. Three-fifths of the workers received 5 to 8 holidays annu ally; while nearly three-tenths— mainly workers under con tracts negotiated by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile W orkers Union (A C T W U ) —were entitled to 10 holidays. Vacation plans in the industry typically provided 1 week of pay after 1 year of service, 2 or more weeks’ pay after 3 years of service, and 3 weeks after 10 years. About onefifth of the workers could receive 3 weeks after 1 year of service. Most of these workers were in plants covered by the a c t w u plan, which provides for a 2 - week summer vacation for employees with 1 year of service (1 week after 6 months) and a 1-week winter vacation for employees with 1 year of service. Life, hospitalization, and surgical insurance were pro vided for about nine-tenths of the workers. At least threefifths of the workers were covered by accidental death and dismemberment insurance and basic medical and major medical plans. Slightly more than one-half were included in private pension plans, nearly all of which were paid for entirely by the employer. Paid funeral leave was available to seven-tenths of the workers and jury-duty pay to nearly three-fifths. The study included establishments engaged primarily in manufacturing men’s, youth’s, and boys’ shirts (including polo and sport shirts) and nightwear, cut and sewn from purchased woven or knit fabric. In May 1984, establish ments within the scope of the survey— those with 20 work ers or more— employed 64,789 production workers. This is almost exactly the same number of workers reported in 1981 and breaks a pattern of decline reported in similar BLS stud ies since 1964. In 1984, about one-half of the production workers were in establishments primarily making sport shirts. Plants making dress shirts accounted for just under two-fifths of the work force. In addition to the six major regions studied, separate data were obtained for nine States and three local areas. These localities employed slightly more than four-fifths of the industry’s production workers. Among the States, employ ment ranged from 10,500 in North Carolina to about 600 in Maryland. The Bureau’s eight regional offices will provide free of charge, while the supply lasts, separate releases issued ear lier for the following States and areas: Alabama; Georgia; Maryland; Mississippi; North Carolina; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; Tennessee; Virginia; Allentown-BethleTable 1. Average hourly earnings and percent change in men’s and boy’s shirts and nightwear and Federal minimum wage levels, selected years, 1964-84 Average hourly earnings Federal minimum Survey date Level May 1984 ......... May 1981......... May 1978 ......... June 1974 . . . . October 1971 .. October 1968 .. June 1964 ___ Percent change1 Level 11 $3.35 3.35 2.65 $4.68 4.23 3.28 2.54 2.05 1.83 1.45 'Percent change from previous period. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 29 29 24 12 26 — Percent change1 0 2.00 26 32.5 25 1.60 1.60 1.25 28 — 0 hem-Easton, p a -n j ; Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA; and Pottsville-Shamokin, PA. A comprehensive bulletin, Indus try Wage Survey: Men’s and Boys’ Shirts and Nightwear, May 1984, Bulletin 2232, is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. --------- F O O T N O T E S --------'Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. 2For a report on the earlier survey, see I n d u s try W a g e S u r v e y : M e n ’s a n d B o y s ’ S h irts a n d N ig h tw e a r , M a y 1 9 8 1 , b ls Bulletin 2131 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 3New England, Middle Atlantic States, Border States, Southwest, and Pacific States. Expert panel offers suggestions on 1990 census methodology Pursuant to a 1982 recommendation by the American Statis tical Association, the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council established a panel under the aegis of the Census Bureau to make recommendations on methodology for the 1990 decennial census. Formally des ignated the Panel on Decennial Census Methodology, this group of experts was charged with suggesting research, experiments, and new methods and with guiding the Census Bureau in evaluating alternative techniques. Their work continued the longstanding policy of evaluating the results of the most recent census with a view toward resolving problems and testing new procedures well before the next census is undertaken. The final report of the panel, The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Metholodogy in 1990, was published in 1985. The 404-page volume first examines the history of the decennial census, noting particularly the great expansion in usage of census data since the first national study was con ducted in 1790 and concommitant growth in numbers of criticisms of census procedures and results. Against this background, the authors present an analysis of existing problems with census methodology and propose solutions. The major issues confronted in the most recent round of methodology review involved: (1) the proper adjustment of census counts and characteristics; (2) the appropriate ness of sampling techniques within a census framework; and (3) the possible use of administrative records to im prove the accuracy of census counts and the efficiency of census operations. In developing its recommendations, the panel considered the stated goal of the Census Bureau to develop better and more timely estimates for 1990 without an appreciable increase in per-housing-unit costs over 1980 levels. Following are selected recommendations from the final report: 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Research Summaries • That the Census Bureau assess the need for a mid-decade census, particularly by studying the effect of errors in postcensal population estimates compared with errors in the decennial census on major data uses. Unless these studies do not support the value of a mid-decade census, the Bureau should make every effort to secure funding for a census in 1995. • That the Bureau prune its proposed research and testing program for 1986 by deferring certain projects until 1987 or later and by forgoing research on proposals that are unlikely to be implemented in the 1990 study or that appear to hold little promise based on previous census experience or other survey research results. Other cut backs might be accomplished by making fuller use of 1980 census data and experimental results. To this end, the Bureau should assign a high priority to the completion of 1980 census methodology studies and further analysis of 1980 data. • That the Bureau assign a high priority to the completion of studies of undercount and overcount of various popula tion groups in the 1980 census. A variety of question designs for sensitive race and ethnicity information should be tested for the 1990 study, including some that combine the collection of information on Hispanic origin with other race and ethnicity information. The report also recommends that the Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, and other Federal agencies work closely together to design questions and response editing rules on race and ethnicity that minimize conceptual dif ferences between census and vital statistics records. • That the Census Bureau not pursue research on or testing of a sample survey as a replacement for complete enumer ation in 1990. This recommendation reflects the panel’s belief that a large sample survey would result in less complete coverage than a census, and that there would be 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis only minor cost savings in sampling on the scale neces sary for satisfaction of present demands for small-area data from the census. However, the Bureau should in clude in its 1987 pretest program the testing of sampling for the follow-up of households that do not return their questionaires. Sampling could prove cost-effective in the final stages of follow-up, where it becomes very expen sive to count an additional person. • Given the likelihood that the census will continue to pro duce different rates of undercoverage for various popula tion groups, it is recommended that work proceed on the development of adjustment procedures and that adjust ment be implemented if there is reasonable confidence that it will reduce differential coverage errors. The Cen sus Bureau should also explore methods for providing estimates of errors associated with estimates of census over- and undercoverage, with a view to publishing such error estimates along with coverage evaluation results and any adjusted census data that may be issued. • That the Census Bureau conduct research and testing in the area of improved accuracy of responses to content items (income, utility costs, and so forth) in the census. Further, the content improvement procedures examined should not be limited to reinterviews of samples of re spondents, but should also include the use of administra tive records. A specific recommendation urges the Bu reau to investigate the cost and feasibility of obtaining data on housing structure items through alternative uses of local administrative records. Copies of the full report of the Panel on Decennial Census Methodology, edited by Constance F. Citro and Michael L. Cohen, may be purchased from the National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Price: $23.95. □ Foreign Labor Developments International experiences with technological change Stev en D eutsch Most industrial nations are concerned with the impact of microelectronics and technological change on the work force. In many instances, reports from national commis sions, such as the Canadian Task Force on Microelectronics and Employment and the Swedish Computer Commission, have attempted to identify and address problems that can arise when new technology is introduced. These reports often lead to legislative solutions to the problems of new technology that are consistent with the larger role played by government in many countries in shaping the conditions at the workplace and the role of labor and management. In countries with collective bargaining systems similar to the United States, there is evidence of growing reliance on some governmental mechanisms. For example, the Cana dian Task Force on Microelectronics and Employment sug gested the establishment of mandatory labor-management technology committees in all places of employment with more than 50 employees. These committees would “deal with issues such as training, retraining, redundancy, work sharing, productivity improvements, and other matters re lated to technological change at the workplace.” 1 A review of the pattern in most industrial nations reveals varying blends of governmental legislation and collectively bar gained labor-management agreements.2 This reflects not only the tendency to involve government in labor-management relations, but also the relative size of the unionized labor force and the power of labor political parties. The percentage of the labor force which is unionized varies considerably among industrialized nations: United States, 22 percent; France, 28 percent; Japan, 33 percent; Germany, 42 percent; United Kingdom, 55 percent; Aus tralia, 56 percent; Belgium, 79 percent; and Sweden, 83 percent.3 Most of these nations have a labor party which tends to wed collective bargaining strategies to political and legislative agendas. For example, the Swedish Labor FederSteven Deutsch is director of the Center o f the Study of Work, Economy, and Community and professor of sociology, University o f Oregon. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ation, through the Social Democratic Party, has been suc cessful in gaining governmental approval for legislative changes concerning job security, labor market policies (in cluding advance notification and government subsidies to assure full employment), worker representation on corpo rate boards, joint consultation between management and labor (co-determination), empowering workers to improve work environments, and the establishment of wage earner funds to give workers gradual ownership and economic in fluence in the enterprise.4 There are many variations in the relative importance of collective bargaining versus legislative approaches, but even in England, Canada, or Australia, where there are strong traditions of deferral to bargaining, in recent years, the government has been active on issues of worker partici pation and technology.5 Adversarial relations England. Concern with technology was already well de veloped in England in the 1970’s, prior to the resurgence of interest in the United States. Primarily, union-initiated pro posed technology agreements with employers dealt with the basic questions of advance notification, job security, train ing and retraining, worker involvement in technological change, and design and implementation. However, “while unions in Britain have generally recognized the need to extend the scope of collective bargaining in order to influ ence the introduction of new technology, few have suc ceeded in achieving this end.” 6 The reason for this lies largely in the tension over the short-term strategy of worker involvement in planning. In 1982, a group at the University of Aston examined a large number of English technology agreements and collective bargaining contracts; they con cluded that, “To date, it is the defensive/reaction strategy that has predominated.” 7 Compounding the problem today are the troubled eco nomic situation in Britain and the deterioration of labor relations in that country. High unemployment and bitter labor-management disputes overshadow cooperative devel opments and the substantial number of successfully negotiiated agreements which provide for joint efforts and worker involvement in the change process. While the language in many of the agreements is suggestive of what should be implemented, such agreements will work best in a full 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Foreign Labor Developments employment economy and one in which the spirit of cooper ation prevails— features both lacking in England today. Australia. The Australian situation has paralleled that in many other industrial countries. In 1980, the government established the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. The committee made proposals to re form aspects of Australia’s industrial relations system in such a way as to provide incentives for unions and em ployees to cooperate with employers in the introduction of technological change. However, the reality since has failed to see these fully materialize. The overall picture is charac terized by leading industrial relations analysts in Australia: . . . although governments, employees and unions have agreed about the need to introduce technological change without causing undue social and economic hardship, this consensus appears to have had little impact on the manner in which changes have been implemented. The majority of employers have introduced new technology without consulting their employees in advance; most unions have been ill-equipped or unprepared to assume a more assertive or interventionist role; and industrial tribunals, by and large, have been unwilling to interfere with managerial rights or prerogatives in this field. These factors have exacerbated conflict in the workplace as, in many cases, traditional patterns of work have been upset, wage relativities have been disturbed and job security has been decreased.8 As in the case of England, Australia has had a number of negotiated technology agreements on the primary issues of job security, work organization, work environment, and methods of work involvement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, just as the Trades Union Congress in Eng land, has passed official statements on technology, dissem inated model contract clauses for unions, and conducted technology training for its membership. Nevertheless, the conclusion stated above illustrates the reason for the gap between the ideal and actual practice. Canada. The U.S. industrial relations system shares some features with those of England, Australia, and Canada. These are traditions which have created a decentralized union structure with a large number of separate unions and individual negotiating situations. It is a system dependent on free collective bargaining with modest governmental inter vention outside broad framework laws, and an ideology which tends to emphasize traditional managerial preroga tives and conflicts of interest between management and labor. Canada’s experience is especially relevant for the United States because of geographical proximity, the role of U.S. firms in the Canadian economy, and the linked bar gaining across the border (international unions in this coun try typically include Canadian affiliates). Provincial laws on work environment have been pat terned, in part, after Scandinavian models. For example, joint labor-management health and safety committees were mandatory in Saskatchewan in the 1970’s, during which a climate of worker participation was cultivated. 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In the Canadian Postal Service, where labor relations have been erratic in recent years, the following agreement over technological change notification was negotiated: . . . the Employer agrees to notify the Union as far as possible in advance of his intention and to update the information provided as new developments arise and modifications are made . . . the Employer shall provide the Union, at least 120 days before the introduction of a technological change, with a detailed description of the project it intends to carry out, disclosing all foreseeable effects and repercussions on employees.9 A 1-year minimum advance notice currently is specified in the contract negotiated by Saskatchewan Telephone and Communication Workers of Canada, with a range of other time periods given in various contracts. Following notice by the employer to the union, the next step defines the role the union and workers will take in decisions affecting techno logical change. Many contracts spell out the establishment of joint labor-management committees to consult, plan, and execute programs of technological change, including issues of relocation and retraining of workers. Recently, the Na tional Association of Broadcasting Corporation agreed that, “No employee who has completed his probationary period as of the date of execution of this Agreement will be laid off or suffer a reduction in salary during the term of this Agree ment because of the introduction of new or modified equip ment and/or associated changes in methods of operation.” 10 Involvement of the work force in the design and imple mentation of new technology has been a significant part of the Canadian labor relations scene in recent years, espe cially in the case of office automation and video display terminals (VDT’s ). The Canadian Union of Public Em ployees and the United Way of the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, have a contract which stipulates: The selection and installation of equipment shall be done in consultation with the affected employees. The installation shall also involve consultation directed towards assuring that all ‘er gonomic’ factors are dealt with satisfactorily.11 The Newspaper Guild Local 115 and Suburban Press, Ltd., have a memorandum of agreement which states that “If an employee has been operating a VDT in the final two hours of a shift, the employee shall not be required to operate a VDT less than 30 minutes before leaving the plant.” 12 Other pro visions in this agreement deal with inspecting each VDT for radiation emmissions. Several Canadian labor agreements, including those which cover the Newspaper Guild and Com munications Workers, specify that women workers during pregnancy may have the option of being rotated onto a non-v d t job. This last provision is controversial because scientific data have not conclusively demonstrated danger during pregnancy caused by working on a v d t . However, the concern has been pushed by workers and some of the Canadian unions who have won such agreements from em ployers. An equivalent level of concern exists in the United States and a similar provision for pregnant women is being pursued in some contract negotiations. European Community: joint efforts There are considerable variations in the pattern of labor relations abroad. Nations in the European Community have agreed to some coordinated policies which have influenced various aspects of cooperation, including sharing corporate economic data with the workers, and worker and union involvement in work organization decisionmaking. As of 1984, the European Community is “ . . . examining with both sides of industry the best way and at what level to introduce basic principles on the information and consulta tion of workers affected by the introduction of new tech'nologies, while taking account of practices and procedures already applied in the Member States.” 13 In the past, many European unions have been more ag gressive than those in the United States; this is particularly true for the issues of advance notification, joint participation in workplace design and the introduction of new technol ogy, protection of jobs and programs for relocation, retrain ing, and other means of cushioning the effects of job loss.14 At the same time, the industrial relations climate in much of Europe has been supportive of some participative and joint labor-management approaches to addressing issues of tech nological change. Both management and labor have gener ally agreed that the new technology offers an excellent opportunity for work redesign so as to eliminate boredom and monotony and facilitate the creation of semiautonomous work groups with greater worker influence. “The technology-optimistic attitude, which was distinctive of the years of prosperity up through the sixties, could be found in all European countries; technology was unequivo cally seen as a, and often the most important, remedy for securing full employment and greater welfare for union members.” 15 The economic crisis of the later 1970’s and early 1980’s has altered some of the earlier optimistic view points and a more recent opinion suggests that, “There is considerable evidence that automation has outpaced the ability of managements and trade unions to control, much less to optimize, its [technology’s] implications for quality of work life, at least for very large numbers of enter prises.” 16 A recent OECD study revealed: “A common theme of many of the reports is that new technology can yield great benefits. The question, who receives the benefits and who carries the burden of the costs?”17 The report then presents as a possible model the Norwegian Data Agreement which provides for workers affected by the new information tech nology to be informed and consulted. Historically cooperative relations Norway and Sweden. The Norwegian developments are seen as an integration of the legislative approach to improve the work environment and the negotiation process involving unions and employers to implement particular means whereby workers and their representatives have authentic https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis influence over the introduction of new technology and work organization.18 Parts of Section 12 of the 1977 Norwegian Work Environment Act are very informative: • General requirements. Technology, organization of the work, working hours and wage systems shall be set up so that the employees are not exposed to undesirable physical or mental strain and so that their possibilities of displaying caution and observing safety measures are not impaired. Conditions shall be arranged so that employees are afforded reasonable opportunity for professional and per sonal development through their work. • Arrangements o f work. The individual employee’s op portunity for self-determination and professional respon sibility shall be taken into consideration when planning and arranging the work. Efforts shall be made to avoid undiversified, repetitive work and work that is governed by machine or conveyor belt in such a manner that the employees themselves are prevented from varying the speed of the work. Otherwise efforts shall be made to arrange the work so as to provide possibilities for varia tion and for contact with others, for connection between individual job assignments, and for employees to keep themselves informed about production requirements and results. • Control and planning systems. The employees and their elected union representatives shall be kept informed about the systems employed for planning and effecting the work and about planned changes in such systems. They shall be given the training necessary to enable them to learn these systems, and they shall take part in planning them.19 What this language specifies is an obligatory information sharing process whereby workers cooperate with manage ment in advance of the introduction of significant changes in technology, work organization, and job design. It is predi cated on research which indicates that a cooperative ap proach will indeed continuously improve the work environ ment. It is a perspective which has had a good deal of impact on the thinking of practitioners and policymakers through out the world.20 It would be a mistake to judge the Norwegian or Swedish approaches as being unqualified successes; however, they are interesting models of how the issues of work organiza tion, technology, and labor-management relations have been addressed. In the Norwegian case, the broad Work Environment Act obliges employers to consult with workers and their representatives and sets up a joint approach to planning. In Norway, with more than a decade of experi ence, professional computer and technology experts serve as consultants for large unions who are planning a better work ing environment and actively and competently engage with management in such work-systems development.21 In Scan37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Foreign Labor Developments dinavia, the unions have endorsed the new technologies, but they have actively worked on their own research and devel opment with the aid of outside experts. For example, the Nordic Graphic Arts Workers Union Confederation has been designing a model high tech work environment, using microelectronic graphic arts equipment and computer-aided design. With consultants from the Swedish Center for Working Life and others, they have worked out the best situation from a worker viewpoint, while satisfying manage rial and organizational goals of cost effectiveness and pro ductivity.22 In other instances, Swedish unions, under the 1976 Co-determination Act, have gained an employer com mitment to actively involve workers in the planning of new technology systems. For postal social insurance office workers, it was clear from the beginning of the work system design that their concerns, which included the quality of service to the clients with whom they interacted, would be taken into account.23 In a 1979 agreement, the Swedish postal workers used the introduction of new technology and work reorganization as a means of improving the work environment. Approxi mately 4,700 women work in the central post office in Stockholm, and the technological and operational changes initially proposed threatened between 500 and 600 jobs. The union and management agreed on the goals of improved working environment, improved content of work, preserved level of employment, and development of new products and improved service to clients.24 In 1982, an “Agreement of Efficiency and Participation” was signed by the Swedish employers’ federation (SA F) and the blue-collar ( l o ) and white-collar ( p t k ) union federa tions. It recognized the need for efficiency and productivity if Swedish enterprise was to be more competitive in the international markets; it also detailed some of the means of implementing technological change to achieve these goals. The paragraph dealing with technical development states: Item 1. General direction. The parties are agreed that day-today as well as more far-reaching technical modernization offers many opportunities that must be taken to enable the company to survive, achieve success and therefore also safeguard jobs and employment. Capital expenditure makes it possible to improve productivity as well as creating opportunities to introduce new production systems, utilize modem technology, develop the expertise and skills of employees, and thereby increase the competitiveness of company. Item 2. Stimulating work. In the event of technical change, a sound job content shall be the goal, together with opportunities for the employees to increase their skills and accept responsibil ity for their work. The knowledge of the employees should be stimulated together with their ability to cooperate with and have contact with their colleagues. Item 3. Major changes. When technical change that involves major changes for the employees is being planned, the trade union organizations shall participate. Such participation shall take place in accordance with the provisions in [sections 7 and 8], 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The employer shall describe the considerations underlying the new technology, and the technical, financial/economic, work environmental, and employment consequences that can be foreseen and possibly make proposals for appointing project groups. Item 4. Training information. It is important that the em ployees are given opportunities for further development of thenvocational expertise and skills. The company shall make avail able as early as possible training for the new jobs that technical change will involve. Such training shall be provided at the expense of the company and on unchanged pay and employment conditions. According to the authors of the document, “ LO, SAF, and are in agreement about the need for increased knowl edge and responsibility and the need to support those af fected by technological change.” 25 A number of work redesign experiments were initiated in Norway and in Sweden in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Many of these cases have been widely discussed. What is more critical is to see what post hoc assessments tell about the patterns of cooperative labor-management relations as applied to changing technology and the workplace. A leading analysis by the Swedish Employers’ Federation concludes: PTK If we glance quickly at the significant developments of the 1970’s, we are struck by the fact that a large part of the evolu tion of our thinking regarding work organization and job content has arisen in connection with technological changes. In many cases, new organizational principles have scored genuine break throughs only when ways have been found to change material flows, machine grouping, work environments and design of factories. An important explanation of why the demand for better jobs could have such a large concrete effect on production methods in the 1970’s is that it is only recently that new demands for job satisfaction and job content could be met with demonstrably superior technical measures. And it is only when practitioners out in the factories can be involved in these questions that technology can be changed in such a way as to provide new types of work organization and job content (emphasis added).26 The Swedish process is designed to mutually benefit all parties. Swedish workers and unions have supported the application of the most advanced technology; in fact, Swe den leads the world in per capita use of robots today.27 The system has allowed employers to increase efficiency and productivity, and thus helped maintain their competitive role in such world market industries as auto production and finished steel products. Employees have been involved in planning changes in the work environment and have consid erable job security and a range of training programs, includ ing those negotiated with employers. In both Norway and Sweden, broad framework laws, passed by the Federal Government and then subject to local agreement or implementation, have served as the major device for engaging a cooperative approach to technological change by labor and management. Both parties have ac cepted the desirability of new technology and have decided that solving problems in the work environment and design ing and implementing the best system require joint efforts. The differences between Scandanavian and U.S. positions on technology and labor relations are considerable. These distinctions are influenced by the size of the public sector, proportion of the labor force organized into unions, and governmental policies and programs. With particular regard to Sweden, a leading American trade union researcher states: . . . one of the distinguishing features is the breadth and depth of the activities in Sweden, involving trade unions, employers and governmental agencies. In the U.S., only the unions have shown consistent interest in the human problems associated with workplace technological change . . . the main lessons Ameri cans can learn, are related to the values underlying the experi ments and the many accomplishments of the Swedish approach. Chief among them appears to be a real concern for the welfare of individuals, which naturally extends to the workplace and the quality of work performed there. Jobs not only must provide a decent income, but also should be responsible and intellectually satisfying, to the greatest extent possible; if new technologies bring major changes, then adequate training must be provided; and above all, representatives of affected employees might be actively involved in all stages of the process of change, from initial planning through final implementation and evaluation.28 Japan. U.S. industries have surveyed the Japanese system of industrial relations, productivity, and quality control cir cles. One analyst has concluded that it is a system of “ . . . predecision joint consultation to solve the problems of manpower and employment due to drastic technological changes, developed around 1960, and . . . built up to be come a basic part of the later Japanese industrial rela tions. . . . This practice often takes the place of collective bargaining in Japanese industry.” 29 One rare example of a formal technology agreement is that between the Nissan Motor Co. and the Nissan Motor Workers’ Union. All 3,000 workers at Nissan’s Zama plant participated in quality circles at the time robots were intro duced in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, but the technology agreement only came into being in 1983. However, it does contain a clause which states, “in introducing new technol ogy, the Company shall inform the Union in advance of the introduction of the program, possible effects on union mem bers and proposals of countermeasures against such effects, and hold prior consultations with the Union.” Also, “The Company shall neither dismiss nor layoff union members for reasons of the introduction of new technology.” 30 Addi tional provisions address new technology in relation to safety and health, education and training programs, and necessary reassignments and job changes. What is critical is the transition from an earlier joint labor-management con sultative agreement (1955) to this new technology agree ment which specifically stipulates that the company will provide advance notification, job security, retraining, and the like. Whether this is the beginning of a new pattern in Japanese labor relations remains to be seen. In s u m m a r y , most other industrial nations have shown greater interest and concern regarding new technology in recent years than has the United States. Unions in those countries have also acquired considerable experience in working out technology agreements and negotiating suc cessfully in various industries. In countries with a history of cooperation in labormanagement relationships, there seems to be a more institu tionalized joint approach to dealing with technological change than in those nations, such as the United States, with a tradition of more adversarial labor relations. Technologi cal considerations have been identified in some countries as a critical factor in legislation mandating joint labor-manage ment approaches at the workplace. Whether in the form of work environment legislation or codetermination laws, such regulations nearly always provide for consultation and par ticipation by workers and their representatives in planning and executing technological and organizational design. □ -FOOTNOTES- 1 Harish Jain, “Task force encourages diffusion of microelectronics in Canada,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1983, p. 26. 2 See “Work Organization and the Introduction o f New Technology: A Survey o f Legislative and Collective Agreements in Industrialized Countries,” in Automation, Work Organization and Occupational Stress (Washington, International Labor Organization, 1984). 3 These data are for the year 1978 and are from a U .S. Department of Labor report cited in Ira Magaziner and Robert Reich, Minding America’s Business (New York, Vintage Press, 1983), p. 146. 4 This is outlined in Sandra Albrecht and Steven Deutsch, “The Chal lenge o f Economic Democracy— The Case o f Sweden,” Economic and Industrial Democracy, August 1983, pp. 287-320. 5 A useful review is given in Everett Kassalow, “Industrial Democracy and Collective Bargaining: A Comparative V iew ,” Labour and Society, September 1982, pp. 209 -2 9 . See also, Greg Bamber, “Microchips and Industrial Relations,” Industrial Relations Journal, November-December https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1980, pp. 7-1 9 ; and Russell Lansbury and Edward Davis, eds., Technol ogy, Work and Industrial Relations (Melbourne, Longman Cheshire, 1984). 6 Greg Bamber and Russell Lansbury, “Labor-Management Relations and Technological Change: Some International Comparisons Between Australia and Britain,” Labor Law Journal, August 1983, p. 522. 7 Robin Williams and others, “Technology Agreements: Consensus, Control and Technical Change in the Workplace,” in Information Society: For Richer, For Poorer (European Economic Community, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1982), p. 260. 8 Russell Lansbury and Edward Davis, “Technological Change and Industrial Relations in Australia,” in Lansbury and Davis, Technology, Work and Industrial Relations, p. 3. 9 Canadian Labour Congress, Tech Change: A Handbook for Negotia tors (Ottawa, Canadian Labour Congress, 1984), p. 10. 39 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Foreign Labor Developments 10 Susan Attenborough, M ic r o te c h n o lo g y (Ottawa, National Union of Provincial Government Employees, 1982), p. 36. 11 Canadian Labour Congress, T e c h C h a n g e , p. 24. 12 Canadian Labour Congress, T ech C h a n g e , p. 27. 13 European Communities, W o r k e r s ’ R ig h ts in I n d u s tr y (Brussels, European Economic Community, 1984), p. 10. 14 An overview is presented in Steven Deutsch, “Unions and Technolog ical Change: International Perspectives,” in Donald Kennedy and others, eds., L a b o r a n d T e c h n o lo g y (University Park, Pennsylvania State Univer sity, Department o f Labor Studies, 1982). Also see Steve Early and Matt Witt, “How European unions cope with new technology,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1982, pp. 3 6 -3 8 , and John Evans, T e c h n o lo g y a n d C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g (Brussels, European Trade Union Institute, 1985). 15 Anders Hingel, “A Promethean Change of Industrial Relations: A Comparative Study o f Western European Unions and Technological Devel opments,” in Malcolm Warner, ed., M ic r o p r o c e s s o r s , M a n p o w e r , a n d S o c ie ty (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1984), p. 256. 16 Joseph Thurman, “New Technology and Work Designs: Implications for Worker Attitudes and Industrial Relations,” in C h a n g in g P e r c e p tio n s o f W o rk in I n d u s tr ia l C o u n tr ie s : T h e ir E ffe c ts o n a n d I m p lic a tio n s f o r I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s (Geneva, International Institute for Labour Studies, 1983), pp. 188-89. 17 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, M ic r o e le c tr o n ic s , R o b o ts a n d J o b s (Washington, o e c d Publications Center, 1982), p. 111. 18 Steven Deutsch, “Work Environment Reform and Industrial Democ racy,” W o rk a n d O c c u p a tio n s , May 1981, pp. 180-94; and Bjorn Gustavsen and Gerry Hunnius, N e w P a tte r n s o f W o rk R e fo rm (Oslo, University o f Oslo Press, 1981). 19 A c t R e la tin g to W o rk e r P r o te c tio n a n d W o rk in g E n v ir o n m e n t (Oslo, Directorate o f Labour Inspection, 1977), pp. 5 -6 . in the Federal Republic o f Germany,” Labour and Society, January-March 1983, pp. 3 9-56. 21 Arne Pape and Jostein Fjalstad, “Research on Social Aspects o f Com puterization and Democratization o f Working Life,” in P. Samet, ed., Proceedings o f the European Conference on Applied Information Technol ogy of the International Federation for Information Proceeding (EUROifip) (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1979); and Max Elden and others, Good Technology Is Not Enough: Automation and Work Design in Norway (Trondheim, Institute for Social Science Research in Industry, 1982). 22 This project (known as the Utopia Project) and a larger approach is reviewed in Training Technology and Products Viewed from the Quality of Work Perspective (Stockholm, Swedish Center for Working Life, 1981). 23 Some of these approaches are described in Bo Goranzon, Job Design and Automation in Sweden (Stockholm, Swedish Center for Working Life, 1982) . 24 “Local Collective Agreement on the Development o f a New Production-System at the Postgiro,” Stockholm, 1979, Section 2. 25 Swedish Trade Union Confederation (lo), Computers on Human Swedish Trade Union Confederation, October 1983) , p. 4. Terms (Stockholm, 26 Stefan Aguren and Jan Edgren, New Factories: Job Design Through Factory Planning in Sweden (Stockholm, Swedish Employers’ Federation, 1980), p. 104. 27 Bengt Abrahamsson, Computer Technology and Industrial Relations: The Case o f Sweden and Norway (Rome, Olivetti Foundation, forthcoming), p. 44, citing 1984 research by the Swedish Institute for Social Research. 28 Dennis Chamot, “Labor and Technological Change in Sweden,” Working Life in Sweden, No. 29 (New York, Swedish Information Service, February 1985), p. 6. 20 N e w T e c h n o lo g ie s : T h e I m p a c t o n E m p lo y m e n t a n d th e W o rk in g E n v ir o n m e n t (Geneva, International Labor Organization, 1983). Also en 29Akihiro Ishikawa, “Microelectronics and Japanese Industrial Rela tions,” in Warner, Microprocessors, p. 355. lightening on this issue is Alfred Hassencamp and Hans-Jurgen Bieneck, “Technical and Organizational Changes and Design of Working Conditions Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Workers’ Union, Mar. 1, 1983. 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 30Agreement Concerning the Introduction o f New Technology, Nissan M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in April is based on information from the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. Employer and location Private industry Labor organization1 Number of workers Independent Building Contractors (Maine) ............................................ General Building Contractors and others, Philadelphia area (Pennsylvania) Building Contractors Association (New Jersey) .................................... General Building Contractors, Philadelphia area (Pennsylvania).......... Building Trades Employers Association, commercial building agreement (Rochester, NY) Construction Contractors Council-a g c Labor Division, Inc. (Washington, d c and vicinity) Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ Laborers........................................... 1,300 5,000 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ Carpenters ........................................ Carpenters ....................................... 14,000 5,000 1,100 Construction.................................... Carpenters ....................................... 6,300 Construction.................................... Operating Engineers.......................... 1,100 Construction.................................... Laborers............................................ 1,000 Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ 1,200 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Laborers............................................ Carpenters ........................................ 1,500 4,000 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Laborers............................................ Laborers............................................ Carpenters ........................................ Carpenters ........................................ Iron Workers .................................... Operating Engineers ........................ 3,000 3,000 3,500 2,200 1,100 1,000 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ Carpenters ........................................ 4,500 4,500 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ Laborers............................................ Operating Engineers ........................ Laborers............................................ 3,000 1,200 1,750 2,000 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Laborers........................................... Laborers............................................ Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. 4,250 1,000 1,400 Ohio Contractors Association (O hio)...................................................... Ohio Contractors Association (Ohio and Kentucky).............................. Construction.................................... Construction.................................... 4,000 1,100 Montana Heavy, Highway and Building Contractors (M ontana).......... Associated General Contractors (Chicago, i l ) ........................................ Associated General Contractors and independent companies, heavy and highway (Minnesota) Associated General Contractors, Duluth contractors and others (Minnesota) Ohio Contractors Association (O hio)..................................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Operating Engineers ........................ Bricklayers; Plasterers and Cement Masons Various unions.................................. Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Carpenters ........................................ Construction.................................... Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. 1,800 Construction.................................... Laborers........................................... 10,000 Ohio Contractors Association (Cleveland, o h ) ................................................. Associated General Contractors, heavy and highway (Minnesota) . . . . Associated General Contractors of St. Louis (St. Louis, m o ) .................. General Building Contractors Association, building and heavy, Philadelphia area (Pennsylvania) Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Operating Engineers ........................ Operating Engineers ........................ Operating Engineers ........................ 1,400 5,000 1,200 4,500 Construction Contractors Council-AGC Labor Division, Inc. (Washington, d c and vicinity) Associated General Contractors and independent contractors (Lake Charles, l a ) Associated General Contractors, Central Illinois Builders Chapter (Illinois) Greater Peoria Contractors and Suppliers Association, Inc. (Illinois) .. Associated General Contractors, Builders division (Minneapolis and St. Paul, m n ) Associated General Contractors, Builders division (Minnesota) .......... Associated General Contractors (St. Louis, m o ) .................................... Construction Employers Association (Cleveland, o h ) ............................ Building Contractors of Southern New Jersey (New Jersey) ................ Associated General Contractors (Minnesota).......................................... Associated General Contractors, building construction agreement (Ohio) Home Builders Association (St. Louis, m o ) .......................................... Associated General Contractors (St. Louis, m o ) .................................... Associated General Contractors (New Orleans, l a ) .............................. Associated General Contractors (New Orleans, l a ) ................................................ Associated General Contractors, building construction (Minnesota) . . . Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, heavy and highway, Philadelphia area (Pennsylvania) Associated General Contractors, heavy and highway (Minnesota) . . . . Associated General Contractors of Missouri (Western Missouri).......... Ohio Contractors Association and Associated General Contractors (Ohio and West Virginia) 5,600 4,000 3,500 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Employer and location Private industry Labor organization1 Number of workers Construction Contractors Council, commercial construction (Washington, d c and vicinity) Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) ........ Construction Contractors Council, heavy construction (Washington, d c and vicinity) Central New Jersey Painting Contractors Association (New Jersey) . . . Associated Contractors of Essex County (Network, N J)........................ National Electrical Contractors Association (Philadelphia, p a ) ................... Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association (Philadelphia, p a ) .. Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., 2 agreements (Pennsylvania) Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (Minneapolis, m n ) . . . National Electrical Contractors of America (St. Paul, m n ) .................... Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors (St. Paul, m n ) .............. Construction.................................... Laborers........................................... 2,500 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Laborers........................................... Laborers........................................... 1,050 1,000 Construction.................................... Construction .................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Painters ........................................... Carpenters........................................ Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) .......................... Sheet Metal Workers........................ Plumbers .......................................... 1,200 1,850 1,700 1,800 4,200 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Painters ............................................ Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) ................ Sheet Metal W orkers........................ 1,050 1,400 1,150 National Electrical Contractors of America (Cleveland, o h ) ................ Mechanical Contractors Association (New Orleans, l a ) ...................... Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors (Philadelphia, p a ) ...................... Associated General Contractors and Minnesota Concrete and Masonry Contractors Association (Minneapolis, m n ) Industrial Contractors (Florida and G eorgia).......................................... Minnesota Gypsum Drywall Contractors Association (Minneapolis and St. Paul, m n ) ................................................................................. Chicago Meat Packers (Chicago, i l ) ...................................................... J.R. Simplot (Caldwell, i d ) ................................................................... Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Virginia) ................................ Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) ................ Plumbers ......................................... Roofers............................................. Bricklayers........................................ 1,100 3,000 1,700 1,750 Construction.................................... Construction.................................... Carpenters ........................................ Carpenters ........................................ 1,200 1,000 Food products ................................ Food products ................................ Tobacco .......................................... 1,200 1,100 1,050 James River Corp. (Green Bay, w i)....................................................... Proctor and Gamble Paper Products Co. (Green Bay, wi) .................... Owens-Dlinois, Inc. (Interstate) ............................................................ Paper .............................................. Paper .............................................. Rubber ............................................ Southern California Shoe Manufacturers Association, Los Angeles area (California) L eather............................................ Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers Paperworkers.................................... Paperworkers.................................... Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers Clothing and Textile Workers ........ Lynchburg Foundry Co. (Lynchburg, v a ) .............................................. Northern California Foundries (California) ............................................ Gould Inc., battery group (Interstate) .................................................... The Hoover Co. (North Canton, o h ) ...................................................... Bendix Corp, (Interstate) ....................................................................... United Technologies Corp., Diesel system (Springfield, m a ) .............. United Technologies Corp., Hamilton Standard division (Windsor, cr) Dana Corp., Weatherhead division (Interstate) ...................................... Robertshaw Controls Co., Grayson division (Long Beach, c a ) ............ Primary m etals................................ Primary m etals................................ Electrical products.......................... Electrical products.......................... Transportation equipm ent.............. Transportation equipm ent.............. Transportation equipment .............. Transportation equipment .............. Instruments .................................... Steelworkers .................................... Molders ............................................ Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) ................ Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) ................ Auto Workers .................................. Electrical Workers ( i u e ) .................. Machinists ........................................ Auto Workers .................................. Auto Workers .................................. 1,000 1,800 1,300 2,800 5,500 1,200 3,050 1,000 1,000 American Airlines Inc., pilots (Interstate)2 ............................................ Central Maine Power, Inc. (Augusta, m e ) ......................................................................... West Penn Power Co. (Pennsylvania) .................................................... Northern Illinois Ready Mix and Materials Association (Chicago, i l ) . Greater New York Association of Meat and Poultry Dealers (New York, n y ) Chicago Beer Wholesalers Association (Chicago, i l ) ............................ Minneapolis Automobile Dealers Association (Minnesota) .................. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Milwaukee, wi) .................. Air transportation .......................... Utilities .......................................... Utilities .......................................... Wholesale tra d e .............................. Wholesale tra d e .............................. Allied Pilots Association (Ind.) . . . . Electrical Workers (i b e w ) ................ Utility Workers ................................ Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Food and Commercial Workers . . . . 3,400 4,050 1,100 2,000 3,000 Wholesale tra d e .............................. Retail trade .................................... Insurance ........................................ Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Office and Professional Employees . 1,100 1,200 1,550 Government activity Labor organization1 1,000 1,500 1,300 1,200 Number of workers California: Riverside County, supporting services............ Multidepartments............................ Supporting Services Unit (Ind.) . . . . 2,050 District of Columbia: Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority .. Transportation ................................ Transit U nion.................................... 5,500 Missouri: Kansas City, city wide unit ............................ Multidepartments............................ State, County and Municipal Employees 2,400 Minnesota: St. Paul, Twin City Area Metropolitan Transit Authority ...................................................... Transportation ................................ Transit Union.................................... 2,100 1 Affiliated with a f l - c io except where noted as independent (Ind.). 2 Information is from newspaper reports. 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Developments in Industrial Relations Comparable worth settlements After suffering some reverses in the last year, backers of the comparable worth concept of pay equity were heartened by a settlement concluding the 5-year controversy between the State of Washington and several unions. Under the outof-court settlement, nearly 35,000 State workers in predom inantly female occupations will receive pay adjustments over a 6-year period to bring them to parity with other State workers in jobs requiring comparable levels of responsibil ity, skill, and training. In general, backers of the compara ble worth concept contend that some workers are underpaid simply because they are in “women’s occupations, such as secretaries, librarians, and nurses. The events leading to the settlement began in 1981 when nine female employees filed suit against the State, contend ing that a study sponsored by the State showed pay discrim ination against women. In 1983, a Federal district judge found the State guilty of pay discrimination under the Fed eral Civil Rights Act and ordered it to retroactively correct the disparity. In September 1985, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, but the State legislature had already appropriated $41.6 million to finance a settle ment to be negotiated with the State, County, and Municipal Employees and other unions representing State employees. The accord, which will require additional appropriations to cover the $106.5 million total cost, provides for the worth of jobs to be measured in terms of skill, effort, training, education, responsibility, and working conditions. During the first 15 months, $46.5 million will be available for pay adjustments, followed by $10 million allocations on July 1 of 1987 through 1992. The settlement does not provide for retroactivity of the pay adjustments. The 35,000 employees will also receive the same general wage increases the unions negotiate for other employees in their bargaining units dur ing the 6-year period. Pay equity adjustments also were a feature of an initial contract between the State, County, and Municipal Em ployees and the city of Chicago for 7,500 white-collar em ployees. Under the 3-year contract, all employees will re- “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben o f the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ceive wage increases totaling about 13 percent. In addition, 3,500 employees in 79 predominantly female job classifica tions will receive an additional 5 percent, which will be accomplished by raising these workers by one pay grade. According to the parties, 86 percent of the workers sched uled for upgrading are women. In return for the upgrading, the union agreed to drop sex discrimination charges it had filed with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission against the city in 1982. The parties also established a joint job evaluation com mittee to study the city’s pay system and recommend changes, if necessary. In another area, the parties moved to end political fa voritism by adopting criteria to be used in selecting workers for jobs and promotions. State, County, and Municipal Employees’ President Gerald W. McEntee hailed the accord as a “demonstration of the nationwide momentum on pay equity,” despite the Appeals Court ruling in the Washington State case. McEntee said that during 1985, the union’s “blueprint for equality” program had resulted in pay adjustments of $12 million for 4,000 clericals and librarians in Los Angeles; $20 million for 6,000 workers in the Iowa State government; $40 million for 9,000 employees of the State of Minnesota; $9.1 million for 10,000 employees of the State of Wiscon sin; $5.6 million for 9,000 employees of the State of Con necticut; and $36 million to be used for adjusting the pay of thousands of employees of the State of New York. In another pay equity agreement, the Auto Workers’ ini tial contracts with the State of Michigan included special adjustments (20 cents an hour retroactive to October 1, 1985, and 20 cents effective October 1, 1986) for 70 percent of the 21,000 employees in the two bargaining units. The union said the special pay adjustments were intended to “achieve a greater degree of pay equity between tradition ally ‘female’ State jobs and other jobs.” Terms for all employees included a 5-percent general pay increase effective October 1, 1986; a provision for re opening bargaining on a possible increase in October 1987; reduced employee premium costs for health insurance; and a joint review of workloads and caseloads. The Auto Workers gained the right to represent the Human Services and Administrative Support units by de feating the incumbent Michigan State Employees Associa tion in 1985 elections. 43 \ MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Developments in Industrial Relations RCA offers retirement inducement Pay increases totaling 5.5 percent, lump-sum payments, and a retirement inducement were featured in settlements between RCA Corp. and the Electrical Workers (ibew ) and the Electronic Workers. The separate but coordinated bar gaining by the two unions covered 14,500 workers at 12 electrical products plants. The first cash payment, payable immediately, was equal to 3 percent of employee earnings from November 1, 1984, through October 31, 1985. Instead of continuing the provi sion for automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments in hourly pay based on the movement of the Consumer Price Index, employees will receive lump-sum payments of $225 on June 2, 1986, $500 on June 1, 1987, and $525 on June 6, 1988. Hourly pay rates will increase by 3 percent on Decem ber 1, 1986, and 2.5 percent on December 7, 1987. Workers in the upper pay grades will also receive an additional 5 to 20 cents and 5 to 15 cents an hour on the respective dates. Pay progression was extended, with new employees start ing at 80 percent of the standard rate for their job and receiving 5 percentage point increases every 6 months until they attain the standard rate. The retirement inducement, limited to workers leaving the company between January 1 and July 1 of 1986, is $5,000. It is available to employees with 30 years of service or whose age plus years of service total 85. Other terms include a two-step increase in the pension rate to $16 a month (from $14) for each year of credited service; three $100 credits to employees under a stock pur chase plan; and some changes to help restrain the rise in health insurance costs. Grocery workers accept concessions Following the lead of a June 1985 settlement with major St. Louis grocery store chains, United Food and Commer cial Workers locals 219 and 35 and three chains in nearby Illinois agreed on cuts in pay and benefits to aid the compa nies in competing with nonunion stores. The Illinois agreement cut the top rate for clerks to $10.80 an hour, from $11.15, effective immediately, and to $10.50 in November 1986. Workers below the top rate will have their rates frozen for the term of the contract, which expires on November 26, 1988. To some extent, the pay cut and freeze will be offset by bonuses totaling $1,000 to $1,200, depending on the number of hours an employee works. Half of the bonus will be distributed in 1986 and the balance in 1987 and 1988. The contract also provided for: • • A top rate of $6.50 an hour for employees who work less than 30 hours a week. Previously there was no pay cap for these employees. For workers hired after the effective date of the con 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis • • • • • tract, Sunday work premium pay of $1 an hour during their first year and $2 an hour thereafter. Current employees will continue to receive time and one-half pay for work on Sunday. A 9-cent reduction, to 76 cents an hour, in the em ployers’ payment to the health and welfare trust fund. Benefits financed by the fund were not reduced. Elimination of a sixth week of paid vacation after 25 years of service. Currently eligible workers will continue to receive 6 weeks. Elimination of one personal paid holiday and four paid sick leave days beginning January 1, 1986. Reduced employer financing of health and welfare and pension benefits for new employees. A guarantee that 50 percent of scheduled work hours will be given to employees who normally work 40 hours a week and 10 percent to those who nor mally work at least 30 hours a week. The union said these requirements will help counter a trend toward increasing use of part-time workers, to the detriment of full-time workers. The three chains covered by the settlement are the Kroger Co., National Supermarkets, and Schnuck Markets. Alaska construction workers agree to a pay cut Concern about the possibility of losing work to nonunion construction firms impelled unions in Alaska’s petroleum producing area to agree to a 20-percent pay cut during the first year of their new 2-year agreement with the North Slope Contractors Association. Pay rates for the second year will be negotiated under a mid-term contract reopening provision. The deciding factor in the unions’ decision apparently was the oil companies 1985 announcement that bidding for projects would be opened to both union and nonunion con tractors. Traditionally, most of the construction on the North Slope has been performed by unionized firms. A union official said that the pay cut was not popular with union members, but it must be viewed in relation to the still-substantial earnings opportunity resulting from companyfinanced rooms, meals, and transportation, and a usual 70hour work week. Among the affected crafts, pay rates for plumbers and welders dropped to $20.94 an hour, from $26.17, and labor ers dropped to $16.27, from $20.34. Employer payments for benefits remained at $6.10 an hour for the plumbers and welders and $6.45 for the laborers. Other terms include a 40-hour work week guarantee; a limit of time and one-half pay for all work in excess of 8 hours per day; regular pay rates for work on second or third shifts, if such shifts are established; and a cut in the number of paid travel hours from the Fairbanks dispatch point. □ Book Reviews New technology requires new management Beyond Mechanization. By Larry Hirschhom. Cam bridge, M A, The MIT Press, 1984. 187 pp., bibliogra phy. $17.50. Larry Hirschhom’s thesis is compelling. The production technology of the processing plant and computerized flex ible manufacturing systems require a new approach to orga nizational design and management. In the older electrome chanical factories, work could be broken down into measurable motions, and the worker trained to perform repetitive tasks, coordinated and controlled at higher levels. The new technology makes this approach unsafe and unpro ductive, since complex technological systems are vulnerable to costly breakdowns. The alternative is a different vision of organization and work roles in which operators develop diagnostic and maintenance skills, and are prepared to deal with the unexpected. Working together in self-regulating teams, they share information and rotate jobs to expand their knowledge of what can go wrong, and why. In this system, supervisors become teachers and coordinators, not police men. If this approach had been employed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, Hirschhom believes operators would have been better prepared to have closed a valve quickly and avoided the danger of meltdown. This concept is fully consistent with Joan Woodward’s research in the 1960’s showing that continuous processing plants (for example paper and pulp, chemicals, and oil re fineries) were best run when operators had the training and authority to make decisions. It is supported by the sociotechnical theories of Eric Trist, Louis Davis, and Richard Wal ton, who was a consultant to the General Foods plant in Topeka, KS, which was designed according to the team concept in 1970. Hirschhom points out that during the past decade, more than 500 American plants have been designed according to the team principle, generally with job rotation and salary, not wages, based on tasks mastered. “A worker may be a materials scheduler, a work assigner, a trainer, a financial coordinator managing the team’s budget, a health and safety coordinator, a recorder, or the team’s representa tive on a committee studying social-system issues through out the plant” (p. 117). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Beyond improved safety and less likelihood of errors, what are the costs and benefits of the new plants? Writes Hirschhom, “I know of no systematic study comparing the long-term performance of these plants with that over con ventional ones. Cases studies and my own interviews with managerial and supervisory staff suggest that these plants produce a higher quality product than do conventional facto ries, while remaining profitable” (p. 120). Yet, there are serious problems with many of these inno vative work systems, and they are social rather than techni cal. Hirschhom interviewed 22 managers and consultants, and two workers at 13 new plants. (The companies would not let him interview more workers.) He found one source of ineffectiveness when idealistic plant managers expected teams to govern themselves without skilled leadership and sufficient training in a group process. Disputes undermined effectiveness. Workers refused to discipline colleagues who abused trust. When teamwork broke down, disillusioned managers imposed traditional control. Most of these plants are nonunion, and it is notable that in one unionized factory, Hirschhom finds better discipline, more effectiveness at resolving disputes. When there is experienced union leader ship, utopian ideas are less likely to cloud the vision. Hirschhom touches on many factors that he believes im pede the development of better sociotechnical solutions, including the problem of fitting the innovative factories into industrial bureaucracies. The new pay systems and job clas sifications clash with corporate policy. Here again, a strong union could help institutionalize a new approach. Finally, Hirschhom directs criticism at engineers for ig noring the human element in designing production systems. Like many who write today from a humanistic viewpoint, he blasts the founder of scientific management, Frederick Windslow Taylor, for having “introduced the study of hu man motion within a perspective emptied of psychological and physiological content” (p. 13). In his time, Taylor was concerned with the health and development of the worker. Like Hirschhom, he complained of over-controlling man agers. The difference is that Taylor’s theory fit the simpler technology of his day and the poorly educated immigrant workers he first studied. Today’s technology and work force require different organization, but as Hirschhom points out, 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Book Reviews our social R&D lags behind technical development. The point is not to blame the engineers but to show them a viable, more productive alternative. — M ich ae l M a c c o b y Director, Program on Technology, Policy and Human Development J. F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Pemberton, James, “A Model of Wage and Employment Dynam ics with Endogenous Preferences,” Oxford Economic Pa pers, September 1985, pp. 448-65. Riche, Martha Farnsworth, “Retirement’s Lifestyle Pioneers,” American Demographics, January 1986, beginning on p. 42. Rosenfeld, Jeffrey P., “Demographics on Vacation,” American Demographics, January 1986, beginning on p. 38. Russell, Cheryl and Thomas G. Exter, “America at Mid-Decade,” American Demographics, January 1986, pp. 22-29. Publications received ---------“No Kids, No Cows, More Money,” American D em o graphics, January 1986, pp. 32-37. Economic and social statistics Allen, Steven G., Union Work Rules and Efficiency in the Building Trades. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau o f Economic Re search Inc., 1985, 48 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1733.) $2, paper. Bodmer, W. F., “Understanding Statistics,” Journal o f the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 148, Pt. 2, 1985, pp. 69-81. Brant, J. D. and S. M. Chalk, “The Use of Automatic Editing in the 1981 Census,” Journal o f the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 148, Pt. 2, 1985, pp. 126-46. Capalbo, Susan M. and Michael Denny, Testing Long-Run Pro ductivity fo r the Canadian and U.S. Agricultural Sectors. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 37 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1764.) $2, paper. Conrad, Klaus and Catherine J. Morrison, The Impact o f Pollution Abatement Investment on Productivity Change: An Empirical Comparison o f the U .S., Germany, and Canada. Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 30 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1763.) $2, paper. MA, Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Daniel R. Sherman, Employment While in College, Academic Achievement and Post-College Out comes: A Summary o f Results. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 31 pp. Working Paper Series, 1742.) $2, paper. bridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 35 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1747.) $2, paper. (n b e r Fay, Jon A. and James L. Medoff, “Labor and Output Over the Business Cycle: Some Direct Evidence,” The American Eco nomic Review, September 1985, pp. 638-55. Griffin, James M., “ OPEC Behavior: A Test of Alternative Hy potheses,” The American Economic Review, December 1985, pp. 954-63. Seneta, E., “A Sketch of the History of Survey Sampling in Russia,” Journal o f the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 148, Pt. 2, 1985, pp. 118-25. Trajenberg, Manuel, The Welfare Analysis o f Product Innovations With an Application to C T Scanners, Cambridge, MA, Na tional Bureau of Economic Research Inc., 1985, 82 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1724.) $2, paper. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985 OBERS, b e a Regional Projec tions: Vol. 2, M etropolitan Statistical Area Projections to 2035. Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1985, 348 pp. (Stock No. 003-01000159-3.) $12, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Weitzman, Martin L., “The Simple Macroeconomics of Profit Sharing,” The American Economic Review, December 1985, pp. 937-53. Health and safety Hausman, Jerry A., Bart D. Ostro, David A. Wise, A ir Pollution and Lost Work. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Eco nomic Research, Inc., 1984, 34 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1263.) $2, paper. Viscusi, W. Kip, “Market Incentives for Safety,” Harvard Busi ness Review, July-August 1985, pp. 133-38. Industrial relations Barbash, Jack, “Do We Really Want Labor on the Ropes?” H ar vard Business Review, July-August 1985, beginning on p. 10. Burgmann, Meredith, “Australian Trade Unionism in 1984,” The Journal o f Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 81-88. Hartley, Michael, Neoclassical Econometrics: The Kernel; NonNegativity Constraints. Washington, the World Bank, Devel opment Research Department, 1985, 22 pp. and 35 pp., respectively. (Reports DRD136 and DRD137.) Kassalow, Everett M., “Crisis in the World Steel Industry: UnionManagement Responses in Four Countries,” Labour and So ciety, September 1985, pp. 345-67. Hodge, Bartow and James P. Clements, Business Systems Analy sis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986, 370 pp. $26.95. Leonard, Jonathan S., The Effectiveness o f Equal Employment Law and Affirmative Action Regulation. Cambridge, MA, Na tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 51 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1745.) $2, paper. Jenkins, Shirley, Mignon Sauber, Eva Friedlander, Ethnic Associ ations and Services to New Immigrants in New York City. New York, Community Council of Greater New York, Re search and Program Planning Information Department, 1985, 130 pp. $10, paper. Kearl, J. R., The Covariance Structure o f Earnings and Income, Compensatory Behavior and On-the-Job Investments. Cam46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Loney, Timothy J., “Formal Discussions in Federal Labor Rela tions—A Case of Goal Deflection,” Public Administration Review, September-October 1985, pp. 609-15. McCorquodale, John, “The Myth of Mateship: Aborigines and Employment,” The Journal o f Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 3-16. Moore, Tim, “Industrial Relations Legislation in 1984,” The Jour nal o f Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 89-95. Sloan, Judith, “The Unionization of Young People in Australia,” The Journal o f Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 38-48. Zax, Jeffrey S., Municipal Employment, Municipal Unions, and D em and fo r M unicipal Services. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 30 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1728.), $2, paper. Industry and government organization Brown, Anthony, “The Regulatory Policy Cycle and the Airline Deregulation Movement,” Social Science Quarterly, Septem ber 1985, pp. 552-63. Lissner, Will, “Free Competition by Free Enterprise,” American Journal o f Economics and Sociology, October 1985, p. 490. Sheehan, Michael F., “Plant Closings and the Community: The Instrumental Value of Public Enterprise in Countering Corpo rate Flight,” American Journal o f Economics and Sociology, October 1985, pp. 423-33. International economics Baily, Martin Neil and Alok K. Chakrabarti, “Innovation and U.S. Competitiveness,” The Brookings Review, Fall 1985, pp. 14-21. Bemholz, Peter, Manfred Gärtner, Erwin W. Heri, “Historical Experiences with Flexible Exchange Rates: A Simulation of Common Qualitative Characteristics” Journal o f Interna tional Economics, August 1985, pp. 21-45. Bernstein, Edward M., “The United States as an Interna tional Debtor Country,” The Brookings Review, Fall 1985, pp. 28-36. Domowitz, Ian and Craig S. Hakkio, “Conditional Variance and the Risk Premium in the Foreign Exchange Market,” Journal o f International Economics, August 1985, pp. 47-66. Edwards, Sebastian, Commodity Export Boom and the Real E x change Rate: The M oney-Inflation L ink. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 29 pp. ( n b e r Working Papers Series, 1741.) $2, paper. Ethier, Wilfred J ., “International Trade and Labor Migration,” The American Economic Review, September 1985, pp. 691-707. Frankel, Jeffrey A., International Capital M obility and Crowding Out in the U.S. Economy: Imperfect Integration o f Financial M arkets or o f Goods M arkets 1 Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 53 pp. Working Paper Series, 1773.) $2, paper. (n b e r Lawrence, Robert Z. and Robert E. Litan, “Living with the Trade Deficit: Adjustment Strategies to Preserve Free Trade,” The Brookings Review, Fall 1985, pp. 3-13. Lincoln, Edward J., “Disentangling the Mess in U.S.-Japan Economic Relations, The Brookings Review, Fall 1985, pp. 22-27. “The Debt Problem: Acute and Chronic Aspects,” Journal o f D e velopment Planning, No. 16, 1985, pp. 3-227. Venables, Anthony J., “Trade and Trade Policy with Imperfect Competition: The Case of Identical Products and Free Entry,” Journal o f International Economics, August 1985, pp. 1-19. Wijnbergen, Sweder Van, “Taxation of International Capital Flows, the Intertemporal Terms of Trade and the Real Price of Oil,” Oxford Economic Papers, September 1985, pp. 382-90. Labor force Antel, John J., “Costly Employment Contract Renegotiation and the Labor Mobility of Young Men,” The American Economic Review, December 1985, pp. 976-91. Burton, Daniel F., Jr. and others, eds., The Jobs Challenge: Pres sures and Possibilities. Cambridge, m a , Ballinger Publishing Co., 1986, 304 pp. Cook, Robert F., Charles F. Adams, Jr., V. Lane Rawlins and Associates, Public Service Employment: The Experience o f a Decade. Kalamazoo, Mi, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employ ment Research, 1985, 131 pp. Darby, Michael R., John Haltiwanger, Mark Plant, “Unemploy ment Rate Dynamics and Persistent Unemployment under Rational Expectations,” The American Economic Review, September 1985, pp. 614-37. “Job Growth, Flexibility and Security,” The tember 1985, pp. 3-8. “Migration: The Trends Converge,” The ber 1985, pp. 9-11. OECD OECD Observer, Sep Observer, Septem Owen, John D., Working Lives: The American Work Force Since 1920. Lexington, m a , D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1986, 218 pp., bibliography. $25. Pissarides, Christopher A., “Short-Run Equilibrium Dynamics of Unemployment, Vacancies, and Real Wages,” The American Economic Review, September 1985, pp. 676-90. Smith, Marvin M ., “Early Labor Market Experiences of Youth and Subsequent Wages,” American Journal o f Economics and Sociology, October 1985, pp. 391-400. Grinols, Earl L. “Trade, Distortions, and Welfare Under Uncertainty,” Oxford Economic Papers, September 1985, pp. 362-74. Swedish Ministry of Labour, EFA’s Research P rogram m e. Stock holm, Swedish Ministry of Labour, Delegation for Labour Market Policy Research, 1985, 31 pp. Hashimoto, Masanori and John Raisian, “Employment Tenure and Earnings Profiles in Japan and the United States,” The Am er ican Economic Review, September 1985, pp. 721-35. --------- On the Composition and Outcome o f Swedish Labour M ar ket Policy: 1970-1985. By Jan Johannesson. Stockholm, Swedish Ministry of Labour, Delegation of Labour Market Policy Research, 1985, 20 pp. Helpman, Elhanan and Assaf Razin, “Floating Exchange Rates with Liquidity Constraints in Financial Markets,” Journal o f International Economics, August 1985, pp. 99-117. Kawai, Masahiro, “Exchange Rates, the Current Account and Monetary Fiscal Policies in the Short Run and in the Long Run,” Oxford Economic Papers, September 1985, pp. 391-425. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “Women and Work—A Review of the Decade: Job Equality for Women; Progress, Problems and Perspectives,” by Hedva Sarfati; “Rural Women and Technical Change: Theory, Em pirical Analysis and Operational Projects,” by Iftikhar Ahmed; “The Role of the Soviet Woman in Decision-Making in Trade Union Committees and in Industry,” by Alexandra Biryukova; “From Drudgery to Dignity: The s e w a Experi47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Book Reviews ence,” by Lalita Krishnaswami; “The Position of Women in the Labour Market in Hong Kong: A Content Analysis of the Recruitment Advertisements,” by Suk-ching Ho, Labour and Society, September 1985, pp. 273-344. Wurzburg, Gregory, “Youth Joblessness in Australia: The Prob lem Behind the Problem,” The OECD Observer, September 1985, pp. 12-15. fice, 1985, 355 pp. Available in the U.S. from the Washing ton branch of il o . Welfare programs and social insurances Monetary and fiscal policy “Government Programs and the Poor—Two Views: Have the Poor Been ‘Losing Ground’?” by Charles Murray; “How the Wel fare System Promotes Economic Security,” by Sar A. Levi tan, Political Science Quarterly, Fall 1985, pp. 427-59. Canzoneri, Matthew B., “Monetary Policy Games and the Role of Private Information,” The American Economic Review, De cember 1985, pp. 1056-70. Ippolito, Richard A., “The Labor Contract and True Economic Pension Liabilities,” The American Economic Review, De cember 1985, pp. 1031-43. Slovak, Jeffrey S. “City Spending, Suburban Demands, and Fiscal Exploitation: A Replication and Extension,” Social Forces, September 1985, pp. 168-90. Leonard, Jonathan S., Labor Supply Incentives and Disincentives fo r the D isabled. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Eco nomic Research, Inc., 1985, 45 pp. (n b e r Working Paper Series, 1744.) $2, paper. Productivity and technological change Fernandez, John P., Child Care and Corporate Productivity: R e solving Family/Work Conflicts. Lexington, m a , D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1986, 222 pp., bibliography. $25. International Labour Office, Technological Change: The Tripar tite Response, 1982-85. Geneva, International Labour Of Lissner, Will, “The Debate Over Social Security,” American Jour nal o f Economics and Sociology, October 1985, p. 434. Ozawa, Martha N., “Social Security Reform in Japan,” Social Service Review, September 1985, pp. 476-95. Rank, Mark R., “Exiting from Welfare: A Life-Table Analysis,” Social Service Review, September 1985, pp. 358-76. □ A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Current Labor Statistics Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series......................................................................................... 50 Notes on Current Labor Statistics.................................................................................. si Comparative indicators 1. Labor market in d ica to rs............................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in wages, prices, and p r o d u c tiv ity ............................................................................................... 61 3. Alternative measures o f wage and com pensation changes ............................................................................................................................. 61 Labor force data 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Em ploym ent status o f the total population, data seasonally ad ju sted ........................................................................................................ Em ploym ent status o f the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................. Selected em ploym ent indicators, data seasonally a d ju ste d ............................................................................................................................. Selected unem ploym ent indicators, data seasonally a d ju sted ...................................................................................................., ................. Unem ploym ent rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................................... U nem ployed persons by reason for unem ploym ent, data seasonally a d ju ste d ........................................................................................ Duration o f unem ploym ent, data seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................................... Unem ploym ent rates o f civilian workers, by S ta te............................................................................................................................................. Em ploym ent o f workers by S ta te ............................................................................................................................................................................ Em ploym ent o f workers by industry, data seasonally a d ju s te d .................................................... Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally a d ju s te d ........................................................................................................................ Average hourly earnings by in d u stry ...................................................................................................................................................................... Average weekly earnings by in d ustry................................................. Hourly Earnings Index by in d u str y ........................................................................................................................................................................ Indexes o f diffusion: proportion o f industries in which em ploym ent increased, seasonally a d ju s te d .............................................. Annual data: Em ploym ent status o f the noninstitutional p o p u la tio n ........................................................................................................ Annual data: Em ploym ent levels by in d u stry...................................................................................................................................................... A nnual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry ......................................................................................................................... 62 63 64 65 66 66 66 67 67 68 69 70 71 71 72 72 72 73 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Em ploym ent C ost Index, com pensation, by occupation and industry g r o u p ........................................................................................... Em ploym ent C ost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p .................................................................................. Em ploym ent C ost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area siz e ....................................................... Specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents from contract settlem ents, and effective wage adjustm ents, situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ......... ................................................................................................................................................ Average specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents, bargaining situation covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ......................... Average effective wage adjustm ents, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................................. Specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents, State and local governm ent bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o re........................... .............................................................................................................................. W ork stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................................................................................................................ 74 75 76 77 77 78 78 78 Price data 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Consumer Price Index: U .S . City average, by expenditure category and com m odity and service g r o u p s........................................ Consumer Price Index: U .S . City average and local data, all it e m s ............................................................................................................. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major g r o u p s ............................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes by stage o f p rocessin g................................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f p r o d u c t ............................................................................................................................................. A nnual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage o f p r o c e ssin g ........................................................................................................................ U .S . export price indexes by Standard International Trade C la ssific a tio n ............................................................................................... U .S . import price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification ............................................................................................... U .S . export price indexes by end use c a t e g o r y ................................................................................................................................................... U .S . import price indexes by end use c a te g o r y ................................................................................................................................................... U .S . export price indexes by Standard Industrial C lassification ................................................................................................................. U .S . import price indexes by Standard Industrial C la ssific a tio n ................................................................................................................. 79 82 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 88 88 89 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics C ontents— Continued Productivity data 42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................................. 89 43. A nnual indexes o f m ultifactor p ro d u ctiv ity ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 44. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s ........................................................................................ 90 International comparisons 45. U nem ploym ent rates in nine countries, data seasonally ad ju sted ................................................................................................................. 91 46. Annual data: Em ploym ent status o f civilian working-age population, ten countries ........................................................................... 92 47. Annual indexes o f productivity and related m easures, twelve c o u n tr ie s.................................................................................................... 93 Injury and illness data 48. Annual data: occupational injury illness incidence ra tes................................................................................................................................. 94 Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series Series Employment situation ............................ Producer Price Index.............................. Consumer Price Index............................ Real earnings.......................................... Productivity and costs: Nonfarm business and manufacturing.................................... Release date March March March March 7 14 25 25 Period coverd February February February February Release date April April April April 4 11 22 22 April 24 Period covered March March March March Release date May May May May 2 16 21 21 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis April 25 April 29 MLR table number April April April April 1; 4-21 2; 33-35 2; 30-32 14-17 1st quarter 2; 42-44 1st quarter May 28 Major collective bargaining settlements .......................................... Employment Cost Index.......................... Period covered 1st quarter 1-3; 22-24 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section o f the Review presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force, employment, unemployment, collective bargaining settlements, consumer, producer, and international prices, productivity, international comparisons, and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each group o f tables is briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources of additional information are cited. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the Hourly Earnings Index in table 17— 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 o f $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 $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. General notes Additional information The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term evaluation o f the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. (Season ally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -3 , 4 -1 0 , 13, 14, and 18.) Beginning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the sea sonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X - l l a r im a , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X - 11 method previously used by BLS. A detailed description of the procedure appears in Th e x - l l arima S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d by Estla Bee Dagum (Statis tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, January 1983). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -1 0 were revised in the February 1986 issue of the R e v ie w to reflect experience through 1985 . Annual revisions o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 13, 14, and 18 were made in July 1985 using the x - l l a r im a seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in table 42 are usually introduced 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 c p i . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are avail able for this series. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau 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 preceding these general notes. More information about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , a monthly publication of the Bureau. More data from the household survey is published in the two-volume data book— L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d F ro m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u r v e y , Bul letin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appear in two data books— E m p lo y m e n t, H o u r s , a n d E a rn in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , and E m p lo y m e n t, H o u r s , a n d E a rn in g s , S ta te s a n d A r e a s , and the annual supplements to these data books. More detailed information on employee compensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodi cal, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, T h e cpi D e ta ile d R e p o r t, and P r o d u c e r P r ic e s a n d P r ic e I n d e x e s . Detailed data on all o f the series in this section are provided in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued cover ing productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w carries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment and unemployment; em ployee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; inter national comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, prelim inary figures are issued based on representative but incomplete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability o f later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified, n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified. COMPARATIVE INDICATORS (Tables 1-3) Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of major b ls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include employment measures from two majoi surveys and information on rates of change in compensation provided by the Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) program. The labor force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Survey are presented, while measures of employment and average weekly hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is chosen from a variety of b ls compensation and wage measures because it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among occupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are pre sented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensation and wages 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea sures. Notes on the data Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections of these notes describing each set of data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see bls Handbook o f Methods, Volumes I and II, Bulletins 2134-1 and 2134-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 and 1984, respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi cations noted in the separate sections of the Review's “Current Labor Statistics Notes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the Hand book o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Users may also wish to consult Major Programs, Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, Report 718 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). EMPLOYMENT DATA (Tables 1; 4-21) Household Survey Data Description of the series EMPLOYMENT DATA in this section are obtained from the Current Popula tion 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 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians 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. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed total. 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 overall unem ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of long-term 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, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional populaton that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil ity of historical data. 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 4 -10 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1985. Additional sources of information For detailed explanations of the data, see bls Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982) and for additional data, Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). A detailed description of the Current Population Survey as well as additional data are available in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings. Historical data from 1948 to 1982 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Popula tion Survey: A Databook, Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 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 surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. Establishment Survey Data Description of the series E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 200,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. Definitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type of economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker super visors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc tion; and for nonsupervisory workers in the following industries: trans portation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricutural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re ceive 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 reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical Workers ( c p i- w ). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average 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 low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May 1983 issue, represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an eco nomic indicator. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are peri odically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called “benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1985 data, published in the July 1985 issue of the R e v ie w . Conse quently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1983; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1980. These revisions were published in the S u p p le m e n t to E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Unadjusted data from April 1984 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1981 for ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. Additional sources of information Detailed data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the periodical, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in E m p lo y m e n t, H o u r s , a n d E a r n in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , 1 9 0 9 - 8 4 , Bulletin 1312-12 and its annual supplement (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). For a detailed discussion of the methodology of the survey, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2143-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). For additional data, see H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). 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 surveys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-20. bls Unemployment Data By State Description of the series Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the Current Population Survey ( cps ) and the Local Area Unemployment Statis tics ( l a u s ) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employ ment security agencies. Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local economic condi tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the CPS. Notes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States—California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas—are obtained directly from the CPS because the size of the sample is large enough to meet BLS standards of reliabil ity. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District of Columbia are derived us ing standardized procedures established by BLS. Once a year, estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the remaining States and the District of Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average CPS levels. Additional sources of information Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as addi tional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s , and the annual report, G e o g r a p h ic P r o file o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t (Bureau of Labor Statistics). See also bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA (Tables 22-29) C o m p e n s a t io n a n d w a g e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau from business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bar gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. Employment Cost Index Description of the series The Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) is a quarterly measure of the rate of change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and employer costs of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted. Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 2,200 private nonfarm establishments providing about 12,000 occupational ob servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing 53 i MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 . Current Labor Statistics 3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensa tion information on five well-specified occupations. Data are collected each quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, Septem ber, and December. Fixed employment weights from the 1970 Census of Population are used each quarter to calculate the indexes for civilian, private, and State and local governments. These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these in dexes reflect only changes in compensation, not employment shifts among industries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1970 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggre gate, industry, and occupation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer costs for employee benefits. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, in cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments. Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as social security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips. (wages and benefits costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private industry and semiannually for State and local government. Compensation measures cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000 workers or more and wage measures cover all situations involving 1,000 workers or more. These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local governments, are calculated using information obtained from bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and second ary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments: those that will occur within 12 months after contract ratification— first year— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the contract expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted. Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered by future movements in the Consumer Price Index. Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. Included are changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from con tracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjust ment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period yielding the average adjustment. Definitions The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in cluded in 1980 to produce, when combined with the wages and salaries series, a measure of the percent change in employer costs for employee total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the c iv ilia n nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in dexes (June 1981 —100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the May issue of the b ls monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages by the average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, at the time the agree ment is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost of previ ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of settle ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated changes and not of total changes in employer cost. Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding of successive changes. Additional sources of information Notes on the data For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see Chapter 11, “The Employment Cost Index,” in the H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), and the following M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: “Employment Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July 1975; “How benefits will be incorpo rated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; “Estimation proce dures for the Employment Cost Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index,” June 1985. Data on the e c i are also available in b ls quarterly press releases issued in the month following the reference months of March, June, September, and December; and from the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature of the settle ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because of differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local government settlements but cover 50 percent of workers under private sector settlements. Agreements without c o l a ’ s tend to provide larger speci fied wage increases than those with c o l a ’ s . Another difference is that State and local government bargaining frequently excludes pension benefits which are often prescribed by law. In the private sector, in contrast, pensions are typically a bargaining issue. Notes on the data Collective bargaining settlements Additional sources of information Description of the series Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis For a more detailed discussion on the series, see chapter 10, “Negotiated Wage and Benefit Changes,” of the bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2134-1. Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quar terly (in January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi- annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the BLS monthly periodical, Current Wage monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments . Historical data appear in the bls Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Other compensation data Developments. Work stoppages Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of time lost because o f stoppage. Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or second ary effect o f stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack of service. Definitions Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number of work days lost by workers involved in the stoppages: Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate work days lost as a percent of the aggregate number o f standard work days in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. Notes on the data This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes involving six workers or more. Additional sources of information Data for each calendar year are reported in a b l s press release issued in the first quarter o f the following year. Monthly data appear in the b l s Other BLS data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor Statistics section of the Monthly Labor Review, appear in and consist o f the following: Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries o f the data and special analyses also appear in the Monthly Labor Review. Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical, professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety o f indus tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries o f the data and special analyses also appear in the Review. The National Survey o f Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay provides detailed information annually on salary levels and distributions for the types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com parability Act o f 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5 3 0 5 .) Data are published in a b l s news release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and analytical articles also appear in the Review. Employee Benefits Survey provides nationwide information on the inci dence and characteristics o f employee benefit plans in medium and large establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are published in an annual b l s news release and bulletin, as well as in special articles appearing in the Review. PRICE DATA (Tables 30-41) PRICE DATA 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). Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consumer Price Index ( c p i ) is a measure of the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and services. The c p i is calculated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only o f urban households whose primary source of income is derived from the employment o f wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting o f all urban households. The wage earner index ( c p i - w ) is a continuation o f the historic index that was introduced well over a halfcentury ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the c p i in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index became apparent. The all urban consumer index ( c p i - u ) introduced in 1978 is representative o f the 1972-73 buying habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, compared with 40 percent represented in the c p i - w . In addition to wage earners and clerical https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis w o r k e r s , th e c p i- u c o v e r s p r o f e s s io n a l, m a n a g e r ia l, a n d t e c h n ic a l w o r k e r s , th e s e lf - e m p lo y e d , sh o r t-te r m w o r k e r s , th e u n e m p lo y e d , r e tir e e s , a n d o t h e r s n o t in t h e l a b o r f o r c e . The c p i is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality o f these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use o f items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U .S. city average.” Separate estimates for 28 major urban centers are presented in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level of prices among cities. Notes on the data In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are measured for the c p i - u . A rental equivalence method replaced the 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the c p i - w . The central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost of shelter services provided by owner-occupied homes. Additional sources of information For a discussion o f the general method for computing the c p i, see manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. bls Handbook o f Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price Index, Bulletin 21 3 4 -2 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, April 1984). The recent change in the measurement o f homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the c p i , ” Monthly Labor Review, June 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . Additional detailed c p i data and regular analyses of consumer price changes are provided in the cpi Detailed Report, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall c p i and for selected groupings may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, June 1985). Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices re ceived in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodi ties in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 60,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of proc essing structure o f Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of p p i organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day o f the month. Since January 1976, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number o f special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. ( p p i) Notes on the data Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the Review is no longer present ing tables o f Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings, special composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will continue to be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication Producer Price Indexes. Series on the net output of major mining and manufacturing industry groups will appear in the Review starting with data for July 1986. The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive overhaul o f the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic coverage o f the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In dexes, see bls Handbook o f Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 1985). International Price Indexes Description of the series Description of the series Producer Price Indexes Additional sources of information The b l s International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza tions to be U .S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased from other countries by U .S. residents. With publication of an all-import index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U .S. merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U .S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U .S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June, September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U .S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System ( s i t c ) . The calcula tion of indexes by s i t c category facilitates the comparison of U .S. price trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classifi cation (sic-based) basis, as well as by end-use class. Notes on the data The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes o f the Laspeyeres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each weight category and are then aggregated to the s i t c level. The values assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled by the Bureau of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1980. Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica tions or terms of transaction have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys ical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms, packaging, class o f buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar value o f each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is employed which allows for the continued repricing of the item. For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U .S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U .S. port of impor tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the product to the U .S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see bls Handbook o f Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 8. Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles prepared by b l s analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 1985). PRODUCTIVITY DATA (Tables 42-47) U. S. productivity and related data Description of the series The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As such they encompass a family of measures which include single factor input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or output per unit o f capital input, as well as measures of multifactor productivity (output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust ments per unit of output. Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock o f physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data Definitions Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the impact o f these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries o f em ployees plus em ployers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-em ployed (except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no self-em ployed)— the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compen sation per hour is com pensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consum er Price Index for A ll Urban Consum ers. Unit labor costs is the labor compensation costs expended in the produc tion o f a unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and indi rect taxes per unit o f output. They are computed by subtracting compensa tion o f all persons from current dollar value o f output and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Output measures for the business sector and the nonfarm businesss sector exclude the constant dollar value of owner-occupied housing, rest o f world, households and institutions, and general government output from the con stant dollar value of gross national product. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti mates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau o f Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 4 describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect o f many influ ences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level o f output; utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f produc tion; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. Additional sources of information Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement o f output per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the BLS Handbook o f Meth ods , Bulletin 2134, Vol. 1, Chapter 13 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). Historical data for selected industries are provided in the Bureau’s Hand book o f Labor Statistics , Bulletin 2217, 1985. 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics International comparisons the United Kingdom). Self-employed workers are included in the U .S. and Canadian figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. Description of the series Comparative measures of labor force, employment, and unemployment' (tables 45 and 46) are prepared regularly for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Unemployment rates, approximating U .S. concepts, are pre pared monthly for most of the countries; the other measures, annually. The Bureau o f Labor Statistics also prepares international comparisons o f manufacturing labor productivity and labor costs (table 47) that cover the United States and 11 foreign countries— those listed above plus Belgium and Norway. These measures are limited to trend comparisons; that is, intercountry series o f changes over time, rather than level comparisons because reliable international comparisons o f the levels of manufacturing are unavailable. The U .S. measures are described in the notes on U.S. productivity measurement; the measures for foreign countries are compiled from various national and international data sources. Definitions Output measures are constant value output (value added) from the national accounts o f each country, except for those for Japan prior to 1970 and for the Netherlands for 1969 forward, which are indexes of industrial production. The national accounting methods for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12 countries, but the use of different proce dures does not, in itself, connote lack of comparability— rather, it reflects differences among countries in the availability and reliability of underlying data series. Hours and compensation measures refer to all employed persons in cluding the self-employed in the United States and Canada, and to all wage and salary employees in the other countries. Hours refer to hours paid in the United States, hours worked in the other countries. Compensation (labor costs) includes not only all payments made directly to employees and employer expenditures for social insurance and private benefit plans, but changes in significant employment or payroll taxes that are not compen sation to employees but are labor costs to employers (France, Sweden, and Notes on the data The data for the foreign countries in tables 45 and 46 have been adjusted, where necessary, for greater comparability with U .S. definitions of em ployment and unemployment. The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the civilian population age 16 and over in the United States, France, and Sweden, and from 1973 onward, Great Britain; 15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands; and 14 and over in Italy. Prior to 1973, the data for Great Britain related to persons age 15 and over. The institutional population is included in the denominator o f the labor force participation rates and employmentpopulation rates for Japan and Germany. For most of the countries in table 47, the measures refer to total manu facturing as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification. However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1976) refer to manufacturing and mining less energy-related products. For all countries, manufacturing includes the activities of government enterprises. In addition, for all countries, preliminary estimates for recent years are generally based on current indicators of manufacturing output, employment and hours, and hourly compensation until national accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become available. Additional sources of information For further information, see International Comparisons o f Unemploy m ent , Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B and Supplements to Appendix B. Additional detail is also found in the b ls Handbook o f M ethods , Bulletin 2134, Vol. 1, Chapter 16. Additional international comparison statistics are available in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics ( b l s Bulletin 2217, 1985). The most recent statistics are pre sented and analyzed annually in the Monthly Labor Review , typically in the December issue (for the previous year) and in February. OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA (Table 48) Description of the series The Annual Survey o f Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the data must meet the needs o f participating State agencies, an independent sample is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all private industries in the States and territories. The sample size for the survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which estimates are needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired; (3) the charac teristics o f the population being sampled; (4) the target reliability of the estimates; and (5) the survey design employed. While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of the most important characteristics and the least variable; therefore, it re quires the smallest sample size. The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman Digitized for 58 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size of employment. Definitions Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regardless of the time between injury and death, or the length o f the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occupational injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu tation, etc., which results from a work accident or from exposure involving a single incident in the work environment. Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environ mental factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges tion, or direct contact. Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or days o f restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays (consec utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not because o f occupational injury or illness. Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the em ployee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the em ployee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties normally connected with it. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. M ining and railroad data are furnished to b l s by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, respec tively. Data from these organizations are included in b l s and State publica tions. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local government employees are collected by about half of the States and territo ries; these data are not compiled nationally. on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost Additional sources of information workdays per 100 full-time workers. The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information describ ing various factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses. These data are obtained from information reported by employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam ines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses on the circumstances surrounding the injury. These data are not included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics but are available from the b l s Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970 . For additional data, see Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry , annual Bureau of Labor Statis tics bulletin; b l s Handbook o f Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), ch. 17; Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor Review; and annual U .S. Department of Labor press re Notes on the data Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases and the number of days lost are made for both categories. Most o f the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number o f injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time em ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available measures are included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics . Full detail is presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry. Comparable data for individual States are available from the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis bls Office leases. 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators 1984 Selected indicators 1984 1985 1985 I II III IV I II III IV Employment data Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey )1 Labor Force participation r a te ............................................................. Employment-population r a tio ............................................................... Unemployment rate .............................................................................. M e n ....................................................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Women ................................................................................................. 16 to 24 years .................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o v e r ....................................... 64.4 64.8 64.1 64.5 64.4 64.5 64.8 64.7 64.7 59.5 60.1 59.0 59.6 59.7 59.8 60.1 60.0 60.1 7.5 7.4 14.4 5.7 7.6 13.3 7.9 7.9 15.0 7.5 7.4 14.3 5.7 7.6 7.4 7.3 14.5 5.5 7.6 7.2 7.1 13.8 5.4 7.5 7.3 7.1 14.1 5.4 7.6 7.3 7.1 14.2 5.4 7.5 7.2 7.0 14.0 5.3 7.4 6.0 7.2 7.0 14.1 5.3 7.4 13.0 5.9 5.9 2.0 2.7 5.9 2.5 6.0 2.4 2.3 2.1 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5.5 1.9 Total ........................................................................................................... Private se cto r.................................................................................. G oods-producing.................................................................................... Manufacturing ...................................................................................... Service-producing .................................................................................. 94,461 78,477 24,730 19,412 69,731 97,698 81,403 25,056 19,426 72,642 91,804 75,932 23,938 18,885 67,866 94,013 78,082 24,680 19,394 69,333 94,915 78,898 24,861 19,509 70,055 95,849 79,745 24,973 19,564 70,876 96,640 80,522 25,077 19,564 71,563 97,338 81,143 25,055 19,430 72,283 97,967 81,588 24,986 19,331 72,981 98,810 82,316 25,095 19,383 73,715 Average hours Private sector ......................................................................................... Manufacturing ................................................................................... O vertim e........................................................................................... 35.3 40.7 35.1 40.5 6.1 7.9 - - 6.1 - - - - 64.9 60.4 7.0 6.9 14.0 5.2 7.2 - 5.9 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data ):1 4 - - - - - •- - 35.1 40.8 3.5 - - 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 - - 1.2 1.3 .7 1.6 - 1.7 1.7 1.3 - 1.2 .8 1.3 - 1.6 .8 .9 1.3 - 1.1 1.5 .7 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.0 .2 .6 1.8 3.4 .6 1.0 .8 .5 1.4 .6 Employment Cost Index Percent change in the ECI, compensation :2 All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ...... Private industry workers ..................................................................... Goods-producing 3 ............................................................................ Servicing-producing 3 ....................................................................... State and local government w o rk e rs ................................................ - - 1.9 .8 .9 .9 1.0 - - 1.6 .4 .7 3.5 Workers by bargaining status (private industry) U n io n ...................................................................................................... Nonunion ............................................................................................... - - 1.5 1.1 .7 “ 1.8 .9 1.0 .7 “ .9 1.3 1.6 1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes calculated using the last month of each quarter. 3 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. aervice- 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.0 producing industries include all other private sector industries. - Data not available. 4 Data for 1985 and 4th quarter 1985 are preliminary. .6 .6 .6 .5 .7 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1985 1984 Selected measures 1984 1985 IV III II I IV III II I Compensation data: 1, 2 Employment Cost Index-Compensation (wages, salaries, benefits) 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.6 _ 1.7 1.7 0.8 _ .9 .8 1.3 1.2 .8 1.3 0.6 .6 1.3 .9 .8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 .9 _ 1.2 1.2 .8 _ 1.1 1.7 1.3 .6 .6 - - Employment Cost Index-W ages and Salaries Price data1 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s ...... - - - - - - - - Producer Price Index _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Productivity data Output per hour of all persons: 2.1 1.6 2.1 .2 -2 -1 5.1 3.6 4.7 1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3. 2.5 -.8 2.2 2.1 -1.3 -2.3 .8 .2 -.2 1.0 1.0 .1 -.3 -1.3 -1.1 -3.1 -3.1 1.6 .4 2.8 - 3 Output per hour of all employees, - Data not available. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Four quarters ended in - Quarterly average Components Average hourly compensation :1 All persons, business s e c to r................................................. All employees, nonfarm business s e c to r........................... Hourly earnings Index :2 All private nonfarm .................................................................. Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 3 ................................................................... Private nonfarm ................................................................... U n io n ................................................................................... N onunion............................................................................ State and local governm ents............................................. Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm 3 .................................................................... Private nonfarm ................................................................... U n io n ................................................................................... N onunion............................................................................. State and local governments ............................................. Total effective wage adjustments 4 ............................................. From current settle m en ts...................................................... From prior se ttle m e n ts .......................................................... From cost-of-living provision................................................. Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements 4 First-year adju stm ents........................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t......................................... Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements :1 First-year a d ju s tm e n t............................................................. Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t......................................... 1 2 3 4 III - - - .3 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.6 .8 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.6 .6 .7 .9 .5 1.1 .7 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.2 .8 .6 1.0 .2 .3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 .9 1.3 .7 1.4 .8 .7 .8 .9 1.1 1.1 1.1 .2 .8 .2 .4 .8 .2 .2 .7 .3 .7 .3 .2 .2 1.0 .8 .1 .6 .1 .1 .6 2.3 1.5 3.3 3.2 .7 3.7 1.1 2.0 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.4 II III IV - - - - 4.8 4.4 3.5 4.9 6.3 4.6 4.2 3.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 3.2 5.4 4.3 3.9 6.1 6.0 4.6 5.7 4.4 4.1 3.0 4.6 5.6 3.6 .7 5.0 4.8 3.6 5.4 5.6 3.5 .9 4.4 4.1 3.1 4.6 5.6 3.3 .7 1.8 .8 1.8 .8 I III IV - - 5.2 4.9 4.3 5.2 - - Seasonally adjusted. Production or nonsupervisory workers. Excludes Federal and household workers. Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IV II I IV 1985 1984 1985 1984 .8 .5 1.4 3.4 .6 5.1 4.8 4.1 5.2 .7 6.6 6.6 1.7 1.3 .9 1.5 3.5 .6 .6 .5 4.3 4.1 3.3 4.5 5.8 4.2 4.5 4.1 3.4 4.5 5.9 3.7 1.0 2.1 1.2 .8 2.0 .9 .7 4.5 4.3 3.4 4.8 5.5 3.5 .9 1.9 .7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.7 3.6 3.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 2.7 - 2.8 .5 .6 .8 .5 1.2 .2 .6 .1 .4 .2 .2 .1 2.5 2.0 2.1 3.2 2.8 3.1 1.9 2.8 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.4 4.2 3.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 most recent data are preliminary. 5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. - Data not available. 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 4. • Current Labor Statistics Employment Data Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Number in thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Employment status 1984 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 178,080 115,241 64.7 106,702 179,912 117,167 65.1 108,856 179,081 116,451 65.0 108,012 179,219 116,685 65.1 108,290 179,368 117,036 65.2 108,652 179,501 116,958 65.2 108,574 179,649 117,044 65.2 108,644 179,798 116,726 64.9 108,303 179,967 116,976 65.0 108,575 180,131 117,069 65.0 108,936 180,304 117,522 65.2 109,251 180,470 117,814 65.3 109,513 180,642 117,832 65.2 109,671 180,810 117,927 65.2 109,904 181,361 118,477 65.3 110,646 59.9 1,697 105,005 3,321 101,685 8,539 7.4 62,839 60.5 1,706 107,150 3,179 103,971 8,312 7.1 62,744 60.3 1,697 106,315 3,319 102,996 8,439 7.2 62,630 60.4 1,703 106,587 3,325 103,262 8,395 7.2 62,534 60.6 1,701 106,951 3,314 103,637 8,384 7.2 62,332 60.5 1,702 106,872 3,353 103,519 8,384 7.2 62,543 60.5 1,705 106,939 3,284 103,655 8,400 7.2 62,605 60.2 1,702 106,601 3,140 103,461 8,423 7.2 63,072 60.3 1,704 106,871 3,120 103,751 8,401 7.2 62,991 60.5 1,726 107,210 3,095 104,115 8,133 6.9 63,062 60.6 1,732 107,519 3,017 104,502 8,271 7.0 62,782 60.7 1,700 107,813 3,058 104,755 8,301 7.0 62,656 60.7 1,702 107,969 3,070 104,899 8,161 6.9 62,810 60.8 1,698 108,206 3,151 105,055 8,023 61.0 1,691 108,955 3,299 105,655 7,831 6.8 6.6 62,883 62,885 85,156 65,386 76.8 60,642 86,025 65,967 76.7 61,447 85,629 65,737 76.8 61,163 85,692 65,782 76.8 61,207 85,764 65,898 76.8 61,381 85,827 65,929 76.8 61,373 85,898 85,970 65,808 76.5 61,175 86,052 65,884 76.6 61,273 86,132 65,945 76.6 61,510 86,217 66,074 76.6 61,629 86,293 66,227 76.7 61,656 86,374 66,176 76.6 61,731 86,459 66,139 76.5 61,793 86,882 66,679 76.7 62,458 71.2 1,551 59,091 4,744 7.3 71.4 1,556 59,891 4,521 6.9 71.4 1,549 59,614 4,574 7.0 71.4 1,554 59,653 4,575 7.0 71.6 1,553 59,828 4,517 6.9 71.5 1,553 59,820 4,556 6.9 71.6 1,556 59,942 4,514 71.2 1,554 59,719 4,611 7.0 71.4 1,574 59,936 4,435 6.7 71.5 1,580 60,049 4,445 6.7 71.4 1,551 60,105 4,571 6.9 71.5 1,552 60,179 4,445 6.7 71.5 1,549 60,244 4,346 6.8 71.2 1,552 59,623 4,633 7.0 6.6 71.9 1,539 60,919 4,221 6.3 92,924 49,855 53.7 46,061 93,886 51,200 54.5 47,409 93,452 50,714 54.3 46,849 93,527 50,903 54.4 47,083 93,603 51,138 54.6 47,271 93,674 51,029 54.5 47,201 93,751 51,032 54.4 47,146 93,828 50,918 54.3 47,128 93,915 51,092 54.4 47,302 93,999 51,124 54.4 47,426 94,087 51,448 54.7 47,622 94,177 51,587 54.8 47,857 94,266 51,655 54.8 47,939 94,351 51,788 54.9 48,111 94,479 51,797 54.8 48,187 49.6 146 45,915 3,794 7.6 50.5 150 47,259 3,791 7.4 50.1 148 46,701 3,865 7.6 50.3 149 46,934 3,820 7.5 50.5 148 47,123 3,867 7.6 50.4 149 47,052 3,828 7.5 50.3 149 46,997 3,886 7.6 50.2 150 46,978 3,790 7.4 50.4 150 47,152 3,790 7.4 50.5 152 47,274 3,698 7.2 50.6 152 47,470 3,826 7.4 50.8 149 47,708 3,730 7.2 50.9 149 47,790 3,716 7.2 51.0 149 47,962 3,677 7.1 51.0 152 48,035 3,610 7.0 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. TOTAL Noninstitutional population \ 2 ....... Labor force 2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces ’ ....... Civilian employed ...................... Agriculture ............................... Nonagricultural industries..... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ Not in labor force ........................... Men, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population 2 ....... Labor force 2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... U nem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ 66,012 76.8 61,498 Women, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population ', 2 ....... Labor force 2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 ........................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ 1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. 2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (Including Forces). the resident Armed 5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1986 1985 Annual average Employment status Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1984 1985 176,383 113,544 64.4 105,005 178,206 115,461 64.8 107,150 177,384 114,754 64.7 106,315 177,516 114,982 64.8 106,587 177,667 115,335 64.9 106,951 177,799 115,256 64.8 106,872 177,944 115,339 64.8 106,939 178,096 115,024 64.6 106,601 178,263 115,272 64.7 106,871 178,405 115,343 64.7 107,210 178,572 115,790 64.8 107,519 178,770 116,114 65.0 107,813 178,940 116,130 64.9 107,969 179,112 116,229 64.9 108,206 179,670 116,786 65.0 108,955 59.5 8,539 7.5 62,839 60.1 8,312 7.2 62,744 59.9 8,439 7.4 62,630 60.0 8,395 7.3 62,534 60.2 8,384 7.3 62,332 60.1 8,384 7.3 62,543 60.1 8,400 7.3 62,605 59.9 8,423 7.3 63,072 60.0 8,401 7.3 62,991 60.1 8,133 7.1 63,062 60.2 8,271 7.1 62,782 60.3 8,301 7.1 62,656 60.3 8,161 7.0 62,810 60.4 8,023 6.9 62,883 60.6 7,831 6.7 62,885 76,219 59,701 78.3 55,769 77,195 60,277 78.1 56,562 76,760 59,997 78.2 56,231 76,829 60,037 78.1 56,274 76,904 60,154 78.2 56,411 76,988 60,165 78.1 56,390 77,068 60,240 78.2 56,544 77,135 60,246 78.1 56,384 77,243 60,158 77.9 56,403 77,306 60,269 78.0 56,636 77,389 60,407 78.1 56,751 77,498 60,526 78.1 56,849 77,566 60,553 78.1 56,897 77,651 60,548 78.0 56,982 78,101 61,212 78.4 57,706 73.2 2,418 53,351 3,932 73.3 2,278 54,284 3,715 73.2 2,368 53,906 3,763 6.3 73.4 2,329 54,082 3,743 73.4 2,352 54,192 3,696 73.3 2,231 54,405 3,633 73.3 2,171 54,580 3,656 73.4 2,188 54,661 3,677 73.4 54,687 3,656 6.1 73.1 2,260 54,124 3,862 6.4 73.0 2,230 54,173 3,755 6.2 73.2 2,358 54,032 3,775 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.0 73.4 2,278 54,704 3,566 5.9 73.9 2,349 55,356 3,507 5.7 TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ploye d...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... U nem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Not In labor force ........................... Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... 6.6 6.2 73.3 2,409 53,822 3,766 6.3 85,429 45,900 53.7 42,793 86,506 47,283 54.7 44,154 86,015 46,753 54.4 43,593 86,086 46,853 54.4 43,713 86,181 47,095 54.6 43,927 86,274 47,103 54.6 43,925 86,380 47,082 54.5 43,883 86,477 47,185 54.6 44,033 86,575 47,190 54.5 44,070 86,652 47,340 54.6 44,197 86,727 47,558 54.8 44,363 86,810 47,663 54.9 44,609 86,901 47,713 54.9 44,656 86,988 47,870 55.0 44,882 87,112 47,895 55.0 44,980 50.1 595 42,198 3,107 51.0 596 43,558 3,129 50.7 593 43,000 3,160 6.6 51.4 609 44,000 3,054 6.4 51.4 591 44,065 3,057 6.4 51.6 696 44,284 2,915 6.6 51.2 557 43,806 3,195 6.7 51.6 597 44,285 2,988 6.8 50.9 572 43,461 3,152 6.7 51.0 581 43,616 3,143 6.8 50.9 633 43,292 3,178 6.7 50.9 596 43,474 3,120 6.6 51.0 630 43,297 3,168 6.7 50.8 600 43,283 3,199 6.8 50.8 606 43,107 3,140 6.7 6.2 6.1 14,735 7,943 53.9 6,444 14,506 7,901 54.5 6,434 14,610 8,004 54.8 6,491 14,600 8,092 55.4 6,600 14,582 8,086 55.5 6,613 14,538 7,988 54.9 6,557 14,496 8,017 55.3 6,512 14,483 7,593 52.4 6,184 14,445 7,924 54.9 6,398 14,448 7,734 53.5 6,377 14,456 7,825 54.1 6,405 14,463 7,925 54.8 6,355 14,472 7,864 54.3 6,416 14,474 7,811 54.0 6,342 14,458 7,678 53.1 6,269 43.7 309 6,135 1,499 18.9 44.4 305 6,129 1,468 18.6 44.4 317 6,174 1,513 18.9 45.2 351 6,249 1,492 18.4 45.4 355 6,258 1,473 18.2 45.1 362 6,195 1,431 17.9 44.9 332 6,180 1,505 18.8 42.7 308 5,876 1,409 18.6 44.3 294 6,104 1,526 19.3 44.1 283 6,094 1,357 17.5 44.3 289 6,116 1,420 18.1 43.9 261 6,094 1,570 19.8 44.3 269 6,147 1,448 18.4 43.8 276 6,066 1,469 18.8 43.4 254 6,015 1,409 18.4 152,347 98,492 64.6 92,120 153,679 99,926 65.0 93,736 153,103 99,358 64.9 93,040 153,191 99,612 65.0 93,414 153,296 99,862 65.1 93,617 153,388 99,718 65.0 93,470 153,489 99,771 65.0 93,574 153,597 99,527 64.8 93,132 153,717 99,705 64.9 93,378 153,819 99,817 64.9 93,684 153,938 100,179 65.1 94,055 154,082 100,533 65.2 94,369 154,203 100,478 65.2 94,507 154,327 100,533 65.1 94,585 154,784 100,961 65.2 95,165 60.5 6,372 6.5 61.0 6,191 61.0 6,198 60.9 6,248 6.3 60.7 6,327 6.3 61.1 6,124 61.2 6,164 6.2 60.6 6,395 6.4 60.9 6,133 6.2 61.1 6,245 6.3 61.0 6,197 6.2 60.8 6,318 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 61.3 5,971 5.9 61.3 5,948 5.9 61.5 5,796 5.7 19,348 12,033 62.2 10,119 19,664 12,364 62.9 10,501 19,518 12,305 63.0 10,451 19,542 12,299 62.9 10,333 19,569 12,294 62.8 10,422 19,594 12,364 63.1 10,489 19,620 12,372 63.1 10,466 19,646 12,317 62.7 10,538 19,675 12,354 62.8 10,499 19,700 12,289 62.4 10,560 19,728 12,378 62.7 10,500 19,761 12,412 62.8 10,566 19,790 12,457 62.9 10,518 19,819 12,522 63.2 10,657 19,837 12,548 63.3 10,737 52.3 1,914 15.9 53.4 1,864 15.1 53.5 1,854 15.1 52.9 1,966 16.0 53.3 1,872 15.2 53.5 1,875 15.2 53.3 1,906 15.4 53.6 1,779 14.4 53.4 1,855 15.0 53.6 1,729 14.1 53.2 1,878 15.2 53.5 1,846 14.9 53.1 1,939 15.6 53.8 1,865 14.9 54.1 1,810 14.4 2,210 Women, 20 years ond over Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ploye d...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... White Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment ra te ................ Black Civilian noninstitutional population 1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... U nem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Em ploym ent Data 5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Employment status 1984 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 11,478 7,451 64.9 6,651 11,915 7,698 64.6 11,716 7,506 64.1 6,713 11,753 7,591 64.6 6,832 11,789 7,621 64.6 6,838 11,826 7,607 64.3 6,814 11,862 7,616 64.2 6,806 11,897 7,669 64.5 6,856 11,933 7,713 64.6 6,870 11,969 7,781 65.0 6,973 12,004 7,844 65.3 7,026 12,040 7,854 65.2 6,982 12,075 7,782 64.4 6,953 12,111 12,148 7,787 64.1 6,998 57.9 800 10.7 57.8 811 10.5 57.3 793 58.1 759 57.6 793 10.4 57.6 813 10.6 10.6 57.6 843 10.9 58.3 808 10.4 58.5 818 10.4 58.0 872 10.0 58.0 783 10.3 57.4 810 10.6 57.6 829 10.7 57.5 810 10.4 Hispanic origin 3 Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ploye d...................................... Employment-population ratio 2 ....................................... U nem ployed.................................. Unemployment ra te ................ 6,888 1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. 3 Data for 1980-85 have been revised to reflect new population estimates. 6. 11.1 7,772 64.2 6,962 57.6 789 10.1 NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the “ other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Selected categories 1984 1985 105,005 59,091 45,915 39,056 107,150 59,891 47,259 39,248 25,636 5,465 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 106,315 59,614 46,701 39,402 106,587 59,653 46,934 39,324 106,951 59,828 47,123 39,467 106,872 59,820 47,052 39,362 106,939 59,942 46,997 39,260 106,601 59,623 46,978 38,966 106,871 59,719 47,152 39,096 107,210 59,936 47,274 39,142 107,519 60,049 47,470 39,103 107,813 60,105 47,708 39,272 107,969 60,179 47,790 39,314 108,206 60,244 47,962 39,278 108,955 60,919 48,035 39,615 26,336 5,597 25,970 5,567 26,079 5,533 26,163 5,600 26,087 5,603 26,036 5,626 26,174 5,643 26,316 5,607 26,392 5,627 26,531 5,556 26,702 5,514 26,721 5,605 26,804 5,693 26,958 5,702 1,555 1,553 213 1,535 1,458 185 1,598 1,523 222 1,597 1,508 229 1,596 1,502 223 1,653 1,493 219 1,582 1,498 196 1,530 1,451 159 1,479 1,474 170 1,456 1,444 176 1,438 1,414 179 1,465 1,436 172 1,537 1,361 158 1,572 1,409 164 1,673 1,492 163 93,565 15,770 77,794 1,238 76,556 7,785 335 95,871 16,031 79,841 1,249 78,592 7,811 289 95,086 15,820 79,266 1,364 77,902 7,753 336 95,235 15,957 79,278 1,288 77,990 7,694 336 95,606 15,969 79,637 1,225 78,412 7,764 321 95,493 15,955 79,538 1,218 78,320 7,717 305 95,660 15,936 79,724 1,255 78,469 7,711 290 95,391 16,000 79,391 1,228 78,163 7,728 292 95,523 15,949 79,574 1,251 78,323 7,724 277 95,791 16,075 79,716 1,295 78,421 7,874 303 96,546 16,145 80,401 1,266 79,135 7,846 266 96,530 16,213 80,317 1,271 79,046 7,991 248 96,676 16,157 80,519 1,197 79,322 8,013 249 96,921 16,194 80,727 1,131 79,596 7,903 250 97,911 16,418 81,494 1,256 80,238 7,655 273 5,744 2,430 2,948 13,169 5,590 2,430 2,819 13,489 5,638 2,473 2,830 13,343 5,356 2,244 2,817 13,524 5,682 2,585 2,763 13,517 5,690 2,567 2,767 13,356 5,876 2,607 2,871 13,078 5,544 2,524 2,751 13,439 5,596 2,414 2,766 13,634 5,680 2,480 2,835 13,622 5,554 2,433 2,815 13,496 5,475 2,251 2,897 13,713 5,498 2,306 2,883 13,645 5,494 2,303 2,864 13,556 5,543 2,364 2,883 13,958 5,512 2,291 5,334 2,273 2,730 13,038 5,392 2,320 2,735 12,859 5,098 2,073 2,732 13,057 5,421 2,397 2,670 13,016 5,402 2,380 2,679 12,926 5,550 2,418 2,785 12,612 5,278 2,334 2,675 12,995 5,328 2,251 5,413 2,319 2,740 13,179 5,299 2,292 2,730 13,053 5,241 2,115 2,801 13,277 5,295 2,196 2,784 13,194 5,294 2,195 2,760 13,122 5,275 2,208 2,776 13,441 Jan. CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and o v e r .................................................. M e n ............................................... W o m e n ........................................ Married men, spouse present .. Married women, spouse p re s e n t....................................... Women who maintain families . MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary w o rk e rs ........ Self-employed w o rke rs ............. Unpaid family w o rk e rs ............... Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ........ Government ............................. Private indu stries..................... Private households............... O th e r ...................................... Self-employed w o rk e rs ............. Unpaid family w o rk e rs .............. PERSONS AT WORK PART TIM E1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work .................................. Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ....................... Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work .................................. Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ....................... 2,866 12,704 1 Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2,686 13,235 7. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) 1986 1985 Annual average Selected categories 1984 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Total, all civilian w o rke rs............................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs................................... Men, 20 years and o v e r ........................................ Women, 20 years and o v e r................................... 7.5 18.9 7.2 18.6 7.1 17.5 7.1 18.1 7.1 19.8 7.0 18.4 6.2 6.6 6.0 6.6 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.9 18.8 5.9 6.7 18.4 577 6.7 7.3 18.6 6.4 6.7 7.3 19.3 6.8 7.3 17.9 6.3 6.7 7.3 18.8 6.2 6.6 7.3 18.4 6.3 6.7 7.3 18.2 6.6 6.8 7.4 18.9 6.3 6.7 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.1 White, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r................................ 6.5 16.0 16.8 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.4 15.7 16.1 15.3 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.3 15.2 15.7 14.5 5.4 5.8 6.3 16.1 17.1 15.0 5.6 5.7 6.1 16.0 16.7 15.1 5.2 5.8 6.4 16.0 16.7 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.1 15.4 16.8 14.0 5.4 5.7 6.3 15.1 15.6 14.7 5.4 5.9 6.1 15.7 16.5 14.8 5.4 5.7 15.2 17.2 13.0 5.3 5.7 15.3 16.2 14.4 5.2 5.7 17.0 18.5 15.3 5.2 5.5 5.9 15.5 15.8 15.1 5.2 5.4 5.9 15.9 16.2 15.5 5.1 5.4 5.7 14.9 14.7 15.1 5.0 5.3 Black, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 y e a rs ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r ................................ 15.9 42.7 42.7 42.6 14.3 13.5 15.1 40.2 41.0 39.2 13.2 13.1 15.1 41.5 43.9 38.9 12.9 13.0 16.0 42.1 40.9 43.3 14.2 13.7 15.2 41.5 41.1 41.9 13.3 13.0 15.2 39.3 39.4 39.3 13.3 13.2 15.4 40.4 39.3 41.5 13.4 13.5 14.4 39.5 41.0 37.8 12.5 12.7 15.0 41.2 43.1 39.0 15.2 38.8 41.1 36.1 13.3 13.5 14.9 39.7 41.0 38.2 13.7 14.4 41.9 41.3 42.4 12.7 12.1 15.6 40.8 45.2 36.0 13.7 13.6 14.9 41.6 41.0 42.3 13.1 13.1 14.1 35.3 34.9 35.9 11.9 13.1 12.6 12.0 Hispanic origin, to ta l................................................ 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.6 10.9 10.4 10.4 11.1 10.7 10.4 10.1 Married men, spouse p re s e n t............................... Married women, spouse p re s e n t.......................... Women who maintain fa m ilie s .............................. Full-time w o rk e rs ..................................................... Part-time workers .................................................... Unemployed 15 weeks and o v e r.......................... Labor force time lost 1 ............................................ 4.6 5.7 10.3 7.2 9.3 2.4 4.3 5.6 10.4 4.5 5.7 4.4 5.4 10.9 7.0 4.3 5.8 10.3 6.9 9.5 4.3 5.8 10.7 6.9 9.7 4.0 5.7 4.6 5.8 9.9 6.9 9.5 4.4 5.7 10.3 7.0 9.4 4.1 5.4 4.3 5.6 11.3 4.2 5.3 10.4 4.3 5.6 10.0 4.3 5.3 9.4 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.6 9.0 9.3 9.6 8.8 2.0 8.2 2.0 8.2 2.0 8.1 2.0 8.1 2.0 7.9 1.9 7.9 9.0 1.9 7.8 4.3 5.1 9.9 6.4 8.4 7.3 10.9 13.5 7.7 7.9 7.5 5.3 7.7 5.7 3.9 12.5 7.3 9.9 13.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 5.7 7.6 5.6 4.0 14.0 7.1 13.1 7.8 7.9 7.6 4.5 7.7 5.5 3.9 14.0 7.2 8.9 13.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 5.3 7.8 5.5 3.8 13.3 7.1 7.7 13.5 7.5 7.3 7.8 5.1 7.7 5.4 3.9 12.9 7.0 7.3 13.4 7.7 7.6 7.8 5.1 7.5 5.4 3.6 12.5 CHARACTERISTIC 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.8 6.2 % 8.6 6.8 9.3 10.2 7.0 9.3 8.8 2.1 8.2 2.0 8.1 2.0 7.2 9.5 13.1 7.7 7.6 7.8 5.1 7.6 5.6 3.9 13.2 7.3 10.3 13.5 7.6 7.2 13.4 7.6 7.3 8.0 5.1 7.7 5.9 4.1 15.4 8.3 2.1 8.2 2.1 8.2 10.8 6.9 10.0 2.0 8.3 12.8 10.8 6.8 1.8 7.6 INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... M ining........................................................................ Construction ............................................................. Manufacturing .......................................................... Durable g o o d s ....................................................... Nondurable goods ................................................ Transportation and public utilities ........................ Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................... Finance and service indu stries............................. Government workers .................................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ....................... 7.4 10.0 14.3 7.5 7.2 7.8 5.5 8.0 5.9 4.5 13.5 7.3 13.3 7.9 7.7 8.0 8.1 8.2 5.4 7.7 5.7 4.0 13.6 4.7 7.5 5.7 4.0 12.5 5.4 7.4 5.7 3.9 13.2 1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7.3 7.2 10.9 13.3 7.7 7.5 10.8 10.6 7.2 7.5 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 5.2 7.8 6.1 3.9 11.9 8.6 6.9 10.3 12.6 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.0 7.6 5.3 3.8 10.6 6.7 10.9 12.9 7.0 7.0 7.1 4.3 7.2 5.2 3.4 10.9 2 Data for 1980-85 have been revised to reflect new population estimates, 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 8. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: E m ploym ent Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1984 Total, 16 years and o v e r ........................................................................ 16 to 24 y e a rs ........................................................................................ 16 to 19 y e a rs ..................................................................................... 16 to 17 years .................................................................................. 18 to 19 years .................................................................................. 20 to 24 y e a rs ..................................................................................... 25 years and o v e r.................................................................................. 25 to 54 years .................................................................................. 55 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 1985 1985 Jan. Feb. 7.5 13.9 18.9 7.2 13.6 18.6 7.4 13.6 18.9 21.2 21.0 21.0 17.4 11.5 5.8 17.0 17.3 10.9 5.7 11.1 7.3 13.7 18.4 20.4 17.4 20.6 20.8 21.2 21.6 16.5 16.3 17.1 11.2 11.1 11.1 5.6 5.9 4.0 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.1 4.0 4.1 7.0 13.9 18.5 21.7 16.1 11.7 5.3 5.6 3.9 7.1 13.8 18.5 21.4 16.8 11.4 5.5 5.8 4.0 7.6 13.1 17.9 19.3 16.9 10.5 7.5 12.9 17.2 7.6 13.3 18.1 20.0 20.1 15.7 10.7 7.4 14.4 19.6 21.9 18.3 11.9 5.7 5.9 4.6 7.0 14.1 19.5 21.9 17.9 11.4 5.3 5.6 4.1 7.1 13.9 19.3 21.3 18.0 11.3 5.5 5.7 4.3 7.1 14.3 19.4 21.3 18.4 Women, 16 years and o v e r............................................................. 16 to 24 y e a rs ................................................................................. 16 to 19 years .............................................................................. 16 to 17 years .......................................................................... 18 to 19 years .......................................................................... 20 to 24 years .............................................................................. 25 years and o v e r........................................................................... 25 to 54 years ........................................................................... 55 years and o v e r .................................................................... 7.6 13.3 18.0 20.4 16.6 10.9 7.4 13.0 17.6 7.6 13.2 18.5 20.7 16.5 7.5 13.0 17.4 19.4 16.3 10.6 6.0 10.6 6.0 6.4 4.1 6.3 3.9 9. 4.2 6.2 6.3 4.2 4.1 July 7.3 13.6 18.6 Men, 16 years and o v e r .................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 16 to 19 y e a rs................................................................................ 16 to 17 y e a rs ............................................................................ 18 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................ 20 to 24 y e a rs ................................................................................ 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 25 to 54 y e a rs ............................................................................. 55 years and o v e r...................................................................... 6.0 June 7.3 14.0 18.8 4.5 16.0 10.7 5.9 May 7.3 13.4 17.9 6.0 20.0 Apr. 7.3 13.5 18.2 5.6 5.8 4.1 6.1 Mar. 11.8 5.4 5.6 4.1 1986 Aug. Sept. 16.4 7.3 13.9 19.3 21.7 17.3 7.1 13.0 17.5 19.1 16.8 11.6 11.2 11.2 10.8 5.5 5.8 4.3 5.8 6.0 5.6 5.9 4.4 5.5 5.8 4.1 7.2 14.2 19.2 23.2 16.4 11.7 5.6 5.8 4.4 7.2 14.6 20.5 7.4 13.1 17.9 16.5 7.5 12.9 17.8 19.9 16.4 4.3 7.0 14.7 19.4 22.2 17.6 12.3 5.1 5.3 4.1 6.0 6.0 10.8 6.1 10.6 6.0 6.4 4.2 6.3 4.2 6.4 4.4 6.3 4.1 22.1 18.7 11.6 5.4 5.6 4.6 Oct. 7.1 13.9 19.8 22.7 17.8 10.9 5.4 5.7 3.9 7.0 13.5 18.4 21.4 16.9 6.9 13.8 19.6 21.9 18.1 10.9 5.3 5.6 3.8 6.9 13.8 19.3 20.7 18.3 7.3 12.2 Dec. Jan. 6.9 13.3 18.8 6.7 13.0 18.4 20.9 16.4 10.4 5.1 5.4 3.9 21.1 17.5 11.0 10.6 5.4 5.6 3.8 5.3 5.5 3.9 7.1 14.6 21.5 24.0 19.9 6.9 13.9 19.4 20.9 18.7 6.7 13.5 19.3 11.0 11.1 11.2 10.6 5.3 5.5 4.0 5.3 5.5 4.1 5.2 5.4 4.0 5.1 5.4 3.9 18.2 20.9 16.2 10.3 5.0 5.3 3.9 7.5 12.9 16.9 19.8 14.9 10.9 7.3 13.1 17.9 7.2 13.1 17.4 7.1 13.2 18.3 7.0 13.2 18.5 21.2 22.0 20.6 20.8 15.5 10.7 5.6 5.9 3.7 15.1 16.9 10.8 10.6 5.6 5.9 3.6 5.4 5.7 3.9 16.5 10.5 5.3 5.6 3.8 15.7 10.7 5.9 15.3 15.8 15.3 10.7 5.8 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.2 4.2 4.5 4.2 21.2 Nov. 7.1 13.3 18.1 20.3 16.7 10.9 5.6 5.8 4.1 6.5 12.8 21.6 18.0 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1985 Reason for unemployment 1984 Job losers ............ On la y o ff............ Other job losers . Job le a v e rs ........... Reentrants ............ New e n tra n ts ....... 1985 4,421 1,171 3,250 823 2,184 1,110 1986 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 4,139 1,157 2,982 877 2,256 1,039 4,271 1,216 3,055 877 2,240 1,045 4,236 1,203 3,033 4,177 1,155 3,022 861 2,301 1,074 4,229 1,182 3,047 852 2,283 1,051 3,994 1,068 2,926 870 2,378 1,142 4,167 1,135 3,032 983 2,233 1,018 4,206 1,134 3,072 894 2,184 1,098 3,032 875 2,191 941 49.8 13.9 35.9 50.6 14.4 36.2 10.4 26.6 12.4 50.4 14.3 36.1 10.3 26.6 49.6 13.7 35.9 50.3 14.0 36.2 10.2 10.1 27.4 49.6 13.5 36.1 11.7 26.6 12.6 12.8 27.1 12.5 47.6 12.7 34.9 10.4 28.4 13.6 50.2 13.5 36.6 10.7 26.1 13.1 50.8 13.6 37.2 10.7 26.9 11.5 3.7 3.6 .7 3.7 .7 3.5 3.6 2.0 .9 .9 3.6 .9 1.9 .9 3.6 2.0 868 2,238 1,056 June July Aug. Sept. 4,144 1,112 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 4,142 1,167 2,975 852 2,335 918 4,040 1,161 2,879 911 2,237 1,045 4,081 1,175 2,906 808 2,226 1,055 3,933 1,132 2,801 876 2,225 1,033 3,776 1,163 2,613 996 2,066 1,025 50.2 14.2 36.1 10.3 28.3 49.1 14.1 35.0 50.0 14.4 35.6 9.9 27.2 12.9 48.8 14.0 34.7 10.9 27.6 48.0 14.8 33.2 12.7 26.3 13.0 3.5 .7 1.9 .9 3.4 PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED Job lo s e rs ............ . On la y o ff............ Other job losers . Job leave rs........... Reentrants............ New entrants ....... 51.8 13.7 38.1 9.6 25.6 13.0 10.6 27.1 12.5 12.1 11.1 27.2 12.7 11.1 12.8 PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job lo s e r s .............................................. Job le a v e rs ........................................... Reentrants ............................................. New e n tra n ts ........................................ 10. 3.9 .7 1.9 3.6 3.7 .8 2.0 .8 2.0 1.0 .9 .9 .8 1.9 .9 .8 2.1 1.0 .8 .8 1.9 1.9 1.0 .8 3.6 .7 3.5 2.0 .8 1.9 .9 .8 3.2 .9 1.8 .9 .8 1.9 .9 Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers In thousands) Annual average 1985 Weeks of unemployment 1984 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Less than 5 weeks ......... 5 to 14 weeks .................. 15 weeks and o v e r ......... 15 to 26 weeks ............. 27 weeks and o v e r ...... 3,350 2,451 2,737 1,104 1,634 3,498 2,509 2,305 1,025 1,280 3,627 2,540 2,247 932 1,315 3,501 2,488 2,413 1,065 1,348 3,556 2,487 2,400 1,061 1,339 3,528 2,516 2,374 1,031 1,343 3,607 2,594 2,274 1,063 3,525 2,514 2,329 1,078 1,251 3,422 2,508 2,274 1,047 1,227 3,484 2,505 2,307 1,035 1,272 3,430 2,536 2,277 1,057 1,211 3,466 2,536 2,328 1,033 1,295 1,220 3,465 2,448 2,205 894 1,311 3,374 2,460 2,188 973 1,215 3,311 2,441 2,056 969 1,087 Mean duration in weeks .. Median duration In weeks 18.2 7.9 15.6 6.8 15.9 6.8 16.0 7.1 15.9 7.0 16.1 6.8 15.0 6.7 15.5 6.8 15.5 7.1 15.5 7.2 15.5 6.9 15.4 7.0 15.7 6.9 15.4 6.9 14.9 6.8 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted Dec. 1985P State Dec. 1984 11 6 8.0 Alaska ................................................................ A riz o n a ............................................................... A rkansa s............................................................ C a lifo rnia............................................................ 10.3 4.3 9.2 6.9 10.3 6.4 9.4 6.3 5.3 6.5 4.3 4.3 4 .4 D elaw are............................................................ District of C o lum bia ......................................... Florida ................................................................ 5.4 8.3 8.0 6.1 5.6 5.5 5.9 6.9 State Dec. 1984 Dec. 1985 7.4 4.3 8.8 6.1 8.2 2.6 Montana ........................................................... N e bra ska.......................................................... Nevada ............................................................. New H am pshire............................................... 3.5 New J e rs e y ...................................................... New Mexico ..................................................... New Y o rk .......................................................... North Carolina ................................................. North Dakota ................................................... 5.4 7.4 6.5 6.7 5.8 Ohio .................................................................. O klahom a......................................................... O re g o n .............................................................. Pennsylvania.................................................... Rhode Isla n d .................................................... 9.2 6.7 9.6 7.3 5.3 8.5 7.1 7.8 7.3 4.4 South C a ro lin a ................................................. South D a k o ta ................................................... Tennessee ....................................................... Texas ................................................................ Utah .................................................................. 6.9 5.1 8.7 5.6 6.4 7.4 5.2 7.6 6.3 V e rm o n t............................................................ 4.5 5.5 8.0 Indiana ............................................................... 8.6 8.8 5.8 5.4 7.9 8.3 7.4 M a in e .................................................................. 73 5.4 9.3 98 5.9 7.9 5.5 10.4 11.5 5.2 4.9 3.9 4.5 3.9 7.6 7.5 W ash in g to n ...................................................... West V irgin ia.................................................... W isc o n s in ......................................................... 5.2 5.0 9.8 16.1 7.7 10.0 6.2 W yom ing........................................................... 5.6 .... •« . , . 10 6 M ississippi.......................................................... 7.1 10.3 7.0 5.4 8.6 5.9 4.2 6.8 6.0 8.0 12.4 7.5 p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database. 12. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State Dec., 1984 1,404.7 220.1 A rka n sa s............................................................ District of C o lum bia ......................................... H aw aii................................................................. Id a h o .................................................................. Illin o is ................................................................. Louisiana............................................................ _, M inn e so ta .......................................................... 1,244.2 791.8 10,869.9 1,438.8 1.568.5 288.3 623.3 4.371.5 Nov., 1985 1 440.6 227.4 1,316.6 814.9 11,127.9 1,438.2 1,598.0 299.9 634.0 4,499.5 2.534.1 418.0 329.3 4,654.3 2,169.8 2,616.0 427.3 340.6 4.714.2 2.258.2 1.085.1 982.9 1.249.7 1.618.8 450.7 1,087.8 994.1 1,266.0 1,606.1 465.9 1,861.8 2,937.9 3,407.3 1,870.1 836 3 2,041.2 281.3 1.919.3 2.973.3 3,515.5 1,907.0 854.5 2,132.3 280.1 Dec., 1985p 1,439.9 223.9 1,323.8 814.8 11,186.2 1,440.6 1,601.2 300.2 637.5 4,532.1 State Dec., 1984 Nov., 1985 Dec., 1985p New H a m pshire............................................... 653.9 434.2 457.1 659.0 450.0 480.4 654.7 449.2 483.5 New Mexico ..................................................... New Y o rk .......................................................... North Carolina ................................................. North Dakota ................................................... 3,406.1 512.5 7,744.9 2,624.5 252.7 3,499.7 525.0 7,893.0 2,699.8 253.5 3,503.1 525.8 7,909.8 2,706.7 251.2 4,332.8 1,196.9 1,015.5 4,720.4 431.8 4,452.8 1,178.9 1,042.9 4,798.8 433.7 4,461.7 1,177.1 1,036.2 4,793.1 431.4 1,281.6 250.0 1,847.1 6,637.9 620.1 1,319.6 246.5 1,899.2 6,747.3 638.2 1,321.8 247.0 1,900.9 6,766.7 638.1 221.9 2,413.7 1,663.7 597.8 1,982.9 227.6 2,473.9 1,715.8 600.4 2,015.7 231.5 2,490.2 1,711.3 600.9 2,009.2 203.1 699.2 37.3 203.7 694.3 36.1 201.9 702.8 36.8 O kla h o m a ......................................................... 2,626.1 O re g o n .............................................................. 430.2 Pennsylvania.................................................... 338.6 Rhode Island.................................................... 4.708.6 2.254.6 South C a ro lin a ................................................. South D a k o ta ................................................... 1,080.9 Tennessee ....................................................... 986.0 Texas ................................................................ 1,271.7 1,600.4 465.2 V irg in ia .............................................................. 1,927.1 Washington ...................................................... 2,985.9 West V irgin ia.................................................... 3,523.8 1,896.5 855.8 W yom ing........................................................... 2,131.0 Puerto R ic o ...................................................... 276.8 p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 67 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 13. March 1986 • C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics: E m p lo y m e n t D a ta Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 1984 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.P Jan.p TOTAL .......................................... PRIVATE S E C T O R ........................ 94,461 78,477 97,698 81,403 96,419 80,319 96,591 80,480 96,910 80,767 97,120 80,962 97,421 81,208 97,473 81,260 97,707 81,366 97,977 81,634 98,217 81,765 98,559 82,073 98,801 82,317 99,069 82,557 99,635 83,157 GOODS PR O D UC IN G ...................... M in in g ................................................ Oil and gas extraction .................. 24,730 974 613 25,056 969 616 25,112 974 621 25,062 976 620 25,056 977 618 25,090 982 623 25,066 982 624 25,010 974 619 24,980 969 619 25,015 965 615 24,962 962 615 25,051 960 610 25,089 954 605 25,145 953 603 25,335 951 597 Construction ................................... General building contractors....... 4,345 1,158 4,661 1,240 4,534 1,219 4,525 1,214 4,553 1,223 4,641 1,233 4,658 1,234 4,638 1,223 4,660 1,228 4,688 1,242 4,721 1,252 4,753 1,262 4,754 1,269 4,761 1,272 4,918 1,335 M anufacturing................................. Production w o rk e rs ....................... 19,412 13,310 19,426 13,215 19,604 13,399 19,561 13,347 19,526 13,309 19,467 13,249 19,426 13,203 19,398 13,169 19,351 13,137 19,362 13,145 19,279 13,087 19,338 13,140 19,381 13,169 19,431 13,228 19,466 13,251 Durable g o o d s ............................... Production w o rk e rs ....................... 11,522 7,749 11,566 7,692 11,702 7,843 11,675 7,806 11,651 7,776 11,608 7,730 11,586 7,704 11,560 7,671 11,509 7,630 11,519 7,638 11,449 7,586 11,493 7,627 11,512 7,636 11,536 7,658 11,550 7,666 Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ......... Furniture and fix tu re s ..................... Stone, clay, and glass products ... Primary metal industries ............... Blast furnaces and basic steel p roducts.......................................... Fabricated metal products............ 707 487 595 858 703 497 600 816 709 499 602 844 704 498 600 840 701 499 601 832 694 497 600 823 697 493 599 819 694 494 598 815 697 494 599 806 700 499 601 798 701 494 598 795 708 496 600 799 712 497 601 804 717 500 604 811 722 500 610 800 334 1,464 303 1,472 315 1,486 313 1,483 311 1,480 306 1,479 305 1,477 304 1,472 302 1,467 289 1,467 291 1,462 292 1,465 299 1,466 303 1,463 296 1,462 Machinery, except electrical......... Electrical and electronic equipm ent....................................... Transportation equipm ent.............. Motor vehicles and equipment .... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing in d u strie s........................................ 2,197 2,181 2,228 2,224 2,220 2,207 2,203 2,191 2,175 2,167 2,143 2,143 2,137 2,132 2,136 2,208 1,906 860 714 2,207 1,990 872 724 2,252 1,974 891 723 2,248 1,972 876 725 2,243 1,969 867 727 2,223 1,982 876 726 2,216 1,981 873 723 2,205 1,990 875 725 2,190 1,985 2,194 1,995 2,175 1,986 861 722 2,179 2,008 872 722 2,180 2,017 2,185 2,023 874 725 2,191 2,027 879 725 384 376 385 381 379 377 378 376 372 373 373 373 375 376 377 Nondurable g o o d s ......................... Production w o rke rs......................... 7,890 5,561 7,859 5,523 7,902 5,556 7,886 5,541 7,875 5,533 7,859 5,519 7,840 5,499 7,838 5,498 7,842 5,507 7,843 5,507 7,830 5,501 7,845 5,513 7,869 5,533 7,895 5,570 7,916 5,585 Food and kindred p ro d u cts .......... Tobacco m anufactures................. Textile mill p ro d u c ts ....................... Apparel and other textile p roducts.......................................... Paper and allied products ............ 1,619 65 746 1,636 65 703 1,633 67 720 1,633 1,638 1,630 1,634 1,644 66 66 66 66 66 712 706 707 701 699 1,630 65 696 1,638 64 697 1,633 65 695 1,636 64 698 1,638 65 700 1,652 64 701 1,649 65 703 1,197 681 1,162 683 1,182 683 1,175 682 1,167 682 1,164 681 1,153 682 1,142 684 1,160 684 1,152 683 1,155 681 1,158 682 1,160 688 1,171 685 1,177 687 Printing and publishing.................. Chemicals and allied products..... Petroleum and coal pro d u cts....... Rubber and mise, plastics p roducts.......................................... Leather and leather products ...... 1,372 1,048 189 1,422 1,042 177 1,403 1,052 185 1,406 1,052 184 1,407 1,052 183 1,411 1,049 182 1,414 1,044 181 1,419 1,042 180 1,426 1,040 178 1,429 1,038 176 1,427 1,040 170 1,431 1,036 170 1,442 1,033 169 1,442 1,033 169 1,449 1,036 169 782 192 795 175 798 179 799 177 798 176 795 174 791 174 789 173 787 176 792 174 790 174 795 175 800 174 804 174 810 171 SERVICE-PRODUCING ................... Transportation and public u tilities............................................. Transportation................................. Communication and public u tilitie s............................................. 69,731 72,642 71,307 71,529 71,854 72,030 72,355 72,463 72,727 72,962 73,255 73,508 73,712 73,924 74,300 5,171 2,929 5,300 3,058 5,259 3,015 5,272 3,029 5,269 3,028 5,278 3,037 5,301 3,057 5,295 3,052 5,302 3,060 5,282 3,038 5,317 3,078 5,327 3,087 5,342 3,106 5,345 3,110 5,377 3,129 2,242 2,241 2,244 2,243 2,241 2,241 2,244 2,243 2,242 2,244 2,239 2,240 2,236 2,235 2,248 Wholesale t r a d e ............................. Durable g o o d s ................................. Nondurable g o o d s .......................... 5,550 3,272 2,278 5,769 3,417 2,352 5,686 3,358 2,328 5,697 3,367 2,330 5,714 3,377 2,337 5,733 3,388 2,345 5,748 3,402 2,346 5,768 3,414 2,354 5,773 3,426 2,347 5,791 3,434 2,357 5,805 3,442 2,363 5,830 3,454 2,376 5,833 3,464 2,369 5,845 3,470 2,375 5,867 3,485 2,382 Retail tr a d e ...................................... General merchandise s to re s ........ Food s to re s ..................................... Automotive dealers and service s ta tio n s ........................................... Eating and drinking p la c e s ........... 16,584 2,278 2,655 17,426 2,355 2,827 17,090 2,341 2,753 17,160 2,343 2,773 17,249 2,349 2,790 17,280 2,348 2,794 17,392 2,371 2,823 17,425 2,361 2,831 17,453 2,344 2,842 17,514 2,354 2,849 17,539 2,356 2,852 17,610 2,365 2,869 17,640 2,367 2,865 17,715 2,362 2,882 17,922 2,418 2,914 1,802 5,403 1,892 5,692 1,855 5,559 1,865 5,588 1,873 5,615 1,884 5,642 1,890 5,660 1,895 5,692 1,895 5,728 1,902 5,725 1,906 5,740 1,912 5,758 1,914 5,774 1,916 5,802 1,932 5,821 Finance, Insurance, and real e s ta te ............................................... F in a n c e ............................................ Insurance......................................... Real e s ta te ...................................... 5,682 2,855 1,753 1,074 5,924 2,978 1,816 1,130 5,790 2,910 1,783 1,097 5,809 2,919 1,789 5,835 2,933 1,792 5,906 2,968 1,814 1,124 5,932 2,984 1,817 1,131 5,959 2,998 1,827 1,134 5,987 3,011 1,831 1,145 3,023 1,837 1,151 6,048 3,038 1,850 1,160 6,069 3,053 1,854 1,162 6,104 3,067 1,110 5,888 2,956 1,808 1,124 6,011 1,101 5,858 2,941 1,799 1,118 S ervices............................................ Business s e rvice s ........................... Health s e rv ic e s ............................... 20,761 4,076 6,104 21,929 4,453 6,266 21,382 4,295 6,169 21,480 4,324 6,186 21,644 4,377 6,204 21,723 4,402 6,218 21,813 4,424 6,240 21,856 4,441 6,243 21,926 4,446 6,260 22,073 4,489 6,291 22,155 4,504 6,308 22,244 4,539 6,333 22,365 4,571 6,363 22,438 4,606 6,384 22,552 4,636 6,404 Government .................................... F e d e ra l............................................. S ta te .................................................. L o c a l.................................................. 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 16,295 2,875 3,780 9,640 16,100 2,836 3,730 9,534 16,111 2,834 3,733 9,544 16,143 2,850 3,744 9,549 16,158 2,859 3,749 9,550 16,213 2,873 3,759 9,581 16,213 2,872 3,765 9,576 16,341 2,878 3,788 9,675 16,343 16,452 2,904 3,818 9,730 16,486 2,892 3,827 9,767 16,484 2,904 3,833 9,747 16,512 2,911 3,829 9,772 16,478 2,910 3,821 9,747 p = preliminary NOTE: See "N otes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis revision. 868 868 724 725 2,886 3,789 9,668 868 723 1,866 1,171 14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted _______________________________ Industry Annual average 1984 PRIVATE SECTOR .............................................. CO NSTRUCTIO N........................................................ 35.3 37.7 1986 1985 1985p 35.1 Jan. 35.1 Feb. 35.1 Apr. Mar. 35.2 35.0 May 35.1 June 35.1 July 35.0 Aug. 35.1 Sept. 35.1 Oct. 35.1 Nov. 35.0 Dec.p Jan.p 35.1 35.1 37.7 37.7 37.8 38.1 38.0 37.6 37.2 37.6 37.5 37.9 37.9 37.4 37.2 38.5 40.1 3.3 40.4 3.2 40.2 3.4 40.4 3.1 40.4 3.2 40.3 3.2 40.6 3.3 40.7 3.3 40.7 3.4 40.7 3.4 41.0 3.6 40.9 3.5 M ANUFACTURING..................................................... Overtime h o u rs .................................................... 40.7 3.4 40.5 3.3 40.6 3.4 Durable g o o d s .......................................................... Overtime h o u rs .................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s ............................................... Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal industries ......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 41.4 3.6 39.9 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.6 41.4 41.2 3.5 39.8 39.4 41.9 41.5 41.1 41.3 41.3 3.6 39.7 40.4 41.7 41.0 39.9 41.4 40.7 3.5 38.9 39.5 41.6 40.9 40.5 40.9 41.1 3.5 39.6 39.5 42.0 41.1 40.5 41.1 40.9 3.6 39.5 39.3 42.0 41.0 40.2 41.1 41.1 3.2 39.8 38.9 42.1 41.2 40.7 41.1 41.2 3.3 40.1 38.9 41.9 41.6 41.2 41.3 41.0 3.3 39.7 38.8 42.0 41.4 41.2 41.3 41.3 3.4 40.0 39.2 42.0 41.7 41.8 41.4 41.3 3.5 40.1 39.4 42.0 41.5 41.0 41.6 41.3 3.5 40.3 39.4 42.1 41.8 41.7 41.5 41.3 3.6 39.9 39.4 41.6 41.8 42.0 41.4 41.7 3.8 40.1 40.0 41.7 42.2 42.0 41.6 41.6 3.7 40.3 40.5 42.2 41.5 41.0 41.6 Machinery except electrical ................................... Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 41.9 41.0 42.7 43.8 41.3 39.4 41.5 40.6 42.6 43.5 41.0 39.4 41.7 40.8 43.1 44.3 41.2 39.2 41.1 40.2 41.9 42.4 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.5 43.2 41.0 39.1 41.2 40.2 42.3 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.4 40.4 42.6 43.5 40.9 39.3 41.6 40.6 42.3 42.7 41.1 39.4 41.3 40.3 42.5 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.9 43.8 40.7 39.3 41.6 40.5 42.9 43.8 40.9 39.8 41.6 40.6 42.8 43.8 40.8 39.9 41.6 41.0 42.6 43.7 41.1 39.7 41.8 41.4 43.0 44.1 42.2 40.0 41.5 41.5 42.8 43.6 41.2 40.1 Nondurable g o o d s ................................................... Overtime h o u rs .................................................... Food and kindred pro d u c ts.................................... Tobacco m anufactures............................................ Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................. Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied products ...................................... 39.6 3.1 39.8 38.9 39.9 36.4 43.1 39.6 3.1 40.0 37.1 39.7 36.3 43.1 39.5 3.0 39.8 38.3 39.2 36.2 43.0 39.3 2.9 39.7 39.2 38.8 35.9 42.9 39.4 2.9 39.8 38.9 39.1 36.1 42.9 39.1 3.0 39.6 35.4 38.8 35.6 43.0 39.4 2.9 40.1 37.0 38.9 36.2 43.0 39.4 3.0 39.6 36.6 39.4 36.3 42.9 39.4 3.0 40.0 34.6 39.1 36.3 42.7 39.6 3.1 39.9 36.8 40.0 36.4 43.0 39.8 3.1 40.2 36.9 40.7 36.5 43.1 39.9 3.2 40.3 38.2 40.7 36.6 43.3 39.8 3.2 39.9 35.2 41.0 36.8 43.3 40.1 3.4 40.3 38.0 41.3 37.1 43.6 39.9 3.3 40.0 37.8 41.1 37.1 43.5 Printing and publishing............................................. Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ................................ 37.9 41.9 43.7 36.8 37.7 41.9 43.0 37.3 37.8 42.0 43.2 36.8 37.7 41.9 43.1 36.4 37.6 42.1 43.3 37.1 37.6 41.9 42.0 37.0 37.4 41.9 41.7 37.1 37.5 42.0 42.6 37.0 37.5 41.8 42.9 37.0 37.9 41.8 43.3 37.3 38.0 41.6 43.4 37.8 37.9 41.7 44.3 37.9 37.8 41.9 43.1 37.7 38.2 41.9 43.9 37.8 37.9 41.7 44.0 37.3 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S .... 39.4 39.4 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.2 39.6 39.5 39.5 39.4 39.4 39.4 WHOLESALE T R A D E ................................................ 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.6 29.7 29.9 29.9 29.7 29.6 29.6 29.5 29.5 29.3 29.4 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.8 32.8 32.8 RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 30.0 29.7 29.8 29.8 29.8 SERVICES ................................................................... 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benchmark adjustment. 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Em ploym ent Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagriculturai payrolls by industry Industry Annual average 1984 1985p 1985 1986 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.p Jan.p PRIVATE SE C TO R ..................................................... $8.33 Seasonally adjusted .............................................. - $8.58 - $8.50 8.44 $8.52 8.49 $8.52 8.52 $8.54 8.54 $8.53 8.55 $8.56 8.59 $8.54 8.57 $8.54 8.60 $ 8.68 8.65 $8.65 8.64 $ 8.68 8.67 $8.72 8.74 $8.74 M IN IN G ......................................................................... 11.63 11.95 11.86 11.90 11.91 11.93 11.86 11.99 11.88 11.95 12.00 11.95 12.02 12.20 12.25 8.68 CO NSTRUCTIO N........................................................ 12.12 12.26 12.30 12.33 12.22 12.21 12.19 12.12 12.16 12.22 12.40 12.36 12.22 12.43 12.31 M ANUFACTURING..................................................... 9.18 9.52 9.43 9.43 9.45 9.48 9.48 9.50 9.53 9.48 9.55 9.54 9.61 9.72 9.69 Durable goods ........................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal Industries ......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 9.74 8.03 6.85 9.57 11.47 12.99 9.38 10.09 9.99 13.35 9.66 13.27 9.62 7.22 9.89 11.78 13.51 9.66 10.05 8.26 7.22 9.87 11.63 13.37 9.61 10.15 8.31 7.29 9.90 11.69 13.45 9.70 10.14 8.29 7.31 9.86 11.61 13.34 9.68 10.21 7.11 9.80 11.64 13.31 9.63 10.08 8.24 7.18 9.84 11.65 13.29 9.65 10.10 8.20 7.01 9.70 11.55 13.07 9.59 10.03 8.04 7.08 9.80 11.64 13.32 9.64 10.04 8.10 9.99 8.09 7.01 9.73 11.69 13.42 9.59 10.01 8.20 7.19 9.83 8.28 7.34 9.90 11.76 13.44 9.73 10.33 8.30 7.40 9.92 11.83 13.45 9.86 10.28 8.28 7.39 9.97 11.78 13.34 9.82 12.74 8.85 7.04 10.29 9.47 12.71 13.44 9.19 7.28 10.13 9.33 12.67 13.41 9.00 7.23 10.14 9.33 12.63 13.35 9.11 7.19 10.15 9.39 12.59 13.29 9.10 7.20 10.17 9.40 12.63 13.40 9.11 7.22 9.39 12.63 13.38 9.13 7.28 13.39 9.15 7.28 10.31 9.47 12.65 13.38 9.20 7.30 10.27 9.50 12.65 13.34 9.22 7.26 10.39 9.55 12.78 13.51 9.28 7.30 10.41 9.56 12.77 13.46 9.27 7.30 10.48 9.61 12.83 13.55 9.30 7.35 10.55 9.70 13.03 13.83 9.42 7.46 10.51 9.66 12.92 13.72 9.36 7.51 Nondurable g o o d s .................................................... 8.37 Food and kindred pro d u c ts.................................... 8.38 Tobacco m anufactures............................................ 11.27 Textile mill p ro d u cts................................................. 6.46 Apparel and other textile products........................ 5.55 Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 10.41 8.68 8.54 12.05 6.71 5.73 10.82 8.59 8.48 11.39 6.59 5.73 10.63 8.60 8.51 11.80 6.60 5.70 10.64 8.61 8.53 8.64 8.58 12.65 6.64 5.73 10.64 8.67 8.59 12.16 6.70 5.74 10.72 5.69 10.75 8.65 8.55 12.83 6.69 5.70 10.79 8.72 8.54 12.91 6.69 5.70 10.91 8.67 8.47 12.44 6.72 5.68 10.86 8.70 8.51 11.47 6.75 5.75 10.90 8.69 8.49 11.45 6.76 5.73 10.91 8.75 8.58 12.08 6.79 5.75 10.97 8.84 8.69 11.87 6.83 5.81 11.05 8.82 8.69 11.89 6.84 5.85 10.97 Printing and publishing............................................. 9.40 Chemicals and allied products............................... 11.08 Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. 13.43 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ..... 8.29 Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ................................ 5.70 9.69 11.57 14.04 8.53 5.82 9.58 11.39 13.96 8.49 5.82 9.60 11.39 13.99 8.48 5.79 9.61 11.37 14.06 8.46 5.82 9.60 11.48 14.18 8.48 5.84 9.60 11.46 14.00 8.45 5.83 9.61 11.52 13.97 8.50 5.83 9.67 11.60 14.03 8.54 5.83 9.73 11.62 13.99 8.51 5.80 9.79 11.67 14.07 8.55 5.82 9.75 11.72 13.97 8.53 5.76 9.81 11.82 14.06 8.62 5.83 9.90 14.20 8.73 5.81 9.80 11.89 14.31 8.67 5.88 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T ILITIE S .... 11.11 11.38 11.26 11.27 11.24 11.27 11.24 11.32 11.35 11.40 11.52 11.46 11.57 11.61 11.60 WHOLESALE T R A D E ............................................... 8.96 9.26 9.16 9.22 9.19 9.24 9.24 9.28 9.27 9.25 9.33 9.25 9.32 9.41 9.39 RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 5.88 5.97 5.97 5.99 5.97 5.96 5.97 5.94 5.93 5.91 5.99 5.97 6.00 5.99 6.05 Machinery, except electrical .................................. Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related products ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 9.96 9.04 12.22 11.68 8.06 7.07 9.71 11.66 12.00 8.12 10.22 6.68 10.28 9.46 12.66 11.88 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 7.62 7.93 7.77 7.87 7.87 7.85 7.83 7.95 7.87 7.90 8.03 8.00 8.05 8.14 8.13 SERVICES ................................................................... 7.64 7.95 7.84 7.87 7.87 7.89 7.88 7.91 7.86 7.87 8.04 8.04 8.10 8.18 8.19 - Data not available. p = preliminary 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls by industry 1985 Annual average 1986 Industry 1984 Jan. 1985p Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Sept. Aug. Oct. Nov. Jan.p Dec.p PRIVATE SECTOR Seasonally a dju sted........................................... Constant (1977) dollars ....................................... $294.05 $301.16 $294.95 $294.79 $298.20 $298.05 $298.55 $303.02 $301.46 $302.32 $305.54 $303.62 $302.93 $307.82 $303.28 296.24 298.00 299.90 298.90 300.11 301.51 299.95 301.86 303.62 303.26 303.45 306.77 304.67 173.48 171.60 171.28 170.50 171.68 170.80 170.50 172.56 171.48 171.68 173.01 171.54 170.47 172.74 - M IN IN G ......................................................................... 503.58 518.63 508.79 514.08 519.28 516.57 515.91 523.96 509.65 517.44 524.40 516.24 520.47 538.02 535.33 CO NSTRUCTIO N........................................................ 456.92 462.20 447.72 451.28 460.69 461.54 464.44 461.77 469.38 468.03 477.40 472.15 448.47 459.91 457.93 MANUFACTURING Current d o lla rs ......................................................... Constant (1977) d o lla rs ......................................... 373.63 220.43 385.56 219.69 380.03 220.69 374.37 216.52 381.78 219.79 380.15 217.85 382.04 218.18 385.70 219.65 382.15 217.38 382.99 217.48 389.64 220.63 388.28 219.37 393.05 221.19 404.35 226.91 393.41 - Durable g o o d s ........................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s ............................................... Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal in d u strie s......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 403.24 320.40 271.95 401.94 478.30 527.39 388.33 415.71 326.36 283.29 411.88 484.72 548.69 398.96 410.59 315.90 276.19 392.85 473.55 517.57 395.11 403.60 309.85 270.59 393.09 478.12 544.85 387.44 412.41 317.56 277.85 404.91 481.56 540.09 396.34 410.23 317.58 276.83 411.60 480.73 547.45 395.24 411.64 325.61 275.16 415.52 479.57 543.05 395.79 417.31 336.19 281.46 418.20 486.97 552.86 400.48 410.06 325.54 276.53 418.35 485.34 559.31 394.13 412.05 333.70 285.19 418.49 480.32 550.84 395.93 420.21 337.39 290.14 420.75 487.47 554.14 403.52 418.78 334.92 292.40 418.06 480.65 545.61 401.72 423.72 327.06 292.13 413.82 491.57 557.76 404.77 437.99 332.83 303.40 413.66 503.96 566.25 420.04 424.56 327.89 291.91 408.77 488.87 542.94 406.55 Machinery, except electrical .................................. Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related products ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 417.32 370.64 521.79 558.01 365.51 277.38 427.04 384.48 541.45 584.64 376.79 286.83 422.42 379.73 546.08 594.06 369.90 279.08 415.74 373.20 524.15 559.37 369.87 276.82 424.27 383.11 537.59 576.79 374.01 282.24 417.99 376.00 538.04 586.92 368.96 280.86 421.06 377.48 539.30 587.38 372.50 285.38 427.65 385.02 539.32 579.79 376.07 286.10 420.65 376.91 531.30 574.00 370.76 281.78 422.10 383.80 531.30 566.95 373.41 284.59 432.22 387.73 544.43 586.33 381.41 292.00 430.97 388.14 545.28 586.86 377.29 294.19 438.06 396.89 550.41 590.78 384.09 295.47 451.54 409.34 574.62 625.12 403.18 302.88 436.17 399.92 552.98 598.19 384.70 296.65 Nondurable g o o d s .................................................... Food and kindred pro d u cts.................................... Tobacco m anufactures........................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................. Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 331.45 333.52 438.40 257.75 336.73 334.96 424.85 257.01 205.13 456.03 333.68 331.89 442.50 254.10 202.35 451.14 338.37 335.23 452.40 258.96 206.85 454.33 337.26 336.73 424.38 257.28 203.20 458.82 339.55 343.20 469.32 260.52 205.98 460.10 342.54 340.29 483.69 266.93 209.19 463.97 341.82 341.60 437.65 258.23 206.34 465.86 344.20 341.34 461.52 270.14 207.32 465.89 348.00 347.21 438.15 275.40 209.88 473.06 346.73 343.00 448.84 276.48 448.67 343.73 341.60 447.06 266.39 208.00 466.34 472.40 350.00 344.92 439.71 279.75 212.18 477.20 358.02 353.68 451.06 283.45 216.13 489.52 350.15 344.99 437.55 279.76 214.70 475.00 Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u cts.................................................... Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ................................ 356.26 464.25 586.89 365.31 484.78 603.72 359.25 477.24 597.49 358.08 476.10 594.58 362.30 478.68 601.77 360.00 481.01 595.56 358.08 480.17 583.80 358.45 484.99 596.52 360.69 482.56 606.10 369.74 483.39 605.77 373.98 487.81 620.49 369.53 486.38 620.27 373.76 496.44 610.20 384.12 503.71 623.38 368.48 494.62 623.92 345.69 209.76 350.58 217.09 352.34 211.85 343.44 207.28 347.71 212.43 346.83 215.50 345.61 218.04 350.20 221.54 346.72 218.63 346.36 216.92 351.41 219.41 350.58 216.58 356.01 219.79 366.66 220.78 358.07 216.97 202.02 210.86 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S ................................................................... 437.73 448.37 438.01 440.66 441.73 441.78 441.73 449.40 448.33 454.86 457.34 452.67 457.02 459.76 452.40 WHOLESALE T R A D E ................................................ 345.86 358.36 351.74 352.20 353.82 354.82 357.59 360.99 359.68 358.90 362.00 357.98 361.62 366.99 360.58 RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 176.40 177.31 173.73 174.31 175.52 175.22 177.91 179.39 180.27 179.07 177.90 175.52 175.80 179.10 173.64 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ...................................................................... 278.13 288.65 282.83 286.47 286.47 285.74 284.23 291.77 285.68 286.77 292.29 290.40 291.41 298.74 295.93 SERVICES ................................................................... 250.59 260.76 254.80 256.56 256.56 257.21 257.68 261.03 260.17 260.50 263.71 263.71 264.87 268.30 266.99 - Data not available. p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 17. The Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls by industry Seasonally adjusted Not seasonally adjusted Industry PRIVATE SECTOR (In current d o lla rs )............................ PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant d o lla rs )......................... Dec. 1985p Nov. 1985 163.7 167.3 168.4 168.4 177.4 149.4 166.8 164.3 169.2 155.1 168.2 166.6 180.0 149.0 170.2 169.3 172.2 156.9 174.2 172.4 181.5 151.1 171.2 170.0 173.8 156.8 176.1 174.0 181.2 149.6 171.5 169.8 173.3 157.4 176.0 174.0 95.1 94.1 94.5 1 This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Jan. 1986p Jan. 1985 Jan. 1985 Sept. 1985 Oct. 1985 Nov. 1985 Dec. 1985 p Jan. 1986p 163.0 166.7 166.4 167.1 168.3 167.7 149.2 166.3 163.5 150.0 169.1 167.3 149.4 169.4 167.0 148.9 170.1 168.1 150.7 170.8 169.4 149.5 170.9 169.0 _ 154.5 157.2 _ 156.7 _ 157.4 _ 158.0 156.8 164.9 171.5 171.1 172.1 173.8 172.3 94.5 94.7 94.3 94.2 94.3 _ _ _ _ _ _ p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 18. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Em ploym ent Data Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted (In percent) Time span and year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Over 1-month span 1984 ...................................................... 1985 ................................................................ 1986 ................................................................ 67.3 57.6 p65.4 72.7 50.3 p51.6 66.8 55.9 - 67.3 44.6 - 60.5 50.3 - 64.3 47.0 - 65.7 54.9 - 58.1 56.8 - 48.4 45.7 - 66.5 63.5 - 55.1 61.6 - 63.5 63.2 Over 3-month span 1984 .................................................... 1985 ................................................................ 1986 ................................................................ 78.1 58.6 p63.5 75.9 54.1 - 77.6 46.8 - 68.9 45.9 - 69.7 44.1 - 67.0 49.7 - 65.4 50.5 - 60.3 49.2 - 60.0 53.8 - 56.5 52.7 - 67.0 65.1 - 60.0 p67.8 - Over 6-month span 1984 ............................................ 1985 ................................................................ 1986 ................................................................ 79.2 52.2 - 77.8 49.5 - 77.3 44.3 - 75.4 44.6 - 69.2 44.3 - 64.9 42.4 - 63.2 46.8 - 64.1 50.0 - 67.0 56.8 - 59.7 p61.6 - 57.6 p58.1 - 60.3 - 81.9 50.8 78.4 48.4 76.8 49.5 75.1 47.3 72.7 46.2 73.0 47.3 70.0 p48.6 65.7 p48.4 “ 63.5 60.5 56.2 51.9 Over 12-month span 1984 ................................................................ 1985 .............................................................. 1986 ................................................................ " of - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half the unchanged com ponents are counted as rising.) Data are centered 19. - “ _ _ ” ~ within the spans. See the “ Definitions" in this section. data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision, See “ Notes Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Noninstitutional pop ulation ........................................ 160,689 163,541 166,460 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 Labor force Total (num ber)........................................................ Percent of pop ulation........................................... 100,665 62.6 103,882 63.5 106,559 64.0 108,544 64.1 110,315 64.2 111,872 64.3 113,226 64.4 115,241 64.7 117,167 65.1 Employed Total (num ber).................................................. Percent of population ..................................... Resident Armed F o rce s............................... Civilian Total ............................................................. A g riculture................................................. Nonagricultural industries....................... 93,673 58.0 1,656 97,679 60.0 1,631 100,421 60.0 1,597 100,907 60.0 1,604 102,042 59.0 1,645 101,194 58.0 1,668 102,510 58.0 1,676 106,702 60.0 1,697 108,856 60.0 1,706 92,017 3,283 88,734 96,048 3,387 92,661 98,824 3,347 95,477 99,303 3,364 95,938 100,397 3,368 97,030 99,526 3,401 96,125 100,834 3,383 97,450 105,005 3,321 101,685 107,150 3,179 103,971 Unemployed Total (num ber)................................................. Percent of labor fo r c e ................................... 6,991 6.9 6,202 6.0 6,137 5.8 7,637 7.0 8,273 7.5 10,678 9.5 10,717 9.5 8,539 7.4 8,312 7.1 Not in labor force (number) ................................... 60,025 59,659 59,900 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 20. Annual data: Employment levels by industry (Numbers in thousands) Industry 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Total em ploym ent........................................................................... Private se c to r................................................................................. G oods-producing....................................................................... M in in g ..................................................................................... Construction ......................................................................... M anufacturing....................................................................... 82,471 67,344 24,346 813 3,851 19,682 86,697 71,026 25,585 851 4,229 20,505 89,823 73,876 26,461 958 4,463 21,040 90,406 74,166 25,658 1,027 4,346 20,285 91,156 75,126 25,497 1,139 4,188 20,170 89,566 73,729 23,813 1,128 3,905 18,781 90,196 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,461 78,477 24,730 974 4,345 19,412 97,698 81,403 25,056 969 4,661 19,426 Service-producing...................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s ...................................... Wholesale trade .................................................................... Retail trade ............................................................................ Finance, insurance, and real estate .................................. S e rvices................................................................................... 58,125 4,713 4,708 13,808 4,467 15,303 61,113 4,923 4,969 14,573 4,724 16,252 63,363 5,136 5,204 14,989 4,975 17,112 64,748 5,146 5,275 15,035 5,160 17,890 65,659 5,165 5,358 15,189 5,298 18,619 65,753 5,082 5,278 15,179 5,341 19,036 66,862 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,731 5,171 5,550 16,584 5,682 20,761 72,642 5,300 5,769 17,426 5,924 21,929 G overnm ent........................................................................... F ederal.............................................................................. S ta te .................................................................................. Local ................................................................................. 15,127 2,727 3,377 9,023 15,672 2,753 3,474 9,446 15,947 2,773 3,541 9,633 16,241 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 16,295 2,875 3,780 9,640 NOTE: Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2,866 3,610 9,765 revision. p = preliminary _ ” 1985 p on the 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry 1984 1985 p 280.70 35.3 8.33 294.05 35.1 8.58 301.16 42.7 10.77 459.88 42.5 11.28 479.40 43.3 11.63 503.58 43.4 11.95 518.63 36.9 10.82 399.26 36.7 11.63 426.82 37.1 11.94 442.97 37.7 12.12 456.92 37.7 12.26 462.20 39.7 7.27 288.62 39.8 7.99 318.00 38.9 8.49 330.26 40.1 8.83 354.08 40.7 9.18 373.63 40.5 9.52 385.56 39.9 8.16 325.58 39.6 8.87 351.25 39.4 9.70 382.18 39.0 10.32 402.48 39.0 10.79 420.81 39.4 437.73 39.4 11.38 448.37 38.8 5.88 228.14 38.8 6.39 247.93 38.5 6.96 267.96 38.5 7.56 291.06 38.3 8.09 309.85 38.5 8.55 329.18 38.6 8.96 345.86 38.7 9.26 358.36 30.6 4.53 138.62 30.2 4.88 147,38 30.1 5.25 158.03 29.9 5.48 163.85 29.8 5.74 171.05 30.0 5.88 176.40 29.7 5.97 177.31 1981 1982 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 34.8 7.68 267.26 43.0 8.49 365.07 43.3 9.17 397.06 43.7 10.04 438.75 318.69 37.0 9.27 342.99 37.0 9.94 367.78 40.3 5.68 228.90 40.4 6.17 249.27 40.2 6.70 269.34 Transportation and public utilities Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earning s........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 39.9 6.99 278.90 40.0 7.57 302.80 Wholesale trade Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earning s........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 38.8 5.39 209.13 31.6 3.85 1977 1978 1979 Private sector Average weekly h o u rs ................................................................. Average hourly earnings ............................................................. Average weekly e arning s............................................................ 36.0 5.25 189.00 35.8 5.69 203.70 35.7 6.16 219.91 Mining Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 43.4 6.94 301.20 43.4 7.67 332.88 Construction Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earning s........................................................ Average weekly e a rn in g s ...................................................... 36.5 36.8 8.10 8.66 295.65 Manufacturing Average weekly h o u rs ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Industry 1980 35.3 6.66 1983 35.0 8.02 11.11 Retail trade Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earning s........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 121.66 31.0 4.20 130.20 Finance, insurance, and real estate Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly e arning s........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 36.4 4.54 165.26 36.4 4.89 178.00 36.2 5.27 190.77 36.2 5.79 209.60 36.3 6.31 229.05 36.2 6.78 245.44 36.2 7.29 263.90 36.5 7.62 278.13 36.4 7.93 288.65 Services Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earning s........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... 33.0 4.65 153.45 32.8 4.99 163.67 32.7 5.36 175.27 32.6 5.85 190.71 32.6 6.41 208.97 32.6 6.92 225.59 32.7 7.31 239.04 32.8 7.64 250.59 32.8 7.95 260.76 p = preliminary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 22. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1981 = 100) 1983 1984 1985 Percent change Series 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. Mar. June 117.8 119.8 120.8 122.4 123.9 125.5 126.4 128.4 129.2 0.6 4.3 118.9 115.8 119.1 120.9 117.7 122.1 122.1 125.5 120.9 126.8 127.3 122.0 124.0 119.6 124.6 127.8 128.3 123.1 128.0 130.7 124.4 130.9 131.6 124.9 131.8 .7 .4 .7 4.9 3.3 3.9 116.0 118.6 119.1 125.5 123.7 120.4 123.3 128.8 126.9 122.0 121.4 117.9 120.7 125.0 122.9 123.9 126.2 131.9 130.1 124.6 127.2 132.6 130.3 125.5 129.7 136.4 134.2 126.0 130.6 137.1 134.8 .4 .7 .5 .4 3.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 117.0 119.0 120.1 121.1 122.7 124.2 125.2 126.8 127.5 .6 3.9 117.9 115.7 117.9 119.9 117.5 121.5 121.4 118.4 123.9 125.8 121.9 126.3 127.1 126.5 128.8 124.0 128.8 129.8 124.4 129.5 .8 121.2 122.4 119.3 123.2 .3 .5 4.8 3.2 3.0 116.0 117.5 117.9 119.6 119.1 120.7 120.4 122.0 121.6 123.1 123.9 124.4 124.6 125.6 125.5 127.6 126.0 128.4 .6 3.3 4.3 Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Dec., 1985 Civilian workers 2 .......................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rk e rs ................. Blue-coliar w o rkers.................... Service w o rk e rs ......................... Workers, by industry division: M anufacturing............................ Nonm anufacturing..................... S e rv ic e s ................................... Public administration 3 ........... Private industry w o rk e rs ............ Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rke rs................. Blue-collar w o rke rs.................... Service w o rk e rs ......................... Workers, by industry division: M anufacturing............................. Nonmanufacturing ..................... State and local government workers Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rkers........................... Blue-collar w o rke rs............................. Workers, by industry division: S e rvice s................................................ S c h o o ls .............................................. Elementary and secondary......... Hospitals and other services 4 ........ Public administration 3 ......................... . 122.6 74 121.6 124.8 130.9 128.6 120.6 125.7 122.2 122.8 .4 122.0 123.9 124.4 128.8 130.1 131.7 132.0 136.5 137.5 .7 5.7 122.6 124.5 121.9 125.0 122.3 129.7 125.0 131.1 125.9 132.5 128.1 132.9 128.5 137.6 131.9 138.6 132.7 .7 5.7 5.4 124.5 124.5 125.4 124.4 122.9 125.0 124.7 125.7 125.7 123.7 129.9 130.6 132.1 127.9 126.9 131.3 132.0 133.5 129.2 128.6 132.8 133.4 134.4 131.1 130.1 133.2 133.7 134.6 131.5 130.3 137.9 139.1 140.9 134.1 134.2 139.1 140.3 142.0 135.2 134.8 119.2 122.6 122.6 123.9 122.6 121.4 1 Cost (cents-per-hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 118.6 .6 .9 .9 .8 .8 4 5.9 6.3 6.4 4.6 4.8 and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries only, by occupation and industry group (June 1981 = 100) 1984 1983 Percent change 1985 Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec., 1985 Civilian workers ' ........................................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rk e rs ................................................................. Blue-collar w o rkers.................................................................... Service w o rk e rs ......................................................................... 116.5 117.9 118.8 120.3 121.7 123.1 124.2 126.3 127.0 0.6 4.4 117.9 114.0 117.4 119.3 115.3 120.4 116.1 119.8 122.2 117.0 122.3 123.5 118.2 124.3 125.2 119.3 124.8 126.4 120.5 125.3 128.8 128.0 129.8 122.3 128.6 .8 .2 120.0 5.1 3.5 3.5 Workers, by industry division M anufacturing............................................................................. Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... Services .................................................................................... Public administration 2 ........................................................... 114.5 117.4 121.3 119.4 115.7 118.9 123.3 120.4 116.8 119.7 123.8 121.3 118.0 121.3 127.2 124.4 119.5 121.0 122.6 128.9 125.7 123.9 129.7 127.0 122.3 125.0 130.5 127.2 123.2 127.6 134.2 131.4 123.8 128.4 134.8 132.0 .4 .5 3.6 4.7 4.6 5.0 115.8 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.6 122.0 123.3 124.9 125.6 .6 4.1 117.2 120.4 115.7 118.5 122.2 120.9 125.2 122.3 127.3 110.2 122.2 111.6 118.3 119.8 122.0 122.9 124.0 127.7 123.8 116.3 124.7 125.5 128.7 126.5 117.4 125.6 127.3 131.2 127.7 119.3 127.1 128.3 131.5 128.4 122.5 127.9 .8 .2 121.0 111.2 119.9 123.8 119.2 111.9 120.7 4.9 3.3 5.1 9.8 4.1 113.9 115.4 113.6 115.9 117.3 115.8 112.7 114.1 119.3 116.7 118.0 116.6 113.4 114.7 120.3 122.0 120.8 118.9 114.5 116.7 123.8 122.0 120.1 121.7 123.7 121.1 121.6 .4 121.2 118.0 119.4 117.9 114.0 115.9 123.7 119.1 116.5 115.1 116.5 114.9 111.7 112.9 119.8 115.7 118.5 124.4 117.7 118.6 126.3 117.8 119.8 126.6 .1 1.0 .2 114.5 114.4 114.6 115.7 115.7 115.8 116.8 116.6 117.1 118.0 117.7 118.6 119.5 119.1 122.3 122.0 122.6 123.2 122.7 124.0 123.8 123.4 124.6 .6 120.2 121.0 120.6 121.6 116.5 112.9 116.8 112.3 116.5 118.0 113.3 118.5 114.3 118.2 119.0 114.0 119.3 116.0 119.9 114.3 119.9 116.5 120.7 114.9 115.3 127.1 121.2 122.6 114.4 120.7 118.1 122.9 116.2 115.8 129.5 115.5 121.7 118.8 123.7 116.9 125.9 117.3 124.8 122.7 127.7 126.6 117.9 125.2 123.7 128.3 121.9 126.5 134.1 Private industry w o rk e rs ....................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................ Professional and technical.............................................. Managers and adm inistrators......................................... Salesworkers ..................................................................... Clerical w o rk e rs................................................................. Blue-collar w o rk e rs .............................................................. Craft and kindred workers .............................................. Operatives, except tra n s p o rt.......................................... Transport equipment o p e ra tiv e s.................................... Nonfarm la b o re rs .............................................................. Service workers ................................................................... Workers, by industry division: M anufacturing....................................................................... D u rab les.............................................................................. N ondurables....................................................................... Nonmanufacturing................................................................ C onstruction....................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s .................................. Wholesale and retail tra d e ............................................... Wholesale trade ............................................................. Retail tra d e ...................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .............................. S e rvices............................................................................... State and local government w o rk e rs ................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................ Blue-collar w o rk e rs .............................................................. Workers, by industry division Services ................................................................................. S ch ools................................................................................ Elementary and s e c o n d a ry .......................................... Hospitals and other services 3 ....................................... Public administration 2 ......................................................... 110.2 112.1 118.0 110.6 112.8 116.9 121.9 116.1 124.2 114.4 116.9 124.7 122.0 129.9 123.9 116.6 122.8 121.1 126.8 118.9 121.7 131.0 120.8 124.1 133.9 123.8 .5 .5 .6 .5 2.7 .6 .2 .1 .5 .5 .6 .5 .3 .8 .5 .9 1.9 .1 3.4 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.5 3.1 3.7 4.7 4.4 4.9 9.2 3.6 120.0 121.6 122.0 126.1 127.1 128.4 128.7 133.2 134.2 .8 5.6 120.6 122.2 122.5 119.6 127.1 121.9 128.0 122.5 129.3 124.2 129.6 124.5 134.3 127.9 135.3 128.4 .7 .4 5.7 4.8 122.5 122.3 123.0 123.1 121.3 127.2 127.8 129.3 125.1 124.4 128.1 128.7 130.2 125.9 125.7 129.4 129.9 130.8 127.7 127.0 129.7 130.2 131.1 128.0 127.2 134.5 135.8 137.5 130.2 131.4 135.6 137.0 138.5 130.9 132.0 .8 5.9 6.4 6.4 4.0 5.0 116.9 119.1 120.6 120.6 122.2 122.2 121.7 122.9 121.9 120.4 120.6 119.4 1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 120.0 110.5 122.0 .9 .7 .5 .5 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities, 3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services. 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 24. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1981=100) 1983 1984 1985 Percent change Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec., 1985 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status1 Union ........................................................................................ Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 118.8 117.2 120.4 119.3 121.9 121.7 120.5 122.6 121.6 122.8 123.6 123.9 123.2 124.5 124.8 124.2 125.3 125.5 124.2 126.6 126.5 125.0 127.8 127.1 125.5 128.6 N o nunion................................................................................... Manufacturing ........................................................................ Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 115.9 114.9 116.4 118.0 116.6 118.6 119.2 117.9 119.8 120.3 119.3 120.7 121.9 122.4 123.8 123.6 123.9 125.0 124.8 125.1 126.8 125.7 127.3 127.5 126.3 128.1 Workers, by region 1 N o rtheast....................................................................................... South ........................................................................................... Midwest (formerly North C e ntral)............................................... W e s t......................................................................................... 117.5 117.1 114.7 118.9 119.7 117.2 120.7 120.7 117.9 122.2 120.8 125.1 124.2 122.0 120.0 121.0 122.2 122.4 120.7 119.7 122.5 124.9 126.8 126.4 125.2 122.7 127.9 128.8 126.5 124.2 129.1 129.9 127.2 124.6 129.8 .3 .5 4.9 4.1 3.1 3.9 117.4 114.5 119.4 116.7 120.6 117.4 121.5 119.0 123.2 119.8 124.7 121.4 125.7 122.5 127.3 123.9 128.1 123.9 .6 .0 4.0 3.4 Workers, by bargaining status Union .................................................................................. Manufacturing ............................................................................. Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 116.9 114.8 118.9 118.1 116.1 119.8 118.1 121.3 120.9 119.5 121.7 120.4 122.1 122.8 123.0 121.7 124.1 124.1 120.1 119.0 117.1 120.7 125.3 124.7 123.3 125.9 .5 .4 .5 3.1 3.2 3.1 N o nunion............................................................................ Manufacturing ...................................................................... Nonmanufacturing .................................................................... 115.2 114.2 115.6 116.7 115.4 117.2 117.8 116.5 118.3 118.8 117.9 119.2 120.4 119.5 120.7 122.1 123.4 121.5 122.3 122.8 125.2 123.7 125.9 125.9 124.4 126.6 .6 .6 .6 4.6 4.1 4.9 Workers, by region 1 N o rtheast................................................................................... South ..................................................................... Midwest (formerly North C e ntral)............................................... W e s t.......................................................................... 116.6 115.7 113.6 118.5 117.4 117.9 115.5 118.8 118.9 119.0 116.0 119.6 120.5 119.0 117.8 121.9 124.6 123.4 118.7 122.5 125.1 126.8 124.8 122.5 126.6 128.1 125.4 122.9 127.1 1.0 120.0 123.0 122.3 119.6 124.0 .5 .3 .4 5.1 4.3 3.5 3.8 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan a re a s .................................................................... Other a re a s ................................................................. 116.2 113.4 117.6 115.1 118.6 116.0 119.5 117.5 122.4 119.6 120.6 125.5 121.9 126.3 118.3 122.0 .6 .1 4.4 3.1 Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan a re a s ....................................................................... Other a re a s ................................................................................... 120.6 120.8 123.8 2.6 0.5 .4 1.9 3.3 .6 .6 4.6 4.6 4.7 .5 .6 .9 .6 WAGES AND SALARIES 1 ne indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 120.2 121.0 M onthly Labor R eview Technical Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. 123.6 121.1 123.8 Note, 122.8 "Estimation procedures for the 25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Quarterly average Annual average 1985 1984 Measure 1984 1985 lllp llp IV» I II III IV I 5.1 4.7 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.4 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.5 3.3 3.2 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.5 3.3 2.8 3.1 1.9 1.2 .2 .7 .3 .8 .1 .8 .2 1.2 .2 .2 .7 .3 .2 .2 .6 .1 .5 .6 .1 .4 Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments , 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of c o n tra c t................................................ Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................ Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of c o n tra c t............................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................ Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustm ent 3 ............................ From settlements reached in period ..................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier p eriods....................................................................... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .............. 3.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.3 .7 .9 .9 .1 .1 1.8 .8 .4 .3 .7 .8 2.0 .9 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers' cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases and no changes in .2 .5 .2 .1 compensation or wages. 3 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary 26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters ending1985 1984 Measure I II IV III IVp lllp llp I Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 2.7 3.2 4.5 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.9 2.7 2.5 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.3 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.5 3.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 .8 .8 2.5 1.4 .9 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.7 4.3 2.5 2.9 3.8 4.8 3.6 4.7 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.2 (1) 2.8 Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: All industries First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................. 2.6 3.4 Manufacturing First year of c o n tra c t..................................................................... ........... 2.6 2.4 2.9 Nonmanufacturing First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................. Construction First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................ Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.8 4.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.3 3.7 5.2 3.3 5.4 2.5 5.5 2.6 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.2 .1 .8 -.4 .9 1.7 1.4 .0 1.8 .7 2.2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.9 1.5 2.8 2.2 2.0 1 Data do not meet publication standards. 2.1 p 1.0 2.0 5.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 2.9 4.8 2.6 2.6 .9 4.0 .9 1.4 1.4 1.4 .5 4.0 .4 .9 4.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 4.0 2.7 1.9 2.3 1.6 .9 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.4 2.4 1.8 2.1 1.6 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.8 1.0 1.1 9.2 (1) .8 1.0 0 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 4.6 1.7 1.5 0) (1) 2.1 1.7 (1) (1) (1) (1) = preliminary 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data 27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment 1984 1985 II III IV I llp lllp IVp 3.6 .7 3.5 .9 3.3 .7 1.8 .8 1.8 .8 4.3 3.7 4.1 3.4 3.7 2.8 2.2 For all workers:1 T o ta l..................................................................................... From settlements reached in period .......................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .................... 4.3 4.2 3.7 1.0 2.2 1.1 1.0 2.1 1.2 .8 2.0 2.2 .9 .7 3.5 .9 1.9 .7 For workers receiving changes: T o ta l............................................................................................. From settlements reached in period ................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier p e rio d ....... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s ............................. 5.3 3.6 4.9 4.0 5.0 3.7 4.2 3.2 4.4 3.0 4.0 2.7 4.5 2.9 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.9 3.9 2.3 1 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. p 2.8 = preliminary ,2« J pecified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and lO C a l n n v p r n m p n t r n ________ ■___ j o p liu a h a r / ia în m » _____ . ' Annual average Measure Second 6 months 1985p 1984 1985 5.2 5.4 4.2 5.2 3.8 5.3 4.8 5.1 4.6 5.4 4.4 5.6 5.0 1.9 3.1 n 5.8 4.1 4.1 3.2 .9 (4) Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments , 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of c o n tra c t............................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................... ....................... Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract ..................................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................................. ............ Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustm ent 3 .............................................................................. From settlements reached in p e rio d ......................................................... Deferred from settlements reached In earlier p e rio d s ............................ ZZZZZZZ............ From cost-of-living-adjustment c la u s e s ........................................................... 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee 1.6 C) Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. Less than .05 pe rc e n t. benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases and no changes in compensation or wages. 3 = preliminary 29. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more Annual totals 1985 Measure 1984 Number of stoppages: Beginning in p e rio d ................ In effect during p e rio d ........... Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands)....................... In effect during period (in thousands).................. Days idle: Number (in thousands)..... Percent of estimated working time 1 ..................... 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 62 68 9 t3 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 June 2 8 July 2 8 Aug.p 9 13 Sept.» 6 18 Oct.p Nov.p Dec.» Jan.p 11 20 4 18 2 11 2 8 - - 376.0 15.2 6.2 6.9 15.7 52.3 15.3 69.5 74.6 25.0 8.2 - 391.0 48.2 14.1 14.8 28.5 60.2 66.8 93.9 117.3 64.6 38.1 - 698.5 229.5 203.3 454.3 500.2 869.7 931.4 1,433.0 651.2 665.4 - .03 .01 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .06 .03 .03 - 8,499.0 .04 278.3 Agricultural and government employees are included In the total employed and total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of the measurement of Idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in T otal Economy’ Measure of Strike Idleness, M onthly Labor Review, October 78 May 1968, pp. 54-56. - Data not available. p = preliminary 30. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1986 1985 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 322.2 374.7 316.1 367.6 317.4 369.1 318.8 370.7 320.1 372.3 321.3 373.7 322.3 374.8 322.8 375.5 323.5 376.2 324.5 377.4 325.5 378.5 326.6 379.9 327.4 380.8 328.4 381.9 302.0 309.8 296.8 317.0 263.4 258.0 325.7 361.1 398.8 294.4 451.7 294.2 346.6 229.5 299.3 307.3 296.1 312.4 266.6 258.8 320.8 358.0 394.5 295.9 449.4 289.6 339.9 224.3 301.4 309.5 298.6 313.7 267.0 259.2 333.0 359.8 394.8 295.1 452.7 291.5 341.4 225.8 301.6 309.7 298.4 314.4 266.1 258.9 332.1 360.5 394.8 294.9 454.0 292.2 342.6 226.5 301.6 309.6 297.7 314.8 263.6 258.3 333.2 360.8 396.1 294.0 454.0 292.8 343.9 226.7 301.0 308.9 296.2 315.9 259.8 258.4 330.3 361.3 397.6 294.0 454.1 293.4 345.1 227.7 301.4 309.3 296.0 317.3 259.8 257.8 329.0 360.8 398.3 296.0 451.5 293.4 346.9 227.8 301.6 309.5 296.2 317.3 260.5 257.8 328.9 360.6 400.2 297.8 448.2 294.5 347.3 227.8 301.8 309.7 295.9 318.5 259.7 257.4 326.3 361.7 401.8 297.1 449.6 295.8 348.4 228.9 302.1 309.9 295.6 319.2 260.6 258.0 319.9 362.6 401.1 294.8 452.8 296.3 349.9 229.3 302.5 309.8 295.3 318.9 261.1 257.1 317.1 363.0 402.6 291.2 454.1 296.8 350.3 236.4 303.6 311.0 296.6 319.9 266.1 257.1 314.3 362.2 401.4 292.1 451.7 296.8 351.3 236.2 305.6 313.2 299.3 321.9 269.9 256.9 323.9 361.3 402.2 290.3 448.8 297.3 352.1 236.2 307.9 315.6 302.5 322.0 271.5 257.2 334.4 365.7 405.1 292.1 459.7 298.0 353.1 237.5 349.9 382.0 115.4 264.6 398.4 113.1 113.2 112.4 368.9 421.1 269.6 393.6 488.1 619.5 452.7 240.7 247.2 342.0 371.2 343.6 373.3 112.4 258.4 381.9 110.7 110.7 109.5 366.8 415.8 270.5 386.5 480.8 623.4 443.3 234.3 246.2 200.7 311.5 333.9 344.7 374.3 112.9 259.2 386.1 348.5 379.5 114.5 262.6 396.5 112.4 112.5 350.4 381.0 115.1 263.6 401.6 112.0 366.2 416.0 269.2 393.0 490.0 620.8 454.7 236.8 247.6 112.7 367.6 423.2 265.7 399.4 497.7 612.0 465.6 241.1 247.1 200.0 312.9 338.0 313.6 338.3 352.9 385.9 116.6 266.6 409.9 114.3 114.3 113.0 370.6 425.1 269.2 398.9 494.4 594.6 465.1 244.2 247.0 199.1 313.5 340.7 353.8 386.9 117.0 267.7 410.7 114.6 114.6 113.7 368.7 421.9 268.6 400.5 496.8 601.7 466.5 244.6 247.1 199.0 313.9 341.5 354.4 389.1 117.9 269.9 412.5 115.1 115.1 114.6 368.5 422.2 268.0 395.6 488.4 615.3 453.9 244.7 248.4 200.3 315.7 342.2 355.8 392.3 118.3 272.4 398.1 116.3 116.3 115.0 373.7 426.2 273.3 393.3 483.6 657.3 439.9 245.8 248.8 201.2 351.6 383.2 115.8 265.0 405.1 113.5 113.5 112.7 367.8 421.1 267.8 399.9 497.3 601.9 467.1 242.8 246.5 198.8 313.1 339.8 355.0 391.3 118.4 271.7 408.7 115.8 115.9 114.5 372.7 426.4 271.5 392.1 481.5 641.6 440.5 245.9 248.9 311.8 337.4 345.9 375.9 113.5 260.4 390.9 111.3 111.3 111.4 368.0 418.2 270.4 388.7 483.0 623.5 445.9 236.4 247.9 201.7 312.6 337.9 356.8 393.8 118.8 273.4 401.1 116.7 116.7 115.7 379.1 432.6 277.1 394.6 484.7 650.3 442.6 247.3 248.8 199.8 318.3 343.9 205.9 191.8 197.4 170.0 295.3 213.2 215.8 318.4 205.3 191.0 197.8 168.0 298.3 213.2 215.1 319.4 204.6 190.2 196.4 166.5 300.7 213.9 216.3 319.9 202.8 209.6 195.3 201.5 176.1 302.0 210.9 215.2 324.1 211.2 188.0 194.5 163.4 294.5 211.4 216.7 321.4 205.3 190.6 197.2 167.7 300.6 210.3 217.5 322.9 211.1 215.5 316.0 205.3 191.3 195.2 169.9 302.1 213.1 216.9 317.1 196.7 203.2 177.9 302.1 212.3 214.9 325.7 196.8 203.6 176.5 307.0 215.5 214.9 326.3 172.6 304.1 213.1 214.6 326.9 316.7 311.0 213.8 214.1 386.1 360.6 360.0 348.5 284.5 201.9 309.1 397.3 320.0 314.6 213.9 214.1 386.4 374.2 373.8 348.2 285.8 321.8 316.3 214.3 214.7 380.3 384.7 384.5 350.4 286.6 203.9 311.3 399.3 321.8 316.1 214.3 214.7 376.7 385.5 385.3 351.1 287.6 320.7 314.9 214.2 214.6 374.0 381.9 381.8 351.9 287.7 323.2 317.0 218.2 218.4 376.4 376.7 376.1 355.8 293.9 324.0 317.8 219.2 219.4 375.6 377.5 376.8 357.5 295.2 202.2 202.8 202.8 201.6 202.1 313.0 402.4 313.0 403.7 319.7 313.6 214.2 214.5 374.3 377.7 377.4 353.5 285.8 203.4 310.4 408.0 320.9 314.7 215.9 216.2 375.3 374.6 374.2 355.7 289.6 310.5 398.0 321.4 316.0 214.2 214.5 384.2 381.6 381.4 349.6 285.6 201.3 310.7 398.4 315.4 411.5 321.2 412.8 322.7 412.9 323.9 317.3 219.7 219.9 374.1 373.3 372.5 357.9 297.7 203.4 325.5 419.6 1984 1985 311.1 361.9 Food and b eve rag es........................................................................ F o o d ................................................................................................ Food at h o m e .................................................................................. Cereals and bakery pro d u c ts ...................................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..................................................... Dairy p ro d u cts............................................................................... Fruits and vegetables................................................................... Other foods at h o m e .................................................................... Sugar and s w e e ts ...................................................................... Fats and o ils ............................................................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................ Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................ Food away from home ................................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................................... 295.1 302.9 292.6 305.3 266.6 253.2 317.4 352.2 389.1 288.0 443.0 284.9 333.4 Housing .................................................................................................. Shelter .......................................................................... Renters' costs (12/82 = 1 0 0 )........................................................ Rent, residential............................................................................ Other renters’ costs ..................................................................... Homeowners’ costs ( 1 2 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................... Owners’ equivalent rent ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )..................................... Household insurance ( 1 2 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................... Maintenance and repairs................................................................ Maintenance and repair services .............................................. Maintenance and repair com m odities....................................... Fuel and other u tilitie s....................................................................... Fuels ................................................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .......................................................... Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s ................................................. Household furnishings and ope rations........................................... H ousefurnishings............................................................ Housekeeping supplies................................................................... Housekeeping services................................................................... 336.5 361.7 108.6 249.3 373.4 107.3 107.3 107.5 359.2 409.7 262.7 387.3 485.5 641.8 445.2 230.2 242.5 199.1 303.2 327.5 Apparel and u p k e e p ..................................................................... Apparel com m o dities.................................................................. Men’s and boys’ ap p a re l.............................................................. W omen’s and girls’ apparel ................................................ Infants’ and toddlers’ ap p a re l................................. Foo tw ear.......................................................... Other apparel com m odities........................................................ Apparel services........................................................ 200.2 187.0 192.4 163.6 287.0 209.5 216.4 305.0 Transportation ................................................................ Private transportation......................................................................... New ve h icle s..................................................................................... New c a rs ......................................................................................... Used c a r s .......................................................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................................................... G asoline.............................................................. Maintenance and re p a ir.......................................................... Other private tran sportation........................................................... Other private transportation com m o dities................................ Other private transportation services........................................ Public transportation.......................................................................... CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS: All ite m s .................................................................................. All items (1 9 5 7 -5 9 -1 0 0 )......................................................... 222.1 200.1 313.6 338.9 206.0 191.6 197.9 169.5 299.7 111.8 257.1 378.5 110.0 110.0 109.0 366.0 414.7 269.9 387.2 481.2 621.6 444.1 235.3 244.2 198.8 309.9 331.3 201.8 110.8 110.9 110.4 370.0 422.2 270.6 388.2 482.2 620.8 445.5 236.3 246.9 200.6 112.8 112.8 200.8 200.1 316.4 342.7 317.7 343.2 212.1 199.8 185.7 193.2 161.3 290.3 208.6 215.5 320.9 312.5 311.7 306.6 208.0 208.5 375.7 370.7 370.2 341.5 273.3 201.5 295.0 385.2 319.9 314.2 214.9 215.2 379.7 373.8 373.3 351.4 287.6 314.7 309.1 212.7 213.1 382.8 357.6 356.8 346.9 283.9 202.6 202.0 312.8 402.8 308.3 394.5 314.3 308.7 213.6 213.9 384.6 352.4 351.6 348.2 284.4 203.8 308.5 394.4 Medical c a r e ...................................................... Medical care com m o dities................................................................ Medical care services........................................................................ Professional se rv ic e s ...................................................................... Other medical care s e rv ic e s .......................................................... 379.5 239.7 410.3 346.1 488.0 403.1 256.7 435.1 367.3 517.0 391.1 248.2 422.4 356.8 501.7 393.8 249.8 425.3 359.3 505.2 396.5 251.9 428.1 361.9 508.0 398.0 253.9 429.4 363.0 509.6 399.5 255.2 430.9 364.5 511.2 401.7 257.0 433.0 366.4 513.6 404.0 257.8 435.8 368.1 517.6 406.6 259.3 438.6 370.0 521.6 408.3 260.2 440.5 371.7 523.9 410.5 261.3 443.0 373.2 527.4 413.0 262.7 445.8 375.5 530.8 414.7 262.9 448.0 377.1 533.6 418.2 264.5 451.9 378.9 540.3 E ntertainm ent.............................................................. Entertainment commodities .............................................................. Entertainment se rvice s...................................................................... 255.1 253.3 258.3 265.0 260.6 271.8 261.0 257.1 267.0 261.3 257.9 266.7 262.2 258.7 267.6 263.3 259.5 269.2 263.6 259.5 269.9 264.8 260.1 272.0 265.7 260.8 273.3 265.7 260.5 273.6 266.8 262.5 273.3 268.4 264.0 275.2 269.0 264.0 276.6 268.3 262.5 277.1 270.8 264.7 279.9 Other goods and services ................................................................... Tobacco p ro d u c ts .............................................................................. Personal c a re ....................................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................ Personal care s e rv ic e s ................................................................... Personal and educational expenses............................................... School books and supp lies............................................................ Personal and educational s e rv ic e s .............................................. 307.7 310.0 271.4 269.6 274.1 365.7 322.8 375.6 326.6 328.5 281.9 278.5 286.0 397.1 350.8 407.7 319.1 321.0 277.2 274.0 281.1 385.6 340.7 395.9 320.5 323.2 278.2 275.4 281.7 386.9 343.8 396.9 321.1 323.7 278.7 276.0 282.0 387.6 343.9 397.8 321.8 324.0 279.8 277.1 283.3 388.3 344.5 398.5 322.3 324.1 280.9 277.5 285.0 388.5 344.5 398.8 323.0 324.8 281.7 277.9 286.1 389.1 344.9 399.4 325.0 330.0 282.3 278.9 286.3 390.1 345.5 400.4 326.0 331.5 283.3 279.4 287.7 390.7 346.1 401.1 333.3 332.8 284.1 280.6 288.2 412.5 362.1 423.9 334.9 334.4 285.0 281.4 289.2 414.7 364.5 426.2 335.3 334.7 285.4 281.1 290.2 415.4 364.7 426.9 336.5 337.4 286.3 282.5 290.6 415.5 364.7 427.0 339.1 342.7 288.1 285.3 291.8 416.8 371.0 427.6 212.2 187.5 192.8 164.1 298.8 210.1 202.8 209.0 194.2 202.0 205.0 189.5 198.6 164.4 313.9 209.1 215.5 329.8 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Annual average Series 1985 1986 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 322.2 286.7 302.0 316.1 282.7 299.3 317.4 284.0 301.4 318.8 285.3 301.6 320.1 286.8 301.6 321.3 287.0 301.0 322.3 286.9 301.4 322.8 286.5 301.6 323.5 286.5 301.8 324.5 287.1 302.1 325.5 287.9 302.5 326.6 289.2 303.6 327.4 289.9 305.6 328.4 290.1 307.9 275.7 187.0 325.8 266.5 282.1 191.6 333.3 270.7 274.4 185.7 324.5 270.2 274.7 187.5 324.2 271.4 277.9 191.3 327.1 271.9 281.5 191.8 332.3 272.6 283.1 191.0 335.1 271.6 283.5 190.2 336.2 270.4 282.9 188.0 336.4 269.3 283.1 190.6 335.4 268.6 284.6 195.3 335.3 268.7 285.3 196.7 335.6 270.2 286.8 196.8 337.8 271.5 286.8 194.2 339.1 271.4 284.9 189.5 338.7 271.4 363.0 107.7 108.1 321.1 410.3 296.0 381.5 113.9 372.1 383.3 114.3 113.2 337.0 435.8 313.0 384.9 115.1 113.2 337.4 438.6 313.8 386.5 115.4 113.5 337.1 440.5 319.7 112.1 110.8 337.0 435.1 314.1 381.3 113.6 112.7 335.3 433.0 312.0 388.7 116.7 109.8 334.1 429.4 309.9 378.9 113.2 110.9 334.5 430.9 310.7 387.7 116.1 108.9 331.8 422.4 307.1 375.0 111.5 109.7 333.2 428.1 308.6 376.2 111.2 373.5 111.3 108.9 332.2 425.3 307.8 341.1 443.0 321.4 344.7 445.8 322.5 389.5 117.0 110.8 346.1 448.0 322.9 391.7 117.4 111.4 349.0 451.9 324.8 311.3 295.1 106.3 307.3 267.0 270.8 311.9 286.6 108.5 355.6 423.6 302.9 301.2 253.1 409.8 356.4 323.3 303.9 109.7 317.7 272.5 277.2 319.2 293.2 113.5 373.3 426.5 314.8 314.4 259.7 409.9 375.9 319.1 301.5 108.7 314.5 270.6 273.2 313.5 291.0 111.9 366.9 416.6 312.0 310.8 259.3 398.3 369.4 320.8 302.8 109.2 315.8 272.8 276.5 318.1 292.7 322.4 303.4 109.5 317.0 273.4 278.0 320.7 293.3 112.2 112.8 370.9 431.7 313.3 312.8 259.6 417.0 372.9 324.2 304.4 109.9 318.4 272.4 277.9 321.9 293.5 114.2 375.2 437.1 314.5 314.1 258.2 418.1 376.6 318.9 272.3 278.1 321.1 293.7 114.5 376.7 433.8 315.6 315.3 258.8 414.0 378.6 326.2 305.7 110.4 319.9 273.1 279.6 321.0 294.6 115.0 378.3 432.6 316.8 316.9 260.2 411.2 380.2 327.4 306.3 110.7 320.8 274.4 280.7 322.0 295.1 115.1 379.3 427.1 318.4 318.9 262.0 410.1 382.5 328.5 307.2 368.1 424.4 312.7 311.8 260.0 410.8 370.7 323.6 304.3 109.8 317.9 273.1 278.4 321.7 293.7 113.7 373.3 436.8 313.9 313.4 259.0 418.7 374.6 325.0 304.6 364.3 414.5 309.2 307.9 256.5 395.7 366.4 317.4 300.0 108.2 313.1 268.6 270.2 310.8 289.2 111.3 365.5 411.4 310.9 309.5 258.1 391.3 368.0 321.9 275.7 282.0 324.0 296.4 115.2 380.1 425.1 319.8 320.4 262.7 415.2 384.8 328.9 307.9 111.3 322.6 275.7 282.0 325.1 297.4 115.4 380.8 426.5 320.5 320.7 262.2 417.9 385.8 329.5 308.8 111.6 323.4 274.7 280.4 324.9 297.7 116.2 382.7 424.7 321.8 321.6 261.8 413.2 387.9 32.1 27.6 31.0 26.7 31.6 27.2 31.5 27.1 31.4 27.0 31.2 26.9 31.1 26.8 31.0 26.7 31.0 26.6 30.9 26.6 30.8 26.5 30.7 26.4 30.6 26.3 30.5 26.3 30.5 26.2 ZZZZZZi 307.6 357.7 318.5 370.4 312.6 363.6 313.9 365.1 315.3 366.7 316.7 368.3 317.8 369.6 318.7 370.6 319.1 371.2 319.6 371.8 320.5 372.7 321.3 373.7 322.6 375.1 323.4 376.1 324.3 377.1 Food and beverages ...................................................... Food............................................................................. Food at home .................................................................... Cereals and bakery products.......................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs......................................... Dairy products.................................................................. Fruits and vegetables...................................................... Other foods at home....................................................... Sugar and sweets......................................................... Fats and o ils ................................................................. Nonalcoholic beverages................................................ Other prepared foods.................................................... Food away from home ............................ .......................... Alcoholic beverages.............................................................. 295.2 302.7 291.2 303.7 266.0 252.2 312.5 352.7 388.6 287.5 444.4 286.4 336.7 225.3 301.8 309.3 295.3 315.4 262.7 256.9 320.3 361.5 398.3 293.9 453.2 295.7 349.7 232.6 299.1 306.9 294.5 310.7 266.0 257.8 314.9 358.3 394.0 295.3 450.9 290.9 343.0 227.6 301.2 309.0 297.0 311.9 266.3 258.3 327.1 360.2 394.4 294.7 454.2 292.9 344.6 229.1 301.6 309.3 296.9 312.7 265.6 257.8 326.8 361.0 394.2 294.3 455.5 293.7 345.8 229.9 301.4 309.2 296.1 313.1 262.9 257.2 328.1 361.3 395.5 293.7 455.6 294.2 347.1 229.9 300.8 308.4 294.6 314.1 259.2 257.3 324.8 361.6 396.9 293.6 455.4 294.9 348.4 230.8 301.2 308.8 294.5 315.7 259.3 256.7 323.5 361.3 398.0 295.6 453.0 295.0 350.1 231.0 301.4 309.0 294.6 315.7 259.7 256.6 323.9 361.1 399.8 297.3 449.8 296.1 350.4 231.0 301.6 309.1 294.3 316.8 259.0 256.3 320.6 362.2 401.4 296.5 451.2 297.3 351.5 232.2 301.8 309.3 294.0 317.6 259.9 256.8 313.6 362.9 400.8 294.1 454.1 297.7 353.0 232.6 302.2 309.3 293.7 317.3 260.4 255.9 311.2 363.4 402.2 290.6 455.6 298.3 353.4 239.1 303.4 310.6 295.2 318.2 265.4 255.9 309.4 362.5 400.9 291.8 453.1 298.3 354.4 238.8 305.4 312.8 297.9 320.4 269.2 255.7 319.3 361.6 401.8 289.6 450.4 298.7 355.2 239.1 307.7 315.1 300.9 320.4 270.7 256.0 329.7 366.1 404.7 291.6 461.0 299.4 356.2 240.1 Housing ................................................................................... Shelter .................................................................................. Renters’ costs (12/84 = 100)............................................ Rent, residential............................................................... Other renters’ c o s ts ........................................................ Homeowners’ costs (12/84=100)..................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84=100)........................... Household insurance (12/84=100)................................ Maintenance and repairs.................................................... Maintenance and repair services .................................... Maintenance and repair commodities............................. Fuel and other utilities.......................................................... Fuels .................................................................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ........................................ Gas (piped) and electricity .............................................. Other utilities and public services..................................... Household furnishings and operations................................. Housefurnishings................................................................ Housekeeping supplies...................................................... Housekeeping services...................................................... 329.2 350.0 343.3 370.4 335.7 360.0 337.2 362.0 338.2 363.0 339.5 364.7 342.1 368.1 344.0 369.5 345.0 371.5 346.2 374.0 347.2 375.0 347.5 377.1 348.3 379.3 349.1 380.4 350.1 381.8 248.6 372.4 263.7 397.9 256.3 377.8 257.5 380.8 258.4 385.3 259.6 391.0 261.8 396.7 262.7 401.0 264.1 405.2 265.7 409.6 266.8 409.8 268.9 411.6 270.7 408.0 271.5 397.5 272.5 400.8 356.3 403.5 257.2 388.6 485.0 644.3 444.1 231.2 239.1 197.0 300.2 328.0 364.1 415.0 261.1 394.7 487.5 622.0 451.6 241.6 243.4 197.6 310.7 340.2 360.9 407.8 260.8 388.3 480.7 623.9 443.2 236.3 240.4 196.3 306.9 331.8 361.5 408.8 261.1 387.5 480.3 625.7 442.3 235.1 242.6 198.3 308.5 334.9 364.3 414.8 261.6 389.2 481.6 623.1 444.4 237.2 243.2 198.2 308.9 338.5 363.1 411.7 261.6 389.7 482.3 625.9 444.6 237.3 244.1 199.2 309.8 339.0 361.8 410.1 260.7 393.8 488.9 623.2 453.0 237.7 244.0 198.9 310.0 339.2 362.9 417.0 258.4 400.9 497.7 614.3 465.1 242.0 243.3 197.6 310.8 339.5 363.4 415.3 260.0 401.2 497.0 604.2 466.3 243.7 242.6 196.2 310.3 341.0 365.6 419.6 260.6 400.1 494.0 596.9 464.2 245.1 243.1 196.6 310.4 342.2 364.4 416.8 260.5 401.9 496.7 604.3 465.9 245.6 243.2 196.5 311.0 342.9 364.6 417.4 260.5 396.3 487.2 618.1 452.0 245.7 244.5 197.7 312.7 343.9 367.7 420.9 262.7 393.2 481.0 644.3 439.5 246.8 245.1 198.3 313.5 344.5 368.5 420.1 264.2 394.3 483.1 659.9 438.8 246.7 245.2 197.8 315.0 345.0 373.2 426.2 267.2 395.6 484.1 652.7 441.4 248.3 245.1 197.3 315.8 345.6 Apparel and upkeep................................................................ 199.1 205.0 198.5 200.7 204.21 204.9 204.2 203.7 201.8 204.3 208.7 210.2 210.2 208.1 204.1 All ite m s ................................................................................ C om m odities...................................................................... Food and beverages..................................................... Commodities less food and beverages...................... Nondurables less food and beverages .................. Apparel com m odities............................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel Durables........................................................................ S e rvices.............................................................................. Rent of sh e lte r................................................................ Household services less rent of shelter .................... Transportation se rv ic e s ................................................ Medical care services.................................................... Other services ................................................................ Special indexes: All items less food ......................................................... All items less s h e lte r.................................................... All items less homeowners’ c o s ts .............................. All items less medical c a r e .......................................... Commodities less fo o d ................................................. Nondurables less food ................................................. Nondurables less food and apparel ........................... Nondurables.................................................................... Services less rent of sh e lte r......................................... Services less medical c a r e ........................................... Energy.......................................................................... All items less e n e rg y ..................................................... All items less food and energy .................................... Commodities less food and e n e rg y ............................. Energy commodities ....................................................... Services less ene rgy...................................................... 1984 1985 . . . 311.1 280.7 295.1 . . . . . . 110.6 316.3 298.9 107.8 311.9 267.8 269.7 310.9 288.0 111.1 112.0 110.1 111.1 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1967 = $ 1 . 0 0 ..................................................................... = $ 1 . 0 0 ................................................. 1 9 5 7 -5 9 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: All items ........................................................................... All items (1957-59=100)................................... See footnotes at end of table. 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series 1986 1985 Ann ual aver age Dec. Jan. 194.1 174.5 317.3 213.6 202.4 324.4 189.4 198.8 166.1 332.7 209.9 203.5 327.2 324.6 320.1 217.5 217.8 376.4 378.7 378.1 357.2 293.7 203.7 320.2 400.1 325.3 320.8 218.6 218.8 375.6 379.6 378.9 359.0 294.7 204.3 321.3 400.2 325.1 320.2 219.0 219.2 374.1 375.3 374.6 359.4 296.9 205.6 323.7 408.6 408.5 260.9 440.6 373.7 524.4 410.9 262.2 443.2 375.8 527.5 412.6 262.3 445.4 377.6 530.4 416.0 264.1 449.2 379.3 536.9 261.6 256.0 272.6 263.0 257.1 274.6 263.7 257.2 276.3 263.0 255.7 276.8 265.4 257.8 280.0 322.9 331.1 280.9 280.0 282.2 393.2 351.2 403.6 328.7 332.4 281.8 281.1 282.8 414.5 366.9 426.1 330.1 334.0 282.7 282.0 283.7 416.5 369.2 428.1 330.5 334.3 283.1 281.9 284.8 417.3 369.3 428.9 331.9 337.1 284.0 283.3 285.2 417.4 369.4 429.1 334.9 342.4 285.9 285.9 286.4 418.9 375.6 429.7 320.5 286.8 301.8 286.5 195.1 336.4 263.1 321.3 287.6 302.2 287.0 196.6 336.5 264.5 322.6 288.9 303.4 288.5 196.5 338.8 265.7 323.4 289.7 305.4 288.7 194.1 340.1 265.7 324.3 289.8 307.7 285.0 187.8 337.6 263.8 319.6 286.3 301.6 285.1 190.4 336.6 263.1 380.7 332.4 436.1 310.1 382.0 331.4 438.1 315.0 383.0 - 384.2 385.1 387.2 330.6 430.7 308.4 379.2 332.2 433.3 309.3 335.5 440.6 316.7 339.3 443.2 317.8 340.5 445.4 318.3 343.3 449.2 320.4 318.7 303.0 313.7 273.8 279.8 321.8 294.0 366.8 431.3 308.6 307.3 256.8 418.0 368.4 319.8 303.9 314.6 273.6 280.4 322.9 294.4 369.3 436.9 309.1 307.8 256.2 419.9 369.9 320.3 304.0 314.9 272.8 280.0 323.2 294.3 371.1 437.2 309.5 308.3 255.3 419.6 371.9 320.9 304.0 315.3 272.7 280.2 322.4 294.5 372.5 433.9 310.4 309.4 255.8 415.7 373.7 321.9 304.8 316.1 273.4 281.5 322.3 295.2 373.6 432.5 311.5 310.7 257.2 412.6 374.9 322.9 305.4 316.9 274.5 282.4 323.1 295.7 374.5 426.6 313.0 312.7 258.8 411.2 377 3 324.2 306.4 318.1 275.9 283.8 325.0 297.1 375.5 425.4 314.5 314.2 259.5 416.3 379.8 324.6 307.2 318.9 275.9 283.9 326.3 298.2 325.1 307.9 376.2 426.8 315.3 314.6 259.2 418.9 380.8 378.2 424.7 316.5 315.4 258.8 414.1 382.9 31.5 27.1 31.4 27.0 31.3 26.9 31.3 26.9 31.2 26.8 31.1 26.8 31.0 26.7 30.9 26.6 30.8 26.5 Oct. Nov. 178.2 314.9 196.6 203.5 180.0 314.8 211.0 212.6 202.5 321.6 202.4 323.2 196.5 203.7 178.3 320.7 215.9 202.5 323.6 322.3 318.0 213.5 213.9 374.0 383.8 383.7 352.9 287.6 204.9 312.1 393.5 321.1 316.6 213.5 213.8 374.3 379.5 379.2 354.5 285.2 205.6 308.9 396.8 322.2 317.6 215.3 215.5 375.3 376.3 375.8 356.9 289.2 205.0 314.1 399.3 402.0 257.4 433.3 368.5 514.4 404.5 259.0 436.1 370.4 518.4 406.3 259.8 438.1 372.1 520.7 260.1 253.9 272.0 260.9 254.5 273.2 260.8 254.3 273.3 318.8 323.6 278.6 277.8 279.7 390.9 349.5 401.2 319.5 324.4 279.2 278.2 280.7 391.6 349.9 401.9 321.8 329.7 279.9 279.2 280.9 392.5 350.6 402.9 316.7 286.7 301.4 276.3 283.2 191.5 333.1 267.3 317.8 286.8 300.8 277.5 284.9 190.7 336.0 266.3 318.7 286.8 301.2 277.7 285.4 190.0 337.2 265.1 319.1 286.4 301.4 372.2 - 374.9 - 377.4 - Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 185.1 193.6 162.1 299.7 209.5 199.9 310.2 187.2 193.1 165.8 310.1 190.9 195.7 171.5 314.5 213.4 204.2 314.7 191.5 197.8 172.0 306.4 213.3 203.3 316.1 190.7 198.2 169.7 310.6 213.3 202.7 317.0 190.0 196.6 168.4 313.5 214.1 204.0 317.6 187.8 194.8 165.5 306.4 204.5 302.9 191.3 198.2 171.3 311.7 212.5 203.1 318.5 204.5 319.0 190.4 197.3 169.9 311.2 210.5 205.2 320.5 Transportation ........................................................................................ Private transportation......................................................................... New vehicles.................................................................................... New c a rs ......................................................................................... Used c a r s .......................................................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................................................... G asoline.......................................................................................... Maintenance and re p a ir.................................................................. Other private transportation........................................................... Other private transportation com m odities................................ Other private transportation services........................................ Public tran sportation.......................................................................... 313.9 310.1 207.3 207.9 375.7 372.2 371.8 342.2 274.2 203.9 295.4 376.8 321.6 317.4 214.2 214.5 379.7 375.4 375.0 352.6 287.7 204.7 312.3 391.7 316.7 312.6 316.3 312.2 212.0 212.8 212.4 382.8 359.0 358.2 347.9 284.7 204.2 308.6 384.2 213.1 384.6 354.0 353.2 349.2 285.2 206.1 308.7 384.2 318.7 314.6 213.2 213.4 386.2 362.2 361.6 349.6 285.1 204.2 309.2 386.7 322.0 318.0 213.2 213.4 386.4 375.7 375.3 349.3 286.3 205.1 310.4 387.4 323.3 319.4 213.5 213.8 384.2 383.0 382.7 350.6 285.9 203.5 310.4 387.6 323.6 319.6 213.6 214.0 380.3 386.2 386.0 351.5 286.9 205.9 310.9 388.4 323.5 319.3 213.6 214.0 376.7 387.2 387.0 352.2 287.7 204.3 312.4 392.1 Medical c a r e ........................................................................................... Medical care com m o dities................................................................ Medical care services........................................................................ Professional s e rvic e s ...................................................................... Other medical care s e rv ic e s .......................................................... 377.7 239.7 407.9 346.5 484.7 401.2 256.3 432.7 367.7 513.9 389.3 248.0 420.1 357.2 498.8 392.0 249.6 423.1 359.7 502.3 394.6 251.5 425.7 362.4 505.0 396.1 253.5 427.1 363.6 506.6 397.7 254.8 428.7 365.0 508.2 399.8 256.7 430.7 366.8 510.5 Entertainment ........................................................................................ Entertainment com m o dities.............................................................. Entertainment se rvic e s ...................................................................... 251.2 247.7 258.5 260.1 254.2 271.6 256.6 251.1 267.4 256.9 251.9 266.8 257.3 252.2 267.4 258.6 253.2 269.2 258.9 253.1 270.0 Other goods and services ................................................................... Tobacco products .............................................................................. Personal c a re ...................................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................ Personal care services ................................................................... Personal and educational expenses............................................... School books and supp lies............................................................ Personal and educational s e rv ic e s .............................................. 304.9 309.7 269.4 270.3 268.8 368.2 327.5 378.2 322.7 328.1 279.6 279.0 280.5 399.3 355.7 410.1 315.6 320.8 274.9 274.6 275.7 387.9 345.5 398.3 317.1 323.0 275.9 275.9 276.3 389.3 348.7 399.4 317.6 323.4 276.3 276.5 276.5 390.1 348.8 400.3 318.3 323.6 277.5 277.5 278.0 390.7 349.4 401.0 All ite m s ..................................................................................................... C om m odities.......................................................................................... Food and beverages.......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages.......................................... Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................... Apparel com m odities.................................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................... Durables............................................................................................. 307.6 280.4 295.2 269.3 277.5 186.6 327.0 261.1 318.5 286.5 301.8 312.6 282.5 299.1 270.7 275.8 185.1 325.2 264.9 313.9 283.8 301.2 271.4 276.2 187.2 324.7 266.2 315.3 285.2 301.6 273.6 279.4 190.9 327.8 266.7 S e rvices................................................................................................... Rent of shelter (12/84 — 1 0 0 )........................................................... Household services less rent of shelter ( 1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 )............... Transportation se rv ic e s ..................................................................... Medical care se rvic e s ........................................................................ Other services .................................................................................... 358.0 377.3 - - 369.6 - 371.0 - 317.2 407.9 292.9 - - - - - 332.2 432.7 310.1 368.3 327.7 420.1 303.5 328.1 423.1 304.2 328.8 425.7 304.9 329.6 427.1 306.2 329.9 428.7 307.2 307.5 295.1 319.4 303.4 313.7 299.7 309.9 269.0 271.7 311.5 289.8 361.6 410.6 306.4 304.3 255.5 391.8 363.6 315.4 301.1 311.3 271.0 274.7 314.4 291.6 362.8 416.0 307.4 305.5 256.6 399.0 364.9 317.2 302.4 312.6 273.3 278.2 319.1 293.4 364.1 424.2 308.1 306.4 257.2 411.6 366.2 31.9 27.4 31.7 27.3 31.6 27.2 1984 1985 Apparel com m o dities......................................................................... Men’s and boys’ a p p a re l................................................................ W omen’s and girls' apparel ........................................................... Infants’ and toddlers’ ap p a re l........................................................ F oo tw ear............................................................................................ Other apparel com m odities............................................................ Apparel services................................................................................. 186.6 192.9 165.0 297.6 Special indexes: All items less food ............................................................................. All items less shelter ......................................................................... All items less homeowners’ costs .................................................. All items less medical c a re ............................................................... Commodities less fo o d ...................................................................... Nondurables less food ...................................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ............................................... Nondurables........................................................................................ Services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 1 0 0 )................................... Services less medical c a r e ............................................................... E nergy................................................................................................... All items less energy ......................................................................... All items less food and energy ........................................................ Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................ Energy commodities .......................................................................... Services less ene rgy.......................................................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1967— $ 1 .0 0 ........................................................................................ 1957-59— $ 1 .0 0 .................................................................................. - 210.0 - 283.8 191.3 334.2 265.2 - - - 304.0 267.1 272.6 313.2 287.4 350.5 423.3 298.3 295.8 250.5 410.5 350.8 314.3 272.8 279.0 320.3 293.9 369.0 426.3 309.9 308.7 256.8 410.9 371.1 312.7 298.6 308.7 268.2 271.2 311.8 288.6 360.4 413.8 304.7 302.7 253.8 396.2 362.0 32.5 28.0 31.4 27.0 32.0 27.5 210.8 203.0 313.6 211.6 - Sept. 195.1 201.8 202.2 286.9 189.4 339.6 265.6 319.6 275.0 282.3 325.9 298.4 Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 31. March 1986 • C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics: P rice D a ta Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) All Urban Consumers Area1 sehe- index base Urban Wage Earners 1985 1986 Jan. Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. - 316.1 317.4 324.5 325.5 326.6 327.4 - 315.1 310.9 316.7 313.7 326.3 320.5 322.6 319.7 324.2 323.1 U.S. city ave ra g e ................... 1985 1986 Jan. Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 328.4 312.6 313.9 320.5 321.3 322.6 323.4 324.3 325.9 323.1 326.3 323.1 302.5 301.2 304.0 304.0 312.1 310.3 308.9 309.7 310.9 313.2 312.6 313.1 312.9 313.4 Jan. Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind............................................. Detroit, Mich............................. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif......................... New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J............................................. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J............... M - 313.0 314.1 323.8 326.1 325.0 326.1 326.8 308.1 309.1 317.7 320.0 319.1 320.1 320.9 M M - 308.4 306.3 310.2 309.2 316.9 316.5 317.4 317.4 319.9 318.8 320.8 319.7 323.1 320.3 302.0 309.4 303.6 312.4 309.3 319.1 309.9 320.3 312.5 321.5 313.5 322.5 315.8 323.0 Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100) ...................... Baltimore, Md........................... Boston, Mass............................ Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.......... Denver-Boulder, Colo.............. Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 100).... Milwaukee, Wis........................ Northeast, Pa............................ Portland, Oreg.-Wash.............. St. Louis, Mo.-lll........................ San Diego, Calif........................ Seattle-Everett, Wash.............. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va........ 1 10/67 1 1 1 1 1 11/77 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 “ 278.3 315.2 309.4 325.1 350.6 168.6 324.6 301.5 306.8 313.3 364.1 319.5 314.6 _ 284.5 327.5 321.3 329.8 358.0 173.5 332.4 306.8 314.9 321.6 377.3 321.8 323.6 287.1 332.0 327.1 333.2 364.4 174.6 333.9 311.6 321.3 322.4 381.9 327.0 331.1 271.7 315.1 307.8 318.9 346.2 169.8 343.4 301.0 297.4 310.4 329.1 306.7 317.7 280.1 326.3 323.0 326.2 354.1 174.9 353.2 309.6 307.3 318.5 341.9 310.8 330.5 _ _ _ 280.2 331.1 324.5 326.0 359.1 175.7 353.0 310.6 311.0 319.1 344.7 313.5 332.6 Alanta, Ga.................................. Buffalo, N.Y............................... Cleveland, O h io ....................... Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............... Honolulu, H a w aii...................... Houston, Tex............................. Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ...... Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.................................. Pittsburgh, Pa............................ San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. M M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 " - - - ” “ - - ~ “ 322.6 301.3 340.4 333.2 292.6 333.6 314.6 330.4 323.8 328.7 ~ - - ' Region 3 N o rth e a st............................... North C e n tra l......................... S o u th ...................................... W e s t....................................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 Population size class 3 A-1 .......................................... A - 2 .......................................... B ......................................... C ............................................. D .............................................. 2 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 11/77 Class B: Northeast ............................. North C e n tra l....................... South ......... .......................... W e s t...................................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 82 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “ _ 168.2 171.2 171.5 171.3 168.5 173.1 171.8 169.7 169.4 _ - “ _ - - - - 333.0 309.3 348.6 343.9 295.6 337.6 323.1 340.6 328.4 336.7 172.5 174.9 175.7 176.9 172.9 177.6 176.3 173.8 173.8 286.9 327.3 325.4 333.4 359.4 173.9 333.9 310.6 317.1 321.6 379.0 324.0 326.9 - - - - - - - - 340.4 331.5 336.4 ~ 174.3 176.0 176.3 177.2 - - ' 174.2 178.4 177.2 174.9 174.7 _ _ 335.3 309.8 348.8 344.5 298.5 336.8 321.8 - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ 320.3 288.1 319.8 326.9 300.3 331.1 304.4 326.0 306.0 324.2 166.4 168.1 171.3 169.6 164.9 170.4 169.6 170.2 171.2 277.3 326.3 319.3 322.8 353.3 174.5 351.4 306.3 305.4 318.5 340.3 308.9 327.4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 330.0 295.3 327.0 337.5 302.7 335.0 312.9 336.0 309.9 331.0 170.3 171.4 175.3 174.8 168.7 174.6 173.6 174.1 174.9 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 332.6 295.9 327.5 338.3 305.8 334.1 311.7 336.0 312.8 331.3 172.1 172.6 176.0 175.2 170.2 175.4 174.6 175.3 176.0 _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ “ ' Region/population size class cross classification 3 Class A: N o rth e a s t............................ . North C e n tra l...................... South .................................... W e s t...................................... See footnotes at end of table. _ _ “ - - 165.5 174.3 171.0 173.5 171.5 169.7 173.0 172.0 - “ _ - 169.6 178.2 175.6 179.1 174.9 173.4 177.4 177.9 - - - 171.2 179.4 176.5 179.3 176.7 174.2 178.0 178.4 - _ _ _ - - - _ - - “ 162.4 169.6 171.2 169.6 168.7 166.4 169.9 172.7 _ _ - _ _ - 166.1 173.1 175.7 174.6 171.8 169.5 173.9 178.4 _ _ - _ _ - 167.7 174.5 176.5 175.0 - 173.5 170.5 174.7 178.9 - _ _ 31. Continued— Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Urban Wage Earners All Urban Consumers Area 1 Pricing sche dule 2 Other index base Jan. Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1986 1985 1986 1985 Jan. Jan. _ _ _ 180.6 163.8 172.8 163.2 170.6 170.5 172.0 171.5 Sept. Feb. Oct. Jan. Dec. Nov. Class C: 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 175.8 166.7 171.2 164.2 2 12/77 2 12/77 2 12/77 2 12/77 170.3 168.2 170.1 170.0 181.7 170.1 174.3 169.7 _ _ 184.1 171.5 175.3 169.1 _ _ _ 175.6 171.6 174.8 174.5 _ _ _ 178.1 172.6 174.5 176.2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 186.5 166.9 175.7 168.3 188.8 168.2 176.7 167.8 _ _ _ _ Class D: _ _ _ _ _ 175.3 173.1 176.2 176.0 177.7 174.2 176.1 177.7 _ _ - A-2 - 1,250,000 to 4,000,000. B - 385,000 to 1,250,000 C - 75,000 to 385,000. D - Less than 75,000. Population size class A is the aggregation of population size classes A-1 and A-2. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national index, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. 1 Area is generally the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), exclusive of farms. L.A.-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif, is a combination of two SMSA’s, and N.Y., N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. and Chicago, III.Northwestern Ind. are the more extensive Standard Consolidated Areas. Area definitions are those established by the Office of Management and Budget in 1973, except for Denver-Boulder, Colo, which does not include Douglas County. Definitions do not include revisions made since 1973. 2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:. M - Every month. 1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November. 2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December. 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. The population size classes are aggregations of areas which have urban population as defined: A-1 - More than 4,000,000. 32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index all items and major groups Series 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 181.5 6.5 195.4 7.7 217.4 11.3 246.8 13.5 272.4 10.4 289.1 298.4 3.2 311.1 4.3 322.2 3.6 188.0 206.3 9.7 228.5 248.0 8.5 267.3 7.8 278.2 4.1 284.4 6.0 2.2 295.1 3.8 302.0 2.3 186.5 202.8 227.6 6.8 8.7 12.2 263.3 15.7 293.5 11.5 314.7 7.2 323.1 2.7 336.5 4.1 349.9 4.0 154.2 4.5 159.6 3.5 166.6 4.4 178.4 7.1 186.9 4.8 191.8 196.5 2.5 200.2 2.6 206.0 2.9 177.2 7.1 185.5 4.7 212.0 249.7 17.8 280.0 12.1 291.5 4.1 298.4 2.4 311.7 4.5 319.9 14.3 202.4 9.6 219.4 8.4 239.7 9.3 265.9 10.9 294.5 328.7 403.1 11.6 357.3 8.7 379.5 10.8 6.2 6.2 167.7 4.9 176.6 5.3 188.5 6.7 205.3 8.9 221.4 7.8 235.8 6.5 246.0 4.3 255.1 3.7 265.0 3.9 172.2 5.8 183.3 6.4 196.7 7.3 214.5 9.0 235.7 9.9 259.9 10.3 288.3 10.9 307.7 6.7 326.6 181.5 6.5 195.3 7.6 217.7 11.5 247.0 13.5 272.3 288.6 10.2 6.0 297.4 3.0 307.6 3.4 318.5 3.5 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: 6.1 Food and beverages: 10.8 Housing Apparel and upkeep: 1.9 Transportation: 2.6 Medical care: Entertainment: Other goods and services: 6.1 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers All items: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 33. (1 9 6 7 March 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing = 100) Annual average 1985 Grouping Finished goods .. Finished consumer goods .... Finished consumer fo o d s . Finished consumer goods excluding foods .................. Nondurable goods less food Durable goods ....... Capital equ ipm e nt............... 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 291.1 290.3 273.3 293.8 291.9 271.2 292.6 292.1 293.1 291.2 272.2 294.1 292.4 269.5 294.0 292.2 268.7 294.8 293.1 271.2 293.5 291.4 268.7 289.9 288.1 265.7 294.8 292.4 268.7 296.7 294.7 272.0 297.2 295.4 274.4 296.2 294.1 274.9 294.1 337.3 236.8 294.0 339.4 241.5 300.5 295.9 337.4 240.7 299.9 299.0 342.4 241.4 300.3 299.0 342.1 241.9 300.5 299.2 342.4 241.9 300.8 297.8 340.0 241.8 301.0 294.5 340.3 234.0 296.3 299.4 340.2 244.9 303.7 301.1 343.3 245.0 303.8 301.1 343.7 244.4 303.5 298.8 340.3 243.6 304.0 318.6 319.3 319.9 319.3 318.6 317.9 317.7 317.8 318.1 318.8 317.2 300.6 263.9 287.1 322.1 291.1 300.5 261.9 288.7 323.0 291.1 300.3 262.0 286.4 322.3 291.3 299.8 260.3 285.8 320.9 291.6 299.1 253.0 285.8 320.3 291.9 298.4 249.9 285.1 319.2 292.1 298.0 252.3 283.6 318.6 292.2 297.6 253.6 282.6 317.4 292.4 297.6 253.0 282.5 317.6 292.4 297.0 252.4 283.2 313.9 292.9 Intermediate materials, supplies, and com po nents............. Materials and components for manufacturing ........... Materials for food m anufacturing...... Materials for nondurable manufacturing Materials for durable manufacturing Components for manufacturing .... Materials and components for constructio n.................. Processed fuels and lubricants ... C ontainers.................. Supplies.................. 310.3 566.2 302.3 283.4 Crude materials for further processing ... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs . Nonfood materials 1 .... Special groupings Finished goods, excluding fo o d s ................... Finished energy goods Finished goods less energy .... Finished consumer goods less e n e rg y ........ Finished goods less food and energy Finished consumer goods less food and e n e rg y ................. Consumer nondurable goods less food and e n e rg y ............... 320.0 301.8 271.1 290.5 325.1 287.5 265.3 288.0 320.7 290.8 263.9 287.3 319.9 549.4 313.3 546.3 313.5 547.9 314.0 552.3 312.4 283.7 315.9 558.0 311.7 283.4 317.3 549.1 312.0 283.3 316.9 544.0 311.4 283.6 316.5 539.8 310.3 284.1 315.6 542.4 309.9 284.5 315.4 544Ì9 310.4 285.0 315.1 550.7 309.8 285.8 315.4 557.3 310.7 285.9 316.3 539.8 310.7 286.7 330.8 259.5 380.5 306.2 235.0 355.4 318.1 250.0 3 j 0.2 312.3 242.9 311.0 239.9 360.2 309.1 236.3 357.7 305.6 233.7 354.0 303.9 231.6 353.5 295.3 351.2 296.8 222.9 352.2 298.0 224.5 353.3 305.6 236.7 352.3 304.7 236.8 351.1 301.3 231.4 351.2 294.8 750.3 265.1 257.8 262.3 299.1 721.4 269.2 261.3 268.7 295.9 692.0 296.0 693.2 261.8 267.2 261.1 267.2 297.8 714.9 268.8 260.9 267.7 300.1 746.1 268.4 260.3 268.2 300.2 741.4 268.4 260.3 268.6 300.5 733.8 269.7 261.9 269.4 299.5 719.9 269.0 260.9 269.4 295.7 718.2 265.3 257.5 265.4 301.4 716.1 270.6 262.2 271.6 302.7 732.9 271.7 263.5 271.8 302.5 736.1 272.1 264.1 271.4 301.1 704.8 272.7 264.8 272.1 250.5 251.1 251.5 252.0 252.9 252.9 249.3 254.9 255.1 254.7 255.5 244.4 245.0 245.2 245.6 247.4 247.3 247.9 248.2 248.6 248.5 250.6 324.7 527.5 304.0 325.5 235.4 531.5 304.3 326.4 232.6 536.7 304.5 325.7 232.2 528.6 304.6 325.0 231.7 523.8 304.3 324.5 227.1 519.8 303.9 324.4 225.4 522.3 303.4 324.3 228.5 524.4 303.3 324.5 231.0 529.5 303.2 325.2 231.7 536.3 303.3 323.5 232.4 519.1 303.4 305.2 305.6 305.9 306.0 305.6 305.5 305.0 304.6 304.2 304.2 304.2 746.4 240.4 255.4 749.1 238.6 257.3 760.7 234.8 252.3 754.5 231.7 247.4 752.6 230.1 247.2 742.9 743.2 223.5 246.7 743.4 224.8 247.2 742.9 233.4 244.9 739.5 232.9 242.6 739.9 229.1 243.7 232.7 528.8 303.9 Crude energy m aterials.......... Crude materials less energy Crude nonfood materials less energy 785.2 255.5 266.1 749.1 233.2 249.7 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 332.7 258.7 285.8 320.2 291.5 253.1 545.0 303.8 84 275.6 318.7 Intermediate materials less foods and fe e d s .................. Intermediate foods and feeds Intermediate energy goods Intermediate goods less energy Intermediate materials less foods and e n e rg y ..................... ------------------------- ---------------------------------------1 Crude nonfood materials except fuel. 1986 1984 239.2 304.2 255.3 221.0 221.8 245.8 34. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product (1967 = 100) 1986 1985 Annual average Grouping 1984 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. June May July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 298.7 317.9 298.5 318.7 298.2 316.9 Total durable g o o d s ........................................ Total nondurable g o o d s .................................. 293.6 323.3 297.3 317.3 296.4 319.0 296.3 317.7 297.1 318.4 297.6 318.9 297.8 317.5 297.8 317.3 297.8 314.1 295.1 313.8 298.8 314.6 Total m anufactures.......................................... D u rab le............................................................ 302.9 293.9 312.3 304.3 298.1 310.5 303.4 297.0 309.9 303.3 296.9 309.9 304.2 297.6 310.8 305.2 298.4 312.1 304.8 298.7 311.0 304.6 298.7 310.6 303.8 298.6 309.0 302.1 295.8 308.4 304.6 299.7 309.4 305.4 299.6 311.3 305.7 299.5 312.0 304.7 299.1 310.3 Total raw or slightly processed goods ........ D u rab le............................................................ Nondurable ..................................................... 346.6 266.7 351.4 328.2 252.2 332.8 336.8 259.2 341.4 332.2 261.2 336.4 332.1 262.1 336.2 329.8 255.4 334.3 327.3 247.3 332.1 327.5 247.6 332.3 320.2 249.7 324.4 320.8 249.7 325.1 320.9 248.8 325.2 327.7 245.9 332.7 328.8 243.8 334.0 326.9 247.6 331.7 35. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1967 = 100) Index Finished goods: T o t a l........................................................................... Consumer g o o d s ................................................. Capital equipment ............................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, and components: Total ........................................................................... Materials and components for m anufacturing...................................................... Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lu b ric a n ts......................... C o n ta in e rs............................................................. S u p p lie s ................................................................. Crude materials for further processing: T o t a l........................................................................... Foodstuffs and fe e d s tu ffs .................................. Nonfood materials except fuel .......................... Fuel ........................................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 181.7 180.7 184.6 195.9 194.9 199.2 217.7 217.9 216.5 247.0 248.9 239.8 269.8 271.3 264.3 280.7 281.0 279.4 285.2 284.6 287.2 291.1 290.3 294.0 293.8 291.9 300.5 201.5 215.6 243.2 280.3 306.0 310.4 312.3 320.0 318.7 195.4 203.4 282.5 188.3 188.7 208.7 224.7 295.3 198.5 234.4 247.4 364.8 226.8 218.2 265.7 268.3 503.0 254.5 244.5 286.1 287.6 595.4 276.1 263.8 289.8 293.7 591.7 285.6 272.1 293.4 301.8 564.8 286.6 277.1 301.8 310.3 566.2 302.3 283.4 299.4 315.2 549.4 311.2 284.2 209.2 192.1 234.4 216.2 233.1 426.8 274.3 247.9 284.5 507.6 304.6 259.2 346.1 615.0 329.0 257.4 413.7 751.2 319.5 247.8 376.8 323.6 252.2 372.2 931.5 330.8 259.5 380.5 931.3 306.2 235.0 355.4 912.3 212.2 372.1 202.8 886.1 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 36. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification, (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITO 1983 June Sept. - 100.0 105.1 100.5 96.5 103.5 105.8 113.1 A L L COMMODITIES ( 9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... Food (3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................... Meat ( 3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................................Z ....Z .......... Fish (3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................. ...................... ......... Grain and grain preparations (3 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ................................. Vegetables and fruit (3/83 = 100) ................................................| Feedstuffs for animals (3/83 = 100) .............................................. Misc. food products (3/83 = 1 0 0 ).................................................. 03 04 05 08 09 Beverages and to b a cco ( 6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................... Beverages ( 9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................. Tobacco and tobacco products ( 6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 1 11 12 Crude m aterials (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................... Raw hides and skins (6 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit ( 9 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) W o o d ................................................................................................ Pulp and waste paper (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................... . . Textile fib e rs ...................................................................................... Crude fertilizers and m inerals......................................................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap .............................................. 2 21 22 0 01 23 24 25 26 27 28 1984 Dec. June 99.5 100.2 101.5 99.3 98.1 97.5 97.5 96.5 96.8 108.8 106.2 108.9 99.8 102.7 116.2 106.9 104.9 109.6 108.7 98.7 107.4 126.8 98.8 103.5 105.6 98.0 96.5 104.4 98.7 92.9 114.6 82.4 108.4 95.8 103.9 94.0 104.7 103.6 90.3 90.2 106.1 93.6 112.3 100.8 101.2 97.7 111.5 114.8 121.4 102.8 100.4 105.6 116.1 117.4 101.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.5 103.3 101.4 114.6 129.2 105.6 112.2 135.2 96.8 100.0 102.2 128.7 103.5 117.3 144.8 100.0 129.8 106.0 123.1 144.8 96.7 - 100.0 129.3 100.6 101.1 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 118.2 75.0 127.1 100.0 111.3 145.0 1985 Mar. 101.6 110.6 Sept. 101.2 125.5 83.5 109.5 102.8 102.3 101.9 102.9 101.6 101.8 103.3 102.7 112.5 145.6 93.9 103.3 131.1 112.5 120.5 146.6 118.3 154.7 104.3 106.0 129.4 105.2 153.7 79.9 104.1 123.8 Dec. 101.3 103.7 101.1 Mar. 101.0 June Sept. 102.6 101.8 82.6 126.8 75.7 108.1 87.1 118.8 83.4 107.7 100.1 99.7 105.3 99.6 101.8 98.6 100.9 98.4 92.4 119.4 72.8 120.1 68.6 110.6 109.2 99.9 104.0 99.5 93.3 129.0 64.2 107.1 124.5 93.8 103.6 169.4 80.1 165.5 78.0 99.5 122.1 120.8 100.2 125.6 147.7 98.5 109.4 163.0 93.2 101.4 133.6 74.8 104.0 125.4 114.2 106.7 163.2 92.4 99.2 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.1 99.2 97.6 96.6 122.0 129.8 133.2 164.5 176.4 145.7 159.0 147.9 156.7 142.0 152.9 144.5 164.8 114.5 128.8 101.4 108.7 98.3 97.4 97.4 97.7 94.7 94.8 97.0 93.8 92.5 96.8 96.5 87.9 97.1 97.1 89.8 96.6 95.4 90.0 102.0 80.8 148.9 160.0 96.8 90.4 105.1 100.4 79.0 148.5 159.5 96.5 82.5 105.0 99.4 82.5 150.2 155.0 95.5 79.7 105.4 99.2 79.2 149.0 151.6 95.3 79.6 105.2 99.2 75.9 148.3 149.6 95.9 79.8 105.4 99.2 78.5 148.7 148.1 98.3 78.2 104.4 140.1 160.6 153.7 151.7 149.3 99.8 134.4 113.8 131.0 189.6 141.5 167.5 153.4 151.9 150.2 101.4 134.3 114.6 131.8 191.7 142.3 165.3 155.0 153.4 152.4 100.9 133.3 114.9 133.1 195.5 143.0 167.4 155.7 155.1 152.0 133.3 116.1 133.9 196.9 143.1 167.1 156.0 156.3 152.4 99.9 134.1 115.3 133.8 199.6 143.3 167.6 156.1 158.4 152.2 99.4 134.5 113.8 135.0 201.0 99.3 103.4 171.7 99.5 104.7 175.5 100.4 104.7 178.3 100.3 105.0 178.7 100.3 105.3 178.8 97.5 71.0 106.4 128.7 100.5 102.4 165.6 89.2 96.8 126.2 71.2 106.3 125.7 96.1 105.8 167.9 82.0 121.0 " Mineral fuels 3 Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..... 4 42 100.0 100.0 125.6 138.2 Chemicals ( 3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .......................... Organic chemicals (12/83 = 100) ....... Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83 = 100) 5 51 56 96.4 97.0 Intermediate manufactured products (9/81 = 100) Leather and furskins ( 9 /7 9 = 1 0 0 ) .............................. Rubber manufactures ................................................... Paper and paperboard products ( 6 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ......... Iron and steel (3 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... Nonferrous metals (9 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ................................. Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ................... Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and commercial aircraft ( 1 2 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................... Power generating machinery and equipment (1 2 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ............ Machinery specialized for particular industries ( 9 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ............ Metalworking machinery (6 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................. General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Office machines and automatic data processing e q u ip m e n t........... Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment Electrical machinery and equipm ent................................................. Road vehicles and parts ( 3 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .............................. "Z Z Z ". Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation Other manufactured a rtic le s .............................................................. Apparel ( 9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................""Z Z Z Z Z . Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and clocks ( 1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..................................................................... Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s. Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) - Data not available. 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 88.9 100.4 67.2 144.8 135.8 95.9 89.8 98.6 101.4 99.7 100.0 100.2 101.0 96.8 108.3 96.9 100.8 100.0 101.0 75.8 145.0 145.5 96.3 93.8 101.5 70.1 145.0 139.7 96.6 102.3 101.9 102.1 83.5 146.7 150.2 95.9 94.2 103.1 101.3 81.2 147.5 154.7 96.1 92.9 104.5 69 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 135.3 152.5 148.9 148.4 145.0 103.6 131.1 108.5 125.6 175.8 135.9 152.3 149.1 148.3 145.4 103.2 132.2 109.4 127.5 176.4 137.0 154.4 151.1 148.7 145.9 102.5 132.1 109.8 128.8 179.3 138.5 158.4 152.3 150.8 148.6 101.4 133.0 139.4 156.9 152.8 151.2 149.0 101.5 132.3 77 78 79 169.8 100.0 100.0 100.2 100.8 169.0 8 129.8 130.0 84 100.0 100.0 6 61 62 64 102.8 67 68 971 _ - - Dec. 110.2 112.6 130.2 183.1 131.2 187.7 100.0 93.2 139.9 63.9 106.0 128.1 92.7 102.6 100.6 100.4 102.1 171.5 101.9 171.8 172.0 100.7 103.9 175.8 132.0 132.0 131.3 132.7 130.3 128.0 129.1 127.5 128.5 98.2 98.5 97.9 95.2 94.1 92.4 93.1 93.1 92.4 - - - - - - - - - 37. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITC Dec. 1985 1984 1983 Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 97.3 98.0 98.3 96.7 95.7 93.5 93.0 102.5 133.4 132.7 103.5 133.8 99.8 134.2 102.0 03 100.4 134.1 99.6 136.0 135.4 98.9 134.2 98.1 132.3 98.4 133.9 98.5 130.4 98.3 132.9 96.8 118.2 97.9 129.4 Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations (9 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ....................................................................................................... Fruits and vegetables ........................................................................................ Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey (3 /8 2 — 1 0 0 ).................................... Coffee, tea, c o c o a ................................................................... .......................... 04 05 06 07 132.7 125.0 117.9 59.6 136.5 136.1 117.1 61.4 134.8 135.8 120.3 62.4 132.9 135.4 119.0 60.3 132.8 117.2 118.5 58.4 131.8 127.1 118.4 57.0 132.3 129.4 Beverages and tobacco .................................................................................... Beverages ........................................................................................................... 1 11 155.4 152.7 155.3 152.6 156.3 153.6 157.1 153.5 156.5 152.8 Crude m a te ria ls ................................ ................................................................... Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84 — 1 0 0 ).............................. Wood (9 /8 1 -1 0 0 ) ............................................................................................. Pulp and waste paper (12/81 = 1 0 0 ) .............................................................. Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (1 2 /8 3 — 100) ..................................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap ( 3 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................... Crude vegetable and animal materials, n.e.s................................................. 103.2 102.6 100.6 23 24 25 27 28 29 100.0 93.7 103.2 96.1 96.2 90.7 99.6 96.3 98.0 102.8 100.8 Fuels and related products ( 6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................... Petroleum and petroleum products (6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................... 3 33 87.6 87.6 88.2 Fats and oils ( 9 /8 3 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Vegetable oils ( 9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... ........................ 4 42 100.4 100.5 Chemicals ( 9 /8 2 - 1 0 0 ) ....................................................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (3 /8 4 — 100) ................................. Manufactured fertilizers ( 3 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .............................................................. Chemical materials and products, n.e.s. (9 /8 4 — 1 0 0 )................................. 5 54 56 59 99.5 - 6 ALL COMMODITIES ( 9 /8 2 - 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................... Food ( 9 /7 7 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................................. M e a t...................................................................................................................... Dairy products and eggs (6/81 — 100) .......................................................... Intermediate manufactured products (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ................................. Leather and fu rs k in s .......................................................................................... Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................................................................... Cork and wood manufactures ......................................................................... Paper and paperboard p ro d u c ts ..................................................................... T extiles.................................................................................................................. Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s......................................................... Iron and steel (9 /7 8 — 100) ............................................................................... Nonferrous metals (1 2 /8 1 — 100) .................................................................... Metal manufactures, n.e.s.................................................................................. Machinery and transport equipment ( 6 /8 1 - 1 0 0 ) .................................... Machinery specialized for particular industries (9 /7 8 — 100) ...................... Metalworking machinery (3 /8 0 — 100) ............................................................ General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s. (6/81 — 100) ...................... Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ( 3 /8 0 - 1 0 0 ) ...................................................................................................... Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus ( 3 /8 0 - 1 0 0 ) ...................................................................................................... Electrical machinery and equipment (1 2 /8 1 — 100) ..................................... Road vehicles and parts (6 /8 1 — 1 0 0 )............................................................ Misc. manufactured articles (3 /8 0 — 1 0 0 )...................................................... Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80 — 100) .................................. Furniture and parts (6 /8 0 — 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................... Clothing ( 9 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ......................................................................................... F oo tw ear.............................................................................................................. Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus (1 2 /7 9 — 1 0 0 )................................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and clocks (3 /8 0 — 1 0 0 )........................................................................................... Misc. manufactured articles, n.e.s. (6 /8 2 — 1 0 0 ).......................................... Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 2 —1 0 0 ).................................................................... - 0 01 02 2 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7 72 73 74 98.6 - 100.8 131.2 100.5 132.7 157.1 154.3 158.0 156.0 161.6 159.1 94.0 77.6 100.7 84.0 100.3 90.4 104.3 93.6 76.4 106.9 80.4 101.7 87.6 104.9 91.5 68.9 91.2 73.2 99.4 75.8 100.1 101.1 98.9 83.8 104.0 93.2 98.6 95.6 106.4 88.0 88.1 86.9 87.0 85.2 85.2 82.9 83.8 80.9 81.6 79.8 80.3 80.1 81.1 117.4 118.1 141.8 143.1 124.4 125.3 114.9 115.3 89.9 89.5 76.7 75.9 57.6 56.2 50.6 48.9 101.1 100.0 100.0 100.6 98.8 96.4 98.5 95.7 91.6 94.2 96.1 94.9 95.1 82.0 95.6 94.5 95.3 80.8 96.9 94.2 96.7 78.5 97.8 133.1 135.3 139.5 121.3 157.6 130.4 154.3 132.4 133.3 138.6 157.2 127.5 151.8 121.0 120.1 81.9 117.4 82.3 117.8 133.6 137.0 137.3 123.4 157.8 126.5 157.6 119.1 83.7 119.5 133.4 141.3 138.1 124.0 156.5 128.1 162.3 118.3 80.4 101.6 102.6 96.2 86.3 89.2 97.0 90.5 91.1 103.5 101.4 94.2 94.3 107.2 104.7 98.1 98.0 88.3 - 98.5 101.7 - 100.0 97.1 94.6 92.9 97.5 137.3 137.6 141.1 134.7 147.0 128.5 166.4 119.5 94.8 118.9 137.6 141.6 141.8 130.1 148.0 130.8 168.4 118.5 95.0 119.7 139.6 145.3 140.8 131.0 150.4 130.1 166.6 123.8 96.3 120.5 137.2 144.0 139.6 126.4 156.1 131.6 156.6 124.7 90.2 119.3 136.8 140.4 140.5 126.1 157.5 132.9 159.4 123.7 87.3 119.3 104.1 104.0 100.4 94.3 93.7 104.1 102.6 100.0 98.8 92.1 92.4 102.9 98.0 89.9 91.3 95.7 93.5 102.8 99.1 129.7 156.2 154.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.8 94.9 120.6 123.1 54.4 100.0 - 94.6 56.0 114.8 87.6 - Dec. 92.9 141.9 131.2 111.9 64.6 107.2 80.9 - Sept. 93.8 94.4 122.6 121.2 136.3 120.2 101.6 76.8 102.7 89.5 102.5 102.1 90.1 102.5 121.6 75 96.9 97.8 96.7 94.1 92.2 89.6 89.4 90.3 93.7 76 77 78 94.9 95.9 109.5 94.2 94.2 109.0 94.8 91.2 110.4 93.6 87.0 109.8 91.3 86.4 111.3 90.0 82.1 111.5 88.8 88.6 112.1 88.3 81.4 112.7 83.3 117.8 100.0 111.6 142.5 138.5 142.5 97.0 113.9 137.4 136.7 137.4 98.0 114.1 136.7 133.9 136.7 99.6 117.8 142.1 134.5 142.1 115.0 142.7 134.5 142.7 83.9 100.8 8 100.0 100.6 101.5 81 82 84 85 108.2 136.0 128.5 136.0 109.5 136.8 130.2 136.8 112.0 140.8 132.5 140.8 99.7 110.7 138.4 135.4 138.4 87 97.6 98.7 97.8 95.6 92.9 89.2 92.3 98.8 102.4 88 90.6 104.9 89.6 105.2 92.8 104.0 91.2 98.3 91.3 96.3 88.9 91.2 89.5 95.2 91.1 96.4 94.9 97.9 - - - 89 971 - - - - - - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 38. M arch 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) Category Foods, feeds, and beverages ............................................................. Raw m aterials................................................................. Raw materials, nondurable ............................................................... Raw materials, d u ra b le ...................................................................... Capital goods (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )................................................................ Automotive vehicles, parts and engines (1 2/82= 100 ) .................. Consumer g o o d s .................................................................................... D u ra b le s............................................................................................... N ondurables......................................................................................... 39. Percenta ge of 1980 Trade Value 16.294 30.696 21.327 9.368 30.186 7.483 7.467 3.965 3.501 1983 Dec. 1984 Mar. 95.0 100.7 101.9 97.7 102.0 103.9 99.6 98.9 100.3 June 92.8 1985 Sept. 88.8 98.5 102.5 104.4 97.7 103.9 105.3 100.9 99.6 102.2 103.6 98.8 103.2 104.5 100.9 100.1 101.8 100.5 102.8 95.0 104.6 105.3 101.3 99.4 103.0 102.1 Dec. Mar. 83.0 99.1 101.4 93.3 105.6 105.7 100.8 99.3 102.3 June 81.5 97.6 99.6 92.6 106.2 106.7 100.9 99.1 102.7 Sept. 80.9 97.2 99.5 91.6 106.6 108.0 101.1 99.2 103.0 Dec. 76.2 96.5 98.7 91.1 106.6 108.1 101.9 100.4 103.3 77.5 96.2 98.3 91.0 106.6 109.2 101.7 100.0 103.3 U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (December 1982=100) Category Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................................. Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural g a s .................... Raw materials, excluding petroleum ...................................... Raw materials, nondurable ........................................... Raw materials, d u ra b le .......................................................... Capital g o o d s .................................................................... Automotive vehicles, parts and e n g in e s ........................................... Consumer g o o d s .......................................................... Durable ............................................................................. Nondurable.................................................................. - Per centage of 1980 Trade Value 7.477 31.108 19.205 9.391 9.814 13.164 11.750 14.250 5.507 8.743 1983 1984 Dec. Mar. 104.0 June 106.0 88.1 _ 99.0 104.7 101.3 103.8 100.4 100.8 _ 102.1 100.7 106.5 103.6 101.1 101.0 101.1 99.5 100.9 Sept. 107.2 88.5 88.8 _ 1985 106.7 99.8 104.9 101.9 101.4 102.5 Sept. Dec. 105.6 87.5 _ Mar. June Sept. Dec. 101.8 102.1 85.7 84.4 100.4 82.1 99.0 80.9 106.0 81.5 100.7 93.9 97.8 96.3 105.9 99.4 97.0 102.5 93.5 97.4 97.6 106.4 91.8 96.2 101.0 111.4 102.5 98.9 103.9 104.7 Sept. Dec. _ 101.7 103.3 98.0 104.0 97.8 105.2 100.6 101.1 98.8 103.0 98.5 104.6 95.0 97.7 94.8 105.4 99.5 97.0 103.0 Dec. Mar. June 101.6 Data not available. 40. U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1983 1984 1985 Industry group Dec. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/83=100) .......................... Tobacco manufactures...................................................... Textile mill products........................................................... Apparel and related products............................................ Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6 /8 3 -1 0 0 )...................................................................... Furniture and fixtures (9/83— 100) .................................... Paper and allied products (3/81 = 1 0 0 )............................. Printing, publishing, and allied products............................ Chemicals and allied products (12/84 — 100).................... Petroleum and coal products (1 2 /8 3= 1 0 0 )...................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products...................... Leather and leather products ............................................ Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products......................... Primary metal products (3/82=100) ................................. Fabricated metal products ................................................. Machinery, except electrical (9/78— 100)......................... Electrical machinery (12/80=100) .................................... Transportation equipment (12/78— 100)........................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..................................................................... Miscellaneous manufactured commodities ....................... 1 SIC - based classification. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 108.3 Mar. June - 109.0 _ 112.7 _ - - - - - - 101.0 100.9 94.7 101.4 100.0 101.5 101.8 98.6 103.3 101.6 100.1 103.1 104.3 - 102.3 102.1 - - - - 105.1 137.4 108.0 155.7 104.0 _ 137.9 109.5 157.2 153.1 153.2 105.0 135.8 107.6 153.6 152.8 ” - 105.6 _ _ - 103.3 _ _ _ 99.5 _ _ _ 97.0 103.5 106.2 101.3 100.7 _ 100.0 _ 138.0 110.7 157.8 97.9 104.9 103.6 100.7 100.4 _ _ _ 95.8 _ 139.9 111.1 158.9 99.9 105.2 97.1 100.3 101.3 _ _ _ 91.2 _ 140.4 111.3 160.5 156.0 - 153.0 - 154.9 - Data not available. - _99.5 _ 96.7 98.1 _ _ _ _ 99.5 106.5 94.7 _ 99.6 102.7 98.3 107.1 93.2 _ 99.7 102.0 101.2 108.4 92.1 _ 99.2 99.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _93.6 93.6 _ 140.5 112.4 162.0 140.6 111.9 162.8 140.5 111.2 164.4 156.6 - 156.2 - 156.7 - _ 92.7 _ _ _ 100.0 100.8 41. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1985 1984 1983 Industry group Dec. Manufacturing: Food and Kindred products (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .................................... Tobacco m anufactu res................................................................... Textile mill products (9 /8 2 — 1 0 0 ).................................................. Apparel and related products (6 /7 7 — 1 0 0 )................................. Lumber and wood products, except furniture ( 6 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) .................................................................................... Furniture and fixtures ( 6 /8 0 = 1 0 0 )................................................ Paper and allied products (6 /7 7 — 1 0 0 )....................................... Printing, publishing, and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... Chemicals and allied products (9 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ............................... Petroleum and coal pro d u c ts ......................................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products ( 1 2 / 8 0 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Leather and leather products ........................................................ Stone, clay, glass, concrete products.......................................... Primary metal products (6 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................... Fabricated metal products (1 2 /8 4 — 1 0 0 ).................................... Machinery, except electrical (3 /8 0 — 1 0 0 )................................... Electrical machinery ( 9 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................. Transportation equipment (6/81 = 1 0 0 )....................................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks ( 1 2 / 7 9 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Miscellaneous manufactured commodities ( 9 /8 2 -1 0 0 ) .................................................................................... Mar. Mar. Dec. 122.6 126.6 103.8 129.6 124.1 104.3 133.9 125.0 95.5 132.9 99.5 - 129.4 95.7 136.5 - 121.1 120.0 101.8 101.8 - - 117.3 96.2 146.0 99.8 - 97.4 139.1 98.1 140.3 - - 97.8 141.6 88.3 95.5 98.0 144.2 - 120.8 122.3 - - 103.3 126.5 104.4 128.1 96.9 141.9 - 104.7 138.2 95.6 145.5 98.2 - June 118.8 - 115.0 - 102.8 101.0 135.6 133.0 116.3 93.9 141.5 95.3 “ 120.6 Sept. Dec. 115.1 - 114.2 100.4 133.9 101.8 134.4 115.8 98.2 137.4 117.5 97.7 138.7 96.1 139.8 “ " 95.8 93.3 93.9 - “ “ 96.9 139.1 82.2 99.0 91.8 95.1 113.1 96.7 138.9 83.0 99.1 93.4 95.8 114.2 96.6 142.3 83.4 97.5 144.0 “ 81.9 101.0 102.6 100.0 98.0 97.8 - - 98.5 143.7 91.9 97.1 - 110.3 110.6 111.6 110.7 94.1 98.6 112.9 94.3 94.0 95.5 94.4 93.2 90.7 91.7 94.6 99.0 99.7 99.8 99.1 95.8 96.4 95.1 95.1 96.6 98.7 90.1 90.5 - - 1 SIC - based classification. 42. Sept. June - 86.6 100.0 100.0 96.6 94.5 114.8 95.9 119.6 Data not available. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1977=100) Annual average Quarterly Indexes Item 1985 1984 1983 1983 I IV 107.0 167.5 98.2 156.5 157.2 156.7 107.2 169.3 98.3 158.0 158.5 158.1 108.0 171.1 98.5 158.4 160.2 159.0 106.9 173.1 98.9 161.9 159.1 160.9 107.3 174.5 98.6 162.6 159.9 161.7 108.3 176.8 99.4 163.2 160.5 162.3 105.2 166.5 98.4 158.3 152.2 156.3 106.6 168.0 98.4 157.6 156.8 157.3 106.3 169.5 98.4 159.5 158.0 159.0 106.9 171.0 98.5 160.0 160.3 160.1 106.0 173.1 98.9 163.3 160.3 162.3 106.3 174.6 98.7 164.1 161.8 163.4 106.9 176.2 99.0 164.8 163.0 164.2 107.2 162.6 97.4 154.7 151.7 163.3 135.9 154.2 152.6 108.1 164.8 97.5 155.0 152.5 162.0 143.2 155.7 153.6 108.9 165.8 97.2 155.0 152.3 162.8 151.1 158.9 154.6 108.2 167.1 97.1 157.5 154.5 165.9 145.3 159.1 156.1 108.8 168.7 97.1 158.0 155.0 166.4 150.7 161.2 157.1 108.1 170.3 97.3 160.2 157.5 168.1 150.4 162.2 159.1 108.1 171.6 97.0 161.6 158.8 169.8 148.9 162.9 160.2 109.2 173.0 97.2 161.1 158.3 168.8 160.1 165.9 160.9 112.7 164.6 98.6 146.1 114.2 167.1 98.8 146.3 114.8 168.3 98.6 146.6 116.7 169.9 98.7 145.5 116.5 172.1 99.1 147.7 116.7 174.4 99.6 149.5 118.6 176.5 99.7 148.8 119.7 177.8 99.9 148.6 IV I 103.6 161.0 98.5 155.4 144.6 151.7 104.3 161.8 97.9 155.1 147.9 152.7 104.7 164.2 98.4 156.8 149.1 154.2 105.7 166.7 98.6 157.7 151.6 155.6 103.6 161.5 98.8 155.9 146.4 152.7 104.1 162.4 98.3 155.9 149.4 153.8 104.4 164.0 98.3 157.1 151.4 155.2 II I II III III III II Business: 102.2 103.7 161.7 98.4 156.0 145.5 152.4 160.2 99.0 156.8 139.8 151.0 103.4 162.0 98.6 156.6 147.0 153.4 160.1 99.0 157.6 140.6 151.9 106.1 161.0 97.9 155.2 151.8 164.9 117.2 149.1 150.9 104.0 159.2 98.4 156.7 153.1 167.0 92.5 142.3 149.4 105.8 160.6 98.2 155.2 151.7 165.1 147.4 150.2 107.2 161.8 97.9 154.4 150.9 164.4 126.6 151.9 151.2 111.6 110.0 163.4 99.4 146.4 162.7 110.9 163.0 99.6 147.0 113.0 163.5 98.9 144.7 Nonfarm business: 101.6 Nonfinancial corporations: 111.8 Manufacturing: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100.6 147.9 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 43. March 1986 • C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics: P ro d u c tiv ity D a ta Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures selected years (1977=100) Item 1950 1960 1970 1973 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Private business Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital se rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity....................................... O u tp u t............................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons............................................... Capital services .......................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u t......... Capital per hour or all persons ............................... 49.7 98.5 63.6 39.5 64.8 98.4 75.4 53.3 98.5 90.2 78.3 94.6 103.0 97.5 91.8 79.4 40.1 62.1 50.5 82.2 54.1 70.7 65.9 90.8 79.4 86.7 87.4 96.8 89.1 94.1 92.0 86.1 94.5 92.0 93.6 88.0 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.7 93.1 95.7 94.0 95.9 97.5 96.5 102.8 101.6 95.3 103.2 97.9 91.7 94.8 91.7 93.6 87.6 97.8 96.1 97.2 93.6 96.2 92.4 95.6 93.5 103.4 95.7 97.4 96.3 101.8 100.5 105.5 99.3 100.3 99.7 107.9 98.7 95.6 97.6 106.4 105.0 103.6 104.5 98.7 108.6 107.5 108.2 98.9 101.8 101.0 100.6 100.8 94.1 98.3 109.2 89.5 96.8 106.3 107.8 111.4 109.0 103.3 108.5 116.0 106.9 105.4 118.8 109.9 112.7 112.3 103.5 91 9 99.4 111.3 111.0 103.7 9? 3 99.6 111.1 107.2 120 4 111.6 Private nonfarm business Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital se rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity..................................... O u tp u t...................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................ Capital services ........................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u t......... Capital per hour of all persons................................ 68.0 86.8 38.3 98.4 77.6 52.3 98.6 90.7 77.8 69.0 39.1 56.3 56.6 77.0 53.2 67.4 69.1 89.7 78.9 85.9 88.0 93.6 92.4 49.4 94.2 59.8 38.6 60.0 87.9 67.0 50.7 79.2 91.8 82.3 77.0 93.0 108.2 96.8 95.9 93.4 89.4 92.2 85.4 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.6 78.2 41.0 64.6 52.5 84.4 57.6 75.6 68.3 97.3 83.9 93.5 103.1 91.4 95.5 92.6 104.5 95.9 97.4 96.3 55.6 98.1 68.1 88.8 100.6 99.0 101.9 100.1 101.0 105.7 99.4 108.0 98.2 95.2 97.2 106.4 99.6 93.2 97.4 108.7 99.9 88.7 95.9 105.9 105.1 103.7 104.6 98.7 109.1 107.9 108.7 98.9 108.4 111.7 109.5 103.1 109.1 116.6 111.6 106.0 119.4 110.4 106.8 112.6 100.9 101.5 101.6 104.9 89.9 107.1 82.9 100.3 99.3 104.9 104.4 92.7 119.8 99.0 129.2 93.5 119.2 99.5 127.5 107.6 121.1 112.0 112.6 Manufacturing Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital serv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity..................................... O u tp u t.................................................................. Inputs: Hours of all persons......................................... Capital services ....................................... Combined units of labor and capital inputs ....... Capital per hour of all persons................................ 44. 88.6 99.0 85.9 86.2 101.6 101.1 101.0 105.3 108.2 101.7 90.7 98.8 103.5 104.4 103.8 104.2 99.4 106.5 108.8 107.1 101.7 114.1 104.8 102.1 112.2 99.5 100.8 106.1 101.1 118.0 105.2 116.7 111.6 87 6 Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years (1977 = 100) Item Business: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................. Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ N onfarm business: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................. Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor c o s ts .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts........................................... Implicit price d e fla to r................................................. 1951 53.9 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 _ _ _ _ 50.5 40.1 41.6 40.6 98.3 92.8 98.7 94.3 93.4 94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 119.1 99.4 119.6 112.5 117.0 99.2 131.5 96.7 132.6 118.8 127.6 100.7 143.7 95.7 142.7 134.7 139.8 100.3 154.9 97.3 154.5 136.8 148.1 102.9 161.5 98.2 157.0 145.8 153.0 105.0 167.8 97.9 159.8 156.8 158.7 59.6 23.3 54.3 39.0 40.2 39.4 73.1 36.4 73.8 49.8 46.9 48.8 91.8 61.9 92.6 67.4 65.0 94.3 78.0 95.9 82.7 74.0 79.7 98.5 92.8 98.8 94.2 93.1 93.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 118.9 99.2 119.8 110.5 116.5 98.8 131.3 96.6 132.9 118.5 127.8 99.8 143.6 95.7 144.0 133.5 140.3 99.2 154.8 97.2 156.0 136.6 149.2 102.6 162.1 98.6 158.0 147.4 154.2 104.3 168.1 98.1 161.2 156.6 159.6 98.4 92.9 98 9 94.3 93.8 94.2 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 118.7 99.1 131.1 99.6 143.3 100.4 154.3 103.9 160.6 106.1 166.0 _ 119.0 108.4 115.4 132.3 118.6 127.6 143.8 137.8 141.7 153.8 142.1 149.8 154.5 152.2 153.7 156.4 161.4 158.1 - 97.1 92.1 98.1 94.9 93.5 94.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.4 118.6 99.1 117.0 98.9 111.7 101.4 132.4 97.4 130.6 97.8 103.6 145.2 96.7 140.1 121.0 131.8 105.9 157.5 98.9 148.7 114.0 138.6 112.9 163.2 99.3 144.5 132.4 141.0 118.5 169.1 98.7 142.8 140.5 142.1 - 90 1976 93.9 77.6 95.4 82.7 76.4 80.5 Unit labor c o s ts .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ Data not available. 1974 91.2 61.5 92.0 67.4 64.5 66.4 - - 1971 69.9 34.9 70.7 49.9 46.7 48.8 21.6 Nonfinancial co rporations: Output per hour of all em ployee s........................... Compensation per h o u r............................................ M anufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................. Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ 1961 - - “ 53.1 23.5 54.8 44.3 55.6 47.6 66.6 75.7 38.0 77.1 50.3 52.1 50.9 93.6 63.0 94 2 67.3 65.4 66.6 94.6 78.2 96 1 82.6 73.1 79.4 64.0 37.5 76.0 58.7 60.5 59.2 85.3 60.8 91.0 71.3 71.9 71.5 90.6 76.2 93.6 84.1 67.7 79.3 111.8 - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted 1985 1984 Annual average Country 1984 1985 7.4 7.1 - - Ill II II I IV IV III T otal labo r fo rc e basis United S ta te s ........................................ Canada ................................................... Australia ................................................. Japan ...................................................... F ra n c e .................................................... G erm any................................................. Great Britain ......................................... Italy 2 ................................................... Sweden .................................................. - - - - _ _ - - - - - “ 7.5 - 7.2 - - - 7.4 11.3 9.1 2.7 9.7 7.7 12.7 5.9 - 7.3 7.1 7.2 11.2 8.8 2.8 11.1 11.1 8.5 2.7 8.5 7.2 10.5 8.4 2.6 9.9 7.8 13.0 5.7 10.0 7.7 12.8 5.7 7.1 6.9 10.1 2.6 10.2 8.1 2.6 10.2 10.1 10.1 7.8 13.0 5.8 _ 7.8 13.1 5.8 7.8 13.4 “ ” “ 9.9 7.7 13.0 6.2 6.0 ” Civilian labo r fo rc e basis United S ta te s ........................................ Canada ................................................... A u s tra lia ................................................. Japan ...................................................... France .................................................... G erm any................................................. Great Britain ......................................... Ita ly ......................................................... Sweden .................................................. 7.5 11.4 9.2 2.7 - - _ _ - - - - 9.9 7.9 12.9 - - 6.0 “ 1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. 2 Major changes in the Italian labor force survey, introduced in 1977, resulted in a large increase in persons enumerated as unemployed. However, many persons reported that they had not actively sought work in the past 30 days, and they have been provisionally excluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons would more than double the Italian unemployment rate 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.3 11.2 8.8 2.8 11.1 8.6 11.1 10.6 7.2 10.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 10.3 10.4 7.9 13.5 10.1 8.0 13.2 5.8 10.3 7.8 13.0 5.8 10.4 7.9 13.1 5.9 8.0 13.3 5.9 6.2 7.0 10.2 “ 10.1 7.9 13.1 6.3 ' shown. - Data not available. NOTE: Quarterly and monthly figures for France, Germany, and Great Britain are calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics: In tern a tio n a l C o m p a riso n s D a ta 46. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, ten countries (Numbers in thousands) Employment status and country Labor force United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ......................................................................... A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ............................................................................ France .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ Netherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ Participation rate United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ............................................................................ France ........................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ Employed United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ............................................................................ France........................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ N etherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ Employment-population ratio United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ......................................................................... A u stralia........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... France ........................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ N etherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ Unemployed United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ......................................................................... A u stralia........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... F rance........................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ....................................................................... Unemployment rate United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ................................................................................ N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ 92 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1976 1977 96,158 10,203 6,244 53,100 22,010 25,900 25,290 20,300 4,890 4,149 61.6 61.1 62.7 62.4 57.4 53.8 63.2 47.8 49.1 66.0 1978 1979 1980 99,009 10,500 6,358 53,820 22,320 25,870 25,430 20,530 4,950 4,168 102,251 10,895 6,443 54,610 22,490 26,000 25,620 20,630 5,010 4,203 104,962 11,231 6,519 55,210 22,680 26,240 25,710 20,910 5,100 4,262 106,940 11,573 6,693 55,740 22,810 26,500 25,870 62.3 61.6 62.7 62.5 57.6 53.4 63.2 48.0 49.0 65.9 63.2 62.7 62.0 62.8 57.6 53.3 63.3 47.7 48.8 63.7 63.4 61.7 62.7 57.5 53.3 63.2 47.8 49.0 66.1 66.6 92,017 9,651 98,824 10,395 1982 1983 1984 108,670 11,904 6,810 56,320 22,950 26,610 25,870 21,410 5,500 4,326 110,204 11,958 6,910 56,980 23,170 26,640 25,880 21,450 5,560 4,350 111,550 12,183 6,997 58,110 23,110 26,640 25,980 21,610 5,720 4,369 113,544 12,399 7,133 58,480 23,260 26,700 26,390 21,600 5,740 4,385 63.8 64.1 62.2 62.6 57.2 53.2 63.2 48.0 50.0 67.0 63.9 64.8 62.0 62.6 57.1 52.9 62.2 48.0 51.3 64.0 64! 1 61.8 62.7 57.1 52.5 61.9 47.4 51.2 66.8 66.8 64.0 64.4 61.5 63.1 56.5 52.8 62.2 47.2 52.4 66.9 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 53.1 62.7 47.5 52.3 67.0 100,397 11,006 6,416 55,060 25,520 23,190 20,480 4,990 4,218 99,526 10,644 6,415 55,620 21,250 25,060 22,820 20,430 4,930 4,213 100,834 10,734 6,300 56,550 21,150 24,650 22,650 20,470 4,890 4,218 105,005 4,830 4,174 99,303 10,708 6,284 54,600 21,340 25,730 24,100 20,380 4,960 4,226 21,210 5,290 4,312 1981 88,752 9,477 5,946 52,020 52,720 21,020 21,200 25,010 23,810 19,600 4,630 4,083 24,970 23,840 19,800 4,700 4,093 96,048 9,987 6,038 53,370 21,280 25,130 24,040 19,870 4,750 4,109 56.8 56.7 59.7 61.1 54.8 52.0 59.5 46.1 46.5 64.9 57.9 56.6 59.2 61.2 54.7 51.6 59.3 46.3 46.5 64.8 59.3 57.5 58.1 61.3 54.5 51.5 59.4 45.9 46.3 64.6 59.9 58.7 57.9 61.4 54.0 51.7 59.8 45.9 46.4 65.3 59.2 59.3 58.4 61.3 53.5 51.6 58.9 46.1 46.9 65.6 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.7 55.8 45.9 46.5 65.1 57.8 57.0 57.3 61.2 52.4 49.4 54.6 45.2 45.4 64.7 57.9 56.7 55.4 61.4 51.7 48.8 54.2 44.7 44.8 64.4 59.5 57.4 56.0 61.0 50.9 48.9 54.6 44.8 44.5 64.7 7,406 726 298 1,080 990 890 1,480 700 260 6,991 849 358 6,202 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,370 780 1,350 810 270 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 1,770 830 330 10,678 1,314 495 1,360 1,920 1,580 3,060 86 10,717 1,448 697 1,560 1,960 1,990 3,330 1,140 830 151 8,539 1,399 642 1,610 2,320 2,090 3,430 88 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,730 1,090 2,680 920 510 108 9.6 11.9 7.5 11.3 9.0 6,000 908 405 1,240 1,100 1,120 1,210 66 900 1,590 740 250 75 870 1,580 760 260 94 7.7 7.1 4.8 5.6 7.1 6.1 8.1 8.3 6.3 2.3 5.4 3.4 6,111 54,040 21,310 25,460 24,360 20,100 5.8 7.4 6.3 2.0 2.0 4.5 3.4 5.9 3.4 5.3 5.0 3.5 6.3 3.6 5.0 3.7 5.2 3.0 5.3 3.9 5.3 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.1 6.2 2.1 6.0 7.1 7.5 6.1 2.0 6.4 2.9 6.8 3.9 6.2 2.0 21,220 7.6 7.5 5.8 2.2 7.5 4.1 10.4 4.3 9.3 2.5 1,020 630 137 9.7 11.0 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.9 10.0 11.8 12.8 4.8 11.3 3.1 5.3 14.5 3.5 2.7 8.5 7.5 11,000 6,490 56,870 20,940 24,610 22,960 20,400 4,880 4,249 1,200 860 136 2.8 10.0 7.8 13.0 5.9 15.0 3.1 47. Annual Indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries (1977 = 100) Item and country I960 1970 1973 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 115.6 111.9 167.4 Output per hour 93.4 91.0 85.3 121.6 103.5 107.7 130.7 107.3 106.1 108.8 139.0 104.8 108.5 104.9 104.6 114.3 107.3 99.3 96.4 148.6 104.8 108.2 105.1 101.4 105.3 104.9 107.3 98.2 97.3 108.2 110.9 118.0 104.2 107.2 106.1 106.1 108.6 105.5 100.3 103.6 100.6 100.6 95.9 104.4 103.4 99.5 95.6 98.3 97.6 98.8 98.8 96.4 96.5 94.6 99.0 106.5 106.4 100.5 93.0 99.0 95.9 98.8 98.2 94.1 93.6 93.4 98.6 101.7 105.7 92.3 89.9 91.1 89.4 90.4 108.3 106.7 105.9 107.9 118.8 118.3 132.7 130.6 112.8 121.2 88.8 113.7 107.7 114.5 108.7 110.0 117.5 123.2 129.7 115.4 134.7 117.3 116.0 111.4 116.8 78.0 82.7 87.0 92.5 94.6 95.2 90.5 94.2 99.5 100.3 104.6 84.4 82.6 81.5 127.1 132.4 97.6 123.6 102.3 139.1 97.3 97.7 106.4 130.2 125.1 105.7 121.3 107.4 131.1 106.4 114.6 121.9 103.1 103.6 109.0 122.3 115.2 108.0 114.2 99.6 117.7 105.1 105.7 112.4 91.4 101.4 96.4 107.1 100.4 101.9 57.6 46.5 33.9 34.7 36.3 36.5 48.1 26.1 38.5 37.9 38.5 30.9 69.0 59.2 55.7 53.6 56.1 52.1 67.6 43.7 60.1 54.6 54.2 45.0 85.5 78.2 85.4 79.0 81.0 76.6 84.8 70.2 81.9 77.2 77.3 75.1 74.2 64.8 69.4 68.5 67.8 63.6 81.0 48.1 75.1 57.6 57.2 48.3 91.5 94.6 93.5 97.7 94.1 92.3 93.6 95.0 85.1 95.9 89.1 90.0 89.5 107.3 105.3 98.2 101.4 107.6 107.4 105.0 38.3 29.0 34.8 27.6 72.7 60.6 55.2 57.9 55.6 52.6 67.9 36.0 61.1 46.4 47.7 39.8 61.1 59.0 30.2 30.4 30.1 41.7 26.3 32.5 24.9 21.7 30.1 44.5 72.7 61.7 41.3 41.8 44.5 46.8 43.2 50.6 41.4 34.5 41.1 54.6 94.6 100.7 107.3 98.1 126.2 115.6 117.3 117.3 94.5 123.4 118.7 109.7 113.2 106.1 93.6 98.1 93.2 99.4 99.4 96.1 97.6 97.9 99.1 101.4 106.1 98.1 86.0 100.2 121.0 107.6 152.8 137.0 118.8 128.8 116.8 126.4 130.4 119.4 126.4 118.3 107.2 110.9 95.9 94.6 87.4 95.7 95.4 94.4 88.4 89.8 91.1 85.1 96.8 111.6 101.1 101.8 102.8 101.6 77.0 75.1 65.3 78.0 81.7 73.3 86.0 107.1 101.6 50.7 41.5 17.9 41.6 48.2 35.4 49.2 37.4 44.1 55.1 52.6 71.0 32.8 36.4 36.3 39.8 36.5 31.7 54.6 42.3 53.8 104.9 104.0 135.7 126.5 116.2 116.0 110.3 100.9 101.4 107.9 106.4 102.4 105.9 102.5 103.0 106.6 93.0 91.3 80.2 78.3 82.8 82.0 83.4 90.9 80.1 94.7 94.8 93.1 22.0 101.7 101.9 128.6 119.7 114.3 112.4 108.4 116.9 114.6 109.3 112.7 99.9 97.6 96.2 93.3 95.0 98.0 94.9 96.2 98.9 96.1 99.7 101.7 99.4 79.2 76.8 61.4 59.9 65.3 69.3 70.9 72.7 63.0 81.7 80.7 77.6 60.0 50.3 104.2 117.4 112.0 108.3 110.6 107.4 110.5 112.1 102.1 145.4 128.6 115.3 123.5 111.6 112.7 116.5 110.9 - 123.6 135.2 122.3 134.4 _ 121.4 134.9 123.0 Output 88.6 85.4 92.3 82.2 92.1 94.8 90.0 90.4 86.9 91.7 101.0 106.1 96.1 101.6 100.7 103.4 101.3 101.8 102.8 112.1 106.6 106.6 115.4 107.3 101.3 104.0 91.8 100.1 100.6 86.2 111.6 105.2 99.9 100.1 86.8 104.4 115.3 102.2 110.6 160.1 106.2 115.0 106.4 102.5 109.0 106.3 98.7 106.0 89.0 180.3 93.5 94.9 104.8 77.5 96.8 82.6 87.7 99.8 98.9 107.7 - 123.6 108.0 106.5 113.1 _ 101.2 113.2 92.0 Total hours 101.0 124.4 131.8 100.6 95.4 107.8 104.3 105.9 101.7 102.0 99.9 104.6 101.4 101.3 101.5 99.0 103.1 101.7 104.3 98.7 101.6 89.7 98.0 94.8 98.4 98.7 93.7 92.6 92.3 91.9 101.1 104.6 102.4 82.8 93.4 90.4 94.8 94.5 90.4 91.3 88.9 81.3 92.7 95.4 102.2 81.6 93.9 85.0 90.8 90.5 86.5 88.6 85.9 78.2 _ 86.2 99.9 79.9 87.0 84.2 81.5 82.7 83.9 75.2 83.4 83.9 74.8 _ Compensation per hour 36.7 27.1 8.9 13.9 12.6 15.1 18.8 8.3 12.2 15.8 14.7 14.9 91.4 84.1 92.1 88.9 91.5 88.9 110.2 158.0 167.2 136.9 152.0 165.4 202.7 140.9 237.3 139.4 156.1 158.9 137.1 130.2 135.9 148.1 125.0 160.2 123.5 128.0 133.6 162.8 145.2 151.5 130.2 144.7 149.7 171.3 133.8 197.1 130.3 142.8 148.1 185.6 201.8 163.4 178.5 141.5 164.9 172.6 227.4 146.7 277.0 147.3 173.8 173.2 216.2 117.0 113.5 96.1 104.9 113.7 117.3 107.5 121.9 104.7 108.2 108.3 134.3 130.5 128.1 94.2 108.9 118.9 131.7 115.3 137.0 107.8 117.0 118.6 163.0 138.4 145.7 95.9 114.4 128.8 147.7 121.3 162.9 109.8 130.2 130.9 174.9 147.6 165.4 94.1 118.3 143.5 164.1 126.2 192.4 114.6 138.5 136.3 181.9 146.4 165.9 92.6 120.4 145.3 176.5 125.6 219.2 113.0 145.6 137.1 182.8 130.5 116.4 138.4 129.1 116.4 110.7 108.4 133.4 124.9 126.3 108.2 147.6 142.3 146.4 143.1 104.4 84.4 95.3 113.9 114.1 127.4 97.2 106.2 79.8 158.8 120.1 169.4 181.4 146.0 _ 182.8 247.5 152.1 306.0 _ 185.6 192.0 233.4 Unit labor costs: National currency basis: 61.1 53.9 40.5 42.4 34.5 41.6 47.3 22.8 86.0 100.1 91.9 85.8 86.7 94.4 77.1 96.2 79.7 77.1 79.4 111.2 101.9 108.1 108.4 114.9 146.5 162.1 87.2 _ 147.8 183.1 124.3 227.7 _ 152.9 142.3 189.8 Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis: - 74.2 68.8 68.6 63.2 67.6 70.4 71.0 73.1 66.3 53.4 58.7 67.9 91.5 89.8 90.4 89.8 89.8 99.5 89.2 104.3 93.5 81.4 83.2 101.1 88.2 87.4 91.7 96.3 87.6 90.5 89.0 86.9 92.3 92.6 121.6 115.6 115.7 109.7 107.2 126.4 117.0 103.0 117.9 128.1 129.7 135.5 136.2 129.5 128.1 113.8 112.9 163.4 111.8 133.6 126.8 153.4 147.5 141.4 133.2 126.2 125.3 217.2 120.6 115.4 202.9 101.2 92.6 103.2 122.6 120.7 125.4 105.2 114.1 96.9 182.2 146.5 133.0 98.4 _ 85.7 103.0 101.4 114.5 _ 99.7 76.9 145.4 Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1986 • C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics: Illness a n d In ju ry D a ta 48. Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers 2 Industry and type of case 1 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 PRIVATE SECTOR 3 Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... A g riculture, fo re s try , and fis h in g 3 Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... M ining Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... C o n stru ctio n Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... General building contractors: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Heavy construction contractors: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Special trade contractors: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... M anufacturing Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... Durable goo ds Lumber and wood products: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Furniture and fixtures: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Stone, clay, and glass products: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays...................................................................................................... Primary metal industries: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Fabricated metal products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Machinery, except electrical: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Electric and electronic equipment: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Transportation equipment: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Instruments and related products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys...................................................................................................... Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... See footnotes at end of table. 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ _ - - _ - _ “ ” ” ” - - - ” “ - - - - 11.6 6.2 - _ 3.7 63.4 - 6.1 12.0 6.1 - 86.0 90.8 90.7 10.5 5.4 137.3 8.4 4.5 125.1 9.7 5.3 160.2 “ 14.6 115.7 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 - 15.4 6.9 121.3 - 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 - 15.8 7.1 130.1 - 7.7 3.5 58.7 7.6 3.4 58.5 12.3 5.9 82.8 11.8 11.9 5.9 “ “ “ “ 146.4 - - - - 15.1 6.3 113.1 - - - - 15.1 - - - - - - - - ~ “ 8.0 8.3 3.8 61.7 6.0 “ - 14.1 5.9 14.4 6.1 107.1 112.0 113.0 14.9 15.4 106.0 15.1 5.8 113.1 15.2 14.7 6.6 6.2 “ 119.3 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 10.2 10.0 10.6 4.4 75.0 4.3 73.5 4.7 77.9 " 6.0 6.2 6.2 “ - - - - “ ” ” “ 11.5 5.1 82.0 - - - - 17.6 9.0 158.4 16.9 8.3 153.3 18.3 9.2 163.5 19.6 9.9 172.0 - - - - - 15.1 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 - 91.9 13.0 13.1 13.6 - 6.1 112.2 6.0 112.0 6.6 120.8 - 12.4 5.4 12.4 5.4 103.4 13.3 115.3 - 96.5 16.1 6.7 104.9 - 10.7 4.1 65.8 - 6.2 14.1 6.9 - - - - - - - - - 122.2 - - - - 14.4 6.7 121.3 101.6 - - - - 17.5 7.5 109.9 15.3 6.4 102.5 - - - - - - - - 10.7 4.2 - - - - 12.9 5.1 74.9 66.0 9.8 3.6 58.1 - - - - 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 2.6 6.8 2.8 41.4 45.0 - - - - - 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 - - - - 5.6 2.3 37.0 5.4 - 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.2 - - 2.1 2.2 35.6 37.5 - “ - 10.7 4.4 68.3 9.9 4.1 69.9 9.9 4.0 66.3 10.5 4.3 70.2 “ ” 15.1 6.1 6.3 6.1 - - 68.8 - " 48. —Continued Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers 2 Industry and type of case 1 1977 1978 1979 1980 1982 1981 1983 1984 1985 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products: 16.7 16.7 8.6 8.0 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 131.6 “ 8.2 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 “ 17.8 - - - - - - 3.9 56.8 - - - 8.8 7.6 7.4 8.0 - 3.2 59.2 2.8 2.8 53.8 51.4 3.0 54.0 - - - - 6.3 2.2 6.0 2.1 - 35.0 36.4 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.5 40.9 - - - - 11.6 10.6 10.0 - - 5.4 103.6 4.9 99.1 4.5 90.3 10.4 4.7 93.8 “ “ " - - - - 6.7 3.0 47.4 45.7 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 “ " - - - - 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 “ - - " - - 6.7 2.9 51.2 5.3 2.5 46.4 5.5 2.4 46.8 5.1 2.4 Ò3.Ò " “ - - - 14.6 7.2 117.4 13.0 - 6.0 6.2 100.9 101.4 13.6 6.4 104.3 “ - - - - ” ” 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 4.4 87.3 - - - - 9.0 5.3 8.8 “ “ “ 100.6 4.7 94.9 5.2 105.1 - “ 8.5 4.9 96.7 8.2 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.3 3.1 45.3 7.2 3.1 45.5 7.2 3.1 47.8 7.4 3.3 50.5 “ - - - - 7.7 3.6 54.7 7.1 3.4 52.1 7.0 3.2 50.6 7.2 3.5 55.5 - - - - - “ “ ” 7.2 2.9 42.6 7.3 3.0 46.7 7.5 3.2 48.4 - ” 7.1 2.9 41.1 Finance, insurance, and real estate Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... - - ~ “ 2.0 .9 “ 13.2 2.0 .9 12.8 1.9 .8 11.6 13.6 Services Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... - - - 5.0 2.3 35.9 4.9 2.3 35.8 5.1 2.4 37.0 5.2 2.5 41.1 Wholesale and retail trade Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Wholesale trade: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Retail trade: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys............................................................................................... ...... 1 Total cases include fatalities. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 130.7 - Transportation and public utilities Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost workdays ................................................................................................... - - - Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Tobacco manufacturing: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys.... ................................................................................................ Textile mill products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays.........................................................................................;........... Apparel and other textile products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Paper and allied products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Printing and publishing: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Chemicals and allied products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s .......................................... ................................................ Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Petroleum and coal products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Leather and leather products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ................................................................. ■■........................ Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... ” “ - “ 6.6 1.9 6.6 2.8 12.7 6.6 10.0 8.1 “ “ 10.5 4.7 94.4 .9 EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year. 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.) 3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. - Data not available. New from BLS SALES PUBLICATIONS BLS Bulletins Employment and W ages, Annual Averages 1984. Bulletin 2249, 524 pp., $20 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02861-0). Presents complete count o f employment and wages for workers covered by unemployment insurance programs during 1984. BLS compiles data on a national basis, by State, and by industry. Coverage extends to the District o f Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. Area Wage Surveys These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, maintenance, custodial, and material movement jobs in major metropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for $102 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available separately. Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia, Metropolitan Area, September 1985. Bulletin 3030-40, 29 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00040-3). Columbus, O hio, Metropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-51, 39 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00051-9). Gainesville, Florida, M etropolitan Area, September 1985. Bulletin 3030-42, 23 pp. $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00042-0). Indianapolis, Indiana, Metropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-50, 40 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00050-1). Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas, M etropolitan Area, September 1985. Bulletin 3030-46, 53 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00046-2). Producer Price Indexes. Each issue includes a comprehensive report on price movements for the m onth, plus regular tables and technical notes. $4.25 ($29 per year). OTHER PUBLICATIONS (Single copies available upon request while supplies last.) Current BLS Publications (September 1985). 15 pp. Catalog o f BLS publications in print. Includes ordering information. Area Wage Summaries Ann Arbor, M I. October 1955. 5 pp. M adison, W I. September 1985. 4 pp. Northwest Texas, September 1985. 3 pp. BLS REPORTS Employment in Perspective: Minority Workers, Third Quarter 1985. Report 724. 4 pp. Focuses on differences in the work ex perience o f black, Hispanic, and white workers over the entire year o f 1984. Employment in Perspective: W om en in the Labor Force (formerly called Working W om en), Third Quarter 1985. Report 725. 3 pp. Describes w om en’s employment situation in the third quarter and summarizes inform ation on wom en who are self-employed. Major Programs, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. Report 718. Presents in highly concentrated form the scope o f the Bureau’s major statistical programs, the data available, the form o f publica tion, som e o f the uses o f the data, and selected publications and data tapes. BLS Summaries Miami, Florida, Metropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-47, 38 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00047-1). Occupational Earnings in Banking, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1985. Summary 85-11 (N o. 1 o f 2). 6 pp. New Orleans, Louisiana, Metropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-49, 33 pp., $1.50 (GPO Stock N o . 829-001-00049-7). Occupational Earnings in Selected Areas, 1985. Summary 85-12 (N o. 2 o f 3). 7 pp. Periodicals To Order: CPI Detailed Report. Each issue provides a comprehensive report on price m ovements for the m onth, plus statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. $4 ($25 per year). S a le P u b lic a tio n s : Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and Current W age Developm ents. Each issue includes selected wage and benefit changes, work stoppages, and statistics on compensa tion changes. $2 ($21 per year). November issue features major collective bargaining settlements in private industry, first 9 months o f 1985. GPO stock number from the Superintendent o f Docum ents, U .S. Government Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P .O . Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690. Subscriptions, including microfiche subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent o f Docum ents. All checks— including those that go the Chicago Regional O ffice— should be made payable to the Superintendent o f Documents. Employment and Earnings. Each issue covers employment and unemployment developments in the m onth plus regular statistical tables on national, State, and area em ployment, hours, and earn ings. $4.50 ($31 per year). O th e r P u b lic a tio n s : Request from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, U .S . Department o f Labor, Room 2421, 441 G Street, N .W ., Washington, D .C . 20212, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional O ffice, P .O . Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1986 4 9 1 -5 3 7 /4 0 0 0 1 Do you sometimes feel like Stanley hunting for Livingstone, when confronted with the maze of economic and social statistics? and international prices; economic growth; and related topics. Each month, the Review also contains articles and informative reports. Some recent titles are: • Job Training and Partnership Act • Older workers in the labor market • Japan’s low unemployment • Employee-owned firms • The labor force in 1995 • Multifactor productivity • Import prices for petroleum • The employment cost index • Work injuries from falls • Youth joblessness If so, your search for a single source of reliable and comprehensive statistics and analysis is over. Subscribe to the M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , the oldest government journal providing up-to-date information in economic and social statistics. P u b lish ed c o n tin u o u s ly sin ce 1915, the R e v ie w provides a 47-page section of current statistics covering employment and unemployment; wages, and strike activity; worker and capital productivity; unit labor costs and output; consumer, industrial, Order form: Credit card orders: (Send to Superintendent of Documents only.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Please send the M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w • • • • • • • • Men’s and women’s earnings Occupational winners and losers Black workers’ gains Shortage of machinists? Price inflation remains low Employment in energy industries Collective bargaining Fatal injuries please fill out the following coupon and send to: To su b sc rib e to th e Review, Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. for 1 year at $24 (Foreign subscribers add $6). □ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Deposit Account No. □ VISA Account No. Expiration Date □ MasterCard Account No. Expiration Date Total charges $ Name Organization (if appropriate) Address City, State, Zip Code U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20210 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MLR LIBRA442L ISSDUEO13R 1 LIBRARY FED RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS PO BOX 442 Sa i n t l o u i s mo 63 ióó
@FedFRASER