The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis % U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR William E. Brock, Secretary 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— $24 domestic; $30 foreign. Single copy $4, domestic; $5 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: ° Superintendent of Documents, 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 April 30, 1987. Second-class postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at additional mailing addresses. * Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Region I— Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II— New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone:(212)944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III— Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone:(215)596-1154 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 E. Rice 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming May cover: An ink drawing from L e s lie ’s magazine, December 15, 1879, showing workmen attaching the suspenders to the great cables for support of the roadway of New York’s East River Bridge. Cover design by Richard L. Mathews. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-4678 IX American Somoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington RESEARCH LIBRARY Federai Rese ve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW MAY 2 3 1985 MAY 1985 VOLUME 108, NUMBER 5 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor Murray F. Foss 3 Changing utilization of fixed capital and long-term growth A small but measurable part of the long-term rise in multifactor productivity can be tied to the increased ‘workweek’ of fixed capital, reflecting the spread of multiple shifts John U. Burgan 9 Cyclical behavior of high tech industries In the last recession, employment declines in high tech industries were not as deep as the total for manufacturing, but only a handful outperformed the nonfarm sector J. E. Duggan, A. G. Clem 16 Input prices and cost inflation in three manufacturing industries An analysis of the relationship between input prices and the average cost of output under alternative production technologies, with emphasis on transmission of inflation J. E. Henneberger, A. S. Herman 22 Productivity in the internal combustion engine industry During 1967, output per hour increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent; the Impact of cyclical downturns contributed to this below-average growth CONFERENCE PAPERS Gary Burtless, Wayne Vroman 27 Unemployment insurance program solvency in the 1980’s Thomas A. Kochan and others 28 U.S. industrial relations in transition W. E. Hendricks, L. M. Kahn 29 Future of wage indexation in labor contracts Sanford M. Jacoby 32 Cost-of-living escalators became prevalent in the 1950’s A. J. Marcus, A. O. Quester 33 Factors in the productivity of military personnel REPORTS Edward Wasilewski Harry B. Williams https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 36 38 bls extends State and local government bargaining series Wages at motor vehicles outpaced those at parts factories DEPARTMENTS 2 27 36 43 46 49 53 Labor month in review Conference papers Research summaries Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Labor M onth In Review KLEIN AWARD. The trustees of the Lawrence R. Klein Award selected two Monthly Labor Review authors as win ners of the 16th annual Lawrence R. Klein Award. The awards were presented at the annual BLS awards ceremony, April 16. Awards for the best Monthly Labor Review articles written in 1984 went to: • Richard J. McDonald of the Bureau’s Office of Research and Evaluation for “ The ‘underground economy’ and BLS statistical data,” in the January issue, and to • H. M. Douty, a former assistant commissioner for wages and industrial relations, for “ A century of wage statistics: the BLS contribution,” in the November issue. Klein award trustees also cited for honorable mention Constance Sorren tino, a 1977 award winner, for “ Japan’s low unem ploym ent: an in-depth analysis,” in the March issue, as well as for “ the consistently high quality of her international comparison articles,” which discuss the labor force, employ ment, unemployment, productivity, and labor costs in the United States and 10 other countries. The McDonald article evaluates literature concerning the effects of the underground economy on the Bureau’s economic data. Critics have argued that the existence of an underground economy implies the existence of unreported activity and, as a result, government’s statistics may be er roneous because they do not reflect this activity. McDonald examines the Bureau’s series on employment, productivity, and prices. He concludes that while it is possible that underground activities may affect the series, the literature “ has not made the case—far from it.” 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Douty article traces the work of the Bureau in the field of wage statistics from the late 19th century to the present (1984). He also discusses the growth of wage supplements since World War II, wage stabilization programs, and wage laws covering workers. Douty concludes that “ without the Bureau’s surveys and studies... we would know far less than we do about the money return for work during the past century . . . .” Purpose of award. The Klein Award was established by Lawrence R. Klein, editor-in-chief of the Review from 1946 until he retired in 1968. Klein donated his retirement gift and matched the amount collected to initiate the fund. The purpose of the award is to en courage originality of ideas or method of analysis, adherence to principles of scientific inquiry, and good writing in Monthly Labor Review articles. Articles by BLS authors as well as by persons out side BLS are eligible for awards. Winners receive a cash award of $200. Tax deductible contributions to the Klein Award Fund may be sent to Ben Burdetsky, c/o School of Government and Business Administration, The George W ashington U niversity, Washington, D.C. 20052. □ The winners Since the Lawrence R. Klein Award was established in 1969, 36 authors of 32 articles have been honored. Topics range from explanations of how poverty is measured to high tech employment. A list of winning authors follows: 1970 Mollie Orshansky 1980 Paul O. Flaim 1971 Hyman Kaitz 1981 1972 Janice N. Hedges Denis Johnston Norman Bowers Philip L. Rones Robert L. Bach and Jennifer B. Bach 1973 Peter Henle T. Aldrich Finegan 1982 George Stamas Peter Finn 1974 Robert W. Fisher Jonathan Grossman 1983 Paul O. Flaim Norman Bowers Paul S. Adler 1975 John Early Joseph Mire 1984 Richard W. Riche, Daniel E. Hecker, and John U. Burgan Koji Taira Michele M. Hoyman and Lamont E. Stallworth 1985 Richard J. McDonald H. M. Douty 1976 Curtis Gilroy Nicholas Ashford 1977 Constance Sorrentino Rita M. Maldonado 1978 William Deuterman H. M. Douty 1979 Morris Newman Fred Best Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long-term growth A small but measurable part o f the long-term rise in multifactor productivity can be attributed to the increased workweek’ o f fixed capital, which largely reflects the spread o f multiple shifts ‘ M u r r a y F. Fo ss The workweek of labor has gone down since the early part of this century, but what can be said about the “ workweek” of fixed capital— that is, the number of hours per week that factories, retail stores, coal mines, and the like were uti lized? According to estimates based on data from the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other sources, the workweek of fixed capital in the nonfarm busi ness sector increased from the late 1920’s to the 1970’s. Manufacturing plants in 1976 were in operation approxi mately 25 percent more hours per week than they were in 1929. In some nonmanufacturing industries— services and construction— average weekly hours of capital fell, but in others they rose— retail and wholesale trade, radio and t v broadcasting, and mining. An important part of the business stock of fixed capital experienced no changes in its weekly hours of operation— electric and gas utilities, telephone companies, and most transportation companies— because it tends to operate around the clock. These findings can help our understanding of the long-run growth of productivity and output, especially in light of what important investi gations have told us about long-term growth. For example, it has been found that output has risen much faster than the weighted sum of all inputs or factors of production. This difference is a reflection of the growth of multifactor, or total factor, productivity. According to four major studies, Murray F. Foss is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This article is based on the first chapter of his book “ Changing Utilization o f Fixed Capital: An Element in Long-Term Growth,” published by aei in 1984. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis productivity growth was an important part of output growth from 1948 to 1973: 32 percent as estimated by Dale Jor genson; 54 percent by b l s ; 56 percent by Edward Denison; and 62 percent by John Kendrick.1 The pattern observed for the entire private economy has been apparent also for major industry divisions like manufacturing, for major man ufacturing industries, and for earlier periods. Economists disagree about what lies behind the long-run growth in productivity. They have given many different designations— besides multifactor productivity— to the dif ference between measured output growth and input growth, such as “ technical progress” or the “ residual.” But what ever the name, economists have been disturbed that they have known so little about so large a part of output growth. Indeed, Moses Abramovitz, referring to this phenomenon almost 30 years ago, declared that the residual could be taken as “ a measure of our ignorance about the causes of economic growth.” 2 In presenting its new estimates of mul tifactor productivity in September 1983, b l s felt constrained to use the same characterization. Measuring inputs A corollary of the above is that the role of fixed capital in output growth, while important, has been overshadowed by the growth in productivity. To understand this requires an understanding of how contributions of inputs are meas ured. In studies of output growth, changes in each input or factor of production must be weighted by the importance of the factor in output. Not only is the weight of capital, 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Changing Utilization o f Fixed Capital or the share of output attributable to capital, much smaller than the labor share, but it must be divided among four broad kinds of capital— plant, equipment, inventories, and land. As for input changes, economists have typically mea sured fixed capital inputs by the stock of plant and equipment in place— or by the flow of services from such a stock. Changes in capital input from one point in time to another have been measured by changes in this stock or in the services it renders. An important implication of this kind of measurement of capital is that changes in the workweek of capital have not been reflected in capital input. With capital input so measured, the effect of a longer workweek of capital would be included in the change in productivity as conventionally measured. Edward Denison has pioneered in his several studies of output growth and of the factors underlying productivity change. He attributed the growth of total factor productivity in the U.S. nonresidential business sector from 1948 to 1973 to three main influences: the shift of resources from farms to nonfarm uses; economies of scale due to the larger size of markets; and the increase in knowledge. Denison divided the last item into two main components: increased mana gerial experience and skill and increased scientific and tech nological knowledge. Some of these influences can be measured but others, like the increase in knowledge, cannot be; in Denison’s system, as in most others, the increase in knowledge is a residual. Not all investigators agree with Denison’s explanations of productivity change. For example, many investigators have attempted to quantify the contribution of research and development, an influence that all concede to be important but the treatment of which has provoked much controversy. Denison, for example, remains deeply skeptical about at tempts to measure r & d contributions to growth. Theodore Schultz, who was among the first to emphasize the role of education in growth, acknowledges that the relationship is poorly understood and not easily comprehended. Extended use of capital Under these circumstances, it is helpful if we can establish a close connection between a particular influence and pro ductivity growth. A longer workweek of capital is a mea surable influence whose effect on productivity growth is direct. We find that the workweek of fixed capital in manufac turing expanded during the 1930’s and has continued to increase since, mainly as a result of increased shiftwork; the use of multiple shifts has been the dominant mode of factory production in the postwar period. For the nonfarm business sector, the workweek of fixed capital has also in creased but much less than for manufacturing. However, it is significant that these overall changes in the weekly hours of fixed capital have been positive, unlike the changes in labor’s workweek. Thus, a small but measurable part of the rise in multifactor productivity can be accounted for by a 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis longer workweek of fixed capital. In a growth accounting framework, the contribution of plant and equipment can be thought of as somewhat greater than is apparent. We should point out that there is a micro theory that underlies the practice of shift work. The number of hours per week a manufacturing plant or other business establish ment operates is an aspect of a firm’s investment decision. To achieve a given production level a firm, for example, can build a large plant operating a single shift or a smaller plant operating two shifts or more. Both of these aspects— the amount of capital and the scheduled number of weekly hours or shifts— are dimensions relevant to the measurement of fixed capital. Of course, a firm may also vary the number of shifts over the business cycle in response to changes in demand, but cyclical change is not the focus of this study. Using multiple shifts is a form of economizing on fixed capital. The more capital intensive the production, the greater the incentive to use shifts. However, running late shifts usually entails increases in marginal costs, the most im portant of which is labor. As is well known, premiums are ordinarily paid for second and third shift work, although other costs may also be incurred, such as lighting and heat ing. In principle, firms produce at that point at which the savings on capital costs are equal to the added variable costs associated with late shifts. Limited managerial resources are frequently an influence restricting the number of hours of operation of a small business. Changes in technology in which capital is substituted for labor and changes in relative prices that bring about the same result both have the effect of encouraging shift work. Declines in relative wage differentials for late shift work would have the same effect. Changes in consumer habits also affect hours of operation. Improving efficiency Although our focus is on changes in shiftwork, in prin ciple it is possible to distinguish another kind of change in capital hours per week (or per year). That is, even with the shift pattern held constant, management may discover more efficient ways of operating machines longer hours, thereby reducing idle machine time and decreasing the need for additions to the stock of capital. Efficiency increases of this sort may come about in innumerable ways— by changing lot size, by using a superior lubricant on machines that reduces maintenance downtime, by discovering new uses for equipment not anticipated earlier, and the like. For man ufacturing, we have been able to relate broad changes in this type of efficiency to changes in the workweek of capital attributable to increased shiftwork. Nonfarm business We estimated average weekly hours worked by fixed cap ital for 10 major industry groups in the private nonfarm business sector (excluding residential business and nonprofit organizations) and for all industries combined from 1929 to 1976.3 Table 1 presents summary statistics in the form of average rates of change compounded annually. For the non farm business sector, average weekly hours of fixed capital increased at a rate of 0.18 percent from 1929 to 1976. Gross stocks of structures and equipment in these same industries rose at a rate of 2.24 percent per year, so that the growth in average weekly capital hours was 8 percent of the growth in the stock. Manufacturing accounted for most of the over all rise. The results in table 1 reflect the use of constant industry weights for fixed capital and are not the result of a changing industry mix.4 On the overall basis, there was little difference in the average rate of growth in weekly capital hours between prewar and postwar periods. The rise in hours was about 5 percent of the increase in the gross stock in the postwar years, reaching a peak of 7.7 percent in the decade 195969. The prewar picture is different, however, because the Great Depression and World War II held down the level of capital formation and thus capital stocks. From 1929 to 1948, the growth in average weekly hours was about as large as the growth of the stock itself. Manufacturing. Average weekly hours of capital grew much more rapidly in manufacturing than in nonfarm business from 1929 to 1976: 0.47 percent versus 0.18 percent. In manufacturing, the rise was apparently much greater before 1948 than after: 0.60 percent versus 0.38 percent. It is important to note that the estimates are based on benchmarks for 1929 and 1976 and on interpolations made backward from 1976 to the early postwar period. The estimate of change from 1929 to the early postwar period is thus a residual. Table 1. Growth rates in fixed capital and in average weekly capital hours, nonfarm business and manufacturing, 1929-76 [Average percent per year] C a p ita l + h o u rs H o u rs a s p e rc e n ta g e of c a p ita l1 P e rio d C a p ita l H o u rs Nonfarm business: 1929-76 ................. 1929-48 ............ 1948-76 ............ 1948-59 ......... 1959-69 ......... 1969-76 ......... 2.24 .15 3.68 3.25 3.91 4.02 0.18 .18 .19 .11 .30 .17 2.42 .33 3.87 3.36 4.21 4.19 8.0 120.0 5.2 3.4 7.7 4.2 Manufacturing: 1929-76 ................. 1929-48 ............ 1948-76 ............ 1948-59 ___ 1959-69 ___ 1969-76 ___ 2.30 1.00 3.19 3.39 3.11 2.99 .47 .60 .38 .22 .58 .36 2.77 1.60 3.57 3.61 3.69 3.35 20.4 60.0 11.9 6.5 18.6 12.0 (1969-79 3.44 .36 3.80 10.5) ___ 'Column 2 divided by column 1 x 100. Sources : Capital: Gross stocks of plant and equipment in 1972 prices from John C. Musgrave, “ Fixed Capital Stocks in the United States: Revised Estimates,” Survey of Current Business, February 1981, p. 59, table 3, and “ Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United States, 1979-82,“ Survey o f Current Business, August 1983, p. 62, table 3. Totals for manufacturing and nonfarm nonmanufacturing combined were reduced by plant and equipment stocks of nonprofit organizations (unpublished Bureau of Eco nomic Analysis estimates). Data exclude residential capital. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis From 1948 to 1976, the average rate of increase in average weekly plant hours constituted 11.9 percent of the average rate of increase in the capital stock. This percentage was least in the 1948-59 period (6.5 percent) and greatest in the 1959-69 period (18.6 percent). Note the difference in growth rates for the stock alone and for the stock plus hours. The latter shows a slight acceleration when growth rates over successive decades are compared (3.61, 3.69, and 3.80).5 The rise in average weekly plant hours from 1929 to 1976 would be much greater if not for the fact that a good part of manufacturing fixed capital has always operated on a 24hour basis throughout the year. (Examples: petroleum re fining, industrial chemicals, pig iron, and steel). With the omission of continuous industries as well as those industries that have typically operated only a single shift (apparel, shoes) the rise in weekly capital hours over the 47-year period comes to .60 percent per year as against .47 percent. The pattern of change in some of the well-known capital ratios is altered somewhat when we take account of changes in average weekly hours of capital. For example, from 1948 to 1976 capital-output ratios in manufacturing declined at an annual rate of 0.3 percent but rose at a rate of 0.1 percent when stocks are adjusted for changes in average weekly hours. Over this period, the capital-labor ratio without ad justment for changing capital h.urs rose 3.3 percent and with the adjustment, 3.7 percent. (Labor is measured by b l s estimates of hours worked by all persons in manufac turing.) The longer workweek of capital appears to be a response to the increased capital intensity of production in the postwar years and the desire by management to economize on capital through multiple shift work. This trend was accompanied by— and itself was a cause of—the long-term trend in man ufacturing production toward large firms and away from small firms. Owners of small firms put in long hours on average but they apparently value their leisure, because they tend not to use late shifts. Also the trend in wage differentials for night work— since the late 1950’s— has fostered shift work because these differentials have not kept pace with straight-time earnings generally.6 In fact, from the end of World War II to the end of the 1950’s a rising trend in wage differentials held down the rise of weekly hours of capital. Nonmanufacturing. A large part of the nonmanufacturing sector (70 percent) works around the clock— public utilities, petroleum and natural gas, hotels, and hospitals— and thus contributes nothing to the overall change in hours. The other industries show mixed trends. From 1929 to 1976, capital hours increased in coal mining because underground coal mining became more capital intensive and because strip mining, in which capital hours tend to be quite long, ac counted for a rising share of coal production. Retail store hours increased as shopping habits changed. The long store hours maintained by chain organizations make it difficult for small proprietors to compete; this is doubtless a signif5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Changing Utilization o f Fixed Capital icant factor in the fairly steady decline in the importance of the small retailer. With more of the labor force now em ployed on evening and night shifts, television and radio stations broadcast longer hours than formerly. Our general approach to estimating weekly capital hours could not capture the spread of large computers since the 1950’s. Computers have taken the place of conventional office equipment like typewriters, calculating machines, ad dressing machines, and so on. Large computers, moreover, are worked very long hours because of their high cost. Consequently, we set up a synthetic industry consisting of all the office equipment in the economy, including com puters. The weight of this industry has increased but remains small. According to our estimates, the fixed capital in this industry experienced a rise of 133 percent (3.1 percent per year) in average weekly hours from 1948 to 1976. However, technological trends may be putting an end to this devel opment and possibly reversing it. The spread of the small computer, which is much lower in cost, has weakened if not eliminated the incentive to economize on capital. Significance of results A growth accounting framework is one way in which we can evaluate the long-term rise in average weekly capital hours. In such a framework, the contribution made by a factor to the growth in output depends on how important it is and on its rate of growth (or decline). The importance of a factor in a particular industry or broad sector depends on the income or output it produces, but a host of questions may be raised as to how this should be done. Measuring changes in inputs is no less difficult. Persons interested in a discussion of some of the new techniques for measuring the importance of and change in inputs, especially capital inputs, should refer to b l s Bulletin 2178. For our purposes, a simple approach should suffice, and it is illustrated in table 2. We used 1962 weights— a midpoint— to weight the changes in inputs from 1948 to 1976. The labor weight reflects the share of employee compensation in gross product originat ing in manufacturing; after certain adjustments, the balance' is allocated to capital. In 1962, labor accounted for 68.6 percent of the weight, with the balance allocated to plant, equipment, inventories, and land. For labor input changes, we used b l s data, but for changes in fixed capital inputs we followed essentially the procedure employed by Edward Denison and John Kendrick: changes in real gross stocks of fixed capital as estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.7 We also used Bureau of Economic Analysis es timates of manufacturers’ real inventories. Average rates of growth compounded annually are shown in table 2. The last column gives the contribution to output growth and is obtained by multiplying the first column (in decimal form) by the second column. All inputs combined contrib uted 1.46 percentage points to growth, which is considerably less than the output growth of 3.49 percent from 1948 to 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Contribution to the growth of manufacturing output: labor input, capital input, and multifactor productivity, 1948-76 [In percent] Ite m 1 9 6 2 w e ig h t A verag e an n u al g ro w th r a te C o n trib u tio n to o u tp u t g r o w th 1 (p e r c e n ta g e p o in ts ) 0.58 3.34 1.66 4.67 3.59 1.76 0.40 1.06 .16 .66 .22 .02 Labor input ................. Capital in p u t................. Plant ........................ Equipment .............. Inventories .............. Land ........................ Total input2 ................. 100.0 — 1.46 Manufacturing output . . . — 3.49 3.49 Multifactor productivity. . Multifactor productivity based on bls figures4 68.6 31.4 9.8 14.1 6.1 1.4 — — 32.03 — — (1.97) 1Column 1 ( x .01) times column 2. 2Total input = labor input + total capital input. 3Based on indexes of multifactor productivity, bls Bulletin 2178, table 10, p. 24. S ources: Weights: bls Bulletin 2178, table 6, p. 20, and table C—29, p. 64. Growth rates reflect basic data from the following: labor— indexes of hours of all persons, bls Bulletin 2178, p. 24; plant and equipment— gross stocks from Musgrave, “ Fixed Capital Stocks in the United States," p. 59; inventories— Bureau of Economic Analysis, The National Income and Product Accounts o f the United States, 1929-76, pp. 223-26, table 5.11, line 6; land— bls Bulletin 2178, table C-28, p. 64; output— bls Bulletin 2178, table 10, p. 24. 1976. The difference reflects the growth of multifactor, or total factor, productivity. Changes in fixed capital inputs were large over this pe riod, but we want to account for the fact that average weekly hours of capital also increased substantially over these years. As table 1 indicates, the growth in average weekly hours of capital was 11.9 percent of the growth in the fixed capital stock. If the contribution of plant and equipment to output growth is increased by 11.9 percent, it is raised by .098 percentage points. This is our estimate of the contribution of longer capital hours to output growth in manufacturing over the 28-year period. As measured in table 2, the effect of longer average weekly hours of capital is included in the 2.03-percentage-point increase in multifactor productivity. The .098-percentage points constitute 5 percent of multi factor productivity growth and 2.8 percent of the 3.49percentage-point rise in manufacturing output growth. The importance of rising capital hours has not been con stant over the postwar period. Here is a view of how this importance changed in contributing to the annual growth rate of productivity in manufacturing:8 1929-48 1948-76 1948-59 1959-69 1969-79 Contribution of productivity change to rise in output......... Effect of longer workweek of capital ........... 1.67 2.03 1.63 2.09 1.61 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.20 0.11 The contribution of longer capital hours was greatest from 1959 to 1969, when the contribution was largest not only in absolute terms but also in relative terms— approximately 10 percent. However, when rates o f change in productivity growth are considered, the importance of longer capital hours is enhanced. Thus, the rise in the rate of growth of multifactor productivity from 1948-59 to 1959-69 was 0.46 percentage points (2.09 minus 1.63) and of this, longer capital hours accounted for . 14 percentage points (.20 minus .06) or 30 percent. The above tabulation shows also that the contribution of longer capital hours was important in the deceleration of productivity growth in manufacturing from 1959-69 to 1969— 79, accounting for almost one-fifth. The effect of a lower rate of capacity utilization9 is quite important in the pro ductivity change from 1959-69 to 1969-79 in manufac turing. When this is combined with the capital hours effect, we can account for more than two-fifths of the productivity slowdown in manufacturing over this period. Table 3 is like table 2 except that it covers the entire nonfarm business sector (excluding residential business and nonprofit organizations). The annual contribution of plant and equipment to output growth is 1.08 percentage points (.35 plus .73). This is increased by 5.2 percent, which is the ratio of the average change in fixed capital hours to the average change in the stock of fixed capital, as shown in table 1. This yields .056 percentage points, which is almost 4 percent of the change in multifactor productivity, or about 1.5 percent of the output change. These capital hours effects— expressed either as per centage points or as proportions of productivity and output growth— are smaller for nonfarm business as a whole than for manufacturing. If they seem small in an absolute sense it should be recalled that the entire change in productivity in the private nonfarm sector from 1948 to 1981 was 1.5 Table 3. Contribution to the growth of private nonfarm business output: labor input, capital input, and multifactor productivity, 1948-76_____________________ _____________ A verag e an n u a l g ro w th ra te C o n trib u tio n to g ro w th 1 (p e r c e n ta g e p o in ts ) Ite m 1 9 6 2 w e ig h t Labor input ................. Capital in p u t................. Plant ........................ Equipment .............. Inventories .............. Land ........................ Total input3 ................. 65.0 35.0 12.7 15.0 3.8 3.6 100.0 1.14 23.74 2.74 4.86 3.75 2.47 — 0.74 1.31 .35 .73 .14 .09 2.05 Total output4 .............. — 3.47 3.47 Multifactor productivity5 ............ — — 1.42 1Column 1 ( x .01) times column 2. Obtained implicitly by dividing column 3 by column 1. 3Total input = labor input + total capital input. 4Total output = real gross product of nonfarm business minus housing. 5Multifactor productivity = output growth minus total input growth. Sources: Weights: bls Bulletin 2178, table 6, p. 20, adjusted by author to exclude rental residential capital (table C-22), p. S2. Growth rates: labor— indexes of hours of all persons in private nonfarm business, bls Bulletin 2178, p. 23: plant and equipment— bea gross stocks in constant dollars for nonfarm business (Musgrave, “ Fixed Capital Stocks in the United States,” p. 59) less capital stock of nonprofit organizations (un published bea data): inventories— bea, The National Income and Product Accounts o f the United States, 1929-76, table 5.11, line 3, pp. 223-26; land— indexes, bls Bulletin 2178, table C-20, p. 62. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Sources of multifactor productivity change in private business, 1948-1981 S o u rc e C hange (p e r c e n ta g e p o in ts ) D is tr ib u tio n (in p e rc e n t) Shifts of labor off farms ................. Changes in composition of labor force1 ......................................... Research and development ............ Hours worked in lieu of hours paid Total of above factors ............ 0.1 7 .4 .2 -.1 .6 27 13 -7 40 Unexplained .................................... Multifactor productivity................... .9 1.5 60 100 ’ Chiefly education. Source: bls Bulletin 2178, p. 31. percent per year, as may be seen in table 4. Table 4 illustrates two other points. First, the specific influences that “ ex plain” productivity growth account for only 40 percent of that growth from 1948 to 1981. Second, influences normally thought to be extremely important— like research and de velopment— account for only 13 percent of productivity growth over this period. It is against these magnitudes that we should view the effect of the change in weekly hours of fixed capital. Whether a growth accounting framework is the best way to view a phenomenon like a longer workweek of fixed capital is open to question. Would the increase in the stock of capital during the postwar years have been as large as it was if not for the possibilities for increased shift work in noncontinuous industries? Over the period analyzed, capital has been substituted for labor for two principal reasons. First, the cost of labor has gone up more than the cost of capital.10 Second, it is very likely that the trend of tech nology has been labor-saving and capital-using. The poten tial for late-shift work has been one of the factors reducing the cost of capital and this in turn has fostered more capitalintensive methods of production than would have otherwise prevailed.11 Late-shift work in manufacturing has been adopted on a broad scale in the postwar period in this country. Many factors affect the decision about where to locate a new plant. Our results suggest that at the margin, the potential for economizing on capital must have been a factor of some importance in the location of new plants. The movement of capital to the South— not to mention to foreign countries— probably occurred not only because of lower wage scales in the South and elsewhere but also because of the greater possibilities for using capital more efficiently than was pos sible on the basis of a single shift. Late-shift potential is probably also a reason business has moved factories out of cities into nonmetropolitan areas since the mid-1960’s. Implications for future The future of shift work will be governed by the same underlying forces that have always been operative, such as the capital intensity of production and the additional costs 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Changing Utilization o f Fixed Capital of operating late shifts. These influences are not necessarily constant. The development of large mainframe computers provided a strong incentive to economize on such capital through shift work. However, with the development of mini computers, that incentive to economize is greatly lessened. A technology in which small computers predominate will entail much less shift work than one in which large com puters are the dominant type. Robots are an innovation very much in the news at present even though their current importance in the Nation’s capital stock must be characterized as tiny. Although evening and night wage differentials in this country are rather small in relation to average wages, robots have the potential for increasing shift work because they will greatly reduce the wage differential that must be paid for evening and night work. Indeed, firms that now work a single shift may find it economical to operate on weekends because robots would eliminate much of the time-and-a-half for overtime now required for Saturday and Sunday labor. Improving our understanding of how fixed capital is uti lized should provide a stronger basis for public policy re garding capital formation. The gross saving rate of the United States appears to be low when compared to that of other countries. Many factors are at work here, among them the nature and size of social insurance systems. But to the extent a country utilizes its capital as intensively as the United States, it will have a lower rate of gross saving than a country that does not do so. □ 1Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau manufacturing. Estimating details may be found in Foss, Changing Uti lization of Fixed Capital p. 32 ff. o f Labor Statistics, 1983), pp. 7 3 -8 0 . 2 Moses Abramovitz, Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870 (New York, National Bureau o f Economic Research, 1956), p. 10. 3 Statistically, it was a manageable undertaking because o f the reasonably good data for manufacturing and a few minor industries and because the public utilities, which operate continuously, were assumed to have ex perienced no change in their hours for the period covered. The stock of capital in these groups with good or reasonably good data accounted for about 80 percent o f the capital in the universe covered. For some industries, such as services and construction, we used proxies based on the workweek o f labor, while for others we had to use judgment. 4 Suppose there were two industries, one o f which always operated its capital around the clock, while the other always operated 40 hours a week. If the capital stock o f the former industry grew more rapidly than that of the latter, the average workweek of the combined stock would show a rise if weights are permitted to vary. 5The estimates of average weekly manufacturing plant hours were ex tended to 1979 through the use of data on employment by shift as shown in bls Area Wage Surveys, the basic source for the interpolations in 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 The relative decline in late-shift wage differentials was pointed out by Charles O ’Connor in “ Late shift employment in manufacturing indus tries,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1970, p. 37. 7 Denison actually uses both net and gross stocks, with the latter weighted by 3 and the former by 1. From 1948 to 1973, movements in the two are fairly similar. 8The 1929-48 estimates are by the author, based mainly on John Kendrick’s data. Indexes of labor input and total output: John Kendrick, Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton, n j , Princeton Uni versity Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1961) p. 464. Gross capital stocks and inventories: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Weights for 1929-48 are from Productivity Trends, p. 453. 9See Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 2178 , p. 28. l0Many studies have pointed this out. In Bulletin 2178 (p. 21) the bls points to a 3-percent per annum decline in the price of capital services relative to that of labor in the private business sector from 1948 to 1981. 11 This point is given considerable stress by Roger Betancourt and Chris topher Clague in their recent book, Capital Utilization: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981). Cyclical behavior of high tech industries During the last recession, employment declines in high tech industries were not as deep as those in manufacturing; only the group with high concentrations o f skilled workers and large R&D expenditures outperformed the nonfarm sector Jo h n U . B u r g a n High technology industries are perceived to have offered good economic news during recent recessions. However, analysis of trends in these industries reveals that they are not immune from problems which occur in the economy, including the effects of the business cycle. In the m ost recent recession, only the m ost narrowly defined of three groups of high tech industries performed better in terms of employment than the nonfarm business sector. The three groups of high tech industries are: • Group I comprises industries with a proportion of tech nology-oriented workers (engineers, life and physical sci entists, mathematical specialists, engineering and science technicians, and computer specialists) at least 1.5 times the average for all industries. • Group II comprises industries with a ratio of r & d expen ditures to net sales at least twice the average for all in dustries. • Group III comprises manufacturing industries with a pro portion of technology-oriented workers equal to or greater than the average for all manufacturing industries, and a ratio of r &d expenditures to sales close to or above the average for all industries. Two nonmanufacturing indus tries are also included. John U. Burgan is an economist in the Office of Employment and Un employment Statistics, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis This article discusses employment trends in high tech industries through 1984, updating the November 1983 Monthly Labor Review article which reported developments over the 1972-82 period.1 In addition, it presents high tech em ployment in 1983 by State and for the District of Columbia, the V irgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Reaction to economic swings Many high tech industries posted remarkable growth dur ing the 1972-84 period. (See table 1.) For example, em ploym ent in com m unications services (not elsewhere classified), which includes industries involved in cablevision service delivery and home t v antenna construction, more than quintupled during this period. Computer and data pro cessing services grew almost as fast (345 percent). Five other industries grew more than 80 percent from 1972 to 1983— surgical, medical, and dental instruments and sup plies; optical instruments and lenses; office computing and accounting machines; crude petroleum and natural gas; and engineering and architectural services. Not all high tech industries posted such remarkable growth rates. Of the 48 high tech industries, 16 had faster em ployment growth rates than nonagricultural employment, which grew 27.8 percent during the 1972-84 period. Six teen high tech industries had employment reductions during this period, including radio and t v receiving equipment ( —35 percent) and plastics materials and synthetics ( —25 percent). Four other industries lost one job in six over these 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Cyclical Behavior o f High Tech Industries Table 1. Employment in high technology industries, 1972 and 1984 annual averages [In thousands] SIC In d u s try code E m p lo y m e n t P e rc e n t ch an g e H ig h te c h g r o u p 1 1972 1984 1 9 7 2 -8 4 131 162 281 282 283 284 285 286 Crude petroleum and natural gas .................................................. Heavy construction, except highw ay.............................................. Industrial inorganic chemicals....................................................... Plastic materials and synthetics..................................................... D rugs.............................................................................................. Soaps, cleaners, and toilet preparations ......................................... Paints and allied products .............................................................. Industrial organic chemicals ............................................................ I I I. Ill I, III I, II, III I, III I, III I, III 139.7 495.1 141.2 228.7 159.2 122.4 68.6 142.8 250.8 540.6 157.1 175.8 200.7 148.1 61.7 163.2 79.5 9.2 11.3 -23.1 26.1 21.0 -10.1 14.3 287 289 291 301 324 348 351 352 Agricultural chemicals ...................................................................... Miscellaneous chemical products..................................................... Petroleum refining .......................................................................... Tires and inner tubes........................................................................ Cement, hydraulic............................................................................. Ordnance and accessories .............................................................. Engines and turbines................................................................... Farm and garden machinery ............................................................ I, III I, III I, III I I I, III I, III I 56.4 90.0 151.4 122.1 31.9 81.9 114.6 135.0 61.1 93.5 150.1 101.3 26.2 67.5 113.5 115.3 8.3 3.9 - .9 -1 7 .0 -1 7 .9 -1 7 .6 - 1 .0 -1 4 .6 353 354 355 356 357 '— 358 361 362 Construction, mining, and material handling machinery ................. Metalworking machinery................................................................... Special industry machinery, except metalworking .......................... General industrial machinery............................................................ Office, computing, and accounting machines .................................. "Refrigeration and service industry machinery .................................. Electric transmission and distribution equipment............................. Electrical industrial apparatus .......................................................... I I I, III I I, II, III I I, III I, III 293.7 286.0 176.9 267.5 259 6 164.4 128.4 209.3 276.0 310.2 168.5 276.9 505 7 180.7 114.1 213.1 - 6 .0 8.5 - 4 .7 3.5 94 8 9'9 -11.1 1.8 Household appliances ...................................................................... Electric lighting and wiring equipment.............................................. Radio and' tv receiving equipment .................................................. Communication equipment .............................................................. Electronic components and accessories........................................... ' Miscellaneous electrical machinery.................................................. Motor vehicles and equipment.......................................................... Aircraft and parts ............................................................................. I I I, III I, II, III I, II III I, III I I, II III 186.9 204.4 139.5 458.4 354 8 131.7 874.8 494 9 153.1 204.0 90.2 614.8 684 9 160.1 867.3 601 4 -18.1 - .2 -3 5 .3 34.1 93 0 21.6 - .9 21 5 381 382 383 384 386 483 489 Guided missiles and space vehicles ................................................ Engineering, laboratory, and research instruments.......................... Measuring and controlling instruments ........................................... Optical instruments and lenses ....................................................... Surgical, medical, and dental instruments ...................................... Photographic equipment and supplies.............................................. Radio and t v broadcasting .............................................................. Communication services, not elsewhere classified.......................... I, II, III I, III I, III I, III I, III I, III I I 92.5 64.5 159.6 17.6 90.5 117.1 142.7 29.7 152.7 80.2 251.8 32.1 175.5 126.0 229.8 152.5 65.1 24.3 57.8 82.4 93.9 7.6 61.0 413.5 491 493 506 508 737 7391 891 892 Electric services............................................................................... Combination electric, gas, and utility services.................................. Wholesale trade, electrical g o o d s..................................................... Wholesale trade, machinery, equipment, and supplies ................... Computer and data processing services........................................... Research and development laboratories........................................... Engineering, architectural, and surveying services.......................... Noncommercial educational, scientific and research organizations . . I I I I I, III I, III I I 312.0 183.4 331.2 868.6 106.7 110.7 339.3 111.8 438.8 199.3 467.5 1,400.8 475.3 181.3 615.6 109.9 40.6 8.7 41.2 61.3 345.5 63.8 81.4 - 1 .7 363 364 365 366 — J2§Z__ 369 371 372 1Group I comprises industries with a proportion of technology-oriented workers (engi neers, life and physical scientists, mathematical specialists, engineering and science tech nicians, and computer specialists) at least 1.5 times the average for all industries. Group II comprises industries with a ratio of the average for all industries. r&d expenditures to net sales at least twice years— tires and inner tubes, hydraulic cement, ordnance and accessories, and household appliances. Each of the three groups of high tech industries is com posed primarily of manufacturing industries. Only in group I do nonmanufacturing industries make up more than 10 percent of total employment of the group. The prevalence of cyclically sensitive manufacturing industries in these groups has important consequences when their performance during recent recessions is evaluated. According to some, high tech employment is relatively secure from the effects of the busi ness cycle because it is characterized by high growth in dustries. However, as chart 1 demonstrates, high tech industries have been affected, to some extent, by economic downturns. Only the industries in group II have managed to weather a national recession since 1972 without an ab 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Group III comprises manufacturing industries with a proportion of technology-oriented workers equal to or greater than the average for all manufacturing industries, and a ratio of r & d expenditures to sales close to or above the average for all industries. Two non manufacturing industries which provide technical support to high tech manufacturing in dustries also are included. solute drop in employment, and that experience occurred during the short 1980 downturn. Chart 2 provides a closer look at the employment per formance of the three high tech industries during the most recent recession and the recovery to the end of 1984. Only group II, with the most restrictive definition, performed better than the total nonagricultural sector during the 1981— C 82 recession, although all three groups outperformed manufacturing industries. The broader the definition, the more the effects of the recession are seen. Group I— with the broadest definition— had the worst performance of the three groups. This group contains such cyclically sensitive in dustries as auto manufacturing, heavy construction, and electrical and nonelectrical machinery. The extent to which the performance of the three high C t Chart 1. Employment in high technology industries, 1972-84 Thousands Thousands 13600 13100 12600 12100 11600 11100 10600 10100 9600 0 Thousands Thousands 2850 2850 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 198 0 1981 1982 198 3 1984 Th< Thousands 6300 6300 F 6100 5900 High tech III _ — 5700 — 5500 5300 5100 “ — — — 4900 4700 4500 4300 — — y — 5500 5300 5100 4900 4700 4500 — — 0 " https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — 6100 5900 5700 i i | i i i i 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NOTE: Shaded area denotes recession, as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Cyclical Behavior o f High Tech Industries Chart 2. Employment in high technology, manufacturing, and nonfarm industries, 1981-84 Thousands (July 1981 = 100) Thousands 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 0 NOTE: Shaded area denotes recession, as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. tech groups were affected by the most recent recession is demonstrated in table 2. Note that for each group, employ ment declines ended at about the same time— January or February 1983, after total nonfarm and manufacturing em ployment troughs (December 1982). However, the indus tries in group I experienced employment declines before the other two groups, at about the same time as the total nonfarm prerecession peak in midsummer of 1981. Group I industries were also the last to regain their prerecession employment Table 2. levels in June of 1984, 19 months after the recession’s end. Group II, the most narrowly defined group of high tech industries, shows a different pattern. Employment did not begin to decline until December 1981, and the prerecession employment level was regained in July 1983, 11 months before the industries in group I. Group III displays a reces sion pattern which lies between groups I ancf II: its em ployment downturn began before group II, but after group I; its prerecession peak was regained after group II but be- Employment in high technology, manufacturing, and nonfarm industries during the 1981-82 recession [N u m b e rs in thou sa n d s] P re r e c e s s io n p e a k T ro u g h In d u s try Num ber High tech 1 ...................... 13,030 High tech I I ...................... 2,561 High tech III D a te June 1981 Num ber D a te 11,897 January 1983 June 1984 2,504 February 1983 July 1983 February 1984 December 1981 ................... 5,943 5,626 February 1983 Manufacturing ................. 20,341 July 1981 18,041 December 1982 N onfarm .......................... 91,460 July 1981 88,646 September 1981 Prerecession peak not yet regained. N ote : The high technology industry data have not been seasonally adjusted. Analysis 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D a te p r e r e c e s s io n p e a k r e g a in e d December 1982 (1) November 1983 P e a k -to -tr o u g h e m p lo y m e n t lo s s (in p e r c e n t) 8.7 5.3 11.3 '-..3 .1 . of these series has shown that the seasonal component is quite small compared to the trend cycle. Nonfarm data have been seasonally adjusted. See table 1 for definition of high technology industries. industries are not isolated from the business cycle. In fact, during the 1981-82 recession, only group II, the most re strictive (and smallest) group, lost a smaller proportion of prerecession employment than did nonfarm industries. The other two high tech groups lost more than nonfarm indus tries, with the broadest— group I— losing 8.7 percent, com pared with nonfarm’s 3.1-percent loss. High tech industries, although comprised largely of manufacturing industries, per formed better than total manufacturing during this period. Thus, the degree to which industries defined as high tech were influenced by recent recessions depended, in part, on the definition. Industries included in the narrow definition fore group I. The post-recession performance of all three groups outpaced that of manufacturing industries, which has yet to regain its prerecession peak. The percentage of total employment lost during the reces sion (as measured by the percentage difference between prerecession peak employment and trough employment) also varies by definition with group I losing the most ( — 8.7 percent); group II the least ( — 2.2 percent); and group III again in the middle ( — 5.3 percent). From the experience of the three high tech industry groups in the recent recession and in the two other post-1972 down turns, several observations can be made. First, high tech Table 3. Employment in high technology industries for all States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Is lands, 1981, 1982, and 1983 annual averages [In thou sa n d s] IVI1111 lo o U I d ......................... 1982 1983 12 876 6 12 413 0 12 1fi1 8 1 534 8 10^ 6 917 5 7?? 1 fiQ1 4 716 0 628 6 511 4 441 9 359 2 1 fi?? 9 1 039 fi 903 4 fifiO 3 631 4 652 7 59fl 5 506 5 435 3 362 7 1 .537 6968 0 882 fi 634 9 627 4 615 6 571 2 507 9 442 fi 367 9 367 2 285 7 265 1 ?74 fi 283 1 ??? 3 212 1 233 2 233 3 219.4 336 27fi 269 263 260 224 215 224 219 209 .5 1 .3 2 fi 3 5 4 3 2 326 0 270 6 264 8 260 6 250 6 234 0 225 3 223 3 217 4 198 0 191 6 191 201 1fi9 187 144 144 134 139 138 134 fifi 0 1 0 3 2 3 6 6 1 fi 2 196 0 188 2 186 7 170 5 144 9 143 9 139 5 134 7 133.6 126 8 87 6 96 4 87 5 89 4 ft.3 7 73 65 63 ft6 58 49 38 39 69 66 61 fifi fifi 51 36 31 3 3 86 3 82 7 73 5 70 1 67 8 fifi 1 56 2 53 4 51 4 .36 0 31 ll 31 2 29 3 26 4 23.6 20.6 9fi 2 18 2 16 4 16.7 2.9 30 1 28 7 27.5 24.2 19.6 19 5 18 4 18 0 16.7 2.7 District of Columbia 5 fi 7 1 7 9 8 ft 9 5 4 9 7 9 7 4 7 Montana................. Hawaii ................... Virgin Islands . . . . 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 9 9 8 1 fi United States............ New Y o r k ................. Texas ...................... New Jersey.............. Florida...................... Connecticut.............. Indiana ................... North Carolina......... Colorado ................. Maryland ................. Georgia ................... New Hampshire . . . . Virginia ................... Oklahoma................. Oregon ................... South Carolina......... Vermont................... Maine ................... Rhode Island......... Idaho ................................ 32 3 29 ft 9fi 9 22 8 20.0 25 4 w o rk e rs . 14 5 17.1 3.4 1981 1982 1983 United States............ 5,859.9 5,736.5 5,701.0 624.5 202.9 167.2 155.6 118.6 107.7 97.4 89.8 86.1 78.1 California ................. New Y o r k ................. Texas ...................... New Jersey.............. Massachusetts.......... Illin o is ...................... Pennsylvania............ Ohio ........................ Connecticut.............. Florida...................... 929.1 491.7 375.8 316.9 300.9 287.0 285.5 258.0 182.4 164.0 940.1 489.3 366.8 312.6 299.9 269.7 269.4 239.5 178.5 167.6 960.3 473.1 363.3 313.9 306.5 259.7 256.5 232.4 175.6 170.9 70.1 68.3 59.4 61.7 54.7 44.9 42.8 36.0 40.4 27.4 69.6 68.6 59.7 57.8 54.7 47.8 43.8 37.5 37.2 29.5 Indiana ................... M issouri................... North Carolina.......... Minnesota .............. Michigan ................. Washington.............. Tennessee .............. Virginia ................... Wisconsin .............. Maryland ................. 169.1 128.3 120.6 119.5 128.4 129.3 109.3 97.7. 110.9 85.9 153.2 125.1 119.5 119.0 121.2 121.7 106.2 99.8 103.3 87.0 148.3 124.7 122.2 120.0 119.0 114.2 105.0 104.7 97.3 91.0 26.6 30.4 25.9 20.2 19.9 21.1 23.6 17.9 14.5 14.0 13.2 26.8 28.8 26.3 21.7 21.8 22.2 22.3 16.4 15.3 14.8 13.2 28.8 28.3 27.7 25.5 25.0 23.9 21.8 16.3 15.9 13.9 12.9 Colorado ................. Arizona ................... Georgia ................... South Carolina.......... Louisiana ................. Kansas ...................... Puerto R ico.............. Alabama................... New Hampshire . . . . Kentucky ................. Oklahoma ......................... 81.4 86.5 68.1 70.4 66.4 76.3 54.0 49.2 44.2 48.5 45.9 87.1 86.5 70.2 70.6 64.3 64.3 51.9 50.2 44.1 43.4 44.8 89.3 86.5 74.0 69.2 60.1 59.5 52.2 52.0 45.1 42.9 42.4 14.0 12.1 11 5 10.7 9.7 6.7 7.8 7.8 5.4 5.9 4.4 13.5 11.6 10.6 9.4 10.1 7.7 7.9 7.8 5.3 5.6 4.7 12.4 11.2 10.4 9.6 9.5 8.0 8.0 7.7 6.4 6.2 5.5 Oregon ............................. Delaware ................. Utah ..................................... Arizona ................... Iowa ........................ Mississippi .............. West Virginia............ New Mexico ............ Nebraska ......................... Verm ont ............................. Rhode Island.......... 42.0 38.6 32.2 34.8 36.6 28.5 28.1 19.2 21.2 19.8 17.9 40.8 38.4 33.5 32.3 34.3 26.3 27.4 20.6 20.2 19.9 17.4 39.5 37.8 35.7 33.3 31.7 28.5 25.4 21.6 20.4 19.7 16.6 35 2.7 1.8 1.3 .6 .3 .2 .3 30 2.8 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 3.2 2.6 1.2 1.1 .5 .3 .3 .3 Idaho ................................. Maine ...................... Nevada ................. South Dakota . . . . District of Columbia . Montana................. Wyoming ...................... Hawaii ............................. Virgin Islands . . . . North Dakota......... Alaska ................... 13.9 13.6 10.6 6.1 3.8 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.4 .9 14.1 12.9 11.1 5.8 3.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.1 14.9 12.6 11.4 6.0 3.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 1981 1983 2,562.5 2,555.6 2,578.7 592.7 201.8 158.3 160.5 113.3 102.0 99.0 94.6 98.4 90.5 609.3 202.4 158.5 155.0 115.4 106.3 97.0 90.8 93.7 87.6 73.5 68.1 61.8 65.9 53.3 44.8 39.5 33.7 50.9 25.7 Delaware .............. West Virginia......... North Dakota......... District of Columbia . Alaska ................... Hawaii ................... Virgin Islands . . . . S ta te 1982 O J. 1 O U U lll U d F V U ld ............... 1 F e w e r th a n S ta te 1981 180 19? 146 150 137 152 153 153 90 Group III Group II Group 1 S ta te ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ! (!) O (1) o N ote : (1) S ta te s are ran ke d by 1 9 8 3 h ig h te c h n o lo g y e m p lo y m e n t. See ta b le 1 f o r d e fin itio n o f h ig h te c h n o lo g y in d u s trie s . 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Cyclical Behavior o f High Tech Industries (group II), which have relatively large concentrations of highly skilled workers and relatively large r&d expenditures, were less affected by general economic downturns than in dustries in groups I and III, which include industries with lesser concentrations of highly skilled workers and lower R & D expenditures. Employment by State As noted earlier, high tech industries were not immune from the effects of the 1981-82 recession. Of 53 States and territories, only 11 had over-the-year increases in group I employment between 1981 and 1982, and only 14 had in creases under group III definition. Even under group II, the narrowest definition, fewer than half (23) had over-the-year increases.3 (See table 3.) Seven States— Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Virginia— had annual average increases under all three high tech groups during the 1981-82 period. Most of these States are in the Sun Belt, an area that has been characterized by high growth rates in both population and employment in recent years. Four of the States— Col orado, Florida, Georgia, and Utah— were also among the eight States that had over-the-year increases in total nonagricultural employment for that period. Colorado and New Mexico had the highest percentage increases under each of the three high tech definitions. The general economic improvement in 1983 affected the performance of each high tech group. High tech I employ- Table 4. High technology employment as a percent of total nonagricultural employment in all States, the District of Colum bia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 1983 annual averages G ro u p I Group II Delaware.................................................................. M ichigan.................................................................. Connecticut ............................................................. New Hampshire ...................................................... Massachusetts ........................................................ Indiana.................................................................... New Jersey ............................................................. Te xa s....................................................................... California.................................................................. 21.1 19.7 18.8 18.0 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.5 O h io ......................................................................... Vermont .................................................................. Kansas .................................................................... Oklahoma ............................................................... C olorado................................................................. Illinois .................................................................... -Missouri .................................................... Wisconsin ............................................................... A rizona.................................................................... 15.5 14.7 14.6 14.6 14.1 13.7 United States .......................................................... 13.4 13.6 13.5 13.0 Minnesota............................................................... Louisiana.................................................................. 12.7 Pennsylvania .......................................................... 12.6 Tennessee............................................................... 12.6 Io w a ......................................................................... ' i r r South Carolina ........................................................ 12.3 New York ............................................................... 12.1 U ta h ......................................................................... 12.0 Washington ............................................................. 11.9 Arkansas.................................................................. Kentucky.................................................................. Maryland.................................................................. North Carolina ........................................................ Puerto Rico ............................................................. New M exico............................................................. V irginia.................................................................... Alabama .................................................................. Mississippi ............................................................. 11.8 11.7 11.5 11.0 10.9 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.5 West Virginia .......................................................... Georgia..................................................................... Idaho ....................................................................... North Dakota ........................................................... Wyoming.................................................................. Florida ..................................................................... Rhode Island ........................................................... Oregon ..................................................................... Nebraska.................................................................. 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 Alaska....................................................................... South D akota........................................................... Virgin Islands........................................................... Montana .................................................................. M aine....................................................................... Nevada ..................................................................... District of Columbia................................................. Hawaii ..................................................................... 8.5 7.9 7.4 7.3 6.8 6.8 5.2 4.1 'Fewer than 100 workers. 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis G ro u p I II New Hampshire ............................. Connecticut .................................... Arizona........................................... California........................................ Massachusetts ............................... Vermont ........................................ Washington .................................... Puerto Rico .................................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 4.9 4.3 Delaware.................................................................... 14.2 12.2 Connecticut............................................................... Massachusetts........................................................... 11,5 New Hampshire ...................................................... 11.1 New J e rs e y............................................................... 10.0 California ................................................................... 9.7 Vermont ..................................................................... 9.6 Arizona.................................................................... 8.1 U ta h ................................................ Kansas ........................................... New Jersey .................................... Colorado........................................ Minnesota...................................... Missouri ........................................ Indiana........................................... 13.6 United S ta te s................................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 ..................... 2.8 Puerto Rico . . .-..................................................... Indiana....................................................................... Washington................................................................ Minnesota................................................................... Colorado..................................................................... Kansas........................................................................ M issouri..................................................................... New York ................................................................... 8.1 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 Florida ........................................... New York ...................................... Texas ............................................. Maryland........................................ North Carolina ............................... Pennsylvania ................................. Rhode Island ................................. Alabama ........................................ Illinois ........................................... M aine............................................. ...................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 United S tates.............................................................. 6.3 Utah .......................................................................... Tennessee................................................................... South Carolina........................................................... Texas.......................................................................... Illinois .................................................................... Ohio ...................................................................... Pennsylvania .......................................................... Maryland ............................................................... W isconsin............................................................... 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.3 Oklahoma ...................................... Idaho ............................................. Nebraska........................................ New M exico.................................... O h io ................................................ O regon........................................... South D akota................................. Georgia........................................... Io w a ................................................ ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 North Carolina ........................................................... Virginia....................................................................... Id a h o .......................................................................... Arkansas..................................................................... New Mexico .............................................................. Virgin Islands ........................................................... Florida ........................................................................ West V irginia.............................................................. Rhode Is la n d .............................................................. 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.2 South Carolina ............................... Virginia ........................................... Arkansas ........................................ Michigan........................................ Tennessee ...................................... Kentucky ........................................ Mississippi .................................... Louisiana........................................ Nevada ........................................... Wisconsin ...................................... ..................... 1.2 ..................... 1.2 .............................9 .............................9 .............................9 .............................8 .............................8 .............................6 .............................6 ............................. 6 Oregon........................................................................ Alabam a..................................................................... Louisiana ............................................................... Kentucky..................................................................... Michigan..................................................................... Mississippi ................................................................ Oklahoma ................................................................... Nebraska ................................................................... Georgia ..................................................................... 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 Iowa ................... Maine..................... Nevada ................. South Dakota . . . . Wyoming ............ M ontana................. District of Columbia Alaska ................... Hawaii ................... North D akota......... 3.1 3.0 Delaware........................................ .............................5 North Dakota ................................. ............................. 2 West Virginia ................................. . . . . 2 District of Columbia........................ .............................1 Montana ........................................ .............................1 Wyoming........................................ .............................1 Alaska............................................. ..................... (’ ) Hawai' ........................................... Virgin Islands......................................................... (1j N ote: See table 1 for definition of high technology industries. 2.8 2.6 1.1 .9 .6 .5 .5 .5 ment increased in 18 States and Puerto Rico, compared with 11 States in 1982; high tech II employment increased in 26 States and Puerto Rico, compared with 23 States in 1982; and high tech III employment increased in 21 States and Puerto Rico, compared with 14 States in 1982. Thirteen States and Puerto Rico had employment increases during 1983 under all three definitions; three of these States— Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia—had increases which placed them in the top six in each high tech group. A total of 14 States had employment decreases under all three high tech definitions. Many of the declines occurred in Great Lakes States— Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and neighboring Pennsylvania and Iowa. Two small New England States— Vermont and Rhode Island— also had declines. The largest job losers under each defi nition were Iowa, Louisiana, and Washington. The importance of high tech industry to a State’s economy is readily seen by observing employment in high tech in dustries as a percentage of total employment. (See table 4.) Employment in high tech industries is more concentrated than in manufacturing. For each group, there were fewer States with above-average proportions of employment in high tech industries as a proportion of nonfarm employment than those with below-average proportions. This is in marked contrast to the distribution of manufacturing employment among States, in which about half the States have propor tions above the national average and half below. Only about one-third of the States, under each definition, have higher proportions of employment in high tech industries than the U.S. average. There is little change in the rankings of the 10 States with the highest proportions of high tech employment since 1982.4 The New England States still are predominant. The addition of Puerto Rico to the rankings does cause a surprising result, however. Puerto Rico appears in the top ten under groups II and III. Puerto Rico’s economy includes considerable employ ment in pharmaceutical manufacturing and in electrical and nonelectrical machinery manufacturing. One reason high tech companies have located in Puerto Rico may be the Federal income tax advantages given to firms there. Drug manufacturers such as G. D. Searle, Upjohn, and ScheringPlough, plus electrical equipment manufacturing firms such as General Electric, Motorola, and Prime Computer have taken advantage of these tax benefits and established high tech manufacturing establishments in Puerto Rico.5 □ 'Richard W. Riche, Daniel E. Hecker, and John U. Burgan, “ High technology today and tomorrow: a small slice of the employment p ie,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1983, pp. 5 0 -5 8 . historical data, may be obtained from the Bureau’s Division of Industry Employment Statistics, 441 G Street, N .W ., Washington, D.C. 20212. State data were compiled from the Covered Employment and Wages Program, which collects information on the employment and wages of workers covered by unemployment insurance programs. Each quarter, covered employers submit mandatory reports of employment and wages to the appropriate State Employment Security Agency. These reports are edited and summarized by county, State, and detailed industry, and for warded to the Bureau. Self-employed persons are not included. 2The industry employment statistics cited in this study are from two Bureau o f Labor Statistics payroll employment programs— the Current Employment Statistics and ES-202 programs. The industry classifications are taken from the Office of Management and Budget, 1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, as amended in 1977.' Employment estimates for the Nation were compiled from the Current Employment Statistics survey. These data are produced from employer payroll records reported to the Bureau on a voluntary basis each month. Self-em ployed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope o f the survey. Industry detail within the high technology groups, as well as national https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 State data are usually available for internal (Bureau) analysis approx imately 9 months after the reference quarter. Hence, 1983 data are the most current annual averages available. 4See Riche and others, “ High technology,” table 7. 5See Richard Greene, “ Drug Abuse,” Forbes, Aug 16, 1982, p. 36. 15 Input prices and cost inflation in three manufacturing industries The transmission o f inflation varies among industries, depending most heavily on differences in input cost changes; factor substitution plays a minor role Ja m e s E. D uggan and A ndrew G. C lem Over the past two decades, U.S. industries have exhibited marked changes in their use of primary and secondary re sources. Such changes have been due, at least in part, to the volatility of resource markets. For example, the rapidly rising energy prices of the 1970’s led many firms to sub stitute away from energy and toward relatively less expen sive inputs such as capital or labor. The ease with which producers are able to make these substitutions partly deter mines output price increases in their respective industries. Such price increases, in turn, affect factor substitution at later stages of processing, product substitution in consump tion, and the general rate of inflation in the economy. In this article, we analyze in detail the input-to-product inflation link in three key manufacturing industries: autos (Standard Industrial Classification 371), steel (sic 331), and plastics (sic 282).' These industries, particularly autos and steel, have undergone dramatic changes during the past 15 years and have been the subject of much recent research. Yet, relatively little attention has been given to the trans mission of inflation between resource and product markets in the industries. Our study attempts to partially fill this gap with empirical evidence that quantifies the nature of this transmission. The framework is a model of industrial input demand, adopted from the substantial literature on the study of inJames E. Duggan is an economist in the Division of Price and Index Number Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Andrew G. Clem is an economist in the Bureau s Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes. 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dustrial production.2 Each industry is assumed to operate with a production function that incorporates four major fac tor inputs: capital (K), labor (L), energy (E), and materials (Af). The industry combines these factors in the least costly way to produce a specified level of output. In this case, each industry is assumed to have a well-defined cost function that relates total production costs to the level of output and the prices of the inputs. The demand for each input can then be determined from the cost function. In the model just described, the cost per unit of production (average cost) is a function of the four input prices and, in a competitive market, is equal to the output price. If the product market is not competitive, the relationship between input and output prices will be more complicated. We char acterize our analysis as an investigation of the effects on “ average cost” of changing input prices. The precise man ner in which this effect occurs will depend upon the specific technology and implied factor substitutability that underlie the production process. The narrower the range of substi tution possibilities, the greater is the transmission of inputto-cost inflation because of the limited ability of the industry to substitute away from costly inputs. We illustrate the im portance of this issue by simulating average cost inflation in each industry under three alternative assumptions con cerning factor substitutability. Naturally, for any given production technology, the effect on average costs of changing input prices will also depend upon the time paths of input prices. We explore this issue by computing for each industry aggregate input price in- dexes that correspond to alternative scenarios for input price changes. The first section of this analysis describes the data per taining to the three industries and provides summary trends for key variables. The next section outlines the input-tocost relationship that forms the basis for our simulations. The final section presents empirical results that bear on the substitutability of the four factors in each industry and il lustrate the sensitivity of average cost inflation to different factor substitution possibilities and alternative input price scenarios.3 Trends in prices and quantities The data for our analysis are annual price and quantity indexes (1972== 1) represented, respectively, by PK, PL, PE, PM, and Qk , Ql , Qe, and QM. (A full description of the underlying data and index number construction is available from the authors upon request.) PK is an index of the rental price for the services of three major capital assets: producers’ durable equipment, nonresidential structures, and inventories,4 and QK is a quantity index of constant-dollar stock estimates for each of the three assets. PL is an index of average hourly compensation for production and non production workers in each industry, while QL is a quantity index of labor hours for the two types of workers. PE is an index of the cost of six major types of fuel consumed in each industry: (1) coal and coke, (2) gas fuels, (3) gasoline, (4) fuel oil, (5) electricity, and (6) miscellaneous energy products; QE is a quantity index of constant-dollar con sumption of the six types of fuel. PM and QM are price and quantity indexes for nonenergy material inputs. Table 1 summarizes the trends in these indexes over the period 1960-80 and during two subperiods, 1960-72 and 1972-80. Data for the two subperiods are shown in order to highlight the substantial changes that occurred during the In d u s tr y a n d p e r io d PK °K PL °L PE O m Table 1. Average annual percentage changes in prices and quantities, and average cost shares of capital, labor, energy, and materials in three industries, 1960-80 PM Cost shares2 . . '0.6 6.9 5.4 2.7 2.7 5.1 .297 4.3 9.8 6.6 3.6 '- 0 . 7 1.6 .183 '0.7 12.1 '0.7 17.3 6.8 8.5 .053 6.7 0.6 13.2 3.0 5.5 5.6 .467 2.9 2.4 13.9 '- 1 . 5 1.0 9.0 .106 2.3 2.5 10.0 ' - 0 . 4 1.8 5.2 .484 S te e l: 1960-72 .......... 1972-80 .......... 1960-80 .......... Cost shares2 . . '0.7 2.1 4.8 -0 .5 3.5 0.8 .160 4.7 '0.1 10.9 -2 .0 7.6 -0 .8 .250 A u to s : 1960-72 .......... '2.3 3.5 1972-80 .......... 1- 0 .9 5.9 1960-80 .......... 4.5 '0.9 Cost shares2 . . .157 6.8 9.8 7.7 '1.2 1- 0 2 1.0 .174 4.4 1.2 15.0 1- 0.1 7.3 2.8 .007 3.9 '0.2 2.6 2.0 9.5 5.2 .662 'Trend coefficient not significantly different from zero at the 95-percent confidence level. 2Cost shares are the share of each input in total production cost, averaged over the period 1960-80. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Input prices and product inflation The relationship between input prices and average cost can be described very simply as P la s tic s : 1960-72 .......... 1972-80 .......... 1960-80 .......... early 1970’s, particularly the rapid rise in energy prices. The data in the first three rows for each industry are coef ficients from log-linear time trend regressions estimated for each of the indexes; the fourth row is the 1960-80 average share of each input in total production cost. Several features of these estimates are noteworthy. First, with the exception of the price of capital in autos, each of the industries experienced significant input price increases over the period 1960-80. The increases are more dramatic when comparing the two subperiods: The inflation rates in input prices during 1972-80 are often many times the rates during 1960-72.5 Second, the price of energy increased faster than the prices of the other three inputs, particularly during the 1972-80 subperiod. The prices of labor and nonenergy materials to each industry also rose rapidly during the later subperiod, although labor price increases showed more persistence over the entire period. In fact, during 196072, the price of labor rose more rapidly than the prices of capital, energy, or materials in each of the three industries. Finally, when comparing the two subperiods, it can be seen that the rate of change in quantity generally varied inversely with the rate of change in price, indicating a certain amount of price responsiveness in each industry. How closely does the combination of input prices rep resented in table 1 reflect output prices in each of the three industries? To answer this question, we constructed a chainweighted aggregate input price index for each industry using the indexes represented in table 1 and the respective cost shares during 1960-80. The result is a Tomqvist aggregate input price (cost) index, shown as the first column for the respective industry in table 2.6 The second column for each industry is the corresponding Producer Price Index ( p p i ) , a fixed-weight output price index.7 The two indexes are highly correlated, as shown by the correlation coefficients at the bottom of the table. The implication is that the appropriate combination of input prices is a good predictor of output prices, in the sense that the same information is contained in both. (1) Ct = 2 Pi. (Xit/Q), i = K, L, E, M i where C, is average cost in period f, Pit is the price of input i in period t\ and X itIQ is the physical input-output coefficient of the zth input in period t. The relationship between input and cost inflation rates is found by differentiating equation (1) with respect to time. Assuming a constant rate of output, this reduces to: (2) C, = X Sit Pit, i = K, L, E, M i w here C, = AC, / C,_,\ Pit — AP„ / Pit- i\ and S it = 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Input Prices and Output Costs, Three Industries Table 2. Aggregate input and output price indexes,1 three industries,2 1960-80 [1972 = 1] P la s tic s Year S te e l A u to s In p u t p ric e s O u tp u t p ric e s In p u t p ric e s O u tp u t p ric e s In p u t p ric e s O u tp u t p ric e s .845 .834 .866 .873 .901 .911 .912 .875 .958 .941 1.156 1.116 1.108 1.094 1.087 1.071 1.074 1.062 1.011 1.006 .746 .742 .737 .770 .799 .699 .688 .731 .748 .771 .830 .839 .814 .828 .867 .739 .736 .735 .738 .745 .748 .758 .767 .786 .824 .796 .792 .777 .836 .860 .837 .836 .836 .829 .833 .835 .836 .847 .871 .888 1.007 .995 1.000 1.023 1.417 1.657 1.759 1.816 1.857 2.133 .903 .939 1.000 1.135 1.530 1.537 1.658 1.747 1.944 2.197 1.512 1.609 1.763 1.952 2.150 .910 .977 1.000 1.041 1.153 1.282 1.445 1.554 1.676 1.786 .921 .974 1.000 1.010 1.095 1.225 1.303 1.387 1.492 1.614 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... .......................... .909 .949 1.000 1.125 1.417 1.527 1.678 1.830 1.906 2.202 1980 ............................... 2.465 2.497 2.332 2.321 1.821 1.769 Average annual rate of c h a n g e 1 5.7 4.3 6.1 6.1 5.0 3.9 ................ Correlation coefficient for annual percent changes ...................... 'Output price indexes are .81 bls .876 .942 1.000 1.028 1.304 .76 .66 Producer Price Indexes. Computed from a log-linear time trend regression. Pu X,t 1C, is the share of the /th input in the total value of output (or cost). Equation (2) makes clear that cost inflation depends upon input price inflation and relative cost shares. For example, if input prices are constant, average cost will be determined solely by the nature of the production tech nology. In the extreme case of fixed production coefficients, the cost share corresponding to the input with the largest inflation rate will increase and cost inflation will increase proportionately.8 On the other hand, if the production tech nology allows for different patterns of input substitution, then share values will vary through time in a manner that reflects substitution away from relatively costly inputs. In this last case, we would expect cost inflation to be lower than for the fixed coefficients case. To illustrate the importance of factor substitution in cost inflation, we simulated annual inflation rates for three forms of production technology: fixed coefficients, Cobb-Douglas, and one that is consistent with a translog cost function.9 These three technologies embrace a broad spectrum of factor substitutability. The fixed coefficients case is the most re strictive, disallowing any factor substitution, while the trans log cost function imposes no a priori restrictions on sub stitution parameters. The Cobb-Douglas technology is a special case of the translog that permits factor substitution but requires constant factor cost shares. The three technologies influence cost inflation through equation (2) according to what each implies for the behavior 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of input cost shares. In the Cobb-Douglas case, input cost shares, and thus the rate of average cost inflation, remain constant through time. For the fixed coefficients technology, share values will depend upon the relative changes in input and average cost inflation. In the translog model, the share values vary from period to period and depend upon the pattern of input prices and the parameters of the cost func tion. Thus, the translog input cost shares in period t are determined by a share equation of the form: (3) Sit = a, + ^Tijln Pit + y.ln Q, i = K, L, E, M where a„ yijt and y, are cost function parameters that must be estimated; and Q is the level of output. The data underlying tables 1 and 2 were used to estimate the translog cost function parameters. These estimates pro vide some interesting information on factor substitutability and price responsiveness within each of the three industries. Given the parameters of equation (3), we can immediately calculate price elasticities of demand, Ey = dlnXJdlnPj, for the four inputs. These price elasticities measure the percentage change in the cost-minimizing derived demand for input i in response to a change in the price of input j when gross output and all other input prices are held constant (but after all input quantities have adjusted to new cost minimizing levels). In general, Etj ¥* Ejt. When £,-,<0, in puts i and j are substitutes; when £y>0, they are comple ments; and when £y = 0, the inputs are independent.10 The input price elasticities of demand for the auto, steel, and plastics industries, shown in table 3, form the basis for a number of conclusions. First, a high percentage of the elasticities are statistically significant, implying a substantial amount of responsiveness to price change. Second, energy demand is highly responsive to a change in its own price in autos and plastics, with own-price elasticities E ee of - 1.2 and - .75, respectively. Third, labor and capital are substitutes, though only slightly so, in autos and plastics; cross price elasticities EKL and ELK are about .01 in autos and .09 and . 14 in plastics. The capital-labor elasticities are somewhat lower than reported in previous studies,11 al though direct comparisons are difficult due to differences in the data and time periods analyzed. Fourth, energy and capital display a substantial complementarity, a finding that is consistent with that reported elsewhere by Ernst Bemdt and David W ood.12 Finally, the cross price elasticities Ele and E el reveal that energy and labor are complements in all three industries. This result differs from previous findings based on aggregate data, which typically show energy and labor to be substitutes. Inflation scenarios We simulated inflation rates for the period 1980-90 under the three assumptions about substitution technology and eight alternative input price scenarios, described below. For a given set of input prices, average cost inflation will be determined by the input cost shares according to equation Table 3. Estimated input price elasticities of demand based on translog cost function, three industries, 1960-80 A u to s S te e l kK - .512 (.033) - .2 5 0 (.053) E,,, KL 1.010 (.016) KE E la s tic ity r P la s tic s - .2 9 1 (.042) 005 (.039) .087 (.009) - .0 3 4 (011) - .1 1 7 (.039) 1 - .027 (.019) KM .535 (.055) .372 (.115) .231 (.053) E. u LK ’ .009 (.029) 1 - .003 (.036) .142 (.028) E ., LL - .5 2 2 (.046) - 496 (.069) - .2 5 7 (.092) E,LE c - .0 2 6 (.014) - .1 5 7 (.031) - .1 9 7 (.044) E, „ LM .539 (.068) .657 (.111) .312 (.096) E rv EK - .7 0 9 (.242) - .1 7 6 (.059) 1 - .153 (.107) Er, EL - .6 1 5 (.336) - .3 7 2 (.073) - .6 8 6 (.153) EclEE 1.225 (.435) 1 - .057 (.077) - .7 5 5 (.190) E r„ EM 2.547 ( 907) 605 (157) 1.594 (.268) p MK .127 (.013) .123 (.038) .147 (.034) E ... ML .141 (0 1 8 ) 340 ( 057) 122 (037) E ,,r ME .029 (.010) .132 ( 034) .179 (.030) - .2 9 7 (.033) - .5 9 5 (.110) - .4 4 8 (.068) C - P MM 1- ’ Statistically insignificant at the 90-percent confidence level based on a two-tailed test. Note: Approximate standard errors are shown in parentheses. (2). The behavior of cost shares, in turn, depends upon the nature of the production technology. Therefore, we begin the inflation simulations by postulating a set of annual in flation rates for each of the four inputs for the period 198190. Next, we solve for the equilibrium cost shares in each period according to equation (3) for the translog technology using, as a starting point, the fitted shares for 1980 estimated Table 4. earlier. We use the same 1980 shares as the base share values for all three technologies. Finally, we use the com puted shares to calculate average cost inflation through equa tion (2). We repeat this procedure seven times, each time beginning with a different set of input price inflation rates.13 Our first set of inflation rates consists of the average rates that prevailed for each input during 1972-80: PK- 5%, PL = 10%, PE- 15%, and PM= 10%. In view of the gen erally high levels of inflation in the economy during the mid- to late seventies this set may be considered an upper reference limit. A lower reference limit is the set that has PL —PE —0. For all scenarios we hold PK- 5% and focus mainly on variations in PL and PE.'4 Table 4 presents the simulated cost inflation rates for the year 1990. The end-of-simulation-period results should highlight any differences that exist among the various scen arios. Notice first that if the input price inflation that pre vailed during the 1970’s were to continue through the 1980’s, substantial cost inflation would result in the three manufac turing industries studied. Although this scenario may now seem unlikely, such rapid price increases at this stage of processing would stimulate inflationary pressure throughout many sectors of the economy. The effect on cost inflation of differences in factor sub stitutability is assessed by reading across the rows of table 4 for each industry. The most striking finding is that there appear to be relatively small differences across the three production technologies. Only in scenarios 5 , 7 , and 8 do we observe more than a 1-percentage-point difference in inflation rates, and the first two scenarios involve rather extreme assumptions concerning input price inflation. The implication for the analysis of inflation is that factor sub stitutability has little effect. Table 4 shows that cost inflation generally is lowest under the Cobb-Douglas technology and, as expected, is highest under the fixed coefficients technology (except as noted in footnote 1 to table 4). Both technologies represent models that are a priori more restrictive than the translog. The translog function is a highly flexible form that does not Simulations of average cost inflation in 1990 for alternative cost functions and input price changes, three industries P e r c e n t c h a n g e in in p u t A n n u a l p e r c e n t c h a n g e in a v e r a g e c o s ts , 1 9 9 0 p ric e s PK 1 2 3 4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 6 7 8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 PL PE 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.Ö 15.0 7.5 0.0 15.0 7.5 5.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 15.0 F ix e d Cobb- c o e ffic ie n ts D o u g la s 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.5 8.6 8.4 9.0 8.9 8.3 7.7 8.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 8.8 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.7 6.3 6.3 PM A u to s S te e l P la s tic s S c e n a r io F ix e d C obb- c o e ffic ie n ts D o u g la s 9 .3 8.5 7.9 8.9 10.4 8.9 8.4 9.7 9.9 8 .7 7.4 8.8 18.9 7.9 6.3 6.2 9.5 8.0 7.0 8.8 7.6 7.6 5.2 7.5 T ra n s lo g F ix e d Cobb- c o e ffic ie n ts D o u g la s 10.4 8.9 8.1 9.5 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.5 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.1 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.2 8.8 7.6 4.9 7.8 8.3 8.4 8.2 6.1 7.1 8.0 7.1 5.7 7.6 8.1 7.3 5.8 T r a n s lo g T r a n s lo g ’ T h e tra n s lo g is e x p e c te d to be lo w e r th a n th e fix e d c o e ffic ie n t ra te . It is n o t th e case h e re , p e rh a p s b e c a u s e of th e e x tre m e a s s u m p tio n s c o n c e rn in g in p u t p ric e s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Input Prices and Output Costs, Three Industries restrict substitution elasticities and permits Cobb-Douglas and fixed coefficients hypotheses as special cases. The es timated translog cost function produced cross elasticities of substitution for each industry (data not shown) that are sig nificantly positive and significantly less than 1, leading to the rejection of both the fixed coefficients and the CobbDouglas hypotheses. The implications of this result are that: 1) the high rates shown in table 4 for the fixed coef ficients model are the result of disallowing any factor sub stitution; and 2) the low rates for the Cobb-Douglas model result from imposing more substitution than actually occurs in these industries as revealed by the translog estimates. Nevertheless, the differences that do occur among the three technologies are small. The effect on cost inflation of alternative input price in flation rates can be seen by reading down the columns of table 4. The first three rows indicate the effect of different (assumed) rates of growth in energy prices (15%, 7.5%, 0%). For the auto industry there is virtually no effect on average cost, which is indicative of the very small share (less than 1%) that energy costs are of total production costs. Growth rates in energy prices have a greater effect on av erage cost in the plastics and steel industries. For example, with the translog technology, the difference between a 7.5and a 15-percent increase in energy prices is a 0.8- and a 1.5-percentage-point difference in cost inflation in plastics and steel, respectively. The largest impact of energy price increases occurs in the steel industry. With the translog technology, the difference between no change in the growth rate of energy prices and a 15-percent increase is 2.3 per centage points in the growth rate of average cost. The effect on changes in average cost of differences in the growth of labor prices can be seen by comparing rows 1, 4, and 5 in table 4; the effects of differences in both energy and labor prices appear in rows 1, 6, and 7. For comparable differences in rates of growth, labor prices gen erally have a smaller effect than energy prices on cost change in the plastics industry; the opposite occurs in autos. For example, under the translog technology, a 10-percentagepoint difference in PL is reflected in a 0.4- and a 1.4-percentage-point difference in cost inflation in plastics and autos, respectively. The auto industry is the only one of the three to experience a rising labor cost share over the period 1960—80. As indicated in table 1, the auto industry shows virtually no trend during 1972-80 in its use of labor input, despite the substantial labor price increases that oc curred during that period. In the steel industry, energy prices also have a greater effect than labor prices, particularly at low rates of input price change: a 10-percentage-point difference in PL has only a slightly smaller effect than a 15-percentage-point difference in PE. Finally, nonenergy material inputs make up the largest share of total production costs in each industry. For that reason, we show in row 8 of table 4 the effect of a 5percentage-point difference in the growth of PM (compared to row 1). As might be expected, differences in the cost inflation rates are substantial for each industry. Sustained increases in the prices of nonenergy material inputs would have dramatic consequences for the transmission of inflation that would not be avoided by the substitution of other major inputs. In summary, the transmission of input to average cost inflation differs by industry and appears to occur primarily through differences in input price inflation; factor substi tution plays a minor role.15 The conclusion that the effects differ by industry is, of course, not surprising; yet it warns against drawing inferences from an analysis of more ag gregate data. It also implies that the prospects for controlling or reducing inflation would depend upon rather finely tar geted policies. For example, significant gains could be achieved from policies that help hold down energy prices to the plastics and steel industries and labor costs in the steel and auto industries. Such conclusions, of course, need to be verified with a broader set of industries. □ ■FOOTNOTES 1The detailed components of the industries studied are presented in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, prepared by the U .S. Office o f Management and Budget. Autos (sic 371) comprises manufacturers of motor vehicles and passenger car bodies; truck and bus bodies; motor vehicle parts and accessories; and truck trailers. Steel (sic 331) covers blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills; electrometalurgical products; steel wire drawing and steel nails and spikes; cold rolled steel sheet, strip, and bars; and steel pipe and tubes. Plastics (sic 282) covers the manufacture of plastics materials, synthetic resins, and nonvulcanizable elastomers; synthetic rubber (vulcanizable elastomers); and manmade fibers. “Ernst Bemdt and David Wood, “ Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy, Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1975, pp. 2 5 9 -6 8 , is an early paper to which our work is directly related. Other examples include Robert Halvorsen and Jay Ford, “ Substitution Among Energy, Capital, and Labor Inputs,” in Robert Pindyck, e d Advances in the Economics of Energy and Resources (Greenwich, ct, jai Press, 1979), pp.27—50; Melvyn Fuss, “ The Demand for Energy in Canadian Manu facturing,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 5, 1977, pp. 89-116; John 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Norsworthy and Michael Harper, “ Productivity Growth in Manufacturing in the 1980s: Labor, Capital, and Energy,” American Statistical Associ ation, Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section (1980), pp. 17-26; and Robert Pindyck, “ Interfuel Substitution and the Industrial Demand for Energy: An International Comparison,” The Review of Eco nomics and Statistics, May 1979, pp. 169-79. 3A similar type of analysis for the period 1954-71 is reported in John Moroney and Alden Toevs, “ Input Prices, Substitution, and Product In flation,” in Pindyck, ed., Advances in the Economics, pp. 27-50; and John Moroney and John Trapani, “ Factor Demand and Substitution in Mineral-Intensive Industries,” Bell Journal of Economics, Spring 1981, pp. 2 7 2 -8 3 . In both articles, only three factors are considered: capital, labor, and natural resources (including energy). 4Erwin Diewert, “ Aggregation Problems in the Measurement o f Cap ital,” in Dan Usher, ed., The Measurement of Capital (Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, 1980), pp. 4 3 3 -5 2 8 , argues for the inclusion of inventories in the mea surement of capital input. Frank Gollop and Dale Jorgenson, “ U .S. Pro ductivity Growth by Industry,” in John Kendrick and Beatrice Vaccara, eds., New Developments in Productivity Measurement (Cambridge, M A , National Bureau o f Economic Research, 1980), pp. 17-124, follow this procedure. Table 2 reveals that Eit< 0 for each factor. Approximate standard errors for elasticity estimates are computed as: 5The substantial differences between the two subperiods suggest that the industries are operating under separate regimes in 1960-72 and 1972— 80. A more detailed study would examine this possibility. and SE(Ei,) = SEl-y^/Si; 6The chained Tomqvist index in period t is: p/p,,-. = n (pit/pt_,)**(i/ 2(sit+ s il_,)) where i — K,L,E,M\ and S, is the cost share of the ith input. Erwin Diewert, “ Exact and Superlative Index Numbers,” Journal of Econometrics, May 1976, pp. 1 15-46, has shown that this index is exact for the translog cost function. 7The corresponding industries and Producer Price Indexes (ppi’s): Steel (sic 331): 1 0 -1 7 , Steel Mill Products; Autos (sic 371): 1 4 -1 , Motor Vehicles and Equipment. A corresponding ppi for sic 282 is not available. To approximate an index for this industry, we aggregated the ppi’s 0 6 -6 (Plastic Materials and Resins), corresponding to SIC 2821; 0 7 - 1 1 -0 2 (Syn thetic Rubber), corresponding to sic 2822; and 0 3 -1 (Synthetic Fibers), corresponding to sic 28 2 3 -2 4 . Further, because there is no published index for 0 3 -1 prior to 1976, we approximated this component by aggregating 0 3 - 3 1 -0 2 (Cellulosic, Staple, and Tow) and 0 3 - 3 2 -0 2 (Noncellulosic Yams) for the earlier years. 8 At the limit, the value of the share will approach 1 and cost inflation will equal input inflation. 9 The translog (Transcendental Logarithmic) function was introduced in Laurence Christensen, Dale Jorgenson, and Laurence Lau, “ Transcen dental Logarithmic Production Frontiers,” Review of Economics and Sta tistics, February 1973, pp. 2 8 -4 5 , and has since been applied widely in the study o f industrial production. 10A well-behaved cost function requires that “ own-price” elasticities, Eu, be less than zero. Given the estimates for the parameters in equation (3) o f the text, the elasticities are calculated as: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Ejj = (Sj — Sj + yiil/Sj Ey = (SiSj + -YijVSi SE(EU) = SE(7ll)/Si; and where SE stands for standard error. The data in table 3 are based on estimated shares, averaged over the sample period. " S ee, for example, Bemdt and Wood, “ Technology, Prices, and the Derived Dem and.” 12The issue of whether capital and energy are complements or substitutes is unsettled in the literature. Bemdt and Wood, “ Technology, Prices, and Derived Dem and,” and Fuss, “ The Demand for Energy,” for example, find energy and capital to be strong complements. James Griffin and Paul R. Gregory, “ An Intercountry Translog Model of Energy Substitution R esponses,” American Economic Review, December 1981, pp. 1100-04, and Pindyck, “ Interfuel Substitution,” report evidence of substitutability. For further discussion, see Bemdt and Wood, “ Engineering and Econo metric Interpretation of Energy Capital Complementarity: Reply and Fur ther Results,” American Economic Review, December 1981, pp. 1105— 10; and Griffin, “ Engineering and Economic Interpretations o f EnergyCapital Complementarity: Comment,” American Economic Review, D e cember 1981, pp. 1100-04. It should also be pointed out that, when data for individual industries are used, elasticities vary substantially for all inputs, as in Halvorsen and Ford, “ Substitution Among Energy, Capital, and Labor Inputs” ; Moroney and Toevs, “ Input Prices” ; and Moroney and Trapani, “ Factor Dem and.” We should expect factor substitutability to differ across industries, and our results bear this out. 13 It should be emphasized that we are not forecasting inflation in the three industries according to what is most likely to occur during the 1980s; we are providing alternative scenarios that demonstrate the importance of input price inflation and factor substitutability. 14For convenience, the scenarios were generated holding output at its 1980 level. l5Moroney and Toevs, “ Input Prices,” come to a similar conclusion. 21 Productivity growth below average in the internal combustion engine industry During 1967-82, output per hour increased at an annual rate o f 2.1 percent; the impact o f cyclical downturns in the economy, particularly in the later years, contributed to this lackluster growth J. E d w in H e n n e b e r g e r a n d A r t h u r S . H e r m a n Productivity, as measured by output per employee hour,1 grew at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the internal com bustion engine industry from 1967 to 1982. The correspond ing rate of increase was 2.4 percent for the average of all manufacturing industries. The productivity gain in this industry resulted from a rate of growth in output of 4.2 percent, compared with the all manufacturing average of 2.4 percent, and a 2.1-percent rate of increase in employee hours, compared with no growth in manufacturing sector hours. Productivity growth was aided by the introduction of new, more automatic equipment for machining engine components. However, this growth was modified by the impact of cyclical downturns in the economy on demand, resulting in sharp drops in industry production in several years and corresponding declines in productivity. Establishments in this industry manufacture a wide va riety of internal combustion engines ranging from small, single-cylinder gasoline engines used in such products as chain saws and lawnmowers to very large, multicylinder diesel engines used to power ships and locomotives and to generate electricity. Other products include outboard mo tors, largely used for propulsion of recreational boats, and diesel engines for automobiles and trucks. J. Edwin Henneberger and Arthur S. Herman are economists in the Division of Industry Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Although markets are diverse, a majority tend to be af fected by slowdowns in overall economic activity, leading to sharp declines in industry output, and corresponding de clines in productivity. Conversely, in years of economic recovery, demand for internal combustion engines increases sharply, and the industry posts significant gains in output and, in turn, productivity. Trends in productivity The productivity trends in the industry can be divided into three distinct periods. (See table 1.) From 1967, when data first became available, to 1974, productivity grew at the high rate of 4.5 percent per year. During this period, output increased at the very high rate of 7.2 percent, while hours grew at a 2.6-percent rate. Productivity did not record any declines in this period. Although output dropped sharply in the recession year of 1970, hours fell even more and productivity posted a small gain. Output lagged somewhat in the recovery year of 1971, growing only 0.3 percent; however, it expanded sharply in 1972, up 17.5 percent. Productivity posted high gains in both years, growing 7.1 percent in 1971 and 7.5 percent in 1972. In the 1974-78 period, productivity growth slowed to a rate of 3.8 percent per year. Despite acceleration in the rate of output gain to 8.6 percent per year, the growth in hours expanded to a 4.6-percent rate. There was 1 year of pro ductivity decline during this period, the recession year of 1975, as output fell off sharply, and productivity dropped Table 1. Output per employee hour and related indexes in the internal combustion engine industry, 1967-82 [1977 = 100] _____________________________________ __ E m p lo y e e h o u rs O u tp u t p e r h o u r A ll e m p lo y ees Year P ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs Nonp ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs O u tp u t A ll e m p lo y ees P ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs Nonp ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs 1967 .......... 1968 ......... 1969 ......... 70.3 72.2 75.4 68.8 71.4 74.6 75.1 74.7 77.8 51.4 54.9 65.6 73.1 76.0 87.0 74.7 76.9 87.9 68.4 73.5 84.3 1970 .......... 1 9 7 1 .......... 1972 .......... 1973 .......... 1974 .......... 76.4 81.8 87.9 91.0 93.9 76.6 82.5 86.9 88.9 91.9 75.7 79.9 90.9 97.8 100.9 59.1 59.3 69.7 79.8 88.1 77.4 72.5 79.3 87.7 93.8 77.2 71.9 80.2 89.8 95.9 78.1 74.2 76.7 81.6 87.3 ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... 86.7 92.8 100.0 105.4 98.8 89.5 94.3 100.0 106.0 99.8 79.1 88.7 100.0 103.8 95.9 73.6 82.6 100.0 114.3 110.3 84.9 89.0 100.0 108.4 111.6 82.2 87.6 100.0 107.8 110.5 93.1 93.1 100.0 110.1 115.0 1980 ......... 1 9 8 1 ......... 1982 .......... 94.8 94.4 87.0 98.5 97.8 99.2 85.0 85.6 63.5 94.8 94.7 71.4 100.0 100.3 82.1 96.2 96.8 72.0 111.5 110.6 112.4 1.5 2.6 4.4 -9 .0 3.6 2.3 5.5 (2) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 A v e ra g e an n u a l p e rc e n t c h a n g e 1 1967-82. 1967-74. 1974-78. 1978-82. . . . . . . . . 2.1 4.5 3.8 -4 .2 2.6 4.4 4.0 -1 .5 0.6 4.8 3.0 -1 0 .4 4.2 7.2 8.6 -1 0 .4 2.1 2.6 4.6 -6 .4 Trends in employment and hours 'Based on the least squares trends ot the logarithms of the Index numbers. 2Less than 0.05 percent. a steep 7.7 percent. Output picked up significantly in the recovery year of 1976, gaining 12.2 percent, and expanded even more in 1977, growing 21.1 percent. Output continued to rise in 1978, up 14.3 percent. Productivity posted large gains in these years, increasing 7.0 percent in 1976, 7.8 percent in 1977, and 5.4 percent in 1978. However, in the most recent period, 1978-82, produc tivity registered an annual average decline of 4.2 percent, with a decrease every year. During this period, output also declined every year, averaging —10.4 percent, while hours dropped at a rate of 6.4 percent. In the two recessions which occurred in this period, output dropped sharply and pro ductivity recorded large declines. In the recession year of 1980, output fell 14.1 percent and hours decreased 10.4 percent resulting in a productivity falloff of 4.0 percent. Productivity registered its largest annual decline over the period in 1982, a recession year, dropping 7.8 percent as output fell 24.6 percent and hours decreased 18.1 percent. Demand falls during 1978-82 The sharp slowdown in output and, in turn, productivity during the 1978-82 period can be attributed to a falloff in demand from most of the major markets for the industry’s products. The period saw a large decline in construction activity and homebuilding. The number of new homes sold in 1982 dropped to about half of the 1978 level.2 This decline affected the market for lawnmowers, garden tractors, snow blowers, and grass trimmers, resulting in an average annual falloff of 7.4 percent in the output of lawn and garden https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis equipment. These items use small, gasoline-powered inter nal combustion engines, which are a major product of this industry. Output of construction equipment dropped at a rate of 14.0 percent over this period. The construction ma chinery industry uses midsized diesel and gasoline engines made in this industry. Demand from the agricultural equip ment industry, which uses engines similar to those in con struction machinery, also slowed as output of agricultural equipment fell at a rate of 7.6 percent during this period. The number of diesel truck engines produced also declined as the number of diesel-powered trucks manufactured de clined from 1978 to 1982. Demand from the power gen eration and commercial shipbuilding markets also slowed, further reducing output of internal combustion engines. Conversely, demand for automobile diesel engines grew during most of the period, peaking in 1981. However, sales dropped in 1982, as the price advantage of diesel fuel versus gasoline was eroded. Total employment in the internal combustion engine in dustry grew at a rate of 2.4 percent from 1967 to 1982. This rate of growth was significantly higher than the 0.2-percent rate of employment growth for the total manufacturing sector over the same period. Employment in this industry increased from 63,700 in 1967 to a high of 101,100 in 1979 and fell to 77,900 in 1982. Total employee hours grew at a rate of 2.1 percent, somewhat lower than the rate of employment gain. The number of production workers increased at an average rate of 1.9 percent during this period, growing from 47,500 in 1967 to a high of 74,200 in 1979 and falling to 51,600 in 1982. Nonproduction workers grew at the greater rate of 3.7 percent. The number of nonproduction workers in this industry increased significantly from 16,200 in 1967 to 26,900 in 1979 and fell slightly to 26,300 in 1982. The proportion of pro duction workers to total employment fell from 74.6 percent in 1967 to 66.2 percent in 1982. Average hourly earnings of production workers were sig nificantly higher for the internal combustion engine industry than for the average of all manufacturing industries over the period measured. In 1967, these earnings were about 20 percent higher than the all-manufacturing average. By 1982, the gap had widened so that average hourly earnings were almost 40 percent higher than in manufacturing. These higher earnings indicate that the skill levels of the workers in this industry are somewhat higher than in man ufacturing as a whole. Data on occupations tend to corro borate this. Although occupational data that exactly match this industry are not available, data on occupations are avail able at a somewhat broader level of aggregation for the engines and turbines group.3 Because employment in the internal combustion engine industry accounted for about two-thirds of this group in 1982, the aggregate data should be representative of the industry. Craftworkers accounted for 21.4 percent of this group in 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Productivity in Internal Combustion Engine Industry 1982, compared with 18.6 percent in all manufacturing. Professional and technical workers made up a significantly higher proportion in this group (17.0 percent) than in total manufacturing (10.3 percent). However, although opera tives accounted for a very large proportion of total em ployment in the engines and turbines group (36.6 percent), it was somewhat lower than the all-manufacturing average of 40.2 percent. Metalworking operatives were significantly greater at 17.8 percent for this group, compared with 6.8 percent for all manufacturing, and assemblers at 9.7 percent were higher than the all-manufacturing average of 6.9 per cent. In the engine and turbine group, the professional and technical category increased from 13.0 percent in 19704 to 17.0 percent in 1982, while the operatives category fell from 40.6 to 36.6 percent over the same period. Firms in the industry are large Firms in the internal combustion engine industry tend to be large. The four biggest companies accounted for about 50 percent of the industry’s value of shipments over the period studied. The average number of employees per es tablishment is much larger in this industry than the average for all manufacturing industries, 383 in 1977, compared with 53 for all manufacturing. Engine manufacturers are concentrated in the north cen tral portion of the United States, with large numbers of establishments located in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. California, however, has the most plants. Above-average capital expenditures The level of capital expenditures in the internal combus tion engine industry has been high over the period studied. New capital expenditures per employee have been above the average for all manufacturing industries in most years from 1967 to 1981 and have never been significantly below average. In several years, new capital expenditures per em ployee have been significantly above the all-manufacturing average. In 1970, capital expenditures per employee were 60 percent above the manufacturing average. In 1973 and 1974, years of high output growth in the industry, capital expenditures per employee were almost double the all-man ufacturing average. In 1981, capital expenditures per em ployee were more than 70 percent above the manufacturing average. Growth in capital expenditures has also been high. Capital expenditures per employee grew at a rate of 11.4 percent in this industry during 1967-81, compared with 10.6 percent for manufacturing as a whole. In the more recent period, 1978-81, capital expenditures per employee accelerated, growing at a rate almost twice as high as the all-manufacturing average, despite the output falloff in the industry. Technological changes As indicated, this industry produces many different en gines ranging from very small, single-cylinder gasoline 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis engines to very large, multicylinder diesel engines. Man ufacturing techniques involve the production of engine parts and subassemblies and the assembly of parts into completed engines. Workflow, materials handling, and warehousing are critical functions in this industry. Changes in technology and innovations involve more advanced metalworking op erations, introduction of new materials, combining of op erations, automatic movement and positioning of work in process, and more automatic inspection of parts and testing of completed engines. As indicated by the recent acceler ation in capital expenditures, many of the innovations in the industry were introduced in the more current period, in spite of the poor demand situation. This was done to increase plant efficiency, while employment was reduced, in antic ipation of an expansion in demand, as well as because of increasing competition from imports.5 Typically, the production of engines begins by machining rough castings of engine blocks, crankshafts, gear blanks, and other parts using a wide range of metalworking techniques. The castings are in some cases produced in-house but, as with many other parts, are often purchased from outside suppliers. The finished parts, along with other vendor-supplied items, are then brought together for final assembly. The casting of parts (either in gray iron, steel, or alu minum) ranges from highly automated to relatively laborintensive. In plants which manufacture high volume, small horsepower engines, the casting of parts has been to a large degree automated using computer control and robots. Other establishments which produce low volume parts have not been able to automate the casting process so intensively. After casting, many parts such as gear blanks and crank shafts are heat treated or carburized. In this process, the engine parts are baked at a high temperature in an atmos phere of carbon dioxide in order to chemically alter the metal to the desired characteristics. Because different parts require different characteristics, the process variables (that is, time, temperature, pressure of gas) are sometimes mon itored by computer. Transfer lines are commonly being used for machining large volume components in the industry. Typically, engine block machining is now done on transfer lines. The lines move the rough castings automatically to and from ma chining stations where, for example, cylinder walls are ground to the correct tolerances, coolant and lubrication channels are bored, and bolt holes are drilled and tapped. Workers are required at each machining station only to perform initial tool setup, monitor performance, and provide maintenance. In some cases, loading and unloading of work in process and tool changing, formerly done manually, are done au tomatically. In addition, automatic testing and inspection equipment has been incorporated on transfer lines, aiding product quality. The installation of automatic transfer lines for block machining has reduced the direct labor involved in these operations significantly. An innovation that has recently been introduced for the manufacture of parts is computer-directed flexible machin ing centers. Several of these flexible or multiple function machining centers can be operated under the control of a central computer. Work in process moves from machine to machine by automatic conveyor line or on dollies powered by in-floor drive systems. These machining centers are flex ible enough so that if one is off-line for repair or maintenance another center can take over its functions. Typically, these machining centers have worn or broken tool alert capability and, in some cases, automatic tool change capacity. Unlike the automatic transfer lines, workers tending these flexible machining systems are required only to perform mainte nance. Because of the flexibility built into these lines, changeovers to the production of different items can be expedited. Shorter production runs then become more prac tical because the equipment is not down for lengthy manual tool change operations.6 Numerically controlled machine tools are in use through out the industry. They are utilized mainly for production of low and medium volume parts. Computerized numerical control machining centers have also recently been intro duced for the production of engine components. Computer-assisted design is being used by many firms in the industry for engine and component design as well as for making changes in engine configurations to meet customers’ specifications. Computer-assisted manufacturing is in more limited use than computer-assisted design in the industry and is involved mainly in the operation of machining centers for individual components rather than control of large-scale manufacturing operations. Computer-assisted manufactur ing is also used by some firms to make tools and dies required for machining operations. The final assembly of engines in this industry tends not to be highly automated, compared with automobile engine assembly. There are automobile engine plants where com plete units are built with very little direct manual labor.7 Although there are some exceptions,8 this is generally not the case in the industry under study. Typically, parts move by conveyor to work stations where the employees assemble the engines with the assistance of a variety of powered equipment and handtools. Assembled engines are then started in order to make final adjustments and to verify perfor mance. Often, particularly for the larger engines, the com pleted units are run under load while being monitored by computer. Some of the more expensive diesel engines are partially disassembled and visually inspected after the run ning test. During the last 10 years, robots have increasingly been employed in the production of engines. Their use to date has been principally limited to such applications as metal casting, heat treating, and painting operations where it was particularly desirable to remove workers from these haz ardous areas. Highly repetitive jobs, such as the insertion of valve seats in engine blocks, have also been robotized. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Additionally, robots have been used in the production of investment casting molds. In this application it was found that robots could more consistently produce higher quality molds than the workers they replaced.9 Manufacture of the very large diesel engines used for marine or power generation purposes tends to be signifi cantly different than the manufacture of the small- and me dium-sized engines. The blocks of these engines are not machined from a solid casting but rather are made from steel plates welded together. These units are built in one place and parts are brought to it, compared with assembly line manufacture of the smaller engines. Machining of very large parts to extremely close tolerances is important in the manufacture of these units. Therefore, innovations in clude numerically controlled flame-cutters and computercontrolled flexible machining centers to finish the flat steel shapes to the correct dimensions. Numerically controlled large machine tools and computer machining centers are important technological advances in the production of these large engines because of the small runs of complex parts such as pistons, cylinder liners, and the close tolerances required for manufacture. An important innovation is the introduction of comput erized high-rise warehouses for raw materials and incoming parts as well as for completed parts and engines. These automated warehouse systems are utilized by many firms in the industry and have resulted in significant labor savings. Outlook In recent years, the industry has experienced poor de mand, with output in 1982 significantly below its peak in 1978. Incomplete data indicate that in 1983 demand for products using internal combustion engines was mixed and the output and productivity situation was uncertain. How ever, by 1984 demand began to increase from many of the industry’s markets leading to anticipated gains in output and productivity. Recently, the industry has increasingly been affected by the pressure of growing imports. This is especially true for such items as outboard motors and low horsepower gasoline engines, which have not faced significant import competi tion in the past. In an effort to compete with imports, firms in the industry have accelerated the introduction of new technology and have shifted attention to more efficient pro duction operations and management techniques. New plants using the most modem production technology have been opened. Older plants have been significantly modernized. Therefore, the industry’s ability to increase productivity has been enhanced. However, the impact of cyclical changes in the economy can be expected to continue to be a major determinant of demand for the industry’s products, resulting in wide swings in output. In turn, productivity changes in this industry will continue to be affected by these cyclical changes. Q 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Productivity in Internal Combustion Engine Industry FOOTNOTES 'The internal combustion engines, n .e.c., industry is classified as sic 3519 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 and its 1977 supplement, issued by the U .S. Office of Management and Budget. This industry includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing die sel, semidiesel, or other internal combustion engines, not elsewhere class ified, for stationary, marine, traction, and other uses. Aircraft engines, automotive engines (except diesel), and engine generator sets are not in cluded. and Projected 1990, Bulletin 2086 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981), p. 74. 5 Information obtained from industry representatives. 6See “ Flexible Manufacturing Takes Shape,” Automotive Industries, January 1983, pp. 17-20; see also “ Microprocessor Controlled Engine Transfer L ine,” Diesel Progress, North American, December 1982, pp. 6 -7 ; and “ Turning Cells Boost Gear Blank Output,” Production Engi neering, August 1984, pp. 60c-6 0 f . 2 Construction Report, New One-Family Houses Sold and For Sale, 7 See Michael K. McCann, “ Another Step Towards the Automated Plant,” March 1984, U.S. Department o f Commerce, C25-84-3, May 1984, p. 3. Automotive Industries, November 1981, pp. 6 1 -6 3 . 3“ bls Industry-Occupational Employment Matrix, 1982, 1995 Alter natives,” pp. 154-65, 373-78. 4 The National Industry-Occupation Employment Matrix, 1970, 1978, APPENDIX: Indexes of output per employee hour measure changes in hours expended on that output. An index of output per employee hour is derived by dividing an index of output by an index of industry employee hours. The preferred output index for manufacturing industries would be obtained from data on quantities of the various goods produced by the industry, each weighted (multiplied) by the employee hours required to produce one unit of each good in some specified base period. Thus, those goods which require more labor time to produce are given more impor tance in the index. Because data on physical quantities are not reported for the entire internal combustion engine industry, real output was estimated by a deflated value technique. Changes in price levels were removed from current-dollar values of production by means of appropriate price indexes at various levels of subaggregation for the variety of products in the group. To combine segments of the output index into a total output meas ure, employee hour weights relating to the individual segments were used, resulting in a final output index that is conceptually 26 ment Associations, 1980, pp. 181-88. Measurement techniques and limitations the relation betw een the output o f an industry and em ployee https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8See “ Automatic Assembly Increases Efficiency, Output,” Manufac turing Engineering, October 1980, p. 29. 9 See Joseph F. Engelberger, Robotics in Practice, American Manage close to the preferred output measure. Employment and employee hour indexes were derived from data published by the Bureau of the Census. Employees and employee hours are each considered homogeneous and additive, and thus do not reflect changes in the qualitative aspects of labor such as skill and experience. The indexes of output per employee hour relate total output to one input— labor. The indexes do not measure the specific contribution of labor or capital, or any other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of factors such as changes in technology, capital investment, capacity uti lization, plant design and layout, skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-management relations. The average annual rates of change presented in the text are based on the linear least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Extensions of the indexes appear annually in the b l s Bulletin, Productivity Measures for Selected Industries. A technical note describing the methods used to develop the indexes is available from the Division of Industry Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Conference Papers The following excerpts, closely related to the work of b l s , are adapted from papers presented at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research As sociation, December 1984, in Dallas. The full text of the papers appears in the copyrighted i r r a publication, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meetings, available from i r r a , University of Wisconsin, Social Science Building, Madison, wi 53706. Unemployment Insurance program solvency in the 1980’s G a r y B urtless a n d W a y n e V ro m an Over the past 4 years, unemployment benefits have been paid to an unusually small fraction of jobless workers. In all, the fraction of new job losers claiming regular unem ployment insurance benefits fell by nearly a third after 1979. Changes in the financial circumstances of individual State programs contributed to recent reductions in the availability of unemployment insurance benefits. During the 1970’s, there was a loss of trust fund reserve adequacy, and many States borrowed from the Federal unemployment insurance loan fund in years of high unemployment, particularly in the 1975-77 period. Between 1972 and 1979, 25 State programs borrowed a total of $5.6 billion. States were slow to repay the loans, and by the end of 1979, $3.7 billion was still owed to the Federal Government. A committee of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies has recommended a range from 1.5 to 3.0 as a minimum reserve ratio (trust fund reserves relative to potential demand for unemployment insurance benefits) to assure fund adequacy.1 In 1979, at the end of a lengthy economic expansion, only two States had reserve ratios of at least 1.5, and only 11 additional State ratios fell in the range from 1.0 to 1.49. The economic downturns in 1980 and 1981-82 placed a new and heavy burden on unemployment insurance pro- Gary Burtless is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Wayne Vroman is senior research associate at the Urban Institute. The title of their full irra paper is “ The Performance of Unemployment Insurance Since 1979.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis grams which already had inadequate reserves. One conse quence was a widespread resort to borrowing. Between January 1980 and September 1984, Federal lending to in solvent State programs exceeded $17 billion. Lending has been concentrated among industrial States in the North Cen tral Region, which account for 64 percent of total borrowing, but 32 States borrowed at least once between 1980 and 1984. In the past 4 years, the Federal Government has placed increased financial pressure on States to reduce their debts and to avoid borrowing altogether. The added pressure to raise employer payroll taxes and reduce benefit outlays oc curred in a period of unprecedented postwar unemployment. Four specific developments are worth noting: • States now have an unambiguous responsibility to repay outstanding loans. There is no longer any active discus sion of proposals for cost sharing or partial debt forgive ness as were common in the 1970’s. • Since 1979, the Federal Government has demonstrated its willingness to impose penalty taxes (additions to the rate for the Federal Unemployment Tax) on employers in States with debts more than 2 years old. Although these automatic repayment provisions existed in the 1970’s, their implementation was twice deferred by temporary measures enacted in 1975 and 1977. • The cost of loans made after March 1982 was increased. Under the Omnibus Budget Resolution Act of 1981, new loans carried interest charges. With an annual interest rate of 10 percent (the maximum allowable interest charge), the cost of new debt became an important financial con sideration for the States needing large loans. • The Social Security Amendments passed in March 1983 provided States with an opportunity to reduce and defer the costs in indebtedness. If a debtor State enacted new legislation that substantially improved net solvency, it would be able to limit future growth in Federal unemployment tax penalties, defer inter est charges, and, if solvency adjustments were sufficiently large, pay an interest rate one percentage point below the rate otherwise chargeable. Improvements in net solvency could be achieved by different combinations of benefit re ductions and tax increases.2 These developments have placed the States under in creased financial pressure to improve program solvency. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Conference Papers Between late 1982 and early 1984, State legislative activity was especially rapid. The eight States with the largest debts in September 1984 enacted important solvency legislation in this period, and five of them improved net solvency enough to qualify for fiscal relief under the 1983 amend ments.3 The flurry of State legislative activity after 1982 is a dramatic illustration of the interest of States in improving the net solvency of their unemployment insurance programs. The unexpected shortfall in unemployment insurance out lays that occurred before 1982 was also largely the result of legislative and administrative actions to reduce benefits. For example, since the mid-1970’s, disqualification periods for voluntary job leavers have been lengthened and the earn ings requirements needed for eligibility have been increased in many States.4 These State-level changes are a major rea son for the unexpectedly low levels of insured unemploy ment in the 1980’s and the increased gap between insured and total unemployment. Financial pressures on State programs have not been the only factor behind the low recent levels of insured unem ployment. At the Federal level, authorities required States to impose tougher qualifying provisions for unemployment insurance applicants receiving pensions or social security. In 1979, the Federal Government for the first time imposed income taxes on unemployment insurance benefits received by high income taxpayers and, in 1982, lowered the income threshold for taxability. These changes dramatically raised the number of unemployment recipients subject to taxation. In addition, the Federal Government provided strong finan cial incentives for States to impose a waiting period before newly unemployed workers can receive benefits. By reduc ing the net value of unemployment insurance, these federally imposed changes presumably reduced the incentive for job less workers to apply for benefits. The persistence of high joblessness has also reduced the fraction of unemployed collecting jobless benefits because it has increased the fraction of claimants who exhaust ben efits. In recessions occurring since 1958, the Federal Gov ernment has offered added income protection to unemployment insurance recipients who exhaust their regular benefits. Af ter 1980, however, several Federal actions reduced the du ration of benefits available for unemployed workers. The 1981 changes in the extended benefits triggering mecha nism, in combination with the large relative decline in the insured unemployment rate, have nearly eliminated the ex tended unemployment insurance benefit program, except during periods of exceptionally high unemployment. Long term benefits are now paid mainly under the emergency Federal Supplemental Compensation program, which is scheduled to expire in March 1985. That program began later— and was substantially less generous— than the equiv alent emergency program enacted during the 1974-76 reces sion. Emergency long-term benefits have been lower than 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis those in the previous recession, even though the extended benefits program was less generous and long-term unem ployment was much higher. The Federal attitude toward helping the long-term unemployed has been affected by the same trends that have influenced other social welfare spend ing, including Federal spending on education, means-tested transfers, and manpower programs. ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1Although the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies never formally adopted this as a solvency standard, it is often used by unemployment insurance practitioners in judging the adequacy of a State’s fund. 2 Improvements in net solvency are measured as the sum of two per centage changes— increases in taxes plus reductions in benefits. To defer interest on loans, a State must improve net solvency by 25, 35, and 50 percent, respectively, in the first 3 years of indebtedness. To pay lower interest rates, the respective solvency improvements must be 50, 80, and 90 percent. 3 Wayne Vroman, The Funding Crisis in State Unemployment Insurance (Kalamazoo, mi, The W .E. Upjohn Institute, 1984). 4Gary Burtless and Daniel Saks, The Decline in Insured Unemployment During the 1980’s, Brookings Discussion Paper in Economics (Washing ton, the Brookings Institution, 1984). U .S. industrial relations in transition T h o m a s A . K o c h a n , R o b e r t B . M c K e r s ie , and Harry C. K atz We believe there is a central contradiction in the current operation of U.S. industrial relations. Leaders from all parts of society, including many corporate executives, are calling for an expansion of cooperative efforts at the workplace. They are asking union leaders and members to support these cooperative efforts and to continue moderating their wage demands. At the same time, the dominant trend in strategic business and industrial relations decisionmaking within firms is to shift investments and jobs to nonunionized employment settings. Moreover, because of some government policies, the labor movement cannot feel secure about its future as a viable force in American society. It is difficult to see how unions can continue to act cooperatively in ah environment in which their basic security is being questioned and un dermined.1Thus, if the environmental and strategic patterns of the past decade continue, we would expect further shrink age of unionized employment and membership, more pres sures on union leaders to withhold their support for cooperation and innovation at the workplace, and more frequent conThomas A. Kochan and Robert B. McKersie are professors of industrial relations and Harry C. Katz is associate professor of industrial relations in the Industrial Relations Section, Sloan School of Management, Mass achusetts Institute of Technology. The title of their full irra paper is “ U .S. Industrial Relations in Transition: A Summary Report.” frontations between unions and companies as unions inter pret their situation as one of a life and death struggle. If private sector union membership continues to erode, we can expect a gradual weakening of the threat effects of unions on unorganized firms. As a result, we would expect a slowing of the rate of innovation in human resource man agement policies in nonunion firms, except in situations where the declining union threat is offset by significant pres sures from labor market shortages, government regulations, or corporate executives committed to innovative policies. (Innovative nonunion policies also are more likely to con tinue and even expand where their economic contribution is high and creates a momentum of its own.) If there is a resurgence in demand for unionization or for some new employee representational structures within nonunion firms, it will depend on the strength of these countervailing forces. The contradiction between cooperation and union avoid ance is strongest in partially unionized firms. However, similar contradictions among the three levels of industrial relations activity may emerge in unorganized firms as their plants, business units, or industries move to advanced stages of their life cycle and experience more significant pressures for labor cost modification. To avoid these problems, un organized firms will need to prevent the increasing rigidities in work organization that are associated with age, keep compensation costs low enough to discourage new com petitors from entering their markets, and plan orderly ad justment mechanisms for their workers when economic and organizational restructuring intensifies.2 Again, we would expect that only those firms whose top executives maintain a strong commitment to progressive human resource man agement values and are supported by strong human resource staff professionals will be likely to avoid the development of internal contradictions in later stages of their life cycles. Those nonunion firms whose sole competitive advantage is the payment of low wages are likely to face significant interest in unionization among their work force. Deviating from this dominant pattern will be the variety of innovations in the most highly unionized firms where union avoidance is not a short term, viable alternative for management. The prospects in these settings depend on the ability of workers, unions, and management to integrate strategies and practices across the three levels of industrial relations. Such an integration would have to build on current efforts to introduce innovative work systems, moderate the growth in compensation (in some cases through the intro duction of some form of contingent compensation), and expand high level consultations between executives, staff professionals, and union representatives over long term business, investment, and employment stabilization strate gies. The success of this strategy will be greatly affected by future macroeconomic developments. At the micro level, the success of a cooperative strategy is dependent on the ability of employers to identify a market niche (or some alternative competitive strategy) so as not to have to rely https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on being a low cost producer. For American unions to avoid anything but continued erosion of membership will depend on their ability to: (1) promote cooperation and innovation at the workplace where they currently represent employees, (2) link contin ued workplace cooperation and innovation to involvement and influence in the strategic business and government de cisions that affect long run employment and membership security, and (3) pursue new organizing strategies. Al though these strategies are necessary, they are unlikely to be sufficient to stimulate a resurgence of American union ism. For, if previous resurgences of the American labor movement are a guide (the 1930’s for the private sector and the 1960’s for the public sector), significant union growth also would require a combination of major changes in the political, economic, and social environment; new legislation that fosters new forms of representation; and the stimulus of a rival form of unionism or representation from outside the existing union structure. W e p r e d i c t a c o n t i n u e d d e t e r i o r a t i o n of the traditional New Deal model of industrial relations, some increased pressures on nonunion management systems as they age and mature, and intensified competition and conflict alongside efforts to sustain cooperation and innovation within both industrial relations and management systems. The new out come can only be predicted or explained by more specific modeling of the interactions among environmental forces, values, and strategic choices. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------‘ Our theoretical framework emphasizes that industrial relations out com es are not predetermined by environmental forces, but are the product o f interactions among the environment and'the strategic choices of the parties. It should be kept in mind, however, that these “ choices” are not made by single monolithic representatives, are not always consciously thought out or planned decisions, and are constrained by various environ mental conditions. Consequently, the U .S. industrial relations system will continue to display considerable diversity in the future as it has in the past. 2For example, a number of high technology firms have told us that the biggest challenge they face in the next several years is continuing to deliver employment security in the face of rapid economic change and low natural attrition rates. The future of wage indexation in collective bargaining contracts W allace E. H e n d r ic k s a n d L a w r e n c e M. K ahn In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, the U.S. economy underwent two episodes of rapid inflation— 1973-74 and 1979-80— each associated with oil price increases. Much of the inflaWallace E. Hendricks and Lawrence M. Kahn are professors of economics and labor and industrial relations. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The title of their full i r r a paper is “ Wage Indexation in the United States: Prospects for the I980's.” 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Conference Papers tion during these years was not expected: the Livingston Surveys sample of economists underpredicted 1973-74 in flation by 5 to 7 percentage points and 1979-80 inflation by 2 to 6 percentage points.1 Each episode resulted in sharp declines in average real wages— a total of 5.1 percent from 1973 to 1975 and 8.6 percent from 1978 to 1981. In an environment of inflation uncertainty, risk-averse workers would like some mechanism to protect their living standards. One method is to shorten the period over which any contract is in force. Under shorter contracts, wages could be continually corrected for the effects of inflationary surprises, but such renegotiation is a costly process. Hence the impetus for cost-of-living escalator clauses ( c o l a ’ s ) , which help protect workers’ real wages without requiring frequent renegotiation of contracts. From management’s point of view, however, c o l a ’ s may be a source of uncontrollable increases in nominal labor costs. While c o l a ’ s could the oretically stabilize firms’ real profits under certain condi tions, the fact that wage escalator provisions are confined to the union sector in the United States and are most prev alent among what are generally thought to be the strongest unions suggests that companies in general would prefer not to have them.2 The overall bargaining record with respect to c o l a ’ s sug gests that the inflation of the 1970’s and 1980’s made quite an impression on union workers. As late as 1970, only about one quarter of workers under major agreements (those cov ering at least 1,000 workers) had c o l a protection. This figure rose to a high of 61.2 percent in 1977 and has re mained relatively stable since then. While the average work er’s real wage fell during periods such as 1979-81, many workers with c o l a ’ s were able to maintain their real wage levels.3 More generally, c o l a ’ s have been cited as helping to increase union-nonunion wage differentials during the inflationary 1970’s.4 During the 1981-82 recession, inflation began to dece lerate sharply and the extent of the deceleration was un derestimated. In fact, inflation was overestimated from 1981 to 1984.5 While overprediction of inflation has occurred before, 4 consecutive years of overprediction is a consid erable departure from the norm. If inflation is indeed “ licked,” workers may have less desire for indexation in the future than in the recent past. On the other hand, given the viru lence of inflation in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, workers may well be skeptical that the economy has become insu lated from rapid price increases. If such is the case, then c o l a ’ s will not have outlived their usefulness. This report examines recent collective bargaining trends in c o l a ’ s and offers predictions about the future of index ation. Despite the decline in union bargaining power and the recent stabilization of inflation, there is little indication that c o l a ’ s will wither away. It will probably take many more years of predictable, low inflation rates before unions will consider giving up this form of wage protection. 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Recent developments in c o l a ’s To assess recent trends in c o l a ’ s , we studied provisions of a sample of 1,352 major contracts negotiated over the 1982-84 period, although very few 1984 agreements were available. (The data source was the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics Current Wage Developments.) For contracts rene gotiated in 1982, c o l a coverage was virtually unchanged from that in previously negotiated contracts. This outcome occurred as virtually the same percentages of workers gave up c o l a ’ s in 1982 as introduced them in that year. Further, the percentage of workers with c o l a ’ s in contracts nego tiated in 1982 (57.6 percent) was about the same as the percentage of workers under existing contracts who were covered by c o l a ’ s (56.7 percent). Thus, the flow of new c o l a negotiations was comparable to the stock of c o l a coverage. c o l a coverage slipped somewhat in 1983. Among work ers negotiating contracts in 1983, 38.8 percent had had c o l a ’ s in the previous contract, while only 31.7 percent had them in the new contract (an 18-percent decline for this group). Those workers giving up c o l a ’ s in 1983 were con centrated in airlines, communications, and merchandise and food stores. On the other hand, only about 1 percent of workers without c o l a ’ s in their previous contracts added indexation in 1983 negotiations. Thus, there was a modest trend away from c o l a ’ s in 1983, as inflation remained stable for the second consecutive year. However, the con tracts negotiated in 1983 accounted for a disproportionately low share of existing c o l a ’ s ; only 38.8 percent of workers had them in the expiring contract, compared to more than 60 percent in nonexpiring contracts. Therefore, the down ward movement in c o l a coverage in 1983 has had a smaller impact on the overall stock of c o l a ’ s than it otherwise might have.6 Specifically, only about 5 percent of workers with c o l a ’ s on January 1, 1983, lost them during negotiations that year, in part because 58 percent of workers under major agreements did not negotiate that year.7 It takes a major change in the flow of c o l a negotiations— such as the steel workers’ abandonment of c o l a ’ s in 1962— to significantly affect the stock. A slight trend toward increased use of caps in c o l a ’ s has become apparent. In both 1982 and 1983, currently nego tiated c o l a ’ s were marginally more likely to have caps than those negotiated in earlier years. Among bargaining units that had c o l a ’ s in current and previous contracts, caps were more likely to be added than taken away. Placing limits on c o l a payments may reflect union weakness or reduced un certainty about inflation. Although the incidence of caps rose, it stayed close to the existing stock of caps: from 1979 to 1983, coverage of workers under capped c o l a ’ s as a percentage of total c o l a coverage ranged between 2 1 . 6 percent and 22.6 percent. In contrast, from 1970 to 1978, the range was from 25.0 percent to 64.3 percent, with a weighted average figure of 31.2 percent.8 Perhaps more important than the slight increase in the incidence of caps is the introduction of clauses providing for special delays or diversions of c o l a payments. Onesixth of the workers with c o l a ’s negotiated during the 1982— 84 period agreed to special delays and 6.3 percent were subject to diversions of c o l a payments. (The 1983 figures are somewhat lower than those for 1982.) The delay pro visions were most common in the motor vehicle industry— 72 percent of workers with delays were in that industry— while diversions occurred mainly in trucking, which ac counted for 70 percent of workers so affected. c o l a delays and diversions are essentially lump-sum transfers from labor to management given as union conces sions. However, the c o l a concept remains after the delay or diversion is accomplished. For example, among c o l a ’ s negotiated in this period with special delays, only 6.6 per cent of the covered workers had provisions subject to caps; for those without special delays, 23 percent of the workers were subject to caps. Further, where c o l a ’ s specified di versions of payments, no workers in our sample had pro visions for caps; among workers not subject to diversions, 21.7 percent had caps. Thus, workers appeared to be willing to pay a price in order to have uncapped c o l a ’ s . The basic point illustrated here is the resistance of workers to elimi nation of the c o l a concept.9 Not surprisingly, workers with c o l a ’ s won smaller de ferred increases than those without such protection. Average 1982 and 1983 percentage scheduled increases were 2.0 percent and 1.8 percent for the former group, compared with 6.6 percent and 4.2 percent for the latter. However, the differential in the raises was much smaller in 1983 (2.4 percentage points) than in 1982 (4.6 percentage points). In addition, the 1983 differential is lower than that in recent years.10 This finding may reflect a lower anticipated inflation rate in 1983 than in previous years. Among those whose current contracts have no c o l a , scheduled raises were slightly larger for those who gave up c o l a ’ s from the previous contract (4.9 percent in 1983) than for workers who had no indexation in either agreement (4.1 percent). Again, a slight compensating differential is indicated. However, in 1982, workers who added c o l a ’ s got substantially higher sched uled increases (6.5 percent) than those who kept c o l a ’ s (1.7 percent). Perhaps some catch-up phenomenon was ev ident there. In earlier work,11 we found a substantially higher strike incidence in the 1970-80 period among bargaining units that added c o l a ’ s than among other units. If these strikes reflected union aggressiveness rather than manage ment rigidity, then the results cited above are plausible. Among currently indexed contracts, there is a consistent 3-percentage-point differential in scheduled wage increases in favor of capped over uncapped agreements. Especially for 1983, it appears that caps are expected to pose a binding constraint on c o l a payments. In addition, those workers whose previously capped c o l a ’ s were negotiated to become unconstrained took an average cut (0.2 percent) in pay; those https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis whose c o l a ’s remained uncapped received 1.5-percent raises. Again, a price for unrestricted c o l a protection is evident. However, those workers whose c o l a ’s became capped fared slightly worse (3.2-percent raise) than those whose c o l a ’ s remained capped (3.7-percent raise). Perhaps adding a cap was part of an overall concessionary agreement, although only 26 contracts in our sample added caps to previously unrestricted c o l a ’ s . Finally, delays and diversions of c o l a payments also appeared to be part of concessionary agree ments (particularly in automobiles and trucking). Scheduled wage increases for workers with delays or diversions in c o l a payments were lower than for other workers. How ever, as noted before, in virtually every case where delays or diversions were made in c o l a ’ s , the resulting "clause eventually returned to unconstrained c o l a protection. The relationship between concessions and c o l a ’ s proved rather dramatic. For example, 43.6 percent of workers who retained previously won c o l a ’ s in 1982 accepted a pay cut or freeze, as did 32.8 percent in 1983. Overall, between 23 and 25 percent of workers covered by major contracts made such concessions during these years. Among those who agreed to delays in c o l a payments, the majority made pay concessions— 96.6 percent in 1982, and 51.5 percent the following year. Finally, 74.3 percent of workers whose c o l a ’ s became uncapped in 1982-83 and 45.4 percent of those who were able to keep their previously uncapped provisions over that period proved agreeable to concessions. p i c t u r e t h a t e m e r g e s is one of workers’ tenacity in holding on to or establishing uncapped wage index provi sions. Despite declining union bargaining power and seem ingly stabilized inflation, there has been only a modest trend away from c o l a ’ s in the 1982-84 period. This trend was not strong enough to have a noticeable impact on the overall coverage of workers. It thus appears that workers are not convinced that inflation has been taken care of for good. We therefore expect the uncapped c o l a to remain a stable feature of U.S. collective bargaining in the foreseeable future. □ T he ---------- FOOTNOTES---------'Every 6 months since 1947, Joseph Livingston of the Philadelphia Inquirer has surveyed a group of economists about their inflation expec tations. For further discussion of this survey, see John Carlson, “ A Study of Price Forecasts, ’ ’ Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Winter 1977, pp. 2 7 -5 6 . 2For evidence on the lack of c o l a coverage for nonunion workers, see Victor J. Sheifer, “ Cost-of-living adjustment: keeping up with inflation?” Monthly Labor Review, June 1979, pp. 14-17; and David A. Weeks, Compensating Employees: Lessons of the 1970s (New York, The Confer ence Board, Inc., 1976). 3This finding is obtained from the data base on c o l a ’ s constructed for use in Wallace E. Hendricks and Lawrence M. Kahn, Wage Indexation in the United States: Cola or Uncola? (Cambridge, m a , Ballinger, forth coming). For example, wage levels for janitors and laborers in many steelworker contracts rose by 4 to 5 percent points more than the c p i during the 1979-81 period. 4 See William S. Moore and John Raisian, “ The Level and Growth of 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Conference Papers Union/Nonunion Relative Wage Effects, 1 967-1977,” Journal of Labor Research, Winter 1983, pp. 6 5 -7 9 . 5 For example, in December 1983, the Livingston Surveys sample ex pected an average o f 5.5-percent annual inflation over the next 6 months; however, actual inflation from December 1983, to June 1984 registered a 4.3-percent annual rate of increase. See Bureau of National Affairs, Daily Labor Report, July 25, 1984. 6 Although not reflected in the Current Wage Developments data, 1982 and 1983 had about equally heavy collective bargaining schedules in terms o f percentage o f workers negotiating contracts. See Douglas R. LeRoy, “ Scheduled wage increases and cost-of-living provisions in 1982,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1982, pp. 16-20; and William Davis, “ Collective bargaining in 1983: a crowded agenda,” January 1983, pp. 3 -1 6 . 7See Davis, “ Collective bargaining.” 8See Hendricks and Kahn, Wage Indexation. 9The percentage o f workers with c o l a ’ s that had annual reviews rose during 1983 from 23.9 percent to 37.8 percent, while the percentage getting quarterly reviews fell from 57.0 percent to 33.3 percent. See Davis, “ Col lective bargaining” ; and John J. Lacombe II and James R. Conley, “ Col lective bargaining calendar crowded again in 1984,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1984, pp. 1 9 -32. This lengthening of review periods is similar to the delays discussed here. Related to the issue of caps and timing is the overall yield o f c o l a ’ s . Robert Flanagan, “ Wage Concessions and LongTerm Union Wage Flexibility” (paper presented at the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, April 1984) reports b l s data showing the fractions o f total union wage increases attributable to first-year settlements, deferred increases, and c o l a payments. The c o l a component fell from 1981 to 1983, relative to the other components of wage change. However, Flanagan attributes this decline to the falling inflation rate, rather than to any fun damental change in c o l a ’ s themselves, a conclusion consistent with our own findings. 10For example, among agreements expiring in 1984, deferred increases over the life o f the agreement averaged 2.8 percent per year for indexed and 7.4 percent per year for unindexed contracts. For the contracts expiring in 1983, the figures were 5.0 percent and 9.6 percent. Finally, deferred increases received in 1982 (but negotiated before 1982) averaged 3.7 per cent and 9.2 percent. See Lacombe and Conley, “ Collective bargaining calendar” ; Davis, “ Collective bargaining” ; and LeRoy, “ Scheduled wage increases.” 11 See Hendricks and Kahn, Wage Indexation. Cost-of-living escalators became prevalent in the 1950’s S a n f o r d M . Ja c o b y By automatically linking wages to future price changes, cost-of-living adjustments ( c o l a ’ s ) facilitate the use of longduration contracts. In so doing, c o l a ’ s indirectly reduce the costs associated with labor negotiations and strike ex posure. Given this feature of c o l a clauses, it is surprising to discover that although long-duration contracts have been in use since the turn of the century, very few of them contained c o l a clauses until the 1950’s. A rapid buildup occurred during the Korean War, and at their peak in 1952, c o l a clauses covered about 3.5 million workers. Despite the turn to c o l a ’ s , unions and employers still were leery of them. During 1953 and 1954— when inflation Sanford M. Jacoby is assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, University o f California at Los Angeles. The title of his full i r r a paper is “ Cost-of-living Escalators: A Brief History.” 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis was running under 1 percent annually— there was a sizable shift away from c o l a ’ s . By 1955, the number of covered workers had fallen by nearly 50 percent.1 Since then, the number of workers covered by c o l a ’ s has fluctuated, but has never fallen below the nadir reached in 1955. Thus by the mid-1950’s, c o l a ’ s were here to stay.2 Opposition to c o l a ’s One does not have to search for reasons why the par ties were so reluctant to adopt c o l a ’ s prior to the 1950’s. First, both employers and union leaders feared the conse quences— chiefly worker dissatisfaction and strikes— of a coLA-induced pay cut. These fears were justified, given that pay cuts historically had evoked strong reactions, such as occurred in printing (and elsewhere) in 1921. Second, neither employers nor unions liked being hemmed in by nondiscretionary wage rules such as c o l a formulas. Union leaders called c o l a ’ s “ a substitute for bargaining,” meaning that they expected to receive less credit from the rank and file when an automatic c o l a adjustment was made than when a pay increase resulted from, say, bargaining during a wage reopening. Employers disliked the idea of guaranteeing real wage levels in advance without knowing whether future business conditions would warrant them. Finally, unions were especially concerned that c o l a ’ s , as well as arbitral adjustments based on prices, would have the effect of freezing real wages at an inadequate level for the duration of the agreement, if not longer. To us this fear may seem irrational, given that unions today frequently receive intracontractual real wage increases via deferred adjustments. But historically, there were good reasons to be concerned. For example, in the 60-year period prior to the 1948 g m - u a w agreement that contained both c o l a clauses and deferred wage increases, only one contract had ever been signed that included both types of clauses. Even after all the publicity received by the g m - u a w agreement, fewer than 3 percent of a group of managers surveyed in 1949 favored both types of clauses. Reasons for the change Given that the parties had criticized c o l a ’ s for so many years, what accounts for the rather sudden shift in c o l a usage after 1950? There are a number of explanatory factors: Inflationary expectations. Although hard evidence is not available, it is likely that long-run price expectations had changed by the early 1950’s. With the exception of three slight annual dips, consumer prices increased each year between 1934 and 1950; the average annual inflation rate for the period was about 2 percent. By historical standards, this was an unusually long and strong stretch of upward price momentum. Long-run price expectations may also have been shaped by the post-1933 adoption of macroeconomic stabilization policies (for example, Keynesian de mand management, unemployment insurance, and so forth) which decreased the likelihood of deflationary price move ments. The upshot was that by the 1950’s, the parties had less reason than before to expect coLA-induced pay cuts. It is also possible that increased price variability led the parties to adopt c o l a ’ s because they felt less confident of their ability to correctly anticipate inflation. Deferred adjustments. After 1950, numerous companies adopted General Motor’s pioneering wage formula that com bined c o l a ’ s and deferred wage adjustments. By so doing, employers eased labor’s concern that accepting c o l a ’s meant accepting a real wage freeze. Management’s willingness to pay deferred adjustments stemmed from an optimistic ap praisal of long-term productivity trends as well as a greater willingness to share productivity gains with employees. Reopening costs. Management also came to prefer auto matic pay mechanisms such as deferred adjustments and c o l a ’ s because of the rising cost of contract reopenings. For many years, union contracts were simple documents. But by the early 1950’s, they had grown enormously—both in length and complexity— making them costlier to nego tiate and renegotiate. Even a reopening limited to wages involved complicated and costly negotiations. Moreover, the increase in average contract durations in the early 1950’s suggests that employers were seeking to stabilize industrial relations and minimize their strike costs. It is unclear whether this search was brought about by a rise in strike costs or simply by a changing, more “ mature” perception of those costs. In either case, the effect was the same: there was a substitution of automatic pay formulas for discretionary and potentially destabilizing mechanisms such as wage reope ners. Patterns. For many parties in the early 1950’s, collective bargaining still was a new and sometimes perplexing ex perience. Each side searched for models to guide them, and the g m - u a w agreements were exemplars. A related phe nomenon was the wave of c o l a adoptions in anticipation of wartime wage controls. By the end of the war, the parties had become familiar with c o l a ’ s , and many no doubt de cided that c o l a ’ s were more useful than they previously had supposed. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------‘ Lily Mary David and Donald L. Helm, “ Wage escalation— recent developments,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1955, pp. 315-18. 2 Post-1955 c o l a coverage has fluctuated in line with inflationary ex pectations and also with unemployment rates. During the recessions of the early 1960’s and early 1980’s, employers were able to achieve the elim ination or curtailment of c o l a payouts. The rise and fall of c o l a ’ s in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s can be traced through a series of articles in the Monthly Labor Review entitled “ Deferred wage increases and escalator clauses,” January 1957, pp. 50-52; December 1958, pp. 1362-65; De cember 1959, pp. 1324-28; December 1960, pp. 1268-71; December 1961, pp. 1319-23; and December 1962, pp. 1343-46. Also see “ The preva lence o f escalator clauses and experience with them in the past 20 years,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1966, pp. iii-iv . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Factors in the productivity of military personnel A lan J. M arcus and A l in e O . Q u e s t e r Since the advent of the All Volunteer Force ( a v f ) in 1973, the military research community has devoted much effort toward improving personnel management in the areas of accession and retention. Although not all factors have been quantified, we are able to estimate with some accuracy what draws and retains personnel of differing characteristics to the a v f . Our success in obtaining new recruits hinges largely on four factors: the ratio of military to civilian pay, the civilian unemployment rate, the number of recruiters, and the advertising budget. For reenlistment, the main deter minants are military pay relative to civilian pay, and the civilian unemployment rate. With knowledge of these fac tors, we can provide reasonable predictions of enlistments and reenlistments.1 The serious gaps in military manpower research are on the demand side of the market. Whom should the military seek to recruit and retain? How do military personnel sub stitute for each other? What makes personnel productive? To address these questions, we analyzed supervisors’ as sessments of first-term recruits. We estimated the net pro ductivity or learning curves to attempt to explain what factors make recruits learn faster: ability, schooling, the particular job, or time on the job. The measurement of military output It is not surprising that the demand side of the market for military personnel has been neglected. In most cases, there is no tangible output to measure.2 And because the military uses explicit fixed-length employment contracts, no one would suggest that a recruit’s current productivity is identified by his current wage.3 On-the-job training in the civilian sector has often been identified with the slope of the eamings/experience profile. An explicit employment contract in the military clearly breaks the linkage between a worker’s spot marginal product and his spot wage. Edward Lazear4 and others, however, have argued that the link is broken even in the civilian sector. Implicit contracts between private-sector employees and their firms are sufficiently pervasive as to make it impossible to relate earnings profiles to the time path of productivity.5 With employment contracts, either explicit or implicit, how can researchers measure the productivity of employees? We offer one approach here using survey data collected by the Rand Corporation in the mid-1970’s.6 Data were col lected in two surveys. First 19,000 randomly chosen firstterm recruits in selected occupations were sent questionAlan J. Marcus and Aline O. Quester are economists with the Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, v a . The title of their full i r r a paper is “ D e terminants of Labor Productivity in the Military.” 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Conference Papers naires that requested the names of three immediate super visors. Next, “ net productivity” estimates were collected from these supervisors for the individual recruits at different points in time.7 All net productivity assessments were rel ative, comparing the net productivity of the recruit at time t relative to the net productivity of the “ average” specialist in the occupation after 4 years at the duty station. Net productivity is —100 percent if the individual requires full time supervision by a 4-year specialist, + 100 percent if the individual is as productive as a specialist with 4 years of experience. Before discussing our empirical results, it is appropriate to address the problems that might be caused by the sub jectivity inherent in supervisory evaluations. The most se rious types of bias arise from the fact that each supervisor denominates his evaluation in his own particular currency, and uses an individual-specific notion of the mean and var iance of performance. Richard Cooper and Gary Nelson call these two sources of systematic bias “ location” and “ scale,” and point out that they do not disappear, even with large sample sizes.8 Our approach recognizes that supervisors have systematic differences in the scale and location of their evaluations. We control for these differences in the productivity regres sion equations with two variables, d if f and VAR. These variables are constructed from supervisors’ answers to ques tions concerning the productivity of the “ typical” recruit. Specifically, consider an individual i with a supervisor j. Let TYPj be supervisor / s assessment of the typical recruit at time t, and TYP be the mean assessment of supervisors in that occupation of the typical recruit at time t. Then, for each individual, the proxy for location bias is DIFFi . = TYPj (2 years) — TYP (2 years) and the proxy for scale bias is: TYP; VAR. - (1 month) - TYPj (4 years) -------------------------- = = ■ ---------------- . TYP (1 month) — TYP (4 years) The sign on d if f should be positive; supervisors who believe that the typical recruit is more productive than do their peers will also tend to rate particular individuals as more pro ductive. Scale bias, on the other hand, refers to perceived differ ences (larger or smaller) between the best and the worst performers. Individuals who have a large value of VAR have been evaluated by supervisors who see large differences in the growth of the typical recruit over the first 4 years at the duty station. To capture this scale effect, we enter both var and va r interacted with time on the job: the sign on var should be negative, and the sign on the interaction variable VAR*TJ should be positive. The learning curve regressions We estimate the time path of net productivity for firstterm recruits in 15 Navy occupations. The regressions con 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis trol for time at the duty station (TJ and 775<2), time in the Navy before the first duty station ( t ), intelligence test score ( a f q t ), high school graduation (h s g ), and the subjective bias variables discussed above ( d i f f , v a r , and v a r *t j ). In addition, we control for observations with missing data by means of a series of dummy variables (a f q t f l a g , d if f fl a g , and v a r f l a g ) , and for supervisors who did not understand the concept of net productivity ( t e s t ) . 9 Results of the learning curve regressions for three Navy jobs are displayed in table 1. The corrections (d i f f , v a r , and VAR*TJ) developed to control for systematic differences across supervisors in the location and scale of their evalu ations perform very well. All have the correct sign and all are significant at the 99-percent level. The variable t e s t has the value 1 if the supervisor did not pass the quiz to deter mine whether he understood the net productivity concept; otherwise, it is zero. Supervisors who did not understand the concept systematically rated the productivity of recruits higher than supervisors who did. Even a cursory inspection of the results suggests that Navy personnel take considerable time to learn their jobs and become productive. Moreover, reasonably sharp interoccupational differences in the growth of productivity emerge. In part, this is due to the length of formal training. While the average seaman (an occupation without specialized train ing) arrives at his first duty station after about 2.5 months in the Navy, the average nuclear electronics technician, because of extensive schooling, does not arrive at his first duty station until almost 17 months after entering the Navy. Even then, substantial on-the-job training is required. The learning curves for nuclear submarine electronics technicians and general-duty seamen (not shown) are drawn holding all characteristics except time on the job (TJ) at their mean values. According to these curves, a seaman with 2 years in the Navy is almost 70 percent as effective in his job as one with 4 years of experience, but a nuclear elec tronics technician has only reached the zero net productivity level after 2 years. In short, the technician has reached the point at which his contributions to output just balance the output lost because others must spend time supervising him. Because the technician’s training takes so long, during his entire 6-year enlistment he produces less than a third of the output that would have been produced by a specialist who initially brought 4 years of work experience to the position. Higher AFQT scores and high school graduation appear to be positively related to productivity, but the magnitude and statistical significance of these effects should be interpreted cautiously. The allocation of recruits to Navy jobs is not random and, indeed, is based on many of the same char acteristics that influence performance. While it is theoreti cally possible to obtain unbiased estimates by controlling for the occupational selection process, standard “ selection bias” techniques are not appropriate here because for most Navy jobs the ability and schooling distributions are trun cated on both the upper and lower tails.10 Table 1. Results of net productivity regressions, selected occupations E le c tro n ic s te c h n ic ia n E le c tr ic ia n 's m a te V a r ia b le C o e ffic ie n t R a d io m a n ( n u c le a r s u b m a r in e ) (n u c le a r s u b m a r in e ) t-s ta tis tic — C o e ffic ie n t t-s ta tis tic — C o e ffic ie n t t -s ta tis tic — Constant.................................................................................. .84 Time at duty station (T J )....................................................... 3.30 (118) 3.09 (10.2) 3.67 (20.4) Time at duty station squared (TJSQ)...................................... - .0 5 ( -1 3 .7 ) - .0 6 ( -1 4 .4 ) - .0 6 ( -2 3 .6 ) Intelligence test score (AFQT)................................................ .19 (2.0) .39 (4.7) .16 (3.8) High school graduation (HSG)................................................ (1) 3.55 (2 3 ) Time in the Navy before first duty station (T ) ........................ .95 (9.1) 1.06 (7.7) .50 (6.9) Subjective bias variables: DIFF.................................................................................... VAR .................................................................................... VAR'TJ............................................................................... .35 - 4 8 .0 8 1.29 (8.1) ( -7 .9 ) (6.2) .25 - 5 7 .5 8 2.03 (5.7) (-8.6) .54 - 3 8 .1 2 1.46 (21.7) ( -1 3 .1 ) (13.9) Controls for missing data: AFQTFLAG ........................................................................... DIFFFLAG............................................................................. VARFLAG............................................................................. 16.98 - 1 3 .6 2 (3.0) ( -2 .4 ) - 9 .4 0 10.37 (-1 9 ) (2.2) 1.34 - 3 .8 8 7.55 (.7) (.7) (1.4) Control for supervisors who did not understand the concept (TEST)............................................................................... 4.40 (1.9) 8.40 (2.9) 5.36 (3.7) - 2 5 .3 8 - (2) — (1) (9 0 ) (2) — — 17.06 R2.......................................................................... .54 .60 .54 Number of observations.......................................................... 1,591 1,357 3,071 ’ All personnel in this occupation are high school graduates. A k e y p o l i c y v a r i a b l e related to the growth of produc tivity during a career in the Navy is the mix between ca reerists and first-termers. The Navy and Air Force have traditionally had larger proportions of experienced personnel than have the Army and the Marine Corps. Whether the current mix of recruits and experienced personnel is optimal, however, remains an unanswered question. To address the issues of whom the military should recruit, whom it should retain, and how it should distribute these personnel, much more work on the demand side is necessary. 2The a f o t variable was not missing for any observations for this occupation. for Naval Analyses, March 1977). Unfortunately, only a small number of military activities lend themselves to such easily identifiable output mea sures. 3 Basic military pay, defined on pay tables, is determined by military rank and years of service. It rises very little over the first 4 years; in 1984, the basic pay o f enlisted personnel in their fourth year of service was 138 percent o f the basic pay of new recruits. “Edward Lazear, “ Agency, Earnings Profiles, Productivity, and Hours Restrictions,” American Economic Review, September 1981, pp. 6 0 6-20. 5 James L. Medofif and Katherine G. Abraham, “ Are Those Paid More Really More Productive? The Case of Experience,” Journal of Human Resources, Spring 1981, pp. 186-216. 6For a full description of these data, see Mark J. Albrecht, Labor Sub stitution in the Military Environment: Implications for Enlisted Force Man agement, R — 2330—m r a l (Santa Monica, Calif., The Rand Corporation, November 1979). ---------- FOOTNOTES---------A ck n o w led g m en t: The authors thank their colleagues at the Center for Naval Analyses for many helpful suggestions, and Philip Waggener for his valuable editorial assistance. ’ For example, see John T. Warner and Matthew S. Goldberg, Deter minants of Navy Reenlistment and Extension Rates, Research Contribution 476 (Alexandria, V a., Center for Naval Analyses, December 1982); Glen A. Gotz, Estimating Military Personnel Retention Rates: Theory and*Sta tistical Method, r-2541 af (Santa Monica, Calif., The Rand Corporation, June 1980); and Thomas V. Daula and D. Alton Smith, Recruiting Goals, Enlistment Supply and Enlistments in the U.S. Army (U.S. Military Acad em y, Office o f Economic and Manpower Analysis, October 1984). 2The exceptions are the estimates of the effects of maintenance activities on readiness, described by Stanley Horowitz and Allen Sherman in Crew Characteristics and Ship Condition, Study 1090 (Alexandria, v a , Center https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7 Net productivity is the contribution of the recruit to unit output. It is negative if the recruit and the supervisor together produce less than the supervisor would have produced without responsibility for training the individual. 8 Richard V.L. Cooper and Gary Nelson, Analytic Methods of Adjusting Subjective Rating Schemes, r-1685- arpa (Santa Monica, Calif., The Rand Corporation, June 1976). 9 Regressions that omit observations if the supervisor did not understand the concept of net productivity are available from the authors. The results are similar to the regressions reported here. A longer version of this paper can be found in Aline Quester and Alan J. Marcus, “ The Growth of Productivity in the First Term,” Memorandum 82-1525.10 (Alexandria, V a., Center for Naval Analyses, October 1983). 10 See James Heckman, “ Sample Selectivity Bias as Specification Er ror,” Econometrica, January 1979, pp. 153-61, for a discussion of a more straightforward problem of selection bias. Double truncation bias is con siderably more difficult to deal with empirically. 35 Research Summaries BLS expands collective bargaining series for State and local government Edw ard W a s il e w s k i The Bureau of Labor Statistics has expanded the coverage of its series on negotiated wage adjustments in State and local government collective bargaining units. Beginning with 1984, the series covers all major units—those with 1,000 workers or more. The original series, started in 1979, was limited to units with 5,000 workers or more. The expanded series includes data on negotiated wage changes for 2.1 million workers (about one-half of the State and local gov ernment workers who bargain over wages) in 547 bargaining units. This is twice the number of workers and about six times the number of units covered by the original series. The expansion especially improves the series’ coverage of local government workers, who are more likely than State workers to be in smaller bargaining units. In 1984, local government accounted for 62 percent of the workers in units with 1,000 employees or more, compared with 53 percent in units with 5,000 or more. According to the 1982 Census of Governments, local government workers made up about three-fourths of all non-Federal government workers who bargain over wages. Settlements in 1984 The expanded series shows that major collective bar gaining contracts settled for State and local government workers during 1984 provided wage adjustments averaging 4.8 percent in the first year and 5.1 percent annually over the life of the contract.1 There were 240 State and local government contracts settled, covering 722,000 workers. Local government settlements accounted for four-fifths of the contracts and two-thirds of the workers under 1984 set tlements. As shown in table 1, local government settlements provided larger wage adjustments than those negotiated by State governments. First-year adjustments averaged 5.4 per cent in local settlements and 3.6 percent in State government settlements. Corresponding averages over the life of the Edward Wasilewski is a labor economist, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a contracts were 5.9 and 3.8 percent a year. Sixty percent of the workers were employed in general government and ad ministration, 20 percent in education institutions, and the remainder in protective services, health care, and transpor tation. On average, State and local government settlements were “ back-loaded” — that is, they provided smaller wage in creases in the first contract year than in later years. Twenty contracts, covering 13 percent of the workers, provided for no specified wage changes in the first year but called for subsequent increases. Forty-six contracts, covering 17 per cent of the workers, provided smaller increases in the first than in later years. These 66 “ back-loaded” settlements provided wage adjustments averaging 3.0 percent in the first year and 5.2 percent over the life of the agreements. Masked by the averages, however, were the 62 “ front-loaded” set tlements, covering one-fourth of the workers. They provided wage adjustments of 5.7 percent the first year and 4.3 per cent annually over the contract life. The remaining contracts were typically of 12-month duration. Effect o f series expansion. The expansion of the series to include units of 1,000 to 4,999 workers doubled its coverage of workers under 1984 settlements. (See table 1.) In 1984, local governments accounted for 47 percent of all workers under settlements for 5,000 workers or more, and 83 percent of those under settlements for 1,000 but fewer than 5,000. State government settlements for bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more had average wage adjustments that were about the same size as those for smaller units, for both the first contract year and annually over the life of the contract. The averages ranged from 3.6 to 3.9 percent. In local gov ernment settlements for the large bargaining units as well, average adjustments were about the same as those for the small units but only for the first contract year (5.5 and 5.4 percent). Over the life of the contracts, settlements in local government units of 5,000 workers or more had average adjustments (6.8 percent) that were larger than those in units of fewer than 5,000 workers (5.4 percent). Average wage adjustments for settlements are computed by multiplying the adjustment in each unit by the number of workers covered, and dividing the sum of the products by the total number of workers under settlements. Therefore the averages for all settlements with 1,000 workers or more reflect both the increased proportion of local government employees in the expanded series and the larger average wage adjustments negotiated by local jurisdictions. Table 1. Number of workers and average (mean) wage adjustments under State and local government _________ settlements, 1984 M e a s u re T o ta l U n its w ith 1 ,0 0 0 to 4 ,9 9 9 w o rk e rs U n its w ith 5 ,0 0 0 w o rk e rs o r m o re Number of workers: All settlements ........................... State government................... Local government ................. 722,000 254,000 468,000 359,000 61,000 298,000 363,000 194,000 169,000 Average (mean) adjustments: First year of contract: All settlements ........................... State government................... Local government ................. 4.8 3.6 5.4 5.1 3.9 5.4 4.4 3.6 5.5 Over the life of the contract: All settlements ........................... State government................... Local government ................. 5.1 3.8 5.9 5.1 3.9 5.4 5.1 3.7 6.8 Compensation. The Bureau also measures compensation (wage and benefit costs) changes2 in units of 5,000 workers or more. In 1984 settlements for such units, average com pensation adjustments were larger for local than for State government workers, as the tabulation below shows. (Data exclude 59,000 workers in five units for which only wage change data were available.) F irst-year adjustm ent (percent) Total ................... State government ... Local government .. 5.2 4.3 6.0 Annual adjustm ent over life o f N um ber o f w orkers the contract (percen t) (in thousands) 5.4 4.0 6.6 304 140 164 Effective wage adjustments In addition to information on new settlements, the series measures changes put into effect in 1984 as a result of both new and earlier settlements in State and local governments. Effective wage adjustments are those that result from set tlements in 1984, deferred changes made under agreements negotiated earlier, and cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) pro visions. Average effective wage adjustments (in percent) for State and local government agreements with 1,000 workers or more in 1984 were: All adjustments ................. ........... 1984 settlements ................... ........... Deferred adjustments ........... ........... COLA ............................................................................ . . . . . . . F or workers receiving changes F or all workers (prorated) 6.6 6.6 6.6 1.4 5.0 1.9 3.1 0.0 Wage changes (increases and decreases) put into effect in 1984 averaged 6.6 percent for the 1.6 million workers who received them. When prorated over the 2.1 million workers covered by major State and local government bar gaining units, adjustments averaged 5.0 percent. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Only 2 percent of the State and local government workers under major agreements (all in local government, mostly transit) have c o l a provisions. About 26,500 local govern ment workers had c o l a reviews in 1984. Of these, 25,000 had c o l a changes in 1984 averaging 1.4 percent. Wage adjustments stemming from c o l a reviews in 1984 averaged 43 percent of the change in consumer prices during the review period. Data collection State and local governments are asked to provide infor mation on agreements covering 1,000 workers or more if (1) a labor organization is recognized as the bargaining agent for a group of workers, and settlements are embodied in signed, mutually binding contracts; and (2) at least wages are determined by collective bargaining. For units of 5,000 workers or more, data are collected on both wage and benefit changes. For smaller units, only data on wage changes are collected. Comparison with private industry The Bureau also publishes data on collective bargaining settlements in private industry.3 However, there are major differences between bargaining in State and local govern ment and in private industry. For example, collective bar gaining in private industry is governed by the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act of 1926. State and local government bargaining is con trolled by a variety of laws. Some laws, for example, call for binding arbitration as the final step of the negotiation process if the parties cannot agree on the size of the wage changes and other issues. Many laws prohibit strikes against the government. In many cases, the legislature plays a significant role in the bargaining process. After an agreement is negotiated by the executive branch, it is sent to the legislature for the appropriation of funds. Because this procedure is time con suming, first-year wage increases sometimes reflect the time lag between the date of agreement and the appropriation. The “ back-loading” of some contracts results from the leg islative funding process; the size of the first-year adjustment may be limited by the monetary appropriation previously legislated for the fiscal year, while subsequent wage in creases will be financed in future fiscal year budgets. Because of these and other differences in bargaining prac tices, care should be used when comparing the size and nature of the settlements in State and local government with those in private industry. These differences are evident in the characteristics of the settlements reached. For example, cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) clauses cover only 2 per cent of State and local government workers reflecting, in part, the need to have funds appropriated for wage increases. In private industry, 57 percent of workers under major agreements have c o l a coverage. Agreements without c o l a ’ s tend to provide larger specified wage increases than those 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Research Summaries with c o l a ’ s . (Settlement data include specified first-year and deferred wage changes but exclude potential wage changes resulting from c o l a clauses.) Another difference is that pensions are frequently prescribed by law in State and local governments and are not subject to bargaining, but in private industry, pensions may be a bargaining issue. State and local government settlements in 1984 were gen erally of shorter duration (averaging 20 months) than those negotiated in private industry (31 months). Thirty-five per cent of the State and local government workers were under settlements lasting 12 months or less, compared with 9 percent in private industry.4 Bargaining activity, first half of 1985 Approximately 400,000 workers were under 84 contracts that expired or reopened prior to January 1, 1985, but had not been renegotiated as of December 31, 1984. In addition, 880,000 workers are under 200 agreements due to expire or reopen for wage negotiation between January and June 1985. Nearly half the workers are employed in general gov ernment and about a third in education. Q ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1Settlement data include specified first-year and deferred wage changes but exclude potential wage changes resulting from cost-of-living adjustment clauses which are based on unknown future changes in the Consumer Price Index. 2 Percent changes in compensation (wage and benefit costs) are calculated by dividing the newly negotiated changes in the wage and benefit package by existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost of pre viously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. In calculating compensation change, a value is put on the wage and benefit portions o f the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time o f settlement will not change (for example, composition of the labor force will remain constant). The data, therefore, are measures only of negotiated change, and not o f total changes in employer cost. 3 See John J. Lacombe II and James R. Conley, “ Major agreements in 1984 provide record low wage increases,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1985, pp. 3 9 -4 5 . 4 Additional data on State and local government agreements appears in the May 1985 issue o f Current Wage Developments. Wages at motor vehicle plants outpaced those at parts factories Harry B. W il l ia m s Average wages of blue-collar workers in factories producing motor vehicles exceeded those in independent motor vehicle parts plants by 48 percent in May 1983, according to the latest occupational wage surveys of motor vehicles and moHarry B. Williams is a labor economist in the Division of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tor vehicle parts. The surveys are part of the regular Industry Wage Survey program conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are the first occupational wage surveys of these industries in nearly a decade. At the five major producers of passenger cars and light trucks (motor vehicle manufacturers) studied, hourly earn ings of production and related workers averaged $12.13, compared with $8.20 an hour for the motor vehicle parts work force. Among the jobs permitting comparison in the North Central region (the region with the largest concen tration of motor vehicle manufacturing), workers in motor vehicles manufacturing consistently averaged more per hour than their counterparts making parts. The earnings edge for motor vehicle workers in maintenance and toolroom jobs typically averaged between 10 and 20 percent; in custodial and material movement jobs, between 25 and 35 percent; and for other production jobs, up to 50 percent. Earnings differences between the two industries reflect a combination of factors, including location, differences in products pro duced, mix of occupational classifications, and extent of labor-management agreement coverage. Virtually all work ers in the auto plants studied were covered by such agree ments, compared with about three-fifths of the parts production workers. Motor vehicles Straight-time earnings of 424,134 production and related workers in motor vehicle manufacturing averaged $12.13 an hour in May 1983.1 Nearly nine-tenths of the work force earned between $11 and $14 an hour; one-third had earnings within a 20-cent range— $11.80 to $12. Average earnings within individual regions were near the nationwide average, ranging from $11.84 an hour in the South to $12.33 in the Northeast. Hourly earnings of work ers in Michigan, where just over two-fifths of the industry’s work force was employed, averaged $12.18; in the rest of the North Central region, earnings averaged $12.08. Such differences in average pay by location reflect variations in the occupational mix within individual factories and some differences in wage scales among establishments in this highly unionized industry. The $12.13 average for all production and related workers in May 1983 was 119 percent higher than the $5.54 average recorded in a similar study conducted in December 1973.2 On an annual basis, the average rate of increase was 7.7 percent. Thirty-five occupations, selected to represent the indus try’s wage structure, worker skills, and manufacturing op erations, accounted for about two-thirds of the production work force. Nationwide, average hourly pay among these jobs ranged from $14.79 for metal and wood patternmakers and $14.70 for die sinkers (drop-forge dies) to $11.20 for janitors, porters, and cleaners. Maintenance jobs, such as carpenters, electricians, millwrights, and pipefitters, typi cally had averages between $13.50 and $13.75 an hour. Table 1. Average hourly earnings1 of production workers in selected occupations, motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts plants, May 19 83________________________________ U n ite d S ta te s N o rth C e n tr a l2 O c c u p a tio n M o to r v e h ic le s M o to r v e h ic le p a rts M o to r v e h ic le s M o to r v e h ic le p a rts All production workers3 ........................ $12.13 $8.20 $12.13 $9.01 13.50 13.76 13.78 13.51 13.52 13.60 10.77 11.32 10.00 11.99 12.74 12.15 13.50 13.75 13.76 13.51 13.50 13.60 11.12 12.05 11.27 12.11 12.86 12.13 14.70 13.71 14.79 13.80 8.37 11.39 9.22 11.26 14.58 13.72 14.81 13.77 11.58 9.08 11.85 11.73 11.20 11.27 7.90 7.97 7.98 11.73 11.18 11.29 9.31 8.79 8.37 11.61 11.49 — — — — — 8.94 6.96 6.33 11.58 11.53 — — — — 9.26 7.65 6.84 11.84 11.48 11.79 11.67 11.72 12.12 11.70 11.98 11.69 7.25 10.45 8.62 9.45 7.46 7.62 8.52 9.37 8.50 11.84 11.46 11.75 11.65 11.65 12.11 11.67 11.96 11.61 11.04 9.34 10.28 7.71 8.10 8.95 10.26 9.13 M a in t e n a n c e Carpenters.............................................. Electricians.............................................. Mechanics (machine repairers).............. Millwrights.............................................. Pipefitters.............................................. Sheet-metal workers............................... T o o lr o o m Die-sinkers, drop-forge dies................... Machine-tool operators, toolroom.......... Patternmakers, metal and w o o d ............ Tool and die makers............................... — C u s to d ia l a n d m a t e r ia l m o v e m e n t Checkers, receiving and shipping.......... Janitors, porters, and cleaners.............. Material handling laborers...................... M is c e lla n e o u s p la n t Assemblers, Assemblers, Assemblers, Assemblers, Assemblers, major.................................. minor.................................. class A ............................... class B ............................... class C............................... General foundry laborers........................ Heat treaters............................................ Inspectors.............................................. Machine-tool operators, production, . . . Metal fin ish e rs....................................... Molders, machine.................................. Punch-press operators........................... Welders, hand ....................................... Welders, machine.................................. — — 1Earnings exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments, if any, and cost-of-living adjustments through the end of May 1983 were included as part of the workers' regular pay. 2The North Central region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Min nesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 3lncludes data for regions and occupations in addition to those shown separately. The comprehensive report on the study includes data for additional regions and occupations. Note: Dashes indicate that no data were reported or that data did not meet publication criteria. Major assemblers, accounting for the most workers (71,242), averaged $11.61 an hour. Minor assemblers, who make components and subassemblies for motor vehicles, averaged $11.49. All companies included in the study provided a variety of supplementary wage benefits, including paid holidays and vacations; hospitalization, surgical, and medical plans; life and sickness and accident insurance; retirement plans; and supplemental unemployment benefits, among others. The survey of motor vehicle manufacturing included all automotive operations, including motor vehicle parts man ufacturing, of five major producers of passenger cars and light trucks. The survey excluded divisions producing heavy trucks and steel and glass operations. Plants engaged pri marily in producing tractors and industrial engines, parts depots, and separate auxiliary units, such as central offices, were also excluded. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Motor vehicle parts Hourly earnings of production workers in motor vehicle parts manufacturing averaged $8.20 in May 1983.3 This average was 84 percent above the $4.45 recorded in a similar study conducted in April 1974.4 On an annual basis, the rate of increase averaged 7.1 percent. Among the major industry branches studied separately in May 1983, average pay levels were $8.86 in miscellaneous machinery; $8.46 in parts and accessories; $7.98 in auto motive stampings; $7.65 in automotive hardware; and $7.18 in engine electrical equipment. Earnings also varied by re gion, community and establishment size, unionization sta tus, and occupation. (See table 2.) Among the four regions of the country, average hourly earnings of production workers ranged from $6.58 in the South to $9.01 in the North Central— the largest in terms of employment, with 56 percent of the production workers. In the other two regions, average hourly earnings were $7.63 in the West and $8.38 in the Northeast. Averages were also developed separately for four areas of industry concentra tion: Toledo, $11.25; Cleveland, $9.81; Detroit, $8.43; and Chicago, $8.22. The 33 production and related occupations selected to represent the range of skills required in the industries and the diversity of their operations accounted for two-thirds of the production work force. Nationwide, hourly earnings averages ranged from $12.74 for pipefitters to $6.79 for assemblers. With 40,231 incumbents, assembler was, by far, the largest occupation studied. Averages were $8.94 for top level work (class A), $6.96 for intermediate work (class B), and $6.33 for entry level work (class C). Twelve office clerical jobs were also surveyed in this industry. They covered approximately 25 levels of work and accounted for one-fourth of the office workers within scope of the study. Weekly clerical pay averaged from $222.50 for entry level file clerks to $403 for top level secretaries. Averages for the remaining classifications, including ac counting clerks, key entry operators, messengers, order clerks, receptionists, stenographers, and typists, typically ranged from $250 to $350 a week. Most clerical workers were scheduled to work 40 hours per week. Paid holidays were granted to virtually all production and office workers in motor vehicle parts establishments in May 1983. For both employee groups, workers typically received at least 10 days. Provisions for office workers tended to be somewhat more liberal than for production workers. Paid vacations, after qualifying periods of service, also were provided to virtually all production and office workers. Typical provisions for production workers were 1 week of vacation pay after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 years, 3 weeks after 10 years, and at least 4 weeks after 20 years. For office workers, typical provisions were 2 weeks after 1 year, 3 weeks after 8 years, and at least 4 weeks after 15 years. Slightly more than one-half of the office workers and 39 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Research Summaries straigh'-time hourly earnings by selected characteristics, motor vehicle U n ite d S ta te s C h a r a c te r is tic N u m b e r of w o rk e rs A verag e h o u rly e a r n in g s 2 N o rth e a s t N u m b e r of w o rk e rs S o u th A v e ra g e N u m b e r of h o u rly e a r n in g s 2 w o rk e rs N o rth C e n tra l A verag e h o u rly e a r n in g s 2 N u m b e r of w o rk e rs A verag e h o u rly e a r n in g s 2 W est N u m b e r of w o rk e rs A v erag e h o u r ly e a r n in g s 2 All production workers3 M en........................... Women...................... 170,825 110,963 52,088 $8.20 8.94 6.60 18,368 12,950 5,418 $8.38 9.12 6.59 48,912 25,915 19,848 $6.58 7.09 5.83 97,183 66,408 26,150 $9.01 9.73 7.19 6,362 5,690 672 $7.63 7.77 6.45 Size of community: Metropolitan areas4 ...................... Nonmetropolitan areas................. 102,664 68,161 8.65 7.52 16,659 1,709 8.68 22,063 22,849 6.8 5.46 57,823 39,360 9.44 8.38 6,119 6.39 7.68 Size of establishment: 50-249 employees........................ 250-499 employees........................ 500 employees or m o re ................. 56,280 42,867 71,678 7.33 7.84 9.09 4,511 2,673 11,184 6.40 8.67 9.10 15,456 14,262 19,194 6.38 6.09 7.11 31,854 24,966 40,363 7.73 8.87 4,459 8.65 10.11 Labor-management contract coverage: Establishments with— Majority of workers covered None or minority covered . . . . 99,755 71,070 9.16 6.84 16,166 6.76 5.54 10,160 38,752 6.89 6.50 71,985 25,198 9.54 7.50 1,444 4,918 10.74 6.72 Motor vehicle parts industry branches5 Parts and accessories...................... Automotive hardware...................... Automotive stampings................... Engine electrical equipment............ Miscellaneous machinery................. 103,699 7,311 18,870 18,584 14,838 8.46 7.65 7.00 7.18 7,530 8.76 57,604 4,484 11,800 9,776 10,344 9.37 8.05 7.02 8.08 9.77 5,001 8.12 11.12 33,504 2,320 4,104 5,422 6.88 2,820 3,222 2,202 8.86 The regions are defined as follows: Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,’ Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas Mich igan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; and West: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ore gon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the study. South: Warnings exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments, if any, and cost-of-living adjustments through the end of about three-tenths of the production workers could receive at least 5 weeks of vacation after 25 years of service. Various health insurance plans— including life, hospi talization, surgical, and medical insurance— at least partly paid for by the employer, also were available to a large proportion of workers. Major exceptions were long-term disability insurance plans which covered just over one-fourth of the production workers and nearly two-thirds of the office staff. Retirement pension plans— other than Federal Social Security— applied to about seven-eighths of each group. The 852 establishments within scope of the survey em ployed 170,825 production workers. Regionally, the North Central employed nearly three-fifths of the production work ers and the South had nearly three-tenths. The Northeast employed one-tenth and the remaining 4 percent were lo cated in the West. Among the four areas of industry con centration studied separately, production employment ranged from 3,276 workers in Toledo to 9,378 in Detroit. Chicago employed 5,409 workers and Cleveland, 3,453 workers. The motor vehicle parts industry, as defined for this sur vey, includes establishments that manufacture a wide variety of parts and accessories for motor vehicles, and is composed of all or part of 11 separate industries, as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, prepared by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Among products included are door locks, handles, and hinges; stamped or pressed metal body parts; wheel covers; springs, pistons, 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7.58 5.20 6.01 5.38 May 1983 were included as part of the workers’ regular pay. includes data for workers not identified by sex. 4Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget through October 1979. 5The production worker total above includes data for workers in industry branches not shown separately. No te: Dashes indicate that no data were reported or that data did not meet publication criteria. piston rings, valves, and carburetors; lights and electrical and mechanical instruments; exhaust systems, gears, radia tors, and shock absorbers; and electrical engine equipment such as alternators and spark plugs. A national summary of findings for motor vehicle man ufacturing and area reports for motor vehicle parts in Chi cago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Toledo were issued in late 1983, and are available from the Bureau or any of its re gional offices. A comprehensive report, Industry Wage Sur vey: Motor Vehicles and Parts, May 1983, Bulletin 2223 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), is for sale by the Su perintendent of Documents, Washington, DC, 20402, and by the Bureau’s regional offices. Q ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments, if any, and costof-living adjustments through the end of May 1983 are included as part of the workers’ regular pay. 2 For an account of the earlier survey, see Philip M. Doyle “ Wages of auto assembly plants top those at parts factories,” Monthly Labor Review , June 1976, pp. 4 5 -4 7 . ’ Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Also excluded were motor vehicle parts plants operated by passenger car manufacturers (which are included in the motor vehicles segment of the survey) and establishments employing fewer than 50 workers. 4Doyle, “ Wages of auto assembly plants.” Child-care assistance as a benefit of employment Child care is increasingly becoming a major employee con cern. Rapid changes in the labor force— particularly the entrance of large numbers of female workers— have also resulted in growing employer awareness of the need for child-care benefits. Still, while many employers are con sidering such benefits, few are providing them. But the situation may be changing: the number of employers offering some child-care benefit to employees has doubled since 1982. In a recent comprehensive report, labor information specialists with The Bureau of National Affairs ( b n a ) ex amine the issues and options in the field of child-care ben efits. Highlights of the report: • As noted, the number of employers providing a child care benefit to workers has doubled since 1982. But only about 1,000 employers provide child-care assistance to their employees, representing only a minute fraction of all U.S. firms. • In general, employers worry about the expense of child care, and are seeking minimal-cost approaches. • Employer-operated, onsite child-care centers are the ex ception rather than the rule. • Large employers are making increasing use of flexible benefit plans to provide child-care benefits. This approach is favored because it allows childless employees to select alternative benefits. • Many employers are now revising their personnel prac tices to facilitate child care through such measures as flextime, paternity leave, and adoption leave. • One popular approach to providing child-care assistance, the zero-balance reimbursement account, has encountered serious objections from the Internal Revenue Service. • Labor unions generally have not pushed for child-care benefits in contract negotiations because of the cost and the relatively small number of members who would ben efit. • Little sound analysis of the costs and benefits of child care assistance has been conducted, despite the great in terest in the issue. Experts say many employers cannot correctly calculate the cost of providing the benefit be cause they do not know the value of space, employee time, and in-kind services that may be involved. The gains, such as improved morale and greater job satisfac tion, generally have been documented subjectively. Some companies may provide benefits that do not meet their employees’ needs because of inadequate needs assess ment. The most popular method of determining needs, an employee survey, may be misrepresentative unless it is supplemented with other approaches. • In general, fewer than 4 percent of an employer’s work https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis force will use child-care assistance supported by the em ployer. The report also presents 10 case studies of different ap proaches to providing child-care benefits to employees. The approaches vary from onsite centers, to supporting a net work of family child-care homes, to information and coun seling services only. In addition, the study gives Internal Revenue Service rulings, State tax laws, union bargaining proposals, employer policies, a bibliography, and a direc tory of resource organizations. The full b n a report, entitled Employers and Child Care: Development o f a New Employee Benefit, is available from The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Customer Ser vice, 9401 Decoverly Hall Road, Rockville, m d 20850. The cost is $25 per copy. □ A report on the status of the health care labor force The number of health care personnel in the Nation continued to rise during the 1970—82 period, but from 1980-82, the increase eased, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health Profes sions. This report includes information on the supply, oc cupational and geographical distribution, and demographic characteristics of health practitioners. It also examines cur rent educational trends among these workers, and projects relative supply and demand for health professionals through the year 2000. The overall increase in the supply of registered nurses (83 percent), veterinarians (50 percent), and physicians (43 percent) surpassed that of other major groups of practitioners during 1970-82. These increases also outpaced the growth in the population (14 percent), resulting in higher overall provider-to-population ratios. According to the report, the proportion of women among all medical doctors increased from 9.1 percent in 1975 to 11.6 percent in 1980 and to 12.2 percent in 1981. Women increased their number and proportion in many traditionally male-dominated occupations in the profession during 1980— 82, and they are expected to continue this course into the future. Large increases were reported in the number of women who practice internal medicine, surgery, radiology, and obstetrics/gynecology. The relatively small proportion of the health care work force composed of minorities is not expected to change greatly in the future. Asian-Pacific Islanders, the largest group of minority physicians, accounted for 10 percent of all doctors, according to the 1980 census. For the same year, the Bureau of Health Professions estimates that blacks made up about 3.4 percent of Doctors of Medicine, and 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Research Summaries were more likely than others to set up general or family practices in urban areas. One persistent problem has been the shortage of health care personnel in very sparsely populated areas in the Na tion. However, the increase in the number of general prac titioners, physician assistants, and nurses who relocate into rural areas may relieve this situation. In addition, the report speculates that the overall increase in the supply of physi cians— resulting in greater competition— might further en tice more of them into practicing in the rural counties. In recent years, the number of students enrolled in some fields has declined or leveled off, but the smaller additions to the supply of health care professionals are projected to outweigh the losses through the year 2000. For most of the occupations, the supply of and demand for health care per sonnel will be closely balanced. However, the report proj ects that the demand for full-time equivalent registered nurses with baccalaureate degrees will be higher than the projected supply by 1990 and 2000. In addition, the Bureau of Health Professions estimates that in the future the supply of physicians will be greater than the number required— 35,000 or 6 percent more by 1990, and 51,800 or 7 percent more by the year 2000. The advantages of this oversupply, the Bureau predicts, might curb the number of aliens and U.S. citizens who attend foreign medical schools and come to the United States to practice, improve service, and shift more personnel into rural areas. It is also predicted to have negative effects such as increased costs and unnecessary health care. F o r a d e t a i l e d r e p o r t on this occupational group, see Report to the President and Congress on the Status o f Health Personnel in the United States May 1984, vols. 1 and 2 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health Professions, 1984), on sale ($17.00) by the Su perintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washington, D.C. 20402. □ Women in the labor picture Two-thirds of labor force growth from now to 1995 will be made up of women. This increasing proportion of working-age women entering the labor force continues a dramatic shift. In 1970, women’s labor force par ticipation was 43 percent, in 1983 it was 53 percent, and in 1995 it will be 60 percent. Women will be more likely to be single, separated, divorced, or wid owed, instead of being married with a spouse present, in the years to come. Many of these single women presently face serious economic pressure to enter the labor force, and that pressure will continue. More and more women, even those with preschool-age children, are looking for work and finding jobs outside the home, and they are taking less time out of the labor force for child raising. — M arkley Roberts “ The Future Demographics of American Unionism,’’ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1984, p. 27. 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in June is based on information from the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. Em ployer and location Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Georgia Branch, (Atlanta, ga ) Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Georgia Branch (Atlanta, ga ) Omaha Building Contractors Employers Association (N e b ra sk a )................. Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. and one other (San Diego, ca ) Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Southern California Chapter and others, 2 agreements (California) Keystone Building Contractors Association and one other (Pennsylvania) Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Alaska Chapter, 3 agreements (Alaska) Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (Rhode Island) ............... Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York, Inc. (New York) Painting and Decorating Contractors Association (Houston, tx ) ................. L abor organization1 Private industry N um ber of w orkers Construction .............................. C arpenters........................................... 1,700 Construction .............................. Laborers ............................................. 2,000 Construction .............................. Construction .............................. Laborers ............................................. Operating E n g in ee rs......................... 1,700 2,300 Construction 13,150 Construction .............................. Construction .............................. Operating Engineers; Teamsters (Ind.) Laborers ............................................. Laborers; Operating Engineers; and Teamsters (Ind.) C arpenters.......................................... P lu m b ers............................................. Construction .............................. P a in te rs............................................... 1,600 .............................. Construction .............................. Construction .............................. 1,500 17,050 1,500 2,000 Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., and one other (Las Vegas, nv ) Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., and one other (Boston, ma ) Mechanical Contractors Association and others (Houston, tx ) .................... Painting and Decorating Contractors Association (Los Angeles, ca ) .......... Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (California) National Electrical Contractors Association (Alaska) ..................................... Employers associations (West Palm Beach, fl) ............................................... Construction .............................. C arpenters........................................... 1,800 Construction .............................. Iron W o rk e rs ..................................... 1,350 Construction .............................. Construction .............................. Construction .............................. P lu m b ers............................................. P a in te rs............................................... Sheet Metal Workers ...................... 2,550 2,500 1,300 Construction .............................. Construction .............................. Electrical Workers ( ibew ) ............... P lu m b ers............................................. 2,700 1,000 Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. (Interstate).............................................................. Frozen Food Employers Association (C alifo rn ia)............................................. Dan River Inc., Danville Division (Danville, va) .......................................... Bobbie Brooks (In tersta te ).................................................................................... Belt Association, Inc. and one other (New York, ny) ................................... Pleaters, Stitchers and Embroiderers Association, Inc. (New York, ny) . . . National Hand Embroidery and Novelty Manufacturers Association (New York, ny ) Millwork Manufacturers Association, Inc. (New York, ny) ......................... James River Co. (Berlin, nh ) ............................................................................... Georgia-Pacific Corp. (A rk an sas)........................................................................ Food products ........................... Food products ........................... T e x tile s ........................................ A p p a re l........................................ A p p a re l........................................ A p p a re l........................................ A p p a re l........................................ Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. Textile W o rk e rs ................................ Ladies’ Garment W o rk e rs ............... Ladies’ Garment W o rk e rs ............... Ladies’ Garment W o rk e rs ............... Ladies’ Garment W o rk e rs ............... 1,800 4,000 6,000 1,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 F u rn itu re ..................................... Paper .......................................... Paper .......................................... C arpenters........................................... Paperw orkers..................................... Paperw orkers..................................... 4,500 1,000 1,150 Printing Industries of St. Louis (M issouri)......................................................... Allied Chemical Corp., Industrial Chemical Division (Solvay, ny) ............ Johnson and Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (New Brunswick, nj) ...................... General Tire and Rubber Co. (T e x a s )................................................................ Plastic and Metal Products Manufacturers (New York, ny ) ........................... Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Cumberland, md) ................................................. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (Utica, ny ) ......................................................... Copeland Corp. (Sidney, oh ) ............................................................................... General Electric Co. (In terstate).......................................................................... Zenith Electronics Co. (Evansville, in ) .............................................................. Printing and publishing............ C h em ica ls................................... C h em ica ls................................... Rubber ........................................ Rubber ........................................ Rubber ........................................ M achinery................................... M achinery................................... Electrical products .................... Electrical products .................... Graphic Communications ............... Steelworkers ..................................... Clothing and Textile Workers . . . . Rubber W orkers................................ Ladies’ Garment W o rk e rs ............... Rubber W orkers................................ M achinists.......................................... Electrical Workers (iue ) .................. V a rio u s ............................................... Electrical Workers (iue ) .................. 1,700 1,100 1,500 1,200 5,000 1,200 1,200 1,450 98,000 1,000 Bath Iron Works Corp. (Bath, me ) ..................................................................... Trico Products Corp. (Buffalo, ny ) ................................................................... AM General Corp. (South Bend, tN) ................................................................ Howmet Turbine Components Corp. (Michigan) ............................................. General Dynamics Corp., Pomona Division (C alifornia)................................ Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Marine and Shipbuilding Workers . Auto Workers ................................... Auto Workers ................................... Auto Workers ................................... M achinists.......................................... 4,500 1,500 1,350 1,600 2,200 equipment equipment equipment equipment equipment .... .... .... .... .... See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Em ployer and location Private industry L abor organization1 N um ber of w orkers Johnson and Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (New Brunswick, nj) ...................... National Association of Doll Manufacturers, Inc. (New York) .................... Stuffed Toy Manufacturers Association, Inc. (New York, ny) .................... Master cement and all dry bulk agreement (Interstate) ................................... Instruments ................................ Miscellaneous manufacturing . . Miscellaneous manufacturing . . T ru c k in g ..................................... Clothing and Textile Workers . . . . Novelty and Production Workers . . Novelty and Production Workers . . Teamsters (Ind.) .............................. 1,600 3,500 1,000 2,000 Northwest Airlines, clerical and office (Interstate)2 ........................................ Trans World Airlines, pilots (Interstate)2 ........................................................... General Telephone Company of Michigan (Michigan) ................................... General Telephone Company of Kentucky (K e n tu c k y )................................... Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. (New York) ..................................... Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas) ....................................................... Georgia Power Co. (G eorgia)............................................................................. Potomac Electric Power Co. (Washington. D.C.) .......................................... East Ohio Gas Co. (Ohio) ..................................................................... Union Electric Co. (Missouri) .............................................................. Union Electric Co. (Missouri) ............................................. Union Electric Co. (Missouri) ............................................................ Air transportation...................... Air transportation...................... Communication ......................... Communication ......................... U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ U tilities........................................ Railway Clerks ................................ Air Line P ilo ts ................................... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Communications W o rk e rs ............... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Service E m ployees............................ Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... Operating E n g in ee rs......................... Electrical Workers (ibew ) ............... 3,600 2,700 3,100 1,450 1,000 2,900 4,400 3,500 2,000 1,850 1,700 1.100 Independent Employers and Distributors Association and others (California) Wholesale t r a d e ......................... 25,000 Bradlees Mercantile, 2 agreements (New England) ........................................ Almacs, Inc. (Rhode Island and M assachusetts)............................................... Chain and independent food stores (Iowa and Illinois) ................................... Jewel Food Stores (Illinois and Indiana) ........................................................... Wholesale t r a d e ......................... Retail trade ................................ Retail trade ................................ Retail trade ................................ Chain and independent food stores (New York, ny ) ........................................ A&P Tea Co. (New England) ....................................................... Food Mart/Waldbaums (New E n g la n d ).......................................... Chain food stores (Illinois and In d ian a)......................................................... Star Markets (New England) ............................................................ Women’s Apparel Chain Store Association (New York, ny ) ......................... Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s; Teamsters (Ind.) Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . Greater Milwaukee Hotel-Motel Association (W isco n sin ).............................. H o te ls .......................................... 1,700 Affiliated Hospitals of San Francisco (California) .......................................... Associated Hospitals of East Bay (California) .................................................. Swedish Hospital-Medical Center (Seattle, wa ) ............................................... Group Health Cooperative (Seattle, wa ) ....................................................... Temple University (Philadelphia, pa ) ................................................................. H ospitals..................................... H o sp itals..................................... H o sp itals..................................... H ospitals..................................... Services ..................................... Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees California Nurses Association . . . . California Nurses Association . . . . Washington Nurses Association . . . Hospital and Health Care Employees Retail, Wholesale and Department Store trade trade trade trade trade ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ G overnm ent activity California: Connecticut: Florida: Hawaii: California State University, operations support ........................... Los Angeles County Police Department ..................................... Education ................................... Police protection ...................... San Diego Board of Education, teach ers..................................... San Diego County general unit .................................................... Education ................................... General governm ent................. State clerical e m p lo y e es.............................................................. State blue-collar unit ................................................................... General governm ent................. General governm ent................. State human services ............................................... State professional u n i t ....................................................... General governm ent................. State operational services unit ................................................. General g overnm ent................. Florida State University, faculty ................................... Dade County Board of Education, blue c o lla r ................................ Education ................................... Education ................................... Dade County Board of Education, te a ch e rs..................................... Hillsborough County Board of Education, teachers ...................... Education ................................... Education ................................... Pinellas County Board of Education, te a c h e rs ................................ Education ................................... State white-collar nonsupervisory unit ............................................. State blue-collar u n it.......................................................................... General governm ent................. State Board of Education, teach ers.................................................... Education ................................... See footnotes at end of table. 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis L abor organization1 3,200 2,500 2,000 14,000 13,000 1,500 2,300 10.000 1,350 6,500 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,250 1,300 N um ber of w orkers Service E m ployees........................... Los Angeles Police Protection League (Ind.) Education Association ( I n d .) .......... San Diego County Employees Association 7,400 6,700 Civil Service E m ployees................. State, County and Municpal Employees 6,500 7,500 State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees United Faculty of Florida (Ind.) State, County and Municipal Employees Teachers ............................................. Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association Education Association ( I n d .) .......... 17,000 State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Education Association ( I n d .) .......... 5,800 7,200 15,000 14,000 6,000 6,000 16,000 6,300 5,500 10,000 8,000 9,100 Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n Iowa: State em ployees......................................................................................... Michigan: State, County and Municipal Employees 14,000 .......................................... Education ................................... Teachers ............................................. 11,000 M ultidepartm ents............................................................................. General governm ent................. 16,200 Department of Transportation, professional .............................. Transportation ........................... State, County and Municipal Employees Teamsters find.) .............................. New Hampshire: New Jersey: N um b er o f w ork ers L a b o r o r g a n iz a tio n 1 General governm ent................. Detroit Board of Education, teachers Minnesota: State m u lti-u n it..................................................................... Newark Board of Education, teachers General governm ent................. New Hampshire State Employees Association (Ind.) 5,150 9,000 ..................................... Education ................................... Teachers ............................................. 5,500 New York State University, professional em p lo y ees............... Education ................................... University Professors (Ind.) .......... 18,600 State Forestry general unit ................................................................ State employee unit ............................................................................. Conservation .............................. General governm ent................. Service E m ployees........................... Service E m ployees........................... 17,000 20,000 First-level supervisory unit ...................................................... General governm ent................. Human s e rv ic e s .......................................................................... Social s erv ice s........................... Maintenance-trades ................................................................... General governm ent................. Social rehabilitation se rv ic e s .................................................... Social s erv ice s........................... Clerical, administrative and fiscal .......................................... General governm ent................. State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Pennsylvania State Employees Association (Ind.) State, County and Municipal Employees State blue-collar unit ..................................................................... General governm ent................. Milwaukee Board of Education, te a c h e rs ................................... Education ................................... New York: Oregon: G o v e r n m e n t a c tiv ity Pennsylvania: Wisconsin: State, County and Municipal Employees Education Association ( I n d .) .......... 5,400 15,400 10,900 8,900 16,650 5,000 5,300 ’Affiliated with afl- cio except where noted as independent (Ind.). information is from newspaper reports. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 45 Developments in Industrial Relations Public employees entitled to respond to dismissals In a decision with widespread implications, the Supreme Court held that before public employees can be fired, they must be informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to respond. Writing for the 8-member majority, Justice Byron R. White said, “ [t]he due process clause [of the Constitution] provides that certain substantive rights— life, liberty and property— cannot be deprived except [un der] constitutionally adequate procedures.” He explained that tenured civil servants have a “ property” interest in retaining their jobs and are therefore entitled to written or oral notice of the charges against them and an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and must be given an oppor tunity to rebut the evidence. Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, saying that the majority used ‘‘somewhat tortured reasoning’’ to give public employees new rights in the cases, Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill and Parma Board of Education v. Donnelly. In 1974, the Court had held that anyone who accepts a job also accepts the specified procedures for dismissal. Sub sequently, the Court issued several decisions reversing that position, culminating in the current decision. Justice White said, “ [i]f a clearer holding is needed, we provide it today.” The decision applied primarily to nonunion employees in State and local government because others are covered by regulations or collective bargaining provisions providing for similar dismissal protections for employees. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ( a f s c m e ) union estimated that the decision applies to at least 3 million workers. Conrail employees’ pay cut restored By mid-March, 15 of 17 rail unions had signed so-called “ snap back” agreements with Conrail, returning more than 30,000 workers to wage parity with the rest of the Nation’s rail workers. The restoration of the 12.5-percent pay cut, which amounted to about $1.50 an hour, was retroactive to July 1, 1984. Union leaders indicated they would continue “ Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to press Conrail to make the increase retroactive to May 5, 1981, the effective date of the pay cut union members had accepted to aid the financially troubled carrier. Union lead ers claimed full retroactivity was appropriate because Con rail earned profits of $500 million in 1984 and $313 million in 1983. Conrail announced it was joining the National Railway Labor Conference, the industry’s bargaining arm, and would be bound by all future national rail settlements. Since its congressionally mandated formation in 1976 from Penn Central and other bankrupt carriers, Conrail had bargained on its own with the various unions. At the time of the Conrail wage restoration settlement, there were no indications of impending accords in the na tional negotiations, as nearly all of the unions were involved in mediation procedures with the carriers under provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The unions had served required termination notices on the carriers that were effective June 30, 1984, but there have been no work stoppages. The Department of Transportation recommended to the Congress that Conrail be sold to Norfolk Southern Corp. for $1.2 billion. The choice was opposed by union leaders, who had earlier signed an agreement with Allegheny Corp. that would provide for a number of job protection measures if Allegheny was the successful bidder. (Allegheny’s bid also was $1.2 billion, but its proposal differed from Norfolk Southern’s in other respects.) Contract regulating royalties replaced In the entertainment industry, the Dramatist Guild and the League of New York Theaters settled. The Guild rep resents 8,000 playwrights, lyricists, composers, writers, and adapters, while the League is the association of Broadway producers and theater owners. The new Approved Produc tion Contract replaces the Minimum Basic Production Con tract which, in varying forms, had regulated minimum royalty payments to playwrights and other employees since 1926. While the new “ contract” was approved by both sides, it, like the old contract, carries no force of law, leading to continuing doubts about the extent to which its major con ditions will be incorporated into contracts between individ ual producers and individual members of the Guild. Going into the bargaining, the producers had contended that existing royalty arrangements made it difficult to attract financing of plays because financial backers had to wait too long to recoup their investment. In return, playwrights con tended that their risks were larger than those of other parties sharing in royalties and that they were pressured to agree to unwarranted cuts in their share. These issues were addressed in new provisions that— • Increases certain advances to authors and establishes a guaranteed $1,000 a week royalty payment in exchange for receiving only half the usual 10-percent royalty pay ment until the production recoups its initial investment. Thereafter, the author receives the full 10-percent royalty. • Gives producers a greater share of immediate income from anciliary rights, such as film and television productions. In return, the authors will receive a larger share of future returns. • Standardizes royalty reduction plans, which had previ ously been negotiated between individual producers and writers. • Expands producers’ territorial rights to Australia and New Zealand, joining the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. Both sides expressed hope that the accord will lead to further standardization of financial arrangements in the in dustry, but acknowledged that conformity to the contract will be difficult to attain because of wide differences in the bargaining strength of individual authors and producers. Writers’ 2-week strike ends A 2-week strike ended when members of the Writers Guild settled with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Tele vision Producers. The major issue in the dispute was the portion of “ resid u al” paym ents the w riter should receive from sales of videocassette recordings of movies. (A resid ual is an additional payment connected to the distribution of a movie after its initial box office release.) The writers claimed their 1973 settlement had established the rule that they receive 1.2 percent of the wholesale price of video cassettes, and had initiated arbitration proceedings to en force this prior to the start of the strike. The producers had also initiated arbitration to back their contention that the 1.2 percent residual should apply only to the “ producers’ gross,” which amounts to about 20 percent of the wholesale price. Under the settlement, which covered 9,000 writers, the parties terminated the arbitration and agreed to raise the writers’ share of residuals to 1.3 percent and apply it to the producers’ gross. In partial exchange for dropping their $8 million claim, the producers also agreed to pay $1.2 million into the union’s health fund. Other terms included a 6-percent increase in the minimum payment writers receive for writing a script, followed by another 6-percent increase in the second year, and a 6.5percent increase in the third and final year. Fees for writing movies longer than 2 hours and television “ movies of the week” were increased 30 percent over the contract term. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Under the prior contract, writers received $14,782 for a half-hour situation comedy, which included the residuals for one rerun, and $44,566 for a 2-hour movie, including a residual for a prime time rerun. Brock nominated to be Labor Secretary President Reagan has nominated U.S. trade representative William E. Brock to be Secretary of Labor, replacing Ray mond J. Donovan, who resigned March 15. a f l - c i o President Lane Kirkland praised Brock, saying labor has “ worked with him in many areas over the years” and “ while we haven’t always agreed, he has earned our re sp ect.” Speaking of Brock, President Reagan said, “ [ajnyone who spent four years dealing with international trade can negotiate with almost anyone.” Donovan had been Labor Secretary since 1980. He had been on unpaid leave from the Department since October 1984, defending himself against New York City charges of fraud and larceny. The allegations relate to work by his construction firm on a New York City subway project before Donovan took office. a f l -c io Executive Council meets The a f l - c i o ’s Executive Council adopted a report de tailing the problems facing the Federation and suggesting ways for attaining a “ resurgence of the labor movement.” The report, “ The Changing Situation of Workers and Their Unions,” was the culmination of 2 V2 years of work by the Executive Council’s Committee on Evolution of Work, headed by Federation Secretary-Treasurer Thomas R. Donahue. The Committee will remain in existence to study points raised in its discussions but not included in the report and to review reactions to the report. The report concedes that “ unions find themselves behind the pace of change” in American society, but contends that organized labor can overcome its problems, just as it did in the 1920’s and 1930’s, when unions rebounded from a pe riod of difficulties by changing their strategies. The committee offered a number of recommendations for strengthening the movement, including: • Renewed emphasis on organizing, including increased financing, greater use of modem communications meth ods, experimentation with new organizing techniques, and greater involvement of union leaders and members. • Encouragement of mergers among smaller unions and development b y the a f l - c i o of merger guidelines. • Increased use of communications media to improve the public’s understanding of labor. • Experimentation with new methods of representing unions providing “ far greater flexibility in the workplace, and greater reliance on mediation and arbitration.” • Consideration of new categories of union members, such as union supporters in nonunion shops. • Expanded use of “ corporate campaigns” to overcome 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Developments in Industrial Relations employer resistance to worker efforts to form unions. • A study of proposals to provide direct services and ben efits to workers outside of a collective bargaining struc ture. In other actions, the Executive Council issued resolutions condemning aspects of President Reagan’s proposed budget, including the freeze of social security benefits, elimination of the Job Corps, elimination of a program for providing special unemployment benefits to laid-off workers who have exhausted their regular entitlement, cuts in Federal em ployees’ pay, and increases in defense spending. In other actions during the meeting, the executive boards of the Paperworkers and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers ( o c a w ) unions approved a merger proposal. If approved by the unions’ conventions later in 1985, the new United Paper, Energy and Chemical Workers International Union would begin operation on January 1, 1986. It would be headed by Paperworkers President Wayne E. Glenn, with o c a w President Joseph M. Misbrener serving as senior ex ecutive vice president. itu merger dilemma continues In the merger saga of the International Typographical Union ( i t u ) and the Graphic Communications International Union, the executive board of Graphic Communications rejected a proposal to absorb the smaller i t u . A Graphic Communications official said the rejection occurred because the executive board had insufficient time to study the pro posal, and because of “ other concerns.” In light of the rejection, Teamsters’ President Jackie Presser said he would renew efforts to persuade i t u members to become a unit of his union. The i t u has been seeking a merger partner for a number of years. After the termination of merger talks between the i t u and the Newspaper Guild in 1983, officers of i t u ne gotiated a merger document with the Teamsters. A Federal judge blocked a referendum on the proposal until an election of i t u officers was held. In the election, held in 1984, Robert S. McMichen and two other officers who favored merger with Graphic Communications were elected. At the i t u ’ s September 1984 convention, the delegates established a procedure and deadline for attaining a merger with an a f l affiliate, after which a referendum on the Teamsters’ proposal could occur. The new i t u officers then negotiated the merger agreement with Graphic Communi cations within the time limit and recommended approval to its ( i t u ) members. The Graphic Communications executive board’s rejection of the merger proposal was a blow to a f l - c i o President 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Lane Kirkland, who had backed the proposal as part of a plan to consolidate all workers in the printing industry into a single strong union. It was not immediately clear what the next step in the i t u merger saga will be in view of continuing factionalism within the union. An i t u official said the union will “ drpp back and huddle” to decide its next move. Mississippi teachers return to classroom A nearly 1-month strike by Mississippi public school teachers ended when the State legislature raised teachers’ pay by $2,400 a year effective immediately, and by $1,000 in both 1986 and 1987. Participation in the stoppage fluc tuated, but about 9,000 of the State’s 27,000 teachers were out at one time or another, idling about 175,000 students. The major issue leading to the walkout was the teachers’ demand for a $7,000 raise over a 2-year period. The Mis sissippi Association of Educators (an affiliate of the National Education Association— n e a ) , which represents 13,000 of the 27,000 teachers, said the raise was warranted because Mississippi teachers are the lowest paid in the Nation, av eraging about $16,000, according to the n e a . The 14,000 other teachers— some of whom participated in the strike— are represented by the American Federation of Teachers or are not represented by a union. The pay legislation also contained antistrike provisions strongly opposed by the teachers. However, the teachers backed the successful effort to override the Governor’s veto of the pay bill because they believed that the punitive pro visions might be removed through future legislative action. The governor had backed a single $1,500 raise, explaining that he opposed the $4,400 raise because it will raise taxes by $77.6 million, be detrimental to the citizens, and hamper efforts to attract industry. Macy employees get 4-year contract In the New York City area, more than 6,000 employees of the R. H. Macy & Co. department stores were covered by a 4-year contract negotiated by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. Wages were raised $20 a week retroactive to February, followed by $15 increases in Feb ruary of 1986, 1987, and 1988. The pension rate was raised to $4.75 a month for each year of service for employees retiring after 10 to 29 years of service. Those with 30 or more years will receive $10 a month (up from $8.50) for each year up to the existing limit of 40 years. Other provisions included $75,000 major med ical coverage (formerly $50,000), $4,000 life insurance (formerly $3,000), and a ninth paid holiday. Q Book Reviews Controlling immigration The Unavoidable Issue: U.S. Immigration Policy in the 1980’s. Edited by Demetrios G. Papademetriou and Mark J. Miller. Philadelphia, ip a , Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1983. 305 pp., bibliography. Few public issues have generated as much controversy, created stranger political bedfellows, or been as bereft of any clear definition of policy goals and priorities than im migration policy. Moreover, as noted by Demetrios G. Pa pademetriou and Mark J. Miller, the coeditors of this collection of essays, most of the published works in the field have been “ obvious products of polemists or apologists for par ticular points of view. ’’ Hence, this effort at a more balanced appraisal of major aspects of immigration policies is par ticularly timely. The volume consists of nine separate essays, or chapters, in addition to an introductory chapter by the coeditors. Two of these essays deal specifically with the labor aspects of immigration policies. The first, by Walter Vogel, focuses on the labor market effects of recent illegal immigration. In the second, Vernon M. Briggs reviews a series of programs, such as the former “ bracero” program and the current h - 2 program, under which foreign workers are allowed tem porary entry into the United States, under individual or group hiring arrangements. Vogel and Briggs conclude that there is no domestic labor market justification for continued illegal entrants or for any expanded contract worker pro grams, and that the major effects have been to depress wages and job opportunities of indigenous unskilled workers. Most of the remaining chapters have a distinct interna tional orientation, including separate discussions of immi gration and U.S. foreign policy, the legal rights of aliens, refugee programs, and recent efforts by Western European countries to check illegal immigration. The latter chapter, by the coeditors, provides a timely review of experience under recent legislation in Western European countries im posing sanctions upon employers who hire illegal aliens. The authors conclude that “ only employer sanctions with teeth— criminal penalties, heavy fines, and possible jail terms— combined with rigorous enforcement, would seem to hold out the possibility for meaningful reform of U.S. immigration policy.” The reader seeking greater understanding of the complex https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis maze of immigration and refugee legislation can find many useful insights in this volume. But, as is typical of most such collections, the volume does not focus on the central issues of immigration policy, that is, the need to develop a cohesive, logical set of criteria for use in determining de sirable levels and composition of future legal immigrant flows, combined with effective, realistic controls over illegal immigration. In this respect, unfortunately, the authors have much distinguished company, including one recent Presi dential commission, one administration task force, and most of the congressional experts on this subject. — Harold W ool B e th e s d a , md Coping with immigration Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force. By Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. Baltimore, m d , The Johns Hop kins University Press, 1984. 294 pp. $26.50. Vernon Briggs forcefully espouses the need for immi gration reform. As suggested in the book’s title, his focus is on the impact of immigration policy on American work ers. Briggs states that “ the efficacy of past, present, and future immigration policy will ultimately be judged in terms of how it relates to the prevailing economic conditions of the time in which it functions.” He berates the fact that so little attention has been paid to the economic consequences of immigration policy, that the policymaking process has been dominated by “ special political interests,” and that there has been no link between immigration and human resources policy. According to Briggs, the labor market effects of enhanced foreign competition and the structural changes in the U.S. economy make it imperative that im migration policy “ serve the economic welfare of the Na tion.” Briggs not only reviews the evolution of immigration policy as it relates to “ legal” immigrants (or, more spe cifically, permanent resident aliens) who may apply for cit izenship after a 5-year waiting period, but also refugees and asylees; nonimmigrant workers, namely, foreign workers who do not have immigrant status but who are allowed to 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Book Reviews work temporarily in the United States; border commuters from Mexico, that is, persons who are permanent resident aliens, but who work in the United States and reside in Mexico; “ visitor-workers” from Mexico, who work in the border counties, although they legally are only allowed to visit there; and illegal immigrants who either enter the United States without appropriate documents or who have proper entry documents but then violate their terms. Briggs’ fas cinating history of immigration policy clarifies a very com plex subject. Briggs emphasizes the adverse labor market effects of certain types of immigration on U.S. workers, particularly lower skilled workers. For example, regarding U.S. pro grams for nonimmigrant workers, he discusses the experi ence with the bracero program (Mexican workers in agriculture in the U.S. Southwest in 1942—64), citing, among other things, the finding by President Harry S Truman’s Com mission on Migratory Labor that “ wages by States [for agricultural workers] were inversely related to the supply of alien labor.” He also refers to difficulties with other temporary worker programs in the United States and with those in the Virgin Islands and Guam. He discusses, too, the problems faced by Western Europeans with their “ guest worker” programs, including the fact that many temporary workers ended up as permanent residents. Briggs makes a considerable case against expansion of temporary worker programs, such as those proposed in the past few years by some policymakers and researchers. Still, some scholars would not agree with Briggs that “ . . . there is not a modicum of empirical evidence that citizen workers will not do the work that nonimmigrants do.” (Briggs feels this cannot be refuted, because millions of low wage citizens currently are working in all the industries in which em ployers seek nonimmigrant workers.) Briggs adopts the “ supply and demand” labor market framework which assumes that large immigration flows gen erally will depress wages and increase unemployment. Thus, he attributes adverse impacts to the entry of large numbers of immigrants through the “ family reunification” provisions of the law. Related to that, Briggs mentions that, once admitted, a new immigrant can gain admission for all his or her immediate and more distant relatives. However, that is not the case, at least not until the immigrant becomes a citizen. Under the current system, only U.S. citizens can use their status for admission of “ more distant” relatives, namely, their married sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters. (Immigrants can gain admission only for their spouses and unmarried sons and daughters.) Briggs is especially concerned about the potential for increased refugee entry into the United States and he be lieves that “ if U.S. immigration policy is to have any mean ing at all,” the law should be changed to require that increases in the numbers of refugees and asylees be matched by equiv alent reductions in the numbers of permanent resident aliens. However, he later qualifies his recommendation: “ If a truly 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis extraordinary situation should develop, Congress could leg islate a temporary increase in the numerical boundaries and accommodate such a circumstance.” Briggs does not qualify any of his recommendations to reduce illegal immigration, which include employer sanc tions, that is, making it an illegal act to employ illegal immigrants (this was the keystone of the recent “ SimpsonMazzoli” bill as well as immigration bills proposed in the 1970’s), and a national identification system along with it. Briggs emphasizes that while data on illegal immigration are very weak, data also are inadequate or do not exist in other major policy areas, and yet this has not prevented policy interventions. Briggs’ book is an important addition to the immigration literature, especially because of its emphasis on the need to look at the labor market effects of immigration policy, and to link that policy with policies for employment, training, and a strong economy. Some researchers, however, will not agree with Briggs on the extent of adverse effects of im migration. And some policymakers may feel that, in certain cases, issues other than labor market impacts are overriding. — E llen Sehgal Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics Publications received Economic and social statistics Bogue, Donald J . , T h e P o p u la tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s : H is to r ic a l New York, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., 1985, 728 pp. $70. T r e n d s a n d F u tu r e P r o je c tio n s . Dickens, William T., E r r o r C o m p o n e n ts in G r o u p e d D a ta : W h y Cambridge, m a , National Bureau o f Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 29 pp. (nber Technical I t ’s N e v e r W o r th W e ig h tin g . Working Paper Series, 43.) $2, paper. Haggblom, Diane, “ Directory of Micro Computer Products for Demographic analysis, ’’A m e r ic a n D e m o g r a p h ic s , March 1985, pp. 28-35. Economic growth and development Alperovitz, Gar and Roger Skurski, eds., A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic P o lic y : P r o b le m s a n d P r o s p e c ts . Notre Dame, in , Notre Dame Press, 1984, 189 pp. $20.95, cloth; $9.95, paper. Gottschalk, Peter and Sheldon Danziger, “ A Framework for Eval uating the Effects of Economic Growth and Transfers on Pov erty,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , March 1985, pp. 153-61. Guffey, Roger, “ The Federal Reserve’s Role in Promoting Eco nomic Growth,” E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1985, pp. 3-6. Piore, Michael J. and Charles F. Dabel, T h e S e c o n d I n d u s tr ia l D iv id e : P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r P r o s p e r i t y . New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1984, 355 pp. $21.95. Industrial relations Blank, Rebecca M., “ An Analysis of Workers’ Choice Between Employment in the Public and Private Sectors,’’ I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v i e w , January 1985, pp. 211-24. Cooke, William N., “ The Failure to Negotiate Contracts: Deter minants and Policy Implications,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v i e w , January 1985, pp. 163-78. Hills, Stephen M., “ The Attitudes of Union and Nonunion Male Workers Toward Union Representation,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v i e w , January 1985, pp. 179-94. Richardson, Reed C ., C o ll e c t i v e B a r g a in in g B y O b je c tiv e s : A P o s itiv e A p p r o a c h . 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, n j , Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985, 326 pp. Solnick, Loren M., “ The Effect of Blue-Collar Unions on WhiteCollar Wages and Fringe Benefits,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v i e w , January 1985, pp. 236-43. Vroman, Wayne, “ Cost-of-Living Escalators and Price-Wage Linkages in the U.S. Economy, 1968-1980,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v i e w , January 1985, pp. 225-35. International economics Yang, Charles Y., “ Demystifying Japanese Management Prac tices,” H a r v a r d B u s in e s s R e v ie w , November-December 1984, beginning on p. 172. Monetary and fiscal policy Aschauer, David Alan, “ Fiscal Policy and Aggregate Demand,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , March 1985, pp. 117-27. Evans, Paul, “ Do Large Deficits Produce High Interest Rates?” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , March 1985, pp. 68-87. Garner, C. Alan, “ Commodity Prices and Monetary Policy Re form ,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1985, pp. 7-21. Hakkio, Craig S. and Bryon Higgins, “ Costs and Benefits of Reducing Inflation,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, January 1985, pp. 3-15. Weiner, Stuart E., “ Payment of Interest on Reserves,” E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, January 1985, pp. 16-31. Productivity and technological change Diewert, W. Erwin and Catherine J. Morrison, A d ju s tin g O u tp u t a n d P r o d u c t i v i t y I n d e x e s f o r C h a n g e s in th e T e rm s o f T r a d e . Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, E u r o p e a n d th e N e w T e c h n o lo g ie s : C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t. Brus sels, Belgium, 1984, 35 pp. Guttentag, Jack M. and Richard J. Herring, T h e C u r r e n t C r is is in I n te r n a tio n a l L e n d in g . Washington, The Brookings Institu tion, 1985, 55 pp. $6.95, paper. Griliches, Zvi, Kahn, George A ., Inflation and Disinflation: A Comparison Across Countries,” E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1985, pp. 23-42. Murray, Thomas J., “ Managing Technology: The Way to Win,” D u n ’s B u s in e s s M o n th , March 1985, pp. 30-34. Labor and economic history Bensman, David, T h e P r a c t i c e o f S o lid a r ity : A m e r ic a n H a t F in is h e r s in th e N in e te e n th C e n tu r y . Champaign, il , University of Illinois Press, 1985, 240 pp., bibliography. $22.50. Clark, Gregory, “ Authority and Efficiency: The Labor Market and the Managerial Revolution of the Late Nineteenth Century,” T h e J o u r n a l O f E c o n o m ic H is to r y , December 1984, pp. 1069-83. Epstein, Gerald and Thomas Ferguson, “ Monetary Policy, Loan Liquidation, and Industrial Conflict: The Federal Reserve and the Open Market Operations of 1932,” T h e J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic H i s t o r y , December 1984, pp. 957-83. Trotter, Joe William, Jr., B la c k M ilw a u k e e : T h e M a k in g o f an Champaign, il , University of Illinois Press, 1985, 302 pp., bibliography. $24.95. I n d u s tr ia l P r o l e t a r i a t , 1 9 1 5 - 4 5 . Labor force Australia, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, “ Part-time Employment: Making the Future Work in Edu cation,” by Jack M. Wood, W o r k a n d P e o p l e , Vol. 10, No. 1, 1984, pp. 6-14. Halle, David, A m e r i c a ’s W o r k in g M a n : W o r k , H o m e , a n d P o litic s Chicago, il , University of Chicago Press, 1984, 360 pp., bibliography. $24.95. a m o n g B l u e - C o lla r P r o p e r t y O w n e r s . Cambridge, ma, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 53 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1564.) $2, paper. P r o d u c tiv ity , R & D , a n d B a s ic R e s e a r c h a t th e F ir m Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Eco nomic Research, Inc., 1985, 37 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1547.) $2, paper. L e v e l in th e 1 9 7 0 s . Wages and compensation Dooley, Martin and Peter Gottschalk, “ The Increasing Proportion of Men with Low Earnings in the United States,” D e m o g r a p h y , February 1985, pp. 25-34. Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Paul L. Schumann, “ Compensating Wage Differentials for Mandatory Overtime?” E c o n o m ic I n q u ir y , October 1984, pp. 460-78. --------- W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a tio n , W a g e s , a n d R is k o f I n ju r y . Cam bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985. 37 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1538.) $2, paper. Schultze, Charles L., “ Microeconomic Efficiency and Nominal Age Stickiness,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , March 1985, pp. 1-15. Welfare programs and social insurance Fields, Gary S. and Olivia S. Mitchell, R e tir e m e n t, P e n s io n s , a n d S o c ia l S e c u r ity . Cambridge, m a , The m i t Press, 1985, 147 pp. $19.95. Pesando, James E., T h e U s e fu ln e s s o f th e W in d - U p M e a s u r e o f P e n s io n L ia b ilitie s : A L a b o u r M a r k e t P e r s p e c t i v e . Cam bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 19 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1559.) $2, paper. Worker training and development Howitt, Peter, “ Transaction costs in the Theory of Unemploy ment,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , March 1985, pp. 88- 100. Australia, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, “ The Training Function: A Help or a Hindrance to Innova tion,” by Garry Byrne, W o r k a n d P e o p l e , Vol. 10, No. 1, 1984, pp. 31-35. Management and organization theory Barth, Peter S ., ed ., C o n te m p o r a r y D is s e r ta tio n R e s e a r c h o n E m p lo y m e n t a n d T r a in in g . New York, Social Science Research Council, 1985, 102 pp. Q Pritchett, Price, A f te r th e M e r g e r : M a n a g in g th e S h o c k w a v e s . Homewood, il , D ow Jones-Irwin, 1985, 156 pp. $ 1 9 .9 5 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Book Reviews Erratum Some material was inadvertently omitted from the book review by Richard P. Shore on Worker Participation and American Unions: Threat or Opportunity? The book review appeared on pages 50-53 of the March issue of the Review. Beginning with the fourth paragraph, the passage should read: The authors of this volume are, in turn, two faculty mem bers and a research associate in the Industrial Relations Section of m i t ’ s Sloan School of Management. The research they report grows out of a project initiated by the a f l - c i o ’ s Industrial Union Department and, according to a foreword by its president, Howard D. Samuel, was intended “ to assess the impact on trade unions and collective bargaining of worker participation or quality of worklife programs.” While the authors describe as their primary audience “ representatives of the labor movement who need to come to grips with the role of worker participation processes,” they quite correctly acknowledge that “ ultimately the choice over the future of these processes is not labor’s alone.” Hence, the data and ideas they present should be of no small interest as well to a much broader readership of management and government representatives as well as union officials. In their introductory chapter, the authors set the stage for their research by presenting an (all too) abbreviated history of labor relations in the United States and some distinguish ing features of American unions. Perhaps the most telling statement, and one that surely is critical to an understanding of labor responses to Q W L , is that “ American unions have never been genuinely accepted by American management 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis as valued partners in industrial relations.” Also important, however, has been the disinclination of q w l proponents to grasp the essence of the collective bargaining relationship, particularly its pivotal conflict dimension, and to regard unions as legitimate champions of worker interests. This first chapter concludes with a short but pithy theoretical statement, one that defines participation processes as de veloping in evolutionary fashion. Although such an evo lutionary perspective may suggest to some an orderly stepwise progression, the case history material that follows fails to bear out any fixed-sequence notion. But the book’s processual orientation does underscore the importance of exam ining, as did the authors, how participation programs unfold in juxtaposition to collective bargaining as it is practiced and it serves to caution against treating q w l and collective bargaining as distinct and noninteractive. To accept such a bifurcation would be to propagate “ a myth of separate worlds” similar to the myopic view of work and family as indepen dent domains. The book then moves on to offer fairly complete descrip tions of five participation programs in different industry and collective bargaining settings: Xerox and the Amalgam ated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, g m ’ s Packard Electronic division and the International Union of Elec tronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Work ers, the Uniform Piston Co. (a fictitious name) and its unnamed local union, a Canadian grocery chain and the union rep resenting its workers (both unnamed), and the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, whose employees are represented by the Newspaper Guild. . . . Current Labor Statistics Notes on Current Labor Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................... 54 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series ........................................................................................... 54 Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes ......................................................................... 55 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 ................................ Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted . . . . Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted .................. Selected employment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ..................................................................................................... Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................................................. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................... Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................................................... Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-84 ........................................................................................................................ Employment, by State ............................................................................................................................................................................. Employment, by industry, seasonally a d ju sted .................................................................................................................................. Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-84 ........................................................................................................................ Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................................................... ............... Average hourly earnings, by industry ................................................................................................................................................. Hourly Earnings Index, by industry...................................................................................................................................................... Average weekly earnings, by industry................................................................................................................................................. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally a d ju sted ........................................................... Unemployment insurance data. Definitions............................................................................................................................... 67 67 ........................................................................................................................................................ Consumer Price Index, 1967-84 .......................................................................................................................................................... Consumer Price Index, U .S. city average, general summary and selected it e m s .................................................................... Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size c l a s s ....................................................................... Consumer Price Index, selected areas ................................................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ............................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings ........................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by special commodity g ro u p in g s............................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ............................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ....................................................................... 68 69 69 75 76 77 78 80 80 81 Price data. Definitions and notes Productivity data. Definitions and notes 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 60 61 61 62 63 64 65 65 66 66 .................................................................................................... 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 55 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 ...................................................................................................................................... Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-83 ............................................... Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and prices, selected years, 1950-84 ........................... Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 .................................................. 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 p r ic e s................. Wage and compensation data. Definitions and notes 82 83 83 84 84 85 ...................................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group ......................................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group .................................................................. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and areasize ......................................... Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to d a te ....................................................... Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980to date ....................... 86 87 88 89 90 90 Work stoppage data. Definition ........................................................................................................ 91 91 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date ............................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 53 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of the R e v i e w presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief introduction to each group of tables provides definitions, 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 cover of this issue of the R e v ie w . Some general notes applicable to several series are given below. quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S. average All Items c p i . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are 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. Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements o f the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea sonally adjusted.’’ Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the February 1985 issue o f the Review, to reflect experience through 1984. Beginning in January 1980, the b l s introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X—11/ a r i m a , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X - l l method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in The X - l l arima Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E , January 1983). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-Decem ber period. Revisions of his torical data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 11, 13, 15, and 17 were made in July 1984 using the X - l l a r i m a seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from 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. More information from household and establishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume data book— Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in two data books— Employment and Earnings, United States, and Employ ment and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More detailed information 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, pre liminary figures are issued based on representative but in complete 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 BLS statistical series S e r ie s R e le a s e P e r io d R e le a s e P e r io d R e le a s e P e r io d M L R t a b le d a te c o v e re d d a te co v e re d d a te c o v e re d num ber Em ploym ent situation ........................................... May 3 April Ju n e 7 May July 5 Ju n e 1 -1 1 P ro d u cer Price Index ........................................... May 10 April Ju n e 14 May July 12 Ju n e 2 3 -2 7 C o n su m e r Price I n d e x ........................................... May 21 April Ju n e 20 May July 23 Ju n e 1 9 -2 2 Real e a r n i n g s ............................................................. May 21 April Ju n e 20 May July 23 Ju n e 1 2 -1 6 May 29 1st quarter July 25 2nd quarter 2 9 -3 2 July 25 1st halt 3 6 -3 7 July 30 2nd quarter 3 3 -3 5 Productivity and co sts: 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 9 -3 2 EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY E 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 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S population 16 years of age and older. House holds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. m p l o y m e n t d a t a Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the em ployed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The unemployment 1. rate for all civilian workers represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The labor force consists o f all employed or unemployed civilians plus members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own 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, sani tariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the compara bility of historical data presented in table 1. A description of these ad justments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes o f Employment and Earnings. Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal ex perience through December 1984. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 [N u m b e rs in t h o u s a n d s ] L abor fo rte U n e m p lo y e d E m p lo y e d N o n in s ti Year p o p u la t io n N o t in C iv ilia n t u tio n a l Num ber P ercen t o l p o p u la tio n T o ta l P e rc e n t of p o p u la tio n P erc e n t o l R e s id e n t N o n a g r i- A rm e d Fo rc e s T o ta l A g r ic u lt u r e N um ber c u ltu r a l la b o r fo rc e la b o r fo rc e i n d u s tr ie s 1950 .................. 106 ,1 6 4 6 3 ,3 7 7 59 .7 6 0 ,087 56.6 7,160 5 1 ,758 3 ,2 8 8 5.2 4 2 ,7 8 7 .................. 1 1 1 ,7 4 7 6 7 ,0 8 7 60 .0 64,234 57 .5 1,169 2 ,064 5 8 ,918 1955 62,170 6 ,450 5 5 ,722 2 ,8 5 2 4 .3 4 4 ,6 6 0 1960 .................. 1 1 9 ,1 0 6 7 1 ,4 8 9 60 .0 6 7 ,639 56.8 1,861 65,778 5 ,458 6 0 ,318 3 ,852 5.4 4 6 ,6 1 7 1965 .................. 1 2 8 ,4 5 9 76,401 59 .5 73,034 56 .9 1,946 71,088 4,361 6 6 ,726 3 ,3 6 6 4 .4 5 2 ,0 5 8 1966 .................. 1 3 0 ,1 8 0 7 7 ,892 59.8 75,017 57.6 2,122 72,895 6 8 ,915 2 ,875 3 .7 5 2 ,2 8 8 1967 .................. 1 3 2 ,0 9 2 7 9 ,565 60 .2 76,590 58.0 2 ,218 74,372 3,844 7 0 ,5 2 7 52,5 2 7 2 ,253 75,920 3 ,817 7 2 ,1 0 3 2 ,975 2 ,817 3 .7 58.2 3 .5 53,291 3 ,979 1968 .................. 134,281 8 0 ,990 60 .3 7 8 ,173 1969 .................. 1 3 6 ,5 7 3 8 2 ,972 60 .8 8 0 ,140 58.7 2,238 77,902 3 ,606 7 4 ,2 9 6 2 ,832 3.4 5 3 ,6 0 2 1970 .................. 1 3 9 ,2 0 3 8 4 ,889 6 1 .0 8 0 ,796 58.0 2,118 78,678 7 5 ,2 1 5 4 ,093 4 .8 5 4 ,3 1 5 5 5 ,8 3 4 1971 .................. 1 4 2 ,1 8 9 8 6 ,355 60 .7 81,340 57.2 1,973 79,367 3 ,463 3,394 7 5 ,9 7 2 5 ,016 5 .8 1972 .................. 1 4 5 ,9 3 9 8 8 ,8 4 7 60.9 8 3 ,966 57.5 1,813 82,153 3 ,484 7 8 ,669 4 ,882 5 .5 57,091 1973 .................. 1 4 8 ,8 7 0 9 1 ,2 0 3 8 6 ,838 58 .3 1,774 85,064 3 ,470 8 1 ,5 9 4 4 ,355 4 .8 5 7 ,6 6 7 1974 .................. 151,841 9 3 ,6 7 0 6 1 .3 61 .7 88,515 58.3 1,721 86,794 3 ,515 8 3 ,279 5 ,1 5 6 5.5 58,171 1975 .................. 154,831 9 5 ,4 5 3 61 .6 87,524 56.5 1,678 85,845 3 ,408 8 2 ,4 3 8 7 ,9 2 9 8 .3 5 9 ,3 7 7 1976 .................. 1 5 7 ,8 1 8 9 7 ,8 2 6 62 .0 9 0 ,420 57 .3 1,668 8 8 ,752 3,331 85,421 7 ,4 0 6 7 .6 59,991 1977 .................. 1 6 0 ,6 8 9 100,665 62 6 9 3 ,673 9 2 ,017 6,991 6 .9 6 0 ,0 2 5 163,541 103,882 63 .5 9 7 ,679 1,631 9 6 ,048 3 ,283 3 ,387 8 8 ,734 .................. 58.3 59.7 1,656 1978 92,661 6 ,202 6 .0 5 9 ,6 5 9 1979 .................. 1 6 6 ,4 6 0 1 0 6,559 64 .0 100,421 60 .3 1,597 98,824 3 ,347 9 5 ,4 7 7 6 ,137 5 .8 5 9 ,9 0 0 1980 .................. 1 6 9 ,3 49 108,544 64.1 100,907 59.6 1,604 9 9 ,303 3 ,364 9 5 ,938 7,637 7 .0 6 0 ,8 0 6 1981 .................. 1 7 1 ,7 75 1 1 0,315 65.2 102,042 59.4 1,645 100,397 3,368 9 7 ,030 8 ,2 7 3 7 .5 6 1 ,4 6 0 1982 .................. 1 7 3 ,9 39 111,872 64.3 101,194 58.2 1,668 9 9 ,526 3,401 9 6 ,125 1 0 ,578 9 .5 6 2 ,0 6 7 1983 .................. 175,891 1 1 3,226 64.4 102,510 58.3 1,676 100,834 3 ,383 9 7 ,450 1 0 ,717 9 .5 6 2 ,6 6 5 105,005 3,321 101,685 8 ,539 7.4 6 2 ,8 3 9 1984 .................. 1 7 8 ,0 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 115,241 6 4.7 106,702 59 .9 1,697 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 2. Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] A n n u al av e ra g e 1984 1985 E m p lo y m e n t s t a tu s a n d s e x 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. TO TAL Noninstitutional population1' 2 ......................... Labor force2 ................................................... Participation rate3 ............................. 175,891 178,080 177,510 177,662 177,813 177,974 178,138 178,295 178,483 178,661 178,834 179,004 179,081 179,219 179,368 113,226 64.4 115,241 114,592 114,895 115,412 115,309 115,566 115,341 115,484 115,721 115,773 116,162 116,572 116,787 117,215 64.7 64.6 64.7 64.9 64.8 64.9 64.7 64.7 64 8 64.7 64.9 65.1 65.2 65.3 102,510 106,702 105,809 106,095 106,852 107,081 107,075 106,860 107,114 107,354 107,631 107,971 108,088 108,388 108,820 Employment-population rate4 . . . . 58.3 59.9 59.6 59.7 60.1 60.2 60.1 59.9 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 60.5 60.7 Resident Armed Forces1 ...................... 1,676 1,697 1,686 1,693 1,690 1,690 1,698 1,712 1,720 1,705 1,699 1,698 1,697 1,703 1,701 Civilian e m p lo y e d ................................... 100,834 105,005 104,123 105,391 105,377 105,394 105,649 105,932 106,391 106,685 Total employed2 Agriculture 104,402 105,162 105,148 106,273 107,119 ......................................... 3,383 3,321 3,305 3,379 3,367 3,368 3,333 3,264 3,319 3,169 3,334 3,385 3,320 3,340 3,362 Nonagricultural in d u s tr ie s ................ 97,450 101,685 100,818 101,023 101,795 102,023 102,044 101,884 102,075 102,480 102,598 102,888 103,071 103,345 103,757 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 10,717 8,539 8,783 8,800 8,560 8,228 8,491 8,370 8,367 8,142 8,191 8,484 8,399 8,396 9.5 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.3 8,481 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.3 7.2 7.2 62,665 62,839 62,918 62,767 62,401 62,665 62,572 62,954 62,999 62,940 63,061 62,842 62,509 62,432 62,153 84,064 85,156 84,880 84,953 85,024 85,101 85,179 85,257 85,352 85,439 85,523 85,607 85,629 85,692 85,764 64,580 65,386 65,151 65,200 65,304 65,348 65,412 65,357 65,589 65,558 65,657 65,814 65,822 65,818 65,923 ............................. 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.9 76.9 76.8 76.9 Total employed2 ......................................... 58,320 60,642 60,262 60,289 60,578 60,758 60,687 60,766 60,959 61,018 61,155 61,252 61,213 69.4 71.2 71.0 71.0 71.2 71.4 71.2 71.3 71.4 61,226 71.4 61,427 Employment-population rate4 . . . . Unemployment rate5 ......................... Not in labor force ......................................... M e n , 16 y e a rs an d o ver Noninstitutional population1' 2 ......................... Labor force2 ................................................... Participation rate3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.5 71.6 Resident Armed Forces1 ...................... 1,533 1,551 1,542 1,548 1,545 1,545 1,551 1,563 1,571 1,557 1,552 1,550 1,549 1,554 1,553 Civilian e m p lo y e d ................................... 56,787 59,091 58,720 58,741 59,033 59,213 59,136 59,203 59,388 59,461 59,603 59,702 59,664 59,672 59,874 6,260 4,744 4,889 4,911 4,726 4,590 4,725 4,591 4,630 4,540 4,502 4,562 4,609 4,592 4,495 9.7 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.8 U n e m p lo y e d ................................... Unemployment rate5 ......................... W o m e n , 1 6 y e a rs an d o ver Noninstitutional population1' 2 ......................... 91,827 92,924 92,630 92,709 92,789 92,873 93,132 93,222 93,311 93,397 93,452 93,527 93,603 49,855 49,441 49,695 50,108 49,961 92,958 50,154 93,039 48,646 49,984 49,895 50,163 50,116 50,348 50,750 50,970 51,293 ............................. 53.0 53.7 53.4 53.6 54.0 53.8 54.0 53.7 53.6 53.8 53.7 53.9 54.3 54.5 54.8 Total employed2 ......................................... 44,190 46,061 45,547 46,274 46,094 46,155 46,336 46,476 46,719 46,875 47,162 47,392 48.1 49.6 49.2 46,323 49.9 46,388 Employment-population rate4 . . . . 45,806 49.4 49 9 49.6 49.7 49.8 50.0 Labor force2 ................................................... Participation rate3 49.9 Resident Armed Forces1 ...................... 143 146 144 145 145 145 147 49.5 149 149 148 147 148 148 149 148 Civilian e m p lo y e d ................................... 44,047 45,403 45,661 46,129 46,178 46,241 45,945 46,006 46,188 46,329 46,571 46,727 47,013 47,244 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 4,457 45,915 3,794 3,894 3,889 3,834 3,638 3,766 3,890 3,740 3,827 3,640 3,629 3,875 3,807 3,900 Unemployment rate5 ......................... 9.2 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.6 7.5 7.6 50.2 1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. in c lu d e s members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 4Total employed as a percent of the noninstltutional population. 3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. U nem ploym ent as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces). 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 50.4 50.6 3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted [N u m b e rs in th o u sa n d s] A n n u al av e ra g e 1984 1985 E m p lo y m e n t s t a tu s 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. TO TAL Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 174,215 176,383 175,824 175,969 176,123 176,284 176,440 176,583 176,763 176,956 177,135 177,306 177,384 177,516 177,667 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 111,550 113,544 112,906 113,302 113,722 113,619 113,868 113,629 113,764 114,016 114,074 114,464 114,875 115,084 115,514 Participation r a t e ................................ 64.0 64.4 64.2 64.3 64.6 64.5 64.5 64.3 64.4 64 4 64.4 64.6 64.8 64.8 65.0 100,834 105,005 104,123 104,402 105,162 105,391 105,377 105,148 105,394 105,649 105,932 106,273 106,391 106,685 107,119 Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 57.9 59.5 59.2 59.3 59.7 59.8 59.7 59.5 59.6 59.7 59.8 59.9 60.0 60.1 60.3 10,717 8,539 8,783 8,800 8,560 8,228 8,491 8,481 8,370 8,367 8,142 8,191 8,484 8,399 8,396 ......................... 9.6 7.5 7.8 7.8 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 .......................................... 62,665 62,839 62,918 62,667 62,401 62,665 62,572 62,954 62,999 62,940 63,061 62,842 62,509 62,432 62,153 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ Unemployment rate Not in labor force M e n , 2 0 y e a rs an d o ver Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 74,872 76,219 75,880 75,973 76,073 76,176 76,269 76,350 76,451 76,565 76,663 76,753 76,760 76,829 76,904 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 58,744 59,701 59,400 59,474 59,572 59,668 59,730 59,771 59,892 59,913 59,994 60,131 60,033 60,061 60,152 Participation r a t e ................................ 78.5 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.2 78.2 78.2 53,487 55,769 55,352 55,387 55,663 55,861 55,846 55,935 56,075 56,182 56,269 56,372 56,234 56,287 56,421 Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 71.4 73.2 72.9 72.9 73.2 73.3 73.2 73.3 73.4 73.4 73.4 2,418 2,382 2,446 2,443 2,448 2,444 2,406 78.3 2,414 2,334 2,434 2,494 2,417 2,362 2,326 51,058 53,351 52,970 52,941 53,220 53,413 53,402 53,529 53,661 53,848 53,835 53,878 53,817 53,926 54,095 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 5,257 3,932 4,048 4,087 3,909 3,807 3,884 3,836 3,817 3,731 3,725 3,759 3,798 3,774 3,731 8.9 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.2 Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 84,069 85,429 85,064 85,168 85,272 85,380 85,488 85,581 85,688 85,793 85,897 85,995 86,015 86,086 86,181 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 44,636 45,900 45,482 45,685 46,130 45,958 46,131 46,092 45,950 46,264 46,279 46,463 46,771 46,894 47,193 Participation r a t e ................................ 53.1 53.7 53.5 53.6 54.1 53.8 54.0 53.9 53.6 53.9 53.9 54.0 54.4 54.5 54.8 ................................................... 41,004 42,793 42,334 42,524 43,003 42,986 43,001 42,878 42,906 43,091 43,252 43,511 43,610 43,768 44,014 51.1 Nonagricultural industries Unemployment rate .......................... 73.3 73.3 73.4 2,429 ................... A g ric u ltu re ................................................ W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs an d o ver Employed Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 48.8 50.1 49.8 49.9 50.4 50.3 50.1 50.1 50.2 50.4 50.6 50.7 50.8 620 595 587 613 603 611 580 573 590 569 580 595 592 614 659 ................... 40,384 42,198 41,747 41,911 42,400 42,375 42,421 42,305 42,672 42,916 43,018 43,153 43,355 3,632 3,107 3,148 3,161 3,127 2,972 3,130 3,214 42,316 3,044 42,522 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 3,173 3,027 2,952 3,161 3,126 3,179 8.1 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.8 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.7 Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 15,274 14,735 14,880 14,828 14,778 14,728 14,683 14,653 14,624 14,598 14,575 14,557 14,610 14,600 14,582 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 8,171 7,943 8,024 8,043 8,020 7,993 8,007 7,766 7,922 7,839 7,801 7,870 8,072 8,129 Participation r a t e ................................ 53.5 53.9 53.9 54.2 54.3 54.3 54.5 53.0 54.2 53.7 53.5 54.1 55.2 55.7 56.0 ................................................... 6,342 6,444 6,437 6,491 6,496 6,544 6,530 6,335 6,413 6,376 6,411 6,390 6,547 6,630 6,684 A g ric u ltu re ................................................ Nonagricultural industries Unemployment rate ......................... 50.3 B o th s e x e s , 1 6 t o 1 9 y e a r s Employed Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 8,169 41.5 334 43.7 309 336 320 321 309 309 285 315 266 320 296 311 364 377 ................... 6,008 6,135 6,101 6,171 6,175 6,235 6,221 6,050 6,098 6,110 6,091 6,094 6,236 6,266 6,307 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 1,829 1,499 1,587 1,552 1,524 1,449 1,477 1,431 1,509 1,463 1,390 1,480 1,525 1,499 1,485 .......................... 22.4 18.9 19.8 19.3 19.0 18.1 18.4 18.4 19.0 18.7 17.8 18 8 18.9 18.4 18.2 Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 150,805 152,347 152,285 152,178 152,286 152,402 152,471 152,605 152,659 152,734 153,103 153,191 153,296 98,492 98,343 98,419 152,229 98,749 152,295 97,021 98,690 98,627 98,631 98,630 99,005 99,496 99,711 100,035 64.3 64.6 64.6 64.7 64 9 64.8 64.8 98,223 64.4 98,426 Participation r a t e ................................ 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.8 65.1 65.3 88,893 92,120 91,750 91,852 92,516 92,389 91,951 92,177 92,407 92,587 92,884 65.0 93,124 93,552 93,785 A g ric u ltu re ................................................ Nonagricultural industries Unemployment rate 43.3 43.8 44.0 44.4 44.5 43.2 43 9 43.7 44.0 43.9 44.8 45.4 45.8 W h it e Employed ................................................... 58.9 60.5 60.2 60.4 92,330 60.7 60.7 60.7 60.3 60.5 60.6 60.6 60.8 60.8 61.1 61.2 8,128 8.4 6,372 6,593 6,567 6,419 6,174 6,238 6,272 6,249 6,224 6,043 6,121 6,372 6,159 6,250 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.2 Employment-population ratio2 . . . . U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... B la c k Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 18,925 19,348 19,248 19,274 19,302 19,330 19,360 19,386 19,416 19,449 19,481 19,513 19,518 19,542 19,569 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 11,647 12,033 11,845 11,898 11,968 11,959 12,083 12,142 12,082 12,208 12,276 12,306 12,315 12,309 12,280 Participation r a t e ................................ 61.5 62 2 61.5 61.7 62.0 61.9 62.4 62.6 62.2 62.8 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 62.8 9,375 10,119 9,878 9,913 10,053 10,138 10,079 10,222 10,260 10,340 10,426 10,462 10,475 10,301 10,412 Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 49.5 52.3 52.1 52.4 52.1 52.7 52.8 53 2 53.5 52.7 53.2 1,985 1,915 1,821 2,004 1,920 1,822 1,868 1,850 53.6 1,844 53.7 1,914 51.3 1,967 51.4 2,272 1,840 2,008 1,869 .......................... 19.5 15.9 16.6 16.7 16.0 15.2 16.6 15.8 15.1 15.3 15.1 15.0 14.9 16.3 15.2 Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ 10,795 11,164 11,058 11,088 11,118 11,148 11,180 11,209 11,240 11,270 11,301 11,332 11,363 11,394 11,425 Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... 6,884 7,247 7,144 7,113 7,170 7,267 7,264 7,299 7,353 7,384 7,394 7,472 7,255 7,330 7,365 Participation r a t e ................................ 63.8 64.9 64.6 64.2 64.5 65.2 65.0 65.1 65.4 65.5 65.4 65.9 63.8 64.3 64 5 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ Unemployment rate H is p a n ic o r ig in Employed ................................................... 5,943 6,469 6,333 6,294 6,402 6,519 6,503 6,521 6,573 6,574 6,636 6,698 6,487 6,621 6,615 Employment-population ratio2 . . . . 55.1 57.9 57.3 56.8 57.6 58.5 58.2 58.2 58.5 58.3 58.7 57.1 58.1 57 9 U n e m p lo y e d ................................................ 940 778 811 819 768 748 761 778 780 810 758 59.1 774 768 709 750 13.7 10.7 11.4 11.5 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.6 11.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 9.7 10.2 Unemployment rate .......................... 1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. C iv ilia n employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanlc-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the “ other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 4. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted [In th o u sa n d s] 1984 A n n u al a v e ra g e 1985 S e le c t e d c a t e g o r ie s 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. O ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. ...................... 100,834 105,005 104,123 104,402 105,162 105,391 105,377 105,148 105,394 105,649 105,932 106,273 106,391 106,685 107,119 M e n ......................................................................... 56,787 59,091 58,720 58,741 59,033 59,213 59,136 59,203 59,388 59,461 59,603 59,702 59,644 59,672 59,874 C H A R A C T E R IS T IC Civilian employed, 16 years and over W o m e n ................................................................... 44,047 45,915 45,403 45,661 46,129 46,178 46,241 45,945 46,006 46,188 46,329 46,571 46,727 47,013 47,244 Married men, spouse p r e s e n t............................. 37,967 39,056 38,895 39,012 39,060 39,060 39,123 39,073 39,071 39,054 39,337 39,443 39,441 39,357 39,531 Married women, spouse present ...................... 24,603 25,636 25,286 25,468 25,658 25,734 25,719 25,772 25,715 25,897 25,995 26,122 25,912 26,108 26,195 ......................... 5,091 5,465 5,449 5,482 5,606 5,622 5,626 5,496 5,429 5,378 5,396 5,396 5,584 5,525 5,631 Women who maintain families M A J O R IN D U S T R Y A N D C L A S S O F W O R K E R Agriculture: ................................... 1,579 1,555 1,522 1,627 1,580 1,578 1,519 1,453 1,565 1,511 1,593 1,733 1,596 1,611 1,610 ...................................... 1,565 1,553 1,579 1,545 1,549 1,566 1,557 1,562 1,555 1,487 1,555 1,485 1,531 1,503 1,502 Unpaid fam ily w o r k e r s ......................................... 240 213 211 215 239 211 220 209 195 187 204 212 227 242 263 89,500 93,565 92,747 92,908 93,780 93,845 93,768 93,680 94,140 94,415 94,442 94,725 95,068 95,348 95,756 Wage and salary workers Self-employed workers Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ................................... G o ve rn m e n t................................................... 15,537 15,770 15,765 15,765 15,744 15,713 15,639 15,758 15,881 15,997 15,785 15,858 15,738 16,009 16,004 Private in d u s trie s ......................................... 73,963 77,794 76,982 77,143 78,036 78,132 78,129 77,922 78,259 78,418 78,657 78,867 79,330 79,339 79,752 1,247 1,238 1,164 1,280 1,327 1,297 1,238 1,199 1,198 1,213 1,228 1,257 1,374 1,304 1,210 72,716 76,556 75,818 75,863 76,709 76,835 76,891 76,723 77,061 77,205 77,429 77,610 77,956 78,035 78,542 ...................................... 7,575 7,785 7,769 7,812 7,745 7,815 7,744 7,807 7,752 7,782 7,731 7,786 7,783 7,673 7,809 Unpaid fam ily w o r k e r s ......................................... 376 335 332 341 323 347 318 321 318 314 357 357 343 340 320 Private h o u s e h o ld s ............................. Other ...................................................... Self-employed workers P E R S O N S A T W O R K P A R T T IM E 1 All industries: Part time fo r economic r e a s o n s ............................. 6,266 5,744 5,619 5,758 5,625 5,831 5,759 5,582 5,690 5,710 5,623 5,814 5,628 5,335 5,664 Slack w o r k ............................................................ 2,430 2,948 2,343 2,286 3,042 2,326 2,984 2,373 2,832 2,371 2,743 2,461 2,943 2,514 2,879 2,449 2,855 2,873 2,431 2,848 2,212 2,835 2,599 2,744 Voluntary part t i m e ................................................... 12,911 13,169 3,039 13,100 2,390 3,085 2,596 ......................... 2,833 3,099 13,326 13,250 13,090 13,248 13,210 13,144 13,126 13,142 13,239 13,355 13,647 13,624 5,997 5,512 5,465 5,520 5,377 5,549 5,482 5,384 5,449 5,483 5,413 5,596 5,389 5,077 5,400 Could only find part-time work Nonagricultural industries: Part time fo r economic r e a s o n s ............................. Slack w o r k ............................................................ 2,684 2,291 2,237 2,255 2,153 2,160 2,214 2,254 2,306 2,364 2,319 2,473 2,287 2,040 ......................... 2,993 2,866 2,958 2,982 2,949 2,911 2,756 2,675 2,847 2,821 2,782 2,793 2,749 2,751 2,405 2,649 Voluntary part t i m e ................................................... 12,417 12,704 12,592 12,924 12,799 12,621 12,786 12,747 12,669 12,679 12,670 12,778 12,861 13,157 13,137 Could only find part-time work 1 Excludes persons "w ith a job but not at w ork" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [U n e m p lo ym e n t rates] 1984 A n n u al ave ra g e 1985 S e le c t e d c a t e g o r ie s 1983 1984 9.6 22 4 7.5 7.8 7.8 7.5 7.2 7.5 Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s ................................ 18.9 19.8 19.3 19.0 18.1 18.4 Men, 20 years and o v e r ...................................... 8.9 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.4 Women, 20 years and o v e r ................................ 8.1 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.8 7.0 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb, M a r. 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 19.0 7.3 18.7 7.1 18.4 17.8 18.8 18.9 18.4 18.2 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.7 C H A R A C T E R IS T IC Total, all civilian w o r k e r s ............................................. White, t o t a l ............................................................. 8.4 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.3 ...................... 19.3 16.0 16.9 16.2 16.2 15.8 15.2 16.0 16.3 15.9 15.1 15.9 15.8 15.2 15.1 ......................... 20.2 16.8 16.8 16.9 16.6 17.4 16.7 17.0 16 6 16.2 16.2 15.9 17.0 15.2 ................... 18.3 15.2 17.3 16.4 15.7 15.5 Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Men, 16 to 19 years 6.7 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.2 15.4 15.5 15.2 13.9 15.5 15.8 13.4 14.9 7.9 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.7 15.1 5.4 12.9 Men, 20 years and o v e r ............................. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 Women, 20 years and over ...................... 6.9 5.8 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.9 Black, t o t a l ............................................................. 19.5 15 9 16.6 16.7 16.0 15.2 16.6 15.8 15.1 15.3 15.1 15.0 14.9 16.3 15.2 37.1 42.3 Women, 16 to 19 years Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ...................... 48.5 ......................... 42.7 41.3 41.9 40.2 41.2 42.1 42.1 43.1 41.9 42.7 44.3 42.9 41.4 38.2 42.3 40.5 41.0 43.8 42.0 43.8 45.3 41.1 40.9 48.2 42.6 49.4 45.9 48.1 35.8 42.2 42.2 43.0 36.2 40.2 40.1 38.5 45.3 43.1 Men, 20 years and o v e r ............................. 18.1 14.3 15.1 15.6 14.3 14.6 15.5 14.1 13.5 13.4 12.8 12.7 14.4 13.3 12.6 13.8 13.8 12.6 13.4 13.5 13.3 12.7 12.8 13 9 12.9 10.5 10.7 10.6 11.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 9.7 9.7 10.2 4.4 4.4 Women, 20 years and over 46.6 44.3 44.4 48.8 ................... Men, 16 to 19 years Women, 16 to 19 years ...................... 16.5 13.5 13.8 13.6 13.7 Hispanic origin, t o t a l ............................................. 13.7 10.7 11.5 10.7 10.3 Married men, spouse p r e s e n t............................. 6.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 7.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.7 4.4 ...................... 5.4 5.9 ......................... 12.2 10.3 10.8 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.8 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.8 9.6 10.0 11.0 10.2 Full-time w o rk e rs ................................................... 9.5 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 6.7 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 6.9 9.3 9.3 9.4 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.3 9.1 8.6 8.8 9.3 8.7 9.6 Married women, spouse present Women who maintain families 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.2 10.4 9.3 ...................... 3.8 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 Labor force time lost1 ......................................... 10.9 8.6 8.9 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 Part-time workers ................................................ Unemployed 15 weeks and over IN D U S T R Y Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers Mining . . 9.9 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.2 ................................................................... 17.0 18.4 10.0 10.8 10.1 8.8 7.5 7.7 10.2 8.6 10.5 11.7 10.7 10.1 13.6 14.4 14.7 14.6 14.6 14.1 13 9 13.7 14.2 13.7 13.4 10.9 13.4 11.0 ......................................................... ...................................................... 11.2 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.5 12.1 7.2 7.7 7.5 7.1 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.4 7.1 7.2 8.1 7.1 8.2 8.1 5.5 4.6 7.7 5.7 7.5 5.7 3.9 3.9 12.2 Construction Manufacturing Durable goods ............................................ 14.3 ...................................... 10.0 7.8 7.5 8.0 7.3 7.5 8.5 8.1 8.1 6.9 7.8 Transportation and public u t ilitie s ...................... 7.4 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.3 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.3 5.2 5.0 Wholesale and retail t r a d e ................................... 10.0 7.2 8.0 8.2 5.5 8.7 6.0 5.6 7.9 5.7 7.6 5.8 7.5 6.1 7.8 5.9 8.0 6.3 7.3 5.5 7.7 5.9 8.0 5.7 4.9 7.7 5.9 4.1 15.5 Nondurable goods Finance and service industries Government workers ......................... ................................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ...................... 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 5.9 4.4 16.0 13.5 14.6 12.7 13.8 12.3 14.3 13.1 14.7 13.7 11.2 12.2 1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time fo r economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7.2 13.6 13.3 7.7 7.4 6. Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted [C ivilian w o rke rs] 1984 A n n u al ave ra g e 1985 Sex and age 1983 M a r. A p r. M ay June A ug. J u ly S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. M a r. 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.3 .......................................................... 17.2 13.9 14.4 14.5 14.1 13.2 13.6 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.2 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.5 22.4 18.9 19.8 19.3 19.0 18.1 18.4 18.4 19.0 18.7 17.8 18.8 18.9 18.4 18.2 16 to 17 y e a r s ................................................... 24.5 21.2 22.7 22.1 20.6 20.1 20.7 21.2 20.9 20.2 20.0 21.0 21.2 20.0 20.9 18 to 19 y e a r s ................................................... 21.1 17.4 18.1 17.6 17.9 16.8 16.7 16.7 17.7 17.8 16.8 17.7 17.4 17.4 16.5 12.1 11.6 10.8 11.2 11.7 11.4 11.0 10.9 10.9 10 9 11.2 11.1 5.6 16 to 24 years ............................................. 9.6 7.5 7.8 7.8 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.4 Feb. 16 to 19 y e a r s ...................................................... Total, 16 years and over 14.5 11.5 11.7 ................................................... 7.5 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.8 5.6 25 to 54 years ................................................... 8.0 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.8 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 6.1 5.9 5.9 55 years and over ............................................. 5.3 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0 20 to 24 y e a r s ...................................................... 25 years and over Men, 16 years and o v e r ...................................... 9.9 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.0 16 to 24 y e a r s ................................................... 18.4 14.4 14.7 14.9 14.3 13.9 14.5 14.3 14.6 13.8 13.7 14.1 13.8 14.4 13.9 23.3 19.6 20.0 19.7 19.5 18.9 20.4 18.8 19.7 19.8 18.9 19.4 19.1 19.5 18.1 16 to 17 y e a r s .......................................... 25.2 21.9 23.0 23.3 21.7 22 4 22.6 22.2 21.0 21.3 20.3 19.8 21.2 20 7 22.2 18 to 19 y e a r s .......................................... 22.2 18.3 18.2 17.7 18.1 17.0 18.5 16.6 18.7 18.9 18.3 19.3 18.0 18.6 15.7 ............................................. 15.9 11.9 12.0 12.6 11.7 11.5 11.6 12.1 12.2 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.2 11.8 11.7 25 years and over ............................................. 7.8 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 25 to 54 y e a r s ......................................... 8.2 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 4.6 6.1 4.7 6.2 55 years and over ................................... 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.8 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years ............................................. 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.2 7.7 7.5 7.6 15.8 13.3 14.1 14.0 13.9 12.5 12.7 13.5 13.2 13.2 12.6 12.8 13.3 12.9 13.2 21.3 18.0 19.6 18.8 18.4 17.3 16.4 18.1 18.3 17.4 16.6 18.1 18.6 17.3 18.2 16 to 17 y e a r s .......................................... 23.7 20.4 22.3 20.8 19.4 17.6 18.7 20.3 20.9 19.0 19.7 22.3 21.2 18 to 19 y e a r s ......................................... 19.9 16.6 17.9 17.6 17.7 16.5 14.7 16.7 16.6 16.5 15.1 16.0 16.7 16.2 17.4 10.7 10.2 10.5 10.6 10.5 16 to 24 y e a r s ................................................... 16 to 19 years 9.2 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.3 5.3 ............................................. Women, 16 years and o v e r ................................ 19.4 19.5 ............................................. 12.9 10 9 11.2 11.4 11.5 10.0 10.8 11.1 10.5 11.1 25 years and over ............................................. 7.2 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.9 6.0 5.7 5.6 6.1 5.9 6.0 25 to 54 y e a r s ......................................... 7.7 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.4 6.3 6.4 55 years and over ................................... 4.7 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.8 3.9 3.7 4.2 3.8 4.2 A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 4,188 4,261 4,141 4,176 4,313 4,251 4,158 20 to 24 years 7. 1984 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] 1984 A n n u al ave ra g e 1985 R e a s o n f o r u n e m p lo y m e n t Job losers ...................................................................... 1983 1984 6,258 4,421 M a r. A p r. 4,622 4,531 M ay 4,373 June 4,271 J u ly 4,475 4,227 1,780 1,171 1,248 1,117 1,187 1,162 1,165 1,146 1,110 1,151 1,068 1,070 1,229 1,240 1,163 4,478 3,250 3,374 3,414 3,186 3,109 3,310 3,081 3,078 3,110 3,073 3,106 3,084 3,011 2,995 Job le a v e rs ...................................................................... 830 792 850 2,208 1,200 2,301 1,197 812 2,184 1,170 809 2,412 1,216 823 2,184 1,110 777 R e e n tra n ts ...................................................................... New e n tra n ts ................................................................... 1,989 1,134 2,111 1,092 833 2,294 ......................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ...................................................................... 58.4 52.5 51.4 51.2 52.1 On layoff ................................................................ Other job losers ................................................... 841 829 869 858 884 865 1,088 2,254 1,057 2,150 1,060 2,161 1,024 2,218 1,011 2,244 1,049 2,233 1,035 848 2,341 1,090 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.1 50.2 51.3 50.5 50.5 50.8 50.7 49.3 P E R C E N T D IS T R IB U T IO N Total unemployed ................................................................ 16 6 51.8 13.7 14.2 12.7 13.9 14.2 52.5 13.7 13.6 13.3 13.9 13.0 12.9 14.5 14.8 13.8 ................................................... 41.8 38.1 38.3 38.7 37.3 37.9 38 8 36.5 36.9 37.5 37.5 35.5 7.7 9.6 8.8 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.0 10.6 36.3 10.4 35.9 Job le a v e rs ...................................................................... 37.6 10.4 10.3 10.0 R e e n tra n ts ...................................................................... 22.5 25.6 25.1 26.1 25.6 24 2 24 8 27.2 27.0 25.9 26.4 26.8 26.4 26.6 27.7 New e n tra n ts ................................................................... 11.3 13.0 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.8 12.8 12.9 12.7 12.8 12.5 12.2 12.4 12.3 12.9 3.6 Job losers On layoff Other job losers PER C EN T OF C IV IL IA N L A B O R F O R C E ...................................................................... 5.6 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.7 Job le a v e rs ...................................................................... .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .8 .7 .8 .8 .7 R e e n tra n ts ...................................................................... 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 New e n tra n ts ................................................................... 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9 .9 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 Job losers 8. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [N u m b e rs in th o u sa n d s] 1985 1984 A n n u al av e ra g e W e e k s o f u n e m p lo y m e n t 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 3,570 2,937 3,350 3,275 3,229 3,409 3,513 3,313 3,395 3,352 3,282 3,662 3,524 3,590 2,451 3,378 2,514 3,407 5 to 14 w e e k s ................................................................ 2,485 2,440 2,303 2,449 2,406 2,533 2,406 2,324 2,469 2,478 4,210 2,737 2,894 2,842 2,833 2,630 2,672 2,621 2,605 2,527 2,428 2,516 2,374 2,552 15 weeks and over 2,243 2,416 2,400 15 to 26 w e e k s ................................................... 1,652 1,104 1,122 1,102 1,173 1,012 1,088 1,116 1,106 1,092 990 972 941 1,076 1,065 27 weeks and over ................................................ 2,559 1,634 1,772 1,740 1,660 1,618 1,584 1,505 1,499 1,435 1,438 1,402 1,302 1,340 1,335 Mean duration in w e e k s ................................................ 20.0 18.2 18.5 18.1 18.0 17.6 17.3 16.7 17.4 15 9 15.9 7.9 8.1 8.3 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.3 17.3 7.4 15.3 10.1 18 9 8.4 18.7 Median duration in w e e k s ............................................. 6.7 7.2 7.1 Less than 5 w e e k s ......................................................... ...................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 59 EM PLOYM ENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS E mployment , hours , and earnings data in this section are com piled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by over 200,000 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 establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Selfemployed 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 sur veys. Definitions Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker su pervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with produc tion operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc tion; and nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; in wholesale and retail trade; in finance, insurance, 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 re ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects o f changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ( c p i - w ) . The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours o f production or nonsuper visory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May 1983 issue, represents the percent o f 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 3-, 6-, and 9-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while that for the 12-month span is unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measuring the dispersion o f economic gains or losses and is also an eco nomic indicator. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are pe riodically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called “ benchmarks” ). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1984 data, published in the July 1984 issue of the Review. Con sequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1982; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1979. Unadjusted data from April 1983 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1980 forward are subject to revision in future bench marks. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April 1977 through February 1984 and seasonally adjusted data from January 1974 through February 1984) and in Employment, Flours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, b l s Bulletin 1312-12 (for prior peri ods). A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “ Com paring employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 9. Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-84 [Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands] G o o d s -p r o d u c in g S e r v ic e - p r o d u c in g T ran sp o r Year T o ta l P r iv a t e s e c to r T o ta l M in in g C o n s tru c M a n u fa c t io n t u rin g T o ta l t a tio n W h o le and s a le p u b lic tra d e G o v e rn m e n t F in a n c e , R e t a il in s u ra n c e , tra d e an d real S e r v ic e s T o ta l F e d e ra l S t a te Local (1) 1,168 <1) 3,558 4,547 e s t a te u t ilit ie s 1950 ................................... 45,197 39,170 18,506 901 2,364 15,241 26,691 4,034 2,635 6,751 1,888 5,357 6,026 1,928 1955 ................................... 50,641 43,727 20,513 792 2,839 16,882 30,128 4,141 2,926 7,610 2,298 6,240 6,914 2,187 I9 6 0 2 ................................ 54,189 45,836 20,434 712 2,926 16,796 33,755 4,004 3,143 8,248 2,629 7,378 2,270 1,536 1964 ................................... 58,283 48,686 21,005 634 3,097 17,274 37,278 3,951 3,337 8,823 2,911 8,660 9,596 2,348 1,856 5,392 1965 ................................... 60,765 50,689 21,926 632 3,232 18,062 38,839 4,036 3,466 9,250 2,977 9,036 10,074 2,378 1,996 5,700 1966 ................................... 63,901 53,116 23,158 627 9,648 3,058 9,498 10,784 1967 ................................... 65,803 54,413 23,308 613 3,248 19,447 42,495 4,268 3,689 9,917 3,185 10,045 11,391 2,719 2,302 6,371 1968 ................................... 67,897 56,058 23,737 606 3,350 19,781 44,160 4,318 3,779 10,320 3,337 10,567 11,839 2,737 2,442 6,660 1969 ................................... 70,384 58,189 24,361 619 3,575 20,167 46,023 4,442 3,907 10,798 3,512 11,169 12,195 2,758 2,533 6,904 1970 ................................... 70,880 58,325 23,578 623 3,588 19,367 47,302 4,515 3,993 11,047 3,645 11,548 12,554 2,731 2,664 7,158 1 9 7 1 ................................... 71,214 58,331 22,935 609 3,704 18,623 48,278 4,476 4,001 11,351 3,772 11,797 12,881 2,696 2,747 7,437 3,317 19,214 40,743 4,158 3,597 8,353 2,564 2,141 6,080 1972 ................................... 73,675 60,341 23,668 628 3,889 19,151 50,007 4,541 4,113 11,836 3,908 12,276 13,334 2,684 2,859 7,790 1973 ................................... 76,790 63,058 24,893 642 4,097 20,154 51,897 4,656 4,277 12,329 4,046 12,857 13,732 2,663 2,923 8,146 1974 ................................... 78,265 64,095 24,794 697 4,020 20,077 53,471 4,725 4,433 12,554 4,148 13,441 14,170 2,724 3,039 8,407 1975 ................................... 76,945 62,259 22,600 752 3,525 18,323 54,345 4,542 4,415 12,645 4,165 13,892 14,686 2,748 3,179 8,758 1976 ................................... 4,546 79,382 64,511 23,352 779 18,997 56,030 13,209 4,271 14,551 14,871 2,733 3,273 8,865 1977 ................................... 82,471 67,344 24,346 813 3,851 19,682 58,125 4,713 4,708 13,808 4,467 15,303 15,127 2,727 3,377 9,023 1978 ................................... 86,697 71,026 25,585 851 4,229 20,505 61,113 4,923 4,969 14,573 4,724 16,252 15,672 2,753 3,474 9,446 1979 ................................... 89,823 73,876 26,461 958 4,463 21,040 63,363 5,136 5,204 14,989 4,975 17,112 15,947 2,773 3,541 9,633 1980 ................................... 90,406 74,166 25,658 1,027 4,346 20,285 64,748 5,146 5,275 15,035 5,160 17,890 16,241 2,866 3,610 9,765 1 9 8 1 ................................... 91,156 75,126 25,497 1,139 4,188 20,170 65,659 5,165 5,358 15,189 5,298 18,619 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 1982 ................................... 89,566 73,729 23,813 1,128 3,905 18,781 65,753 5,082 5,278 15,179 5,341 19,036 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 1983 ................................... 90,138 74,288 23,394 957 3,940 18,497 66,744 4,958 5,259 15,545 5,467 19,665 15,851 2,752 3,660 9,439 1984 ................................... 94,156 78,187 24,904 998 4,316 19,590 69,254 5,170 5,526 16,261 5,665 20,662 15,969 2,783 3,702 9,483 3,576 4,582 1 Not available. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. 10. NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” fo r a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Employment, by State [N o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a yroll data, in thousands] S t a te F e b ru ary 1 9 8 4 J a n u a ry 1 9 8 5 A la b a m a ............................................................. 1 ,3 5 4 .6 1 ,3 8 3 .0 A la s k a ................................................................ F e b ru a ry 1 9 8 5 P 1 ,3 8 3 .9 2 0 6.9 2 15.5 2 1 8.8 ............................................................. 1 ,1 4 9 .9 1 ,2 2 5 .6 1 ,2 4 0 .2 Arkansas ......................................................... 7 6 1.5 7 80.8 California ......................................................... 1 0 ,3 0 5 .7 Colorado ......................................................... 1 ,3 5 4 .5 C o n n e c tic u t...................................................... 1 ,4 7 4 .0 Arizona Delaware ......................................................... 2 6 6.8 S t a te F e b ru ary 1 9 8 4 M o n ta n a ............................................................ 270.1 Nebraska J a n u a ry 1 9 8 5 2 7 8.8 F e b ru a ry 1985P 2 7 8 .7 ......................................................... 6 0 6 .3 6 3 0 .2 6 3 1 .2 ............................................................ 4 0 8 .7 4 3 4 .6 437.1 7 8 2.0 New H am p sh ire ................................................ 4 2 0.4 4 5 1.4 4 4 9 .5 1 0 ,6 6 4 .8 1 0 ,7 0 9 .6 New J e r s e y ...................................................... 3,2 0 7 .1 3 ,3 4 6 .3 3 ,3 3 7 .1 1 ,3 8 8 .0 1 ,3 9 3 .6 489.1 5 0 4 .6 5 0 6 .5 1 ,5 3 5 ,7 1 ,5 3 3 .2 New M e x ic o ...................................................... New Y o r k ......................................................... 7 ,3 7 7 .8 7 ,5 2 2 .2 7 ,5 4 6 .0 Nevada North Carolina ................................................ 282.1 2 8 2 .3 ...................................... 5 9 9.5 North D a k o ta ................................................... 2 4 5 .8 2 4 9.4 2 4 9 .4 4 ,1 2 7 .8 6 1 2 .5 4,3 6 4 .1 6 1 3 .0 F lo rid a ................................................................ 4 ,3 9 4 .7 O h io ................................................................... 4 ,1 2 6 .2 4,2 4 1 .1 4 ,2 4 3 .4 Georgia O k la h o m a ......................................................... District of Columbia ............................................................. 2 ,3 5 6 .9 2 ,5 3 7 .9 2,539.1 H a w a ii................................................................ 4 1 0 .3 4 1 4 .4 4 1 9.6 Idaho 317.1 322.4 3 2 3.0 ................................................................ Oregon ............................................................ 4 ,5 6 4 .2 4,593.1 4 ,5 9 0 .9 Rhode I s la n d ................................................... Indiana ............................................................. 2 ,0 5 8 .7 2 ,1 2 9 .8 2 ,1 3 1 .7 South Carolina I o w a ................................................................... 1,045.1 1 ,0 4 6 .9 ............................................................. 9 3 8 .6 9 5 8 .5 1 ,0 4 9 .2 9 6 1.7 Kentucky ......................................................... 1 ,1 7 1 .2 1 ,2 1 8 .4 1 ,2 1 4 .7 Louisiana ......................................................... 1 ,5 6 8 .3 1 ,5 8 9 .3 M a in e ................................................................ 425.1 4 3 4.8 Maryland 2 ,5 8 5 .6 2 ,5 8 6 .2 1 ,1 7 1 .5 1 ,1 7 7 .2 1 ,1 7 4 .4 9 8 5 .8 1,003.1 1 ,0 0 3 .9 4 524 9 I llin o is ................................................................ Kansas 2 ,5 0 2 .0 ................................................ South D a k o ta ................................................... 4 0 1 .2 411.1 4 1 0 .2 1 ,2 2 4 .8 1 ,2 9 3 .5 1 ,2 9 8 .9 2 3 6 .5 2 3 8 .8 2 3 7 .9 Tennessee ......................................................... 1 ,7 5 3 .0 1 ,8 1 0 .9 1 ,8 0 9 .3 6 ,3 3 7 .0 6 ,4 8 7 .4 6 ,5 1 3 .9 1,582.1 Texas ............................................................... U t a h ................................................................... 5 7 9 .9 6 1 0 .7 6 1 1 .4 4 3 6.9 V e rm o n t............................................................ 2 1 1 .0 2 1 7 .4 2 1 8 .7 2 ,3 5 1 .6 ......................................................... 1 ,7 3 6 .0 1 ,8 1 6 .7 1 ,8 1 8 .9 Virginia ............................................................ 2 ,2 4 3 .9 Massachusetts ................................................ Michigan ......................................................... 2,755.1 2 ,8 8 9 .2 W a s h in g to n ...................................................... 1 ,5 9 1 .7 2 ,3 5 5 .5 1 ,6 3 6 .4 3 ,2 8 5 .5 2,875.1 3 ,3 4 9 .4 5 7 8 .6 1 ,8 2 8 .4 West V ir g in ia ................................................... W is c o n s in ......................................................... 5 83.2 1 ,7 4 6 .3 3 ,3 5 0 .5 1 ,8 3 3 .5 5 7 7 .7 Minnesota ......................................................... 1,873.1 1 ,9 3 7 .4 9 3 4 .9 Mississippi 8 0 6.0 1 ,9 6 7 .9 8 3 1.9 8 3 4 .9 194 5 1 88.6 1 8 8 .2 1 ,9 9 8 .9 1 ,9 9 6 .6 3 7 .0 3 6 .2 3 6 .4 ...................................................... M is s o u ri............................................................. Virgin Is la n d s ................................................... 1 ,6 3 9 .1 p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 11. Establishment Data Employment, by industry, seasonally adjusted [N o n a gricu ltu ra l payroll data, in thousands] 1985 1984 A n n u al ave ra g e In d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d g r o u p M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. F M a r.F 94,156 93,058 93,449 93,768 94,135 94,350 94,523 94,807 95,157 95,497 95,681 96,045 96,157 96,538 78,187 77,185 77,546 77,864 78,241 78,422 78,566 78,698 79,054 79,371 79,618 79,971 80,064 80,417 23,394 24,904 24,595 24,760 24,851 24,974 25,059 25,098 25,010 25,080 25,123 25,250 25,338 25,227 25,328 ...................................................................................................... 957 998 978 984 995 1,002 1,007 1,017 1,020 1,012 1,009 1,000 1,000 999 997 Oil and gas e x tr a c tio n ......................................... 600 627 607 612 619 623 629 636 642 643 648 646 641 636 633 3,940 4,316 4,151 4,246 4,286 4,343 4,356 4,356 4,374 4,382 4,396 4,457 4,530 4,489 4,618 TO TAL P R IV A T E S E C T O R ....................................................................... G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G M in in g C o n s t r u c tio n ......................................................................................... 1983 1984 90,138 74,288 General building c o n tra c to rs ................................ 1,015 1,128 1,099 1,110 1,126 1,135 1,133 1,132 1,140 1,140 1,146 1,159 1,186 1,171 1,206 M a n u f a c t u r i n g .................................................................................... 18,497 19,590 19,466 19,530 19,570 19,629 19,696 19,725 19,616 19,686 19,718 19,801 19,808 19,739 19,713 Production workers ............................................ D u r a b le g o o d s 12,581 13,455 13,388 13,443 13,465 13,492 13,541 13,558 13,448 13,497 13,505 13,571 13,569 13,495 13,465 10,774 11,635 11,513 11,551 11,598 11,652 11,702 11,758 11,696 11,752 11,776 11,834 11,844 11,797 11,779 7,887 7,151 7,846 7,769 7,799 7,826 7,860 7,899 7,945 7,876 7,915 7,925 7,969 7,965 7,911 ................................ 658 710 712 714 711 712 708 706 703 710 713 717 715 708 709 Furniture and f ix t u r e s ............................................. 447 484 483 482 482 485 485 484 481 487 492 495 497 497 499 608 612 854 848 Production workers ............................................. Lumber and wood products ......................... 573 605 606 604 605 605 606 603 603 606 606 612 614 ...................................... 838 874 877 879 887 884 880 879 865 866 865 859 860 343 1,374 337 347 345 347 345 342 334 324 320 320 318 319 316 314 Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ...................................... 1,476 1,456 1,459 1,469 1,479 1,490 1,491 1,485 1,495 1,498 1,502 1,498 1,494 1,489 Machinery, except electrical Stone, clay, and glass products Primary metal industries Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . ................................ 2,038 2,214 2,166 2,189 2,203 2,226 2,242 2,252 2,243 2,255 2,251 2,253 2,248 2,242 2,240 Electrical and electronic e q u ip m e n t...................... 2,024 2,234 2,202 2,212 2,228 2,237 2,252 2,267 2,263 2,269 2,274 2,281 2,282 2,276 2,274 Transportation e q u ip m e n t...................................... 1,756 1,928 1,905 1,905 1,906 1,917 1,926 1,961 1,939 1,945 1,957 1,993 2,010 2,002 1,993 ......................... 758 867 863 857 848 855 858 894 864 865 877 904 912 892 Instruments and related products ...................... Miscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................ 695 371 723 718 719 722 723 727 726 726 729 731 732 731 733 735 388 388 385 384 386 389 388 390 389 390 389 383 380 7,972 7,977 7,994 7,967 7,942 7,967 7,964 7,942 7,934 5,632 5,642 5,613 7,920 5,572 7,934 5,639 5,582 5,580 5,602 5,604 5,584 5,578 1,653 Motor vehicles and equipment 387 7,724 7,954 7,953 ............................................. 5,430 5,610 5,619 7,979 5,644 Food and kindred p r o d u c ts ................................... 1,622 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s Production workers 878 1,648 1,655 1,642 1,630 1,640 1,644 1,658 1,660 1,654 66 67 1,643 67 1,644 69 1,643 67 1,638 ......................................... 67 66 65 69 67 69 69 69 68 Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ 744 753 769 766 762 759 755 751 69 744 735 731 727 728 721 715 Apparel and other textile p r o d u c ts ...................... 1,164 1,202 1,218 1,226 1,217 1,209 1,206 1,200 1,181 1,178 1,178 1,186 1,185 1,177 1,177 Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 662 682 680 680 681 685 687 686 680 684 683 684 684 683 683 Printing and p u b lis h in g ......................................... 1,296 1,361 1,339 1,348 1,356 1,362 1,371 1,375 1,380 1,386 1,386 1,390 1,392 1,396 Chemicals and allied products 1,047 1,061 1,054 1,057 1,057 1,062 1,368 1,064 1,067 1,063 1,065 1,066 1,068 1,064 Tobacco manufactures 195 188 190 189 188 188 187 187 186 185 185 184 1,065 184 1,064 Petroleum and coal p r o d u c ts ................................ 183 182 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 718 796 790 790 795 797 801 800 798 805 810 814 812 813 810 ............................. . . Leather and leather p r o d u c ts ................................ S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G 208 202 209 208 206 204 205 198 194 193 192 191 187 186 186 66,744 69,254 68,463 68,689 68,917 69,161 69,291 69,425 69,797 70,077 70,374 70,423 70,707 70,930 71,210 5,266 4,958 5,170 5,112 5,129 5,144 5,163 5,175 5,202 5,213 5,225 5,226 5,249 5,266 5,279 T ra n s p o rta tio n ......................................................... 2,739 2,895 2,839 2,862 2,871 2,883 2,896 2,924 2,937 2,951 2,953 2,974 2,984 3,002 2,991 Communication and public u tilitie s ...................... 2,219 2,276 2,273 2,267 2,273 2,280 2,279 2,278 2,276 2,274 2,273 2,275 2,282 2,277 2,275 T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u t il it ie s 5,528 5,544 5,588 5,612 5,623 5,641 5,665 5,670 5,685 ...................................................... 3,064 3,254 3,205 3,215 3,235 3,249 3,268 3,278 3,293 3,301 3,317 3,328 3,340 3,348 3,355 Nondurable goods1 ................................................ 2,195 2,271 2,252 2,258 2,257 2,253 2,260 2,266 2,295 2,311 2,306 2,313 2,325 2,322 2,330 15,545 16,261 16,030 16,095 16,295 16,644 16,626 16,707 16,757 16,836 5,259 W h o le s a l e t r a d e Durable goods1 5,526 16,166 16,245 16,283 16,342 16,468 2,230 2,251 2,273 2,303 2,318 2,334 2,391 2,331 2,368 2,369 2,378 2,635 2,630 2,295 2,641 2,301 2,626 2,648 2,640 2,648 2,677 2,696 2,710 2,714 2,727 2,749 1,748 1,743 1,751 1,751 1,762 1,758 1,755 1,763 1,772 1,777 1,780 1,795 1,802 5,136 5,154 5,183 5,199 5,211 5,238 5,255 5,280 5,303 5,327 5,359 5,389 5,414 5,725 2,874 5,749 5,764 5,800 5,828 2,886 2,900 2,922 2,940 1,667 5,007 5,212 F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l e s t a t e F in a n c e ...................................................................... 5,502 2,289 Eating and drinking places ................................... 5,492 2,161 Automotive dealers and service s ta tio n s ............ ............................................................ 5,473 2,560 2,649 1,754 Food stores 5,457 5,467 5,665 5,613 5,640 5,662 5,676 5,676 5,679 5,684 5,705 2,740 2,850 2,831 2,851 2,863 2,854 2,854 2,850 2,856 2,865 ................................................................ 1,721 1,757 1,742 1,742 1,746 1,752 1,759 1,763 1,766 1,774 1,778 1,785 1,786 1,792 1,796 Real e s ta te ................................................................ 1,005 1,058 ' 1,041 1,047 1,053 1,066 1,063 1,066 1,062 1,066 1,073 1,078 1,078 1,086 1,092 Insurance 19,665 20,662 20,378 20,449 20,549 20,681 20,701 20,748 20,861 20,964 21,030 21,095 21,231 21,331 21,474 Business s e r v ic e s ................................................... 3,539 4,003 3,875 3,912 3,979 4,014 4,035 4,069 4,085 4,110 4,142 4,151 4,193 4,229 4,271 Health services 5,973 6,068 6,052 6,062 6,073 6,064 6,079 6,034 6,085 6,087 6,104 6,115 6,140 6,156 6,182 15,851 15,969 15,873 15,903 15,904 15,894 15,928 15,957 16,109 16,103 16,126 16,063 16,074 16,093 16,121 S e r v ic e s ...................................................... G o v e rn m e n t F e d e ra l...................................................................... 2,752 2,783 2,770 2,771 2,767 2,777 2,779 2,785 2,804 2,793 2,809 2,809 2,807 2,805 2,811 State ......................................................................... 3,660 3,702 3,686 3,693 3,699 3,699 3,697 3,714 3,725 3,719 3,724 3,711 3,713 3,726 3,744 L o c a l......................................................................... 9,439 9,483 9,417 9,439 9,438 9,418 9,452 9,458 9,580 9,591 9,598 9,543 9,554 9,562 9,566 1Under Wholesale trade, data for Durable goods and Nondurable goods have been corrected in this table as of the April 1985 issue of the M o n th ly L ab o r Review . 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary. NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 12. Average hours and earnings, by industry 1968-84 [Production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls] Year A verag e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A verag e A verag e A verag e A verag e w e e k ly h o u r ly w e e k ly w e e k ly h o u r ly w e e k ly w e e k ly h o u r ly w e e k ly h o u rs e a r n in g s e a r n in g s h o u rs e a r n in g s e a r n in g s h o u rs e a r n in g s e a r n in g s P r iv a t e s e c t o r M in in g A v e ra g e C o n s t r u c tio n 1968 .......................................................................... 37.8 $2.85 $107.73 42.6 $3.35 $142.71 37.3 $4.41 1969 .......................................................................... 37.7 3.04 114.61 43.0 3.60 154.80 37.9 4.79 181.54 1970 .......................................................................... 37.1 3.23 119.83 42.7 3.85 164.40 37.3 5.24 195.45 $164.49 1 9 7 1 .......................................................................... 36.9 3.45 127.31 42.4 4.06 172.14 37.2 5.69 211.67 1972 .......................................................................... 37.0 3.70 136.90 42.6 4.44 189.14 36.5 6.06 221.19 1973 .......................................................................... 1974 .......................................................................... 36.9 3.94 145.39 42.4 4.75 201.40 36.8 6.41 235.89 36.5 4.24 154.76 41.9 5.23 219.14 36.6 6.81 249.25 1975 .......................................................................... 36.1 4.53 163.53 41.9 5.95 249.31 36.4 7.31 266.08 1976 .......................................................................... 175.45 273.90 283.73 36.1 4.86 42.4 6.46 36.8 7.71 1977 .......................................................................... 36.0 5.25 189.00 43.4 6.94 301.20 36.5 8.10 295.65 1978 .......................................................................... 35.8 5.69 203.70 43.4 7.67 332.88 36.8 8.66 318.69 1979 .......................................................................... 35.7 6.16 219.91 43.0 8.49 365.07 37.0 9.27 342.99 1980 .......................................................................... 35.3 6.66 235.10 43.3 9.17 397.06 37.0 9.94 367.78 1 9 8 1 .......................................................................... 35.2 7.25 255.20 43.7 10.04 438.75 36.9 10.82 399.26 1982 .......................................................................... 34.8 7.68 267.26 42.7 10.77 459.88 36.7 11.63 426.82 1983 .......................................................................... 35.0 8.02 280.70 42.5 11.27 478.98 37.2 11.92 443.42 1984 .......................................................................... 35.3 8.33 294.05 43.4 11.58 502.57 37.8 12.03 454.73 M a n u f a c t u r in g T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u t il it ie s W h o le s a l e t r a d e 1968 .......................................................................... 40.7 $3.01 $122.51 40.6 $3.42 $138.85 1969 .......................................................................... 40.6 3.19 129.51 40.7 3.63 147.74 40.2 3.23 129.85 1970 .......................................................................... 39.8 3.35 133.33 40.5 3.85 155.93 39.9 3.44 137.26 40.1 $3.05 $122.31 1 9 7 1 .......................................................................... 39.9 3.57 142.44 40.1 4.21 168.82 39.5 1972 .......................................................................... 40.5 3.82 154.71 40.4 4.65 187.86 39.4 3.85 144.18 1973 .......................................................................... 40.7 4.09 166.46 40.5 5.02 203.31 39.3 4.08 151.69 3.65 129.85 1974 .......................................................................... 40.0 4.42 176.80 40.2 5.41 217.48 38.8 4.39 160.34 1975 .......................................................................... 39.5 4.83 190.79 39.7 5.88 233.44 . 38.7 4.73 183.05 1976 .......................................................................... 5.22 209.32 39.8 6.45 256.71 38.7 5.03 194.66 1977 .......................................................................... 40.3 5.68 228.90 39.9 6.99 278.90 38.8 5.39 209.13 1978 .......................................................................... 40.4 40.1 6.17 249.27 40.0 7.57 302.80 38.8 5.88 228.14 1979 .......................................................................... 40.2 6.70 269.34 39.9 8.16 325.58 38.8 6.39 247.93 1980 .......................................................................... 39.7 7.27 288.62 39.6 8.87 351.25 38.5 6.96 267.96 1 9 8 1 .......................................................................... 39.8 7.99 318.00 39.4 1982 .......................................................................... 38.9 8.49 330.26 39.0 10.32 402.48 38.3 8.09 309.85 1983 .......................................................................... 40.1 8.83 354.08 39.0 10.80 421.20 38.5 8.54 328.79 1984 .......................................................................... 40.7 9.17 373.22 39.4 11.15 439.31 38.6 8.94 345.08 R e t a il t r a d e 9.70 382.18 38.5 F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l e s t a t e 7.56 291.06 S e r v ic e s 1968 .......................................................................... 34.7 $2.16 $74.95 2.30 78.66 $2.75 2.93 34.7 34.2 37.0 37.1 $101.75 1969 .......................................................................... 108.70 34.7 2.61 90.57 1970 .......................................................................... 33.8 2.44 82.47 36.7 3.07 112.67 34.4 2.81 96.66 1 9 7 1 .......................................................................... 33.7 2.60 87.62 36.6 3.22 117.85 33.9 3.04 103.06 1972 .......................................................................... 33.4 2.75 91.85 36.6 3.36 122.98 33.9 3.27 110.85 1973 .......................................................................... 1974 .......................................................................... 33.1 2.91 96.32 36.6 3.53 129.20 33.8 3.47 117.29 32.7 3.14 102.68 36.5 3.77 137.61 33.6 3.75 126.00 1975 .......................................................................... 32.4 3.36 108 86 36.5 4.06 148.19 33.5 4.02 134.67 $2.42 $83.97 1976 .......................................................................... 32.1 3.57 4.27 155.43 33.3 4.31 143.52 1977 .......................................................................... 31.6 3.85 121.66 36.4 4.54 165.26 33.0 4.65 153.45 1978 .......................................................................... 31.0 4.20 130.20 36.4 4.89 178.00 32.8 4.99 163.67 1979 .......................................................................... 30.6 4.53 138.62 36.2 5.27 190.77 32.7 5.36 175.27 1980 .......................................................................... 30.2 4.88 147.38 36.2 5.79 209.60 32.6 5.85 190.71 1 9 8 1 .......................................................................... 30.1 5.25 158.03 36.3 6.31 32.6 6.41 208.97 36.2 225.59 114.60 36.4 1982 .......................................................................... 29.9 6.78 29.8 171.05 36.2 7.29 263.90 32.6 32.7 6.92 1983 .......................................................................... 1984 .......................................................................... 5.48 5.74 229.05 245.44 7.30 238.71 30.0 5.89 176.70 36.5 7.62 278.13 32.8 7.62 249.94 NOTE: 163.85 See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 13. Establishment Data Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] A n n u al a v e ra g e 1984 1985 In d u s tr y 1983 P R IV A T E S E C T O R M A N U F A C T U R IN G Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. F e b .P M a r.P 35.0 35.3 35.3 35.4 35.3 35.3 35.2 35.2 35.4 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.2 35.0 35.1 40.1 40.7 40.7 41.1 40.6 40.6 40.5 40.5 40.6 40.4 40.5 40.7 40.6 39.9 40.4 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 ................................................................................ 40.7 41.4 41.4 41.8 41.3 41.2 41.2 41.2 41.5 41.3 41.2 41.4 41.4 40.5 41.0 Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 3.0 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 D u r a b le g o o d s Lumber and wood p r o d u c ts ................................ Furniture and fixtures .......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ...................... 40.1 39.9 40.1 40.4 39.6 39.4 39.3 39.4 40.2 39.7 39.5 40.0 40.0 38.8 39.4 39.7 39.6 39.7 39.7 39.1 39.8 39.1 39.9 39.6 39.8 39.6 40.5 39.4 39.3 41.5 42.0 41.9 42.3 42.1 41.8 41.9 41.7 42.0 41.8 41.8 41.7 41.6 41.2 41.9 41.8 39.3 Primary metal in d u s trie s ...................................... 40.5 41.6 42.2 42.1 41.7 41.5 41.0 41.3 41.3 41.5 41.2 41.0 Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . 39.5 40.6 41.2 41.0 41.6 41.1 39.9 39.6 40.0 40.1 40.8 39.7 39.7 40.8 40*9 Fabricated metal p r o d u c ts ................................... 40.6 41.4 41.3 41.8 41.4 41.3 41.3 41.1 41.5 40.3 41.1 41.4 41.4 40.5 41.1 40.9 41.0 Machinery, except e le c tric a l................................ 40.5 41.9 41.9 42.3 41.9 42.0 41.8 42.0 42.0 41.9 41.7 41.8 41.7 41.0 41.4 Electrical and electronic e q u ip m e n t................... 40.5 41.0 41.0 41.3 41.0 40.8 40.8 40.9 41.2 40.9 41.0 41.0 40.8 40.0 40.6 Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................... 42.1 42.7 42.9 43.5 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.4 42.8 42.4 42.4 43.0 43.3 41.7 42.6 Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t......................... 43.3 43.7 44.4 44.8 42.9 43.1 42.4 43.3 43.9 43.3 43.4 44.4 44.6 42.1 43.9 Instruments and related p r o d u c ts ...................... 40.4 41.3 41.1 41.4 40.7 41.3 41.3 41.1 41.5 41.2 41.5 41.8 41.2 40.5 41.0 ....................................................................... 39.4 39.6 39.8 40.2 39.6 39.6 39.4 39.5 39.4 39.3 39.4 39.6 39.5 39.1 39.5 Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ................................ 39.5 39.8 39.8 40.1 39.7 39.8 39.5 39.7 39.6 39.6 39.7 40.1 39.8 39.5 Textile m ill p r o d u c ts ............................................. 40.5 39.9 40.6 41.2 40.0 40.0 39.8 39.4 39.2 38.7 39.0 39.2 39.3 38.7 39 0 Apparel and other textile products ................... Paper and allied p r o d u c t s ................................... Food and kindred products 36.2 42.6 36.4 36.7 43.0 37.4 43.2 36.5 43.1 36.4 42.9 35.8 43.3 36.0 43.1 35.9 43.1 35.9 43.0 36.0 43.2 36.4 43.1 36.2 43.1 35.6 42.7 36.0 43.1 Printing and publishing ...................................... 37.6 37.9 37.9 38.2 38.0 37.7 37.7 37.8 37.9 37.8 37.9 37.7 37.9 37.7 37.7 Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts ............................. 41.6 41.9 42.0 41.8 41.9 41.9 42.0 41.8 41.6 41.7 41.9 42.0 41.8 42.3 43.5 43.1 43.2 43.9 43.1 42.9 43.4 43.4 36.7 37.0 36.0 36.5 43.5 36.4 43.5 36.5 36.4 36.9 37.0 36.5 43.9 37.4 39.6 39.8 39.4 39.8 39.1 39.4 39.2 39.2 39.4 39.4 43.1 Petroleum and coal products ............................. 43.9 43.7 44.7 42.0 43.7 Leather and leather products ............................. 36.8 36.8 36.7 37.5 39.9 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S 39.0 39.4 39.2 39.5 39.4 W HOLESALE TRADE 38.5 38.6 38.5 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.5 38.7 R E T A IL T R A D E ......................................................................................... 29.8 30.0 30.1 30.0 30.1 30.2 29.9 29.9 30.0 29.8 29.9 30.1 29.8 29.7 29.8 S E R V IC E S 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.6 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.7 p = preliminary. 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the m ost recent benchmark revision. 14. Average hourly earnings, by industry [P ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv iso ry w orke rs on private nonagricultural payrolls] A n n u al ave ra g e 1984 1985 In d u s tr y P R IV A T E S E C T O R 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. F e b .P M a r .P $8.02 $8.33 $8.24 $8.29 $8.28 $8.29 $8.32 $8.30 $8.43 $8.40 $8.43 $8.46 $8.50 $8.52 $8.53 (1) 8.25 8.31 8.29 8.33 8.35 8.34 8.40 8.38 8.42 8.47 8.45 8.50 8.54 11.58 11.60 11.62 11.56 11.57 11.57 11.57 11.66 11.52 11.57 11.64 11.79 11.85 11.82 11.92 12.03 11.97 11.95 11.99 11.94 11.97 12.01 12.15 12.14 12.01 12.17 12.22 12.26 12.20 8.83 9.17 9.09 9.11 9.11 9.14 9.18 9.14 9.23 9.22 9.30 9.38 9.42 9.42 9.44 Seasonally a d ju s te d ...................................... <1> 11.27 M IN IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N M A N U F A C T U R IN G 9.38 9.72 9.66 9.67 9.66 9.69 9.70 9.68 9.77 9.76 9.82 9.94 9.97 9.97 9.99 Lumber and wood p r o d u c ts ....................... 7.79 7.99 7.87 7.89 7.92 8.04 8.01 8.05 8.15 8.06 8.01 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.01 Furniture and fix tu r e s ................................... 6.62 6.86 6.76 6.76 6.80 6.84 6.88 6.90 6.95 6.95 6.96 7.01 7.03 7.04 7.08 Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ................ 9.27 9.56 9.40 9.51 9.54 9.58 9.64 9.62 9 64 9.63 9.66 9.67 9.69 9.71 9.71 D u r a b le g o o d s ............................................................................ Primary metal in d u s trie s ............................. 11.34 11.43 11.44 11.51 11.49 11.46 11.45 11.34 11.39 11.31 11.44 11.44 11.50 11.65 11.66 Blast furnaces and basic steel products 12.89 12.99 12.97 13.12 13.09 13.02 13.02 12.90 13.01 12.86 12.99 12.95 13.07 13.43 13.41 Fabricated metal p r o d u c ts .......................... 9.11 9.36 9.31 9.34 9.33 9.33 9.33 9.30 9.41 9.38 9.42 9.55 9.57 9.56 9.60 9.92 10.01 10.01 10.06 10.16 10.12 10.13 10.15 Machinery, except e le c tr ic a l...................... 9.55 9.96 9.90 9.91 9.90 9.93 9.96 8 65 8.99 8 88 8.89 8.89 8.91 8.95 9.00 9.08 9.09 9.15 9.27 9.28 9.27 9.34 .......................... 11.66 12.19 12.12 12.06 12.04 12.14 12.13 12.13 12.23 12.29 12.42 12.59 12.64 12.59 12.57 12.62 Electrical and electronic equipment Transportation equipment . . . . M otor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t................ 12.12 12.69 12.56 12.51 12.67 12.61 12.59 12.69 12.81 12.96 13.21 13.35 13.29 13.27 Instruments and related p r o d u c ts ............. 8.46 8.81 8.71 8.73 8.71 8.78 8.83 8.85 8.92 8.89 8.91 8.99 8.96 9.06 9.08 Miscellaneous manufacturing 6.80 7.00 6.97 6.97 6.99 6.98 7.02 6.97 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.12 7.19 7.15 7.17 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ................... ................................................................... 8.08 8.37 8.27 8.29 8.30 8.33 8.41 8.37 8.44 8.44 8.52 8.55 8.60 8.61 8.62 ....................... 8.20 8.41 8.39 8.43 8.43 8.44 8.41 8.36 8.37 8.33 8.46 8.48 8.50 8.55 8.56 Tobacco m a n u fa c tu re s ................................ 10.35 11.12 11.29 11.43 11.55 11.92 11.67 10.75 10.31 10.35 11.76 10.97 11.20 11.60 11.69 ................................... 6.18 6.46 6.41 6.43 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.46 6.49 6.49 6.55 6.57 6.59 6.60 6.63 Apparel and other textile p ro d u c ts ............. 5.37 5.53 5.48 5.49 5 48 5.50 5.51 5.53 5.61 5.59 5.59 5.65 5.70 5.68 5.71 Paper and allied products 9.94 10.44 10.25 10.29 10.34 10.42 10.56 10.50 10.55 10.56 10.67 10.69 10.67 10.73 10.69 Food and kindred products Textile mill products ......................... Printing and p u b lis h in g ................................ 9.11 9.39 9.29 9.29 9.31 9.30 9.36 9.42 9.51 9.48 9.54 9.56 9.57 9.59 9.61 Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts ................... 10.59 11.11 10.95 10.97 11.02 11.03 11.12 11.13 11.23 11.32 11.35 11.37 11.42 11.42 11.41 Petroleum and coal products ................... 13.29 13.45 13.44 13.44 13.32 13.33 13.27 13.32 13.54 13.52 13.67 13.63 13.97 14.00 13.96 plastics p ro d u c ts ...................................... 7.99 8.27 8.20 8.25 8.20 8.23 8.30 8.28 8.31 8.31 8.39 8.43 8.50 8.47 8.48 5.54 5.70 5.68 5.68 5.68 5.67 5.70 5.67 5.72 5.72 5.76 5.80 5.82 5.79 5.79 10.80 11.15 11.02 11.07 11.03 11.07 11.18 11.17 11.27 11.23 11.29 11.32 11.31 11.32 11.29 Rubber and miscellaneous Leather and leather products ................... T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S W HOLESALE TRADE 8.54 8.94 8.79 8.89 8.86 8 90 8.97 8.95 9.05 8.99 9.06 9.18 9.14 9.17 9.16 R E T A IL T R A D E 5.74 5.89 5.89 5.90 5.88 5.88 5.87 5.84 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.89 5.99 6.01 6.00 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E 7.29 7.62 7.54 7.62 7.55 7.58 7.60 7.57 7.76 7.67 7.71 7.78 7.77 7.87 7.88 S E R V IC E S 7.30 7.62 7.54 7.60 7.55 7.53 7.56 7.53 7.69 7.69 7.74 7.82 7.82 7.84 7.85 .................................................................................................. 1 Not available. p = preliminary. NOTE: 15. See “ Notes on the data" fo r a description of the most recent benchmark revision. The Hourly Earnings Index, by industry [P ro d u c tio n o r n o n su p e rv iso ry w o rke rs on private nonagricultural payrolls; 1977 = 100] N o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d S e a s o n a ll y a d ju s t e d P e rc e n t P e rc e n t change In d u s tr y Jan. Feb. M a r. f ro m : M ar Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. tro m : 1984 1985 1985P 1985P M a r. 1 9 8 4 1984 1984 1984 1985 1985P 1985P Feb. 1985 to to M a r. 1 9 8 5 M a r. 1 9 8 5 .................. 158.9 163.5 164.1 164.3 3.3 159.1 162.0 163.1 162.8 163.8 164.4 .4 ............................................................. 172.0 177.3 178.4 178.2 3.6 (1) 146.3 (1) 146.5 (1) 147.5 (1) 148.0 (1) 149.5 ( ') 149.8 <1> .2 P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( In c u r r e n t d o l la r s ) Mining change M a r. C o n s tru c tio n ................................................... 145.3 148.3 148.8 148.8 2.4 M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................ 161.1 166.6 166.8 167.2 3.8 161.2 164.5 165.1 165.9 166.6 167.3 Transportation and public utilities ............. 160.2 164.5 165.2 164.5 2.7 160.9 163.1 164.3 163.4 164.7 165.2 .3 Wholesale t r a d e ............................................. 162.7 169 0 169.5 169.5 4.1 156.6 2.1 (1) 153 2 (1) 155.1 ( ') 155.4 (1) 154.8 ( ') 155.8 (1) 156.4 <1) .4 (1) 160.8 ( 1) 164.8 ( ') 166.6 ( ') 164.8 (1) 165.9 (1) 167.0 <1) .7 95.0 c94.4 94.7 94.4 94.6 (2> Retail tr a d e ...................................................... 153.4 155.3 156.2 Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ............. 164.2 170.2 3.6 ......................................................... 160 8 168.2 166 4 170.0 Services 166.9 167.0 3.9 P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( in c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s ) .................. 95.1 95.0 94.9 (2> <2) 'T h is series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trendcycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. 2Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .4 (2) p = preliminary, c = corrected. NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 16. Establishment Data Average weekly earnings, by industry [P ro d u c tio n o r n o n su p e rv is o ry w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1984 A n n u al av e ra g e 1985 In d u s tr y 1983 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. F e b .P M a r.P Current d o lla r s ...................................................... $280.70 $294.05 $288.40 $292.64 $291.46 $294.30 $296.19 $294.65 $299.27 $295.68 $295.89 $300.33 $295.80 $295.64 $297.70 Seasonally a d ju s te d ......................................... (1) 171.37 (1) 173.48 291.23 294.17 292.64 294.05 293.92 293.57 297.36 294.14 296.38 298.99 297,44 299.50 299 75 172.59 174.71 173.18 174.45 174.85 172.31 173.99 171.91 172.23 174.61 171.78 170.99 (1) P R IV A T E S E C T O R Constant (1977) d o l l a r s ...................................... M IN IN G 478.98 502.57 496.48 499.66 499.39 505.61 497.51 503.30 513.04 497.66 503.30 514.49 506.97 508.37 511.81 C O N S T R U C T IO N 443.42 454.73 439.30 448.13 458.02 460.88 462.04 462.39 467.78 461.32 449.17 457.97 444.81 446.26 455.06 Current d o lla r s ...................................................... 354.08 373.22 369.96 372.60 369.87 372.91 369.95 369.26 375.66 373.41 378.51 386.46 379.63 373.97 380.43 Constant (1977) d o l l a r s ...................................... 216.17 220.19 221.40 222.45 219.77 221.05 218.39 215.94 218.41 217.10 220.32 224.69 220.46 216.29 (1) M A N U F A C T U R IN G 399.92 402.14 405.46 403.09 406.55 418.47 409.77 401.79 410.59 318.80 314.01 317.18 317.59 324.01 316.40 322.00 329.26 320.79 313.99 319.99 313.15 308.70 313.19 260.83 272.34 267.02 267.02 268.60 270.86 269.70 273.24 278.70 279.39 279.10 284.61 276.98 271.74 277.54 408.74 Stone, clay, and glass products 399.92 402.27 312.38 ................................................................................ Lumber and wood products 381.77 402.41 ................................ Furniture and f ix t u r e s ............................................. D u r a b le g o o d s 396.73 396.88 ......................... 384.71 401.52 389.16 401.32 404.50 407.15 406.81 405.96 405.42 405.72 403.24 392.45 391.31 401.99 ...................................... 459.27 475.49 480.48 488.02 481.43 480.17 472.89 462.67 472.69 462.58 473.62 475.90 471.50 476.49 480.39 Blast furnaces and basic steel p roducts............. 509.16 527.39 534.36 549.73 540.62 536.42 524.71 506.97 524.30 506.68 524.80 516.71 517.57 547.94 547.13 Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ...................................... 369.87 387.50 384.50 387.61 386.26 388.13 380.66 381.30 389.57 387.39 389.05 403.01 394.28 385.27 394.56 Primary metal industries Machinery except e le c tr ic a l................................... 386.78 417.32 415.80 417.21 413.82 417.06 411.35 411.68 420.42 417.42 422.52 434.85 422.00 415.33 421.23 Electrical and electronic e q u ip m e n t...................... 350.33 368.59 364.08 364.49 363.60 365.31 361.58 366.30 374.10 371.78 376.98 387.49 377.70 369.87 379.20 Transportation e q u ip m e n t...................................... 490.89 520.51 521.16 523.40 514.11 519.59 508.25 504.61 517.33 521.10 530.33 552.70 543.52 522.49 538.00 M otor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t......................... 524.80 554.55 560.33 563.94 546.69 557.48 537.19 532.56 548.21 554.67 562.46 593.13 590.07 555.52 582.55 341.78 363.85 358.85 358.80 354.50 362.61 361.15 362.85 371.07 365.38 371.55 380.28 367.36 366.93 373.19 Instruments and related products ...................... Miscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................ N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ....................................................................... 265.88 275.80 276.01 275.32 274.71 273.62 273.08 272.53 277.60 278.69 279.09 284.09 277.53 275.28 279 63 318.35 331.45 327.49 329.94 328.68 331.53 331.35 331.45 335.07 332.54 337.39 337.12 334.07 338.77 332.99 333.83 333.04 335.24 336.47 331.53 338.40 341.15 343.44 335.75 332.60 337.26 .......................................... 387.09 432.57 416.60 451.49 457.38 482.76 437.63 421.40 408.28 412.97 471.58 425.64 417.76 431.52 429.02 Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ 250.29 257.75 258.96 260.42 257.44 259.77 252.70 255.71 253.11 257.42 258.86 257.01 254.10 257.24 Apparel and other textile p r o d u c ts ...................... 201.29 201.12 202.03 200.02 202.40 198.36 201.96 201.80 201.80 205.66 203.49 201.07 204.99 Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 194.39 423.44 256.46 200.74 449.96 437.68 442.47 443.59 449.10 456.19 451.50 457.87 455.14 462.01 468.22 457.74 452.83 457.53 Printing and p u b lis h in g .......................................... 342.54 Food and kindred p r o d u c ts ................................... Tobacco manufactures 323.90 334.72 329.73 337.60 355.88 353.02 353.02 351.92 349.68 351.94 357.02 362.33 358.34 363.47 367.10 358.88 358.67 363.26 ............................. 440.54 465.51 458.81 460.74 460.64 463.26 463.70 464.12 471.66 470.91 475.57 482.09 478.50 476.21 481.50 Petroleum and coat p r o d u c ts ................................ 583.43 587.77 585.98 590.02 580.75 579.86 579.90 584.75 598.47 590.82 597.38 584.73 597.92 593.60 597.49 350.22 Chemicals and allied products Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p r o d u c t s ................................................ 329.19 344.86 341.94 347.33 341.94 344.84 341.96 342.79 344.87 344.03 349.02 354.06 351.90 343.88 Leather and leather p r o d u c ts ................................ 203.87 209.76 205.05 210.16 209.59 213.76 212.61 206.39 208.21 207.64 210.82 215.18 211.85 209.02 213.07 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S 421.20 439.31 429.78 435.05 432.38 440 59 447.20 443.45 449.67 440.22 445.96 447.14 439.96 442.61 442.57 W H O LE S A LE TR A D E 328.79 345.08 336.66 342.27 342.00 344.43 348.04 347.26 351.14 347.91 350.62 357.10 350.98 350.29 352.66 R E T A IL T R A D E 171.05 176.70 174.34 175.82 176,40 178.75 180.21 178.70 177.29 174.64 176.42 180.23 174.31 174.89 176.40 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E 263.90 278.13 273.70 278.13 274.07 275.15 278.92 275.55 284.02 279.96 280.64 285.53 283.61 286.47 286.83 S E R V IC E S 238.71 249.94 245.80 248.52 246.13 247.74 250.24 248.49 252.23 250.69 252.32 256.50 254.15 254.80 255.13 1 Not available. p = preliminary. NOTE: 17. See "Netes on the data" fo r a description of the m ost recent benchmark revision. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted [In percent] T im e Year span Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Over 1983 . . . . 54.3 46.5 60.8 68.9 69.5 64.6 74.3 68.6 69.5 75.4 69.7 73.8 1-month span 1984 . . . . 71.1 73.2 67.0 63.8 64.1 63.0 62.4 57.6 40.8 65.7 51.9 63.5 1985 . . . . 58.4 P46.2 P54.6 Over 3-month span 1983 . . . . 46.8 57.3 64.1 75.1 75.7 77.8 74.1 81.6 80.8 78.9 79.5 77 6 1984 . . . . 82.2 76.5 71.1 68.4 68.9 63.5 58.1 58.6 53.5 64.9 61.9 1985 . . . . P57.0 80.5 P52.7 Over 6-month 1983 . . . . 50.8 63.0 69.2 75.1 80.0 82.4 84.1 82.4 84.6 85 9 86.8 83.8 span 1984 . . . . 81.9 82.7 79.7 75.4 69.2 63.2 62.4 62.7 63.5 60.5 P55.1 P60.8 12-month 1983 ... 49.5 54.3 61.9 71.1 77.3 79.5 83.8 88.1 86.8 87.3 85 4 87.3 span 1984 . . . . 86.5 81.9 78.9 76.8 74.3 73.8 71.1 P63.5 P61.9 Over p = preliminary. are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the "D efinitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA are compiled monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De partment of Labor from monthly reports of unemployment insur ance activity prepared by State agencies. Railroad unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. excluded from the scope of the survey. Initial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiving 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 o f in sured unemployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a 12-month period. Average weekly seasonally adjusted insured unemployment data are computed by b l s ’ Weekly Seasonal Adjustment program. This procedure incorporated the X - l 1 Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjust ment program. An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Number of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been adjusted. N a t io n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a t a Definitions Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured un employment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act. The total may include persons receiving Federal-State Extended Benefits. Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of at least 1 week o f unemployment before they are defined as unemployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10 percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations [A ll item s except average benefits a m ounts are in thousands] 1985 1984 It e m Feb. A p r. M a r. June M ay A ug. J u ly S e p t. O c t. Nov. J a n .P Dec. F e b .P All programs: 3,174 Insured u n e m p lo y m e n t............................. 2,958 2,613 2,290 2,166 2,327 2,184 2,083 2,149 2,441 2,778 3,361 State unemployment insurance program:1 1,528 1,424 1,429 1,368 1,387 1,767 1,459 1,260 1,758 1,825 2,074 2,609 weekly v o lu m e ) ...................................... 3,056 2,843 2,515 2,215 2,111 2,270 2,129 2,023 2,072 2,355 2,691 3,264 Rate of insured u n e m p loym ent................ 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.7 Weeks of unemployment compensated . . 11,622 11,339 9,695 9,304 8,053 8,380 8,716 7,209 8,092 8,421 9,271 12,554 $124.30 $124.67 $125.26 $123.69 $121.96 $123.95 $125.71 $127.17 $1,109,268 $948,381 $120.24 $119.83 $974,135 $1,017,804 $123.19 $1,400,458 $1,369,536 $1,173,601 $853,424 Initial claim s2 ............................................. Insured unemployment (average Average weekly benefit amount fo r total unemployment Total benefits paid ...................... ................................... $122.49 $962,856 $1,005,727 $1,124,849 $1,531,974 State unemployment insurance program :1 (Seasonally adjusted data) 1 ,5 7 2 1 ,5 7 0 1 ,5 6 9 1 ,6 1 4 1 ,5 5 9 1 ,6 6 1 1 ,6 1 8 1,707 1 ,7 4 6 1 ,7 6 5 1,602 1 ,7 6 5 weekly v o lu m e ) ...................................... 2,428 2,470 2,507 2,300 2,356 2,457 2,355 2,567 2,461 2,551 2,541 2,532 Rate of insured u n e m p loym ent................ 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 In it ia l c l a i m s ^ ........................................................... Insured unemployment (average Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3 Initial claim s1 ............................................. 13 13 12 12 12 13 14 13 15 13 12 14 24 22 20 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid ................................... 96 89 78 18 79 71 71 19 79 72 86 87 89 $12,540 $11,813 $10,349 $10,577 $9,467 $9,573 $10,715 $9,820 $11,766 $11,984 $12,072 103 $14,044 10 9 13 9 11 12 10 9 15 12 11 14 Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees:4 Initial c la im s ................................................ Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid ................................... 19 19 21 23 24 27 31 28 23 20 19 20 129 122 88 80 83 69 85 89 94 113 $10,529 76 $8,994 $9,489 $9,776 $8,198 $10,088 $10,830 $11,442 $14,148 2 11 25 7 6 9 10 11 13 $15,003 $14,778 98 $11,844 4 3 2 Railroad unemployment insurance: A p p lic a tio n s ................................................ 4 Insured unemployment (average 49 104 99 70 19 54 38 35 37 34 46 52 61 31 94 74 $209.56 $208.96 $196.32 $188.45 $187.37 $197.85 $196.15 $195.20 $198.85 $205.26 $206.99 $209.76 Total benefits paid $23,228 $20,112 $13,356 $10,233 $7,039 $189.06 $6,691 $6,695 $6,349 $8,596 weekly v o lu m e ) ...................................... ................................... 41 27 16 17 16 18 21 26 29 34 Number of p a y m e n ts ................................ Average amount of benefit payment . . . Employment service:5 New applications and renew als ................ 8,231 9,517 4,132 Nonfarm placements 1,469 1,810 1,000 ................................ 1 1nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. E xclu d e s data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs, 5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly. 2 Excludes transition claims under State programs. p = preliminary. ^Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. Note : https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available. 67 PRICE DATA P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted). Definitions The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure o f the average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and services. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began pub lishing c p i ’ s for two groups of the population. It introduced a c p i for All Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop ulation, and revised the c p i for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covering about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers index covers in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The c p i is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and serv ices that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. Data are collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants 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 c p i ’ s are based on the ex penditures o f two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately reflect the experience o f individual families and single persons with dif ferent buying habits. Though the c p i is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it measures 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 o f the United States by producers of commodities in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The 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 o f processing structure organizes products by degree o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by sim ilarity o f end-use or material composition. 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the various commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights repre senting their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as o f 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage o f processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability of product groupings, and a number of special composite groupings. Price indexes for the output of selected sic industries measure average price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 (Washington, U .S. Office o f Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity of the spec ified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive industrial censuses conducted by the U .S. Bureau of the Census and the U .S. Department of Agriculture. Notes on the data Regional c p i ’ s cross classified by population size were introduced in the May 1978 Review. These indexes enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a better approximation of the c p i for their area by using the appropriate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified indexes are published bimonthly. (See table 20.) For details concerning the 1978 revision of the c p i , see The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report 517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978). As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments. Additional data and analyses of price changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau. For a discussion o f the general method of computing producer, and industry price indexes, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, see B L S Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (1976), chapter 13. See also John F. Early, “ Improving the measurement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1978. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1965. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967- 84 19. [1 967 = 100] Food and A ll it e m s A p p arel and H o u s in g T r a n s p o r t a t io n upkeep b ev e ra g e s M e d ic a l c a r e O th e r go o d s E n t e r t a in m e n t a n d s e r v ic e s Year P e rc e n t In d e x change In d e x P e rc e n t change In d e x P e rc e n t P e rc e n t In d e x change In d e x P e rc e n t In d e x change 100.0 P erc e n t change 100.0 106.1 6.1 100.0 105.7 5.7 105.2 5.2 113.4 6.9 111.0 5.0 110.4 4.9 116.1 112.7 5.1 120.6 6.3 116.7 5.1 115.8 5.8 119.8 3.3 118.6 5.2 128.4 6.5 122.9 5.3 122.4 4.8 126.5 2.9 127.5 130.0 2.8 132 5 3.9 104.0 4.0 100.0 105.4 5.0 110.4 6.2 111.5 1970 116.3 5.9 114.7 5.4 118.2 7.1 118.3 3.1 123.4 4.4 3.8 4.4 122.3 2.1 119.9 1.1 132.5 3.2 126.8 3.7 123.8 3.3 137.7 3.9 121.3 4.3 125.3 3.3 123.2 4.1 128.1 133.1 6.2 139.5 13.2 133.7 100 0 3.2 3.9 3.6 1971 change 103.2 100.0 103.6 108.8 1973 In d e x change 107.2 4.2 5.4 1972 P erc e n t P e rc e n t 5.4 104.2 109.8 100.0 In d e x 5.8 4.1 1968 1969 1967 100.0 change 4.2 1974 147.7 11.0 158.7 13.8 148.8 11.3 136.2 7.4 137.7 11.2 150.5 9.3 139.8 7.5 142.0 7.2 1975 161.2 9.1 172.1 8.4 164.5 10.6 142.3 4.5 150.6 9.4 168.6 12.0 152.2 8.9 153.9 8.4 1976 170.5 5.8 177.4 6.1 147.6 5.0 162.7 1977 181.5 6.5 188.0 8.0 186.5 6.8 154.2 4.5 177.2 7.1 202 4 9.6 167.7 4.9 172.2 5.8 202 6 8.6 159.5 3.4 185.8 4.9 219.4 8.4 176.2 5.1 183.2 6.4 3.1 174.6 3.7 165.5 9.9 184.7 9.5 159.8 5.7 206.2 9.7 1979 217.7 11.5 228.7 10.9 227.5 12.3 166.4 4.3 212.8 14.5 240.1 9.4 187.6 6.5 196.3 7.2 1980 247.0 13.5 248.7 8.7 263.2 15.7 177.4 6.6 250.5 17.7 287.2 11.3 203.7 8.5 213.6 8.8 1981 272.3 10.2 267.8 7.7 293.2 11.4 186.6 5.2 281 3 12.3 295.1 10.4 219.0 7.5 233.3 9.2 1982 288.6 6.0 278.5 4.0 314.7 7.3 190 9 2.3 293.1 4.2 326.9 10.8 232.4 6.1 257.0 10.2 1983 297.4 2.2 322.0 2.3 195.6 2.5 300.0 2.4 355.1 4.3 286.3 11.4 295 2 3.7 329.2 2.2 199.1 1.8 313.9 4.6 377.7 8.6 6.4 242.4 307.6 3.0 3.4 284.7 1984 251.2 3.6 304.9 6.5 1978 195.3 7.6 20. 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] U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s 1984 G e n e ra l s u m m a ry A ll i te m s 1984 1985 1985 Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. 306.6 314.5 315.3 315.3 315.5 316.1 317.4 303.3 312.1 312.2 311.9 312.2 312.6 313.9 296.6 296.3 301.2 Food and beverages ................................................................................................ 294.2 296.4 297.2 299.3 301.4 294.4 296.3 296.5 299 1 ................................................................................................................... 331.0 341.4 341.2 340.9 341.2 342.0 343.3 324.2 336.8 335.5 296.2 334.4 297.1 Housing 335.0 335.7 Apparel and u p k e e p ............................................................................................... 196.2 204.2 205.7 205.2 203.2 199.8 201.8 195.4 203.3 204.8 204 2 202.1 198 5 200.7 T ra n s p o rta tio n ......................................................................................................... 305.8 373.2 313.7 315.5 385.5 316.1 387.5 315.8 388.5 314.7 314.3 393.8 307.7 371.3 317.8 383.7 318.3 385.6 317.9 386.7 316.7 316.3 392.0 254.2 254.8 255.8 256.6 256 9 311.9 312.6 312.8 315.6 317.1 ......................................................................................................... 251.5 257.3 258.3 259.0 260.1 261.0 261.3 247.7 316.0 381.2 253.4 Other goods and s e rv ic e s ...................................................................................... 301.5 314.6 315.8 316.5 316.7 319.1 320.5 299.2 310.9 Medical care Entertainment 383.1 391.1 389.3 337.2 278.3 282.3 284.0 278.0 282.5 283.1 282.8 282.7 282.5 283.5 Commodities less food and b e v e ra g e s ...................................................... 266.0 271.0 272.1 272.2 271.4 270.0 270.7 266.4 271.8 272.5 272.3 271.8 270.3 271.1 Nondurables less food and b e v e ra g e s ................................................... 274.0 277.2 278.6 278.2 277.0 274.4 274.7 276.1 279.0 280.3 279.9 278.7 275.8 276 2 C o m m o d itie s ............................................................................................................ 283.1 283.0 282.8 282.7 260.9 268.7 269.3 270.0 269.8 270.2 271.4 257.1 264.4 264.6 264.5 264.6 264.9 266.2 355.3 368.9 369.7 369.9 370.6 372.1 350.1 366.8 366.3 365.9 366.8 368.3 369.6 ............................................................................................ 243.6 252.4 253.8 254.8 256.1 257.1 373.5 258.4 242 9 251.7 253.1 254.0 255.3 256.3 257.5 Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... 105.7 111.0 109.9 108.8 108.5 108.9 108.9 D u ra b le s ...................................................................................................... Services ................................................................................................................... Rent, residential 320.7 323.7 327.7 328.1 404.4 413.9 416.5 418.5 419.3 331.8 422.4 310.6 ................................................................................... 425.3 401.8 411.5 414.1 416.1 417.0 420.1 423.1 ............................................................................................... 289 1 302.5 304.2 305 2 306.1 307.1 307.8 286.1 299.0 300 6 301.5 302.3 303 5 304.2 All items less f o o d ................................................................................................... 305.9 315.2 316.1 316.2 316.2 316.3 317.4 302 4 312.7 312.9 312.6 312.7 312.7 313.7 All items less homeowners' costs 104.8 107.4 107.6 107.6 107.6 107.8 108.2 Transportation services Medical care services Other services ............................................................................... 314.4 324.6 327.5 328.9 330.1 332.2 325.1 326.1 S p e c ia l in d e x e s : ...................................................................... 298.3 297.9 298.4 298 2 Commodities less food ......................................................................................... 263.8 268.8 269.8 269 9 269.2 267.8 268.6 264.1 269.6 269 6 268.2 269.0 ......................................................................................... 269.1 272.3 273.6 273.3 272.2 269.7 270.2 271.1 274.1 270 3 275.4 270.1 Nondurables less food 275.0 273.9 271.2 271.7 290.9 All items less mortgage interest c o s t s ............................................................... Nondurables less food and a p p a re l...................................................................... 311.2 312.3 313.5 313.4 312.8 310.9 310.8 312.4 313.5 314.8 314.5 313.8 311.8 311.5 N o n d u ra b le s ............................................................................................................ 285.3 288.0 288.8 288.5 288.3 288.0 289.6 286 3 288.8 289.5 289.2 289.0 288.6 289 8 Services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... 106.3 110.5 110.6 110.5 110.6 111.1 111.3 Services less medical care 347.8 361.7 362.3 362.3 363.0 364.3 365.5 .................................................................................. 342.4 359.6 358.9 358.2 359.2 100.5 100.7 360 4 361 6 280.4 282.9 282.1 284.8 279.4 278.3 278.0 277.2 278.2 Selected beef c u t s .................................................................................................. 280.8 271.5 271.0 271.6 276.0 276.2 273.2 272.2 273.0 277.4 277.5 276.5 420 2 429 0 426.7 421.8 418.9 414.5 275.2 411.4 282.1 Energy 420.2 428.3 426.1 421.5 413.8 410.6 ......................................................................................... 414.5 405.4 408.2 407.2 404.1 406 3 408.9 407.8 418.5 404 7 ............................................................................................ 298.2 306 1 307.1 307.7 308.2 309.2 310.9 293.8 302.7 303.1 303 2 303.8 396.2 304.7 391.8 306.4 307.9 309.5 290.4 301.0 301 5 301.6 302.1 302 7 304.3 258.1 368.0 264.1 254.3 254.2 255.5 358.9 359.4 254.0 360.7 253.8 343 6 253.8 358.4 362 0 363.6 $0,315 $0 330 $0,320 $0,320 $0,321 $0,320 $0,320 $0,319 Domestically produced farm f o o d s ...................................................................... ...................................................................................................................... Energy commodities All Items less energy 280.7 280 0 279.7 278.8 279.9 395.7 All items less food and e n e m y ......................................................................... 295.5 304.9 306.1 306.9 Commodities less food and e n e r g y ............................................................ 248.5 256.0 256.8 257.0 307.3 256 7 Services less e n e rg y ............................................................................................... 349.5 361.0 362.7 364.0 365.0 256.5 366.4 $0,326 SO 318 $0 317 $0,317 $0,317 $0,316 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ................................... 391.3 246.6 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s G e n e ra l s u m m a ry 1985 1984 1985 Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. ........................................................................................................................ 294.2 296.4 296.6 296.3 297.2 299.3 301.4 294.4 296.3 296.5 296.2 297.1 299.1 301.2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 302.1 304.2 304.4 304.1 305.1 307.3 309.5 302.1 303.8 304.0 303.7 304.7 306.9 309.0 FO OD A N D BEVERAG ES Food U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s 1984 Food at home ......................................................................................................... S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. 293.6 293.4 293.4 292.4 293.2 296.1 298.6 291.9 291.9 291.8 290.9 291.7 294.5 297.0 300.3 307.9 308.7 309.0 310.7 312.4 313.7 300.0 306.3 307.1 307.4 309.0 310.7 311.9 164.5 163.6 163.8 164.2 165.6 167.0 162.6 165.1 164.3 164.4 164.7 166.2 167.5 Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 160.3 143.4 146.3 145.2 143.9 143.4 146.6 148.2 145.1 146.6 145.6 144.4 143.6 146.8 148.4 Cereal (12/77 = 100) 180.4 186.1 186.2 186.7 187.6 189.4 191.9 182.5 Cereals and bakery products ...................................................................... Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ................................... ................................................................ 188.3 188.4 189.0 189.8 191.7 194.1 ............................. 147.2 150.4 148.5 149.3 149.9 149.3 149.0 148.4 151.5 149.7 150.5 151.0 150.3 150.2 Bakery products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................... 158.5 162.4 163.3 163.4 164.5 165.2 165.6 157.2 161.1 161.9 162.1 163.1 163.8 164.2 White b r e a d ................................................................................... 257.3 263.2 264.3 265.8 265.4 267.2 267.1 253.0 258.8 260.1 261.3 261.0 263.0 262.8 Other breads (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... 153.9 155.8 155.7 155.4 156.2 156.0 158.1 Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ................ 158.7 159.7 160.7 161.1 161.9 161.8 164.1 154.7 155.6 156.4 157.0 157.5 157.6 159.7 ............................. 160.4 165.9 167.4 166.4 169.6 169.6 168.9 158.6 163.6 165.0 164.1 167.3 167.3 166.8 Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) Cookies (12/77 = 100) ............................................................ Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 = 100) Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) 162.6 167.3 168.3 168.5 170.9 171.3 171.5 156.0 163.4 158.0 168.3 158.0 157.6 158.4 171.9 158.1 160.5 169.5 169.6 . . . 152.3 161.7 162.7 160.9 164.3 166.3 167.9 153.6 163.0 164.2 162.4 166.0 167.8 169.2 . . 160.4 162.9 163.8 163.9 164.1 164.9 165.0 163.2 165.9 166.6 166.7 166.9 167.7 167.7 172.3 172.5 Frozen and refrigerated bakery products and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ................................................................... Meats, poultry, and f i s h ...................................................................... 163.9 169.3 170.0 171.1 171.7 172.9 172.4 157.1 162.0 162.7 163.8 164.3 165.5 164.9 273.0 264.5 263.5 262.4 265.9 266.6 267.0 272.4 264.1 262.9 261.8 265.3 266.0 266.3 273.9 271.6 270.4 269.4 272.5 275.0 274.8 273.2 271.0 269.7 268.7 271.7 274.2 274.0 ............................................................................................ 270.0 268.0 267.1 266.1 269.6 270.8 270.6 269.4 267.7 266.6 265.5 268.9 270.2 270.0 Beef and v e a l ............................................................................ 280.9 271.9 271.3 271.9 276.2 276.4 275.6 281.6 272.8 271.9 272.5 261.1 293.1 252.9 252.4 256.0 281.5 256.5 284.7 261.9 302.0 254.4 280.6 253.5 285.1 276.2 257.7 276.6 257.2 286.1 255.7 271.8 254.3 280.9 276.9 258.2 277.0 Ground beef other than ca n n e d ......................................... Chuck roast ......................................................................... 289.9 294.7 Meats 257.0 290.6 293.9 Round r o a s t ......................................................................... 253.5 234.3 236.5 234.1 239.0 240.7 239.2 257.3 237.8 240.3 237.9 242.3 244.3 242.2 Round s t e a k ......................................................................... 264.5 252.4 251.3 248.4 255.7 258.8 258.4 264.0 251.4 248.3 246.4 253.6 256.3 256.4 Sirloin s t e a k ......................................................................... 274.6 286.1 273.9 271.6 276.2 272.7 272.6 276.5 288.7 275.3 273.6 279.1 274.5 273.7 Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) 172.3 169.0 168.5 168.8 171.2 172.6 170.9 170.8 167.8 167.2 167.3 170.0 171.2 ................................ P o r k ............................................................................................ 169.5 250.6 257.5 255.0 251.2 254.6 258.5 258.9 250.1 257.0 254.3 250.3 253.7 257.6 258.0 Bacon ................................................................................... 267.9 270.3 271.1 266.5 270.5 276.9 278.9 271.6 274.2 275.0 270.4 274.1 280.9 282.6 Chops ................................................................................... 230.7 242.3 235.9 232.7 234.1 236.3 240.5 228.7 240.6 234.0 230.4 232.1 234.2 238.5 Ham other than canned (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... 109.8 116.8 117.2 115.6 120.9 120.0 118.0 107.0 113.6 113.8 112.5 117.7 116.7 114.9 Sausage ................................................................................ Canned ham ......................................................................... Other pork (12/77 = 100) Other meats ................................................ 320.0 321.2 319.0 315.3 316.6 324.5 321.9 321.1 322.7 319.6 315.5 316.7 325.0 322.1 251.1 251.4 252.6 246.8 248.8 255.3 258.2 255.7 256.0 258.4 250.4 253.9 259.2 262.9 139.0 137.3 140.4 139.8 138.7 141.7 138.5 136.4 136.7 139.8 139.1 270.2 269.8 270.5 269.4 268.2 269.5 268.6 269.4 269.2 269.6 139.3 142.5 ............................................................................ 265.0 268.7 270.0 137.0 269.4 ......................................................................... 263.5 267.6 269.6 265.0 266.6 267.6 269.2 262.0 266.1 268.0 263.3 265.1 266.6 268.0 . . . . 152.4 155.6 155.4 156.0 155.7 156.1 155.6 156.6 139.2 138.2 156.8 138.2 152.3 138.8 155.8 138.6 155.6 136.2 156.2 139.4 156.2 ................................... 134.2 137.0 137.5 136.7 137.3 136.2 136.2 143.4 144.4 143.6 Frankfurters Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100) ......................... 138.2 137.3 138.2 141.1 140.8 141.6 140.1 141.0 143.9 225.5 217.2 214.0 213.1 213.8 141.5 217.4 141.1 P o u ltr y ............................................................................................ 219.5 223.5 214.7 211.6 210.9 211.3 215.1 217.0 Fresh whole c h ic k e n ............................................................. 235.9 220.2 213.8 215.4 210.4 214.3 216.5 233.4 217.5 211.4 213.0 208.0 212.0 214.0 Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 152.2 144.7 141.4 140.4 140.4 141.7 143.3 150.2 142.4 139.2 138.4 138.2 139.5 131.9 388.2 138.0 141.8 142.3 391.4 405.3 401.2 Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) Other poultry (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Fish and seafood ......................................................................... 141.3 128.5 132.7 135.1 132.6 138.9 142.4 143.2 127.9 131.8 134.3 386.2 390.6 390.6 389.2 392.2 406.1 401.4 389.1 389.1 133.2 132.5 132.5 132.9 134.0 133.2 157.5 157.9 157.3 159.1 166.9 164.9 132.9 133.7 132.9 133.0 133.4 134.4 133.5 384.6 132.4 ... 155.5 157.7 158.2 157.3 158.9 166.7 164.3 155.2 E g g s ......................................................................................................... 270.3 178.6 177.8 175.6 185.7 161.3 169.7 271.8 179.7 178.7 176.4 186.5 162.0 170.2 Dairy p r o d u c t s ................................................................................................ 250.9 254.9 256.1 257.2 258.4 258.8 259.2 250.1 253.8 255.1 256.2 257.3 257.8 258.3 Canned fish and seafood ................................................... Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 136.6 137.7 138.7 139.8 140.4 140.4 140.7 136.0 136.9 137.9 139.1 139.6 139.7 140.0 ......................................................................... 223.3 224.7 226.8 228.7 229.6 229.6 229.8 222.3 223.5 225.6 227.5 228.4 228.4 228.7 Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 137.0 138.7 139.0 140.0 140.7 141.0 141.5 136.4 138.0 138.3 139.3 139.9 140.3 140.8 Fresh whole milk Processed dairy products ................................................................... 149.3 153.1 153.3 153.3 154.1 154.5 154.8 149.5 153.4 153.7 153.6 154.4 154.8 155.1 ............................................................................................ 253.4 266.0 268.8 268.7 269.4 266.4 264.9 255.9 268.6 271.4 271.5 272.3 269.1 267.6 Cheese (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................ 146.8 149.1 149.5 150.1 150.1 150.3 150.8 147.1 149.4 149.9 150.5 150.5 150.6 151.3 Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 155.6 160.9 160.0 158.1 160.1 162.3 162.6 154.4 159.9 159.0 157.1 159.0 161.3 161.7 Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ...................................... 146.2 149.9 150.0 150.9 152.5 153.0 153.0 146.7 150.4 150.4 151.3 152.8 153.3 153.4 ................................................................................... 321.0 319.7 318.4 314.8 309.7 Butter Fruits and vegetables Fresh fruits and vegetables 320.8 333.0 317.2 313.6 312.3 308.9 303.9 314.9 327.1 ................................................................ 342.8 332.5 329.3 323.4 312.6 332.7 354.1 337.4 323.0 319.9 314.6 303.9 323.6 344.9 Fresh fruits ................................................................................... 296.0 364.8 354.3 343.9 331.6 341.5 362.6 286.2 349.6 337.4 329.3 317.6 326.1 347.0 Apples ................................................................................... 287.9 337.9 304.5 299.3 298.0 302.8 297.5 304.1 318.5 289.3 Bananas ................................................................................ 263.2 249.9 242.1 234.9 225.2 248.6 268.9 260.7 339.6 248.4 240.6 232.7 224.0 246.7 267.9 Oranges ................................................................................ 303.0 553.6 538.4 473.6 428.0 429.7 448.6 276.2 507.1 489.1 434.1 390.2 388.9 408.7 Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... 158.2 170.4 172.7 175.3 174.3 180.0 193.0 152.6 163.6 165.2 168.1 167.0 172.0 184.6 386.6 359.6 302.3 354.1 306.0 304.4 294.8 324.5 331.5 344.5 304.2 318.4 301.5 305.1 291.6 320.4 343.2 327.3 383.8 353.2 321.5 313.1 346.3 335.7 299.2 324.3 Fresh vegetables ......................................................................... P o ta to e s ................................................................................ 299.9 304.9 323.5 319.5 327.5 L e ttu c e ................................................................................... 378.5 337.8 363.6 350.5 276.0 385.6 339.7 280.2 338.0 365.1 349.2 274.4 386.6 341.7 Tomatoes ............................................................................. 232.8 252.9 255.1 245.3 232.4 238.0 282.4 337.6 256.2 259.9 249.7 236.0 240.6 285.6 Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 252.1 152.1 158.7 164.3 167.4 177.3 205.0 249.7 150.2 157.0 162.6 165.2 175.2 202.8 Processed fruits and v e g e ta b le s ......................................................... 299.9 308.4 309.2 308.0 309.3 310.6 312.7 297.4 305.6 306.5 305.2 306.5 307.9 309.9 Processed fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 156.8 164.5 163.5 164.5 165.2 166.9 156.3 162.6 164.0 162.9 164.0 164.7 166.4 Frozen fru it and fru it juices (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... 154.9 165.2 166.3 165.0 166.6 167.4 170.0 154.0 164.5 165.6 164.2 166.0 166.7 169.3 Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ................ 158.4 165.1 168.0 166.8 168.3 168.1 170.1 163.9 167.1 165.7 167.3 167.1 169.1 Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... 144.6 159.3 159.2 158.7 158.7 160.3 160.9 157.3 157.1 159.5 159.3 158.8 158.7 160.5 161.1 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 163.1 20. [1 9 6 7 Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s 1985 1984 1985 1984 G e n e ra l s u m m a ry Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. 144.6 146.9 146.5 146.1 146.5 147.1 147.5 143.6 145.7 145.3 145.0 145.3 146.0 146.4 154.2 156.2 157.1 156.9 156.9 158.9 159.6 155.2 157.7 158.9 158.7 158.7 160.9 161.6 Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100) . . . 146.2 150.9 149 8 149.7 150.8 150.7 150.0 145.5 148.3 147.2 147.1 148.0 148.0 147.4 Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) 138.8 140.2 139.4 138.9 139.0 139.3 140.1 137.1 138.6 137.8 137.3 137.4 137.8 138.5 Fruits and vegetables— Continued Processed vegetables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) ................................... . . . . Other foods at h o m e ...................................................................................... 348.4 355.1 356.1 355.0 354.6 358.0 359.8 349.1 355.4 356.5 355.3 354.9 358.3 360.2 Sugar and sweets ............................................................................... Candy and chewing gum (12/77 = 100) ................................ 381.2 393.7 393.3 390.9 391.7 394.5 394.8 380,7 393.1 392.8 390.5 391.4 394.0 394.4 154.5 162.1 161.3 161.6 162.9 154.3 161.8 161.2 161.5 162.7 172.3 172.5 170.3 171.9 171.5 173.0 173.5 173.7 171.7 162.2 170.7 162.6 171.8 162.3 169.4 162.8 Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 160.0 160.9 151.7 157.2 157.7 155.5 156.7 157.5 158.4 295.9 295.1 280.9 294.6 294.4 292.5 293.1 295.3 294.7 295.5 294.0 173.2 172.8 154.0 159.7 160.2 158.0 159.1 ............................................................ 281.1 295.1 294.9 293.0 293.7 M a r g a r in e ...................................................................................... Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . . 280.5 296.6 297.5 292.9 295.6 298.2 296.8 278.8 294.3 295.0 290.6 292.6 153.9 156.3 157.5 157.3 158.7 160.2 159.7 151.9 154.2 155.3 155.3 156.6 158.1 153.1 152.8 146.1 154.7 153.8 153.2 152.8 153.6 153.5 449.4 452.7 443.5 445.2 448.2 446.7 444.7 450.9 454.2 324.3 325.9 315.8 314.1 317.0 314.4 313.9 321.6 323.2 Other sweets (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Fats and oils (12/77 - 100) Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Nonalcoholic beverages ...................................................................... Cola drinks, excluding diet cola ................................................ Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . . 157.6 145.5 154.2 153.3 152.7 152.1 441.8 444.0 446.8 445.5 443.4 318.3 316.8 319.8 317.3 152.6 149.4 149.9 148.8 146.8 147.9 149.8 150.3 147.1 147.7 146.6 144.3 145.4 147.4 376.7 376.2 379.5 358.9 370.2 371.5 369.8 370.3 369.9 373.3 374.5 316.4 ............................................................................ 364.3 376.3 377.7 376.0 Freeze dried and instant c o ffe e ................................................... 357.2 369.2 371.9 372.7 373.8 373.7 375.5 356.5 368.2 371.2 371.9 372.9 372.9 Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) ......................... 144.5 148.3 148.9 150.5 149.7 151.3 152.4 144.8 148.7 149.3 150.8 150.1 151.5 152.7 Other prepared fo o d s ............................................................................ 281.4 287.3 287 8 287.5 287.7 289.6 291.5 283.0 288.7 289.3 288.8 289 1 290.9 292.9 149.9 150.7 145.2 148.2 148.3 149.8 150.4 151.6 152.5 Roasted coffee 146.4 146.5 148.1 148.7 ................................... 156.8 161.6 162.9 162.6 162.2 163.6 165.3 156.1 160.4 162.0 161.5 160.9 162.2 164.0 1 0 0 ) ................................................................ 162.8 166.9 167.8 167.4 166.4 167.6 169.5 164.9 169.2 170.0 169.7 168.7 169.9 172.0 Canned and packaged soup (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Frozen prepared foods (12/77 Snacks (12/77 - 100) 162.3 165.6 166.2 164.9 165.9 167.6 168.1 161.4 164.7 165.2 164.0 164.8 166.6 167.1 1 0 0 ) ............................................ 156.6 159.5 159.3 158.8 159.9 160.9 161.1 158.4 161,4 161.2 160.7 161.8 162.8 162.9 ...................... 154.6 155.9 155.9 155.6 155.4 156.3 157.1 154.8 155.9 156.0 155.6 155.4 156.3 157.1 149.7 152.8 151.9 152.1 152.7 152.8 153.6 150.9 153.9 153.0 153.1 153.8 154.0 154.9 328.5 337.7 339.2 331.7 339.0 339.8 343.0 344.6 Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100) Other condiments (12/77 - 143.2 Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) . . . Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) . . 339.9 341.4 162.8 163.2 163.8 164.4 164.9 160.1 163.9 164.3 340.9 164.7 342.3 158.5 335.8 162.4 336.6 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................... 165.3 165.8 166.5 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................... 158.1 161.8 162.2 162.8 163.6 163.8 164.7 159.9 163.6 163.9 164.6 165.4 165.6 166.6 162.9 165.7 166.0 166.5 167.3 167.5 168.1 163.4 166.3 166.6 167.1 167.8 168.0 168.6 219.9 223.1 224.2 223.8 223.9 224.3 225.8 223.0 226.4 227.5 227.1 227.2 227.6 229.1 142.8 143.7 143.2 143.2 143.5 144.3 143.6 145.1 145.8 145.4 145.4 145.7 146.5 ................................................................................................... 141.5 227.7 231.5 232.7 231 9 232.5 232.9 234.5 226.8 230.5 231.7 230.7 231.6 232.0 233.4 W h is k e y ............................................................................................................ 153.2 153.8 154.6 154.3 154.0 154.1 154.8 153.5 154.1 154.9 154.6 154.1 154.1 154.7 Wine ............................................................................................................... 232.4 231.8 234.8 233.0 232.2 233.3 234.4 239.8 239.5 242.5 241.3 239.7 241.0 242.0 Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Food away from home Lunch (12/77 Dinner (12/77 - ......................................................................................... Other meals and snacks (12/77 A lc o h o lic b e v e r a g e s ................................................................................................................................ Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 Beer and ale 1 0 0 ) ................................................... 100) ................................................... 122.8 123.4 123.2 123.5 122.8 123.2 124.3 122.6 123.2 122.9 123.3 122.5 122.9 123.7 ................................... 152.0 157.2 157.7 158.2 158.5 158.6 160.2 153.2 158.6 159.1 159.5 159.8 159.9 161.5 H O U S IN G 331.0 341.4 341.2 340.9 341.2 342.0 343.6 324.2 336.8 335.5 334.4 335.0 335.7 337.2 S h e l t e r ( C P I U ) .............................................................................................................................................. 354.0 366.5 367.8 368.9 370.1 371.2 373.3 Renters' c o s t s ......................................................................................................... Rent, residential ............................................................................................ 106.0 110.2 110.7 110.9 111.3 111.8 112.4 243.6 252.4 253.8 254.8 256.1 257.1 258.4 379 1 109.4 S h e l t e r ( C P I W ) ............................................................................................................................................. 343.7 359.3 358.3 357.7 359.0 360.0 362.0 Rent, re s id e n tia l...................................................................................................... 242.9 251.7 253.1 254.0 255.3 256.3 257.5 Other renters' costs ............................................................................................... 360.9 383.6 381.9 378.7 374.6 380.8 Lodging while out of t o w n ............................................................................ 377.9 404.8 399.8 394.8 388.3 377.8 393.4 397.8 Tenants' insurance (12/77 - 166.1 163.4 163.4 163.3 163.5 163.5 164.2 Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 = 100) ...................................................................................... 362.5 375.1 109.8 378.5 105.1 384.3 108.7 382.6 Homeowners' c o s t s ............................................................................................... Owners' equivalent r e n t ................................................................................ 110.0 381.9 110.7 105.1 108.7 109.4 109.8 110.0 110.7 Household in s u ra n c e ...................................................................................... 107.1 108.6 362.7 109.1 108.7 108.8 109.0 109.5 361.6 362.9 108.9 364.4 366.8 414.3 414.4 412.6 414.2 366.0 414,7 415.8 264.8 262.9 266.5 267.7 269.9 270.5 Other renters’ costs Maintenance and repairs ...................................................................................... Maintenance and repair services ................................................................ Maintenance and repair c o m m o d itie s ......................................................... 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ 353.5 400.9 260.4 109.1 379 4 397.2 395.5 394.4 ............................................................................................ 294.4 302.5 302.4 301.0 395.9 301.4 Financing, taxes, and insurance-................................................................... 490.5 524.9 520.5 519.5 522.4 Property in s u ra n c e ............................................................................... 439.3 442.4 443.2 446.6 ...................................................................................... 243.2 251.4 252.2 252.9 447.6 254 4 Contracted mortgage interest c o s t s ................................................... 617.2 666.4 659.3 657.1 661.0 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................................................................... Home purchase Property taxes Mortgage interest r a t e s ................................................................ 207.7 218.6 216.8 216.9 217.6 Maintenance and re p a irs ................................................................................ 351.9 359.4 358.9 358.5 359.8 360.9 361.5 Maintenance and repair s e rvice s ......................................................... 396.8 407.9 408.1 406.6 407.7 407 8 408.8 Maintenance and repair c o m m o d itie s ......................................................... 257.4 258.1 256.2 257.8 259.3 260.8 261.1 152.5 128.4 127.8 Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and 152.2 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... 147.6 147.8 147.0 149.1 151.0 Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 125.6 123.5 123.1 122.4 122.5 ............................................................ 139.4 142.7 141.5 142.0 142.0 141.0 143.5 Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 144.3 146.7 144.0 145.5 145.2 144.8 145.2 equipment (12/77 - Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling supplies (12/77 - https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100) 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s G e n e ra l s u m m a ry U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s 1984 1985 1984 1985 Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. F u e l a n d o t h e r u t i l i t i e s ....................................................................... 383.0 397.0 392.4 387.5 386.0 387.2 386.5 384.2 398.4 393.6 388.7 387.1 388.3 387.5 F u e ls ................................................................................... 479.6 492.1 482.6 480.2 481.2 480.8 479.1 491.4 480.3 Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ...................................................................... Fuel oil .......................................................................................... Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ............................................. Gas (piped) and e le c tric ity ......................................................... E le c tr ic ity ................................................................ Utility (piped) gas ...................................................................... Other utilities and public services ......................... Telephone s e rv ic e s .......................................... 500.1 499.8 482.1 479.7 480.7 688.6 622.1 626.8 626.9 625.9 621.6 623.4 691.4 624.5 629.4 629.3 628.4 623.9 625.7 705.0 628.4 633.6 633.0 631.5 626.5 628.4 707.6 630.8 636.3 635.6 634.0 628.8 631.3 197.4 193.1 193.7 194.9 195.6 195.6 194.9 198.1 193.6 195.4 196 2 196.1 195.5 443.7 441.0 443.2 442.3 429.0 466.4 456.0 444.7 442.2 444.1 443.3 427.9 465.5 194.3 454.7 334.2 374.9 361.0 350.9 348.2 351.0 352.6 333.3 375.5 360.8 350.5 347.3 350.1 351.7 573.6 598.4 597.1 584.9 583.0 582.9 576.8 570.1 593.2 592.1 580.9 579.7 580.2 574.3 228.0 232.7 232.9 234.4 234.1 235.3 234.3 229.2 233.7 233.9 235.3 235.0 236.3 235.1 190.0 191.1 190.4 190.8 189.1 187.5 190.4 190.5 191.6 190.9 191.3 189 5 166.0 166.1 167.4 167.0 167.6 164.9 186.8 189.8 Local charges (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... 159.0 165.3 165.5 166.9 166.5 167.1 164.6 159.6 Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) 122.4 116.1 116.3 116.2 116.2 116.2 116.2 122.8 116.5 116.6 116.6 116.5 116.5 116.6 122.1 124.8 124.8 125.4 124.1 124.0 123.9 122.1 124.6 124.6 125.2 124.0 123.9 123.9 386.8 388.3 393.3 395.0 242.6 ................................ Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ................................ Water and sewerage m aintenance......................................................... 369.0 380.2 380.5 382.8 384.4 389.6 391.3 373.2 384.5 384.8 240.4 244.1 244.3 244.2 244.2 244.2 246.2 237.4 240.6 240.7 240.6 240.5 240.4 ................................................ 197.6 200.6 200.5 200.2 199.7 198.8 200.7 196.0 198.3 198.2 197.6 197.3 196.3 198.3 Textile h o u s e fu rn is h in g s...................................................... 232.0 245.6 242.7 240.5 239.9 237.1 244.5 235.5 249.9 247.1 244.6 244.1 240.5 247.9 137.4 146.8 147.1 145.2 141.6 138.9 146.6 138.5 148.1 148.8 146.6 143.0 140.2 147.9 H o u s e h o ld f u r n is h in g s a n d o p e r a t io n s Housefurnishings ........................................ Household linens (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) ................................................... 152.3 159.8 155.8 154.9 158.0 157.3 158.6 156.6 164.8 160.2 159.4 162.9 161.3 162.3 216.7 225.5 228.2 227.4 225.6 224.1 225.0 213.7 222.2 224.5 223.4 220.4 Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ............................. Sofas (12/77 = 100) ............................................................. 148.7 118.5 156.6 121.7 160.2 121.6 160.7 160.1 154.1 154.7 150.5 122.3 121.6 121.3 118.3 121.6 156.3 122.0 221.5 151.2 122.2 155.9 121.8 222.5 156.4 121.9 121.2 120.7 Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 124.5 126.8 128.1 127.5 125.8 125.7 125.9 125.7 127.8 129.0 127.9 126.4 126.2 126.9 Other furniture (12/77 = 100) 139.7 146.9 148.1 145.9 143.9 147.2 148.5 135.9 142.1 143.5 141.4 140.4 142.9 144.6 ...................................... 151.1 147.7 147.1 146.0 145.2 145.2 145.8 152.2 149.4 148.8 148.0 147.3 147.1 147.9 ...................................................... 104.5 100.8 100.4 99.9 99.2 99.1 99.7 103.5 99 8 99.5 98.1 98.6 93.5 92.5 92.1 92.5 92.0 91.9 96.7 92.2 91.1 98.9 90.7 98.2 98.1 91.3 90.7 90.5 111.2 108.3 108.4 107.7 106.1 106.4 107.6 110.2 107.2 107.4 106.6 105.0 105.2 106.4 190.7 189.4 188.4 186.7 185.9 186.0 186.5 192.1 190.9 190.2 189.2 188.6 188.5 189.2 Furniture and b e d d in g ............................................................. ............................................. Appliances including TV and sound equipment Television and sound equipment Television ......................................................................... Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) Household appliances ............................................ ............................................................. 145.3 153.5 Refrigerators and home fre e z e rs ................................................ 196.2 196.8 197.6 197.3 197.5 197.1 197.2 201.9 202.6 203.5 203.2 203.8 203.5 Laundry e q u ip m e n t...................................................................... 145.9 126.4 146.9 147.7 148.1 147.6 146.8 147.1 147.1 147.6 148.0 149.1 148.9 147.8 203.3 147.9 124.8 123.5 121.8 121.0 121.3 121.8 125.3 123.2 121.7 119.9 118.9 119.1 119.8 127.2 127.5 124.4 122.4 121.8 121.5 122.4 126.4 125.5 122.6 120.6 120.2 119.5 120.7 ...................................... 126.1 122.8 122.9 121.5 120.5 121.4 121.4 124.0 121.5 122.3 119.0 117.4 118.4 118.7 Other household equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................. 141.7 141.9 141.2 142.8 143.9 143.6 145.1 139.5 139.1 138.5 139.8 140.7 141.0 142.6 Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ......................... Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing machines (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... Office machines, small electric appliances, and air conditioners (12/77 = 100) Floor and window coverings, infants', laundry, cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 145.9 146.7 147.9 148.4 152.0 150.9 153.0 137.6 136.2 138.2 137.8 141.9 140.5 142.4 Clocks, lamps, and decor Items (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ 132.0 137.1 135.6 137.4 137.2 135.2 137.3 128.1 132.8 130.8 132.6 132.5 131.0 133.2 148.2 145.5 143.5 147.6 145.5 146.0 147.0 144.1 141.5 139.8 143.4 140.9 142.8 142.4 136.1 135.5 135.5 134.8 139.1 140.0 141.2 141.0 141.4 141.1 140.2 144.3 144.6 146.0 300.0 304.9 305.4 306.2 307.5 309.9 311.5 296.9 302.0 304.6 306.9 308.5 299.1 299.9 305.7 292.3 303.3 304.3 156.6 158.8 153.2 154.3 155.1 297.6 155.7 301.1 155.8 308.0 158.4 309.1 154.5 302.3 157.1 302.5 295.4 303.5 296.5 155.7 156.9 148.8 141.9 155.2 156.5 156.1 155.8 158.7 149.0 155.2 156.4 155.8 155.6 156.4 158.4 144.2 144.8 145.5 145.2 156.6 145,4 145.3 145.0 147.9 148.4 149.1 148.8 149.1 149 0 Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric kitchenware (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) Housekeeping supplies ............................................. ......................................... Soaps and d e te rg e n ts ...................................................... 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 = 1 0 0 ) .......................... Housekeeping services ................................ 157.1 294.8 157.2 158.3 162.2 161.7 162.1 161.5 163.5 163.9 152.8 156.7 156.2 156.7 156.0 158.0 158.4 145.2 144.8 143.5 143.4 146.3 147.9 149.8 138.3 138.3 137.1 137.5 140.3 141.6 143.9 334.9 324.8 329.4 330.2 330.3 330.6 331.3 333.9 325.3 330.0 330.8 330.9 331.1 331.8 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 349.4 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 337.5 349.8 171.7 175.9 176.3 176.0 176.6 177.9 180.2 171.9 176.4 176.8 176.4 176.9 178.2 180.9 148.3 153.4 154.7 155.4 155.3 155.0 155.8 146.5 151.0 152.2 152.9 152.8 152.6 153.4 A PPAREL A N D UPKEEP 196.2 204.2 205.7 205.2 203.2 199.8 201.8 195.4 203.3 204.8 204.2 202.1 198.5 200.7 A p p a r e l c o m m o d i t i e s .......................................................... 183.2 191.2 192.6 191.9 189.6 185.7 187.5 183.0 190.9 192.3 191.6 189.2 185.1 187.2 Apparel commodities less fo o tw e a r ...................................... 179.3 187.8 189.2 188.3 185.9 181.9 183.7 178.9 187.3 188.7 187.8 185.3 180.9 183.1 Men's and boys’ .......................................... 187.9 195.6 197.6 197.8 196.0 193.2 121.7 192.8 188.7 196.2 198.1 198.6 125.4 196.8 124.1 193.6 122.5 193.1 122.2 105.6 104.4 103.3 P o s ta g e ...................................................... Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and drycleaning services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) Men’s (12/77 = 100) ... ................................... 118.1 123.2 124.3 118.9 123.9 107.6 115.6 116.4 124.5 115.7 121.6 Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Coats and ja c k e t s ................................................................ 113.3 112.3 112.2 125.0 109.7 109.2 106.8 105.7 107.9 106.6 105.6 100.9 109.0 111.1 109.9 108.8 Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... 145.2 151.7 149.0 141.2 125.7 128.2 129.5 128.3 127.4 128.8 131.0 132.1 132.2 129.9 144.8 130.5 112.1 114.5 115.5 117.6 116.6 116.0 128.0 115.4 147.6 130.7 145.2 Shirts (12/77 = 100) 152.0 129.4 101.5 149.1 101.2 101.3 108.9 98.1 117.8 120.9 122 0 124.3 123.1 122.4 121.6 128.5 124.4 121.7 125.7 122.8 ...................................... 150.9 151.8 123.2 146.6 147.7 147.8 105.5 Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ................... Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ............................................................. 123.1 128.1 125.0 127.2 127.1 126.5 123.2 Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 118.4 127.0 126.8 125.9 123.9 117.1 116.2 120.7 129.8 129.2 118.0 136.2 135.8 136.8 139.2 138.1 138.9 131.9 134.7 133.9 134.5 123.3 126.7 126.9 126.0 125.1 119.0 131.8 120.4 132.7 121.6 138.9 126.4 128.3 134.4 125.6 Furnishings (12/77 = 100) 123.8 123.7 124.2 123.4 122.8 ................................................ Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . . 126.9 128.6 117.3 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s 1985 1984 1985 1984 G e n e ra l s u m m a ry Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. 159.0 170.5 172.2 170.4 167.2 161.3 164.1 160.7 172.1 173.8 171.9 168.6 162.1 165.8 ................................................................... 105.6 114.4 115.0 113.4 111.3 107.3 109.3 107.2 115.8 116.4 114.9 112.6 108.3 110.9 Coats and ja c k e ts ......................................................................... 162.9 181.1 181.7 181.9 175.0 161.7 161.0 166.9 185.2 186.3 186.0 178.2 164.6 166.3 165.5 165.8 162.4 160.7 154.8 159.7 W omen's and girls' ...................................................................................... W omen's (12/77 Dresses 100) ......................................................................................... Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................. Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) 178.3 179.9 175.8 174.3 168.1 172.3 93.0 102.5 104.3 103.6 100.8 96.1 98.6 93.3 102.9 104.7 104.1 101.5 96.5 98.7 135.5 139.4 138.5 138.5 138.8 137.9 139.0 135.2 138.9 138.0 138.1 138.3 137.3 138.5 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... 75.2 93.5 94.1 87.6 81.6 76.8 80.9 95.0 112.1 114.0 106.6 99.9 93.0 100.2 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................. 106.4 108.6 112.3 112.7 110.9 106.9 108.3 105.6 108.6 112.0 111.8 109.9 105.9 107.7 98.9 98 6 106.2 106.8 104.0 96.2 100.3 96.6 98.3 105.0 105.8 101.8 94.8 100.1 102.2 106.7 108.2 107.7 106.2 104.1 103.4 102.7 107.5 108.9 106.9 106.3 103.1 102.3 129.5 Suits (12/77 Girls' (12/77 - ............. 166.5 153.7 Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................. Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories (12/77 = 100) Infants' and toddlers' ................................................... ................................................................................... 130.9 129.8 125.2 127.0 128.7 130.2 129.6 128.6 286.2 291.3 291.6 290.2 291.9 290.3 298.8 297.0 303.2 302.5 302.1 302.9 299.7 310.1 216.1 216.5 216.0 215.4 213.3 212.2 215.5 204.4 205.0 204.0 201.0 199.9 203.0 126.3 128.3 130.0 131.6 130.5 ................................ 122.4 122.8 120.6 120.1 121.9 120 9 122.0 121.1 121.5 119.0 203.1 118.4 120.5 119.1 ................................................ 147.0 147.3 147.7 147.4 144.7 144.1 146.6 137.2 137.6 137.8 137.2 134.3 133.9 119.5 136.7 F o o tw e a r................................................................................................................... 206.4 211.1 212.9 212.9 211.4 208.6 210.1 207.0 211.6 213.2 213.1 211.7 209.5 210.8 135.0 138.0 138.3 138.4 137.1 136.5 136.5 136.9 139.8 140.1 140.2 138.9 138.5 138.5 139.0 138.3 138.4 139.7 Other apparel commodities .......................................................................... Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - Men's (12/77 - 100) 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................... Boys' and g irls' (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... 133.5 136.0 136.3 135.3 135.3 136.9 133.9 136.3 127.6 127.0 123.2 124.6 120.3 123.3 124.1 123.6 122.9 119.5 120.8 313.6 ............................................................................. 123.5 127.0 128.0 .......................................................................................................................................... 299.7 307.6 309.5 310.8 311.5 312.5 316.0 297.6 305.6 307.4 308.8 309.3 310.2 186.3 186.9 187.2 189.3 178.5 182.6 183 8 184.4 184.9 185.3 187.3 W omen’s (12/77 A p p a r e l s e r v ic e s 131.4 138.7 100) ............. 180.2 184.3 185.5 1 0 0 ) ................................................................ 154.4 159.7 160.4 161.1 161.2 162.3 163.9 155.5 161.0 161.7 162.5 162.6 163.5 165.2 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N 305.8 313.7 315.5 316.1 315.8 314.7 314.3 307.7 316.0 317.8 318.3 317.9 316.7 316.3 P r i v a t e .................................................................................................................................................................... 300.8 308.4 310.2 310.8 310.4 309.1 308.7 303.9 312.1 313.9 314.4 313.9 312.6 312.2 Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100) Other apparel services (12/77 - Used cars Gasoline 207.2 208.2 209.6 213.1 213.9 211.3 212.0 213.1 ................................................................................................................ 357.2 384.2 384.6 383.6 382.7 382.8 384.6 357.2 384.2 384.6 383.6 382.6 382.8 384.6 ................................................................................................................... 368.8 368.8 370.3 369.2 365.7 356.8 351.6 370.7 369.4 371.7 370.5 367.1 358.2 353.2 ................................................................... 337.4 344.2 345.3 345.8 346.2 346.9 348.2 338.1 344.9 346.2 346 7 347.1 347.9 349.2 ......................................................................... 170.3 174.7 175.6 175.8 176.1 176.9 178.4 169.0 173.1 174.1 174.3 174.7 175.5 177.0 170.0 157.1 170.2 168.4 172.2 173.4 173.8 174.0 174.2 174.5 157.4 152.8 155.5 155.8 156.1 156.3 156.6 156.8 164 6 164.8 165.4 166.4 Automobile maintenance and repair Body work (12/77 - 100) 211.4 212.0 206.7 207.6 209.0 210.8 Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous 100) ......................................................... 164.4 168.1 169.2 169.6 169.7 Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 153.5 156.3 156.5 156.8 157.0 mechanical repair (12/77 Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) ............................................................ Other private tra n s p o rta tio n ................................................................................... Other private transportation commodities ................................................ 164.9 165.1 165.7 278.7 280.7 282.3 283.9 284.4 268.5 277.0 279.8 281.9 283.3 284.7 285.2 199.0 201.0 202.2 202.0 203.8 205.2 203.4 201.0 203.5 204.7 204.2 206.1 155.3 156.2 155.7 156.0 155.2 154.5 155.2 154,4 ................ 153.8 155.1 152.7 154.5 152.6 ......................... 127.8 126.5 125.1 126.4 127.1 127.0 128.3 129 6 128.0 126.5 128.1 128.9 128.6 129.9 170.2 171.4 171.4 174.0 177.9 174.2 171.5 174.0 175.1 174.9 177.7 134.1 304.6 134.5 306.2 134.2 133.9 308.5 131.8 287.7 132.5 133.5 134.0 133.6 133.2 308.3 299.1 303.3 308.6 318.9 305.3 334.9 306.7 325.9 338.9 343.9 308.7 345.2 M otor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) 161.6 164.6 164.7 275.9 201.2 164.9 166.6 164.3 161.8 267.7 202.8 153.2 T r e s ................................................................................................ 174.2 170.9 168.3 Other parts and equipment (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................. Other private transportation s e r v ic e s ......................................................... 133.2 288.7 133.3 298.4 133.2 302.5 132.7 Automobile insurance ......................................................................... Automobile finance charges (12/77 - 100) ................................... 319.8 159.3 169.9 172.0 172.2 170.9 169.6 168.1 158.7 169.5 331.3 171.7 171.9 170.5 169.2 167.7 Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100). . . . 149.1 156.4 157.6 158.0 158.4 158.5 159.1 150.1 157.7 158.9 159.2 159.6 159.8 160.4 195.1 158.0 212.2 213.5 213.5 163.7 213.6 195.0 211.7 212.9 212.9 212.9 213.1 213.1 163.7 213.5 163.7 213.6 163.7 164.6 164.6 158.3 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.9 164.9 139.2 139.9 140.0 142.2 142.2 142.2 142.2 139.9 140.5 140.5 142.3 142.3 142.3 142.3 State registration ......................................................................... Drivers' licenses (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................. 326 9 332.3 335.9 340.0 345.1 346.3 Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 163.9 166.4 168.3 169.1 170.1 170 3 171.8 171.1 173.8 176.0 176.7 177.8 178.0 180.0 .................................................................................................................................................................... 377.4 389.5 391.1 391.8 392.8 394.5 394.4 370.1 380.4 381.6 382.4 382.8 384.2 384.2 Airline t a r e ................................................................................................................ 429.5 428.2 450.1 453.5 455.4 456.2 ................................................................................................... 442.2 445.3 447.0 Intracity mass t r a n s i t ............................................................................................. 341.4 346.5 346.6 345.9 455.4 346.7 P u b lic Intercity bus fare 458.9 468.7 450.6 451.1 454.1 453.8 456.5 425.5 427.1 448.8 459.6 442.6 445.4 447.8 455.4 347.0 341.3 346.5 346.6 345.9 346.5 459.3 346.7 346.8 320.3 388.7 322.4 324.1 390.7 390.7 445.4 455.2 ................................................................................................................... 308.3 310.8 311.1 311.3 311.3 347.0 313.4 315.0 317.5 319.8 320.0 320.1 Intercity train f a r e ................................................................................................... 373.5 381.9 382.0 383.5 388.2 390.2 390.3 373.8 382.2 382.2 383.8 M E D IC A L C A R E 373.2 383.1 385.5 387.5 388.5 391.1 393.8 371.3 381.2 383.7 385.6 386.7 389.3 392.0 M e d ic a l c a r e c o m m o d i t i e s ............................................................................................................... 232.9 242.4 244.1 245.6 247.3 248.2 249.8 233.2 242.3 244.1 245.6 247.2 248.0 249.6 Prescription d r u g s ................................................................................................... 226.4 238.0 245.4 247.6 227.9 241.7 243.8 245.9 247.0 Taxi fare 240.2 242.2 244.4 239 4 249.2 163.4 168.4 170.5 171.0 171.8 171.5 171.9 165.8 171.0 173.3 173.8 174.6 174.3 174.7 ............................................. 193.0 208.7 212.7 216.2 218 8 220.1 223.2 192.9 208.6 212.7 216.3 218.9 220.2 223.1 Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 164.7 171.7 172.8 174.4 174.9 176.0 178.5 164.4 170.9 172.1 173.7 174.2 175.3 177.8 223.2 224.7 226.1 230.7 231.2 232.2 Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................. Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ................................... 207.2 220.7 228.9 229.6 192.0 223.8 194.4 228.3 183 8 222.3 192.7 209.4 198.2 196.6 198.1 185.9 193.8 194,7 196.3 197.2 198.7 200.3 169.8 176.1 176.9 178 3 179.1 180.6 183 2 170.4 176.9 177.7 179.0 179 7 181.2 184.0 159.6 164.5 141.4 165.4 166.0 166.8 167.3 168.0 160.6 165.3 166.3 166.9 167 8 141.9 142.2 141.9 144.0 137.0 140.4 140.8 141.2 140,9 141.4 143.0 273 7 142.5 274.7 275.1 261.4 270.5 272.4 272.7 275.0 275.8 276,2 160.3 160.2 161.2 155.7 158.6 159.1 161.5 161.9 161.6 162.8 Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and respiratory agents (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................................... Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ......................................................................... Internal and respiratory over-the-counter d r u g s ...................................... Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100) . . . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 138.0 260.1 269.5 271.3 154.0 157.1 157.7 271.5 159.8 168.2 168.9 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw is e sp ecified] A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s G e n e ra l s u m m a ry U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s 1984 Feb. S e p t. O c t. 1985 Nov. D ec. Jan. 1984 Feb. Feb. 1985 S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M e d ic a l c a r e s e r v i c e s ................................................................... 404.4 413.9 416.5 418.5 419.3 422.4 425.3 401.8 411.5 414.1 416.1 417.0 420 1 Professional s e r v ic e s ............................................................. 339.8 349.8 351.8 353.1 354.0 356.8 359.3 340 3 350.1 352.1 353.4 354.4 357.2 359.7 423.1 Physicians' s e rv ic e s ................................................................ 370.4 380.8 382.2 383.0 383.8 386.1 389.6 374.4 384.8 386.2 387.0 387.9 390.2 393.9 Dental s e rv ic e s ................................................................... 319.8 331.9 334.8 336.6 337.7 339.7 340.4 317.8 329.5 332.4 334.3 335.3 337.2 338.0 Other professional services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ 158.7 160.0 160.8 161.5 166.1 165.9 168.0 155.0 156.2 157.1 157.8 158.4 162.3 164.3 482.5 491.5 494.7 497.7 498.2 501.7 505.2 479.0 488.4 491.7 494.6 495.3 498.8 502.3 Other medical care services ......................................... Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100) ............................. 206.4 213.0 215.0 217.2 217.6 219.4 220.6 204.0 210.9 212.9 214 7 215.1 216.9 218.1 Hospital r o o m ............................................................................................. 657.9 679.5 687.1 691.3 690.8 697.7 700.7 650.4 670 8 677.3 680.8 680.9 687.0 690.3 Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100) 202.7 209.1 210.7 213.6 214.4 216.0 217.3 201.0 207.4 209.3 211.7 212.5 214.2 215.5 E N T E R T A I N M E N T ............................................................................................. 251.5 257.3 258.3 259.0 260.1 261.0 266.3 247.7 253.4 254.2 254.8 255.8 256.6 256.9 E n t e r t a in m e n t c o m m o d i t i e s .................................................................................................. 250.7 254.8 255.9 256.0 256.8 257.1 257.9 245.3 249.2 249.6 250.2 250.9 251.1 251.9 ................ Reading materials (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... Newspapers ................................................................ Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... 166.3 167.7 167.8 168.8 169.6 171.5 163.4 165.6 167 0 167.2 168.2 168 8 170.7 315.4 317.5 320.7 323.2 310.4 315.6 317.7 319.4 320.4 321.0 173.0 174.7 319.2 174.1 320.1 171.2 175.6 176.9 179.6 171.3 172.8 174.6 173.7 175.4 176.6 323.5 179,4 138.7 138.8 140.0 139.6 140.2 130.3 132.3 139.5 144.4 144.5 146.0 145.9 146.9 146.7 130 7 134.0 133.9 135.8 133.0 135.4 136.8 136.6 ................ 117.4 117.3 117.2 118.2 118.0 117.3 117.6 115.3 115.5 115.3 116.4 116.1 115.5 115.8 ......................................................................................................... 201.5 198.9 198.8 198.1 198.4 198.4 199.5 202.4 200.3 200.0 199.1 199.5 199.8 200.9 Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) 135.9 ............................................................. Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100) Bicycles 164.1 310.2 139.9 132.2 133.6 133.9 133.7 Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 134.6 135.5 135.6 137.3 134.4 135.1 133.2 134.2 135.0 135.1 136.5 134.0 134.3 132.9 Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 139.6 142.0 141.9 141.8 142.5 142.1 142.2 138.7 141.1 263.4 140 9 141.5 141.0 141.1 Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................... 137.3 138.3 165.0 134.8 135.6 134.1 134.3 Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................... 131.9 149.9 135.2 135.1 134.9 135.1 134.9 135.1 133.0 136.4 156.1 136.2 136.4 136.1 136.3 153.7 153.5 153.4 154.0 155.2 155.2 150.9 153.6 154.7 154.5 155.3 156.3 156.3 E n t e r t a in m e n t s e r v i c e s ............................................................................................................... 253.1 261.3 262.8 263.8 265.5 267.0 266.7 253.2 262.0 263.4 264 0 265.6 267.4 266.8 Fees fo r participant sports (12/77 = 100) 158.6 162.3 163.6 165.1 165.9 166.5 163.2 165.0 166.2 166.8 167 6 167.5 156.9 157.2 156.8 158.2 147.2 155.7 156.1 155.6 156.9 159.1 158.1 Other entertainment services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... 133.4 136.2 137.0 136.7 138 0 160.3 137.9 166.5 159.4 159.5 148.3 138.2 134.9 137.1 137.6 137.0 138.5 138.4 138.6 O T H E R G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S 301.5 314.6 315.8 316.5 316.7 319.1 320.5 299.2 310.9 311.9 312.6 312.8 315.6 317.1 Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 100) Admissions (12/77 = 100) ............................................. ................................................... ......................................................... 138.2 138.1 139.1 137.7 137.8 133.8 135.1 T o b a c c o p r o d u c t s ..................................................................................................................................... 305.4 314.1 314.6 314.7 314.6 321.0 323.2 305.1 313.7 314.2 314.3 314.2 320.8 323.0 Cigarettes 313.8 322.8 323.3 323.4 323.2 330 3 332.5 312.7 321.7 322.2 322.2 322.1 329.2 331.4 ................................................................................ Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100) ............. P e rs o n a l c a re Toilet goods and personal care appliances 156.1 159.9 160.0 160.6 161.0 161.6 163.1 156.0 159.9 160.1 160.6 161.0 161.5 163.0 267.9 273.6 274.7 276.3 276.6 277.2 278.2 266.1 271.6 272.4 274.0 274.4 274.9 275.9 271.6 273.5 274.0 275.4 268 7 272.5 ...................................................... 267.9 272.0 273.4 272.6 274.0 274.2 274.6 275.9 Products fo r the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ................ Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ...................... 154.7 156.1 155.9 156.9 156.5 156.4 152.0 153.8 155.3 155.0 156.2 155.8 155.6 156.1 168.1 167.9 168.2 170.9 172.1 173.5 175.8 175.8 166.3 166 0 168.9 170.0 171.4 173.5 150.1 154.5 154.9 155.3 155.3 155.6 151.7 155.9 155.9 155 8 156.3 156.3 156.8 152.4 155.0 154.9 155.4 155.5 154.7 154.8 155.3 156.2 158.7 159.0 159.1 158.3 158.5 158.9 269.0 276.4 278.0 279.9 280.4 281.1 281.7 264.0 271.1 272.6 274.4 275.0 275 7 272.3 148.7 279.2 281.2 283.1 283.8 283.9 284.3 265.7 272.0 274.0 275.8 276.6 276.7 276.3 277.1 153.6 154.0 155.0 155.1 156.2 156.8 147.5 152.4 152.8 153.8 153.8 154.9 155.5 354 4 381.9 384.0 384.1 384.3 385.6 386.9 356.4 384.1 386.0 386.2 386.4 387 9 389.3 317.2 331.5 333.7 333.8 334.0 340.7 343.8 321.7 336.4 338.7 338.9 345.5 348.7 363.3 393.1 295.2 395.4 395.5 395.9 396.9 365.2 395.6 397.4 397.6 397.8 398 3 399.4 183.2 200 7 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.2 201.4 183.5 201.4 202.3 202.3 202.3 202.3 202.5 183.0 200.1 201.4 201.4 202.2 202.2 201.3 201.3 201.4 201.5 206.4 202 3 201.1 201.3 201.4 202.3 183.9 184.9 202.6 202 8 202.8 202.9 202 9 202.9 199.6 207.3 208.5 208.9 209.5 210.7 212.6 200.2 207.9 208 8 209.2 209.7 211.0 212.7 Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ...................................... Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100) . . . Personal care services ............................................................. Beauty parlor services fo r women ............................................................. Haircuts and other barber shop services fo r men (12/77 = 100) P e r s o n a l a n d e d u c a t io n a l e x p e n s e s Schoolbooks and supplies ... ......................................................................................... ................................................ Personal and educational s e r v ic e s ............................................................ Tuition and other school f e e s ...................................................... College tuition (12/77 = 100) ................................................... Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... Personal expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... 201.3 182 9 201.1 338.6 202.5 S p e c ia l in d e x e s : Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other p ro d u c ts ............................................. Insurance and finance 365.1 364.3 366 6 365.6 362.3 353.8 348 7 366.8 415.7 441.6 440.3 346.6 367.0 362.8 358.5 359.1 358.3 345.5 366.1 366.9 373.0 373.7 373.7 357.5 374.1 374.9 377.6 373.8 382.3 361.5 382.7 ............................. Utilities and public transportation ............................. Housekeeping and home maintenance s e rv ic e s ................................................ 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 365.7 367.9 366.8 440.4 357.1 381.9 363.6 355.0 350 2 357.6 356.7 383.3 386.6 442,8 355.9 382.7 21. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure category and commodity and service group [D ecem ber 1977 = 100] S iz e c la s s A S iz e c la s s B S iz e c la s s C S iz e c la s s D ( 1 . 2 5 m il li o n o r m o r e ) ( 3 8 5 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 2 5 0 m il li o n ) ( 7 5 ,0 0 0 - 3 8 5 ,0 0 0 ) ( 7 5 , 0 0 0 o r le s s ) C a te g o ry a n d g ro u p D ec. Feb. O c t. Dec. 1984 1984 1984 1984 O c t. Feb. O c t. D ec. Feb. O c t. D ec. Feb. N o rth e a s t E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y All Items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... 164.3 165.5 170.0 169.9 169.8 169.7 154.1 157.0 152.6 152.3 156.0 156.1 155.8 158.3 152.0 151.4 153.6 181.2 184.3 190.1 187.5 189.9 177.4 176.9 177.4 174.4 175.8 169.7 170.5 ............................................................................................................... 128.2 125.5 124.9 129.0 126.7 121.3 139.0 138.2 134.2 141.4 138.7 137.7 172.0 173.0 173.0 176.9 176.8 176.4 176.3 176.3 176.3 176.2 176.9 175.5 181.4 184.5 182.7 184.1 185.5 194.0 168.2 180.9 175.3 171.5 ........................................................................................................................ H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep Transportation 170.3 163.5 153.7 ............................................................................................................................ 178.3 183.5 185.2 182.7 188.7 192.8 E n te rta in m e n t............................................................................................................................ 150.9 151.3 151.8 149.9 149.8 146.8 155.3 155.4 157.1 154.8 156.5 158.2 Other goods and services 178.1 178.9 180.7 177.4 177.4 179.8 180.7 181.5 184.5 181.1 180.9 182.7 Medical care ..................................................................................................... C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P 155.3 155.1 156.7 161.0 161.0 161.7 160.9 160.6 161.3 159.1 159.0 159.6 ............................................................................... 156.1 155.4 156.0 164.7 164.9 163.6 162.8 162.7 162.2 162.2 162.3 161.9 S e rvice s............................................................................................................................................... 173.4 175.3 176.2 183.3 183.1 186.1 198.0 196.1 198.7 185.2 185.3 185.8 C o m m o d itie s ..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages N o r t h C e n t r a l R e g io n E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y 173.2 169.7 167.2 166.7 167.5 150.0 150.4 152.5 149.2 149.6 151.3 150.2 149.9 151.7 157.8 158.5 158.9 H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... 192.2 191.8 193.6 178.1 178.3 178.5 175.8 174.0 •173.3 171.3 171.0 172.1 Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 122.9 120.8 120.1 134.4 132.5 132.9 132.0 129.3 131.3 128.7 128.0 126.5 174.0 173.7 172.8 173.9 174.3 172.7 176.7 176.7 175.6 175.1 174.9 173.7 185.6 147.3 ................................................... ■....................................................................................... Food and beverages 174.3 168.9 169.2 166.4 167.6 168,2 173.4 ............................................................................................................... All terns 189.4 ............................................................................................................................ 181.5 182.1 184.6 183.0 184.6 188.2 175.6 176.3 E n te rta in m e n t............................................................................................................................ 148.3 148.4 150.2 140.3 139.9 142.2 153.4 154.2 178.3 155.6 143.3 186.2 146.4 Other goods and services 172.9 173.0 175.7 184.7 186.1 188.7 169.4 169.6 170.8 181.4 181.8 184.9 156.2 Medical care ..................................................................................................... C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P 159.4 159.0 159.7 157.7 157.8 158.1 156.4 155.9 156.1 156.4 156.7 ............................................................................... 164.0 163.1 162.8 161.1 161.0 160.6 159.1 158.5 157.9 155.7 155.8 154.8 S e rvice s............................................................................................................................................... 193.7 193.7 195.5 186.7 187.2 188.0 184.3 183.1 183.4 184.7 184.8 186.8 Commod t e s ..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages S o u th E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y All items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... 170.2 170.3 171.0 171.9 172.0 173.0 169.5 170.2 171.2 170.1 170.4 170.1 157.2 157.8 160.0 157.5 157.4 159.5 153.9 153.8 156.3 158,3 158.1 160.0 177.1 176.7 H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... 176.9 176.1 177.2 177.0 177.2 178.2 174.2 175.6 177.1 178.2 Apparel and upkeep 137.6 137.0 135.3 132.8 132.0 180.7 130.8 131.5 130.7 129.5 117.4 117.8 114.9 180.2 179.0 179.0 178.2 174.8 174.1 173.1 ............................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................ 176.7 175.5 180.2 Medical care ............................................................................................................................ E n te rta in m e n t............................................................................................................................ 182.2 184.2 185.6 184.9 185.3 187.9 191.0 193.1 195.8 197.7 199.0 199.9 148.7 151.8 153.1 162.7 162.6 163.8 154.1 156.2 154.9 152.8 152.7 153.4 Other goods and services 176.7 177.2 178.4 179.9 180.6 182.5 177.6 178.7 181.1 174.5 173.9 176.0 Transportation ..................................................................................................... 176.8 C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P C o m m o d itie s ..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................................... S e rvice s............................................................................................................................................... 160.7 162.2 160.8 162.0 160.9 160.8 162.6 164.5 162.3 164.1 163.0 163.8 160.0 162.9 160 0 162.8 160.6 162.3 159.8 160.2 159.3 159.5 159.6 158.9 183.1 183.1 184.5 185.5 186.2 187.5 184.2 185.9 187.5 185.6 186.9 185.7 170.1 170.0 W est E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y All items ........................................................................................................................................... Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... 162.7 162.9 164.2 170.1 172.2 172.1 173.5 170.6 170.9 172.0 156.8 157.6 158.9 159.7 163.1 155.8 155.2 158.2 164.2 164.3 176.2 161.1 127.7 160.9 161.9 172.2 171.2 171.6 125.6 126.8 147.1 146.1 146.6 H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... 180.5 Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 129.3 179.8 126.7 182.2 175.0 161.5 174.1 127.8 131.2 131.8 181.2 180.1 131.0 180.3 166.2 181.2 181.8 176.3 177.0 176.0 172.7 173.4 172.5 ............................................................................................................................ 188.0 187.9 191.8 183.6 184.5 186.8 190.5 193.5 196.0 188.7 189.9 192.5 E n te rta in m e n t............................................................................................................................ 145.7 146.9 147.9 152.6 154.6 155.5 154.0 158.0 162.6 165.9 169.3 157.1 Other goods and services 182.7 183.0 185.7 179.3 179 8 181.7 174.4 175.0 176.9 179.3 180.3 182.0 160.3 160.4 161.4 161.8 160.7 158.2 157.9 158.5 158.7 159.0 158.6 161.0 158.6 158.6 157.8 155.8 156.3 154.5 184.2 183.7 185.4 168.0 168.7 170.8 186.7 186.3 186.5 Medical care ..................................................................................................... 181.0 C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P 158.0 157.8 158.3 ............................................................................... 158.7 157.9 S e rvice s............................................................................................................................................... 190.1 190.0 157.8 192.4 C o m m o d itie s ..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 22. Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s A re a 1 U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s 1984 1985 1984 1985 Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Feb. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. U.S. city average2 ......................................... 306.6 314.5 315.3 315.3 315.5 316.1 317.4 303.3 312.1 312.2 311.9 312.2 312.6 313.9 Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Atlanta, Ga.................................. 309.3 322.6 309.6 277.9 303.2 317.8 278.3 318.2 270.9 316.4 315.3 315.2 316.4 Boston, Mass............................. 307.4 307.8 309.4 305.3 Buffalo, N.Y.......................................... 290.5 Chicago, III.-N orthw estern Ind............................................ 305.0 Cincinnati, Ohio— Ky.— Ind........................... Cleveland, Ohio ............................................. Dallas—Ft. Worth, Tex.................................. 296.1 315.1 314.1 325.2 331.1 333.7 351.3 Honolulu, Hawaii 280.7 287.4 323.6 334.4 ............................................. Kansas City, M o.— K a n s a s ............................. 306.4 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif......................................... 300.2 Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 167.9 324.0 319.6 New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J...................................... 299.0 Northeast, Pa. (S c ra n to n )............................................................ Philadelphia, Pa.— N .J................................... Pittsburgh, Pa............................................................ 311.9 306.9 303.9 315.5 315.1 324.4 318.6 319.8 330.7 333.2 317.7 328.2 325.0 329.9 313.7 304.7 292.6 284.3 310.9 311.1 305.1 306.3 301.1 321.1 323.5 322.1 299.8 330.4 318.6 310.2 290.5 299.9 309.2 298.5 308.5 323.8 299.6 302.6 169.7 346.2 300.0 306.5 331.1 304.4 308.1 343.4 323.8 301.2 308.7 309.2 306.0 301.6 302.0 307.9 309.4 300.6 304.2 304.6 304.8 306.8 293.7 295.7 297.4 St. Louis, M o.— Ill.......................................................... 311.4 309.1 313.3 308.0 307.1 310.4 328 8 329.1 357.1 311.7 363.7 327.5 364.1 325.8 330.7 328.7 308.7 319.3 321.5 324.2 Seattle—Everett, Wash.............................................................. 316.5 318.1 319.5 305.3 305.5 306.7 Washington, D.C.— M d.— Va.............................. 313.0 315.8 314.6 317.9 319.8 317.7 1The 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 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is used for New York and Chicago. , ¿Average of 85 cities. 312.4 306.0 302.5 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif........................................................... 303.6 301.0 Portland, Oreg.— Wash.................................. San Diego, Calif......................................................... 309.1 169.8 342.7 300.4 304.0 300.3 330.9 327.0 297.7 301.2 304.0 304.3 304.0 318.9 169.6 347.9 302.5 297.6 307.7 304.2 301.7 345.1 302.9 334.4 296.6 299.0 301.5 302.6 319.3 294.5 314.6 168.6 308.4 301.3 314.1 324.6 308 0 301.8 346.1 333.6 313.0 304.3 320.9 350.6 309.1 327 9 306.0 288.1 296.9 168.3 303.7 307.8 289.8 318.2 324.3 308.0 306.5 292.0 320.3 315.1 340.4 333.4 306.6 315.1 316.7 313.7 311.8 285.9 325.1 289.8 328.0 298.2 296.4 308.7 314.1 310.2 Milwaukee, W is................................................... M inneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.— W is.......................................... 311.9 301.3 271.7 316 0 339.7 349.4 303.1 311.6 314 0 325.4 Detroit, M ich..................................................... Houston, Tex.................................... 313.9 340.1 322.7 Denver-Boulder, Colo........................................ 303.4 270.9 318.2 Baltimore, M d................... 23. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1967 = 100] 1985 1984 Annual ave ra g e C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. 291.2 S e p t. O c t. N o v .1 D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 292.4 F IN IS H E D G O O D S 291.4 291.2 291.1 290.9 292.3 291.3 289.5 291.5 292.3 292.4 292.7 292.5 ...................................................... 290.4 291.1 290.3 290.3 290.1 291.6 290.4 288.7 290 3 r291.2 291.3 291.1 290.7 290.4 ................................................... 273.5 276.6 274.3 271.7 270.8 275.3 274.0 273.0 271.1 r272.0 274.4 279.2 275.5 274.2 C r u d e .................................................................................. 283.9 323.7 299.0 270.7 258.9 270.3 269.5 r257.6 270.8 263.1 287.1 283.9 ......................................................................... 270.3 270.2 269.9 269.6 269.7 270.8 273.4 274.6 Processed 271.7 271.1 269.1 r271.0 272.5 273.0 272.2 271.1 Nondurable goods less f o o d s ............................................ 337.4 336.7 336.4 338.9 339.2 339.2 336.9 336.2 337.8 r338.9 337.2 335.6 332.8 333.4 Durable goods 240.8 Finished g o o d s ................................................................................... Finished consumer goods Finished consumer foods 236.6 236.6 236.7 236.6 236.4 236.6 236.7 233.0 238.3 r239.0 238.8 240.5 241.1 . . . 239.1 237.1 237.9 238.7 238.7 240.1 240.1 240.8 240.6 r241.1 241.1 243.3 243.7 244.1 Capital e q u ip m e n t...................................................................... 294.1 292.3 294.5 293.9 293.9 294.6 294.6 292.5 295.9 '296.5 296.4 298.1 299.1 299.5 Intermediate materials, supplies, and co m p o n e n ts ...................... 320.0 319.7 320.3 320.9 321.6 321.7 321.1 320.3 320.1 '320.4 319.8 319.6 318.6 318.6 Materials and components for m a n u fa ctu rin g ...................... 301.8 301.8 302.9 303.3 303.4 303.2 302.5 301.9 301.4 r301.7 301.1 300.7 300.5 300.1 ...................................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy IN T E R M E D IA T E M A T E R IA L S 268.4 264.9 264.1 263.5 290.3 291.8 292.8 292 8 292.7 291.3 290.9 267.6 290.4 '289 8 289.3 289.2 288.2 287.3 328.2 329.1 327.2 326.9 325.4 325.1 323.5 322.3 '323.1 321.8 320.5 320.9 320.2 Components fo r m a n u fa c tu rin g ......................................... 287.5 285.6 286.2 287.0 287.5 287 9 288.4 288.9 289.4 '289.7 289.7 290.5 290.6 291.0 309.6 310.5 309.8 310.3 310.9 312.0 311.7 311.8 r311.8 312.3 313.2 313.0 313.1 Materials and components fo r c o n s tru c tio n ......................... 310.3 269.6 271.4 276.0 275.2 270.0 '269.5 290.5 325.1 271.7 276.4 272.4 ......................... ................................ Materials for food m a n u fa c tu rin g ...................................... Materials for nondurable manufacturing Materials for durable manufacturing Processed fuels and lu b ric a n ts ................................................ 566.3 567.8 562.9 567.2 575.2 576.6 569.2 565.3 564.1 '566.6 561.1 556 9 546.5 548.2 Manufacturing in d u s trie s ...................................................... 483.8 483.4 480.6 485.5 490.4 491.4 484.7 481.8 483 4 '486.1 482.9 479.7 470.2 472.3 649.1 650.9 643.0 638.1 634.3 r636.5 628.9 623.8 612.6 614.0 301.8 303.0 304.1 305.2 308.8 r310.1 309.3 309.9 311.9 312.4 283.6 283.2 r282.9 283.1 284.0 283.8 283.8 ............................................ 638 2 641.4 634.5 638.2 C o n ta in e rs ................................................................................... 302.1 297.3 299.4 300.9 Nonmanufacturing industries S u p p lie s ...................................................................................... 283.3 283.0 284.2 284.3 283.9 283.2 284.1 Manufacturing in d u s trie s ...................................................... 279.0 276.4 277.8 278.4 279.0 279.2 280.9 280 7 281.5 r281.7 282.2 283.3 283.8 284.2 Nonmanufacturing industries 285.9 286.7 287.8 287.6 286.7 285.6 286 0 285.3 284.4 '283.8 283.8 284.6 284.1 283.8 Feeds ................................................................................... 215.8 232.2 233.5 229.2 221.6 211.7 208 3 203.0 195.4 -'1 9 2 .4 191.1 189.9 185.6 180.4 Other s u p p lie s ................................................................... 300.6 298.4 299.5 300.0 300.5 301.0 302.2 302.3 302.7 '302.6 302.8 304.0 304.2 304.8 ......................................... 331.0 338.8 339.4 338.0 333.0 334.1 328.9 326.2 319.6 '3 23.2 323.1 319.4 318.3 312.9 Foodstuffs and fe e d s tu ffs ......................................................... 259.7 269.9 269.7 266.4 260.3 263.6 256.5 252.7 244.9 '2 52.8 253.7 251.3 250.7 243.6 492.3 489.6 486.4 485.0 484.6 480.3 '475.2 473.0 466.1 464.2 462.2 ............................................ C R U D E M A T E R IA L S Crude materials for further processing Nonfood m a te ria ls ...................................................................... 484.7 487.5 490.1 Nonfood materials except f u e l ............................................ Manufacturing industries ............................................... 380.6 390.2 387.8 398.8 388.8 399.5 389.9 400.2 386.1 395.7 380.9 390.1 376.8 386 1 379.3 388.5 374.7 383.9 '369.2 '377.6 367.2 375.4 361.7 368.8 356.9 362.7 358.3 364.1 C o n s tru c tio n ...................................................................... 278.7 276.5 279.2 282.7 283.5 282.0 277.6 279.9 276 3 '276.3 276.2 278.6 283.6 284.4 Crude f u e l ............................................................................... 931.4 910.6 920.8 928.4 932.6 940.2 953.1 937.6 935.9 '934.0 930.9 918.6 931.7 913.0 ............................................... 1,092.4 1,064.8 1,079.6 1,088.1 1,120.1 1,100.0 1,097.6 '1,095.1 1,091.1 1,074.2 1,091.8 1,067.3 818.1 802.6 809.1 816.1 1,094.5 818.4 1,103.5 Nonmanufacturing in d u s trie s ......................................... 825.1 835.1 823.3 822 1 '820.7 818.3 809.6 819.2 804.9 294.8 294.1 294.0 294 6 295.3 295 4 295.7 294.8 292.7 296.1 '296.9 295.9 296.2 293.5 294.9 295 0 293.8 291.7 295.0 '295.9 296.1 294.9 296.6 293.6 294.8 293.6 293.7 Manufacturing industries S P E C IA L G R O U P IN G S Finished goods excluding f o o d s ...................................................... Finished consumer goods excluding foods ......................... Finished consumer goods less e n e rg y ................................... Intermediate materials less foods and feeds ................................ Intermediate materials less e n e rg y ......................................... Intermediate foods and feeds ......................................................... 258 2 257.8 256.7 258.9 258.5 257.2 258.2 '258.9 259.6 261.0 261.7 261.3 325.0 324.4 325.0 325.4 326 4 326.7 326.3 325.7 325.8 326.1 325.5 325.4 324.6 324.7 303.7 303.3 304.4 304.6 304.7 304.7 304.7 304.2 304.1 304.3 304.0 304.2 304.1 303.9 253.1 257.5 259.1 260.8 257.8 255.3 251.4 248.1 244.0 '2 44.3 243.1 240.4 238.4 236.3 553.0 265.4 554.0 552.5 549.8 548 8 '5 35.9 533.4 525.6 525.8 521.6 257.6 258.5 251.9 546.6 249.9 542.4 263.3 242.6 '2 48.0 248.3 246.6 245.9 240.9 ................................... 547.2 550.0 ................................................... 255.6 265.1 Crude materials less agricultural products Crude materials less energy 257.9 294.9 257.1 'D ata for November 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. Ail data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised. 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 24. Producer Price indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Annual Code C o m m o d it y g r o u p a n d s u b g r o u p 1984 A ll c o m m o d it ie s ................................................. A ll c o m m o d it ie s ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 100) F a rm p ro d u c ts a n d p ro c e s s e d fo o d s a n d fe e d s 1984 1985 av e ra g e ................................... I n d u s t r ia l c o m m o d i t i e s ..................................................... M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. N o v .1 D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 310.3 311.0 311.3 311.5 311.3 311.9 310.7 309 3 309.4 r310.3 309.9 309.8 309.2 308.7 329.3 330.0 330.3 330.5 330.3 330.9 329.7 328.2 328.3 r329.2 328.8 328.7 328.1 327.5 262.6 267.9 267.3 265.8 262.8 264.9 261 4 259.4 255.3 r258.1 259.2 258.0 257.8 255.0 322.6 321.9 322.6 323.2 323.8 323.9 323.3 322.3 323.4 r323.8 323.0 323 2 322.5 322.6 FA R M P R O D U C TS A N D PRO CESSED FO ODS A N D FEEDS 01 Farm p ro d u c ts ...................................................... 255.7 267.4 265.4 260.8 257.1 240.2 r245.7 01-1 Fresh and dried fruits and vege ta b le s................... 278.0 308.0 263.8 251.9 273.7 281.9 293.7 290.1 267.3 r251 2 251.7 0 1 -2 258.6 289 2 277.7 G r a in s .......................................... 239.7 250.9 262.1 256.2 257.8 248.9 236.9 231.4 219.0 219.7 212.5 0 1 -3 217.5 217.2 Livestock ................................... 216.1 251.8 260.8 260.8 254.8 250.0 260.1 253.7 244.9 233.9 247.7 252.3 247.4 249.7 236.6 231.7 232.7 222.4 215.5 200 4 258.7 253.3 249 8 245.7 243.2 244.6 238.7 0 1 -4 Live p o u lt r y ......................................................... 240.6 258.4 240.8 240.6 227.7 259.2 218.6 239.7 219.2 247.1 0 1 -5 228.4 250.3 252.3 259.1 252.7 235.8 211.3 210.3 202.8 201.4 203.0 0 1 -6 Plant and animal fibers ................................ Fluid m i l k ...................................... 204.5 200.6 278.3 274.2 272.7 271.7 271.8 273.9 276.8 282.1 286.7 287.6 0 1 -7 287.5 284.6 281.0 278.4 E g g s ...................................................................................................... 210.8 264.4 201.0 177.9 184.9 181.2 176.0 187.5 141.9 161.5 167.6 Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds 256.3 282.1 297.0 272.4 245.8 242.6 177.6 228.4 179.9 0 1 -8 (2) 281.4 219.1 227.3 227.4 0 1 -9 226.2 214.6 212.0 Other farm p r o d u c t s ......................... 285.4 277.7 279.7 288.2 279 1 277.4 284.3 296.5 294.0 r297.9 293.8 289.4 275.0 285.8 02 ......................... Processed foods and feeds ............................. 265.3 267.1 267.2 267.5 264.8 267.3 264.8 r263.8 265.5 265.1 263.9 262 9 270.4 267.4 268.3 268.7 271.4 272 3 271.7 271.9 272.7 r273.7 273.7 276.1 278.2 277.8 255.1 264.4 261.7 257.1 247.4 258.7 252.2 249.5 245.5 r250.4 263.6 262.6 02-1 Cereal and bakery products 0 2 -2 Meats, poultry, and f i s h ................................... 0 2 -3 Dairy products 251.7 248.8 248.9 248.9 249.6 251.4 251.2 255.0 256.4 r257.3 0 2 -4 255.9 255.4 254.1 253.4 Processed fruits and vegetables................................... 294.2 295.4 295.1 297.7 298.2 296.2 295.7 291.8 295.8 r292.3 292.6 0 2 -5 0 2 -6 296.7 295.4 300.2 Sugar and c o n fe c tio n e ry ...................................... Beverages and beverage materials ...................... 301.4 273.2 301.1 269 9 301.9 271.4 303.8 273.5 272.8 305.0 273.9 303.7 274.6 302.4 274.6 299.8 276.1 r297.0 r276.0 0 2 -7 296.3 275.9 Fats and o i l s ................................... 291.6 277.6 286.2 293.4 328.5 328.1 312.7 305.9 298.5 301.6 r31 .9 0 2 -8 297.6 293.1 276.2 280.4 277.6 301.2 286.0 290.7 Miscellaneous processed f o o d s ............. Prepared animal f e e d s ...................................... 278.2 275.2 276.3 276.2 279.9 281.3 280.4 281.1 281 2 r280 9 282.2 281.9 280.7 281.0 220.5 235.3 236.3 232.3 225.5 216.7 213.9 209.2 202.4 199.7 198.8 197.8 193.7 189.3 209.9 209.9 209.9 210.5 210.2 210.5 210.1 210.7 210.4 r210.2 210.6 160.7 160.7 160.6 160.5 160.1 159.9 159.2 158.2 157.5 209.8 157.4 210.4 159.6 157.6 157.7 156.6 142.7 144.0 143.6 144.3 143.8 143.7 142.2 141.4 r140.8 140.7 141.2 141.9 141.4 153.7 153.2 153.0 153.7 142.1 154.4 126.5 127.0 127.1 126.9 127.1 127.3 126.9 r126.6 125.8 126.5 126.9 152.5 127.1 200.7 126.9 200.7 127.3 201.1 201.3 200.8 201.6 201 0 202.2 201.9 r202.2 201 8 202.6 202.8 203.2 242.2 243.1 240.6 0 2 -9 ................... ............................................. 304.1 258.8 259.1 255.9 290.4 252.1 IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S 03 Textile products and a p p a r e l......................... 03-1 Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ................... 0 3 -2 Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) Gray fabrics (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ................ 0 3 -3 0 3 -4 . . . . 03-81 Finished fabrics (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Apparel ...................................... 0 3 -8 2 Textile h o u s e fu rn is h m g s......................... 04 0 4 -2 Hides, skins, leather, and related p r o d u c ts ................ Leather ...................................... 0 4 -3 Footwear 0 4 -4 Other leather and related products 05 05-1 ............................................................. Fuels and related products and p o w e r ............. Coa ............................................. 0 5 -2 C o k e ................................................... 0 5 -3 0 5 -4 Gas fuels3 05-61 Crude petroleum4 0 5 -7 Petroleum products, refined5 06 ................... Electric power ................................ ...................... Chemicals and allied p r o d u c ts ................ 154.6 154.8 r 153.7 153.7 239.2 237.6 238.1 238.8 239.0 239.1 240.0 240.5 241.3 241.4 241.3 286.7 288.5 290.1 288.9 298.7 288.7 287.7 r283.8 282.9 153.2 153.1 372.3 378.0 286.8 386.7 390.7 387.8 383 2 378.1 371.4 369.3 r359.8 353.1 284.3 357.7 351.9 348 5 251.2 253.5 251.6 251.5 250.5 250 1 250.9 252.0 252.1 r252.4 249.6 252.4 256.6 255.5 265.0 257.3 258.1 259.8 267.9 267.2 267.7 267.6 268.1 r267 9 271.0 273.3 273.5 274 5 657.0 658.7 654.7 660.6 547,4 665.9 665.0 657.9 652.3 549.1 654.4 655.3 648.9 637.6 625 9 625.8 548.9 r548.6 548.2 432.4 432.8 1,112.5 r1 ,113.4 445.4 r443.0 435.0 439 7 439 8 433.6 1.101.8 1.068.7 1,046.8 441.2 1,075.5 446.4 446 4 652.6 631.1 616.0 448.0 615.4 620 7 546.2 542.0 436.4 438.9 442.8 1,109.9 1,091.0 1,102.1 440.0 ................................ 154.5 286.5 546.0 ............................. 154.3 210.4 426.7 431.5 441,6 1,104.1 433.1 544.3 548.1 550.0 442.9 441.9 437.3 435.7 1,109.1 1,110.8 1,116.9 1,104.6 550.5 284.8 550.1 283 1 549.3 446.7 453.5 456.7 456.4 670.5 675.6 673.9 673.9 673.3 672.6 671.1 670.6 669.8 r655.8 665.3 680.2 667.0 677.6 679.7 673.3 654.8 646.5 655.5 r661.5 652.5 636 2 615.9 300.9 302.0 302.7 302.2 302.6 301.1 300 9 301.3 301.6 301.0 301.7 302.2 302 8 336.4 336.8 Industrial chemicals6 ................... Prepared paint 341.4 300.1 344,7 345.4 345.3 345.4 345.6 335.9 334.7 335.2 337.7 267.3 268.7 270.0 270.9 274.0 340.9 276.4 337.7 272.5 277.0 277.8 r277.1 06 -2 2 277.3 278.2 Paint m a te r ia ls ................................ 329.7 317.9 328.7 337.6 337.4 334.8 334.3 333.0 0 6 -3 334.6 332.0 332 9 334.2 240.4 239.8 240.1 237.3 240.5 240.7 239.7 r246 9 245.4 248.0 251.5 253 2 371.3 237.6 366.7 332.5 244.7 r334.3 Drugs and pharmaceuticals 383.2 399.2 414.3 378.8 350.1 359.4 365.1 r380.1 376.2 356.6 284.7 288.1 288.4 286.8 286.5 285.0 283.0 285.0 285.5 r282.5 282.6 282.3 281.6 282.6 308.6 306.2 307.8 310.6 311.1 310.6 310.3 311.8 309.4 r309.0 307.2 302.9 306.8 305.5 282 4 06-1 06-21 ...................................... 0 6 -4 Fats and oils, in e d ib le ............. 0 6 -5 Agricultural chemicals and chemical products 0 6 -6 Plastic resins and m a te r ia ls ...................... 0 6 -7 Other chemicals and allied products 07 Rubber plastic products . . . . ................ . . . 279.0 342 5 279.7 343.1 277.3 275.2 277.0 277.2 275.9 277.3 278.3 279.6 279.7 r281.3 280.4 281.7 282.0 247.2 246.4 247.3 247.5 247.6 247.5 247.7 248.3 246.6 r246.1 247.5 248.4 246.7 246.6 07-1 Rubber and rubber products . 266.9 265.5 267.2 266.3 266.5 266.5 267.6 268.1 07-11 264.8 r263.9 267.1 Crude rubber 268 0 265.7 265.7 276.8 283.0 282.3 277.7 277.2 275.6 273.0 273.9 271.2 0 7 -1 2 r270.4 272.2 Tires and t u b e s ................ 275.5 273.4 270.7 243.7 241.7 243.5 243.2 243.0 243.5 243.7 244.2 239.2 0 7 -1 3 r238.3 243.7 245.1 240.8 241.2 Miscellaneous rubber products ................... 290.5 287.4 289.8 289.3 290.5 290.0 293 7 294 0 292.9 0 7 -2 r291,8 292.7 292.1 Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ................... 292,3 292 6 139.5 139.4 139.4 140.2 140.2 140.2 139.7 140.1 140.1 r140.0 139.8 140.4 139.6 139.5 307.5 316.8 315.1 308.5 307.1 304.4 304.7 303.3 300.3 r301.0 349.8 370.5 369.4 355.6 350.5 342.6 342.3 338.2 334.3 r336.6 339.6 343.2 342.9 345.0 307.8 309.9 307.2 304.2 305.3 306.8 307.2 307 4 307.0 312.5 312.4 311.5 309.9 235.8 234.0 226.6 223.7 238.8 238.2 236.6 238.8 08 08-1 ............................ Lumber and wood products L u m b e r ...................... ............. 0 8 -2 M illw o rk ................... 0 8 -3 P ly w o o d ................... 241.6 248 6 243.6 235.4 236.3 237.2 245.9 243.4 240.1 r309.5 r234.9 0 8 -4 Other wood p ro d u c ts ................ 234.6 231.8 233 3 234.7 235.0 235 2 236.5 235.9 236.6 r236.5 See footnotes at end of table. 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 303.3 304.3 303.3 303.4 24. Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] 1985 1984 Annual av e ra g e C o m m o d it y g r o u p a n d s u b g r o u p Code 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. N o v .1 D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S — C o n t in u e d Pulp, paper, and allied p ro d u c ts ......................................................... Pulp, paper,and products,excluding building paper and board 318.3 314.0 316.3 317.7 318.4 319.8 321.3 322.0 323.1 r324.1 323.2 326.6 326.9 293.1 288.3 291.5 292.7 293.3 295.7 296.3 297.5 299.3 r299 7 298.4 297.8 297.4 327.0 295.4 09-11 W o o d p u lp ............................................................................................ 396.6 378.6 401.1 407.9 409.1 408.2 353.9 240.1 242.9 258.8 259.3 257.3 254.5 249.6 235.6 r397.3 221.4 368.4 W a s te p a p e r......................................................................................... 410.6 254.7 410.2 0 9 -1 2 206.0 190.8 192.6 170.2 303.2 299.8 300.4 301.3 301.6 307.7 307.0 306.7 306.7 r306.9 307.1 307.0 304 7 303.7 287.8 285.7 09 09-1 0 9 -1 3 Paper ................................................................................................... 410.3 392.7 383.5 09 -1 4 Paperboard ......................................................................................... 281.1 275.6 277.1 277.8 279.1 279.1 285.1 288.6 293.7 r294.3 292.4 288.9 0 9 -1 5 Converted paper and paperboard p r o d u c ts ................................... 280.9 276.5 279.1 280.1 280.6 282.1 282.4 284.4 286.9 r289.0 288.0 289.0 291.0 290.4 253.6 255.2 256.2 256.3 0 9 -2 10 10-1 258.6 263.8 Metals and metal p r o d u c ts ................................................................... 316.0 316.8 317.9 317.4 317.3 Iron and s t e e l...................................................................................... 357.0 356.5 356.5 357.3 357.0 ................................................................ 265.2 265.1 258.9 Building paper and board 257.7 r253.7 315.6 316.0 r316.4 315.3 314.8 315.6 315.4 357.9 358.4 357.7 357.4 357.4 357.7 358.2 367.2 367.1 259.8 259.4 316.1 316.2 357.4 357.4 262.9 10 -1 7 Steel mill p r o d u c ts ............................................................................ 366.0 363.6 364.2 364.7 365.4 367.6 368.1 368.1 368.6 r368.0 368.0 367.4 1 0 -2 Nonferrous m e t a ls ............................................................................ 277.0 286.1 289.1 284.1 282.8 277.0 275.3 271.8 266.8 r269.4 265.6 262.8 265.2 262.9 1 0 -3 1 0 -4 Metal containers ............................................................................... 350.1 345.4 345.3 348.0 348.0 348.0 352.0 352.3 357.4 r357.4 357.5 357.6 358.3 357.5 H a rd w a re ............................................................................................ 296.5 294.4 294.6 295.3 296.2 297.1 298.0 299.0 299.9 r299.9 300.2 301.9 302.5 304.0 1 0 -5 Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings 300.6 299.9 301.5 301.6 302.4 302.8 304.6 304.4 306.2 r309 2 302.7 306.4 307.1 307.9 252.7 255.2 255.5 255.7 256.1 r256.0 256.4 256.6 257.4 257.3 314.3 ............................................ 1 0 -6 Heating e q u ip m e n t............................................................................ 253.2 248.5 250.3 252.4 1 0 -7 Fabricated structural metal products ............................................ 310.8 308.3 309.3 310.6 311.2 311.7 312.3 312.1 313.8 r312.7 313.2 312.8 313.3 1 0 -8 Miscellaneous metal p ro d u c ts ......................................................... 295.0 292.1 293.1 293.4 294.3 294.1 295.0 295.8 301.5 r301.6 301.6 301.8 301.9 301.9 294.3 294.8 '295.3 295.6 296.7 297.4 298.0 293.1 291.0 292.6 293.1 294.0 294.1 11-1 Agricultural machinery and equipment ......................................... 336.2 332.9 335.5 338.2 337.8 338.6 338.8 337.2 337.3 r337.0 337.6 339.0 Construction machinery and e q u ip m e n t......................................... 357.5 355.3 357.5 357.8 358.3 356.9 357.2 357.5 r357.6 358.2 361.7 361.8 1 1 -3 1 1 -4 Metalworking machinery and e q u ip m e n t...................................... 333.8 330.6 332.6 333.5 358.1 333.4 338.5 360.4 338.3 1 1 -2 334.2 334.7 335.6 337.1 r338.1 338.2 338.0 339.4 340.6 General purpose machinery and equipment ................................ 314.1 311.7 313.1 313.2 314.0 315.2 315.5 315.9 316.0 316.5 316.5 318.0 318.5 319.9 1 1 -6 Special Industry machinery and e q u ip m e n t................................... 348.5 344.6 346.8 348.2 348.6 351.9 352.8 351.1 351.5 r351.8 351.8 355.6 356.9 357.2 1 1 -7 Electrical machinery and e q u ip m e n t................................................ 248.6 246.7 247.7 248.1 249.1 249.4 249.4 249.8 250.8 r251.5 251.5 252.2 253.0 253.3 1 1 -9 Miscellaneous machinery 275.0 274.5 274.6 273.7 273.9 274.2 274.1 274.5 274.4 r274.8 275.7 276.2 276.7 277.0 221.1 Machinery and equipment 11 ................................................................... ................................................................ 292.2 218.6 217.4 218.2 219.1 219.1 219.2 219.2 219.0 219.2 '220.0 219.7 220.3 220.7 12-1 Household furniture ......................................................................... 242.0 240.0 240.8 241.5 242.3 242.2 242.7 243.4 244.3 r245.1 245.4 247.1 247.4 247.7 1 2 -2 Commercial fu r n itu r e ......................................................................... 297.3 294.7 296.1 297.4 297.0 298.1 298.4 297.5 297.3 r300.7 299.8 300.1 302.3 303.5 192.7 192.6 192.5 193.0 r 192.9 189.3 192.7 191.1 192.1 211.5 211.9 211.6 211.1 r210.9 212.0 211.3 211.2 211.1 Furniture and household d u r a b le s ...................................................... 12 1 2 -3 Floor c o v e rin g s ................................................................................... 190.5 188.3 188.2 191.7 192.7 1 2 -4 Household appliances 211.3 210.9 210.9 210.8 211.1 ...................................................................... 1 2 -5 Home electronic e q u ip m e n t............................................................. 83.7 84.0 84.9 84.5 83.9 84.2 83.8 83.1 83.1 83.1 82.7 80.9 81.8 81.9 1 2 -6 Other household durable g o o d s ...................................................... 318.3 316.7 319.1 321.6 319.9 318.6 316.8 316.8 317.7 r320.5 320.1 323.1 323.6 324.5 ............................................................ 337.3 333.4 335.8 337.6 338.3 339.8 340.8 340.5 340.0 '339.6 339.9 342.3 342.7 343.6 13-11 Flat g l a s s ............................................................................................ 224.0 229.1 230.2 226.1 226.3 226.3 219.6 219.7 219.9 '218.5 218.1 221.0 220.9 221.2 1 3 -2 Concrete In g re d ie n ts ......................................................................... 325.8 324.2 324.3 328.0 326.7 327.1 328.4 328.2 327.6 r328.5 329.3 331.4 334.1 335.8 1 3 -3 Concrete products 309.5 306.3 308.8 309.4 310.0 310.6 311.3 311.7 312.0 '311.8 312.1 314.8 314.3 315.0 284.3 285.0 285.6 286.2 286.4 288.2 289.4 289.5 '2 89.6 289.0 290.7 291.0 291.8 361.8 361.8 361.8 361.8 361.6 361.6 361.6 '3 65.6 366.6 367.0 367.0 368.0 Nonmetallic mineral products 13 ............................................................................ 1 3 -4 Structural clay products, excluding refractories ......................... 286.6 1 3 -5 R e fra cto rie s......................................................................................... 361.5 1 3 -6 Asphalt r o o f in g ................................................................................... 399.5 361.1 385.6 396.2 398.7 394.2 394.5 408.4 408.0 409.1 '410.1 412.0 409.9 408.3 404.6 1 3 -7 1 3 -8 Gypsum products ............................................................................ Glass containers ............................................................................... 346.5 360.7 339.6 351.6 353.0 358.0 360.3 365.0 355.4 364.6 339.0 364.9 '3 34.4 '3 64.2 329.3 364.1 328.5 363.7 330.2 364.2 320.9 370.7 Other nonmetallic minerals 500.0 490.8 491.3 499.2 359.7 366.3 507.1 359.5 366.1 1 3 -9 360.9 361.9 494.9 511.4 509.8 508.9 '5 05.8 507.2 513.3 513.3 513.9 263.4 262.5 262.2 262.5 262.3 257.8 265.0 '265.7 265.4 267.9 268.1 268.0 261.1 354.4 261.4 261.1 255.2 263.8 '264.3 263.9 266.6 266.7 266.6 356.5 357.7 357.6 358.8 '358.9 358.8 358.9 361.7 362.7 ............................................................ Transportation equipment (12/68 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... 262.6 262.4 14-1 M otor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t......................................................... 261.3 261.5 261.9 1 4 -4 Railroad e q u ip m e n t............................................................................ 356.6 352.0 380.8 261.5 354.4 Miscellaneous p ro d u c ts ......................................................................... Toys, sporting goods, small arms, a m m u n itio n ......................... 296.0 294.9 294.6 294.3 295.7 297.3 298.2 296.7 296.5 '296.5 297.1 299.9 300 7 300.5 227.1 227.6 226.5 226.8 226.5 226.5 226.5 227.0 227.4 '227.6 227.5 228.8 231.8 231.3 399.5 390.4 390.4 390.6 400.2 408.7 406.7 406.7 402.3 '402.7 406.9 423.8 420.4 420.6 283.9 283.5 283.5 283.6 283.6 284.1 284.1 14 15 15-1 1 5 -2 Tobacco products ............................................................................ 283.2 282.2 283.0 283.9 283.9 283.9 1 5 -4 N o t io n s ................................................................................................ Photographic equipment and supplies ......................................... 283.9 214.5 212.7 213.6 213.6 213.6 213.8 215.5 215.5 215.6 '2 12.9 212.9 213.8 213.9 1 5 -5 Mobile homes (12/74 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................... 163.3 162.5 163.8 163.7 162.7 162.9 163.2 163.6 163.6 '164.4 164.7 164.7 164.4 215.9 164.4 1 5 -9 Other miscellaneous p ro d u c ts ......................................................... 350.4 354.2 351.9 350.4 350.0 350.1 353.2 346.9 348.5 '349.6 349.3 346.5 350.0 347.7 1 5 -3 1 Data fo r November 1984 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. 5 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month, ®Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month. 2 Not available. 3 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month. 4 Includes only domestic production. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised. 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 25. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw is e specified] Annual C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g 1984 1985 av e ra g e 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. N o v .1 D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A ll c o m m o d it ie s — l e s s f a r m p r o d u c t s ..................................................... 313.8 313.6 314.2 314.7 314.8 315.3 314.4 313.3 314.2 314.7 314.3 314.4 313.6 313.5 A ll f o o d s 269.4 272.9 270.6 268.9 267.5 271.7 269.6 268.6 266.6 r267.3 269.5 268.5 269.6 268.4 270.0 271.2 270.9 271.4 269.0 272.8 270.0 269.1 268.3 r270.3 272.4 272.0 270.7 269.9 Industrial commodities less f u e l s ................... 287.6 286.7 287.8 287.8 288.0 288.2 288.3 287.6 288.7 289.1 288.9 290.2 290.6 290.7 Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ) ................... Hosiery ............................................................. 142.0 141.7 141.7 142.7 142.7 142.7 142.9 143.0 142.9 r142.8 141.7 142.7 143.0 142.6 147.6 147.4 147.4 147.4 147.4 147.9 148.0 148.0 148.1 148.1 147.9 148.4 148.6 148.6 Underwear and nightwear 229.9 r230.9 229.8 230.9 228.8 230.2 230.3 230.6 230.6 r230.5 230.5 232.6 231.9 232.3 289.7 289.1 290.6 291.1 290.5 291.3 290.2 289.9 290.0 290.0 289.6 290.6 291.2 291.5 ............................................................... P ro c e s s e d fo o d s ................................................. ................................ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and fibers and y a r n s ......................................................... Pharmaceutical p re p a ra tio n s ................................... 243.3 238.8 241.5 241.9 240.6 244.6 245.1 243.9 249.7 r251.9 250.8 254.0 257.3 259.5 Lumber and wood products, excluding m illw o r k ......................... 318.5 334.9 332.5 320.4 317.2 312.2 315.0 311.4 307.6 r307.4 309.7 311.5 308.8 309.2 Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products 363.7 361.2 361.8 362.4 363.1 365.2 365.8 365.9 366.5 r365.9 365.8 365.3 365.1 365.1 366.6 . . . . Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire products ............................................. 365.5 363.1 363.6 364.1 364.8 367.0 367.5 367.5 368.1 r367.5 367.4 366.9 366.7 363.0 360.5 361.0 361.6 362.4 364.4 365.0 365.1 365.7 r365.2 365.1 364.6 364 4 364.3 299.9 300.3 301.2 300.8 300.6 300.0 299.9 297.2 301.0 r301.3 300.6 301.4 301.9 301.8 302.9 303.6 303.9 305.0 308.5 308.8 Finished steel m ill products, including fabricated wire products ................................................................... Special metals and metal products .......................... Fabricated metal p r o d u c t s ................................................ 303.9 301.1 301.9 308.7 r308.5 Copper and copper p ro d u c ts ............................. 185.8 192.9 199.4 191.8 189.5 184.4 183.3 182.5 178.1 r 183.0 179.3 178.4 184.9 182.2 Machinery and motive p r o d u c ts ...................... 286.3 285.0 286.2 285.9 286.1 286.8 286.8 284.8 288.4 r289.0 289.0 290.8 291.3 291.6 319.4 317.1 318.5 318.8 319.2 320.3 320.6 320.6 320.9 r321.3 321.7 323.0 323.8 324.5 Machinery and equipment, except electrical Agricultural machinery, including tractors ................................ ...................... 305.4 309.2 309.6 353.8 349.3 352.9 357.0 356.5 357.2 357.5 355.2 354.8 356.1 355.5 364.9 361.6 363.0 363.2 363.3 364.6 365.1 366.6 368.8 r354.0 r370.4 354.7 Metalworking m a c h in e ry ............................................. 371.4 370.1 371.9 356.5 374.9 Total t r a c t o r s ............................................. 382.4 376.1 384.1 386.8 386.7 386.9 385.7 382.6 381.0 r379 5 379.7 384.7 383.8 384.2 Agricultural machinery and equipment less p a r ts ......................... 341.1 337.4 340.4 343.6 343.0 344.0 344.3 342.3 342.0 r341.5 342.1 343.4 343.1 343.9 Farm and garden tractors less parts 361.0 355.1 362.1 365.8 365.7 366.0 367.0 362.3 359.9 357.6 358.0 360.5 359.0 359.6 348.2 344.9 345.7 350.1 349.2 350.4 350.1 349.8 350.8 r351.3 352.2 352.8 353.0 354.2 306.3 306.6 307.1 306.2 306.3 306.7 307.6 307.2 307.2 r307.0 307.3 308.5 308.1 308.1 A ug. S e p t. O c t. N o v .1 Dec. Jan. ............................................. Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts Construction m a te r ia ls ...................................... ................ 1 Data fo r November 1984 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. 26. r = revised. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product [1 9 6 7 = 100] Annual C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g 1984 Total durable goods ................ Total nondurable goods ................................ Total m a n u fa c tu re s ....................................... Durable ................................... Nondurable ................................... Total raw or slightly processed goods Durable ............................. Nondurable ............................. 1984 M a r. A p r. M ay June J u ly M a r. 293.5 293.2 294.2 293.8 293.8 293.8 293.9 292.7 294.4 r294.9 294.8 295.7 296.3 296.4 324.8 324.7 325.3 324.9 326.0 323.7 322.3 320.9 r322 1 321.5 320.5 318 9 317.9 303.2 303.3 302.9 302.8 303.2 303.8 303.9 304.3 303.3 302.2 303 2 303 9 293.9 293.3 294.3 293.9 294.0 294.2 294.5 293.2 295.1 r295.6 295.5 296.4 296,9 297.0 312.3 312.7 312.5 314.1 314.2 314.8 312.6 311.7 311.6 312.5 311.8 311.6 309.6 309.8 303.5 303.9 347.0 352.4 352.4 337.4 333.3 266.7 278.7 280.6 277.9 273.3 264.5 259.6 260.6 255.9 r254 2 252.1 255.8 259.6 261.1 351.7 356.7 356.5 354.3 352.3 354.7 352.2 349.4 344.2 r346.3 346.1 342.6 342.0 337.5 by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Feb. 323.3 350.1 348.0 349.6 1Data for November 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections 80 1985 ave ra g e r = revised. 346 9 344.4 339.1 r341.0 340.7 337.7 27. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1 9 6 7 = 100 unless o th e rw ise specified] a verag e I n d u s tr y d e s c r ip t io n S IC 1985 1984 Annual 1972 code O c t. N o v .1 D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 267.9 904,4 264.1 262.1 262.1 880.3 879.2 866.8 A p r. M ay June J u ly A ug. S e p t. 250.0 267.9 273.7 271.6 264.6 249.1 257.1 271.6 276.6 902.7 909.2 914.1 918 4 921.6 928.3 918.2 916.2 r906.2 1984 M a r. 264.3 914.3 M IN IN G ...................................... 1092 Mercury ores (12/75 = 100) 1311 Crude petroleum and natural gas 2074 Cottonseed oil m i l l s ......................................................... 209.2 212.7 222.6 245.3 243.1 223.2 210.2 205.0 172.9 166.9 177.7 166.4 169.1 163.2 2083 Malt 240.4 241 6 241.6 241.6 241.6 241.6 241.6 241.6 241.6 234.5 234.5 226.5 226.5 226.5 258.6 258.6 ................................ M A N U F A C T U R IN G ................................................................................... 2098 Macaroni and s p a g h e tti................................................... 261.6 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 261.9 258.6 258.6 2298 Cordage and tw ine (12/77 = 100) ............................. 138.7 139.2 139.3 139.4 139.4 138.6 138.5 138.5 138.5 r138.5 138.6 138.5 138.5 138.5 2381 Fabric dress and work gloves ...................................... 310.5 302.3 304.8 315.6 315.6 315.6 315.6 315.6 315.6 315.6 315.6 313.5 314.9 314.9 2394 Canvas and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 151.4 150.6 150.6 150.6 150.6 152.1 152.1 r152.1 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 163.9 157.9 161.6 165.1 150.6 165.4 150.6 2448 168.6 168.6 168.7 168.3 168.2 168.5 169.0 169.3 169.4 301.0 301.0 2521 Wood office f u r n it u r e ...................................................... 290.8 289.1 289.2 289.2 289.2 289.1 289.2 291.1 291.2 r295.1 299.8 301.0 2654 Sanitary food containers 279.7 278.4 280.6 280.6 280.7 280.6 280.7 281.3 281.4 r281.5 283.1 285.6 288.3 191.4 193.1 193.1 193.1 194.7 194.7 194.7 194.8 197.8 197.7 199.1 200 0 200.0 249.8 244.9 248.1 248.8 246.5 240.1 237.5 240.9 r242.7 239.4 233 4 225.4 226.7 ................................................ 289.7 2655 Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) 193.7 2911 Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) 244.2 3253 Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ................ 150.2 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6 153.4 153.4 153.4 r 153.4 150.5 150.5 150.5 150.5 3255 Clay re fra c to rie s ................................................................ 372.5 369.3 371.5 371.5 371.7 371.6 371.4 371.4 371.4 r378.8 380.8 381.4 381.5 383.3 ................................ 3259 Structural clay products, n .e.c........................................ 232.8 232.4 232.4 232.4 232.4 232.4 232.3 232.4 232.4 r232.4 233.0 237.7 237.6 237.5 3261 Vitreous plumbing f ix t u r e s ............................................. 292.7 290.1 290.4 290.8 292.5 293.1 293.9 295.6 297 7 r297.6 298.0 297.9 298.8 298.1 3263 Fine earthenware food u te n s ils ...................................... 377.1 375.9 382.6 376.5 372.1 373.3 374.0 374.8 375.9 r378.2 380.9 391.7 395.2 385.5 3269 Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ................... 191.4 191.9 192.2 192.2 186.3 187.6 187.6 197.7 195.2 195.3 195.4 199.2 199.4 199.4 3274 Lime (12/75 = 100) ...................................................... 183.0 183.9 184.1 184.2 183.3 180.3 179.6 187.2 180.5 r182.1 183.1 187.5 185.2 185.2 3297 Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 219.2 220.6 220.1 220.1 220.1 219.9 219.9 220.3 219 9 220.2 220.3 220.5 220.4 220.4 3482 Small arms amm unition (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 192.4 190.3 190.3 190.3 190.3 190.3 190.3 190.3 190.3 r190.3 196.6 202.5 205.5 205.5 3648 Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ................ 186 6 184.9 185.0 185.6 185.7 186.3 188.1 188.2 194.4 196.9 196.9 196.9 197.4 196.1 3671 Electron tubes, receiving type 497.2 490.8 490.9 490.9 491.3 491.6 491.6 491.8 492.0 527.2 527.2 546.7 547.0 547.0 133.6 133.6 133.6 133.6 133.6 r133.6 133.3 134.4 134.5 239 2 239.2 239.1 239.3 239.4 r239.4 234.9 134.3 236.7 241.6 243.1 ...................................... 3942 Dolls (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... 134.3 137.7 131.6 133 4 3944 Games, toys, and children's vehicles 238.0 240.1 239.7 239.1 3955 Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) 145.7 149.0 149.1 149.1 149.1 146.7 146.7 146.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.4 129.5 166.3 166.4 166.4 168.7 168.8 168.8 169.7 169.7 - 169.7 171.4 171.4 172.1 3996 ......................... ... Hard surface flo o r coverings (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 167.5 165.2 1Data fo r November 1984 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. r= revised. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Indexes which were deleted in the March issue may now be found in Table 4 of the BLS monthly report, P ro d u cer P rice s an d P rice In dexes. 81 PRODUCTIVITY DATA P roductivity data are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from establishment data and from measures of compensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. Definitions Output is the constant dollar gross product produced by the particular sector. Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant dollars per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity measures the output per unit of combined labor and capital input. The traditional measure of output per hour reflects changes in capital per hour and a combination of other factors— such as, changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, management, and so forth. The multifactor productivity meas ure differs from the familiar b l s measure of output per hour of all persons in that it excludes the effects o f the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of employees 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 compensation per hour is com pensation per hour adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs measure the labor compensation costs required to produce a unit o f output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and in direct taxes per unit o f output. They are computed by subtracting com pensation o f all persons from current dollar gross product and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value o f inventory adjustments per unit of output. The implicit price deflator is the price index for the gross product of the sector reported. It is derived by dividing the current dollar gross product by the constant dollar figures. Hours of all persons measures the labor input of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Output per all employee 82 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hour describes labor productivity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed. The capital services input index used in the mul tifactor productivity computation is developed by bls from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inven tories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Combined units of labor and capital input are computed by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages o f the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the output meas ure employed in the computation of output per hour is constructed from Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Multifactor productivity measures (table 28) for the private business and private non farm business sectors differ from the business and nonfarm business sector measures used in the traditional labor productivity indexes (tables 2 9 -3 2 ) in that they exclude the activities of government enterprises. There is no difference in the sector definition for manufacturing. Output measures for the business sectors are derived from data supplied by the Bureau o f 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 o f output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Com pensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau o f Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in the tables describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output; uti lization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization of production; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. For a more complete description o f the methodology underlying the multifactor productivity measures, see Bulletin 2178, “ Trends in Multifactor Produc tivity, 1 9 4 8 -8 1 ” (September 1983). 28. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-83 [1977 = 100] 1950 It e m 1960 1970 1973 1974 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 103.7 P R IV A T E B U S IN E S S S E C T O R Productivity: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................. 49.7 64.8 86.1 94.8 92.5 94.5 97.6 100.5 99.3 98.7 100.6 100.8 Output per unit of capital s e r v ic e s ...................... 98.6 98.5 103.0 96.5 92.0 96.1 101.8 100.3 95.6 94.1 89.6 M ultifactor p r o d u c tiv ity ......................................... 63.6 98.5 75.4 90.2 97.5 93.8 93.6 97.1 101.0 99.7 97.6 98.3 96.8 99.6 109.2 106.3 111.1 105.4 107.9 106.4 39.5 53.3 78.3 91.8 89.9 88.0 93.7 Hours of all p e rs o n s ................................................ 79.4 82.2 97.2 105.0 108.6 107.8 108.5 54.1 89.1 93.1 93.1 95.7 95.9 40.1 90.8 79.4 96.8 Capital services 97.5 103.6 107.5 111.4 116.0 118.7 120.3 111.5 O u tp u t............................................................................. 105.5 92.3 Inputs: ...................................................... 107.2 62.1 70.7 86.7 94.1 95.8 94.0 96.5 104.5 108.2 109.0 111.0 109.8 50.4 65.8 87.4 92.0 95.9 102.8 101.6 98 7 98.9 103.3 106.9 112.6 112.3 Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................. 55.6 95 3 92.9 94.8 97.8 100.6 99.0 98.2 99.6 99.9 103.5 98.2 68.0 98.4 86.8 Output per unit of capital s e r v ic e s ...................... 98.6 103.2 96.5 91.7 96.1 101.9 100.1 95.2 93.2 88.7 91.9 M ultifactor p r o d u c tiv ity ......................................... 68.1 77.6 90.7 97.9 94.1 93.6 97.2 101.0 99.4 97.2 97.4 95.9 99.3 O u tp u t............................................................................. 38.3 52.3 77.8 91.7 89.7 87.6 93.6 105.7 108.0 106.4 108.7 105.9 111.3 95.7 105.1 109.1 108.4 109.1 106.0 107.6 Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ................................ P R IV A T E N O N F A R M B U S IN E S S S E C T O R Productivity: Inputs: Hours of all p e rs o n s ................................................ 69.0 77.0 89.7 96.2 96.5 92 4 Capital services ...................................................... 39.0 53.2 78.9 88.8 93.0 95.6 97.4 103.7 107.9 111.7 116.6 119.4 Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . 56.2 67.4 85.9 93.6 95.3 96.3 104.6 108.7 109.5 111.6 110.4 112.0 96.3 93.5 103.4 106.8 112.6 112.6 90.8 93.4 104.9 107.1 111.6 Capital per hour of all persons ................................ 56.6 69.1 88.0 92.4 101.8 98.7 98.9 103.1 101.6 101.7 121.2 M A N U F A C T U R IN G Productivity: 97.6 100.9 Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................. 49.4 60.0 79.2 93.0 Output per unit of capital s e r v ic e s ...................... M ultifactor p r o d u c tiv ity ......................................... 94.5 88.0 91.8 108.2 99 6 89.4 96.1 101.5 99.5 90.7 89.9 82 9 87.6 59 9 67.0 82.3 96.8 93.1 92 2 97.1 101.1 101.0 98.8 100.8 100.3 O u tp u t............................................................................. 38.6 50.7 77.0 95.9 91.9 85.4 93.6 105.3 108.2 103.5 106.1 99.3 104.9 104.4 101.1 92.7 93.5 119.8 119.2 Inputs: Hours of all p e rs o n s ................................................ 78.2 84.4 97.3 103.1 101.2 91.4 95.9 104.4 106.5 101.7 Capital services 40.9 57.5 83.9 88.6 92.2 95.5 97.4 103.8 108.8 114.1 118.0 64.5 75.6 93.5 99.0 98.7 92.6 96.3 104.2 107.1 104.8 105.2 99.0 99.5 52.3 68.2 86.2 85.9 91.1 104.5 101.6 99.4 102.1 112.2 116.7 129.2 127.5 1981 1982 1983 1984 ...................................................... Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons 29. ................................ Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-84 [1977 = 100] 1979 1980 It e m 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1978 Business sector: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................. 50.4 58.3 65.2 78.3 86.2 94.6 100.5 99.3 98.8 100.7 100.9 103.7 107.0 Compensation per h o u r ......................................... 20.0 26.4 33.9 41.7 58.2 85.6 108.5 118.7 131.1 143.4 155.0 161.7 168.6 Real compensation per hour 50.5 59.7 69.5 80.1 90 8 96.4 100.8 99.1 96.4 98.4 98.4 132.6 95.5 142.4 97.3 119.5 153.6 156.0 157.5 112.8 119.3 136.7 136 8 145.5 157.1 157.4 ................................ Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... 39.8 45.2 52.1 53.3 67.5 90.5 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ......................................... 43.4 47.6 50.6 57.6 63.2 90.4 108.0 106.7 Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................................. 41.0 46.0 51.6 54.7 66.0 90 4 107.5 117.2 128.1 140.4 147.9 152.4 80.5 86 8 94.8 100.6 99.0 98.3 99.8 100.0 103.4 106.3 118.4 130.6 143.1 154.5 162.0 168.7 Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................ 56.3 62.8 68.3 Compensation per h o u r ......................................... 21.9 28.3 35.7 42.8 58.7 86.1 108.6 Real compensation per hour 64.0 73.1 ................................ 55.1 82.3 91.5 96.9 100.8 98.8 96.0 97.0 98.6 98.4 Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... 38.8 45.1 52.3 53.2 67.6 90.8 108.0 143.5 154.5 156.6 158.8 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ......................................... 47.8 50.4 58.0 63.8 88.5 105.3 119.5 110.4 132.8 42.7 118.6 135.0 136.9 147.0 157.1 Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................................. 40.1 46.0 51.6 54.8 66.3 90.0 107.1 116.5 128.1 140.6 148.6 153.4 158.2 101.6 102.6 106.1 108.5 143.1 154,6 161.0 166.6 95.3 Nonfiriancial corporations: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................. <1) <1) 68.0 82.0 87.4 95.5 100.8 100.6 99.7 Compensation per h o u r ......................................... <1> <1) 37.0 43.9 59.4 86.1 108.4 118.6 130.8 Real compensation per hour 75 8 54.4 84.3 ................................ (1) <1) Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... (1) (1) Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ......................................... <1) <1) Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................................. ( 1) (1) 92.7 97.0 100.7 99.0 96.2 95.3 97.9 97.2 53.5 68.0 90.2 107.5 117.8 150.6 151.8 153.6 54.6 60.8 90.8 104.2 106.9 131.2 117.4 140.9 63.1 135.1 138.1 149.1 54.5 56.1 66.3 90.4 106.4 114.1 126.4 138.9 146.3 150.9 158.9 155.4 116.8 169.4 97.0 Manufacturing: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............................ 49.4 56.4 60.0 74.6 79.2 93.4 100.9 101.6 101.7 104.9 107.1 111.6 Compensation per h o u r ......................................... 21.5 28.8 36.7 42.8 57.6 85.5 108.3 118.8 132.7 145.2 158.0 163.4 Real compensation per hour 54.0 43.4 65.1 51.0 75.1 82.3 89.8 96.2 100.6 99 2 97.6 99.2 99.4 98.8 61.1 72.7 91.5 117.0 130.5 147,6 146.4 145.0 65.1 87.3 107.3 102.7 96.8 138.4 99.9 97.9 111.6 110.5 128.8 ( 1) 70.5 90.3 106.0 112.0 120.9 130.6 136.7 141.2 ( 1) ................................ Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ......................................... 54.3 58.6 61.1 57.5 69.4 Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................................. 46.6 53.2 61.1 61.0 Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... 1Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity 30. Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 A n n u a l r a te Year It e m of change 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 -1 .2 -0 .5 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 9 5 0 -8 4 1 9 7 4 -8 4 Business sector: Output per hour of all persons ................ Compensation per h o u r ............................. Real compensation per hour ................... -2 .4 2.2 3.3 2.4 0.5 1.9 0.2 2.7 3.2 2.2 1.5 9.4 9.6 8.5 7.7 8.5 9.4 10.4 9.4 8.1 4.3 4.2 6.5 8.1 -1 .4 0.5 2.6 1.2 0.8 -1 .7 -2 .7 -0 .9 1.9 1.1 0.0 2.0 .......................................... 12.1 7.3 5.1 5.1 8.0 10.7 11.0 7.3 7.9 1.6 1.0 4.1 0.3 6 4 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ............................. 4.4 15.1 4.0 6.4 6.7 5.8 5.7 14.6 0.1 6.3 8.0 3.9 7.2 Im plicit price deflator 9.5 9.8 4.7 5.6 7.5 9.0 9.3 9.6 5.3 3.0 3.2 4.0 6.7 -2 .5 2.0 3.2 2.2 0.6 -1 .5 -0 .7 1.5 0.2 3.5 2.7 1.9 1.4 8.0 4.9 4.1 6.2 8.0 Unit labor costs ................................ Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour ................ ............................. 9.4 9.6 8.1 7.5 8.6 9.0 10.3 9.6 ................... -1 .4 0.4 2.2 1.0 0.8 -2 .0 -2 .8 -0 .7 1.7 12.2 7.5 4.7 5.2 8.0 10.7 11.1 8.0 7.7 1.6 1.4 -0 .1 .......................................... 1.4 4.2 6.5 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ............................. 5.9 16.7 5.7 6.9 5.3 4.8 7.4 13.8 1.4 7.4 6.8 3.9 7.6 6.8 Real compensation per hour Unit labor costs 1.7 0.2 ................................ 10.2 10.3 5.1 5.7 7.1 8.8 10.0 9.8 5.7 3.2 3.1 4.1 Output per hour of all e m p lo y e e s ............. -3 .7 2.9 2.9 1.8 0.8 -0 .2 -0 .9 1.9 1.0 3.3 2.3 <1) 1.5 Compensation per h o u r ............................. 9.4 9.6 7.9 7.6 8.4 9.4 10.3 9.4 8.0 4.2 3.4 <1) 8.9 0.9 Im plicit price deflator Nonflnancial corporations: Real compensation per hour ................... -1 .5 2.0 1.1 0.7 -1 .7 -2 .8 -0 .9 1.8 -0 .8 <1) 0.2 .......................................... 13.6 6.5 4.9 5.7 7.5 9.6 11.3 7.4 6.9 0.8 1.1 <1) 6.7 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ............................. 7.1 20.1 4.6 5.3 4.2 2.6 9.8 15.1 2.3 7.9 6.6 (1) 7.8 11.4 10.9 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 10.8 9.8 5.3 3.1 3.0 (1) 7.1 -2 .4 2.9 4.5 2.5 3.1 2.1 4.3 4.6 2.6 2.6 10.6 11.9 8.0 8.3 8.3 9.7 11.7 9.4 8.8 3.4 3.6 6.3 8.3 -0 .3 2.5 2.1 1.8 0.6 -1 .4 -1 .6 -0 .9 2.5 0.2 -0 .6 1.8 0.5 -1 .0 Unit labor costs Im plicit price deflator ................................ 0.4 Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ................ Compensation per h o u r ............................. Real compensation per hour Unit labor costs ................... 0.9 0.7 0.2 .......................................... 13.3 8.8 3.4 5.7 7.3 9.0 11.5 6.1 6.6 -0 .8 Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ............................. -1 .8 25.9 7.5 6.5 2.7 13.1 4.6 6.0 6.0 -2 .6 5.7 - 2 .1 7.9 14.1 9.0 -1 .0 4.7 16.5 3.3 Im plicit price deflator ................................ 8.0 <1) (1) 3.6 5.6 2.6 3.4 6.6 7.1 1 Not available. 31. Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted [1 9 7 7 = 100] Q u a r t e r ly in d e x e s Annual av e ra g e Ite m 1982 1983 1984 II I II 1983 IV I II 1984 I II IV I II I II IV Business sector: Output per hour of all persons ......................... 103.7 107.0 100.3 100 9 101.6 102.2 103.6 104.3 104.7 105.7 107.0 107.2 108.2 ...................................... 161.7 168.6 153.9 156.7 158.4 160.2 161.0 161.8 164.2 166.7 167.5 169.3 171.1 Real compensation per h o u r ................................ 98.4 98.4 97.2 97.3 98.0 99.0 98.5 98.0 98.4 98.6 98.2 98 3 Unit labor c o s ts ...................................................... 156.0 157.5 153.4 155.3 155 9 156.8 155.4 155.1 156.5 158.0 158.2 ...................................... 145.5 157.1 137.0 135.8 136.5 139.8 144.6 147.9 156.8 149.1 157.7 Unit nonlabor payments 151.6 157 2 158.5 160.6 Im plicit price d e fla to r............................................. 152.4 157.4 147.9 148.7 149.3 151.0 151.7 152.7 154.2 155.6 156.7 158.1 159.0 103.4 106.3 99.4 100.3 100.5 101.6 103.6 104.1 104.4 105.2 106.6 106.3 107.0 162.0 168.7 157.9 160.1 164.0 171.0 Compensation per hour 98.5 Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ......................... Compensation per hour ...................................... 153.2 156.0 161.5 162.4 166 5 168.0 169.5 Real compensation per h o u r ................................ 98.6 98.4 96.8 96.9 97.7 99.0 98.8 98.3 98 3 r98 4 98.4 98.4 98.5 Unit labor c o s ts ...................................................... 156.6 158.8 154.2 155.6 157.1 157.6 155.9 155.9 157.1 158.3 157.6 159.5 159.8 Unit nonlabor payments ...................................... 147.0 157.1 137.5 136.8 136.4 140.6 146.4 149.4 151.4 152.2 156.8 158 0 160.8 Im plicit price d e fla to r............................................. 160.1 153.4 158.2 148.6 149.3 150.2 151.9 152.7 153 8 155.2 156.3 157.3 159.0 Output per hour of all e m p lo y e e s ...................... 106.1 108.5 102.1 103.3 103.2 104.0 105.8 107.2 107.2 108.1 108.9 Compensation per hour Nonfinancial corporations: 108.2 (1) ...................................... 161.0 166.6 153.5 156.2 157.7 159.2 160.6 161.8 162.6 164.8 165.8 167.1 <1) Real compensation per h o u r ................................ 97.9 97.2 97.0 97.0 97.5 98.4 98.2 r97.9 97.4 97.5 97.2 97.1 (1) Total unit c o s t s ...................................................... 155.2 156.4 155.2 154.4 154.7 157.5 (1) Unit labor c o s t s ............................................ 151.8 164.9 153.6 150.3 151.3 152.9 153.1 151.7 152.5 152.3 154.5 ( 1) 164.3 164.4 168 8 167.0 165.1 150.9 164.4 151.7 164.4 163.3 162.0 162 8 165.9 <1) Unit nonlabor c o s t s ...................................... Unit profits 154.0 154.7 157.0 156.7 155.0 155.0 ............................................................ 117.2 148.0 86.8 86.6 75.6 92.5 111.8 126.6 135.9 143.2 151.1 145.3 ( 1) Im plicit price d e fla to r............................................ 150.9 155.4 146.3 146.9 147.7 149.4 150.2 151.2 152 6 153.6 154.6 156.1 (1) Output per hour of all persons ......................... Compensation per hour ...................................... 111.6 116.8 169.4 106.3 108.8 107.8 109.1 110.8 113.4 113.1 114.2 115,3 117.4 117.1 163.4 157.2 159.8 161.0 162.7 164.6 167.1 168.3 169.9 99.4 98.8 99.4 99.2 99.6 100.6 163.0 99.6 163.5 Real compensation per h o u r ................................ Unit labor c o s ts ...................................................... 98.9 98.6 98.8 98.6 98.6 99.1 146.4 145.0 148.0 146.9 149.3 149.1 147.0 144.1 145.5 146.4 146.0 144.7 146.9 Manufacturing: 1Not available. 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised. 172.1 32. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted at annual rate Q u a r t e r ly p e r c e n t c h a n g e a t a n n u a l r a te I1 1983 III 1 9 8 3 IV 1 9 8 3 I 1984 to to to to III 1 9 8 3 IV 1 9 8 3 11984 II 1 9 8 4 P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m s a m e q u a r te r a y e a r a g o II 1 9 8 4 to III 1 9 8 4 I II 1 9 8 4 to IV 1 9 8 4 III 1 9 8 2 IV 1 9 8 2 11983 II 1 9 8 3 to to to to III 1 9 8 3 IV 1 9 8 3 1 1984 II 1 9 8 4 III 1 9 8 3 to I II 1 9 8 4 IV 1 9 8 3 to IV 1 9 8 4 Business sector: Output per hour of all p e r s o n s ............. 2.8 1.4 4.0 4.9 0.6 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.7 3.3 Compensation per h o u r .......................... 2.0 6.1 6.2 1.9 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.0 4.6 4.2 -0 .3 0.4 0.1 Real compensation per h o u r ................ -2 .2 1.9 0.8 -1 .8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 -0 .4 Unit labor c o s t s ...................................... -0 .8 4.6 2.1 -2 .9 3.7 0.6 - 0 .1 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.9 0.8 9.5 3.1 7.0 15.4 3.4 5.5 8.9 9.2 8.4 8.7 7.1 7.8 2.5 4.1 3.7 2.9 3.6 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.1 2.1 1.0 2.9 5.5 - 1 .1 2.9 3.9 3.9 Unit nonlabor payments ...................... Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................. Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............. 3.5 2.9 2.1 2.5 Compensation per h o u r .......................... 2.2 4.1 6.1 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.3 Real compensation per h o u r ................ -2 .0 -0 .0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.6 -0 .5 -0 .3 0.2 0.2 Unit labor c o s t s ...................................... 0.1 3.0 3.1 -1 .7 4.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.4 Unit nonlabor payments ...................... 8.4 5.3 2.3 12.5 3.1 7.3 9.2 10.9 8.3 7.1 5.7 6.2 Im plicit price d e fla to r ............................. 2.7 3.7 2.8 2.8 4.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.2 5.3 -0 .2 2.8 1.1 2.3 1.7 Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees . . . (1) 3.8 0.9 (1) 3.1 2.0 3.6 5.7 -2 .5 Compensation per h o u r .......................... 2.4 3.2 (1) 3.6 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.3 (1) Real compensation per h o u r ................ r -1 .1 - 2 .1 0.4 -1 .3 -0 .4 (1) 1.0 - 0 .1 -0 .9 -1 .0 -0 .9 (1) ................................... -2 .0 0.8 0.6 0.2 6.5 (1) -0 .2 -1 .5 -1 .1 - 0 .1 2.0 (1) ................................ - 2 .1 2.1 2.0 -0 .4 5.9 <1 ) -0 .2 -0 .8 -0 .4 0.4 2.4 ( 1) .......................... -1 .7 -2 .6 -3 .2 2.0 8.0 <1 ) 0.0 -3 .2 -3 .0 -1 .4 0.9 ............................................. 64.8 32.6 23.4 23.8 - 1 4 .5 <1 ) 46.3 79.8 54.8 35.2 14.7 (1) Im plicit price d e f la t o r ............................. 2.8 3.6 2.7 2.6 3.9 ( 1> 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.9 3.2 (1) 3.5 3.5 Total units costs Unit labor costs Unit nonlabor costs Unit profits 3.9 4.0 2.9 ( 1) Manufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............. 9.7 -1 .0 3.7 4.0 7.4 -0 .9 4.3 4.9 4.7 4.1 Compensation per h o u r .......................... 1.3 2.9 6.2 2.9 3.7 5.2 2.3 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5 Real compensation per h o u r ................ r -2 .9 -1 .2 0.8 -0 .8 0.1 1.6 -0 .3 -1 .0 -1 .7 -1 .0 r -0 .3 0.4 Unit labor c o s t s ...................................... -7 .7 3.9 2.3 - 1 .1 -3 .4 6.2 -1 .9 -2 .6 -1 .9 -0 .7 0.4 0.9 1Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised. 85 WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA D ata for the employment cost index are reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm estab lishments and 750 State and local government units selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on five well-specified occupations. Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained from contracts on file at the Bureau,, direct contact with the parties, and secondary sources. Definitions The Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) is a quarterly measure of the average change in the cost o f employing labor. The rate of total compensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee ben efits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks. Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all series produced in the e c i , except those by region, bargaining status, and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are measured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Census of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the E C I . While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is available for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey months o f March, June, September, and December. The statistics are neither an nualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, ex cluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays, and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the benefits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are excluded. Benefits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits. Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements covering 5,000 workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settlements reached in the period 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and implemented within the first 12 months after the effective date o f the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to all adjustments specified in the contract, expressed as an average annual rate. These meas ures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Wage-rate changes are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earn ings; compensation changes are expressed as a percent of total wages and benefits. Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes implemented in the reference period, regardless o f the settlement date. They include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-of-living adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units with at least 1,000 workers. Notes on the data The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in cluded in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent change in employers’ cost for em ployees’ total compensation. State and local government units were added to the e c i coverage in 1981, providing a measure o f total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy. Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service industry groups are presented in the e c i . Additional occupation and industry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total compensation and its wages and salaries component. Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of changes presented in the e c i are also available. For a more detailed discussion o f the e c i , see chapter 11, “ The Em ployment Cost Index,” o f the bls Handbook of Methods (Bulletin 2134— 1), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “ Employment Cost Index: a measure o f change in the ‘price of labor,’ ” July 1975; “ How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; and “ The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and expansion,” May 1982. Additional data for the e c i and other measures o f wage and compensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly publication of the Bureau. 33. Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100] P e rc e n t ch an g e 1982 S e r ie s D ec. C i v il ia n w o r k e r s ' ................................................................................................................................. 1983 M a rc h 1984 June S e p t. D ec. M a rc h June S e p t. D ec. 3 m o n th s 1 2 m o n th s ended ended Decem ber 1984 111.4 113.2 114.5 116.5 117.8 119.8 120.8 122.4 123.9 1.2 5.2 111.9 113.7 114.9 117.6 118.9 120.9 122.1 124.0 125.5 1.2 5.6 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar w o r k e r s ................................................................................ Blue-collar workers ................................................................................ 110.5 112.3 113.6 114.8 115.8 117.7 118.6 119.6 120.9 1.1 4.4 ...................................................................................... 112.4 114.3 115.1 116.7 119.1 122.0 122.1 124.6 126.8 1.8 6.5 ......................................................................................... 110.4 112.5 113.5 115.0 116.0 117.9 119.1 120.4 122.0 1.3 5.2 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... 111.8 113.5 114.9 117.2 118.6 120.7 121.6 123.3 124.8 1.2 5.2 125.0 125.5 128.8 130.9 1.6 6.8 Service workers Workers, by industry division Manufacturing Servces ................................................................................................ 115.0 116.6 117.1 121.1 122.6 ...................................................................... 113.6 116.2 117.0 119.8 121.4 122.9 123.7 126.9 128.6 1.3 5.9 P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s .......................................................................................................... 110.7 112.6 113.9 115.6 117.0 119.0 120.1 121.1 122.7 1.3 4.9 Public adm inistration2 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar workers ......................................................................... 110.8 112.8 114.2 116.5 117.9 119.9 121.4 122.4 123.9 1.2 5.1 Blue-collar w o r k e r s ............................................................................. 110.3 112.1 113.5 114.6 115.7 117.5 118.4 119.3 120.6 1.1 4.2 Service w o r k e r s ................................................................................... 111.8 113.8 114.6 115.1 117.9 121.5 121.2 123.2 125.7 2.0 6.6 Workers, by Industry division M a n u fa c tu rin g ...................................................................................... 110.4 112.5 113.5 115.0 116.0 117.9 119.1 120.4 122.0 1.3 5.2 N onm a n u fa ctu rin g ................................................................................ 110.8 112.6 114.2 116.0 117.5 119.6 120.7 121.6 123.1 1.2 4.8 S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ........................................................................... 115.1 116.5 117.1 120.8 122.0 123.9 124.4 128.8 130.1 1.0 6.6 ......................................................................... 115.8 117.0 117.5 121.5 122.6 124.5 125.0 129.7 131.1 1.1 6.9 ............................................................................ 113.0 114.9 115.8 118.0 119.2 121.9 122.3 125.0 125.9 0.7 5.6 ................................................................................................ 115.9 116.8 117.4 121.7 122.6 124.5 125.0 129.9 131.3 1.1 S c h o o ls ............................................................................................. 115.8 116.6 116.9 121.9 122.6 124.5 124.7 130.6 132.0 1.1 7.7 116.6 117.2 117.4 123.3 123.9 125.4 125.7 132.1 133.5 1.1 7.7 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar workers Blue-collar workers Workers, by industry division Services Elementary and secondary ...................................................... Hospitals and other services3 ...................................................... Public adm inistration2 ...................................................................... 7.1 116.0 117.5 118.8 121.1 122.6 124.4 125.7 127.9 129.2 1.0 5.4 113.6 116.2 117.0 119.8 121.4 122.9 123.7 126.9 128.6 1.3 5.9 'E xcludes farm, household, and Federal workers. ^Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ^Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data 34. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100] P e rc e n t ch an g e 1982 S e r ie s C i v il ia n w o r k e r s 1 ................................................................................................................................. 1983 1984 D ec. M a rc h June S e p t. D ec. M a rc h June S e p t. D ec. 110.9 112.2 113.4 115.3 116.5 117.9 118.8 120.3 121.7 3 m o n th s 1 2 m o n th s ended ended D ecem ber 1984 1.2 4.5 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar w o r k e r s ................................................................................ 111.4 113.0 120.4 122.2 123.5 1.1 4.7 ................................................................................ 109 8 110.8 112.0 113.1 114.0 115.3 116.1 117.0 118.2 1.0 3.7 ...................................................................................... 111.8 113.2 113.9 115.1 117.4 120.0 119.8 122.3 124.3 1.6 5.9 Blue-collar workers Service workers 114.2 116.7 117.9 119.3 Workers, by industry division ......................................................................................... 109.8 111.0 112.0 113.3 114.5 115.7 116.8 118.0 119.5 1.3 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... Manufacturing 111.3 112.7 114.0 116.1 117.4 118.9 119.7 121.3 122.6 1.1 4.4 114.4 115.8 120.1 121.3 123.3 123.8 127.2 124 4 128.9 1.3 6.3 125.7 1.0 5.3 Services ................................................................................................ 4.4 ...................................................................... 112.6 114.6 116.3 115.4 118.2 119.4 120.4 121.3 P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s .......................................................................................................... 110.3 111.6 112.9 114.5 115.8 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.6 1.2 4.1 110.6 112.2 113.6 115.9 117.2 118.5 119.9 120.9 122.3 1.2 4.4 1.7 5.7 Public adm inistration2 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar workers .............................................................................. Professional and technical workers ............................................ 112.9 114.8 115.9 119.9 120.4 122.2 123.8 ...................................................... 109.3 112.0 114.0 114.8 115.7 118.0 119.2 121.0 122.2 1.0 ................................................................................... 106.2 105.7 107.1 108.4 111.2 110.2 111.9 110.5 111.6 1.0 .4 Clerical w o rk e rs ................................................................................ 111.6 113.4 114.6 116.7 118.3 119.8 120.7 122.0 122.9 .7 3.9 110.7 Managers and administrators Salesworkers Blue-collar workers 125.2 127.3 5.6 ............................................................................ 109.7 111.9 112.9 113.9 115.1 118.0 1.1 Craft and kindred w o r k e r s ............................................................ 111.2 112.2 113.4 114.3 115.4 116.5 117.3 118.0 119.4 1.2 3.5 Operatives, except tr a n s p o r t......................................................... 109.3 110.0 111.1 112.3 113.6 114.9 115.8 116.6 117.9 1.1 3.8 Transport equipment o p e ra tiv e s ................................................... 106.9 108.0 110.3 110.7 110.2 111.7 112.7 113.4 114.0 .5 3.4 Nonfarm la b o r e r s ............................................................................ Service w o r k e r s ................................................................................... Workers, by industry division 107.8 111.4 109.0 112.9 109.8 110.8 113.7 112.1 114.7 116.5 112.9 119.8 114.1 113.5 119.3 121.2 115.9 123.7 1.0 2.1 6.2 115.9 116.7 3.6 3.4 M a n u fa c tu rin g ...................................................................................... 109.8 111.0 112.0 113.3 114.5 115.7 116.8 118.0 119.5 1.3 4.4 D u ra b le s ............................................................................................ 110.3 111.1 111.8 112.9 114.4 115.7 116.6 117.7 119.1 1.2 4.1 Nondurables 109.1 110.9 112.3 113.9 114.6 115.8 117.1 118.6 120.2 1.3 4.9 4.0 ................................................................................... N o n m anufacturing................................................................................ 110.5 112.0 113.4 115.2 116.5 118.0 119.0 119.9 121.2 1.1 ................................................................................... 109.7 110.4 112.1 112.2 112.9 113.3 114.0 114.3 114.4 .1 1.3 Transportation and public u t ilit ie s ................................................ 111.1 112.9 114.7 115.7 116.8 118.5 119.3 119.9 120.7 .7 3.3 Wholesale and retail t r a d e ............................................................ 107.2 108.5 110.8 111.5 112.3 116.0 118.1 1.4 5.2 Construction ......................................................................... 109.8 111.8 114.1 115.7 116.5 114.3 118.2 120.0 116.5 120.7 122.9 1.8 5.5 Retail t r a d e ................................................................................... 106.1 107.2 109.4 109.9 110.6 112.8 114.4 114.9 116.2 1.1 5.1 Finance, insurance, and real e s t a t e ............................................. 109.0 110.6 111.1 116.9 116.1 116.9 .4 -.9 114.3 116.0 116.6 121.9 124.2 124.7 115.3 127.1 115.8 S e rv ic e s ............................................................................................ 113.5 120.4 129.5 1.9 6.2 S t a t e a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ........................................................................... 114.0 115.1 115.7 119.2 120.0 121.6 122.0 126.1 127.1 8 5.9 Workers, by occupational group W hite-collar workers ......................................................................... 114.6 115.6 116.1 119.8 120.6 122.2 122.5 127.1 128.0 .7 6.1 112.0 113.3 114.3 116.4 116.9 119.1 119.6 121.9 122.5 5 4.8 Wholesale trade Blue-collar workers ............................................................................ Workers, by industry division Services ................................................................................................ 114.6 115.5 115.9 119.8 120.6 122.2 122.5 127.2 128.1 .7 S c h o o ls ............................................................................................ 114.5 115.2 115.4 119 9 120.6 122.2 122.3 127 8 128.7 .7 6.7 115.1 115.6 115.8 121.1 121.7 122.9 123 0 129.3 130.2 .7 7.0 120.6 119.4 121.9 123.1 125.1 125.9 .6 4.4 120.4 121.3 124 4 125.7 1.0 5.3 Elementary and secondary ...................................................... Hospitals and other services3 ...................................................... Public adm inistration2 ...................................................................... 114.9 116.5 117.7 119.7 112.6 114.6 115.4 118.2 1 Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. C o n s is ts of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in c lu d e s , for example, library, social, and health services. 6.2 35. Employment Cost Index, private industry workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size [June 1981 = 100] P e rc e n t ch an g e S e r ie s 1982 D ec. 1983 M a rc h June 1984 S e p t. D ec. M a rc h June S e p t. D ec. 3 m o n th s 1 2 m o n th s ended ended D ecem ber 1984 C O M P E N S A T IO N Workers, by bargaining status1 Union ............................................................................................................ Manufacturing ......................................................................................... N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... Nonunion ...................................................................................................... Manufacturing 112.3 114.5 116.0 117.8 118.8 120.6 121.7 122.6 123.9 1.1 4.3 111.8 114.0 114.8 116.3 117.2 119.3 120.5 121.6 123.2 1.3 5.1 112.8 114.9 117.1 119.2 120.4 121.9 122.8 123.6 124.5 0.7 3.4 109.7 111.5 112.8 114.4 115.9 118.0 119.2 120.3 121.9 1.3 5.2 ......................................................................................... 109.2 111.2 112.3 113.8 114.9 116.6 117.9 119.3 120.8 1.3 5.1 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... 109.9 111.6 113.0 114.7 116.4 118.6 119.8 120.7 122.4 1.4 5.2 Workers, by region1 Northeast 112.6 114.3 116.0 123.8 1.1 110.6 112.5 113.5 115.6 117.1 119.7 120.7 120.7 122.2 1.2 4.4 ................................................................................................ 108.6 110.9 112.5 113.9 114.7 117.2 117.9 119.7 120.8 .9 5.3 W e s t ................................................................................................................ 112.9 115.4 116.6 118.0 120.0 121.0 122.2 122.5 124.9 2.0 4.1 South ...................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................ North Central 111.7 117.5 118.9 120.7 122.4 5.4 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas Other areas ...................................................................................... 110.9 112.9 114.2 116.0 117.4 119.4 120.6 121.5 123.2 1.4 4.9 ................................................................................................... 109.1 110.8 112.3 113.4 114.5 116.7 117.4 119.0 119.8 .7 4.6 W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S Workers, by bargaining status1 Union ............................................................................................................ 111.8 112.9 114.2 116.0 116.9 118.1 119.0 119.8 120.9 .9 3.4 ......................................................................................... 110.8 111.4 112.3 113.7 114.8 116.1 117.1 118.1 119.5 1.2 4.1 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... 112.7 114.3 116.0 118.3 118.9 120.1 120.7 121.3 122.1 .7 2.7 109.5 1.10.9 112.2 Manufacturing Nonunion ...................................................................................................... 116.7 117.8 118.8 120.4 1.3 ......................................................................................... 109.1 110.7 111.8 113.0 114.2 115.4 116.5 117.9 119.5 1.4 4.6 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................................................... 109.6 111.0 112.4 114.0 115.6 117.2 118.3 119.2 1.3 4.4 Manufacturing 113.7 115.2 120.7 4.5 Workers, by region1 Northeast ...................................................................................................... 111.5 112.0 113.6 115.3 116.6 117.4 121.9 1.2 109.8 111.4 112.5 114.3 115.7 117.9 119.0 119.0 120.2 1.0 3.9 ................................................................................................ 108.6 110.1 111.5 112.8 113.6 115.5 116.0 117.8 118.7 .8 4.5 W e s t ................................................................................................................ 112.0 114.1 114.9 116.5 118.5 118.8 119.6 120.0 122.5 2.1 3.4 South ............................................................................................................ North Centra. Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ...................................................................................... Other areas ................................................................................................... 118.9 120.5 4.5 110.5 111.9 113.2 114.9 116.2 117.6 118.6 119.5 121.0 1.3 4.1 108.8 110.1 111.4 112.3 113.4 115.1 116.0 117.5 118.3 .7 4.3 1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 1910. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data 36. Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to date [In percent] Q u a r t e r ly a v e r a g e 1982 M e a s u re 1980 1982 1981 1983 1984 1983 IV 1984 II 1 I II IV 1 II IV I II Total compensation changes, covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of contract ...................... 10.4 10.2 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.3 -1 .6 4.4 5.0 4.9 5.1 3.5 2.7 3.7 7.1 8.3 2.8 3.0 2.8 4.8 1.4 3.6 4.3 3.1 4.7 3.2 3.1 2.0 Annual rate over life of co n tract. . . Wage rate changes covering at least 1,000 workers, all industries: First year of contract ...................... Annual rate over life of co n tra ct. . . 9.5 9.8 3.8 2.6 2.4 3.8 -1 .2 2.7 3.7 4.2 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 7.1 7.9 3.6 2.8 2.4 4.8 2.2 2.8 3.6 2.8 3.3 2.7 2.6 1.5 Manufacturing: First year of contract 7.4 7.2 2.8 0.4 2.3 4.1 -3 .4 1.3 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.2 5.4 6.1 2.6 2.1 1.5 3.9 4.5 .9 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.5 1.0 9.5 9.8 4.3 5.0 3.4 3.6 3.3 5.9 5.8 4.8 4.2 4.3 2.0 3.9 6.6 7.3 4.1 3.7 3.8 5.2 5.3 5.2 4.3 2.7 4.8 4.2 2.8 3.8 13.6 13.5 6.5 1.5 .5 3.4 .7 1.7 1.5 1.1 -3 .6 1.1 2.0 -2 .8 11.5 11.3 6.3 2.4 1.0 2.9 2.4 2.1 2.9 2.6 -2 .8 1.4 2.1 -.8 ...................... Annual rate over life of co n tract. . . Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction): First year of contract ...................... Annual rate over life of co n tract. . . Construction: First year of contract ...................... Annual rate over life of co n tra ct. . . 37. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980 to date Y e a r a n d q u a rte r Year 1982 M e a s u re 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 IV 1984 1983 1 II I II IV 1 II IV I II Average percent adjustm ent (including no change): 9.5 9.4 6.8 4.0 3.7 1.3 0.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.7 10.2 5.2 2.7 4.3 1.5 -.5 1.1 1.2 .9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 9.7 9.5 7.9 4.8 3.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 .7 .9 1.3 .4 ................................... 3.6 2.5 1.7 .8 .8 .6 .3 .2 .6 .1 .1 .2 .3 Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . . 3.5 3.8 3.6 2.5 2.0 .4 .4 1.0 .8 .3 .4 .7 .7 .2 From cost-of-living c la u s e s ................................................... 2.8 3.2 1.4 .6 .9 .3 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 1,850 All in d u s trie s ............................................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing ............................................................. From settlements reached in period 9.9 .9 -.2 Total number of workers receiving wage change (in thousands)1 ................................................................... From settlements reached in period ................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . From cost-of-living c la u s e s ................................................... — 8,648 7,852 6,530 6,195 3,441 2,875 3,061 3,025 2,887 2,694 2,482 2,386 ___ 2,270 1,907 2,327 1,851 825 448 561 599 996 295 355 406 911 — 6,267 4,846 3,260 3,668 860 812 1,405 1,317 669 984 1,148 1,581 443 — 4,593 3,830 2,327 2,518 1,970 1,938 1,299 1,218 1,290 1,459 1,151 1,215 1,070 — 145 483 1,187 1,123 4,895 4,842 4,656 4,693 4,830 4,624 4,835 4,932 5,467 Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in thousands) ................................................................... 1 The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the 90 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis period, WORK STOPPAGE DATA W ork stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and 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. 38. Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working time measure only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually all strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving fewer than 1,000 workers was discontinued with the December 1981 data. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date N u m b e r o t s to p p a g e s M o n th a n d y e a r W o r k e r s in v o lv e d B e g in n in g in In e f fe c t m o n th o r y e a r d u r in g m o n th B e g in n in g in D a y s id le In e f fe c t m o n th o r y e a r d u r in g m o n th ( in t h o u s a n d s ) ( in th o u s a n d s ) * Num ber ( in t h o u s a n d s ) P e rc e n t of e s t im a t e d w o r k in g t im e 1947 ......................................................................................................... 270 1,629 1948 ......................................................................................................... 245 1,435 26 127 22 1949 ................................... 262 2,537 43 420 38 1950 ...................... 424 1,698 30 390 26 1 9 5 1 ......................................................................................................... 415 1,462 15,070 12 1952 ......................................................................................................... 470 2,746 48 820 38 ............................. 1953 ......................................................................................................... 437 25 720 1,623 18,130 .14 1954 ......................................................................................................... 265 1,075 16,630 .13 1955 ......................................................................................................... 363 2,055 21 180 .16 287 1,370 26 840 20 1957 ......................................................................................................... 279 887 10,340 .07 1958 ......................................................................................................... 1956 . . . 332 1,587 17,900 .13 1959 . . . 245 1,381 60 850 43 1960 ......................................................................................................... 222 896 13,260 .09 1 9 6 1 ......................................................................................................... 195 1,031 10,140 .07 1962 211 793 11,760 1963 08 181 512 10,020 07 ......................... 246 1,183 16,220 .11 1965 ......................................................................................................... 268 999 15,140 .10 1966 ......................................................................................................... 321 1,300 16,000 .10 ...................................... 381 2,192 31,320 .18 ................................................ 392 1,855 35,567 .20 .16 1964 . . . 1967 ............................................. 1968 ............................. 1969 412 1,576 29,397 1970 381 2,468 52,761 .29 1 9 7 1 ......................................................................................................... 298 35,538 16,764 .19 250 2,516 975 1973 ......................................................................................................... 1974 . . 317 1,400 16,260 .08 424 1,796 31 809 .16 1975 235 965 17 563 09 1976 ......................................................................................................... 231 1,519 23,962 .12 1977 298 1,212 21,258 10 1978 ......................................................................................................... 1979 219 1,006 23,774 .11 235 1,021 20,409 09 1972 ... . .09 1980 187 795 20 844 09 1981 145 729 16 908 07 .04 1982 ......................................................................................................... 96 656 9,061 1983 81 909 17 461 08 ......................................... 62 376 8,499 .04 ............................................................................ 6 12 28.0 42.9 505.3 .03 February ............................................................................ 3 13 9.4 42.4 379.5 1984 ................ 1984 January 2 10 3.0 16.5 296.3 .01 7 13 28.5 38.4 657.3 .03 8.1 23.7 587.6 5 15 14 39.2 J u n e ................................................................................... .04 8 20 45.9 106.4 761.1 July 1,228.0 .06 May ................................................................................... 5 .03 A u g u s t................................................................................ 5 19 70.8 24.2 103.9 1,634.5 .07 S e p te m b e r......................................................................... 10 18 107.9 122.9 731.0 .04 ................................................................................... ............................................................................ 4 16 18.0 39.6 562.1 03 N o v e m b e r......................................................................... 4 15 12.0 32.3 500.1 D e c e m b e r......................................................................... 3 13 42.5 59.0 655.8 03 .04 J a n u a r y ............................................................................ F e b ru a ry ............................................................................ 2 9 4.7 16.0 278 3 .01 4 13 29.3 43.9 259.3 .01 October 1985P 02 M a r c h ................................................................................ A p r i l ................................................................................... p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 91 New from BLS SALES PUBLICATIONS BLS Bulletins H ow Workers Get Their Training. Bulletin 2226, 59 p p ., $2.75 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02834-2). Inform ation on how workers develop the skills required for their jobs. U seful in career guidance and in planning education and training programs. Area Wage Surveys These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, m aintenance, custodial, and material m ovem ent jobs in m ajor m etropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for $102 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available separately. Published in March were: Dallas-Fort W orth, Texas, M etropolitan Area, December 1984. B u lle tin 3 0 2 5 -7 1 , 41 p p ., $ 2 .2 5 (GPO S to c k N o . 029-001-90338-3). Denver-Boulder, C olorado, M etropolitan Area, December 1984. B u lle tin 3 0 2 5 -6 7 , 40 p p ., $ 2 .2 5 (GPO S to c k N o . 029-001-90334-1). H untsville, Alabam a, M etropolitan Area, February 1985. Bulletin 3030-2, 27 p p ., $1.75 (G PO Stock N o. 029-001-ÖÖ002-1). Los Angeles-Long Beach, California, M etropolitan Area, O c tober 1984. Bulletin 3025-65, 55 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-90332-4). Sacram ento, California, M etropolitan Area, December 1984. B u lle tin 3 0 2 5 -6 6 , 28 p p ., $ 1 .7 5 (GPO S to c k N o . 029-001-90333-2). Salt Lake City-O gden, U tah, M etropolitan A rea, Novem ber 1984. B u lle tin 3 0 2 5 -6 8 , 46 p p ., $ 2 .2 5 (GPO S to c k N o . 029-001-90335-9). Seattle-Everett, W ashington, M etropolitan A rea, D ecem ber 1984. Bulletin 3025-70, 29 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-90337-5). Trenton, New Jersey, M etropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1984. B u lle tin 3 0 2 5 -6 9 , 41 p p ., $ 2 .2 5 (GPO S to c k N o . 029-001-90336-7). Current W age Developm ents. The March issue includes selected wage and benefit changes; work stoppages in February; major agreements expiring in April; Em ploym ent Cost Index, December 1984; Major Work Stoppages in 1984; and statistics on com pensation changes. 44 p p ., $2 ($21 per year). Em ploym ent and Earnings. The March issue covers em ploym ent and unem ploym ent developm ents in February, revisions in definitions for m etropolitan areas, plus regular statistical tables on national,State, and area em ploym ent, unem ploym ent, hours, and earnings. 148 p p ., $4.50 ($31 per year). Producer Price Indexes. The January issue includes a com prehen sive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, introduction o f producer price indexes for m ajor industry groups and subgroups, future changes in producer price indexes for refined petroleum products, further expansion o f the Producer Price Index, recalculation o f seasonal adjustm ent factors, plus regular tables and technical notes. 174 pp. $4.25 ($29 per year). FREE PUBLICATIONS Area Wage Summaries A lexandria-Leesville, L A , February 1985. 3 pp. Brem erton-Shelton, W A , February 1985. 3 pp. Fayetteville, N C , January 1985. 6 pp. Fort Lauderdale-H ollywood and W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL, February 1985. 3 pp. Harrisburg-Lebanon, P A , December 1984. 3 pp. M aine, December 1984. 6 pp. M elbourne-Titusville-Cocoa, FL, January 1985. 6 pp. M iddlesex, M onm outh, and Ocean C ounties, N J. December 1984. 6 pp. New Bern-Jacksonville, N C , January 1985. 6 pp. Peoria, IL, February 1985. 3 pp. Puerto R ico, December 1984. 3 pp. T acom a, W A , February 1985. 3 pp. W ichita Falls-L aw ton-A ltus, TX-O K , February 1985. 3 pp. Special Advisory Industry Wage Surveys These include results from the latest BLS survey o f wages and supplemental benefits, with detailed occupational data for the N ation, regions, and selected areas (where available). Data are useful for wage and salary adm inistration, union contract negotiation, arbitration, and G overnm ent policy considerations. Published in March was: Department Store Inventory Price Indexes— February 1985. To Order: Sales Publications: Order by title and GPO stock number from a M otor Vehicles and Parts, May 1983. Bulletin 2223, 126 pp., $4.75 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02837-7). BLS regional office (see inside front cover), or from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overnment Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402. Subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent o f Docum ents. All checks— including those that go to the regional offices— should be made payable to the Superintendent o f Docum ents. Periodicals Free Publications: Request national publications from Bureau o f CPI D etailed Report. The January issue provides a com prehen sive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, and statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. 171 p p ., $4 ($25 per year). Labor Statistics, U .S . Department o f Labor, W ashington, D .C . 20212, or from any regional office. Request regional office publications from the issuing office. Free publications are available while supplies last. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis BUSINESS CONDITIONS DIGEST (BCD) HANDBOOK OF CYCLICAL INDICATORS . . . a monthly report that helps you analyze the current economy and future trends. . . . a statistical and technical supplement that helps you make maximum use of the monthly Business Conditions Digest. BCD has “ a plethora of charts th a t. . . provide more information and perspective per minute of reading time than anything else you can find,” according to Edgar R. Fiedler, former president of the National Association of Business Economists. (Across the Board, February 1984.) The HANDBOOK contains: • Descriptions of all BCD series, providing definitions, methods of compilation, coverage, and sources. • Historical data for 1947-82 for all BCD series. BCD contains: • Composite index methodology explaining the con struction of the indexes in step-by-step detail. • Charts providing a 25-year perspective for about 300 economic time series that cover all major aspects of the economy. Expansions and contractions in the U.S. economy are clearly marked so that the leading, coincident, and lagging characteristics of the series are easy to observe. • Reference materials including— Scores for cyclical indicators Average leads or lags for cyclical indicators • Tables listing current data for all 300 series. Measures of variability • Appendixes providing historical data, cyclical turning points, cyclical comparisons, and seasonal adjustment factors. Business cycle turning dates Bibliography Addresses of data sources. U.S. Government Printing O rd e r F o rm Mai'To Superintendent of Documents,Credit Card Orders Only T o ta l c h a rg e s $ _________ F ill in th e b o x e s b e lo w . MasterCard and VISA accepted. E n c lo s e d is $ ___________ □ c h e c k , □ m o n e y o rd e r, o r c h a rg e to m y D e p o s it A c c o u n t N o. C re d it C a rd N o . E x p ira tio n D a te M o n th /Y e a r I l II- l m -n O r d e r N o .__________________ [~~| Business C onditions D ig e s t ... Annual subscription: $44.00 domestic, $55.00 foreign. Single copy: $4.00 domestic, $5.00 foreign. |~| H andbook o f C yclical In d ic a to rs . . . $5.50 Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 i___ C ustom er's Telephone N o.’s Area Code Home Area Code O ffice Charge orders may be telephoned to. the GPO order desk at (202)783-3238 from 8:00 am. to 4:00 p m. eastern time, Monday-Friday (except holidays). For Office Use Only Quantity Charges C o m p a n y or P e rs o n a l N a m e A d d itio n a l a d d r e s s /a tte n tio n line I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I II I l II S tre e t a d d re s s I i l i l I I I i l i l l i I I M I M M I S ta te f l I I I I I I II I I I I I I I l I I I I IJ II Z IP C o d e I l I I II (or C o u n try ) Digitized for I FRASER I I I I I I I II https://fraser.stlouisfed.org PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I I I I I I I I II I ______ Publications ______ Subscriptions Special Shipping Charges International Handling Special Charges OPNR UPNS Balance Due Discount Refund -----------------------------------------------------------------------_________ 982 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ^ aT^^ISSDÜ 6 0 1 1 k FED* RESERVE K ’ lSS s BANK OF ST MO BSlao LOO IS 1
@FedFRASER