The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
May 1981
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In this issue:
Productivity for intercity buses
Employment in coal, oil. and gas extraction
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD ,
and at additional mailing offices.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15 26485
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building. Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New York: Samuel M. Ehrenha/t
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944 3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III
Philadelphia: Alvin I. Marguhs
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV
Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street. N.E . Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881 -4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V Chicago: William £ Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III, 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI
Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and V III- Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
“ A Fifth Avenue Bus, 1891,”
a pen-and-ink drawing by C. S. Reinhart
from New York in the Nineteenth Century:
321 Engravings from Harper’s Weekly
and other Contemporary Sources
(New York, Dover Publications Inc., 1977).
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews,
Division of Audio-Visual Communications,
U.S. Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
min
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
MAY 1981
VOLUME 104, NUMBER 5
L IB R A R Y
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
MAY 2 7 t98f
Richard Greene
3
Employment trends in energy extraction
In the wake of the 1973-74 oil embargo, phased decontrol of fuel prices stimulated
rapid expansion of extraction industries and resulted in m ajor employm ent growth
Edward S. Sekscenski
9
The health services industry: a decade of expansion
During the 1970’s, the work force in the health care field increased dramatically;
wages and salaries remained below national averages— workweeks were shorter
Jonathan Sunshine
17
Disability payments stabilizing after era of accelerating growth
Program s’ share of gnp was constant at 2.2 percent in 1975-77, with claims dropping
from peak rates of m id-1970’s; since 1950, both private and public benefits soared
Richard Carnes
23
Productivity trends for intercity bus carriers
During 1954-79, output per hour rose 0.4 percent annually as declining ridership
offset minor technological advances and increases in package and charter service
IR R A P A P E R S
Robert L. Kahn
K. S. Koziara, D. A. Pierson
Rudy A. Oswald
Henry S. Färber
28
30
32
34
Work, stress, and individual well-being
The lack of female union leaders: a look at some reasons
Microeconomic research ignored by government and industry
Role of arbitration in dispute settlement
R E P O R TS
W. R. Bohning
Barbara Bingham
Allyson Sherman Grossman
Joan D. Borum
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
41
49
55
Estimating the propensity of guestworkers to leave
Labor and material needs of commercial office building projects
Working mothers and their children
Wage increases in 1980 outpaced by inflation
DEPARTM ENTS
2
28
37
41
49
55
58
60
62
69
Labor month in review
Conference papers
Communications
Productivity reports
Special labor force reports— summaries
Research summaries
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
KLEIN AWARDS. Two Bureau of
Labor Statistics economists and a
husband-wife research team share the
12th annual Lawrence R. Klein Award
for the best original articles published in
the Monthly Labor Review in 1980. The
winners, selected by the Klein Fund
trustees, are:
Norman Bowers of the Office of Cur
rent Employment Analysis for “ Probing
the issues of unemployment duration,”
in the July issue;
Philip L. Rones, also of the Office of
Current Employment Analysis, for
“ Moving to the sun: regional job
growth, 1968 to 1978,” in the March
issue; and
Robert L. Bach, assistant professor of
sociology at the State University of New
York, Binghamton, and Jennifer B.
Bach, a research analyst, for “ Employ
ment patterns of Southeast Asian
refugees,” in the October Review.
The winners received their awards at
the annual bls honor awards ceremony,
April 7, from Ben Burdetsky, secretarytreasurer of the Klein Fund. In addition
to selecting the award winners, the Klein
Fund trustees commended Gregory J.
Mounts for “ the consistent quality of
writing and analysis” in the Review's
“ Significant Decisions in Labor Cases.”
Mounts is now on the staff of the U.S.
General Accounting Office.
The Bowers article, building on the work
of an earlier Klein Award winner
(Hyman Kaitz, 1971), examines some of
the data and measurement problems that
have created controversy in interpreting
unemployment duration. Bowers advises
analysts to take into account when
studying unemployment patterns that (1)
a sharp conceptual distinction exists
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
when measuring the duration of com
pleted spells of unemployment and in
progress spells; (2) duration statistics
may be an unreliable guide on the
relative ease of finding work; (3) it is
essential to gauge the importance of
multiple spells of unemployment to ade
quately interpret duration data; (4) the
concentration of unemployment may be
accounted for by those with many spells
or long periods of joblessness; and (5) an
understanding of the business cycle and
its impact on the labor market is vital.
A year ago, another Bowers article,
“ Young and marginal: An overview of
youth employment,” received honorable
mention in the Klein Award judging.
The Rones article reviews a decade of
employment growth in the South and
West. Rones also discusses the factors
which have led to the industrial expan
sion of the sunbelt States and the relative
decline in the North, including those fac
tors which affect the location of business
firms, individuals, and families. He con
cludes that favorable business climates
(such as lower taxes) along with en
vironmental factors were among the fac
tors contributing to the economic
development of the South and West. For
individuals and families, the decision to
migrate is influenced by (1) age and
education, (2) employment status—job
conditions at the place of origin and the
destination may “ push” or “ pull” per
sons, especially the unemployed, into
migration, (3) the current and potential
income of both husbands and wives, and
(4) noneconomic factors, such as the
search for a better living environment.
The Bach article examines the limited
data available about Southeast Asian
refugees—their participation in the
labor force, their occupations, their in
comes, and where they settled. The
Bachs found that the transition was
easier for the earlier refugees (those ar
riving before 1978); they found jobs and
have had gradual income gains,
although they work long hours. Recent
arrivals have not fared so well. They are
comparatively less educated than the
earlier arrivals and have fewer
marketable skills and more difficulty
with the language. They also show an in
creasing reliance on cash and medical
assistance. The authors explain that
some of the latter refugees’ employment
problems are attributable to the overall
condition of the U.S. economy.
Purpose of the award. The Klein Award
Fund was established by Lawrence R.
Klein, editor-in-chief of the Review for
22 years until his retirement in 1968. In
stead of accepting a retirement gift,
Klein donated it and matched the
amount collected to initiate the fund.
Since then, he has contributed regularly,
as have others. Purpose of the fund is to
encourage Review articles that (1) ex
hibit originality of ideas or method of
analysis, (2) adhere to the principles of
scientific inquiry, and (3) are well writ
ten. Since 1969, fund trustees (including
Klein) have presented awards to authors
of 22 Review articles. Awards initially
carried cash prizes of $100; they are now
$ 200.
Tax-deductible contributions to the
Klein Fund may be sent to Ben Burdet
sky, Secretary-Treasurer, Lawrence R.
Klein Fund, c/o School of Government
and Business Administration, The
George W ashington U niversity,
Washington, D.C. 20052.
□
Employment trends in
energy extraction
In the wake of the 1973-74 oil embargo,
higher prices for foreign and domestic fuels
stimulated rapid expansion of U.S. extraction
industries, and encouraged development of
previously unprofitable energy sources
R ic h a r d G
reene
Since the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, rising energy
prices have encouraged domestic suppliers to develop
additional sources of energy. For example, in the first 6
months of 1980, domestic oil producers drilled 19 per
cent more wells in the United States than they did dur
ing the comparable period in 1979 and opened 15
percent more oil and gas wells than they did during all
of 1973.1 This increase in exploration and development
activity has in turn resulted in significant employment
growth in the oil and natural gas extraction industries.
In fact, by the end of 1980, employment in the basic
energy extraction industries— coal, oil, and natural gas
— had risen by more than 400,000, or 91 percent, since
the embargo. (See chart 1.) This growth was almost six
times the rate of increase in the total nonagricultural
sector of the economy. During 1973-80, employment in
the goods-producing sector would have fallen by almost
80,000, or 0.3 percent, without the tremendous growth
in the energy extraction industries. These industries,
which represent a little more than 3 percent of the total
employment in the goods-producing sector, posted a
rate of growth which was 123.8 percent of that record
ed for the sector as a whole. Other important employRichard Greene is a labor economist in the Office of Employment
Structure and Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment trends in the energy extraction industries since the
embargo:
•
•
•
The employment growth rate has been accelerating
recently, particularly in the oil and natural gas in
dustries, with almost 37 percent of the total increase
since the embargo taking place in the last 2 years.
Employment in oil and gas field services (primarily
contract drilling and maintenance) has almost dou
bled in the last 4 years.
During 1973-78, employment in the coal mining
and oil and natural gas extraction industries grew at
approximately the same rate. Subsequently, however,
the oil and natural gas industries have accounted for
more than 75 percent of the growth in energy ex
traction employment and have expanded at almost
double the rate of the coal mining industry.
As would be expected, employment in oil field and
mining equipment manufacturing industries has also
risen sharply, by 62,300, or 85.3 percent, over the
1973-80 period. This contrasts markedly with the
very flat employment growth trend for the total
manufacturing sector. The production of oil and gas
equipment accounted for 86.2 percent of the in
creased activity in the energy extraction equipment
manufacturing industry. Employment in other indus3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Energy Extraction
Chart 1. Monthly employment levels in the coal mining and oil and natural gas extraction
industries, 1972-80
Number of workers (thousands)
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Note: Shaded area indicates strike in the coal mining industry.
tries manufacturing energy extraction-related equip
ment, such as offshore drilling platforms and oil and
natural gas pipelines, has also significantly increased.
However, an accurate estimate of the employment
growth in these industries could not be obtained
from the data sources used for this study.
This article details national and State employment
trends in the energy extraction industries since the 1973—
74 oil embargo. Employment data are from two Bureau
of Labor Statistics payroll employment programs.2 The
post-oil embargo period is the focal point for this study
because of the profound impact of that event on the sub
sequent development of both government and private in
dustry energy plans.
Throughout the article, oil and natural gas extraction
is defined to include such activities as exploration; dril
ling; building, completing, and equipping wells; and op
eration of the wells. The oil and gas field services
industry, which is a subgroup of the extraction indus
try, primarily involves contract drilling and other speci
fic contract field operation activities including building
well foundations and chemically treating and clearing
Digitized for
4 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
walls. Separate employment data for the oil and natural
gas industries are not available under the 1972 Standard
Industrial Classification (sic) coding system. Mining
also includes activities such as dredging and mine prep
aration plants.
The oil field machinery and equipment industry in
cludes establishments primarily engaged in the manu
facturing of oil and gas field derricks, drilling tools, and
drilling rigs and other machinery used to operate oil
and gas fields. The mining machinery and equipment in
dustry includes the manufacturing of coal breakers,
mine cars, rock crushing and mineral cleaning machin
ery.
Background
U.S. dependence on oil imports and vulnerability to
interruptions of foreign oil supplies were visibly demon
strated during the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo. Subse
quently, the Iranian revolution and oil cutoff, the
invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and the
Iran-Iraq war have only increased the risk of reliance
on oil imported from the Middle East. In 1960, imports
accounted for only about 20 percent of U.S. oil con
sumption. However, as oil consumption in the United
States began to outpace new domestic discoveries and
import quotas were removed (May 1, 1973), this depen
dence rose to more than 37 percent in 1974 and to 51
percent in early 1977, before dropping back below 37
percent by the end of 1980.3
Despite the recent decline in U.S. oil imports, the
economy at the beginning of 1981 remained heavily de
pendent on imported oil. And, the price of this oil has
soared. Since just before the embargo, the price of a
barrel of Saudi Arabian benchmark crude oil has risen
from $5.18 to $32.4 The effect of these enormous chang
es in the availability and price of imported oil have af
fected every sector of our economy.
In the United States, a major result of the changes in
the price and availability of imported oil has been the
development and implementation of government policies
designed to facilitate the discovery, production, and use
of domestic sources of energy— primarily oil, coal, and
natural gas.5Examples of these policies include:
Law
Natural Gas Policy Act
of 1978
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1979
Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
1978
Major purpose
Extension of Federal regulatory
control to all natural gas pro
duction, and the gradual decon
trol of all natural gas prices6
Provide authority for the
phased decontrol of domestic
crude oil7
Encourage the use of coal by
major utilities and industrial
consumers
Other measures promoting the development of domestic
energy sources provide for increased access to Federally
owned lands for oil and gas exploration and the re
sumption of the Federal coal leasing program in 1979.
National trends
Oil and natural gas. Employment in the oil and natural
gas extraction industries rose from 278,000, just before
the 1973-74 embargo, to 595,000 by the end of 1980.
(See chart 1.) More than 43 percent of this increase oc
curred after the April 4, 1979, announcement of the
phased price decontrol of newly discovered domestic
crude oil. The average monthly employment increase in
these industries has been approximately 6,600 since the
phased price decontrol was announced. This increase is
more than double the rate of the period between the be
ginning of the embargo and the announcement of the
phased price decontrols. The post-embargo oil and nat
ural gas employment trend contrasts sharply with that
observed over the 10-year period prior to the embargo,
during which employment in these industries had actu
ally declined by about 10,000.
Clearly, a major reason underlying the recent surge in
oil and natural gas exploration and extraction employ
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment is the increased price firms in these industries are
receiving for their products. Higher product prices have
not only encouraged the search for new sources of oil
and natural gas, but have made the use of enhanced oil
recovery techniques and the development of fields
previously categorized as sub-marginal more attractive.
Other factors affecting recent employment trends are
the increased participation of Canadian firms in the dis
covery and development of U.S. oil and gas fields;8 im
proved search techniques, which decrease the risks
associated with exploration activities; and unsettled po
litical conditions in the Middle East which highlighted
the vulnerability of the United States to the disruption
of imported oil supplies.
A notable component of industry growth has been
the increase in drilling activity, which is now at its
highest level in more than 20 years.9 Employment in the
oil and gas field services industry— basically well dril
ling, building, and maintenance on a contract basis—
has grown by almost 100,000 in the last 2 years alone.
The following tabulation shows the level and proportion
of the employment in the oil and natural gas extraction
industries involved in field services over the 1972-80 pe
riod:
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
....
____
....
____
____
....
____
....
....
Total field services
employment
(in thousands)
124.5
134.6
155.6
173.6
184.3
211.4
246.7
276.2
329.1
Percentage of
employment in
field services
46.5
49.1
51.8
52.8
53.3
55.4
57.5
58.4
60.1
Coal. Coal mining employment increased by almost 60
percent, from 167,000 in November 1973 to 266,100 in
December 1980. (See chart 1.) During the 10 years prior
to the embargo, coal mining employment had only in
creased by 16 percent. It should be noted that the coal
mining employment data shown in chart 1 were strong
ly affected by labor disputes in December 1974 and De
cember 1977-March 1978. In contrast to trends ex
hibited in the oil and natural gas industries, coal mining
employment growth has been modest over the last 2
years, increasing by only 3 percent. It is significant that
since the Natural Gas Policy Act was passed in Novem
ber 1978, total coal mining employment has increased
by only about 5,000 workers. In fact, almost 56 percent
of the post-embargo coal mining employment growth
occurred within 2 years of the beginning of the embargo.
Nevertheless, during this period coal mining employ
ment growth, while not as spectacular as the expansion
in its companion oil and natural gas extraction indus
tries, has still been more pronounced than the increase
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Energy Extraction
in almost every other goods-producing industry. The
major reason for this growth is that the tremendous in
creases in imported oil and natural gas prices have
caused some industrial users to switch to coal.
Employment growth in the coal mining industry has
been moderate compared with that in oil and natural
gas extraction in part because of the expanded use of
less labor-dependent surface mining techniques. Coal
mining productivity is approximately three times greater
in surface mines than in underground mines. Surface
mining techniques now account for over 60 percent of
total production and 33 percent of total employment in
the industry.10 It is also probable that the recent rela
tively large price increases for oil and natural gas had a
correspondingly favorable effect on employment in oil
and natural gas fields, while lower growth in coal min
ing reflects more moderate price increases for industry
output. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price
Index, based on the prices received by producers of
commodities, provides a measure of relative price
changes between various commodities. The following
tabulation compares changes in the Producer Price In
dex for the major domestic energy sources since the be
ginning of the oil embargo:
Product
C o a l.............................
Natural g a s ................
Domestic crude oil . .
Total finished goods .
Index
December
December
1973
1980
218.1
141.4
146.2
127.9
475.7
954.3
596.0
244.7
State trends
Oil and natural gas. Almost two-thirds of the total em
ployment in the oil and natural gas extraction industries
is located in three southwestern States— Texas, Louisi
ana, and Oklahoma. Texas alone accounts for almost 40
percent of the Nation’s employment in these rapidly
expanding industries. The following tabulation shows
the employment trends for the 10 States with the larg
est oil and natural gas extraction employment between
the beginning of the embargo and June 1980:
Percent
increase
118.1
574.9
307.7
91.3
It is important to note that until the end of 1978,
employment grew at about the same rate in the coal
mining industry as in the oil and natural gas industries.
But, as previously mentioned, strong price incentives
were provided to the oil and natural gas extraction in
dustries during 1979. Other factors contributing to the
more sluggish coal mining employment growth include
the costs associated with compliance to health and safe
ty rules in the mines; environmental regulations associ
ated with the mining of coal; increased transportation
costs; and the large capital outlays required to convert
an industrial plant from natural gas or oil to coal."
Coal mining employment did, however, increase
sharply during the last quarter of 1980 primarily because
of the huge increase in foreign demand for coal. This de
mand reflected the increased substitution of coal for
Middle East oil by foreign industry, as well as prolonged
strikes by coal miners in Poland and Australia.
Equipment manufacturing. Employment in the oil and
natural gas field equipment manufacturing industry rose
from 47,100 in November of 1973 to just over 100,000
by December 1980. (See chart 2.) In the decade preced
ing the embargo, employment in the industry increased
Digitized for6 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by about 45 percent. The 114-percent increase roughly
parallels the relative magnitude and timing of the em
ployment increases in the oil and natural gas extraction
industry. Employment in coal mining machinery equip
ment manufacturing rose by a third, from 25,900 to
34,500 over the same period, approximately the same
rate of growth observed during the 10 years preceding
the embargo. Employment in this industry increased at
only about one-half the annual rate of that in its com
panion coal mining industry, and almost all of its post
embargo growth occurred within 18 months of the end
of the embargo.
State
Texas ..........................
L ouisiana..................
Oklahoma ................
C alifornia..................
W yom in g..................
Colorado ..................
K ansas........................
New M e x ic o .............
Ohio ..........................
Mississippi ................
Oil and natural gas
employment
(in thousands)
November
June
1973
1980
105.5
48.4
35.4
20.4
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.6
5.4
4.2
213.3
78.0
65.5
32.9
18.3
16.4
12.8
12.8
9.8
8.8
Percent
change
102.2
61.2
85.0
61.3
144.0
110.3
68.4
68.4
81.5
109.5
As might be expected, the three largest oil and gas ex
traction States also accounted for a m ajority— more
than 60 percent— of the post-embargo employment
growth. However, the States experiencing the largest
relative employment increases following the embargo
were North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Colora
do, and Alaska. Most of these States have areas located
in the Western “Overthrust” Belt12 and Willeston Basin
sections of the Rocky Mountains. These areas are po
tentially rich in petroleum and natural gas, but extrac
tion is difficult and costly. Thus, the development of
these areas did not become economically feasible until
the recent oil and natural gas price increases.13
Coal. The coal mining industry also has the bulk of its
employment concentrated in three States — West Virgin
ia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. These States account
for almost 55 percent of total industry employment.
Chart 2. Monthly employment levels in oilfield machinery and mining machinery
manufacturing, 1972-80
Number of workers (thousands)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
N ote: Shaded area indicates strike in the coal mining industry.
The following tabulation shows the employment trends
for the leading coal mining States between the begin
ning of the 1973-74 embargo and June 1980:
Coal mining
employment
(in thousands)
State
West Virginia . . . .
K en tu c k y ................
Pennsylvania.............
Virginia .....................
I llin o is ..................... ..
Ohio ........................
A labam a.....................
Indiana.......................
Wyoming ..................
Colorado ..................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November
1973
June
1980
Percent
change
48.5
27.9
31.1
13.4
12.0
11.3
6.0
3.0
.8
1.6
55.1
47.2
39.4
20.8
16.4
16.4
13.0
6.1
6.0
5.5
13.6
69.2
26.7
55.2
36.7
45.1
116.7
103.3
650.0
244.0
In terms of relative employment increases, the leading
States have been Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado. As
in the case of the oil and gas extraction industries, this
growth reflects recent increased interest in developing
the Western “Overthrust” Belt and Willeston Basin re
gions. It is also noteworthy that, as a result of the
expected increased activity in this industry, the Power
Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 provides fi
nancial assistance to areas impacted by coal or uranium
development activities.14
During the last 5 years, employment growth has been
much sharper in the States where there is a greater reli
ance on surface mining techniques. Surface mining now
produces about 60 percent of the Nation’s coal while
employing only one-third of the coal mining work force.
In 1973, surface mining accounted for about half of the
Nation’s coal production, and one-quarter of total coal
mining employment.15
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Energy Extraction
Machinery manufacturing. Not surprisingly, most em
ployment in the energy extraction machinery equipment
manufacturing industries is located near areas where the
actual mining and extraction activities occur. Most of
the machinery is large, highly specialized, and cumber
some, and is consequently expensive to transport over
long distances.
Texas establishments employ approximately twothirds of the Nation’s oil and natural gas equipment
manufacturing workers and have accounted for more
than two-thirds of the post-embargo growth in this in
dustry. Other relatively large equipment manufacturing
States are California and Oklahoma, each with approxi
mately 11 percent of the total industry employment.
The largest employers in the coal mining equipment
manufacturing industry are Pennsylvania, with almost
19 percent of the Nation’s total, and West Virginia and
Wisconsin, with approximately 17 percent each. Indus
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author would like to thank Emily Miller
and Bernard Bell of the Office of Employment Structure and Trends,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, for their assistance in the preparation of
this article.
Economic Report o f the President, January 1981, p. 91.
Employment estimates for the Nation and the larger States were
compiled from the BLS Current Employment Statistics program.
These data are produced from employer payroll records reported to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by
more than 160,000 establishments on a voluntary basis each month.
Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are
outside the scope of this survey.
State employment data were also compiled from the ES-202 pro
gram, which collects information on the employment and wages of
workers covered by unemployment insurance (UI) programs. Each
calendar quarter, all Ul-covered employers submit mandatory reports
of employment and wages to the appropriate State Employment Secu
rity Agency. These reports are edited and summarized by county,
State, and detailed industry, and forwarded to BLS. Self-employed
persons are also not covered in this statistical program.
Monthly Energy Review (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy In
formation Agency), February 1981, pp. 30, 32, and 92.
Weekly Petroleum Status Report (U.S. Department of Energy, En
ergy Information Agency), Mar. 20, 1981, p. 21.
Special Analyses— Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 1981 (U.S. Office of Management and Budget), 1981, p. 383.
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
try employment in West Virginia and Wisconsin has
more than doubled since 1975. The largest mining
equipment manufacturing State in the West is Colorado,
with about 6 percent of the industry’s total employ
ment.
T h e 1973-74 A
r a b oil embargo and the subsequent
6-fold increase in the price of imported oil have sharply
curbed demand for imported crude oil. Coupled with
the phased decontrol of domestic energy prices, the
change in the price and availability of imported oil has
resulted in unprecedented employment increases in the
domestic energy extraction industries. Employment
growth in these industries, aided in part by changes in
Federal energy regulation policies, is an integral compo
nent of the Nation’s effort to expand the development
and use of domestic sources of energy.
Q
*The natural gas decontrol schedule allows the price of “new”
natural gas to gradually rise to the equivalent of $15 for a barrel of
oil (in 1978 dollars) by 1985, a level thought at that time to permit a
smooth transition to uncontrolled prices. Thus, by 1985, when oil
prices will probably be more than double the anticipated level, there
will still be a large gap between decontrolled gas and “new” gas. See
Economic Report o f the President, January 1981, p. 101.
The statute also provided for the termination of domestic crude oil
price controls by October 1981 and gave the President discretion on
price control levels from June 1979 forward. In January 1981, Presi
dent Reagan ended all crude oil price controls.
s “Canada's oil policy is starting to hurt,” Business Week, Dec. 8,
1980, p. 24.
Voice (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas), December 1980, p. 8.
Weekly Coal Report (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infor
mation Agency), Mar. 6, 1981, p. 5.
" Energy Economics, August 1979, p. 1.
The U.S. Overthrust Belt is an approximately 60-mile wide strip
running from Alaska to Mexico.
"Frank Niering, “Drilling Boom Gathers Pace,” The Petroleum
Economist, July 1980, pp. 289-90.
14Federal Register, Mar. 8, 1979, pp. 12936-37.
Weekly Coal Report (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infor
mation Agency), Mar. 6, 1981, p. 5.
The health services industry:
a decade of expansion
During the 1970% the demand for health care rose,
resulting in a dramatically increased work force,
accompanied by a need for more highly skilled workers;
wages and salaries remained below national averages
and absences above: workweeks were shorter
Edw
ard
S. S e k s c e n s k i
Along with a rise in the demand for medical services,
and a steady increase in the costs of those services, the
number of workers employed in the health services in
dustry has grown at a very rapid pace. As the decade
opened, about 4.3 million persons were working in hos
pitals, convalescent institutions, physicians’ and den
tists’ offices, or other health care facilities.1 By 1979,
their number had grown to more than 6.7 million, an
increase of 55 percent. During the same period, the to
tal work force grew by 23 percent.
Median earnings of wage-and-salary workers in
health services, however, were below the all-industry av
erage throughout the decade. For full-time hospital em
ployees, median usual weekly earnings were 86 percent
of the national average in 1978, up from 82 percent in
1970. In other segments of the health services industry,
average wage-and-salary earnings remained at about
three-quarters of the all-industry average. However,
workweeks tended to be slightly shorter in the health
services industry than for all industries, both for parttime and full-time workers.
This article covers health service employees, such as
physicians, nurses, and laboratory technicians, plus
Edward S. Sekscenski is an economist in the Office of Current Em
ployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
those who provide administrative, clerical, food, and
other supportive services in health care facilities. The
universe for hours and earnings data is wage-and-salary
workers. Self-employed health service providers are in
cluded in the data on total employed. Much of the ma
terial is derived from special tabulations prepared by
the author from computer tapes for the Current Popula
tion Survey2 in May. This survey is the only source of
national data on employment, earnings, and hours of
workers in the entire health industry.3
An overview
Early approaches to measuring the level of health ser
vice requirements stressed the “need” for services ac
cording to the size, density, and age and sex
distributions of the population, the estimated incidence
of illnesses and injuries, and rough estimates of health
worker productivity. Roger I. Lee and Lewis W. Jones
in their 1933 study of physician requirements used these
criteria to calculate the physician to population ratios
that were used in planning medical schools and health
facilities through the 1950’s.4 Similarly, the President’s
Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation (1953)5
and the Surgeon General’s Consultant Group on Medi
cal Education (1959)6 based their recommendations for
expansion of medical schools and facilities largely on
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Health Services
Table 1.
Workers in the health services industry by segment, May 1970 to May 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Health services Industry
Year
1970 ...................................................
1971 ...................................................
1972 ................................................
1973 ...................................................
1974 ...................................................
1975 ...................................................
1976 ...................................................
1977 ...................................................
1978 ...................................................
1979 ...................................................
Percent increase, 1970-79 ...............
Total
employed
78,358
78,708
81,224
83,758
85,786
84,146
87,278
90,482
93,904
96,327
22.9
Total
Hospitals
Convalescent
institutions
4,323
4,605
4,850
5,235
5,470
5,741
6,140
6,267
6,522
6,699
54.9
2,727
2,878
2,914
3,114
3,190
3,392
3,568
3,507
3,661
3,753
37.6
N.A.
590
651
760
809
864
933
975
924
1,012
71.53
' Includes persons employed in nonhospital clinics, medical and dental laboratories,
nonphysician practitioners' offices and other health services not elsewhere classified.
2 Represents the sum of persons at work in convalescent institutions, physicians' and den
tists’ offices, and in other health services not elsewhere classified.
existing physician to population ratios and projected
changes in the latter.
More recent theory on the demand for health services
views each segment of the industry as providing inputs
into the production of a final output — “good health”
which is an investment good.7 Families or individual
consumers purchase varying amounts and combinations
of these services according to the expected return on
their investment (in terms of fewer days of illness and
longer and more enjoyable lives) and present costs of
the services.
The growing availability of medical insurance has
played a large role in the growth of the health services
industry. The majority of medical costs (at least twothirds in 1978) are paid through third party agencies —
health insurers.8 The prevalence of health insurance, as
well as the costs of its premiums, and the extent of cov
erage differ greatly by segment. In general, demand has
been greater where coverage has been more comprehen
sive. For example, fuller coverage for hospital than for
other services resulted in a demand on hospitals for ser
vices that might have been provided more economically
elsewhere. However, over the decade, broader coverage
for physicians’ and and dentists’ services, care in conva
lescent institutions, and other nonhospital services in
creased demand for these services.9
In addition to the expanding role of health insurance,
other factors contributed to the growth in the demand
for health services during the 1970’s, both in aggregate
and on a per capita basis. Among these factors were an
increasing and aging population, rising personal and
family incomes (at least through mid-decade), and
greater public awareness and desire for quality health
care. As a result, the Nation’s total health expenditures
rose from about $75 billion in 1970 to more than $212
billion in 1979, while per capita expenditures advanced
from $358 to $942. Over the same period, the health in
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Physicians’
offices
Dentists’
offices
Other1
N.A.
486
557
594
605
570
657
685
815
779
60.33
N.A.
234
255
268
292
345
332
323
353
351
50.03
1,5962
418
473
499
575
670
650
777
769
804
92.33
3 Increase for 1971-79.
Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
N.A. = Not available separately.
Note:
dustry’s share of the gross national product increased
from 7.6 to 9.0 percent.10
Growth by industry segment
Hospitals employed the majority of all workers in the
health services industry throughout the decade, 3.7 of
6.7 million in 1979. However, the fastest employment
growth was in other segments of the industry. While
employment in hospitals increased by 37 percent be
tween 1970 and 1979, it nearly doubled in the rest of
the industry (see table 1). As a result, hospitals
accounted for a smaller proportion of all health indus
try workers in 1979 (56 percent) than in 1970 (62 per
cent).
Employment rose at a less rapid rate in hospitals
than in other segments of the industry for several rea
sons, including decreases in the average length of a pa
tient’s stay," a lowering of the birth rate (while
childbirth remained the major reason for hospitalization
in nonfederal short-stay hospitals, total maternal deliv
eries declined),12 and a growing substitution of ambula
tory or outpatient care for hospital inpatient care.
Outpatient visits increased by 53 percent between 1970
and 1977, compared to a 17-percent rise in inpatient
admissions over the same period.13
The closing of many “long-term” hospitals (where
patients stay an average of 30 days or more), especially
government-owned psychiatric facilities, also slowed the
demand for hospital workers. While the total number of
beds in “short-term ” hospitals (where patients usually
stay less than 30 days) increased by about 8.3 percent
during 1972-77, the number in long-term hospitals de
clined by 40 percent,14 as more of their patients were
treated in outpatient facilities.
Convalescent institutions were the next largest group
of health service employers, reaching more than 1 mil
lion in 1979. An aging population and increased insur-
ance benefits, especially under medicare and medicaid
plans, contributed to the very rapid employment growth
in these institutions between 1971 and 1976. However,
employment leveled off during mid-decade, as govern
ment regulation of these facilities strengthened,15 and
“home-health services” for elderly patients gained sup
port.16 Employment in convalescent institutions rose
again between 1978 and 1979. Over the decade, the pro
portion of all health industry workers employed in con
valescent institutions increased from 10.6 to 15.4
percent.
Employment in physicians’ and dentists’ offices, and
in “other health services,” such as nonphysician practi
tioners’ offices, nonhospital clinics, group health associ
ations, and medical and dental laboratories, also grew
at rates faster than that in hospitals. Growth in these
facilities was consistent with the trend towards substitu
tion of outpatient and other health care for hospital in
patient services and greater insurance coverage for
nonhospital services. As a whole, these diverse provid
ers of health services employed 1.8 million persons in
1979, 60 percent greater than in 1971. Among them,
physicians’ offices were the largest single employers in
1979, with 720,000 workers or about 63 percent more
than in 1971. This growth represented an increase of
approximately 50 percent in the number of office physi
cians, to more than 270,000, as well as their increasing
use of auxiliaries, such as nurse practitioners, physi
cians’ assistants, and other technical and clerical staff.
The number of persons working in dentists’ offices in
creased to 342,000, about 46 percent over the decade.
The number of dentists in these offices rose from about
100,000 to 120,000, while their use of auxiliaries in
creased. This is partially because of more dental group
practices which tend to employ more assistants per den
tist than do solo practices.17
Table 2.
Occupational trends
The health industry work force included a higher pro
portion of professional and technical workers in 1979
than in 1971.18 However, clerical workers also increased
their share of employment. In contrast, service workers
declined in relative importance. (See table 2.)
The growing use of highly sophisticated diagnostic
and therapeutic equipment increased the demand for
skilled technologists and technicians. Some of this new
equipment reduced the demand for workers, by per
forming equivalent work automatically or faster. How
ever, the delivery of more advanced medical care, made
possible by new technology, caused a relative increase
in the demand for highly skilled workers. The largest
growth in technologists and technician employment was
in nonhospital facilities. While there were half again as
many hospital employees in these occupations in 1979
as in 1971, the number in nonhospital clinics, laborato
ries, and physicians’ and dentists’ offices more than
doubled.
A reorganization of the delivery of some health care
also added to the demand for more highly skilled work
ers. For example, according to the American Hospital
Association the proportion of hospitals with intensive
care units rose from less than one-third in 1965 to
about two-thirds in 1978; those with cardiac intensive
care units increased from 0.05 to 31.7 percent over the
same period.19 These facilities generally require employ
ees with greater skill levels because of the sophisticated
medical care they provide.
The growth in the proportion of registered nurses and
the relative decline in importance of .licensed practical
nurses and nurses’ aides also illustrated the trend to
ward rising skill levels. Total employment of the profes
sional nursing group rose by three-fifths between 1971
Workers in the health services industry, by selected occupations, May 1971 and May 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
1979
1971
Occupation
Total’ .....................................................
Managerial, professional,
and technical workers, to ta l...........................
Health administrators.................................
Physicians...................................................
Dentists .....................................................
Registered nurses......................................
Therapists...................................................
Technologists and technicians ..................
Dietic.ans ...................................................
Service and clerical workers, total ....................
Licensed practical nurses..........................
Nurses’ aides ............................................
Food, laundry, and housekeeping..............
Clerical.......................................................
Hospital
Medical
except
hospital
Total
health
services
Hospital
Medical
except
hospital
4,605
2,878
1,728
6,699
3,753
2,946
1,586
128
290
108
662
83
293
28
2,238
279
770
597
592
929
70
99
657
58
191
108
171
34
94
7
732
69
237
163
263
2,445
148
419
133
1,063
184
446
52
3,051
333
940
680
1,099
1,433
76
135
4
794
100
293
31
1,716
230
483
428
575
1,012
72
284
129
269
84
153
21
1,335
103
457
251
524
Total
health
services
491
49
199
21
1,506
210
533
434
329
1Total includes other occupations not shown In table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Health Services
and 1979, aided by increased Federal support to schools
of nursing. The Nurse Training Act of 1964, which was
renewed through 1975, provided a total of $2 billion in
direct Federal grants to schools of nursing for distribu
tion as student loans and scholarships, and for new
school construction and financial support for existing
nursing schools.
In contrast, the number of licensed practical nurses
and nurses’ aides each rose by approximately one-fifth.
Aides had declined by about 6 percent in hospitals
largely because of the closing of many of these facilities
that had provided long-term care. However, the num
ber of aides in convalescent institutions increased by 93
percent.
Therapists were among the professional health occu
pations that grew more rapidly than total employment
in the health services industry. This group roughly dou
bled in number between 1971 and 1979 as the result of
funding for new rehabilitation programs for the dis
abled as well as growth in established programs. The
increased employment was divided about evenly be
tween hospitals and other health facilities.
The growth in demand for lower skilled workers,
such as food service and laundry workers, slowed as a
result of the trend toward treating many long-term pa
tients through home-health services or outpatient clin
ics. The proportion of the industry’s work force in food
service, laundry, and housekeeping occupations de
creased from 13 to 10 percent during the 1970’s.
Clerical workers nearly doubled in number during the
decade, as more of the “office” work of the industry
was shifted from those providing medical services to
secretaries, medical records clerks, and other clerical
employees.
Self-employment in the health industry
Self-employed workers are an important, albeit rela
tively small, segment of the industry’s work force
(352,000 or 5.3 percent in 1979). In contrast to an 11percent increase in the number of all self-employed
workers from 1971 to 1979, the number in the health
industry was about the same in both years. The propor
tion of all physicians who were self-employed dropped
from approximately one-half to one-third, while that of
dentists decreased from nine-tenths to two-thirds. To
some extent the rapid growth in wage-and-salary em
ployment in some professional health service occupa
tions represented the incorporation of professional
practices for tax benefits. For many such professionals
the change was in accounting practices, not in employ
ment status.
Physicians (40 percent) and dentists (20 percent)
accounted for about the same proportions of all selfemployed persons in the industry throughout the de
cade. The remainder of the self-employed was made up
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of principally registered nurses on private duty, nurse
practitioners, private-duty nurses’ aides, chiropractors,
health technologists in private medical research, and to
a lesser degree pharmacists,20 dieticians, psychologists,
therapists, medical social workers, and some convales
cent institution proprietors.
Women and black workers
In contrast to the overall work force, women make
up the majority of workers in the health services indus
try, reflecting that occupations in this industry— nurs
ing being a primary example— traditionally have been
dominated by women. Even though the female propor
tion of the national work force increased during the
1970’s (from about 37 to 42 percent), their proportion
of health industry employment remained much higher,
nearly 75 percent.
Women’s share of all professional health workers, in
cluding registered nurses, rose from about 60 to 65 per
cent during the decade. Their share of all physicians,
dentists, and practitioners was 9 percent in 1971, 12
percent in 1979. Among these professionals under age
35 in 1979, women accounted for almost 20 percent.
The ratio of men to women in the health industry in
1979 was nearly the reverse among the self-employed as
for the wage-and-salary work force. However, women’s
share of the self-employed rose from about 20 percent
in 1971 to 25 percent in 1979.
Convalescent institutions employ an overwhelming
majority of women— nearly 9 of 10 were female em
ployees in 1979. In hospitals, clinics, medical laborato
ries, and group health associations, about three-quarters
of the employees were women.
Black workers, who made up about 10 percent of all
workers throughout the decade, also are overrepresent
ed among health service employees. However, the pro
portion of all health industry employees who were
black, decreased slightly over the decade, from about 15
to 13 percent. This was largely because of a proportion
al decline in their employment in hospitals, where their
fraction of the work force went from 18 to 15 percent.
Throughout the period, few blacks worked in physi
cians’ and dentists’ offices. No more than 5 percent of
employees in these offices were black in any year in the
1970’s. Of all physicians and dentists, blacks accounted
for less than 3 percent both in 1971 and 1979.
However, blacks, especially men, increased their share
of employment in the “other health services” group.
For all black workers the proportion of employment in
these facilities rose from about 8 percent in May 1971
to 12 percent in May 1979. Black men increased their
share of all men in this type of employment from 5 to
14 percent over the same period. For black women,
most of the employment increases were in the nonpro
fessional health occupations. Black men became a little
more numerous among the technical health occupations.
Weekly earnings
Historically, the earnings of wage-and-salary workers
in the health services industry have been well below
those in the overall work force.21 In 1978, usual median
weekly earnings of health service employees working
full time were $180,22 or 81 percent that of all full-time
workers. The gap had narrowed slightly since 1973.
(See table 3.)
Full-time hospital employees were among the highest
paid workers in the industry, with usual earnings of
about $195 per week, on average, in 1978. Since 1973,
their earnings had increased by 50 percent, compared
with 40 percent for all-industry wage-and-salary work
ers, and 44 percent for wage-and-salary workers in the
health industry.
An increase in union coverage of hospital employees,
from 12 to 22 percent, especially following extension of
the National Labor Relations Act to workers in non
profit hospitals in 1974, as well as an increase in the
proportion of professional and technical workers, con
tributed to the relatively rapid growth in the earnings of
hospital employees.23
Convalescent institution employees had lower earn
ings than other health workers. Their usual median
weekly earnings of $127 in 1978 represented less than
three-fifths that of all workers. The lower proportion of
health professionals and higher proportion of service
workers contributed to the lower earnings in this seg
ment. In addition, average earnings of workers in sever
al occupations, including registered nurses, health
administrators, clerical workers, and nurses’ aides, were
lower in convalescent institutions than in hospitals.
Persons employed in the “other health services”
group were the most highly paid wage-and-salary
workers in the industry. Their median weekly earnings
throughout most of the 1970’s were about equal to
those of the overall work force. These higher earnings
are greatly the result of the higher earnings of some of
the professional groups employed in this group com
pared with those of their counterparts in the rest of the
health industry.
Usual median weekly earnings of physicians’ em
ployed in physicians’ offices, approximately $972 in
1978, were the highest of any occupational group in the
industry, although they showed little increase from their
1974 level of about $966. These data relate only to the
wage-and-salary portions of the earnings, of physicians
employed in physicians’ offices. All other earnings, such
as salaries from hospitals and self-employed earnings,
are excluded.
The dominance of women in the industry may be one
reason for the lower median earnings of health service
workers. Throughout industry, women earn less, on av
erage, than men in equivalent occupations.24 In the
health industry in 1978, women employed full time as
wage-and-salary workers earned approximately $168
per week, on average, whereas their male counterparts
earned $241 per week. Women employed as health ther
apists and registered nurses earned about 85 percent of
the weekly earnings of men in these occupations. The
same earnings ratio applied to licensed practical nurses,
nurses’ aides, and nonprofessional health service work
ers.
Work schedules
Average weekly hours of health industry employees
were shorter than the average for all wage-and-salary
workers. (See table 4.) The relationship showed little
variation over the decade. Full-time hospital employees,
for example, reported working an average workweek of
40.8 hours in May 1979 compared with 42.6 hours for
all full-time wage-and-salary workers. Comparable fig
ures for 1970 were 41.0 hours (hospital workers) and
42.8 hours (all wage-and-salary workers). Health work
ers in nonhospital facilities who worked full time aver
aged 41.8 hours in 1979, up slightly from 40.6 hours in
Table 3. Median usual weekly earnings for full-time, wage-and-salary workers in the health services industry, by segment,
May 1970 to May 1978
_____________________________________________
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
Health services industry
All full-time,
wage-andsalary workers
Total
$131
139
144
158
168
183
194
204
221
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$125
135
148
159
168
180
' Includes earnings in nonhospital clinics, medical and dental laboratories, nonphysician practitioner's offices, and other health services, not elsewhere classified.
2 Represents the sum of persons at work in convalescent institutions, physicians’ and den-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Hospitals
Convalescent
Institutions
Physicians’
offices
Dentists'
offices
Other1
$108
114
123
130
142
154
172
179
195
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$91
92
96
109
120
127
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$122
127
140
156
161
174
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$99
116
125
128
151
162
$982
104 2
1122
162
169
179
191
205
205
tists’ offices, and in other health services not elsewhere classified,
n .A. = Not available separately.
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Health Services
Table 4. Usual weekly hours of work for wage-and-salary workers in the health services industry, by segment, May 1971 and
May 1979
Percent distribution
Number of
workers
(in thousands)
Total
1 to 14
hours
15 to 29
hours
30 to 34
hours
All industries .....................................................
Health services, to ta l.....................................
Hospitals ...................................................
Medical, except hospital.............................
64,788
4,060
2,734
1,326
100
100
100
100
5
5
3
8
10
14
13
14
6
8
7
10
1979
All industries .....................................................
Health services, to ta l.....................................
Hospitals ...................................................
Medical, except hospital.............................
81,075
6,040
3,573
2,467
100
100
100
100
5
4
3
6
11
15
14
18
7
8
7
10
Year and industry segment
Part time
Average weekly
hours
Full time
40
hours
41 to 48
hours
49 to 59
hours
60
hours
or more
8
6
4
9
46
56
61
47
12
7
8
6
8
2
2
3
8
8
6
10
45
50
55
42
11
7
8
6
9
4
3
4
35 to 39
hours
Total
workers
Workers on
full-time
schedules
5
3
3
2
38.9
42.8
37.2
38.1
40.6
40.9
6
4
3
5
38.7
42.6
37.4
35.9
40.8
41.8
1971
N ote:
Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
1970. The latter was probably a function of increased
proportion of physicians and dentists among the totals.
The work schedules of employees in the health service
industry who held one full-time job varied little by oc
cupation, with the exception of physicians who averaged
about 54 hours per week in 1979 (56 hours for men and
44 hours for women). Among registered nurses, health
technologists, and nonprofessional health workers, aver
age weekly hours were within less than 1 hour of 41
hours per week, with little difference between men and
women.
Usual workweeks of fewer than 5 days were reported
by a greater proportion of full-time nonhospital health
workers (7.3 percent) in May 1979 than the average for
all industries (2.0 percent). A smaller than average pro
portion (8.5 versus 12.6 percent) reported usual work
weeks in excess of 5 days. However, full-time hospital
employees were less likely to stray from the 5-day stand
ard. Only 2.2 percent of these employees usually
worked fewer than 5 days per week; 7 percent usually
worked greater than a 5-day week. These figures com
pare to 2.2 and 14.3 percent for all workers.25
The health industry had a relatively high proportion
of part-time workers throughout the decade. While the
ratio of part-time workers to all workers in the total
work force rose from 1 in 8 to 1 in 7, that in the health
services industry remained 1 in 5. The use of part-time
workers in the nonhospital segment of the industry was
particularly high— about one-fourth of all workers.
Dual jobholding is common among some health ser
vice occupations. Many physicians, for example, com
bine a private practice with a wage-and-salary job in a
hospital or clinic. Other health employees work two
wage-and-salary jobs or more in different facilities, such
as nurses who provide on-call services to health facili
ties. The average workweeks of many of these dual
jobholding workers are longer than those of single job
holders.
Total weekly hours worked by dual jobholding men
whose primary jobs were in the nonhospital sector of
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the health industry were 62 hours in 1979. Those whose
primary jobs were in hospitals worked an average of 53
hours per week at both jobs combined.
Although the dual jobholding rate among women in
professional health occupations (4.5 percent) was higher
than for all women (3.5 percent) in 1979, their rate was
well below that of men. This reflects in part the smaller
proportions of physicians in their ranks.
Because of the need for round-the-clock provision of
hospital services, about a quarter of the full-time em
ployees in this segment of the health industry worked
schedules in other than daytime hours. This compares
with approximately 16 percent of all full-time nonfarm
wage-and-salary workers who worked shift schedules,
and about the same percent of nonhospital health in
dustry employees. The proportions are nearly identical
for every year that data on shifts are available, 1973-78.
Among nonprofessional health service workers the pro
portion of shift workers was 36 percent.26
Absences present problems
Although absence rates have not increased in recent
years, the increasing skill levels of the workers provid
ing health services, as well as their life and death re
sponsibilities, has made substitution of absent workers a
more difficult task for health managers.
According to Bernhard Hoffman, director of person
nel at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit:
“At one point limited substitution of skills applied only to
the professional medical staff, but as certification and regis
tration have increased, [that is, expanded into semiprofes
sional and technical occupations], substitution [has] become
almost impossible in any of the health professions that in
volve skill.”27
The percent of full-time workers with an absence and
the percent of total time lost were higher in the health
industry than in the total wage-and-salary work force.
About 8.2 percent of full-time health industry workers
lost some time from their workweek during May 1979,
as a result of illnesses, injuries, and miscellaneous per
sonal reasons. This compares with 6.7 percent of both
nonfarm wage-and-salary workers, as well as all service
industry workers, who had lost some worktime during
the week. These rates were almost unchanged through
out the decade.
Time lost because of absences in the health industry
accounted for about 4.3 percent of their total usual
hours worked, while the time lost by all wage-and-sala
ry workers equaled 3.4 percent of their total usual
hours.
Relatively higher absence rates in the health industry
are largely a reflection of its greater proportion of wom
en employees, who generally have higher such rates
than men. The percent of all full-time, wage-and-salary
women with one absence or more during May 1979 was
8.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent for all men.28
In all industries, the incidence of absence and the to
tal time lost also varies greatly by occupational group.
Among most full-time professional wage-and-salary
workers in the health industry, absence rates are lower
than among nonprofessionals. However, among regis
tered nurses absences are higher than the average for
the total wage-and-salary work force, and higher than
those of elementary and secondary schoolteachers, an
occupational group whose educational requirements and
sex distributions are about comparable to those of regis
tered nurses.
Fewer physicians reported some time lost during the
week in May 1979 than any other group, 3.1 percent,
followed by technicians, 4.4 percent, and registered
nurses, 7.6 percent. Full-time, non-professional health
workers reported the highest incidence of absence, 11.6
percent.
Combined hours lost to the industry by absent work
ers, as would be expected, followed the same occupa
tional pattern. Total time lost to the wage-and-salary
industry by absent full-time physicians equaled 1.2 per
cent of the usual hours worked per week by full-time,
wage-and-salary physicians in 1979— that of techni
cians was 4.4 percent. The absences of registered nurses
decreased total usual hours worked by all full-time reg
istered nurses by 6.7 percent.
Job tenure, the length of time a person remains at
one job, was lower, on average, among men employed
in the health services industry (3.6 years) than for all
men (4.5 years) in January 1978.29 However, among men
in professional health occupations average tenure was
5.5 years; it was 2.7 years for men in nonprofessional
health jobs. Among women, average tenure was about
the same in the health industry (2.7 years) as in all in
dustries (2.6 years). Again, it was higher among profes
sional (3.5 years) than nonprofessional (1.6 years)
occupations.
1Census Industrial Codes: 828 (physicians’ offices), 829 (dentists’
offices), 837 (chiropractors’ offices), 838 (hospitals), 839 (convalescent
institutions), 847 (other health practitioners’ offices, not elsewhere
classified), and 848 (other health services, not elsewhere classified).
“Other health services” include clinics not associated with hospitals,
medical and dental laboratories, group health associations, and health
maintenance organizations.
Wage Survey: Hospitals, Bulletin 2069 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1980).
4 Roger I. Lee and Lewis W. Jones, The Fundamentals of Good
Medical Care (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1933).
5See "America’s Health Status, Needs, and Resources,” Building
America's Health (President’s Committee on Health Needs of the Na
tion, 1953).
6 Physicians for a Growing America: Report o f the Surgeon General's
Consultant Group on Medical Education (U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1959).
See, for example, Selma J. Mushkin, Health as an Investment, Ad
visory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington,
D.C., 1962, and Michael Grossman, “On the Concept of Health Capi
tal and the Demand for Health,” Journal o f Political Economy, March
-April 1972, pp. 223-55.
"See Health, United States 1979 (U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1980) p. 237.
’ The proportion of total personal health care expenditures paid by
third party agencies rose from 56 to 64 percent, for physicans’ ser
vices between 1970 and 1979; from 10 to 27 percent, for dentists’ ser
vices; and from 49 to 58 percent, for nursing home services. Third
party payments accounted for about 90 percent of personal health
care expenditures for hospital care throughout the decade. See Robert
2The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey of households
conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the
Census. For more information on the survey see The Current Popula
tion Survey: Design and Methodology (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1979), Technical Paper 40.
’ The Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes employment and
earnings data on wage-and-salary workers employed in hospitals in
about 20 major metropolitan areas of the country, from its Industry
Wage Surveys, as well as employment data for all private health in
dustry workers, and earnings and hours data for nonsupervisory pro
duction workers in the health industry, from its monthly survey of
establishments, the Current Employment Survey. In May 1979 em
ployment in these private health industry establishments totaled
4,726,000. Excluding Government workers from the Current Popula
tion Survey total for May 1979 data yields a private health industry
work force of about 4,722,000. For more information see Industry
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B e c a u s e o f i n c r e a s e d d e m a n d for health services
the industry work force increased greatly during the
1970’s. Shifts in the demand for services among the var
ious industry segments yielded a change in the propor
tional distribution of workers in those segments, as well
as the occupational compositions of each segment. Ad
vances in medical technology and a reorganization of
the delivery of some health care added to the changes in
occupational distribution in the overall industry.
The earnings of wage-and-salary health workers did
not generally reflect the dramatic rise in demand for
their services. Although, in the hospital segment earn
ings rose more rapidly than those for all wage-and-sala
ry workers, among workers in clinics, laboratories, and
group health associations the increase in weekly earn
ings kept pace with the national average.
□
15
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Employment in Health Services
M. Gibson, “National Health Expenditures, 1979," Health Care Fi
nancing Review. Vol. 2, No. 1, 1980.
"’Ibid.
" See Health, United States 1979, p. 180.
1 Ibid.
See David A. Stockman and W. Philip Graham, “Hospital Cost
Containment," New Directions for Public Health (San Francisco, Insti
tute for Contemporary Studies, 1980), p. 121.
14 Health, United States 1979, p. 208.
See Charles Hynes, “The Regulation of Nursing Homes: A Case
Study," Regulating Health Care, The Struggle for Control (New York,
Academy of Political Science, 1980), pp. 126-36.
" See Medicare— Use o f Home Health Services: 1978 (U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Care Financing Ad
ministration, 1980).
According to the American Dental Association 1975 Survey of
Dental Practice, self-employed dentists in solo practice employed 2.4
assistants, on average, while dental group practices with two dentists
employed 5.7 assistants per practice; three dentists, 7.9 assistants; and
four dentists, 12.3 assistants.
4Occupational data for 1970 are not strictly comparable to those
for 1971 forward as a result of changes in the occupational classifica
tion system for the 1970 Census of Population that were introduced
into the Current Population Survey in January.
Stockman and Graham, “Hospital Cost Containment," p. 119.
Most pharmacists are classified as employed in the retail trade in
dustry as opposed to the health industry. Of the approximately
214,000 total pharmacists in May 1979, 70,000 were classified as be
ing in the health industry. About 83 percent of these were selfemployed.
Employment and Earnings (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), vari
ous issues.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“ Comparable weekly earnings data for the health services industry
workers shown in this report are not available beyond 1978 because
of changes in the Current Population Survey earnings series intro
duced in 1979. For more information on 1979 earnings see Earl F.
Mellor, "Technical Description of the Quarterly Data on Weekly
Earnings from the Current Population Survey” (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, July 1980).
Unpublished Current Population Survey data for May 1973-78.
For more information on the effect of the 1974 act on union orga
nizing in the health industry see Richard U. Miller, “Hospitals,” Col
lective Bargaining: Contemporary American Experience (Madison, Wis.
Industrial Relation Research Association, 1980), pp. 373-433, and
Impact of 1974 Health Care Amendments to the NLRA on Collective
Bargaining in the Health Care Industry (U.S. Department of Labor
and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 1979).
4 See, for example, Nancy F. Rytina, “Occupational segregation
and earnings differences by sex,” Monthly Labor Review, January
1981, pp. 49-53.
' See Janice N. Hedges, “The workweek in 1979, fewer but longer
workdays,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1980, p. 31.
' Janice N. Hedges and Edward S. Sekscenski, “Workers on late
shifts in a changing economy,” Monthly Labor Review, September
1979, pp. 17, 18.
Bernhard Hoffman, Reducing Worker Absenteeism (Ann Arbor,
Mich., The University of Michigan, Institute of Science and Technolo
gy, 1979), pp. 59-72.
s For more information on absences of U.S. workers, see Daniel E.
Taylor, “Absent workers and lost hours, May 1978,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1979, pp. 49-53.
’’ For more information on job tenure see Edward S. Sekscenski
“Job tenure declines as work force changes,” Monthly Labor Review,
December 1979, pp. 48-50.
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple
ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be
considered for publication, communications should be factual and an
alytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed
to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statis
tics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
Disability payments stabilizing
after era of accelerating growth
Programs' share of GNP was constant
at 2.2 percent in 1975-77, with claims
dropping from peak rates of the mid-197O's;
since 1950, payments under both private
and Government plans had mushroomed
Jo n a t h a n S u n s h i n e
Considerable evidence since 1975 suggests that the pre
vious rapid expansion of disability cash benefits has
ceased. Overall, these programs’ share of the Gross Na
tional Product ( g n p ) was constant rather than growing
between 1975 and 1977, the latest year for which com
prehensive data are available. (See table 1.)
The growth rate of real per capita benefits, one of the
two factors that determine the growth of total expendi
tures, seems to have slackened during this period. (See
table 2.) One likely cause is the increasing number of
Federal programs in which benefit adjustments are pro
vided through systems of automatic indexing tied to
wages or prices. Social Security Disability Insurance ( d i ),
for example, is tied to the Consumer Price Index. These
adjustment mechanisms have increasingly replaced spe
cial, individually legislated adjustments which often
provided increases greater than those in wages or prices.
Regarding numbers of beneficiaries, the other factor
that determines total expenditures, most evidence also
points to a recent slackening of growth. Claims rates
are down in many major programs. For example, DI
claims rates have declined substantially from their 1974
peak, which had been caused by greater public aware
ness of the program. The decline was a generally con
tinuing phenomenon over the subsequent five years, and
Jonathan Sunshine is a Veterans Administration Administrative
Scholar, and formerly a staff member of the Special Studies Division
for Human Resources, Veterans, and Labor, U.S. Office of Manage
ment and Budget.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the annual claims rate is now 13 per 1,000 insured
workers, as compared to the 1974 peak of 16 per 1,000.
Likewise, Federal Civil Service disability retirement
awards, after increasing from 8 per 1,000 insured work
ers in 1965 to a peak of 12 per 1,000 during 1975-77,
declined to 9 per 1,000 by 1979. Here, a tax law change
was probably largely responsible. The change reduced
the after-tax advantage of receiving disability benefits
rather than regular retirement benefits. New Supplemen
tal Security Income (ssi) disability awards have also
been declining while the poverty population, one rough
index of the underlying pool of possibly eligible per
sons, has been stable. New SSI disability awards de
creased from approximately 370,000 in 1976 and 1977
to approximately 325,000 in 1979. Most dramatically,
the number of DI beneficiaries, after very rapid increases
since the program’s inception, has remained largely con
stant since 1977 and has actually declined slightly since
late 1978.
The growth period
In contrast, after remaining a fairly constant percent
age of GNP for many years, cash payments to disabled
persons began a period of rapid growth during the
mid-1960’s, as table 1 shows. During 1965-75, they in
creased from S9.7 billion or 1.4 percent of GNP, to
$33.9 billion or 2.2 percent of GNP.
Several related developments added to the concern
generated by this decade of intense growth in cash pay
ments. For one, medical payments for the disabled were
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Disability Payments Stabilize
about twice as large as cash payments and grew as rap
idly.1 Second, the Federal share of cash disability pay
ments rose significantly, from 55 percent in 1965 to 61
percent in 1975, as table 1 indicates. Third, the number
of beneficiaries of some of the largest programs grew
dramatically. (See table 3.) For example, beneficiaries of
D l, the largest single disability program in the Nation,
increased by 150 percent, from 1 million to 2.5 million,
during 1965-75, while the covered workforce grew by
only 55 percent. Simultaneously, Federal Civil Service
disability retirement rolls grew by nearly 75 percent,
while the covered workforce remained essentially con
stant. And the number of persons on the disability
component of the welfare rolls increased by 140 percent
during 1963-73 despite a substantial decline in the pov
erty population.2 Fourth, the proportion of the popula
tion reporting itself as disabled grew substantially. For
example, National Center for Health Statistics ( n c h s )
data show that between 1969 and 1978 the proportion
of men age 45-64 reporting themselves unable to work
increased from 72 per 1,000 to 101 per 1,000, an in
crease of 40 percent.3
Such developments led to a number of public policy
responses. The responses ranged from including disabili
ty as a major item on the agenda of the President’s
Commission on Pension Policy (1979-81), to passing
1980 amendments to the Social Security Act, intended
to increase incentives for Dl beneficiaries to return to
work. These amendments in some cases reduced allow
able Dl cash benefits.
Table 1.
Because of concerns about the recent rapid growth in
cash disability payments, the analyses reported in this
article were undertaken to identify the underlying caus
es. Because concern for the future is as serious as con
cern about what has happened to date, this study also
examines the most recent trends in disability programs
as a basis for judging both the current situation and the
probable future course of disability payments.4
Two sources of increase
Purely as a matter of arithmetic, increased disability
expenditures must stem from either increased per capita
benefits, increased numbers of beneficiaries, or a combi
nation of the two.
Per capita benefits. Increased real per capita benefits
have been an important source of the growth in disabili
ty cash payments. Table 2 shows the annual growth
rate of real per capita benefits in programs for which
data are available. It also provides comparison series on
workers’ real spendable earnings and real per capita
G N P .5 Per capita benefits have generally grown more
rapidly than earnings, with the disparity being particu
larly great in the first half of the 1970’s. As a rough es
timate, disability cash payments in 1975 would have
been less than three-fourths of their actual level had per
capita benefits merely kept pace with, rather than
exceeded, the growth in earnings since 1950. However,
two points about the growth in per capita benefits
should be noted. For one, benefit increases have usually
Disability transfer payments in millions of dollars, 1950-77
Program
Grand total ..................
Grand total as percentage of GNP .............
1950
1955
3,094
4,672
1.1
1.2
1960
1965
1970
1975
1977
Program
6,603
9,729
17,140
33,865
42,230
Workplace-based short-term
disability
1.3
1.4
1.7
2.2
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1977
932
1,629
2,296
3,207
5,695
8,166
9,758
293
180
551
273
810
400
1,037
566
1,887
1,066
2,548
1,789
2,926
2,357
172
269
348
488
786
1,019
1,343
143
144 2
276
2602
478
2602
776
1,416
2,220 2,522
3402
5402
5902
6102
286
528
542
699
61
2253
203
3252
322
2202
494
1,073
3,276
2052
390 2
6902
2.2
Subtotal...............................
Work-caused disability
Subtotal ...............................
360
521
755
1,074
1,751
3,822
4,946
State workers compensation . . . .
Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA)....................
Black Lung...................................
$347
$503
$730
$1,038
$1,590
$2,855
$3,805
13
0
18
0
25
0
36
0
84
77
375
592
570
571
Workplace-based long-term
disability
Social security disability
insurance.................................
Federal civilian employees
disability retirement..................
Military disability retirem ent.........
Veterans compensation...............
State and local government
employees disability retirement
Private sector long-term disability
insurance.................................
Private sector disability
retirement.................................
Railroad programs ..................
' Less than $500,000.
2 Figure approximate.
3 Figure highly approximate.
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1,516
1,994
3,010
4,749
8,231
17,911
22,747
0
0
568
1,573
3,067
8,414
11,463
Non-workplace-based, public
assistance type
Subtotal...............................
41
149
1,175
71
209
1,440
152
244
1,b/0
279
318
1,765
518
538
2,555
1,307
906
4,010
1,847
1,023
4,794
24
55
95
155
255
490
630
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
1153
5002
Welfare for disabled and blind,
later SSI .................................
Veterans pensions ......................
1,463
3,966
4,779
3,856
9232
in percent
Composition of total
503
77
1163
103
2343
147
73
5033
149
cn
O
Subtotal ...............................
Private sector short-term disability insurance (including
State-mandated coverage) . . .
Private sector sick le ave.............
Federal civilian employees sick
le a v e ........................................
State and local government
employees sick le a v e .............
Military sick leave........................
9643 1,8813 1,9953
219
403
455
F ederal........................................
State and local ..........................
Private ........................................
65
18
17
60
20
20
56
22
22
55
23
22
54
22
24
61
19
20
63
19
19
Source: Jonathan Sunshine, “ Disability” , U.S. Office of Management and Budget Staff
Technical Paper, 1979, pp. 29-30, and updates thereto.
Table 2. Rate of growth of real per capita disability
benefits, 1950-77 (compound annual growth rate of
constant dollar amounts)
[In percent]
Program
Social Security Disability Insurance.............
Federal civilian employees disability
retirement .................................................
Military disability retirement..........................
Veterans compensation ...............................
State and local government employees
disability retirement .................................
Railroad programs........................................
Welfare for the disabled and blind, later SSI
1970 75
1970 77
1950 60
1960 70
2.3
3.5
3.2
The central question— why the increase?
2.5
-1.9
0.6
3.7
0.3
1.9
5.5
1.9
1.4
3.8
1.8
2.6
6.5
2.0
4.1
2.7
1.5
1.7
2.6
4.3
1.9
-2.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.9
0.9
2.7
0.1
1.5
1.8
4.5
Health. In looking for the sources of this increased pro
gram use, the natural first question is whether people’s
health has deteriorated. If so, increased use of programs
would be a simple reflection of poorer health status.
Evidence on this point is indirect, although generally
negative. Mortality rates are down and life expectancy
at various ages is up, suggesting that illnesses underly
ing disability probably have decreased also. But no hard
data based on medical examinations are currently avail
able.7
Moreover, it is possible that the improved mortality
statistics reflect, in part, that people who formerly
Comparison
Average nonsupervisory worker’s spendable
earnings ...................................................
U.S. per capita GNP ...................................
vice retirement, the two programs for which such analy
ses have been undertaken, the rate of disability awards
for each age and sex group about doubled during 196474.6 Thus, there clearly has been a genuine increase in
the use of disability programs.
S ource: Jonathan Sunshine, "Disability", U.S. Office of Management and Budget Staff
Technical Paper, 1979, p. 41, and updates thereto.
been the deliberate result of legislation. Examples in
clude the increase in veterans’ compensation enacted in
each of the last several years and the 20 percent in
crease in social security benefits enacted in 1972. Thus,
most of the increase in per capita benefits should be rec
ognized to be the result of deliberate policy decisions
that benefits should increase. The second point is that
the latest available data, as the last column of table 2
shows, are suggestive of a recent decrease in the growth
rate disparity between wages and per capita benefits.
Thus, while growth in per capita disability benefits is
clearly a major source of growth in total payments,
analysis does not support any initial impression that the
increase is both unintended and accelerating.
Table 3. Disability transfer payment beneficiaries in
thousands, 1950-77
Program
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
Subtotal3 ...........................
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
5005
State workers compensation . . .
Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA)..................
Black Lung ...............................
( 5)
( 5)
( s)
( 5)
( 5)
1,0002
( 5)
204
0
254
25
45
333
46“
298
Grand total3 .............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1977
10,200“ 10,900“
Work-caused disability
154
0
154
0
154
0
475 s
Workplace-based long-term
disability
Subtotal3 ........................... 2,269
Number o f beneficiaries. As already noted, the data
show that the number of beneficiaries of some major
programs has increased much more rapidly than the
population the programs cover.
However, for at least two reasons, such findings do
not necessarily reflect an underlying change. For one,
they could conceivably reflect program start-up phe
nomena, which would be expected to run for many
years. The program start-up possibility means that rates
of influx of new beneficiaries are the best figures to ex
amine in order to ascertain whether there has been a
genuine, underlying change in the use of programs cov
ering permanent disability. Second, the findings could
reflect aging of the covered population, because the inci
dence of disability rises sharply with age. For example,
Social Security Administration data from a 1972 survey
show that the fraction of the population reporting itself
unable to work either regularly or at all ranges from 2.2
percent among persons age 20-34 to 19 percent among
those age 55-64. Because of the possible confounding
effects of aging, data for each age and sex group should
be examined separately. For Dl and Federal Civil Ser
1975
2,492
3,065
3,779
4,708 4 6,285“
Social security disability
insurance...............................
0
0
445
988 1,493
Federal civilian employees
149
43
61
102
185
disability retirement...............
86
Military disability retirement . . . .
56
90
108
148
Veterans compensation ........... 1,990 2,076 2,027 1,992 2,091
State and local government
employees disability retirement
32
42
55
69
86
Private sector long-term disability
insurance...............................
40
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
<5)
Private sector disability
retirement .............................
725 1405 2395 3715 5705
Railroad program s....................
76
87
97
102
95
6,700“
2,489
2,834
258
163
2,220
301
158
2,244
128
152
100
110s
8255
102
8005
100
1,0002
1,0505
Workplace-based short-term
disability1
Subtotal3 ...........................
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
( 5)
416 s
685
695
893
1,324
2,454
2,712
166
2505
345
3404
476
219
642
197
1,016
308
2,024
430
2,207
505
Non-workplace-based, public
assistance-type
SSI — Disability and blindness ..
Veterans pensions ....................
1Figures available only for subtotal.
2Total beneficiaries during the year; all other figures refer to beneficiaries on the rolls at a
single point in time.
3 Because programs overlap, totals generally include some double counting.
4 Figure approximate.
5 Figure highly approximate or, if no figure presented, unknown.
Source: Jonathan Sunshine, "Disability” , U.S. Office of Management and Budget Staff
Technical Paper, 1979, pp. 31, and updates thereto.
19
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Disability Payments Stabilize
would have died, but now survive, are in poor health
and seriously impaired condition. These survivors could
be a source of increased disability in the U.S. popula
tion. Fortunately, a good test of this possibility is avail
able. Heart disease is the one major, chronic, disabling,
killer disease which has shown a clear and substantial
decline in mortality. The age-adjusted death rate from
heart disease, per 100,000, declined from 307 in 1950,
to 286 in 1960, to 220 in 1975, and is still falling rapid
ly. Hence, if there has been a genuine increase in ill
health underlying disability, it should be composed in
substantial part of persons who 20 or 30 years ago
would have died of heart disease, but who now survive
and are disabled. Consequently, there should be a large
increase in the percentage of the disabled whose condi
tion is due to heart disease. The data, however, do not
show such an increase. For example, NCHS data for
1969-76, a period when reported disability was rising
rapidly, show that of persons age 45-64 and unable to
carry on their usual major activities, the proportion in
capacitated by heart disease remained stable at 20 per
cent among men and 10-15 percent among women. In
addition, data from the Federal Civil Service retirement
program show that the proportion of new disability
awardees having cardiovascular disease declined from
more than 40 percent in 1960 to 30 percent in the
mid-1970’s. During the same period, the rate of new
disability retirement awards per 1,000 covered employ
ees increased by more than 50 percent in this program,
and the general heart disease death rate decreased by
nearly 25 percent.
As the expected increase in disability from cardiovas
cular disease is not to be found, it thus seems extremely
improbable that the increased use of disability programs
results from poorer health.
An important distinction. What, then, are the causes? To
understand them, it is necessary to draw a distinction,
as specialists in the field of disability generally do, be
tween impairment and disability. Impairment, the medi
cal concept, means a physiological or mental loss or
other abnormality. Disability, the social concept, means
a health-related inability or limitation in performing
roles and tasks expected of an individual in a social en
vironment. The critical point is that, contrary to com
mon assumptions, there is no one-to-one correlation
between impairment and disability. For example, one
person who loses the use of his legs may be unable to
work, but another such person served for 13 years as
President of the United States.
Among the factors that intervene between impair
ment and resulting disability for work are education,
work experience, economic opportunity, and social and
personal attitudes. Thus, someone with little education
and literacy is likely to be employed in manual labor,
which cannot be performed by a person having major
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
physical impairments. On the other hand, jobs of per
sons with more education include and are probably
dominated by chairbound posts, which often could be
performed from a wheelchair, not only from a conven
tional chair. Factors intervening between impairment
and disability make it possible for disability, the social
phenomenon, to increase, while impairments, the under
lying medical problem, do not.
Where is the answer found?
There is abundant evidence that two types of factors,
economic and social, have played a major role in the in
creased use of disability programs.
Economic. Economic explanations of the increase hold
that use of programs will depend upon how attractive
the programs are, in a pecuniary sense, relative to alter
natives. A number of analyses have been conducted us
ing this framework and two types of economic variables
have been stressed.8The first compares program benefits
to earnings, providing an indication of how much in
come is offered by disability programs relative to the in
come available from the alternative of working. The
replacement ratio (ratio of program benefits to past
earnings) is the most commonly used such variable. The
second type of variable, the unemployment rate, serves
as a measure of the availability of the work option.
Generally, economic analyses find both types of variable
quite significant in explaining how many persons draw
payments from disability programs. They find that the
higher the benefits relative to earnings, and the higher
the unemployment rate, the more people will make use
of the programs. There is some tendency to find that
the first type of variable, that which measures program
benefits relative to earnings, is the most important.
Studies from the private insurance industry, although
simpler than the multivariable econometric analyses,
show similar results.9 Claims rates are almost one and
one half times as high when replacement ratios are
about 70 percent than when they are about 50 percent.
And the increase in the claimed duration of disability
episodes is even more dramatic.
Because of the economic effect of replacement ratios,
increased per capita benefits raise disability expenditures
in two ways, both directly through higher expenditures
per beneficiary, and indirectly by inducing greater pro
gram utilization.
Social. Social factors have also played a very important
role in the increased use of disability programs. Basical
ly, the social explanation of the increase holds that it is
becoming more socially acceptable to be disabled and
that much of the growth in program use can be
explained by subjective changes of attitudes and behav
ior, not by changes in “objective” circumstances, be
they medical or economic. Three lines of evidence sug
gest that this explanation indeed plays an important
part in the changes that have occurred.
Three lines of evidence
More programs. First, American society has created new
disability programs. Major examples include d i , created
in 1956; Black Lung, created in 1969; the disability
component of public assistance, begun late in 1950 and
much expanded when federalized as Supplemental Secu
rity Income in 1974; and private long-term disability in
surance, which was almost negligible as late as 1960.
Although these four programs did not exist at the be
ginning of 1950, when this study began, by 1977 they
paid out $16.4 billion per year, almost 40 percent of to
tal disability cash payments. Thus, if society had not
invented and funded new programs for disability since
1950, disability spending in 1977 would have been bare
ly 60 percent as high as it was. Moreover, this figure is
conservative because it neglects growth arising from the
broadening of programs already in existence in 1950.
Changing attitudes. Second, the data that show more
people identifying themselves as disabled, although im
pairments do not appear to have increased, suggest a
private, individual parallel to the public, group change
embodied in the creation of new programs. As more
and more people label themselves “disabled,” claims
and awards under disability programs increase. This
does not represent malingering unless one regards pro
gram definitions and operating procedures as inade
quate; adequate program standards would reject unjusti
fied claims. Rather, more persons who in previous years
would have worked or attempted to, despite having
disabilities which would have met program standards,
now file disability claims and become beneficiaries.
The increase in the percentage of persons who identi
fy themselves as disabled is occurring at all educational
levels. The following NCHS data show the increasing
percentage of men age 45-64 reporting themselves un
able to perform their usual major activities:
Year
1969 ........................
1974 ........................
1978 ........................
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
More than
high school
10.6
15.1
17.1
4.0
5.4
7.4
2.8
3.5
3.9
Awareness o f programs. Third, information flows also af
fect benefit claims. Substantial portions of the disabled
population have been unaware of disability programs.
For example, in 1972, 16 years after the advent of DI,
almost half of persons unable to work regularly or at all
were unaware of the program. Moreover, a quarter of
all persons this seriously disabled were unaware of any
government disability program. Knowledge of disability
programs among seriously disabled persons was scarce
ly better than among the nondisabled.10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The dissemination of information beyond the limited
base represented by these figures has probably contrib
uted to increased program use. The clearest example oc
curred in 1974 when welfare for the disabled and blind
was federalized. The new Federal program, SSI, was
thereafter administered by the Social Security Adminis
tration, which also administers DI. There was a sharp,
temporary peak in DI claims and awards as welfare and
SSI beneficiaries became more aware of d i , a program
operated by the same office they now found themselves
dealing with. They applied for d i in very large numbers
and qualified in many cases.
In short, disability programs may have repeated the
“welfare crisis” of the 1960’s. In that crisis there was a
dramatic increase in the number of beneficiaries, mainly
reflecting a growing percentage of eligible persons filing
claims. The total number of eligible persons remained
relatively unchanged.
The outlook
Some recent figures on numbers of beneficiaries do
not point to a cessation of rapid growth of disability ex
penditures. For example, Civil Service disability retire
ment beneficiary rolls have continued to grow. The
number of beneficiaries grew by 9 percent between 1977
and 1979. Although the rate of new awards has de
clined in this program, it has not fallen back to a level
low enough to stop the growth of the beneficiary rolls.
Despite such exceptions, the preponderance of evi
dence as discussed above suggests that the growth of
cash payments to the disabled has slowed since 1975,
and that these payments may well once again represent
a stable percentage of GNP. The best prediction of their
future course would also seem to be that they will re
main a fairly stable proportion of GNP.
However, this prediction assumes there will be no
major changes in the disability system that alter pro
gram scope, create or terminate large programs, or
change benefit levels greatly from those that would be
produced by indexing. In the past, as has been shown,
such changes have had major effects on expenditures.
Rather than speculating on the probability of such
changes, it is useful to examine a few comparisons be
tween cash benefits on one hand, and earnings lost be
cause of disability on the other. Unfortunately, the
latest available data11 relate to 1973-74 and thus proba
bly underestimate current benefits somewhat, given
more recent program expansion. However, at that time
about one-fourth of those too disabled to work at all re
ported receiving no benefits, while about one-eighth re
ceived multiple benefits, not counting SSI. On average,
men unable to work at all had about one-third of their
earnings replaced by cash benefits.12 Among men dis
abled to this extent, who were initially disabled between
1970 and 1972,13 the percentage distribution of benefits
was as follows.
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Disability Payments Stabilize
Ratio of benefits
to gross pre-disability
earnings (inflation adjusted)
0 to 3 6 ....................................................
More than 36 to 54 .............................
More than 54 to 72 .............................
More than 72 to 90 ............................
More than 90 .........................................
Percent of disabled
persons receiving
ratio of benefits
39
25
12
10
14
Whatever one regards as the appropriate measure of
inadequate or excessive benefits, these figures show that
both situations often occur. Thus, from a normative
standpoint, there would seem to be justification for ma
jor changes in the disability system. Such changes are
potentially large enough to upset the assumptions that
underlie the prediction that payments will remain a fair
ly steady proportion of GNP.
□
FOOTNOTES
See Monroe Berkowitz and Jeffrey Rubin, “The Costs of Disabili
ty: Estimates of Program Expenditures for Disability, 1967-1975,”
Rutgers University, Bureau of Disability and Health Economics Re
search, 1977.
In 1974, the program was federalized; data later than 1973 are not
comparable.
Available data on women are of little use because the question is
not asked of those who report housekeeping as their primary activity.
‘ The extended analyses upon which this paper reports are con
tained in Jonathan Sunshine, “Disability,” U.S. Office of Management
and Budget, Staff Technical Paper, 1979, and “Disability: A Compre
hensive Overview of Programs, Issues, and Options for Change,”
President’s Commission on Pension Policy Working Paper, 1981.
The workers' earnings series is a particularly good basis for com
parison because most disability programs pay benefits to workers, and
base those benefits on previous earnings. Also, as an approximation, if
benefits and earnings grow at equal speed, all changes in the fraction
of GNP going to disability benefits would be due to changing num
bers of beneficiaries.
See Raymond Eck and Edwin Hustead, “Disability Experience
Under the Civil Service Retirement System — 1955-1974,” Journal of
Occupational Medicine. January 1976, pp. 45-50.
A better and more direct evaluation of the medical evidence
should become possible in a year or two when the National Center
for Health Statistics tabulates data based on medical examinations
(rather than self-reporting) which will show the incidence of heart dis
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ease and other disabling medical conditions at different dates.
*For example, see Monroe Berkowitz, William Johnson, and Ed
ward Murphy, Public Policy Toward Disability (New York, Praeger
Publishers, 1976); and Mordechai Uando, Malcolm Coate, and Ruth
Kraus, “Disability Benefit Applications and the Economy,” Social Se
curity Bulletin, October 1979, pp. 3-10. Also see Steve Chaikind, 1979
Congressional Budget Office technical analysis paper, and John
Hambor, “An Econometric Model of o a s d i ,” Social Security Admin
istration, Office of Research and Statistics, Studies in Income Distri
bution, 1979. The Lando, Coate, and Kraus paper reviews other
studies.
See “Compensation Systems Available to Disabled Persons in the
United States,” Health Insurance Association of America, 1979.
" Data are from the Social Security Administration 1972 Survey of
Disabled and Nondisabled Adults.
" From the Social Security Administration 1974 Survey of Disabled
and Nondisabled Adults.
1 Again, peculiarities of the data collection methodology render the
information on women of little use.
These newly disabled men generally are the beneficiaries of higher
real replacement ratios than men disabled earlier. Reasons for the
more favored status of the recently disabled include growth, over
time, in the number and scope of disability programs; receipt by the
recently disabled of benefits from non-permanent sources, such as
workers compensation; and less time for erosion by inflation of the
real value of non-indexed benefits.
Productivity trends
for intercity bus carriers
During 1954-79, modest advances
in technology, and more package
and charter service, were offset
by declining passenger demand and
reduced bus speeds, resulting in
a 0.4-percent rise in productivity
R ic h a r d B. C a r n e s
During 1954—1979, output per employee-hour in the
class I bus industry rose an average of 0.4 percent a
year, a rate significantly below those of other segments
of the transportation industry.1Class I bus carriers pro
vide intercity service and may also provide local or
charter service. Not included are those public and pri
vate transit systems that provide urban mass transpor
tation service and do not come under Interstate
Commerce Commission (icc) reporting requirements.2
The 0.4-percent growth in productivity resulted from
a small average annual increase in industry output of
0.1 percent combined with an average annual decline in
employee hours of 0.3 percent. (See table 1.) By com
parison, other transportation industries for which mea
sures are available showed productivity increases over
the same period that equaled or exceeded overall pro
ductivity growth for the private nonfarm business sector
of the economy. For example, productivity in air trans
portation, an industry which competes for public pas
senger traffic, rose 6.3 percent, compared with 2.1
percent for the private nonfarm business sector. (See ta
ble 2.)
Bus operations have suffered from the recent energy
shortages. Longer running times between cities have re
sulted from the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit.3
Richard B. Carnes is an economist in the Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lower speeds have increased the labor time needed to
drive a given distance, and have reduced productivity.
However, lower speeds have also cut fuel costs. Al
though total transportation travel might be expected to
decline because of higher fuel costs, the relative fuel effi
ciency of buses enhance future demand for this mode of
transportation, especially for shorter distance travel.
Productivity movements were uneven over the 1954—
79 period, ranging from a 9.4 percent increase in 1962
to a decline of 11.9 percent in 1975. Generally, these
changes have been in response to cyclical swings in in
dustry output. There were three distinct trend periods.
During 1954-60, output per hour rose at a 1.2-percent
average annual rate. Output declined at an average
yearly rate of 1.3 percent and hours dropped more
sharply, by 2.6 percent. From 1960 to 1966, demand
for bus service increased 4.7 percent annually, but em
ployee hours increased at only a 1.3 percent average an
nual rate. The more efficient utilization of equipment
and facilities, which resulted from this higher demand,
raised productivity at a 3.6 percent annual rate during
those 6 years. Load factors and average length of haul
both increased appreciably. Load factor is the percent
age of capacity actually utilized.
In the third period, 1966-79, all of the measures
turned down. Productivity and output fell at an annual
rate of 1.4 and 2.5 percent, respectively, while employee
hours dropped 1.1 percent. Output fell in all years ex23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Productivity fo r Intercity Bus Carriers
cept 1967, 1974, and 1979. Since 1974, the beginning of
the energy crisis and the year of the 55-mile-per-hour
speed limit, productivity trends have been mixed, as ta
ble 1 indicates. There were sharp rises in 1974 and
1977, and a small gain in 1979. These were offset by a
serious drop in 1975, and smaller declines in 1976 and
1978. More travelers rode buses in 1974 when fuel for
private passenger cars became scarce. But when gasoline
once again became plentiful in 1975, even at higher
prices, bus travel declined drastically. Again in 1979,
gas shortages in the second quarter helped boost indus
try output by 6.1 percent for the year and productivity
by 0.4 percent.
Industry profile
The class I regulated bus industry comprises 43
intercity and 13 local carriers certified by the ICC. In
1978, these companies operated about 9,700 buses and
had 34,000 employees. During that year, they moved
237 million passengers, and generated $961 million in
passenger revenue and $175 million in freight revenue.
For most of the 15,000 communities served by
intercity bus carriers, there is no other form of public
transportation. Despite this, the bus passenger market
has declined during the period of this study. Automo
Table 1.
carriers
Productivity and related indexes for class I bus
[1967 = 100]
Output per
employee-hour
Output
Employeehours
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
77.4
80.4
81.2
81.6
81.9
80.5
79.0
78.0
78.3
74.0
104.0
98.3
96.1
96.0
90.3
1959 .................................
1960 .................................
1961.................................
1962 .................................
1963 .................................
84.6
83.7
85.3
93.3
94.6
74.0
75.4
77.1
86.2
86.6
87.5
90.1
90.4
92.4
91.5
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
...............................
95.7
101.2
103.4
100.0
98.6
90.2
95.0
99.2
100.0
97.5
94.3
93.9
95.9
100.0
98.9
1969 .................................
1970 .................................
197 1.................................
1972 .................................
1973 .................................
95.7
93.4
91.3
93.0
92.5
94.2
92.5
86.9
83.3
79.8
98.4
99.0
95.2
89.6
86.3
1974 .................................
1975 .................................
1976 .................................
1977 .................................
1978 .................................
1979’ ...............................
95.9
84.5
81.7
87.1
86.8
87.2
86.5
78.0
75.2
74.7
73.7
78.2
90.2
92.3
92.1
85.8
84.9
89.7
Year
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Average annual rates of change
1954-79 ..........................
1974-79 ...........................
' Preliminary.
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0.4
-.9
0.1
-1.9
-0.3
-1.0
Table 2. Productivity comparison, private nonfarm
business and selected transportation industries, 1954-79
Average annual rate of change
Industry
Private nonfarm business ..................
Transportation sector ....................
Petroleum pipelines1 ..................
Air transportation1 ....................
Class 1railroads ........................
Intercity trucking1 ......................
Class 1bus carriers1 ..................
Output per
employee-hour
Output
Employeehours
1.9
2.7
7.5
6.3
4.9
2.4
.4
3.7
2.9
5.6
11.0
1.2
5.6
.1
1.7
.2
-1.8
4.5
-3.5
3.1
- .3
1Output per employee.
bile travel represents the primary source of competition
to the industry, followed by air and then train service.
Expansion of charter bus and package express service
has helped to offset passenger declines. (See table 3.)
Intercity bus operations have the potential to provide
service over a wide area because of the national high
way network. Nonstop intercity buses can operate at
speeds similar to those of an autombile. And, over
shorter distances buses generally provide lower cost ser
vice than air or rail travel.4 Most demand comes from
short-haul passengers even though the average length of
trip for intercity service has more than doubled from 62
miles in 1954 to 130 miles in 1979.5
When intercity bus service began in the early 1900’s
it was characterized by a large number of local and re
gional carriers. Startup costs were modest and there
was rapid growth. By the 1930’s, the industry had
evolved into its present form, with fewer bus companies
and with national systems operating over longer dis
tances. These national networks were thought to facili
tate through-service for passengers and improve bus
and terminal utilization. During World War II, industry
output increased rapidly due to rationing of auto parts
and gasoline. Load factors during this period reached
nearly 80 percent. Passenger-miles peaked in 1952 and
did not reach that level again until 1967. Since 1954,
few new intercity bus carrier operations have been au
thorized by the ICC. Presently, Greyhound and Trailways dominate the market.6
The bus industry is subject to both Federal and State
regulation. There are restrictions on the entry of new
firms, fares, route requirements, and service levels.
Competition along routes is limited. Federal regulation
has encouraged merger activity of carriers into larger
national companies. Recently there has been an effort
on the part of the ICC to liberalize entry controls and to
provide greater carrier rate making autonomy. General
deregulation of the industry, however, has not been for
mally introduced.
The sources of revenue for bus carriers have changed
substantially since 1954 as table 3 indicates. Intercity
and local passenger revenue has declined in relative
terms while charter and package express services have
shown significant growth. Charter service has expanded
due to the increase in group travel and tourism, while
package express service has benefited from the large dis
tribution network provided by intercity buses.
The private automobile has been ,a major factor in
the slow growth of intercity bus travel. The doubling of
new car registrations since 1955 and the use of these
cars for both personal and business trips impacted bus
travel, and is expected to be the primary source of bus
industry competition in the foreseeable future. Autos
accounted for 89 percent of all intercity passenger-miles
in 1954, and for 83 percent in 1979. Passenger-miles
flown during this period increased their relative share of
the market from 3 to 15 percent while both bus and rail
passenger-miles declined.7
Employment and influences on productivity
Employment in the class I regulated bus industry de
clined from 39,000 in 1954 to an estimated 35,300 in
1979. Employment dropped steadily in the 1950’s, then
advanced irregularly through 1967, and thereafter gen
erally declined again to the present level. Recent excep
tions to the downward trend were in 1974-75 and again
in 1979. Energy shortages resulting from the Organiza
tion of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo
boosted both employment and passenger service in
1974, the year that also marked the introduction of the
55-mile-per-hour national speed limit. Employment
needs increased partially as a result of the decline in the
number of bus miles per driver. Again in 1979, fuel
shortages reversed the downward trends in both em
ployment and passenger service.
Since 1954, there has been a change in the composi
tion of employment. The number of equipment mainte
nance and garage personnel has declined from 22 to 17
percent of the work force because of reduced service re
quirements. Station workers, however, have increased
from 11 to 19 percent of total employment, reflecting
the greater demand for package express traffic. Drivers
have accounted for about half of industry employment
since 1954. However, more fully utilized and larger ca
pacity buses may, in the future, reduce the percentage
Table 3. Revenue distribution for class I bus carriers and
percent of total service, 1954 and 1978
1954
Service
Revenue in
millions
1978
Percent
Revenue in
millions
Percent
T o ta l......................
$467
100
$1137
100
Passenger:
Intercity ........................
L o c a l.............................
Charter ........................
306
112
33
66
24
7
678
73
211
60
6
19
Freight...............................
16
3
175
15
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of drivers in the industry, by increasing the proportion of
administrative and service workers. Since 1954, workers
paid on a daily basis, mostly supervisory personnel, as
opposed to hourly wage employees, have increased from
8 percent of total employment to 10 percent. In the
intercity portion of the regulated bus industry, women
represent 12 percent of the work force, up from 10 per
cent in 1960. By contrast, women make up 40 percent of
the work force in the total private nonfarm sector.
Changes in technology associated with the bus indus
try have been characterized by a gradual trend toward
innovation, fuel efficiency, and greater passenger com
fort. Diesel-powered buses, in primary use since the ear
ly 1950’s, have undergone steady advances in
performance and reductions in maintenance require
ments. Current-model intercity buses have a seating ca
pacity of 47 passengers and have space for large
amounts of baggage and cargo. Typically, buses are 8
feet wide and 40 feet long, and weigh 13 tons. Including
resale after use by class I carriers, useful bus life is over
20 years and mileage may exceed 3 million.8 The aver
age number of seats for the bus fleet in 1955 was 39.1
and increased 10 percent to 43.1 by 1978. However, the
seating capacity utilized during this period has remained
at about 47 percent, and load factors have changed lit
tle since 1954, which helps explain the low rise in pro
ductivity in the industry.
From 1950 to 1973, average bus speeds increased
from 50 to 60 miles per hour because of improved high
ways and urban beltways. But the introduction of the
national speed limit in 1974 reduced average speeds to
less than 55 miles per hour,9 and has also slowed pro
ductivity growth.
The growth in package express and charter services,
however, has aided productivity. Delivering package ex
press while engaging in regularly scheduled passenger
service has resulted in more efficient use of vehicle and
driver time. Charter services have also offered signifi
cant economies of scale for bus companies. Charters
typically have a 50-percent greater load factor and
100-percent longer average trip length than regular
route carriers. This form of passenger service also pro
vides economies in baggage handling, ticketing, and
scheduling terminal facilities.
Reduced investment has hurt industry productivity.
Since 1954, investment in plant and equipment by
intercity bus carriers has declined. Buses, which present
ly cost about $135,000 each, account for about 80 per
cent of industry capital expenditures. Annual constant
dollar investment dropped from $78 million in 1954 to
$56 million in 1974, the latest year for which data are
available. Similarly, the constant dollar stock of plant
and equipment fell 18 percent, while capital investment
per worker declined more than 20 percent. In contrast,
gross constant dollar investment in the transportation
25
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Productivity for Intercity Bus Carriers
sector as a whole increased more than 150 percent,
while gross stocks of capital increased 35 percent.10
Outlook
Factors are emerging which are both favorable and
unfavorable to demand and productivity growth in the
bus industry. Energy and demographic variables are
likely to be positive factors while negative public image
and low capital investment may retard growth.
Restructuring the industry has been suggested as a way
to increase capacity utilization and spur productivity.
With current low rates of bus utilization, increased
demand would likely result in higher load factors and
enhance productivity. Several projections of growth in
the bus industry for the next decade have been made.
The Federal Energy Administration (now part of the
Department of Energy) estimates a 25 percent growth
in passenger-miles over the next decade. This projection
is not altered substantially even when based on different
fuel availability assumptions. The Department of Trans
portation ( d o t ) makes a similar growth projection but
notes the negative effect of rising income levels and shift
from longer-haul bus travel. DOT sees potential for
greater demand through improved service and regulato
ry reform. A third projection estimates a more optimis
tic 40-percent growth based on assumptions of fuel
shortages and restricted auto use. In contrast to these
three optimistic scenarios the ICC concludes that regular
route traffic will continue to experience flattened de
mand and market share loss.11
In a period of energy shortage, bus operations are
likely to increase because of the comparative fuel effi
ciency of this mode of transportation. This was demon
strated both during World War II and in 1974 when
fuel shortages existed. Given energy priorities, buses
would make inroads into the use of the private automo
bile. Presently, diesel turbocharged engines are being in
troduced into service because of their potential for fuel
savings and reduced emissions. Gas turbine buses now
being used experimentally are able to run on non-petro
leum based fuels and may aid future productivity
growth because of their increased reliability.12
Fuel shortages would likely create more reliance on
the use of buses for lower density routes to and from
small towns and rural areas. Higher utilization of
existing capacity in the industry would boost labor pro
ductivity. However, a recent DOT study projects that
over the next two or three decades the passenger auto
mobile will continue in its dominant transportation role
because of its flexibility and tailored service.13
Demographic changes may also help to increase the
demand for bus service, raising both load factors and
productivity. The trends toward population dispersion,
smaller households, and an older population are all fac
tors which favor increased use of intercity bus service.
Population dispersion reduces the availability of other
forms of transportation; private cars are more cost effi
cient for larger families; and many older persons prefer
the relative comfort and safety of bus travel.
However, a history of low productivity growth, lack
of demand, and reduced profits may impair the ability
of the industry to attract needed capital and enhance
future performance. The ICC sees a need for changes in
policy to insure a balanced transportation network.
Such changes would include bus and engine design
studies, similar to those conducted for air transporation
and other forms of mass transit, to find ways to in
crease productivity. Improvements in the quality and
location of bus terminals and facilities have also been
recommended.14 Because the price differential between
long distance air fares and bus fares has narrowed over
the years, some analysts argue that bus carriers should
drop coast-to-coast service and concentrate in shorthaul markets of 100 to 200 miles. Such a system could
enlarge the number of daily departures and increase bus
utilization from its current average of 7 hours a day to
16 hours.15 Further advances in productivity are possible
through improvements in intermodal linkages. Con
struction of municipal transportation terminals to serve
as connectors for bus, train, and plane service could im
prove productivity for all of these forms of transporta
tion.
□
FOOTNOTES
1This study is based on statistics reported to the Interstate
Commerce Commission for all class I motor carriers of passengers.
Class I carriers are those that have 3-year average annual revenues of
more that $3 million. This portion of the bus industry, as defined in
the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) manual, makes up a
small part of SIC 4111 (local and suburban transit), and a more sub
stantial part of both SIC 4131 (intercity and rural highway passenger
transportation) and SIC 414 (passenger transportation charter ser
vice). Based on their major source of revenue, class I carriers have
been divided by the ICC into local or intercity service. Local service
is defined as transportation performed within a city or town, includ
ing service for the contiguous suburban area. Intercity service includes
all transportation performed beyond the limits set for local service.
Either of these carrier types may also engage in intercity, local, or
charter operations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
: The output measure underlying the productivity series for the bus
industry has been constructed using data on passenger-miles, passen
gers, and express freight service, combined with appropriate weights
relating to labor importance. A technical note describing the methods
used in the construction of the index is available upon request.
' Lawrence Leist, Intercity Bus Service: Frequency and Running
Time, Report No. WP-220-04-20 (Washington, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1975).
4 Transportation and the Future (Washington, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1975), p. 35.
' Derived by dividing revenue passenger miles by revenue passengers.
6 The Intercity Bus Industry: A Preliminary Study (Washington, In
terstate Commerce Commission, 1978), pp. 2-3.
7 Transportation facts and Trends (Washington, Transportation
Association of America, 1980), p. 18.
"America's Most Fuel Efficient Passenger Transportation Service
(Washington, American Bus Association, 1979), p. 5.
’ The Intercity Bus Industry, p. 26.
"See Capital Stock Estimates for Input-Output Industries: Methods
and Data, Bulletin 2034 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1979).
The Intercity Bus Industry, pp. 106-08.
1 America's Most Fuel Efficient, p. 5.
Transportation and the Future, p. 111.
14 The Intercity Bus Industry, pp. 121-27.
Rush Loving, Jr., “The Bus Lines are on the Road to Nowhere,”
Fortune, Dec. 31, 1978, pp. 58-64.
APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations
Indexes of output per employee-hour measure chang
es in the relation between the output of an industry and
employee hours expended on that output. An index of
output per employee-hour is derived by dividing an in
dex of industry output by an index of employee-hours.
The preferred output index for transportation indus
tries would be obtained from data on the quantities of
services provided by the industry. The quantity of each
type of service provided would be weighted (multiplied)
by the employee-hours required to provide one unit of
each type of service in some specified base period. Thus,
those services that require more labor time would be
given more importance in the output index.
Annual indexes of output for the bus industry were
derived from both quantity and revenue data. In pas
senger service, quantity data is available for intercity
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
passenger-miles, local passengers, and charter passen
gers. In freight service, output was estimated by remov
ing the effects of changing price levels from the current
dollar value of sales. Total industry output was devel
oped by combining passenger and freight outputs, using
appropriate revenue and employee-hour weights. These
procedures result in a final output index that is concep
tually close to the preferred output measure.
The indexes of output per employee-hour relate total
output to one input— labor time. The indexes do not
measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or
any other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint ef
fect of factors such as changes in technology, capital in
vestment, capacity utilization, plant design and layout,
skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability,
and labor-management relations.
27
Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present
ed at the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association, September 1980 in
Denver, Colo.
Papers prepared for the meetings of the IRRA are
excerpted by special permission and may not be
reproduced without the express permission of the IRRA,
which holds the copyright.
The full text of all papers appears in the IRRA publica
tion, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting,
available from IRRA, Social Science Building, Madison,
Wis. 53706.
Work, stress, and
individual well-being
R o be r t L. K a h n
Research and theory about organizational life have been
dominated by the criterion of organizational effective
ness. Productivity and profit, absence and turnover,
strikes and grievances, and other such measures are the
outcomes that such research attempts to predict or ex
plain. In combination they indicate the effectiveness
or well-being of the organization as a living system.
But the individual is also a living system, with crite
ria of well-being quite separate from those of the
organization. Agreement on those criteria is far from
perfect, but there is some convergence around the abili
ty to work, love, and play; to regard oneself and one’s
life with positive feelings; to perceive people and events
without major distortion; and to be free from
distressing physical symptoms. These and other mea
sures of individual health, physical and mental, we re
gard as complex outcomes determined in part by
properties of the organizations within which people
work and the roles they perform in those organizations.
The enactment of an organizational role by an indi
vidual can thus be thought of as an intersection and
Robert L. Kahn is Program Director at the Institute for Social Re
search, The University of Michigan. The title of his full IRRA paper is
“Work, Stress, and Health.” (References are available in the author’s
full IRRA paper.)
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
partial overlap of two ongoing systems, the person and
the organization. The overlap consists of certain cycles
of behavior that are identical for both; these behaviors
are part of the ongoing life of both the individual and
the organization. We are accustomed to examining the
extent to which these overlapping cycles contribute to
efficiency, productivity, and other measures of organiza
tional effectiveness. It is equally appropriate, however,
to ask the complementary questions: Does the enact
ment of the organizational role enhance or reduce the
well-being of the individual? Does it enlarge or diminish
the person’s valued skills and abilities? Does it increase
or restrict the individual’s opportunity and capacity to
perform other valued social roles?1
Stress and health
Research on the full triad of work, stress, and health
is still relatively uncommon. More research has been
done on the latter elements, stress and health, or more
specifically, on the physiological and behavioral effects
of certain stressors (stimuli) on laboratory animals and
on human beings. As a result, much has been learned
about the psychobiology of stress, about the effects of
stress on the central nervous system, on neuroregulators
in the brain, and on the immune system. Something is
known also about the relationship of stress to physical
and psychiatric illness. Without pretending even to
summarize these large bodies of work, I want to suggest
in each of these areas the kinds of findings that are ac
cumulating, especially those in which the experimental
stressor is strongly suggestive of conditions imposed by
many jobs.
Psychobiology o f stress. The earliest research on biologi
cal aspects of stress concentrated on the adrenocortico
tropic hormone (a c t h ) and the pituitary-adrenal
system. In more recent years, other hormones have been
identified as stress-responsive. Many stressors evoke
these hormonal responses, but the common element ap
pears to be emotional arousal to threatening and un
pleasant aspects of life situations.
Moreover, some of these hormonal changes occur not
only in response to classical aversive stimuli like pain or
noise, but also in response to unfavorable changes in
environmental contingencies and expectations. For ex
ample, when animals trained to work for food by press
ing a lever were presented with a condition in which
pressing the lever did not produce food, they showed el
evations in plasma corticoids as high as those evoked
by noxious stimuli. Other research also emphasizes the
importance of predictability in facilitating coping and in
minimizing hormonal stress responses. For example, an
imals subjected to unpredictable shocks showed greater
somatic change (corticosterone elevation, stomach ulcer
ation, and weight loss) than animals that received
shocks of the same magnitude on a predictable basis.
Experiments with escapable and inescapable shock show
similar results. Animals exposed to inescapable shock
showed more fear than those exposed to escapable
shock. Moreover, animals so exposed learned the lesson
of helplessness and showed a severely reduced ability to
escape in subsequent situations in which escape was
possible. One researcher summarizes these and other
laboratory studies by stating that there are two basic
stimulus patterns that elevate hormonal responses for
significant lengths of time: instability, which creates an
unpredictable and “ununderstandable” environment,
and uncontrollability, which makes coping efforts futile.
Stress and immunity. A recent review of research on the
immune system found that certain psychosocial process
es affect the central nervous system, thereby bringing
about changes in the immune function, which in turn
alter the risk of onset and subsequent course of many
diseases. Frightening and distressing stimuli, over
crowding, exposure to loud noise and bright light have
all been found to have effects of this kind in animals.
For example, the stress of avoidance learning (perfor
mance to avoid punishment) and confinement in mice
produced adrenal hypertrophy and susceptibility to vi
ral infection. Stress effects on the immune systems have
also been noted in studies with human beings. For ex
ample, in 1977, one researcher reported decreased im
mune responses among bereaved spouses after a period
of seven to 10 weeks. Studies of infectious diseases, both
with animals and human beings, bear out the effects of
psychosocial stress in reducing resistance, increasing
susceptibility, and lengthening the process of recovery.
Stress and physical illness. A current review by one re
searcher summarized research on stress as a casual fac
tor in a wide array of physical illness. Examples with
apparent relevance to conditions encountered by men
and women at work include gastric ulcer, cancer, and
cardiovascular diseases. The treatment now considered
most useful for peptic ulcer (cimetidine) acts by block
ing the release of hydrochloric acid in response to emo
tional stimuli and other stressors. There is some
evidence for the involvement of stress factors— includ
ing recent significant loss, job instability, and lack of
plans for the future— in the precipitation of cancer. The
effects of stress in illness have perhaps been demonstrat
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ed most clearly with respect to cardiovascular disease.
Laboratory studies of stressful stimuli produce changes
in stroke volume, heart rate, and blood pressure. Con
sistent with these is the clinical identification of emo
tional disturbance as a major cause of anginal pain, and
as a cause of heart failure in persons with heart disease
otherwise under control.
Stress and psychiatric illness. Recent research implicates
stress as a factor in depression, anxiety states, alcohol
ism, drug abuse, and sleep disorders. For example, de
pressed men and women experienced many more
stressful life events just prior to their depression than
did comparable groups in the general population.
Anxiety as a temporary feeling associated with some
actual or threatened event is an experience that every
one has had. It seems to arise when we feel that the de
mands made on us (or soon to be made) exceed our
abilities or resources to meet them successfully. When
such feelings of anxiety are chronic, disabling, or seem
ingly unrelated to external realities, they are classified as
signs of psychiatric disorder. Since the work role is for
the majority of adults one of the most important
sources of recurring demands for performance within
specified limits of time, quality, and resources, we can
expect it also to be a common source of anxiety.
Alcoholism and drug abuse almost certainly have
many causes that do not lie in the immediate environ
ment of the person. Environmental stressors seem to be
implicated in both disorders, nevertheless. For example,
the use of alcohol was found to increase during the first
year after the death of a spouse and the use of opiates
and marijuana was higher among Americans in Viet
nam than would have been predicted from comparison
groups in the United States.
The intuitive opinion that acute life stresses cause
sleep disturbances has been well documented. Further
more, chronic insomniacs, as compared to controls, re
ported more stressful life events during the year in
which their insomnia began. There is some evidence
that chronic lack of sleep is more than unpleasant. Even
short periods of sleep during periods of prolonged phys
ical stress reversed stress-related changes in growth hor
mone, prolactin, and testosterone. And in a long
prospective study, a group of researchers found that
otherwise healthy individuals who initially reported ab
normal sleep patterns (substantially less or more than
the average) were more likely than members of the con
trol group to have died by the time of the 6-year fol
low-up.
Implications for jobs and organizations
Now let us bring work back into the discussion of
stress and health, by proposing a few implications of
stress research for the improvement of work life. With
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Conference Papers
both the field and the laboratory findings in mind, let
us go beyond research and propose a few decision rules
for the design of less stressful jobs and organizations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Minimize unpredictability and ambiguity at work.
Make the work situation as predictable as possible,
in terms of job stability and certainty about the fu
ture. (Change can be predictable, too.)
Minimize uncontrollable events at the individual lev
el. That is, maximize the decisions that can be
made autonomously by the individual, then the de
cisions that can be made directly by the primary
group in which the individual works, and only then
those decisions in which control must be by more
distant representative arrangements. (Take into ac
count differences in individual preference.)
Eliminate avoidance learning, that is, performanceor-punishment. Instead, recognize and reward suc
cessful performance, both at the group and the in
dividual level.
M inim ize physical stressors — e x c e s s i v e
n o is e ,
The reader is likely to say, “Well everybody knows
that.” Perhaps everybody knows it, but almost nobody
does much about it. There is some innovation; some
drift toward job enlargement and employee involvement
in decisions, perhaps; some experimentation in related
matters. But the spread is slow and the successful ex
periments are not copied, even in the companies where
they were done. Compared with the adoption rate of
flared trousers and color television, not to mention
computers, stress-reducing improvements in the quality
of work life are adopted slowly.
Why should this be so? Many reasons come to mind,
and many have been offered. Let me conclude by pro
posing a reason that is not so often given for the slow
spread of stress-reducing, work-enhancing organization
al changes— their special demands on organizational
leadership. Buying a new technology is a decision usual
ly made by people at the top of an organization that
creates change-demands on others. But redesigning an
organization to increase autonomy and control of each
person and group creates change-demands that begin
with the leaders themselves, in labor unions and govern
ment as well as industry. This task, its admitted dif
ficulty, and its apparent implications for the reduction
of managerial power and privilege, account for the slow,
30
------- --FOOTNOTE--------1 The introductory paragraphs o f this article are adapted from
Chapter 17 o f Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social
Psychology o f Organizations (New York, Wiley, 1978). The discus
sion o f stress and health owes much to the work of the Committee on
Stress Research, Institute o f Medicine, National Academy o f Sciences.
The lack of female union leaders:
a look at some reasons
ex
tremes of temperature and light intensity, spatial
and postural confinement, crowding and isolation.
Avoid recurring (daily) stresses; they are more dam
aging than the occasional peaks of demand.
Watch fo r negative affect (emotional response).
Feelings of boredom and apathy, anger and hostili
ty, and other kinds of emotional distress often pre
cede more severe somatic and behavioral reactions
to stress.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
resistant, over-skeptical response of management to the
findings of stress research— a response that has been
slower in the United States than in some other techni
cally advanced countries.
The scientific understanding of stress has greatly en
larged and continues to grow. The use of that under
standing to reduce stress has only begun.
□
K
aren
S. K
o z ia r a a n d
D
a v id
A . P ie r s o n
Even though women are a significant and increasing
proportion of union members, men are much more like
ly to be union officers. There are some general explana
tions for this, but little research has been done on it.
In 1970, 23.9 percent of all union and employee
association members were women. By 1978 this in
creased to about 27.4 percent.1 However, this increase
has not been reflected in the number of women who are
national union officers.2 Women are more common in
local than national office, but even in locals they are
rare— except as shop stewards.3
The issue of why few women are union officers will
be discussed by integating traditional industrial rela
tions (or labor market) reasons for the dearth of women
officers, with behavioral research on how our society
views men and women.
The basis of choosing union leaders
Many reasons may explain the underrepresentation of
women in union office. Many women have two jobs,
one paid and the other at home. Also, although the
number of women with careers interrupted by child
bearing is declining, women are more likely than men to
have interrupted careers. The time when women leave
the labor force is also the time when people interested
in union office generally take their first positions. Wom
en are also less likely than men to be in the high status,
visible positions from which union officers are generally
Karen S. Koziara is a professor and David A. Pierson is an assistant
professor of Industrial Relations and Organizational Behavior in the
School of Business Administration, Temple University. Their full
IRRA paper is entitled “Barriers to Women Becoming Union Lead
ers.”
selected, and at least some men and women see women
as inappropriate for union office.4
Perceptions held by both members and candidates,
perhaps more than solid information, help determine
who runs for office. If members, including incumbent
officers, feel a candidate meets requirements for office,
the candidate can become an officer. If members do not
perceive a candidate as meeting qualifications, the can
didate cannot attain office. Similarly, individuals do not
run for office unless they see themselves as qualified, the
rewards of office as meeting their needs, and members
as supporting them.
The literature on stereotypes shows that group, rather
than individual, attributes affect selection most when
qualifications for office are ambiguous and when candi
dates are not personally known to selectors. Both con
ditions can occur when union officers are chosen. Also,
in many situations union members do not personally
know candidates, particularly at the national level. This
increases the reliance on group attributes.
Finally, members and candidates use perceptions of
necessary requirements for office based on perceptions
of the union leadership role. The economic focus of
unions in our society suggests union leaders are ex
pected to deliver economic and work-related benefits.
Three related requirements for union office are per
ceived negotiation and interpersonal skills, perceived
knowledge of industrial relations, and members’ view of
the access they are likely to have to officers once
elected.
Perceived negotiation and interpersonal skills
Perceived negotiation and interpersonal skills include
dealing effectively with management and internal union
groups by using effective power tactics, and being an as
sertive, strong spokesperson. Interpersonal skills include
being perceived as easily approachable and empathizing
with and responding to members.
Stereotype research shows men characterized as ag
gressive, competitive, uncompromising, assertive, having
better judgment, and more intelligent than women.5
These characteristics are commonly associated with ne
gotiating skills and may lead members to favor men.
The latter also are perceived to use direct, concrete, and
competent, or expert tactics.6 Because industrial rela
tions involves power tactics normally associated with
men, members may favor them.
Another interpersonal skill is approachability. It is
difficult from available research to determine whether a
potential officer’s sex influences member perceptions of
approachability. There is, however, evidence that people
perceive men as more emotionally stable than women.7
However, women are perceived as more helpful and un
derstanding. These qualities could enhance approachability if viewed appropriate for negotiators.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A subtle skills stereotype involves interaction with
management staffs which are predominantly male.
Union members may feel women will not be considered
as equals by management. A study of local union offi
cers showed it was initially hard for men to accept a
woman as their spokesperson.8 Thus, members who do
not themselves have traditional stereotypes of women
may discriminate against women because they feel that
others will.
An individual’s self perception of skills also influences
self-confidence. Research suggests that people typically
have less confidence performing tasks generally associat
ed with the opposite sex.9 This suggests that women
might have less self-confidence than men when evaluat
ing their industrial relations skills because these tasks
usually are performed by men.
Perceived industrial relations knowledge
Perceived industrial relations knowledge includes un
derstanding the negotiating process, the collective
bargaining contract, the grievance procedure, internal
union politics, and relationship of the union to its exter
nal environment. Industrial relations knowledge and po
litical savvy often are assumed to result from job
seniority and age.10Officers almost invariably come from
the ranks of the workers they represent, suggesting that
perceived knowledge depends not only on union experi
ence, but on experience with a specific union.11
If perceived industrial relations knowledge is a func
tion of seniority and experience, women as a group are
likely to be perceived as having insufficient knowledge
to be officers because women are more likely to have
interrupted careers. The resulting lack of experience can
be a permanent handicap for some women.12
Traditional sex role stereotypes can affect how people
are treated. Women seen as unacceptable for union
office because of its masculine image had little opportu
nity to get industrial relations knowledge. These women
may see themselves as too inexperienced to hold union
office. Again, this self perception may be accurate be
cause of the impact of sex role stereotypes on women’s
treatment.
Union members concerned about access
Union members concerned about the time leaders
have for union duties may feel women will not have suf
ficient time to be officers. Sayles and Strauss’ finding
that union members generally feel women belong in the
home is consistent with this.13
If women feel they have more time-consuming family
responsibilities than men do, women will be less likely
to seek union office.
Physical location is another component of access.
People whose jobs allow them to circulate around the
plant or office are easily accessible. Examples are jobs
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Conference Papers
in maintenance, machine set-up, and inspection. These
are generally high status jobs often filled by seniority,
and more routinely held by men than women because of
men’s continuous work histories.14
Rewards of union office
Another influence on decisions to seek union office
are the associated rewards. Members decide to seek
office partly because they feel they will get something
from the experience. If men and women evaluate the re
wards differently, this may help account for the relative
ly greater number of male union officers.
Sayles and Strauss identified six general rewards of
union office: A sense of achievement or self fulfillment,
an outlet for aggression, an intellectual outlet, relief
from monotonous jobs, opportunity to gain prestige or
status, and a social outlet.15
Men and women probably seek achievement to the
same extent but perhaps in different ways. If holding
union office is considered more appropriate for men,
women would be less likely to see union office as rele
vant to achievement needs.
If union office is an outlet for aggression, traditional
concepts of appropriate male and female roles could in
fluence the likelihood that women view holding union
office as appropriate. Our society more readily condones
aggression in men than in women, making this reward
more attractive to men.
The social outlet rewards of union office may be less
important for women than for men because current offi
cers are men. Job-linked social mixing between the
sexes, in contrast to romantic mixing, is relatively new.
It could be that men are more interested in going out
for a “beer with the boys” than are some women. This
dimension is difficult to measure and worthy of further
study.
A reward encouraging women to run for office is re
lief from monotonous jobs. Because women are overrep
resented in lower occupational levels, relief from
monotony could be more enticing to women than men.
A somewhat different reward, super seniority, often giv
en to stewards, might also be an inducement for some
women to seek office because of limited job tenure.
There are two reasons few women are union officers:
Women are less likely to seek union office and incum
bent officers and members are less likely to support
women for office. The evidence reviewed supports both
reasons, and suggests women will have to put aside tra
ditional sex-role stereotypes and aggressively seek office
before members will see them as fully qualified.
□
increasing,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1978, pp. 8-14.
’ Alice H. Cook, “Women and American Trade Unions,” The An
nals o f the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January,
1968, pp. 124-132; and Leonard R. Sayles and George Strauss, The
Local Unions, (Rev. Ed.) New York, Harcourt, Brace and World,
1967; and Cook, op. cit.
4See, for example, Fritz Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Re
lations, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1958 pp. 20-78, for an ex
cellent discussion of the importance of perceptions in explaining
people’s attitudes and behaviors.
E. M. Bennett and L. R. Cohen, “Men and Women: Personality
Patterns and Contracts,” Genetics Psychology Monographs, 1950, pp.
101-155; R. L. Dipboye, “Women as Manager: Stereotypes and Re
alities,” in B.A. Stead (ed.), Women in Management, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1978, pp. 2-10; Douglas Masengill and Nicholas
Di Marco, Sex-Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Charac
teristics,” Sex Roles, October, 1979, pp. 561-570; B. Rosen and T. H.
Jerdee, “Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite,” Harvard Business
Review, (1974), pp. 45-58; and V. E. Schein, The Relationship Be
tween Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteris
tics,” Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1975, pp. 352-376.
6 P. Johnson, “Women and Power: Toward a Theory of
Effectiveness,” Journal of Social Issues, 1976, pp. 99-110.
7Schein, op. cit.; Dipboye, op. cit.
*B. Wertheimer and A. H. Nelson, Trade Union Women, New
York, Praeger Publishers, 1975.
4 E. Lenny, “Women’s Self-Confidence in Achievement Setting,”
Psychological Bulletin, 1977, pp. 1-13.
10Sayles and Strauss, op. cit.
" M. Estey, The Unions (2d ed.), New York, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1976.
12Cook, op. cit.
11 Sayles and Strauss, op. cit.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
Microeconomic research ignored
by government and industry
R u d y A. Osw ald
Research obligations in our society are shared between
the public sector and the private sector. Clearly, gov
ernment has a lead role to play in conducting economic
and industrial relations research, but the responsibility
is also a private one for universities, research organiza
tions, and clearly also for business and labor as primary
actors in the economic and workplace scene.
But “macro” analysis is not enough. There is need
for the “micro” approach as well, and the inadequacy
of research in the micro area is especially egregious. It
is again time for thorough research on individual indus
tries, as was done by the Temporary National Econom
ic Committee more than a generation ago. Such analysis
should set forth essential background for tripartite ac-
--------- FOOTNOTES— -----' Katherine Hoyle, “Labor Union and Employee Association Mem
bership— 1978,” News, Sept. 3, 1979, p. 4.
‘ L. H. LeGrande, “Women in labor organizations: their ranks are
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Rudy A. Oswald is the director of the Department of Economic Re
search, AFL-Cio. His full ir r a paper is entitled “Labor’s Agenda for
1980’s Research.”
tion by business, labor, and government on new nation
al programs for economic revitalization and reindustri
alization. Industry and sector data need to be collected
and analyzed, as well as area data including inner city
economic problems.
As part of the basic industry and sector analysis,
more information is needed on the employment and in
flation effects of U.S. trade, both imports and exports.
This analysis should include a review of the loss of jobs
resulting from the export of capital and production, as
well as the export of technology by U.S. corporations to
their foreign subsidiaries.
The growing problem of plant closings needs more
research work. Workers and communities suffer serious
job losses and negative social effects from major plant
closings. The reasons for such closings must be ana
lyzed, including import penetration of U.S. markets, ef
fects of tax subsidies on industrial migration, easy taxloss write-offs, corporate mergers, shifts in consumer
tastes, technological developments, corporate misman
agement and financial insolvency, and so forth. Barry
Bluestone and Bennett Harrison have produced an im
pressive report1 on causes and effects of plant closings,
but legislation dealing with plant closings is already be
fore Congress and many State legislatures, and there
fore, much more micro-level research is needed on the
subject.
Information on safe and healthy working conditions
needs to be enhanced. Governmental agencies such as
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health should increase their capability for research and
standards development, and private research in occupa
tional safety and health should be expanded.
An example of decreased research in the micro field
of industrial relations is the discontinuation by the Bu
reau of Labor Statistics ( b l s ) of four important wage
and benefit statistical programs: (1) the “Digest of Se
lected Health and Insurance Plans” and “Digest of Se
lected Pension Plans;” (2) wage chronologies; (3)
employer compensation expenditures; and (4) the collec
tion of data from smaller collective bargaining agree
ments covering fewer than 1,000 workers.
Little research today deals with the policies and
programs that contribute to full employment. Little
work is done on income distribution, and there are
practically no accurate data measures on the income of
the wealthy, or the extent of wealth. Poverty data fail
to measure poverty, and BLS has not updated the meth
odology of the city workers’ family budgets and the
budgets for retired workers.2
Proposed research agenda
A specific research agenda was developed in March
1980, when more than 70 union and university research
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ers specializing in industrial and labor relations, and
representatives of public and private funding agencies
attended a symposium in Boston, jointly sponsored by
the AFL-CIO Research Department and the ExtensionPublic Service Division of the Cornell University School
of Industrial and Labor Relations. A major objective of
the meeting was to explore the possibility of developing
a research agenda on topics of interest to union and
university researchers in the field of industrial and labor
relations. Following is a brief outline of just three of the
many research topics that were discussed at the sympo
sium. These outlines are just a hint of the vast array of
new micro research that should be undertaken to im
prove the industrial relations that now exist in the Unit
ed States.
Corporate structure, corporate concentration, and bar
gaining. Four major points were discussed:
•
•
•
•
Union responses to corporate mergers and corporate
concentration;
Research on the factors associated with corporate
concentration, including competition, the presence or
absence of labor unions, and conglomerate interests;
Research on the impact of corporate concentration
on employment, wages, union structure, and union
bargaining power;
Examination of the impact of deregulation on em
ployment and collective bargaining.
Labor law. Six major points were discussed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research on the impact of the increased legalization
of labor relations, especially the professionalization
of arbitrators, the increasing use of administrative
law judges, and the resurgence of the labor injunc
tion on free collective bargaining;
Studies concerning procedural delays and the effects
of National Labor Relations Board representation
rules, particularly those concerning unit determina
tion on union growth;
Studies of the impact of court rulings related to the
duty of fair representation;
Examination of the role and impact of management
consultants on the collective bargaining rights of
workers;
Research into the issue of impasse resolution in the
public sector;
Studies of the overall role of law in industrial rela
tions, especially the commitment of labor and man
agement to the basic principles underlying rational
labor policies.
Job security and economic dislocation. Three major
points were discussed:
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Conference Papers
•
•
•
Examination of the forces underlying economic dis
location, especially the impact of changing forms of
corporate structure;
Research into possible methods of preventing eco
nomic dislocation, including government subsidiza
tion of failing industries, employee ownership, and
the role of collective bargaining;
Studies of the impact of economic dislocation on
workers and collective bargaining, and methods of
easing that impact.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES----------
’ See Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, Capital and Communi
ties: The Causes and Consequences of Private Disinvestment (Washing
ton, The Progressive Alliance, 1980).
' A recent study of the Family Budgets Program has been sum
marized in Harold W. Watts, “Special panel suggests changes in BLS
Family Budget Program,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1980, pp.
3-10.
Role of arbitration
in dispute settlement
H e n r y S. F a r b e r
The search for an acceptable alternative to the strike for
settling public sector labor disputes has led to the de
velopment of a variety of arbitration schemes for this
purpose. The first type is conventional arbitration where
a neutral third party simply imposes terms of agreement
in the event that the parties fail to reach a negotiated
settlement.1 A number of observers of the early experi
ence with conventional arbitration have suggested that
arbitrators have a tendency to “split the difference” be
tween the positions of the parties. It is alleged that this
results in a “chilling” of bargaining and excessive reli
ance on the procedure.2 An alternative to conventional
arbitration which is becoming increasingly popular and
which purports to be free of the chilling problem is fi
nal-offer arbitration.3 Under this procedure each party
submits a final offer and the arbitrator selects one or
the other of the offers which then becomes the settle
ment. The distinguishing feature of final-offer arbitra
tion is that the arbitrator is not allowed to fashion a
compromise between the final offers.
The crucial role of any dispute settlement procedure
in the collective bargaining process is to provide incen
tives for the parties to reach agreement without resort
to the procedure. In terms of evaluation this means that
one criterion for a good dispute settlement procedure is
Henry S. Farber is an assistant professor of economics at the Massa
chusetts Institute of Technology. His full IRRA paper is entitled
“Does Final-Offer Arbitration Encourage Bargaining?”
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
that it be used infrequently.4 The incentive for settle
ment is derived from the costs which the particular pro
cedure imposes on the parties in the event of
disagreement. In order to avoid these costs the parties
presumably will concede in negotiations so that agree
ment can be reached. The strike imposes costs on the
parties in a direct and obvious manner having at the
first level to do with lost wages and sales or profits. Ar
bitration, on the other hand, does not impose direct
costs of such magnitude.5
Uncertainty imposes costs
The major source of arbitration costs is the uncer
tainty concerning exactly what the arbitrator will de
cide. To the extent that the parties are risk averse each
will be willing to concede a portion of the expected ar
bitration award in order to avoid the risk of having the
arbitrator impose a settlement which is very unfavorable
to the particular party.6 The larger the costs are which
the uncertainty imposes on the parties the more the
parties will concede in order to avoid the costs and the
less likely it is that the parties will actually resort to ar
bitration.
In order to understand the relationship between the
magnitude of the costs imposed by arbitration and its
actual usage rate, we must resolve the apparent paradox
that arbitration is ever used when ex post both parties
would have been better off to avoid the uncertainty and
reach a negotiated settlement on the same terms. There
are two major explanations for a failure to reach agree
ment. The first is what can be called information prob
lems. If the parties have divergent expectations
concerning the distribution of potential arbitration
awards then this may offset the costs of disagreement
and result in the absence of a contract zone of potential
settlements which are preferred by both parties to arbi
tration. For instance, if each party expects an arbitrator
to be relatively favorable to its side then they may not
be willing to concede enough from these incompatible
positions to allow agreement. How much the parties are
willing to concede from their respective expectations
about the disagreement outcome depends on their re
spective costs of disagreement. The larger these costs
are the more the parties will concede and the less likely
it will be that a given divergence in expectations will
lead to disagreement.7
The second major explanation for a failure to reach
agreement in an environment where arbitration of some
sort is the dispute settlement procedure is that at least
one party may want to place the responsibility for an
unfavorable outcome on the shoulders of a third party
(the arbitrator).8This shifting of responsibility is impor
tant for political reasons if the leaders need to convince
their constituency that they were not to blame for the
bad outcome. This may be particularly important for
union leaders who have to deal with a sometimes mili
tant rank-and-file. However, in the public sector the
employer is concerned with winning elections as well,
and the arbitration procedure may be used to that end.
It is important to note that the larger the costs of
disagreement are the more expensive it is for the leaders
to utilize the arbitration procedure for their own politi
cal purposes. Thus, as with divergent expectations as an
explanation for disagreement, the larger the costs of dis
agreement are the less likely it will be that there will be
disagreement for institutional or political reasons.
In the context of the above discussion the essence of
the criticism of conventional arbitration is that it does
not impose sufficient costs on the parties. The result is
that it is overutilized both where there are relatively mi
nor differences in expectations and for political reasons.
It has been suggested that final-offer arbitration is a
more costly procedure and hence more effective in en
couraging negotiated settlements.
Under conventional arbitration it has been suggested
that the arbitrator splits the difference between the posi
tions of the parties or in a less constrained way finds a
compromise. It is clear that the naive split-the-difference
model is not realistic because it would provide the
parties with the incentive to make their offers as ex
treme as possible. This sort of behavior is not generally
observed because as either party begins to take an ex
treme position the arbitrator will tend to disregard that
party’s position as unreasonable. This suggests that the
arbitrator has some exogenous notion of what is an eq
uitable split of the pie, and, while he may consider the
positions of the parties in fashioning an award, he eval
uates these positions in light of the exogenous equitable
settlement. It is the uncertainty surrounding what the
arbitrator feels is an equitable outcome which makes ar
bitration a costly alternative.
In formulating their offers the parties are aware that,
while they have some influence ov^r the outcomes, if
they are too extreme the arbitrator will tend to weight
their position less heavily. The process which generates
the positions of the parties is one where each party is
trading having a favorable influence on the arbitration
award with the chance that the arbitrator will consider it
unreasonable and be more heavily influenced by the oth
er party’s position. It is interesting to note that it is like
ly to be true that the parties adopt final positions located
around their expectation of the arbitrator’s idea of the
equitable outcome.9 Thus, while the outcomes look like
the arbitrator has split the difference, the parties have ac
tually located their offers around the expected outcome.
If it is assumed (unrealistically) that the final posi
tions of the parties are invariant to the change in the
dispute settlement mechanism from conventional to fi
nal-offer arbitration, that under the latter the final offers
are equally likely to be selected by the arbitrator, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
that the distribution of arbitration awards under conven
tional arbitration is symmetrical, then it is straightfor
ward that final-offer imposes larger costs on the parties
than conventional arbitration. Intuitively, the average
arbitration award is unchanged but the distribution of
awards has been made riskier by moving all of the possi
ble outcomes to the extremes. As a result all risk averse
parties will prefer the conventional arbitration settle
ment possibilities to those under final-offer arbitration.
This is equivalent to saying that the parties are willing
to give up more to avoid the risk inherent in final-offer
arbitration than they are willing to give up to avoid the
risk inherent in conventional arbitration. Thus, the finaloffer arbitration induced contract zone is larger than
that induced by conventional arbitration and final-offer
will be relatively more successful than conventional arbi
tration at inducing negotiated settlements.
Assumptions in doubt
This seems to be the conceptual framework which has
led researchers to expect that final-offer arbitration will
be a more effective dispute settlement procedure than
conventional arbitration. However it is based on a num
ber of crucial assumptions which are probably not true.
First, it will only be the merest coincidence that the fi
nal positions under final-offer arbitration will be identi
cal to those under conventional arbitration. To examine
this more carefully, it is reasonable to assume that the
arbitrator under final-offer arbitration selects the final
offer which is closest to his notion of an equitable set
tlement. The parties are not certain what the arbitrator
feels is the equitable settlement. In this situation the
parties face a trade-off in setting their final offers be
tween increasing the value of their offer if it is selected
and reducing the probability that the arbitrator selects
their offer.
It is entirely possible that the final positions will be
less extreme under final-offer arbitration than under
conventional arbitration. It can no longer be concluded
that final-offer is a riskier, and hence costlier, procedure
than conventional arbitration. Intuitively, if the final po
sitions are less extreme under final-offer than under con
ventional arbitration there is some positive probability
that the arbitration award will be more extreme under
conventional than under final-offer arbitration, and it is
not possible to evaluate a priori whether the latter is
riskier than the former.10
A second assumption which fails is that the final of
fers are equally likely to be chosen by the arbitrator. As
an empirical matter it is unlikely that the parties are
equally risk averse, and it can be shown that the party
more averse to risk submits an offer which has a higher
probability of being selected than the offer of the party
less averse to risk.11
Lastly, the validity of the assumption that the distri35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Conference Papers
bution of arbitration awards under conventional arbitration is symmetrical is largely a function of the symmetry of the parties’ prior distribution on the arbi-
trator’s notion of the equitable settlement. While this
distribution may well be symmetrical, there is no cornpelling theoretical reason for believing this is the case.O
--------- FOOTNOTES---------1Conventional arbitration is used in a number of States, including
Alaska; Maine; Minnesota; New York; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode
Island; Washington; and Wyoming, to settle labor disputes among
certain categories of public employees.
' See Carl M. Stevens, “Is Compulsory Arbitration Compatible with
Bargaining?” Industrial Relations, February 1966, pp. 38-52; Peter
Feuille, “Final Offer Arbitration and the Chilling Effect,” Industrial
Relations, October 1975, pp. 302-10; and Charles Feigenbaum, “Final
Offer Arbitration: Better Theory than Practice,” Industrial Relations,
October 1975, pp. 311-17.
Some variant of this procedure is used to settle public employee
labor disputes in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Jersey, and Wisconsin. Final-offer arbitration is also used to resolve
salary disputes involving major league baseball players. See James B.
Dworkin, “The Impact of Final-Offer Interest Arbitration on
Bargaining: The Case of Major League Baseball,” Proceedings o f the
Twenty-Ninth Annual Winter Meeting of the Industrial Relations Re
search Association, 1976, pp. 161-69.
4 A second consideration is that the dispute settlement procedure
must provide acceptable outcomes, and, because the procedure deter
mines the range of even negotiated settlements, arbitration procedures
need to be evaluated in light of their effect on negotiated as well as
arbitrated outcomes. For a more detailed discussion see Henry S.
Farber and Harry C. Katz, “Interest Arbitration, Outcomes and the
Incentive to Bargain,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October
1979, pp. 55-63.
Positive direct costs of arbitration (such as time and attorney’s
fees) are assumed to be negligible in this analysis.
"For a detailed discussion of the role of risk and risk preferences in
conventional arbitration see Farber and Katz, “Interest Arbitration."
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
See Henry S. Farber, “An Analysis of Final-Offer Arbitration,” Jour
nal of Conflict Resolution, December 1980, for the analogous discus
sion in final-offer arbitration.
The notion of divergent expectations as a cause of strikes has a
long history. J. R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages (New York, Macmil
lan Co., 1963), pp. 146-47 argues that " . . . the majority of strikes
are doubtless the result of faulty negotiation. If there is considerable
divergence of opinion between the employer and the union representa
tives [about the strike outcome] . . . then the union may refuse to go
below a certain level . . . and the employer may refuse to concede it
. . . [U]nder such circumstances, a deadlock is inevitable, and a strike
will ensue; but it arises from the divergence of estimates and from no
other cause . . . [Ajdequate knowledge will always make a settlement
possible.”
8
See Peter Feuille, “Final-Offer Arbitration and the Chilling Ef
fect;” Craig Olson, “Final-Offer Arbitration in Wisconsin After Five
Years,” Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Industri
al Relations Research Association, 1978, pp. 111-18.
For a detailed analysis of this model, see Henry S. Farber, “An
Analysis of ‘Splitting-the-Difference’ in Interest Arbitration,” Industri
al and Labor Relations Review, 1981, forthcoming.
10 For an analysis of the relative merits of final-offer arbitration and
conventional arbitration on a number of criteria see Henry S. Farber,
“Mechanisms for Settling Public Sector Labor Disputes: A Compara
tive Evaluation of Conventional Arbitration and Final-Offer Arbitra
tion,” August 1979. Mimeographed. It is shown that for some
reasonable specifications and parameter values that indeed conven
tional is costlier than final-offer arbitration.
11 See Farber, “An Analysis of Final-Offer Arbitration.”
Communications
Estimating the propensity
of guestworkers to leave
How likely are “guestworkers” to return to their home
lands? And can one influence their rate of return
through non-coercive policy measures?
A supply versus demand controversy rages as far as
the determinants of contemporary international eco
nomic migration are concerned. In an earlier study, I
examined this question analytically as well as empirical
ly.1 Results of the study indicate that the supply of la
bor coming from abroad is necessary but insufficient for
international labor movements to occur. The sufficient
condition lies in the demand originating from the mi
grant-receiving country. This demand is caused econom
ically, screened politically, and given effect admin
istratively. Some countries declare publicly that they
wish to admit certain numbers or types of foreign work
ers; in others, the politics and administration produce
illegal aliens.
The following discussion examines the propensity of
migrant workers to return to their countries of origin
and the effectiveness of non-coercive policy tools aimed
at controlling foreign labor flows, with special focus on
the West German experience.
temporary means what it says— only for a time— the
temporary admission of foreigners stands for limited
time programs and implies voluntary exit or enforced
departure when the time is up. Seasonal workers in
France and Switzerland fall into this category as do
workers under the H-2 program in the United States,
but the bulk of Western Europe’s migrant workers—
those ordinarily considered in this context— do not.
The nature of guestworker policy may be illustrated by
an important policy statement from Western Europe’s
archtypical guestworker country, West Germany: “The
Federal Government continues to proceed from the as
sumption that the overwhelming number of foreign em
ployees will not stay in the Federal Republic . . .
The limitation of the duration of stay will not be
effected through (police) measures under the law relat
ing to foreigners.” 3
A guestworker policy controls the inflow of foreign
ers, not their stock or return flow. The numbers present
or returning are expected to be regulated by the inter
play of market forces, and the short-run targets or re
turn orientation attributed to migrants. Empirical tests
confirm this. For example, 96 percent of the changes in
admission of workers in West Germany during 1961-76
can be explained by variations in unfilled vacancies in
the Federal Republic. On the other hand, the demand
for labor and the stock of foreign workers or the num
bers returning correlate very badly or not at all.4
Guestworker policies explained
Temporariness measured and explained
As they have evolved in Western Europe, guestworker policies are neither temporary worker programs
nor inspired by the immigration-and-settlement philoso
phy. They fall — rather uncomfortably— between two
stools. Foreigners are invited to stay in the hope that
they will leave. But the administrative apparatus does
not, as a rule, force them to return on economic
grounds.2
In the United States, Western European guestworker
policies have been perceived as temporary worker pro
grams involving nonimmigrants. This is incorrect. If
What proportion of the guests admitted for the pur
pose of employment later return home? Can one
identify policy variables that would explain differential
rates of return?
Calculations for the Federal Republic of Germany
show that about 9 in 10 Italian, 8 in 10 Spanish, 7 in
10 Greek, 5 in 10 Yugoslav, and 3 in 10 of the Turkish
workers who were admitted to work during the years
1961-76 left again during this period. Other nationali
ties averaged a combined return rate of 66 percent and
the overall rate for Germany was 68 percent. In the
case of Switzerland it amounted to 83 percent for the
same years and can apparently be explained as a com
posite of the German rates for the major nationalities
weighted according to their size in the Swiss foreign la
bor force.5
W.
R.
BOHNING
W. R. Bohning is project manager for International Migration and
Employment at the International Labor Office, Geneva. The views
expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily
represent those of the International Labor Office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Communications
Table 1. Predicting migrants’ propensity to return with
their intentions, West Germany
Ranking by
nationality
Italians . . . .
Spaniards .
Greeks . . .
Yugoslavs .
Turks .........
Proportion
Proportion in 1976 with fu
with short
Proportion of
Propensity
ture intentions which were:
term
target
to return,
intentions at
workers, 1976
1961 76
beginning,
survey
(1= highest)
short
long
1976 survey
(1 = highest)
(1 = highest)
(1 ^lowest)
(1 = highest)
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
2
4
3
3
2
1
4
5
5
4
1
3
2
4
5
3
1
2
S ources: “ Propensity to return” rankings are from W. R. Bohning, “ Guest Worker Em
ployment, with Special Reference to the Federal Republic of Germany, France, and Switzer
land Lessons for the United States?” Working paper NB-5 (University of Maryland, Center
for Philosophy and Public Policy, 1980). All other data are from Forschungsverbund,
"Probleme der Auslanderbeschaftigung," in Inlegrieter Endbericht (Bundesminister fur
Forschung und Technologie, 1979), [Joint Research Group, “ Problems of the employment of
foreigners," in Integrated Final Report (Federal Minister for Research and Technology,
1979)], pp. 56ff and 231 ff.
Migrant intentions. Western European policymakers as
sumed that migrants intended to return to their homes
after a relatively short stay abroad. One might expect,
therefore, that variations in intentions would predict
each nationality’s actual return rate. Table 1 indicates
that for West Germany this is not the case.
The reasons for this are severalfold. First, individuals’
intentions are complex. This is indicated, for example,
by the huge proportion of people who have no clear
idea regarding the duration of expatriation or who are
evasive on this question. Second, short-term orienta
tions in general and worker targets or motivations in
particular are much less prevalent than assumed. “Tar
get workers” are doubtless a minority. Third, migrants,
including target workers, change their minds more often
than generally thought.6
Moreover, intentions of individuals do not constitute
a policy variable. As far as the crucial target worker is
concerned, it is impossible for an adm inistrator— or
even for a sociologist or an economist — to determine
reliably which candidate falls into this group. If less
than 100 percent of the foreign workers do, one simply
cannot anticipate what the net effect of changed inten
tions will be.
Family reunification. The family has, unfortunately,
been considered a policy variable. Making reunification
difficult was expected to motivate workers to return. At
present, dependents are allowed to accompany the
breadwinner in Austria, Belgium, Sweden, and the Unit
ed Kingdom; the same holds true for Greeks, Portu
guese, and Spaniards in France. In the case of other
countries or nationalities the rule is that the breadwin
ner can have his nuclear family join him after a waiting
period of 12-months.
Popular beliefs notwithstanding, the proportions of
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
inactive (dependent family members) in the migrant
population tend to be quite similar in Western Europe
an countries. Marked differences have disappeared.
As table 2 demonstrates, the degree of completed
family reunification in West Germany does not correlate
with a nationality’s tendency to return. The reasons for
this must be sought in the complex web of economic,
social, and human factors that make people move. It
follows that, short of an inhuman policy totally prohib
iting families from coming together, the manipulation of
family reunification is not a promising policy variable.
Selection criteria. Host-nation choices made at the mo
ment of recruitment, admission, or engagement are the
most frequently mentioned instrument to influence re
turn rates. Personal characteristics (such as age or mari
tal status) and socioeconomic factors (rural versus
urban origin, types of skills, previous employment expe
rience), as well as the status and pay levels of jobs of
fered to candidates from nearby rather than distant
countries (benefit versus cost of migration) are generally
viewed as suitable predictors of differential rates of re
turn. Data for West Germany presented in table 3 cast
serious doubts on the assumptions governing selection
measures. There is no coherent correlation with the
measured degree of return or among the various criteria
themselves. Moreover, what one determinant indicates
at one time is quite different from what it indicates at
another (or for another sex).7
Foreign aid and trade liberalization. Rich countries of
employment often consider these factors a means to
eliminate, in the medium term, the need for internation
al labor movements8 or to stimulate return migration.
One cannot directly test the efficacy of this policy vari
able but one can, indirectly, assess it as follows. As aid
Table 2. Predicting migrants’ propensity to return by
degree of completed family reunification, West Germany
Ranking
by
nationality
Propensity
to return,
1961 76
(1= highest)
Proportion of inactive in migrant
population in:
1968
1976
(1 = lowest)
Italians...............
Spaniards...........
G reeks...............
Yugoslavs .........
Turks ..................
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
3
2
1
Complete families in 1976:
proportion
among
married
workers
proportion
among all
migrants
(1 = lowest)
2
4
3
1
5
4
3
5
2
1
4
3
5
1
2
Sources: Data on "proportion of Inactive” are from W. R. Bohning, “ Guest Worker Em
ployment, with Special Reference to the Federal Republic of Germany, France, and
Switzerland - Lessons for the United States?" Working paper NB-5 (University of Maryland,
Center for Philosophy and Public Policy, 1980), p. 36. Those relating to "complete families”
are from Forschungsverbund, “ Probleme der Auslanderbeschaftigung, in Integrleter
Endbericht (Bundesminister fur Forschung und Technologie, 1979), [Joint Research Group,
"Problems of the employment of foreigners," in Integrated Final Report (Federal Minister for
Research and Technology, 1979)], pp. 56ff.
Table 3.
Predicting migrants’ propensity to return by selection criteria, West Germany
Ranking
by
nationality
Propensity
to return,
1961-76
(1 = highest)
youthfulness,
1971 data
(1 =highest)
proportion of
single, divorced,
and widowed:
1968
1976
proportion of
rural origin,
1971 survey
(1 = highest)
proportion skilled
before migration:
1971
survey
1
2
3
4
5
1
5
4
2
3
2
3
4
1
5
1
2
4
3
5
3
1
2
4
5
S ources: Information by age, rural origin, and proportion skilled before migration In 1971 is
from U. Mehrlander, Soziale Aspekte der Ausländer-beschaftingung [Social aspects o f the em
ployment o f foreigners) (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1974), pp. 24-28,
and 36. Data on marital status and proportion skilled in Germany for 1968 are from
Ausländische Arbeitnehmer: Ergebnisse der Repräsentativuntersuchung vom Herbst 1968,
Beilage zur ANBA Nr. 8/70 vom 28 August 1970 (Nurnburg, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 1970),
[Foreign employees: Results o f a representative survey o f autumn 1968, Supplement to ANBA
and trade liberalization are designed to boost incomes
and employment in the migrants’ countries of origin,
these countries’ past growth performance in the fields of
income and employment should explain why some na
tionalities return home more than others. Data shown
in table 4 do not confirm this reasoning as far as the
short to medium term time horizon is concerned. Still,
the last column suggests that in the very long term,
when aid and trade may have lifted per capita incomes
in the poorer countries to a much higher level, it may
well be that return flows to the then better-off countries
of origin will rise. However, for the time being this re
mains speculation, and there are flaws in the GNP or in
come concept that one should not simply overlook.9 Of
course, this reasoning must not be mistaken as an argu
ment against aid or trade liberalization.
It is conceivable that some or all of the selection cri
teria and aid or liberalization measures taken together
would explain why some nationalities return and others
do not. But this, too, is speculation and cannot be cor
roborated with the data available. Furthermore, cumu
lative selection criteria are difficult to administer effi
ciently and the migrants’ ingenuity at finding their way
around administrative obstacles is well known.
We are left with the empirical observation that na
tionality as such tells one better than any other factor
whether migrant workers are likely to stay or return.
Although it is sometimes difficult to explain what “na
tionality” means— other than holding a passport and
presumably being of a certain ethnic background— it
appears to be crucially important to know which na
tionality one is dealing with. For, if nationalities are
characterized by secular tendencies to stay or return,
incentives or constraints will not be able to change
these tendencies markedly. Raw political force might,
but Western democracies are neither internationally nor
ideologically free to employ such force.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1976
survey
proportion skilled
in Germany:
1968
(1= lowest)
(1 = highest)
Italians.............
Spaniards . . . .
Greeks ...........
Yugoslavs . . . .
T urks...............
Economic factors:
Socioeconomic factors:
Personal factors:
1
4
2
5
3
1976
(1 = lowest)
2
4
1
5
3
average net
migrant
income, 1976
(benefit)
(1= lowest)
distance
between host
and sending na
tion capitals
(cost)
(1= shortest)
1
5
3
2
4
1
3
4
2
5
1
3
4
5
2
2
3
1
5
4
No. 8/70 of Aug. 28,1970 (Nürnberg, Federal Institute of Labor, 1970)], pp. 45, 53-54, 86, and
from the author’s own computations. And Information for 1976 relating to marital status, propor
tion skilled before migration, and proportion skilled In Germany is from Forschungsverbund,
“ Probleme der Auslanderbeschaftigung,” in Integrieter Endbericht (Bundesminister fur
Forschung und Technologie, 1979), [Joint Research Group, “ Problems of the employment of
foreigners,” in Integrated Final Report [Federal Minister for Research and Technology, 1979)],
pp. 56-58, 94,117, and 130.
Lessons for host nations
If guestworkers’ propensity to return voluntarily can
not be accurately predicted on the basis of policy vari
ables other than nationality, what lessons does this hold
for nations contemplating labor importation? First, one
should accept high or low temporariness rather than try
to manipulate it. A further lesson is that one should not
create expectations among the resident population re
garding the return of guests that are not substantiated
by hard facts. If expectations concerning the duration of
guestworker employment turn out to have been unreal
istic, the policy will be in ruins.
Should potential host nations institute massive tem
porary worker programs instead of guestworker or
enlarged traditional immigration programs? I believe
that temporary worker plans for non-temporary jobs
are incompatible with the fundamental tenets of West
ern democracy, the charter of the United Nations, the
constitution of the International Labor Organization
Table 4. Predicting migrants’ propensity to return by the
growth of income and employment in their countries of
origin, West Germany
Average annual growth rates of:
Ranking by
nationality
Italians.........
Spaniards . . .
G reeks.........
Yugoslavs ..
Turks ...........
Propensity
to return,
1961 76
(1 = highest)
1
2
3
4
5
per capita income
in countries
of origin:
1960 76
1970 76
Level of per
capita income
in countries of
origin, 1976
1976-77 (1= highest)
labor force
in countries
of origin:
1960^9
(1= highest)
(1 = highest)
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
4
2
1
5
3
4
1
2
4
3
5
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
S ources: Data on growth rates and per capita income levels are from Atlas (Washing
ton, World Bank, various years), and from "World Development Report, 1979” (Washington,
World Bank, 1979).
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Communications
and, most of all, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.10 It is perfectly legitimate to argue that foreign
ers do not have a right to enter a country. However,
those who are voluntarily adm itted— except perhaps
foreigners destined to work in truly temporary activities
— should be entitled to what the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights calls free choice of employment (arti
cle 23 [1]); to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack
of livelihood (article 25[1]); and to protection for their
families (article 16[3]). Western Europe’s guestworker
policies, by and large, respect the social rights of article
25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and they freely admit and thereby protect families in
some, albeit not yet all, cases. But they still subject the
free choice of employment to a qualifying period (out
side the European Economic Community and the Com
mon Nordic Labor M arket).11 The trend of policies has
been towards closer conformity with the principles of
Western democracy; and a recent French attempt to re
verse it has met with powerful domestic and interna
tional resistance.12
This reinforces the lesson drawn earlier. Temporary
worker programs and restrictions are ideologically and
politically less and less tenable in Western pluralistic
societies. One can save oneself a great deal of domestic
political and administrative commotion and loss of in
ternational standing by adopting from the start a posi
tion that is in conformity with the democratic values
one espouses rather than having to yield to domestic
and international pressures under inauspicious circum
stances.
□
— FOOTNOTES
W. R. Böhning, “Guest Worker Employment, with Special Refer
ence to the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Switzerland:
Fessons for the United States?" Working paper NB-5 (University of
Maryland, Center for Philosophy and Public Policy, 1980).
Illegals are, in principle, deportable. (Political grounds can also
give rise to deportation.) Only Austria has clear legal stipulations ac
cording to which foreigners who have become a public charge can, in
exceptional circumstances, be expelled. For the sake of correctness, it
should also be mentioned that there are some untypical small-scale re
cruitment agreements which are temporary worker programs, such as
the agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Re
public of Korea on miners, at present involving about 600 workers.
Bundesminister für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, “Politik der
Bundesregierung gegenüber den ausländischen Arbeitnehmern in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” [Federal Minister for Labor and Social
Order, “The policy of the Federal Government towards foreign em
ployees in the Federal Republic of Germany.”] Bonn, Deutscher
Bundestag, 6. Wahlperiode, Drucksache V I/3085, 31. January 1972.
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
[German Parliament, 6th Session, Print No. VI/3085, Jan. 31, 1972.]
Bohning, “Guest Worker Employment,” p. 17.
' Ibid., pp. 22-27.
"Ibid., pp. 27-33.
Ibid., table 19.
hSee U. Hiemenz and K. W. Schatz, Trade in Place of Migration
(Geneva, International Labor Office, 1979).
' Bohning, “Guest Worker Employment,” pp. 40-44.
"See W. R. Bohning, “Regularising indocumentados” (Geneva, In
ternational Labor Office, 1979), World Employment Program Re
search Working Paper. Restricted; mimeographed; and “International
Migration in Western Europe: Reflections on the Past Five Years.”
International Labour Review, July-August 1979, pp. 401-14.
11 Restrictions are lifted after 5 to 10 years in Switzerland
(depending on nationality), 8 years in Austria, 5 in Germany, 4 in
France, 3 in Belgium and the Netherlands, and 1 year in Sweden.
Bohning, “Guest Worker Employment,” p. 7.
Productivity
Reports
Labor and material requirements for
commercial office building projects
B a r b a r a B in g h a m
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has completed its first
study of labor and material requirements for commer
cial office building construction, similar to studies on
school building and Federal office building construction.
Based upon this survey of projects completed in 1974,
the Bureau estimates that each $1 billion of construc
tion outlays for commercial office building construction
in 1980 generated 21,900 jobs, including 9,800 in the
construction industry. The Bureau estimates that during
the survey period, each $1 billion of expenditures gener
ated 49,000 jobs with 23,000 of them in construction.1
The tabulation compares these data for 1973 and 1980:
Industry
In current dollars
Jobs per $1 billion Jobs per $1 billion
expenditure
expenditure in
in 1973
1980 (preliminary)
All industries ..................
Construction ................
Onsite construction .
Offsite construction .
Other industries ..........
Manufacturing . . . .
Trade, transportation,
and services..........
Mining and all other
industries .............
49,383
23,067
20,667
2,400
26,316
15,752
21,900
9,800
8,800
1,000
12,100
6,500
8,066
4,200
2,498
1,300
Viewed in another perspective, for each $1,000
expended on commercial office building construction
during the survey year, 97.5 employee-hours were re
quired. Of these, 42 were in the construction industry,
37.2 onsite and 4.8 offsite. The remainder of the re
quired hours, 55.5, were in other industries: 33 in man
ufacturing; 16.6 in trade, transportation, and services;
and 5.9 in mining and other industries.2
The Bureau estimates that for each $1,000 of expendi
tures on this type of construction in 1980, 41.8 employ
ee-hours were required.3 The industrial breakdown of
Barbara Bingham is an economist in the Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
these estimated hours are: 17.9 in construction, 15.9
onsite and 2 offsite; 13.7 in manufacturing; 7.6 in trade,
transportation, and services; and 2.6 in mining and oth
er industries.
Construction of commercial office buildings accounts
for a significant portion of new construction activity in
the United States. The Bureau of the Census reported
that the value of commercial office building construc
tion totaled $9.5 billion in 1979.4
Survey’s scope and uses
The survey, designed to collect information on the
number of employee-hours required to construct com
mercial office buildings, was based upon a sample of
these buildings completed in fiscal year 1974.5 (Most of
the value of construction for these projects was put in
place during 1972 and 1973.6) A sample of 651 projects
with a construction value greater than $100,000 (built
in the 48 contiguous States) was supplied by the Bureau
of the Census and was then verified by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The 83-project subsample was strati
fied by cost class and by broad geographic region —
N orth, South, N orth Central, and W est.6 The subsam ple
was representative of a universe of projects with a total
construction value of about $2.7 billion.
These survey data are used to assess the impact of
private and public construction expenditure on jobs and
occupations. The occupational information which the
studies provide is used by the Department of Labor in
an effort to produce estimates of the employment-gener
ating effects of construction expenditures, and to update
construction labor requirements, knowledge of which
can help determine training needs and prevent labor
shortages or surpluses. Market research analysts and
companies that manufacture equipment and supplies are
interested in the detailed data collected on the amounts
and types of materials used in construction. In addition,
resurveys provide data on trends in labor requirements
through the current year. These trends give an indica
tion of construction productivity.
Onsite labor requirements
Data on onsite construction labor requirements were
collected directly by the Bureau from owners, develop
ers, and contractors. Onsite hours, which ranged from a
low of 11.7 to a high of 72.4, can be affected by many
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Productivity Reports
factors. These include strikes, weather conditions,
changing building codes, the use of prefabricated or
standardized building components, the availability of
skilled labor, soil conditions, project size and design,
and order and delivery time for materials.
Regional and national data on onsite employee-hours
were collected by type of occupation.7 The data show
that skilled workers accounted for 68 percent of all
onsite construction hours. Among the various skilled
trades, carpenters accounted for the largest percentage
— 15 to 23— of onsite hours in all four regions. The oc
cupation with the next largest proportion was electri
cian, whose percentages ranged from 5 to 11. All other
skilled worker groups accounted for less than 10 per
cent each of total onsite hours. Semiskilled and un
skilled workers accounted for 24 percent of onsite
hours, and professional and clerical workers, 7 percent.
Employee-hour data were also collected by type of
construction operation. General contractors consistently
accounted for the largest percentage of onsite labor in
all four regions, although the percentages varied. The
general contractors’ percentage in the Nation was 34;
28 in the Northeast, 27 in the North Central region,
and 33 in the West. The South, however, had a much
higher average percentage, 40. Heating, ventilating, and
air-conditioning subcontractors claimed the next highest
percentage of onsite hours in the Nation and in the
North Central, South, and West regions. In the N orth
east, however, the electrical subcontractors accounted
for a larger percentage of onsite hours than heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning subcontractors.
Building characteristics. On the average, for the United
States and all regions except the Northeast, the con
struction of buildings containing offices only required
fewer employee-hours per $1,000 than those buildings
containing a combination of offices, apartments, or
shopping facilities. Labor requirements for such build
ings were also lower per 100 square feet in all four re
gions. In a building containing only offices, some ef
ficiencies may be realized because of the repetitive
design and opportunity for increased use of modular
materials, thus reducing labor requirements.
Data were also collected by various building charac
teristics for hours per $1,000 (table 1) and hours per
100 square feet (table 2).8 (Detailed comparisons for
each building characteristic in every region have not
been made because of the difficulty in isolating and fully
explaining differences in labor requirements. Compari
sons reflect many other differences besides those in indi
vidual characteristics.) On the average, concrete framed
buildings had higher labor requirements than buildings
with other types of framing by both contract value and
area. Buildings with concrete exterior walls required
more labor nationally than those with masonry, wood,
or other types of exterior walls. Data for both interior
walls and ceiling types showed that buildings with plas
ter walls and ceilings had the highest employee-hour re
quirements. Concrete again is the material used in
buildings requiring the most labor, when buildings with
Table 1. Onsite employee-hours per $1,000 of cost, by selected building characteristic, for commercial office building
construction, by region, 1972-73
Building characteristic
United States Northeast North Central
All projects...........
Framing
S te e l.............................
C oncrete......................
Masonry ......................
Wood ...........................
Exterior walls
C oncrete......................
Masonry (brick) ...........
Wood ..........................
Other ..........................
Interior walls
Drywall ........................
Plaster ........................
Movable partitions . . . .
Other ..........................
Floor base
Concrete......................
Wood/plywood ...........
Floor covering
Terrazzo ......................
Carpet..........................
Vinyl/vinyl-asbestos . . .
Other ..........................
Ceiling
Drywall ........................
Plaster ........................
Acoustical tile .............
Other ..........................
’ No projects in sample.
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37.2
37.0
32.4
South
West
44.2
31.7
35.5
43.6
31.6
35.3
36.3
( 2)
72.4
39.5
30.0
44.2
27.2
42.4
44.1
43.5
57.7
(’ )
24.0
44.8
33.5
33.7
42.1
35.4
35.2
34.1
37.2
38.0
32.2
( 2)
37.6
29.2
47.2
29.0
47.5
39.5
45.5
43.2
36.2
39.1
30.9
27.8
37.2
47.2
33.8
39.1
36.5
55.6
(’ )
( ')
31.2
43.7
( 2)
30.2
43.9
46.2
(’ )
( 2)
32.8
(’ )
18.4
38.0
281
36.9
38.2
32.3
37.0
44.2
(’ )
34.1
26.4
42.4
36.0
37.0
39.7
( ')
37.1
( 2)
(’ )
(’ )
32.9
32.1
26.3
42.4
47.8
40.1
42.8
(’)
30.0
56.4
28.4
30.6
38.7
37.8
35.4
(’ )
(’ )
37.0
<’ )
28.4
38.7
33.1
(’ )
32.9
(’ )
44.9
35.4
35.6
(’ )
31.4
(’ )
(’ )
Building characteristic
Pleating
Forced a ir ......................
Plot w a te r......................
Radiant...........................
O th e r.............................
Pleating fuel
Electricity ......................
Gas ...............................
Oil .................................
O th e r.............................
Air-conditioning
Central air ....................
O th e r.............................
Elevators/escalators
Elevators/escalators . . .
None .............................
Roofing
Asphalt/asbestos .........
Built-up..........................
W o o d .............................
O th e r.............................
Roof base
Steel decking ...............
Concrete ......................
W ood/plywood.............
O th e r.............................
Parking facilities
Indoor.............................
Surface ........................
Indoor and surface . . . .
No parking ....................
United States Northeast North Centra!
South
West
39.6
35.3
32.2
35.4
36.8
34.4
37.4
37.8
29.8
26.0
( 1)
45.2
52.2
36.4
35.4
32.9
18.4
326
34.6
39.8
35.5
49.3
36.7
72.4
35.1
42.2
46.4
( 1)
27.0
32.1
37.0
49.3
( 1)
(’ )
28.8
36.2
(’ )
(’ )
37.4
33.2
36.7
45.8
32.4
37.6
44.2
40.9
32.0
30.5
37.8
352
37.5
35.7
33.1
29.8
43.2
54.6
30.8
32.7
29.5
38.1 nl
39.5
38.6
53.6
36.7
37.4
(’ )
27.7
34.6
61.0
( 2)
43.6
(’ )
51.3
42.1
29.9
38.6
31.7
38.8
40.5
30.2
( 2)
37.8
( 2)
34.3
(’ )
33.2
37.7
29.4
( 2)
44.6
43.9
42.1
33.1
30.0
(’ )
37.1
(’ )
33.4
49.3
28.4
31.4
46.2
44.4
44.6
40.8
38.6
37.0
36.8
39.6
2 Less than 3 projects in universe.
( 1)
(' )
( 2)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
27.8
30.0
44.5
(’ )
Table 2. Onsite employee-hours per 100 square feet, by selected building characteristic, for commercial office building
construction, by region, 1972-73
Building characteristic
All projects...........
Framing
S te e l.............................
Concrete......................
Masonry ......................
Exterior walls
Concrete......................
Masonry (brick) ...........
Wood ...........................
Other ...........................
Interior walls
Drywall ........................
Plaster ........................
Movable partitions . . . .
Other ...........................
Floor base
Concrete......................
Wood/plywood ...........
Floor covering
Terrazzo ......................
Carpet..........................
Vinyl/vlnyl-asbestos . . .
Other ..........................
Ceiling
Drywall ........................
Plaster ........................
Acoustical tile .............
Other ...........................
United States Northeast North Central
83.3
129.8
68.4
South
West
103.2
60.9
83.7
93.9
66.8
55 8
123.1
( 2)
328.7
128 1
69.9
73.6
54.2
132.9
113.9
91.4
107.3
( ')
46.0
150.8
97.1
49.3
10.19
69.5
57.7
863
220.2
85.7
101.2
( 2)
68.0
60.8
188.7
82.4
117.6
77.7
80.9
114.4
118.0
62.4
43.4
60.5
82.3
104.9
87.3
98.2
128.0
197.2
62.7
97.7
63.4
(’ )
(’ )
( 2)
69.0
102.5
96.0
<’ )
( 2)
87.7
47.1
129.8
131.8
67.9
93.1
103.2
n
73.2
41.1
93.4
84.5
91.2
76.9
53.4
99.4
87.1
55.4
(’ )
125.8
(2)
( ')
( ’ )
( ’ )
129.8
n
(')
70.4
65.1
60.4
53.1
99.4
71.5
( ’ )
( 1)
33.0
(’ )
93.4
133.8
129.2
87.5
59.4
199.1
42.0
85.6
44.7
( 1)
( ’ )
107.6
55.4
62.8
( ’ )
( ’ )
1No projects in sample.
different floor base types are compared. Terrazzo
floored offices required more hours per $1,000 and per
100 square feet than buildings with vinyl or vinyl-asbes
tos flooring, carpet, or “other” floor coverings. Further
survey data indicated that forced air heated buildings
had higher labor requirements than those heated by hot
water, radiant, or “other” types of heat. Data for build
ings with different types of heating fuel were conflicting
— oil heated buildings required more hours per 100
square feet than those using electricity, gas, or “other”
types of fuel. However, per $1,000, “other” fueled
buildings required the most labor. Data for buildings
with different roof base types and roofing types were
also inconsistent. Projects with wood roofing and those
with concrete roof base had higher labor requirements
per $1,000, but built-up roofed buildings, and wood or
plywood roof base buildings had higher requirements
per 100 square feet. Both buildings with central air-con
ditioning, as opposed to those with unit air-condition
ing, and those buildings with elevators and escalators,
as opposed to none, required more labor.
Project characteristics. National data for both hours per
$1,000 (table 3) and hours per 100 square feet (table 4)
indicated that more labor was required to build a com
mercial office building outside metropolitan areas than
within metropolitan areas. This relationship did not ex
ist in the Northeast, however, where hours per $1,000
for metro projects were slightly higher than for build
ings in nonmetro areas, and hours per 100 square feet
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Building characteristic
Pleating
Forced a ir ......................
Plot w a te r......................
Radiant...........................
O th e r.............................
Pleating fuel
Electricity ......................
Gas ...............................
Oil .................................
O th e r.............................
Air-conditioning
Central air ....................
O th e r.............................
Elevators/escalators
Elevators/escalators . . .
None .............................
Roofing
Asphalt/asbestos .........
Built-up...........................
W o o d .............................
O th e r.............................
Roof base
Steel decking ...............
Concrete ......................
W ood/plywood.............
O th e r.............................
Parking facilities
Indoor.............................
Surface ........................
Indoor and surface . . . .
No parking ....................
United States Northeast North Central
South
West
91.3
79.9
68.4
55.4
97.4
98.3
194.0
80.9
70.9
48.6
(’ )
110.8
116.5
84.2
55.4
71.3
33.0
40.6
77.2
91.6
134.9
76.2
125.6
328.7
141.9
98.2
108.6
( 1)
57.2
76.0
115.0
76.2
(’ )
n
52.0
76.9
( 1)
( ')
85.6
51.8
130.4
115.8
68.3
92.7
104.0
68.8
65.2
45.1
90.8
64.2
161.8
87.5
69.6
63.8
101.9
116.4
78.6
49.5
60.3
90.8
58.0
65.6
119.6
130.4
110.4
54.3
75.7
( 2)
102.3
(’ )
( 1)
138.9
66.5
54.0
47.3
96.6
94.4
51.0
145.2
79.7
78.5
63.9
55.3
(2)
( ’ )
( 2)
( ’ )
( ’ )
94.1
( 2)
146.0
106.5
79.1
82.6
75.5
( ’ )
76.2
66.1
66.2
84.9
83.4
81.2
84.2
( ')
( 2)
( ’ )
131.6
121.2
(’ )
116.4
100.0
104.9
( ’ )
( ')
138.9
93.5
46.6
46.6
141.0
( ’ )
2Less than 3 projects in universe.
for metro projects were more than twice as high as
those in nonmetropolitan areas.
Employee-hour data stratified by project cost size
and by number of floors above ground did not show a
consistent relationship between hours and cost, and
hours and building height. However, hours per $1,000
declined in inverse relation to the number of floors be
low ground.
Indirect and offsite labor requirements. Indirect hours
represent the labor required to produce and distribute
the materials, equipment, and supplies used in construc
tion activity.9 A total of 55.5 indirect employee hours
was generated in three industry groups: manufacturing;
trade, transportation, and services; and mining and all
other industries. The hours by industry were:
Manufacturing............. 33.0
Trade, transportation,
and services . . . . 16.6
Transportation . . . .
3.9
Wholesale trade . . . 5.3
4.9
Retail trade .............
2.5
S ervices.....................
All other industries .
M ining..........................
Agriculture..................
Construction.......... .. .
Communications . . . .
Public u tilities.............
Finance, insurance,
and real estate . . . .
Government enterp r is e s ........................
5.9
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.6
For every $1,000 of commercial office building con-
struction, the estimated indirect hours generated by the
manufacturing industry were 33. This is the largest con
tribution of indirect hours, 59 percent, and is due to the
43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Productivity Reports
nature of construction, where most labor is onsite or in
the manufacture of materials. In addition, as préfabrica
tion increases, the manufacturing industry’s percentage
of hours should grow.
Of the 97.5 employee-hours required per $1,000 of
commercial office building construction in the survey
period, 5 percent were for offsite construction, com
pared to 38 percent for onsite hours and 57 percent for
indirect hours.10 The offsite employee-hours, 4.8, repre
sent the builders’ administrative office, estimating, and
warehousing activities. (Offsite construction hours were
estimated from the ratio of nonconstruction workers to
total workers for general building contractors in the
contract construction industry.)
Costs and project characteristics
Average total cost for surveyed commercial office
buildings was $947,084. Buildings in the West cost the
least at $584,299. Those in the Northeast were some
what higher, averaging $776,372. By contrast, buildings
constructed in the North Central region averaged
$1,264,162, and South region projects averaged
$1,224,771. Cost per square foot did not correspond in
any way to average project cost. It should be noted that
over 75 percent of the projects cost less than $1 million.
Component costs for surveyed projects averaged 42.2
percent for materials, 26.7 percent for labor, 2.7 percent
for equipment, 0.6 percent for interest expense, and 27.9
percent for profit and overhead. Projects in the North
Central and South had cost components that closely
Table 3. Onsite employee-hours per $1,000 of cost by
selected project characteristic for commercial office
building construction, by region, 1972-73
United
States
Northeast
North
Central
South
West
All projects .............
37.2
37.0
32.4
44.2
31.7
Location
Metropolitan area ...........
Nonmetropolitan area, . . .
36.9
41.1
37.2
34.3
31.2
37.2
43.5
57.2
31.7
Construction value
$100,000-249,9993 .........
$250,000-499,999 ...........
$500,000-999,999 ...........
$1,000,000-2,999,999 . . .
$3,000,000-4,999,999 . . .
$5,000,000 and over . . . .
44.2
35.4
32.6
34.5
45.4
39.3
41.4
34.7
33.4
37.8
( 1)
( 2)
44.6
40.9
24.5
28.0
37.1
14.9
28.6
31.2
36.1
53.9
47.2
43.1
40.1
45.4
46.1
Floors above ground
1 floor .............................
2 to 3 floors ....................
4 to 10 floors ..................
11 to 35 floors ...............
36 to 60 floors ...............
37.7
33.2
38.4
40.5
389
35.6
37.6
31.2
30.0
28.1
40.6
( 2)
57.4
42.6
41.8
45.2
45.9
39.2
26.7
42.1
33.0
Floors below ground
1 floor .............................
2 to 3 floors ....................
4 to 5 floors ....................
37.9
35.8
11.7
37.1
( 2)
34.6
<2)
43.8
46.5
31.2
33.0
(’)
11.7
(’ )
(’)
Project characteristic
( 2)
(')
(’)
(’)
1No project in sample.
2 Less than 3 projects in universe.
3 Does not include one sampled project less than $100,000,
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
( ’)
(’)
33.0
<’ )
Table 4. Onsite employee-hours per 100 square feet, by
selected project characteristic, for commercial office
building construction, by region, 1972-73
Project characteristic
United
States
Northeast
North
Central
South
West
All projects ...........
83.3
129.8
68.4
103.2
60.9
Location
Metropolitan area .........
Nonmetropolitan area ..
82.1
96.2
144.2
66.9
62.8
97.7
102.8
109.6
60.9
(’ )
Construction value
$100,000-249,9993 . . . .
$250,000-499,999 .........
$500,000-999,999 .........
$1,000,000-2,999,999 ..
$3,000,000-4,999,999 . .
$5,000,000 and over . ..
71.4
75.2
68.5
80.3
96.2
96.8
176.5
74.9
94.1
160.3
988
95.4
48.4
57.2
( 1)
78.4
102.8
99.7
86.2
101.6
96.2
117.0
44.0
25.6
62.5
51.7
Floors above ground
1 floor ..........................
2 to 3 floors ..................
4 to 10 floors ...............
11 to 35 floors .............
36 to 60 floors .............
74.4
70.8
96.0
88.6
106.9
81.7
149.5
71.8
625
52.4
78.8
135.3
83.8
110.2
96.5
117.9
60.0
45.4
138.9
92.5
Floors below ground
1 floor ..........................
2 to 3 floors ..................
4 to 5 floors ..................
82.2
99.4
19.3
125.8
( 2)
102.2
108.9
53.1
92.5
(’ )
( ’)
( 1)
( 2)
( 2)
(’)
n
( ’)
( 2)
71.2
( 2)
19.3
(’)
92.5
( 1)
1 No project in sample.
2 Less than 3 projects in universe.
3 Does not include one sampled project less than $100,000.
paralleled the national averages (although the South did
have appreciably lower profit and overhead). By con
trast, projects in the Northeast had higher average la
bor costs (29.2 percent) and profit and overhead (33.3
percent), and correspondingly lower relative costs for
materials (35.6 percent) and equipment (1.8 percent).
The West showed lower relative costs for materials
(39.7 percent) and a higher profit and overhead (32.3
percent).
Costs per square foot averaged $22.36 overall and
varied by region: $35.13 in the Northeast, $21.10 in the
North Central, $23.36 in the South, and $19.18 in the
West.
Nationally, the average length of time required to
complete the construction of commercial office buildings
was 47.2 weeks. Projects in the South took considerably
longer— 60.0 weeks, while those in the West were com
pleted 8.8 weeks faster than the national average.
Average square feet for all surveyed projects was
42,358. For the regions, the average square footage was:
Northeast, 22,103; North Central, 59,920; South,
52,421; and West, 30,460. Just over half of the projects
had two to three floors above ground, while a third had
one floor above ground.
Commercial and Federal office buildings
Because this is the first BLS survey of commercial of
fice buildings, there is no previous study with which to
make comparisons. However, a survey of Federal office
building construction was published by the Bureau in
1976.11 Buildings in both studies were constructed at
about the same time and therefore provide the opportu
nity to compare some data, although some structures in
the Federal office building study were not similar to
those of the surveyed commercial office buildings. (The
Federal office buildings survey included Federal office
buildings, social security buildings, laboratory-office
buildings, and border stations.) In both surveys a ma
jority of the buildings had masonry exterior walls,
drywall interior walls, concrete floor bases, acoustical
tile ceilings, and built-up roof coverings. A majority in
both also had central air-conditioning, forced air
heating, and outdoor parking lots. A majority of all
Federal buildings surveyed were one to three stories;
while over 85 percent of commercial office buildings
were one or two stories. In addition, a majority of the
construction value for both surveys was put in place
during the same period, 1972-73.
Commercial office buildings required 7.4 fewer total
hours per $1,000 than projects in the Federal office
building survey (15 percent fewer hours). Commercial
office building onsite labor requirements were also lower
— 37.2 hours compared to 42.8 hours. However, the
biggest percent difference was for offsite hours— 4.8
hours for commercial office buildings and 6.6 for all
types of Federal office buildings. Commercial office
buildings also required fewer hours per 100 square feet.
The tabulation summarizes these comparisons in hourly
requirements:
1972-73 office
buildings
Per $1,000 (current) Per 100 square feet
Total Onsite Offsite Total Onsite Offsite
Commercial office
buildings . . . .
42.0
37.2
4.8
94.0
83.3
10.7
All Federal
buildings . . . .
49.4
42.8
6.6
204.1
176.8
27.2
Average cost per project was about $947,000 for
commercial office buildings, compared with $2,780,000
for Federal office buildings. This difference may account
for some of the disparity in labor requirements shown
in the text tabulation. Cost per square foot also differed
considerably. Surveyed commercial office buildings cost
about 45 percent less per square foot than the surveyed
Federal office buildings: $22.36 to $41.28. Commercial
office buildings cost less in every region: in the N orth
east— 41 percent less; in the North Central — 36 per
cent less; in the South — 35 percent less; and in the
West— 51 percent less.
The major components percent of construction costs
for the two studies again showed there were large vari
ances in the data. The largest difference was a much
lower profit and overhead component for Federal office
buildings— 12.5 percent less than commercial buildings’
profit and overhead.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Industry overview
How much commercial office building construction is
done each year is heavily dependent on the economy—
and in particular on each area’s outlook for growth: the
current local office occupancy rates; money market con
ditions; local, State, and Federal incentives; and avail
able labor. In 1979, the value put in place for private
office building construction was $9.5 billion, a con
siderable increase over 1975’s $5 billion even if inflation
is taken into account.12 Most of this newly constructed
space is being occupied, or will be occupied, by existing
companies that are expanding.
The future activity level of this particular segment of
construction is even harder to predict than the level of
the economy, on which construction activity depends so
much. However, some estimates show that there will be
a surplus of office space by 1983 when most larger
buildings now under construction will be completed.13
Technology and construction
Recent trends. Rarely are there any major “break
through” type technological changes in construction.
Rather, new ideas, which usually affect one facet of
construction, are continually being developed. The ideas
are first tested on one or two projects, and then, if suc
cessful and accepted, spread gradually throughout the
industry. New ideas in design and construction that
have led to savings in time and cost have often involved
lighter or stronger materials; new materials combina
tions which were largely prefabbed offsite; increased use
of modular systems in design and construction; innova
tive management techniques like fast-tracking, which is
the overlapping of construction phases that are ordi
narily sequential; and increased use of computers.
In the early 1970’s, the general trends and changes in
commercial office building design and construction in
cluded some that were basically technological, and oth
ers that were related to design, energy consumption,
government regulation, tenant requirements, and so
forth. Among the trends and changes in this period
were: increased environmental considerations; better in
terior space programming and planning techniques; im
proved heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
systems; better insulation and increased use of solar
heat-reducing glass; improvements in the design and
detailing of glass curtain walls; design advancements for
rigid-framing, increased use of modules; and new solu
tions to high-rise wind-load problems.14
Energy. Owners, architects, engineers, and contractors
are all looking for new ways to reduce energy costs.
Fuel shortages, the general need to cut costs, and the
emergence of energy conservation performance stan
dards have led to a myriad of new ideas as well as in45
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Productivity Reports
creased implementation of older energy conservation
techniques. Through building design and the choice of
materials and mechanical systems to be used, energy
can be conserved in two basic ways: actively and pas
sively. The former (like solar equipment) is usually
much more expensive, so the estimated payback period
is examined closely before an owner will agree to such a
design. The ever rising cost of energy, however, is mak
ing many of the payback periods shorter.
Some of the routine features now included in many of
the office building designs are: solar oriented siting,
double glazed windows or tinted glass, reduction of
window area, internal heat recovery systems, energy ef
ficient lighting, computerized heating and cooling sys
tems, openable and recessed windows, and earth berms.
Most of these features do not add much to the cost of
building and are passive conservation measures.
Some of the more innovative, expensive, and elabo
rate (and less common) features found in conservationoriented designs include: extensive atriums, low and
broad building configurations (as opposed to office tow
ers), special patented insulated curtain wall and ceiling
systems, solar heating, elaborate heat recovery systems
(requiring no heating plant), well water cooling, and un
derground buildings. A relatively low, broad building
for instance, can provide increased usable space and yet
have less outside surface area than a tower building,
which leads to energy savings. Such a design also re
duces construction cost because less heavy steel or con
crete framing is needed.
High-rise towers present many challenges to
engineers and architects. One of the most difficult chal
lenges is designing the structure to resist wind-loads.
One industry expert summarizes some of the new struc
tural solutions to high-rise problems by explaining the
new possibilities for growth in skycrapers, brought
about by the advent of bundled-tube and stress-tube
systems for steel structures, and framed-tube, tube-in
tube, and modular-tube systems for tall concrete struc
tures.15
One common but fairly new technological develop
ment used in design and construction that has had a
large impact, is the module. A module, which is based
on standardization of sizes of materials, designs, and
client requirements, can reduce the time required for
both design and construction. Modules are often used
extensively in structural framing, lighting, air-condition
ing and heating, power supply and communications,
partitions, and built-in or movable furniture.
The use of precast concrete, versus cast-in-place con
crete, is another example of an idea which produces
savings in labor and construction time, and in this case
also provides better quality control. For example, an $8
million hotel addition, which was built using a modular
precast concrete building system, was completed 30 per
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent faster than would have been possible if cast-in
place concrete had been used.16
Another innovation in the use of precast concrete is
precast concrete bents, which eliminates the need for
shear walls because the bents themselves are able to
bear weight and resist moment forces. They can also
serve as the primary architectural elements.17 Because
the bents are cast in one piece, they do not have the
heavy joint lines common to precast concrete. These
lines are usually very unattractive, so the concrete struc
tures cannot be used as architectural elements. Very few
units are required because they cast a beam and two
columns simultaneously in each bent. This also helps re
duce construction time.
Other changes in construction processes. In general, pré
fabrication is most fully utilized in construction through
the use of systems techniques. This is the process of
combining prefabricated assemblies and components
into single integrated units using industrialized produc
tion, assembly, and methods. Systems or systems build
ing can be employed in erecting or installing exteriors,
flooring, ceiling, walls, mechanical and lighting
elements, or several combinations of these elements.
Generally this will lead to a reduction in onsite labor
requirements and an increase in offsite and indirect la
bor hours.
Another change in the design and management of
construction projects, the increased use of computers,
has had a more limited impact because of the industry’s
slow and cautious reaction to innovation, and the stateof-the-art in computers which offered little incentive to
change. In the past, the large mainframe computers
were often used only for one application and this result
ed in relatively small incremental savings. The recent
advent <5f the smaller, less expensive, and easier to use
computers, plus the availability of prepackaged software
programs, have made it easier for computers to be used
in all phases of construction: planning, designing, man
aging, and building. However, they are still not com
monplace. Only a few larger firms have fully integrated
systems.18Only about one-third of civil engineers and 40
percent of contractors use small computers.19 In the fu
ture, the increasing complexity and cost of construction
design and management will increase the potential use
fulness of computers even to smaller firms. The design
and construction firms will have to contend with an
ever increasing number of environmental and energy
regulations; local, State, and Federal laws; community
group pressures; and labor demands. There is also
growing client awareness and increasing inflation to
consider. All of these complex constraints simply em
phasize the need for coordination of all available infor
mation and the need to be able to make rapid
responses, all of which a computer can facilitate. In ad-
dition, construction contractors could use a computer
while carrying out many of their business functions,
such as accounting, drawing graphics, drafting, prepar
ing bids, and compiling payrolls.
Another change in construction, which is more wide
spread and has been employed for a longer period of
time, is in the method of managing. Critical Path Meth
od ( c p m ), Program Evaluation and Review Technique
( p e r t ), and fast-tracking all try to speed the construc
tion process through tight coordination and cooperation
among a project’s owners, architects, engineers, and var
ious contractors. This coordination often begins during
the design phase; contractors are sometimes brought in
for early consultations, some materials are ordered far in
advance of use, and actual construction may even be
started. Very often, systems building is used in conjunc
tion with fast-tracking, p e r t and c p m are systems of
management that allow for tight control of this over
lapping by providing a detailed time and cost schedule,
and identifying the critical path, the sequence of events
which, if delayed, would slow the entire project.
Another variation, that is actually a change in man
ager and not method of management, is the emergence
of construction managers. A construction manager, who
can be a general contractor or a specialized company,
oversees and manages the entire project for the owner.
They are found most frequently on large construction
projects.
□
FOOTNOTES
' Employment-year estimates were computed using 1,800 hours for
onsite construction and 2,000 hours for offsite construction. Average
hours per job in 1973 for the other industries are: agriculture— 2,374;
mining—-2,173; construction — 2,028; manufacturing — 2,095; trans
portation— 2,149; communications — 2,080; public utilities — 2,152;
wholesale trade — 2,136; retail trade— 2,019; finance, insurance and
real estate— 1,991; services— 1,862; and government enterprises —
2,134.
: Indirect labor data were developed by aggregating the materials,
supplies, and equipment values by general type, and then deflating the
dollar total for each type by the appropriate Producer Price Index.
These constant dollar values of materials, equipment, and supplies
were then processed through the Bureau’s input-output model to gen
erate estimates of final demand. Sector productivity factors were then;
applied to derive employee-hours for the manufacturing industries;
trade, transportation, and services industries; and mining and all oth
er industries. These estimates are the indirect labor hours generated
by the construction activity.
Offsite construction labor requirements were estimated from the ra
tio of nonconstruction workers to total workers for general building
contractors in the contract construction industry, as shown in Em
ployment and Earnings.
The 1972-3 onsite hours required for commercial office building
construction were adjusted for price and productivity factors in esti
mating the 1980 labor requirements. The 1980 estimates are based on
1972-73 commercial office building survey data and the rate of
change in onsite hours between 1959 and 1973 for Federal office
building construction.
The price deflator is the average of the Census Bureau single family
housing deflator, Turner Construction Co. deflator, and the Federal
Highways Administration deflator (or the non-residential building de
flator): 1959 = 59.5, 1972=100, 1972-3=104.6, 1980 = 217.9 (prelimi
nary). The annual rate of change used was —2 percent. From this
rate a compound interest factor for the 6 1/2-year span was applied
to the hours, which were adjusted by the cost index.
4 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Table 1— New Construction Put
in Place, Construction Reports (C30:-80-5) May 1980, p. 4.
' The length of time between the data year and the year of publica
tion is due to several factors. A considerable amount of time was
needed to define and refine the universe, to design and select the sam
ple, and to collect, compile, and verify the data. For each surveyed
project, many personal visits to contractors and subcontractors, with
followup visits, were required. Additional time was required for prep
aration and publication of the results. Nevertheless, the data present
ed indicate trends in labor requirements and are useful in analyzing
changes in factors over periods of time. The data also serve as bench
marks for developing current estimates of employment generating
effects of construction expenditures.
"Although the overall U.S. and regional data provided by the sur
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vey are believed to be accurate, the detailed data would have a wider
margin of sampling error and may be subject to other limitations. Ex
cept for the nonresponding sample units and the data estimated by
the contractor, there are no known sources of nonsampling error.
Sampling variances will be made available at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
7Data were provided for the continental United States and four
broad geographic regions: Northeast — Connecticut, Maine, Massa
chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont; North Central — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South — Alabama, Arkansas,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisi
ana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Caroli
na, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; and West —
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexi
co, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
* Employee-hour requirements are affected by a number of factors
such as location, size of project, type of structure, labor skills, and lo
cal building codes and customs. The effects of these separate factors
cannot be isolated.
The Office of Economic'Growth, Bureau of Labor Statistics, uses
the input-output tables of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. De
partment of Commerce to generate the indirect hours from the mate
rials, equipment, and supply cost data provided by this survey. The
data used in this study were prepared by Karen Horowitz.
111Offsite employee-hours represent the builder’s administrative of
fice, estimating, and warehousing activities. The following procedure
was used to calculate offsite construction employee-hours. Employeehours worked by administrative personnel were subtracted from total
onsite hours obtained in the survey. The amount of administrative
hours was taken from survey data. The percentage that these “adjust
ed” onsite hours were of total hours was found in Employment and
Earnings, United States 19-08-78, Bulletin 1312-11. (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1979) and a total hour figure was calculated. From this to
tal hour figure, onsite hours, including administrative hours, were
subtracted to obtain offsite hours. Administrative hours were
subtracted from onsite hours only for calculation of total hours, be
cause the administrative hours are not included in the construction
worker employment figures in Employment and Earnings. Administra
tive hours worked onsite are included in all onsite hour data pre
sented.
" See John G. Olsen, “Decline noted in hours required to erect
Federal office buildings,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1976, pp.
18-22.
1 The Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, dollar
amounts for value put in place are higher than F.W. Dodge’s contract
value data. The following Census data on value put in place for com
mercial office building construction are in billions of current dollars:
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981
1972
1973
1974
1975
-
-
$ 5,269
5,984
6,118
4,973
1976
1977
1978
1979
-
-
Productivity Reports
4,763
5,269
6,574
9,461
4 Schmertz, Mildred F., editor, Office Building Design (McGrawHill Book Company, New York), 1975, p. viii.
15Schmertz, Office Building Design, p. viii.
Data for 1972-73 are from U.S. Department of Commerce, “Table
A-2. — New Construction Put in Place in the United States in Current
and Constant (1972) Dollars,” Construction Review, March 1979, p.
23; 1974-79 data are from U.S. Department of Commerce, “Table 1
— Value of New Construction Put in Place,” Construction Reports
(C30-80-5), May 1980, p. 24.
" “A towering rise in downtown construction,” Engineering News
Record, March 5, 1979, p. 97.
“System cuts 30 percent from ‘building time’,” Engineering News
Record, May 31, 1979, p. 11.
17 “Precast bent disguises strength with good looks,” Engineering
News Record, December 13, 1979, pp. 40-41.
111“Construction’s newest tool is small, low cost, highly produc
tive,” Engineering News Record, August 4, 1977, p. 20.
14“Optimizing the construction process” (editorial), Engineering
News Record, August 4, 1977, p. 80.
The pension punch
. . . It has been estimated that pension funds overall control more
than $.5 trillion, of which nearly half is to be found in funds set up
and controlled at least in part by unions. While such funds are often
technically directed by some combination of employer and union rep
resentatives, the experience of the Teamsters Central States Fund is
instructive as to the extent the employer-named directors seldom con
stitute an independent force.
Half a trillion dollars is a massive source of investment capital
which constitutes a massive threat should an employer be the recipi
ent of fund capital or seeking capital from the fund. Several observers,
who implicitly support such uses of pension capital for union organi
zational purposes, have criticized the current operation of these funds
because, for example, large portions of the fund investments surveyed
have gone to nonunion firms. Yet this criticism seems misplaced, even
granting the validity of the observer’s point of view: the problem is
not that an unacceptable amount of pension fund money is going to
support nonunion firms but that union officials are not using this fact
as a lever to accomplish their aim of transforming these firms into
unionized enterprises. After all, you can’t induce a firm to unionize by
threatening to withdraw needed capital (capital the firm has become
used to having) if it isn’t already invested there. Whatever the criti
cisms, however, it is evident that some unions and some union activ
ists have been vigorously exploring the limits of the pension fund
“card” ; they are testing various techniques for using this card in wellorchestrated unionizing stratagems . . .
— Ja m e s T. B e n n e t t
and
M a n u a l H. Jo h n s o n
Pushbutton Unionism
(Fairfax, Va., George Mason University,
Contemporary Economics & Business
Association, 1980), pp. 13-14.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
Working mothers
and their children
A l l y s o n Sh e r m a n G r o ssm an
At the outset of the 1980’s, children with working
mothers are more the rule rather than the exception. In
March, 53 percent of all children under age 18— a total
of 30.7 million— had mothers who were either
employed or looking for work. (See table 1.) New mari
tal patterns, relatively high inflation, and smaller fami
lies have all contributed to increases in women’s labor
force activity. By early 1980, more than 17 million
mothers of children under age 18 were in the work
force, 44 percent more than in 1970. (See table 2.)
Moreover, in the past 10 years, the number of children
whose mothers were in the labor force has grown by
more than 5 million despite the falling birth rate and
the consequent reduction in the total number of chil
dren in the population.1
Changing family patterns
During the past decade, the marital and family com
position of the population has undergone pervasive
changes. Among the most prominent were the declining
incidence of marriage and childbearing among young
women. Between March 1970 and March 1980, the pro
portion of never-married women among all those 20 to
24 years old increased from 36 to 50 percent, while
among those age 25 to 29, the proportion almost dou
bled from 11 to 21 percent. At the same time, many
young women who chose to marry exhibited an in
creased propensity toward childlessness, delayed
childbearing, and smaller families. For instance, in June
1979 about 6 percent of all married women between the
ages of 25 and 34 reported that they expected to remain
childless throughout their lifetimes, compared with
about 3 percent in 1967. Among wives who intended to
have children, motherhood was often postponed. Young
women who had their first child between 1975 and 1978
did so an average of 2 years after marriage, about 9
months later than did women who married a decade
Allyson Sherman Grossman is an economist in the Office of Current
Employment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ago. In addition, only slightly more than 3 of 10 wives
expected to have 3 children or more. In 1967, this figure
was more than 6 of 10.2
Increased labor market activity among women may
be related to these lowered expectations to a large ex
tent, as women who work outside their homes charac
teristically have smaller families than women not in the
labor force. For example, in June 1979, working wives
aged 18 to 24 expected on average to have two children
while those who were out of the labor force intended to
have a little more than two. In addition, wives who are
in the labor force usually have their children later in life
than do those who are not working outside their homes.
In 1979, working wives between 18 and 24 years old
had given birth to an average of less than 30 percent of
the youngsters they expected to have during their life
times, while nonworking wives had given birth to more
than 50 percent. Similar patterns existed among older
wives.3
Reflecting these trends in childbearing, the birth rate
plummeted, and in 1975-76 hit the lowest level ever re
corded. Since then, the rate has edged up slightly to
15.9 births per thousand women in the population4 as
women further into their childbearing years now begin
to have the offspring they postponed at the outset of
the 1970’s. In the year ending with March 1980, the
Table 1. Number of own children under 18 years old, by
age, type of family, and labor force status of mother,
March 1970 and March 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
Item
Total c h ild re n '........................
Mother in labor force .........
Mother not in labor force . . .
Husband-wife families.............
Mother in labor force .........
Mother not in labor force .. .
Families maintained by women2
Mother in labor force .........
Mother not in labor force . . .
Families maintained by men2 .
Total children
under 18
Children 6 to 17 Children under 6
March
1970
March
1980'
March
1970
March
1980'
March
1970
March
1980'
65,755
25,544
39,550
58,399
21,982
36,417
6,695
3,562
3,133
661
58,107
30,663
26,493
46,829
24,218
22,611
10,327
6,445
3,882
951
46,149
19,954
25,627
40,479
17,035
23,444
5,102
2,919
2,183
568
40,688
23,196
16,722
32,150
18,032
14,118
7,768
5,164
2,604
771
19,606
5,590
13,923
17,920
4,947
12,973
1,593
643
950
93
17,418
7,467
9,771
14,679
6,186
8,493
2,559
1,281
1,278
180
1Children are defined as “ own” children of the family. Included are never-married sons,
daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children. Excluded are other related children such as
grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cousins, and unrelated children.
2 Includes only divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married persons.
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals,
r = revised.
N ote :
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries
number of children below age 6 registered its first in
crease in a decade. However, this growth of nearly
440,000 was more than offset by a greater drop in the
school-age population (children 6 to 17 years old).
Thus, a net decline occurred in the total population of
youngsters below age 18; and over the decade, the num
ber of children in this age group living in families
dropped by more than 7.5 million.
Besides a dwindling youth population, the dual influ
ences of marital disruption and of parenthood among
never-married women have resulted in some changing
family structures. For instance, while the number of
children living in two-parent families fell significantly,
substantial increases were registered in the number liv
ing with only one parent. Whereas in March 1970,
about 1 child of 9 lived solely with either a mother or a
father; by March 1980, this proportion had grown to
almost 1 in 5. Although the vast majority of these chil
dren lived with their mothers, the number living with
their fathers only had also risen substantially. However,
less than 2 percent of all children reside solely with
their fathers.
More children with working mothers
Even with a declining youth population, the number
and proportion of children with working mothers
climbed steadily between 1970 and 1980. During this
time, women entered the labor force at an unprecedent
ed pace, averaging over 1 million net additions each
year except for 1970-71, a recessionary period. The
greatest labor force gains were posted among women 25
to 34 years of age. Many in this age group, who in oth
er times typically stopped working for marriage or
childbearing, are no longer doing so. Their labor force
participation rate advanced by 21 percentage points in
10 years, reaching 66 percent in March 1980. Because
nearly 7 of 10 women this age have children, more
youngsters than ever before have working mothers.
As expected, younger children are less likely than
older ones to have mothers in the labor force. Of all
those living with both parents, the proportions whose
mothers were employed or looking for work ranged
from 42 percent for those below age 6, to 54 percent for
those ages 6 to 13, and to 59 percent for those 14 to 17
years old. (See table 3.) These proportions were signifi
cantly greater for children living with their mothers
only, but the same order prevailed.
That proportionately fewer younger than older chil
dren have working mothers results from the interaction
of many factors. First, the belief of some mothers that
only a parent can provide the loving, caring environ
ment that a young child needs to be properly nurtured
may limit some women’s labor force activity. Others
find that adequate care for young children, particularly
for those below age 2, is difficult to locate. Arrange
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ments for older children — who attend school for most
of the day— are somewhat easier to make. Then, too,
the cost of quality care for a young child may be pro
hibitive. Also, because many of the mothers of young
children are young themselves, they may lack the edu
cation, skills, and experience necessary for some of to
day’s jobs.
Racial differences
Besides age, race and family structure also influence
the likelihood of a child having a mother in the work
force. Overall, black children are more likely than white
children to have a mother in the labor force— 57 per-
Table 2. Families with children under 18 years old by
age, type of family, and employment status of parents,
March 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
Families with children under 18 years
Item
6 to 13
14 to 17
years, none years, none
younger
younger
Total
Under
6 years
Total families with children . . . .
Mother In labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
30,811
17,107
15,961
1,147
13,076
13,260
6,105
5,544
560
7,002
11,772
7,476
7,031
444
4,058
5,778
3,526
3,385
142
2,016
Married-couple fam ilies...........
Mother In labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
24,580
13,352
12,606
747
11,227
11,092
5,008
4,623
384
6,084
9,130
5,695
5,418
276
3,435
4,358
2,650
2,564
86
1,708
Father in labor force ...............
Mother in labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
23,016
12,661
11,968
693
10,355
10,488
4,769
4,406
363
5,718
8,559
5,403
5,150
253
3,157
3,969
2,489
2,412
77
1,480
Father employed......................
Mother in labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
22,026
12,149
11,534
614
9,877
9,918
4,534
4,220
314
5,384
8,245
5,192
4,962
230
3,053
3,863
2,423
2,352
71
1,440
Father unemployed..................
Mother In labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
990
513
434
79
477
569
235
186
49
334
314
211
188
23
103
106
66
60
7
40
Father not in labor force .........
Mother in labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
1,051
443
408
35
608
295
108
100
8
187
403
198
179
19
205
353
137
128
8
216
Father in Armed Forces...........
Mother in labor fo rc e ...........
Employed ........................
Unemployed ....................
Mother not in labor force . ..
513
248
230
19
264
310
131
117
14
179
167
94
89
5
73
36
23
23
Other families with children1
Maintained by women .........
Mother in labor force . . . .
Employed ....................
Unemployed ...............
Mother not in labor force .
5,604
3,755
3,355
400
1,849
2,015
1,097
921
176
918
2,405
1,781
1,613
168
623
1,185
876
821
56
308
627
153
238
236
Maintained by men .............
12
11ncludes only those families maintained by divorced, separated, widowed, or never-mar
ried parents.
N ote :
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
cent compared with 52 percent in March 1980. This re
lationship prevailed for children living in two-parent
families. However, among children living in solo-parent
families, white ones were more likely than black ones to
have a working parent.
The greater incidence of working mothers among
black children living with both parents reflects the his
torically higher labor force participation of black wives.
Financial pressures have forced these women to work
outside their homes to a much greater extent than their
white counterparts. As early as 1926, the Women’s Bu
reau of the Department of Labor reported, “ . . . it is a
well known fact that most Negro women must continue
as breadwinners practically all their adult lives, mar
riage rarely meaning a withdrawal from the wage earn
ing ranks.” 5 Until the mid-1970’s, the labor force
participation rate for black wives was about 12 to 14
percentage points higher than that for white wives. At
that juncture, as white wives began joining the work
force at a faster pace than black wives, racial differences
between the labor force participation rates of wives nar
rowed. As a result, the gap between the shares of chil
dren in two-parent families whose mothers worked
outside their homes also closed somewhat. From March
1970 to March 1980 the proportion of white children
living in these circumstances grew from 36 to 51 per
cent, while for black children, it increased from 52 to
62 percent.
In one-parent families, where half of all black chil
dren live, the racial differences in the proportion of chil
dren with working mothers have remained fairly stable.
Although both white and black mothers in these cir
cumstances show a growing tendency to work, black
children in such families are still less apt than white
ones to have a mother in the labor force. Black mothers
maintaining families are younger and less educated than
their white counterparts, and through the years these
factors have worked against their labor market success.
In addition, black families maintained by women are
much more likely than similar white families to contain
preschoolers. These young children have a further
inhibiting effect on their mothers’ labor force participa
tion. Moreover, black families maintained by women
were more apt to receive public assistance than were
comparable white families.6 Thus, in March 1980, 55
percent of the black children living with only their
mothers had a working parent, compared with 67 per
cent of white children. Ten years earlier these figures
were 47 percent and 57 percent. In both white and
black solo-parent families, older children were much
more likely than those who were younger to have a
mother in the labor force.
Because Hispanic women characteristically have low
er levels of labor force participation than either black or
white women, a smaller proportion of their children
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
have working mothers. In early 1980, about 44 percent
of all Hispanic youngsters below age 18 had mothers in
the work force with no differences registered by family
type.
Family incomes
Regardless of race or family type, children whose
mothers were in the labor force were in families with
considerably higher incomes, on average, than were
children with nonworking mothers. For all two-parent
families, median income in 1979 was about $24,400 for
families where the mother was in the labor force and
$20,200 for families where she was not.
Although the earnings of white and black wives are
approximately equal, white children more frequently
Table 3. Children under 18 years old by age, type of
family, and employment status of parents, March 1980
[Numbers in thousands]
Children under 18 years
Item
Total
Under
6 years
6 to 13
years
14 to 17
years
Total children..........................
Mother in labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
58,107
30,663
28,419
2,244
26,493
17,418
7,467
6,694
774
9,771
25,966
14,457
13,424
1,033
11,128
14,723
8,738
8,300
438
5,594
Married-couple families...........
Mother in labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force . ..
46,829
24,218
22,779
1,438
22,611
14,679
6,186
5,667
519
8,493
20,671
11,241
10,593
648
9,430
11,479
6,791
6,520
271
4,688
Father in labor fo rc e ...............
Mother in labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not In labor force . ..
43,874
22,990
21,655
1,335
20,884
13,875
5,896
5,407
489
7,978
19,402
10,692
10,094
597
8,711
10,597
6,402
6,154
248
4,195
Father employed ....................
Mother In labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force . . .
41,843
21,996
20,818
1,178
19,847
13,069
5,595
5,174
421
7,474
18,531
10,212
9,685
527
8,320
10,242
6,189
5,959
230
4,053
Father unemployed ...............
Mother in labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force .. .
2,031
994
837
156
1,037
805
301
233
68
504
871
480
409
71
391
355
213
195
18
142
Father not In labor fo rc e .........
Mother in labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force .. .
2,051
804
730
74
1,247
406
131
119
12
275
881
353
314
40
528
764
320
298
23
444
Father In Armed Forces .........
Mother In labor force .........
Employed........................
Unemployed....................
Mother not in labor force . ..
904
424
394
30
480
398
159
141
18
239
388
196
185
11
192
118
68
68
1
49
Other families1
Maintained by w om en.........
Mother In labor force . . . .
Employed....................
Unemployed ...............
Mother not in labor force .
10,327
6,445
5,639
806
3,882
2,559
1,281
1,027
254
1,278
4,915
3,216
2,831
385
1,698
2,853
1,948
1,781
167
906
951
180
380
391
Maintained by m e n .............
' Includes only those children in families maintained by divorced, separated, widowed, or
never-married parents.
N ote :
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
51
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries
live in families with higher average incomes than do
black children. This results from the fact that the earn
ings of white husbands far exceed those of black hus
bands. Among white children in two-parent families,
median family income was $24,800 when the mother
worked and $20,800 when she did not. Comparable me
dian incomes for black families were $20,800 and
$13,500. (See table 4.)
A substantial number of children are either wholly or
partially dependent on their mothers’ earnings for a
large share of their support. In March 1980, 1 of 4 chil
dren— 14.4 million— lived in families where the father
was absent (10.3 million), unemployed (2.0 million), or
out of the labor force (2.1 million). The number of chil
dren in these circumstances jumped by more than 1
million over the year. Reflecting the effects of the eco
nomic slowdown, about half of this rise occurred in
families where the father became unemployed. The re
maining increase occurred among families from which
the father was absent. More than 5 of 10 black children
and 2 of 10 white children were living in one of these
situations, proportions slightly higher than in previous
years.
The earnings that a working mother provides can
make a substantial contribution to family income in
each of the above circumstances. When the mother was
in the labor force, median income in 1979 for families
with children ranged from $18,500 for those in which
the father was unemployed, to $15,400 for those in
which the father was out of the labor force, and
$10,100 for those in which the father was absent. Corre
sponding medians when the mother was not in the la
bor force were $12,000, $8,300, and $4,600.
Child rearing costs grow
The increasing labor force participation of wives may
be motivated by many factors, including what are per
ceived as economic realities. In the Nation’s early rural
history, the value of offspring included a large monetary
component. However, children today represent clear fi
nancial costs to their parents. These costs include the
actual monetary outlays required to supply the child’s
needs and the opportunity costs of the mother’s time
devoted to full-time child care. A study, updating a
1969 report by the Commission on Population Growth
and the American Future,7 estimated that in 1980, the
total direct cost of raising a child from birth through
college ranged from $58,200 for those families whose af
ter-tax income was between $14,000 and $18,000, to
$85,200 for those whose disposable income was between
$22,500 and $27,000. These costs represent increases of
about 33 percent from 1977.8
When the earnings forgone by the mother were in
cluded, the estimated costs of raising children skyrock-
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Children under 18 years old by age, type of
family, labor force status of mother, and race and Hispanic
origin, March 1980, and median family income, 1979
Two-parent families
Item
White
Black
Hispanic
One-parent families
maintained by women1
White
Black
Hispanic
Numbers (in thousands)
Children under age 18 .........
Mether in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force . .
41,915
21,235
20,680
3,864
2,395
1,470
3,657
1,611
2,046
6,376
4,275
2,100
3,792
2,090
1,702
947
453
494
Children under age 6 ...........
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force . .
13,148
5,344
7,804
1,182
681
501
1,334
504
830
1,482
786
697
1,028
478
550
313
113
200
Children age 6 to 1 3 .............
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force . .
18,452
9,808
8,644
1,741
1,150
591
1,593
744
850
3,081
2,128
953
1,768
1,054
714
441
239
203
Children age 14 to 1 7 ...........
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force . .
10,315
6,083
4,232
942
564
377
730
363
366
1,813
1,362
451
996
559
438
193
101
92
Median family income, 1979
Children under age 18 ......... $22,900 $17,800
Mother in labor force . . . .
24,800 20,800
Mother not in labor force . . 20,800 13,500
$16,600
20,100
13,400
$ 8,400 $ 6,200
11,200
8,200
4,600
4,700
$ 5,500
8,200
4,700
Children under age 6 ...........
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force . .
19,800
21,200
18,700
16,400
19,800
13,100
14,200
17,500
11,800
5,200
8,300
3,800
4,500
6,300
3,500
4,500
6,400
4,200
Children age 6 to 1 3 .............
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force ..
23,300
24,900
21,400
18,500
21,200
13,600
17,200
20,100
14,000
8,300
10,700
4,900
6,500
8,300
4,800
6,000
8,500
5,200
Children age 14 to 1 7 ...........
Mother in labor force . . . .
Mother not in labor force ..
27,300
29,000
24,300
18,000
21,100
14,000
20,600
24,100
16,600
12,100
13,900
6,200
7,800
9,500
5,900
6,800
10,200
5,300
1Includes only divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parents.
N ote :
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
et. It was contended that by staying out of the labor
force until her child was age 15, a mother, on average,
would forgo an estimated $130,000 in year-round, full
time earnings, with the amount varying by the mother’s
educational level. Those lost over a 15-year period were
calculated to be about $93,000, while those lost to
mothers with post-graduate college educations would be
$189,000. In any event, the estimates of earnings
forgone far outweighed what were considered the direct
costs. Moreover, the marginal costs of any additional
children represent substantial outlays. Consequently,
the combination of forgone career opportunities and ex
tensive costs may be among the prominent reasons
young women are planning smaller families and are re
turning to the labor force sooner than before.
Child care
Day-care centers enroll only a very small proportion
of the Nation’s children.9 Presently, child-care arrange
ments in the United States range from formally struc
tured programs to informal agreements between
neighbors. Day-care facilities may be public, private, or
proprietary, or employer- or union-sponsored. An inves
tigation found:
Child-care activities generally are carried out through units
of State or local government or by voluntary bodies, often
with public funds which may involve a mix of Federal,
State, and local contributions. Although the Federal Gov
ernment sets general standards and some guidelines, State
and local governments are responsible for establishing, ad
ministering, and supervising these arrangements.10
Not surprisingly, these researchers concluded, “The
structure of child care in the United States does not
lend itself to any classification into clearly delineated
systems of care.” "
The provision of day-care services for the children of
working mothers has mirrored social and economic
needs. When women workers have been needed during
wartime, institutional arrangements have been made for
the care of their children. In other times, day care has
been used as a means of facilitating employment for
those who otherwise would have remained unemployed.
Additionally, (though not primarily), formal child-care
situations have been used as part of the socialization
process to enrich the lives of the children themselves.
Day-care facilities for children of working mothers
first became available in the United States in the early
19th century.12 In 1828, the Boston Infant School was
opened to help both employed parents and their chil
dren. This private school, along with a few other nurs
eries, constituted most of the child-care facilities until
the Civil War.
During that war, as was to become customary during
most war periods, the Federal Government sponsored
its first day-care arrangement. Established in Phil
adelphia in 1863, it provided a facility for the children
of women employed in wartime clothing factories and
hospitals. After the war, this particular nursery contin
ued to receive Federal money in order to care for chil
dren of working war widows.
Without the urgent need for female workers after the
Civil War, national concern for child-care facilities
quickly diminished. Then, as immigrants from Europe
and Ireland flooded into the country during the latter
part of the 19th century, interest was again aroused in
day care for the poor. The economic upheavals that oc
curred in the aftermath of the Civil War were further
exacerbated by the waves of new arrivals. Among oth
ers, charitable societies were organized to provide day
time care for children. Twofold in purpose, these groups
strove both to ease the working mothers’ plight and to
assimilate immigrant children into the mainstream of
society. Overall, the mother received most of the atten
tion from these day nurseries. Working women were
generally the object of pity. Unless widowed, they were
often regarded as the victim of an irresponsible, lazy, or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
criminal husband. The mother’s employment was seen
as the only means of keeping the family together.
Therefore, these charitable organizations attempted to
find jobs for the mothers, and often placed them as pri
vate household workers in the homes of the families
who ran the nurseries.
Use of day-care facilities became less stigmatized at
the turn of the century when they came under the scru
tiny of America’s first generation of college-educated
women. Influenced by a new wave of feminism, these
women were interested in improving the human condi
tion and women’s lot in particular. Associations of pri
vate day nurseries were formed to safeguard the quality
of child-care services.
Throughout the 20th century the provision of child
care services has seen many peaks and troughs.
Depending on the needs and moods of the country, pro
grams were alternately geared up or phased out.
For instance, as labor force participation of women
increased with the advent of World War I, demand for
child care grew. It was met through the expansion of
existing facilities and the opening of new operations
sponsored by local governments. However, after the
war, the provision of day care diminished. Immigration
slowed, militant feminism collapsed in the wake of the
passage of the 19th amendment, and many States began
providing widows with pensions which allowed mothers
to stay at home. In addition, widespread prosperity of
the 1920’s obscured the needs of those less well off.
Then, with the onset of the Depression, provisions for
the establishment of day-care facilities were contained
in a great deal of the emergency legislation that focused
on stimulating the economy. The rationale for these ini
tiatives was to provide jobs in the day-care centers for
some of the unemployed. Care of children was of sec
ondary importance. When the economic climate im
proved, funding of these centers stopped, and they
rapidly disappeared.
The years during World War II witnessed another
surge in demand for day care, and the Federal provision
of these services reached its high point. At the peak, 1.6
million children were enrolled in more than 3,000 cen
ters which were constructed and operated at a cost of
$51 million. When the war ended, most of the centers
closed. An era of domesticity settled upon the Nation,
and many women left the labor force. The child-care
needs of those women who continued to work met
through the emergence of a network of day-care homes.
D u r in g t h e 1960’s, some child-care programs, such as
Head Start, were established under social welfare legis
lation seeking to improve the lives of poor children.13
Other services were instituted to allow welfare recipients
to obtain employment. In the 1970’s, increased tax relief
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries
was enacted for the growing number of mothers who
work.14 While other avenues— such as employer-spon
sored facilities— have become somewhat more common
place in recent years, most children of working mothers
are still cared for by friends, relatives, or neighbors in
informal arrangements.
□
FOOTNOTES
1Unless otherwise indicated, the data in this report are from infor
mation collected in the March supplement to the Current Population
Survey conducted and tabulated for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by
the Bureau of the Census. Estimates based on a sample, such as those
shown in the tables, may vary considerably from results obtained by a
complete count in cases where the numbers are small. Therefore, dif
ferences between small numbers or the percents based on them may
not be significant. For more detail on the interpretation of such dif
ferences, see Marital and family characteristics of workers, March 1979,
Special Labor Force Report 237 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981).
' See Fertility of American Women: June 1979, Current Population
Reports, Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 358 (Bureau of
the Census), p. 22; Fertility of American Women: June 1978, Current
Population Reports, Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 341
(Bureau of the Census), pp. 25 and 66; and Previous and Prospective
Fertility: 1967, Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics,
Series P-20, No. 211 (Bureau of the Census, 1971), p. 17.
Fertility of American Women: June 1979, p. 15.
4 See Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Provisional Statistics (U.S. De
partment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Sevice, 1980),
DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 80-1120, Vol. 29, No. 3.
' Family Status of Breadwinning Women in Four Selected Cities (U.S.
Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, 1926), p. 14.
* 1977 Recipient Characteristics Study, Part 1 (Social Security Ad
ministration, Demographic and Program Statistics, 1980), SSA
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13-11729, pp. 20-21.
Ritchie H. Reed and Susan McIntosh, “Costs of Children,” Re
search Reports, Vol. 2, Commission on Population Growth and the
American Future, 1972.
KThomas J. Espenshade, “Raising A Child Can Now Cost
$85,000,” Intercom, Vol. 8, No. 9, 1980, pp. 1, 10-12.
Daytime Care of Children: October 1974 and February 1975, Cur
rent Population Reports, Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No.
298 (Bureau of the Census, 1976), p. 2, and Mary Jo Bane and others,
“Child care arrangements of working parents,” Monthly Labor Re
view, October 1979, pp. 50-56.
10 Child Care Programs in Nine Countries (U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare 1976), DHEW Publication No.
(OHD) 76-30080, p. 16.
" Ibid.
I: Historical information in this section is based, in part, on James
D. Marver and Meredith A. Larson,” Public Policy Toward Child
Care in America: A Historical Perspective,” in Philip K. Robins and
Samuel Weiner, Child Care and Public Policy (Lexington, Mass., D.C.
Heath and Co., 1978), pp. 17-42.
' The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965, the Model Cities Act of 1966, as well as
Head Start provided some direct or indirect support for child care.
14 Public Law 94—455 (94th Cong., 2d sess.), Oct. 4, 1976.
Research
Summaries
Wage increases in 1980
outpaced by inflation
Jo a n D . B o r u m
Although workers’ pay continued to increase at high
rates in 1980, consumer prices rose at an even greater
rate. All aggregate measures of wage change showed
gains below those of prices, resulting in declines in real
wages (wages adjusted for price inflation). Prices as
measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers rose 12.5 percent
during 1980.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles a variety of
measures of wage and compensation changes. Some cov
er rates of pay, others study worker’s earnings.
Depending on the series, the data may reflect payments
for benefits as well as wages and may show the influence
of weekly hours and Federal tax rates. Data usually are
available in both current and 1967 dollars. Historical
data for some key measures are provided in table 1.
Average hourly compensation (wages, salaries, and
supplementary benefits), rose 10.0 percent in 1980, the
highest since 1974. However, real hourly compensation,
or compensation expressed in constant (1967) dollars,
fell 2.2 percent. This measure is not adjusted for em
ployment shifts among industries and occupations.
The hourly and weekly earnings series are limited to
wages and salaries, that is, they do not cover employer
costs for employee benefits. These measures cover pro
duction and nonsupervisory workers in the private non
farm sector. Both series show larger increases in 1980
than for the previous year. Nevertheless, purchasing
power continued to decline, but at a decreasing rate.
The Hourly Earnings Index, which covers production
and nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm
economy, rose 9.4 percent in 1980— more than the
8.3-percent gain in 1979. Industry detail indicates that
the largest increases in 1980 were in manufacturing
(10.8 percent) and the smallest gains were in wholesale
and retail trade (8.4 percent) and construction (7.5 per
cent). This.index is developed by adjusting the basic
Joan D. Borum is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a
hourly earnings series so as to exclude the effects of two
types of change unrelated to wage-rate developments:
changes in the proportion of workers in high-wage and
low-wage industries and fluctuations in the volume of
overtime work at premium rates in manufacturing (the
only sector for which overtime data are available).
A relatively new series— the Employment Cost Index
( eci ) — provides a more exact measure of change in la
bor costs. The ECI covers all private nonfarm workers
and is fixed-weighted at the occupation and industry
level. It is not affected by employment shifts among oc
cupations and industries with different wage and com
pensation levels. This series measures changes in wages,
salaries, and employer costs for employee benefits for
both supervisory and nonsupervisory workers. In 1980,
total compensation increased 9.8 percent. Because com
pensation data were introduced in the first quarter of
1980, comparisons with previous years are not possible.
In 1980, overall wage and salary increases, as mea
sured by the ECI, averaged 9.0 percent, up from 8.7
percent in 1979. Pay in manufacturing was up 9.4 per
cent and in nonmanufacturing, 8.8 percent. Among in
dustries, increases ranged from 7.4 percent in finance,
insurance and real estate to 11.1 percent in transporta
tion and public utilities. Among occupational classifica
tions, blue-collar workers registered the highest pay
increases and service workers, the lowest. As in prev
ious years, union workers received larger increases than
nonunion workers. In manufacturing, pay advanced
11.0 percent for union workers, compared with 7.9 per
cent for nonunion workers. Corresponding gains in
nonmanufacturing were 10.8 percent and 8.1 percent.
The following tabulation shows rates of wage and sala
ry change in the ECI for 1979 and 1980, by selected
characteristics:
1979
1980
All workers.....................................
8.7
9.0
Manufacturing industries ........................
Nonmanufacturing industries..................
8.6
8.8
9.4
8.8
White-collar w o rk ers................................
Blue-collar w o rk ers..................................
Service w ork ers..........................................
8.6
9.0
7.2
8.7
9.6
8.1
Union workers ..........................................
Nonunion w orkers.....................................
9.0
8.5
10.9
8.0
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Research Summaries
Table 1.
Changes in employee wages and compensation, 1970-80
[In percent]
Measure
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
9.0
Average hourly compensation: ’
Current dollars...............................
1967 dollars .................................
7.0
1.3
5.6
2.1
7.2
3.7
8.1
-.2
10.9
-1.1
7.8
.3
8.3
3.1
7.5
8
0.0
9.5
-2.8
10.0
-2.2
Gross average hourly earnings:2
Current dollars...............................
1967 dollars .................................
5.8
.4
6.9
3.2
7.6
4.2
6.6
-2 .0
8.4
-3.4
6.1
-1.1
7.9
2.9
7.3
.7
9.4
.3
7.9
-4.8
8.8
-3.2
Gross average weekly earnings:2
Current dollars...............................
1967 dollars .................................
3.8
-1.7
7.2
3.7
7.0
3.5
6.6
-2.0
6.3
-5.3
6.7
-.4
7.0
-2 0
7.0
.2
9.1
.3
7.6
-5.1
7.9
-4.1
Hourly Earnings Index:2
Current dollars...............................
1967 dollars .................................
6.7
1.1
7.0
3.6
6.3
2.7
6.4
-2.2
9.2
-2.7
7.2
.0
7.5
2.5
7.4
6
8.6
.4
8.3
-4.5
9.4
-2.8
1Covers all employees in the nonfarm business sector.
2 Covers production and nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm economy.
N ote : Percent changes are based on seasonally adjusted data and reflect fourth quarter to
fourth quarter change for average hourly compensation and December to December change
for other measures.
Collective bargaining
Although limited in coverage, data on wage develop
ments in major collective bargaining units (1,000 work
ers or more) are of particular interest. Currently, 9.1
million workers are in such units (9 percent of the civil
ian labor force). However, these agreements may set
wage patterns followed by nonunion and smaller union
establishments. Thus, data for the major bargaining
units are often important in explaining movements in
the broader series of table 1. The following analysis of
major labor agreements not only provides additional in
formation on wage changes in 1980, but also yields in
sights into what will take place in 1981.
In terms of the numbers of workers affected, 1980
was a moderately heavy bargaining year. Settlements
covered 3.8 million workers in 826 major bargaining
units. The construction industry accounted for 20 per
cent of these workers; communications industry, 18 per
cent; primary metals industry, 11 percent; and the
Table 2.
transportation equipment industry, 9 percent. Many of
the remaining workers were in the electrical equipment,
public utility, and retail food store industries.
As in the past, settlements concluded in 1980 fre
quently provided increases in wages and benefits for the
first year of multi-year agreements that were larger than
those agreed upon for subsequent years. (See table 2.)
This reflects an attempt by workers to offset the erosion
of real wages by inflation during the term of their expir
ing contracts.
Negotiated wage adjustments in agreements for 1,000
workers or more averaged 9.5 percent in the first con
tract year and 7.1 percent annually over the life of the
agreement. Wage and benefit package settlements in
bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more averaged
10.4 percent in the first contract year and 7.1 percent
annually over the life of the agreement. Possible future
wage increases from cost-of-living adjustment (c o l a )
provisions are not included in costing settlements.
After several years of relatively moderate settlements,
Average change in major collective bargaining agreements, 1970-80
[In percent]
Measure
Settlements
Wage-rate (contracts covering 1,000 workers or more):
First-year adjustment .......................................................
Average annual change over life of contract....................
Wage and benefit (contracts covering 5,000 workers or
more):
First-year adjustment .......................................................
Average annual change over life of contract....................
Effective wage-rate changes
Total effective adjustment1 ...................................................
Current settlem ent............................................................
Prior settlem ent................................................................
Cost-of-living adjustment provision...................................
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
11.9
8.9
11.6
8.1
7.3
6.4
5.8
5.1
9.8
7.3
10.2
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
9.5
7.1
13.1
9.1
13.1
8.8
8.5
7.4
7.1
6.1
10.7
7.8
11.4
8.1
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
10.4
7.1
8.8
5.1
3.1
.6
9.2
4.3
4.2
.7
6.6
1.7
4.2
.7
7.0
3.0
2.7
1.3
9.4
4.8
2.6
1.9
8.7
2.8
3.7
2.2
8.1
3.2
3.2
1.6
8.0
3.0
3.2
1.7
8.2
2.0
3.7
2.4
9.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
9.9
3.6
3.5
2.8
1Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
Major collective bargaining agreements are union-management contracts in the private nonfarm economy covering 1,000 or more workers (5,000 or more workers for wage and
N ote :
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
benefit data). Data referring to settlements exclude possible increases under cost-of-living adjustments provisions, except for minimum increases guaranteed in the contract,
construction industry agreements provided for aboveaverage wage adjustments in 1980. Wage-rate increases,
averaged 13.6 percent in the first contract year and 11.5
percent annually over the life of the contract in con
struction, compared with 8.4 and 6.0 percent, respec
tively, in all other industries. However, cost-of-living
adjustment clauses tend to be less common in the con
struction industry, presumably putting more pressure
on negotiated wages, compared with industries where
COLA clauses are more pervasive.
The actual amount workers will receive under con
tracts with COLA clauses depends, of course, on the rate
of inflation in the coming years. Formulas for adjusting
wage rates and the frequency of potential adjustments
vary by contract, but the most common yield is 1 cent
for each 0.3-point change in the CPI, reviewed quarterly.
Throughout 1980, the average c o l a increase was 62
percent of the CPI rise. This rate of return varies,
depending on the specific COLA formulas in effect and
the rate of price change. As of January 1, 1981, COLA
clauses covered 5.3 million workers, or 58 percent of
those under major bargaining agreements.
The average wage change put into effect during 1980,
prorated among all workers in major bargaining units,
was 9.9 percent, higher than the 9.1-percent adjustment
for 1979. Settlements reached during the year resulted
in about 3.6 percentage points of the 1980 increases,
while increases negotiated earlier and deferred to 1980
accounted for 3.5 percent, and increases under COLA
clauses accounted for 2.8 percent.
□
Trade Secretariats provide U.S. labor
with international forum
Despite the AFL-CIO’s nonmembership in the major in
ternational labor organizations, American unions con
tinue to exert some international influence through their
affiliation with the so-called International Trade Secre
tariats ( i t s ). In the Shape o f Transnational Unionism:
International Trade Secretariats published by the Labor
Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs,
John P. Windmuller, professor of industrial and labor
relations at Cornell University, briefly outlines the his
tory, organization and function of these Secretariats.
The ITS, rooted in the international labor movement
of the 19th century, are a group of 16 international or
ganizations composed of national unions from different
countries whose members work in related industries.
They are autonomous bodies and do not hold a charter
from any central organization, although they work
closely with the International Conference of Free Trade
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unions ( i c f t u ) and the Industrial Committees of the
International Labor Organization. Jurisdiction is demar
cated primarily by historical development (most Secre
tariats began as trade union organizations covering a
single craft and gradually evolved to cover entire indus
tries) and merger. Membership has a distinctly Europe
an and North American flavor, although increasingly ef
forts are being made to accommodate and augment
Third World affiliation. The Secretariats are financed by
affiliate dues.
Windmuller groups ITS activities into seven catego
ries: information and research services, solidarity ac
tions, regional activities, aid to special groups, relations
with intergovernmental agencies, establishment of mini
mum standards and development of transnational labormanagement relations. The activity the affiliated unions
find most immediately useful is the information and
research services that provide comparative data on con
ditions of employment in different countries. The Secre
tariats have also had some success in coordinating inter
national action on behalf of its members; for example,
the internationalization of the boycott by the Amalgam
ated Clothing and Textile Workers in the United States
against the J. P. Stevens Co. Regional activities (union
organization in the Third World) have been less suc
cessful due to the resistance of national governments,
outdated labor legislation in developing countries and
educational and cultural barriers. This relatively low
level of unionization in the developing countries has
retarded the establishment of worldwide minimum
standards of safety and pay. The development of trans
national collective bargaining has proven the most elu
sive of ITS goals, since the heterogeneity of most
Secretariats does not lend itself to the easy formation of
a united position on any issue, and no legal framework
for international bargaining exists.
Windmuller contends that “as a group, the Secretari
ats continue to be an important element in international
labor, perhaps even the most important.” Nevertheless,
he sees structural changes ahead if the Secretariats are
to effectively respond to the increasing diversification of
their membership. He goes on to say that while contin
ued American participation in the ITS indicates general
satisfaction with the Secretariats’ activities, several
problems among U.S. affliates and the ITS could arise
over such issues as relations with Communist labor or
ganizations, relations between Secretariats and their re
gional equivalents, and transnational bargaining.
Windmuller concludes by cautioning against overly-optimistic appraisals of the benefits American unions can
expect from ITS membership.
The Shape o f Transnational Unionism: International
Trade Secretariats is available for $2.50 from the Super
intendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
□
57
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in June is based on contracts on file in the
Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000
workers or more.
E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n
In d u stry
N u m b e r of
U n io n '
w o rk e rs
A l l i e d B u i l d i n g M e t a l I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . ( N e w Y o r k , N . Y . ) ......................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
Iro n W o rk e rs
.......................................................
1 ,0 0 0
A l l i e d U n d e r w e a r A s s o c i a t i o n I n c . ( N e w Y o r k , N . Y . ) .............................................
A p p a r e l ....................................................
L a d i e s ’ G a r m e n t W o r k e r s ’ ............................
4 ,0 0 0
A m e r i c a n S t a n d a r d , I n c . ( L o u is v i ll e , K y .)
F a b r ic a te d m e ta l p r o d u c ts
S t a n d a r d A llie d T r a d e s C o u n c il ( I n d .) .
1 ,2 0 0
........................................................................
. . .
A s s o c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n t r a c t o r s o f A m e ric a , In c:
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
A l a s k a C h a p t e r , 3 a g r e e m e n t s ................................................................................................
B ric k la y e rs ; L a th e r s ; C a r p e n te r s ;
2 1 ,1 0 0
P la ste re rs a n d C e m e n t M a so n s;
a n d T e a m s te rs (In d .)
G e o r g i a C h a p t e r ...............................................................................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a b o r e r s .....................................................................
1 ,8 0 0
M a s s a c h u s e tts C h a p te r a n d 3 o th e r s
...............................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
C a rp e n te rs
..............................................................
2 ,0 0 0
N e w J e r s e y C h a p t e r ........................................................................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
O p e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s .........................................
6 ,9 0 0
N e w Y o r k C h a p t e r , I n c ..................................................................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a b o r e r s .....................................................................
1 ,2 5 0
U t a h C h a p t e r ......................................................................................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
O p e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s .........................................
6 ,9 0 0
. .
A p p a r e l ...................................................
L a d i e s ’ G a r m e n t W o r k e r s ’ ............................
3 ,2 0 0
.
M o t i o n p i c t u r e s ..................................
D i r e c t o r s G u i l d ( I n d . ) ......................................
4 ,6 0 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
I ro n W o rk e rs
.......................................................
1 ,4 0 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a t h e r s ........................................................................
1 ,0 0 0
3 ,5 0 0
A s s o c ia te d C o rs e t a n d B ra ssie re M a n u fa c tu r e r s , In c . ( N e w Y o r k , N .Y .)
A s s o c i a t i o n o f M o t i o n P i c t u r e a n d T e l e v i s io n P r o d u c e r s , I n c . ( I n t e r s t a t e )
B u i ld i n g T r a d e s E m p l o y e r s A s s o c i a t i o n o f B o s t o n a n d E a s t e r n
M a s s a c h u s e tts , In c . a n d 1 o th e r (M a s s a c h u s e tts )
B u i ld i n g T r a d e s E m p l o y e r s A s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f N e w Y o r k
( N e w Y o r k , N .Y .)
C a r p e n te r s ’ A g re e m e n t, B rid g e a n d H ig h w a y (N e w Y o r k , N .Y .) 2
.................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
C a rp e n te rs
C e d a r s - S i n a i M e d ic a l C e n t e r ( L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f . ) .......................................................
H o s p i t a l s ................................................
S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s
..............................................................
C e m e n t L e a g u e a n d B u ild in g C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c ia tio n o f N e w Y o r k , In c .
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
C a r p e n te r s
.............................................
1 ,8 0 0
..............................................................
3 ,6 5 0
( N e w Y o r k , N .Y .)
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( IB E W )
........................
1 ,3 0 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n E m p l o y e r s o f t h e H u d s o n V a l le y , I n c . ( N e w Y o r k ) .....................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a b o r e r s .....................................................................
1 ,2 0 0
D e t r o i t E d i s o n C o . ( M i c h i g a n ) ....................................................................................................
U tilitie s
U t i l i t y W o r k e r s ....................................................
3 ,4 0 0
D r e s s e r I n d u s t r i e s , I n c ., M a r i o n P o w e r S h o v e l D i v i s i o n ( M a r i o n , O h i o )
M a c h in e ry
C e n tr a l H u d s o n G a s a n d E le c tr ic C o . ( N e w Y o r k )
....................................................
. .
U tilitie s
....................................................
....................................................
.............................................
S te e lw o rk e rs
...........................................................
1 ,1 0 0
D r y C a r g o A g r e e m e n t , L i c e n s e d D e c k O f f ic e r s ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2 ...............................
W a te r tra n s p o r ta tio n
.....................
M a s te r s , M a te s , a n d P ilo ts
........................
5 ,0 0 0
D r y C a r g o V e s s e l C o m p a n i e s a n d A g e n t s ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2 .............................................
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
.....................
M a r i t i m e U n i o n ....................................................
9 ,0 0 0
E le v a to r M a n u fa c tu r e r s ’ A s s o c ia tio n o f N e w Y o r k , In c . ( N e w Y o r k , N .Y .)
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
E l e v a t o r C o n s t r u c t o r s ......................................
1 ,8 5 0
E m p lo y in g M e ta llic F u r r in g a n d L a th in g C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c ia tio n o f
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a t h e r s ........................................................................
1 ,5 0 0
R e t a i l t r a d e s .........................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c i a l W o r k e r s ..............
4 ,1 5 0
M a c h in e ry
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( I U E )
...........................
2 ,0 0 0
N ew Y o rk
F o o d E m p lo y e r s , In c . ( O r e g o n )
................................................................................................
F o r d A e r o s p a c e a n d C o m m u n ic a tio n s C o r p ., R e f rig e ra tio n P r o d u c ts
.............................................
D i v i s i o n ( C o n n e r s v i l l e , I n d .)
G e n e r a l C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n o f N e w Y o r k , I n c . ( N e w Y o r k ) .....................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
L a b o r e r s .....................................................................
2 ,0 5 0
G e o r g i a P o w e r C o . ( G e o r g i a ) .......................................................................................................
U tilitie s
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( IB E W )
........................
5 ,4 5 0
G r e a t L a k e s A s s o c ia tio n o f M a rin e O p e r a to r s , F r e ig h te r A g r e e m e n t
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
S e a f a r e r s .....................................................................
1 ,5 0 0
....................................................
.....................
(In te rs ta te )
G r e a te r B lo u se , S k irt a n d U n d e r g a r m e n t A s s o c ia tio n , In c . ( N e w Y o r k )
G r o u p H e a l t h C o o p e r a t i v e o f P u d g e t S o u n d ( S e a t t le , W a s h .)
G T E L e n k u r t , I n c . ( S a n C a r l o s , C a l if .)
. .
...........................
...............................................................................
A p p a r e l ....................................................
L a d i e s ’ G a r m e n t W o r k e r s ’ ............................
H o s p i t a l s ................................................
N u r s e s A s s o c ia tio n ( I n d .)
............................
1 ,0 0 0
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,8 0 0
E l e c t r i c a l p r o d u c t s ............................
E l e c t r i c a l W o r k e r s .............................................
H u f f y C o r p . , O h i o B ic y c le D i v i s i o n ( C e li n a , O h i o ) .......................................................
T r a n s p o r ta tio n e q u ip m e n t . . . .
S te e lw o rk e rs
I l l i n o i s P o w e r C o ......................................................................................................................................
U tilitie s
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( IB E W )
J o h n H a n c o c k M u t u a l L ife I n s u r a n c e C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e )
.............................................
....................................................
1 ,2 0 0
I n s u r a n c e W o r k e r s .............................................
6 ,0 0 0
C h e m i c a l s ................................................
C lo th in g a n d T e x tile W o rk e r s
.................
1 ,6 5 0
K e y s to n e B u ild in g C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c ia tio n , In c . ( P e n n s y lv a n ia )
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
C a rp e n te rs
..............................................................
1 ,5 0 0
M a c h in e ry
S te e lw o rk e rs
L itto n B u sin e ss S y s te m s , In c ., C o le D iv isio n (Y o rk , P a .)
......................................
L o n g I s l a n d B u i l d e r s I n s t i t u t e , I n c . ( N e w Y o r k ) ...........................................................
See fo o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
................................................
........................
J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n E t h i c o n , I n c . ( N e w J e r s e y ) ..............................................................
.....................
In su ran ce
..........................................................
1 ,6 5 0
.............................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
...........................................................
1 ,0 0 0
L a b o r e r s .....................................................................
2 ,3 0 0
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
N u m b e r of
U n io n 1
In d u stry
E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n
w o rk ers
M a c y ’s a n d E m p o r i u m S t o r e s ( S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f . ) ................................................
R e t a i l t r a d e s .........................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c ia l W o r k e r s
M a g n a v o x C o . o f T e n n e s s e e (J e f f e r s o n C ity , T e n n .)
F u rn itu re
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s ( I U E )
....................................................
................................................
..............
3 ,6 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
M A R B A a n d E x c a v a t o r s , I n c . ( I l l i n o i s ) ...............................................................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
T e a m s t e r s ( I n d . ) ....................................................
1 ,5 0 0
M A R B A , I llin o is B u ild in g a n d H e a v y a n d H ig h w a y a n d U n d e r g r o u n d
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
O p e r a tin g E n g in e e rs
.........................................
6 ,8 0 0
a g r e e m e n ts ( I llin o is )
M e c h a n ic a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f N e w Y o r k , In c . ( N e w Y o r k )
M e c h a n ic a l C o n t r a c t o r s C o u n c il o f C e n tr a l C a lif o r n ia
. . . .
.............................................
N e w Y o r k S t a t e E l e c t r i c a l a n d G a s C o r p . ( N e w Y o r k ) .............................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
P l u m b e r s .....................................................................
4 ,6 0 0
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
P l u m b e r s .....................................................................
1 ,4 0 0
U tilitie s
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( IB E W )
3 ,0 0 0
....................................................
........................
P h i l a d e l p h i a C o n t a i n e r A s s o c i a t i o n ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . ) .............................................
P a p e r ...........................................................
P a p e r w o r k e r s ...........................................................
1 ,2 0 0
P lu m b in g a n d A ir C o n d itio n in g C o n t r a c t o r s o f A r iz o n a (P h o e n ix , A r iz .) . .
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
P l u m b e r s .....................................................................
3 ,2 0 0
P o tla tc h C o r p ., N o r th w e s t P a p e r D iv is io n ( C lo q u e t a n d B r a in e r d , M in n .)
Paper
...........................................................
F ire m e n a n d O ile rs ; a n d P a p e r w o r k e r s .
1 ,5 0 0
P r i n t i n g a n d P u b l i s h i n g .................
G r a p h i c A r t s ...........................................................
1 ,0 0 0
.
P r in tin g I n d u s tr y o f I llin o is A s s o c ia tio n , U n io n E m p lo y e r s A s s o c ia tio n
D i v i s i o n ( C h i c a g o , 111.)
R e s p e c t i v e C h i c a g o D e a l e r s ’ A s s o c i a t i o n a n d I n d e p e n d e n t s ( C h i c a g o , 111.) .
R e t a i l t r a d e s .........................................
M a c h i n i s t s .................................................................
3 ,5 0 0
R o c k w e l l I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o r p . ( C a l i f o r n i a ) ............................................................................
T r a n s p o r ta tio n e q u ip m e n t
A u t o W o r k e r s ( I n d . ) .........................................
8 ,0 0 0
. . . .
S e a t t l e A r e a H o s p i t a l C o u n c i l ( S e a t t l e , B e lle v u e , a n d B r e m e r t o n , W a s h . ) . .
H o s p ita ls
N u r s e s A s s o c ia tio n s ( In d .)
2 ,5 0 0
S h e e t M e ta l a n d A ir C o n d itio n in g C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c ia tio n o f N e w Y o r k
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
S h e e t M e t a l W o r k e r s .........................................
3 ,2 0 0
.............................................
M a c h i n e r y ................................................
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s ( IB E W )
.................................................................
R e t a i l t r a d e s .........................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c ia l W o rk e r s
S t a n d a r d F r e i g h t s h i p A g r e e m e n t ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2 .................................................................
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
.....................
S t a n d a r d T a n k e r A g r e e m e n t ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2 ............................................................................
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
.....................
S t r u c t u r a l S te e l a n d O r n a m e n t a l I r o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f N e w J e r s e y , I n c . a n d
C o n s t r u c t i o n .........................................
T a n k e r C o m p a n i e s , L i c e n s e d D e c k O f f ic e r s ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2 .........................................
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
M a s te rs , M a te s a n d P ilo ts
4 ,7 0 0
T a n k e r V e s s e ll s C o m p a n i e s , U n l i c e n s e d P e r s o n n e l ( I n t e r s t a t e ) 2
W a te r tr a n s p o r ta tio n
M a r i t i m e U n i o n ....................................................
6 ,0 0 0
T e x t i l e R e n t a l S e r v ic e s A s s o c i a t i o n ( C a l i f o r n i a ) ..............................................................
S e r v ic e s
L a u n d r y a n d D r y C le a n in g
........................
2 ,6 0 0
T e x t r o n , I n c . , B e ll H e l i c o p t e r T e x t r o n D i v i s i o n s , 2 a g r e e m e n t s ( D a l l a s a n d
T r a n s p o r ta tio n e q u ip m e n t
. . . .
A u t o W o r k e r s ( I n d . ) .........................................
5 ,2 5 0
. . . .
S te e lw o rk e rs
................................................
C ity , In c . ( N e w Y o r k , N .Y .)
2 ,8 0 0
S p e r r y R a n d C o r p . , U n i v a c D i v i s i o n ( S t. P a u l , M i n n . )
S p o k a n e F o o d A g re e m e n t (S p o k a n e , W a s h .) 2
........................
2 ,6 0 0
..............
1 ,2 5 0
S e a fa re rs
.....................................................................
1 0 ,7 5 0
S e a fa re rs
.....................................................................
1 0 ,7 5 0
I r o n W o r k e r s ...........................................................
3 ,0 0 0
o th e r s (N e w Je rse y )
........................
.....................
....................................................
............................
T a r r a n t , T e x .)
T R W , I n c . , J . H . W i l l i a m s D i v i s i o n ( B u f f a l o , N . Y . ) ....................................................
F a b r ic a te d m e ta l p r o d u c ts
...........................................................
1 ,0 5 0
T w i n C i t y C o m m e r c i a l P r i n t e r s ( M i n n e s o t a ) .....................................................................
P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g .................
G r a p h i c A r t s ...........................................................
1 ,2 0 0
U n io n C a r b id e C o r p ., N u c le a r D iv isio n (O a k R id g e , T e n n .)
. . .
2 ,4 0 0
........................
2 ,7 5 0
C h e m i c a l s ................................................
A to m ic T r a d e s a n d L a b o r C o u n c il
U n i o n E l e c t r i c C o . , 2 a g r e e m e n t s ( M i s s o u r i a n d I l l i n o i s ) .........................................
U tilitie s
E le c tr ic a l W o rk e r s ( IB E W )
U n i o n - T r i b u n e P u b l i s h i n g C o . ( S a n D i e g o , C a l if .)
P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g .................
...............................
.......................................................
Z e n i t h R a d i o C o r p . ( C h i c a g o , 1 1 1 .) .............................................................................................
....................................................
E l e c t r i c a l p r o d u c t s ............................
N e w sp a p e r G u ild
................................................
I n d e p e n d e n t R a d io n ic W o rk e r s o f
1 ,0 0 0
3 ,1 0 0
A m e ric a
'A f f i l i a t e d w i t h A F L - C I O e x c e p t w h e r e n o t e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t ( I n d . ) .
i n d u s t r y a r e a ( g r o u p o f c o m p a n ie s s ig n in g s a m e c o n tr a c t) .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Steelworkers at Ford accept cut in hourly pay
A reduction in output and employment at Ford Mo
tor Co.’s steelmaking division in Dearborn, Mich., was
averted when employees agreed to a pay cut the compa
ny said was necessary to reduce a labor cost disparity
with other steel producers. Earlier, Ford officials had
announced that if the workers, represented by the Unit
ed Auto Workers, did not agree to a cut it would be
forced to limit steelmaking to supplying only its inter
nal needs for vehicle production. This would have elimi
nated 3,200 of the 5,000 hourly paid jobs in the
division. In recent years, Ford has been selling as much
as 60 percent of its steel to other companies, but has
sustained losses it attributed to price discounting re
quired to compete effectively. In 1980, Ford lost $1.5
billion, including a reported $68 million on its steel op
erations.
Under the plan, pay for incentive workers was cut an
average of 86 cents an hour. Previously, Ford’s “con
tractual” costs for the employees averaged $22.93 an
hour, which the company asserted was about 30 percent
higher than that at competitive steel companies.
Despite the pay cut, Ford's steelworkers will receive
all of the cost-of-living and deferred wage increases
scheduled to go into effect during the remainder of the
master agreement between the company and the Auto
Workers. This agreement expires in September 1982.
In addition to negotiating the labor cost cuts for its
steel operations, Ford and General Motors Corp. con
tinued to ask for concessions from their auto produc
tion workers. Both companies contend the pay cuts will
allow them to compete more effectively with foreign
producers and with Chrysler Corp., which has already
won some pay relief from the Auto Workers and other
unions. (See Monthly Labor Review, March 1981, p. 73.)
General Motors Chairman Roger B. Smith said his
company would offer a profit-sharing plan to its em
ployees in exchange for a wage cut. He was hopeful
that the Auto Workers would reopen the current agree
ments with his company and with Ford when the union
completed discussions with Chrysler on implementing
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the profit-sharing plan featured in their concession set
tlement.
The initial reaction from Auto Workers President
Douglas A. Fraser was not conciliatory. Fraser indicat
ed that he was not willing to reopen the contracts and
rejected the idea that Ford and General Motors should
receive a labor cost concession simply because Chrysler
got one. “They can’t seriously consider their situations
comparable,” said Fraser, referring to the near bank
ruptcy of Chrysler. He later softened this position
somewhat by indicating that the union would be willing
to consider reopening the current contracts in a few
months, if Ford and General Motors prove that they
need help.
Food chain workers forgo cost-of-living increases
Financial problems apparently afflicting some food
store chains in the Philadelphia area were reflected in
3-year contracts that the Food and Commercial Work
ers negotiated with Acme Markets, Inc., and A&P Tea
Co. Wendell Young, president of Local 1357, said, “We
gave up pretty much, but based on what’s happening in
the industry, we had to downplay the issue of wages.”
He noted that Food Fair, Inc., had gone bankrupt,
closing 100 Penn Fruit and Pantry Pride stores in the
area that employed 3,000 members of the local union.
Young attributed the problems of the chains to reduced
consumer demand and increased competition from non
union stores.
Workers at both chains will continue to receive the
78 cents an hour in automatic cost-of-living increases
they had gained under the 1978 agreements, but will
not receive further cost-of-lving increases under the new
contracts.
The “set” wage increases at A&P and Acme were
identical, but were timed to be more beneficial to A&P
because its problems were more serious. The 1,500 A&P
employees will receive 5 percent increases every 6
months for the first 2 years of their contract. Acme em
ployees received an immediate 8-percent increase and
will receive 6-percent increases at the beginning of the
second and third years.
Both agreements included a requirement that the
company give a 20-day notice of store closings to pro
vide time for bargaining on assistance to affected work
ers. The A&P contract also barred economic layoffs for
6 months, and provided for the recall of more than 250
laid-off employees and for the restoration of full-time
status for those who had been downgraded to part-time.
Braniff employees accept pay cut plan
Employees at Braniff Airways agreed to a paycut/profit-sharing plan deemed crucial to Braniffs sur
vival. Earlier, major creditors of Braniff had agreed to
defer about $40 million owed them until July 1, 1981,
contingent on employee approval of a pay cut. The
10,000 workers involved are represented by five unions
— Machinists, Pilots, Teamsters, Flight Attendants, and
Dispatchers.
Under the plan, 10 percent of each employee’s pay
will be held in a profit-sharing account. If the company
earns a 2-percent after-tax profit in a year, the deduc
tions will be returned along with one-third of any addi
tional profit, up to a total return of double the amount
deducted from each employee’s pay. If there is less than
a 2-percent profit, the amount needed to bring the prof
it to 2 percent will be drawn from the account and any
remainder in the account will be distributed to employ
ees. The plan is scheduled to remain in effect through
December 31, 1983, and each operating year will be
treated separately with no carryover. The disposition of
scheduled wage adjustments under existing contracts is
yet to be determined.
A 10-percent pay cut was sought by Braniff manage
ment in late 1980, but the attempt failed when the
Teamsters did not approve the plan. The airline indus
try has been experiencing financial difficulties for several
years, primarily because of rising fuel costs. In 1977,
Eastern Air Lines established a similar pay-cut plan.
Employees plan to purchase plant fails
Employee efforts to assure continued operation of the
Dayton (Ohio) Press by purchasing the magazine print
ing facility have been thwarted by an inability to raise
the $135-$ 140 million purchase price. The workers were
not able to borrow from private lenders primarily be
cause of high interest rates; this precluded government
financial assistance, which was contingent on obtaining
the private loan.
An official of the Charter Co., owner of the plant,
said that the company was considering either closing
the facility or selling it to another firm, as continued
operation would require $40 to $80 million worth of
new equipment.
The employees had begun their purchase efforts in
1980, after turning down a wage freeze that manage
ment contended was necessary to bring labor costs into
line with other printers. (See Monthly Labor Review, Oc
tober 1980, p. 54.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
New unit formed to organize office workers
The Service Employees union and Working Women,
a 10,000-member national association of office workers,
formed a new unit to organize some 20 million secre
tarial and clerical workers. The Service Employees will
finance the activities of its new District 925 (a play on
“ 9-to-5,” the working hours of most office workers).
Karen Nussbaum, executive director of Working Wom
en, was named acting president of the unit and Jackie
Ruff, head of a Service Employees local in Boston, was
named executive director.
Service Employees’ President John Sweeney called the
formation of District 925 “a new chapter in labor histo
ry, a partnership between the women’s movement and
the trade union movement that will result in a strong
national bargaining agent for office workers.” He said
that he did not foresee any jurisdictional disputes with
the Office and Professional Employees, the Steelworkers,
the Auto Workers, and other unions that have been ac
celerating their efforts to organize office workers.
Labor-Management Group formed
Labor and business leaders have formed a committee
to work out proposed solutions to energy and economic
problems facing the Nation. The new Labor-Manage
ment Group, headed by former Secretary of Labor John
T. Dunlop, is similar to panels that advised the last
three Adminstrations, except that it will not include
Government representatives. Lane Kirkland, president
of the AFL-CIO and chief labor representative, said
that the group would not intervene in individual con
tract negotiations between labor and management. Clif
ton C. Garvin, chairman of Exxon Corp., described the
group as a “meeting of the minds” on key economic is
sues. In a joint statement, the panel indicated it would
emphasize reindustrialization, productivity, and energy.
The last such committee disbanded in 1978, when
management members refused to endorse changes in la
bor laws sought by unions.
Honolulu nurses get pay raise
A settlement between the Hawaii Nurses Association
and five hospitals in Honolulu provided a salary in
crease of nearly 45 percent for 1,200 nurses. The in
crease, to be implemented in steps over the 3-year
agreement term, will raise the hourly rate to $11.05,
from $7.69, for nurses with at least 2 years of service.
There also was a provision for improvement in benefits,
financed by an increase in employer financing equal to
8 percent of payroll. The hospitals involved were Kai
ser, Juakini, Kapiolani-Children’s, St. Francis, and
Queen’s.
□
61
Book Reviews
Gains by black working women
Black Women in the Labor Force. By Phillis A. Wallace.
Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1980. 163 p p .
The majority of black women are in the labor force.
In fact, 1979 annual averages from the Current Popula
tion Survey show that about 55 percent of all black
adult women were labor force participants. The same
proportion was true for black women who maintain
families and an even larger participation rate was regis
tered among married black women. Black Women in
the Labor Force, by Phillis A. Wallace, is a largely sta
tistical study of this growing segment of the United
States labor force.
Rather than presenting new, headline-making find
ings, the author uses a low-keyed, objectively analytical
approach in her discussion of labor force participation,
worker characteristics, and earnings of black women.
The book begins by summarizing recent studies by la
bor economists on black female labor force participa
tion. As well as pointing out the similarities among
these studies, the author notes, with some surprise, the
inconsistencies among them. Wallace does not attempt
to perfect a labor supply model. Instead, she provides
the reader with statistical information which may help
explain the trends in labor force participation. Special
attention is focused on teenagers, women who maintain
families, and private household workers, although all
black women are included in the sections dealing with
occupations, hours of work, educational attainment,
and age and presence of children.
The author concentrates on the post-1960 period be
cause of the major changes which occurred in the em
ployment status of black women as well as the wealth
of data available. Wallace herself provides an abun
dance of data; her major resource is the Current Popu
lation Survey, although Decennial Census and other
government survey data are presented.
Wallace finds that the greatest improvements in em
ployment status for black women since the 1960’s were
due to three fundamental changes. First, she cites the
shift away from part-time work for black women. In
1968, 27 percent of black and other nonwhite women in
the labor force were working part time or were unem
ployed and seeking part-time jobs. By 1979, the propor
tion had dropped to 22 percent. The author interprets
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
this as a positive development, although she speculates
that one of the reasons for the shift may be “greater
economic pressure to contribute to family income.”
The decline in the number of black women employed
as private household workers is the second development
cited as a fundamental change. A chapter written by
Julianne Malveaux describes trends in household em
ployment, pointing out that more than a third of minor
ity working women were private household workers in
1960, compared with 14 percent in 1970. One short
coming of this chapter is that more recent data, which
show that the proportion dropped to about 7 percent
by 1979, are not presented.
The third fundamental change noted is “the increased
convergence in the job structures of black women as
compared with white women.” That is, occupations of
black women and white women are becoming more sim
ilar as young black women enter the labor force and get
more skilled jobs than those held by older black co
horts.
The author does point out, however, that black wom
en workers are still more likely than whites to be in
blue-collar and service positions. Recent data show that
only about half of all working black women are whitecollar workers, compared with two-thirds of the white
women. Among the white-collar occupations, managers,
administrators, and salesworkers account for a particu
larly small share of employed black women. On the
other hand, black women are overrepresented in bluecollar jobs, especially as operatives. And even though
the proportion of black women employed as private
household workers has been declining, as noted above,
blacks still hold a relatively large share of such jobs.
Unfortunately, the author used information for only a
particular month in 1978 and little is done in terms of
detailed occupational breakdowns other than a few ta
bles which use 1970 figures.
Wallace’s observation that the improvement made in
occupational status for black women relative to white
women “merely highlights the inferior occupational sta
tus of most women regardless of color” could have been
substantiated but the comparison between the occupa
tions of women in general and those of men was not
made. The author does, however, present 1976 median
earnings data which show both black and white women
who are year-round, full-time wage and salary workers
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Book Reviews
are paid, on average, less than three-fifths that of white
males. In fact, in 1979, black women were paid about
55 percent of the earnings of white men and white
women received 59 percent of the pay of white men.
The figures for 1939 were 23 and 61 percent, respective
ly. These data themselves cannot, however, prove the
existence of either occupational differences or different
pay for the same work.
The policy suggestions which are included in the con
cluding chapter concentrate on increasing the work
commitment of low-income black women who maintain
families by expanding their job opportunities and work
capabilities. One wonders why the author, after pointing
out the labor force difficulties encountered by many
black women, chooses to focus her policy suggestions
on only a subset of the entire group.
While the book does a reasonably good job of sum
marizing the findings of major economic studies of
women as they focus on black women, and organizes
these findings and additional data logically according to
subject, most chapters could have been supplemented
and improved by the presentation of up-to-date, govern
ment data which may not have appeared in one of the
studies cited. The author does include 15 reference ta
bles but neglects to integrate these into the text. More
over, many of these tables are difficult to understand as
table headings are not clear, or are incorrect, and col
umns showing percentages are poorly described. In ad
dition, there generally is no notation of age limits or of
whether data for blacks includes other minority races,
and statistical significance of the numbers in many very
small cells is not discussed.
Nevertheless, the book is a welcome addition to the
literature on black women as it presents a generally im
partial, easy-to-read, somewhat abbreviated discussion
of several aspects of black women’s labor force partici
pation.
— C a r o l B o y d L eon
Office of Current Employment Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Dredging the channels between school and work
Education fo r employment: Knowledge fo r Action. Pre
pared by the Task Force on Education and
Employment, Clark Kerr, chairman. Washington,
National Academy of Education, 1979. 274 pp.
$14.95.
America spends well over $100 billion a year on
schools. Education for Employment looks at what it gets
for its money as far as the schools’ ability to prepare
students for the labor force. This wide-ranging report
was prepared by the Task Force on Education and Em
ployment, a distinguished group of experts brought to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
gether by the National Academy of Education.
Members of the task force were David W. Breneman,
Richard B. Freeman, William Gomberg, Ewald B.
Nyquist, Patricia Snider, E. Belvin Williams, and Clark
Kerr, the chairman. Theirs was a dual mission: to learn
what is known about the relationship between educa
tion and employment and to recommend potentially fer
tile fields for additional research. The report provides
ample evidence of their success in achieving the first
goal. The task force’s recommendations for educators,
employers, students, and government officials are geared
to improve the school’s capacity to produce a labor
force adequately trained for the jobs available. With few
exceptions, the recommendations have about as much
substance as a puff ball.
The task force defined its term s— education and em
ployment— broadly. Consequently, its report contains
information on numerous topics of interest to labor
economists and others specializing in the school-work
connection. Chapters address the problems of youth in
the labor market, work-study programs, the learning
needs of adults, and employment and training pro
grams. The value of the research summaries in each
chapter is further enhanced by an appendix in which
four major studies are compared: The Manpower Con
nection: Education and Work, by Eli Ginzberg; Educa
tion and Working Life in Modern Society, by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop
ment; The Boundless Resource: A Prospectus for an Edu
cation-Work Policy, by Willard Wirtz; and this volume.
Because the task force conducted no original
research, confining itself instead to a review of the perti
nent literature, its principal findings, admirably clear
and concise statements of the various topics considered,
contain few surprises. Among its conclusions are that
youths entering the labor market in the 1980’s will face
less competition than did youths who began working
between 1965 and 1974, and that the value of a college
education as an investment will increase in the next de
cade compared to its value in the early 1970’s.
As expected, the review of the known throws the un
known into relief, and the findings of the task force
serve as a useful reminder of how much of the terra re
mains incognita. Definitive conclusions cannot yet be
made, the report notes, concerning the implications of
the decline in standardized test scores and the effects of
participation in work-study and cooperative education
programs. The authors state, “While anecdotal evidence
is frequently cited, we have found no careful studies
demonstrating that work-education programs are espe
cially beneficial to women and minority men. They
probably are, but evidence one way or the other is
lacking.” Not even the effects of career development
programs have been fully explored, leaving the task
force to observe that “There is probably a need for
more career development services and improvement of
63
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Book Reviews
those which exist, yet empirical evidence on the com
parative utility of alternative guidance services is
lacking. The influence of some guidance activities can be
assessed: for example, whether career awareness activi
ties lead to greater occupational information. . . . Com
plex and longer-term outcomes (for example, moti
vation, acquisition of basic skills, and job satisfaction),
however, are more difficult to determine and have been
investigated only rarely.” Additional research on these
subjects will doubtless be useful when it comes time to
parcel out funds among career development and other
training programs, but incontrovertible results cannot
be expected, if the outcomes of studies of other areas
covered in the present volume can be taken as a guide.
For example, everyone agrees that additional schooling
pays off in terms of higher income; but the studies cited
do not agree as to how well it pays off. Still, the task
force’s recommendations for further research should
provide a wealth of ideas for doctoral candidates and
consulting firms in search of topics to investigate.
The authors assume— no matter what Socrates or
Horace Mann might think — that schools should be re
sponsive to the labor market. Responsiveness is not
quite enough, however. The authors’ ideal school would
actually anticipate the labor market confronting its
graduates and prepare them accordingly somehow over
coming the individual student’s preferences). The
schools cannot do so without accurate forcasts of labor
conditions, and so the authors rightly devote their sec
ond chapter to projections. This chapter brings out the
book’s real strengths and unfortunate weaknesses.
After surveying projections by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to 1985— which have since been revised for
the period through 1990— the authors turn to “Supply
and Demand: The Adjustment Process,” a recapitula
tion of points raised by Freeman in The Overeducated
American. Much of the brief space devoted to forecast
ing in general is given over to an unspecified model that
purports to show “Developments in the Market for
College Graduates” by charting a decline in their earn
ings for the period between 1968 and 1976. An attempt
at corroboration is made by citing findings of the Endicott surveys of planned hires for 1968 through 1976.
Because abundant data justifying the authors’ views are
available, it is curious that none is presented.
The authors state that “the illustration, of course,
greatly oversimplifies reality,” noting that anticipated
lifetime earnings, job security, and such nonpecuniary
concerns as anticipated lifestyle also affect one’s deci
sion to attend college. Overlooked completely are the
consumption values of a college education, peer pres
sure, and the attitude of parents. Granting that the
model is oversimplified, one might still ask how much
can be omitted without reducing the utility of the re
mainder to zero. The temptation to oversimplify also
mars other sections of the book.
64FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The task force next turns to the “State of the Art in
Manpower Forecasting.” The authors cite two studies
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that find projections
accurate for large groups of occupations and inaccurate
for particular occupations; they quote Samuel Kelley
and his associates to the effect, “Complex predictions
are little more than best guesses.” They summarize the
discoveries of Donald Drewes and Douglas Katz, who
found that projections are used to support recommen
dations for new educational programs only if the pro
grams are already being considered for other reasons
and that programs are approved even if the projections
do not justify them. They also note, referring to a B L S
study, that the absence of occupational mobility data
from the Bureau’s projection models is one of their
shortcomings; and— quoting Freeman and Breneman’s
Forecasting the Ph.D. Labor Market, which they call one
of “the strongest criticisms of existing manpower pro
jections” — they list “four major sins of omission in
past forecasting efforts: ‘first and most importantly, a
failure to consider individual responses to market condi
tions; second, absence of wage-price phenomena from
the computations; third, inability to evaluate the conse
quences of major policy variables; fourth, failure to take
account of the interrelations and feedback processes
which govern the market.’”
So
perspicacious and perspicuous a diagnosis of the
drawbacks of the projections warrants an equally clear
prescription of a remedy. The following two paragraphs
from the final chapter, “ Recommendations of the Task
Force,” constitute the last words of the authors on the
subject:
Currently, responsibility for forecasts of supply and de
mand in markets for highly trained manpower is split
among several Federal agencies, including the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the National Science Foundation, and
the National Center for Education Statistics. These agen
cies should be encouraged and given the resources to do
a better job. One means of improvement would be to
concentrate on occupations where forecasts have validity
and margins of error are relatively small (such as public
school teaching). Another is to eschew straight-line ex
trapolation of past trends. A third is to build adjust
ments into forecasting models.
An absence of timely and reliable forecasts of trends in
the labor market— especially in occupations calling for
lengthy, expensive training— is costly to society and to
individuals. Better forecasting models would reduce such
costs. In addition, better forecasts would inform policy
decisions by permitting an' examination of a the human
resource implications of government budget options.
Therefore, the task force recommends: that the Federal
government develop models to forecast manpower supply
and demand, including probable adjustments to imbal
ances, and that special attention be given to occupations
calling for costly and lengthy training. [Emphasis in origi
nal.]
The points in the first paragraph do not provide the
explicit blueprint for action that would seem to be
called for by the state of the art of labor force projec
tions. For one thing, occupations requiring lengthy
training already receive a disproportionate amount of
special attention. For another, straight-line extrapola
tions of past trends are already eschewed. And for still
another thing, building adjustments into the forecasting
models requires that the effects of the forecasts them
selves be accounted for since the forecasts affect supply.
That is not merely counting one’s chickens before they
are hatched; it’s counting their eggs, too.
Throughout Education for Employment, the reader
experiences similar disappointments as one excellent
analysis of a topic after another leads up to a flaccid set
of recommendations. The task force recommends that
educators work closely with parents. Of course, they
should. It recommends that local school officials and
teachers “seek better use of student time.” of course,
they should. It recommends that colleges, “where ap
propriate, respond to indicators of imbalance” in the la
bor market. Of course, they should. It recommends
“that adults returning to work following an absence
from the labor force assess their aptitudes and interests
in terms of labor market realities. . . . ” Of course, they
should. But could not all of these people have thought
of these actions for themselves? Education for Employ
ment achieves a high standard in its discussions of what
is known about key issues; it is a pity that the same
standard is not met in the task force’s recommenda
tions.
— N ea le B a x t e r
Office of Publications
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Economic and social statistics
Brown, James N., How Close to an Auction Is the Labor Mar
ket? Employee Risk Aversion, Income Uncertainty, and
Optimal Labor Contracts. Cambridge, Mass., National
Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1980, 67 pp. ( nber
Working Paper, 603.) $1.50.
Chamberlain, Gary, Multivariate Regression Models for Panel
Data. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc., 1980, 47 pp. ( nber Technical Paper, 8)
$1.50.
Clark, Kim B. and Richard B. Freeman, “How Elastic Is the
Demand for Labor?” The Review o f Economics and Sta
tistics, November 1980, pp. 509-20.
Krauss, Leonard I., s a f e : Security Audit and Field Evaluation
for Computer Facilities and Information Systems. Rev. ed.
New York, am acom , A division of American Manage
ment Associations, 1980, 308 pp.
Levin, Richard, Toward an Empirical Model of Schumpeterian
Competition. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Eco
nomic Research, Inc., 1980, 43 pp. ( nber Summer Insti
tute Paper, 80-11.) $1.50.
Malcomson, James M., “The Measurement of Labour Cost in
Empirical Models of Production and Employment,” The
Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1980, pp.
521-28.
Economic growth and development
Boskin, Michael J., “So Where Do We Go From Here? The
Recent Performance of the U.S. Economy and Its Pros
pects for the 80s,” Taxing and Spending, Summer 1980,
pp. 5-16.
Economic Report of the President, Transmitted to the Congress
January 1981, Together with the Annual Report of the
Council of Economic Advisers. Washington, 1981, 357 pp.
Stock No. 040-000-00437-8. $6, Superintendent of Doc
uments, Washington 20402.
Howrey, E. Philip and others, “The U.S. Economic Outlook
for 1981,” Economic Outlook USA, Winter 1981, pp. 3-9.
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
Baron, C. “Energy Policy and Social Progress in Developing
Countries,” International Labour Review, September-October 1980, pp. 531-48.
Duncan, Marvin and Ann Laing Adair, “Farm Structures: A
Policy Issue for the 1980s,” Economic Review, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City, November 1980, pp. 1527.
Goodwin, Craufurd D., ed., Energy Policy in Perspective: To
day's Problems, Yesterday's Solutions. Washington, The
Brookings Institution, 1981, 728 pp. $29.95, cloth;
$14.95, paper.
Health and safety
“OSHA Saves Lives, Viewpoint, Special Report, Winter 1980,
pp. 1-24.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accidents Involving Foot Inju
ries. Washington, 1981, 22 pp. (Report 626.)
Industrial relations
“Abolish the Antitrust Laws: An Interview with Lester
Thurow,” Dun's Review, February 1981, pp. 72-74.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
Compulsory Health Insurance Proposals. Washington,
1980, 111 pp. (aei Legislative Analysis 22, 96th Cong.,
2d sess.)
— Review: 1980 Session of the Congress. Washington, 1980, 70
pp. ( aei Legislative Analysis 23, 96th Cong., 2d sess.)
Humphries, Frederick S., “U.S. Small Farm Policy Scenarios
for the Eighties,” American Journal of Agricultural Eco
nomics, December 1980, pp. 879-88.
Bierman, Leonard, “ ‘Released Time’: California-Style,” Labor
Law Journal, December 1980, pp. 764-71.
Norton, George W., K. William Easter, Terry L. Roe, “Ameri
can Indian Farm Planning: An Analytical Approach to
Tribal Decision Making,” American Journal of Agricul
tural Economics, November 1980, pp. 689-99.
Coffinberger, Richard L. and Frank L. Matthews, “Promoting
Affirmative Action Through Part-Time Faculty: The
Need for a Rational Policy,” Labor Law Journal, Decem
ber 1980, pp. 772-78.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
65
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Book Reviews
Craft, James A., “The Employer Neutrality Pledge: Issues,
Implications, and Prospects,” Labor Law Journal, De
cember 1980, pp. 753-63.
Davis, Morris E., “The Impact of Workplace Health and
Safety on Black Workers; Assessment and Prognosis,”
Labor Law Journal, December 1980, pp. 723-32.
Herman, E. Edward and Alfred Kuhn, Collective Bargaining
and Labor Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., PrenticeHall, Inc., 1981, 572 pp., bibliography. $19.95.
Herriman, Tom, “A Union at J. P. Stevens,” The
American Federationist, December 1980, pp. 1-7.
a f l
-C IO
Keller, William L. and Richard Leland Brooks, “NLRB Treat
ment of Confidential Employees: Renewed Confrontation
with Congress and the Courts,” Labor Law Journal, De
cember 1980, pp. 733-40.
Kilgour, John G., Preventive Labor Relations. New York,
am acom , A division of American Management Associa
tions, 1981, 338 pp. $24.95.
Ledgerwood, Donna E. and Sue Johnson-Dietz, “The EEOC’s
Foray into Sexual Harassment: Interpreting the New
Guidelines for Employer Liability,” Labor Law Journal,
December 1980, pp. 741-44.
McGarry, Stephen J., “A New Federal Remedy for the Pro
tection of Employee Rights,” Labor Law Journal, Decem
ber 1980, pp. 745-52.
Princeton University, Outstanding Books in Industrial
Relations and Labor Economics, 1970-1979. Princeton,
N.J., Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section,
September 1980, 4 pp. (Selected References, 203.) 50
cents.
“Section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970: Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Required?” Fordham Law
Review, December 1980, pp. 432-51.
Wertheimer, Barbara Mayer, ed., Labor Education for Women
Workers. Philadelphia, Pa., Temple University Press,
1981, 284 pp. $22.50.
Zimmer, Arno B., Employing the Handicapped: A Practical
Compliance Manual. New York, AMACOM, A division of
American Management Associations, 1981, 374 pp.
$21.95.
Industry and government organization
Aonuma, Yoshimatsu, “A Japanese Explains Japan’s Business
Style,” Across the Board, February 1981, pp. 41-50.
Drucker, Peter F., “Behind Japan’s Success,” Harvard Busi
ness Review, January-February 1981, pp. 83-90.
Hunter, Richard W. and Buddy S. Silverman, “Merit Pay in
the Federal Government,” Personnel Journal, December
1980, pp. 103-07.
International economics
1981, 266 pp. $15.95, cloth; $5.95, paper.
Little, Jane Sneddon, “Foreign Direct Investment in the Unit
ed States: Recent Locational Choices of Foreign Manu
facturers,” New England Economic Review, Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston, November-December 1980, pp.
5-22.
Long, Millard, “Balancing of Payments Disturbances and the
Debt of the Non-Oil Less Developed Countries: Retro
spect and Prospect,” Kyklos, Vol. 33, 1980, Fasc. 3, pp.
475-98.
Waldman, Raymond J., Regulating International Business
Through Codes of Conduct. Washington, American Enter
prise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1980, 139 pp.
( aei Studies in Legal Policy, 287.)
Labor and economic history
Daniels, Cletus E., The A C L U and the Wagner Act: An Inquiry
into the Depression-Era Crisis o f American Liberalism. Ith
aca, N.Y., Cornell University, New York State School of
Industrial and Labor Relations, 1980, 142 pp. (Cornell
Studies in Industrial and Labor Relations, 20.)
Fickle, James E., The New South and the “New Competition":
Trade Association Development in the Southern Pine In
dustry. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1980, 435
pp., bibliography. $17.50.
Garcia, Juan Ramon, Operation Wetback: The Mass Deporta
tion of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1980, 268 pp., bibliogra
phy. $25.
McGouldrick, Paul and Michael Tannen, “The Increasing Pay
Gap for Women in the Textile and Clothing Industries,
1910 to 1970,” The Journal of Economic History, Decem
ber 1980, pp. 799-814.
Nardinelli, Clark, “Child Labor and the Factory Acts,” The
Journal of Economic History, December 1980, pp. 739-55.
Pratt, Joseph A., “The Petroleum Industry in Transition: An
titrust and the Decline of Monopoly Control in Oil,” The
Journal of Economic History, December 1980, pp. 815-37.
Labor force
De Grazia, Raffaele, “Clandestine Employment: A Problem of
Our Times,” International Labour Review, September-October 1980, pp. 549-63.
Fuchs, Victor R., Self-Employment and Labor Force Participa
tion of Older Males. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau
of Economic Research, Inc., 1980, 39 pp. ( nber Working
Paper Series, 584.) $1.50.
Span, Paula, “Where Have All the Nurses Gone.” The New
York Times Magazine, Feb. 22, 1981, beginning on p. 70.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Profile of the Teenage Worker.
Prepared by Diane N. Westcott. Washington, 1980, 43
pp. (Bulletin 2039.) Stock No. 029-001-02522-0. $3.25,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
Abrams, Richard K., “Regional Banks and International
Banking,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, November 1980, pp. 3-14.
Management and organization theory
Cebula, Richard J. and Michael Frewer, “Oil Imports and In
flation: An Empirical International Analysis of the
‘Imported’ Inflation Thesis,” Kyklos, Vol. 33, 1980, Fasc.
4, pp. 615-22.
Aiken, Michael, Samuel B. Bacharach, J. Lawrence French,
“Organizational Structure, Work Process, and Proposal
Making in Administrative Bureaucracies,” Academy of
Management Journal, December 1980, pp. 631-52.
Cline, William R. and others, World Inflation and the Devel
oping Countries. Washington, The Brookings Institution,
Alexander, John O., “Making Managers Accountable: Devel
op Objective Performance Standards,” Management Re-
Digitized for
66FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
view, December 1980, pp., 43-46.
Baird, John E., Jr., “Enhancing Managerial Credibility,”
Personnel Journal, December 1980, pp. 1001-02.
Barucco, Hugo, “Fear and Productivity: More Closely Relat
ed Than We Think,” Management Review, January 1981,
pp. 23-28.
Clark, Charles H., Idea Management: How to Motivate Cre
ativity and Innovation. New York, amacom , A division
of American Management Associations, 1980, 56 pp. $5,
ama members, $7.50, nonmembers.
Delaney, William A., “Micromanagement: How to Solve the
Problems oj Growing Companies. New York, amacom , A
division of American Management Associations, 1981,
164 pp. $13.95.
Driscoll, Jeanne Bosson, “Sexual Attraction and Harassment:
Management’s New Problems,” Personnel Journal, Janu
ary 1981, beginning on p. 33.
Doud, Ernest A., Jr. and Edward J. Miller, "First-Line Super
visors: The Key to Improved Performance,” Management
Review, December 1980, pp. 18-24.
Evered, James F., Shirt-Sleeves Management. New York,
am acom , A division of American Management Associa
tions, 1981, 180 pp. $12.95.
Ferebee, J. Spencer, Jr., “Are Your Managers Really Manag
ing?” Management Review, January 1981, pp. 18-22.
Fram, Eugene H. and Andrew J. DuBrin, “Time-Span
Orientation: A Key Factor of Contingency Manage
ment,” Personnel Journal, January 1981, beginning on p
46.
Ginsburg, Sigmund G., “Try Before You Hire: Business In
ternship Programs,” Management Review, January 1981,
pp. 59-61.
Greenfeld, Sue, Larry Greiner, Marion M. Wood, “The ‘Femi
nine Mystique’ in Male-Dominated Jobs: A Comparison
of Attitudes and Background Factors of Women in MaleDominated Versus Female-Dominated Jobs,” Journal of
Vocational Behavior, December 1980, pp. 291-309.
Griffin, Ricky W., “Relationships Among Individual, Task
Design, and Leader Behavior Variables,” Academy of
Management Journal, December 1980, pp. 665-83.
Handy, Charles, “The Changing Shape of Work,” Organiza
tional Dynamics, Autumn 1980, pp. 26-34.
Ivancevich, John M. and Michael T. Matteson, “Optimizing
Human Resources: A Case for Preventive Health and
Stress Management,” Organizational Dynamics, Autumn
1980, pp. 4-25.
Kaufman, Debra and Michael L. Fetters, “Work Motivation
and Job Values Among Professional Men and Women: A
New Accounting,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, De
cember 1980, pp. 251-62.
Lee, Nancy, “The Dual Career Couple: Benefits and Pitfalls,”
Management Review, January 1981, pp. 46-52.
agement Review, December 1980, pp. 53-56.
Margerison, Charles, How to Assess Your Managerial Style.
New York, amacom , A division of American Manage
ment Associations, 1980, 151 pp. $12.95.
McDougle, Larry G., “Conducting a Successful Meeting,”
Personnel Journal, January 1981, pp. 49-50.
Miles, Robert H., Macro Organizational Behavior. Santa
Monica, Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., 1980, 542
pp., bibliography.
Miller, William B., “Motivation Techniques: Does One Work
Best?” Management Review, February 1981, pp. 47-52.
Nathanson, Robert B. and Jeffrey Lambert, “Integrating Dis
abled Employees into the Workplace,” Personnel Journal,
February 1981, pp. 109-13.
O’Reilly, Charles A. Ill, “Individuals and Information Over
load in Organizations: Is More Necessarily Better?”
Academy of Management Journal, December 1980, pp.
684-96.
Padgett, John F., “Managing Garbage Can Hierarchies,” Ad
ministrative Science Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 583—
604.
Petty, M. M. and Nealia S. Bruning, “A Comparison of the
Relationships Between Subordinates’ Perceptions of Su
pervisory Behavior and Measures of Subordinates’ Job
Satisfaction for Male and Female Leaders,” Academy of
Management Journal, December 1980, pp. 717-25.
Rauschenberger, John, Neal Schmitt, John E. Hunter, “A
Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept by a Markov Model
of Change in Need Strength,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 654-70.
Spooner, Peter and Michael Johnson, “Managers in the Fu
ture: How Will They Be Judged?” Management Review,
December 1980, pp. 8-17.
Stevenson, Janet H„ “Secretarial Selection: Myths and Reali
ties,” Personnel Journal, February 1981, pp. 114-17.
St. John, Walter D., “Management Principles to Make Em
ployees Feel Like Somebodys,” Personnel Journal, Jan
uary 1981, pp. 24-26.
Szilagyi, Andrew D„ Jr., and Marc J. Wallace, Jr., eds.,
Readings in Organizational Behavior and Performance. 2d
ed. Santa Monica, Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc.,
1980, 361 pp.
Tavernier, Gerard, “Improving Managerial Productivity: The
Key Ingredient Is One-on-One Communication,” Man
agement Review, February 1981, pp. 12-16.
Tung, Rosalie L., “Comparative Analysis of the Occupational
Stress Profiles of Male Versus Female Administrators,”
Journal of Vocational Behavior, December 1980, pp. 344Voros, Gerald J. and Paul H. Alvarez, eds., What Happens in
Public Relations. New York, am acom , A division of
American Management Associations, 1981, 232 pp
$17.95.
Maddalena, Lucille A., A Communications Manual for Non
profit Organizations. New York, A M A C O M , A division of
American Management Associations, 1981, 222 pp.
$17.95.
Waddell, William C., Overcoming Murphy's Law. New York,
amacom , A division of American Management Associa
tions, 1981, 296 pp. $14.95.
Mashburn, James I. and Bobby C. Vaught, “Two Heads Are
Better Than One: The Case for Dual Leadership,” Man
Yager, Ed. “A Critique of Performance Appraisal Systems,”
Personnel Journal, February 1981, pp. 129-33.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Book Reviews
Monetary and fiscal policy
Break, George F., Financing Government in a Federal System.
Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1980, 276 pp.
(Studies of Government Finance, 2d Series.) $17.95,
cloth; $6.95, paper.
Emery, Danuta, Valencia Campbell, Stanley Freedman, “Dis
tributing Federal Funds: The Use of Statistical Data,”
Statistical Reporter, December 1980, pp. 73-90.
Executive Office of the President, Report on Indexing Federal
Programs. Washington, Executive Office of the President,
Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic
Advisers, 1981, 53 pp. $3.75, Superintendent of Docu
ments, Washington 20402.
Prices and living conditions
Blejer, Mario I. and Leonardo Leiderman, “On the Real Ef
fects of Inflation and Relative Price Variability: Some
Empirical Evidence,” The Review of Economics and Sta
tistics, November 1980, pp. 539-44.
Council on Wage and Price Stability, Evaluation of the Pay
and Price Standards Program. Washington, 1981, 282 pp.
Meyer, Robert A. and Hayne E. Leland, “The Effectiveness of
Price Regulation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics,
November 1980, pp. 555-66.
Minarik, Joseph J., “Does the Consumer Price Index Need De
flating?” Taxing and Spending, Summer 1980, pp. 17-24.
Productivity and technological change
Christensen, Laurits, Diane Cummings, Dale Jorgenson, Rela
tive Productivity Levels. Cambridge, Mass., National Bu
reau of Economic Research, Inc., 1980, 53 pp. ( nber
Conference Paper Series, 76.) $1.50.
Donahue, Thomas R., “The Human Factor in Productivity,”
The A F L - C I O American Federationist, December 1980, pp.
13-15.
Forester, Tom, ed., The Microelectronics Revolution: The Com
plete Guide to the New Technology and Its Impact on Soci
ety. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1981, 589 pp. $25,
cloth; $12.50, paper.
Kostin, L. A., “Problems of Labour Productivity in Soviet In
dustry,” International Labour Review, September-October
1980, pp. 595-608.
Social institutions and social change
Dea, Kay, ed., Perspectives for the Future: Social Work
Practice in the 80s; Sixth n a s w Professional Symposium on
Social Work, Nov. 14-17, 1979. San Antonio, Tex. Wash
ington, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.,
1980, 192 pp. $12.50, paper.
Easterlin, Richard A., Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Num
bers on Personal Welfare. New York, Basic Books, Inc.,
1980, 205 pp. $11.95.
Morse, Dean W., Pride Against Prejudice: Work in the Lives of
Older Blacks and Young Puerto Ricans. New York, Con
servation of Human Resources, 1980, 238 pp. $22,
Allanheld, Osmun & Co., Publishers, Montclair, N.J.
Muson, Howard, “Hard-Hat Women,” Across the Board, Feb
ruary 1981, pp. 12-18.
Reich, Michael, Racial Inequality: A Political-Economic Analy-
68FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sis. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1981, 345
pp., bibliography. $22.50, cloth; $6.95, paper.
Steiner, Gilbert Y., The Futility of Family Policy. Washington,
The Brookings Institution, 1981, 221 pp. $15.95, cloth;
$5.95, paper.
Urban affairs
Adelson, Marvin, “The Future of Our Cities,” The Center
Magazine, January-February 1981, pp. 40-46.
“Changing Cities: A Challenge to Planning,” The Annals, The
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sep
tember 1980, pp. 1-151.
Downs, Anthony, "Too Much Capital for Housing?” The
Brookings Bulletin, Summer 1980, pp. 1-5.
Karnig, Albert K. and Susan Welch, Black Representation and
Urban Policy. Chicago, 111., The University of Chicago
Press, 1980, 179 pp. $20.
Reilly, Ann M., “Can Urban Enterprise Zones Work?” Dun's
Review, February 1981, beginning on p. 48.
Wages and compensation
American Chemical Society, Salaries 1980: Analysis of the
American Chemical Society's 1980 Survey of Salaries and
Employment. Washington, 1980, 75 pp. $25.
Browne, Lynn E., “Narrowing Regional Income Differentials:
II,” New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston, November-December 1980, pp. 40-59.
Langer, Steven, “ Personnel Salaries: A Survey, Part I,” Per
sonnel Journal, December 1980, pp. 983-87.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: Worcester
Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area, April 1980 (Bulletin
300-25, 36 pp., $2); Chicago, Illinois, Metropolitan Area,
May 1980, (Bulletin 3000-26, 52 pp., $3.25); Providence
— Warwick— Pawtucket, Rhode Island— Massachusetts,
Metropolitan Area, June 1980 (Bulletin 3000-27, 33 pp.,
$2); Corpus Christi, Texas, Metropolitan Area, July 1980
(Bulletin 3000-28, 26 pp., $1.75); Fresno, California,
Metropolitan Area, June 1980 (Bulletin 3000-30, 35 pp.,
$2); Cincinnati, Ohio— Kentucky— Indiana Metropolitan
Area, July 1980 (Bulletin 3000-32, 38 pp., $2.25);
Daytona Beach, Florida, Metropolitan Area, August 1980
(Bulletin 3000-33, 21 pp., $1.75). Available from the Su
perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402, gpo
bookstores, or BLS regional offices.
West, Edwin G. and Michael McKee, Minimum Wages: The
New Issues in Theory, Evidence Policy, and Politics. Hull,
Quebec, Canada, Economic Council of Canada, and The
Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1980, 119 pp.,
bibliography. $12.95, Canada; $14.70, other countries.
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Center,
Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Welfare programs and social insurance
Hamermesh, Daniel S., Social Insurance and Consumption: An
Empirical Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc., 1980, 33 pp. ( nber Working
Paper, 600.) $1.50.
Hopkins, M. J. D., “A Global Forecast of Absolute Poverty
and Employment,” International Labour Review, Septem
ber-October 1980, pp. 565-77.
□
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
....................................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
..........................................................................
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-80 ................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted .......................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Employment by industry, 1950-80
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted .......................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ..................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1950-80
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ..................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted .....................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date .....................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
87
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-80
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ..................................................................................
88
89
89
95
96
97
98
100
100
100
Price data. Definitions and notes
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
31.
32.
33.
34.
70
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
70
.......................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selectedyears, 1950-80
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1970-80 ...........................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ...................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . .
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes
.......................................................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date ........................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to d a t e .....................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
103
104
104
105
106
106
107
107
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted." Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2-7 were revised in
the February 1981 issue of the Review to reflect the preceding year’s
experience. Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major
modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force
data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new proce
dure called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada
as an extension of the standard X -11 method. A detailed description
of the procedure appears in The X -l 1 ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment
Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No.
12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors
are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year,
rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for
the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be
made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables
11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the August 1980 issue using the
X -11 ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal fac
tors for productivity data in tables 33 and 34 are usually intro
duced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are
published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The BLS Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2070, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
Monthly Labor Review. More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually — Employment and Earnings, United States and
Employment and Earnings, States and Areas. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the CPI
Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Employment situation ..................................................................
Producer Price Index ..................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfinancial corporations ........................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing ..................................................
Work stoppages..........................................................................
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
May 8
May 8
May 22
May 22
April
April
April
April
June 5
June 5
June 23
June 23
May
May
May
May
1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
May 27
May 27
May 29
1st quarter
April
April
June 30
June 30
May
May
31-34
12-13
37
MLR table
number
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
Definitions
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are
1.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
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.
Full-time workers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment
and Earnings.
Data in tables 2-7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1980.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-80
[Numbers in thousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Unemployed
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Percent of
labor
force
Not in
labor force
1950
1955
1960
1964
1965
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
66,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
597
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
1971 ............................................................
1972 ............................................................
1973 ............................................................
1974 ............................................................
1975 ............................................................
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
166,246
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
106,821
62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
64.3
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
104,719
87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
97,270
3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
3,310
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
93,960
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7,448
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
7.1
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
59,425
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average
Employment status
1980
1981
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623
166,246
106,821
164,143
104,719
97,270
3,310
93,960
7,448
7.1
59,425
165,506
106,261
163,416
104,171
97,628
3,337
94,291
6,543
6.3
59,245
165,693
106,519
163,601
104,427
97,225
3,262
93,963
7,202
6.9
59,174
165,886
107,148
163,799
105,060
97,116
3,352
93,764
7,944
7.6
58,739
166,105
106,683
164,013
104,591
96,780
3,232
93,548
7,811
7.5
59,422
166,391
107,119
164,293
105,020
96,999
3,267
93,732
8,021
7.6
59,273
166,578
107,059
164,464
104,945
97,003
3,210
93,793
7,942
7.6
59,519
166,789
107,101
164,667
104,980
97,180
3,399
93,781
7,800
7.4
59,687
167,005
107,288
164,884
105,167
97,206
3,319
93,887
7,961
7.6
59,717
167,201
107,404
165,082
105,285
97,339
3,340
93,999
7,946
7.5
59,797
68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807
69,607
55,234
51,972
2,355
49,617
3,261
5.9
14,373
69,238
54,966
52,230
2,386
49,844
2,736
5.0
14,272
69,329
55,127
51,935
2,334
49,601
3,192
5.8
14,202
69,428
55,440
51,871
2,337
49,494
3,569
6.4
13,988
69,532
55,182
51,624
2,301
49,323
3,558
6.4
14,350
69,664
55,344
51,714
2,306
49,408
3,630
6.6
14,320
69,756
55,403
51,791
2,301
49,490
3,612
6.5
14,353
69,864
55,475
51,823
2,389
49,434
3,652
6.6
14,389
69,987
55,495
51,963
2,351
49,612
3,532
6.4
14,492
70,095
55,539
52,007
2,372
49,635
3,532
6.4
14,556
70,198
55,470
52,045
2,331
49,714
3,425
6.2
14,728
70,320
55,443
52,091
2,378
49,713
3,352
6.0
14,877
70,413
55,445
52,134
2,289
49,844
3,312
6.0
14,968
70,481
55,816
52,511
2,296
50,215
3,305
5.9
14,665
76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949
78,295
40,243
37,696
575
37,120
2,547
6.3
38,052
77,876
39,845
37,550
557
36,973
2,295
5.8
38,031
77,981
40,098
37,597
560
37,037
2,501
6.2
37,883
78,090
40,193
37,600
598
37,002
2,593
6.5
37,897
78,211
40,182
37,613
550
37,063
2,569
6.4
38,029
78,360
40,383
37,728
564
37,164
2,655
6.6
37,977
78,473
40,523
37,890
555
37,335
2,633
6.5
37,950
78,598
40,317
37,804
592
37,212
2,513
6.2
38,281
78,723
40,486
37,754
576
37,178
2,732
6.7
38,237
78,842
40,629
37,909
574
37,335
2,720
6.7
38,213
78,959
40,570
37,820
665
37,155
2,750
6.8
38,389
79,071
40,942
38,191
621
37,570
2,750
6.7
38,129
79,175
41,090
38,410
615
37,794
2,680
6.5
38,085
79,271
41,293
38,567
606
37,961
2,725
6.6
37,978
16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867
16,242
9,242
7,603
380
7,223
1,640
17.7
7,000
16,302
9,360
7,848
374
7,474
1,512
16.2
6,942
16,291
9,202
7,693
368
7,325
1,509
16.4
7,089
16,281
9,427
7,645
377
7,268
1,782
18.9
6,854
16,271
9,227
7,543
381
7,162
1,684
18.3
7,044
16,268
9,293
7,557
397
7,160
1,736
18.7
6,975
16,235
9,019
7,322
354
6,968
1,697
18.8
7,216
16,205
9,188
7,553
418
7,135
1,635
17.8
7,017
16,174
9,186
7,489
392
7,097
1,697
18.5
6,988
16,145
9,117
7,423
394
7,029
1,694
18.6
7,028
16,114
9,027
7,417
398
7,019
1,610
17.8
7,087
16,069
9,158
7,414
404
7,010
1,744
19.0
6,911
16,039
9,146
7,384
376
7,008
1,762
19.3
6,893
16,022
9,068
7,334
374
6,960
1,734
19.1
6,954
141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011
143,657
92,171
86,380
5,790
6.3
51,486
143,115
91,802
86,723
5,079
5.5
51,313
143,254
92,044
86,389
5,655
6.1
51,210
143,403
92,501
86,251
6,250
6.8
50,902
143,565
92,134
86,007
6,127
6.7
51,431
143,770 143,900
92,335 92,288
86,075 86,067
6,260
6,221
6.8
6.7
51,435 51,612
144,051
92,317
86,307
6,010
6.5
51,734
144,211
92,516
86,371
6,145
6.6
51,695
144,359 144,500
92,562 92,383
86,409 86,377
6,153
6,006
6.6
6.5
51,797 52,117
144,651
92,832
86,620
6,213
6.7
51,819
19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612
20,486
12,548
10,890
1,658
13.2
7,938
20,301
12,320
10,856
1,464
11.9
7,981
20,346
12,401
10,838
1,563
12.6
7,945
20,395
12,546
10,842
1,704
13.6
7,849
20,448
12,491
10,809
1,682
13.5
7,957
20,617
12,677
10,894
1,783
14.1
7,940
20,673
12,686
10,884
1,802
14.2
7,987
20,771
12,668
10,895
1,773
14.0
8,103
20,809
12,684
11,051
1,634
12.9
8,125
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population1 ..........................
Total labor force ......................................
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ................................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture ..............................
Nonagricultural industries ........
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ..................................
167,396
167,585 167,747 167,902
107,191 c 107,668 c 107,802 108,305
165,272 165,460 165,627 165,774
105,067 105,543 105,681 106,177
97,282
97,696
97,927 98,412
3,394
3,403
3,281
3,276
93,888
94,294
94,646 95,136
7,785
7,847
7,754
7,764
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
59,917
60,205
59,946 59,598
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural Industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Both sexes, 16 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employee ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not In labor force ........................................
144,774 144,882
93,035 93,313
86,940 87,291
6,095
6,022
6.6
6.5
51,739 51,569
Black and other
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
'As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20,523
12,661
10,902
1,759
13.9
7,862
20,564
12,630
10,902
1,728
13.7
7,934
c = corrected.
20,723
12,706
10,922
1,784
14.0
8,017
20,853
12,598
10,942
1,655
13.1
8,255
20,892
12,765
11,020
1,745
13.7
8,127
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average
1980
1981
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724
97,270
55,988
41,283
38,302
23,097
97,628
56,489
41,139
38,706
23,171
97,225
56,054
41,171
38,373
23,094
97,116
55,914
41,202
38,197
23,145
96,780
55,597
41,183
38,220
23,131
96,999
55,678
41,321
38,049
23,118
97,003
55,589
41,414
37,987
23,126
97,180
55,754
41,426
38,027
23,027
97,206
55,881
41,325
38,142
22,993
97,339
55,897
41,442
38,167
23,065
97,282
55,920
41,362
38,231
23,063
97,696
56,012
41,684
38,182
23,352
97,927
56,045
41,882
38,113
23,356
98,412
56,383
42,029
38,365
23,513
49,342
15,050
50,809
15,613
50,336
15,408
50,465
15,528
50,627
15,540
50,836
15,682
51,023
15,717
51,307
15,751
51,074
15,540
51,101
15,780
51,148
15,863
51,065
15,810
51,594
15,965
51,698
15,813
51,746
15,827
10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703
10,919
6,172
18,105
30,800
12,529
10,346
3,468
4,456
12,958
2,704
10,765
6,132
18,031
31,568
12,740
10,556
3,551
4,721
12,982
2,718
10,773
6,048
18,116
31,120
12,713
10,450
3,495
4,462
13,009
2,682
10,877
6,072
18,138
30,800
12,551
10,379
3,458
4,412
12,947
2,730
10,901
6,046
18,207
30,443
12,357
10,233
3,429
4,424
12,941
2,625
10,999
6,130
18,177
30,276
12,403
10,189
3,354
4,330
13,017
2,694
11,109
6,140
18,307
30,232
12,346
10,147
3,478
4,261
12,928
2,620
11,007
6,316
18,211
30,436
12,490
10,202
3,434
4,310
12,943
2,757
10,979
6,277
18,065
30,521
12,485
10,210
3,443
4,383
12,891
2,735
11,016
6,155
18,114
30,550
12,424
10,247
3,429
4,450
12,888
2,729
11,009
6,175
18,071
30,373
12,337
10,194
3,402
4,440
12,982
2,804
11,363
6,265
18,001
30,338
12,306
10,331
3,322
4,380
12,946
2,737
11,488
6,271
18,125
30,446
12,386
10,390
3,361
4,309
13,070
2,662
11,565
6,220
18,135
30,594
12,605
10,189
3,363
4,437
13,279
2,679
1,413
1,580
304
1,384
1,628
297
1,429
1,612
295
1,377
1,602
287
1,396
1,642
292
1,369
1,606
278
1,360
1,631
295
1,282
1,640
280
1,417
1,688
309
1,363
1,640
325
1,417
1,612
324
1,411
1,655
305
1,465
1,615
284
1,336
1,610
325
1,338
1,615
312
86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455
86,706
15,624
71,081
1,166
69,915
6,850
404
87,110
15,605
71,505
1,140
70,365
6,807
385
86,789
15,635
71,154
1,151
70,003
6,804
363
86,722
15,720
71,002
1,197
69,805
6,698
406
86,370
15,817
70,553
1,204
69,349
6,728
445
86,432
15,718
70,714
1,230
69,484
6,801
426
86,490
15,531
70,959
1,196
69,763
6,881
403
86,395
15,575
70,820
1,125
69,695
6,977
416
86,587
15,597
70,990
1,144
69,846
7,005
417
86,643
15,651
70,992
1,148
69,844
6,943
405
86,513
15,653
70,860
1,110
69,750
6,973
396
87,125
15,738
71,387
1,197
70,190
6,839
422
87,236
15,589
71,647
1,176
70,471
6,923
371
87,870
15,685
72.185
1,235
70,949
6,896
354
88,133
72,647
3,281
1,325
1,956
12,205
88,325
72,022
3,965
1,669
2,296
12,338
88,505
72,618
3,470
1,481
1,989
12,417
88,041
71,986
3,803
1,680
2,123
12,252
87,974
71,501
4,276
1,998
2,278
12,197
87,994
71,454
3,969
1,734
2,235
12,571
87,431
70,825
4,086
1,794
2,292
12,520
88,195
71,526
4,143
1,709
2,434
12,526
88,246
71,929
4,183
1,701
2,482
12,134
88,488
72,071
4,220
1,685
2,535
12,197
88,694
72,265
4,176
1,620
2,556
12,253
88,468
72,131
4,218
1,647
2,571
12,119
89,499
72,807
4,474
1,698
2,776
12,218
89,441
72,945
4,145
1,622
2,523
12,351
89,583
72,875
4,227
1,638
2,589
12,481
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
Men ............................................................
Women........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers ..................................................
Farmworkers ......................................................
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage-and-salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage-and-salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
PERSONS AT WORK'
Nonagricultural industries ....................................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................
'Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
73
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
1981
1980
Annual average
Selected categories
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ..............................
5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1
7.1
5.9
6.3
17.7
6.3
5.0
5.8
16.2
6.9
5.8
6.2
16.4
7.6
6.4
6.5
18.9
7.5
6.4
6.4
18.3
7.6
6.6
6.6
18.7
7.6
6.5
6.5
18.8
7.4
6.6
6.2
17.8
7.6
6.4
6.7
18.5
7.5
6.4
6.7
18.6
7.4
6.2
6.8
17.8
7.4
6.0
6.7
19.0
7.3
6.0
6.5
19.3
7.3
5.9
6.6
19.1
White, tota ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and over ....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years........................
5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9
6.3
5.2
5.6
14.8
5.5
4.5
5.0
14.1
6.1
5.2
5.5
14.8
6.8
5.8
5.7
17.1
6.7
5.7
5.7
16.1
6.8
5.8
5.8
16.5
6.7
5.8
5.8
16.6
6.5
5.8
5.5
15.1
6.6
5.7
5.8
16.0
6.6
5.7
5.8
16.4
6.5
5.5
5.9
15.4
6.7
5.5
6.0
16.8
6.6
5.4
5.7
17.4
6.5
5.4
5.6
16.9
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years........................
11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5
13.2
11.4
11.1
35.8
11.9
9.5
10.5
33.7
12,6
10.8
11.1
31.8
13.6
11.7
11.6
35.3
13.5
12.2
10.9
34.8
13.9
12.5
11.3
35.9
13.7
12.5
10.9
37.6
14.1
13.2
10.6
37.8
14.2
12.1
12.3
37.4
14.0
12.0
12.2
36.6
14.0
11.6
12.3
37.5
12.9
10.5
11.0
36.5
13.1
10.8
11.9
35.4
13.7
10.8
12.6
37.3
Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ..................................
2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.3
4.2
5.8
9.1
6.8
8.7
1.7
7.9
3.4
5.4
8.6
5.9
8.4
1.3
6.8
4.0
5.7
9.0
6.5
8.8
1.5
7.6
4.6
6.1
8.3
7.3
9.0
1.6
8.6
4.6
6.0
8.5
7.2
8.8
1.7
8.1
4.9
6.1
8.8
7.4
8.8
1.8
8.4
4.8
6.0
9.0
7.3
8.7
2.0
8.3
4.7
5.7
9.0
7.3
8.7
2.2
8.2
4.6
6.0
10.2
7.3
9.1
2.2
8.4
4.4
5.9
9.9
7.4
8.6
2.2
8.3
4.3
5.8
10.4
7.3
8.2
2.3
8.2
4.2
6.2
10.5
7.1
9.2
2.2
8.2
4.1
5.8
9.6
7.1
9.1
2.1
8.1
4.1
6.0
9.4
7.1
9.0
2.1
8.1
3.3
2.4
3.7
2.5
3.4
2.3
3.7
2.4
3.8
2.6
3.7
2.5
3.7
2.4
3.7
2.4
3.8
2.5
3.9
2.6
3.9
2.5
4.0
2.6
3.9
2.8
3.7
2.6
3.9
2.7
1.9
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
10.8
7.1
3.8
2.4
4.4
5.3
10.0
6.6
12.2
8.8
14.6
7.9
4.4
2.4
4.0
4.8
8.2
5.5
9.4
6.9
13.3
7.2
4.2
2.6
4.5
5.1
9.6
6.5
11.6
8.4
14.1
7.8
4.8
2.6
4.4
5.3
10.9
7.5
13.7
8.7
14.9
8.2
4.7
2.5
4.4
5.2
11.1
7.5
13.4
10.0
15.7
8.1
4.5
2.6
4.2
5.4
11.3
7.2
14.4
10.0
15.8
8.3
4.6
2.5
4.2
5.4
11.1
7.6
13.3
9.8
16.1
8.5
5.5
2.4
4.3
5.4
10.8
7.4
13.0
10.4
15.2
8.1
4.3
2.5
4.6
5.6
10.8
7.1
13.2
10.6
15.3
8.3
4.4
2.4
4.8
5.6
10.7
7.1
13.0
10.6
15.0
8.3
4.0
2.5
4.7
5.8
10.5
7.1
12.9
8.8
14.8
7.8
4.0
2.4
4.4
5.7
10.2
6.8
12.1
9.1
15.0
8.0
5.0
2.4
4.0
5.3
10.1
7.2
11.9
8.3
14.9
8.7
4.7
2.6
3.8
5.9
9.8
7.1
11.3
9.3
14.1
8.1
5.1
5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1
7.4
14.2
8.5
8.9
7.9
4.9
7.4
5.3
4.1
10.8
6.3
13.1
6.6
6.5
6.8
3.9
6.4
4.9
4.1
10.3
7.0
14.5
7.9
8.3
7.3
4.7
7.0
5.1
4.3
11.7
8.0
16.6
9.7
10.4
8.6
5.0
7.5
5.6
4.2
11.4
8.0
15.6
9.7
10.9
7.9
5.1
7.7
5.6
3.5
10.4
8.0
15.8
9.8
10.7
8.5
5.6
7.6
5.6
4.1
10.8
8.0
17.3
9.3
10.1
8.0
5.6
7.7
5.5
4.0
13.2
7.8
15.9
9.2
10.0
7.9
5.3
7.7
5.4
4.1
10.7
7.8
14.6
9.2
9.5
8.9
5.3
7.8
5.6
4.4
11.1
7.8
14.8
8.9
9.0
8.6
4.9
8.2
5.5
4.2
10.1
7.7
13.8
8.8
9.0
8.5
4.9
8.3
5.5
4.1
10.6
7.5
13.3
8.4
8.3
8.5
5.8
7.6
5.8
4.4
11.5
7.5
13.2
8.4
8.5
8.2
5.5
7.6
6.0
4.3
12.1
7.3
14.7
8.0
7.9
8.3
6.4
7.3
5.6
4.6
11.9
CHARACTERISTIC
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage-and-salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trade ............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage-and-salary workers ..................
1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
2 Includes mining, not shown separately.
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1980.
5.
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
1981
1980
Annual average
Sex and age
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years ............................................
16 to 17 years ......................................
18 to 19 years ......................................
20 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and over........................................
25 to 54 years ......................................
55 years and over..................................
5.8
16.1
18.1
14.6
9.0
3.9
4.1
3.0
7.1
17.7
20.0
16.1
11.5
5.0
5.4
3.3
6.3
16.2
17.7
15.1
9.9
4.4
4.8
2.8
6.9
16.4
19.0
14.5
11.3
5.0
5.3
3.3
7.6
18.9
21.2
17.4
12.5
5.3
5.6
3.4
7.5
18.3
200
17.6
12.1
5.4
5.8
3.3
7.6
18.7
20.5
17.4
12.1
5.5
5.9
3.4
7.6
18.8
22.1
16.5
12.0
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.4
17.8
20.1
16.0
12.0
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.6
18.5
20.9
16.7
12.3
5.4
5.9
3.4
7.5
18.6
21.4
16.5
12.1
5.4
5.9
3.3
7.4
17.8
19.9
16.4
11.7
5.3
5.8
3.5
7.4
19.0
21.0
17.5
11.9
5.3
5.7
3.5
7.3
19.3
21.4
17.9
11.8
5.1
5.5
3.6
7.3
19.1
21.3
17.7
11.7
5.2
5.5
3.7
Men, 16 years and over................................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
5.1
15.8
179
14.2
8.6
3.3
3.4
2.9
6.9
18.2
20.4
16.7
12.5
4.7
5.1
3.3
5.8
15.2
16.5
14.5
10.7
4.0
4.3
2.8
6.7
16.3
18.8
14.4
12.3
4,7
4.9
3.3
7.5
19.4
21.5
17.6
13.5
5.1
5.4
3.4
7.5
19.1
21.5
18.8
13.4
5.2
5.6
3.6
7.6
19.5
20.9
18.4
13.2
5.4
5.8
3.6
7.6
19.9
23.7
17.1
13.6
5.3
5.7
3.6
7.6
18.9
21.2
16.9
13.5
5.4
6.0
3.5
7.4
19.8
21.8
18.1
13.8
5.1
5.6
3.3
7.4
19.8
22.3
17.8
13.2
5.1
5.6
3.3
7.2
19.0
20.5
17.8
12.5
4.9
5.4
3.3
7.2
20.3
23.0
18.5
12.8
4.9
5.2
3.4
7.1
20.1
22.1
18.7
12.7
4.8
5.2
3.4
7.0
19.5
21.1
18.6
13.0
4.7
5.1
3.2
Women, 16 years and over ..........................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
6.8
16.4
18.3
15.0
9.6
4.8
5.2
3.2
7.4
17.2
19.5
15.6
10.3
5.5
5.9
3.2
6.9
17.2
19.2
15.8
9.0
5.1
5.5
2.9
7.2
16.5
19.3
14.8
10.1
5.4
5.8
3.3
7.6
18.3
20.9
17.2
11.3
5.5
6.0
3.3
7.4
17.3
18.3
16.3
10.6
5.5
6.0
2.9
7.7
17.7
20.1
16.2
10.9
5.7
6.1
3.1
7.6
17.6
20.2
15.9
10.2
5.7
6.2
3.1
7.2
16.6
18.8
15.1
10.2
5.4
5.9
3.3
7.7
17.0
19.8
15.1
10.6
5.9
6.4
3.4
7.7
17.2
20.3
15.1
10.8
5.8
6.2
3.4
7.7
16.5
19.3
14.8
10.8
5.9
6.3
3.9
7.7
17.5
18.7
16.4
10.8
5.8
6.3
3.6
7.6
18.4
20.5
17.0
10.8
5.6
5.9
3.9
7.7
18.7
21.6
16.5
10.1
5.9
6.2
4.5
6.
Nov.
Dec.
1979
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1981
1980
Reason for unemployment
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
3,102
1,135
1,967
804
1,812
815
3,581
1,422
2,159
905
1,909
752
4,164
1,771
2,393
930
1,975
871
4,468
1,954
2,514
887
1,834
872
4,364
1,832
2,532
866
1,868
893
4,319
1,699
2,620
890
1,883
870
4,387
1,744
2,643
855
1,844
862
4,240
1,692
2,548
870
2,013
880
4,229
1,453
2,776
897
1,896
890
4,226
1,470
2,756
813
1,869
868
3,847
1,258
2,590
907
2,039
1,000
3,896
1,267
2,629
884
1,970
928
3,846
1,299
2,547
863
2,040
986
100.0
47.5
17.4
30.1
12.3
27.7 .
12.5
100.0
50.1
19.9
30.2
12.7
26.7
10.5
100.0
52.4
22.3
30.1
11.7
24.9
11.0
100.0
55.4
24.2
31.2
11.0
22.8
10.8
100.0
54.6
22.9
31.7
10.8
23.4
11.2
100.0
54.2
21.3
329
11.2
23.6
10.9
100.0
55.2
21.9
33.3
10.8
23.2
10.8
100.0
53.0
21.1
31.8
10.9
25.2
11.0
100.0
53.5
18.4
35.1
11.3
24.0
11.2
100.0
54.3
18.9
35.4
10.5
24.0
11.2
100.0
49.4
16.1
33.2
11.6
26.2
12.8
100.0
50.7
16.5
34.2
11.5
25.7
12.1
100.0
49.7
16.8
32.9
11.2
264
12.7
3.4
.9
1.8
.7
4.0
.9
1.9
.8
4.3
.8
1.8
.8
4.2
.8
1.8
.9
4.1
.8
1.8
.8
4.2
.8
1.8
.8
4.0
.8
1.9
.8
4.0
.9
1.8
.8
4.0
.8
1.8
8
3.6
.9
1.9
.9
3.7
.8
1,9
,9
3.6
.8
1.9
.9
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost las! job ......................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other ¡ob losers ..........................................................................
Left last jo b ........................................................................................
Reentered labor force ........................................................................
Seeking first ¡ob..................................................................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed ..............................................................................
Job losers..........................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other ob losers ..........................................................................
Job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants......................................................................................
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers..........................................................................................
Job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants......................................................................................
7.
3.0
.8
1.7
.8
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over ............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ......................................
Average (mean) duration, In weeks ......................
1981
1980
Annual average
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
2,869
1,892
1,202
684
518
10.9
3,208
2,411
1,829
1,028
802
11.9
3,005
2,207
1,391
796
595
11.0
3,258
2,373
1,599
931
668
11.2
3,714
2,589
1,686
980
706
10.6
3,281
2,812
1,777
1,024
753
11.7
3,317
2,649
1,935
1,093
842
11.8
3,255
2,533
2,150
1,239
911
12.5
3,042
2,586
2,295
1,366
929
13.0
3,186
2,500
2,292
1,256
1,036
13.3
3,108
2,524
2,329
1,213
1,116
13.6
3,115
2,217
2,378
1,231
1,147
13.5
3,259
2,264
2,358
1,079
1,279
14.4
3,203
2,324
2,250
992
1,257
14,4
3,209
2,356
2,192
1,013
1,179
14.0
NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.
L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
Labor turnover is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
76
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”)- The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of June 1980 data, published in the August 1980 issue of the Re
view. Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through March 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through March 1980) and in Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the Review. For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” Employment and Earnings, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. See also BLS
Handbook o f Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see Employment and Earnings,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
Employment by industry, 1950-80
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
Total
Year
Mining
Government
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insur
ance,
and real
estate
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641
929
898
866
791
792
2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839
16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16,882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10,535
2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926
7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610
1,956
2,035
2,111
2,200
2,298
5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956 ..........................................................
1957 ..........................................................
1958 ..........................................................
1959' ........................................................
1960 ..........................................................
52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189
822
828
751
732
712
3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391
3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143
7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248
2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629
6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378
7,278
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765
672
650
635
634
632
2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466
8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250
2,688
2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977
7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036
8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731
8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
79,382
82,471
86,697
89,886
90,657
779
813
851
960
1,025
3,576
3,851
4,229
4,483
4,469
18,997
19,682
20,505
21,062
20,361
4,582
4,713
4,923
5,141
5,156
17,755
18,516
19,542
20,269
20,573
4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,281
13,209
13,808
14,573
15,066
15,292
4,271
4,467
4,724
4,974
5,162
14,551
15,303
16,252
17,078
17,741
14,871
15,127
15,672
15,920
16,170
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866
12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,304
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
'Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
9.
Employment by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State
Feb. 1980
Jan. 1981
Feb. 1981p
State
Feb. 1980
Jan. 1981
Feb. 1981 "
Alabama ......................................................................
Alaska ..........................................................................
Arzona ........................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................
California......................................................................
1,360.0
161.4
1,011.5
738.9
9,793.7
1,353.6
160.2
1,009.0
739.8
9,817.1
1,353.2
1,018.3
742.5
9,825.2
Montana..................................................................
Nebraska................................................................
Nevada ..................................................................
New Hampshire' ....................................................
New Jersey ’ ..........................................................
273.0
623.8
389.0
375.8
2,995.4
275.6
619.3
397.1
382.1
3,016.1
274.0
620.2
402.5
380.7
3,014.1
Colorado ......................................................................
Connecticut ..................................................................
Delaware......................................................................
District of Columbia......................................................
Florida..........................................................................
1,233.1
1,405.9
252.9
608.5
3,551.4
1,249.3
1,421.5
254.7
608.8
3,697.6
1,255.6
1,420.6
250.3
610.2
3,728.7
New Mexico1 ..........................................................
New York................................................................
North Carolina ........................................................
North Dakota ..........................................................
Ohio ......................................................................
458.7
7,122.5
2,369.5
238.5
4,388.1
456.7
7,093.9
2,377.5
240.8
4,303.8
456.8
7,119.0
2,375.7
240.8
4,298.9
Georgia........................................................................
2,150.2
402.4
324.7
4,753.7
2,098.1
2,148.4
404 4
325.0
4,772.7
2,100.4
Oklahoma ..............................................................
Idaho............................................................................
Illinois ..........................................................................
Indiana..........................................................................
2,131.2
403.2
327.8
4,865.3
2,138.8
Pennsylvania1 ........................................................
Rhode Island ..........................................................
South Carolina ........................................................
1,111.7
1,048.7
4,732.5
390.8
1,182.6
1,151.7
1,026.1
4,657.9
392.7
1,175.8
1,152.3
994.3
4,657.0
391.7
1,179.4
Iowa ............................................................................
Kansas ........................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................
Louisiana......................................................................
Maine ..........................................................................
1,109.7
944.9
1,188.6
1,540.1
405.5
1,070.5
942.1
1,206.5
1,603.0
409.6
1,070.4
943.3
1,202.3
1,607.9
409.1
South Dakota..........................................................
"ennessee ..............................................................
Texas ....................................................................
Utah ......................................................................
Vermont..................................................................
234.6
1,736.2
5,719.2
544.8
198.6
229.7
1,706.6
5,989.4
552.1
203.3
229.1
1,703.9
6,006.8
553.2
204.5
Maryland ......................................................................
Massachusetts..............................................................
Michigan1 ....................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................
Missouri........................................................................
1,666.0
2,616.0
3,496.2
1,747.2
829.9
1,947.9
1,663.2
2,636.4
3,437.2
1,726.3
826.4
1,927.8
1,664.6
Virginia....................................................................
Washington' ..........................................................
West Virginia ..........................................................
Wisconsin................................................................
Wyoming ................................................................
2,087.5
1,590.2
633.7
1,932.5
198.0
2,110.4
1,583.8
633.1
1,914.3
203.4
2,108.1
1,580.8
634.8
1,908.5
37.3
36.3
36.5
3420.9
1,723.8
825.6
1,920.3
Virgin Islands ................................................................
200.0
1Revised series, not strictly comparable with previously published data.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
77
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Annual average
1980
1981
Industry division and group
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
TOTAL ........................................................
89,886
90,657
90,316
90,761
90,849
91,049
89,820
MINING ............................................................
960
1.025
996
1,006
1,024
1,049
1,030
CONSTRUCTION
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.p
Mar.p
90,072
90,729
91,332
91,693
91,846
90,082
90,236
90,759
1,029
1,035
1,039
1,055
1,064
1,069
1,072
1,079
4,483
4,469
4,150
4,311
4,471
4,611
4,633
4,712
4,690
4,700
4,618
4,431
4,080
3,987
4,137
MANUFACTURING
Production workers................................
21,062
15,085
20,361
14,277
20,793
14,727
20,533
14,466
20,250
14,172
20,201
14,093
19,754
13,657
20,044
13,947
20,269
14,182
20,302
14,204
20,368
14,260
20,316
14,199
20,155
14,049
20,147
14,045
20,222
14,129
Durable goods
Production workers................................
12,772
9,120
12,215
8,468
12,647
8,909
12,414
8,672
12,150
8,409
12,065
8,307
11,774
8,025
11,827
8,075
12,028
8,281
12,100
8,343
12,195
8,430
12,186
8,413
12,110
8,342
12,078
8,314
12,136
8,377
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
766.1
499.3
709.7
1,250.2
1,723.7
2,481.6
2,124.3
2,082.8
688.9
445.6
686.9
473.7
667.9
1,133.3
1,627.1
2,488.8
2,126.3
1,889.8
699.7
422.0
716.9
494.1
679.0
1,203.7
1,703.8
2,539.9
2,167.7
2,005.6
703.6
432.9
678.4
488.7
675.5
1,193.8
1,671.4
2,523.5
2,156.2
1,891.1
702.2
433.0
654.8
469.1
668.1
1,149.8
1,619.8
2,509.3
2,120.2
1,835.1
699.4
424.6
668.0
460.8
666.2
1,112.9
1,598.6
2,486.1
2,102.2
1,847,0
702.9
420.1
666.8
438.1
656.0
1,055.5
1,538.4
2,440.2
2,066.5
1,810.2
698.3
404.0
683.0
454.6
663.2
1,059.6
1,567.6
2,417.8
2,080.7
1,785.4
697.8
417.6
689.2
466.6
667.4
1,081.8
1,594.5
2,449.6
2,103.5
1,857.9
695.5
422.2
686.9
470.3
665.5
1,093.1
1,604.6
2,456.7
2,119.3
1,885.7
695.9
422.1
682.8
473.8
667.2
1,111.9
1,615.6
2,475.2
2,134.9
1,912.2
700.6
421.2
679.8
475.8
654.3
1,124.6
1,614.6
2,492.5
2,143.9
1,888.4
702.2
410.1
668.1
475.0
637.4
1,125.5
1,598.6
2,491.3
2,140.1
1,872.0
700.6
401.5
667.7
477.0
632.4
1,125.1
1,596.7
2,500.3
2,140.9
1,833.4
699.1
405.5
670.5
478.2
641.5
1,127.5
1,605.5
2,504.5
2,146.6
1,854.7
698.1
408.9
Nondurable goods
Production workers................................
8,290
5,965
8,146
5,809
8,146
5,818
8,119
5,794
8,100
5,763
8,136
5,786
7,980
5,632
8,217
5,872
8,241
5,901
8,202
5,861
8,173
5,830
8,130
5,786
8,045
5,707
8,069
5,731
8,086
5,752
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ............................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
1,728.1
69.9
888.5
1,312.5
706.7
1,239.5
1,110.7
210.0
775.6
248.0
1,690.4
69.0
863.8
1,296.5
693.9
1,271.7
1,112.6
197.3
710.7
240.1
1,641.1
64.4
886.9
1,318.4
701.8
1,272.1
1,118.1
153.1
746.5
243.4
1,626.2
62.9
882.1
1,304.2
698.8
1,270.4
1,120.6
173.6
737.2
243.3
1,638.5
62.7
870.6
1,299.0
692.4
1,267.8
1,119.5
203.4
702.4
243.2
1,676.8
64.6
853.2
1,310.5
6950
1,271.3
1,122.2
209 1
688.5
244.7
1,709.5
63.9
820.6
1,236.9
682.3
1,264.5
1,112.0
212.0
659.3
218.9
1,795.3
71.3
854.1
1,299.9
688.7
1,264.3
1,108.4
212.4
680.4
242.6
1,790.5
75.5
854.7
1,309.2
688.6
1,267.9
1,106.3
210.9
695.8
241.1
1,738.8
76.4
856.8
1,307.5
690.7
1,272.2
1,104.9
210.4
703.4
240.6
1,696.6
75.6
859.4
1,302.3
691.6
1,281.0
1,106.1
210.2
708.3241.5
1,667.2
74.7
858.3
1,281.7
691.7
1,291.6
1,107.6
207.8
710.3
238.8
1,625.0
72.0
852.5
1,266.2
687.9
1,281.7
1,106.3
207.6
708.9
237.1
1,616.9
70.2
853.5
1,284.7
688.2
1,288.0
1,109.3
206.6
710.9
240.3
1,612.2
67.9
855.2
1,293.6
688.6
1,290.8
1,112.9
208.7
715.0
241.3
5,141
5,156
5,143
5,147
5,167
5,185
5,145
5,144
5,170
5,178
5,158
5,163
5,075
5,080
5,096
20,269
20,573
20,226
20,373
20,497
20,562
20,506
20,579
20,692
20,708
20,937
21,313
20,555
20,397
20,478
5,204
5,281
5,269
5,265
5,263
5,287
5,278
5,284
5,291
5,313
5,313
5,318
5,278
5,277
5,300
15,066
15,292
14,957
15,108
15,234
15,275
15,228
15,295
15,401
15,395
15,624
15,995
15,277
15,120
15,178
4,974
5,162
5,085
5,104
5,137
5,201
5,229
5,232
5,194
5,204
5,215
5,229
5,226
5,232
5,247
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICES
17,078
17,741
17,478
17,636
17,747
17,846
17,973
17,966
17,915
17,949
17,951
17,978
17,788
17,953
18,107
GOVERNMENT
Federal........................................................
State and local ............................................
15,920
2,773
13,147
16,170
2,866
13,304
16,445
2,869
13,576
16,651
3,103
13,548
16,556
2,963
13,593
16,394
2,995
13,399
15,550
2,949
12,601
15,366
2,862
12,504
15,764
2,754
13,010
16,252
2,774
13,478
16,391
2,776
13,615
16,352
2,782
13,570
16,134
2,773
13,361
16,368
2,767
13,601
16,393
2,769
13,624
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL
1981
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.p
Mar.p
91,144
90,951
90,468
90,047
89,867
90,142
90,384
90,710
90,961
91,125
91,481
91,644
91,645
MINING
1,009
1,012
1,023
1,029
1,013
1,013
1,028
1,037
1,054
1,072
1,086
1,094
1,093
CONSTRUCTION ..................................
4,529
4,467
4,436
4,379
4,322
4,359
4,404
4,442
4,475
4,508
4,610
4,520
4,516
20,938
14,850
20,642
14,550
20,286
14,186
20,014
13,931
19,828
13,759
19,940
13,872
20,044
13,972
20,157
14,065
20,282
14,179
20,312
14,195
20,345
14,221
20,373
14,238
20,369
14,255
12,707
8,961
12,442
8,686
12,140
8,386
11,947
8,205
11,819
8,084
11,860
8,123
11,955
8,212
12,043
8,288
12,146
8,381
12,160
8,386
12,188
8,410
12,193
8,408
12,197
8,427
737
494
700
1,209
1,711
2,530
2,176
2,006
705
439
689
491
680
1,193
1,678
2,518
2,167
1,885
703
438
654
472
663
1,144
1,620
2,517
2,127
1,819
700
424
648
461
647
1,096
1,584
2,476
2,094
1,831
696
414
650
449
641
1,049
1,551
2,448
2,079
1,839
698
415
662
456
648
1,059
1,569
2,437
2,083
1,840
697
409
674
464
655
1,074
1,587
2,452
2,091
1,851
697
410
677
466
656
1,096
1,595
2,469
2,107
1,873
697
407
683
469
661
1,119
1,606
2,475
2,120
1,901
701
411
688
472
660
1,133
1,608
2,480
2,135
1,868
701
415
693
475
663
1,133
1,608
2,484
2,147
1,866
702
417
692
477
661
1,133
1,610
2,493
2,152
1,858
701
416
690
478
662
1,133
1,612
2,495
2,155
1,857
700
415
8,231
5,889
8,200
5,864
8,146
5,800
8,067
5,726
8,009
5,675
8,080
5,749
8,089
5,760
8,114
5,777
8,136
5,798
8,152
5,809
8,157
5,811
8,180
5,830
8,172
5,828
1,704
68
888
1,316
708
1,274
1,123
157
749
244
1,690
69
884
1,302
702
1,272
1,123
175
740
243
1,691
70
869
1,291
692
1,268
1,120
203
703
239
1,677
71
843
1,287
685
1,269
1,112
205
681
237
1,683
69
833
1,276
680
1,266
1,103
207
663
229
1,690
67
851
1,296
682
1,266
1,100
208
680
240
1,672
68
851
1,299
686
1,269
1,104
208
692
240
1,682
69
856
1,292
690
1,272
1,105
209
699
240
1,686
71
856
1,291
692
1,278
1,108
209
705
240
1,684
70
857
1,291
693
1,284
1,112
210
711
240
1,680
70
858
1,289
694
1,284
1,115
213
713
241
1,684
71
857
1,292
696
1,291
1,118
213
716
242
1,674
71
857
1,291
695
1,293
1,117
214
718
242
5,202
5,178
5,167
5,134
5,114
5,129
5,124
5,147
5,132
5,137
5,142
5,147
5,153
20,610
20,531
20,487
20,459
20,506
20,589
20,620
20,641
20,660
20,638
20,762
20,886
20,915
5,301
5,286
5,268
5,245
5,247
5,263
5,280
5,292
5,297
5,302
5,315
5,330
5,332
15,309
15,245
15,219
15,214
15,259
15,326
15,340
15,349
15,363
15,336
15,447
15,556
15,583
MANUFACTURING
Production workers ..........................................
Durable goods....................................
Production workers ..................................
Lumber and wood products......................................
Furniture and fixtures ..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products........................................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products....................................
Machinery, except electrical ..................................................
Electric and electronic equipment............................
Transportation equipment ..........................................
Instruments and related products..................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing............................................
Nondurable goods..........................................
Production workers ................................
Food and kindred products ............................................
Tobacco manufactures ..............................................
Textile mill products ..............................................
Apparel and other textile products ..........................
Paper and allied products ....................................................
Printing and publishing....................................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products....................
Leather and leather products..............................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE............................
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
5,115
5,119
5,137
5,150
5,167
5,180
5,194
5,214
5,225
5,245
5,268
5,274
5,279
SERVICES
17,580
17,618
17,659
17,652
17,760
17,788
17,861
17,913
17,969
18,068
18,133
18,189
18,216
GOVERNMENT
Federal ..................................................
State and local............................................
16,161
2,886
13,275
16,384
3,115
13,269
16,273
2,960
13,313
16,230
2,951
13,279
16,157
2,893
13,264
16,144
2,828
13,316
16,109
2,765
13,344
16,159
2,788
13,371
16,164
2,790
13,374
16,145
2,789
13,356
16,135
2,801
13,334
16,161
2,787
13,374
16,104
2,786
13,318
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date
(Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
average
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.4
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
»3.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
4,6
4.7
4.7
3.4
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4,3
4,4
4,3
3.8
5.3
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.6
3.1
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
2.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
2.5
3.5
3.9
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.2
.9
.8
.9
1.4
1.0
.9
.9
1.7
.8
.7
.8
1.4
.6
.6
.7
1.1
.6
.5
.5
.9
.6
.5
.5
.8
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2
5.1
5.3
5.7
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.1
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.4
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.2
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
.9
1.5
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.0
.8
1.3
1.7
1.1
.8
1.1
1.4
1.1
.9
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.6
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.5
4.9
4.9
4.8
3.9
New hires
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.1
22
2.5
2.8
2.4
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
p 1.8
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.1
3.5
3.6
3.6
2.1
3.7
3.9
3,8
2.4
Recalls
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
.9
.7
.7
1.1
1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
.7
.7
.9
»1.0
1.1
.8
.7
.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
.8
.8
.8
1.0
.8
.7
.7
1.2
Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
»3.1
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.7
4.7
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.8
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.4
1,5
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
»1.1
1.6
1.8
1,9
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.5
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.1
.9
1.1
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.6
1.4
.9
.8
1.2
»1.2
1.0
.9
.8
1,3
.9
.8
.9
2.3
.8
.7
.7
2.5
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.4
Quits
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.4
Layoffs
13.
.8
.7
.9
2.2
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Accession rates
Major industry group
Total
Separation rates
New hires
Recalls
Total
Quits
Layoffs
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981»
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981 »
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981»
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981»
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981»
Feb.
1980
Jan.
1981
Feb.
1981»
MANUFACTURING
Seasonally adjusted..............
3.3
3.9
3.4
3.5
3.0
3.6
2.2
2.8
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.0
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.8
1.5
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.4
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products..........
Furniture and fixtures ..................
Stone, clay, and glass products .. .
Primary metal industries ..............
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except electrical..........
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment ............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing........
3.0
4.6
3.8
3.3
2.3
3.4
2.3
2.8
3.0
2.8
4.4
3.2
4.8
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.3
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.2
5.4
2.9
4.7
3.3
3.3
2.5
3.3
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.9
3.0
1.8
1.0
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.4
2.3
2.7
1.6
2.7
2.7
1.5
.9
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.6
2.8
2.5
1.6
.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
.8
1.6
.7
1.4
1.1
.9
.3
.4
1.1
.3
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.1
2.0
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
.3
3,0
1.0
1.7
.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
.7
.6
3.2
5.6
4.0
3.9
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.8
3.6
2.3
4.6
3.4
5.3
3.8
5.1
2.7
4.0
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.3
5.8
2.9
4.9
3.7
3.7
2,4
3.1
2.1
2.6
1.2
2.2
2.2
1.3
.6
1.5
1.1
1.2
.8
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.0
.5
1.1
.9
1.1
.7
1.1
1.5
.9
1.8
1.7
1.0
.5
1.0
.7
.9
1.2
2.5
.8
1.8
1.1
1.4
.6
.7
1.8
.4
1.8
1.5
2.4
1.2
3.3
1.3
2.1
1.0
1.1
1.5
.6
3.2
1.2
2.3
1.3
2.1
1.2
1.4
.7
.9
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ..........
Tobacco manufacturers................
Textile mill products ....................
Apparel and other products..........
Paper and allied products ............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal products........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................
Leather and leather products........
3.7
4.4
2.2
3.9
5.7
2.1
3.1
1.5
1.8
3.8
4.6
3.3
3.3
5.6
2.6
3.2
1.8
2.1
3.2
3.8
2.2
2.4
1.9
2.3
3.1
1.3
2.4
1.2
1.7
2.0
2,1
1.3
2.0
.8
.8
2,3
1.0
.6
.4
.3
4.0
6.0
3.9
3.4
5.5
2.7
3.2
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.9
.6
1.6
2.3
.8
1.7
.7
.6
1.5
2.0
.7
1.4
.5
.5
1.2
2.1
3,7
.7
1.5
.9
.6
.3
,3
1.7
3.3
2.2
1.0
2.4
1.2
.8
.4
.7
1.3
2.2
3.0
4.2
2.5
2.6
1.3
1.7
1.8
2.1
1.0
2.3
2.7
.9
1.8
.6
.7
1.3
1.6
.6
1.7
.7
.5
.3
.2
3.8
5.0
5.6
4.0
5.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
1.9
3.3
4.6
2.1
2.8
1.3
2.3
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.5
.9
.6
1.7
.6
.4
.2
.4
1.0
1.5
3.0
4,8
2.1
2.9
1.5
1.9
2.5
2.7
.8
3.0
3.7
1.4
2.5
1.2
1.2
4.0
6.1
4.2
6.8
3.6
5.0
2.7
4.1
2.4
3.6
2.1
3.3
1.1
1.6
1.5
3,0
1.3
1.5
4.6
6.0
4.0
5.8
3.7
5.1
1.9
3.1
1.4
2.6
1.2
2.4
1.6
2.0
1.7
2.3
1.5
1.9
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.0
4,2
1.5
2.4
.4
1.6
2.1
4.0
1.0
1.3
.5
1.9
.7
1.5
1.2
.6
.3
.6
14.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1950-80
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
Construction
Mining
Total private
Average
weekly
hours
$53.13
39.8
$1.335
$67.16
37.9
$1.772
$69.68
37.4
$1.863
$58.32
40.5
$1.440
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959' ................
1960 ..................
70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
95.06
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
282
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
388
38.7
388
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118.08
122.47
127.19
132.06
138.38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3.55
3.70
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.6
35.3
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66
273.90
301.20
332.88
365.50
396.58
42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.2
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.50
9.18
283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78
36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0
7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
7.27
1950 ..................
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Transportation and public
utilities
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
Wholesale and retail trade
Services
$44.55
40.5
$1.100
$50.52
37.7
$1.340
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1.18
1952 . ..
1953
1954
1955 . ..
47.79
49.20
51 35
53.33
55.16
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54.67
57.08
59.57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.70
1956
1957 . . .
1958
19591
1960
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39 1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..
. ..
..................
..................
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
76.91
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.97
2.04
77.12
80.94
84 38
85.79
88.91
36.9
37.3
37.5
37.3
37.2
2.09
2.17
2.25
2.30
2.39
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85
79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
272
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37.1
370
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4
2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5,41
588
101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9
2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
256.71
278.90
302.80
325.98
352.04
39.8
399
40.0
39.9
39.6
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.17
8.89
133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
175.91
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.1
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48
155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.24
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2
4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.78
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85
1950
1951
.........................
1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1981
1980
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE........................................
Mar.
Apr.
35.3
35.2
1979
1980
35.6
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
May
June
35.0
35.0
35.3
35.3
35.5
35.3
35.3
42.8
42.7
43.2
41.9
43.1
43.5
43.5
Nov.
Feb.e
Mar.p
35.1
35.0
35.2
43.5
43.2
42,5
Dec.
Jan.
35.3
35.6
43.5
44.1
MINING
43.0
43.2
43.4
CONSTRUCTION
37.0
37.0
36.2
36.7
36.9
37,9
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.9
36.8
37.1
36.4
35.0
37.2
MANUFACTURING
Overtime hours......................................
40.2
3.3
39.7
2.8
39.8
3.0
39.4
2.7
39.3
2.5
39.4
2.5
38.8
2.4
39.3
2.7
39.7
3.0
39.8
2.9
40.2
3.1
40.8
3.3
39.9
2.9
39,5
2.8
40.0
2.8
Durable goods
Overtime hours ......................................
40.8
3.5
40.2
2.8
40.3
3.1
39.9
2.7
39.7
2.5
39.8
2.4
39.1
2.3
39.7
2.6
40.2
2.9
40.3
2.9
40.7
3.1
41.5
3.4
40.4
2.9
39.9
2.8
40.6
2.9
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
39.4
38.7
41.5
41.4
40.7
38.6
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4
38.3
38.5
40.7
40.7
40.6
37.1
37.9
40.4
40.6
40.2
37.6
37.3
40.6
39.3
39.9
38.4
37.3
41.0
39.1
40.1
38.2
36.2
40.3
38.6
39.2
39.2
37.6
40.7
39.0
40.0
39.3
38.3
41.1
39.9
40.5
39.2
38.5
41.3
39.9
40.5
39.2
38.4
41.4
40.8
40.9
39.6
39.6
41.6
41.6
41.6
38.8
38.1
40.4
41.1
40.4
38.4
38.3
39.7
40.7
40.1
39.1
39.0
40.8
41.3
40.5
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
41.8
40.3
41.1
40.8
38.8
41.1
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7
41.5
40.0
40.4
40.6
38.8
41.1
39.6
39.8
40.4
38.4
40.8
39.3
39.9
40.3
38.2
40.8
39.4
39.9
40.5
38.3
40.0
38.5
39.5
39.6
37.8
40.4
39.2
40.0
39.9
38.5
41,0
39.7
40.7
40.1
39.1
40.7
39.9
41.1
40.3
38.9
41.3
40.4
41.7
40.9
39.1
42.2
41.0
43.1
41.2
39.5
41.2
40.1
40.9
40.6
38.6
40.8
39.6
40.0
40.5
38.4
41.3
39.9
41.2
40.9
38.9
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours......................................
39.3
3.1
39.0
2.8
38.9
2.9
38.7
2.7
38.7
2.5
38.8
2.5
38.5
2.6
38.9
2.9
39.1
3.0
39.1
2.9
39.3
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.1
2.9
389
2.8
39.1
2.8
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.9
38.0
40.4
35.3
42.6
39.7
38.1
40.0
35.4
42.3
39.0
37.7
40.9
35.4
42.4
38.9
38.2
39.9
35.3
42.2
39.7
38.7
39.8
35.3
41.6
39.6
38.3
39,6
35.6
41.7
39.9
36.5
38.5
35.3
41.4
40.3
36.8
39.2
35.4
41.8
40.3
38.2
39.8
35.2
42.4
39.7
40.1
39.9
35.4
42.2
40.1
40.0
40.3
35.4
42.8
40.3
38.1
40.8
35.9
43.7
40.0
38.5
39.9
35.2
42.8
39.4
38.7
39.9
35.2
42.4
39.2
37.6
40.0
35.9
42.5
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
37.5
41.9
43.8
40.5
36.5
37.1
41.5
41.8
40.1
36.7
37.2
41.7
39.4
40.0
36.4
36.8
41.6
41.1
39.7
36.7
36.9
41.3
42.3
39.0
37.0
36.7
41.2
42.3
39.3
37.4
36.8
40.7
42.7
38.6
36.4
37.2
40.9
42.2
40.0
36.6
37.3
41.3
43.4
40.3
36.2
37.2
41.4
43.7
40.7
36.5
37.2
42.0
43.6
41.1
36.3
38.1
42.1
43.3
41.6
36.9
37.1
41.5
42.6
40.9
36.6
37.0
41.5
42.6
40.2
36.6
37.2
41.6
43.4
40.6
36.8
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
39.9
39.6
39.5
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.9
39.7
39.7
39.8
39.7
40.0
39.4
39.5
39.5
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
326
32.1
32.0
31.8
31.9
32.3
32.5
32.7
32.1
32.1
32.0
32.4
31.7
31.7
31.9
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.8
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.5
38.2
38.2
38.4
38.5
38.7
38.6
38.9
38.5
38.3
38.5
RETAIL TRADE
30.6
30.1
29.9
29.7
29.9
30.4
30.7
30.9
30.1
30.0
30.0
30,5
29.5
29.6
29.8
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
36.2
36.2
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.4
36.3
SERVICES
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.4
32.3
32.8
33.1
33.1
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE
..............................
MINING ....................................
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
1981
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.'1
Mar.p
35.4
35.3
35.1
35.0
34.9
35.1
35.2
35.3
35.4
35.4
35.5
35.3
35.4
43.4
42.8
42.7
43.2
41.9
43.1
43.5
43.5
43.5
44.1
43.5
43.2
42.5
CONSTRUCTION
36.6
36.7
36.8
37.1
36.8
36.5
37.4
37.0
37.2
37.1
38.5
36.3
37.6
MANUFACTURING
Overtime hours............................................
39.8
3.1
39.8
3.0
39.3
2.6
39.1
2.4
39.0
2.5
39.4
2.7
39.6
2.7
39.7
2.8
39.9
2.9
40.1
3.1
40.4
3.1
39.9
2.9
40.0
2.9
Durable goods
Overtime hours............................................
40.3
3.2
40.3
3.0
39.7
2.5
39.5
2.4
39.4
2.4
39.9
2.6
40.1
2.7
40.1
2.8
40.5
3.0
40,6
3.2
40.9
3.1
40.2
2.9
40.6
3.0
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
38.7
38.5
40.9
40.7
40.7
37.3
38.5
40.6
40.6
40.8
37.5
37.6
40.3
39.2
39.9
37.6
37.0
40.4
38.8
39.7
38.1
36.6
40.2
38.6
39.6
38.9
37.4
40.3
39.2
40.1
38.8
38.0
40.9
39.7
40.4
38.7
38.0
40.9
40.1
40.4
39.3
38.0
41.1
40.9
40.6
39.4
38.6
41.3
41.4
40.6
40.1
38.9
41.6
41.2
40,7
38.9
38.9
40.7
40.8
40.5
39.5
39.0
41.0
41.3
40.6
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
41.3
40.0
40.4
40,4
38.6
41.5
39.9
40.5
40.7
38.5
41.0
39.5
39.7
40.3
38.3
40.7
39.2
39.5
40.4
38.2
40.6
39.0
39.6
40.1
38.3
40.8
39.4
40.9
40.1
38.6
40.9
39.5
40.6
40.1
38.9
40.7
39.9
40.8
40.2
38.7
41.0
40.0
41.4
40.5
38.6
41.0
40.2
41.3
40.5
39.0
41.3
40.4
41.9
41.0
39.0
40.8
39.7
40.4
40.6
38.8
41.1
39.9
41.2
40.7
38.7
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours............................................
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
38.9
2.6
386
2.5
38.5
2.6
38.7
2.8
38.8
2.7
39.0
2.8
39.0
2.9
39.3
3.0
39.7
3.1
39.3
3.0
39.2
2.9
Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................
39.3
37.7
40.8
35.3
42.6
39.6
38.2
40.3
35.8
42.5
39.9
38.2
39.7
35.3
41.7
39.6
37.3
39.1
35.2
41.4
39.7
38.5
38.8
35.1
41.4
39.8
37.3
39.2
35.1
41.8
39.7
37.5
39.7
35.1
42.2
39.6
39.5
39.9
35.3
42.2
39.8
38.9
40.0
35.0
42.6
39.8
37.2
40.3
35.6
43.0
40.3
39.7
40.5
36.0
43.1
40.0
39.7
40.2
35.7
42.9
39.6
37.6
39.9
35.8
42.8
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................
37.2
41.8
39.7
39.9
369
37.2
41.5
41.1
40.1
37.3
37.1
41.3
42.5
39.3
36.7
36.8
41.1
42.3
39.2
36.7
36.9
40.8
42.2
39.0
36.1
37.1
41.0
42.2
40.2
36.5
36.9
41.3
42.7
40.1
36.2
37.1
41.4
43.1
40.4
36.5
36.8
41.7
43.2
40.8
36.2
37.4
41.7
43.2
40.9
36.6
37.7
41.8
43.4
41.3
37.1
37.4
41.8
43.6
40.2
37.0
37.2
41.6
43.7
40.5
37.3
39.4
39.5
39.5
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ..........
39.5
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.9
39.7
39.7
39.8
39.7
40.0
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE..........................
32.3
32.0
32.1
31.9
31.8
32.0
32.1
32.2
32.2
32.1
32.3
32.2
32.2
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.0
38.0
38.2
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.6
30.2
30.2
30.0
30.2
30.2
30.2
RETAIL TRADE
30.3
30.0
30.1
30.0
29.8
30.1
30.1
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..............................................................
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.4
36.3
SERVICES ..............................................................
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.7
32.8
32.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls]
TOTAL PRIVATE
1981
1980
Annual average
Industry division and group
1979
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.'1
Mar.p
$6.16
$6.66
$6.51
$6.53
$6.57
$6.61
$6.64
$6.68
$6.80
$6.86
$6.93
$6.94
$7.03
$7.06
$7.10
9.32
9.37
9.51
9.58
9.78
986
9,88
10.19
10.25
10.25
10.35
10.43
10.40
10,40
7.59
7.69
7.73
7.74
7.79
MINING
850
9.18
8.95
9.10
9.08
9.16
9.08
9.18
CONSTRUCTION........................................................
9.27
9.94
9.68
9.69
9.77
9.81
9.91
10.05
669
7.27
7.06
7.09
7.13
7.20
7.29
7.30
7.42
7.49
Durable goods....................................................
Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................
7.13
6.08
5.06
6.85
8.97
6.84
7.76
6.56
5.48
7.51
9.76
7.44
7.54
6.35
5.37
7.27
9.45
7.24
7.56
6.28
5.39
7.34
9.53
7.27
7.60
6.40
5,42
7.45
9.61
7.32
7.69
6.56
5.49
7.53
9.65
7.42
7.77
6.72
5.52
7.60
9.82
7.42
7.78
6.76
5.54
7,64
9.84
7.48
7.93
6.80
5.58
7.69
9,95
7,62
8.02
6.76
5.59
7.74
10.09
7.68
8.13
6.79
5.62
7.82
10.28
7.75
8.24
6.77
5.69
7.83
10.35
7.86
825
682
5.70
7.87
10.36
7.87
8.26
6.84
5.73
7.90
10.53
7.89
8.32
6.83
5.76
7,95
10.60
7.97
Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
7.32
6.32
8.54
6.17
503
8.04
6.96
9,34
6.81
5.45
7.76
6.78
9.04
6.63
5.34
7.81
6.79
9.04
6.63
5.37
7.91
6.78
9.06
6,72
5.40
7.97
6.87
9.24
6.80
5.42
8.05
6.96
9.34
6.86
5.46
8.07
7.02
9.35
6.86
5.46
8.28
7.14
9.56
6.92
5.51
8.36
7.20
9.77
6.95
5.55
8.44
7.29
9.89
7.02
5.60
8.57
7.39
10.11
7.14
5.72
8.59
7.42
9.98
7.19
5.81
8.62
7.46
9.92
7.21
5.80
8.66
7.48
10.04
7.25
581
Nondurable goods..............................................
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
6.00
6.27
6.65
4.66
4.23
7.13
6.54
6.86
7.66
5.07
4.57
7.85
6.30
6.68
7.57
4.92
4.49
7.55
6.36
6.75
7.79
4.91
4.46
7.63
6.42
6.82
764
4.90
4.45
7.65
6.48
6.84
7.97
4.93
4.51
7.79
6.60
6.89
8.06
5.06
4.50
7.97
6.62
6.90
7.74
5.19
4.60
7.99
669
6.93
7.42
5.24
4.70
8.06
6.72
6.95
7.56
5.26
4.73
8.09
6.80
7.09
7.74
5.30
4.75
8.18
6.86
7.13
8.00
5.33
4.81
8.28
6.94
7.21
8.42
5.34
4.89
8.27
6.95
7.24
8.48
5.34
4.87
8.27
6.98
7.27
8.49
5.34
4.94
8.31
Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products , ..
Leather and leather products ..........................
6.95
7.60
9.36
5.96
4.22
7.54
8.29
10.09
6.49
4.57
7.34
8.05
9.29
6.27
4.51
7.34
8.12
9.83
6.30
4.52
7.44
8.17
10.07
6.34
4.53
7.46
8.24
10.22
6.39
4.54
7.53
8.35
10.25
6.48
4.54
7.63
839
10.22
6.57
4.59
7.73
8.46
10.33
6.63
4.61
7.75
8.52
10.39
6.70
4.64
7.79
8.59
10.52
6.79
4.68
7.88
8.68
10.37
6.89
4.73
7.92
8.73
11.06
6.96
4.85
7.97
8.77
11.33
6.95
4.87
8.02
8.80
11.33
6.99
4.89
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
8.17
8.89
8.62
8.71
8.72
8.75
8.90
8.95
9.04
9.20
9.28
9.31
9.35
9.44
9.41
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
5.06
5.48
5.40
5.40
5.42
5.43
5.48
5.48
5.56
5.59
5.64
5.61
5.80
5.83
5.85
6.95
6.99
7.01
7.08
7.10
7.20
7.24
7.33
7.38
7.44
5.20
5.20
MANUFACTURING
WHOLESALE TRADE
6.39
6.97
6.83
6.87
6.89
RETAIL TRADE
4,53
4.88
4.81
4.80
4.82
4.83
4.88
4.89
4.95
4.98
5.02
4.99
5.18
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
5.27
5.78
5.68
568
5.70
5.77
5.77
5.82
5.87
5.91
6.01
6.00
6,10
6.20
6.22
6.22
6.27
6.30
5.36
SERVICES
18.
5.85
5.75
5.75
5.79
5.81
5.79
5.81
5.93
6.00
6.10
6.12
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricuitural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967=100]
1981
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.e
Mar. p
Feb. 1981
to
Mar. 1981
Mar. 1980
to
Mar. 1981
245.2
246.2
248.3
250.9
252.1
254.0
255.4
257.9
260.9
261.9
264.4
266.3
268.5
0.8
9.5
280.9
232.2
250.2
265.9
237.8
225.7
242.7
2837
233.0
252.4
267.2
238.0
224.9
243.0
284.2
234.2
255.0
268.7
239.8
226.3
245.7
286.3
235.3
2583
270,6
241.8
230.2
248.4
285.3
236.7
260.6
272.8
243.5
229.0
247.6
288.9
239.0
262.4
273.2
245.3
232.7
249.8
290.4
239.3
264.5
274.0
246.5
233.1
251.7
294.4
241.6
266.6
280.2
247.7
234.8
254.2
298.7
243.0
268.9
283.4
250,9
239.3
258.5
302.3
245.3
270.4
284.1
250.9
238.0
259.4
306.6
247.8
272,6
285.9
254.6
240.2
261.3
308.9
247.8
274.4
288.8
254.6
243.8
263.6
311.0
249.2
276.5
■ 290.7
258.7
2468
265.8
.7
.6
.8
.6
.7
1.3
.8
10.7
7.3
10.5
9.3
8.8
9,3
9.5
102.1
101.5
101.5
101.6
102.1
102.0
101.5
101.4
101.5
100.8
101.0
100.8
Industry
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate .
Services ......................................
TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1980
1981
Industry division and group
1979
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.»
Mar.p
$233.33
$234.39
$237.14
$240.04
$242.16
$244.63
$247.06
$246.75
$247.10
$249.92
$219.30
$235.10
$229.15
MINING
365.50
396.58
388.43
389 48
387.72
395.71
380.45
39566
405.42
407.60
413.69
422.48
425.43
425.95
419.90
CONSTRUCTION
342.99
367.78
350.42
355.62
360.51
371.80
373.61
374.87
386.20
388 48
377.20
383.99
379.65
364.00
386.88
MANUFACTURING
$228.55 $229.95
June
268.94
288.62
280.99
279.35
280.21
283.68
282.85
286.89
294.57
298.10
305.12
313.75
308.43
305.73
311.60
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products..........................
290.90
239.55
195.82
284.28
371.36
278.39
311.95
253.22
208.79
306.41
391.38
300.58
303.86
243.21
206.75
295.89
384.62
29394
301.64
232.99
204.28
296.54
386.92
292.25
301.72
240.64
202.17
302.47
377.67
292.07
306.06
251.90
204.78
308.73
377.32
297.54
303.81
256.70
199.82
306.28
379.05
290.86
308.87
264.99
208.30
310.95
383.76
299.20
318.79
267.24
213.71
316.06
397.01
308.61
323.21
264.99
215.22
319.66
402.59
311.04
330.89
266.17
215.81
323.75
419.42
316.98
341.96
268.09
225.32
325.73
430.56
326.98
333.30
264.62
217.17
317.95
425.80
317.95
329.57
262.66
219.46
313.63
428.57
316.39
337.79
267.05
224.64
324.36
437.78
322.79
Machinery except electrical........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Transportation equipment ..........................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................
305.98
254.70
350.99
251.74
195.16
330.44
277.01
379.20
275.81
21092
322 04
271.20
365 22
269.18
207.19
320.21
268.88
359.79
267.85
206.21
322.73
266.45
361.49
270.82
206.28
325.18
270.68
368.68
275.40
207.59
322.00
267.96
368.93
271.66
206.39
326.03
275.18
374.00
273.71
210.21
339.48
283.46
389.09
277.49
215.44
340.25
287.28
401.55
280.09
215.90
348.57
294.52
412.41
287.12
218.96
361.65
302.99
435.74
294.17
225.94
353.91
297.54
408.18
291.91
224.27
351.70
295.42
396.80
292.01
222.72
357.66
298.45
413.65
296.53
226.01
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ........................
Tobacco manufactures ..............................
Textile mill products ..................................
Apparel and other textile products..............
Paper and allied products ..........................
235.80
250.17
252.70
188.26
149.32
303.74
255.06
272.34
291.85
202.80
161.78
332.06
245.07
260.52
285.39
201.23
158.95
320.12
246.13
262.58
297.58
195.91
157.44
321.99
248.45
270.75
295.67
195.02
157.09
318.24
251.42
270.86
305.25
195.23
160.56
324.84
254.10
274.91
294.19
194.81
158.85
329.96
257.52
278.07
284.83
203.45
162.84
333.98
261.58
279.28
283.44
208.55
165.44
341.74
262.75
275.92
303.16
209.87
167.44
341.40
267.24
284.31
309.60
213.59
168.15
350.10
273.03
287.34
304.80
217.46
172.68
361.84
271.35
288.40
324.17
213.07
172.13
353.96
270.36
285.26
328.18
213.07
171.42
350.65
272.92
284.98
319.22
213.60
177.35
353.18
Printing and publishing................................
Chemicals and allied products....................
Petroleum and coal products......................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products......................
260.63
318.44
409.97
279.73
344.04
421.76
27305
335.69
366.03
270.11
337.79
404.01
274.54
337.42
425.96
273.78
339.49
432.31
277.10
339.85
437.68
283.84
343.15
431.28
288 33
349.40
448.32
288.30
352.73
454.04
289.79
360.78
458.67
300.23
365.43
449.02
293.83
362.30
471.16
294.89
363.96
482.66
298.34
366.08
491.72
241.38
154.03
260.25
167.72
250.80
164.16
250.11
165.88
247.26
167.61
251.13
169.80
250.13
165.26
262.80
167.99
267.19
166.88
272.69
169.36
279.07
169.88
286.62
174.54
284.66
177.51
279.39
178.24
283.79
179.95
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
325.98
352.04
340.49
344.05
342.70
346.50
355.11
355.32
358.89
366.16
368.42
372.40
368.39
372.88
371.70
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
164.96
175.91
172.80
171.72
172.90
175.39
178.10
179.20
178.48
179.44
180.48
181.76
183.86
184.81
186.62
WHOLESALE TRADE
247.93
26835
262.27
263.81
265.27
265.49
26702
269.18
272.58
274.77
277.92
281.64
282.21
282.65
286.44
RETAIL TRADE................................................
138.62
146.89
143.82
142.56
144.12
146.83
149.82
151.10
149.00
149.40
150.60
152.20
152.81
153.92
154.96
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
190.77
209.24
20618
205.62
205.77
210.03
208.87
211.27
211.91
214.53
218.16
217.80
221.43
225.68
225.79
SERVICES
175.27
190.71
186.88
186.30
187.02
190,57
191.65
192.31
192.73
195.60
198.86
199.51
202.15
204.40
205.38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Manufacturing workers
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
1960 ..........................................
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$80,67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
1961 ..........................................
1962..........................................
1963 ..........................................
1964 ..........................................
1965 ..........................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
101.01
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32
74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
88.88
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
121.68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10
102.90
104.13
104.30
100.73
95.18
143.30
155.19
165.39
177.55
188.82
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.56
76.45
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.35
206.40
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.27
83.56
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
116.85
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
225.79
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
91.41
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
247.01
106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
100.00
1980: March..............................
229.15
95.52
184.67
76.98
201.89
84.16
280.99
117.13
220.61
91.96
241.22
100.55
April ................................
May ................................
June ................................
228.55
229.95
233.33
94.21
93.82
94.16
184.25
185.23
187.59
75.95
75.57
75.70
201.43
202.49
205.06
83.03
82.62
82.75
279.35
280.21
283.68
115.15
114.32
114.48
219.49
220.08
222.43
90.47
89.79
89.76
239.97
240.63
243.26
98.92
98.18
98.17
July..................................
August ............................
September ......................
234.39
237.14
240,04
94.51
95.01
95.29
188.33
190.25
192.28
75.94
76.22
76.33
205.86
207.95
210.15
83.01
83.31
83.43
282.85
286.89
294.57
114.05
114.94
116.94
221.87
224.61
229.82
89.46
89.99
91.23
242.63
245.69
251.52
97.83
98.43
99.85
October............................
November ........................
December........................
242 16
244.63
247.06
95.30
95.41
95.50
193.76
195.48
197.18
76.25
76.24
76.22
211.76
213.63
215.47
83.34
83.32
83.29
298.10
305.12
313.75
117.32
119.00
121.28
232.22
236.98
242.60
91.39
92.43
93.78
254.20
259.52
265.84
100.04
101.22
102.76
1981: January............................
February p ........................
March p ............................
246.75
247.10
249.92
94.65
93.78
195.68
195.92
197.88
75.06
74.35
( 1)
213.96
214.22
216.34
82.07
81.30
( ')
308.43
305.73
311.60
118.31
116.03
(’ )
237.60
235.81
239.61
91.14
89.49
( ')
260.36
258.40
262.65
99.87
98.06
(’ )
(’ >
'Not available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau's Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
culation," Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969,
pp. 6-13. See also "Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1979-81,” Employment and Earnings, March
1981, pp. 10-11.
UNEM PLOYM ENT INSURANCE DATA
i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail
road Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
U nem ploym ent
Definitions
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1981
1980
Item
All programs:
Insured unemployment ......................
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Rate of insured unemployment ..........
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment ..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen: 3
Initial claims1 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Feb.
Apr.
Mar.
3,730
3,652
May
3,629
June
3,680
July
3,790
Aug.
4,140
3,911
Sept.
3,961
Nov.
Oct.
3,661
Dec.
3,726
Jan.
4,085
'4,621
1,818
1,705
2,190
2,248
2,319
2,737
1,829
1,702
1,808
1,673
2,544
2,653
3,518
4.1
3,356
3.9
3,278
3.8
3,343
3.9
3,455
4.0
3,692
4.3
3,408
3.9
3,087
3.6
2,903
3.3
2,983
3.4
3,321
3.8
'3,844
4.4
12,801
13,170
12,689
12,302
12,441
14,398
12,786
11,689
11,443
r 9,524
'12,603
14,228
$99.68
$99.86
$92.32
$98.39
$99.15
$99.52
$99.55
$99.88
$98.75
$1,229,877 $1,218,231 $1,232,173 $1,196,836 $1,213,595 $1,397,508 $1,249,782 $1,144,885 $1,125,416
21
21
21
20
23
27
23
25
23
17
21
19
58
63
52
50
45
58
55
56
56
54
55
57
255
$25,308
249
$24,928
246
$24,518
220
$22,025
122
$11,761
331
$33,342
244
$24,560
245
$24,804
255
$25,880
216
$21,024
'261
$27,015
257
$26,646
11
12
11
12
14
17
15
19
21
14
18
22
32
30
25
22
20
26
25
29
32
35
37
41
129
$12,226
123
$11,901
108
$10,323
88
$8,280
50
$4,665
124
$11,296
93
$8,707
105
$9,699
130
$11,917
118
$11,365
'150
'$14,184
160
$15,432
7
5
4
6
24
44
13
10
9
7
11
39
71
30
68
27
62
23
54
27
55
44
66
39
86
40
89
38
84
38
70
39
83
$208.73
$14,573
$210.79
$13,884
$201.87
$13,002
$193.44
$9,953
$199.06
$10,140
$207.08
$13,320
$211.87
$17,336
$211.99
$18,809
$208.49
$17,789
$209.00
$14,269
$212.27
$18,046
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals ..........
Nonfarm placements..........................
7,285
1,561
8,708
1,853
10,021
2,143
11,446
2,413
12,864
2,730
14,249
3,105
15,431
3,445
16,632
3,827
11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4,264
3,669
4.2
$102.34
$101.96 '$101.43
$1,055,065 $1,242,957 $1,416,513
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment........................................
Total benefits paid ............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Feb.
54
40
4 Includes the Virgin islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30).
r = revised
NOTE: Date for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.
87
PRICE DATA
d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
P r ic e
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the Review, regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see Facts About the Revised Consumer Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stand
ards of living, see the family budget data published in the Handbook
of Labor Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price
Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see BLS Handbook of Methods
for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 7-15. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-80
[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages
All items
Year
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Percent
change
Index
Index
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Medical care
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
100.0
104.2
109,8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
6.1
6.9
6.3
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147,7
161,2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4,8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8
23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
1981
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
1981
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
All items......................................................................................
236.4
251.7
253.9
256.2
258.4
260.5
263.2
236.5
251.9
254.1
256.4
258.7
260.7
263.5
Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation ..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................
238.6
250.5
171.9
239.6
257.9
197.8
208.1
254.2
267.7
182.2
254.7
270.6
209.8
220.6
255.5
271.1
183.9
256.1
272.8
210.9
221.5
257.4
273.8
184.8
259.0
274.5
211.2
222.8
259.3
279.9
183.9
261.1
275.8
212.0
224.6
261.4
279.1
181.1
264.7
279.5
214.4
226.2
263.7
280.9
182.0
270.9
282.6
216.7
227.4
239.0
250.5
171.5
240.2
258.7
196.2
207.7
255.1
267.6
181.4
255.2
272.2
208.1
219.0
256.6
271.0
182.8
256.6
274.3
209.2
219.9
258.7
273.7
183.3
259.7
276.3
209.9
221.0
260.5
277.1
182.9
261.9
277.6
210.1
223.0
262.1
279.1
180.8
265.7
281.4
212.2
224.4
264.3
280.7
181.8
272.1
284.4
215.0
225.6
Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables ............................................................................
225.2
215.5
231.8
202.1
239.0
228.4
244.1
215.3
240.7
230.2
244.4
218.1
242.5
232.0
245.3
220.6
243.8
232.9
246.8
221.1
245.4
234.3
250.2
221.0
248.3
237.4
258.6
220.3
235.3
215.7
234.1
200.3
239.2
228.4
246.0
213.5
240.8
230.0
246.1
216.3
242.9
232.0
247.1
218.9
244.3
233.1
248.8
219.7
245.8
234.7
252,6
219.5
248.8
237.9
261.4
218.6
Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................
256.8
185.6
300.2
229.6
279.0
211.1
274.8
195.1
322.6
249.4
292.3
225.3
277.9
197.1
327.4
250.8
294.8
226.7
280.9
198.3
331.9
253.3
296.6
227.2
284.7
199.6
338.4
255.8
297.9
228.1
287.7
200.9
342.3
258.7
302.1
230.4
290.1
201.9
345.4
260.5
305.2
232.3
257.3
185.5
302.4
229.3
279.8
211.4
275.4
194.8
325.3
248.2
294.3
225.4
278.6
196.8
330.3
249.6
2966
227.4
281.5
198.0
334.8
252.2
298.7
227.9
285.5
199.4
341.9
254.7
300.0
228.4
288.4
200.6
345.5
257.7
304.3
230.2
290.8
201.6
348.5
259.7
307.4
232.1
All items ess food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical ca re ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
233.5
227.1
213.8
227.3
258.2
236.3
270.2
252.7
229.1
267.2
344.6
228.0
222.8
194.9
385.0
255.2
248.6
241.5
226.6
239.3
271.3
250.2
289.8
271.0
246.2
278.8
370.1
242.5
236.9
207.2
401.7
271.3
250.9
243.0
228.3
239.6
271.1
251.0
293.2
274.2
247.3
276.8
368.0
245.1
239.7
209.4
399.1
274.9
253.2
244.5
230.0
240.5
272.1
252.4
296.4
277.2
249.2
278.9
366.1
247.7
242.4
211.2
400.2
278.6
255.5
245.9
231.0
242.0
274.7
254.1
300.7
281.2
251.1
276.2
370.4
249.7
244.5
211.7
404.9
282.4
257.6
247.8
232.4
245.3
281.1
256.9
304.2
284.2
252.4
276.2
381.7
251.2
245.7
211.5
c 420.4
285.4
260.4
250.6
235.4
253.2
292.4
262.3
306.9
286.5
254.0
273.0
401.1
252.5
246.8
211.7
449.0
287.6
233.7
227.6
214.0
229.4
260.1
237.4
270.8
253.1
229.2
270.3
348.7
227.3
221.8
193.5
386.4
255.7
248.7
242.0
226.5
241.1
273.0
251.5
290.7
271.4
246.1
280.8
373.1
242.0
235.9
205.7
402.7
271.9
251.0
243.5
228.2
241.3
272.8
252.3
294.2
274.7
247.0
279.0
371.1
244.5
238.7
207.8
400.3
275.6
253.4
245.1
230.1
242.2
273.9
253.8
297.4
277.7
249.1
280.7
369.5
247.2
241.5
209.9
401.3
279.3
255.7
246.7
231.2
243.9
276.6
255.6
302.0
281.9
251.1
278.4
373.7
249.3
243.6
210.6
405.9
283.4
257.9
248.5
232.7
247.5
283.0
258.3
305.2
284.7
252.1
277.9
385.2
250.6
244.8
210.4
421.3
286.2
260.8
251.4
236.0
255.9
294.7
263.8
307.9
287.0
253.9
275.1
405.4
251.8
245.8
210.5
450.1
288.4
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................
$0,423
$0,397
$0,394
$0,390
$0,387
$0,384
$0,380
$0,423
$0,397
$0,394
$0,390
$0,387
$0,384
$0,380
Special indexes:
c = corrected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
1981
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
Feb.
Feb.
1981
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
238.6
254.2
255.5
257.4
259.3
261.4
263.7
239.0
255.1
256.6
258.7
260.5
262.1
264.3
Food
..............................................................................................
244.9
261.1
262.4
264.5
266.4
268.6
270.8
245.2
261.9
263.4
265.7
267.6
269.2
271.4
Food at home........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products ..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100)........................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100)................................................
White bread ......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100)..........................
Cookies (12/77 = 100)......................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) . . .
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........
241.3
236.8
125.8
125.7
124.9
127.4
125.1
210.7
124.6
126.2
122.8
1228
119.9
123.8
258.9
250.3
137.1
133.3
138.5
138.4
130.9
219.6
130.9
129.2
129.5
129.9
124.2
131.6
260.0
253.7
137.5
133.2
139.3
138.9
133.1
222.7
132.5
133.4
132.5
131.0
126.4
133.4
262.1
255.8
138.7
132.9
141.1
140.5
134.3
224.9
133.1
134.6
133.4
133.1
125.6
135.3
263.9
258.5
140.8
133.5
143.8
143.1
135.4
226.3
134.1
135.4
135.3
134.9
126.9
135.9
265.6
262.9
143.2
135.9
145.8
146.0
137.7
229.5
137.1
137.6
138.5
138.0
127.0
138.0
267.3
265.3
144.5
137.5
146.5
147.9
139.0
231.4
137.3
138.9
139.5
139.0
128.6
140.4
241.1
237.4
127.2
127.3
125.5
129.2
125.1
209.7
127.5
124.3
122.2
124.0
121.0
125.4
258.6
251.1
137.8
134.1
138.6
140.2
131.2
219.3
134.3
128.1
129.7
131.7
124.5
132.0
259.7
254.3
138.5
133.8
139.3
141.6
133.3
222.6
135.8
132.1
132.6
132.5
126.5
134.1
262.0
2568
139.7
133.6
141.5
142.7
134.7
225.2
137.0
134.1
133.1
134.5
125.7
136.1
263.9
259.5
142.3
134.4
145.0
145.8
135.7
226.6
137.9
135.1
134.2
136.1
126.5
136.4
265.1
263.0
144.5
136.8
147.2
147.8
137.5
229.4
139.4
136.4
136.8
139.0
126.8
138.5
267.0
265.0
145.5
137.9
148.0
149.3
138.5
230.9
140.1
136.9
138.1
139.8
128.6
140.0
127.2
132.1
135.3
136.2
137.5
139.7
141.4
123.8
129.9
130.9
132.4
134.0
135.2
136.3
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal ................................................................
Ground beef other than canned....................................
Chuck roas:................................................................
Round roast................................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Pork chops ................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Other meats ..................................................................
Frankfurters................................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 - 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100) ................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) ........................
Poultry..............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken....................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Fish and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) ........
Eggs..........................................................................
236.2
242.6
244.1
266.2
273.3
277.7
244.5
252.3
251.1
152.2
202.8
190.1
189.7
95.7
255.1
2195
114.3
244.7
242.7
135.6
120.7
142.4
182.6
183.6
116.8
118.8
320.4
120.3
123.0
157.2
251.8
257.7
257.8
277.5
276.8
287.7
248.0
260.7
280.9
161.8
222.7
220.1
206.2
102.2
277.9
225.1
128.6
254.9
256.1
143.5
125.7
143.8
205.2
214.0
134.0
122.9
335.8
133.2
124.8
179.9
252.6
259.0
258.7
275.8
275.8
284.4
250.6
258.9
270.7
161.0
225.8
224.7
207.8
105.5
282.4
232.5
127.6
259.4
260.9
146.5
127.8
146.1
209.1
216.7
134.7
128.7
336.6
133.9
124.8
175.3
254.9
260.7
261.1
277.9
277.1
291.7
251.2
263.8
271.8
161.8
228.6
229.5
208.5
107.9
283.5
237.7
128.4
261.8
262.6
148.4
129.7
146.1
204.1
208.7
131.8
128.0
343.0
136.0
127.5
185.2
255.7
259.9
260.0
275.3
276.1
288.5
245.7
260.2
267.6
160.4
229.1
231.9
208.7
107.8
285.6
238.4
127.6
262.8
264.0
149.1
129.9
146.6
202.7
206.9
131.6
126.6
346.9
136.4
129.6
206.6
255.1
260.6
259.7
275.3
276.3
285.3
250.0
262.4
264.9
160.3
228.2
228.1
211.6
104.1
287.8
241.1
127.4
262.9
262.5
151.2
130.3
145.0
202.4
202.5
132.7
128.7
358.0
137.4
135.7
190.2
252.5
257.9
256.4
272.3
272.8
288.1
248.0
259.0
262.0
157.7
223.6
221.7
210.3
100.0
282.3
238.0
125.4
260.8
259.4
149.4
129.8
144.1
203.7
207.0
131.9
128.5
355.0
138.0
133.5
188.2
236.4
242.8
244.3
268.9
276.2
288.7
245.8
250.5
253.0
152.8
204.1
193.8
191.0
95.2
257.0
218.9
114.6
240.9
242.1
132.3
118.6
143.4
181.1
178.9
117.0
119.4
317.9
119.7
122.0
156.7
251.2
257.1
257.2
279.1
279.9
295.4
249.0
261.4
282.2
161.2
222.8
223.0
205.0
100.7
280.0
225.9
128.5
251.5
254.3
141.2
123.5
145.0
203.3
209.6
134.1
122.0
333.4
131.0
124.5
178.4
251.8
258.1
258.1
277.4
278.9
294.0
251.1
257.9
272.8
160.3
225.8
226.0
207.3
103.5
283.2
235.2
127.9
255.8
260.3
143.6
125.5
146.5
205.4
210.5
133.5
127.1
333.8
131.2
124.6
174.4
254.2
259.9
260.3
279.1
280.4
301.9
249.9
261.8
274.9
160.3
228.5
232.3
204.8
106.0
285.9
242.2
128.8
259.0
262.6
145.7
127.5
147.7
201.4
203.5
131.6
126.5
340.0
133.5
127.0
185.7
255.0
259.2
259.3
276.8
281.0
296.0
246.6
257.6
269.7
159.2
228.8
234.1
206.8
105.7
287.2
242.6
127.4
259.4
263.4
145.2
127.7
148.5
201.1
202.2
132.3
126.2
343.1
133.7
128.8
206.6
254.1
259.4
259.2
276.4
279.3
295.2
249.6
255.5
266.3
159.5
228.5
232.5
210.2
102.2
288.5
243.3
127.9
260.4
262.6
148.0
128.1
147.8
199.2
197.2
131.3
127.9
350.0
135.3
132.0
190.1
251.6
257.0
256.0
273.8
275.7
298.6
247.5
254.7
263.5
156.9
223.2
225.7
207.6
98.2
282.0
240.6
125.0
259.1
261.0
146.0
128.6
146.5
201.3
201.7
131.9
127.8
349.5
135.9
131.4
187.0
Dairy products..........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh whole m ilk............................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)......................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100)................................
219.5
123.7
203.2
122.7
124.5
218.3
124.2
124.6
120.9
2306
128.0
209.7
127.7
133.6
236.2
132.3
135.7
128.9
232.7
129.1
211.3
129.1
134.9
238.9
133.4
138.0
129.0
235.4
130.4
213.3
130.5
136.9
241.5
135.9
139.1
130.6
238.0
131.9
216.2
131.4
138.2
241.0
137.0
141.4
132.4
240.1
133.0
218.2
132.1
139.6
242.7
138.2
143.6
133.3
242.1
134.0
219.3
134.2
140.8
242.2
139.2
145.9
134.5
219.8
123.6
202.7
123.0
125.1
220.9
124.4
125.6
121.3
230.9
128.2
209.8
128.3
134.1
238.8
132.7
135.4
129.3
233.1
129.1
211.0
129.5
135.8
242.5
133.8
139.1
129.4
235.9
130.4
213.0
131.0
137.9
244.4
136.2
140.9
131.9
238.8
132.2
216.5
131.9
139.2
244.1
137.4
143.2
133.1
240.7
133.4
218.5
132.9
140.1
246.5
138.3
144.3
132.9
242.5
134.1
219.3
134.4
141.6
246.0
139.6
146.8
135.0
Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits ....................................................................
Apples........................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)..................................
Fresh vegetables............................................................
Potatoes ....................................................................
Lettuce ......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................
228.3
223.1
235.8
239.6
238.5
231.1
121.4
211.2
203.3
198.7
184,9
125.1
257.4
269.6
286.3
295.2
238.0
296.5
150.8
253.9
313.2
265.9
214.2
127.1
254.2
262.3
272.9
242.2
233.4
312.9
145.4
252.4
295.6
249.1
237.3
129.7
253.3
258.3
258.6
213.5
235.7
316.6
134.9
258.0
293.0
273.5
192.2
139.6
255.6
262.0
251.8
218.8
244.1
299.3
128.6
271.5
297.7
255.3
206.1
156.3
257.6
263.9
245.6
220.8
237.8
272.9
127.8
281.1
326.1
234.2
247.2
157.8
267.3
278.1
256.8
217.1
256.9
284.9
135.9
298.0
350.2
220,4
312.8
163.5
225.9
220.6
234.7
237.6
234.6
228.4
121.3
207.9
199 8
191.7
184.3
123.9
255.8
267.8
284.9
295.3
234.3
284.2
151.9
252.4
309.2
262.5
210.8
127.6
252.3
259.6
270.4
243.7
230.2
301.5
145.6
249.9
292.0
241.3
235.6
129.6
251.4
255.7
255.5
213.0
232.0
300.4
136.4
256.0
289.9
267.2
188.9
140.0
253.9
260.2
248.6
216.9
239.2
287.0
129.2
270.9
298.0
2538
204.5
156.2
255.1
260.3
241.1
216.8
228.9
258.9
128.4
277.8
322.9
229.9
239.8
156.9
266.5
277.6
254.4
218.2
249.4
269.4
137.9
298.7
347.1
225.6
308.6
164.8
Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100)....................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100) ........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100)..............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100)................................
236.2
123 4
117.6
126.0
125.5
114.0
113.0
246.3
127.4
119.3
130.8
130.7
120.1
119.7
247.5
127.8
118.8
131.0
132.0
120.8
120.3
250.1
129.1
120.5
131.9
133.3
122.2
121.8
250.9
129.0
120.6
131.6
133.1
123.1
122.1
253.0
129.9
120,7
133.2
134.1
124.2
124.1
257.8
133.5
127.1
137.2
134.9
125.5
124.4
233.9
123.6
117.8
126.3
125.3
112.2
111.7
244.6
127.6
118.5
131.0
131.5
118.7
119.4
246.4
128.5
118.8
131.9
132.7
119.6
120.3
248 8
129.4
120.7
132.3
133.5
121.0
121.7
249.0
129.1
119.9
132.2
133.3
121.5
121.2
251.3
129.9
119.6
133.2
134.7
123.0
123.3
256.4
133.8
127.1
137.1
135.8
124.4
124.0
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1981
1980
1981
1980
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Fruits and vegetables — Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)............
Other foods at hom e......................................................................
Sugar and sweets....................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77-100) ..............................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)......................
Other sweets (12/77-100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77-100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)............
Roasted coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77=100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..................................
Snacks (12/77-100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)............
Other condiments (12/77-100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77-100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
115.2
113.9
288.0
297.5
122.4
131.5
119.5
235.9
247.9
116.4
123.6
384.5
255.9
122.3
439.6
3822
118.3
221.8
118.1
126.6
123.4
123.6
123.7
120.7
121.2
121.4
119.6
309.2
361.1
134.2
200.2
129.2
243.6
249.2
125.8
127.4
403.9
276.7
132.5
426.1
376.1
124.5
235.2
123.8
133.9
129.8
130.7
133.0
130.6
126.9
122.5
120.3
311.5
369.0
134.7
209.4
131.5
246.0
254.2
125.6
128.5
404.9
280.4
133.9
411.8
368.1
125.8
236.6
124.1
133.9
130.6
131.9
133.4
132.0
127.9
124.1
121.5
314.8
381.3
135.7
225.9
132.5
247.4
254.9
127.4
129.0
405.5
284.0
133.8
399.2
364.9
126.7
239.9
125.1
136.6
135.2
133.5
133.3
133.5
128.6
124.5
122.9
317.1
386.3
136.9
230.3
133.7
251.9
253.6
139.6
129.1
405.2
285.2
134.8
389.7
356.5
127.5
242.4
127.2
137.6
138.6
134.2
133.5
133.8
130.3
126.0
123.4
320.5
385.4
138.6
222.8
137.1
260.4
256.9
156.0
130.3
409.7
290.8
137.5
380.7
354.6
129.1
244.9
128.1
138.6
141.1
135.2
134.4
135.4
131.6
128.2
124.7
323.0
385.4
141.1
217.7
137.7
267.3
256.8
171.8
131.0
411.9
295.3
140.1
364.9
345.3
130.8
246.9
128.7
140.0
142.3
137.2
135.8
135.8
132.4
113.4
111.9
287.3
297.1
122.2
131.6
118.5
236.5
247.9
117.2
123.8
383.0
253.6
120.2
436.8
380.4
117.5
221.7
117.9
125.5
124.7
123.1
124.6
120.5
120.3
119.6
117,9
309.1
361.8
134.7
199.7
127.7
244.6
251.8
125.8
127.4
403.6
274.9
130.2
423.1
374.8
123.8
235.6
124.7
131.6
130.4
129.5
135.0
131.1
127.2
120.9
118.5
311.7
369.8
135.4
209.5
129.2
247.0
256.6
125.5
128.7
405.8
279.6
131.8
409.3
366.3
125.3
236.9
124.9
131.9
131.0
132.2
135.3
131.7
128.2
121.8
120.3
315.7
383.9
136.8
225.9
131.9
248.2
256.9
128.0
128.8
407.8
283.6
133.2
395.5
364.0
126.2
240.4
125.6
133.5
136.1
132.8
136.5
133.8
128.9
122.8
121.0
317.8
388,9
137.4
231.4
133.1
252.6
254.6
139.9
129.1
407.4
284.0
133.5
386.2
358.1
127.7
242.8
128.0
134.8
140.1
133.4
136.3
133.5
130.2
124.5
122.1
320.8
387.3
139.4
223.4
135.5
261.8
257.4
156.4
131.0
410.7
288.2
135.0
376.4
355.8
129.6
245.1
127.9
136.9
141.7
134.5
136.3
135.2
132.1
126.5
123.5
323.6
387.7
142.0
217.9
137.3
268.9
258.3
172.7
131.4
413.6
293.4
137.8
360.3
347.0
130.9
247.1
129.3
137.8
143.5
136.3
137.3
136.0
132.4
Food away from hom e..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100) ............................................
258.3
125.9
125.8
123.2
271.4
132.1
131.9
130.4
273.1
132.9
132.4
131.8
275.3
134.3
133.4
132.5
277.7
135.7
134.4
133.7
280.9
137.2
136.2
134.7
284.7
138.6
138.2
137.0
260.1
126.7
126.8
124.4
274.9
132.9
133.8
133.3
277.4
134.4
135.1
133.9
279.5
135.7
136.1
134.5
281.8
137.3
136.7
135.6
284.2
138.5
138.2
136.4
287.3
139.8
139.4
138.5
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Food
Continued
Continued
Food at home — Continued
Alcoholic beverages
180.4
189.6
190.4
190.9
191.6
193.7
195.9
181.1
191.7
192.5
192.8
193.7
195.5
197.6
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77-100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
Wine..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100)................................
117.4
179.9
132.6
202.5
107.3
119.2
123.6
190.8
137.6
214.7
111.7
124.5
124.0
191.7
137.7
215.4
112.5
125.1
124.4
192.0
138.9
215.2
112.9
125.3
124.9
192.9
138.9
217.6
112.7
125.8
126.1
194.5
140.0
221.7
113.7
127.6
127.4
197.6
140.0
224.0
113.9
129.7
118.3
179.9
133.8
206.1
106.7
117.6
125.1
191.9
138.5
219.8
111.2
124.8
125.6
192.0
139.0
224.2
111.6
125.3
125.9
192.2
139.8
224.0
112.0
125.5
126,5
192.9
140.2
227.2
112.1
126.2
127.6
194.5
141.5
229.4
113.2
127.4
128.8
197.2
142.0
231.6
113.3
129.4
HOUSING............................................................................................
250.5
267.7
271.1
2738
276.9
279.1
280.9
250.5
267.6
271.0
273.7
277.1
279.1
280.7
Shelter................................................................................................
267.2
285.3
290.4
294.7
298.5
300.1
300.5
268.3
286.8
292.0
296.4
300.4
301.7
301.7
Rent, residential....................................................................................
185.6
195.1
197.1
198.3
199.6
200.9
201.9
185.5
194.8
196.8
198.0
199.4
200.6
201.6
Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77=100) ....................................................
255.7
272.8
117.8
268.9
287.0
124.7
268.8
286.0
125.4
268.3
284.2
126.5
2677
282.6
126.9
273.9
291.5
127.6
278.5
297.4
129.3
255.6
271.6
118.5
268.6
285.6
125.2
268.8
284.9
126.0
268.4
283.3
126.8
267.3
281.0
127.2
273.6
289.9
128.0
278.3
296.0
129.9
Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................................
Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77-100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77-100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........
296.3
243.0
367.7
3337
188.2
464.0
187.5
273.7
297.1
218.9
317.6
261.5
393.5
359.8
191.2
500.9
188.9
291.6
315.9
234.9
323.8
265.5
404.7
362.0
192.0
518.1
192.6
292.8
317.0
236.3
329.4
267.3
416.9
364.5
192.8
536.7
198.0
294.2
318.6
237.1
334.2
267.2
429.4
365.8
194.5
555.5
205.1
296.8
321.5
239.1
335.8
266.2
435.2
369.8
196.0
563.5
209.0
296.8
321.3
239.7
335.8
263.0
437.1
373.1
198.5
565.0
211.9
302.8
328.7
242.4
298.4
243.0
371.6
335.2
189,9
465.0
187.8
274.4
299.3
219.5
320.2
262.1
398.9
362.9
193.0
503.6
189.5
290.3
315.6
233.9
326.7
266.4
410.8
365.3
193.8
521.2
193.0
290.4
315.1
235.0
332.3
268.2
423.1
367.8
194.7
539.7
198.4
291.1
315.9
235.6
337.5
268.0
436.0
369.0
196.4
558.7
205.5
294.2
320.3
236.2
338.6
266.4
441.3
373.2
197.9
565.9
209.4
294.1
319.8
236.7
338.2
262.7
442.6
376.6
200.6
566.5
212.3
299.9
327.7
238.6
123.5
115.8
135.6
122.2
136.9
122.4
137.4
122.3
139.2
123.2
139.5
123.4
141.6
124.0
122.3
119.3
132.7
121.8
133.1
122.5
134.7
122.0
134.9
122.9
135,1
122.7
136.9
122.3
115.3
116.4
123.2
122.7
123.8
123.3
124.2
123.7
124.8
124.2
125.2
124.7
127.3
125.2
117.9
114.5
126.1
125.2
126.6
125.9
124.6
126.4
124.9
126.3
124.5
127.9
127.0
127.8
Fuel and other utilities
263.8
288.2
287.6
285.7
289.9
296.7
304.5
264.4
288.7
288.0
286.3
290.7
297.5
305.6
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................
327.1
539,1
561.9
136.6
278.8
233.8
336.8
364.5
561.5
585.4
142.1
318.4
269.2
380.2
362.8
558.7
581.5
143.1
317.1
265.3
384.6
358.7
567.0
589.8
145.7
310.5
258.7
379.0
364.7
585.3
610.0
148.4
313.9
262.3
381.5
375.4
625.9
656.0
152.3
318.5
266.9
385.3
387.4
675.6
712.0
157.5
322.9
271.3
389.0
327.0
540.3
562.5
137.9
278.5
233.9
335.4
363.8
562.9
585.9
143.8
317.4
269.6
376.1
362.1
559.9
581.8
144.8
316.0
265.3
380.9
358.2
568.3
590.3
147.3
309.8
258.4
376.7
364.5
587.0
610.9
150.1
313.4
262.1
379.7
375.0
627.9
657.1
154.1
317.7
266.5
383.3
387.3
678.5
714.2
159.4
322.1
271.1
386.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1980
1981
1981
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
161.3
132.8
102.7
97.4
98.8
252.3
167.1
137.0
106.0
102.1
100.1
264.5
167.8
137.5
106.6
102.1
100.1
266.2
169.0
138.7
108.3
101.7
100.6
267.0
170.6
140.3
110.5
101.8
100.9
267.8
171.9
141.1
111.6
101.8
101.0
271.4
173.6
142.4
113.5
101.8
101.2
274.7
161.4
132.8
102.7
97.5
98.7
2530
167.1
136.9
105.9
102.1
100.0
265.5
167.8
137.4
106.5
102.1
99.9
267.3
169.1
138.7
108.3
101.8
100.5
268.0
170.7
140.3
110.6
101.8
100.7
268.7
172.0
141.1
111.7
101.9
100.8
272.5
173.9
142.5
113.6
101.9
101.0
276.3
Household furnishings and operations
199.0
209.2
210.1
211.0
211.6
212.6
214.9
196.8
206.0
206.8
208.1
209.0
209.7
211.7
Housefurnishings ....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezers..........................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’, laundry,
cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
169.3
182.9
110.1
118.2
185.2
120.5
108.5
110.0
118.3
138.3
105.4
103.7
108.1
159.4
156.5
115.0
111.3
177.3
194.1
118.4
123.6
195.7
127.9
112.7
114.1
127.5
142.0
107.0
177.9
195.9
119.5
124.9
195.2
127.4
113.8
113.0
127.0
142.3
107.1
104.7
110.3
166.0
165.8
121.5
114.2
178.1
192.4
117.3
122.7
196.5
128.6
114.2
113.3
127.9
142.6
107.4
105.1
110.6
166.2
166.1
122.0
114.2
178.3
193.2
117.2
123.8
197.0
129.2
115.3
113.1
127.8
142.4
107.2
105.2
110.1
165.9
166.5
123.4
113.1
178.7
191.9
114,6
124.9
196.6
128.3
114.2
113.1
128.7
143.1
107.4
105.6
110.2
167.2
168.0
123.6
114.2
180.8
195.1
118.6
124.8
199.3
131.3
114.5
115.9
129.1
143.9
107.9
105.7
111.0
168.2
168.4
123.7
115.4
167.9
181.2
109.8
116.6
184.3
117.5
110.3
111.2
117.5
137.8
104.9
102.3
108.2
158.8
159.7
114.7
109.5
175.0
192.5
117.7
122.7
192.0
124.5
111.1
115.1
123.6
141.2
105.7
103.2
108.8
165.2
169.1
120.0
112.5
175.6
195.1
119.5
124.1
192.5
124.6
113.0
114.4
123.6
141.2
105.6
103.2
108.7
165.3
169.4
120.2
112.5
176.4
195.7
122.6
121.2
193.9
125.5
113.6
115.6
124.6
141.4
106.1
103.8
109.1
165.2
169.2
120.2
112.4
176.9
196.6
122.7
122.4
194.4
125.7
114.7
115.2
124.7
142.0
106.1
103.7
109.2
166.3
170.9
121.4
112.8
176.9
193.4
117.0
124.6
193.6
125.1
113.2
114.3
125.6
142.7
106.5
104.2
109.4
167.6
171.7
121.9
114.0
178.5
196.9
121.4
124.4
195.6
127.7
113.2
115.2
126.6
142.9
106.6
104.2
109.6
167.8
172.3
122.8
113.7
HOUSING
Continued
Fuel and other utilities — Continued
105.0
109.8
165.5
164.8
120.9
114.2
110.8
111.8
112.4
113.0
112.0
114.8
115.1
110.5
111.8
112.1
112.6
113.9
115.7
114.2
112.0
115.9
117.0
123.0
116.2
124.1
115.5
124.6
114.3
124.8
113.6
125.6
115.7
127.9
108.4
114.4
113.4
121.6
113.0
122.2
112.1
123.2
111.5
123.1
112.0
123.8
113.1
125.6
114.5
112.7
123.0
120.6
123.3
121.6
124.3
121.4
124.6
121.7
125.7
122.3
128.7
124.1
109.4
109.8
116.8
118.2
118.2
119.4
119.0
119.2
118.4
118.8
118.9
119.2
120.8
121.7
121.4
111.7
128.2
117.2
130.0
117.9
130.6
118.4
130.8
118.7
131.9
118.7
134.8
119.9
118.9
114.2
126.3
120.3
126.3
120.9
127.4
122.3
127.6
122.3
128.0
123.8
131.0
123.8
Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
235.0
228.9
117.2
121.2
112.7
119.4
119.4
252.0
243.7
125.6
133.8
118.0
129.0
127.1
253.6
248.7
125.7
134.2
118.6
129.5
126.9
256.0
252.4
126.7
135.6
118,3
131.1
128.0
257.7
254.0
127.6
136.1
119.5
132.5
128.4
259.5
255.6
128.8
137.3
119.9
132.6
130.0
262.8
256.2
129.3
138.4
121.4
135.9
134.0
232.8
226.5
117.1
123.4
112.3
116.6
113.3
249.6
241.1
125.0
135.8
116.9
126.6
120.5
251.2
245.6
125.1
136.2
118.2
126.7
121.0
253.5
2482
126.2
136.6
118.8
128.4
122.5
256.0
252.3
127.6
137.6
120.0
129.5
122.5
257.5
253.4
129.0
139.2
120.7
129.3
122.7
260.1
254.3
129.6
139.2
122.4
132.2
126.1
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................
261.6
257.3
273.3
257.3
274.5
257.3
276.1
257.3
277.1
257.3
279.6
257.3
281.6
257.3
261.1
257.2
270.2
257.3
271.0
257.3
272.5
257.3
273.8
257.3
276.4
257.3
279.4
257.3
124.2
114.7
132.8
119.8
133.3
120.3
134.6
120.7
134.4
121.4
137.0
122.4
138.2
123.6
124.6
115.5
130.3
118.7
130.2
119.2
131.4
119.7
131.8
120.6
134.3
121.5
137.8
122.4
APPAREL AND UPKEEP
171.9
182.2
183.9
184.8
183.9
181.1
182.0
171.5
181.4
182.8
183.3
182.9
c 180.8
181.8
Apparel commodities
Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men's and boys' ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 - 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women’s and girls' ..........................................................................
Women's (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..............................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
165.1
174.9
176.4
177.2
176.0
172.6
173.2
165.2
174.4
175.6
176.0
175.3
172.6
173.3
161.8
162.7
102.3
98.2
936
112.7
109.3
97.7
106.3
99.9
110.9
109.5
151.1
100.8
163.1
160.6
97.1
110.2
88.2
98.9
95.7
98.2
171.8
171.7
108.1
103.2
99.9
120.8
116.9
101.2
111.4
108.1
116.6
111.9
159.0
105.7
168.9
168.5
102.2
114.6
95.4
105.8
102.1
105.3
173.1
173.9
109.5
104.3
100.4
122.9
118.3
102.6
113.0
109.2
118.1
113.9
159.7
106.1
167.0
170.0
101.6
114.9
98.2
107.0
103.2
106.7
173.9
174.8
110.1
104.7
100.5
123.3
119.6
103.5
113.3
109.4
118.4
114.3
159.9
106.3
164.7
168.1
102.9
116.7
97.4
106.5
102.7
105.9
172.5
174.3
109.8
103.5
99.7
123.9
119.7
103.4
113.1
108.6
118.7
114.3
157.4
104.4
161.4
163.8
101.4
116.8
91.9
106.1
101.3
106.1
168.9
171.1
107.5
99.9
95.2
123.9
115.4
103.4
112.0
104.8
119.1
114.8
152.1
100.8
150,4
155.5
98.2
116.0
87.8
102.9
96.0
103.6
169.6
171.6
107.8
100.5
95.6
125.3
114.8
102.7
112.6
104.3
119.1
116.6
153.4
101.9
160.7
156.9
97.1
116.4
90.0
102.8
94.4
104.2
161.9
162.9
102.4
94.4
92.2
111.1
109.4
102.2
105.9
101.9
109.5
107.7
151.3
101.4
162.4
151.2
99.2
110.6
96.8
97.3
92.6
98.1
171.1
171.6
108.3
98.3
100.0
117,5
117.4
107.1
110.2
109,6
113.7
109.4
159.8
107.0
177.0
156.8
104.6
114.8
105.7
103.3
97.3
104.2
172.2
173.8
109.5
99,7
101.3
118.8
118.5
108.3
112.0
111.2
115.1
111.5
160.3
107.0
176.5
157.5
103.6
115.3
106.8
105.1
99.0
106.3
172.5
174.8
110.2
99.4
101.9
119.7
120.4
108,7
112.7
112.5
115.2
111.9
159.9
106.6
175.5
157.7
102.8
116.4
102.8
105.3
99.1
106.8
171.6
174.4
109.9
98.2
101.9
120.0
120.7
108.1
112.6
111.8
116.2
112.0
158.2
105.3
172.2
154.3
c 102.4
116.6
98.2
104.9
98.6
106.6
168.7
171.7
107.9
95.1
97.4
119.9
116.7
108.2
111.6
107.9
115.8
112.9
153.9
102.3
162.1
147.3
c 100.1
115.6
95.5
102.5
94.4
104.4
169.6
172.2
108.2
96.1
96.0
120.2
116.8
108.7
111.9
107.0
116.1
114.2
155.4
103.5
159.1
150.5
99.7
116.0
103.6
102.7
93.5
105.8
105.6
113.0
113.8
114.0
113.8
113.1
113.9
103.5
111.3
112.8
112.6
112.2
112.2
112.5
23.
Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1981
1980
1981
1980
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Apparel commodities less footwear — Continued
Infants' and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - 100) ........................................
226.6
191.4
106.3
131.2
242.4
210.5
110.9
146.8
244.1
211.8
111.9
147.5
248.9
213.7
110.3
149.9
250.1
213.3
110.6
149.5
249.7
214.2
111.9
149.7
254.3
212.3
112.2
147.9
232.7
191.8
105.7
132.3
248.3
204.4
110.7
142.0
249.2
204.1
112.0
141.1
254.0
204.0
110.2
141.8
255.4
204.4
110.0
142.3
256.9
205.3
110.8
142.8
264.0
204.4
112.2
141.3
Footwear..............................................................................................
Men's (12/77 - 100) ....................................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 - 100) ......................................................
Womens’ (12/77 - 100)................................................................
184.6
118.3
117.9
112.1
193.2
123.6
123.3
117.7
196.1
124.7
125.8
119.6
196.5
125.4
126.2
119.4
196.6
124.6
126.6
120.0
194.9
124.4
125.7
118.1
194.9
125.0
125.3
117.9
183.9
119.4
118.0
109.5
193.3
124,9
124.6
115.1
195.6
125.8
126.9
116.3
196.4
126.7
127.4
116.5
196.7
126.0
127.8
117.5
195.5
126.1
127.0
115.9
194.9
125.7
126.2
115.9
Apparel services
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
222.9
130.6
120.7
237.3
140.0
126.9
240.0
141.1
129.2
241.9
142.4
130.0
243.4
143.5
130.5
246.3
145.3
131.7
249.9
147.6
133.3
219.8
130.6
116.9
234.5
139.1
125.1
238.1
140.9
127.4
239.9
141.6
129.1
242.2
143.2
129.9
245.5
145.5
131.1
248.7
147.3
132.9
TRANSPORTATION
239.6
254.7
256.1
259.0
261.1
264.7
270.9
240.2
255.2
256.6
259.7
261.9
265.7
272.1
257.4
269.4
240.4
254.1
255.5
2586
260.8
264.4
271.0
APPAREL AND UPKEEP
Apparel commodities
Continued
Continued
..............................................................................................
239.8
253.2
254.5
259.4
262.9
New cars ............................................................................................
Used cars ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 - 100)........................
Tires ................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers’ licenses (12/77 - 100) ........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................
175.3
195.3
357.6
258.2
126.5
181.7
214.6
373.0
273.8
133.8
181.9
222.7
370.5
276.0
135.0
184.3
230.8
370.5
278.4
136.1
184.5
234.4
373.3
280.1
136.8
185.3
234.0
385.2
282.7
137.3
184.8
234.3
410.8
285.4
139.2
175.4
195.3
359.0
259.2
126.1
182 3
214.6
373.9
273.9
133.0
182.0
222.7
371.7
276.6
134.6
184.5
230.8
371.7
278.9
135.9
184.6
234.4
374.4
280.6
136.7
185.7
234.0
386.6
283.2
137.3
185.0
234.4
412.5
285.4
139.2
123.2
121.3
122.5
212.6
191.2
123.9
123.5
168.5
127.3
220.4
240.2
132.1
109.8
145.2
104.8
119,0
119.6
130.9
129.4
128.7
226.0
200.9
137.5
128.8
178.8
127.3
234.9
251.3
148.6
114.5
146.5
104.9
122.8
129.8
132.7
130.0
129.8
226.5
200.9
136.5
128.9
179.2
126.9
235.6
251.5
149.9
114.6
146.5
104.9
122.9
130.0
133.6
131.0
131.3
228.8
203.1
137.8
130.3
181.7
127.3
237.9
251.9
154.4
115.0
146.6
105.0
123.2
130.7
134.0
131.6
132.7
231.0
203.6
138.8
130.6
182.1
127.6
240.6
252.5
159.4
115.8
146.9
105.3
124.3
132.7
135.8
132.5
134.4
232.4
203.7
139.1
130.6
181.5
128.6
242.4
252.3
163.4
116.2
146.9
105.3
124.8
133.7
136.8
133.7
135.5
234.2
205.8
141.6
131.8
183.5
129.3
244.0
253.7
165.1
116.7
146.9
105.4
125.8
134.7
124.8
121.3
123.1
213.6
191.7
124.0
123.9
170.6
125.0
221.5
239.7
131.3
110.9
145.3
104.5
119.7
125.4
131.8
129.5
128.5
227.6
201.9
135.6
129.8
181.5
125.8
236.7
250.9
147.5
115.8
146.5
104.6
123.5
137.8
133.9
130.2
129.6
228.0
201.4
135.4
129.4
180.8
125.7
237.3
251.2
148.3
116.3
146.5
104.7
123.6
139.1
135.0
131.1
130.8
230.6
203.4
137.3
130.6
182.5
126.9
240.1
251.5
153.2
116.7
146.6
104.7
123.9
140.0
135.6
131.7
132.2
233.2
205.7
139.0
132.0
184.7
127.8
242.9
252.0
157.9
117.5
147.0
105.1
125.1
142.0
137.5
132.7
133.5
235.0
206.2
139.2
132.4
184.8
128.9
244.9
251.8
161.7
118.2
146.9
105.1
125.6
144.1
138.3
133.5
134.7
236.9
207.5
139.0
133.4
186.6
129.3
247.0
253.2
163.9
119.3
147.0
105.1
126.6
147.2
Private
Public..................................................................................................
229.5
271.0
273.6
277.0
280.1
286.4
288.1
223.9
264.4
266.5
269.2
271.8
279.0
280.6
Airline ‘are............................................................................................
intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fa re ..................................................................................
255.4
288.5
199.7
244.0
237.2
310.3
304.7
234.8
266.8
255.5
315.0
307.1
235.6
267.9
255.6
321.8
308.0
236.1
2692
255.6
327.4
310.1
237.1
269.7
270.1
331.9
310.7
247.1
271.0
276.4
334.1
312.8
248.4
271.4
276.5
255.2
288.2
197.6
249.3
237.0
308.6
304.5
234.4
273.6
255.6
313.0
306.9
235.2
274.7
255.7
319.8
308.0
235.6
275.6
255.7
325.7
309.8
236.5
275.9
270.3
330.2
310.6
246.5
277.5
276.8
332.7
312.2
247.8
277.7
276.9
284.4
MEDICAL CARE
257.9
270.6
272.8
274.5
275.8
279.5
282.6
258.7
272.2
274.3
276.3
277.6
281.4
Medical care commodities
162.1
171.3
172.5
173.8
175.1
176.7
179.2
162.7
171.8
173.0
174.1
175.6
177.5
179.6
Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 100)..................................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 - 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 - 100)................................................
149.8
117.2
121.3
113.4
157.5
122.4
126.3
116.9
158.5
124.1
127.1
117.3
159.6
124.6
128.9
118.3
160.7
124.7
130.2
119.1
162.7
127.7
130.7
120.6
165.0
129.2
131.9
121.9
150.7
119.8
121.0
114.2
158.5
123.4
125.4
118.9
159.5
125.1
126.2
119.3
160.2
125.6
127.7
119.9
161.5
126.4
128.6
120.2
163 4
128.6
129.4
121.3
165.3
129.5
130.7
122.9
128.7
119.7
138.9
125.6
139.6
126.3
140.4
126.7
142.3
126.9
143.9
128.7
147.4
130.9
127.8
120.1
138.1
128.1
138.8
128.7
139.6
128.3
141.7
129.6
143.8
131.4
146.5
133.3
113.7
120.5
120.4
121.2
122.4
123.2
124.5
115.2
121.8
122.1
122.3
123.1
123.8
125.2
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 - 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........
116.3
112.9
180.4
114.6
123.3
120.5
191.2
120.8
124.4
121.0
193.5
121.3
125.3
121.2
195.8
121.5
126.2
120.8
198.1
122.5
127.1
121.5
199.3
123.6
128.9
123.1
202.7
124.5
116.6
112.6
180.8
115.6
123.6
119.0
192.4
121.2
124.4
119.6
194.0
121.8
125.5
120.2
195.8
123.0
126.5
120.4
198.0
1237
127.9
121.1
200.4
125.1
129.4
122.3
203.0
126.5
Medical care services
279.0
292.3
294.8
2966
2979
302.1
305.2
279.8
294.3
296.6
298.7
300.0
304.3
3074
Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians’ services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 100)......................................
242.9
260.2
231.5
118.1
257.3
274.2
245.8
126.7
259.0
276.0
247.5
127.6
260.4
278.0
248.0
128.5
261.7
280.3
248.6
128.5
264.7
283.9
251.4
129.3
267.2
287.7
252.8
130.0
245.5
264.1
233.4
117.4
260.4
280.5
247.3
124.5
261.9
281.8
249.0
125.1
263.8
283.8
250.4
126.7
265.0
285.7
251.3
126.6
268.7
290.0
254.9
127.6
271.6
293.9
2570
128.5
Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services ..................................
322.7
127.8
403.4
126.5
334.7
137.1
428.4
137.0
338.0
139.3
435.8
139.0
340.5
141.1
441.0
140.9
341.6
141.7
443.7
141.4
347.3
144.5
453.8
143.7
351.1
146.1
458.2
145.5
322.1
126.8
398.8
125.9
335.6
136.4
427.2
136.0
339.2
138.9
435.3
138.4
341.6
140.5
439.8
140.2
342.9
141.3
443.1
140.6
347.8
143.7
451.9
142.7
351.3
145.2
455.9
144.4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
1981
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
1981
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
ENTERTAINMENT..........................................................
197.8
209.8
210.9
211.2
212.0
214.4
216.7
196.2
208 1
209.2
209.9
210.1
212.2
215.0
Entertainment commodities
200.4
212.8
213.7
214.5
215.3
217.1
219.7
196.9
208.6
209.0
210.2
210.9
213.0
216.2
Reading materials (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Newspapers ................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)..........................
117.4
227.7
119.2
126.1
242.3
129.3
127.0
245.3
129.6
127.6
245.6
130.7
128.2
246.2
131.5
130.0
249.7
133.4
130.9
253.8
132.9
117.0
227.3
118.9
125.5
241.5
129.3
126.6
244.6
129.6
127.1
244.9
130.8
127.6
245.5
131.5
129.6
249.4
133.5
130.7
254.0
132.9
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)......................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 — 100) ........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Bicycles ..........................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
115.9
117.4
108.3
174.5
112.4
121.1
( ')
113.8
184.7
117.2
121.8
( 1)
114.5
185.3
118.2
122.8
(’ )
114.7
185.7
119.9
122.9
( 1)
116.2
184.7
120.4
123.5
(’ )
115.7
185.9
120.9
124.7
126.5
115.9
187.2
120.6
110.8
109.1
107.8
174.9
112.6
115.8
(’ )
112.1
184.9
117.4
116.3
(’ )
112.5
185.4
117.8
117.0
(' )
112.2
185.8
119.1
117.8
(’ )
113.4
184.9
119.3
118.5
C)
114.5
186.7
119.2
119.3
118.1
115.3
188.3
119.2
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ........................................
115.1
114.1
114.1
117.6
122.6
121.4
123.1
124.4
122.8
120.9
123.1
125.8
122.8
120.7
121.8
127.3
123.5
121.3
122.0
128.4
124.4
122.4
121.5
130.1
126.3
124.7
122.6
132.0
114.3
112.3
114.2
117.9
121.3
119.0
121.8
125.2
120.9
117.4
122.3
126.4
121.6
118.4
122.7
126.8
121.8
118.5
122.4
127.6
122.9
119.4
122.3
129.7
125.8
123.0
124.4
131.9
Entertainment services
194.5
206.1
207.2
206.9
207.8
210.9
213.0
196.0
208.4
210.6
210.5
209.7
212.0
213.9
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)......................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
116.0
118.3
111.4
124.5
122.6
118.3
125.5
122.7
119.0
125.2
122.6
118.7
125.7
123.1
119.4
128.1
124.7
120.1
129.4
125.3
122.0
116.3
119.7
111.8
124.7
124.1
120.8
127.0
124.2
121.6
126.7
124.3
121.6
125.9
124.0
121.8
127.8
125.2
122.0
129.0
126.2
123.0
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES..........................................................
208.1
220.6
221.5
222.8
224.6
226.2
227.4
207.7
219.0
219.9
221.0
223.0
224.4
225.6
Tobacco products
198.1
204.5
204.5
207.3
210.8
211.9
212.3
198.3
204.3
204.3
206.8
210.4
211.7
211.9
Cigarettes............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............
200.9
115.6
206.8
122.8
206.8
123.2
209.6
124.3
213.5
124.9
214.6
125.4
214.8
126.5
201.3
114.8
206.8
122.7
206.7
123.1
209.3
123.9
213.2
124.5
214.5
125.4
214.5
126.4
Personal care
206.5
216.7
217.8
219.0
220.9
222.5
224.6
206.6
216.6
218.0
218.5
220.0
221.1
223.2
Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
198.6
116.1
118.6
210.3
121.8
125.3
211.8
124.5
126.0
212.4
124.5
127.2
215.2
125.2
128.4
216.9
126.3
130.8
219.5
128.3
132.9
198.3
114.9
116.8
210.4
123.6
124.0
212.1
123.6
125.3
212.7
123.2
125.9
214.3
125.3
125.4
216.1
126.2
128.3
218.5
126.7
131.2
114.2
112.9
121.3
120.8
121.3
120.8
120.8
122.2
122.6
124.8
122.9
125.5
123.2
127.5
114.0
115.6
119.7
122.1
121.1
123.6
121.0
125.3
121.4
126.8
c 122.2
126.6
122.8
129.0
Personal care services..............................................................
Beauty parlor services for women..................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
214.2
216.1
119.3
223.1
224.5
124.8
223.8
225.2
125.3
225.5
227.5
125.6
226.8
228.7
126.4
228.3
230.1
127.3
230.0
231.7
128.5
215.0
216.6
120.0
222.9
225.0
123.9
224.0
225.6
125.0
224.4
226.1
125.2
225.8
227.5
126.0
226.3
227.6
126.7
228.1
229.4
127.6
Personal and educational expenses
228.0
249.5
251.1
251.3
251.5
253.6
254.4
227.8
249.8
251.2
251.4
251.7
254.0
255.0
Schoolbooks and supplies ..........................................................
Personal and educational services....................................................
Tuition and other school fees ............................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)..................................................
206.5
233.3
118.5
117.8
120.9
124.4
221.0
256.2
131.6
130.7
134.4
130.5
221.9
257.8
132.2
131.5
134.4
132.4
221.9
258.1
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.0
222.1
258.2
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.4
228.6
259.7
132.6
132.0
134.4
135.7
229.8
260.4
132.7
132.1
134.4
137.1
210.4
232.5
118.6
117.8
120.7
121.4
224.8
256.1
131.8
130.7
134.3
129.7
225.6
257.5
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.0
225.6
257.8
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.6
225.8
258.1
132.4
131.5
134.3
132.2
232.4
259.6
132.8
132.0
134.3
134.4
233.6
260.6
132.9
132.1
134.3
136.3
352.5
316,7
227.9
287.6
367.9
338.6
254.8
303.6
365.5
346.4
254.9
304.7
365.5
355.3
253.1
306.4
368.3
364.5
255.8
308.4
379.9
368.9
259.4
309.5
404.8
370.7
262.3
314.6
353.8
316.2
227.2
288.7
368.7
339.0
253.6
302.3
366.6
346.7
253.5
302.4
366.7
355.6
251.6
303.5
369.4
364.7
254.4
306.6
381.2
368.8
258.0
307.4
406.3
370.4
261.0
313.4
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products......................................
Insurance and finance ..........................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
’ Not available.
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
c
corrected.
24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Category and group
1980
Oct.
1980
1981
Dec.
Feb.
Oct.
1980
1981
Dec.
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Size class C
(75,000-385,000)
Size class B
(385,000-1.250 million)
Feb.
Oct.
1980
1981
1981
Dec.
Feb.
Oct.
Dec.
Feb.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
130.5
131.0
131.8
116.2
139.4
126.3
120.0
121.2
132.8
132.8
135.2
114.8
141.9
128.0
120.7
122.7
135.7
135.2
138.0
114.9
147.3
130.5
124.6
123.7
137.2
133.7
141.9
116.2
145.3
127.2
122.7
124.0
139.8
135.8
144.6
116.8
149.4
129.3
123.2
127.5
143.2
137.6
149.0
114.0
155.0
131.2
127.5
128.5
141.2
134.7
151.0
124.6
142.8
129.1
120.1
127.8
143.8
137.7
153.7
124.8
146.5
130.1
120.4
130.3
146.6
139.8
156.3
119.5
153.0
132.1
124.2
131.1
135.6
131.5
139.9
118.6
143.1
126.9
125.2
122.0
137.8
132.8
142.0
120.3
146.5
130.7
126.7
124.4
141.6
134.8
147.5
119.1
151.0
134,4
126.7
126.5
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
131.8
132.3
128.8
133.7
134.3
131.6
137.0
138.2
134.0
138.3
140.5
135.4
140.8
143.2
138.3
144.3
147.6
141.5
139.9
142.3
143.4
142.1
144.1
146.7
144.6
146.8
149.8
136.6
139.1
134.0
138.1
140.7
137.3
141.7
145.0
141.4
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
140.8
133.1
151.9
112.1
143.2
129.1
124.5
122.6
143.3
135.0
155.3
110.8
146.4
130.5
125.1
124.2
144.0
137.1
152.7
109.4
151.8
134.6
127.5
126.3
137.6
130.8
143.7
118.2
143.0
129.6
121.1
128.4
140.0
132.9
146.0
118.8
146.8
131.4
121.3
130.3
142.8
136.4
147.7
116.9
152.3
136.2
124.2
132.7
135.1
133.7
137.9
115.3
142.9
130.6
124.3
122.5
136.6
135.1
139.1
114.8
146.2
132.4
124.0
123.9
139.7
137.0
141.5
114.5
153.1
136.7
126.8
126.4
134.6
135.8
135.3
115.5
142.2
133.3
121.1
128.4
136.2
139.1
135.9
116.2
145.4
134.6
120.8
129.8
139.6
139.6
140.5
114.1
150.3
140.1
124.8
131.1
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
138.1
140.4
144.9
139.9
142.3
148.4
140.3
141.8
149.4
135.0
136.8
141.8
136.5
138.0
145.6
139.5
140.9
148.1
133.9
134.0
137.1
135.2
135.3
138.9
138.2
138.7
142.2
132.6
131.2
137.7
133.4
130.9
140.6
136.0
134.5
145.3
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
136.7
134.6
139.8
119.9
145.0
126.8
120.2
126.4
139.0
136.8
143.1
120.0
146.8
127.9
120.4
128.1
142.1
138.8
146.1
119.3
152.9
130.4
123.5
129.4
138.1
133.0
143.5
116.4
144.5
130.9
125.3
126.8
140.9
135.4
146.7
117.3
147.9
132.1
127.9
128.8
144.9
138.6
151.5
117.1
153.4
135.1
129.0
131.0
136.1
134.8
139.7
111.8
143.0
132.7
125.0
124.7
138.6
137.2
142.5
114.1
145.7
133.7
127.5
126.7
142.1
138.4
146.6
113.0
152.2
136.8
129.0
128.6
134.1
134.5
133.7
110.5
142.2
140.2
132.4
128.2
136.5
136.9
137.5
108.9
144.8
140.7
130.7
129.9
138.8
140.2
138.4
105.6
151.4
144.0
131.0
130.5
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
135.4
135.8
138.4
137.2
137.3
141.5
140.1
140.7
144.8
135.2
136.1
142.6
137.5
138.3
146.1
140.8
141.7
151.2
134.1
133.8
139.2
136.3
135.9
142.3
139.1
139.5
146.6
133.4
133.0
135.0
135.6
135.0
138.0
138.4
137.6
139.3
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
137.7
132.7
141.6
117.9
144.9
133.0
122.3
126.2
140.7
134.3
146.0
117.9
146.7
134.3
123.8
127.7
142.6
136.8
147.2
116.4
150.8
137.5
127.0
129.1
139.5
135.0
144.7
121.5
144.3
130.7
125.7
128.1
141.4
136.5
146.7
123.8
146.6
133.1
125.0
129.0
144.0
139.4
148.7
122.3
151.9
136.0
126.6
131.4
136.3
131.7
139.4
111.2
145.9
133.3
126.9
122.3
138.4
132.7
142.1
112.0
148.5
134.5
126.3
125.2
141.2
134.8
145.2
112.1
152.6
137.5
126.6
126.8
136.9
135.6
136.2
129.1
145.9
134.9
131.2
128.1
139.8
137.3
140.6
129.0
148.0
136.6
133.5
130.4
141.0
140.8
138.3
129.8
154.1
139.6
140.5
131.5
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage............................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
134.2
134.8
142.5
135.3
135.7
147.8
137.3
137.6
149.6
136.3
136.8
144.0
137.5
138.0
146.7
140.0
140.3
149.4
134.1
135.1
139.5
135.2
136.2
142.9
137.1
138.0
146.9
135.7
135.7
138.7
137.2
137.1
143.8
139.7
139.3
142.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area1
U.S. city average2 ..............................................................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Md.......................................................................
Boston, Mass.......................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
236,4
251.7
253.9
256.2
258.4
260.5
263.2
236.5
251.9
254.1
256.4
258.7
260.7
263.5
263.0
233.5
230.9
230.3
236.5
250.2
255.0
244.4
227.9
Detroit, Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif...............................
240.4
220.9
255.9
238.7
237.6
253.7
249,6
133.1
258.4
237.9
228,0
231.1
235.5
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va....................................................
240.7
241.8
243.1
247.2
255.5
243.1
247.9
256.3
258.9
264.5
266.5
269.5
266.4
255.5
269.7
236.1
274,8
259.1
258.7
244.7
247.0
249.2
259.4
259.0
247.3
250.5
262.0
249.4
252.4
253.2
'The areas listed Include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated
Area Is used for New York and Chicago.
227.9
259.6
232.5
273.5
274.4
244.1
240.9
238.2
249.5
261.7
270.2
243.3
281.5
261.9
261.6
239.9
221.3
251.9
236.6
240.0
252.8
252.0
134.9
263.2
260.6
252.7
239.6
227.7
255.9
265.5
255.5
235.9
241.5
246.9
248.3
256.6
242.6
249.5
257.6
260.5
2Average of 85 cities.
240.0
263.6
258.4
244.2
249.5
251.1
273.9
272.9
265.5
237.0
272.1
257.2
262.2
264.4
262.7
265.5
243.5
277.7
260.1
265.0
138.8
271.9
260.6
247.2
252.3
262.9
249.1
255.1
255.5
262.4
252.7
258.1
266.4
265.0
255.9
282.9
255.7
259.4
255.7
258.8
282.2
260.7
254.2
275.1
252.6
254.6
251.8
. 249.7
258.1
266.3
266.7
268.2
135.6
267.5
255.4
252.7
267.7
264.9
257.2
258.9
276.7
261.4
233.5
269.4
253.0
254.9
266.4
262.6
255.7
245.2
258.9
236.5
264.2
262.9
257.7
235.0
260.3
257.4
249.2
270.9
266.4
255.7
287.7
254.9
262.6
253.6
251.4
137.3
266.2
261.9
253.8
279.1
251.9
268.5
232.0
252.4
253.2
244.5
277.3
133.9
262.1
256.9
252.4
271.8
258.1
249.2
260.3
271.9
264.3
234.6
272.3
254.8
252.6
226.7
264.3
256.4
246.5
259.9
262.1
264.6
264.9
266.6
259.5
240.1
258.3
258.4
248.8
239.6
250.1
259.9
243.5
241.7
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash...........................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif...................................................................
96
1981
Sept.
232.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1980
Feb.
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, WIs.....................................................................
Mlnneapolls-St. Paul, Mlnn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981
1980
261.6
262.3
259.4
26.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Finisned goods.........................................................
246.8
240.0
242.1
243.4
244.9
249.3
251.4
251.4
255.4
Finished consumer goods......................................
Finished consumer foods ...................................
Crude .......................................................
Processed ..................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ..............................
Durable goods................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment...............................................
248.8
239.4
237.1
237.7
283.9
205.9
192.1
239.5
242.2
233.6
230.6
232.0
275.6
200.8
c 186.3
232.2
243.7
230.1
224.1
228.8
281.5
202.3
0188.5
236.2
245.2
231.9
229.1
230.3
284.2
201.9
c 189.6
236.7
246.8
233.0
224.5
231.8
285.9
204.1
0191.1
237.8
251.7
241.6
240.9
239.7
288.4
207.5
c 192.8
240.6
254.1
246.5
247.0
244.4
290.0
208.1
c 193.9
241.9
254.1
247.4
259.8
244.3
290.9
206.2
c 194.6
241.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
280.1
274.3
275.7
2770
278.8
281.6
284.3
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ..................
Materials for durable manufacturing.......................
Components for manufacturing ............................
265.5
263.7
259.5
301.0
231.4
259.6
243.8
252.4
302.3
224.7
260.6
241.5
258.1
296.1
227.6
262.5
255.3
260.4
294.1
229.0
264.3
259.7
261.0
2970
230.3
265.6
264.4
261.7
297.3
232.4
Materials and components for construction ................
268.2
265.9
265.5
265.2
266.9
Processed fuels and lubricants................................
Manufacturing industries.....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries................................
502.7
425.3
570.7
489.8
411.2
557.9
496.6
415.2
566.7
498.2
420.9
565.9
Container .......................................................
254.5
247.4
253.2
Supplies ..........................................................
Manufacturing industries.....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries...............................
Feeds .......................................................
Other supplies .............................................
244.5
231.8
251.1
229.2 .
253.5
239.4
225.5
246.6
218.8
250.7
Commodity grouping
1981
1980
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
r 256.2
256.9
259.8
262.4
265.3
257.0
248.0
237.8
246.9
291.7
214.0
c 195.6
249.2
r 257.9
r 248.9
' 250.5
r 246.7
r 293.9
r 213.1
c 196.9
r 250.2
258.6
248.8
254.6
246.3
296.0
213.0
c 197.5
250,8
261.4
250.6
257.3
247.9
301.1
213.8
c 200.5
253.9
264.0
250.9
265.0
247.6
307.1
213.9
c 203.0
256.3
267.3
251.8
279.1
247.3
314.7
213.7
204.5
257.8
285.3
287.7
r 289.1
291.7
295.5
297.8
301.4
268.9
277.9
263.4
299.2
235.6
269.5
275.8
263.2
300.5
237.0
273.3
295.1
265.0
304.7
238.4
r 273.9
r 299.0
r 266.7
r 303.8
'238.3
275.5
277.0
268.4
304.2
246.4
278.7
277.9
273.4
306.9
249.0
279.7
273.8
275.8
305.5
251.7
281.0
267.9
278.7
306.5
253.5
269.6
271.4
271.7
272.4
'274.0
276.4
279.2
280.2
282.6
502.0
425.4
569.6
514.2
431.0
586.1
517.4
436.0
588.4
519.5
440.8
588.9
516.2
440.6
583.7
'521.3
'445.2
'589.3
538.7
456.8
610.9
551.4
468.8
624.2
568.3
481.5
644.8
595.8
501.6
678.7
254.4
256.2
257.0
257.4
257.9
260.1
'259.5
261.1
264.7
268.0
270.6
239.7
229.0
245.4
205.2
253.0
240.0
230.5
245.0
207.5
251.9
241.2
232.8
245.7
205.1
253.4
245.3
234.2
251.1
225.2
254.7
247.7
235.4
254.1
234.7
255.8
250.3
236.1
257.6
246.8
256.9
252.3
237.5
259.9
250.3
258.8
'255.2
'238.7
'263.8
'259.2
'261.3
254.9
239.5
262.8
251.8
262.1
257.3
242.2
265.1
252.2
264.9
257.5
244.6
264.3
238.1
267.6
258.6
246.7
265.0
232.2
270.1
286.2
289.3
288.4
304.3
317.0
319.3
322.8
'324.6
320.8
321.3
335.5
333.0
Nov.1
FINISHED GOODS
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
CRUDE MATERIALS
Crude materials for further processing............................
304.2
293.6
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs......................................
259.1
246.5
235.8
243.0
243.0
263.4
276.8
276.6
279.1
277.3
271.6
270.6
267.1
262.0
Nonfood materials...............................................
399.9
393.8
393.4
387.5
384.6
390.8
401.9
409.8
415.4
'424.9
425.2
428.7
481.7
484.8
Nonfood materials except fuel..............................
Manufacturing industries .................................
Construction................................................
344.5
355.8
237.2
344.9
356.9
229.9
342.0
353.5
232.4
333.3
343.8
232.8
328.9
338.9
234.1
333.9
343.9
239.1
344.8
355.4
243.7
351.4
362.6
244.8
355.6
367.1
245.3
'363.9
'376.1
'246.5
363.1
375.1
247.8
365.8
377.5
254.3
428.1
445.7
257.9
430.6
448.2
260.2
Crude fuel.....................................................
Manufacturing industries .................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ............................
614.9
690.2
566.9
579.8
644.3
540.0.
591.4
659.0
549.3
6000
670.3
555.9
604.0
675.7
558.8
615.1
690.5
567.1
626.3
705.4
575.5
639.1
722.0
585.4
650.9
738.1
593.8
'664.9
'755.8
'605.2
670.3
763.0
609.1
677.6
772.2
614.9
679.0
773.1
616.8
685.2
781.4
621.5
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
Finished goods excluding foods.....................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods..................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................
247.7
248.5
216.9
240.6
c 243.8
c 212.4
244.5
c 247.7
c212.5
245.6
c 249.0
c 213.4
247.3
c 250.9
°214.9
250.2
c 253.9
°219.7
251.4
c 255.0
c 221.9
251.1
c 254.6
c 221.9
256.2
c 258.7
c 225.0
'257.0
c 259.5
c 225.5
258.0
c 260.6
c 225.7
261.2
c263.8
c 227.7
264.4
c 267.3
c 228.9
268.0
271.7
229.8
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds.....................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................
281.3
265.8
c 277.1
c 259.9
c 279.1
c 260.7
c 279.6
c 261.9
c281.5
c 263.5
c 283.8
c 265.5
c 285.8
c 268.3
c286.6
c269.2
c 288.2
c 272.2
c289.3
c 273.3
c 293.4
c 274.7
c 297.4
c 277.7
c 300.4
c278.6
304.7
280.0
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
252.2
235.3
229.5
239.7
242.0
251.4
263.7
265.9
280.3
'285.7
268.3
269.0
261.9
256.0
Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy...................................
480.3
256.7
c439.2
c248.8
c 437.7
c 238.7
c430.2
c 241.0
c 428.6
c 239.0
0434.6
c 256.1
c447.1
c 268.5
c 454.1
0269.9
c 463.2
c 272.4
c 473.8
c 271.7
c 472.3
c 267.4
c478.0
c265.9
c 543.7
c262.6
547.5
259.4
1Data for November 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Not available.
r=revised.
c=corrected.
Indexes for most Special Groupings by Stage of Processing have been corrected to remove an error
made when these indexes were revised on February 13. Although this error caused each monthly index
from January 1976 forward to be at an incorrect level, it did not affect the calculation of percent
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
changes based on these indexes, except for possible rounding differences. Corrected historical data for
the Special Groupings by Stage of Processing are available without charge on request to the Division of
Industrial Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 600 E Street, N.W., Room 5210,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
NOTE: Figures in this table may differ from those previously reported because stage-of-processing
indexes from January 1976 through December 1980 have been revised to reflect 1972 input-output
relationships.
97
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
All commodities
All commodities (1957-59 = 100)......................................
2686
285.0
261.9
277.4
262.8
278.8
264.2
280.3
265.6
281.8
270.4
286.9
273.8
290.5
274.6
291.4
277.8
294.7
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities ............................................
244.6
274.5
234.9
268.6
229.3
271.3
233.8
271.9
234.3
273.5
246.6
276.2
255.1
278.2
256.5
278.8
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
249.3
238.5
239.0
252.7
202.1
271.1
271.2
171.0
247.1
298.1
239.3
218.5
217.9
251.8
180.1
254.9
263.1
184.2
215.9
311.5
228.9
223.2
210.8
230.5
171.9
266.9
265.4
153.3
205.1
304.8
233.5
244.0
219.0
233.3
171.3
272.7
265.4
140.5
206.9
311.0
233.4
233.5
215.3
240.0
166.6
247.0
265.5
146.8
207.4
309.4
254,3
252.0
244.8
260.5
227.2
267.0
265.8
159.3
251.4
292.4
263.8
254.0
256.5
275.7
224.5
280.8
271.6
176.9
261.5
282.7
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................
241.0
235.9
243.0
230.7
228.9
321.2
2324
226.8
227.2
226.9
231.6
231.8
239.2
223.0
223.7
264.1
225.9
222.6
224.7
216.6
228.6
232.4
226.0
227.5
224.6
275.0
227.9
214.5
225.1
205.0
233.1
234.7
224.5
228.5
225.4
327.8
231.2
212.0
223.7
207.2
233.9
233.2
226.6
229.5
227.2
325.4
234.3
212.8
223.4
205.0
241.5
234.7
248.5
230.1
229.8
313.5
234.6
226.9
223.5
2239
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
1980
1981
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
r 279.1
r 296.1
280.3
297.4
283.5
300.8
286.9
304.4
289.6
307.3
259.4
282.0
r 260.5
r 283.4
256.5
286.1
257.3
289.9
254.9
294.8
253.1
298,9
267.0
2662
260.6
266.8
241.0
295.2
275.5
188.4
280.7
292.0
263.6
240.9
269.2
263.0
222.9
278.5
280.9
175.2
284.4
285.8
264.9
r 246,6
270.9
254.8
221.0
287.2
284.7
194.0
298.3
296.6
265.3
244.7
265.2
251.4
218.9
294.1
290.5
217.5
310.2
296.0
264.4
257.7
277.7
244.3
213.1
284.1
288.4
185.7
311.8
296.1
262.3
270.4
267.5
244.6
220.8
268.4
289.5
184.8
295.0
295.1
260.6
291.6
261.8
239.3
213.5
270.1
289.5
180.4
289.5
295.9
249.4
235.8
259.9
232.6
230.7
347.1
237.1
240.2
224.0
232.4
249.8
238.3
257.8
233.7
231.3
341.4
236.1
238.3
226.8
243.4
256.1
241.5
256.0
238.0
233.8
404.7
239.5
231.0
230.6
246.9
r 257.2
r 245.3
r 250.9
r 240.2
r 234.7
r 409.0
'240.6
'238.0
235.0
'254.5
250.8
248.5
248.0
242.7
237.1
334.6
238.1
234.3
240.5
247.3
252.4
250.8
248.8
245.2
237.4
338.6
240.4
230.4
244.2
247.9
250,0
251.7
243.9
245.5
244.1
324.7
242.2
228.3
248.0
235.3
248.1
251.9
242.0
245.5
251.8
302.6
242.8
230.0
249.2
231.5
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................
183.4
134.8
122.2
137.7
115.7
172.2
208.3
179.3
129.1
119.3
136.8
113.2
168.0
201.3
181.2
130.4
122.1
137.0
114.5
170.0
201.6
182.0
133.2
124.2
136.5
115.3
170.2
202.6
183.0
134.5
122.8
134.8
115.8
172.7
202.7
184.7
136.0
122.4
135.7
116.6
174.4
210.7
185.6
137.5
123.2
137.5
116.8
175.1
211.0
186.6
139.5
124.3
141.0
117.0
175.0
212.9
188.1
140.2
125.1
143.5
118.3
176.2
213.8
'189.6
' 140.7
' 125.8
' 145.0
'119.1
'176.8
'213.8
190.2
141.5
127.6
143.3
120.0
177.0
218.5
192.4
147.3
129.2
142.8
121.5
178.6
223.9
193.1
147,8
129,6
143.1
122.2
179.3
225.4
194.5
149.6
133.9
144.0
122.5
180.1
225.4
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Hides and skins........................................................................
Leather....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................
248.6
370.9
311.6
233.2
218.1
246.8
348.7
311.0
231.8
217.8
243.5
328.6
297.6
231.9
216.2
240.7
289.7
290.4
231.9
217.4
240.9
315.7
284.4
231.9
215.9
245.1
356.6
292.2
232.7
217.5
251.3
398.4
314.2
233.7
218.7
247.8
356.1
298.1
235.5
218.8
251.2
381.5
301.9
236.6
221.8
'255.4
409.1
317.3
'237.5
222.6
256.6
392.8
332.4
237.1
223.5
258.5
377.8
332.6
238.6
230.7
257.4
367.3
310.0
240.8
235.8
262.4
NA
322.5
240.5
243.4
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels1 ..............................................................................
Electric power..............................................................
Crude petroleum2 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined3 ....................................................
573.4
467.5
430.6
1604
321.6
551.7
674.4
553.5
461.7
430.6
716.6
305.5
522.8
659.0
566.6
465.2
430.6
730.1
310.1
533.9
678.0
572.1
466,5
430.6
745.1
316.5
540.1
680.9
576.5
466.6
430.6
749.2
326.0
549.0
681.7
585.5
467.5
430.6
762.1
331.1
551.4
693.9
590.6
468.7
430.6
772.6
333.6
566.8
697.6
593.5
471.3
430.6
786.2
338.3
571.3
696.4
592.9
470.7
430.6
802.2
337.4
579.6
690.4
'600.2
'475.4
430.6
'825.5
' 333.8
' 600.6
'697.6
611.7
475.7
430.6
841.8
337.9
596.0
716.3
625.9
477.5
430.6
857.9
341.7
615.2
736.0
663.8
480.8
430.6
858.8
345.4
842.9
767.8
692.2
481.3
430.6
867.6
350.4
843.0
822.4
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals4 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ......................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ........................
Plastic resins and materials ....................................................
Other chemicals and allied products ..........................................
260.2
323.8
235.4
273.8
174.4
297.9
256.9
279.4
224.6
252.8
313.3
228.7
267.5
168.9
299.9
256.1
274.5
215.0
259.8
322.1
231.5
272.1
172.6
29(i.2
258.5
287.6
223.1
262.5
328.5
238.8
273.9
172.8
294.7
258.5
288.4
224.8
262.8
329.5
238.8
275.0
174.4
255.8
257.6
287.6
226.9
263.3
328.7
238.8
277.2
175.7
260.0
258.7
285.7
228.5
264.4
330.0
238.8
278.4
176.1
307.6
260.0
281.5
229.0
263.4
327.5
239.3
278.9
176.8
304.5
260.6
276.5
229.1
264.8
330.0
239.3
279.6
178.4
302.0
260.6
276.1
230.9
'266.7
'332.7
'241.4
'279.8
181.1
308.2
'261.1
'276.2
'232.4
267,9
334.6
241.7
280.9
181.8
316.0
262.8
274.4
234.2
273.6
342.8
243.3
283.1
184.7
310.6
265.8
275.2
244.1
277.2
349,4
246.9
286.4
187.4
289.7
271.3
276.1
246.7
279.4
352.5
246.9
288.3
189.1
295.7
274.8
278.3
247.8
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................
217.3
237.7
263.9
236.6
227.6
120.9
212.7
231.5
255.8
231.6
220.6
119.0
214.1
233.4
264.7
231.8
222.1
119.7
215.0
234.7
263.9
233.2
224.0
119.9
217.3
236.8
264.1
235.6
226.4
121.4
218.8
239.0
263.4
238.0
229.3
122.0
220.5
240.2
264.3
238.0
232.0
123.2
222.0
242.6
267.3
242.1
232.1
123.7
222.8
244.6
271.7
245.2
232.0
123.6
' 223.4
'245.0
'271.0
'245.2
'233.3
' 124.0
223.5
245.9
267.5
244.7
237.1
123.6
224.9
246.9
278.0
240.5
241.1
124.7
226.5
249.2
280.8
243.1
243.0
125.3
228.8
253.0
280.6
248.2
246.5
125.9
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................
288.8
325.6
260.5
246.6
239.1
294.9
340.6
262.2
240.0
243.1
275.6
310.1
257.5
219.8
241.7
272.1
301.4
251.8
230.6
240.7
279.8
313.0
253.0
241.7
238.7
289.2
327.2
255.9
252.8
236.9
296.1
333.7
260.3
266.0
236.2
292.2
328.0
264.5
252.6
236.8
289.0
320.6
264.5
252.9
236.7
293.4
'324.9
270.0
256.6
236.6
299.4
333.0
273.3
263.5
236.2
296.6
331.6
273.6
251.1
238.5
294.5
327.8
273,8
248.6
238,1
293.6
324.7
275.7
246.7
239.3
See footnotes at end of table.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
1980
1981
Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board .. .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard ..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................
249.3
250.7
381.1
208.5
256.9
235.0
238.6
206.0
242.6
244.1
356.8
224.9
250.3
227.4
233.0
198.7
247.8
249.4
385.6
242.5
253.5
232.1
236.7
201.3
249.2
250.6
385.6
226.1
256.1
235.5
237.6
206.8
251.1
252.4
387.7
206.6
257.9
238.9
239.8
208.9
251.7
252.9
388.3
194.0
258.2
237.1
241.2
211.8
252.4
253.8
388.3
193.8
258.6
238.4
242.3
210.3
252.8
254.1
388.2
192.5
258.7
239.5
242.7
210.2
254.3
255.6
389.6
193.5
262.1
239.9
243.7
212.7
r 255.0
r 256.2
r 390.2
r 192.3
'264.1
r 241.7
'243.5
'216.5
257.4
258.6
392.6
190.8
269.8
241.1
245.2
219.1
262.0
261.0
392.6
191.5
271.0
251.0
247.0
219.1
266.2
264.6
392.6
186.1
273.1
253.2
252.0
225.2
268.4
266.9
392.6
185.1
274.0
255.9
255.1
227.3
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron anc steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware ................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................
286.2
305.1
302.7
304.2
298.6
240.1
246.6
206.2
270.4
250.2
286.8
301.8
295.5
321.4
288.5
231.5
242.4
202.6
265.1
244.2
284.4
307.2
304.1
298.3
304.1
237.3
243.8
204.2
269.1
246.1
281.8
304.8
305.5
289.7
302.7
238.4
247.5
204.0
269.9
246.7
281.9
303.4
305.8
288.8
302.7
240.5
248.6
205.0
270.1
250.4
282.5
300.6
301.0
292.6
303.0
242.6
249.7
296.2
272.2
251.1
285.1
302.6
301.0
298.4
303.2
243.3
250.4
208.0
273.0
253.2
287.3
304.5
301.0
302.2
303.2
245.9
250.6
208.8
274.1
255.0
291.9
310.5
307.5
309.4
304,4
246.6
250.6
210.6
276.9
256.3
'291.1
'312.7
'309.4
'302.1
303.3
'249.6
'252.3
'212.0
'278.0
'256.9
290.7
316.0
313.4
294.4
303.3
249.6
254.4
212.6
279.2
258.4
293,6
322.8
322.7
290.6
311.4
252.5
255.5
215.4
283.0
261.3
293.7
323.0
322.9
286.2
313.8
256.0
259.0
216.1
285.6
264.0
296.1
328.0
328.7
285.5
314.1
256.5
259.2
217.6
289.4
265.7
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................
239.6
258.1
289.2
274.3
264.3
275.9
201.7
229.8
232.5
252.0
279.5
264.1
256.7
265.5
196.5
223.2
236.4
254.4
284.2
270.2
261.1
271.9
198.9
227.2
237.6
256.4
285.9
272.9
262.8
273.0
199.9
227.3
239.2
257.1
287.6
275.4
264.8
274.3
201.6
228.2
241.5
258.6
291.5
278.0
266.1
276.7
203.7
231.1
242.6
259.9
293.4
278.8
267.0
277.1
205.0
232.1
244.7
263.9
295.7
280.2
270.0
283.0
206.0
233.6
246.8
265.4
299.1
282.5
272.5
286.0
207.0
236.5
'248.3
'271.6
'300.1
'283.9
'274.3
'287.7
'207.5
'238.5
249.5
269.5
301.1
285.6
275.2
291.2
208.9
239.2
252.7
273.5
304.9
289.3
278.2
295.3
211.9
241.8
254.8
277.2
308.4
291.2
279.9
299.3
213.6
243.7
256.9
278.7
311.3
294.7
281.3
300.9
215.9
245.4
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture ..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................
187.3
204.2
235.9
163.0
173.8
91.0
277.7
185.7
198.9
2328
160.8
169.9
91.3
288.3
184.4
200.3
233.6
162.2
171.1
91.4
267.3
185.4
203.0
233.9
161.9
173.2
92.0
2656
186.5
204.0
235.5
162.1
175.5
91.8
266.5
188.0
206.5
237.2
163.2
175.8
91.7
271.5
188.9
208.0
237.3
163.8
176.3
91.3
275.9
189.5
208.5
237.8
163.9
177.2
91.6
276.2
190.9
209.8
241.4
164.4
177.5
91.5
281.8
'191.5
'210.9
'242.2
'165.5
'178.5
'91.2
'281.2
192.3
210.4
242.4
170.2
178.2
91.0
285.1
193.2
211.3
246.1
172.3
181.0
91.0
278.3
194.6
212.1
251.2
172.4
182.3
91.7
280.2
195.4
214.4
253.2
174,0
183.0
91.3
277.6
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................
282.8
196.5
273.4
273.9
231.5
264.9
396.7
256.3
292.7
394.0
276.5
191.4
267.5
269.1
231.4
253.9
388.8
267.6
274.3
387.0
283.7
195.3
271.7
272.9
235.0
261.7
408.9
264.0
294.3
399.6
284.0
195.3
272.4
275.2
230.0
264.4
401.1
256.5
294.3
400.7
283.4
193.6
273.2
275.8
230.1
265.8
400.9
257.1
294.3
394.8
284.8
194.3
275.9
275.9
230.1
268.7
413.8
253.1
294.3
396.9
286.0
199.5
278.6
276.0
229.7
270.6
411.2
251.8
294,3
397.1
286.8
199.7
278.9
277.3
230.1
270.6
407.9
251.8
294.6
400.7
288.6
200.7
279.0
277.5
233.3
273.2
408.5
249.5
306.2
402.7
'288.7
203.1
'279.1
'277.7
'233.5
'273.2
'397.1
253.3
'306.2
'403.3
290.7
203.0
278.7
277.8
234.1
274.1
394.5
252.7
311.5
415.7
296.3
203.9
287.5
285.6
240.0
283.5
404.1
259.6
311.5
417.9
297.7
204.3
289.6
286.6
240.4
294.4
389.3
257.3
311.5
424.7
301.2
204.8
291.9
286.9
245.2
297.1
400.7
257.6
311.5
441.7
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................
206.6
208.7
313.0
198.8
200.7
302.1
203.2
205.4
309.9
2025
204.5
310.5
203.1
205.2
312.2
206.2
208.6
316.4
208.8
211.7
318.0
204.4
205.6
320.0
217.4
218.2
323.3
'217.8
'218.6
323.6
224,1
225.9
323.6
226.4
228.5
327.8
228.5
230.2
334.4
228.5
229.9
335.8
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9
Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................
258.7
198.4
245.5
217.2
203.0
149.9
363.3
256.1
194.5
237.3
207.2
219.1
147.1
351.3
252.8
195.4
238.1
216.8
212.3
149.4
340.9
251.7
196.0
247.7
217.0
199.6
150.4
340.2
258.0
197.5
248.1
217.0
201.7
150.6
360.2
261.7
200.2
248.2
221.7
201.6
151.2
370.9
260.1
201.3
248.2
223.8
200.9
151.4
364.6
265.1
202.3
248.2
223.9
200.9
151.7
381.9
266.0
202.7
249.4
224.0
200.8
153.2
383.4
'263.6
202.8
'254.4
224.1
'206.7
'152.7
'367.0
265.4
205.6
254.2
225.0
207.0
152.4
371.5
263.0
207.8
254.3
227.0
207.3
152.3
359.5
2632
209.5
255.3
247.3
209.6
152.5
353.2
262.4
210.4
255.4
247.3
211.1
154.4
346.7
1Data for November 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.
99
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
All commodities less farm products........................
All foods
Processed foods
Industrial commodities less fu e ls ......................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ) ...........
Hosiery..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear.................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ...................................
Pharmaceutical preparations............................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products.....................................................
Special metals and metal products .................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................................
Copper and copper products ..........................................
Machinery and motive products........................................
269.4
244.5
246.6
243.4
124.4
123.3
185.5
262,9
234.8
236.9
238.9
121.3
120.3
182.1
264.8
231.9
234.1
240.5
122.2
121.1
182.4
265.9
237.3
239.0
240.6
122.9
121.5
182.8
267.5
237.7
239.9
242.0
123.7
122.2
187.1
270.9
245.9
247.3
243.9
125.5
123.5
188.3
273.8
254.1
255.7
245.6
126.0
125.9
189.3
274.3
254.3
254.9
246.0
126.6
126.4
189.5
278 1
258.8
261.7
249.6
127.5
126.2
189.7
'279.4
'259.7
'261.9
'250.3
'128.1
126.7
'190.3
280.7
253.9
255.1
252.2
129.6
126.7
190.9
284.2
255.1
256.4
255.0
131.8
129.2
199.5
288.0
253.9
254.2
256.6
132.7
130.1
201.2
291.1
253.2
252.2
258.2
133.1
130.5
201.6
250.7
167.1
243.2
161.7
250.0
165.6
252.8
165.9
253.8
167.6
254.2
168.1
254.7
168.4
254.0
168.8
255.4
170.8
'257.0
173.7
2582
174.6
264.2
177.1
268.0
179.7
270.2
181.8
303.8
258.3
258.2
222.1
230.1
312.2
255.1
252.0
240.9
222.5
284.7
255.8
255.9
222.0
226.7
282.0
254.0
256.8
212.2
227.1
293.5
254.4
258.6
208.5
228.3
306.9
256.2
259.9
214.5
231.0
315.5
259.0
261.2
220.4
232.9
307.4
257.8
262.6
214.1
232.1
302.3
265.7
264.3
216.5
239.2
306.5
'265.7
265.2
'215.7
'240.2
314.2
268.4
266.3
210.9
243.8
309.2
271.3
270.0
207.8
246.7
305.7
272.2
272.6
205.9
248.8
303.0
273.5
274.7
205.2
250.0
Machinery and equipment, except electrical....................
Agricultural machinery, including tra c to rs ........................
Metalworking machinery...................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100)
Total tractors.....................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts ...........
Farm and garden tractors less parts ...............................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts . . . .
Industrial valves................................................................
Industrial fittings................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels .................................................
Construction materials .....................................................
261.8
266.2
299.5
225.6
286.5
260.2
268.0
265.0
287.1
291 8
(2)
266.3
253.5
260.0
287.5
216.7
276.6
254.1
261.5
258.9
280.0
282.8
244.0
265.1
258.2
261.9
293.6
223.8
280.8
256.2
263.7
260.7
287.8
289.9
261.4
262.3
259.6
263.9
296.8
226.9
282.9
258.0
264.7
263.6
288.4
291.5
261.3
261.8
261.2
264.7
299.7
228.5
284.0
258.7
264.8
265.0
2901
295.9
261.3
2642
263.7
266.3
303.3
228.7
288.3
260.8
267.2
265.9
291.1
296.1
261.5
267.0
264.6
268.1
304.5
229.3
291.1
262.2
270.3
266.6
291.3
296.1
261.5
269.6
270.2
272.9
306.5
230.0
295.8
266.5
277.3
269.7
292.4
296.1
261.3
269.3
273.0
274.8
309.6
231.7
298,3
268.3
278.0
272.5
294.6
298.6
263.4
269.9
'275.1
'280.9
'311.2
'232.1
'299.9
'273.7
'282.4
'279.9
'296.0
298.6
273.0
'271.9
273.3
279.1
314.4
230.9
299.4
272.2
280.8
277,9
296.3
298.6
273.8
273.9
276.6
283.3
318.9
235.0
304.8
276.3
283.6
283.3
297.9
298.6
( 2)
276.7
278.9
285.8
3200
235.4
310.2
279.0
286.4
285.5
302.7
296.0
( 2)
277.1
280.9
286.7
3233
236.1
310.9
280.2
286.8
286.9
306.8
298.8
<2)
279.0
Commodity grouping
1Data for November 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
1981
1980
2 Not available,
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Total durable g o o d s .......................................................
Total nondurable goods .................................................
251.2
282.3
247.0
273.4
247.7
274.4
247.1
277.6
248.7
278.8
251.2
285.6
253.1
290.3
253.7
291.2
258.4
293.0
r 258.6
'295.2
260.8
295.8
261.9
300.7
263.1
306.0
264.5
310.0
Total manufactures .......................................................
Durable....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................
261.4
250.5
272.9
255.2
245.6
265.2
257.0
246.7
267.9
258.3
246.7
270.7
259.8
248.5
271.7
263.0
251.0
275.9
265.7
252.7
279.5
265.8
253.1
279.5
269.6
257.8
282.1
'270.5
'257.9
'284.0
271.9
260.2
284.2
276.4
261.5
292.5
278.7
262.7
295.9
281.8
264.0
301.0
Total raw or slightly processed goods ...........................
Durable.....................................................................
Nondurable..............................................................
305.4
278.0
306.4
295.4
303.4
293.8
290.4
286.0
289.8
292.7
262.2
294.0
293.8
249.9
296.1
307.7
255.2
310.6
315.7
265.8
318.4
319.9
274.9
322.2
319.6
282.7
321.3
'322.9
'285.6
'324.6
324.3
284.1
326.2
318.6
275.7
320.7
328.9
275.7
331.7
329.7
280.8
332.2
Commodity grouping
1981
1980
1Data for November 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
152.9
331.2
466.8
640.2
252.0
136.0
152.6
330.0
461.7
600.6
243.9
136.6
152.6
337.5
464.6
612.5
2486
136.6
152.6
337.5
466.0
619.6
249.3
136.6
152.6
322.9
466.0
631.5
250.0
136.6
155.8
331.2
466.9
638.0
254.8
136.6
155.8
329.1
467.9
656.7
255.8
136.6
155.8
335.4
470.3
667.6
258.5
136.6
155.8
338.7
469.7
681.8
261.8
137.2
155.8
343.7
'474.2
'704.6
'263.2
132.1
244.3
219.9
191.9
258.5
238.9
209.4
173.5
243.4
225.6
197.9
164.5
252.7
227.2
193.3
164.7
2537
230.0
190.9
164.2
255.7
249.1
213.7
214.2
256.3
265.3
233.0
212.1
268,5
257.1
240.0
226.0
265.8
258.0
247.0
211.3
273.2
'251.4
'249.5
205.9
273.3
1981
1980
Nov.1
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
155.8
3250
474.3
705.5
263.4
133.7
155.8
297.9
475.8
722.9
269.0
137.1
168.1
324.5
478.3
885.6
271.7
137.1
168.1
335.4
478.8
889.6
274.9
137.1
248.9
246.8
201.8
2748
245.8
235.3
201.9
273.7
237.3
232.7
208.3
273.5
236.1
229.9
203.9
2736
Dec.
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 = 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ..................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meatpacking plants........................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnote at end of table.
Digitized for100
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
1980
1981
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING - Continued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 100) ..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) ..............
Canned fruits and vegetables........................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 = 100) ............................................
Rice milling........................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ....................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................................
205.0
193.3
221.7
160.2
189.1
243.4
124.3
414.1
349.6
290.7
195.7
185.0
214.7
156.4
181.6
258.0
121.5
276.0
305.7
281.9
201.9
191.3
216.3
157.5
175.0
260.4
116.5
320.2
296.6
282.0
201.9
192.1
217.3
156.4
182.3
254.5
116.9
456.1
339.9
282.0
202.5
195.2
219.9
156.3
180.8
236.0
116.2
402.4
348.0
282.0
203.4
195.2
222.9
157.7
188.6
225.3
122.2
381.8
342.3
282.4
206.8
195.5
223.4
159.6
193.1
219.9
126.6
484.0
365.5
282.4
208.0
196.1
224.3
159.9
196.1
225.9
129.6
458.9
384.5
302.4
213.7
199.5
227.6
162.6
201.5
237.2
129.2
588.2
460.1
322.4
'214.9
199.8
'231.1
'168.6
205.1
265.8
'133.3
563.8
'512.2
322.9
217.9
207.5
232.8
170.5
199.5
287.2
134.2
402.9
389.6
322.9
217.8
210.1
233.7
172.9
203.4
289.6
132.9
418.0
375.6
323.0
217.4
210.6
238.3
170.1
198.0
289.6
129.7
367.1
403.1
323.0
217.5
210.6
241.7
172.9
195.1
298.0
127.0
318.8
375.0
323.1
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills....................................................
Soybean oil m ills....................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................................
Malt ............................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ....................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100)................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ..........................................
Cigarettes..................................................................
192.9
244.2
290.1
249.9
123.0
174.0
367.1
269.3
233.8
254.6
170.4
222.3
297.4
244.1
118.7
165.7
391.6
274.0
227.7
246.0
154.7
211.9
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
370.5
273.9
230.5
246.3
150.4
212.9
262,9
244.1
118.9
173.1
360.0
273.9
230.5
257.3
155.1
208.6
238.9
244.1
120.5
175.3
361.2
283.1
230.5
257.4
191.3
37.4
274.5
244.1
121.0
175.9
363.7
274.5
230.5
257.4
215.1
256.9
297.4
244.1
127.7
177.5
365.2
274.7
230.5
257.4
232.9
275.2
307.0
244.1
127.7
178.6
355.0
263.9
239.3
257.4
218.7
279.2
311.0
267.4
127.9
180.0
353.8
257.0
243.6
257.8
'231.8
290.5
317.2
267.4
128.5
183.1
'353.3
252.5
243.6
'263.5
228.0
270.2
310.8
267.4
129.2
183.4
354.4
248.5
243.6
263.5
221.2
272.0
310.8
286.1
129.2
187.0
375.4
238.2
243.6
263.5
193.7
253.0
287.2
286.1
133.9
186.8
367.2
238.3
243.6
263.9
204.4
253.0
284.2
286.1
133.9
187.6
385.7
238.3
243.6
263.9
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
Cigars ........................................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ............................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ....................................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 =100) ............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ................
157.7
278.2
215.6
124.5
106.4
190.0
104.5
135.1
113.6
154.4
267.3
209.5
122.7
104.3
186.5
103.4
131.9
110.4
155.3
279.2
211.3
123.0
105.0
186.8
104.0
132.4
110.7
155.3
278.6
212.9
122.4
105.4
187.1
104.4
134.5
111.8
159.8
278.6
212.9
121.2
105.4
190.4
105.0
134.6
112.1
159.9
279.5
217.7
123.0
105.4
192.6
105.4
137.2
113.8
159.9
279.7
219.0
124.9
108.8
192.9
105.7
137.3
114.1
159.9
279.7
221.9
127.7
108.8
194.1
105.8
136.9
115.3
163.7
295.0
223.4
130.7
108.7
194.2
106.7
139.1
117.3
'164,0
'295.0
'224.2
'133.0
109.0
'194.7
'107.1
139.3
117.9
162.4
294.0
224.8
132.0
109.0
195.0
107.2
140.1
120.4
163.6
294.2
227.2
131.5
109.1
205.5
107.9
142.4
121.6
162.6
310.4
230.2
131.8
109.2
208.6
108.2
144.5
123.0
164.2
310.4
232.3
132.9
109.0
209.4
107.8
144.6
124.2
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and rugs................................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100) ..........................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ......................
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)............................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats....................................
Men’s and boys' shirts and nightwear ............................
Men's and boys' underwear..........................................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100) ....................
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers................................
138.1
203.5
114.8
139.1
123.6
212.5
204.1
208.0
112.6
174.5
137.0
199.5
112.0
130.0
118.5
208.3
199.3
204.0
112.4
174.3
137.3
203.7
114.8
134.6
123.6
209.7
204.0
204.2
112.4
174.9
137.1
204.5
118.1
143.0
123.8
210.9
203.7
204.3
112.4
174.9
137.4
202.8
115.8
142.9
125.0
211.6
205.1
208.5
112.4
175.1
137.7
202.9
115.0
143.0
125.0
214.9
206.5
211.1
112.4
175.3
138.3
204.3
115.8
143.1
125.0
214.9
206.7
211.2
112.4
175.3
138.3
206.2
117.2
143.1
125.0
214.9
207.7
212.8
112.4
175.3
138.8
207.9
118.2
143.8
127.1
216.2
208.0
212.8
112.4
180.2
'140.0
209.9
' 118.4
143.9
129.2
'216.3
'208,6
212.8
112.4
'180.2
145.3
215.2
118.4
143.9
129.3
216.1
208.4
212.8
115.4
180.3
148.1
217.0
121.5
144.1
129.3
218.1
203.1
224.8
115.4
180.4
148.2
218.1
121.6
144.3
129.3
219.7
203.9
229.0
115.4
180.4
150.2
220.6
129.5
148.4
130.9
220.4
205.0
230.9
115.4
180.4
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men’s and boys' work clothing ......................................
Women's and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women’s and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 100)................
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) ........
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves....................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/7*1 = 1 0 0 )......................
240.4
110.0
114.7
154.5
126.6
109.8
268.6
124.0
122.4
227.5
235.4
106.7
113.8
153.1
124.9
105.5
265.0
123.4
122.3
239.1
241.2
107.6
113.9
153.1
125.4
106.3
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.8
241 8
107.6
113.9
153.2
125.4
105.6
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.4
242.6
107.8
114.0
155.0
126.6
108.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
218.1
2448
111.4
114.0
155.4
127.8
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
228.9
244.1
112.6
115.4
156.9
129.0
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
234.2
243.9
112.6
115.4
155.4
129.0
112.2
271.1
123.9
122.3
229.0
244.3
114.0
116.3
156.0
129.0
112.7
271.1
125.1
122.3
223.2
'244.3
'114.0
116.3
157.1
'129.1
'115.1
272.1
'125.1
131.0
226.8
244.3
114,0
116.3
158.7
129.5
117.0
272.1
126.6
131.0
233.5
241.6
114.8
116.4
166.1
132.1
117.1
284.9
127.4
131.0
232.4
241.7
114.8
116.7
168.0
133.2
117.7
289.1
127.4
131.0
230.0
241.9
115.1
117.9
168,0
134.5
118,0
289.1
128.4
131.0
228.1
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100)................
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..........................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)..................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ................................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 1 0 0 )..............
Mattresses and bedsprings............................................
Wood office furniture ..............................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)......................................
144.6
155.8
160.1
150.0
161.1
183.6
162.6
179.0
235.3
240.8
139.8
158.3
166.3
147.2
158.9
178.9
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.5
121.9
158.2
164.6
149.5
161.9
180.0
160.9
172.8
233.9
243.8
130.3
152.1
162.8
150.5
167.3
182.2
161.1
176.0
233.9
243.9
140.5
152.1
159.7
150.7
171.7
183.5
162.5
176.0
234.0
243.9
150.4
152.1
157.1
151.3
168.7
185.1
166.1
180.8
235.5
244.5
160.7
152.2
156.0
151.4
169.4
186,4
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.5
149.6
155.5
154.9
151.8
163.7
187.7
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.4
149.1
156.2
154.6
153.2
159.8
188.1
167.7
186.5
239.7
246.1
152.3
157.0
154.7
'152.7
'163.6
'189.1
' 168 6
'186.5
'239.7
'246.8
158.2
157.1
154.1
152.4
164.7
189.8
167.6
186.4
2408
249.1
149.8
157.1
153.8
152.4
162.7
191.2
166.9
186.2
244.0
249.1
147.0
157.0
152.8
152.5
169.1
191.7
167.2
188.2
250.3
249.1
145.3
157.1
152.7
154.5
171.0
193.4
170.0
192.1
253.5
249.1
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)....................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ................................
Sanitary paper products................................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)......................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)....................
Synthetic rubber ..........................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic............................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) ............................
145.6
139.1
322.3
216.4
151.0
249.3
143.1
255.5
132.6
124.1
142.5
134.6
311.7
208.9
143.3
233.7
140.8
244.7
126.9
122.1
145.0
137.9
316.7
212.9
146.6
241.2
146.4
256.8
128.5
123.6
145.8
139.5
319.3
215.5
148.7
246.5
147.3
259.3
131.7
124.5
146.2
141.2
321.2
217.2
150.6
250.0
146.9
259.6
132.8
123.4
146.4
140.3
327.4
218.2
155.2
251.9
146.1
259.8
133.4
122.6
146.7
141.1
331.1
220.3
155.2
257.3
144.4
260.5
134.9
123.7
146.7
141.7
331.1
222.3
155.2
257.2
141.5
260.1
137.1
127.2
148.2
142.3
332.6
222.3
155.5
257.9
141.5
260.9
138.0
130.3
'149.2
'143.2
'334.7
'222.3
155.5
'265.1
'141.5
'260.4
'138.7
130.0
151.0
142.8
339.2
226.5
159.4
267.8
141.1
261.5
139.6
131.8
152.0
148.3
339.2
233.2,
157.7
282.5
142.7
274.6
144.8
135.1
152.8
149.4
343.6
236.5
159.7
290.5
143.5
279.5
145.4
137.9
153.5
151.0
344.1
239.1
159.7
292.4
144.4
282.8
148.1
141.6
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ....................................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..................................................
Explosives ..................................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)....................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ....................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) ............................
237.1
246.6
269.7
248.5
171.5
173.3
202.9
235.0
242.5
260.2
242.3
167 9
169.9
198.8
237.2
245.2
271.4
250.5
172.7
178.2
199.1
236.3
248.5
272.8
253.0
172.7
174.8
200.1
235.7
249.0
273.7
253.3
172.6
175.0
202.2
234.8
249.8
273.8
255.9
174.7
180.9
204.1
240.6
249.3
273.4
256.9
175.1
179.8
204 1
240.8
250.2
273.3
256.4
176.0
178.3
207.4
239.3
250.6
273.5
254.6
176.2
178.6
209.9
'239.6
'252.9
'272.9
'256.3
'176.2
173.5
'209.9
244.9
251.8
282.7
261.2
181.5
172.5
209.7
247.5
255.9
288.7
268.1
182.1
176.5
206.6
248.4
267.2
295.3
279.1
185.4
170.0
209.0
250.8
269.1
303.8
298.2
189.1
174.3
213.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1980
1981
1980
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.1
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 = 100)............................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 100) ..........................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 = 100)....................................
House slippers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 = 100)............................
Women's footwear, except athletic........................................
Women's handbags and purses (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Rat glass (12/71 = 100) ................................................
G ass cortairers............................................................................
178.0
184.0
121.5
147.1
149,6
159.9
213.5
137.9
161.3
292.6
173.6
184.9
119.1
146.7
145.4
158.5
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.3
173.7
185.9
120.3
140.8
145.4
158.5
213.8
132.1
160.8
294.2
173.7
186.5
120.5
137.9
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.8
160.8
294.2
173.8
186.5
122.2
134.6
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.9
158.9
294.2
181.8
186.5
122.7
137.7
151.1
158.5
214.2
140.9
159.5
294.2
181.9
185.9
123.9
147.9
151.1
159.5
214.3
140.0
162.6
294.2
182.0
185.9
124.4
140.0
151.1
161.5
215.2
140.9
162.8
294.2
182.0
184.0
124.2
N.A.
153.5
161.6
217.1
140.9
163.8
306.1
'182.4
r 184.1
r 124.6
149.3
'158.2
162.4
217.1
140.9
166.4
'306.1
183.0
184,7
124.2
156,6
154.9
162.4
217.2
140.9
166.3
311.4
183.2
188.3
125.1
157.0
(2)
164.7
217.9
149.5
167.1
311.4
183.7
192.1
125.6
145.5
( 2)
166.4
220.0
149.5
167.5
311.4
184.4
195.1
126.2
151.4
(2)
167.4
218.8
149.7
168.1
311.4
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
Cement, hydraulic............................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ..........................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Clay refractories..........................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c...................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures ..............................................................
Vitreous china food utensils............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................................
Concrete block and brick................................................................
309.8
277.3
122.5
274.1
202.8
234.8
317.3
295.4
152.6
257.3
306.3
271.9
130.4
263.7
196.4
226.7
308.2
294.3
150.1
252.3
312.6
276.4
130.4
273.9
203.1
227.6
313.4
295.1
151.4
259.3
313.8
278.5
117.6
275.6
204.1
236.1
313.4
293.9
151.5
259.4
313.8
278.5
117.6
275.9
204.4
235.8
318.6
294.7
152,7
259.4
313.3
278.5
117.6
279.2
204.7
237.2
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5
313.1
277.6
117.6
279.5
205.0
240.4
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5
312.3
278.5
117.6
279,7
204,8
241.1
318.7
296.4
153.3
260.5
311.8
282.6
120.1
280.2
204.9
241.5
327.4
297.9
155,4
259.4
'310.5
'282.9
120.1
'280.7
'205.0
242.6
327.4
'297.9
'155.5
259.4
307.6
283.8
120.1
282.1
205.6
245.0
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.4
319.2
287.5
127,1
293.1
209.9
244.7
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.1
319.1
287.0
127.1
306.9
213.3
248.9
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.9
321.3
296.2
127.2
309.9
213.5
249.4
328.0
307.6
158.4
263.2
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete....................................................................
Lime (12/75 = 100)......................................................................
Gypsum products ..........................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 =100) ................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes ............................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100)..................................................
279.9
157.8
256.7
212.6
161.2
310.4
117.7
283.9
291.0
282.0
275.5
155.6
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.2
277.2
278.8
157.1
264.6
212.0
157.4
312.0
118.7
285.9
286.8
279.8
281.5
157.3
257.0
211.8
159.7
313.3
118.6
288.1
286.9
280.5
282.5
157.7
257.5
213.5
161.2
313.5
118.7
288.2
290.4
282.5
282.6
159.6
253.5
215.2
162.8
308.6
117.1
282.2
292.4
283.0
282.6
160.2
252.3
215.7
164.9
308.5
117.1
282.3
292.6
283.2
283.6
158.8
252.2
217.1
164.8
308.6
117.2
282.3
292.6
283.3
282.7
160.8
250.0
218.8
167.8
314.8
117.3
288.1
294.2
289.7
282.8
'160.8
'253.6
220.2
'167.5
316.6
117.3
'288.8
302.4
'290.1
283.3
162.0
253.1
220.6
167.6
320.0
117.3
293.0
308.5
289.2
294.0
165.8
259.9
222.7
172.4
328.7
119.9
302.8
315.0
291.9
295.4
171.9
257.6
226.9
177.5
328.9
119.9
303.1
315.7
293.0
296.1
172.8
257.9
229.7
179.0
334.0
120.0
306.1
326.2
293.0
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary zin c......................................................................
Primary aluminum..................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing ............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 = 100)..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 = 100)....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Metal cans....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100) ....................................
Metal sanitary ware........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ............................................
269.9
298.3
227.6
158.2
167,7
146.2
291.6
182.0
248.3
137.0
279.6
267.8
238.6
155.5
160.9
141.1
279.9
176.4
243.1
132.7
274.3
276.0
227.4
157.8
167.7
143,8
295.1
178.0
245.5
133.5
268.2
287.0
222.8
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.5
249.7
133.8
268.6
290.1
220.2
157.8
167.7
146,7
294.9
181.9
249.9
137.8
255.9
312.1
222.8
158.2
168.3
147.4
295.6
183.5
250.9
137.8
255.9
312.2
226.2
157.6
168.4
147.6
295.9
185.4
251.4
139 8
264.0
313.0
220.2
157.6
168.2
147.5
296.1
185.8
251.4
140.1
269.9
325.6
222.0
161.5
173.2
150.7
297.9
186.8
251.5
140.2
'282.0
'328.5
'222.9
163.3
176.3
'151.2
297.2
'187.2
'252.2
'140.9
287.5
329.4
223.1
165,1
176.4
151.2
297.4
190.2
253.7
141.5
289.4
333.9
221.9
169.3
176.8
155.5
302.1
195.0
255.9
143.3
296.3
334.9
215.4
170.7
177.1
157.5
303.0
195.1
256.3
144.1
296.0
334.8
212.0
172.1
177.3
157.5
304.7
197.6
256.6
144.5
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ..........................................
Steel springs, except wire ..............................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 100)......................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings ............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.....................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 = 100) ......................................
Mining machinery (12/72 = 100)....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment............................................
Elevators and moving stairways......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100) ..........................
146.8
230.2
229.7
315.5
274.9
140,9
258.3
337.7
239.2
279.6
142.6
228.6
223.1
303.5
266.1
136.3
247.8
318.9
229.1
269.4
141.7
229.2
229.4
313.0
270.6
138,6
256.0
329.8
232.6
274.3
141.4
229.2
229.9
313.1
271.6
139.5
257.3
333.1
234.1
275.1
144.6
230.3
231.8
313.8
271.7
140.3
2582
337.4
242.8
279.2
145.1
230.3
232.5
317.2
276.8
141.8
259.4
342.6
244.2
284.3
147.3
230.8
232.7
317.2
278.6
142.7
262.0
345.7
243.8
285.3
145.3
231.9
233.3
319.9
283.2
143.8
264.1
347.3
246.4
285.6
145.8
233.0
235.8
325.0
285.2
146.0
266.0
352.9
248.3
286.8
'146.3
'233.3
'236.9
329.9
'289.1
'146.6
'268.0
'358.4
'248.8
'287.4
161.3
233.9
237.6
329.9
288.5
146.7
269.6
360.9
249.5
292.5
158.2
238.2
239.0
335.7
293.0
148.9
271.9
366.5
250.3
298.1
163.2
239.0
240.8
335.7
294.2
150.4
273.5
373.7
250.3
298.5
163.2
239.4
243.4
338.5
298.5
151.5
275.7
3758
250.3
301.8
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 = 100)..........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 = 100)....................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 = 100)..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory ......................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 = 100)..............................
Transformers ................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 = 100)..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 = 100)..................................
132.0
216.6
212.6
212.7
156.5
185.0
209.7
133 0
120.9
162.0
127.4
207.0
205.1
206.6
148.6
177.5
206.0
129.4
118.6
158.3
129.0
213.4
212.3
207.5
152.6
180.5
207.0
129.7
119.3
160.3
131.2
213.6
212.1
208.2
153.0
181.5
209.2
133.1
119.4
161.7
131.1
217.0
213.7
208.6
153.5
182.9
211.0
134.7
122.0
162.3
133.5
221.7
215.9
215.4
158.6
186.0
212.1
134.9
122.2
161.2
134.5
222.1
216.0
226.2
159.3
190.6
212.1
134.4
122.2
163.6
135.3
222.3
216.0
226.2
160.1
190.7
211.7
134.7
123.3
165.5
136.6
223.8
217.0
226.3
164.9
193.9
214.4
134.8
124.1
166.1
'136.7
224.5
'217.7
'226.9
'165.2
'193.0
'214.9
'135.8
'125.1
166.6
137.6
226.0
221.9
218.0
167.4
193.4
215.5
137.1
123.8
167.3
141.7
231.1
222.9
219.8
168.7
195.2
218.3
140.1
126.2
169.7
143.9
233.7
223.1
221.1
170.6
197.0
220.0
140.8
126.1
170.1
144.8
236.6
225.0
224.2
170.8
204.4
221.1
140.9
126.2
170.9
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum cleaners ..........................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)....................................................
Electric lamps................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Electron tubes receiving type..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..............................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 = 100) ..............................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 = 100)..................................................
152.2
128.9
260.1
220.3
139.3
139.9
251.8
90.6
162.6
134.1
151.3
129.2
251.8
215.3
136.2
134.6
229.7
89.3
151.3
131.8
148.6
129.2
252.3
217.4
138.0
139.4
254.0
90.4
157.0
131.9
149,3
129.2
251.3
218.2
138.5
140.2
254.7
91.2
160.7
133.0
155.8
129.2
258.1
220.4
139.2
140.7
255.2
92.0
160.5
135.2
158.4
130.0
266.3
220.3
139.2
140.7
255.5
92.1
168.6
135.3
158.5
130.0
268.1
220.7
140.4
140.9
255.6
91.8
172.6
136.3
158.6
130.0
269.2
220.9
142.3
143.2
255.7
92.0
174.0
136.9
158.8
130.3
268.7
221.8
142.8
143.3
264.6
91.8
170.1
137.7
'158.8
'130.3
'270.2
'223.7
'143.1
'144.7
264.8
'91.2
'170.2
'137.8
152.5
129.7
266.2
231.2
145.0
144.9
272.7
91.1
170.1
1378
152.6
129.7
265.9
235.3
145.6
146.3
284.3
90.6
170.3
138.1
149.9
129,7
271.2
238.5
148.5
146.8
284.5
90.8
170.6
138.8
151.8
131.3
272.6
242.9
151.9
152.7
285.1
91.7
172.5
139.5
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 = 100)..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and w e t........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100)..................................
Dolls (12/75 = 100)......................................................................
Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ..............................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Burial caskets (6/76 = 100) ..........................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)....................................
148.2
176.5
136.6
126,8
204.5
132.9
131.2
143.7
146.7
176.6
131.8
125 6
204.0
128.3
128.3
138.7
146.5
176:8
135.5
127.7
205.0
131.5
128.4
143.2
146.8
176.4
134.5
128.4
205.3
133.3
130.3
f 43.3
148.7
176.4
134.6
128.4
205.9
136.4
132.2
143.3
148.9
176.4
137.3
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.1
149.1
176.7
137.9
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.6
149.6
176.8
131.4
128.4
206.6
135.0
132.9
146.6
149.7
176.9
144.5
128.3
2070
135.0
132.9
146.6
'149.7
'177.0
'144.6
'128.3
'207.0
135.0
132.9
146.6
150.1
176.9
143.6
126.6
205.4
135.0
135.0
146 6
152.6
179.0
145.0
129.0
210.4
133.1
135.0
148.6
153.7
183.3
145.1
129.1
214,7
136.4
135.0
148.6
154.1
184,2
144.7
129.1
217.2
136.5
138.1
148.7
' Data for November 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Not available,
r=revised.
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the Review, tables 3134 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series — private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” Monthly Labor
Review, October 1976, pages 40-42.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-80
[1977 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o st................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
50.3
20.0
50.4
39.8
43.5
41.0
58.2
26.3
59.6
45.2
47.8
46.1
65.1
33.9
69.4
52.1
50.8
51.7
78.2
41.7
80.0
53.3
57.8
54.8
86.1
58.2
90.8
67.6
63.4
66.2
94.8
71.3
97.3
75.2
75.6
75.3
92.7
78.0
95.9
84.2
78.9
82.4
94.8
85.5
96.3
90.2
90.7
90.4
97.9
92.9
98.8
94.8
94.4
94.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.4
100.7
108.6
105.1
107.4
99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9
99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
118.1
127.6
56.2
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.8
40.2
62.7
28.3
63.9
45.1
47.9
46.0
68.2
35.6
73.0
52.3
50.5
51.7
80.4
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.2
54.9
86.7
58.6
91.5
67.6
64.0
66.4
953
71.7
97.7
75.2
71.9
74.1
93.1
78.4
96.4
84.3
76.1
81.6
95.0
86.0
96.8
90.5
88.9
89.9
98.1
93.0
99.0
94.8
94.0
94.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
108.5
100.7
108.7
103.6
107.0
99.0
118.8
992
120.0
108.5
116.2
98.4
130.4
95.9
132.4
117.4
r 127.4
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ >
66.3
36.3
74.2
54.7
54.6
54.7
79.9
43.0
82.6
53.8
60.8
56.2
85.4
58.3
91.0
68.3
63.1
66.5
94.5
70.8
96.5
749
70.7
73.4
91.3
77.6
95.4
85.1
75.7
81.8
94.4
85.5
96.3
90.6
90.9
90.7
97.4
92.5
98.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.8
106.4
100.3
118.6
99.0
118.2
108.3
114.8
100.6
130.4
95.9
129.6
117.0
125.2
49.5
21.5
54.1
43.4
55.1
46.8
56.5
28.8
65.2
51.0
59.4
53.4
60.1
36.7
75.1
61.1
62.0
61.3
74.6
42.9
82.3
57.4
70.3
61.2
79.2
57.6
89.9
72.7
66.0
70.7
93.1
69.1
94.2
74.2
71.6
73.4
90.9
76.4
93.9
84.1
70.4
80.1
93.5
85.5
96.3
91.4
88.5
90.6
97.7
92.4
98.3
94.6
95.1
94.7
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.9
108.2
100.5
107.3
104.7
106.5
101.9
118.7
99.1
116.5
105.7
113.4
101.4
131.2
96.5
129.3
( ')
(’ )
1980
r = revised.
103
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1970-80
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
0.9
7.4
1.4
6.4
0.7
4.5
3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4.4
3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4
2.7
8.0
1.7
5.2
5,9
5.4
-2.3
9.4
-1.4
11.9
4.4
9.4
2.3
9.6
0.4
7.2
15.0
9.7
3.3
8.6
2.7
5.1
4.1
4.7
2.1
7.7
1.2
5.5
5.9
5.6
-0.2
8.4
0.7
8.6
5.1
7.4
-0.4
9.9
-1.2
10.4
5.5
8.8
-0.4
10.0
-3.1
10.5
6.4
9.2
2.5
6.0
2.4
3.5
3.2
3.4
2.2
7.1
1.9
4.8
4.4
4.7
0.3
7.0
1.0
6.6
1.1
4.8
3.3
6.6
2.2
3.1
7.4
4.5
3.7
6.7
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.0
2.5
7.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
3.7
-2.4
9,4
-1.4
12.1
5.9
10.1
2.1
9.6
0.4
7.4
16.7
10.3
3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1
2.0
7.6
1.0
5.5
6.4
5.8
-0.2
8.5
0.7
8.7
3.6
7.0
-0.8
9.6
-1.5
10.4
4.8
8.6
-0.6
9.7
-3.3
10.4
8.2
9.7
2.1
5.7
2.1
3.5
3.1
3.4
1.9
6.8
1.6
4.8
4.2
4.6
0.4
6.8
0.8
6.3
0.5
4.4
4.8
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5
3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
7,7
1.4
4.9
1.5
3.8
-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4
3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9
3.2
8.2
2.3
4.9
4.6
4,8
2.7
8,1
1.5
5.3
5.2
5.2
0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.8
6.4
-0.1
9.6
-1.5
9.7
4.4
7.9
0.3
9.9
-3.2
9.6
8.0
9.1
-0.2
6.8
0.8
7.0
-2.5
4.3
6.1
6.1
1.8
5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5
5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3
-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0
2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1
4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6
2.4
8.3
1.7
5.7
5.2
5.6
0.9
8.2
0.5
7.3
4.7
6.5
1.0
9.7
-1.4
8.6
0.9
6.4
0.5
10.5
-2.7
11.0
(’ )
<’ )
0.0
11.2
3.1
1950-80
1960-80
2.0
6.7
1.5
4.6
3.8
4.3
<1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
n
O
2.5
5.6
2.0
3.1
4.6
4.5
2.4
6.7
1.5
4.2
8.3
7.6
' Not available.
33.
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1977 = 100 ]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Annual
average
1978
1979
1980
1979
1980
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9
99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
118.1
127.6
99.9
107.1
100.5
107.3
104.8
106.4
100.0
109.4
100 5
109.4
106.7
108.5
99.9
111.9
100.5
112.1
109.1
111.1
99.7
115.0
100.5
115.4
109.6
113.4
99.6
118.0
100.1
118.5
110.4
115.8
99.2
120.5
99.0
121.4
111.5
118.1
99,0
123.0
97.9
124,2
112.3
120.2
99.3
126.0
96.5
127.0
115.3
123.0
98.8
129.7
96.2
131.3
116.0
126.1
99.2
132.8
96.8
133.9
119.8
129.1
98.5
135.5
95.9
r 137.6
r 121.7
132.2
99.0
118.8
99,2
120.0
108.5
116.2
98.4
130.4
95.9
132.4
117.4
127.4
99.9
107.2
100.6
107.3
103.2
105.9
99.9
109.4
100.5
109.5
105.1
108.0
99.8
111.9
100.5
112.2
107.0
110.5
99.5
114.9
100.4
115.4
107.1
112.6
99.1
117.6
99.8
118.7
107.7
115.1
98.7
119.9
98,6
121.5
109.3
117.4
98.6
122.7
97.7
124.4
110.2
119.7
98.6
125.6
96.2
127.4
114.0
122.9
97.9
129.0
95.7
131.8
115.2
126.3
98.8
131.9
96.1
133.5
119.2
128.8
98.3
135.0
95.6
' 137.3
r 121.0
131.9
100.3
118.6
99.0
116.8
118.2
112.7
99.0
114.8
100.6
130.4
95.9
129.8
129.6
130.4
88.9
125.2
100.8
107.0
100.5
105.4
106.2
103.0
105.5
105.4
100.4
109.2
100.2
107.6
108.7
104.4
105.9
107.4
100.5
111.5
100.1
109.6
111.0
106.0
108.9
109.6
100.6
114.5
100.1
112.2
113.8
107.8
105.6
111.5
100.6
117.5
99.6
115.3
116.8
111.2
100.7
113.7
100.3
119.8
98.5
118.2
119.5
114.6
97.5
115.9
99.7
122.4
97.5
121.3
122.8
117.2
92.2
118.1
100.0
125.3
95.9
124.2
125.4
120.9
95.5
121.0
99,8
128.9
95.6
129.2
129.1
129.3
83.4
124.1
101.5
132.1
96.3
131.1
130.2
133.8
89.1
126.4
(')
(')
101.9
118.7
99.1
116.5
101.4
131.2
96.5
129.3
100.6
106.9
100.3
106.2
101,7
109.1
100.2
107.3
102.0
111.5
100.1
109.3
101.4
114.5
100.1
112.9
102,3
118.5
100.5
115.9
101.9
119.7
98.4
117.5
101.9
122.0
97.2
119.8
101.7
125.0
95.7
122.9
100.5
129.6
96.1
128.9
100.2
133.5
97.3
133,2
103.0
136.8
96.9
132.8
r = revised.
(’ )
n
( 1)
( 1)
(’ >
C)
34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977 = 100]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o st..................................
Unit nonlabor payments ........................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour..............
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ............................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..........................................
Implicit price deflator ............................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor c o st..........................................
I11979
to
III 1979
III 1979
to
IV 1979
IV 1979
to
I 1980
-1.5
8.5
-4.4
10.1
4.2
8.2
-1.1
8.6
-4.4
9.8
2.6
7.4
1.3
10.4
-5.6
9.0
11.3
9.7
-1.9
12.2
-1.3
14.4
2.6
10.5
1.5
9.7
2.4
8.1
13.6
9.8
-1.4
8.1
-4.7
9.7
5.9
8.5
-0.3
9.6
-3.5
9.9
3.3
7.8
0.0
9.9
-6.0
9.9
14.6
11.3
-3.0
11.2
-2.2
14.6
4.2
11.3
-1.1
8.2
-4.6
10.3
9.5
12.8
-12.0
7.9
-2.4
8.9
-4.1
11.0
11.6
9.3
-20.2
7.8
1.2
9.8
-6.1
9.8
8.6
13.5
15.3
10.3
-1.6
3.9
-8.4
5.6
0.1
8.1
-4.8
8.0
0.7
10.1
-5.9
10.8
1 1980
to
II 1980
II 1980
to
III 1980
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
III 1980
to
IV 1980
III 1978
to
III 1979
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
1 1979
to
1 1980
II 1979
to
II 1980
III 1979
to
III 1980
IV 1979
to
IV 1980
-2.8
8.4
-3.4
11.5
6.4
9.9
-0.7
10.1
-1.5
10.9
4.6
8.8
-0.9
9.9
-2.5
10.9
2.9
8.2
-0.4
9.6
-4.0
10.0
5.2
8.4
-0.8
9.9
-3.9
10.8
5.1
9.0
0.0
10.2
-2.3
10.3
7.4
9.4
-0.5
10.2
-2.0
10.7
8.4
10.0
3.8
9.3
2.0
5.3
14.9
8.2
-1.9
9.6
-2.3
11.8
6.1
10.0
-1.2
9.6
-1.9
10.9
4.0
8.7
-1.1
9.6
-2.7
10.9
3.0
8.3
-0.9
9.4
-4.2
10.4
6.4
9.1
-1.2
9.7
-4.1
11.0
6.9
9.7
0.1
10.0
-2.5
9.9
9,1
9.6
0.3
10.0
-2.2
10.4
9.8
10.2
-0.5
12.0
-1.5
17.0
12.6
30.6
-41.9
10.5
6.9
10.3
3.0
6.2
3.2
14.7
30.3
7.9
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
-0.1
9.8
-1.7
9.9
9.9
9.8
-7.9
7.9
-0.8
9.8
-2.6
10.7
10.7
10.6
-15.4
7.8
-0.6
9.5
-4.1
10.6
10.1
12.2
-9.5
8.5
-0.7
9.7
-4.1
12.0
10.5
16.3
-17.2
9.1
1.2
10.3
-2.2
11.0
8.9
16.8
-8.6
9.1
( ')
( 1)
(')
{')
-4.6
15.5
1.6
21.1
-1.1
12.7
5.2
14.0
11.7
10.3
-1.8
-1.3
0.2
9.7
-1.8
9.5
r -0.1
9.4
-2.9
9.6
-0.3
9.1
-4.4
8.8
-1.7
9.3
-4.4
11.2
1.6
11.6
-1.1
13.4
1.1
12.1
-0.3
10.9
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
' Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
105
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA
M a j o r c o l l e c t iv e b a r g a in in g
d a t a
are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi
tional detail is published in Current Wage Developments, a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.
the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
,
Definitions
rT
Work stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes combined apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date
[In percent]
Annual average
Quarterly average
Sector and measure
1979
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980 p
1980 p
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
10.4
7.0
2.8
5.3
10.5
7.8
9.0
6.1
8.5
6.0
8.6
6.4
10.1
6.8
11.6
7.3
8.3
5.9
Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
9.5
7.1
5.7
6.6
8.9
7.2
6.8
5.1
6.3
5.3
7.8
6.3
8.7
6.8
10.7
7.4
8.4
6.5
Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
7.3
5.4
8.7
7.7
9.7
8.1
6.3
4.7
5.6
4.2
7.0
5.6
6.6
4.9
8.7
5.5
7.6
5.7
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
9.6
6.6
3.2
5.6
8.5
5.8
9.4
6.5
7.8
7.4
9.1
7.1
10.4
8.6
9.4
5.8
8.9
7.4
Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
13.6
11.5
9.7
8.2
8.7
8.3
9.7
8.5
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.3
12.7
10.3
15.7
13.3
14.3
12.0
106
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36.
Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date
[In percent]
Average annual changes
Average quarterly changes
Sector and measure
1978
1976
Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries ..............
Change resulting from —
Current settlement..........................................
Prior settlement......................................
Escalator provision ..............................
Manufacturing ..........................................
Nonmanufacturing ......................................
1977
1978
1979
1979
1980 p
1980 p
IV
1
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
8.1
8.0
8.2
9.1
9.3
1.4
1.4
2.6
3.3
1.6
1.5
3.2
3.4
1.2
3.2
3.2
1.6
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.1
2.6
.4
.5
.5
.2
.6
.6
1.1
1.0
.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
.5
.4
.7
.4
.5
.6
1.1
1.2
.8
1.6
1.1
.7
.5
.3
.5
8.5
7.7
8.4
7.6
8.6
7.9
9.6
8.8
9.7
9.0
1.9
1.1
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.8
3.2
3.4
2.4
1.0
1.9
1.3
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.7
1.6
1.0
NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.
37.
Work stoppages, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Days idle
Number
(thousands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
..................
..................
..................
..................
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2,170
1,960
3,030
2,410
34.600
34.100
50.500
38,800
.30
.28
.44
.33
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
22.900
59.100
28.300
22.600
28,200
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
33.100
16.500
23.900
69,000
19.100
.24
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
16.300
18,600
16.100
22.900
23.300
.15
.15
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716
1,960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305
25,400
42,100
49,018
42,869
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746
47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
....................
....................
....................
....................
5,648
5,506
4,230
4,827
2,420
2,040
1,623
1,727
37,859
35,822
36,922
34,754
.19
.17
.17
.15
1980 p : February .
March . . .
April........
M ay........
June . . . .
J u ly ........
August . . .
September
October ..
November
December
1981 p : January ..
February .
332
326
357
388
385
414
374
420
347
201
66
253
347
3,131
3,230
2,579
2,099
2,441
3,954
3,079
3,407
2,195
.19
.16
.14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
594
605
649
704
699
733
704
724
630
427
247
297
517
77
98
98
116
173
241
80
126
90
52
18
50
90
248
237
218
172
224
336
211
247
200
101
48
68
136
1,110
617
614
647
.12
.18
.50
.14
.11
.13
.11
.10
.13
.21
.15
.20
.11
.06
.03
.03
.04
107
How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
Order from (and make checks payable to) Su
perintendent o f Documents, Washington, D.C.
20402. For foreign subscriptions, add 25 percent.
Monthly Labor Review. The oldest and most
authoritative government research journal in
economics and the social sciences. Current
statistics, analysis, developments in industrial
relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18
a year, single copy, $2.50.
Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera, $22 a year, single copy
$2.75.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular
periodical designed to help high school stu
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy
$1.75.
Current Wage Developments. A monthly re
port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$13 a year, single copy $2.25.
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com
prehensive monthly report on price move
ments of both farm and industrial commodi
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17
a year, single copy $2.25.
CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical
featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $18 a year, single
copy $3.
PRESS RELEASES
The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail
able to news media through press releases is
sued in Washington. Many of the releases
also are available to the public upon request.
Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing
ton, D.C. 20212.
Regional. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional
offices publishes reports and press releases
dealing with regional data. Single copies
available free from the issuing regional office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
About 140 bulletins and handbooks published each year are for sale by regional
offices o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see inside front cover) and by the Su
perintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. Orders can be charged to
a deposit account number or checks can be made payable to the Superintendent
o f Documents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted; include card number
and expiration date. Among the bulletins and handbooks currently in print:
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1980-81 Edition. Bulletin 2075. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 cloth cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics. Bulletin 2070, December 1980. A
490-page volume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series.
$9.50.
Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS Measures of Compensation. Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the
various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the
manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2052. Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 2020
published in 1979.) $4.75.
Exploring Careers. Bulletin 2001. A new career guidance resource
designed for junior high school students but useful for older students as
well. Includes occupational narratives, evaluative questions, suggested ac
tivities, career games, and photographs. $10.
Profile of the Teenage Worker. Bulletin 2039. Focuses on the labor mar
ket experience of 16- to 19-year-olds. Based on data from the Current
Population Survey, the bulletin reviews past trends and explores the
problems of youth unemployment and the transition from school to
work. $3.25.
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2037. A graphic il
lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations
and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and
manufacturing industries. $3.50.
REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS
Single copies available free from the BLS regional offices or from the'Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department o f Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
Major Programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Report 552. A sum
mary of the Bureau’s principal programs, including data available,
sources, uses, and publications.
Employment in Perspective: Working Women. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on women in the labor force.
Empldyment in Perspective: Minority Workers. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on blacks and persons of Hispanic
origin in the labor force.
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1979. Report
619. Latest report in a series presenting geographic labor force data from
the Current Population Survey. Provides 1979 annual average demo
graphic and economic characteristics of the labor force for States and
similar data for 3 0 large s m s a ’ s and 11 large cities.
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981— 341-258/64
is the oldest,
most authoritative
Government journal
in its field
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Every month, 12 times a year
A r tic le s a n d
40 p a g e s of
r e p o r ts o n
e m p lo y m e n t,
p ric e s , w a g e s ,
p r o d u c tiv ity ,
jo b s a fe ty , a n d
c u rre n t
la b o r s ta tis tic s
D e v e lo p m e n ts in
in d u s tria l
r e la tio n s
S ig n ific a n t
d e c is io n s in
la b o r c a s e s
B o o k r e v ie w s
a n d n o te s
F o re ig n la b o r
d e v e lo p m e n ts
e c o n o m ic g ro w th
M a il to:
S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts
P le a s e e n te r m y s u b s c r ip tio n to th e
U .S. G o v e r n m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e
W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2
1 y e a r a t $ 1 8 .0 0 . ( F o r e ig n s u b s c r ib e r s a d d $ 4 .5 0 .)
Monthly Labor Review
fo r
□ R e m itta n c e is e n c lo s e d .
( M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts .)
□ C h a rg e to G P O D e p o s it A c c o u n t N o ________________________ _
Nam e
O r g a n iz a tio n
(if a p p lic a b le )
A d d re s s
C ity , S ta te ,
a n d Z IP C o d e
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER